https://www.google.com/search?

&sclient=psy-ab&q=
%22vacuum+magnetization%22+%22vacuum+polarization
%22+permeability+permittivity+p!+-"cience.gov&oq=
%22vacuum+magnetization%22+%22vacuum+polarization
%22+permeability+permittivity+p!+-
"cience.gov&gs#l=serp.$...%&$%'(.%%))&2.*.%%)(2$.*$.**.).).).).).)..)
.)....)...*c.*.'*.psy-
ab..*(.).).$+rg,+-.)/&pb0=*&bav=on.21or.r#q!.&bvm=bv.%2*2%2
($%23.c4,
%23pv.05s.s.en#,".w670*a'0i,8.9&biw=*$&&&bih=&2(&ech=*&p
si=mp.e,-
+:;ovuo/":z<4w3/.*()%)2'('22$$.'&ei=o'.e,(b;=>!co/6%(o
3<?w&emsg=@3"A&no5=*
/n altogether i!!erent timeline with its own anthropic cosmological
principle C!iltrationD 6he leas to a !unamental reinterpretation o! the
Ere-E in EreincarnationE.
/ counterintuitive phenomenon iscovere: 6he coe0istence o!
superconuctivity with issipation. http://phys.org/news$2$2$22'(.html
Fhat type o! in!ormation is represente by the quantity o! surprise to the
quantum vacuum?
/re their numbers that can be represente by qubits that cannot be
represente by bits?
/renGt there qubit strings that cannot be translate into bits without a
wave!unctiion collapse?
=H"69A< 9- 6=; :;I;.978;@6 9- 6=; @,8?;A J;A9.
"crib an google search.
=ate is not the opposite o! love1 but ini!!erence.
6he quantum in!ormation passing between /lice an ?ob epens on
what vacuum conte0tualizes in!ormation CataD their brains EcontainE
H! / can collapse 7si an ? can collapse psi1 then are there two istinct
ranom processes by which wave!unction collapse is e!!ecte rather than
a single one an is this istinct !rom wave !unction collapse base upon
suen opening up o! a potential avenue o! obtaining Knowlege about
the state o! the system?
Fhy o reams o! being unwittingly in very high raiation !iels
!ascinate me so?.
/re their numbers that can be represente by qubits that cannot be
represente by bits? Ht woul seem so because + qubits always
represents a larger number than J bits.
Fhat to the power o! + equals + qubits?
H! / can collapse 7si an ? can collapse psi1 then are there two istinct
ranom processes by which wave!unction collapse is e!!ecte rather than
a unitary one1 an is this istinct !rom wave !unction collapse base
upon the suen opening up o! a potential avenue o! obtaining
Knowlege about the state o! the system ?
"omething became me. H i not come !rom nothing Cprovie that H am
somethingD1 an so what ever became me can o so again1 accoring to
the solipsistic logic o! the anthropic cosmological principle.
:ivert potential political energy into a shooting barrel where it canGt
challenge the interests o! the power elite1 e.g.1 abortion issue1 gay
marriage1 political scanals1 etc.
4enetic over etermination o! amino acis an the preetermination o!
chemical sel! organization.
-or e0ample arginine an isoleucine
6his enables the accumulation o! a series o! so-calle silent mutation
an buils up a great amount o! genetic comple0ity potential which can
be e0ploite later in light o! !urther mutation.
6here is a creative sie to error correction in genetic base pair
sequencing which is orinarily thought o! as a critical process.
/ccumulation o! conte0t !or correctly spelle out Kinetic base pairs
sequences provies the basis !or !uture error correction. 6his is a
hypothesis concerning the eeper aspects o! the error correction
mechanism.
3onsciousness collapses the wave !unction the quantum vacuum only
graually egraes the wave!unction. 6he brain !ocuses the quantum
vacuumGs proto consciousness.
3oncerning a scientistGs view on the reiscovery o! Jip!Gs .aw: E6he
paperGs co-authors inclue biophysicists :avi "chwab o! 7rinceton an
7anKa5 8ehta o! ?oston ,niversity. EH onGt thinK any one o! us woul
have mae this insight alone1E @emenman says. EFe were trying to
solve an unrelate problem when we hit upon it. Ht was serenipity an
the combination o! all our varie e0perience an Knowlege.EE
6his goes against /yn AanGs ogmatic assertion that no signi!icant
iscovery was ever mae by a group or collective.
-acebooK has taught me one thing1 i! it has taught me anything1 namely
that great intelligence an wisom o not necessarily coincie. =umility
maKes on arti!icially wise as prie reners one arti!icially stupi.
E@eti1 netiE - /vaita Ieanta1 concerning the nature o! ?rahman
E6he !ool who persists in his !olly will become wise.E
- Filliam ?laKe
6here is a scale o! the processing an integration o! quantum
in!ormation represente by the quantum ecoherence limit1 which
applies to the ma0imum quantity o! in!ormation that may traverse the
vacuum via quantum teleportation alone. :oes this quantum
teleportation bottlenecK plan important role in the separatenes o!
conscious mins?
/n empirically base ecoherence theory proves that there is more to the
universe than 5ust quantum in!ormation.
EH woulnGt escribe mysel! as lacKing in con!ience1 but H woul 5ust
say that - the ghosts you chase you never catch.E L >ohn 8alKovich
"am1 is there really only one consciousness an each brain merely
!ilters1 structures an resonantly tunes to this consciousness in a i!!erent
way?
7arao0ically1 alterity is the EimageE in which each o! us is mae1 an so
the appropriate metaphyical groun !or our ethical system must be a
Kin o! EpolysolipsismE. 6o re!er to alterity as an EimageE is to invoKe a
Kin o! Etranscenental metaphorE.
Fhy is topology an important consieration in thinKing about the
phenomenon o! issociation?
4F Aesearchers :isrupt 3onsciousness Fith ;lectrical "timulation M
4F 6oay M 6he 4eorge Fashington ,niversity
http://gwtoay.gwu.eu/gw-researchers-isrupt-consciousness-electrical-
stimulation
Ht never occurre to anyone in ancient 4reece to avocate !or the
abolition o! slavery.
HGm reaing E3hristopher .asch an the 8oral /gony o! the .e!t - /ian
AanKinE on "crib. Aea more: http://scrib.com/oc/22*2N%*)N
HGm reaing E.anguage an 6ruth: / "tuy o! the "ansKrit .anguage an
Hts Aelationship with 7rinciples o! 6ruthE on "crib.
3onsier the topology o! the gaps with in the computational state space
an the omains interlocKing in the multiverse
8y coinciental omains interlocKe with other peoples non
coinciental omains
6he relationship o! time an !requency is analogous to the relationship
o! coincience an' incients.
E:oes it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number?
@o. :oes it contain any e0perimental reasoning concerning matter o!
!act an e0istence? @o. 3ommit it then to the !lames1 !or it can contain
nothing but sophistry an illusion.E
6he intersub5ective realm is merely an arena o! constructive an
estructive inter!erence o! multiple mental !requencies1 but we shoul
hear istinguish between carrier !requencies an !requency envelopes.
;vangelical atheists en5oy a concept o! scienti!ic progress which is
moele in terms o! nature1 the asymptote1 approache closer an closee
by an ever more gently arcing curve. ?ut this moel is isproven by the
marKe tenency !or scienti!ic ignorance to grow at a rate that
acceleratingly outpaces the accumulation o! scienti!ic Knowlege. /n
this is !unamentally owing to the necessary structure o! scienti!ic
revolutions1 as !irst compellingly emonstrate by 6homas Ouhn.
Hn eep philosophical iscussions o! broa hypothetical nature1 it is
common to compare an contrast hypothetical cases which we coul
never etermine the i!!erence between1 !or e0ample1 what i! 4o never
e0iste1 what i! this epic historical event to which we owe most o! our
cultural ientity never happene1 an so on.
9culus Ai!t1 "peeches o! -reericK :ouglass1 =owar Jinn1 Aon
Aaash1 historian to =owar Jinn1 =enry .ewis 4ates1 7aul /.
"amuelson1 "aul /linsKy1 "tanley Ourz1 6hree -elonies a :ay1 E"how
me the 8an an H will show you the 3rime.E
3ausality is pattern recognition an image enhancement o! correlations.
@ature is no thing in itsel!. CFeGve Known this since OantD "cience
oesnGt prove theories1 it !alsi!ies them.
=uman beings are !ree to the e0tent that they can replace one set o!
behavioral eterminisms with another set.
/s -rit5o! 3apra inicate in his booK the turning point visual metaphors
!ail us when it comes to trying to unerstan quantum mechanics in
intuitive way. Puine the analytic synthetic istinction1 Fhor! hypothesis.
H! the omain o! the unKnown with respect to scienti!ic investigation was
a !inite1 eterminate space to be cumulatively an progressively !ille in
with correct theories an !acts1 then the notion o! a theory o! everything
woul be a coherent one. ?ut this is the not the case an the !uture is not
inee on a tra5ectory conceivable to the present.
/!ter a paraigm shi!t occurs1 not only o !acts become obsolete1 but
also questions1 even !unamental ones.
http://www.homewarrantyreviews.org/
3ontrast thinKing in terms o! tools vs. 3oncepts.
:o we have a concept o! a metaphor or only a metaphor !or a metaphor?
6he question !requently arises why u!oGs stuy more less began in the
*2()Gs in the /merican southwest aroun an near military an nuclear
installations seems to be perhaps ue to the unique neutrino emission
signature o! an operating nuclear reactor that woul be easily euctible
in eep space with etector technology only a little bit more avance
then what we possess toay.
?ecause o! topology an internality an aborte !etus cannot correspon
to a eterminate hypothetical human.
8ost acts o! creation are not creative acts at all1 but are merely e0amples
o! what H term EcreactionE.
6wo-imensional time is built into the universe all one has to consier to
see the truth o! this is the principle o! quantum superposition in the
interaction o! mutually e0clusive temporal lines
5shaara**&2Qgmail.com CFants prospectus o! inuce gravity theoryD
-reu was the !irst to observe this principle that humans reactions are to
the contrasts in things an not to the things themselves1 an H !elt Keenly
that this was true when H !irst rea this remarK by -reu.
R.olS has istinct i!!erent meanings1 however what it is acronym !or1
Rlaugh out louS has an aitionally istinct meaning or acceptation.
3onsciousness collapses the wave !unction the quantum vacuum only
graually egraes the wave!unction. 6he brain !ocuses the quantum
vacuumGs proto consciousness.
/ugust 2)*( !b=
/s E3hucK @orris o! 6heoretical 7hysicsE1 you are in a unique
position to 5uge. CH have witnesse you eliver many a evastating
rounhouse to cracKpots beginning in my short memory with a
cavalcae o! ,senet KooKs in the early 2)Gs an zero-point energy
cracKpots a little later on1 e.g.1 =aisch1 Auea1 7utho!!. .D..H gotta laugh
thinKing bacK upon those who you regularly sKewere bacK in the
ay...people liKe E/rchimees 7lutoniumE1 /le0aner /bian1 ;ue5in
>eong1 6o :esiato et al. 4ott sei anK H never aspire to be as
cracKpotty as theyT :D 9n the other han1 :oc1 preicting stu!! be!ore
someone else preicts it an receives their @obel 7rize has gotten to be a
ba habit with youT H thinK H unerstan where some o! the energy o!
those rounhouse KicKs comes !romT C6o :r. >acK "ar!attiD
/ugust 2)*( !b=
E.ea1 as H o1 the !lown-away virtue bacK to earthU yes1 bacK
to boy an li!eV that it may give the earth its meaning1 a human
meaningT 8ay your spirit an your virtue serve the meaning o! the earth.
. . . 8an an manGs earth are still une0hauste an uniscovere.U
@ietzsche
E6his epigraph is chosen quite eliberately. H run the risK o! its seeming
to len itsel! to a certain 3hristian1 iealist1 an human is a tone1 a tone
in which it is easy to recognize those well-meaning virtues an values
that have loose upon the worl all the things that have riven the
humanity o! our century to espair over itsel!1 where these values are
both blin to an complicit in this letting loose. Hn his own way1
@ietzsche himsel! woul have unoubtely participate in this ubious1
moralizing piety. /t any rate1 the wor EmeaningE rarely appears in his
worK1 an still more rarely in any positive sense. 9ne woul o well1
there!ore1 not to give any hasty interpretations o! it here. 6he above
e0cerpt appeals to a Ehuman meaning1E but it oes so by a!!irming that
the human ClGhommeD remains to be iscovere. .Hn orer !or the human
to be iscovere1 an in orer !or the phrase Ehuman meaningE to
acquire some meaning1 everything that has ever lai claim to the truth
about the nature1 essence1 or en o! EmanE must be unone1 E>ean-.uc
@ancy1 E?eing "ingular 7luralE
http://www.scrib.com/oc/*2%%&%2N2//-7hysicist-s-4uie-to-
"Kepticisim-8ilton-a-Aothman H resonate with the E!requency
envelopeE1 but not the Ecarrier waveE1 verstehst u?
Kw=
;ntanglement1 superposition1 comple0ity threshol1 ecoherence1
translatability1 ialectical1 transactional1 ma0imum !luctuation energy1
Kernel1 reprocessing1 conte0t epenency1 iscourse1 Puantum 6heory1
7hilosophy o! 8in1 ;pistemology1 7hilosophy o! "cience1 "ociology o!
"cience1 3hristian /pologetics1 ;pigenetics1 3osmology1 /rti!icial
Hntelligence1 ;volutionary ?iology1 ?iochemistry1 3hess 6heory1 8usic
6heory1 8ile ;ast 7olitics1 /merican -oreign 7olicy1 .inguistics1
:econstruction/7ostmoernism1 7henomenology1 /lvin 7lantinga
http://www.scrib.com/search-ocuments?
escape=!alse&!iletype=p!&language=*&num#pages=*))%2?&payme
nt=!ree&query=%22raiological+accient%22
Hn the unlimite !ullness o! multiimensional time1 once the little Knobs
on the cosmological raio receiver are tweaKe to 5uuuust the right
!requency1 oneGs EsignalE is pulle into oneGs iiosyncratically unique an
tiny corner o! the in!inite multiverse1 which is to say Ethe ,niverseE.
H liKe to thinK in terms o! organism an systems-base analogies !or
political power in multi-level society. 4ame theory is also a goo
!rameworK in which to thinK about political power an how it in!lects
within an across those levels. 8ore on that later. -or something a little
more concrete in response1 let me say that1 as horrible as ," -oreign
policy appears to the 3homsKian !ar le!t1 H believe that1 ha the great
might o! the ,nite "tates been in the hans o! any other nation1 culture
or people1 it woul have unoubtely been applie with less sel!-
impose restraint an greater recKlessness . . . with all that this entails. H
acKnowlege that there shall always be ecisions that will have to be
mae at a level Eabove my pay graeE an that H will always have to
maintain a certain level o! trust in those above me. :econstructive
thinKing is goo...up to a point. /s language has evolve over the
centuries so have basic concepts an concept maps an networKs. 6hese
changes are subtle an onGt !it within any one generationGs
sociolinguistic concept map1 but are istribute over a higher linguistic
imension - time. "ocietal an political sel!-organization there!ore
e0hibits a signi!icant amount o! Ecausal supervenienceE.
;specially the iscovery that we all resie within an ancestor simulation
o! a billion year ol galactic civilization... a Kin o! crypto E3ity an the
"tarsE... E6hinKing insie the bo0E is not e0actly a metaphor in this
instanceT
6his comes !rom a consieration o! the presume 4aussian istribution
o! e0traterrestrial civilization ages in the gala0y being tie to the average
age o! the civilization parent star an then also taKing into account
where a merely !ive or si0 thousan year ol civilization woul !it on
that normal istribution curve.... a curve with a centroi o! perhaps a
billion or more yearsT
6his represents a rather peculiar1 but H thinK vali application o! the
anthropic principle to the question: Eare you living within a computer
simulation?E :p
6hat is true1 but a Knee-5erK re5ection o! ualism is itsel! a variety o!
bo01 especially when quantum mechanics all by itsel! e0hibits so many
ualities: wave-particle. real - virtual1 local-nonlocal1 eterministic-
probabilistic1 !ermion-boson1 particle-!iel1 quantum-classical1
coherent-ecoheremt1 matter-antimatter1 iscrete - continuous1 real-
imaginary C!or tunnelung particle momentum1 that isD1 eigen!unction-
eigenvalue1 etc. 6he above combine with the worK o! :r. "tuart
=amero!! an "ir Aoger 7enrose concerning general anesthesticsG e!!ects
on the quantum mechanics o! brain neural microtubule !unction an
consciousness WanW the ecaes long observe reverse e!!ects o!
conscious observation upon quantum behavior o! particles an their
wave!unctions means that there is too much scienti!ic evience in !avor
o! it to 5ust ismiss ualism out o! han. 9h an have you notice how
Ethe new atheistsE1 :awKins1 =itchens1 :ennett1 "hepher1 etc. all base
their arguments in *2
th
century physics an biology while critics o!
:arwinism ten to argue !rom the stanpoint o! 2*st 3entury science?
8atter provies the bounary conitions on the !unamental quantum
!iel which enables the encoing o! structures o! quantum entanglement
possibly similar to how a sca!!oling or template can maKe certain
reactions more energetically !avorable. Iacuum entanglement patterns
can occupy the interstices o! sca!!oling provie by neural microtubule
networK bounary conitions on the vacuum electromagnetic !iels are
require to initiate vacuum entanglement states mirroring physical
particle entanglement states o! the matter supplying the bounary
conitions. 6his mirroring however cannot be complete ue to
inequivalence o! entanglement conte0ts.
6here is a comple0ity threshol !or conscious thought an perception
but this is !or thought in perception amitte to1 registere in1 as it were1
i.e.1 consciousness not !or consciousness as such1 which is !unamental
liKe any other quantum !iel may be a threshol !or ego - may not be !or
rei!ie egoic consciousness. Hs egoic consciousness accessing a pre-
e0isting subspectrum or an emergent subspectrum o! consciousness as
such?
9ne-imensional time is a shaow an a pro5ection o! multiimensional
time. Oin o! liKe a temporal hologram. 3onsciousness is the intuition
o! time accoring to Oant.
E7latoGs 3aveE - 4oogle "earch
http://www.google.com/search?
hl=en&site=webhp&tbm=isch&sa=*&ei=s>O2,'.>4J"iq/a-h(.g/g
&q=%227lato%2%s+3ave%22&oq=%227lato%2%s+3ave
%22&gs#l=mobile-gws-
serp.$..)l'.$$2&().$'2(2*.*.$'')N2.*'.*(.).*.*.).(2*.$($).)525**5)5*.
*(.)....)...*c.*.(N.mobile-gws-serp..*.2'.'&*&.2.pvo;57suO+/X!acrc=#
Aeinterpreting col arK matter has a bose-einstein conensate... 6his
compliments an earlier research paper on the erivation o! the magnetic
!iel permeability an electric !iel permittivity constants in terms o! the
magnetization an polarization o! the quantum vacuum.
Aeinterpreting arK matter
http://phys.org/news$2$')2$&2.html
Hnvestigate the concept o! genome as Einter!ace ataE qua Esel!-
organizing system KernelE.
Eabils an sKillitiesE
Hn!lation through Puantum 6unneling !rom a -alse vacuum:
http://youtu.be/t"eN,;%;it,
6heory suggests the spee o! light is ".9F;A than we thinK
http://www.ailymail.co.uK/sciencetech/article-2&%2)22/Fas-;instein-
wrong-3ontroversial-theory-suggests-spee-light-".9F;A-
thought.html Q8ail9nline
Y8arriage an buyers remorseZ
6hat is the mistaKen notion o! the neoarwinian synthesis. 6he genome
is a cybernetic control system.
7roteins are an e0pression o! in!ormation in :@/. 6he :@/Gs
in!ormation is not itsel! an e0pression o! any in!ormation because it
constitutes a blin !iltering o! merely ranom changes CmutationsD to its
structure. ;pigenetics complicates this moel by introucing controls1
which are anything but ranom1 at both ens - epigenetic in!ormation
moulates mutation1 as well as alters patterns o! e0pression o! genetic
base pair sequences as amino aci sequences that must be !ole in only
relatively very !ew o! many trillions o! possible ways in $- imensional
space to !unction properly within the cell. ?y way o! epigenetics1
metain!ormation becomes involve1 an although the path o!
in!ormation within the cybernetic control system o! the genome-protein
system may inee be one way1 in the absence o! meta-levels o!
in!ormation1 i.e.1 in!ormation con!ine to a sur!ace Csingle levelD1 with
the emergence o! multi-level in!ormation in the system1 i.e.1
metain!ormation o! the genome-epigenome-histone-ribosome-
cytoplasm-epigenome-genome system1 in!ormation originating at the
genome is no longer con!ine in its path to uniirectional arcs along a
sur!ace1 but is allowe to move across this sur!ace. 6opology here is
perhaps metaphorical1 but serves to illustrate that a paraigm change in
evolution theory shall liKely be require1 one that a growing number o!
main stream biologists believe cannot be success!ully accommoate
within the current paraigm o! the now N) year ol E@eoarwinian
"ynthesisE. 9nce H get my laptop bacK !rom Ecomputer heavenE1 H will
inclue appropriate screenshots to !urther illustrate.
?e!ore we sneer at the role o! the metaphors employe by the theorist1
we shoul realize that all concepts upon which theories are base are in
reality only specialize metaphors1 which are arti!icially restricte in
their re!erence1 application an conte0t. ?ut that the groun o! these
three restrictions is ynamic1 an shall inevitably bacK-react upon the
theorist. Hn some cases this bacK reaction can be stably maintaine !or a
time1 though never ine!initely1 the great success o! the quantum theory
notwithstaning.
Hs the ecK !rom which evolutionary mutations are ealt1 stacKe?
4oogle search
E6he =uman ?rain 7ro5ectE is a little bit liKe committing in *22) to
laning a man on the moon by the en o! the *22)Gs.E
"ee *$) @euroscientistsG E9pen message to the ;uropean 3ommission
concerning the =uman ?rain 7ro5ectE. . .
H thinK theism with the appropriate amount o! humility ami0e must
nees be an Eagnostic theismE. 6he theism that EKnows that it Knows
Ethe truthEE shall always pose a anger to the avancement o! human
civilization. . . on myria levelsT
6he most pro!oun1 or shall H say1 pro!ounly satis!ying1 lyrics are1 o!
course mishear lyrics because the authorGs inspiration is !orever secretly
in!use with the subconsciousG heartGs esire.
6he tension between reason Cas oppose to rationalityD an mysticism is
ultimately soluble. 6he catch is that the only proper conte0t !or this is
transcenental min1 which is essentially Cnota beneD WtranspersonalW.
E8anage compassion is the inevitable solution hit upon by the
metaguilty conscience1 which !eels Keenly the chronic nagging guilt o!
not !eeling guilty.E
@atural selection is hamstrung by the !act that incipient structures are o!
absolutely no use to the evolving organism in its competition !or limite
resources an mates.
H! it is the most bloothirsty tribes1 races an subspecies which win at
every turn in the evolutionary competition1 then why has morality an
ethics emerge at all in the course o! manGs evolution?
Fithout transcenental min an only evolution an natural selection to
guie us there is nothing staning in the way o! a thorough going
epistemological solipsism given the !act that members o! a breeing
population share the same physical environment an a common
language in the speci!ic case o! human beings
FittgensteinGs E!amily resemblanceE an the concept o! consciousness.
9nly a minority o! people possess a !ate1 but o! those that o1 it is
encoe within their very name.
Hmagine that thousans o! pro!essors were originally leaing to
acaemia because they believe that they possesse inspiration maybe
even genius but in the worK toay on the groun application o! grauate
stuent li!e they learne otherwise woul there not be a great motive to
try to unseat the notion o! genius? isnGt this really be true origin o! the
econstructive impulse?
>une 2)*(
RWhats the best way to kill a lobster? Is there any mercy?
@o mercy !or the weaKT >ust Kiing. "ome e0perts claim lobsters ie
within secons o! being submerge in boiling water Cbut oh how terrible
those !ew seconsD1 an others claim their nervous system is too
primitive [italics1 mine\ to allow !or very much pain. 6he ebate is
ongoing an best summe up by :avi -oster Fallace in this essay]S
Aussell 3larK :a began his service to this great country as a private in
the /rmy /ir 3orps while FFHH still rage on1 serve with great
istinction as a 8arine 3orps 7latoon .eaer uring the Oorean Far
Cre!using to be meically evacuate ue to combat in5uries an
remaining on the battle!iel to lea his menD an then with equally great
honor an istinction serve as an /rtillery ?attalion 3ommaner in
Iietnam. H am so prou to be his sonT
/pril 2)*(
7aul :avies argument which is a restatement o! ?ertran
AussellGs argument that all o! us coul have poppe into e0istence '
minutes ago complete with !alse memories o! an earthly li!e e0tening
bacK many years !ails because o! consierations o! conte0t epenency
o! meaning1 also in light o! FittgensteinGs private language argument
an perhaps also in light o! quantum ecoherence theory. :uration in
relation to the builing up o! comple0ity overtime is very much
epenent upon the 7lancK mass-energy limit o! !luctuation size an the
ensity o! 7lancK magnitue or smaller !luctuations1 not 5ust in terms o!
the scalar equation !or the =eisenberg time-energy uncertainty
principle.
8ay 2)*(
9! course1 what Aussell is maKing sport o! is that
absurity o! a per!ect illusion o! meaning the in utter absence o! a
temporal conte0t. 6he R!ive minutes agoS 5ust obscures this realization.
/ !ive minute interval o! human biography cannot 5ust Rhang in the
voiS conte0t-!ree.
Fhat is the connection between the private language argument an
7enroseGs one graviton limit !or quantum ecoherence? 3onsierations
o! topology lea us to presume that the brain cannot boot strap itsel! into
sel!-awareness through use o! a private linguistic structure o! thought the
structure o! thought must be sociolinguistic in orer !or this
bootstrapping process to be success!ul i! one were a ?oltzmann brain
one woul not be aware o! this !act in other wors. Hnvestigate E-ine
6uning /rgument -ailE on youtube. :oes this argument itsel! !ail? 6he
multiverse channels us !rom out o! the voi1 anthropically !ine-tune
consciousness.
6he state o! the observer or e0perimenter oes not become quantum
entangle with the apparatus that he is seeKing to a5ust in orer to
per!orm a characteristically quantum-mechanical mechanical e0periment
such as that o! nonlocally connecte or quantum correlate etector
clicKs. Hn general the nonlocal connectivity e0hibite by the min o! the
quantum observer is not traceable to an aggregation o! historical
quantum entanglement between the observer an the e0ternal worl. Hn
other wors at least in part the quantum entanglement o! the observerGs
mental processes is internal an internally etermine.
/ generalize escription o! the !reeom which the observer possesses
in etermining the e0perimental conitions an the settings o! his
quantum observational apparatus is his !reeom to select a system o!
basis vectors1 i.e.1 a WbasisW !or e0pressing the observables measure in
the e0periment.
.ooK at internal an e0ternal conitions !or the breaKown o! ?ohmGs
causality principle vis a vis ecoherence an wave!unction collapse.
goo=
FignerGs !rienEE an Equantum solipsismE.
H! quantum e0perimenters i not possess human !ree will then they
woul only be able to select bases !or quantum measurement that they
themselves were embee in. /n this vector basis woul be the only
basis possible - it woul be the same quantum basis that every other
person was embee in. =ere we see the connection between the
consciousness o! the ego an the question o! other mins an the
e0ternal worl.
EHt seems that nature is somehow communicating uner the sur!ace but
not allowing us to use that communication to actually transmit
in!ormation an this is something that oesnGt happen in so-calle
classical theories an is one o! the Key !eatures o! quantum mechanicsS1
E7hysics 8ath 3harlatanE on www.youtube.com. RHnstea o! the
communication o! in!ormation we might speaK o! a 5ointly actualize
meaningS1 c.!.1 Cybersemiotics: Why Information is Not Enough.
<et another connection between gravitation an consciousness in terms
o! the basis vectors o! a quantum measurement.
=uman brains are always tapping into the reprocesse collective /Kashic
recor. 9nce in a while1 however a brain taps into a copy o! an as yet
unreprocesse e0perience !ragment.
Hn the same way that 4o transcens the ual opposite categories o!
e0istence vs none0istent he also transcens the category o! being in the
sense o! not being a mere instantiation o! being as an abstract category.
/!ter all 4o is the groun o! being an o! abstract !orm.
/nalogous to the sel!-e0istence o! 4o is the sel!-e0istence o! intuitively
graspe concepts !or which we only have metaphorical 5usti!ication this
brings up the puzzling an even parao0ical nature o! the concept o! the
metaphorical
3ertain questions are so big that we can only hope to answer them by
!ining a more proper !ormulation o! the question. -requently we asK a
question about one thing an !ormulator answer in terms o! a i!!erent
Kin o! the same thing. "ubstance is always presuppose by !orm but
then the question o! the one versus the many in relation to the concept o!
substance becomes problematic. 6he notion o! there being a general
concept o! substance is itsel! very problematic because i! there are
multiple substances what is there which is more !unamental than the
multiply istinct substances such that they are instantiations o! this
general substance oes this imply that there must be something more
general than substance in orer to istinguish an categorize i!!erent
substances?
8ultiple instantiations o! consciousness in the absence o! a concept o!
consciousness seems to invoKe .eibnizG principle o! pre-establishe
harmony.
4oogle search nonlocality an the principal a pre-establishe harmony
/ tra5ectory o! least energy woul be ecompose in terms o! a series o!
steps which are resonance points an this woul be consistent with
-ourier analysis theory. 6his may e0plain the success!ul climbing up the
hill by a comple0 system within a single local region o! rugge !itness
lanscap1 but without nonlocality an quantum entanglement we cannot
e0plain the climbing own !rom a local ma0imum in orer to creare the
opportunity !or ascening a neighboring greater local ma0imum.
Ow group selection se0ual selection
6eleology without intention requires two imensional time an sel!-
organizing properties o! particles an !iels1 which cannot be capture
within a linear eterministic causality.
3hance vs eterminism... are they mutually e0clusive an or is there a
thir option or way?
Hmagine a rugge !itness lanscape compose o! generations which
leave behin varying numbers o! escenants. Fe might nee to bring
in a secon time a0is in orer to construct an accurate rugge !itness
lanscape i! we are going to taKe into account relative multi-generational
success at reprouction. 6his coul be moele in terms o! the strength
o! bacK reaction signals !rom later generations with the strength o! the
signal being a !unction o! both the number o! escenants in the
pro0imate generation an the integration o! istal generations in terms i!
number o! escenants.
Fhat component o! ?ohmGs causal principle is represente by
i!!erential equations versus integral equations versus some unKnown
!orm o! equations belonging to neither class?
-uture conte0ts may be in competition with previous conte0ts as well as
competing with multiple parallel istinct conte0ts. Fe onGt have to
invoKe creationism or intelligent esign to e0plain teleology1 we merely
have to invoKe a more sophisticate moel o! temporality.
/ugust 2)*(
RFhen he contemplates the per!iy o! those who re!use to
believe1 :awKins can scarcely restrain his !ury. EHt is absolutely sa!e to
say that1 i! you meet someboy who claims not to believe in evolution1
that person is ignorant1 stupi or insane Cor wicKe1 but HG rather not
consier thatD.E :awKins went on to e0plain1 by the way1 that what he
isliKes particularly about creationists is that they are intolerant. Fe
must there!ore believe in evolution or go to the mahouse1 but what
precisely is it that we are require to believe? E;volutionE can mean
anything !rom the uncontroversial statement that bacteria EevolveE
resistance to antibiotics to the gran metaphysical claim that the
universe an manKin EevolveE entirely by purposeless1 mechanical
!orces. / wor that elastic is liKely to mislea1 by implying that we Know
as much about the gran claim as we o about the small one.S L 7hillip
;. >ohnson1 Darwin on Trial
H am not a 3reationist an H coul only be with consierable
quali!ication be terme an RHntelligent :esignS avocate. Fhat H o
believe is that1 analogous to "tring 6heory o! theoretical physics1 which
postulates the compacti!ication o! spatial imensions1 but only at the
tiniest o! scales1 i.e.1 at the R7lancK scaleS1 H postulate compacti!ie
temporal imensions1 which constitute the !eebacK paths between
mutually e0clusive branches o! a quantum superposition o! atomic or
molecular states. 6he connection o! this !eebacK is instantaneous within
our single imension o! causal time1 an is characterize as
instantaneous quantum entanglement. ?ut i! this notion o!
Rinstantaneous connectionS is somewhat isagreeable1 then perhaps
quantum entanglement is but a mani!estation o! a supracausal process
taKing place in a higher imension o! time1 i.e.1 within a 2
n
time
imension. 6he collapse o! a quantum superposition is in certain cases
e!!ecte along the lines o! a quantum computation in which the new
eigenstate constitutes the output o! the computation.
http://www.scrib.com/oc/222(%NN2(/6he-9rigins-o!-9rer-"tuart-a-
Oau!!man The Origins of Orer
3an multiverse physics an the implie multiimensional temporality
thereo! simulate teleology?
6he absurity o! 4olmanGs Puantum >umping paraigm may actually
be implie by the inner logic o! the /nthropic cosmological principle.
Fe cannot eny teleology1 that is1 its operation in the evolution o!
greater biological comple0ity as well as in the more !ounational
chemical evolution. 6his is because o! the obvious sel!-organizing
properties o! atoms an molecules.
3ommunications receive !rom our closest most intimate !riens1 soul
mates1 li!e partner1 mentors these have a istinctive quality namely we
cannot imagine these communications coul somehow secretly be the
invention o! our own mins whether subconscious or unconscious.
Fhat is calle reason necessarily transcens sub5ectivity an so points to
the reality o! being beyon the sub5ective1 namely that o! an ob5ective
worl an other mins. 6he cash value o! ob5ectivity is intersub5ectivity.
=ere again we see how reason to the reality o! being beyon the merely
sub5ective.
4rammar relates state so on a state-space that is o! a mani!olly
connecte nature. 6opology o! temporality is here Key.
6he contingency o! language Csee Aichar Aorty on thisD is importantly
connecte to the concept o! grammar an 3homsKyGs nativist
unerstaning thereo!. "omehow the gul! between istinct mins is
overcome an in!ormation may actually be passe between mins1 but
this is necessarily !acilitate by way o! grammar. "emantics is to
conte0t as synta0 is to. . .
4rammar !unctions as !ilter an ultra-har encryption along the same
lines as how a web page uses a captcha image.
Kwo=
R9ur sense organs an our brain operate as an intricate Kin o! ^lter
which limits an irects the min_s clairvoyant powers1 so that uner
normal conitions attention is concentrate on 5ust those ob5ects
or situations that are o! biological importance !or the survival o! the
organism an its species . . . /s a rule1 it woul seem1 the min re5ects
ieas coming !rom another min as the boy r e5ects gra!ts coming !rom
another boy.S
U3yril ?urt C*NN$-*2%*D 7ro!essor o! 7sychology ,niversity 3ollege1
.onon
6he moral o! the story here is that1 above is an instance o! an Ee0clue
mileE between chance an necessity1 or ranomness an eterminism.
6he only EthingE that H can imagine that populates this logical e0clue
mile is consciousness. CH mean1 thinK about it...a computer with
ranomly switching circuit elements coulnGt be conscious1 nor coul a
machine with circuit elements that only switche in a preictable pattern
Caccoring to some mathematical !ormula or equationD. H suspect this
hints at a breaKown in the presume strict analogy between the
eterminism o! physics an the logical necessity o! mathematics. "ay1
because what we taKe to be equations escribing unchanging law liKe
physical behavior are inee only appro0imations. Ht has been sai that
there has to be something that Ebreathes !ire into the equations o!
physicsE to maKe them Eabout somethingE instea o! their being entirely
abstract. Fhat breathes !ire into the equations is something that we
intentionally ignore or 5ust !ail to notice. ?ut what we ignore is
groune in what we !ail to notice.
Fithout OantGs Ething in itsel!E1 ob5ectivity can only be
intersub5ectivity.
H! the concept o! being transcens that o! e0istence this is provie
support to the ontological argument?
=owever1 the 2n .aw o! 6hermoynamics is *D 9nly a statistical law1
not !unamental liKe1 say the law emboie in 8a0wellGs ;quations o!
;lectromagnetism1 2D 6he 2n .aw only applies to Wisolate systemsW
an $D 6he 2n .aw o! 6hermoynamics assumes that any
thermoynamic system is compose o! iscrete states such that
combinations an permutations o! the arrangement o! these states Cor
elementsD We0haustsW the possibilities !or the system. -luctuations in the
quantum vacuum !iel are limite in size by what is calle the 7lancK
8ass .imit1 given by: *.22)2`*)*2 4eI/c2 = 2.*%&'*C*$D`*)N Kg1
Cor 2*.%&'* ngD. "o a ?oltzmann brain coul only appear out o! the
quantum vacuum within a pree0isting physical brain as a new
con!iguration o! the quantum states o! that brainGs tubulin imer networK
o! 2*.%&'* nanograms mass-energy equivalent or less. 9n this view1
there woul be no actual E?oltzmann brainsE1 merely ?oltzmann brain
continuants o! the integral quantum entangle global tubulin imer
networK states o! an actual brain. 6hese ?oltzmann brain continuants
woul correspon to temporal bubbles o! consciousness1 i.e.1 o! the
Especious presentE an each ?? continuant woul be in!orme by
previous ?? continuants through the quantum vacuum !iltering action
an resonant !requency tuning Wan actual brainW. 9nly ?? vacuum
!luctuations that are most compatible with the intact memory traces
within a given personGs brain coul liKely become a subsequent ??
continuant o! that personGs consciousness. CHn other wors1 the
e0periential continuity o! live conscious e0perience woul not be
merely some pernicious illusionD H thinK something along these lines can
tame the bizarreness o! ?oltzmann brains preicte by in!lationary
cosmology an string theory an reconcile these preictions with human
intuition an common sense. 9! course1 there are still intriguing
implications o! this slant on ??Gs1 but they woul not be o! the
riiculous sort that has appeare in recent popular scienti!ic an
philosophical publications1 etc. "omewhat along the lines o! :escartesG
E3ogito ;rgo "umE iea1 we Know that the brain o! a conscious person is
Wnot a close or isolate systemEW1 since1 i! it were1 there woul be no
conte0t !or what is happening insie his brain an Ewithout conte0t there
is now meaningE an that person woul not actually possess conscious
states o! awareness Cnecessarily implie by unerstaning or
e0periencing EmeaningsED. /lso1 i! the brain were an isolate system1
then two ientical brains coul not imply the presence o! two istinct
conscious mins. =owever1 a the !act that each is embee or
groune in a historically istinct conte0t o! embryo-logical
evelopment1 etc.1 an this seeming parao0 is hanily resolve.
=uman creativity moreover implies that the system o! the brain Cor
whatever serves as the physical substrate !or the conscious minD1 cannot
be 5ust a changing con!iguration o! e0clusively iscrete1 unchanging
states !or otherwise the changes in the con!iguration o! this unerlying
system woul be causally eterministic - a situation in starK
contraiction with human !reeom an creativity. /n ob5ection here is
that human !reeom an creativity may in !act be an illusion. ?ut the
ob5ector must acKnowlege the isquali!ying caveat here that1 i! human
!reeom an creativity are illusory1 then so is consciousness an again1
turning to :escartesG E3ogitoE1 we can con!iently assert that Ewe Know
that ainGt trueTE c.!.1 http://www.scrib.com/oc/(%$(&%($/3hallenges-
to-the-"econ-.aw-o!-6hermoynamics
E/ similar thesis has been argue !or by /llen ;verett [2))(],
speci!ically that in the case o! :eutsch_s version o! the 8ultiverse
6hesis the theory o! ecoherence inicates that time travelling ob5ects
must be broKen into microscopic !ragments. =ere H inten to
emonstrate that this result is not peculiar to :eutsch_s version o! the
8ultiverse 6hesis, an is a problem !or any theory that enorses that
thesis", c.f., An Unwelcome Con-sequence of the Multiverse
Thesis,
http://www.nikkefngham.com/resources/multiverse.pdf
Fhat breaKs the egeneracy o! real brains vs ?oltzmann brains?
8ay 2)*(
Fell1 accoring to what was 5ust sai concerning the 7lancK limit on
vacuum !luctuation size1 it must be: an alreay broKen scale invariance1
i.e.1 simulacra at i!!erent spatiotemporal scales are necessarily
!unctionally inequivalent. Hnstantiation Co! a conceptD is a concrete
process.
RH o not !ear eath. H ha been ea !or billions an billions o! years
be!ore H was born1 an ha not su!!ere the slightest inconvenience !rom
it.S - 8arK 6wain
=owever1 the !act that one is conscious1 rather than being a
Ephilosophical zombieE perhaps implies that the ,niverse1 8ultiverse or
whatever one terms this realm o! being has registere Can is in the
continual act o! registeringD oneGs temporal e0istence an so .ucretiusG
Esymmetry argumentE may inee !ail1 i.e.1 in !avor o! the proposition
that the nature o! none0istence Wbe!oreW an Wa!terW oneGs brie! ;arthly
e0istence are ientical. .ucretiusG Esymmetry argumentE carries the
assumption that no metaphysical worK is per!orme by the act o! human
e0istence - an assumption that H suspect is altogether un!oune in the
light o! such moern physical principles emboie in the quantum Eno-
cloningE theorem1 vacuum entanglement1 ecoherence theory1 two-slit
e0periment1 EFignerGs !rienE1 7enrose-=amero!! E9A3=-9A theoryE1
an so on.E Lime Cat /nother possible breaKage o! .ucretiusG
symmetry: i! each person is Ecalle !orthE !rom a Wistinctly i!!erentW
abyss1 Cthis woul certainly bee! up the ethics o! mutual respect1 that is1
such a transcenent Ealterity o! the otherED1 then none0istence woul not
possess a simple structure an so liKely woul possess no such
E.ucretian symmetryE as 6wain is glibly presuming.
<ou coul say...Etruth splits this egeneracyE. ?ut without a
transcenent observer1 thereGs still this egeneracy o! ontology vs
epistemology. Hn!inite regress.
4o an rei!ie iniviual consciousness are two sies o! the same coin
qua pro5ections !rom sociolinguistic constructs.
?oltzmann brains in the vacuum require bootstrap bounary conitions
on the quantum !iel.
8argenau says quantum superpose states are always o! a given
quantum mechanical system o! matter an !iels1 vacuum bounary
conitions must be present.
6he !irst cause ilemma place in a quantum mechanical conte0t1 that is1
the vacuum cannot provie bounary conitions !or itsel!. Ht cannot boot
strap itsel! in other wors.
6he bacK reaction o! comple0 its e0tene physical structures upon the
quantum vacuum transcens the con!iguration comple0ity possibilities
!or !luctuations o! this vacuum.
8utual recognition o! behavioral genetics.
Jia asKs1 E3oul go recreate same person twice? .et_s assume 0 e0ist
an then go estroye it an recreate it again. Hs that same 0 or a
similar 0? Hs it a uplicate 0? @o way has the original 0 come bacK a!ter
estruction.E
"ince a physical uplicate o! your boy1 own to the ientical iniviual
atoms is not the same as you1 Cby the !amous Eno-cloningE theorem o!
Puantum 8echanicsD1 which is to say1 not truly ientical to you1 then
there!ore the true unerlying basis o! your ientity is not to be sought in
the con!iguration o! some particular set o! atoms an molecules. H asK
you1 i! 4o ha manage1 hypothetically speaKing1 o! course1 to create
you !or the !irst time1 then why woul it be Wmore i!!icultW rather than
less so1 !or =im to create you once again? /!ter all1 =e inGt have a
template to start with the !irst time1 but =e now has a template to worK
!rom !or a secon time aroun. Hn a wor1 how oes a !eat which was
possible on the !irst occasion become impossible to reprouce on
subsequent occasions? Ht is our subconscious acKnowlegement o! the
essential irreversibility o! the act o! human e0istence which is secretly at
worK here in this iscussion. <ou an H1 because o! our istinctly
i!!erent philosophical pre5uices relating to how we regar this
irreversibility o! each act o! iniviual human e0istence1 !rom Eopposite
ens o! the binocularsE1 as it were1 view the initial human incarnation as
either enabling or isabling the possibility o! a secon human e0istence.
/lso we come to the problem with i!!erent views o! temporality. <ou
see itGs not an instantaneous con!iguration o! spatially iscrete elements
which provies the unerlying groun o! being an becoming
Csustainment o! being over timeD !or one_s personal ientity. /lthough
ones being possesse a beginning in time1 the very groun o! oneGs being
lies all together outsie o! time. Iia application o! "olipsistic
3osmological 7rinciple1 one enters the realm o! time an space at its
own goo pleasure. 6he immortality o!1 or better sai1 Wthe eternity o!W
the groun o! your being is a much more certain proposition than is the
e0ternal worl an the other mins which appear to populate
sai worl.
/ugust 2)*( !b=
3oncerning the EreE in reincarnation. H thinK itGs high time Cno
pun inteneD !or philosophers to step out o! the bo0 on this question. H!
thereGs anything that the anthropic cosmological principle an multiverse
theory Cnot to mention quantum mechanics an relativity theoryD has
taught us about time1 itGs that we shoul not con!ine ourselves to the
notion o! a unitary cosmic time/temporality. <ou got here !or the !irst
time in WthisW timeline. "ince there are an unlimite number o! other
times Ccompletely istinct an is5ointD !rom this time Ci.e.1 the time that
you are in nowD1 it !ollows that you can always come into being E!or the
!irst timeE an unlimite number o! times. . . an this woul not be to
invoKe the phenomenon o! EreincarnationE in any way. . . because all o!
these istinct times in the multiverse Whave nothing whatever to o with
each otherW. HtGs soooo har to let go o! the notion o! there only being a
single metaphysical timeline1 one that somehow coincies with the
temporality o! the sub5ective egoic sel!1 but once you see how to
metaphorically shu!!le o!! that philosophical Emortal coilE but e!!ecting
the implie mental tricK here1 then ones oubts about the eternal nature
o! the sel! utterly !all away. ?ut alas1 this leap o! insight is 5ust too har
!or most people an even many geniuses are not capable o! it. . . because
itGs not a question o! sheer intelligence as a certain level o! imaginative
openness is require.
6he philosophy o! empiricism is the linear1 zero-threshol e0trapolation
o! Knowlege acquisition.
-lowers !or /lgernon an the essentially social nature o! qualitative1 as
oppose to quantitative Knowlege acquisition.
"omewhat in the spirit o! -ranK >. 6iplerGs E9mega 7ointE: 6he whole
Eburning in hell !or an eternityE concept is perhaps 5ust a Kin o!
metaphor1 though perhaps not an altogether grounless one. 6his
metaphor has unoubtely !unctione in myria iverse cultures over
these many centuries as a strategic mechanism o! social control an as a
scare tactic to compel compliance o! the masses an iniviuals aliKe
with the isguise agenas o! social elites. ?ut the notion o! hell is
perhaps also in part aboriginally the prouct o! the !evere imagination
o! some particularly gi!te ?ronze /ge .evantine tribesman-poets_
interpretation o! the horror o! unening separation !rom 4o. ?ecause H
onGt really believe in the 4o o! most rabi atheists_ impious
imaginations1 there is really not that great o! a i!!erence o! opinion
between them an me. Hn the spirit o! an attempt to reconcile my semi-
orthoo0 3hristian belie!s with a scienti!ic worl view1 H interpret the
whole Rseparation !rom 4oS trope !or eternal amnation in light o! the
!ollowing eminently quantum an there!ore scienti!ic notions: quantum
entanglement1 quantum vacuum1 quantum nonlocality1 quantum
tunneling1 quantum cavity electroynamics1 an H shall inclue one
aitional concept erive !rom the late classical physics o! 8a0well
an his !amous equations o! electromagnetism1 namely that o! the
E4ibbs 7henomenonE. /pplying the interesting an pervasive physical
phenomenon o! Fillar 4ibbs to a quantum tunneling wave!unction in
which the barrier is reinterprete as that o! 4o-man separation in the
a!terli!e in which EeternityE equates with the in!inite height o! the barrier
- require to prevent penetration o! the Rquantum brainS wave!unctions
o! un!orgiven sinners into the Rheavenly groun state vacuumS. 6he
eternity or WeverlastingnessW o! the separation is basically neee to
prevent the wave!unctions1 escribing the quantum- vacuum-embee
!unctioning o! the brains o! atheists an "atanGs !allen angels !rom
quantum tunneling into heaven_s vacuum groun state an threaten to
isrupt >esusG aministration o! li!e within heaven1 e!!ectively amounting
to an intrusion o! sin nature. C/ potential energy barrier o! !inite height1
however large1 permits eventual probablistic quantum tunneling o!
wave!unctions through the barrier.D /n i! conscious mental !unctioning1
i.e.1 cognition an will are conitione by a pree0istent groun o! being
within the quantum vacuum that is spontaneously prouctive o! virtual
?oltzmann brains as a Kin o! necessary percolation process within the
brain o! each homini ape1 so as to enow it with sel!-awareness an a
!ree will1 then the only way to e0clue unesirable ?oltzmann brain
vacuum !luctuations1 so as to protect the new1 Rglori!ie brainsS o! those
boily resurrecte in heaven1 woul be to erect an in!inite potential
barrier1 rather than a merely large1 !inite one1 thusly separating
!luctuations o! Rgoo qualityS or R!ielityS !rom those o! Rba !ielityS.
9therwise1 the 4ibbs 7henomenon Capplie to the quantum vacuum
electromagnetic !ielD woul permit eventual probabilistic RleaKageS or
quantum tunneling o! the unesirable quantum in!ormation borne on the
inwarly seeping nonlocally connecte vacuum !iel !luctuations !rom
outsie the barrier. 9n this view1 heaven is then an e0ercise in cavity
quantum electroynamics writ large. /n implication o! this view is that
those who have been resurrecte on the RarK sieS o! this potential
barrier woul possess brains that coul only resonantly tune to
?oltzmann brain !luctuations within the global quantum vacuum !iel
that are o! lesser stability an !ielity1 i.e.1 that are noisier or Rmore
entropicS. 6he integrity o! !unction o! such brains1 resurrecte on this
arK sie woul1 we imagine1 be much more prone to problems o!
internal regulation. Ht is easy to imagine that an0iety1 !ear an hate1 etc.
an other negative emotions1 as well as isruption1 an is-coorination
o! other psychic !aculties1 might well be the inevitable result !or such
un!ortunate souls. ?oily resurrection on this view woul be a general
physical phenomenon much liKe that unerlying one_s original though
nonetheless equally RmiraculousS earthly emboiment1 an woul be in
its universality aKin to Ethe rain that !alls on the 5ust an un5ustE aliKe1 as
be!its any physical phenomenon1 e.g.1 hurricane1 tsunami1 etc. /
preconition to resurrection in a Rglori!ie boyS might correspon to a
Kin o! RscrubbingS o! the physical inter!ace between the save soul_s
brain1 or between his brain microtubule tubulin imer networK an his
unique subspectrum o! vacuum electromagnetic !iel !luctuations1
per!orme while he is still alive1 say1 as a result o! the in!luence o! a new
subspectrum Ccorresponing to the action o! the R=oly "piritSD1 such that
a Kin o! preparatory !requency !iltering is put in place1 proviing the
unerlying basis !or psychic continuity1 through conserve quantum
entanglement encoe in!ormation1 into the RupS or RgooS sie o! the
in!inite potential barrier partitioning the ReternityS o! the resurrection
worl. "ince pree0isting quantum vacuum correlations between two
points within spacetime are always necessary to support any causal
connectivity between these points1 there will no longer be any possibility
!or causal interaction between opposite sies o! the in!inite potential
barrier1 i.e.1 the 4ibbs 7henomena o! quantum vacuum wave!unctions
woul be altogether Rsquelche.S @amely1 there can be no correlations
between !luctuations o! the quantum vacuum on opposite sies o! the
in!inite potential barrier. 6his is reminiscent o! the !act o! "chroinger_s
cat becoming so isolate in his blacK bo0 in orer to be place into a
superposition state that the quantum processes unerlying the
biochemical !unction o! the cat in its Rliving branchS o! this
superposition1 e.g.1 the quantum superposition o! wave!unctions that
supports all covalent boning activity1 woul be e!!ectively shut own.
/n because it is the spontaneous energy !luctuations o! quantum
vacuum1 which is responsible !or =eisenberg energy uncertainty1 /a;1
which in turn prouces all temporal change1 i.e.1 /at b h//a;1 by virtue o!
the complete separation o! these !unamental !iel !luctuations into two
istinct partitions1 it !ollows that time an temporality in RheavenS will
have become totally separate !rom time an temporality in RhellS. "uch
a bi!urcation o! the time line woul e!!ectively be irreversible because
the event o! bi!urcation woul not be containe in either timeline.
H cleane this up an eite it some. "ee also1 -ranK >. 6iplerGs 6ulane
,niversity an personal webpages. H will probably en up emailing him
the !inal version o! this as it contains some ieas that he might !in
use!ul. H! there are any questions1 H will be happy to elaborate1 since H
have glosse over some etails. 6he guiing insight !or me is the
consieration that our worKaay worl o! conventional common sense is
unerlain1 i! you will1 by a !unamental !luctuation !iel1 i.e.1 the
quantum vacuum electroweaK nuclear !iel. "o relating aspects o! some
important area o! cultural common sense1 e.g1 3hristianity1 or 9rganic
4arening1 /merican -ootball1 competitive billiars1 etc. !or that matter1
is not so riiculous a proposition as at !irst seems. /ll EorinaryE
phenomena are emergent !rom the universal quantum !iel. /s /lan
Fatts use to liKe to say1
E<ou inGt come into the worl1 you came out o! itTE
http://tulane.eu/sse/pep/!aculty-an-sta!!/!aculty/!ranK-tipler.c!m
http://*22.N*.*%).*(/btipler/
3.!.1
*
http://en.wiKipeia.org/wiKi/Fave!unction
2
http://en.wiKipeia.org/wiKi/Puantum#tunneling
$
http://en.wiKipeia.org/wiKi/Hn!inite#potential#well
(
http://en.wiKipeia.org/wiKi/FO?#appro0imation
'
http://en.wiKipeia.org/wiKi/Puantum#entanglement
&
http://en.wiKipeia.org/wiKi/Puantum#cryptography
%
http://en.wiKipeia.org/wiKi/Puantum#superposition
N
http://en.wiKipeia.org/wiKi/"chr%3$%?&inger%2%s#cat
2
http://en.wiKipeia.org/wiKi/3avity#quantum#electroynamics
*)
http://en.wiKipeia.org/wiKi/4ibbs#phenomenon
**
http://en.wiKipeia.org/wiKi/Puantum#!luctuation
*2
http://en.wiKipeia.org/wiKi/Puantum#correlation
*$
http://en.wiKipeia.org/wiKi/Puantum#nonlocality
*(
http://en.wiKipeia.org/wiKi/Puantum#vacuum
*'
http://en.wiKipeia.org/wiKi/9mega#7oint
*&
http://en.wiKipeia.org/wiKi/-ranK#>.#6iplerX6he#9mega#7oint#cosm
ology
*%
http://en.wiKipeia.org/wiKi/-ourier#analysis
*N
http://en.wiKipeia.org/wiKi/-ourier#inversion#theorem
*2
http://en.wiKipeia.org/wiKi/,ncertainty#7rinciple
RHn igital signal processing applications there is sometimes an e!!ect
Known as the 4ibbs phenomenon1 which is a characteristic ringing
associate with sharp eges an transients. Hs this a !unction o!
sampling1 quantization or !iltering in the system?S
6here is no EtwiceE. 6he groun o! oneGs being is eternally given only
once...but there are unlimite mani!estations o! time. 6he only reality is
the absence o! limitation. 6he question becomes whether this absence is
a one or inee a many. ;ach soul possesses its own eternity.
8ay 2)*(
"am an H agree long ago1 that this absence is a plurality1 which
in mutual collaboration has prouce a common metaphorical groun.
;ach metaphor begins as a creative leap o! insight be!ore it inevitably
cures1 harening into an impenetrable ball o! a stocK metaphor.
=umanity can perhaps be !unamentally ivie into two groups1 the
one1 !orme o! iniviuals who bring new metaphors into being1 an the
other1 !orme o! those who consort an trae e0clusively in stocK
metaphors. Ht has been note that the !igurative an the literal taKe each
otherGs place in reams. "o is there then no real basis !or comparison
between the two groups other than biology? C-unamentally similar up
to the very point at which they are irreconcilably i!!erent? 6he poet1
the artist an the philosopher inee !in themselves strangers within a
strange lan.
Kwo=
Rthe in!ormation containe in a retroviral gene is use to generate the
corresponing protein via the sequence: A@/ :@/ A@/
protein. 6his e0tens the !una-mental process ienti!ie by -rancis
3ricK1 in which the sequence is: :@/ A@/ protein.!
:ecember 2)*2
?y analyzing the :@/ o! both parents an that o! the chil1 it
can be etermine how many so-calle germ line mutations are present
in the chil_s :@/. ?y this means it was establishe that
appro0imately () such mutations typically occur between generations.
6he vast ma5ority o! these mutations cause no changes in the types o!
proteins that are prouce1 i.e.1 they are not Rpoint mutationsS an are
mostly harmless because their gene regulatory implications only
mani!est themselves over the course o! an e0traorinarily long li!e span1
interacting as they woul with patterns o! gene e0pression not hereto!ore
selecte !or1 which is to say mani!esting the biochemical sel!-organizing
properties o! matter an not the higher level properties o! environmental
conte0t sensitivity. "o-calle harmless or EsilentE mutations are !ar more
e!!icaciously interoperative with gene regulatory structures that lie still
!ar in the !uture than inee they are with respect to currently e0isting
structures1 which points up the proviential nature o! the sel!-organizing
properties o! atoms an organic molecules as a Kin o! pree0isting
in!rastructure that promotes an enables evolution. Puo vais1 7eter1 er1
uh1 :arwin?
/pril 2)*(
Aesearch the i!!erence between the hypothetical observation o!
an observer versus the observation o! a hypothetical observer versus the
hypothetical observation o! a hypothetical observer in terms o!
wave!unction collapse.
8arch 2)*(
6he true sceptic possesses no agena or preconceive notion o!
what reality is an plays the evil_s avocate though always without
taKing sies. 6he so-calle sceptics o! the late 2)
th
an early 2*
st
centuries are almost uni!ormly materialist ieologues or evangelical
atheists.
6he puzzles an parao0es which result i! there is no must be
unerstoo an the two istinct an we relate o! this phrase1 Ething in
itsel!E. Ht is clear that the thing itsel! must be ini!!erent to the passage
o! time an there!ore the originator o! temporality.
Ioice to te0t is operating suenly through use o! synonyms instea o!
phonetic transcription....the ghost in the quantum computer.
:iscuss the tertium atur o! the sel!1 EzweiselectionE1 i.e.1 the sel! an
the other1 but not 5ust any other CanotherD1 !or there is no other without
the transcenent other1 e.g.1 me an !esus" pursuant to the anthropic
cosmological principle an the !ine tuning o! immanent an transcenent
consciousness. =ow to istinguish another !rom an other1 i.e.1 an other
who is not me !rom an other who is me # the me that is always $ust here
for the first time% Hs the other of the other reucible in the !inal analysis
to merely the other1 properly so-calle?
/ simulation is base on something outsie o! itsel!. / really e0isting
system is base on something outsie o! what can be Known by any
inhabitant o! the system.
8arch 2)*(
H! there is no thing in itsel!1 then there must be something
maintaining the orer o! things in e0istence apart !rom the mere
ini!!erence o! creation to the passage o! time.
6here is a special class o! counter!actuals these are a counter!actual that
we woul never have been in a position to observe. -or e0ample i! there
ha been an avance technological civilization prior to the current one
on planet ;arth we shoul have been able to observe that the earth_s
crust is strangely bere!t o! precious metals. ?ut this woul only be
possible i! we were observers !rom another planet with its own precious
metals to support avance technological civilization
:iscuss the general istinction between the operation o! laws o! physics
an chemistry !rom the application o! the loss o! physics an chemistry
in terms o! the istinct levels o! generality.
4o is what is secretly pointe to by the unity o! hien assumptions o!
success!ul splitting o! the myria linguistic egeneracies that human
communication is prey to.
?oth general relativity an quantum mechanics have passe every
e0perimental tests too many ecimal places too many stanar
eviations or "igma.. /n yet these two highly success!ul theories
cannot be merge together harmoniously. :oes the e0perimental success
o! both series implying that they must be harmoniously blene that this
must be possible or 5ust that carry a hien assumption o! metaphysical
pre5uice? :oes a so-calle 6heory o! ;verything require ata in
aition to what is available through intersub5ective observation an
e0periment? 6he concept o! the Rcosmic breaboarS as the basis !or1
!or e0ample1 on the one han1 a !inite spee o! light1 time ilation1
gravitation an spacetime variations in the local velocity o! light in
vacuum !rom the partitioning o! 37, worKloa/banwith1 as well as
proviing the theoretical moeling basis !or wave!unction collapse1
probabilistic quantum behavior Calgorithms !or RguessingS the ne0t
computational stateD an quantum ecoherence ClinK rotD1 on the other
han1 evinces a possible eep though perhaps comprehensible
interrelationship between 4A an P8. 7erception as Rcognitive tuningS1
i.e.1 as quantum mechanically meiate tuning o! brain circuits to
resonate with selecte vacuum !requencies an banwith spectra
instea o! as portraye in the nacve realistic moels o! sense perception
may point to a threshol1 above which1 cognitive tuning becomes
inepenent o! intrinsic quantum entanglement Can its sel!-
reprocessingD in the vacuum an below which1 an below which these
two processes Cwhich may inee be on a par with one anotherD act in
mutual competition.
8ust spontaneous quantum entanglement reprocessing be intentional
an ob5ect base?
"ince there is no concept o! consciousness there!ore there is no
instantiations !or quanti!ication o! consciousness. 6his means that there
is no set o! conitions which e0clues my being. H am always alreay
here !or the !irst time. @or can there be a theory o! consciousness
Cwithout a concept thereo!D. C9ne can always come bacK R!or the !irst
timeS as there is nothing to prevent itT Ht_s how one originally came to
be.D
9ne o! the implications o! eternal in!lation theory is that each observer
within a given pocKet universe oes not have access to veritable cosmic
time an so in a very real sense e0ists within a simulation possessing its
own internal time.
6here is a growing consensus in @ew /ge circles that li!e trans!ormative
events1 even tragic once1 are irecte somehow by the =igher "el! o! the
person who is sub5ect to these events or incients.
?ecause the system is raically reset upon eath1 i! the evangelical
atheists are right1 anything becomes possible1 as a novel occurrence
since all o! the restrictions that might have prevente novelty are
remove. ;ven 4o becomes possible1 that is1 !rom a starting zero-point
o! altogether unconitione being1 which is the transcenent groun o!
being. 6his is the true inevitable unerlying logic o! multiverse
metaphysics. Ht has been right!ully sai that anything at all will inee
happen that is not speci!ically !orbien by quantum mechanics. 6his is
consistent with the principle o! the superabunance o! unconitione
being. Da as &ystem rai'al auf en To (ur)c'(uset(en ist" wenn ie
evangelische *theisten +echt haetten" wir alles m,glich" als ein neues
*uftreten" a alle -eschr.n'ungen" ie Neuheit verhinert haben
',nnten" entfernt geworen sin. &elbst /ott m,glich wir" as hei0t"
von einer &tartnullpun't von insgesamt unbeingten &eins as er
trans(enenten /run es &eins ist. Dies ist ie wahre unvermeilich
(ugrune liegene 1ogi' es 2ultiversummetaphysi's. Es hat (u +echt
gesagt woren" ass )berhaupt alles in er Tat passieren soll" ass nicht
spe(iell urch ie 3uantenmechani' verboten ist. Dies steht im Ein'lang
mit em 4rin(ip er 5berf)lle er unbeingten &eins.
Ht is not merely that the time line !rays at in!inity. ,nconitione being
maKes no choice between the ontological alternatives o! the one an the
many.
Hnvestigate the concept o! agnostic theism.
/nalyze an econstruct the naive tissue o! assumptions lying behin
such statements as Ethe universe has been here !oreverE.
?etween the emergence an the originality o! time1 anything is possible
but not necessarily inevitable.

Fhen you are ea youGre no longer attache to the time line along
which you live your human e0isting so youGre !ree to start EagainE
C;nglish is not equippe to escribe situations o! multiimensional
temporal tensesD1 as though !or the !irst time 1 but itGs not EagainE
because altogether new time. HtGs i!!icult !or one to grasp because one
thinKs in either/ or an blacK an white terms... either you live again or
you wonGt1 but thereGs a thir way analogous to getting here in Ethe !irst
placeE.
Qd
9neGs consciousness simply possesses multiple instances1
however in the total an utter absence o! instantiation o! an immanent
concept or category1 i.e1. a concept graspable by a !inite intellect. 6he
instantiation o! consciousness is with respect to a transcenental
concept of consciousness. 8ultiimensional sub5ective temporality is
implie by the transcenental nature o! consciousness. /ll concepts are
metaphors masqueraing as such1 e6cept for transcenental
consciousness an its concepts" which are purely abstract" i.e." not ta'en
from e6perience as inee metaphors are.
Qd
3an the purely concrete be
truly concrete an un-abstract? :oesn_t the concept o! pureness or purity
imply abstraction?
8arch 2)*(
The notion of the 7purely concrete8 is an
abstraction an so min as the only source of abstraction becomes
unavoiable.
8ay 2)*(
Ht occurs to me that the notion o! Rthe purely
concreteS is an abstraction an so min1 as the only source o!
abstraction1 becomes an unavoiable preconition to an inevitable
phenomenon. 6his is a goo e!inition o! immanent necessity1 i.e.1 the
instantiation o! necessity as such: an unavoiable preconition to an
inevitable phenomenon. 6his is o! course all contingent upon Ee0istenceE
an EminE being well !ormulate or coherent notions.
8arch 2)*(
6he 4eel Hncompleteness 6heorem combine with the !initue
o! the human intellect points to the reality o! universal min1 since
7latonic mathematical !orms as su!!iciently comple0 mathematical
theorems thusly may subsist inepenently o! any !inite min1 c.!.1
wiK=
http://en.wiKipeia.org/wiKi/;ternal#return
8ay 2)*(
Lime Cat Fe live
enless lives1 but in each li!e we are here !or the !irst time. / seemingly
parao0ical statement1 but not i! one realizes that eternity is the root o!
all temporality.
E6ime is in!inite1 but the things in time1 the concrete boies1 are !inite.
6hey may inee isperse into the smallest particlesV but these particles1
the atoms1 have their eterminate numbers1 an the numbers o! the
con!igurations which1 all o! themselves1 are !orme out o! them is also
eterminate. @ow1 however long a time may pass1 accoring to the
eternal laws governing the combinations o! this eternal play o!
repetition1 all con!igurations which have previously e0iste on this earth
must yet meet1 attract1 repulse1 Kiss1 an corrupt each other again...E
b=einrich =eine
-rom /phorism $(* o! The /ay &cience: EFhoever thou mayest be1
belove stranger1 whom H meet here !or the !irst time1 avail thysel! o!
this happy hour an o! the stillness aroun us1 an above us1 an let me
tell thee something o! the thought which has suenly risen be!ore me
liKe a star which woul !ain she own its rays upon thee an every one1
as be!its the nature o! light. - -ellow manT <our whole li!e1 liKe a
sanglass1 will always be reverse an will ever run out again1 - a long
minute o! time will elapse until all those conitions out o! which you
were evolve return in the wheel o! the cosmic process. /n then you
will !in every pain an every pleasure1 every !rien an every enemy1
every hope an every error1 every blae o! grass an every ray o!
sunshine once more1 an the whole !abric o! things which maKe up your
li!e. 6his ring in which you are but a grain will glitter a!resh !orever.
/n in every one o! these cycles o! human li!e there will be one hour
where1 !or the !irst time one man1 an then many1 will perceive the
mighty thought o! the eternal recurrence o! all things:- an !or manKin
this is always the hour o! @oonE.
[%\

=ave you ever ha an insight that is e0tremely signi!icant1 but you canGt
!in a way to put it into wors so as to share it with others? H recently
ha such an insight. 6he !act that H canGt really escribe this insight or
the etails o! its contents to anyone else1 !or some strange reason oesnGt
cause me to believe that it is any less vali.
?eing an alien oesnGt mean that youGre !rom another planet or star
system. Ht means that your brain acts as an inter!ace between quantum
vacua within a partition that is categorize altogether i!!erently !rom
the quantum vacua partitions which the brains o! others1 one_s so calle
peers1 resonate with.
6here is no concept o! consciousness or category thereo!... 6his woul
imply that there is no universal min which is instantiate by multiple
iniviual consciousnesses. 9nly sub5ective metaphors an not
intersub5ective concepts.
Qd
H! upon eath one loses the threa then you were never here so you can
come into being !or the !irst time.
;ither 4o e0ists or 4o oes not e0ist either the soul is eternal or oes
not either reincarnation is true or its !aults either humans have !ree will
or they onGt an so on. Hn an open ene multiverse metaphysical
possibilities are contingent.
;ither reincarnation is true or it is not i! it is not true then the threa is
cut upon oneGs eath in which case when was never here in which case
one can come to be !or the !irst time.
:iscourse is not 5ust a structure within oneGs native language1 but is a
novel language in its own right.
6he illogical mous ponens verses mous tollens reversal or inversion is
necessary !or the translation between languages which is nonlinear in the
relationship o! concept maps.
/n is necessary !or the operation o! metaphor transitioning between
i!!erent universes o! iscourse or !or use with iiosyncratic ialects o!
iniviual persons
H thought it was when /lan .ightman physicist sai that we are lucKy to
be here an sai this within the conte0t o! iscussing the multiverse.
?ecause the system is raically reset upon eath1 i! the evangelical
atheists are right1 anything becomes possible1 as a novel occurrence
since all o! the restrictions that might have prevente novelty are
remove. ;ven 4o becomes possible1 that is1 !rom a starting zero-point
o! altogether unconitione being. 6his is the inevitable unerlying
logic o! multiverse metaphysics. Ht has been right!ully sai that anything
at all will inee happen that is not speci!ically !orbien by quantum
mechanics. 6his is consistent with the principle o! the superabunance
o! unconitione being. Ht is not merely that the time line !rays at
in!inity. ,nconitione being maKes no choice between the ontological
alternatives o! the one an the many. 3haos is wholly egenerate.
-ebruary 2)*(
9rigin o! the assertion that E4o is eaE? @ot with @ietzsche
or "artre.
-ebruary 2)*(
9ne nees stability to get li!e starte one nees instability to get
species to split in two subspecies which then become inepenent
separate species. Fe nee a vast continuum o! !orbien "tates
interwoven into the rugge !itness lanscape o! the multiverse !or
otherwise nothing o! value can ever be brought !orth. 6he avancement
o! science has1 since the ;nlightenment or perhaps even since the
Aenaissance1 gone han in han with the steay retreat o! 8an !rom the
position he ha en5oye since antiquity1 at the center o! creation. ?ut the
unerlying logic o! the /nthropic 3osmological 7rinciple1 i! properly
unerstoo an this unerstaning isseminate1 threatens a 3opernican
revolution that shall boomerang with a vengeance. Aeuctio !or the
multiverse with *)
'))
universes vastly outstripping the number o!
possible istinct mins?
/pril 2)*( Qd
9ne way to invert this isastrously
counterintuitive ratio an avoi all this is to iscover that the mechanism
o! human consciousness necessarily an regularly invoKes what is well
beyon a mere astronomical number o! these parallel universes. /n the
quantum ecoherence limit set at the 7lancK mass-energy combine with
=enry 8argenau_s observation that quantum superpose states are
always states o! some classically escribable ob5ect ais us in properly
ienti!ying these myria Rparallel universesS. 6hey are istinct quantum
states o! brain microtubule tubulin imer networKs o! istinct energies
no greater than the 7lancK energy.
/ principle o! unity implies a principle o! esign coherence
cohesiveness unity stability all o! these are part o! the principles o!
esign as mani!estations. 8eitate on what it means to process a eeper
unerstaning o! ieas. 8ost people live the ma5ority o! their lives
ensconce within a tissue unchallenge assumptions nestle within a
paraigm which never shi!ts. 6he i!!erential ecoherence mapping
correlates with the rugge !itness lanscape o! evolutionary theory.
Oeeping a love oneGs stress levels low an giving her attention an love
will help her conition. Fhat H call active1 participatory prayer.
"imilar to how consciousness oes not possess a representation1 so too
oes time !ail to have a representation. 6his is connecte to
FittgensteinGs Eprivate languageE argument1 one application o! which is
a isproo! o! the sKeptical hypothesis that H poppe into e0istence a
moment ago complete with a set o! !alse memories re!erring to a
!ictitious earlier li!eGs history. FittgensteinGs private language argument
is thought to be so important to 2)th century philosophy because it is the
only respectable argument ever evelope against solipsism. 6he
incorrigibility o! the reality o! memory rather than the incorrigibility o!
memories themselves is importantly relate to quantum ecoherence in
thermoynamic irreversibility. /lthough ?oltzmann brains are more
massive than the 7lancK mass an there!ore cannot be generate in a
vacuum !luctuation1 nonetheless ?oltzmann EminsE Ware possibleW
states o! the vacuum uring its !luctuation. /n R?oltzmann minsS may
inee be the most important quantum neurological phenomenon that
can be suppose to result !rom the coupling o! the brain to the
!luctuating quantum vacuum electromagnetic !iel at the tubulin imer
level.
Hn the youtube vieo1 E6he 7rivate .anguage /rgument an the @ature
o! 3onsciousnessE1 3uto!theamateur states that the supervenience o!
consciousness increase natural selective pressure in !avor o! increasing
neurological an brain physiological comple0ity in the evolution o! the
human brain above the selective avantage a!!ore by mutations or
cultural innovations which merely ha the e!!ect o! increasing the
e!!iciency o! a classical neural networK o! stimulus-response by way o!
improvements in logic1 memory an ata processing spee. Ht is no
accient that metaphors are !requently re!erre to through the use o!
quotation marKs enclosing a term or phrase: which is being applie in all
together new way that is in a manner not suspecte1 hereto!ore Cnote
temporal in!lectionD unsuspecte by the listener who has necessarily
receive a communication !rom the other. 6o !orm an abstract concept or
iea o! a person1 there must be more than one e0emplar o! EpersonE.
/lso1 quotation marKs are use when one is Wre!erringW to one thing in
terms o! a i!!erent thing. Ht is not that the min transcens the
limitations to logic set by 4eel_s incompleteness theorem an itGs
implications1 but that the brain has access to multiple ?oltzmann mins
through the quantum superposition o! brain conte0ts provie by the
embeing quantum vacuum !luctuation !iel Co! nonlocally connecte
tubulin imer statesD. 6here are perhaps no 4oeelian limitations in
philosophy an philosophizing as there is with logic an mathematics
because o! the blurring o! the istinction between levels an metalevels
within the omain o! philosophic activity.
-ebruary 2)*(
6he philosophically naive error o! intelligent esign theorists is
their presumption that grammatical chauvinism on the part o! speaKers
o! human languages possesses valiity beyon the linguistic conte0t in
other wors is vali is relevant to the escription o! ob5ective being.
6hey shoul remember that the passive construction leaves the question
o! a sub5ect wholly ine!inite. 6he a5ective EintelligentE may only be a
property o! a !unamental process1 H.e.1 one having no beginning in
time. 6he noun1 EesignE oes not necessarily imply an activity. /n
activity oes not imply an agent. /n agent oes not imply an agency.
/n agency oes not imply a !ouning. / !ouning oes not imply a
!ouner.
6hanKs1 8ichaelT /n ol chestnut or shall H say EonionE. : p. 6he motive
behin H: is inee isingenuous aKa bacKoor creationism. ?elieving
grammatical relationships to be as robust as logical or causal
implications is my biggest criticism o! the purveyors o! H:. . .not their
cynicism1 which H taKe !or grante. E<ou canGt get something !rom
nothing . . . unless its the quantum vacuum.E
6he philosophically naive error o! intelligent esign theorists is their
presumption that grammatical chauvinism on the part o! speaKers o!
human languages possesses valiity beyon the linguistic conte0t in
other wors is vali is relevant to the escription o! ob5ective being.
6hey shoul remember that the passive construction leaves the question
o! a sub5ect wholly ine!inite. 6he a5ective EintelligentE may only be a
property o! a !unamental process1 H.e.1 one having no beginning in
time. 6he noun1 EesignE oes not necessarily imply an activity. /n
activity oes not imply an agent. /n agent oes not imply an agency.
/n agency oes not imply a !ouning. / !ouning oes not imply a
!ouner.
6hanKs1 8ichaelT /n ol chestnut or shall H say EonionE. : p. 6he motive
behin H: is inee isingenuous aKa bacKoor creationism. ?elieving
grammatical relationships to be as robust as logical or causal
implications is my biggest criticism o! the purveyors o! H:. . .not their
cynicism1 which H taKe !or grante. E<ou canGt get something !rom
nothing . . . unless its the quantum vacuum.E
H.e.1 the quantum vacuum is EnothingE. /n EnothingE comes !rom
nothing...=eisenberg energy uncertainty is the causal basis o!
temporarily an so coul have ha no beginning in time. /n
EeverythingE comes !rom EnothingE because the only i!!erence between
real an virtual particles an !iels is Can hereGs the
rub...Wuni!!erentiateW energyD.
6here are no things1 only EthingsS. Hn orer to o away with ualism we
nee to analyze the reunancy o! the e0ternal worl an other mins as
inepenent concepts or principles o! being. 7arao0ically in orer !or
science to be truly positivistic it must1 !ollowing -eueraben1 be
raically !ree o! any eterminate metho o! iscovery an investigation.
?elie! that science has a eterminate metho o! iscovery is to presume
that the !inal achievement o! science shall be the establishment o! a
theory o! everything1 which is a metaphysical presumption.
7ositivistic science1 which possesses no eterminate metho o!
investigation or inquiry1 cannot maKe any har an !ast istinction
between the natural an the supernatural.
Fhat istinguishes a brain !rom a computation evice or computer is the
greater inepenence o! moularity o! esign which leas to the
marshalling o! multiple inepenent contacts also there is the . stripping
o! any uni!ie or integral to sign this is about save ue to the planK
limit where in the esign !unctions in a manner which transcens the
looK ahea computational capacity o! the quantum vacuum !iel.
/ll o! the operations escribe by /lan 6uring !or his universal
computational evice are susceptible to quantum superposition
6here is certainly an important istinction between 2 to the power o!
()) parallel universes versus 2 to the power o! ()) quantum computers
within a single universe. :oes the natural ecoherence limit play an
important role in this istinction?
3ompare the egree o! !ocus o! attention versus the egree o! resolution
the appearances. Hs there a egeneracy o! case between iscovery an
learning about an ob5ective realm versus a sel!- inter!ering1 sel!- limiting
cognitive system embee in a chaotic meium?
4o is the consciousness o! ?eing as well as they will which brought
being into being.
Hmaginary number mysticism.
Fell it is true that long hair usually oesnGt looK aesthetically appropriate
!raming the !ace o! an Eoler womanE an coul create a perception
problem1 both personally an pro!essionally. H never thought that your
long hair mismatche your !ace two years ago. Aegulation o! gene
e0pression is no longer uner the legacy o! a billion years o! natural
selection once the chil-bearing years are !ar behin. Aegulation o!
gene e0pression rolls over to being sub5ect to the innate sel!-organizing
properties o! atoms an molecules. Hn the secon hal! o! li!e1 there!ore1
one ceases to be a chil o! this little green earth1 but comes into her own
as a chil o! the cosmos.
?ut what is really relevant is not the moern ay1 but what natural
selection ha to worK with over the previous million1 *) million1
hunre million1 etc. years in the past. HtGs unliKely that natural selection
programme gene regulation in hominis living much beyon $)1 still
less1 Wproucing o!!springW beyon this age. "o the rela0ation o! the
grip o! our evolutionary legacy actually probably begins a!ter $' or so
an grante1 maybe is not complete until ') or &). 6he moral here is
that one can looK !orwar to ol age instea o! necessarily reaing it
because o! the possibilities o! transcenence an spiritual growth that
our latter years o!!er. : D 6he concept is vali1 H believe1 in terms o! the
combine action o! :arwinian an thermoynamic principles.
@ow the process o! the great spirit o! the cosmos strengthening its gentle
grip an loving in!luence on the genome may inee e0ten into the
%)Gs1 N)Gs an beyon.
6his principle relies upon a reasonable assumption1 the one that levels o!
escription in gene regulation inter- penetrate1 in other wors moularity
is imper!ect so that it is not 5ust the lower level systems on which natural
selections grip rela0es1 but that this applies to higher level !unction as
well.
/ccoring to Fhittington1 animals coul have arisen at i!!erent places
an at i!!erent times. Hnstea o! escent !rom an acciental !irst
common ancestor1 we have evolutionary convergence guie by the sel!-
organizing properties o! organic molecules !rom multiple points o!
origin: nevertheless guie by a single unerlying ynamic. Hn other
wors the common escent is not !rom a single acciental !irst ancestor1
but !rom a single ynamic meium in!orming an guiing the
evolutionary process as a whole.
:arwinGs principle o! common escent is !alse an his principle o!
evolution by natural selection is tautologous: everything which
survives1 survives.
?ecause li!e arose !rom multiple points o! origin1 but there is a single
genetic coe or language to meiate the evolutionary process !rom these
multiple point origin1 it !ollows that the rationale o! the genetic coe lies
with the sel!-organizing ynamic origin o! li!e rather than itsel! having
been cobble together by blin evolutionary processes.
7latonic archetypes o!!er themselves as a happy $r alternative to the
Hntelligent :esign hypothesis instea o! e0planation o! evolution in
terms o! common escent.
=igher mammals such as humans share such an ancient common
ancestor with the octopus that the eye o! the octopus an the eye o! the
human originate !rom a common ancestor so ancient that this ancestor
i not itsel! possess a recognizable !unctional eye.
?y combining ?ohmGs causal principle with the ecoherence principle1
we see that the 7lancK limit applies not only to space an critical
ensities1 but also to time an time intervals. in this way we see that
temporality is necessary !or the construction o! an integrally whole an
open consciousness an one that is prepare to be an active participant
in a heavenly community.
6he operation in the bacKgroun o! this tenency to commit in!ormal
!allacies greatly reuces the time it taKes to hit upon theoretical insights
which ha one can !in onesel! to correct logical thinKing one might not
have stumble upon !or orers o! magnitue greater spans o! time i! at
all an so the !allacies o! in!ormal logic weGre liKely selecte !or in the
evolutionary process because they ha survival value in greatly reucing
the time spans require !or hitting up on !avorable solutions to otherwise
intractable problem. =ey reay general e0ample o! this is the con!usion
o! the principles o! moes tollens with mous ponens.
6he robustness an stability o! li!e !orms may be better serve by
multiple points o! origin rather than common escent. Fith multiple
points o! origin the beginnings o! li!e how much less liKely to be purely
riven by chance1 but partly riven by the sel!-organizing ynamics o! a
!unamental groun.
Hnvestigate the concept o! the seeming magical nature o! the general
e!!ectiveness o! mathematical integration.
8aKe no mistaKe econstructionist theorists: Fhat le us to this
postmoern worl o! the ineterminate sel! an the illusory will were
myria iniviuals be- specKling history1 possessing a eterminate will
an a highly eterminate ego.
:arwin was only embrace wholeheartely an promote to the status
o! a scienti!ic emigo only because there were myria closet atheist
secretly awaiting the arrival o! a goless messiah.
Fe can use evolution theory is a system o! appropriate metaphors !or
organizing our e0perience an unerstaning it better even though
:arwinGs theory is not strictly speaKing correct this brings up the whole
question o! what correctness o! theories within the conte0t o! the
philosophy o! science means. -or e0ample applying :arwinGs natural
selection concept to the secon hal! o! li!e an the une0pecte bene!its
o! getting oler.
Fithin the realm o! limitation angelic !ree will is consierably more
limite than that o! human beings because o! their much greater
intellectual capacity an ability to !oresee negative outcomes to any
possible ecision amongst alternative
Ysaturation mutagenesisZ Yevelopmental biologyZ Ymorphological
mutationsZ Ygenomic equivalenceZ
6he eterministic chaos observe !or algorithms possessing very simple
rules !or operating a simulate worl such as cellular automata suggest
that 5ust because physicists have been able to pin own the parameters o!
the "tanar 8oel o! particle physics oes not lea us to e0pect similar
successes in the !uture in the so!ter sciences.
3ompose an essay on the hope!ulness o! the true an thorough going
sKeptic.
Hnclue a iscussion o! the concept o! time1 eternity1 everlastingness an
temporality in relation to the ?lacK /er concept o! reincarnation. 6he
/nthropic 7rinciple1 the 8ultiverse1 "imulation Can the problem o!
/etiologyD an the theory o! ;ternal Hn!lation shoul !igure prominently.
8arch 2)*(
Aeincarnation means being brought !orth1 unbien into a new
universe within the multiverse that is un!athomably connecte or not
connecte at all to the universe that provie the nutritive yolK o! one_s
RpreviousS incarrnation. 6he consistency o! one_s memories o! a past or
past lives is a !unction o! cosmological anthropic consciousness tuning
continuous line or threa. :i!!erentiation an integration is with respect
to a sel!-same mathematically real line.
et=>une 2)*(1 !cbK= or !b= eml=
E/lthough the proper !ine tuning o! brain
microtubule tubulin imer circuits coul be manage by an unerlying
naturalistic quantum vacuum1 so that the ma5ority o! real human beings
coul be e0pecte to possess consciousness1 in a so-calle ancestor
simulation1 the !ine tuning woul be at the opposite en o! the one-many
Ciniviual-collectiveD spectrum1 i.e.1 within the groun o! being at its
Eworl enE instea o! within each tiny subspectrum o! groun !rom
which the iniviual raws his or her being1 such that only one istinct
iniviual woul liKely possess the correct1 concretely ynamic EbrainE
structure necessary to embe itsel! properly within the virtual quantum
vacuum !iel o! the simulation so as to become a properly conscious
entity1 rather than the hollow pro5ection o! an avatar or at most1 a
Ephilosophical zombieE.E 6hat having been sai1 were multiverse theory
correct1 then there really woul be nothing to !unamentally istinguish
the universe one happens to be in from a simulation. 9 Ht woul be a case
o! one universe per customer1 instea o! tiny !ractions thereo!1 eachT
/lthough the proper !ine tuning o! brain microtubule circuits coul be
manage by an unerlying naturalistic quantum vacuum so that the
ma5ority o! real human beings woul be e0pecte to possess
consciousness1 in a so-calle ancestor simulation the !ine tuning woul
be at the opposite en1 i.e.1 o! the worl instea o! the iniviual1 such
that only one iniviual woul typically possess the correct EbrainE
structure to embe properly in the virtual quantum vacuum to be
conscious. 6his oes not imply solipsism1 but merely that1 i! @icK
?ostromGs simulation hypothesis is true1 then each simulate human is
isolate within his own virtual worl an perhaps receiving !requent
multiple ata Crather than in!ormationD inputs !rom iniviuals
inhabiting istinct virtual worls.
?oth pure necessity an pure contingency are inconsistent with !ree will
an consciousness there must be some chaotic bounary between the
two across which they interact to e!!ect !reely wille conscious states.
6reiben "ie wohin "ie wollen @eues zu lernen1 soll bitte Keine /tbeit
sein. Fir tre!!en uns bestimmt irgenwann wieer.
9nce we have re5ecte the naive empiricist view o! perception memory
an imagination an how these are relate one to another an in turn
embrace a more sophisticate Oantian view o! these three elements o!
mental !unctioning1 then we become open to some highly counter-
intuitive results concerning the philosophy o! min1 the philosophy o!
time an space1 as well as the philosophy o! science.
6he tripartite theory o! perception istinct !rom 7latoGs pro5ective
perception 6heory an the traitional empirical theory o! perception o!
the e0ternal worl which has been in place !or appro0imately the past
*') years.
6here can be no mechanical theory o! inertia.
6he mental !aculties o! humanKin can be ivie into two
!unamentally istinct groups: those whom once the anthropic principle
is e0plaine can only unerstan this principle as a triviality or tautology
an the minority o! persons whose mins are constitute in such a
manner that they are capable o! grasping the core insight or logic
unerlying the anthropic principle so as to unerstan this principle in a
non-trivial way. 6his is perhaps not truly owing to a i!!erence in
intellectual ability o! the two groups1 but to eep an lasting i!!erences
in intellectual bias.
/ !urther ivision can be mae within the minority group that
unerstans the anthropic principle in a non-trivial way: those who
believe the anthropic principle obviates the nee !or in!rastructure or
esign within the groun o! being versus those who believe this
principle absolutely requires the element o! esign.
6he logic o! the anthropic principle applies to the multiverse:
humanKin can only !in themselves living within a bubble in which the
!unamental constants are appropriately !ine-tune. Hn turn1 H can only
!in mysel! within a bubble within the multiverse in which the
!unamental physical constants are even more appropriately !ine-tune.
Fe must remember that the only thing that has to be mae consistent are
the appearances. 6he logic o! the anthropic principle applie to the
multiverse has important implications !or the question o! personal
ientity: !or e0ample1 coul H have come into the worl as a lower
animal or as a mentally retare iniviual? 6he necessity o! !ine-
tuning o! the cosmological constant1 !or instance as well as the
appro0imately $N !unamental physical constants. /nthropic
cosmological !ine tuning seems to require that personal ientity be base
upon some !orm o! necessity such as a eterminate essence o! some sort1
meaning that oneGs ientity must alreay
be given prior to the !ine-tuning1 i.e.1 a !unamental component o! the
groun o! being itsel!.
RFhile the stanar moel o! cosmology has been largely con!irme by
e0periment1 a !ew curious anomalies have resiste e0planation. 9ne1
!irst seen by @/"/_s 39?; satellite an more recently con!irme by
F8/721 is the so-calle Rlow quarupoleS. 6he F8/7 satellite has
mappe in great etail temperature !luctuations in the cosmic microwave
bacKgroun C38?D raiation that pervaes the sKy. "tanar cosmology
preicts that we shoul see such temperature !luctuations at every scale.
?oth 39?; an F8/71 however1 iscovere that there are virtually no
!luctuations at angular scales larger than &) egrees. 9ne possible
interpretation o! this perple0ing
anomaly is that spacetime simply isn_t large enough to support such
large-scale !luctuations. H! true1 this result woul set the upper boun on
the size o! the universe at almost precisely the size o! the observable
universe. Hn other wors1 the bounary o! spacetime L the ege o! reality
L woul coincie with the bounary o! a single observer_s re!erence
!rame. /ccoring to the stanar view1 this is quite a coincienceTS1 c.!.1
http://!q0i.org/ata/essay-contest-!iles/4e!ter#4e!ter#-q0i#essay.p!
3reator or multiversal vacuum !luctuation are 5ust two i!!erent
metaphors which relate to the same really e0isting !irst cause.
@oboy lives in the vast ma5ority o! multiverse bubbles.
Puantum mechanics preicts that anything which is not !orbien by
conservation laws must occur with some egree o! probability.
9ne o! the implications o! the multiverse theory is that it each o! us is
immortal. 6ime to aress the metaphysics o! Eincarnating !or the !irst
timeE within an eternally in!lating anthropic multiverse.
HtGs not so much that some part o! us lives on a!ter our eath as it is that
what brought us !orth here in the !irst place shall still be here a!ter we
epart this li!e an can bring us !orth once more 5ust as though !or the
!irst time.
R/s a !ormer research stuent o! >ohn =icK H accept his view that we are
living in an
ambiguous ,niverse which can be interprete theistically or
atheistically. =ence H am
not attempting to fprove_ the truth o! a liberal moernist version o!
3hristianityS1 c.!.1
http://www.anglicanism.org/amin/ocs/believable#anglicanism#august
#2)*$.p!
"o on account o! this solipsistic implication1 the multiverse principle
!ails as an aequate basis o! e0planation !or the observe ensity o!
in!ormation Cin the sense o! speci!ie comple0ityD in the universe.

/n because there is better continuity across ensembles rather than
within a given ensemble1 temporal evolution o! the consciousness o! any
given anthropic observer is such that causal continuity is psychically
pro5ective rather than reactive. Hn other wors1 the psychic continuity o!
the sel! an that o! the other o not coincie.

6he multiverse principle as an e0planation !or the raical !ine tuning o!
the ozen or more !unamental physical constants o! this universe - this
principle !louts another principle1 that o! causal continuity. H say this
because continuity is more reaily available in immeiately nearby
alternate universes than it is in subsequent states o! oneGs own universe.

6wo-imensional temporality to which we are attributing the ma5ority o!
all suen changes or increases in biological comple0ity in evolution
woul have liKely a!!ecte the memories an consciousness o! any long
live observer who may have been in the area observing these changes.

Ypreaaptation in evolutionZ Ymin in the poise realmZ Oau!!man

Aeason an rationality are broaer than science1 broaer than logic.
.ogic is applie reason. .ogic is to technique as reason is to science.
6he !ormer provies the basis !or selecting the latter.

G;0perimental rugge !itness lanscape in protein sequence space.G ,. 7.
=ayashi

Gnews an viewsG GFhy genes in pieces?G G@ature volume 2%* Gnews an
viewsG GFhy genes in pieces?G G@ature volume 2%*

3.!.1 <ou6ube vieo1 6he 9rigin o! 4enes CcK))%D

@ew orer can arise !rom ranom shu!!ling o! moular components
provie that each moular component arose more or less by sel!-
organizing properties o! atoms an molecules which grace the process
at its beginning1 inepenently o! any natural selection processes.
O;< F9A:" !or searching this ocument: Qd1 threshol1 quantum
vacuum1 vacuum electromagnetic !iel1 zero-point1 .amb shi!t1 7aul
;0clusion1 7auli Hnclusion1 =eisenberg ,ncertainty 7rinciple1 =,71 arK
matter1 arK energy1 pioneer anomaly1 cosmological constant1
cosmological acceleration1 inuce gravity1 inuce inertia1
Jitterbewegung1 imensional time1 temporality1 specious present1
issociation1 issociative1 uni!ie1 integrate1 concept o! consciousness1
Hncompleteness 6heorem1 ?en5amin .ibet1 Aupert "helraKe1 6erence
8cOenna1 3homsKy1 7lantinga1 ;l 4reco1 Ourt 4eel1 Fittgenstein1
?ertran Aussell1 Filliam >ames1 >ulian >aynes1 7hilip O. :icK1 "tar
treK1 7erry Ahoan1 science !iction1 ;ccles1 Oant1 "antayana1 "artre1
:escartes1 =ume1 ?erKeley1 .eibniz1 -ichte1 8argenau1 7enrose1
=amero!!1 microtubule1 tubulin1 synapse1 interconnection1 !uture1 time
travel1 7roKhovniK1 "ar!atti1 -ontana1 zeitschicht1 graviton limit1 gravity
wave1 bining energy1 =ubble1 ensity graient1 gravitational constant1
!ine structure constant1 mc
2
1 mcWW21 relativistic mass velocity1 rotation
about the time a0is1 angular momentum1 intrinsic spin1 imaginary
momentum1 conservation o! !our momentum1 hypersur!ace1
hyperspherical1 FO? appro0imation1 3asimir ;!!ect1 :e?roglie1
"chroinger1 :irac1 -eynman1 ;instein1 4amow1 7lancK1 virtual particle1
spontaneous emission1 stimulate emission1 !ermion1 boson1 !ermion-
anti!ermion1 spin )1 spin *1 spin 21 composite spin )1 composite spin 21
scalar1 vector1 tensor1 7auli blocKing1 3ooper pair1 iscrete reshi!t1
quantize reshi!t1 cosmological reshi!t1 gravitational reshi!t1 vacuum
energy ensity1 !luctuation1 correlation1 Ian 4ent1 ?rian "wi!t1 Jia1
4reg1 "aKharov1 !our angular momentum1 precession1 re shi!t1
complacency1 5oy1 authenticity1 sociolinguistic1 cultural1 anthropological1
hypocrisy1 hypocrite1 church1 3hristian1 7aul1 >esus1 4o1 :ivine1
ivinity1 !ree will1 creation1 intelligent esign1 ancestor simulation1
?ostrom1 3arroll1 ;lvige1 8atri01 4aussian1 ?oltzmann brain1
solipsism1 solipsistic principle1 stanar eviation1 mean1 percentile1
!oreKnowlege1 eterminism1 uneretermine1 overetermine1
correlate1 3hristianity1 =inuism1 ?uha1 ?uhism1 6aoism1 6ao1
;go1 :ream1 :reaming1 .uci1 epistemology1 epistemological1
metaphysics1 metaphysical1 methoological1 anthropic cosmological
principle1 anthropic principle1 wave!unction1 phase relations1 -ourier1
!ringe1 4ibbs phenomenon1 collapse1 ecoherence1 resonant1 resonant
tuning1 resonance1 !ilter1 reucing valve1 transcenence1 immanence1
evolution1 :arwinian1 epigenetics1 chemical evolution1 mutation1 natural
selection1 unit o! hereity1 :@/1 A@/1 >acques 8ono1 @eoarwinian1
genetic base pair1 in!ormation bearing1 structural mutation1 genotype1
phenotype1 sel!-organization1 in!rastructure1 provience1 grace1 theistic
evolution1 ranom mutation1 point mutation1 regulatory gene1 gene
regulatory networK1 4A@1 superposition1 tunneling1 nonlocal1
nonlocality1 entanglement1 qubit1 parallel1 many worls1 ;verett1
transactional1 clone1 cloning1 twin1 oppelganger1 contraiction1
contraictory1 contrary1 @agel1 :ummet1 "mart1 3halmers1 philosophy o!
min1 metaphysics o! min1 philosophy o! space an time1 arrow o!
time1 irreversibility1 entropy1 Ion @eunann entropy1 2
n
.aw1
thermoynamic1 iscourse1 !ree will1 reuctionism1 consciousness1
quantum nonlocality an hien variables1 sel!-re!erential1 unity1
integration1 holism1

6he biggest !actor inter!ering with my !antasy that the worl is my
oyster is the notably inaequate state o! evelopment o! battery
technology.
>anuary 2)*(
Frite own every original Kernel iea you have ever ha an
then e0plore the connections between each an every one. 6his e0ercise
shoul succee in generating myria new insights that shall serve to
e0ten the networK !urther in terms o! e0paning the total number o!
noes CKernelsD.
:ecember 2)*$
:evemos compreener que a 8oral tem aspectos relativosV e1
por isso1 o que era moral no pretgrito poe ser imoral no presente. @ho
se poe a5uizar a via e um povo e mais e ois mil anos1 a!erino-lhe
os valores morais meiante o critgrio e vosso sgculo. ;m certos povos
o 9riente a poligamia aina g e boa moral1 a !im e se a5ustar o
esequilibrio que g prouto o e0cesso e nascimentos e mulheres
sobre pequena percentagem e homens. /lgumas tribos asijticas tacham
e imoraliae o !ato a vikva ociental sobreviver ao mario !alecio1
em vez e ser cremaa com ele no !ogo puri!icaor. / moral tho sublime
e saia que >esus pregou em sua gpoca1 !oi o motivo ele ser cruci!icao1
porque essa moral cristh era consieraa subversiva ou ebilitante em
!ace a preominlncia o instinto in!erior os homens a gpoca.
http://www.businessinsier.com/magnus-carlsen-our-!irst-post-moern-
chess-champion-2)*$-**
/t logocentrism_s core is the gloss o! a !au0 integrate an uni!ie sel!1
one concealing an unerlying a e !acto loose con!eeration o! proto-
selves. 6his RtricKS o! the pro5ect-ive uni!ie sel! is imitate again an
again at numerous i!!erent levels1 as this splintere con!eeration o!
mental !aculties Known as the human min pro5ects its rei!ying gaze
everywhere an all aroun itsel!. "ome must suppose this is but an
appearance borne o! an incomplete an tattere conceptualization or
mapping o! the min in terms o! numerous suppose !aculties as the
science o! psychology remains in its long in!ancy as a Kin o! Epsyence
o! scichologyE. 9ne important e0ample o! this Elogocentric rei!icationE
is the instinctive Cas well as subconscious in the sense o!
Econsciousness-grouningSD unerstaning o! all verbal communication
as being on a par with Rtelepathy accompanie by articulate sounsS.
6he in!ant acquiring the language o! his parents never en5oys the
avantage o! having in!ormation input to his eveloping brain1 but
evelops a theory o! his own !or maKing sense out o! the !unny souns
being mae by big people by interpreting mere ata1 which only in
retrospect becomes in!ormation1 retroactively1 c.!.1
/pril 2)*(

wiK=
R;rnst von
4lasers!el was a prominent proponent o! raical constructivism. 6his
school o! thought claims that Knowlege is not a commoity which is
transporte !rom one min into another. Aather1 it is up to the iniviual
to ElinK upE speci!ic interpretations o! e0periences an ieas with their
own re!erence o! what is possible an viable. 6hat is1 the process o!
constructing Knowlege1 o! unerstaning1 is epenent on the
iniviualGs sub5ective interpretation o! their active e0perience1 not what
EactuallyE occurs. ,nerstaning an acting are seen by raical
constructivists not as ualistic processes1 but as Gcircularly con5oineG.
6hough EataE may pass between mins1 these are merely syntactically
an not semantically structure signals: in!ormation is always create
anew1 in situ on the receiving en1 though sometimes with e0ternally
receive ata as a guie to the construction o! the intersub5ective
envelope containing the ata1 while the in!ormation resulting !rom the
processing o! this e0ternally receive ata is a wholly original invention
o! the iniviual consciousness o! the recipient. [*\
8ay 2)*(
H sometimes !eel as though H am living in the shaow o! some
great1 isruptive an isillusioning realization1 perhaps only to be
personally encountere many years or even ecaes later. @o one gets
out o! here alive an grante1 oneGs ultimate emise sometimes casts a
long shaow into the living past o! the ying1 especially i! one is
neurotic. H am speaKing o! something even arKer an hien within the
time traveling penumbra o! oneGs mortal en...un!ortunately1 any cruely
!ashione chemicals that might be available to the in!ant science o!
psychiatry coul only treat this conition at the risK o! lobotomizing the
poet in me.
Constructivist :ounations is a !ree online 5ournal publishing peer
reviewe articles on raical constructivism by researchers !rom multiple
omains. &ee also: :rancisco ;arela" <umberto 2aturana" an <ein(
von :oersterS
/n envelope o! encryption corresponing to a carrier !requency this is
the !unamental grammar which gives proo! o! intersub5ectivity.
/ll we perceive are 7latonic !orms !rom the groun o! our own being1
rather than !rom the groun o! being itsel!. 6his is not the solipsistic
nature o! the worl1 but o! the possibility o! perception.
>anuary 2)*(
H! a systematic an thorough going observation an analysis in
terms o! signal over noise ratios were per!orme on the communication
o! couples an close Knit groups on the one han an o! iniviuals in
socially an culturally iverse groups on the other1 an the results
thereo! integrate with long staning analyses o! the ynamics o!
con!licting witness accounts o! accients an crime scenes1 optical
illusion ata1 Relusions an maness o! crowsS phenomena1
anthropological stuies o! shamanic an shamanically-meiate group
spirituality1 entanglement o! cognitive metalevels1 in!ormal !allacies
pertaining to causality1 ?ohmian causal analysis :arwinian behavioral
genetics1 e.g.1 >aynesian cognitive theory1 ?en5amin .ibet_s brain
physiological stuies o! the relation o! intention1 retentive memory an
consciousness1 an all o! this place in the bacKgroun o! a
sociolinguistic treatment o! the ;l 4reco 7arao01 it woul liKely be
reveale that the in!ormation to ata ratio1 H/: is e6traorinarily high. /
perhaps nacve view is that a per!ect optimization o! signal to noise ratio
woul necessitate !lawless transmission o! in!ormation between mins1
which precisely tracKs the internal vs. e0ternal1 sub5ective vs.
intersub5ective continuum ivie. 6he untranslatability o! mutually
unintelligible human languages in!orms a hypothesis o! the
incommensurate resiue o! untranslatability o! thoughts between
members o! the same culture who are speaKers o! the same language.
/pril
2)*(
3ommunication is not the transmission o! in!ormation between
mins1 but the negotiate mile groun between iverse sub5ectivities
in which internal semantic an associative a5ustments are mae as
interprete ata are reprocesse on each sie o! the communication in a
Kin o! Rhan shaKeS wherein each party satis!ies himsel! that an
agreement in terms o! consensual meaning has been reache. 6his
becomes especially true when going beyon the relatively unchallenging
emans o! concretely escriptive language.
>anuary 2)*(
/s they say1 Ewithout conte0t there is no meaningE. "o the
myria circulating ion currents in the brainGs gray matter can only Ebe
about somethingE1 i.e.1 maKe re!erence to something beyon the
otherwise close system o! the brain1 i! there is some Kin o! interaction
or Ehan-shaKeE between the relatively limite an otherwise narrowly
e!ine quantum processes in the brain an broaer quantum-encoe-
encrypte processes within some grouning1 embeing an open-ene
conte0t in which every process in the brain which is conscious becomes
so only by virtue o! being EregistereE within this embeing
computational-in!ormational in!rastructure. 8oern ay brain
physiological research1 c.!.1 "tuart =amero!! o! the "anta -e Hnstitute et
al. inicates that this embeing ynamic in!ormational meium is none
other than the quantum vacuum electromagnetic !iel. 7resumably there
must some sort o! Ecosmic -33E1 which regulates an partitions the total
available banwith in this quantum vacuum !iel so that there is no
inter!erence or cross-chatter between your thoughts an my thoughts.
9! course EregistrationE oes Kin o! carry the implication o! archiving
somewhere1 say through non-locally connecte quantum entanglements
in the vacuumGs zero-point energy !luctuation !iel. ?y the way1
quantum energy uncertainty is entirely owing to the quantum
!luctuations in this zero-point vacuum !iel1 which through the
=eisenberg time-energy uncertainty relation1 /a; 0 /at Zh1 implies that
temporal change1 i.e1. temporallity is owing to the constant perturbing
e!!ect o! this !iel. Ht stans to reason that whatever is the cause o!
temporality an change woul not itsel! have ha a beginning in time1
unless1 o! course1 something !rom altogether outsie o! time was what
ha put this !iel in place.
:ecember 2)*$
/nalogous to the above is the natural assumption that the
conscious movement o! the limbs o! the boy is on a par with teleKinesis
accompanie by Kinesthetic sensations. 6his immeiacy o! contact that
one seems to possess with the e0ternal worl an with other mins oes
not bespeaK either telepathy or teleKinesis1 but o! an operant
conitioning born o! sel!-programming an innate or homegrown theory
construction that was !ully snappe in place well in avance o! the
evelopment o! one_s critical !aculties o! reason. /n the lesson o!
taught to us !rom the analysis o! the ;l 4reco parao0 in the visual
space must be brought through !urther in the auitory an tactile or
haptic spaces1 as well. 6his lesson state in its greatest generality is
simply this: that all irect implications as represente in the nacvely
realistic worl o! the pro5ective space o! @ewton_s RsensoriumS o! the
min an which course through the bulK o! ;instein_s imaginative
mollusK are in !act superpositions o! constructively an estructively
inter!ering ata streams. ;piphenomenalism is !alse as originally
pertaining to the iniviual1 though may well prove to be a pretty !air
theory o! the relationship o! conception an will o! the collective
consciousness in relation to its apparent action in the larger worl. 6here
is perhaps then no real collective1 but only the intersub5ective. 6his
istinction1 o! course1 is either lost on or matters not to the practical
man. ;ach i!!ering mental content that is1 through the common
conitioning o! a share sociolinguistic culture1 mutually aresse via
consonant labels !or nevertheless i!!erently perceive ob5ects in the
public space1 are 5ointly 5u0tapose an compare1 an so although they
be raically i!!erent in absolute terms1 i.e.1 when per impossible
compare abstractly with each ivorce !rom its grouning conte0t1 are
regare as mutually an commonly perceive an unerstoo. R8utual
unerstaningS is however not necessarily the same thing as two or more
mins possessing the same or liKe unerstaning o! something.
3all me a reactionary1 but H am alarme by what is happening to the
4erman language. H thinK 4ermans shoul be as protective o! their
native tongue 5ust as inee the -rench areT Fhen H re!lect upon how
:econstruction necessarily applies to itsel!1 H realize that conservatism in
some wisely chosen areas shoul be among the hallmarKs o! a true
EprogressiveE. "tructure is necessary. Fhy? ?ecause the 7lancK mass-
energy limit an there!ore the largest possible vacuum energy
!luctuation1 i.e.1 the largest coherent an integrate physical structure
which the vacuum can prouce Rin a single goS as a virtual ob5ect or
simulacrum possesses a ma0imum mass o! only (.$(*`*)
2
Kg = 2.($'
` *)
*N
4eI/c2. 6he operative insight here is best pointe up by the iea
o! the $ printer. Hn its current stage o! evelopment Cen o! 2)*$D1
machines1 which is to say1 ob5ects with articulate moving parts1 !itte
together accoring to an engineering esign an intene to per!orm a
speci!ic set o! !unctions1 cannot be generally manu!acture in a $
printer 5ust by selecting RpropertiesS an then hitting a RprintS button.
8any o! the iniviual moving parts still must be printe separately1
!ile or groun own to more e0acting speci!ications an then
assemble together. 6he emboiment o! conscious entities may inee
be similarly calle !or: the boy may !unction as a mere sca!!oling o!
the soul1 rather than as /ristotle believe1 as its integral an inissoluble
component. 6his Rsca!!olingS may then be necessary !or the !ormation
o! the subtler an more !inely etaile structures an internal
connections o! the soul1 !or e0ample1 to prouce a precise sets o!
bounary conitions !or such quantum mechanical wave!unctions as
escribe brain microtubule substructures1 e.g.1 tubulin polymers so that
the interaction Cas well as the sel!-interactionD o! certain higher/larger
an lower/smaller scale ynamic components o! the !unamental
quantum !iel is !acilitate. 6he assembly all at once in a single piece o!
the human person woul necessarily leave out the presence o! the very
subtlest o! !unctional structures that by their very nature cannot be
preetermine within an overarching esign1 c.!.1 the i!!erence
between1 e.g.1 anrois an robots1 humans an angels1 c.!.1 the growing
threat o! !unament quantum noise to the esignate proper !unctioning
o! high ensity integrate circuit chips Can not only on account o! the
stray capacitance an inuctance o! imper!ections within the chips
structureD ue to the innate electromagnetic inter!erence C5amming1
ampli!ication1 istortion1 !iltering1 eavesropping1 quantum ecoherence1
superposition1 entanglement1 teleportation an tunneling in the case o!
quantum computingD pose by quantum !luctuations o! the vacuum_s
momentum-energy1 which are !unamental an ineraicable1 stemming
as they must !rom !unamental =eisenberg momentum-energy
uncertainty. 3ertain important mental !eatures must be learne in a
temporal process an cannot be built in or Rprogramme inS. /gain1 the
boy is Rthe sca!!oling o! the soulS1 which is absolutely necessary !or
the prouction o! a conscious being1 one possesse o! a moral sense an
a !ree will an which is perhaps the only type o! being with whom 4o
is intereste in having a relationship. 6he boy also provies the Kernel
an crucible o! su!!ering1 which is a necessary ingreient in the
evelopment o! compassion. 6he angels1 which possess no capacity !or
the e0perience o! physical pain1 are themselves incapable o! genuine
compassion1 nor o they possess Knowlege as 8an oes o! 4oo an
;vil. /ngels1 utterly secure in their persons whilst intervening in the
a!!airs o! men at 4o_s behest are in a somewhat analogous position to
the *r'onies" that ancient an highly avance e0traterrestrial race1
alreay in a millennia-long ecline as galactic imperator1 as escribe in
the sel!-congratulatory anthropocentric 4erman space opera1 4erry
+hoan" who have been !ollowing the evolution o! manKin since
almost its very beginnings an who with great mi0ture o! emotions
realize that 8an_s !uture in the wier cosmos shall assurely outshine
their own glorious past an who now looK to the 6erran race to taKe up
the heavy mantel o! a now splintere galactic empire1 but who must !irst
provie much mentoring1 guiance an material ai.
>uly 2)*$
H believe that
the 7erry Ahoan serialize novellas were inspire by the iealistic
notion on the part o! nationalist-leaning 4erman authors that a rewrite o!
the history o! the 6hir Aeich coul be unertaKen wherein all o! the
genocial an istinctly =itlerian elements coul be remove an
4ermany_s 2)
th
3entury shame coul be recast as a cosmic /ustro-
=ungarian Hmperium.

/pril 2)*(
Russell Clark >aKe an 8arKus. . .R6wain thought that the
4erman language was a rea!ul thing. =owever1 !or my part1 H am a
great amirer o! it. ;nglish metaphysics translate into this tongue
appears more pro!oun1 scienti!ic prose clearer1 poetry more eeply
resonant an ;ric 3artman1 singularly ueberlustigTS
epi=
Iarious previously attempte1 as well as all !uture econstructions o!
the sel! CEpostmoernE or otherwiseD1 have/shall only ever constitute
moes o! escription1 never an actual1 still less complete escription
itsel!. 6he science o! psychology is better escribe as a Epsyence o!
scichologyE.
Hnstability goes han in han with !ine tuning o! a system. 6his in turn
requires an e0tremely intricate system o! !eebacK an control e0isting
at the groun o! being root level.

GHn the years a!ter the initial e0periments1 3ouer an -ort use the oil
bath to per!orm several o! the classic e0periments in quantum mechanics
incluing
9ne area where the FalKersG analogy with quantum mechanics !ails1
however1 is entanglement the weirest quantum phenomenon o! all that
escribes how the physical state o! two particles can be intricately linKe
no matter how !ar apart in the universe they are.
-or this to happen1 a wave must occupy a very high number o!
imensions so particles can a!!ect one another over large istances1
!aster than the spee o! light. =owever1 in a walKer system the waves
will always occupy 5ust two imensions1 given by the length an with
o! the oil tanKG1 c.!.1 7hysorg.com1 f3an an oil bath solve the mysteries o!
the quantum worl?G
<oungGs ouble-slit e0periment an !oun that the walKers e0hibite
many similarities to the entities use in the original e0periments.
9nly a transcenental groun o! being can accommoate the rationality
o! e0cluing possibilities !rom the universe o! iscourse. /
transcenental groun o! being satis!ies all o! the requirements !or :eity1
i.e.1 Gbig 4G gohoo1 but in aition1 so much more.

6he many unbelievable events an segments o! history suggest the
possibility o! a continual retro!itting o! past alternate histories to our
present age. 6his is a !urther illustration o! the operation o!
multiimensional time. / case o! the !uture being the history you inGt
Know

9riginally there was but a single shooter !or the attempte assassination
o! >-O but aitional shooters were inserte bacK into the historical time
stream by aitional conspirators !rom the !uture a secon shooter was
also unsuccess!ul an so a thir shooter was inserte ultimately a !ourth
shooter was inserte at which time the assassination attempt was
success!ul.. Hnter!erence !rom !uture time travelers also helps to e0plain
the increible ensity o! conspirators surrouning the assassination o!
>-O - a ensity not otherwise supportable by a merely naturally
occurring linear-time stream.
Ht may well be the case that consciousness only e0ist as or within a
mani!ol an cannot e0ist as general1 universal1 transcenental1 !ree-
!loating1 nonspeci!ic or otherwise unstructure. /n that there!ore this
notion o! consciousness as such is but a pro5ection an Kin o! the
opposite o! a rei!ication.

Fhen we maKe metaphysical assertions about something or other being
beyon or altogether beyon the realm o! being or beyon being itsel!1
o! course we can only be re!erring to beyonness as it were1 with respect
to our inaequate concept o! ?eing.

6o say Gas it wereG is to signal the use o! a metaphor1 but still eeper1 it is
to invoKe a universe o! iscourse other than the one which one inhabits.

?ut the sub5ectivity o! color perception probably can be e0tene to
other things beyon color

6here are many i!!erent ways o! maintaining the system o! conveying
istinctions such as class inclusion an class e0clusion an this is really
the only thing that language is capable o! succeeing in oing - all else
is collective i! not inee conspiratorial pro5ecting an maKe believe.
6here is however no concrete per!ormative nee at all to convey actual
sub5ective content o! thought or sense ata1 speaKing !rom the stanpoint
o! the requirements o! natural selection. ?ut their certainly is a
:arwinian requirement that iniviuals o! a breeing population believe
that they can convey an receive sub5ective in!ormation to each other
an !rom each other. 6his is much aKin to how behavioral genetics
!avore the evelopment o! small splinter portions o! the breeing
population who possesse shamanic powers. 6he presence o! shamans1
witch octors1 seers an so on within breeing population enhance the
integration o! the breeing population an helpe it to more
energetically uni!y an organize its collective energies in the struggle !or
survival in a harsh environment amongst other competing groups also
struggling. ?ecause we share the same physical worl in the out there
an we share the same language more or less it oesnGt matter so much
that our sub5ective perceptions o! the meaning o! wors within our
common language may i!!er because a common wor1 though it splits
in two i!!erent sub5ectively interprete meanings many times1 is
nonetheless unite in having a single re!erence in the e0ternal worl.
Hllustrate this with a iagram in the shape o! a iamon with a vertical
line bisecting it. 6he bottom verte0 is a wor which re!ers - the upper
verte0 is an ob5ect re!erre to by the wor1 the le!t an right vertices o!
the iamon are my perception an your perception1 respectively1 which
may i!!er as to the sub5ective content o! the wor hel in common
between us. >ust thinK o! whatGs calle the ;l 4reco parao0. ;l 4reco
was suppose to have epicte animals an humans with gnarle an
twiste !eatures because that was the way he actually visually perceive
them in 5ust that manner. ?ut upon a momentGs re!lection1 clearly ;l
4reco must raw the !igures more or less representationally - i! he was
attempting to raw them as he in !act sees them1 since the canvas which
shows the epictions he has rawn woul be similarly istorte.
>anuary 2)*(
6he ranom mutation + natural selection !ormula applies equally
well to the competition o! evangelical atheism an scienti!ic creationists1
who will always be able to evelop an e!!ective resistance to atheist
ebunKing arguments. ?ut there is a limit to what ranom mutations can
accomplish1 which is vastly outstrippe by the capabilities o! intelligent
esign. H! this statement is inee !alse1 it is because Cit may be turn out
to be !alse on one level because true on a eeper levelD. Fe must maKe a
istinction between a RAussellian parao0S o! re!erence1 e.g.1 the set o!
all sets that are not members o! themselves vs. an in!inite regress o!
metalevels in which the role o! cause an e!!ect switch places in an
oscillatory pattern a!ter the !ashion o! a superposition1 vs. re!erent. C"ee
:avi ?ohm_s iscussion in his te0tbooK o! quantum mechanics1
3uantum Theory =>?@>A concerning the mental aspects o! quantum
mechanicsD. :iscuss how now that the Rgreat evangelical atheistsS are
ying out uring the same perio that eeper layers o! comple0ity
regulatory genetic control mechanisms an epigenetics are being
uncovere means that a new generation o! biological scientists o! similar
intellectual caliber shall not liKely replace them.

>anuary 2)*(
?ut re!er to those commanments an please note that
compliance with hal! o! them maKes slavery impossible. ?ut there is
unerstanably no amonition in the ?ible to !ollow ' out o! *)
commanments. /n **th commanment against slavery woul have
been equally reunant. ?eing either an actress who tooK up activism or
an activist who tooK up acting1 am H right in supposing that 8s. "orvino
possesses something less than a stellar intellect? <ou Know1 Jia1 8s.
"orvinoGs is an outstaning e0ample o! some o! the naiver criticisms o!
3hristianity o! which white liberals Cwho are not intellectualsD are
!requently guilty. 6here are inee intelligent criticisms that can an
have been levele against the 3hristian !aith. 6his is not one o! them1
c.!.1 www.richarawKins.net
;mpirical mathematics is !oune upon the notion that mathematical
comple0ity is capable o! e0ceeing the grasp o! the ivine min. 6his is
similar to how the comple0ity o! the omain o! eigenvalues can outstrip
the comple0ity o! the omain o! eigen!unctions.

6aylor power series e0pansion o! analytic !unctions involves
e0ponentiation but the rules o! e0ponentiation breaKown when it comes
to trans!inite arithmetic.

3ompose a list o! parao0es that are relate to AussellGs parao0.

,nliKe being o!! by a mere !actor o! two1 as is the case !or the lionGs
share o! cracKpotty physics theories1 a theoretic moel which preicts
e!!ects which propagate1 act1 increase or ecrease in the reverse irection
relative to what is actually observe1 cannot be rescue with a mere
patch1 but must be thrown upon the scrap heap o! !aile theories. Oin
o! liKe i! :r. 8a0wellGs equations o! electromagnetism ha preicte a
.orenz !orce with the correct sign.

9nce in an abiing system o! !eebacK is in place1 one which perturbs
the natural selective !orces1 heretore acting alone on human behavioral
genetics - at this very point1 a honing in process starts up1 one which
shall in practical terms intelligently shape human behavioral genetics in
accor with the groun relations o! this system to which there has
suenly been linKe a !eebacK coupling.

6here is a bit o! a King or problems in 6erence 8cKenna the notion o!
brain activity as an ongoing ie marKer perturbation o! the quantum
!iel. 6his is relate to another problem which H !irst brought up in
connection with mental illness liKely to occur uring eep space voyages
in zero gravity because o! the two!ol coherent in ecohtnesserence
processes that operate alongsie each other within the quantum brain.
>anuary 2)*(
Cellular organization: Aecent research implies that gravity
helps cells create patterns. Hn microgravity1 the microtubules in
eveloping cells might not organize the same way they woul on ;arth1
even a!ter the astronauts return. Ht is unKnown how this will a!!ect the
8ars crew over the long term1 c.!.1
http://www.racetomars.ca/mars/article#e!!ects.5sp R"cientists have
uncovere a compelling reason why the ream o! colonizing space may
be a non-starter. Ht seems that the sKeletons within living cells may not
!orm properly in zero gravity. 6his means that it may be impossible to
live in space over the long-term without creating a !orm o! arti!icial
gravity. 8ost cells have sKeletons mae up o! microtubules mae !rom
!ibres o! the protein tubulin. @ew "cientist magazine reports that :r
>ames 6abony an his colleagues !rom the -rench /tomic ;nergy
3ommission mi0e up col solutions o! mammalian tubulin with an
energy-releasing compoun. Fhen the mi0ture was warme to boy
temperature !or si0 minutes1 microtubules began to !orm in istinct
bans at right angles to gravity. @e0t1 the team sent up tubulin on a
;uropean "pace /gency C;saD rocKet to e0pose it to the e!!ect o!
weightlessness. 6hey !oun that when microtubules !orme1 they
pointe in all irections. :r 6abony sai: E6his shows gravity triggers
the pattern.E 7revious worK by :r 8arian .ewis o! the ,niversity o!
/labama at =untsville prouce similar results. :r .ewisGs team teste
the impact o! weightlessness on human white bloo cells that were
!lown on boar the space shuttle. /!ter a ay in orbit1 the microtubules
grew in ranom irections. 6he !inings might e0plain some o! the
health problems people living in space have1 such as epresse immune
systemsS1 c.!1 http://news.bbc.co.uK/2/hi/health/N$)*2$.stm

6he uni!orm state-space with its combinations an permutations o!
istinct states must always be unerstoo to be an abstract pro5ection.

H have sai this be!ore but H believe it bears saying again consciousness
as such may inee be liKe the state-space... nothing more than an
abstract pro5ection an rei!ication o! what can only truly happen at an
iniviual level.

7=7 on server sie an >ava script on client sie.

=aving the epiphany that you personally on_t really Know anything at
all means that 8ans Knowlege can be at best but a collective illusion. . .
an all this within the conte0t o! a sheer abunance o! grace. =ow can
one not then have !aith upon recognizing the 7rovience involve in
such a coherent mani!estation o! the raical unKnown1 i.e.1 the Forl as
sub5ectively perceive. 9ne is calle !orth !rom the Ioi an enters the
worl !rom one unKnown only to pass !rom it into another unKnown.
Fhat is lost on some is that the worl itsel! is yet a thir unKnown1
renering the !irst an the latter qualitatively istinct. /n so
metaphysical worK can only be per!orme by e0perience i! it is possible
to transcen all ual opposite categories.
Kwo=
"# do not fear death. #
had $een dead for $illions and $illions of %ears $efore #
was $orn, and had not su&ered the slightest
inconvenience from it.! ' (ark )wain

6he number o! istinctly possible universes in the multiverse outstrips
the number o! possibly istinct human mins in this universe - that an
important istinction or quali!ication to have mae1 but oes not reuce
the original argument1 that is1 its original !orce1 but merely acts as a
Kin o! patch to the original argument.

/@6=9@< 4966.H;?...:A;/8 9- A;/"9@

epi=
H onGt speaK !rom the top o! the mountain but !rom many valleys.

/nne ?ehrnes says ?uhism is e0istential an not metaphysical an
that the same principle applies to all religions. HtGs all istraction1 she
says1 a way to not be present to your li!e.

H was awoKen by the ream o! a sleeping avatar representing a !rienship
lost. "he hurle curses !oul an threatening towars me1 the !ool who
isturbe her slumber.

7hilip >ose -armer. 6o your scattere boies go.

;ntropy vis a vis appearance o! orer vs. actual orer.

Puote -eueraben chapters.

"o how oes >esus is reemptive act per!orm the necessary metaphysical
worK to actually rea email Kin i! man is not greater than he is in >esus
is not with her then he is thought to be namely man is an unsuccess!ul
attempt to maKe a >esus.
4race as the mechanism which counteracts the root o! all evil which is
prie

Fithout the presence o! aily an abiing 5oy we Know that the person
oes not inee possess the !aith necessary to accept the gi!t o! 4oGs
grace

6he many parao0es o! the early 2)th 3entury in mathematics1 physics1
psychology1 art an literature signale the breaKown o! the *2th
3enturyGs conception o! reality. 7arao0 signals impening awareness o!
a larger system containing the system !rom which one is currently
operating. Aationality is the mysterious nature o! how the elements o!
one system trans!orm as they are caught up into higher systems. @ature
is hierarchically structure. Fe have no concept o! consciousness
because it is inee consciousness that unerlies rationality.
:ecember 2)*$
@eural impulses can only a together within a pree0isting
system which provies the conte0t within which they can be interprete
meaning!ully.

?oth the spatial bining an temporal integration o! brain !unction rely
upon quantum entanglement or quantum nonlocality within brain
microtubule tubulin imer proteins.

=ow can what happens within an isolate or close system be about
anything which is to say how can it maKe re!erence to something outsie
o! itsel!? :eterministic causality is conte0t !ree causality or causality
within an isolate or close system.

6ime telepathy an the simulation argument.

9ne woul be e0pecte to possess a phenomenal sense o! time an
internal clocK.
*22)*$


Hronic that the only real evience !or evolution is the microevolutionary
aaptability which maKes species robust against !luctuating
environmental conitions.

=e was in part she was in part he was not impart they were playing the
part she got the part there shoul be a new verb tense !or those who are
repetitively playing more or less the same character in a plot this is the
concept o! playing the same part but i!!erently each time each i!!erent
alternate universe.

:oes being reunite with everyboy !amiliar !rom oneGs earthly li!e
constitute in any way a isproo! o! solipsism?

"ca!!oling o! the stepwise builing up o! mass larger than the 7lancK
mass is analogous to the nee !or emboiment !or the evelopment o!
the soul.

"ocial construction o! the ego.

6he in!ant provies the theory that gives conte0t to the sociolinguistic
conte0t o! Gbig people maKing !unny sounsG.

6emporal integration versus the integration o! proto selves.

7araigm-busting philosophical theses are borne o! either
isingenuousness or woner.

/n in the teaching/retelling by ami0tures o! both.

H am very much !or celebrating the great successes o! 2)
th
3entury
physics but we shoul be guare against the arrogance typical o! some
har scientists by contemplating the liKely erision in which ()th
century scientists will hol $)th century scientists. H! the currently strong
remaining stran o! the generalize R!uture-hypeS o! the *2&)_s which
survives within the current ay1 i.e.1 the arti!icial intelligence community
an its promoters1 were estine not to !izzle out within its current
scienti!ic/engineering paraigm or even better were not to be altogether
overthrown in the shi!t to the paraigm succeeing it1 then one has to
suspect how pervasive an success!ul inee has been :escartes
Receiving emonS in preparing be!orehan all the myria layers o!
neste camou!lage1 which the career o! post-enlightenment
technological evelopment has systematically peele away1 one by one1
perhaps all too easily in retrospect1 that one really must woner in light
o! the piquant observation above whether
Iery small chilren1 who are not yet three years o! age1 will happily play
sie by sie without really interact within one another. / certain level o!
avancement in the sociolinguistic programming o! the chilren_s neural
networKs1 which is etermine both internally an e0ternally1 say by
behavioral genetics an social interaction1 respectively must have !irst
been achieve to enable interpersonal cooperation an communication
an so a bootstrap !unction must somewhere be in evience1 either in the
brain or1 more liKely in the brain-environment system.

H! there is no concept o! consciousness there can be no theory o!
consciousness consequently no unerstaning o! what consciousness
truly is or how it operates

"olipsism an the social nature o! reality. 6he engaging nature o! people
that is o! other mins taKes our min o!! o! such sel!-estructive
metaphysical questions. /n a!terli!e compose o! an enless empty
meaow. =a someboy not been born coul they 5ust wait until the
universe goes bang again an get another chance? H ha a ream with
you which e0plaine everything to me. 6he pro!unity o! auto te0t
correction is similar to that o! mishear lyrics.

Fhat are we to maKe o! the !act that the anthropic cosmological
principle together with the multiverse in which the number o! universes
vastly outstrips the number o! bona !ie persons1 which is to say original
persons1 who are not merely alternate versions o! sai persons? /n
where all the boies an universes are superimpose although
consciousness o not superpose in a quantum !ashion. 6his is because o!
the unerlying ynamics o! consciousness involvement with the
mechanisms o! ecoherence an wave wave!unction collapse. "o by the
anthropic principle1 onesel! must be bona !ie1 but all o! the other selves
in oneGs populate worl are merely alternate versions o! true or bona
!ie selves1 each o! which are locate in some unimaginably !ar istant
alternate universe. 6his woul imply that only onesel! possess !ree will
an consciousnessV everyone else in ones populate environment is
merely an intelligently acting automata.
>anuary 2)*(
6he /nthropic 3osmological 7rinciple constitutes an epic !ail as
e0planation o! the intricate an harmonious comple0ity o! the cosmos
being as it is merely the anemic stepbrother to a secret lone right!ul heir1
that o! the "olipsistic 3osmological 7rinciple.

?ecause acceleration only rotates the !our momentum vector but oes
not change its absolute magnitue there !or an e0ternal !orce is not
actually possible

9ver the ata passe away with the estruction o! the brain originally
containing that ata the conte0tualizing a shin an interpretation o! this
ata remains H am in the !orm o! a networK o! quantum entanglements in
the electromagnetic !iel. 3onsciousness an they re!erring to groun.

6he appearances are overetermine an possess an entropy the sel! or
its consciousness is uneretermine1 acting more or less as a heat bath
probe though with !iltering capabilities1 which are quite e0traorinary in
that they e0tract quantum encoe entanglement base in!ormation !rom
the pristine vacuum electromagnetic !iel. Hn the reprocessing1 the
initial an bounary conitions !or this vacuum are also e0tracte. 6his
by passes the traitional !ine-tuning problem. 6he anthropic
cosmological principle is but an in!lection o! a much more stringent
principle1 that o! the solipsistic cosmological principle.
:ecember 2)*$
9ne_s consciousness is not etermine by some immense1
e0quisite set o! causal conitions with respect to a particular !i0e an
ranom !ine-tuning o! the !unamental physical constants o! the
,niverse1 but rather by the !ine-tuning itsel!1 which there!ore1 vis a
vis the /nthropic 3osmological 7rinciple cannot be anything liKe
ranom. 6he Rinternal appearancesS place a !ar greater constraint upon
this !ine-tuning o! the !unamental physical constants in support o! the
character o! one_s own conscious e0perience than o the Re0ternal
appearancesS1 which concern themselves only with the apparent
con!iguration o! people an animals1 tables an chairs1 etc. within oneGs
sub5ectively perceive spacetime. 3onsequently1 the !unament physical
constants must have been !ine-tune to something liKe *( ecimal places
in one_s own case1 though these constants nee only to have been !ine-
tune to % or N ecimal places in orer !or other peoples_ behavior to be
as mani!estly coherent as it traitionally appears to be. 6his is a Kin o!
inverse Etime scale reuctionismE1 which H will term E!requency scale
reuctionismE1 i.e.1 the behavior o! systems requiring cosmological !ine-
tuning to @ ecimal places is etermine by unerlying systems
requiring cosmological !ine-tuning to @ + * ecimal places. "o by the
very same logic pro!!ere in support o! the /nthropic 3osmological
7rinciple1 one coul put !orwar an equally cogent argument in !avor o!
a so-calle "olipsistic 3osmological 7rinciple.
-ebruary 2)*(
?uosso an 7olchinsKi C2))$D calculate that the string theory
preicts *)
'))
istinct universes base upon each universe possessing
slightly i!!erent !unamental physical constants. 6his woul seem to
imply that there is Rroom at the bottomS to support hyper!ine tuning well
beyon the intersub5ectively measurable realm o! a mere ( to*( ecimal
places. "o the seemingly hyper-!ine-tuning o! the ?ohr magneton to *(
ecimal places1 !or e0ample is merely superae to the much more
precise !ine tuning that is require !or the !unctioning o! an iniviual
sub5ectivity/consciousness. 6his is parao0ical !ine tuning that starts out
!iner an progresses to coarser. ;goic consciousness is reveale !or what
it is: an intersub5ectively meiate structure o! initial an bounary
conitions place upon qualia-consciousness or consciousness qua
substance/ynamic integral !orm. ;go is a structure o! an iniviual
consciousness that is e!!ectively the collaborative e!!ort o! myria ego-
transcening qualeUconsciousnesses. 6he implication here is that1 even
i! one is inee a brain in a vat1 the !eeing o! impulses into one_s
isolate brain that manages to succee in proucing the illusion o!
coherent worl Can worl viewD must be manage through a
collaboration within a collective o! big-heae alien scientists an
cannot be the prouct o! a single big-heae alien scientist. .anguage is
inherently social in nature an the ego is inevitably a sociolinguistic
structureT 8etaphysical solipsism is only a metaphorical interpretation
o! a hybri methoological-epistemological solipsism. 6here are no
solipsist big-heae alien scientists. 6his is in part because science is
necessarily a social eneavor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b/6yo<zl9b< C@ova ocumentary:
R,niverse or 8ultiverse?SD
=ow naive is the level o! iscussion1 philosophically speaKing1 since the
larger metaphysical implications are ignore so that this paraigm-
busting theory is treate solely within the obsolete paraigm.
/ugust 2)*(
>ust as we nee transcenental min to groun our concept o!
consciousness an so a theory o! Rother minsS1 we nee to allow the
possibility o! metaphysics as an enabler o! intersub5ective ob5ectivity as
a hege against solipsism.
Ht seems all causal relationships within !our imensional space time can
be encoe as quantum entanglement on a two-imensional sur!ace. H
thinK this is pretty soli proo! o! the holographic universe theory.

9ne has to be thrown into uncertainty in orer to have the opportunity to
reuce that uncertainty which is to say acquire in!ormation an learn.

Fittgenstein metho appears to be one not o! proviing insight1 but o!
proviing the elements which the creative imagination nees in orer to
have its own insights.

Hs the aboriginal hologram moel consistent with the notion o! the
rationality o! language an with the reprocessing o! GsharG e0perience
into new !orms entertaine within the original hologram reconstitute?

;nergy egeneracy an the ob5ection o! =amero!! to Keep qubit states
!rom entering a ?ose conensation.

Hnstea o! wiping us out will the robots en!orce humanKinGs own
principles o! ethics in !airness or will they only be able to be intelligent
by becoming sel!-conscious that is by connecting to the cosmic Hnternet
an in so oing be coming evil 5ust as manKin is evil

H liKe the way =amero!! escribes the mechanism o! the action o!
hallucinogens in terms o! how the hallucinogenic compoun onates
electron resients to the receptors. 9! course we alreay Know that this
resience has to o with the e0change o! ata an in!ormation between
tubulin one imers an the quantum vacuum electromagnetic !iel.
6hese compouns simply change the inter!ace where !iltering o!
in!ormation occurs in the vacuum electromagnetic !ielGs sub spectrumGs
sel!-interaction.

6here is an important istinction to be mae between the aboriginal
hologram an the ynamic in!ormational groun proviing the conte0t
!or the collective reprocessing o! in!ormation which is being collecte
by each iniviual shar o! the original hologram. "ome istinctions are
being suggeste here which to me are reminiscent o! the emanationism
o! 7lotinean philosophy or o! @eoplatonism.

=amero!! says we o not want strong -roehlich coherence in the
microtubule tubulin imer quantum switches CGqubitsGD because this
woul result in ?ose conensation o! all o! the qubits an you canGt
really o any meaning!ul computation with all o! the qubits in the e0act
same state such as woul be require by strong -roehlich coherence o!
the qubits. 6he evil is in the etails. "imilarly we canGt have any
meaning!ul e0periential computation i! thereGs only one transcenent
in!inite consciousness the hologram nees to be shattere an each shar
have its own state so that in cooperation there can be meaning!ul
computation1 collectively.

Oetamine

3onsier the entropy o! the unuse possibilities !or various states o! a
system with respect to the closeness or openness o! the systemGs state
space1 thermoynamically. Puantum !iel theory in curve space-time
also in curve phase spaces an in curve state spaces. 4ravitational
ecoherence o! the state vector or wave !unction.

Fe see the logic o! the anthropic principle at worK whenever we listen to
an accomplishe iniviual in some !iel or iscipline escribing how
he arrive an his original inspiration to pursue his success!ul long-
staning career. 6he interviewee points to various 5unctures in his early
schooling or pro!essional career which seeme very much riven by
chance events. =owever the unerlying logic in!orming the choices o!
this once young researcher or scientist e0hibits a cohesiveness strongly
suggestive o! teleological in!luence an almost as though he is being
guie by his !uture sel!1 somewhat aKin to how a quantum computation
is per!orme by mutual inter!erence o! myria istinct branches o! a
superposition. /n it is almost as though there is a sti!! competition
between !uture alternate versions o! this young person vying with each
other to in!luence his choices in such a manner that they come into being
as the ault versions o! this young person instea o! their competitors.
>anuary 2)*(
3an the logic o! the anthropic principle be applie to the
question o! what constitutes the present moment or what is calle now?

"patial in temporal scale in the solar system realism ilemma

9! course the logical answer with respect the status o! the other onto-
logically is to say that each iniviual simply possesses their own unique
subset room o! resonantly tune vacuum !luctuations !iel.

/ny amateur rhetorician who Knows both the canon o! ancient "cripture
an who has merely a popular science writerGs grouning in the basic
sciences can with a little imagination an e!!ort maKe any recent
scienti!ic iscovery bacKwars compatible with a verse or verses
plucKe out o! conte0t !rom those canonical scriptures. :oing so proves
nothing other than perhaps the cleverness o! the rhetorician. Aemember
that the "ophists o! ancient 4reece use to prie themselves on being
able to maKe the worst sie o! an argument appear the better one an
there are still many aroun toay Keeping this cynical traition alive.
Fhat is more than a little parao0ical toay is that some o! these !olKs
are unaware o! their own cynical motivations.

:aniel van 4ent an :r. Aobert e ?ranes may en up being the
collective 8arconiGs o! the 2*st 3entury. 6hat is i! the 3hinese onGt en
up stealing all o! their ieas. 6he team has alreay success!ully applie
!or several ;uropean patents o! their novel communications technology.
6he signals which live in a mysterious omain Known as G=ilbert spaceG
cannot be hacKe or eavesroppe on or attenuate1 5amme or
otherwise inter!ere with by other communications signals. 6he
technology1 which has alreay been success!ully emonstrate in
principle1 is ieal !or communication between unergroun installations
an between submarines which are submerge !or long perios o! time.
6he technology seems potentially applicable to the real time telemetry o!
space probes1 but thatGs where the inventors woul liKely get into trouble
with the ," 7atent 9!!ice1 which hols to the long staning policy o! not
accepting patent applications !or esigns that are eeme to invoKe
principles that potentially !ly in the !ace o! establishe physical law.
Fhat these patent e0aminers nee is a he!ty ose o! =ume an
-euerabenT http://www.google.co.uK/patents/,"N$2*%2*
H! you are consiering shutting own your -? page or want to preserve it
against the ay that -? ecies to shut own your page1 then this
application is !or you. http://www.httracK.com/

Fith penultimate subtlety are the initial an bounary conitions o! the
universe !or the !ine tuning o! the consciousness o! the other manage in
resonance with this universe whose !unamental physical constants have
ultimately been resonantly tune to uniquely correspon with my
consciousness.

6he only way to emocratically apply the anthropic cosmological
principle to sel! an others is too !ollow a poly-solipsistic or
emanationist theology. Hn other wors the only way to avoi the
riiculous conclusion o! the solipsist philosopher who misapplies the
logic o! the anthropic cosmological principle is !or one to aopt
polysolipsism. . . we collaborate with each other to prouce this theater
within which we can connect1 learn1 grow an love.
6he worl perhaps is orchestrate by all secretly collaborating an liKe
the occasional glimpsing o! a !amiliar voice in a crowe room o!
conversations1 one occasionally hears one_s own voice coming bacK at
one.

6he logic o! the anthropic cosmological principle is a veritable
metaphysical sticK o! ynamite its a sticK o! ynamite that begs to be
use in the appropriate way to solve some long staning an annoying
metaphysical problem the ate bacK to the ancient 4reeKs on which we
have apparently mae a little progress in the last twenty !ive hunre
years

>ust as orinary people o philosophers taKe !or grante the implicit
eep in!rastructure which graces language min an all o! the !aculties
o! the human person.
7hilosopher1 >ames /aron_s theory in his booK1 *ssholes =* TheoryA1 is
that Ea person counts as an asshole when1 an only when1 he
systematically allows himsel! to en5oy special avantages in
interpersonal relations out o! an entrenche sense o! entitlement that
immunizes him against the complaints o! other people...6he asshole acts
out o! a !irm sense that he is special1 that the normal rules o! conuct o
not apply to himE. 6his is by !ar the best e!inition o! the colloquially
Known RassholeS ever mae Known to me.

http://m.niKe.com/us/en#us/p/!uelban-se/pi-22((N'/pgi-22((N(?
cp=usns#Kw#/.T*%%NT$T$*'('*%&'N2TeTTgTniKe%2)!uel%2)ban

I "auce 2

Hea channel...youtube. com/iea channel

3ombine the belie! that there is nothing greater than onesel! with the
anthropic principle an you have something approaching solipsism.
Fhy woulnGt you be the most superior an per!ect being unless such a
being ha arrange it so that you were !urther own the spectrum below
per!ect gohoo.

Hnstability goes han in han with !ine tuning o! a system. 6his in turn
requires an e0tremely intricate system o! !eebacK an control e0isting
at the groun o! being root level.

GHn the years a!ter the initial e0periments1 3ouer an -ort use the oil
bath to per!orm several o! the classic e0periments in quantum mechanics
incluing <oungGs ouble-slit e0periment an !oun that the walKers
e0hibite many similarities to the entities use in the original
e0periments.
9ne area where the walKersG analogy with quantum mechanics !ails1
however1 is entanglement the weirest quantum phenomenon o! all that
escribes how the physical state o! two particles can be intricately linKe
no matter how !ar apart in the universe they are.
-or this to happen1 a wave must occupy a very high number o!
imensions so particles can a!!ect one another over large istances1
!aster than the spee o! light. =owever1 in a walKer system the waves
will always occupy 5ust two imensions1 given by the length an with
o! the oil tanKG1 c.!.1 7hysorg.com1 f3an an oil bath solve the mysteries o!
the quantum worl?G

GHn the years a!ter the initial e0periments1 3ouer an -ort use the oil
bath to per!orm several o! the classic e0periments in quantum mechanics
incluing <oungGs ouble-slit e0periment an !oun that the walKers
e0hibite many similarities to the entities use in the original
e0periments.
9ne area where the walKersG analogy with quantum mechanics !ails1
however1 is entanglement the weirest quantum phenomenon o! all that
escribes how the physical state o! two particles can be intricately linKe
no matter how !ar apart in the universe they are.
-or this to happen1 a wave must occupy a very high number o!
imensions so particles can a!!ect one another over large istances1
!aster than the spee o! light. =owever1 in a walKer system the waves
will always occupy 5ust two imensions1 given by the length an with
o! the oil tanKG1 c.!.1 7hysorg.com1 f3an an oil bath solve the mysteries o!
the quantum worl?G
9nly a transcenental groun o! being can accommoate the rationality
o! e0cluing possibilities !rom the universe o! iscourse. /
transcenental groun o! being satis!ies all o! the requirements !or :eity1
i.e.1 Gbig 4G gohoo1 but in aition1 so much more.
@ovember 2)*$
/nything within the state space o! possible states is possible.
?ut pursing the logic o! your principle still !urther1 we must say that
multiple Can perhaps an unlimite number o!D state spaces are possible.
;0clusion o! possibilities unerlies the integral unity1 coherence an
cohesiveness o! worlhoo as such. 6he structure o! possibility is
probably !ractal1 which automatically carries the implication o! e0clue
possibilities. -or e0ample1 it is not possible !or me to e0perience your
conscious mental states or sense ata. /nother e0ample1 the real line
possesses a topology1 though one that is nonlinear.
http://www.mlahart.com/s.nl?sc=$ =<7;A.H@O
Ehttp://www.mlahart.com/s.nl?
sc=$ & whence= & custcolclass#year=22 & custcol(#initials=A"3 & custcol
(=$&N)2 & custcol#engitem= & custcol*22=@9;+7"=H7 & custcol#shippi
ngsupplementE & =<7;A.H@O Ehttp://www.mlahart.com/s.nl?
sc=$ & whence= & custcolclass#year=22 & custcol(#initials=A"3 & custcol
(=$&N)2 & custcol#engitem= & custcol*22=@9;+7"=H7 & custcol#shippi
ngsupplementE whence= =<7;A.H@O Ehttp://www.mlahart.com/s.nl?
sc=$ & whence= & custcolclass#year=22 & custcol(#initials=A"3 & custcol
(=$&N)2 & custcol#engitem= & custcol*22=@9;+7"=H7 & custcol#shippi
ngsupplementE & =<7;A.H@O Ehttp://www.mlahart.com/s.nl?
sc=$ & whence= & custcolclass#year=22 & custcol(#initials=A"3 & custcol
(=$&N)2 & custcol#engitem= & custcol*22=@9;+7"=H7 & custcol#shippi
ngsupplementE custcolclass#year=22 =<7;A.H@O
Ehttp://www.mlahart.com/s.nl?
sc=$ & whence= & custcolclass#year=22 & custcol(#initials=A"3 & custcol
(=$&N)2 & custcol#engitem= & custcol*22=@9;+7"=H7 & custcol#shippi
ngsupplementE & =<7;A.H@O Ehttp://www.mlahart.com/s.nl?
sc=$ & whence= & custcolclass#year=22 & custcol(#initials=A"3 & custcol
(=$&N)2 & custcol#engitem= & custcol*22=@9;+7"=H7 & custcol#shippi
ngsupplementE custcol(#initials=A"3 =<7;A.H@O
Ehttp://www.mlahart.com/s.nl?
sc=$ & whence= & custcolclass#year=22 & custcol(#initials=A"3 & custcol
(=$&N)2 & custcol#engitem= & custcol*22=@9;+7"=H7 & custcol#shippi
ngsupplementE & =<7;A.H@O Ehttp://www.mlahart.com/s.nl?
sc=$ & whence= & custcolclass#year=22 & custcol(#initials=A"3 & custcol
(=$&N)2 & custcol#engitem= & custcol*22=@9;+7"=H7 & custcol#shippi
ngsupplementE custcol(=$&N)2 =<7;A.H@O
Ehttp://www.mlahart.com/s.nl?
sc=$ & whence= & custcolclass#year=22 & custcol(#initials=A"3 & custcol
(=$&N)2 & custcol#engitem= & custcol*22=@9;+7"=H7 & custcol#shippi
ngsupplementE & =<7;A.H@O Ehttp://www.mlahart.com/s.nl?
sc=$ & whence= & custcolclass#year=22 & custcol(#initials=A"3 & custcol
(=$&N)2 & custcol#engitem= & custcol*22=@9;+7"=H7 & custcol#shippi
ngsupplementE custcol#engitem= =<7;A.H@O
Ehttp://www.mlahart.com/s.nl?
sc=$ & whence= & custcolclass#year=22 & custcol(#initials=A"3 & custcol
(=$&N)2 & custcol#engitem= & custcol*22=@9;+7"=H7 & custcol#shippi
ngsupplementE & =<7;A.H@O Ehttp://www.mlahart.com/s.nl?
sc=$ & whence= & custcolclass#year=22 & custcol(#initials=A"3 & custcol
(=$&N)2 & custcol#engitem= & custcol*22=@9;+7"=H7 & custcol#shippi
ngsupplementE custcol*22=@9;+7"=H7 =<7;A.H@O
Ehttp://www.mlahart.com/s.nl?
sc=$ & whence= & custcolclass#year=22 & custcol(#initials=A"3 & custcol
(=$&N)2 & custcol#engitem= & custcol*22=@9;+7"=H7 & custcol#shippi
ngsupplementE & =<7;A.H@O Ehttp://www.mlahart.com/s.nl?
sc=$ & whence= & custcolclass#year=22 & custcol(#initials=A"3 & custcol
(=$&N)2 & custcol#engitem= & custcol*22=@9;+7"=H7 & custcol#shippi
ngsupplementE custcol#shippingsupplement=
@ovember 2)*$
Ht seems all causal relationships within !our imensional space
time can be encoe as quantum entanglement on a two-imensional
sur!ace. H thinK this is pretty soli proo! o! the holographic universe
theory.

9ne has to be thrown into uncertainty in orer to have the opportunity to
reuce that uncertainty which is to say acquire in!ormation an learn.

Fittgenstein metho appears to be one not o! proviing insight1 but o!
proviing the elements which the creative imagination nees in orer to
have its own insights.

Hs the aboriginal hologram moel consistent with the notion o! the
rationality o! language an with the reprocessing o! GsharG e0perience
into new !orms entertaine within the original hologram reconstitute?

;nergy egeneracy an the ob5ection o! =amero!! to Keep qubit states
!rom entering a ?ose conensation.

Hnstea o! wiping us out will the robots en!orce humanKinGs own
principles o! ethics in !airness or will they only be able to be intelligent
by becoming sel!-conscious that is by connecting to the cosmic Hnternet
an in so oing be coming evil 5ust as manKin is evil

H liKe the way =amero!! escribes the mechanism o! the action o!
hallucinogens in terms o! how the hallucinogenic compoun onates
electron resients to the receptors. 9! course we alreay Know that this
resience has to o with the e0change o! ata an in!ormation between
tubulin one imers an the quantum vacuum electromagnetic !iel.
6hese compouns simply change the inter!ace where !iltering o!
in!ormation occurs in the vacuum electromagnetic !ielGs sub spectrumGs
sel!-interaction.

6here is an important istinction to be mae between the aboriginal
hologram an the ynamic in!ormational groun proviing the conte0t
!or the collective reprocessing o! in!ormation which is being collecte
by each iniviual shar o! the original hologram. "ome istinctions are
being suggeste here which to me are reminiscent o! the emanationism
o! 7lotinean philosophy or o! @eoplatonism.

=amero!! says we o not want strong -roehlich coherence in the
microtubule tubulin imer quantum switches CGqubitsGD because this
woul result in ?ose conensation o! all o! the qubits an you canGt
really o any meaning!ul computation with all o! the qubits in the e0act
same state such as woul be require by strong -roehlich coherence o!
the qubits. 6he evil is in the etails. "imilarly we canGt have any
meaning!ul e0periential computation i! thereGs only one transcenent
in!inite consciousness the hologram nees to be shattere an each shar
have its own state so that in cooperation there can be meaning!ul
computation1 collectively.

3onsier the entropy o! the unuse possibilities !or various states o! a
system with respect to the closeness or openness o! the systemGs state
space1 thermoynamically. Puantum !iel theory in curve space-time
also in curve phase spaces an in curve state spaces. 4ravitational
ecoherence o! the state vector or wave !unction.

Fe see the pic youGll your logic o! the anthropic principal at worK
whenever we listene to an accomplishe iniviual in some !iel or
isappointe escribing how he arrive an his original inspiration to
pursue his success!ul long-staning career. 6he interviewee points to
various 5unctures in his early schooling or early pro!essional career
which seeme very much riven by chance events. =owever the
unerlying logic in!orming the choices o! this once young researcher or
scientist e0hibits a cohesiveness strongly suggestive o! teleological
in!luence. /n it is almost as though there is a sti!! competition between
!uture alternate versions o! this young person vying with each other to
in!luence his choices in such a manner that they come into being as the
ault versions o! this young person instea o! their competitors.
@ovember 2)*$
6he bizarre counter-intuitive behavior o! the wave !unction is
smoKing gun evience that we resie within a so-calle ancestor
simulation an that we are collectively responsible !or the operation o!
sai simulation.
H coulnGt agree with you more1 "amT Fhat you are suggesting is a
Eregime-cultureE change1 which though raical is 5ust . H! the robots o
not wipe us out a !ew generations !rom now1 but instea apply their
implacable logic to the !orce implementation o! humansG own common
sense notions o! !airness an ethical behavior1 then maybe your power!ul
vision o! how things ought to be can be mae a reality.

H 5ust looKe in my email ra!ts !oler an was psychically crushe
uner the weight o! so many abortive thoughts.

8anage compassion is the inevitable solution stumble upon by the
meta guilty conscience which !eels Keenly the mil but nagging guilt o!
not !eeling guilty.

https://en.wiKipeia.org/wiKi/Puorum#sensing

Aene 4irar 8imetic 6heory

Fell orering o! the real line. 8c/!ee.

9ur =oly -ather the 7ope by :on 3a!!rey Hgnatius 7ress

H agree with that article1 Jia. =owever1 the belie! in a supreme
intelligence or at the very least in a Gcosmic programmerG o! the universe
somewhat aKin to 4eorge .ucasG G6he -orceG may continue among the
relatively uneucate classes !or many generations. "trangely1 there will
be a rise in the belie! in both epistemological solipsism as well as a poly-
metaphysical solipsism1 i. e.1 the belie! that the universe is a
collaboration an sociolinguistic construct o! myria iniviual
consciousnesses. 6he eepening realization that there is no evience !or
;6Gs will begin to rein!orce the iea that we are members o! an at least
billion year ol civilization living within an Gancestor simulationG.
7hilosophers an cosmologists as well as some physicists as well as a
gooly number o! philosophy-eucate people o! the not so istant
!uture will taKe it !or grante that the probability o! universe-simulacra1
!or e0ample1 ?oltzmann brains1 et al.1 greatly outstrip the probability o!
so-calle GrealG universes. Fhich realization is natural in light o! the
compelling logic o! the anthropic principle.
>anuary 2)*(
6here is a historical collection o! initialization1 upates an
patches in the quantum !iel corresponing to which there are pointers in
the brain however these pointers are ambiguous when not currently
engage in the wier unerlying quantum !iel. =ow large o! a temporal
slice or chunK is require in orer to accurately uplicate a global brain
state?

?uy a new an i!!erent logical pathway H have returne to the notion o!
resonant tuning o! ?oltzmann brains. 6his pathway is the resonant
tuning to say1 *( or more ecimal places o! various !unamental
physical constants. /ny physical instrument or evice which relies on
resonant !requencies an which has been engineere to the e0treme
limits o! sensitivity shoul perhaps be able to picK up the e!!ect o! * an
perhaps multiple iniviuals an its immeiate vicinity ue to the
normal operation o! their conscious mins or perhaps only when they are
in special mental states such as meitative states. 6he anomalous
interactions between conscious iniviuals an ranom number
generators may be a mani!estation o! this type o! phenomenon.

9ne paraigm shi!t which will signi!icantly a!!ect the evolution
intelligent esign ebate is the ichotomy o! !aith versus reason an
!aith versus evience1 miracle versus natural law. Ouhn an -eueraben
an their philosophies o! science vs the ;nlightenment notion o! the
inevitable linear progress o! scienti!ic iscovery.
@ovember 2)*$
Fithin current 8ultiverse theory1 the number o! possible
alternate universes astronomically outstrips the amittely large but
relatively tiny number o! possible istinct human brains. / to this the
peculiar logic o! the /nthropic 3osmological 7rinciple an you may !in
yoursel! in the possession o! a probable truth that are not speaK its
name1 c.!.1 the suggestion o! the !ront booK cover o! the
!ollowing:http://www.scrib.com/oc/*('%%(*)(/;u-2))N-Iial
:oesn_t it maKe sense that1 with such an inconceivably large number o!
possible universes that one coul be born into1 that one woul naturally
be born into Cbrought into being inD 5ust the very universe possessing a
quantum mechanical groun state or quantum vacuum that was the most
e0quisitely !ine-tune in terms o! the precise collective settings an/or
a5ustments o! the more than 2) !unamental physical constants in orer
to be compatible with both the unique requirements o! one_s peculiar
!lavor o! sub5ective consciousness1 the phenomenal contents an quale
uniquely be!itting this consciousness an the equally peculiar moe o!
quantum mechanical !unctioning o! the spiritual-material inter!ace
Cquantum min-brainD qua reucing valve-consciousness !ilter? /n
oesn_t it !ollow1 moreover that1 !rom the stanpoint o! one_s own
unique anthropocentric an *
st
person point o! view that the brains o!
any an all other human beings1 among whom one has now !oun
onesel!1 the !ine-tuning o! the !unamental physical constants o! this
universe is not Buite so e6Buisitely precise as in one_s own particular
case?

9ne o! the outcomes o! living within an ancestor simulation is that not
all viruses o! the min originate with other human mins.

3layton "mith says that the !act that the 7auli ;0clusion 7rinciple oes
not apply to consciousness is connecte with the iea o! the !ine tuning
o! consciousness an the har encryption o! quantum entanglement
encoe in!ormation the anthropic principle. Hn the movie1 *.I.
=*rtificial IntelligenceA" the iea !rom the metaphysics o! min is
e0presse by one o! the super-avance /H_s !rom 2))) years in :avi_s
!uture that1 E:avi1 H o!ten !elt a sort o! envy o! human beings1 o! that
thing they call GspiritG. =uman beings have create a million e0planations
o! the meaning o! li!e - in art1 in poetry1 an mathematical !ormulas.
3ertainly human beings must be the Key to the meaning o! e0istence.
?ut human beings no longer e0iste. "o1 we began a pro5ect- that woul
maKe it possible to recreate the living boy o! a person long ea !rom
the :@/ in a !ragment o! bone or mummi!ie sKin. Fe also wonere
woul it be possible to retrieve a memory trace in resonance with a
recreate boy. /n you Know what we !oun? Fe !oun the very !abric
o! spacetime itsel! appeare to store in!ormation about every event
which ha ever occurre in the past. ?ut the e0periment was a !ailure.
-or those who were resurrecte only live through a single ay o!
renewe li!e. Fhen the resurectees !ell asleep on the night o! their !irst
new ay they ie1 again. /s soon as they became unconscious1 their
very e0istence !ae away into arKness. "o you see1 :avi1 the
equations have shown that once an iniviual spacetime pathway ha
been use it coul not be reuse. H! we bring your mother bacK now it
will only be !or one ay. /n you will never be able to see her again.S

6here seems to be two !unamental views on the nature o! iniviual
consciousness in relation to consciousness as such. 9ne is that
consciousness in e!!ect obeys -ermi :irac statistics this is my view the
other view is the more common mystical view that the consciousness o!
the iniviual obeys ?ose ;instein statistics.

"eeing the epiction o! parallel earths an the parallel lives o! the
humanois that live in these parallel worls 5ust remins one o! how
cultural patterns become historically locKe in by chance events

6here is a relationship between inertia1 robustness an holographic
encoing.
/ll istinctively quantum inter!erence e!!ects are in reality sel!-
inter!erence e!!ect. 6he litmus test o! ob5ective realism is the presence
o! absence o! sel!-inter!erence e!!ects at some theoretically
preetermine threshol. 6he question is whether man possesses the
insight an imagination to propose such a theory.

Fhen our metho o! e0perimenting begins to get at the bootstrap
mechanism a physical reality it is here that mental e!!ects shoul become
iscernible.

http://olarchive.gospy.com/reviews/a-review-o!-v-!or-venetta-by-
5ohn-zmiraK.c!m.html

G/ll important truths are encompasse !or all time by my own belove
intellectual pre5uices.G H! this is in !act what one secretly believes1 then
is it nevertheless possible to somehow bootstrap oneGs consciousness out
o! such a mental tricK bag? 7robably not. 6here!ore an avisable course
o! action is to maKe sure that this tricK bag is as large as possible.

6hatGs right. 9ne can only move !rom one tricK bag o! intellectual
pre5uices to another tricK bag.

6hat is because all in!ormation is conte0tualize an structure ata.
6here is no such thing as raw in!ormation in the absence o! a
transcenental groun o! mentality1 which is to say transcenental min.

Puantum inter!erence e!!ects are mani!estations o! a collective
in!ormation ynamics1 not o! a physical mechanism as such.

<eah that >esus logic is per!ect. Fe were all 4o an all chose
limitation incluing the amnesia o! the transcenent sel! that goes with
this !oolhary act perpetrate out o! the be ie! that the other woul o
the same. 8ost everyone !orgot the original mission having become
enmeshe in 8aya. "ome1 liKe ?uha an >esus iscovere how to
recontact the higher sel! though without truly becoming one with it.
@ovember 2)*$
E/ll important truths are encompasse !or all time by my own
belove intellectual pre5uices.E H! this is in !act what one secretly
believes1 then is it nevertheless possible to somehow bootstrap oneGs
consciousness out o! such a mental tricK bag? 7robably not. 6here!ore an
avisable course o! action is to maKe sure that this tricK bag is as large as
possible.
@ovember 2)*$
<eah1 HGm harly ever on here. FeGll have to chat soon. Fhen
H see you again1 it will be liKe no time at all has passe. Ht will be as
though we ha 5ust resume that personal conversation o! *N years ago.
6ime an space are meaningless between great !riens. ?y all means1
re-rea part o! my comment with all o! the appropriately classic .eonar
@imoy intonation.
@ovember 2)*$
H have mae it a habit to purchase booKs on /mazon that have
inverte-bell-curve ratings spectra1 i.e.1 a lot o! one-star an !ive-star
ratings an relatively !ewer 2 to (-star ratings1 quite regarless o!
whether H thinK H_ agree with the author_s thesis or not. Ht_s a great way
to step outsie o! the echo chamber o! one_s own intellectual biases an
pre5uices. H highly recommen that reaers o! 8eyer_s booK ne0t turn
to 8arK 7eraKh_s booK1 Cnintelligent Design. .i!e is too short an the
universe o! ieas too vast to only rea authors one agrees with.
9ctober 2)*$ !cbK=
4uisean ?uhistentialist meitative states are achieve not
in the .otus position1 but while staning an gazing intently in the
mirror at one_s own amirable re!lection. 6he !acial muscles must rela0
completely an one must appear as unenthuse as possible1 all the while
one rhythmically intones the empowering phrase1 which one has
receive !rom the master. 6hen an only then1 i! one is worthy1 a
channeling o! his contemptuous spirit taKes over an the insistent mantra
o! subvocal reverberation continues to grow1 now power!ully with its
own inner voice1 one possesse o! a milly isain!ul ?rooKlyn accent1
which yet continues to buil1 !eeing upon itsel! until it suenly erupts1
liKe a agger o! the min1 giving birth anew to this !orever
isembarrassing phrase1 only now release !rom the very epths o!
crushing ennui. Hn a blining !lash1 the ego is liberate !rom its sel!-
impose ictatorship o! caring with 5ust these !our simple wors: EFho
gives a !ucK?S
:ecember 2)*$
E6o my son1 @icholas 3oope C*2N)L2ND1 who !ell to his eath
climbing in 4len 3lova: a brave an thought!ul la1 prouly
remembere.E - -rom a booK eication by the boyGs mother. "eeme
place there by the author mostly out o! consierations o! style. CH am
amaze sometimes by how sub5ective my perceptions can be when it is
only my own ego which bene!its.D
9ctober 2)*$ !cbK=@aomi >aKins
3oncerning an Hnconvenient 6ruth...it is a
convenient booK . . . !or /l1 since it helpe put him at the groun !loor as
ma5ority partner investor in the newly emerging global cap an trae
commoities marKet1 which his booK helpe to create the eman !or. : D
"till more1 i! philosophers an cosmologists o! some !uture age but
possess the patience an acumen to looK1 many o! the secrets o! the
,niverse shall be lai bare within the past seven years o! ?rianGs not so
humble -acebooK postings. ,n!ortunately1 we who remain ensnare
within this benighte century CunliKe ?rianD possess neither.
"earch 6erm
8onth <ear
Ccontribution put within conte0t o! a search term L
primitive hyperlinKD
Qd Rat moneyS Can important or seminal passageD
Q? RKernel iea requiring !urther evelopmentS
au= Rauthor isS Can important or seminal thinKerD
cit= Rcitation isS Cimportant citationD
con= RconceptS Cimportant conceptD
cont_= Cto be continueD
epi= RepigramS Ca caniate bon motD
ess= RessayS Cpassage containing a promising essay topicD
!cbK= Rserves as an interesting -acebooK posting1 e.g.1 .ime 3at1 .ime
3at ,niverse1 etc.
!ic= Rnovel or short story ieaS
hyp= RhypothesisS Cimportant hypothesisD
Kw= RKeyworS Can e0haustive list nees to be evelope !or
essay prouctionD
Kwo= Rquote !rom elsewhere in this ocumentS
re!= Rre!erenceS Cmissing re!erenceD
ph= Ca borrowe phrase1 whose original conte0t requires bacKgroun
e0planationD
per= C!rom personal conversation or corresponenceD
prn= RprincipleS Cimportant principleD
pru= Rproo!S Ca proo! is being emonstrateD
voc= RvocabularyS Ca term whose meaning is less than certain or
conte0tually clearD
coi= RcoiningS Cthe coining o! a new phrase with !uture illustrative
utilityD
web= Rweb aressS
wiK= RwiKipeia citation or re!erenceS
rsc+ RresearchS Cany RproworS or phrase that seems to require !urther
researchD
scrib= Resirable search term o! phraseS
goo= Yphrase or somethingZ C4oogle search is inicate as
appropriateD
8onth yyyy Cmonth an year a passage was ae1 e.g1. R>une 2)**SD
=e was someone who ha somehow long ago chosen me as the bacKstop
!or the pro5ection o! his many un!ul!ille reams - a situation which H
sometimes !in to be more than a little isconcerting. H can assure you
that H am quite miserable enough possessing but a single1 !unctioning
conscience...H cannot brooK carrying two o! those arounT
6hanKs1 :r. "ar!atti. H am always amaze at all o! the isin!ormation
an un!oune speculation that e0ists about you on the Hnternet. /ll o!
these phony >ohnny come latelyGs whoGve never one any real research1
theoretical or e0perimental1 who want to cast aspersions. <ouGre one o!
the !ew real physicists out there. 6he !act that you care enough to try to
enlighten the rest o! us rather than 5ust staying within the echo-chamber
o! acaemia has con!use more than a !ew people1 apparently. /nother
thing: some o! your booKs are on amazon.com1 but HG liKe to Know how
to get access to some o! your earlier publications. H! only there were a
one-stop shopping location !or your papersT : D

Back

-ebruary 2))'
Ae: 7utho!!Gs @.;.F. theory
C*D
Iiew
Next HYPERLINK
"http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Ita!anPhys!cs"enter/con#
ersat!ons/top!cs/$%&'" 7revious

Jack Sarfatti
8essage * o! * 1 -eb 2)1 2))'
iew Source
9n -eb 2)1 2))'1 at N:)' /81 Aussell " 3larK wrote:
Z
Z H liKe IoloviKGs approach to "aKharovGs iea o! inuce gravity as a
Z solution to the cosmological constant problem.
H have my own version o! this. HtGs i!!erent !rom IoloviKGs1 but has
some overlaps.
Z 6o be honest1 H !elt the same way an was even Kin o! e0cite an
Z intrigue when H !irst encountere the 7utho!!1 =aisch1 Auea
Z theory. ?ut then H slowly realize that quantum statistics is a
Z much broaer basis !or an Ealreay uni!ieE inuce gravity
Z theory than is 7utho!!Gs Jitterbewegung-;8P4 inuce gravity. 6he
Z principles o! quantum statistics woul liKely easily accommoate
being
Z retro!itte with !uture theories1 e.g.1 supersymmetry1 8-theory1
Z etc. 6his appeare unliKely !or a theory o! gravity an inertia
Z base upon so narrow an abstraction as electromagnetism.
H onGt unerstan your point. H thinK the 7utho!!1 =aisch1 Auea
theory is wrong because it is too simplistic. -or one thing it only
eals with the transverse polarize virtual photons. Ht ignores
longituinal virtual photons an virtual electron-positron pairs. Ht
has no E=iggs 9ceanE coherence an1 there!ore1 no possibility o!
e0plaining the emergence o! ;insteinGs gravity. =aisch simply assumes
;insteinGs 4A1 H actually erive it -A98 the cohering o! the ranom
J7-. 7utho!! & =aisch o not even unerstan 9:.A9 /O/
coherence. @one
o! the relevant math are in their papers. 6he e!!ect they talK about is
small an has alreay been consiere in a paper in Aev 8o 7hys on
Equantum !rictionE.
Z
Z 9nce H realize that quantum statistics embraces all o! the
Z interactions o! !ermionic an bosonic particles whereas
Z electromagnetism only certain !ermionic particles1 e.g.1 not neutrinos
Z an only one bosonic particle1 i.e.1 the photon1 it became i!!icult
Z !or me to taKe 7utho!!Gs theory seriously anymore. / Kin o!
Z philosophical isain !or 7utho!!Gs program crystallize - an this
Z espite the !act that H coul never have come up with the amittely
Z clever mathematical arguments 7utho!! submitte in support o! his
Z theory.
Z
Z 9n a less our note1 in IoloviKGs recently publishe booK1 6he
Z ,niverse in a =elium :roplet1 IoloviK gives theoretical grouns !or
Z why the cosmological constant an the average matter ensity o! the
Z ,niverse shoul be appro0imately equal throughout much o! the
history
Z o! cosmological e0pansion.
<es1 so o H. 7utho!! oes not even recognize the epth o! the problem
an han waves it away.
Z
Z 8atter an vacuum perturb each otherGs spacetime symmetry to inuce
a
Z gravitational !iel because Cas -eynman pointe outD the 7auli
Z ;0clusion an what might be calle the E7auli HnclusionE principles
Z apply equally to real as well as to virtual !ermions an bosons.
Z 8atter an vacuum mutually interact as traces o! a common estiny1
er1
Z uh1 ensity matri0. :D
@o1 that is meaningless. 6he precise equations !or this are
?u = buma7a/h
n7ao = .ie /lgebra o! 6(
?u = C4olstone 7haseD1u !rom partial cohering o! ranom J7- in
in!lationary vacuum phase transition
;instein-3artan tetra = euma = &uma + buma
& is OronecKer :elta
guvCcurveD = C&uma + bumaDC-latDabC&vmb + bvmbD
4auge trans!orms on ?u -Z 436 :i!!C(D tensor trans!orms o! local
!rames
- missing in 7utho!!Gs other E7IE theory.
Z
Z ?6F1 is the notion o! an electron-positron spin-) !iel interprete as
Z the timeliKe component . . . an the photon as the spaceliKe
component
Z Co! an appropriately e!ine !our vectorD a Enot even wrongE notion?
Z H was thinKing in analogy with the electric charge Ca scalarD being
Z represente by the timeliKe component an the charge currents by the
Z spaceliKe $-vector components o! the Espacetime-liKeE current ensity
Z !our vector in 8a0wellGs equations.
,ntil you write the equations H onGt really Know what you mean. :-D
"how message history
9ctober 2)*$
/nomalous quantum phenomena e0hibit the mutual inter!erence
o! hereto!ore all along thought istinct bootstrap mechanisms1 that o! the
mental an that o! the physical.

=e was 5ust repeating !unny voices an as we Know the computer
programs which evise these various humorous comments an sayings
o not actually possess the power o! human consciousness. "ince he
was only absentminely mimicKing or repeating uner his breath what
he hear the !unny voices saying H woul say that these charges o!
se0ism are wholly un!oune.

"he plays liKe a Aoman with her eyes on !ire. =e plays liKe a Aoman
with his eyes on !ire. 6hese two i!!erent pronouns o not seem to
!unction per!ectly analogously in the above e0emplar sentences an we
might woner why this is the case? R=erS re!ers to a particular person1
while RhisS re!ers to any one o! a number o! hypothetical Aomans.

@iels ?ohr the /lice

6he aKashic recor possesses all in!ormation past present an !uture
however the in!ormation is not necessarily structure temporally as we
unerstan time.

/Kashic paraigm.

6he moral ilemma question is: woul you intentionally push a person
o!! a cli!! to his or her eath in orer to save some great mass o!
strangers say !rom a nuclear etonation? 6here is a presumptive
metaphysical ethical !allacy lying at the root o! such a hypothetical
ethical ilemma. 6he metaphysical presumption is that iniviual
human e0perience !its rationally into some collective matri0 through
which an by which human su!!ering at the level o! the iniviual can be
masse together an accumulate into some very much greater trans-
personal or trans-human su!!ering say on the part o! a eity observing
an e0periencing the su!!ering o! an through those many iniviuals.

6he parao0 is how an atheist who consiers himsel! moral an ethical
might answer this ilemma vs. how a 3hristian theist who also consiers
himsel! moral an ethical might answer this same ilemma.

=uman su!!ering oesnGt a in any absolute or ob5ective sense1 an the
moral intuition that it Woes aW is in!orme by a Kin o!
GcryptotheismG1 one share by theists an atheists aliKeT : D

"imilar to the chronology protection mechanism there is another
mechanism which prevents iniviual human consciousness_s !rom
gaining access to the control inter!ace to the Karmic !iel.

:arwinian evolution theory oes not propose a moel or theory o! the
origin o! li!e. "o :arwinGs theory can be liKene to the notion o! a
brige that is anchore in the mile o! a chasm on one sie an to the
ege o! a steep cli!! on the other. 9ne cannot begin to brige a chasm
!rom its mipoint without a sKy crane Cor otherwise suspening the law
o! gravityD. Fhatever is holing up the brige in the mile is still
secretly present in orer to prevent its collapse: our RsKy craneS o!
course is chemical evolution an the sel!-organizing properties o! atoms
an molecules1 which rove evolution !or its !irst billions years be!ore
the avent o! a unit o! hereity1 e.g.1 primitive :@/ or A@/1 which is to
say1 be!ore mutations began to be shape by natural selection. Fhat
were RmutationsS or1 Espontaneous changes to the phenomeS guie by
uring those !irst billion years o! chemical evolution? /gain1 by these
sel!-organizing properties o! atoms an molecules. Hs there any reason to
suppose that these Rsel!-organizing propertiesS cease to operate a!ter
the avent o! a unit o! hereity1 i.e.1 :@/1 at which time natural
selection commence its operation? 3onclusion: mutations o! :@/ are
not ranom1 but were shape an continue to be shape by the sel!-
organizing properties o! atoms an molecules. 6hese principles o!
chemical sel!-organization i not evolve1 but are owing to the initial
conitions o! the universe1 which were etermine uring the initial
in!initesimal !ractions o! a secon CH say E!ractionsE instea o! the
singular1 E!ractionE because time liKely possesses more than one
imensionD uring the ,niverseGs ?ig ?ang when the !unamental
physical constants1 e.g.1 7lancKGs constant1 ?ohr magneton1 mass an
charge o! the electron1 spee o! light1 electric !iel permittivity1 magnetic
!iel permeability1 /vogaroGs number1 ?oltzmannGs constant1 7auli
;0clusion 7rinciple1 gravitational constant1 etc. were etermine. 9!
course1 the simultaneous an more or less instantaneous !i0ing o! all o!
these physical constants to *2 ecimal places or more Ca notable
e0ception here is the gravitational constant1 (-' ecimal placesD
represents an e0tremely large quantity o! in!ormation an cosmologists
an astrophysicists now recognize that the ,niverse began in a state o!
e0traorinarily low entropy. 6his low entropy state is now believe by
the e0perts to be the result o! an entropy !luctuations within a much
larger system1 e.g.1 R8ultiverseS. 8y response to this is: E<ou onGt
say?E : D

3ombine the anthropic cosmological principle with the etiology parao0
an what o you come up with?
:ecember 2)*$
Ht is more than a bit ironic that the only real empirical proo! !or
the theory o! evolution is the esign !eature o! micro-evolutionary
aaptability o! each species1 which maKes it robust against !luctuating
environmental conitions. 9! course1 the theory-laen evience !or
:arwinian evolution is inee in plenti!ul supply.
=e was in part1 she was in part1 he was not in part1 they were playing
their parts1 she got the part. 6here shoul be a new verb tense !or
variably repeating time1 e.g.1 !or repetition o! a particular scene or act o!
a play in which actors are participating. Foul being reunite with all o!
one_s lost love ones !rom one_s earthly li!e in any way constitute a
isproo! o! solipsism? Hnee not. H! anything it woul be strong
evience in !avor o! the hypothesis that the worl is one_s oyster1 as it
were.

9ctober 2)*$
"talinGs speeches publishe in the problems o! .eninism
wik*
http://en.wiKipeia.org/wiKi/6alK%$/>acK#"ar!atti//rchive#*
http://e.scrib.com/oc/*%)2%&&*&/Puantum-8echanics
http://www.scrib.com/oc/%22)$2'N/"ean-3arroll-:arK-;nergy-6he-
7reposterous-,niverse
9ctober 2)*$
7sychiatrist ?rian Feiss mentione the possibility that persons
coul be reincarnate !rom not only other gala0ies but also other
universes an other imensions.

6ranscenental otherness an the plurality o! consciousness is relate to
the principle o! har encryption an is also connecte to spontaneous
ecoherence o! wave !unctions inertia an gravitation also the
istinction between sub5ectivity an physical reality1 interiority an
e0teriority. H! the outsie is relative to the insie1 but here is a plurality
o! interiors or inner omains1 then how o we come up with a common
public space calle the outsie1 that is to say1 the outsie !or all
concerne1 !or everyone?

Hs it truly correct to thinK o! the miraculous is that what your curves by
virtue o! a mechanism that is merely currently unKnown to us H woul
have to say this is incorrect since the avancement o! science an
technology reveals ever new mechanisms which are realize to be 5ust as
scienti!ic as other oler an well establishe mechanisms were to an
earlier stage o! the avancement o! science. 3onsier here the !act that a
wave!unction collapse occurs by virtue no mechanism at all.

3osmologists liKely !ail to unerstan the isturbing metaphysical an
spiritual implications o! their latest cosmological theories. Fhen the
number o! bubbling universes greatly e0cees the number o! possible
istinct human beings an one consiers this in light o! the anthropic
cosmological principle....the isturbing spiritual implication here is
obvious.

H reame the Gyou canGt say that in 4;A8/@ parao0. G

Fithout success o! the argument !or 4o !rom analogy1 that is1 o! a min
that is both transcenent an universal the argument !rom analogy !or
other mins !ails.

"ca!!oling vs whole !luctuations vs speci!ie comple0ity vs intelligent
esign.

Fhere Knowlege an reality intersect is within the min o! 4o.

"cience is not the ei!ice o! truthV science is the sca!!oling o! truth.

@o one Knows where this place is. 6his is but one o! the many logical
conclusions which can be rawn !rom the !act that science oes not
progress in linear !ashion1 but a certain amount o! estruction o! prior
establishe scienti!ic truth goes han in han with the avancement o!
science. >ust consier how $)th 3entury scientists shall view 2)th
century science an in turn how ()th 3entury scientists shall view $)th
3entury science1 an it becomes clear that there is no !uture stable
plateau !rom which contemporary science can con!iently assess
previous eras in the avancement o! scienti!ic truth.

/nomalous quantum phenomena e0hibit the mutual inter!erence o!
hereto!ore all along thought istinct bootstrap mechanisms1 that o! the
mental an that o! the physical.
RPuantum entanglement only epenent upon areaS
http://phys.org/news/2)*$-)2-quantum-entanglement-area.html H!
?ohm_s principle applies universally1 then the worl is constitute as a
hologram. :ecoherence is inuce by comple0ity that outstrips ?ohm_s
causal principle1 meaning energy acquires bulK as higher imensional
ob5ects.
9! course there is no real physical meaning attributable to the phrase1
Gphoton bouncing o!! o! an electronG in the absence o! an observer
properly equippe to per!orm a position an momentum measurement
on the impact site !or the two particles which are also waves.

Hn the absence o! an observer the quantum vacuum serves as the e!ault
groun o! quantum entanglement.

3an a grouning or substantive quantum entanglement be trans!erre
!rom the quantum vacuum to a quantum observer an bacK all the while
conserving entanglement? Hs entanglement conservation violate by this
transaction?

6he observation that ambient photons within the laboratory shoul not
be able to trigger the collapse o! a superposition state certainly applies to
the case o! the two slit e0periment per!orme using bucKyballs.

@evertheless an observer can use photon raiation o! precisely the same
momentum energy an polarization in orer to observe which slit the
bucKyball went through which oes succee in collapsing the
inter!erence pattern. 6his is true even though the very same types o!
photons e0iste amongst the ambient raiation with in the laboratory
when the observer was not looKing at the slits to see which slit each
bucKyball went through an this ambient photon raiation in the
laboratory oes not succee in causing the inter!erence pattern to
collapse apparently the observer maKes the i!!erence not the physical
interaction o! photons with the bucKyballs say through collisions.

Hn other wors i! the observer is not watching which slit the bucKyball
goes through an 5ust looKs at the phosphorescence screen !or the
presence or absence o! an inter!erence pattern then he cannot rely on the
presence o! ambient proton raiation o! ientical character to that which
woul have been require to observe which slit the bucKyballs goes
through in orer to prouce collapse o! the inter!erence pattern with the
e0hibition o! particle-liKe behavior on the part o! the bucKyballs. "o it
oes not appear that a physical interaction is responsible !or collapse o!
the inter!erence pattern but rather the presence o! the observer looKing at
the slits.

@ature wante to be @ewtonian but inGt thinK the problem completely
through.

6he acausal behavior o! perceive physical reality is perhaps as much
owing to the brains overabunant comple0ity which outstrips the
capabilities o! nature to anticipate an create representations o! equal
comple0ity to those o! which the brain is capable. 6his leas to a
consistent uneretermination o! representations causally speaKing.

/ll this time weGve been looKing at the quantum ecoherence an
quantum measurement problems !rom the stanpoint o! energy1
momentum an momentum-energy e0changes between the observing
system an the observe system1 but the ecoherence problem can be
hanle in the conte0t o! the hot1 wet brain an its microtubules an
their coherent tubulin imer energy states by looKing at the problem
!rom the stanpoint o! in!ormation rather than energy1 that is1 i! what is
happening insie the brainGs microtubule networK outstrips in terms o!
comple0ity or in!ormation ensity1 the quantum computing capacity o!
the cosmic 37, or quantum vacuum by which each !uture time step in
the evolution o! "chroingerGs wave equation is compute1 then we may
have alternate conitions !or quantum coherence1 which o not epen
on such things as temperature.

6he inversion relations !or electron mobility vis-a-vis the two slit
e0periment... this relation may actually be applicable to solving the
quantum ecoherence problem !or a wet hot brain speci!ically where the
coherent quantum states o! tubular an imers o! the brainGs
microtubules are concerne.

H see no problem with utilizing a consistent empirical relationship
between two observables in orer to establish a new a0iom.

6hese two observables between which our empirical relation e0ists1
namely that o! the inversion relation note earlier1 our consciousness an
electron mobility vis-a-vis the two slit e0periment an the quantum
observer. / problem !urther investigate here shoul be: consciousness
is always consciousness o! the iniviual not an intersub5ective quantity
such as a quantum observable.

6his inversion relation that H have been talKing about is simply this:
when consciousness is present at the two slit apparatus the electron wave
!unction collapses so that we get particle behavior. 9n the other han1
uring general anesthesia when electron mobility is inuce to switch
!rom waveliKe to particle- liKe by the presence o! the anesthetic gas1
there is a loss o! consciousness.

H! intelligent esign is a !alse hypothesis1 then when we e0amine the
in!ormational structures o! li!e such is A@/ an :@/ an comple0
macromolecules such as enzymes an proteins which moulate the
e0pression o! A@/ an :@/1 we shoul !in that there is only a single
level o! escription at worK1 in other wors there shoul be an absence
o! meta levels o! escription. "uch in!ormational mechanisms as error
correction coes1 operating systems1 compilers1 hyperlinKing
Ccomputational nonlocality1 i! you willD are all e0amples o! metal levels
at worK within a te0t or within a computer program which e0hibits a
linguistic structure an programming in!rastructure that possesses too
much speci!ie comple0ity to have arisen !rom passively !iltere entropy
!luctuations.

H! intelligent esign is a !alse hypothesis1 then when we e0amine the
in!ormational structures o! li!e such is A@/ an :@/ an comple0
macromolecules such as enzymes an proteins which moulate the
e0pression o! A@/ an :@/1 we shoul !in that there is only a single
level o! escription at worK1 in other wors there shoul be an absence
o! meta levels o! escription. "uch in!ormational mechanisms as error
correction coes1 operating systems1 compilers1 hyperlinKing
Ccomputational nonlocality1 i! you willD are all e0amples o! metal levels
at worK within a te0t or within a computer program which e0hibits meta
levels an bespeaKing a language an programming in!rastructure that
possesses too much speci!ie comple0ity to have arisen !rom passively
!iltere entropy !luctuations.

Foul solipsistic ?oltzmann brains solve the -ermi parao0 an what is
the strange logic that unerlies such a propos l? 8icrocosm e0hibiting
microcosm?

:escent with moi!ication leas to a wier an wier ivergence o!
!orms such that any given !orm tens in later epochs to !in itsel! much
more alone an unique within the state space o! possible peers. ?y the
time such a late stage in evolution has been reache such that iniviual
consciousness becomes possible an emerges by this time the
ivergence has grown so wie that it is unliKely that any given
iniviual consciousness shoul !in any peers coe0isting within the
reach o! communication unless a Kin o! @e0us be provie. 6his is
somewhat the obverse o! the argument that the sel! being a
sociolinguistic construct cannot emerge in a solitary state but must be
always an everywhere surroune by peers with which it has
communicate an with which it can communicate. ?ut the
phenomenon o! miscommunication reveals to us that it is not the input
o! actual in!ormation which leas to the emergence o! the iniviual
consciousness as sociolinguistic construct1 but merely the input o! ata
impulses which are uninterprete unless a paraigm or theory is in place
with which to interpret them.

;arthGs civilization must then be secretly e0tremely ol not only in the
gala0y !or but perhaps within the universe at large such that the average
istance o! peer e0traterrestrial civilizations namely those o! comparable
or greater technological evelopment may well be too great to be
etecte.

;arthGs civilization must then be secretly e0tremely ol not only in the
gala0y !or but perhaps within the universe at large such that the average
istance o! peer e0traterrestrial civilizations namely those o! comparable
or greater technologic l evelopment may well be too great to be
etecte.

Fe shoul now investigate what might well be calle the -ermi
metaparao0 within the iscipline o! the philosophy o! min an the
problem o! other mins.

6he issolution o! a parao0 by way o! the avent o! a new paraigm
usually signals the appearance o! a metaparao0.
3an long live metastable states o! organic molecules be passe own
!rom one generation to the ne0t1 enabling a greater scope o! action !or
quantum entanglement.

6he process o! biological evolution is not a hunre percent onwar an
upwar 5ust consier the case !irst consiere by :arwin himsel! o!
placing newer or moi!ie species in competition with their earlier !or
bears in the current environment o! the moi!ie species an how the
newer or moi!ie species woul merge victorious renering the
e0tinction o! the orer !orms !rom which they are erive an now
having sai this consier someone to reverse case where the newer or
moi!ie !orms o! the oler species are place in the !oler species
contemporary environment an allowe to compete with him there here
the avantage woul not be so clear o! the newer !orms over the oler
ancestral !orms because o! the consieration o! coevolution an ecology.

6hat an iniviual consciousnessG apparent peers are intelligent is more a
testament to the ultra high !ine tuning o! that iniviual minGs
consciousness than it is to the !ine tuning o! the brains o! those peers.
@ote here that we are relating the !ine tuning o! consciousness with !ine
tuning o! brains.

6he e0istence o! a specious present is inconsistent with the principle o!
time scale reuctionism. 8oreover time scale reuction ism is
incompatible with multi- imensional time.

<oung souls have many peers ol souls are relatively peerless.

9! course this principle woul not be e0pecte to hol within a universe
that is in!initely ol.

6his principle woul only be e0pecte to hol the universe which ha a
beginning.

9nly truly ol souls woul be e0pecte to possess consciousness
because o! the raical conte0t epenency o! consciousness what
provies this conte0t myria previous li!e times an the sensory
perception inputs an quantum entanglement generate there !rom along
with proto conscious thought processes lay own in the quantum bacK
you proviing ever richer contacts !rom which !uture incarnations may
raw an in so oing the conte0t !or !uture incarnations becomes ever
richer so that greatly more age souls appearing in those later
incarnations shell i! she the necessary conte0t in orer to e0perience
sel!-awareness.
=ypothesize entities substances an principles this is the mainstay o!
the *2th century amateur natural philosopher such as :arwin.
H !oun Aobert JubrinGs statement very intriguing1 namely1 that since the
simplest creatures on the planet are bacteria an bacteria are e0tremely
avance in terms o! their cellular machinery an the language o! their
genetic coe which is to say :@/ that to assume that bacteria are at the
beginning o! the evolutionary process is liKe assuming that the i7hone is
at the beginning o! the technological evolutionary process.

Ht was upon these consierations that Aobert Jubrin consiere it liKely
that li!e originate elsewhere perhaps on 8ars or perhaps another star
system which passe through our solar systemGs 9ort clou1 causing
comets !rom its corresponing 9ort- liKe clou to see the ;arthGs inner
solar system with organic material.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=7="Ab:#&2yK & !eature=youtube#gata#player

6ransgressing the bounaries in oneGs written communications means
busting up pre- registere comple0es o! behavioral epigenetics o! oneGs
naive1 untutore reaer.

Hs it possible to istinguish these two cases: i!!erentiation o! selves
versus i!!erentiation o! the otherness o! selves?

6he concept o! consciousness is groune in the otherness o! the sel! not
in the sel! as one among many instantiations o! consciousness per se or
as such.

4iven the level o! consciousness attainable by orinary human beings on
planet ;arth it is puzzling how long are li!e spans can be upwars o! *))
years an not necessarily accompanie by serious mental ecline or
iminution o! sel!-awareness puzzling when one consiers how utterly
small is the socio linguistic an cultural milieu o! planet ;arth !or such
persons.

7;6/ isclaimer: no 3hristians were o!!ene uring the posting o! this
comment.

Fhen >esus opene "t 7aulGs eyes1 he opene them too wie.

-rom "artreGs ?eing an @othingness:
cit=
RH! we attempt somehow
regaring the 9ther what :escartes attempte to o !or 4o with that
e0traorinary Rproo! by the iea o! per!ectionS which is wholly
animate by the intuition o! transcenence1 then !or our apprehension o!
the 9ther qua 9ther we are compelle to re5ect a certain type o! negation
which we have calle an e0ternal negation. 6he 9ther must appear to the
cogito as not being me. 6his negation can be conceive in two ways:
either it is a pure1 e0ternal negation1 an it will separate the 9ther !rom
mysel! as one substance !rom another substance L an in this case all
apprehension o! the 9ther is by e!inition impossibleV or else it will be
an internal negation1 which means a synthetic1 active connection o! the
two terms1 each one o! which constitutes itsel! by enying that it is the
other. 6his negative relation will there!ore be reciprocal an will possess
a two!ol interiority: 6his means !irst that the multiplicity o! R9thersS
will not be a collection but a totality Cin this sense we amit that =egel is
rightD since each 9ther !ins his being in the 9ther. Ht also means that
this 6otality is such that it is on principle impossible !or us to aopt Rthe
point o! view o! the whole.S Hn !act we have seen that no abstract
concept o! consciousness can result !rom the comparison o! my being-
!or-mysel! with my ob5ect-state !or the 9ther. -urthermore this totality L
liKe that o! the -or-itsel! L is a etotalize totalityV !or the since
e0istence-!or-others is a raical re!usal o! the 9ther1 no totalitarian an
uni!ying synthesis o! R9thersS is possible. Ht is in the light o! these !ew
observations that we in turn shall now attacK the question o! the 6he
9ther.
3onsciousness my consciousness even is more general then the most
general meium o! my own e0perience this also points up the
transcenental nature o! consciousness an the concept o!
consciousness. :oes the notion o! consciousness as Rcon sciousnessS
point1 etymologically speaKing1 to the socially conte0t base nature o!
consciousness?

Qd
3onsciousness as such or in general transcens my iniviual
consciousness in much the same way that ob5ectivity transcens
intersub5ectivity

7enroseGs one graviton 7lancK mass energy limit can be r cast in terms o!
quantum in!ormation theory1 which is to say in terms o! the abstract
relationships such as combinations an permutations o! the various
relationships between the physical components o! a quantum system
which can outstrip in comple0ity the computing capacity o! the
unerlying quantum !iel. 6his is because the quantum !iel1 whose
entanglements constitute at the very least the causal relationships by
which the quantum vacuum computes each succeeing state o! the
"chroinger wave equation !or the system1 Wis physicalW an increases in
mass accoring to the cube o! the system raius1 while the abstract
escription o! the system1 i.e.1 its wave!unction1 increases e0ponentially
with the raius. "pontaneous ecoherence is a !unction o! how the
abstract overwhelms the purely physical that is responsible !or
computing all !uture states o! 7si.

"eptember 2)*$
3onsier causal relationships with which the universe or
nature has no Re0perienceS.

3ertain in!ormal !allacies o! reasoning ha survival value because they
more reaily enable the woul-be emagogue hunter-gatherer to more
quicKly mobilize the tribe or clan into action against a threat to the
groupGs survival pose by a neighboring tribe.

6he human brain requires sleep !or eight hours once every 2( hours in
orer to rest up a!ter en!orcing the strictures o! causality an logic !or
the previous *& hours running.

Hnstea o! !ollowing establishe proceures you Know someboy who
Knew someboy who is at the control panel an in a position to turn
Knobs at will. <ou onGt necessarily have to arrive at a given boar
position in the game o! chess by playing step by step in con!ormance
with the rules o! chess but are allowe the option o! placing pieces
irectly onto the boar in such a manner that an otherwise impossible
mating position is e!!ecte.

6his points up the relationship between !ree will an sel!-consciousness
particularly in connection with Ourt 4eel_s Hncompleteness 6heorems.

3onsciousness has a Knowlege o! the system by which its will is
implemente in the worl1 its limitations as well as its proactivities.
6he logic o! coherent tiny subomains o! genetic base pair sequences as
yet untrie within a virtually in!inite state-space o! possible genetic base
pair sequences. =ow is optimization in an evolutionary sense possible
within such a virtually in!inite state space? 6hat is1 given the large
negentropy barriers that separates i!!erent egrees o! !itness on the
rugge !itness lanscape. Hs the groun o! emergence transcenent an
necessarily so? 3an teleology in evolutionary biology be an emergent
property?

6he soul is the basis but not the groun o! spiritual evelopment.

;quivocation o! sense is the basis o! many logical !allacies but it is also
the basis o! the intuition which permits thinKers to sneaK outsie o! a
given system or paraigm.
9ctober 2)*$
/n interesting e0ample o!
equivocation o! sense is the obvious ambiguity o! the phrase1
Rphilosophical zombiesS1 that is1 between its technical philosophy o!
min acceptation an one o! its more Rorinary languageS or literal
interpretations. -or e0ample1 o philosophical zombies in sense / ten
towars philosophical zombiehoo in sense ?1 an so on?

8any seeming parao0es are borne o! our inability to a5ust the sense
an scope o! our technical terms with which we treat problemGs analysis.

7arao0ically the elaye choice e0periment was evise both to
emonstrate nonlocality an that quantum entanglement o! spins was a
genuine physical e!!ect.

Puantum nonlocality an :avi ?ohmGs causality principle suggest that
the worl is inee a type o! computer simulation the quantum vacuum
serves the purpose here as the cosmic quantum 37,

6he !act that quantum non-local in!ormation cannot be transmitte !aster
than light is an inication that quantum nonlocally connecte or encoe
in!ormation may !orm the basis at least in part o! the integral unity o! the
iniviual consciousness1 in!ormation which is har quantum encrypte.

6he principle o! quantum nonlocality teaches us that what we call
substance is an emergent phenomenon or property which arises above
the 7lancK limit.

R/n this woul be mani!estly !avorable to natural selection by
a!!oring a better chance o! the occurrence o! pro!itable variations.
,nless such occur1 natural selection can o nothingS1 c.!.1 :arwin_s
9rigin o! "pecies.

:arwinGs remarKs concerning changing conitions increasing variation
!rom his seminal worK1 699": Gan this woul be mani!estly !avorable
to natural selection by a!!oring a better chance o! the occurrence o!
pro!itable variations. ,nless such occur1 natural selection can o
nothing.G @ote that pro!itable changes1 triggere or enable by
environmental change in a ranom !ashion1 nevertheless rely on
coherent an coorinate reactions at the genetic level.
;0plain time bubble analogy in the species present as a means o!
unerstaning the notion o! two-imensional time.

Ae investigate conservation o! !our imensional angular momentum in
the light o! subatomic particle collisionsG non-conservation o! three-
imensional angular momentum.

Aee0amine the interpretation o! quantum intrinsic spin as angular
momentum about the time a0is1 especially while consiering the concept
o! quantum entanglement an instantaneous .orentz !rames o! re!erence.

6urning insie out in three imensions as a rotation in !our imensional
space vis-a-vis enantiomer molecules. Hn turn relate this to the
relationship between consciousness an particle-wave uality o! electron
mobility in quantum microtubules hat is pointe up by the classic two-
slit e0periment an the 8eyer-9verton law o! anesthetic action upon
quantum microtubule electron mobility.

6he iamon in the rough moel o! intersub5ective communication
applie to the in!antGs evelopment o! a hypothesis o! speech soun
meanings.

6he :A8 moel emonstrates that in!ormation was never transmitte to
the brain or min o! the in!ant an that all o! the meanings an coherent
structures o! perception an cognition which the chil evelops later on
are wholly the prouct o! trans!ormations1 reactions1 processing an
reprocessing o! ata into in!ormation which tooK place within the brain
o! the chil.

:erivative time versus integral time.

Fhen you observe 2 people are communicating at cross purposes
perhaps secretly in agreement with each other say !rom the point o! view
o! a thir party1 or a comey o! errors o! misunerstaning is playing
out1 which remins one that no in!ormation is out into anyoneGs hea
until they alreay unerstan the signi!iers.

6heistic evolution involves supernatural quality control an quality
assurance applie to the process o! natural selection by a super
intelligent esigner engineer such that Aichar :awKinsG mount
improbable is always the tallest mount improbable an never the
smallest mount improbable.

4enetic ri!t is not enough to provie natural selection with the
variability that it nees to select !rom !or bene!icial mutations there must
be a graient in aition to genetic ri!t which rives the !orwar
avance o! greater an greater comple0ity this graient with the avent
o! the !irst unit o! hereity woul have been that graient that rove the
billion years o! chemical evolution leaing !rom carbon hyrogen
o0ygen nitrogen to the very !irst primitive A@/ or :@/ molecule.
/n important question is whether or not with the avent o! the !irst
replicating in!ormation bearing molecules primitive A@/ or primitive
:@/1 whether or not !eebacK: occurre between the graient which
rove chemical evolution an these !irst in!ormation bearing molecules1
changing that graient an perhaps steepening it. / ynamic interaction
between min at large an the wave!unction o! organic molecules seems
to be require here.
"houlnGt there be some limitations on the comple0ity o! unitary wave
wave!unctions1 which is to say a limit on how comple0 a wave!unction
can be without either being a superposition or evolving into a ensity
matri0 representation o! a statistical mi0ture.GG a statistical mi0ture o! H
can !unctions oes not have a corresponing quantum observable. "o the
limitation on wave !unction comple0ity is two!ol on the one han there
is a wave !unctions which is too comple0 to be observe in the sense o!
having a corresponing observable on the other han the wave!unction
represents a system which cannot be compute by the cosmic 37, or
quantum vacuum because it out strips the representation capabilities o!
that quantum vacuum.

6he ynamics o! chemical evolution !orm the subconscious !or the
process o! biological evolution an are responsible !or all o! its
!ortuitous insights into more per!ect aaptation an coaaptation.

9! course there is no real physical meaning attributable to the phrase1
Gphoton bouncing o!! o! an electronG in the absence o! an observer
properly equippe to per!orm a position an momentum measurement
on the impact site !or the two particles which are also waves.

Hn the absence o! an observer the quantum vacuum serves as the e!ault
groun o! quantum entanglement.

3an a grouning or substantive quantum entanglement be trans!erre
!rom the quantum vacuum to a quantum observer an bacK all the while
conserving entanglement? Hs entanglement conservation violate by this
transaction?

9! course there is no real physical meaning attributable to the phrase1
Gphoton bouncing o!! o! an electronG in the absence o! an observer
properly equippe to per!orm a position an momentum measurement
on the impact site !or the two particles which are also waves.

Hn the absence o! an observer the quantum vacuum serves as the e!ault
groun o! quantum entanglement.

3an a grouning or substantive quantum entanglement be trans!erre
!rom the quantum vacuum to a quantum observer an bacK all the while
conserving entanglement? Hs entanglement conservation violate by this
transaction?

6he observation that ambient photons within the laboratory shoul not
be able to trigger the collapse o! a superposition state certainly applies to
the case o! the two slit e0periment per!orme using bucKyballs.

@evertheless an observer can use photon raiation o! precisely the same
momentum energy an polarization in orer to observe which slit the
bucKyball went through which oes succee in collapsing the
inter!erence pattern. 6his is true even though the very same types o!
photons e0iste amongst the ambient raiation with in the laboratory
when the observer was not looKing at the slits to see which slit each
bucKyball went through an this ambient photon raiation in the
laboratory oes not succee in causing the inter!erence pattern to
collapse apparently the observer maKes the i!!erence not the physical
interaction o! photons with the bucKyballs say through collisions.

Hn other wors i! the observer is not watching which slit the bucKyball
goes through an 5ust looKs at the phosphorescence screen !or the
presence or absence o! an inter!erence pattern then he cannot rely on the
presence o! ambient proton raiation o! ientical character to that which
woul have been require to observe which slit the bucKyballs goes
through in orer to prouce collapse o! the inter!erence pattern with the
e0hibition o! particle-liKe behavior on the part o! the bucKyballs. "o it
oes not appear that a physical interaction is responsible !or collapse o!
the inter!erence pattern but rather the presence o! the observer looKing at
the slits.
@ature wante to be @ewtonian but inGt thinK the problem completely
through.

6he acausal behavior o! perceive physical reality is perhaps as much
owing to the brains overabunant comple0ity which outstrips the
capabilities o! nature to anticipate an create representations o! equal
comple0ity to those o! which the brain is capable. 6his leas to a
consistent uneretermination o! representations causally speaKing.
/ll this time weGve been looKing at the quantum ecoherence an
quantum measurement problems !rom the stanpoint o! energy1
momentum an momentum-energy e0changes between the observing
system an the observe system1 but the ecoherence problem can be
hanle in the conte0t o! the hot1 wet brain an its microtubules an
their coherent tubulin imer energy states by looKing at the problem
!rom the stanpoint o! in!ormation rather than energy1 that is1 i! what is
happening insie the brainGs microtubule networK outstrips in terms o!
comple0ity or in!ormation ensity1 the quantum computing capacity o!
the cosmic 37, or quantum vacuum by which each !uture time step in
the evolution o! "chroingerGs wave equation is compute1 then we may
have alternate conitions !or quantum coherence1 which o not epen
on such things as temperature.

6he inversion relations !or electron mobility vis-a-vis the two slit
e0periment ... this relation may actually be applicable to solving the
quantum ecoherence problem !or a wet hot brain speci!ically where the
coherent quantum states o! tubular an imers o! the brainGs
microtubules are concerne.

H see no problem with utilizing a consistent empirical relationship
between two observables in orer to establish a new a0iom.
6hese two observables between which our empirical relation e0ists1
namely that o! the inversion relation note earlier1 our consciousness
an electron mobility vis-a-vis the two slit e0periment an the quantum
observer. / problem !urther investigate here shoul be: consciousness
is always consciousness o! the iniviual not an intersub5ective quantity
such as a quantum observable.
6his inversion relation that H have been talKing about is simply this:
when consciousness is present at the two slit apparatus the electron wave
!unction collapses so that we get particle behavior. 9n the other han1
uring general anesthesia when electron mobility is inuce to switch
!rom waveliKe to particle- liKe by the presence o! the anesthetic gas1
there is a loss o! consciousness.
H! intelligent esign is a !alse hypothesis1 then when we e0amine the
in!ormational structures o! li!e such as A@/ an :@/ an comple0
macromolecules such as enzymes an proteins which moulate the
e0pression o! A@/ an :@/1 we shoul !in that there is only a single
level o! escription at worK1 in other wors there shoul be an absence
o! meta levels o! escription. "uch in!ormational mechanisms as error
correction coes1 operating systems1 compilers1 hyperlinKing
Ccomputational nonlocality1 i! you willD are all e0amples o! metal levels
at worK within a te0t or within a computer program which e0hibits meta
levels an bespeaKing a language an programming in!rastructure that
possesses too much speci!ie comple0ity to have arisen !rom passively
!iltere entropy !luctuations.

YAaical ;0istentialism teachesZ

6he problem o! initial conitions an inherent chaotic ynamics o! the
universe. Hnitial conitions have to be istribute across time.
7eople secretly ienti!y the unKnown with the sum o! things they Know
they onGt Know an !orget to consier the vastly larger omain o!
unKnown unKnowns.

?ehavioral genetics an the 8r. 7otato =ea theory.

www.nri.eu.com/@AH2;@.p!

;very theory o! :arwinGs ay has since been overthrown or at least
revolutionize an each replace by a moern theory that emerge in the
light o! much later iscoveries that were completely or largely
unsuspecte in :arwin_s time...every theory1 that is1 e0cept :arwinGs. Hs
this happy coincience or is there a logical e0planation at worK here?
:oes the sociology o! science really have nothing vali to say on this
question? H! so1 then this only compouns the coincience an raises
more serious suspicions o! question-begging.

8iltonGs boning o! angelic beings]
=eaven is not all o! the best stu!! on earth with none o! the ba stu!!

Fe must istinguish between persons whose mins inter!ace with reality
at the sur!ace versus those whose mins inter!ace reality at a
hypersur!ace.

http://www.whynotcatholicism.com/inulgences-!or-ummies-*)2.html

http://ourlaystears.blogspot.com/2))N/**/inulgences-!or-
ummies.html?m=*

/n e0ample o! bootstrapping is when acciental attributes en up
becoming central or e!ining attributes o! a system.

?iocentrism rather than emonstrating that li!e is necessary !or the
e0istence o! the universe 5ust the converse is emonstrate namely that
all o! our theories are not about the worl or the things in the worl
outsie o! the min but all o! our theories are about the sel!

/pply the anthropic principle to the sel!-negotiating the myria quantum
universe branching_s. /ll o! oneGs parallel selves are merely zombie
versions o! oneGs true sel!. 3ontinuing with this logic ones true sel!
continually enters parallel quantum universes that are largely populate
by zombie versions o! other people !rom oneGs original or home quantum
universe.

G6he importance o! untangle meant !or etermining space-time structure
is something that $ years ago only a !ew o! us were thinKing about says
than Ian AaamsonK. @ow a lot o! people are realizing that itGs an
important piece o! our thinKing about quantum gravity.G G6he great
quantum space time tangleG by /am ?ecKer.

G6he great quantum space-time tangleG publishe by @ew "cientist
"7/3;-6H8;1 the very !abric o! our universe1 may be a tangle place.
;ntanglement1 a !eature o! quantum mechanics that linKs ob5ects over
great istances1 coul be responsible !or its structure. Ht all souns a little
wil1 but the i
http://www.scrib.com/oc/*2)2()2&*//-4reat-Hea-/t-6he-6ime
http://www.scrib.com/collections/$($*'N*/science-2
http://www.scrib.com/oc/*$22*2&2(/;instein-/lbert-Hn!el-.eopol-
:ie-;volution-:er-7hysiK /bout ''* ocuments !or Gquantum collapse
wave!unction consciousness EFignerGs !rienEG
>uly 2)*$
Fith regar to the !unamentals1 e.g.1 metaphysics1 epistemology1
ethics1 religion1 politics1 etc.1 all smart people1 or at least all people who
!ancy themselves smart1 have alreay mae up their mins as to on
which sie o! the issues they stan. "o any polemical worK oes well to
state up !ront what a0 is being groun with the unerstaning that the
worK shall only serve1 i! it succees at all1 in proviing grist to alreay
liKe-mine souls1 who are more or less passionate about the positions
on the issues1 which they hol in common with the author. H! a gooly
many o! these Kinre spirits perceive that the author_s worK provies
them with aitional rational 5usti!ication !or alreay long hel
intellectual pre5uices1 then the polemical worK o!!ere has every chance
o! being a success. ?y an large humans o not hear much less o they
hee messages !rom outsie o! their respective echo chambers. Ht is the
height o! arrogance to believe that one is sKille enough to !ashion an
argument which can succee in changing some smart person_s stan on
any important issue. ;0perience polemicists Know this an yet they still
evote much e!!ort to conceiving clever arguments an submitting them
!or publication. 6he motivation here is primarily esire !or monetary
gain.
/ugust 2)*$
RH! we consier all possible worls there may be plenty o!
universes with naturally occurring !ine-tune constants1 but there may be
more !ine-tune universes that have a go who set those constants. 6his
argument rests on the assumption that the most liKely e0planation !or
improbable Cin this particular senseD non-evolve things is intelligence.
Ht is more o! analogical argument an might be summarize as: E!rom
our e0perience we can see that non-evolve things that e0hibit the
characteristics o! being elicately balance to achieve something
comple0 Cin this case li!eD are more liKely to be esigne than to come
about by chanceE. /s
au=
7lantinga puts it: EHtGs as i! there are a large
number o! ials that have to be tune to within e0tremely narrow limits
!or li!e to be possible in our universe. Ht is e0tremely unliKely that this
shoul happen by chance1 but much more liKely that this shoul happen
i! there is such a person as 4oE1 c.!.1
http://themeatyar.blogspot.com/search/label//lvin#7lantinga
=ow can the probability o! a coin toss turning up as either heas or tails
be ') percent1 given the more or less causal etermination o! the !lipping
o! each coin?
G;ine unenlich pberlegene Fissenscha!tG there is no ;nglish phrase
which souns as goo in the ear o! ;nglishmen or an /merican as this
phrase souns in the ear o! a 4erman speaKer. 6he linguistic constraints
o! rhyme1 meter an caence1 which are peculiar to a particular tongue
o not only limit what one can say or translate !rom one language into
another1 but also unerlie the pro!unity o! what is sai an can be sai
in some instances.

6here is a non-logical component to the halting trial an error process o!
scienti!ic iscovery which cannot be intersub5ectively communicate to
successive generations o! scientists1 which is always lost in that process1
but which is a Key component to the unerlying creative intelligence o!
scienti!ic iscovery.
Fe Know that go is not looKing but not that he oes not e0ist because
o! the e0istence o! as yet uncollapse wave!unctions.

3an we generalize the 8onty =all probability puzzle by casting 4o in
the role o! 8onty =all in such a way as to e0plain wave!unction
collapse?

6he Fheeler elaye choice e0periment oes not prove that there is
bacKwars in time causation rather it emonstrates that a moment o!
time taKes time to be integrate at the quantum level.
>une 2)*$
6he superposition o! macroscopic ob5ects points up the
importance o! quantum entanglement between sub 7lancK mass cellular
units1 each maintaining its own coherence an unitary evolution
although simultaneously nonlocally connecte1 at least each to its
neighbors. =ierarchical entanglement an the role o! consciousness in
piecing out the macroscopic worl.

GPuantum gravity an consciousness - whatGs the connection? -ollowing
"tuart =amero!!1 Aoger 7enrose an their 9A3=-9A theory1 as well as
au=
Aobert .anzaGs ?iocentrism1 we say that1 because o! the 7lancK mass-
energy quantum ecoherence limit1 the microworl an the macroworl
must shaKe hans1 as it were insie our own heas1 but only there. 6he
only thing we Know o! with the power o! the bootstrap is consciousness
itsel!1 an so a worKable Gtheory o! everythingG1 i e.1 a theory o!
GsomethingGs coming !rom nothingG has to be sought there. H mean1 a
Gphilosophical zombieG is not going to give us such a theory.G

>uly 2)*$
E"hannon in!ormation with its notion o! in!ormation being
equivalent to a reuction in uncertainty oes not taKe into account the
intentionality an conte0t sensitivity o! in!ormation Cthe EuncertaintyE
must be Eabout somethingE because in!ormation itsel! - as interprete
ata - must be Eabout somethingED. Aeuctionistic causal linKs issolve
into the inherent !uzziness o! space-time Cat the micro levelD1 which is
ictate by the =eisenberg uncertainty principle. Ht is intuitively evient
that this !uzziness is ynamic an !orms the substrate o! the very
operation o! min as a particular instantiation o! consciousness even
though min cannot possess or conceive o! a general notion1 concept or
category o! what consciousness is1 c.!.1 4eel_s Hncompleteness.
3onsciousness Was suchW on the other han1 may well be more
!unamental than this Espacetime !uzzinessE1 which may inee rather
represent the natural ine!atigable restlessness o! this broaer
consciousness - what eastern mystics term Ethe play o! .ilaE. 6he
in!inite regress prompte by the question1 Ewhy is there something rather
than nothingE1 is not a reuctio a absurum. Ht is rather the inevitably
ynamic nature an restless conition o! being. Puantum ecoherence
prevents the collapse o! the causal chain Cat the macro levelD an thus
allows the operation o! temporality. Hn a subtly analogous way1 quantum
ecoherence also prevents the reuction o! the higher pleasures o! li!e
such as spiritual or intellectual pleasures to mere utilitarian calculate
sums o! equivalent small quantities o! irect stimulation o! the homini-
ape brainGs pleasure center. Hn short1 quantum ecoherence introuces
5ust enough o! 5ust the right compartmentalization o! e0perience in orer
to prevent the annihilation o! spiritual potentiality which is otherwise
borne o! the totalization o! e0perience as reprocesse stimulus-
response.E
6hey use the right language that proves they unerstan the problem.
Fe onGt nee a concept o! consciousness i! there is only one
consciousness. G9ne o! a KinG is not a Kin an is a contraiction in
terms.

:aniel <ergin ....6he Puest....lay on metro is intently reaing.

6he in!ormation !or the 3ambrian e0plosion might have e0iste in
reservoir uring the 7recambrian this is oubt!ul

Fhat else is entaile by supposing that i! the evolutionary process was
not actually ranom but possesse a Kin o! looKahea capability that
the rate o! evolution woul simply be increase without any qualitative
i!!erence in the Kins o! living organisms that evolutionary process
prouce?

.atent in!ormation in reservoir as it were is equivalent to assuming a
looK ahea capability or teleology in evolutionary evelopment.

6here is a very e!inite limit to the amount o! in!ormation that can be
rive !rom reprocessing pre-e0isting in!ormation in the absence o! the
introuction o! any altogether new in!ormation that is

>une 2)*$
6his notion o! all together new in!ormation which necessarily
comes !rom outsie o! the system rather than simply resulting !rom the
reprocessing or reshu!!ling o! in!ormation alreay latent in the system is
interesting in connection with the theory o! intelligent esign. 6he
parao0 o! !unctional in!ormation is that non- !unctional in!ormation
plays an essential role in proviing the in!rastructural conte0t which is
metain!ormation. H! the universe has always been here1 then why hasnGt it
collapse uner the weight o! the trash pile up outsie? 6here shoul be
a big i!!erence between genetic bootstrapping an the mere e0ecution
o! a genetic algorithm. Puantum nucleation instea o! singularity1
ecoherence1 sel!- e0istence1 thermoynamics. Fhat i! being an
e0istence are erivative categories in but tiny portions o! the unlimite?
"uch questions are prompte by meitation upon the notion o!
transcenence. -ree will means i! the unlimite opportunity is given
humanity to go bacK an replay its historical course1 then human history
woul never replay the same way twice1 but only occasionally appear to
o so.
Qd
6he singularity occurs at the point at which our so!tware merges
with the ancestor simulation so!tware.
/ugust 2)*$
4iven a properly !ull blooe concept o! transcenence1
e0istence itsel! becomes a preicate. 6his is because e0istence woul no
longer be the most general moe o! being1 but merely one moe o! being
alongsie other moes o! being1 e.g.1 mathematical subsistence1 an it
woul then become meaning!ul to speaK o! e0istence as a preicate1
since e0istence woul not then itsel! be utmost in generality.
3an we generalize the 8onty =all probability puzzle by casting 4o in
the role o! 8onty =all in such a way as to e0plain wave!unction
collapse?

6he Fheeler elaye choice e0periment oes not prove that there is
bacKwars in time causation rather it emonstrates that a moment o!
time taKes t me to be integrate at the quantum level.

H woner what /lvin 7lantinga an >oseph 3ampbell woul have mae
o! the logic o! the anthropic principle ha they encountere it uring
their heyay as philosophers.

6he transcenental nature o! the anthropic cosmological principle
consists in the !act that this principle applies equally to each an every
person amongst the myria persons that e0ist in this universe.

6he initial an bounary conitions o! the universe are a!ter a !ashion
liKe a ?ible 3oe palimpsest.
Ht epens on which encryption Key coe Cin the sense o! consciousness
as iniviualize har encryptionD one applies in interpreting this
cosmological ?ible coe in these bounary an initial conitions as to
which solipsistic cosmological principle is realize in actuality.
:ecember 2)*2
6he only thing we Know o! in the universe that isn_t a
mechanism is *D consciousness an 2D wave!unction collapse/reuction
o! the state vector. 6ime as !unamental apriori !orm/Oantian
supercategory or intuition. ?ergson says that consciousness is the
intuition o! time_s passing1 i.e.1 ?ergson_s DureeD. "o we apparently
must seeK the chronology protection mechanism in consciousness itsel!.
6he mechanism o! har encryption is also intimately associate with
consciousness1 c.!.1 the absolute mutual compartmentalization o!
personal or iniviual consciousness. Fe alreay note that
ecoherence rate is the one temporal aspect which resists the otherwise
universal action o! time ilation1 which is an inication that the
mechanism o! time ilation is1 accoring to this sel!same logic1 to be
sought in the unerlying mechanism o! quantum ecoherence.
>uly 2)*$
6he magnitue o! gravitational !iel intensity is ceteris paribus
correlate with the strength o! gravitational time ilation CweaK !iel
appro0imationD1 but is also thought to rive1 in part at least1 quantum
ecoherence1 itsel! a temporal process. Puantum ecoherence appears
the only temporal process currently Known to science whose rate is not
sub5ect to gravitational time ilation in the same uni!orm manner as
inee are all other Known temporal CphysicalD processes. 6his suggests
that the mechanism unerlying quantum ecoherence may be among the
builing blocKs o! the mechanism o! gravitation. 6he iscovery o! any
remaining builing blocKs o! this mechanism perhaps have to await the
ienti!ication o! !urther nonuni!ormities in the response o! speci!ic
physical processes to the e!!ects o! gravitational time ilation. @ow i!
per impossible some !orm o! ualism turne out to be the case1 then we
might anticipate some new !orm o! eep space sicKness in the !orm o! a
Kin o! insiious an cumulative impairment o! normal mental
!unctioning e0perience by astronauts uring long voyages in zero gee
or arti!icial gravity1 say via nonuni!orm alternation in tubulin imer
ecoherence in relation to the temporal evolution o! brain quantum
coherent states an this on account o! the two!ol i!!erential action o!
gravitational time ilation upon quantum brain coherent an e-coherent
processes1 hereto!ore unseen by the processes o! natural selection which
originally !ashione an astronaut_s homini ape_s brain.
Ht is obvious that i! there was su!!icient chemicals sel!-organization at
the level o! atoms an simple organic molecules to rive !orwar the
!irst billion years o! chemical evolution prior to the avent o! a unit o!
hereity then the !irst primitive organisms woul have arisen
everywhere across the sur!ace o! the earth an at more or less the same
time. "o :arwinGs notion o! escent with moi!ication !rom a common
primitive ancestor is thus seen to be reaily !alsi!ie. @either chance nor
necessity can e0plain the origin o! speci!ie comple0ity in the genome.
6here is a thir category which is the action o! an intelligent will o! a
esigner or genetic engineer. 6he thir category is not sel!-organization
operating e0clusively on its own but that o! a sel!-organizing ynamic
operating uner the in!luence an input o! intelligence or conscious
min.
Hn!ormation oesn_t come !rom the physics an the chemistry1 but out o!
how these processes are eploye or arrange 5ust liKe how general
anesthesia is not inuce as a result o! a speci!ic chemical action.
8ay 2)*$
?ut thereGs still the problem o! how to avoi the seeming necessity
o! e0tening the logic o! the anthropic cosmological principle !rom the
penultimate !ine-tuning o! physical constants in terms o! maKing carbon-
base li!e a winning possibility to the ultimate !ine-tuning o! sai
constants in terms o! WmyW consciousness - inevitable in the !ullness o!
in!inite time Cwhat is calle the !ine-tuning o! consciousnessD - that is1
within the conte0t o! a E8i0master multiverseE wherein every possible
iniviual consciousness1 yours1 mine1 ?houtros ?houtros 4aliGs1 etc. is
inevitably at some point calle !orth unbien !rom the screaming abyss
Winto its own anthropically1 er1 uh1 solipsistically !ine-tune1 biocentric
universeW populate by yours truly an a host o! also-ran Ephilosophical
zombiesE. http://www-
astro.physics.o0.ac.uK/barg/p!/-6#o!#consciousness.p! 6he happy
appearances within this otherwise ismal poly-solipsistic scenario are
presumably only save by amitting1 contra hyp1 those a!orementione
?oltzmann brains1 albeit quantum-entangle ones Cby virtue o! ??Gs
necessarily being engenere within a unitary unerlying1 !unamental
physical1 which is to say1 quantum1 process1 e.g.1 E?ig ?angE or
whateverD. 6he cash value o! ob5ectivity is Eintersub5ectivityE although
logically the Esub5ectiveE Crea here: Ein!ra-sub5ectiveED has no analysis
in Einter-sub5ectiveE terms. 6his emergent economy o! rationally sel!-
intereste1 though cosmically lonely transcenent beings who are
inavertently collaborating to prouce the worKaay worl o! utilitarian
common sense seems unavoiable when you consier that the realm o!
limitation Cspace1 time1 causality1 an so onD provies the only possible
avenue o! escape !or beings otherwise !orever bore by the power!ul
illusion o! Knowing everything. 6his healong ive into the realm o!
limitation is !oolhary base as it was upon a hope against hope that
there must be others who are similarly bore. [insert !orgotten quotation
by ?ertran Aussell on the power o! boreom\ [insert spooKy quote by
Fittgenstein on the necessity o! remaining silent\7oste on 8ay 2$1
2)*$ in response to >eremy Fhite_s assertion that H coul throw away
my melatonin an not stay up worrying about ?oltzmann ?rains because
the latest evelopment in string theory ha renere ??_s highly
improbable.
>une 2)*$ Qdweb=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AP7Aq=JA7&N
3ombine 7lantinga_s moal ontological argument C89/D !or 4o_s
e0istence with the multiverse o! 6ipler an ?arrow_s /nthropic
3osmological 7rinciple C/37D through ienti!ication o! the term1
Rpossible worlS in the 89/ with RuniverseS in the /37 in which these
universes comprise the multiverse. Hn so oing one naturally asKs onesel!
the question: woul H have been calle !orth !rom the voi Cby the
solipsistic cosmological principle C"37D1 i.e.1 the logic o! the /37
applie an brought own to the level at which each sel!-aware min is
generate - by the multiverseD into a universe in which 4o1 who is
amittely possible in some universes" i.e." 7possible worls81 is not
possible? 7erhaps only as a Rphilosphical zombieS Cin other wors only
as an entity that others might con!use with being meD. /n important
supplementary question here is]oes 4o !ail to e0ist in universes in
which =e is possible1 which given 4o_s omnipotence shoul be
rephrase as the !ollowing]oes 4o choose not to e0ist in any
universes in which =e is possible1 still more in which H now e0ist? 6o
wit1 i 4o abanon me? H! so1 then !or what possible reason?

6he moal ontological argument can be attacKe at an aitional point to
that o! the concept or e!inition o! a Rma0imally great beingS. 6his
secon weaK point o! the 89/1 which H have never seen anyone attacK
be!ore is this notion that the actual worl is inclue in the set o! all
possible worls. ?ut 5ust as R!ire must be breatheS into the equations o!
physics in orer !or our mathematically escribable universe to be real
as oppose to merely possible1 some crucial !actor sets the real worl
apart !rom this worl as merely hypothetical. "imilarly1 there is an
important istinction between an eigenvector in a quantum superposition
an its corresponing eigenvalue as an e0perimental outcome o! the
collapse o! the superposition_s wave!unction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=@(P-sOev6+s
>une 2)*$
E6he logic o! the /nthropic 3osmological 7rinciple Can in particular the
upate o! this principle by quantum multiverse theoryD1 truly only applies to the
iniviual ego or WitsW consciousness. Ht is mere courtesy which permits this
principle to be applie to humanKin as a whole an still more to carbon-base
li!e1E c.!.1
wiK=
http://en.wiKipeia.org/wiKi//nthropic#principleX3haracter#o!#anthropic#reaso
ning ?ut o! course any argument which cannot be communicate Cbecause o! the
necessary absence o! an auience to hear an unerstan itD must be re5ecte out o!
han. Cyahoo email signature upate )&/)*/2)*$ in an email o!
au=
Auss OicK_s
cit=
TCTTO 3CE11O C<E &*I E :*1&O to .eah =aightD.
9ne shoul1 o! course go on to consier the probabilities o! the
polysolipsistic cosmological principle. ;ach o! us is RhereS as a
conscious being entertaining the logic o! the anthropic cosmological
principle an so the !act o! one_s being RhereS means that the universe or
multiverse Cin which a rampant !ecunity principle is a corollaryD ha to
be structure an !unction in 5ust such a manner as to bring onesel! into
sel!-conscious e0istence. 6his notion carries the implication that the
varying temporal Cor multi-temporal !or that matterD conitions that !rom
eternity past ha conspire to bring one into being1 unbien !rom the
Rscreaming abyssS were enabling !actors1 i.e.1 some !inite set o!
necessary conitions1 say liKe the application o! col water1 slaps to the
!ace an smelling salts to a person who has !allen unconscious rather
than a su!!icient conition !or creation o! one_s sel!1 whole-cloth e6
nihilo.
E6here are great ieas1 uniscovere breaKthroughs available1 to those
who can remove one o! truths protective layersE - @eil /rmstrong1 >uly
2)1 *22(
@ovember 2)*2
6hat protective layer is what is calle Rthe obviousS1
i.e.1 that which obviates. 3ulturally base or traitional truth is pathF
epenent truth1 which is to say conitional truth an points up an
important question !or philosophy: is path-inepenent or unconitional
truth ever given or i! such e0ists1 but is not RgivenS can it nonetheless be
accesse? C.eaing us bacK into the notion o! path-epenence1 but
now at a meta levelD.
>une 2)*$
?ecause the seemingly genetically har-wire con!ouning o! the
rules o! implication in the human brain1 speci!ically that o! mous
ponens with mous tollens L unoubtely selecte !or on account o! its
having all along worKe more o!ten than not1 humans are incline to
con!use correlations !or causal connections1 thinK teleologically an still
more characteristically1 to regularly inulge in magical thinKing.
8ystical thinKing1 still more1 i.e.1 the tenency to conceptualize in terms
o! all but rather than nothing but is also probably owing to this inborn
in!ormal logic1 which has been moreover promote an sustaine by the
always uni!ication/systematization-transcening Rmosaic logicS o! the
consciousness-iversity-in!use an highly social breeing population1
which1 a!ter all1 is what nature has all along been selecting !or rather
than the per!ectly aapte iniviual/ego1 which must be 4eelian-
incomplete as a survival-problem-solving-analytical engineT 3oherence
necessarily contains within itsel! the very sees o! incoherence Cin the
sense o! not ultimately being practical as a survival strategyDT 6his is
why the ieologues an system builers o! western culture are so
!ascinating to stuy1 historically speaKing1 but are so boring to attempt to
unerstan on their own terms.
EH Know that most men1 incluing those at ease with problems o! the
greatest comple0ity1 can selom accept even the simplest an most
obvious truth1 i! it be such as woul oblige them to amit the !alsity o!
conclusions which they have elighte in e0plaining to colleagues1
which they have prouly taught to others1 an which they have woven
threa by threa into the !abric o! their lives.E - .eo 6olstoy
R9ne night1 lightning strucK the oaK tree. ;ie saw it the ne0t morning.
Ht lay broKen in hal!1 an he looKe into its trunK as into the mouth o! a
blacK tunnel. 6he trunK was only an empty shellV its heart ha rotte
away long agoV there was nothing insieU5ust a thin gray ust that was
being isperse by the whim o! the !aintest win. 6he living power ha
gone1 an the shape it le!t ha not been able to stan without it. <ears
later1 he hear it sai that chilren shoul be protecte !rom shocK1 !rom
their !irst Knowlege o! eath1 pain or !ear. ?ut these ha never scarre
himV his shocK came when he stoo very quietly1 looKing into the blacK
hole o! the trunK. Ht was an immense betrayalUthe more terrible because
he coul not grasp what it was that ha been betraye. Ht was not
himsel!1 he Knew1 nor his trustV it was something else. =e stoo there !or
a while1 maKing no soun1 then he walKe bacK to the house. =e never
spoKe about it to anyone1 then or since.S - /yn Aan1 *tlas
&hrugge
<ou cannot quantize the probability o! your !alling in love with a given
attractive an esirable person1 which is to say that this probability
cannot be represente as the absolute square o! any possible
wave!unction.
http://re!ormere!lections.ca/other-religions/the-r-c-bible.p!
R6his belie!1 however1 elevates !allible human thought on par with the
in!allible
For o! 4o. /n what we iscover is not a evelopment o! octrine
but a eparture
!rom it.S WW@ot i! the =" guie the selection o! booKs that were
inclue in the Iulgate1 an those who were guie in this were also
guie in the evelopment o! early 3hurch traitions an teachings.WW
RAome oes not allow private interpretation o! "cripture out o! !ear that
heresy
coul unermine the authority o! the ?ible an the 3hurch.S WW>ust
thinK about what a serious problem heresies were to the early 3hurch. H!
one accepts the e0istence o! a positive principle o! evil Cas oppose to a
mere absence o! gooD1 oes one imagine that this principle remaine
uncharacteristically silent an uninvolve with in!luencing the creation
an issemination o! heresies? Fhat better way to attacK the 3hurch
than at its root1 that is to say1 uring its in!ancy?WW
R7ope .eo +HHH C*N*)-*2)$D state: E4o has elivere the =oly
"cripture to the 3hurch1 an.... in reaing an maKing use o! =is For1
CmenD must !ollow the 3hurch as their guie an teacher.S WW"o the
3hurch shoul have 5ust allowe members o! the illiterate masses o! all
cultures an historical traitions to rea the =oly "criptures on their
own1 unsupervise an without any instruction as to interpretation an
application o! those "criptures? Aeally? WW
R6he same 7ope also sai that it is impossible !or any legitimate
interpretation to be e0tracte !rom the ?ible that is at variance with the
octrine o! the 3hurch. /ny interpretation that is oppose to 3hurch
octrine is there!ore !alse.S WW6he !unamentalist 7rotestant principle
o! "ola "criptura coul have only become viable a!ter the !ashion o! the
creation o! a metabolic by-prouct as oppose to the spontaneous
generation o! a wholly intact :@/ molecule within the primeval1 pre-
biotic soup. 8oreover1 "ola "criptura is supporte by a vast
in!rastructure o! 6heological "eminaries. WW
RHn other wors1 the A3 church pro!esses to provie ivine guiance !or
her members. "he emans recognition as the in!allible interpreter o! the
"criptures.S WW6his is a twisting o! wors: the guiance to her members
provie by the 3hurch is in!orme by ivine guiance. / 3hurch that
is not guie by 4o is no 3hurch at all1 but merely a house o! spiritual
complacency. 6here is an equivocation o! octrine vs. interpretation o!
octrine here - 4o provies the !ormer1 while =is 3hurch provies the
latter. WW
R6he *&th century Ae!ormers were in unanimous agreement in their
opposition when Aome claime that teaching authority lay in the
magisterium with the pope as its chie! shepher uner 3hrist.S WW6o
what o we owe the vast proli!eration o! 7rotestant enominations an
their !urther *st1 2n1 etc. orer splinterings1 which shows the triumph o!
chaos over the intention to !aith!ully transmit 4oGs message own the
generations?WW R6he Ae!ormation o! the 3hurch was the .orGs
intervention to lea =is church bacK to the 4ospel. 6he ecline o!
meieval 3hristianity was very graual. 6he more serious errors inGt
arise until as late as the *(th an *'th centuries. ;ventually the result o!
this escening arKness was serious. 6he problem was with what Aome
ha ae to the ?ible over the centuries.S WW6he errors1 accumulate
over many centuries more or less harmlessly1 not having reache any
critical threshol1 only arrive at this threshol 5ust at the en o! the
8ile /ges an 5ust at the avent o! the Aenaissance - mere
coincience?WW
R6he 7rotestant 9l 6estament is the same as the =ebrew "criptures
Ce0cept !or the orer o! the booKsD. Aoman 3atholics1 on the other han1
a aitional booKs L 6obit1 >uith1 Fisom o! "olomon1
;cclesiasticus1 ?aruch an * & 2 8accabees L as well as some e0tra
sections to :aniel an ;sther1 to !orm their version o! the 9l 6estament.
6hough most o! the 9l 6estament booKs are quote !requently by @ew
6estament writers1 these e0tra A3 booKs are never quote.S WW8any
booKs1 over two ozen1 in point o! !act1 are quote !rom in the 9l
6estament that were themselves not inclue in the 3anon o!
"cripture.WW
"ense perceptual 5u0tapositions that prouce multimoal cognitive
issonance maKe e0cellent vectors !or the insertion o! worless
artistically !ertile metaphors.
Xd
/ personal Oantian 8etaphors here
3an we utilize an unerstan metaphor without being taKen in1
capture1 hypnotize by metaphor Cnarrative structureD? 9!! the autism
a0is L between autistic an RnormalS1 is5ointe recollecte biography
leaves room !or revisionism1 rationalization an higher integration C2
timeD. :reams an multi-imensional time1 c.!.1 /a;/at in the conte0t o!
2 time.
Fithout transcenent universal min there is no istinction between
consciousness being a 9ne or a many. 6he collective mass o! what we
onGt Know we Know. /n o! course1 it is this inherent an perhaps
unboune multi!aceteness o! the iniviually collecte human
e0periential ata1 which must transcen the meaning o! iniviual
human e0perience Cas attribute by each iniviual to his or her own
e0perienceD that so strongly suggests the reality o! the transcenent
realm an its :eity. ?ut what services this Runboune
multi!acetenessS is the unerlying rationality o! language qua
in!rastructure o! intersub5ectivity. 6his transcenent realm may be
thought to be aKin to "aussureGs Eunlimite semiosisE. :eity is implie
by the notion that there is an ob5ective observer that is in turn implie by
the necessity o! an ultimate Rtying o!!S point o! this otherwise
unboune semiosis.
/ugust 2)*2
=aving the epiphany that you personally on_t really Know
anything at all means that 8an_s Knowlege can be at best but a
collective illusion. . . an all this within the conte0t o! a sheer abunance
o! grace. =ow can one not then have !aith upon recognizing the
7rovience involve in such a coherent mani!estation o! the raical
unKnown. 9ne is calle !orth !rom the Ioi an enters the worl !rom
one unKnown only to pass !rom it into another unKnown. Fhat is lost on
some is that the worl itsel! is yet a thir unKnown1 renering the !irst
an the latter qualitatively istinct. /n so metaphysical worK can only
be per!orme by e0perience i! it is possible to transcen all ual
opposite categories. <ou emerge into the worl !rom a hole you in_t
crawl into an shall leave it !rom a hole you can_t crawl out o!. @o one
as they say1 Rgets out o! here aliveS.
RH! a man is staning in the mile o! the !orest speaKing an there is no
woman aroun to hear him - Hs he still wrong?S R<ep...because o! the +
chromosome lurKing in each cell o! his boy.S
R3lay tablets woul have been betterS 3omment about the !ragility o!
igital meia ata storage.
http://www.scrib.com/search?category= =<7;A.H@O
Ehttp://www.scrib.com/search?
category= & language=* & num#pages=*))%2? & !iletype=p! & uploae
#on= & pai=!alse & query=%22Hntrouction+to+Iirology%22E &
=<7;A.H@O Ehttp://www.scrib.com/search?
category= & language=* & num#pages=*))%2? & !iletype=p! & uploae
#on= & pai=!alse & query=%22Hntrouction+to+Iirology
%22E language=* =<7;A.H@O Ehttp://www.scrib.com/search?
category= & language=* & num#pages=*))%2? & !iletype=p! & uploae
#on= & pai=!alse & query=%22Hntrouction+to+Iirology%22E &
=<7;A.H@O Ehttp://www.scrib.com/search?
category= & language=* & num#pages=*))%2? & !iletype=p! & uploae
#on= & pai=!alse & query=%22Hntrouction+to+Iirology
%22E num#pages=*))%2? =<7;A.H@O
Ehttp://www.scrib.com/search?
category= & language=* & num#pages=*))%2? & !iletype=p! & uploae
#on= & pai=!alse & query=%22Hntrouction+to+Iirology%22E &
=<7;A.H@O Ehttp://www.scrib.com/search?
category= & language=* & num#pages=*))%2? & !iletype=p! & uploae
#on= & pai=!alse & query=%22Hntrouction+to+Iirology
%22E !iletype=p! =<7;A.H@O Ehttp://www.scrib.com/search?
category= & language=* & num#pages=*))%2? & !iletype=p! & uploae
#on= & pai=!alse & query=%22Hntrouction+to+Iirology%22E &
=<7;A.H@O Ehttp://www.scrib.com/search?
category= & language=* & num#pages=*))%2? & !iletype=p! & uploae
#on= & pai=!alse & query=%22Hntrouction+to+Iirology
%22E uploae#on= =<7;A.H@O Ehttp://www.scrib.com/search?
category= & language=* & num#pages=*))%2? & !iletype=p! & uploae
#on= & pai=!alse & query=%22Hntrouction+to+Iirology%22E &
=<7;A.H@O Ehttp://www.scrib.com/search?
category= & language=* & num#pages=*))%2? & !iletype=p! & uploae
#on= & pai=!alse & query=%22Hntrouction+to+Iirology
%22E pai=!alse =<7;A.H@O Ehttp://www.scrib.com/search?
category= & language=* & num#pages=*))%2? & !iletype=p! & uploae
#on= & pai=!alse & query=%22Hntrouction+to+Iirology%22E &
=<7;A.H@O Ehttp://www.scrib.com/search?
category= & language=* & num#pages=*))%2? & !iletype=p! & uploae
#on= & pai=!alse & query=%22Hntrouction+to+Iirology%22E query=
%22Hntrouction+to+Iirology%22
?egruging the cultural an artistic e0pressions o! others. 6wo !orms o!
the very same Kin o! blin !aith: that o! the R4o o! the 4apsS versus
R"cience will eventually !in the answersS. Fhat are the implications o!
a raical logical sel!-consistency approach to a theory o! truth? =ow
oes the principle o! quantum superposition enanger the law o!
e0clue mile? 9r oes quantum superposition actually support the
e0clue mile? 6he principle o! the loose ens only showing on the
unersie o! the carpet? Hs behavioral genetics !unamentally
responsible !or the coherence an cohesiveness o! the perceive e0ternal
worl an society?
http://www.scrib.com/oc/$$'2)&((/6he-@ature-o!-Pualia-a-
@europhilosophical-/nalysis-7h:-:issertation-e-"ousa
www.!orgottenbooKs.org
A9,6.;:4; 7=H.9"97=< 4,H:;?99O"
;ite by 6im 3rane an >onathan Fol!!1
,niversity 3ollege .onon
Q? :evelop a list o! Kernel iea search terms to !acilitate e0paning
e0positions o! the ieas in this te0t. C/ctually1 hyperlinKe ;0cel
spreasheets shoul be evelope !or all o! the above superscripte
R!ootnotesS to inclue hyperlinKing i!!erent ;0cel ob5ects together.
?etter yet the ;0cel spreasheets shoul merely e0ist in potentia as
queries to an /ccess atabase. :eveloping a list o! Key terms1 that is1
those with say1 more than *)) hits within this ocument1 might !acilitate
this.
R6here is no remembrance o! men o! ol1 an even those who are yet to
come will not be remembere by those who !ollow.S - ;cclesiastes *:**.
RFhosoever re!lects on !our things1 it were better !or him i! he ha not
come into the worl: what is aboveV what is beneathV what is be!oreV an
what is a!ter.S
- The 2ishnah" =agigah 2:*
RH coul say harsh things about it but H cannot bring mysel! to o itUit is
liKe hitting a chil. 8an is not to blame !or what he is.... =e is !lung
hea over heels into this worl without ever a chance to ecline1 an
straightaway he conceives an accepts the notion that he is in some
mysterious way uner obligations to the unKnown 7ower that in!licte
this outrage upon him...S L +eflections on +eligion" 8arK 6wain
8y contributions to these writings uring the perio1 >anuary thru
@ovember 2)** were mae while eploye to ?agram /ir!iel1
/!ghanistan with the (*'
th
8H ?@ in support o! :-H7 operations !or
9;-. 3ontributions mae uring >uly 2))$ through -ebruary 2))( were
mae uring my eployment to 45ilane1 Oosovo as 6=6 & 6eam
"ergeant in support o! O-9A_s =,8H@6 collection e!!orts in support o!
9;- there. ?y the way1 i! you happen upon these writings an it is not
yet mi-century Cby that H mean the 2*
st
TD then permit me to inulge in a
bit o! nacve1 wish!ul thinKing by saying that there is perhaps a !air
chance that H_m still KnocKing about this rocK an !eel !ree to provie me
with your !eebacK QrusmannQyahoo.com. -itte &ch,n.
>uly 2)**
6he perception o! one_s own intentional thought process is
temporally interwoven with the perception o! sense ata1 memory as
well that o! one_s own boily movements an orchestrate within .ibet_s
')) millisecon winow o! pre-consciousness in 5ust such a way as to
maintain awareness o! intention an action as interconnecte so as to
present the appearance o! a !reely acting Rcenter o! volition.S 6his
brings up the puzzling question o! what might inee be the value to
natural selection o! merely the appearance of a self possessing a free
will i! in !act the continual stable appearance to the human animal o! its
possessing a sel! as the author o! its own ecisions an actions is an
illusion without substantive causal e!!icacy.
Fe sometimes revisit perforce the haughty metaphysical opinions o! our
youth because the passing o! all the learning an e0perience o! the
ecaes has one nothing to unermine them an these same opinions i!
re!ine an resse up as though uttere by a mature person will not so
quicKly be ismisse out o! han an thus len their weight to sober
consieration.
cit=
/r+iv: hep-th/2$)N)&*v*:
au=
R/haronov1 /nanan1 an Iaiman [*\
have recently argue that in aition to its usual epistemological role1
the wave !unction in quantum mechanics in certain situations also has an
ontological status. Hn other wors1 in aition to acting as a evice in the
theory to encoe the conitions Co! our Knowlege o! the worlD it must
also1 in certain circumstances1 be regare as real [italics mine\1 in the
sense that one can completely etermine an unKnown wave!unction of a
single system as oppose to an ensemble of states [italics min\.
3ertainly i! their claim were true1 that one coul taKe a single system
with an unKnown wave!unction1 an completely etermine that wave
!unction on that single system1 one woul have to accor the wave
!unction a reality on the grouns that that which is measurable is real. Hn
the course o! this paper H will argue that they have !aile to establish the
measurability o! the wave !unction1 an thus have !aile in their attempt
to emonstrate the reality o! the wave !unction. 6he argument is
however subtle. 6hus the plan o! this paper will be to !irst iscuss the
problem o! reality in quantum mechanics1 to set stage !or the question
that they are trying to answer.S 2y comment:
auG
/haranov prove the
reality o! (1 the vector potential so that i! ( is ienti!ie with the photon
wave!unction Csee
au=
?ohm in this connectionD1 then the reality o! 7si has
been aequately emonstrate.
E"cience procees as i! the past was the home o! e0planationV whereas
the !uture an the
!uture alone hols the Key to the mysteries o! the present. Fhen that !irst
cell ivie1 the
meaning o! that ivision was to be iscovere in the !uture1 not in the
pastV when some
pre-human ancestor !irst uttere a human soun1 the signi!icance o! that
soun was to be
interprete by human language1 not by apish gruntsV when the !irst plant
showe
solicitue !or its see1 the interest o! that solicitue lay in the promise o!
maternal
a!!ection. 6hings must be 5uge in the light o! the coming morning1 not
in the setting
stars.E C
au=
"egwicK1 *2*&D /n here it is again as state by
au=
6erence
8cOenna: R-or me1 the Key to unlocKing what is going on with history1
creativity1 an progressive processes o! all sorts is to see the state o!
completion at the en as a Kin o! higher-imensional ob5ect that casts
an enormous an !licKering shaow over the lower imensions o!
organization1 o! which this universe is oneS1 c.!.1
cit=
Trialogues at the
Ege of the West. 7hilosophers have a term !or this: causal
supervenience. 6he etails o! how causal supervenience worKs may
!orever remain mysterious1 however1 in general we can say that in must
involve the spontaneity Cwhether or not inteneD o! vacuum
!luctuations1 which are correlate in a manner which oes not support a
time-reversible causal connection. 7resumably entropy-laen1
irreversible processes also have a causal Ctime-reversibleD physical basis1
at least with respect to su!!iciently small scales o! spacetime1 but at some
su!!iciently large spacetime scale1 the nature o! the correlation o!
vacuum !luctuations unerlying the physical process in question invoKes
quantum entanglement that is not reversible. CAelevant to the issue o!
wave!unction collapse/state vector reuctionD. 4iven that quantum
entanglement is a relation o! absolute simultaneity1 i.e.1 in all re!erence
!rames1 we suspect the irreversibility comes into play on account o!
higher imensions o! temporality.
@ovember 2)*2
Puantum ecoherence is
intimately connecte with entropy1 statistics CprobabilityD an temporal
irreversibility. Aeversibility o! time seems to require an aitional
egree o! !reeom best provisione within a plane o! comple0 or
otherwise multiimensional time.
/pril 2)** R
"egwicK_s principleS is particularly relevant in connection with
higher orer regulation o! gene e0pression. 2N.'% o! the :@/ base pair
patterns in the human genome are hel in common with the 3himpanzee
an the ?onobo /pe. /ppro0imately ')% o! base pair sequences are the
common genetic heritage o! both humans an the lowly yeast mol.
Aecent research reveals that appro0imately ')% o! human :@/ is also
o! viral origin. 7erhaps so much o! human :@/ is o! viral origin
because these viral genes are le!tover RvectorsS utilize in the istant
past as means o! inserting gene sequences which otherwise woul have
ta'en too long to evelop on their own via natural evolutionary
processes.
/ugust 2)**
Iiruses1 which are not inclue in either o! the three
.innaean Oingoms o! ta0onomic classi!ication L well1 arguably there
are now four as o! this writing1 because they are not consiere by
biologists to be alive1 seem to preate the appearance o! the !irst unit of
hereity1 i.e. DN* anHor +N*" an so must have originate an
evelope accoring to the intrinsic sel!-organizing properties o! atoms
an molecules L what is thought to have been responsible !or the !irst
billion years o! chemical evolution that tooK place prior to an wholly in
the absence o! :arwinian natural selection. ?ecause viruses !unction so
e!!iciently within the cell an cell nucleus as well as interoperate
amirably with strings o! :@/ an/or A@/1 both reorganizing genetic
base pair sequences as well as altering the e0pression o! these same
sequences1 it is tempting to suppose that viruses themselves originate
within ancient living cells or cellular nuclei. ?ut this woul o! course
lan us in a RchicKen or the eggS parao0.
@ovember 2)*2
6o recap: viruses
came about prior to :@//A@/1 which themselves were necessary !or
the appearance o! the !irst cells1 but interoperate with both1 even though
viruses originate in an e0clusively sel!-organizing process that is not
epenent upon natural selection. /n now1 however1 we are e0pecte
to accept on !aith that ranom chance mutations worKing in combination
with natural selection alone succeee in bringing into being the entire
spectrum o! biological orer that we witness toay all aroun us.
/ugust
2)**
6his remins us o! the case in which a shattere hologram is
graually reassemble an meanwhile the image encoe in the
hologram becomes ever sharper. C:o base pair sequences within viruses
!unction aKin to metaphors in relation to the base pair sequences o! the
:@/ within the cellular machinery that the invaing virus subverts?D
@ow i! this impossibly causally twiste temporal relationship coul be
shown to be a mere pro5ection or shaow CappearanceD o! what is
occurring in a higher imension onto some lower imension1 then this
parao0 woul be solve or1 rather issolve. "ince causal relationships
within *-imensional time are1 accoring to ?ohm_s causal principle1
equivalent to a speci!ic set o! correlate vacuum fluctuations1 but which
only constitutes a tiny subset o! the total array o! correlate !luctuations
within the quantum vacuum1 we may seeK the neee higher
imensional causal relationships1 i.e.1 causal relationships within higher
temporal imensions1 within the quantum vacuum1 perhaps within its
higher orer1 e.g.1 2
n
1 $
r
1 (
th
loop1 etc. C6here is a New &cientist article
o! recent writing entitle something to the e!!ect o! Rmatter is compose
o! vacuum !luctuationsSD. 9r perhaps even con!ining ourselves to *
st
orer !luctuations1 i! two or more sets o! !requencies can be shown to be
orthogonal1 out o! which istinct time series can be constructe1 then this
may be strong inication o! higher temporal imensionality. C6his
orthogonality is istinctly i!!erent !rom that by which !unctions o!
i!!erent !requencies are assigne i!!erent weighting coe!!icients within
a -ourier e0pansion o! a single time omain !unctionD.
/ugust 2)*2
/ unit o! hereity is to natural selection as a rational iniviual
is to the !ree marKet. ?oth :@/ an the rational iniviual are
proviential Kernels that grace their respective ynamical systems while
transcening the scope o! e0planation supporte by the logic o! either.
/pril 2)**
Fhat maKes manKin i!!erent !rom his more primitive apeliKe
!orebears is not so much istinct i!!erences in genetic base pair
sequences as it is i!!erences in the regulation of the e6pression of these
genes hel in common with earlier or less evolve life forms. 6here has
been simultaneously two trains o! evolution operating: evolution o! the
iniviual gene an evolution o! the regulation o! the e0pression o!
genes an gene sequences. Ht appears that the Rtemporal spaceS within
which evolution taKes place must possess a basis of at least two
imensions.
>une 2)**
6he !act that the regulation o! the e0pression o!
genetic base pair sequences is open ene implies that the interpretation
o! the genetic coe as a language is no mere cute analogy1
QX
but is a
!act o! some pro!oun an enuring signi!icanceT 6he conte0t
sensitivity o! the genetic coe is liKely to be a two-way a!!air. 6he :@/
only contains in!ormation i! it is a component o! an informational
system" which is to say that any in!ormation store in it has to have been
put there an that the molecule is open to moi!ication so as to receive
aitional in!ormation. /ll this is by way o! saying that an element only
contains in!ormation i! it is containe within a !eebacK circuit or
networK such that the R!low o! in!ormationS is two-way.
/pril 2)**
3ommunications re!er to the necessary or important !eatures o!
things without ever speci!ying the things themselves. 9nly ata is
transmitte between mins1 which is then interprete as in!ormation.
3onte0t gives meaning 5ust as nonlocality gives re!erence. 9ne comes
!rom one unKnown1 spens the uration o! one_s li!e in another
unKnown1 only to pass on to still another unKnown. C/sie: it is a most
important li!e_s goal to !in the message that was le!t waiting !or one
within the worl into which one was bornD. /n the two omains o! the
unKnown booKening this in!initesimal e0istence1 we ten to suppose
are eternity past an eternity future. 6he question arises whether these
two omains o! oblivion are inee ientical or1 oes this mote o! a
single !leeting human e0istence en5oy or parta'e of the metaphysical
power to ivie eternity such that it must taKe on an aspect o!
everlastingness" itself of two parts. This brief spec' in time represente
by a human e6istence" converts eternity into an ever lasting oblivion.
C;ternity into ReverlastingnessSD
"eptember 2)**
H am remine here o! the
play!ully irreverent statement by the cruci!ie character playe by 6erry
4illiam at the en o! the 8onty 7ython !ilm1 1ife of -rian1 which goes
something liKe this: Ryou starte with nothing an now you_ve ene
with nothing L you haven_t lost anythingTS
"eptember 2)**
=owever1 consier
that the proposition1 RAussell 3larK oes not e0istS uttere in *2'N Ca
year be!ore my mother conceive meD an RAussell 3larK oes not e0istS
uttere in 2)'N Ca!ter H am eaD can_t possibly mean/re!er to the same
thing:
Qd
in the !irst instance1 the sub5ect RAussell 3larKS oesn_t re!er to
anything Conly i! the RAussell 3larKS !rom the secon utterance is what
is inteneD1 otherwise this term re!ers to any number o! persons name
RAussell 3larKS L past1 present an !uture1 incluing this +ussell Clar'.
"o intentionality oesn_t equate with re!erence because being an what
is calle e6istence are not coe0tensive categories. Fhat istinguishes
intentionality an re!erence1 suggeste above1 shares some !eatures with
8c6aggarts incompatible time preicates. -or RAussell 3larKS to
success!ully re!er to this +ussell Clar' =the current one writing thisA1 it
must !ail to re!er to him at a certain earlier an all previous times. ?ut
there is something1 which1 i! it were ever success!ully referre to once
an name at that time1 it woul be success!ully re!erre to with this
name at all other times.
@ovember 2)*2
6his rather invoKes the notion o!
registration1 whether o! one_s brain as a system that shall be Rplugge
intoS an interoperate with some cosmic Hnternet or as a consciousness
which is assigne1 as it were1 its own unique an elimite signal
banwith1 etc.1 we cannot say.
"eptember 2)**
/n this something is that
something which avois contraiction o! the incorrigible principle1 e6
nihilo nihil fit. 6hings which on_t e0ist get an stay connecte Csay in
the Buantum nonlocality senseD with things that o e0ist via the
operation o! min. Hn this way all things are connecte regarless o!
what categories we might apply to them1 incluing mins via the
operation o! min. ?ut how might two or more mins be connecte
when the sub5ective by e!inition is not compose o! the intersub5ective
CRinterS-sub5ectiveD1 unless RinterS only obtains it meaning via the above
allue to connection principle. 6his is the case where the metaphysics
o! pluralism !ails utterly an a Kin o! monism must taKe its place.
/nother e0ample o! !ailure to re!er is what is calle unspecifie
reference. /n e0ample o! this is arbitrarily maKing up a name !or a
character in a story not yet conceive o! an never written own.
-ebruary
2)*2
/ll important philosophical1 religious an evangelical atheistic
writings Cin !act1 any writings1 which imply metaphysical claims1
a!!irmative or negativeD are open-ene in that they necessarily contain
equivocations o! sense traceable to this con!usion o! the notions o!
being" e6istence an subsistence9
>anuary 2)*(
6hese evangelical atheists
neglect the behavioral genetic basis o! religion they ignore the !act that
religion is part o! the heritage o! humanKin.

8ay 2)*$ 8ay 2&1 2)*$

:-Fave 3orporation recently o!!ere a '*2 Pubit chipset
quantum computer capable o! accessing *)
*'(.*2%
istinct quantum states
to per!orm a calculation. Lime Cat :-Fave 3orporation recently
o!!ere quantum computer with a '*2 Pubit chipset capable o! accessing
*)WW*'( istinct quantum states to per!orm a calculation. 6hereGs only
about *)WWN) particles in the observable universe. :-FaveGs computer is
then apparently capable o! accessing *)WW%( alternate universes to
per!orm a calculation. :onGt worry though1 thereGs no people in those
alternate quantum universes1 5ust calculating zombies.
6he principle o! spontaneous ecoherence1 namely that o! 7enrose_s
Rone graviton limitS1 i.e.1 7lancK mass limit in the magnitue o! a single
!luctuation o! the vacuum1 e!ies .eibniz_ principle that whatever
conitions were su!!icient to create a thing are necessary at every
succeeing moment to maintain that thing in e6istence. Fe may taKe as
a new principle that1 the inaeBuacy of nonlocality implies the necessity
of temporality. 3orrelate !luctuations embrace istinct subsets: those
which are or are not causality preserving anHor energy conserving.
6his remins us o! the humorous saw that1 Ri! it weren_t !or the e0istence
o! time1 everything woul happen at onceT 6he 7lancK mass !luctuation
limit means that
cont_
/ugust 2)*$
RHn essence the solution to this woul appear to lie in the use o!
gravitation theory by 7enrose C2))(D though the actual mechanism still
nees to be !ully eluciate. 6here an in earlier worKs he points out that
general relativity Cwhich must be inclue in an eventual integrate
quantum theory1 although it is still !ar !rom clear how this might be
oneD implies that quantum states which i!!er su!^ciently in their
gravitational ^els cannot be superpose. 6hus any !uture theory that
integrates gravitation with the approach being use here will contain a
lower limit !or the time separation o! moments o! consciousness which
matches the time scale on which the i!!erence between the gravitational
^els o! alternative states reaches the level ienti^e by 7enrose. 6his
limitation maKes the theory consistent with ata !or atomic systems1
while proucing i!!erences !rom conventional theory that shoul
alreay be etectable !or large conscious systems. @ote that this i!!ers
!rom 7enrose C2))(D !or which only the size o! the system1 not its
consciousness1 is relevant1 a criterion that may alreay be !alsi^e
C"chlosshauer1 2))&DS1 c.!.1 * New 3uantum Theoretical :ramewor' for
4arapsychology =IJJKA.
>anuary 2)*(
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=*tIz4O<2$h8
=<7;A.H@O Ehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=*tIz4O<2$h8
&!eature=youtube#gata#playerE& =<7;A.H@O Ehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=*tIz4O<2$h8&!eature=youtube#gata#playerE!eature=youtube#gata#player R/ song !or remembering lost love ones1
both eparte an living.S

Fe are !orce to presume that correlations e0ist an quite str ng ones those little ones e0ist between the various speaKs on the
rugge !itness lanscape o! biological comple0ity which is scale by natural selection acting upon allegely ranom
mutations

6he engineer is limite in his algorithm composition by Ourt 4oel Hncompleteness 6heorem however ranom mutation is
not in this way limite.

6here is a point o! iminishing returns perhaps unKnown to intelligent esign theorists where the tinKering o! ranom
mutation an natural selection can achieve eeper an subtler comple0ity then can be achieve by an engineer1 regarless o!
how talente an gi!te that engineer may be.
-ebruary 2)*( -cbK=
6he philosophically naive error o! intelligent esign
theorists is their presumption that grammatical chauvinism on the part o!
speaKers o! human languages possesses valiity beyon the linguistic
conte0t in other wors is vali is relevant to the escription o! ob5ective
being. 6hey shoul remember that the passive construction leaves the
question o! a sub5ect wholly ine!inite. 6he a5ective EintelligentE may
only be a property o! a !unamental process1 i.e.1 one having no
beginning in time. 6he noun1 EesignE oes not necessarily imply an
activity. /n activity oes not imply an agent. /n agent oes not imply an
agency. /n agency oes not imply a !ouning. / !ouning oes not
imply a !ouner. 6hanKs1 8ichaelT /n ol chestnut or shall H say
EonionE. : p. 6he motive behin H: is inee isingenuous aKa bacKoor
creationism. ?elieving grammatical relationships to be as robust as
logical or causal implications is my biggest criticism o! the purveyors o!
H:. . .not their cynicism1 which H taKe !or grante. E<ou canGt get
something !rom nothing . . . unless its the quantum vacuum.E H.e.1 the
quantum vacuum is EnothingE. /n EnothingE comes !rom
nothing...=eisenberg energy uncertainty is the causal basis o!
temporarily an so coul have ha no beginning in time /n
EeverythingE comes !rom EnothingE because the only i!!erence between
real an virtual particles an !iels is Can hereGs the
rub...Wuni!!erentiateW energyD.
6here are no things1 only EthingsE.

/ll superposition states are collapse by consciousness1 there!ore
consciousness itsel! cannot enter into a quantum superposition state but
oes this in turn imply that there is only one consciousness that there
cannot be orthogonal consciousnesses?
!cbK=
.ynn1 Ybeing a nutZ an Y!eeling liKe a nutZ are not mutually
e0clusive Cwhat quantum physicists term EorthogonalED states an so
cannot enter into an authentically quantum superposition. /lso1 because
consciousness causes collapse o! any an all quantum superposition
states1 consciousness cannot itsel! enter into1 or !orm a part o!1 a
superposition state. EPuantumnessE1 as a property o! brain !unctioning
woul not be connecte in any preictable or law-liKe !ashion1 there!ore
to consciousness. 3onsequently1 a quantum computer coul not be
e0pecte to reliably inicate1 e.g.1 lighting up or not lighting up when the
brain or parts o! the brain possess a certain type o! consciousness Csuch
as the Epara-consciousnessE o! which you speaKD. H am uncertain how
you e!ine paranormal so H cannot speaK to that part o! your possibly
whimsical question.

4erman iealist philosophy containe the sees o! 4erman nationalism
which reache its !ull !lowering in @ational "ocialism.

3ommonsensically1 quantum nonlocality an entanglement appears to be
a natural consequence o! the notion o! intrinsic spin which is a Kin o!
inaccessibly internal !orm o! angular momentum which possesses no
equivalent in classical physics.

6here are conspiracy theorist who believe that 7aul o! 6arsus hi5acKe
3hristianity an realize his earlier goal o! preventing the establishment
o! an earthly Kingom by oing away with the notion o! an earthly
Kingom in !avor o! a spiritual Kingom. 6aKe a looK at the !ollowing:
http://www.stephen5aygoul.org/ctrl/5e!!erson#5esus.html

6he notion in !orming an aggressive regressive ta0ation system is one o!
that o! the per!orming o!! worK per!orming o! worK upon the economy
versus per!orming o! worK within the economy which is at every turn
!acilitating ones prouctivity an pro!itability verses per!orming worK
upon the economy !rom outsie where there is resistance !riction an
viscosity at every turn as one tens to out a small moicum o! isposable
income in ore to support ones !amily an buil a moest !uture.
/ugust 2)*$
R:istinct memory/ientity states o! the observer Cthat are also his
Rstates o! KnowlegeSD cannot be superpose: 6his censorship is strictly
en!orce by ecoherence an the resulting einselection. :istinct memory
states label an RinhabitS i&erent branches o! the ;verett_s R8any
ForlsS ,niverse. 7ersistence o! correlations is all that is neee to
recover R!amiliar realityS. Hn this manner1 the istinction between
epistemology an ontology is washe away: 6o put it succinctly CJureK1
*22(D there can be no in!ormation without representation in physical
states. 6here is usually no nee to trace the collapse all the way to
observer_s memory. Ht sufces that the states o! a ecohering system
quicKly evolve into mi0tures o! the pre!erre CpointerD states. /ll that
can be
Known in principle about a system Cor about an observer1 also
introspectively1 e.g.1 by the observer himsel!D is its ecoherence-resistant
fientity tag_ L a escription o! its einselecte state.
R/part !rom this essentially negative !unction o! a censor the
environment plays also a very i&erent role o! a Rbroacasting agentS1
relentlessly cloning the in!ormation about the einselecte pointer states.
6his role o! the environment as a witness in etermining what e0ists was
not appreciate until now: 6hroughout the past two ecaes1 stuy o!
ecoherence !ocuse on the e&ect o! the environment on the system.
6his has le to a multitue o! technical avances we shall review1 but it
has also misse one crucial point o! paramount conceptual importance:
9bservers monitor systems inirectly1 by intercepting small !ractions o!
their environments Ce.g.1 a !raction o! the photons that have been
reqecte or emitte by the ob5ect o! interestD. 6hus1 i! the unerstaning
o! why we perceive quantum ,niverse as classical is the principal aim1
stuy o! the nature o! accessibility o! in!ormation sprea throughout the
environment shoul be the !ocus o! attention. 6his leas one away !rom
the moels o! measurement inspire by the Rvon @eumann chainS
C*2$2D to stuies o! in!ormation trans!er involving branching out
conitional ynamics an the resulting R!an-outS o! the in!ormation
throughout environment CJureK1 *2N$1 *22Na1 2)))D. 6his new fquantum
:arwinism_ view o! environment selectively ampli!ying einselecte
pointer observables o! the systems o! interest is complementary to the
usual image o! the environment as the source o! perturbations that
estroy quantum coherence o! the system. Ht suggests the reunancy o!
the imprint o! the system in the environment may be a quantitative
measure o! relative ob5ectivity an hence o! classicality o! quantum
statesS1 c.!.1 Decoherence" Einselection an the 3uantum Origins of the
Classical.
R=ilary 7utnam argue that ffsomething is wrong with the
[conventional\ theory.__ "uperposition1 an ob5ect being simultaneously in
a state / an a state ?1 a particle behaving as i! it goes simultaneously
through slit * an slit 21 is the quantum-mechanical measurement
parao0. ?ut conitions in the macroworl are i!!erent: Hn the
macroworl1 a cat being both alive an ea at the same time oes not
occurV the conitions cannot be superpose. 6here!ore1 7utnam claime1
the assumptions o! conventional quantum mechanics constitute a
contraiction. =e note that Figner Can =enry 8argenauD e!ene the
aequacy o! the receive view Cquantum 5umps1 collapse o! the state
vectorD along a somewhat i!!erent line: /ccoring to them quantum
mechanics presupposes a cut between the observer an the ob5ect. /ny
system whatsoever can be taKen as the ob5ectV however1 the observer
himsel! cannot be inclue. 6he observer always treats himsel! as
possessing e^nite states which are Known to himS1 c.!.1 WignerDs
LL4olanyianDD Epistemology an the 2easurement 4roblem.
>anuary 2)*2
3an it be emonstrate that the concept o! temporally pure
causation1 i.e.1 pure temporal persistence1 i.e.1 as an isolate system an
in the absence o! causal conte0t o! a substantive or RbeableS is logically
inconsistent? Hn a physical sense this appears impossible on account o!
the grouning o! physical temporality in an embeing quantum vacuum
energy !luctuation !iel Cresponsible !or the ecay o! energy eigenstates1
transition between energy eigenstates an temporal evolution o! ensity
!unctionsD. 3oul phase rotation o! the system wave!unction quali!y as
pure1 conte0t-!ree temporal evolution?
au=
RIon @eumann_s 7rocess * is the physical aspect o! the choice on the
part o! the human agent. Hts psychologically escribe aspect is
e0perience an escribe as a !ocusing o! attention an e!!ort on some
intention1 an the physically escribe aspect consists o! the associate
choice o! the basis vectors an o! the timings o! the action. 6hen there is
a !eebacK quantum 5ump whose psychologically escribe aspect is
e0perience an escribe as an increment in Knowlege1 an whose
physical aspect is a Rquantum 5umpS to a new physical state that is
compatible with that increment in KnowlegeS1 c.!.1
cit=
/ravity an
Consciousness C$'%)))*%D
Fithout quantum entanglement being involve in the act o! perception
o! the outcome o! a quantum e0periment CliKely through the quantum
vacuum in which the observe system an the observer_s brain are
commonly embeeD1 there woul be the ever-present necessity o! the
consciousness Cwhose brain it is supplying the observation to this
consciousnessD revamping its system o! interpreting the quantum
behavior o! Rits brainS1 e.g.1 how oes the observer synch up his
sub5ective perception o! Rea catS vs. Rlive catS with the actual
"chroinger_s cat e0perimental outcome o! Rea catS vs. Rlive catS?
@ovember 2)**
Ht is very signi!icant that the prime phenomenological
mani!estation o! the Rgroun o! beingS in the realm o! physical being1
i.e.1 Rquantum entanglementS is 5ust now maKing itsel! Known. "cience
through the emergence o! the !iel o! the stuy o! P; appears to be
arriving at a point analogous to that o! the reamer who !ins himsel! at
the cusp between un-sel!-consciousness an RluciityS. "cience has
!inally !oun one o! the RhanlesS o! the Rreality bootstrap mechanismS
an so must be especially care!ul !or it is 5ust at the point o! the onset o!
luciity that the ream continuum encounters a bi!urcation point
between meta- an robust-stability.
>une 2)*2
H suspect that many o! the
properties o! the wave!unction1 particularly with respect to the !unction_s
R!ragilityS are share in common with those o! the luci reaming state
o! consciousness an are mani!estations o! two things: *D sel!-inter!ering
!eebacK an 2D the limite computing capacity o! the Rcosmic 37,S.
8ay *22%
Hnertial mass may be base in the ensity o! momentum
e0changes taKing place
between the various subatomic particles an quantum !iels composing a
given mass1 while gravitational mass may be base in the ensity o!
energy e0changes taKing place between these subatomic particles/
quantum !iels an the quantum vacuum !iel. 6he equivalence o!
inertial an gravitational masses may be an arti!act o! the conservation
o! momentum-energy uncertainty or the conservation o! virtual
momentum an energy as a momentum-energy !luctuation !our vector
within !our imensional spacetime.
Kwo=
R:etaile investigation by =. 7oincare_ o! the .orentz etaile group
invariants resulte in his iscovery o! the pseuo-;ucliean geometry o!
space-time. 7recisely on such a basis1 he estab-lishe the !our-
imensionality o! physical quantities: !orce1 velocity1 momentum1
current. =.7oincarre_s ^rst short worK ap-peare in the reports o! the
-rench /caemy o! sciences be!ore /. ;instein_s worK
was even submitte !or publication. 6hat worK containe an accurate
an rigorous solution o! the problem o! electroynamics o! moving
boies1 an at the same timeit e0tene the .orentz trans!ormations to
all natural !orces1o! whatever origin they might beS1 c.!.1
http://ar0iv.org/abs/gr-qc/)2*)))'v21 6he 6heory o! 4ravity by /. /.
.ugunov.
Aelativistic mass increase may be associate with a shi!t in the relative
ensities o! $-momentum an imaginary (-momentum e0changes taKing
place between the mass an itsel! an between the mass an its
embeing quantum vacuum1 respectively. C6his remarK ae 8arch
*1 2))& in terms o! my Rol parlanceS o! 8ay *22%D
>une 2)**
6he reason
!or the equality o! inertial an gravitational mass is to be !oun in the
happy coincience o! there being a common mechanism between mass_
e!!ect upon the vacuum an vacuum_s e!!ect upon mass.
Qd
8ass is an
e!!ect o! gravity_s interaction with the vacuum WanW gravity is an e!!ect
o! mass_ interaction with this same vacuum.
>uly *22%
Ht is only nonzero e0pectation values o! momentum-energy which
may possess gravitational or inertial mass. /n what contributes to this
mass is any bounary conitions place upon the quantum vacuum !iel
which alters this !iel so that the $-momentum !luctuations an
imaginary (-momentum !luctuations o not precisely cancel.
>une *22N
6he
e0pectation values may always be e!ine in terms o! a !luctuation term
an an uncertainty. 6his !luctuation term may be intrinsic to the quantum
vacuum !iel an the uncertainty may be associate with the observer o!
the quantum system. 6hrough a Kin o! coherence Cor resonanceD
between the intrinsic vacuum !luctuation term an the observerGs
uncertainty1 the emergence o! a nonzero e0pectation value1 i.e.1 a
classical observable1 may emerge. 6here is no reason why we cannot
attribute the entirety o! the term1 /a;1 to the observer per!orming the
energy-etermining measurement. ?ut to o so means that one is
consiering the =eisenberg ,ncertainty 7rinciple C=,7D to be entirely
epistemological in nature. 6o attribute this uncertainty entirely to the
quantum system itsel! is to maintain that the =eisenberg uncertainty is
ontological in nature. 6his alternative interpretation o! the =,7 is not
!easible1 however1 as the observer_s brain equally constitutes a quantum
mechanical system 5ust as oes the system he is observing or per!orming
measurements upon. 6he perhaps more reasonable approach to
interpreting the =,7 might be to compromise between the two e0tremes
by amitting that there is a ynamic interrelationship between the
uncertainties o! both the observer_s brain an the quantum system he is
observing.



8arch 2))&
Ht might be suppose that the manner in which the worl
appears1 i.e.1 is perceive by the observer is merely a collaborative
prouct o! the observer an the worl through the quantum inter!erence
between the correlate quantum !luctuations o! the observer_s brain an
the correlate quantum !luctuations constituting the system being
observe. ?ut this cannot ultimately be a correct escription o! the
mechanism o! conscious observation because the quantum correlate
!luctuational structure o! the observer_s brain possesses this Rnecessary
interiorityS by virtue o! outstripping the brain_s embeing quantum
vacuum_s computational capacity Bua Buantum computer.
)$/)*/)&

6here must arise an e0act matching or mutual coherence o! internal an
e0ternal !requencies !or an ob5ect to become mani!est.
8arch 2))&
3onscious mani!estation o! !orm within the observer_s perceptions o! his
environment is supporte by the irreucible comple0ity o! the quantum
!luctuation-correlational structure1 c.!.1 AeziK_s ThreeFway ;acuum
Nonlocality" which we have sai engeners interiority to this quantum
!luctuation structure that cannot be moele within the simpler
!luctuation structure o! the brain_s embeing in a quantum vacuum
substrate1
@ovember 2)**
c.!.1
au=
7lotinus in
cit=
;nnea HI.(.2$1 (L*2: RFell1
then1 the soul will either apprehen alone by itsel! or in company with
something else. ?ut how can it o this when it is alone an by itsel!?
-or when it is by itsel! it apprehens what is in itsel!1 an is pure
thought. H! it also apprehens other things [i.e. sensibles\1 it must !irst
have taKen possession o! them as well1 either by becoming assimilate to
them1 or by Keeping company with something which has been
assimilate. ?ut it cannot be assimilate while it remains in itsel!. -or
how coul a point be assimilate to a line? -or even the intelligible line
woul not assimilate to the sensible one1 nor woul the intelligible !ire
or man assimilate to the sense-perceive !ire or man. . . . ?ut when the
soul is alone1 even i! it is possible !or it to irect its attention to the
worl o! sense1 it will en with an unerstaning o! the intelligibleV what
is perceive by sense will escape it1 as it has nothing with which to grasp
it. "ince also when the soul sees the visible ob5ect !rom a istance1
however much it is a !orm which comes to it1 that which reaches it1
though it starts by being in a way without parts1 ens in the substrate
which the soul sees as color an shape with the e0tension it has out
there.S
>uly 2)**
H! the substrate o! being is information rather than
inepenently e6isting funamental particles1 then there is really no
impasse pose by it being otherwise necessary !or matter to RbootstrapS
itsel! into greater comple0ity. Ht is tempting to suppose that vacuum $-
way an higher orer nonlocality is the source o! 2-way nonlocality o!
all quantum mechanical states/systems. 6he interiority o! sub5ectivity
woul on this view not be a truly emergent quality o! biological systems1
but merely the awareness o! this interiority woul be.
@ovember 2)*2
6he
epenence o! n-way nonlocality !or smaller RnS on n-way nonlocality
!or larger RnS constitutes a Kin o! causal supervenience place within
the conte0t o! quantum entanglement an correlational structures an
remins us o! holographic time scale reuctionism1 i.e.1 in which
structures occupying smaller intervals o! time are conitione by
structures occupying larger intervals o! time. 6his Rentanglement
supervenienceS !or want o! a more convenient term intuitively points up
Oau!!man_s funamentality or principle o! the !unamentalness Calong
with subatomic particles an !ielsD o! consciousness as such Cas
oppose to any particular consciousnessD.
9ne way to moel the relativistic e!!ects o! mass1 length an time might
be to thinK o! a mass as the result o! the mutual inter!erence o! myria
alternate universe copies o! the abstract ob5ects possessing the !ormal
structure which the mass e0hibits upon analysis. 6he greater the
coherence o! the 8FH Cmany worls interpretationD quantum copies o!
the ob5ect1 that is1 the more closely the copies mutually inter!ere1 the
greater is the mass o! the ob5ect1 the more ilate is the e0ternal time
Can more contracte is the internal timeD o! the mass. Hn this way
7enrose_s connection between gravity an wave!unction collapse may be
e0plore !urther.
8arch 2))&
7erhaps this is better put in terms o! the
greater the ensity o! cohering o! Can mutually inter!ering1 i.e.1
quantum correlateD 8FH quantum near uplicates" the greater is the
ob5ect_s inertial mass.
6hese !requencies1 or their spectra1 woul be associate with the
!luctuations in the vacuumGs intrinsic energy an with !luctuations in the
ability o! an ieal observer to etermine the systemGs energy
inepenently o! the e!!ect o! the vacuum energy !luctuations1
respectively. Fe are basing this iea o! observer-system resonance as
the basis o! perception on an iea e0presse by :avi ?ohm in his booK1
cit=
Puantum 6heory. /ccoring to
au=
?ohm C*2'*D1
Qd
the !luctuations in
an observable1 in combination with the correlations o! the phases o!
these quantum !luctuations1 together comprise the average values an
average temporal evolution o! any observable. /n act o! observation has
the e!!ect o! estroying the elicate phase relations between the
eigen!unctions1 the prouct o! which constitute the pure state
wave!unction representing the state o! the system.
>uly 2)**
C3an changes
in the entanglement signature o! nonlocally correlate !luctuations
inuce by acts o! conscious observation impact causal relationships?
3onversely1 can causally inuce changes to the system_s momentum
an energy be trace to corresponing changes in nonlocally correlate
!luctuations in the system_s momentum an energy?D
6his is re!lecte in the instantaneous shi!t in the values o! all
incompatible observables relative to the observable the value o! which is
being more !ully etermine as a result o! observation. 6he e!!ect o! the
!luctuation energy upon our energy measuring evices is1 o! course1 an
e!!ect which even the per!ect calibration o! our energy-measuring
instruments cannot in principle eraicate. H! the observer_s
consciousness inevitably inuces collapse o! the wave!unction !or the
system he_s observing1 then this is perhaps because:
Qd
*D 6he ynamics
o! the observer_s conscious mental processes is !unamentally quantum
mechanical in nature an 2D 6he mental processes o! the observer are
quantum entangle with those o! the system uner observation.
8ass-energy is a result o! an imbalance in these two energy terms. Hn
this way particles are seen to be not !lu0-stabilities in themselves1 but
structure alterations in the !lu0-stabilities as a result o! the in!luence1
penultimately1 o! our energy measuring evices - ultimately per von
@eumann - the in!luence o! not the iniviual min per se but the
consciousness1 !unamental in nature1 which is structure through the
comple0 system o! bounary conitions upon the very same vacuum
!iel being measure Cin essenceD constitute !rom the operation o! the
observerGs brain1 since the e0istence o! the brain as a mass-energy
system1 woul otherwise presuppose1 i! ienti!ie with the observerGs
iniviual consciousness1 the e0istence o! that which its observations are
partially constituting.
Qd
RH! reality is this secon way1 then the role o!
the neuronal system is not to mysteriously create awareness an min
!rom alien substance. Aather1 it is to organize a pre-e0isting propensity
!or awareness into use!ul1 !unctional awareness1 an provie !or its
moulation by use!ul in!ormationS1 c.!.1
cit=
Implications of a
:unamental Consciousness"
auG
2acDonal =>??KA. E6he mere
possibility o! observation results in the reuction o! the state vector.E
@ovember 2))%
H! a great enough interlocKing !eebacK between such
possibilities comes about which then alters the statistics o! matter an
energy Cincluing the embeing vacuum energy !ielD1 which results in
a great enough contraction/collapse in the ensity rate o! change in these
state vector reuctions Cthrough the conversion o! is5oint states into
correlate mi0turesD1 proucing an overall coherent state1 then a barrier
will spontaneously be create between internal an e0ternal1 i.e.1 a
ruimentary real1 as oppose to a mere hypothetical1 possible observer
will be engenere. Cconsier here the necessary interiority o! the brain
o! the quantum observerD1 c.!.1 so-calle R?oltzmann brains. S
>une 2)*2
cit=
RFe woul liKe to argue that this is not the case. "uppose we o not
looK at the whole bo0 at once1 but only at a piece o! the bo0. 6hen1 at a
certain moment1 suppose we iscover a certain amount o! orer. Hn this
little piece1 white an blacK are separate. Fhat shoul we euce about
the conition in places where we have not yet looKe? H! we really
believe that the orer arose !rom complete isorer by a !luctuation1 we
must surely taKe the most liKely !luctuation which coul prouce it1 an
the most liKely conition is not that the rest o! it has also become
isentangleT 6here!ore1 !rom the hypothesis that the worl is a
!luctuation1 all o! the preictions are that i! we looK at a part o! the worl
we have never seen be!ore1 we will !in it mi0e up1 an not liKe the
piece we 5ust looKe at. H! our orer were ue to a !luctuation1 we woul
not e0pect orer anywhere but where we have 5ust notice itS1 c.!.1
+ichar :eynman on -olt(mann -rains by
au=
"ean 3arroll.
!cbK=
6he ?oltzmann-"chuetz cosmology is a weir iea1 but weirness
alone ought not be hel as an ob5ection. 6here is a consequence1
however1 that ?oltzmann seems not to have notice. 9n such a scenario1
the vast ma5ority o! occurrences o! a given nonma0imal level o! entropy
woul be near a local entropy minimum1 an so R9ne shoul regar it as
overwhelmingly probable that1 even given our current e0perience1
entropy increases towars the past as well as the !uture1 an everything
that seems to be a recor o! a lower entropy past is itsel! the prouct o! a
ranom !luctuation. 8oreover1 you shoul taKe yoursel! to be whatever
the minimal physical system is that is capable o! supporting e0periences
liKe yoursV apparent e0periences o! being surroune by an abunance
o! low-entropy matter are illusory. 6hat is1 you shoul taKe yoursel! to
be what has been calle a ?oltzmann brain. C-ootnote: R6he term is ue
to /nreas /lbrecht. Ht !irst appears in print in /lbrecht an "orbo
C2))(D. 6he consequence o! the ?oltzmann-"chuetz cosmology1 that we
shoul taKe the !luctuation we are in to be no larger than necessary1
seems to have been !irst pointe out by /rthur ;ington.DS1 c.!.1 Notes
on Thermoynamics an &tatistical =2yrvol IJ>MA
http://www.rotman.uwo.ca/wp-content/uploas/6hermo@otes.p!
?y the equivalence principle1 !ermion-anti!ermion prouction in a
gravitational !iel shoul not e0ist !or a !reely !alling observer. ?ut
neither shoul this !reely !alling observer witness a blacKboy spectrum
o! photons. "ince through the CliKely ienticalD particle prouction
mechanisms unerlying both =awKing raiation an :avies-,nruh
raiation1 the !ermion-anti!ermion an boson particle prouction !iels
are observer-epenent in their intensities1 there shoul be an invariant
trans!ormation rule by which we can connect the respective particle
prouction rates !or bosons an !ermion-anti!ermion pairs out o! the
vacuum.
@ovember 2))%
6his remins us o! the equilibrium principle mani!est
in the relationship o! the charge particle an its electric !iel uring !ree
!all L a charge particle accelerates through an electric potential in such
a manner that the particle_s electric !iel appears to it Crelative to the
particle instantaneous .orentz !rameD to be spherically istribute about
itsel!.


6his invariance is probably not that o! simple .orenz-invariance because
the observer-epenent shi!t in intensities/current ensities o! the
particle prouction is epenent upon the acceleration o! the observer -
not on his relative velocity. -or instance1 the masses o! the particles
prouce1 in the case o! !ermion-anti!ermion prouction1 varies in an
opposing sense to the manner in which the !ermion-anti!ermion rate
alters ue to an arbitrary .orenz-trans!ormation o! the gravitational !iel
engenering the enhance !C+D/!C-D prouction. /n this occurs 5ust in
such a manner that the mass-creation rate !or !C+D/!C-DGs remains constant.
6his woul seem to imply that the concept o! mass is absolute within the
6heory o! Aelativity. 6he (-voume in which !C+D/!C-D
creation/annihilation is taKing place within this gravitational !iel is also
una!!ecte by an arbitrary .orenz-trans!ormation since the length
contraction an time ilation taKe place in opposite senses as well. Hn
this way1 the mass creation rate !or !C+D/!C-DGs ivie by the local (-
volume we are consiering1 i.e.1 the (-current ensity o! the general
relativistic particle prouction1 is conserve as a result o! an arbitrary
.orenz trans!ormation o! the gravitational !iel inucing the particle
prouction !iel.
Y!assages in green are in nee" of #clean$u!%ZAeturning to our !irst
analogy1 this e0change o! in!ormation is not actually occurring among
the pi0els Cas was the case !or the gnatsD1 but is1 !or the greater part1
occurring within the 37, itsel!1 that is1 between its iniviual circuit
elementsV in small part1 this e0change o! energy/in!ormation is taKing
place between the 37, an the pi0els on the screen it is controlling.
6he greater the ratio o! in!ormation e0changes taKing place between the
37, an itsel! relative to the those taKing place between the 37, an
the screen1 the slower will be the ma0imum permissible velocity across
the screen !or an ob5ect represente on this screen1 assuming an absolute
clocK rate !or the 37, CaKin to the notion o! cosmological proper timeD.
/ similar statement woul apply to the EaccelerationE o! the cursor
across the screen - the larger the group o! pi0els which one wishes to
simultaneously move across the screen1 the smaller will be the ma0imum
acceleration attainable by the coherent group o! pi0els represente by
the cursor.
6he quantum principle o! the ientity o! iniscernibles is weaKene !or
composite ob5ects1 which is relate to the action o! the principle o! the
2
n
.aw o! 6hermoynamics. 6he iscernibility o! composite ob5ects
grows sharper as each ob5ect evelops its own unique history Cas
oppose to mere Rtra5ectorySD an the !ailure o! this quantum principle1
i.e.1 ientity o! iniscernibles in view o! consieration o! the 2
n
.aw is
boun up in the vacuum energy/cosmological constant parao0 Cnon-
gravitating vacuum energyD. Ht is moreover boun up with the
important istinction o! ata an in!ormation. 6he acceleration o! an
ob5ect changes the state o! the ob5ect in a way that must be reconcile
not only with bounary but also with the initial conitions by which the
ob5ect was originally constitute as well. 6hus gravitational !iels must
be capable o! possessing nonlocal components.
)$/)*/)&
Fe recall here that
a ?ohmian style interpretation o! the ;7A e0periment with a "tern-
4erlach evice calls !or bacKwar-in-time signaling o! the separately
measure particles with their earlier state as part o! a composite spin-)
particle 5ust prior to this particle_s spontaneous ecay.
)$/)*/)&

H! we are looKing !or something to play the role o! EmassE within our
computer analogy we woul o so in vain unless we moi!y somewhat
Cin a way which oesnGt rener our analogy useless1 H thinKD the
programming o! the so!tware riving the computer monitor Coutput
eviceD. H! we were to thinK o! the quantum vacuum !iel as generating
an sustaining all o! the various E!ormsE such as all o! the particles an
!iels o! spacetime1 oing this in a manner e0actly paralleling that in
which a 37, creates/sustains all o! the igital graphical representations
appearing on a computer screen1 then the suggestion arises that perhaps
there is not only a ma0imum possible velocity1 but also a ma0imum
possible acceleration through spacetime. /n obvious choice !or this
ma0imum acceleration is simply c
2
/.
plancK
. C?ut certainly the ma0imum
acceleration becomes smaller in magnitue as we treat progressively
more comple0 systemsD /n equivalent representation o! this limit is
c/t
plancK
. /n1 o! course1 we are thinKing o! .
plancK
as the imension o! a
three imensional Epi0elE composing the spatial part o! global
spacetime1 while CtplancKD-* represents the clocK rate o! the Eglobal
spacetime central processing unit C37,D1E i.e. the global quantum
mechanical vacuum. Fe state earlier1 that the temporality o! a
quantum mechanical system is owing entirely to the presence o! energy
uncertainty within this system.
)$/)*/)&
CHt shoul be note here that
i!!erent energy uncertainties o! ientical magnitue might represent
i!!erent quantities o! in!ormation upon interaction with the environment
ue to their possessing istinct quantum !luctuation-correlational
structure.D
)$/)*/)&
Fe now realize that the temporality o! quantum
mechanical systems owes to the interaction o! this system with the
!luctuating quantum mechanical vacuumV consequently1 the rate at which
time passes within a given region o! spacetime is a !unction o! the
energy ensity o! the vacuum within this region. Fe have propose that
the inertial mass o! a boy is irectly relate to its bining energy ue to
nongravitational !orces. 6his is a seeming parao0 since bining energy
is negative an shoul result in an overall reuction in the inertial mass
Cpositive energyD o! the boy. Y!assages in green are in nee" of
#clean$u!%Z
8ay *22%
/n e0ample o! where there is a change only in gravitational
bining energy is when the increase in negative bining energy is
resulting !rom the action o! gravitation alone which is e0actly
counterbalance by the general relativistic increase in the mass energy o!
the boy. 6o wit1 here we have increase the gravitational bining
energy o! a boy without having a!!ecte the total energy1 an hence1
inertial mass1 o! the boy.
Fhen the ensity o! a given region o! space increases1 there oes not
result merely a simple ecrease in the energy ensity o! the vacuum.
Aather1 there is a momentum current ensity tensor1 which is iagonal in
!ree space1 e0periences a shu!!ling o! its components so that it is no
longer iagonal - with respect to a !ree space 8inKowsKi spacetime.
/ugust *22&
6here is another way o! looKing at the phenomenon o! inertia in
terms o! how spin-coupling o! real bosons o! integral spin an real
!ermions o! integral
*
/
2
spin to the spins o! virtual bosons an !ermions.
6he particle mani!estations o! the vacuum momentum-energy
!luctuations may be incorporate into the view o! the earlier state
mechanism o! inertia/gravitation allue to in the paragraph
immeiately above. Ht is through the spin-coupling o! real an virtual
particles that the momentum current ensity components are altere
!rom their iagonal 2n ranK tensor istribution to a non-iagonal
component istribution o! this momentum energy which unerlies
mani!est gravitational !iels. 6he theory o! Esqueeze states1E where the
uncertainties in momentum along a particular a0is are increase by
borrowing momentum uncertainty !rom along other orthogonal a0es1
may provie the necessary mathematical !rameworK within which the
e!!ects o! matter upon vacuum momentum-energy uncertainty may be
aequately escribe: matter a!!ects the quantum vacuum by inucing a
broaening o! the vacuumGs momentum uncertainty1 i.e.1 its momentum
!luctuation spectrum by utilizing !luctuation energy provie by the
vacuumGs uncertain energy1 which is ecreasing in step at the same time.
/ugust *22&
6his may be escribe in terms o! the rotation o! the matter +
vacuum momentum current ensity tensor. / secon ranK tensor
multiplie by this iagonal momentum current ensity !our vector woul
prouce the appropriate connection between this !our vector at points in
spacetime in!initesimally contiguous with one another. "uch a 2n ranK
tensor must somehow be assimilate to the metric tensor o! general
relativity. Hnstantaneous correlations woul mani!est themselves as a
eparture !rom locally eterministic causality an coul constitute an
e0planation !or the e0istence o! =eisenberg energy uncertainty. H thinK
there is no oubt that i! the basic !rameworK o! "pecial Aelativity is to
be maintaine1 then we are !orce to accept an origin !or nonlocal
correlations which lies completely outsie !our imensional spacetime
or at least outsie the local absolute past/!uture o! the best possible
causal chain.
&oember '(()
6hese nonlocal correlations must always
comprise causal interactions an so never be e0plicable in terms o!
them. Fe Know that a photon traveling though !ree space e0periences
acceleration ue to the cosmological e0pansion1 an that this
acceleration is equal to =c1 where = is =ubbleGs constant an c is the
spee o! light in vacuum. 6here!ore1 i! a spherical mass is
instantaneously converte into pure energy1 i.e.1 photons1 the photons
will instantly1 collectively e0ert a positive pressure1
7 = 8=c/ A --
-
.
3onsequently1 the vacuum must e0ert a pressure upon spherical masses1
which is equal an opposite to this above quantity. 6his notion shoul
be investigate !urther in connection with the 7ioneer /nomaly1 i.e.1 the
anomalous component o! acceleration that some physicists have
connecte to either a cosmological constant or to the cosmological
acceleration !iel in some other sense1 ar' energy.
&o*ember '(()
"ome
theoretical evience !or this claim can be provie by the calculation o!
a worK-energy integral. 6his integral is ultimately motivate by an
e0tension o! the equipartation theorem o! Kinetic gas theory to the
cosmological istribution o! energy in the ,niverse. 6his question will
be aresse at a later occasion1 however. /s !or the integral itsel!1 it is
use to calculate the worK which the ,niverse per!orme on some small
volume o! energy as the energy ensity o! this volume ecrease !rom a
very high value early in the history o! the ,niverse Csay in the !irst !ew
seconsD until the present epoch o! cosmological e0pansion when the
energy ensity o! this volume has become almost negligible. 9ne may
thinK o! this worK as being per!orme on this volume by some
cosmological acceleration !orce !iel an i! we assume that this tiny
volume manage to hol itsel! together without e0paning throughout
the entire e0pansion phase1 then this volume must have e0erte a !orce
upon the ,niverse equal an opposite to the cosmological !orce which
was attempting to sprea it apart. 3onservation o! momentum hols !or
the combine mass-energy/vacuum-energy system so that there is a
balancing o! the !orce o! the =ubble cosmological !orce !iel acting
upon the vacuum an the gravitational !orce o! the vacuum acting upon
the total matter istribution o! the ,niverse. Fe may even say that the
vacuumGs gravitational !iel is simply a reaction !orce prouce by the
tenency o! the =ubble cosmological acceleration !orce to alter the
momentum o! the vacuum.
Qd
6his reaction !orce acts to conserve the
momentum o! the vacuum energy !iel. 6his action - reaction !orce
relationship is e0presse by the equation given below1
=
2
r 0 ;
v
= ;
o
0 48/A
2
1
where 48/A
2
= the acceleration !iel prouce by the vacuumGs
gravitational !iel. 6he gravitational !iel o! matter istributions is not
an inherent property o! these istributions1 but must be conceive along
the same general lines as the electrical repulsive !orce between
islocations or holes in an otherwise electrically neutral crystalline
matri0. 6his iea is more or less capture by the !ollowing relationship1
;
v
/;
o
0 =
2
r = nc
2
/r 0 C* - ;/;
v
D - c
2
/ro = g1
where the term1 c
2
/r1 is the acceleration !iel prouce by the vacuum
reaction - !orce which compensates the action o! the =ubble
cosmological acceleration !orce upon the vacuum energy !iel. =c is the
cosmological acceleration !iel1 which acts upon !reely moving photons1
an implies the e0istence o! a precisely balancing an opposing reactive
!orce upon the particles !orming a boun matter istribution. .et us
assume that this tiny volume is that occupie by a neutron an that the
worK-cycle is to begin at an early epoch in the ,niverseGs e0pansion
when the average energy ensity o! the vacuum was equal to that o! the
neutron itsel!: appro0imately *)
$$
>oules/m
$
. 6he worK integral is
e!ine to be:
F = 7Wv1
where the limits o! integration are to be !rom 7i =
i
to
! 1
where 7
an are the pressure an energy ensity o! the vacuum1 respectively.
Fe will at !irst e!ine the worK integral in terms o! -Wr. - is 5ust the
cosmological acceleration !orce acting on the tiny volume an - = 8=
2
r1
where r is the raius o! the volume1 8 is the mass containe within the
volume an = is =ubbleGs constant. H! the volume were to e0pan
e0actly in step with the e0pansion o! space in its immeiate local region1
then the sur!ace o! the volume woul move with respect to its center
Cchosen as coorinate originD with velocity =r1 an the acceleration o!
this sur!ace with respect to the chosen origin woul be /t[=r\ =
=[r/t\ = =
2
r1 so that1 again1 - = 8=
2
r. 6he worK integral becomes
F = 8=
2
rr
between the istance limits A
i
= A
neutron
an A
!
= A
universe
. 6o trans!orm
this worK integral into one in terms o! pressure an volume rather than
!orce an istance involves e!ining the parameters e an e1 i.e.1 mass
ensity an i!!erential o! mass ensity1 respectively.
=
$
/
(
8 A
$
===Z A =
$
root[
$
/
(
8 \ 0
-*/$
r =
-
*
/
$
0
$
root 0 [
$
/
(
m/( \ 0 -(/$
H! one per!orms this worK integral one !ins that the energy necessary to
e0pan neutron-pacKet o! unboun neutron mass-energy is precisely1
; = 4C8
neutron
D
2
/A1
so that the energy necessary to prevent this e0pansion is
; = -4C8
neutron
D
2
/A.
6his result is1 o! course1 provie that the mass ensity o! the universe is
given by the !ormula1
= $=
2
/( 4
ess=
6his !ormula !or the mass ensity o! the ,niverse is implie by an
equality o! magnitue o! the Kinetic energy an gravitational bining
energy o! the ,niverse as a whole. 6his equality constitutes a propose
solution to the so-calle E!latness problemE o! cosmological theory.
/lan 4uthGs Hn!lationary 6heory was originally propose to solve1
essentially1 5ust this cosmological problem. / rough an reay e!inition
o! the !latness problem is the nearly e0act equality between the
,niverseGs e0pansion velocity an its Eescape velocityE - o! somewhere
between * part per *)
*2
an * part per *)
&)
1 epening upon which
sources in the literature are citeV the problem is not that this e0act ratio
con!licts with the stanar E?ig ?angE cosmological moel1 but rather
that it is obviously a non-arbitrary CstructuralD !eature o! the 3osmos
about which the moel can maKe no meaning!ul e0planation.
7roponents o! the "tanar 8oel are !orce to lump this !act in with
the other initial conitions which were set at the beginning o! the
,niverseGs e0pansion1 an which physical science cannot e0plain1 such
as the !unamental physical constants an the ,niverseGs initial mass.
9ther proponents o! this moel invoKe the /nthropic 3osmological
7rinciple to e0plain this ratio. Hts argument goes liKe the !ollowing: i!
the ratio o! escape velocity vs. e0pansion velocity is too much greater
than *1 then the ,niverse woul have alreay re-collapse by this time
an we woul not be hereV on the other han1 i! the ratio is too much less
than *1 then the ensity o! the universe woul not have been great
enough1 !or long enough1 to allow the !ormation o! stars an gala0ies so
that yet again we woul not be here to worry about the question. ?ut the
/nthropic 3osmological 7rinciple cannot e0plain the e0actness with
which this ratio approaches unity1 but can only provie relatively crue
limits on either sie o! this ratio1 say between ).2 an *.*1 conceivably
these limits coul be one orer o! magnitue smaller - this shaves o!!
only * or 2 orers o! magnitue an there are still at least ** more orers
o! magnitue in nee o! e0planation.
9ctober 2)**
/ relate problem in
cosmology an one which is not currently thought to pertain to the
sensitivity o! initial an bounary conitions is that o! the stupenous
mismatch between the preicte an observe energy ensities o! the
vacuum represente by the Rcosmological constantS: cosmological
theory preicts a value !or this constant on the orer o! *)
-2&
Kg/m
$
while
quantum theory preicts a value on the orer o! *)
2'
Kg/m
$
a iscrepancy
o! appro0imately *2) orers o! magnitueT Fhen one consiers on the
one han1 that the ensities o! the mass energy an vacuum energy
Ccosmological preictionD are o! the same magnitue1 i! not almost
precisely equal Cthe conition !or a R!latS universeD an on the other1
that1 i! gravity were to be attribute1 not to the absolute energy ensity o!
the vacuum1 but to the ifference between two large energy ensities
appro0imating one another by an orer o! magnitue an constituting
two istinct components o! the enormous vacuum energy ensity
preicte by quantum mechanics1 then1 i! this energy ensity ifference
is attribute to an Re!!ective energy ensityS !or the vacuum1 i.e.1 that to
which ;instein_s equivalence principle applies1 then in turn we woul be
able to e0plain away the enormous energy ensity preicte by quantum
theory !or the vacuum using a logic similar to that o!
prn=
renormalization
theory. 6he cost o! all this is perhaps only an aesthetic one !or purist
relativists1 that o! the seeming loss o! theoretical elegance an simplicity
in the !orm o! a consierably reuce universality o! ;instein_s strong
equivalence principle. @ote that the e!!ective energy ensity in this
approach to solving the Rcosmological constant problemS is now
comparable to that o! the cosmologically preicte mass ensity. 6he
above approach oes not seem so !ar!etche once one consiers that the
starting mass ensity o! the universe must have been very sensitively
etermine by initial an bounary conitions upon the cosmological
constant itsel!. /n aitional consieration here is that a so-calle !lat
universe also requires that the ensity o! the gravitational bining energy
o! the ,niverse be equal to its mass energy ensity1 c.!.1 the erivation
above !or the equality o!1 e.g.1 the neutron_s mass an gravitational
bining energy ensities. 9n account o! the combine principles o!
equipartation o! energy between egrees o! !reeom an conservation o!
quantum entanglement between the two complementary components o!
the !luctuation momentum-energy o! the quantum vacuum1 which
together maKe up its total energy ensity
+
Czero-point energyD1 we
suspect that it is these two components o! the physical vacuum1 which
are place out o! mutual balance by the perturbing e!!ect o! inertial
mass1 while the bacK reaction o! this inuce vacuum momentum-energy
imbalance upon mass constitutes the origin o! gravitational mass.
+
Czero-point energy as ictate by the !act that not only are momentum
an position Rincompatible observablesS - /ap/a0 Z h1 but all !unctions o!
momentum are similarly incompatible with all !unctions o! position an
so the Kinetic an potential energies are mutually incompatible1 i.e.1 = =
!CpD + !C0D = 6otal energy1 which must !luctuate ue to /a!CpD/a!C0D Z !ChD
where h is 7lancK_s constant an = is the total energy =amiltonianD.
=ere the mismatch is still greater.
Qd
?ut invoKing the so-calle
&olipsistic Cosmological 4rinciple may well place !ar tighter constraints
upon the value o! the cosmological constant than oes a mere *nthropic
Cosmological 4rinciple.

R6he strong anthropic principle C"/7D as e0plaine
by ?arrow an 6ipler Csee variantsD states that this is all the case because
the ,niverse is compelle1 in some sense1 !or conscious li!e to
eventually emerge. 3ritics o! the "/7 argue in !avor o! a weaK anthropic
principle CF/7D similar to the one e!ine by ?ranon 3arter1 which
states that the universeGs ostensible !ine tuning is the result o! selection
bias: i.e.1 only in a universe capable o! eventually supporting li!e will
there be living beings capable o! observing any such !ine tuning1 while a
universe less compatible with li!e will go unbehel.S 6he above is !rom
the wiKipeia entry on the anthropic principle. 8aKing a !ew
substitutions to convert !rom the general to the particular1 we have the
!ollowing: R6he strong anthropic principle C"/7D as e0plaine
by ?arrow an 6ipler Csee variantsD states that this is all the case because the
,niverse is compelle1 in some sense1 !or my conscious li!e to
eventually emerge. 3ritics o! the "/7 argue in !avor o! a weaK anthropic
principle CF/7D similar to the one e!ine by ?ranon 3arter1 which states
that the universeGs ostensible !ine tuning is the result o! selection bias: i.e.1 only in a
universe capable o! eventually supportingS my life Rwill there beS me1
Rcapable o! observing any suchS ultra-!ine Rtuning1 while a universe less
compatible with my life will go unbehelS by me. 6he Key here is that1
the physical constants o! the universe1 e.g.1 gravitational constant1
7lancKGs constant1 electron mass1 electron charge1 !ine structure constant1
spee o! light1 ?ohr magneton1 electric !iel permittivity constant1 etc.1
a nauseum1 must all be !ine-tune to si0 ecimal places !or carbon-
base li!e to be possible. =owever1 !or something very similar to
humanity to be possible1 then these constants must be tweaKe to
perhaps eight ecimal places. 6he catch: these constants might nee to
be tweaKe to *2 or more ecimal places !or creation to be tune to the
precise in!ormation !requency spectrum o! my consciousness !or it to be
put into operationT
@ovember 2))%
6he theory which H propose1 however1 which can be
consiere to be an e0tension o! Ian -lanernGs "-hypothesis1 e0plains
this ratio not as an arbitrary initial conition1 but as a necessary !eature
o! any universe where the energy o! cosmological e0pansion rives the
!orces o! the universeGs gravitationV to wit1 i! the e0pansion velocity o!
the ,niverse were greater than it is1 then the energy o! its e0pansion
woul be greater an hence the gravitational energy o! the ,niverse
woul be corresponingly increase such that the ratio o! unity woul be
maintaine. 6his postulate has a !avorable bearing on many other
unsolve problems o! cosmological theory. 9ur postulate states1 in
essence1 only that the total gravitational potential an Kinetic energies
are equal. 6he postulate is not a mere arbitrary assumption however1 as
it is supporte by the principle o! energy equipartation. =owever1 this
principle can only be applie i! it is assume that there e0ists some !orm
o! energy which acts as a meium physically linKing these two types o!
energy1 i.e.1 the energy o! position with the energy o! momentum1 in
orer that the equilibrium between them can be maintaine through
mutual energy e0changes - in much the same way that the rotational an
vibrational energies o! gas molecules maintain a balance through
continual e0change o! Kinetic energy between these molecules through
ranom collisions.
-ebruary 2)*$
/ chaotic1 thermalize-entropic /nthropic
proto-consciousness !orms the ynamical substrate o! this thir meium.
:ue to the availability o! in!inite time1 ?oltzmann brain-liKe large
entropy !luctuations occasionally occur1 say1 every quarillion centuries
or so1 proucing an intensely !ocuse stream o! /nthropic-consciousness
!or the cosmological equivalent o! a nanosecon L N) years or so...
-ebruary 2)*$
Fhat happens when a material with a larger thermal
equilibrium time constant thermally interacts or e0changes energy with a
substance possessing a relatively smaller thermal equilibrium time
constant?
Kwo=
R/ccoring to recent astrophysical observations the large
scale mean pressure o! our present ,niverse is negative suggesting a
positive cosmological constant-liKe term. 6he issue o! whether
nonperturbative e!!ects o! sel!-interacting quantum ^els in curve
space-times may yiel a signi^cant contribution is aresse. -ocusing
on the trace anomaly o! quantum chromoynamics1 a preliminary
estimate o! the e0pecte orer o! magnitue yiels a remarKable
coincience with the empirical ata1 inicating the potential relevance o!
this e!!ectS1 c.!.1
cit=
I9.,8; N21 @,8?;A N 7=<"H3/. A;IH;F
.;66;A" *2 /,4,"6 2))21 &mall Cosmological Constant from the
3CD Trace *nomaly%
/ugust 2)*$
H! the maths pointe to ?oltzmann brains outnumbering humans1
our theories o! space an time coul be compromise. 6hatGs because we
woul no longer be GtypicalG observers1 an might not have the ability to
see reality !rom the GcorrectG perspective. ?ut accoring to a new report
by @ew "cientist1 new unerstanings o! string theory an the theory o!
multiple universes might 5ust give us an escape clause. 7hysicists 3laire
JuKowsKi an Aaphael ?uosso at ?erKely say that the Key to this
balance Co! us1 versus the superbrainsD is whether or not universes
e0pan !orever an linger - !ull o! ?oltzmann brains - !or much longer
than creatures liKe humans woul be able to survive1 c.!.1
http://www.hu!!ingtonpost.co.uK/2)*$/)'/2$/boltzmann-brain-theory-
space#n#$$2())$.html?5ust#reloae=*.
-ebruary 2)*$
6he growing amounts o! man-hours an money being eicate
to eveloping more e!!icient search engine so!tware along with the ever
increasing collective number o! man-hours being spent on per!orming1
e.g.1 google web searches along with the most recent response to this
eman !or connecte in!ormation in the !orm o! -acebooK_s beta test
version o! graph search1 the now long uner way e0plosive growth o!
interisciplinary science1 the increasing perception that the growth
paraigm o! the 2)
th
3entury has ha its ay an is now sa!ely retire1
improvements in nanotechnological science1 the growing viral nature o!
in!ormation an last but not least the subtly evient e0paning
colonization o! sociolinguistic consciousness by a synta0 o! web search
strings which are more an more supplanting snippets o! moern-
traitional Rsel! ialogueS L all o! this an more suggests that a new
Knowlege an in!ormation paraigm is about to be!all the postmoern
min. /n because as note elsewhere language is not a mere passive
implement !or the communicating o! ieas1 as it was conceive to be
uring the ;nlightenment through the !irst hal! o! the 2)
th
3entury1
nonlinearities o! thought an conception were inevitable though the
accelerating coorination o! human an machine is set to potentiate this.
6he specialize concepts an protocols o! programmers an so!tware
evelopers are collectively constituting a new an !ertile !iel o! hany
metaphors with the power to reprocess an transvaluate what was until
recently an inviolable nacve realism an common sense o! scientists an
intellectuals. Hn a similar way1 particles are no longer the passive
occupants an passengers o! the voi as they were unerstoo to be prior
to the avent o! 2
n
quantization quantum theory. 6his was in large part
owing to the emocratization o! particles an waves as both i!!erent
aspects o! an unerlying active quantum !iel1 i.e.1 zero-point !iel or
quantum vacuum. "o too1 ieas as the occupants an passengers o! a
universal ynamic meium1 that o! language1 must lose their presume
qualities o! sharpness1 iscreteness1 unchangeableness an well-
behaveness. 8anKin is on the verge o! having his concept map
rerawn !or him in ways yet to be imagine. 6here_s money to be mae
in search engine algorithm evelopment because as ?ob :obbs says1
R<ou_ll pay goo money to Know what you thinKTS 9! course the own
sie o! rapily avancing search engine technology when combine with
similar trens in the social networKing omain is that all o! us
subgeniuses belately realize that the vast proportion o! our most
original insights were inee share with thousans o! other similar
RsubgeniusesS. 6he i!!erence between the genius an the orinary man
is that the genius merely possesses more sensitive RantennaeS.
-ebruary 2)*$
?ecause the quantum ecoherence problem will never be solve
!or !iel-mobile units CanroisD1 the truly power!ul conscious
computing1 i.e. the computational Rheavy li!tingS1 will have to be
per!orme at a specially isolate location1 i.e.1 one that is insulate
electrically1 magnetically1 acoustically1 etc.1 as well as cryogenically
coole an the results o! these continuous real time computations
transmitte to the brain o! the mobile unit1 which is a classical igital
computer1 e0cept !or specially esigne inter!aces compose o! !ilters1
tuners an transponers1 etc. "oon a!ter this technology gains currency1
it will be realize that neither has nature solve the ecoherence
problem1 but has inee evolve Cin man an the higher animalsD an
aequate quantum-classical inter!ace substrate in the !orm o! neural
microtubule structures an their tubulin imers. C"ince the sel!-
organizing properties o! atoms an molecules are erive an more or
less continuously sustaine by the ynamical evolution o! an unerlying
quantum !iel1 i.e.1 the quantum vacuum1 it is not surprising that a
Rremote control connectionS Cin the truest sense o! this phaseD woul be
maintaine L all the way up to the 7enrosean ecoherence limit. 9ne
shoul e0pect there to be a penumbra region somewhat beyon the
ecoherence limit wherein the biirectional1 mutual upating o! system
an unerlying quantum !iel is no longer nonlocal/instantaneous an a
system o! Rreal timeS becomes necessary. 6he phenomenon o!
ecoherence may not merely be integral to the emergence o! a irection
o! time1 but o! temporal structure an scale.D .iKe the mobile !iel
units1 each human has their own eicate pertition o! the entire
quantum vacuum signal spectrum. 6he question arises as to where each
Rbase stationS is. C9ne reason ata an in!ormation are two i!!erent
things is that all in!ormation is quantum encrypte an encoe
in!ormation an hence is nonlocal Cperhaps in the same sens in which
=ilbert space is nonlocal.D 6he nonlocal nature o! conscious computing
ata Cin!ormationD means tha the iniviual min possesses no speci!ic
location within any particular spacime. "o now then the appearance o! a
common spacetime1 one populate with !riens1 !amily1 acquaintances1
etc.1 must be taKen in light o! a liKely proviential arrangement1 an
inee as new !orce to /lvin 7lantinga_s ichotomy o! theism versus
solipsism. Hs it that our/their Rbase stationsS are local an our inter!ace
raio spectrum is nonlocal? 7utting the question in these terms may lea
us to suppose that sel! an other are both pro5ections. Fe trust that my
pro5ection o! the other an the other_s pro5ection o! the sel! synchs up
with his pro5ection o! the other an my pro5ection o! the sel!.
8ay *22%
/ reay caniate !or this meium connecting the gravitational
potential an Kinetic energies o! particles1 !or e0ample1 is the !luctuating
component o! the =amiltonian !or the quantum system in question. /s
state earlier1 this !luctuation component o! the =amiltonian cannot be
Escreene.E 6his !luctuation component o! the =amiltonian may be
thought o! as the prouct o! its space an time components1 =CrD an
=CtD. 6his =amiltonian is1 o! course1 only an average1 Y=Cr1tDZ. 6here
are three basic types o! interaction !or this system: e0changes o!
momentum/energy between the parts o! the system entirely among
themselves1 e0changes o! momentum/energy between the system an
other similar systems1 an e0changes o! momentum/energy between the
system an its !luctuation =amiltonian.
>uly *22N
6he equation1 constant = pWp + rWr1 seems to imply that p an r
may both be incompatible observables espite the absence o!
!luctuations in the sum1 pWp + rWr. ?ut i! one looKs at this equation1 one
immeiately realizes that it is the equation o! a circle in phase space.
?ut a circle in phase space represents a precisely e!ine tra5ectory in
phase space which1 in turn1 implies that p an r1 though each uncertain in
an epistemological sense1 must at any moment both possess precise
values. /n this !act woul contraict the thesis o! p_s an r_s
incompatibility as observers.
3onservation o! vacuum (-momentum is asserte here to provie the
mechanism by which the necessary energy e0changes are e!!ecte
between the gravitational an Kinetic energies o! the vacuum. Fe have
alreay seen how gravitational acceleration itsel! 1i.e.1 the conversion o!
potential energy into Kinetic energy Cthe converse o! acceleration uner
thrustD which has been !ormalize by1 e.g.1 =amiltonGs canonical
equations o! motion1 results !rom a spatio-temporal vacuum energy
ensity graient which itsel!1 in turn1 comes into being through the
operation o! the principle o! vacuum momentum conservation1 an
which sustains itsel! in e0istence through the vacuumGs !unamental
ynamism o! sel!-energy-e0change. 4ravitational potential1 it is sai1
cannot be e!ine absolutely. Aather1 only relative i!!erences in
potential are meaning!ul. -or mathematical convenience1 all potentials
are re!erence with respect to a potential at in!inity where the T/A
epenence o! the potential causes it to vanish to zero. <et this
e!inition contains a presumption1 namely1 that is meaning!ul to speaK o!
a gravitational potential at an in!inite istance. Hn actuality1 the !urthest
that a mass can be place so that its potential is a minimum1 is at the so-
calle ege o! the observable ,niverse1 that is1 5ust this sie o! the
spherical light horizon - where the cosmological re-shi!t o!
electromagnetic raiation becomes in!inite. /ccoring to some simple
calculations H have per!orme1 this istance is roughly *.* 0 *)
2&
meters.
Hn the particular case o! our own ;arth this potential is about 2) orers
o! magnitue smaller than the potential at the ;arthGs sur!ace - a
vanishingly small value o! appro0imately *)
-$)
>oules per Oilogram.
prn=
6he "chroinger equation may be thought o! as escribing i!!usion
along the ict a0is. 8oreover1 4rahamGs .aw o! e!!usion states that more
massive particles i!!use more slowly than less massive particles.
/ccoring to =awKing an ?eKenstein1 the entropy o! a blacK hole is
irectly proportional to the sur!ace area o! the hole. 6his relation is
given below.
" b ( A
2
?ut the energy ensity o! the blacK hole is given by the relation1
= $c
(
/( A
2
4
so that1 " = e
-*
where " is the entropy an e is the energy ensity o! the blacK hole1
respectively. 3onsequently1 i! the energy ensity o! the vacuum is equal
to the energy ensity o! blacK hole masses1 then the entropy o! the
vacuum shoul increase with ecreasing vacuum energy ensity. Fe
believe that the energy ensity o! the vacuum is equal to the e!!ective
energy ensity o! blacK holes because the raial outwar pressure o! the
vacuum1 7vac1 must be ) at the event horizon sur!ace o! a blacK hole an
the vacuum obeys the equation o! state1 namely1 e vac = 7vac.
-urthermore1 as alreay state elsewhere1 eo = emass + evac. because
there is no funamental istinction between creating mass from the
vacuum energy locally available within a particular region of spacetime
an importing alreay e6isting mass from outsie this region of
spacetime into this region because1 in turn1 matter particles may not be
thought o! as having a permanent1 continuous e0istence a!ter the manner
o! the substances o! /ristotelian physicsV this !ollows !rom the !act that
there is no real istinction between relativistic an non-relativistic mass.
7
vac
must be ) here because the matter composing a blacK hole may
e0change energy only with itsel!V it e0changes no energy with the
vacuum energy !iel outsie its event horizon. e
matter
= e
o
in this
particular case an1 as well1 e
vac
= 7
vac
= ). /gain1 hal! o! the mass-
energy containe within the blacK hole is ue solely to the general
relativistic increase in mass which ha accumulate once the hole ha
!orme.
e = e
o
n* - 48/A32o1
where e
o
= $c(/(pi4A2.
4eneralizing this result1 we may say that
prn=
the ma0imum rate o!
increase in the entropy o! the vacuum is parallel to the irection along
which the ecrease in the vacuumGs energy ensity is ma0imal. Hn so-
calle !ree space1 the irection along which the ma0imal ecrease in the
vacuumGs energy ensity e0ists is along the ict a0isV in other wors1 the
vacuum energy ensity varies in a purely temporal manner in !ree space1
i.e.1 ue to cosmological e0pansion. 6here!ore1 the so-calle
thermoynamic arrow o! time points in a irection orthogonal Cin !ree
spaceD to any $ imensional rectangular system o! coorinates
escribing an inertial !rame o! re!erenceV moreover1 a gravitational !iel
is associate with an alteration in the orientation o! the thermoynamic
arrow o! time because a component o! the irection o! the ma0imally
increasing vacuum entropy now points raially inwar - in the simple
case o! spherical masses. 6he thermal particle creation which is
observe to occur within accelerate re!erence !rames is a mani!estation
o! a creation/annihilation process which is normally balance in the !ree
space vacuum but which is unbalance within the accelerate !rame.
Hn the presence o! a gravitational potential1 the arrow o! time possesses a
component along the vacuum energy ensity graient so that a new time
a0is is e!ine within this new vacuum which e0actly correspons to this
new time a0is as e!ine within the general theory o! relativity as
applie to the 8inKowsKi light cone.
@ovember *22&
6he secon law o! thermoynamics only applies to physical
processes taKing place within a close system which is in interaction
with an in!inite heat reservoir. 6he 2n .aw oes not1 however1 apply to
open thermoynamics systems since in these systems no global
thermoynamic arrow o! time can be consistently e!ine. "uch
thermoynamic arrows can only be e!ine locally. 6his remins us o!
how staning waves cannot !orm in containers o! in!inite size. "o the
concept o! a particle1 which is itsel! 5ust a 4aussian pacKet o! superpose
staning waves1 can only possess valiity in a local senseV globally
speaKing1 the notion o! a particle oes not re!er to anything which
possesses ultimate reality1 but an abstraction groune in a low orer
appro0imation. "ee Puantum -iel 6heory in 3urve "pacetime an
?lacK =ole 6hermoynamics by Aobert 8. Fal1 3hicago ,niversity
7ress1 !or !urther iscussion o! the limitations o! the Eparticle conceptE
in strongly curve or rapily time-varying spacetimes. 6his booK also
iscusses the phenomenon o! particle prouction in e0paning ;instein-
:e"itter spacetimes as being closely relate to =awKing raiation.
:ecember *22&
3hanges in the bounary conitions o! the wave!unction which
taKe place with a rapiity such that1
?/t Z /a?//at b /a;/h + /a?1
where ? are the bounary conitions o! the quantum mechanical
superposition state1 "1 will inevitably result in a collapse o! the
wave!unction1 7si1 into one o! its eigenstates o! the observable boun by
?. 6his is provie that the new bounary conitions1 ?G1 are stabilize
to within c 0 /at1 where /at is the time uncertainty in the time interval o!
this transition1 ? ===Z ?G. Fave!unctions representing locally-
connecte quantum mechanical systems are constitute by a system o!
bounary conitions place upon the nonlocally-connecte quantum
vacuum stress-momentum-energy !iel. 6he principle o! superposition
illustrates the importance o! unrealize possibilities: they play a
substantive role in the behavior o! the real.
9ctober 2)**
6his notion
apparently oes not occur to e!eners o! the octrine o! 2oal
+ealism" e.g.1
au=
:avi .ewis. Hnitial an bounary conitions are what
istinguish the merely virtual !rom the real1 the possible !rom the actual1
c.!1 8a0 6egmarK_s hierarchy o! multiverse types.
6he energy uncertainty o! a quantum mechanical system1 /a;1 is both
inepenent o! the observer1 that is1 it represents an ontological1 rather
than a1 merely epistemological uncertainty in the energy o! the system
an it is epenent upon the state o! the observerGs Knowlege o! this
system. This suggests that the observer an his state of 'nowlege are
essentially separable. =is Knowlege o! quantum mechanical system
states is !rom the insie1 meaning that the observerGs Knowlege is coe
nonlocally in the quantum energy uncertainty o! his own brain1 itsel! a
quantum mechanical systemT
Qd
6he brain o! the observer simply
provies a set o! bounary conitions upon the quantum vacuum energy
!iel. 6hermal particle prouction is e0pecte to occur in the irection o!
the entropy graient o! a vacuum possessing a gravitational potentialV
an the principle o! relativity emans that particle prouction be
associate with the global increase in vacuum entropy engenere by the
process o! cosmological e0pansion. 6he ma0imally entropic state within
any region o! spacetime is that o! the vacuum itsel!. Hn general1 ue to
gravitational time ilation1 the entropy o! matter istributions can never
catch up1 so to speaK1 with the entropy o! the vacuum: the result o! this
is that matter an energy istributions can never quite reach a state o!
thermoynamic equilibrium within an e0paning universe.
:ecember *22&
Ht is our belie! that the global orientation o! the arrow o! time is
etermine by the global istribution o! matter in the ,niverse1 an that
without the presence o! matter1 there is no eterminate irection !or the
arrow o! time. 6his implies that the ,niverse conceive o! as a raically
open system cannot possess a complete1 sel!-consistent topological
escription. ,sing the analogy o! a system o! vibrating strings: a !inite
sum o! -ourier component !unctions1 -CwD1 aequately escribes the
system o! string vibrations provie that each o! the strings be
EanchoreE on at least one en1 which is to say that1 in the absence o!
spatial bounary conitions place upon the stringsG vibrations1 staning
wave patterns o! string vibration cannot e0ist an no purely spatial
escription o! the system o! string vibrations is possible - only a
spatiotemporal escription is possible in this case1 an one in which
there is no unique ecomposition o! the spatiotemporal escription into a
particular $CspaceD + *CtimeD mani!ol. 6he result similar to the one
above obtains where no unique time irection !or the ynamical
evolution o! the system can be speci!ie. 6he ratio o! mass energy
ensity to vacuum energy ensity varies with A-* !or spherical masses.
e = e
o
n* - 48/A3
2
o 6he previous !ormula seems to imply that when A =
A
"chwarzschil
1 the energy ensity o! the vacuum has only been reuce to
*/2 o! its normal !ree space value. =owever1 this is to neglect the e!!ect
which a reuce vacuum energy ensity has upon the measurement o!
mass values: the inverte !raction by which the vacuumGs energy ensity
is reuce gives us the !raction by which the masses occupying this
vacuum relativistically increase. Hn other wors1 the mass o! a boy may
increase to 5ust short o! */2 o! its "chwarzschil value an still remain
stable against total gravitational collapse. Fhen the mass o! a boy
increases to 5ust over its "chwarzschil mass a positive !eebacK occurs
between each successive EcycleE o! relativistic mass increase1
whereupon hal! o! the vacuumGs energy has alreay been EisplaceE by
the piling on o! mass !rom outsie1 while the other hal! o! the vacuumGs
energy is converte irectly into mass energy entirely through
relativistic mass increase. 6his is the reason why we may properly say
that the true energy ensity o! the vacuum is not $c(/Npi4A
2
1 but
actually twice this value: e
o
= $c(/(pi4A2. /lso1 when one consiers
the process o! Eevaporation o! blacK holesE via the mechanism o!
=awKing raiation1 it is easy to see that in a very real sense the ensity
o! blacK holes must be e0actly twice that preicte by the general theory
o! relativity1 more particularly1 via the "chwarzschil solution to the
!iel equations:
Qd
a quantity o! mass1 2mc
2
1 where m is the mass o! the
blacK hole1 must be create !rom out o! the vacuum be!ore a blacK hole
o! mass1 m1 evaporates completely.
6he ultimate substratum which meiates all the !unamental physical
interactions must itsel! be noneterministically chaotic in natureV or else
time cannot be consiere a true ynamical variable. "ince a
!unamental process o! creation an annihilation unerlies all particle
interactions1 the action o! the vacuum energy !iel may be ienti!ie
with the translation o! all composite matter along a irection orthogonal
to the total set o! orthogonal spatial a0es.
>anuary *22%
"pace without 6ime is :eterminism. 6ime without "pace is
3haos. :eterminism an 3haos are simply opposite ens o! a single
continuum. 3omple0ity is that which governs the movement o! a
ynamical system bacK an !orth along what we might well term the
3osmos/3haos continuum. 6he unerlying orer which pushes a
ynamical system this way an that along this continuum cannot itsel!
be escribe in terms o! a classical1 ynamical system because this orer
necessarily operates !rom outsie this continuum. Fhat ultimately
governs this movement o! ynamical systems along this continuum is
the unerlying !luctuations in spacetime.
@ovember *22%
:eterministic change can only be a phenomenal appearance
since either the eterministic phenomena are the play o! pro5ections
!rom eterminate ob5ects !rom within higher imensional spaces
containing our space or the phenomena conceal an ineterminism at a
eeper level behin the appearances. Hn the same way that the continual
creation an estruction o! a circular isK con!ine to a two imensional
sphere may be thought o! as the continuous penetration or pro5ection o!
a three imensional cyliner orthogonally through this two imensional
spherical sur!ace1 we may moel the continual process o! creation an
annihilation o! spherical massive boies as the continuous penetration or
pro5ection o! hypercylinrical boies orthogonally through a three
imensional hypersur!ace constituting normal three imensional space.
H! massive boies were compose o! permanent1 continuously e0isting
substance1 there woul be no reason to postulate the e0istence o! an
aitional (th spatial a0is associate with the imension o! time. Ht is
the energy o! matterGs continual re-creation o! itsel! which constitutes the
latent energy o! matter1 ; = mc2. Fhen a material boy is uni!ormly
accelerate1 the boy is no longer re-creating itsel! along the time
imension alone1 but must be consiere to be in the act o! re-creating
itsel! along two orthogonal component irections: part o! the energy o!
re-creation is associate with a momentum in the irection the boy is
accelerating1 an the remaining part o! this re-creation energy is
associate with the boyGs momentum in a irection orthogonal to this
acceleration vector1 an moreover1 orthogonal to the $ imensional space
Cinstantaneous inertial !rameD which it occupies at any given moment.
9ur question at this 5uncture1 then1 is: is there any reason !or treating a
(th spatial imension as being ontologically real1 rather than as 5ust an
abstract entity within a particular !ormalization o! special relativity?
<es. Fe list them below.
*D 3onservation o! vacuum momentum.
2D 6he conversion o! mass to energy as the 2)
o
rotation o! imaginary
momentum.
$D 6he thermoynamic arrow o! time in a gravitational !iel.
(D 6he =ubble istance-velocity relationship escribing galactic
recession.
'D 6he tunneling o! all masses through a hyperspherical potential barrier.
6he erivation o! ;insteinGs mass-velocity relationship within an
e0paning !our-hyperspherical universe.
%D 6he conservation o! !our imensional angular momentum as an
e0planation !or the perihelion avance in the orbit o! the planet 8ercury.
ND 6he implication o! quantum mechanics that real particles possess no
continuous e0istence1 but are essentially being continuously create an
estroye.
s2 = c2t2 - 02 -y2 -z2 1 so that the interval1 s1 may taKe on either real
or imaginary values. H! s2 Z )1 then two events separate by this
interval are locally connectable1 an may be connecte by a series o!
reversible interactions. H! s2 Y )1 then two events separate by this
interval are nonlocally connectable1 an may only be connecte by a
series o! irreversible interactions. /ll reversible processes are meiate
by vacuum processes which are themselves irreversible. ?ecause
gravitation is a phenomenon resulting !rom conservation o! !our-
momentum1 the sign o! mass C+/-D is immaterial to the irection o! the
gravitational acceleration vector. H! anything analogous to what might
be terme mass charge e0ists1 it is in the !orm o! an imaginary mass.
Hmaginary mass woul have the e!!ect o! proucing a gravitational !iel
with an acceleration vector which is reverse in its normal irection.
6his suggests to us that the mass1 or energy1 o! the vacuum !iel is itsel!
imaginary so that real mass may be unerstoo as a e!icit o! imaginary
energy within the vacuum !iel1 proucing an acceleration vector o! the
normal gravitational acceleration vector !iel. H! gravitons1 as massless
particles1 are assume to be the true meiators o! the gravitational !orce1
then there is a serious problem with interpreting the gravitational !iel
associate with a spherical wave!ront o! gravitons which is e0paning
outwar at the spee o! light: Fe notice that in the many various !orms
in which the =eisenberg ,ncertainty 7rinciple may be state there is
always the prouct o! two uncertainties in physical quantities which is
greater than or equal to 7lancKGs constant an that one o! these paire
uncertainties is with respect to a physical quantity which is conserve1
an !or which there e0ists a quantum number1 while the other paire
uncertainty is with respect to a physical quantity which is not conserve1
an !or which no quantum number e0ists.
6o list 5ust a !ew e0amples o! this general rule: m;mt Z h1 mpm0 Z h1
mnm. Z h1 etc. 8oreover1 each !orm o! e0pression o! the !unamental
=eisenberg uncertainty relation may be1 in turn1 paire with another such
e0pression where the conserve quantities o! the two paire e0pressions
!orm with one another a symmetrical tensor which possesses the
property o! .orenz-invariance1 while the unconserve quantities o! the
two paire e0pressions !orm1 with one another1 another symmetrical
tensor which also possesses the property o! .orenz-invariance. Ht is the
.orenz invariant tensorial relationship o! the paire conserve quantities
which is responsible !or the .orenz invariance an tensorial nature o! the
paire unconserve quantities an not the converse. -or e0ample1 the
!act that momentum an energy may be subsume together uner a
uni!ie escription as the relativistic momentum-energy tensor is what is
responsible !or the tensorial nature o! the interrelationship o! the space
an time variables1 i.e.1 the .orenz-invariance o! space an time which
mani!ests itsel! separately as time-ilation an length-contraction which
is observe within !rames o! re!erence traveling an appreciable !raction
o! the velocity o! light relative to an observer re!erence !rame. 6he
momentum-energy tensor is1 by the way1 also responsible !or the .orenz-
invariant1 tensorial nature o! the 8a0well tensor escribing the
electromagnetic !iel1 an we may now see why the 8a0well tensor
oes not possess a term enoting the ivergence o! the magnetic !iel1
i.e.1 why magnetic monopoles o not e0ist in nature. /esthetically
mine physicists have !or generations note this missing term in
8a0wellGs equations an suggeste the inevitable e0istence o!
monopoles1 since their e0istence woul rener the electromagnetic !iel
equations more per!ectly symmetrical. ?ut we see now that the lacK o!
greater symmetry in 8a0wellGs equations is e0plicable in terms o! the
presence o! the even eeper symmetry o! the =eisenberg uncertainty
relations1 an so this apparent lacK o! symmetry on the part o! the
electromagnetic !iel nee no longer be viewe as a E!lawE in the
structure o! mathematical physics.
6his eeper symmetry may be unerstoo in the !ollowing way:
the !luctuation in electric !iel strength C an unconserve quantity D is
ue to the uncertainty in the position Can unconserve quantityD o! a
conserve quantity - electric charge1 combine with the uncertainty in
momentum C a conserve quantity D o! the magnetic charge C an
unconserve quantity D. H! we try to establish the !luctuation in the
magnetic !iel strength inepenently o! the !luctuation in electric !iel
strength1 we en up violating the symmetry o! the uncertainty relations1
e.g.1 the !luctuation in magnetic !iel strength C an unconserve quantity
D is ue to the uncertainty in charge momentum C a conserve quantityD
o! a conserve quantity - electric charge1 combine with the uncertainty
in charge position Can unconserve quantity D o! the magnetic charge
Cassume here to be a conserve quantity D. /gain1 the symmetry is only
restore here by treating magnetic charge as an unconserve quantity.
Fe may apply our rule in a more irect !ashion by postulating an
uncertainty relation which obtains provie that magnetic charges o
e0ist. 6his uncertainty relation is the prouct o! uncertainties in electric
an magnetic charge. 6o wit1 the prouct in the uncertainties o! these
two physical quantities must be greater than or equal to the value o!
7lancKGs constant. -ollowing our same symmetrically-base rule1 we
!in that 7lancKGs constant must be less than or equal to the prouct o!
uncertainties in a conserve quantity an an unconserve quantity. 6his
new uncertainty relationship woul be written1 e0pressing 7lancKGs
constant as the lower limit !or the prouct o! the uncertainty in electric
charge with the uncertainty in the quantity o! magnetic charge1 ivie
by c1 the spee o! light1 in orer to have consistency o! physical
imensions. /gain1 only one o! these paire quantities is the conserve
quantity1 an this conserve physical quantity must be the electric
charge. "o we see !rom consieration o! the symmetry e0hibite by the
many alternate e0pressions o! the =eisenberg uncertainty principle1 that
i! monopoles e0ist1 their charge cannot be a conserve quantity so that
magnetic charge may not possess a quantum number. =owever1 i!
8a0wellGs equations are moi!ie to allow !or the e0istence o! magnetic
charge1 the symmetry o! these equations emans magnetic charge
conservation1 but this leas to a contraiction with the more general
symmetry argument !or the non-conservation o! magnetic charge1 an so
we see that magnetic charge cannot e0ist.
PJ 7article creation in a non-inertial re!erence !rame is not a
symmetrical process: it is not possible !or one to accelerate in such a
manner that real particles become virtual particles1 i.e.1 are absorbe
bacK into the vacuum energy !iel !rom which they were originally
create in the same way that it is not possible to accelerate in such a
manner that the local rate at which time passes increases rather than
ecreasesV however1 i! a given real particle oes not have an in!inite
li!etime Cwhich no particle oesD1 then within an unaccelerate re!erence
!rame1 the li!etimes o! quasi-stable particles1 as viewe !rom an
accelerate re!erence !rame1 will be shortene by the relativistic time
ilation !actor.
Ht is in terms o! this !unamental asymmetry that we can more
simply resolve the so-calle twin parao0 o! special relativity: the
acceleration o! the space!aring twin an the earthboun twin cannot be
consiere to be merely relative because the twin in the rocKetship
observes thermal particle prouction within his vacuum1 while the twin
con!ine to the ;arth observes no such phenomenon within his own
vacuum. 6his phenomenon o! particle prouction within accelerate
re!erence !rames is to be e0pecte because a particle is real only i! its
energy is greater than the energy uncertainty o! quantum system to
which it belongs1 an the time ilation associate with accelerate
motion a!!ects the !unamental uncertainty relation1 m;mt Z h1 such that
some particles which were virtual within the unaccelerate !rame
relativistically increase their energy which is now even greater in
relation to a reuce energy uncertainty1 an so EbecomeE real particles
within the new vacuum state. /ll particles which are virtual in one
particular re!erence !rame are real particles with respect to some other
re!erence !rameV the converse o! this is not the case1 however - the
irreversibility enters the picture1 as state be!ore1 through the i!!erential
observations o! thermal particle prouction within the vacuum o!
observers within i!!erent inertial !rames o! re!erence. 6his relationship
between real an virtual particles within special relativity can perhaps be
unerstoo as a restatement o! the principle o! causality within special
relativity: events which are causally connecte in one particular
re!erence !rame are causally connecte an have the same time orer
within all possible re!erence !rames1 an it is only those events which
are not causally connecte Cnor potentially causally connecteD which
might have the orer o! their occurrence switche when observe !rom
the stanpoint o! i!!erent re!erence !rames1 !rom which it also !ollows
that events which are not causally connecte within a given !rame o!
re!erence1 are not connecte in any re!erence !rame. Aeal particle
prouction within a vacuum o! reuce energy uncertainty may be
interprete as being converse but parallel to the process o! virtual
particle prouction within a vacuum o! increase energy uncertainty.
/lso1 i! real particles are unerstoo as !eebacK structures o! virtual
particle processes which essentially may be unerstoo as a networK o!
circular energy !lu0es1 these iniviual processes being causally
connecte with one another within one particular spacetime1 then these
!eebacK structures are estroye when the energy uncertainty o! the
vacuum becomes greater than the energy o! the real particles1 so that an
increase o! energy uncertainty is associate with a loss o! in!ormation in
the !orm o! the cybernetic control Eholing the particles together.E
>une 2)*$
6he so-calle twin parao0 o! special relativity is easily solve using the
principle o! the conservation o! !our momentum. Ht is only the
accelerating twin who changes the istribution o! three momentum
across the !our components o! his conserve !our momentum. 6he
other1 stay-at-home twin oes not change the istribution o! the !our
components o! his !our momentum an so all relativistic e!!ects are only
associate with the accelerate twin.
3onsequently1 the particles which are prouce within an
accelerate re!erence !rame1 say1 within the curve spacetime o! a
gravitational potential1 may not EappearE out o! the vacuum in a
collective state o! causal interconnection with one another. 6he only
assurance that a set o! particles is not causally connecte with one
another1 i.e.1 locally connecte1 is i! they are nonlocally connecte.
8oreover1 the notion o! the continuous e0istence o! particles is simply
not consistent with the asymmetry o! virtual particle/ real particle
trans!ormations which are necessitate by a change in .orenz !rames.
Fe Know that virtual particles o not preserve their ientity !rom one
moment to the ne0tV by EmomentE we mean a perio o! time greater than
h/; 1 where ; is the total energy o! the virtual particle-antiparticle pair
which has been spontaneously create out o! the vacuum state. Fe also
Know that this particular virtual pair will appear as a pair o! real particles
with respect to an accelerate !rame o! re!erence. "o i! the virtual pairs
possess no enuring continuous e0istence within a !lat spacetime1 then
neither o they possess a continuous e0istence within any other possible
!rame o! re!erence. 6his notion !ollows simply !rom the principle o! the
general equivalence C!rom the stanpoint o! the !unamental invariance
o! physical lawD o! all !rames o! re!erence. -rom this we arrive at the
general result that real particles1 what we call matter1 must be a stable
pattern o! !luctuation o! the !iel energy o! the quantum mechanical
vacuum1 whereas virtual particles are unstable patterns o! vacuum !iel
!luctuation. =ere we see that the !unamental i!!erence between stable
an unstable patterns o! vacuum !luctuation1 real an virtual particles1
respectively1 is not qualitative1 but quantitativeV it is ue merely to the
availability or non-availability o! raw1 uni!!erentiate energy. 6he
structure o! all possible matter con!igurations alreay e0ists latent within
the vacuum !luctuation !ielV what is require to EcreateE these
con!igurations is simply the necessary quantity o! raw energy.
/pril 2)**
?ut this is only true up the limit set by the 7lancK energy. 3on!igurations
o! vacuum stress-momentum-energy larger than ;
7lancK
must have been
RassembleS !rom con!igurations smaller than ;
7lancK
1 c.!.1 ar+iv:quant-
ph/)&)$2&2 v2 *2 >ul 2))&
/pril 2)**

Fhen energy is supplie to the vacuum1 the structures which are
prouce are simply those which are the most probable an hence the
simplest. 8ore e0otic con!igurations o! matter may be prouce i!
energy is supplie to the vacuum !iel while it is e0periencing
EimprobableE !luctuation patterns. 6hese so-calle improbable
!luctuations are simply those which possess a more !leeting e0istence.
Hn the /ugust *22$ issue o! "cienti!ic /merican there appears an article
which escribes e0periments in which the time !or photons to quantum
mechanically tunnel through a barrier is measure !or a coherent beam
o! incient photons where 22% o! the beam is re!lecte o!! o! the barrier1
but in which appro0imately *% o! the photons are transmitte CEtunnelED
across the barrier. 6he e0perimental ata inicate that the photons
which tunnele through the barrier travele at superluminal spees1
some o! the photons reaching *.%c. 6he phenomenological e0planation
!or this was that the tunneling photons change the shape o! their
wave!unctions such that the peaK o! the wave !unction is shi!te in the
irection o! photon tunneling1 resulting in the photons having a !inite
probability o! being !oun 5ust on the opposite sie o! the barrier
somewhat earlier than i! the shape o! their wave!unctions ha
e0perience no istortion. Hncreasing the with o! the barrier ecrease
the probability o! photons success!ully tunneling through the barrier1 but
resulte in increase measure superluminal velocities !or the photons1
which actually succeee in tunneling through the barrier.
>une *22%
Hn this case1 the photonsG wave!unction peaK ha to shi!t towar
the opposite en o! the barrier !aster i! they were to be observe on the
other sie o! the barrier within the short time that it woul have taKen !or
the photon to be absorbe by the barrier.
Hn theory1 particles which quantum-tunnel through a potential barrier
possess a negative Kinetic energy1 an hence an imaginary momentum
while engage in the tunneling process. H! the !our-momentum o! the
tunneling photons is conserve Cas it is require to o by special
relativityD1 then an increase photon imaginary momentum must be
precisely compensate by an increase real photon momentum such that
the magnitue o! total !our-momentum o! the photon is1 again1
conserve: the tunneling photons are e!!ectively being scattere in !our-
imensional spacetimeT
/pril 2)**
6he tunneling photons possess a negative
imaginary momentum while in the act o! tunneling through the barrier.
/pril 2)**

/ photon scattere within a !our-imensional space woul e0perience a
ecrease in its so-calle real momentumV Cactually1 in this case1 the real
momentum o! the photon is simply the momentum associate with its
motion though the space which is irectly observable to us1 i.e.1 $
imensionsD however1 the scattering o! a photon within a (-imensional
space where it is possible !or the interval1 s2 Y )1 superluminal
velocities are mae possible by the conservation1 as state earlier1 o! the
photonGs !our-momentum. H! there is a !unctional relationship between
the integral o! both the gravitational sel!-energy an the Kinetic energy
o! cosmological e0pansion1 then there will be a !unctional relationship
between the gravitational sel!-energy o! e0pansion an the Kinetic
energy o! e0pansion such that when the Kinetic energy o! cosmological
e0pansion approaches zero1 the gravitational sel!-energy o! the ,niverse
approaches zero1 implying a !lat global spacetime geometry. ?ecause o!
the negative !eebacK coupling between the Kinetic an gravitational
sel!-energies1 we e0pect that these two energies are strongly couple in
the early history o! the cosmological e0pansion1 but become very weaKly
couple by this relatively late epoch in the history o! the ,niverse. Hn
this scenario we e0pect a time variation in the strength o! the @ewtonGs
gravitational constant which is proportional to the time erivative o!
the quantity1 e-t/6 1 where 6 = */= where = is =ubbleGs constant.
6his gives a time variation o! 4 o! =/e 0 4. "ince the coupling
between the gravitational sel!-energy an the Kinetic energy o!
cosmological e0pansion is virtually zero in the present epoch o! the
,niverseGs history1 we e0pect that there will obtain a !orce o!
cosmological repulsion which almost e0actly counterbalances the
gravitational !orce which woul ten to slow an eventually reverse the
process o! cosmological e0pansion.
P,;"6H9@: Fe Know that !or low velocities1 the aition o! velocities
is accoring to 4alilean relativity1 i.e.1 velocities are simply aitively
superpose. =owever1 it oes not appear that small accelerations may be
simply aitively superpose accoring to 4alilean relativity.
/ccoring to what rule are both large an small accelerations ae
together to yiel the total relative acceleration? 6he energy require to
rotate a pure imaginary momentum by 2)
o
so that this momentum
becomes a pure real momentum is 5ust mc
2
. 6his quantity o! energy may
be thought o! as the latent energy o! matter which it possesses by virtue
o! its being initially accelerate by the !orces o! the ?ig ?ang e0plosion.
6he negative Kinetic energy o! matter implies the e0istence o! a
hyperspherical potential barrier through which all matter tunnele Cin
quantum mechanical !ashion an through which it continues to tunnel.
6his notion constitutes a Kin o! hyper-e0tene in!lationary theory.
6he graient o! this potential associate with this barrier may be
escribe by a pure imaginary !our-vector C in E!ree spaceE D1 while the
orientation o! the graient o! this hyperspherical potential is altere in
the presence o! mass-energy in such a manner that the magnitue o! the
graient Cin !our imensions D is always conserve. 4iven a typical
istribution o! matter1 in general this !our vector will possess no non-
zero components1 an the introuction o! new matter into this
istribution will trans!orm the components o! the potential graient !our-
vector a!ter the manner o! a secon ranK tensor. Hn !act1 this tensor
provies the Econnecting ruleE by which the graient trans!orms1 as we
move along an arbitrary tra5ectory through a given matter istribution1
consiering in succession points along the tra5ectory which are only
negligibly istant !rom one another Cso that the potential oes not change
Etoo rapilyE between successive pointsD. /ll o! the terms o! ;insteinGs
general relativistic !iel equations are secon ranK tensors1 the energy-
momentum tensor proviing the rule by which the metric tensor at one
point in spacetime is trans!orme at in!initesimally contiguous points o!
spacetime. Fe must Keep in min that the potential graient aroun any
particular particle o! matter is escribe by a !our-vector1 an it is only
the meshing o! the graients o! one particleGs vector !iel with that o! its
neighbor which requires the use o! a tensor escription.
>uly *22%
Aussel 3larK sen me this ;mail:
Thema: 1u6on Theory
Datum: MJ.JN.?N JI:M?:IK
:rom: rsclar'>Oi6.netcom.com
To: PirchmannOtaryon.e
Hn support o! your rather interesting theory the !ollowing: Hmagine1 as you say1 that matter is
inee travelling at the spee o! light all the time1 even when it appears to be at rest. 6he initial
momentum o! a given mass then might be1
p = mCicD
@ow when the mass is accelerate to a velocity v1 the massG new velocity becomes1
vG= sqrt[vWW2 + CiWW2DcWW2\ = vG= sqrt[vWW2 - cWW2\
such that the !inal momentum o! the mass is now
pG= mG 0 sqrt[vWW2 - cWW2\
H! we equate the intial momentum with the !inal momentum Cconservation o! (-momentum1 i!
you willD we have1
mCicD = mG 0 sqrt[vWW2 - cWW2\ yieling1
m = mG/CicD 0 sqrt[vWW2 - cWW2\
but
ic = sqrt[iWW2 0 cWW2\ = sqrt[-cWW2\
so that
m = mG/sqrt[-cWW2\ 0 sqrt[vWW2 - cWW2\ = m = mG 0 [* - vWW2/cWW2\
such that
mG = m/[* - vWW2/cWW2\
which is 5ust the special relativistic mass !ormula o! ;instein. 6he coe!!icient EiE comes into play
in the above manipulations because multiplication by EiE or eWWCiDpi/2 is the only way to rotate a
vector in $ space without proucing another vector within the same $ spaceV multiplication by EiE
taKes a $-vector out o! the $- mani!ol an so represents the relationship o! time to the other
three spatial a0es.
6here are other reasons !or1 perhaps1 incluing the coe!!icient EiE within quantum tunneling1 !or
e0ample1 as in the case o! matter tunneling through a hyperspherical potential barrier while
appearing at rest in $ spatial imensions.
8oreover1 we may integrate the momentum o! a mass1 m1 as it is accelerate !rom a velocity
vCinit.D = ic to a !inal velocity vC!in.D = c. 6his yiels1
Hntgrl[mv\v Cv = ic to v = cD = */2 mvWW2
evaluate between the limits o! v = ic an v = c which yiels1
*/2mCcWW2D - */2mCiWW2 0 cWW2D = mcWW2
9! course the energy o! motion is 5ust the integral o! the momentum !rom the initial to the !inal
velocities.
?est Aegars1
Aussell 3larK
H! this vector !iel were assume to be quantize1 so that a unique
e0change particle1 or boson1 were thought to meiate the action o! the
!iel1 then this boson woul have a spin o! *1 not 21 an hence coul not
be escribe as a graviton1 itsel! the meiator o! a purely attractive !orce
!ielV a spin * particle1 however1 is the e0change particle o! a !orce !iel
which is1 liKe the photon1 either attractive or repulsive1 epening on
whether the graient o! the potentials o! both particles are o! liKe sign or
o! opposite sign. 6he EchargeE o! the matter particles correspons to the
case o! the particles being either o! real or imaginary mass1 as state
earlier. 6he e!!ect1 however1 o! two matter particles o! either both real
mass or both imaginary mass upon each otherGs spin * vector !iels is to
create a stress within the spacetime between the two particles which1 as
we state earlier1 must be escribe in terms o! a tensor !iel. 6he
imaginary mass o! virtual particles1 as allue to earlier1 woul result in
a mutually repulsive !orce !iel tening to rive these virtual particles
apart !rom one another1 resulting in the cosmological e0pansion o! the
vacuum1 or o! space itsel!. .ocalize e!icits in the ensity o! imaginary
mass Cue to the EisplacingE presence o! real massD woul mani!est
themselves in a iminution o! the cosmological acceleration vector
escribing the cosmological !orce o! repulsion obtaining between all
virtual particles. 6he acceleration o! massive particles ue to
gravitational !iels may be interprete as an attempt on the part o! real
massive particles to maintain a spherically symmetrical istribution o!
vacuum energy about themselves - a conition obtaining !or a particle at
ErestE with respect to some !unamental re!erence !rame. 6he general
relativistic e!!ect o! mass increase within a gravitational !iel may be
e0plaine in terms o! a !unction o! the alteration in the three variables:
vacuum energy ensity1 magnitue o! the hyperspherical potential
barrier1 an the imaginary momentum o! the particle e0periencing the
mass increase. 6he mechanism by which the vacuum energy ensity is
reuce by the presence o! mass-energy has alreay been iscusse.
6he reuction in the local value o! the hyperspherical potential is
e0plaine in terms o! the pro5ection o! its graient within an altere
spacetime. 6he alteration in the imaginary momentum is also e0plaine
in terms o! its pro5ection within the same altere spacetime.
6he retaration in the local rate o! cosmological e0pansion which
mani!ests itsel! as a linear increase in the loss o! synchronization o!
clocKs separate by a i!!erence in gravitational potential an which
accoring to general relativity is an e!!ect o! gravitational time ilation
alone1 is on our view on account o! the conservation o! !our-momentum
o! the boy engenering the gravitational potential. 6he mass o! the
boy1 as measure !rom the point o! weaKer gravitational potential1 is
increase by a !raction equal to the !ractional change in the vacuumGs
zero-point energy ensity at the point o! greater potential1 relative to the
point o! weaKer potential1 where the ensity o! this vacuum energy C in
!ree space D is equal to the ensity o! mass energy o! a blacK hole mass
o! raius equal to the raius o! the boy in question which is proucing
the i!!erence in gravitational potential. 9ne might 5usti!iably asK about
any 2n or higher orer e!!ects which coul arise out o! the particular
cosmological vacuum mechanism that we propose !or the gravitational
!iel. -or instance1 i! the time rate o! ecrease in the energy ensity o!
the vacuum is suppresse Crelative to its E!ree spaceE valueD in regions o!
spacetime possessing massive boies1 then wouln_t one e0pect a Kin
o! Epiling upE o! vacuum energy in those regions o! spacetime where
general relativistic time ilation is locally strongest in such a manner
that a repulsive gravitational !iel evelops? 1 c.!. 1 :r. ?rian .. "wi!t.
6he relationship in general relativity between mass an curvature where
increasing curvature leas to increasing mass as well as increasing mass
leaing to increasing curvature has an analogy within our theory o!
gravitation base on spatiotemporal variation in vacuum energy ensity.
Fithin our theory1 ecreasing vacuum energy ensity leas to increasing
mass an increasing mass leas to ecreasing vacuum energy ensity.
Fithin our theory1 the role o! the metric tensor components1 giK1
correspon to the 2n partial erivatives o! vacuum energy ensity with
respect to the variables 01y1z1 ict. 6he stress-momentum-energy tensor
o! general relativity correspons to the 2n partial erivatives o! the
mass1 or nongravitational bining energy ensity within our theory. 6he
*st partial erivatives are not su!!icient to provie the mathematical
structure neee to escribe the spatiotemporal variations in the vacuum
energy ensity responsible !or the parasitic gravitational !orce. Fe must
remember that @ewtonGs thir law o! action-reaction is moi!ie within
relativity theory an that it oes not strictly hol within this theory. @o
gravitational !orces must lie along any $-hypersur!ace o! simultaneity
within (-imensional spacetime. Ht is easy to see why this is so when
one consiers two istinct points which are gravitationally couple1 i.e.1
connecte by a geoesic arc.
6he time rates o! change in the vacuum energy ensity at these two
spacetime points i!!er by an amount relate to the i!!erential severity
o! gravitational time ilation Crelative to some arbitrary $r point in
spacetimeD an so there is a variation in the time rate o! change o!
vacuum energy ensity as one moves along the geoesic arc connecting
these two points. Fe believe that the role o! the curvature tensor within
general relativity is to !i0 the relationship o! the metric an momentum-
energy tensors with respect to the conition o! spacetime at the arbitrary
point within it where the observer is locate. /re two gravitationally
couple points within spacetime linKe by a geoesic arc o! the
spacetime1 or are they linKe by an arc length o! null spacetime interval1
where s = )? H! a spin ) particle ecays into two spin */2 particles o!
opposite sign Cso as to conserve spin quantum number D1 an the two
spin */2 particles become separate by a great istance such that when a
quantum spin measurement is per!orme upon one o! the two particles1
the wave!unction which escribes both particles EcollapsesE so that the
spin orientation o! the unmeasure particle must instantly become
opposite to that o! the spin orientation observe in the measurement o!
the !ormer spin */2 particle. 6his ;7A C;instein-7oolsKy-AosenD type
geanKen e0periment1 per!orme within a curve spacetime raises an
interesting question concerning the wave!unction which escribes the
two particles1 as this wave!unction taKes two i!!erent !orms at two
points along any segment o! a curve spacetime. H! the communication
between the two spin */2 particles is nonlocal an hence
Einstantaneous1E then the wave!unction e0periences a iscontinous
change at the point in spacetime occupie by the secon particle1 i.e.1 the
wave!unction as e0presse within spacetime ? is instantaneously
e0presse in terms o! the nonlocally connecte spacetime /1 where
measurement o! the spin o! the !irst particle was per!ormeV in this way
the spins o! the two particles woul a to zero1 resulting in spin
remaining a EgooE quantum number. =owever1 the only way to avoi
the appearance o! iscontinuity Co! the wave!unctionD 1 in this case1 is to
postulate the e0istence o! a physical escription which is more
!unamental than the wave!unction itsel! so that the wave!unction
becomes but the pro5ection1 within a given local spacetime1 o! the more
!unamental physical escription. which itsel! remains continuous.
>une *22%
H! such a more !unamental escription o! the quantum
mechanical system e0ists1 then why is the reuction o! the wavepacKet
or collapse o! the wave!unction itsel! necessarily accompanie by a
iscontinuous change in the probabilities !or observation/measurement
o! physical observables? Fe might rather assume !or consistencyGs saKe
Cthat o! P8D that the wave!unction escribing the particle pair must
unergo a Esel!-collapseE when some critical separation o! the particles
is reache - a separation at which the i!!erence in the representation o!
the pair1 in terms o! its wave!unction e0presse within the local
spacetimes o! either particle o! the pair1 has reache some critical value.
6his critical value woul1 accoring to 7enrose1 be relate to the mass-
energy i!!erence o! the spacetimes in which each particle is embee.
7erhaps as long as this mass-energy i!!erence is less than the most
energetic massless particle which can be e!ine within a sel!-consistent
theory o! quantum gravity1 say1 the mass-energy o! a 7lancK particle o!
some *)-Ng1 there is no necessity that the wave!unction escribing the
particle pair unergo what 7enrose terms E9b5ective Aeuction1E C9AD1
because1 perhaps1 the energy i!!erence up to this critical value o! mass-
energy can be compensate through the e0change o! a massless quantum
CbosonD1 i.e.1 through e0change o! a virtual particle representing a
vacuum $-momentum !luctuation. /nother possible e0planation o! the
ob5ective reuction o! the pairGs wave!unction is relate to the overall
energy uncertainty o! the component o! the quantum vacuum o! both
particles. 6his is to suggest that when the i!!erence in mass-energy o!
the local spacetimes o! both particles e0cees the energy uncertainty o!
the nonlocally connecte component o! the local vacua o! the particles1
ob5ective reuction o! the pairGs wave!unction must taKe place - !or
otherwise1 the mass-energy i!!erence in the local spacetimes o! the
particles has outstrippe the nonlocally-connecte vacuumGs ability to
compensate the isparity in the local spacetime representations o! the
pairGs wave!unction in the spacetimes o! each particle1 resulting in the
incommensurability o! the quantum numbers o! each particle shoul a
reuction o! the pairGs wave!unction taKe place a!ter this critical
i!!erence in spacetimes has been reache - as a result o! the spatial
separation o! the particles. Fhat has been sai thus !ar suggests that
quantum entanglement1 i.e.1 nonlocal connectivity1 o! particles or !iels
within signi!icantly i!!ering local spacetimes may not be amissible in
a consistent theory o! quantum gravity. 6his1 in turn1 suggests that
nonlocal vacuum process may not actually be responsible !or the
maintaining o! particular spacetime geometries or that1 there is some
rather small limit to the i!!erences in local spacetime curvatures within
an overall nonlocally connecte vacuum. Fe must investigate the
possibility that the temporality1 i.e.1 the rate o! timeGs passage relative to
cosmic time1 o! a local spacetime is irectly relate to the nonlocal
connection o! the local vacuum o! this spacetime to the nonlocally-
connecte vacuum o! the universe at its largest scale.
6he result o! this maneuver1 however1 is that quantum mechanics coul
no longer be viewe as a Ecomplete theory1E since the wave!unction
woul no longer constitute a complete escription1 in general1 o! a
quantum mechanical system.
9n the other han1 i! the e0pression o! the wave!unction remains in
terms o! its own local spacetime1 then there is no unique wave!unction
which escribes both particles prior to a measurement being per!orme
on one o! the particles1 so that the spins o! the two particles woul not
necessarily a to zero a!ter a spin measurement is per!orme1 with the
result that spin woul not be a EgooE quantum number within a curve
spacetime. Hn such as case1 the general invariance o! physical law within
the theory o! relativity woul be violate. /ccoring to the physicist
:avi ?ohm1 in his booK1 6he "pecial 6heory o! Aelativity1 the latent
energy1 ; = mc21 which any particle o! mass1 m1 possesses1 e0ists by
virtue o! internal motions1 which may be thought o! as taKing place
within the particle1 or alternately e!ining the e0istence o! the particle1
an that the conversion o! mass into energy1 an vice versa1 consists
merely in converting the circular internal motions o! a number o!
massCive/lessD virtual particles into a set o! linear e0ternal motions o! a
number o! massless real particles1 an then converting them bacK again
into the original set o! circular internal motions. Ht is as though one were
to taKe a tiny particle in rapi linear motion1 ben or ivert this motion
so that it assume the !orm o! a rapi circular motion1 so that the particle
now possesse the appearance o! a ring1 an then utilize a portion o! this
circular motion to set the ring rotating so rapily that the ring now tooK
on the appearance o! a soli sphere1 most o! which1 to be sure1 woul be
compose o! empty space1 but which woul possess a great eal o!
energy by virtue o! the two perpenicular internal circular motions
which1 in con5unction with one another1 e!ine the sphereGs e0istence1
an then to procee to uno1 or reverse this series o! operations1
retrieving the original linear motion with which one starte. Fe Know1
o! course1 that this simple analogy o! the EKinetic sphereE is rather naive1
an that it is only intene as a basic moel o! the interconnecte
meshworK o! virtual particle reactions1 which e!ines the e0istence o!
any real particle. 6he important point here is that there is an e0act
parallel between this internal circular motion an the linear motion o!
massive particles along the imaginary a0is o! our cosmological moel o!
the hypersur!ace which is e0paning at the spee o! light1 or rather1 o!
the hyperspherical potential energy barrier through which all massive
particles are presently in the process o! quantum mechanically tunneling1
at appro0imately the spee o! light. 6o e0plore this parallel1 we nee
to maKe a relatively simple observation about the relationship o! the
internal circular motions to the e0ternal linear motions into which they
are converte whenever mass is converte into energy. Fe notice !rom
the e0ample o! the EKinetic sphere1E that it only require two
inepenent CorthogonalD internal motions in orer to e!ine the
e0istence o! this $ imensional ob5ect. Fe imagine that this conversion
o! these two circular1 orthogonal EinternalE motions will result in the
creation o! two linear1 orthogonal Ee0ternalE motions.
Fe believe this conversion process is escribe by an isomorphic group
operation1 such that the number o! imensions o! motion is conserve1
while the orthogonality o! the motions is retaine1 because the
conversion o! energy into mass1 the reverse o! this operation1 is
accomplishe through a continuous series o! simple .orenz
trans!ormations1 i.e.1 through the relativistic mass-velocity relationship
o! ;instein1 an because we Know that the conversion o! energy into
mass is a reversible CsymmetricalD operation so that the conversion o!
mass into energy can be escribe in terms o! a linear matri0 operationV
i.e.1 it is group-theoretic in nature. ?ut we Know that the irect
conversion o! mass into energy prouces an out-rush1 i! you will1 o!
release energy which streams outwar in $ spatial imensions. 6his
obvious empirical !act seems to require that there be $ inepenent
orthogonal1 circular1 internal motions which unerlie the latent energy o!
massive boies1 an this implies that massive boies which possess this
latent energy1 ; = mc21 must be1 either themselves1 $ imensional
hypersur!aces bining a ( imensional hypervolume1 such that the mass
possesses three inepenent egrees o! !reeom1 or that they must
possess two circular CorthogonalD internal motions1 e!ining two
imensional sur!aces bining $ imensional volumes constituting the
massive particles1 an that the thir orthogonal internal egree o!
!reeom is that associate with the linear motion o! these $ imensional
ob5ects which occupy a $ imensional hypersur!ace which is e0paning
within !our spatial imensions at the spee o! light. 6here seems to be a
problem1 however1 in associating all o! the latent energy o! motion1 ; =
mc21 with the linear egree o! !reeom associate with the cosmological
e0pansion1 simply because it means ignoring the contributions !rom the
two other internal egrees o! !reeom1 corresponing to the internal
motions o! massive boies. H!1 however1 we assume an equipartation o!
energy between the energy magnitues associate with all three egrees
o! !reeom1 an this seems reasonable because the .orenz
trans!ormation o! special relativity represents a symmetrical operation1
then the energy1 mc21 which is neee to rotate the pure imaginary linear
momentum by 2)o1 to convert it into a pure real momentum1 is provie
by the two energies1 */2mc2 an */2mc21 respectively1 associate with
the two circular internal egrees o! !reeom. Hn this way1 the two
energies1 */2mc21 combine with the negative Kinetic energy1
-*/2mc21 o! massive particles1 tunneling through the hyperspherical
potential energy barrier1 yiels the new energy1 +*/2mc21 associate with
the pure real momentum o! outstreaming massless particles which
results !rom the total conversion o! a real massive boy into energy.
Fe now see that the energy o! massive boies1 mc
2
1 may be thought o!
as stemming1 alone1 !rom the internal motions e!ining these boies1
which is release whenever these circular internal motions1 i.e.1 the
energy circulating within the !eebacK loops o! the virtual particle
reactions composing the massive boies1 is Ee!lecteE into the linear
motion o! real massless particles. /n aitional bonus !rom these
consierations is that it is now possible to see that the istinction
between virtual an real particles is not a !unamental one. 8ass1 on
this view1 is simply a !unction o! the topological structure o! the virtual
particle reactions which occur everywhere within the quantum
mechanical vacuum on account o! a !unamental energy uncertainty o!
the vacuum state which1 in turn1 stems !rom the !act that the =amiltonian
o! the vacuum is1 itsel!1 a !unction o! the EincompatibleE observables1
position an momentum. 8oreover1 the massless !orce-carrying
particles1 i.e.1 bosons1 which are the en prouct o! any total conversion
o! matter into energy1 e0ist solely by virtue o! their interaction with the
vacuum state1 an in no way epen upon1 or are e!ine by1 any sel!-
interaction. 3onsequently1 these massless bosons1 e.g.1 photons1 can be
consiere to be virtual particles even though are capable o! being
observe. Hn other wors1 the mass which a given volume o! space
possess is merely a !unction o! the imbalance in the ratio o! the volumeGs
sel!-interaction to its1 i! you will1 not-sel!-interaction: in !ree space1
where no matter is present1 the !lu0 ensity o! energy e0change between
the interior o! an arbitrary volume with itsel! an the !lu0 ensity o!
energy e0change between the interior o! this volume an its e0terior1 is
elicately balance. Ht is the alteration o! this balance in !avor o! greater
sel!-energy e0changes1 which engeners the phenomenon o! mass. 6he
sel!-energy e0changes correspon to the energies o! circular internal
motion1 iscusse earlier1 which we invoKe as a simplistic moel o! the
interconnecte meshworK o! virtual particle reaction paths e!ining the
e0istence o! massive boies. 6here is a very convenient mathematical
escription o! this sel!-energy an so-calle not-sel!-energy e0changesV
these are1 respectively: the energy ensity an the pressure o! the
vacuum. 6his balance o! e0ternal an internal vacuum energy
e0changes is e0act1 inicating the conition o! !ree space1 obtains1
there!ore1 when the pressure an energy ensity o! the vacuum are equal1
an it is on this conition that the spee o! light has its ma0imum local
value1 as seen !rom application o! 8achGs !ormula !or the spee o!
pressure wave oscillations within a material meium. 6here is no reason
why we may not apply 8achGs !ormula in this case because the only
essential i!!erence between the propagation o! pressure oscillations in a
material meium such as the ;arthGs atmosphere an such oscillations in
the vacuum is that o! .orenz invariance1 i.e.1 the value o! the spee o!
soun within a material meium is epenent on the state o! motion o!
the observer per!orming the velocity measurement1 while the velocity o!
Esoun1E i.e.1 light1 within the vacuum is itsel! inepenent o! the state o!
motion o! the observer within this vacuum.
/nother way to point up this i!!erence between the vacuum an an
orinary material meium is to note that the particles within the vacuum1
being virtual particles1 o not possess a continuous e0istence with time
an so cannot be chosen as the origin o! an absolute !rame o! re!erence
within which the velocity o! pressure oscillations o! the vacuum might
be measure relative to an observerGs state o! motion. /n orinary
material meium such as the atmosphere is compose o! particles which
possess a continuous e0istence an so an absolute !rame o! re!erence
may be establishe within this meium by which the velocity o! pressure
oscillations o! the meium may be measure which is then epenent
upon the state o! motion o! the observer.
6he ict a0is o! 8inKowsKi !our-imensional spacetime1 may be
unerstoo not to represent a physically real (th imension1 in an
analogous sense to the other three !amiliar spatial imensions1 but that it
merely !unctions as an abstraction within the !ormalism o! special
relativity to moel conservation laws1 e.g.1 energy1 momentum1 etc.1 an
the linear trans!ormation law connecting inertial re!erence !rames Cthe
.orenz trans!ormationD which1 in turn1 govern the general relationship o!
the internal an e0ternal motions o! real/virtual mass an !iel energy
within a universe o! three spatial imensions an one time imension.
7erhaps now it is easy to see why it is not necessary to unerpin the
mathematical structure o! special relativity with a physically real (th
imension. Ht is perhaps possible to remain consistent with ;insteinGs
an 8inKowsKiGs view o! time as being associate with what is merely
an abstract Cnot physically realD imension. H! the ,niverse is not1 in
!act1 an e0paning (-imensional hypersphere1 then the =ubble
istance-velocity relationship !or galactic recession requires the
e0istence o! a repulsive cosmological !orce !iel whose !orce increases
linearly with galactic separation. 6he graient o! the hyperspherical
potential1 postulate earlier to e0plain1 in part1 the imaginary coe!!icient
o! the ict a0is1 woul itsel! then have to be interprete as a mani!estation
o! the negative time-rate-o!-change in the energy ensity o! the quantum
mechanical vacuum which occurs ue to the global cosmological
e0pansion. 8oreover1 the continuous series o! local .orenz
trans!ormations which may be thought to connect two non-inertial
re!erence !rames Ccentere about two points in space o! i!!ering
gravitational potentialD woul be unerstoo in terms o! a continuous
tensor trans!ormation o! the !our inepenent components o!
spatiotemporal variation in vacuum energy ensity1 i.e.1 the gravitational
energy graient Cspatial variation in vacuum energy ensityD in
con5unction with the temporal variation o! vacuum energy ensity1
connecting the two non-inertial !rames o! re!erence.
6he equivalence between spatiotemporal variations in vacuum energy
ensity an variations in spacetime curvature may be more simply
graspe by e0amining two i!!erent e0pressions o! the =eisenberg
uncertainty principle within curve spacetimes. 6hese two e0pressions
are:
m;mt Z h an mpm0 Z h.
Fe Know that within a curve spacetime1 say1 in the vicinity o! a
massive spherical boy1 there is a general relativistic length contraction
along the spherical boyGs raial irection while at the same time there is
relativistic ilation o! time. H! we are consiering virtual particles1 then
the Z sign appearing in the two !ormulas1 above1 may be replace by an
= sign so that a ilation an a contraction in the variables1 mt an m01
respectively1 must be couple with an inversely proportional shrinKage
an ilation in the ual variables1 m; an mp1 respectively. Hn this way1
the energy o! the vacuum ecreases as one moves into regions o!
increasing gravitational potential while the momentum o! the vacuum1 i!
you will1 increases along this irection. H! the vacuum momentum is
correctly escribe by a !our-vector o! conserve magnitue1 then the
vacuum momentum may only increase with increasing strength o! local
gravitational potential at the e0pense o! a compensating ecrease in the
vacuumGs momentum along an orthogonal irection. Ht is the ecrease in
the vacuumGs momentum in the irection orthogonal to the raius o! our
spherical massive boy with which we must associate the ecrease in the
vacuumGs energy along the boyGs raial irection. "o we obtain what
perhaps appears to be a trivial result: the momentum o! the vacuum
along a certain irection may only be increase by utilizing the energy o!
the vacuum itsel! associate with its momentum in irections orthogonal
to the irection o! increasing momentum1 so that local mass istributions
o not1 themselves1 provie the energy require to support the e0istence
o! a local gravitational !ielV the e!!ect o! mass is merely to reirect the
vacuum momentum1 utilizing the locally available energy o! the vacuum
itsel!V to put this in the language o! ;instein: mass oes not prouce
spacetime curvature1 it locally alters the global curvature o! spacetime.
6his may all seem liKe an e0ercise in splitting hairs1 but there is an
important i!!erence in these two interpretations in the relationship o!
mass to spacetime curvature: i! mass1 or what amounts to mass1 alone1 is
responsible !or the e0istence o! spacetime curvature1 then an EemptyE
universe may not possess a globally curve spacetime. 9n the other
han1 i! mass merely locally alters the bacKgroun spacetime curvature1
then there is nothing to prevent the e0istence o! so-calle empty1 curve
spacetimes.
Ht is not correct to say that energy an in!ormation are intere!inable so
that i! energy is a conserve quantity1 then in!ormation is also a
conserve quantity. / simple countere0ample su!!ices here. Ht is
possible !or transitions to occur1 within a gas1 say1 where both the
entropy an the energy o! the gas are conserve1 even though the
i!!erent con!igurations between which the transitions occur may be
thought o! as representing i!!erent quantities o! in!ormation so that
in!ormation is not itsel! conserve. 6he notions o! energy an entropy
are separable !rom the notion o! in!ormation because the !ormer are only
e!inable with respect to a close system o! a !inite number o! istinct
state space con!igurations while the latter is always e!ine with respect
to something outsie the system in which its coe con!iguration is
e!ine. Ht is not possible !or one thing to represent another unless there
be at least two istinct levels o! escription available to the system
within which the representation is to be constructe. H! we waive the
requirement o! an Ee0ternalE observer who is to give i!!erent meanings
to the i!!erent con!igurations1 then in!ormation an energy are not
intere!inable.
/nother reason !or not equating the two1 i.e.1 energy an in!ormation1 is
on account o! the e0istence o! energy egeneracy. "ince i!!erent
wave!unctions may possess the same associate energy eigen!unctions1
it shoul be possible !or a quantum mechanical system possessing
energy egeneracy to unergo arbitrary transitions !rom one egenerate
eigen!unction to another without the changes be associate with changes
in any e!inable P8 observables.
)%/2N

H have !oun that uner certain unusual sleeping conition such as the
presence o! bright lights1 chemical stimulants Cca!!eine or a nicotine
patchD1 a!ter having previously taKen a stanar ose o! melatonin1 an
especially a!ter having returne to sleep 5ust a!ter being brie!ly
awaKene1 that H am able to e0perience reams in which H become aware
that H am1 in !act1 merely reaming an that none o! what H am
witnessing an oing is real but is something which H am manu!acturing
out o! my own consciousness1 incluing mysel! as one o! the
participants in the action. ?ut precisely when this happens1 when my
consciousness o! my role as creator o! all H survey becomes total1 the
events H am witnessing begin to lose their inepenent character an the
whole scene begins to quicKly issolve whereupon H immeiately
awaKen. Ht is as though my simultaneous e0istence as sub5ect an ob5ect
is outlawe as parao0ical1 e0cept in the partial sense o! my being a
mere participating EcharacterE in the un!oling action. 6his is perhaps
because the EcurrentsE which power the ream become liKe the
tributaries o! a river whose !low must quell upon reaching the level o!
the riverGs sourceV as long as the Esel!E which is creating the ream-
phenomena Cthe sourceD is EhigherE than the Esel!E which participates in
it on equal par with the other EparticipantsE Cthe tributariesD the action
continues in a natural an uninterrupte manner. Hn the !leeting moments
o! near total consciousness1 be!ore the reamscape has ha aequate
time to isintegrate1 it usually occurs to me to try to o something1
which is consiere impossible in waKing li!e. H may cause various
ob5ects aroun me to leap into the air or e0ploe or H might even move
mysel! to hover in the air an !ly about. ?ut usually there is barely time
even to begin to try out my new EpowersE be!ore H am !orce to awaKen.
9verwhelmingly1 such miraculous acts as these H !reely per!orm in the
normal state o! reaming consciousness in which H have not the slightest
clue that H am oing anything e0traorinary.

cit=
R-urthermore1 we have even evelope a basic unerstaning
about how these a!!erent-e!!erent connections are blocKe1
normally uring A;8 sleep1 allowing the brain to sel! stimulate
an generate the strange Eo!!lineE realities we e0perience uring
reams C4ottesmann1 *222V 8aquet1 2)))DS. . . 6hus1 we can
escribe the brain1 metaphorically1 as a Kin o! Rvirtual reality
generatorS1 which allows the environment outsie the brain to be
e0perience insie it. 6his Eout-o!-brainE worl comprises not only
the boyGs e0ternal environment1 but also the internal environment
o! other organs outsie the brain Cactually1 we are going to
emonstrate that the brainGs Evirtual systemE generates not only a
virtual worl1 but also a virtual sel! in the center o! this virtual
worlD. ;ach brain generates this virtual worl an sel! using the
a!!erent stimuli1 e0ternal an internal to the boy1 an the virtual
sel! prouces virtual ecisions an actions that will a!!ect our boy
through e!!erent outputs C8erKer1 2))'D. . . R*- 6=; E?A/H@ H@
6=; I/6E /A4,8;@6: as brains o not e0ist in isolation !rom
their surrouning environment CEinsie vatsED1 it maKes no sense to
postulate that what we e0perience as our ay-to-ay reality was
generate by an insie our brains C:ennet1 *22*DS.
/pril 2)*(
6he
inputs an outputs to the Rvirtual reality generatorS o! the brain1
however1 possess a istinctive structure that is peculiar to a
linguistic grammar1 which necessarily i!!erentiates interaction o!
the person_s brain via coe impulses with other intelligent entities
possessing brains !rom the mere interaction o! his brain with an
unintelligent environment populate by a care o! automata or
Rphilosophical zombies.S 3onsciousness on this view is a rei!ie
pro5ection o! an ego qua sociolinguistic construct1 rather than being
a Kin o! unique an mysterious RthinKing substanceS. C9ne is
remine here o! how it is very i!!icult to !aKe an authentic
souning laugh.D Hn other wors1 one cannot achieve sel!-
consciousness1 which is the preconition o! rei!ie consciousness
as the meium o! conscious e0perience in the absence o! a
properly robust sociolinguistic conte0t. 9n an unerlying physical
level1 one woul e0pect Rgrammatical structureS to be coe in
terms o! a set o! programme actual an potential quantum
entanglements that provie an encrypte signature o! quantum
correlates o! conscious states. :escartes_ RthinKing substanceS here
is a Kin o! har-encrypte quantum entanglement signature
possessing an open-system topology that is altogether istinct !rom
that o! a close system machine intelligence. -or one1 time is
spatialize in such a close system1 whereas temporality is a
genuine possibility !or an open system. -or another1 close
quantum mechanical systems o not ecohere1 being isolate !rom
the environmental in!luences Cto inclue vacuum electromagnetic
!iel !luctuationsD1 that otherwise inuce this ecoherence o!
wave!unction collapse. 3oherence1 cohesiveness1 robustness1 unity1
integration1 re!le0ivity1 an so on1 are system qualities that cannot
be supporte within a close !orm computational state space1 i.e.1 a
state space that is not Rconte0t-embeeS. "o chance
combinational/permutational shu!!lings cannot bring about new
states o! the system which are capable o! sustaining themselves
against a bacKgroun o! perturbing !luctuations1 i.e.1 RnoiseS. Ht is
true that Rwithout conte0t there is no meaningS1 but the converse o!
this is also trueS without meaning there is not conte0t. 3learly1
structures o! quantum entanglement o! real or simulate
computational state space states cannot be inclue as aitional
states within the pree0istent state space !or this leas to an in!inite
regress.
'$ ,-. /R010,23041I./ 5R674.&,: /s we can
imagine1 an perhaps even buil1 organisms an machines that can
behave in a way similar to humans1 but without having an internal
Can consciousD Evirtual realityE1 evolution ha no reason to have
selecte the evelopment o! Eneuro-virtualE processes insie our
brains C3halmers1 *22&D. 6he answer to this argument is relate to
the answer to the R?rain in a IatS argument. Fhat !unctions
analogously to RgrammarS here is the notion o! supervenience or o!
supervenient causation. 6he 4eelian !le0ibility to R5ump outsie
the systemS1 e.g.1 throw out the current set o! postulates an
a0ioms1 rules o! in!erence an even to assume the truth o!
theorems not provable !rom the newly aopte logico-euctive
system an what is more1 to guess well the time to o this1 is 5ust
the Kin o! neural !le0ibility a person nees1 which H believe
emans supervenience. 3ausal supervenience coul be service
an supporte by su!!iciently sensitive microstructures in the brain
being slightly altere so as to come into resonance with the
vacuum electromagnetic !iel in such a way as to !acilitate
in!ormation e0change between Rbrain an creative voiS so as to1
in turn1 !acilitate the otherwise relatively iminishe capacity o! a
classical1 unsupervise neural networK to reprocess its ata into
higher orer structures that more aptly simulate the e0ternal worl
along with the mental worls o! woul be competitors !or limite
resources. Fe alreay Know !rom ?ohm_s causal principle that the
!luctuation-correlation subspectrum representing eterministic
cause-an-e!!ect constitutes but a tiny subomain within the total
spectrum.
c.!.1 )he Phenomena *or+ Ins!+e the Noumena Hea+ o, the
-!ant: L!nk!ng the B!oog!ca E#out!on o, "onsc!ousness .!th
the /!rtua Rea!ty 0etaphor.
http://www2.marilia.unesp.br/revistas/ine0.php/reic/article/view-i
le/%$$/&$'
Sam 1ankester 8y internal virtual reality generator is quite ma
reallyT
vor $ "tunen s ?earbeitet s 4e!tllt mir nicht mehr s *

Lime Cat <eah1 but it really only got out o! control a!ter you realize
that you have one - a probable case o! system instability provoKe by
outputs !eeing bacK into inputsT
Sam 1ankester 9h wow..i! the internal virtual sel! is aware he e0ists1
creating a strange loop1 then the possibility arises that strange loop
entanglement between internal an e0ternal selves is taKing place every
time we ream. /hhhhhTTTTT 9! whom is each sel! aware? 6iny
e0plosion 5ust erupte somewhere in my hippocampus. 7retty sure HGm
permanently baKe now.

Lime Cat @ah1 youGve been reay !or that insight !or a long time now.

Lime Cat -or my part1 H am still trying to live own this bizarre
notion o! my having all along been a virtual .illiputian living
within the neural networK simulation o! some alien
?robingnagian brainT

wik*
Lime Cat http://en.wiKipeia.org/wiKi/4ulliver%2%s#6ravels...
6ulli*er8s ,ra*els $ Wiki!e"ia9 the free encyclo!e"ia
en.wiKipeia.org
6ravels into "everal Aemote @ations o! the Forl. Hn -our 7arts. ?y
.emuel 4ulliver1 -irst a "urgeon1 an then a 3aptain o! "everal "hips1
better Known simply as 4ulliverGs 6ravels C*%2&1 amene *%$'D1 is a
novel by Hrish writer an clergyman >onathan "wi!t1 that is both a satire
on human nature an]

Lime Cat 9! course1 this lumbering ?robingnagian is not actually sel!-

conscious1 rather1 his brain has create a simulation containing a virtual
sel! along with a consciousness o! an re!erring e0clusively to]this
virtual sel!. "o sel!-consciousness is really only Esel!E-consciousness1
i.e.1 it is not actual1 but merely metaphorical.
>esus 3hrist in!orms us that were we to have a mustar seeGs !aith we
woul be able to hurl mountains into the sea. /s 3hristians we cannot
help but taKe him at his wor on this. 7erhaps here we are now able to
glimpse a !unamental i!!erence between certainty an what we call
!aith. ,sually 3hristians equate the two in some !ashion1 but con!er
with such common e0hortations as E<ou cannot be certain o! this1 but
you must have !aith.E H! orinary parlance can clari!y the point H want to
maKe it can also obscure: E HGm not as certain o! this as youE vs. E=e has
more !aith than H.E 6hat is1 we commonly speaK both o! egrees o!
certainty as well as egrees o! !aith. <et in the most literal sense !aith is
something which inee amits o! egree1 certainty1 on the other han1
oesnGt - you are either certain about something or you are not1 in which
case1 you are entertaining oubt. ?ut i! !aith an certainty are i!!erent
in the way H escribe1 then one cannot have !aith an have certainty at
one an the same time. ?ut we 5ust sai that i! we are not certain then
we must in some way entertain oubt. -aith can e0ist in the !ace o!
oubt1 but it taKes a !aith1 which is completely !ree !rom all oubt !or us
to buge mountains !rom their very !ounations. Fe cannot1 o! course1
have certainty that any thing in particular shall come to pass unless we
have the type o! assurance which only 4o himsel! provies in the !orm
o! "cripture or Aevelation. 3an we istinguish >esus an 4o the -ather
in the !ollowing manner: >esus is the incarnate1 humble 4oV we might
say that the /ngels an ourselves witness his glory in =eaven1 but not
e0perience by =imsel! personally. 4o the -ather is =imsel! not a
humble ?eing having never e0perience the humiliation which 3hrist
e0perience !or us on the 3ross1 but e0periences this 4lory in an
intimately personal way which we sill never be able to imagineV by
meitating upon it1 however1 we may learn to marvel at the mere iea o!
it. >esus says that we must come to him as little chilren. Fhat this
means is that our belie! in =im is base on our !aith an has nothing to
o with our intellects an so what we call certainty is not here the
relevant quantity. Fe shoul not there!ore envy those who seem to
possess intellectual certainty concerning their 3hristian belie!s as still
more clever arguments to the opposite sie may be waiting 5ust aroun
the corner. /n one is in a 3atch-22 situation here because i! one
possesses the heastrong prie to resist the seuctive an highbrowe
attacKs upon oneGs own intellectualize belie!s1 then one hols these
belie!s !or the wrong reasons. 9n the other han1 i! one gives way to
EsuperiorE argument1 all is lostV i! inee anything worthwhile was
risKe in the !irst place. -aith can e0ist in the !ace o! the gravest o!
oubts1 c.!.1 E9h .or1 please give me !aith now in my moment o!
oubt.E
Hntellectual certitue is topple by even a slight suspicion. Ht is
characterize by ignorance o! the subtler complications at still eeper
levels an ismay is perhaps e0perience when they are suenly
uncovere1 threatening what were thought to be pat arguments.
=owever a 3hristian who has trie his han at intellectualizing his
belie!s but who has now learne to base them on !aith1 probably retains
some respect !or their intellectual imension although he now trusts that
the hien complications must ultimately worK out in his !avor. 6he
"ophists o! ancient 4reece en5oye inulging in isputation an ebate
!or its own saKe alone an use to prie themselves !or being able to
maKe the worse sie o! an argument seem the better one. /lthough these
Kin o! people are still aroun toay1 intellectual 5usti!ications nee not
even be attacKe to lose their quality o! conviction as they have a natural
hal!-li!e which is on the whole quite shortV the newness o! iscovering or
inventing them must soon enough begin to wear o!!. 6he 3hristian
belie!s which they were thought to support are now weaKene although
the intellectual vanity which they are really in service to merely goes on
to still more subtler or !ancier arguments. 3hristian apologists must
realize that part o! what motivates them to put pen to paper is ientical
to that which motivates any writer1 that is1 intellectual vanity an prie.
Ht is an inevitable !act that i! one were ever to become conscious o! not
being a prou person one woul at that very same time become prou
about it. H! H worK a miracle H o so in complete humilityV as soon as H
become conscious o! mysel! as the author o! this great sign the conuit
o! my power becomes squelche. 6he !aith o! the mustar see which
allows me to hurl the mountain is intimately connecte with my
conviction that it is not mysel! which is the source o! this terri!ic power1
but 4o =imsel!. 6his complete humility which is ine0tricably one with
the !aith necessary to per!orm miracles can only e0ist i! it is not
conscious o! itsel!. /s we Know a miracle involves the suspension o!
natural law which normally prevents it. Fe also Know that natural law
can only be !ormulate concerning ob5ects or processes which are in
principle reproucible as reproucibility epens in turn upon what is
calle reucibility. 6his is why we re!er to eterministic laws escribing
reproucible phenomena as reuctionistic. Aeuctionistic laws are
EcloseE !orm e0pressions o! physical relationships which is to say they
are mathematical. E3loseE because the e0pression contains in an
abstract way everything that can possibly occur between the terms
relate to one another by the e0pression - all that is neee are the initial
an bounary conitions V nothing is able to come in !rom Eoutsie1E as
it were1 to isrupt or complicate the lattice-worK o! physical
relationships.
Qd
/n this is 5ust the point. Hn interacting with a truly unique entity or
system H am not able to inepenently vary the circumstances in which H
observe this system unless H am capable o! istinguishing what are the
epenent !rom what are the inepenent variables an to succee in
oing this H must be able to vary these e0perimental circumstances in a
way which can be isentangle !rom the resulting changes in the
behavior o! the system itsel! as oppose to the conitions o! the
e0perimental setting. H can o this i! the pervious state o! the system is
mae not to carry over an in!luence the e0periment at a later time when
the system is in its new state1 c.!.1
au=
Aupert "helraKe1
cit=
The 4resence
of the 4ast. ;ssentially this can only happen i! the new state o! the
system is 5ust the state o! some i!!erent but ientical system so that
these states become ecouple !rom each other thus allowing that
mutual relationships among the epenent CinternalD variables to be
istinguishe !rom the relationships o! the epenent variables to the
inepenent Ce0ternalD variables which can now in this way be
manipulate inepenently. "o EclosenessE an EopennessE o! a system
are not merely convenient escriptive labels but quite aptly escribe
genuine topological relations between the system variables. "houl
there e0ist variables which can be varie inepenently but which we
are not able to control1 then usually this is a symptom o! over-
comple0ity o! the system which is best overcome by the e!ining o!
various EranomE variables which are then treate statistically.
=owever1 this leaves the possibility o! inepenent variables which are
neither ranom nor which we are able to control. 6hese woul be not
e!inable or unKnown variables an represent in!luences upon our
system which issue !rom some hien region EoutsieE the space-time
continuum. @aturally1 such systems will not be reuctionistic an hence
they are not reproucible but instea1 are unique inee. ;very act
which issues !rom the Fill o! 4o is necessarily a mystery to all but
=imsel!. ?ut the i!!erence is that a goo apologist Knows how hopeless
it is to completely subue this monster an so e0ploits it in the service o!
a lo!ty purpose: that o! hope!ully turning the intellectual vanity o!
others against their unbelie! !or 5ust long enough so that something o!
real convicting power might be given its chance to worK1 which is to say1
4oGs grace. ?y a natural e0tension o! this analogy we may easily
illustrate the ma5or i!!erence between what might be terme the ;astern
versus Festern view o! 4o an 8an as well as their relation to one
another. 6he eastern view o! this relationship seems to be that secretly
the reamer himsel! an that even though the ream eventually passes it
is soon enough replace by yet another where this special participant
assumes some other possibly quite i!!erent !orm an perhaps even
recalls events an participants !rom some previous ream.
>une 2)*$ Qd
6he greatest necessity !or proviential intelligent esign is
pointe up by the plurality o! consciousness1 i.e.1 consciousness_s1 each
o! which possesses recursive privilege access an sense ata
incorrigibility as there must be supervenience o! being Co! some KinD
over these multitues o! consciousness_s. 6he only potential caniate to
provie sai supervenience Cc.!.1 philosopher :aniel :ennettD constitutes
a R!iel o! one1 which is to say1 /o. 3onsciousness worKs !or
everyboy an not 5ust !or one person1 which woul inee have been
the case !or a solipsist who i not inee possess the creative powers o!
a bona !ie eity.
/lthough reincarnation is usually associate with this Kin o! conception
it is not really consistent with the !ull-blooe ;astern view that the
iniviual soul is 5ust an illusionV i! H am1 on account o! this octrine1 not
really i!!erent !rom you or anyboy else !or that matter1 then neither am
H any more liKe one particular person who live at any time in the past
than H am !rom any o! his millions o! contemporaries unless1 o! course1 H
secretly subscribe to the more or less theistic view that there is1 inee1
such a thing as an iniviual immortal soul. H! H were to claim that H am
the reincarnation o! 6hales1 the !ouner o! 4reeK philosophy1 then you
may maKe the euction !rom this that H coul not then be the
reincarnation o! .aotzsu1 the !ouner o! 6aoism as he an 6hales were
contemporariesV but then this in turn implies that the istinction between
6hales an .aotzsu cannot secretly be an illusion an this is contra hyp.
"alvation !or the ;asterner is e!!ecte by the sheing o! this illusion o!
iniviualityV the paltry an minuscule particle o! being returns to its
source which is ?eing itsel!. =ere the ;go is ienti!ie with sel!-
consciousness. 9n the Festern1 theistic view1 on the other han1 the ;go
an the iniviual "oul are inee two istinct entities1 the ;go being a
!alse aggranizement o! oneGs true iniviuality Cthe "oulD1 alienating it
!rom the :ivine Fill an Known as "in which is 7rie. "alvation !or
3hristianity is e!!ecte by the removal o! "in C7rieD with the result that
the iniviual Fill an the :ivine Fill become 9ne. Fe shoul
consier in this connection the puzzling statement in the booK o!
Ecclesiastes1 that the spirit returns to the -ather who mae it. C
/ugust 2)*2
6his is apparently without regar to the ultimate !ate o! the soulD.
/nother important istinction here is the manner in which "alvation is
e!!ecte. -or the ;asterner1 "alvation can be achieve through the
iniviualGs own e!!orts1 through the practice o! various types o! sel!-
iscipline1 an concerns itsel! not so much with seeKing a esirable state
in the /!terli!e as with the avoiance o! su!!ering in an enless cycle o!
:eath an Aebirth to which one is con!ine through the in!luence o!
Oarma.
Qd
7erception is largely governe by e0pectations conitione by
previous e0perience. 8emory is selective. 6he tale grows in the re-
telling. 6he most we can mean by Eob5ective realityE is intersub5ective
reality.
:ecember 2)*2
=owever1 the sub5ective cannot be analyze in terms o!
intersub5ective categoriesV that is by e!inition1 !rom which it !ollows
that1 *] the sub5ective is not ob5ectively real an 2]what is calle the
real contains more than the merely ob$ectively real. H! the ob5ective an
sub5ective are truly is5oint1 then how are they to be relate together?
9nly by being meaningfully relate Cplease paron all o! the italical
R!oot stompingSV it is not intene to be patronizingD together1 o! course1
that is1 by the grasping o! a sub5ective insight by a solitary min
]
.
.anguage is incapable o! conveying actual substance1 or content1 but can
only convey istinctions an similarities at multiple levels o!
abstraction. =uman suggestibility
:ecember 2)*2
an auto-suggestibility
Cthese go han in han1 e.g.1 guru vs. initiate1 mentor vs. protggg_1
sleeping prophet1 entrance yogi1 etc.D
]
is always a !actor in the
seeming immeiacy o! interpersonal communication. 6he commonality
o! language an environment structure creates the illusion that our
perceptions o! this environment are similar1 i! nonientical to those o!
our neighbors. 6he vagueness an con!usion1 i! not the outright
contraictory nature o!1 our conceptions an belie!s is never !ully
reveale to the iniviual in the absence o! problem-solving
applications. 6he courtesy an civility o! strangers an acquaintances is
!requently mistaKen !or genuine caring an regar !or onesel! an oneGs
interests. 6he continual appearance o! so-calle Ecoinciences1E which
maKe li!e seem more intimately relate to the iniviual than it is in
reality1 are largely arti!acts o! the !iltering o! sensory/perceptual ata in
the light o! recent learning1 still reverberating within the iniviualGs
subconscious. /ltruism is an investment in the !uture caring an
Kinness e0tene to onesel!. C9ne assumes that investing in raising
one_s sel!-esteem base through the practicing o! generosity shall
someay reap a ivien in the !orm o! liKe generosity o! others.D
9riginality is !requently a combination o! sloppy scholarship an an
imper!ect memory. "uperstition is a metaphorical1 inuctive
generalization upon coincientally connecte events.
R<our brain is not liKe a computer. Ht_s well lai out an energy e!!icient1
but it_s really a survival machine that has been optimize over millions
o! generations o! natural selection an evolution to help you survive1
even lying to you when necessary in the interest o! Keeping you alive.
6hat_s a central principle o! how brains are organizeS1 c.!.1 The
Neuroscience of Everyay 1ife" &am Wang" 4h.D.
epi=
Fe o not change. Fe simply embarK upon new sel!-eceptions.
:ecember *222
/roun 2)*' rocKer 8ichael >acKson will unergo the
lengthiest surgery to ate
to become the worlGs !irst human cyborg. =e will be plugge into the
ne0t generation o! the internet utilizing biochips implante in his brain.
6wenty years later 8ichael will have his brain remove1 place in a vat
o! some nutritive meia1 an with his brain connecte by myria
electroes to a quantum neural networK computer1 will manage to more
or less ownloa himsel! into a still later generation o! the internet
compose partly by computers capable o! irectly interacting with the
quantum vacuum o! spacetime. ?y 2)&) /:1 8ichael will be the
unispute ruler o! cyberspace. ?y this time a whole generation o!
persons will be spening most o! their time in this simulate worl o!
cyberspace. 8any o! these will ecie to live the rest o! their conscious
lives there. 8ichael will become in a very real sense a 4o by this time.
?y the time a move is mae to estroy his brain1 he will have succeee
in totally incorporating his min into this quantum vacuum CHnterD net
an will possess genuine1 i! ubious immortality. ?y this time1 it will be
iscovere that e0istence ha alreay been taKing place1 prior to the
emergence o! the !irst generation Hnternet1 !or countless millennia within
an ancient Hnternet establishe by our true ancestors millions o! years
ago. Fhat we ha all this time interprete as the precise mathematical
physical laws o! nature was merely the mani!estation o! ancient cyber
technology an programming engineere by those istant ancestors o!
ours1 hieous1 tentaculate1 i! not totally !ormless1 beings o! pure energy.
Ht will only taKe the simulate reality CHnternetD approaching the
subtlety an comple0ity o! this ancient reality simulation !or this to
become apparent centuries be!ore the awn o! $))) /:. /s 3arl "agan
has sai1 i! the ,niverse is billions o! years ol1 then the average age o!
civilizations in the ,niverse woul be on the orer o! *))Gs o! millions
o! years. "o what are the chances then1 that ours is only !ive or si0
thousan years ol? 4iven a 4aussian istribution o! civilization age1
ours woul occupy the ).)))))))))*st percentile. Fhat are the
chances o! that? ?y the year $))) /:1 our civilization will have
iscovere its true age - perhaps *)))1)))1))) years or moreT
=ope!ully <2O is only a glitch in the topmost CincompleteD level o!
simulation an e0ist on any eeper levels1 i.e.1 <281 <241 etc.1 or we
might all be in !or a real surpriseT
/re all signals secretly meaning!ul1 none intrinsically noisy?
>uly 2)**
9r is
it 5ust that one man_s noise is another man_s signal? 6here_s no clear
emarcation between1 ata1 in!ormation an e0ecutive !unction signaling
in the brain as these all are quantities o! i!!erent levels o! abstraction1
each possessing the same unerlying biophysical reality as the other1 or
so we suppose. 6he probability o! a given comple0 signal belonging to
two or more istinct conte0ts shoul be renere small by virtue o! the
comple0ity potential o! the signal carrier coe aressing a much greater
number o! conte0ts than which are actually possible.
9ctober 2)** Qd
6here
may be a necessity o! maKing a !urther istinction between ata an
in!ormation in the light o! recent quantum entanglement an
teleportation e0periments an in light o! =awKing_s notion o!
chronology protection. Fe perhaps nee to istinguish between
controllable" intentional information an information merely as
7interprete ata8. 6hought e0periments involving quantum
entanglement base communication between two or more quantum
computers is what suggests the nee !or this aitional istinction.
"ince the gimmicK o! Rparallel universesS is the !avorite mechanism o!
choice by science !iction writers !or the obviating o! time parao0es1 it
might be worthwhile to seeK one or more o! the essential components o!
chronology protection in geanKen e0periments connecte with quantum
superposition1 speci!ically in the observational/e0perimental logic
pointe up by Relaye choiceS1 Rquantum non-emolitionS an
Rquantum eraserS e0periments. 6here are several istinct stages in any
causal chain o! events that potentially lea to a Rtime parao0S where
one coul insert a Rno-goS theorem in orer to hea o!! its !ormation.
/n event horizon o! a blacK hole is an e0ample o! chronology
protection. 6his is because the !ormation o! a RnaKe singularityS1
which is otherwise permitte woul enable bacKwar timeliKe
tra5ectories through spacetime. ?ut causality is also violate by any
!reely wille act. 6he causal parao0es involve in !ree will are most
liKely bu!!ere an e!use through the probabilistic quantum structure
o! spacetime1 in particular the superposition principle an the principle
o! the complementarity o! incompatible observables1 i.e.1 the !act that
these paire observables are relate through -ourier "eries an inverse
-ourier "eries e0pansions.
/pril 2)*(
6aKe a looK at the linK below on the
two-way relateness o! quantum mechanics an !ree will1 c.!.1
http://www.uncommonescent.com/physics/!ree-will-creates-quantum-
physics-an-not-the-other-way-aroun/ R/ quantum e0periment consists
basically in a evice Ce.g. an inter!erometer or a polarizerD that receives
energy Clight1 electrons1 etc.D !rom a source1 an therea!ter can prouce
two i!!erent etection outcomes we enote f*_ Ci! etector :* clicKsD1
an f)_ Ci! etector :) clicKsD. 6he outcomes re!er to registere results
that are accessible to the e0perimenter Ca human observerD.
3onsequently1 the !inal results o! an e0periment a!ter many runs buil a
registere sequence o! bits: *1*1)1*1)1)1)1*1)1)]6he istribution o! the
bits f*_ an f)_ in this string epens on evice_s settings1 which the
e0perimenter can choose. -or instance1 by changing the settings the
e0perimenter can cause the outcome_s istribution to go !rom (' percent
f*_ an '' percent f)_1 to %) percent f*_ an $) percent _)_.
"tanar quantum physics establishes two things:
aD -or a large number o! etections the outcomes !ul!ill a etermine
statistical istribution epening on the settings C!or instance: ('
percent o! f*_ an '' percent o! f)_D. ?ut the theory oes not establish
how many outcomes maKe a large number o! them.
bD -or each single quantum event the outcome Cwhich o! the two
etectors clicKsD is unpreictable in principle !or the e0perimenter.
Hn this sense it is sai that the quantum laws are essentially statistical1
an the orer o! the outcomes unpreictable. =owever quantum physics
oes not establish that the sequence o! outcomes Cthe bit stringD must
happen without any orer an be meaningless.
Fhat is more1 recent e0periments are bringing to light that the
e0perimenter_s !ree will an consciousness shoul be consiere a0ioms
C!ouning principlesD o! stanar quantum physics theory. "o !or
instance1 in e0periments involving RentanglementS Cthe phenomenon
;instein calle RspooKy action at a istanceSD1 to conclue that Buantum
correlations of two particles are nonlocal Ci.e. cannot be e0plaine by
signals traveling at velocity less than or equal to the spee o! lightD1 it is
crucial to assume that the e6perimenter can ma'e free choices" an is
not constraine in what orientation heHshe sets the measuring evices.S
C
>uly 2)*2
7arallel multiverse selves act !reely without engenering causal
parao0es L this is a corollary to the principle o! chronology protection
an what shoul be unerstoo to be a Kin o!
e!n=
Rcontainment
principleS.D 6urning to the theory o! the correlation-issipation o!
!luctuations in the vacuum_s energy within the !iner Rinterior structureS
o! mani!est =eisenberg energy uncertainty1 i.e.1 the Rhien variablesS o!
quantum uncertainty we may pro!itably seeK to e!ine each stage in the
causal chain o! a Rclose spacetime loopS in its act o! establishing itsel!
where nature coul reliably an opportunistically intervene. 6he
evelopment o! a staning wave structure within a superluminal signal
wave pacKet allows us to maKe signal phase velocity e!!ectively
epenent upon the wavepacKet group velocity instea o! vice versa Cthe
usual caseD1 provie that the wavepacKet is itsel! built up !rom the
mutual inter!erence o! RretareS an RavanceS waves1 which are in
turn epenent upon the initial an bounary conitions. 6his
presupposes the notion that wavepacKets1 which travel with group
velocity can be treate as Rphase wavesS1 c.!.1 signals propagating with
imaginary momentum uring Rquantum tunnelingS. ?ut this is sub5ect
to the special conitions !or wavepacKet li!etime in relation to the
wavepacKet_s =eisenberg energy uncertainty1 i.e.1 simply that /a;/at Z= h.
6he istinction between the measurability o! real particles an !iels on
the one han an the immeasurability o! virtual particles an !iels on
the other Ce0cept in statistical termsD shoul be o! service here. /gain1 at
each crucial step in the woul be !ormation o! a close spacetime loop
Cwhich by the way seems to necessarily invoKe a topology o! two-
imensional timeD1 there shoul be opportunity !or a presume
chronology protection mechanism to intervene. @ote that i! causality is
really unerpinne in higher imensional time1 i.e.1 '1 &1 etc.
spacetime1 then close time loops in ( spacetime are no real threat to
causality1 but merely present the appearance o! such to creatures not
possessing the perspectival avantage a!!ore by intersub5ectively
meiate theories o! causality within these higher spacetime imensions.
Qd
6he !inal stage at which a chronology protection mechanism coul
reasonably intervene1 actually is compose o! three istinct stages1
namely the !ollowing: that o! the !ormation o! the observer_s an
e0perimenter_s ieas1 that o! the reliable recoring an that o! rational
application an implementation o! these ieas. Fe woul o! course liKe
Rchronology protectionS to possess an unerlying mechanism1 but
un!ortunately1 7mechanism8 by its very nature is essentially part of the
general thing which a chronology protection 7mechanism8 is there to
protect. 6his suggests that the chronology protection RmechanismS is to
be sought within recursive structures1 which woul have to possess no
beginning in time Cto e0empt them !rom neeing to be Rchronology
protecteSD Ht is starting to looK liKe we shall be !orce to seeK
chronology protection at some RtranshumanS level1 e.g.1 .azslo_s
*'ashic +ecor1 =awKing_s Chronology 4rotection *gency1 the big-
heae alien programmersS RoutsieS the *ncestor &imulation1 an so
on. ?ecause o! the !unamental limitations impose upon automation1
i.e.1 RmechanismS by 4eel_s an 6uring_s theorems1 an the suspecte
immunity o! consciousness to the theoretical limitations impose by
these theorems Cprobably because consciousness itself is the theory
builerD1 we shall have to taKe our lea !rom
au=
3homsKy that1 the most
crucial step in the state censorship o! ieas oes not occur Rat the
printing pressS1 i.e.1 the mechanism" but at the very root o! the process
!or the operation o! an otherwise !ree press1 that is1 at the level o! Rthe
!ormation o! ieasS1 i.e.1 at the level o! RconsciousnessS. Fe may
ultimately seeK the master mechanism o! chronology protection at the
highest possible level o! correlation o! quantum !luctuations in the sense
o! RhigherS versus RlowerS in!ormation processing1 or at the bounary
between reucible an irreucible comple0ity within the quantum
vacuum1 namely at the 7lancK energy.
:ecember 2)*2 Qd
R;very recursive
!unction has its equivalent iterative Cnon-recursiveD !unction. ;ven when
such equivalent iterative proceures are written1 e0plicit stacK is to be
useS1 c.!.1 the !ollowing "crib linK:
web=
http://www.scrib.com/oc/'%&2&(NN/:ata-"tructure-"ample-
Puestions 6his can be consiere an alternative way o! e!ining
reuctionism1 which may !acilitate e!ining more help!ul concepts
within philosophical iscussions involving eterminism1 e.g.1 arti!icial
intelligence1 !ree will1 reuctionism1 consciousness1 quantum nonlocality
an hien variables1 etc.
:ecember 2)** epi=
E4o in_t buil the
prn=
=eisenberg ,ncertainty 7rinciple
into the !unamental structure o! the ,niverse in orer to grace
humanKin with the Eelbow roomE be!itting a !ree will1 but merely to
spare =im the annoyance o! attening to the myria etails o! =is
creation.E
http://phys.org/news/2)*$-)N-teleportation-easierbut.html
@ovember *22&
Fhat psychologists1 philosophers1 an theologians have
re!erre to !or millennia as Econscious-nessE is something apart !rom any
structures o! thought which might EinhereE in it an is apart !rom any
particular sensory1 perceptual1 or conceptual moalities o! this
consciousness. 6his is relate to =umeGs complaint that whenever he
trie to perceive what is calle the "el!1 he only coul seize upon some
particular sensation or perception or other.
>uly *22%
6he !unamental process by which the ob5ects o! perception are
generally constitute cannot itsel!1 o! course1 ever be itsel! an ob5ect o!
perception. "tating this in quantum mechanical terms1 quantum
observables cannot constitute or be use to escribe what consciousness
is in its essence1 but are necessarily mere mani!estations o!
consciousness. @ow the quantum state o! a system is what creates the
possibility o! observables. 3onsciousness1 there!ore1 must be intimately
associate with the creation o! such quantum states1 but not through the
mere temporal evolution o! pre-e0isting quantum states. 3onsciousness
must be ultimately meiate through iscontinuous changes in bounary
conitions1 the primary e0ample o! which is the instituting o! bounary
conitions upon the !unamental quantum CvacuumD !iel !rom outsie
spacetime. 6his is what essentially the process o! in!orming means.
R6he question is actually quite simple in nature. Hs consciousness a
primorial aspect o! e0istence1 or is consciousness somehow erivative
o! the in!ormation that is quantize out o! the voi o! empty space? :oes
consciousness somehow arise !rom the way in!ormation is coherently
organize1 or is its nature primorial1 an aspect o! the e0istence o! the
voi? Hs the voi the true nature o! consciousness?S R]Ht is possible to
prove that it is impossible !or consciousness to arise !rom the way
in!ormation is coherently organize1 no matter how comple0 that
organization. H! the only logical alternative is proven to be !alse1 then in
e!!ect we have proven the only true proposition1 which is that the voi is
the nature o! consciousness.S "ee NonFuality: * &cientific 4erspective1
c.!.1 www.nonuality.com/publications.htm
wik*
http://en.wiKipeia.org/wiKi/7ontiacGs#Aebellion#school#massacre
/n e0ample o! school shootings that1 though perhaps not EsenselessE1
still constitute a starK e0ample o! the regretable taKing o! innocent
human li!e. . . a heinous moral outrage in any historical epoch. H hate
meia iscussions o! shootersG motives because the notion o! EmotiveE
implies another notion1 that o! rational action1 which the taKing o!
innocent human li!e inee never is. Hn !uture1 ear mass meia1 please
withol the ientity o! the shooter1 o not iscuss his suppose motives
or agena1 o not interview his !ormer girl!rien1 classmates1 !amily
members1 o not publish his suicie note1 irect viewers/listeners to his
-acebooK1 6witter or <outube page1 etc. 4rieve !or an len support to
the !amilies o! the survivors1 but by all means allow the grotesque an
twiste soul o! the shooter to anonymously return to the terrible voi
!rom which he was un!ortunately calle !orth1 unbien. C7oste via
-acebooK on the ay o! the "anyhooK ;lementary "chool mass
shooting in 3onnecticut1 ,"/D
/n so1 in!ormation1 unliKe energy1 cannot be unerstoo in terms o! the
operation o! any continuity equation. 6he action o! consciousness is
inherently iscontinuous with respect to any particular system o! abstract
!orms. 6his type o! action necessarily involves violation o! any
conservation laws an so the action o! consciousness is inherently
asymmetrical an irreversible1 an1 moreover its ynamic cannot be
unerstoo in terms o! quantizable physical parameters/variables. /n
operation1 such as the searching o! a memory cache1 oes not constitute
what is calle thought1 but is merely the seeKing o! thought !or a
connection which will merely enable its mani!estation or e0pression in
terms o! a representation which is not unique1 as woul be appropriate to
the operation o! a coe1 an is always complete through a Kin o! open-
ene complementing o! the cipher meium through the interpretive
action o! its groun. 6his complementing is not logical1 but translogical.
3onsciousness1 as unerstoo by these thinKers1 i! it inee Ee0ists1E as
oppose to possessing being1 must be something !orever prior to an
unerlying all these moalities or structurings o! it. 3onsciousness is not
something which is merely common to all these1 !or i! it is1 it is
something which transcens iniviual e0perience since common to the
e0periences o! any an all possible/actual persons1 but the most that one
can possibly mean by the term EconsciousnessE is oneGs own iniviual
consciousness. 6he only way we can actually possess a genuine
intuition o! consciousness is i! the istinction between i!!erent
iniviual consciousnesses is merely liKe the istinction between a given
iniviualGs consciousness at various particular times within that
iniviualGs biography but with the merely inciental i!!erence that the
structurings/ moalities o! one iniviual consciousness are not cross-
re!erence to those o! another iniviual by virtue o! a more general
moality which inclues them - itsel! less general than consciousness at
large.
-ebruary 2)*$ C)2)%*$D
Ht is not that a paraigm shi!t or 3opernican revolution1
i.e.1 where 8an is pushe once again1 precipitously Cthe win !rom my
!an 5ust now pushe the sticKy note o!! o! my web cam lens as H was
writing RprecipitS L H ha place it there about eight hours be!oreD away
!rom his center Cin the ?iblical 4arenD an something Rwe Know not
whatS is pushe towar the center1 is signale by a contraicting o!
reason1 but by merely the appearance an current unerstaning Co! the
appearancesD which is evaluate in terms o! a Rtranscening o! reasonS.
Aeason1 liKe consciousness then is something that we never actually
have ever caught hol o!1 ever only having possesse a metaphor
masqueraing as a concept1 an yet somehow we !in ourselves
convince1 unre!lectingly that we inee possess a concept o! it
CreasonD. 6riviality as in mathematics sometimes is only itsel! an
appearance that masKs the pro!oun an mysterious. >ust as in the
question o! the topology o! the real line there is an in!rastructural
conte0t gracing things ab initio as it were. 9! course1 this line o! critical
reasoning is very question-begging in nature1 consiering that we are
presupposing some Kin o! istinction between concept an metaphor
an we have secretly questione the very possibility o! there being
concepts at all L only metaphors. 6his is similar to the sel!-thwarting
metaphysical assertion that reality is 5ust a ream or RH have only ever
Known my own sense ata or psychological statesS. 6he wor1
RpsychologyS !or instance presupposes not merely an umbra o! conte0t1
but also a penumbra" that is" a 'in of metaFconte6t1 c.!.1 my play!ul te0t
messages to Jia on the a!ternoon o! -ebruary &1 2)*$. Fittgenstein
woul berate us here !or trying to get language to o more worK than it
has the capacity !or Cwhich is his general critique by the wayD. 9ne must
woner how he ever satis!ie himsel! that the inescribable part1 what
!unamentally couln_t be communicate via language1 even e0iste in
the !irst place L a clear case o! Aussell_s so-calle privilege access. /
su!!iciently avance harware/so!tware combination woul appear as
the natural in!rastructure gracing creation1 i.e.1 physical reality.

:ecember 2)*$
http://en.wiKipeia.org/wiKi/7olignac%2%s#con5ecture RHn
2)*$ an important breaKthrough was mae by Jhang <itang who prove
that there are in!initely many prime gaps o! size n !or some value o! n Y
%)1)))1))).S Ht appears that not only the real line1 but also the natural
numbers possess a non-trivial topology.
*22)*$

6he principle that ;merson seems to be illustrating can perhaps lea us
to a eeper unerstaning o! time an a more hope!ul appreciation o!
timeGs potential1 which goes beyon the usual paltry conception o! time
as uniimensional an ine0orably !inite. 6he higher imensionality o!
time is to be sought in its multiplicity o! scale an connecteness. 6he
enless1 open-ene reprocessibility o! the ata o! e0perience time
CmemoryD in the light o! novel an unpreictably un!oling !uture
conte0ts1 points to an in!rastructure o! intelligibility gracing e0istence at
its root an is inee what maKes the !aculties that we instinctively taKe
!or grante possible. 6he ata o! iniviual human e0perience are not
solipsistic1 but are secretly collective inputs to a much larger system1 one
capable o! combining an reprocessing this ata into transpersonal an
even transhuman meanings. ;nrico -ermi once !amously asKe1 EFhere
are they?E -or my part1 H have my answer. 6hey are here. 6hey are us.
9r1 rather they will be us.
@ovember 2)*$
;ach great surge in evolution is signale by a Emass
e0tinctionE. ?ut avoiing the mass eath oesnGt guarantee EyouGllE
avance. >ust taKe a looK at how many living !ossil species there are still
thriving on this planet. 9ne has to have been !avore by the process.
Qd
:espite all o! the restrictions an conitions pose by the laws o!
physics1 chemistry1 psychohistory1 etc.1 thereGs still plenty o! room
available !or grace to operate. =ereGs a !ew notable e0amples: general
anaesthesia is solely a !unction o! its concentration in brain lipis an is
inepenent o! chemical properties o!! the anaesthetic use1 the
in!ormation speci!icity o! :@/ genetic base pair sequences are not in
any way etermine by the chemical properties nucleotie bases or
sugar-phospate bons1 covalent boning is only possible because o! a
!unamental ineterminacy C=eisenberg uncertainty principleD in an
electronGs position1 the three-boy problem has no close !orm analytic
solution1 etc.1 a nauseum.
"ince causal connections Clocal causalityD constitutes only a tiny subset
o! the entire available spectrum o! correlate !luctuations1 it may be that
although the three boy problem is not solvable in terms o! physics1 it
may be solvable in terms o! engineering. 6he three boy problem may
!in its solution i! each boy is conceive o! as a nonlocally connecte
!luctuation pacKet that possesses nonlocal connections to each o! the two
other R!luctuation pacKetsS.
E...when you ...looK bacK over your li!etime1 it can seem to have ha a
consistent orer ... as though compose by someone. ;vents that when
they occurre ha seeme acciental an occasional or as i! by accient
turn out to have been inispensable !actors in the composition o! a
consistent plot. "o who compose that plot? "chopenhauer suggests that
5ust as your reams are compose by an aspect o! yoursel! o! which your
consciousness is unaware1 so1 too1 your whole li!e is compose by the
will within you. /n 5ust as people whom you will have met apparently
by mere chance became leaing agents in the structuring o! your li!e1 so1
too1 you have serve unKnowingly as an agent1 giving meaning to the
lives o! others1 the whole thing gears together liKe one big symphony1
with everything unconsciously structuring everything else...it is as i! our
lives are the ream o! a single reamer in which all the ream characters
are reaming 1 tooV so that everything linKs to everything else1 move by
the one will to li!e which is the universal will in nature. Ht_s a
magni!icent iea L an iea that appears in Hnia in the mythic image o!
the @et o! Hnra1 which is a net o! gems1 where at every crossing o! one
threa over another there is a gem re!lecting all the other re!lective
gems....E - >oseph 3ampbell1 6he 7ower o! 8yth.
-ebruary 2)*$
/ll representation requires a !igure an groun relationship all
!igure cannot be groun 5ust as all groun cannot be !igure !or this
woul create a close system evoi o! any conte0t resulting in a
complete absence o! meaning.
8eaning requires conte0t an interpretation an there!ore temporality in
this way consciousness in temporality cannot be separate temporality is
unavoiable in open systems so all !uture evelopments cannot be in
compass in the permutational an combinational possibilities o! a state
space.
8eaning requires conte0t an interpretation an there!ore temporality in
this way consciousness in temporality cannot be separate temporality is
unavoiable in open systems so all !uture evelopments cannot be in
compass in the permutational an combinational possibilities o! a state
space.
9n sub5ectivity ...i! the logic we invoKe is able to convince our own
selves but no one else1 can we really say that it has value
H! we say that sanity is merely relative o we not embroil our sel! in an
in!inite regress or sel!-contraiction?
4raually in imperceptibly the palimpsest is eventually accepte as the
genuine ocument
:istinguish earthly enlightenment !rom metaphysical in liKe mint with
respect to the boat philosophical system o! ?uhism
i! want to view 4o as an invention o! manKin then the 3opernican
revolution pushes manKin !urther an !urther !rom center but also
pushes 4o !urther !rom the center towars periphery.
@arrative structure o! consciousness the integration o! time memory
upating 2 temporality metaphor vs. concept consciousness as meium
or substance o! e0perience as a pro5ection o! the sel! as an intentional
ob5ect an Gstructure o! consciousnessG
H! 3antor_s iagonal is longer than it must be in!initely longer an there
is no e!inition o! in!initely longer is there a hien contraiction in
3antor_s iagonal argument? Fe can apply Aichars parao0 to
unearthing the contraiction o! cantors iagonal argument Aichars
parao0es !oune on the notion that there is ine!inability at worK. a
similarly ill-e!ine notion lies at the root o! cantors e!initions !or his
iagonal argument
3onsciousness primarily has a conte0t upating an pattern recognition
!unction. 6his is in part why we say that consciousness is the metaphor
o! all metaphors.
Fe coul try to run through in Gli!e reviewG !ashion all o! the possible
cultural memes in the state space but the meaning o! the memes ae
amongst those alreay accumulate must shi!t in meaning an
signi!icance in a way i!!erent !rom how they coul possibly be
preicte in short there are no memes state spaces with compact support.
/lso there is bacK reaction o! newly ae memes onto memes alreay
store in memory. Fe must istinguish pro5ection o! lower imensions
onto higher imensions !rom the case o! the pro5ection o! higher
imensions onto lower imensions. Hs there a istinction to be mae here
between har encryption an ecompression?
Hn the absence o! consciousness temporal evolution o! in!ormation
alreay store in memory woul not require a secon or higher
imension o! time with which to consistently escribe it
8emory cannot be analyze in terms o! simultaneous e0perience
because e0perience requires memory to come to consciousness
.earning a language is liKe learning the story an the ramatis personae.
/re bacKstory possibilities be woven at the same time as one is learning
more o! the e0plicit story?
8emory cannot be analyze in terms o! simultaneous e0perience
because e0perience requires memory to come to consciousness
.earning a language is liKe learning the story an the ramatis personae.
/re bacKstory possibilities be woven at the same time as one is learning
more o! the e0plicit story?
7araigm shi!ts help to prevent parao0es !rom eveloping uring the
course o! the evolution o! "cience an scienti!ic theory. Fhat Kin o!
shi!t woul prevent a temporal parao0? Hn both cases it is the same Kin
o! shi!t when one is talKing about the consistency o! oneGs personal
biography.
7araigm shi!ts help to prevent parao0es !rom eveloping uring the
course o! the evolution o! "cience an scienti!ic theory. Fhat Kin o!
shi!t woul prevent a temporal parao0? Hn both cases it is the same Kin
o! shi!t when one is talKing about the consistency o! oneGs personal
biography.
=ypothesis theory law paraigm. Hs this series multi irectional with
!eebacK loops?
"earch strings which prouce no hits on 4oogle but which prouce
results when a speci!ic website is searche is an e0ample Hnternet
compartmentalization. Fhat about 4oogle searches that will prouce
hits !or certain search strings when the same search strings prouce no
hits when any given compartment is searche?
H 5ust notice this morning that H was receiving te0t messages to mysel!
in my email inbo0 this seems somehow thematic an coinciental.
3antorGs iagonal argument epens on the notion o! Gin!initely longerG in
orer to prove the e0istence o! higher orers o! in!inity Hn this way
3antorGs argument is prove invali because it is shown to beg the
question. 9ne has to alreay have the notion o! higher orers o! in!inity
in orer to e!ine the concept o! Gin!initely longerG. 6here are inee
higher orers o! in!inity but this is not been aequately emonstrate by
3antorGs :iagonal /rgument.
Fhat are liKely to be the psychological e!!ects o! inavertently
stumbling upon oneGs own ne0us o! meaning an signi!icance?
6here must be a vali way o! establishing 3antorGs conclusion say1 by
using quantum in!ormation theory perhaps combine with topology.
Fe onGt necessarily have to speci!y numbers in orer to count them -
the principle o! integration is proo! o! this. 6his may help us to avoi
:avi :eutschGs in!inite parallel universes as the necessary metaphysical
implication o! quantum computation. 6he number theoretic concept o!
compact support poses problems !or the notion o! computational state
spaces as moels o! parallel universes an meme state spaces1 which are
essentially viral.
Fhat will happen as the web more aggressively enables sel!-selection
e!!ects !or e0ample applie to preictive searches !or proucts services
in!ormation an contacts? 6his remins us o! the restriction o! vacuum
resonant moe spectra in quantum cavity electroynamics e0periments.
-rom the ate o! his retirement !rom the chair Oant ecline in strength1
an gave toKens o! intellectual ecay. =is memory began to !ail1 an a
large worK at which he wrought night an ay1 on the connection
between physics an metaphysics1 was !oun to be only a repetition o!
his alreay publishe octrinesG1 *2** eition o! ;ncyclopeia
?ritannica1 c.!.1 www.*2**encyclopeia.org/Hmmanuel#Oant
8arch 2)*$
http://www.hoonews.org/vieo/problem-Know-what-it-is H was
oing research on ()( errors an o not recall stumbling upon a ()(
error !or the past !ew years what a coincience speci!ically H was going
to !in out where the ()( area coe was locate
8ultigenerational succession o! Knowlege sociology o! "cience
paraigm shi!ts all o! this verses accumulation o! Knowlege within the
min o! a single iniviual. /utomaticity1 operational moi!ication C9p
8oD1 creativity1 viral memes an ?ohmGs active in!ormation as wor to
the wise hints to a raically creative meium. 6here must be a
!unamental recollecte component to learning. 6here must be a viral
mimetic component to learning. 6he ( types o! causation: e!!icient
material !ormal teleological must all play a role in the transmission o!
in!ormation.
>uly 2)*$
6eleology o! an evolutionary looK-ahea or Rheas
upS capability wherein alternate or parallel courses o! evelopment
Centails that each evolutionary course be tracKe an there!ore
RthreaeSD are continuously compare1 say in terms o! leaing or not to
structures own-line that involve bacK-reacting consciousness woul
seem to o!!er a much !aster evolutionary evelopment than the near
in!inite stretches o! permutational-combinational time require !or
tinKering or cobbling together the bounary conitions necessary !or
sel!-aware or volitional consciousness. H! it is not the case that there is
no Rthere thereS in the sense o! an overarching conte0t !or these
evolutionary processes1 then there must be an embeing sel!-organizing
in!ormation storage an processing substrate qua unerlying
evolutionary in!rastructure gracing everything.
/s long as one stays within the omain o! oneGs naturally given talents
an abilities it is easy to imagine that the sel! is coherent uni!ie1
integrate1 coherent1 !reely willing in its ecisions an 5ugments1
creative1 perceptive1 etcetera. Iery similar to the sunowning
phenomenon however is the on grace!ul an uncertain behavior o! the
iniviual when HGm praying outsie the restricte omain o! his natural
enowments.
6he eterminism within the moment is istinctly i!!erent1 raically
i!!erent in !act !rom the eterminism which connects istinct moments.
H! H ha but Known that immortality woul be iscovere *) years a!ter
my eath H woul have surely taKen much better care o! mysel! in my
youth.
-or those o! you over $)...you say you want to !in yoursel!? Fell then1
become the scholar o! all upon which you Ee0pertlyE hel !orth in your
youth. 9therwise1 in your quest !or sel!-iscovery1 you are liKely to !in
someone else.
-eebacK1 returnings1 retracings - without conte0t there is no meaning.
6he oubling bacK o! e0perience upon itsel! is certainly an integral part
o! this meaning proviing conte0t.
Qd
http://phys.org/news/2)*(-)&-
weir-magic-ingreient-quantum.htmlXa56abs
@ot only must we have conte0t to have meaning1 but this conte0t must
be narratively structure an narrative structure emans ramatic
personae.
@arrative structure requires multiple inepenent centers o! volition
8an !ails to realize is that he has all along been pacKing on the shell o!
the cosmic egg . . . !rom the insieT
Hs there a mile groun between noise an an intene message1 say
through !ilter a5ustments o! mutually inter!ering signals?
6he epistemological in!rastructure enabling the possibility !or
reprocessing o! in!ormation1 moreover !or unlimite semiosis1 strongly
suggests this thir category o! signal.
=ere is the real reason why the anthropic principle is anthropic... "el!-
consciousness requires a narrative structure which in turn epens on
ermatitis personae to !unction.
3hecK out this articleT
http://www.scienceaily.com/releases/2)*$/)$/*$)$*(*(($(N.htm
"tress- momentum energy are in coe in the !luctuations to the vacuum
similar to the matri0 in a !ashion which simulates curvature o! space an
time youGre correct space an time are not GactuallyG curve. ?ut on a
eeper philosophical level 9liver concepts are merely metaphors
masqueraing as such. 6hatGs why all o! our concepts shoul be
mentione in ouble sets o! quotation marKs an use within a sentence
in a single set o! quotation marKs. 6his possibly brings up rather thorny
metaphysical issues. :p
3oncerning anthropic bias: how o you etermine what a representative
sample is?
Oarma is superstition applie to the !act that everyone is born sel!-
intereste an noboy gets out o! here alive.
6he !acae o! the !uture as a pro5ection o! the past shall change be!ore
its substance can be !ully !leshe out as it were.
Hn other wors1 Oarma woul appear to be as it so appears regarless o!
whether or not the concept possesses any genuine metaphysical
unerpinnings.
Hs there a concept o! a reverse anthropic principle that nees to be
investigate?
Ht shoul be obvious that the observer selection e!!ect oes not !ine tune
!or a particular observer1 but rather !ine tunes !or an amittely highly
constraine class o! iniviuals into which the selecte observer !its.
H! a system is !ine-tune so that it selects !or an entity possessing an
internal principle o! unity1 coherence an integration1 then we woul
e0pect there to be a similarly uni!ying1 integrative principle at worK
within the ynamics o! WthatW system.
GH! a system e0hibits !ine tuning such that it selects !or an entity
possessing an internal principle o! unity1 coherence an integration1 then
shoulnGt there be a similarly uni!ying1 integrative principle at worK
within the ynamics o! the system that gave rise to that entity?G 6his
begs the question: Gwhat is meant by GinternalG here?G
=ow o we reconcile egalitarian copresence o! Gme-liKeG selves with the
competitive !ine tuning o! universes iniviually an anthropically
selecte !or?
Hs it inevitable or at least overwhelmingly liKely that Gme-liKeG selves
have evolve on me-liKe brains? 6his is e0actly similar to the question
o! the probability o! human-liKe li!e having evolve on ;arthliKe
planets.
3oul there be anything analogous to a :isclosure 7ro5ect !or the
e0istence o! other mins?
8arch 2)*(
6hinKing outsie the bo0 liKe >acques Iallee1 let us suppose that
the rile o! e0traterrestrial beings shall only be solve once the
philosophical problem o! other mins has also been solve. Hn other
wors1 we shall only etect e0traterrestrial beings in the same manner
that we become able to etect the e0istence o! other mins. "ince
inirect etection is out o! the question on account o! the vastness o!
interstellar istances1 e.g.1 raio waves1 we shall only etect
e0traterrestrial mins via quantum signatures which their intelligent or
conscious mental activity leaves behin in the !orm o! entanglement in
the vacuum electromagnetic !iel or E/Kashic recorE that we onGt yet
possess the proper encryption an !requencies to access. ?ut the metho
will unoubtely be the same that shall one ay allow us to etect the
quantum signature o! other mins. Fhatever new technology that
entails1 it may well lie a century or more in the !uture. /s humanKin_s
scienti!ic escription o! space1 time1 matter an energy changes as its
scienti!ic unerstaning grows1 an its technology along with it1 there
shall be reache a stage where the seemingly insuperable interstellar
istances between earth an the nearest e0traterrestrial civilizations
Qd
can have been overcome. =owever1 by then our conception o!
spacetime an mass-energy1 along with our eepest unerstaning o!
li!e1 consciousness an the basis o! our personal ientity shall have
necessarily raically altere in step with what shall be seen as an
enormous technological avance - along a path cannot be charte1 even
with the avantage o! hinsight.
:oes egalitarian yet competitive sel!-selection have more to say about
the structure o! the universe than it oes about the structure o! the
multiverse?
Fet paper bag pro5ect
6he only being in a position to select in an anthropic cosmological sense
is either the sel!1 that is1 true sel! or 4o. 6his is why the true ichotomy
is not between atheism an theism1 but between solipsism an theism.
;ither 4o create this single universe or the sel! selecte its own
universe !rom out o! a virtually in!inite multiverse that was eternally
pree0isting.
Fhat conte0t systems an controls must be in place !or )Gs an *Gs to
behave 5ust liKe real currency? Hs this analogous to how zeros an ones
can !unction as thoughts an intentions in a conscious computer?
Aecapitulate my iscussion on conte0t continuity an consciousness
with 3aptain 4uise. "tatic or snapshot structure is never aequate !or
establishing the ientity o! an entity which requires continuity over time.
/n e0ample o! the !low o! the multiverse theory is @ 9ut cropping o!
rocKs in a particular universe out o! the virtual insanity o! universe is
that looKs e0actly liKe 8ount Aushmore.
/n e0ample o! the !low o! the multiverse theory is @ 9ut cropping o!
rocKs in a particular universe out o! the virtual in!inity o! universes that
looKs e0actly liKe 8ount Aushmore. H! a min coul be present in that
universe to maKe sense o! the outcropping1 i.e.1 human !aces1 political
leaers1 colonial /merican1 etc.1 then continuity becomes a meaning
giving conte0tual component.
=aving success!ully econstructe the esire !or approval !rom a peer
group with whom one oes not really wish to con!orm is one o! the
milestones o! personal maturity.
Fhen reason is enliste to ai moral courage on the one han or
isingenuous cynicism on the other1 then this is rhetoric.
/pril 2)*$
=awKing introuces imaginary time into cosmology
6he blacK hole collapse stop at the event horizon is conservation o!
momentum important here or is in!ormation theory the more important
consieration !or e0ample the holographic principle
8eitate upon language in which every possible simple combination has
assigne meaning
/n e0ample o! irreucible comple0ity in the realm o! reprouction that
oes not e0plicitly involve small nucleic acis an proteins is the
!ollowing. 6he *st litter is compose o! the last generationGs Kis an the
litter they prouce themselves Cthe 2n litterD is aopte an raise by
the grown Kis o! the !irst litter. 8etaphor as sca!!oling !or
construction o! concepts that otherwise must spring into being whole.
3oncepts prompte by metaphors prompte by e0perience conitione
by !orms o! intuition which constitute our broaest concepts.
6here is a istinct i!!erence between ranom mutations to a pre-e0isting
highly orere cybernetic control system vs ranom changes which were
thought to have le to the original evelopment o! sai cybernetic
control system
Aelate the quantum no cloning theorem to the possibility o!
transhumanist consciousness uploaing. Hs there a tension between the
quantum no cloning theorem an the principle o! the inistinguishability
o! quantum particles?
3ryogenic patients involuntarily enliste to taKe part in an e0peition to
the nearest star.
-or every universe anthropically selecte !rom out o! myria other
universes in the mi0 master multiverse there woul be a great number o!
universes possessing the same potential !or conscious entities such as
human beings as the anthropically selecte universe1 but in which no
intelligent li!e is e0isting an only awaiting the esign engineering
collection o! special conitions in orer to bring about intelligent beings
similar to humans.
6he secon imension o! time coul inee be the timeline o! the will
an intention o! the :esign ;ngineer.
=ow o multiple centers o! !ree volition arise !rom a process that
possesses only a single imension o! time
Fe nee to looK at things in a less metaphorical an more an a more
abstract manner.
-or ranom changes to be meaning!ul an !unctional1 there must be a
pre-e0isting !rameworK o! interpretation available to maKe sense out o!
the ranom changes. 6he structure that su!!ers a ranom change must ab
initio be about something.
=olism1 irreucible comple0ity an two imensional time.
8etaphysics o! cancer.
?e active seeing which we taKe !or grante requires training an
e0perience. Ht is by no means a passive process. Hts a critical
evelopmental winow is have you in the early chilhoo in which the
appropriate in three line is not receive by the occipital lobe o! the brain
then the necessary neural networK require to process visual ata into
visual in!ormation will never be properly !orme. 6here are no
uninterprete ata.
6his is true !or any sense perception process that requires pattern
recognition !unctions.
=uman language is still bear the imprint o! the blocK heae neural
networK pattern recognition homini linguistics system. ?ut what starte
out as blocK heaeness in the pattern recognition an speech
recognition program turne into something much more subtle an use!ul
the !acility o! metaphor. "peech pattern recognition which was at !irst
applie to the other eventually became applie to !irst person speech
prouction. 6he principle o! ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny very
much applies to the acquisition o! linguistic capability.
9nly a transcenental min can possess a concept o! consciousness.
6he !alsity o! solipsism implies the e0istence o! a transcenental
,niversal 8in.
6he !act that there was a beginning to tine proves that there is more than
one imension o! time.
9nly the transcenent other can pierce the veil solipsism.
Fhat is more important to the !ormation o! li!e1 bounary conitions in
the initial conitions or the innate ynamic process? 6he question o!
which maKes li!e more probable is une!ine in the case o! the ynamic
process1 in other wors no probability can be assigne to the ynamic
process relative to the probabilities o! !avorable initial an bounary
conitions !or li!e.
:o we lan ourselves in an untenable position o! in!initely regressive
?ayesian statistics that is in terms o! ever eeper levels o! initial an
bounary conitions?
?ayesian statistics is a merger between set theory an probability theory.
-ining li!e on other planets is not going to help those issolve the
irreucible comple0ity problem o! the origin o! li!e.
/ .ittle 4olen ?ooK. "crib search.
8ay 2)*$
Hnvestigate the problem o! how the multiverse an anthropic
reasoning oesnGt really allow us to siestep the other problem o! !ine
tuning an intelligent esign. 6he i!!erence between acciental !ine
tuning such as the case o! the multiverse an intentional or intelligent
!ine tuning is that in the case o! intelligent !ine tuning there is a ynamic
unerlying which necessarily involves continual a5ustment that is
ongoing rather than merely ab initio. "o there is a very real an
qualitative i!!erence between intentional an acciental !ine tuning
which shoul be etectable by observation an e0periment say o!
ynamical quantum processes in the vacuum. Fe shoul eventually
uncover evience o! the action o! this sustainment o! !ine tuning o! the
unerlying physical substrate in line with the intene continuum o! the
computational state space.
:ecember 2)*$
8ichael ?ehe asKs in his booK1 The Ege of Evolution1 how !ar
oes the intelligent esign e0ten ownwar into the lower tiers o! the
ta0onomic hierarchy1 e.g.1 beyon sub-phyla an on to classes1 orers1
!amilies1 etc.? 6his suggests that intelligent esign is an interaction
between an ;ngineer an a pree0isting ynamical substrate1 which itsel!
may well require its own intelligent esign-base e0planation o! origin.
6his is the 4o Rwho oes not maKe =is own ust.S ?ehe points out that
the ho0 gene Rtool bo0S1 which is responsible !or orchestrating
anatomical evelopment uring embryogenesis1 as well as !or
unerpinning the morphogenetic relationships within a ta0onomic
category1 was alreay in place perhaps ') million years or more prior to
the avent o! the 3ambrian e0plosion1 which is to say1 prior to the
avent o! the anatomical !orms1 the evelopment o! which1 that these
same regulatory genes woul in a later geological epoch be estine to
orchestrate an control1 c.!.1
http://en.wiKipeia.org/wiKi/=o0#gene#!amily H am remine o! the
open-ene rationality o! being.
H! we cannot logically isprove a proposition to which our opponent is
emotionally attache it is not enough to merely emonstrate that there is
no logical or e0perimental or observational groun in !avor o! the
proposition. 9ne must go on to econstruct the iscourse an narrative
behin the position o! oneGs opponent.
6o help us more !ully unerstan the relevant connection between the
philosophical problems o! the other mins an the theological problem
o! the being in e0istence o! 4o we must !irst pose the question what is
the relationship between the question o! other universes the e0istence or
none0istence o! 4o. 6he problem o! other mins an the problem o!
other universes are at a eeper level ultimately the same1 that is1 in the
absence o! an ultimate conte0t an bacKrop o! a transcenent ,niversal
8in1 itsel! possessing a true concept o! consciousness1 such that each
iniviual particular min is but an instantiation o! consciousness as
such1 there is a egeneracy o! inicators o! possible worls1 namely1
consciousness Cin the sense o! ultimate sel!hooD an universe.
Ht is sai that without conte0t there is no meaning but this question is
still more comple0 because we have to talK about meaning !or whom
which bespeaKs the possibility o! multiple an perhaps altogether
is5oint conte0ts. 6opology is o! course an important consieration here.
6he inbetweenness which lies between universes is one an the same
with that which is given prior to the beginning.
;mpeoclesG parao0 concerning reasoning an eterminism is relate to
>ohn "earleGs notion o! the close system1 intentionality an har
arti!icial intelligence.
:uration or emergent time as oppose to eterministic time seems to
require continual input !rom outsie the time line.
Hn the same with the quantum computing which is intrinsically parallel
in its structure can reuce linear time to log a rhythmic time such that
anything that normally woul taKe a bath to mail when your time can be
accomplishe in a much shorter. 9! water with the time similar to this1
we onGt nee an in!inite amount time !or any an all possibilities to be
realize because o! the quantum nature o! the vacuum is the unerlying
in!rastructure o! all structure an !unction within space an time. HsnGt it
time >ustin abstraction 5ust a pro5ection !rom within !inite spacetime an
oes this concept !all into the same category as things liKe the "oul !ree
will an consciousness !or which we have no sel!-consistent abstract
category or concept? "o the totality o! possibilities can only be realize
within a structure o! multiple !inite space-time mani!ols. @o !un night
set o! possibilities over large can be e!ine against the bacKrop o! an
in!inite spacetime. 9ne woners then what is in!inite spacetime !or other
than an abstract category !or purposes o! argumentation an analogy
maKing or illustration. ,nlimite symbiosis must !ul!ill the role o! the
possibilities groune by H suppose in!inite space time.
/ new variety o! solipsism has reare its hea with the avent o! the
latest cosmological theories concerning the anthropic principle1
?oltzmann brains1 the multiverse1 cosmological !ine tuning an so on.
6his new version o! solipsism invoKes the notion o! the !ine-tuning o!
consciousness along the same lines as the anthropic cosmological !ine
tuning with which one is alreay !amiliar. Hn this upate version o!
solipsism1 other mins o inee e0ist but they o not e0ist within the
same universe within the multiverse as oes oneGs own min. Hn this
particular case1 a concept o! consciousness which unerlies the
possibility o! the e0istence o! other mins woul only be possible i!
there was some transcenent or ,niversal 8in which coul brige the
gap between universes within the multiverse as the basis o! the inter-
sub5ective sub5ectivity1 which is absolutely require by a sel!-consistent
notion o! a plurality o! sub5ective iniviual consciousness_s.
3onsequently1 a vali concept o! consciousness must presuppose that
consciousness an its operation an !unction transcens the physical
laws o! this particular universe1 as emboie in the particular e0act
values o! !unamental physical constants which ha to be !ine-tune to
prouce this particular universe that gave rise to this particular
iniviual consciousness1 namely mine. Fe say this because the
in!rastructure !or the !ine-tuning o! physical constants !or istinct
universes within the multiverse must e0ist within the multiverse itsel!
an is not accessible within any given particular universe within such a
multiverse.
http://www-astro.physics.o0.ac.uK/barg/p!/-6#o!#consciousness.p!
,nity o! space an time with its implication o! a concept o! uni!ie
spacetime places space an time on an equivalent !ooting. 9ne possible
implication o! the concept o! spacetime might be the !ollowing: i! there
is nothing a!ter CtimeD1 then there is nothing outsie CspaceD.
Hs there any signi!icant i!!erence in the philosophical implications o!
the !act o! our all meeting in an a!terli!e vs. us all having met in this
li!e?
6he requirements o! cosmological !ine tuning are !ar greater !or
mammaKuan species than !or bacterial species. Ht is clear that the
requirements !or !ine-tuning physical constants an other cosmological
conitions becomes more ine0act an less emaning as one consiers
ever simpler !orms o! li!e.
6he case o! there being a single consciousnesses or a Gconsciousness
-as-suchG which is merely structure in myria istinct ways representing
i!!erent structures o! sel!-consciousness where each is not substantially
istinct1 i e.1 multiple sel! consciousness in which each is groune in a
non-unique consciousness qua meium o! egoic e0perience. Fith
regar to the appearances1 these two cases are not in any way
istinguishable. 6hat is1 given the absence o! an over arching
cosmic1 transcenental consciousness.
/pril *22%
Hn other wors1 i! consciousness possesses being as a particular
among particulars1 it may only possess an ob5ective meaning i! it possess
an intersub5ective meaning. ?ut accoring to what has 5ust been
observe1 various sel!-consciousnesses must be merely i!!erent
structurings o! a single consciousness an so consciousness there!ore
must have a being which transcens any particularity1 any particular
!orm o! itsel!. 3onsciousness as such is there!ore nonual1 transcenent
o! -orm an so must be constitute !rom beyon the E!iel o! time.E
3onsciousness is constitute within ;ternity an so quali!ies as the
groun o! e0istence. 6his is pure 3onsciousness.
Ht is 5ust that the many i!!erent structurings o! consciousness at large o
not completely cohere1 but !orm numerous relatively is5oint omains
marKing the i!!erent iniviual consciousnesses. 3onsciousness as
such1 on this view1 cannot be unerstoo by an iniviual conscious
which is merely a transitory1 !inite structuring o! this !unamental
consciousness. =ere again1 we see our principle o! the inability o! the
stream C the iniviualGs stream o! consciousness1 in this case D to rise to
the level o! its source C consciousness at largeD. Ht will not be possible
!or computer science or brain physiology or whatever to come to an
aequate theoretical unerstaning o! the process which gives a
particular iniviual the gi!t Cor curseD o! the iniviual consciousness
that he happens to possess unless any o! these sciences can somehow
groun the e0planation o! his mental processes in the consciousness
originating utterly !rom outsie him qua iniviual. 9ne must1 in other
wors1 !irst unerstan consciousness as such be!ore moving on to an
e0planation o! the iniviualGs own particular consciousness. ?ut this
means that science will not be able to arrive at a general theory o!
consciousness through inuction !rom iniviual cases. "o application
o! the scienti!ic metho is barre !rom treating the problem o!
consciousness as such. @othing that the iniviual is capable o!
perceiving coul count !or the essential !eature which maKes both his
consciousness an that o! the other e0amples o! consciousness as such.
"uchness is inherently transcenental. @egative Oarma is the result o!
the iniviualGs choices mae in previous li!etimes while the equivalent
to this in 3hristianity is "in which is inherite by all human beings at
birth an cannot be overcome through the iniviualGs e!!orts alone but
only through the active intervention o! 4o himsel! in =is immanent
!orm as >esus 3hrist. /lthough in a historical sense the person o! >esus
is the incarnation o! 4o the -ather in human !orm1 in no way oes =e
become absorbe or lose =is ientity upon being assume into =eaven
but is =imsel! unique an eternally part o! the :ivine 6rinity. Fe Know
that the iniviual soul oes not return to the great 9cean o! ?eing at
each interval between incarnations as the ientity o! the iniviual is
utterly blotte out whenever this occurs.
8ay 2)*(
Oarma is not a conserve quantity an there!ore the law o! Karma1
shoul one e0ist1 must be !unamentally issimilar to a physical law1
which is invariably alternately escribe in terms o! the conservation o!
some Key physical quantity such as momentum !or energy or spin.
6he principle o! the positivism o! evil emans that Oarma not be a
conserve quantity.
-ree will necessarily involves creativity an there!ore non- conservation
o! certain qualities.
Ht is quite humbling to re!lect upon how there are two istinct Kins o!
unKnown - the unKnown which is continuous with the Known to which
inevitably a pathway leas an that other unKnown1 which is all together
is5oint !rom or iscontinuous with the Known.
4oo Karma oes not always maKe up !or ba. 6here are impersonal
natural !orces which appear to change the local zero point or set point o!
Karma.
6here is no platonic heaven o! sensations or sub5ective perceptions or
thoughts has inee there are abstract ob5ects such as per!ect triangles.
3oncrete things cannot be built up out o! timeless abstractions.
8ay 2)*(
E@e0t li!eE . . .ne0t here is in the sense o! metaphysically i!!erent
rather than later in time. 6o simultaneously avoi the reuctio o!
solipsism an maintain the utter istinctness o! RsuchnessesS
CRconsciousnesses as suchSD1 the multiple instantiation o! consciousness
pose by temporally e0istent mins must be not be simply1 but
comple6ly multiple. 6here must inee then be an orer of
transcenence possesse by consciousness as such. 6his points to the
necessity o! a multiverse in a metaphysical sense.

@ovember 2)** C;ite !or -acebooK posting in @ovember 2)*$D
Fhat H liKe about ?iocentrism is this
umping o! our un!oune pre5uice about the allege necessity o! time being
linear. Fell then1 a!ter the !ashion o! the main character !rom the ?ritish comey1
6he ?lacK /er there remains the ever present possibility that one shoul arise
again anew !rom the turbulence enlessly generate by the tension within the
inter!ace o! e0istence an being1 that is1 whatever the original su!!icient reason
may have been that originally brought one !orth1 unbien !rom the screaming
abyss o! the ever creative voi1 shoul o so again1 in !act1 an unlimite number o!
times an this espite the necessity o! Rmetaphysical worKS Cthe realm o! being
having been enlarge1 at least in terms o! an e0pansion o! beingGs Egroun o!
e0istenceE D being per!orme uring each RincarnationS. 6hat particular quiity or
EhaecceityE speci!ie by the unique anthropic cosmological constraints pose by
the iniviual consciousness as Esubstantial meium o! oneGs possible e0perienceE
shall always abie as the e0actingly !ine !ilter o! the !luctuating quantum vacuum
unerlying all physical reality an which tirelessly spin o!! these ever so slightly
though istinctly i!!erent universes1 each complete with its own vast locKer
combination o! !inely-tune !unamental physical constants1 etermine to *(
ecimal places as be!its a precise resonant tuning o! each !ractally branching
universe to the emans o! a stable1 uni!ie an integrally whole consciousness.
6he multiverse embraces an unlimite multiimensional time an temporality.
:eath is only a Eea enE there!ore with respect to a given particular time line.
<our li!e is being live out in WthisW time1 which is not to be ienti!ie with some
unique1 one-shot1 all-encompassing physical time CthereGs that un!oune pre5uice
againD. @ew timelines are always being generate as the multiverse continues its
eternal1 play!ul an e0perimental1 buing1 branching an blossoming process. 6he
transcenent shall always continue to e0plore the realm o! limitation1 that is1 Ethe
realm o! what itGs liKe to not Know everythingE1 since thatGs the only !iel that is
open to the transcenentGs hope!ul/!ear!ul curiosity. /lthough this boy an brain
pass away1 the abstract launry list o! precise conitions !or one to be1 not
EreincarnateE1 but generate anew C5ust as one was originally gestate an born
this time arounD in the mist o! the unening novelty o! ?rahmaGs C.ilaGsD ance
an play1 oes not. 6his in!initely !ine an subtlest o! sieves1 the anthropic
cosmological principle1 shall be ever present to !ilter the unening noise1 Wthe vast
ma5ority1 but not all o! which belong to other mins.W /s the ,niverse was not
create in time1 but time an temporality were create with it Calong with spaceD1
there is no limit to the number o! imensions o! time.
-ebruary 2)*(
/ natural question is
whether1 in light o! the metaphysical puzzles an parao0es which atten the logic
o! the /nthropic 7rinciple1 there is any eterminable relationship between possible
temporal imensions an the parallel universes o! the 8any Forls Hnterpretation
C8FHD o! Puantum 8echanics1 i.e.1 the many istinct mins" which may inee
constitute eterminations of istinct grouns =of beingA.
9therwise there woul be no e!inite guarantee that oneGs eventual
escape !rom the Fheel o! .i!e1 through "piritual ;nlightenment1 woul
be inee a permanent one since obviously whatever process starte the
chain o! incarnation in the !irst place might well again give rise to oneGs
very sel!-same soul1 as it woul customarily o between each
incarnation1 reinitiating the whole processV i! one insists that the original
process is unique an hence unrepeatable1 then one is implying that each
personGs iniviual ientity is really unique an there!ore not in the least
illusory an !urthermore that neither is our separation !rom the 4ohea
an illusion1 but the very real an potentially alarming circumstance o!
our ;arthly e0istence.
>anuary 2)*$
/gain1 laws are abstractions that relate
classes of iniviuals an not the iniviuals themselves. -ollowing
Aussell1 physical laws are mere escriptions o! how nature in !act
behaves an hence carry nothing in the sense o! a governing !orce.
7hysical law arti!acts such as Rcurve spacetimeS an Rwave!unctionS
are perhaps nothing more than scienti!ic metaphors an !ar !rom being
bona !ie metaphysical entities L they are the user !rienly R!ront enS
!or accessing a RbacK enS that is inee very remote !rom the potential
tinKering o! simulate beings. Hn so!tware architecture there may be
many layers between the harware an en user. ;ach can be spoKen o!
as having a !ront en an a bacK en. 6he !ront is an abstraction1
simpli!ying the unerlying component by proviing a user-!rienly
inter!ace.
>anuary 2)*$ cit=
RHn so!tware esign1 the moel-view-controller architecture
!or e0ample1 provies !ront an bacK ens !or the atabase1 the user1 an
the ata processing components. 6he separation o! so!tware systems into
!ront an bacK ens simpli!ies evelopment an separates maintenance.
/ rule o! thumb is that the !ront Cor EclientED sie is anything you can see
when you view the coe source o! the page Cwhen you are on the client
sie1 i.e. not on the server.D 6o view the server-sie Cor EbacK-enED coe1
you must be on the server. 6he con!usion arises when you have to maKe
!ront-en eits to server-sie !iles. 8ost =68. esigners1 !or instance1
onGt nee to be on the server when they are eveloping the =68.V
conversely1 the server-sie engineers are1 by e!inition1 never on
anything but a server. Ht taKes both1 to be sure1 to ultimately maKe a
!unctioning1 interactive website.S
"eptember *222
.eibniz writes in *%*(1 E8oreover1 it must be avowe that
perception an what epens upon it cannot possibly be e0plaine by
mechanical reasons1 that is1 by !igure an movement. "upposing that
there be a machine1 the structure o! which prouce thinKing1 !eeling1
an perceivingV imagine this machine enlarge but preserving the same
proportions1 so that you might enter it as i! it were a mill. 6his being
suppose1 you might enter its insieV but what woul you observe there?
@othing but parts which push an move each other1 an never anything
that coul e0plain perception.E 6he philosopher :avi 3ole argues to
isarm .eibnizG EmillE argument in the !ollowing way1 R?low up a tiny
rop o! water until it is the size o! a mill. @ow the =
2
9 molecules are as
big as the plastic moels o! =
2
9 molecules in a chemistry class. <ou
coul walK through the water roplet an never see anything wet.E
3oleGs point is that we all Know that an iniviual water molecule is
EwetE an so our inability to see its wetness !rom the insie1 as it were1
oesnGt prove that it_s not really wetV similarly1 a machine might be
conscious even though this consciousness is invisible !rom every
perspective - e0cept the machineGs1 o! course. 6here are a number o!
serious ob5ections to 3oleGs re!utation o! .eibnizG mill argument. -irstly1
it is oubt!ul whether the property o! wetness may be attribute to a
single water molecule in the !irst place because wetness can be seen to
be an essentially collective phenomenon. 6he !ollowing e0ample will
serve to e0plain. Hn the moern version o! Aobert 8illiKanGs oil rop
e0periment1 wherein he emonstrate that the charge o! the electron was
quantize1 oil rops1 being somewhat messy an inconvenient1 have
toay been replace by tiny silicon spheres. 6hese little spheres are so
iminutive Cabout .))* millimeters in iam.D that they are not visible to
the naKe eye1 nor are they palpable in the han1 unless there are quite a
large number o! them assemble together1 in which case they EcoalesceE
together to !orm a little pool in the palm. 6his pool is inistinguishable
!rom one mae o! water e0cept that there is a slight i!!erence in the
perceive viscosity o! the E!luiE which seems a little on the clouy sie.
6he point here is that this collection o! tiny spheres feels wetV an there
is no question whatever that a tiny sphere o! silicon1 blown up to the size
o! one o! 3oleGs overgrown =
2
9 molecules1 simply coul not possess the
property or quality o! wetness.
?ut what is all this thought to prove? Fell1 in 3oleGs case1 a person
hearing his argument e0periences a contraiction o! sorts between his
e0pectation that size Cwhich is owing to e0ternal perspectiveD shoulnGt
maKe any i!!erence in the wetness Cintrinsic propertyD o! a water
molecule1 an his vague1 visually base intuition that Ei! H can see the
amne parts o! the thing1 then1 well1 how can it really be wet?E Hn the
case o! the tiny spheres o! the Eoil ropE e0periment1 we Know that
wetness is an emergent collective property which epens upon our not
being able to istinguish the iniviual spheres1 either visually or in
tactile manner. ?ut the reaer shoul not thinK that H have simply one
3oleGs argument one betterV !or a quality which arises in perception
strictly through our inability to perceive what is part o! the ob5ect Eout
thereE cannot be thought to be a quality o! the ob5ect itsel!1 but is
supplie by the perceiving min. ?ut there is an even more serious
ob5ection to 3ole here. / hypothetical set o! conitions1 relating to mere
appearance1 cannot be o! any support to an argument i! the woul-be
physical state o! a!!airs1 to which the appearance correspons1 is itsel!
impossible - however clearly one EintuitsE its possibility. 6his
observation is very much operative in the case o! 3oleGs overgrown =
2
9
molecule: to conceive o! the water molecule as increase in size by a
!actor o! roughly *) billion is equivalent to shrinKing 7lancKGs constant
by the square o! this !actor1 or by a !actor o! about *))1)))1))) trillionsV
this is because the constant contains units o! length square.
?ut as any theoretical physicist will tell you1 the energy uncertainty Cvia
=eisenberg_s principleD is proportional to this constant an this energy
uncertainty is responsible !or the !luctuations in vacuum energy that
Epump upE the electronic structure o! all atoms. Fith the value o! h so
iminishe1 all o! the electrons within the =
2
9 molecule will collapse
into their respective nuclei1 maKing the water moleculeGs covalent bon
structure1 an so its intrinsic EwetnessE1 !latly impossible. "ince all
matter particles are create an sustaine through the ynamical action
o! the !luctuating vacuum energy1 these particles e0ist merely as
abstractions !rom the vacuum structure1 with the quantum vacuum
proviing the uni!ie natural physical law !or the cosmos1 so we might
e0pect that all peculiar phenomena which emerge across the inter!ace
between the microscopic an macroscopic omains Co! AealityD are ue
to the !unamental vacuum ynamismV an this goes !or the emergence
o! EminE within the eveloping human brain1 as it has been !oun that
iniviual cortical neurons are capable o! responing to the presence o!
vacuum electromagnetic !iel !luctuations. ?ut i! a uni!ie law o! the
vacuum e0ists1 it must be o! a transcenental nature since the vacuum
constitutes an open systemV any statement o! physical law !or such a
vacuum must necessarily leave something out o! its scope. 6his means
that a so-calle physical law !or the vacuum there!ore1 is always !or the
vacuum plus certain superimpose bounary an initial conitions.
Hn!inite perturbative levels o! escription o! the vacuumGs =amiltonian
are possible. Ht is perhaps more than a strange coincience that our
inability to istinguish1 one !rom another1 the iscrete energy states o!
the =
2
9 molecule1 re!lecte in this moleculeGs quantum energy
uncertainty1 is responsible !or its quality o! Ewetness1E 5ust as in the case
o! the tiny silicon spheres1 which1 through our ignorance o! their
iniviuality1 coalesce to !orm a pool o! wetness. 6o continue what
may amount to the un!air importation o! !acts into a philosophical
iscussion1 we will continue in our vein o! rawing lessons !rom
quantum theory so as to !urther e0amine the possibility o! a EthinKing
machine.E /nother way o! looKing at .eibnizG mill argument against a
conscious computing evice is in terms o! the blueprint containing the
esign !rom which the woul-be computing evice is constructe. Fe
shoul asK ourselves this important question1 E=ow oes a computing
evice1 while it is engage in the very act o! EthinKing1E constitute a
better emboiment o! mental activity than oes the networK o! inK
scratches on paper which constitute its blueprint?E EFell1E we might
say1 Ethe inK scratches are 5ust sitting there on the paper1 theyGre not
oing anything - still less coul they be thinKingTE <ou see1 somehow
we have the intuition that something which is moving or unergoing
change possesses a better chance o! having thought than something
which isnGt moving. 7artly this is 5ust the in!luence o! that resiue o!
animistic thinKing which we have inherite !rom our primitive ancestors1
but partly1 again1 it is1 H believe1 a case o! our seeing1 however vaguely1
into the heart o! a problem which1 it seems to us1 involves an elusive
peculiarity o! consciousnessG relation to time. H am remine here o!
Oant_s assertion that consciousness is the intuition o! the passage o!
timeT 6aKe-away?: there are at least as many imensions o! time as
there are iniviual consciousnesses.
@ow1 i! a computer can simulate the human thought process so well that
the simulation becomes the reality1 then what is there1 in principle1 to
prevent a human being1 i! only a particularly gi!te one1 !rom simulating
the !unctioning o! a computing evice - by simply being given a
problem an then tracing out with his eye the relevant wire an circuit
element symbols on the blueprint so as to prouce the correct answer?
@ow such a hypothetical human being woul not nee to Know how to
solve the problem pose to him1 but he nee only Know how to rea the
circuit iagram escribing the computer whose !unctioning he is
simulating. @ow suppose that this talente human were to simulate the
computerGs act o! imagining a re sphere against a bacKgroun o! sKy-
blue. 6o o this the human must rea the right series1 in the right
sequence1 o! marKings on the computerGs logic iagramV oes it matter
how !ast the series is rea o!!? - that is a question which we will have
cause to e0amine later. ?ut i! we postulate that consciousness is a
necessary component in the !aculty o! recognition - a !aculty very much
involve in the humanGs act o! reaing a stream o! symbols - then it
appears we require consciousness Cthat o! the humanD to get
consciousness C that o! the computing eviceD: even i! the recognition
require to rea or interpret the symbols o! the circuit iagram oesnGt
itsel! require consciousness1 it nevertheless requires the utilization o!
circuitry Can plenty o! itTD not escribe anywhere on the blueprint
itsel! because presumably this part o! the computerGs blueprint has to be
rea as well an so weGre lane in a viciously circular1 in!inite regress.
?ut suppose1 all the same1 we trie to construct the blueprint in this
manner1 representing at each progressively tinier level o! calligraphic
scale1 the etails o! the blueprint at one particular level1 which were to
provie the instructions !or reaing the blueprint at the ne0t higher scale.
/t some level along the ownwar spiraling hierarchy o! spatial scale
we woul be worKing1 whether with micro-rapiograph or
submicroscopic etching tool1 at a scale where the particle behavior o!
matter Cas collections o! inepenently e0isting EthingsED gives way to
its waveliKe behavior. Ht is at this scale where the tiny subiagrams
which we try to etch into the paper are sub5ect to the seemingly ranom
!luctuations o! the vacuum electromagnetic !iel energy so that the tiny
etchings themselves !luctuate at this level.
Ht is clear that1 however these sub-sub-etc. - iagram etchings !luctuate1
they o it in a way which still manages to capture the esign o! our
computing evice. Ht now appears that any attempt to prouce a static
escription o! the computing system architecture1 i.e.1 its blueprint1
results in a ynamic !luiity in the structure o! the physical realization o!
this escription at the level o! scale marKing the appro0imate bounary
between particle an waveliKe behavior o! matter.
>uly 2)**
6he ultimate
conte0t !or the atomic scale circuitry o! our propose conscious
computing evice must be the quantum vacuum electromagnetic !iel1
itsel! the original source o! =eisenberg momentum-energy uncertainty.
6he vacuum !iels provie the conte0t !or the computer_s circuitry1
which itsel! provies the initial an bounary conitions upon the
vacuum !iels_ sel!-interaction. 6his circuitry acts passively to allow the
vacuum to reprocess its own pree0istent quantum entanglements
Ccontaining pree0istent quantum entanglement-encoe informationD.
>anuary 2)*(
6he ynamics o! intelligent esign mani!ests itsel! at precisely
the same scale o! time an space as observer quantum sel!-inter!erence
e!!ects come into play. 6hese inter!erence e!!ects are liKely relate to
quantum correlations having establishe themselves between
superpositions o! networKs o! nonlocally connecte microtubule tubulin
imer states o! the observer_s brain an analogous superposition states in
matter with which the observer_s brain has become quantum entangle.
C6he subtle relationships between quantum superposition1 entanglement1
correlations an !luctuations are to be pro!itably e0plore !urther in 5ust
this conte0t.D 6his !act o! the sel!-organizing properties o! particles an
!iels coinciing with the bootstrapping ynamics o! human
consciousness may well !orever systematically impee any an all
attempts to !alsi!y the intelligent esign hypothesis. "trong inicators o!
this threshol shoul arise at precisely the point at which computer
engineersG attempts to e0ten esign own to the nano level - at which
some spontaneous bootstrapping behavior o! quantum computer
integrate circuits inuces auto-5ail breaKing. 6he istinction between
harware an so!tware shoul have alreay been more or less obliterate
be!ore this stage is reache. Hronically it is the sel!-inter!erence o!
intelligence as such which shall prevent the !alsi!iability o! the
Hntelligent :esign hypothesis. 6his is a Kin o! bacKoor application
o! curious aaptation o! Ourt 4eel_s Hncompleteness 6heorem to
computer engineering an shall reveal what is a stronger notion than
!alsi!iability within the philosophy o! science.
>une 2)*( eml=
SH have
consiere part o! what Jia is talKing about on many occasions over
the past !ew years. 9nce the !irst practical quantum computers begin
operating1 it is liKely that unanticipate phenomena will be observe in
the behavior o! these computers1 which shall really only be input/output
inter!aces to the quantum vacuum Cwhich is what oes all o! the actual
computation an in!ormation processing1 the Rheavy li!tingS L not the
human engineere harwareD. ?ecause o! the instantaneous
connectivity o! in!ormation in the nonlocally connecte quantum
vacuum1 in!ormation put there right now billions o! light years away or
billions o! years ago will all be simultaneously available to become
quantum entangle an inter!ere with the quantum entanglements
generate by these new quantum computers. "ome sort o! !iltering
system will have to be evelope to eal with the Routsie inter!erenceS
o! relic nonlocally encoe in!ormation" the theory for which oes not
yet e6ist.
"eptember *222 eml=
:ear 4reg1 H_ liKe to share with you some thoughts H_ve
ha since we last spoKe in person concerning the !unamental
limitations o! arti!icial intelligence1 i.e.1 Rwhy computers can_t thinK.S
9ne o! which that we can point to straight away as being necessary to
the possession o! consciousness in a cybernetic system is memory.
8emory is what maKes >ames_ Rstream o! consciousnessS the
=eraclitean river into which one cannot step twice.
au=
=enri ?ergson has
pointe out in his booK1 6ime an -ree Fill1 that a genuine recurrence o!
a thought or !eeling is impossible i! it is su!!use with the memory o! its
having occurre at some earlier time L this peculiarly sel!-re!erential
quality o! the memory coul not have !orme part o! the te0ture o! the
thought as it originally occurre: i! the same notion occurs to one at
points in one_s li!e wiely separate in time1 the conte0t will be
signi!icantly altere between each such occurrence so that this notion as
it appears in this new conte0t must stan in a metaphorical relationship
to itsel! in its originating conte0t L that is1 i! the latter thought is to
constitute the recollection o! the !ormer. 7arao0ically enough1 i! the
secon occurrence o! an iea were really ientical to what is was at its
!irst occurrence1 then the e0ample o! having remembere something1
since there coul be no memory1 must be an abstract !eature o! an
e0periential !iel which is itsel! temporally integrate. 6he process o!
the temporal integration o! e0perience is a process which itsel! must
occur in a time seBuence. Fe might asK the question1 Fhat is the
purpose o! e0periential1 i.e.1 phenomena which !ormerly boie !orth
within the consciousness stream1 i! they are never again recollecte?1 or
rather1 never can again be recollecte? =ow coul these very
e0periential phenomena ever have !orme part o! the consciousness-
stream1 itsel! essentially characterize by the unique property o!
temporal integration or wholeness1 i! they are never re!erre to !urther
on Rown the stream?S 6he answer1 or something !unamentally aKin
to an answer to this question 1 must be that all e0perience is in some
sense remembere e0perience1 that each an every e0perience which one
can point to as it Rboies !orthS in the stream o! iniviual
consciousness contains within itsel! ensely-pacKe myria re!erences to
analogues o! itsel! in earlier Rincarnations.S 3onscious e0perience
itsel!1 in other wors1 but maKes its appearance within the stream as
alreay temporally integrate. /nother theory is that there are myria
i!!erent but interacting selves connecte with the normal !unctioning o!
a human brain1 each with its own in!ormation !requency banwith1 with
the range o! !requencies peculiar to each being associate with its own
scale o! temporal integralness or wholeness. 9ne o! the ma5or !unctions
o! the !aculty o! attention may be the switching o! consciousness
between i!!erent banwiths associate with istinct e0periential
temporal scales.
>uly 2)**
6he brain stimulation e0periments o! .ibet in
which the cortical area o! the han must be electrically stimulate !or
')) ms be!ore evelopment o! a primary evoKe potential C;7D
associate with conscious perception o! stimulation o! the han can be
perceive by the sub5ect1 combine with the !act that stimulation o! the
han several hunre millisecons after cortical stimulation o! the
corresponing area ha alreay begun was always perceive as
occurring hunres o! millisecons earlier than irect cortical
stimulation. 6his !act was interprete by .ibet as meaning that an
appro0imately ')) ms time elay or time buffer was neee in orer to
e!!ect necessary temporal integration o! conscious sense-perception.
Qd
/lso1 the bacKwars-in-time re!erral o! the stimulation event by up to
')) ms is a phenomenon Cone might say epiphenomenonD o! this
temporal integration as well as being tangible proo! o! the temporal
multiimensionality o! conscious e0perience an the sub5ective1
pro5ective nature o! the perceive uniirectionality o! so-calle ob$ective
time. /long the lines o! the R?oltzmann ?rainS iea1 the quantum
vacuum is suppose to possess a latent recursive structure1 one that
inclues not only perceptions an memories o! e0periences1 but also
memories o! memories o! e0periences1 etc.
>uly 2)*2
RH! one has an
equilibrium state that lasts an in!inite time1 !luctuations aroun
equilibrium can lea to any state whatever popping out o! the vacuum
5ust as a statistical !luctuation1 with emergence o! a local arrow o! time.
6his leas to 7oincare_s ;ternal return Cany state whatever that has
occurre will eventually recurD an the ?oltzmann ?rain scenario: you
can e0plain the e0istence o! ?oltzmann brains not as a result o!
evolution1 but 5ust as an eventual inevitable result o! statistical
!luctuations1 that is1 i! an in!inite amount o! time is available C[*2\:2)*-
22%DS1 c.!.1
http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/bellis/Puantum#arrowo!time#g!re.p!
.arge banwiths associate with large in!ormation !requency ranges
woul be in turn associate with large integral time scales in which
richer1 more meaning!ul an nuance e0periences woul be possible
than on smaller time scales.
6he commonsensical way o! comparing these i!!erent scales
e0perientially is in terms o! the concept o! retentive memory. / new
anti-an0iety rug much use in ental o!!ices an perhaps more popular
among both entists an their patients than the ol stanby1 i.e.1 laughing
gas is the rug *tivan. /tivan succees as an anti-an0iety agent ue to
its peculiar property o! contracting the an6ious patientDs retentive
memory span. 7ain e0perience by the ental patient uring surgical
proceures is ease through the use o! this rug1 not by an actual
reuction o! the intensity o! the pain itsel!1 but through a reuction of
the patientDs an6iety about the pain he is e6periencing.
6he temporal winow within which the patient is constraine to
e0perience what is happening to him while he is uner the in!luence o!
the rug is simply too contracte to contain temporally unwiely
thoughts such as1 R9h no1 he_s going to hit the root1S or 1 RH woner i! it_s
going to get worse?TS Hn retrospect1 my e0perience o! my own state o!
consciousness while uner the rug_s in!luence was so liKe how H
imagine my chilhoo consciousness to have been1 although
parao0ically1 H was much more a!rai o! the entist then than H am
presentlyT
6his suggests an altogether new way o! unerstaning the !unction o!
the brain as the Rorgan o! consciousness.S Hnstea o! builing up
conscious e0perience !rom some eterminate set o! primitive elements1
e.g.1 sense ata1 the brain abstracts !rom a sea o! in!ormation signals
Ceternally pree0istent1 as we will argue laterD1 in much the same manner1
H believe1 that the single stran o! :@/ e0tracts !rom its cytoplasmic
soup the amino aci bases it nees to uplicate itsel!. 6he brain acts as a
Kin o! template !or thought in the sense that the activity o! the brain as
a whole serves as a !rame within which the particular !eatures o! this
activity o! the signal matri01 e.g.1 quantum vacuum electromagnetic
!iel1 which is complementary to the particular brain e0citation pattern1
as it were1 is e!ine through RresonatingS1 i.e.1 interacting with a
peculiar spectrum o! vacuum electromagnetic !iel !luctuations1 c.!.1
ancient 4oogle cache o! <earthmath Institute webpage etailing
e0periments in which :@/ electromagnetic signatures were recore in
the vacuum electromagnetic !iels o! resonant quantum cavities Ccirca
*22'D.
3ertainly the more a tasK is repeate the more the series o! actions
constituting this tasK converges to a rigily in!le0ible sequence o! acts:
less an less1 there!ore1 oes the sequence o! neural ischarges
unerlying its outwar per!ormance amit moi!ication ue to the
presence o! the constantly varying web o! cerebral electrochemical
events taKing place within the totality o! contemporaneous brain
ischarges1 which !orm the biophysical basis o! a tasK being memorize
by rote1 becomes more an more impervious to the in!luence o! what is
occurring within the brain as a whole1 i.e..1 progressively more
insensitive to the neurochemical conte0t1 an to precisely this e0tent1 to
which the neural sequence becomes impervious to outsie in!luences1 to
this very e0tent it sinKs into the milieu o! the unconscious mental
processes.
"o memory on the part o! cybernetic systems1 generally speaKing1 maKes
it impossible !or their mental states1 their computational non-
reproucible in time. Ht can also be shown that memory prevents a
cybernetic machine_s computational states !rom being reproucible in
space1 i.e.1 they cannot be copie. 9ne o! the !unctions o!
consciousness may be the inscribing o! patterns o! sensory ata into
memory !or use in the interpretation o! patterns o! sensory stimulation
occurring in !uture L !or establishing the conte0t o! these !uture events1
which have not been e0perience consciously.
?ut the converse o! this is also true1 namely1 that the !aculty o! memory
is essential !or the e0istence o! conscious states o! awareness !or it is
only through the placing o! sensory stimuli into a conte0t !orme in light
o! previous e0perience that these new stimuli might be categorize1 that
patterns o! stimuli might be recognize in terms o! the presence o! some
ob5ect or ob5ects1 in other wors1 that sensory e0perience might possess
the property o! intentionality.
6his is one o! the essential characteristics o! historical change which
istinguishes it primarily !rom eterministic change. =istorical change
possesses temporal integrity because the series o! events/processes
comprising it tells a story or potentially oes so because o! re!erring to a
sub5ect or a set o! relate sub5ects. Hn a eterministic series o! events1 in
a very real sense1 nothing new ever happens because all o! the
in!ormation about the entire series alreay e0ists at the time o! the !irst
event in the series. mmClooK at !ringe e!!ects ue to bounary an initial
conitions L i! the series has a beginning1 then it can_t be completely
eterministic L there is a power!ul theorem lurKing here1 H suspectT L
probably 5ust 4ibb_s 6heorem or an aaptation/lemma associate with
4ibb_s 6heorem thoughDmm 6ime is spatialize in such a series because
the series is in!initely ivisibleV it is utterly without the property o!
integral wholeness1 containe within a single instant o! time which
sweeps along a line o! !inite length. C7arao0ically1 in!inite ivisibility is
intimately connecte with a holographic topology1 which is to say an
important variety o! integral wholeness.D ;vents within a historical
series1 however1 o not assume a recognizable ientity unless something
is Known about some o! the events leaing up to them as well as
concerning events succeeing in their waKe. 8oreover1 the ientity o!
meaning o! historical changes as well as in light o! increasing
Knowlege o! the history o! the events themselves. 6his is to say1
historical events are always partially ineterminate with respect to the
revelation o! !uture historical changeV !urthermore1 ineterminacy !orms
the very groun temporality in that all changes o! state are ultimately
preicate upon it. 6his assertion is borne out quite literally by
quantum theory through the statement o! its time-energy uncertainty
principle !irst put !orwar by Ferner =eisenberg1 one o! the theory_s
early !ouners. 9ne o! the ma5or implications o! this quantum principle
is that the transitoriness o! all quantum processes is irectly proportional
to the size o! the energy uncertainty o! the quantum mechanical system
in which these processes are taKing place. 6he magnitue o! this energy
uncertainty is irectly relate to the egree by which the system violates
the energy conservation principle o! classical physics.
Hn!ormation is characterize by the appearance o! something new1 or the
noti!ication that something new has occurre L itsel! the occurrence o!
something new. Hn!ormation an energy i!!er !rom one another in the
sense that the very same spatiotemporal series o! inputs o! energy into an
energy system may occur again an again1 but the analogue to this
situation !or ata an in!ormational systems is not e!inable. =ere
repeate ata inputs to an in!ormational system o not constitute two
separate ientical series o! in!ormation inputs to the system1 an1 again1
this is ue to the possession o! memory by any in!ormational system
worthy o! the name.
6his !ollows !rom the ineterminate_s two basic properties: *D the
negation o! the ineterminate is itsel! also ineterminate so that it
contains within itsel! a contraiction which it transcens an !rom which
anything at all may !ollow1 an 2D the ineterminate1 not e0isting any
particular state at any particular time1 must be !orever unergoing all
manner o! !luctuations. 6o wit1 the ineterminate is the eternal
e0clue mile L the voi through which everything passes as it
changes !rom what it is into what it is not. Ht must be clear that when /
changes into ?1 it oes so by passing through a state which is neither /
nor ?1 an so their must be that which is necessarily neither/nor in
general1 i.e.1 the ineterminate. Hntentionality !ul!ills the !unction o! an
unerlying !unamental substance1 or sub5ect o! change. 6he physical
is characterize by wholes being etermine through merely the sum o!
their partsV while the mental is characterize by parts being etermine
by wholes. 6his e!inition o! the istinction o! mental an physical is
very similar to that provie by "chopenhauer.
6hese unconscious mental processes are probably logical or
computational in their essential nature an only alert the conscious min
when a recursive tangle between several i!!erent levels o! escription
taKe place1 !or what is calle recursion cannot be aequately ealt with
by any logical/euctive system whatever which possesses greater
euctive power than simple arithmetic. /utomatically it becomes an
to this egree the more it occurs without the ai o! conscious guiance
or re!lection. 6his is owing to each successive occurrence being less an
less connecte to the situational conte0t1 more an more connecte
internally to its immeiately previous occurrence.
9ctober 2)*$
EFhen you point
a vieo camera at the same close circuit 6I monitor to which this camera is connecte... "ince
consciousness at large is the activity o! the !unamental quantum !iel1 conscious scrutiny o!
speci!ic activities o! this !iel1 say by per!orming laboratory observations o! quantum mechanical
systems1 e.g.1 two-slit e0periment1 woul naturally be e0pecte to engener anomalous
phenomenaE1 c.!.1 http://www.scrib.com/oc/*&&&($$2)/3onsciousness-/nomalous-7hysical-
7henomena-:unne->ahn E/nomalous phenomenaE may be in essence though conveniently
characterize as any phenomena e0hibiting a partial breaKown o! that normal1 worKaay1 har-
an-!ast ivision between the observer an the observe1 the internal an the e0ternal1 that is
presume by *2th 3entury physics. / total breaKown o! this ivision coul be characterize as
stirring awaKe !rom a luci ream.
/nother characteristic o! conscious thought which is essential to it is
what >ohn "earle calls1 in his booK1 8ins1 ?rains an 8achines1
intentionality. / thought possesses intentionality i! it is Rabout
something.S Hn other wors1 thoughts1 to be o! the conscious variety1
must be transcenent in the same sense in which inK scratches on paper
in a language Known to the person reaing them1 i.e.1 the interpreter o!
these scratches1 transcen them as physical toKens. 6he inK scratches
on paper which constitute the circuit iagram o! a so-calle
supercomputer o not appear to be transcenent1 at least as !ar as the
computer itsel! is concerne1 as the behavior o! the computer is simply
isomorphic1 i.e.1 runs parallel to1 the structure emboie in the iagram.
/ny sort o! causal interaction between the physical emboiment o! the
iagram1 i.e.1 the computer_s RharwareS an any program it might be
carrying out1 i.e.1 its Rso!twareS isrupts this nice isomorphism an
woul constitute transcenence by the computer o! its program together
with the physical emboiment o! its circuit iagram1 its harware. 6he
istinction harware/so!tware signi!icantly parallels the istinction
Cmore !unamental !or our purposesD1 that o! energy/in!ormation.
9ctober
2)**
?ut any computer program is always implemente within a causal
conte0t1 however1 the !luctuation-correlation structure o! the unerlying
quantum vacuum oes not signi!icantly contribute to this conte0t until a
elicacy1 !ineness an subtlety o! operation is reache approaching that
o! energies comparable in size to quantum !luctuations1 which are in turn
comparable in size to the =eisenberg energy uncertainty o! the
computer_s central processor in its capacity as a quantum mechanical
system.
/lthough the conte0t o! thought is !orever changing1 we o not !in
ourselves lost in a bewilering phantasmagorical worl o! enless
metamorphosis. 6he human min is able to utilize notions1 in their
original occurrence as insights1 in every newly-arising conte0ts. "ome
philosophers o! min style min as the metaphor of all metaphors. 6he
stability o! the "el! within the stream o! consciousness is heavily
epenent upon its !acile use o! metaphor. 8etaphor1 however1 is only
the application o! categories o! thought in one conte0t which have been
borrowe !rom another. @eeless to say1 these categories ha to be at
some point create ab initio through the more general process o!
abstraction1 or1 the !ormation o! abstract categories. 6he process o!
abstraction always involves the treatment o! certain etails in which
things i!!er as unimportant so that other !eatures may be foregroune
an groupe together within the same set or class. 6he creation o! a
system o! such categories sets the stage !or the recognition o! a
cybernetic system. 6here will always be multiple ways o! categorizing
the ata which are continually streaming into the sensory apparatus o!
the systemV no har an !ast rule or set o! rules may be worKe out ahea
o! time to prevent the emergence o! an ambiguous collection o! ata1 an
so the necessity is always at han o! eciing how the ata will be
interprete1 an this may only be accomplishe through metaphor or
through the e!ining o! new broaer or narrower categories with which
one structures the ambiguous ata. @ote that the in!ormation content o!
ata is always open-ene an contingent. /bstraction requires !irst o!
all the capacity o! the cybernetic system to e!ine !or itsel! what is to be
consiere relevant an what is not. Aelevance1 however1 may only be
establishe in the light o! some previously etermine aim or purpose.
7urposes are always e!ine in service to the larger or broaer aim
which is in view. 6he broaer the purpose which one is pursuing1 the
greater the scope which one has in satis!actorily !ul!illing it. -or human
beings1 this broaest purpose1 the instinct which we share with the rest
o! biological creation1 is simply the ever-recurring goal o! physical
survival.
H! the 3openhagen interpretation o! quantum mechanics is essentially
correct1 i.e.1 where the wave!unction is a probability wave representing
the state o! an observerGs Knowlege so that it is inee the
consciousness o! the observer which is responsible !or collapsing the
wave!unction an not the physical isturbance to the wave!unction
provoKe by his measuring evice1 then it shoul be possible to carry out
a Eelaye choiceE type e0periment : a stanar two slit inter!erence set
up is constructe where two vieo cameras are substitute !or two
conscious observers1 one EviewingE both slits Ccamera /D an another
camera EviewingE the bacKstop where either an inter!erence pattern or a
ranom EbucKshotE pattern o! photon striKes appears. H! this e0periment
is per!orme in the absence o! a human observer an then a!terwars1
perhaps years later1 the !ilm in the bacK o! cameras / an ? are
e0amine1 it will be !oun that the orer in which the cameras are
opene an their !ilm emulsions e0amine will maKe a i!!erence in
whether the !ilm !rom camera ? contains recore on it either an
inter!erence pattern o! photon waves or a EbucKshotE pattern o! photon
Ebullets.E Hn other wors1 i! the !ilm in camera / is e0amine !irst1 then
an observer possesses Knowlege as to which slit each photon passe
through so that the wave!unction o! the paramagnetic particles coating
the sur!ace o! the !ilm emulsion in camera / unergo a collapse !rom
the previous superposition state leaing to an inter!erence pattern to a
positional eigenstate leaing to the EbucKshotE pattern o! photon
EstriKes.E 9n the other han1 i! the bacK o! camera ? is opene up !irst
an its !ilm evelope an e0amine1 then one !ins that an inter!erence
pattern has been recore on the !ilm. ?ut what now !or the !ilm in the
bacK o! camera / which ha been set up to EviewE an recor events at
the ouble-slit? "houl not the series o! images recore on this !ilm be
smeare out 5ust enough to prevent us !rom telling which photons
travele through which slits? H! this is the case1 then the images store
on the !ilm o! camera ? may be use to tell us whether camera / in !act
i o! i not recor the Eactual pathsE taKen by the photons1 though the
ouble-slit superposition state associate with the photon inter!erence
pattern oes not require any unique an mysterious in!luence o! human
consciousness upon the results o! the e0periment1 but amounts to
nothing more than the e!!ect o! camera / in blocKing the Epilot wavesE
traveling through the slits through which the photons are observe not to
be traveling.
8arch *22%
6his preposterously counter-intuitive thought e0periment can be
e!use i! one requires that merely the possibility o! an observer gaining
Knowlege about which slit the electrons went through woul be
su!!icient to collapse the electron position wave!unctions so as to
prouce the EbucKshotE pattern o! electron striKes on the phosphorescent
bacKstop. 6his is actually what has been emonstrate by several
ingenious Eelaye-choiceE e0periments1 which have been per!orme
uring the *22)Gs. /n it is the position o! the camera relative to the
slits which1 o! course1 etermines this.
9ctober 2)**
/s an asie1 consier that the question o! whether or not
neutrinos can be observe with superluminal velocities may be
epenent upon e0perimental set up1 which is in accorance with the
logic o! the observer_s role in interpreting the results o! a two-slit
e0periment. H! true1 this woul mean that the logic o! superposition an
wave!unction collapse serves the vital role o! Rchronology protection.S
@ote that chronology protection is not any concern when one is speaKing
o! the sub5ective in!ormation or incommunicable Knowlege o! the
iniviual.
Qd
/ny in!ormation that cannot be translate into
intersub5ective communication must avoi the stringent restrictions o!
chronology protection. H say RmustS in this connection because o! the
prn=
R!ecunity principleS o! quantum mechanics C!irst uttere by
-eynmanD that1 anything not !orbien by the laws o! quantum
mechanics happens. "ince the in!ormation containe in energy
structures smaller than the =eisenberg energy uncertainty1 /a; o! the
system cannot be communicate locally L only being able to accompany
a state unergoing quantum teleportation1 it !ollows that the physical
processes constitutive o! consciousness Cassuming consciousness is not
Rnon-physicalSD are apiece with the !unamental processes o! virtual
particles1 !iels an their reactions. H! consciousness is to be consiere
Rnon-physicalS1 then the istinction o! Rphysical-nonphysicalS lines up
with the parallel istinction o! Rreal-virtualS o! quantum !iel theory.
>anuary 2)*2
;instein_s ro an clocK convention coul perhaps be recast in
terms o! neutrinos as Rrelativity yarsticKS instea o! photons. H! the
neutrino ma0imum spee coul be pinne own to 5ust a tiny !raction o!
a percent faster than the spee o! light1 a tiny !raction which only results
in a corresponingly tiny !raction o! a percent error in all hereto!ore well
establishe measurable relativistic corrections1 e.g.1 with respect to time1
mass1 length1 etc.1 then the theory o! special relativity coul be retaine
more or less intact. Ht woul be 5ust as though ;instein ha starte his
geanKen e0periments using the neutrino instea of the light ray
=photonA such that special relativity remains vali as a physical principle.
6his o! course poses problems !or the myria physical analogue
alternative interpretations o! relativity1 e.g1 :esiato_s polarizable vacuum
moel. 6he momentum an energy e!icits in particle interaction
calculations that !ormerly relie on a photon-base special relativity
might then point o! the e0istence o! hereto!ore unetecte Can
unsuspecteD theoretical particles o! e0tremely low mass1 which woul
now be necessary in orer to reestablish an e0act balance o!1 !or
e0ample1 nuclear particle scattering an reaction equations.
?ut what i! we coul assure nature1 as it were1 that espite the
appropriate positioning o! the camera in !ront o! the ouble-slit1 the
observer1 or any observer1 woul be unable to taKe avantage o! the
appropriate physical arrangement o! the camera in orer to etermine
which slit the electrons go through? H believe that1 in this case1 the
inter!erence pattern woul1 again1 reappear on the phosphorescent
bacKstopT H! this were the case1 then the observer woul regain his
mysterious status with respect to wave!unction collapses1 c.!.1
au=
Iic
"tenger1
cit=
The 2yth of 3uantum Consciousness. 9ne must1 to wit1
assure1 !irst o! all1 that it is possible to establish a close system within
which the e0perimental apparatus is to be containe1 in orer to1 in turn1
assure that1 no matter how large a physical arena this quantum
e0periment is per!orme in1 the observer will not possess the possibility
o! Knowing the tra5ectories o! the electrons. @ot all close e0perimental
situations can assure this1 but it is 5ust that a closing o!! o! the
e0perimental setup !rom the rest o! an open reality must be achievable to
assure the inability o! the observer to raw on hien resources to ivine
the tra5ectories o! the electrons !rom their source to the bacKstop. C:oes
this mean we must here be able to isolate the system1 which is the
sub5ect o! our e0periment !rom its embeing quantum vacuum so as to
e!!ectively separate the system !rom the observer_s brain1 which is also
RembeeS in the conte0t o! this same Rquantum vacuumS?D 6his
suggests that the observerGs ability to collapse the wave!unction consists
in a peculiar connection which he is able to maKe with an open-ene
reality1 a reality which1 as allue to earlier1 is there!ore ineterminate1
i.e.1 noneterministic. Ht is interesting to note that it is only within a
close physical system1 where the bounary conitions o! the vacuum
!iel are changing only aiabatically1 that a superposition state may be
suppose to e0ist. 7resumably1 the close system cannot aequately
accommoate the phenomenon o! the observerGs consciousness1 which is
what isturbs the system1 resulting in a collapse o! the superposition
state which hereto!ore e0iste within it1 an this1 $ust by virtue of the
mere poss!1!!ty that the observer may obtain 'nowlege of the systemQs
state with respect to the superposition observables.
9ctober 2)**
"o whether
or not a system is RcloseS or RopenS is o! material importance to the
question o! whether what the system RcontainsS is conte0t-!ree ata or
conte0t-epenent in!ormation. /n important question is whether the
eciing i!!erence here is to be etermine e0clusively through some
!unamental i!!erence in the correlational structure o! the system_s
R!luctuation matri0S1 e.g.1 recursive vs. nonrecursive" etc.
6hroughout this iscussion1 we must not lose sight o! the !act that the
wave!unction itsel! oes not actually represent anything physically real
or measurable1 an so all purporte interactions occurring between
wave!unctions must be realize in terms o! the interaction o! their
associate probability ensity !unctions. C3aveat: there is growing
e0periment evience at the time o! this writing1 October IJ>> that the
wave!unction is measurable an so constitutes a real physical entityD.
-or e0ample1 /haronov e0perimentally prove the reality o! ( the
magnetic vector potential by measuring changes in the quantum phase o!
( within a region where the magnetic !iel1 B was absent. "o i! ( is
ienti!ie with the wave!unction o! the photon1 this proves the reality o!
Ps!.
/ superposition state is only e!ine where each o! the component
superpose wave!unctions has an associate probability via the square o!
its amplitue1 although here the assignment o! unique probabilities to
both the inter!erence pattern - a turn o! events which1 on the
prn=
3openhagen interpretation1 is etermine solely by the ecision o! the
conscious observer as to which camera1 / or ?1 he/she opens !irst.
Aemember that in the theory o! quantum mechanic.s a particular event
only possesses a probability o! * i! it has alreay occurre. Ht is in this
sense in which we speaK o! the superposition state as a combination o!
quantum states1 no one o! which is real in itsel!.
6he pre-"ocratic philosopher1
au=
7armenies1 was o! that philosophical
traition which consiere the ultimate metaphysical question to be
EFhy is there something rather than nothing?E /n he is note !or
having proclaime E@othing oes not e0ist.E
Qd
?ut he consiere that
all real change necessarily involve the instant by instant creation o!
new attributes e6 nihilo. 7armenies conclue !rom this that change
was1 itsel!1 impossible an the universeV being cannot come !rom
nonbeing1 there!ore the universe is a static an inestructible close
systemV time was !or
au=
7armenies a Kin o! tenacious illusion. 6ime
woul later be characterize similarly by
au=
;instein. Hn the present ay1
owing to the avent an evelopment o! the Puantum 6heory1 the
suggeste re!ormulation o! this most !unamental metaphysical question
is: EFhy is there Hn!ormation rather than 3haos?E -or those persons !or
whom the question1 Ewhy is there something rather than nothing1E is
meaning!ul1 belie! in the e0istence o! a transcenent reality beyon
space an time1 an what is more1 beyon the most general ichotomy1
the ual opposite categories1 e0istence vs. none0istence1 the granting o!
the being o! :eity is theoretically but a small step. "uch persons merely
have to be convince o! the necessity o! Fill within the realm beyon
Aepresentation1 c.!.1
cit=
Will an +epresentation C
au=
"chopenhauerD. -or
other persons1 this most !unamental o! metaphysical questions is1 as
au=
8artin 4arner puts it1
Ecognitively meaningless.E
"eptember 2)**
/s the late 2)
th
3entury
7hilosopher1
au=
Aobert @ozicK pointe out in his
cit=
4hilosophical
Investigations1 R6he question cuts so eep]that any approach that
stans a chance o! yieling an answer will looK e0tremely weir.
"omeone who proposes a non-strange answer shows he inDt
unerstan the Buestion [italics mine\. /s logicians are !on o! saying:
R;verything !ollows !rom a contraictionS. H! RnothingS an
ReverythingS are veritable ual-opposite categories1 then logic tells us
that everything in between these two e0tremes stems !rom the
interrelation or interactivity o! the two. Hn a sense1 it is RnothingS which
gives ReverythingS its ontological status.
>une 2)*(
Cc.!.1 @ational Aeview
article on atheism1 RHn the beginning was @othing an @othing was with
@othing an @othing was @othing]S1 which was pointe out to me by
Aany ;vans.
"eptember 2)**
9n the in!ormation paraigm o! e0istence1
RnothingS correspons to chaos1 while ReverythingS correspons to pure1
sel!-e0istent in!ormation an anything in between woul seem to epen
upon both. Hn a twist o!
au=
3larKe_s principle1 i.e.1 that Rany su!!iciently
avance technology woul be inistinguishable !rom magicS1 we coul
say that1 any sufficiently informationFense structure woul be
inistinguishable from chaos. =ere we are relying on the rather
speculative intuitive notion that encryption is necessary to achieve
optimal in!ormation RpacKing ensitiesS. ;0amples o! this are the
number *2 coe in the Puran1 the ?ible 3oe1 =ebrew number-letter
corresponence1 vowel suppression or absence o! spaces in ancient
=ebrew te0ts. "o the with o! one_s loupe1 where an how !ar it is
place above the ense array o! characters1 etermines what is rea o!!.
6his is all by way o! pointing up the active role which the Rinter!aceS
has in etermining in!ormation content. 3an an alternate theory o! min
on the one han1 an o! the public space on the other be evelope !rom
a con!luence o! such concepts as selective attention1 banwith
conservation Cc.!.1 http://en.wiKipeia.org/wiKi/Aent%2%s#AuleD
conservation o! psychic energy1 luci reaming1 recursive !unctions1
!ractal geometry1 Figner_s !rien1 3ramer_s 6ransactional an ;verett_s
8any Forls interpretations o! quantum theory Can its many recent
R8any 8insS aaptationsD1 epistemological solipsism1 ob5ectivity =
intersub5ectivity1 har encryption1 ata compression1 chaos theory1
quantum ecoherence as groune in an iniviualize vacuum
spectrum or omain? 6he opposite sie o! the coin !rom epistemological
solipsism is the !act that one is unKnowable to others. /n important
question in this connection is whether the sel! that is unKnowable to
others is Knowable to the sel!. H! the only parts o! the sel! that can be
Known to itsel! are its socially or sociolinguistically constructe parts1
then one_s own sel! is 5ust as unKnowable as is the sel! o! others1
perhaps?
tbct "eptember 2)**
6he most e!!icient !orm o! encryption is liKely to
invoKe sel!-re!erentiality or incursiveness o! some Kin. Fe propose that
the reuctio a absurum o! sel!-re!erentiality is represente by
consciousness. 3onsciousness represents the ultimate e6emplar of
7har encryption8. 6he octrines o! the incorrigibility o! sense ata an
au=
Aussell_s Rprivilege accessS to the contents o! consciousness are
consistent with the notion that1 the har encryption represente by
consciousness are RincorrigibleS an the contents to which they grant
access are Rprivilege.S "ubstance is ini!!erent to the passage o! time
an so must be boun up in the phenomena o! emergence through
substance_s ability to transcen all possible historical accounts o! a
process. >ust thinK o! .eibniz_ monas here as Rpossessing no
winowsS. 6he quality or qualities o! substance1 being that it/they
universally pervaeCsD all things that e0ist1 woul !orever be !ree o!
being intersub$ectively ientifie or classifie. 3lassi!ication epens
upon some things or states being the case that !all outsie a given class_
purview. 6he iniviual consciousness qua substance that all contents o!
a given iniviual consciousness must be suppose to possess can never
be ienti!ie or classi!ie by that iniviual1 moreover1 on account o! the
har encryption represente by consciousness1 nor shall any other
iniviual be able to ienti!y or classi!y the substance that maKes up that
iniviual_s sub5ect contents o! consciousness. @ote that there coul
potentially be an ine!inite number o! istinct i!!erences between the
consciousnesses o! an unlimite number o! iniviual mins1 both real
an possible1 opening up the possibility o! an ever greater number o!
abstract categories an relations involving these iniviual
consciousnesses. /n yet all o! this ta0onomic Knowlege is !orever
totally inaccessible1 e6cept to a transcenental being. Ht was not without
very goo reason that
au=
/lvin 7lantinga evote an entire booK to the
topic o!
cit=
/o an Other 2ins.
>uly 2)*2
,n!ortunately1 one cannot !in a
!ree o! copy o! 7lantingaGs *2&% booK an he only cuts to the chase an
states his real argument on the last $ or ( pages o! his booK. 6he rest o!
the booK is grounworK e0amining all o! the arguments in !avor o! 4oGs
e0istence an why these arguments !ail. 7lantingaGs own argument oes
not !ail1 once one really taKes to heart the !act that one has only ever
Known oneGs own sensory states anRthat 2an oes not possess" nor
even can he conceivably possess" a concept of consciousness =as
oppose to a concept of a state or states of consciousnessA. ;ven i! one
lives !orever in a heaven or hell a!ter this li!e1 it will still be W5ust youW
e0periencing Wyour own thoughts an sensory statesW. 6he reality o! a
genuine plurality o! sub5ective states o! conscious e0perience Co! istinct
persons1 what is better unerstoo as a
Qd
multipluralityD necessarily
brings in a perspective transcening mere everlastingness o! an
iniviual CparticularD min1 i.e.1 that o! a ,niversal 8in. Hn a wor1
even i! you live !or in!inite time1 you cannot have proo! o! the e0istence
o! other mins - this shall always remain a question o! !aith1 a !aith no
weaKer than that o! the eist who has !aith in a ,niversal 8in.
/pril 2)*2
;thics without any practical possibility !or reciprocation an without an
unerlying Karmic metaphysical principle1 e.g.1 ethics !or a
consciousness that is continually branching through new an possibly
only pro5ectively e0tant universes. 6his is an e0ample o! the hien
presumption o! theism. 8any other e0amples e0ist such as !rom
philosophy o! science1 linguistics1 art1 sociology1 psychology1 etc.
@ovember
2)**
6he essence o! 7lantingaGs argument comes uring the !ew remaining
pages o! the booK1 which regains new li!e in light o! recent
evelopments in cosmology Canthropic principle1 multiverse1 ?oltzmann
brainsD1 quantum mechanics C8any 8ins HnterpretationD an arti!icial
intelligence/virtual reality C@icK ?ostromGs Eancestor simulationsD. . . .
;ach is eternal entity1 having escape cosmic loneliness !or a time by
having taKen upon limitation. ?ut there is the question o! how the
in!rastructure that !acilitates the ability to o this manage to be in place
an available !or our use? /lthough !rom the vantage point o! any given
temporality1 this in!rastructure shall have always been in place such that
there is no groun !or us to asK a!ter a R!irst causeS1 there still remains
the question1 R!or what reason is it there?S Ht seems that i! causality is
not part o! the question1 then purpose or en must be. 6here lies the rub1
i.e.1 the area where !riction evelops between comatose traitional
belie!s an metaphysical hypotheses.
"eptember 2)*2
EFithout transcenent1 universal min there is no istinction
between the case o! consciousness being a one or its inee being a
many.E 6he universal consciousness !iel splits the number egeneracy1
e.g.1
Qd
Rphoton number egeneracyS o! the ?oltzmann brains1 which
real1 biological brains resonantly tune to whenever those brains en5oy
conscious states o! awareness. 6he continuity o! conscious e0perience
necessarily RpiggybacKsS o!! o! the nonlocal connectivity o! unique
vacuum !luctuation !requency spectra. /n so personal ientity qua
substantial continuity o! min an mental states is !ar more a !unction o!
vacuum nonlocality than it is a !unction o! speci!ic reproucible
instantaneous patterns o! neural or microtubule networK interaction
con!igurations in a given biological brain. Hn a wor1 personal ientity is
a !unction o! resonant ?oltzmann brains qua nonlocally connecte1
quantum-coherent vacuum entropy !luctuations. /n here the normal
istinction o! close versus open thermoynamic systems must be
reinterprete in light o! this nonlocal connectivity1 which in some sense
reners mysteriously !uzzy this otherwise har an !ast istinction !rom
the theory o! classical thermoynamics.
>uly 2)*$ et=
R 6he universal
consciousness !iel splits the number egeneracy1 e.g.1 Rphoton number
egeneracyS o! the ?oltzmann brains1 which real1 biological brains
resonantly tune to via vast networKs o! quantum-entangle microtubule
tubulin imers whenever those brains su!!er conscious states o!
awareness. 6he continuity o! conscious e0perience necessarily piggy-
bacKs o!! o! the non-local connectivity o! prescribe unique vacuum
!luctuation !requency spectra within respective prescribe banwiths.
/n so personal ientity qua substantial continuity an unity o! min
an mental states is !ar more a !unction o! the intrinsic vacuum quantum
non-locality o! ?oltzmann ?rains than it is a !unction o! speci!ic1
reproucible instantaneous patterns o! neural or microtubule tubulin
imer networK interaction con!igurations within a given biological brain.
Hn a wor1 personal ientity is a !unction o! naturally har-encrypte
resonant ?oltzmann brains qua non-locally connecte1 quantum-
coherent vacuum entropy !luctuations. /n here the normal istinction
o! close versus open thermoynamic systems must be reinterprete in
light o! this non-local connectivity1 which in some sense reners
mysteriously e!inite an precise this otherwise !uzzy istinction
inherite !rom the theory o! classical thermoynamics. 6he so-calle
specious present o! cognitive psychology1 represente by anywhere !rom
!ractions o! a secon to several secons in uration along one a0is in
multiimensional time Cepenent upon something aKin to HPD is
constitute by the coherence time o! the particular ?oltzmann ?rain to
which oneGs brain is resonantly tune at a given moment.E Fhat is
absur here is that1 E6he problem o! e0istence in light o! moern physics
an cosmology becomes 5ust this: i the universe tunnel into e0istence
!rom a !alse vacuum state many billions o! years ago1 or i my
consciousness 5ust tunnel a !leeting moment ago into some !reaK
accient o! a ?oltzmann brain which is only 5ust now on the verge o!
quantum ecoherent collapse.
9ctober 2)*2
Fhen one re5ects 4o an aopts atheism1 what one has secretly
one is to have re5ecte the notion o! a transcenent1 universal min as
well as that o! the very groun o! min as such. 6he re5ection o! the
transcenent other is there!ore 5ust a temporary stopover along the path
to the re5ection o! other mins an otherness as such. 6his is the case
even i!1 as it turns out1 one_s thinKing oes not possess su!!icient logical
consistency to carry one along the !ull course o! this philosophical path
L a null result that is overwhelmingly probable. 6his is a restatement o!
the piquant observation that1 Ri! naive realism is metaphysical baKing
power1 then atheism is 5ust hal!-baKe solipsism.S 6his is all a irect
consequence o! the !act that1 we can have no general concept or
category1 terme RconsciousnessS such that the conscious states o!
awareness o! each an every other person shoul constitute a true
instantiation Calong with oneGs own iniviual consciousnessD o! sai
general concept . . . that is1 with this observation set 5u0tapose
alongsie the inisputable !act that solipsism is !alse an other mins
Cwhose groun o! mentality is apart !rom that o! oneGs ownD o in !act
e0ist. ?ut the grouning o! a conception1 that is1 o! its Knowability1 i!
you will is istinctly epistemological an not a matter o! metaphysics.
R6he term is impossible to e!ine e0cept in terms that are unintelligible
without a grasp o! what consciousness means. 3onsciousness is a
!ascinating but elusive phenomenonV it is impossible to speci!y what it
is1 what it oes1 or why it evolve. Nothing worth reaing has been
written about itS [italics mine\1 c.!.1 "utherlan1 ".1 International
Dictionary of 4sychology1 *2N2.
/pril 2)*(
6he isolate system possessing only RinternalS connections an
the system connecte to an outsie are topologically istinct an
there!ore logically istinct an ob5ectively issimilar. 6here is no
possibility !or an isolate system to realistically simulate connection to
an open-ene e0ternal realm. 6his open-eneness is vouchsa!e by the
presence o! the other an the sel! must be a sociolinguistic . . .well1 not
so much construct as collaborative preparation. 6his an more is all
capture in FittgensteinGs E7rivate .anguage /rgumentE. 7lantinga an
.evinas1 their philosophy o! min1 that is1 brings the ine0tricably
comingle errors o! solipsism an atheism into starK relie! in the light o!
FittgensteinGs. /s has been sai many times be!ore1 Rwithout conte0t
there is no meaningS. 8ultiple points o! view are require to support a
veritable istinction between RinsieS an RoutsieS. / system compose
o! Rthe solipsist an the e0ternal worlS is a howler o! a misnomer !or its
right!ul name is Rthe solipsist an his e0ternal worlS1 which1 o! course1
is no e0ternal worl at all. 6he solipsist an his e0ternal worl1 so-calle
is always logically reucible/equivalent to . . . the solipsist an his
private sense ata. / closely relate topological application to
philosophy o! min an epistemology is whether the mental states o! the
solipsist coul have all been !e into the solipsist_s min by a team o!
evil1 big-heae aliens. 6his is 5ust the humorous1 compact travel version
o! the thesis o! the sel! as sociolinguistic construct. Fithout the guiing
rails o! a grammar1 the min is overwhelme by the chaos o! its internal
babbling. /n yet it is inee Rbabbling babesS who re-creolize the
7igin language o! their parents1 generation a!ter generation. 6hat_s how
any coherent language souns to an in!ant who yet possess no taught
rules o! grammar: as a 7igin. ?ut what o! Fittgenstein_s 4rivate
1anguage *rgument here? =owever1 at least on the sur!ace1 the marKe
ability o! tolers to creolize their parents_ 7igin-liKe system o!
articulate souns seems to sap the 7. argument o! some o! its !orce1
however. ,nless one interprets this genetic ability as being !oune
upon some Kin o! collaborative esign. 6he genetic base pair sequences
that in!orm this unique ability o! babbling tolers itsel! possesses a
grammar1 rather than being the e0pression o! a haphazarly cobble
together 7igin1 as natural selection o! ranom genetic mutations woul
entail. Aemember that mutations are always being RinterpreteS an
Re0presseS within the conte0t o! a multilevel gene regulatory networK.
6he organic problems o! internal logical consistency1 which so a!!ect an
maKe untenable the solipsist_s position1 also in!ect that o! the atheist. Ht
is the other o! the other who maKes the rules unerlying the system.
3ontemplate the irreucibility o! Rthe other o! the otherS to Rthe otherS.
6he necessity o! transcenent other is glimpse in this irreucibility.
>une
2)*(
Fithout genuine intersub5ectivity1 ob5ectivity cannot be simulate
an the notion o! ob5ectivity woul then be an incoherent one. "imilarly1
without sel!-consciousness1 8an1 as a philosophical zombie homini
ape1 woul have never arrive at the notion o! 4o as a transcenent
other.
Ht is thought by less gi!te 8H linguists that the $/$ linguist who
maintains his or her $/$ rating in signi!icant part by remembering the
answers on the test !rom previous taKings maintains an un!air avantage.
6his complaint is however in!orme by a !ailure to appreciate that the
more gi!te linguist must have reache a $/$ on his or her own at some
previous stage.

>uly 2)*$
6rue agnosticism is being unecie equally between two possibilities
!or the origin o! the universe the other is 4o !or the sel! is 4o.

Qd
6rue atheism is the belie! that the sel! is but an illusion as only 4o
vouchsa!es the moral status o! the iniviual with respect to the ethics o!
his social orer.

4enerally speaKing the ;arthGs population ecreases with time as one
moves into the past but the number o! ancestors oubles geometrically.
3learly at some point in the past se0ual reprouction was not available
to propagate a given species. 6his is an e0ample o! the application o!
the anthropic principle.
6his remins us o! 4eorge 4amowGs preiction o! the seven 8eI
energy level o! carbon *2.

Puantum entanglement coul have been preicte !rom an analysis o!
the large $-way collision cross section !or =elium nuclei in the
!ormation o! the % 8eI resonant carbon-*2 state.
Qd
6his is because o!
the generalization o! the notion o! cross section that is involve in
interpreting a $-way collision which is otherwise e0tremely improbable.

6his is especially reveale in the arithmetic that applies to the aition
o! cross sections !or helium nuclei in the $-way collision by which
carbon-*2 is !orme in the stellar interior.

6he probabilities onGt a accoring to the normal rules o! such. 6he
probability calculus implies the subsystems o! negative an imaginary
an comple0 probabilities.
6he ego as the tuning !ilter o! molecular an atomic resonant
interactions an reactions. 6he anthropic principal puts the sel! at the
only !i0e point in the otherwise totally open an chaotic realm o! being.
6he general nature o! quantum entanglement is the general nature o!
consciousness C in the absence o! a veritable concept o! consciousnessD
which preserves the precise bounaries o! the omain o! the sel!.

miKs 8iKe leia see KasuliK osta sellisei Kambris .astehaigla?

G6here are no spies1 only some squirrels that are more secret than other
squirrels.G
>anuary 2)*$
?ehavioral genetics is perhaps the etermining !actor in how
this RnecKer cubeS o! an epigram is perceive: RH! nacve realism is
metaphysical baKing power1 then atheism/theism is 5ust hal!-baKe
solipsism.S 7lantinga_s critique o! evolutionary naturalism Cas sel!
e!eating1 logicallyD points up a ilemma Coriginally hit upon by the
ancient 4reeK philosopher ;mpeoclesD in attempting to apply
behavioral genetics an epigenetics to critical analysis. :evelopmental
trens in search engine technology an intellectual property philosophy
in the post moern age shall one ay soon assure us that an army o!
young scholars shall see to it that the true genealogies o! paraigm-
busting ieas are brought to light an creit given where creit is ue.
/t the level o! iniviual human beings1 there are myria though
mutually con!licting points o! coherence pertaining to an equally iverse
number o! points o! view.
epi=
H! naive realism is metaphysical baKing power1 then atheism is 5ust
hal!-baKe solipsism.
/pril 2)*2
?uhism seems to be the only viable path
!or bypassing the theism vs. solipsism ual opposition. 6his is because
?uhism views the sel! as an illusion1 either that o! the iniviual or o!
4o.
>anuary 2)*$ fcbk=
E6he evolutionary process has a !inite amount o! time in
which to worK Cbecause o! eventual heat eathD1 while ?oltzmann brains
have an in!inite amount o! time to appear in any given universe Cthat
oesnGt recollapseD1 an in the environment that birthe those universes.
6he orinary observers create by natural selection simply rop out o!
consieration1 being overwhelme by in!initely more ?oltzmann
?rainsS1 c.!.1
web=
http://themeatyar.blogspot.com/2))2/)N/starts-with-
bang-on-boltzmann-brain#*).html
6his re!ormulation constitutes1 almost by itsel!1 the answer to its
precursor: the pre-"ocratic question EFhy is there something rather
than nothing?E is insoluble in its eman !or a relation between being
an nonbeing apart !rom their mutual e0clusiveness whereas the moern
counterpart to this question oes not at all eman !rom us the
impossible as there are many e0amples1 both empirical an
mathematical1 where chaotic systems acquire orer through sel!-
organization or orere systems become chaotic through an increase in
entropy1 also c.!.1 Reterministic chaosS.
>uly 2)**
:ata may be consiere
to be the emboiment o! in!ormation in the sense o! constituting the
necessary1 but not the su!!icient conition !or the presence o!
in!ormation. 6here must be a special characterization o! some subset o!
the sum total o! necessary conitions !or some state to occur or obtain1
which combine with another subset o! such conitions constitutes the
su!!icient conition1 6he relationship o! the two subsets woul be in a
complimentary manner aKin to figureFgroun.
/pril 2)*2
H! in!ormation is
gerunial as in informing1 then there shoul be something aKin to proto-
in!ormation. 6he question then is whether this implies such a process as
Rproto-consciousnessS. Ht might be pro!itable to istinguish1
instructions1 ata1 metaata1 in!ormation. /nalogies such as Hnternet1
webpage1 hyperlinK1 operating system1 clou/clou computing may be
both help!ul as well as limiting here1 hence the ever present nee to
create new conte0ts1 i.e.1 new myths.
?ut what1 you may asK1 is containe within the Puantum 6heory which
suggests this re!ormulation? Iery simply1 the Puantum 6heory oes not
treat the vacuum as a veritable emptiness1 but rather as a meium o!
chaotic !luctuations o! positive an negative energy which cancel each
other1 averaging out to zero net energy over istances larger than an
atomic iameter1 say. "ubatomic particles1 the penultimate constituents
o! matter come into e0istence when energy !luctuations over a small
region o! the vacuum respon to each otherGs presence through the
acciental !ormation o! !eebacK paths among themselves. 6hese
!eebacK structures may remain stable !or only e0tremely !leeting
perios o! time or they may become robust an persist against their
chaotic bacKrop !or longer perios permitting the !ormation o! more
comple0 hierarchical structures. 6he presence o! in!ormation is the Key
ingreient etermining i! such !luctuation networKs persist against the
bacKgroun o! quantum !iels. Hn terms o! in!ormation theory1 the
vacuum is !ille with an in!inite number o! messages crossing it to an
!ro !rom every irectionV material particles are constitute by more
messages being e0change within this region than between this region
an the EoutsieE o! this region. 9n this interpretation1 matter oes not
respon instantaneously to accelerations Cpossesses inertiaD owing to a
communication bottlenecK e0isting between its interior an the
surrouning vacuumV matter cannot respon to the worl in Ereal time1E
but must taKe time out to EprocessE the coe instructions which it
receives !rom its Einputs.E 9ne nee here only compare the ease with
which a single gnat can change its irection in !light C to avoi an
obstacle1 sayD to the i!!iculties involve when an entire swarm o! gnats1
ore a swarm o! swarms o! gnats1 !or that matter1 attempts to per!orm the
same maneuver base on the intelligence C in the military senseD o! a
small group o! harbinger gnats. 6hese chaotic !luctuations o! vacuum
energy are a mani!estation o! the =eisenberg uncertainty principle. this
principle states a numerical relationship between the ual physical
quantities position / momentum an time / energy. 6he briging
constant between these ual quantities is 7lancKGs constant1 h1 an the
e0act e0pression o! this relation is:
+W7 = h/2pi or 6W; = h/2pi1
which is erive !rom 7lancKGs oler relation1
; = h W !V
where ; is energy C>oulesD1 ! is !requency ChertzD1 + is istance CmetersD1
7 is momentum an 6 is time CseconsDV h is1 o! course1 7lancKGs
constant which has units o! >oule-secons. 6here is a more sophisticate
an complete matri0 algebraic statement o! the principle1 but this nee
not concern us here. =eisenbergGs uncertainty principle is an
epistemological one as it rigily speci!ies how the accuracy in our
Knowlege o! one physical quantity a!!ects the accuracy o! our
etermination o! the remaining paire quantity. =eisenbergGs principle
can be obtaine by generalizing 7lancKGs relation in terms o! the matri0
algebraic e0pression:
pWq - qWp = h/2pi 0 H .
H! consciousness is1 itsel!1 require to collapse the wave-!unction1 then
consciousness must originate in the interaction of uncollapse
wavefunctions. 6his suggests that the wave!unctions interacting with
one another within consciousness are o! the Ralreay collapseS variety1
that is the perceptual representations o! wave!unctions all interact base
upon a subluminal propagation o! mutual in!luence. Puantum
wave!unctions which have not yet collapse are capable o! interacting
with one another at a istance instantaneously an this sort o!
phenomenon is re!erre to by 7hysicists as the ;instein-7oolsKy-Aosen1
or ;.7.A. e!!ect. 6here are two basic schools o! the Puantum 6heory.
Fhere they i!!er is in their interpretation o! the status o! =eisenbergGs
uncertainty principle. 9ne school maintains that this uncertainty is ue
merely to the practical limitations o! observation1 that isV the uncertainty
is only epistemological in nature. 6he other school maintains that this
uncertainty is a theoretical limitation1 that isV the uncertainty is
ontological in character. 6he ispute between these two schools is
solve easily enough1 however. Hn the *22)Gs when computers have
reache a relatively high level o! sophistication it is not uncommon to
encounter the opinion1 among otherwise enlightene CeucateD
iniviuals1 that computers are capable o! or e0hibit a Kin o!
elementary consciousness. 6hese are the same people who woul eny
without hesitation that earlier more primitive computers such as
?abbage_s i!!erential analyzer Coriginally esigne in the *N()GsD or
perhaps even the ;niac C circa *2('D which calculate artillery paths are
themselves incapable o! anything approaching what might be calle
conscious thought. 6his reveals an intuition that somehow sheer
comple0ity is the essential !actor1 which separates the mechanical brute
or automaton !rom the sophisticate high spee igital computer o!
toay.
/ugust 2)**
@ote: Rsheer comple0ityS o! eterministic computing is
only important because there e0ists some intrinsic threshol within those
noneterministic !iels in which the classical igital state machine
is/becomes embee1 which provies conte0t !or an otherwise
meaningless1 conte0t-!ree a!!air C5ust as in the case o! ?abbage_s
Ri!!erential analyzerSD. It is li'ely that this threshol lies at the
bounary between the Buantum an classical worls1 which e0hibit
waveliKe vs. particle-liKe behavior1 respectively.
Qd
6here is no conte0t-
!ree threshol o! computing comple0ity at which any qualitative change
in the nature o! computing is to be rationally e0pecte. That is $ust
magical thin'ing.
;ven among those who !latly eny that moern high spee computers
possess anything liKe real intelligence or consciousness1 there is the
implicit assumption o! sheer comple0ity as the necessary magical
ingreient: a revolutionary 5ump in switching spee1 memory capacity1
architecture esign - all o! which are essentially !unctions o! increase
ensity o! miniaturize components - woul unoubtely bring about the
necessary gain in comple0ity1 i.e.1 that which approaches the comple0ity
o! the human brain itsel!1 so that machines woul acquire a Kin o!
consciousness. 8arvin 8insKy - the leaing !igure within the so-calle
har-/H community - once esignate human brains as nothing more
than Emeat machines.E ?ut i! there is this almost ine!!able intuition
about a vital connection between comple0ity an consciousness then a
perhaps even greater or eeper one is that between the notions o!
consciousness an !reeom. "o-calle har-/H theorists such as 8insKy1
:ennet1 an the 3hurchlanGs use analytical arguments which miss the
point in ob5ecting to "earle because they o not aress their criticisms
to the principle thesis that he avances1 namely1 that the causal powers
o! matter play an essential role in etermining the phenomenon o!
consciousness an that such causal consierations go beyon those o!
!ormal symbol manipulation. Fhere these two intuitions meet an
rein!orce one another is when one consiers a igital computing evice1
say1 where the pacKing ensities o! the microelectronic components
approach that o! naturally occurring crystals. Ht is at precisely this point
where we e0pect to see the quantum mechanical e!!ects escribe by the
!amous =eisenberg ,ncertainty 7rinciple. =ere espite all attempts at
insulation an grouning1 !iltering1 or recti!ication1 it becomes
nevertheless impossible to !orce the evice to operate accoring to some
pre-establishe blueprint o! operation1 i.e.1 program1 as the !luctuating
voltages an electric currents inherently resie within the evice as a
consequence o! the interaction o! the eviceGs wires an circuit elements
with the vacuum electromagnetic !iel which in its own turn must
!luctuate ranomly. 6his ranom an irretrievable !luctuation in the
vacuumGs electromagnetic !iel is ue to an e0tension o! the ,ncertainty
principle which states that the electric an magnetic !iel strengths may
not both be simultaneously speci!ie at any point in space - in much the
same !ashion in which the position an momentum o! an iniviual
particle may not be simultaneously speci!ie. / sharp etermination o!
the electric !iel at a point will cause a large sprea o! uncertainty in
measurements o! the magnetic !iel at this point an vice versa. 6he
!luctuating CquantumD voltages an currents to which the circuitry o!
any really avance computing evice woul be sub5ect woul be
utterly useless an mani!est themselves as noise signals isruptive to the
normal operation o! the evice - unless the evice coul manage to
interact with these !luctuating !iels.
-ebruary *22N
3learly the spatiotemporal scale at which these quantum
!luctuations taKe place represents an insuperable physical barrier to the
continue operation o! 8ooreGs .aw which states that1 microprocessor
computing power increases by oubling every eighteen months to two
years1 given1 at least1 no signi!icant eparture !rom conventional
microprocessor architectural esign as it has mani!est itsel! over the
previous !our or !ive generations o! microprocessor evelopment.
9ctober
2)**
/lthough in some sense spatial scale is only meaning!ul within the
conte0t o! locality1 though with respect to 7enrose_s Rone graviton
limitS1 energy scale is inee relevant.
6he breaKthrough in the evolution o! microprocessor technology which
will maKe possible the continuation o! 8ooreGs .aw1 at the same time as
it transcens it1 will come in the !orm o! a signi!icant paraigm shi!t in
the relationship between computer architecture esigners an
programmers an Knowlege. 6his paraigm shi!t will mani!est itsel! in
two istinct but closely relate ways. 6he movement will taKe place
!rom a representational to a participatory basis !or the communication o!
in!ormation an Knowlege. Hnstea o! Knowlege unergoing many
trans!ormations !rom in!ormation to ata to in!ormation an bacK again
at each stage in its passing !rom one person to another1 Knowlege will
be communicate not through any physical transmission ata1 but
through a nonrepresentational an participatory sharing o! Knowlege
between mins.
?ut this is still not enough. 9ur intuition that the phenomenon o!
consciousness is a raically eep one pushes us to suppose that this
evice - however it is suppose to !unction - merely sets the stage !or
this chaotically !luctuating vacuum !iel to interact with itsel! - the
evice becomes 5ust an intermeiary1 a !acilitator1 o! a process which
must ultimately !all uner the control o! this energy itsel!. Fe see that
our intuition about the importance o! smallness an comple0ity capture
in the motion o! sensitivity Cto vacuum !luctuationsD an our intuition
concerning !reeom C o! vacuum energy to sel!-organizeD appear to
intersect. 6here is an e0act parallel between the relationship o! energy
an entropy to each other an the relationship between signal banwith
an signal in!ormation capacity. Fe might liKen the comparison
between a conscious CintelligentD computer an automaton Cunintelligent
computerD in the !ollowing manner. / umb computer is searching a
maze !or its e0it...6here are a number o! respects in which the paraigm
shi!t !rom a bottom-up to a top-own metaphysics may be realize.:
*D 7hysical processes are not Epushe up !rom belowE by blin e!!icient
causation1 but are Epulle up !rom aboveE by teleological causation.
6his may be seen through 8argenauGs observation that all i!!erential
equations representing processes o! blin causation may be recast as any
one o! an in!inite !amily o! integral equations Cepening on initial
conitionsD where some physical quantity such as time1 energy1 istance1
etc.1 is minimize or ma0imize. 6eleology1 however1 in its own way1
presupposes the e0istence o! a eterminate !rameworK 5ust as much as
oes classical physicsV in !act1 events are not merely etermine within
teleological causation1 but are overetermine.
2D6he vacuum is not empty as it was conceive to be in the *Nth century
classical physics with soli particles caroming through it1 but the
vacuum is1 rather1 a plenum1 a !ullness o! energy while so-calle
particles are mere e0citations o! this vacuum meium. 6he energy
ensity o! the vacuum is !ar greater than the energy ensity o! the
particles EoccupyingE it.
$D chaos may be reinterprete as a thermal reservoir o! virtually in!inite
in!ormation content as oppose to a conition o! no in!ormation.
(D 6here is an empirical-theoretical spectrum with the uni!ie theory o!
physics at the theoretical en o! this spectrum an pure consciousness at
the opposite empirical en. 6here!ore1 it is 5ust as meaningless to asK
what the !unamental EconstituentsE o! matter posite by uni!ie
physical theory1 are in themselves as it is to inquire into the process by
an through which the phenomenon o! consciousness originates.
?oth questions are pose at the wrong e0treme o! the empirical-
theoretical spectrum so that any attempt to answer them appear
incoherent or sel!-contraictory. H! the empirical-theoretical really
constitutes a spectrum which e0haustively EcoversE reality1 then we
e0pect that the bootstrap e0planations applie at each en o! this
spectrum must somehow merge or interpenetrate.
'D 6he creation o! material particles is not the irect conversion o!
energy into matter1 rather the energy require is that neee to issociate
them !rom the networK o! interactions in which they pre-e0ist. 3reation
is not e0 nihilo1 but is an abstraction o! a low level o! structure !rom a
pree0isting ynamic whole o! virtually in!inite Cma0imalD comple0ity.
;ach act o! abstraction1 however1 is !oune on negations per!orme
within a pree!ine whole which is itsel! a !orm o! abstraction o! a
higher orer than mere negation which is an operation which
presupposes the ability to partition a system into is5oint an
complementary halves. 6his setting-up o! such a system ecomposable
into complementary partitions1 is the higher orer abstraction which
cannot be unerstoo as being base in mere negation within a larger
system. 6he trans!ormation o! elements within a particular system o!
representation through e0pansion o! the conte0t grouning the
representational elements is a Kin o! trans!ormation which cannot be
e0plaine in causal or merely rational terms.
&D 3onsciousness is channele1 structure1 limite1 abstracte by the
!unctioning o! the human brain1 it is not prouce through its action.
6he brain acts1 per the ?ergson L >ames - .ange theory1 as a Kin o!
reucing valve.
%D 4ravitational time ilation1 rather than being an e!!ect o! a
gravitational !iel1 may be an essential part o! the physical vacuum
mechanism by which matter prouces a gravitational !iel.
ND Aather than conservation o! !our-momentum being euce !rom the
theory o! special relativity1 conservation o! !our-momentum is the very
!ounation upon which the ei!ice o! special relativity is built. Fhat is
re!erre to as locality is the sum o! physical processes governe via the
strong coupling meiate through the e0change o! energy between
particles possessing an energy greater than the energy uncertainty o! the
quantum mechanical system within which these energy e0changes are
occurring. Fhat is calle nonlocality is the sum o! physical interactions
governe via the weaK coupling meiate through the e0change o!
energy between particles possessing an energy smaller than the energy
uncertainty o! the quantum mechanical system within which these
EweaKE energy e0changes are occurring.
6he presence o! real photons is evience that at some point in spacetime
a !ermion mae an energy transition which was trigger either by
bombaring real photons or the action o! the vacuum electromagnetic
!iel1 i.e.1 spontaneous emission. 9! course1 both process must be
invoKe again1 repeately1 to e0plain the e0istence o! the bombaring
photons. this in!inite regress converges in the sense that at progressively
earlier moments we !in the vacuum electromagnetic !iel in an ever
more compresse state an as the process o! spontaneous emission tens
to outstrip that o! stimulate emission at high !requencies the
e0planation !or the ecay o! e0cite !ermionic states is !oun to lie
e0clusively with the action o! the vacuum electromagnetic !iel.
>une *22N
6he reason !or the momentum !luctuation spectrum o! an electron
containe within a quantum well being ientical to the spectrum o!
possible iscrete energy transitions between possible quantum well
energy levels may be on account o! the !ollowing simple observation.
"uch transitions ownwar by a real electron are stimulate to occur
either by real or virtual photons while such transitions upwar by a
virtual electron are stimulate to occur liKewise either by a real or virtual
photon1 an the spectrum o! such virtual photons represents that o! the
vacuum electromagnetic waves with which the boun electron can
resonate with an with which it can e0change energy. "ince the photon
propagates through vacuum part o! the time as a electron/ positron pair1
an in a gravitational !iel the ensity o! virtual !ermion/anti!ermion
pairs is somewhat ecrease1 it !ollows that the velocity o! the photon
through this moi!ie vacuum will be corresponingly ecrease. Ht
!ollows !rom this that the energy ensity o! the vacuum must vary
proportionally to the cube o! the local value o! the spee o! light within
the gravitational !iel-laen1 an hence1 moi!ie vacuum. 6his may
similarly be interprete as the energy ensity o! the vacuum being
proportional to the inverse cube o! the !requency o! vacuum
electromagnetic waves. 6his is 5ust the relationship o! vacuum energy
ensity to virtual photon !requency which reners the quantum vacuum
per!ectly .orenz-invariant.
Hn @ature1 9ct. *21 pC'%(D1 the time require !or quantum
mechanical tunneling o! an electron across a >osephson 5unction was
measure. 6his result means that there is some meaning1 which can be
attache to the velocity o! the particle uring its act o! quantum
tunneling. "uen1 nonaiabatic compression o! the 3asimir plates
shoul result in the spontaneous emission o! photons by the vacuum.
"imilarly1 nonaiabatic e0pansion o! tightly compresse plates shoul
result in the spontaneous absorption o! some real photons1 which happen
to be within the geometry o! the plates at this time.
@96;: 6his statement may not be true because the ;instein coe!!icient
o! spontaneous absorption is ientically zeroV the coe!!icients o!
spontaneous emission1 an hence1 o! stimulate absorption an emission1
may be change through altering the vacuum electromagnetic energy
ensity utilizing 3asimir plates1 resonant cavities1 etc.
6he ,niverse might be escribe by a wave!unction representing
its tunneling through a hyperspherical barrier1 in !our real spatial
imensions. 6he quantum tunneling o! the ,niverse through this
hyperspherical barrier may be alternately escribe as the collapse o! a
!alse vacuum state an the subsequent creation o! !ree particle
wave!unctions propagating along an imaginary a0is o! a !our
imensional hypersphere o! $ real + * imaginary spatial imension.
6he probability ensity o! this wave!unction a5usts as time passes
re!lecting the increasing uncertainty o! its woul-be position eigenstate.
/ny vector at a point where its scalar prouct1 with the wavenumbers o!
the eigen!unction e0pansion Co! the universal wave!unctionD1 is zero is
assigne an imaginary coe!!icient re!lecting its being rotate 2)owith
respect to the wavenumber set o! the eigen!unction e0pansion. 6here
was a recently announce iscovery that the linear =ubble relationship
between galactic istances an recession rates oes not strictly hol1 but
that the recession velocities are istribute iscretely with increasing
istance1 each velocity being roughly an integral multiple o! %2 Om/sec.
6hese observation suggest two istinct but relate possibilities.
9ne1 that the initial collapse o! the quantum mechanical vacuum state
occurre in iscrete stages in much the same way that an e0cite
electron ecays !rom a highly e0cite state. 6wo1 that the ,niverse
tunnele1 quantum mechanical !ashion1 out o! a hyperspherical potential
barrier where1 as in the usual case1 the transmission coe!!icient varie
sinusoially with the wavenumber. 6he vacuum electromagnetic !iel
is sai to be incompressible1 but this is not strictly true. 6he vacuum
electromagnetic !iel actually appears to ecrease in energy ensity
when con!ine within a resonant cavity o! ecreasing volume. 6his
seems to suggest that the energy ensity o! the vacuum electromagnetic
!iel is in a sense negative. Fe may thinK o! the e!!ect o! shrinKing the
resonant cavity upon the photons present within this cavity in two
istinct ways:
*D 6he photons wavelengths are simply compresse by the cavity
shrinKage !actor or
2D 6he zero-point o! the vacuum electromagnetic !iel is altere by a
certain !raction so that the energy o! photons within the cavity EappearE
to be greater Crelative to the new zero-pointD by this same !raction. 9!
course1 the !irst alternative appears more intuitively evient but
emboies the simplistic assumption that the photons within the cavity
possess some permanent an abiing e0istence rather than being a
pacKet o! energy which is continually being emitte CcreateD an
absorbe CannihilateD by the !luctuating electromagnetic vacuum !iel.
H! a photon is in a momentum eigenstate1 then the position o! this photon
along its translation a0is is totally uncertain. Fe say there!ore that in the
position representation o! the photonGs wave!unction that the probability
ensity o! photons along the particular photonGs translation a0is is
e0actly zero. 3onsequently1 a photon or photon beam which is in a
momentum eigenstate - an hence an energy eigenstate also - oes not
alter the probability versus !requency istribution !unction Calong its
translation a0isD !or virtual photons o! liKe eigenenergy. 6his may be
seen to !ollow !rom the !act that an increase liKelihoo o! !ining a
photon o! a particular eigenenergy within a certain spatial interval means
that the probability vs. !requency istribution !unction in this region
e0periences a peaK at the !requency corresponing to this eigenenergy.
6he rates o! stimulate emission an absorption o! electromagnetic
raiation at a particular !requency are proportional to the ensity o! the
ambient raiation at this !requency. 6he constants o! proportionality are
the ;instein coe!!icients o! emission an absorption1 respectively. Ht was
state earlier as a general principle that all physical processes were
meiate through the e0change o! energy between matter an the
vacuum1 the reservoir o! energy uncertainty. 6his principle may be
mae more speci!ic by invoKing the ;instein relationships !or
electromagnetic raiation emission an absorption as the mechanism !or
all energy emission - absorption1 that is1 !or all !orms o! energy
e0change1 so that the rates at which all physical processes taKe place
becomes proportional to the spectral energy ensity o! the !luctuating
boson !iels o! the vacuum - in accorance with our earlier intuitions.
this assignment o! the ;instein mechanism C !or want o! a more
convenient termD !or physical processes in general epens upon the
implicit assumption that in the absence o! stimulate emission Can
absorptionD the coe!!icients o! spontaneous emission an absorption are
ientical - 5ust as are the coe!!icients o! stimulate emission an
absorption are ientical in the absence o! spontaneous emission. ?ut the
problem here is that there really is no such thing as spontaneous
absorption - as note be!ore this conition woul violate the principle o!
energy conservation. "pontaneous emission appears to only occur to
electrons which have alreay been elevate to e0cite energy levels
through stimulate absorption - in other wors the energy !luctuations o!
the vacuum serve merely to trigger the ecay o! e0cite states prouce
through ambient electromagnetic raiation. =owever1 this woul not be
the case i! spontaneous absorption applie only to energy in the !orm o!
virtual particles. 6he li!etime o! virtual particle is etermine by the
uncertainty principle an there!ore the absorption o! these particles out
the vacuum oes not violate conservation o! energy. Ht must be observe
here that the assignment o! the value D to the coe!!icient o! spontaneous
absorption is only require by the assumption that the energy ensity o!
the vacuum is itsel! zero. / number o! e0periments on vacuum cavity
resonance suggest that spontaneous emission rates are suppresse by
imposing bounary conitions upon the electromagnetic vacuum. Ht is
our eepest suspicion that the !raction by which the emission rate is
suppresse is equal to the !raction by which the ensity o! the
electromagnetic vacuum is reuce through the impose bounary
conitions. Hn the chapter on nonclassical light in the worK1 .ight an
Puantum -luctuations1 a corresponence is rawn between the e!!ect o!
a ielectric meium within a certain region o! the vacuum an the
alternate introuction o! speci!ic bounary conitions upon this vacuum1
say1 utilizing conucting plates1 resonant cavities1 etc. Hn this chapter it
was conclue that the !ractional increase in the ine0 o! re!raction is
irectly proportional to the !ractional increase in the electromagnetic
energy ensity o! the vacuum with the wavenumber being also altere
by this !raction but with the !requency being unaltere by the ielectric
meium so that a !ractionally ecrease local value o! the spee o! light
results.
=ow o we represent a tra5ectory espite the !act that the motion o!
the particle must be continually recast in terms o! a time varying set o!
basis !unctions. 6his time variation o! the basis !unctions must contain
an element o! ranomness1 or unpreictability since otherwise a unique
unchanging basis coul be !oun with which to represent the motion.
:istinct tra5ectories can only be co-represente within the same
presentational space i! each an all are i!!ering pro5ections o! a single
evolving tra5ectory. ;ach eigen!unction is relate to its noncommuting
spectrum o! superpose complementary eigen!unctions in the sense that
!igure is relate to groun. 6he complementary eigen!unction spectrum
is a ata setV the selection o! one o! these eigen!unctions within the
observational conte0t constitutes the engenering o! a bit o! in!ormation.
6he component eigen!unctions become mutually couple provie that
their wave!unction resists alteration through e0ternal in!luences. 6he
eigen!unctions are couple to one another i! each contains at least a tiny
pro5ection along all o! the other eigen!unctions1 which together with it
maKe up their wave!unction. 6his is only possible i! this set o!
eigen!unctions contributes to the e!ining o! the =ilbert space geometry
within which they !in e0pression. 6his requires that the time evolution
o! the wave!unction be noneterministic1 which is to say1 nonunitary.
6he in!ormation content o! a given structure is etermine by the
egree to which it appro0imates its intentional ob5ect. 9n this view1
things are e!ine in terms o! a holographic conte0tual matri0 or system.
8eaning is conte0t-epenent. ?ecause o! this1 there is a worl o!
i!!erence between what is calle ata an what is calle in!ormation.
Hn!ormation may be thought o! as ata provie with conte0t aequate to
etermine its meaningV in!ormation is processe ata1 while ata may be
conversely thought o! as uninterprete signals. :ata are overetermine
by in!ormationV in!ormation is uneretermine by ata. :ata may be
physically transmitte through space1 but this is not so !or in!ormation.
:ata suggest myria possible in!ormational structures while in!ormation
narrows oneGs !ocus upon a tiny subset o! an unlimite variety o!
i!!erent possible sets o! ata. Aecalling the beas on a string analogy1
rational numbers may be represente by an !inite number o! terms o! a
convergent in!inite series1 itsel!1 representing an irrational number. 6his
!inite set o! terms1 gotten by truncating a convergent in!inite series1 are
amenable to arithmetic manipulation. 6his is because1 metaphorically
speaKing1 we are able to taKe the beas o!! their !inite string an re-
threa them in arbitrary orer without changing the topological
relationships o! the beas. @ot so !or an in!inite number o! beas on an
in!inite string. / !inite number o! beas on an in!inite string may
correspon to matrices. 6he rearrangement o! the orer o! the beas is
here a reversible process or proceure an so may not be thought to
possess intrinsic in!ormation.
H am !ascinate by systems with a group theoretic structure. 8ore
generally1 H am intrigue by specialize language systems. Fhy o such
systems appear to be EcloseE an yet permit the appearance within
themselves o! genuinely novel1 or emergent structures. ;mergence is
always e0plainable in terms o! the interpretation o! such structures
within the conte0t o! larger1 in !act1 EopenE systems. -ormal symbol
manipulating systems1 such as computing evices1 o not amit the
e0istence o! what are calle semantic structures. Hn!ormation is reuce1
or e-interprete1 i! you will1 by one programmer1 to prouce a coherent
set o! inputs to the computing evice1 an the outputs engenere by the
computational process are then re-interprete by another Cor the sameD
programmer. 6he computational process itsel!1 in isolation !rom the
interpretation process1 which bouns it1 is not Eabout anything.E3.!.1
http://plato.stan!or.eu/entries/content-e0ternalism/. "tructure only has
meaning when it is e-constitute bacK into the unboune sel!-
re!erential !lu0 !rom which it originally arose through the process o!
abstraction. Hn !act1 the general proceure o! composing a computer
program is itsel! an e0ample par e0cellence o! reuction or abstraction.
H! the activity o! the system as a whole1 or1 rather1 as a totality1 is without
meaning because o! its not being embee in some larger conte0t1 then
neither are any sub processes occurring within it meaning!ul. ?y
e0tension1 the human brain must be embee in a larger meiating
conte0t1 which is itsel! completely open-ene in its possibilities -
otherwise those processes occurring within any given human brain
woul not be1 as allue to earlier1 Eabout anything.E
"eptember 2)**
"uch
brain processes coul not then possess intentionality" which is yet
another way o! seeing the incompatibility o! !ree will an eterminism1
c.!1 ;mpeocles_ remarKs concerning the incompatibility o! Ratoms an
voiS1
eterminism an logical reasoning CrationicinationD1 c.!.1 /o an the
*rgument from min =Chapter >MAR
?esies e0cluing temporal evolution by being eterministic1 close
EynamicE systems lacK temporality because1 in aition1 being close
boun-energy systems1 their energy may only change in iscrete
amounts. /ny !inite set o! ata within an in!inite in!ormational system
has an unlimite number o! theoretical structures1 which su!!ice to
e0plain the coherence o! these ata. /n in!inite in!ormational system is
able to contain within itsel! a complete symbolic representation o! its
own structure.
6he phrase1 Gin!ormation processing1E is a con!using an
ambiguous one as in!ormation is probably itsel! a stable pattern o!
interlocKing activity within the !lu0 o! a more substantive an
comprehensive ata processing action. 9n this view1 ata an
in!ormation are not synonymous commoities - ata possessing merely a
!orm in the restricte sense o! a spatiotemporal !requency1 in itsel!
possessing no content or intentional ob5ect1 which is to say meaning.
Fhereas in!ormation is the result o! the interpretation o! ata1 not in the
sense o! ivining their intene message or meaning Cata possess none
such in an o! themselvesD1 but in the less obvious sense o! reconciling
the new ata with a long interpretive history store in memory base on
ata receive previously.
4iven an in!inite number o! possible Gevents1G the probability o! any
one occurring is in!initesimal1 still less coul the GsameG events occur
repeately an in preictable orer1 unless the events were causally
overetermine by a sequence o! preceing events which themselves
constitute a bacKwars iverging sequence o! necessary causes. 6he
origin o! these Ein!initely improbable eventsE must be a nonlocally
connecte in!inite set o! events Ca continuumD where the singular event
is an intentional ob5ect e!ine in terms o! the sel!-re!erential
topological relationship/interaction o! in!inite subsets within the
continuum. /nother parao0ical usage popular in the literature o!
physiological psychology1 arti!icial intelligence1 philosophy o! min1
etc.1 is the phrase Etransmitting in!ormation.E 9ne must realize that only
energy may be transmitte1 in!ormation is always constructe through
the interpretation o! ata receive in situV in!ormation oes not
physically move !rom place to place. 9n this view1 in!ormation is not a
conserve quantity1 at least in the sense o! some physical continuity
equation governing its G!low1G an so i! energy an in!ormation are in
some physical conte0t intere!inable1 it shoul only be uner a set o!
circumstances where the principle o! conservation o! energy oes not
strictly hol. 6ransmission presupposes the notion o! the conveyance o!
some conserve quantity within some close space or continuum. Fe
now Know that Eclose continuumE is a contraiction in terms. 6he only
such situation Known to physics is the one in which processes occur
within a !requency spectrum with a lowest !requency larger than the
reciprocal o! the quantum mechanical time uncertainty o! the physical
system within which the relevant processes are occurring. /nother
reason to believe that a physical continuity equation oes not apply to
in!ormation or its !lows is that in!ormation appears to resie in between
the iscrete energy levels o! crystalline quantum systems1 an so
in!ormation is not here really spatially localizable1 in principle.
Aeucing the energy uncertainty o! a neural networK will squelch some
o! the nonlocally virtual interactions occurring within the energy bans
o! the networK because the bans will be contracte resulting in a
contraction o! the banwith o! vacuum electromagnetic !iel
!requencies available to the networK1 reucing the ata processing
capacity o! the networK.
?ecause in!ormation is not store in the brain_s neural networK at any
particular physical locations within the brain per se1 but a more
appro0imately correct escription is to say that learne in!ormation is
store at various iscrete energy levels o! this networK1 conceive as a
quantum mechanical system. Fhen a Rpiece o! in!ormationS or a
memory is recalle1 the neural networK will attempt to connect to a new
spectrum o! the nonlocally connecte quantum vacuum !luctuation !iel.
Hn essence1 the brain becomes embee in a new vacuum or groun
state which causes a restructuring or reconstituting o! its RstacKS o!
energy levels at which the ata was store.
)&/2N
/!ter the restructuring
o! this stacK1 a new array o! iscrete energy levels prevails along with a
new spectrum o! possible virtual energy transitions within the new stacK.
@ow the brain has become resonantly tune to a new spectrum o!
Cnonlocally-connecteD vacuum energy !luctuations. 6his is how ata or
Rpassive in!ormationS gets re-presente as Ractive in!ormation.S 6he
brain may be thought o! analogously to a harware inter!ace between the
iniviual soul an the impersonal an open-ene in!ormation
reservoir. /s inicate alreay1 ata encoe by the vacuum in the
iscrete energy structure o! the brain is overetermine. 6his same ata
as ecoe !rom Rmemory tracesS within the brain_s energy structure is
uneretermine. Fhat permits a quantity o! ata within the brain_s
neural networK to persist as this sel!same quantity is establishe neither
by any physical continuity which the brain may possess !rom one
moment to the ne0t1 nor can the persistence o! this ata be place on any
!ormally escriptive !ooting. 6he in!ormational continuity o! the
Rmemory tracesS1 i.e.1 ata store within the brain_s neural networK is
maintaine outsie the brain in the sense o! this continuity being o! a
nonlocal nature: not containe within the brain_s local spacetime. "o on
this view1 the brain may be thought o! as a Kin o! RterminalS inter!acing
with the RnetworKS o! the nonlocally connecte1 !luctuating quantum
vacuum energy !iel. 6he physical traces within the brain associate
with memory consist merely o! pointers1 or1 borrowing !rom the more
current Hnternet metaphorV these traces are to be thought o! Calong with
.aszloD as being aKin to RlinKs to Forl Fie Feb sitesS so that
memories are not store in the brain but merely memory aresses.
3ontinuing the Hnternet analogy1 these physical memory traces within
the brain may be unerstoo a!ter the !ashion o! web browser
RbooKmarKs.S 7articular eigenvalues o! energy associate with the
iscrete quantize energy levels o! the brain_s neural networK cannot
remain proper memory aresses !or in!ormation ynamically store
within the Rquantum vacuum networKS i! the unerlying eigen!unctions
are not aequately RtracKeS through aequate sel!-interaction o! the
vacuum with itsel! through the brain as quantum neural networK
harware inter!ace. 6his is ue to the inevitable presence o! energy
egeneracy within the brain. 6he brain may be !unctioning as a running
convolution integrator o! multiple unboune vacuum spectra. 6he
brain in this way establishes resonant an there!ore ma0imal
connecteness between i!!erent vacuum topologies. 6hese vacuum
topologies are not containe within the local spacetime o! the brain
because any particular metric must presuppose an alreay given
spacetime topology.
6here seems to be two con!licting views o! the vacuum
electromagnetic !iel in its important role in opening up the otherwise
mechanically etermine processes o! the human neural networK.
-irstly1 the v.e.!. provies conte0t !or real particle/!iel processes
occurring within the brain1 an seconly1 it provies the !iel o! possible
in!ormational structures which are !iltere an selecte by the brainGs
neural networK C i! only passivelyD to give meaning to its interior
processes. 6he reason the question1 EFhy oes time appear to pass at
the particular rate that it oes?1E oes not really maKe sense is because
the interpretation o! sensory ata is raically epenent upon the timing
o! the events represente by these ata with respect to the min which
interprets them an gives them conte0tual signi!icance1 an so there is
no such thing as ientical sequences o! events occurring at i!!erent
rates. Ht is more true to say that !ormal systems are create with the
intent o! emonstrating C!ormallyD certain theorems which some person
alreay has in min1 rather than1 that theorems are to be euce !rom
within alreay e0isting !ormal euctive systems o! in!erence. ;nergy
an in!ormation are not intere!inable within a close ynamical system.
Fhat are calle EminE an EmatterE are not !unamental categories in
terms o! which !unamental istinctions may be valily thought to
subsist. ?oth terms represent somewhat complementary ways o!
abstracting !rom the !unamental substantive process o! the absolute
groun o! being. Aeality as it is in an o! itsel! is neither an both o!
these Ethings.E / unitary an unique Epure consciousnessE o!!ers itsel!
up as the best caniate !or ultimate Aeality or the groun o! e0istence:
it is the most harmonious integration o! all possible abstract !orms while
being at the same time the most concrete1 logically a priori1 entity.
/pril *22%
6he istinction between that which has !orm an that which is
!ormless is a istinction which cuts across the istinction between min
an matter since one may speaK o! both !ormless min an !ormless
matter.
:ecember *22&
?ut there may1 inee1 be no most harmonious integration as
such1 but an unlimite number o! progressively higher integrations. 6o
suppose that there is some unique highest integration woul be to
presume that there can be some ob5ective rule relating lower level
mani!estations o! groun into a convergence. Aecursive structures
may only come into e0istence by being istille !rom other recursive
structures more comple0 than themselves.
7article creation at the event horizon o! a blacK hole gives rise to a
precisely thermal spectrum. 6his suggests that the vacuum itsel! is in
thermal equilibrium with itsel! so that the vacuum must be continually
e0changing energy with itsel!. ?ecause the time rate o! change o! all
physical quantities epens on the e0istence o! energy uncertainty1 q/t
= [=1 q\ + ![=1q\1 where ![=1q\ is usually written as Qq/Qt. 9n this
view1 quantum mechanical systems possess energy uncertainty because
they are continually perturbe by intrinsic vacuum energy !luctuations.
Hn this way1 all mass-energy systems are in a process o! constant energy
e0change with the quantum mechanical vacuum. "ince all macroscopic
trans!ers an e0changes o! energy between two points in spacetime are
meiate via the submicroscopic energy e0changes occurring within the
vacuum1 it !ollows that conservation o! energy macroscopically is
epenent upon conservation o! energy e0changes within the vacuum. Ht
is not possible to istinguish i!!erent time rates o! change within a
close ynamical system. 6his is because such a close system
possesses only a !inite number o! iscrete energy levels1 an when the
total system is in a particular energy eigenstate1 its energy uncertainty is
) so that there are no vacuum !luctuations available with which to
meiate changes in physical observables o! the system. Fe may e!ine
the istance separating two events as a !unction o! the number o!
vacuum momentum !luctuations e0isting between the two sai events.
"imilarly1 we may e!ine the time interval between two such events as a
!unction o! the number o! vacuum energy !luctuations e0isting between
the two sai events. 9! course1 the partitioning o! the relativistic
momentum - energy tensor into pure momentum versus pure energy
components is epenent upon the particular .orenz re!erence !rame
within which one per!orms the momentum an energy measurementsV
the converse o! this is also true. "ince the energy levels at which
in!ormation is store in a neural networK are e!ine in terms o! the
lowest stable energy o! the neural networK as a whole1 virtual energy
transitions between these energy levels presuppose a coupling between
the wave!unctions escribing the quantum mechanical states o! all o! the
iniviual neurons o! the networK in the sense o! their being nonlocally
connecte.
Ht is the spontaneous coherence in which the neural networK is
embee which provies the ultimate conte0t within which the
neurological events are to be interprete. 6his coherent !iel is that o!
the nonlocally connecte vacuum electromagnetic !luctuation !iel. 6he
many worls interpretation o! the quantum measurement problem may
be unerstoo as a reversal in causal relationship between the
uncollapse wave!unction representing the min o! the observer an the
uncollapse wave!unction representing the potentialities o! the quantum
mechanical system being observe by this min in the !ollowing
manner: when the observer notes the collapse o! the wave!unction with
respect to an observable he is attempting to measure1 what is actually
occurring is the collapse o! the wave!unction escribing the observers
min so that it Cthe observerGs minD now abstracts !rom the Feltall one
particular eigenvalue o! the ob5ect wave!unction1 but without inucing a
collapse o! the ob5ect wave!unction itsel!. Fithout a 4oGs eye view o!
Aeality in which to groun these complementary possibilities1 there is
not legitimate istinction1 which can be mae between them. 9ne might
asK what is the !unamental i!!erence between these two interpretations
i! there is not some thir realm1 inepenent o! both the observerGs an
ob5ect wave!unctions in terms o! which one interpretation might be
!avore over the other as being ontologically prior. 6his thir realm
belongs neither to that o! causality Cthe mutual interaction o! collapse
wave!unctionsD1 nor to that o! contingency Cthe interaction o! collapse
with uncollapse wave!unctions1 an vice versaD1 but to that realm
constitute solely by the mutual interaction o! all uncollapse
wave!unctions. 6his realm we may re!er to as the composite
contingency - necessity mani!ol or continuum.
6here is an e0actly parallel assimilation between the category space -
time with our category o! necessity - contingency. Hn this way we may
realize that the concepts o! locality an nonlocality constitute a
istinction that cuts across that constitute by the polar concepts chance
an necessity1 time an space. 6here is chaos1 =eraclitusG ever-living
!ire1 the ynamic substance out o! which all !orms are erive. 6hen
there are the !orms1 themselves1 both actual an potential. ?ut there is a
thir !actor1 i! you will1 an it is whatever power e0tracts these !orms
!rom the !lu0. 6his power possesses the !reeom o! the !lu01 but also the
orer o! all those !orms which it is capable o! e0tracting1 or1 rather1
abstracting !rom this !lu01 an so is not containe within either category1
that o! orer an that o! chaos.
>uly 2)** au=
;picurus writes to
au=
=erootus
that R. . . we must amit that nothing can come o! that which oes not
e0istV !or were the !act otherwise1 then everything woul be prouce
!rom everything1 an there woul be no nee o! any see. @ow the great
relevance o!
au=
;picurus_ notion o! the essential importance o! a RseeS
to us is that there is inee a Rthir powerS1 as heisst" eine 7Dritte
2acht8 apart !rom
au=
8ono_s Rchance an necessityS an that this
power is information. Hn!ormation is abstract in that there are enless
open-ene means o! encoing in!ormation as ata. Fe say this with
the e0press unerstaning that information is never e6haustively
etermine by ata1 but conte0t is always require in aition to the
awareness an intention by which a set o! abstract relations was enacte
when the in!ormation was originally encoe. C?y the way1 there must
be a converse process to abstraction1 i.e.1
au=
Fhitehea_s concretion.D
6he material meium in which in!ormation is encoe as ata can never
be uniquely associate with sai in!ormation1 e0cept by an arbitrary act
Carbitrary !rom the stanpoint o! eterminismD1 that is1 by assignment
an convention1 not to mention interpretation wherein new in!ormation
is engenere !rom ol via the operation o! metaphor Creprocessing o!
in!ormation native to one conte0t within a istinctly i!!erent conte0tD. H!
there is an evolutionary process which pro!its by being grace with a
pree0istent in!rastructure o! the very subtlest o! ata processing
machinery which is suite to operate Cby imposing initial an bounary
conitionsD upon a meium1 then the question becomes whether this
meium must itsel! be creatively ynamic in the sense o! Rsel!-
organizingS1 or i! merely the presence o! a su!!icient ensity o! Rrelic
in!ormationS encoe within the meium_s !unamental processes
shoul provie su!!icient grist !or an upwar evolutionary process.
/ugust
2)*$
9ne can only erive the comple0 !rom the simple within the conte0t
o! a ynamical groun that is altogether more comple0 than any
structure that can evolve an be sustaine within it. 6his subtlety is
vouchsa!e by the innate capacity !or this groun o! being to bootstrap
an inistinguishable simulacra o! itsel! within itsel!1 i.e.1 the groun o!
being transcens mere topology an still more spacetime topology
Cwhich is merely a speci!ic form o! topologyD.
/ccoring to the molecular biologist1
au=
"tuart Oau!!man1 the
evolvability o! ynamic systems is ma0imize precisely on the bounary
between the systemGs chaotic an orerly regimes1 !ar !rom system
equilibrium. 4oo is that which enhances creativity which is the
e0plicit e0pression o! implicit integral wholeness. ;vil constitutes that
which seeKs to estroy1 con!use1 isintegrate as well as to impair the
e0pression o! unity an wholeness through creativity. /ll creativity is in
reality re-creativity Co! 4oD.
6he probability spectrum o! a given wave!unction may be
uneretermine so that there e0ists an unlimite number o! ways in
which an ensemble o! measurements o! the eigenstates o! the
wave!unction with respect to a particular observable may sum together
so that the wave!unction appears per!ectly normalizeV this property may
permit an aitional egree o! !reeom within quantum mechanical
virtual processes not previously suspecte to e0ist.
7robability ensity conservation in (-imensional spacetime is at the
heart o! the unerlying physical mechanism !or gravitation that we are
proposing. -or instance1 the gravitational reening o! starlight may be
simply e0plaine in terms o! this concept o! probability CensityD
conservation. 7robability conservation is the most general statement o!
the principle o! causality. 6here is an absolute simultaneity1 which
mental events istinctly en5oy ue to the !act that they o not amit o!
perspectiveV i! anything they constitute perspective. =owever1 the orer
in which neurophysiological occurrences occur Cin the brainD is at least
partially epenent upon the re!erence !rame Cin the relativistic senseD
that these events occur Cas observablesD. 6here must be an embeing o!
these neural events in a substrate1 which e0tens beyon the merely
neurophysiological in orer !or a re!erence !rame to be e!ine in which
there can arise a corresponence between sub5ective an ob5ective
simultaneities. 6he nonlocally connecte vacuum electromagnetic !iel
o!!ers itsel! as the prime caniate !or this embeing substrate.
H! metaphysical ualism is !alse in the strict sense o! there e0isting two
istinct an parallel !unamental processes1 one physical1 the other
mental1 but i! this octrine is nevertheless true in the less restrictive
sense o! there actually e0isting mental an physical realms which are not
istinct but somehow mutually interacting1 then it is in principle
impossible to !ormalize the operation o! min.
Ht is quite true what many psychologists Cas well as lay personsD have
note concerning the tenency o! a tasK to become e0ecutable without
the ai o! conscious attention the more an more that it is per!orme.
=owever1 what has not perhaps been wiely note by either is the
somewhat contrary tenency !or one to become more1 rather than less1
aware o! the abstract operations lying behin the per!ormance o! a tasK
in new conte0ts where the speci!ic concrete operations constituting the
tasK woul never otherwise suggest themselves. 6his tenency !or us to
become aware o! the abstract operations speci!ic to one particular o!t-
repeate tasK within a conte0t normally !oreign to it1 or at least !or our
per!ormances o! operations within new previously unrelate conte0ts to
be guie by these abstract operations1 H re!er to as operational
moulation - or op-mo1 !or short. Fhat we are calling op-mo may be
alternately thought o! as the manipulation o! something in terms o! an
operational metaphorV it is itsel! the very essence o! the human tool-
using intelligence1 an may be consiere to be a general property o!
any neural networK-computing evice.
8ore speci!ically1 op-mo is peculiar to the problem solving strategy o!
the neural networK evice because the speci!ic neural circuits which are
utilize by such a networK !or solving one particular EproblemE will
necessarily overlap with neural circuits which are being establishe in
the course o! attempting to solve RsimilarS problems in new e0traneous
conte0ts.
6he e0istence o! the groun o! Aeality consists e0haustively in its very
activity. 3onsequently1 that which creates this groun is that which
sustains this grounV !rom which !urther !ollows the truth o! .eibnizGs
principle that1 Ethe conitions su!!icient to create the worl are necessary
at every succeeing moment to sustain its e0istence.E
?ut the implications o! quantum mechanics as pertains to what is calle
the Buantum vacuum conceive o! as the naturalistic interpretation o! the
groun of being in the application o! this concept to inuce gravity
theory or e!!ective !iel theories o! gravity an inertia may suggest that
.eibniz_ principle must breaK own in connection with the !unamental
quantum-thermoynamic phenomenon o! environmental ecoherence.SS
8arch 2)**
:ecoherence is witness to the !act that the conuit o!
communication between the quantum system an its supporting vacuum
state oes not possess Renough banwithS !or the system to upate
itsel! Rin real timeS1 hence the relateness o! gravitational ecoherence
an gravitational time ilation.
We Know that there has to have always been something in e0istence an
so the groun o! Aeality must be sel!-sustaining1 an hence1 sel!-
creating. Ht !ollows that the groun o! e0istence necessarily e0ists1 an
so is eternal. /ll possibility ultimately lies ormant within that which
necessarily e0ists. Hn the language o! quantum mechanics1 every
eterminate eigenstate with respect to a particular physical observable
may be alternately represente as a series o! eigenstates with respect to
an ineterminate physical observable incompatible with the !irst.
:ecember *22&
Fhen one conceives o! some universal substance or Estu!!E
which oes not epen on any activity !or its e0istence1 one is
conceiving o! something1 which is at once a !orm an a substance. 9ne
is conceiving o! a substance1 which is a particular etermination o! it1
which possesses greatest generality.
=ermann Feyl notes in his booK1 E6he 9pen Forl1E that the state o! a
two-electron system is not etermine by the state o! each iniviual
electron ae together1 but that the states o! each electron may be
euce !rom the state o! the two-electron system.
.eibnizGs series: * - */$ + */' - */% + */2 - */** + . . . 1 oes not converge
when the terms are rearrange into a sum o! the !ollowing two
sequences: C* + */' + */2 + . . . +D + C -*/$ - */% - */** - . . . D. 6his is a
rather common property o! what are calle alternating in!inite
sequences. 6his property is very mysterious1 but can be mae to seem
less so i! one pictures each term o! the sequence as a numbere bea on
a string. / !inite number o! terms o! the series may be rearrange
arbitrarily to prouce the ientical sum1 an this may be thought to be
possible simply because the string1 being !inite in length1 permits the
removal1 an hence1 rethreaing o! all the beas onto the string in any
arbitrary orer. =owever1 given an in!inite number o! beas1 the string
is now itsel! in!inite in length an so it is no longer possible to remove
the beas so as to put them into a new orer.
Q?
6he orer o! the beas may only be change into that represente by
the two sums provie that the original string is cut1 an this changes the
topological relationship o! the beasV in a !inite sequence the orer o! the
terms CbeasD may be rearrange without altering the topological
relationship o! the beas. =erein lies the irreversibility o! the
proceure. Ht is also interesting to note that .eibnizG series converges to
the value o! pi/( because the value o! convergence is itsel! an irrational
number possessing a ecimal e0pansion which possesses no eterminate
orer whatever so that what we have is an equation between an irrational
number an an in!inite sum o! rational numbers1 on the one han1 an1
on the other han1 an equation holing between an in!inite sum o! terms
possessing a mathematically eterminate sequential orer with respect to
a simple mathematical operation1 namely1 aition1 an an in!inite sum
o! terms possessing no mathematically eterminable sequential orer -
no sequential orer with respect to any e!inable mathematical
operation. Fe may suspect that 3antorGs argument !or the e0istence o!
what he calls nonenumerable in!inity1 i.e.1 the !amous Eiagonal
argument1E can be applie to the ecimal e0pansion o! pi to show that
this sequence o! ecimal !ractions itsel! constitutes a nonenumerable
set o! rational numbers. Fhat is interesting here is that no possible
rearrangement o! the ineterminate sequence o! nonenumerable
rational numbers constituting the ecimal e0pansion o! pi will prouce
an irrational which iverges although there o e0ist rearrangements o!
the terms o! .eibnizG series which iverge. -rom this simple !act we may
euce that there is no in!inite sequence o! enumerably in!inite subsets
o! terms taKen !rom .eibnizG series1 on the le!t han sie o! our equation1
which will prouce a one-to-one corresponence with the iniviual
rational numbers o! the in!inite sequence o! rational numbers in the
ecimal e0pansion o! pi.
>uly 2)**
/lthough there_s a Kernel iea here that
requires !urther evelopment1 it_s obvious that by what has 5ust been
note about .eibniz_ series reveals that pi has a topological structure.
:oes the topology o! the real line1 namely that it has one imply that the
in!inite real line must possess some Kin o! close loop structure?
@ovember 2)*$
6he principle that ;merson seems to be illustrating can
perhaps lea us to a eeper unerstaning o! time an a more hope!ul
appreciation o! timeGs potential1 which goes way beyon our usual paltry
conception o! time as uniimensional an ine0orably !inite. 6he higher
imensionality o! time is to be sought in its multiplicity o! scale an
connecteness. 6he topology o! the real line1 espite its abstraction is
anything but linear1 so what chance is there !or something which we
have only ever Known intuitively as a solitary1 iniviual stream o!
consciousness to be linear?
Fors in a te0t maKe up a conte0t1 but then at some level o! comple0ity1
when remove !rom that te0t uniquely call bacK to it an in!use the
conte0t o! the originating te0t into that ne0t into which it is inserte.
"peci!ie comple0ity. 6he reprocessing o! moments as conte0tual
chunKs CchunKings o! ataD is in no way e0hauste by the multiple uty1
which these chunKs can per!orm as conte0t-!ree composite elements.
6hinK o! "tephen 3. 8eyers_ plastic letters an magnetic whiteboar
illustration o! the speci!ie comple0ity o! the in!ormation containe in
base pair sequences. 6hese possess no immeiate chemical conte0t with
respect to the etermination o! those speci!ic sequences.
4eel has state that his incompleteness theorem applies only to logico-
euctive systems more power!ul than that represente by arithmetic
C7eano /rithmeticD. 6his is because the proo! o! the theorem is base on
the 4eel-numbering proceure1 where each operator1 as well as all the
symbols utilize by the system1 are represente by 4eel numbers1
while all o! the logical operations o! the system are e!ine in terms o!
arithmetic operations. "o we may say that arithmetic is e!inable within
all so-calle 4eelian euctive systems. 6he omain o! all arithmetical
operations is a omain evoi o! topological structure. "el!-re!erential
propositions introuce a topological structure into the omain o! proo!.
Aational numbers are the sums o! convergent in!inite series where the
orer in which the terms o! the series appear oes not a!!ect the value o!
the sum. Fe may say in this case that rational numbers occupy a
number !iel possessing arithmetic1 or null1 topological structure.
Hrrational numbers1 on the other han1 are the sums o! in!inite series1
which may iverge i! the orer in which the terms o! the series appear
are altere. Fe may say that the irrational numbers occupy a number
!iel possessing a topological structure. 6he egrees o! !reeom
require !or certain reactions1 or interactions1 to taKe place1 are only
allowable within a space o! large enough imensionality to
accommoate them. 6he unreasonable e!!ectiveness o! mathematics
within the physical sciences1 borrowing the !amous phrase o! the
quantum physicist ;ugene Figner1 is owing to the raically an1
perhaps1 in!initely1 overetermine nature o! natural phenomena. 6o wit1
sensory ata are grossly insu!!icient to etermine uniquely the
in!ormation structures with which they are interprete an e0plaine. /
genuinely recursive system may only be erive !rom a recursive system
equally or more comple0 than itsel!1 or i! the recursive system is
EconstructeE out o! simpler recursive elements1 the control system
e!!ecting or meiating the process o! construction is1 itsel!1 a recursive
system1 o! greater comple0ity than the system being constructe. 6he
in!ormation content o! a particular structure is e!ine by the egree o!
preciseness to which the system appro0imates its intentional ob5ect.
6his e!inition is best unerstoo in terms o! the Eshattere hologramE
metaphor. / molecule belonging to a complementary molecule pair1 two
molecules which naturally hyrogen-bon to one another1 !avors the
spontaneous sel!-assembly C!rom locally available componentsD o! the
molecule to which it bears a topologically complementary relationship.
8ore generally1 the spontaneous sel!-assembly o! molecules is !avore
by a vacuum containing energy resonances complementary to those
upon which the moleculeGs energy structure epens !or its sustaine
e0istence. 9n this view1 the quantum vacuum electromagnetic !iel may
be thought o! as a Kin o! ynamic template which Ein!ormsE certain
simple molecules Ehow to sel!-assemble1E with these simple molecules
acting as comple0 waveguies receptive1 or sensitive to1 a certain tiny
portion o! the spectrum o! electromagnetic !requencies originating !rom
within this vacuum.
>uly 2)**
/n important question in this connection is whether there are
contingent conitions !or the emergence of altogether new structures%
/n whether there is no contraiction in the ynamical substrate o! the
quantum vacuum being able to support an sustain emergent structures
that it is nonetheless unable to anticipate% /nother way to put this is:
can open-ene conitions be posite !or irreucibly comple0 structures
to Rboot strapS themselves into e0istence? =ere the ynamical substrate
is intelligent" creative" however not allF'nowing. =ere also1 the comple0
structures engenere are irreucibly comple61 however this is in the
absence o! intelligent esign1 as only intelligent recognition is require.
6he teleology bespoKen by the emergence o! irreucibly comple0
structures in one temporal imension can be given a causal e0planation
through the operation o! !eebacK structures in higher imensions o!
time.
"eptermber 2)**
6here are two !unamentally isparate concepts o!
intelligent esign: the one1 such a biochemist or molecular biologist1
applies esign concepts erive wholly !rom his stuy o! alreay
available biological structures an systems1 the other is in the case o! a
emiurge or eity who evelops a system or structure by irectly li!ting
it out o! chaos1 calling it out o! the inchoate !lu0 o! open-ene
possibilities.
H! what might be calle
prn=
timeFscale reuctionism C6"AD constitutes a
!unamentally !alse unerstaning o! the ynamics o! natural
phenomena1 then the traitional philosophical view of time as
possessing only a single imension must be abanone. 6ime-scale
reuctionism says1 simply1 that events taKing place over a certain time
interval are owing e0clusively to events taKing place over intervals o!
time smaller than an Rcontaine withinS the !irst time interval1 which
are in turn epenent upon events occurring over smaller time intervals1
an so on.
>uly 2)**
6he phenomena o! quantum entanglement an
teleportation1 particularly within the transactional interpretation o!
quantum mechanics1 c.!.1 3ramer1 appear to !lout the principle o! 6"A.
9ne reay e0ample o! the !ailure o! 6"A is the case o!
prn=
historical time.
Hn the case o! historical time1 there is a critical Rwinow o! opportunityS
within which certain events must transpire i! certain signi!icant changes
or revolutions1 e.g.1 cultural1 social1 political are to occur. 7arao0ically1
the sensitivity to initial conitions o! the timeline goes han-in-han
with the timeline_s RrobustnessS1 c.!.1 the misguie1 awKwar an
ultimately unsuccess!ul attempts o! !uture time travelers to mele with
the timeline. 8ore broaly1 events in a historical sequence o not
merely cause each other or concatenate as in a blin causal sequence o!
events1 but events in the historical process echo as well as anticipate
events in the past an future" respectively. 3learly it is ue to historical
events both creating an reacting to a temporal conte6t1 which maKes
this type o! etermination in time possible. /n here it is obvious that
the temporal conte0t is only efficacious if it is also meaningful1 which
implies the operation o! consciousness in both its iniviual an
collective forms. Puantum entanglement may be unerstoo as causality
operating collectively rather than merely iniviually as in the case o!
classical physics. Fe shoul be min!ul here that what is calle
thermoynamics is merely a collective escription o! particles acting
iniviually accoring to @ewtonian mechanics an which oes not
invoKe any new concept o! causality.
9ctober 2)**
Ht may turn out that we
shall only succee in eveloping a Rconcept o! consciousnessS !or the
iniviual by borrowing !rom the theory o! the consciousness o! the
collective. H! iniviual consciousness is not a metaphysical entity1 i.e.1
substance" but is instea a social construct1 then the philosophical quest
to solve 3halmers_ Rhar problemS o! consciousness shall be seen to
have been all along the pursuit o! a re herring. R3ontrary to what most
people believe1 noboy has ever been or ha a sel!. ?ut it is not 5ust that
the moern philosophy o! min an cognitive neuroscience together are
about to shatter the myth o! the sel!. Ht has now become clear that we
will never solve the philosophical puzzle o! consciousnessUthat is1 how
it can arise in the brain1 which is a purely physical ob5ectUi! we on_t
come to terms with this simple proposition: that to the best o! our current
Knowlege there is no thing1 no inivisible entity1 that is us1 neither in
the brain nor in some metaphysical realm beyon this worl. "o when
we speaK o! conscious e0perience as a sub5ective phenomenon1 what is
the entity having these e0periences?S
cit=
The Ego Tunnel: The &cience of
the 2in an the 2yth of the &elf C
au=
8etzingerD.
>une 2)*(
Ht however oes
not appear that consciousness can be meaning!ully hel to Rnot e0istS on
the grouns that it is merely an abstract feature8 o! certain comple0
components o! physical reality1 e.g.1 the quantum vacuum1 rather than an
ob5ective !eature o! being as such or a scienti!ically real1 !unamental
physical !iel such as an electromagnetic or gravitational !iel.
au=
>ohn "earle1 the linguist an philosopher1 has state that !ormal
computational systems are incapable o! consciousness because such
!ormal systems o not e!!ectively e0ploit the causal powers o!
computation available !or utilization by the human brain. "ince the
causal powers o! matter1 as "earle terms them1 stem !rom what is !orever
spontaneously occurring in the natural realm at the very smallest
imensions o! time an space1 the process o! abstraction1 itsel! !oune
upon the systematic ignorance o! !iner etails o! structure an !unction1
introuces a Kin o! built-in blocKheaeness into systems o! Earti!icial
intelligenceE which are physically realize !rom relatively macroscopic
an EinsensitiveE component parts1 in accorance with Eanalytically
close-!ormE esigns.
Iacuum !luctuations which are simultaneous in one re!erence !rame
C.orenz !rameD will not necessarily be simultaneous in other !rames.
6his theoretical implication o! special relativity !or quantum mechanics1
combine with the !act that the energy ensity o! the quantum vacuum is
ecreasing with time as the universe e0pans1 leas us to euce that1
not only is the ensity o! the quantum vacuum i!!erent in i!!erent
.orenz !rames1 but so is its time rate o! ecrease.
H o not thinK that
au=
=ugh ;verettGs
prn=
many worls interpretation o!
quantum mechanics is consistent with the implications o! quantum
e0periments which have been per!orme in the last !ew ecaes since
the time C*2'%D when he originally propose his interpretation o!
quantum theory. Hn ;verettGs theory1 the collapse o! the wave!unction is
interprete as a suen1 iscontinuous branching o! the observer !rom
one parallel universe1 where the wave!unction is uncollapse1 to a new
parallel universe where the wave!unction e0ists in one o! its component
eigenstates. -rom this o we suppose that all o! the collapse
wave!unctions within our universe owe their e0istence to observations
mae by quantum physicist oing e0periments in other universes?
/pril
2)*$
7hysicalism or realism is 5ust one interpretation among myria
competing interpretations o! quantum mechanics.
epi=
E/lthough
scienti!ic positivism hasnGt succeee in abolishing metaphysics1 it has
perhaps manage to contain metaphysics to a sub-spectrum o! possible
interpretations o! quantum mechanics1 namely those invoKing Cor not
invoKingD hien variables.E
/ugust 2)*$
=umorously Cno pun inteneD paraphrasing =ume more than a
bit: If we place into a bo6 any volume that may or may not treat
of ivinity or school metaphysics" for instanceT let us as'" Does it
contain any abstract reasoning concerning Buantity or number% Ues an
No" in Buantum superposition. Does it contain any e6perimental
reasoning concerning matter of fact an e6istence% Ues an No" in
Buantum superposition. 4erform an observation upon the volume.
Commit it to the flames" if it collapses into a Buantum state containing
nothing but sophistry an illusion" but if not" stoc' it in the -ritish
1ibrary. Fhat Key property must ata or in!ormation possess Cor !ail to
possessD1 say1 containe in a booK1 such that a consistent interpretation
coul be !oun !or the ata in which the booK is both a scienti!ic worK
an a treatise on metaphysics1 moreover such that these two
interpretations are connecte by virtue o! being in quantum
superposition?
cont_
;nantiomer molecules1 that is1 molecules which were once thought
to be ientical in every way e0cept that they are the mirror re!lection o!
each other1 have recently been generally !oun to i!!er in respect to
their bining energies. "o-calle Eright-haneE molecules1 such as the
amino acis1 :-tyrosine1 :-glutamine1 etc.1 have been !oun to possess
smaller bining energies Can hence are less stableD than their mirror
image counterparts1 the . - series amino acis o! the same names. 4iven
the e0istence o! a spatial !ourth imension1 it is possible to convert a
right-hane molecule into its ientical le!t-hane counterpart by
pulling the molecule into ( - space an rotating it *N)
o
against the
hyperplane Cnormal toD an returning the molecule to its original
position within this $ - hypersur!ace. 6his woul suggest the e0istence
o! a pre!erential curl !iel acting within this !our imensional continuum
in a irection opposing the rotation of an 1 F molecule an aiing the
rotation of an + F molecule. 6his mechanism woul be one logical way
to account !or the observe i!!erences in the bining energies o!
ientical . - an A - molecules.
/ugust 2)*$
8oreover1 such a curl !iel may
provie a rational e0planation !or the preominance o! matter as
oppose to antimatter in our observable universe. RFhile 8c.aughlin
conclues that emergence is impossible in the light o! quantum
mechanics1 =enry regars issues connecte with the status o! molecular
structure as supporting emergence. 6he present author suggests that one
shoul not be persuae by either o! these arguments an pleas !or a
!orm o! agnosticism over the reality o! emergence an ownwar
causation until !urther stuies might be carrie outS1 c.!1
cit=
TopFown
causation regaring the chemistry#physics interface: a s'eptical view
=
auG
&cerri" IJ>>A
cont_
?ut such imagine hyperimensional rotations must be seen to be
only a metaphor !or a re-creation o! the molecule into its mirror-reverse
ouble. 6his is because the metric o! 8inKowsKi spacetime is not
positive e!inite1 but negative e!inite. Hn!ormation is neither create
nor estroyeV in!ormation is always conserve1 an when it appears to
be create1 being re-e0presse within another meium is merely
transucing it.
6here are myria i!!erent meia through which portions o! the eternally
pre-e0istent in!ormation may be e0presse1 but there e0ists a primary
meium which contains all in!ormation originally. /ll other meia
through which in!ormation might be e0presse are ultimately epenent
upon this primary in!ormation meium. Hn the same way that the
transuction o! energy !rom one meium1 say mechanical1 to another
meium1 say electrical1 is always accompanie by a loss o! a portion o!
the transuce energy as heat energy Cwhereby entropy is increaseD1
some in!ormation is always lost in the transuction o! in!ormation !rom
the primary meium to other seconary meia. -or this reason1 no
in!ormational systems or structures are permitte to come into being
which possess an in!ormation ensity greater than that o! the volume
which they occupy1 this volume being pervae by energy in its primary
!orm Cvacuum energyD. Hn the same way1 there is a limit to the mass-
energy ensity o! any particular volume o! spacetimeV this limit is that
speci!ie by "chwarzschil_s equation !or the energy ensity o! blacK
holes. 6he in!ormation which is inevitably lost as a result o! the
transuction o! in!ormation !rom the primary meium to seconary
meia simply passes bacK into the primary meium.
>uly *22N
Hn!ormation cannot be inepenent o! the meium in which it is
e0presse. :ata1 on the other han1 are inepenent o! the meium in
which they are e0presse.
8arch *22N
6he pre-e0istence an transuction o! in!ormation are not
logically sel!-consistent notions. 7re-e0istence implies something which
is continually a part o! the temporal progression o! the whole but which
itsel! remains latent an changeless. 6ransuction o! in!ormation also
implies a contraictory conte0t-!reeom !or in!ormation. -or the
transuction o! in!ormation implies that1 liKe energy1 no in!ormation is
gaine or lost in its Echanging !ormE as it passes !rom one meium
through another an then to another1 an so on. 6his is to say that the
meia carrying in!ormation contribute nothing to the content o! this
in!ormation. /n this is also to say that in!ormation is always abstract
an is constitute by relationships. 9ne then might asK1 what is it then
which i!!erentiates in!ormation !rom mere ata - or are they
synonymous? :ata an in!ormation may be unerstoo as constituting
a merely relative istinction. Fhat is meant by this is that what are ata
in one conte0t may be in!ormation in a larger one an in!ormation in a
smaller conte0t. Hn other wors1 in!ormation is ata interprete in light
o! conte0t while ata in this same conte0t !unction as in!ormation with
respect to smaller subconte0ts containe therein. "ince in!ormation are
conte0t-epenent1 it woul !ollow that all in!ormation possess a
characteristic li!etime rather analogous to a the hal!-li!e o! raioactive
isotopes.
6he law o! the temporal evolution o! in!ormation systems is provie by
the pre-e0isting spatial istribution o! in!ormation. 6he eterminate is
epenent upon the ineterminate. 6he !inite e0ists only through its
participation with the in!inite. /ll trans!ormations are e!inable in terms
o! mere pro5ection operationsV there!ore1 these trans!ormations1 when
investigate1 always reveal the presence o! conservation laws which
seem to govern1 or provie constraints upon1 these trans!ormations.
Fhat is calle the unity o! apperception in OantGs 3ritique o! 7ure
Aeason is synonymous with the e0istence o! the unerlying noumenon1
which provies the rationality of any particular series o! perceive
continuous trans!ormations entertaine within a !inite min. 6he
interpenetration o! the categories o! time an space support the unity o!
apperception.
9ctober *22%
/ !unctionalist theory o! min must presuppose a ecomposition
o! spacetime into a particular E$ + *E con!iguration o! absolute space
an absolute time. Ht must o this in orer to e!ine the bounary
between what are merely input-output operations an what constitute
operations o! the processing o! inputte ata/in!ormation into outputte
ata/in!ormation. Fe may unerstan the istinction between
in!ormation an ata to be simply this: in!ormation are ata place in
conte0t an interprete in light o! this conte0tV ata are in!ormation
taKen out o! conte0t1 that is to say1 ata are simply conte0t-!ree
in!ormation. @ow in orer !or in!ormation to be passe !rom one person
Cor sub5ectivityD to another1 in!ormation which the one person intens to
convey to the other must be translate1 or more aptly1 perhaps1 converte
into conte0t-!ree ata.
/lthough there is not such istinction as sub5ective versus
intersub5ective ata1 we may support such a istinction !or in!ormation.
Hntersub5ective in!ormation may be unerstoo as in!ormation which
two or more persons may hol in common with one another ue to
similarities in the nature o! the mental bounary conitions1 i! you will1
which act upon their respective consciousnesses. "ub5ective in!ormation
may be unerstoo as in!ormation which is private to each person an
there!ore cannot be hel in common between i!!erent sub5ectivities.
:i!!erent consciousness are not all e0emplars o! consciousness itsel!1 or
consciousness at large1 by virtue o! each iniviual consciousness
possessing one or more general qualities in common with one another
!or this woul be to presuppose that i!!erent iniviual consciousnesses
are simply i!!erent structurings o! a single !unamental consciousness.
H! we suppose that the constituting o! each iniviual sub5ective
spatiotemporal continuum assumes the prior e0istence o! an ob5ective1 as
oppose to an absolute1 spatio-temporal continuum1 an that this
ob5ective space an time are1 in turn1 constitute out o! the activity o!
some !unamental consciousness1 then each iniviual consciousness1 or
ego1 is merely one particular structuring o! the !unamental an unitary
consciousness among many other such possible structurings.
6emporality presupposes the givenness o! "pace. :uration1 however1
oes not presuppose the givenness o! "pace. 6emporality pertains to the
evolution o! things e0isting within a particular space. 6he temporal
evolution o! a particular spacetime treats this spacetime as though it is
itsel! a Ething.E 6he local temporal evolution o! spacetime1 which is an
amissible concept within classical general relativity1 is not reucible to
the temporal evolution o! entities an their mutual spatial relations
within this spacetime. 6emporality pertains to changes occurring to the
system bounary conitions. :uration pertains to changes o! the system
incluing the changes to the system bounary conitions. Fithin
temporality1 the rate at which a sequence o! events or evolution taKes
place cannot be etermineV temporality an uration are require !or
this. 6emporality is uration plus eterministic causal relations taKing
place within a particular spacetime !rame o! re!erence.
8ay *22%
/n this is perhaps another important istinction which can be
mae between the sub5ective CmentalD an the ob5ective CphysicalD: in
sub5ectivity1 the !orms o! time an space are !use an continuous with
one another. 3ommunication between i!!erent sub5ectivities1 that is1
intersub5ectivity which is ob5ectivity1 requires that the !use
spatiotemporality o! each sub5ectivity be ecompose into separate
space an time imensions within the realm o! the ob5ective.
6he increase in comple0ity o! coherent systems with time woul seem to
involve the creation e0 nihilo o! quantities o! in!ormation. 6here are
reasons !or believing1 however1 that what is really involve in cases such
as this is merely the partial reistribution o! ata along a spatial
in!ormation graient onto a graient which is part spatial an part
temporal where the total quantity o! in!ormation is conserve in the
process. Fith the introuction o! e0citation energy1 the nonlocal1
istribute in!ormation content is partially trans!orme into local1
lumpe in!ormation content. 6he in!ormation content containe within a
purely spatial mani!ol is nonlocally encoe through relations o! within
the mani!ol which originate e0ternally to it. 6he relations which are
constitutive o! a spacetime mani!ol cannot be represente in terms o! a
istribution o! relations between localities on this mani!ol. @o causal
theory can e0plain the manner in which a spacetime is constitute. /
spacetime is constitute nonlocally1 that is1 through the operation o!
nonlocally connecte ynamical processes which are only partially
locate within this spacetime. Hs it1 in principle1 possible !or all the
neural !irings which comprise the brain state to which is associate a
particular mental state to have been stimulate to occur entirely !rom
outsie the brainGs neural networK1 obviating the nee !or intricate
!eebacK loops connecting the neurons with one another which normally
support such patterns o! neuron !irings? Hntuitively we suspect that
merely reproucing the requisite neural !iring patterns !rom outsie the
networK woul not be su!!icient to prouce the normally occurring
associate mental state. 6his is because the observe neural !irings
woul only possess a eterminate orer in terms o! the perception o!
their orer by means o! a neural networK genuinely possessing intricate
!eebacK structures.
Fe might1 in turn1 be puzzle by the !orce o! this particular intuition
which has at its root the notion o! the importance o! timing an
synchronization o! the neurons with respect to one another. ?ut this
woul really only be important i! there was something which the
neurons incientally interact with in the course o! their normal process
o! !unctioning to which the orer o! their E!iringE might be
!unamentally relate. Fe might then seeK to inclue this aitional
something an prouce the changes in it also !rom outsie1 5ust as in the
case o! the neurons. @otice that in every case where we are supposely
able to reprouce a given sequence o! neural !irings1 we are epenent
upon a !avorable conition wherein the time interval between !irings
within a given small region o! the brain are larger than the time
uncertainty o! the quantum system constituting the neural networK. Fe
!in that our earlier intuition about the problem o! the timing o! the
events appropriate to the establishing o! the requisite brain states crops
up yet again. 6he timing o! local causal interactions is between
particular bounary conitions o!1 an relative to1 the nonlocally
connecte vacuum in which the energy uncertainties o! the neural
networK as a quantum mechanical system ultimately originate. 6here is
still something with respect to which the patterne events Ccomprising
the requisite brain statesD occur which is important !rom the stanpoint
o! timing an synchronization1 an we might1 there!ore1 again1 seeK to
inclue it1 5ust as be!ore. 6he point here is that this process o! trying to
inclue the entire bacKgroun against which the timing o! the brain
events are signi!icant can never be completeV we !ace an in!inite regress
here1 or1 i! success!ul in incluing the entire bacKgroun1 then there
remains nothing against which the rate o! causally sequential events or
the timing o! not causally1 but merely correlate events within the
networK may be establishe. 6his regress is apparently resolve within
the quantum mechanically uncertain time interval o! the networK an
there!ore is !orever beyon manipulation !rom outsie1 that is to say1
there cannot e0ist a eterminate program aequate to prouce the timing
necessary to integrate or uni!y the neural !irings into the requisite
coherent pattern we term consciousness. 6his timing is not to be
unerstoo a!ter the normal !ashion o! a mechanical timing o!
articulate events. -or purely relative timing in the above sense oes not
taKe into account the uration o! the whole process Crelative to its
etermining grounD. 8oreover1 the rate at which a sequence o! causally
connecte physical occurrences un!ols is etermine through the
availability o! the spacetime constituting vacuum momentum/energy
!luctuations with which the networK must continually interact. 6o
restate1 this is because the ultimate embeing substrate o! the neural
networK !unctions through interconnecte events possessing a time
uncertainty which prevents their elicate synchronization !rom ever
being introuce !rom outsie - outsie either in the physical/spatial
sense or in the purely !ormal sense o! a esign or template impose upon
the concrete ynamical substrate through the imposition o! bounary
conitions. 9! course1 what is calle ualism is completely rule out in
the case where the brain is thought to !unction in a eterministic
manner. 6his is because the isomorphism which must maintain between
brain states an mental states preclues the possibility that these two
qualitatively i!!erent types o! states are causally connecteV !or any
e!!ective causal interaction between the two woul necessarily isrupt
the isomorphism which is presuppose by the ualistic theory o! min.
9n the other han1 in the absence o! causal interaction between brain
states an mental states1 there is no rational basis upon which we can say
that particular mental states correspon to1 or belong to a particular
brain. 9n the other han again1 however1 i! ualism is re5ecte an
causal relationships are allowe to obtain between brain states an
mental states1 then both types o! events/processes must be meiate by
the very same unerlying substance1 or substrate. Hn this way1 the whole
istinction between what are calle brain states an mental states
completely breaKs own1 an one is !orce to aopt a monistic theory o!
min. ?ecause o! the veritable e0istence o! temporality1 we Know that
the !unamental ynamism meiating all physical processes must be
irreversible Cin the thermoynamic senseD. 3onsequently1 the
appearance o! reversibility in physical reactions1 e.g.1 chemical1 nuclear1
etc.1 is 5ust that1 an the entities which taKe part in these physical
reactions/processes are !unamentally overetermine by the unerlying
ynamism grouning them1 proucing an uneretermination o! their
mutual casual interactions which is in principle irremeiable. 6his is
ue to the essential nature o! causal analysis as always being per!orme
in terms o! the laws governing the ynamical relations between
ine!initely reproucible entities.
8arch *22%
Hn the passage !rom one EstateE to the ne0t1 a system e0ists
momentarily in a con!iguration which cannot be characterize by either1
an this1 no matter how !inely we might seeK to partition the systemGs
!low o! change. -rom which1 it immeiately !ollows that1 it is what is
peculiar to a ynamic system1 but common to all such systems generally1
which permits them to transcen a sequential state escription o! the
change they e0perience on which their ineraicable temporality epens.
6emporality1 to wit1 e0ists e0clusively in the omain which transcens or
lies beyon all possible abstract escriptions. 6he concrete is the
temporal. /s we have alreay commente1 the meium o! abstraction
must not amit o! an aequate escription in terms o! any set o! abstract
categories1 since the categories presuppose the e0istence o! that which
brings them !orth. 6he notion o! historicism1 in the sense provie by
the theories o! 8ar0 an Feber1 is conceptually unintelligible because it
assumes the e0istence o! a istinction the valiity o! which it then later
enies. 6hat is the istinction between physical causal !actors an
historical !actors in the e0plication o! social1 political1 cultural1 an
economic evelopments. 6he valiity o! historicism woul mean that
history as a science o! large scale human evelopment oesnGt really
worK1 that it oesnGt have anything substantive to say at all because the
real causal e!!icacy behin the changes which history has traitionally
stuie lies at a level o! escription which is at once lower an more
!unamental than that where historical e0planations are articulate.
6hat which is the source an sustainer o! all things cannot be viewe as
being anything but in!inite. 6he paraigmatic e0ample o! this
transuction process is the spontaneous prouction o! !unamental
particles out o! the vacuum within accelerate re!erence Cnon-
.orentzianD !rames.
;volution may only be a local phenomenon - not a global phenomenonV
evolution in the sense o! the genuine emergence o! wholly
unpreceente an unanticipate !orms1 structures1 or ynamisms -
without this process o! evelopment somehow rawing upon a pre-
e0isting reservoir o! in!ormation within which these EemergentE !orms
are at least implicitly pre!igure1 an which meiates an unerpins the
evolutionary evelopmental process - is tantamount to the acceptance o!
a !unamental process which is itsel! uncause an which is not
amitte to be the cause Cor reasonD !or its own e0istence. Hn the
vacuum1 in!ormation e0ists in a nonlocal1 simultaneously connecte
!orm. Fhen the vacuum energy !luctuations meiate the occurrence o!
physical processes1 there is a transuction o! nonlocal1 parallel an
simultaneously connecte in!ormation into a new local1 sequential1 an
temporally connecte !orm. ?ut such a transuction phenomenon
cannot taKe place within the pristine vacuum1 that is1 within the vacuum
in the absence o! any action upon it even i! this action ultimately arises
!rom itsel!. 6his vacuum must have something to react with or againstV
it must be Eseee.E 6he groun o! e0istence cannot be outstrippe by
any possible e0istent Ething.E @onlocality presents the possibility o!
putting quantum mechanical probability on a ErationalE !ootingV in other
wors1 a given wave!unction is normalizable on the average. 6he
conition o! normalizability is not a very restrictive conition on a
quantum mechanical wave!unctionV there are an in!inite number o! ways
to re!ract or ecompose a given wave!unction into a spectrum o!
eigenstates Co! an incompatible observableD so as to satis!y the
normalization conition.
:ecember *22&
Ht cannot be by way o! some impossibly comple0 causal
sequence that a thing mani!ests itsel! as such. -or instantaneous conte0t1
which cannot be analyze in causal terms must play a role in the act o!
etermination. 6he !unamental paraigm shi!t which marKe the
transition !rom classical C@ewtonianD mechanics to the mechanics o!
quantum phenomena may be capture in the manner in which the
implie uni!ie physical law constrains the phenomena o! nature:
classical physical law states that what it prescribes to occur must
necessarily occur - any behavior apart !rom this being !orbienV
quantum mechanical physical law states that what it oes not proscribe
or !orbi to occur necessarily occurs. 6his constitutes a Kin o!
!ecunity principle. /n the possibilities can only be e!ine when
bounary conitions are superimpose upon the system which in its
natural state is not necessarily inclusive o! any particular let o! bounary
conitions. 6he bounary conitions upon the system are what
constitutes locality. 9nly the e!!ects upon the boune system can be
measure. 3ausality concerns the ynamics o! the bounary conitions
but cannot capture the behavior o! the system in an unconitional way1
that is1 in the absence o! any supplie bounary conitions. H! the
quantum mechanical vacuum is the origin o! temporality1 then the
vacuum must itsel! be timeless1 which is to say1 eternal1 c.!.1 EhrenfestDs
Theorem in which the instantaneous value o! the e0pectation value o! the
operator is ) L here the instantaneous rate o! change in the operator is
the negative o! the commutator o! the operator with the =amiltonian.
8oreover1 that which is the originator o! space must itsel! be spatially
unlimite. =uman intelligence has evolve to a point 5ust short o! that
require to thinK something genuinely interesting. 3.!.1 Cnerstaning
3uantum 4hysics by 8ichael /. 8orrison !or a !uller e0plication o! how
temporality an =eisenberg energy uncertainty are relate.
6he neural networK computer oes not store in!ormation in any
particular location within the networK1 but stores in!ormation at
particular energy levels o! the global interaction o! the networK as a
whole. ;ach new bit o! ata which is !e into the networK is store at a
ne0t higher energy level o! the networK. Fhat ultimately becomes this
ne0t higher energy level is etermine by a virtually chaotic process o!
neural E!iringsE which occurs throughout the networK an which is
stimulate by the introuction o! a ata input signal. 8yrias o! neurons
throughout the entire networK continue to !ire ranomly until a new state
o! least energy is reache by the neural networK as a whole.
9ctober *22&
/ccoring to a Kin o! >ames-.ange theory o! the operation o!
min Cthe view o! the iniviual min as Kin o! Ereucing valveED the
brain oes not react to environmental stimuli in the commonsensical
way1 but it is a ynamic system o! resonators which are continually
retune to new signals within the quantum vacuum electromagnetic !iel
in response to stimuli.
"eptember 2)**
?ut this notion o! the brain acting
merely as a Kin o! filter of vacuum signals is only part o! the story. 6he
brain also reprocesses the vacuum signals o! a spectrum peculiar to it1
an it is this reprocesse spectrum that unergoes the !iltering action.
/pril 2)*2
R6he !act that a high level o! consciousness is associate with
comple0 neural structures oes not prove that the neural structures
prouce this consciousness.S L :avi ?ohm
>une 2)*2
/n important question is whether or not multiple brains process
quantum entanglement !rom the same vacuum in!ormation spectrum1
putting bacK reprocesse an new entanglements into this same
spectrum or whether each oes so only in interaction with its own1
unique signature-quantum vacuum in!ormation spectrum. H! each brain
only interacts with its own vacuum in!ormation an signal spectrum1 the
question arises as to whether entanglement in!ormation can be passe
between consciousnesses or only signals1 ata an instructions1 the
meaning o! which is e0clusively the omain o! the recipient o!
interpersonal ata. 6here is also an aitional istinction to be rawn
between ata within i!!erent regions o! the same brain versus ata
transmitte via physical signals passing between one brain an another.
H! the separation between i!!erent energy levels within the neural
networK Crepresenting i!!erent bits o! in!ormationD are close enough
together in energy1 then it becomes very probable that there will be a
process o! continual virtual energy transitions occurring between the
various iscrete energy levels o! the networK throughout its entirety. /n
interesting point here is that these virtual energy transitions within the
networK owe entirely to the action o! the quantum !luctuations in the
energy o! the vacuum electromagnetic !iel. 8oreover1 the probabilities
o! given neural energy transitions occurring within the networK are
etermine by the presence o! the constantly occurring virtual energy
transitions o! the networK which1 again1 are meiate entirely by way o!
the quantum mechanical !luctuations in the vacuum electromagnetic
!iel1 themselves1 owing to the necessary presence o! =eisenberg energy
uncertainty within the quantum vacuum. /n essential i!!erence
between what are calle virtual an what are calle real energy
transitions1 is parallel to the istinction between what are calle virtual
particles an what are calle real particles1 respectively1 in the theory o!
particle physics1 namely1 virtual energy transitions cannot be measure
irectly1 whereas real energy transitions can be measure irectly1 !or
instance1 in laboratory e0periments. 6he real energy transitions which
taKe place within the neural networK1 an which are responsible !or the
communication o! its processe in!ormation to the Eoutsie worl1E i.e.1
to the consciousness o! both the iniviual sub5ect as well as his
listeners1 in the case o! verbal communication1 are1 themselves1
overetermine phenomena. 6his is to say1 there are an ine!inite
number o! istinct sequences o! virtual energy transitions1 which are
capable o! proucing the very same real energy transition within the
neural networK. 6his assertion remins us o! -eynman_s sum o! histories
!ormalism !or calculating the probabilities o! !unamental particle
reactions. H! it were not !or the e0istence o! energy egeneracy within
the neural networK1 there woul be only one path o! neural !irings
possible connecting one energy level o! the networK to the ne0t higher
one.
6he operation o! a neural networK woul in this case be !ormalizable in
the !orm o! a computer algorithm. 6hus is the way to what is calle
intentionality opene up an mae possible: the very same eterminate
sequence o! neural !irings may have an unlimite number o! alternative
!uture brain states in view1 in other wors. Ht is interesting to note that
the interaction o! the virtual energy states o! the neural networK is not
meiate primarily by the physical realization o! the networK itsel!1 but
by the ne0t highest orer o! perturbations to the energy o! the neural
networK. Fhat we have been calling Evirtual energy transitions1E are
really only the !irst orer perturbations to the global energy o! the neural
networK1 conceive o! as a quantum mechanical system. 6he !irst orer
perturbations1 what we have been calling1 Evirtual transitionsE within the
networK1 are themselves1 in!orme or meiate by1 the quantum
mechanical perturbations to the !irst orer perturbation energies o! the
networK1 i.e.1 2n orer energy perturbations1 thus maKing the !irst orer
perturbations overetermine phenomena as well. Hn turn1 the secon
orer perturbation energy transitions Cwhat might whimsically be calle1
virtual - virtual energy transitionsD are meiate by the occurrence o!
transitions between secon orer perturbation energies1 etc.1 an so on.
/t this point we might realize that the real energy transitions occurring
within the neural networK which are normally thought to be immeiately
responsible !or the processing o! all in!ormation by the networK1 are
engenere not by physical processes occurring at a lower level o!
organization1 but via processes taKing place at higher levels o!
organization1 represente by the ne0t higher orer perturbation energy
escription o! the neural networK. Fe Know that the virtual energy
transitions o! any given quantum mechanical system are owing to the
presence o! energy uncertainty in the system. Ht is more accurate1
however1 to say that this energy uncertainty is present in the quantum
vacuum itsel!1 an is merely communicate to the quantum system1 o!
interacting elementary particles1 say1 through the e0change o! energy
between the quantum system an the vacuum1 which is itsel! where the
energy uncertainty originatesV we saw earlier that the wave!unction
escribing a quantum mechanical system cannot be normalize i! the
energy uncertainty is conceive o! as being a property o! the quantum
system itsel!1 so that it must be an inherent property o! the quantum
vacuum.
"o perhaps we see now that the neural networK itsel! acts merely as a
Kin o! terminus to an in!ormation reuction process1 it acts as a Kin o!
Ereucing valveE which serves to abstract a relatively tiny portion o!
in!ormation !rom the virtually in!inite in!ormation content o! the
overetermine quantum vacuum which is instantaneously an
nonlocally connecte with itsel!1 an there!ore represents the highest
level o! in!ormation processing because it constitutes the
interconnectivity o! energy at its most e0haustive level. 9n this view1
in!ormation1 liKe energy1 may not be create or estroye1 but is a
conserve quantity1 an its ultimate source is the in!inite energy
reservoir represente by the quantum vacuum. Fe alreay saw how
6emporality itsel! stems !rom the presence o! quantum energy
uncertainty1 which1 in turn1 originates in the vacuum1 conceive o!1
again1 as a reservoir o! virtually in!inite energy ensity. 3onsequently1
since 6emporality itsel! has its origin in the vacuum1 it !ollows that the
this in!inite sea o! vacuum energy itsel! ha no beginning in timeT 6he
vacuum now begins to remin us o! =eraclitusG Eever living !ire1E Ein
measures Kinling an in measures going out1E an thereby meiating1 as
an eternal !lu01 all the changes continually taKing place in the natural
orer. 8oreover1 =eraclitusG statement that1 Eeverything is an e0change
!or !ire1 an !ire an e0change !or every thing1E remins us the
interconvertibility o! mass an energy in quantum relativistic !iel
theory1 this interconvertibility being meiate by the continual e0change
o! energy between matter an vacuum. =eraclitusG Eever living !ireE is
to him the !ire o! the gos1 yet uncreate by the gos. =is statement
that E6hunerbolt steers the ,niverseE no oubt re!ers to the thunerbolt
wiele by Jeus1 the greatest o! all the 9lympian gosV when this
thunerbolt is ienti!ie with Ethe !ire o! the gos1E that is1 with
=eraclitusG ever living !ire1 the parallel between it an the vacuum
becomes an intriguingly close oneV the quantum vacuum1 by eternally
meiating all physical processes1 manages to Esteer the ,niverse.E Ht is
also interesting that 4reeK mythology tells us that 6ime owes its
e0istence to 3haos through that !act that the go1 3haos1 is name as the
!ather o! Oronos. 8oreover1 the 4reeK wor1 arche1 which means
source or origin in ancient 4reeK1 is translate into .atin as principium1
i.e.1 orering principle. 6he iea behin this particular translation o!
arche into principium is the same one e0presse by
au=
.eibniz1 when he
states in his
cit=
8onaology that1 Ethe conitions su!!icient to create the
worl are necessary at every succeeing moment o! time in orer to
sustain the worlGs e0istence.E Fe now arrive at the notion o! !irst
cause1 not in the usual sense o! !irst in a temporal sequence1 but in the at
once broaer an subtler sense o! most !unamental or substantive.
R4iven such a reality1 the author conclues that human mentality
evolve in bottom-up !ashion1 with min-associate neuronal systems
not so much creating min as organizing a pre-e0isting propensity !or
awareness into use!ul1 !unctional awareness1 an proviing !or its
moulation by use!ul in!ormation1S c.!.1
cit=
Implications of a
:unamental Consciousness =>??KA by
auG
Copthorne 2acDonal. *
2onaology for the I>
st
Century" by !onathan
http:HHwww.ucl.ac.u'H$onathanFewarsHmonaology
"ince it is the pattern o! virtual particle emission an absorption which
every real particle continually unergoes which etermines the mass o!
the particle1 it !ollows that real particle masses are etermine through
the particular manner in which real particles e0change energy with the
!luctuating quantum vacuum !ielV consequently1 alterations in the
ensity o! the vacuum !iel energy will a!!ect the masses o! particles
occupying this vacuum. Fe might e0pect that this relationship between
mass-energy an vacuum-energy is symmetrical in nature because the
interactions meiating the continual e0change o! energy between matter
an vacuum are themselves reversible interactions.
@ovember *22&
6he quantum vacuum energy !luctuations collectively1 as we
have seen1 may be unerstoo as the !irst cause o! the worl in the more
!unamental sense o! sustainer o! all o! the structures ultimately eriving
!rom it in that the quantum vacuum is the originator o! temporality.
8atter oes not possess a genuine substantial e0istence since its energy
is !orever being replenishe by the vacuum !luctuations continually
interacting with it1 much in the same manner as a particular spot in a
river is continually replenishe with new waters so that1 as =eraclitus
says1 one cannot step twice into the same place within it. 6his two-way
causal1 symmetrical relationship between mass energy an vacuum
energy within quantum !iel theory remins us o! a similar relationship
between mass an space-time curvature within the theory o! general
relativity: the presence o! mass within a given region o! spacetime
prouces an aitional curvature in this spacetimeV also1 an increase in
the curvature o! a particular region o! spacetime prouces an increase in
the mass o! particles or material boies alreay occupying this region.
"ince spatio-temporal variations in the energy ensity o! the vacuum
energy !iel are correlate with variations in spacetime curvature1 we
might suppose that some sort o! con!ormal mapping relationship obtains
between the ratio o! real particle to virtual particle energy ensities an
the egree o! mutual inclination o! the time an space a0es C o! the
8inKowsKi light cone D to one another. 6his relationship is also
suggeste by the !act that real particles are virtual particles which have
been promote to the level o! real e0istence through the absorption o!
energyV particles are e0citations o! the vacuum state which is itsel! a
reservoir or sea o! virtual particles. /lso1 through the application 8achGs
!ormula !or the spee o! soun to this vacuum energy reservoir1 we see
that such a con!ormal mapping relationship between ;insteinian space-
time curvature an spatial-temporal variations in the zero-point energy
o! the vacuum Cor1 alternatively1 its energy ensityD must involve
mappings between the hypersoli angle swept out by the light line in
!our-imensional C8inKowsKi D spacetime1 an the energy ensity Cor
pressureD o! the vacuum.
Fe must istinguish between evolutionGs creative an its critical
!aculties. /aptation is not the purpose o! evolutionV it is the trial an
error critical process which evolution is sub5ecte to by the contingent
environmental conitions within which it !ins itsel! operating.
:arwinian natural selection is merely a critical processV it is not in any
way a creative process1 in an o! itsel!. @atural selection merely
structures1 channels or !ilters the creative suggestions mae to itV it plays
no role whatever in the !unamental ynamism riving biological
evolutionV natural selection is merely the set o! bounary conitions
within which the ynamism o! evolution !unctions1 perhaps in the sense
o! ?ergsonGs elan vital. =ere again1 we have an e0ample o! how
bounary an initial conitions are essentially separable !rom the
ynamisms which they conscribe. "imilar remarKs were mae regaring
the process o! technological avancement1 which was viewe as a
progression in sophistication in imposing initial an bounary conitions
upon the invariant an unitary ynamism o! @ature. Fe Know that
natural selection is not able to operate unless sel!-reproucing
in!ormation-bearing structures are alreay in e0istenceV moreover1
natural selection has little opportunity to mol these sel!-reproucing
structures into more comple0 !orms unless it can pro!it !rom the creative
suggestions mae to it through the operation o! ranom mutations1
themselves useless i! they cannot be passe on to !uture o!!spring. "o it
is also necessary that something analogous to a genetic coe be
containe within these sel!-reproucing structures1 themselves the
e0pression o! the in!ormation containe within this genetic coe.
6he problem1 then1 with :arwinism1 or its moern erivative1 neo-
:arwinism1 is that a great eal o! evolutionary evelopment must have
alreay occurre1 in the !orm o! so-calle chemical evolution prior to the
appearance o! the !irst sel!-reproucing1 in!ormation-bearing1
in!ormation e0pressing structures1 be!ore the istinctly :arwinian
process o! natural selection o! ranom mutations is permitte to begin.
"o the creative ynamism1 spoKen o! previously1 is to be ienti!ie with
that ynamism lying behin the prebiotic process o! chemical evolution1
a process which oes not halt its operation once the :arwinian process
o! evolution commences1 but which continues han in han with natural
selection1 an1 moreover1 maintaining its central role as the motivating
ynamism in the evolution o! progressively more comple0 !orms o! li!e.
6he sub5ective EH am1E which is 5ust the iniviualGs personal
consciousness1 epenent upon the ob5ective worl outsie itsel!1 is not
to be con!use with the ob5ective EH /81E Csee
au=
@isargaatta 8ahara5_s
?ooK1
cit=
I *2 T<*TD1 which is the one an unique sel!-e0istent
3onsciousness which is the source o! all iniviual sub5ective
consciousnesses.
>uly 2)*$
Puantum ecoherence prevents the collapse o! the causal chain
an thus allows the operation o! temporality. Hn a subtly analogous way1
quantum ecoherence also prevents the reuction o! the higher pleasures
o! li!e such as spiritual or intellectual pleasures to mere utilitarian
calculate suns o! small quantities o! irect stimulation o! the homini
apeGs brainGs pleasure center.
Hn short quantum ecoherence introuces 5ust enough o! 5ust the right
compartmental-ization o! e0perience ib orer to prevent the annihilation
o! spiritual potentiality which is borne o! the totalization o! e0perience
as reprocesse stimulus-response. "hannon in!ormation with its notion
o! in!ormation being equivalent to a reuction in uncertainty oes not
taKe into account the notion o! the conte0t sensitivity o! in!ormation

Aeuctionism issolves into the inherent !uzziness o! space-time
ictate by the =eisenberg uncertainty principle. Ht is clear to me
intuitively that this !uzziness is ynamic an it !orms the substrate o! the
very operation o! min. 3onsciousness as such may well be more
!unamental than this !uzziness an maybe a present natural
ine!atigable restlessness o! this consciousness. Fhat eastern mystics
term Gthe play o! .ilaG. Hn this case the in!inite regress is not a reuctio
a absurum. Ht is rather the inevitable nature o! being.

/ll : Aussell 3larK
:ate : )%/)2/2)*$ )N:'':$$ /
6he magnitue o! gravitational !iel intensity is Wceteris paribusW
correlate with the strength o! gravitational time ilation CweaK !iel
appro0imationD1 but is also thought to rive1 in part at least1 quantum
ecoherence1 itsel! a temporal process. Puantum ecoherence appears
the only temporal process currently Known to science whose rate is not
sub5ect to gravitational time ilation in the same uni!orm manner as
inee are all other Known temporal CphysicalD processes. 6his suggests
that the mechanism unerlying quantum ecoherence may be among the
builing blocKs o! the mechanism o! gravitation. 6he iscovery o! any
remaining builing blocKs o! this mechanism perhaps have to await the
ienti!ication o! !urther nonuni!ormities in the response o! speci!ic
physical processes to the e!!ects o! gravitational time ilation. @ow i!
Wper impossibleW lol some !orm o! ualism turne out to be the case1
then we might anticipate some new !orm o! eep space sicKness in the
!orm o! a Kin o! insiious an cumulative impairement o! normal
mental !unctioning e0perience by astronauts uring long voyages in
zero gee or arti!icial gravity1 say via nonuni!orm alteration in tubulin
imer ecoherence in relation to the temporal evolution o! brain
quantum coherent states an this on account o! the two!ol i!!erential
action o! gravitational time ilation upon quantum brain coherent an
ecoherent processes1 hereto!ore unseen by the processes o! natural
selection which originally !ashione anb astronautGs homoni apeGs
brain.

.ustra 8eia metamorphosis intelligent esign <ou6ube vieo.

3onstraints problem in engineering.

7unctuate ;quilibrium

:over1 7ennsylvania 2))' school boar hearing

/ll : Aussell 3larK
:ate : )%/*2/2)*$ )%:($:)& /8
6he magnitue o! gravitational !iel intensity is Wceteris paribusW
correlate with the strength o! gravitational time ilation CweaK !iel
appro0imationD1 but is also thought to rive1 in part at least1 quantum
ecoherence1 itsel! a temporal process. Puantum ecoherence appears
the only temporal process currently Known to science whose rate is
not sub5ect to gravitational time ilation in the same uni!orm manner
as inee are all other Known temporal CphysicalD processes. 6his
suggests that the mechanism unerlying quantum ecoherence may
be mong the builing blocKs o! the mechanism o! gravitation. 6he
iscovery o! any remaining builing blocKs o! this mechanism
perhaps have to await the ienti!ication o! !urther nonuni!ormities in
the response o! speci!ic physical processes to the e!!ects o!
gravitational time ilation. @ow i! Wper impossibleW lol some !orm o!
ualism turne out to be the case1 then we might anticipate some new
!orm o! eep space sicKness in the !orm o! a Kin o! insiious an
cumulative impairement o! normal mental !unctioning e0perience by
astronauts uring long voyages in zero gee or arti!icial gravity1 say via
nonuni!orm alteration in tubulin imer ecoherence in relation to the
temporal evolution o! brain quantum coherent states an this on
account o! the two!ol i!!erential action o! gravitational time ilation
upon quantum brain coherent an ecoherent processes1 hereto!ore
unseen by the processes o! natural selection which originally
!ashione an astronautGs homoni apeGs brain.
RH also realise1 a!ter H ha !inishe the booK1 that H ha stolen its central ieaU
o! min parasitesU!rom a science !iction story H once rea. Hn this story1 the
!irst man to travel to 8ars suenly has an e0perience o! some strange creature
wrenching itsel! out o! his min1 an hurling itsel! bacK screaming towars the
earth1 which is its home. ,n!ortunately1 this story ene1 in the rather fsmart_
manner so characteristic o! pulp science !iction1 with the man laning on 8ars1
an immeiately being possesse again by the same parasitesS1 c.!.1 The 2in
4arasites =>?VNA.
9ctober 2)*$
Lime Cat
!cbK=
?ecause o! what is clearly some Kin o! quantum resonant tuning between in!ormation
laen !unamental quantum !iels Cquantum vacuaD an the brainGs microtubule tubulin imer networK1 which
provies the meaning !or neural events an processes Callowing humans the gi!t or curse o! sel!-consciousnessD an
because it is !ar more liKely that this EtuningE is initiate !rom the sie o! the !unamental quantum !iels Cwhich are
eternalD rather than !rom the sie o! otherwise haphazarly evolving brain circuits Cwhich is merely a transitory
evolutionary evelopmentD1 an so it is also !ar more liKely that we ourselves are the min parasites1 who have
temporarily an opportunistically taKen up resience within the primitive homini apeGs brain Can in so oing1
changing the irection o! natural selective pressures a!!ecting homini brain evolutionD1 than that we are evolve
hominis who have un!ortunately been in!ecte by sai Emin parasitesE. /nother theory is that Econsciousness as
suchE is to be equate with the eternal1 !unamental quantum !iel1 while Esel!-consciousnessE is merely ue to the
transitory coherent resonance o! the iniviual human brainGs microtubule tubulin imer networK with an e0tremely
tiny compatible sub-spectrum o! the total quantum vacuum electromagnetic !iel. Lime Cat 9! course1 the total
!unamental quantum !iel is moi!ie via quantum entanglements inuce over many thousans o! years !rom the
collective conscious neural activity o! billions o! homini brains. /n it is a well establishe result o! quantum
mechanics that quantum in!ormation Csuch as is encoe in quantum entanglementD is a conserve quantity. "o this
unerlying !unamental quantum !iel possesses the potential to act as a Kin o! EaKashic recorE in which the
e0perience o! all conscious entities can be mashe together an reprocesse into broaer1 transpersonal meanings1 as
though occurring within a ynamic matri0 o! store in!ormation1 which can be accesse by something altogether
other than human. "o what o you thinK about the possibility that we are the min parasites? Fe give humans the
gi!t o! consciousness an they give us the gi!t o! emboie e0perience in return.
9ctober 2)*$ !cbK=Cto @aomi >aKinsD
3olin Filson inGt come up with the iea !or the booK entirely out o! a vacuum. Fell1 yes1 he
was in!luence by -orbien 7lanet an that 8artian "cience -iction "tory1 but also1 he actually i notice this
strange upsurge in the number o! E9utsiersE an in the number o! suicies. =e thought those two statistics were
connecte1 which also contribute to his conceiving o! the storyline. /lso the simultaneous arising o! the Aomantic
8ovement an the Hnustrial revolution.

Foul it be coinciental i! the rarer mutations represente the aition
o! larger amounts o! in!ormation. 9r evience o! gracious
in!rastructure?

8utation rate1 population size1 wait times1 generation1 population
genetics1 compute1 Rnot enough timeS

@ew theories o! evolution. G"ame problemG

/t no time in the past i a blanK sugar phosphate molecule get !ille in
with nucleotie bases on both sies simultaneously.

.yell - structures in the past built by causal processes currently in
operation.

=armonics o! ecoherence times1 -ourier analysis an multiimensional
time. -ailure o! time scale reuctionism an the transcenence o!
causal eterminism.

8utation rate population size wait tines generation population genetics
compute Gnot enough timeG

9ntological argument reevaluate in light o! the transcenent causality
o! the big bang.

:oes the universe really reverse time play bacK to a single point i!
inee it is not gravitationally close?

9riginCsD o! 9rganismal -orm

:ecoherence !orces the !unamental units o! physical reality to be
conte0t-sensitive. 6he metaphysical implications o! this are potentially
astouning.

;ither the !unamental units o! physical reality are conte0t-sensitive or
they o not e0ist. H! they are not conte0t-sensitive1 then it is as though
there is no conte0t. "o meaning coul never come into being !or
systems o! conte0t-insensitive components1 regarless o! the abstract
comple0ity o! the system. 6his remins me o! being in the absence o!
universal min.

"uch is the case i! the unit o! being is in!ormation. 8in as the author
o! in!ormation rather than its erivative becomes automatically
transcenent.

G.ibet et al. e0tene their e0periments by stimulating a Grelay nucleusG in
the thalamus that intercepts signals !rom the senses be!ore they reach the
somatosensory corte0. Ht was !oun that when this nucleus was
stimulate !or ).' secons the sub5ects reporte that the stimulus
occurre ).2 secons a!ter it ha begun. Fhen the nucleus was
stimulate !or less than ).' secons the sub5ects i not report any
sensation. 6his supports the concept o! a ).' secon elay whilst the
corte0 puts a stimulus in conte0t be!ore it is e0perience.
6hese e0periments show that our e0perience is an output o! cortical
processing rather than the processing itsel!.G
8ore recently !8AH an irect electroe recoring have borne out the
reainess potential e0periments. "oon et al. C2))ND allowe sub5ects to
ecie to press either a le!t or right button. 6hey use !8AH to show that
there was spatially organize activity in the polar !rontal corte0 an
parietal corte0 C!rom precuneus into posterior cingulate corte0D that
preicte the conscious le!t/right ecision an precee it by about
seven secons.

Hn the absence o! a concept o! consciousness there must be a egeneracy
between the seemingly istinct cases o! consciousness being a one or
being a many. /lso a egeneracy between being reincarnate an
having only one incarnation.

-unctional integration1 constraints problem.

7reprogramme aaptive capability o! cells1 >ames "hapiro1 natural
genetic engineering1 molecular bioogists1 ,niversity o! 3hicago.

Hllustra 8eia metamorphosis intelligent esign <ou6ube vieo.

6he !unctional essence o! the concept o! substance is topology.

8anGs empirical. science in its entirety has thus !ar been nothing more
than the poKing an proing o! a relational atabase at its !ront en1
while manGs theoretical science is constitute by little more than clever
guessworK at the general !eatures o! the atabase query language1 all the
while unaware o! the bacKen to this atabase an hence o! its esigner.
8an must one ay come to a Knowlege o! himsel! as the atabaseGs
programmer. 8y hope is that he shall not taKe this eventual success as
inication that he is also the esigner.

Fho graciously provie the in!rastructure which has enable all o! this
impressive growth? Fe shoul asK ourselves this question in every
conte0t.
Ht is the quite common type o! !antasy1 !requently inulge in by prou
an vain human mortals1 to imagine onesel! in some glorious situation
where one is either vinicate1 suenly elevate in greatness Cor
suenly shown to have been greatD or renere1 usually by oneGs own
e!!orts1 victorious or triumphant over some power!ul aversity or
persecution1 or moreover1 to receive praise an aulation !rom the many
as one speaKs1 per!orms or otherwise acts in a manner which
compellingly isplays ones authority. Fe human beings inulge in this
Kin o! !antasization a great eal when we are chilren1 perhaps more so
when eveloping aolescents1 while some o! us1 upon becoming
Eaults1E ten as we approach mile age to set asie1 eventually
completely1 such obvious puerile sel!-glori!ications o! the imagination.
"ome o! us1 on the other han1 never seem to put such sel!-glorie
imaginings behin us1 espite avancing age an maturity. ;veryone has
either hear o! or re!lecte upon the phenomenon o! sel!ishness
e0hibite in the strong tenency we all have o! seeKing out Cin secret1 o!
courseD !rom a pacK o! !amily photographs1 those particular photos in
which we ourselves appear. ;ventually1 we become aware o! the
implications o! this Kin o! behavior1 which shames us: i! everyone
were to be this sel!-centere1 then there woul be no one le!t to care !or
me as much as Cor more thanD H care !or mysel! an H woul be a sel!ish
person alone in a universe o! sel!ish persons. 9! course1 part o! oneGs
motivation !or thinKing in this way1 perhaps unbeKnownst to onesel!1 is
the Oantian notion o! the 4olen AuleV to wit1 that H must act in such a
manner that H will that my action become a universal moral law. ?ut
what o! the phenomenon where H imagine mysel! being some other
person when H am in the mist o! some pro!oun or eeply moving
aesthetic or intellectual e0perienceV H imagine what this e0perience
woul be liKe !or this other person an somehow the intensity an
woner o! the e0perience is ampli!ie !or me1 mysel!1 through this
psychological pro5ection. 7art o! the augmentation o! the aesthetic
e0perience !or me is the sense o! personal1 i! partly isemboie glory
which reouns to my sense o! ientity because it is H who am leaing
this person1 in my minGs eye1 to the unaccustome though !uller
appreciation o! this e0perience. 7artly again1 the e0perience is1 !or me1
augmente because H borrow the otherGs innocence1 using it as a !oil
against which the e0perience may be reiscovere by me in all its
aboriginal woner. 8oreover1 H act as this personGs spiritual mentorV H
help this person penetrate a mystery which H have long ago iscovere
!or mysel!1 an i! this other person is ultimately ienti!ie with my own
sel!V this is implie because all o! these pro5ections occur within my
minGs eye1 then H seeK to view mysel! as the !ather o! my own !uture
spiritual an intellectual evelopment.
?ut on a more basic human level1 H am imagining the sharing o! a
pro!oun iea or e0perience with another person in a way which is
selom1 i! ever emonstrate in actual social intercourse with my !ellow
human beingsV certainly it is love which motivates this peculiar
psychological pro5ection - the Kin o! love which oes not istinguish
sel! !rom other.
H have no acquaintance with either physical ob5ects so-calle nor with
any phenomena taKing place within the omain o! other minsV in !act1 H
have ha no acquaintance with any phenomena whatever other than
those pertaining to my own psychological states1 states which are
presumably closely relate to the concerte electrochemical activity o!
my billions o! cortical neurons. 3onsequently1 H am !orce to accept the
e0istence o! physical ob5ects an other mins purely on a !aith borne o!
appearances1 which might be easily e0plaine numerous other ways than
those1 which seem to be ictate by what is calle Ecommon sense.E H
wish to remarK here that i! an omniscient Cnot to mention omnipotentD
4o !ails to e0ist who is1 by the way1 the only possible vouchsa!e !or the
e0istence o! an ob5ective worl containing other consciousness_s than
my own1 then there is absolutely nothing staning in the way o! my
rawing the less than com!orting conclusion that H alone e0ist1 i.e.1
"olipsism is the metaphysical truth1 an moreover1 there is absolutely
nothing staning in the way o! my concluing that H1 mysel!1 am
ultimately responsible !or all the phenomena which H have e0perience
or ever will e0perience an that 4o oes inee e0ist an that H am
=im. ?ut o! course1 H wholeheartely re5ect such a preposterous
conclusion: solipsism is a thesis1 which H must re5ect out o! han an
with it the proposition that 4o oes not e0ist. Fhat H have 5ust state
above is by no means a rational proo! o! the e0istence o! 4o. ?ut it is
an argument1 which re!lects the inner logic o! the whole o! my being in
its ineluctable a!!irmation o! =is e0istence !rom which H have not the
strength to epart. 6he very structure o! language contains within itsel!
the subtle presupposition that all human beings possess the belie!1
whether they
Qd
consciously realize it or not1 that the sum total of
possible 'nowlege is integral. ?ut this hypothesis about the inherently
integral nature o! Knowlege implies1 in turn1 the e0istence o! a unitary
repository !or this sum o! Knowlege L one that is by its very nature
Cbecause 'nowlege cannot be 7static8D1 which is to say1 a universal
min or intellect. Ht occurs to me that all true mysteries are intimately
connecte an intertwine with one anotherV to !in the solution to only
one o! these mysteries woul mean having !oun the answer to all1 since
in the case o! solving either it was necessary to trace bacK to the same
common origin.
>ust listing some e0amples may succee in illustrating to oneGs eeper
intuition that this must be true: a !ew o! these mysteries are that o!
e0istence itsel!1 the origin o! consciousness1 !reeom o! the will1 the
mystery o! 6ime an along with it that o! eternity1 the mystery o!
immortality an that o! ivinity. / bright young chil may agree with
this observation1 remarKing1 Ewell1 4o e0ists an =e Knows the answer
to all things.E ?ut it really oes seem that the contemplation o! any one
o! these mysteries inevitably leas to the contemplation o! all the others
as well as some which H havenGt mentione1 an one may asK1 Rwhy
might this be so?E 8ost iniviuals are totally incapable o! what is
calle luci reaming1 reaming where the reamer remains aware that it
is he who is in control o! all the action o! the ream. -reuGs octrine o!
the conservation o! psychic energy suggests that the control o! the ream
action is meiate by the omain o! the psyche lying between !ull
consciousness an the level o! consciousness at which the reamerGs
min operates so that the action o! the ream must issolve upon the
reamer attaining his !ull consciousness because the intermeiary
omain o! consciousness which controls the ream is reuce to nil or
Esqueeze out.E /n analogy will serve here. / river may not rise to an
altitue greater than that o! its source1 at which level its Kinetic energy is
completely transmute into potential energy. Ht might there!ore be
thought that only those iniviuals who e0perience repression o! their
normal !ull consciousness woul be capable o! Eluci reamingE as the
control o! the ream action woul be meiate by the consciousness
within the omain between the iniviualGs represse consciousness an
his normal potentially !ull consciousnessV this is 5ust a slightly more
abstract way o! saying that the psychic energy which is usually
unavailable !or utilization by the conscious min is !ree up uring the
unconsciousness o! sleep an renere available to the unconscious !or
use in meiating the phantasmagorical action o! the various ream
sequences1 themselves1 accoring to -reu1 the acting out o! wish
!ul!illments. 6he upshot o! all this is that the presence o! luci
reaming is a possible inication that the iniviual e0periencing it is
not reaching his normal psychic potential !or !ull waKe!ul consciousness
an that the reason !or this is a e!icit o! available psychic energy ue to
the presence o! myria emotional con!licts lying represse within his
unconscious min. 7sychic energy is boun up !or use in maintaining a
compartmentalization o! early e0periences represse !rom conscious
recollection. 6here is no reason uring the unconsciousness o! sleep !or
this psychic energy to continue to be iverte to man the e!enses
against the recollection o! early chilhoo e0periences by the now inert1
anaesthetize ego1 an so this psychic energy suenly becomes
available uring eep sleep.
@ovember *22&
H have !requently ha the e0perience o! a renewe !i0ation
upon some person1 usually a !ormer love-interest1 lasting !rom hours to
perhaps an entire 2(-hour perio1 whenever H ha reame about the
person on the previous night. 7erhaps the remobilization o! repressive
psychic e!enses taKes a characteristic time o! several hours a!ter these
e!enses have been rela0e uring reaming. Aepresse wish-
!ul!illment !antasies may sometimes mani!est themselves as E!alse
memories.E 6he only way that one Knows these memories to be !alse is
through their !ailure to cohere with other well-establishe parts o! oneGs
biography1 parts which one has memories o! having previously
recollecte at numerous i!!erent times throughout oneGs past. 9ne oes
not possess memories o! having recollecte the !alse memories at any
time in the past so that they are not Ewoven intoE oneGs biographic
atabase1 as it were. 6hese !alse memories o have1 however1 the
compelling tinge o! having actually happene in the !orm o! a very
iiosyncratic !eeling associate with them which is perhaps merely the
more or less requisite viviness o! a legitimate recollection. Hn orer !or
the categories o! ?eing an non-?eing to be o! an absolute nature1 the
ineterminate or in!inite must possess a structure so that nothing
containe within it may possess a e!inition as such. ?ut this is
precisely what the ineterminate oes not amit. Aeality is both
bottomless an without a eterminate ape0. Aeality is1 in other wors1
bounless an this is what gives it its !unamental1 which is to say1
irreucible temporality.
/pril *22%
6his is ;ternity bringing !orth 6ime. 6here!ore1 all categorical
istinctions are transcene by Aeality1 incluing that o! ?eing an non-
?eing. ;0istence is then a genuine preicate1 but not an absolute one.
4iven any omain there is1 inee1 a most per!ect being1 but per!ection
is now merely relative an there is no /bsolute 7er!ection. 6here is1
however1 that which transcens any possible relative per!ection an this
is the eternally pre-e0istent1 bounless Hneterminate in which unlimite
possibilities e0ist in potentia.
Puantum 8echanics veri!ies the ol "cholastic metaphysical
unerstaning o! all change or ?ecoming as occurring ue to a e!icit o!
?eing: all real physical processes are meiate via virtual processesV
these virtual processes possess by e!inition an energy smaller than the
energy uncertainty o! the quantum mechanical system which is
comprise by the real processes meiate by them. 6he total energy
uncertainty o! a quantum mechanical system is1 by the way1 relative to
the re!erence !rame within which the system is Eviewe1E an there!ore
i!!erences in the vacuumGs zero-point energy re!lect changes in our
!rame o! motion - in the sense provie by relativity. 8ore speci!ically1
.orenz contractions occur not only to the eigenvalues o! length1 but also
to the quantum uncertainties o! length. "imilar statements may be mae
with respect to momentum1 energy1 time1 etc.. 6he unity o! all opposites
cannot itsel! possess an opposite.
/pril *22%
:uality arises out o! that which is itsel! @onual. 6he basis o!
ientity which transcens abstract escription is that o! continuity1
substantial continuity. 6his is where substance is the concrete meium
!rom which all !orms are generate through abstraction which is
limitation an negation. 6he moern version o! the ?eing versus
?ecoming ichotomy o! the pre-"ocratic philosophers is that o! "pace
an 6ime o! moern physics. Fhereas ?eing an ?ecoming were
thought to be is5oint categories by the 4reeKs1 in moern times1 the
theory o! relativity has shown space an time to have only a separate
e0istence as abstractions epenent upon the !rame o! re!erence o! the
observer within ob5ective spacetime.
Qd
H! through :escartesG categories
o! Aes 3ogitans vs. Aes ;0tensa we relate space to matter an time to
min1 then relativity perhaps points to a unity which transcens this
istinction o! min vs. matter. @ewtonian mechanics e!!ectively
EspatializeE time. 7hysical laws are simply Eescriptions o!1E as
Aussell remins us1 Rhow @ature1 in !act1 behavesVE @ature oes not
EobeyE any such Elaws1E nor is she EgoverneE by them. 6his woul be
to e0plain a process in terms o! the very erivatives or by-proucts
which necessarily presuppose the process allegely Ee0plaineE by them.
/n e0ample o! this !allacy is saying that natural selection Ee0plainsE or
EcausesE evolution. @atural "election cannot even begin to operate until
a genome1 or some such unit o! hereity1 is alreay in e0istence. 6he
question concerning the origins o! li!e an that o! :arwinian evolution
are seemingly quite istinct. 6his is a great an ever growing problem
!or evolution theory as the science o! sel!-organizing comple0ity
continues to evelop. Fe speaK always o! the in!ormation containe
within the genetic coe as being Ee0presse1E either in terms o! the
synthesis o! particular proteins or as control o! the e0pression o! other
genes. <et we never seem to thinK o! the !act that language is two-sieV
in!ormation is not only e0pressible1 that is1 ecoable1 but it is also
encoable. Fithout the interpretive !unction o! min1 in!ormation is
never e0presseV ata are merely transuce !rom one !orm within one
meium into another !orm in another. 3an the !unction o! e0pression be
reversible? 6ransuction seems to !all short o! the creativity o!
e0pression. 6he !unction o! e0pression is not reversible without the
conte0t !or the original encoing1 e0amples o! which are the creation o!
art1 music1 or poetry. Foul we be satis!ie with a concept o!
in!ormation as merely metaata?
/ugust 2)*( !b=
-our RorthogonalS or is5oint omains are implie by the
oppositions: !ermions1 waves1 bosons1 particles because there are two
!unamental ualities in quantum physics1 symmetric vs. antisymmetric
wave!unctions1 i.e.1 !ermions vs. bosons an two !unamentally
complementary states o! the vacuum1 particle vs. wave/!iel.
>anuary *22N
6here are myria meically ocumente cases o! persons in
states o! pro!oun hypothermia having unergone cariac arrest an
e0isting in a state o! clinical eath !or perios o! up to several hours
who1 upon being graually thawe an heate in an emergency
operating room1 revive completely an without e0hibiting any sign o!
brain trauma or loss o! other healthy physiological !unction. 9pen heart
surgery is now per!orme in the !ormer "oviet ,nion upon patients
whose core boy temperatures have been care!ully lowere to 5ust above
!reezing to buy precious aitional hours o! surgical time in cases where
particularly comple0 an li!e-threatening proceures are require. @ow
assuming that the persons who revive are the sel!same iniviuals whose
boies ha been in a state o! clinical eath1 we may conclue that1
whatever is causally necessary to provie the unerlying continuity o!
personal ientity which remains preserve throughout1 must not epen
upon the chemical processes which are signi!icantly impaire or halte
as a result o! a near !reezing core boy temperature. Fe may euce
!rom this that1 although oneGs iniviual consciousness is structure an
shape by the near in!inite number o! electrochemical reactions taKing
place within the brain1 such electrochemical processes are not1
themselves1 responsible !or the !act o! oneGs iniviual consciousness
e0isting. 7erhaps this line o! reasoning appears to beg the question1
since the emphasis place on continuity here presupposes that
consciousness is some Kin o! substance.
/pril *22%
:arwinian evolutionary theory always is oppose to the special
creation theory1 but :arwinian theory oes not really stan in complete
contraiction to the ?iblical creation account because it oes not amit
!low o! in!ormation into the genome1 but only outwar !low in the !orm
o! the genomeGs e0pression as phenotype. ?ut in any in!ormational
system1 elements o not contain in!ormation statically1 but within an
interpretive conte0t1 which implies that the genome represents a ne0us
!or the e0change o! in!ormation between two or more systems1 an so
the :arwinian octrine o! one-way !low o! genetic in!ormation reners
the theory inconsistent an prevents it !rom being in true opposition to
the special creation theory.
/pril *22%
;ncoing is over-etermination. :ecoing is uner-
etermination. =ence1 in a eterministic system1 in which one state o!
the system simply etermines1 an neither over-etermines nor uner-
etermines1 its succeeing state - in such a system neither ecoing nor
encoing is taKing place. Hn!ormation is not a relevant quantity where
strictly eterministic systems are concerne.
6his precise Ee!icit o! ?eingE may only be e!ine in terms o! the
complete escription o! the total processV this escription1 as alreay
note1 e0ists only !or itsel! an cannot be erive !rom without as an
in!inite regress o! escription stans in our way here. Hn this connection
we may state the !unamental principle that Ethe meiator may not be
e!ine in terms o! the total set o! processes which it meiates.E 6his
Ee!icit o! ?eingE o! "cholastic philosophy is e0actly analogous to the
energy uncertainty o! quantum mechanics. H! =egel is correct in saying
that positive entities e0ist only by virtue o! the accumulation o! various
negations o! relations holing between the /bsolute an itsel!1 then each
entity must more or less clearly an istinctly e0hibit the uni!ie totality
o! Aeality in microcosm1 the evelopmental program o! which is
containe in the greater quantity o! in!ormation which is etermine
when a number o! these entities come into con5unction with one another.
-or instance1 the molecular boning o! atoms1 whether it be ionic1
covalent1 or by the weaKer Ian er FaalGs !orce1 cannot be inuce to
occur within a previously speci!ie perio o! time simply through the
manipulation o! the atoms E!rom outsieVE one may only place the atoms
in the appro0imate position whereupon the action o! bon !ormation
ensues through the spontaneous action o! the vacuum electromagnetic
!iel. Hn !act1 the quantum mechanical metho utilize in physical or
quantum chemistry to etermine the various boning probabilities has
nothing whatever to say about which precise con!iguration or shape1 out
o! the many possible con!igurations1 will be !orme as a result or the
spontaneous boning process.
6his !act is reaily seen when one attempts to view the spontaneous
con!ormation o! a enature macromolecule such as a nucleic aci as the
result o! the amino acis o! composing the molecule trying myria
possible i!!erent con!ormations by trial an error until the energetically
!avore Cmost stableD con!ormation is !oun. Hn even relatively small
macromolecules the total number o! possible con!ormations is so
staggeringly large that even i! the components try a i!!erent
con!iguration every *)
-*$
secons Ca very liberal assumptionD the time
require to hit on the EcorrectE con!ormation by chance woul taKe
many orers o! magnitue longer than the present age o! the observable
universeT 6he wave!unction which escribes the total system o!
interacting atoms entering into the boning process is appro0imate as a
prouct o! the iniviual wave!unctions escribing the appro0imate
quantum state o! the atomsV it is only the complete wave!unction which
escribes these atoms as being ine0tricably entangle with the whole
vacuum-energy/ mass-energy matri0 which contains the in!ormation
about the shape o! the resultant molecule1 among other things. @o
iniviual quantum mechanical wave!unction is truly normalizable1
although a large ensemble o! such wave!unctions will approach
normalizability in the limit o! in!inite ensembles. 6here will always
appear to be coupling between the eigenstates o! a wave!unction which
is1 itsel!1 merely an appro0imately e0act wave!unctionV in reality1 there is
only one universal wave!unction1 as its normalizability requires.
6his process is very much aKin to the ecrease o! !uzziness in a
holographic image which occurs on two or more pieces o! a shattere
holographic emulsion when the various pieces are re!itte together. 9n
this view all evelopment o! material systems !rom the simplest
subatomic constituents to the most comple0 living organisms1 consists in
the negation o! negation1 engenere by the con5unctions o! these
constituents which occurs by chance outsie the quantum mechanical
positional Cor lengthD uncertainty o! the constituents1 but which is
actively irecte once they interpenetrate within this uncertainty1 where
they enter into the e!!ective range o! their innate quantum-uncertainty
meiate tenencies towar sel!-organization1 tenencies which are a
mani!estation o! the partially istinct EimageE o! the /bsolute1 i.e.1 the
universal wave!unction1 which each constituent contains in microcosm
within itsel!. ?ecause creation is conceive uner the aspect o! the
negation o! the negation o! conte0tual relateness within the /bsolute1
this negation which is negate being unerstoo as the reuction o!
in!ormation resulting !rom the partial e0pression o! the universal
wave!unction as a prouct o! partial wave!unctions corresponing to
relatively uncertain subatomic constituents1 the problem o! EFhy is
there something rather than nothing?1E is no longer renere insoluble
by the requirement o! e0plaining creation e0 nihilo1 but it is simply
recognize that there has to have always been something or other1 so
what better caniate !or this something than that uni!ie plenum which
is its own escription1 which is per /ristotle its own eternal
contemplationV that entity which
au=
=egel calls the
au=
/bsolute1 an
which we have style Ethe universal wave!unction.E RHn the same way1
the ?uhists e0press the same iea when they call the ultimate reality
sunnyata !or emptiness or voi an a!!irm that it is a living voi which
gives birth to all !orms in the phenomenological worl.S C
au=
3apra1 *2%&D
au=
:r. "cholem1 in his
cit=
6rens in >ewish 8ysticism1 tells us that in any
case1 where there is a transition !rom one state or con!iguration to
another that1 Ethe voi is spanne !or an instant.E
au=
8aame ?lavatsKy
re!ers to evolution as a Espiritual 9pus in reverse1E meaning that the
worl arose through a process o! involution Ca reuction o! the in!inite to
the !initeD1 but containing a vague recollection o! the whole !rom which
it was originally abstracte an which guies its !uture evelopment.
6his !uture evelopment is constitute by the return o! the /bsolute bacK
unto itsel!1 irecte !rom above an hence is a recapitulation o! the
timeless an transcenent within the realm o! the temporal an
immanent. This is to unerstan evolution as the negation of negation.
6o say that Aeality cannot be given a complete escription on account o!
the inevitable pit!all o! in!inite regress is merely to say that1 i! this
escription oes not alreay e0ist1 then it can in no way be constructeV
Qd
there is nothing in what has $ust been sai to prevent a complete
escription of +eality" which has always e6iste. Hn !act1 it is ue to the
lacK o! a complete escription which is responsible !or the e0istence o!
temporality1 c.!.1 !luctuations necessarily associate with a perturbation
theory escription o! the quantum !iel. 6his observation is very much
in the same spirit o! the mathematician
au=
Ourt 4eelGs iscovery that the
notion o! truth is stronger than the notion of provabilityV the !act that a
theorem e0pressible within the symbolic language o! a particular logico-
euctive1 mathematical system may not be constructe !rom the a0ioms
o! its system utilizing the rules o! in!erence o! this system oes not
prevent this theorem !rom Ee0istingE in the sense o! its being true1 i.e.1
RsubsistingS.
"eptember 2)**
Ht is actually the interaction o! the open-ene
sets o! suppresse etails Cthat is1 those concrete etails suppresse that
originally constitute the categories o! abstract thoughtD1 which o the
Rheavy li!tingS on behal! o! creative intelligence an not the categories
themselves. 6he categories1 when wiele C5ust thinK o! tools hereD
merely signal to the unerlying creative groun1 which irection it is to
apply the genius o! colluing evilish etail to which problem1 as well as
conveniently ine0ing the en proucts o! lucubration an so enabling
their inter-sub5ective communication. 9n this view the sociolinguistic
construct o! the sel! is merely the master abstract category1 which is but
one o! the many categories o! thought1 an which serve the real master
that is the will.
?ut one might asK what is the meaning o! mathematical theorems which
are beyon the comprehension o! any !inite min an which are not true
by construction !rom a possible collection o! a0ioms1 but true in some
more !unamental sense. Fittgenstein tells us that we may not use
substantives in a manner which attempts to e0ten the re!erence o! these
terms beyon the scope o! all possible e0perience without !alling into
either meaninglessness or absurity. 6here!ore1 when we asK the
question1 E:oes 4o e0ist?E the most we can possible mean by this
question is1 E:oes 4o e0ist within our space-time continuum?E Fe
cannot asK whether 4o e0ists in Aeality CFirKlichKeitD since Aeality
cannot possess a complete escription without this escription having
always e0iste an without amitting the e0istence o! such a escription1
one necessarily beyon all possible attempts to construct it1 an which
may only e0ist !rom a single point o! view or perspective. "o it seems
that one may not asK whether 4o e0ists in Aeality Cin the sense o!
FirKlichKeit D without presupposing an answer in the a!!irmative1
Qd
because the amission of the e6istence of Cltimate +eality is one an
the same with the amission of /oQs e6istence. Ht is meaning!ul1
however1 to asK this same question in the sense o! Aealitat. 6hat which
has always e0iste1 an its complete escription1 which has always
e0iste must be a part o! this same eternally pre-e0istent Aeality. Ht is
obvious that the escription an the Aeality must be essentially one an
the same entity which is1 who is1 4o. 6he !inite may not be complete
without conitions being speci!ie1 an these speci!ie conitions may
not obtain e0cept within the purview o! a larger conte0t1 containing the
particular !inite thing.
9nly those inepenently occurring genetic mutations may occur at
lower levels in the gene regulatory hierarchy1 i.e.1 to structural genes1
which become integrate together within a member o! an evolving
species which might have possesse a common source in the !orm o!
single mutation to a higher orer regulatory gene1 one which controls the
e0pression o! the original set o! structural genes prior to the occurrence
o! these inepenent mutations. 6he operation o! :arwinian natural
selection presupposes the e0istence o! a gene regulatory hierarchy which
controls not only the e0pression o! iniviual genes1 but more
importantly controls the integration o! the e0pressions o! large numbers
o! genes at the lower levels o! this hierarchy.
6o reiterate1 there has always been something. Fhat better caniate !or
this something than that than which nothing greater can be conceive
Cper /nselmD ? 6his something has no complete escription e0cept
within an through itsel!. 6he only truly eterminate entity is the
totality o! everything which is possible or it is the voi1 as nothingness
is1 by its very nature1 eterminate. Ht has been humorously note that
6ime e0ists so that everything will not happen at once. 4iven this
obvious truth1 then i! Aeality is in!inite in scope1 there is no EeverythingE
!or there to possibly be given or occur all at once. -or the term
EeverythingE presupposes a !inally complete something which is
incompatible with in!initue. "o temporality may be simply necessary
in an in!inite Aeality. 6emporality seems to require that Cper ?ergsonD
genuine novelty continually intrue into the worl. 6he act o! creation
is not an event within historyV it is the beginning o! historyV it is the very
inception o! novelty. ?ergson avocates what might be calle a
8achian theory o! 6ime.
?ut since the continue presence o! temporality seems to require
continual activity o! creation1 it seems more consistent to assume that
creation itsel! is a !unamental process which itsel! ha no beginning1
which was itsel! never create1 that the activity o! creation is that which
has always e0iste an which requires no e0planation other than itsel!.
9n the other han1 however1 it seems that this !unamental process o!
creation cannot be a uni!ie process1 !or otherwise it is an act which
coul have been consummate instantaneously1 once !or all.
6emporality must there!ore be a process o! recapitulation o! timeless
reality with Aeality itsel! as the meium through which the
recapitulation is accomplishe. H! Aeality has a complete escription1 it
is not one which can be constructe1 not one which ha any origin in
time: it is ineterminacy itsel! which is ultimately responsible !or the
e0istence o! temporality itsel!. H! such a complete escription e0ists it
must have always e0iste an the escription an the reality must be one
an the same. 3onsciousness o!!ers itsel! immeiately as a liKely
caniate !or such an ultimate reality since consciousness is its own
representation. H! it is true that consciousness is require in orer to
collapse a quantum mechanical wave!unction into a eterminate
eigenstate1 then consciousness1 i! it ha an origin in time1 must have
arose out the interaction o! uncollapse wave!unctions - it must have
arisen out o! a situation o! in!inite energy uncertainty. 6he velocity o!
light is etermine by the ratio o! real particle energy to virtual particle
energy. =ence1 the elsewhere region o! the 8inKowsKi light cone may be
ienti!ie with that region o! the vacuum which stans in a relation o!
?ell nonlocality to the observer. 6he unity o! the conscious min is no
oubt owing to ?ell-nonlocal connectivity o! neurons within the brain.
H! it is true that there has always been something Cas in the metaphysical
question1 Ewhy is there something rather than nothingED1 out o! which the
,niverse arose1 assuming that this something is not 5ust the ,niverse
itsel!1 then there must not be1 ultimately speaKing1 a universal or all
encompassing1 ongoing process o! either evolution or egraation in the
evelopment o! Aeality. 6his is because by this present time an in!inite
amount o! time must have alreay passe so that
Aeality shoul have either egrae into utter nothingness or reache a
state o! eternally unchanging per!ection an we o not observe the
,niverse to presently occupy either o! these two e0treme states:
temporality coul not e0ist within a universe which erives its e0istence
!rom a groun o! unchanging per!ection C!ullness o! beingDV nor coul
the universe erive its e0istence !rom a groun o! nothingness Ccomplete
egraationD.
:ecember *22&
;volution an evolution are concepts which may only possess
an application locally1 however broaly. Fe now arrive at the
conclusion that Aeality as a whole is neither evolving Cincreasing in
comple0ityD nor is it evolving Cecreasing in comple0ityD so that any
apparent changes in comple0ity in the ,niverse1 e.g.1 biological
evolution1 increasing entropy1 are merely local changes which are on the
whole compensate by opposing processes elsewhere. Fe may thinK o!
causal relationships as obtaining between terms or entities occupying a
plane o! equal levels o! abstraction with the process o! abstraction itsel!
an its opposing process1 that o! concretion1 being processes which o
not amit o! an e0haustively causal analysis. H! it is only possible to
alter the bounary conitions an initial conitions which the ynamism
o! @ature is sub5ect to 1 but not to alter in any way the ynamism itsel!1
then the most avance technologies will amount to nothing more than
having iscovere how to goa @ature into oing1 in the best way she
Knows how1 what she has all along been in the very act o! oing. Ht is
the possibility o! !ormulating recursive propositions an this possibility
alone which allows the omain o! true theorems1 e0pressible within the
language o! a euctive system1 to transcen in magnitue the omain o!
provable theorems1 i.e.1 theorems which may be euce !rom the
a0ioms o! the system through application o! the rules o! in!erence o! the
system. 6here is no comprehensive rule by which a computing evice
may recognize the appearance o! a recursive proposition since
recursiveness is a structure which can only be suggesteV it cannot be
literally state. /ll baryons are compose o! various combinations o!
three i!!erent quarKs out o! the si0 possible i!!erent types o! quarKV the
mesons1 however1 are each compose o! i!!erent quarK pairs !rom
among the si0 !unamental quarK types. 6he !unamental !orce
responsible !or bining together the various quarK combinations out o!
which all baryons an mesons are compose possesses the bizarre
property o! increasing in strength as the istance separating the quarKs
increases.
6he important result o! this is that it is impossible to !ragment these
quarK laen particles into their !unamental constituent quarKs: it is
impossible to prouce a E!ree quarK1E in other wors. 6his is almost as
though the quarK oes not possess a eterminate energy structure e0cept
as it e0ists within groups o! two1 three or possibly larger numbers o!
quarKs. 6he quarK may be an e0ample o! an entity whose ientity is
totally conte0t epenent with the quarK itsel!1 parao0ically1 proviing
the conte0t !or its own etermination as a substantive entity. "uch an
entity might not possess a e!inite energy equivalence in the sense that it
is not possible to etermine the quarKGs energy inepenently o! the
energies associate with the !orce !iels the particle prouces. /n entity
such as the quarK which is e!ine in terms o! the combine e!!ect that it
has upon itsel! Can one or more uplicates o! itsel! D provies us with
the best e0ample to ate o! what might be calle a sel!-e0istent entity.
Puantum nonlocality e!!ects coul govern the superluminal transmission
o! in!ormation between various wiely separate locations within the
brainGs corte0 without proucing a veri!iable violation o! special
relativityGs restriction on superluminal transmission o! in!ormation
between separate mins. 6his woul be possible i! the very same
nonlocality e!!ects are require !or the integration o! the iniviualGs
consciousness as a whole. 6he iea or !lash o! insight woul then be
time-elaye by the necessary time interval involve in conveying this
iea !rom the location in his brain where the crucial integration occurre
to those parts o! his nervous system which picK up this message an in
turn translate it into classically escribe nerve impulses then
responsible !or the ultimate series o! muscle cell contractions require to
transmit the message to the e0ternal worl o! attening observers.
/nother way o! looKing at this Kin o! nonlocality is !or the
nonlocalize quantum e!!ects to be con!ine to a vacuum
energy/in!ormation reservoir1 e0haustively connecte with itsel!
nonlocally1 which is continually tappe into by the neural networK o! the
personGs brain. 6here seems to be nothing to strictly !orbi the e0istence
o! superluminal causal connections between events which lie outsie o!
any observerGs 8inKowsKi light cone.
"ince the common sense view alleges that the past is nothing more than
a !i0e1 crystallize recor o! what has actually occurre within the
present1 it !ollows !rom this view then that a present which has not ha
aequate time within which to resolve its internal contraictions an
ambiguities must retain a certain small egree o! !reeom within which
change might continue even a!ter this moment becomes past. Hn this
way1 bacKwars causality woul be amissible1 i! only !or the purpose o!
Ecleaning upE the Eloose ensE o! still ineterminate entities occupying
past times.
Qd
?ut oesnGt common sense also e!ine the past in such a
manner that it oes not actually become past as such until such a point as
this crystallization process is complete.
>anuary *22N
Fithin the above schema o! EconcreteE temporal evolution1 the
time imension cannot be spatialize an treate analogously to an
aitional imension o! space such as it is treate by the 8inKowsKi
relativistic !ormalism.
Hn other wors1 common sense e!ines the past in such a way that the
time a0is is necessarily orthogonal to the three imensions o! space an
this at every spatial scale1 however smallV it e!ines the past in such a
manner that there is no substantive istinction between past1 present an
!uture1 which is to say1 it e!ines the past as a hal!-in!inite time interval
with its later enpoint being the present moment whose status as present
must be completely arbitrary. Fithin a eterministic time continuum
there is no nonarbitrary basis upon which any particular moment along
the continuum may be chosen over other conteners as being actually
present.
>anuary *22N
6he !irst orer appro0imate escription o! the !irst orer
perturbations to a given quantum mechanical system may be evaluate
in terms o! the iscrepancy between the systemGs !irst orer an its
secon orer perturbation escription. 6he true nature o! the
perturbations o! the system to which entirely owes its genuine
temporality1 cannot be unerstoo with respect to any possible common
escriptive enominator which these perturbations may be thought to
have with the !ormal elements o! the !irst or1 !or that matter1 any higher
orer perturbative escriptions o! the system. Hn other wors1 in
absolute terms1 the perturbations to any system cannot be given any
!ormal escription o! representation o! any Kin.
/ natural lawliKe system o! relationships which govern the behavior o! a
given entity may only be !ormulate provie that this entity is not
unique C provie that multiple uplicates o! the entity e0ist an are
available D as in the case o! subatomic particles1 e.g.1 an electron.
>anuary *22N
9therwise1 there is not ob5ective means o! istinguishing
epenent !rom inepenent variables o! the system.
/s observe by
au=
>acques 8ono in
cit=
3hance an @ecessity1 E"cience
can neither say nor o anything about a unique occurrence. Ht can only
consier occurrences that !orm a class1 whose a priori probability1
however !aint1 is yet e!inite.E
Fe note here that a eterminate occurrence merely constitutes a special
case o! a e!inite probability1 namely1 that o! unity. 3onsequently1 i! a
probability o! unity !or a particular occurrence emans that this
occurrence be containe within a !inite number which altogether !orm a
close system o! possible occurrences1 then equally oes so a e!inite
probability !or this1 or any other1 occurrence within the sel! same
system. Ht is oubt!ul whether the probabilities o! EmaterialE events can
change ue to isturbances o! the system !rom outsie which leave these
events unchange as iscrete entities. -or the sensitivity o! system
elements within open systems !ollows !rom the general nature o! opens
systems as not being themselves constitute !rom close systems. 6o
wit1 aitivity an commutatability1 which are mani!estations o! system
reversibility1 o not obtain within open systems.
6he meaning o! iscursive symbols must be completely arbitrary i! these
symbols are to be interpretable1 i.e.1 i! they are to be ata to which
in!ormation can be associate. 6here must be an important istinction to
be rawn between the issemination o! ata an the transmission o!
in!ormation. 6here is not istinction between these two types o!
propagation o! in!luence i! the enpoints are not taKen into account. 6he
transmission o! ata !rom point / to point ? is merely an arbitrary linK
within a larger arbitrary linK connecting point /G to point ?G o! the longer
path containing path /?. /n the smaller path1 /?1 is arbitrary because
it e0ists only through the arbitrary abstraction o! it !rom the larger path
/G?G. Hn other wors1 there is no reason !or consiering the path /? than
that o! arbitrary choice. 6here is no eterminate relationship between
ata an in!ormation because they o not e0ist at the same level o!
abstraction. 6his woul presuppose1 however1 that ata an in!ormation1
are only i!!erent1 generally speaKing1 in a relative sense1 i.e.1 relative to
the level o! abstraction.
6he quest !or the Etheory o! everythingE is there!ore oome to ultimate
!ailure1 since what we call EeverythingE is necessarily unique1 an this
uniqueness prevents us !rom separating those EvariablesE which are
particular to the thing itsel! !rom those which owe in part to our
investigatory involvement with this thing. 6he sel!1 in the act o!
investigating ultimate reality1 must be inclue within the ynamic o!
the reality !or which we are seeKing a complete escription. 6his
inherent recursiveness which lies at the heart o! any earnest attempt to
evelop a complete escription o! reality is alone responsible !or the !act
that the omain o! truth necessarily transcens the sum o! Knowlege
comprising any point o! view Co! realityD.
Puantum 8echanics tells us that a close ynamical system may only
unergo temporal evolution provie that a certain energy uncertainty
e0ists within the system. 6his energy uncertainty is 5ust the stanar
eviation o! the energy about its mean or e0pectation value. 6his energy
uncertainty may be interprete in terms o! a time-average sum o!
ranom energy perturbations to the system E!rom outsieE the system.
6he phase o! the isolate quantum system !ormally unergoes temporal
evolution1 but there is no physical meaning to be attache to an absolute
phase. Ht is only when another system is brought into interaction with
the !irst system o we get temporal evolution o! relative phases o! the
two systems which possess measurable an observable e!!ects. H! these
energy perturbations1 or some component o! them are not removable1 are
not merely the arti!acts o! our inaequate perturbative analyses o!
quantum systems1 but are ontologically real1 then the in!inity1 an
perhaps the in!inite imensionality1 o! the worl logically !ollow.
6hese ranom energy perturbations mani!est themselves in the !orm o!
energy e0changes between the quantum mechanical system an the sea
o! virtual particles in which this system is embee. 6he interaction o!
these virtual particles with the quantum mechanical system are
responsible !or virtual transitions o! the quantum state o! the system to
other quantum states. 6he only real energy transitions available to the
quantum mechanical CynamicalD system are those !rom amongst the set
o! virtual energy transitions which are continually occurring within the
time interval speci!ie by the systemGs time uncertainty. 6he ensity o!
this virtual particle energy sea has a irect bearing upon the rate o!
temporal evolution o! any given quantum mechanical system.
9ur central hypothesis is that the presence o! matter has a perturbing
e!!ect upon this virtual particle energy sea1 i.e.1 the quantum vacuum
!iel1 an this perturbing e!!ect is1 namely1 to ecrease the overall
ensity o! this vacuum energy which results in a similar ecrease in the
time rate o! change o! all physical processes within the spatial volume
occupie by this matter. 6his propose vacuum mechanism is e0actly
similar to the mechanism by which a quantum resonant cavity ecreases
the rate o! spontaneous emission o! Gcavity - etuneG photons by a
Ayberg e0cite atom. 6he resonant cavity achieves this by e0cluing
most o! the photons o! hal!-wavelength larger than the cavity iameter:
to wit1 it oes this by ecreasing the energy ensity o! vacuum
electromagnetic !iel !luctuations o! roughly the same energy as that o!
the suppresse atomic energy transitions.
4iven this inherent circularity in the nature o! technological growth1 it
!ollows that the ultimate constituents o! the Forl must be wholly
recursive: they must be their own symbolic representations. H! a
Econscious computerE is ever evelope in what will unoubtely be the
!ar istant !uture1 this mysterious property o! such a evice will in no
way stem solely !rom the esign or blueprint by which its engineers will
have conceive its constructionV the blueprint will1 o! course1 be a
necessary component in the realization o! such a conscious machine1 but
will have been erive !rom a necessarily somewhat !ortuitous
iscovery1 owing to much trial an error investigation1 o! the EcorrectE
harware inter!ace o! the evice with the recursive1 sel!-organizing
matri0 o! quantum - vacuum energy !luctuations which unerpin an
meiate the stability o! all !unamental particles an their e0change
!orces. 9nly in appropriate ynamic con5unction with this !luctuating
energy matri0 will any realization o! a harware esign possess the
topological energy structure su!!icient to tap the pre-e0isting
Econsciousness potentialE o! spacetime. Hn other wors1 it is only the
grace o! AealityGs !unamental ynamism which will permit the eventual
construction o! a so-calle conscious computing evice.
6his empirical iscovery o! the correct inter!ace esign will mani!est
itsel! perhaps uring a testing phase where a long series o! simulate
sensory inputs1 o! increasing comple0ity1 are in the process o! being !e
into the evice while its output signals CresponsesD are being closely
monitore. 6he memory meium o! the evice will begin to accumulate
store or remembere inputs which it has never receive through its
various sensory apparatus. Hentical sets or series o! inputs will prouce
signi!icantly i!!erent series o! outputs both !rom an iniviual machine
over time as well as !rom i!!erent machines at the same time - even i!
these machines possess ientical esigns. 9ccasionally1 raically
i!!erent series or sets o! inputs will prouce ientical sets o! outputs. /
signi!icant portion o! the !unctional relationship between output an
input will epen upon changes in energy in the internal components o!
the machineGs harware which are1 themselves1 smaller than the overall
quantum energy uncertainty o! the evice as a whole. 8oreover1 no
mutually orthogonal set o! eigen!unctions will escribe the E!unctioning
componentsE o! the evice. 6his is why we have been saying that the
abstract spatial structure o! our hypothetical computing evice is non-
topological. 3learly1 any realization o! a static blueprint !or a computing
evice1 regarless how comple01 in the !orm or an ynamically
!unctioning prototype1 will itsel! be merely a topologically-preserving
trans!ormation o! the blueprint !rom 2 or perhaps $ spatial imensions to
( spatial imensions rather than the topology-non-preserving
trans!ormation !rom $ spatial to ( imensions o! $ space an * time.
6his is because the state space o! the transcribe structure1 i.e.1 the
esign1 can be aequately escribe in spatial terms. Hn a very real
sense1 an ob5ect may not be thought to possess an internality unless it
possess a genuine EoutsieE in the sense o! a raically open system - a
system which cannot be containe within a close systemV a system is
EcloseE only i! it is !inite an neither receives nor transmits energy to or
!rom any system e0cept itsel!. "uch a close system possesses no
Eoutsie.E
3ontingent uniqueness versus necessary uniqueness. 6he size o! the
,niverse an the blacK hole mass limit as important parameters in
etermining the ensity o! the quantum vacuum energy.
6he asymmetrical nature o! time perhaps has some bearing on the
hierarchical structuring o! comple0 macromolecules. 6he !act that a
molecule has been !orme !rom a set o! simpler constituents oes not
guarantee that it can then be ecompose bacK into this set o!
constituents. "imilarly1 the !act that a molecule has been broKen own
into a set o! simpler constituents oes not guarantee that it can be
spontaneously recompose !rom this sel!same set o! constituents.
7erhaps the asymmetrical nature o! temporality implies that any
su!!iciently large set o! macromolecules may be partitione into two
is5oint partsV those molecules possessing a bottom - up structure an
those possessing a top - own structure. 6his istinction which H am
rawing is not a soli theoretical oneV it is a pragmatic istinction which
assumes that status o! a theoretical istinction when we re!er to
molecules occupying either e0treme en o! the probability spectrum C in
terms o! their ability to !orm EnaturallyE !rom simpler parts D. Fill may
only be e!ine in terms o! a ErationalE orer !oreign to itsel! which it
resists or subverts. Fill is the e0ternal mani!estation o! consciousness.
Fill is a principle o! incommensurate causation. 6he set o! lawliKe
relations which may be sai to govern FillGs operation are unique an
irreproucible. Aational orer is simply that orer which can be mae to
mani!est its lawliKe relations in a reproucible manner. 6here is no nee
to invoKe a temporal escription o! this state space - the only reason one
woul attempt it is because we pro5ect our genuine temporality onto the
minGs eye realization o! the computing evice in its act o!
E!unctioning.E =enri ?ergson1 in his essay1 6ime in the =istory o!
Festern 7hilosophy1 complaine o! a con!usion which inevitably
croppe up whenever metaphysicians attempte to analyze the problem
o! motion. Fith a Kin o! gentle contempt he escribe the !rustration
o! these philosophers in trying to reconstruct linear motion !rom in!inite
series o! EimmobilitiesE1 i.e.1 !i0e points o! in!initesimal length.
=e e0plaine their !ailure as being ue to their ignorance o! the nature o!
a linear interval as a mere pro5ection o! Emobility onto immobility.E 6his
pro5ection1 naturally as such1 oes not capture the whole phenomenon1
but merely a point o! view with respect to it out o! an in!inity o! equally
vali points o! view1 an so !rom a single pro5ection1 or even a !inite
number o! pro5ections1 one is never permitte to reconstruct the original
ob5ect as it is. 6here are possible bounary conitions which might be
easily place upon the ynamic o! the E!lu0E which are nonetheless
in!initely improbable as EnaturalE occurrences1 which is to say that the
operation o! intelligence is require to institute them. Ht is these
seemingly magical sel! - organizing properties o! matter1 owing to the
recursiveness o! its ultimate Econstituents1E which maKe any attempt to
calculate the EimprobabilityE o! biological macromolecules an
incoherent an meaningless enterprise. "imilar activities are the routine
pastime o! myria scienti!ically incline creationists attacKing evolution.
6he staggeringly large numerical ratios which they cite against the
Echance occurrenceE o! the simplest euKaryote :@/ are calculate upon
a permutational / combinational moeling o! a prebiotic EsoupE in which
chance collisions continually occur between precursor molecules1 e.g.1
pepties1 amino acis1 nucleic acis1 etc. 6he serious problem with such
a moeling approach is that it is not an empirically erive statistical
calculation as in actuarial computations1 where a istinct probability is
assigne to each possible event within a pool1 base on the observe
relative !requencies o! each event1 but is an abstract calculation where
the probabilities are !i0e at the outset an remain unchange
throughout all series o! calculations.
-or e0ample1 there are a vast number o! nucleic aci reactions taKing
place within the ribosome organelle o! every living animal cell which in
the absence o! certain meiating enzymes will taKe place anywhere !rom
2 to 2) orers o! magnitue more slowly than i! these enzymes are
present - the ribosome is responsible !or EtranslatingE the coe
in!ormation o! nucleic acis into various macromolecules CproteinsD an
in so oing e0pressing the genotype o! the eveloping organism. Fe see
!rom this e0ample that the probability o! the occurrence o! various
macromolecules essential to the appearance o! the !irst reproucing1
metabolizing organic units begins in!initesimally small when the
moleculeGs precursors are yet unavailable1 but that this probability grows
by large iscontinuous 5umps each time one o! these precursors1 the
precursorsG precursors1 etc. arise inavertently in the prebiotic EsoupE so
that by the time the e0haustive set o! macromolecular precursors is
present1 the !ormation o! the original macromolecule is virtually assure.
6he ribosome itsel!1 espite its inorinately comple0 structure1 has been
observe uner e0perimental conitions to re!orm spontaneously a!ter
having been issociate within a care!ully prepare enzyme bath into its
precursor polynucleotie constituents - an this within the space o! only
several hoursT Ht is inee true that a countless variety o! i!!erent
enzymes Co! the precisely correct typeD must be simultaneously present
along with the polynucleotie matri0 !or this seemingly magical act o!
spontaneous sel! - organization to occur. 6his is because the sel! -
organization o! such an enormously comple0 organic structure epens1
throughout the entire process1 upon the almost simultaneous
5u0taposition Ccollision is a better termD o! three or more precursor
molecules which all happen to have the e0actly correct spatial
orientation1 with su!!icient Kinetic energy to overcome the activation
energy barrier against the reaction occurring. Ht shoul be note here
that 5ust the chance o! any three compatible molecules C in terms o! a
esire prouct D colliing at once with the roughly correct spatial
orientation is an event with a probability only in!initesimally greater
than zero - let alone the question o! proper activation energies. /n so1
even i! the primorial ;arth possesse the appropriate reucing
atmosphere with oceans chalK !ull o! all o! the require precursor
molecules !or the ribosome to properly !orm1 without the necessary
catalyzing co!actors C the enzymes D there woul not liKely have !orme
a single such structure by this late epoch. 6hen perhaps there must have
been an e0tremely long perio o! time uring which the necessary
enzymes appeare on the scene1 one might thinK. 9ne suspects1 then1 a
similar sel! - organizing process behin the !ormation o! these necessary
enzymes1 the only i!!erence being that the precursors which we are now
concerne with are simpler1 while their precursors must have been
simpler still1 an so on. ?ut the precursor macromolecules !or many
particular enzymes have1 inee1 never been manu!acture Cbecause we
onGt Know how to o itD1 but have to be obtaine !rom more comple0
molecules than themselves1 i! not !rom living or recently living
organisms. 6he theory o! evolution1 chemical evolution in this case1 has
secretly conitione us to believe that there must be some e!inite i!
inorinately comple0 sequence: precursors + co!actors b simpler
precursors + co!actors b etc. leaing bacK to the very simplest organic
molecules which !orm by sel! - organization spontaneously an easily in
a wie variety o! environments an without the nee !or co!actors or
helper molecules o! any Kin1 an that it must have been such a process
Conly in reverseD which ultimately lea to the !irst sel! - reproucing
biological units which coul then be evelope !urther through
:arwinian natural selection.
6he notion o! sel! - organization gives some o! us pause because it
concerns a natural process which sits precisely on the !ence between
what might be calle less - than - sel! - organization1 i.e.1 !ormation !rom
simpler components1 an what is aptly calle greater - than - sel! -
organization1 i.e.1 !ormation !rom more comple0 components - an it is
5ust such a notion which strongly suggests a top - own hierarchy within
the natural orer which can only have intelligence at its ape0. /t every
step in the chain in the !ormation o! higher level precursor molecules1
the meiation o! the require reactions is accomplishe via sel! -
organization principles : those who attempt to calculate the probability
against EchanceE !ormation o! important precursor molecules !orget a
very important general principle !irst articulate by the great rationalist
philosopher .eibniz - which is - that set o! conitions which in
combination are su!!icient to prouce some comple0 structure must
necessarily remain in operation at every succeeing moment to sustain
the e0istence o! this structure. 6he upshot o! this is that a comple0
structure which owes its origin to mere chance cannot enure1 still less
coul it respon to its environment in an aaptive !ashion. 6o ben
@ature towar our intentions it is merely necessary !or us to blocK all o!
those e0cept the one paralleling that one which is our own. Ht is in the
very nature o! recursion not to be erivable !rom anything but recursion
itsel!. 6here!ore1 i! a recursion or recursive structure has a beginning in
time it is comple01 but may only be analyze in terms o! other EsimplerE
recursive structures. 6hese simpler components o! the recursive
structure are themselves appro0imations to the larger structure which
they !orm in combination with one another. 6he behavior o! sel! -
organizing systems cannot ultimately be e0plaine in terms o! principles
o! organization which obtain e0ternally1 which is to say1 such ynamic
structures will not submit to a reuctionistic analysis.
6he istinction between the EmentalE an the EphysicalE may be rawn
in the !ollowing way: both are wholes compose o! parts1 both possess
principles o! organization1 but what is terme a physical whole is
e!ine e0clusively in terms o! its constituent parts while the EpartsE
which EcomposeE what is terme a mental whole are1 themselves1
e!ine in terms o! the whole which they compose. 6he reconstruction
o! a mental whole must be guie in a top - own manner whereas the
construction o! a physical whole must be guie in a bottom - up
manner. 6he principle o! a mental whole must e0ist prior to its actual
realization C in terms o! whatever substanceD. Fithout substance change
is not possible. 3oe0tensive with this principle is: change owes itsel! to
a lacK o! etermination1 to a e!icit o! ?eing1 to negation. -rom which it
at once !ollows that substance1 rather than being the seat o! being1 o!
thinghoo1 as common sense conceives it to be1 it owes its e0istence1 to
the contrary1 to a lacK o! being. Ht is not possible !or a eterminate thing
to be mae up out o! substance inso!ar as this thing possesses
etermination. Ht is easy enough to see that continuity is require !or the
subsistence o! what is calle historical time which we will hence!orth
re!er to as temporality. Hneterminate substance is the only basis !or the
continuity unerlying all change. 6he theory o! entropic processes tells
us that energy an in!ormation are intere!inable an this !act in
con5unction with the principle o! energy conservation suggests that
in!ormation1 liKe energy1 may neither be create nor estroye: the
EcreationE o! a quantity o! in!ormation is really constitute by its being
abstracte !rom the pree0isting integral system o! in!ormation e!ining
it.p2(.iKe a piece broKen o!! !rom a holographic emulsion1 there is a
necessary trae - o!! involve in this abstraction process: the Enewly
createE entity only acquires a relative inepenence !rom the whole in
which it eternally pree0iste Can which e!ine its true beingD by losing
some o! its Knowlege o! itsel!. 6here is a irect analogy with this
process in the creation o! EnewE subatomic particles through the
collision o! particles within a linear accelerator.
Hn the !irst couple o! ecaes a!ter the !irst Eatom - smashingE
e0periments per!orme with the primitive particle accelerators o! the
*2$)Gs1 it ha been suppose that the particle proucts o! these violent
collisions were actually pieces o! the colliing particles which ha been
5arre loose by the suen impulsive !orce o! their slamming together.
?ut soon a!ter this early perio the Kinetic energies o! the particles going
into these accelerator collisions began to signi!icantly e0cee the
combine mass - energy o! the particles which themselves initiate the
reaction1 with the result that the en prouct o! these collisions was a set
o! particles with iniviual member particles possessing a mass greater
than the combine mass o! the particles originally participating in the
collision. 6he common sense EbroKen piecesE e0planation o!
accelerator proucts now ha to be moi!ie in some way or re5ecte
outright. 6wo alternative interpretations o! this Emass parao0E were
suggeste by particle theorists: either the prouct particles were create
!rom the e0citation o! the vacuum by the Kinetic energy o! the collision
with the EinputE particles serving as the points o! application o! the
e0citation energy1 or they were really insie the initial particles all along
but the e0cess mass - energy was being e0actly balance by an equal an
opposite negative energy ue to the internal bining !orces holing the
particles together. 6he science o! 7hysics1 at least be!ore the
evelopment o! relativistic quantum !iel theory1 in the *2()Gs1 imagine
that there might be such things as ultimate material constituents -
elementary particles - out o! which all material boies woul be
compose. 6he implicit 8etaphysics behin the notion o! elementary
particles is that o! substance. 6here is no such thing as nothing.
@othing1 by its very nature1 is a none0istent entity: it is its own
negation. Fe might be tempte to say then that Esomething1E being the
opposite o! nothing1 must e0ist. ?ut not 5ust any EsomethingE constitutes
the opposite or negation o! nothing/nothingness1 but only a something
which is1 itsel!1 the unity o! all that might possibly e0ist1 an the very
essence o! which is to e0ist. Hn other wors1 nothing1 not being possible
because containing within itsel! its own negation1 implies that there must
have always been something Cor otherD.
?ut the only guarantee that there has always been something is the
e0istence o! something which contains within itsel! its own a!!irmation1
i! you will1 the reason !or its own e0istence. / !unamental an most
general property o! a thing which contains within itsel! the reason !or its
own e0istence is that o! recursion1 something which is e!ine solely in
terms o! itsel!1 a recursive structure. 6here are logical grouns !or
believing that there can be only one recursive structure1 that there can be
only one sel!-e0istent entity - with this entity being the EgrounE !or
e0istence o! all other entities. / recursive structure1 i! it may be thought
to be composite1 woul be compose o! parts which are totally
interepenent upon one anotherV no part is the cause o! any other
without also being itsel! cause by this other part an so i! this recursive
structure ha a beginning in time1 it must have been given e0istence
through a pre-e0isting1 broaer an more comple0 recursive structure.
Fe see now that a given !inite recursive structure comes into e0istence
through a process o! uncovering or abstraction !rom a more comple0
whole - through a process o! negation. Fe are remine o!
8ichelangeloGs claim that a truly great worK o! sculpture alreay e0ists
within its marble blocK an that all he i in orer to prouce his worKs
was merely to !ree them !rom the marble in which they were imprisone.
/ll simpler recursive structures come into being through a Kin o!
!igure-groun trans!ormation1 through a change in perspective. 6his
remins us o! .eibnizG monas1 each o! which are only i!!erent
perspectives on an eternally pre-e0istent whole1 c.!.1 holography" with
each mona e!ine in terms o!1 or epenent upon1 all o! the other
monas maKing up the whole. 6his e0haustive interepenence is what
.eibniz re!ers to as the preestablishe harmony between monas.
/gain1 a recursion may only be e!ine in terms o! other recursions liKe
itsel!. 3onsciousness is an e0ample o! an inherently recursive structure
as it is its own symbolic representation C o! itsel! to itsel!D.
3onsciousnessG ob5ectivity is e0actly coe0tensive with its sub5ectivityV
the representation o! a ecompose $ + * space an time is always
against a nonecompose spacetime where space an time are !use.
6his is simply a restatement o! ?ishop ?erKeley_s principle1 esse est
percipi1 i.e.1 to be is to be perceive1 an as
Qd
consciousness necessarily
e0periences itsel! as a unity an never as a multiplicity - the ob5ective
reality o! any multiplicity o! consciousnessG coul only e0ist as a
sub5ective reality within a larger iniviual consciousness Citsel! a unityD
an so cannot really be a multiplicity o! consciousnesses at all. 6his was
one o! "chroinger_s metaphysical insights.
:ecember 2)*2
Fe have sai
elsewhere that1 Rwithout conte0t1 there is no meaningS. ?ut not 5ust any
conte0t will o here. -irstly1 this meaning giving conte0t cannot be
merely inciental or acciental Csince we are presuming here that
ultimately sense an meaning is not !orthcoming !rom a close systemD1
but the system must itsel! be an outgrowth o! the meaning-proviing
conte0t. 6his maKes a teleological interpretation o! intelligent systems
unavoiable. Hn other wors1 we must subscribe to a top-own causal
orer1 one which necessarily amits the operation o! what philosophers
term supervenience. R"el!S organization or Rsel!S-organizing principles
have no e!!icacy unless what we term Rsel!S1 i.e.1 that which oes the
organizing1 is open-ene1 i.e.1 open to higher levels o! organization.
.ogically1 the only system that can e!!ectively RbootstrapS itsel!
C!ollowing 3antorD is an infinite system.
6his argument against the multiplicity o! consciousness was succinctly
state by the physicist
au=
;rwin "chroinger in his short seminal worK1
cit=
8in an 8atter. Ht !ollows that since consciousness cannot
e0perience itsel! as a multiplicity1 it there!ore cannot e0ist ob5ectively as
a multiplicity: consequently there can only be one consciousness.
Qd
?ut
i! the nature o! consciousness is that o! selfFtranscening1 then
au=
"chroinger_s clever line o! reasoning loses consierable !orce. ?oth
the /merican psychologist
au=
Filliam >ames as well the -rench
philosopher
au=
=enri ?ergson i not believe that the brain was itsel!
prouctive o! consciousness but that the brain was merely a Kin o!
reucing valve C?ergsonD which !iltere an reuce own the cosmic
consciousness C>amesD to a vastly simpler !orm containing roughly the
level o! in!ormation hanling capacity CintelligenceD which the human
organism woul nee to aapt to the limite challenges o! an earthly
environment. 6he novelist an author o! ?rave @ew Forl C*2$2D1
au=
/lous =u0ley1 iscusse this view o! consciousness in his popular
treatise1
cit=
6he :oors o! 7erception - =eaven an =ell. Hn this worK
=u0ley escribes the e!!ects o! the psychoactive CpsycheelicD rugs
mescaline an .": which he e0perimente with towars the latter part
o! his li!e in an attempt to trigger or !acilitate the mystical e0perience o!
enlightenment in which he ha ha an almost li!elong curiosity. =u0ley
e0plaine the e!!ects o! these substances in terms o! the
prn=
>ames-
?ergson theory o! consciousness: the e0perience o! sel!-transcenence
an trans!iguration which =u0ley e0perience on mescaline was !or him
ue to the rugGs isabling e!!ect upon the cosmic reucing valve. 6he
brain uner the in!luence o! mescaline is no longer able to !ilter out the
thoughts an intuitions irrelevant to earthly li!e Cbecause appropriate to
the upwarly contiguous levels o! consciousnessD - hence the e0perience
o! a vastly larger mental space. 6his type o! e0planation woul have
been reaily unerstanable to the ancient 4reeK philosopher
au=
"ocrates
who viewe learning Cthrough e0perience or eucationD as simply a
mechanism by which latent Knowlege is recollecte. / computational
state space con!iguration which cannot be uplicate in space can
neither be uplicate in time1 e0cept by virtue o! the aitional
avantage
Qd
a!!ore by substantial continuity. "omehow the quantum
no-cloning theorem oes not apply to two or more ientical states o! the
same system. 4enealogy is the temporal component o! meaning-
purveying conte0t.
8oreover1 a state space con!iguration which cannot be uplicate in
time can neither be uplicate in space. Hn an in!inite state space1 there
are an in!inite number o! available states1 an so the probability o! any
one state occurring is1 !ormally speaKing1 zero. =owever1 i! the state
space has a nonpermutational/combinational structure1 then it is possible
!or iniviual states to be overetermine with a given state representing
an in!inite number o! i!!erent Econ!igurationsE within the state space.
6his woul be the case i! the state space is that belonging to a computing
evice possessing genuine memory. -or the evice woul either
remember that it ha been in the e0act same computational state be!ore1
in which case it woul have to be in a new state slightly i!!erent !rom
the one it EremembersE being in previously1 or it woul not remember
ever having been in that state which it ha occupie in the past. 6he
evice coul only really succee in e0actly remembering one o! its
previous states i! the evice ha
*D been in operation !or an in!inite perio o! time an1
2D the evice possesse a memory o! in!inite size so as to aequately
contain an in!initely regressive sel!-representation o! one o! its previous
states1 itsel! an in!initely regressive sel!-representation. / state space
con!iguration can only be copie i! it is locally separable !rom the
nonlocally connecte environment which contains it.
9therwise1 the state cannot be e!ine sharply enough in orer to be
copie.
"eparating the state !rom the nonlocally connecte Cnon-
representationalD environment in which it is embee1 in orer to try to
copy it spatially1 results in the estruction o! the state earlier than1 or 5ust
be!ore1 a complete escription o! the state is in han1 an which is
require as a template. 6he velocity o! light limits the transmission
spee o! intersub5ective ata which must be carrie on a carrier signal o!
energy greater than /a;1 the energy uncertainty o! the nonlocally
connecte quantum substrate through which the carrier propagates. 6hat
which is locally separable !rom its physical environment is a
nonrepresentational abstraction. /n abstract system is a re-presentation
i! it remains connecte to its e!ining conte0tV i! it remains couple to
the meium in which it historically originate. "emantical symbol
manipulations are characterize by trans!ormations o! symbols through
the alteration o! the e!ining conte0ts in which the symbols are
Eembee.E "yntactical symbol manipulations are characterize by
trans!ormations o! symbols through the application o! rules o! in!erence
to the symbols within a constant e!ining conte0t. Ht is perhaps possible
to see that syntactical an semantical trans!ormations are mutually
EorthogonalE operations.
Aecursive relationships involve a content1 theorem or proposition1 in at
least two istinct conte0tual levels. Hn!initely recursive !unctions1
there!ore1 whether they be propositional1 mathematical1 etc.1 may
constitute a Kin o! hybriize operation possessing both semantical an
logic !eatures simultaneously. Hs it a vali line o! speculation to
suppose that since some particles which are virtual within an inertial
!rame o! re!erence1 become real particles with respect to an accelerate1
or noninertial1 re!erence !rame1 there!ore inertia/gravitation must bear
some intimate connection with the phenomenon o! the Ecollapse o! the
wave!unction1E since this phenomenon means the renering as ErealE one
among the many superpose virtual quantum states? Hs particle
prouction associate with nonaiabatic1 an hence1 irreversible1
changes in the energy ensity o! the quantum vacuum electromagnetic
!iel?
9ctober *22&
Fe Know that nonaiabatic changes in the bounary conitions
o! the in!inite potential well problem results in a transition o! the particle
energy to an e0cite state with respect to the new wave!unction
escribing the new potential well resulting !rom this suen change.
6his suggests that perhaps irreversible1 or1 nonaiabatic1 changes in a
quantum mechanical system are necessary !or the wave!unction
escribing it to unergo Ecollapse.E 7erhaps changes in the bounary
conitions o! the Cnon?Dlocally connecte vacuum can be moele upon
a change in the ynamics o! this vacuum in the absence o! changes o!
the bounary conitions. 7erhaps all changes in the ynamics o! the
nonlocally connecte vacuum are only measurable in terms o! their
mani!estation as changes in the bounary conitions o! a locally
connecte quantum system. Fhen the bounary conitions applie to a
given wave!unction are treate classically1 then nonaiabatic changes in
the bounary conitions will usually result in a iscontinuous change in
the wave!unction1 i.e.1 a collapse in the wave!unction. ?ut i! the
classical bounary conitions are themselves treate quantum-
mechanically1 then the composite wave!unction will not su!!er a
collapse1 but will evolve accoring to the time-epenent "chroinger
wave equation.
>anuary *22%
Hs a nonaiabatic change to be unerstoo as a change in
vacuum bounary conitions which cannot be e0pecte Cby the vacuum
itsel!D because /a?//at Z /a? 0 h//a; ?Ht is clear in a geometrically intuitive
sense that trans!ormations o! entities which are not truly inepenent
an separable !rom an open-ene conte0t or system in which they are
groune cannot be genuinely reversible but only abstractly to within a
certain appro0imation. 7articipatory Knowlege transcens abstract
escription in terms o! abstract representations o! inepenent EthingsE
or entities. 6his is the Knowlege base in the intimate interaction with
the open-ene. Hs it possible to not be in an eigenstate o! any quantum
mechanical observable whatever? :oes this escribe the normal
conition which the quantum vacuum !ins itsel! in? H! the moe o!
interaction o! real particles with real particles1 i.e.1 real-real interactions1
is correctly escribe as eterministically orere1 an the moe o!
interaction o! real with virtual particles as ranomly orere1 then shoul
we escribe the moe o! interaction o! virtual particles with themselves
as both ranom an eterministic ?
Hs a superposition state possible in the absence o! wave!unction
bounary conitions? /re some superpositions well-!orme in the sense
that they can be inverse -ourier-trans!orme to a unique eigenstate with
respect to a e!inable observable? /re some ill-!orme in the contrary
sense o! not possessing an inverse -ourier-trans!orm to a unique
eigenstate o! a single observable? 7erhaps well-!orme superposition
states may only be e!ine given appropriate spacetime bounary
conitions1 i.e.1 initial an bounary conitions. @otice that when a
measurement is per!orme upon one o! the separate particles o! an ;7A
type e0periment1 that the particles remain nonlocally connecte a!ter the
Ecollapse o! the wave!unctionE escribing the particles 5ointly1 although
the particles are now nonlocally connecte in a new way precipitate by
the observerGs act o! measurement. =as the observer simply succeee
in iscontinuously altering the inertial !rame o! re!erence in which the
particle pair is embee. H! so1 oesnGt he o this by accelerating the
particles? /re the nonlocal connections within the observerGs min
merely apiece with the nonlocally connecte vacuum state in which his
brain is embee1 an so when he per!orms his measurement upon the
particle pair1 the pair must E5ump intoE a new nonlocally connecte
vacuum state1 resulting in a iscontinuous change in its superposition
state? :oes the observer recoil nonaiabatically into a new nonlocally-
connecte vacuum upon per!orming an act o! quantum measurement
which inuces what appears to him as a wave!unction collapse? 8ust
the vacuum possess in!inite sel!-similarity so that Eientical eventsE may
un!ol with i!!erent rates o! temporal evolution1 epening upon which
inertial !rame o! re!erence they are Eviewe !rom?E "el!-similarity can
never be e0act. H! the vacuum state were merely locally connecte1 then
its temporal evolution Eas a wholeE woul necessarily !ollow along a
preetermine continuum o! vacuum states. =owever1 a nonlocally
connecte vacuum state creates its own tra5ectory as it evolves
temporally.
H am trying to buil a case !or istinguishing between two seemingly
very i!!erent escriptions o! the process o! quantum measurement1
namely1 the iscontinuous collapse o! the wave!untion o! the quantum
mechanical system being observe/measure !rom a similar collapse o!
the wave!unction escribing the min o! the observer per!orming the
measurement1 which is to say1 the 3openhagen !rom the E8any ForlsE
interpretation. /s is well Known1 @ewtonGs law o! gravitation may be
given a 4aussian !ormulation e0actly paralleling the electromagnetic
!lu0 law. Fhat is surprising is that the blacK hole mass o! a given raius
may also be given a 4aussian !ormulation.
6o wit1 */(pi4 0 HntC=cD 0 " = 8blacKhole.
pru=
Ht is possible to EeriveE
the 7auli ;0clusion 7rinciple !rom the =eisenberg ,ncertainty 7rinciple.
6his may be shown in the !ollowing manner. H! two spin-*/2 particles o!
the same quantum mechanical system were to be in the same quantum
state - what is precisely !orbien by the 7auli principle1 say two
electrons EorbitingE the same hyrogen nucleus1 it woul be possible !or
us to measure the Kinetic energy Ca !unction o! momentumD o! one o! the
electrons1 an then to measure the potential energy Ca !unction o!
positionD o! the other electron with the result that we woul have
emonstrate the e0istence o! a quantum mechanical state possessing1
simultaneously1 an e0act potential an an e0act Kinetic energyV but this is
precisely what is !orbien to e0ist by the =eisenberg uncertainty
principle - P;:.
>une *22%
6his conclusion oes not go through1 however1 i! the requirement
is mae that two particles which are in the same quantum state must be
escribe by one an the same wave!unction.
6he -eynman path - integral !ormalism o! relativistic quantum !iel
theory inicates that real particles1 i.e.1 !unamental particles whose
mass - energy is greater than the quantum mechanical energy uncertainty
o! the quantum mechanical system to which they belong1 may be
represente as stable an interlocKing patterns o! vacuum energy
!luctuation1 that is1 as patterns o! virtual particle creation1 annihilation1
an particle C!ermion an bosonD e0change processes which !orm with
one another a stable1 interconnecte meshworK o! !eebacK loops o!
virtual particle reactions.
>une *22%
Ht is not certain what the concept o! stability means within the
conte0t o! virtual particle processes. E"tableE certainly oes not mean
here persistence o! a structure against !luctuations or perturbations -
thermal or otherwise1 since the virtual particle processes themselves are
the !luctuation phenomena. "tability must mean in this case the
relatively unchanging probabilities o! recurring patterns o! quantum
!luctuation mani!esting themselves as virtual particle reactions.
6hus1 real !unamental particles are viewe within this !ormalism as
mere e0citations o! the vacuum CgrounD state with more comple0 matter
structures1 e.g.1 atoms1 molecules1 etc.1 as !eebacK structures into which
these vacuum e0citations are organize - provie that aequate
e0citation energy is available.
9ne possible test as to whether or not a given particle is composite or
simple might be: oes the particle have a virtual counterpart1 i.e.1 can
the particle be prouce out or the vacuum as a pure energy !luctuation -
out o! a !luctuation o! purely imaginary(-momentum? /lthough in
theory it shoul be possible to prouce whole atoms1 molecules1 or more
comple0 matter structures through irect e0citation o! the vacuum state
Csee above paragraphD1 the intelligent coorination o! the myria an
highly localize e0citations require to o this1 !rom within any
particular moi!ie vacuum state1 is probably renere impossible ue to
the inherent uncertainty o! total energy which is responsible !or vacuum
!luctuations: certain e0isting bounary conitions to the matri0 o!
vacuum !luctuations may alreay be immeiately present - in the !orm o!
alreay create particles1 molecules1 etc.1 but these bounary conitions
cannot be prouce ab initio1 but may only be Ereprouce1E utilizing
ientical pre-e0isting bounary conitions Cin the !orm o! alreay
available matterD as template an catalyst !or the reprouction o! the
esire vacuum bounary conitions. /ny instrumentalities which we
might employ to alter the vacuum !iel bounary conitions woul only
be e!!ective by virtue o! the vacuum !iel !luctuations themselves which
meiate their actionV we must realize that the imposition o! genuinely
new bounary conitions upon the vacuum1 i.e.1 without the utilization
o! a Etemplate1E even i! locally1 woul imply a change in the global
bounary conitions o! the entire vacuum energy system C the entire
spacetime continuumD. 9n the view o! matter an vacuum which is
espouse here1 matter is seen as not having an e0istence inepenent o!
the vacuum energy !iel1 rather1 the stability o! matter at all levels o! its
hierarchical structure1 is unerpinne by the myria !iel energy
!luctuations o! the quantum vacuum. 3onsequently1 matter oes not
possess an inepenent e0istence in the :emarcatean sense o! Eatoms
an voiVE our view is more consonant with that put !orwar by
=eraclitus1 to wit1 that everything is compose Eo! !ire in measures
Kinling an in measures going outVE all change is riven by the clash o!
opposites an all potential !or change lies with the tension between these
opposites.
=ere E!ireE is given the moern physical interpretation as Evacuum
energyE an the Eclash o! opposites1E as the creation an annihilation
operators C 2n quantization o! quantum theoryD into which all operators
corresponing to physical EobservablesE are analyzable. Fhat
=eraclitusG physics lacKe was a basis !or physical continuity !rom one
moment o! time to the ne0tV the reprouction o! vacuum bounary
conitions Cin virus - liKe mannerD supplies this missing element within
moern physics. Fithin this unerstaning o! the relationship between
matter an vacuum :emocritusG notion o! persisting EsubstanceE no
longer has any application an the continuous e0istence o! real matter
particles consists in the continual recreation o! a coherent an
interlocKing pattern o! virtual particle reactions which is apiece with the
larger pattern o! vacuum energy !luctuations within the ine!inite
surrouning region o! spacetime.
9ctober *22&
6he basic iea behin a perturbative analysis o! a quantum
system is that one is not able to write own with in!inite precision the
e0act =amiltonian o! the system uner consieration an so one
escribes the energy o! the system in terms o! a =amiltonian plus a
perturbation energy. 6his perturbation energy is usually the !irst nonzero
term in an e0pansion o! energy terms where aitional terms are
progressively smaller an must be neglecte since to inclue them poses
analytic intractability. Hn other wors1 one oes not have the precise
energy eigen!unction e0pansion o! the systemGs wave!unctionV i! one i1
then one coul in theory prepare the system in any one o! its energy
eigenstates where the system woul e0ist at a precisely e!ine energy
!or all time1 assuming the system were not inter!ere with as a result o!
e0changing energy with some other system. ?ut since the =amiltonian
o! a quantum mechanical system is always a !unction o! the systemGs
momentum an position1 which are incompatible observables1 the energy
o! the system1 which is a !unction o! both the systemGs particle/!iel
momentum an particle/!iel source position1 can never be precisely
e!ine. Hn this way we see that energy perturbations are not an a hoc
an practically use!ul accounting evice neee to maKe up !or a merely
practical1 an1 hence1 theoretically removable1 ignorance concerning the
systemGs real energy eigen!unction e0pansion. Aather1 perturbations to
the systemGs energy - any systemGs energy - are not merely arti!acts o! a
perturbative analysis1 but are ontologically real an not ue to a
temporary inability to speci!y the systemGs true energy eigen!unction
e0pansion. 6here is a small component o! the perturbation energy which
is !orever irremeiable an represents the e0change o! energy between
any quantum system an another quantum system which is always
present.
/n important conclusion to be rawn !or quantum theory here is that1
the wave!unction only represents the most that can be Known about a
quantum system in the absence o! the irremovable perturbations. Fe
might be tempte to speculate here that more can be Known about a
quantum system than can be containe in any wave!unction provie
that the e!!ect o! the irremovable perturbations are inclue. H! the
ob5ective an the sub5ective are consiere to be is5oint categories1 then
we may say that 5ust as the wave!unction represents the most that can be
ob5ectively Known about a quantum system1 what can be sub5ectively
Known about a quantum system in ue entirely to in!luences lying
altogether outsie all possible wave!unction escriptions o! the system.
"uch in!luences1 collectively1 are the so-calle irremovable
perturbations. Fe must not straight-away ienti!y such Eirremovable
perturbationsE with the virtual particles an !iels o! relativistic quantum
!iel theory as these entities are largely arti!acts o! low orer
perturbative analysis involving perturbations which are largely
removable1 in theory1 shoul the observer acquire greater Knowlege o!
the system uner observation. Fhat uniquely istinguishes virtual
particles an !iels !rom their real counterparts oes1 perhaps1 point to
some o! the properties o! the meium with which all quantum systems
!orever e0change energy1 leaing to the so-calle irremovable
perturbations.
6here!ore1 the introuction o! matter particles into a volume o!
spacetime is not istinct in principle !rom creating these particles ab
initio !rom a portion o! the vacuum energy alreay present within this
particular volume o! spacetimeV in an inertial !rame o! re!erence1 a real
matter particle imparts an e0citation energy to the vacuum such that a
particle ientical to itsel! is create out o! the !luctuating vacuum !iel
energyV at the same time the previous particle is estroye1 its mass-
energy proviing the e0citation energy necessary to re-create itsel! anew.
Hn an accelerate1 or more generally1 a non-inertial re!erence !rame1 the
particles mass-energy e0cites the vacuum !iel in a i!!erent manner1
continually proucing a new variety o! particles to taKe its place. Ht has
o!ten been note in the literature o! moern physics that particle
prouction !rom the vacuum state is to be e0pecte within curve
spacetimes. 6his leas us to the iea that merely localize alterations in
bounary conitions o! the vacuum !iel in no way alters the total
energy ensity o! the region occupie by the vacuum !iel1 but merely
changes the ratio o! mass - energy to vacuum energy !rom zero to some
!raction approaching in!inity Cin the case o! blacK hole massesD. 6he
general relativistic alteration in the local velocity o! light may be
unerstoo in terms o! 8achGs !ormula !or the spee o! soun in an
energy conucting meium in its application to the quantum vacuum.
8achGs !ormula states that the velocity o! soun in an energy conucting
meium is a !unction o! the pressure an the energy ensity o! the
meium. "peci!ically1 the velocity o! soun in the meium is the square
root o! the pressure o! the meium times the spee o! light square
ivie by the energy ensity o! the meium.
"ince the pressure o! the vacuum is equal to its energy ensity1 an the
pressure o! matter is e!!ectively zero1 the energy ensity an pressure
terms in 8achGs !ormula are the total energy ensity an pressure o!
space1 respectivelyV the pressure o! the vacuum is always equal to its
energy ensity1 which ecreases in step with the increase in the mass-
energy ensity. ?y letting the total energy ensity o! space equal to the
sum o! the vacuum energy an mass-energy ensities1 i.e.1 ;tot = ;v +
;m1 an the vacuum pressure equal to the moi!ie vacuum energy
ensity1 i.e.1 ;vG = ;v - ;m1 8achGs !ormula worKs out to vsoun =
sqrt[C;v - ;mDc2/;tot\ which reuces to the result1 vsoun = [* -
48/A32\ W c1 an this result is ientical to the reuce local value o!
the spee o! light calculate !rom general relativity Cin the weaK !iel
limitD. 9ur requirement o! no spatial variation in the total energy ensity
o! space1 i.e.1 that the mass-energy an vacuum energy ensities are
complementary1 seems to eman that the ensity o! gravitational energy
ensity
cont=
H! we are correct in reinterpreting the gravitational reshi!t o!
photons propagating in a spatially varying gravitational potential as
being ue to a spatial variation in the zero-point o! the vacuumGs energy
Cagainst which the photonGs energy is to be measureD1 then the
imposition o! bounary conitions upon the vacuum !iel merely
prouces local an iscontinuous variations in the spatial Can temporalD
istribution o! the !iel energy1 leaing to the appearance o! negative
bining energies which e0actly counterbalance the positive gains in
mass - energy which thereto resultV it is in this sense that mass-energy
may be thought to occupy a EhollowE in the vacuum energy !iel an the
EisplaceE vacuum energy has merely assume a new !orm as mass-
energy. 8e!! = 8r/sqrtC* - CcGD2/CcD2D1 where 8r = bining mass an
8e!! = e!!ective mass. 6he bining mass stems !rom the sum o! all C+D
an C-D non-gravitational bining energies. 6he accumulation o! many
such iscontinuous energy graients submicroscopically leas to the
appearance1 macroscopically1 o! continuous energy graients in the
vacuum. "ince the energy o! the vacuum !iel owes its e0istence
entirely to the quantum mechanical energy uncertainty o! spacetime1 in
turn owing to the !act that the energy =amiltonian is a !unction o!
mutually incompatible observables1 it !ollows that the vacuum !iel
shares in the general properties o! quantum mechanical energy
uncertainty. 9ne such property is that energy uncertainty is require !or
any iscrete change in a quantum mechanical observableV !or e0ample1
all changes in a physical system stem !rom the application o! !orces
upon the system while all !unamental !orces o! nature are meiate via
the e0change o! virtual bosons between !ermions composing the system.
Qd
3onsequently1 physical processes unergo temporal evolution only
inso!ar as they comprise quantum mechanical systems possessing !inite
energy uncertainty1 with the rates o! the component processes
etermine by the magnitue o! system energy uncertainty. / !ermion-
boson quantum mechanical system may be thought o! as an
interconnecte meshworK o! temporal !ermion energy transitions with
spatial boson momentum transitions1 with the !ermion wave!unctions
an boson wave!unctions being antisymmetric an symmetric1
respectively1 so that increasing the ensity o! interacting !ermions an
bosons within a particular region o! spacetime results in a ecrease in
the energy uncertainty an increase in the momentum uncertainty o! the
vacuum state1 respectively.
@ovember *22&
/ny wave!unction may be alternately represente as a sum o!
symmetric an antisymmetric wave!unctions. H! one calculates the
probability ensity !unction !or a wave!unction in this new
representation1 one is tempte to give some physical interpretation o! the
three istinct components which result.
+W+ = +Wsym+sym + +Wanti+anti + 2+Wsym+anti
6he !irst term represents the probability !unction resulting !rom the
mutual interaction o! bosons while the secon term represents the
probability !unction resulting !rom the mutual interaction o! !ermions.
6he thir term may represent the probability !unction resulting !rom the
interaction o! bosons an !ermions with each other.
>uly *22%
Hn -ourier analysis1 a !unction which satis!ies the
prn=
:irichlet
conitions1 may always be represente as a
prn=
-ourier sum o! weighte
sine an cosine !unctions o! the boune variables.
Qd
Fe note here that
this !unction may be represente as either purely even or purely o1 i.e.1
as either purely a -ourier sum o! cosine !unctions or sine !unctions1
provie that the appropriate trans!ormation o! the coorinate system is
per!orme within which the -ourier e0pansion is to be compute. Hn
irect analogy to what has been sai concerning -ourier analysis1 we
may say that through a 5uicious trans!ormation o! the spacetime
coorinates1 we may represent an arbitrary wave!unction as either o!
purely even parity or o! purely o parity. 6he notable e0ception to this
is what we cannot o1 however: taKe a wave!unction o! purely even
parity an trans!orm the coorinate system so that this !unction is now
represente as possessing purely o parity1 or vice versa. 3ontinuing
with our analogy1 we cannot represent a sine !unction in terms o! a sum
o! cosine !unctions an so on. Fe cannot o this1 as was sai1 through a
trans!ormation o! the spacetime coorinates1 however1 an o !unction
can be reaily converte into an even !unction an vice versa through
the mere aition o! a phase !actor C o! pi/2 D within the argument o! the
!unction we wish to trans!orm. Fe Know that i! an operator oes not
commute with the =amiltonian operator1 then the observable
corresponing to the !irst operator cannot be a conserve quantity.
3onversely1 any operator which commutes with the =amiltonian will be
tie to a change in the total energy o! the system i! this operator itsel!
su!!ers any changes. Ht is well Known that parity is conserve within the
theory o! both the electromagnetic an strong nuclear interactions. 6his
is all to suggest that an alteration o! the momentum-energy tensor
through the 5uicious insertion o! phase !actors into each momentum an
energy eigen!unction1 may result in a trans!ormation o! the momentum-
energy eigen!unction1 7siC01y1z1tD1 without altering the momentum-
energy tensor1 6i1K itsel!. C"ee spontaneous symmetry breaKing in gauge
theory an its arti!act e0change boson1 which results !rom the transition
!rom global to local !iel symmetryD 6his is 5ust saying that the
wave!unction representing the quantum mechanical system with
momentum-energy tensor1 6i1K1 is itsel! egenerate with respect to the
phase. Fe may euce !rom this that matter cannot e0ist in either a
purely !ermionic or purely bosonic state. 9therwise1 we woul be in a
position to alter the tensor1 6i1K1 escribing this matter istribution1
through a non-coorinate trans!ormation1 namely1 through the mere
introuction o! an arbitrary nonperioic phase !actor into the energy
eigen!unction representing this mass istribution. 6his woul constitute
a starK violation o! the ;quivalence 7rinciple o! 4eneral Aelativity
which implies that each istinct stress-momentum-energy istribution1 as
represente by 61 uniquely correlates to a istinct curvature o! the
spacetime metric. 6o wit1 matter must always e0ist as a mi0e system o!
!ermions an bosons1 namely1 any given real matter istribution must be
escribe by a wave!unction which is neither purely symmetric nor
purely antisymmetric. 6his !igures into the necessity o! any quantum
!iel giving rise to virtual particles.
@ovember *22&
?y calculating e0pectation values !or various observables !or
the quantum vacuum1 such as YpZ1 Y;Z1 Yp2Z1 Y;2Z1 etc.1 we may be
able to e0ploit our intuitions about what +Wq+CvacD1 where q is the
observable in question1 must be in orer to guess at the probable
relationships o! these various vacuum e0pectation values.
6he relativistic e!!ects upon Kinematics Cspace an timeD are groune in
the relativistic e!!ects upon the ynamics through the conservation o!
momentum-energy. Fe believe1 !or instance1 that the relativistic
contraction o! the positional uncertainty o! a particle1 say1 an the
relativistic time ilation Co! the particleGs li!etime1 i! it is unstableD1 o
not lie behin the ilation o! /ap an contraction o! /a;1 respectively
through the =eisenberg uncertainty relations. This woul be to groun
ynamical effects in mere 'inematics. Aather1 the Kinematics shoul be
groune in the ynamics: the e!!ects on space an time are
epiphenomenal to the substantive e!!ects associate with the
conservation o! momentum-energy. 6his is thought to taKe place
through the =eisenberg uncertainty relations !or position/momentum an
time/energy. 3hanges in the components o! the momentum-energy
tensor cause alterations in the tensor o! stress-momentum-energy
uncertainty. Fe may suppose that the presence o! real !ermions reuces
the number o! available vacuum !ermionic energy states while the
presence o! real bosons increases the number o! available virtual bosonic
momentum states1 relative to the reuce number o! virtual !ermionic
energy states. Hn this manner1 more virtual energy transitions occurring
within the vacuum state must be e!!ecte via similar transitions
occurring within the massive boy in question. 6his situation is
consistent with the e!!ect mass has upon the surrouning vacuum o!
simultaneously ecreasing the energy uncertainty an increasing the
momentum uncertainty raially about the gravitating massive boy. /
general result o! the preceing iscussion is that the accumulation o!
mass - energy1 more particularly bining energy1 within a volume o!
spacetime causes a corresponing reuction in the ensity o! energy
uncertainty Cvacuum energyD1 in turn resulting in a corresponing
ecrease in the rate at which physical processes occur within this
particular region o! spacetime. =ow are we to unerstan so-calle
energy-egenerate transitions within the vacuum state1 which is to say1
transitions within the vacuum state not involving a change in the
vacuumGs energy? The egenerate wavefunctions represent the
possibility of change which falls outsie of the physically temporal.
/n important question in this connection is whether gravitational time
ilation shall have any e!!ect upon the !requency o! energy egenerate
transitions. Hs the ensity matri0 an appro0imation mae in lieu o! the
actual wave!unction which we are !or merely practical reasons unable to
speci!y1 or oes a quantum system sometimes not possess a bona fie
wave!unction at all? Fhat relation oes the 2n ranK tensor relating two
i!!erent virtual particle current ensities have to the momentum-energy
tensor o! 4A...to the metric tensor o! 4A? Foul an e0ceeingly
intense beam o! coherent electromagnetic raiation Claser beamD result in
a Kin o! anti-squeeze state? 6his might have the precisely opposite
e!!ect to that o! the 3asimir ;!!ect which normally inuces an e0pansion
o! the momentum uncertainty along two orthogonal irections to the a0is
along which the conucting plates are oriente. / question here is
whether the momentum uncertainty along the time a0is Cthe energy
uncertaintyD is also ilate ue to a squeezing o! the momentum
uncertainty between the plates. 6he toKen re!le0ives1 here an now1
seem to presuppose the toKen-re!le0ive1 H1 or me. 3onversely1 the toKen-
re!le0ives1 H1 or me1 seem to equally presuppose the toKen-re!le0ives1
here an now. 6his seems to suggest that the nonlocal connections1
mani!este in the relations o! virtual particles/!iels to abstract
spacetime may also be essential in meiating the iniviual
consciousness o! observers interacting with spacetime. Fithin the
conte0t o! an e0paning universe1 then1 matter oes not merely alter the
ensity o! the vacuum1 but also alters the rate at which the ensity o! the
vacuum energy ecreases with time ue to cosmological e0pansion1 an
since the time rate o! change in energy ensity is1 itsel!1 a physical
process1 matter1 by reucing the energy uncertainty o! the vacuum1 also
causes a raially varying vacuum !iel energy ensity which mani!ests
itsel! as a spherically symmetric energy graient centere about a mass
which is ientical to the gravitational !ielT
>uly 2)**
6here is an
e0ponential relationship involve here with the e!!ect o! cosmological
e0pansion upon the time rate o! change o! vacuum energy ensity. 6he
iscrete cosmological reshi!t may be unerstoo in terms o! the moel
suggeste here1 c.!.1 FO? appro0imation o! electron tunneling problem.
3ertain versions o! 8oi!ie @ewtonian :ynamics C89@:D call !or a
gravitational RconstantS with an e0ponential !actor giving rise to the
small anomalous constant acceleration which has been observe
proucing inaccuracies in the charting o! eep space probe tra5ectories1
c.!.1 4ioneer *nomaly an the papers o!
au=
7. F. /nerson.
3hanges in the composition o! the total energy ensity o! a region o!
space with respect to the proportions o! mass - energy an vacuum
energy are re!lecte in the trans!ormation o! the spatio-temporal
variation in vacuum energy ensity !rom being purely temporal1 in the
case o! !ree space1 to a mi0ture o! two parts1 temporal an spatial1 in the
case o! typical istributions o! matter1 to a purely spatial variation o!
vacuum energy ensity1 in the case o! blacK hole massesV an there is a
homologous mapping between the egree o! tipping o! the 8inKowsKi
light cone in curve spacetimes an the egree o! trans!ormation o! a
temporally varying vacuum energy into one which is purely spatial in its
variation. Fithin curve spacetimes1 the local value o! the velocity o!
light is reuce below its normal value in E!ree space1E an this may be
envisione as a narrowing o! the hypersoli angle swept out by the
8inKowsKi light cone centere at a given point within this region
possessing a gravitational potential. 6his contraction in the area o! the
hypersur!ace o! the 8inKowsKi light cone may be alternately escribe
in terms o! a light cone which su!!ers no contraction o! its hypersur!ace
area1 but a ecrease in the uni!orm ensity o! vacuum energy occupying
the uncontracte light cone sur!ace1 an hence
Qd
the equivalence o! the
spacetime curvature with the spatiotemporal variation in vacuum energy
ensity.
H! we are correct in positing an e0act equivalence between
spacetime curvature an spatio-temporal variations in the ensity o! the
vacuumGs zero-point energy1 then the phenomenon o! particle prouction
in a spatially or temporally varying spacetime curvature1 or via the
equivalence principle1 ue to the e!!ects o! noninertial motion1 may be
e0plaine alternatively in terms o! spatial or temporal variations in the
bounary conitions on the vacuum !iel such that spatial or temporal
variations in its zero-point energy result. Hn this scenario1 the e0istence
o! real particles is unerstoo as 5ust a mani!estation o! zero-point
energy !rom the vantage point o! a noninertial !rame o! re!erence or
equivalently1 !rom the stanpoint o! a region o! the vacuum possessing
Eless restrictiveE bounary conitions than the region o! the vacuum in
which the particles appear. 9n account o! the precisely thermal
spectrum o! the particles prouce within curve spacetimes an also
ue to the unique requirement o! a thermal spectrum !or the vacuum
itsel! in orer that it possess .orenz invariance1 an entropy may be
meaning!ully assigne to both the vacuum as well as the particles
prouce !rom it as a result o! the impose vacuum bounary
conitions.
>une 2)**
6here must be a egeneracy in how energy uncertainty in the
vacuum is trans!orme into $-momentum uncertainty such that entropy
is increase1 i.e.1 there is a choice among alternative ways to e!!ect this
trans!ormation that is not etermine by the initial an bounary
conitions. -or e0ample1 li!ting a particle out o! a gravitational potential
an allowing it to !all bacK to its starting point involves a path-
epenence in aition to creating an Ropen loopS in spacetime an so
necessarily involves the prouction o! some entropy. R6he equivalence
principle strongly suggests that !reely !alling motion in a gravitational
!iel shoul be viewe as analogous to inertial motion in pre-relativity
physics an special relativity1 c.!.1
cit=
Teaching /eneral Aelativity1
ar+iv:gr-qc/)'**)%$v* *( @ov 2))'. "o what etermines the local
velocity o! light oes so by etermining the local velocity o!
cosmological e0pansion.
Qd
"ee the relationship between quantum
entanglement1 polarization an magnetization1 electric !iel permittivity
an magnetic !iel permeability1 =eisenberg $-momentum an energy
uncertainty1 spin-)1 spin-* an composite spin-2 correlate vacuum
!luctuations1 ;instein_s causality principle versus the so-calle ?ohm_s
causality principle.
"ince this prouction o! particles !rom the vacuum state ue to
impose bounary conitions is a reversible process1 because the
particles are reabsorbe i! the bounary conitions are later remove1 the
change in the entropy o! the vacuum !iel must be e0actly compensate
by the entropy increase ue the particle creation so that the total entropy
o! the particle - vacuum system is a constant. 6he -eynman path
integral technique !or calculating the groun state energies o! atoms may
C in principle D similarly be utilize to calculate the groun state energy
o! the vacuum state o! !ree space or1 inee1 the vacuum state o! a region
o! space in which a gravitational !iel is present. Ht is probable that
!ewer paths comprise the -eynman integral where a gravitational !iel is
present than in the !ree space vacuumV this limits the number o! vali
available paths along which energy may be e0change between two
points in this particular region o! spacetime - hence the reuce value o!
the integral1 an in turn1 the ecrease value o! the vacuum state energy
in this region. 6he reuce number o! -eynman paths1 or histories1
means that the vacuumGs ability to e0change energy with itsel!1 as well as
its ability to e0change energy with particles an !iels1 an thusly to
meiate the e0change o! energy between particles an !iels among
themselves1 is corresponingly iminishe so that the rate at which the
vacuumGs energy ensity ecreases with time C ue to the e0pansion o!
the universe D is liKewise iminishe.
Hn light o! the iminishe sel!-energy o! the vacuum1 the resultant
increase inertial mass o! particles within this altere vacuum may be
viewe in two istinct1 but !unamentally similar ways. -irst1 the
iminishe capacity o! the vacuum to unergo energy e0change with
itsel! means that it is more i!!icult !or the gravitational !iel energy to
reistribute itsel! in response to changes in the matter istribution within
the altere vacuum stateV consequently1 by the general equivalence o!
gravitational an inertial masses1 it !ollows that there is an equal
i!!iculty !or matter con!igurations to change their istributions in
response to impresse e0ternal !orces attempting to accelerate these
mass con!igurations. 6his is !urther theoretical evience !or the
complementary relationship between the mass energy ensity an the
vacuum energy ensity which together e!ine the total energy ensity o!
any particular region o! spacetime. 8oreover1 i! there are alreay
e0isting particles both prior an subsequent to the imposition o! the
vacuum bounary conitions1 then the masses o! these previously
e0isting particles is e0pecte to increase in accorance with the ecrease
in the vacuum energy ensity Can vice versaDV this is consistent with
viewing particle prouction more generally as an increase in mass within
the region o! varying vacuum energy - as the conversion o! vacuum
energy into mass - energy: the !raction by which particle masses are
increase in transporting them !rom a region o! higher vacuum energy
ensity to one o! lower ensity must complement the !raction by which
the vacuum energy ensity ecreases between these two points.
6his means that the ma0imum ensity o! mass possible within a certain
spherical region is equal to the ma0imum ensity o! particles which may
be create !rom the vacuum energy occupying this region1 via e0citation
o! the vacuum state. Fe arrive at the interesting result that the ensity o!
the vacuum energy in a certain spherical volume o! !ree space Cwhere no
mass-energy is presentD is precisely equal to the mass-energy ensity o!
a blacK hole which coul possible occupy this same volume. 9ne
important iea which suggests itsel! within the conte0t o! this iscussion
is the !amous cosmological constant problem an the iscorant
interpretations o! it within quantum theory an general relativity theory.
6here is a (& orer o! magnitue iscrepancy between the calculations
o! the value o! this constant within these two theories1 hence the
pro!oun i!!iculties in eveloping a consistent theory o! quantum
gravityT @ow i! the energy o! the vacuum is interprete as suggeste by
the worK o! "aKharov an more recently by the zero-point energy
gravitation theory o! =al 7utho!! then rather than being1 itsel!1 a source
o! gravitational !iels1 liKe particle or !iel energy1 the energy o! the
vacuum woul merely be the meiator o! gravitation so that i!!erences
in gravitational potential woul correspon e0actly to i!!erences in the
energy ensity o! the vacuum at two i!!erent points in spacetime. /
uni!orm istribution o! vacuum !iel energy woul there!ore have no
more e!!ect upon matter particles within this energy istribution than
woul a series o! concentric mass shells upon the matter particles
containe within themV which is to say1 no e!!ect whatever1 an this ue
to the precise mutual cancellation o! the combine perturbations to the
matter particles by the !luctuating vacuum energy !iel. 6hus1 only
i!!erences in vacuum energy ensity woul have any meaning so that
the overall vacuum energy ensity woul play no role in the e!inition o!
;insteinGs cosmological constant1 an there woul be no necessity o!
postulating a unique e0change particle meiating the gravitational !orceV
gravity woul not in this case be viewe as a !unamental !orce as are
the electromagnetic1 strong an weaK nuclear !orces1 but woul be
unerstoo as a EparasiticE !orce stemming !rom the imposing o!
bounary conitions upon the combine vacuum electromagnetic1 strong
an weaK nuclear !iels which together owe their e0istence to the
!unamental energy uncertainty o! the vacuum state1 escribe by an
energy =amiltonian which is a !unction o! incompatible observables.
6he pure imaginary momentum o! all Erest massesE within the ( -
hyperspherical cosmological moel may be 5usti!ie beyon its value as
a convenient mathematical !ormalism i! these masses are viewe as
presently being in the act o! tunneling through a hyperspherically
symmetric potential barrier. 6he graient o! this hyperspherical
potential woul be a !our - vector with components *121 an $ vanishing
in !ree space1 but trans!orming through multiplication by a tensor into a
new !our - vector with non-vanishing spatial components1 resulting in
the appearance o! a gravitational !iel. 3ertainly this tensor is the
matter-stress-energy tensor escribe in the !iel equations o! ;insteinV
the only i!!erence is that the vacuum energy oes not contribute to the
value o! 61 the matter-stress-energy tensor1 which is responsible !or
altering the metric tensor which escribes the curvature o! spacetime1 or
alternatively1 the spatiotemporal variation in the vacuum !iel energy
ensity. Ht is perhaps now easier to see at an intuitive level why the !iel
equations o! general relativity preict the e0istence o! a universe which
is either globally contracting or e0paning: unless the energy ensity o!
the vacuum !iel is temporally varying in !ree space1 the matter-stress-
energy tensor operates upon a zero !our-vector Crepresenting the graient
o! the hyperspherical potentialD an the introuction o! matter
istributions1 represente by the matter-stress-energy tensor1 into this
vacuum !iel1 cannot prouce a non-zero !our-vector1 namely1 non-
vanishing spatial components o! the !ree space !our-vector1 i.e.1 a
gravitational !iel. Fithin this particular cosmological moel1 the
energy1 linear (-momentum1 an angular (-momentum o! a particle is
always conserve1 regarless o! motions or accelerations which it might
unergo as a result o! interactions with other particles an !iels.
Fe are saying here that gravitation is1 itsel!1 a !our-vector1 whose
magnitue is always conserve inepenently o! the matter istribution.
6he matter-stress-energy istribution within a particular volume o! space
merely alters the ecomposition o! this !our-vector into a new set o!
vector components in much the same way that a boost1 rotation or
translation prouces a new ecomposition o! the 8inKowsKi !our-vector
which escribes the instantaneous worl segment o! a particleV hence1
matter istributions mani!est themselves as tensor !iels in spacetime. H!
the gravitational !iel owe its e0istence to the presence o! matter-stress-
energy istributions in spacetime1 then we woul certainly escribe the
gravitational !iel as being itsel! a tensor !ielV however1 the
gravitational !iel is actually a conserve !our-vector C in the sense that
the magnitue o! this vector is conserve D1 an this !our-vector owes its
e0istence to the inverse square ecrease in the vacuumGs zero-point
energy ensity in combination with the inverse cubic ecrease in the
mass-energy ensity which results ue to the process o! cosmological
e0pansion. 6he action o! matter istributions1 however1 must be
escribe in terms o! a tensor !ielV again1 the gravitational !iel1 itsel!1
is not a tensor !ielV the action o! mass upon this !iel is1 however1
tensorial in nature. /s we Know1 !rom the many iscussions o!
attempts to prouce quantum gravity theories1 quantization o! a 2n
orer tensor !iel results in the appearance o! a spin 2 boson which acts
as the unique e0change particle meiating the tensor !iel. 6he !our-
imensional zero-point energy graient oes not trans!orm itsel! with
time in !ree space in a manner which necessitates a tensor escriptionV
consequently1 gravitons will not be present in !ree space as vacuum !iel
!luctuationsV however1 any vali theory o! quantum gravity C assuming
one is possible D emans1 along with the uncertainty principle1 that the
total vacuum !iel contain virtual gravitons in its mi0 o! !luctuating
energy1 but because a tensor oes not escribe the trans!ormation with
time o! the !ree space vacuum1 the quantization o! the total !ree space
vacuum !iel cannot inclue spin 2 particles1 which is to say1 the !ree
space quantum mechanical vacuum oes not possess virtual gravitons
an hence oes not possess Cper seD gravitational !iel !luctuations.
3onsequently1 gravitons o not e0ist in regions where matter
istributions are present so that the search !or gravitational waves must
turn out to be a !ruitless eneavor.
/nother way in which the imaginary coe!!icient may be 5usti!ie is
to note that the rate at which the vacuum energy ensity ecreases with
time is proportional to the vacuum energy ensity itsel!1 5ust as are the
time rates o! all physical processes1 so that i! the vacuum energy ensity
is reinterprete as its probability ensity Cin terms o! the square o! the
vacuum wave!unction amplitueD1 then the negative e0ponential time
evolution o! the vacuum probability ensity implies that the vacuum has
a purely imaginary !our - momentum with a !our velocity o! magnitue
c. 6he e!!ect o! accelerations1 !or instance1 upon a particle is merely to
change the istribution o! its total linear/angular momentum within the
conserve (-quantity. 6he perhelion shi!t in the orbit o! 8ercury1
preicte by general relativity1 may be simply unerstoo as a cyclic
reistribution o! the planetGs (-angular momentum as it moves aroun its
orbit so that the $-imensional pro5ection o! it (-angular momentum
varies sinusoially with the orbital perioV this causes 8ercuryGs $-
angular momentum to be slightly greater than that preicte by classical
mechanics1 proucing the observe avance in perhelion. 6he blacK
hole1 as note earlier1 represents mass-energy in its most compresse
state. -or ma0imum symmetrical energy e0change between any two
shells occupying a given volume o! matter C o! uni!orm ensity D where
the ensity o! vacuum energy e0changes is proportional to the ensity o!
the vacuum energy itsel!1 we require that the ensity o! mass-energy
ecrease with the inverse square because certainly the ensity o!
bunle energy tra5ectories Calong which all energy e0changes occurD
must also !all o!! with the inverse square ue simply to the geometry o!
spherically symmetric raiation o! energy in $ imensions. Fe e0pect
the ensity o! e0change energy1 ue to vacuum !iel !luctuations1 to be
proportional to the ensity o! energy so e0change because it has
alreay been establishe that the rate at which all physical processes
occur is proportional to the ensity o! =eisenberg-uncertain energy
Cvacuum energyD an the ecrease in the ensity o! this energy with the
e0pansion o! the universe is itsel! a physical processV moreover1 there is
a vectorial continuity equation1 analogous to a !iel equation o!
8a0wellGs1 which escribes the relationship o! spatial an temporal
variations in the ensity o! the vacuum !iel energy so that the spatial
variation o! this zero-point energy will have the same structure as the
temporal variation o! the zero-point energy ue to cosmological
e0pansion. 6he question then arises1 E what is the structure o! this
variation in vacuum energy ensity in !ree space1 where no mass-energy
is present?E
Fell1 the ensity o! the vacuum zero-point energy is only meaning!ul as
a physical quantity in relation to the ensity o! the mass-energy 5ust as
the energy o! a particle is only meaning!ul in relation to the energy o!
the vacuum state1 so the general time variation in the mass-energy
ensity ue to cosmological e0pansion shoul give us a clue to the
manner in which the vacuum energy ensity changes with timeV
provie that our hypothesis o! a ynamic vacuum energy mechanism
!or gravitational !iels is !unamentally correct. 6here!ore1 i! we
postulate this vacuum mechanism1 then it is clear that the time variation
o! the vacuum energy ensity in the universe ue to cosmological
e0pansion must be such that the ratio o! the temporal variation in
vacuum energy an mass-energy has the same mathematical structure as
the spatial variation in the ratio o! these two ensities about massive
boies which acts as a gravitational potential. "ince the gravitational
potential ecreases inverse linearly so that the strength o! the
gravitational !iel itsel! ecreases with the inverse square1 an since the
ensity o! vacuum energy Czero-point energyD must be smaller in
stronger gravitational potentials than at weaKer ones because
gravitational time ilation increases in step with the increasing potential1
it !ollows that the ratio o! mass-energy to vacuum energy must ecrease
inverse linearly to mimic the inverse linear variation in the magnitue o!
gravitational time ilationV remember that gravitational time ilation is
owing to a ecrease in available e0change energy with which all
physical processes are meiate. =ence1 since the ecrease in mass-
energy is with the inverse cube1 the ecrease in vacuum energy must
itsel! be with the inverse square. /t this point we note that the ecrease
in blacK hole energy ensity is with the inverse square o! blacK hole
raius. Fe are there!ore le to thinK o! a blacK hole as constituting the
ma0imum ensity o! mass-energy possible in the sense that all energy
e0changes occurring within the volume o! space occupie by the blacK
hole1 occur between the blacK hole an itsel!1 symmetrically1 with no
e0change energy le!t over to meiate matter-vacuum energy e0changes.
6his is presumably why the intensity o! gravitational time ilation
is in!inite at the sur!ace o! a blacK holeV the vacuum energy !luctuation
!iel Czero-point energyD no longer interacts with the blacK hole mass so
that no physical processes Cwhich can be communicate to the EoutsieED
are meiate. /s state earlier1 it the interaction o! the vacuum zero-
point energy with quantum mechanical systems which is wholly
responsible !or all changes in the quantum mechanical observables in the
system1 i.e.1 temporality o! the system. 6he theory o! quantum
electroynamics e0plains the propagation o! !ermions an bosons in the
!ollowing manner: a massless photon propagates through spacetime by
continually trans!orming into an e+e- pair an bacK again into a photon
o! ientical energy Cassuming a !lat spacetimeD1 while an electron
propagates through spacetime by continually trans!orming into
H thought H woul write you1 !irst o! all1 to thanK you !or the interpretive
astrological chart you maile to me a couple o! ays ago. H coul have
one so by telephone1 but somehow itGs more sincere to reciprocate by
writing you - thanKs so much !or the time an consieration you must
have put into constructing it1 as well as e0plaining its obviously
portentous1 i! to me somewhat clouy signi!icance. ;ven i! it turns out
that you have enliste the ai o! a computing evice in interpreting it1 H
remain !lattere1 nonetheless1 by the obvious attention. H have always
Known that the horoscopes appearing in your average city newspaper are
very much liKe !ortune-cooKie messages. 6hey are so ambiguous that1
combine with human suggestibility C cause !or the unreasonable
e!!ectiveness o! natural languages D1 the component wors canGt help but
conspire to !orm an intriguing personal insight1 !leeting1 as it usually
turns out. Hn the case o! this Ea boyGs !irst astrological reaing1E HGm
sentimental in thinKing that my chart1 lovingly prepare by you1 oes1 in
!act1 contain some important hints an warnings which H might o well
to meitate on.
<our claim1 through the chart1 that H nee to Eo more .eo things1E
an that H nee to seeK out persons with a lot o! energy in their earth an
air signs in orer to balance the plethora o! energy !lowing !rom my
water trine Csp?D1 seems to be really goo avice. /lso1 the !act that the
north noe o! my moon1 representing my path o! highest potential1 is
oppose by "aturn1 representing the in!luence o! my !ather1 or perhaps
!atherly in!luences1 appears to e0plain chronic problems HGve ha in the
past in sel!-e!inition an evelopment. H con!ess1 .eslie1 that H havenGt
given enough thought to the other messages in my chart. H have alreay
orere the booK1 Hnner "Ky1 !rom ;liotGs1 an HGve promise mysel! that
H will return to the stuy o! my personal chart anew1 once H !eel HGve
gleane enough o! a worKing Knowlege !rom reaing1 or sKipping
through the booK. 4etting bacK to the ambiguity question. /strology
probably possesses too !ew built-in constraints upon its interpretive
proceures1 the number an variety o! which having steaily increase
over the millennia1 compare to its relatively smaller an constant
number o! possible symbolic structures - notwithstaning the iscovery
o! a !ew new planets. H nonetheless !eel that it is valuable as a metaphor
in a couple o! i!!erent ways. -irstly1 it acKnowleges the !act1 Kept
secret since the ;nlightenment1 H thinK1 that the evelopment1 or
un!oling1 i! you will1 o! history is by no means linear or logical1 but at
once cyclical an suprarational: history1 both that o! civilizations as well
as that o! iniviual persons1 repeats itsel! interminably1 though never
e0actly in the same way twice. Ht is an ine0tricably intertwine ance
between the act o! creation an the act o! interpretation. H! =istory
seems so amenable to a systematic interpretation1 it is only because so
many o! the great human !igures who have playe a role in shaping it
have1 themselves1 been serious stuents o! history. "econly1 the social
relationships which !orm between persons place them in various mutual
orbits which help to realize or inhibit their multiple though not
altogether consistent potentialities1 etermining more !ully their ientity
an1 hence1 their li!eGs !ate. /ssimilating the basic han!ul o! istinct
personality archetypes to their analogous astrological signs opens up a
rich interpretive structure within which the trans!ormative or stulti!ying
e!!ects o! each personality type upon the other may be preicte an
e0plaine. 6he positions o! the various planets within our "olar system
move along cyclical courses1 to be sure1 but they never e0actly repeat
any o! their previously hel con!igurations - contrary to what the best o!
eighteenth century science might have ha to say about it. 6his seems to
grace e0istence with a richness o! multiple potentialities.
)%/2N
/n now1 we will practice 8icroso!t For by taKing notes on >acques
:erria1E6he Aetrait o! 8etaphor1E which was publishe in ;@3.H6H3
2:2 C*2%ND: '-$$. /s we Know1 the eitors point out that the article worKs
with two semantic systems !or the wor A;6A/H61 which has a variety
o! meanings in -rench.

6he reason that wors ten to have myria meanings is that wors
coine to enote things or activities within some original conte0t are
borrowe !or use in an un!amiliar or less !amiliar one. ?ut the !irst
enotative terms were actually metaphor since various images were
being assimilate over time Cin the sub5ective e0perience o! primitive
manD to the notion o! a thing which appeare an reappeare. "o ob5ects
are istille out o! the !lu0 o! e0perience in the eveloping !eebacK
between the in!ant an his environment an constitute a Kin o! rei!ie
metaphor.
"eptember 2)** au=
@ozicK notes that
au=
-rege hel the view that
Rconcepts cannot be re!erre to Cas conceptsD.S
/n this is what the "el! really is. 6his is somewhat Oantian an is
along the lines o! what 7iaget says about cognitive evelopment in the
sensorimotor stage: the in!ant learns through interacting with a reactive
environment that the image o! her han moving1 the soun it maKes
when it striKes a mobile hanging over her crib1 the !eeling in her han1
the Kinesthetic sensations in the arm an shouler muscles are all part o!
the same Rthing.S 6his integration o! sensation has to be learne !rom
e0perience. ;0istence e!initely precees essence an ob5ects in the
e0ternal worl an the "el! emerge !rom the !lu0 o! issociate
sensation simultaneously. Fe commonly here o! the RthrownnessS o!
the iniviual. 8ore correct here is to speaK o! the thrownness o! the
sel! an its worl together in a single act.
Qd
Hn!ormation never once
entere one_s eveloping in!antile brain. Aather1 ata streame in the
!orm o! trains o! neural impulses into one_s eveloping brain via the
various sensory nerve channel an were interprete in terms o! conte0t-
proviing structures1 which were in the mist o! being evelope by you
or1 rather1 these conte0t-proviing structures an your ego/sel! were
han-in-han simultaneously eveloping.
8etaphor represents the right brain version o! the le!t brain/analytical
activity o! the instantiation o! abstract categories.
"eptember 2)**
8etaphor
cuts across the establishe lines along which abstract categories are
!ashione an seeKs a larger umbrella category !or two or more conte0ts
whereas abstraction or abstract thought consistently worKs within a
single conte0t. 6his istinction is aKin to that between isciplinary an
interisciplinary theoretical research.
6here is always somewhat o! an insight involve in the use o! metaphor
an it_s a linguistic competency not liKely to ever be equale by a
machine. Fhen we learn a language this latent structure o! metaphor
lying at various levels beneath the sur!ace o! language is subconsciously
assimilate an it conitions an elimits all thought1 even at its most
creative. ;specially then.
RAich as the ;nglish language is in meia o! e0pression1 it is curiously
lacKing in terms suitable to the conveyance o! abstract philosophical
premises. / certain intuitive grasp o! the subtler meanings conceale
within groups o! inaequate wors is necessary there!ore to an
unerstaning o! the ancient 8ystery 6eachingsS1 c.!.1 The &ecret
Teachings of *ll *ges.
@ow mostly what =eiegger oes when heGs oing metaphysics is to
unearth this latent structure by going bacK1 he thinKs1 much closer to
where it originate. ,sually in the 4reeK. Fhen you rea =eiegger
you realize that1 at bottom1 thatGs all metaphysics really is - itGs 5ust
archeology o! language1 the EminingE o! latent metaphors which are
masqueraing as purely enotative concepts or logical categories. Fhen
HGm oing metaphysics1 H always !eel that HGm not completely in control
o! what HGm thinKing an sometimes H !eel liKe HGm more or less a passive
vessel into which insights !low an intuitions crystallize. /n thatGs
because H thinK that HGm suppose to be utilizing clear an istinct
categories although HGm really utilizing metaphor. /ll o! the time1 in !act.
6his is why logocentrism oesn_t really worK. /n logocentrism is itsel!
the
Kw=
rei!ication o! a metaphor an oes not really quali!y as a truly
enotative concept. :econstruction econstructs itsel!. 6he statement
that absolute truth is !alse cannot be absolutely trueT :econstruction is a
giant case o! question-begging1 H thinK.

Hn instantiation o! a concept or logical category1 the grasping o! a
particular is pre!igure in the pre-e0isting concept or !orm which is not
e0pane or enlarge through this re-cognition uner the concept o! one
o! its concrete particulars. Hn metaphor1 however1 there is a creative
interpretation o! the unKnown or un!amiliar through the importation o! a
conte0tual web o! associations Cbase in e0perienceD as oppose to
logical relations or abstract categories.. / static1 stable orer in the ol
conte0t becomes a ynamic orering principle whenever it is
transplante into the new conte0t. 6he ynamism is generate by the
reactivity o! the new conte0t as groun into which a see or viral
contaminant o! !oreign meaning is introuce. Hn metaphor an inuctive
as oppose to a euctive step is taKen which enlarges the original
category that was borrowe. /n all o! the entities treate o!
enotatively are1 as allue to alreay1 metaphorical constructs. 6his is
what maKes metaphor open-ene an irreucible in the scope o! its
action1 as well as translogical. ?ecause logic presupposes metaphorical
relationships an so the process by which !ormal categories are
generally brought about cannot itsel! be given a !ormal escription1
which is to say1 no !ormal escription can be given !or how !ormal
escriptions are generally brought into being. 8etaphor1 which is
prelogical1 unerlies the prouction o! all !ormal categories/abstract
concepts. 6his iea seems to support
au=
/lan Fatts_ critique o! the
presumably inviolate principle come own to us !rom the ancient 4reeK
philosophers o! e6 nihilo nihil fit.
"eptember 2)**
R:iscover all that you are
not U boy1 !eelings1 thoughts1 time1 space1 this or that U nothing1
concrete or abstract1 which you perceive can be you. The very act of
perceiving shows that you are not what you perceive.S [italics mine\ -
"ri @isargaatta 8ahara51 I am That.
9ne o! the systems has to o with retreats1 retracings1 withrawals1 an
soon: leaing to questions o! economy1 pathway1 passage1 an
circulation. 6he secon system has to o with erasure/rubbing but also
usury1 by which use an wear ?,H.: ,7 or increase value/meaning.

6here are two Kins o! metaphor - two senses in which metaphor is a
EAetrait.E 6he !irst is the interpretation o! the new in terms o! the ol.
6he secon is the reverse o! this: the reinterpretation o! the ol in terms
o! the new1 such as a metaphor1 suggeste1 !or e0ample1 by new social
relations enable by evelopments in technology. /n e0ample o! this
might be the rawing o! an analogy between the rise o! the Hnternet an
the Forl Fie FebGs impact upon postmoernity an the social/cultural
impact o! the printing press upon the Aenaissance in ;urope C in terms o!
the !reeing-up o! iniviualismD. ?y maKing o! history a 7alimpsest1 we
maKe the transition CpassageD into the !uture less iscontinuous an more
comprehensible.
8arch 2)*(
9ne e!inite avantage o! the Hnternet !or the creative process
that is usually overlooKe is its value as inspirational o! lone creativity
that shoul have otherwise secon-guesse itsel! into quietue1 even in
the absence o! !orum-liKe conte0t. "imilar to how astrophysicists are
able to RobserveS stellar evolution Rover the course o!! billions o! yearsS
uring a career o! $) or () years1 one can simulate communication an
collaboration through the e!t posing questions to a sophisticate online
search engine. Hn this way the ego an the personal are more or less
altogether bracKete out. "earch engine serenipity is an art. 6he
bracKeting out o! common1 orinary an routine search terms1 in
combination with the use o! terms as Rtargeting tagsS with which these
general search terms o! usually associate1 is an online search strategy
that is more liKely to yiel the Kin o! surprising an counterintuitive
search engine results capable o! stimulating new irections in thought1 i!
not an altogether breaKthrough insight1 than is the mere stacKing o!
search terms in an attempt to progressively sieve in!ormation on the Feb
to unearth that wonrous clue to one Knows not what.

RFornness1 worn-outness1 will be important here as well1 since :erria
will be talKing about metaphor as something ol1 something coming near
its en. Hs :erria talKing about the ening o! =istory in the sense o! the
en o! gran narratives?S

8yth is metaphysics clothe in metaphor. 6he most !unamental myth
is that o! the ;go or "el!-consciousness. 6he ;go is the most
!unamental o! myths because it represents the operation o! metaphor at
its most !unamental: consciousness is an unboune !lu0 which is in
continual change along a etermine but not preetermine path. 6he
;go possesses continuity throughout this !lu0ion espite its always being
the arti!act o! an ever changing groun. 6he ;go always manages to
reconstitute itsel! as such against this changing1 grouning !lu0 o!
altering consciousness. 6he ;go in the present moment is always the
importation o! a structure !rom the previous momentary groun
CconsciousnessD into a new one all the while remaining the sel! same
;go. "orry i! H_m belaboring the obvious.

:erria begins by pointing out that metaphor worKs with these notions
o! passage an circulation: inhabiting1 transporting onesel!1 passing
through1 an so on: all o! this is o! course is goo !or poetry in general1
an given my !i0ation1 !or Ialle5o in particular. / Key initial iea is that
while we thinK we EuseE metaphor1 it in !act comprehens us1 sweeps us
away1 isplaces us: we aren_t liKe a pilot in his ship1 we_re :AH-6H@41
sKiing.
6he importation o! the structuring o! the ol groun !rom the preceing
moment manages always Cor almost alwaysD to impose a new structure
upon the newly emerging groun which returns the ;go to itsel!. 6his
return o! the "el! to Htsel! continually1 all the while the groun o!
consciousness !luctuates unerneath it1 represents the power o! metaphor
in its greatest generality.
-or this reason we might term 8in the metaphor o! all metaphors. /n
that is inevitable1 !or no speech is possible without metaphor.

[Ht is not clear to me why :erria thinKs metaphor is coming to the en
o! its li!e he says it_s ol1 oes he say how he Knows it_s almost
RretiringS Che says it is retiringD?\ ?ut here comes something: because
it_s ol1 it has 89A; an not less weight: a lot is attache to metaphor.
8etaphor is Ea suspensive withrawal an return supporte by the line
C6A/H6D elimiting a contourE C2D [this again is goo !or Ialle5o\.

@ow he asKs why we privilege =eiegger_s te0t Che oesn_t say which
te0tD on this topic. Ht seems to be because o! =#s concentration on
6A/H61 in the sense o! line1 the Etracing incision o! languageE C*)D.
@ow : reveals two o! =#s titles: :;A "/6J I98 4A,@: an
,@6;AF;4" J,A "7A/3=;. =e also remins us1 in his inimitable
way1 that he will quote himsel! CEF=H6; 8<6=9.94<: 8etaphor in
the 6e0t o! 7hilosophyED but this is not in orer to raw attention to
himsel! but rather1 so as not to have to repeat here what he sai there
Cyeah1 yeah1 >acques-babyD.

6his is getting i!!icult. : is going to slip himsel! through one o! =#s
notes on metaphor - in which Ethe metaphoric e0ists only within the
bounaries o! metaphysicsE - as iscusse by Aicoeur in ./
8;6/7=9A; IHI;1 whose eighth essay1 in turn1 iscusses :#s EFhite
8ythologyE piece. [4ossip: the current piece by :erria was rea at a
symposium in 4eneva where Aicoeur also rea.\ /nyway1 the point is
that we will be relating metaphor an metaphysics here1 in the above
sense1 which the metaphoric e0ists only within the bounaries o!
metaphysics. [4uessing: as we Know1 : wants to get beyon
metaphysics1 so H suppose this article will try to lea us beyon
metaphor: let_s see1 that_s interesting1 it souns 6=;9.94H3/. to me
an H Know : woul probably hate me !or thinKing so.\

: says A in_t pay enough attention this point o! =#s. "o now he will
critique A. -irst point. A1 accoring to :1 assimilates : too easily to =.
"econ point. 8ore on A#s misreaing o! EFhite 8ythologyVE over-
assimilation to =. [@ot having rea EF8E or the =eiegger piece on it1
it_s har !or me to comment here.\ [4ossip: : comes !rom a repressive
!amily bacKgroun1 H can tell1 he_s liKe me1 Keeps saying Ebut that_s not
what H sai1 how can you attribute it to meE - he is very !i0ate on being
precisely unerstoo1 H agree intellectually with that !eeling1 but what H
am gossiping about here is
his tone.\ =ere1 he_s also ma at A because1 : says1 A criticizes : !rom
the place to which : ha himsel! carrie the critique.
/ Key point appears to be that accoring to A1 EF8E maKes eath or
ea metaphor is watchwor - this iea o!!ens : Cnote though that A#s
te0t is calle .HI; 8;6/7=9AD. Fhat : purports to really be talKing
about is the 6F9 :;/6=" or ";.--:;"6A,36H9@" 9-
8;6/7=9A [he oesn_t e0plain this hereV we have to rea EF8E
which H_m beginning to suspect is more interesting than the piece at
han\.

@ow we talK about economy. /. usury ?. the law o! the house 3.
;A;H4@H" [?\ :. passage1 !raying1 trans!er1 translation1 withrawal
Cbecause1 H intuit1 metaphor 69:/< is withrawing1 accoring to :D.
@ow we looK at mother-tongue an !ather-language again1 complicate
little arguments1 my !irst guess here is that mother-tongue is not
metaphoric1 but !ather-language is metaphorical an metaphysical1 has to
o with !ormal language1 the law1 an so !orth.
Aetreat1 tracing1 translation#let#s talK about Etraits1E then. Fe nee
metaphor when we can#t get to ?eing#i! we coul get there1 there woul
be no metaphor. /n1 what =eiegger calls metaphysics H6";.-
correspons to a withrawal o! ?eing. "o we only get out o!
metaphysical/metaphorical iscourse by a withrawal o! the withrawal
o! ?eing.

["H:; @96;: 3987/A; 69 6=; @H;6J3=;/@ 6/.O 9@
8H@;A/." H@ 6=; <;":
3987/A;:Z 69 6=/61 6=H" ";;8" I;A< F;"6;A@ /@:
;@3.9";:1 /@: 3987/A;: 69 ;/"6;A@ A;.H4H9@1 F;..1
@;;: H "/< 89A;?\ /nyway1 what we#re going to get with
metaphor is a series o! retreats1 withrawals#this is how metaphor gets
so comple0#as it withraws1 it Egives placeE to Ean abyssal
generalisation o! themetaphoric.E
?eing1 liKe metaphor1 Ewithraws into its cryptE [I/87HA;" /4/H@T
:9;" 6=H"
8/O; ?;H@4 / I/87HA;? 7A9?/?.<1 :/" "6H8861 H6 -H6".\
?,61 an this is going to be important1 we get a 3/6/"6A97=; when
metaphoricity no longer allows itsel! to be containe in its
#metaphysical# concept when CH 6=H@OD metaphor stops being a
metaphor o! something that is absent Cbut whose absence is palpable1 as
in the absence o! /braham_s 4oD.
;0istence is1 o! course1 the conte0tualizing o! ?eing. 6he withrawal o!
?eing woul mean the loss o! coherence o! the groun o! e0istence.
8etaphor is the continual reconte0tualization o! ?eing which maintains
this coherence o! groun. 8etaphor1 in its root an most basic
mani!estation1 e!!ectively simulates the continue presence o! ?eing.
?ut this is !or some not satis!actory. 9ne tragically esires the ?eing o!
the 9ther. 6he phenomena resulting !rom the very action o! ?eing1
?eing_s metaphorical mani!estation as e0istent entities !alls short o! this
tragic esire !or ?eing. ?ut secretly the ?eing o! the "el! an the ?eing
o! the 9ther are one an the same. -or one is the 9ther !or the 9ther.
?ut one can see !rom one_s own case1 that one is more than merely the
9ther !or the 9therT 8etaphysics is the attempt to iscursively escribe
what can only be glimpse1 which is the coherence o! e0istence in the
light o! ?eing_s presencing as 9ther. 8etaphysics tries to reconstitute
?eing !rom out o! the coherence o! ?eing_s e0istence even in ?eing_s
absence. 6he immeiacy o! ?eing obviates the necessity o!
metaphysics as Eontological neurosisE cause by its withrawal. 9n the
other han1 the thrownness o! ?eing is its thrownness as "el! an 9ther
simultaneously.
"eptember 2)*$
Hn the same way that the intersub5ective !alls
short o! the ob5ective1 the $
r
person base concept o! consciousness !alls
short o! the *
st
person concept o! consciousness an the *
st
!alls short o!
the concept o! consciousness !rom a/the )
th
person perspective. 6his is
no mere super!icial appearance o! inuction. 6he $
r
person oes not
imply the 2
n
an *
st
persons as is pointe up by the notion o!
Rphilosophical zombiesS1 although the 2
n
oes imply the *
st
5ust as the
*
st
implies the )
th
as /lvin 7lantinga suspecte. 6he *
st
oes not imply
the 2
n
because o! the ever-present specter o! metaphysical solipsism.
3ontinue play with these seemingly sophomoric notions may point up a
hereto!ore unsuspecte system or relation.
6he "el! is a sociolinguistic construct. 6he sel! only emerges within the
social environment o! a linguistic community. 7art o! the process o!
learning any given tasK is that o! the maKing o! subvocalize1 mental
notes to onesel! as one is attempting to per!orm an master the tasK. "o
this is here not entirely a case o! learning by oing. ?ut when it comes
to learning the RtasKS o! becoming minimally competent in one_s !irst
language - this is entirely an e0ample o! Rlearning by oingS. 6he
unerstaning o! what one is oing appears later a!ter the necessary
preparation o! groun.
Fe have here the real thing in han an we can ispense with saying
what something is liKe. 9ur i!!iculties in having an authentic
relationship with ?eing which woul have power!ully valiate the sel!
stimulates in us an impulse to hate!ully gossip - to talK ba about
?eing. 8etaphysics is an attempt to econstruct ?eing which is
motivate by a arK1 unerlying necrophilic urge to tear own1
emysti!y1 an emythologize the 9ther which seems to have re5ecte
us1 not unliKe a haughty an unapproachable1 woul-be lover. ?ut it is
not ?eing which has one the re5ecting here. Aather this necrophilic an
estructive impulse1 which mani!ests itsel! in the !orm o! a metaphysics
o! ?eing1 is precipitate not through ?eing_s callous re5ection o! us1 but
on account o! rage against impotence to intimately relate to ?eing.

?ut there is another sort o! metaphor in =eiegger1 a non-metaphysical
one. [/@: /6 6=H" 79H@61 H /4/H@ 39@-;"" H :9@#6 O@9F: H
6=H@O :;AAH:/ A;/:" =;H:;44;A 89A; F;"6;A@- .<
6=/@ H1 /@: 6=H" 8/< ?; 39AA;36#?,6 "98;9@; 6;.. 8;
"98;6=H@4 9@ =;H:;44;A1 H A;/: =H" ?;H@4 H@ "9A6 9- /
J;@ ";@";1 6=9,4= H F9,.: "/< =; H" 89A; H@6;A;"6;:
H@ /@ /@6=A9789A7=H3 F=9.; 6=/@ /A; 6=;";
;/"6;A@ 6<7;" #H 4;6 6=; "6A/@4; -;;.H@4 6=/6 H
:9@#6 O@9F ;@9,4= 69 =/I; /@ 97H@H9@1 ?,6 6=/6 9@
6=; 96=;A =/@: H- H O@;F ;@9,4= 69 97H@; H F9,.: ?;
H@"H:; 6=; :H"39,A"; /@: =/I; 69 /4A;; FH6= H6. \
;n o! metalanguage1 metaphysics1 meta-rhetoric1 but pure
metaphoricity# ?y now we#re talKing about !amous =eiegger lectures
liKe E6he @ature o! .anguage.E 8etaphors1 wors1 are H@3H"3H9@"1
tracings#as in woo-cuttings1 gravures1 engravings#an these incisions
maKe possible gra!tings1 so to speaK1 splicings# an ?;H@4 H6";.- H"
/ :HI;A4;@3;1 / "7.H66H@41 "98;6=H@4 39@"6/@6.< H@
FH6=:A/F/.1 / ?9A:;A [WWW/4/H@ 6=H@O I/..;>91 6=H"
H" I;A< ",44;"6HI; -9A E.H@:;"E\#H6" H@"3AH76H9@
",33;;:" 9@.< H@ ?;H@4 ;--/3;: Cthat#s the ;nglish
translation1 a more interesting a!!irmation than the -rench original
Rn#arrive qu#a s#e!!acerSD#being happens an comes about only in
e!!acing itsel!#Cthere is more on thisD 6he essence o! speech is
H@3H"H9@ [this is interesting1 we speaK o! Eincisive argumentsE but here
speech H" incision\#H@3H"H9@ ?AH@4" 694;6=;A /@:
";7/A/6;" 6=; I;H.H@4 /@: 6=; ,@I;H.H@4 [now there#s a
metaphorical phrase#VDD so toay1 metaphor is withrawing1 splicing1
un/5oining. Fhat is happening? RAien1 pas e reponse1 sinon que e la
metaphore le retrait se passe e lui-meme.
H have o!ten marvelle at how the movement o! ?eing through time is at
the sel!same1 ientical instant1 both a passing away an a coming into
being. Hn other wors1 the coming into being an the passing away o! the
"el! within the !lu0 o! consciousness Curing each passing instantD are
groune in the very same phenomena1 an this parao0 o! passage is
essential to the continuity o! e0perience time.
)%/2N
Aepresentation is groune in the participatory an the ob5ective is
no more RrealS than the intersub5ective. Aepresentations are metaphors
an convenient recapitulations o! an open-ene historical process. /ll
!orm is metaphorV the concrete always transcens the metaphorical.
)%/2N
ynamical system temporally evolves may be given a consistent
e!inition in terms o! the ratio o! the ensity o! energy e0changes o! the
system with its outsie environment to the ensity o! $-momentum
e0changes o! the system with itsel!. ?y this e!inition1 the most rapily
temporally evolving ynamical system woul be that o! the pristine
quantum mechanical vacuum state - the quantum vacuum in the absence
o! real particles or !iels. Fe must note that the notion o! the absolute
passage o! time1 i.e.1 the passage o! time !or reality as a whole1 is a
meaningless concept1 or at least1 a concept which cannot be given a sel!-
consistent !ormulation or interpretation. 6his !act is intimately relate to
the !act that a thermoynamic system to which the notion o! entropy
applies Cthe 2n .aw o! 6hermoynamicsD is by e!inition an open
system in the sense o! a system unergoing continual energy e0change
with a thermal reservoir or Eheat bath.E
Qd
/ completely close system1
as note earlier1 woul possess initial an bounary conitions resulting
in the quantizing o! energy an momentum throughout the system giving
it a close state space an a 7oincare recurrence time which woul be
inistinguishable !rom a !inite (th spatial imension. Hn such a system1
with time being spatialize1 the notion o! the irection o! time is
completely arbitrary - there is not outsie to which the system is tie
which can serve as a memory o! the history o! the system to prevent the
system !rom being completely reversible. 6he system woul be ergoic
an possess a conserve phase space volume. Hn perturbation theory
within quantum mechanics1 we !in that an incompletely escribe
ynamical system is appro0imate by a =amiltonian possessing a
perturbation energy which may be thought o! as a system e0actly
escribe in terms o! a =amiltonian1 =
)
1 which is interacting with a
larger energy system through the perturbation =amiltonian1 =
!luc
which is
simply ae to =
)
such that the new wave!unction calculate !rom this
sum through the "chroinger equation is 5ust the new wave!unction
e0pane in terms o! the ol one e!ine in terms o! =
)
. Hn this way the
actual system is seen to be the ol system unergoing virtual transition
between its energy eigen!unctions. 6he ol systemGs energy uncertainty
is represente in terms o! the perturbation energy associate with the
!luctuation =amiltonian1 =
!luc
. Hn this way1 it is seen that1 in general1 the
temporal evolution o! any quantum system is representable in terms o!
the interaction o! an appro0imate system represente by a zeroeth orer
=amiltonian1 =
)
1 with its outsie environment !rom which is has
originally been abstracte. Fhen one has taKen into account all possible
perturbations ue to real particles an !iels interacting with the given
system in question1 one is le!t with the ineraicable resiue o! the
quantum vacuum itsel!. "o the concrete Can realD temporality o! any
quantum system1 when the mere appearance o! change in the system ue
to inaequacies in our nth orer perturbation e0pansion escription o!
the system have been taKen into account1 is wholly attributable to the
action o! the quantum mechanical vacuum. "o we now come to an
important istinction: changes in the system which are not irectly
measurable an hence unerstoo as virtual transitions between energy
levels o! an appro0imate =amiltonian escription o! the system versus
transitions between energy levels o! the system ue to an actual
incompleteness or openness o! the system escription ue to ontological1
i.e.1 actual1 ineterminacy or ine!initeness o! the system itsel!1 as
oppose to mere epistemological ine!initeness o! the system which is a
mere arti!act o! an incomplete quantum-perturbative analysis o! the
system. 6his is the istinction o! ontological versus epistemological
energy uncertainty o! a quantum mechanical system. 6his above
iscussion pertains to the istinction1 mae in an earlier letter1 o! /a;1
which H have sai may be wholly attributable to the observer1 an the
square root
cont_
"ince momentum an position are incompatible observables1 then so are
a !unction o! momentum an a !unction o! position. @ow the total
energy o! any quantum mechanical system1 the =amiltonian1 =Cp1rD1 is
the sum o! its Kinetic an potential energies1 =Cp1rD = !CpD + !CrD1 where
p an r are momentum an position1 respectively. "o by what has been
sai1 =Cp1rD cannot have a precise value - !or this woul imply
simultaneously precise values !or the Kinetic an potential energies1
which1 in turn1 woul imply simultaneous values o! p an r. "o the
value1 =Cp1rD must unergo !luctuations o! a !unamental sort. @ow
even the vacuum is a quantum system1 i.e.1 a qm groun state.
Qd
"o the
vacuumGs =amiltonian1 that is1 its total energy1 must also !luctuate.
6hese !luctuations interact with every particle an !iel1 introucing
uncertainty in the location o! particles in phase space1 i.e.1 0-p space. /ll
measurement oes is alter the shape o! the area o! phase space
EoccupieE by the particle. 8easurement oes not change the area o!
phase space where this particle is liKely to be !oun CEoccupieE by this
particleED1 however. 6he particle oes not possess an e0act EpositionE
within the 0-p CphaseD space. Fe can never say be!orehan how the
vacuum !luctuations interacting with the particle Can out o! which the
particle is constitute an sustaineD will nonlocally resonate with the
vacuum !luctuations interacting at the time o! measurement with the
observerGs brain Cthe observerGs brain is also a quantum system1 ?6FD.
Aemember that qbar = sqrt[mqWW2 - /aqWW2 \ where mq is the !luctuations
o! q ue to the quantum vacuum an /aq is the uncertainty in q which
may be wholly attribute to the observerGs brain ue to the in!luence o!
vacuum energy !luctuations upon itT. Ht is the cooperation o! these two
terms which results in qbar1 the e0pectation value Cclassical valueD o! qT
6his perhaps remins some o! you o! =u0leyGs theory o! perception: the
receipt o! photons by the retina o! the observer results in a stimulation o!
the brain in such a way that its Rether wave !iltersS recon!igure so that
the signals representing the ob5ect seen are no longer screene out by the
consciousness reucing valve Cthe brain1 that isD which are then EpicKe
upE. 6he brain is then conceive o! as a Kin o! ether wave tuning
evice an perception is 5ust an altering o! the set o! !requencies o! ether
waves Cvacuum !luctuations1 i! you pre!er moern parlanceD which the
vacuum can resonate with where the brain acts only as a harware
inter!ace between two unboune sets o! inter!ering ether wave spectra.
pru=
6he brain on this view is simply a changeable an comple0 set o!
bounary conitions place upon the vacuum electromagnetic !ielGs
sel!-interactionT RFhat we see an hear1 or what we !eel an smell an
taste1 is only a small !raction o! what actually e0ists out there. 9ur
conscious moel o! reality is a lowimensional pro5ection o! the
inconceivably richer physical reality surrouning an sustaining us. 9ur
sensory organs are limite: 6hey evolve !or reasons o! survival1 not !or
epicting the enormous wealth an richness o! reality in all its
un!athomable epth. 6here!ore1 the ongoing process o! conscious
e0perience is not so much an image o! reality as a tunnel through
realityS1
cit=
The Ego Tunnel: The &cience of the 2in an the 2yth of the
&elf C
au=
8etzingerD.
Hs there some general relationship between the height o! the potential
barrier an the magnitue o! the energy uncertainty? 9r is there really
no general principle at worK here relating these two quantities? =X =
;X --Z YXW;XZ = Y;Z --Z YXWC;WW2DXZ = Y;WW2Z / YXW;XZWW2 =
Y;ZWW2
/a; = sPrtnY;WW2Z - Y;ZWW2o 1 where = = =C6CpD1IC0DD
Fhat is the relationship between the reuction o! the wavepacKet upon
an observation being per!orme on some quantum mechanical system
an the conversion o! virtual particles into real particles?
Ht may be possible to moi!y 7oissonGs equation1 Q
27/Q2r = (piCrhoD1
to inclue a 2n partial erivative o! 71 the potential1 with respect to the
time such that we might assimilate the 2n partial erivative with respect
to r to the state variable1 CrhoD
mass1 an assimilate the 2n partial
erivative o! 7 with respect to t to the state variable1 CrhoDvacuum1 so
that CrhoD in the above equation may be interprete as the space ensity
which is a locally conserve quantity.
.et us e0amine ;insteinGs !iel equation !or any potential mathematical
a!!inity it might have with respect to our equation relating the space
energy ensity to the sum o! the vacuum an mass energy ensities.
====Z 6
uv = -Auv -*/2Aguv
;ach o! these three terms are what are calle tensor ensities. 6hey have
physical imensions o! energy ensity. Hn 8achGs !ormula !or the spee
o! pressure wave oscillations in a continuous1 energy-conucting
meium1 the pressure is associate with the vacuum energy ensity since
the quantum vacuum always obeys the equation o! state that its pressure
an energy ensity are ientical. ?ut this ienti!ication leaves only one
possible !urther ienti!ication o! the meium energy ensityV that is1 the
energy ensity must be ienti!ie with the total energy ensity o! space1
what is terme within our theory1 the space ensity. Hn orer !or an
entropy an temperature to be assigne to the quantum vacuum1 we must
suppose that this vacuum remains in thermal equilibrium with this heat
reservoir1 the energy ensity o! which is the space ensity re!erre to
earlier.
Hntuitively1 i! any !urther ienti!ications are to be mae between terms
within our theory an terms within ;insteinGs theory1 then the !ollowing
ienti!ications might be mae:
6he scalar curvature1 A1 shoul be ienti!ie with the space ensity1 the
momentum-energy tensor1 6
uv1 shoul be ienti!ie with the mass-
energy ensity1 an the term1 -Auv1 shoul be ienti!ie with the vacuum
energy ensity. 6he term1 guv1 which in relativity theory is the
imensionless ot prouct o! the spacetime coorinate unit vectors1 eu
an ev1 may be alternatively interprete to correspon to the ratio o!
sum o! the momentum-energy an Aiemannian tensor ensities to the
scalar energy ensity. Fithin our theory1 the guv correspon to mi0e
2n orer partial erivatives o! the ratio o! the sum o! the vacuum scalar
energy ensity to the total space energy ensity.
00
virtual - virtual real - real real -
virtual

M----------------------------M M-------------------------M
M---------------------------M
M 0 0 0 M M o o o o o M M 0 o 0 0 o
o o 0 M
M 0 0 0 M M o o o o M M 0 o oo 0
0 o M
M0 0 0 0 M M o o o o M M o o 0 0 o
o 0 M
M 0 0 0 M M o o o o M M 0 o o 0
0 oM
M 0 0 0 0 M M o o o o M M o o 0 0
0 o M
M 0 0 0 0 M M o o o o o oM M 0 0 o o
o 0M
M----------------------------M M--------------------------M
M--------------------------M

4 = , - "6 C!ree energyD is minimize an con!igurational entropy is
ma0imize when
rhoCvD = rhoCmD in the !ormation o! a blacK hole.
:o the partial erivatives o! the gravitational potential trans!orm liKe the
components o! a !our vector?
Qd
Ht woul appear that an arbitrary .orenz
trans!ormation o! the *st orer partial erivatives o! a stanar static
gravitational potential shoul trans!orm so as to evince the e0istence o! a
time-varying potential1 an hence1 that o! a (-hyperspherical potential.

6here is an important istinction to be mae between massive an
massless particles. 6his istinction consists in the !act that a massive
particle which is seen to be at rest has a (-momentum which is purely
imaginary1 but which may be re-represente by a .orenz trans!ormation
in terms o! a new set o! real an imaginary components within some
i!!erent inertial re!erence !rame. 6his is not generally true o! massless
particles1 however. / massless particle1 such as a photon1 possesses a
relativistic (-momentum which is purely real in any an all inertial
re!erence !rames. 6here is no possible .orenz trans!ormation which can
succee in re-representing the (-momentum o! the photon as a mi0ture
o! real an imaginary momentum components. =owever1 in the case o!
real massive particles1 the relativistic mass increases e0actly in step with
the increase in imaginary momentum. 6his suggests that perhaps
photons o not possess a gravitational mass1 an that the true source o!
the gravitational !iel is a massive boyGs imaginary momentum. =ow
then1 i! this is true1 o we account !or the isappearance o! the
gravitational mass which results !rom the total conversion o! mass into
photon energy? :oes this energy isappear in the !orm o! longituinal
pressure waves in the quantum vacuum?
/ photon which is climbing out o! a gravitational potential must acquire
an imaginary component o! (-momentum relative to its previous
location within a stronger potential. Fe say1 then1 that a photon
possesses an imaginary momentum relative to a point in spacetime o!
greater gravitational potential.
6he inertial !rame-ragging e!!ect euce by .enz an 6hirring !rom
;insteinGs !iel equations1 may be unerstoo intuitively in the !ollowing
manner: angular momentum o! a massive gravitating boy as observe
!rom a great istance away Cwhere the boyGs gravitational potential has
!allen o!! appreciablyD appears greatly reuce when the observer is
transporte close to this boy. 6his change in the appearance o! the $-
angular momentum o! the massive boy in transporting the observer
!rom a re!erence !rame o! small gravitational potential to one possessing
large potential may be unerstoo in terms o! a i!!erent partitioning o!
the total conserve (-angular momentum o! the boy in the two
i!!erent1 locally 8inKowsKian !rames. Hn other wors1 (-angular
momentum which is mostly about an arbitrary z-a0is1 !or e0ample1 when
the boy is viewe !rom a region o! spacetime o! small potential1
Crelative to so-calle E!ree spaceED is rotate within (-imensional
spacetime in moving the observer to the region o! large potential in such
a way that most o! the (-angular momentum o! the boy now EappearsE
along the local time a0is within this spacetime. 6he angular momentum
seen by the more istant observer is hien !rom the observer in close
vicinity to the boy because he is occupying a space which is1 relative to
the istant observer1 spinning in the same sense as the boy itsel!. 6his
interpretation is consistent with the general relativistic e!!ect o!
perhelion precession which occurs in the sense opposite to the irection
o! the boyGs orbital motion.
Hn a conversation with ?rian "wi!t it was suggeste by me1 in
connection with a iscussion o! the ol ensity wave theory o! galactic
spiral arm !ormation1 that perhaps a spinning supermassive blacKhole
lies at the center o! any given spiral arm gala0y an that the .enz-
6hirring inertial !rame-ragging e!!ect coul be at least partially
responsible Cmaybe also in con5unction with ensity wavesD !or the
!ormation o! the classic spiral arm structure o!1 !or e0ample1 the 8ilKy
Fay 4ala0y.
9utline o! a tape conversation between :r. ?rian "wi!t an
Aussell 3larK
;nergy an time trans!orm in opposite manner within relativity !rom
how they trans!orm within the =eisenberg ,ncertainty 7rinciple. 6he
local velocity o! light is a!!ecte by a .orenz trans!ormation analogously
to the way time an length trans!orm within this trans!ormation. 6here
may be a i!!erence between energy an mass parallel to the istinction
between !ermions an bosons within quantum mechanics. Ht may be that
gravity is only generate by !ermions an not by bosons.
6his woul violate the
principle o! broKen supersymmetry
1 c.!.1
au=
?arrow an "cherrer1
cit=
astro-
ph/)()&)NNv$1 Do :ermions an -osons 4rouce the &ame
/ravitational :iel% R"pinS is responsible !or generation o! Rarti!icial
gravityS.
@ovember 2)**
/ccoring to ;instein1 the gravitational !orce is not a
bona !ie R!orceS1 but is an e!!ect ue to curve spacetime. 6here may
be a generalization lurKing within the notion o! RspinS so that Rreal
gravityS liKe arti!icial gravity is an e!!ect generate by the action o!
RspinS though at the subatomic level o! scale.
;nergy an mass may not be equivalent in all re!erence !rames. 8ass
an energy may trans!orm in opposite manner within a .orenz
trans!ormation.
Aeal !ermions isturb the normally balance renormalization which
e0ists between the vacuum !ermion an boson !luctuation !iels. 6here
is no !unamental istinction between real bosons an virtual bosons.
;n o! this installment o! the conversation between :r. ?rian "wi!t an
Aussell 3larK C*22&D
Ht is possible to unerstan !rom quantum theory1 the causal relationship
between the momentum - energy tensor an the space - time tensor o!
general relativity by noting a pair o! briging relations between these
tensors via the =eisenberg space-momentum an time-energy
uncertainty relations? 6hese uncertainty relations prevent the e!ining
o! precise1 eterministic tra5ectories !or particles moving within (-
imensional 8inKowsKi spacetime. Hn particular1 no precise tra5ectory
can be e!ine !or particles whose sole component o! motion is along
the 8inKowsKi ict a0is. "uch particles are observe to be Eat restE with
respect to the local system o! coorinates. Fhat oes it mean1 we may
asK1 !or a particle at rest to have an ill-e!ine tra5ectory1 as implie by
the =eisenberg principle? 9ne obvious interpretation is !or the particle
to lacK the continuous1 inepenent e0istence o! a classically escribe1
inert an atom-liKe substance1 which subsists inifferent to the passage
of time. 6he particle must possess an uncertain momentum an hence
tra5ectory on account o! continual e0change o! virtual photons Cin the
case o! a charge particleD with the vacuum electromagnetic !iel.
6he analogue o! the particle - wave complementarity in quantum
theory is the ualism between mass an energy within the theory o!
relativity. 6he general absence o! either a precisely e!ine particle
position or momentum implies an oscillation o! the particle between its
particle an wave moe mani!estations which may be unerstoo in
terms o! the continual bacK-an-!orth trans!ormation o! matter !rom its
mass to its energy mani!estation. 6his spontaneous activity on the part o!
matter may be visualize in terms o! its continual re!ormation an
isintegration into mass an energy.
>uly 2)**
>ust consier here the !act
that all quantum mechanical operators may be alternately e0presse in
terms o! the creation an annihilation operators corresponing to !iel
observables.
9nly massless particles are reintegrate e0clusively !rom the vacuum
energy. 6hough massive particles are largely reintegrate out o! the
energy o! the quantum vacuum1 a tiny percentage o! this energy must be
supplie internally1 that is1 !rom energy resources o! the mass itsel!1
which is to imply that1 massive particles possess internal bining
energies whereas the photon oes not. =owever1 5ust as in the case o!
superconuctivity in which the photon taKes on mass1 the photon taKes
on an e!!ective mass within a vacuum laen with a gravitational
potential. 6he measure o! this !raction is the ratio o! the mass-energy
an vacuum energy ensities within the volume occupie by the mass.
Qd
6his tenency !or matter to replenish itsel! !rom a !raction o! its own
e0isting mass-energy in competition with its reintegration out o! the
locally available vacuum energy may account !or the linKage o! inertia
an gravitation. 6his reintegration process may be moele as a constant
process o! $-momentum CbosonD e0changes amongst matter particles
C!ermionsD in competition with energy e0changes between these particles
an the thermal reservoir o! the vacuum nuclear electro-weaK !iel
!luctuations necessitate by the =eisenberg uncertainty principle. 6he
e0change o! energy within quantum mechanical systems may be
generally characterize by three principle moes o! energy e0change:
!irst1 the e0change o! energy between mass-energy an itsel! which is
meiate by the totality o! !unamental !orce-carrying particles1
collectively Known as bosons. 6his particular moe o! energy e0change
is owing to the position-momentum mani!estation o! the generalize
=eisenberg principle1
/pril 2)**
c.!.1 creation-annihilation/e0change o!
quantum correlate1 spin-* virtual vector bosons. "econ1 the e0change
o! energy between mass-energy an the vacuum energy !iel which is
the moe o! energy e0change responsible !or the phenomena o!
spontaneous emission1 nuclear ecay1 quantum mechanical tunneling1
etc.1 owes its origin to the time-energy !orm o! the =eisenberg principle.
-inally1 there is the energy e0change moe taKing place between the
vacuum energy !iel an itsel!1
/pril 2)**
c.f." creationFannihilation of
Buantum correlate" spinFJ virtual fermionFantifermion pairs =virtual
Cooper pairsHscalar bosonsA. 6his energy e0change moe we suspect
powers the process o! global cosmological e0pansion. :arK matter an
arK energy may perhaps be better unerstoo in connection with the
moel suggeste here. Hn general1 an operator which oes not commute
with the =amiltonian operator1 i.e.1 [q1=\ a= )1 must e0perience
!luctuations. 6he =amiltonian itsel! is sub5ect to !unamental quantum
!luctuations so we may say that [=1=\ =a ). 6his means that changing the
orer in which we measure = maKes a i!!erence in the results o! our
measurement. 6his oesnGt seem to maKe sense unless we are speaKing
o! maKing these same measurements1 but in opposite time orer.
Qd
H!
this is the correct interpretation o! [=1=\ =/ )1 then quantum !luctuations
in the =amiltonian o! spacetime may be responsible !or timeGs
!unamental asymmetry. -ut how can < fail to commute with itself% 6his
moe also constrains1 we believe1 the thermoynamic equilibrium o!
mass-energy systems embee within the e0paning mass-
energy/vacuum-energy system1 an so seems the most general
mani!estation o! the =eisenberg principle.
6he overarching system o! energy e0changes will altogether comprise a
total conservative energy system to which will correspon the
conservative !orce-!iel Known as gravitation. 9n this view1 gravitation
is not thought to be meiate by a unique !orce-carrying particle1 or
boson1 i.e.1 graviton1 but is a !unamentally EparasiticE !orce1 one which
epens !or its action on the collective interaction between matter1 its
!unamental e0change !orces1 an the total vacuum nuclear-electroweaK
!iel. "peci!ically1 it is the shi!t in the balance between the three types
o! energy e0change continually occurring within the quantum vacuum:
particle-particle1 particle-wave1 an wave-wave1 energy e0changes.
?ecause matter is continually being reintegrate !rom the vacuum
energy !iel which originally create it1 the transport o! matter particles
!rom one region o! vacuum locally1 to another region1 cannot1 on our
view1 be unerstoo as being !unamentally i!!erent !rom the
estruction o! these particles within one local region o! the vacuum !iel
Can subsequent conversion to vacuum energy within this regionD with
the subsequent re-creation o! these particles !rom the vacuum energy
locally available within the estination-region where they are ultimately
Ebrought to rest.E
/pril 2)**
This is a crue paraphrase of Davi -ohmDs
principle" set forth in his ialectical materialist Buantum mechanics
te6tboo'" 3uantum Theory =>?@>" heretofore an subseBuently referre
to as Bohm2s pr!nc!pe o, causa!ty/Bohm2s causa pr!nc!pe L the
principle namely1 that all causal relationships may be alternately
represente as a sum o! correlate !luctuations. 6he question arises at
this point as to whether there are two istinct types o! causality implie
by ?ohm_s causal principle: classically correlate versus quantum
correlate !luctuations1 or even perhaps four istinct types of causality
are implie here: classically correlate classical !luctuations1 quantum
correlate classical !luctuations1 classically correlate quantum
!luctuations an quantum correlate quantum !luctuations?
>uly 2)*$ Qd
6he
combination o! a !ermion with an anti!ermion in which they unergo
mutual annihilation yiels two quantum entangle photons o! opposite
momentum1 spin1 phase an helicity. 9n the other han1 a collective spin
) boson or Cooper pair can be constructe with a quantum entangle
CanticorrelateD !ermion an anti!ermion. Fhat etermines whether we
have two anticorrelate !ermions or two correlate bosons1 matter in the
first instance or energy in the secon instance appears to epen on the
speci!ic moe o! quantum entanglement present.
>uly 2)**
6he brains real action may inee be in the construction o!
quantum entanglements between the subtlest components o! its structure1
i.e.1 microtubule imer electrons as well as electronic states o! :@/.
6he actual processing o! these entanglements1 which give them conte0t1
meaning an re!erence Cpointing RoutsieS the otherwise close system
o! the biological brainD an inee1 as well giving them temporality is
the pree0istent quantum entanglement networK constitute by the
quantum vacuum electromagnetic !iel aKa the P;: vacuum. 6he
substance of awareness lies here an the ob$ect of awareness is
constitute !rom a particular an unique spectrum o! !requencies o! the
entangle vacuum electromagnetic !iel with which this or that
particular person_s brain resonantly tunes. 6he question arises as to
whether the unique spectrum o! networKe quantum entangle vacua
which constitutes the particular person_s ynamic conte0tual groun
with which his brain resonantly tunes was originally RKnitte togetherS
a!ter his !etal brain ha reache a crucial stage o! neuroanatomical
evelopment in which brain evelopment an that o! the networKe
vacuum !requency spectrum move han in han or whether the !etal
brain must !irst reach a certain critical stage o! evelopmental
comple0ity be!ore this matter-vacuum !eebacK mechanism can begin to
operate. Fhat perhaps allows this !eebacK to Rphase-locKS an to
begin RhomingS an RtracKingS is the !act that the quantum vacuum
itsel! also in!orme the evolution an an !unction o! the :@/ which
coe !or the structure an !unction o! that iniviual person_s brain in
the !irst instance.
Qd
Ht seems as though provience is inescapable when
it comes to the bringing into being o! a sel!-conscious entity.
6here!ore1 we believe that the total energy ensity o! any given region o!
locally ;ucliean $ - space may not be altere through changes in the
local istribution o! energy constitute by real matter particles an
!iels. Fe unerstan energy ensity more broaly here as the total
!our-momentum ensity o! local regions o! 8inKowsKi spacetime1 an
unerstan the conservation o! energy ensity as the constancy o! total
(-momentum ensity espite phenomenological CapparentD variations in
energy ensity Cclassically unerstooD within local ;ucliean $-spaces.
6o wit1 though the magnitues o! the various components o! the total (-
momentum ensity may change within an arbitrary $-volume o!
;ucliean space1 the magnitue o! the total (-momentum ensity o!
spacetime oes not change locallyV that is to say1 it oes not change
observably over relatively small istances an times within a 8inKowsKi
metric.
/pril 2)**
6he vacuum energy within the conte0t o! cosmological
e0pansion either acts liKe an e0paning meium o! !inite energy or it
behaves liKe a cosmological constant1 c.!.1 the ar+iv pre-print article1
cit=
Dilution of Wero 4oint Energies in the Cosmological E6pansion.
6he so-calle mass-energy re!ormation process is limite by the
ensity o! available vacuum !iel energy out o! which real particle/!iel
energy systems must constantly re!orm themselves1 an there is an
antagonistic relationship between real particle/!iel energy an virtual
particle/!iel energy Cvia the 7auli e0clusion an ?ose
conensation/4auli Inclusion principlesD such that the relative alterations
in the ensities o! each be constraine by the principle o! their
conservation in total combination through the principle o! conservation
o! total (-momentum ensity.
Hn general outline1 the mechanism o! gravitation worKs through the
parallel connections mentione earlier between the momentum-energy
tensor an the space-time tensor in the !ollowing manner: a ecrease in
the positional uncertainty o! a collection o! particles inuces an increase
in the momentum uncertainty o! these particles1 one which is associate1
through the e!inition o! momentum uncertainty within quantum
mechanics1 with an increase in the collective energy o! the particles
which cannot originate with the !orces initially bringing the particles
together. 3onsequently1 to conserve energy1 this energy must be
supplie !rom somewhereV we maintain that this energy is supplie by
the quantum vacuum. 6his consequent ecrease in the energy o! the
vacuum energy !iel leas1 in turn1 to an increase in the energy o! other
istributions o! particles alreay occupying the general region o! this
moi!ie vacuum state. 6his increase in energy o! the other particles
occurs through an increase in the e0pectation value o! the square o! the
particles momentum1 but without altering the quantum e0pectation value
o! the magnitue o! the particles_ total (-momentum Cconsistent with
special relativityD. 6he only consistent way o! e!!ecting such a change in
the quantum state o! these particles is !or the momentum uncertainty o!
the particles to increase. Hn turn1 the positional uncertainty o! these
neighboring particles must ecrease1 an in such a manner that the total
system o! particles e0periences a ecrease in its positional uncertainty.
/pril 2)**
6he loss o! magnetization o! the vacuum spin-
*
/
2
!iels is
compensate by the increase polarization o! the vacuum spin-* !iels.
Puantum entanglement is conserve though it is trans!erre !rom the
spin-
*
/
2
!iels to the spin-* !iels in this process. "imilarly1 the
momentum-energy uncertainty is rotate in spacetime.
http://phys.org/news/2)**-)N-arK-illusion-quantum-vacuum.html
6he speci!ic manner in which the particles o this is by being attracte
towar the center o! mass o! the total particle istribution - an e!!ect
which mani!ests itsel! generally in the phenomenon o! gravitational
attraction. ?ecause a particleGs energy uncertainty is not an intrinsic
property o! the particle itsel!1 but must be communicate to the particle
through the interaction o! the particle an the vacuum energy !iel
sustaining its e0istence1 the communication o! energy uncertainty
between particles istribute throughout space is a!ter the !ashion o! an
inverse-square law. 9! course1 a collection o! particles may not really be
thought to have a e!ine positional uncertainty unless these particles
!orm with one another a boun system o! particles. 6his is why we
suspect that the gravitational !orce is only capable o! coupling to bining
energy so that the energy o! the unconstraine vacuum may not itsel! be
thought to gravitateV it is only spatiotemporal variations in the energy o!
the vacuum !iel which may be thought to prouce gravitational e!!ects.
Hn !act1 it is the tenency o! massive boies to hol themselves together
against the opposite tenency o! the cosmological acceleration !iel to
isperse the particles !orming these boies1 which sets up the spherically
symmetric imbalance in the istribution an !low o! the vacuum energy
!iel C in the case o! spherically symmetric matter istributions D which
mani!ests itsel! as the gravitational !iel engenere by these an all
other massive boies within the e0paning universe.
6hree-momentum is conserve in particle collisions because the
acceleration o! a particle always involves the rotation o! its (-
momentum1 escribable by a .orenz trans!ormation1 an equal an
opposite (-momentum rotations on the part o! the colliing particles
always resultsV this is 5ust a relativistic e0pression o! @ewtonGs action-
reaction principle. Hn the case o! two colliing particles with ) initial
an !inal total net momentum1 an arbitrary quantity o! energy may be
supplie to the two particles without isturbing the net momentum o! the
particles. 6his may be regare as a special instance o! a property o!
momentum which is normally not obvious to an observer con!ine in his
observations to the three imensions o! ;ucliean space1 but which is
always operative within the conte0t o! the higher imensionality o!
8inKowsKi spacetime. /ccelerations merely have the e!!ect o! rotating
the (-momentum o! particles within 8inKowsKi space1 as mentione
earlier1 an so the magnitue o! a particleGs (-momentum can never be
altere. Hn general1 !orces are mani!estations o! momentum e0changes
between the local imaginary an real momenta o! particles an !iels.
Fhen these momenta e0changes are renere asymmetrical1 the $-
momenta o! particles an !iels are not generally conserve. Fithin a
hypersur!ace o! simultaneity in !lat 8inKowsKi space1 the vacuum $-
momenta are conserve espite the participation o! the vacuum energy
!iel in the local cosmological velocity !iel. 6his is ue to the inherent
symmetry o! the momenta e0changes between the real an imaginary
vacuum momentum components. 6he presence o! matter inuces an
asymmetry in the momentum e0changes between the vacuumGs real an
imaginary components o! momentum re!lecte in the asymmetry o! the
vacuumGs sel!-energy e0changes. Fhen energy is spontaneously
imparte to a massy particle an then returne spontaneously to the
vacuum energy !iel1 within this brie! interval o! time1 the energy state
o! the local vacuum has altere slightly in the irection o! ecreasing
vacuum energy ensity so that each time the energy originally imparte
to the mass is pai bacK to the vacuum1 the vacuum receives in return a
slightly smaller quantity o! energy.
8ay 2)*2
H! we recast the =eisenberg ,ncertainty 7rinciple C=,7D in terms
o! in!ormation an its con5ugate or complementary quantity1 then the
?oltzmann ?rain 7arao0 can be consierably sharpene. H! the
enormous in!ormation content o! the cosmos is assume to have arisen
!rom a vacuum !luctuation on account o! the =,71 then i! energy content
an in!ormation content are proportional C
prn=
in some senseD then !or an
enormous in!ormation !luctuation Cwe nee at some point to e!ine the
notion o! negative in!ormation because conservation requires
!luctuations to occur in +/- pairsD we have a vanishingly small li!etime
!or this in!ormation Cbut oesn_t it continue to e0ist in some latent !orm
in between mani!estations?D so either the great age o! the universe is an
illusion or . . . the true age o! the universe Cage o! the true universeD is
immensely greater than the age o! our universe. 9n the other han1 !or
the sub5ective appearance o! a universe to persist !or say1 a human
li!etime1 the amount o! in!ormation borrowe woul have to be
relatively small Ccompare to that containe in an entire cosmosD.
>une 2)*2
3an the ?oltzmann brain parao0 be ealt with by invoKing the !act that
human consciousness only possesses a temporal integration span1 i.e.1
specious present or span of integrate time o! something between one
an two secons1 such that the complementary quantity o! energy or
rather its sub5ective time analogue1 a !orm o! integrate energy or
7intergy8 is vast. H! this complementary quantity o! integrate energy or
intergy provies the in!ormational grouning or conte0t !or its
embee bubble o! sub5ective time1 then there woul be some natural
limit !or the temporal size o! the bubble base upon available !orces o!
temporal cohesion provie by the unerlying intergy reservoir. H! the
time bubble o! the specious present grows too large1 the reservoir o!
available intergy becomes too iminishe. 6he action o! the brain as
!ilter1 reucing valve an inter!ace provies the conuit !or this reservoir
o! integrate Cquantum-entangleD energy. "o we are concerne here not
merely with the quantity o! energy1 but with the Buality of this energy in
terms of the energyDs egree of evelopment of Buantum entanglement.
>une 2)*2
6he share1 causally an narratively structure intersub5ective
worl o! any given quantum observer is not contraicte without reason1
i.e.1 without causal or narrative an hence1 reasonable e0planation by the
accounts o! other persons occupying the observer_s holographic
pro5ection because1 however the 8FH wave!unction collapses1 it oes so
in such as manner as to respect causality an narrative coherence up to
an incluing the sensory an mnemonic states of other iconic
observers. /ll are part o! the same in-reality- iscontinuous though
always-perceive/remembere as continuous1 i.e.1 classical share
physical reality. HnvoKing a generalization o! the anthropic principle in
this connection seems to suggest that it is my universe that unergoes
superposition an collapse an everyboy else is $ust carrie along for
the rie9 9ne o! the implications o! ;verett_s relative state !ormulation
o! quantum mechanis seems to imply that H share my worl with a
motley collection o! also-rans1 in other wors. ?ut is not my sub5ective
state o! consciousness as perceiver o! each new alternate quantum
universe 5ust as much along !or the rie as is anyone else_s. H mean isn_t
my sense o! continuity with my remembere past 5ust as arbitrary as is
that o! those who are carrie !orwar with me into each altogether new
branching o! the universal wave!unction? H Know that H am continuous
while they are not. ?ut cannot each o! them say the very same thing
about themselves? 6he sensory an mnemonic states o! my brain are
5ust as iscontinuously an ranomly changing as are theirs1 an H am no
more the same person in this new quantum universe than they are1 isn_t
that correct? 6his is a case o! completely egalitarian multisolipsism in
other wors. Fe all secretly rely on 4o or universal1 transcenent
min as bulwarK against the collapse o! ontology into what is merely a
largest conceivable epistemology.
6he result o! this is that the mass o! the particle continually increases
very slowly with passing time as the universe continues to e0pan
uring the course o! the constant e0change o! energy between the
particle an the vacuum in which it is embee.
Qd
Ht is this constant
e0change o! energy between the particle an its vacuum energy !iel
which is responsible !or the magnitue o! the particles
momentum/energy uncertainty. Fe term this the Eperturbation
interpretationE o! the =eisenberg uncertainty principle. ?ecause the
cosmological e0pansion rate is locally constant1 the imaginary
momentum o! particles is always increasing very slowly with the
cosmological e0pansion. Ht can be inepenently emonstrate that the
real momentum o! particles is always increasing at the very same rate as
is their imaginary momentum. H! the mass o! a boy is relativistically
increase1 then i! the magnitue o! its (-momentum is to be conserve1
then the (-momentum o! this massive boy must e0perience a rotation in
8inKowsKi space which 5ust compensates the e!!ect o! this increase in
mass on the imaginary momentum o! the boy. Hn brie!1 we say that an
acceleration !iel inuces an increase in the relativistic mass o! a boy1
an conversely1 a !iel which inuces an increase in the relativistic mass
o! a boy1 must itsel! constitute an acceleration !iel.
6he presence o! a real !ermion inhibits the appearance o! certain virtual
!ermion-anti!ermion pairs out o! the vacuum because1 by the 7auli
;0clusion 7rinciple1 a virtual !ermion in the same quantum state as the
real !ermion which is alreay present is !orbien to appear where the
positional uncertainties o! the real an virtual !ermions were to overlap.
6hus1 the creation o! the entire pair within this region o! overlapping
positional uncertainty is suppresse. 6here shoul1 o! course1 be some
sort o! smooth ecay o! this suppressive e!!ect o! real !ermions on the
creation o! virtual !ermion-anti!ermion pairs in the vacuum away !rom
the center o! the Evolume o! positional uncertaintyE within which the
real !ermion is to be !oun. Hn a similar manner1 an energy o! 2m
sc
2
must be create out o! the vacuum in orer !or a blacK hole o! mass
energy1 m
sc
21 to EevaporateE via the emission o! =awKing raiation. Hn
the case o! bosons1 the opposite principle is operating. 6his principle
might be terme the 7auli Einclusion principle.E 6he more bosons we
have in a particular quantum state1 the greater is the probability that
more bosons will enter this same quantum state. Fe might1 there!ore1
e0pect the presence o! real matter to enhance the probability o!
spontaneous emission/absorption o! virtual bosons !rom the vacuum in a
quantum state with operator values closely appro0imating those
e0pectation values escribing the bosons meiating the mean nuclear
electro-weaK !iel responsible !or the bining !orces o! this matter. 9!
course1 what we are really saying here is that the operator e0pectation
values themselves !or vacuum operators are altere1 or shi!te in value1
!rom their E!ree spaceE values. 6his alteration in the vacuum !iel may
be viewe as stemming !rom either: *D a shi!t in the value o! the
quantum operators1 2D an alteration o! the vacuum wave!unction acte
upon by the quantum operators1 or $D a combination o! both *D an 2D. Hn
the particular case where only the vacuum wave!unction itsel! is altere1
we might interpret this in terms o! an alteration o! the vacuum
=amiltonian !rom which the vacuum wave!unction is calculate. Fe
alreay Know that any alteration in the =amiltonian escribing the
energy o! a harmonic oscillator will result in the oscillator unergoing a
change in its zero-point oscillations1 that is to say1 the oscillator will
su!!er a shi!t in its zero-point energy. Qd/ny change to the zero-point
energy o! a harmonic oscillator may be moele on a change in the
oscillatorGs =amiltonian owing e0clusively to the appearance o! an
aitional potential term within the =amiltonian !unction o! the
oscillator.
8ay 2)*$ cit= auth=
,nruh an Fal [*2\ e0amine the behavior o! a etector
uner uni!orm acceleration1 an in particular the emission o! raiation
by such a etector. Fe looKe at two cases in particular. Hn the one case
we asKe !or the state o! the ^el uner the conition that a two level
etector was !oun at the en o! the process to have been e0cite. Hn this
case they !oun that the ^el was in a single particle e0cite state. 6hat
single particle was concentrate in the region which i not have causal
contact with the etector. Hn the case where the etector was !oun a!ter
the e0periment to be une0cite1 the ^el was in a coherent superposition
o! an une0cite vacuum state1 an a two particle e0cite state. =ere H
will e0amine the question !rom a slightly i&erent point o! view. 6he
etector is taKen to be a harmonic oscillator as above. H will asK what the
state is o! the raiation ^el Cthe massless scalar ^elD without any
measurement o! the state o! the etector. 6he equation o! motion !or an
internal oscillator couple to a scalar ^el is the ^nal outgoing ^el is a
linear !unction o! the ingoing ^el. 6his implies that the annihilation an
creation operators o! the outgoing ^el are linear combinations o! those
!or the ingoing ^el. H! the outgoing annihilation operators were
!unctions only o! the ingoing annihilation operators1 which is what
happens when the particle is unaccelerate1 then the state o! the outgoing
^el will be inistinguishable !rom the vacuum state. 9n the other han1
i! the outgoing ^el_s Cu_sD annihilation operators are !unctions o! both
the ingoing ^el_s Cu
)
_sD annihilation an creation operators1 then that
outgoing ^el will in general by a Rsqueeze stateS with respect to the
outgoing vacuum state. / squeeze state has the property that it is a
coherent sum o! even numbers o! particle states. i. e.1 the etector
RscattersS the vacuum quctuations in the ^el u
)
so as to prouce
correlate pairs o! particles in the outgoing state. "ince this state is again
a 4aussian state1 it is completely characterize by the pairwise
correlation !unction. 6he two point !unction with the etector can be
calculate as a !unction o! the two point !unction o! the !ree ^el.
=owever1 measuring these correlations woul be ifcult1 since in
general the two correlate particles are separate by a time o! orer the
ecay time o! the system. -or any Known accelerating system Ce. g.1
electrons in a synchrotronD that time scale is o! the orer minutes or
hours.
H! we want to integrate the quantum mechanical an relativistic e!!ects o!
matter on the vacuum nuclear electro-weaK !iel1 then we must reconcile
the in!luence1 which changing mass-energy istributions have upon the
uncertainty relations within the vacuum1 with our requirement that the
variations in vacuum momentum-energy an position-time uncertainties
be connecte to one another along contiguous points in spacetime by
series o! instantaneous .orenz trans!ormations. H! the energy structure
o! the vacuum is moele as a crystalline lattice o! couple harmonic
oscillators1 then the reconcilement o! the two so-calle =eisenberg an
;instein e!!ects o! matter upon the vacuum energy !iel might be
possible. Fe might succee in oing this by introucing 5ust the sort o!
a hoc potential term allue to earlier. ?y this we mean the potential
!unction which incorporate into the =amiltonian o! the vacuumGs
oscillator meshworK e!!ects the esire spatio-temporal alteration in the
vacuumGs zero-point energy. "uch a spatio-temporal variation in the
vacuumGs zero-point energy shoul recoup all o! the anticipate general
relativistic e!!ects1 e.g.1 gravitational reshi!t1 light e!lection1 time
ilation1 length contraction1 mass increase1 etc. Ht shoul achieve this
while at the same time e0plaining a concomitant change in the ?ose-
;instein an -ermi-:irac statistics o! the vacuum consistent with the
application o! wave!unction symmetry/antisymmetry to the interaction
o! matter an vacuum. Fe might begin oing this by e0plaining away1 i!
you will1 the seemingly inconsistent emans o! the time/energy
e0pression o! the =eisenberg principle an the relativistic e0pressions
!or time an energy within relativity theory. 6his must be one with
respect to the preicte interactions o! time an energy uncertainty
within both theories. -irst1 let us note that both principles1 ;insteinGs
an =eisenbergGs1 agree with one another concerning the relationships o!
changes in length an positional uncertainty1 on the one han1 an
momentum an momentum uncertainty1 on the other han. Fhere these
two theories con!lict1 is in comparing the e!!ect o! a change in energy
uncertainty on the value o! the time uncertainty: relativity preicts that a
relativistic increase in energy uncertainty will be accompanie by a
relativistic increase in time uncertainty1 while =eisenberg uncertainty
principle preicts that an increase in the energy uncertainty o! a quantum
mechanical system Chere1 a relativistic increaseD will be associate with a
ecrease in the time uncertainty o! the system. 6he solution to this
ilemma may lie with the simple !act that position an time are not on
an equal !ooting with one another as they are within the special relativity
theory - there is no operator corresponing to the time variable within
quantum mechanics as in the case o! position1 momentum an energy.
9r the solution may lie with the possible inconsistencies o! the notion o!
energy uncertainty within both theories. 6his may be ue to a eeper
inconsistency in the e!inition energy within both theories. ;nergy in
quantum mechanics is e!ine as the =amiltonian !unction whereas the
energy re!erre to in relativity theory is the mass-energy1 or1 perhaps1 the
Kinetic energy. 6he =amiltonian is1 o! course1 the sum o! both the
Kinetic an potential energies o! the quantum system.
9! course1 i! the vacuum moele as a :ebye soli1 that is1 as a networK
o! couple harmonic oscillators1 then the =amiltonian escribing this
system o! oscillators must be consistent with relativity. 6he potential
energy o! the =amiltonian must be a !unction o! not only 01y an z1 but
must also be a !unction o! the variable1 ict1 within the 8inKowsKi metric.
6he Kinetic energy component o! this vacuum =amiltonian must be a
!unction o! all !our components o! the relativistic (-momentum vector o!
special relativity.
7erhaps we may thinK o! virtual particle reactions as lying Eo!! the mass
shellE between two e0treme points o!!-shell. 6hese are: virtual
momentum !luctuations with negligible virtual !luctuations in energy1
an virtual energy !luctuations with negligible virtual !luctuations in
momentum. Fe may liKen the spontaneous creation o! virtual bosons
!rom the vacuum as pure momentum !luctuations1 an o! virtual
!ermion-anti!ermion pairs as pure energy !luctuations o! this vacuum. Hs
spin another name !or angular momentum about the ict a0is? Hs it
possible1 then1 !or a spin ) particle to possess a component o! angular
momentum within the three normal spatial imensions? H! so1 then
woulnGt this constitute a starK violation o! the principle o! the
relativistic invariance o! angular momentum?
6here is an apparent parao0 associate with the gravitational reshi!t o!
starlight preicte by ;insteinGs theory o! general relativity. 6he general
theory e0plains this reening o! the sunGs light1 !or instance1 as being
ue to the !act that the energy o! photons has an inertia associate with it
an that1 there!ore1 the photons must give up the requisite energy in
overcoming the "unGs gravitational potential as they !ly away !rom the
"un1 o!! to in!inity. 6he speci!ic parao0 is seen when one consiers the
reverse o! this process1 the gravitational EbluingE o! starlight as it !alls
into a gravitational potential1 an then imagines EbouncingE photons o!!
o! a huge mirror statione close to the sur!ace o! the "un1 presumable
in a very tight circular orbitT 7hotons leaving the ;arth !or the "un1 !or
e0ample1 e0perience an increase in their energy CEbluingED which will
e0actly o!!set the ecrease in their energy on their return 5ourney1 a!ter
bouncing o!! the mirror1 so that the wavelength o! these photons will not
i!!er !rom that when initially leaving the ;arth.
9ctober 2)**
"o1 !or
e0ample1 although the characteristic wavelength o! photons emitte by
spectroscopically Known elements or molecules on the "un_s sur!ace will
e0hibit a reshi!t o! the precise magnitue preicte by general
relativity1 these same characteristic photons1 i! emitte1 say !rom ;arth_s
orbit in the irection o! the "un1 will su!!er no observable reshi!t on their
return 5ourney a!ter being re!lecte !rom a mirror statione at the "un_s
sur!ace. ?ut we must consier here that what is calle re!lection
involves the stimulation o! an e0cite atomic state1 i.e.1 the RboostingS o!
an outer orbital electron into an energetically unstable orbit1 which
immeiately ecays1 yieling bacK a photon o! precisely the same
wavelength as originally cause the e0cite state1 an a Rblueshi!teS
photon woul possess an energy too large to prouce a re!lection photon
o! the appropriate wavelength preicte by general relativity when the
gravitational reshi!t is taKen into account. 6his appears to suggest that1
!or e0ample1 a television signal containing real time !ootage o! an ;arth-
base chronograph1 i! transmitte to an re!lecte o!! the sur!ace o! the
"un1 woul reveal no mismatch between the time isplaye by the
transmitte image o! the clocK an the actual time inicate on the
original chronograph. /n this woul be presume to be the case even
though real time !ootage o! a secon clocK base on the "un_s sur!ace
an transmitte to us simultaneously along with the re!lecte
transmission o! the ;arth-base chronograph reveals a time-ilate rate
o! elapse time o! the "un-base clocK relative to our ;arth-base clocK.
Fhen particles are compresse into a progressively smaller volume o!
space1 the positional uncertainty o! all the particles ecreases.
3onsequently1 the momentum uncertainty o! all o! the particles will
increase. /lthough the quantum mechanical e0pectation value o!
momentum !or the particles will not be a!!ecte by a change in the
momentum uncertainty o! the particles1 nor the square o! the e0pectation
value o! the momentum1 the e0pectation value o! the square o! the
momentum will change1 however - it will increase. 6his all !ollows !rom
the mere e!inition o! momentum uncertainty in quantum mechanics.
6his is to say that the total energy o! the particles will be increase
simply by virtue o! the obvious ecrease in quantum positional
uncertainty o! the particles as a result o! their having been con!ine to a
smaller volume. @ote that this energy con!erre to the particles cannot
be e0plaine in terms o! any worK which might have been per!orme
upon the particles in the process o! pushing them together1 as we might
have taKen1 theoretically1 any amount o! !orce at all in pushing them
together1 epening upon how much time we were willing to taKe in
oing so. 6his is yet another reason !or believing that the collective
vacuum energy !iel is associate with the operation o! a conservative
!orce-!iel. H! we have not really imparte any energy to these particles
simply by virtue o! having move them together somewhat1 then how
are we to e0plain the appearance o! this energy in such a manner that the
total energy o! the volume occupie by the particles remains constant1
that is to say1 so that the total energy o! this volume is conserve? Fe
might postulate a Kin o! hien energy which1 along with the particles1
also occupies their space. Fe might !urther suppose that these particles
may be thought to be mae out o! this energy so that an increase in the
energy o! particles within a particular volume o! space becomes tie to a
corresponing an compensating ecrease in the amount o! this hien
energy such that the total energy o! the volume remains unchange - a
Kin o! raical energy conservation principle. 9ne way to maKe such an
assumption1 an there are inee many i!!erent ways in which this
assumption might be realize1 woul be to postulate that there is a !ourth
component o! particle momentum1 previously unsuspecte1 itsel!
unchange by our having pushe the particles together1 but possessing a
square whose quantum e0pectation value has been altere in a manner
which e0actly cancels the changes in the e0pectation values o! the
squares o! the usual three inepenent components o! momentum along
the 01 y an z a0es o! a 3artesian coorinate system. 9ne way !or the
momentum o! the particles along the hypothetical Ew-a0is1E as well as
along the other three a0es1 to remain unchange1 with the energy o! the
particles changing at the same time1 woul be i! the masses o! the
particles were permitte to change in inverse proportion to the change in
the velocity o! the particles along this new w-a0is. Fe can succee in
oing this by permitting the particles to possess a negative Kinetic
energy which is ecrease as the particles are pushe together. ?ut
turning to an analogy with the case o! a particle EtunnelingE through a
potential barrier1 any change in the necessarily negative Kinetic energy o!
the tunneling particle coul be compensate !or through 5uicious
instantaneous a5ustment o! the height o! the potential barrier though
which it is moving1 that is to say1 through the appearance o! a Kin o! a
hoc potential term which is to be ae to the original barrier potential1
IC0D. H! we ienti!y this a hoc potential so-calle with the gravitational
potential1 then two things immeiately !ollow: *D a gravitational
potential e0ists in space whether or not matter is presentV it is built into
the very structure o! space itsel!. /n1 2D matter has the peculiar e!!ect
o! altering this essentially cosmologically-base potential through
quantum mechanical interactions taKing place between all matter
particles an the continuum o! space in which they are embee. 6he
quantum vacuum o!!ers itsel! as a logical caniate !or this meium o!
space Caether1 i! you willD with which all matter particles are in
interaction. 8oreover1 the variation o! the ensity o! this vacuum
energy ue to the process o! the cosmological e0pansion o! space
provies a logical basis !or our postulate potential barrier.
6he increase in energy o! this hypothetical system o! particles is base
on the ecrease in their mutual positional uncertainty an the masses o!
the particles are irrelevant to the etermination o! this energy increase.
H! gravitational e!!ects are to be ultimately trace to variations in the
energy uncertainty o! mass-energy istributions1 leaing in turn to a
moi!ication in the cosmological spatiotemporal variation in the vacuum
nuclear-electroweaK !iel !rom its equilibrium momentum ensity in so-
calle !ree-space1 then there must be some means o! e!ining the masses
o! particles1 as well as the mass equivalence o! !iel energies1 in terms o!
their bining or sel!-energies alone. .orenz attempte to o this in the
early *2))G
s with respect to the mass o! the electronV he trie to e!ine
the mass o! the electron e0clusively in terms o! its electromagnetic sel!-
energy. =e was1 however1 unsuccess!ul1 an to my Knowlege1 no
!urther e!!orts have been mae to repeat the attempt.
.et us looK at this question in term o! a hope!ully illustrative analogy.
"uppose instea o! simple monochromatic light1 we sen a moulate
carrier wave o! electromagnetic raiation !rom the ;arth to the "un an
bacK again. "uppose the moulation upon the carrier wave was a simple
6I transmission o! a normally !unctioning analogue wall clocK.
7article creation at the event horizon o! a blacK hole gives rise to a
precisely thermal spectrum. 6his suggests that the vacuum itsel! is in
thermal equilibrium with itsel! so that the vacuum must be continually
e0changing energy with itsel!. because the time rate o! change o! all
physical quantities epens on the e0istence o! energy uncertainty1 q/t
= [=1 q\ + ![=1q\1 where ![=1q\ is usually written as Qq/Qt. 9n this
view1 quantum mechanical systems possess energy uncertainty because
they are continually perturbe by intrinsic vacuum energy !luctuations.
Hn this way1 all mass-energy systems are in a process o! constant energy
e0change with the quantum mechanical vacuum. "ince all macroscopic
trans!ers an e0changes o! energy between two points in spacetime are
meiate via the submicroscopic energy e0changes occurring within the
vacuum1 it !ollows that conservation o! energy macroscopically is
epenent upon conservation o! energy e0changes within the vacuum.
6he temporal evolution o! the quantum vacuum is1 there!ore1 meiate
by its own action. / number o! conclusions !ollow !rom this !act. *D
the vacuum_s energy is conserve1 but not by virtue o! this energy
possessing a eterminate quantity: the vacuum_s energy is conserve
even though it is an
ineterminate quantity. 6he rate o! ecrease o! the vacuum_s energy
ensity1 cosmologically1 is e0ponential because the energy ensity o! the
vacuum itsel! governs the rate o! ecrease.
Ht is not possible to istinguish i!!erent time rates o! change within a
close ynamical system. 6his is because such a close system
possesses only a !inite number o! iscrete energy levels1 an when the
total system is in a particular energy eigenstate1 its energy uncertainty is
) so that there are no vacuum !luctuations available with which to
meiate changes in physical observables o! the system.
Fe may e!ine the istance separating two events as a !unction o! the
number o! vacuum momentum !luctuations e0isting between the two
sai events. "imilarly1 we may e!ine the time interval between two
such events as a !unction o! the number o! vacuum energy !luctuations
e0isting between the two sai events. 9! course1 the partitioning o! the
relativistic momentum - energy tensor into pure momentum versus pure
energy components is epenent upon the particular .orenz re!erence
!rame within which one per!orms the momentum an energy
measurements.
"ince the energy levels at which in!ormation is store in a neural
networK are e!ine in terms o! the lowest stable energy o! the neural
networK as a whole1 virtual energy transitions between these energy
levels presuppose a coupling between the wave!unctions escribing the
quantum mechanical states o! all o! the iniviual neurons o! the
networK in the sense o! their being nonlocally connecte.
Ht is the spontaneous coherence in which the neural networK is embee
which provies the ultimate conte0t within which the neurological
events are to be interprete. 6his coherent !iel is that o! the nonlocally
connecte vacuum electromagnetic !luctuation !iel.
6he many worls interpretation o! the quantum measurement problem
may be unerstoo as a reversal in causal relationship between the
uncollapse wave!unction representing the min o! the observer an the
uncollapse wave!unction representing the potentialities o! the quantum
mechanical system being observe by this min in the !ollowing
manner: when the observer notes the collapse o! the wave!unction with
respect to an observable he is attempting to measure1 what is actually
occurring is the collapse o! the wave!unction escribing the observers
min so that it now abstracts !rom the Feltall one particular eigenvalue
o! the ob5ect wave!unction1 but without inucing a collapse o! the ob5ect
wave!unction itsel!. 9ne might asK what is the !unamental i!!erence
between these two interpretations i! there is not some thir realm1
inepenent o! both the observerGs an ob5ect wave!unctions in terms o!
which one interpretation might be !avore over the other as being
ontologically prior. 6his thir realm belongs neither to that o! causality
Cthe mutual interaction o! collapse wave!unctionsD1 nor to that o!
contingency Cthe interaction o! collapse with uncollapse
wave!unctions1 an vice versaD1 but to that realm constitute solely by
the mutual interaction o! all uncollapse wave!unctions. 6his realm we
may re!er to as the composite contingency - necessity mani!ol or
continuum. 6here is an e0actly parallel assimilation between the
category space - time with our category o! necessity - contingency. Hn
this way we may realize that the concepts o! locality an nonlocality
constitute a istinction which cuts across that constitute by the polar
concepts chance an necessity.
4oo is that which enhances creativity which is the e0plicit e0pression
o! implicitly integral wholeness. ;vil constitutes that which seeKs to
estroy1 con!use1 isintegrate as well as to impair the e0pression o! unity
an wholeness through creativity. /ll creativity is in reality re-creativity.
6he probability spectrum o! a given wave!unction may be
overetermine so that there e0ists an unlimite number o! ways in
which an ensemble o! measurements o! the eigenstates o! the
wave!unction with respect to a particular observable may sum together
so that the wave!unction appears per!ectly normalizeV this property may
permit an aitional egree o! !reeom within quantum mechanical
virtual processes not previously suspecte to e0ist.
6here is an absolute simultaneity which mental events istinctly en5oy
ue to the !act that they o not amit o! perspectiveV i! anything they
constitute perspective. =owever1 the orer in which neurophysiological
occurrences occur C in the brainD is at least partially epenent upon the
re!erence !rame Cin the relativistic senseD that these events occur Cas
observablesD. 6here must be an embeing o! these neural events in a
substrate which e0tens beyon the merely neurophysiological in orer
!or a re!erence !rame to be e!ine in which there can arise a
corresponence between sub5ective an ob5ective simultaneities.
H! metaphysical ualism is !alse in the strict sense o! there e0isting two
istinct an parallel !unamental processes1 one physical1 the other
mental1 but i! this octrine is nevertheless true in the less restrictive
sense o! there actually e0isting mental an physical realms which are not
istinct but somehow mutually interacting1 then it is in principle
impossible to !ormalize the operation o! min.
Ht is quite true what many psychologists Cas well as lay personsD have
note concerning the tenency o! a tasK to become e0ecutable without
the ai o! conscious attention the more an more that it is per!orme.
=owever1 what has not perhaps been wiely note by either is the
somewhat contrary tenency !or one to become more1 rather than less1
aware o! the abstract operations lying behin the per!ormance o! a tasK
in new conte0ts where the speci!ic concrete operations constituting the
tasK woul never otherwise suggest themselves. 6his tenency !or us to
become aware o! the abstract operations speci!ic to one particular o!t-
repeate tasK within a conte0t normally !oreign to it1 or at least !or our
per!ormances o! operations within new previously unrelate conte0ts to
be guie by these abstract operations1 H re!er to as operational
moulation - or op-mo1 !or short. Fhat we are calling op-mo may be
alternately thought o! as the manipulation o! something in terms o! an
operational metaphorV it is itsel! the very essence o! the human tool-
using intelligence1 an may be consiere to be a general property o!
any neural networK computing evice. 8ore speci!ically1 op-mo is
peculiar to the problem solving strategy o! the neural networK evice
because the speci!ic neural circuits which are utilize by such a networK
!or solving one particular EproblemE will necessarily overlap with neural
circuits which are being establishe in the course o! attempting to solve
problems in e0traneous conte0ts.
6he e0istence o! the groun o! Aeality consists e0haustively in its very
activity. 3onsequently1 that which creates this groun is that which
sustains this grounV !rom which !urther !ollows the truth o! .eibnizGs
principle that1 Ethe conitions su!!icient to create the worl are necessary
at every succeeing moment to sustain its e0istence.E Fe Know that
there has to have always been something in e0istence an so the groun
o! Aeality must be sel!-sustaining1 an hence1 sel!-creating. Ht !ollows
that the groun o! e0istence necessarily e0ists1 an so is eternal. /ll
possibility ultimately lies ormant within that which necessarily e0ists.
Hn the language o! quantum mechanics1 every eterminate eigenstate
with respect to a particular physical observable may be alternately
represente as a series o! eigenstates with respect to an ineterminate
physical observable incompatible with the !irst.
=ermann Feyl notes in his booK1 E6he 9pen Forl1E that the state o! a
two-electron system is not etermine by the state o! each iniviual
electron ae together1 but that the states o! each electron may be
euce !rom the state o! the two-electron system.
.eibnizGs series: * - */$ + */' - */% + */2 - */** + . . . 1 oes not
converge when the terms are rearrange into a sum o! the !ollowing two
sequences: C* + */' + */2 + . . . +D + C -*/$ - */% - */** - . . . D. 6his is a
rather common property o! what are calle alternating in!inite
sequences. 6his property is very mysterious1 but can be mae to seem
less so i! one pictures each term o! the sequence as a numbere bea on
a string. / !inite number o! terms o! the series may be rearrange
arbitrarily to prouce the ientical sum1 an this may be thought to be
possible simply because the string1 being !inite in length1 permits the
removal1 an hence1 rethreaing o! all the beas onto the string in any
arbitrary orer. =owever1 given an in!inite number o! beas1 the string
is now itsel! in!inite in length an so it is no longer possible to remove
the beas so as to put them into a new orer. 6he orer o! the beas may
only be change into that represente by the two sums provie that the
original string is cut1 an this changes the topological relationship o! the
beasV in a !inite sequence the orer o! the terms CbeasD may be
rearrange without altering the topological relationship o! the beas. Ht
is also interesting to note that .eibnizG series converges to the value o!
pi/( because the value o! convergence is itsel! an irrational number
possessing a ecimal e0pansion which possesses no eterminate orer
whatever so that what we have is an equation between an irrational
number an an in!inite sum o! rational numbers1 on the one han1 an1
on the other han1 an equation holing between an in!inite sum o! terms
possessing a mathematically eterminate sequential orer with respect to
a simple mathematical operation1 namely1 aition1 an an in!inite sum
o! terms possessing no mathematically eterminable sequential orer -
no sequential orer with respect to any e!inable mathematical
operation. Fe may suspect that 3antorGs argument !or the e0istence o!
what he calls nonenumerable in!inity1 i.e.1 the !amous Eiagonal
argument1E can be applie to the ecimal e0pansion o! pi to show that
this sequence o! ecimal !ractions itsel! constitutes a nonenumerable
set o! rational numbers. Fhat is interesting here is that no possible
rearrangement o! the ineterminate sequence o! nonenumerable
rational numbers constituting the ecimal e0pansion o! pi will prouce
an irrational which iverges although there o e0ist rearrangements o!
the terms o! .eibnizG series which iverge. -rom this simple !act we may
euce that there is no in!inite sequence o! enumerably in!inite subsets
o! terms taKen !rom .eibnizG series1 on the le!t han sie o! our equation1
which will prouce a one-to-one corresponence with the in!inite
sequence o! rational numbers in the ecimal e0pansion o! pi.
4eel has state that his incompleteness theorem applies only to logico-
euctive systems more power!ul than that represente by arithmetic.
6his is because the proo! o! the theorem is base on the 4eel-
numbering proceure1 where each operator1 as well as all the symbols
utilize by the system1 are represente by 4eel numbers1 while all o!
the logical operations o! the system are e!ine in terms o! arithmetic
operations. "o we may say that arithmetic is e!inable within all so-
calle 4eelian euctive systems.
6he omain o! all arithmetical operations is a omain evoi o!
topological structure. "el!-re!erential propositions introuce a
topological structure into the omain o! proo!. Aational numbers are
the sums o! convergent in!inite series where the orer in which the terms
o! the series appear oes not a!!ect the value o! the sum. Fe may say in
this case that rational numbers occupy a number !iel possessing
arithmetic1 or null1 topological structure. Hrrational numbers1 on the
other han1 are the sums o! in!inite series which may iverge i! the orer
in which the terms o! the series appear are altere. Fe may say that the
irrational numbers occupy a number !iel possessing a topological
structure.
6he egrees o! !reeom require !or certain reactions1 or interactions1 to
taKe place1 are only allowable within a space o! large enough
imensionality to accommoate them.
6he unreasonable e!!ectiveness o! mathematics within the physical
sciences1 borrowing the !amous phrase o! the quantum physicist ;ugene
Figner1 is owing to the raically overetermine nature o! natural
phenomena.
/ genuinely recursive system may only be erive !rom a recursive
system equally or more comple0 than itsel!1 or i! the recursive system is
EconstructeE out o! simpler recursive elements1 the control system
e!!ecting or meiating the process o! construction is1 itsel!1 a recursive
system1 o! greater comple0ity than the system being constructe.
6he in!ormation content o! a particular structure is e!ine by the egree
o! preciseness to which the system appro0imates its intentional ob5ect.
6his e!inition is best unerstoo in terms o! the Eshattere hologramE
metaphor.
/ molecule belonging to a complementary molecule pair 1 a molecule
which naturally hyrogen-bon to one another1 !avors the spontaneous
sel!-assembly o! the molecule to which it bears a topologically
complementary relationship. 8ore generally1 the spontaneous sel!-
assembly o! molecules is !avore by a vacuum containing energy
resonances complementary to those upon which the moleculeGs energy
structure epens !or its sustaine e0istence.
>ohn "earle1 the linguist an philosopher1 has state that !ormal
computational systems are incapable o! consciousness because such
!ormal systems o not e!!ectively e0ploit the causal powers o!
computation available !or utilization by the human brain. "ince the
causal powers o! matter1 as "earle terms them1 stem !rom what is !orever
spontaneously occurring in the natural realm at the very smallest
imensions o! time an space1 the process o! abstraction1 itsel! !oune
upon the systematic ignorance o! !iner etails o! structure an !unction1
introuces a Kin o! built-in blocKheaeness into systems o! Earti!icial
intelligenceE which are physically realize !rom relatively macroscopic
an EinsensitiveE component parts1 in accorance with Eanalytically
close-!ormE esigns.
epi=
Fhen the iviing line between memory an imagination is har an
!ast1 there you have a blocKhea.
Iacuum !luctuations which are simultaneous in one re!erence !rame
C.orenz !rameD will not necessarily be simultaneous in other !rames.
Qd
Fe may euce !rom this that the ensity o! the quantum vacuum is
i!!erent in i!!erent .orenz !rames.
H o not thinK that =ugh ;verettGs many worls interpretation o!
quantum mechanics is consistent with the implications o! quantum
e0periments which have been per!orme in the last !ew ecaes since
the time C*2'%D when he originally propose his version o! quantum
theory. Hn ;verettGs theory1 the collapse o! the wave!unction is
interprete as a suen1 iscontinuous branching o! the observer !rom
one parallel universe1 where the wave!unction is uncollapse1 to a new
parallel universe where the wave!unction e0ists in one o! its component
eigenstates.
;nantiomer molecules1 that is1 molecules which were once thought to be
ientical in every way e0cept that they are the mirror re!lection o! each
other1 have recently been generally !oun to i!!er in respect to their
bining energies. "o-calle Eright-haneE molecules1 such as the
amino acis1 : - tyrosine1 : - glutamine1 etc.1 have been !oun to posses
smaller bining energies Can hence are less stableD than their mirror
image counterparts1 the . - series amino acis by the same names.
4iven the e0istence o! a spatial !ourth imension1 it is possible to
convert a right-hane molecule into its ientical le!t-hane
counterpart by pulling the molecule into ( - space an rotating it *N)
o
against the hyperplane Cnormal toD an returning the molecule to its
original position within this $ - hypersur!ace. 6his woul suggest the
e0istence o! a pre!erential curl !iel acting within this !our imensional
continuum in a irection opposing the rotation o! an . - molecule an
aiing the rotation o! a A - molecule. 6his mechanism woul be one
logical way to account !or the observe i!!erences in the bining
energies o! ientical . - an A - molecules.
Hn!ormation is neither create nor estroyeV in!ormation is always
conserve1 an when it appears to be create1 it is merely being
transuce by being re-e0presse within another meium. 6here are
myria i!!erent meia through which portions o! the eternally pre-
e0istent in!ormation may be e0presse1 but there e0ists a primary
meium which contains all in!ormation originally. /ll other meia
through which in!ormation might be e0presse are ultimately epenent
upon this primary in!ormation meium. Hn the same way that the
transuction o! energy !rom one meium1 say mechanical1 to another
meium1 say electrical1 is always accompanie by a loss o! a portion o!
the transuce energy as heat energy Cwhereby entropy is increaseD1
some in!ormation is always lost in the transuction o! in!ormation !rom
the primary meium to other seconary meia. -or this reason1 no
in!ormational systems or structures are permitte to come into being
which possess an in!ormation ensity greater than that o! the volume
which they occupy1 this volume being pervae by energy in its primary
!orm Cvacuum energyD. Hn the same way1 there is a limit to the mass-
energy ensity o! any particular volume o! spacetimeV this limit is that
speci!ie by "chwarzchilGs equation !or the energy ensity o! blacK
holes. 6he in!ormation which is inevitably lost as a result o! the
transuction o! in!ormation !rom the primary meium to seconary
meia simply passes bacK into the primary meium.
6he law o! the temporal evolution o! in!ormation systems is provie by
the pre-e0isting spatial istribution o! in!ormation. 6he eterminate is
epenent upon the ineterminate. /ny eigenstate which results !rom
the process o! quantum measurement is sustaine in e0istence by the
eigen!unction spectrum o! noncommuting operators. Hn other wors1 the
eterminate eigenvalue associate with the eterminate eigenstate which
results !rom the act o! quantum measurement must be sustaine in
e0istence through the !luctuations o! incompatible eigenvalues which
constitute the in!inite =eisenberg uncertainty which e0ists with respect
to the noncommuting variables. 6o wit1 the !inite e0ists only through its
participation with the in!inite. /ll trans!ormations are e!inable in terms
o! mere pro5ection operationsV there!ore1 these trans!ormations1 when
investigate1 always reveal the presence o! conservation laws which
seem to govern1 or provie constraints upon1 these trans!ormations.
Fhat is calle the unity o! apperception in OantGs 3ritique o! 7ure
Aeason is synonymous with the e0istence o! the unerlying noumenon
which provies the rationality o! any particular series o! perceive
continuous trans!ormations entertaine within a !inite min. 6he
interpenetration o! the categories o! time an space support the unity o!
apperception.
6he increase in comple0ity o! coherent systems with time woul seem to
involve the creation e0 nihilo o! quantities o! in!ormation. 6here are
reasons !or believing1 however1 that what is really involve in cases such
as this is merely the partial reistribution o! ata along a spatial
in!ormation graient onto a graient which is part spatial an part
temporal where the total quantity o! in!ormation is conserve in the
process. Fith the introuction o! e0citation energy1 the nonlocal1
istribute in!ormation content is partially trans!orme into local1
lumpe in!ormation content.
Hs it1 in principle1 possible !or all the neural !irings which comprise the
brain state to which is associate a particular mental state to have been
stimulate to occur entirely !rom outsie the brainGs neural networK1
obviating the nee !or intricate !eebacK loops connecting the neurons
with one another which normally support such patterns o! neuron
!irings? Hntuitively we suspect that merely reproucing the requisite
neural !iring patterns !rom outsie the networK woul not be su!!icient to
prouce the normally occurring associate mental state. 6his is because
the observe neural !irings woul only possess a eterminate orer in
terms o! the perception o! their orer by means o! a neural networK
genuinely possessing intricate !eebacK structures. Fe might1 in turn1 be
puzzle by the !orce o! this particular intuition which has at its root the
notion o! the importance o! timing an synchronization o! the neurons
with respect to one another. ?ut this woul really only be important i!
there was something which the neurons incientally interact with in the
course o! their normal process o! !unctioning to which the orer o! their
E!iringE might be !unamentally relate. Fe might then seeK to inclue
this aitional something an prouce the changes in it also !rom
outsie1 5ust as in the case o! the neurons. @otice that in every case
where we are supposely able to reprouce a given sequence o! neural
!irings1 we are epenent upon a !avorable conition wherein the time
interval between !irings within a given small region o! the brain are
larger than the time uncertainty o! the quantum system constituting the
neural networK. Ht is precisely at this point where the time interval
between neural events becomes comparable to the quantum mechanical
time uncertainty in which we become no longer able to etermine the
sequence o! these events !rom without1 or outsie these eventsT Ht is
here that we say that the temporal orer o! events becomes
ineterminate. =owever1 what we really mean to say here is that the
sequence o! events has become ineterminate with respect to a set o!
e0ternal controls. Fe !in that our earlier intuition about the problem o!
the timing o! the events appropriate to the establishing o! the requisite
brain states crops up yet again. 6here is still something with respect to
which the patterne events Ccomprising the requisite brain statesD occur
which is important !rom the stanpoint o! timing an synchronization1
an we might1 there!ore1 again1 seeK to inclue it1 5ust as be!ore. 6he
point here is that this process o! trying to inclue the entire bacKgroun
against which the timing o! the brain events are signi!icant can never be
completeV we !ace an in!inite regress here. 6his regress is apparently
resolve within the quantum mechanically uncertain time interval o! the
networK an there!ore is !orever beyon manipulation !rom outsie1 that
is to say1 there cannot e0ist a eterminate program aequate to prouce
the timing necessary to integrate or uni!y the neural !irings into the
requisite coherent pattern we term consciousness. 6o restate1 this is
because the ultimate embeing substrate within which the neural
networK !unctions is mae up o! interconnecte events possessing a time
uncertainty which prevents their elicate synchronization !rom ever
being introuce !rom outsieV moreover1 such a synchronization o!
events coul not be simulate by a computer utilizing a eterministic
program since the notion o! the rate o! timeGs passage is meaningless
within a eterministic system.
Fe must remember that a computer simulation is a strictly !ormal
operation !or which the physical system meiating the simulation must
satis!y a mere set o! necessary conitions such as stability1 continuity1
causality1 internal synchronization1 etc. 6he timing o! physical
occurrences taKing place within the physical meium o! the program
with respect to e0ternal events is completely immaterial because1 in
e!!ect1 nothing new ever taKes place uring the course o! the calculation
which is one an the same process as the simulation itsel!. 3ontrast to
this1 a situation in which the meium in which ata manipulation or
processing is taKing place1 constitutes not merely a necessary conition1
but a necessary an su!!icient conition !or the EcalculationE being
per!orme. :istribute throughout the meium1 is the in!ormation
necessary to the carry through the action o! ata processing to its esire
conclusion1 but this in!ormation is not immeiately available1 it must be
accesse.
Qd
Fe state earlier that igital computer i not1 in a
!unamental sense1 possess memory since it is always possible to
uplicate a igital computer possessing ata in memory without the
uplicate ever having been Eswitche onE so that it might receive
Einput.E Fe also note that a quantum computer is capable o!
possessing genuine memory ue to the impossibility1 in principle1 o!
copying a quantum stateT 6his genuine memory possesse by the ieal
quantum computer represents an authentic e0ample o! privilege or
private access o! the computer to its own EcomputationalE statesT
=ow o we succee in e0plaining the action o! a meium in terms o!
elements erive through reuctive abstraction o! these elements !rom
the original activity o! such a meium? /n e0ample o! this parao0 is
the on-going attempt by theoretical physicists to e0plicate the action o!
the total quantum vacuum energy !iel in terms o! the subatomic
particles iscovere to ate.
9! course1 what is calle ualism is completely rule out in the case
where the brain is thought to !unction in a eterministic manner. 6his is
because the isomorphism which must maintain between brain states an
mental states preclues the possibility that these two qualitatively
i!!erent types o! states are causally connecteV !or any e!!ective causal
interaction between the two woul necessarily isrupt the isomorphism
which is presuppose by the ualistic theory o! min. 9n the other
han1 in the absence o! causal interaction between brain states an
mental states1 there is no rational basis upon which we can say that
particular mental states correspon to1 or belong to a particular brain.
9n the other han again1 however1 i! ualism is re5ecte an causal
relationships are allowe to obtain between brain states an mental
states1 then both types o! events/processes must be meiate by the very
same unerlying substance1 or substrate. Hn this way1 the whole
istinction between what are calle brain states an mental states
completely breaKs own1 an one is !orce to aopt a monistic theory o!
min.
6he notion o! historicism1 in the sense provie by the theories o! 8ar0
an Feber1 is conceptually unintelligible because it assumes the
e0istence o! a istinction the valiity o! which it then later enies. 6hat
is the istinction between physical causal !actors an historical !actors in
the e0plication o! social1 political1 cultural1 an economic evelopments.
6he valiity o! historicism woul mean that history as a science o! large
scale human evelopment oesnGt really worK1 that it oesnGt have
anything substantive to say at all because the real causal e!!icacy behin
the changes which history has traitionally stuie lies at a level o!
escription which is at once lower an more !unamental than that
where historical e0planations are articulate.
6hat which is the source an sustainer o! all things cannot be viewe as
being anything but in!inite. ;volution may only be a local phenomenon
- not a global phenomenonV evolution in the sense o! the genuine
emergence o! wholly unpreceente an unanticipate !orms1 structures1
or ynamisms - without this process o! evelopment somehow rawing
upon a pre-e0isting reservoir o! in!ormation within which these
EemergentE !orms are at least implicitly pre!igure1 an which meiates
an unerpins the evolutionary evelopmental process - is tantamount to
the acceptance o! a !unamental process which is itsel! uncause an
which is not amitte to be the cause Cor reasonD !or its own e0istence.
Hn the vacuum1 in!ormation e0ists in a nonlocal1 simultaneously
connecte !orm. Fhen the vacuum energy !luctuations meiate the
occurrence o! physical processes1 there is a transuction o! nonlocal1
parallel an simultaneously connecte in!ormation into a new local1
sequential1 an temporally connecte !orm. 6he paraigmatic e0ample
o! this transuction process is the spontaneous prouction o!
!unamental particles out o! the vacuum within accelerate re!erence
Cnon-.orentzianD !rames.
6he groun o! e0istence cannot be outstrippe by any possible e0istent
Ething.E @onlocality presents the possibility o! putting quantum
mechanical probability on a ErationalE !ootingV in other wors1 a given
wave!unction is normalizable on the average. 6he conition o!
normalizability is not a very restrictive conition on a quantum
mechanical wave!unctionV there are an in!inite number o! ways to re!ract
or ecompose a given wave!unction into a spectrum o! eigenstates Co! an
incompatible observableD so as to satis!y the normalization conition.
6he !unamental paraigm shi!t which marKe the transition !rom
classical C@ewtonianD mechanics to the mechanics o! quantum
phenomena may be capture in the manner in which the implie uni!ie
physical law constrains the phenomena o! nature: classical physical law
states that what it prescribes to occur must necessarily occur - any
behavior apart !rom this being !orbienV quantum mechanical physical
law states that what it oes not proscribe or !orbi to occur necessarily
occurs. 6his constitutes a Kin o! !ecunity principle.
H! the quantum mechanical vacuum is the origin o! temporality1 then the
vacuum must itsel! be timeless1 which is to say1 eternal. 8oreover1 that
which is the originator o! space must itsel! be spatially unlimite.
=uman intelligence has evolve to a point 5ust short o! that require to
thinK something genuinely interesting.
6he neural networK computer oes not store in!ormation in any
particular location within the networK1 but stores in!ormation at
particular energy levels o! the global interaction o! the networK as a
whole. ;ach new bit o! ata which is !e into the networK is store at a
ne0t higher energy level o! the networK. Fhat ultimately becomes this
ne0t higher energy level is etermine by a virtually chaotic process o!
neural E!iringsE which occurs throughout the networK an which is
stimulate by the introuction o! a ata input signal. 8yrias o! neurons
throughout the entire networK continue to !ire ranomly until a new state
o! least energy is reache by the neural networK as a whole. H! the
separation between i!!erent energy levels within the neural networK
Crepresenting i!!erent bits o! in!ormationD are close enough together in
energy1 then it becomes very probable that there will be a process o!
continual virtual energy transitions occurring between the various
iscrete energy levels o! the networK throughout its entirety. /n
interesting point here is that these virtual energy transitions within the
networK owe entirely to the action o! the quantum !luctuations in the
energy o! the vacuum electromagnetic !iel. 8oreover1 the probabilities
o! given neural energy transitions occurring within the networK are
etermine by the presence o! the constantly occurring virtual energy
transitions o! the networK which1 again1 are meiate entirely by way o!
the quantum mechanical !luctuations in the vacuum electromagnetic
!iel1 themselves1 owing to the necessary presence o! =eisenberg energy
uncertainty within the quantum vacuum. /n essential i!!erence
between what are calle virtual an what are calle real energy
transitions1 is parallel to the istinction between what are calle virtual
particles an what are calle real particles1 respectively1 in the theory o!
particle physics1 namely1 virtual energy transitions cannot be measure
irectly1 whereas real energy transitions can be measure irectly1 !or
instance1 in laboratory e0periments. 6he real energy transitions which
taKe place within the neural networK1 an which are responsible !or the
communication o! its processe in!ormation to the Eoutsie worl1E i.e.1
to the consciousness o! both the iniviual sub5ect as well as his
listeners1 in the case o! verbal communication1 are1 themselves1
overetermine phenomena. 6his is to say1 there are an ine!inite
number o! istinct sequences o! virtual energy transitions which are
capable o! proucing the very same real energy transition within the
neural networK. 6his assertion remins us o! -eynmanGs sum o! histories
!ormalism !or calculating the probabilities o! !unamental particle
reactions. H! it were not !or the e0istence o! energy egeneracy within
the neural networK1 there woul be only one path o! neural !irings
possible connecting one energy level o! the networK to the ne0t higher
one. 6he operation o! a neural networK woul in this case be
!ormalizable in the !orm o! a computer algorithm. 6hus is the way to
what is calle intentionality opene up an mae possible: the very
same eterminate sequence o! neural !irings may have an unlimite
number o! alternative !uture brain states in view1 in other wors. Ht is
interesting to note that the interaction o! the virtual energy states o! the
neural networK is not meiate primarily by the physical realization o!
the networK itsel!1 but by the ne0t highest orer o! perturbations to the
energy o! the neural networK. Fhat we have been calling Evirtual
energy transitions1E are really only the !irst orer perturbations to the
global energy o! the neural networK1 conceive o! as a quantum
mechanical system. 6he !irst orer perturbations1 what we have been
calling1 Evirtual transitionsE within the networK1 are themselves1
in!orme or meiate by1 the quantum mechanical perturbations to the
!irst orer perturbation energies o! the networK1 i.e.1 2n orer energy
perturbations1 thus maKing the !irst orer perturbations overetermine
phenomena as well. Hn turn1 the secon orer perturbation energy
transitions Cwhat might whimsically be calle1 virtual - virtual energy
transitionsD are meiate by the occurrence o! transitions between
secon orer perturbation energies1 etc.1 an so on.
/t this point we might realize that the real energy transitions occurring
within the neural networK which are normally thought to be immeiately
responsible !or the processing o! all in!ormation by the networK1 are
engenere not by physical processes occurring at a lower level o!
organization1 but via processes taKing place at higher levels o!
organization1 represente by the ne0t higher orer perturbation energy
escription o! the neural networK. Fe Know that the virtual energy
transitions o! any given quantum mechanical system are owing to the
presence o! energy uncertainty in the system. Ht is more accurate1
however1 to say that this energy uncertainty is present in the quantum
vacuum itsel!1 an is merely communicate to the quantum system1 o!
interacting elementary particles1 say1 through the e0change o! energy
between the quantum system an the vacuum1 which is itsel! where the
energy uncertainty originatesV we saw earlier that the wave!unction
escribing a quantum mechanical system cannot be normalize i! the
energy uncertainty is conceive o! as being a property o! the quantum
system itsel!1 so that it must be an inherent property o! the quantum
vacuum. "o perhaps we see now that the neural networK itsel! acts
merely as a Kin o! terminus to an in!ormation reuction process1 it acts
as a Kin o! Ereucing valveE which serves to abstract a relatively tiny
portion o! in!ormation !rom the virtually in!inite in!ormation content o!
the overetermine quantum vacuum which is instantaneously an
nonlocally connecte with itsel!1 an there!ore represents the highest
level o! in!ormation processing because it constitutes the
interconnectivity o! energy at its most e0haustive level. 9n this view1
in!ormation1 liKe energy1 may not be create or estroye1 but is a
conserve quantity1 an its ultimate source is the in!inite energy
reservoir represente by the quantum vacuum. Fe alreay saw how
6emporality itsel! stems !rom the presence o! quantum energy
uncertainty1 which1 in turn1 originates in the vacuum1 conceive o!1
again1 as a reservoir o! virtually in!inite energy ensity. 3onsequently1
since 6emporality itsel! has its origin in the vacuum1 it !ollows that the
this in!inite sea o! vacuum energy itsel! ha no beginning in timeT 6he
vacuum now begins to remin us o! =eraclitusG Eever living !ire1E Ein
measures Kinling an in measures going out1E an thereby meiating1 as
an eternal !lu01 all the changes continually taKing place in the natural
orer. 8oreover1 =eraclitusG statement that1 Eeverything is an e0change
!or !ire1 an !ire an e0change !or every thing1E remins us the
interconvertibility o! mass an energy in quantum relativistic !iel
theory1 this interconvertibility being meiate by the continual e0change
o! energy between matter an vacuum. =eraclitusG Eever living !ireE is
to him the !ire o! the gos1 yet uncreate by the gos. =is statement
that E6hunerbolt steers the ,niverseE no oubt re!ers to the thunerbolt
wiele by Jeus1 the greatest o! all the 9lympian gosV when this
thunerbolt is ienti!ie with Ethe !ire o! the gos1E that is1 with
=eraclitusG ever living !ire1 the parallel between it an the vacuum
becomes an intriguingly close oneV the quantum vacuum1 by eternally
meiating all physical processes1 manages to Esteer the ,niverse.E Ht is
also interesting that 4reeK mythology tells us that 6ime owes its
e0istence to 3haos through that !act that the go1 3haos1 is name as the
!ather o! Oronos. 8oreover1 the 4reeK wor1 arche1 which means
source or origin in ancient 4reeK1 is translate into .atin as principium1
i.e.1 orering principle. 6he iea behin this particular translation o!
arche into principium is the same one e0presse by .eibniz1 when he
states in his 8onaology that1 Ethe conitions su!!icient to create the
worl are necessary at every succeeing moment o! time in orer to
sustain the worlGs e0istence.E Fe now arrive at the notion o! !irst
cause1 not in the usual sense o! !irst in a temporal sequence1 but in the at
once broaer an subtler sense o! most !unamental or substantive.
"ince it is the pattern o! virtual particle emission an absorption which
every real particle continually unergoes which etermines the mass o!
the particle1 it !ollows that real particle masses are etermine through
the particular manner in which real particles e0change energy with the
!luctuating quantum vacuum !ielV consequently1 alterations in the
ensity o! the vacuum !iel energy will a!!ect the masses o! particles
occupying this vacuum. Fe might e0pect that this relationship between
mass-energy an vacuum-energy is symmetrical in nature because the
interactions meiating the continual e0change o! energy between matter
an vacuum are themselves reversible interactions. 6his two-way
causal1 symmetrical relationship between mass energy an vacuum
energy within quantum !iel theory remins us o! a similar relationship
between mass an space-time curvature within the theory o! general
relativity: the presence o! mass within a given region o! spacetime
prouces an aitional curvature in this spacetimeV also1 an increase in
the curvature o! a particular region o! spacetime prouces an increase in
the mass o! particles or material boies alreay occupying this region.
"ince spatio-temporal variations in the energy ensity o! the vacuum
energy !iel are correlate with variations in spacetime curvature1 we
might suppose that some sort o! con!ormal mapping relationship obtains
between the ratio o! real particle to virtual particle energy ensities an
the egree o! mutual inclination o! the time an space a0es C o! the
8inKowsKi light cone D to one another. 6his relationship is also
suggeste by the !act that real particles are virtual particles which have
been promote to the level o! real e0istence through the absorption o!
energyV particles are e0citations o! the vacuum state which is itsel! a
reservoir or sea o! virtual particles. /lso1 through the application 8achGs
!ormula !or the spee o! soun to this vacuum energy reservoir1 we see
that such a con!ormal mapping relationship between ;insteinian space-
time curvature an spatial-temporal variations in the zero-point energy
o! the vacuum Cor1 alternatively1 its energy ensityD must involve
mappings between the hypersoli angle swept out by the light line in
!our-imensional C8inKowsKi D spacetime1 an the energy ensity Cor
pressureD o! the vacuum.
Fe must istinguish between evolutionGs creative an its critical
!aculties. /aptation is not the purpose o! evolutionV it is the trial an
error critical process which evolution is sub5ecte to by the contingent
environmental conitions within which it !ins itsel! operating.
:arwinian natural selection is merely a critical processV it is not in any
way a creative process1 in an o! itsel!. @atural selection merely
structures1 channels or !ilters the creative suggestions mae to itV it plays
no role whatever in the !unamental ynamism riving biological
evolutionV natural selection is merely the set o! bounary conitions
within which the ynamism o! evolution !unctions1 perhaps in the sense
o! ?ergsonGs elan vital. =ere again1 we have an e0ample o! how
bounary an initial conitions are essentially separable !rom the
ynamisms which they conscribe. "imilar remarKs were mae regaring
the process o! technological avancement1 which was viewe as a
progression in sophistication in imposing initial an bounary conitions
upon the invariant an unitary ynamism o! @ature. Fe Know that
natural selection is not able to operate unless sel!-reproucing
in!ormation-bearing structures are alreay in e0istenceV moreover1
natural selection has little opportunity to mol these sel!-reproucing
structures into more comple0 !orms unless it can pro!it !rom the
creative suggestions mae to it through the operation o! ranom
mutations1 themselves useless i! they cannot be passe on to !uture
o!!spring. "o it is also necessary that something analogous to a genetic
coe be containe within these sel!-reproucing structures1 themselves
the e0pression o! the in!ormation containe within this genetic coe.

6he problem1 then1 with :arwinism1 or its moern erivative1 neo-
:arwinism1 is that a great eal o! evolutionary evelopment must have
alreay occurre1 in the !orm o! so-calle chemical evolution prior to the
appearance o! the !irst sel!-reproucing1 in!ormation bearing structures1
be!ore the istinctly :arwinian process o! natural selection o! ranom
mutations is permitte to begin. "o the creative ynamism1 spoKen o!
previously1 is to be ienti!ie with that ynamism lying behin the
prebiotic process o! chemical evolution1 a process which oes not halt its
operation once the :arwinian process o! evolution commences1 but
which continues han in han with natural selection1 an1 moreover1
maintaining its central role as the motivating ynamism in the evolution
o! progressively more comple0 !orms o! li!e.
6he sub5ective EH am1E which is 5ust the iniviualGs personal
consciousness1 epenent upon the ob5ective worl outsie itsel!1 is not
to be con!use with the ob5ective EH /81E which is the one an unique
sel!-e0istent 3onsciousness which is the source o! all iniviual
sub5ective consciousnesses.
Ht is the quite common type o! !antasy1 !requently inulge in by prou
an vain human mortals1 to imagine onesel! in some glorious situation
where one is either vinicate1 suenly elevate in greatness Cor
suenly shown to have been greatD or renere1 usually by oneGs own
e!!orts1 victorious or triumphant over some power!ul aversity or
persecution1 or moreover1 to receive praise an aulation !rom the many
as one speaKs1 per!orms or otherwise acts in a manner which
compellingly isplays ones authority. Fe human beings inulge in this
Kin o! !antazisation a great eal when we are chilren1 perhaps more so
when eveloping aolescents1 while some o! us1 upon becoming
Eaults1E ten as we approach mile age to set asie1 eventually
completely1 such obvious puerile sel!-glori!ications o! the imagination.
"ome o! us1 on the other han1 never seem to put such sel!-glorie
imaginings behin us1 espite avancing age an maturity.
;veryone has either hear o! or re!lecte upon the phenomenon o!
sel!ishness e0hibite in the strong tenency we all have o! seeKing out
Cin secret1 o! courseD !rom a pacK o! !amily photographs1 those particular
photos in which we ourselves appear. ;ventually1 we become aware o!
the implications o! this Kin o! behavior1 which shames us: i! everyone
were to be this sel!-centere1 then there woul be no one le!t to care !or
me as much as Cor more thanD H care !or mysel! an H woul be a sel!ish
person alone in a universe o! sel!ish persons. 9! course1 part o! oneGs
motivation !or thinKing in this way1 perhaps unbeKnownst to onesel!1 is
the Oantian notion o! the 4olen AuleV to wit1 that H must act in such a
manner that H will that my action become a universal moral law.
?ut what o! the phenomenon where H imagine mysel! being some other
person when H am in the mist o! some pro!oun or eeply moving
aesthetic or intellectual e0perienceV H imagine what this e0perience
woul be liKe !or this other person an somehow the intensity an
woner o! the e0perience is ampli!ie !or me1 mysel!1 through this
psychological pro5ection. 7art o! the augmentation o! the aesthetic
e0perience !or me is the sense o! personal1 i! partly isemboie glory
which reouns to my sense o! ientity because it is H who is leaing this
person1 in my minGs eye1 to the unaccustome though !uller
appreciation o! this e0perience. 7artly again1 the e0perience is1 !or me1
augmente because H borrow the otherGs innocence1 using it as a !oil
against which the e0perience may be reiscovere by me in all its
aboriginal woner. 8oreover1 H act as this personGs spiritual mentorV H
help this person penetrate a mystery which H have long ago iscovere
!or mysel!1 an i! this other person is ultimately ienti!ie with my own
sel!V this is implie because all o! these pro5ections occur within my
minGs eye1 then H seeK to view mysel! as the !ather o! my own !uture
spiritual an intellectual evelopment. ?ut on a more basic human level1
H am imagining the sharing o! a pro!oun iea or e0perience with
another person in a way which is selom1 i! ever emonstrate in actual
social intercourse with my !ellow human beingsV certainly it is love
which motivates this peculiar psychological pro5ection - the Kin o! love
which oes not istinguish sel! !rom other.
H have no acquaintance with either physical ob5ects so-calle nor with
any phenomena taKing place within the omain o! other minsV in !act1 H
have ha no acquaintance with any phenomena whatever other than
those pertaining to my own psychological states1 states which are
presumably closely relate to the concerte electrochemical activity o!
my billions o! cortical neurons. 3onsequently1 H am !orce to accept the
e0istence o! physical ob5ects an other mins purely on a !aith borne o!
appearances which might be easily e0plaine numerous other ways than
those which seem to be ictate by what is calle Ecommon sense.E H
wish to remarK here that i! an omniscient C not to mention omnipotent D
4o !ails to e0ist who is1 by the way1 the only possible vouchsa!e !or the
e0istence o! an ob5ective worl containing other consciousnesses than
my own1 then there is absolutely nothing staning in the way o! my
rawing the less than com!orting conclusion that H alone e0ist1 i.e.1
"olipsism is the metaphysical truth1 an moreover1 there is absolutely
nothing staning in the way o! my concluing that H1 mysel!1 am
ultimately responsible !or all the phenomena which H have e0perience
or ever will e0perience an that 4o oes inee e0ist an that H am
=im. ?ut o! course1 H wholeheartely re5ect such a preposterous
conclusion: solipsism is a thesis which H must re5ect out o! han an
with it the proposition that 4o oes not e0ist. Fhat H have 5ust state
above is by no means a rational proo! o! the e0istence o! 4o. ?ut it is
an argument which re!lects the inner logic o! the whole o! my being in
its ineluctable a!!irmation o! =is e0istence !rom which H have not the
strength to epart.
6he very structure o! language contains within itsel! the subtle
implication that all human beings possess the belie!1 whether they
consciously realize it or not1 that the sum total o! possible Knowlege is
itsel! integral. ?ut this hypothesis about the inherently integral nature o!
Knowlege implies1 in turn1 the e0istence o! a unitary repository !or this
sum o! Knowlege1 which is to say1 a universal min or intellect.
Ht occurs to me that all true mysteries are intimately connecte an
intertwine with one anotherV to !in the solution to only one o! these
mysteries woul mean having !oun the answer to all. >ust listing some
e0amples may succee in illustrating to oneGs eeper intuition that this
must be true: a !ew o! these mysteries are that o! e0istence itsel!1 the
origin o! consciousness1 !reeom o! the will1 the mystery o! 6ime an
along with it that o! eternity1 the mystery o! immortality an that o!
ivinity. / bright young chil may agree with this observation1
remarKing1 Ewell1 4o e0ists an =e Knows the answer to all things.E
?ut it really oes seem that the contemplation o! any one o! these
mysteries inevitably leas to the contemplation o! all the others as well
as some which H havenGt mentione1 an one may asK1 E why might this
be so?E
8ost iniviuals are totally incapable o! what is calle luci reaming1
reaming where the reamer remains aware that it is he who is in control
o! all the action o! the ream. -reuGs octrine o! the conservation o!
psychic energy suggests that the control o! the ream action is meiate
by the omain o! the psyche lying between !ull consciousness an the
level o! consciousness at which the reamerGs min operates so that the
action o! the ream must issolve upon the reamer attaining his !ull
consciousness because the intermeiary omain o! consciousness which
controls the ream is reuce to nil or Esqueeze out.E /n analogy will
serve here. / river may not rise to an altitue greater than that o! its
source1 at which level its Kinetic energy is completely transmute into
potential energy. Ht might there!ore be thought that only those
iniviuals who e0perience repression o! their normal !ull consciousness
woul be capable o! Eluci reamingE as the control o! the ream action
woul be meiate by the consciousness within the omain between the
iniviualGs represse consciousness an his normal potentially !ull
consciousnessV this is 5ust a slightly more abstract way o! saying that the
psychic energy which is usually unavailable !or utilization by the
conscious min is !ree up uring the unconsciousness o! sleep an
renere available to the unconscious !or use in meiating the
phantasmagorical action o! the various ream sequences1 themselves1
accoring to -reu1 the acting out o! wish !ul!illments. 6he upshot o! all
this is that the presence o! luci reaming is a possible inication that
the iniviual e0periencing it is not reaching his normal psychic
potential !or !ull waKe!ul consciousness an that the reason !or this is a
e!icit o! available psychic energy ue to the presence o! myria
emotional con!licts lying represse within his unconscious min.
Puantum 8echanics veri!ies the ol "cholastic metaphysical
unerstaning o! all change or ?ecoming as occurring ue to a e!icit o!
?eing: all real physical processes are meiate via virtual processesV
these virtual processes possess by e!inition an energy smaller than the
energy uncertainty o! the quantum mechanical system which is
comprise by the real processes meiate by them. 6he total energy
uncertainty o! a quantum mechanical system is1 by the way1 relative to
the re!erence !rame within which the system is Eviewe1E an there!ore
i!!erences in the vacuumGs zero-point energy re!lect changes in our
!rame o! motion - in the sense provie by relativity. 8ore speci!ically1
.orenz contractions occur to not only to the eigenvalues o! length1 but
also to the quantum uncertainties o! length. "imilar statements may be
mae with respect to momentum1 energy1 time1 etc..
6his precise Ee!icit o! ?eingE may only be e!ine in terms o! the
complete escription o! the total processV this escription1 as alreay
note1 e0ists only !or itsel! an cannot be erive !rom without as an
in!inite regress o! escription stans in our way here. Hn this connection
we may state the !unamental principle that Ethe meiator may not be
e!ine in terms o! the total set o! processes which it meiates.E 6his
Ee!icit o! ?eingE o! "cholastic philosophy is e0actly analogous to the
energy uncertainty o! quantum mechanics. H! =egel is correct in saying
that positive entities e0ist only by virtue o! the accumulation o! various
negations o! relations holing between the /bsolute an itsel!1 then each
entity must more or less clearly an istinctly e0hibit the uni!ie totality
o! Aeality in microcosm1 the evelopmental program o! which is
containe in the greater quantity o! in!ormation which is etermine
when a number o! these entities come into con5unction with one another.
-or instance1 the molecular boning o! atoms1 whether it be ionic1
covalent1 or by the weaKer Ian er FaalGs !orce1 cannot be inuce to
occur within a previously speci!ie perio o! time simply through the
manipulation o! the atoms G!rom outsieVE one may only place the atoms
in the appro0imate position whereupon the action o! bon !ormation
ensues through the spontaneous action o! the vacuum electromagnetic
!iel. Hn !act1 the quantum mechanical metho utilize in physical or
quantum chemistry to etermine the various boning probabilities has
nothing whatever to say about which precise con!iguration or shape1 out
o! the many possible con!igurations1 will be !orme as a result or the
spontaneous boning process. 6his !act is reaily seen when one
attempts to view the spontaneous con!ormation o! a enature
macromolecule such as a nucleic aci as the result o! the amino acis o!
composing the molecule trying myria possible i!!erent con!ormations
by trial an error until the energetically !avore Cmost stableD
con!ormation is !oun. Hn even relatively small macromolecules the
total number o! possible con!ormations is so staggeringly large that even
i! the components try a i!!erent con!iguration every *)
-*$ secons Ca
very liberal assumptionD the time require to hit on the EcorrectE
con!ormation by chance woul taKe many orers o! magnitue longer
than the present age o! the observable universeT 6he wave!unction
which escribes the total system o! interacting atoms entering into the
boning process is appro0imate as a prouct o! the iniviual
wave!unctions escribing the appro0imate quantum state o! the atomsV it
is only the complete wave!unction which escribes these atoms as being
ine0tricably entangle with the whole vacuum-energy/ mass-energy
matri0 which contains the in!ormation about the shape o! the resultant
molecule1 among other things. @o iniviual quantum mechanical
wave!unction is truly normalizable1 although a large ensemble o! such
wave!unctions will approach normalizability in the limit o! in!inite
ensembles. 6here will always appear to be coupling between the
eigenstates o! a wave!unction which is1 itsel!1 merely an appro0imately
e0act wave!unctionV in reality1 there is only one universal wave!unction1
as its normalizability requires. 6his process is very much aKin to the
ecrease o! !uzziness in a holographic image which occurs on two or
more pieces o! a shattere holographic emulsion when the various pieces
are re!itte together. 9n this view all evelopment o! material systems
!rom the simplest subatomic constituents to the most comple0 living
organisms1 consists in the negation o! negation1 engenere by the
con5unctions o! these constituents which occurs by chance outsie length
uncertainty o! the constituents1 but which is actively irecte once they
interpenetrate within this range where they enter into the e!!ective range
o! their innate quantum- uncertainty meiate tenencies towar sel!-
organization1 tenencies which are a mani!estation o! the partially
istinct EimageE o! the /bsolute1 i.e.1 the universal wave!unction1 which
each constituent contains in microcosm within itsel!. ?ecause creation
is conceive uner the aspect o! the negation o! the negation o!
conte0tual relateness within the /bsolute1 this negation which is
negate being unerstoo as the reuction o! in!ormation resulting !rom
the partial e0pression o! the universal wave!unction as a prouct o!
partial wave!unctions corresponing to relatively uncertain subatomic
constituents1 the problem o! EFhy is there something rather than
nothing?1E is no longer renere insoluble by the requirement o!
e0plaining creation e0 nihilo1 but it is simply recognize that there has to
have always been something or other1 so what better caniate !or this
something than that uni!ie plenum which is its own escription1 which
is per /ristotle its own eternal contemplationV that entity which =egel
calls the /bsolute1 an which we have style Ethe universal
wave!unction.E "eptember 2)** "houl the notion o! substance turn out
to be an incoherent one1 then we are not barre !rom asserting that1 Ryou
can inee get something !rom nothing provie that there are no
possible conitions to prevent this.S 8ay 2)*( <ou canGt get something
!rom nothing1 but neither can one get everything !rom anything. /re we
then !orever cut o!! !rom certain possibilities o! e0istence1 i! we insist
that Aeality is 9ne? 6he groun o! being is itsel! neither thing1 nor
e0istent nor being an is not uni!ie because is !alls short o! unity1 but
on account o! its superabunant an over!lowing richness.
:r. "cholem1 in his 6rens in >ewish 8ysticism1 tells us that in any case
where there is a transition !rom one state or con!iguration to another
that1 Ethe voi is spanne !or an instant.E 8aame ?lavatsKy re!ers to
evolution as a Espiritual 9pus in reverse1E meaning that the worl arose
through a process o! involution Ca reuction o! the in!inite to the !initeD1
but containing a vague recollection o! the whole !rom which it was
originally abstracte an which guies its !uture evelopment. 6his
!uture evelopment is constitute by the return o! the /bsolute bacK to
itsel!1 irecte !rom above an hence is a recapitulation o! the timeless
an transcenent within the realm o! the temporal an immanent.
6o say that Aeality cannot be given a complete escription on account o!
the inevitable pit!all o! in!inite regress is merely to say that i! this
escription oes not alreay e0ist1 then it can in no way be constructeV
there is nothing in what has 5ust been sai to prevent a complete
escription o! Aeality which has always e0iste. Hn !act1 it is ue to the
lacK o! a complete escription which is responsible !or the e0istence o!
temporality. 6his observation is very much in the same spirit o! the
mathematician Ourt 4eelGs iscovery that the notion o! truth is stronger
than the notion o! provabilityV the !act that a theorem e0pressible within
the symbolic language o! a particular logico-mathematical system may
not be constructe !rom the a0ioms o! its system utilizing the rules o!
in!erence o! this system oes not prevent this theorem !rom Ee0istingE in
the sense o! its being true. ?ut one might asK what is the meaning o!
mathematical theorems which are beyon the comprehension o! any
!inite min an which are not true by construction !rom a possible
collection o! a0ioms1 but true in some more !unamental sense.
Fittgenstein tells us that we may not use substantives in a manner
which attempts to e0ten the re!erence o! these terms beyon the scope
o! all possible e0perience without !alling into either meaninglessness or
absurity. 6here!ore1 when we asK the question1 E:oes 4o e0ist?E the
most we can possible mean by this question is1 E:oes 4o e0ist within
our space-time continuum?E Fe cannot asK whether 4o e0ists in
Aeality CFirKlichKeitD since Aeality cannot possess a complete
escription without this escription having always e0iste an without
amitting the e0istence o! such a escription1 one necessarily beyon all
possible attempts to construct it1 an which may only e0ist !rom a single
point o! view or perspective. "o it seems that one may not asK whether
4o e0ists in Aeality Cin the sense o! FirKlichKeit D without
presupposing an answer in the a!!irmative1 because the amission o! the
e0istence o! ,ltimate Aeality is one an the same with the amission o!
4oGs e0istence. Ht is meaning!ul1 however1 to asK this same question in
the sense o! Aealitat. 6hat which has always e0iste1 an its complete
escription1 which has always e0iste must be a part o! this same
eternally pre-e0istent Aeality. Ht is obvious that the escription an the
Aeality must be essentially one an the same entity which is1 who is1
4o. 6he !inite may not be complete without conitions being
speci!ie1 an these speci!ie conitions may not obtain e0cept within
the purview o! a larger conte0t1 containing the particular !inite thing.
9nly those inepenently occurring genetic mutations may occur at
lower levels in the gene regulatory hierarchy1 i.e.1 to structural genes1
which become integrate together within a member o! an evolving
species which might have possesse a common source in the !orm o!
single mutation to a higher orer regulatory gene1 one which controls the
e0pression o! the original set o! structural genes prior to the occurrence
o! these inepenent mutations. 6he operation o! :arwinian natural
selection presupposes the e0istence o! a gene regulatory hierarchy which
controls not only the e0pression o! iniviual genes1 but more
importantly controls the integration o! the e0pressions o! large numbers
o! genes at the lower levels o! this hierarchy.
/pril 2)*( cit=
R;@39:; is an
acronym !or G;@3yclopeia 9! :na ;lementsG. Ht is a pro5ect that
eventuate a!ter the =uman 4enome 7ro5ect1 which coe all o! the
human genome1 complete in 2))$. 9n ' "eptember 2)*21 initial results
o! the ;ncoe pro5ect were release in a set o! $) papers1 publishe in
various 5ournals1 such as @ature. "o !ar it has etermine that over N)%
o! the genome has biochemical !unctionality1 much o! it involve in
controlling e0pression levels o! coing :@/S1 c.!.1
web=
http://www.irKbertels.net/iary/iary.php

6o reiterate1 there has always been something. Fhat better caniate !or
this something than that than which nothing greater can be conceive
Cper /nselmD ? 6his something has no complete escription e0cept
within an through itsel!. 6he only truly eterminate entity is the
totality o! everything which is possible or it is the voi1 as nothingness
is1 by its very nature1 eterminate.
Ht has been humorously note that 6ime e0ists so that everything will not
happen at once. 6emporality seems to require that Cper ?ergsonD
genuine novelty continually intrue into the worl. 6he act o! creation
is not an event within historyV it is the beginning o! historyV it is the very
inception o! novelty. ?ut since the continue presence o! temporality
seems to require continual activity o! creation1 it seems more consistent
to assume that creation itsel! is a !unamental process which itsel! ha
no beginning1 which was itsel! never create1 that the activity o! creation
is that which has always e0iste an which requires no e0planation other
than itsel!. 9n the other han1 however1 it seems that this !unamental
process o! creation cannot be a uni!ie process1 !or otherwise it is an act
which coul have been consummate instantaneously1 once !or all.
6emporality must there!ore be a process o! recapitulation o! timeless
reality with Aeality itsel! as the meium through which the
recapitulation is accomplishe.
H! Aeality has a complete escription1 it is not one which can be
constructe1 not one which ha any origin in time: it is ineterminacy
itsel! which is ultimately responsible !or the e0istence o! temporality
itsel!. H! such a complete escription e0ists it must have always e0iste
an the escription an the reality must be one an the same.
3onsciousness o!!ers itsel! immeiately as a liKely caniate !or such an
ultimate reality since consciousness is its own representation.
H! it is true that consciousness is require in orer to collapse a quantum
mechanical wave!unction into a eterminate eigenstate1 then
consciousness1 i! it ha an origin in time1 must have arose out the
interaction o! uncollapse wave!unctions - it must have arisen out o! a
situation o! in!inite energy uncertainty.
6he velocity o! light is etermine by the ratio o! real particle energy to
virtual particle energy.
=ence1 the elsewhere region o! the 8inKowsKi light cone may be
ienti!ie with that region o! the vacuum which stans in a relation o!
?ell nonlocality to the observer.
6he unity o! the conscious min is no oubt owing to ?ell-nonlocal
connectivity o! neurons within the brain.
H! it is true that there has always been something Cas in the metaphysical
question1 Ewhy is there something rather than nothingED1 out o! which the
,niverse arose1 assuming that this something is not 5ust the ,niverse
itsel!1 then there must not be1 ultimately speaKing1 a universal or all
encompassing1 ongoing process o! either evolution or egraation in the
evelopment o! Aeality. 6his is because by this present time an in!inite
amount o! time must have alreay passe so that Aeality shoul have
either egrae into utter nothingness or reache a state o! eternally
unchanging per!ection an we o not observe the ,niverse to presently
occupy either o! these two e0treme states: temporality coul not e0ist
within a universe which erives its e0istence !rom a groun o!
unchanging per!ection C!ullness o! beingD nor coul the universe erive
its e0istence !rom a groun o! nothingness Ccomplete egraationD. Fe
now arrive at the conclusion that Aeality as a whole is neither evolving
Cincreasing in comple0ityD nor is it evolving Cecreasing in comple0ityD
so that any apparent changes in comple0ity in the ,niverse1 e.g.1
biological evolution1 increasing entropy1 are merely local changes which
are on the whole compensate by opposing processes elsewhere.
Fe may thinK o! causal relationships as obtaining between terms or
entities occupying a plane o! equal levels o! abstraction with the process
o! abstraction itsel! an its opposing process1 that o! concretion1 being
processes which o not amit o! an e0haustively causal analysis.
H! it is only possible to alter the bounary conitions an initial
conitions which the ynamism o! @ature is sub5ect to 1 but not to alter
in any way the ynamism itsel!1 then the most avance technologies
will amount to nothing more than having iscovere how to goa @ature
into oing1 in the best way she Knows how1 what she has all along been
in the very act o! oing.
Ht is the possibility o! !ormulating recursive propositions an this
possibility alone which allows the omain o! true theorems1 e0pressible
within the language o! a euctive system1 to transcen in magnitue the
omain o! provable theorems1 i.e.1 theorems which may be euce
!rom the a0ioms o! the system through application o! the rules o!
in!erence o! the system.
6here is no comprehensive rule by which a computing evice may
recognize the appearance o! a recursive proposition since recursiveness
is a structure which can only be suggesteV it cannot be literally state.
>une *22N
6he recursiveness o! consciousness is apparent in the !act that the
ying away o! represent-ations within consciousness taKes place in
absolute simultaneity with the bringing into being o! new
representational contents to consciousness. Hn !act1 these two processes1
that o! the passing away an the coming into being o! consciousness_
transitory representations1 inee1 are one an the very same processT
,nliKe representations within consciousness1 in which there necessarily
e0ists a !igure/groun structure1 with only !igure being represente an
groun supporting this !igure beneath the level o! awareness1 in the
ynamic !low o! the representations o! consciousness1 !igure an groun
coe0ist on an equal !ooting as a uni!ie phenomenal !lu0. Fe are1
however1 only using the terms1 !igure an groun1 in the metaphorical
sense o! becoming as !igure1 or !iguring1 an !aing1 i! you will1 as
groun1 or1 more aptly1 grouning1 i.e.1 grouning o! !iguring. ?ut
inso!ar as this metaphor o! !igure an groun applies to the changing
representations o! consciousness1 to this e0tent we shall say that the
process o! the simultaneous becoming an !aing o! these
representations is a process which is not en!rame. Ht is a process which
taKes place ultimately always outsie. 6he contents o! consciousness
always come into being not !rom elsewhere within itsel!1 but always
!rom outsie itsel! - !rom otherness or !rom alterity1 but never !rom
within alterity. -or there is not within-ness !or the unconitione1 the
unboune1 the ineterminate. 6he ineterminate oes not speci!y
anything o! itsel! as a coorinate totality. 6he contraction o! the in!inite
upon !initeness is itsel! a trans!inite or transcenental process. @ow a
transcenental being is itsel! an in!inite etermination. 6he outsieness
o! alterity transcens the category o! spatiality. -or this variety o!
outsieness is not simply coe0tensive with the outsieness o! all other
eterminations. 6his hols !or a particular e0istent among a !inite set o!
e0istents within a preestablishe spacetime. Hn short1 the outsieness o!
alterity is intrinsic or innate1 that is1 it is not etermine outsie
itsel!. "o alterity possesses its own alterity an this implies the
givenness o! other alterities. 6his is why an ob5ect etermine in
space an time is not other in the same way that another being liKe
mysel! is other. 6he becoming o! a transcenental being is nontemporal
as it is not reucible to a etermination o! substance. 6he being an
becoming o! alterity is what constitutes spatiotemporality.
/ll baryons are compose o! various combinations o! three i!!erent
quarKs out o! the si0 possible i!!erent types o! quarKV the mesons1
however1 are each compose o! i!!erent quarK pairs !rom among the si0
!unamental quarK types. 6he !unamental !orce responsible !or bining
together the various quarK combinations out o! which all baryons an
mesons are compose possesses the bizarre property o! increasing in
strength as the istance separating the quarKs increases. 6he important
result o! this is that it is impossible to !ragment these quarK laen
particles into their !unamental constituent quarKs: it is impossible to
prouce a E!ree quarK1E in other wors. 6his is almost as though the
quarK oes not possess a eterminate energy structure e0cept as it e0ists
within groups o! two1 three or possibly larger numbers o! quarKs. 6he
quarK may be an e0ample o! an entity whose ientity is totally conte0t
epenent with the quarK itsel!1 parao0ically1 proviing the conte0t !or
its own etermination as a substantive entity. "uch an entity might not
possess a e!inite energy equivalence in the sense that it is not possible
to etermine the quarKGs energy inepenently o! the energies associate
with the !orce !iels the particle prouces. /n entity such as the quarK
which is e!ine in terms o! the combine e!!ect that it has upon itsel!
Can one or more uplicates o! itsel! D provies us with the best e0ample
to ate o! what might be calle a sel!-e0istent entity.
Puantum nonlocality e!!ects coul govern the superluminal transmission
o! in!ormation between various wiely separate locations within the
brainGs corte0 without proucing a veri!iable violation o! special
relativityGs restriction on superluminal transmission o! in!ormation
between separate mins. 6his woul be possible i! the very same
nonlocality e!!ects are require !or the integration o! the iniviualGs
consciousness as a whole. 6he iea or !lash o! insight woul then be
time-elaye by the necessary time interval involve in conveying this
iea !rom the location in his brain where the crucial integration occurre
to those parts o! his nervous system which picK up this message an in
turn translate it into classically escribe nerve impulses then
responsible !or the ultimate series o! muscle cell contractions require to
transmit the message to the e0ternal worl o! attening observers.
/nother way o! looKing at this Kin o! nonlocality is !or the
nonlocalize quantum e!!ects to be con!ine to a vacuum
energy/in!ormation reservoir1 e0haustively connecte with itsel!
nonlocally1 which is continually tappe into by the neural networK o! the
personGs brain.
"eptember 2)**
Ht is intriguing to consier that1 consciousness Cimplementing a
will capable o! RstartlingS the quantum vacuum in its instinctive
ambition to marshall its multi!arious !luctuations into a giant an
useless staning wave patternD is in!orme by brain !unctions liKely
constitute out o! the very superluminal signals that are intersub5ectively
!orbien by special relativity. 3onsciousness acts to bu!!er these
!orbien in!ormation signals. 6ime parao0es can be harmlessly
issipate i! the woul be causally contraictory in!ormation generate
by processes potentially leaing to them are RventeS to higher
imensional time. .ibet_s sub5ective Rtime bubbleS Cspecious presentD o!
appro0imately ')) ms in uration swallows up any possible !orbien
signals1 since these presumably can travel no !urther into the past or
!uture than somewhat less than 2') ms. H! !reely wille action on the
part o! an emboie spacetime agent in the sense of his possessing the
powers an authority to initiate causal chains1 presupposes conscious
intention to act1 while consciousness is incapable o! RbootstrappingS
itsel! into an intentional state in real time1 but requires the minimum
time to o this which is presuppose by the brain stimulation
e0periments o! :r. .ibet1 then what we appear to have here is a natural
mechanism within the brain en!orcing chronology protection. Hn a wor1
i! in!ormation is always constitute by superluminal signals Cbecause
this necessarily occurs within a uni!ie conscious stateD1 but
superluminal signals are never constitute by in!ormation1 then
chronology protection seems assure. 6he !act that only ata can be
transmitte an receive intersub$ectively1 while information is always
transmitte 7infrasub$ectively81 i.e.1 is constitutive o! sub5ective
conscious states capable o! in!orming intentions o! the !ree agent to act
by initiating a causal chain1 is what at bottom en!orces chronology
protection. /lso1 the prevention o! cross-talK between istinct sub5ective
centers o! volition through the 5uicious parceling an aministration
an quantum vacuum signal banwith by what may well constitute the
equivalent o! a Rcosmic -33S1 coul be escribe as an equivalent way
o! escribing the chronology protection mechanism. 9r perhaps we are
really only attempting to escribe the very same chronology protection
mechanism !rom opposite ens as it were. Aecall that the initiation o! a
causal chain itsel! constitutes a Rcausality violationS. /n amusing
thought is that iniviual consciousness_ may serve a larger Recological
purposeS vis a vis chronology protection within the transhuman conte0t
o! cosmic spacetime. H am remine here o! those happy an
enthusiastic Rscrubbing bubblesS !rom the ubiquitous toilet bowl cleaner
commercials o! the *22)_s. Ht woul not surprise me i! consciousness
possesses a peculiar action aKin to an entropy engine1 the !uel !or which
being these superluminal signals that ;instein says cannot e0ist. @ote
that the conscious min in the !unamental role conceive !or it here1 is
entirely powerless to stop or prevent the superluminal propagation of
momentum an energy9
:ecember 2)*2
6ry thinKing o! personal consciousnesses as causality-violating
signal Rispose-allsS. 6he causality integrative processes necessary !or
the !ormation o! new iniviual mins require superluminal signaling1
which1 however1 is !unamentally causality-violating. "o as cosmic
sa!eguar1 istinct iniviual consciousnesses are provie as
pree0isting Rin!rastructureS to enable the coalescence o! substrates !or
grouning iniviual mentalities L a !unamental process which
maintains chronology protection by maintanining requisite minimal
is5ointness o! superluminal signals. "o =u0ley_s notion o! the brain
qua Rreucing valveS may not be too !ar o!! the marK. 3ausal
supervenenience may have perhaps been interprete thus !ar in a !ar too
philosophically sel!-serving manner1 i.e.1 teleologically1 rather than in a
more properly ecological manner CKin o! liKe teleology turne insie-
out1 that is1 !rom the stanpoint o! someone not blesse with occupying
the ape0 o! the chain-o!-beingD.
6here seems to be nothing to strictly !orbi the e0istence o!
superluminal causal connections between events which lie outsie o! any
observerGs 8inKowsKi light cone.
>uly 2)**
"ince the spee o! light oes not
serve as a limit !or virtual particle processes1 we might suppose that the
elsewhere region1 that outsie the light cone is constitute by vacuum
!luctuations possessing a correlational structure inconsistent with
eterminism.
"ince the common sense view alleges that the past is nothing more than
a !i0e1 crystallize recor o! what has actually occurre within the
present1 it !ollows !rom this view then that a present which has not ha
aequate time within which to resolve its internal contraictions an
ambiguities must retain a certain small egree o! !reeom within which
change might continue even a!ter this moment becomes past. Hn this
way1 bacKwars causality woul be amissible1 i! only !or the purpose o!
Ecleaning upE the Eloose ensE o! still ineterminate entities occupying
past times. ?ut oesnGt common sense also e!ine the past in such a
manner that it oes not actually become past as such until such a point as
this crystallization process is complete.
Hn other wors1 common sense e!ines the past in such a way that the
time a0is is necessarily orthogonal to the three imensions o! space an
this at every spatial scale1 however smallV it e!ines the past in such a
manner that there is no substantive istinction between past1 present an
!uture1 which is to say1 it e!ines the past as a hal!-in!inite time interval
with its later enpoint being the present moment whose status as present
must be completely arbitrary. Fithin a eterministic time continuum
there is no nonarbitrary basis upon which any particular moment along
the continuum may be chosen over other conteners as being actually
present.
/ natural lawliKe system o! relationships which govern the behavior o! a
given entity may only be !ormulate provie that this entity is not
unique C provie that multiple uplicates o! the entity e0ist an are
available D as in the case o! subatomic particles1 e.g.1 an electron. 6he
quest !or the Etheory o! everythingE is there!ore oome to ultimate
!ailure1 since what we call EeverythingE is necessarily unique1 an this
uniqueness prevents us !rom separating those EvariablesE which are
particular to the thing itsel! !rom those which owe in part to our
investigatory involvement with this thing. 6he sel!1 in the act o!
investigating ultimate reality1 must be inclue within the ynamic o!
the reality !or which we are seeKing a complete escription. 6his
inherent recursiveness which lies at the heart o! any earnest attempt to
evelop a complete escription o! reality is alone responsible !or the !act
that the omain o! truth necessarily transcens the sum o! Knowlege
comprising any point o! view Co! realityD.
Puantum 8echanics tells us that a close ynamical system may only
unergo temporal evolution provie that a certain energy uncertainty
e0ists within the system. 6his energy uncertainty is 5ust the stanar
eviation o! the energy about its mean or e0pectation value. 6his energy
uncertainty may be interprete in terms o! a time-average sum o!
ranom energy perturbations to the system E!rom outsieE the system.
6hese ranom energy perturbations mani!est themselves in the !orm o!
energy e0changes between the quantum mechanical system an the sea
o! virtual particles in which this system is embee. 6he interaction o!
these virtual particles with the quantum mechanical system are
responsible !or virtual transitions o! the quantum state o! the system to
other quantum states. 6he only real energy transitions available to the
quantum mechanical CynamicalD system are those !rom amongst the set
o! virtual energy transitions which are continually occurring within the
time interval speci!ie by the systemGs time uncertainty. 6he ensity o!
this virtual particle energy sea has a irect bearing upon the rate o!
temporal evolution o! any given quantum mechanical system. 9ur
central hypothesis is that the presence o! matter has a perturbing e!!ect
upon this virtual particle energy sea1 i.e.1 the quantum vacuum !iel1 an
this perturbing e!!ect is1 namely1 to ecrease the overall ensity o! this
vacuum energy which results in a similar ecrease in the time rate o!
change o! all physical processes within the spatial volume occupie by
this matter. 6his propose vacuum mechanism is e0actly similar to the
mechanism by which a quantum resonant cavity ecreases the rate o!
spontaneous emission o! Gcavity - etuneG photons by a Ayberg e0cite
atom. 6he resonant cavity achieves this by e0cluing most o! the
photons o! hal!-wavelength larger than the cavity iameter: to wit1 it
oes this by ecreasing the energy ensity o! vacuum electromagnetic
!iel !luctuations o! roughly the same energy as that o! the suppresse
atomic energy transitions.
4iven this inherent circularity in the nature o! technological growth1 it
!ollows that the ultimate constituents o! the Forl must be wholly
recursive: they must be their own symbolic representations.
H! a Econscious computerE is ever evelope in what will unoubtely
be the !ar istant !uture1 this mysterious property o! such a evice will in
no way stem solely !rom the esign or blueprint by which its engineers
will have conceive its constructionV the blueprint will1 o! course1 be a
necessary component in the realization o! such a conscious machine1 but
will have been erive !rom a necessarily somewhat !ortuitous
iscovery1 owing to much trial an error investigation1 o! the EcorrectE
harware inter!ace o! the evice with the recursive1 sel!-organizing
matri0 o! quantum - vacuum energy !luctuations which unerpin an
meiate the stability o! all !unamental particles an their e0change
!orces. 9nly in appropriate ynamic con5unction with this !luctuating
energy matri0 will any realization o! a harware esign possess the
topological energy structure su!!icient to tap the pre-e0isting
Econsciousness potentialE o! spacetime. Hn other wors1 it is only the
grace o! AealityGs !unamental ynamism which will permit the eventual
construction o! a so-calle conscious computing evice. 6his empirical
iscovery o! the correct inter!ace esign will mani!est itsel! perhaps
uring a testing phase where a long series o! simulate sensory inputs1 o!
increasing comple0ity1 are in the process o! being !e into the evice
while its output signals CresponsesD are being closely monitore. 6he
memory meium o! the evice will begin to accumulate store or
remembere inputs which it has never receive through its various
sensory apparatus. Hentical sets or series o! inputs will prouce
signi!icantly i!!erent series o! outputs both !rom an iniviual machine
over time as well as !rom i!!erent machines at the same time - even i!
these machines possess ientical esigns. 9ccasionally1 raically
i!!erent series or sets o! inputs will prouce ientical sets o! outputs. /
signi!icant portion o! the !unctional relationship between output an
input will epen upon changes in energy in the internal components o!
the machineGs harware which are1 themselves1 smaller than the overall
quantum energy uncertainty o! the evice as a whole. 8oreover1 no
mutually orthogonal set o! eigen!unctions will escribe the E!unctioning
componentsE o! the evice. 6his is why we have been saying that the
abstract spatial structure o! our hypothetical computing evice is non-
topological. 3learly1 any realization o! a static blueprint !or a computing
evice1 regarless how comple01 in the !orm or an ynamically
!unctioning prototype1 will itsel! be merely a topological trans!ormation
o! the blueprint !rom 2 or perhaps $ spatial imensions to ( spatial
imensions rather than the non - topological trans!ormation !rom $
spatial to ( imensions o! $ space an * time. 6his is because the state
space o! the transcribe structure1 i.e.1 the esign1 can be aequately
escribe in spatial terms.
8arch 2)*$
Fhat is liKely to be the outcome when the quantum entangle
signals resiing in the quantum aKashic recor become accessible to the
!irst quantum computers with which the human brain has !orme a
worKable in!ormation inter!ace? 9! course1 without appropriate
!eebacK1 say a!ter the !ashion o! two-way supervise neural networK
training1 these relic quantum entangle signals are not liKely to have any
iscernible meaning. /nother sign o! the embeing o! quantum
computers in an in!ormational matri0 is these machines stubborn re!usal
to !ollow any pre-programme or esign-base pattern o!
!unction/behavior.
Hn a very real sense1 an ob5ect may not be thought to possess an
internality unless it possess an a genuine EoutsieE in the sense o! a
raically open system - a system which cannot be containe within a
close systemV a system is EcloseE only i! it is !inite an neither
receives nor transmits energy to or !rom any system e0cept itsel!. "uch
a close system possesses no Eoutsie.E
PJ 3ontingent uniqueness versus necessary uniqueness. 6he size o! the
,niverse an the blacK hole mass limit as important parameters in
etermining the ensity o! the quantum vacuum energy.
6he asymmetrical nature o! time perhaps has some bearing on the
hierarchical structuring o! comple0 macromolecules. 6he !act that a
molecule has been !orme !rom a set o! simpler constituents oes not
guarantee that it can then be ecompose bacK into this set o!
constituents. "imilarly1 the !act that a molecule has been broKen own
into a set o! simpler constituents oes not guarantee that it can be
recompose !rom this sel!same set o! constituents. 7erhaps the
asymmetrical nature o! temporality implies that any su!!iciently large set
o! macromolecules may be partitione into two is5oint partsV those
molecules possessing a bottom - up structure an those possessing a top
- own structure. 6his istinction which H am rawing is not a soli
theoretical oneV it is a pragmatic istinction which assumes that status o!
a theoretical istinction when we re!er to molecules occupying either
e0treme en o! the probability spectrum C in terms o! their ability to
!orm EnaturallyE !rom simpler parts D.
Fill may only be e!ine in terms o! a ErationalE orer !oreign to itsel!
which it resists or subverts. Fill is the e0ternal mani!estation o!
consciousness. Fill is a principle o! incommensurate causation. 6he set
o! lawliKe relations which may be sai to govern FillGs operation are
unique an irreproucible. Aational orer is simply that orer which can
be mae to mani!est its lawliKe relations in a reproucible manner.
6here is no nee to invoKe a temporal escription o! this state space - the
only reason one woul attempt it is because we pro5ect our genuine
temporality onto the minGs eye realization o! the computing evice in
its act o! E!unctioning.E =enri ?ergson1 in his essay1 6ime in the =istory
o! Festern 7hilosophy1 complaine o! a con!usion which inevitably
croppe up whenever metaphysicians attempte to analyze the problem
o! motion. Fith a Kin o! gentle contempt he escribe the !rustration
o! these philosophers in trying to reconstruct linear motion !rom in!inite
series o! EimmobilitiesE1 i.e.1 !i0e points o! in!initesimal length. =e
e0plaine their !ailure as being ue to their ignorance o! the nature o! a
linear interval as a mere pro5ection o! Emobility onto immobility.E 6his
pro5ection1 naturally as such1 oes not capture the whole phenomenon1
but merely a point o! view with respect to it out o! an in!inity o! equally
vali points o! view1 an so !rom a single pro5ection1 or even a !inite
number o! pro5ections1 one is never permitte to reconstruct the original
ob5ect as it is.
6here are possible bounary conitions which might be easily place
upon the ynamic o! the E!lu0E which are nonetheless in!initely
improbable as EnaturalE occurrences1 which is to say that the operation
o! intelligence is require to institute them.
Ht is these seemingly magical sel! - organizing properties o! matter1
owing to the recursiveness o! its ultimate Econstituents1E which maKe
any attempt to calculate the EimprobabilityE o! biological
macromolecules an incoherent an meaningless enterprise. "imilar
activities are the routine pastime o! myria scienti!ically incline
creationists attacKing evolution. 6he staggeringly large numerical ratios
which they cite against the Echance occurrenceE o! the simplest
euKaryote :@/ are calculate upon a permutational / combinational
moeling o! a prebiotic EsoupE in which chance collisions continually
occur between precursor molecules1 e.g.1 pepties1 amino acis1 nucleic
acis1 etc. 6he serious problem with such a moeling approach is that it
is not an empirically erive statistical calculation as in actuarial
computations1 where a istinct probability is assigne to each possible
event within a pool1 base on the observe relative !requencies o! each
event1 but is an abstract calculation where the probabilities are !i0e at
the outset an remain unchange throughout all series o! calculations.
-or e0ample1 there are a vast number o! nucleic aci reactions taKing
place within the ribosome organelle o! every living animal cell which in
the absence o! certain meiating enzymes will taKe place anywhere !rom
2 to 2) orers o! magnitue more slowly than i! these enzymes are
present - the ribosome is responsible !or EtranslatingE the coe
in!ormation o! nucleic acis into various macromolecules CproteinsD an
in so oing e0pressing the genotype o! the eveloping organism. Fe see
!rom this e0ample that the probability o! the occurrence o! various
macromolecules essential to the appearance o! the !irst reproucing1
metabolizing organic units begins in!initesimally small when the
moleculeGs precursors are yet unavailable1 but that this probability grows
by large iscontinuous 5umps each time one o! these precursors1 the
precursorsG precursors1 etc. arise inavertently in the prebiotic EsoupE so
that by the time the e0haustive set o! macromolecular precursors is
present1 the !ormation o! the original macromolecule is virtually assure.
6he ribosome itsel!1 espite its inorinately comple0 structure1 has been
observe uner e0perimental conitions to re!orm spontaneously a!ter
having been issociate within a care!ully prepare enzyme bath into its
precursor polynucleotie constituents - an this within the space o! only
several hoursT Ht is inee true that a countless variety o! i!!erent
enzymes Co! the precisely correct typeD must be simultaneously present
along with the polynucleotie matri0 !or this seemingly magical act o!
spontaneous sel! - organization to occur. 6his is because the sel! -
organization o! such an enormously comple0 organic structure epens1
throughout the entire process1 upon the almost simultaneous
5u0taposition Ccollision is a better termD o! three or more precursor
molecules which all happen to have the e0actly correct spatial
orientation1 with su!!icient Kinetic energy to overcome the activation
energy barrier against the reaction occurring. Ht shoul be note here
that 5ust the chance o! any three compatible molecules C in terms o! a
esire prouct D colliing at once with the roughly correct spatial
orientation is an event with a probability only in!initesimally greater
than zero - let alone the question o! proper activation energies. /n so1
even i! the primorial ;arth possesse the appropriate reucing
atmosphere with oceans chalK !ull o! all o! the require precursor
molecules !or the ribosome to properly !orm1 without the necessary
catalyzing co!actors C the enzymes D there woul not liKely have !orme
a single such structure by this late epoch. 6hen perhaps there must have
been an e0tremely long perio o! time uring which the necessary
enzymes appeare on the scene1 one might thinK. 9ne suspects1 then1 a
similar sel! - organizing process behin the !ormation o! these necessary
enzymes1 the only i!!erence being that the precursors which we are now
concerne with are simpler1 while their precursors must have been
simpler still1 an so on. ?ut the precursor macromolecules !or many
particular enzymes have1 inee1 never been manu!acture C because we
onGt Know how to o itD1 but have to be obtaine !rom more comple0
molecules than themselves1 i! not !rom living or recently living
organisms. 6he theory o! evolution1 chemical evolution in this case1 has
secretly conitione us to believe that there must be some e!inite i!
inorinately comple0 sequence: precursors + co!actors b simpler
precursors + co!actors b etc. leaing bacK to the very simplest organic
molecules which !orm by sel! - organization spontaneously an easily in
a wie variety o! environments an without the nee !or co!actors or
helper molecules o! any Kin1 an that it must have been such a process
Conly in reverseD which ultimately lea to the !irst sel! - reproucing
biological units which coul then be evelope !urther through
:arwinian natural selection.
6he notion o! sel! - organization gives some o! us pause because it
concerns a natural process which sits precisely on the !ence between
what might be calle less - than - sel! - organization1 i.e.1 !ormation !rom
simpler components1 an what is aptly calle greater - than - sel! -
organization1 i.e.1 !ormation !rom more comple0 components - an it is
5ust such a notion which strongly suggests a top - own hierarchy within
the natural orer which can only have intelligence at its ape0. /t every
step in the chain in the !ormation o! higher level precursor molecules1
the meiation o! the require reactions is accomplishe via sel! -
organization principles : those who attempt to calculate the probability
against EchanceE !ormation o! important precursor molecules !orget a
very important general principle !irst articulate by the great rationalist
philosopher .eibniz - which is - that set o! conitions which in
combination are su!!icient to prouce some comple0 structure must
necessarily remain in operation at every succeeing moment to sustain
the e0istence o! this structure. 6he upshot o! this is that a comple0
structure which owes its origin to mere chance cannot enure1 still less
coul it respon to its environment in an aaptive !ashion.
6o ben @ature towar our intentions it is merely necessary !or us to
blocK all o! those e0cept the one paralleling that one which is our own.
Ht is in the very nature o! recursion not to be erivable !rom anything but
recursion itsel!. 6here!ore1 i! a recursion or recursive structure has a
beginning in time it is comple01 but may only be analyze in terms o!
other EsimplerE recursive structures. 6hese simpler components o! the
recursive structure are themselves appro0imations to the larger structure
which they !orm in combination with one another.
6he behavior o! sel! - organizing systems cannot ultimately be e0plaine
in terms o! principles o! organization which obtain e0ternally1 which is
to say1 such ynamic structures will not submit to a reuctionistic
analysis.
6he istinction between the EmentalE an the EphysicalE may be rawn
in the !ollowing way: both are wholes compose o! parts1 both possess
principles o! organization1 but what is terme a physical whole is
e!ine e0clusively in terms o! its constituent parts while the EpartsE
which EcomposeE what is terme a mental whole are1 themselves1
e!ine in terms o! the whole which they compose. 6he reconstruction
o! a mental whole must be guie in a top - own manner whereas the
construction o! a physical whole must be guie in a bottom - up
manner. 6he principle o! a mental whole must e0ist prior to its actual
realization C in terms o! whatever substanceD.
Fithout substance change is not possible. 3oe0tensive with this
principle is: change owes itsel! to a lacK o! etermination1 to a e!icit o!
?eing1 to negation. -rom which it at once !ollows that substance1 rather
than being the seat o! being1 o! thinghoo1 as common sense conceives it
to be1 it owes its e0istence1 to the contrary1 to a lacK o! being. Ht is not
possible !or a eterminate thing to be mae up out o! substance inso!ar
as this thing possesses etermination.
Ht is easy enough to see that continuity is require !or the subsistence o!
what is calle historical time which we will hence!orth re!er to as
temporality. Hneterminate substance is the only basis !or the continuity
unerlying all change.
6he science o! 7hysics1 at least be!ore the evelopment o! relativistic
quantum !iel theory1 in the *2()Gs1 imagine that there might be such
things as ultimate material constituents - elementary particles - out o!
which all material boies woul be compose. 6he implicit
8etaphysics behin the notion o! elementary particles is that o!
substance.
6here is no such thing as nothing. @othing1 by its very nature1 is a
none0istent entity: it is its own negation. Fe might be tempte to say
then that Esomething1E being the opposite o! nothing1 must e0ist. ?ut not
5ust any EsomethingE constitutes the opposite or negation o!
nothing/nothingness1 but only a something which is1 itsel!1 the unity o!
all that might possibly e0ist1 an the very essence o! which is to e0ist. Hn
other wors1 nothing1 not being possible because containing within itsel!
its own negation1 implies that there must have always been something
Cor otherD. ?ut the only guarantee that there has always been something
is the e0istence o! something which contains within itsel! its own
a!!irmation1 i! you will1 the reason !or its own e0istence. / !unamental
an most general property o! a thing which contains within itsel! the
reason !or its own e0istence is that o! recursion1 something which is
e!ine solely in terms o! itsel!1 a recursive structure. 6here are logical
grouns !or believing that there can be only one recursive structure1 that
there can be only one sel!-e0istent entity - with this entity being the
EgrounE !or e0istence o! all other entities. / recursive structure1 i! it
may be thought to be composite1 woul be compose o! parts which are
totally interepenent upon one anotherV no part is the cause o! any other
without also being itsel! cause by this other part an so i! this recursive
structure ha a beginning in time1 it must have been given e0istence
through a pre-e0isting1 broaer an more comple0 recursive structure.
Fe see now that a given !inite recursive structure comes into e0istence
through a process o! uncovering or abstraction !rom a more comple0
whole - through a process o! negation. Fe are remine o!
8ichelangeloGs claim that a truly great worK o! sculpture alreay e0ists
within its marble blocK an that all he i in orer to prouce his worKs
was merely to !ree them !rom the marble in which they were imprisone.
/ll simpler recursive structures come into being through a Kin o!
!igure-groun trans!ormation1 through a change in perspective. 6his
remins us o! .eibnizG monas1 each o! which are only i!!erent
perspectives on an eternally pre-e0istent whole1 with each mona
e!ine in terms o!1 or epenent upon1 all o! the other monas maKing
up the whole. 6his e0haustive interepenence is what .eibniz re!ers to
as the preestablishe harmony between monas. /gain1 a recursion may
only be e!ine in terms o! other recursions liKe itsel!. 3onsciousness is
an e0ample o! an inherently recursive structure as it is its own symbolic
representation C o! itsel! to itsel!D. 3onsciousnessG ob5ectivity is e0actly
coe0tensive with its sub5ectivityV this is simply a restatement o! ?ishop
?erKeley_s principle1 esse est percipi1 i.e.1 to be is to be perceive1 an as
consciousness necessarily e0periences itsel! as a unity an never as a
multiplicity - the ob5ective reality o! any multiplicity o! consciousnessG
coul only e0ist as a sub5ective reality within a larger iniviual
consciousness Citsel! a unityD an so cannot really be a multiplicity o!
consciousnesses at all. 6his argument against the multiplicity o!
consciousness was succinctly state by the physicist ;rwin "chroinger
in his short seminal worK1 8in an 8atter. Ht !ollows that since
consciousness cannot e0perience itsel! as a multiplicity1 it there!ore
cannot e0ist ob5ectively as a multiplicity: consequently there can only
be one consciousness.
?oth the /merican psychologist Filliam >ames as well the -rench
philosopher =enri ?ergson i not believe that the brain was itsel!
prouctive o! consciousness but that the brain was merely a Kin o!
reucing valve C?ergsonD which !iltere an reuce own the cosmic
consciousness C>amesD to a vastly simpler !orm containing roughly the
level o! in!ormation hanling capacity CintelligenceD which the human
organism woul nee to aapt to the limite challenges o! an earthly
environment. Hn !act1 i! we view the brain as being prouctive o!
consciousness rather than as merely structuring a pre-e0isting
consciousness1 then there seems no compelling reason to believe in a so-
calle in!inite consciousness. =owever1 i! the brain is viewe as not
prouctive o! thougt1 but as merely proviing a comple0 set o!
constraining bounary conitions upon some pre-e0istent conscoiusness
!iel1 equate1 say1 with the quantum vacuum energy !iel1 then the case
!or a universal in!inite consciousness oes become rather compelling.
6he novelist an author o! ?rave @ew Forl C*2$2D1 /lous =u0ley1
iscusse this view o! consciousness in his popular treatise1 6he :oors
o! 7erception - =eaven an =ell. Hn this worK =u0ley escribes the
e!!ects o! the psychoactive CpsycheelicD rugs mescaline an .":
which he e0perimente with towars the latter part o! his li!e in an
attempt to trigger or !acilitate the mystical e0perience o! enlightenment
in which he ha ha an almost li!elong curiosity. =u0ley e0plaine the
e!!ects o! these substances in terms o! the >ames-?ergson theory o!
consciousness: the e0perience o! sel!-transcenence an trans!iguration
which =u0ley e0perience on mescaline was !or him ue to the rugGs
isabling e!!ect upon the cosmic reucing valve. 6he brain uner the
in!luence o! mescaline is no longer able to !ilter out the thoughts an
intuitions irrelevant to earthly li!e Cbecause appropriate to the upwarly
contiguous levels o! consciousnessD - hence the e0perience o! a vastly
larger mental space. 6his type o! e0planation woul have been reaily
unerstanable to the ancient 4reeK philosopher "ocrates who viewe
learning Cthrough e0perience or eucationD as simply a mechanism by
which latent Knowlege is recollecte.
6he theory o! entropic processes tells us that energy an in!ormation
are intere!inable an this !act in con5unction with the principle o!
energy conservation suggests that in!ormation1 liKe energy1 may neither
be create nor estroye: the EcreationE o! a quantity o! in!ormation is
really constitute by its being abstracte !rom the pree0isting integral
system o! in!ormation e!ining it.
.iKe a piece broKen o!! !rom a holographic emulsion1 there is a
necessary trae - o!! involve in this abstraction process: the Enewly
createE entity only acquires a relative inepenence !rom the whole in
which it eternally pree0iste Can which e!ine its true beingD by losing
some o! its Knowlege o! itsel!. 6here is a irect analogy with this
process in the creation o! EnewE subatomic particles through the
collision o! particles within a linear accelerator.
Hn the !irst couple o! ecaes a!ter the !irst Eatom - smashingE
e0periments per!orme with the primitive particle accelerators o! the
*2$)Gs1 it ha been suppose that the particle proucts o! these violent
collisions were actually pieces o! the colliing particles which ha been
5arre loose by the suen impulsive !orce o! their slamming together.
?ut soon a!ter this early perio the Kinetic energies o! the particles going
into these accelerator collisions began to signi!icantly e0cee the
combine mass - energy o! the particles which themselves initiate the
reaction1 with the result that the en prouct o! these collisions was a set
o! particles with iniviual member particles possessing a mass greater
than the combine mass o! the particles originally participating in the
collision. 6he common sense EbroKen piecesE e0planation o!
accelerator proucts now ha to be moi!ie in some way or re5ecte
outright. 6wo alternative interpretations o! this Emass parao0E were
suggeste by particle theorists: either the prouct particles were create
!rom the e0citation o! the vacuum by the Kinetic energy o! the collision
with the EinputE particles serving as the points o! application o! the
e0citation energy1 or they were really insie the initial particles all along
but the e0cess mass - energy was being e0actly balance by an equal an
opposite negative energy ue to the internal bining !orces holing the
particles together.
6hanKs !or the response. /n energy eigenstate is an abstraction in the
sense that only a close system can be in an energy eigenstate1 but
thermoynamically this is not possible because o! the !act that vacuum
!luctuations in momentum-energy cannot be screene CKina liKe
gravityD. "ome moes can be screene o! course an the 3asimir ;!!ect
is an e0ample o! this. ?ut in this case only momentum !luctuations1
virtual photons1 are being suppresse here. Iirtual electron/positron
pairs are not suppresse1 in !act1 the probability o! the
creation/annihilation o! these pairs is actually enhance between the
3asimir plates. Fe may thinK o! virtual !ermion/anti!ermion creation-
annihilation events as energy !luctuations1 collectively o! spin ) an the
photon creation-annihilations as momentum !luctuations o! spin *.
6ogether1 the spin ) energy !luctuations an the spin * momentum
!luctuations may be consiere to be a !luctuating momentum-energy
!our vector o! e0pectation value !or 6Ci1KD Cmomentum-energy tensorD =
) an this is part o! the reason that the vacuum oes not gravitate1 H
believe. 4etting bacK to the main point1 as long as there is a !luctuation
component to the =amiltonian1 which cannot be completely remove
through supplie bounary conitions1 the system will never e0ist in a
true energy eigenstate an will be !orce to temporally evolve ue to the
e0change o! momentum energy between the system an its !luctuation
=amiltonian Cthe vacuum !luctuationsD. C/pril 2)** aition: reevaluate
the above in terms o! e0perimental investigations o! the "charnhorst
e!!ectD
Aegars1
Aussell
7.".1 see my post1 EFhat is gravity?E ,se e5anews power search.
H see two electrical cors coming into my computer. 9ne o! these is the
power cor an the other is the ata cor. Fe may thinK o! the !irst cor
as a conuit o! the substance o! what is simulate on the screen o! my
computer an the secon1 o! the !orm which this substance shall be
inuce to assume at any given time. :ata versus in!ormation: passive
versus active channeling o! the chaotically ynamic substance.
:ownloaing versus moving o! !iles !rom one irectory to another.
?eginning o! 7hysics @otes
-------------------- =
web=
upate www.riveway.com with new material
highlighte in blue.
:o nonlocally connecte observables commute? C
/pril 2)**
H! they are
compatible observables1 otherwise1 notD Fhat about spaceliKe separate
ones? C
/pril 2)**
<es1 unless they are nonlocally connecteD
/n aiabatic change in a thermal system is one in which there is no
e0change o! heat Cenergy1 reallyD between the system an its outsie.
@ow on account o! e0changes o! energy continually taKing place
between the system an the quantum vacuum1 no thermal Cor quantum
mechanical1 !or that matterD system can really unergo changes without
some e0change o! energy with the system_s outsie. ?ut cannot a large
component o! quantum vacuum energy !luctuations interacting with such
a system be 5ust that necessary to reconstitute the system !rom one
moment to the ne0t? =ow can those quantities o! energy be unerstoo
to alter the net entropy o! the system? Hs the system entropy change1
then1 by 5ust those !luctuations o! vacuum energy that are couple to the
internal e0changes o! $-momentum within the system responsible !or the
system_s bining together o! itsel!1 an hence1 also o! its inertia
CgravitationD? 6here are two istinctly i!!erent possible bases !or
novelty. 6hese are: changes in vacuum energy interacting with a
quantum system1 which cannot be anticipate by the system an1
changes in the state o! the system1 in terms o! its internal energies1 which
cannot be anticipate by the vacuum itsel!. Hnteractions taKing place
internally to the system !ail to be anticipate by a given vacuum
Chereto!ore re!erre to as the vacuumD on account o! these interactions
being meiate via an altogether i!!erent vacuum state1 unbeKnownst
to the !irst vacuum state. 6his amounts to a more general statement o!
the problem o! wave!unction collapse being triggere by unanticipate
internal interactions o! a quantum system L one which subsumes the
istinction1 hereto!ore note1 that between interactions o! the vacuum
not anticipate by a system an interactions o! the system not anticipate
by the vacuum1 both o! which1 perhaps1 then1 turn out to be i!!erent
though equivalent interpretations o! the mechanism o! wave!unction
collapse.
/pril
2)** 7artial i!!erential equations !orcing !unction has
equivalence in terms o! time-varying bounary conitions an absent
!orcing !unction? /n aiabatic interaction with a quantum mechanical
system oes not change the wave!unction1 but may result in the system
maKing a transition between energy eigenstates.
/ close system is one in which what RtaKes placeS within the system is
not an cannot be communicate to consciousness. Hs there a
istinction here1 that between what1 in !act1 is versus what may only
potentially be1 communicate to a state o! consciousness?
6hese Kins o! consierations might help to clari!y the connections
between the quantum wave!unction1 as representing the most that can be
possibly Known Cin!ormation/consciousnessD about the state o! the
system it escribes1 an gravitation1 wherein1 it has been state on
various sies1 that either gravitation or consciousness or both are
relevant to the unerlying mechanism o! wave!unction collapse1 itsel!
unerstoo to be a noneterministic phenomenon. =ere the Rbining
problemS o! consciousness1 nonlocality an the !act o! the general
relativistic nonlocality o! gravitational energy Cwhich must be escribe
within this theory by a pseuotensor rather than by a bona !ie tensor1
may be !oun to possess a close connection to one another while at the
same time a escription o! the comple0 structure o! the relationship o!
in!ormation to entropy supplants the hereto!ore simplistic unerstaning
o! this relationship as being one o! mere ual opposition.
Hmplicate 9rer as a be o! quantum egeneracy.
@onlocalitybcorrelationsbenergy !luctuations.
.ocalitybcausalitybmomentum !luctuations.
3ertainly quantum theory allows that the manner in which the subatomic
particles shall interact with one another uring a ranom collision
Cmutual scatteringD must be signi!icantly i!!erent i! this event occurs
uner the watch!ul eye o! some physicist arme with a high-resolution
electron !orce microscope.
8ight nonlocal interactions be partly e0plicable in terms o! a latent Zc
velocity o! propagation. Hn the case o! the rapily separating
components o! the ecaye particle1 the state o! each component may be
overetermine. 6he e0tra in!ormation Cabout the state o! the opposite
particleD may be comoving with each component by each particle_s local
vacuum state.
?ut in the case o! both component particle an comoving vacuum state
propagating at the spee o! light1 there woul seem to be no room !or
interaction between each component particle an its locally comoving
vacuum state.
/pril 2)**
6his is reminiscent o! the problem o! symmetry
breaKing !or psychophysical ualism.
3osmologically1 the irection o! time was consistent with the irection
in which the rate o! ecrease o! the Cmatter + vacuumD energy ensity
an the rate o! entropy increase were ma0imal. 6his irection woul be
escribe by a vector within ;ucliean (-space an the manner o!
cosmological ecomposition o! this (-space into a $+* imensional
spacetime woul have been etermine by the global1 cosmic
istribution o! momentum-energy. 6he coupling o! the ynamics o!
space to time Can vice versaD must1 o! course1 be meiate by the
noniagonal elements o! the stress-momentum-energy tensor1 6
uv
.
-luctuations in energy o! a system ue to =eisenberg energy uncertainty
introuces iscontinuity into the system1 i.e.1 change in the system_s
topology. 6he less the system interacts with vacuum energy
!luctuations1 the greater is the system_s inertia.
/ll o! these istinctions o! beings1 past vs. present vs. !uture vs.
potential Cpotential-in-in-the-past1S R-!uture1S R-presentD1 across Runi-
verses1S within Runiverses1S an all o! this within consciousness that is
still to be istinguishe !rom beings outsie consciousness1
parao0ically1 all o! these istinctions o! i!!erent types may be uni!ie
by amitting the reality o! only one Rconcourse o! transcenental
othernessS populate by an in!inite number o! in!inite beings Cwith
perhaps an in!inite ma5ority subset o! which abstaining !rom sel!-
limitationD.
Iirtual momentum an energy imply the e0istence o! virtual space an
virtual time Cthrough the =eisenberg uncertainty relation. Iirtual stress
implies the coupling o! virtual space to virtual time. ?ut inepenent
!luctuations in vacuum stress must become correlate in orer !or these
!luctuations to grow Crelative to a bacKgrounD an stabilize at elevate
levels1 i.e.1 real stress possessing a net spacetime curvature.
/pril 2)**
6his
looKs liKe the quantum entanglement basis o! inuce gravity.
Ht appears that an initial Rsee complimentS or quantity o! real stress
energy must be supplie be!ore the global spacetime bounary
conitions can be !avorable !or the prouction o! real stress-momentum-
energy. 6o have a net spacetime curvature1 R!latS or otherwise
Cpositive1 negative or some comple01 perioic or aperioic1 structuring
o! positive an negative curvaturesD1 momentum an energy have to be
initially Rcouple.S 9! course1 once a global spacetime structure is
alreay in place1 the coupling o! momentum an energy within this
continuum or on this mani!ol is a given. 6his is because gravitational
waves Cor gravitons as spin-2 e0change particlesD presuppose such a
coupling o! space an time Cthrough the coupling o! momentum to
energyD.
6he secon law o! thermoynamics states that all matter an energy ten
towar a ma0imally entropic state. H! we were to interpret entropy as
the complement o! in!ormation1 then the increase o! entropy o! a close
system woul mean that in!ormation was !lowing out o! a close
systemT ?ase on arguments supplie elsewhere1 a close system oes
not possess temporality1 but time is spatialize within such a system.
:iscuss the relationships between 7enrose_s argument in !avor o! a
gravitational basis !or ecoherence Cas well as !or wave!unction collapse
ue to measurements per!orme by a conscious observerD an the
necessity o! the breaching o! a close quantum mechanical system1 i.e.1
superposition state1 proucing state vector reuction. / relevant
consieration here is our earlier iscussions o! in!ormation being a
Cperhaps necessaryD arti!act o! an open system1 an eigenstate o! the
=amiltonian being a state o! a system with zero energy uncertainty
where the coupling o! the system to the quantum vacuum Cunerstoo as
the system_s groun o! possible change1 incluing both growth an
ecayD. ?ut then we are le!t with the notion o! entropy increasing
through in!ormation leaving an open system. ?ut then also1 how can
entropy be the complement o! in!ormation within an open system? 6he
notion o! something_s being the compliment o! something else
presupposes another notion o! a close set that can be partitione into
two is5oint subsets1 e.g.1 + entropy + + in!ormation = ) entropy an )
in!ormation. H! there is a resiue o! entropy or in!ormation within the
system Can we still wish to term the system causally close1 then this
resiue shoul be nonlocal1 an it shoul be present in the !orm o!
quantum mechanical1 nonlocal correlations.
/lso1 we are !ace with the notion o! in!ormation R!lowingS out o! an
open system to some where outsie. @ow two or more close systems
e0changing momentum an energy with one another implies the
e0istence o! a bacKgroun spacetime Cwhich must possess some Kin o!
curvature structure so that in reality these two systems must also be
e0changing some small component o! stress an the momentum an
energy e0change between them must be partially Ci! only
in!initesimallyD couple. Hn turn each system itsel! must possess
coupling together o! its own local momentum an energy.
6here is by the way potential relevance o! the spee o! gravity
controversy here. 6wo truly isolate systems woul only be able to
e0change nonlocal correlations with one another.
@onaiabatic changes in bounary conitions cause increase in system
entropy.
Ht seems probable that somehow the two istinctly quantum phenomena
o! wave!unction RcollapseS an nonlocality Cin the !orm o! the
etermination1 instantaneously an at a istance1 o! the eigenstate o! a
quantum mechanical systemD re!lect opposite tenencies o! the vacuum
to act Cin etermining a quantum stateD in which the vacuum either has
or has not1 respectively1 aequate time to have prepare itsel! !or such an
act o! etermination.
@onlocality may be e0plaine in terms o! the !act that both1 wiely
separate components o! a ecaye particle1 !or e0ample1 are perceive
simultaneously by this same vacuum. /n although the quantum state
o! either1 i! etermine iniviually1 without Knowlege o! the uncertain
state o! the other particle1 must collapse to prouce a ranomly
etermine eigenstate1 in!ormation nonetheless
e0ists between the structure uncertainties o! each particle o! this pair in
the !orm o! a correlation o! two ranom signals.
Fe may looK at causality as not 5ust a propagation o! momentum1 stress1
an energy along tra5ectories through space1 but also as propagation in
the sense o! causal in!luences oing so through the progressive enlisting
o! one another to !orm structures o! ever easier electability1 that is1 as
propagation upwar !rom smaller to larger1 through continua o!
spatiotemporal scale.
@ovember *21 2)))
"ince the action o! every operator1 mq1 is reucible to the actions o! ma
+
an ma1 then certainly the quantum statistics o! the quantum states upon
which ma
+
an ma act are to be investigate as the liKely unerpinning o!
the ynamics o! all quantum mechanical systems.
Fhat is the relationship1 i! any1 between the mechanism Cperhaps this
term is a !unamental misnomer1 since normalization is always assumeD
o! Rlate time normalizationS an the role o! consciousness in the
quantum measurement problem.
3an an e0tremely ense boy1 e.g.1 neutron star1 be a blacK hole in some
re!erence !rames but not in others? H! not1 then woul this constitute a
countere0ample to ;instein_s equivalence principle?
m=C0
v
1 p
vD =
wC0
v
D;
?ut IC0
H
D is a !unction o! /ap
H
= /ap
v
V /ap
v
V v =
*1 21 $
/n 6Cp
H
D is a !unction o! Yp
H
Z1
"o more generally IC0
v
D is a !unction o! the magnitue o! !luctuations in
the vacuum_s momentum-energy an 6Cp
v
D is a !unction o! the
e0pectation values o! the components o! the momentum-energy o! real
particles an !iel within the quantum vacuum.
3ellular automata theory can1 o! course1 be recast in terms o!
conservation o! some large1 but nonetheless !inite1 signal banwith.
RAentGs rule pertains to the organization o! computing logic1 speci!ically
the relationship between the number o! e0ternal signal connections to a
logic blocK Ci.e.1 the number o! EpinsED with the number o! logic gates in
the logic blocK1 an has been applie to circuits ranging !rom small
igital circuits to main!rame computersS1 c.!.1
http://en.wiKipeia.org/wiKi/Aent%2%s#Aule
6ime uncertainty necessarily inclues !luctuations in the irection o!
time ue to the simultaneous presence o! momentum !luctuations. >ust
as the e0ternal input o! energy can maKe a virtual particle RrealS so can
an input o! energy maKe an alternate time a0is real. /at/a; Z= h taKes
into account the possibility o! energy egeneracy. / similar statement
applies to the equation1 /a0/ap Z= h.
7erhaps the energy uncertainty1 /a;1 can be broKen into two pseuo-
orthogonal components1 a egenerate an a non-egenerate component1
each with their respective con5ugate time variables.
:o isturbances to the potential energy structure1 i.e.1 the structural
relationships o! local energy minima1 have to be treate as Rlate timeS
Ca hocD a5ustments to the system initial conitions?
6he egeneracy space is not spanne by basis vectors associate with
thermoynamic egrees o! !reeom.
"uperlattice o! quantum wells moel o! competing tunneling resonance
phenomena.
8yria1 interpenetrating (-vacuum which are to varying egrees in an
out o! resonance with one another. ;ach possesses a timeless
temporality that only taKes on the orinary attributes o! time C as
historical timeD through its resonance an interaction with other (-vacua.
6he spee o! light increases between 3asimir plates ue to an increase in
the probability rate o! prouction o! virtual e+e- pairs between the
plates. 6he e+e- virtual pair creation/annihilation events are how the
energy uncertainty between the plates in the moi!ie vacuum mani!ests
itsel! as energy !luctuations. "o the ecrease in momentum
!luctuations1 virtual photon e0changes between the plates1 is o!!set by a
corresponing increase in energy !luctuations between the plates in the
!orm o! virtual scalar particle e0changes between the moi!ie vacuum
an the !our imensional quantum vacuum.
6he substance o! any given relative $ + * vacuum state is an absolute (-
vacuum. 6hese two vacua continually e0change energy with one
another.
6he linear ensity o! virtual e+e- virtual pairs is increase although
photon wavelengths are unchange1 resulting in higher !requency an
same wavelength1 i.e.1 a greater value o! Rc.S 6his is e0plaine by a
greater probability rate !or energy-compatible Cor what is calle
RresonantSD virtual e+e- virtual pairs being create an annihilate
along the photon_s Rtra5ectoryS between the 3asimir plates. 6he
concept o! resonance is pervasive within physics an there are myria
instances o! concept o! resonance in almost all branches o! physics.
Hn the above paragraph we have an e0ample o! Rresonance-tuning.S ?y
altering the electromagnetic bounary conitions o! the quantum
vacuum electromagnetic !iel through the use o! simple 3asimir
rectangular plates1 one has succeee in moi!ying the !ree space
vacuum by altering this vacuum_s resonance structure. /lternately1
virtual photons o! a given energy/!requency within this moi!ie
quantum vacuum are no longer escribe by a virtual e+e- pairs o!
energy1 ; = hc / lamba or1 no longer resonate with virtual e+e-fs o!
energy1 hc/lamba. Fe speculate that the change introuce to the
vacuum_s resonance spectrum is con!ine to the volume containe
within the worl hypervolume e!ine by the casimir plate geometry
over time. H! this is inee the case1 then the change to the probability
rate o! virtual e+e- pairs being create an annihilate within the
geometry o! the casimir plates is only !or those pairs possessing Rhal!-
wavelengthS smaller than the plates separation. =ere is the conceptual
i!!iculty: although the ensity o! vacuum electromagnetic photons
within the plate_s geometry has been e!!ectively ecrease1 the ensity
o! vacuum e+e- pairs being create an annihilate within this same
geometry is increase. 6he iea behin these two allegely relate
vacuum e!!ects is that o! the conservation o! momentum-energy or (-
momentum ensity with all possible Csel!-consistentD hypervolumes. /
simplistic way to unerstan this phenomenon where the above casimir
geometry is concerne1 which is not1 H believe1 !unamentally
misguie1 is the !ollowing. 6he amount o! energy Cin the !orm o!
photonsD that has been e0clue !rom the casimir plate geometry is mae
up !or by an e0actly o!!setting increase in the ensity o! virtual photons
o! energies !alling within the !requency spectrum1 hc/lamba1 where
lamba Y 2 0 istance between the plates1
casimir.
; YZ hc/-
"o in a given interval o! time1 say1 !or convenience here1
casimir
/c1 where
RcS is the normal value o! the spee o! light in vacuo1 the linear
probability ensity o! virtual e+e- creation/annihilation events along an
a0is perpenicular to the plates an containe well within the geometry
escribe by sai plates Cin orer to be able to ignore electromagnetic
R!ringe e!!ectsD is enhance above its !ree space value. "o a real photon
introuce !rom one en o! the plate geometry with momentum1 h!/c _1 -
irecte perpenicular to the plates an possessing a !requency greater
than hc/ where1 again1 is less than twice the value o! - -
casimir
1 shall1
on account o! the enhance linear ensity o! resonant e+e- virtual pairs
create an annihilate along the photon_s perpenicular path1 reach the
metal plate at the opposite en o! the casimir geometry sooner than
woul have been implie by the simple equation1 ;= pc. 6his equation
is1 in !act1 no longer vali within the moi!ie vacuum o! the volume
escribe by the casimir plate geometry. ?ut some equation reminiscent
o! ;
2
= m
2
c
(
+ p
2
c
2
. 9nly by introucing an imaginary mass component
to the photon that is su!!iciently1 o!!settingly large may the simultaneous
increase Cabove that o! RcS in vacuoD is permitte !or the real photon_s
velocity perpenicular to the casimir plates. @ow it is suggeste that
per!orming a moi!ication to the vacuum_s resonant structure opposite in
sense to that escribe above1 we shall succee in imbuing the a!!ecte
particle Cthat con!ine to the vacuum thus moi!ieD with a real as
oppose to imaginary massT
Fhat symmetry is implie by the conservation o! uncertainty - phase
space graininess1 perhaps?
6he Kernel o! a thought can travel !rom one min to another at a velocity
which is e!!ectively !aster than light1 but the time taKen !or this Kernel to
evelop into actionable thought woul be tie to an implie observance
o! the above spee being Re!!ectively c.S
:ecoherence o! quantum states through entanglement interprete as
observation by the universal consciousness !iel. Fhy clones may not
become !ully conscious an !ully in possession o! a !ree volition
e0plaine in terms o! the proprietary nature o! brain quantum vacuum
!iels an there evolution in relation to the evolution o! the universal
consciousness !iel.
/ny inter!erence with the vacuum within spacetime1 which e0cees in
the energy o! its imparte impulse1 7enrose_s one graviton limit1 cannot
be transmitte through Can perhaps ultimately absorbe byD this
vacuum e0clusively via nonlocal1 virtual particle an !iel interactions.
=ere we might escribe such an interaction with the vacuum as
e0ceeing ma0imum energy uncertainty supportable !ree o! momentum
e0changes between multiple components1 i.e.1 the energy !luctuation o!
spacetime has e0ceee the threshol o! energy at which the quantum
vacuum can mani!est !luctuations o! its momentum-energy as pure
energy1 as oppose to a mi0ture o! energy an momentum !luctuations.
Hs this an e0ample o! time symmetry breaKing an the loss o! energy
egeneracy through having e0ceee the largest quantity o! non-
measurable energy? 6he necessity !or energy !luctuations in the
vacuum1 e0ceeing the one graviton threshol1 to mani!est themselves as
a collection o! particles an !iels. Ht is at or 5ust beyon this energy
threshol that the energy o! the !luctuation must !ragment into elements
or structures !orming a composite maintaine by a sustaine mutual
interaction o! the components- with this composite structure having
necessarily now become RembeeS within spacetime as one o! its
really e0isting Cas oppose to merely virtualD ob5ects.
Ht is only through the inter!erence o! wave!unction1 either sel! or mutual
inter!erence1 that the wave!unction taKes on a physical meaning in terms
o! the probability o! a physical1 spacetime phenomena. Fithin quantum
theory temporality mani!ests itsel! in two seemingly !unamentally
istinct manners1 eterministically through the evolution o! the time
epenent "chroinger wave equation1 non-eterministically via the
iscontinuous reuction o! the state vector as a result o! quantum
measurement. 6he relativistic e!!ects o! ;instein_s special an general
theories Co! relativityD o not appear to maKe any such istinction o!
varieties o! time.
9nly i! the circuit elements o! an arti!icial intelligence evice are
sensitive enough to a circle spectrum o! energy !luctuations in the
quantum vacuum1 as well as these elements being aequately sensitive in
their mutual interaction via the changing currents an !iels sustaine
within the evice_s circuitry1 will an aequately responsive !eebacK
obtain between this evice an the embeing quantum vacuum that will
enable the vacuum Cor some spectrum o! quantum !luctuations RwithinS
itD to utilize the evice circuitry to bringing about coherent an robust
changes to the bounary conitions upon the vacuum_s sel!-interaction.
"eptember 2)**
Puantum entanglement provies the unerlying mechanism !or
temporal feebac'. 6emporal !eebacK o! this type e0ploits the egrees
o! !reeom Cquantum vacuum electromagnetic !iel !luctuation-
correlation structureD normally hien !rom intersub5ective awareness1
i.e.1 measurement. "o processes with energies smaller than the
=eisenberg energy uncertainty o! the system embeing these processes
constitute an in!rastructure supporting the engenering o! quantum
entanglements1 as well as the reprocessing o! quantum entanglements
into causal sets o! correlate quantum !luctuations. /lthough the
wave!unction o! a solitary system cannot be etermine1 this
wave!unction may nonetheless possess causal e!!icacy1 which might
seem to support ?ohm_s hien variable hypothesis1 but not necessarily
so because on this view causal relationships have a !luctuation-
correlation substructure that is broaer than any set o! correlate
!luctuations that may !ormally represent a causal relationship.
"imilar remarK to that !ollowing are to be !oun elsewhere. /nother
way o! looKing at the interaction o! the sub5ective state o! the observer
with the observe measure quantum state1 which is responsible !or state
vector reuction1 is that o! the copresence o! the newly observe system
Cupon observationD with everything else which the observer has in the
concurrent state o! awareness as constituting the irreversible
entanglement o! the newly observe system_s state with those o! the
other ob5ects within the observer_s immeiate environment. 6his
woul help to uni!y the two hereto!ore istinctly unerstoo
mechanisms o! state vector reuction L that o! observation by a
conscious observer with the mechanism o! state !unction ecoherence
via irreversible environmental entanglement. =ere the consciousness o!
the observer per!orming a quantum measurement simply plays the role
o! irreversibly connecting linK between the isolate quantum system an
the outsie physical environment. /nother possible interpretation might
be that o! the iniviual consciousness o! the quantum mechanical
observer somehow alerting the Runiversal consciousness !ielS C,3-D o!
the presence o! the particular system observe. 6he iea here is that the
,3- notices the quantum state o! various systems where no human
observer is present1 i! such systems are not small enough or1 i! large1 not
isolate enough to Rescape its notice.S
6he actions o! the human observer1 say1 in the laboratory1 o! utilizing
measurement apparatus to either ampli!y the e!!ect Cupon the observerD
o! the states o! system_s otherwise too miniscule or1 to breach the
hereto!ore isolation o! these systems !rom Rthe worl at large.S 6hese
actions rener the states o! systems Known to a human observer an1
hence1 to the ,3- or to consciousness at large. 6he possible
importance o! a hypothesize ,3- is particularly implicate in those in
which the mere !act that a quantum measurement coul have been
per!orme upon the system observable proves enough to cause state
vector reuction.
6hat which is responsible !or sustaining the e0istence o! all things woul
not itsel! possess a sustaine e0istence. 6he above statement points up
the !unamental istinction o! the real versus the virtual. /s perhaps
allue to above1 the real is nothing more than a istinction within the
virtual. Hn the !ormation o! boun energy structures1 e.g.1 atoms1
molecules1 etc.1 the application o! !ocuse1 uni!!erentiate energy alone
to the quantum vacuum is less than aequate an some mutual
interaction o! locally available CrealD particles is aitionally necessary
!or such boun structures to !orm1 in other wors1 i!!erentiate energy
must be available.
1.
Hmportant here is the positional uncertainty o! these momentum !luctuations.
2.
Aelative to the photon1 all o! the changes occurring uring its movement between two Cistinct pointsD taKe place
instantaneously.
6ravelling waves obeying the "chroinger Fave ;quation can always be
represente as a superposition o! staning waves within a close
spacetime mani!ol in which time is liKe1 although not ientical to1 an
e0tra imension o! space. Fhen energy is conserve1 the system
=amiltonian operator must be able to be iagonalize. 6here must be a
re!erence !rame in which the system is in an eigenstate o! the
=amiltonian.
6he masslessness o! light is connecte to the !act that it is a chain o!
momentum !luctuations in the quantum vacuum relative to which no
uni!orm motion can taKe place in the irection parallel to the momentum
o! these !luctuations
*
. 6hese !luctuations o! which light is compose
possess ) energy uncertainty an hence1 in!inite time uncertainty. Cthis
proposition nees to be ree0amine more care!ullyD 6hat is1 relative to
the vantage point o! a photon1 nothing taKes place1 i.e.1 energy oes not
!luctuate Cno energy enters the hypersur!ace o! simultaneity e!ine by
the photon_s instantaneous re!erence !rame?D1 anywhere in the ,niverse
uring the photon_s R!light.S
6he egenerate evolution o! a quantum system_s wave!unction oes not
require any change in the system_s total energy an so interactions with
such energy egenerate system by a Rnon-physicalS agency woul not
violate conservation o! energy. 6his goes also !or changes in the Kinetic
an potential energies o! the system separately when combine o not
result in a change to the system_s =amiltonian.
Aesonances Cas 7latonic !ormsD are epenent on the structure o!
bounary conitions1 which are contingent an un!oreseeable in their
e!!ects. /n e0ample o! this is the super!luiity o! =elium-( prouce
an observe !or the !irst time ever in a cryogenics laboratoryT
6he !ringe e!!ects represente by the 4ibb_s phenomenon o! -ourier
analysis as applie to quantum probability amplitues represents the
ynamical Can creativeD inter!ace between all Cwoul-beD isolate
quantum mechanical systems an the creative groun in which they !in
themselves embee1 an out o! which they are necessarily CpartiallyD
constitute.
-ringe e!!ects are unavoiable within any arti!icial construct. 6his is
the ual 1 onto-epistemological principle o! the bounary CconitionsD
never becoming the master o! the ynamic an substantive processes
never being !ully e0plicable in terms o! relations on the set o! their
possible CepiDphenomena. C4ibb_s phenomenon as applie to
probability amplitues an quantum tunneling bears some consieration
hereD
=ow oes the istinction1 real versus virtual1 relate to the nature o!
superposition? /lso1 how is the phenomenon o! ?ose conensation
relate to superposition? /re RviralS memes e0change between
people? =ow is symmetry an egeneracy relate?
6he interaction o! two or more open systems woul not merely be
e0changing energy since energy is only property e!ine as such i! it is a
conserve quantity. 6here coul be no time translation symmetry in
such an interaction an some something altogether new must come out
o! this so that we then speaK o! the systems rather than energy. 6he 2
n
.aw o! thermoynamics oes not encompass nonlocally connecte
systems.
Hn a close1 ynamic system a quantity has it particular character as
conserve substance by virtue o! bounary conitions an topology.
"uch is not the case !or RquantitiesS RoccupyingS an open-ene system.
6he resonant moes o! vacuum !iel oscillation to which a crystal may
be RtuneS are simply those e!ine by the !requencies !or allowe
transitions between crystalline energy levels.
Fhat is the !unction CRmeaningSD o! less than per!ectly stable moes o!
e0citation an resonance?
6he :e?roglie spacetime wavenumber may be aptly unerstoo as the
localize banwith !or the access o! a ynamic system to the Rquantum
vacuumS 37,.
8utual inter!erence o! wave!unctions Cor o! eigen!unctionsD oes not
constitute a bona !ie RinteractionS between the state !unctions in the
absence o! nonlocal connections obtaining between the !unctions.
/ !unction that bacK reacts1 in the course o! its CtemporalD evolution
Cwhat are we to maKe o! the notion o! the Rspatial evolutionS o! a
wave!unction?D1 upon one or more o! its inepenent variables1 or whose
inepenent variables act an react upon each other without merely
being !unctions o! each other1 e.g.1 where the initially state set o!
RinepenentS variables proves to be reucible to some smaller set1 must
be a nonlinear !unction Co! a set o! variablesD.
:o nonlocal connections in the !orm o! avance wave solution
components o! particle or !iel propagators create a Kin o! bacKwar in
time !eebacK which is responsible !or e0change resonances isplaye
by1 e.g.1 !iels never be!ore in irect or inirect mutual contact?
:e ?roglie waves !or a translating particle have both energy CtimeliKeD
an momentum CspaceliKeD components1 or1 alternatively1 particle-liKe
an waveliKe components1 respectively. / particle_s :e?roglie
!requency1 i! you will1 is ma0imal when the particle is Rat rest.S ,pon
translation1 some o! the particle_s rest !requency shows up as :e?roglie
wavenumber.
6his constitutes quantum-base special relativistic e!!ects !or the
Riniviual particle.S ?ut i! :e?roglie !requency an wavenumber are
unerstoo a!ter the !ashion o! the uni!ie quantity o! momentum-
energy1 then we may speaK o! the :e?roglie spacetime wavenumber o!
composite matter as being a sort o! conserve !lui.
7ropagation spees o! greater than RcS are possible so long as the
velocity o! light in vacuo is not e0ceee uring the necessary phases o!
preparation o! e0perimental apparatus at both ens Can everywhere in
betweenD o! the path o! the1 e.g.1 particle1 !iel1 or isturbance1 etc. in
question.
H! a supraliminal message is receive1 the time that must be taKen to
ecrypt or ecipher the message must be greater than t = /c1 where RS
is the istance between transmitter an receiver1 an RcS is the spee o!
light.
6his suggests an ob5ective relationship between Rencryption harnessS
an entropy Cor1 converselyD in!ormation content o! the transmitte
Rscript.S R6ime . . . !lowing liKe a river. . . R 9! course1 i! time is to be
properly liKene to a CconserveD !lui1 then certainly the appearance o!
vortices within the linear !low o! this !lui correspons to an Requal an
oppositeS reuction in the linear current ensity o! the !lui.
6here is a shi!ting bacK an !orth o! current ensity between its linear
an vorticular components1 however1 the overall current ensity o! the
system is conserve. 9! course1 the !lui is uner acceleration within
its vorticular component1 but no worK is per!orme by this component o!
the !lui i! the pressures an stresses within the !lui are orthogonal to
the vortices o! the !lui.
Hs any energy issipate by the vacuum in the mere sustaining o! stable
matter that is not currently unergoing any Rreactions1S e.g.1 chemical1
nuclear1 etc.? ;nergy is issipate by the quantum vacuum when a
mass is accelerate. Hs this energy issipate because the vacuum must
be continually RupateS on the current state o! motion o! the mass?
Fhat about in the case o! gravitating masses? /s the "chroinger
equation ictates the temporal Can spatialD evolution o! a quantum
system_s wave!unction1 e.g.1 that o! an accelerate particle1 boun
structure compose o! multiple particles an !iels1 etc.1 any change in
the momentum-energy o! some quantum mechanical system introuce
!rom outsie the scope o! the system wave!unction1 must inuce a
RcollapseS o! this wave!unction1 as well as suenly alter the
uncertainties o! both conserve an nonconserve system observables.
"o in each set o! incompatible1 con5ugate observables1 the action o!
measurement1 environmental entanglement1 or acceleration introuces
either a ecoherence o! reuction o! the state vector1 resulting in an
increase in the =eisenberg uncertainties o! each o! one set o!
observables along with a corresponing ecrease in these uncertainties
with respect to the set o! con5ugate observables o! the system. "o it
appears that in!ormation must be taKen up by the system as a result o! a
change in the system wave!unction. "o i!!erences between istinct
system wave!unctions may be thought to ScontainS in!ormation1 whereas
a single1 isolate wave!unction1 not correlate or otherwise entangle
with other systems1 may not be suppose to possess in!ormation in an
absolute sense. Hn other wors1 only relative i!!erences between
wave!unctions possesses in!ormation content.
.ocality an causality are merely abstract !eatures o! he physical worl.
=ow can !orm sustain itsel! in the absence o! bounary conitions upon
the ynamic.
"taning wave structures possess bounary conitions at both ens Cone
imensional caseD while travelling waves only have one initial conition.
Hs relativistic CspacetimeD symmetry violate here?
;nergy uncertainty without the necessity o! vacuum !luctuations L
superposition within a close system. "o here we have two types o!
!luctuation: that which is only e!initional1 i.e.1 !luctuations within a
close system1 an the other which is inherently unpreictable1 i.e.1 not
part o! any system behavior. "o we may maKe the istinction o! these
two !unamental types o! !luctuation thus: !luctuations that are real
versus virtual perturbations. 6emporality cannot subsist in virtual
perturbations L real !luctuations must be present.
Hs some Kin o! egeneracy an symmetry involve in the
overetermination o! one_s interpretation o! one_s own mental states?
3ausal connections as interpretations o! correlations an causal entities
as Rbes o! correlation.S
6he basis !or the raical overetermination o! nature is the !act o! its
origin being an in!initely symmetric state. 6his in!inite symmetric
Rinitial stateS was partially broKen in the Rmoment o! creation.S
6here!ore all o! the symmetries observe in nature are partial ones
escribe by subgroups o! some original symmetry group.
"trangeness o! in!inite sets: cultural polarization !iel1 pattern
recognition1 an enhancement o! patterns an metaphysical presence.
8entor-protggg_ relationship !or all members o! a set o! stuent/teachers
without entangling o! levels. Aecursiveness only causes entangling o!
levels o! escription in a !inite !iel o! elements.
@ow a given mass1 accelerate to a velocity approaching that o! light
cannot so closely approach this elimiting value so as to become more
massive than its own blacK hole mass. /n the blacK hole mass is
etermine by the ensity o! the mass having reache the elimiting
value o! the vacuum energy ensity/c
2
!or the particular volume
occupie by the accelerating mass. /lso1 we Know that the acceleration
o! the mass is 5ust the 2)
o
spacetime rotation o! the mass original1
purely timeliKe velocity.
Hn this way the limiting velocity to which a given mass may be
accelerate is a !unction o! the energy ensity o! the vacuum occupie
by the accelerating mass. "o we see now that the original1 purely
timeliKe !our velocity o! the mass Cprior to accelerationD is itsel! a
!unction o! the ensity o! the mass relative to the ensity o! the vacuum
energy coe0tensive with the mass_ isplace volume. ?ut i! the
acceleration to light velocity is actually to be e!!ecte1 the mass must
utilize its own mass energy as the R!uelS !or propelling itsel! such that1
upon actually approaching c1 all o! its starting mass has alreay been
converte to photon Cor other massless particleD energy. 6he !act that
some o! this !uel must come !rom the bining energy o! the mass rather
than !rom the positive mass energy itsel! suggests that the mass when a
Rat restS alreay possesses a small quantity o! spaceliKe momentum
connecte with ynamical processes within the mass responsible !or the
e0istence o! this bining energy.
/ theoretical group escribes a close set o! reversible operations with
the elements o! the group. Fhat is close is the set compose o! the
istinct operationsV the number o! istinct elements1 which composes the
omain1 which the operations o! the group taKe as inputs1 may itsel! be
in!inite. Fhen the symmetry o! the group is RbroKen1S the operations o!
the group are altere an perhaps also new operations ae1 which no
longer are reversible1 singly or collectively. 6he iscovery o! a new
mathematical group !or the escription o! some physical phenomenon
means that various mani!estations o! physical variables1 hereto!ore
treate as istinct1 are now seen to be i!!ering mani!estations o! the
same1 unerlying entity/physical quantity.
3hanges in state to some subpart o! a close ynamic system which are
wholly attributable to other1 earlier changes in neighboring subparts o!
the overarching system constitute ceteris paribus reversible1 symmetric
interactions. =owever1 the reactions triggere by these interactions may
not be themselves symmetric an time-reversible. /ny asymmetries o!
the system_s changes o! state are ultimately traceable to input to the
system wholly !rom outsie it. 6he sense o! RoutsieS intene here1
one in which the system as a whole is not secretly a subpart o! some
overarching system1 with perturbations to its outsie transmitte to it an
meiate by the overarching system_s matri0 an originating within
some other subpart o! the crypto-overarching system. Fhat we are
really saying here is that asymmetrical interactions always are ultimately
between the uppermost overarching system an its outsie. 9! course1
the uppermost overarching system in almost any physical setting is 5ust
the global spacetime continuum itsel! in which this system is
Rembee.S
Hn!inite egeneracy woul mean that the wave!unction o! the egenerate
system coul unergo transition between an in!inite number o!
eigenstates on a continuous spectrum without measurable changes
resulting to any o! its quantum observables.
"houl 7si be unerstoo as a Knowlege representation rather than the
most that can actually be Known about the system?
"ince no energy is require to e!!ect changes in the system_s quantum
state !rom one to another o! its energy egenerate eigenstates1 !ree will
an conscious thought may presuppose energy egeneracy. /lso1 there
is not basis !or assigning scales o! physical time to energy-egenerate
quantum transitions.
Hn!inite symmetry may be unerstoo as in!inite sameness in which1 no
matter where the observer is an no matter what happens1 no Rob5ectiveS
i!!erences between here an there an no changes !rom now to then are
in any sense evient. @ow such a state o! in!inite symmetry in the
absence o! egeneracy Cwith respect to some set o! as yet Runmani!estS
parametersD is synonymous with an empty voi or nothingness.
8oreover1 !or there to e0ist a state o! in!inite symmetry1 an in!inite
egeneracy must be present1 that is1 egeneracy with respect to an
in!inite number o! istinct though still unmani!est parameters. ?ut all
this is to presume that there is some presently obtaining state1 which
represents physical reality Cas a whole1 in some senseD but which is both
unerpinne by an insulate against an in!initely chaotic !lu0 o! change
to an in!inite number o! still unmani!est proto-physical variables Cproto-
observables?D. / tremenous quantity o! entropy is release as a result
o! the breaKing o! this state o! in!inite symmetry Cone might suppose an
in!inite quantity !or this entropyD so that the aboriginal state o! in!inite
symmetry is to be unerstoo as possessing in!inite orer. 6he breaKing
o! this in!initely symmetric1 initial state results in a Kin o! RunpacKingS
o! this state into an intricate1 ynamic structure/continuum o! orere
an isorere energy1 i.e.1 some o! the symmetry CorerD o! the initial
state survives the transition to the broKen1 symmetric state an the
remainer is Rlost.S ?ut a per!ectly an in!initely symmetric state
woul possess no internal !luctuations in any o! its group symmetric
parameters outsie o! the spectrum o! potential change !or the
parameters e!ine within the symmetry group1 an so it is har to
imagine how such a symmetric system1 hereto!ore everlastingly cut o!!
!rom any outsie Crealm possessing !oreign parameters or Ro!!-scaleS
values o! RomesticS parametersD1 coul Rspontaneously breaK1S that is1
without having been RhelpeS !rom outsie.
H! the ?ig ?ang is simultaneous with the initial1 abrupt phase o!
spontaneous symmetry breaKing1 then its continue e0pansion may
perhaps be unerstoo as a continuous !urther breaKing o! CglobalD
symmetry in !avor o! the continue establishment o! greater myria_s o!
omains o! local symmetry1 interconnecte through mutual e0changes o!
quantities o! their local variables. Fe might suppose that the rate-
ensity o! entropy prouction there!ore is uni!orm throughout the
,niverse provie that one re!ers to the prouction o! total entropy1
local + global1 i.e.1 that ue to the local evolution o! comple0
structures/systems + local contributions to the entropy prouction1
e0clusively ue to the global entropy prouction occurring as a
consequence o! cosmological e0pansion. 6his means that the global
rate-ensity o! entropy increase is a!!ecte by the rates o! change to the
local entropy. 6he rate-ensity o! global entropy may be unerstoo1
parao0ically seeming1 as the local rate to time_s passage relative to
changes in the cosmical time parameter. 6his cosmic time parameter is
base upon changes in the total entropy o! the ,niverse.
/mbiguities o! interpretation o! !luctuations occurring near the verte0 o!
the light cone. /mbiguities o! the interpretation o! quantum tunneling.
3an we have tunneling o! particles across a timeliKe potential barrier?
3an we construct an e0periment to test this1 say one which involves the
tuning/etuning o! some alreay well unerstoo tunneling? 6he
consistency o! the notion o! virtual gravity waves epens on the
inepenent e0istence o! spacetime !luctuations.
/t the event horizon o! a blacK hole the space an time a0es are in some
sense reverse. 6his is because an ob5ect Cor particle so we can neglect
tial e!!ectsD 5ust outsie o! the event horizon possesses virtually all o!
its momentum in the irection o! the hole_s center an relatively none o!
it in a timeliKe irection. ?ut neither is their any RroomS !or internal
spaceliKe momentum !or this mass Cin the !orm o! bining !orce-
meiating boson particle e0changesD. /ll o! the !luctuations o! the
vacuum are in the !orm o! $-momentum an none in the !orm o!
imaginary CtimeliKeD (-momentum. /n so the mass is not so much
torn apart as it is issolve ue to the hole_s sapping o! the mass_ own
bining !orces. Hn the e0treme case epicte here1 gravity is not truly a
R!orce1S but our pro5ecting o! our large1 latent stores o! common
e0perience with everyay ob5ects causes the phenomenology o!
gravitation to be naturally interprete in terms o! the action o! a istance
o! a gravitating !orce. 4ravitation is more accurately Cor ob5ectivelyD
unerstoo as the e!!ects o! mass upon a higher imensional quantum
vacuum that must1 a!ter the !ashion o! a cellular automaton1
simultaneously parallel reprocess the ata representing both matter an
the colocate/coe0tensive $-vacuum1 an where this vacuum possess
only a !inite computational capacity.
H! the vacuum oes not itsel! gravitate1 then momentum an energy
!luctuations o not irectly cause spacetime !luctuations but only o so
inirectly through the e!!ects o! these momentum-energy vacuum
!luctuation upon matter itsel!. -luctuations o! momentum an energy1
in other wors1 irectly prouce !luctuations in 0 an t o! test particles
that we conveniently interpret as the e!!ects o! !luctuations o! 0 an t
upon test particles. 6he problem here is that it we allow t0 an tt to
a!!ect YpZ an Y;Z irectly1 then we also have to permit then to a!!ect tp
an t; irectly1 with the result that the vacuum itsel! must possess a
gravitational mass.
7erhaps the way to put time an space on an equal !ooting within a
theory o! quantum gravity shoul be not to try to maKe the time
parameter into a bona !ie observable1 but to taKe away this status !rom
the space variable1 0.
6his remins us o! the e0pansion o! a permutation group through the
iscovery that some members o! this group are not simple1 but
composite.
Qd
7rocessing in!ormation means taKing two pieces o!
in!ormation !rom two smaller1 an hereto!ore never be!ore irectly
connecte1 conte0ts1 an bringing the pieces o! in!ormation together in
such a way that one now has new in!ormation concerning the broaer
conte0t incluing all o! the original Rpieces.S
-rom my light reaing on the sub5ect o! supersymmetry C","<D1 H
gather that when
6he breaKing o! the spacetime symmetry o! the quantum vacuum by
mass is not the !unamental or absolute symmetry breaKing that requires
the engenering o! a new gauge boson. 6his situation is quite unliKe
that where a broKen global symmetry causes the creation o! a gauge
boson1 which1 by being e0change between splintere symmetry
omains1 results in the restoring locally o! the symmetry that was broKen
globally1 e.g.1 the creation o! the =iggs boson in the theory o!
electroweaK symmetry breaKing. /nother reason that the breaKing o!
the vacuum spacetime symmetry by mass is not !unamental is that mass
is not an irreucible1 conserve physical quantity1 but is a phenomenon
prouce by the peculiar manner in which the components o! the total
Cmass-energy + vacuum-energyD !luctuation stress-momentum-energy
tensors mutually interact.
/pril 2)**
R'. "pin * photon !iel has positive
zero point quantum energy ensity.
"pin */2 :irac electron-positron !iel has negative zero point quantum
energy ensity
!rom spin-statistics connection. Ae!: 7eter 8ilonni E6he Puantum
IacuumES1 c.!.1 "ar!atti_s ebooK1 R:estiny 8atri0S.
9ctober 2)*$
:iscoverer o! the
isotope e!!ect that helpe ?areen1 3ooper an "chrie!!er !ormulate the theory o! electrical
superconuctors as a quieting o! the local ranomness o! the zero point !luctuations by the
!ormation o! coherent quantum superpositions o! i!!erent numbers o! nonlocally connecte1 or
Rreal entangleS electron pairs. 6his violates1 i.e.1 Rspontaneously breaKsS an internal Rgauge
symmetryS !rom hyperspace in the lowest energy Rgroun stateS. 6he same iea worKs !or the
virtual quanta insie the Rquantum vacuumS o! the system. 6his new coherent phase orere
quantum vacuum state with a smaller amount o! ranom zero point !luctuations CJ7-D has a
slightly lower total energy than the normal state with a larger amount o! ranom zero point
!luctuations1 c.!.1 !ootnote X*)(1 Destiny 2atri6 C2)*2D1 2n Aevise Iersion.

9ctober 2)*$
6he notion that the universe is a Kin o! ancestor simulation1
i.e.1 a pro5ection !rom some !uture1 vastly more technologically
avance time can be place in :r. "ar!atti_s conte0t o! bacK !rom the
!uture retro-causal1 holographic universe by invoKing the notion o! the
conservation o! quantum in!ormation1 the blacK hole in!ormation
parao0 an the notion o! how the blacK hole_s event horizon/sur!ace
coes !or all o! the in!ormation containe in the matter1 which has !allen
into the blacK hole.
7rior to the breaKing o! the spacetime symmetry o! the vacuum by mass1
the spectrum o! momentum !luctuations within the vacuum is 5ust that
e!ine in terms o! the spectrum o! virtual transitions allowe between
the iscrete energy levels o! this global vacuum state. 6his is e0actly the
situation we shoul e0pect i! the quantum vacuum can correctly be
moele as a !our imension array o! couple harmonic oscillators1 i.e.1
as a !our imensional crystalline latticeworK. 6he aitional $-
momentum !luctuations1 over an above those permitte in the
symmetric state o! this vacuum1 correspon to those transition energies
o! the moi!ie vacuum lattice which are now !orbien by the state o!
broKen symmetry.
/!ter this symmetry is broKen1 the spectrum o! vacuum $-momentum
!luctuations becomes enser while that o! the vacuum_s energy
!luctuations1 i.e.1 !luctuations in the imaginary component o! the
vacuum_s (-momentum1 becomes attenuate. Fere this vacuum two
imensional1 this change in symmetry coul have been e!!ecte by a
simple RrotationS o! the !luctuation momentum-energy vector1 i.e.1 a 2
n
ranK tensor woul have been require to escribe the rotation1 but not
the en state1 which coul be aequately escribe in terms o! a 2-
vector. /n the ynamics o! this rotation o! momentum-energy within
this 2 spacetime can be moele in terms o! the e0change o! spin-*
gauge bosons. =owever1 in !our-imensional spacetime1 a 2
n
ranK
tensor is require to escribe the vacuum_s en state L that post
symmetry-breaKing. 8oreover1 a (
th
ranK tensor is necessary to
escribe this trans!ormation o! the vacuum cause by the breaKing o! its
symmetry1 as mentione earlier. 3onsequently1 a trans!ormation o! the
!luctuation stress-momentum-energy tensor can be escribe in terms o!
time-varying probability current ensities o! both spin-* vector gauge
bosons an spin-2 gauge bosons.
/s the ensity o! a given mass is increase1 so increases the
communications RbottlenecKS between change within the mass1
meiate by momentum !luctuations in the !orm o! spin-* boson
e0change1 an the temporality o! the quantum vacuum. "ince the
moes o! momentum !luctuation are etermine C5ust as in the case o! a
crystalD by the available energy transitions between iscrete energy
levels o! the ClatticeD vacuum1 simultaneous increases in momentum
!luctuation ensity with corresponing ecreases in energy !luctuations
within the vacuum occupying the very same volume Cas the mass in
questionD1 require that these momentum !luctuations become
progressively more energy egenerate. Hs this parao0ical? Fe must
unerstan the relationship between the concepts o! symmetry an
egeneracy to answer this question.
6he nonlinearities e0hibite by general relativity may only apply to the
e0pectation values o! all !orms o! energy an not to mere !luctuations in
energy Cthat are groune in =eisenberg energy uncertainty1 that isD. Hs
gravitation a mani!estation o! the loss o! spacetime symmetry? Hn other
wors1 the spatiotemporal istribution o! the wave!unction1 which
matters not to an isolate1 single particle within an RemptyS universe1 in
terms o! when an where this particle is situate within this empty
spacetime1 becomes an important parameter !or the momentum-energy
Cor (-momentumD o! this CtestD particle1 i.e.1 a egeneracy has been
remove Can not here because o! some speci!ic !orce coupling having
been introuceD L remember1 gravitation is not a R!orce.S
global symmetry is broKen1 one or more gauge bosons are engenere as
a result. 6hese bosons are necessary to restore this broKen symmetry1
but only at a RlocalS level. 6he continual mutual e0change o! these
gauge bosons between the appropriate !ermions Cthose R!eelingS the
gauge !orce meiate by these particular bosonsD constitutes the
mechanism by which this local gauge symmetry is maintaine. 8y
unerstaning is that1 in the case o! all gauge bosons1 with the notable
e0ception o! the =iggs1 the !ermions involve in the e0changing o! these
bosons acquire an e!!ective mass component o! their total mass.
C.orenz1 by the way1 ha trie uring the early years o! the 2)
th
3entury
to emonstrate that all o! the electron_s mass was electromagnetic in
origin an was attributable to the electron_s electromagnetic sel!-energy.
.orenz_ attempt ultimately prove unsuccess!ul: it appears that even the
great hunches o! great mins o not always Rpan outTSD @ow the
hypothesis !or the gravity mechanism allue to throughout these
writings points to the mutual e0changes o! gauge CvectorD bosons as
being materially important in unerstaning this mechanism as well as
the mechanism o! inertia L hope!ully so since we woul liKe to remain
true to ;instein_s strong equivalence principle1 the other postulate o!
general relativity being that o! general covariance.
3an we thinK o! the loss o! purely timeliKe (-momentum1 an this (-
momentum being reconstitute into both timeliKe an spaceliKe
components as representing a particularly simple !orm o! symmetry
breaKing? /n important question in this connection becomes oes the
vacuum not gravitate because o! a Kin o! mutual cancellation o! its
timeliKe an spaceliKe momentum !luctuation current ensities? 9r is
this the case because the (-momentum o! the vacuum1 in the absence o!
mass1 is itsel! purely timeliKe? "upersymmetry1 which requires the
contributions to the vacuum energy !rom creation/annihilation o! virtual
!ermion-anti!ermion pairs to contribute a negative component o! this
energy1 also requires the contribution to this vacuum energy !rom the
creation/annihilation o! bosons to be positive. 8oreover1 ","<
requires that these two contributions !rom the two basic types o! vacuum
!luctuation somehow precisely cancelT
8agnitue o! the tensor as a Kin o! container !or a conserve !lui
which can have *& istinct C!low?D components. "hu!!ling o!
component intensities is reversible.
Ht has been state many times by physicists that the e0istence o!
=eisenberg energy uncertainty implies the non-conservation o! energy.
"imilar statements apply to the momentum. ?ut with the uni!ication o!
momentum an energy by special relativity into a conserve
momentum-energy !our-vector1 an the concomitant uni!ication o! space
an time into a symmetric1 spacetime continuum1 it becomes possible !or
both =eisenberg momentum an energy uncertainty to e0ist throughout
spacetime without the necessity o! net uncertainty o! the !our-
momentum throughout this spacetime. 6his appears possible i! the
vacuum !luctuations in $-momentum are ynamically relate to those o!
the energy so that the sum o! these two yiels a magnitue o! the !our-
momentum !luctuations o! the vacuum which remains a constant ) or1
unetectably close to ) such that aD the quantum vacuum oes not itsel!
act as a gravitating source an bD the spacetime maintains C!or all
practical purposesD its .orenz invariance. 6he action o! mass through
the mechanisms o! 7auli ;0clusion Can RHnclusionSD upon the vacuum
an1 conversely1 o! this vacuum upon the mass1 serves to isrupt this
spacetime symmetry Co! .orenz invarianceD causing an imbalance in the
mutual cancellation o! vacuum momentum an energy !luctuations.
6his imbalance1 inuce by mass on the vacuum1 acts to give the
vacuum an e!!ective mass 5ust as this moi!ie vacuum enhances the
mass o! test boies introuce into it !rom outlying1 virtual R!ree space.S
8ass is enhance in two istinct but closely relate ways: the real time
processing buren that increase momentum !luctuation ensities
Cwithin vacuum occupie by massesD pose !or the quantum vacuum that
meiates them an the reuce computational resources available to this
vacuum with which to per!orm this !unction. 9n this view1 the ensity
o! vacuum energy that acts as a source o! gravitation is only that
component o! the vacuum_s total energy ensity which !ails to cancel
with its momentum !luctuations. Hn this way1 the e!!ective vacuum
energy ensity is etermine by the ensity o! mass in the universe. Ht
is this tiny component o! the total quantum vacuum energy ensity1
which we shoul term the cosmological constant.
6he builing-in o! phenotype egeneracy may epen also upon
quantum ineterminacy. 3an the phenomenon o! quantum egeneracy
be relate to that o! classical1 eterministic chaos1 e.g.1 chaotic attractor
theory1 i.e.1 Rquantum chaos?S
"o it is actually the tial !orces associate with a gravitational !iel that
prouce the acceleration o! massive boies.
?y virtue o! the ?ose principle C7H7D1 the enhance bining energy o!
the vacuum associate with its enhance ensity o! $-momentum
!luctuations/suppresse energy Cimaginary (-momentumD !luctuations1
inuce a mirroring Co! this shi!t in the magnitue o! the components o!
its stress-momentum-energy !luctuation tensorD by the equivalent matter
!luctuation tensor.
6his tenency o! the structure o! matter to imitate/ borrow !rom that o!
the sustaining vacuum energy is simply suggeste by the istinction o!
real versus virtual1 e.g.1 particle1 !iel1 etc.
/
**
/
*2
/
*$
/
*(
?
*
3
**
3
*2
3
*$
3
*(
/
2*
/
22
/
2$
/
2(
= ?
2
+ 3
2*
3
22
3
2$
3
2(
/
$*
/
$2
/
$$
/
$(
?
$
3
$*
3
$2
3
$$
3
$(
/
(*
/
(2
/
($
/
((
?
(
3
(*
3
(2
3
($
3
((
3ontract each 3
i5
with ?
5
to get the magnitue o! the vector1 then to get
the irection o! this magnitue1 taKe !our ot proucts with the basis !our
vector o! the coorinate system1 an contract vector with tensor.
6
jl
contracte with A
jlht
yiels *& ot proucts o! *& pairs o! 2
n
ranK
tensors1 or1 contracting 6
iK
with *& metric tensor-liKe 2
n
ranK tensors to
prouce 6jl1 a new 2
n
ranK tensor.
3ontravariant versus covariant tensors1 vectors1 etc.?
=
iK
6
iK
= ). 6 is a conserve quantity. Fhat_s the unerlying symmetry
at worK here?
6
iK
can be symmetric or antisymmetric1 covariant or contravariant.
6he erivative o! 6
iK
is not a tensor1 i.e.1 on a mani!ol with a metric o!
C+1+1+1-D1 i.e.1 n
iK
L 8inKowsKi metric. 6
iK
must be spacetime mani!ol
in orer !or this i!!erentiation to prouce a tensor.
6he spin-statistics connection is not necessary in nonrelativistic quantum
mechanics1 i.e1 there is no necessary connection within this theory
between the spin o! a particle an the symmetry Cor antisymmetryD o! the
particle_s wave!unction. 6his connection is however emane by
consistency requirements o! relativity applie quantum mechanics.
/aP us the =eisenberg uncertainty1 not the total uncertainty1 which
inclues statistical an e0perimental uncertainties1 etc.
6here is a istinction between the quantum uncertainty1 /aP1 an the
!luctuations in P1 i.e.1 P !or all quantum systems e0cept that o! the
quantum mechanical observer_s own brain.
;!!ortless e0ecution o! what has been per!orme an practice on many
previous occasions is possible as we e0ploit the well-worn rut o! a one-
to-one1 RontoS !unction. ;!!ortless improvisation e0ploits an altogether
i!!erent !unctionality. "ometimes it oes seem as though we are
getting some help in eveloping an orering our thoughts somewhat
a!ter the !ashion o! a matching !uns subsiy. 6his is somewhat a!ter
the !ashion1 again1 that the poet_s leaps o! insight an !acilitate by the
simultaneous striving a!ter an appropriate souning verse. /nother
relate phenomenon is that by which certain conceptions1 best e0presse
in a particular vernacular or ialect1 are also more easily conceive L
even when these conceptions are altogether novel to the person imitating
a particular !orm or speech.
Ht is not that !aster than light in!luences o not e0ist1 it is 5ust that these
supraliminal in!luences are not measurable. 6he in!luences woul
possess these normally conserve quantities in amounts less than the
=eisenberg uncertainties o! these quantities. 6hese quantities are in this
case not conserve an so1 !or e0ample1 spacetime symmetry is absent
over spacetime regions o! imension RsmallerS than /a0
)
1 i.e.1
/at1 /a0
*
1 /a0
2
1 /a0
$
. 6hese quantities are1 o! course1 /ap
0
1 /ap
y
1 /ap
z
1 /a;.
6he question arises whether such small momenta an energies are
actually not conserve or1 whether these quantities are 5ust below the
threshol o! the measurability necessary to veri!y the conservation or
these quantities. Fhat this means is that there is a question about the
origin o! the nonconservation o! the =eisenberg uncertainties o! these
ynamical quantities. 6he hypothesis avance here is that the
e0pectation values o! these ynamical quantities are 5ointly etermine
by the observer uncertainties in these quantities an the magnitue o! the
vacuum !luctuations o! these quantities. Fhat is conserve is perhaps
the vacuum !luctuation term component o! the e0pectation value while
the nonconserve component remains the quantum uncertainty itsel!.
7erhaps vacuum !luctuation momentum an energy are only
nonconserve quantities only in the restricte sense o! there being no
measurable inputs o! momentum an energy to the continuity equation
o! !luctuation momentum current ensity.
7erhaps the e0pectation values o!1 !or e0ample1 a system_s momentum or
energy1 are conserve quantities ue to a special coorination between
the observer_s uncertainties an the vacuum !luctuations in the system_s
Cmatter + vacuumD momentum an energy.
9ur theory is in i!!iculty in regar to this one important point: we have
maintaine that the magnitues o! the !luctuations in the quantum
vacuum_s momentum an energy combine together into a conserve !our
vector Cin the case o! an RemptyS spacetimeD an yet we are also
maintaining that the gravitational !iel breaKs the spacetime symmetry
o! this vacuum1 say1 by isrupting the phase relationships o! the
iniviual amplitues in the vacuum_s momentum an energy
!luctuations.
6here is another !orm o! probability1 o! course1 which is that o! etector
e!!iciency.
conscious e0perience corresponing to each alternative possible
outcome o! an act o! observation Co! the state o! a quantum systemD1
there!ore consciousness has nothing whatever to o with the selection
!rom among these alternative possibilities.
6here is no basis provie !or within ;verett_s theory !or the
istinguishing o! actual an possible quantum states. ;verett_s theory
epens upon the possibility o! their being a complete quantum
escription o! the ,niverse.
9! course1 a computation1 taKing place within the ,niverse1 o! the state
o! the ,niverse as a whole1 is in principle impossible1 unless1 perhaps1
one is only speaKing o! this whole as a Kin o! shell or outer !orm with
inner states which remain unetermine. /n interesting thought here is
that consierations o! logic only tell us that something is per impossible1
but leaves completely une0plaine the why an where!ore o! this
impossibility. 6he question arises whether there is some meaning in
asKing why some thing or event1 ictate by logic as an impossibility1 in
terms o! limitations within a physical orer.
3onsciousness is a structure o! simultaneity1 which is groune in the
integration o! temporality. :oes this imply that temporality can e0ist in
an aboriginal1 unintegrate state1 an parao0ically only at a later time
being brought into a state o! greater integral wholeness? Hsn_t a mere
single imension o! time an inaequate omain !rom which the
!unctions o! integration are to taKe their arguments1 i.e.1 inepenent
variables?
6he temporal multiimensionality may be !oun within ;verett_s 8any
Forls 6heory o! quantum measurement1 i! integration o! temporality is
e!!ecte through the interaction o! physical noncommunicating branches
o! the ,niverse Cor merely o! the iniviual min_s universeD.
3onscious action may be e!ine within a quantum mechanical conte0t
as the organization o! unetermine quantum states by thought.
Fe might say that choice transcens quantum escription because on the
relative statistical weights are given !or each eigen!unction within a give
quantum superposition state1 but i! we o1 we neglect the !act that
however human beings choose to actualize the eigenstates o! their
quantum brain superposition states1 over time these choices must
collectively always be achieve in such a manner that the relative
statistical weights are not violate. :oes this suggest that i!1 unliKe the
case o! pure1 statistical probability o! the classical worl1 the
actualization o! quantum brain states by the iniviual human person
have continue to e!y1 i! you will1 what is otherwise inicate by the
relative statistical weightings o! the iniviual quantum brain
eigenstates1 that then some quantum potential must have all along been
concurrently builing up Cin the quantum vacuum with which the
person_s brain is interacting or1 perhaps1 within that person_s brain
itsel!D1 which strives Can ultimately must succeeD to reress this
isparity so that the relative statistical probability weights remain in
!orce. /!ter all1 ?ohm_s coauthor1 ?asil =iley himsel! routinely re!erre
to the quantum potential as an information potential.
6he !unamental i!!erence between the eigenstates o! a superposition
an those o! a statistical mi0ture is essentially this: in a statistical
mi0ture o! quantum states there is one state among the states o! the
mi0ture that the system is actually inV in the case o! a superposition the
system is not secretly alreay in one o! these possible states because this
has yet to be etermine by1 e.g.1 observation or ecoherence.
6he orer o! spaceliKe separate events is only etermine within an
iniviual consciousness.
6he observer can_t copy a quantum state1 but can arrange so that the
system an his own brain state !orm a 5oint quantum state.
6he ynamism o! !ragments resulting !rom a broKen symmetry is
convergent an evolutionary. 6he internal symmetry is broKen an
simple enough to !it into e0ternality whereupon the original
symmetrical1 highly-orere structure can be appro0imately
reconstitute. 6his reconstitution is e!!ecte an sustaine by a set o!
locally symmetric interactions1 which can be containe within locality1
i.e.1 spacetime.
6he breaKing o! the in!inite1 global symmetry o! an in!inite1 uni!ie
consciousness prouce the local gauge symmetric networK o!
interacting CtemporalD consciousnesses CminsD. 6he orer which
began as in!inite an nonistribute has been transmute into !inite an
istribute orer o! intersub5ective spacetime.
"pacetime is the symmetry omain o! momentum-energy. Fhat is the
symmetry omain !or ata-in!ormation?
4ravitational reshi!t can be interprete as a lengthening o! the photon_s
wavelength or as a reuction in the photon_s momentum1 which in turn
causes a reshi!t in the photon wavelength/!requency.
Fe must istinguish changes in the energy o! the crystalline lattice $-
vacuum ue to its interaction with the (-vacuum versus changes in $-
vacuum energy ue to gauge interaction within this $-vacuum.
3lassical 4A schema: matter tells spacetime how to curve an the
curvature o! spacetime in!orms matter_s geoesic motion.
Puantum 4A schema: momentum-energy Co! matterD a!!ects the
!luctuation momentum-energy o! the quantum vacuum through their
share quantum statistics. /n the structure o! the quantum vacuum
!luctuation momentum-energy in turn a!!ects the e0pectation values o!
the momentum-energy. =ere the e!!ects o! !luctuations in the position-
time1 i.e.1 spacetime !luctuations are not !unamental1 i.e.1 are not on an
equal !ooting with momentum-energy !luctuations. Hn other wors1
each !luctuation in position or time Cwhich uner resonance prouce
nonzero alterations in the e0pectation values o! 0
H
an tD is erivative o!
its corresponing momentum or energy !luctuations. /n so1 on the
view spacetime !luctuations o not themselves have any inepenent
e0istence1 i.e.1 virtual gravitons are !ictional entities Ceven as virtual
particlesTD 6he virtual transition o! energy between istinct levels o!
the crystalline vacuum lattice may be interprete as virtual1 timeliKe
tunneling o! !ermions o! the lattice to higher energy levels o! the crystal
!ollowe by ecay o! these virtual1 e0cite states.
?ut this prevents the e0istence o! real gravitons as mere e0citations o!
the vacuum graviton !iel. 8oreover1 on this view1 gravitational waves
are an arti!act o! a purely phenomenological escription o! a peculiar
ynamics o! gravitationally perturbe matter istributions.
"uch is the i!!erence between a particle tunneling through a potential
barrier versus tunneling over this barrier.
3an we unerstan the quantum measurement process as an e0ample o!
inuce symmetry breaKing1 i.e.1 because the measurement o! an
observable o! a comple0 quantum state always returns a real number that
is quantum measure taKes !rom the general linear1 4.CnV 3D to the
general linear subgroup o! 4.CnV 3D1 i.e.1 4.CnVAD.
H! so1 then what is the quantity that is conserve within 4.CnV3D1 which
is not longer conserve within 4.CnVAD? 6he uncertainties in the
observables commuting with =?
6he ynamism o! !ragments resulting !rom a broKen symmetry is
convergent an evolutionary. 6he internal symmetry is broKen an
simple enough to !it into e0ternality whereupon the original
symmetrical1 highly-orere structure can be appro0imately
reconstitute. 6his reconstitution is e!!ecte an sustaine by a set o!
locally symmetric interactions1 which can be containe within locality1
i.e.1 spacetime.
6he breaKing o! the in!inite1 global symmetry o! an in!inite1 uni!ie
consciousness prouce the local gauge symmetric networK o!
interacting CtemporalD consciousnesses CminsD. 6he orer which
began as in!inite an nonistribute has been transmute into !inite an
istribute orer o! intersub5ective spacetime.
"pacetime is the symmetry omain o! momentum-energy. Fhat is the
symmetry omain !or ata-in!ormation?
4ravitational reshi!t can be interprete as a lengthening o! the photon_s
wavelength or as a reuction in the photon_s momentum1 which in turn
causes a reshi!t in the photon wavelength/!requency.
/s the photon is parallel
transporte along with its simultaneity hypersur!ace CimageD in which the imaginary momentum o! the hypersur!ace is
increasing with total (-momentum conserve. )2-*(-)2
Fe must istinguish changes in the energy o! the crystalline lattice $-
vacuum ue to its interaction with the (-vacuum versus changes in $-
vacuum energy ue to gauge interaction within this $-vacuum.
3lassical 4A schema: matter tells spacetime how to curve an the
curvature o! spacetime in!orms matter_s geoesic motion.
Puantum 4A schema: momentum-energy Co! matterD a!!ects the
!luctuation momentum-energy o! the quantum vacuum through their
share quantum statistics. /n the structure o! the quantum vacuum
!luctuation momentum-energy in turn a!!ects the e0pectation values o!
the momentum-energy. =ere the e!!ects o! !luctuations in the position-
time1 i.e.1 spacetime !luctuations are not !unamental1 i.e.1 are not on an
equal !ooting with momentum-energy !luctuations. Hn other wors1
each !luctuation in position or time Cwhich uner resonance prouce
nonzero alterations in the e0pectation values o! 0
H
an tD is erivative o!
its corresponing momentum or energy !luctuations. /n so1 on the
view spacetime !luctuations o not themselves have any inepenent
e0istence1 i.e.1 virtual gravitons are !ictional entities Ceven as virtual
particlesTD 6he virtual transition o! energy between istinct levels o!
the crystalline vacuum lattice may be interprete as virtual1 timeliKe
tunneling o! !ermions o! the lattice to higher energy levels o! the crystal
!ollowe by ecay o! these virtual1 e0cite states.
?ut this prevents the e0istence o! real gravitons as mere e0citations o!
the vacuum graviton !iel. 8oreover1 on this view1 gravitational waves
are an arti!act o! a purely phenomenological escription o! a peculiar
ynamics o! gravitationally perturbe matter istributions.
"uch is the i!!erence between a particle tunneling through a potential
barrier versus tunneling over this barrier.
3an we unerstan the quantum measurement process as an e0ample o!
inuce symmetry breaKing1 i.e.1 because the measurement o! an
observable o! a comple0 quantum state always returns a real number that
is quantum measure taKes !rom the general linear1 4.CnV 3D to the
general linear subgroup o! 4.CnV 3D1 i.e.1 4.CnVAD.
H! so1 then what is the quantity that is conserve within 4.CnV3D1 which
is not longer conserve within 4.CnVAD? 6he uncertainties in the
observables commuting with =?
@ot only oes the concentration o! the nongravitational bining !orce
interactions Ci.e.1 virtual photon1 w1 z1 gluon1 etc. e0changes between real
!ermionsD increase1 but along with this1 !iel energy !rom these
increasing bining !orces e0cite Runoccupie1S virtual !ermion Rvacuum
moes1S resulting in the concomitant creation Cout o! this !iel energyD
o! real !ermions1 which then become part o! the structure o! the
gravitationally collapsing matter istribution. /n there is reason to
believe Co! course1 also !rom the stanpoint o! symmetry consierationsD
that there obtains an equipartation o! !iel energy Creal !ermionsD an
interaction or bining energy Cvirtual bosonsD.
:o !ermions an bosons provie bounary conitions !or each other?
;0changing a !ermion !or an anti!ermion inuces a sign change in the
time. ;0changing a boson !or an antiboson inuces no sign changes in
either space or time variables.
6heta = C/aK
W
0 L w
W
tD
/atheta = /aK
W
0 + K
W
/a0 - /aw
W
t L w
W
/at
9scillatory transmission coe!!icient !or a barrier tunneling problem may
be a goo analogy !or the =ubble recessional velocity perioicity o! %2
Km/sec/8pc !or the cosmological e0pansion.
Iirtual gravitons are 5ust stress-energy !luctuations o! the quantum
vacuum1 which can also be unerstoo1 through a generalization o! the
=eisenberg uncertainty principle1 as !luctuations in the coupling o! space
to time1 i.e.1 as !luctuations in the strength in the coupling o! momentum
an energy !luctuations to the quantum vacuum.
R.ate time normalizationS involves an accounting system1 i.e.1 the
conservation o! probability Cor probability ensity1 tensor ensity1 etc.D1
which subsumes Can may well essentially epen onD the action o!
nonlocal quantum in!luences.
@onlocal interactions seem to be necessary !or a system escribe by a
wave!unction. 6his is because the wave!unction per!ectly mimics a
particular class o! ranom !unction although the physics unerpinne by
this !unctions ynamics is anything but ranom.
/lthough the momentum-energy o! the system o! charge particles an
electromagnetic !iels o not each trans!orm covariantly1 the
momentum-energy o! the combine system o! both oes trans!orm
covariantly.
/a+
uv
0 /a6
uv
x h
2
Cpossible generalization o! the =eisenberg ,ncertainty
7rinciple?D
?ut on_t we nee a metric tensor1 g
uv
1 in !ront o! the le!t-han sie o!
the above equation? "o here we have !luctuations in 6
uv
1 i.e.1 6
uv
1
relate to !luctuations in +
uv
1 i.e.1 +
uv
. Fe have alreay relate
!luctuations in $-momentum to the e0changes o! vector bosons within $-
space an !luctuations in energy to the creation/annihilation o! virtual
!ermion-anti!ermion pairs in vacuum. =ow are we to represent
!luctuations in the stress component o! the vacuum momentum-energy
tensor1 t
uv
in terms o! the !unamental particle an !iel processes o! the
quantum vacuum? Fe mentione earlier that these stress !luctuations
coul be escribe in terms o! the e0change o! spin-2 particles1 i.e.1
gravitons.
@ow the quantity1 6
uv
1 in /a6
uv
CaboveD must be a conserve quantity an
so the quantity +
uv
1 in /a

+
uv
1 CaboveD must be an unconserve quantity.
?ut then this means that +
uv
cannot be properly quantize such that
gravitons Cas the spin-2 quanta o! spacetimeD cannot e0ist.
"houl scattering in vacuum be treate any i!!erent than scattering in a
re!ractive or ielectric meium?
/ !our-vector equation shows the relationship o! two quantities1 one o!
which is conserve. 6here shoul be a symmetry associate with the
space e!ine by the unconserve quantity. 6hen there shoul also e0ist
an uncertainty relation Co! the =eisenberg varietyD obtaining between the
uncertainties in both the conserve an unconserve quantities.
3an we speaK o! the symmetry space o! the unconserve quantity as
being RcurveS or RwarpeS as a result o! the action o! the conserve
quantity1 say ue to some ynamism taKing place RwithinS the local
symmetry space RoccupieS by the conserve quantity?
6he gravitational !iel is the spacetime !iel1 which e0ists against the
bacKrop o! an in!inite1 ;ucliean space?
6opology is a consieration o! quantum statistics because o! the
unerlying trans!ormation o! the e0change o! ientical particles. 8any
i!!erent topologies can have the very same metric or is it that any given
topology can possess myria istinct metrics? 7resumably the metric
tensor varies throughout the spacetime o! a gravitational !iel even
though the topology o! the spacetime mani!ol1 i.e.1 its connecteness1
remains a constant.
3an we calculate the increase in entropy resulting !rom the breaKing o! a
symmetry? .ooK at the interacting gas compartment moel o! the
entropy o! mi0ing as a Kin o! reuction in symmetry.
-luctuation size as relate to */ in occupation number !ormalism o!
quantum mechanics. 6he mathematics o! thermal !luctuations
aequately escribes thermal phenomena only i! a bacKgroun heat
reservoir is assume.
Aotation angular momentum-absolute irection-inertial guiance
system. /a /a. x h.
7hase relations isrupte by observation an by a gravitational !iel.
"pin versus phase !luctuations. "pecial relativity requires spin statistics
an general relativity meiate by spin statistical !orces.
epi=!cbK=
R8etaphor unerpins the integral consistency o! culture. Ht is
because o! this !act that we may meaning!ully speaK o! revolutions
occurring in numerous istinct !iels o! human eneavor
simultaneously.S
>une 2)*$ epi=
3ulture provies a home !or the min o! 8an1
however the in!rastructure !or sai min is provie by the ynamics o!
the ,niverse which is to say that o! ?eing itsel!.
H! it is possible to move relative to an always greater !raction o! the total
vacuum energy ensity containe within a region upon which is
impresse a gravitational !iel1 this is ue to the locally reuce value o!
the velocity o! light within this region.
7hase is etermine by both !requency1 !1 an wavenumber1 K. Hn other
wors1 y
sys
is etermine by the energy an momentum o! the quantum
mechanical system. 3hanges in the phase with time may be linKe to
!luctuations in the quantum mechanical system_s energy. Fhile changes
in y
sys
along coorinate intervals may be linKe to !luctuations in the
quantum mechanical system_s momentum. /re noneterministic
!unctions escribe by anharmonic -ourier e0pansions1 eterministic by
harmonic?
7er!orming a quantum measurement isrupts the elicate phase
relationships between the orthogonal moes o! the quantum mechanical
system1 i.e.1 between the system_s orthogonal eigenstates. :oes
quantum mechanical measurement abruptly introuce anharmonicity
into the system? :oes aiabatic change in the system mean merely a
shi!t in the amplitues o! system_s eigen!unctions?
Hn some gauge theories1 the vacuum is e!ine by a !iel that inuces a
breaKing o! the vacuum_s symmetry C=igg_s mechanismD an giving
particles their respective masses Cas oppose to merely causing the
alreay e!ine1 potential masses !or each type o! particle o! these
particles !rom their status as hereto!ore latent an virtual to a new status
as actual Cor mani!estD an real.
9n p. *'2 o! =ow is Puantum -iel 6heory 7ossible?1 we rea1
RPuantum theories tell us there is no coherent !ormulation o!
nothingness.S
/ll operators corresponing to quantum vacuum observables1 e.g.1 spin1
momentum1 energy1 etc.1 are e0pressible in terms o! the creation an
annihilation operators
/a
a
+
an
/a
a.
/a
a
+
an
/a
a are equivalent Cin the case
o! small amplitues o! oscillationD to the e0citation an ee0citation o!
the quantum vacuum normal moes o! harmonic oscillation. 9! course1
!or large amplitues o! e0citation Can ee0citation1 as well?D1 the
istinct harmonics are no longer inepenent o! one another1 i.e.1
orthogonal. Hn this situation the vacuum has been e0cite into
anharmonic oscillation. ?y what mechanism are we to moel the
inuce interaction o! the vacuum normal moes uner the conition o!
anharmonicity? :oes anharmonicity imply the occurrence o! broKen
symmetry1 e.g.1 spatiotemporal or in the intricate phase relations o! these
normal moes? :oes the isruption o! harmonicity imply the e0change
o! quantities o! phase between the interacting normal moes an is the
quantity o! phase so e0change itsel! quantize?
6he comments about the accelerate electric charge pertain to !reely-
!alling charges.
/re the energies o! vacuum !luctuations blue or re shi!te relative to an
accelerate boy L a boy either being accelerate within !ree space or
!reely !alling in a gravitational !iel? 9r are the probability current
ensities o! these !luctuations merely shi!te in their istributions?
Ae-e0amine the question o! gravitating quantum vacuum in light o! the
notion o! metric egeneracy o! spacetime topological !luctuations.
:istance an time interval can be e!ine in terms o! the line ensity o!
momentum an energy !luctuation events1 respectively.
6hinK about /a0 an /ap in relation to ouble potential barrier height Cin
istinguishing the two interpretations o! tunnelingD. 6his question o!
interpretation can be connecte to another one where vacuum spacetime
!luctuations are interprete as either phenomenological or physically
real.
3.!.1 p. 2(%1 6heoretical 3oncepts in 7hysics C.ongairD1 R!luctuations in
the !iel are o! the same magnitue as the energy ensity o! the raiation
itsel!. Cwaves o! ranom phase !or a particular moe o! oscillationD.
/n electric charge moves in such a manner Cwhen unergoing
accelerate motion1 that isD as to remain at the center o! its R!iel
emanationsS so that it Rappears to itsel!S to be at rest. 6his is an
e0ample o! !orces being inuce by the breaKing o! a symmetric vacuum
!iel. 6his woul seem to imply that a component o! this charge
particle_s mass is electromagnetic in origin. Fe may maKe similar
observations concerning the other components o! the particle_s mass in
terms o! it maintaining local symmetry as a source o! other !unamental
!orce !iels1 i.e.1 strong nuclear1 weaK nuclear1 an perhaps also
gravitational. "uch a particle1 while being accelerate in R!ree space1S
isrupts the global spacetime symmetry o! the vacuum electromagnetic
!iel1 along with the other global symmetries o! this vacuum L those
associate with the other !unamental !orces. ?ut then the particle
procees to emit an absorb various !orce-carrying quanta1 i.e.1 bosons1
in such a manner1 then1 so that the local vacuum symmetries with respect
to these !unamental !iels is retaine. / Kin o! Rsel!-!orceS evelops
out o! this tenency o! the particle to maintain the symmetries o! its
local spacetime CvacuumD1 which acts in opposite sense to the
acceleration. /n it is these sel!-!orces1 acting in concert1 which
account !or the inertia o! the particle. Hn the case where this particle is
boun up within the quantal structure o! bulK matter1 consiere to be
Rat rest1S the !unamental !iels now mani!est themselves in the !orm o!
continual emission an absorption o! !orce-carrying quanta.
6hese are the same !orces1 which mani!este themselves as the sel!-
!orces1 escribe above !or an accelerating particle. 6hese !orces are
now meiate by the to-an-!ro e0change o! !orce-carrying quanta
between the particle an its immeiate neighbors Cto which it is bounD.
6hese are the !orces unerlying the bining energies o! bulK matter1
which collectively engener its inertial mass. 6he sum o! the
momentum current ensities1 tz
i
1 are at the e0pense1 as e0plaine earlier1
o! the imaginary component o! the total (-momentum current ensity1
tz
v
1 o! the R!ree space1S quantum vacuum. Hn the absence o! internal
stresses an strains within this bulK matter1 the !luctuation (-momentum
current ensity tensor is iagonal1 containing only pressure an energy
ensity terms.
Hn the special case o! the event horizon o! a spherical blacK hole1 the
pressure terms are ma0imal an the energy ensity term is ). Hn other
wors1 at the event horizon o! the hole1 all o! the !luctuation (-
momentum current ensity is in the !orm o! internal e0changes o!
!luctuation $-momentum. 6he time-time component1 as well as the
other timeliKe components o! the !luctuation stress-momentum-energy
tensor !or the local vacuum C5ust outsie the event horizonD is ). "o at
the event horizon o! a blacK hole1 the energy uncertainty o! the quantum
vacuum is also ). @otice that the !luctuation energy Cas oppose to
momentumD associate with all o! the !unamental vacuum !iels are
each1 iniviually1 ) Csince there can be no mutual cancellation between
the energies o! istinct spin-* !ielsD.
6he uration o! iniviual vacuum energy !luctuations is not what is
altere by time ilation within a gravitational !iel1 5ust the interval
between these energy transitions an the current ensity o! the vacuum
!luctuations in energy relative to the increase momentum current
ensities within bulK matter. "imilarly1 the wavelength o! iniviual
momentum !luctuations is not contracte in the raial irection within a
gravitational !iel1 5ust the average istance between iniviual
momentum !luctuation events. H! this is a more or less correct
interpretation1 then how are we to e0plain the phenomenon o!
gravitational reshi!t?
"o woul energy an momentum here be a collective phenomenon rather
than absolute physical quantities1 such that the momentum an energy o!
real particles are not absolute1 !or instance1 but are merely change
relative to the abstract representations o! the vacuum_s momentum an
energy groune in this vacuum_s momentum an energy current
ensities? 6his interpretation is perhaps consistent with an helps to
clari!y the meaning o! the notion o! time being relative Crather than
RabsoluteSD.
"o it is actually the tial !orces associate with a gravitational !iel that
prouce the acceleration o! massive boies.
?y virtue o! the ?ose principle C7H7D1 the enhance bining energy o!
the vacuum associate with its enhance ensity o! $-momentum
!luctuations/suppresse energy Cimaginary (- momentumD !luctuations1
inuce a mirroring Co! this shi!t in the magnitue o! the components o!
its stress-momentum-energy !luctuation tensorD by the equivalent matter
!luctuation tensor.
6he question arises that i! the !luctuations in the momentum an energy
in the particles o! which the mass is compose are inepenent o! these
!luctuations o! the local vacuum state1 then interpreting either set o!
!luctuations as the =eisenberg uncertainties in momentum an energy
an the remaining set o! !luctuations as the !luctuation terms o! these
two quantities1 then given that these two sets o! !luctuations1 matter an
vacuum1 are appropriately correlate1 nonzero e0pectation values result
!or the momentum an energy !or this matter. 8ore speci!ically1
negatively correlate sets o! !luctuations will prouce nonzero
e0pectation values o! the momentum or energy an positively correlate
sets o! !luctuations will prouce zero e0pectation values o! the
momentum or energy. /n important question here is: how are vacuum
momentum !luctuations relate to vacuum energy !luctuations Cwithin
the same spacetime RneighborhooSD?
6his tenency o! the structure o! matter to imitate/ borrow !rom that o!
the sustaining vacuum energy is most irectly suggeste by the
istinction o! real versus virtual particles an !iels an physically
realize through the action o! 7H7 an the ivergence !ree nature o! 6
jl
1
i.e.1 the !act
that1 c/c
jl
6
jl
= )
where 6
jl
is the vacuum stress-momentum-energy !luctuation tensor an
c/c
jl
is a covariant erivative.
6he symmetry o! real vs. virtual uality is broKen in at least one
important an perhaps1 highly signi!icant1 sense: real particles possess
mass both singly an collectivelyV virtual particles possess this property
o! mass only as iniviual particles. 6his is because the principles o!
7;7 an 7H7 apply equally to the interaction o! virtual with virtual
particles as they o to the interaction o! real particles with virtual
particles. 6he characteristic o! massiveness oes not e0ten to virtual
particles collectively because virtual particles generally o not possess a
continuous e0istence1 i.e.1 e0istence through more than one RperioS
e!ine by 7lancK_s constant ivie by the particle_s energy.
Hn terms o! the cellular automata C3/D moel o! vacuum an matter1 the
in!ormation processing capacity that must be respectively evote to the
computation o! virtual versus real particle structures Ciniviual an
collectiveD an virtual versus real spacetime tra5ectories CevolutionD
surely must be o! wiely ivergent magnitue.
6he i!!erence in the computational resources require Con the part o!
the quantum vacuumD in orer to continuous recreate a particle i! the
same type or class1 accoring to a statistical rule1 versus the
computational resources that must be evote to the tasK o! continuously
recreating a certain iniviual Ciniviually labeleD particle1 accoring
to a eterministic rule1 must be one o! many orers o! magnitue. 6his
i!!erence in orer o! magnitue may well appro0imate that between the
vacuum energy ensities preicte by quantum theory !or the quantum
vacuum an general relativity theory !or the cosmological constant. Hn
this manner1 3/ theory may allow a large step in the irection o!
reconciling these two !unamental an raically con!licting theories.
6he probability o! throwing a RheaS an a RtailS when tossing two
coins is classically speaKing {. 6he quantum probability o! throwing a
RheaS an a RtailS is 5ust
*
/
$
. Hn the !irst case1 heas an tails are
istinguishableV in the latter1 they are inistinguishable. 6his is !ar less
than an orer o! magnitue i!!erence1 i! we carry this over !rom the
conte0t o! simple probabilities to that o! probability ensities or
probability current ensities an probability rates.
Fhen istinguishing RthrowsS Cwhich may be liKene to
creation/annihilation eventsD1 we note that1 classically1 when
istinguishing coins Cwhich may be liKene to istinguishing particlesD1
the probability o! each possible RthrowS is | or ).2'. Fhen not
istinguishing Rthrows1S which is what is require in analogy with the
statistical requirements o! the quantum theory1 the probability o! each
possible RthrowS is
*
/
$
or ).$$. "o how can we1 maKing use o! this
analogy between coins an particles an between RthrowsS an quantum
Revents1S aMa
t
1 to account !or the !antastic orer o! magnitue i!!erence
between what are e!!ectively the probability current ensities o! the
vacuum in P8 an 4A? 6he ratio1 [
).$$
/
).2'
\
n
with n b *))) yiels a
!actor o! an orer o! magnitue o! *)
*2)
.
6he computational resource requirements !or a representation within the
computational state space o! the cellular automaton C3/D in relation to
the total available computational resources available to the 3/ with
which to compute this representation is the principle etermining !actor
o! the inertial mass e0hibite by the representation Crepresentational
ob5ectD. 6he in!ormation content o! a state space con!iguration is very
closely tie to the probability o! this con!iguration relative to that o! the
other istinct con!igurations o! the state space. Fhen the egeneracy o!
a representation increases1 its relative probability within the state space
is enhance.
Fithin classical 3/ theory1 there is no meaning in the notion o! a
egenerate stateV egeneracy is always that o! a representation within the
state space with respect to some quantum observableV ientical states are
inistinguishable within classical 3/ theory Ctime-inepenent quantum
state space1 i.e.1 state space in which the total set o! possible
con!igurations is close?D. Aepresentations may be egenerate1 which
comprise any number o! istinct states. 6he egeneracy o! an
iniviual state woul allow such a state to continue through more than
one clocK cycle o! the 3/_s 37,1 which woul imply the possibility o!
istinguishing ientical states o! the 3/ state space. Hn the case where
iniviual ientical states o! the 3/ state space are istinguishable1
Ctime-epenent quantum state space? L state space with memory?D then
the probabilities o! a given state are
/lternatively1 the ivergence !ree nature o! c/c
jl
6
jl
is may itsel! be
unerstoo to stem !rom the combine mani!estation o! 7auli ;0clusion
an ?ose Hnclusion1 i! you will Cwhat we have been calling the 7auli
Hnclusion 7rincipleD.
Fhen the quantum uncertainties are e0presse in terms o! the creation
an annihilation operators1 a an a
+
the causal ineterminacy unerlying
quantum mechanical phenomena is much more clearly iscernible.
/ll o! the basic e!initions o! special relativity presuppose the concept
o! Revent.S 6his concept is not clearly an unambiguously e!ine
within this theory.
6he apparent staning contraiction o! two otherwise RcorrectS theories1
general relativity an quantum mechanics1 in terms o! these theories_
wiely ivergent preictions o! the vacuum_s energy ensity1 combine
with the renormalization problem o! Puantum 4ravity theory as well as
the corresponing absences o! e0perimental observations o! gravitational
waves1 strongly suggests that a ","< theory in which both the quantum
o! the gravitational !iel an also a gravitating vacuum energy are
absent1 may bol much promise as a !uture success!ul theory that solves
these problems as well as reconciling P8 an 4A.
8ass sKews the spacetime symmetry o! the quantum vacuum via the
7auli e0clusion mechanism Cwhich1 accoring to -eynman1 applies
equally to both real an virtual !ermionsD an1 concomitantly1 via the
mechanism unerlying the phenomena o! ?ose conensation1
superconuctivity1 super!luiity1 lasing1 etc. 6he principle o! the action
o! this mechanism we will term !or convenience saKe1 the 7auli
Hnclusion 7rinciple C7H7D. 6his mechanism also applies equally to both
real an virtual bosons.
?ecause matter1 through the 7auli ;0clusion 7rinciple C7;7D1 acts upon
scalar energy !unctions o! the vacuum1 in the !orm o!1 e.g.1 virtual e
+
e
-
creation-annihilation events in a precisely converse manner to how
matter acts via 7H7 upon the vector momentum !luctuations o! this
vacuum1 the overall e!!ect o! matter upon the momentum an energy
!luctuations o! the vacuum is to estroy the iagonality o! the vacuum_s
momentum-energy !luctuation tensor1 e!!ectively rotating Crelative to
some cosmic bacKgroun spacetime1 perhaps e!ine in terms o!
nonlocal energy !luctuationsD the local space an time uncertainties
e0perience by1 say1 test masses within this moi!ie vacuum. 6he
result o! this is that time ilation1 length contraction Cin the irection o!
the gravitating massD1 are e0perience by the mass in this vacuum
simultaneous with the appearance o! stress !luctuations terms within the
momentum-energy !luctuations tensor.
7ush an pull !orces are responsible !or changes in the iagonal
components o! the momentum-energy !luctuation tensor1 which are
escribe in terms o! virtual spin * particles CbosonsD. =owever1 the
mutual e0change o! stresses within the mass_ bulK must be escribe in
terms o! the mutual e0change o! virtual spin 2 particles CgravitonsD.
6he trans!ormation o! a *
st
ranK tensor is escribe1 o! course1 by
multiplication o! this vector by a 2
n
ranK tensor. 6he trans!ormation o!
a 2
n
ranK tensor Ceven where this tensor_s iagonal components are all
)D into another 2
n
ranK tensor must be escribe by a 2
n
ranK tensor
being multiplie by a (
th
ranK tensor.
6he structure o! the spacetime !luctuation tensor Ca mere
phenomenological entityD may be relate to the metric tensor o! 4A.
6he stress-energy-momentum !luctuation tensor o! combine matter an
vacuum may be relate to the tensor 6
uv
o! 4A. 6he (
th
ranK tensor
allue to above may be relate to the Aiemannian curvature tensor o!
4A. 6he !act that weaK gravitational !iels in the vacuum correlate with
a vacuum momentum-energy !luctuation tensor which contains
negligibly small o!!-iagonal components1 sensibly correspons to a
vacuum ominate by scalar an vector !luctuations in its stress1 a case
where a scalar-vector theory o! gravitation such as that o! @ewtonian
gravity stans as a more than aequate1 appro0imate escription o! the
ynamics o! mass istributions.
7si represents everything which can be Known about the system
escribe by 7si. ?ut this is not correct in the unquali!ie manner in
which this assertion is usually mae. -or 7si is always somewhere at
some time1 i.e.1 7si = 7siC01tD. /n although we cannot per!orm a
measurement upon the system escribe by 7siC01tD without
inavertently inucing a iscontinuous change in its wave!unction
Cunless the system happene to alreay be in an eigenstate o! the
operator corresponing to the type o! measurement o! the system we are
per!ormingD1 the system itsel! is not estroye by such a measurement
being per!orme upon it1 merely the quantum state o! the system has
been iscontinuously change. 6he transition !rom 7siC*D to 7siC2D
where 7siC5D oes not represent an eigenstate o! the relevant operator
coul not1 o! course1 have been preicte !rom 7siC*D1 nor coul it have
been preicte !rom the mutual inter!erence o! the wave!unction
iscerning the observer with the wave!unction1 7siC*D.
/ more precise way o! stating the !act o! the relativity o! time or the
Rrate o! its passageS Ca rather problematic notion1 by the wayD is to o
this in terms o! relative probability rates where the notion o! quantum
probability can only be renere logically consistent by bringing in the
notion o! probability ensity. :ensity o! what1 o! some Kin o!
substance o! events? /n the answer here is both L the probability
ensity o! that which constitutes the substance o! events as such. 8ore
speci!ically1 the relevant quantity is the ensity o! events within
spacetime1 rather than simply within space alone. 6his is because1
although it is prima !acie possible Con a eeper level within the conte0t
o! general relativity1 this can be questioneD !or motion to occur along
one spatial a0is without the necessity o! motion1 however small1 along
perpenicular spatial a0es1 this is not true where Rmotion along the time
a0is is concerne. 6his is in part because relative motion in space Can
its associate momentumD is epenent upon a borrowing uring some
earlier phase o! Kinetic energy associate with the erstwhile purely
timeliKe motion o! the starting masses.
Aegarless o! what happens to the wave!unction1 one_s consciousness
oes not Rcome to a halt.S 6he wave!unction we are tol represents the
most that one can possibly ob5ectively Know about a quantum system
that is in a pure state Cwith respect to some system observableD. 9!
course1 i! the system is in a superposition state with respect to CwrtD one
particular observable1 it must be a so-calle pure state with respect to
each incompatible1 or con5ugate1 observable. /n this is 5ust the basis
o! the uncertainty principle via the theorems o! -ourier /nalysis. 6wo
question arise here L one !or the moment appears to be merely
seconaryV the other more !unamental1 although we might !in Ca!ter
that this situation is actually the reverse o! this.D
Fhat oes the quantum state o! a given observer_s brain then represent?
6he most that that observer can Know about the quantum state an
evolution o! this state1 which his brain is presently in.
-or some reason1 the entanglement o! a given system_s wave!unction
with those !orming the system_s Rsum o! historiesS oes not trigger
ecoherence o! 7si.
9ne_s state o! consciousness is thought by some to represent the
continuous Rsel!-measurementS by the observer o! his own quantum
state Cthat o! his brain1 at least L base on the theory that it is processes
within one_s brain that constitute all that is relevant to consciousnessD.
"omehow this continuous sel!-measurement oes not cause any
reuction o! the brain_s 7si.
6his woul suggest that the brain is in an eigenstate o! the observable
which is to continual sub5ect o! Csel!D measurement.
@othing to istinguish one alternate universe Cin the superpositionD !rom
another without intention an awareness. 6he superposition possesse
temporal symmetry Ctime translation symmetryD so that energy was
conserve.
;nergy uncertainty without the necessity o! vacuum !luctuations L
superposition within a close system. "o here we have two types o!
!luctuation: that which is only e!initional1 i.e.1 !luctuations within a
close system1 an the other which is inherently unpreictable1 i.e.1 not
part o! any system behavior. "o we may maKe the istinction o! these
two !unamental types o! !luctuation thus: !luctuations that are real
versus virtual perturbations. 6emporality cannot subsist in virtual
perturbations L real !luctuations must be present.
6he basis !or the raical overetermination o! nature is the !act o! its
origin being an in!initely symmetric state. 6his in!inite symmetric
Rinitial stateS was partially broKen in the Rmoment o! creation.S
6here!ore all o! the symmetries observe in nature are partial ones
escribe by subgroups o! some original symmetry group.
Hs some Kin o! egeneracy an symmetry involve in the
overetermination o! one_s interpretation o! one_s own mental states?
3ausal connections as interpretations o! correlations an causal entities
as Rbes o! correlation.S
@ow a given mass1 accelerate to a velocity approaching that o! light
cannot so closely approach this elimiting value so as to become more
massive than its own blacK hole mass. /n the blacK hole mass is
etermine by the ensity o! the mass having reache the elimiting
value o! the vacuum energy ensity/c
2
!or the particular volume
occupie by the accelerating mass. /lso1 we Know that the acceleration
o! the mass is 5ust the 2)
o
spacetime rotation o! the mass original1
purely timeliKe velocity.
Hn this way the limiting velocity to which a given mass may be
accelerate is a !unction o! the energy ensity o! the vacuum occupie
by the accelerating mass. "o we see now that the original1 purely
timeliKe !our velocity o! the mass Cprior to accelerationD is itsel! a
!unction o! the ensity o! the mass relative to the ensity o! the vacuum
energy coe0tensive with the mass_ isplace volume. ?ut i! the
acceleration to light velocity is actually to be e!!ecte1 the mass must
utilize its own mass energy as the R!uelS !or propelling itsel! such that1
upon actually approaching c1 all o! its starting mass has alreay been
converte to photon Cor other massless particleD energy. 6he !act that
some o! this !uel must come !rom the bining energy o! the mass rather
than !rom the positive mass energy itsel! suggests that the mass when a
Rat restS alreay possesses a small quantity o! spaceliKe momentum
connecte with ynamical processes within the mass responsible !or the
e0istence o! this bining energy.
/ theoretical group escribes a close set o! reversible operations with
the elements o! the group. Fhat is close is the set compose o! the
istinct operationsV the number o! istinct elements1 which composes the
omain1 which the operations o! the group taKe as inputs1 may itsel! be
in!inite. Fhen the symmetry o! the group is RbroKen1S the operations o!
the group are altere an perhaps also new operations ae1 which no
longer are reversible1 singly or collectively. 6he iscovery o! a new
mathematical group !or the escription o! some physical phenomenon
means that various mani!estations o! physical variables1 hereto!ore
treate as istinct1 are now seen to be i!!ering mani!estations o! the
same1 unerlying entity/physical quantity.
3hanges in state to some subpart o! a close ynamic system which are
wholly attributable to other1 earlier changes in neighboring subparts o!
the overarching system constitute ceteris paribus reversible1 symmetric
interactions. =owever1 the reactions triggere by these interactions may
not be themselves symmetric an time-reversible. /ny asymmetries o!
the system_s changes o! state are ultimately traceable to input to the
system wholly !rom outsie it. 6he sense o! RoutsieS intene here1
one in which the system as a whole is not secretly a subpart o! some
overarching system1 with perturbations to its outsie transmitte to it an
meiate by the overarching system_s matri0 an originating within
some other subpart o! the crypto-overarching system. Fhat we are
really saying here is that asymmetrical interactions always are ultimately
between the uppermost overarching system an its outsie. 9! course1
the uppermost overarching system in almost any physical setting is 5ust
the global spacetime continuum itsel! in which this system is
Rembee.S
Hn!inite egeneracy woul mean that the wave!unction o! the egenerate
system coul unergo transition between an in!inite number o!
eigenstates on a continuous spectrum without measurable changes
resulting to any o! its quantum observables.
"houl 7si be unerstoo as a Knowlege representation rather than the
most that can actually be Known about the system?
"ince no energy is require to e!!ect changes in the system_s quantum
state !rom one to another o! its energy egenerate eigenstates1 !ree will
an conscious thought may presuppose energy egeneracy. /lso1 there
is not basis !or assigning scales o! physical time to energy-egenerate
quantum transitions.
Hn!inite symmetry may be unerstoo as in!inite sameness in which1 no
matter where the observer is an no matter what happens1 no Rob5ectiveS
i!!erences between here an there an no changes !rom now to then are
in any sense evient. @ow such a state o! in!inite symmetry in the
absence o! egeneracy Cwith respect to some set o! as yet Runmani!estS
parametersD is synonymous with an empty voi or nothingness.
8oreover1 !or there to e0ist a state o! in!inite symmetry1 an in!inite
egeneracy must be present1 that is1 egeneracy with respect to an
in!inite number o! istinct though still unmani!est parameters. ?ut all
this is to presume that there is some presently obtaining state1 which
represents physical reality Cas a whole1 in some senseD but which is both
unerpinne by an insulate against an in!initely chaotic !lu0 o! change
to an in!inite number o! still unmani!est proto-physical variables Cproto-
observables?D. / tremenous quantity o! entropy is release as a result
o! the breaKing o! this state o! in!inite symmetry Cone might suppose an
in!inite quantity !or this entropyD so that the aboriginal state o! in!inite
symmetry is to be unerstoo as possessing in!inite orer. 6he breaKing
o! this in!initely symmetric1 initial state results in a Kin o! RunpacKingS
o! this state into an intricate1 ynamic structure/continuum o! orere
an isorere energy1 i.e.1 some o! the symmetry CorerD o! the initial
state survives the transition to the broKen1 symmetric state an the
remainer is Rlost.S ?ut a per!ectly an in!initely symmetric state
woul possess no internal !luctuations in any o! its group symmetric
parameters outsie o! the spectrum o! potential change !or the
parameters e!ine within the symmetry group1 an so it is har to
imagine how such a symmetric system1 hereto!ore everlastingly cut o!!
!rom any outsie Crealm possessing !oreign parameters or Ro!!-scaleS
values o! RomesticS parametersD1 coul Rspontaneously breaK1S that is1
without having been RhelpeS !rom outsie.
H! the ?ig ?ang is simultaneous with the initial1 abrupt phase o!
spontaneous symmetry breaKing1 then its continue e0pansion may
perhaps be unerstoo as a continuous !urther breaKing o! CglobalD
symmetry in !avor o! the continue establishment o! greater myria_s o!
omains o! local symmetry1 interconnecte through mutual e0changes o!
quantities o! their local variables. Fe might suppose that the rate-
ensity o! entropy prouction there!ore is uni!orm throughout the
,niverse provie that one re!ers to the prouction o! total entropy1
local + global1 i.e.1 that ue to the local evolution o! comple0
structures/systems + local contributions to the entropy prouction1
e0clusively ue to the global entropy prouction occurring as a
consequence o! cosmological e0pansion. 6his means that the global
rate-ensity o! entropy increase is a!!ecte by the rates o! change to the
local entropy. 6he rate-ensity o! global entropy may be unerstoo1
parao0ically seeming1 as the local rate to time_s passage relative to
changes in the cosmical time parameter. 6his cosmic time parameter is
base upon changes in the total entropy o! the ,niverse.
/mbiguities o! interpretation o! !luctuations occurring near the verte0 o!
the light cone. /mbiguities o! the interpretation o! quantum tunneling.
3an we have tunneling o! particles across a timeliKe potential barrier?
3an we construct an e0periment to test this1 say one which involves the
tuning/etuning o! some alreay well unerstoo tunneling? 6he
consistency o! the notion o! virtual gravity waves epens on the
inepenent e0istence o! spacetime !luctuations.
/t the event horizon o! a blacK hole the space an time a0es are in some
sense reverse. 6his is because an ob5ect Cor particle so we can neglect
tial e!!ectsD 5ust outsie o! the event horizon possesses virtually all o!
its momentum in the irection o! the hole_s center an relatively none o!
it in a timeliKe irection. ?ut neither is their any RroomS !or internal
spaceliKe momentum !or this mass Cin the !orm o! bining !orce-
meiating boson particle e0changesD. /ll o! the !luctuations o! the
vacuum are in the !orm o! $-momentum an none in the !orm o!
imaginary CtimeliKeD (-momentum. /n so the mass is not so much
torn apart as it is issolve ue to the hole_s sapping o! the mass_ own
bining !orces. Hn the e0treme case epicte here1 gravity is not truly a
R!orce1S but our pro5ecting o! our large1 latent stores o! common
e0perience with everyay ob5ects causes the phenomenology o!
gravitation to be naturally interprete in terms o! the action o! a istance
o! a gravitating !orce. 4ravitation is more accurately Cor ob5ectivelyD
unerstoo as the e!!ects o! mass upon a higher imensional quantum
vacuum that must1 a!ter the !ashion o! a cellular automaton1
simultaneously parallel reprocess the ata representing both matter an
the colocate/coe0tensive $-vacuum1 an where this vacuum possess
only a !inite computational capacity.
H! the vacuum oes not itsel! gravitate1 then momentum an energy
!luctuations o not irectly cause spacetime !luctuations but only o so
inirectly through the e!!ects o! these momentum-energy vacuum
!luctuation upon matter itsel!. -luctuations o! momentum an energy1
in other wors1 irectly prouce !luctuations in 0 an t o! test particles
that we conveniently interpret as the e!!ects o! !luctuations o! 0 an t
upon test particles. 6he problem here is that it we allow t0 an tt to
a!!ect YpZ an Y;Z irectly1 then we also have to permit then to a!!ect tp
an t; irectly1 with the result that the vacuum itsel! must possess a
gravitational mass.
7erhaps the way to put time an space on an equal !ooting within a
theory o! quantum gravity shoul be not to try to maKe the time
parameter into a bona !ie observable1 but to taKe away this status !rom
the space variable1 0.
6his remins us o! the e0pansion o! a permutation group through the
iscovery that some members o! this group are not simple1 but
composite. 7rocessing in!ormation means taKing two pieces o!
in!ormation !rom two smaller1 an hereto!ore never be!ore irectly
connecte1 conte0ts1 an bringing the pieces o! in!ormation together in
such a way that one now has new in!ormation concerning the broaer
conte0t incluing all o! the original Rpieces.S
Ht has been state many times by physicists that the e0istence o!
=eisenberg energy uncertainty implies the non-conservation o! energy.
"imilar statements apply to the momentum. ?ut with the uni!ication o!
momentum an energy by special relativity into a conserve
momentum-energy !our-vector1 an the concomitant uni!ication o! space
an time into a symmetric1 spacetime continuum1 it becomes possible !or
both =eisenberg momentum an energy uncertainty to e0ist throughout
spacetime without the necessity o! net uncertainty o! the !our-
momentum throughout this spacetime. 6his appears possible i! the
vacuum !luctuations in $-momentum are ynamically relate to those o!
the energy so that the sum o! these two yiels a magnitue o! the !our-
momentum !luctuations o! the vacuum which remains a constant ) or1
unetectably close to ) such that aD the quantum vacuum oes not itsel!
act as a gravitating source an bD the spacetime maintains C!or all
practical purposesD its .orenz invariance. 6he action o! mass through
the mechanisms o! 7auli ;0clusion Can RHnclusionSD upon the vacuum
an1 conversely1 o! this vacuum upon the mass1 serves to isrupt this
spacetime symmetry Co! .orenz invarianceD causing an imbalance in the
mutual cancellation o! vacuum momentum an energy !luctuations.
6his imbalance1 inuce by mass on the vacuum1 acts to give the
vacuum an e!!ective mass 5ust as this moi!ie vacuum enhances the
mass o! test boies introuce into it !rom outlying1 virtual R!ree space.S
8ass is enhance in two istinct but closely relate ways: the real time
processing buren that increase momentum !luctuation ensities
Cwithin vacuum occupie by massesD pose !or the quantum vacuum that
meiates them an the reuce computational resources available to this
vacuum with which to per!orm this !unction. 9n this view1 the ensity
o! vacuum energy that acts as a source o! gravitation is only that
component o! the vacuum_s total energy ensity which !ails to cancel
with its momentum !luctuations. Hn this way1 the e!!ective vacuum
energy ensity is etermine by the ensity o! mass in the universe. Ht
is this tiny component o! the total quantum vacuum energy ensity1
which we shoul term the cosmological constant.
6he breaKing o! the spacetime symmetry o! the quantum vacuum by
mass is not the !unamental or absolute symmetry breaKing that requires
the engenering o! a new gauge boson. 6his situation is quite unliKe
that where a broKen global symmetry causes the creation o! a gauge
boson1 which1 by being e0change between splintere symmetry
omains1 results in the restoring locally o! the symmetry that was broKen
globally1 e.g.1 the creation o! the =iggs boson in the theory o!
electroweaK symmetry breaKing. /nother reason that the breaKing o!
the vacuum spacetime symmetry by mass is not !unamental is that mass
is not an irreucible1 conserve physical quantity1 but is a phenomenon
prouce by the peculiar manner in which the components o! the total
Cmass-energy + vacuum-energyD !luctuation stress-momentum-energy
tensors mutually interact.
7rior to the breaKing o! the spacetime symmetry o! the vacuum by mass1
the spectrum o! momentum !luctuations within the vacuum is 5ust that
e!ine in terms o! the spectrum o! virtual transitions allowe between
the iscrete energy levels o! this global vacuum state. 6his is e0actly
the situation we shoul e0pect i! the quantum vacuum can correctly be
moele as a !our imension array o! couple harmonic oscillators1 i.e.1
as a !our imensional crystalline latticeworK. 6he aitional $-
momentum !luctuations1 over an above those permitte in the
symmetric state o! this vacuum1 correspon to those transition energies
o! the moi!ie vacuum lattice which are now !orbien by the state o!
broKen symmetry.
/!ter this symmetry is broKen1 the spectrum o! vacuum $-momentum
!luctuations becomes enser while that o! the vacuum_s energy
!luctuations1 i.e.1 !luctuations in the imaginary component o! the
vacuum_s (-momentum1 becomes attenuate. Fere this vacuum two
imensional1 this change in symmetry coul have been e!!ecte by a
simple RrotationS o! the !luctuation momentum-energy vector1 i.e.1 a 2
n
ranK tensor woul have been require to escribe the rotation1 but not
the en state1 which coul be aequately escribe in terms o! a 2-
vector. /n the ynamics o! this rotation o! momentum-energy within
this 2 spacetime can be moele in terms o! the e0change o! spin-*
gauge bosons. =owever1 in !our-imensional spacetime1 a 2
n
ranK
tensor is require to escribe the vacuum_s en state L that post
symmetry-breaKing. 8oreover1 a (
th
ranK tensor is necessary to
escribe this trans!ormation o! the vacuum cause by the breaKing o! its
symmetry1 as mentione earlier. 3onsequently1 a trans!ormation o! the
!luctuation stress-momentum-energy tensor can be escribe in terms o!
time-varying probability current ensities o! both spin-* vector gauge
bosons an spin-2 gauge bosons.
/s the ensity o! a given mass is increase1 so increases the
communications RbottlenecKS between change within the mass1
meiate by momentum !luctuations in the !orm o! spin-* boson
e0change1 an the temporality o! the quantum vacuum. "ince the
moes o! momentum !luctuation are etermine C5ust as in the case o! a
crystalD by the available energy transitions between iscrete energy
levels o! the ClatticeD vacuum1 simultaneous increases in momentum
!luctuation ensity with corresponing ecreases in energy !luctuations
within the vacuum occupying the very same volume Cas the mass in
questionD1 require that these momentum !luctuations become
progressively more energy egenerate. Hs this parao0ical? Fe must
unerstan the relationship between the concepts o! symmetry an
egeneracy to answer this question.
6he nonlinearities e0hibite by general relativity may only apply to the
e0pectation values o! all !orms o! energy an not to mere !luctuations in
energy Cthat are groune in =eisenberg energy uncertainty1 that isD. Hs
gravitation a mani!estation o! the loss o! spacetime symmetry? Hn other
wors1 the spatiotemporal istribution o! the wave!unction1 which
matters not to an isolate1 single particle within an RemptyS universe1 in
terms o! when an where this particle is situate within this empty
spacetime1 becomes an important parameter !or the momentum-energy
Cor (-momentumD o! this CtestD particle1 i.e.1 a egeneracy has been
remove Can not here because o! some speci!ic !orce coupling having
been introuceD L remember1 gravitation is not a R!orce.S
-rom my light reaing on the sub5ect o! supersymmetry C","<D1 H
gather that when glo
bal symmetry is broKen1 one or more gauge bosons are engenere as a
result. 6hese bosons are necessary to restore this broKen symmetry1 but
only at a RlocalS level. 6he continual mutual e0change o! these gauge
bosons between the appropriate !ermions Cthose R!eelingS the gauge
!orce meiate by these particular bosonsD constitutes the mechanism by
which this local gauge symmetry is maintaine. 8y unerstaning is
that1 in the case o! all gauge bosons1 with the notable e0ception o! the
=iggs1 the !ermions involve in the e0changing o! these bosons acquire
an e!!ective mass component o! their total mass. C.orenz1 by the way1
ha trie uring the early years o! the 2)
th
3entury to emonstrate that
all o! the electron_s mass was electromagnetic in origin an was
attributable to the electron_s electromagnetic sel!-energy. .orenz_
attempt ultimately prove unsuccess!ul: it appears that even the great
hunches o! great mins o not always Rpan outTSD @ow the hypothesis
!or the gravity mechanism allue to throughout these writings points to
the mutual e0changes o! gauge CvectorD bosons as being materially
important in unerstaning this mechanism as well as the mechanism o!
inertia L hope!ully so since we woul liKe to remain true to ;instein_s
strong equivalence principle1 the other postulate o! general relativity
being that o! general covariance.
3an we thinK o! the loss o! purely timeliKe (-momentum1 an this (-
momentum being reconstitute into both timeliKe an spaceliKe
components as representing a particularly simple !orm o! symmetry
breaKing? /n important question in this connection becomes oes the
vacuum not gravitate because o! a Kin o! mutual cancellation o! its
timeliKe an spaceliKe momentum !luctuation current ensities? 9r is
this the case because the (-momentum o! the vacuum1 in the absence o!
mass1 is itsel! purely timeliKe? "upersymmetry1 which requires the
contributions to the vacuum energy !rom creation/annihilation o! virtual
!ermion-anti!ermion pairs to contribute a negative component o! this
energy1 also requires the contribution to this vacuum energy !rom the
creation/annihilation o! bosons to be positive. 8oreover1 ","<
requires that these two contributions !rom the two basic types o! vacuum
!luctuation somehow precisely cancelT
/n iniviual ranom sequence o! numbers may not possess any
in!ormation. ?ut what about two ranom sequences which are
correlate?
3omputation can be represente in terms o! the eterministic evaluation
o! 7si in con5unction with aiabatic changes in the bounary conitions
to 7si. 6hought1 on the other han1 cannot be unerstoo in this
manner1 but must be represente by iscontinuous changes in 7si with
nonaiabatic irreversible changes in the bounary conitions upon 7si.
H! the bounary conitions to 7si are overetermine CegenerateD1 then
Hniviuality an unity go han in han. @ot either/or but both/an.
Fhat is the precise relationship between egeneracy1 e.g.1 energy
egeneracy1 an symmetry1 e.g.1 with respect to time re!lection. 6he
interpretation o! rotation in !our spatial imensions is unproblematic1 but
what about within !our-imensional 8inKowsKi spacetime?
.eonar 8enel_s *22* optical-inter!erence e0periment in which the
very possibility o! etermining which path the quantum particle taKes
through the ouble slit estroys the particle superposition state an the
observable inter!erence pattern at the phosphorescent screen.
7ossibility o! Knowlege has the same e!!ect here as actual Knowlege.
3ontrast the reaction o! a crystal lattice Cclose systemD to a perturbation
or isturbance with the response o! an open system to an Rinput.S
Fithout any e!inite or eterminable bounary between itsel! an its
alterity1 there is no possibility o! either intentionally manipulative
inputting into the system1 nor o! a chance1 !inite collection o! inputs
applie that woul cause the system to change it state in a eterminate or
eterminable manner. Hn such a case1 the system cannot be unerstoo
or moele as a Kin o! state machine1 e.g.1 6uring machine. 6he
RoperationS o! such a system is not there!ore reversible. 6his is
because1 by bacK-reacting upon its embeing groun state1 changing
this groun state in a necessarily irreversible manner Cbecause the
groun state is an open systemD1 the system_s own reaction to its altere
groun state means there is not conceivable continuity o! this system
Cagainst the bacKrop o! an irreversible change in its groun stateD.
3onsequently1 there is no conceivable set o! RinputsS Cto the system !rom
outsieD that coul have reprouce Creally1 alternately prouceD the
system_s behavior CresponseD.
6he input o! power1 i.e.1 the supply o! energy over time to the system
succees only in reistributing the probabilities or probability rates !or
!unamental !luctuations.
6he collapse o! the wave!unction necessitates violation o! energy
conservation !or i! energy were conserve1 the evolution o! the
wave!unction woul have remaine eterministic.
:ecoherence o! the 7si !unction occurs when1 we might say1 the
quantum system in question becomes more connecte to Cor RentangleS
withD the local environment than with the nonlocal quantum vacuum
state in which it originate.
=ow can it be emonstrate1 scienti!ically1 that is1 that the 7si !unction
o! some quantum system in a prepare superposition state can be
RcollapseS via the in!luence o! a physical measuring instrument alone1
apart !rom the in!luence o! any woul-be Rconscious observer?S "uch a
physical measuring evice must be able to enter a classically escribable
physical state1 e.g.1 e0perience a eterminate e!lection o! an inicator
neele o! one o! its analogue measurement ials.
Hs there any !unamental i!!erence between the measurement apparatus
collapsing 7si an the measurement approaches entering a superposition
state o! its own which is then collapse by the conscious act o!
observation on the part o! the e0perimenter reaing one o! the evice_s
ial inicators?
6he measurement apparatus1 being apiece with the larger quantum
mechanical state o! which it an the observe system !orm but a small
part1 cannot e!!ect collapse o! 7si
obs
any more than it can collapse the
overarching system state !unction. 6he conscious observer introuces
the irreversible element by virtue o! the !act that his min is not1 nor can
itsel! ever be1 a quantum mechanical observable.
6he awesome potential !or growth o! large scale economies is roote in
one !unamental economic !act or principle: the collective wealth
represente by a nicKel in the hans o! ') million wage slaves is !ar
outstrippe by 2.' million ollars in the hans o! a !ew creative an
ynamic entrepreneurs.
/a0/a7
0
} h
bar
/a0/aCmv
0
D } h
bar
/a0C/amv
0
+ ;/av
0
D } h
bar
/a0/c
2
C/a;v
0
+ ;/av
0
D } h
bar
C/a;v
0
+ ;/av
0
D } h
bar
C/a;v
0
+ ;/av
0
D }
h
bar
6o each observable there correspons a quantum number so that the
physical quantity represente by this observable is quantize. "uch a
physical quantity is conserve1 implying that the quantity e0hibits a
certain Kin o! symmetry. "uch observables are =ermitian1 i.e.1 they
may only possess real eigenvalues1 an each o! these observables
commute with some an not with other observables1 implying that this
an every other observable participates in a =eisenberg uncertainty
relation with at least one other noncommuting observable.
"uch observables may e0ist in various superposition states o! their
eigen!unctions L their 7si !unction unergoing state vector reuction1
i.e.1 RcollapseS when an observation is per!orme with respect to this
observable. 6he eterministic "chroinger wave equation can only
consistently escribe an isolate system an only such a close system
may enter into a superposition state. 6his is ue to the "chroinger
equation being erive !rom a linear i!!erential equation involving a
=amiltonian representing a conserve system total energy. /s Figner
has !orce!ully point out1 one system cannot inuce 7si-!unction collapse
o! some other system i! it is possible to escribe the RobserveS an
RobserverS systems as two components o! a larger 7si-!unction separable
into these an other component 7si
H
the prouct o! which !rom which the
original 7si may be simply constitute.
3an we say that consciousness Co! the iniviualD1 i! it can be treate as
an observable in the !irst instance1 is an observable that oes not
commute with itsel!.
/re strange attractors in phase space also regions o! ynamical
resonance?
:o e+e- virtual pairs suppresse by strong electromagnetic !iels
mani!est themselves as the creation o! real e+e- pairs?
Hn 7si collapse1 an action Crather than a RisturbanceSD that is originally
incommensurate with the vacuum or groun state within the spacetime
region in question1 is spontaneously R!itteS or R!useS or Rgra!teS to
the local vacuum o! the event1 whether1 ecoherence1 quantum
measurement1 etc. 9ne way o! oing this might be to RupateS the local
groun state initial conitions. /nother way might be to suppose that
the groun state or quantum vacuum is itsel! in a perennial near in!inite
superposition state. :oes one quantum measurement wipe out all
in!ormation about previous measurements?
Puantum !luctuations meiate the closeness o! coincience o!
competing !ermionic states. =ow is 7auli ;0clusion an ?ose Hnclusion
relate to the phenomena o! constructive an estructive inter!erence.
Hn the absence o! the electron1 the vacuum is !ree to e0perience a
!luctuation in its energy1 ;
vac
at the particular spacetime coorinate in
question Cwell1 really we must consier the values o! /ao1 o = raius o! a
$-sphere1 an /at !or real !ermions when applying the 7auli ;0clusion
7rinciple to both real an virtual particlesD. H! a real electron is
RpresentS1 say within some crystal lattice1 its energy o! !luctuation1
rather than mani!esting itsel! as the brie! appearance Can then
isappearanceD o! a virtual e+e- pair1 mani!ests itsel! as the raising an
lowering o! the real electron1 alreay occupying one o! the istinct
quantum states available to the crystal1 between two istinct energy
levels o! the crystal an resulting in the e0change with the crystal o! a
virtual photon by the real electron.
/ generalization o! the 7auli e0clusion principle woul be the !ollowing.
Aather than 5ust a given !ermion totally e0cluing1 i.e.1 e0cluing with a
probability o! *.)1 the simultaneous an coincient occupancy by an
ientical !ermion o! a quantum state characterize by a set o! iscrete
eigenvalues with respect to a complete commuting set o! observables1
we woul speaK more generally instea o! this e0clusion !alling between
) an *.) along the spatiotemporal overlapping o! the wave!unctions o!
the two !ermions in questions.
6he uni!!erentiate position an time uncertainties say where a particle
coul be !oun but without proviing in!ormation about the probabilities
o! the particle being !oun within various sub-intervals within these
overall uncertainties.
?y accelerating we can shrinK the spaceliKe component o! the spacetime
tra5ectory to our estination1 but only by at the same time1 o! course1
lengthening the timeliKe component o! this interval. Fhat we cannot o
is the converse o! this: change our state o! motion in such a way that the
spaceliKe an timeliKe components o! my trip are lengthene an
contracte1 respectively.
6eleportation1 i! it is not to be mere propagation in isguise1 must be
e!!ectively the isappearance o! an ob5ect at / an the reappearance o!
the very same ob5ect at ?. ?ut this seemingly e!ining requirement !or
teleportation cannot possibly be met !or quantum particles which1 i!
similar1 must be inistinguishable in quantum theory. ?ecause a
teleporte particle possesses no timeliKe component in its spacetime
tra5ectory1 the particle must in some important an relevant capacity
alreay e0ist at point ? 5ust prior to the teleportation o! the ientical
particle at /.
>anuary 2)*$
Ht is clear that the in!ormation that is teleporte is
that encoe in the spectrum o! quantum !luctuations composing the
=eisenberg quantum observables uncertainty trans!erre. @ot
circumscribe by the limit on a spee o! propagation o! causal
in!luences1 i.e.1 spee of light1 the Kin o! in!ormation trans!erre
RuringS quantum teleportation liKely cannot be intersub5ectively
e!inable. 6his points up a metaphysical Rno mans lanS between
ob$ective an intersub$ective1 a Kin o! RinterzoneS in which the
ine!!able integrity o! a uni!ie sel! is maintaine.
"o the teleportation o! a particle oes not entail the creation o! a particle
at ?1 merely that the require quantity o! energy be available at ? or
within a region e!ine by the $-sphere centere about ?
C/ao1o/ah1osinh/avD within a time interval centere about the moment o! the
particle being estroye at / L or rather1 about the centroi o! the
uncertain time interval within which the event o! the estruction o! the
particle at / actually tooK place.
:uality trinity
.ogic ialectic
3ausal historical
Fe must maKe a Key istinction here between teleporting1 copying1 an
propagating. 6wo !unamentally istinct paraigms in!orm the
question o! teleportation1 emboie in two very i!!erent methos L
copying !rom the outsie L in versus copying !rom the insie out. /ny
structure o! higher resolution than that ictate by the =eisenberg
uncertainty principle shall be impose by the process upon the ob5ect to
be teleporte. Hn the metho accoring to the 2
n
paraigm1 the ob5ect
imposes its !ine structure1 i! you will1 upon the teleportation process.
/ test particle at potential 7hiC?D has angular momentum perpenicular
to the 0-ict plane Caccoring to a right han rule?D relative to the origin
o! a coorinate system base at a potential 7hiC/D. Hn what irection
oes this angular momentum vector point?
Fhat is the i!!erence between a linear succession o! virtual e+e- pair
creation/annihilation events which represents the propagation o! a real
photon !rom a similar linear succession o! e+e- events that represents
only the passage o! a virtual photon?
.ight intro stu!!: 6he thought o! timeliKe vectors or vectors oriente
along the time a0is shoul easily maKe sense to the average person. Fe
can looK !orwar1 !or e0ample1 in time 5ust as we looK out into space.
6he time a0is is aptly escribe as imaginary.
;lectrical interactions o! particles on the spin [only in the relativistic
regime\1 c.!.1 p. 2$)1 vol. $ o! .anau an .i!shitz. 6his suggests that
any electromagnetic basis !or gravity is itsel! base in spin interactions.
6he very reason !or the e0istence o! spin is relativity. > = . + ".
6he1 e.g.1 photon population in the !inal state stimulates the transition o!
more electrons/ positrons into this same state Cresonance phenomenon
here1 e.g.1 lasingD. 6his inclusion principle applies equally well to
virtual photons an virtual electrons/ positrons. 6his implies that the
vacuum oes have1 !or e0ample1 a boun structure o! virtual e+e-
continually unergoing transitions in energy.
6wo mechanisms o! e0clusion Ca la 7auliD are at worK here1 however.
:ecrease probability ensity rate o! creation/ annihilation o! e+e-fs o!
particular arbitrary energy1 an ecrease availability o! quantum energy
states ue to RoccupancyS o! these states by real !ermions within bulK
material.
Ht is signi!icant that all quantum mechanical operators may be alternately
e0presse as linear combinations o! creation an annihilation operators.

2
;
vac
= [- mc
2
\
2
+ [ pc\
2

2
;
vac
=
2
Cmc
2
D +
2
CpcD
= n Cmc
2
Do
2
+ n CpcDo
2
= nC mDc
2
+ m2c co
2
+ nC pDc + p co
2
.et c = )

2
;
vac
= C
2
mDc
(
+ C
2
pDc
2

but ;
vac
M
spaceliKe
)V ; -
vac
M
timeliKe
- )
.et - Cmc
2
D + CpcD = )
-C mDc
2
+ C pDc = )
C pDc = C mDc
2
p = C mDc
"o the magnitue o! spaceliKe momentum !luctuations is equal to the
magnitue o! the timeliKe !luctuations1 i!

vac
M
!our momentum
= )
Hn a .orenz !rame1
vac
M
(-momentum
= )1
?ut not in an
in which noniagonal components o! the quantitiy 6
-
become non ).
6hese are the stress terms o! 6
-CvacD
.
H! the vacuum has time to respon1 i.e.1 aiabatically equilibrate itsel!
uring accelerations1 then no nonzero stress terms in 6-
CvacD
evelop
an the momentum an energy uncertainties o! the quantum vacuum
remain equal to the corresponing !ree space !luctuation values o! these
quantities.
-ree space !luctuations o! momentum an energy cannot inuce
wave!unction collapse o! any quantum mechanical system. 6he
bounary conitions applie to the !ree space vacuum by a system o!
real particles CpartonsD an !iels CbosonsD alters the values o! p
vac
an
;
vac
so that YpZ an Y;Z taKe on nonzero values1 i.e.1 the uncertainties
o! each are such that1
/a7 Z p an /a; Z ;
/ap = "qrtn Yp
2
Z - YpZ
2
o an /a; = "qrtnY;
2
Z - Y;Z
2
o
Fhen a test particle is in !ree !all an !ollowing a spacetime geoesic1
the stress terms in its local quantum vacuum are ).
6he quantum vacuum is not a thermal system within any .orenz !rame
an there!ore possesses no e!inable entropy1 only acquiring entropy
within an accelerate !rame. / thermal vacuum1 i.e.1 an accelerate
vacuum1 can cause ecoherence o! a quantum superposition. ?y
possessing entropy1 the vacuum lacKs certain in!ormation. 4ravity
thermal vacuum ecoherence.
3asimir pressure an 3asimir energy ensity as spaceliKe an timeliKe
mani!estations o! the vacuum_s momentum-energy tensor. 8atter can be
viewe as simply vacuum bounary conitions with the ynamics o! a
quantum system being that o! the vacuum sub5ect to bounary
conitions supplie by the presence o! real particles an !iels.
;
vac
= ;
2

a~a
+ 7
2
ea

2
;
vac
=
*
/
2m
[ CimcD
2
+ C-imcD
2
\ + C pcD
2
c
2
?ecause i
2
= C-iD
2
= C-*D1 the creation/annihilation o!1 e.g.1 e+e- virtual
pairs1 i.e.1 !luctuations in the quantum vacuum_s energy may be treate
as a single imaginary momentum !luctuation in the vacuum an
possessing a spin o! ).
;
2
vac
= [CimcD
2
/2m\
2
+ [C-imcD
2
/2m\
2
+ p
2
c
2
H! p = mc1 i.e.1 i! h/ = mc1 then c = ! an ; - -
vac
= )1
H! c Z c
)
1 then the photon possess an imaginary mass an mass is
relativistically ecrease as euce !rom the inertia o! mass e0hibite
uring accelerations along a vector perpenicular to the casimir plates
an ;
vac
Y ).
6his relativistic equation remains to be worKe out1 but the stanar
relativistic mass equation certainly can be use as a guie in the
construction o! this equation.
H! c Y c
)
1 then the photon possess a real mass an mass is
relativistically increase as euce !rom the inertia o! mass e0hibite
uring accelerations along a vector perpenicular to the casimir plates
an ;
vac
Y ).
?ecause an energy !luctuation in the !orm o! a creation/annihilation o! a
virtual e+e- pair possesses spin )1 it cannot trigger an atomic transition
involving a change in angular momentum i! the atom is blocKe !rom
emitting CspontaneouslyD a photon into a moe o! appropriate quantum
numbers i! this moe Co! electromagnetic oscillationD is one o! the
moes e0clue !rom the moi!ie1 casimir vacuum.
/a./a Z=
*
/
2
h/2pi
.et /a. Y= (pi steraians !or a spin * particle. 6he orientation o! the
photons spin1 *h1 can be anywhere in $-space. ?ecause the photon
moves at c1 it can_t have any spin component oriente perpenicularly to
its local $-space.
e+e- = spin )V timeliKe
e+e+ = spin +*V spaceliKe
e-e- = spin L* anti-spaceliKe
2piA = /r piA
2
(piA
2
= /r (/$piA
$
2pi
2
A
$
= /r pi
2
A
(
:oes a trans!ormation o! an e+e+ pair into an e-e- pair always involve
passing through the e+e- state?
8atter itsel! provies the ieal bounary conitions to moi!y the
vacuum statistics within its bulK1 resonance structure1 so as to ilate time
uni!ormly within its bulK. 3asimir plates merely selectively inuce
probability rates o! speci!ic processes.
-or a photon1 /a. = /a"1 an when e0pose as e+e-1 e+e+1 or e-e-1 or
ami0tures1 i.e.1 superpositions o! these1 the variation in the component
o! spin o! the photon in a particular coorinate irection can be as much
as *h.
Qd
6he istribution o! spin amongst all o! the virtual particles within the
vacuum etermines both the istribution o! momentum-energy an the
geometry o! spacetime so that momentum-energy an position-time are
relate by ;instein_s equations through a correlation o! these via the spin
statistics connection o! real an virtual particles/!iels.
/ photon is slowe in a gravitational !iel ue to spening Rmore timeS
as a particular virtual e+e- pair in which the e+ an e- e0change virtual
photons C$-momentum !luctuationsD with each other an Rless timeS
being resorbe an reemitte in a linear succession o! ever new virtual
e+e- pairs Cenergy or imaginary momentum !luctuationsD.
/ photon is accelerate Crelative to its velocity in vacuoD when travelling
perpenicularly to parallel casimir plates ue to spening Rless timeS as
a particular virtual e+e- pair in which the virtual e+ an e- e0change
virtual photons C$-momentum !luctuationsD with each other an Rmore
timeS being resorbe an reemitte in a linear succession o! ever new
virtual e+e- pairs Cenergy or imaginary momentum !luctuationsD.
"imilar observations can be mae about the elay in the recreation o!
!ermions Cby e0change o! real matter !ermions with the virtual
CantimatterD !ermions within create/annihilate virtual !ermion-
anti!ermion pairs ue to these real !ermions spening some RtimeS
e0changing virtual bosons with other real !ermions CneighboringD1 c.!.1
cellular automata theory.
/ thermal reservoir compose o! !ermions will emit particles into
available quantum states1 i.e.1 moes1 in a phase space-!illing process
that is governe by the 7auli ;0clusion 7rinciple. / thermal boson
reservoir will emit particles into available moes o! phase space through
a process meiate by ?ose-;instein statistics1 through either stimulate
or spontaneous emission. 6he particle number !luctuation !unctions o!
each thermal emission process is escribe by the !ollowing equations.
Y/a@
K
2
Z
?
= Y@
K
ZC* + Y@
K
ZDVbosons an
Y/a@
K
2
Z
-
= Y@
K
ZC* - Y@
K
ZDV !ermions an where
Y@
K
Z = !
-
C;
K
D an Y@
K
Z = !
?
C;
K
D are the -ermi-:irac
an ?ose-;instein istributions1 respectively.
6he 7auli ;0clusion 7rinciple applies to the occupation o! RcellsS within
phase space by !ermions. 6he question arises as to what is the structure
o! these cells to which the 7auli principle applies. :oes time-energy1
position momentum1 or some other structure e!ine these cells? 9r are
these cells RaresseS by the !our angular momentum
uncertainties1 /a.
)
1 /a.
*
1 /a.
2
1 /a.
$
. / given angular momentum
uncertainty1 /a. 1 = n1 n = )1 *1 21 $1 are e!ine as - -
/a. = nY+iZ/a75 + Y7iZ/a+5o1 where i 5 - - --
:ue to the =eisenberg ,ncertainty 7rinciple C=,7D1 these cells in phase
space cannot possess in!initesimal phase space volume. Fe can use the
aitional relation1
/a75/a+5 h an
6he e0pectation values1 Y+iZ an Y7iZ 1 together aress the centroi o!
each cell1
/a75/a+5 when i = 5.
Ht has alreay been state as a worKing hypothesis that vacuum
momentum !luctuations an vacuum energy !luctuations may be
combine together into a conserve (-vector o! !luctuation momentum-
energy. .et us e0amine what possible conserve quantities are available
to consier.
3onserve quantities: YpZ1 Y;Z1 p1 ;1 an hence /ap an /a;1 the
uncertainties o! p an ;1 are conserveV 0
*
1 0
2
1 0
$
1 an ict1 or 0
)
are not
conserve1 but the interval1 s
2
= 0
)
2
+ 0
*
2
+ 0
2
2
+ 0
$
2
= ) is conserve.
/lso1 i! the angular momenta are conserve1 .0
)
1 .0
*
1 .0
2
1 .0
$
1 then
there is conservation o! phase space in each plane.
6he spee o! light increases between casimir plates ue to an increase in
the probability rate o! prouction o! virtual e+e- pairs between the
plates. 6he e+e- virtual pair creation/annihilation events are how the
energy uncertainty between the plates in the moi!ie vacuum mani!ests
itsel! as energy !luctuations. "o the ecrease in momentum !luctuations1
virtual photon e0changes between the plates1 is o!!set by a
corresponing increase in energy !luctuations between the plates in the
!orm o! virtual scalar particle e0changes between the moi!ie vacuum
an the !our imensional quantum vacuum.
6he substance o! any given relative $ + * vacuum state is an absolute (-
vacuum. 6hese two vacua continually e0change energy with one
another.
6he linear ensity o! virtual e+e- virtual pairs is increase although
photon wavelengths are unchange1 resulting in higher !requency an
same wavelength1 i.e.1 a greater value o! Rc.S 6his is e0plaine by a
greater probability rate !or energy-compatible Cor what is calle
RresonantSD virtual e+e- virtual pairs being create an annihilate along
the photon_s Rtra5ectoryS between the 3asimir plates. 6he concept o!
resonance is pervasive within physics an there are myria instances o!
the concept o! resonance in almost all branches o! physics.
Hn the above paragraph we have an e0ample o! Rresonance-tuning.S ?y
altering the electromagnetic bounary conitions o! the quantum
vacuum electromagnetic !iel through the use o! simple 3asimir
rectangular plates1 one has succeee in moi!ying the !ree space
vacuum by altering this vacuum_s resonance structure. /lternately1
virtual photons o! a given energy/!requency within this moi!ie
quantum vacuum are no longer escribe by a virtual e+e- pairs o!
energy1 ; = hc / lamba or1 no longer resonate with virtual e+e-fs o!
energy1 hc/lamba. Fe speculate that the change introuce to the
vacuum_s resonance spectrum is con!ine to the volume containe
within the worl hypervolume e!ine by the casimir plate geometry
over time. H! this is inee the case1 then the change to the probability
rate o! virtual e+e- pairs being create an annihilate within the
geometry o! the casimir plates is only !or those pairs possessing Rhal!-
wavelengthS smaller than the plates separation. =ere is the conceptual
i!!iculty: although the ensity o! vacuum electromagnetic photons
within the plates geometry has been e!!ectively ecrease1 the ensity o!
vacuum e+e- pairs being create an annihilate within this same
geometry is increase. 6he iea behin these two allegely relate
vacuum e!!ects is that o! the conservation o! momentum-energy or (-
momentum ensity with all possible Csel!-consistentD hypervolumes. /
simplistic way to unerstan this phenomenon where the above casimir
geometry is concerne1 which is not1 H believe1 !unamentally
misguie1 is the !ollowing. 6he amount o! energy Cin the !orm o!
photonsD that has been e0clue !rom the casimir plate geometry is mae
up !or by an e0actly o!!setting increase in the ensity o! virtual photons
o! energies !alling within the !requency spectrum1 hc/lamba1 where
lamba Y 2 0 istance between the plates1
casimir.
; YZ hc/-
"o in a given interval o! time1 say1 !or convenience here1
casimir
/c1 where
RcS is the normal value o! the spee o! light in vacuo1 the linear
probability ensity o! virtual e+e- creation/annihilation events along an
a0is perpenicular to the plates an containe well within the geometry
escribe by sai plates Cin orer to be able to ignore electromagnetic
R!ringe e!!ectsD is enhance above its !ree space value. "o a real photon
introuce !rom one en o! the plate geometry with momentum1 h/ _1 -
irecte perpenicular to the plates an possessing a !requency greater
than hc/ where1 again1 is less than twice the value o! - -
casimir
1 shall1
on account o! the enhance linear ensity o! resonant e+e- virtual pairs
create an annihilate along the photon_s perpenicular path1 reach the
metal plate at the opposite en o! the casimir geometry sooner than
woul have been implie by the simple equation1 ;= pc. 6his equation
is1 in !act1 no longer vali within the moi!ie vacuum o! the volume
escribe by the casimir plate geometry. ?ut some equation reminiscent
o! ;
2
= m
2
c
(
+ p
2
c
2
. 9nly by introucing an imaginary mass component
to the photon that is su!!iciently1 o!!settingly large may the simultaneous
increase Cabove that o! RcS in vacuoD is permitte !or the real photon_s
velocity perpenicular to the casimir plates. @ow it is suggeste that
per!orming a moi!ication to the vacuum_s resonant structure opposite in
sense to that escribe above1 we shall succee in imbuing the a!!ecte
particle Cthat con!ine to the vacuum thus moi!ieD with a real as
oppose to imaginary massT 6his suggests that boun con!igurations o!
matter particles1 i.e.1 !ermions1 by enhancing the probability Cin
comparison with the !ree space vacuumD o! the mutual e0change o! !orce
meiating photons1 suppress at the same time the probability current
ensity o! virtual e+e- pairs within the bulK o! the matter istribution in
question1 resulting in a reuce local velocity o! light an the
appearance o! real mass.
>uly 2)**
=owever1 we must consier that the
ensity o! raiation in the !orm o! virtual photons an other bosons is
liKewise ecreasing with cosmological e0pansion an accoring to basic
astrophysics1 the ensity o! raiation ecreases with the inverse X
th
power. 6his to the contrary implies that the velocity o! light is actually
increasing with cosmological e6pansion.
9ctober 2)**
6his is similar to the
unerlying e0planation o! the anomalous sunwar acceleration note !or
a number o! eep space probes !rom the *2%)_s as owing to a mismatch
o! actual1 local cosmologically e0paning an pro5ecte Cstatic1
voc=
;phemerisD re!erence !rames within which the acceleration o! the
space probes is recKone in accorance with classical mechanics +
negligible relativistic corrections. ;0cept in this instance1 the rate o!
cosmological e0pansion is recKone within a uni!ormly e0paning
re!erence !rame where the spee of light is assume constant though in
which1 the spee o! light is actually increasing with the cosmological
e0pansion on account o! a progressive shi!t in the relative ensities o!
spin * an composite spin ) bosons1 which o! course mimics the reverse
situation !or how these relative ensities in the two species o! virtual
bosons changes with an increasing gravitational potential.
=ere we may inee have a reay e0planation !or arK energy an the
accelerating cosmological e0pansion an may also have an e0planation
!or arK matter1 since general relativistic time ilation woul be greatest
!or the greatest relative accumulations o! matter1 i.e.1 in gala0ies1 c.!.1
-eynman_s
voc=
parton RbagS moel. Ht appears that the accelerate
cosmological e0pansion occurs within a bacKgroun three imensional
;ucliean space1 which implies that the observe e!!ects o! relativity are
ue to properties o! the e0paning vacuum an not o! the bacKgroun
space CbacKgroun vacuumD.
Qd
/bsolute space an time in other wors
e0ist in the bacKgroun o! our apparent e0paning spacetime so that the
physics o! special an general relativity are now appreciate as merely
properties of a simulate physics.
/ugust 2)**
Hs it possible that a physical process1 e.g.1 !unamental particle or
interaction might one ay be iscovere1 which !its into the orer o! the
cosmos solely ue to its satisfaction of some anthropic cosmological
imperative% / caniate e0ample o! such a process is that represente
by what is terme ar' matter. :arK matter only interacts with the rest
o! the particles an processes o! the universe via gravitation an appears
to serve no other purpose than to enhance the gravitational stability o!
large scale aggregations o! normal matter1 which were absolutely
necessary !or the !ormation o! the !irst stars an !or the integrity o!
galactic an higher orer gravitational structures. H! a spacetime
wormhole structure amenable to e0ploitation !or interstellar travel is
ever iscovere1 it appears liKely that arK matter shall play an
inispensable role in the stability o! this cosmic transportation
in!rastructure. Fhatever appears on the sur!ace to possess only an
anthropic cosmological purpose must upon eeper investigation be
reveale to be a mani!estation o! the integral nature o! the cosmos at the
most !unamental level. 6his notion is o! course consistent with the
;astern mystic view o! the iniviual as an immanent mani!estation o!
transcenental1 i.e.1 Ruality-transceningS eity. 6he anthropic
cosmological principle taKen in earnest in its !ull metaphysical
implications1 e!!ectively maKes 2an the !unamental or R4o particleS
o! the cosmos. H! true1 then the search !or a bona !ie 4o particle1 e.g.1
R=iggs bosonS is liKely to prove a !ruitless one.
Fe may be able to interpret the creation an annihilation o! virtual e+e-
pairs as the e0change o! supraliminal photons o! imaginary mass by the
same boun structure o! matter with itsel! at two i!!erent times. 6he
i!!erence between these two RtimesS constitutes a time interval e!ine
by 7lancK_s constant ivie by the energy o! the e+e- virtual pair in
question1 i.e.1 h/;
e+e-
.
Fithout the presence o! mass or any ynamic inepenent o! the
quantum vacuum as a whole1 this vacuum is !ree to communicate with
all past an !uture versions o! itsel!.
Qd
6he appearance o! any
momentum-energy within this vacuum which is not alreay eternally
pre!igure within it1 isrupts the elicate structure o! this temporally
integrate an pristine vacuum state.
6he collapse o! a system wave!unction not only wipes out all contening
eigen!unctions e0cepting one1 istribute throughout instantaneous
space1 but also wipes out one set o! Rprobable historiesS !or the system
with another. @ow the communication o! Rmutually e0clusiveS
eigen!unctions may be equivalent to the communication o! the system as
a whole with itsel! in the immeiate !uture/immeiate past.
3oncerning the phenomenon o! the appearance o! a R!orceS between the
casimir plates which tens to push them together1 we may give an
interpretation in terms o! a magnetic !orce. Fith the ecrease in the
vacuum electromagnetic !iel between the plates together with an
increase in the probability current ensity o! virtual e+e- pairs1 also
between the plates1 we might suppose that1 in the case o! a static
con!iguration o! plates1 that it is an imbalance in the static magnetic
!orce between the plates that actually is responsible in pushing them
together. 3an the !orce between the plates be interprete as being ue
to the appearance o! a sur!ace ensity o! charge upon the plates?
-or some particle or !iel to act as a gravitational source1 it must be
possible !or a test particle to be accelerate relative to this source in such
a manner that their velocity through time may be mae equal.
Hs the velocity o! a mass through proper time1 i.e.1 its (-velocity while
Rat restS etermine by the vector sum o! the rest mass times the
velocity along its proper time a0is with the prouct o! this mass with the
relative velocity o! Rin-!alling vacuumS energy? /n can this be
equivalently escribe in terms o! the relative magnitues o! the
quantum vacuum timeliKe an spaceliKe current ensities?
Ht is the e!!ect o! matter upon the quantum vacuum o! rotating the
vacuum momentum current ensity !rom being virtually purely timeliKe
to being less timeliKe an more spaceliKe through increase the spaceliKe
current ensity while ecreasing the timeliKe current ensity. /n e0act
match in the Rin-!allS an Rout-!allS rates o! the quantum vacuum energy
woul mean that the net cosmological e0pansion is zero. / slight
imbalance in the above Rin-!allS rates woul translate to a local time o!
the R!ree spaceS vacuum that is somewhat retare relative to the Rrate
o! passageS o! Rcosmical time.S 6his implies that the universe
possesses an overall net mass. /n accelerating cosmic e0pansion rate
Crelative to cosmic timeD woul imply a ecrease in the Rrate o! local
timeS relative to the rate o! cosmic time. 6he practical upshot o! this is
that the local velocity o! light is ecreasing with cosmic time. 6his
woul seem to imply that matter is being create out o! the vacuum with
the course o! cosmological e0pansion.
Fe may thinK o! the matter this way: a photon may either pass through a
ielectric meium without interacting with it or it may be absorbe by
this meium with the prouction o! the appropriate transition between
energy levels o! this ielectric material Cassuming this meium possesses
a Rper!ectS crystalline structureD. Fe may assume that the virtual
transitions continually occurring to the vacuum_s energy are always in
tanem with the absorption by this vacuum o! virtual bosons1 e.g.1
photons so that a ecrease in the ensity o! energy transitions in vacuum
C per unit timeD must be associate with either an increase in the1 e.g.1
photon1 !lu0 ensity or in the current ensity o! spaceliKe momentum
!luctuations1 i.e.1 e0changes o!1 e.g.1 virtual photons between
components o! a1 e.g.1 ielectric meium Cother than the quantum
vacuum itsel!D.
6he vacuum acts as a re!erence !rame in a number o! senses1 but not in
the usual sense o! Rre!erence !rameS invoKe in elementary iscussion o!
special relativity. 9ne such sense is the role o! the vacuum as proviing
the groun an meium CbothD !or all !orms o! resonance/sympathetic
inter-action o! quantum mechanical systems Cwhich is to say1 all physical
systemsD. 6he role o! the quantum vacuum as resonance meium/
groun !or conscious states shall be iscusse laterD. 8oreover1 the
vacuum istinguishes virtual !rom real components o! quantum
mechanical systems by only entering into complete resonance with a
system o! virtual particles/!iels. 6he resonance o! the vacuum with
real quantum mechanical systems is always ampe.
Oeywors !or websearch: amping1 resonance1 transmission1 potential1
barrier1 tunneling1 imaginary1 momentum1 negative Kinetic energy1 etc.
.ooK at tunneling rates versus transmission times. H! all particles are
tunneling through a (-hyperspherical potential energy barrier at near the
spee o! light1 then particles are normally Rnear vacuum resonance.S
Fhen the velocity o! tunneling o! matter particles is reuce
signi!icantly relative to the !ree space value o! c1 then we say that the
particles are !ar away !rom vacuum resonance an the probability CrateD
o! their tunneling is greatly reuce below the R!ree spaceS resonant
value o! the tunneling rate !or this particle Cas a virtual particle there is
Rper!ect vacuum resonanceS an ma0imal tunneling probability rate1 i.e.1
the virtual particle is RmovingS at the spee o! light Cin vacuoD along the
cosmic time a0is. 9! course1 what causes matter to possess less than
per!ect resonance with the local quantum vacuum is the presence o!
competing resonant processes taKing place within the bulK o! the matter.
6he cosmological reshi!t quantization an the accelerate cosmological
e0pansion are two mani!estations o! a single unerlying energy structure
o! the universe. 6his appears as an e0ponentially increasing1 oscillatory
solution to a i!!erential equation1 suggesting that the Kinetic energy o!
e0pansion an the gravitational potential energy o! the universe are not1
in !act1 precisely balance Cso-calle !lat space solutionD1 but the
hyperspherical potential energy barrier is larger than the Kinetic energy
imparte to matter by the big bang. 6he !requency o! the oscillatory
solution shoul inicate how closely matche the Kinetic energy o!
e0pansion is to the energy o! the hyperspherical potential.
Fhat woul a topological analysis o! the concept o! pure temporality
reveal? 3an there be temporality without spatiality? @o1 because there
must always be breaKing into any time line that attempts to establish
itsel! an these isruptions always come !rom perpenicular to this
woul-be timeline. "patial imension is a eterministic time
imension1 c.!.1 concept o! three imensional time Cphysics eprint
archive/ gr-qcD. "el! organization is only an appearance or
representation within a eterministic state space1 but can actually e0ist
within an open system. Hnvestigate the concept o! an open system1
which is close with respect to some other open system.
6he "chroinger_s 3at e0periment can be moi!ie so that we are not
ealing with a superposition o! a ea cat an a live one1 but in which
we are ealing with a superposition o! two istinct states o! a single
conscious human iniviual. C6he latter case we can consier later1 in
which we have a superposition o! two istinct persons1 say1 where1
epening upon which o! an equiprobable two-state raioactive
transition occurs1 either person / or person ? enters an seals himsel! in
some Kin o! isolation chamber.D
?ut H insist that these are two raically i!!erent types o! RquantumS
superposition. 6he point here1 however1 is that quantum mechanics
oes not recognize a istinction between these two types o!
superposition1 one1 which is a superposition o! two i!!erent states o! the
same person1 an1 two1 a superposition o! two istinct personsT :oes
this mean that we can never looK to quantum mechanics !or a solution to
the question1 RFhy am H me rather than that guy over there?S -or in
this geanKen e0periment1 we have two cases o! superpositions or
eigenstates with respect to what we presume !or purposes o! argument
are quantum observables. ?ut what type o! observables are we re!erring
to here? 8ustn_t observables be at least intersub5ectively e!ine within
quantum mechanics? /n yet we intuitively see that these
Rconsciousness observables1S an their eigen-states are o! !unamentally
istinct types L H woul say the most !unamentally istinct conceivableT
"o we see that quantum mechanics cannot !orm the basis o! a 6heory o!
;verything because it cannot possibly taKe into account the istinctness
o! iniviual consciousness1 partly because quantum observables must
be intersub5ectively e!ine so that what we might call in!ra-sub5ectivity1
that is1 sub5ectivity itsel!1 is prior to the critical notion o! quantum
observable1 an hence1 to physical theory as such.
Hn this case1 the necessity !or spontaneous collapse o! superpose
quantum states at some mesoscopic scale1 i.e.1 somewhere between the
subatomic an the macroscopic1 !orce!ully presents itsel! !or
consieration. 9n the one han1 the iniviual oes always Cwhen
awaKeD appear to be in some constant state o! his own iniviual
consciousness1 regarless o! how his moo an state o! min might
otherwise change or !luctuate. /n so there seems to be some reason
!or supposing that the general state o! an iniviual_s being conscious is
an eigenstate with respect to some Kin o! quantum observable or other.
?ut i! we amit this seemingly unproblematic iea1 then we must also
consier what is to be meant by =eisenberg uncertainty with respect to
such a quantum observable as is represente by the iniviual_s general
consciousness. 6he spectrum o! consciousness1 i! you will1 represente
by such a quantum uncertainty1 i! a iscrete spectrum1 cannot be
consistently thought to be one compose o! the istinct consciousness
eigenstates o! istinct iniviuals. 6his is because the general
consciousness o! each istinct iniviual is represente as the eigenstate
with respect to a istinct quantum observable. 9! course1 the concept o!
one_s iniviual consciousness being a quantum observable1 observable
only by himsel!1 as well as the implication that the iniviual can
somehow be thought o! as separate !rom his own iniviual
consciousness such that it maKes some sense to speaK o! him observing
his own state o! consciousness1 is rather luicrous1 one is !orce to
amit. "o the iea o! other peoples consciousness_s being observables
!or me as well as the notion o! my own consciousness being an
observable !or me are both inconsistent an1 hence1 untenable concepts.
6he greatest possible energy uncertainty is represente by the 7lancK
mass1 m
pl
=
hc
/
4
. /ny energy larger than this cannot Re0istS as a virtual
particle or !iel CstateD1 but must be RrealS an measurable.
7arao0ically1 a time eigenstate1 Cwere the concept o! time as a quantum
observable amissible in this theoryD woul correspon to a system in
which time both stans still an RmovesS in!initely !ast. 6he question
arises1 what energy uncertainty must a given quantum mechanical
system possess in orer !or it to move through time at the spee o! light?
Ht is interesting that /a; o! a quantum mechanical system is responsible
!or the system_s temporal evolution Capart !rom changes in the system
phaseD which interactions between the brain an a nonlocally
connecte /a; is beginning to be thought to meiate consciousness1
which may be otherwise thought o! in Oantian terms as the Rintuition o!
time.S
web=
Hn the !ollowing1 c.!.1 www.integralscience.org1 3onsciousness an
Puantum 8echanics.
R@ow "chroinger gets evious. =e puts the raioactive atom1 a
etector1 a hammer1 a poison bottle into a cage with a cat in it. . . R
Hs it the cat_s RconsciousS brain bacK-reacting upon the vacuum which
the raioactive atom interacts with which causes the
ecoherence/prevents a live cat/ea cat superposition !rom !orming?
9r is it 5ust that the mass o! the cat is greater than the 7lancK mass?
?ecause o! the nature o! nonlocal connections as being superluminally
connecte1 we may say that all nonlocal connections are only
correlations inepenently o! the observer. :o we mean here that
nonlocal connections only e0ist i! they are seen? C!or the nonlocal
connection that we are saying e0iste previously to our Knowlege coul
have itsel! propagate bacKwars in timeD
6he time travel CRgran!ather parao0SD is only insoluble i! we assume
that there is physical continuity between mysel! in the present an
mysel! in the time an place at which H perpetrate my gran!ather_s
murer.
Fhat is the meaning1 i! any1 o! nonlocally connecte in!luences
Rpropagating?S 6o trigger the mani!estation o! nonlocal connections is
to bacK-react upon the groun o! the phenomena o! the physical system
concerne L perhaps even to bacK-react upon one_s own groun.
.oose speculation concerning the relationships o! gravity1 topology1 an
egeneracy:
Qd
:oes an iniviual min constitute a gravitational equivalence class o!
egenerate topologies? :oes the e!!ect o! conscious observers upon
prepare quantum systems1 in the sense o! inucing wave!unction
collapse1 have a basis in topology? /re time an space separable an
absolute solely in systems compose only o! topological equivalence
classes e!ine by a particular gravitational egeneracy1 which may be
viewe as a special case o! quantum energy egeneracy in which
temporality o! the system is istinct !rom the temporality o! a global
quantum system which is itsel! nonegenerate? Hs this the origin o!
sub5ective versus ob5ectively real temporality? /re all in!inite sets o!
continuously energy egenerate quantum systems temporally orthogonal
with respect to all other such in!inite sets?
Hs the value o! the cosmological constant so small espite an enormous
vacuum energy ensity ue to this vacuum energy being
overwhelmingly egenerate such that the trans!ormations o! its
wave!unction o not possess real physical temporality an so o not
represent a spatiotemporal momentum istribution o! real energy?
/ $&) egree rotation introuces a RtwistS into the topology o! either the
ob5ect or the embeing space o! the ob5ect. @ow what o we have to
assume occurs at the quantum level within the substance o! the rotate
ob5ect which prevents this twist !rom occurring1 ie..1 preserves the
topology? 6he principle o! preservation o! topology !or macroscopic
ob5ects an their Kinematics. 6opological !luctuations which are
coherently interconnecte so to maintain a zero net change in the
e0pectation value o! the topology o! the embeing space o! the metric.
=ow oes this !act o! the relationship o! topology an rotation within
three spatial imensions a!!ect our consieration o! general !our
imensional spacetime rotations? 8ight inertia originate out o! a
.orenz type !orce1 but one more general than one possessing merely an
electromagnetic origin? 8ight acceleration o! a mass result in such a
Rgravitational .orenz-type !orceS through this acceleration_s interaction
with the interconnecte matri0 o! macroscopic topological preserving
quantum !luctuations in spacetime topology necessitate by a !our
imensional generalization o! the topology theorem allue to above? L
or rather1 by the topological elasticity responsible !or these
compensating quantum !luctuations in spacetime topology? 3oul a
!our imensional statement o! 4auss_ .aw1 or generalization o! ieas
taKen !rom the three imensional erivation o! the equivalence o! its
sur!ace an volume e0pressions1 be utilize in motivating a proo! o! a
!our imensional generalization o! the three imensional Rrotation/twist
theoremS state above?
6he nonlinearity o! general relativity may lie behin the cosmological
constant problem. H! gravity is a truly universal R!orceS in the sense o!
sustaining the equivalence principle1 then we woul e0pect the quantum
vacuum to generally meiate the gravitational interaction1 rather than a
particular e0change particle1 i.e.1 Rgraviton.S
6ime may be liKene to a 37, clocK while motion o! coherent structures
is a combination o! linear an !eebacK1 i.e.1 RcircularS binary
calculations. 6he competition between !eebacK binary an 37,
binary operations Cby which coherent structures are Rre!resheS or
upate L the 37, clocK rate constitutes the Rre!resh rateS !or non-
cohesive Rpi0el setsVS !or cohesive pi0el sets1 the re!resh rate !or the
structure is less than the 37, clocK rateD may be liKene to special an
general relativistic e!!ects1 respectively.
=iggs boson as a particle physics metaphorical particle. 7hoton mass
etermine by gravitational size1 i.e.1 blacK hole raius o! the ,niverse
an woul be relate to the breaKown o! per!ect .orenz invariance.
Fhat type o! new conservation principle is pointe to by
supersymmetry?
:ynamical symmetry breaKing requires a composite =iggs particle1
perhaps virtual 3ooper pairs o! !ermion/ anti!ermion pairs.
"upersymmetry entails several =iggs bosons1 perhaps all o! the various
types o! virtual !ermion/anti!ermion pairs which are mani!estations o!
the !unamental energy !luctuations o! the quantum vacuum.
"pin appears to be the most ubiquitous property o! particles1 both matter
particles as well as the particles responsible !or meiating all o! the
!unamental !orces o! nature. "pin is an essential consieration in all
interactions among subatomic particles. "o the equivalence principle
shoul be consistent with a spin-base theory o! quantum gravity1 rather
than an electromagnetic-base theory such as that put !orwar by
=aisch1 Auea1 an 7utho!!. RHn !act1 the spin o! a planet is the sum o!
the spins an angular momenta o! all its elementary particles. ?ut can
angular momentum itsel! be ultimately reucible to subatomic particle
spins?
cit=web=
Cc.!.1 www.sciam.com/asKe0pert/physics/physics*).html L
page 2D
"pin1 circular motion1 accelerate motion1 spin networKs1 symmetry o!
rotation Cnot 5ust in space1 but in spacetimeD1 symmetry an conservation
laws Co! interactionD
.oops in space interwoven with loops in time in an elastic1 ynamic
networK o! interactions.
/ ma0imum ensity o! momentum e0changes in matter woul imply a
minimum current ensity o! imaginary (-momentum e0changes.
Hs a time interval being so small that time Rloses its meaningS the same
thing as quantize time?
Hs vacuum lattice gravity theory relate to spin networK gravity theory?
4ravity an ensity o! happenings: i! all action be ultimately compose
o! energy !luctuations. . .
Ht oes not e0ist !ar away Cat a istanceD in space1 but in time.
Fhy the graient o! an energy !iel is a !orce an the phenomenological
basis o! mass1 inertia1 gravity1 etc. :o we really nee the notion o!
substance within physical theory?
*-N))-"6A9O;" b /trial -ibrulation -/P
=ow is the behavior o! a spaceliKe separate collection o! energy
!luctuations1 which are nonlocally connecte istinct in their collective
behavior !rom such a set1 which e0hibit the same behavior1 but without
this connection? Fithout the nonlocal connection the collective
behavior o! these !luctuations is only ientical to that o! the !ormer in a
single re!erence !rame. 6his remins us o! comparing light propagating
through lumini!erous ether compare to its manner o! propagation
within a .orenz-invariant vacuum.
8ass is conserve in pre-relativity physics. Hn relativity theory mass
an energy are interconvertible. ?ut energy is conserve in relativity
theory C special theory1 at leastD1 while energy is not conserve in
quantum theory. 6he question perhaps arises here1 Rinto what is energy
interconvertible which RaccountsS !or the breaKown o! conservation o!
energy within quantum mechanics?S
;verett_s relative state interpretation o! quantum measurement seems to
invoKe the e0istence o! a Kin o! Rhypertime imension.S >ust as the
integration o! the time imension with those o! space e0plaine the
nonconservation o! mass1 perhaps the incorporation o! ;verett_s
hypertime imension with that o! !our imensional spacetime will
account !or the nonconservation o! energy within stanar quantum
theory.
Fhat is the real purpose o! the laser inter!erometric gravitational
observatory C.H49D which has been built in .ivingston 7arish1
.ouisiana1 i! not to etect gravitational waves generate by supernovae1
colliing blacKholes1 etc? 8ight this !acility be use to etect gravity
waves generate by e0traterrestrial warp engines? Ht woul be much
easier to etect locally occurring alien propulsion than astronomically
istant astrophysical processes. ,sing the :raKe equation1 combine
with some other intelligent assumptions about avance e0traterrestrial
civilizations an the typical !requency ensity o! supernovae1 might we
be able to show that there is much greater liKelihoo o! etecting alien
spaceships?
"eptember 2)**
?y the way1 my stab at answering the -ermi
7arao0 is that1 all o! our immeiate interstellar neighbors are inhabite
by highly evelope civilizations an have tol those still more Cremote
!rom usD avance e0traterrestrials visiting them" Ron_t worry about the
inhabitants o! the "ol "ystemV they still live 5ust on their home planet
an aren_t even close to eveloping the resources o! their planetary
system in orer !or us to be able to pro!itably trae with themS.
7resumably it was long ago realize by the oler1 more avance
civilizations o! the gala0y that the economic cost o! gaining raw
materials !rom a neighboring system is much lower once one has a nacve
native host with which to trae. >ust imagine here ;uropeans traing
worthless trinKets !or the gol o! nacve 8esoamerican natives.
Aeal particles as solitons in the locally connecte quantum vacuum
momentum-energy !iel. ?y viewing virtual particles within the
vacuum as being themselves solitons in the nonlocally connecte
vacuum !iel1 we are amitting the e0istence o! !orms o! matter an
energy more !unamental than the particles an !iels treate in the
Rstanar moelS o! particle physics.
Fhat is the quantum con5ugate quantity1 which shoul be paire with
in!ormation1 conceive as a physical quantity? /n is in!ormation the
conserve quantity o! such a con5ugate pair? Fith the other con5ugate
quantity serving merely as a booKKeeping or accounting variable?
:ynamically interacting vacua1 each o! which is an open system. =ow
o these vacua mutually inter!ere constructively with one another in the
absence o! a close system o! !eebacK? Fithin a close system o!
!eebacK there is a bacK an !orth e0change o! energy1 but no
Rcommunication.S C9nly conte0t !ree ata are e0changeD =owever1 in
the interaction o! two or more open systems1 stable an persisting
structures can only be create an sustaine through communication an
cooperation between these various systems. 6he iniviual !luctuations
o! energy which collectively comprise /a; may not be thought to be
evolving in time as /a; is what etermines /at1 which1 in turn1 e!ines the
time scale o! ynamical processes within the system. "pacetime is a
pro5ection base upon the e0pectation values o! time an position. 6he
!iel equations relate the e0pectation value o! the spacetime curvature to
the e0pectation value o! the momentum-energy ensity. 6his is a !ormal
relationship1 which is concretely unerpinne by the physical connection
between the !luctuations in momentum an energy to the !luctuations in
position an time. -luctuations in time are not merely !luctuations in
the position in time at which a particular event occurs. 9therwise1 an
absolute time woul have to be assume an which woul serve as a
bacKrop !or these !luctuations in the timing o! events.
6he imaginary momentum o! a particle tunneling within $-space
suggests a purely timeliKe motion !or a particle moving along a
spaceliKe interval. 6his is a case o! a particle being only an
in!ormation-base representation. Puantum tunneling may be meiate
e0clusively via nonlocally connecte quantum !iels. 6his also
suggests that the particle1 while tunneling at least1 possesses no
continuous e0istence while it is within the potential energy barrier
possessing a negative Kinetic energy.
Hs there a single mathematical !unction that connects all possible
numbers1 real1 imaginary1 matri01 !ractal1 surreal1 etc.?
6here is the temporality o! the sustaining o! !orm an then the
temporality o! trans!ormation o! !orms. 8ass1 length an time e!!ects
o! relativity are istinct but relate1 epening upon when one treats
accelerate motion or not. 6he temporality o! the sustainment o! the
structure o! spacetime is a temporality not incorporate into the
spacetime itsel!.
3learly the timeliKe momentum o! ob5ects on a spacetime sur!ace is
connecte with its motion through an along this hypersur!ace.
3ompare the oppositions o! prepositions RonS versus RbyS with
RthroughS versus Ralong.S 6ime ilation an =ubble constant
contraction is etermine by the ration o! mass to blacK hole Cperhaps
also RvacuumSD ensity. Aeconcile this with a =WW2/Npi4 cosmic mass
ensity. ?lacK hole entropy suggests that blacK hole ensity shoul be
proportional to */AWW2 or to blacK hole sur!ace area1 c.!.1 cellular
automata-base theories o! relativity. 6he matter an vacuum
momentum current ensities are reuce by this time ilation or =ubble
!requency contraction !actor.
6he circular motion1 !eebacK through $-momentum e0changes1 is
converte to linear $-momentum irecte along a single a0is. Fhen the
propellant is in its RinertS !orm1 $-momentum is virtual an irecte
along all three spatial a0es. Fhen a mass is accelerate !rom rest to
some velocity1 v1 its mass an length locally1 relativistically change1 but
the quantum vacuum unergoes a global relativistic change in its energy
ensity Curing the accelerationD. / .orenz trans!ormation has no e!!ect
upon the energy ensity o! the quantum vacuum1 as can be
mathematically emonstrate !or a vacuum with energy ensity
proportional to !requencyWW$.
Ht appears at least super!icially that the ensity o! mass is increase by a
!actor o! gammaWW2 as a result o! a .orenz trans!ormation. =ow o we
e0plain the single gamma !actor involve in time ilation1 given the
propose cellular automata moel or relativity1 in this case?
"ince the vacuum oes not obey the .orenz symmetry group1 we might
say that gravitation breaKs the .orenz symmetry o! the quantum
vacuum. Fe must conclue that the momentum-energy ensity o! the
vacuum is una!!ecte by a .orenz trans!ormation1 in agreement with
what theory preicts !or an energy !iel with a irectly proportional
!requencyWW$ epenence.
3learly the vacuum possessing a gravitational !iel loses it_s the
proportional to !requencyWW$ energy ensity epenenceT =ence1 the
gravitational !iel is at least partly base in spatial or spatiotemporal
variations in the vacuum_s energy ensity.
6here is nothing remarKable about coinciences !rom a probabilistic
stanpoint as they inevitably happen given su!!icient number o! istinct
settings an a su!!icient amount o! time.
/ .orenz trans!ormation causes a speci!ic1 coorinate change in both
vacuum !requency an wavenumber. 6he strict proportional to
!requencyWW$ epenence is lost ue to presence o! a new proportional
to wavenumberWW$ component. /ll o! the vacuum_s momentum is
timeliKe an none o! its momentum is spaceliKe1 hence the lacK o!
wavenumber epenence. / gravitating boy must possess some
spaceliKe momentum Cin the !orm o! e0changes o! !orce-meiating
virtual bosonsD an this costs the mass some o! its timeliKe Cor
imaginaryD momentum. 6his prevents the energy ensity o! the vacuum
!rom being purely epenent upon the !requency since this epenency
presupposes a constant relationship between !requency an wavenumber
through the constancy o! the spee o! light. =owever1 the spee o! light
is not a constant within general relativity1 i.e.1 where gravitational !iels
are present. Hn other wors1 saying that the energy ensity o! the
vacuum is irectly proportional to the cube o! !requency is1 in
8inKowsKi or R!lat spaceS that this energy ensity is proportional to the
cube o! the prouct o! the velocity o! light an the wavenumber. Hn a
gravitational !iel1 the velocity o! light is not a constant1 but can vary
spatially throughout the !iel Can by the relativity principle1 the velocity
o! light shoul also vary temporally since there is no ob5ective
ecomposition o! spacetime into separate space an time componentsD.
/ given !requency o! vacuum electromagnetic !iel !luctuation is given
in !ree space Cin the absence o! a gravitational !ielD by 5ust the velocity
o! light multiplie by the wavenumber o! the !luctuation. Hn a
gravitational !iel this !requency is given by the prouct o! three !actors:
the spee o! light in vacuum1 c1 the wavenumber o! the !luctuation1
*/lamba1 an imensionless !unctional with a spatial Can perhaps
temporal1 as wellD epenence which is etermine by the spatial Can
perhaps1 temporalD epenence o! the *& gravitational potentials1 i.e.1 the
metric components1 speci!ie by the ;instein !iel equations. / .orenz
trans!ormation alters !requency an wavenumber in a complementary
manner to which it alters time an length. "o although a .orenz
trans!ormation alters the vacuum_s !requency1 it also alters the vacuum_s
wavenumber proucing a null net e!!ect on the energy ensity. "o in a
gravitational !iel the ensity o! the quantum vacuum is proportional to
the cube o! the vacuum electromagnetic !iel !luctuation !requency
provie that the above !unctional is itsel! invariant uner a .orenz
trans!ormation. 6his is only possible i! the multiplication o! this
!unctional generally represents a trans!ormation1 which !orms at least a
subgroup o! the .orenz trans!ormation group. 6his is not possible
because the .orenz group is itsel! a subgroup o! the :i!!eomorphism
group o! general relativistic coorinate trans!ormations.
/ll conserve ynamical variables are purely timeliKe in !ree space.
Hnertia an gravitation are phenomena associate with the pro5ection o!
these timeliKe !our vectors into spaceliKe components. /n important
question here is whether there is a conserve !our potential. :oes the
creation o! spaceliKe components o! !our potential inuce a change in
the timeliKe !our potential so that the sum o! time an spaceliKe
components o! some new !our potential vectorially sum to prouce a
new !our potential with the same magnitue as the inertial !ree space
!our potential.
Ht has been suggeste that the ubiquitous an collectively enormous
energy !luctuations o! the quantum vacuum are scattere echoes1
virtually in!inite in number1 o! the initial scattering1 or shattering1
e0plosion o! the ?ig ?ang1 itsel! thought to have originate in a vacuum
!luctuation o! statistically in!initesimal probability.
Hn nonrelativistic physics1 any linear momentum can be trans!erre away
via an appropriate 4alilean trans!ormation. 6his is not the ease with
angular momentum because this is motion not taKing place within an
inertial !rame. Hn relativity1 the $-momentum can only be trans!orme
away while preserving the total (-momentum. /a0/apy + 0/a7y + y/a70
+ /ay/a70 + /a0/a7y = /a.z
,se superposition to e0press .z in !our-imensional spacetime.
@ecessity o! quantum mechanics within relativistic physics. /a!/ag =
h/2pi1 where either ! or g must be a quantum number an the other term
represents a nonconserve quantity.
Hn the paper1 6he 8ystery o! the 3osmic Iacuum ;nergy :ensity an
the /ccelerate ;0pansion o! the ,niverse1 it is state that the e!!ective
cosmological constant is e0pecte to obtain contributions !rom short-
istance physics1 corresponing to an energy scale o! at least *)) 4eI.
6he ensity o! the quantum vacuum is calculate within the present
quantum theory to possess a ensity o! appro0imately *)WW2'
Kg/cmWW$. 6his is what is calle the 7lancK ensity o! matter. ?ut !or
matter this ensity can only e0ist !or a particular smallest spatial
imension1 i.e.1 roughly *)WW-$' meters1 an !or virtual matter1 at this
same spatial imension but !or the most !leeting instant o! aroun *)WW-
(2 secons. 6he i!!erence between real an virtual 7lancKions here is
that in the !ormer case all o! the !luctuations are in the !orm o! $-
momentum e0changes whereas in the latter they are entirely in the !orm
o! (-momentum e0changes1 imaginary1 an e0clusively along the time
imension. ?etween these two !orms o! 7lancK matter there subsists a
2)-egree hyperspatial rotation in accorance with the symmetry o! the
.orenz group. 6here is a similar relationship obtaining between rest
mass an the collection o! photons yiele up when this RinertS mass is
*))% converte into energy1 in accorance with ; = mcWW2. 6he
reason that energy possesses mass when sub5ect to spatiotemporal
bounary conitions is that is that some o! the energy is necessarily
converte into mass as a result o! the bounary conitions impose upon
this otherwise totally !ree energy. 6he reason that the blacK hole state
equation1 i! you will1 places such a tight restriction upon the
relationships o! mass an length or1 rather1 ensity an length1 in this
case1 whereas this restriction is utterly absent in the case o! vacuum
energy1 is no oubt owing to the impose bounary conitions. Fe may
then thinK o! mass as 5ust vacuum energy with suitably impose
bounary conitions1 the ynamics o! matter an vacuum being
otherwise essentially the same.
/ tangle networK o! !eebacK loops o! quantum vacuum !luctuation
momentum-energy constitutes the structure o! matter. -eebacK
necessarily involves the action o! memory.
6here is !eebacK within a given ata/in!ormation system an then this
!eebacK is itsel! continually being upate through nonlocal !eebacK
with some global1 istribute system. 6his upating o! the system_s
internal1 ynamical !eebacK structures may be thought o! as the
!eebacK o! that component o! the system which is globally uni!ie with
itsel! at i!!erent times.
:ata are relate synchronically while in!ormation may be thought o! as
ata relate iachronically. @ote here that the synchronic cannot
become iachronic without participating in the history o! its system.
6he obvious avantage !rom a technological stanpoint to a spin-base
theory o! inertia an gravitation is the potential that e0ists within such
theories !or the manipulation o! inertia an gravitation through the
application o! electromagnetic !iels.
Ht is interesting how phonons are !ormally ientical to bosons1 which are
responsible !or the bining together o! particles into e0tene material
structures. 7honons may be properly unerstoo as quanta o! soun.
"o it is quanta o! soun1 i.e.1 phonons1 which are responsible !or the
e0tene structure o! all matter. ?osons Cas a Kin o! phononsD are
responsible !or trans!orming timeliKe1 nonlocally connecte1 unboun
vacuum !luctuations Cin the !orm o! virtual particles an !ielsD into
spaceliKe1 e0tene an locally-connecte1 boun con!igurations o! real
particles. H! real particles are boun together an interact with one
another through the e0change o! virtual bosons1 then how are virtual
particles boun together an interact with one another1 an is this a
meaning!ul question?
6here seems to be an analogous relationship o! the systems1 consonants
an vowels versus !ermions an phonons.
6o calculate the bining energy o! nuclear matter1 one must per!orm a
partial sum o! an in!inite number o! in!inite terms1 yieling a !inite
result.
Fe can looK at the orering relation between matter an vacuum in two
possibly relate ways. 6he structure o! matter mirrors that o! the
vacuum because it is constitute out o! an sustaine by this vacuum L
!rom what other source coul matter have erive its structure?
/lternatively1 we can assume matter has an e0istence somehow
inepenent o! the vacuum. =ere matter resies in this vacuum an the
structure o! the vacuum is perturbe by the presence o! matter1 more
speci!ically1 the structure o! matter imposes the pattern o! its structure
upon that o! the vacuum or upon the structure o! its pattern o!
!luctuating.
6wo scalar ensities may be equivalent up to a ivergence term. /
variation in a physical quantity may always be represente as a
coorinate erivative multiplie by some in!initesimal isplacement in a
coorinate space. -luc/ = p//p+i 0 !luc+i
3an a variation in some physical quantity1 such as energy or action1 be
sel!-consistently e!ine within a coorinate space which has an
ineterminate or time varying topology or metric?
H! we are speaKing o! the variation in the action integral !rom which the
general relativistic !iel equations are to be etermine1 then certain
restrictions upon the phase space o! the action are necessarily
establishe be!orehan. Hs the problem with the equivalence principle
in parallel with the i!!iculties with the ;verett theory o! quantum
measurement. 6he two way coupling o! matter to its electromagnetic
!iel1 an vice versa1 is not pervasive enough to necessitate a nonlinear
escription. Ht is the nonlinearity o! the 4A !iel equations which
seems to eman the e0istence o! blacK hole singularities.
6he logical inconsistency o! a time-varying space time seems to pose
serious problems !or ;instein_s equivalence principle. 8ore
speci!ically1 it is the ;insteinian concept o! the inertia o! energy which is
at the root o! the present an long-staning con!lict between 4A an
P81 particularly with regar to the two theories_ preictions o! the
vacuum energy ensity.
Hnvariance with respect to the local phase group is accomplishe by
converting all erivatives to covariant erivatives. Fhat woul happen
i! a small sub-volume o! the total momentum-energy tensor !iel were to
!ree !all Cmove along a geoesic path?D with the very spacetime
etermine by this global stress-momentum-energy tensor? / relate
question is1 is a particular stree-momentum-energy istribution
necessary to sustain the R!lat spaceS 8inKowsKi metric? 3ertainly i! we
are limite to the conte0t o! classical relativity1 the answer is no.
=owever1 in the case where quantum vacuum zero-point !luctuations
become necessary.
"ince altering the zero-point o! the vacuum !iel alters the mass o!
particles occupying this vacuum1 we might asK whether the gravitational
an inertial masses o! the particles has been change so as to leave the
equivalence principle unharme. 6he zero-point can1 o! course1 be
shi!te through imposition o! electromagnetic bounary conitions upon
the vacuum electromagnetic !iel. 6he equivalence principle woul
have us believe that the masses o! the particles has been altere simply
because the ensity o! vacuum energy containe within the particles has
change CecreaseD. Fe might term this a locality-base e0planation
!or the change in mass. Fe might also say that general relativity_s
e0planation o! the mass o! boies is strictly phenomenological.
/ tensor relates vector inputs an vector outputs. ?ut what happens
Rwithin the blacK bo0S is 5ust e0changes o! momentum an energy1
which are vector1 rather than tensor qualities. Hs it possible !or tensor
!iels to be reucible to some system o! e0changes o! vector impulse
C!luctuationD quantities which merely recon!igure themselves spatially
an temporally in a manner conveniently escribe by 2
n
an higher
ranK tensor quantities? 3an all tensors be built up out o! scalar an
vector operations applie to scalar an vector !iel quantities? "till
more1 can all higher ranK tensors be built up !rom scalar quantities1 say1
by aing imensions an then pro5ecting higher imensional scalar
quantities Rown intoS lower imensional1 embee spaces?
6his is analogous to the case o! !our imensional rotations o! three
imensional ob5ects being equivalent Cat the level o! e0pectation valuesD
to isassembly an reassembly o! a three imensional ob5ect into its
mirror image CenantiomorphD.
6he istribution o! momentu-energy within !ree space is analogous to
that o! a blacK hole with Rsliing "chwarzschil raius.S 6he
cosmological reshi!t contains a component which is a !unction o! the
angular isplacement o! the istant boy_s local time a0is relative to that
o! the observer_s local spacetime.
/toms cannot be create out o! the vacuum_s !luctuation in energy1 c.!.1
7hysics @ews ,pate. 6emporality o! a quantum system is a measure
o! its vacuum resonance. Hn a gravitational !iel a photon can no longer
consistently be escribe as an e+e- virtual pair.
?ecause o! the tilting o! the light cone within a gravitational !iel
Crelative to a re!erence !rame in !ree spaceD1 virtual e+e- pairs mani!est
themselves to a small egree as real photons an to a larger egree
Cetermine by gamma = 48/r3WW2D as virtual photons1 i.e.1 rotation o!
!luc;C/a;D with respect to !luc7C/a7D. "tress terms1 i.e.1 Ro!!-iagonalS
terms in 6C51KD inicate that p an ; in 6C51KD eviate !rom being
mutually orthogonal.
8inimum velocity supportable by cellular automata C3/D system ue to
representation o! time i!!erences between inertial !rames1 i.e.1 time
ilation amount cannot be less than 6plancK. "ome in!ormation in a 3/
has to be boun up in memory1 which is in!ormation about in!ormation1
conte0t1 time an place1 o! the in!ormation.
Hntrinsic quantum uncertainty1 what might be conveniently terme iso-
uncertainty1 is ue to the presence o! vacuum !luctuations.
6he !orce acting on a photon escaping !rom a gravitational !iel is 5ust
-CphotonD = /r c[r\ !luc[p\ = /rnc[r\ h/lamba[r\o or
-CphotonD = /r !luc[;\V ![phot\ = c[r\/r h/lamba[r\
c[r\ h/lambaWW2[r\ lamba[r\/r
6he notion o! a photon moving RthroughS space at a !inite spee ue to
the photon_s being scattere along its path by virtual particles neglects
the basic !act that the photon is itsel! constitute !rom moment to
moment by such vacuum !luctuations with which the photon allegely
interacts uring its travels.
Aather than a photon being absorbe an re-emitte by charge virtual
!ermions we say that the photon is itsel! the pairing1 into spin *
comple0es1 o! these sel! same charge1 virtual particles.
6he larger that /a; is !or the quantum vacuum1 the smaller is /at1 which
may be unerstoo as the minimum time elay between photon
scattering events. /a0 may be interprete as the minimum istance
between these scattering events.
6he shi!t in /a; along a photon_s tra5ectory1 i.e.1 /a!luc[;\1 where !luc[;\
is the spectral !luctuation energy1 where /a!luc[;\ = hW/a!luc[!\
6he time elay between photon scatterings between point / an point ?1
where the istance line[/?\ = is increase. 6his is ue to the
increase linear ensity o! scattering events between / an ?.
Hncrease in energy egeneracy o! matter in gravitational !iel relative to
!ree space. 6he temporality o! energy egenerate trans!ormations is
beginning to supplant the !ree space temporality associate with changes
in quantum system energy. / blacK hole is *))% energy egenerate in
that all processes taKing place within the even horizon occur without the
hole changing its energy.
6he spaceship is not moving Rthrough spaceS1 5ust its representations
moves across the observer_s visual !iel. ?ecause the observer views
the ship !rom a slightly i!!erent re!erence !rame Cseparate !rom that o!
the ship by a timeliKe .orenz RboostSD1 one views a tiny component o!
the ship_s motion through time along a spatial a0is o! one_s own
re!erence !rame.
"ome o! the in!ormation ictating the reconstitution or recreation o!
iniviual !ermions is receive not !rom the quantum vacuum but !rom
other !ermions with which the !irst !ermion is e0changing $-momentum.
6he input o! allege raw energy is responsible !or e0tremely
complicate changes in subatomic processes.
6he vacuum must not only reconstitute the mass1 but it must o so !or
the mass plus its Kinetic energy. 6o reconstitute energy !rom vacuum
energy may be Rless labor intensiveS than reconstituting o! a similar
amount o! energy in the !orm o! mass. 6his is because o! the
in!ormation content associate with the bounary conitions to the
energy which causes this energy to mani!est itsel! as interacting matter
particles an !iels. 6o reconstitute the bounary conitions1 energy
must enter the mass !rom the vacuum sie travel a certain minimum
circuit within the mass responsible !or its material structure1 e0it the
mass an return to the vacuum prior to the vacuum possessing su!!icient
in!ormation to reconstitute the mass !or the Rne0t cycle.S Hn the case o!
uni!orm velocity1 the vacuum nees an e0tra amount o! time to per!orm
this calculation is etermine Cin the 2
n
orer appro0imationD by the
ratio o! the Kinetic an rest mass energies o! the mass in question. Hn
other wors1 the vacuum oes not secon guess the mass that it will
continue in uni!orm motion through space because the vacuum has no
Knowlege o! such a quantity1 perhaps.
:oes light travel !aster between 3asimir plates? 3.!.1
au=
9stoma1
physics eprint archive.
"uperposition versus eigenvalues L unitary evolution o! 7siCr1tD
accoring to the "chroinger_s equation versus 7si collapse.
Fhen "chroinger_s
Qd
7rinciple o! ob5ectivation breaKs own at
sensitive !eebacK scales.
Hs no ob5ectively vali theory o! =eisenberg uncertainty possible
because o! the necessary ultimate interaction o! the quantum
uncertainties o! the observer_s brain an that o! the quantum system he is
observing? Fhat about coherent1 resonant interaction between the
quantum !luctuations o! the observer_s brain an the quantum
!luctuations in the system being observe? Foul the correlation o!
!lucCobsD with !lucCsysD be mani!est in the array o! e0pectation values !or
ob5ective observables1 while the interactions o! !lucCobsD with !lucCsysD
are responsible !or the uncertainties in these physical observables that
can either be wholly attribute to the system or to the observer woul the
abstract !eatures o! the system being observe be base in the nonlocal
connectivity o! an in!inite system o! woul-be observers1 while the
concrete !eatures o! the system are base in local connections1 or
potential causal relationships between the system an all those
e0perimenters an observers Ractually presentS at the e0periment?
H! wave!unction collapse is truly ranom1 then how is quantum
computing possible?
6he prohibition state in special relativity that no mass may move !aster
than light is perhaps more correctly cast as1 R no mass may travel !aster
than the velocity o! time.S 9! course1 in a vacuum possessing an energy
ensity greater than that o! the !ree space vacuum masses coul
theoretically travel !aster than RcS which is really only a local velocity o!
light L this is because R!ree spaceS is a misnomer i! implie here is a
vacuum completely !ree o! bounary conitions upon its momentum-
energy as well as the statistics o! the !luctuations o! this momentum-
energy.
>uly 2)**
6his coul possibly play a role in the anomalously high
energies o! some cosmic rays.
Fe may speaK o! mass as energy in its purely spatial aspect or moe.
3onversely1 we may speaK o! energy as mass in its purely temporal
aspect. 4ravitational energy cannot be inclue with all other energy
into a tensor: this quantity must be escribe in general relativity as a
pseuo tensor1 which is an unconserve quantity. Ht is !or this reason
that gravitational energy cannot be localize within 4A theory.
/n ob5ect with mass cannot1 accoring to the theory o! general relativity1
be ini!!erent to the passage o! time. ;ven photons are not totally
ini!!erent to the passage o! time provie that they traverse a space in
6he notion o! substance necessarily involves ini!!erence to the passage
o! time o! substances. :o we see a way o! eriving quantum mechanics
!rom general relativity1 say1 through a stochastic ynamic principle1 i.e.1
where time is ineraicable within general relativity because o! the way
this theory necessarily treats the concept o! mass? 6he nonlocality o!
quantum mechanics is strongly suggeste by the essential nonlocality o!
gravitational energy within general relativity theory.
?ut this time that is RstimulateS is not some universal1 cosmic time1 !or
none such e0ists: intersub5ective temporality is always re!erence !rame
epenent L nonlocal quantum time is not. 7erson as their own1 private
nonlocally connecte vacuum state w/ its own /a;1 /ap1 etc.
Hs locality prouce by the collective mutual inter!erence o! quantum
nonlocal systems? ;igen!unctions o! the same 7si o not mutually
inter!ere because all are mutually orthogonal1 but how can two
inepenent nonlocally connecte quantum !iels?
<our argument !or a wrong potential energy term in the "chroinger
equation seems base on the notion that imaginary velocity is
meaningless. <ou must Know that imaginary velocity is a staple notion
within special relativity theory1 e.g.1 the current ensity o! electric charge
o! a charge Eat restE is 5ust AhoWCicD where current ensity is e!ine as
ensity time velocity.
8oreover1 uring quantum tunneling a charge particle possesses an
imaginary momentum. H! it were not possible to accurately measure the
potential barrier through which the charge particle is tunneling1 it might
be conceivable to say the particle oes not actually possess an imaginary
velocity1 but that the potential through which it moves must have a1 say1
!requency structure1 which allows the particle to harmonically penetrate
it Cor something similarD. H! you o some more basic research1 you will
see that the notion o! imaginary velocity is wiesprea in moern
physics an oesnGt appear to lan physicists in contraictions or
absurities.
Aegars1
Aussell
6he istinction o! real versus virtual which1 o! course1 comes out o!
quantum !iel theory1 is a binary opposition which cuts across the
opposition e0istence versus non-e0istence. H! this is true1 then e0istence
versus non-e0istence is not itsel! a binary opposition1 i.e.1 e0istence an
none0istence are not mutually e0clusive categories. H! not mutually
e0clusive categories1 then each category1 that o! e0istence an that o!
non-e0istence1 may be e!ine inepenently o! the negation o! the
other. 6his might be the case i! e0istence an non-e0istence are
mani!estations o! some eeper system1 e.g.1 that o! ?eing. "ince both
mathematical entities an physical ob5ects possess ?eing although
mathematical entities themselves o not Ee0istE1 rather1 they may be
thought o! as Esubsisting1E ?eing is seen as a broaer category than mere
;0istence. <our theory seems to presuppose that e0istence an non-
e0istence are ual opposing1 or1 binary opposite or mutually e0clusive
categories. ?ut there seems no goo reason !or supposing this
presupposition correct.
Aegars1
Aussell
6hinK o! a spherical shell o! arbitrary thicKness e0paning outwar at
the spee o! light !rom some origin. H! the spee o! gravitation is c1
which is somewhat in oubt Cc.!.1 6om Ian -lanern Hnternet postings
c/o
web=
www.e5a.comD1 then the gravitational !iel o! this spherically
symmetric istribution o! photons will also be moving outwar at the
spee o! light. 6he photon shellGs gravitational !iel is comoving1 i! you
will1 with the photons.
?ut i! the gravitational !iel comoves1 as it were1 with the photons1 then
the notion o! the photons being the EsourceE o! this gravitational !iel
becomes highly problematic1 as you can see i! you stop to consier the
gravitational !iel at points at rest C Eat restE in the sense o! null re- or
blue- shi!ting o! the photons relative to this pointD within the e0paning
photon istribution. 6here is1 o! course1 no gravitational !iel outsie
the photon istribution.
Ht is much less problematic to view the comoving gravitational !iel o!
the photon shell as a retare potential e0paning outwar at the spee
o! light an stemming !rom a Wmatter istributionS e0isting 5ust prior to
its being converte into energy1 i.e.1 photons1 than to contemplate an
instantaneous Cas oppose to retareD gravitational CpotentialD !iel
generate by the photons in real time1 i! you will.
Ht appears that i! the spee o! gravity is only c1 then the gravitational
!iel is separable !rom its source upon this source being converte
completely into energy1 i.e.1 photons an other massless particles.
Aegars1
Aussell
Fe cannot preict iniviual quantum events1 but only the probabilities
o! those iniviual events occurring. "imilarly1 we cannot preict a
given particle_s momentum1 generally speaKing1 but we can generally
preict the particle_s momentum uncertainty. =ypothesis: only
conserve quantities can be preicteV i! the value o! a non-conserve
quantity can be preicte1 it is by way o! some conserve quantity to
which it is connecte.
Fe imagine the photon passing in !ront o! us an unre!lectingly suppose
that although relativity states that no time passes !or the photon1 we see
that time oes not pass !or the photon R!rom our point o! viewS in which
we imagine the photon moving at the spee o! light Rthrough spaceS an
Racross our visual !iel.S ?ut !or no time to pass !or the photon1 it must
not interact with anything along its path !or to o so woul mean that
less than *))% o! the photon_s action is irecte along its irection o!
motion. 6he scattering o! the photon away !rom its original tra5ectory
involves an e0change o! energy along other spatial irections but which
is secretly an e0change o! i-momentum1 say !or energy an then an
e0change o! this energy !or 5 & K momentum1 say. ;0changes o! $-
momentum are always at the e0pense o! e0changes o! energy an
quantum spin is the ine0 o! the istribution o! the components o! stress-
momentum-energy o! the three types o! vac-vac1 mat-vac1 mat-mat
e0changes. 6he components o! angular momentum CgeneralizeD are
each compose o! commuting observables where one observable which
is conserve an possesses a quantum number Can so sub5ect to
quantum selection rulesD an the other with which it is paire to maKe up
the angular momentum component is not conserve. Hn an abstract an
!ormal way1 contracting /a70 will result in a sympathetic e0pansion o! /a0
via the simple =eisenberg equation1 /a0/a70 Z= h/2pi. =owever1 the
unerlying mechanism !or the above =eisenberg relation lies with the
!our-imensional spin networK that comprises both matter an vacuum.
Hn times own re!erence !rame1 no time passes1 provie that time oes
not interact with anything along its tra5ectory. / !ree photon is in an
energy eigenstate. Puantum mechanics !rom 4eneral Aelativity.
6ime-space versus here-now with each person having his or her own
time line. Hs there gravity !or the sub5ective spacetime?
Fe must remember that a mass1 which !alls in a straight raial line in
three-imensional space1 is !ollowing a curve tra5ectory within !our-
imensional spacetime. 8oreover this curvature is by an large1
entirely with respect to the time imension. 6he mass_ instantaneous
velocity along its curve timeliKe tra5ectory has every thing to o with
the timeliKe curvature RseenS by this mass. Fe state here as a
hypothesis that the raius o! timeliKe curvature e0perience by a test
mass !alling towar the centroi o! a spherically symmetric mass
istribution can be simply calculate !rom the mass_ instantaneous
velocity an acceleration. /ccoring to the equation below1
A CtimeliKeD = I CinstantaneousD/MaMCinstantaneousD
"o curvature isn_t uniquely e!ine inepenent o! a re!erence !rame
being speci!ie. 9! course1 inertial re!erence !rames are e!ine in
terms o! the !our velocity o! a test mass.
/lthough the !orm o! orinary human communication is largely a!ter the
!ashion o! an absolute1 the substance thereo! is by an large
metaphorical. /n iiom may be thought o! as a latent metaphor
e0presse in the grammar current when the historical conte0t o! the
iiom_s metaphor commonly unerstoo.
6he irreversibility o! time_s arrow may equivalently be escribe as the
hysteresis o! the ,niverse within the !requency omain. Aeversibility
is prevente when the unerlying groun o! change is itsel! bacK-reacte
upon by change to the entities it creates an sustains1 resulting in a
global shi!t or change in it.
Iacuum !luctuations vs. raiation reaction is relate to .orenz
trans!ormation o! mass energy vs. .orenz trans!ormation o! vacuum
energy. 6he energy ensity o! vacuum is .orenz trans!orme1 but not
its mass.
6he curvature o! a circular arc possessing a timeliKe circum!erence1
resulting in a spaceliKe acceleration towar a centroi o! a mass
istribution. /n so in this way we see gravitation as a Kin o!
centripetal/centri!ugal !orce. 7erhaps the e0pansion o! the universe or
the repulsive !orce behin itD is normally in local balance with . . .?
6he sel!-generative aspect CenuranceD o! matter is epenent upon the
bining !orces ultimately responsible !or gravity. 7ersistence o! a
particle epens upon ilation o! the particle_s local time. ?ining
problem an temporality o! consciousness.
6he recursive nonlinearity o! general relativity suggests that spacetime
an matter were engenere together uring the ?ig ?ang.
8omentum-energy e0changes in !ree space vacuum are symmetrical1
implying that the net spacetime ensity o! momentum-energy
!luctuations is ). / slight eviation o! this ensity might be closely
relate to ;insteinGs cosmological constant. 7erhaps the local
imbalances in the ensity o! momentum-energy vacuum !luctuations
must be reresse !or equilibriumGs saKe by an equivalent counteracting
system o! nonlocal1 global !luctuations. 6his remins us o! 7utho!!Gs
zero-point !iel electromagnetic energy !eebacK loop between real
particle prouce J7- an quantum vacuum electromagnetic
!luctuations.
QX
7erhaps this is the reason !or raiation reaction an
vacuum !luctuations comprising the overall J7- in equal parts.
9nly the timeliKe component o! the momentum-energy !luctuation !iel
connecte with the Eplus partE Crelative to !ree spaceD will possess an
appro0imately inverse linear spatial variation CweaK !iel limit assume
hereD.
6he spatial component o! the i!!erence in momentum-energy
!luctuation between Etrue !ree spaceE an that o! the ,niverseGs global
spacetime1 is what must spatially vary in orer to prouce a @ewtonian
inverse square !iel.
4iving a particle a .orenz boost changes the vacuum that the particle
interacts with Can not 5ust in the irection o! motionD1 but oes not
change it in any way that is etectable/measurable within the particle1
that is1 i.e.1 there is no measurable shi!t in the istribution o! momentum-
energy !luctuations within the particle Cor massD. 7erhaps a .orenz
boost causes nonlocal changes to the vacuum1 say1 in the !orm o!
timeliKe an spaceliKe shi!ts in the phase o! 7si !unctions. .orenz
invariance epens on /ap an /a; o! the vacuum with which a mass
interacts1 not on any /ap an /a; intrinsic to the mass itsel!. Fe must
remember that vacuum statistics are .orenz invariant.
"pacetime is constructe !rom the isparities in local an global values
o! the uncertainties an !luctuations in momentum an energy.
8omentum an energy must have an internal component - otherwise we
cannot invoKe their uncertainties an !luctuations in orer to e!ine
spacetime. 9ne must alreay have a spacetime in e0istence prior to
e!ining a gravitational !iel - this is the notion o! gravity atop a
bacKgroun metric - weaK !iel appro0imation.
3ertainly what the spacetime is constitute !rom oes not require the
e0istence o! spacetime metric !or its e0istence1 but the metric is simply a
collection o! initial an bounary conitions upon this transcenental
vacuum !iel. 6he wor EtranscenentalE is invoKe because the
vacuum here is unerstoo to transcen any particular spacetime or
spatiotemporality itsel!.
"ymmetries are generally epenent upon the speci!ication o! initial an
bounary conitions !or some nonconserve !iel quantity1 resulting in a
new escription !or this !iel involving a collection o! interacting !iels1
which together comprise a close system o! substrate1 common
enominator Rstu!!S !or which there e0ists a continuity equation. 6he
components o! this conserve quantity1 i.e.1 the Rstu!!S are reversibly
inter-trans!ormable an reactions between these components1 i.e.1 the
istinct !iel quantities1 unergo time-reversible reactions with one
another. "ince the above bounary conitions are actually arti!acts o!
the nonconserve !iel an sustaine by it1 irreversible an
noncomputable processes unerlie the maintenance o! the !iel
components as static components o! the total conserve1 composite1 an
interacting !iel system. 6he component !iel quantities o! the close
system construct1 borne o! the nonlocally connecte1 open system !iel
Cthe !iel e0isting prior to the instituting o! any initial an bounary
conitions whateverD1 are thusly raically overetermine. /n so the
Rmother !ielS can temporally evolve inepenent o! the temporal
evolution o! the !iel components e0isting as arti!acts o! the impose
close system o! !iels. /n there is no unique interconvertibility
between the close an open system !iel quantities.
H! spacetime is generate an sustaine through !luctuations o! vacuum
energy1 then the notion o! vacuum !luctuation length1 time1 an mass is
to Rput the cart be!ore the horse.S
"o is 7si really a !unction o! vacuum momentum-stress-energy
current/!lu0 ensities instea o! the spacetime coorinates. ;instein i
not inclue a term !or e0ternal pressure in his cosmological !iel
equations since he believe that spacetime coul not actually RcontainS
vacuum energy1 but inclue in these equations a term !or Rinternal
pressure.S
6here is not alteration in the mass o! the energy an momentum
!luctuations in the quantum vacuum1 but only changes in their !lu0
ensities. 6he only way to reconcile the *2) orer o! magnitue
iscrepancy between general relativity an quantum theoryGs preictions
!or the energy ensity o! the vacuum is to locate the unerlying
mechanism !or gravitation within the ynamics o! the quantum vacuum
itsel!. 6his is to say that in this case the subatomic virtual process1
which constitutes the phenomenon o! gravitation as such1 woul not
themselves be gravitational sources. / similar e0ample o! this line o!
reasoning might be the statement that the physical processes taKing place
within the brain1 by which the perception o! color is e!!ect1 o not
themselves possess color1 but color is constitute out o! these processes.
/nother e0ample o! this euctive/causal principle applies to arti!icial
intelligence an the question o! whether or not conscious thought might
be !ormalizable in the !orm o! a computer program: the process by
which abstract categories are generally brought into being1 or brought
into being as such1 oes not itsel! submit to a complete escription in
terms o! abstract categories1 i.e.1 particular e0emplars o! what it is
ultimately an generally responsible !or proucing.
:iscuss the i!!erence1 i! any1 between current an !lu0 ensities.
3ellular automata theory provies an unerlying mechanism !or inertial
mass1 an hence1 by the equivalence principle1 !or gravitation as well1
hope!ully. 3urrent ensities are epenent upon the velocity o! some
substance1 i.e.1 conserve quantity1 obeying a continuity equation. 6he
!lu0 ensity is not epenent by e!inition upon the velocity1 as is the
current ensity1 but rather upon the number o! particles penetrating a
sur!ace1 or hypersur!ace1 !or that matter1 per unit time. 6he asymmetry
o! lower imensional interactions can be compensate !or within a
higher imensional space/continuum.
Fe are saying that the uncertainties in 01 t1 p1 an ; obey .orenz
covariance as components an .orenz invariance when together
comprising tensorial quantities. ?ut we are also saying that the
ynamics o! the interaction o! these uncertainties1 speci!ically1 through
the interaction o! the !luctuations comprise by these uncertainties1 oes
not itsel! con!orm to .orenz covariance/invariance. "o this suggests
that a time asymmetry appears as a result o! the correlation/inter!erence
o! !luctuations in momentum-energy which accounts !or the !luctuations
not themselves being gravitational sources1 but themselves intimately
relate to the thermoynamics o! blacK holes an the vacuum as
mani!este in such phenomena as =awKing raiation1 spontaneous
emission1 an the :avies-,nruh ;!!ect1 as well as the phenomenon o!
wave!unction collapse.
6he reason that the velocity o! light is reuce in a gravitational !iel
Crelative to the !ree space !ielD is that the velocity o! time is reuce in
such spacetime regions. 6his in turn is ue to a reuction by a similar
!raction in the ensity1 or rather1 the current ensity o! the quantum
vacuum_s energy.
6he vacuum is not uni!ie1 but there is a plurality o! nonlocal vacua1
which interact with one another. 8omentum e0changes are e!ine by
virtual energy transitions between these nonlocal vacua. Aeuction o!
uncertainty is in!ormation. ?ut there is reuction o! uncertainty o!
istinct nonlocal vacua. Hnter!erence o! energy eigenstates creates
energy uncertainty. Hnter!erence o! nonlocal vacua creates in!ormation.
6he nonlocal quantum vacua through there mutual inter!erence
constitute spacetime.
6he temporal evolution o! the amplitue1 7si = 7si 0 e0pCiwtD1 is an
oscillation or cycling through a perioically connecte continuum o!
egenerate 7si-i. 6his temporal evolution o! mere amplitues itsel!
oes not translate into a temporal evolution o! any physical observables.
9nly through inter!erence o! this amplitue temporal evolution with
other such temporally oscillating amplitues will translate into a
physically measurable temporal evolution o! some ensity !unction with
respect to some physical observable.
6wo imensional time:
Qd
the rate at which a mass reconstitutes itsel! out
o! the quantum vacuum Cthe otherD an the rate at which the mass
reconstitutes itsel! out o! itsel!.
-ebruary 2)*2
"o can time ilation be more
intimately relate to absolute $ + 2 structure o! spacetime in which local
temporality is governe by shi!ting in the components o! 2 time within
a time plane? Hs each time component weighte a!ter the !ashion o! the
orthogonal components o! a 2 wave!unction? 9n this view1 e0tening
this notion o! a moel o! hyperimensional spacetime1 the spatial
hypersur!ace woul be structure by a su!!iciently rich n-imensional
temporal space1 e.g.1 each g
iK
in the metric tensor corresponing to a
istinct imensional o! absolute/simulation time.
8omentum !luctuations with energies ientical to the transition energies
within the vacuum lattice. /pparently1 with the e0change o! virtual
bosons between real !ermions occupying quantum states within the
vacuum. 6his e0act corresponence between momentum an energy
!luctuations is broKen. Fhat symmetry is broKen by the gravitational
!iel here? "o are virtual energy transitions ecrease in ensity
allowing a higher current ensity o! momentum !luctuations in the !orm
o! boson e0changes?
Hn special relativity1 spacetime is a close system1 but ue to the
irreversibility an nonlinearity o! general relativity an the nonlocality
o! gravitational energy1 gravitation opens up spacetime as it breaKs its
.orenz symmetry.
Hn!ormation is not a !unction o! a close system an so is not a
conserve quantity. :oes this mean that an in!inite amount o!
in!ormation e0ists. 3ertainly an in!inite quantity is not conserve.
6his woul only not be true i! in!ormation is a component o! some larger
quantity that is conserve.
Fhen we say that a quantity is not conserve1 we might mean either that
it passes away or can be estroye or that it can be create or that it
Keeps Rcoming bacK1S i.e.1 spontaneously reappearing L that it !luctuates
in an unpreictable manner.
Hnter!erence o! orthogonal 7si-H leas to energy uncertainty.
Hnter!erence o! nonorthogonal 7si-H leas to momentum uncertainty.
:oes the introuction o! a gravitational !iel into the environment o! a
quantum superposition o! orthogonal energy eigenstates cause a shi!t
towar nonorthogonality o! these energy eigen!unctions1 say1 through the
Rcurving o! time?S /n the concomitant Rcurving o! spaceS in a
contrary manner to the ilation o! time resulting in suppresse energy
e0changes an enhance momentum e0changes?
6he si0teen gCi1KD an the coorinates o! the *& imensional phase
hyperspace. "umCiD/a+i/a; + "umCiD/at/a7i = /aWW2 -C01y1z1tD. 6hese *&
imensions are e!ine by the orthogonal phase uncertainty planes1
C/a01 /a70D1 C/ay1 /a7yD1 C/az1 /a7zD1 C/act1 /a7ctD. >ust as !our orthogonal
lines !orm a !our-imensional space1 !our orthogonal planes !orm a *&
imensional phase uncertainty superspace. 3an this in!ormation can be
recovere by consiering the angular momentum uncertainties matri0?
?ut there are only *2 istinct components Cat !irst glanceD within in this
matri0. :oes this imply that there are !our equations1 which can be
!oun !or the parameters o! the phase uncertainty superspace given
above? 6here are1 o! course1 the !our =eisenberg uncertainty relations
between /a0 an /a701 /ay an /a7y1 etc. ;ach o! the above uncertainty
planes appears to possess an area o! 7lancK_s constant units o! angular
momentum. :oes this suggest a cellular automata analogy !or
spacetime? 9r maybe these *& parameters may be !unctions o! points
within a !our-imensional space since /a0 an /a70 are 5ust relate by a
constant1 h? 6his oes soun somewhat more reasonable than invoKing
*& separate imensional o! a superphasespace. /!ter all1 the gCi1 KD are
e!ine on spacetime. Hn other wors1 we e0pect to be able to recover
both the spacetime curvature in!ormation an the ynamical geoesic
motion in!ormation !rom the /a+i an /a7i.
Iirtual particles are phenomena o! one_s own vacuum state. Aeal
particles are the prouct o! the interaction o! nonlocal vacua1 i.e.1
personal groun states. Iirtual particles are Ro!! mass shell.S Hs this
relate to the question o! whether virtual particles have a real mass at
all?
/s is well unerstoo in conventional1 i.e.1 3openhagen interpretation1
o! quantum theory1 the amplitue or wave !unction oes not itsel!
possess any absolute physical meaning1 but only the square o! this
quantity. >ust as the cross term o! two istinctly i!!erent1 but
nonorthogonal wave !unctions is interprete as a correlation o! these two
wave !unctions1 the square o! any given amplitue may be unerstoo as
sel!-correlation o! this wave !unction. /n it is this sel!-correlation
which can be measure an which possesses a e!inite physical
meaning. "el!-correlation1 i.e.1 M7si 0 7siWM1 i! 7si is in an eigenstate
with respect to the energy1 results in a purely spatially varying ensity
istribution !unction. /ny correlation o! nonorthogonal eigen!unctions
which is not an autocorrelation will generally give a ensity !unction
which is both spatially an temporally varying throughout some region
o! space time. "o even though each eigen!unction is in an eigenstate o!
the energy an so is not temporally varying in an absolute sense1 the
correlation o! these two eigen!unctions1 which is its interaction ensity1
is temporally varying.
Hs there a single1 mathematical !unction that connects all possible
numbers1 e.g.1 real1 imaginary1 matri01 !ractal1 surreal1 etc.1 . . . ?
9ne integrates the i!!erential o! the !unctional representing the .orenz
trans!ormation along the geoesic path o! the test particle to trans!orm
!rom !rame /C01y1z1tD to !rame ?C01y1z1tD within a gravitational
!iel.
6he steay state response o! the system is1 uner certain conitions
Cbounary an initialD1 the in!inite sum o! all o! its possible transient
responses. 9! course1 each o! the system_s transient responses may be
alternatively represente in the !requency omain via -ourier analysis.
6he reason that the velocity o! light is reuce in a gravitational !iel
Crelative to the !ree space !ielD is that the velocity o! time is reuce in
such spacetime regions. 6his in turn is ue to a reuction by a similar
!raction in the ensity1 or rather1 the current ensity o! the quantum
vacuum_s energy.
6he vacuum is not uni!ie1 but there is a plurality o! nonlocal vacua
which interact with one another. 8omentum e0changes are e!ine by
virtual energy transitions between these nonlocal vacua. Aeuction o!
uncertainty is in!ormation. ?ut there is reuction o! uncertainty o!
istinct nonlocal vacua. Hnter!erence o! energy eigenstates creates
energy uncertainty. Hnter!erence o! nonlocal vacua creates in!ormation.
6he nonlocal quantum vacua between themselves constitute spacetime.
6he temporal evolution o! the amplitue1 7si = 7si 0 e0pCiwtD1 is a
continuous oscillation through egenerate 7si-i.
6wo imensional time: the rate at which a mass reconstitutes itsel! out
o! the quantum vacuum Cthe otherD an the rate at which the mass
reconstitutes itsel! out o! itsel!.
8omentum !luctuations with energies ientical to the transition energies
within the vacuum lattice. /pparently1 with the e0change o! virtual
bosons between real !ermions occupying quantum states within the
vacuum. 6his e0act corresponence between momentum an energy
!luctuations is broKen. Fhat symmetry is broKen by the gravitational
!iel here? "o are virtual energy transitions ecrease in ensity
allowing a higher current ensity o! momentum !luctuations in the !orm
o! boson e0changes?
Hn special relativity1 spacetime is a close system1 but ue to the
irreversibility an nonlinearity o! general relativity an the nonlocality
o! gravitational energy1 gravitation opens up spacetime as it breaKs its
.orenz symmetry.
Hn!ormation is not a !unction o! a close system an so is not a
conserve quantity. :oes this mean that an in!inite amount o!
in!ormation. 6his woul only not be true i! in!ormation is a component
o! some larger quantity that is conserve.
Fhen we say that a quantity is not conserve1 we might mean either that
it passes away or can be estroye or that it can be create or that it
Keeps Rcoming bacK1S i.e.1 spontaneously reappearing.
Hnter!erence o! orthogonal 7si-H leas to energy uncertainty.
Hnter!erence o! nonorthogonal 7si-H leas to momentum uncertainty.
6he si0teen gCi1KD an the coorinates o! the *& imensional phase
hyperspace. "umCiD/a+i/a; + "umCiD/at/a7i = /aWW2 -C01y1z1tD.
Iirtual particles are phenomena o! one_s own vacuum state. Aeal
particles are the prouct o! the interaction o! nonlocal vacua1 i.e.1
personal groun states. Iirtual particles are Ro!! mass shell.S Hs this
relate to the question o! whether virtual particles have a real mass at
all?
/s is well unerstoo in conventional1 i.e.1 3openhagen interpretation1
o! quantum theory1 the amplitue or wave !unction oes not itsel!
possess any absolute physical meaning1 but only the square o! this
quantity. >ust as the cross term o! two istinctly i!!erent1 but
nonorthogonal wave !unctions is interprete as a correlation o! these two
wave !unctions1 the square o! any given amplitue may be unerstoo as
sel!-correlation o! this wave !unction. /n it is this sel!-correlation
which can be measure an which possesses a e!inite physical
meaning. "el!-correlation1 i.e.1 M7si 0 7siWM1 i! 7si is in an eigenstate
with respect to the energy1 results in a purely spatially varying ensity
istribution !unction. /ny correlation o! nonorthogonal eigen!unctions
which is not an autocorrelation will generally give a ensity !unction
which is both spatially an temporally varying throughout some region
o! space time. "o even though each eigen!unction is in an eigenstate o!
the energy an so is not temporally varying in an absolute sense1 the
correlation o! these two eigen!unctions1 which is its interaction ensity1
is temporally varying.
6he circular motion1 !eebacK through $-momentum e0changes1 is
converte to linear $-momentum irecte along a single a0is. Fhen the
propellant is in its RinertS !orm1 $-momentum is virtual an irecte
along all three spatial a0es. Fhen a mass is accelerate !rom rest to
some velocity1 v1 its mass an length locally1 relativistically change1 but
the quantum vacuum unergoes a global relativistic change in its energy
ensity Curing the accelerationD. / .orenz trans!ormation has no e!!ect
upon the energy ensity o! the quantum vacuum1 as can be
mathematically emonstrate !or a vacuum with energy ensity
proportional to !requencyWW$ C!
$
D.
Ht appears at least super!icially that the ensity o! mass is increase by a
!actor o! gammaWW2 as a result o! a .orenz trans!ormation. =ow o we
e0plain the single gamma !actor involve in time ilation1 given the
propose cellular automata moel or relativity1 in this case?
"ince the vacuum oes not obey the .orenz symmetry group1 we might
say that gravitation breaKs the .orenz symmetry o! the quantum
vacuum. Fe must conclue that the momentum-energy ensity o! the
vacuum is una!!ecte by a .orenz trans!ormation1 in agreement with
what theory preicts !or an energy !iel with a irectly proportional
!requencyWW$ epenence.
3learly the vacuum possessing a gravitational !iel loses it_s the
proportional to !requencyWW$ energy ensity epenenceT =ence1 the
gravitational !iel is at least partly base in spatial or spatiotemporal
variations in the vacuum_s energy ensity.
6here is nothing remarKable about coinciences !rom a probabilistic
stanpoint as they inevitably happen given su!!icient number o! istinct
settings an a su!!icient amount o! time.
/ .orenz trans!ormation causes a speci!ic1 coorinate change in both
vacuum !requency an wavenumber. 6he strict proportional to
!requencyWW$ epenence is lost ue to presence o! a new proportional
to wavenumberWW$ component. /ll o! the vacuum_s momentum is
timeliKe an none o! its momentum is spaceliKe1 hence the lacK o!
wavenumber epenence. / gravitating boy must possess some
spaceliKe momentum Cin the !orm o! e0changes o! !orce-meiating
virtual bosonsD an this costs the mass some o! its timeliKe Cor
imaginaryD momentum. 6his prevents the energy ensity o! the vacuum
!rom being purely epenent upon the !requency since this epenency
presupposes a constant relationship between !requency an wavenumber
through the constancy o! the spee o! light. =owever1 the spee o! light
is not a constant within general relativity1 i.e.1 where gravitational !iels
are present. Hn other wors1 saying that the energy ensity o! the
vacuum is irectly proportional to the cube o! !requency is1 in
8inKowsKi or R!lat spaceS that this energy ensity is proportional to the
cube o! the prouct o! the velocity o! light an the wavenumber. Hn a
gravitational !iel1 the velocity o! light is not a constant1 but can vary
spatially throughout the !iel Can by the relativity principle1 the velocity
o! light shoul also vary temporally since there is no ob5ective
ecomposition o! spacetime into separate space an time componentsD.
/ given !requency o! vacuum electromagnetic !iel !luctuation is given
in !ree space Cin the absence o! a gravitational !ielD by 5ust the velocity
o! light multiplie by the wavenumber o! the !luctuation. Hn a
gravitational !iel this !requency is given by the prouct o! three !actors:
the spee o! light in vacuum1 c1 the wavenumber o! the !luctuation1
*/lamba1 an imensionless !unctional with a spatial Can perhaps
temporal1 as wellD epenence which is etermine by the spatial Can
perhaps1 temporalD epenence o! the *& gravitational potentials1 i.e.1 the
metric components1 speci!ie by the ;instein !iel equations. / .orenz
trans!ormation alters !requency an wavenumber in a complementary
manner to which it alters time an length. "o although a .orenz
trans!ormation alters the vacuum_s !requency1 it also alters the vacuum_s
wavenumber proucing a null net e!!ect on the energy ensity. "o in a
gravitational !iel the ensity o! the quantum vacuum is proportional to
the cube o! the vacuum electromagnetic !iel !luctuation !requency
provie that the above !unctional is itsel! invariant uner a .orenz
trans!ormation. 6his is only possible i! the multiplication o! this
!unctional generally represents a trans!ormation1 which !orms at least a
subgroup o! the .orenz trans!ormation group. 6his is not possible
because the .orenz group is itsel! a subgroup o! the :i!!eomorphism
group o! general relativistic coorinate trans!ormations.
3learly the timeliKe momentum o! ob5ects on a spacetime sur!ace is
connecte with its motion through an along this hypersur!ace.
3ompare the oppositions o! prepositions RonS versus RbyS with
RthroughS versus Ralong.S 6ime ilation an =ubble constant
contraction is etermine by the ration o! mass to blacK hole Cperhaps
also RvacuumSD ensity. Aeconcile this with a =WW2/Npi4 cosmic mass
ensity. ?lacK hole entropy suggests that blacK hole ensity shoul be
proportional to */AWW2 or to blacK hole sur!ace area1 c.!.1 cellular
automata-base theories o! relativity. 6he matter an vacuum
momentum current ensities are reuce by this time ilation or =ubble
!requency contraction !actor.
6o calculate the bining energy o! nuclear matter1 one must per!orm a
partial sum o! an in!inite number o! in!inite terms1 yieling a !inite
result.
Fe can looK at the orering relation between matter an vacuum in two
possibly relate ways. 6he structure o! matter mirrors that o! the
vacuum because it is constitute out o! an sustaine by this vacuum L
!rom what other source coul matter have erive its structure?
/lternatively1 we can assume matter has an e0istence somehow
inepenent o! the vacuum. =ere matter resies in this vacuum an the
structure o! the vacuum is perturbe by the presence o! matter1 more
speci!ically1 the structure o! matter imposes the pattern o! its structure
upon that o! the vacuum or upon the structure o! its pattern o!
!luctuating.
3learly the timeliKe momentum o! ob5ects on a spacetime sur!ace is
connecte with its motion through an along this hypersur!ace.
3ompare the oppositions o! prepositions RonS versus RbyS with
RthroughS versus Ralong.S 6ime ilation an =ubble constant
contraction is etermine by the ration o! mass to blacK hole Cperhaps
also RvacuumSD ensity. Aeconcile this with a =WW2/Npi4 cosmic mass
ensity. ?lacK hole entropy suggests that blacK hole ensity shoul be
proportional to */AWW2 or to blacK hole sur!ace area1 c.!.1 cellular
automata-base theories o! relativity. 6he matter an vacuum
momentum current ensities are reuce by this time ilation or =ubble
!requency contraction !actor.
Ht has been suggeste that the ubiquitous an collectively enormous
energy !luctuations o! the quantum vacuum are scattere echoes1
virtually in!inite in number1 o! the initial scattering1 or shattering1
e0plosion o! the ?ig ?ang1 itsel! thought to have originate in a vacuum
!luctuation o! statistically in!initesimal probability.
6he ensity o! the quantum vacuum is calculate within the present
quantum theory to possess a ensity o! appro0imately *)WW2'
Kg/cmWW$. 6his is what is calle the 7lancK ensity o! matter. ?ut !or
matter this ensity can only e0ist !or a particular smallest spatial
imension1 i.e.1 roughly *)WW-$' meters1 an !or virtual matter1 at this
same spatial imension but !or the most !leeting instant o! aroun *)WW-
(2 secons. 6he i!!erence between real an virtual 7lancKions here is
that in the !ormer case all o! the !luctuations are in the !orm o! $-
momentum e0changes whereas in the latter they are entirely in the !orm
o! (-momentum e0changes1 imaginary1 an e0clusively along the time
imension. ?etween these two !orms o! 7lancK matter there subsists a
2)-egree hyperspatial rotation in accorance with the symmetry o! the
.orenz group. 6here is a similar relationship obtaining between rest
mass an the collection o! photons yiele up when this RinertS mass is
*))% converte into energy1 in accorance with ; = mcWW2. 6he
reason that energy possesses mass when sub5ect to spatiotemporal
bounary conitions is that is that some o! the energy is necessarily
converte into mass as a result o! the bounary conitions impose upon
this otherwise totally !ree energy. 6he reason that the blacK hole state
equation1 i! you will1 places such a tight restriction upon the
relationships o! mass an length or1 rather1 ensity an length1 in this
case1 whereas this restriction is utterly absent in the case o! vacuum
energy1 is no oubt owing to the impose bounary conitions. Fe may
then thinK o! mass as 5ust vacuum energy with suitably impose
bounary conitions1 the ynamics o! matter an vacuum being
otherwise essentially the same.
/ tangle networK o! !eebacK loops o! quantum vacuum !luctuation
momentum-energy constitutes the structure o! matter. -eebacK
necessarily involves the action o! memory.
6here is !eebacK within a given ata/in!ormation system an then this
!eebacK is itsel! continually being upate through nonlocal !eebacK
with some global1 istribute system. 6his upating o! the system_s
internal1 ynamical !eebacK structures may be thought o! as the
!eebacK o! that component o! the system which is globally uni!ie with
itsel! at i!!erent times.
Hn nonrelativistic physics1 any linear momentum can be trans!erre away
via an appropriate 4alilean trans!ormation. 6his is not the ease with
angular momentum because this is motion not taKing place within an
inertial !rame. Hn relativity1 the $-momentum can only be trans!orme
away while preserving the total (-momentum. /a0/apy + 0/a7y + y/a70
+ /ay/a70 + /a0/a7y = /a.z
,se superposition to e0press .z in !our-imensional spacetime.
@ecessity o! quantum mechanics within relativistic physics. /a!/ag =
h/2pi1 where either ! or g must be a quantum number an the other term
represents a nonconserve quantity.
Hn the paper1 6he 8ystery o! the 3osmic Iacuum ;nergy :ensity an
the /ccelerate ;0pansion o! the ,niverse1 it is state that the e!!ective
cosmological constant is e0pecte to obtain contributions !rom short-
istance physics1 corresponing to an energy scale o! at least *)) 4eI.
/ll conserve ynamical variables are purely timeliKe in !ree space.
Hnertia an gravitation are phenomena associate with the pro5ection o!
these timeliKe !our vectors into spaceliKe components. /n important
question here is whether there is a conserve !our potential. :oes the
creation o! spaceliKe components o! !our potential inuce a change in
the timeliKe !our potential so that the sum o! time an spaceliKe
components o! some new !our potential vectorially sum to prouce a
new !our potential with the same magnitue as the inertial !ree space
!our potential.
Ae: 6o :esiato_s 7robability Fave :ispersion Hnterpretation o!
Aelativity. 6o inclue inertia use the analogy o! an A.3 circuit. 6he
R.S an R3S components o! the circuit meiate time/energy an the RAS
component1 the position/momentum component o! the =eisenberg
uncertainty.
Fe must remember that a mass1 which !alls in a straight raial line in
three-imensional space1 is !ollowing a curve tra5ectory within !our-
imensional spacetime. 8oreover this curvature is by an large1
entirely with respect to the time imension. 6he mass_ instantaneous
velocity along its curve timeliKe tra5ectory has every thing to o with
the timeliKe curvature RseenS by this mass. Fe state here as a
hypothesis that the raius o! timeliKe curvature e0perience by a test
mass !alling towar the centroi o! a spherically symmetric mass
istribution can be simply calculate !rom the mass_ instantaneous
velocity an acceleration. /ccoring to the equation below1
A CtimeliKeD = I CinstantaneousDWW2/MaMCinstantaneousD
"o curvature isn_t uniquely e!ine inepenent o! a re!erence !rame
being speci!ie. 9! course1 inertial re!erence !rames are e!ine in
terms o! the !our velocity o! a test mass.
/ mass moves as though it has a conserve !our-momentum within a C+
++-D signature !our-imensional spacetime. 6ime a0is as irection o!
centripetal/centri!ugal !orce maKes the notion o! local spacetime
concrete.
6he irreversibility o! time_s arrow may equivalently be escribe as the
hysteresis o! the ,niverse within the !requency omain. Aeversibility
is prevente when the unerlying groun o! change is itsel! bacK-reacte
upon by change to the entities it creates an sustains1 resulting in a
global shi!t or change in it.
Iacuum !luctuations vs. raiation reaction is relate to .orenz
trans!ormation o! mass energy vs. .orenz trans!ormation o! vacuum
energy. 6he energy ensity o! vacuum is .orenz trans!orme1 but not
its mass.
6he curvature o! a circular arc possessing a timeliKe circum!erence1
resulting in a spaceliKe acceleration towar a centroi o! a mass
istribution. /n so in this way we see gravitation as a Kin o!
centripetal/centri!ugal !orce. 7erhaps the e0pansion o! the universe or
the repulsive !orce behin itD is normally in local balance with . . .?
Fe cannot preict iniviual quantum events1 but only the probabilities
o! those iniviual events occurring. "imilarly1 we cannot preict a
given particle_s momentum1 generally speaKing1 but we can generally
preict the particle_s momentum uncertainty. =ypothesis: only
conserve quantities can be preicteV i! the value o! a non-conserve
quantity can be preicte1 it is by way o! some conserve quantity to
which it is connecte.
Fe imagine the photon passing in !ront o! us an unre!lectingly suppose
that although relativity states that no time passes !or the photon1 we see
that time oes not pass !or the photon R!rom our point o! viewS in which
we imagine the photon moving at the spee o! light Rthrough spaceS an
Racross our visual !iel.S ?ut !or no time to pass !or the photon1 it must
not interact with anything along its path !or to o so woul mean that
less than *))% o! the photon_s action is irecte along its irection o!
motion. 6he scattering o! the photon away !rom its original tra5ectory
involves an e0change o! energy along other spatial irections but which
is secretly an e0change o! i-momentum1 say !or energy an then an
e0change o! this energy !or 5 & K momentum1 say. ;0changes o! $-
momentum are always at the e0pense o! e0changes o! energy an
quantum spin is the ine0 o! the istribution o! the components o! stress-
momentum-energy o! the three types o! vac-vac1 mat-vac1 mat-mat
e0changes. 6he components o! angular momentum CgeneralizeD are
each compose o! commuting observables where one observable which
is conserve an possesses a quantum number Can so sub5ect to
quantum selection rulesD an the other with which it is paire to maKe up
the angular momentum component is not conserve. Hn an abstract an
!ormal way1 contracting /a70 will result in a sympathetic e0pansion o! /a0
via the simple =eisenberg equation1 /a0/a70 Z= h/2pi. =owever1 the
unerlying mechanism !or the above =eisenberg relation lies with the
!our-imensional spin networK that comprises both matter an vacuum.
Hn times own re!erence !rame1 no time passes1 provie that time oes
not interact with anything along its tra5ectory. / !ree photon is in an
energy eigenstate. Puantum mechanics !rom 4eneral Aelativity.
6ime-space versus here-now with each person having his or her own
time line. Hs there gravity !or the sub5ective spacetime?
Fe may speaK o! mass as energy in its purely spatial aspect or moe.
3onversely1 we may speaK o! energy as mass in its purely temporal
aspect. 4ravitational energy cannot be inclue with all other energy
into a tensor: this quantity must be escribe in general relativity as a
pseuo tensor1 which is an unconserve quantity. Ht is !or this reason
that gravitational energy cannot be localize within 4A theory.
/n ob5ect with mass cannot1 accoring to the theory o! general relativity1
be ini!!erent to the passage o! time. ;ven photons are not totally
ini!!erent to the passage o! time provie that they traverse a space in
6he notion o! substance necessarily involves ini!!erence to the passage
o! time o! substances. :o we see a way o! eriving quantum mechanics
!rom general relativity1 say1 through a stochastic ynamic principle1 i.e.1
where time is ineraicable within general relativity because o! the way
this theory necessarily treats the concept o! mass? 6he nonlocality o!
quantum mechanics is strongly suggeste by the essential nonlocality o!
gravitational energy within general relativity theory.
Hs locality prouce by the collective mutual inter!erence o! quantum
nonlocal systems? ;igen!unctions o! the same 7si o not mutually
inter!ere because all are mutually orthogonal1 but how can two
inepenent nonlocally connecte quantum !iels?
<our argument !or a wrong potential energy term in the "chroinger
equation seems base on the notion that imaginary velocity is
meaningless. <ou must Know that imaginary velocity is a staple notion
within special relativity theory1 e.g.1 the current ensity o! electric charge
o! a charge Eat restE is 5ust AhoWCicD where current ensity is e!ine as
ensity time velocity.
8oreover1 uring quantum tunneling a charge particle possesses an
imaginary momentum. H! it were not possible to accurately measure the
potential barrier through which the charge particle is tunneling1 it might
be conceivable to say the particle oes not actually possess an imaginary
velocity1 but that the potential through which it moves must have a1 say1
!requency structure1 which allows the particle to harmonically penetrate
it Cor something similarD. H! you o some more basic research1 you will
see that the notion o! imaginary velocity is wiesprea in moern
physics an oesnGt appear to lan physicists in contraictions or
absurities.
6hinK o! a spherical shell o! arbitrary thicKness e0paning outwar at
the spee o! light !rom some origin. H! the spee o! gravitation is c1
which is somewhat in oubt Cc.!.1 6om Ian -lanern Hnternet postings
c/o www.e5a.comD1 then the gravitational !iel o! this spherically
symmetric istribution o! photons will also be moving outwar at the
spee o! light. 6he photon shellGs gravitational !iel is comoving1 i! you
will1 with the photons.
?ut i! the gravitational !iel comoves1 as it were1 with the photons1 then
the notion o! the photons being the EsourceE o! this gravitational !iel
becomes highly problematic1 as you can see i! you stop to consier the
gravitational !iel at points at rest C Eat restE in the sense o! null re- or
blue- shi!ting o! the photons relative to this pointD within the e0paning
photon istribution. 6here is1 o! course1 no gravitational !iel outsie
the photon istribution.
Ht is much less problematic to view the comoving gravitational !iel o!
the photon shell as a retare potential e0paning outwar at the spee
o! light an stemming !rom a Wmatter istributionS e0isting 5ust prior to
its being converte into energy1 i.e.1 photons1 than to contemplate an
instantaneous Cas oppose to retareD gravitational CpotentialD !iel
generate by the photons in real time1 i! you will.
Ht appears that i! the spee o! gravity is only c1 then the gravitational
!iel is separable !rom its source upon this source being converte
completely into energy1 i.e.1 photons an other massless particles.
:oes the inepenence o! the spin quantum number !rom .orentz
trans!ormations imply that there is no substance interaction1 i.e.1 in the
sense o! proucing ynamical e!!ects1 between spin an R!lat
spacetime.S
:ynamically interacting vacua1 each o! which is an open system. =ow
o these vacua mutually inter!ere constructively with one another in the
absence o! a close system o! !eebacK? Fithin a close system o!
!eebacK there is a bacK an !orth e0change o! energy1 but no
Rcommunication.S =owever1 in the interaction o! two or more open
systems1 stable an persisting structures can only be create an
sustaine through communication an cooperation between these
various systems. 6he iniviual !luctuations o! energy which
collectively comprise /a; may not be thought to be evolving in time
as /a; is what etermines /at1 which1 in turn1 e!ines the time scale o!
ynamical processes within the system. "pacetime is a pro5ection base
upon the e0pectation values o! time an position. 6he !iel equations
relate the e0pectation value o! the spacetime curvature to the e0pectation
value o! the momentum-energy ensity. 6his is a !ormal relationship1
which is concretely unerpinne by the physical connection between the
!luctuations in momentum an energy to the !luctuations in position an
time. -luctuations in time are not merely !luctuations in the position in
time at which a particular event occurs. 9therwise1 an absolute time
woul have to be assume an which woul serve as a bacKrop !or
these !luctuations in the timing o! events.
8ass is conserve in pre-relativity physics. Hn relativity theory mass
an energy are interconvertible. ?ut energy is conserve in relativity
theoryC special theory1 at leastD1 while energy is not conserve in
quantum theory. 6he question perhaps arises here1 Rinto what is energy
interconvertible which RaccountsS !or the breaKown o! conservation o!
energy within quantum mechanics?S
;verett_s relative state interpretation o! quantum measurement seems to
invoKe the e0istence o! a Kin o! Rhypertime imension.S >ust as the
integration o! the time imension with those o! space e0plaine the
nonconservation o! mass1 perhaps the incorporation o! ;verett_s
hypertime imension with that o! !our imensional spacetime accounts
!or the nonconservation o! energy.
Aeal particles as solitons in the locally connecte quantum vacuum
momentum-energy !iel. ?y viewing virtual particles within the
vacuum as being themselves solitons in the nonlocally connecte
vacuum !iel1 we are amitting the e0istence o! !orms o! matter an
energy more !unamental than the particles an !iels treate in the
Rstanar moelS o! particle physics.
Fhat is the quantum con5ugate quantity1 which shoul be paire with
in!ormation1 conceive as a physical quantity? /n is in!ormation the
conserve quantity o! such a con5ugate pair? Fith the other con5ugate
quantity serving merely as a booKKeeping or accounting variable?
Fhat is the meaning1 i! any1 o! nonlocally connecte in!luences
Rpropagating?S 6o trigger the mani!estation o! nonlocal connections is
to bacK-react upon the groun o! the phenomena o! the physical system
concerne L perhaps even to bacK-react upon one_s own groun.
6ime may be liKene to a 37, clocK while motion o! coherent structures
is a combination o! linear an !eebacK1 i.e.1 RcircularS binary
calculations. 6he competition between binary an 37, operations Cby
which coherent structures are Rre!resheS or upate L the 37, clocK
rate constitutes the Rre!resh rateS !or non-cohesive Rpi0el setsVS !or
cohesive pi0el sets1 the re!resh rate !or the structure is less than the 37,
clocK rateD may be liKene to special an general relativistic e!!ects1
respectively.
=iggs boson as a particle physics metaphorical particle. 7hoton mass
etermine by gravitational size1 i.e.1 blacK hole raius o! the ,niverse
an woul be relate to the breaKown o! per!ect .orenz invariance.
Fhat type o! new conservation principle is pointe to by
supersymmetry?
:ynamical symmetry breaKing requires a composite =iggs particle1
perhaps virtual 3ooper pairs o! !ermion/ anti!ermion pairs.
"upersymmetry entails several =iggs bosons1 perhaps all o! the various
types o! virtual !ermion/anti!ermion pairs which are mani!estations o!
the !unamental energy !luctuations o! the quantum vacuum.
"pin appears to be the most ubiquitous property o! particles1 both matter
particles as well as the particles responsible !or meiating all o! the
!unamental !orces o! nature. "pin is an essential consieration in all
interactions among subatomic particles. "o the equivalence principle
shoul be consistent with a spin-base theory o! quantum gravity1 rather
than an electromagnetic-base theory such as that put !orwar by
=aisch1 Auea1 an 7utho!!. RHn !act1 the spin o! a planet is the sum o!
the spins an angular momenta o! all its elementary particles. ?ut can
angular momentum itsel! be ultimately reucible to subatomic particle
spins? Cc.!.1
web=cit=
www.sciam.com/asKe0pert/physics/physics*).html L
page 2D
"pin1 circular motion1 accelerate motion1 spin networKs1 symmetry o!
rotation Cnot 5ust in space1 but in spacetimeD1 symmetry an conservation
laws Co! interactionD
.oops in space interwoven with loops in time in an elastic1 ynamic
networK o! interactions.
/ ma0imum ensity o! momentum e0changes in matter woul imply a
minimum current ensity o! imaginary (-momentum e0changes.
Hs a time interval being so small that time Rlooses its meaningS the same
thing as quantize time?
Hs vacuum lattice gravity theory relate to spin networK gravity theory?
9bviously1 i! the energy ensity o! the quantum vacuum is on the orer
o! *)WW2' Kg/cmWW$1 matter cannot actually pass RthroughS this
meium1 but must traverse it by moving RatopS this hyperense meium.
3ontinuous re!ormation/reconstruction o! particles an !iels at
successive locations o! spacetime appears the only viable means !or
matter to have motion within the vacuum. / reay analogy here is the
so!tware icon appearing on one_s computer esKtop. 6his icon
possesses only so much continuous e0istence as is permitte by the
limite spee o! the electron gun which is continually RrepaintingS the
esKtop. 37, processor spee may also play somewhat o! a role
though.
6he apparent repulsive an attractive !orces involve in the collective
behavior o! particles in accorance with the quantum statistics o!
!ermions an bosons operate in the absence o! e0change particles
meiating the three or !our !unamental !orces o! nature. 6hese
Rstatistical !orcesS operate in aition to the !unamental Re0change
!orces.S 6hese two types o! quantum statistical !orces1 those escribe
by the 7auli e0clusion principle an e0empli!ie in the phenomenon o!
?ose 3onensation1 when each operates inepenently o! the other1
mani!ests its action at a local level usually con!ine to the subatomic
scale. =owever1 these non-e0change !orces may prove to be o! a more
!unamental nature than those !orces ubbe as !unamental1 i.e.1 the
electromagnetic1 strong1 an weaK nuclear !orces. /n this might prove
to be particularly evient where these two statistical !orces are strongly
interacting with one another all the while that they are acting upon
particles o! matter. 6he e0istence o! geometroynamic theories o!
quantum !iel !luctuations o! the vacuum in accorance with these
quantum statistical laws1 may escribe how these !luctuations unerpin1
in turn1 !luctuations an stability o! spacetime topology. "pacetime
topology is itsel! necessarily presuppose as initial an bounary
conitions by ;instein_s !iel equations o! the inertio-gravitational !iel1
which suggests that the energy ensity o! the vacuum !iel may !all
outsie o! the purview o! the ;instein stress-momentum-energy tensor.
6his tensor general relativity treats as the complete source o! the
gravitational !iel. 6his !urther suggests that such quantum statistical
laws may be turne to !or an e0planation o! the physical mechanism by
which the e!!icacy o! the !iel equations are realize L in short1 these
quantum statistical laws may hol the Key to unerstaning the
unerlying ynamics o! gravitation1 !leshing out1 i! you will1 the abstract
!ormalism o! general relativity.
/lthough gravitation may not be an Re0change !orceS in the stanar
sense o! its being meiate through the e0change o! a speci!ic !orce-
carrying boson1 as in the case o! the other three R!unamental !orces1S
this !orce may nonetheless be aptly escribe as an Re0change !orce1S
however1 one o! the most general Kin conceivable so as to properly
account !or both universality o! gravity_s in!luence while opening the
way to solving the hereto!ore intractable 3osmological 3onstant
7roblem. "ince gravity is not merely a !orce acting in three imensions1
as is very much the case with the other three !unamental !orces1 when
they are not operating within a su!!iciently strong gravitational !iel1 that
is1 we e0pect gravity to be a !orce which is at least partially meiate
through particle e0changes which taKe place along the local time a0is.
"uch a very general type o! e0change might be e!!ecte through the two
basic types e0changes o! stress-momentum-energy - those which taKe
place between real matter an virtual matter1 i.e.1 between matter an the
quantum vacuum1 an those which taKe place between this vacuum an
itsel!. 9ne might asK what interpretation is to be mae o! an obvious
thir category o! Re0change1S that occurring between real matter an
itsel!. 6his woul be the component o! !orce which is meiate by
speci!ic e0change bosons operating within a $-imensional
hypersur!ace. 6his component woul be combine1 as allue to earlier1
with the purely timeliKe e0changes o! momentum-energy Cwhich we are
saying are somehow intimately associate with the action o! the
gravitational !iel.
/n e0change particle woul appear to only be necessary in cases where
the action o! the !unamental !orce in question was only between
particles o! a particular type1 e.g.1 photons interact via the
electromagnetic but o not interact via the strong nuclear !orce1 gluons
o not interact via the weaK !orce1 etc. "ince the action o! the
gravitational !orce is suppose via the equivalence principle to be truly
universal1 an we can only be assure o! a complete corresponence
between real particles an !iels an their virtual counterparts1 rather
than supposing a universal !orce interaction1 i.e.1 EcorresponenceE to
somehow be maintaine through the action o! a speci!ic e0change
particle1 we e0pect the total symmetric/ antisymmetric/ nonsymmetric
quantum vacuum !iel to be the logical caniate !or meiating the
Egravitational !orce.E 6he problem with the quantizing o! the
gravitational !iel then is that action o! the gravitational !iel is via the
equivalence principle suppose to be truly universal on the one han1
whereas gravitation is meiate through the action o! a speci!ic
e0change boson1 i.e.1 the graviton.
.oose speculation concerning the relationships o! gravity1 topology1 an
egeneracy:
"o long as continuity o! action is maintaine1 the sel!same topology
remains in e!!ect. Hs it possible to have a egenerate metric1 that is1
with respect to multiply istinct topologies? Foul this imply that
changes in topology might be without gravitational e!!ect? Fhat might
be terme here as gravitational equivalence classes o! topology? 6here
might be transitions between istinct wave!unctions in the absence o!
changes in energy such that we may speaK o! atemporal changes in a
quantum mechanical system.

;ach orer process in a perturbative e0pansion o! the vacuum state must
be compose o! all topologically istinct ways that !ermions can
interact. @either oes general relativity istinguish between
topologically equivalent spacetimes so that the interaction o!
topologically egenerate spacetimes as well as the mutual
trans!ormation o! topologically egenerate spacetimes are types o!
interaction occurring outsie the scope o! general relativity theory.
7honons are an e0ample o! bosons. 6he mutual e0change o! phonons
bins together quasiparticles. Puasiparticles an phonons are arti!acts
o! the mean or e!!ective !iel moel o! quantum particles an their
interactions.

6ime lag in the e0change o! !orce-meiating bosons? :oes this !igure in
the mechanism o! inertia?
3onvergence o! elements !rom i!!erent points in one_s biography to
!orm a more meaning!ul an coherent history.
3oncerning the possibility o! true singularities:
/a; = ) is inconsistent with the requirement o! .orenz-invariance o! the
groun state. 6his is connecte with the none0istence o! true energy
eigenstates1 ue to the !act o! the universe being an open system an
continually e0changing energy with the virtual particles an !iels o! the
quantum vacuum through the e0istence o! the /a;.
3oncerning the en state o! the =awKing raiation process:
3onservation o! in!ormation problem. /ctually1 this is a question o! the
conservation Cor nonconservationD o! ata. Hn!ormation is only e!inable
on an open system1 whereas entropy is only e!inable on a close system
C 5ust as the 2
n
.aw o! 6hermoynamics only applicable to close
systemsD. Hs a blacK hole an open or a close system? ;igenstates are
not e!inable within an open system. 6his may e0plain the
ineterministic change in the wave!unction1 7si1 as a result o!
measurements per!orme by a Rconscious observer.S
6he lynchpin point o! incompatibility between general relativity an
quantum mechanics is that pose by 6he 3osmological 3onstant
7roblem.
3an 7si constitute spacetime while being e!ine within a particular
spacetime? @onlinearity problem?
;nergy cuto!! in the quantum vacuum that is gravitationally e!!ectual.
6he assumption that the equivalence principle applies to vacuum energy
is perhaps holing bacK the evelopment o! a worKable quantum gravity
theory.
:egeneracy with respect to various quantum numbers.
9ne becomes con!ine to a subgroup o! the original larger symmetry
group.
Hnvariance1 covariance1 symmetry1 conservation o! physical
quantities/quantum numbers.
Aeuction in the number o! istinct eigenstates.
:egeneracy is when the same eigenvalue can be associate with
i!!erent eigenstates.
H! the source o! inertia lies outsie the spatial bounary o! the ob5ect then
the Rob5ectS is only a system representation L liKe an icon on a personal
computer esKtop.
"ome mechanism which prevents irecte ispersion o! 7si pacKets1 i.e.1
acceleration o! 7si pacKet.
9ntological priority o! state space escription over that o! the spacetime
mani!ol.
6he energy o! a nonlocally-connecte !iel cannot gravitate without a
moi!ication o! the !iel_s equations being require. :e!icit o! vacuum
energy may act as the gravitational source term ue to the vacuum
possessing a negative energy. Hn this case1 only i!!erences in the
ensity o! vacuum energy woul be signi!icant !or gravitation. 7erhaps
a negative vacuum energy ensity woul rive cosmological e0pansion1
resulting in a local time-varying metric against a bacKgroun o! constant
spacetime topology.
6orsion o! spacetime is etermine by vacuum spin currents which are
conserve1 but which etermine the momentum an energy uncertainties
o! a given local volume o! spacetime C local $-hypersur!aceD. Iacuum
spin structure ynamics b the torsion o! spacetime.
7auli an ?ose vacuum statistics which are etermine an evolve via
this vacuum spin structure/ynamics.
6o inclue inertia use the analogy o! an A.3 circuit. 6he R.S an R3S
components o! the circuit meiate time-energy an the RAS component1
the position-momentum components o! the tensor uncertainty.
0/a7y + y/a70 + /a07y + /a0/a7y + /ay70 = [C/a.zDWW2\/Ch/2piD
Fe can1 o! course1 choose C01yD = C)1)D1 i! we interpret them as
e0pectation values1 that is1 so that
/a07y + /ay70 + /a0/a7y + /ay/a70 + /a.z + [C/a.zDWW2\/h/2piD
70 an 7y can be e!ine as zero by appropriate choice o! equivalent
inertial re!erence !rame1 provie we interpret 70 an 7y as e0pectation
values so that
/a0/a7y + /ay/a70 = /a.z + [C/a.zDWW2/Ch/2piD
Hntuitively1 the imensions o! this RequationS o not balance with respect
to the egree o! the uncertainty1 /a1 i! R/aS is interprete as an operator.
9! course1 operators possess special properties an one must per!orm a
proo! o! the operator property o! R/aS in orer to sustain this part o! the
iscussion. ?ut i! R/aS in the above oes1 inee1 !unction as an operator1
then we may rop the term1 R/a.zS an say the !ollowing:
/a0/a7y + /ay/a70 = [C/a.zDWW2\/Ch/2piD
6he generalization o! which might be1
"umC5 = * to $D 0 "umCi = * to $D 0 n* L :irac:eltaCi15Do[/a+i/a75\ =
[C/a.KDWW2\/Ch/2piD
Fhere1 o! course1 :irac:eltaCi15D = * when i = 5.
@otice that the above tentative !ormula is nonrelativistic. =ow woul
one generalize this !ormula to ( imensions o! spacetime? 6his woul
require use o! the notion o! Rrotations about the time a0isS L something
which is surely emane by relativistic spin ) Cscalar !ielD such as that
presente by the vacuum energy !luctuations in the !orm o! creation an
annihilation o! virtual 3ooper pairs.
"eptember 2)*2
/lthough a oubly-spinning sphere or ball is i!!icult to
visualize1 a oubly-spinning ring can be visualize relatively easily. H!
one can convince onesel! that arbitrary angular momentums are not
substantively i!!erent !rom orthogonal angular momentum components1
then there is no reason to believe that aing or ecomposing angular
momenta in the case o! an arbitrarily spinning sphere or ball is
substantively i!!erent than in the case o! an arbitrarily spinning ring.
Fhat is the term !or a simpli!ication o! an insoluble problem that oes
not taKe away any o! the relevant !eatures o! the problem1 but which
maKes the original problem relatively intuitive an easy to solve?
/ll conserve ynamical variables are purely timeliKe in !ree space.
Hnertia an gravitation are phenomena associate with the pro5ection o!
these timeliKe !our vectors into spaceliKe components. /n important
question here is whether there is a conserve !our potential. :oes the
creation o! spaceliKe components o! a1 say1 hyperspherical !our potential
inuce a change in the original pure timeliKe potential so that the sum o!
time an spaceliKe components o! some new !our potential vectorially
sum to prouce a new !our potential with the same magnitue as the
initial !ree space !our potential? 3oul there be a pre!erre re!erence
!rame e!ine by that $-hypersur!ace slice o! spacetime possessing the
greatest timeliKe !our potential1 or1 alternatively1 that $-hypersur!ace
slice possessing no spaceliKe components o! the !our potential? ?ut the
!our potential may be a !unction o! mass1 length1 an time in such a
manner that merely translational motion at constant velocity oes not
result in a recon!iguration o! the space an timeliKe components o! the
!our potential1 i.e.1 the !our potential is .orenz-invariant.
9bviously1 i! the energy ensity o! the quantum vacuum is on the orer
o! *)WW2' Kg/mWW$1 matter cannot actually Rpass throughS this meium1
but must traverse it by moving RatopS this hyperense meium. Hn a
sense all particle motion is tunneling through a potential in the sense in
which a RparticleS which tunnels through a potential barrier Cin the
conventional quantum tunneling senseD must some how merge with the
energy o! the !iel composing the potential barrier. 6unneling possesses
three istinct cases1 ; Z I1 ; Y I1 an ; = I. 3ontinuous
re!ormation/reconstitution o! particles an !iels1 either in or out o!
resonance with each other Cperhaps there is a special case where the
particle is at Rnear resonanceS with the energy !iel composing the
potential through which it is tunneling D at successive locations o!
spacetime appears the only viable means !or matter to have motion
within the vacuum. / reay analogy here is the so!tware icon appearing
on one_s computer esKtop. 6his icon possesses only so much
continuous e0istence as is permitte by the limite spee o! the electron
gun which is continually RrepaintingS the esKtop. 37, processor spee
may also play somewhat o! a role although -CcpuD Z -Celectron gunD.
:irac point particles which are !ermions o not perturb the !ermi-irac
statistics o! the quantum vacuum without simultaneously perturbing the
bose-einstein statistics o! the vacuum1 as well. :o isolate :irac point
particles C!ermionsD have an iniviual gravity !iel?
6he role o! the =iggs boson may be !ul!ille by virtual
!ermion/anti!ermion R3ooper pairs.S :o these 3ooper pairs 1 i.e.1
Rpairons1S con!er mass to particles? "ystems CmesonsD with i!!erent
spin are i!!erent particles with i!!erent masses.
RHnee vacuum energy is moi!ie in a space curve by the
gravitational !iel. R Cc.!.1 quant-ph/2N)*)%*1 Aelativity o! motion in
vacuum.D /ction-reaction principle here L moi!ie vacuum mani!ests
itsel! as gravitation. 6he ;uler/.a4range !ormulation o! the !iel
equations o! gravitation escribe the ynamics o! continuously e0isting
particles in which Kinetic an potential energy Cwhich go into the
e!inition o! the .agrangian an =amiltonianD.
=igh ensity vacuum !iel comes !rom a gauge trans!ormation o! the 7si
associate with the cosmological constant.
H! spin is !or a !ermion !ormally similar to polarization !or a photon1 then
several questions at once arise. 3an this similarity be e0tene to other
vector bosons?
H! a lower limit can be place on pseuo gravitational e!!ects cause by
the interaction o! mass an vacuum quantum statistics large enough to
observe so that no eviation !rom geoesic motion is observable1 then
this mechanism must be the one unerlying gravity itsel!. Hn other
wors1 i! the preicte e!!ects are large enough to be observe but are
not in !act observe1 then the theory is an alternate account !or e!!ects
alreay !amiliarly observe.
6he vacuum must possess a spin 2 gauge symmetry such that the
presence o! gravitons remains latent or is renere unnecessary.
@ormally1 the spin { an spin * wave!unctions cannot be superpose
an there!ore cannot interact.
"ymmetry breaKing1 phase transition1 vacuum ecay1 gauge bosons1 etc.
8atter perturbs the symmetry o! the vacuum.
6he !act that composite matter cannot e0ist as virtual particles suggests
that it is only ocmposite matter1 i.e.1 matter possessing a bining energy
over an above that o! the vacuum constituting the elementary particles
separately. 6his !act suggests that the particle Rvacuum !ielsS o not1
in isolation1 possess istinct gravitational !iels.
Aelative versus absolute spacetime rotations are important in connection
with spin statistics.
:uring uni!orm acceleration1 the space an time a0es are isplace by
twice the angle relative to one another as oes each a0is isplaces
angularly relative to its !ormer position.
6he !uture crystallizing until it becomes the present. 6hen oes the
present moment ecay? .iKe an e0cite atom or raioactive isotope?
3rystallizing into an e0cite state o! something else?
:oes the vacuum possess a gauge symmetry which maKes the spin 2
e0change particle unnecessary?
"upposing that the quantum vacuum itsel! can be the source o! a
gravitational !iel leaves no quantum mechanism available to meiate
gravitation.
3ertainly the positive e!inite signature C+1+1+1-D o! the 8inKowsKi
metric is intimately relate to the symmetry an antisymmetry o! the
wave!unctions escribing !ermions an bosons.
?ecause topology is constitute by spin statistics o! virtual particles1 the
energy o! the zero-point !iel CJ7-D !alls outsie o! the scope o! general
relativity.
?ecause energy uncertainty rives temporal evolution an gravitation
can only mani!est its power by e!lecting timeliKe !our vectors so that
they acquire spaceliKe components1 it !ollows that the unerlying
ynamism o! gravity must be the energy !luctuations o! the quantum
vacuum.
?ecause an ob5ect_s energy is1 even i! only in a tiny part1 reconstitute
!rom out o! its own enregy1 the ob5ect cannot move along its own time
a0is at the spee o! light.
/n antiparticle can be consistently escribe as a particle travelling
bacKwars in time. 6he process o! the creation o! virtual
particle/antiparticle pairs is a reversible process1 accoring to quantum
mechanics. Fe might imagine more comple0 virtual structures1 i.e.1
composite particles1 such as simple molecules1 being reversibly create
out o! the vacuum Calong with their Ranti-moleculesSD in that they are
immeiately estroye again Creturn to the quantumD within a
e0ceeingly brie! perio o! time speci!ie by the =eisenberg ,ncertainty
7rinciple.
7erhaps virtual bosons are e0change between both real an virtual
!ermions in a completely iniscriminate !ashion.
)N)%22
9! course1 strictly speaKing1 this type o! creation/annihilation is only
possible i! the virtual molecule/anti-molecule pair collectively constitute
a spin zero Rparticle.S CHt may be possible to unerstan Rspin )S as
being spin about the particle_s local time a0is an Rspin *S being spin
about an a0is oriente in some way in the $-imensional space to which
the local time a0is is orthogonalD. "uch tiny systems coul be
consistently an e0haustively escribe with quantum theory by some
!inite set o! quantum numbers1 being in this way inistinguishable !rom
any other system e!ine by the same quantum numerical set. 6hese
quantum numbers1 as such1 ine0 observables1 which are conserve
physical quantities. ?ut we Know that at some point reversibility is lost
an this must taKe place when the structure can no longer be prouce
!rom out o! the vacuum Rin a single go1S but must be Rcobble togetherS
!rom a number o! such vacuum-engenere particles which are to e0ist
in some Kin o! boun structure maintaine through e0changes o!
momentum between all o! those particles Cwhich emerge !rom the
vacuum in a single stepD. 6his might well be ue to there being no
e!inable Ranti-entityS with which the RentityS can annihilate so as to
return the pair to the quantum vacuum !rom which they ha originate.
Fe may suppose that it is here that physical processes escribable in
terms o! nonconserve quantities come into play. Hs it at this point that
the phenomena o! inertia an gravitation emerge or become signi!icant?
:o irreversible structures participate in more than one istinct vacuum
state? 9r o they 5ust possess some Kin o! inepenence !rom a single
vacuum state1 preventing the vacuum !rom RanticipatingS an anti-
structure? Ht is interesting to note that irreversibility creeps into those
systems that cannot be maintaine by the same processes by which they
were originally engenere. Ht is at this very same stage where physical
processes within the system are no longer irectly1 but only inirectly
supporte by quantum vacuum processes.
Fe o not e0pect nonlocal energy istributions to possess inertia or to be
sources o! gravitational !iels. Hnertia an gravitation are phenomena
base in the istribution an ynamics o! the istribution o! momentum
an energy within !our imensional spacetime. /n iniviual vacuum
!luctuation possesses only an uncertain momentum energy which
there!ore possesses no eterminate composition o! momentum energy.
6his is base on the hypothesis1 erive !rom statements o! :avi ?ohm
in his worK1 Puantum 6heory1 that all causal relationships between the
e0pectation values o! physical quantities are constitute out o!
correlations o! !luctuations in the values o! these physical quantities. Hn
other wors1 it is only coherent networKs o! interrelate momentum
energy !luctuations that e0hibit the bacK-reaction o! inertia.
)N)'22
6he construction o! Rsqueeze statesS in which the momentum
uncertainty along a particular a0is is ecrease at the e0pense o!
increases in this uncertainty along other orthogonal a0es supplies
tangible proo! that the spacetime components in quantum mechanical
momentum-energy uncertainty !orm with one another a conserve !our
vector. H! this is true1 then it shoul be possible to construct a squeeze
state in which the energy uncertainty o! a system is increase ue the
construction o! squeeze states in which a component o! the $-
momentum uncertainty is ecrease.
6hrough a .orenz trans!ormation the e0pectation values o! all
components o! $-momentum can be a5uste to zero so that the quantum
uncertainties in the components o! $-momentum are wholly constitute
by the respective momentum !luctuation terms. 6he question arises as to
whether the timeliKe component o! the (-momentum can liKewise be
Rtrans!orme awayS through such a simple operation as a .orenz
trans!ormation?
Hn the absence o! accelerate motion or gravitational !iels1 the velocity
o! light is a universal constant. 6o trans!orm away all o! a mass_
timeliKe momentum woul require that one utilize a !rame o! re!erence
which is itsel! moving at the spee o! light within some $-hypersur!ace.
6here is a Kin o! symmetry between the spaceliKe an timeliKe
components o! an ob5ect_s momentum: no component o! a massive
ob5ect_s spaceliKe velocity may reach the spee o! light an1 the ob5ect_s
timeliKe velocity can never reach zero.
@ow !rom previous iscussion we are aware that no massive boy
actually possesses a timeliKe momentum such that its velocity through
time is actually *))% o! the spee o! light Cin vacuumD. 6he symmetry
unerlying momentum-energy woul be broKen1 i! we allowe what is
permitte in !ree space1 namely a .orenz trans!ormation wherein an
ob5ect is given a component o! $-velocity which1 though still less than
the velocity o! light in !ree space1 is nonetheless greater than the timeliKe
velocity o! the ob5ect. 6he structure o! spacetime within the $-
hypersur!ace surrouning the ob5ect must have been altere so as to
prevent the acceleration o! an ob5ect to velocities within this part o! the
hypersur!ace which are greater than the timeliKe velocity o! co-locate
ob5ects at rest relative to the chosen coorinate system.
Qd
6he
appearance o! tial !orces responsible !or the initial acceleration o!
ob5ects release in a gravitational !iel is easily e0plaine in terms o!
conservation o! !our momentum in con5unction with the spatially
varying local velocity o! light1 c.!.1 R-or it cannot actually be ErigiE ue
to these tial !orcesV in !act1 the concept o! a Erigi boyE is alreay
!orbien in special relativity as allowing
instantaneous causal actions. "econly1 such a ro must inee be
Ein!initesimalE1 i.e.1 a
!reely !alling boy o! negligible thicKness an o! su!!iciently short
e0tension1 so as to not
be stresse by gravitational !iel inhomogeneitiesV 5ust how short
epening on strength
o! local curvatures an on measurement errorS C6orretti C*2N$D1 2$2D1
c.!.1 Early 4hilosophical Interpretations of /eneral +elativity =Nov IK"
IJJ>A. R]AeichenbachGs analysis o! spacetime measurement treatment
is plainly inappropriate1 mani!esting a !allacious tenency to view the
generically curve spacetimes o! general relativity as stiche together
!rom little bits o! !lat 8insKowsKi spacetimes. ?esies being
mathematically inconsistent1 this proceure o!!ers no way o! proviing a
non-metaphorical physical meaning !or the !unamental metrical tensor
g1 the central theoretical concept o! general relativity1 nor to the series
o! curvature tensors erivable !rom it an its associate a!!ine
connection. "ince these sectional curvatures at a point o! spacetime are
empirically mani!este an the curvature components can be measure1
e.g.1 as the tial !orces o! gravity1 they can harly be accounte as ue to
conventionally aopte Euniversal !orcesE. -urthermore1 the concept o!
an Ein!initesimal rigi roE in general relativity cannot really be other
than the interim stopgap ;instein recognize it to be. -or it cannot
actually be ErigiE ue to these tial !orcesV in !act1 the concept o! a
Erigi boyE is alreay !orbien in special relativity as allowing
instantaneous causal actionsS1 c.!.1 Ibi.
/ hollow sphere !ille with electromagnetic raiation1 i.e.1 photons1
possesses an aitional mass equal to the total energy o! the photons
ivie by the spee o! light square1 solely ue to the impulsive !orces
an accelerations e0perience by the photons as they bounce aroun
insie the sphere. 9! course1 !rom the :e?roglie relation1 p = h/ 1 an -
the re shi!ting o! photons moving in the irection o! the sphere_s
motion an the blue shi!ting o! photons moving in the irection contrary
to this motion1 we can easily euce that when the sphere is uni!ormly
accelerate1 there will result an increasing i!!erential o! impulsive
momenta eveloping between the re an blue shi!te photons. Hn other
wors1 the instantaneous change in this momentum i!!erential with
respect to time will correspon to a !orce1 - = C/apD/t1 which will
oppose the acceleration o! the photon-!ille sphere. 6his !orce ivie
by the acceleration o! the hollow sphere will1 o! course1 yiel the
e!!ective mass o! the photons. @ote that it is only because the photons
change irection through interaction with Cimpacting againstD the hollow
sphere that the photons collectively acquire an e!!ective mass.
=ypothesis: when is in any eigenstate o! the =amiltonian1 a _
superposition state o! with respect to purely time-varying _
eigen!unctions !ully accounts !or the uncertainty in the li!etime. H was
5ust trying to say that1
C01tD = C)DC0D 0 e0pCiwtD !or whenever is in an eigenstate _ _ _ _
o! =.
/ 6heory o! ;verything woul be able to etermine the true
=amiltonian1 =1 !or any system1 incluing !or Rthe whole ,niverseS.
"uch a theory woul rener any energy !luctuation term in =1 =C!lucD1 a
mere phenomenological arti!act o! our previous ignorance o! the correct
re!inement o! quantum theory1 / R6:;S woul convert the =eisenberg
,ncertainty 7rinciple into a purely epistemological principle. "uch a
system woul possess no !unamental !luctuations because it woul
possess no ineterminate RoutsieS with which it coul be in the process
o! ynamically e0changing energy. Hn such a situation1 the Rpower
inputS to the ,niverse as a whole woul be ientically ).
Ht is har to conceive o! how anything coul ever happen within such a
Rzero power inputS evice. Hn short1 Ht is har to conceive how a
,niverse with zero power input coul be right!ully sai to possess any
real temporality1 besie enlessly repeating patterns o! inter!erence
between a close set o! time-inepenent eigen!unctions.
H! in an attempt to accelerate by mechanical means a per!ectly spherical
mass leas not to a change in the location o! this boy_s center o! mass
in the irection along which we woul attempt to maKe it move1 but
instea1 to a supe!lui-liKe streaming o! its composite material aroun
the han an between the !ingers which together woul urge it !orwar1
then espite this action having lea to a reistribution o! the boy_s
mass1 no energy may be suppose to have been e0pene Cis there a
question o! egeneracy here?D throughout the course o! this operations.
"uch a strange ob5ect may be sai to possess not inertia. Ht is hope!ully
obvious !rom what has been consiere thus !ar that1 were it but !or the
absence o! all internal bining !orces within this RmassS Cas oppose to
the notable case o! a Rsuper!luiSD1 at least some small acceleration o!
the boy_s center o! mass woul have been e!!ecte in the irection
along which one_s han was attempting to urge it. Fe note the absence1
in the case consiere above1 o! all compression !orces in the irection
o! the boy_s woul-be acceleration. 6he opposite-irecte tension !orce
is liKewise zero1 as the matter istribution was still prior to our
attempting to move it. 8oreover1 all shear !orces within the mass were
similarly zero. @ow it is but a simple an reversible linear
trans!ormation o! spacetime coorinates connecting the representation o!
a matter istribution as possessing pressure1 energy ensity an stress
Crelating to the presence o! shear !orces within the boyD to another
representation o! this istribution as one possessing only energy ensity
an pressure but without any stress ue to shear !orces. Hn other wors1
locally at least1 shear !orces can always be trans!orme away through an
appropriate choice o! spacetime coorinates.
9ctober 2)**
6he generalization
o! conservation o! momentum to the conservation o! stress-momentum-
energy in general relativity means that the metric respons to inertial
!orces in 5ust such a manner that the time rate o! change Cwith respect to
Rproper timeSD in some important quantity proportional to !Cg
uv
1 6
uv
D = )
?ut it is clear that a mere change in coorinate system will have no
e!!ect whatever upon any actual physics L this is merely a somewhat
in!ormal restatement o! the principle o! general relativity. "o any mass
istribution not possessing o!!-iagonal terms in its energy tensor in one
system o! coorinates1 may be represente within some new coorinate
system as having an energy tensor possessing such o!!-iagonal terms
Cstress termsD an owing to the e0istence o! shear !orces within the boy.
@ow it is the bining !orces within a boy which are responsible !or that
boy possessing !orces o! compression1 tension1 an shear. 6he question
which !aces us now is this: might a boy possess an energy tensor with
only a term with this being true !or all possible trans!ormations o! the
spacetime coorinates?
Hs there some component o! the energy tensor which cannot be1 locally at
least1 trans!orme away? @ow a trans!ormation o! the spacetime
coorinates can always be !oun which allows us to locally trans!orm
away a boy_s gravitational !iel.
Fhat are we to maKe o! the 4ibb_s phenomenon in the case o! waves o!
the probability istribution o! quantum states? 8ight we e0pect
e0tremely counter-intuitive behavior by quantum systems at the
spacetime bounaries o! their system wave!unctions?
-or quantum tunneling1 /a0 Z= /a0C)D an/or Cboth?D /a; Z= /a;C)D.
Ht is only nonzero e0pectation values o! momentum-energy which may
possess gravitational mass/inertial mass equivalency. 6he e0pectation
values may always be erive !rom a combination o! !luctuation terms
an uncertainties. 6he !luctuation term !or the energy may be wholly
attribute to the vacuum whereas its uncertainty in its energy to the
e!!ect o! the !luctuation energy upon our energy-measuring apparatus L
what per!ect calibration cannot eraicate Cin principleD. 8ass-energy is
a result o! an imbalance in these two energy terms. Hn this way particles
are seen to be not !lu0-stabilities in themselves1 but structure alterations
in the !lu0-stabilities as a result o! the in!luence1 penultimately o! our
energy-measuring evices-ultimately per von @eumann L upon the
in!luence o! not the iniviual min per se but the consciousness
!unamental in nature1 which is structure through the comple0 system
o! bounary conitions upon the quantum vacuum !iel being measure
Cin essenceD constitute through the operation o! the observer_s brain1
since the e0istence o! the brain as a mass-energy system1 woul
otherwise presuppose1 i! ienti!ie with the observer_s iniviual
consciousness1 the e0istence o! that which its observations are
potentially constituting.
H! all topological trans!ormations o! spacetime at the quantum level may
be reucible to successive or collective symmetric an antisymmetric
topological trans!ormations groune in virtual boson an !ermion
particle e0changes1 then spacetime topology woul be etermine by
vacuum quantum statistics. "o this spacetime topology1 about which
general relativity is unecie1 woul be etermine by the quantum
statistics o! the quantum vacuum. 9n this view1 gravitation an inertia
woul necessitate RpreloaeS quantum vacuum bounary conitions.
"o gravitation1 in particular1 coul no longer be treate as possessing its
own1 unique an universal quantum !iel1 but woul be particular in that
gravitational !iels woul simply be vacuum !iels + particular bounary
conitions supplie !or this vacuum.
9! course1 the zero-point energy !iel is responsible !or inertia since
matter remains at rest1 i.e.1 continues travelling at near the spee o! light
along the time a0is1 ue to its energy being continually replenishe !rom
out o! the vacuum energy.
/ll vector quantities are conserve. H! a vector quantity oes not appear
to be conserve1 this is only because the vector is merely a component o!
some higher imensional vector quantity. -or instance1 although neither
time nor space are conserve physical quantities1 an there!ore neither
conserve nor quantize quantities1 they are collectively when combine
together into a spacetime !our-vector.
6he velocity o! light is the velocity o! time. Ielocity through space is
always at the e0pense o! velocity through time an vice versa. 6he
parameter by which this e0change o! motion Cbetween space an time
irectionsD is meiate1 such that the law o! CprobabilityD conservation is
uphel1 is that o! mass. 6he particular mani!estation o! probability
conservation1 which is relevant here1 is that o! !our momentum
conservation. / question which is relevant here is whether !our-
momentum !luctuations are conserve. H! such !luctuations are
conserve1 then given the conservation o! the e0pectation values o! !our
momentum1 it woul immeiately !ollow that the =eisenberg
uncertainties in each component o! the three momentum an in the
energy themselves con5ointly !orm a !our vector o! =eisenberg
uncertainty in !our momentum. Hn such a situation we e0pect a
generalize an relativistic statement o! the =eisenberg ,ncertainty
Aelation o! the !ollowing !orm. 6he ot prouct o! the !our momentum
uncertainty vector with the spacetime uncertainty vector must be greater
than or equal to 2h/pi1 i.e.1 Z= (h/2pi. Hn the absence o! Rboun energy1S
i.e.1 !ree space Cwhere Rno gravitational !ielS is presentD1 this ot
prouct woul be between the !our momentum !luctuations o! the
quantum vacuum an the R!luctuations o! the spacetime interval.S
6here is obviously a connection between quantum mechanical three
momentum !luctuations an energy !luctuations1 i.e.1 timeliKe
component o! the !our momentum !luctuations1 which tens in the right
irection ue to the property o! bosons an !ermions obeying Ropposite
7auli principles.S
Fe are perhaps implying a Kin o! ouble-counting by speaKing o!
!luctuations o! both the !our momentum an the spacetime interval. Ht
may be that there is no physical meaning in the concept o! spacetime
interval !luctuations !or such !luctuations woul also be present within
any spacetime measuring apparatus/evices which we might attempt to
measure them. Fe cannot irectly Rgrapple withS the space an time
variables1 but only inirectly1 through the manipulation/use o!
momentum/energy.
"o how is the manipulation o! momentum energy systems1 e.g.1 matter1
by other momentum energy systems1 i.e.1 people1 not an e0ample o! the
latter systems CpeopleD pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps.
Aelevant consierations here are the ghost in the machine paraigm1 !ree
will an eterminism1 collapse o! the wave!unction1 contrast o! local an
nonlocal interactions1 etc.
6he only way that nonlocality can be consistent with special relativity
woul be i! the instantaneous etermination o! spins C!or oppositely
RspunS particlesD were instantaneous not 5ust in the e0perimenter_s !rame
o! re!erence1 i.e.1 laboratory !rame1 but in all possible re!erence !ramesT
6he present astrophysical observations inicating a general acceleration
o! the cosmological e0pansion woul seem to imply that a
hyperspherical potential oes1 inee1 e0ist. 6his potential possesses a
graient along the local time a0es at every point within spacetime.
8ight gravitational potentials ultimately erive !rom the local
hyperspherical potential through the peculiar interaction o! massive
particles1 or more generally1 energy in boun !orm1 i.e.1 bining energy1
with this potential?
6he balance maintaine between the current ensity o! $-momentum
!luctuations/e0changes an the current ensity o! energy
!luctuations/e0changes accounts !or the tren o! cosmological e0pansion
in its 2
n
time erivative. "o i! the e0pansion rate o! the universe is
accelerating Cwithin observable $ imensionsD1 then there must be a shi!t
in the momentum-energy istribution o! the vacuum such that the
ensity o! its $-momentum e0changes is ecreasing Cboies are
becoming less massiveD an the ensity o! its energy increasing. 6he
ynamics o! the cosmological e0pansion1 whether it is overall
accelerating or ecelerating1 is attribute to the relative strengths o! the
cosmological constant Cthe vacuum energy ensityD an the gravitational
energy o! the universe.
6he sort o! R!orceS that changes the istribution o! momentum-energy
without altering the magnitue o! the !our momentum is one with a !our
!orce magnitue o! ).
Hs probability conserve in the ispersion equation? 7si_s are
8inKowsKi spacetime solutions to :irac_s equation. "o gravity is
consiere as a mere perturbation o! 8inKowsKi spacetime. "o this
theory only applies to the weaK-!iel limit an is a linearize gravity
theory.
6he metric remains 8inKowsKian1 only spatiotemporal variations in
polarizability can be represente consistently as a Cmerely
phenomenologicalD variation in this metric on the 8inKowsKi mani!ol.
/re all 7si polarizable? 7article-wave uality. 6he wave!unction !or a
photon CparticleD is 5ust its electromagnetic wave escription. ?ut what
about a 7si which escribes some macroscopic system?
Ht is as though1 in the absence o! mirrors to interact with1 the vacuum
!luctuations have Rnothing to push againstS. 6he parallel mirror
con!iguration suppresses the ensity o! momentum !luctuations normal
to the mirror planes. 6his results in a ecrease in the plane-normal
component o! the momentum uncertainty an hence inuces the mirrors
along the plane-normal a0is connecting their plane centers. 6his change
in /a+ CnormalD is inepenent o! the masses o! the mirrors. /pparently
the 01y1z components o! momenta are relate to the timeliKe component
o! momentum1 but not to each other1 at least not in !lat spacetime1 that is.
;7A in curve spacetime an RispersionS o! probability istribution
eigen!unctions.
Fithin this !luctuating spacetime is somewhat o! an inconsistent
phraseology as the spacetime metric oes not speci!y a unique spacetime
topology.
"chroinger_s 3at 7arao0: long chain superpositions may not be
possible i! ob5ects !urther up the chain possess greater energy
uncertainty than the linK immeiately preceing. ,nitary evolution oes
not apply to macroscopic ob5ects. "pacetimes cannot superpose because
o! ill-e!ine bounary conitions. @o spacetime-!ree superpositions
are amissible1 in other wors.
R.iveS an R:eaS cat o not constitute1 however1 i!!erent states o! the
same system. ?ut isn_t that what is really require in orer !or a
superposition to e0ist?
6he concept o! universal wave!unction is inconsistent with relativity
theory. +C7siC01tDD = +V 6C7siC01tDD = 6.
@o such thing as an ob5ect at rest is treate within relativity theory. 6his
is also a perhaps more essential truth o! the quantum theory.
9nly i! time is unerstoo as a rate rather than a imension liKe an e0tra
spatial imension can the iea o! a spatiotemporal variations in
spacetime1 i.e.1 gravity waves1 be renere sel!-consistent or coherent.
6he appearance o! in!inite quantities1 such as mass1 length1 time1 ensity1
etc.1 points to the breaown o! the relativistic escription o! reality
uner e0treme bounary conitions.
Hnertia may perhaps be e0plaine in a more uni!ie manner as stemming
!rom resistance to changes in (-angular momentum.
3oherence as the essence o! a gravitating boy possessing inertia.
6wo ranom !luctuations patterns1 each iniviually containing no
in!ormation1 but in which the two !luctuation patters are correlate by
virtue o! both belonging to the same quantum system escribe by a
single state !unction1 . Hn!ormation oes not a because = * + _ _ _
2 an 7 = W = M MWW2 = *W * + 2W 2 + 2 *W 2. :ata _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
can be combine aitively. Hn!ormation cannot be so combine.
3orrelations arise through the cross term1 *W 2. _ _
:ata are abstracte !rom the ensity !unctions1 M MWW21 an in!ormation _
is abstracte !rom the wave!unctions1 CHD. -luctuations which appear _
local1 may always contain contributions !rom nonlocal correlations. -or
e0ample1 YpWW2Z = Y MpWW2M Z = Y * + 2MpWW2M * + 2Z = _ _ _ _ _ _
Y *MpWW2M *Z + Y 2MpWW2M 2Z + Y *MpWW2M 2Z. 6he last term _ _ _ _ _ _
may be the nonlocal correlation o! momentum !unctions.
:irectionality o! time ilation as ue to relative velocity L proo! o!
spacetime structure? 6he spee o! time which is the magnitue o! its
velocity CKnown as proper timeD is always c. 6he component o! velocity
o! an ob5ect along the irection o! my time a0is is base on the
pro5ection o! its time a0is upon mine.
/perioic !unctions such as are treate by chaos theory1 cannot be
represente as a superposition o! perioic !unctions. /s note alreay1
perioicity is only possible within a close ynamical system. "o the
e0istence o! chaos is an inication that Routsie in!luencesS are at worK.
6he temporality o! the past: the past when present i not possess
enough time to Rcrystallize.S
9n the hypothesis that only Rpure energyS can be spontaneously create
within a ;ucliean or R!latS quantum vacuum1 e.g.1 virtual !ermion/anti-
!ermion pairs1 it !ollowe that boun energy structures1 e.g.1 atoms1
molecules1 etc.1 are Runanticipate structures.S "uch structures which
cannot be preicte !rom the !lat quantum vacuum can1 inee1 be
engenere with a curve spacetime which necessarily itsel! possesses
some Kin o! boun structure a!ter which a momentum-energy
!luctuation may pattern its own boun structure. 7erhaps the curve
vacuum may be ecompose into two is5oint components: a purely
R!latS an a purely RcurveS one. 6he vacuum momentum-energy
!luctuation1 when engenere within a curve spacetime1 may be
thought to prouce a bacK-reaction upon the vacuum state !rom which it
is engenere1 at least upon its R!lat part1S which cannot anticipate the
appearance o! such boun structures. 3oul this be simply because
energy an three momentum are normally orthogonal to one another
with a !lat spacetime? Fhy o we e0pect the Kin o! bacK-reaction
allue to above? ?ecause the vacuum state prior to the appearance o!
the boun structure !luctuation cannot1 at least in its purely !lat
component1 continue in a parallel phase space evolution with it. 6here is
also the possibility that newly engenere boun Cmomentum-energyD
structures possess access to alternative vacuum states altogether is5oint
!rom the vacuum states originally proucing them as !luctuationsT 6his
woul account !or a continue bacK-reaction o! boun energy structures
upon a chosen unitary vacuum state. 9n this view1 boun momentum-
energy structures connect multiple vacuum states. 8oreover1 gravitation
Can inertia1 as wellD may be a !unction o! the interaction o! multiple1
hereto!ore1 uncommunicative vacuum states. /lso1 a curve vacuum
state1 i.e.1 a curve spacetime1 shoul be moele as an inter!erence
pattern o! multiple vacuum states1 previously is5oint.
H! the hypothesis that mass is simply Rboun energyS is correct1 then we
woul e0pect a shi!t in the balance between momentum an energy
!luctuations to taKe place C in !avor o! increase momentum !luctuations
an ecrease energy !luctuationsD as a mass approaches a gravitating
boy. 6his shi!t1 o! course1 woul go han in han with a contraction in
the positional uncertainty an increase in the time uncertainty.
/ vacuum state escribe by a curve spacetime may prouce comple0 1
boun energy structures. 9! course1 when energy is supplie to the
vacuum !rom outsie as in the case o! high power lasers1 linear
accelerators1 strong electric !iels1 etc.1 any number o! boun energy
structures may be prouce. Puantum numbers accounting must be
obeye1 however. 6he e0pectation value o! all quantum numbers within
the vacuum is zero.
. @o possibility o! synchronization1 timing or re!erence !rame without
an embeing ynamic substrate. /nother proo! o! the necessity o!
antiparticles might be given in terms o! the application o! the law o!
conservation o! !our momentum to vacuum !luctuation energy.
"imilarly1 the e0planation !or the 7auli an ?ose principles may be
erive !rom the same application o! this law o! !our conservation to
!luctuations o! quantum vacuum momentum-energy1 or the application
o! the continuity equation to virtual particle current ensities.
?ut i! such a conservation law applies to vacuum !luctuations Cvirtual
particlesD1 then this woul imply the e0istence o! nonlocally connecte
Can interlocKeD matter an !orce !iels. 7erhaps momentum
conservation only applies to the vacuum e0pectation values1 not all
components o! which being zero within a nonvanishing gravitational
!iel. Hs subvocalization 5ust the by prouct o! social conitione
response or is the mute part o! the brain able to hear an unerstan the
subvocal utterance o! the le!t?
Ht seems that the only way that equipartation o! momentum-energy can
be maintaine Cwith regar to e0pectation valuesD is i! there is some
embeing meium !or interacting gas particles in which stresses an
strains can be evelope an e0change. Ht appears that there is a
thermoynamic requirement !or a vacuum stress-momentum-energy
!iel. "pontaneous emission1 !or e0ample1 is necessary !or
thermoynamic laws to be uphel uring e0changes o! energy between
e0cite atoms an an electromagnetic !iel. ?ecause the vacuum
!luctuations o not themselves possess inertia as iniviual particles1 this
may possess collective inertia through nonlocal connectivity. Hs bacK-
reaction an inertial characteristic?
3an nonlocally connecte quantum !iels be connecte to locally
connecte Rcausal1S classical !iels? 3hanges in energy along a
continuum o! egenerate energies1 i.e.1 changes in the absence o!
changes in the system wave!unction may constitute a Kin o! 2
n
imensional time.
6he statistics o! real particles an !iels is taKen boily !rom the
statistics o! the quantum vacuum. Iacuum statistics are etermine by
spin. 6he other quantum numbers constitute constraints upon those
statistics emboie in the quantum mechanical selection rules.
Hnvestigate the meaning o! a gravitational !iel itsel! CinepenentlyD
altering the =eisenberg uncertainties in /a0 an /at. :on_t /ap an /a;1
alone1 aequately account !or /a0 an /at?
"o then1 oes matter istort /a0 an /at irectly at the quantum level or
inirectly through matter_s gravitational !iel?
Fhen a mass is accelerate1 it not only accelerates in a spatial irection
but also it ecelerates along the time a0is. "o the mass e0changes less
energy with the vacuum an more energy Cin the !orm o! $-momentumD
with itsel!. "o !luctuation momentum ensity increases in the e0act
same proportion as oes the !luctuation energy ensity ecrease.
-luctuation momentum an energy current ensities !orm a !orm vector
which is trans!orme through a 2
n
ranK tensor.
6he spee o! light is a limiting velocity in vacuum because c in reality
represents Rthe spee o! timeS in that1 when an ob5ect is Rat rest1S i.e.1 in
$- ;ucliean space1 it is being reconstitute !rom energy Cvacuum
energyD at a ma0imum rate Cthis is !or the time being1 not to taKe any
e0otic Rsqueeze statesS into consierationD along a !ourth imensional
spatial a0is. 9! course1 to some tiny egree the mass is reconstituting
itsel! !rom its own energy store C the basis !or inertia an1 more subtly1
gravitation1 as well.
?ecause o! the ientity o! all quantum particles o! similar type1 there can
be no substantive istinction between one such particle at one place Cor
time D !rom another such particle at another place Cor time D.
Ht is interesting to note that in special relativity there is no such thing as a
pure matter or charge ensityV only matter currents an charge currents
are treate within this theory. / matter ensity is only conceivable
within special relativity i! an in!inite time ilation is permitte. "o !rom
this stanpoint1 !lu0 is the primary substrate o! reality in relativity theory
an energy taKes preceence over matter1 since matter is not conserve
within special relativity although energy is suppose to be a conserve
quantity. 6his tren away !rom the notion o! substance an towar that
o! !lu0 is much !urther avance within the quantum theory an still
more within relativistic quantum !iel theory1 in which1 as note
elsewhere1 even energy itsel! is no longer treate as per!ectly but only
appro0imately conserve1 that is1 on the average1 i.e.1 over su!!iciently
large time intervals. 9ne might well woner what inee is the relevant
conserve quantity within quantum !iel theory1 i! it is not to be energy1
that is1 what serves as the conserve substance within this theory. 6his
conserve quantity is probability.
Fe shoul note here that neither is energy strictly speaKing conserve
within classical general relativity Cas gravitational energy is not
localizable within this theoryD so that no consistent energy continuity
equation can be written own as a tensor i!!erential equationV only a
pseuo tensor equation o! continuity may be written own !or the total
energy - an equation which is1 there!ore re!erence !rame epenent.
. 6he sychronization o! causally connecte events is not as subtle as that
o! nonlocally connecte events. "ince superposition e!!ects are require
!or ob5ects to possess macroscopic properties1 we o not e0pect such
ob5ects to be capable o! !orming superposition states themselves. 6his is
similar to the argument against the e0istence o! spacetime constitutive
processes taKing place within a particular spacetime continuum.
Puantum inistinguishability an the ientity o! particles o! liKe Kins is
perhaps relate to the istinction between the unitary evolution an the
ob5ective reuction o! the wave!unction. 6he hyrogen atom is the only
atom on the perioic chart !or which an e0act solution !or "chroinger_s
equation e0ists. /t what level in the hierarchy o! matter oes the
ientity o! iniviuals o! a Kin breaK own? 6he very ientity o! all
electrons1 protons1 neutrons1 an other R!unamentalS particles strongly
suggests that these particles are not real1 but mere abstractions.
Fe cannot give the concept o! conservation any coherent !ormulation !or
open1 unboune systems. @either can any continuity equation be given
!or the unerlying processes constituting the bouneness o! close
systems1 that is1 !or the process o! the systemGs initial mani!esting o!
itsel!. 6he whole notion o! quantity itsel! must be altogether thrown out
when raically open systems are uner consieration. 7ermanence1
continuity1 conservation principles1 causality1 substance1 probability1
entropy1 even moality at its most general - such physical concepts may
only be conventionally or provisionally e!ine !or close systems1 !or
all systems are ultimately open1 an it is only the severity o!
appro0imation which etermines the e0tent o! a systemGs closeness.
6here is no such consistent concept as global moality. Hn other wors1
necessity an possibility are system epenent concepts.
@ow an open space-time cannot possess a eterminate spacetime
topology1 by arguments presente elsewhere. 6he appearance o! stable
topological structures1 there!ore1 must be sustaine through patterns o!
!luctuation in spacetime topology which are engenere !rom outsie
any spacetime. ;ach particular global topology1 itsel! a close system o!
spacetime though e0tening1 perhaps1 billions or tens o! billions o! light
years1 must possess its own unique con!iguration energy1 5ust as
transitions !rom one topology to another have their characteristic energy
i!!erences. "ince both "chroingerGs wave equation o! motion1 as well
as ;insteinGs gravitational !iel equations1 presuppose an alreay given
spacetime topology1 transitions !rom one topology to another will not be
escribable by the wave equation1 nor will the characteristic energy o! a
particular topology1 i.e.1 the power input require to sustain this topology
in e0istence !or a perio o! time1 be inclue as a gravitational source
term !or the !iel equations. 3learly1 gravitational source terms interact
accoring to general relativity only i! they are containe within the sel!
same topological mani!ol an so !luctuations in the sub-microscopic
topology o! spacetime1 or the energy intrinsic to such !luctuations1 must
not be inclue in the gravitational source term1 6i1K1 o! the ;instein
!iel equations.
)2/2N
@ow !luctuations in the energy o! the quantum vacuum must be
e0tremely violent be!ore e0pecting any gravitational e!!ects. Hn other
wors1 the energy o! the vacuum !luctuations must approach the 7lancK
energy be!ore we are !orce to give consieration to Puantum 4ravity
theory. ?ut again1 it is at precisely this stage at which spacetime
topology begins !luctuate non-negligibly an potential source terms !or
6i1K begin to Eslip through the cracKs.E 3onsierations such as this may
provie a natural e0planation !or the allege high energy cuto!! o! the
gravitational source term within theories such as "aKharovGs.
PP: Hs establishment o! the global spacetime metric equivalent to the
establishment o! a spacetime topology? @o. */2N
&/2% ?ecause causal relationships are always escribable in terms o!
sets o! i!!erential equations1 these relationships must be suppose to
inhere within a continuously i!!erentiable mani!ol o! eterminate
topological structure. /lterations in the topology o! a continuously
i!!erentiable mani!ol cannot be escribe by a set o! i!!erential
equations e!inable on the original mani!ol. 6his is why we o not
e0pect that the energies o! the submicroscopic topological !luctuations
may comprise a contribution to a gravitational source term in the
;instein !iel equations. / supermani!ol must groun the
trans!ormation o! one topology into another nonequivalent topology
such that this topological inequivalence is ultimately reucible within
the supermani!ol o! higher orer topological structure which remains
constant throughout the lower orer topological trans!ormation. 6he
!ormalism o! 4eneral Aelativity is not equippe to escribe such a
topological supermani!ol.
%/2% 6his remins us o! attempts to groun the iscontinuous change
in the wave!unction which in between measurements evolves
eterministically accoring to the "chroinger equation o! motion in
terms o! some nonlinear time-epenent version o! the "-eqn.
@otice that the trans!ormation o! one topology into a nonequivalent one
necessitates a breaching o! the original topological mani!ol introucing
iscontinuities which prevent the e0istence o! any brige !unctions being
e!ine meiating the trans!ormation which possess continuous
i!!erentiability. @o consistent solutions to a given set o! i!!erential
equations e0ists i! the only possible solutions are !unctions which are
themselves not continuously i!!erentiable. /ll topological
trans!ormations must be escribe in terms o! brige !unctions which
cannot be e!ine on the mani!ols being trans!orme an so all
topological trans!ormations must be meiate !rom outsie all mani!ols
o! eterminate topological structure taKing part in the topological
trans!ormations. "ince a metric presupposes an embeing topological
mani!ol1 geometroynamic !luctuations in spacetime topology cannot
be escribe within general relativity theory.
7ro5ections o! topological trans!ormations in a given space onto a
subspace may present the appearance o! nontopological trans!ormations
within the smaller space. H! a chance event yiels meaning an
signi!icance1 it is only because o! a common1 unerlying CconcreteD
groun o! the two things connecte. 6he truly concrete1 that is1 the
ultimate groun o! ?eing1 cannot be ivie1 but can only appear so. 6o
entertain the notion o! two separate grouns1 themselves possessing no
unerlying an still more ultimate groun connecting them in the sense
o! maKing them1 one with the other1 CsubstantiallyD continuous1 is to set
up e!initions in a manner which invites sel!-contraiction. Fe Know
that the action by which the continuum o! space an time are constitute
presupposes a Kin o! temporality1 but one without scale or irection in
which the connectivity o! the pre-phenomenal is internal but at once
without bounaries.
>uly *22%
:elaye choice e0periments iscussion here.
. 6he point is that this iea leas to an in!inite regress i! we assume that
the brain represents a close system. / so-calle state can only possess
a concrete1 as oppose to a merely abstract1 signi!icance i! it is place
within an open conte0t1 itsel! not consistently treatable as a state or
superstate1 i! you will. 6he attempt to impose a state escription upon a
temporally evolving ynamic1 i.e.1 a open system1 leas to a system
which changes its state noneterministically. 6he origin o! the
!luctuation =amiltonian o! a quantum mechanical system owes generally
to escribing the system with a merely appro0imate =amiltonian leaing
to an appro0imate system wave!unction. 6he system unergoes
transitions between its various appro0imate eigenenergies ue to the
outsie in!luence o! the !luctuation =amiltonian1 =
!luc
. 6he quantum
system with its !luctuation =amiltonian is 5ust an abstraction !rom the
open-ene energy conte0t o! the quantum vacuum !iel itsel!1 !or when
all sources o! real particles an !iels have been taKen into account in the
construction o! the system =amiltonian1 a certain small !luctuation term
remains which cannot be absorbe into the system =amiltonian so as to
e!ine a purely time-inepenent system. 6his !luctuation term is owing
to the e0istence o! a quantum vacuum zero-point energy !iel. Ht is this
term1 what we will call1 =
zp!
1 which prevents any quantum system !rom
ever e0isting in a true energy eigenstate with 1
=
)
e
-i
/n this is why we have been saying that the !luctuations in vacuum
energy are the cause o! the time-epenent evolution o! quantum
systems generally.
.ocal causal interactions obtain between the e0pectation values o! given
physical observables. @onlocal causal interactions obtain between the
instantaneous values o! physical observables1 i.e.1 is responsible !or the
e0istence o! correlations between !luctuations. ;0pectation values o! an
observable can only be e!ine when the wave!unction in question1 !rom
which these values are erive1 is boune in space an time.
8easurement o! a quantum mechanical observable presupposes the
presence o! bounary conitions on the wave!unction representing the
system in question. Hn this case1 the wave!unction may be represente as
a !inite superposition o! eigen!unctions o! that observable. H! a
wave!unction is unboune1 then is must be represente as a continuum
o! an in!inite superposition o! eigen!unctions.
>uly *22%
6hese eigen!unctions o! such an in!inite superposition cannot be
iniviually normalize without the arti!ice o! the elta :irac !unction
being inclue within the normalization integral. Hn other wors1 the
eigen!unctions within a superposition continuum cannot be represente
within a =ilbert space. 3onsequently1 =ilbertGs action minimalization
integral cannot be compute !or a system represente by a continuum o!
eigen!unctions1 i.e.1 !or an unboune wave!unction1 an so such a
system cannot be escribe by ;insteinGs gravitational !iel equations1
since the !iel equations an the =ilbert action integral are precisely
equivalent. Fe are saying that the stress-momentum-energy tensor1
6i1K1may only be nonvanishing provie that this tensorGs associate
eigen!unction is spatiotemporally boune. 6he !unamental
!luctuations in the vacuumGs momentum-energy represent 5ust the sort o!
unboune action !or which an action minimization integral cannot be
e!ine.
:ecember *22%
/n important observation in this connection is the !act that the
gravitation energy in 4eneral Aelativity cannot be localize in the
speci!ic sense that when one attempts to inclue the gravitational energy
in the total stress-momentum-energy tensor o! the !iel equations1 a
pseuotensor results which is not generally covariant. 6he energy o! this
pseuotensor is only conserve in certain speci!ic coorinate systems1
such as in harmonic coorinate systems. 7arallel transport o! a small
volume in which the total energy is e!ine by this pseuotensor is not
generally reversible an we o not here have a conservative !orce. Ht has
been sai that the inverse-square law breaKs own in strongly curve
spacetimes. 6his !act may well be relate to the problem o! the
localization o! gravitational energy within the theory o! 4eneral
Aelativity. 6hermoynamically1 the vacuum momentum-energy !iel
constitutes an e0emplar par e0cellence o! a thermal heat bath1 the
interaction with which by any other energy system will result in the
appearance o! irreversibility within this systemGs temporal evolution. Fe
note here that the temporal evolution o! the "chroinger equation is1
strictly speaKing1 reversible. /lso1 we note elsewhere the very close
similarity between the "chroinger an :i!!usion equationsV more
particularly1 that a mere substitution o! it = tG within the "chroinger
equation trans!orms it into the :i!!usion equation.
/n e0ample o! the sustaining o! a phenomenal !orm against a continual
change in the unerlying groun is the egenerate wave!unctions. 6he
wave!unction represents the most that can be Known about a quantum
system1 but when egeneracy o! the wave!unction e0ists1 it is possible
!or the wave!unction to unergo temporal evolution while one or more
o! the observables groune in the changing wave!unction persist
unchange.
P: :oes the !act that a quantum system is in an energy superposition
state presuppose that the system is unergoing !luctuations in its energy?
/: Hn representing the wave!unction o! a comple0 quantum system in
terms o! an appro0imate set o! eigen!unctions1 one necessarily
introuces virtual transitions between the appro0imate eigenvalues o!
these eigen!unctions as a way o! representing the in!luence o! the
relatively small !luctuation component o! the =amiltonian o! the system.
6his is because an open system cannot be partitione into ual is5oint
sets which together escriptively e0haust the system. /n so the system1
not able to be uni!ie at a purely !ormal level1 must always mani!est
!orms as ynamically changing i! it mani!ests them at all. 6he system1
in other wors1 will always possess a mile which cannot be e0clue
by any logical 5u0taposition o! !ormal1 that is1 ually opposite1 categories
an !rom out o! which utterly novel !orms will always be emerging in a
way not e0plicable in terms o! the !orms which have been previously
mani!este by the system. 6his is1 !or e0ample1 why a perturbative
analysis o! a quantum mechanical system always yiels a system which
cannot be valily represente in an energy eigenstate.
"till more1 all three laws o! thermoynamics are contraicte when the
in!luences o! the open system o! the vacuum energy !iel are taKen into
account. 6he *st .aw o! 6hermoynamics: this is 5ust the stanar
energy conservation law an energy is not conserve in virtual quantum
processes. 6he 2n .aw o! 6hermoynamics: the entropy o! all close
thermoynamic systems must increase as a result o! processes taKing
place within this system. 6he quantum vacuum is not a spatially close
system since its very action constitutes any local spacetime. 8oreover
the temporal evolution o! all physical systems is reucible to changes in
system energy1 iscretely or continuously. H! the system is in an energy
eigenstate1 then only the phase o! the system_s wave!unction evolves.
?ut the absolute phase o! a quantum mechanical system has no physical
meaning within quantum theory - only relative phases have physical
meaning. ?ut i! the two systems with a relative phase i!!erence can be
consistently escribe as a single system with a unique wave!unction1
then the relative phases o! the two RcomponentS subsystems cannot be
Known without interacting with the system through some thir system.
"o a quantum system in an energy eigenstate possesses no genuine or
physical temporality. 6he $r .aw o! 6hermoynamics: the energy o! a
per!ectly orere crystal at ) egrees Oelvin is zero. 6he quantum
vacuum possesses an ineraicable temperature. Ht also possesses an
entropy an this vacuum is in continual interaction or energy e0change
with all ob5ects in spacetime. @o crystal coul e0ist in a Eper!ectly
orereE state so long as it e0changes energy with a thermal reservoir
possessing entropy such as the quantum mechanical vacuum. Aeversible
systems there!ore1 contain ata but o not actually contain in!ormationV
however1 such systems o potentially contain in!ormation1 but not
in!ormation with a preetermine content1 or re!erence.
6here is a con!usion o! the irection o! time with the temporal evolution
o! physical processes to states o! progressively greater entropy. Fe are
either re!erring to a global or cosmic time when we speaK o! the
Girection o! timeE or we are only speaKing in this way metaphorically.
?ut a global time is only e!inable i! reality is a close system. ?ut
since there is no place !or irreversibility within a truly close system1 the
notion o! a irection o! time maKes no sense in either the case o! a
close or an open cosmic system. 6he notion is incoherent in the case o!
an open system because o! the incoherence o! any notion o! there being
a global time which then might be suppose to be irreversible. Hn the
case o! a close system1 there is simply no possible basis !or
irreversibility within a system possessing a !inite an unchanging
number o! iscrete states.
8athematically speaKing1 a minimization integral oes not Ee0istE i! the
integral1 or various parameters o! its argument1 i.e.1 o! which this integral
is a !unction1 o not satis!y certain bounary conitions. Hn other wors1
it is only by virtue o! nonlocal quantum correlations that this system
might uni!y itsel! so as to possess an ob5ective simultaneity. ?ut
correlations within a system imply convergent temporal evolution o! the
systems component processes. 6here is1 however1 no place !or the
phenomenon o! convergence within either eterministic computational
statespaces1 nor within an ergoic ynamical system. Hn!ormation is not
here a conserve physical quantity an so i! in some conte0t energy an
in!ormation are inter-e!inable1 this is because within this conte0t the
principle o! the conservation o! energy oes not strictly hol.
8arch *22N
3onservation laws only apply to what may properly be terme
substances. 7rior to the avent o! atomic theory in the *2th 3entury1
matter was thought to be a substance an there!ore a conserve quantity.
Fith the avent o! the theory o! "pecial Aelativity an ;instein_sG
!amous equation1 ; = mc21 matter was seen to be not conserve in some
physical processes because o! its interconvertibility into energy1 itsel!
thought to be the physical quantity which was truly conserve. ?ut in
light o! avances o! quantum theory1 particularly within the sub!iel o!
relativistic quantum !iel theory1 which treats o! virtual particle/!iel
reactions1 it is Known now that not even EenergyE is conserve an so
can no longer be consiere to be the ultimate unerlying conserve
substance or reality. 6o what substance can moern physics point which
is interconvertible with energy an which obeys a conservation law1
quali!ying as the substance o! physical reality1 i! you will?
8arch *22N
?ecause energy is ultimately not conserve1 there is a pro!oun
i!!iculty in maKing the notion o! ob5ective space an time coherent.
-or space may only be ob5ectively e!ine operationally in terms o! the
spatial relationships o! boies compose o! some conserve substance.
8oreover1 time must be also operationally e!ine i! it is to be
unerstoo as a genuinely ob5ective concept1 that is1 in terms o! the more
primitive notions o! simultaneity1 temporal orer1 an uration. "ince
there may be no unerlying permanent substance to rener the e0istent
ob5ectively real1 space an time must be reuce to being merely relative
an phenomenal.
/nother reason to believe that a physical continuity equation oes not
apply to in!ormation is that in!ormation appears to resie in between the
iscrete energy levels o! crystalline1 or quasi-crystalline quantum
systems1 an so in!ormation is not here really localizable1 in principle.
/ny !unctionalist theory o! min must run up against mental states !or
which it cannot supply corresponing !unctional states. 6his is because1
in essence1 ientically prepare quantum mechanical states1 themselves
constituting the most e0acting e!inition o! !unctionalist brain states1
!requently prouce a wie variety o! outcomes whenever measurements
are per!orme on them with respect to observables incompatible with
that observable with respect to which the quantum system was prepare.
Ht is not possible to e!ine a eterministic tra5ectory in phase space i! the
phase space o! the system is e0paning1 say1 ue to the e0pansion o! the
,niverse. 6his is because no non-arbitrary one-to-one !unctions o! the
phase space variables can be e!ine to represent the eterministic
evolution o! the system through the e0paning phase space. Hn other
wors1 there is no non-ynamical embeing EsuperstatespaceE in terms
o! which the evolution o! the tra5ectories with respect to the state space
variables o! the e0paning state space may be e!ine. Fe always gain
Knowlege o! a systemGs behavior through the positing o! a eterminsitic
moel o! the system1 but at the e0pense o! relegating unerstaning o!
the motive mainspring o! the system to the mysterious. Oinematics
ignores the ynamics which sustains the illusion o! the permanence o!
the entities with respect to which the Kinematic variables are e!ine:
6ime cannot be capture within a !ormal escription.
;+7;AH8;@6: H! very sensitive spectroscopic observations can be
mae o! the e!lecte stellar images preicte by general relativity to
occur uring a total solar eclipse1 then chromatic ispersion o! the
various optical wavelengths may be observe inicating that the true
mechanism o! gravitational light e!lection is not on account o! space-
time curvature prouce by the "unGs mass1 but ue to the re!raction o!
the starlight on its passing through a vacuum o! raially ecreasing zero-
point energy ensity. Fe woul e0pect the zero-point ensity o! $-
momentum o! the vacuum to actually increase in step with the raially
ecreasing vacuum energy ensity. "ince we assume that in !ree space
the !luctuations in vacuum !our-momentum Cwhich are either ) or !all
outsie the scope o! 6
i1K
D are equipartatively istribute among the !our
istinct !our-momentum components1 any ecrease in the ensity o!
energy !luctuations in the vacuum woul be e0presse in an equal
increase in each o! the $-momentum components Ci! geometry1 i.e.1
curvature1 is not taKen into accountD equal to the cube root o! ;
vac
@ow it is the geometry o! the matter istribution as well as its ensity
istribution which etermines the geometry o! the reistribution o! the
vacuum_s !our-momentum !luctuation components.
)&/2N
:H"3,""H9@: 6his is ue to the general properties o! re!ractive meia
where wavelengths o! i!!erent energy Ci!!erent size D traversing a
re!ractive meium must !ollow slightly i!!erent tra5ectories with shorter
wavelengths being re!racte more than longer wavelengths. "ince the
vacuumGs zero-point energy is the zero-calibration o! all energy
measuring instruments1 it is e0pecte that the energy o! a photon passing
through a vacuum o! increasing zero-point energy will e0perience an
apparent shi!t in its observe energy C gravitational reshi!t D
commensurate to the change in the zero-point energy between the point
o! its emission an the point o! its absorption C by an energy measuring
instrument D. 4ravitational time ilation is also e0plicable in terms o!
the propose vacuum mechanism o! gravitation.
;+7;AH8;@6: 9bserve ecreases in the barrier tunneling
probabilities within a Ee-tuneE resonant cavity. 6his cavity woul
enclose the potential energy barrier an will possess a speci!ic geometry
such that vacuum electromagnetic !iel !luctuations are suppresse
which possess an energy appro0imating the i!!erence in energy between
the tunneling particle an the potential barrier.
;+7;AH8;@6: "et up a series o! 3asimir capacitor plates in which the
separation between the plates is change by a iscrete amount as one
moves in line !rom one plate to the ne0t. "tarting !rom the en o! the
series where the plate separation is smallest1 pro5ect a coherent beam o!
photons through the series o! plates an observe the shi!t in the beamGs
!requency. 6he !ractional change in the vacuum electromagnetic !iel
energy ensity shoul give the !ractional change in the !requency
CenergyD o! the coherent light beam. 6he beam may also be pro5ecte
through the series o! 3asimir plates at a small angle an the amount o!
re!raction o! the beam measure. 6here is a practical problem
concerning the interpretation o! the energy uncertainty o! unstable
EelementaryE particles. 7hysicists o not seem to have convince
themselves as to whether this energy uncertainty which is responsible !or
the eventual ecay o! all unstable particles is to be unerstoo as being
inherent in the structure o! the particle itsel!1 or as inherent in the energy
structure o! the vacuum which perhaps inuces the ecay o! the particle
through perturbing energy !luctuations o! a !unamental nature. 6he
!act that a particle possesses an uncertainty in its energy1 however
arbitrarily small1 implies that there is a nonzero !inite probability that the
particle will e0perience a !luctuation in its energy large enough to inuce
ecay o! the particle. /ccoring to 8illoni1 a preeminent thinKer on the
sub5ect o! the quantum vacuum1 the energy uncertainty o! an unstable
e0cite atom1 !or instance1 is owing not only to the perturbative
in!luence o! the vacuum electromagnetic !iel1 but also to what is calle
Eraiation reaction.E ?oth o! these components play a !ormally equal
role in composing the overall energy uncertainty1 /a;1 o! the unstable
atom. 9! course1 the uncertainties in any observable1 not 5ust in the
energy1 are1 we might well say1 raically overetermine. 6his is
because1 !or e0ample1 in the case o! the energy uncertainty1 there is a
truly ine!inite number o! i!!erent ami0tures o! eigenenergies which1
i! superpose1 will sum together to give one an energy uncertainty o!
precisely /a;1 whatever /a; happens to be !or the system one is
consiering. /ap 0 /a0 Z= h an the tunneling o! a particle across a
potential energy barrier can there!ore be interprete in two
complementary ways: one may suppose that the tunneling particle
possesses a positional uncertainty which is greater than or comparable to
the with o! the barrier1 or one might suppose1 contrariwise1 that the
momentum uncertainty o! the particle is such that there is a liKelihoo
that the particle will e0perience a momentum !luctuation strong enough
to EboostE the particle EoverE the potential barrier. ;ither interpretation
seems to aequately moel the particleGs tunneling across the potential
barrier. 6he !irst interpretation relies on the positional uncertainty
inherent per the wave escription an the secon interpretation on the
momental uncertainty per the particle escription. Hn the !irst case we
are thinKing o! a momentum !luctuation o! a waveliKe entity with
positional uncertainty whereas in the secon we are thinKing o! a
!luctuation in the particleGs position to which is associate a momentum
uncertainty. Fe may say that the momentum uncertainty o! a particle is
inherent in the particle while its positional uncertainty is inuce by the
attenant !luctuations in its momentum whereas the positional
uncertainty o! a wave is inherent while its momentum uncertainty is
inuce by the attenant !luctuations in the waveGs position.
)%/2N
Hn the -ourier e0pansion o! a !unction o! 0 an t1 !C01tD1 which possesses
iscontinuous enpoints1 we !in that no matter who many harmonics
are ae together1 there will continue to e0ist at these enpoints both an
unershoot an an overshoot. 6his is what is calle 4ibb_s
phenomenon. Hnterestingly1 the magnitue o! the overshoot is una!!ecte
by the number harmonics one as together to construct the -ourier
trans!orm1 -CwD. Hn orer !or the !unction to be RproperlyS e0presse in
terms o! -CwD1 either we must eviate !rom per!ect orthogonality o! the
energy eigen!unctions which we are summing together to appro0imate
!C01tD1 or we must not permit !C01tD to be truly iscontinuous. 6his
suggests that an interaction o! amplitues corresponing to e0tremely
low probabilities unerlie the ynamics o! quantum tunneling
phenomena.
)%/2N

"pacetime !luctuations are relate to momentum-energy !luctuations in
the sense that the more violent the spacetime !lu01 the more calm
becomes the momentum-energy !lu0. 6he most precise spacetime
tra5ectory woul them be etermine by !luctuations o! momentum-
energy o! the greatest possible violenceT / serious problem !or general
relativity presente here is that violent momentum-energy !luctuations
shoul normally be associate with equally violent gravitational !iel
!luctuations1 i.e.1 gravitational waves or great energy1 but this is
inconsistent with mil !luctuations in the spacetime metric.
)%/2N
*2/2& @o massive boy can travel !aster than the velocity o! light
because there is no stable1 continuously e0isting meium1 as in the case
o! the Estill airE !or soun1 which supports the propagation o! light.
Aather1 the quantum mechanical vacuum1 speci!ically the quantum
vacuum electromagnetic !iel1 EsupportsE the propagation o! real
electromagnetic waves1 i.e.1 real photons1 in the particle escription.
6his meium supportive o! the transmission o! light is compose o!
vacuum !luctuations o! momentum-energy otherwise Known as zero-
point !luctuations o! the vacuum. 6his quantum vacuum cannot serve as
an absolute re!erence !rame relative to which an observer coul move at
some !inite velocity1 an this is why the velocity o! light must always
have the same value1 c1 regarless o! the state o! motion o! any observer.
Fhat prevents the vacuum !rom being seize upon as an absolute
re!erence !rame is the !act that it is compose o! energy !luctuations
which possess a positional uncertainty1 /a01 an a time uncertainty1 /at1
such that /a0//at = Y c Z. Fe say 1 Y c Z instea o! c because locally1 that
is1 over submicroscopic istances1 the velocity o! light can be e0ceee
within Esubmicroscopic times.E 6his is all to say that1 the velocity o!
light1 c1 = Y c Z over istances1 01 Z /a0 over times1 t1 Z /at. 6his suggests
that the 8inKowsKi light cone representation o! spacetime must begin to
breaK own as one approaches the verte0 o! the light cone - the
bounaries between the tiny region1 absolute past/here-now/absolute
!uture1 an the elsewhere region must lose its neat rectilinearity as one
approaches spacetime imensions1 01t Y /a01 /at. Ht is as though spacetime
possesse a Kin o! EgranularityE mae up o! three imensional EcellsE
o! minimum imension1 /a01 an li!etime1 /at. 6he li!etime o! a given cell
may be re-e0presse as a !requency1 *//at1 so that we may thinK o! each
EcellE as being continuously recreate or re!orme at !requency1 ! = *//at1
where /at is1 again1 the li!etime o! the cell. 6he energy1 /a;1 o! each cell
is constantly being absorbe by the vacuum an recreate at the
!requency1 !1 escribe above. /n analogy with oneGs personal computer
will serve to help us unerstan how what has been sai thus !ar bears
on the problem o! the origin o! the !inite1 not-to-be-e0ceee value o!
the spee o! light1 c. Ht is obvious upon a momentGs re!lection that i!
one EgrabsE an icon on the le!t han sie o! oneGs computer screen by
EclicKing on itE once an EraggingE this icon across the screen that one
cannot move the icon in this way arbitrarily quicKly1 but there is some
precisely e!inable limit to how !ast any ob5ect represente on the screen
can move across it. 6his limit1 i! one is talKing about an EiconE the size
o! a single pi0el1 is etermine quite simply !rom two easily
ascertainable parameters1 the with o! a Epi0el1E i.e.1 the minimum
image length scale or resolution o! the computer screen1 an the clocK
rate o! the computerGs 37,1 or central processing unit. -or e0ample1 i!
the clocK rate o! the 37, is *))8hz1 that is1 *)) million C*)ND cycles
per secon1 an the pi0el Cassume to be squareD imension is1 say1 *))
microns C *)-(D meters1 then the theoretical limit to how !ast a pi0el-
size Erepresente ob5ectE may move across the computer monitor is
about *)N 0 *)-( = *)( meters/sec. 6his is an e0tremely high velocity1
an the actual practical limit is probably several orers o! magnitue
smaller than this !igure1 say1 aroun *) meters/sec !or an average size
icon. 6he reason !or this i!!erence in the theoretical an practical limits
in the Erepresente ob5ect1E velocity1 or the Erepresentational velocityE
!or a particular computer monitor we will go into in greater etail a little
later. "u!!ice to say here that the cru0 o! the problem o! the !inite limit
on propagation spee has everything to o with the !act that the
Eob5ectsE which we have been consiering are1 in reality1 not ob5ects at
all1 but are merely Erepresente ob5ects1E or Eob5ect representations.E /s
long as one supposes1 perhaps unre!lectingly1 that Ephysical ob5ectsE are
har an massy1 compose o! some simple1 uni!!erentiate Estu!!E
which persists through time ine!initely because quite ini!!erent to the
Epassage o! time1E an as long as one conceives o! space as a Everitable
emptinessE through which matter may ini!!erently pass1 then the iea o!
an absolute limit to the velocity o! masses through Ethe voiE must seem
as arbitrary as the gravitational action between masses separate by an
empty voi seems inherently mysterious. ?ut accoring to moern
quantum theory1 all operators corresponing to physical observables are
ecomposable in terms o! two !unamental operators1 / an /t1 the
annihilation an creation operators. 6his is what is calle the 2n
quantization !ormalism1 an this theory supplants the semi-classical1
Eol quantum theoryE o! ?ohr1 Auther!or1 an 7lancK. 6he so-calle
Esolar systemE moel o! the atom which is still being taught in high
schools throughout the avance1 inustrialize worl is an outstaning
arti!act o! this early version o! quantum theory. 6hus !ar1 the analogy
with the computer strongly suggests the type o! mechanism which may
lie behin the universal spee limit represente by the velocity o! light i!
one associates the pi0el length an CclocK rateD-* with the inherent
length an time scales o! spacetime1 /a0 an /at1 i!1 inee1 these e0ist.
6his woul be possible i! the energy an momentum uncertainties1 /a;
an /ap1 which engener /a01 /at1 coul be trace to the !luctuating
momentum-energy o! the quantum vacuum itsel!. Fe may argue in
!avor o! this in the !ollowing way.
6here are two ways to interpret the ecay o! an unstable nucleus
through the e5ection o! an alpha particle. 6he traitional approach is in
terms o! the positional uncertainty o! the alpha particle which is
Ee5ecteE 6his particle has a nonzero probability o! being !oun outsie
the nucleus ue to positional uncertainty o! the particle1 /ar. /n
alternative approach is to thinK in terms o! the energy uncertainty o! this
e5ecte particle. ?y virtue o! a nonzero energy uncertainty1 there is a
small probability that the particle will e0perience an energy boost1 /a;1
greater than the nuclear bining energy associate with the strong
nuclear !orce bining the particle to its nucleus. 6raitionally1 this
energy !luctuation was thought to have originate within the nucleus
itsel!. Ht is more liKely that this !luctuation energy is supplie by the
quantum vacuum in which the unstable nucleus is embee an with
which it is in continual interaction C momentum-energy e0change.
3all the energy o! an energy !luctuation1 ;0 1 an call any
!luctuation in energy larger than ;01 ;z. H! the energy uncertainty1 m;1
is thought to be associate with a particle itsel!1 then we !ace the serious
problem o! a nonlinearity in the probability istribution !unction
escribing the spectrum o! energy eigenstates which comprise the
energy uncertainty o! the particle. 6his is because the occurrence o! an
energy !luctuation1 ;z Z ;01 implies that no !luctuation in energy1 ;0 Y ;
Y ;z1 has alreay been e0perience by the particle1 !or this woul have
meant the previous issolution o! the particle1 whereupon the probability
o! energy !luctuation1 ;z1 o! the particleGs intrinsic energy woul become
). "o we see that the probability o! the occurrence o! perturbation
energy1 ;z Z ;01 i.e.1 7C;zD1 must be moi!ie so that the new
probability1 taKing into account the interepenence o! all perturbation
probabilities !or energies1 ;z Z ; Z ;01 that is1 7GC;zD1 becomes1
[ * - "C7C;DD on [;
)
to ;
0
\ = "C7GC;DD on [;
0
to ; \
6his situation oes not lea to a iscontinuity in the perturbation energy
probability !unction1 however1 as
[ * - "C7C;DD\1
is e0actly zero at the EcuspE where the moi!ie probability !unction1
7GC;D1 begins an the original probability !unction1 7C;D1 ens1 in the
composite !unction1 which is given below1
7 = 7C;D1 !or ) Y ; Y ;0
7 = [* - "C7C;DD\1 !or ; Z ;0
=owever1 i! the original probability !unction1 7C;D1 is normalize1 then
the new1 moi!ie probability !unction1 7GC;D1 cannot be normalize.
H!1 on the other han1 we normalize this new !unction1 we then !in
that the preicte probabilities !or each o! the energy eigenstates1 which
together comprise the total energy uncertainty o! the quantum
mechanical system in question1 will no longer con!orm to the results o!
e0periment because the original probability istribution !unction1 7C;D1
is now no longer properly normalize. 6his is because the original
wave!unction1 upon which the perturbation energy probability !unction
is base1 is1 in !act1 the correct wave!unction - the moi!ie probability
!unction1 given above1 is simply !alse: very simply1 we must not
interpret the energy uncertainty o!1 e.g.1 unstable subatomic particles1 as
resiing with the particles themselves1 but with the quantum mechanical
vacuum state with which these particles continually interact1 via constant
energy e0change with this vacuumV more accurately1 the particles1
themselves1 are constitute by various energy e0changes between the
vacuum an itsel! an the particle is continually being reconstitute out
o! the continual trans!ormation o! this vacuum energy. Ht is the
organization o! this vacuum energy into a !orm represente by the
particle which more or less possesses permanence or persistence through
time that we normally thinK o! as intrinsic to a particle as such1 not the
vacuum energy itsel!1 since it is the cyclic replenishing o! the particleGs
energy out o! this vacuum which itsel! marKs the passage o! time !or the
particle. 6his argument !or the vacuum as the origin o! particle energy
uncertainty !ollows !rom the assumption that the proucts o! the
spontaneous isintegration o! the original particle are collectively
escribe by the original particleGs wave!unction even a!ter the
components have separate into which the particle has isintegrate.
=ere we have a situation which is quite issimilar in principle to the
abrupt change to the structure o! the =yrogen atomGs groun state
energy inuce by the suen switching on o! a magnetic !iel in its
vicinity. 6he =amiltonian o! the =yrogen atom is altere through the
suen aition o! the energy o! the magnetic !iel1 however1 an this1 in
turn1 precipitously alters the wave!unction o! the =yrogen atom which
is calculate !rom the =amiltonian !unction via the time-inepenent
"chroinger equation. Puantum physicists will say that the energy
levels o! the =yrogen atom were egenerate with respect to the spin
quantum number until the switching on o! the magnetic !iel coupling to
the atomGs spin altere the =amiltonian1 an1 hence1 its attenant
wave!unction. 6he origin o! the iscontinuous change in the =yrogen
atomGs wave!unction is as much ue to the intrinsic spin structure o! the
atom as it is to the suen appearance o! a magnetic !iel to which the
spin couples. Hn the case o! the spontaneous isintegration o! the
unstable particle1 no new term nee be ae to the particleGs
=amiltonian to account !or the isintegration event which was not
alreay present prior to this event an this is why no change in the
particleGs wave!unction1 iscontinuous or otherwise1 is observe1 but1 as
we inicate alreay1 the very same wave!unction su!!ices to escribe
the proucts o! the isintegration as were su!!icient to escribe the
particle uring the moments leaing up to this inherently unpreictable
event. Ht is simply that the original =amiltonian escribing the total
energy o! the unstable particle all along containe an energy term which
was una!!ecte by the isintegration event. 6his energy term must not
have been associate with the original atom1 but was inepenent o! it
an equally present both be!ore an a!ter the isintegration tooK place:
the vacuum energy term o! the =amiltonian. 6he in!luence o! the
vacuum energy term o! the =amiltonian is probably generally
responsible !or the phenomenon o! entanglement o! wiely separate
quantum states which ha previously interacte. 6he nonlocal
connectivity o! the local vacuum energy terms in the =amiltonians o! the
quantum states1 consiere separately1 may provie the mechanism !or
such entanglement o! quantum states.
)*/2% 7erhaps the same wave!unction escribes the proucts o! the
isintegration because the total energy o! the proucts remains the same
as that o! the particle 5ust prior to the isintegration event an what
maKes this possible is a change in the vacuum energy term o! the
=amiltonian which compensates the changes to all the other energy
terms1 conserving the total energy. 9r perhaps1 rather1 the change in
energy EcausingE the isintegration1 because Y= /a;1 cannot be etecte
because energy perturbation possesse a uration o! Y /at?
*2/2& /n alternate way to view the breaKown o! the 8inKowsKi
lightcone escription1 which seems to imply1 by the way1 that gravitation
must be taKen into account over submicroscopic istances an times1 is
to thinK o! c representing the actual in!initesimal/instantaneous value o!
the velocity o! light with the bounaries between Ehere-nowE an
EelsewhereE remaining well-e!ine all the way to the verte01 but with
greater an greater !luctuations in momentum an energy as one
approaches this verte0. 6he breaKown o! the 8inKowsKi escription is
now represente in terms o! e0changes o! energy between the absolute
past an absolute !uture an e0changes o! momentum between the
Ehere-nowE region an the EelsewhereE region.
'/2% 6his alternative escription o! the breaKown o! the 8inKowsKi
lightcone escription replaces the more traitional interpretation o! this
breaKown where the spacetime bounaries e!ining the coneGs verte0
e0perience geometroynamic !luctuations in the topology o!
submicroscopic spacetime which some theorists have trie to unerstan
in terms o! oscillations in the relative proportions o! graviton processes
in the !orm o! graviton creation/annihilation with respect to graviton
emission/ absorption. Hn the alternative interpretation1 allue to above1
virtual graviton interactions are renere super!luous1 being replace by
merely creation/annihilation an emission/absorption o! !iel
momentum/energy in the !orm o! a spectrum o! virtual bosons meiating
the nongravitational !unamental !orces1 i.e.1 the electromagnetic1
strong1 an weaK nuclear !orces1 an o! which gravitation is a
phenomenal mani!estation. 9n this view1 gravitation is a Eparasitic
!orceE which oes not possess a unique e0change particle. "o one view
o! the vacuum is that o! a matri0 o! Ezero-pointE !luctuations in energy
o! li!etime1 /at1 an momentum !luctuations possessing an uncertainty in
position1 /a0.
'/2% Hn the same way that momentum e0changes between subatomic
particles meiate the attractive/ repulsive !orces acting between them in
three imensions an in this way constituting the boun energy structure
o! matter to which inertia owes its origin - in this way the energy
e0changes between i!!erent simultaneity planes which mani!ests itsel!
as quantum energy !luctuations associate with =eisenberg energy
uncertainty1 meiate !orces which may either spee up or slow own the
rate o! cosmological e0pansion CtimeD.
)&/2N
"uch !orces may be
intimately involve with the unerlying mechanism o! gravitation within
the quantum mechanical vacuum.
@ow it 5ust so happens that one way o! e0pressing the spee o! light is in
terms o! /a0 an /at1 that is1
c = Y c Z = /a0//at
Hn orer !or one to travel a measurable istance relative to a given
vacuum !luctuation1 one must be able to travel a istance1 01 Z /a0 within
the time1 /at1 that the !luctuation is in e0istence. 6his is merely to say1
that one must begin traveling at a velocity greater than c be!ore oneGs
motion becomes measurable relative to the physical vacuum. ?ut o!
course one must1 presumably1 !irst have attaine sub-light velocities
relative to this physical vacuum be!ore actually reaching c an beyon.
@ow i! oneGs velocity is not measurable relative to the reservoir o!
vacuum !luctuations1 then how can oneGs acceleration relative to these
!luctuations be measurable or have a physical meaning? H! the value o!
some variable is constant1 then surely its !irst time erivative is zero. "o
i! the velocity o! the observer is necessarily zero relative to vacuum
!luctuations1 then oneGs acceleration relative to these same !luctuations
must also be zero. ?y ;insteinGs equivalence principle1 then neither can
the vacuum accelerate relative to any istributions o! mass an energy
within spacetime. 6his simply means that a given mass cannot e0ert a
gravitational !orce upon the vacuum !luctuations1 nor can the vacuum
!luctuations e0ert any gravitational in!luence upon masses.
*2/2% 9ne o! the e!!ects o! a gravitational !iel is that the vacuum
actually acquires a mass because the alteration in the vacuum statistics
inuce by a mass istribution !alls o!! only graually with istance -
with the inverse-square in the case o! spherical mass istributions. 6he
ensity o! momentum !luctuations C in the !orm o! the vector boson
e0change particles D in the quantum vacuum is greater than its !ree space
value in the vicinity o! mass istributions. "imilarly1 the ensity o!
energy !luctuations in the !orm o! the ensity o! virtual
!ermion/anti!ermion creation-annihilation events within the vicinity o!
these mass istributions is corresponingly ecrease. "ince the ensity
o! the =eisenberg uncertainty in $-momentum increases with closing
istance to a given massive boy1 we shoul e0pect a net !iel
momentum o! the vacuum in the irection o! the boyGs centroi o!
mass. /t the same time1 the =eisenberg uncertainty in the vacuumGs
purely imaginary component o! its (-momentum shoul ecrease in the
irection o! the centroi o! mass o! this boy. /nother way o! looKing at
this is to thinK o! the virtual !ermion/anti!ermion pairs as having two
i!!erent interpretations: they may be viewe either as an energy
!luctuation or as a momentum !luctuation Cphoton1 in the case o! an
electron/positron pairD
)&/2N
"o a test mass shoul e0perience an energy graient in the irection o!
the massive boy Cor its centroiD. 6his energy graient only points in
the correct irection1 i.e.1 towar the mass rather than away !rom the
mass1 i! the relativistic mass o! the test mass is tie Cin the appropriate
mannerD to the momentum an energy ensity o! the vacuum. /s the
test mass approaches the massive boy1 the ensity o! momentum
!luctuations within the test mass increase in ensity - through the
enhancing e!!ect o! the increase ambient ensity o! $-momentum
!luctuations within the vacuum in which the test mass momentarily is
resiing1 while the ensity o! energy !luctuations within the test mass
ecreases in a corresponing an complementary manner to the increase
in the ensity o! $-momentum !luctuations. 6his e!!ect is to be
e0plaine by the !act that the 7auli ;0clusion 7rinciple applies equally
to real an virtual !ermions an by the aitional !act that the
mechanism unerlying both lasing an ?ose conensation Cwhich has
the e0act opposite e!!ect upon bosons which the 7auli 7rinciple has upon
!ermionsD itsel! also applies inescriminately to both real an virtual
bosons. ?ecause the $-momentum an purely imaginary (-momentum
Ci.e.1 energyD !luctuation ensities may be unerstoo as components o! a
conserve ( vector1 i.e.1 that o! total (-momentum1 the energy
uncertainty o! a local region o! the quantum vacuum can be a!!ecte by
the presence o! real bosons 5ust as the purely spatial components o! the
!luctuating ( momentum in this vacuum may be a!!ecte by the presence
o! real !ermions. 6he equality o! the e!!ects o! real !ermions with real
bosons upon the statistics o! the vacuum a!!ecting gravity may perhaps
be e0plaine in terms o! the equivalence in the escription o! mass as
either !ermions acting via the 7auli 7rinciple upon this vacuum or as
purely bosons so acting1 through the appropriate combining o! !ermions
into pairs so as to represent them as Ee!!ective bosons.E
/ very important paper on the origins o! quantum noise contains a
number o! observations which len support to the above iea o! treating
the momentum an energy uncertainty C in terms o! their !luctuationsD as
components o! a !our vector. 7articularly supporting selections !rom this
paper Cgiven belowD are highlighte in blue with the remaining te0t in
re.
6he 9rigins o! Puantum @oise in 7hotonics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3harles =. =enry
?ell .aboratories1 .ucent 6echnologies1 8urray =ill1 @> )%2%(-)&$&
Auol! -. Oazarinov
?ell .aboratories1 .ucent 6echnologies1 ?reinigsville1 7/ *N)$*-2$'2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fe e0plain the origins o! quantum noise an how quantum noise in
lasers an ampli!iers can be escribe by classical noise sources.
H. "pontaneous 3urrent
3lassical noise is ue to thermal motion. Puantum noise has a i!!erent
origin. Ht results !rom !luctuations that we associate with the =eisenberg
uncertainty principle. -or e0ample1 consier a moel o! an atom
consisting o! an electron in a potential well shown in -ig. *. "uppose the
electron is in its groun state. /s a result o! the con!inement an the
uncertainty relation o! position an momentum1 the electron has
momentum !luctuations. 6here is an energy associate with these
!luctuations which raises the groun state in energy above the bottom o!
the well.
-igure *: 8omentum !luctuations o! an electron in
the groun state occur at the !requencies o! transitions to e0cite states.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6his is elementary quantum mechanics1 but one topic usually not
iscusse in quantum mechanics is the !requency spectrum o! the
momentum !luctuations. Hn noise theory1 the !requency spectrum o! a
ranom variable is !oun by calculating the correlation !unction o! the
variable at two times. 6his is most easily one in the =eisenberg picture
o! quantum mechanics1 where the operators are time-epenent an the
wave !unctions escribe initial states. / simple calculation shows that
the correlation !unction o! the momentum operator at two times is
6his calculation shows that the momentum !luctuations are compose o!
all the !requencies o! transitions !rom the groun state to e0cite states.
6hus momentum !luctuations occur at optical !requencies.
6he electron is charge1 so there is a current associate with the electron
momentum:
Fe call this !luctuating current that is present even in the absence o! an
applie !iel a Espontaneous current.E Ht is a source o! quantum noise.
8a0wellGs equations1 relating electromagnetic !iels to charge an
current sources1 hol in the quantum theory. -or the propagation o!
transverse waves1 they reuce to a wave equation !or the vector potential
with a spontaneous current source:
Fe will re!er to the vector potential as the E!iel.E 6here is also current
inuce by the !iel. >ust as in classical theory1 the inuce current can
be appro0imate as proportional to the !iel an inclue in the wave
equation by a ielectric !unction. 6he solution o! this equation is a !iel
raiating !rom the atom an carrying away energy. Ht appears that an
electron in its groun state will lose energy.
HH. Iacuum -iels
6his energy loss is prevente by the other source o! quantum noise:
vacuum !iels. 6he !iel o! raiation can be e0pane in moes. Hn !ree
space1 the moes are transverse plane waves o! all wavelengths an
propagating in all irections. 6he !iel o! each moe oscillates
sinusoially at the moe !requency liKe a simple harmonic oscillator. Ht
is well Known that a quantum treatment o! a mechanical simple
harmonic oscillator results in an evenly space set o! energy levels. ?y
assuming that the moe !iel amplitue an its time erivative are
operators with commutation rules similar to those o! position an
momentum1 the moe also acquires an evenly space set o! energy levels
C-ig. 2aD. ;ach energy level is interprete as a i!!erent number o!
photons in the moe.
-igure 2: ;nergy levels o! an optical moe CaD an electron energy levels
in a semiconuctor CbD. 6he positive !requency !iel an spontaneous
current operators are lowering operators1 while their =emitian
con5ugates are raising operators.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6he commutation rules lea to an uncertainty relation !or the amplitues
o! magnetic an electric !iels o! the moe1 which are proportional to the
vector potential an its time erivative. .iKe the atomic groun state1 the
moe groun state o! zero photons has an uncertainty relate !luctuation
associate with it1 the !iel o! Evacuum !luctuations1E an these
!luctuations raise the energy o! the groun state above the minimum
classical moe energy o! zero.
6he atom that is losing energy in its groun state is bombare by
vacuum !iels o! the continuum o! moes o! the surrouning space.
"ome o! this energy is absorbe by the atom an it can be shown that
this absorption e0actly cancels the energy loss by the raiation o!
spontaneous currents1 stabilizing the atomic groun state [*\.
Fhen the electron is in an e0cite state1 vacuum !iels are not absorbe
but instea stimulate spontaneous emission. 6he raiation emitte by the
spontaneous current is also spontaneous emission1 so spontaneous
emission has two sources. :alibar et al. [*\ have argue that the two
sources contribute equally to the spontaneous emission rate.
HHH. "hot @oise
/s an e0ample o! how vacuum !iels an spontaneous currents create
noise1 consier a noise !ree optical signal traveling own an absorbing
optical waveguie C-ig. $D. 6he signal !iel is attenuate. 6he incient
vacuum !iel is also attenuate1 but is replenishe by spontaneous
current emission !rom the absorbing electrons within the waveguie. 6he
beating o! the signal !iel with the vacuum !iels causes !luctuations in
the energy !lu0. Fhen the signal is etecte by an opaque photoetector1
these !luctuations account !or the shot noise observe in the
photocurrent.
-igure $. "ignal an vacuum !iels in an absorbing waveguie.
Hllustration o! the sources o! shot noise: the beating o! the signal !iel
with vacuum !iels an with spontaneous currents within the
photoetector.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H! some o! the signal passes through the photoetector1 there is an
aitional source o! noise ue to !luctuations in the rate o! optical
absorption cause by the beating o! the signal !iel with spontaneous
currents o! electrons within the photoetector. 6he !luctuations in the
rate o! optical absorption account !or shot noise when the photoetector
is nearly transparent.
HI. 9rer-:epenent /verages
6he wave equation1 ;q. C2D1 looKs liKe a classical !iel equation.
=owever1 in quantum theory current an !iel are =eisenberg operators
an they i!!er !rom classical variables in several important ways.
9perators o not have numerical values. 6o obtain numbers an maKe
theoretical preictions we must evaluate averages o! the =eisenberg
operators within the initial states o! the system. -or e0ample1 in ;q. C*D
we calculate the correlation !unction o! two =eisenberg momentum
operators at i!!erent times within the atomic groun state.
=eisenberg operators are usually non-commuting. -or e0ample1 i! we
e0change the two momentum operators by e0changing t* an t2 in ;q.
C*D1 we get a i!!erent e0pression. 6his shows that the =eisenberg
operators representing the same variable1 momentum1 at two i!!erent
times1 o not commute1 an consequently the correlation !unctions
epen on the orer o! the momentum operators. 3orrelation !unctions
that epen on the orer o! the variables o not occur in classical theory
an the transition in the character o! the noise !rom quantum to classical
is a transition to orer-inepenent correlation !unctions.
Hmportant e0amples o! orer-epenent correlation !unctions occur
when we ivie the !iel an current operators into their positive an
negative !requency parts. 6his can also be one !or a classical !iel.
?ecause the !iel is real1 the positive an negative !requency parts are
comple0 con5ugates:
where1 by convention1 e Liw t is a positive !requency. 6he prouct o! the
positive an negative !requency !iels is 5ust the prouct o! two comple0
numbers an oes not epen on their orer.
/ similar ivision can be mae !or !iel an current operators. ?ecause
the average values o! these operators are real1 the negative !requency
operators are the =ermitian con5ugates o! the positive !requency ones
an are written with a agger. Ht can be shown !or vacuum !iels that the
Enormally orereE average o! the prouct1 with the positive !requency
!iel to the right1 is zero1 whereas it is not zero !or the other orer.
"imilarly1 the normally orere correlation !unction o! spontaneous
current !or electrons in the groun state is zero. -or an e0cite state1 the
other orer o! correlation !unction is zero.
6he reason why these averages are zero can be !oun by e0amining the
matri0 elements o! =eisenberg operators between a pair o! energy levels1
illustrate in -ig. 2CaD + CbD. 9nly !requency components at the transition
!requency o! the levels contribute to the matri0 element. 6he positive
!requency =eisenberg operators act liKe lowering operators an only
have matri0 elements !or ownwar transitions1 while the negative
!requency =eisenberg operators act as raising operators. 6he normally
orere averages within the groun state are zero because there are no
levels below the groun state to lower to. "imilarly1 the spontaneous
current correlation !unction is zero in the e0cite state because1 !or
spontaneous current !requencies o! interest1 there are no levels above the
e0cite state to raise to.
I. 6ransition to 3lassical .angevin -orces in a .aser
6hese orer-epenent averages are necessary to e0plain the properties
o! quantize raiation1 such as those o! vacuum !iels. =owever1 laser
noise is success!ully moele with classical noise sources calle
.angevin !orces that have orer-inepenent correlation !unctions. =ow
o these non-commuting sources o! quantum noise give rise to classical
.angevin !orces?
6o answer this question1 let us consier a simple moel o! a laser with a
gain meium compose o! two level atoms C-ig. (D. 6he average upper
level occupation is varie along the horizontal a0is. /s it increases1 we
go !rom a col system with only lower levels occupie to !ull inversion
with only upper levels occupie. Fith increasing inversion1 the gain
changes !rom negative to positive1 i.e.1 !rom absorbing to ampli!ying.
6he normally orere correlation !unction is ue to electrons in the
e0cite state an increases with inversion1 while the other orer comes
!rom electrons in the groun state an ecreases with inversion.
-igure (: 6he gain1 photon number an spontaneous current correlation
!unctions are plotte versus the average upper state occupation. 6he
cases o! a lossless an a lossy cavity are shown. 6he correlation !unction
curves cross at laser threshol1 where spontaneous currents act liKe
orer-inepenent classical .angevin !orces.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"uppose we have a close lossless cavity containing only the gain
meium. 6he photon number then results !rom the equilibrium between
spontaneous emission an optical absorption. .aser threshol occurs at
the transparency point1 where absorption goes to zero an spontaneous
emission buils up. @otice that at laser threshol the curves o! the two
correlation !unctions cross1 resulting in spontaneous currents with orer-
inepenent correlation !unctions.
H! we introuce a loss in the !orm o! aitional absorbing atoms that
remain in their groun state1 e.g.1 atoms with short li!etimes in the upper
level1 the population inversion o! the gain meium neee to overcome
loss an reach threshol increases. 6hese aitional atoms contribute to
the upper correlation !unction curve1 shi!ting the intersection point to
that o! the new laser threshol.
Fe see that electrons in the upper level contribute to gain an to the
normally orere correlation !unction. ;lectrons in the lower level
contribute to loss an to the correlation !unction with the other operator
orer. /s photon number increases1 gain approaches loss an the noise
source correlation !unctions approach the orer-inepenent behavior o!
classical .angevin !orces. Ht can be shown that the transition to classical
.angevin !orces also taKes place in open laser cavities1 where
transmissions out o! an into the cavity introuce loss an noise ue to
vacuum !iels.
IH. 6ransition to a 3lassical @oise -iel in /n /mpli!ier
/ similar transition to orer-inepenent averages occurs !or the noise
!iel in a traveling wave optical ampli!ier C-ig. 'D. 6he incient vacuum
!iel is ampli!ie as it propagates along the ampli!ying waveguie1 but it
retains orer-epenent averages with the normally orere average
equal to zero. -iels emitte by spontaneous currents o! electrons in the
e0cite an groun states o! the gain meium are ampli!ie an
contribute to the noise !iel. 6hese !iels also have orer-epenent
averages. =owever1 when all three contributions are inclue1 the
averages o! the total noise !iel can be shown to grow in an orer-
inepenent manner1 with the i!!erence between the two averages
remaining constant at its value !or the incient vacuum !iels. 6his
constant i!!erence is ue to uncertainty relate !iel !luctuations. /t
high ampli!ication1 it is negligible an the noise !iel1 re!erre to as
ampli!ie spontaneous emission1 can be treate as a classical !iel with
orer-inepenent averages.
-igure ': 6he averages on the noise !iel in an
ampli!ying waveguie grow in an orer-inepenent manner.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IHH. "ummary
"pontaneous currents an vacuum !iels are complementary sources o!
quantum noise. 6ogether1 they account !or the stability o! electronic
groun states1 spontaneous emission1 shot noise an the transition !rom
quantum to classical noise that occurs in lasers an ampli!iers. / broaer
iscussion o! quantum noise in photonics1 incluing erivations o! these
results1 is given in our review [2\. Fe can provie a reprint o! this paper
to anyone intereste in this sub5ect.
Ae!erences
*. >. :alibar1 >. :upont-Aoc an 3. 3ohen-6annou5i1 EIacuum
!luctuations an raiative reaction: ienti!ication o! their respective
contributionsE >. 7hys. C7arisD vol. ($1 *&*% C*2N2D.
2. 3. =. =enry an A. -. Oazarinov1 Puantum noise in photonicsGG1 Aev.
8o. 7hys.1 vol. &N1 @o. $1 pp. N)*-N'$1 C*22&D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
?rian1
Fhat !ollows may well be an interesting paper in light o! the
possibility that the ,niverse may possess closure mass. /s you Know1
with merely a critical ensity o! mass energy Cno more1 no lessD the
,niverseGs e0pansion must slow own asymptotically1 i.e.1 it Keeps
slowing but never actually stops. "o one woul e0pect a graual
slowing own o! masses along the ict a0is1 right? ?ut then to preserve
!our momentum there must be a compensating increase in real
momentum. @ow imaginary momentum is 5ust the energy o! the
quantum vacuum energy !luctuations which meiate the avance o!
masses through time1 i.e.1 the Etime componentE o! the !our momentum.
6he real momentum !luctuations1 you recall1 are boun up in Cno pun
inteneD the e0change o! spin * !orce carrying virtual particles CbosonsD
which meiate the bining !orces holing matter together. ?ut is this all
better unerstoo in terms o! conserve current ensities1 rather than in
terms o! momenta an energy?
/s an asie1 H have o!ten wonere i! there coul be some neat
corresponence between inertial mass an momentum !luctuations o!
spin * an between gravitational mass an energy !luctuations o! spin )
Cspin +*/2 spin -*/2 virtual pairsD an i!1 there!ore1 the equivalence
principle Cis it the EstrongE or the EweaKE1 H canGt rememberTD1 that is1 the
equivalence o! gravitation an inertial mass !or any given boy might be
attribute to the balance maintaine between the altere ?ose an -ermi
statistics o! the vacuum with which masses interact Can1 in !act1 out o!
which they are continually reconstitute !romTD 9ne might suppose that
a !luctuation in !our-momentum which is suppresse in one !orm1 e.g.1
electron/positron pair1 might be Re0presseS
?rian1 your iea that inertia arises !rom the i!!iculty that mass has in
climbing out o! its own retare potential well1 H believe1 !its in with this
notion.
3,later1
Aussell
H87.H3/6H9@" 9- @9@-39@"6/@6 .H4=6 I;.93H6<
:ear ?rian1
/s you might well imagine1 HGm very please1 inee1 that the
neutrino has been iscovere to have a mass o! not less than ).)% eI an
probably closer to ).* eIT H always strongly suspecte that the neutrino
possesse a small mass since itGs a spin */2 particle which perturbs the
statistics o! the quantum vacuum 5ust as much as oes an electron or
quarK. /n since weGve been saying that the gravitational e!!ects o!
matter stem !rom this matter vacuum spin coupling1 !ermions through
the 7auli 7rinciple an bosons through the complementary E7auli
Hnclusion 7rincipleE1 provie1 o! course1 that the bosons are localize
through the imposing o! appropriate bounary conitions.
9n the question about the mass o! !reely traveling1 EunbounE
photons though1 H have to asK mysel!1 EFouln_t one e0pect that an
e0tremely high !lu0 laser beam woul enhance the probability o!
vacuum electromagnetic !iel !luctuations o! the same energy1 helicity1
an polarization1 that is to say1 o! the same quantum state as the photons
o! the beam1 at least in the space within or very near to this beam? 9ne
might answer that1 well i! the photons are being absorbe an re-emitte
by virtual atoms within this vacuum1 then maybe. Iirtual atoms?
Iirtual ogs an cats? 3an only truly !unamental particles Ee0istE as
!luctuations within the vacuum? Hs that the test o! !unamental
particlehoo1 to be reproucible as a vacuum momentum or energy
!luctuation? Hnteresting question1 H thinK. :onGt you?
7.".1 you might want to o a couple o! bacK o! the envelope calculations
with1 say1 neutrinos constituting 2)% or 2'% o! the mass o! the
,niverse1 an come up with a rough an reay !igure o! neutrino mass
which woul succee in Eclosing o!! the ,niverse.E 4ravitational1 H
mean1 o! course. .et me Know what you come up with1 9.O.? /lso1 H
onGt believe that neutrino/antineutrino annihilations have been
observe. H woner what Kin o! boson youG get? 7robably a F or J
particle1 H imagine. ?ut H canGt be sure. 4otta o some research on that
one.
6alK to you soon then1 ?rian.
?est Aegars1
Aussell
@eutrino @ews
6=; :H"39I;A< 9- @;,6AH@9 9"3H../6H9@"
web=
nu#timeline.html at www.phys.hawaii.eu
=owever1 the observerGs motion cannot be measurable relative to the
vacuum as long as he travels with a velocity which is less than the
velocity o! light relative to any arbitrarily chosen re!erence !rame. 6his
is because1 at velocities less than c1 the observer can only cover a
istance relative to any given vacuum !luctuation o! 0 Y /a01 where /a0 is
the positional uncertainty o! the vacuum !luctuation along the observerGs
irection o! motion. 6he observer can travel no greater istance than
this since the li!etime o! the !luctuation is 5ust /at = /a0/c1 while his
velocity is v c. ?ut relative istances1 01 which are less than the
positional uncertainty1 /a01 are1 by e!inition1 non-measurable. .et
us now return to the question which arose in connection with our
computer screen analogy o! the velocity o! light problem. Fe sai that
the theoretical an the practical limits on1 call it cursor spee1 was
several orers o! magnitue less than the theoretical limit1 that1
practically speaKing1 the cursor1 i! you will1 coul move across the
computer screen no !aster than1 say1 *) meters/secon1 rather than the
theoretical !igure !or an iniviual pi0el o! *)( meters/secon. 6o a !irst
orer o! appro0imation1 this is ue to the !act that the cursor is mae up
o! roughly 2)) iniviual pi0els an that what the computer is actually
oing when one pulls the cursor across the screen utilizing a mouse is
moving each o! the 2)) pi0els across the screen simultaneously. 6his is
e!!ectively 2)) times as many Ecalculations1E consuming a minimum o!
one clocK cycle each o! 37, time in moving a pi0el a istance o! *
pi0el. "o apparently there is a price to pay !or maintaining the
coherence o! the cursor Cas a single Eob5ectED so that it oes not istort or
change shape as one pulls it rapily across the computer screen. Ht is as
though each o! the pi0els is a Egnat1E to borrow still another analogy1 an
i! the EswarmE o! gnats Cthe group o! pi0els maKing up the cursorD is to
move as a unit1 then there has to be some Kin o! coorination1 in terms
o! in!ormation Cor energyD e0changes between the gnats so that when
one gnat taKes the lea an moves in a new irection Cbecause it is the
!irst to see an approaching obstacle1 sayD the other gnats must get the
wor quicKly enough so that the swarm can change irection as a whole
without e!orming in shape.
'/2% Hnertial mass may be base in the ensity o! momentum
e0changes taKing place between the various subatomic particles an
quantum !iels composing a given mass1 while gravitational mass may
be base in the ensity o! energy e0changes taKing place between these
subatomic particles an quantum !iels an the quantum vacuum !iel.
6he equivalence o! inertial an gravitational masses may be an arti!act
o! the conservation o! momentum-energy uncertainty or the conservation
o! virtual momentum an energy as a momentum-energy !luctuation
!our vector within !our imensional spacetime.
%/2% Ht is only nonzero e0pectation values o! momentum-energy which
may possess gravitational or inertial mass. /n what contributes to
this mass is any bounary conitions place upon the quantum vacuum
!iel which alters this !iel so that the momentum !luctuations an
energy !luctuations o not cancel e0actly.
)&/2N
6he e0pectation values
may always be e!ine in terms o! a !luctuation term an an uncertainty.
6his !luctuation term may be intrinsic to the quantum vacuum !iel an
the uncertainty may be associate with the observer o! the quantum
system. 6hrough a Kin o! coherence between the intrinsic vacuum
!luctuation term an the observerGs uncertainty1 the emergence o! a
nonzero e0pectation value1 i.e.1 a classical observable1 may emerge.
6here is no reason why we cannot attribute the entirety o! the term1 /a;1
to the observer per!orming the energy-etermining measurement. ?ut to
o so means that one is consiering the =eisenberg ,ncertainty
7rinciple C=,7D to be entirely epistemological in nature. 6o attribute
this uncertainty entirely to the quantum system itsel! is to maintain that
the =eisenberg uncertainty is ontological in nature. 6his alternative
interpretation o! the =,7 is not !easible1 however1 as the observer_s
brain equally constitutes a quantum mechanical system 5ust as oes he
system he is observing or per!orming measurements upon. 6he perhaps
more reasonable approach to interpreting the =,7 might be to
compromise between the two e0tremes by amitting that there is a
ynamic interrelationship between the uncertainties o! both the
observer_s brain an the quantum system he is observing.
)&/2N
6here
must arise an e0act matching or mutual coherence o! internal an
e0ternal !requencies !or an ob5ect to become mani!est. 6hese
!requencies1 or their spectra1 woul be associate with the !luctuations in
the vacuumGs intrinsic energy an with the !luctuations in the ability o!
an ieal observer to etermine the systemGs ; inepenently o! the e!!ect
o! the vacuum energy !luctuations1 respectively. Fe are basing this iea
o! observer-system resonance as the basis o! perception on an iea
e0presse by :avi ?ohm in his booK1 Puantum 6heory. /ccoring to
?ohm C*2'*D1 the !luctuations in an observable1 in combination with the
correlations o! the phases o! these quantum !luctuations1 together
comprise the average values o! any observable. /n act o! observation
has the e!!ect o! estroying the elicate phase relations between the
eigen!unctions with respect to all incompatible observables. 6he e!!ect
o! the !luctuation energy upon our energy measuring evices is1 o!
course1 an e!!ect which even the per!ect calibration o! our energy-
measuring instruments cannot in principle eraicate. 8ass-energy is a
result o! an imbalance in these two energy terms. Hn this way particles
are seen to be not !lu0-stabilities in themselves1 but structure alterations
in the !lu0-stabilities as a result o! the in!luence1 penultimately1 o! our
energy measuring evices - ultimately per von @eumann - upon the
in!luence o! not the iniviual min per se but the consciousness1
!unamental in nature1 which is structure through the comple0 system
o! bounary conitions upon the very same vacuum !iel being
measure Cin essenceD constitute !rom the operation o! the observerGs
brain1 since the e0istence o! the brain as a mass-energy system1 woul
otherwise presuppose1 i! ienti!ie with the observerGs iniviual
consciousness1 the e0istence o! that which its observations are partially
constituting. E6he mere possibility o! observation results in the
reuction o! the state vector.E H! a great enough interlocKing !eebacK
between such possibilities comes about which then alters the statistics o!
matter an energy Cincluing the embeing vacuum energy !ielD1
which results in a great enough contraction/collapse in the ensity rate o!
these state vector reuctions through the conversion o! is5oint states
into correlate mi0tures1 proucing an overall coherent state1 then a
barrier will spontaneously be create between internal an e0ternal1 i.e.1
a ruimentary real1 as oppose to a mere hypothetical1 possible observer
will be engenere.
?y the equivalence principle1 !ermion prouction in a gravitational !iel
shoul not e0ist !or a !reely-!alling observer. ?ut neither shoul a
blacKboy spectrum o! photons be observe by this !reely-!alling
observer. "ince the !ermion-anti!ermion an boson particle prouction
!iels are observer epenent in their intensities1 there shoul be an
invariant trans!ormation rule connecting them. this invariance is
probably not that o! simple .orenz-invariance because the observer-
epenent shi!t in intensities/current ensities o! the particle prouction
is epenent upon acceleration o! the observer - not on his relative
velocity. -or instance1 the masses o! the particles prouce1 in the case
o! !ermion-anti!ermion prouction1 varies in an opposing sense to the
manner in which the !ermion-anti!ermion rate alters ue to an arbitrary
.orenz-trans!ormation o! the gravitational !iel engenering the
enhance !C+D/!C-D prouction in such a manner that the mass-creation
rate !or !C+D/!C-DGs remains constant. 6he (-voume in which !C+D/!C-D
creation/annihilation is taKing place within this gravitational !iel is also
una!!ecte by an arbitrary .orenz-trans!ormation since the length
contraction an time ilation taKe place in opposite senses as well. Hn
this way1 the mass creation rate !or !C+D/!C-DGs ivie by the local (-
volume we are consiering1 i.e.1 the (-current ensity o! the general
relativistic particle prouction1 is conserve as a result o! an arbitrary
.orenz trans!ormation o! the gravitational !iel inucing the particle
prouction !iel.
Aeturning to our !irst analogy1 this e0change o! in!ormation is not
actually occurring among the pi0els Cas was the case !or the gnatsD1 but
is1 !or the greater part1 occurring within the 37, itsel!1 that is1 between
its iniviual circuit elementsV in small part1 this e0change o!
energy/in!ormation is taKing place between the 37, an the pi0els on
the screen it is controlling. 6he greater the ratio o! in!ormation
e0changes taKing place between the 37, an itsel! relative to the those
taKing place between the 37, an the screen1 the slower will be the
ma0imum permissible velocity across the screen !or an ob5ect
represente on this screen. / similar statement woul apply to the
EaccelerationE o! the cursor across the screen - the larger the group o!
pi0els which one wishes to simultaneously move across the screen1 the
smaller will be the ma0imum acceleration attainable by the group o!
pi0els1 i.e.1 the cursor. H! we are looKing !or something to play the role
o! EmassE within our computer analogy we woul o so in vain unless
we moi!y somewhat Cin a way which oesnGt rener our analogy
useless1 H thinKD the programming o! the so!tware riving the computer
monitor Coutput eviceD. H! we were to thinK o! the quantum vacuum
!iel as generating an sustaining all o! the various E!ormsE such as all
o! the particles an !iels o! spacetime1 oing this in a manner e0actly
paralleling that in which a 37, creates/sustains all o! the igital
graphical representations appearing on a computer screen1 then the
suggestion arises that perhaps there is not only a ma0imum possible
velocity1 but also a ma0imum possible acceleration through spacetime.
/n obvious choice !or this ma0imum acceleration is simply c2/.plancK.
/n equivalent representation o! this limit is c/tplancK. /n1 o! course1
we are thinKing o! .plancK as the imension o! a three imensional
Epi0elE composing the spatial part o! global spacetime1 while CtplancKD-*
represents the clocK rate o! the Eglobal spacetime central processing unit
C37,D1E i.e. the global quantum mechanical vacuum. Fe state earlier1
that the temporality o! a quantum mechanical system is owing entirely to
the presence o! energy uncertainty within this system. Fe now realize
that the temporality o! quantum mechanical systems owes to the
interaction o! this system with the !luctuating quantum mechanical
vacuumV consequently1 the rate at which time passes within a given
region o! spacetime is a !unction o! the energy ensity o! the vacuum
within this region. Fe have propose that the inertial mass o! a boy is
irectly relate to its bining energy ue to nongravitational !orces. 6his
is a seeming parao0 since bining energy is negative an shoul result
in an overall reuction in the inertial mass Cpositive energyD o! the boy.
'/2% /n e0ample o! where there is a change only in gravitational
bining energy is when the increase in negative bining energy is
resulting !rom the action o! gravitation alone which is e0actly
counterbalance by the general relativistic increase in the mass energy o!
the boy. 6o wit1 here we have increase the gravitational bining
energy o! a boy without having a!!ecte the total energy1 an hence1
inertial mass1 o! the boy.
Fhen the ensity o! a given region o! space increases1 there oes not
result merely a simple ecrease in the energy ensity o! the vacuum.
Aather1 there is a momentum current ensity tensor1 which is iagonal in
!ree space1 e0periences a shu!!ling o! its components so that it is no
longer iagonal - with respect to a !ree space 8inKowsKi spacetime.
N/2& 6here is another way o! looKing at the phenomenon o! inertia in
terms o! how spin-coupling o! real bosons o! integral spin an real
!ermions o! integral */2 spin to the spins o! virtual bosons an !ermions.
6he particle mani!estations o! the vacuum momentum-energy
!luctuations may be incorporate into the view o! the earlier state
mechanism o! inertia/gravitation allue to in the paragraph
immeiately above. Ht is through the spin-coupling o! real an virtual
particles that the momentum current ensity components are altere
!rom their iagonal 2n ranK tensor istribution to a non-iagonal
component istribution o! this momentum energy which unerlies
mani!est gravitational !iels. 6he theory o! Esqueeze states1E where the
uncertainties in momentum along a particular a0is are increase by
borrowing momentum uncertainty !rom along other orthogonal a0es1
may provie the necessary mathematical !rameworK within which the
e!!ects o! matter upon vacuum momentum-energy uncertainty may be
aequately escribe: matter a!!ects the quantum vacuum by inucing a
broaening o! the vacuumGs momentum uncertainty by utilizing
!luctuation energy provie by the vacuumGs uncertain energy.
N/2& 6his may be escribe in terms o! the rotation o! the matter +
vacuum momentum current ensity tensor. / secon ranK tensor
multiplie by this iagonal momentum current ensity !our vector woul
prouce the appropriate connection between this !our vector at points in
spacetime in!initesimally contiguous with one another. "uch a 2n ranK
tensor must somehow be assimilate to the metric tensor o! general
relativity. Hnstantaneous correlations woul mani!est themselves as
abrupt epartures !rom locally eterministic causality an coul
constitute an e0planation !or the e0istence o! =eisenberg energy
uncertainty. H thinK that there is no oubt that i! the basic !rameworK o!
"pecial Aelativity is to be maintaine1 then we are !orce to accept an
origin !or nonlocal correlations which lies completely outsie !our
imensional spacetime. 6hese nonlocal correlations must always
comprise causal interactions an so never be e0plicable in terms o!
them. Fe Know that a photon traveling though !ree space e0periences
an acceleration ue to the cosmological e0pansion1 an that this
acceleration is equal to =c1 where = is =ubbleGs constant an c is the
spee o! light in vacuum. 6here!ore1 i! a typical spherical mass is
instantaneously converte into pure energy1 i.e.1 photons1 the photons
will instantly1 collectively e0ert a positive pressure1
7 = 8=c/(piA2.
3onsequently1 the vacuum must e0ert a pressure upon spherical masses
which is equal an opposite to this above quantity. "ome theoretical
evience !or this claim can be provie by the calculation o! a worK-
energy integral. 6his integral is ultimately motivate by an e0tension o!
the equipartation theorem o! Kinetic gas theory to the cosmological
istribution o! energy in the ,niverse. 6his question will be aresse
at a later occasion1 however. /s !or the integral itsel!1 it is use to
calculate the worK which the ,niverse per!orme on some small volume
o! energy as the energy ensity o! this volume ecrease !rom a very
high value early in the history o! the ,niverse Csay in the !irst !ew
seconsD until the present epoch o! cosmological e0pansion when the
energy ensity o! this volume has become almost negligible. 9ne may
thinK o! this worK as being per!orme on this volume by some
cosmological acceleration !orce !iel an i! we assume that this tiny
volume manage to hol itsel! together without e0paning throughout
the entire e0pansion phase1 then this volume must have e0erte a !orce
upon the ,niverse equal an opposite to the cosmological !orce which
was attempting to sprea it apart. 3onservation o! momentum hols
!or the combine mass-energy/vacuum-energy system so that there is a
balancing o! the !orce o! the =ubble cosmological !orce !iel acting
upon the vacuum an the gravitational !orce o! the vacuum acting upon
the total matter istribution o! the ,niverse. Fe may even say that the
vacuumGs gravitational !iel is simply a reaction !orce prouce by the
tenency o! the =ubble cosmological acceleration !orce to alter the
momentum o! the vacuum. 6his reaction !orce acts to conserve the
momentum o! the vacuum energy !iel. 6his action - reaction !orce
relationship is e0presse by the equation given below1
=2r 0 ;v = ;o 0 48/A2 1
where 48/A2 = the acceleration !iel prouce by the vacuumGs
gravitational !iel. 6he gravitational !iel o! matter istributions is not
an inherent property o! these istributions1 but must be conceive along
the same general lines as the electrical repulsive !orce between
islocations or holes in an otherwise electrically neutral crystalline
matri0. 6his iea is more or less capture by the !ollowing relationship1
;v/;o 0 =2r = n c2/r 0 C * - ;/;v D - c2/ro = g1
where the term1 c2/r1 is the acceleration !iel prouce by the vacuum
reaction - !orce which compensates the action o! the =ubble
cosmological acceleration !orce upon the vacuum energy !iel. =c is the
cosmological acceleration !iel which acts upon !reely moving photons1
an implies the e0istence o! a precisely balancing an opposing reactive
!orce upon the particles !orming a boun matter istribution. .et us
assume that this tiny volume is that occupie by a neutron an that the
worK-cycle is to begin at an early epoch in the ,niverseGs e0pansion
when the average energy ensity o! the vacuum was equal to that o! the
neutron itsel!: appro0imately *)$$ >oules/8$. 6he worK integral is
e!ine to be:
F = 7WI 1
where the limits o! integration are to be !rom 7i =
i
to
! 1
where 7
an are the pressure an energy ensity o! the vacuum1 respectively.
Fe will at !irst e!ine the worK integral in terms o! -WA. - is 5ust
the cosmological acceleration !orce acting on the tiny volume an - =
8=
2
r1 where r is the raius o! the volume1 8 is the mass containe
within the volume an = is =ubbleGs constant. H! the volume were to
e0pan e0actly in step with the e0pansion o! space in its immeiate local
region1 then the sur!ace o! the volume woul move with respect to its
center Cchosen as coorinate originD with velocity =r1 an the
acceleration o! this sur!ace with respect to the chosen origin woul be
/t[=r\ = =[r/t\ = =
2
r1 so that1 again1 - = 8=
2
r. 6he worK integral
becomes
F = 8=
2
rr
between the istance limits A
i
= A
neutron
an A
!
= A
universe
. 6o trans!orm
this worK integral into one in terms o! pressure an volume rather than
!orce an istance involves e!ining the parameters e an e1 i.e.1 mass
ensity an i!!erential o! mass ensity1 respectively.
=
$
/
(
8 A
$
===Z A =
$
root[
$
/
(
8 \ 0
-*/$
r =
-
*
/
$
0
$
root 0 [
$
/
(
m/( \ 0 -(/$
H! one per!orms this worK integral one !ins that the energy necessary to
e0pan neutron-pacKet o! unboun neutron mass-energy is precisely1
; = 4C8
neutron
D2/A1
so that the energy necessary to prevent this e0pansion is
; = -4C8
neutron
D
2
/A.
6his result is1 o! course1 provie that the mass ensity o! the universe is
given by the !ormula1
=
$
/
(
=
2
4
6his !ormula !or the mass ensity o! the ,niverse is implie by an
equality o! magnitue o! the Kinetic energy an gravitational bining
energy o! the ,niverse as a whole. 6his equality constitutes a propose
solution to the so-calle E!latness problemE o! cosmological theory.
/lan 4uthGs Hn!lationary 6heory was originally propose to solve1
essentially1 5ust this cosmological problem. / rough an reay e!inition
o! the !latness problem is the nearly e0act equality between the
,niverseGs e0pansion velocity an its Eescape velocityE - o! somewhere
between * part per *)
*2
an * part per *)
&)
1 epening upon which
sources in the literature are citeV the problem is not that this e0act ratio
con!licts with the stanar E?ig ?angE cosmological moel1 but rather
that it is obviously a non-arbitrary CstructuralD !eature o! the 3osmos
about which the moel can maKe no meaning!ul e0planation.
7roponents o! the "tanar 8oel are !orce to lump this !act in with
the other initial conitions which were set at the beginning o! the
,niverseGs e0pansion1 an which physical science cannot e0plain1 such
as the !unamental physical constants an the ,niverseGs initial mass.
9ther proponents o! this moel invoKe the /nthropic 3osmological
7rinciple to e0plain this ratio. Hts argument goes liKe the !ollowing: i!
the ratio o! escape velocity vs. e0pansion velocity is too much greater
than *1 then the ,niverse woul have alreay re-collapse by this time
an we woul not be hereV on the other han1 i! the ratio is too much less
than *1 then the ensity o! the universe woul not have been great
enough1 !or long enough1 to allow the !ormation o! stars an gala0ies so
that yet again we woul not be here to worry about the question. ?ut the
/nthropic 3osmological 7rinciple cannot e0plain the e0actness with
which this ratio approaches unity1 but can only provie relatively crue
limits on either sie o! this ratio1 say between ).2 an *.* - this shaves
o!! only * orer o! magnitue an there are still at least ** more orers
o! magnitue in nee o! e0planation. 6he theory which H propose1
however1 which can be consiere to be an e0tension o! Ian -lanernGs
"-hypothesis1 e0plains this ratio not as an arbitrary initial conition1 but
as a necessary !eature o! any universe where the energy o! cosmological
e0pansion rives the !orces o! the universeGs gravitationV to wit1 i! the
e0pansion velocity o! the ,niverse were greater than it is1 then the
energy o! its e0pansion woul be greater an hence the gravitational
energy o! the ,niverse woul be corresponingly increase such that the
ratio o! unity woul be maintaine. 6his postulate has a !avorable
bearing on many other unsolve problems o! cosmological theory.
9ur postulate states1 in essence1 only that the total gravitational potential
an Kinetic energies are equal. 6he postulate is not a mere arbitrary
assumption however1 as it is supporte by the principle o! energy
equipartation. =owever1 this principle can only be applie i! it is
assume that there e0ists some !orm o! energy which acts as a meium
physically linKing these two types o! energy1 i.e.1 the energy o! position
with the energy o! momentum1 in orer that the equilibrium between
them can be maintaine through mutual energy e0changes - in much
the same way that the rotational an vibrational energies o! gas
molecules maintain a balance through continual e0change o! Kinetic
energy between these molecules through ranom collisions.
'/2% / reay caniate !or this meium connecting the gravitational
potential an Kinetic energies o! particles1 !or e0ample1 is the !luctuating
component o! the =amiltonian !or the quantum system in question. /s
state earlier1 this !luctuation component o! the =amiltonian cannot be
Escreene.E 6his !luctuation component o! the =amiltonian may be
thought o! as the prouct o! its space an time components1 =CrD an
=CtD. 6his =amiltonian is1 o! course1 only an average1 Y=Cr1tDZ. 6here
are three basic types o! interaction !or this system: e0changes o!
momentum/energy between the parts o! the system entirely among
themselves1 e0changes o! momentum/energy between the system an
other similar systems1 an e0changes o! momentum/energy between the
system an its !luctuation =amiltonian.
)%/2N
6he equation1 constant = pWp + rWr1 seems to imply that p an r may
both be incompatible observables espite the absence o! !luctuations in
the sum1 pWp + rWr. ?ut i! one looKs at this equation1 one immeiately
realizes that it is the equation o! a circle in phase space. ?ut a circle in
phase space represents a precisely e!ine tra5ectory in phase space
which1 in turn1 implies that p an r1 though each uncertain in an
epistemological sense1 must at any moment both possess precise values.
/n this !act woul contraict the thesis o! p_s an r_s incompatibility as
observers.
)%/2N
3onservation o! vacuum (-momentum is asserte here to provie the
mechanism by which the necessary energy e0changes are e!!ecte
between the gravitational an Kinetic energies o! the vacuum. Fe have
alreay seen how gravitational acceleration itsel! 1i.e.1 the conversion o!
potential energy into Kinetic energy Cthe converse o! acceleration uner
thrustD which has been !ormalize by1 e.g.1 =amiltonGs canonical
equations o! motion1 results !rom a spatio-temporal vacuum energy
ensity graient which itsel!1 in turn1 comes into being through the
operation o! the principle o! vacuum momentum conservation1 an
which sustains itsel! in e0istence through the vacuumGs !unamental
ynamism o! sel!-energy-e0change. 4ravitational potential1 it is sai1
cannot be e!ine absolutely. Aather1 only relative i!!erences in
potential are meaning!ul. -or mathematical convenience1 all potentials
are re!erence with respect to a potential at in!inity where the T/A
epenence o! the potential causes it to vanish to zero. <et this
e!inition contains a presumption1 namely1 that is meaning!ul to speaK o!
a gravitational potential at an in!inite istance. Hn actuality1 the !urthest
that a mass can be place so that its potential is a minimum1 is at the so-
calle ege o! the observable ,niverse1 that is1 5ust this sie o! the
spherical light horizon - where the cosmological re-shi!t o!
electromagnetic raiation becomes in!inite. /ccoring to some simple
calculations H have per!orme1 this istance is roughly *.* 0 *)
2&
meters.
Hn the particular case o! our own ;arth this potential is about 2) orers
o! magnitue smaller than the potential at the ;arthGs sur!ace - a
vanishingly small value o! appro0imately *)
-$)
>oules per Oilogram.
6he "chreinger equation may be thought o! as escribing i!!usion
along the ict a0is. 8oreover1 4rahamGs .aw o! e!!usion states that more
massive particles i!!use more slowly than less massive particles.
/ccoring to =awKing an ?ecKenstein1 the entropy o! a blacK hole is
irectly proportional to the sur!ace area o! the hole. 6his relation is
given below.
" b ( A
2
?ut the energy ensity o! the blacK hole is given by the relation1
= $c
(
/( A
2
4
so that1 " = e
-*
where " is the entropy an e is the energy ensity o! the blacK hole1
respectively. 3onsequently1 i! the energy ensity o! the vacuum is equal
to the energy ensity o! blacK hole masses1 then the entropy o! the
vacuum shoul increase with ecreasing vacuum energy ensity. Fe
believe that the energy ensity o! the vacuum is equal to the e!!ective
energy ensity o! blacK holes because the raial outwar pressure o! the
vacuum1 7vac1 must be ) at the event horizon sur!ace o! a blacK hole an
the vacuum obeys the equation o! state1 namely1 e vac = 7vac.
-urthermore1 as alreay state elsewhere1 eo = emass + evac. because
there is no !unamental istinction between creating mass !rom the
vacuum energy locally available within a particular region o! spacetime
an importing alreay e0isting mass !rom outsie this region o!
spacetime into this region because1 in turn1 matter particles may not be
thought o! as having a permanent1 continuous e0istence a!ter the manner
o! the substances o! /ristotelian physicsV this !ollows !rom the !act that
there is no real istinction between relativistic an non-relativistic mass.
7vac must be ) here because the matter composing a blacK hole may
e0change energy only with itsel!V it e0changes no energy with the
vacuum energy !iel outsie its event horizon. ematter = eo in this
particular case an1 as well1 evac = 7vac = ). /gain1 hal! o! the mass-
energy containe within the blacK hole is ue solely to the general
relativistic increase in mass which ha accumulate once the hole ha
!orme.
e = eon* - 48/A32o1
where eo = $c(/(pi4A2.
4eneralizing this result1 we may say that the ma0imum rate o! increase
in the entropy o! the vacuum is parallel to the irection along which the
ecrease in the vacuumGs energy ensity is ma0imal. Hn so-calle !ree
space1 the irection along which the ma0imal ecrease in the vacuumGs
energy ensity e0ists is along the ict a0isV in other wors1 the vacuum
energy ensity varies in a purely temporal manner in !ree space.
6here!ore1 the so-calle thermoynamic arrow o! time points in a
irection orthogonal Cin !ree spaceD to any $ imensional rectangular
system o! coorinates escribing an inertial !rame o! re!erenceV
moreover1 a gravitational !iel is associate with an alteration in the
orientation o! the thermoynamic arrow o! time because a component o!
the irection o! the ma0imally increasing vacuum entropy now points
raially inwar - in the simple case o! spherical masses. 6he thermal
particle creation which is observe to occur within accelerate re!erence
!rames is a mani!estation o! a creation/annihilation process which is
normally balance in the !ree space vacuum but which is unbalance
within the accelerate !rame. Hn the presence o! a gravitational
potential1 the arrow o! time possesses a component along the vacuum
energy ensity graient so that a new time a0is is e!ine within this
new vacuum which e0actly correspons to this new time a0is as e!ine
within the general theory o! relativity as applie to the 8inKowsKi light
cone.
**/2& 6he secon law o! thermoynamics only applies to physical
processes taKing place within a close system which is in interaction
with an in!inite heat reservoir. 6he 2n .aw oes not1 however1 apply to
open thermoynamics systems since in these systems no global
thermoynamic arrow o! time can be consistently e!ine. "uch
thermoynamic arrows can only be e!ine locally. 6his remins us o!
how staning waves cannot !orm in containers o! in!inite size. "o the
concept o! a particle1 which is itsel! 5ust a 4aussian pacKet o! superpose
staning waves1 can only possess valiity in a local senseV globally
speaKing1 the notion o! a particle oes not re!er to anything which
possesses ultimate reality1 but an abstraction groune in a low orer
appro0imation. "ee Puantum -iel 6heory in 3urve "pacetime an
?lacK =ole 6hermoynamics by Aobert 8. Fal1 3hicago ,niversity
7ress1 !or !urther iscussion o! the limitations o! the Eparticle conceptE
in strongly curve or rapily time-varying spacetimes. 6his booK also
iscusses the phenomenon o! particle prouction in e0paning ;instein-
:e"itter spacetimes as being closely relate to =awKing raiation.
*2/2& 3hanges in the bounary conitions o! the wave!unction which
taKe place with a rapiity such that1 /a?//at Z /a;/h
+ /a?1
where ? are the bounary conitions o! the quantum mechanical
superposition state1 "1 will inevitably result in a collapse o! the
wave!unction1 7si1 into one o! its eigenstates o! the observable boun by
?. 6his is provie that the new bounary conitions1 ?G1 are stabilize
to within c 0 /at1 where /at is the time uncertainty in the time interval o!
this transition1 ? ===Z ?G. Fave!unctions representing locally-
connecte quantum mechanical systems are constitute by a system o!
bounary conitions place upon the nonlocally-connecte quantum
vacuum stress-momentum-energy !iel. 6he principle o! superposition
illustrates the importance o! unrealize possibilities: they play a
substantive role in the behavior o! the real. 6he energy uncertainty o! a
quantum mechanical system1 /a;1 is both inepenent o! the observer1
that is1 it represents an ontological1 rather than a1 merely epistemological
uncertainty in the energy o! the system an it is epenent upon the state
o! the observerGs Knowlege o! this system. 6his suggests that the
observer an his state o! Knowlege are essentially separableT =is
Knowlege o! quantum mechanical system states is !rom the insie1
meaning that the observerGs Knowlege is coe nonlocally in the
quantum energy uncertainty o! his own brain1 itsel! a quantum
mechanical systemT 6he brain o! the observer simply provies a set o!
bounary conitions upon the quantum vacuum energy !iel. 6hermal
particle prouction is e0pecte to occur in the irection o! the entropy
graient o! a vacuum possessing a gravitational potentialV an the
principle o! relativity emans that particle prouction be associate
with the global increase in vacuum entropy engenere by the process o!
cosmological e0pansion. 6he ma0imally entropic state within any
region o! spacetime is that o! the vacuum itsel!. Hn general1 ue to
gravitational time ilation1 the entropy o! matter istributions can never
catch up1 so to speaK1 with the entropy o! the vacuum: the result o! this
is that matter an energy istributions can never quite reach a state o!
thermoynamic equilibrium within an e0paning universe.
*2/2& Ht is our belie! that the global orientation o! the arrow o! time is
etermine by the global istribution o! matter in the ,niverse1 an that
without the presence o! matter1 there is no eterminate irection !or the
arrow o! time. 6his implies that the ,niverse conceive o! as a raically
open system cannot possess a complete1 sel!-consistent topological
escription. ,sing the analogy o! a system o! vibrating strings: a !inite
sum o! -ourier component !unctions1 -CwD1 aequately escribes the
system o! string vibrations provie that each o! the strings be
EanchoreE on at least one en1 which is to say that1 in the absence o!
spatial bounary conitions place upon the stringsG vibrations1 staning
wave patterns o! string vibration cannot e0ist an no purely spatial
escription o! the system o! string vibrations is possible - only a
spatiotemporal escription is possible in this case1 an one in which
there is no unique ecomposition o! the spatiotemporal escription into a
particular $CspaceD + *CtimeD mani!ol. 6he result similar to the one
above obtains where no unique time irection !or the ynamical
evolution o! the system can be speci!ie. 6he ratio o! mass energy
ensity to vacuum energy ensity varies with A-* !or spherical masses.
e = eon* - 48/A32o 6he previous !ormula seems to imply that when A
= A"chwarzchil1 the energy ensity o! the vacuum has only been
reuce to */2 o! its normal !ree space value. =owever1 this is to neglect
the e!!ect which a reuce vacuum energy ensity has upon the
measurement o! mass values: the inverte !raction by which the
vacuumGs energy ensity is reuce gives us the !raction by which the
masses occupying this vacuum relativistically increase. Hn other wors1
the mass o! a boy may increase to 5ust short o! */2 o! its "chwarzchil
value an still remain stable against total gravitational collapse. Fhen
the mass o! a boy increases to 5ust over its "chwarzchil mass a
positive !eebacK occurs between each successive EcycleE o! relativistic
mass increase1 whereupon hal! o! the vacuumGs energy has alreay been
EisplaceE by the piling on o! mass !rom outsie1 while the other hal! o!
the vacuumGs energy is converte irectly into mass energy entirely
through relativistic mass increase. 6his is the reason why we may
properly say that the true energy ensity o! the vacuum is not
$c(/Npi4A21 but actually twice this value: eo = $c(/(pi4A2. /lso1
when one consiers the process o! Eevaporation o! blacK holesE via the
mechanism o! =awKing raiation1 it is easy to see that in a very real
sense the ensity o! blacK holes must be e0actly twice that preicte by
the general theory o! relativity1 more particularly1 via the "chwarzchil
solution to the !iel equations: a quantity o! mass1 2mc21 where m is the
mass o! the blacK hole1 must be create !rom out o! the vacuum be!ore a
blacK hole o! mass1 m1 evaporates completely.
6he ultimate substratum which meiates all the !unamental physical
interactions must itsel! be noneterministically chaotic in natureV or else
time cannot be consiere a true ynamical variable. "ince a
!unamental process o! creation an annihilation unerlies all particle
interactions1 the action o! the vacuum energy !iel may be ienti!ie
with the translation o! all composite matter along a irection orthogonal
to the total set o! orthogonal spatial a0es.
)*/2% "pace without 6ime is :eterminism. 6ime without "pace is
3haos. :eterminism an 3haos are simply opposite ens o! a single
continuum. 3omple0ity is that which governs the movement o! a
ynamical system bacK an !orth along what we might well term the
3osmos/3haos continuum. 6he unerlying orer which pushes a
ynamical system this way an that along this continuum cannot itsel!
be escribe in terms o! a classical1 ynamical system because this orer
necessarily operates !rom outsie this continuum. Fhat ultimately
governs this movement o! ynamical systems along this continuum is
the unerlying !luctuations in spacetime.
**/2%
:eterministic change can only be a phenomenal appearance since either
the eterministic phenomena are the play o! pro5ections !rom
eterminate ob5ects !rom within higher imensional spaces containing
our space or the phenomena conceal an ineterminism at a eeper level
behin the appearances. Hn the same way that the continual creation
an estruction o! a circular isK con!ine to a two imensional sphere
may be thought o! as the continuous penetration or pro5ection o! a three
imensional cyliner orthogonally through this two imensional
spherical sur!ace1 we may moel the continual process o! creation an
annihilation o! spherical massive boies as the continuous penetration or
pro5ection o! hypercylinrical boies orthogonally through a three
imensional hypersur!ace constituting normal three imensional space.
H! massive boies were compose o! permanent1 continuously e0isting
substance1 there woul be no reason to postulate the e0istence o! an
aitional (th spatial a0is associate with the imension o! time. Ht is
the energy o! matterGs continual re-creation o! itsel! which constitutes the
latent energy o! matter1 ; = mc2. Fhen a material boy is uni!ormly
accelerate1 the boy is no longer re-creating itsel! along the time
imension alone1 but must be consiere to be in the act o! re-creating
itsel! along two orthogonal component irections: part o! the energy o!
re-creation is associate with a momentum in the irection the boy is
accelerating1 an the remaining part o! this re-creation energy is
associate with the boyGs momentum in a irection orthogonal to this
acceleration vector1 an moreover1 orthogonal to the $ imensional space
Cinstantaneous inertial !rameD which it occupies at any given moment.
9ur question at this 5uncture1 then1 is: is there any reason !or treating a
(th spatial imension as being ontologically real1 rather than as 5ust an
abstract entity within a particular !ormalization o! special relativity?
<es. Fe list them below.
*D 3onservation o! vacuum momentum.
2D 6he conversion o! mass to energy as the 2)o rotation o! imaginary
momentum.
$D 6he thermoynamic arrow o! time in a gravitational !iel.
(D 6he =ubble istance-velocity relationship escribing galactic
recession.
'D 6he tunneling o! all masses through a hyperspherical potential barrier.
6he erivation o! ;insteinGs mass-velocity relationship within an
e0paning !our-hyperspherical universe.
%D 6he conservation o! !our imensional angular momentum as an
e0planation !or the perihelion avance in the orbit o! the planet 8ercury.
ND 6he implication o! quantum mechanics that real particles possess no
continuous e0istence1 but are essentially being continuously create an
estroye.
s2 = c2t2 - 02 -y2 -z2 1 so that the interval1 s1 may taKe on either real
or imaginary values. H! s2 Z )1 then two events separate by this
interval are locally connectable1 an may be connecte by a series o!
reversible interactions. H! s2 Y )1 then two events separate by this
interval are nonlocally connectable1 an may only be connecte by a
series o! irreversible interactions. /ll reversible processes are meiate
by vacuum processes which are themselves irreversible. ?ecause
gravitation is a phenomenon resulting !rom conservation o! !our-
momentum1 the sign o! mass C+/-D is immaterial to the irection o! the
gravitational acceleration vector. H! anything analogous to what might
be terme mass charge e0ists1 it is in the !orm o! an imaginary mass.
Hmaginary mass woul have the e!!ect o! proucing a gravitational !iel
with an acceleration vector which is reverse in its normal irection.
6his suggests to us that the mass1 or energy1 o! the vacuum !iel is itsel!
imaginary so that real mass may be unerstoo as a e!icit o! imaginary
energy within the vacuum !iel1 proucing an acceleration vector o! the
normal gravitational acceleration vector !iel. H! gravitons1 as massless
particles1 are assume to be the true meiators o! the gravitational !orce1
then there is a serious problem with interpreting the gravitational !iel
associate with a spherical wave!ront o! gravitons which is e0paning
outwar at the spee o! light: Fe notice that in the many various !orms
in which the =eisenberg ,ncertainty 7rinciple may be state there is
always the prouct o! two uncertainties in physical quantities which is
greater than or equal to 7lancKGs constant an that one o! these paire
uncertainties is with respect to a physical quantity which is conserve1
an !or which there e0ists a quantum number1 while the other paire
uncertainty is with respect to a physical quantity which is not conserve1
an !or which no quantum number e0ists.
6o list 5ust a !ew e0amples o! this general rule: m;mt Z h1 mpm0 Z
h1 mnm. Z h1 etc. 8oreover1 each !orm o! e0pression o! the
!unamental =eisenberg uncertainty relation may be1 in turn1 paire with
another such e0pression where the conserve quantities o! the two
paire e0pressions !orm with one another a symmetrical tensor which
possesses the property o! .orenz-invariance1 while the unconserve
quantities o! the two paire e0pressions !orm1 with one another1 another
symmetrical tensor which also possesses the property o! .orenz-
invariance. Ht is the .orenz invariant tensorial relationship o! the paire
conserve quantities which is responsible !or the .orenz invariance an
tensorial nature o! the paire unconserve quantities an not the
converse. -or e0ample1 the !act that momentum an energy may be
subsume together uner a uni!ie escription as the relativistic
momentum-energy tensor is what is responsible !or the tensorial nature
o! the interrelationship o! the space an time variables1 i.e.1 the .orenz-
invariance o! space an time which mani!ests itsel! separately as time-
ilation an length-contraction which is observe within !rames o!
re!erence traveling an appreciable !raction o! the velocity o! light
relative to an observer re!erence !rame. 6he momentum-energy tensor
is1 by the way1 also responsible !or the .orenz-invariant1 tensorial nature
o! the 8a0well tensor escribing the electromagnetic !iel1 an we may
now see why the 8a0well tensor oes not posses a term enoting the
ivergence o! the magnetic !iel1 i.e.1 why magnetic monopoles o not
e0ist in nature. /esthetically mine physicists have !or generations
note this missing term in 8a0wellGs equations an suggeste the
inevitable e0istence o! monopoles1 since their e0istence woul rener
the electromagnetic !iel equations more per!ectly symmetrical. ?ut we
see now that the lacK o! greater symmetry in 8a0wellGs equations is
e0plicable in terms o! the presence o! the even eeper symmetry o! the
=eisenberg uncertainty relations1 an so this apparent lacK o! symmetry
on the part o! the electromagnetic !iel nee no longer be viewe as a
E!lawE in the structure o! mathematical physics.
6his eeper symmetry may be unerstoo in the !ollowing way:
the !luctuation in electric !iel strength C an unconserve quantity D is
ue to the uncertainty in the position Can unconserve quantityD o! a
conserve quantity - electric charge1 combine with the uncertainty in
momentum C a conserve quantity D o! the magnetic charge C an
unconserve quantity D. H! we try to establish the !luctuation in the
magnetic !iel strength inepenently o! the !luctuation in electric !iel
strength1 we en up violating the symmetry o! the uncertainty relations1
e.g.1 the !luctuation in magnetic !iel strength C an unconserve quantity
D is ue to the uncertainty in charge momentum C a conserve quantityD
o! a conserve quantity - electric charge1 combine with the uncertainty
in charge position Can unconserve quantity D o! the magnetic charge
Cassume here to be a conserve quantity D. /gain1 the symmetry is only
restore here by treating magnetic charge as an unconserve quantity.
Fe may apply our rule in a more irect !ashion by postulating an
uncertainty relation which obtains provie that magnetic charges o
e0ist. 6his uncertainty relation is the prouct o! uncertainties in electric
an magnetic charge. 6o wit1 the prouct in the uncertainties o! these
two physical quantities must be greater than or equal to the value o!
7lancKGs constant. -ollowing our same symmetrically-base rule1 we
!in that 7lancKGs constant must be less than or equal to the prouct o!
uncertainties in a conserve quantity an an unconserve quantity. 6his
new uncertainty relationship woul be written1 e0pressing 7lancKGs
constant as the lower limit !or the prouct o! the uncertainty in electric
charge with the uncertainty in the quantity o! magnetic charge1 ivie
by c1 the spee o! light1 in orer to have consistency o! physical
imensions. /gain1 only one o! these paire quantities is the conserve
quantity1 an this conserve physical quantity must be the electric
charge. "o we see !rom consieration o! the symmetry e0hibite by the
many alternate e0pressions o! the =eisenberg uncertainty principle1 that
i! monopoles e0ist1 their charge cannot be a conserve quantity so that
magnetic charge may not possess a quantum number. =owever1 i!
8a0wellGs equations are moi!ie to allow !or the e0istence o! magnetic
charge1 the symmetry o! these equations emans magnetic charge
conservation1 but this leas to a contraiction with the more general
symmetry argument !or the non-conservation o! magnetic charge1 an so
we see that magnetic charge cannot e0ist.
PJ 7article creation in a non-inertial re!erence !rame is not a
symmetrical process: it is not possible !or one to accelerate in such a
manner that real particles become virtual particles1 i.e.1 are absorbe
bacK into the vacuum energy !iel !rom which they were originally
create in the same way that it is not possible to accelerate in such a
manner that the local rate at which time passes increases rather than
ecreasesV however1 i! a given real particle oes not have an in!inite
li!etime Cwhich no particle oesD1 then within an unaccelerate re!erence
!rame1 the li!etimes o! quasi-stable particles1 as viewe !rom an
accelerate re!erence !rame1 will be shortene by the relativistic time
ilation !actor.
Ht is in terms o! this !unamental asymmetry that we can more
simply resolve the so-calle twin parao0 o! special relativity: the
acceleration o! the space !aring twin an the earthboun twin cannot be
consiere to be merely relative because the twin in the rocKet ship
observes thermal particle prouction within his vacuum1 while the twin
con!ine to the ;arth observes no such phenomenon within his own
vacuum. 6his phenomenon o! particle prouction within accelerate
re!erence !rames is to be e0pecte because a particle is real only i! its
energy is greater than the energy uncertainty o! quantum system to
which it belongs1 an the time ilation associate with accelerate
motion a!!ects the !unamental uncertainty relation1 m;mt Z h1 such that
some particles which were virtual within the unaccelerate !rame
relativistically increase their energy which is now even greater in
relation to a reuce energy uncertainty1 an so EbecomeE real particles
within the new vacuum state. /ll particles which are virtual in one
particular re!erence !rame are real particles with respect to some other
re!erence !rameV the converse o! this is not the case1 however - the
irreversibility enters the picture1 as state be!ore1 through the i!!erential
observations o! thermal particle prouction within the vacuum o!
observers within i!!erent inertial !rames o! re!erence. 6his relationship
between real an virtual particles within special relativity can perhaps be
unerstoo as a restatement o! the principle o! causality within special
relativity: events which are causally connecte in one particular
re!erence !rame are causally connecte an have the same time orer
within all possible re!erence !rames1 an it is only those events which
are not causally connecte Cnor potentially causally connecteD WWrelate
this to the phenomenon o! wave!unction collapse when the observer
merely potentially has Knowlege o! which path the photon/electron
taKes through the ouble slit as it travels to the phosphorescent
bacKstopWW which might have the orer o! their occurrence switche
when observe !rom the stanpoint o! i!!erent inertial re!erence
!rames1 !rom which it also !ollows that events which are not causally
connecte within a given !rame o! re!erence1 are not connecte in any
re!erence !rame. Aeal particle prouction within a vacuum o! reuce
energy uncertainty may be interprete as being converse but parallel to
the process o! virtual particle prouction within a vacuum o! increase
energy uncertainty. /lso1 i! real particles are unerstoo as !eebacK
structures o! virtual particle processes which essentially may be
unerstoo as a networK o! circular energy !lu0es1 these iniviual
processes being causally connecte with one another within one
particular spacetime1 then these !eebacK structures are estroye when
the energy uncertainty o! the vacuum becomes greater than the energy o!
the real particles1 so that an increase o! energy uncertainty is associate
with a loss o! in!ormation in the !orm o! the cybernetic control Eholing
the particles together1 c.!.1 cellular automata theory o! spacetime.E "o
the ynamic structure o! matter represents in!ormation which must be at
the e0pense o! uncertainty1 c.!.1 classical in!ormation theory.
3onsequently1 the particles which are prouce within an
accelerate re!erence !rame1 say1 within the curve spacetime o! a
gravitational potential1 may not EappearE out o! the vacuum in a
collective state o! causal interconnection with one another. 6he only
assurance that a set o! particles is not causally connecte with one
another1 i.e.1 locally connecte1 is i! they are nonlocally connecte.
8oreover1 the notion o! the continuous e0istence o! particles is simply
not consistent with the asymmetry o! virtual particle/ real particle
trans!ormations which are necessitate by a change in .orenz !rames.
Fe Know that virtual particles o not preserve their ientity !rom one
moment to the ne0tV by EmomentE we mean a perio o! time greater than
h/; 1 where ; is the total energy o! the virtual particle-antiparticle pair
which has been spontaneously create out o! the vacuum state. Fe also
Know that this particular virtual pair will appear as a pair o! real particles
with respect to an accelerate !rame o! re!erence. "o i! the virtual pairs
possess no enuring continuous e0istence within a !lat spacetime1 then
neither o they possess a continuous e0istence within any other possible
!rame o! re!erence. 6his notion !ollows simply !rom the principle o! the
general equivalence C!rom the stanpoint o! the !unamental invariance
o! physical lawD o! all !rames o! re!erence. -rom this we arrive at the
general result that real particles1 what we call matter1 must be a stable
pattern o! !luctuation o! the !iel energy o! the quantum mechanical
vacuum1 whereas virtual particles are unstable patterns o! vacuum !iel
!luctuation. =ere we see that the !unamental i!!erence between stable
an unstable patterns o! vacuum !luctuation1 real an virtual particles1
respectively1 is not qualitative1 but quantitativeV it is ue merely to the
availability or non-availability o! raw1 uni!!erentiate energy. 6he
structure o! all possible matter con!igurations alreay e0ists latent within
the vacuum !luctuation !ielV what is require to EcreateE these
con!igurations is simply the necessary quantity o! raw energy. Fhen
energy is supplie to the vacuum1 the structures which are prouce are
simply those which are the most probable an hence the simplest. 8ore
e0otic con!igurations o! matter may be prouce i! energy is supplie to
the vacuum !iel while it is e0periencing EimprobableE !luctuation
patterns. 6hese so-calle improbable !luctuations are simply those
which possess a more !leeting e0istence as they are comple0 with larger
aggregate virtual !iel energy. 6he above highlighte te0t may not be in
agreement with earlier comments concerning the irreversibility o!
particle prouction-particle estruction in accelerate !rames o!
re!erence an inconsistent with the statement that proo! o! absence o!
local connectivity is the presence o! nonlocal connectivity an much
later comments concerning the istinction between RanticipateS versus
Runanticipate structuresS create !rom vacuum in a single !luctuation
step versus create in a series o! !luctuation steps some o! which must be
spaceliKe1
>une 2)**
c.!.1 7essoa]RFhatever can_t be one in a single burst
su!!ers !rom the unevenness o! our spirit.S "o is there a subtle
intersub5ectivity within sub5ectivity involve in the collaboration o! our
ever so slightly i!!erent selves1 which is necessitate by one an one_s
pro5ect being stretche out over time1 that is past the time horizon o! a
single inspiration or insight?
Hn the /ugust *22$ issue o! "cienti!ic /merican there appears an
article which escribes e0periments in which the time !or photons to
quantum mechanically tunnel through a barrier is measure !or a
coherent beam o! incient photons where 22% o! the beam is re!lecte
o!! o! the barrier1 but in which appro0imately *% o! the photons are
transmitte CEtunnelED across the barrier. 6he e0perimental ata
inicate that the photons which tunnele through the barrier travele at
superluminal spees1 some o! the photons reaching *.%c. 6he
phenomenological e0planation !or this was that the tunneling photons
change the shape o! their wave!unctions such that the peaK o! the wave
!unction is shi!te in the irection o! photon tunneling1 resulting in the
photons having a !inite probability o! being !oun 5ust on the opposite
sie o! the barrier somewhat earlier than i! the shape o! their
wave!unctions ha e0perience no istortion. Hncreasing the with o!
the barrier ecrease the probability o! photons success!ully tunneling
through the barrier1 but resulte in increase measure superluminal
velocities !or the photons which actually succeee in tunneling through
the barrier.
&/2% Hn this case1 the photonsG wave!unction peaK ha to shi!t towar
the opposite en o! the barrier !aster i! they were to be observe on the
other sie o! the barrier within the short time that it woul have taKen !or
the photon to be absorbe by the barrier.
Hn theory1 particles which quantum-tunnel through a potential
barrier possess a negative Kinetic energy1 an hence an imaginary
momentum while engage in the tunneling process.
Qd
H! the !our-
momentum o! the tunneling photons is conserve Cas it is require to o
by special relativityD1 then an increase photon imaginary momentum
must be precisely compensate by an increase real photon momentum
such that the magnitue o! total !our-momentum o! the photon is1 again1
conserve: the tunneling photons are e!!ectively being scattere in !our-
imensional spacetimeT
/ photon scattere within a !our-imensional space woul e0perience a
ecrease in its so-calle real momentumV Cactually1 in this case1 the real
momentum o! the photon is simply the momentum associate with its
motion though the space which is irectly observable to us1 i.e.1 $
imensionsD however1 the scattering o! a photon within a (-imensional
space where it is possible !or the interval1 s2 Y )1 superluminal
velocities are mae possible by the conservation1 as state earlier1 o! the
photonGs !our-momentum. H! there is a !unctional relationship between
the integral o! both the gravitational sel!-energy an the Kinetic energy
o! cosmological e0pansion1 then there will be a !unctional relationship
between the gravitational sel!-energy o! e0pansion an the Kinetic
energy o! e0pansion such that when the Kinetic energy o! cosmological
e0pansion approaches zero1 the gravitational sel!-energy o! the ,niverse
approaches zero1 implying a !lat global spacetime geometry. ?ecause o!
the negative !eebacK coupling between the Kinetic an gravitational
sel!-energies1 we e0pect that these two energies are strongly couple in
the early history o! the cosmological e0pansion1 but become very weaKly
couple by this relatively late epoch in the history o! the ,niverse. Hn
this scenario we e0pect a time variation in the strength o! the @ewtonGs
gravitational constant which is proportional to the time erivative o!
the quantity1 e-t/6 1 where 6 = */= where = is =ubbleGs constant.
6his gives a time variation o! 4 o! =/e 0 4. "ince the coupling
between the gravitational sel!-energy an the Kinetic energy o!
cosmological e0pansion is virtually zero in the present epoch o! the
,niverseGs history1 we e0pect that there will obtain a !orce o!
cosmological repulsion which almost e0actly counterbalances the
gravitational !orce which woul ten to slow an eventually reverse the
process o! cosmological e0pansion.
P,;"6H9@: Fe Know that !or low velocities1 the aition o! velocities
is accoring to 4alilean relativity1 i.e.1 velocities are simply aitively
superpose. =owever1 it oes not appear that small accelerations may be
simply aitively superpose accoring to 4alilean relativity.
/ccoring to what rule are both large an small accelerations ae
together to yiel the total relative acceleration? 6he energy require to
rotate a pure imaginary momentum by 2)
o
so that this momentum
becomes a pure real momentum is 5ust mc
2
. 6his quantity o! energy may
be thought o! as the latent energy o! matter which it possesses by virtue
o! its being initially accelerate by the !orces o! the ?ig ?ang e0plosion.
6he negative Kinetic energy o! matter implies the e0istence o! a
hyperspherical potential barrier through which all matter tunnele Cin
quantum mechanical !ashion an through which it continues to tunnel.
6his notion constitutes a Kin o! hyper-e0tene in!lationary theory.
6he graient o! this potential associate with this barrier may be
escribe by a pure imaginary !our-vector Cin E!ree spaceSD1 while the
orientation o! the graient o! this hyperspherical potential is altere in
the presence o! mass-energy in such a manner that the magnitue o! the
graient Cin !our imensionsD is always conserve. 4iven a typical
istribution o! matter1 in general this !our vector will possess no non-
zero components1 an the introuction o! new matter into this
istribution will trans!orm the components o! the potential graient !our-
vector a!ter the manner o! a secon ranK tensor. Hn !act1 this tensor
provies the Econnecting ruleE by which the graient trans!orms1 as we
move along an arbitrary tra5ectory through a given matter istribution1
consiering in succession points along the tra5ectory which are only
negligibly istant !rom one another Cso that the potential oes not change
Etoo rapilyE between successive pointsD. /ll o! the terms o! ;insteinGs
general relativistic !iel equations are secon ranK tensors1 the energy-
momentum tensor proviing the rule by which the metric tensor at one
point in spacetime is trans!orme at in!initesimally contiguous points o!
spacetime. Fe must Keep in min that the potential graient aroun any
particular particle o! matter is escribe by a !our-vector1 an it is only
the meshing o! the graients o! one particleGs vector !iel with that o! its
neighbor which requires the use o! a tensor escription.
H! this vector !iel were assume to be quantize1 so that a unique
e0change particle1 or boson1 were thought to meiate the action o! the
!iel1 then this boson woul have a spin o! *1 not 21 an hence coul not
be escribe as a graviton1 itsel! the meiator o! a purely attractive !orce
!ielV a spin * particle1 however1 is the e0change particle o! a !orce !iel
which is1 liKe the photon1 either attractive or repulsive1 epening on
whether the graient o! the potentials o! both particles are o! liKe sign or
o! opposite sign. 6he EchargeE o! the matter particles correspons to the
case o! the particles being either o! real or imaginary mass1 as state
earlier. 6he e!!ect1 however1 o! two matter particles o! either both real
mass or both imaginary mass upon each otherGs spin * vector !iels is to
create a stress within the spacetime between the two particles which1 as
we state earlier1 must be escribe in terms o! a tensor !iel. 6he
imaginary mass o! virtual particles1 as allue to earlier1 woul result in
a mutually repulsive !orce !iel tening to rive these virtual particles
apart !rom one another1 resulting in the cosmological e0pansion o! the
vacuum1 or o! space itsel!. .ocalize e!icits in the ensity o! imaginary
mass Cue to the EisplacingE presence o! real massD woul mani!est
themselves in a iminution o! the cosmological acceleration vector
escribing the cosmological !orce o! repulsion obtaining between all
virtual particles. 6he acceleration o! massive particles ue to
gravitational !iels may be interprete as an attempt on the part o! real
massive particles to maintain a spherically symmetrical istribution o!
vacuum energy about them - a conition obtaining !or a particle at ErestE
with respect to some !unamental re!erence !rame. 6he general
relativistic e!!ect o! mass increase within a gravitational !iel may be
e0plaine in terms o! a !unction o! the alteration in the three variables:
vacuum energy ensity1 magnitue o! the hyperspherical potential
barrier1 an the imaginary momentum o! the particle e0periencing the
mass increase. 6he mechanism by which the vacuum energy ensity is
reuce by the presence o! mass-energy has alreay been iscusse.
6he reuction in the local value o! the hyperspherical potential is
e0plaine in terms o! the pro5ection o! its graient within an altere
spacetime. 6he alteration in the imaginary momentum is also e0plaine
in terms o! its pro5ection within the same altere spacetime.
6he retaration in the local rate o! cosmological e0pansion which
mani!ests itsel! as a linear increase in the loss o! synchronization o!
clocKs separate by a i!!erence in gravitational potential an which
accoring to general relativity is an e!!ect o! gravitational time ilation
alone1 is on our view on account o! the conservation o! !our-momentum
o! the boy engenering the gravitational potential. 6he mass o! the
boy1 as measure !rom the point o! weaKer gravitational potential1 is
increase by a !raction equal to the !ractional change in the vacuumGs
zero-point energy ensity at the point o! greater potential1 relative to the
point o! weaKer potential1 where the ensity o! this vacuum energy C in
!ree space D is equal to the ensity o! mass energy o! a blacK hole mass
o! raius equal to the raius o! the boy in question which is proucing
the i!!erence in gravitational potential. 9ne might 5usti!iably asK about
any 2n or higher orer e!!ects which coul arise out o! the particular
cosmological vacuum mechanism that we propose !or the gravitational
!iel. -or instance1 i! the time rate o! ecrease in the energy ensity o!
the vacuum is suppresse Crelative to its E!ree spaceE valueD in regions o!
spacetime possessing massive boies1 then wouln_t one e0pect a Kin
o! Epiling upE o! vacuum energy in those regions o! spacetime where
general relativistic time ilation is locally strongest in such a manner
that a repulsive gravitational !iel evelops? 1 c.!. 1 :r. ?rian .. "wi!t.
6he relationship in general relativity between mass an curvature where
increasing curvature leas to increasing mass as well as increasing mass
leaing to increasing curvature has an analogy within our theory o!
gravitation base on spatiotemporal variation in vacuum energy ensity.
Fithin our theory1 ecreasing vacuum energy ensity leas to increasing
mass an increasing mass leas to ecreasing vacuum energy ensity.
Fithin our theory1 the role o! the metric tensor components1 giK1
correspon to the 2n partial erivatives o! vacuum energy ensity with
respect to the variables 01y1z1 ict. 6he stress-momentum-energy tensor
o! general relativity correspons to the 2n partial erivatives o! the
mass1 or nongravitational bining energy ensity within our theory. 6he
*st partial erivatives are not su!!icient to provie the mathematical
structure neee to escribe the spatiotemporal variations in the vacuum
energy ensity responsible !or the parasitic gravitational !orce. Fe must
remember that @ewtonGs thir law o! action-reaction is moi!ie within
relativity theory an that it oes not strictly hol within this theory. @o
gravitational !orces must lie along any $-hypersur!ace o! simultaneity
within (-imensional spacetime. Ht is easy to see why this is so when
one consiers two istinct points which are gravitationally couple1 i.e.1
connecte by a geoesic arc.
6he time rates o! change in the vacuum energy ensity at these two
spacetime points i!!er by an amount relate to the i!!erential severity
o! gravitational time ilation Crelative to some arbitrary $r point in
spacetimeD an so there is a variation in the time rate o! change o!
vacuum energy ensity as one moves along the geoesic arc connecting
these two points. Fe believe that the role o! the curvature tensor within
general relativity is to !i0 the relationship o! the metric an momentum-
energy tensors with respect to the conition o! spacetime at the arbitrary
point within it where the observer is locate. /re two gravitationally
couple points within spacetime linKe by a geoesic arc o! the
spacetime1 or are they linKe by an arc length o! null spacetime interval1
where s = )? H! a spin ) particle ecays into two spin */2 particles o!
opposite sign Cso as to conserve spin quantum number D1 an the two
spin */2 particles become separate by a great istance such that when a
quantum spin measurement is per!orme upon one o! the two particles1
the wave!unction which escribes both particles EcollapsesE so that the
spin orientation o! the unmeasure particle must instantly become
opposite to that o! the spin orientation observe in the measurement o!
the !ormer spin */2 particle. 6his ;7A C;instein-7oolsKy-AosenD type
geanKen e0periment1 per!orme within a curve spacetime raises an
interesting question concerning the wave!unction which escribes the
two particles1 as this wave!unction taKes two i!!erent !orms at two
points along any segment o! a curve spacetime. H! the communication
between the two spin */2 particles is nonlocal an hence
Einstantaneous1E then the wave!unction e0periences a iscontinuous
change at the point in spacetime occupie by the secon particle1 i.e.1 the
wave!unction as e0presse within spacetime ? is instantaneously
e0presse in terms o! the nonlocally connecte spacetime /1 where
measurement o! the spin o! the !irst particle was per!ormeV in this way
the spins o! the two particles woul a to zero1 resulting in spin
remaining a EgooE quantum number. =owever1 the only way to avoi
the appearance o! iscontinuity Co! the wave!unctionD 1 in this case1 is to
postulate the e0istence o! a physical escription which is more
!unamental than the wave!unction itsel! so that the wave!unction
becomes but the pro5ection1 within a given local spacetime1 o! the more
!unamental physical escription which itsel! remains continuous.
&/2% H! such a more !unamental escription o! the quantum
mechanical system e0ists1 then why is the reuction o! the wavepacKet
or collapse o! the wave!unction itsel! necessarily accompanie by a
iscontinuous change in the probabilities !or observation/measurement
o! physical observables? Fe might rather assume !or consistencyGs saKe
Cthat o! P8D that the wave!unction escribing the particle pair must
unergo a Esel!-collapseE when some critical separation o! the particles
is reache - a separation at which the i!!erence in the representation o!
the pair1 in terms o! its wave!unction e0presse within the local
spacetimes o! either particle o! the pair1 has reache some critical value.
6his critical value woul1 accoring to 7enrose1 be relate to the mass-
energy i!!erence o! the spacetimes in which each particle is embee.
7erhaps as long as this mass-energy i!!erence is less than the most
energetic massless particle which can be e!ine within a sel!-consistent
theory o! quantum gravity1 say1 the mass-energy o! a 7lancK particle o!
some *)-Ng1 there is no necessity that the wave!unction escribing the
particle pair unergo what 7enrose terms E9b5ective Aeuction1E C9AD1
because1 perhaps1 the energy i!!erence up to this critical value o! mass-
energy can be compensate through the e0change o! a massless quantum
CbosonD1 i.e.1 through e0change o! a virtual particle representing a
vacuum $-momentum !luctuation. /nother possible e0planation o! the
ob5ective reuction o! the pairGs wave!unction is relate to the overall
energy uncertainty o! the component o! the quantum vacuum o! both
particles. 6his is to suggest that when the i!!erence in mass-energy o!
the local spacetimes o! both particles e0cees the energy uncertainty o!
the nonlocally connecte component o! the local vacua o! the particles1
ob5ective reuction o! the pairGs wave!unction must taKe place - !or
otherwise1 the mass-energy i!!erence in the local spacetimes o! the
particles has outstrippe the nonlocally-connecte vacuumGs ability to
compensate the isparity in the local spacetime representations o! the
pairGs wave!unction in the spacetimes o! each particle1 resulting in the
incommensurability o! the quantum numbers o! each particle shoul a
reuction o! the pairGs wave!unction taKe place a!ter this critical
i!!erence in spacetimes has been reache - as a result o! the spatial
separation o! the particles. Fhat has been sai thus !ar suggests that
quantum entanglement1 i.e.1 nonlocal connectivity1 o! particles or !iels
within signi!icantly i!!ering local spacetimes may not be amissible in
a consistent theory o! quantum gravity. 6his1 in turn1 suggests that
nonlocal vacuum process may not actually be responsible !or the
maintaining o! particular spacetime geometries or that1 there is some
rather small limit to the i!!erences in local spacetime curvatures within
an overall nonlocally connecte vacuum. Fe must investigate the
possibility that the temporality1 i.e.1 the rate o! timeGs passage relative to
cosmic time1 o! a local spacetime is irectly relate to the nonlocal
connection o! the local vacuum o! this spacetime to the nonlocally-
connecte vacuum o! the universe at its largest scale.
6he result o! this maneuver1 however1 is that quantum mechanics
coul no longer be viewe as a Ecomplete theory1E since the
wave!unction woul no longer constitute a complete escription1 in
general1 o! a quantum mechanical system.
9n the other han1 i! the e0pression o! the wave!unction remains in
terms o! its own local spacetime1 then there is no unique wave!unction
which escribes both particles prior to a measurement being per!orme
on one o! the particles1 so that the spins o! the two particles woul not
necessarily a to zero a!ter a spin measurement is per!orme1 with the
result that spin woul not be a EgooE quantum number within a curve
spacetime. Hn such as case1 the general invariance o! physical law within
the theory o! relativity woul be violate. /ccoring to the physicist
:avi ?ohm1 in his booK1 6he "pecial 6heory o! Aelativity1 the latent
energy1 ; = mc21 which any particle o! mass1 m1 possesses1 e0ists by
virtue o! internal motions1 which may be thought o! as taKing place
within the particle1 or alternately e!ining the e0istence o! the particle1
an that the conversion o! mass into energy1 an vice versa1 consists
merely in converting the circular internal motions o! a number o!
massCive/lessD virtual particles into a set o! linear e0ternal motions o! a
number o! massless real particles1 an then converting them bacK again
into the original set o! circular internal motions. Ht is as though one were
to taKe a tiny particle in rapi linear motion1 ben or ivert this motion
so that it assume the !orm o! a rapi circular motion1 so that the particle
now possesse the appearance o! a ring1 an then utilize a portion o! this
circular motion to set the ring rotating so rapily that the ring now tooK
on the appearance o! a soli sphere1 most o! which1 to be sure1 woul be
compose o! empty space1 but which woul possess a great eal o!
energy by virtue o! the two perpenicular internal circular motions
which1 in con5unction with one another1 e!ine the sphereGs e0istence1
an then to procee to uno1 or reverse this series o! operations1
retrieving the original linear motion with which one starte. Fe Know1
o! course1 that this simple analogy o! the EKinetic sphereE is rather naive1
an that it is only intene as a basic moel o! the interconnecte
meshworK o! virtual particle reactions which e!ines the e0istence o!
any real particle. 6he important point here is that there is an e0act
parallel between this internal circular motion an the linear motion o!
massive particles along the imaginary a0is o! our cosmological moel o!
the hypersur!ace which is e0paning at the spee o! light1 or rather1 o!
the hyperspherical potential energy barrier through which all massive
particles are presently in the process o! quantum mechanically tunneling1
at appro0imately the spee o! light. 6o e0plore this parallel1 we nee
to maKe a relatively simple observation about the relationship o! the
internal circular motions to the e0ternal linear motions into which they
are converte whenever mass is converte into energy. Fe notice !rom
the e0ample o! the EKinetic sphere1E that it only require two
inepenent CorthogonalD internal motions in orer to e!ine the
e0istence o! this $ imensional ob5ect. Fe imagine that this conversion
o! these two circular1 orthogonal EinternalE motions will result in the
creation o! two linear1 orthogonal Ee0ternalE motions.
Fe believe this conversion process is escribe by an isomorphic
group operation1 such that the number o! imensions o! motion is
conserve1 while the orthogonality o! the motions is retaine1 because
the conversion o! energy into mass1 the reverse o! this operation1 is
accomplishe through a continuous series o! simple .orenz
trans!ormations1 i.e.1 through the relativistic mass-velocity relationship
o! ;instein1 an because we Know that the conversion o! energy into
mass is a reversible CsymmetricalD operation so that the conversion o!
mass into energy can be escribe in terms o! a linear matri0 operationV
i.e.1 it is group-theoretic in nature. ?ut we Know that the irect
conversion o! mass into energy prouces an out-rush1 i! you will1 o!
release energy which streams outwar in $ spatial imensions. 6his
obvious empirical !act seems to require that there be $ inepenent
orthogonal1 circular1 internal motions which unerlie the latent energy o!
massive boies1 an this implies that massive boies which possess this
latent energy1 ; = mc21 must be1 either themselves1 $ imensional
hypersur!aces bining a ( imensional hypervolume1 such that the mass
possess three inepenent egrees o! !reeom1 or that they must possess
two circular CorthogonalD internal motions1 e!ining two imensional
sur!aces bining $ imensional volumes constituting the massive
particles1 an that the thir orthogonal internal egree o! !reeom is that
associate with the linear motion o! these $ imensional ob5ects which
occupy a $ imensional hypersur!ace which is e0paning within !our
spatial imensions at the spee o! lightT 6here seems to be a problem1
however1 in associating all o! the latent energy o! motion1 ; = mc21 with
the linear egree o! !reeom associate with the cosmological
e0pansion1 simply because it means ignoring the contributions !rom the
two other internal egrees o! !reeom1 corresponing to the internal
motions o! massive boies. H!1 however1 we assume an equipartation o!
energy between the energy magnitues associate with all three egrees
o! !reeom1 an this seems reasonable because the .orenz
trans!ormation o! special relativity represents a symmetrical operation1
then the energy1 mc21 which is neee to rotate the pure imaginary linear
momentum by 2)o1 to convert it into a pure real momentum1 is provie
by the two energies1 */2mc2 an */2mc21 respectively1 associate with
the two circular internal egrees o! !reeom. Hn this way1 the two
energies1 */2mc21 combine with the negative Kinetic energy1
-*/2mc21 o! massive particles1 tunneling through the hyperspherical
potential energy barrier1 yiels the new energy1 +*/2mc21 associate with
the pure real momentum o! outstreaming massless particles which
results !rom the total conversion o! a real massive boy into energy.
Fe now see that the energy o! massive boies1 mc21 may be
thought o! as stemming1 alone1 !rom the internal motions e!ining these
boies1 which is release whenever these circular internal motions1 i.e.1
the energy circulating within the !eebacK loops o! the virtual particle
reactions composing the massive boies1 is Ee!lecteE into the linear
motion o! real massless particles. /n aitional bonus !rom these
consierations is that it is now possible to see that the istinction
between virtual an real particles is not a !unamental one. 8ass1 on
this view1 is simply a !unction o! the topological structure o! the virtual
particle reactions which occur everywhere within the quantum
mechanical vacuum on account o! a !unamental energy uncertainty o!
the vacuum state which1 in turn1 stems !rom the !act that the =amiltonian
o! the vacuum is1 itsel!1 a !unction o! the EincompatibleE observables1
position an momentum. 8oreover1 the massless !orce-carrying
particles1 i.e.1 bosons1 which are the en prouct o! any total conversion
o! matter into energy1 e0ist solely by virtue o! their interaction with the
vacuum state1 an in no way epen upon1 or are e!ine by1 any sel!-
interaction. 3onsequently1 these massless bosons1 e.g.1 photons1 can be
consiere to be virtual particles even though are capable o! being
observe. Hn other wors1 the mass which a given volume o! space
possess is merely a !unction o! the imbalance in the ratio o! the volumeGs
sel!-interaction to its1 i! you will1 not-sel!-interaction: in !ree space1
where no matter is present1 the !lu0 ensity o! energy e0change between
the interior o! an arbitrary volume with itsel! an the !lu0 ensity o!
energy e0change between the interior o! this volume an its e0terior1 is
elicately balance. Ht is the alteration o! this balance in !avor o! greater
sel!-energy e0changes which engeners the phenomenon o! mass. 6he
sel!-energy e0changes correspon to the energies o! circular internal
motion1 iscusse earlier1 which we invoKe as a simplistic moel o! the
interconnecte meshworK o! virtual particle reaction paths e!ining the
e0istence o! massive boies. 6here is a very convenient mathematical
escription o! this sel!-energy an so-calle not-sel!-energy e0changesV
these are1 respectively: the energy ensity an the pressure o! the
vacuum. 6his balance o! e0ternal an internal vacuum energy
e0changes is e0act1 inicating the conition o! !ree space1 obtains1
there!ore1 when the pressure an energy ensity o! the vacuum are equal1
an it is on this conition that the spee o! light has its ma0imum local
value1 as seen !rom application o! 8achGs !ormula !or the spee o!
pressure wave oscillations within a material meium. 6here is no reason
why we may not apply 8achGs !ormula in this case because the only
essential i!!erence between the propagation o! pressure oscillations in a
material meium such as the ;arthGs atmosphere an such oscillations in
the vacuum is that o! .orenz invariance1 i.e.1 the value o! the spee o!
soun within a material meium is epenent on the state o! motion o!
the observer per!orming the velocity measurement1 while the velocity o!
Esoun1E i.e.1 light1 within the vacuum is itsel! inepenent o! the state o!
motion o! the observer within this vacuum.
/nother way to point up this i!!erence between the vacuum an
an orinary material meium is to note that the particles within the
vacuum1 being virtual particles1 o not possess a continuous e0istence
with time an so cannot be chosen as the origin o! an absolute !rame o!
re!erence within which the velocity o! pressure oscillations o! the
vacuum might be measure relative to an observerGs state o! motion. /n
orinary material meium such as the atmosphere is compose o!
particles which possess a continuos e0istence an so an absolute !rame
o! re!erence may be establishe within this meium by which the
velocity o! pressure oscillations o! the meium may be measure which
is then epenent upon the state o! motion o! the observer.
6he ict a0is o! 8inKowsKi !our-imensional spacetime1 may be
unerstoo not to represent a physically real (th imension1 in an
analogous sense to the other three !amiliar spatial imensions1 but that it
merely !unctions as an abstraction within the !ormalism o! special
relativity to moel conservation laws1 e.g.1 energy1 momentum1 etc.1 an
the linear trans!ormation law connecting inertial re!erence !rames Cthe
.orenz trans!ormationD which1 in turn1 govern the general relationship o!
the internal an e0ternal motions o! real/virtual mass an !iel energy
within a universe o! three spatial imensions an one time imension.
7erhaps now it is easy to see why it is not necessary to unerpin the
mathematical structure o! special relativity with a physically real (th
imension. Ht is perhaps possible to remain consistent with ;insteinGs
an 8inKowsKiGs view o! time as being associate with what is merely
an abstract Cnot physically realD imension. H! the ,niverse is not1 in
!act1 an e0paning (-imensional hypersphere1 then the =ubble
istance-velocity relationship !or galactic recession requires the
e0istence o! a repulsive cosmological !orce !iel whose !orce increases
linearly with galactic separation. 6he graient o! the hyperspherical
potential1 postulate earlier to e0plain1 in part1 the imaginary coe!!icient
o! the ict a0is1 woul itsel! then have to be interprete as a mani!estation
o! the negative time-rate-o!-change in the energy ensity o! the quantum
mechanical vacuum which occurs ue to the global cosmological
e0pansion. 8oreover1 the continuous series o! local .orenz
trans!ormations which may be thought to connect two non-inertial
re!erence !rames Ccentere about two points in space o! i!!ering
gravitational potentialD woul be unerstoo in terms o! a continuous
tensor trans!ormation o! the !our inepenent components o!
spatiotemporal variation in vacuum energy ensity1 i.e.1 the gravitational
energy graient Cspatial variation in vacuum energy ensityD in
con5unction with the temporal variation o! vacuum energy ensity1
connecting the two non-inertial !rames o! re!erence.
6he equivalence between spatiotemporal variations in vacuum
energy ensity an variations in spacetime curvature may be more
simply graspe by e0amining two i!!erent e0pressions o! the
=eisenberg uncertainty principle within curve spacetimes. 6hese two
e0pressions are:
m;mt Z h an mpm0 Z h.
Fe Know that within a curve spacetime1 say1 in the vicinity o! a
massive spherical boy1 there is a general relativistic length contraction
along the spherical boyGs raial irection while at the same time there is
relativistic ilation o! time. H! we are consiering virtual particles1 then
the Z sign appearing in the two !ormulas1 above1 may be replace by an
= sign so that a ilation an a contraction in the variables1 mt an m01
respectively1 must be couple with an inversely proportional shrinKage
an ilation in the ual variables1 m; an mp1 respectively. Hn this way1
the energy o! the vacuum ecreases as one moves into regions o!
increasing gravitational potential while the momentum o! the vacuum1 i!
you will1 increases along this irection. H! the vacuum momentum is
correctly escribe by a !our-vector o! conserve magnitue1 then the
vacuum momentum may only increase with increasing strength o! local
gravitational potential at the e0pense o! a compensating ecrease in the
vacuumGs momentum along an orthogonal irection. Ht is the ecrease in
the vacuumGs momentum in the irection orthogonal to the raius o! our
spherical massive boy with which we must associate the ecrease in the
vacuumGs energy along the boyGs raial irection. "o we obtain what
perhaps appears to be a trivial result: the momentum o! the vacuum
along a certain irection may only be increase by utilizing the energy o!
the vacuum itsel! associate with its momentum in irections orthogonal
to the irection o! increasing momentum1 so that local mass istributions
o not1 themselves1 provie the energy require to support the e0istence
o! a local gravitational !ielV the e!!ect o! mass is merely to reirect the
vacuum momentum1 utilizing the locally available energy o! the vacuum
itsel!V to put this in the language o! ;instein: mass oes not prouce
spacetime curvature1 it locally alters the global curvature o! spacetime.
6his may all seem liKe an e0ercise in splitting hairs1 but there is an
important i!!erence in these two interpretations in the relationship o!
mass to spacetime curvature: i! mass1 or what amounts to mass1 alone1
is responsible !or the e0istence o! spacetime curvature1 then an EemptyE
universe may not possess a globally curve spacetime. 9n the other
han1 i! mass merely locally alters the bacKgroun spacetime curvature1
then there is nothing to prevent the e0istence o! so-calle empty1 curve
spacetimes.
Ht is not correct to say that energy an in!ormation are
intere!inable so that i! energy is a conserve quantity1 then in!ormation
is also a conserve quantity. / simple countere0ample su!!ices here. Ht
is possible !or transitions to occur1 within a gas1 say1 where both the
entropy an the energy o! the gas are conserve1 even though the
i!!erent con!igurations between which the transitions occur may be
thought o! as representing i!!erent quantities o! in!ormation so that
in!ormation is not itsel! conserve. 6he notions o! energy an entropy
are separable !rom the notion o! in!ormation because the !ormer are only
e!inable with respect to a close system o! a !inite number o! istinct
state space con!igurations while the latter is always e!ine with respect
to something outsie the system in which its coe con!iguration is
e!ine. Ht is not possible !or one thing to represent another unless there
be at least two istinct levels o! escription available to the system
within which the representation is to be constructe. H! we waive the
requirement o! an Ee0ternalE observer who is to give i!!erent meanings
to the i!!erent con!igurations1 then in!ormation an energy are not
intere!inable.
/nother reason !or not equating the two1 i.e.1 energy an in!ormation1 is
on account o! the e0istence o! energy egeneracy. "ince i!!erent
wave!unctions may possess the same associate energy eigen!unctions1
it shoul be possible !or a quantum mechanical system possessing
energy egeneracy to unergo arbitrary transitions !rom one egenerate
eigen!unction to another without the changes beiing associate with
changes in any e!inable P8 observables.
H! the 3openhagen interpretation o! quantum mechanics is essentially
correct1 i.e.1 where the wave!unction is a probability wave representing
the state o! an observerGs Knowlege so that it is inee the
consciousness o! the observer which is responsible !or collapsing the
wave!unction an not the physical isturbance to the wave!unction
provoKe by his measuring evice1 then it shoul be possible to carry out
a Eelaye choiceE type e0periment : a stanar two slit inter!erence set
up is constructe where two vieo cameras are substitute !or two
conscious observers1 one EviewingE both slits Ccamera /D an another
camera EviewingE the bacKstop where either an inter!erence pattern or a
ranom EbucKshotE pattern o! photon striKes appears. H! this e0periment
is per!orme in the absence o! a human observer an then a!terwars1
perhaps years later1 the !ilm in the bacK o! cameras / an ? are
e0amine it will be !oun that the orer in which the !ilms are e0amine
will maKe a i!!erence in whether the !ilm !rom camera ? contains
recore on it either an inter!erence pattern o! photon waves or a
EbucKshotE patter o! photon Ebullets.E Hn other wors1 i! the !ilm in
camera / is e0amine !irst1 then an observer possesses Knowlege as to
which slit each photon passe through so that the wave!unction o! the
paramagnetic particles coating the sur!ace o! the !ilm in camera /
unergo a collapse !rom the previous superposition state leaing to an
inter!erence pattern to a positional eigenstate leaing to the EbucKshotE
pattern o! photon EstriKes.E 9n the other han1 i! the bacK o! camera ?
is opene up !irst an the !ilm e0amine1 then one !ins that an
inter!erence pattern has been recore on the !ilm. ?ut what now !or the
!ilm in the bacK o! camera / which ha been set up to EviewE an recor
events at the ouble-slit? "houl not the series o! images recore on
this !ilm be smeare out 5ust enough to prevent us !rom telling which
photons travele through which slits? p((H! this is the case1 then the
images store on the !ilm o! camera ? may be use to tell us whether
camera / in !act i o! i not recor the Eactual pathsE taKen by the
photons1 though the ouble-slit superposition state associate with the
photon inter!erence pattern oes not require any unique an mysterious
in!luence o! human consciousness upon the results o! the e0periment1
but amounts to nothing more than the e!!ect o! camera / in blocKing the
Epilot wavesE traveling through the slits through which the photons are
observe not to be traveling.
$/2% 6his preposterously counter-intuitive thought e0periment can be
e!use i! one requires that merely the possibility o! an observer gaining
Knowlege about which slit the electrons went through woul be
su!!icient to collapse the electron position wave!unctions so as to
prouce the EbucKshotE pattern o! electron striKes on the phosphorescent
bacKstop. 6his is actually what has been emonstrate by several
ingenious Eelaye-choiceE e0periments which have been per!orme
uring the *22)Gs. /n it is the position o! the camera relative to the
slits which1 o! course1 etermines this. ?ut what i! we coul assure
nature1 as it were1 that espite the appropriate positioning o! the camera
in !ront o! the ouble-slit1 the observer1 or any observer1 woul be unable
to taKe avantage o! the appropriate physical arrangement o! the camera
in orer to etermine which slit the electrons go through. H believe that1
in this case1 then the inter!erence pattern woul1 again1 reappear on the
phosphorescent bacKstopT H! this were true1 then the observer woul
regain his mysterious status with respect to wave!unction collapses. 9ne
must1 to wit1 assure1 !irst o! all1 that it is possible to establish a close
system within which the e0perimental apparatus is to be containe1 in
orer to1 in turn1 assure that1 no matter how large a physical arena this
quantum e0periment is per!orme in1 the observer will not possess the
possibility o! Knowing the tra5ectories o! the electrons. @ot all close
e0perimental situations can assure this1 but it is 5ust that a closing o!! o!
the e0perimental setup !rom the rest o! an open reality must be
achievable to assure the inability o! the observer to raw on hien
resources to ivine the tra5ectories o! the electrons !rom their source to
the bacKstop. 6his suggests that the observerGs ability to collapse the
wave!unction consists in a peculiar connection which he is able to maKe
with an open-ene reality1 a reality which1 as allue to earlier1 is
there!ore ineterminate1 i.e.1 noneterministic. Ht is interesting to note
that it is only within a close physical system1 where the bounary
conitions o! the vacuum !iel are changing only nonaiabatically1 that a
superposition state may be suppose to e0ist. 7resumably1 the close
system cannot aequately accommoate the phenomenon o! the
observerGs consciousness1 which is what isturbs the system resulting in
a collapse o! the superposition state which hereto!ore e0iste within it1
an this1 5ust by virtue o! the mere possibility that the observer may
obtain Knowlege o! the systemGs state with respect to the superposition
observables.
6hroughout this iscussion1 we must not lose sight o! the !act that
the wave!unction itsel! oes not actually represent anything physically
real or measurable1 an so all purporte interactions occurring between
wave!unctions must be realize in terms o! the interaction o! their
associate probability ensity !unctions.
/ superposition state is only e!ine where each o! the
component superpose wave!unctions has an associate probability via
the square o! its amplitue although here the assignment o! unique
probabilities to both the inter!erence pattern - a turn o! events which1 on
the 3openhagen interpretation1 is etermine solely by the ecision o!
the conscious observer as to which camera1 / or ?1 he/she opens !irst.
Aemember that in the theory o! quantum mechanics a particular event
only possesses a probability o! * i! it has alreay occurre. Ht is in this
sense in which we speaK o! the superposition state as a combination o!
quantum states1 no one o! which is real in itsel!. 6he pre-"ocratic
philosopher1 7armenies1 was o! that philosophical traition which
consiere the ultimate metaphysical question to be EFhy is there
something rather than nothing?E /n he is note !or having proclaime
E@othing oes not e0ist.E ?ut he consiere that all real change
necessarily involve the instant by instant creation o! new attributes e0
nihilo. 7armenies conclue !rom this that change was1 itsel!1
impossible an the universeV being cannot come !rom nonbeing1
there!ore the universe is a static an inestructible close systemV time
was !or 7armenies a Kin o! tenacious illusion. Hn the present ay1
owing to the avent an evelopment o! the Puantum 6heory1 the
suggeste re!ormulation o! this most !unamental metaphysical question
is: EFhy is there Hn!ormation rather than 3haos?E -or those persons !or
whom the question1 Ewhy is there something rather than nothing1E is
meaning!ul1 belie! in the e0istence o! a transcenent reality beyon
space an time1 an what is more1 beyon the most general ichotomy1
the ual opposite categories1 e0istence vs. none0istence1 the granting o!
the being o! :eity is theoretically but a small step. "uch persons merely
have to be convince o! the necessity o! Fill within the realm beyon
Aepresentation. -or other persons1 this most !unamental metaphysical
questions is1 as 8artin 4arner points out1 Ecognitively meaningless.E
6his re!ormulation constitutes1 almost by itsel!1 the answer to its
precursor: the pre-"ocratic question EFhy is there something rather
than nothing?E is insoluble in its eman !or a relation between being
an nonbeing apart !rom their mutual e0clusiveness whereas the moern
counterpart to this question oes not at all eman !rom us the
impossible as there are many e0amples1 both empirical an
mathematical1 where chaotic systems acquire orer through sel!-
organization or orere systems become chaotic through an increase in
entropy. ?ut what1 you may asK1 is containe within the Puantum
6heory which suggests this re!ormulation? Iery simply1 the Puantum
6heory oes not treat the vacuum as a veritable emptiness1 but rather as
a meium o! chaotic !luctuations o! positive an negative energy which
cancel each other1 averaging out to zero net energy over istances larger
than an atomic iameter1 say. "ubatomic particles1 the penultimate
constituents o! matter come into e0istence when energy !luctuations over
a small region o! the vacuum respon to each otherGs presence through
the acciental !ormation o! !eebacK paths among themselves. 6hese
!eebacK structures may remain stable !or only e0tremely !leeting
perios o! time or they may become robust an persist against their
chaotic bacKrop !or longer perios permitting the !ormation o! more
comple0 hierarchical structures. Hn terms o! in!ormation theory1 the
vacuum is !ille with an in!inite number o! messages crossing it to an
!ro !rom every irectionV material particles are constitute by more
messages being e0change within this region than between this region
an the EoutsieE o! this region. 9n this interpretation1 matter oes not
respon instantaneously to accelerations Cpossesses inertiaD owing to a
communication bottlenecK e0isting between its interior an the
surrouning vacuumV matter cannot respon to the worl in Ereal time1E
but must taKe time out to EprocessE the coe instructions which it
receives !rom its Einputs.E 9ne nee here only compare the ease with
which a single gnat can change its irection in !light C to avoi an
obstacle1 sayD to the i!!iculties involve when an entire swarm o! gnats1
ore a swarm o! swarms o! gnats1 !or that matter1 attempts to per!orm the
same maneuver base on the intelligence C in the military senseD o! a
small group o! harbinger gnats. 6hese chaotic !luctuations o! vacuum
energy are a mani!estation o! the =eisenberg uncertainty principle. this
principle states a numerical relationship between the ual physical
quantities position / momentum an time / energy. 6he briging
constant between these ual quantities is 7lancKGs constant1 h1 an the
e0act e0pression o! this relation is:
+W7 = h/2pi or 6W; = h/2pi1
which is erive !rom 7lancKGs oler relation1
; = h W !V
where ; is energy C>oulesD1 ! is !requency ChertzD1 + is istance CmetersD1
7 is momentum an 6 is time CseconsDV h is1 o! course1 7lancKGs
constant which has units o! >oule-secons. 6here is a more sophisticate
an complete matri0 algebraic statement o! the principle1 but this nee
not concern us here. =eisenbergGs uncertainty principle is an
epistemological one as it rigily speci!ies how the accuracy in our
Knowlege o! one physical quantity a!!ects the accuracy o! our
etermination o! the remaining paire quantity. =eisenbergGs principle
can be obtaine by generalizing 7lancKGs relation in terms o! the matri0
algebraic e0pression:
pWq - qWp = h/2pi 0 H .
H! consciousness is1 itsel!1 require to collapse the wave-!unction1 then
consciousness must originate in the interaction o! uncollapse
wave!unctions. 6his suggests that the wave!unctions interacting with
one another within consciousness are o! the Ralreay collapseS variety1
that is the perceptual representations o! wave!unctions all interact base
upon a subluminal propagation o! mutual in!luence. Puantum
wave!unctions which has not yet collapse are capable o! interacting
with one another at a istance instantaneously an this sort o!
phenomenon is re!erre to by 7hysicists as the ;instein-7oolsKy-Aosen1
or ;.7.A. e!!ect. 6here are two basic schools o! the Puantum 6heory.
Fhere they i!!er is in their interpretation o! the stuatus o! =eisenbergGs
uncertainty principle. 9ne school maintains that this uncertainty is ue
merely to the practical limitations o! observation1 that isV the uncertainty
is only epistemological in nature. 6he other school maintains that this
uncertainty is a theoretical limitation1 that isV the uncertainty is
ontological in character. 6he ispute between these two schools is
solve easily enough1 however.
6he reason !or the momentum !luctuation spectrum o! an electron
containe within a quantum well being ientical to the spectrum o!
possible iscrete energy transitions between possible quantum well
energy levels may be on account o! the !ollowing simple observation.
"uch transitions ownwar by a real electron are stimulate to occur
either by real or virtual photons while such transitions upwar by a
virtual electron are stimulate to occur liKewise either by a real or virtual
photon1 an the spectrum o! such virtual photons represents that o! the
vacuum electromagnetic waves with which the boun electron can
resonate with an with which it can e0change energy. "ince the photon
propagates through vacuum part o! the time as a electron/ positron pair1
an in a gravitational !iel the ensity o! virtual !ermion/anti!ermion
pairs is somewhat ecrease1 it !ollows that the velocity o! the photon
through this moi!ie vacuum will be corresponingly ecrease. Ht
!ollows !rom this that the energy ensity o! the vacuum must vary
proportionally to the cube o! the local value o! the spee o! light within
the gravitational !iel-laen1 an hence1 moi!ie vacuum. 6his may
similarly be interprete as the energy ensity o! the vacuum being
proportional to the inverse cube o! the !requency o! vacuum
electromagnetic waves. 6his is 5ust the relationship o! vacuum energy
ensity to virtual photon !requency which reners the quantum vacuum
per!ectly .orenz-invariant.
Hn @ature1 9ct. *21 pC'%(D1 the time require !or quantum
mechanical tunneling o! an electron across a >osephson 5unction was
measure. 6his result means that there is some meaning which can be
attache to the velocity o! the particle uring its act o! quantum
tunneling. "uen1 nonaiabatic compression o! the 3asimir plates
shoul result in the spontaneous emission o! photons by the vacuum.
"imilarly1 nonaiabatic e0pansion o! tightly compresse plates shoul
result in the spontaneous absorption o! some real photons which happen
to be within the geometry o! the plates at this time.
@96;: 6his statement may not be true because the ;instein coe!!icient
o! spontaneous absorption is ientically zeroV the coe!!icients o!
spontaneous emission1 an hence1 o! stimulate absorption an emission1
may be change through altering the vacuum electromagnetic energy
ensity utilizing 3asimir plates1 resonant cavities1 etc.
6he ,niverse might be escribe by a wave!unction representing
its tunneling through a hyperspherical barrier1 in !our real spatial
imensions. 6he quantum tunneling o! the ,niverse through this
hyperspherical barrier may be alternately escribe as the collapse o! a
!alse vacuum state an the subsequent creation o! !ree particle
wave!unctions propagating along an imaginary a0is o! a !our
imensional hypersphere o! $ real + * imaginary spatial imension.
6he probability ensity o! this wave!unction a5usts as time passes
re!lecting the increasing uncertainty o! its woul-be position eigenstate.
/ny vector at a point where its scalar prouct1 with the wavenumbers o!
the eigen!unction e0pansion Co! the universal wave!unctionD1 is zero is
assigne an imaginary coe!!icient re!lecting its being rotate 2)owith
respect to the wavenumber set o! the eigen!unction e0pansion. 6here
was a recently announce iscovery that the linear =ubble relationship
between galactic istances an recession rates oes not strictly hol1 but
that the recession velocities are istribute iscretely with increasing
istance1 each velocity being roughly an integral multiple o! %2 Om/sec.
6hese observation suggest two istinct but relate possibilities.
9ne1 that the initial collapse o! the quantum mechanical vacuum state
occurre in iscrete stages in much the same way that an e0cite
electron ecays !rom a highly e0cite state. 6wo1 that the ,niverse
tunnele1 quantum mechanical !ashion1 out o! a hyperspherical potential
barrier where1 as in the usual case1 the transmission coe!!icient varie
sinusoially with the wavenumber. 6he vacuum electromagnetic !iel
is sai to be incompressible1 but this is not strictly true. 6he vacuum
electromagnetic !iel actually appears to ecrease in energy ensity
when con!ine within a resonant cavity o! ecreasing volume. 6his
seems to suggest that the energy ensity o! the vacuum electromagnetic
!iel is in a sense negative. Fe may thinK o! the e!!ect o! shrinKing the
resonant cavity upon the photons present within this cavity in two
istinct ways:
*D 6he photons wavelengths are simply compresse by the cavity
shrinKage !actor or
2D 6he zero-point o! the vacuum electromagnetic !iel is altere by a
certain !raction so that the energy o! photons within the cavity EappearE
to be greater Crelative to the new zero-pointD by this same !raction. 9!
course1 the !irst alternative appears more intuitively evient but
emboies the simplistic assumption that the photons within the cavity
possess some permanent an abiing e0istence rather than being a
pacKet o! energy which is continually being emitte CcreateD an
absorbe CannihilateD by the !luctuating electromagnetic vacuum !iel.
H! a photon is in a momentum eigenstate1 then the position o! this photon
along its translation a0is is totally uncertain. Fe say there!ore that in the
position representation o! the photonGs wave!unction that the probability
ensity o! photons along the particular photonGs translation a0is is
e0actly zero. 3onsequently1 a photon or photon beam which is in a
momentum eigenstate - an hence an energy eigenstate also - oes not
alter the probability versus !requency istribution !unction Calong its
translation a0isD !or virtual photons o! liKe eigenenergy. 6his may be
seen to !ollow !rom the !act that an increase liKelihoo o! !ining a
photon o! a particular eigenenergy within a certain spatial interval means
that the probability vs. !requency istribution !unction in this region
e0periences a peaK at the !requency corresponing to this eigenenergy.
6he rates o! stimulate emission an absorption o! electromagnetic
raiation at a particular !requency are proportional to the ensity o! the
ambient raiation at this !requency. 6he constants o! proportionality are
the ;instein coe!!icients o! emission an absorption1 respectively. Ht was
state earlier as a general principle that all physical processes were
meiate through the e0change o! energy between matter an the
vacuum1 the reservoir o! energy uncertainty. 6his principle may be
mae more speci!ic by invoKing the ;instein relationships !or
electromagnetic raiation emission an absorption as the mechanism !or
all energy emission - absorption1 that is1 !or all !orms o! energy
e0change1 so that the rates at which all physical processes taKe place
becomes proportional to the spectral energy ensity o! the !luctuating
boson !iels o! the vacuum - in accorance with our earlier intuitions.
this assignment o! the ;instein mechanism C !or want o! a more
convenient termD !or physical processes in general epens upon the
implicit assumption that in the absence o! stimulate emission Can
absorptionD the coe!!icients o! spontaneous emission an absorption are
ientical - 5ust as are the coe!!icients o! stimulate emission an
absorption are ientical in the absence o! spontaneous emission. ?ut the
problem here is that there really is no such thing as spontaneous
absorption - as note be!ore this conition woul violate the principle o!
energy conservation. "pontaneous emission appears to only occur to
electrons which have alreay been elevate to e0cite energy levels
through stimulate absorption - in other wors the energy !luctuations o!
the vacuum serve merely to trigger the ecay o! e0cite states prouce
through ambient electromagnetic raiation. =owever1 this woul not be
the case i! spontaneous absorption applie only to energy in the !orm o!
virtual particles. 6he li!etime o! virtual particle is etermine by the
uncertainty principle an there!ore the absorption o! these particles out
the vacuum oes not violate conservation o! energy. Ht must be observe
here that the assignment o! the value D to the coe!!icient o! spontaneous
absorption is only require by the assumption that the energy ensity o!
the vacuum is itsel! zero. / number o! e0periments on vacuum cavity
resonance suggest that spontaneous emission rates are suppresse by
imposing bounary conitions upon the electromagnetic vacuum. Ht is
our eepest suspicion that the !raction by which the emission rate is
suppresse is equal to the !raction by which the ensity o! the
electromagnetic vacuum is reuce through the impose bounary
conitions. Hn the chapter on nonclassical light in the worK1 .ight an
Puantum -luctuations1 a corresponence is rawn between the e!!ect o!
a ielectric meium within a certain region o! the vacuum an the
alternate introuction o! speci!ic bounary conitions upon this vacuum1
say1 utilizing conucting plates1 resonant cavities1 etc. Hn this chapter it
was conclue that the !ractional increase in the ine0 o! re!raction is
irectly proportional to the !ractional increase in the electromagnetic
energy ensity o! the vacuum with the wavenumber being also altere
by this !raction but with the !requency being unaltere by the ielectric
meium so that a !ractionally ecrease local value o! the spee o! light
results.
=ow o we represent a tra5ectory espite the !act that the motion o!
the particle must be continually recast in terms o! a time varying set o!
basis !unctions. 6his time variation o! the basis !unctions must contain
an element o! ranomness1 or unpreictability since otherwise a unique
unchanging basis coul be !oun with which to represent the motion.
:istinct tra5ectories can only be co-represente within the same
presentational space i! each an all are i!!ering pro5ections o! a single
evolving tra5ectory. ;ach eigen!unction is relate to its noncommuting
spectrum o! superpose complementary eigen!unctions in the sense that
!igure is relate to groun. 6he complementary eigen!unction spectrum
is a ata setV the selection o! one o! these eigen!unctions within the
observational conte0t constitutes the engenering o! a bit o! in!ormation.
6he component eigen!unctions become mutually couple provie that
their wave!unction resists alteration through e0ternal in!luences. 6he
eigen!unctions are couple to one another i! each contains at least a tiny
pro5ection along all o! the other eigen!unctions which together with it
maKe up their wave!unction. 6his is only possible i! this set o!
eigen!unctions contributes to the e!ining o! the =ilbert space geometry
within which they !in e0pression. 6his requires that the time evolution
o! the wave!unction be noneterministic1 which is to say1 nonunitary.
7article creation at the event horizon o! a blacK hole gives rise to a
precisely thermal spectrum. 6his suggests that the vacuum itsel! is in
thermal equilibrium with itsel! so that the vacuum must be continually
e0changing energy with itsel!. ?ecause the time rate o! change o! all
physical quantities epens on the e0istence o! energy uncertainty1 q/t
= [=1 q\ + ![=1q\1 where ![=1q\ is usually written as Qq/Qt. 9n this
view1 quantum mechanical systems possess energy uncertainty because
they are continually perturbe by intrinsic vacuum energy !luctuations.
Hn this way1 all mass-energy systems are in a process o! constant energy
e0change with the quantum mechanical vacuum. "ince all macroscopic
trans!ers an e0changes o! energy between two points in spacetime are
meiate via the submicroscopic energy e0changes occurring within the
vacuum1 it !ollows that conservation o! energy macroscopically is
epenent upon conservation o! energy e0changes within the vacuum. Ht
is not possible to istinguish i!!erent time rates o! change within a
close ynamical system. 6his is because such a close system
possesses only a !inite number o! iscrete energy levels1 an when the
total system is in a particular energy eigenstate1 its energy uncertainty is
) so that there are no vacuum !luctuations available with which to
meiate changes in physical observables o! the system. Fe may e!ine
the istance separating two events as a !unction o! the number o!
vacuum momentum !luctuations e0isting between the two sai events.
"imilarly1 we may e!ine the time interval between two such events as a
!unction o! the number o! vacuum energy !luctuations e0isting between
the two sai events. 9! course1 the partitioning o! the relativistic
momentum - energy tensor into pure momentum versus pure energy
components is epenent upon the particular .orenz re!erence !rame
within which one per!orms the momentum an energy measurementsV
the converse o! this is also true. "ince the energy levels at which
in!ormation is store in a neural networK are e!ine in terms o! the
lowest stable energy o! the neural networK as a whole1 virtual energy
transitions between these energy levels presuppose a coupling between
the wave!unctions escribing the quantum mechanical states o! all o! the
iniviual neurons o! the networK in the sense o! their being nonlocally
connecte.
Ht is the spontaneous coherence in which the neural networK is
embee which provies the ultimate conte0t within which the
neurological events are to be interprete. 6his coherent !iel is that o!
the nonlocally connecte vacuum electromagnetic !luctuation !iel. 6he
many worls interpretation o! the quantum measurement problem may
be unerstoo as a reversal in causal relationship between the
uncollapse wave!unction representing the min o! the observer an the
uncollapse wave!unction representing the potentialities o! the quantum
mechanical system being observe by this min in the !ollowing
manner: when the observer notes the collapse o! the wave!unction with
respect to an observable he is attempting to measure1 what is actually
occurring is the collapse o! the wave!unction escribing the observers
min so that it Cthe observerGs minD now abstracts !rom the Feltall one
particular eigenvalue o! the ob5ect wave!unction1 but without inucing a
collapse o! the ob5ect wave!unction itsel!. Fithout a 4oGs eye view o!
Aeality in which to groun these complementary possibilities1 there is
not legitimate istinction which can be mae between them. 9ne might
asK what is the !unamental i!!erence between these two interpretations
i! there is not some thir realm1 inepenent o! both the observerGs an
ob5ect wave!unctions in terms o! which one interpretation might be
!avore over the other as being ontologically prior. 6his thir realm
belongs neither to that o! causality Cthe mutual interaction o! collapse
wave!unctionsD1 nor to that o! contingency Cthe interaction o! collapse
with uncollapse wave!unctions1 an vice versaD1 but to that realm
constitute solely by the mutual interaction o! all uncollapse
wave!unctions. 6his realm we may re!er to as the composite
contingency - necessity mani!ol or continuum.
6he probability spectrum o! a given wave!unction may be
uneretermine so that there e0ists an unlimite number o! ways in
which an ensemble o! measurements o! the eigenstates o! the
wave!unction with respect to a particular observable may sum together
so that the wave!unction appears per!ectly normalizeV this property may
permit an aitional egree o! !reeom within quantum mechanical
virtual processes not previously suspecte to e0ist.
7robability ensity conservation in (-imensional spacetime is at
the heart o! the unerlying physical mechanism !or gravitation that we
are proposing. -or instance1 the gravitational reening o! starlight may
be simply e0plaine in terms o! this concept o! probability CensityD
conservation. 7robability conservation is the most general statement o!
the principle o! causality. 6here is an absolute simultaneity which
mental events istinctly en5oy ue to the !act that they o not amit o!
perspectiveV i! anything they constitute perspective. =owever1 the orer
in which neurophysiological occurrences occur C in the brainD is at least
partially epenent upon the re!erence !rame Cin the relativistic senseD
that these events occur Cas observablesD. 6here must be an embeing o!
these neural events in a substrate which e0tens beyon the merely
neurophysiological in orer !or a re!erence !rame to be e!ine in which
there can arise a corresponence between sub5ective an ob5ective
simultaneities. 6he nonlocally connecte vacuum electromagnetic !iel
o!!ers itsel! as the prime caniate !or this embeing substrate.
"ince it is the pattern o! virtual particle emission an absorption which
every real particle continually unergoes which etermines the mass o!
the particle1 it !ollows that real particle masses are etermine through
the particular manner in which real particles e0change energy with the
!luctuating quantum vacuum !ielV consequently1 alterations in the
ensity o! the vacuum !iel energy will a!!ect the masses o! particles
occupying this vacuum. Fe might e0pect that this relationship between
mass-energy an vacuum-energy is symmetrical in nature because the
interactions meiating the continual e0change o! energy between matter
an vacuum are themselves reversible interactions.
**/2& 6he quantum vacuum energy !luctuations collectively1 as we have
seen1 may be unerstoo as the !irst cause o! the worl in the more
!unamental sense o! sustainer o! all o! the structures ultimately eriving
!rom it in that the quantum vacuum is the originator o! temporality.
8atter oes not possess a genuine substantial e0istence since its energy
is !orever being replenishe by the vacuum !luctuations continually
interacting with it1 much in the same manner as a particular spot in a
river is continually replenishe with new waters so that1 as =eraclitus
says1 one cannot step twice into the same place within it. 6his two-way
causal1 symmetrical relationship between mass energy an vacuum
energy within quantum !iel theory remins us o! a similar relationship
between mass an space-time curvature within the theory o! general
relativity: the presence o! mass within a given region o! spacetime
prouces an aitional curvature in this spacetimeV also1 an increase in
the curvature o! a particular region o! spacetime prouces an increase in
the mass o! particles or material boies alreay occupying this region.
"ince spatio-temporal variations in the energy ensity o! the vacuum
energy !iel are correlate with variations in spacetime curvature1 we
might suppose that some sort o! con!ormal mapping relationship obtains
between the ratio o! real particle to virtual particle energy ensities an
the egree o! mutual inclination o! the time an space a0es C o! the
8inKowsKi light cone D to one another. 6his relationship is also
suggeste by the !act that real particles are virtual particles which have
been promote to the level o! real e0istence through the absorption o!
energyV particles are e0citations o! the vacuum state which is itsel! a
reservoir or sea o! virtual particles. /lso1 through the application 8achGs
!ormula !or the spee o! soun to this vacuum energy reservoir1 we see
that such a con!ormal mapping relationship between ;insteinian space-
time curvature an spatial-temporal variations in the zero-point energy
o! the vacuum Cor1 alternatively1 its energy ensityD must involve
mappings between the hypersoli angle swept out by the light line in
!our-imensional C8inKowsKi D spacetime1 an the energy ensity Cor
pressureD o! the vacuum.
6he quest !or the Etheory o! everythingE is there!ore oome to ultimate
!ailure1 since what we call EeverythingE is necessarily unique1 an this
uniqueness prevents us !rom separating those EvariablesE which are
particular to the thing itsel! !rom those which owe in part to our
investigatory involvement with this thing. 6he sel!1 in the act o!
investigating ultimate reality1 must be inclue within the ynamic o!
the reality !or which we are seeKing a complete escription. 6his
inherent recursiveness which lies at the heart o! any earnest attempt to
evelop a complete escription o! reality is alone responsible !or the !act
that the omain o! truth necessarily transcens the sum o! Knowlege
comprising any point o! view Co! realityD.
Puantum 8echanics tells us that a close ynamical system may
only unergo temporal evolution provie that a certain energy
uncertainty e0ists within the system. 6his energy uncertainty is 5ust the
stanar eviation o! the energy about its mean or e0pectation value.
6his energy uncertainty may be interprete in terms o! a time-average
sum o! ranom energy perturbations to the system E!rom outsieE the
system. 6he phase o! the isolate quantum system !ormally unergoes
temporal evolution1 but there is no physical meaning to be attache to an
absolute phase. Ht is only when another system is brought into
interaction with the !irst system o we get temporal evolution o! relative
phases o! the two systems which possess measurable an observable
e!!ects. H! these energy perturbations1 or some component o! them are
not removable1 are not merely the arti!acts o! our inaequate
perturbative analyses o! quantum systems1 but are ontologically real1
then the in!inity1 an perhaps the in!inite imensionality1 o! the worl
logically !ollow.
6hese ranom energy perturbations mani!est themselves in the !orm o!
energy e0changes between the quantum mechanical system an the sea
o! virtual particles in which this system is embee. 6he interaction o!
these virtual particles with the quantum mechanical system are
responsible !or virtual transitions o! the quantum state o! the system to
other quantum states. 6he only real energy transitions available to the
quantum mechanical CynamicalD system are those !rom amongst the set
o! virtual energy transitions which are continually occurring within the
time interval speci!ie by the systemGs time uncertainty. 6he ensity o!
this virtual particle energy sea has a irect bearing upon the rate o!
temporal evolution o! any given quantum mechanical system.
9ur central hypothesis is that the presence o! matter has a
perturbing e!!ect upon this virtual particle energy sea1 i.e.1 the quantum
vacuum !iel1 an this perturbing e!!ect is1 namely1 to ecrease the
overall ensity o! this vacuum energy which results in a similar ecrease
in the time rate o! change o! all physical processes within the spatial
volume occupie by this matter. 6his propose vacuum mechanism is
e0actly similar to the mechanism by which a quantum resonant cavity
ecreases the rate o! spontaneous emission o! Gcavity - etuneG photons
by a Ayberg e0cite atom. 6he resonant cavity achieves this by
e0cluing most o! the photons o! hal!-wavelength larger than the cavity
iameter: to wit1 it oes this by ecreasing the energy ensity o! vacuum
electromagnetic !iel !luctuations o! roughly the same energy as that o!
the suppresse atomic energy transitions.
2& Fe Know that nonaiabatic changes in the bounary conitions o!
the in!inite potential well problem results in a transition o! the particle
energy to an e0cite state with respect to the new wave!unction
escribing the new potential well resulting !rom this suen change.
6his suggests that perhaps irreversible1 or1 nonaiabatic1 changes in a
quantum mechanical system are necessary !or the wave!unction
escribing it to unergo Ecollapse.E 7erhaps changes in the bounary
conitions o! the Cnon?Dlocally connecte vacuum can be moele upon
a change in the ynamics o! this vacuum in the absence o! changes o!
the bounary conitions. 7erhaps all changes in the ynamics o! the
nonlocally connecte vacuum are only measurable in terms o! their
mani!estation as changes in the bounary conitions o! a locally
connecte quantum system. Fhen the bounary conitions applie to a
given wave!unction are treate classically1 then nonaiabatic changes in
the bounary conitions will usually result in a iscontinuous change in
the wave!unction1 i.e.1 a collapse in the wave!unction. ?ut i! the
classical bounary conitions are themselves treate quantum-
mechanically1 then the composite wave!unction will not su!!er a
collapse1 but will evolve accoring to the time-epenent "chreinger
wave equation.
)*/2% Hs a nonaiabatic change to be unerstoo as a change in
vacuum bounary conitions which cannot be e0pecte Cby the vacuum
itsel!D because /a?//at Z /a? 0 h//a; ?Ht is clear in a geometrically intuitive
sense that trans!ormations o! entities which are not truly inepenent
an separable !rom an open-ene conte0t or system in which they are
groune cannot be genuinely reversible but only abstractly to within a
certain appro0imation. 7articipatory Knowlege transcens abstract
escription in terms o! abstract representations o! inepenent EthingsE
or entities. 6his is the Knowlege base in the intimate interaction with
the open-ene. Hs it possible to not be in an eigenstate o! any quantum
mechanical observable whatever? :oes this escribe the normal
conition which the quantum vacuum !ins itsel! in? H! the moe o!
interaction o! real particles with real particles1 i.e.1 real-real interactions1
is correctly escribe as eterministically orere1 an the moe o!
interaction o! real with virtual particles as ranomly orere1 then shoul
we escribe the moe o! interaction o! virtual particles with themselves
as both ranom an eterministic?
Hs a superposition state possible in the absence o! wave!unction
bounary conitions? /re some superpositions well-!orme in the sense
that they can be inverse -ourier-trans!orme to a unique eigenstate with
respect to a e!inable observable? /re some ill-!orme in the contrary
sense o! not possessing an inverse -ourier-trans!orm to a unique
eigenstate o! a single observable? 7erhaps well-!orme superposition
states may only be e!ine given appropriate spacetime bounary
conitions1 i.e.1 initial an bounary conitions. @otice that when a
measurement is per!orme upon one o! the separate particles o! an ;7A
type e0periment1 that the particles remain nonlocally connecte a!ter the
Ecollapse o! the wave!unctionE escribing the particles 5ointly1 although
the particles are now nonlocally connecte in a new way precipitate by
the observerGs act o! measurement. =as the observer simply succeee
in iscontinuously altering the inertial !rame o! re!erence in which the
particle pair is embee? H! so1 oesnGt he o this by accelerating the
particles? /re the nonlocal connections within the observerGs min
merely apiece with the nonlocally connecte vacuum state in which his
brain is embee1 an so when he per!orms his measurement upon the
particle pair1 the pair must E5ump intoE a new nonlocally connecte
vacuum state1 resulting in a iscontinuous change in its superposition
state? :oes the observer recoil nonaiabatically into a new nonlocally-
connecte vacuum upon per!orming an act o! quantum measurement
which inuces what appears to him as a wave!unction collapse? 8ust
the vacuum possess in!inite sel!-similarity so that Eientical eventsE may
un!ol with i!!erent rates o! temporal evolution1 epening upon which
inertial !rame o! re!erence they are Eviewe !rom?E "el!-similarity can
never be e0act. H! the vacuum state were merely locally connecte1 then
its temporal evolution Eas a wholeS woul necessarily !ollow along a
preetermine continuum o! vacuum states. =owever1 a nonlocally
connecte vacuum state creates its own tra5ectory as it evolves
temporally.
H am trying to buil a case !or istinguishing between two
seemingly very i!!erent escriptions o! the process o! quantum
measurement1 namely1 the iscontinuous collapse o! the wave!unction o!
the quantum mechanical system being observe/measure !rom a similar
collapse o! the wave!unction escribing the min o! the observer
per!orming the measurement1 which is to say1 the 3openhagen !rom the
E8any ForlsE interpretation. /s is well Known1 @ewtonGs law o!
gravitation may be given a 4aussian !ormulation e0actly paralleling the
electromagnetic !lu0 law. Fhat is surprising is that the blacK hole mass
o! a given raius may also be given a 4aussian !ormulation.
6o wit1 */(pi4 0 HntC=cD 0 " = 8blacKhole. Ht is possible to
EeriveE the 7auli ;0clusion 7rinciple !rom the =eisenberg ,ncertainty
7rinciple. 6his may be shown in the !ollowing manner. H! two particles
o! the same quantum mechanical system were to be in the same quantum
state - what is precisely !orbien by the 7auli principle1 say two
electrons EorbitingE the same hyrogen nucleus1 it woul be possible !or
us to measure the Kinetic energy Ca !unction o! momentumD o! one o! the
electrons1 an then to measure the potential energy o! the other electron
with the result that we woul have emonstrate the e0istence o! a
quantum mechanical state possessing1 simultaneously1 an e0act potential
an an e0act Kinetic energyV but this is precisely what is !orbien to
e0ist by the =eisenberg uncertainty principle - P;:.
&/2% 6his conclusion oes not go through1 however1 i! the
requirement is mae that two particles which are in the same quantum
state must be escribe by one an the same wave!unction.
6he -eynman path - integral !ormalism o! relativistic quantum
!iel theory inicates that real particles1 i.e.1 !unamental particles whose
mass - energy is greater than the quantum mechanical energy uncertainty
o! the quantum mechanical system to which they belong1 may be
represente as stable an interlocKing patterns o! vacuum energy
!luctuation1 that is1 as patterns o! virtual particle creation1 annihilation1
an particle C!ermion an bosonD e0change processes which !orm with
one another a stable1 interconnecte meshworK o! !eebacK loops o!
virtual particle reactions.
&/2% Ht is not certain what the concept o! stability means within the
conte0t o! virtual particle processes. E"tableE certainly oes not mean
here persistence o! a structure against !luctuations or perturbations -
thermal or otherwise1 since the virtual particle processes themselves are
the !luctuation phenomena. "tability must mean in this case the
relatively unchanging probabilities o! recurring patterns o! quantum
!luctuation mani!esting themselves as virtual particle reactions.
6hus1 real !unamental particles are viewe within this !ormalism
as mere e0citations o! the vacuum CgrounD state with more comple0
matter structures1 e.g.1 atoms1 molecules1 etc.1 as !eebacK structures into
which these vacuum e0citations are organize - provie that aequate
e0citation energy is available.
>une *22%
9ne possible test as to whether or not a given particle is composite
or simple might be: oes the particle have a virtual counterpart1 i.e.1 can
the particle be prouce out or the vacuum as a pure energy !luctuation -
out o! a !luctuation o! purely imaginary(-momentum? /lthough in
theory it shoul be possible to prouce whole atoms1 molecules1 or more
comple0 matter structures through irect e0citation o! the vacuum state
Csee above paragraphD1 the intelligent coorination o! the myria an
highly localize e0citations require to o this1 !rom within any
particular moi!ie vacuum state1 is probably renere impossible ue to
the inherent uncertainty o! total energy which is responsible !or vacuum
!luctuations: certain e0isting bounary conitions to the matri0 o!
vacuum !luctuations may alreay be immeiately present - in the !orm o!
alreay create particles1 molecules1 etc.1 but these bounary conitions
cannot be prouce ab initio1 but may only be Ereprouce1E utilizing
ientical pre-e0isting bounary conitions Cin the !orm o! alreay
available matterD as template an catalyst !or the reprouction o! the
esire vacuum bounary conitions. /ny instrumentalities which we
might employ to alter the vacuum !iel bounary conitions woul only
be e!!ective by virtue o! the vacuum !iel !luctuations themselves which
meiate their actionV we must realize that the imposition o! genuinely
new bounary conitions upon the vacuum1 i.e.1 without the utilization
o! a Etemplate1E even i! locally1 woul imply a change in the global
bounary conitions o! the entire vacuum energy system C the entire
spacetime continuumD. 9n the view o! matter an vacuum which is
espouse here1 matter is seen as not having an e0istence inepenent o!
the vacuum energy !iel1 rather1 the stability o! matter at all levels o! its
hierarchical structure1 is unerpinne by the myria !iel energy
!luctuations o! the quantum vacuum. 3onsequently1 matter oes not
possess an inepenent e0istence in the :emocritean sense o! Eatoms
an voiVE our view is more consonant with that put !orwar by
=eraclitus1 to wit1 that everything is compose Eo! !ire in measures
Kinling an in measures going outVE all change is riven by the clash o!
opposites an all potential !or change lies with the tension between these
opposites.
=ere E!ireE is given the moern physical interpretation as Evacuum
energyE an the Eclash o! opposites1E as the creation an annihilation
operators C 2n quantization o! quantum theoryD into which all operators
corresponing to physical EobservablesE are analyzable. Fhat
=eraclitusG physics lacKe was a basis !or physical continuity !rom one
moment o! time to the ne0tV the reprouction o! vacuum bounary
conitions Cin virus - liKe mannerD supplies this missing element within
moern physics. Fithin this unerstaning o! the relationship between
matter an vacuum :emocritusG notion o! persisting EsubstanceE no
longer has any application an the continuous e0istence o! real matter
particles consists in the continual recreation o! a coherent an
interlocKing pattern o! virtual particle reactions which is apiece with the
larger pattern o! vacuum energy !luctuations within the ine!inite
surrouning region o! spacetime.
*)/2& 6he basic iea behin a perturbative analysis o! a quantum
system is that one is not able to write own with in!inite precision the
e0act =amiltonian o! the system uner consieration an so one
escribes the energy o! the system in terms o! a =amiltonian plus a
perturbation energy. 6his perturbation energy is usually the !irst nonzero
term in an e0pansion o! energy terms where aitional terms are
progressively smaller an must be neglecte since to inclue them poses
analytic intractability. Hn other wors1 one oes not have the precise
energy eigen!unction e0pansion o! the systemGs wave!unctionV i! one i1
then one coul in theory prepare the system in any one o! its energy
eigenstates where the system woul e0ist at a precisely e!ine energy
!or all time1 assuming the system were not inter!ere with as a result o!
e0changing energy with some other system. ?ut since the =amiltonian
o! a quantum mechanical system is always a !unction o! the systemGs
momentum an position1 which are incompatible observables1 the energy
o! the system1 which is a !unction o! both the systemGs particle/!iel
momentum an particle/!iel source position1 can never be precisely
e!ine. Hn this way we see that energy perturbations are not an a hoc
an practically use!ul accounting evice neee to maKe up !or a merely
practical1 an1 hence1 theoretically removable1 ignorance concerning the
systemGs real energy eigen!unction e0pansion. Aather1 perturbations to
the systemGs energy - any systemGs energy - are not merely arti!acts o! a
perturbative analysis1 but are ontologically real an not ue to a
temporary inability to speci!y the systemGs true energy eigen!unction
e0pansion. 6here is a small component o! the perturbation energy which
is !orever irremeiable an represents the e0change o! energy between
any quantum system an another quantum system which is always
present.
/n important conclusion to be rawn !or quantum theory here is
that1 the wave!unction only represents the most that can be Known about
a quantum system in the absence o! the irremovable perturbations. Fe
might be tempte to speculate here that more can be Known about a
quantum system than can be containe in any wave!unction provie
that the e!!ect o! the irremovable perturbations are inclue. H! the
ob5ective an the sub5ective are consiere to be is5oint categories1 then
we may say that 5ust as the wave!unction represents the most that can be
ob5ectively Known about a quantum system1 what can be sub5ectively
Known about a quantum system in ue entirely to in!luences lying
altogether outsie all possible wave!unction escriptions o! the system.
"uch in!luences1 collectively1 are the so-calle irremovable
perturbations. Fe must not straight-away ienti!y such Eirremovable
perturbationsE with the virtual particles an !iels o! relativistic quantum
!iel theory as these entities are largely arti!acts o! low orer
perturbative analysis involving perturbations which are largely
removable1 in theory1 shoul the observer acquire greater Knowlege o!
the system uner observation. Fhat uniquely istinguishes virtual
particles an !iels !rom their real counterparts oes1 perhaps1 point to
some o! the properties o! the meium with which all quantum systems
!orever e0change energy1 leaing to the so-calle irremovable
perturbations.
6here!ore1 the introuction o! matter particles into a volume o!
spacetime is not istinct in principle !rom creating these particles ab
initio !rom a portion o! the vacuum energy alreay present within this
particular volume o! spacetimeV in an inertial !rame o! re!erence1 a real
matter particle imparts an e0citation energy to the vacuum such that a
particle ientical to itsel! is create out o! the !luctuating vacuum !iel
energyV at the same time the previous particle is estroye1 its mass-
energy proviing the e0citation energy necessary to re-create itsel! anew.
Hn an accelerate1 or more generally1 a non-inertial re!erence !rame1 the
particles mass-energy e0cites the vacuum !iel in a i!!erent manner1
continually proucing a new variety o! particles to taKe its place. Ht has
o!ten been note in the literature o! moern physics that particle
prouction !rom the vacuum state is to be e0pecte within curve
spacetimes. 6his leas us to the iea that merely localize alterations in
bounary conitions o! the vacuum !iel in no way alters the total
energy ensity o! the region occupie by the vacuum !iel1 but merely
changes the ratio o! mass - energy to vacuum energy !rom zero to some
!raction approaching in!inity Cin the case o! blacK hole massesD. 6he
general relativistic alteration in the local velocity o! light may be
unerstoo in terms o! 8achGs !ormula !or the spee o! soun in an
energy conucting meium in its application to the quantum vacuum.
8achGs !ormula states that the velocity o! soun in an energy conucting
meium is a !unction o! the pressure an the energy ensity o! the
meium. "peci!ically1 the velocity o! soun in the meium is the square
root o! the pressure o! the meium times the spee o! light square
ivie by the energy ensity o! the meium.
"ince the pressure o! the vacuum is equal to its energy ensity1 an
the pressure o! matter is e!!ectively zero1 the energy ensity an pressure
terms in 8achGs !ormula are the total energy ensity an pressure o!
space1 respectivelyV the pressure o! the vacuum is always equal to its
energy ensity1 which ecreases in step with the increase in the mass-
energy ensity. ?y letting the total energy ensity o! space equal to the
sum o! the vacuum energy an mass-energy ensities1 i.e.1 ;tot = ;v +
;m1 an the vacuum pressure equal to the moi!ie vacuum energy
ensity1 i.e.1 ;vG = ;v - ;m1 8achGs !ormula worKs out to vsoun =
sqrt[C;v - ;mDc2/;tot\ which reuces to the result1 vsoun = [* -
48/A32\ W c1 an this result is ientical to the reuce local value o!
the spee o! light calculate !rom general relativity Cin the weaK !iel
limitD. 9ur requirement o! no spatial variation in the total energy ensity
o! space1 i.e.1 that the mass-energy an vacuum energy ensities are
complementary1 seems to eman that the ensity o! gravitational energy
ensity H! we are correct in reinterpreting the gravitational reshi!t o!
photons propagating in a spatially varying gravitational potential as
being ue to a spatial variation in the zero-point o! the vacuumGs energy
Cagainst which the photonGs energy is to be measureD1 then 6he
imposition o! bounary conitions upon the vacuum !iel merely
prouces local an iscontinuous variations in the spatial Can temporalD
istribution o! the !iel energy1 leaing to the appearance o! negative
bining energies which e0actly counterbalance the positive gains in
mass - energy which thereto resultV it is in this sense that mass-energy
may be thought to occupy a EhollowE in the vacuum energy !iel an the
EisplaceE vacuum energy has merely assume a new !orm as mass-
energy. 8e!! = 8r/sqrtC* - CcGD2/CcD2D1 where 8r = bining mass an
8e!! = e!!ective mass. 6he bining mass stems !rom the sum o! all C+D
an C-D non-gravitational bining energies. 6he accumulation o! many
such iscontinuous energy graients submicroscopically leas to the
appearance1 macroscopically1 o! continuous energy graients in the
vacuum. "ince the energy o! the vacuum !iel owes its e0istence
entirely to the quantum mechanical energy uncertainty o! spacetime1 in
turn owing to the !act that the energy =amiltonian is a !unction o!
incompatible observables1 it !ollows that the vacuum !iel shares in the
general properties o! quantum mechanical energy uncertainty. 9ne such
property is that energy uncertainty is require !or any iscrete change in
a quantum mechanical observableV !or e0ample1 all changes in a physical
system stem !rom the application o! !orces upon the system while all
!unamental !orces o! nature are meiate via the e0change o! virtual
bosons between !ermions composing the system.
3onsequently1 physical processes unergo temporal evolution only
inso!ar as they comprise quantum mechanical systems possessing !inite
energy uncertainty1 with the rates o! the component processes
etermine by the magnitue o! system energy uncertainty. / !ermion-
boson quantum mechanical system may be thought o! as an
interconnecte meshworK o! temporal !ermion energy transitions with
spatial boson momentum transitions1 with the !ermion wave!unctions
an boson wave!unctions being antisymmetric an symmetric1
respectively1 so that increasing the ensity o! interacting !ermions an
bosons within a particular region o! spacetime results in a ecrease in
the energy uncertainty an increase in the momentum uncertainty o! the
vacuum state1 respectively.
@ovember *22&
/ny wave!unction may be alternately represente as a sum o!
symmetric an antisymmetric wave!unctions. H! one calculates the
probability ensity !unction !or a wave!unction in this new
representation1 one is tempte to give some physical interpretation o! the
three istinct components which result.
+W+ = +Wsym+sym + +Wanti+anti + 2+Wsym+anti
6he !irst term represents the probability !unction resulting !rom the
mutual interaction o! bosons while the secon term represents the
probability !unction resulting !rom the mutual interaction o! !ermions.
6he thir term may represent the probability !unction resulting !rom the
interaction o! bosons an !ermions with each other.
>uly *22%
Hn -ourier analysis1 a !unction which satis!ies the :irichlet
conitions1 may always be represente as a -ourier sum o! weighte sine
an cosine !unctions o! the boune variables. Fe note here that this
!unction may be represente as either purely even or purely o1 i.e.1 as
either purely a -ourier sum o! cosine !unctions or sine !unctions1
provie that the appropriate trans!ormation o! the coorinate system is
per!orme within which the -ourier e0pansion is to be compute. Hn
irect analogy to what has been sai concerning -ourier analysis1 we
may say that through a 5uicious trans!ormation o! the spacetime
coorinates1 we may represent an arbitrary wave!unction as either o!
purely even parity or o! purely o parity. Fhat we cannot o1 however1
is taKe a wave!unction o! purely even parity an trans!orm the
coorinate system so that this !unction is now represente as possessing
purely o parity1 or vice versa. 3ontinuing with our analogy1 we cannot
represent a sine !unction in terms o! a sum o! cosine !unctions an so on.
Fe cannot o this1 as was sai1 through a trans!ormation o! the
spacetime coorinates1 however1 an o !unction can be reaily
converte into an even !unction an vice versa through the mere aition
o! a phase !actor C o! pi/2 D within the argument o! the !unction we wish
to trans!orm. Fe Know that i! an operator oes not commute with the
=amiltonian operator1 then the observable corresponing to the !irst
operator cannot be a conserve quantity. 3onversely1 any operator
which commutes with the =amiltonian will be tie to a change the total
energy o! the system i! this operator itsel! su!!ers any changes. Ht is well
Known that parity is conserve within the theory o! both the
electromagnetic an strong nuclear interactions. 6his is all to suggest
that an alteration o! the momentum-energy tensor through the 5uicious
insertion o! phase !actors into each momentum an energy
eigen!unction1 may result in a trans!ormation o! the momentum-energy
eigen!unction1 7siC01y1z1tD1 without altering the momentum-energy
tensor1 6i1K itsel!. 6his is 5ust saying that the wave!unction representing
the quantum mechanical system with momentum-energy tensor1 6i1K1 is
itsel! egenerate with respect to the phase. Fe may euce !rom this
that matter cannot e0ist in either a purely !ermionic or purely bosonic
state. 9therwise1 we woul be in a position to alter the tensor1 6i1K1
escribing this matter istribution1 through a non-coorinate
trans!ormation1 namely1 through the mere introuction o! an arbitrary
nonperioic phase !actor into the energy eigen!unction representing this
mass istribution. 6his woul constitute a starK violation o! the
;quivalence 7rinciple o! 4eneral Aelativity which implies that each
istinct stress-momentum-energy istribution1 as represente by 61
uniquely correlates to a istinct curvature o! the spacetime metric. 6o
wit1 matter must always e0ist as a mi0e system o! !ermions an bosons1
namely1 any given real matter istribution must be escribe by a
wave!unction which is neither purely symmetric nor purely
antisymmetric.
**/2& ?y calculating e0pectation values !or various observables !or
the quantum vacuum1 such as YpZ1 Y;Z1 Yp2Z1 Y;2Z1 etc.1 we may be
able to e0ploit our intuitions about what +Wq+CvacD1 where q is the
observable in question1 must be in orer to guess at the probable
relationships o! these various vacuum e0pectation values.
*)/2&6he relativistic e!!ects upon Kinematics Cspace an timeD are
groune in the relativistic e!!ects upon the ynamics through the
conservation o! momentum-energy. Fe believe1 !or instance1 that the
relativistic contraction o! the positional uncertainty o! a particle1 say1 an
the relativistic time ilation Co! the particleGs li!etime1 i! it is unstableD1
o not lie behin the ilation o! /ap an contraction o! /a;1 respectively
through the =eisenberg uncertainty relations. 6his woul be to groun
ynamical e!!ects in mere Kinematics. Aather1 the Kinematics shoul be
groune in the ynamics: the e!!ects on space an time are
epiphenomenal to the substantive e!!ects associate with the
conservation o! momentum-energy. 6his is thought to taKe place
through the =eisenberg uncertainty relations !or position/momentum an
time/energy. 3hanges in the components o! the momentum-energy
tensor cause alterations in the tensor o! stress-momentum-energy
uncertainty. Fe may suppose that the presence o! real !ermions reuces
the number o! available vacuum !ermionic energy states while the
presence o! real bosons increases the number o! available virtual bosonic
momentum states1 relative to the reuce number o! virtual !ermionic
energy states. Hn this manner1 more virtual energy transitions occurring
within the vacuum state must be e!!ecte via similar transitions
occurring within the massive boy in question. 6his situation is
consistent with the e!!ect mass has upon the surrouning vacuum o!
simultaneously ecreasing the energy uncertainty an increasing the
momentum uncertainty raially about the gravitating massive boy. /
general result o! the preceing iscussion is that the accumulation o!
mass - energy1 more particularly bining energy1 within a volume o!
spacetime causes a corresponing reuction in the ensity o! energy
uncertainty Cvacuum energyD1 in turn resulting in a corresponing
ecrease in the rate at which physical processes occur within this
particular region o! spacetime. =ow are we to unerstan so-calle
energy-egenerate transitions within the vacuum state1 which is to say1
transitions within the vacuum state not involving a change in the
vacuumGs energy? 6he egenerate wave!unctions represent the
possibility o! change which !alls outsie o! the physically temporal.
*)/2& :oes gravitational time ilation have any e!!ect upon the
!requency o! egenerate transitions? Hs the ensity matri0 an
appro0imation mae in lieu o! the actual wave!unction which we are !or
merely practical reasons unable to speci!y1 or oes a quantum system
sometimes not possess a wave!unction at all? Fhat relation oes the 2n
ranK tensor relating two i!!erent virtual particle current ensities have
to the momentum-energy tensor o! 4A...to the metric tensor or 4A?
Foul an e0ceeingly intense beam o! coherent electromagnetic
raiation Claser beamD result in a Kin o! anti-squeeze state? 6his might
have the precisely opposite e!!ect to that o! the 3asimir ;!!ect which
normally inuces an e0pansion o! the momentum uncertainty along two
orthogonal irections to the a0is along which the conucting plates are
oriente. / question here is whether the momentum uncertainty along
the time a0is Cthe energy uncertaintyD is also ilate ue to a squeezing
o! the momentum uncertainty between the plates. 6he toKen re!le0ives1
here an now1 seem to presuppose the toKen-re!le0ive1 H1 or me.
3onversely1 the toKen-re!le0ives1 H1 or me1 seem to equally presuppose
the toKen-re!le0ives1 here an now. 6his seems to suggest that the
nonlocal connections1 mani!este in the relations o! virtual
particles/!iels to abstract spacetime may also be essential in meiating
the iniviual consciousness o! observers interacting with spacetime.
Fithin the conte0t o! an e0paning universe1 then1 matter oes not
merely alter the ensity o! the vacuum1 but also alters the rate at which
the ensity o! the vacuum energy ecreases with time ue to
cosmological e0pansion1 an since the time rate o! change in energy
ensity is1 itsel!1 a physical process1 matter1 by reucing the energy
uncertainty o! the vacuum1 also causes a raially varying vacuum !iel
energy ensity which mani!ests itsel! as a spherically symmetric energy
graient centere about a mass which is ientical to the gravitational
!ielT
3hanges in the composition o! the total energy ensity o! a region
o! space with respect to the proportions o! mass - energy an vacuum
energy are re!lecte in the trans!ormation o! the spatio-temporal
variation in vacuum energy ensity !rom being purely temporal1 in the
case o! !ree space1 to a mi0ture o! two parts1 temporal an spatial1 in the
case o! typical istributions o! matter1 to a purely spatial variation o!
vacuum energy ensity1 in the case o! blacK hole massesV an there is a
homologous mapping between the egree o! tipping o! the 8inKowsKi
light cone in curve spacetimes an the egree o! trans!ormation o! a
temporally varying vacuum energy into one which is purely spatial in its
variation. Fithin curve spacetimes1 the local value o! the velocity o!
light is reuce below its normal value in E!ree space1E an this may be
envisione as a narrowing o! the hypersoli angle swept out by the
8inKowsKi light cone centere at a given point within this region
possessing a gravitational potential. 6his contraction in the area o! the
hypersur!ace o! the 8inKowsKi light cone may be alternately escribe
in terms o! a light cone which su!!ers no contraction o! its hypersur!ace
area1 but a ecrease in the uni!orm ensity o! vacuum energy occupying
the uncontracte light cone sur!ace1 an hence the equivalence o! the
spacetime curvature with the spatiotemporal variation in vacuum energy
ensity.
H! we are correct in positing an e0act equivalence between
spacetime curvature an spatio-temporal variations in the ensity o! the
vacuumGs zero-point energy1 then the phenomenon o! particle prouction
in a spatially or temporally varying spacetime curvature1 or via the
equivalence principle1 ue to the e!!ects o! noninertial motion1 may be
e0plaine alternatively in terms o! spatial or temporal variations in the
bounary conitions on the vacuum !iel such that spatial or temporal
variations in its zero-point energy result. Hn this scenario1 the e0istence
o! real particles is unerstoo as 5ust a mani!estation o! zero-point
energy !rom the vantage point o! a noninertial !rame o! re!erence or
equivalently1 !rom the stanpoint o! a region o! the vacuum possessing
Eless restrictiveE bounary conitions than the region o! the vacuum in
which the particles appear. 9n account o! the precisely thermal
spectrum o! the particles prouce within curve spacetimes an also
ue to the unique requirement o! a thermal spectrum !or the vacuum
itsel! in orer that it possess .orenz invariance1 an entropy may be
meaning!ully assigne to both the vacuum as well as the particles
prouce !rom it as a result o! the impose vacuum bounary
conitions.
"ince this prouction o! particles !rom the vacuum state ue to
impose bounary conitions is a reversible process1 because the
particles are reabsorbe i! the bounary conitions are later remove1 the
change in the entropy o! the vacuum !iel must be e0actly compensate
by the entropy increase ue the particle creation so that the total entropy
o! the particle - vacuum system is a constant. 6he -eynman path
integral technique !or calculating the groun state energies o! atoms may
C in principle D similarly be utilize to calculate the groun state energy
o! the vacuum state o! !ree space or1 inee1 the vacuum state o! a region
o! space in which a gravitational !iel is present. Ht is probable that
!ewer paths comprise the -eynman integral where a gravitational !iel is
present than in the !ree space vacuumV this limits the number o! vali
available paths along which energy may be e0change between two
points in this particular region o! spacetime - hence the reuce value o!
the integral1 an in turn1 the ecrease value o! the vacuum state energy
in this region. 6he reuce number o! -eynman paths1 or histories1
means that the vacuumGs ability to e0change energy with itsel!1 as well as
its ability to e0change energy with particles an !iels1 an thusly to
meiate the e0change o! energy between particles an !iels among
themselves1 is corresponingly iminishe so that the rate at which the
vacuumGs energy ensity ecreases with time C ue to the e0pansion o!
the universe D is liKewise iminishe.
Hn light o! the iminishe sel!-energy o! the vacuum1 the resultant
increase inertial mass o! particles within this altere vacuum may be
viewe in two istinct1 but !unamentally similar ways. -irst1 the
iminishe capacity o! the vacuum to unergo energy e0change with
itsel! means that it is more i!!icult !or the gravitational !iel energy to
reistribute itsel! in response to changes in the matter istribution within
the altere vacuum stateV consequently1 by the general equivalence o!
gravitational an inertial masses1 it !ollows that there is an equal
i!!iculty !or matter con!igurations to change their istributions in
response to impresse e0ternal !orces attempting to accelerate these
mass con!igurations. 6his is !urther theoretical evience !or the
complementary relationship between the mass energy ensity an the
vacuum energy ensity which together e!ine the total energy ensity o!
any particular region o! spacetime. 8oreover1 i! there are alreay
e0isting particles both prior an subsequent to the imposition o! the
vacuum bounary conitions1 then the masses o! these previously
e0isting particles is e0pecte to increase in accorance with the ecrease
in the vacuum energy ensity Can vice versaDV this is consistent with
viewing particle prouction more generally as an increase in mass within
the region o! varying vacuum energy - as the conversion o! vacuum
energy into mass - energy: the !raction by which particle masses are
increase in transporting them !rom a region o! higher vacuum energy
ensity to one o! lower ensity must complement the !raction by which
the vacuum energy ensity ecreases between these two points.
6his means that the ma0imum ensity o! mass possible within a certain
spherical region is equal to the ma0imum ensity o! particles which may
be create !rom the vacuum energy occupying this region1 via e0citation
o! the vacuum state. Fe arrive at the interesting result that the ensity o!
the vacuum energy in a certain spherical volume o! !ree space Cwhere no
mass-energy is presentD is precisely equal to the mass-energy ensity o!
a blacK hole which coul possible occupy this same volume. 9ne
important iea which suggests itsel! within the conte0t o! this iscussion
is the !amous cosmological constant problem an the iscorant
interpretations o! it within quantum theory an general relativity theory.
6here is a (& orer o! magnitue iscrepancy between the calculations
o! the value o! this constant within these two theories1 hence the
pro!oun i!!iculties in eveloping a consistent theory o! quantum
gravityT @ow i! the energy o! the vacuum is interprete as suggeste by
the worK o! "aKharov an more recently by the zero-point energy
gravitation theory o! =al 7utho!! then rather than being1 itsel!1 a source
o! gravitational !iels1 liKe particle or !iel energy1 the energy o! the
vacuum woul merely be the meiator o! gravitation so that i!!erences
in gravitational potential woul correspon e0actly to i!!erences in the
energy ensity o! the vacuum at two i!!erent points in spacetime. /
uni!orm istribution o! vacuum !iel energy woul there!ore have no
more e!!ect upon matter particles within this energy istribution than
woul a series o! concentric mass shells upon the matter particles
containe within themV which is to say1 no e!!ect whatever1 an this ue
to the precise mutual cancellation o! the combine perturbations to the
matter particles by the !luctuating vacuum energy !iel. 6hus1 only
i!!erences in vacuum energy ensity woul have any meaning so that
the overall vacuum energy ensity woul play no role in the e!inition o!
;insteinGs cosmological constant1 an there woul be no necessity o!
postulating a unique e0change particle meiating the gravitational !orceV
gravity woul not in this case be viewe as a !unamental !orce as are
the electromagnetic1 strong an weaK nuclear !orces1 but woul be
unerstoo as a EparasiticE !orce stemming !rom the imposing o!
bounary conitions upon the combine vacuum electromagnetic1 strong
an weaK nuclear !iels which together owe their e0istence to the
!unamental energy uncertainty o! the vacuum state1 escribe by an
energy =amiltonian which is a !unction o! incompatible observables. H!
the graviton were really a R!unamental particleS1 i.e.1 a vector boson
with the same ontological status o! a photon1 gluon1 F an J particle1
then graviton creation-annihilations an e0changes woul be more or
less 5ust as pervasive within the vacuum_s RbulKS as in its Rsur!aceS1
represente by spacetime structure. 7utho!!_s theory o! electromagnetic
inuce gravity woul not apply in the same way to a neutron1 c.!.1
cit=
The Connectivity <ypothesis =IJJMA1 or a neutrino as it woul to charge
particles1 e.g.1 electron1 proton1 muon1 etc. Fe shoul not e0pect
7utho!!_s theory there!ore to support ;instein_s equivalence principle in
a logically consistent manner in that gravitational interactions are not
treate in his theory with su!!icient generality. 9n the other han1 there
oes not seem to be a more general way1 apart !rom ;instein_s theory o!
gravitation1 !or the so-calle physical vacuum to satis!y the equivalence
principle o! relativity than the ensity !unctions or ensity matrices o!
quantum theory. /n the most general !eature o! these1 which connects
matter an energy to the physical vacuum as well as to the !our
!unamental !orces/interactions o! nature is that o! quantum statistics.
Fe say this rather than the concept o! the symmetry/antisymmetry o! the
wave!unction because the quantum statistics o! the ensity !unction
inclues both reversible an irreversible quantum processes an
possesses symmetry properties more general than those o! RsymmetricS
an RantisymmetricS. 6he concept o! causality can then be given its
greatest possible generalization within this theory o! inuce gravity
because the theory is most amenable to the application o!
prn=
-ohmDs
Causality 4rinciple.
6he pure imaginary momentum o! all Erest massesE within the ( -
hyperspherical cosmological moel may be 5usti!ie beyon its value as
a convenient mathematical !ormalism i! these masses are viewe as
presently being in the act o! tunneling through a hyperspherically
symmetric potential barrier. 6he graient o! this hyperspherical
potential woul be a !our - vector with components *121 an $ vanishing
in !ree space1 but trans!orming through multiplication by a tensor into a
new !our - vector with non-vanishing spatial components1 resulting in
the appearance o! a gravitational !iel. 3ertainly this tensor is the
matter-stress-energy tensor escribe in the !iel equations o! ;insteinV
the only i!!erence is that the vacuum energy oes not contribute to the
value o! 61 the matter-stress-energy tensor1 which is responsible !or
altering the metric tensor which escribes the curvature o! spacetime1 or
alternatively1 the spatiotemporal variation in the vacuum !iel energy
ensity. Ht is perhaps now easier to see at an intuitive level why the !iel
equations o! general relativity preict the e0istence o! a universe which
is either globally contracting or e0paning: unless the energy ensity o!
the vacuum !iel is temporally varying in !ree space1 the matter-stress-
energy tensor operates upon a zero !our-vector Crepresenting the graient
o! the hyperspherical potentialD an the introuction o! matter
istributions1 represente by the matter-stress-energy tensor1 into this
vacuum !iel1 cannot prouce a non-zero !our-vector1 namely1 non-
vanishing spatial components o! the !ree space !our-vector1 i.e.1 a
gravitational !iel. Fithin this particular cosmological moel1 the
energy1 linear (-momentum1 an angular (-momentum o! a particle is
always conserve1 regarless o! motions or accelerations which it might
unergo as a result o! interactions with other particles an !iels.
Fe are saying here that gravitation is1 itsel!1 a !our-vector1 whose
magnitue is always conserve inepenently o! the matter istribution.
6he matter-stress-energy istribution within a particular volume o! space
merely alters the ecomposition o! this !our-vector into a new set o!
vector components in much the same way that a boost1 rotation or
translation prouces a new ecomposition o! the 8inKowsKi !our-vector
which escribes the instantaneous worl segment o! a particleV hence1
matter istributions mani!est themselves as tensor !iels in spacetime. H!
the gravitational !iel owe its e0istence to the presence o! matter-stress-
energy istributions in spacetime1 then we woul certainly escribe the
gravitational !iel as being itsel! a tensor !ielV however1 the
gravitational !iel is actually a conserve !our-vector C in the sense that
the magnitue o! this vector is conserve D1 an this !our-vector owes its
e0istence to the inverse square ecrease in the vacuumGs zero-point
energy ensity in combination with the inverse cubic ecrease in the
mass-energy ensity which results ue to the process o! cosmological
e0pansion. 6he action o! matter istributions1 however1 must be
escribe in terms o! a tensor !ielV again1 the gravitational !iel1 itsel!1
is not a tensor !ielV the action o! mass upon this !iel is1 however1
tensorial in nature. /s we Know1 !rom the many iscussions o!
attempts to prouce quantum gravity theories1 quantization o! a 2n
orer tensor !iel results in the appearance o! a spin 2 boson which acts
as the unique e0change particle meiating the tensor !iel. 6he !our-
imensional zero-point energy graient oes not trans!orm itsel! with
time in !ree space in a manner which necessitates a tensor escriptionV
consequently1 gravitons will not be present in !ree space as vacuum !iel
!luctuationsV however1 any vali theory o! quantum gravity C assuming
one is possible D emans1 along with the uncertainty principle1 that the
total vacuum !iel contain virtual gravitons in its mi0 o! !luctuating
energy1 but because a tensor oes not escribe the trans!ormation with
time o! the !ree space vacuum1 the quantization o! the total !ree space
vacuum !iel cannot inclue spin 2 particles1 which is to say1 the !ree
space quantum mechanical vacuum oes not possess virtual gravitons
an hence oes not possess Cper seD gravitational !iel !luctuations.
3onsequently1 gravitons o not e0ist in regions where matter
istributions are present so that the search !or gravitational waves must
turn out to be a !ruitless eneavor.
/nother way in which the imaginary coe!!icient may be 5usti!ie is to
note that the rate at which the vacuum energy ensity ecreases with
time is proportional to the vacuum energy ensity itsel!1 5ust as are the
time rates o! all physical processes1 so that i! the vacuum energy ensity
is reinterprete as its probability ensity Cin terms o! the square o! the
vacuum wave!unction amplitueD1 then the negative e0ponential time
evolution o! the vacuum probability ensity implies that the vacuum has
a purely imaginary !our - momentum with a !our velocity o! magnitue
c. 6he e!!ect o! accelerations1 !or instance1 upon a particle is merely to
change the istribution o! its total linear/angular momentum within the
conserve (-quantity. 6he perhelion shi!t in the orbit o! 8ercury1
preicte by general relativity1 may be simply unerstoo as a cyclic
reistribution o! the planetGs (-angular momentum as it moves aroun its
orbit so that the $-imensional pro5ection o! it (-angular momentum
varies sinusoially with the orbital perioV this causes 8ercuryGs $-
angular momentum to be slightly greater than that preicte by classical
mechanics1 proucing the observe avance in perhelion. 6he blacK
hole1 as note earlier1 represents mass-energy in its most compresse
state. -or ma0imum symmetrical energy e0change between any two
shells occupying a given volume o! matter C o! uni!orm ensity D where
the ensity o! vacuum energy e0changes is proportional to the ensity o!
the vacuum energy itsel!1 we require that the ensity o! mass-energy
ecrease with the inverse square because certainly the ensity o!
bunle energy tra5ectories Calong which all energy e0changes occurD
must also !all o!! with the inverse square ue simply to the geometry o!
spherically symmetric raiation o! energy in $ imensions. Fe e0pect
the ensity o! e0change energy1 ue to vacuum !iel !luctuations1 to be
proportional to the ensity o! energy so e0change because it has
alreay been establishe that the rate at which all physical processes
occur is proportional to the ensity o! =eisenberg-uncertain energy
Cvacuum energyD an the ecrease in the ensity o! this energy with the
e0pansion o! the universe is itsel! a physical processV moreover1 there is
a vectorial continuity equation1 analogous to a !iel equation o!
8a0wellGs1 which escribes the relationship o! spatial an temporal
variations in the ensity o! the vacuum !iel energy so that the spatial
variation o! this zero-point energy will have the same structure as the
temporal variation o! the zero-point energy ue to cosmological
e0pansion. 6he question then arises1 E what is the structure o! this
variation in vacuum energy ensity in !ree space1 where no mass-energy
is present?E
Fell1 the ensity o! the vacuum zero-point energy is only meaning!ul as
a physical quantity in relation to the ensity o! the mass-energy 5ust as
the energy o! a particle is only meaning!ul in relation to the energy o!
the vacuum state1 so the general time variation in the mass-energy
ensity ue to cosmological e0pansion shoul give us a clue to the
manner in which the vacuum energy ensity changes with timeV
provie that our hypothesis o! a ynamic vacuum energy mechanism
!or gravitational !iels is !unamentally correct. 6here!ore1 i! we
postulate this vacuum mechanism1 then it is clear that the time variation
o! the vacuum energy ensity in the universe ue to cosmological
e0pansion must be such that the ratio o! the temporal variation in
vacuum energy an mass-energy has the same mathematical structure as
the spatial variation in the ratio o! these two ensities about massive
boies which acts as a gravitational potential. "ince the gravitational
potential ecreases inverse linearly so that the strength o! the
gravitational !iel itsel! ecreases with the inverse square1 an since the
ensity o! vacuum energy Czero-point energyD must be smaller in
stronger gravitational potentials than at weaKer ones because
gravitational time ilation increases in step with the increasing potential1
it !ollows that the ratio o! mass-energy to vacuum energy must ecrease
inverse linearly to mimic the inverse linear variation in the magnitue o!
gravitational time ilationV remember that gravitational time ilation is
owing to a ecrease in available e0change energy with which all
physical processes are meiate. =ence1 since the ecrease in mass-
energy is with the inverse cube1 the ecrease in vacuum energy must
itsel! be with the inverse square. /t this point we note that the ecrease
in blacK hole energy ensity is with the inverse square o! blacK hole
raius. Fe are there!ore le to thinK o! a blacK hole as constituting the
ma0imum ensity o! mass-energy possible in the sense that all energy
e0changes occurring within the volume o! space occupie by the blacK
hole1 occur between the blacK hole an itsel!1 symmetrically1 with no
e0change energy le!t over to meiate matter-vacuum energy e0changes.
6his is presumably why the intensity o! gravitational time ilation is
in!inite at the sur!ace o! a blacK holeV the vacuum energy !luctuation
!iel Czero-point energyD no longer interacts with the blacK hole mass so
that no physical processes C which can be communicate to the
EoutsieED are meiate. /s state earlier1 it the interaction o! the
vacuum zero-point energy with quantum mechanical systems which is
wholly responsible !or all changes in the quantum mechanical
observables in the system1 i.e.1 temporality o! the system. 6he theory
o! quantum electroynamics e0plains the propagation o! !ermions an
bosons in the !ollowing manner: a massless photon propagates through
spacetime by continually trans!orming into an e+e- pair an bacK again
into a photon o! ientical energy Cassuming a !lat spacetimeD1 while an
electron propagates through spacetime by continually trans!orming into
ynamical system temporally evolves may be given a consistent
e!inition in terms o! the ratio o! the ensity o! energy e0changes o! the
system with its outsie environment to the ensity o! $-momentum
e0changes o! the system with itsel!. ?y this e!inition1 the most rapily
temporally evolving ynamical system woul be that o! the pristine
quantum mechanical vacuum state - the quantum vacuum in the absence
o! real particles or !iels. Fe must note that the notion o! the absolute
passage o! time1 i.e.1 the passage o! time !or reality as a whole1 is a
meaningless concept1 or at least1 a concept which cannot be given a sel!-
consistent !ormulation or interpretation. 6his !act is intimately relate to
the !act that a thermoynamic system to which the notion o! entropy
applies Cthe 2n .aw o! 6hermoynamicsD is by e!inition an open
system in the sense o! a system unergoing continual energy e0change
with a thermal reservoir or Eheat bath.E / completely close system1 as
note earlier1 woul possess initial an bounary conitions resulting in
the quantizing o! energy an momentum throughout the system giving it
a close state space an a 7oincare recurrence time which woul be
inistinguishable !rom a !inite (th spatial imension. Hn such a system1
with time being spatialize1 the notion o! the irection o! time is
completely arbitrary - there is not outsie to which the system is tie
which can serve as a memory o! the history o! the system to prevent the
system !rom being completely reversible. 6he system woul be ergoic
an possess a conserve phase space volume. Hn perturbation theory
within quantum mechanics1 we !in that an incompletely escribe
ynamical system is appro0imate by a =amiltonian possessing a
perturbation energy which may be thought o! as a system e0actly
escribe in terms o! a =amiltonian1 =)1 which is interacting with a
larger energy system through the perturbation =amiltonian1 =!luc which
is simply ae to =) such that the new wave!unction calculate !rom
this sum through the "chroinger equation is 5ust the new wave!unction
e0pane in terms o! the ol one e!ine in terms o! =). Hn this way the
actual system is seen to be the ol system unergoing virtual transition
between its energy eigen!unctions. 6he ol systemGs energy uncertainty
is represente in terms o! the perturbation energy associate with the
!luctuation =amiltonian1 =!luc. Hn this way1 it is seen that1 in general1
the temporal evolution o! any quantum system is representable in terms
o! the interaction o! an appro0imate system represente by a zeroeth
orer =amiltonian1 =)1 with its outsie environment !rom which is has
originally been abstracte. Fhen one has taKen into account all possible
perturbations ue to real particles an !iels interacting with the given
system in question1 one is le!t with the ineraicable resiue o! the
quantum vacuum itsel!. "o the concrete Can realD temporality o! any
quantum system1 when the mere appearance o! change in the system ue
to inaequacies in our nth orer perturbation e0pansion escription o!
the system have been taKen into account1 is wholly attributable to the
action o! the quantum mechanical vacuum. "o we now come to an
important istinction: changes in the system which are not irectly
measurable an hence unerstoo as virtual transitions between energy
levels o! an appro0imate =amiltonian escription o! the system versus
transitions between energy levels o! the system ue to an actual
incompleteness or openness o! the system escription ue to ontological1
i.e.1 actual1 ineterminacy or ine!initeness o! the system itsel!1 as
oppose to mere epistemological ine!initeness o! the system which is a
mere arti!act o! an incomplete quantum-perturbative analysis o! the
system. 6his is the istinction o! ontological versus epistemological
energy uncertainty o! a quantum mechanical system. 6his above
iscussion pertains to the istinction1 mae in an earlier letter1 o! /a;1
which H have sai may be wholly attributable to the observer1 an the
square root
"ince momentum an position are incompatible observables1 then so are
a !unction o! momentum an a !unction o! position. @ow the total
energy o! any quantum mechanical system1 the =amiltonian1 =Cp1rD1 is
the sum o! its Kinetic an potential energies1 =Cp1rD = !CpD + !CrD1 where
p an r are momentum an position1 respectively. "o by what has been
sai1 =Cp1rD cannot have a precise value - !or this woul imply
simultaneously precise values !or the Kinetic an potential energies1
which1 in turn1 woul imply simultaneous values o! p an r. "o the
value1 =Cp1rD must unergo !luctuations o! a !unamntal sort. @ow even
the vacuum is a quantum system1 i.e.1 a q.m. groun state. "o the
vacuumGs =amiltonian1 that is1 its total energy1 must also !luctuate.
6hese !luctuations interact with every particle an !iel1 introucing
uncertainty in the location o! particles in phase space1 i.e.1 0-p space.
9ctober 2)**
Ht seems liKely that =Cp1rD serves as the Rmeium o! e0changeS
in any trans!ormations o! potential energy into Kinetic energy
CgravitationD or o! Kinetic energy into potential energy CinertiaD an so
that the quantum vacuum as a momentum-energy !luctuation meium
provies the origin o! both inertia an gravitation. 8achian theory o!
inertia an gravitation: inertia inuces gravity as gravity inuces inertia.
"o-calle RarK matterS may be a mere symptom o! the application o!
prn=
8ach_s principle to the momentum-energy !luctuations o! the
quantum vacuum.
/ll measurement oes is alter the shape o! the area o! phase space
EoccupieE by the particle. 8easurement oes not change the area o!
phase space where this particle is liKely to be !oun CEoccupieE by this
particleED1 however. 6he particle oes not possess an e0act EpositionE
within the 0-p CphaseD space. Fe can never say be!orehan how the
vacuum !luctuations interacting with the particle Can out o! which the
particle is constitute an sustaineD will nonlocally resonate with the
vacuum !luctuations interacting at the time o! measurement with the
observerGs brain Cthe observerGs brain is also a quantum system1 ?6FD.
Aemember that qbar = sqrt[mqWW2 - /aqWW2 \ where mq is the !luctuations
o! q ue to the quantum vacuum an /aq is the uncertainty in q which
may be wholly attribute to the observerGs brain ue to the in!luence o!
vacuum energy !luctuations upon itT. Ht is the cooperation o! these two
terms which results in qbar1 the e0pectation value Cclassical valueD o! qT
6his perhaps remins some o! you o! =u0leyGs theory o! perception: the
receipt o! photons by the retina o! the observer results in a stimulation o!
the brain in such a way that its ether wave !ilters recon!igure so that the
signals representing the ob5ect seen are no longer screene out by the
consciousness reucing valve Cthe brain1 that isD which are then EpicKe
upE. 6he brain is then conceive o! as a Kin o! ether wave tuning
evice an perception is 5ust an altering o! the set o! !requencies o! ether
waves Cvacuum !luctuations1 i! you pre!er moern parlanceD which the
vacuum can resonate with where the brain acts only as a harware
inter!ace between two unboune sets o! inter!ering ether wave spectra.
6he brain on this view is simply a changeable an comple0 set o!
bounary conitions place upon the vacuum electromagnetic !ielGs
sel!-interactionT
Hs there some general relationship between the height o! the potential
barrier an the magnitue o! the energy uncertainty? 9r is there really
no general principle at worK here relating these two quantities? =X =
;X --Z YXW;XZ = Y;Z --Z YXWC;WW2DXZ = Y;WW2Z / YXW;XZWW2 =
Y;ZWW2
/a; = sPrtnY;WW2Z - Y;ZWW2o 1 where = = =C6CpD1IC0DD
Fhat is the relationship between the reuction o! the wavepacKet upon
an observation being per!orme on some quantum mechanical system
an the conversion o! virtual particles into real particles?
Ht may be possible to moi!y 7oissonGs equation1 Q
27/Q2r = (piCrhoD1
to inclue a 2n partial erivative o! 71 the potential1 with respect to the
time such that we might assimilate the 2n partial erivative with respect
to r to the state variable1 CrhoD
mass1 an assimilate the 2n partial
erivative o! 7 with respect to t to the state variable1 CrhoDvacuum1 so
that CrhoD in the above equation may be interprete as the space ensity
which is a locally conserve quantity.
.et us e0amine ;insteinGs !iel equation !or any potential mathematical
a!!inity it might have with respect to our equation relating the space
energy ensity to the sum o! the vacuum an mass energy ensities.
====Z 6
uv = -Auv -*/2Aguv
;ach o! these three terms are what are calle tensor ensities. 6hey have
physical imensions o! energy ensity. Hn 8achGs !ormula !or the spee
o! pressure wave oscillations in a continuous1 energy-conucting
meium1 the pressure is associate with the vacuum energy ensity since
the quantum vacuum always obeys the equation o! state that its pressure
an energy ensity are ientical. ?ut this ienti!ication leaves only one
possible !urther ienti!ication o! the meium energy ensityV that is1 the
energy ensity must be ienti!ie with the total energy ensity o! space1
what is terme within our theory1 the space ensity. Hn orer !or an
entropy an temperature to be assigne to the quantum vacuum1 we must
suppose that this vacuum remains in thermal equilibrium with this heat
reservoir1 the energy ensity o! which is the space ensity re!erre to
earlier.
Hntuitively1 i! any !urther ienti!ications are to be mae between terms
within our theory an terms within ;insteinGs theory1 then the !ollowing
ienti!ications might be mae:
6he scalar curvature1 A1 shoul be ienti!ie with the space ensity1 the
momentum-energy tensor1 6
uv1 shoul be ienti!ie with the mass-
energy ensity1 an the term1 -Auv1 shoul be ienti!ie with the vacuum
energy ensity. 6he term1 guv1 which in relativity theory is the
imensionless ot prouct o! the spacetime coorinate unit vectors1 eu
an ev1 may be alternatively interprete to correspon to the ratio o!
sum o! the momentum-energy an Aiemannian tensor ensities to the
scalar energy ensity. Fithin our theory1 the guv correspon to mi0e
2n orer partial erivatives o! the ratio o! the sum o! the vacuum scalar
energy ensity to the total space energy ensity.
00
virtual - virtual real - real real -
virtual

M---------------------------M M------------------------M
M---------------------------M
M 0 0 0 M M o o o o o M M 0 o 0 0 o
o o 0 M
M 0 0 0 M M o o o o M M 0 o oo 0
0 o M
M0 0 0 0 M M o o o o M M o o 0 0 o
o 0 M
M 0 0 0 M M o o o o M M 0 o o 0
0 oM
M 0 0 0 0 M M o o o o M M o o 0 0
0 o M
M 0 0 0 0 M M o o o o o oM M 0 0 o o
o 0M
M---------------------------M M------------------------M M o 0
o M

4 = , - "6 C!ree energyD is minimize an con!igurational entropy is
ma0imize when
rhoCvD = rhoCmD in the !ormation o! a blacK hole.
:o the partial erivatives o! the gravitational potential trans!orm liKe the
components o! a !our vector? Ht woul appear that an arbitrary .orenz
trans!ormation o! the *st orer partial erivatives o! a stanar static
gravitational potential shoul trans!orm so as to evince the e0istence o! a
time-varying potential1 an hence1 that o! a (-hyperspherical potential.

6here is an important istinction to be mae between massive an
massless particles. 6his istinction consists in the !act that a massive
particle which is seen to be at rest has a (-momentum which is purely
imaginary1 but which may be re-represente by a .orenz trans!ormation
in terms o! a new set o! real an imaginary components within some
i!!erent inertial re!erence !rame. 6his is not generally true o! massless
particles1 however. / massless particle1 such as a photon1 possesses a
relativistic (-momentum which is purely real in any an all inertial
re!erence !rames. 6here is no possible .orenz trans!ormation which can
succee in re-representing the (-momentum o! the photon as a mi0ture
o! real an imaginary momentum components. =owever1 in the case o!
real massive particles1 the relativistic mass increases e0actly in step with
the increase in imaginary momentum. 6his suggests that perhaps
photons o not possess a gravitational mass1 an that the true source o!
the gravitational !iel is a massive boyGs imaginary momentum. =ow
then1 i! this is true1 o we account !or the isappearance o! the
gravitational mass which results !rom the total conversion o! mass into
photon energy? :oes this energy isappear in the !orm o! longituinal
pressure waves in the quantum vacuum?
/ photon which is climbing out o! a gravitational potential must acquire
an imaginary component o! (-momentum relative to its previous
location within a stronger potential. Fe say1 then1 that a photon
possesses an imaginary momentum relative to a point in spacetime o!
greater gravitational potential.
6he inertial !rame-ragging e!!ect euce by .enz an 6hirring !rom
;insteinGs !iel equations1 may be unerstoo intuitively in the !ollowing
manner: angular momentum o! a massive gravitating boy as observe
!rom a great istance away Cwhere the boyGs gravitational potential has
!allen o!! appreciablyD appears greatly reuce when the observer is
transporte close to this boy. 6his change in the appearance o! the $-
angular momentum o! the massive boy in transporting the observer
!rom a re!erence !rame o! small gravitational potential to one possessing
large potential may be unerstoo in terms o! a i!!erent partitioning o!
the total conserve (-angular momentum o! the boy in the two
i!!erent1 locally 8inKowsKian !rames. Hn other wors1 (-angular
momentum which is mostly about an arbitrary z-a0is1 !or e0ample1 when
the boy is viewe !rom a region o! spacetime o! small potential1
Crelative to so-calle E!ree spaceED is rotate within (-imensional
spacetime in moving the observer to the region o! large potential in such
a way that most o! the (-angular momentum o! the boy now EappearsE
along the local time a0is within this spacetime. 6he angular momentum
seen by the more istant observer is hien !rom the observer in close
vicinity to the boy because he is occupying a space which is1 relative to
the istant observer1 spinning in the same sense as the boy itsel!. 6his
interpretation is consistent with the general relativistic e!!ect o!
perhelion precession which occurs in the sense opposite to the irection
o! the boyGs orbital motion.
Hn a conversation with ?rian "wi!t it was suggeste by me1 in connection
with a iscussion o! the ol ensity wave theory o! galactic spiral arm
!ormation1 that perhaps a spinning supermassive blacKhole lies at the
center o! any given spiral arm gala0y an that the .enz-6hirring inertial
!rame-ragging e!!ect coul be at least partially responsible Cmaybe also
in con5unction with ensity wavesD !or the !ormation o! the classic spiral
arm structure o!1 !or e0ample1 the 8ilKy Fay 4ala0y.
9utline o! a tape conversation between :r. ?rian "wi!t an Aussell
3larK
;nergy an time trans!orm in opposite manner within relativity !rom
how they trans!orm within the =eisenberg ,ncertainty 7rinciple. 6he
local velocity o! light is a!!ecte by a .orenz trans!ormation analogously
to the way time an length trans!orm within this trans!ormation. 6here
may be a i!!erence between energy an mass parallel to the istinction
between !ermions an bosons within quantum mechanics. Ht may be that
gravity is only generate by !ermions an not by bosons. ;nergy an
mass may not be equivalent in all re!erence !rames. 8ass an energy
may trans!orm in opposite manner within a .orenz trans!ormation. Aeal
!ermions isturb the normally balance renormalization which e0ists
between the vacuum !ermion an boson !luctuation !iels.
6here is no !unamental istinction between real bosons an virtual
bosons.

;n o! this installment o! the conversation between ? & A.
Ht is possible to unerstan !rom quantum theory1 the causal relationship
between the momentum - energy tensor an the space - time tensor o!
general relativity by noting a pair o! briging relations between these
tensors via the =eisenberg space-momentum an time-energy
uncertainty relations. 6hese uncertainty relations prevent the e!ining o!
precise1 eterministic tra5ectories !or particles moving within (-
imensional 8inKowsKi spacetime. Hn particular1 no precise tra5ectory
can be e!ine !or particles whose sole component o! motion is along
the 8inKowsKi ict a0is. "uch particles are observe to be Eat restE with
respect to the local system o! coorinates. Fhat oes it mean1 we may
asK1 !or a particle at rest to have an ill-e!ine tra5ectory1 as implie by
the =eisenberg principle? 9ne obvious interpretation is !or the particle
to lacK the continuous1 inepenent e0istence o! a classically escribe1
inert an atom-liKe substance.
6he analogue o! the particle - wave complementarity in quantum
theory is the ualism between mass an energy within the theory o!
relativity. 6he general absence o! either a precisely e!ine particle
position or momentum implies an oscillation o! the particle between its
particle an wave moe mani!estations which may be unerstoo in
terms o! the continual bacK-an-!orth trans!ormation o! matter !rom its
mass to its energy mani!estation. 6his spontaneous activity on the part o!
matter may be visualize in terms o! its continual re!ormation an
isintegration into mass an energy. 9nly massless particles are
reintegrate e0clusively !rom the vacuum energy. 6hough massive
particles are largely reintegrate out o! the energy o! the quantum
vacuum1 a tiny percentage o! this energy must be supplie internally1
that is1 !rom energy resources o! the mass itsel!. 6he measure o! this
!raction is the ratio o! the mass-energy an vacuum energy ensities
within the volume occupie by the mass. 6his tenency !or matter to
replenish itsel! !rom a !raction o! its own e0isting mass-energy in
competition with its reintegration out o! the locally available vacuum
energy may account !or the linKage o! inertia an gravitation. 6his
reintegration process may be moele as a constant process o! energy
e0change amongst matter particles in competition with energy
e0changes between these particles an the thermal reservoir o! the
vacuum nuclear electro-weaK !iel !luctuations necessitate by the
=eisenberg uncertainty principle.

6he e0change o! energy within quantum mechanical systems may be
generally characterize by three principle moes o! energy e0change:
!irst1 the e0change o! energy between mass-energy an itsel! which is
meiate by the totality o! !unamental !orce-carrying particles1
collectively Known as bosons. 6his particular moe o! energy e0change
is owing to the position-momentum mani!estation o! the generalize
=eisenberg principle. "econ1 the e0change o! energy between mass-
energy an the vacuum energy !iel which is the moe o! energy
e0change responsible !or the phenomena o! spontaneous emission1
nuclear ecay1 quantum mechanical tunneling1 etc.1 owes its origin to the
time-energy !orm o! the =eisenberg principle. -inally1 there is the
energy e0change moe taKing place between the vacuum energy !iel
an itsel!. 6his energy e0change moe we suspect powers the process o!
global cosmological e0pansion. Hn general1 an operator which oes not
commute with the =amiltonian operator1 i.e.1 [q1=\ a= )1 must e0perience
!luctuations. 6he =amiltonian itsel! is sub5ect to !unamental quantum
!luctuations so we may say that [=1=\ =a ). 6his means that changing the
orer in which we measure = maKes a i!!erence in the results o! our
measurement. 6his oesnGt seem to maKe sense unless we are speaKing
o! maKing these same measurements1 but in opposite time orer. H! this
is the correct interpretation o! [=1=\ =/ )1 then quantum !luctuations in
the =amiltonian o! spacetime may be responsible !or timeGs !unamental
asymmetry. ?ut how can = !ail to commute with itsel!? 6his moe also
constrains1 we believe1 the thermoynamic equilibrium o! mass-energy
systems embee within the e0paning mass-energy/vacuum-energy
system1 an so seems the most general mani!estation o! the =eisenberg
principle.

6he overarching system o! energy e0changes will altogether comprise a
total conservative energy system to which will correspon the
conservative !orce-!iel Known as gravitation. 9n this view1 gravitation
is not thought to be meiate by a unique !orce-carrying particle1 or
boson1 i.e.1 graviton1 but is a !unamentally EparasiticE !orce1 one which
epens !or its action on the collective interaction between matter1 its
!unamental e0change !orces1 an the total vacuum nuclear-electroweaK
!iel. "peci!ically1 it is the shi!t in the balance between the three types
o! energy e0change continually occurring within the quantum vacuum:
particle-particle1 particle-wave1 an wave-wave1 energy e0changes.
?ecause matter is continually being reintegrate !rom the vacuum
energy !iel which originally create it1 the transport o! matter particles
!rom one region o! vacuum locally1 to another region1 cannot1 on our
view1 be unerstoo as being !unamentally i!!erent !rom the
estruction o! these particles within one local region o! the vacuum !iel
Can subsequent conversion to vacuum energy within this regionD with
the subsequent re-creation o! these particles !rom the vacuum energy
locally available within the estination-region where they are ultimately
Ebrought to rest.E 6here!ore1 we believe that the total energy ensity o!
any given region o! locally ;ucliean $ - space may not be altere
through changes in the local istribution o! energy constitute by real
matter particles an !iels. Fe unerstan energy ensity more broaly
here as the total !our-momentum ensity o! local regions o! 8inKowsKi
spacetime1 an unerstan the conservation o! energy ensity as the
constancy o! total (-momentum ensity espite phenomenological
CapparentD variations in energy ensity Cclassically unerstooD within
local ;ucliean $-spaces. 6o wit1 though the magnitues o! the various
components o! the total (-momentum ensity may change within an
arbitrary $-volume o! ;ucliean space1 the magnitue o! the total (-
momentum ensity o! spacetime oes not change locallyV that is to say1 it
oes not change observably over relatively small istances an times
within a 8inKowsKi metric.
6he so-calle mass-energy re!ormation process is limite by the ensity
o! available vacuum !iel energy out o! which real particle/!iel energy
systems must constantly re!orm themselves1 an there is an antagonistic
relationship between real particle/!iel energy an virtual particle/!iel
energy such that the relative alterations in the ensities o! each be
constraine by the principle o! their conservation in total combination
through the principle o! conservation o! total (-momentum ensity.

Hn general outline1 the mechanism o! gravitation worKs through the
parallel connections mentione earlier between the momentum-energy
tensor an the space-time tensor in the !ollowing manner: a ecrease in
the positional uncertainty o! a collection o! particles inuces an increase
in the momentum uncertainty o! these particles1 one which is associate1
through the e!inition o! momentum uncertainty within quantum
mechanics1 with an increase in the collective energy o! the particles
which cannot originate with the !orces initially bringing the particles
together. 3onsequently1 to conserve energy1 this energy must be
supplie !rom somewhereV we maintain that this energy is supplie by
the quantum vacuum. 6his consequent ecrease in the energy o! the
vacuum energy !iel leas1 in turn1 to an increase in the energy o! other
istributions o! particles alreay occupying the general region o! this
moi!ie vacuum state. 6his increase in energy o! the other particles
occurs through an increase in the e0pectation value o! the square o! the
particles momentum1 but without altering the quantum e0pectation value
o! the magnitue o! the particles total (-momentum Cconsistent with
special relativityD. 6he only consistent way o! e!!ecting such a change in
the quantum state o! these particles is !or the momentum uncertainty o!
the particles to increase. Hn turn1 the positional uncertainty o! these
neighboring particles must ecrease1 an in such a manner that the total
system o! particles e0periences a ecrease in its positional uncertainty.
6he speci!ic manner in which the particles o this is by being attracte
towar the center o! mass o! the total particle istribution - an e!!ect
which mani!ests itsel! generally in the phenomenon o! gravitational
attraction. ?ecause a particleGs energy uncertainty is not an intrinsic
property o! the particle itsel!1 but must be communicate to the particle
through the interaction o! the particle an the vacuum energy !iel
sustaining its e0istence1 the communication o! energy uncertainty
between particles istribute throughout space is a!ter the !ashion o! an
inverse-square law. 9! course1 a collection o! particles may not really be
thought to have a e!ine positional uncertainty unless these particles
!orm with one another a boun system o! particles. 6his is why we
suspect that the gravitational !orce is only capable o! coupling to bining
energy so that the energy o! the unconstraine vacuum may not itsel! be
thought to gravitateV it is only spatiotemporal variations in the energy o!
the vacuum !iel which may be thought to prouce gravitational e!!ects.
Hn !act1 it is the tenency o! massive boies to hol themselves together
against the opposite tenency o! the cosmological acceleration !iel to
isperse the particles !orming these boies1 which sets up the spherically
symmetric imbalance in the istribution an !low o! the vacuum energy
!iel C in the case o! spherically symmetric matter istributions D which
mani!ests itsel! as the gravitational !iel engenere by these an all
other massive boies within the e0paning universe.
6hree-momentum is conserve in particle collisions because the
acceleration o! a particle always involves the rotation o! its (-
momentum1 escribable by a .orenz trans!ormation1 an equal an
opposite (-momentum rotations on the part o! the colliing particles
always resultsV this is 5ust a relativistic e0pression o! @ewtonGs action-
reaction principle. Hn the case o! two colliing particles with ) initial
an !inal total net momentum1 an arbitrary quantity o! energy may be
supplie to the two particles without isturbing the net momentum o! the
particles. 6his may be regare as a special instance o! a property o!
momentum which is normally not obvious to an observer con!ine in his
observations to the three imensions o! ;ucliean space1 but which is
always operative within the conte0t o! the higher imensionality o!
8inKowsKi spacetime. /ccelerations merely have the e!!ect o! rotating
the (-momentum o! particles within 8inKowsKi space1 as mentione
earlier1 an so the magnitue o! a particleGs (-momentum can never be
altere. Hn general1 !orces are mani!estations o! momentum e0changes
between the local imaginary an real momenta o! particles an !iels.
Fhen these momenta e0changes are renere asymmetrical1 the $-
momenta o! particles an !iels are not generally conserve. Fithin a
hypersur!ace o! simultaneity in !lat 8inKowsKi space1 the vacuum $-
momenta are conserve espite the participation o! the vacuum energy
!iel in the local cosmological velocity !iel. 6his is ue to the inherent
symmetry o! the momenta e0changes between the real an imaginary
vacuum momentum components. 6he presence o! matter inuces an
asymmetry in the momentum e0changes between the vacuumGs real an
imaginary components o! momentum re!lecte in the asymmetry o! the
vacuumGs sel!-energy e0changes. Fhen energy is spontaneously
imparte to a massy particle an then returne spontaneously to the
vacuum energy !iel1 within this brie! interval o! time1 the energy state
o! the local vacuum has altere slightly in the irection o! ecreasing
vacuum energy ensity so that each time the energy originally imparte
to the mass is pai bacK to the vacuum1 the vacuum receives in return a
slightly smaller quantity o! energy. 6he result o! this is that the mass o!
the particle continually increases very slowly with passing time as the
universe continues to e0pan uring the course o! the constant e0change
o! energy between the particle an the vacuum in which it is embee.
Ht is this constant e0change o! energy between the particle an its
vacuum energy !iel which is responsible !or the magnitue o! the
particles momentum/energy uncertainty. Fe term this the Eperturbation
interpretationE o! the =eisenberg uncertainty principle. ?ecause the
cosmological e0pansion rate is locally constant1 the imaginary
momentum o! particles is always increasing very slowly with the
cosmological e0pansion. Ht can be inepenently emonstrate that the
real momentum o! particles is always increasing at the very same rate as
is their imaginary momentum. H! the mass o! a boy is relativistically
increase1 then i! the magnitue o! its (-momentum is to be conserve1
then the (-momentum o! this massive boy must e0perience a rotation in
8inKowsKi space which 5ust compensates the e!!ect o! this increase in
mass on the imaginary momentum o! the boy. Hn brie!1 we say that an
acceleration !iel inuces an increase in the relativistic mass o! a boy1
an conversely1 a !iel which inuces an increase in the relativistic mass
o! a boy1 must itsel! constitute an acceleration !iel.
6he presence o! a real !ermion inhibits the appearance o! certain virtual
!ermion-anti!ermion pairs out o! the vacuum because1 by the 7auli
e0clusion principle1 a virtual !ermion in the same quantum state as the
real !ermion which is alreay present is !orbien to appear where the
positional uncertainties o! the real an virtual !ermions were to overlap.
6hus1 the creation o! the entire pair within this region o! overlapping
positional uncertainty is suppresse. 6here shoul1 o! course1 be some
sort o! smooth ecay o! this suppressive e!!ect o! real !ermions on the
creation o! virtual !ermion-anti!ermion pairs in the vacuum away !rom
the center o! the Evolume o! positional uncertaintyE within which the
real !ermion is to be !oun. Hn a similar manner1 an energy o! 2m
sc
2
must be create out o! the vacuum in orer !or a blacK hole o! mass
energy1 m
sc
21 to EevaporateE via the emission o! =awKing raiation. Hn
the case o! bosons1 the opposite principle is operating. 6his principle
might be terme the 7auli Einclusion principle.E 6he more bosons we
have in a particular quantum state1 the greater is the probability that
more bosons will enter this same quantum state. Fe might1 there!ore1
e0pect the presence o! real matter to enhance the probability o!
spontaneous emission/absorption o! virtual bosons !rom the vacuum in a
quantum state with operator values closely appro0imating those
e0pectation values escribing the bosons meiating the mean nuclear
electro-weaK !iel responsible !or the bining !orces o! this matter. 9!
course1 what we are really saying here is that the operator e0pectation
values themselves !or vacuum operators are altere1 or shi!te in value1
!rom their E!ree spaceE values. 6his alteration in the vacuum !iel may
be viewe as stemming !rom either: *D a shi!t in the value o! the
quantum operators1 2D an alteration o! the vacuum wave!unction acte
upon by the quantum operators1 or $D a combination o! both *D an 2D.
Hn the particular case where only the vacuum wave!unction itsel! is
altere1 we might interpret this in terms o! an alteration o! the vacuum
=amiltonian !rom which the vacuum wave!unction is calculate. Fe
alreay Know that any alteration in the =amiltonian escribing the
energy o! a harmonic oscillator will result in the oscillator unergoing a
change in its zero-point oscillations1 that is to say1 the oscillator will
su!!er a shi!t in its zero-point energy. /ny change to the zero-point
energy o! a harmonic oscillator may be moele on a change in the
oscillatorGs =amiltonian owing e0clusively to the appearance o! an
aitional potential term within the =amiltonian !unction o! the
oscillator.
H! we want to integrate the quantum mechanical an relativistic e!!ects o!
matter on the vacuum nuclear electro-weaK !iel1 then we must reconcile
the in!luence1 which changing mass-energy istributions have upon the
uncertainty relations within the vacuum1 with our requirement that the
variations in vacuum momentum-energy an position-time uncertainties
be connecte to one another along contiguous points in spacetime by
series o! instantaneous .orenz trans!ormations. H! the energy structure
o! the vacuum is moele as a crystalline lattice o! couple harmonic
oscillators1 then the reconcilement o! the two so-calle =eisenberg an
;instein e!!ects o! matter upon the vacuum energy !iel might be
possible. Fe might succee in oing this by introucing 5ust the sort o!
a hoc potential term allue to earlier. ?y this 1 we mean the potential
!unction which incorporate into the =amiltonian o! the vacuumGs
oscillator meshworK e!!ects the esire spatio-temporal alteration in the
vacuumGs zero-point energy. "uch a spatio-temporal variation in the
vacuumGs zero-point energy shoul recoup all o! the anticipate general
relativistic e!!ects1 e.g.1 gravitational reshi!t1 light e!lection1 time
ilation1 length contraction1 mass increase1 etc. Ht shoul achieve this
while at the same time e0plaining a concomitant change in the ?ose-
;instein an -ermi-:irac statistics o! the vacuum consistent with the
application o! wave!unction symmetry/antisymmetry to the interaction
o! matter an vacuum. Fe might begin oing this by e0plaining away1 i!
you will1 the seemingly inconsistent emans o! the time/energy
e0pression o! the =eisenberg principle an the relativistic e0pressions
!or time an energy within relativity theory. 6his must be one with
respect to the preicte interactions o! time an energy uncertainty
within both theories. -irst1 let us note that both principles1 ;insteinGs
an =eisenbergGs1 agree with one another concerning the relationships o!
changes in length an positional uncertainty1 on the one han1 an
momentum an momentum uncertainty1 on the other han. Fhere these
two theories con!lict1 is in comparing the e!!ect o! a change in energy
uncertainty on the value o! the time uncertainty: relativity preicts that a
relativistic increase in energy uncertainty will be accompanie by a
relativistic increase in time uncertainty1 while =eisenberg uncertainty
principle preicts that an increase in the energy uncertainty o! a quantum
mechanical system Chere1 a relativistic increaseD will be associate with a
ecrease in the time uncertainty o! the system. 6he solution to this
ilemma may lie with the simple !act that position an time are not on
an equal !ooting with one another as they are within the special relativity
theory - there is no operator corresponing to the time variable within
quantum mechanics as in the case o! position1 momentum an energy.
9r the solution may lie with the possible inconsistencies o! the notion o!
energy uncertainty within both theories. 6his may be ue to a eeper
inconsistency in the e!inition energy within both theories. ;nergy in
quantum mechanics is e!ine as the =amiltonian !unction whereas the
energy re!erre to in relativity theory is the mass-energy1 or1 perhaps1 the
Kinetic energy. 6he =amiltonian is1 o! course1 the sum o! both the
Kinetic an potential energies o! the quantum system.
9! course1 i! the vacuum moele as a :ebye soli1 that is1 as a networK
o! couple harmonic oscillators1 then the =amiltonian escribing this
system o! oscillators must be consistent with relativity. 6he potential
energy o! the =amiltonian must be a !unction o! not only 01y an z1 but
must also be a !unction o! the variable1 ict1 within the 8inKowsKi metric.
6he Kinetic energy component o! this vacuum =amiltonian must be a
!unction o! all !our components o! the relativistic (-momentum vector o!
special relativity.
7erhaps we may thinK o! virtual particle reactions as lying Eo!! the mass
shellE between two e0treme points o!!-shell. 6hese are: virtual
momentum !luctuations with negligible virtual !luctuations in energy1
an virtual energy !luctuations with negligible virtual !luctuations in
momentum. Fe may liKen the spontaneous creation o! virtual bosons
!rom the vacuum as pure momentum !luctuations1 an o! virtual
!ermion-anti!ermion pairs as pure energy !luctuations o! this vacuum.
Hs spin another name !or angular momentum about the ict a0is? Hs it
possible1 then1 !or a spin ) particle to possess a component o! angular
momentum within the three normal spatial imensions? H! so1 then
woulnGt this constitute a starK violation o! the principle o! the
relativistic invariance o! angular momentum?
6here is an apparent parao0 associate with the gravitational reshi!t o!
starlight preicte by ;insteinGs theory o! general relativity. 6he general
theory e0plains this reening o! the sunGs light1 !or instance1 as being
ue to the !act that the energy o! photons has an inertia associate with it
an that1 there!ore1 the photons must give up the requisite energy in
overcoming the "unGs gravitational potential as they !ly away !rom the
"un1 o!! to in!inity. 6he speci!ic parao0 is seen when one consiers the
reverse o! this process1 the gravitational EbluingE o! starlight as it !alls
into a gravitational potential1 an then imagines EbouncingE photons o!!
o! a huge mirror statione close to the sur!ace o! the "un1 presumable
in a very tight circular orbitT 7hotons leaving the ;arth !or the "un1 !or
e0ample1 e0perience an increase in their energy CEbluingED which will
e0actly o!!set the ecrease in their energy on their return 5ourney1 a!ter
bouncing o!! the mirror1 so that the wavelength o! these photons will not
i!!er !rom that when initially leaving the ;arth.
Fhen particles are compresse into a progressively smaller volume o!
space1 the positional uncertainty o! all the particles ecreases.
3onsequently1 the momentum uncertainty o! all o! the particles will
increase. /lthough the quantum mechanical e0pectation value o!
momentum !or the particles will not be a!!ecte by a change in the
momentum uncertainty o! the particles1 nor the square o! the e0pectation
value o! the momentum1 the e0pectation value o! the square o! the
momentum will change1 however - it will increase. 6his all !ollows !rom
the mere e!inition o! momentum uncertainty in quantum mechanics.
6his is to say that the total energy o! the particles will be increase
simply by virtue o! the obvious ecrease in quantum positional
uncertainty o! the particles as a result o! their having been con!ine to a
smaller volume. @ote that this energy con!erre to the particles cannot
be e0plaine in terms o! any worK which might have been per!orme
upon the particles in the process o! pushing them together1 as we might
have taKen1 theoretically1 any amount o! !orce at all in pushing them
together1 epening upon how much time we were willing to taKe in
oing so. 6his is yet another reason !or believing that the collective
vacuum energy !iel is associate with the operation o! a conservative
!orce-!iel. H! we have not really imparte any energy to these particles
simply by virtue o! having move them together somewhat1 then how
are we to e0plain the appearance o! this energy in such a manner that the
total energy o! the volume occupie by the particles remains constant1
that is to say1 so that the total energy o! this volume is conserve? Fe
might postulate a Kin o! hien energy which1 along with the particles1
also occupies their space. Fe might !urther suppose that these particles
may be thought to be mae out o! this energy so that an increase in the
energy o! particles within a particular volume o! space becomes tie to a
corresponing an compensating ecrease in the amount o! this hien
energy such that the total energy o! the volume remains unchange - a
Kin o! raical energy conservation principle. 9ne way to maKe such an
assumption1 an there are inee many i!!erent ways in which this
assumption might be realize1 woul be to postulate that there is a !ourth
component o! particle momentum1 previously unsuspecte1 itsel!
unchange by our having pushe the particles together1 but possessing a
square whose quantum e0pectation value has been altere in a manner
which e0actly cancels the changes in the e0pectation values o! the
squares o! the usual three inepenent components o! momentum along
the 01 y an z a0es o! a 3artesian coorinate system. 9ne way !or the
momentum o! the particles along the hypothetical Ew-a0is1E as well as
along the other three a0es1 to remain unchange1 with the energy o! the
particles changing at the same time1 woul be i! the masses o! the
particles were permitte to change in inverse proportion to the change in
the velocity o! the particles along this new w-a0is. Fe can succee in
oing this by permitting the particles to possess a negative Kinetic
energy which is ecrease as the particles are pushe together. ?ut
turning to an analogy with the case o! a particle EtunnelingE through a
potential barrier1 any change in the necessarily negative Kinetic energy o!
the tunneling particle coul be compensate !or through 5uicious
instantaneous a5ustment o! the height o! the potential barrier though
which it is moving1 that is to say1 through the appearance o! a Kin o! a
hoc potential term which is to be ae to the original barrier potential1
IC0D. H! we ienti!y this a hoc potential so-calle with the gravitational
potential1 then two things immeiately !ollow: *D a gravitational
potential e0ists in space whether or not matter is presentV it is built into
the very structure o! space itsel!. /n1 2D matter has the peculiar e!!ect
o! altering this essentially cosmologically-base potential through
quantum mechanical interactions taKing place between all matter
particles an the continuum o! space in which they are embee. 6he
quantum vacuum o!!ers itsel! as a logical caniate !or this meium o!
space Caether1 i! you willD with which all matter particles are in
interaction. 8oreover1 the variation o! the ensity o! this vacuum
energy ue to the process o! the cosmological e0pansion o! space
provies a logical basis !or our postulate potential barrier.
6he increase in energy o! this hypothetical system o! particles is base
on the ecrease in their mutual positional uncertainty an the masses o!
the particles are irrelevant to the etermination o! this energy increase.
H! gravitational e!!ects are to be ultimately trace to variations in the
energy uncertainty o! mass-energy istributions1 leaing in turn to a
moi!ication in the cosmological spatiotemporal variation in the vacuum
nuclear-electroweaK !iel !rom its equilibrium momentum ensity in so-
calle !ree-space1 then there must be some means o! e!ining the masses
o! particles1 as well as the mass equivalence o! !iel energies1 in terms o!
their bining or sel!-energies alone. .orenz attempte to o this in the
early *2))G
s with respect to the mass o! the electronV he trie to e!ine
the mass o! the electron e0clusively in terms o! its electromagnetic sel!-
energy. =e was1 however1 unsuccess!ul1 an to my Knowlege1 no
!urther e!!orts have been mae to repeat the attempt.
.et us looK at this question in term o! a hope!ully illustrative analogy.
"uppose instea o! simple monochromatic light1 we sen a moulate
carrier wave o! electromagnetic raiation !rom the ;arth to the "un an
bacK again. "uppose the moulation upon the carrier wave was a simple
6I transmission o! a normally !unctioning analogue wall clocK.
Q?

7article creation at the event horizon o! a blacK hole gives rise to a
precisely thermal spectrum. 6his suggests that the vacuum itsel! is in
thermal equilibrium with itsel! so that the vacuum must be continually
e0changing energy with itsel!. because the time rate o! change o! all
physical quantities epens on the e0istence o! energy uncertainty1 q/t
= [=1 q\ + ![=1q\1 where ![=1q\ is usually written as Qq/Qt. 9n this
view1 quantum mechanical systems possess energy uncertainty because
they are continually perturbe by intrinsic vacuum energy !luctuations.
Hn this way1 all mass-energy systems are in a process o! constant energy
e0change with the quantum mechanical vacuum. "ince all macroscopic
trans!ers an e0changes o! energy between two points in spacetime are
meiate via the submicroscopic energy e0changes occurring within the
vacuum1 it !ollows that conservation o! energy macroscopically is
epenent upon conservation o! energy e0changes within the vacuum.
6he temporal evolution o! the quantum vacuum is1 there!ore1 meiate
by its own action. / number o! conclusions !ollow !rom this !act. *D
the vacuum_s energy is conserve1 but not by virtue o! this energy
possessing a eterminate quantity: the vacuum_s energy is conserve
even though it is an
ineterminate quantity.
Ht is not possible to istinguish i!!erent time rates o! change within a
close ynamical system. 6his is because such a close system
possesses only a !inite number o! iscrete energy levels1 an when the
total system is in a particular energy eigenstate1 its energy uncertainty is
) so that there are no vacuum !luctuations available with which to
meiate changes in physical observables o! the system.
Fe may e!ine the istance separating two events as a !unction o! the
number o! vacuum momentum !luctuations e0isting between the two
sai events. "imilarly1 we may e!ine the time interval between two
such events as a !unction o! the number o! vacuum energy !luctuations
e0isting between the two sai events. 9! course1 the partitioning o! the
relativistic momentum - energy tensor into pure momentum versus pure
energy components is epenent upon the particular .orenz re!erence
!rame within which one per!orms the momentum an energy
measurements.
"ince the energy levels at which in!ormation is store in a neural
networK are e!ine in terms o! the lowest stable energy o! the neural
networK as a whole1 virtual energy transitions between these energy
levels presuppose a coupling between the wave!unctions escribing the
quantum mechanical states o! all o! the iniviual neurons o! the
networK in the sense o! their being nonlocally connecte.
Ht is the spontaneous coherence in which the neural networK is embee
which provies the ultimate conte0t within which the neurological
events are to be interprete. 6his coherent !iel is that o! the nonlocally
connecte vacuum electromagnetic !luctuation !iel.
6he many worls interpretation o! the quantum measurement problem
may be unerstoo as a reversal in causal relationship between the
uncollapse wave!unction representing the min o! the observer an the
uncollapse wave!unction representing the potentialities o! the quantum
mechanical system being observe by this min in the !ollowing
manner: when the observer notes the collapse o! the wave!unction with
respect to an observable he is attempting to measure1 what is actually
occurring is the collapse o! the wave!unction escribing the observers
min so that it now abstracts !rom the Feltall one particular eigenvalue
o! the ob5ect wave!unction1 but without inucing a collapse o! the ob5ect
wave!unction itsel!. 9ne might asK what is the !unamental i!!erence
between these two interpretations i! there is not some thir realm1
inepenent o! both the observerGs an ob5ect wave!unctions in terms o!
which one interpretation might be !avore over the other as being
ontologically prior. 6his thir realm belongs neither to that o! causality
Cthe mutual interaction o! collapse wave!unctionsD1 nor to that o!
contingency Cthe interaction o! collapse with uncollapse
wave!unctions1 an vice versaD1 but to that realm constitute solely by
the mutual interaction o! all uncollapse wave!unctions. 6his realm we
may re!er to as the composite contingency - necessity mani!ol or
continuum. 6here is an e0actly parallel assimilation between the
category space - time with our category o! necessity - contingency. Hn
this way we may realize that the concepts o! locality an nonlocality
constitute a istinction which cuts across that constitute by the polar
concepts chance an necessity.
4oo is that which enhances creativity which is the e0plicit e0pression
o! implicitly integral wholeness. ;vil constitutes that which seeKs to
estroy1 con!use1 isintegrate as well as to impair the e0pression o! unity
an wholeness through creativity. /ll creativity is in reality re-creativity.
6he probability spectrum o! a given wave!unction may be
overetermine so that there e0ists an unlimite number o! ways in
which an ensemble o! measurements o! the eigenstates o! the
wave!unction with respect to a particular observable may sum together
so that the wave!unction appears per!ectly normalizeV this property may
permit an aitional egree o! !reeom within quantum mechanical
virtual processes not previously suspecte to e0ist.
6here is an absolute simultaneity which mental events istinctly en5oy
ue to the !act that they o not amit o! perspectiveV i! anything they
constitute perspective. =owever1 the orer in which neurophysiological
occurrences occur C in the brainD is at least partially epenent upon the
re!erence !rame Cin the relativistic senseD that these events occur Cas
observablesD. 6here must be an embeing o! these neural events in a
substrate which e0tens beyon the merely neurophysiological in orer
!or a re!erence !rame to be e!ine in which there can arise a
corresponence between sub5ective an ob5ective simultaneities.
"ince it is the pattern o! virtual particle emission an absorption which
every real particle continually unergoes which etermines the mass o!
the particle1 it !ollows that real particle masses are etermine through
the particular manner in which real particles e0change energy with the
!luctuating quantum vacuum !ielV consequently1 alterations in the
ensity o! the vacuum !iel energy will a!!ect the masses o! particles
occupying this vacuum. Fe might e0pect that this relationship between
mass-energy an vacuum-energy is symmetrical in nature because the
interactions meiating the continual e0change o! energy between matter
an vacuum are themselves reversible interactions. 6his two-way
causal1 symmetrical relationship between mass energy an vacuum
energy within quantum !iel theory remins us o! a similar relationship
between mass an space-time curvature within the theory o! general
relativity: the presence o! mass within a given region o! spacetime
prouces an aitional curvature in this spacetimeV also1 an increase in
the curvature o! a particular region o! spacetime prouces an increase in
the mass o! particles or material boies alreay occupying this region.
"ince spatio-temporal variations in the energy ensity o! the vacuum
energy !iel are correlate with variations in spacetime curvature1 we
might suppose that some sort o! con!ormal mapping relationship obtains
between the ratio o! real particle to virtual particle energy ensities an
the egree o! mutual inclination o! the time an space a0es C o! the
8inKowsKi light cone D to one another. 6his relationship is also
suggeste by the !act that real particles are virtual particles which have
been promote to the level o! real e0istence through the absorption o!
energyV particles are e0citations o! the vacuum state which is itsel! a
reservoir or sea o! virtual particles. /lso1 through the application 8achGs
!ormula !or the spee o! soun to this vacuum energy reservoir1 we see
that such a con!ormal mapping relationship between ;insteinian space-
time curvature an spatial-temporal variations in the zero-point energy
o! the vacuum Cor1 alternatively1 its energy ensityD must involve
mappings between the hypersoli angle swept out by the light line in
!our-imensional C8inKowsKi D spacetime1 an the energy ensity Cor
pressureD o! the vacuum.
Puantum 8echanics tells us that a close ynamical system may only
unergo temporal evolution provie that a certain energy uncertainty
e0ists within the system. 6his energy uncertainty is 5ust the stanar
eviation o! the energy about its mean or e0pectation value. 6his energy
uncertainty may be interprete in terms o! a time-average sum o!
ranom energy perturbations to the system E!rom outsieE the system.
6hese ranom energy perturbations mani!est themselves in the !orm o!
energy e0changes between the quantum mechanical system an the sea
o! virtual particles in which this system is embee. 6he interaction o!
these virtual particles with the quantum mechanical system are
responsible !or virtual transitions o! the quantum state o! the system to
other quantum states. 6he only real energy transitions available to the
quantum mechanical CynamicalD system are those !rom amongst the set
o! virtual energy transitions which are continually occurring within the
time interval speci!ie by the systemGs time uncertainty. 6he ensity o!
this virtual particle energy sea has a irect bearing upon the rate o!
temporal evolution o! any given quantum mechanical system. 9ur
central hypothesis is that the presence o! matter has a perturbing e!!ect
upon this virtual particle energy sea1 i.e.1 the quantum vacuum !iel1 an
this perturbing e!!ect is1 namely1 to ecrease the overall ensity o! this
vacuum energy which results in a similar ecrease in the time rate o!
change o! all physical processes within the spatial volume occupie by
this matter. 6his propose vacuum mechanism is e0actly similar to the
mechanism by which a quantum resonant cavity ecreases the rate o!
spontaneous emission o! Gcavity - etuneG photons by a Ayberg e0cite
atom. 6he resonant cavity achieves this by e0cluing most o! the
photons o! hal!-wavelength larger than the cavity iameter: to wit1 it
oes this by ecreasing the energy ensity o! vacuum electromagnetic
!iel !luctuations o! roughly the same energy as that o! the suppresse
atomic energy transitions.
Hn the !irst couple o! ecaes a!ter the !irst Eatom - smashingE
e0periments per!orme with the primitive particle accelerators o! the
*2$)Gs1 it ha been suppose that the particle proucts o! these violent
collisions were actually pieces o! the colliing particles which ha been
5arre loose by the suen impulsive !orce o! their slamming together.
?ut soon a!ter this early perio the Kinetic energies o! the particles going
into these accelerator collisions began to signi!icantly e0cee the
combine mass - energy o! the particles which themselves initiate the
reaction1 with the result that the en prouct o! these collisions was a set
o! particles with iniviual member particles possessing a mass greater
than the combine mass o! the particles originally participating in the
collision. 6he common sense EbroKen piecesE e0planation o!
accelerator proucts now ha to be moi!ie in some way or re5ecte
outright. 6wo alternative interpretations o! this Emass parao0E were
suggeste by particle theorists: either the prouct particles were create
!rom the e0citation o! the vacuum by the Kinetic energy o! the collision
with the EinputE particles serving as the points o! application o! the
e0citation energy1 or they were really insie the initial particles all along
but the e0cess mass - energy was being e0actly balance by an equal an
opposite negative energy ue to the internal bining !orces holing the
particles together.
6hanKs !or the response. /n energy eigenstate is an abstraction in the
sense that only a close system can be in an energy eigenstate1 but
thermoynamically this is not possible because o! the !act that vacuum
!luctuations in momentum-energy cannot be screene CKina liKe
gravityD. "ome moes can be screene o! course an the 3asimir ;!!ect
is an e0ample o! this. ?ut in this case only momentum !luctuations1
virtual photons1 are being suppresse here. Iirtual electron/positron
pairs are not suppresse1 in !act1 the probability o! the
creation/annihilation o! these pairs is actually enhance between the
3asimir plates. Fe may thinK o! virtual !ermion/anti!ermion creation-
annihilation events as energy !luctuations1 collectively o! spin ) an the
photon
creation-annihilations as momentum !luctuations o! spin *. 6ogether1
the spin ) energy !luctuations an the spin * momentum !luctuations
may be consiere to be a !luctuating momentum-energy !our vector o!
e0pectation value !or 6Ci1KD Cmomentum-energy tensorD = ) an this is
part o! the reason that the vacuum oes not gravitate1 H believe. 4etting
bacK to the main point1 as long as there is a !luctuation component to the
=amiltonian1 which cannot be completly remove through supplie
bounary conitions1 the system will never e0ist in a true energy
eigenstate an will be !orce to temporally evolve ue to the e0change
o! momentum energy between the system an its !luctuation
=amiltonian Cthe vacuum !luctuationsD.
:uring uni!orm acceleration1 the space an time a0es are isplace by
twice the angle relative to each other as o these a0es relative to their
inertial !rame counterparts.
6he !act that composite matter cannot e0ist as virtual particles suggests
that it is only composite matter1 i.e.1 matter possessing a bining energy
over an above that o! the vacuum constituting the elementary particles
separately. 6his !act suggests that the particle vacuum !iels o not1 in
isolation1 possess a istinct gravitational !iel.
Aelative versus absolute spacetime rotations are important in connection
with spin statistics.
"upposing the quantum vacuum itsel! can be the source o! a
gravitational !iel leaves no quantum mechanism Cbehin the scenesD
available to meiate gravitation.
3ertainly the positive e!inite signature o! the 8inKowsKi metric is
intimately relate to the symmetry an antisymmetry o! the
wave!unctions escribing !ermions an bosons.
?ecause topology is constitute by spin statistics o! virtual particles the
energy o! the zero-point !iel !alls outsie o! the scope o! general
relativity.
?ecause energy uncertainty rives temporal evolution an gravitation
can only mani!est itsel! by e!lection o! timeliKe vectors so that they
acquire spaceliKe components1 it !ollows that the unerlying ynamism
o! gravity must be the energy !luctuations o! the quantum vacuum.
?ecause an ob5ect_s energy is even i! only in a tiny part reconstitute
!rom out o! its own energy1 the ob5ect cannot move along its own time
a0is at the spee o! light.
Hn the e0change o! substance in the continual reconstitution o! an ob5ect
there is a iscontinuity an hence topological change.
:oes the quantum vacuum possess an unbroKen spin 2 gauge symmetry1
obviating the nee !or a spin 2 e0change boson?
@ormally1 symmetric an antisymmetric wave!unctions cannot be
superpose. 6he wave!unctions escribing bosons an !ermions are in
this sense orthogonal. Ht may be that the orientation o! spins !or spin )
an spin * particles are normally mutually orthogonal. Fe have the
bosonization o! !ermions1 but there oes not appear to be any such
phenomenon as the !ermion-ization o! bosons.
*. Hn what is calle the 3asimir e!!ect1 parallel electrically conucting
plates separate by some small istance1 1 e0clue all moes o! vacuum
electromagnetic !iel !luctuations1 i.e.1 virtual photons1 o! hal!-
wavelength greater than . 6he plates moi!y the v.e.!. moe structure
o! the vacuum between the plates. H! energy is supplie to the plates too
rapily1 separating the plates to a new1 larger istance1 G1
nonaiabatically1 then when the ol wave!unction escribing the !ormer
con!iguration o! the plates is e0pane in terms o! the new set o! energy
eigen!unctions representing the new set o! v.e.!. moes1 the vacuum will
be !oun to be in an electromagnetically e0cite state with one o! the
moes above the groun state now occupie by a photon. 6his
correspons to the creation o! a real photon !rom the moi!ie vacuum.
2. "uch a photon woul have to be passing through a !iel proviing the
energy necessary to prevent the electron positron pair !rom recombining
to give bacK the original photon. -or e0ample the photon woul have to
pass very close to an atomic nucleus so that the pair woul be separate
by the nucleusG electric !iel.
$. H! you are speaKing only o! the vacuum electromagnetic !iel1 that is1
only o! the e/m component o! the total quantum vacuum !iel. 6here
are1 o! course1 other components corresponing to momentum
!luctuations in the !orm o! virtual F1J1 an gluon particles1 not to
mention mesons1 etc.1 an other integral spin1 !orce-carrying virtual
particles. 6here are also energy !luctuations o! the total vacuum !iel
such as virtual !ermion /anti!ermion pairs1 e.g.1 electron /positron1
muon/antimuon1 tao/antitao1 etc.
1. Ht is a purely quantitative istinction. / virtual particle may be
thought o! as a real particle possessing energy equal to or less than
the energy uncertainty o! the quantum system o! which it is an
e0citation. / real particle may be thought o! as a virtual particle
which possesses more energy than the energy uncertainty o! the
system with which it e0changes momentum-energy. 6he !act that the
istinction between real an virtual particles is only quantitative in
this manner implies that ?ose-;instein statistics applies equally to
virtual an real bosons an that1 moreover1 -ermi-:irac statistics
applies equally to virtual an real !ermions. 6he real vs. virtual
istinction !or particles is epenent upon re!erence !rames in the
relativity sense1 e.g.1 virtual particles can become real in an
accelerate re!erence !rame. H believe that real particles cannot
become virtual however an this woul imply1 i! true1 that
acceleration is irreversible in the thermoynamic sense an this is
why we shoul e0pect the vacuumGs o! gravitational !iels to possess
an entropy. 6his is perhaps the same irreversibility associate with
7enroseGs one graviton limit !or spontaneous1 orchestrate reuction
o! the wave!unction C9AD.
-CtD =

)
= e
-iwt
-CwDw
i! !CtD = ) over the range t
*
| t | t
2
1
then the -ourier analysis o! this !unction give positive an negative
!requencies1 corresponing to R+S an R-R energies. 6ranslational
motion relative to a particular point in spacetime1 over a time interval in
which !CtD = )1 causes a oppler shi!t in the positive !requencies which is
e0actly compensate by the oppler shi!t in the negative !requencies o!
-CwD over interval o! time /at = Ct
2
L t
*
D.
6he gravitational reshi!t may be unerstoo in terms o! a ( imensional
oppler e!!ect cause by i!!erent local velocities o! light as recKone
!rom one or another o! the two localities istinguishe by i!!erent
gravitational potentials. 4m/A has units o! c
2
.
Qd
9ccupation numbers !or ?ose an -ermi statistics: number o!
!ermions shi!ts the number o! bosons appropriate to an equilibrium
blacK-boy spectrum.
-requency1 !1 an wavenumber1 K1 are only iscrete variables in the case
where bounary conitions have been place upon the bosons1 bC!1KD. Ht
is in 5ust this case where the time an space variables may be treare as
quantize with a complementary escription as gravitational CspacetimeD
waves1 or1 alternatively1 as Rgravitons.S Fe woul not1 in light o! the
above1 e0pect such pseuogravitons to be prouce in the absence o!
bounary conitions place upon the vacuum boson !iel.
Hn classical theory1 accelerate electrons raiate electromagnetic energy
at a rate equal to 2/$ e
2
/c
$
M+

M
2
.
Hn a gravitational !iel1 this energy raiation rate will be ilate in
accorance with general relativity.
Qd
6hus smaller zero-point energy
!luctuations will be require to prevent collapse o! the electron into the
atom_s nucleus.
6he per!ection o! the strong equivalence principle seems to be tie to the
conition o! per!ect .orenz invariance1 which1 by the way1 is violate by
a vacuum with only a !inite spectrum o! moes o! electromagnetic
oscillation1 such as is e!ine by the 7lancK wavelength Cas an Renergy
cuto!!SD an the raius o! the observable Cmutually causally-connecte
universeD.
6he principle o! relativity seems to eman re!erence !rames in which
the gravitational potential is time-varying.
H! a spectrum o! raiation is thermal ue to its sel!-interaction1 then this
spectrum cannot be .orenz-invariant1 but e!ines a privilege !rame o!
re!erence. H! the raiation spectrum possesses its thermal nature solely
by virtue o! the correlations between the photons a!ter the manner in
which they are create1 with each photon being Restroye1S or
annihilate be!ore any can interact with the others so as to isturb these
correlations1 then this thermal spectrum shoul possess .orenz-
invariance.
6here shoul be uncertainties1 analogous to those in p an ;1 in the other
*2 components o! stress-momentum-energy. /re we in this case no
longer ealing with the simple case o! a quantum mechanical system
which can be escribe by a wave!unction1 but which must be escribe
in terms o! a ensity matri0.
?ohm_s statement in his booK1 Puantum 6heory C*2'*D1 that causal
connections can always be alternatively e0presse in terms o! collections
o! correlations appears relate to the !act that the e0pectation values an
=eisenburg uncertainties o! observables can always in turn be e0presse
in terms o! a combination o! !luctuations an uncertainties.
/ny energies smaller than /a; may only be connecte to each other an
to the system in which /a; is e!ine by virtue o! nonlocal correlations.
?ut can /a; be ecompose into both locally1 causally connecte an
nonlocally correlate eigen!unctions? 3an /a; be escribe by a
quantum statistical mi0ture?
Iirtual gravitons cannot be unerstoo to be quantum !luctuations in
spacetime topology since topology is prior to metric an hence to an
establishe scale o! space an time1 still less o! scale o! spacetime
interval.
H! the metric tensor components are use to escribe eviations o! the
metric !rom that o! R!latS 8inKowsKi metric1 then the notion o! time
epenence o! the metric can be coherent.
Ht is clear that the metric o! spacetime is changing with time ue to
cosmological e0pansion. 9! course changes with time in the stress-
momentum-energy tensor are also taKing place with the cosmological
e0pansion. 6he notion is not1 consistent with the !iel equations o!
general relativity since this woul be a casae o! a time-varying metric in
the absence o! time-variation in the istribution o! stress-momentum-
energy. <et certainly time-varying o! the embeing space Co!
spacetime itsel!D shoul prouce ynamic e!!ects which coul only be
taKen into account by general relativity in an a hoc mannerV this is
perhaps how we shoul unerstan ;instein_s emenation o! his original
!iel equations when he inserte into them a cosmological constant term.
;instein_s motive in inserting this a hoc term was to resolve the
inherent instability o! the spacetime escribe by the !iel equations
with respect to its collapse or e0pansion.
:oes the stress-momentum-energy o! the quantum vacuum !orm a
tensor1 or oes it merely constitute a tensor in combination with particles
an !iels? Fhat invariants1 i! any1 are associate with the quantum
vacuum?
Hs it ever the case that1
/ s = / vac 0 vac/ s = H ?
where is a !iel or !iel component an s is the spacetime interval1 vac
is the quantum vacuum !iel an H is an invariant. Hn other wors1 oes
the prouct o! changes in the components o! certain invariants with
respect to changes in the quantum vacuum !iel with certain changes in
this vacuum !iel with respect to changes in local spacetime interval
itsel! prouce an invariant?
@onlocality arises in general relativity because the global bounary
conitions o! spacetime are not reucible to a composition o! local
spacetime bounary conitions.
6his suggests a ampe1 resonant oscillator circuit moel o! inertia.
3an e0ponential envelope an enclose sinusoial variation be attribute
to orthogonal or couple1 pseuo-orthogonal -ourier components?
3linton = Forl 7resient in /.:. 2)2)
4/66
@/-6/
?ail-out o! 8e0ican 7eso
3hinese 3onnection/@ucl. "ecrets
Hnterventions/7olice actions1 e.g.1 Awana1 =aiti1 "erbia1 etc.
7alestinian 7eace /ccors
Aelease o! Hnt_l. 6errorists !rom /merican prisons
-orgiveness o! -oreign :ebt by Forl ?anK
=ilary_s Fomen_s "ummit
@orthern Hrelan
,@ ;nvironmental 7reserves to be establishe within ," borers
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
]]]]]]. = upate www.riveway.com with the highlighte
new material.
6here is apparently no su!!icient reason !or istinguishing the case
where a single consciousness taKes myria istinct !orms1 i.e.1 egos !rom
that wherein each ego is the limitation o! a wholly an substantially
istinct1 transcenental consciousness. 9nly !rom the perspective o!
that which is the author o! the principle o! orer etermining which
metaphysical case is ultimate reality are these two cases istinguishable
an actually istinct. Ht seems that the requirement that ultimate reality
be eterminate in some respect or other in turn emans that such an
author o! the principle o! being itsel! possess being.
6o survive the loss o! one_s human li!e1 one must have prior to this
event1 contacte an come to ienti!y with one_s eeper ientity that has
never been reveale !rom within this li!e that is to be lost.
3onsciousness as the source o! all metaphor must itsel! literally e0ist1 i!
literal Cwritten/spoKenD versus metaphorical CimageD maKe up a genuine
uality.
:i!!erences inhering in consciousness that are not essential i! the
characterization o! consciousness as such1 but merely a subcategory
thereo!.
6he transcenental nature o! iniviual consciousness is that o! the
transcening o! e0istence CappearanceD1 which o! consciousness in its
suchness is that o! reality itsel! C?eingD.
3ompare an contrast the ine!inite e0tensibility o! consciousness with
the capacity !or blanK paper to have anything whatever written on it.
"ome systems o! thought however brilliant are not inspire by truth but
by illusion1 opposition1 imitation1 to wit1 they are coherent resonances o!
the intellect without any inner principle by which they might sustain
themselves L thought1 in other wors1 engenere by only $ o! the (
varieties o! cause speci!ie in /ristotelian metaphysics1 i.e.1 e!!icient1
!ormal1 material1 causes in the absence o! the operation o! !inal causes.
Hs go consciousness an e0tension o! consciousness_ re!lection it has
always caught o! itsel! but not issociate su!!iciently to be rei!ie as
other. 9r is 4o glimpse within the otherness o! the "el! C-atherD an
o! the sel! in the other C3hristD1 spirit the principle o! orer connecting
the two?
=ow can we properly accept 3hrist_s sacri!ice as a gi!t i! we on_t !eel
unworthy o! receiving it?
Aule-governe strings o! wors escribing how to !orm wor strings L
these are the sentences that we possess without ever having hear
be!ore.
6he capacity o! the brain to prouce an maintain conscious states is
epenent upon the maintaining o! both proper internal an e0ternal
connections. 4race L what the heathen term Rgoo lucK.S
Fhen one oesn_t have a li!e o! one_s own1 one may substitute a Kin o!
tourism o! other people_s lives.
;0ploring the combinational permutational space o! possibilities alters
the comple0ion o! this space in a way that must be represente in terms
o! an altogether novel set o! combinational an permutational
possibilities1 i.e.1 a change on basis is e!!ecte1 however one that is not
symmetrical Cas a trans!ormationD1 c.!.1 Puantum 6heory C*2'*D1 :avi
?ohm1 on similarities o! P8 systems an consciousness.
7roblems with early marriage L coalescing o! inchoate ientities
crystallize only much later with circumstantial shi!t. 9n the other
han1 two mature1 eterminate1 inepenent iniviuals respect!ully
entering into a union i!!erent !rom 7ioneer /merican paraigm o!
marriage.
6he esire to RmonKeyS or Rspielen mitS what one has ienti!ie as the
mechanical or protruing1 eterministic component o! another person_s
being is one surely in!orme by a necrophilic impulse.
Fe have to consier that the principle o! the being o! the iniviual_s
consciousness has ot have its origin outsie o! the iniviual_s being qua
being. 6his is ue to the Cas alreay noteD transcenental nature o! the
concept o! consciousness as such.
6he isturbance o! the observer to the P8 system that causes
momentum to be imparte by the observer is unanticipate ue to the
R!reely-willeS origination o! the causal chain o! the isturbance. -or
otherwise1 the iniviual_s act o! will in imparting this isturbance
momentum to the system coul have been inclue along with the
system uner observation to !orm a Kin o! Rsuper-system1S itsel!
evolving eterministically1 which is to say1 the observer_s act coul not
here provoKe any state reuction o! the vector escribing the subsystem
Co! the Rsuper-systemSD uner his observation/measurement. 6he act o!
quantum observer_s upon P8 systems inuces state vector reuction
Ci.e.1 Rcollapse o! the wave!unctionSD because the observer is in reality
not wholly containe in any possible P8 system which also contains the
system being observe/measure by him. 6his !act must unoubtely
carry some important metaphysical implications !or our unerstaning
o! the nature o! this observer_s being.
Fhen one acts in accorance with one_s nature one en5oys the protection
at least !or a time o! grace regarless o! what that nature might be1 goo
or ill. Fhen one commits evil acts not in accorance with one_s own
nature1 it is here that one_s 5ust esert is receive quicKest.
6he !act o! goo an evil !orming a !our category gri instea o! a
simple uality1 has cause much con!usion an error in the moral
thinKing o! 8an1 as humanKin conceptualizes most conveniently an
naturally in terms o! ual category istinctions1 i.e.1 Cnatural1 gooD1
Cnatural1 evilD1 Cunnatural1 gooD1 Cunnatural1 evilD.
/ superposition o! all possibilities woul perhaps imply an absence o!
all bounary conitions. ?ut is this possible? 3oul this in!inite
superposition be altere? :econstruction an issociation: RFe must be
as little chilren to enter the Oingom o! =eaven.S
6ranscenence is the guarantor o! the !ul!illment o! e!erre
meaning/re!erence. /n unerlying system o! creit is inee in place
which permits the e0change o! iscursive an abstract symbols o! value
C here rea in!ormationD. 6he metaphor o! economy serves here as a
touchstone !or e0ploring the nature o! language an intersub5ectivity.
/wareness o! an use o! the concept o! issemination as a necessary
component o! truth valiates the metho o! arriving at truth through the
untwisting an isentangling o! RwrongS an Rcon!useS ieas.
Qd
9nly a !reely acting will can stabilize the !inite within the in!inite.
:ialectical change is irreversible1 historical change in which the
continuum o! possibility is reconstitute.
6he principle by which the orer o! transcenent being is establishe
cannot be ienti!ie with any particular in!inite an transcenent being.
Hn eath1 time as a category is transcene. :eath separates my
temporally boun1 e0istent sel! !rom mysel! as transcenence 5ust as
oes this gul! separating my being !rom that o! the other. Hn !act1 the
separation between sel! an other is inee eeper an a more pro!oun
one than is that iviing the sel! in its moe o! emboie immanent
e0istence !rom that o! isemboie1 transcenent being. 6he sel! an
the other are not separate by merely one1 but by at least two eaths. Hn
this way the possible transcenence o! the sel! in eath is less
remarKable than is the transcenence o! any given sel! in a theoretical
passing o! this sel! over to that o! the other. 6he notion o! the structure
o! the unKnown is relevant to consier here. 6wo iniviuals o not
revert to the same groun upon their respective eaths. 6he question
arises at this point whether1 in the !ace o! the unlimite variety o! others1
it is really proper to speaK o! such a notion as R6he 9ther1S as though we
shoul be here invoKing by this term a universal category. 6he shi!ting
o! scienti!ic paraigms is necessitate by the contact between 8an as
!unamentally creative in his capacity o! initiating causal chains1 that is1
in his capacity o! acting outsie the anticipation o! the naturalistic orer
thus !ar establishe1 i.e.1 @ature an @ature_s characteristic tenency
towar re!orming hersel! so as to maintain an orer o! sel!-consistency.
6emporality then is not a continual eparture !rom a complete state o!
being so much as a continual eneavor o! returning to an orer o!
per!ecte an timeless1 !inishe being in the !ace o! a continual recasting
o! being along wholly new an unanticipate lines. @ature is in a
constant !lu0 o! returning to being while being prevente always !rom
oing so.
?ecause e0istence an none0istence as a ual opposition o! categories is
incomplete because transcene by the category o! being1 it !ollows that
causal relationships between e0istents cannot be capture within the
scope o! purely abstract relations: there is always !luctuation outsie the
scope o! any causal variable that intrues upon all possible system L or
orere escriptions encompassing this an other variables. ;very
sur!ace possesses a epth incommensurate with itsel!. ;very !unction
must !ail to be reucible to !orm amitting a temporality that escapes all
possible uni!ication1 i.e.1 an spatialization. "o temporality is
necessarily a plurality o! in!inite multiplicity.
6he limitation o! the transcenent in!inite introuce uncertainty1 not
only with respect to Knowlege !ormerly hel in completion but also
with respect to the Knowlege hel or potentially graspable at higher
levels than the one escene to though still short o! that at which
absolute Knowlege is e0perience. ?ut i! the path o! limitation is not
reversible1 then this uncertainty must become relative to potential
Knowlege graspable by others. 6he grasping o! this Knowlege o! the
other can be only inirect an meiate. 9b5ective Knowlege is the
representation within one sub5ect o! the sub5ective Knowlege o! the
other_s Knowlege that is itsel! alreay a representation o! the
Knowlege possesse by still other sub5ects1 an so one. Hnaequate
e0pression o! the sel! that is Known Cprivation o! meansD1 as well as
inaequate Knowlege o! the sel! Cprivation o! ensD causes
unintentional an intentional su!!ering respectively.
6he nonlocal hien variable may inee turn out to resie within the
continuum o! consciousness as the unerlying basis o! the integrity o! its
inter!ace with the brains o! quantum observers. Fe might say that 4o
sees both / an ?1 the stations at which quantum entangle photons are
analyze1 simultaneously regarless o! the re!erence !rame chosen at
which the initial act o! measurement is pre!orme1 whether / an ?.
/ccoring to
au=
/quinas1 man only !ell morally as a result o! his
iniscretion in the garen o! ;en1 leaving his intellect intact1 still as
much in the image o! 4o_s Hntellect as prior to this moral misstep1 c.!.1
au=
-rancis "chae!!er1 ;scape -rom Aeason. H! this is true1 then perhaps1
as inicate by /ler in the prologue to his booK1 6en 7hilosophical
8istaKes1 the other shoe Co! the -all o! 8anD manage to rop uring the
*%
th
3entury L sometime within the beginning o! the philosophically so-
calle 8oern 7erio. Fhether this intellectual !all o! 8an with the
en o! the Ae!ormation1 which marKe the collapse o! the 3hurch_s
spiritual authority in ;urope1 is inee mere coincience1 remains a
point o! never-ening ebate. 6he !act1 however1 that this collapse o!
spiritual authority was necessarily con5oine with the ecline o!
/ristotelian metaphysics1 which ha buttresse 3hurch 6heology since
the time o! the "choolmen o! the 8ile /ges1 unerscores the
possibility o! a secon CintellectualD -all o! 8an1 particularly i!
au=
/ler
is right that all o! the !unamental epartures in metaphysical thought
!rom /ristotle are to be trace to the ma5or ;nglish an 3ontinental
thinKers o! the *%
th
an *N
th
3enturies. 6hese misguie1 i! ambitious1
epartures !rom Rphilosophical common senseS represente by the
systematic speculations o!
au=
?erKeley1 =ume1 Oant1 etc.1 have continue
apace uring the perio o! 8oernity as represente by such thinKers as
au=
=usserl1 "artre1 Puine1 Aorty1 Ayle1 etc.1 an continue with the
postmoerns1 -oucault1 .acan1 :erria1 :eleuze1 4attari1 etc.
6he characteristic istinguishing these later e!!orts !rom those o! earlier
empiricist an rationalist philosophers Cwith regar to this notion o!
!louting philosophical common senseD seems to be that o! acaemic
ambition an a heartily conscious appreciation !or the power o! the
"ophist to shape the ineterminate philosophical reality where it will
cooperate. Fhere this inchoate grist o! thought re!uses to con!orm to
the tugs an twists o! the cynical philosopher1 then human suggestibility1
acaemic !aishness1 an the sociological nature o! Knowlege may be
relie upon !or assistance in the e!!icacious marKeting o! one_s
chimerical an monstrous systems1 theories an propositions to the
bore an clamoring philosophical consumer.
R6he momentum measurement assumes the accessibility o! the entire
state e0tene over an arbitrarily large spatial omain.S RHn the non-
relativistic P8 there is omain an hence the momentum Can other
observablesD can in principle be measure with arbitrarily high
accuracy.S -or the above quotation1 c.!.1
cit=
ar+iv:quant-ph/)*)$)*21
p.2. 6he above quote passage points up the interepenence o! the
momentum an time uncertainties o! a P8 system an hence a !urther
interepenence o! such systems_ momentum an energy uncertainties.
R6he orthogonality o! two quantum sites is1 strictly speaKing1 a nonlocal
property1 both in =ilbert space an in the 8inKowsKi spacetime.S - p.2
Csee aboveD
Fith regar to the question o! how curvature o! spacetime a!!ects the
orthogonality o! the eigenstates comprising a wave!unction1 is there
possibly an equivalent statement o! a !unction such as /aPC0
)
1 0
*
1 0
2
1 0
$
D
in terms o! some other !unction incluing the !actor1 P
C/a0
)
1 /a0
*
1 /a0
2
1 /a0
$
D1 where R/aS inicate quantum uncertainty?
Qd
6he inaequacies o! quantum theory in the !ace o! the possibility o!
sel!-observing quantum systems remins as o! the ilemma !or the unity
o! mathematical Knowlege pose by 4eel_s incompleteness theorem.
Y/ZY?Z = Y?ZY/Z commutativity o! e0pectations
/? =/ ?/ Y/?Z =/ Y?/Z
t
ab
= Y/?Z - Y/ZY?Z
t
ba
= Y?/Z - Y?ZY/Z
t
ab
{ t
ba
` not sure what this means.
8ust spaceliKe separate quantum measurements commute? 6his
simply epens on the presence or absence o! quantum correlations
between the two systems.
6he motivational !orce cause by the reaction o! vacuum !iels to the
uni!orm acceleration o! a per!ectly re!lecting sur!ace CmirrorD vanishes
in the case o! a single mirror. Hnertial !orces only arise in the case
where a secon vacuum raiation scatterer is present1 c.!.1
cit=
ar+iv:quant-ph/)*)*)N21 Hnertia o! 3asimir ;nregy1 by >aeKel an
Aeynau. 6his result suggests that it is only systems possessing
Rbining energyS1 which possess inertial mass.
8eitation: the intersub5ectivity o! language1 the suggestibility o! the
human min in the processing o! newly1 sub5ectively L occurring ieas
an conceptions1 whether their origin be in e0ternally or internally L
prouce speech1 an the restoring o! proper motor control to motor
neural networKs ranomly reconnecte to the central nervous system.
8eitation: two way implication o! processing e0perience in the light o!
concepts an abstraction o! RnewS concepts !rom processe Ci.e.1 !iltere
e0perienceD.
@othingness as the proper in!inite conte0t !or global states o! iniviual
consciousness this suggest that nothingness Cas the multiply
unKnown/unKnowableD possesses an in!initely eep an broa
structure1 as oppose to no structure whatever.
8y reason !or asserting that there must have been an act o! willing
behin my having become the emboie being that H am is that1 there
seems to be no possibility !or a close1 e0haustive set o! necessary
conitions1 i.e.1 a su!!icient conition1 !or my having become me rather
than some one else. "o the ,niverse woul have ha to churn away
!rom eternity past until conitions coul have become proper !or my
avent. Hentity is not conitional1 merely the !orms that an ientity
taKes on.
>anuary 2))$
,nconitional ientity is ientical with itsel!V
conitional ientity !ails this test.
H! my in!initely past pree0istence is presume1 then my continuity as a
not necessarily emboie being Cor consciousnessD introuces an open-
eneness transcening the e!ining o! any e0haustive set o! conitions
necessary !or my being who H am Cmy ientityD1 continuity over in!inite
past time implies the e0istence o! a being possessing in!inite causal over
eterminateness. 3ontinuity may be by continuation o! a connecting
threa Cwhich nee_s be sustaine by the continue orchestration o!
!avorable conte0tual conitionsD1 or by virtue o! the robustness o! the
potentiality !or a given iscrete structure or !unction ue to the
conitions !or its presence always being present within the groun o!
being1 i.e.1 the implicature o! the entity is a permanent !eature o! the
eternal groun o! being.
?y virtue o! the concept o! consciousness being a transcenental
category1 it !ollows o! some property or attribute which itsel! by its very
nature is never given once within e0perience. Fe euce rather the !act
o! our possessing consciousness not !rom the !act o! its intermittence
within neither e0perience perios o! unconsciousness nor1 there!ore1
perios o! alternation o! consciousness with unconsciousness Cc.!.1
sleepD. Aather this euction the !act o! our own consciousness comes
!rom another apparent !act1 that o! the impenetrability o! the min o!
others1 supposing they really e0ist1 that is. /n here we have returne
to our earlier intuition1 o! the Re0istenceS o! CaD transcenental min1
within which the concept o! consciousness as such may actually be
entertaine. 6he belie! in the e0istence o! such a transcenent mentality
is tantamount1 where the require quantity o! !aith unerscoring this act
o! belie! is concerne1 to the belie! than one possesses consciousness in
the absence o! the irect e0perience or intuition o! this one_s iniviual
consciousness. 6o wit1 belie! in 4o Cas a transcenentally given 8inD
constitutes no greater an irrational leap o! !aith than that by which H
believe in the !act o! the e0istence o! other mins !rom my own1 a!ter the
!ashion o! :asein_s natural stanpoint. 6he !act o! the e0istence o! the
mins o! others whose presence along with that o! mysel! is aily
suggeste to me through the ubitable evience aily presente to me by
my sense perception.
>une 2))*
Hn :ouglas /am_s story1 7er /nhalter ins /ll1 the computer1 :eep
6hought1 escribes itsel! as the 2
n
greatest computer in space an time.
:eep 6hought also claims1 however1 that1 being able to glimpse Rthe
totality o! probability currents moving along their limitless an
innumerable circuits1S he can nonetheless esign the *
st
greatest
computer. 6his !uture greatest o! computers shall prove able to solve
the question o! .i!e1 the ,niverse1 an ;verything1 a question that :eep
6hought amits1 he was un!it to properly answer1 having alreay given
his Rys!unctionalS answer to this question as R(2.S
6he possibility o! re!erence epens upon two istinct !urther
possibilities: the possibility o! the wholly e0ternal Ci.e.1 the transcenent
realityD an the rather problematic possibility o! something that is
capable o! re!erring to itsel!. Fhat can we say about the possibility o!
an entity that encompasses both o! these possibilities?
9n a personal level1 o! course1 the most evil being imaginable !or me is
that one whose greatest elights is in my greatest su!!ering an who_s
greatest su!!ering is constitute by my greatest happiness. 6hat is why
evil1 i! it is to be taKen seriously1 has to be taKen in the utmost personal
way possible. 8y otherness is precisely an aggranizement that is
entirely at his e0penseV it is a the!t !rom the heart o! his Cthe evil one_sD
very sel!hoo1 an so is ultimately the sparKing an in!lammation o! the
pro!ounest o! 5ealousies an covetousness. ?ut this is to cast evil
behavior as serving an almost instinctive i! morally incoherent e!ensive
strategy1 an we on_t want to let evil o!! so hanily. Fe absolutely
must maKe sure to inclue in any aequate e!inition o! evil the crucial
imension o! cruelty.
E=umanity can perhaps be ivie into !our istinct groups with respect
to how each e0periences 5ealousy1 each motivate by i!!erent
ami0tures in the relative proportions o! ealy sins & an %E.
6here is no i!!erence between presence an mocK presence accoring to
the :econstructionists.
6he "pirit is the connection between the -ather an "on as1 respectively1
the transcenent an immanent poles o! a Cin a certain senseD single
?eing. ?ut this connection between the two RpolesS is a unique1
irreversible1 an contingent one1 in!orme by the ialectic o! the
enlarging o! e0istence. /n this connection may engener the
altogether novel1 possibilities !or ?eing an so there is the natural
requiring o! the inepenence o! this "pirit an hence a mutual
inepenence though interepenence o! the three: transcenent1
immanent1 an this ialectical being that we have terme the "pirit.
Hs 4o then the author o! the transcenent principle o! 8an_s
transcenent being? - the ouble appearance o! the term RtranscenentS
being in no wise a reunancy1 either intentional or otherwise.
/am_s e0istence originally pointe to the proper an real transcenent
being though a!ter the !all it now pointe to a mere pro5ection o! !alse
being.
Fe shoul istinguish between the case o! 3hrist as 4o Cthe -atherD
become 8an !rom that o! 3hrist as an altogether separate though
intimately to 4o relate person become a man. Hn the !irst
interpretation temporality an eternity are ialectically relate in the
secon they are merely relate via a mutual pro5ection.
Hn his !allen state 8an is a uality !alsely believing himsel! to be a unity1
when in !act he ha been mae in the image o! 4o1 i.e.1 a trinity. 6his
!allen state !or 8an consists in the isconnection o! his transcenent an
immanent selves. -or 3hrist1 this connection between the transcenent
an immanent ha been continually maintaine up to the time o! his
being !orsaKen by the -ather while on the 3ross.
Fe naturally assume that our ientity an our iniviual consciousness
as such Cqua iniviual consciousnessD are inee synonymous. ?ut it
is not so !or consciousness as such since consciousness in its mere
suchness1 though necessary1 is not su!!icient to !i0 personal ientity at
all or1 at least in the sense o! personhoo searchable within human
unerstaning. /ll o! the gran categories o! human e0perience: love1
beauty1 power1 compassion1 insight an so on are but abstractions rawn
!rom within the epth o! e0perience over the biographical history o!
each particular human creature though not !rom across the breath o! the
e0perience o! these creatures collectively1 e0cept in a purely
hypothetical1 language meiate way. "ubstance i!!erentiate is
inee -orm. ,ni!!erentiate substance is on necessity an in its
essence uncreate an timeless. /n a plurality o! substances i! not
itsel! a i!!erentiation o! some prior unitary substance must liKewise be
essentially eternal though each may participate in temporality only
through the mutual participation o! substances.
/n orer o! a plurality o! istinct substances constitutes an orer
altogether evoi o! !orm. "uch an orer can only be graspe by a
being that is itsel! prior to substance.
Fhen one maKes a preiction about a person_s !uture actions1 the
moment that this person obtains Knowlege o! the preiction1 an abrupt
change ensues1 in the spectrum o! probability o! action by this person.
:oesn_t this remin us o! the e!!ects o! a quantum observer_s act o!
observation upon the system observe?
6he i!!erences between consciousness an whether these i!!erences
may assume a multiple orering Cor are simply1 in !act1 multiply orereD
has bearing on the question o! whether being itsel! is multiply orere1
c.!.1 Rchain o! being.S
@ow i!!erence1 that is1 i!!erence between1 an perhaps1 more
generally1 the relation o! betweenness itsel!1 is by its nature abstract.
Hnterestingly1 abstraction an abstractness CR-nessS su!!i0 usually
connotes quality or essenceD1 originally suppose to be an arti!act o!
min an or both its operation an its activity Coperation L KinematicV
activity L ynamicD was emonstrate by 4eel to transcen all !inite
min Cat leastD.
:i!!erence between transcenental consciousnesses shoul perhaps
constitute abstract relations escaping the grasp o! each particular
transcenental min. CHs there somehow necessarily a parao0 involve
in the notion o! Ra particular transcenental min?SD
Hs one_s compassion !or the su!!ering o! others only really sincere given
that one woul taKe that person_s place i! one only coul? /n what are
we to thinK o! a su!!erer who presente with the same choice1 woul
accept such an o!!er?
6he question arises whether there can be such a thing as a conte0t o!
consciousness Co! the iniviual consciousness as suchD1 an also o!
whether there is some overarching conte0t !or consciousness as such Cas
oppose to mere iniviual consciousness as suchD. 6he number o!
given transcenental consciousnesses must be unity or in!inity. 6here
can be no su!!icient groun !or only a !inite number o! such
transcenental beings being given unless it be the will o! a still higher
?eing1 itsel! unique or an a particular among an in!inite number o! such
beings.
>une 2)*2
3onsciousness as an e0emplar o! consciousness as such appears to
require a groun o! being1 i.e.1 transcenent min. H! a min is posite
that is not connecte to this groun o! being1 then this is either
transcenent min prior to creation or a solipsistic conscious entity.
"ince the concept o! consciousness cannot be groune in terms o! a
general abstract quality hel in common between various e0emplars o!
consciousness entities1 it must be groune in terms o! relation with a
transcenent or universal min as instantiations1 not o! an abstract
category1 but as instances o! creation. 6here seems no avoiing
7lantinga_s argument that atheism1 i! true is tantamount to solipsism o!
the lone atheist.
/pril 2)*$
RAeng :escartes1 in *&)) or thereabouts1 to see
i! he coul be certain o! anything at all1 even mae the supposition that
there might be some Kin o! emon who woul be constantly !ooling
him that what he thought he was looKing at inGt e0istV an he coulnGt
!in any way to be certain that this was not happening. "o the e0istence
o! the worl Eout thereE in aition to my e0perience is immeiately
evient1 but not sel!-evient. :enying that there is one oes not in any
way imply a!!irming it. "till1 the immeiacy o! the e0perience o! a worl
Eout thereE which you e0perience Cyou canGt really believe there isnGt
one1 even i! you theoretically EconvinceE yoursel!D inicates that ther is
something that is e0tremely !orce!ul telling us this !actS1 see the
!ollowing1 c.!.1 http://!unamentalissues.net/metaph/met(.htm. Hs there
any mechanism that coul rener the probability o! a networK o!
?oltzmann brains arising as a !luctuation more probable than the similar
spontaneous arising o! a solitary ?oltzmann brain? 6he logic o! the
conte0t-meaning an conte0t-!ree-spatialize-time connections implies
that intentionality cannot obtain in con5unction with an absolute !ailure
to re!er. Fe shoul not !ail to appreciate here the unerlying logic o! the
multiverse being more probable than an isolate1 solitary universe.
>uly 2)*$ epi=
R6he logic istille !rom ecaes o! e0perience is inescapable
by all1 e0cept the ine0perience.E
6he reuction o! the state vector is commonly suppose to be an
essentially ranom occurrence.
<et there must be no basis !or pre!erring a given state !unction
escription over another when no one has yet interacte with the system
in question. 6here!ore the system possesses as many wave!unction
escriptions as there are actual potential observers Can this may go !or
Rpotential potentialS observers1S as wellD. @ote here that observation o!
a quantum system can never truly be 5oint or collective.
Ht is reaily unerstoo that what is calle inertia1 i.e.1 mass1 is merely
constitute by the relative ratio o! internal to e0ternal coherence an
consistency o! the structure networK o! momentum-energy !luctuations
constituting the matter + vacuum system. 6he actual resistance to
Rimpresse !orcesS is rea in the o!!-iagonal components o! the stress-
momentum-energy tensor !or the mater + vacuum system. 6he
relativistic increase in mass ue to its acceleration is importantly relate
with the ecrease in available ensity o! =eisenberg-uncertain energy
Cwithin the quantum vacuumD an increase in ensity o! =eisenberg-
uncertain $-momentum o! the mass CinternallyD. 6his is why the inertial
mass at any given moment uring the mass_ acceleration is epenent
upon the instantaneous value o! this ratio o! vacuum energy to mass $-
momentum ensities.
9nly appro0imately ).(% o! the human genetic sequence is unshare
with our closest primate relative1 the bonobo ape. 8an shares as much
as ')% o! his genetic coe with the lowly yeast mols. Ht is probable
that human that 8an might be1 say1 between )-2'% an )-*)%
genetically relate to li!e on other planets though perhaps it shoul in
principle be rare !or this !igure to be much above ) espite the allege
universality o! physical law throughout the Runi-R Rverse.S ?ut the
probabilities so casually re!erre to here may not be properly e!inable
in the absence o! some appropriately restrictive set o! bounary
conition1 i.e.1 the probability !or1 e.g.1 sel!-reproucing1 in!ormation L
bearing/e0pressing1 stable molecular structures may not be properly
renormalizable. Fe may wish to maKe a istinction at this point
between what we may term internal versus e0ternal resonance/resonant
structures. ;0ternally resonant structures woul be escribe by
renormalizable wave!unctions.
6his woul not1 however1 be e0pecte to be the case !or internally
resonant structures. "uch structures woul e0hibit a certain egree o!
cohesiveness that may well mani!est itsel! in ways1 which e!y a P8
escription. 9ne nee only re!lect here how the lacK o! a complete an
consistent P8 theory o! the =elium atom1 similar to classical physics_
longstaning an now historic i!!iculties with the solution o! the
gravitational three boy problem1 puts the proper P8 treatment o!
comple0 macromolecules1 !orever beyon the grasp o! moern scienti!ic
eneavor. Fe !ail to normalize a wave!unction when we !ail to
encompass within the normalization integral the total space occupie by
this wave!unction. 6his shoul be e0pecte when internal spaces Cwith
their respective internal egrees o! !reeomD contain Rblee overS o! the
wave !unction Cc.!.1 P8 tunnelingD an these internal spaces are !oun
to be essentially asymmetrical. Hn such case the internal egrees o!
!reeom o! the space support an necessitate irreversible reaction with
couple symmetrical component space egeneracy_sD though the
!unamentally irreversible interactions home to the internal space an its
egrees o! !reeom.
6he asymmetrical component subspaces o! the total system space woul
be occupie by a system escribable only by an aperioic1 or
anharmonic1 wave!unction. 6he energy uncertainty o! such a system1 in
terms o! the associate !requency spectrum !or the component energies
o! this uncertainty1 woul have to be !unamentally i!!erent !rom that
o! a normalizable P8 system1 i.e.1 !rom that possessing a normalizable
wave!unction. Fe may have now been le to the maKing o! a
istinction here between what we may term active versus passive
in!ormation. =ow !ar i! at all this istinction parallels that o! the same
name e!ine an iscusse by ?ohm1 c.!.1 6he Hmplicate 9rer1 remains
to be investigate.
6he represente by prophecy is conceive by those who are somewhat
more sensitively attune to historical inevitability o! consciousness_
worKing out o! itsel!. 7rophecy has a way o! pulling itsel! up by its own
bootstraps an mani!esting the realization o! its assertions by any
stretching reach available enable by historical particulars that emerge
wholly une0pectely but which are then graspe an woven into the
very !abric o! the prophecy_s system o! archetypal elements.
H sometimes !eel as though H am living in the shaow o! some great1
isruptive an isillusioning realization perhaps only to be actually
encountere many years or even ecaes later.
3hurches are houses o! spiritual complacency1 the real purpose o! which
is the :evil_s whereby 3hristians are Kept o!! the streets where they
might o the most goo. @oboy really believes in their actual salvation1
nor o they really believe that the unsave are in any serious spiritual
anger. /t least this is the conclusion to which the impartial observer o!
3hristian peoples must be le by the simplest o! logic to presume. -or
otherwise wouln_t all 3hristians be alternating between ancing an
shouting 5ubilantly over the !act o! their own salvation1 an miserably
weeping over the !ate o! the lost alreay eparte !rom this worl1 on the
one han1 an launche into tireless an impassione e!!orts on the
behal! o! those unsave yet alive1 who still possess the hope o! heaven
an the escaping o! eternal hell!ire?
6he average spacetime curvature at a point on spacetime is epenent
upon the average ensity o! momentum-energy at this point. -or this
reason it is presume that the magnitue o! the ensity o! !luctuations in
momentum-energy at a certain a point on spacetime is not merely
correlate with but causally connecte with the magnitue o! spacetime
!luctuations at that particular point on this very same spacetime. ?ut
how can the state notion o! !luctuations o! spacetime an hence1
uncertainty in spacetime position be locate at a particular point on
spacetime? 6here is here a seeming parao0 o! in!initely sel!-
re!erential spacetime.
9ne conception o! grace is that which preserves one while one_s
situation is unstable an precarious1 amitting little i! any margin !or
error. /nother concept o! grace is that o! intrinsic robustness or what
might otherwise be terme antichaos. 6here is so much room !or the
!ul!illment o! basic possibilities an potentialities within such a wie
range o! li!e style bounary conitions that there is little nee to thinK
too long an har about how to optimally engineer them1 apart !rom the
!ollowing an application o! a mere han!ul o! simple a basic values an
principles. 8any happy an unassuming Can success!ulD people seem
to have always instinctively unerstan this though1 perhaps without
having ever once articulate this to themselves.
Fe cannot argue each iniviual_s concept o! consciousnes is abstracte
!rom its multiple instantiation over time.
CY6 violation in O mesonsZ1 c.!.1 376 theorem.D
Fe can entertain the pro5ection o! multiple instantiations o! a given
concept through a Kin o! metaphorical multiple recasting o! our irect
intuitions o! a being into multiply istinct an varie !orms an then
procee to abstract !rom this set o! i!!erences o! our own !ashioning.
6his act is linguistically etermine in a manner such that
inconsistencies between i!!erent iniviuals_ pro5ecte
concepts/categories are glosse over1 or i! uncovere can be easily
enough repaire/amene through a ialectic o! negotiation o! meaning
an re!erence1 say through erecting o! a larger category subsuming these
i!!erences as being within the new category.
Hn contemplating the !on well-wishing !or another !rom whom one is to
be !orever separate oes one glimpse the :asein o! 7rovience.
Fe cannot liKe a hypothesis without at least secretly to ourselves
assenting to a Kernel o! truth in it.
Aelating /ristotle_s 8etaphysics to 8oern 7hysics:
7otential vs. /ctual b ?osons vs. -ermions
8atter vs. -orm b stress-momentum-energy vs. spacetime
;!!icient 3ause b "tate Aeuction/Fave!unction 3ollapse
-ormal 3ause b "chroeinger ;quation
8aterial 3ause b Puantum Iacuum
-inal 3ause b 7rinciple o! .east /ction
/ system may either be ienti!ie with one o! a set o! eigen!unctions1
e0ist between1 or encompass the set.
3oherence an cohesiveness woul seem to require superposition o!
correlate or partially nonorthogonal eigen!unctions. 6his may relate
to why eigen!unctions cannot be strictly orthogonal in the presence o! a
gravitational !iel.
"ince each iniviual_s ieas are tinge with the acceptation o! his novel
application o! them within the conte0t o! the history o! his own
e0perience that is necessarily1 in part1 unique to himsel!1 it !ollows that
what is insight !or one is !or another in some cases har won empirical
Knowlege1 in other cases1 !or another piecemeal-!ashione inuction or
euction1 an so a given iea is Known intimately as intuition by one
an !or another only through metaphor.
9ctober 2)**
Ht is play!ully sai that1
Rwe only trust the law o! inuction because it has worKe so well in the
pastS. =owever1 we i not !irst trust the use o! inuction !or this
reason.
Qd
Hnuction is liKely a subcategory o! the larger category o! self
similarity or recursiveness.
6his is 5ust a particular symptom o! the general !act that one Knows the
other by analogy1 all the while Knowing the sel! in an unmeiate
!ashion C i! only potentially1 as some only Know o! themselves as they
Know their native tongue L through listening to those !or whom onesel!
occupies an analogous position o! beingD. @ecrophilia1 as the Resire
!or the otherness o! the other.S "uch people as cannot perceive the
otherness within themselves have a sense o! un!reeom1 o! being
un5ustly imprisone an there!ore the !reeom o! the other1 particularly
in the other_s own relative case with an grasping or mastering o! their
own otherness1 is all the more regrettable1 maKing as it oes !or much
ranKling1 !estering resentment1 estine to turn to hatre1 i! the tenency
cannot be e!use an reverse.
:i!!erences o! race1 class1 status1 gener even1 are attribute as cause !or
the resentment o! the sel! !or the other uner the convenient covering
rubric o! pre5uice1 racism1 se0ism1 etc. ?ut this is to turn a blin eye to
the !act that the unseemly emotion o! resentment possesses a e!ining
imension o! the personal1 taKen personally. 6hose who hate blacKs1
>ews1 those who are misogynous an so on have perhaps mae a !alse
generalization o! what originate at a strictly personal level. 6hese
e0ternal i!!erences merely unerscore the otherness o! the other that is
usually hien through !alse or baseless ienti!ication o! the sel! with
the other1 e.g.1 glorying in the success o! the home town hero when one
is !ar !rom home1 on the one han1 though equally in turn envying an
secretly begruging this same hero when both he an onesel! are once
more bacK home among common !riens an acquaintances. =ow
rapily oes an impening barroom brawl e!use itsel! when at closer
quarters the prospective combatants at once recognize one another1
espite the typical im lighting1 an this almost regarless o! the nature
or severity o! the insult or o!!ense1 real or imagine1 which lie at the root
o! !laring aggressive impulses.
/ nonaiabatic coupling o! the brain o! an observer to the system as a
whole1 but to the brain only in part. 9therwise state1 is the brain !ar
more e0tensively connecte to its e!ining conte0t than it is even too
itsel!?
9ctober 2)**
Fhat essentially istinguishes matter1 i.e.1 that which
possesses mass !rom the unerlying quantum vacuum !iel is the
inepenence of matter from this vacuum. ?y this is meant the
breaKown o! the !aith!ul application o! ?ohm_s 7rinciple o! 3ausality1
more or less at the matter-vacuum bounary. @ote that this RbounaryS
is not at the 2-sur!ace inter!ace1 but is rather e!ine by a $-sur!ace. 6he
RbanwithS connecting matter an its conte0t giving vacuum carries
in!ormation on a !lu0 perpenicular to this $-sur!ace. :ecoherence may
be cause by the opposite o! this situation1 perhaps.6hat is1 ecoherence
must be!all systems that possess a critical recursiveness or sel!
connectivity relative to the quantum conte0t o! the system1 i.e.1
embeing vacuum electromagnetic !iel. 6hese ruminations lea us to
the perhaps bizarre notion that1 the human brain with its istinctive
powers o! sel!-consciousness1 becomes in at least a very narrowly
e!ine sense1 better connecte to the information reservoir of the
Buantum vacuum electromagnetic fiel than this information is
connecte to itself. 6his points up one o! the important !unctions o! the
brain1 that o! reprocessing in!ormation latent in the vacuum through
e!!ecting higher levels o! integration o! this in!ormation. "o-calle
Rhigher levels o! integrationS here seem to bespeaK the possibility o! a
concept o! conte6ts of the groun of being.
"uppose that the iniviual consciousnes o! / is 5ust the outcome o! the
quantum vacuum_s continual1 ongoing reaction to the presence/activity
o! the iniviual_s brain that is embee within it. "imilar
observations apply to ?_s consciousness1 3_s1 etc.
>uly 2)**
Hn this way the
consciousness o! each involves its own unique spectrum o! conte0t-
proviing be or correlate quantum !luctuations. @o Rcross-talKS
between brains is to be e0pecte Cwhat woul mani!est itsel! uring the
course o! evolution as telepathyD "ince the constructs o! the iniviual
sel! an e0ternal worl Cincluing postulate other minsD which arise
within the consciousness o! the iniviual are to be attribute to the
creation o! entanglements ue to the historical operation o! that
iniviual_s brain1 these are separate !rom those quantum correlations
continually recreate in the !iel o! the vacuum_s !unamental
!luctuations Cthat comprise any reuctions in /aP L =eisenberg
uncertainty in PD to which the brains o! others RtuneS an resonate1 an
so it is a istinctly i!!erent an is5oint spectrum o! the vacuum
electromagnetic !iel which is continually RtweaKeS by the operation o!
one brain !rom that o! another.
/ parao0ical observation is the !ollowing: RH !eel so i!!erent within
my being than H i when H was a teenager that i! it weren_t !or the
continuity o! my environment1 social relations1 my own physical
appearance1 together with memory1 H coul swear that H_m now an
altogether i!!erent person now !rom what H was then. ?ut1 o! course1
the attributes enumerate above are 5ust the one_s apart !rom ientity
epenent upon the subsistence o! unique substance.
6he urge torwar mystical union with the other is iametrically opposite
to the necrophile_s esire to penetrate the mystery o! the other. 9!
course1 mystery1 by its essential nature1 once so penetrate1 ceases to be.
6he necrophile_s being is riven by the impulse to reveal all mystery as a
mere tissue o! lies an illusion.
>uly 2)**
Ht woul not surprise me i!
necrophilia were not someay proven to be Cor shall eventually come to
be commonly unerstoo asD a mere -reuian reaction-!ormation in
reponse to an e0traorinarily great !ear o! eath relative to the alreay
e6traorinary fear of eath which is in humans instinctive an inborn.
/long similar lines to our arguments that consciousness cannot be
mani!este or be a property o! close1 isolate systems1 it may be
possible also to argue that a system without consciousness1 or at least in
interaction with Cthe observation o!D consciousness cannot possess
temporality o! the Kin which can prouce novel systems or structures.
>uly 2)**
3onsciousness oes seem to be the only means !or process as a
whole to be re!erre bacK to its !unamental components so that there is
awareness an a brige between being an becoming1 while attention is
a !ocusing o! this consciousness.
"uch a system woul only posses the eterministic temporality normally
associate with classical physics an/or the time inepenent
"chroeinger equation1 i.e.1 temporality o! spatialize time. H! it is true
that the ,niverse was utterly evoi o! consciousness an conscious
states prior to some critical point in its eterministic evolution1 such that
it must have possesse a static1 (-imensional spatial structure Cin
general relativity1 there is no global istinction between space an time L
such a istinction o! space !rom time is local an observer-epenentD
between two noes1 that o! the ?ig ?ang an the other o! the awaKening
o! the !irst glimmer o! consciousness within it. ?ut why not rather
suppose that the right-han noe1 i! you will1 oes not represent some
critical threshol having been passe by some slowly an graually
eveloping mentality ragging itsel! up !rom some primorial slime1 but
rather this noe o! Rtimeless spacetimeS opposite to that o! the
precipitous R?ig ?angS was itsel! equally precipitous1 namely1
constitute by the act o! intervention Csay1 perhaps through mere
RobservationS1 in the quantum mechanical senseD by a !ully an
completely evelope consciousness.
"eptember 2)**
H! Rconsciousness collapses the wave!unctionS1 then the level
o! evelopment o! the consciousness involve must be o! some
importance to the level o! comple0ity o! systems1 which mani!est as
e0pression/outcome o! this collapse.
H! we suppose that no per!ect consciousness e0ists1 but nonetheless amit
the notion o! there perhaps being some such1 say1 as a result o! !urthering
o! the evolution o! min over succeeing millions o! years1 then there
must be some principle o! orer Citsel! essentially timeless an
completeD that itsel! alreay e0ists by which this !uture evelopment o! a
per!ect consciousness shall be !ul!ille. ?ut perhaps what we meant to
speaK o! here was not the !uture evolution o! consciousness into a
per!ecte state1 but instea the !uture evolution o! min into such a !inal
state. =ere min woul simply be a structure o! consciousness an the
principle o! orer that we have sai must alreay e0ist an by which the
!uture per!ecte evelopment o! consciousness Chere rea RminSD is 5ust
that o! consciousness itsel! as such. ;very possible structure which
consciousness can taKe on is alreay implicit within it.
6he establishment o! a common language with which even merely
enotative communication is to be pursue1 must !irst be precee by
the establishment o! a common re!erence. Hn this way it appears that
connotation must precee enotation1 i.e.1 metaphor must !irst be utilize
to establish the common re!erence !or later enotative communication.
>esus sai that i! a man ha but a mustar see o! !aith he coul
comman mountains to hurl themselves into the sea. Ht is liKely that
Rmustar see o!S is to be interprete as a minimum or Rleast bit o!.S
>anuary 2))$ 7erhaps
a better interpretation here is that o! RKernelS Can there is
liKely some special characteristics o! a mustar see which set it apart
!rom the sees o! other plants in serving >esus_ metaphorical purposeD.
>anuary 2))$
epi=!cbK=
R?y asserting1 categorically1 that Re0istence is not a preicate1S one
is implicitly assuming that
Qd
the notion o! egrees or graes o! e0istence
is a meaningless or incoherent one an1 moreover1 that the term
e0istence re!ers to the totality o! being1 rather than to some property1
conition1 or quality o! being1 conceive either as a one or a many.S
/ugust 2)*$ epi=
4iven a properly !ull blooe concept o! transcenence1
e0istence itsel! becomes a preicate. 6his is because e0istence is no
longer the most general moe o! being1 but is merely one moe o! being
alongsie other moes o! being1 such as mathematical subsistence1 an it
becomes meaning!ul to speaK o! e0istence as a preicate1 since e0istence
is not itsel! utmost in generality1 but is nonetheless abstract.
6he evelopment o! relative otherness occurs in parallel with the growth
o! the sel!. /t some earliest stage1 the chain o! re!erence Co! meaningsD
terminates with that which re!ers to no phenomena whatever1 e.g.1
natural languages1 perceptions1 sensations1 etc.
Hn the builing up o! ever more comple0 an coherent biological
systems1 the process o! evolution1 re5ects not alternative sets o!
possibilities !or li!e each o! which comprise in turn o! some
corresponing sum o! isolate1 isconnecte possibles. 6o the contrary1
each o! these re5ecte possibilities !or li!e are equally viable in terms o!
a combination Cor sumD o! the ual properties1 aaptable +
coherent/cohesive thought1 o! course1 the relative proportion o! each o!
these two properties with respect towar the other is less !it an
responsive to the particular prevailing set o! environmental conitions
!rom which it has been e0clue by natural selection an in !avor o!
what happene to have replace it by more success!ully surviving. "o
the various !orms !ailing to survive an which are e0clue !rom
evolution_s path possess no less R!itnessS relative to some other possible
though not actual environment an both the !itness o! that which
survives along with that which perishes must be e0plaine by some
altogether i!!erent means than through the invoKing o! a principle o!
natural selection.
9nly by linKing to transcenent consciousness1 say uring prayer1
meitation1 or psycheelic rug e0perience1 o! which one_s own as well
that o! each other person1 is but a peculiar instantiation1 oes one gain
access to the Knowlege o! the suchnes o! one_s iniviual
consciousness1 i.e.1 o! one_s consciousness as an e0ample1 among an
in!inite number o! possible e0amples1 o! consciousness as such
CRconsciousness at large1S i! you willD.
8ight this e0periecne be consiere the glimpsing o! one_s
consciousness as the groun o! all e0perience always possible to the
iniviual in the vein o! this groun itsel! as !igure? 6his conte0t o! the
iniviual_s consciousness as the meium o! all possible e0perience
woul necessarily be the grasping o! space an time in its uni!ie totality
o! givenness. Ht woul then be a glimpse by the iniviual o! his own
eternal an absolute being. 6his is all because time is only within
e0perience1 !oune in the groun o! all possible e0perience which
itsel!1 there!ore1 has to transcen time. 6ime is always within the
timeless1 in other wors.
7aul may be escribe as a gnostic 3hristian because his octrines as set
!orth in his epistles to the early churches o! the @ear ;ast were reveale
to him a!ter the eath an Aesurrection o! 3hrist.
Fhen 4o !irst became man in the !orm o! /am. =e !orgot an lost
his sense o! his original sel! an !ell !rom grace1 taKing all succeeing
8anKin with him. "o perhaps a large part o! the motive o! 3hrist_s
sacri!ice is the recreating o! this original incarnation success!ully an
then the repayment in the !orm o! sacri!ice on the 3ross !or the bringing
o! "in into 3reation. ?ut this great !eat coul only be achieve by
reincarnating as originally L in the very absence o! this sin in!ecting all
3reation.
/ consequence o! "in1 rather than having been the engenering cause o!
"in1 is man_s blinness to his own ivine nature an there!ore in turn his
blinness to the nature o! the :ivine as such.
6he giving up o! the responsibilities while retaining the !reeoms1 the
shunning o! obligations1 while holing !ast to the rights o! 4ohoo L
this lies at the core o! the nature o! "in.
6he question concerning the true nature o! consciousness1 when properly
asKe1 woul be its own answer simply upon simple removal o! R?S at its
en an it s replacement by a R.S1 that is1 by a perio. 6his question
shoul be pose in its simplest conceivable !orm as1 namely1 Rwhat is
consciousness?S such that the answer to this question then becomes1
RFhat is consciousness.S "o the answer to this question1 RFhat is
consciousnessS may still more succinctly be put . . . R;0actly1S or R<esS
or R/!!irmative.S
3onsciousness itsel! is the answer to the question1 RFhat is
consciousness?S 6he essential nature o! consciousness is its own
answering to itsel! o! the question it asKs o! itsel!1 more properly state
as RFho am H?S RH am whoS or . . . Fho? H amT 6he answer1 !ar !rom
being :ouglas /am_s R(2S is RHS.
?ut we re5ect this as the answer an seeK another. Ht is liKe trying to
!in the answer to Fhat is 2 + 2? Ae5ecting the obvious suggestion o!
R(S an going onto an enless pursuit !or some more suitable solution to
2 + 2 =?
3onsciousness is the meium through which all questions might be
asKe whereby the answer to whatever the particular question may be is
only not alreay unerstoo by virtue o! some a posterior limitation o!
sai consciousness. 3learly1 once all such particular limitations upon
consciousness are remove1 only one question remains which is
answere$ 5ust at that precise point that the last limitation upon
consciousness has been remove. /n so at 5ust this point is the
question what is Rpure consciousnessS Ci.e.1 what is consciousness as
suchD able to be properly !ormulate an which at once is seen to contain
or be coe0tensive with1 rather1 this question_s proper answer. RFhat is
7ure 3onsciousness?S 7ure consciousness is Fhat. Fe might
play!ully symbolize this RFhatS or RF-hatS as RFmS1 borrowing the RmS
notation !rom quantum theory. Fm we might equally play!ully term the
pure consciousness operator. "o that Fm 7si = F or1 i! 7si is not a pure
state1 but a superposition state1 Fm 7si = w
i
.
6he question then arises1 how are we to interpret Fm 7si when 7si is a
statistical mi0ture?
6he answer to the question what is consciousness only seems to amit o!
a comple0 answer because we !alsely ienti!y consciousness as such
with the ego Csecretly with our own egoD while all along overtly an in
an intellectualize manner ienti!y consciousness as prior to an
transcening though also ultimately the groun o! L all !orm whatever.
/ny answer that woul satis!y us qua RanswerS must1 liKe the answers to
all other questions with which we_ve ha e0perience1 possess some Kin
o! logical an/or semantic structure1 although anything1 necessarily
possessing structure as o all logical or semantic entities1 must be
presuppose by such structures.
;ach pure state is a superposition state with respect to some other1
incompatible observable.
?ut Fm commutes with itsel! an all other w
H
1 but the w
H
o not mutually
commute1 that is1 w
5
7hi
H
where 7hi
H
is an eigenstate o! w
H
m1 is necessarily
a superposition state in terms o! the 7hi
5
_s. Hn other wors1 Fm oes not
inter!ere with the actions o! the wm
H
1 wm
5
1 wm
K
1 etc.
8etaphor shows the e0tension o! the scope an re!erence o! a concept1
but is not itsel! a concept. 3oining a new metaphor may result in the
!ouning o! some altogether new concept.
6he purpose o! this amazingly ense !iel o! Oarma is !or us to have an
sharpen our humility1 !or once we_ve acquire per!ect humility our
character has !inally been properly !orme an we are now !ree to o
anything we want while still remaining smacK in the mile in the Fill
o! 4o.
Fe seeK a representation o! consciousness within consciousness.
/rguably1 the iniviual_s own1 unique consciousness qua iniviual
consciousness is 5ust such a representation o! pure consciousness or
consciousness as such1 i.e.1 impersonal consciousness.
6his may in !act be the meaning o! the iniviual being mae in the
image o! 4o L his personal consciousness is a representation within
4o_s consciousness. /lternatively1 the iniviual consciousness may
be its own representation1 which lies behin the inherent recursiveness
o! the iniviual_s consciousness. /n the concept o! consciousness as
such is a euction o! that within which the iniviual_s consciousness is
a representation1 ienti!ie with the other. 6he question arises here as to
whether the otherness o! all selves re!ers to a single being.
6o properly an meaning!ully communicate1 the 9ther must be
recognize within the "el! as the "el! is within the 9ther.
Hs there a unity o! that which maKes any an all others other1 that is1
relative to me? /n is it this unity that points up the reality o! the
9ther1 i.e.1 4o1 but there!ore1 o! a 4o wholly unique to mysel! an
hence permitting a unique H an 6hou relationship Cin ?uber_s senseD?
8ight we term the guiing principle here the /nthropic
8icrocosmological 7rinciple?
"o i! everything that can become the sub5ect o! Knowlege or o! our
Knowing must be a mani!estation within Cor constructe !rom
mani!estations withinD consciousness1 then coul consciousness itsel!
ever be a sub5ect o! Knowlege or state another way1 how coul
consciousness be !oun to be itsel! a mani!estation o! some subset o!
what can be mani!este within it1 an which re!ers at the same time to
something altogether outsie o! its possible scope Ci.e.1 re!erenceD?
7articles an antiparticles possess opposite signe quantum numbers.
Fe are intereste when constructing a system o! morality an ethics o!
e!ining persons so that they are *D absolutely istinct !rom one another
so that the respect emane by the alterity o! the 9ther is ma0imal an
2D irreucible in their essence to !eatures or elements hel in common1
potentially or actually1 between istinct persons. Hn this way1 each
person is most conceive as being *D 9ther an 2D an en in himsel!.
6hat which oes not possess being oes not possess ultimate reality an
that which oes not possess being i! only in a erivative sense Csay1
through intersub5ective cooperationD cannot possess the quali!ie being
we term e0istence.
Fhat e!ines the so-calle normal1 unassuming person is unreserve
participation in local belie!s an customs in the absence o! any insight
into the unerlying archetype or paraigm in!using them1 an in aition
a virtually complete lacK o! awareness o! the necessity o! some
unerlying eeper meaning attache to the local cultural an religious
!orms/ tropes in which he regularly participates.
3onsier the ree0pression o! opposites1 which have been transcene by
their prior uni!ication.
Aeligious symbols an images that are metaphors !or the ivine presence
arise1 as
au=
>ung has !orce!ully emonstrate1 through the action o! the
collective unconscious through the action o! the collective unconscious1
though perhaps1 to !ollow >aynes1 this process ha been well uner way
long be!ore primitive 8an acquire an iniviual consciousness in the
sense o! a selfFconsciousness. 6he ense array o! religious symbols
which surroune human beings uring this preantiquity woul have
presente a !lowing gestalt o! protoconscious meaning much as oes the
imagery con!ronting a moern human being in mist o! a ream sleep.
Hn the same way that the reamer may awaKe an attain luciity within
the arti!icial worl o! these enveloping ream images1 a growing !raction
o! iniviuals1 one by one1 awoKe to a sense o! their own iniviuality1
acquiring at once a im recognition o! the arbitrary nature o! the
symbols along with the intimate connection o! these symbols to their
own new !oun ientity1 as well as insights into how these symbols
might be manipulate an trans!orme to reveal their metaphorical
re!erence. 6heir literal re!erence is to the metaphoricity o! the sel!.
6he principle mystical insight is that each incarnate sel! is local
metaphor !or one an the same transcenental CliteralD sel!.
>ust imagine going bacK merely !ive or ten years an switching the
outcome o! one ma5or ecision point1 say to marry someone !rom whom
one_s way has long since eparte. 6he e!!ect o! this may well be
preictable1 in general outline at least. 6his preictability must1 we
thinK1 be altogether absent where enough o! the ecision points1 early
enough throughout our biography are arbitrarily switche or reverse.
?ut we can equally well oppose to this the argument base upon the
notion o! character being one_s !ate. 6hough we may perhaps also
reconcile the two views by istinguishing the large number o! smaller
Cthough at the time seemingly signi!icantD ecisions !rom those larger
an actually more signi!icant ones by which our character ha acquire
some o! its more important an li!e long !eatures.
6he nacve notion o! artistic e0pression1 particularly in the sphere o!
literature1 is that o! the artist searching !or some particularly apt moes1
techniques1 an metaphors !or mani!esting or getting to the outsie some
pro!oun pet iea that he has long carrie aroun eep within himsel!
an with which to gi!t less sensitive an enlightene souls.
?ut another view is that o! the artist being only the apprentice who1
though highly sKille in the use o! the tools an techniques !or
!ashioning the worKs ictate by his master1 at any given stage in the
physical construction o! the art worK1 possesses only a hal!-baKe notion
as to what his master ultimately intens in ictating it.
Fe may only speaK o! insights being latent i! the person carrying them
aroun !ails to realize them merely !or lacK o! the avantageous
conitions in which the e!!icient cause or causes are su!!icient to trigger
their coalescence/crystallization.
Ht might turn out that upon heavenly re!lection our erstwhile mortal
e0istence will be unerstoo as one in which the answer to absolutely
every conceivable metaphysical question was along Known to us an
that it was really only the !act o! our having been all along in possession
o! this metaphysical Knowlege that !orever as mortals.
=ow the pupil o! the critical eye o! most people ilates upon learning
some worK alreay place be!ore them is sai to be important.
6he iniviual sees all aroun himsel! the orer that was necessary to
permit 5ust the particular consciousness that he is to come into being.
9ne o! the outstaning !eatures o! this orer1 necessary !or this
iniviual_s consciousness1 is the presence o! a chain o! being1 i.e.1 a
vertical-orering or epth-orering o! being. /nother is what we may
aptly term a horizontal orering or breath-orering o! being these two
types o! orering are simply the highly speci!ic an particular versions
o! the corresponing Oantian !orms Co! intuitionD o! 6ime an "pace.
6he time-orering represente by evolution an the space-orering
represente by the particular comple0ion o! present by e0tant iniviuals
belong to the human race C through which one entere space an timeD L
these two orerings are simply those that were require to be in entere
space an time1 to have taKen up this most basic o! limitations o! my
transcenent being. Fe are speaKing here o! the particulars o! the
/nthropic 8icrocosmological 7rinciple. ?ut this is to view the entire
worl as merely proviing sca!!oling !or the construction o! one_s
iniviual sel!.
"tates o! conscious awareness point up the lacK o! ini!!erence o! ?eing
to the passage o! time. Ht points up the registration o! the human an
cosmic ata storage system1 i! you will1 an represents the engenering
o! altogether new in!ormation within the Aeal. @ovelty an
irreversibility essentially characterize conscious e0perience.
H! there is any important lesson !or metaphysics to be erive !rom a
contemplative stuy o! quantum theory it is this: possibility is not !i0e1
but is always a !unction o! the impose bounary conitions Cupon the
vacuum quantum !iel1 ultimatelyD an these are sub5ect to change.
@ote here1 however1 that the e0istence o! bounary conitions
presupposes a spacetime written which such conitions are to be
e!inable.
9ne Knows one is conscious not by noticing it as being an attribute or
quality o! every particular mani!est within conscious e0perience. -or
how coul one note the positive presence o! that which is everywhere
an always given an never within CconsciousD e0perience absent. Ht is
not by virtue o! some sort o! contrast that one_s consciousness is
apprehene1 i! it is apprehene at all1 that is. 3onsciousness in other
wors is never within e0perience but e0perience is present within
consciousness. /nother view here is that consciousness is Known
through abstraction !rom its occurrence in varying egrees.
6he e0istence o! a !orm or thing is simply its grouneness in the
ineterminate that originally brought it into being. ;0istence is the
principle o! a thing_s sustainment as such within space an time. ?eing
on the other han is principle o! orer through which the ynamics o!
this sustainment compensates !or the contingency represente by the
e0traneous component o! groun_s !lu0ion. 7ure possibility is timeless
an conte0t-!ree.
;0istence is a preicate o! the merely possible in which the hereto!ore
merely possible acquires possibilities o! its own. 6he possible becomes
a sub5ect o! change leaing to the creation o! new never-be!ore-e0isting
possibilities Calong with the Rretireing.S H! this line o! thinKing lea us
to the reversing o! the relationship o! the possible to the actual so that
possibilities became merely the abstraction !rom the real Cpure
empiricism a la =umeD1 rather than the real being a mani!esting o! the
possible1 then we shoul not have succeee in this way in showing that
e0istence is Cor can beD a preicate. =owever1 i! possibilities can be
engenere inepenently !rom the mere abstraction !rom e0perience1
i.e.1 sense impressions1 an in this manner1 the totality o! the possible
augmente1 then e0istence must be capable o! being a preicate. "o in
this way it is seen that the mins ability to conceive that which is neither
CpresentlyD real nor possible is essential to the possibility o! e0istence
being a preicate.
6he preication o! e0istence is there!ore responsible !or Cor the outcome
o!D the temporality o! 8in. 3onsier the temporality o! possibility as
well as the temporality o! 8in outsie o! time Cintersub5ective timeD.
/nselm_s 9ntological /rgument epens upon1 among other
assumptions1 the sel!-contraictory nature o! the notion o! a being
greater than which none greater can be conceive. ?ut this assumption
is only vali i! consciousness can Keep pace with Cso to speaKD the
potential comple0ity o! which being can e0ist that is greater than that
than which no greater can be conceive by consciousness as such most
generally speaKing.
/s evience by the i!!iculties in !unctioning emonstrate by the
"chizophrenic1 coherence an consistency o! the emotions1 will1
intellect1 whatever !aculty o! consciousness require the e0clusion o!
certain isruptive elements that woul isseminate an subvert the unity
o! the system o! the !aculty concerne. Aationality subserves value as
science subserves art.
7erhaps the uproar o! moral outrage on the part o! 3hristian groups !or
e0ample over the new techniques1 practices an proucts resulting !rom
the heay progress o! the new biotechnology is all too transparent in
how it is motivate out o! these groups share premises an
assumptions. 6hat there is a similar egree o! outrage over the potential
implications o! the new science o! biotechnology1 e0presse by
agnostics an secular humanists aliKe1 is on the !ace o! it perhaps a little
puzzling to one escribing himsel! as a philosophical theist. -or here
we have a seeming agreement on a ma5or social issue between camps
with raically i!!erent ens in view.
7rophecy is historical interpretation in reverse. Ht might be worthwhile
or merely intellectually intriguing to worK out the theory o! how this
might be the case.
6he ream space i! only at its most eeply symbolic level represents a
Kin o! temporal slipstream Co! Rsubterranean currentsSD through which
one_s entire biography is connecte1 biirectionally.
:reams1 in other wors1 interpret both the past an !uture moments
within a person_s li!e1 a li!e that has in essence alreay been live !rom
crale to grave. 6his is the sense in which the proverb that character
etermines !ate hols true. 6his is true !or relationships as well1 only
here !ate subsumes a much wier an comple0 variety o! possible means
o! willing itsel! out C!or the relationship o! the two people concerneD.
9ne possesses almost unlimite !reeom in principle in how he worKs
out his !ate to prove it in the en all along true. 6he proportion o! goo
to ill that is !i0e within one_s character may be altere through sel!-
Knowlege in its outwar mani!estation in one_s li!e. 6his is one when
one applies this sel!-Knowlege in the tempting o! goo temptations an
the shunning o! ba temptations1 state quite simply. 9ne caters to
what are one_s real strengths an conceals !rom view what are one_s real
weaKnesses1 limiting the scope o! their aggravation an e0pression. 6he
ego is the e0perience o! the collective consciousness as elimite within
the sel!_s unique point o! view.
3an the particularity o! the metaphorical be re!ine away leaving in its
place pure concept istinct !rom other concepts? 6his is very much
aKin to the removal o! all o! the sca!!oling !rom the builing that once
were necessary !or its construction but which are not realize to be
super!luous.
=ow coul things valuable only !or their own saKe1 that is1 mere ens in
themselves1 arise !rom out o! a system compose solely o! means to
other means1 in an enless recursive labyrinth?
3learly the 2
$2
Cappro0imatelyD bits o! in!ormation RcontaineS within
the human genome are insu!!icient to coe !or the comple0ity o!
structure an !unction o! the human organism. =owever1 a quantity o!
in!ormation approaching 2
C2WW$2D
bits may well be aequate !or this. Hn
this case we are supposing that some relatively small portion o! the :@/
aresses the etails o! local :@/ !unctioning1 say1 e.g.1 protein
synthesis1 regulation o! enzyme concentrations1 etc.1 while
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW )&-)2-
)*WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
>une 2))*
6he largest share o! these 2
C2WW$2D
bits are !or aressing the
ynamical groun in which the !unctioning o! the organism is
embee. -or the in!ormation contiane within the :@/ to remain
current1 the molecule must remain in contact an communication with its
ynamical groun.
6hat which is e0periencing my li!e is itsel! eternal an transcenent an
is not itsel! in any real anger. Ht oesn_t wish to lose its ego1 its
spatiotemporal image o! itsel! !or i! this occurs it can always create !or
itsel! another one.
Hn!ormation is never containe in or by structure or !orm alone.
Hn!ormation may however be accesse by a given !orm or structure
provie that this structure is properly connecte to some ynamical Cas
oppose to Kinematic or mechanicalD groun.
6he notion that human iniviuality is but an illusion presupposes the
notion o! an iniviuality that is real as oppose to illusory. 6he notion
o! illusory iniviuality surely then begs the question1 what woul it
mean !or a being to possess real iniviuality.
6his is aKin to the sel!-unermining assertion that the totality ! li!e is
merely a ream1 which begs the question what woul it mean to live
within reality as oppose to ream1 to awaKe !rom this hereto!ore
li!elong reverie? /lthough !orm arises !rom !ormlessness1 the reverse
o! this cannot be the case an so pure consciousness1 i! it e0ists must be
sustaine !rom some source transcening the ,niverse as -orm. 6o
create e0 nihilo is to create both !orm an !ormlessness.
6he precision with which the esign o! a conscious computer is
speci!ie in the very totality o! the esign1 that is1 will turn out to be the
very thing that prevents the computer_s Cor robots1 !or that matterD brain
!rom being open to in!luences the nature o! which coul not possibly
have been anticipate in the esign1 base as it is merely upon the
physical science possesse by its esigners uring the stage o! the
completion o! this esign. Fe shoul e0pect that a truly conscious
computer woul be in a position1 as is a gi!te scientist1 o! e0tening
scienti!ic Knowlege beyon that o! those scientists who authore the
esign o! its brain.
"o to be conscious then1 a computer_s esign must permit it to utilize
certain as yet ineterminate components o! the unKnown to rener
eterminate certain other1 i! not those very same1 components.
7erhaps the reason consciousness cannot be ob5ectivity e!ine is that
RaS consciousness is not o! the nature o! an ob5ect that is1 an essentially
abstract entity L an entity abstracte !rom some concrete an
ineterminate groun. H@ !act1 the ob5ective is perhaps itsel! e!ine in
terms o! the intersub5ective1 i.e.1 not only oes the ob5ective presupose
sub5ectivity in the singular but oes so1 still more1 in the plural.
8oreover1 it appears that consciousness itsel! might be1 a!ter all1 the best
caniate !or an ineterminate groun out o! which entityes are
abstracte so as to represent CcreateD ob5ects. ?ut again this
etermination o! consciousness may only be possible where tow or more
consciousnesses act in concert with one another1 apart !rom1 perhaps the
eterminations o! space an time Cne0us !or all !urther cooperation
between consciousnessD.
6he ob5ective properties o! consciousness are not intrinsic to it1 but are
intersub5ective an linguistically meiate an structure !orms o! an
within consciousness.
6he problem with !unctionalism is its abstraction o! al !unctions relevant
to the prouction o! all !unctions o! consciousness !rom the peculiar
nature o! any given meium in which these relevant !unctions might be
realize CinstantiateD. /n so in !unctionalism1 the istinctly i!!erent
ways in which istinct meia couple to the RoutsieS Ci.e.1 the unKnown
realmD are e0clue as irrelevant thusly1 the !unctionalist theory o! min
is one that in essence treats the brain as a close system where the
!unctionality o! the brain Cor any analogous system in which mental
!unctions are instantiate1 !or that matterD !or the prouction an
moulation o! states o! conscious awareness are concerne that is.
3onsciousness_ ob5ective being is internal to itsel!. 6his is why that
9urobouros1 the ancient ;gyptian symbol o! consciousness is so
appropriate.
Hn the same way that pure1 white light combines harmoniously all o! the
colors o! the rainbow1 so oes pure consciousness combine within itsel!
all possible e0periences. Ht oes this with per!ect an peace!ul
harmony.
Fhat then is the reason !or the necessity o! a plurality o! pure
consciousness? @one whatever i! each o! these is consiere as
stemming !rom some originary pure consciousness. ;ach o! these
iniviual an istinct pure consciousnesses1 resulting in the way that
presumably must have !rom this originary CsuperD consciousness1 are
alreay i!!erentiations o! this primary CpureD consciousness. /n so
then how can each o! these be suppose to be also Rpure.S Fhat
possible basis coul there be !or i!!erentiating one o! these pure
consciousness !rom another when each is assume to be inepenent o!
space an time? 6here must then be some principle contra
"chopenhauer1 c.!.1 Fill an Aepresentation1 o! i!!erentiation1 that is1
inepenent o! space an time.
6here are1 o! course1 an innumerable number o! ?uhas - those who
have awaKene to the !act o! their iniviuality having been an illusion.
@one0istence is 5ust as much a mani!estation o! being Co! what isD as is
;0istence. 6hings arise !rom other things !rom within the Ioi1 that is1
!rom elsewhere then !rom within space an time.
H! the present moment ever became !ully eterminate an crystallize1
there woul be no means !or it to avance in time or !or anything within
this moment to avance. "uch is analogously the case with a quantum
system in an energy eigenstate Cone that is non-egenerateD.
Aather than accepting the uality o! literal an metaphorical as real1 we
might suppose that liternalness is an abstraction !rom various egrees o!
metaphoricity.
6ertium :atur b relate this term to the ?uhist octrine o! the 8ile
Fay.
3onsciousness may be unerstoo as an awareness o! the causal1 logical1
an analogical interrelationships o! states o! e0perience.
6he state o! being at one level is the e0perience o! the sel! in a way that
woul be recognize as metaphorical by this same sel! when occupying
some higher1 more evelope state o! being. Fe can apply this iea to
4o_s message to humanKin in the !orm o! =is :ivine For. 6his
shoul be particularly so when it comes to the ?ible_s escriptions o!
=eaven an =ell.
6he component o! the ineterminate which never gets caught up in acts
o! etermination is that component constituting the eternal now.
6he see in sprouting as to its boy by enlisting1 colonizing an then
subverting larger an larger quantities o! material stu!! that itsel!
acquiring this same ability to incorporate an subvert other wise
seemingly inert substance.
.i!e is a game versus a metaphysical worK.
6he sel! is illusory versus eternal an transcenent.
3hanges in consciousness are thought to taKe place only at a certain
level o! epth within this consciousness.
"ynesthesia an presence1 e.g.1 scenes in movies an scene action music1
etc. ?ut conitioning can show that the bounaries between the
moalities o! sense are not !unamental1 e.g.1 6on un ?il sin !uer
mich gleich weil sie alle aus ataimpulsen bestehen1 c.!.1 Aevolte au!
.una1 hoerspiel1 vol. ( CAobert =einleinD
7lural ?rahman: each /tman is its own1 unique ?rahman rather than
each being erive !rom the same ?rahman.
Hmmanence is not through simple negation taKing place within a single
transcenent being1 i.e.1 unique ?rahman.
H! consciousnes is associate with some total energy that is a !unction o!
both pm an 0m1 then clearly this consciousness can never rest.
;verything is impermanent e0cept the sub5ect o! impermanence.
H! the iniviual_s consciousness is a particular !orm rather than being a
groun or substance in its own right1 then one_s consciousness is actually
but a state o! consciousness o! some being higher than the sel! so that it
is this being that is conscious not one_s sel! or ego L this only being
conscious through the consciousness o! that other being.
6his is inee what !ollows !rom presuming that one possesses a
concept o! consciousness. 9ne canot both be conscious an posess a
concept o! consciousness. 9nly a being possessing multiple states o!
consciousness within another all-embracing state o! consciousness can
possess a concept o! Cthese lower states o!D consciousness.
9r perhaps we may evelop a concept o! !ormer Cstates o!
consciousnessD that we have grown beyon or transcene.
/re Rhigher states o! consciousnessS necessarily illusory because simply
more comple0 or coherent structures/structurings o! the same unerlying
consciousness?
4os are boun to the wheel with chains o! gol1 but they ha no nee
to evelop ?uhism. 6he gos value happiness more than truth1 the
?uhist truth more than happiness. 6he gos Know that truth
transcens the ego1 that is1 the necessary sub5ect o! Knowlege. "o the
ego can only grasp Knowlege about the truth that transcens ego.
7urpose o! becoming emboie is recreation rather than acquiring the
Knowlege that transcens transcenence. 6ranscening enlightenment
by entering space an time an becoming emboie as a Kin o! reverse
enlightenment L a Kin o! anti-?uhism. 6he ob5ect o! which is to
leave their transcenent selves an e0perience !initue.
:istinguish the temporal now Cbecoming etermineD !rom the eternal
now Cbeing o! the ineterminateD. 6he ineterminate oes not literally
e0ist though it certainly a!!ects e0istence. ?eing as such cannot be an
act o! etermination since only particular beings act.
.iberation !rom the repetitive reenactment o! one_s con!licte1 !ormative
past L to R!i0 the pastS or to attempt to glimpse the past !rom all its
myria !acets in light o! superior Knowlege an wisom. 6o glimpse
an abstract principle behin the other_s hurt!ul actions so as to
econstruct them into harmlessness an laughableness.
9ne parao0ical attribute o! the 3hristian 4o is the notion o! 4o
being beyon space an time1 i.e.1 transcenent1 while at the same time
personal. 6here is a similar Cthough reverseD contraiction concerning
the notion o! the sel! in =inu an ?uhist thought L the soul as the
persistent be o! iniviuality is thought to be wholly illusory an yet
both these !aiths speaK o! reincarnation an the wheel o! li!e.
8arch 2)*(
6here is the more obvious problem with the unerlying logic o!
reincarnation: the number o! possible Rearthen vesselsS !or ancient souls
to inhabit is continually increasing so i! altogether new souls o not
routinely come into being1 then clearly we have an insoluble math
problem on our hans. 6he question arises as to how to unerstan the
obvious competition that must e0ist between new souls seeKing to
incarnate R!or the !irst timeS an ol souls seeKing to Rreincarnate.S
Kw=multiverse1 continuity1 threa1 anthropic

?ecause the transcenent cannot become immanent1 i.e.1 welling within
the worl Co! space an timeD through an act o! negation1 it !ollows that
the return is a metaphorical an ialectical process in which genuinely
new possibilities are engenere !or transcenence.
Fhat can possibly stan in the bacKgroun o! consciousness by which it
coul appear to one?
Fhy is there something rather than nothing? Fell1 there is nothing too
L there_s both something an nothing.
6here are two !unamentally i!!erent approaches to e0plaining the
origin o! consciousness !rom the !unctioning o! the brain L !rom the
insie1 that is1 !rom one_s own case1 versus R!rom the outsie.S ?ut
there shoul be 5ust as many outsies to this escription as there are
insies. ?ut only the plurality o! the e0ternal points o! view appear
amenable to being uni!ie. 9ne theory is that the internal is alreay
uni!ie although the plurality o! the e0ternal seems to belie this
possibility.
"o what maKes li!e possible psychologically1 that is1 is not having this
oler an more cynical version o! the sel!1 always aroun criticizing our
every !reely wille action.
6here are myria e0amples o! the simple misunerstaning in
conversation in which one has mishear another an one is in a position1
having hear correctly as a bystaner1 $
r
party1 the utterance o! the *
st
party. Puestion: !or which reason is there so much embarrassment on
the part o! the *
st
party as well as sympathetic embarrassment o! the 2
n
party !or the *
st
1 upon both becoming aware that they ha been
conversing unbeKnownst to themselves at cross purposes ue a trivial
mishearing o! the pronunciation o! a single syllable?
/nswer: because both parties e0perience in a precise an concrete way
the collapse o! the presence in which all happy conversation is implicitly
suppose to be embee by all concerne. /n essential to this
Rpresence1S c.!.1 Rmetaphysical presenceS in :erria1 is the notion o!
communication as involving the transmission o! the contents o! one
min to that o! another. /n so the collapse o! presence allue to in
the above scenario is 5ust the suen realization by all parties o! the
actual tenuousness o! intersub5ective communication1 that there was all
along no actual transmission o! meanings !rom one min to another1 5ust
the transmission o! signs between separate mins which each1 all alone
an always alone interpret sub5ectively.
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW )&-)'-
)*WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
6he problem with the multiverse presente us by the 8any Forls
Hnterpretation o! P8 is that by maKing each an every o! these possible
worls ontologically equivalent to the one that we Cor more properly1 the
iniviual observerCsD occupiesD1 the counter!actual that normally
occupies the groun o! being is remove1 renering genuine becoming
impossible an hence its appearance L illusory. /n e0ample o! this is
!oun in the covalent bon structure o! molecules which epens upon
the superposition o! quantum states all being equally present within this
universe in orer to sustain the covalent bons o! these molecules that
clearly o occupy our Callegely alternativeD universe.
Hn the same way that a quantum neural networK computer coul not be
esigne so as to be pre!itte to the neural networK o! one_s own brain
so as to !unction seamlessly in con5unction with it resulting in e0pansion
in the number an comple0ity o! !orms out o! which one_s consciousness
can be potentially structure1 but must be traine over an e0tene
perio o! trial an error interaction with one_s original neural networK
CbrainD in orer to !unction together with it seamlessly1
Qd
so was it not
possible !or one_s brain to engener states o! one_s own consciousness
ab initio in the absence o! a similar Rtrain-upS perio. / !eebacK
process was at !irst necessary !or a time be!ore one_s brain coul then
later become the neural mechanism by which one_s consciousness coul
become Cat !irst selecteD an then structure. 6he !etus or in!ant_s brain
ha to at some point become an open system in the necessary relevant
sense prior to its later !unctioning having become a !eebacK mechanism
!or the ynamic structuring o! one_s own consciousness.
6o provie an e0planation !or something_s coming to be what it
istinctively is Cas oppose to uniquely1 e0cept perhaps in terms o!
associate phenomenological e!!ects attribute to itD escription !or that
thing in such a manner that the elements o! one_s e0planation may be
properly relate to the various elements o! the escription. Hnstea o!
elements here1 we might in certain cases substitute properties or
attributes.
?ut a substance cannot be e0plicate in terms o! its accients1 as a
moment_s re!lection upon the more literal acceptation o! the wor1
RaccientS reveals.
. . . the largest share o! these 2
C2WW$2D
bits are !or aressing the ynamical
groun in which the !unctioning o! the organism is embee. -or the
in!ormation containe within the :@/ to remain current1 the molecule
must remain in contact an communication with its ynamical groun.
6hat which is e0periencing my li!e is itsel! eternal an transcenent an
is not itsel! in any real anger. Ht oesn_t wish to lose its ego1 its
spatiotemporal image o! itsel! !or i! this occurs it can always create !or
itsel! another one.
Hn!ormation is never containe in or by structure or !orm alone.
Hn!ormation may however be accesse by a given !orm or structure
provie that this structure is properly connecte to some ynamical Cas
oppose to Kinematic or mechanicalD groun.
6he notion that human iniviuality is but an illusion presupposes the
notion o! an iniviuality that is real as oppose to illusory. 6he notion
o! illusory iniviuality surely then begs the question1 what woul it
mean !or a being to possess real iniviuality.
6his is aKin to the sel!-unermining assertion that the totality o! li!e is
merely a ream1 which begs the question what woul it mean to live
within reality as oppose to ream1 to awaKe !rom this hereto!ore
li!elong reverie? /lthough !orm arises !rom !ormlessness1 the reverse
o! this cannot be the case an so pure consciousness1 i! it e0ists must be
sustaine !rom some source transcening the ,niverse as -orm. 6o
create e0 nihilo is to create both !orm an !ormlessness.
6he precision with which the esign o! a conscious computer is
speci!ie in the very totality o! the esign1 that is1 will turn out to be the
very thing that prevents the computer_s Cor robots1 !or that matterD brain
!rom being open to in!luences the nature o! which coul not possibly
have been anticipate in the esign1 base as it is merely upon the
physical science possesse by its esigners uring the stage o! the
completion o! this esign. Fe shoul e0pect that a truly conscious
computer woul be in a position1 as is a gi!te scientist1 o! e0tening
scienti!ic Knowlege beyon that o! those scientists who authore the
esign o! its brain.
"o to be conscious then1 a computer_s esign must permit it to utilize
certain as yet ineterminate components o! the unKnown to rener
eterminate certain other1 i! not those very same1 components.
7erhaps the reason consciousness cannot be ob5ectivity e!ine is that
RaS consciousness is not o! the nature o! an ob5ect that is1 an essentially
abstract entity L an entity abstracte !rom some concrete an
ineterminate groun. H@ !act1 the ob5ective is perhaps itsel! e!ine in
terms o! the intersub5ective1 i.e.1 not only oes the ob5ective presupose
sub5ectivity in the singular but oes so1 still more1 in the plural.
8oreover1 it appears that consciousness itsel! might be1 a!ter all1 the best
caniate !or an ineterminate groun out o! which entityes are
abstracte so as to represent CcreateD ob5ects. ?ut again this
etermination o! consciousness may only be possible where tow or more
consciousnesses act in concert with one another1 apart !rom1 perhaps the
eterminations o! space an time Cne0us !or all !urther cooperation
between consciousnessD.
6he ob5ective properties o! consciousness are not intrinsic to it1 but are
intersub5ective an linguistically meiate an structure !orms o! an
within consciousness.
6he problem with !unctionalism is its abstraction o! al !unctions relevant
to the prouction o! all !unctions o! consciousness !rom the peculiar
nature o! any given meium in which these relevant !unctions might be
realize CinstantiateD. /n so in !unctionalism1 the istinctly i!!erent
ways in which istinct meia couple to the RoutsieS Ci.e.1 the unKnown
realmD are e0clue as irrelevant thusly1 the !unctionalist theory o! min
is one that in essence treats the brain as a close system where the
!unctionality o! the brain Cor any analogous system in which mental
!unctions are instantiate1 !or that matterD !or the prouction an
moulation o! states o! conscious awareness are concerne that is.
3onsciousness_ ob5ective being is internal to itsel!. 6his is why that
9urobouros1 the ancient ;gyptian symbol o! consciousness is so
appropriate.
Hn the same way that pure1 white light combines harmoniously all o! the
colors o! the rainbow1 so oes pure consciousness combine within itsel!
all possible e0periences. Ht oes this with per!ect an peace!ul
harmony.
Fhat then is the reason !or the necessity o! a plurality o! pure
consciousness? @one whatever i! each o! these is consiere as
stemming !rom some originary pure consciousness. ;ach o! these
iniviual an istinct pure consciousnesses1 resulting in the way that
presumably must have !rom this originary CsuperD consciousness1 are
alreay i!!erentiations o! this primary CpureD consciousness. /n so
then how can each o! these be suppose to be also Rpure.S Fhat
possible basis coul there be !or i!!erentiating one o! these pure
consciousness !rom another when each is assume to be inepenent o!
space an time? 6here must then be some principle contra
"chopenhauer1 c.!.1 Fill an Aepresentation1 o! i!!erentiation1 that is1
inepenent o! space an time.
6here are1 o! course1 an innumerable number o! ?uhas - those who
have awaKene to the !act o! their iniviuality having been an illusion.
@one0istence is 5ust as much a mani!estation o! being Co! what isD as is
;0istence. 6hings arise !rom other things !rom within the Ioi1 that is1
!rom elsewhere then !rom within space an time.
H! the present moment ever became !ully eterminate an crystallize1
there woul be no means !or it to avance in time or !or anything within
this moment to avance. "uch is analogously the case with a quantum
system in an energy eigenstate Cone that is non-egenerateD.
Aather than accepting the uality o! literal an metaphorical as real1 we
might suppose that liternalness is an abstraction !rom various egrees o!
metaphoricity.
6erium :atur b relate this term to the ?uhist octrine o! the 8ile
Fay.
3onsciousness may be unerstoo as an awareness o! the causal1 logical1
an analogical interrelationships o! states o! e0perience.
6he state o! being at one level is the e0perience o! the sel! in a way that
woul be recognize as metaphorical by this same sel! when occupying
some higher1 more evelope state o! being. Fe can apply this iea to
4o_s message to humanKin in the !orm o! =is :ivine For. 6his
shoul be particularly so when it comes to the ?ible_s escriptions o!
=eaven an =ell.
6he component o! the ineterminate which never gets caught up in acts
o! etermination is that component constituting the eternal now.
6he see in sprouting as to its boy by enlisting1 colonizing an then
subverting larger an larger quantities o! material stu!! that itsel!
acquiring this same ability to incorporate an subvert other wise
seemingly inert substance.
.i!e is a game versus a metaphysical worK.
6he sel! is illusory versus eternal an transcenent.
3hanges in consciousness are thought to taKe place only at a certain
level o! epth within this consciousness.
"ynesthesia an presence1 e.g.1 scenes in movies an scene action music1
etc. ?ut conitioning can show that the bounaries between the
moalities o! sense are not !unamental1 e.g.1 6on un ?il sin !uer
mich gleich weil sie alle aus ataimpulsen bestehen1 c.!.1 Aevolte au!
.una1 hoerspiel1 vol. ( CAobert =einleinD
7lural ?rahman: each /tman is its own1 unique ?rahman rather than
each being erive !rom the same ?rahman.
Hmmanence is not through simple negation taKing place within a single
transcenent being1 i.e.1 unique ?rahman.
H! consciousnes is associate with some total energy that is a !unction o!
both pm an 0m1 then clearly this consciousness can never rest.
;verything is impermanent e0cept the sub5ect o! impermanence.
H! the iniviual_s consciousness is a particular !orm rather than being a
groun or substance in its own right1 then one_s consciousness is actually
but a state o! consciousness o! some being higher than the sel! so that it
is this being that is conscious not one_s sel! or ego L this only being
conscious through the consciousness o! that other being.
6his is inee what !ollows !rom presuming that one possesses a
concept o! consciousness. 9ne canot both be conscious an posess a
concept o! consciousness. 9nly a being possessing multiple states o!
consciousness within another all-embracing state o! consciousness can
possess a concept o! Cthese lower states o!D consciousness.
9r perhaps we may evelop a concept o! !ormer Cstates o!
consciousnessD that we have grown beyon or transcene.
/re Rhigher states o! consciousnessS necessarily illusory because simply
more comple0 or coherent structures/structurings o! the same unerlying
consciousness?
4os are boun to the wheel with chains o! gol1 but they ha no nee
to evelop ?uhism. 6he gos value happiness more than truth1 the
?uhist truth more than happiness. 6he gos Know that truth
transcens the ego1 that is1 the necessary sub5ect o! Knowlege. "o the
ego can only grasp Knowlege about the truth that transcens ego.
7urpose o! becoming emboie is recreation rather than acquiring the
Knowlege that transcens transcenence. 6ranscening enlightenment
by entering space an time an becoming emboie as a Kin o! reverse
enlightenment L a Kin o! anti-?uhism. 6he ob5ect o! which is to
leave their transcenent selves an e0perience !initue.
:istinguish the temporal now Cbecoming etermineD !rom the eternal
now Cbeing o! the ineterminateD. 6he ineterminate oes not literally
e0ist though it certainly a!!ects e0istence. ?eing as such cannot be an
act o! etermination since only particular beings act.
.iberation !rom the repetitive reenactment o! one_s con!licte1 !ormative
past L to R!i0 the pastS or to attempt to glimpse the past !rom all its
myria !acets in light o! superior Knowlege an wisom. 6o glimpse
an abstract principle behin the other_s hurt!ul actions so as to
econstruct them into harmlessness an laughableness.
9ne parao0ical attribute o! the 3hristian 4o is the notion o! 4o
being beyon space an time1 i.e.1 transcenent1 while at the same time
personal. 6here is a similar Cthough reverseD contraiction concerning
the notion o! the sel! in =inu an ?uhist thought L the soul as the
persistent be o! iniviuality is thought to be wholly illusory an yet
both these !aiths speaK o! reincarnation an the wheel o! li!e.
?ecause the transcenent cannot become immanent1 i.e.1 welling within
the worl Co! space an timeD through an act o! negation1 it !ollows that
the return is a metaphorical an ialectical process in which genuinely
new possibilities are engenere !or transcenence.
Fhat can possibly stan in the bacKgroun o! consciousness by which it
coul appear to one?
Fhy is there something rather than nothing? Fell1 there is nothing too
L there_s both something an nothing.
6here are two !unamentally i!!erent approaches to e0plaining the
origin o! consciousness !rom the !unctioning o! the brain L !rom the
insie1 that is1 !rom one_s own case1 versus R!rom the outsie.S ?ut
there shoul be 5ust as many outsies to this escription as there are
insies. ?ut only the plurality o! the e0ternal points o! view appear
amenable to being uni!ie. 9ne theory is that the internal is alreay
uni!ie although the plurality o! the e0ternal seems to belie this
possibility.
"o what maKes li!e possible psychologically1 that is1 is not having this
oler an more cynical version o! the sel!1 always aroun criticizing our
every !reely wille action.
6here are myria e0amples o! the simple misunerstaning in
conversation in which one has mishear another an one is in a position1
having hear correctly as a bystaner1 $
r
party1 the utterance o! the *
st
party. Puestion: !or which reason is there so much embarrassment on
the part o! the *
st
party as well as sympathetic embarrassment o! the 2
n
party !or the *
st
1 upon both becoming aware that they ha been
conversing unbeKnownst to themselves at cross purposes ue a trivial
mishearing o! the pronunciation o! a single syllable?
/nswer: because both parties e0perience in a precise an concrete way
the collapse o! the presence in which all happy conversation is implicitly
suppose to be embee by all concerne. /n essential to this
Rpresence1S c.!.1 Rmetaphysical presenceS in :erria1 is the notion o!
communication as involving the transmission o! the contents o! one
min to that o! another. /n so the collapse o! presence allue to in
the above scenario is 5ust the suen realization by all parties o! the
actual tenuousness o! intersub5ective communication.
6he problem with the multiverse presente us by the 8any Forls
Hnterpretation o! P8 is that by maKing each an every o! these possible
worls ontologically equivalent to the one that we Cor more properly1 the
iniviual observerCsD occupiesD1 the counter!actual that normally
occupies the groun o! being is remove1 renering genuine becoming
impossible an hence its appearance L illusory. /n e0ample o! this is
!oun in the covalent bon structure o! molecules which epens upon
the superposition o! quantum states all being equally present within this
universe in orer to sustain the covalent bons o! these molecules that
clearly o occupy our Callegely alternativeD universe.
Hn the same way that a quantum neural networK computer coul not be
esigne so as to be pre!itte to the neural networK o! one_s own brain
so as to !unction seamlessly in con5unction with it resulting in e0pansion
in the number an comple0ity o! !orms out o! which one_s consciousness
can be potentially structure1 but must be traine over an e0tene
perio o! trial an error interaction with one_s original neural networK
CbrainD in orer to !unction together with it seamlessly1 so was it not
possible !or one_s brain to engener states o! one_s own consciousness
ab initio in the absence o! a similar Rtrain-upS perio. / !eebacK
process was at !irst necessary !or a time be!ore one_s brain coul then
later become the neural mechanism by which one_s consciousness coul
become structure. 6he !etus or in!ant_s brain ha to at some point
become an open system in the necessary relevant sense prior to it later
!unctioning having become a !eebacK mechanism !or the ynamic
structuring o! one_s consciousness.
6o provie an e0planation !or something_s coming to be what it
istinctively is Cas oppose to uniquely1 e0cept perhaps in terms o!
associate phenomenological e!!ects attribute to itD escription !or that
thing in such a manner that the elements o! one_s e0planation may be
properly relate to the various elements o! the escription. Hnstea o!
elements here1 we might in certain cases substitute properties or
attributes.
?ut a substance cannot be e0plicate in terms o! its accients1 as a
moment_s re!lection upon the more literal acceptation o! the wor1
RaccientS reveals.
;0ilic an 3ovenantal Aeligions are erive !rom the mimetic. /re all
o! the !unamental elements o! the 3hristian religion1 !or instance1 virgin
birth1 incarnation1 sacri!ice1 atonement1 resurrection1 ascents into heaven1
secon comings1 en o! the worl1 etc. common to earlier primitive
religions?
/re 4nostic an emanationist religions e0amples o! e0ilic religion?
Festern monotheism_s concept o! a personal transcenent is seemingly a
contraiction in terms. ?ut so is ;astern mysticism_s notion o! the
in!usion o! the impersonal transcenent within the natural orer within
space an time.
Hn!lection o! concepts as orere shi!ts in the application an acceptation
o! the concepts within some preestablishe system conte0tualize
omains.
4eneralizing through the abstracting o! notions common to i!!erent
acceptations or metaphorical e0tensions o! some enotative term.
6he quantum nature o! the physical orer an the unerlying integrative
mechanism o! consciousness overlap an can inter!ere with one another.
:uality implies con!lict an isharmony. -all !rom the transcenent.
>esus_ resurrection may have only been metaphorical1 but human
e0istence itsel! is only metaphorical !or transcenent being.
H! these myths were vali in the era o! their origin1 then they shoul be
able to grow an aapt to evolving social an cultural conte0t. .iving
myths that remain couple to the ynamical groun o! their being
through which they may be properly upate through groun_s being
Kept in!orme by temporal change.
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW)&*&)*WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWW
6he transcenence by :eity o! the ual categories o! ;0istence an
@othingness has the result o! rei!ying @othingness1 at least inso!ar as
renering it a mani!estation o! the /bsolute. ;vil originates out o! the
active principle Co! orer/oreringD o! the @othingness constitute by
C!ollowing ?arthD Rall that which 4o oes not will.S =eaven may be
unerstoo as sacre an holy community in which intersub5ectivity is
in harmony by each sub5ectivity being attribute to the :ivine Fill.
=ell may be viewe as the total breaKown into chaos o! a community
that might have been. Ht is constitute by all out war between an
among myria totally sel!-seeKing iniviuals L a cacophony o!
un!ettere wills.
@ovember 2)**
6he obverse view is that hell is to remain
!orever consume with the sel! an its vain imagination in the utter
absence of the presencing of the other. 8ost o! !reeom is comprise
by choices that i! aopte set the stage !or !urther limitation o! the small
resiuum o! choices giving !reeom its only real worth. 6here is inee
a Kernel o! an argument !or the e0istence o! other mins Csolution o! Rthe
other mins problemS o! the philosophy o! minD to be !oun in the
pursuit o! a eeper analysis o! the meaning o! hell as the natural
metaphysical outcome o! soul-crushing guilt1 shame an regret1 i! not
remorse Cin the absence o! an otherwise salvatory contritionD.
"omehow the sole iniviual an his limite imaginative resources
cannot e0actly reprouce the uniquely integrally whole pattern o!
entangle sense ata that routinely presente themselves !or his
appraisal throughout the course o! his earthly e0istence. 6here is a Key
element o! temporality missing1 which is tangibly absent !rom the spirit
o! one in a state o! Ramnation.S 6his remins us o! the role o! a
missing grouning biomolecular conte0t that lies behin the persistent
!ailure o! animal cloning e0periments.
6here is something more important than the most important thing that
you presently Know about an o! which you will never learn about
uring this li!e. 6his is the beginning o! the opening o! one_s min an
the setting asie o! one_s unbeKnownst arrogance. Hn!ormation about
this important thing is potentially available to the iniviual who has
opene his min. 6o have opene one_s min is to have begun a search
!or the maKing Known that which is within the ,nKnown. ?ecause
min is a plurality1 the ,nKnown possesses a structure an is in!orme1
there!ore1 by an orering principle1 the nature o! which is to sustain the
unKnown in its state o! being unKnown. 6he plurality o! consciousness
has being but cannot be Known1 e0cept to a transcenental 8in. H! the
real possesses a representation as Hea1 then a transcenent 8in
possesses true being.
!b=
8an shoul not !ear the unKnown. /!ter all it is where he came !rom
an is where he currently maKes his home.
3an all !luctuation phenomena be rationalize as perturbations o!
e0pectation values. 9r is the stability o! e0pectation values negotiate
Cthrough a counterpoising o! wills1 sayD rather than being 5ust
mechanism writ small? 6he !act o! uncertainty possessing an
irreucible ontological1 as oppose to merely epistemological
component1 shoul have an important bearing on this question.
3ontemplate the changeability an reactivity o! language as iniviually
implemente that is owing to a social-collective ynamic.
Fhen most people thinK o! 4o1 they imagine a being that !alls within
the escription o! one o! a pair o! a potentially myria number o! pairs
o! ual opposites1 e.g.1 goo vs. evil1 matter vs. energy1 temporal vs.
eternal1 e0istent vs. none0istent1 personal vs. impersonal1 etc. ?ut such
a being as is imagine here coul not possibly at the same time be the
groun o! being1 that is1 that which that unerlies all uality that is a
mere mani!estation o! transcenent :eity.
6he wholly other !rom mysel! woul not be the merely i!!erent1 c.!.1
i!!erence within continuity versus ifference without. -or all the ways
in which this other might be i!!erent !rom mysel! coul be submitte to
a contrast between all o! my positive attributes an all its negative. ?ut
this woul be a case o! another iniviual being merely relatively
i!!erent or other1 in the sense o! opposite e0tremes on a scale
emboying a scheme o! categorization. ?ut the transcenent other is
beyon all categorization in the same way that consciousness as the
groun o! thought Cin generalD1 can_t itsel! be a thought or emboie in
thought or as the groun o! e0perience1 can_t itsel! be an e0perience or
graspe within e0perience. 9nly within the transcenent consciousness
o! :eity !rom which we erive our being coul consciousness be a
thought. /n so i! 8an has a concept o! consciousness rather than
merely possessing a metaphor o! it1 it_s because 4o has given us the
gi!t o! this concept. 6his iea is very much o! the same spirit as
:escartes argument that 8an couln_t have a notion or iea o! 4o1 i!
4o in_t actually e0ist L there_s nowhere we coul have gotten this
iea o! 4o an ivinity1 in the sense o! transcenent or universal
ivinity1 i! not !rom the !act o! 4o_s being having been somehow
communicate to 8an through a Kin o! gracing o! his intellect.
"eptember
2)*$

!cbK=epi=
E6he sharpest system o! ethics comes !rom an unerstaning
that persons o not belong in common to any conceivable abstract
category or class1 i.e.1 comes !rom a recognition o! the transcenental
nature o! the sel!...being ethical towars Ethe other as wholly otherE
emboies a much stronger ethical principle than oes the >ueo-
3hristian principle1 Elove thy brother as thy sel!E...E 6he other is not Rthy
brother. 6he Eprolegomena to any possibleE theology Ci! inee one is
possibleD must inclue a Etranscenental ethicsE. 6he magical nacve
realism o! >ueo-3hristianity oes not in !act !orm a metaphysical basis
!or an ethical system opposite to the one liKely !ashione by an
otherwise rational metaphysical solipsist]rather1 the most rational
system o! ethics open to an WepistemologicalW solipsist/3artesian sKeptic
is the one that is inee iametrically opposite to the ethical system
liKely espouse by the etermine metaphysical solipsist. H! Ethy
brotherE or Rthy neighborS were equivalent to Ethe otherE1 then 4o
woulnGt have irecte the e0tirpation o! all the 3anaanite tribes1 !or
e0ample. Ht is always the other who is amne an not the sel!1 e.g.1
R4o wouln_t amn me]H_m a basically goo person1 etc.S 6he
e0istence o! a concept o! consciousness1 i.e1 the intersub5ectivity an
rationality o! consciousness per se epens on this notion o! Rthe wholly
otherS !or its e!inability/conceivability. Hntentionality seems the only
viable basis !or a category or concept o! consciousness1 not any group o!
similar instances !rom which we coul abstract to !orm sai concept1
e.g.1 the electron1 since one only has oneGs own unique case !rom which
to raw Cone canGt ever Know the conscious states o! other minsD.
"eptember
2N1 2)*$

7oste as comment to /uubon "ociety page
: E / most emaning system o! ethics
woul come !rom an unerstaning that persons o not belong in
common to any conceivable abstract category or class1 i.e.1 comes !rom a
recognition o! the transcenental nature o! the sel!...which is to say1
being ethical towars Ethe other as wholly otherE emboies a much
stronger ethical principle than oes the ?iblical principle1 Elove thy
brother as thy sel!S. ?ut such a system o! ethics might well o!!er up
unwante metaphysical or even theological implications1 especially to
those who taKe themselves !or the most ethical o! persons.
9therness as alternative coherence o! consciousness can isseminate an
in!ect one as when on aopts the voice o! the other Csmall RvSD which
results in a shi!t in the register o! thought over to the other_s voice Clarge
RvSD. Lime Cat
8ay 2)*(
"o the Keenest ethics is not motivate by the
perhaps amirable notion that1 EH o not o the right thing by my !ellow
man an society because H crave heavenly rewar or abhor the terrors o!
hell1 but because WitGs the right thing to oWE1 but by the notion that1 EH
shall o right by the other1 who is1 in his/her very groun o! being1
always transcenentally other !rom mysel!.E Ht is an ethics base on the
Jen notion o! Esolipsism without solipsismE. 3ontrast this with
wheeler_s view that1 Rwe all share the same abstract ientityS1 which is a
very i!!erent taKe on solipsism without solipsism1 c.!.1
cit=
http://ar0iv.org/p!/quant-ph/)')$**$.p!1 2icroF*nthropic 4rinciple
for 3uantum theory.
/pril 2)*2
/ Key component o! any system o! ethics is integrity1 which is
where one consistently applies the principles an abies by the share
values o! whatever social an collaborative eneavor one is engage in1
e.g.1 scienti!ic research. Fhat are some o! the social1 economic1
political an even personal/psychological !orces Csuch as gree1
ambition1 competitivenessD !orces that in!luence iniviual researchers
an research institutions in their ecision-maKing1 which causes them to
!all short o! the principles1 ieals an values o! science as an ob5ective
search !or truth about the natural worl? Henti!y those principles1
values an ieals1 then ienti!y those social1 political an economic
!orces that cause researchers an research institutions to !all short o! the
above an then maybe state why its important !or a physicists1
iniviually an collectively to act ethically to inclue the long terms
social an pragmatic bene!its that come !rom ethical scienti!ic behavior1
e.g.1 the image an inspiration o! scienti!ic eneavor !or !uture
generations1 increasing the publicGs trust in scienti!ic eneavor1 which
leas to greater public support !or science1 e.g.1 physics an big physics
pro5ects. Oey wors in the guts o! the iscussion: peer review1 grants1
contracts1 awars1 tenure1 acaemic honesty1 sociology o! science1
military inustrial comple01 scienti!ic paraigms1 ?ig "cience Ce.g.1
"uperconucting "upercollier1 which was cancelle by 3ongress 2)
years agoD. 6here is the question o! whether scienti!ic truth shoul be
pursue Ceven at high costD !or its own saKe or only i! the investment
translates into a socially use!ul payo!!1 short or long term.
6he traitional notion o! 4o secretly implies =e is a Kin o! cosmically
lonely solipsist. Fe shoul e0plore the implications o! transcenent
alterity in light o! the absence o! an immanent concept of consciousness
with a min to revamp our notion o! 4o by stripping it o! all o! its
!eatures that might carry unwante solipsistic implications !or
transcenent being. 9! interest also is the notion o! transcenent groun
of being in the absence of transcenent being itself. 3an 64? o all o!
the same RworKS without the necessity o! 6? itsel!? 7erhaps1 but perhaps
not. 6he question bears philosophical investigation. Lime Cat Fhat HGm
talKing about is what H thinK might be the essence o! real altruism. Hn the
sense that itGs less altruistic to help your brother than it is to help a
cousin than a it is to help a stranger than it is to help an alien
intelligence1 an so on1 6his all starts !rom the assumption that altruism
must be isentangle !rom sympathy1 presumably a!ter one has alreay
!actore out the prospect o! pro!it or gain ue to anticipate or implie
!uture reciprocity. -rien is somewhere between brother an cousin1 i!
you will. ;0cept in rare casesT : D
Aesonance is coherence with the other an coherence is resonance with
the sel!. Hnertia then must be interprete more broaly as resistance to
trans!ormation involving a shi!t in the relative strengths o! coherence
an resonance.
=ow is it that 8an has since the beginning o! recore history1 possibly
much earlier1 spoKen with 4o_s voice though without ever having hear
this voice? Fhat causes us to resist acKnowleging how little sense this
maKes?
Hn the same way that the causality lying behin the coherence o! matter
giving it its integrity is unerlie by the nonlocal connecteness o! local
resonances within matter1 oesn_t the coherence o! consciousness that
we term 8in epenent upon the resonance o! the iniviual
consciousness with CnonlocalD eternal 8in Cwhich may be a Kin o!
master coherence within transcenent consciousnesD?
RHn the beginning was the For an the For was with 4o an the
For was 4o.S -or being to be with itsel! is !or being to be conscious
CbeingD. 6o articulate this being_s being with itsel! CForD is sel!-
consciousness1 that is1 it is the very beginning o! the "el! in 6ime.
6here is no beginning without ?eing in 6ime. @oting the occurrence o!
?eing within ;0istence is the preconition o! this being within time
which being notes occurrence within sel!.
Hn the same way that a series o! negations Cescriptions in terms o!
negations1 that isD oesn_t grasp or capture the groun o! reality !rom
which we raw our being1 it !ollows that our being within the worl is
not !oune upon negation within any pre-given system o! !orms an
!unctions1 but possesses an absolute an not merely relative or
relativistic positivity about it. Fe are not merely e0istents1 but
metaphysical entities1 an so everything we o min!ully1 that is1 results
in the e0ertion o! at least some small bit o! metaphysical worK an by
which the realm o! ?eing itsel! is enlarge. Fe are1 in other wors1 i!
only in but a small way1 co-creators with the :eity in the un!inishe an
ongoing worK o! creation. 6his is quite contrary to the spirit o!
"chopenhauer_s con!ient assertion that1 Ra!ter your eath you will be
what you were be!ore your birth.S
:ecember 2)**
Fe are1 in other wors1 i! only in but a small way1 co-creators
with the :eity in the un!inishe an ongoing worK o! creation. Hn this
way1 an important an substantive istinction must be rawn between a
genuinely possible hypothetical person an the ientity o! a person who
live a li!e1 but whose time has now passe. Fe must have ha a
potential to e0ist1 since were are inee here1 now. ?ut oes this imply
that one always ha the potential to e0ist? 9r must certain conitions be
in place !irst1 be!ore it becomes true to say that a given hypothetical
person now has the potential to e0ist1 whether or not that person ever
inee comes into e0istence as a matter o! !act. 6here are many
suppresse istinctions being glosse over1 equivocations o! sense1
entanglements o! conte0t an con!usion o! categories implie by the
above paragraph1 which might !ruit!ully bear !urther investigation.
:eath is not a happening1 but a !ailure o! something to happen ne0t1 that
is1 i! we are trying to thinK o! eath as something that occurs at a special
moment at the en o! li!e. ?ut actually1 we are always in the act o!
ying as we ie along with the passing away o! the present moment. Ht
is the passing away o! the present moment without its being replace in
turn by the !ollowing moment we call eath !rom all other moments o!
one_s li!e.
:eath is 5ust !ailure in the process o! rebirth or reconstruction o! the ol
pattern o! one_s li!e in the !lesh o! the every-renewing !lu0 o! energy that
is the li!e o! the ,niverse1 that is1 o! e0istence1 as oppose to being.
9ne_s being never passes away !or it never once passes at all.
9ne_s being in!orms one_s e0istence though it oes not itsel! actually
wholly embarK upon an into this e0istence.
6he /bsolute may be unerstoo as that bounary conition that applies
to all possible !lu0es an bacK-reacting only taKes place between the
relativistic bounary conitions that e0ist at various levels.
Fe might classi!y ata as intersub5ective in!ormation an in!ormation as
sub5ective ata.
3ertainly the Hnternet an the FFF is going to catalyze the cross-
!ertilization o! ieas. /n out o! the resulting intensi!ication o!
metaphoricity will emerge1 as out o! a Kin o! istillation process1 the
!urther crystallization o! concepts an may even reuce the threshol
against the occurrence o! spontaneous intellectual an spiritual insights1
maKing this !unamental an trans!ormative e0perience o! insight more
accessible to the hereto!ore Rcommon man.S
9ne oesn_t have to have this ramatic1 glamorous or interesting li!e to
be reasonably happy1 which means 5ust being open to the bubbling !orth
o! these brie!1 episoes o! 5oy or mil elation that on_t have to have any
reason e etre in the usual sense o! holing out e0pectation !or the
!uture1 say liKe when as chilren we go to a restless sleep1 looKing
!orwar to embarKing on the trip to :isneylan or to 4ranma_s quaint
house in the country1 probably alreay practically staning-room-only
!ille with my similarly age1 rough-housing cousins.
/n one oesn_t have to have this !ascinating li!e because in a very real
alternate ,niverse somewhere my oppelganger is oing 2' to li!e !or
something he i while celebrating too har on the night a!ter passing
his =arvar .aw ?ar e0am.
?ut there 5ust aren_t as many alternate universe out there as there are
permutations an combinations !or all o! the abstract physical
parameters that quantum or particle physics imagines goes into the
complete physical escription o! a ,niverse.
6here has to be something aKin to a quantum egeneracy that somehow
escapes the ceteris paribus principle o! 9ccam_s razor that accounts !or
the coherence1 cohesiveness1 an consistency o! this real ,niverse1 in
contraistinction to the pro5ecte ,niverses o! abstract parameters
5uggle by the quantum mechanical 8i0master.
H thinK most o! us who really pull our hair out trying to !in something to
write hit upon the magic secret weapon o! channeling. 6hat_s when the
wors an phrases1 subvocalize in your min_s ear1 be!ore you_re about
to commit them to paper1 are in the precise vocal in!lection o! your
!avorite author. ?ut really the secret is to learn to hear the vocal
in!lection unique to you an channel that.
6he spiritual epth o! a person is etermine by how much o! their lives
are spent in preparation !or eath. 6here are others who strongly !eel
that there is no possible way to prepare !or one_s eath an so one might
as well evote all o! one_s attention to living one_s li!e.
6o these people the preparation !or eath through spiritual or
philosophic stuy an re!lection represent a mistaKen notion o! eath_s
meaning as some event apart !rom utter an complete cessation.
6here appears to be two basic Kins o! negation1 one operating within a
!ormal1 close or boun system L this is the usual sense o! this term.
/n then there is the less common1 more esoteric sense o! this term in
which1 unliKe in the !irst sense1 the operation o! negation is
!unamentally irreversible1 i.e.1 the negation o! the negation oes not
bring us bacK to some previously e!ine state or recapture some
pree0istent !e!erent with which we began Cprior to the *
st
negation ! the
pairD. 6his secon Kin o! negation cannot be symbolically represente
withina pre-given system o! symbols1 but only by that which possesses
only a sub5ective interpretation or re!erence. Fill acts upon ambiguity
here1 rather than mechanism upon certainty.
Hn the !irst case there is ientity within a system o! i!!erences. Hn the
later1 there is absolute ientity. 6he secon Kin o! negation e0hibits the
nature o! thought Crather than reaction or impulseD.
* >ohn $:2( R/n he that Keepeth his commanments welleth in him1
an he in him.S =ere H well in =im an =e wells in me. 6he sel! as
sub5ect CHD wells in =im1 an the sel! as ob5ect CmeD is the place o! =is
inwelling. "o here H well in me through welling in =im as =e
wells in me. 9ne_s boy is no longer irectly an immeiately
ensoule1 but has now become ensoule through =im C>esus 3hristD.
>esus may be thought o! as the 2
n
person o! the 6rinity as ob5ect1 3hrist
as this person as sub5ect. 6hrough welling in >esus C=is worKs1 i.e.1
the 3ommanmentsD1 3hrist CgraceD wells in the sel!. /n in this way
is the believer ensoule anew through >esus CtheD 3hrist. 6his is to be
born again.
Fill an CpassiveD consciousness are not separate but will may be
unerstoo as active consciousness. /lthough perception is
consciousness reacting to the imposition upon itsel! o! bounary
conitions !rom outsie. 6hese bounary conitions are not applie to
consciousness as such1 but to the iniviual_s consciousness as CalwaysD
alreay establishe an in operation. Fill may be unerstoo as the
imposing o! bounary conitions by the iniviual consciousness upon
itsel!1 internally iniviual consciousness upon itsel!1 internally as it
were. @o perception may be ha without !irst the appropriate
a5ustment o! consciousness_ bounary conitions Cupon its timeliKe
resonanceD1 that is to say1 without the proper !iltering by bounary
conitions o! the ynamic o! consciousness_ resonant interaction with its
transcenent an ineterminate groun. 6here is o! course the
necessity o! a certain basic pattern o! !iltering upon which the ego is
epenent. 6he iniviual consciousness possesses a coherence not
reucible to or epenent upon !eebacK structures sustaine by brain
activity.
3onsciousness is a classically !orbien phenomenon. Hs it possible
that quantum tunneling is an important mechanism unerlying the
association o! consciousness with Crather than its engenering byD a
!unctioning brain?
H! all possible universes are actual1 then oes this mean that the
conscious observer continually moves !rom one universe to another Cat
least each time the observer per!orms a quantum measurement upon the
quantum state o! his own brainD.
6he essence o! evil is the unity o! e!!ort an activity o! the 2
n
principle
to subvert the orer o! creation1 the mani!estation o! the *
st
principle1 to
reorganize this reality in accorance with itsel! so that this creation
appears to have been an e0pression o! its own being rather than that o!
?eing Htsel!. Ht is constitute by the reinterpretation o! ?eing as
8ani!estation an mani!estation as being.
6he ictum that1 Rnothing !ails liKe success1S may be unerstoo in the
!ollowing way. "uccess allows the erecting an builing up o! vast1
institutionalize structures upon which nations an still larger societies
may come to epen !or their livelihoo an sense o! the meaning o!
e0istence1 but which must sooner or later e0perience collapse or
revolution1 resulting in !ailure on a catastrophic scale. "uccess permits
!alling !rom a much greater height than !rom the lower plain o!
meiocrity.
6here are many e0amples that can be given !or things in culture that
e0ert an upwar pull upon the min an heart on the one han or a
ownwar pull upon the same1 on the other. /n as culture is itsel! a
mani!estation an concentration o! the elements an ynamics alreay
present i! only in relatively inchoate1 unsublimate !orm in the natural
man e0isting altogether outsie o! the realm o! culture1 altogether
outsie o! the realm o! culture1 this woul appear to perhaps maKe the
case !or a !unamental uality o! goo vs. evil lying at the !ounation o!
the human spirit. ?ut there appears to be also a natural latent ability o!
many persons to imagine a way li!e an being base upon a system o!
values raically i!!erent !rom that hel by the ominant cultures into
which they have been born. /n this seems strong evience !or the real
e0istence o! a !aculty o! !ree will in such persons an points to the
possibility o! such a !aculty being a more or less universal enowment
o! the iniviual human psyche.
6he worl isn_t real because it oesn_t last an oesn_t possess an
orering principle eep enough by which it can sustain its own
e0istence. 6he principle o! being o! e0istence1 that is1 o! all that e0ists1
is not to be !oun within e0istence.
Ht is not necessary to choose in the light o! greater Knowlege1 obtaine
only much later1 in orer to choose wisely. Ht is not only important to
see things as mani!estations o! a groun1 but to recognize an
istinguish one groun !rom another. 6hat which in!orms groun is
orere in altogether i!!erent manner than is this groun which it
in!orms. 6his is the principle o! the see in which in!ormation is
inter5ecte in programme stages into the process o! the in!orming o!
groun which itsel! oes not !unction in accorance with any pre!igure
or preetermine programs.
Hn!ormation is not a program an the placeholers !or ata within ata
structures are not themselves ata.
6here are Rbe!ore imagesS 5ust as there are a!ter images.
6ranscenental 8in leas to consciousness which leas to in!ormation
leaing in turn to ata structures1 then to ata variables boun or
unboun by e0plicit ata structures.
6he ringing o! the bell be!ore the bell e0ists. 6he ringing o! the bell
a!ter the bell e0ists1 but be!ore the bell has been strucK. 6he ringing o!
the bell a!ter it has been strucK though the bell remains in e0istence.
6he ringing o! the bell a!ter being strucK an a!ter the bell no longer
e0ists.
6he large time scale on which the maturation o! wisom taKes place
suggests that the graations by which this Kin o! Knowlege increases
are below the threshol o! being articulate iscursively uring the
process1 that is.
/!ter substracting !rom each iniviual sub5ect all those particulars1 e.g.1
accients1 conitions1 etc. 6hat are not essential to each sub5ect being
what Cor whoD it is1 we are le!t only with what istinguishes each !rom
the other.
6he human quantum observer is not part o! the eterministic orer
governe by the "chroeinger wave equation although he is nonetheless
able to physically a!!ect any such system through eciing to interact
with it. "ynaptic activity has to be taKing place in something1 that is1
there must be some Kin o! conte0t !or this synaptic action !or this
activity to integrate so as to re!er to something outsie itsel!. 6his
conte0t1 whatever it may be1 cannot be o! the same !unamental
quantum/classical nature as the system o! the brain embee in it.
6o possess consciousness is to possess psychic abilities1 e.g.1 telepathy1
teleKinesis1 clairvoyance1 etc. with regar to the situation an conuct o!
one_s own sel!.
7erhaps the cash value o! the term RconsciousnessS is in actuality only
Rsel!-consciousness1S that is1 consciousness with an ob5ect- in this case1
the ob5ect Ca social construct merely1 perhapsD is the sel!. =ere the
situation woul be unerstoo as closely analogous to that wherein the
reamer upon awaKening woners i! inee he was conscious might
Cthough not sel!-awareness unless the relativity rare case o! luci
reaming is concerne hereD. "o are reams only recollecte in the light
o! the sel!-conscious sel! o! the awaKene state in which case our belie!
in the intrinsic Rraw !eelsS o! consciousness as a Kin o! continuous
substance1 one which oesn_t necessarily require any particular !orm or
structuring to possess un-sel!-aware e0perience1 is quite mistaKen.
9r i! upon awaKening he merely recollects the ream as having been a
series o! conscious e0periences. H! inee reams are there!ore1 only1
properly speaKing1 composes o! conscious e0periences in the rare
instances o! luci reaming1 an in all other cases1 it is only physical
memory traces that are being more or less built up uring the night_s
lapse o! normal consciousness1 then the e0perience o! reaming1 as
humans normally unerstoo this phenomenon1 has to be more properly
viewe as the bacKwar pro5ection o! one_s normally waKing
consciounsess as the rei!ie conte0t-giving substance Cin the sense o!
e0periential meiumD !or these !limsy sturctures o! physical encoing o!
memory traces within the reaming person_s brain. ;ning these
consierations prepares !or consiering the relatively more raical
hypothesis1 namely1 that every case in which we recollect having been
conscious in the absence o! a concurrent state o! sel!-consciousness is
one in which a !alse attribution o! consciousness is being mae in a
later-occurring sel!-conscious or re!lective moment.
9ur whole ebate concerning the question o! 4o_s ;0istence or
none0istence1 7latonism vs. relativism1 har /H vs. mysterianism1 etc.
may turn out to hinge upon the question o! whether sel!-consciousness
an consciousness itsel! Cor as suchD are in actuality two istinct things
Cphenomena1 concepts1 etc.D. Hs there pure consciousness1 in other
wors1 or is this concept base upon the
Kw=
rei!ication o! a pro5ection?
7lato ha been speaKing about suchness but only the suchness o! !orm
an not o! substance.
Fe have all along assume that the act o! rei!ying our pro5ections oes
not translate to any enuring isturbance or alteration o! the real
Cwhatever this is/beD.
H! consciousness as such or Rpure consciousnessS is really only sel!
consciousness an its various bacKwar pointing pro5ections1 then pure
consciousness as such shoul have no basis as a properly istinct
concept Cistinct !rom that o! sel!-consciousness1 that is.D Hn this case
consciousness is sel!-consciousness1 that is to say1 consciousness Cas
sel!-consciousnessD is a !orm or !unction Cor !orm o! !unctioningD o!
some system1 an so-calle pure consciousness is the meium o! the
sub5ect_s sel!-conscious e0perience rei!ie as unerlying substance that
is structure into a consciousness o! sel! as sub5ect o! this conscious
e0perience.
6here is all Kins o! stray inuctive Rcross-talKS between the various
ensely criss-crossing a0ons o! the human cerebral corte0. ?ut either
these stray inuctances are below conscious threshol or there are really
no messages as such criss-crossing along these myria neural !ibers.
Aather1 thoughts an perceptions are triggere actuate1 an perhaps
moulate by all the comple0 networKs o! ion currents boun to the
meshes o! neural interconnections within the neocorte0.
?ut without the valiity o! a concept o! pure CiniviualD consciousness
re!erring to an ob5ective as reality we have all along suppose it to be
oing1 the entire metaphysics o! mysticism is completely unercut.
8oreover1 one cannot then use the notion o! a transcenental 8in
base upon the notion o! general1 that is1 transcenental concept o!
consciousness1 to argue !or the reality o! 4o_s ?eing Ci! not1 however1
=is ;0istenceD.

!cbK= "eptember 2)*$

E3an a person who has only ever e0perience a single
color1 e.g.1 the color EreE Ca philosophy o! min !avoriteD possess a
concept o! color? - /n a!!irmative here oes not appear reasonable.
"imilarly1 the iniviual1 who has only Known consciousness !rom his
own unique an iniviual case1 cannot possess a concept o!
consciousness. / concept o! consciousness is there!ore a
EtranscenentalE1 i.e.1 conceivable only by a being capable o!
e0periencing more than one istinct iniviual consciousness.
=owever1 common sense ictates that the iniviual inee oes
possess a concept o! consciousness - a concept which it seems coul
only have been reveale to him.E Fe Know that consciousness is
rational although this cannot be emonstrate by human reason. .
!cbK=
SHGm being insane yet Aational . 7eace?S L @aomi >aKins
!cbK=
"o rationality1 liKe integrity has multiple bases1 which is to say1 egeneracy. Fe must not only be rational1
but also start !rom 5ust premises.
?roKen "ymmetry1 4,6"1 an the =uman "ense o! ?eauty 6his booK
title occurre to me as H was re!lecting on the bilateral symmetry o! the
human !orm1 many particular e0amples o! which1 are consiere
beauti!ul by almost all who behol them1 e.g.1 runway supermoels1
9lympic :ecathalon champions1 etc. an re!lecting !urther on how
rather unattractive or unbeauti!ul most o! us RgutsS o! any human
person. 6hen it occurre to me that R4,6"S was an acronym !rom
theoretical physics meaning1 4ran ,ni!ie 6heories. -urther1 H
recollecte that one o! the basic assertions o! most o! these R4,6"S was
that o! broKen supersymmetry or 5ust simply RbroKen symmetry.S
7hysicists consier this broKen symmetry e0hibite by nature to be
RuglyS when compare to the suppose aboriginal cosmic state o!
supersymmetry. "upersymmetry possess a greater elegance through its
greater simplicity. -or e0ample1 the more highly symmetric is a
collection o! ata1 the more reunancy is built into this ata set1
allowing it to be more greatly compresse1 say1 !or purposes o! speeier
transmission.
Hn theoretical physics1 asymmetries are the phenomenal mani!estations
or constructs o! a eeper symmetry level. 6he theistic view is perhaps
the converse o! this. 4o1 the real /uthor o! 3reation1 accoring to the
theist1 =imsel! possesses no reunancy whatever1 but represents an
utterly unique1 in!initely asymmetrical Cor perhaps nonsymmetrical is a
better termD1 precursor to the create orer1 i.e.1 the ,niverse.
Aather than viewing the asymmetrical as ue to a Kin o! isruption o!
some original or starting symmetrical state1 perhaps it is bette rto
unerstan the symmetric as istinct internal coherent resonances within
the starting asymmetrical state.
/lthough almost all religious belie! systems maKe re!erence to a worl
beyon the contemporary earthly one1 believers_ reasons !or continue
aherence an subscription to the religious systems o! their choice is the
ability o! these belie! systems to empower the believer in his aily
e0istence. /n the real cash value o! most religious belie! systems is
their therapeutic an motivational avantages they o!!er the believer.
6he theological questions o! 4o_s ;0istence an tha tconcerning the
immortality o! the soul can be seen to be intimately connecte as strictly
philosophical questions through the more !unamental question o!
whether consciousness can only e0iste as a structure o! consciousness1
i.e.1 as consciousness with an ob5ect Ceven i! this ob5ect is only that o!
the egoD or as pure consciousness or consciousness as such.
6he coherent structure Can !unctionD o! counter!actuality is neee to
help account !or the rationality an coherence Can
cohesiveness/robustnessD o! the orer o! nature that is actually given.
-actuality vs. counter!actuality may merely constitute the en or
terminal bans o! a continuous spectrum o! !actuality/counter!actuality.
;ach CapparentlyD actual other person represents a counter!actual state o!
being/ e0istence !or mysel!. 6he !actual-counter!actual might have
mani!este itsel! as1 !or e0ample1 the !act that many potential persons
never become actual1 on the one han1 while many actual persons have
never been potential or possesse potential e0istence.
-or the 8any Forls Hnterpretation to be consistent with the observe
consistency an coherence o! the Forl that appears to us as the actually
given one1 there must e0ist an unerlying egeneracy spectrum o! proto-
worl states such that1 any given 8FH P8 theoretic worl Camong the
vast number o! possible 8FH P8 theoretic worlsD is highly
overetermine !orm the stanpoint o! never-mani!este Cwithin
spacetime1 that isD protoworls o! the multiply egenerate continuous
spectra o! actual protoworls Cas oppose to potential actual worlsD.
"o here we have introuce a istinction between what we might term
Runmani!est actual worlsS Cthe proto 8FH P8 worlsD vs. mani!est
potential worls Cthe actual 8FH P8 worlsD.
Qd
6he :@/ as a system o! possible istinct :@/ molecules must
possess a rationality that will support the integration o! inepenently
occurring mutations into a single new molecule such that these
inepenent mutations combine synergistically to prouce
environmental aaptation o! an avantageousness perhaps greatly
outstripping that con!erre upon the new organism by the swimming
together o! the avantages respective to each.
6here is not reason to assume that the R,nKnownS so-calle is a single
thing1 that is1 uni!ie an not plural. ;ach iniviual resolves this
unKnown i!!erently along the lines o! his unique historical biography o!
e0perience.
@o matter how many iniviual consciousnesses e0periencing an
resolving the unKnown1 there may have been brought into e0istence1
each iverges !rom the other as all continue !urther an !urther resolving
the multiply structure unKnown.
H! the energy uncertainty o! the brain liKe that o! any other quantum
system1 originates !rom outsie Csince brain is 5ust a collection o!
bounary conitionsD1 then the reuction o! the energy uncertainty o! the
brain cannot be consistently represente as the !low o! uncertainty out o!
the system. 3an in!ormation only be trans!erre !rom one open system
to another1 say1 through tunneling or some other nonlocal process?
,niversal consciousness is the !iel that selects the egeneracy o!
woul-be iniviual consciousness observers.
:ata has no content L only in!ormation has content. :ata can be
transmitte through spacetime L in!ormation cannot.
;stablishing a nonlocal connection between a P8 system an an open
system inuces an irreucible change in this system_s state1 i.e.1 collapse
o! the system_s 7si !unction.
?y isconnecting !rom the intersub5ective reality networK in which the
impulses o! irrational wish !ul!illment on the part o! the networK_s
component sub5ectivities normally cancel each other out an being
equippe with only an incomplete an !uzzy memory o! the rules Can o!
how to internally implement these rulesD governing the e0ternally
collectively pro5ecte worl o! causal relations1 one becomes able to
ominate the process o! the in!orming o! chaos through !orce o! an
unoppose will.
6he isturbing thought !or some philosophers o! consciousness cannot
be ini!!erent to the !orms an representations inhering an trans!orming
through it. ?ut then this means that consciousness is not a passive
meium o! representation but participates in the Rli!eS o! the !orms to
which it gives rise1 but then so too o these !orms participate in the
ynamism o! consciousness Cas such?D :oes this mean then that the
notion o! pure consciousness is ust an intellectual hallucination L a !alse
iea?
/n implication o! the 7latonic 6heory o! eternal !orms is that o! pure
consciousness as the purely passive meium o! these !orms_ subsistence.
?ut isn_t this notion o! pure passive meium merely posite to satis!y a
metaphysical pre5uice1 having no other purpose or !unction?
@onlocal !iels nee not possess bounary conitions.
/ssociative thinKing as a broaer an eeper basis !or thought than class
e0clusion an inclusion.
;nlightenment may be liKene to the !ish realizing he_s swimming in
water.
7ioneer spacecra!t acceleration anomaly can be e0plaine in terms o! my
mocK gravitation mechanism base on the e!!ect o! general relativity
time ilation on the strength o! the vacuum energy ensity time-rate-o!-
change spatial graient.
4ravitation as the result o! the isturbance o! vacuum supersymmetry by
non-supersymmetric matter.
/utomaticity/ behaviorism an insight/intuition as not components but
!orms o! emboie consciousness.
Aeligious/church hymn composer inspire by mastery o! the canonical
!orms an evices o! composition within this genre.
9! course1 one !ins onesel! occupying the top species o! intelligent li!e.
6his is ue to conscious emboie e0istence being the intersection o! the
escent o! being with the ascent o! biological evolution.
>anuary 2)*2
/n
aitional1 seemingly reasonable assumption is require here1 namely
that1 the more intelligent the biological system" e.g." neural networ'" the
more completely oes this system resonantly tune to the vacuum
entanglement information freBuency spectrum of escening
transcenent being.
6his e0plains one_s vertical placement within the chain o! biologically
evolve li!e_s chain o! being. 6he lacK o! more avance intelligent li!e
in the ,niverse may also be e0plaine along these lines. 6he anthropic
quantum solipsistic cosmological principle e0plains the e0istence o! the
horizontal orer.
>anuary 2)*2
"imilar to the notion o! time scale
reuctionism1 the structure o! looser cosmological constraints is
etermine by a more !inely etaile structure o! tighter cosmological
constraints. 6o wit1 the /nthropic 3osmological 7rinciple is a subset or
corollary o! the &olipsistic Cosmological 4rinciple. 6his suggests the
principle that what is calle the universe is really a multiverse1 which is
itsel! an interconnecte structure !oune upon an array o! uniquely
tweaKe/tune !unamental physical constants. Fe shoul contrast with
this here the instantaneous values of the physical constants Cin a
metaphorical sense to be e0plaine laterD with the average value =or
e6pectation valueA o! the !unamental physical constants in relation to
the istinction o! universe with multiverse. Cniverse is to min as
multiverse is to society. It is no coincience that the anthropic principle
is part an parcel with the concept of the multiverse.
Qd
H am unaware i!
anyone has e0amine the relative magnitues o! the number o! possible
Ranthropic universesS versus the number o! possible istinct human
personalities or selves. Ht is possible that the number o! istinct anthropic
universes so war!s the number o! possible selves that the allie
concepts o! anthropic universe an multiverse con5ointly carry the
angerous implication o! metaphysical or cosmological solipsism.
>une 2)*2
R"ome physicists believe that there are an in!inite number o! parallel
universes1 create !or each possible quantum mechanical outcome. 6he
collective name !or these universes is the multiverse.S @o interpretation
o! quantum mechanics that H am aware o! has one an analysis o! the
role o! multiple observers in the collapse o! the wave!unction. :oesn_t
each iniviual min in some sense correspon to each inepenent
outcome? 3osmologist /lan 4uth propose a multi-verse solution to the
-ermi 7arao0. Hn this theory1 using the synchronous gauge probability
istribution1 young universes e0ceeingly outnumber oler ones Cby a
!actor o! e0p[*)
$%
\ !or every secon o! ageD. 6here!ore1 average over all
universes1 universes with civilizations will almost always have 5ust one1
the !irst to evelop. R=owever1 4uth notes E7erhaps this argument
e0plains why ";6H has not !oun any signals !rom alien civilizations1
but H ^n it more plausible that it is merely a symptom that the
synchronous gauge probability istribution is not the right one.ES
>uly 2)*$
Iery similar to how ";6H the "earch !or ;0traterrestrial
Hntelligence1 etermines that the signal they have etecte is !rom an
intelligent source by virtue o! the sharp !requency spectrum o! the signal
etecte1 one can Know that oneGs own signal is intelligent i! it is o! a
sharply e!ine spectrum o! vacuum electromagnetic !iel !luctuations.
/ reasonable answer to the -ermi parao0 is that the 4aussian
istribution o! e0traterrestrial civilizations ages is such that it is unliKely
that there are any civilizations similar to us in level o! technological
evelopment there!ore their activity their communications !or e0ample
woul be completely invisible to us.
Hn other wors it is by !ar more liKely that ;arth is surroune by
civilizations that are *))Gs o! millions o! years oler an more avance
than to have a relatively close by neighboring civilization that is only
*)))Gs o! years more avance. 6he greatest probability1 o! course is that
we ourselves are inee one such *)) million year ol civilization which
is merely running an ancestor simulation o! a '1 ))) year ol
civilization.
?oltzmann brains = :escartes eceiving emon an 4o = the
bene!icent ynamic principle o! the transcenental unity o!
consciousness by which the ?oltzmann ?rains are Knitte together into
rational biographies.
>uly 2)*2
-rom a 7hysics -orum posting1
http://www.physics!orums.com/showthrea.php?t=%&&*N =<7;A.H@O
Ehttp://www.physics!orums.com/showthrea.php?t=%&&*N & page=$E &
=<7;A.H@O Ehttp://www.physics!orums.com/showthrea.php?
t=%&&*N & page=$E page=$ : R"o1 given that the human brain consists o!
appro0imately *)
2
neurons an each neuron can be connecte to up to
20*)
'
other neurons1 you can come up with an estimate o! the possible
number o! brains using.
nT/nm
C9! course1 the poster oes not taKe into account the ensity o!
microtubules an tubulin imers within each neuron1 which only boosts
the e!!ectiveness o! his argument.D
RFhere n is the number o! neurons an m is the number o! connections.
:ue to the magnitue o! these numbers1 most calculators cannot give a
meaning!ul answer. "pecial methos can be use1 perhaps some will
grace us with the number. 4iven the number o! possible brains we then
nee to assume a rate o! generation an compare this time Chow long to
generate all o! themD to the li!e time o! the universe. H! the time require
e0cees the li!e time o! the universe then it must be consiere
impossible.S
8arch 2)*2
RH! you apply the anthropic principle to you yoursel!1 you are o!
course right that the probability o! you being yoursel!1 once you e0ist1 is
*. Fhen Aichar probably means though is that the absolute probability
is very small that you in particular shoul be born1 while the probability
is very high that some human will be born given humanity e0ists. 6he
equivalent on the cosmological level is - given a sentient li!e!orm e0ists1
what is the probability that it looK e0actly liKe homo sapiens an sits on
a planet that looKs e0actly liKe earth. Hn the cosmological version1 we
can only guess1 but it is boun to be very low. Hn the personalize
version1 it is easy to calculate - taKe the number o! humans ever born an
ivie by the number o! possible variations o! the human genome. HtGs a
really really small number. ?ut thatGs not in contraiction with the
anthropic principleS1 c.!.1 http://richarawKins.net/iscussions/(NN('(-
the-anthropic-principle/comments?page=*
:oes the anthropic cosmological principle apply to the question1 RFhen
is now?S?
7arao0ically1 the sub5ective nature o! e0perience istinctive to each
iniviual conscious min1 by transcening an intersub5ective e!inition1
must be ob5ectively real in a eeper sense than entities within any
particular universe o! iscourse.
H! we assume that there are i!!erent states o! pure consciousness at least
potentially accessible to each conscious person1 then wouln_t we have
to view each o! these pure consciousnesses as istinctly i!!erent !orms
o! consciousness as such1 an hence not really states o! pure
consciousness at all?
H! each iniviual consciousness is in this way a particular !orm o!
consciousness as such1 than the operation o! the trans!ormation o! one
such !orm into another while preserving the unerlying substance o!
pure consciousness shoul be e!inable an so possible.
8oreover1 each iniviual consciousness becomes now 5ust a particular
state o! the pure Cor absoluteD consciousness.
6he relative i!!erence o! these particular !orms o! pure consciousness
woul not be accessible to each1 but only coul be compare an
contraste by the transcening pure consciousness.
H cannot even say what it is liKe to be me. Hneterminate in the past is
continuous with nonlocal1 eternal present.
9nset o! irreversibility with cleaning o! egeneracy o! woul-be
quantum observers.
Fe sai that the unKnown ha a structure because o! there being a
i!!erent unKnown in relation to each min. 6he question is whether the
unKnowns o! each iniviual person eventually merge or remain
separate.
Fe are here inquiring about the topology1 i! you will1 o! the unKnown in
relation to the uality o! uality vs. transcenence an plurality vs.
unity. Ht is probable that these two ual istinctions cut across one
another1 creating an inherent i!!iculty !or rational min in its quest to
submit all o! reality to its escriptive grasp. Fe have to realize that
Knowlege transcens the iscursive1 transcens the capacity !or
escription.
H! consciousness is !igure1 what is groun? /nalogy is necessarily to
intersub5ective communication. Fhy shoul it be at all necessary !or
intrasub5ective communication1 say1 !or e0ample1 !rom an evolutionary
stanpoint. Fe seeK answers that can be communicate1 but still more1
those that cannot be communicate1 but only Known to the iniviual
an without this what_s being Known by the iniviual_s possessing any
analogue !or another. ?ut this Knowlege shoul still be Knowable !or
6he 9ther?
@ora_s reaction to have a ream L aaptation o! the general human
nature to the particulars o! the iniviual_s circumstances rather than
human nature being 5ust abstractions. Cpreestination vs.
!oreKnowlegeD
?acK-reaction is an altogether i!!erent thing !rom reversibility. Hn !act1
it_s the unerlying cause o! irreversibility1 i! you thinK about the vacuum
that_s suppose to be the very groun o! physical being itsel! be
surprise by some suen evelopment within other wise ea1
inorganic matter1 say with the *
st
switching on o! li!e or consciousness.
H thinK that the way in!lection in!luences the content sometimes in very
substantive ways1 the content o! what we are saying that_s in!lecte
inicates something o! perhaps eep importance about the proactive
nature o! something that_s not e0actly pure iniviual consciousness nor
purely !ormal or linguistic that_s taKing possession o! the otherwise
orinary process o! reporting in!ormation.
-unamental particles o! matter are ini!!erent to the passage o! time1
an yet it is thought by the same people that somehow the vastness itsel!
geologic intervals o! time maKes evolution o! comple0ity more probable.
;instein_s erivation o! the inertia o! energy is base on a thought
e0periment involving the scattering o! a photon between two mirrors.
6ime ilation erive !orm consiering the re!lection o! a photon !rom a
mirror when this photon originates !rom a boy moving relatively to this
mirror. Fe may conceive o! the mirror as analogous to the
orthogonality o! the energy component o! the (-momentum1 relative to
the components o! three momentum1 combine with the !act o! continual
e0change o! energy between all matter an the quantum vacuum
reservoir o! energy !luctuations.
9bservation by a quantum observer causes bacK-reaction o! phenomena
upon their groun state.
/ replacement o! the merely abstract entities1 i.e.1 atoms1 molecules1 in
my brain over time oes not a!!ect the continuity o! my conscious
ientity because the groun o! which these entities are abstractions has
not been substantively e!!ecte.
9veretermine o! e0perience is essential to stability o! the sense o! the
sel! an the e0ternal worl.
"pace an time are aesthetic intuitions o! consciousness so it oesn_t
maKe sense to talK about consciousness being in the brain.
8oernist cultural arti!acts are characterize by their appeal to
phenomenology1 by their representation o! the orinary at reuce levels
o! percetual/cognitive processing Can perhaps at greater levels o! such
processing1 e.g.1 the introspection o! a protagonist1 etc.D.
3onsciousness that is isomorphic to the unerlying brain processes that
are supposely responsible !or not only structuring but also proucing
this consciousness woul lea1 i! concrete substance Can its causal
powers1 c.!.1 "earleD are truly irrelevant1 then this !unctioning o!
consciousness woul in turn prouce another layer o! consciousness.
3ontrary to the case o! the unerstaning o! atoms an molecules1 there
is no larger !rameworK in which consciousness may be unerstoo that
oes not altogether transcen the capacity !or unerstaning o! any !inite
iniviual min.
6he structuring o! consciousness is epenent upon spaceliKe inputs1
which are locally connecte but the coherence o! these structures into an
integrate !orm is epenent upon nonlocally connecte timeliKe inputs.
@onlocal coneectivity cannot be e0plaine in terms o! mere local
connectivity.
/lthough the phenomena o! sel!-consciousness as a high level structure
o! consciousness may be e0plaine in terms o! brain !unction1
consciousness as such cannot.
/rchetypes ;lementary Heas -olK Heas
6o permit genuine creation1 limitation ha to ensue only a!ter ?eing ha
irreconcilably whether this applies to each apparently istinct species o!
intelligent li!e.
6hat which requires no sustaining o! itsel! was not !oune upon an act
o! the etermination o! groun.
6here is a blurring o! the istinction o! question1 assertion1 comman
an e0planation. 7olyphony an rhetoric as non-separability o! sign
an symbol.
6he i!!erence which is a i!!erence but maKes no i!!erence
epistemologically L only ontologically. ?ecause consciousness itsel! is
not within e0perience o! the iniviual1 it maKes non i!!erence to the
quality o! e0perience. "olution to the otherness problem here.
?ut there wol be a i!!erence between consciousnesses to a
transcenentally consciousness.
/ new organism can be traine by ownloaing o! instruction sets
without nee !or participation with an environment Cconte0tD1 that is1 its
training can be symbolically represente1 i! it is not capable o! conscious
encoing o! e0perience.
6o asK i! 4o ;0ists is similarly misguie as the question whether
consciousness is an e0perience.
6he active principle o! language is its intrinsic tenency o! e0hibiting
the speaKer_s intene enotation.
=ow can symbolic escription be passive an purely abstract1 when the
symbol bacK-reacts upon an sel!-e0tracts eeper meanings?
3onsciousness as pure epiphenomenon1 then the rays1 i! you will1 o!
consciousness raiate outwar !orever1 at in!inite velocity1 an never hit
anything L never striKe the screen1 as it were.
/s monumental as seems one_s evolution !rom the *
st
tentative stirrings
o! in!antile consciousness to that height o! consciousness represente by
the pinnacle o! one_s intellectual an spiritual evelopment L this
amounts to but the tiniest amount o! metaphysical labor. 6hat is1 the
sum total o! one_s e0periential opus manages to enlarge creation1 but
only by the tiniest increment.
Fe must thinK o! this trans!ormation towars which some o! us realize
we seem to be accelerating is entirely outsie1 nor shoul it be thought
o! as something un!oling entirely within the selves o! harbinger souls1
i! you will. CHntersub5ectivity o! each person_s 9therD. Ht_s perhaps a
collective sel! !ul!illing prophecy. 8aybe i! we all talK about it an
looK !or it enough1 this will maKe it an inevitable event at some stage.
/ll o! the non-peestrian states o! consciousness !all into one or another
o! the 7sychiatric iagnostician_s categories. ?ut oes that necessarily
invaliate these e0traorinary e0periences? 7erhaps it tens to
invaliate the practice i! not the theory or psychiatry?
6o be able to rationalize in the sense o! channeling along societally
e!ine as use!ul pathways1 the peculiar impulses an vagaries o! the
iniviual or to simply shut these out altogether when no conventional
way can be !oun !or in this way channeling !rom L this is the principle
ob5ect o! the institute o! the psychiatric pro!ession besies the generally
applicable pro!essional interest o! maKing lots o! money.
"o when someone somewhat gets to Know you an then this only to
ecie that one isn_t all that interesting1 then1 apart !rom the
consieration whether this person hasn_t 5ust ecie that you_re no real
use to them1 you shouln_t raly taKe this to heart or too seriously because
we are each o! us transcenentally mutually other.
8achines on_t communicate with each other because what is
e0change between them oesn_t mean anything Cto themD.
9ne thing that psycheelics can teach us is that all o! the !orms that
might be mani!est in culture both past an !or the !oreseeable !uture Can
perhaps beyonD that all o! these !orms are latent an harwire within
the operating system o! the human psyche.
:oes the @apster metaphor worK as an analogy o! the sharing o! images
between iniviual unconsciousness who are the author1 necessarily !or
at lest a small percentage o! the images within their personal each o!
stocK1 archetypal images? ?ut these unique images1 particular to each
sel! have to be aapte to some common !ormat i! they are to have
currency in the collective.
3ertainly there ha to be some sort o! error correction system arise by
which the brain coul i!!erentiate insie !rom outsie stimuli.
"pace an 6ime versus Iisual an /uitory
Fhoever iscovere water1 it certainly wasn_t a !ish. L 8arshall
8c3luhan
8in as conuit or terminal rather than repository/ computer.
6he human min ha to be able to !orm generalizations !orm 5ust the
barest han!ul o! particular instance.
6his require a highly evelope capacity !or abstraction1 the positing o!
assumptions an inuction !rom those assumptions. 9ne system !or the
brain protecting itsel! !rom inciental !luctuations in itsel! woul have
been to linK all these !luctuations together into a rational system through
streamlining an !iltering to prouce basic elements that coul be
permute an combine. /n anything entering this mi0 that in_t
bear the imprint or signature o! this !iltering proceure shoul be
interprete as having stemme !rom outsie. 9utsie sensory stimuli1
other wors1 moulate !luctuations within the matri0 o! internal
glitches.
Hsn_t it uncanny how all the reasons we give !or what we love about our
mates have so little to o with our original reasons !or being attracte to
an liKing them.
H on_t Know whether H_m having an insight or 5ust being paranoi. 6o
act alone is to risK acting out o! maness.
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW )&-)'-
)*WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
6he Rnice guyS has much less insight into his actions1 reactions an
motives than oes the more obviously sel!-intereste person. 6he nice
guy oes not appear to be a!ter anything L at least earnestly enough to
reap success.
6he gos say1 sons an aughters1 H have sent you away into the worl.
<ou are not allowe to return until you become prepare to instruct us.
6he circles an cycles o! biological an ecological systems are e0tracte
!rom their groun1 but not through mere abstraction1 in the sense o!
!iltering or li!ting latent structure out o! a matri01 some pree0istent
!eatures. 6hough the !unction o! abstraction prima !acie appears to be a
positive action on the part o! consciousness1 it is essentially the
construction o! a category through the systematic negation o! all those
etails or !eatures inessential to what is to e!ine this category. Hn this
way1 the empiricist an rationalist epistemologies seem substantively
interrelate.
3oherence o! a collective o! eigen!unctions is not really possible.
/lthough each is i!!erently weighte - in a sense they possess ientical
weighting .
=ow oes the aoption o! ?ayesian probability theory change our
unerstaning o! the phenomenon o! 7si-!unction collapse?
http://en.wiKipeia.org/wiKi/8onty#=all#problem / iscontinuous
change !rom classical to ?ayesian probability occurs in the 8onty =all
problem1 which coul in a quantum conte0t be interprete as
Rwave!unction collapseS. ?ayesian probability applies not only to a
single observer who Keeps learning1 i.e.1 acquiring aitional
in!ormation about bounary conitions o! the e0perimental setup over
time Ceven by altering the e0perimental setupD1 but it also applies to the
case o! multiple observers who taKe turns learning aitional etails
about the particles an the observational conte0t Cagain1 e0perimental
setupD. .ime 3at E@o nee to invoKe any >ungian quantum voooo
bullshit - 5ust taKe into account that thereGs a sleight-o!-han switch !rom
using intuitive1 classical probability theory Cbe!ore 8onty opens the
oor1 revealing a goatD to using ?ayesian probability theory Ca!ter 8onty
opens the oorD. HtGs this secret use o! a mosaic o! two i!!erent
probability theories !or the same puzzle that creates the appearance o! a
mysterious result - i!1 liKe the contestant1 8onty oes not Know which
oor the car is behin1 then it oesnGt matter which probability theory is
use.

Fe shoul istinguish between negation an the transcening o! a
uality to which the negation belongs.
"o when something transcens R/S it is Rnot /S though without being
ientical to Rnot /S in the sense o! the simple negation o! /. 6his is
very much relate to 4eel_s iea o! theorems being true without being
provable by positing o! a contraiction within some particular system
within which the theorem may be symbolically e0presse.
6his culture that commits slow genocie upon itsel! by choosing not to
reprouce but to rather attrit1 is in part motivate by some sense that its
act o! sel!-e0tinction is noble an signi!icant. ?ut what i! it coul but
observe the myria other un!ortunate cultures throughout the ,niverse
who have chosen !or themselves the very same !ate as this1 i.e.1
collective suicie? 8ight a eterminism be uncovere which woul rob
the act o! its illusory nobility an heroic signi!icance?
6he isorer represente by eviance !rom the social norms is
rationalize as being a mani!estation o! some alternative but equally
groune principle o! orer. ?ut pattern is not simply mani!estation o!
some preestablishe mainstream or !ringe. Aather new principles o!
orer may be brought into being by any e0periential pioneer or
conscientious reinterpreter o! orinary e0perience.
Aanom mutation/variation is 5ust the raw material or meium utilize
as a means !or implementing . . .
:@/ as quantum cosmic antenna an inter!ace between the transcenent
an the immanent or maybe 5ust the means o! access to this ne0us or
inter!ace.
3hanges in a things potential or latent nature vs. changes in the thing as
phenomenon.
6o survive psychologically speaKing in this insane consumer culture1
one must practice some egree o! principle renunciation.
6o be goliKe is not to be above su!!ering but to retain compassion !or
the 9ther1 in the !ace o! one_s own su!!ering. Fithout one_s own
su!!ering1 compassion !or the other is a mere hollow pity1 more in!use
with !ear o! su!!erings sprea to one_s sel! an one_s own than being
genuine 2itlei.
Onowing that you on_t Know !oregrouns what you o in !act Know so
that you Know that you Know it. 6his also provies the unKnown with a
structure. 6he unKnowable is uner the action o! consciousness !orever
trans!orming into the merely unKnown.
Hnvolution is the evelopment o! a concept !rom within itsel! an this
evelopment being irreucible to a rerawing o! a conceptual map.
H see that there are certain Key concepts missing !rom the le0icon o!
critical thought that were naturally selecte against sur!acing.
Aather than 4o being an abstraction !rom human being1 humans are
instantiations o! 4o. Ht is obvious that the su!!icient groun an
e0planation o! consciousness is not to be sought !rom below1 but !rom a
still higher level o! being. =ow is the concept o! !etish relate to that o!
presence o! Rmetaphysical presence?S ;scaping the eterminism o! the
accounting system o! o!!ense an !avor.
/n essential component o! heroism is the unsung nature o! its su!!ering
an sacri!ice.
=e oesn_t unerstan the human e0perience o! loveV he is in its sur!ace.
Aeally1 love is on the sur!ace o! his eeper being. Hs consciousness
merely a pro5ection o! the ego1 say1 liKe the !ree will e0perience by a
person uner the in!luence o! a hypnotic suggestion?
Fe may thinK o! the ivine pluri!orm Cc.!.1 7hilip O. :icK_s writings on
4nosticismD reality in the !ollowing way. ;ach person may be thought
o! as occupying his or her own parallel universe. H am in many i!!erent
parallel universes1 but in each there is only room !or a single
consciousness? http://www.physics!orums.com/showthrea.php?
t=$2N$'2
>uly 2)*2
9ne parallel universe scenario that is compatible with the
appearance o! a unique1 classical universe Cnacve realist metaphysicsD
within a system o! parallel quantum universes1 i.e.1 a multiverse1 which
is also compatible with human !ree will is itsel! also consistent with each
iniviual human consciousness transitioning to a new parallel universe-
embee brain Cpossibly a ?oltzmann brainD with each new !reely
wille act. 6he person oes not start RbranchingS as a result o! !reely
wille choices until there is a istinctive consciousness capable o!
conucting alternate universe transitioning. "el!-consciousness may be
base not in the !unctioning o! a given iniviual brain1 but in the
quantum entangle !unctioning o! myria similar an quantum
entangle brains1 each locate in a istinct quantum universe.
Hn a real as oppose to an alternative ,niverse1 groun woul protrue
into the ,niverse_s continuum.
6he poetic nature an signi!icance o! the o! the prophesie event is !ate
but not the literal manner by which the prophecy will be !ul!ille.
/ per!ect e0ample o! the collective consciousness implementing o! the
above principle in the linKing o! signi!icant events across time through
the initiation/enacting o! some moral occurrence on an anniversary.
?ut1 o! course1 there are much more complicate ways o! linKing events1
many ways to serve two principles1 one practical1 the other ironic/poetic
through the !reeom o! choice in the !orms o! e0pression L the manner
o! acting that simultaneously serves the requirements o! the now as well
as those seemingly require by the prophecy.
6he intonation o! the preacher_s sermonizing is so per!ectly that o! a
person who is trying to convince himsel! as much as others o! the truth
o! his utterances.
3hristianity: the incarnation was unique as oppose to pluri!orms.
4race an election L Reternity is now so i! you on_t alreay have it1 you
never willS1 c.!.1 The 2as's of Eternity Ca collection o! interviews !or
4arabola by ?ill 8oyers o! >oseph 3ampbell1 shortly be!ore 3ampbell_s
eathD1 i.e.1 the iea o! the elect as Rentities1S c.!.1 entity theory.
/ugustine an 6ertullian marriage as rei!ie metaphor1 c.!.1 /lan Fatts.
Hntuitions o! waKing li!e are equally mi0ture o! pro5ection an insight as
are reams. Hnsights o! reams are hien to us 5ust as are the
pro5ections o! waKing li!e.
6he ironies o! li!e point to the hien peagogical nature o! power!ul
human e0periences. 6he peagogical nature o! human e0perience
points to a creator 5ust as oes the esign latent an e0press in nature.
?y being merely a metaphor a myth becomes more than literally true.
Fithout the conitionality/contingency o! re!erence1 the istinction
between reality an illusion breaKs ownV there is no otherness1 but only
the sel!1 i.e.1 nothing to bar the sel! !rom the oor to solipsism.
:ecember 2)**
?ut the intentionality o! consciousness in the absence o! the ob5ect
implies that an e0ternal re!erence o! consciousness is integral to
consciousness itsel!. /lthough ata liKe energy may be properly spoKen
o! as flowing1 i.e.1 is a conserve Buantity1 what is calle information
oes not flow1 but is necessarily nonlocal in nature1 implying
instantaneous two-way !eebacK. 6he ynamic integral structure o! the
brain_s synaptic networK L still more o! its microtubular networK1 coul
not have become what it is1 that is1 o! supporting consciously sel!-aware
psychological states i!: *D a sociolinguistic conte0t an 2D an e0ternal
re!erence1 i.e.1 Re0ternal worlS i not embe an support this networK.
6he sociolinguistic conte0t1 meiate via the e0ternal worl Cphysical
processes supporting ego-alter ego interactivityD is what permits the
brain to escape !rom its otherwise sel!-impose Rbootstrap problemS1
i.e.1 consciousness not being able to terminate a sel!-re!erential in!inite
regress. 6he essence o! sel!-consciousness is :erria_s Ralways
alreainessS o! pree0isting recursive process.
&urprise an the every present possibility of surprise cannot be
encompasse within a monolithic causal matri6.
9ne pu!!e up as an aolescent because one imagines that the
coherence/ crystallization an there!ore in live somehow with ivine
unity.
8ost ob5ectionable positions avance in earnest are Known to be such
by their avocates an there it !requently a eeper an subtler basis !or
such arguments that initially bump up against the pre5uices o! those
they o!!en in the !orm o! straw men conveniently reay to be !all apart
in almost instantaneous rebuttal.
Hs otherness actually presence. "el! vs. other. 7resence vs. /bsence.
Fatts: sensations an thoughts are vibrations o! the sel!.
6he ichotomy o! purpose!ul vs. purposelessness is cut across by the
ialectic o! the cosmic evolutionary process. 7urpose must be
opportunistically seize upon.
6his belie! that the 5oy or pleasure involve in oing an e0periencing
all manner o! i!!erent things can be istille into a pure !orm1 obviating
the nee !or 5oy_s attachment/involvement in the intricacy o! !orm maKes
o! these !orms nothing valuable o! themselves. 6his is the !law in the
-reuian sublimation theory. -reu_s sublimation theory belies the truth
that !orm is inherent in 5oy or pleasure L that is to say1 there are
irreucibly istinct varieties o! 5oy1 which can be e0perience by human
beings.
6he in!using o! the unlimite variety o! !orms with 5oy as we participate
in them is what Keeps the enless pressing o! the orgasm button !rom
ultimately becoming meaningless an pointless.
6he meaning o! the ,niverse as a whole woul have to be some
transcenental re!erence.
6he coherence o! the sel! requires that it possess its own groun an its
own istinct1 unique horizon1 !or otherwise there is no room !or the
evelopment o! each into the omains !oregone by the others.
3oncepts metaphors is peagogy?
8etaphors concepts insight?
/lgebra concept
/rithmetic metaphor
Hntegration b conceptualization
:i!!erentiation b posing istinctions
4o is transcenent in the sense that he is not a particular being
occupying the top position in the chair o! being. Aather1 4o is the
author o! this chain o! being.
6he iniviual human consciousness is in!inite-particular while 4o is
in!inite-universal.
3an the in!inite be incorporate into preicate logic?
6here are many more things that almost were than actually come to be.
6he temporal continuity o! consciousness an its spatial iscontinuity
are only meiate an structure through spacetime. 9r shoul we say
rather that 5ust the converse o! this is true?
9ur basis !or eciing whether we are going to liKe one another or not
has much to o with how pleasing we !in each other_s more or less
unwarrante assumptions we seem to be maKin gabou each other1 that is
to say1 how much we liKe the novel rel!ection each is catching o! o! the
re!lective sur!ace o! the other.
Hn the same way that the purpose o! the .aw was not a ivine
prescription !or how human beings are to behave but essentially the
means by which human beings were to obtain Knowlege o! "in1 the
purpose o! prayer is not essentially to petition o! 4o goo !avors1 but a
contemplative means !or !ining out what the Fill o! 4o is !or us
actually.
6he question arises as to how we one able to irectly intuit
consciousness1 i! intact1 we really o so. 9r is it 5ust the groun o!
e0perience which is itsel! e0perience without us ever glimpsing this
unerlying groun o! e0perience1 or consciousness.
:etermination is a result o! the collusion o! the ineterminate being in
itsel! with the grasp o! the intellect. 6hought is borrowe insight i! it is
not itsel! insight. Hntellect never succees wholly on its own but
epens upon grace.
-or seeing e0actly how something is the case utterly removes the
wonerousness o! that !act whatever it may be.
Fhen maKing any philosophical or theological argument1 scienti!ic
argument1 etc. concerning some woner inucing notion1 one is always
secretly banKing on a higher unerstaning than one_s own as the
per!ection or completion o! one_s cruely glimpse wonrous truths.
Fe rely on 4o to groun our insights in higher reality an in this way
vouchsa!e our sense o! woner as other than mere illusion.
/s happens in the case o! the =eisenberg ,ncertainty 7rinciple1 a truth
originally glimpse as an epistemological principle is later iscovere to
be ontological in nature.
Fe are !orever arguing that something woner!ul is so without ever
seeing the slightest chance o! saying how those things are so. Ht is here
that we secretly invoKe 4o as vouchsa!er o! ultimate re!erence.
,nerstaning cannot be measure because base on e0periences unique
to the iniviual bacKgroun o! a person.
8uch is mae1 you Know1 o! hunches1 intuitions an insights1 but what
we usually !in1 is that once we have succeee in seizing hol o! an
iea arrive at by some Keen or penetrating hunch or intuition1 we soon
iscover that there_s a much clearer path to my insight !rom the one by
which H at !irst seize hol o! it1 an such a path1 one realizes1 post
insight1 coul have never been glimpse !rom groun level as it were.
6his very much applies to clever arguments in1 !or e0ample1 3hristian
apologetics. /ll this is to say that there is a telos to thought which
transcens the a!!inity o! ieas to one another base upon the sur!ace
appearance o! these ieas iniviually1 that is1 base upon how these
ieas seem to interlocK within a presently hel conceptual mapping.
4o maKes possible the common re!erence o! language1 he is the
implicit basis o! community. 4o brings together otherwise
transcenentally separate1 cosmically lonely mins.
6he iniviual is the e0pression o! the whole activity o! the ,niverse
!rom a particular point o! view. @ow there are two seemingly istinct
ways o! viewing transcenent 8in. *D 6he integral e0pression o! the
whole activity o! the ,niverse !rom some absolute an uni!ie point o!
view1 that is1 !rom every possible point o! view or1 on the other han1 2D
this !rom no particular view point at all.
6here are two views on what the processing o! in!ormation means. Hn
the *
st
we_ve manipulate in!ormation so as to being about some bit o!
altogether new in!ormation1 in the other1 we_ve simply turne a piece or
pieces o! in!ormation over in our hans this way an that bringing out
!eatures o! the in!ormation alreay present. Hn other wors1 we_ve use
part o! a collection o! in!ormation to give us access to other parts o! this
in!ormation. Fhat appears within the min as a eterminate insight is
5ust the ability o! this insight occurring within some larger space1
encompassing the min as well as that lying beyon its horizon an
possessing a holographic structure1 but a eterminate !acet o! which is at
!irst apprehene by the min itsel!.
Fithout consciousness there is no istinguishing o! reaily !rom
appearance. /bsolutely everything is then mere appearance an no
hierarchy o! being no evelopment within the progress o! being is
possible. Fhat evience can we point to o! this blocK or governor
within the min?
/ ?aysian probability !ormulation !or the wave!unction o! a P8 system
brings with it the notion o! the state o! Knowlege o! the CanD observer
being integral to ob5ective quantum reality.
/ passing away an a coming into being cannot possibly be continuous
with one another.
6he 6ao is the same as the @ow1 but there is a i!!erent @ow !or each o!
us1 isn_t there?
Puantum uncertainty an probability are relative to the particular
observer. ?ut we must istinguish between epistemology an ontology
here.
6he $
r
Fay is pointe up simply this way: we intuit the groun o! our
mental !igure1 i.e.1 perceptions1 sensations1 !eelings1 etc. L something
other than !igure an groun in terms o! which it is intuite.
H! the global ineterminacy o! quantum observables o! the nonlocally
connecte quantum vacuum is collective in the sense o! being comprise
by the sum o! all the uncertainties associate with all observers1
potential an actual1 then the sum total o! !luctuations in these
observables relative to this global uncertainty constitutes the classical
worl as intersub5ective appearance.
H! i!!erent iniviual consciousnesses are each iniviual instances o!
consciousness1 then there e0ists a concept o! consciousness but not one
that can be abstracte !rom out o! the e0perience o! any one particular
iniviual. =ence1 the concept o! consciousness i! it e0ists1 is
transcenental an this concept1 there!ore1 may only be entertaine by a
transcenental min.6he alternative to the iniviual_s consciousness
not being itsel! an instance o! such a transcenental concept seems to be
that o! solipsism in which what each iniviual terms consciousness is
completely incommensurate with what is terme such by any other
person.
R-or the wor o! 4o is quicK1 an power!ul1 an sharper than any two-
ege swor1 piercing even to the iviing asuner o! soul an spirit1
an o! the 5oints an marrow1 an is a iscerner o! the thoughts an
intents o! the heart.E - =ebrews (:*2 Fhile we mourn the loss o! our
ear belove 3iny1 let us pause to re!lect how 4o Knows the conition
o! our own heart !ar better than o we Know it ourselves. C-uneral guest
booK posting !or 3iny /nn 8arcotte 4atesD.
Hn this way belie! in the e0istence o! other mins Ci.e.1 other
consciousness more or less aKin to one_s ownD carries with it the tacit
assumption o! the e0istence o! a transcenental min1 i.e.1 4o.
Qd
6he
iniviual min is not itsel! an abstraction1 but is rather an instantiation
of min as such. "o it appears that a !avorable approach to a new proo!
o! 4o_s e0istence might be the emonstration1 !irst o! the e0istence o! a
variety o! transcenental concepts1 even i! such concepts go beyon any
possible human attempt at their speci!ication or escription. "uch a
proo! o! the e0istence o! 4o or transcenental min woul be itsel! an
Re0istence proo!S much a!ter the !ashion o! those constructe as
mathematical theorems in which the entity itsel! cannot be constructe1
but can nonetheless be prove to possess mathematical e0istence1 i.e.1
subsistence.
Hn light o! the iscussion thus !ar it seems that no more !aith is require
!or belie! in Rother minsS than in the e0istence o! a transcenental
min.
Hn this way the otherness o! one_s !ellow human being points to the
concept o! otherness as such1 i.e.1 otherness in relation to all possible
!inite beings. Fe have a concept o! consciousness by some means other
than abstraction !rom e0perience Cin the sense o! synchronic
e0perienceD. Fhere all o! our other concepts are concerne1 we tacitly
assume a ceteris paribus principle where time/temporality is concerne.
Ht turns out that temporality is not a concept either1 but accoring to Oant
an intuition. 6he concept o! consciousness is arrive at through
abstraction !rom iachronic e0perience an so consciousness is
never/has never been an actual given within a given moment o!
e0perience Ce0perience1 rather1 is always itsel! within consciousnessD.
6he concept o! consciousness is arrive at through the integration o!
e0perience !rom outsie o! the moment. 6he intuition o! the passage is1
in !act1 one an the same. 9r is time within consciousness rather than
consciousness being within time. 6he notion o! consciousness being
within time seems to require the presence o! some broaer
consciousness within which the consciousness it contains might evolve
temporally as a whole. Hs personal1 egoic consciousness1 then the
prouct o! the integration o! small portions o! the contents o! some
universal consciousness? 9r oes this content itsel! epen upon the
conte0t provie as a result o! this prior integration o! consciousness?
Hs there no essence to anti-"emitism? Hs anti-"emitism merely a
historical phenomenon possessing no unique an unitary cause/origin?
Aomanticism was not so much a reaction against the ;nlightenment as
were both reactions against meievalism. Aousseau emboie both
reactions best o! all thinKers o! this perio. 6he notions o! nation-state
an national sovereignty are !airly moern inventions. =itler <outh
became the <oung 7ioneers. 6he best communist is a !ormer @azi an
vice versa. 6he reason !or anti-"emitism is not hate1 hate in this case is
mobilize against the >ew !or political purposes other than the mere
hatre o! >ews/>ewishness.
6wo e0amples o! the integration o! thought_s conte0t o! thought in orer
that thought be present an integration o! thoughts as iscrete elements
that provie conte0t collectively !or each o! these thought elements.
;ither way the brain provies the basis o! this integration by proviing a
means !or the builing up1 i.e.1 comple0i!ication o! quantum correlations
o! the !iels !or which the brain also provie ynamically structure
bounary conitions. 6hese bounary conitions supplie by the brain
provie means o! selecting1 !iltering1 ampli!ying an interconnecting o!
pree0istent but ill-e!ine vacuum in!ormation signals.
"eptember 2)**
6here
is certainly some mystery involve in the way that in!ormation can be
rationally trans!orme through a changing o! conte0t. 6he not so
mysterious part is that in!ormation is in the !irst instance an arti!act o!
conte0t. Hn!ormation is by its very nature multifacete" an the
mysterious part is that this is in a manner that is openFene.
+ecursiveness in the absence of closeness. "omething e!ine in terms
o! itsel! wherein ientity !orever elues any complete or crystalline
etermination. 3onsier that aperioic patterns possess the !ar greater
capacity !or storing or carrying in!ormation1 while a crystal represents
the most in!ormation-!rugal way o! taKing on mass. "chroinger_s
aperioic crystal that stores in!ormation recursively woul contain the
encoing o! its very own structure. Ht is liKe instea o! being limite to
any particular basis o! orthogonal !unctions in terms o! which to encoe
or represent a certain class o! continuously i!!erentiable !unction1 one
has !oun the universal basis o! !unctions1 one not limite by any
particular topology1 or any particular system o! 4eel-numbering !or
that matter1 in terms o! which one can represent any arbitrary function.
/ny suen alternation in the structure o! such an aperioic1
in!ormation-ense-coing crystal1 though it might be cause by a
ranom occurrence1 woul always prouce a change that was
meaning!ul though this meaning!ulness woul always be limite by an
inherent moularity within each given level o! escription. 6hese
otherwise istinct levels o! escription may become mutually entangle1
evincing a isruption o! optimal !unctioning within one or more o! these
quali!iely istinct levels. Aanomness is actually essential to permit
transitions between levels o! escription1 leaKage between compartments
o! the system state space that enable reorganization an trans!ormation
o! the system. 6he avantages o! a !iltering !unction1 which is necessary
to get aroun the limitations impose by 4eel-numbering1 can only be
realize within a system that possesses stores o! unassigne state-space
aresses.
/n isolate system contains a eterministic set o! internal signals that
possess no re!erence1 i.e.1 they are not Rabout anythingS an so possess
no content. http://plato.stan!or.eu/entries/content-e0ternalism/ /
raically open an in!inite set o! such signals on the other han seem to
be about everything in general1 as oppose to the earlier case o! the
isolate system1 namely one where these signals are about nothing in
particular.
9ur true ientity transcens any such that might ultimately be
establishe by our actual historical biographies whether seen through the
eyes o! others or our own. Aather one_s truest1 eepest ientity woul
be more closely appro0imately by some unimaginable integration o! all
possible alternative biographiesV !or this is the only clearly conceivable
way o! !actoring out the e0traneous in!luence o! contingency an
circumstances. 3ertainly an ine!inite number o! such alternative
biographies involve genetically altere or engineere versions o! my
physical sel! in which my brain is several times the size an comple0ity
o! the one H happen to possess an also in which H_m born into a vastly
more avance culture than that o! late 2)
th
/early 2*
st
3entury /merica1
etc. Ht is a wiely unerstoo !act o! human embryological physiology
that the brain o! the newborn comes equippe with appro0imately *))
times the ensity o! neural interconnections as one carries into mature
aulthoo. 6he reason !or the loss o! such a very large percentage o! the
initial complement is simply on account o! lacK o! use. =uman in!ants
are apparently still being born into cultures too bacKwars to provie
aequate means !or su!!iciently stimulating the newly !orme neural
circuits1 which must then wither on the vine liKe lea! an !lower shoots
starve o! aequate sunlight. Ht is a mystery as to why nature woul
have prepare each o! us to survive an thrive in a culture millions of
years more avance than the one" which we esignate as being the
present one9 Fe are remine in this connection o! the "agan
=ypothesis argument !or our living within an Rancestor simulationS.
9ne possible an perhaps isturbing taKe on the 8any Forls
Hnterpretation o! P8 is one in which each observer_s brain is linKe to
or embee in its own1 unique quantum vacuum constituting his or her
own quantum an nonclassical consciousness. 6he observer_s boy
observes an/or interacts with are constitute by eterministically
evolving "chroinger wave !unctions. 6hese same ob5ects are
presumably escribe by a i!!erent set o! wave!unctions. 6hese same
ob5ects are presumably escribe by a i!!erent set o! wave!unctions1
one !or each other observer or prospective observer because the brain_s
o! these other persons are embee in1 an interacting with1 altogether
isparate consciousnesses. 6he other persons with whom H1 !or
instance1 interact are linKe to my quantum vacuum only
thermoynamically via locally meiate mutual inter!erence. 6he
wave!unctions o! istinct observers !orm with one another only
statistical mi0tures while the wave!unctions o! a single iniviual !orm
with one another an actual quantum superposition o! nonlocally-
connecte Cquantum-correlate or entangleD states.
:etaile e0amination o! the ynamics o! the quantum brain_s
!unctioning isrupts the nonlocal-connecteness o! quantum entangle
states o! the brain1 revealing only a combination o! ranom an
eterministic relationships between these quantum brain states.
Fe shoul try to istinguish internally versus e0ternally entangle
quantum states1 especially with regar to the problems o! ecoherence
an wave!unction collapse.
Hn this way1 all persons are mi0tures o! eterminism an chance with
e0ception o! the person in question_s own unique quantum brain states.
Fe might term this moel o! the relateness o! persons_ relative state
quantum solipsism. 6his points up the i!!erence between each
iniviual_s privilege access to his own brain states Cby acquaintance1
in Aussell_s senseD an his access to the brain states o! other iniviuals
only by escription1 again in Aussell_s sense o! the terms.
Hs the quantum vacuum energy !luctuation spectrum o! public spacetime
compose o! the pro5ective overlapping o! a virtually in!inite sum o!
largely orthogonal time imensions each with its own associate
spectrum o! uncertain energy?
9nly a single observer_s consciousness can RtracKS a particular single
tra5ectory o! compose o! a speci!ic sequence o! bi!urcating o! quantum
universe wave!unctions. "o each iniviual_s consciousness is
characterize by its own unique temporal evolution. 6his temporal
evolution is constitute by the integration o! the observer_s continual
remeasurement o! the quantum state o! his own brain. 6his remins us
o! the illusion o! continuous time prouce through too rapi succession
o! iscrete movie pro5ecte still !rames. =ow the wave!unction o! the
quantum brain o! the observer collapses every !ew millisecons is
naturally etermine by the state o! the virtual energy1 i.e.1 signature
quantum vacuum with which this brain e0clusively interacts.
6he worl that each iniviual occupies is per!ectly !ine tune as to1
e.g.1 physical constants1 etc.1 !or the engenering an continue
e0istence !or that iniviual. Fell1 then1 what can we say !or the case
o! the other iniviuals occupying one_s physical environment? /ren_t
the physical constants equally well ChyperD !ine-tune !or these other
iniviuals? /n i! not1 then how is this situation to be reconcile with
the amittely logically arguable absurity o! solipsism? 6he
hypothesis o! each conscious iniviual inhabiting the precise center
position within his or her own uniquely speci!ic quantum vacuum state
o!!ers itsel! as a plausible means o! e!!ecting such a reconcilement with
the re5ection o! what we might !acetiously term anthropic cosmological
solipsism.
6he collapse o! a P8 system_s wave!unction is brought about by a
iscontinuous selection o! a new groun state !or the vacuum in which
the system is to be Rembee.S 6he brain o! the iniviual may be
immune to such iscontinuous selections o! the vacuum state o! his own
brain because he is continually selecting the vacuum state o! his own
brain through his act o! conscious e0istence. 6he system collapses in
accorance with that observer who has the most irect an hence least
meiate access to the observance o! that system_s quantum state1 in
e!!ect.
6he retroactive causality o! the Kin that seems to be permitte by the
concept o! quantum nonlocality cannot be that o! some eterminate
Cpreetermine1 reallyD !uture upon some system occupying a moment in
absolute past o! this eterminate !uture_s 8inKowsKi light cone. "uch a
retroactive variety o! causality is rule out by the =eisenberg uncertainty
principle which isallows a eterminate Cthough perhaps unKnown or
unKnowableD tra5ectory o! quantum observables in the con!iguration
space encompassing these two separate temporal parts.
9ne might suppose that however some eterminate set o! eigen!unctions
with respect to various !uture quantum observables may be able to bacK-
react causally.
=owever1 the spectrum o! eigen!unctions !or quantum observables itsel!
epens upon classically escribable bounary conitions upon the
quantum !iels with which the eigen!unctions are necessarily associate.
/n these classically escribable bounary conitions can in principle
be pulle within the scope o! the state !unction1 resulting in a perhaps
!unamental moi!ication to this state !unction an renering hereto!ore
classically escribable components o! the overall classical-quantum
CsemiclassicalD system quantum-escribable. 3learly1 only the
unconstraine CRunbounarieSD vacuum !iels occupying this !uture are
permitte to have a retrocausal in!luence1 but then1 only irectly upon
the unconstraine vacuum !iels o! the earlier moment in question. Ht is
i!!icult to see how vacuum !iels o! the type we have been alluing to
can be attribute occupation o! some particular temporal region o!
spacetime.
6hese quantum !iels seem to collectively possess the character o! some
Kin o! eternal present.
=uman ;0istence is the application o! our choice o! whether an o! how
we serve or e!ie the Fill o! 4o. Ht is 4o_s emonstration to us o!
how we chose an the meaning o! this choice so that we shall Know that
=is 5ugment o! us was both 5ust an merci!ul. Ht is also the means by
which those who chose to serve 4o coul glori!y =im.
-re /lan Fol! says that we can agree on the =olocaust as a historical
!act1 but we cannot agree on what was in the 4erman 8in uring the
holocaust.
!cbK=
6he past cannot be change per se1 however1 that which was
ineterminate in the past1 e.g.1 a mi0ture o! quantum states or quantum
superposition1 the =eisenberg uncertainty o! a given quantum state or
mi0ture1 etc. when it was then present an which until the present
moment remains ineterminate L this can be change retroactively in the
sense o! renere more eterminate in the past . . . by an act unertaKen
WnowW. 6he temporality o! the ineterminate Cagain in the sense o!
!unamental quantum mechanical uncertaintyD cannot be mappe or
trace along the time a0is o! eterminate1 public or intersub5ective
temporality1 but maKes contact with an intersects it through the !unction
o! irect intuition1 i.e.1 the intuition o! the passage o! time. Hn other
wors1 what happens in Iagueness1 oes not necessarily remain in
Iagueness.
Puantum versus classical b 8in versus 8atter
@onlocal Puantum vs. local quantum
-ully quantum mechanical vs. semiclassical
:isemboie vs. ;mboie 8in
@onlocal quantum !iels transcen spacetime by being supraliminal an
transcen matter by virtue o! being unconstraine by bounary
conitions.
6he i!!erence between 3ulbertson_s Aobot that is built an learns
4erman !rom another robot that is built1 RienticalS to the !irst1 is the
!act o! a history o! nonlocal quantum correlations that have been built up
between the *
st
robot_s RbrainS an its environment Cultimately with the
nonlocally quantum vacuum !iel in which this environment o! the robot
was embee that provie the irreversibility an hence veritable
historicity o! the robot_s RbiographySD
6he emergence o! a new conscious being within the worl CspacetimeD is
phenomenologically reucible to the mutual entangling an constraining
an !iltering o! a virtually in!inite number o! pree0istent wave!unctions.
/t some stage the system bacK-reacts upon its quantum substate1
becomes stable an in aition to its stable energy groun state acquires
!urthermore a stable in!ormation groun state. "omehow the
eveloping brain in its growing resonant interaction with its energy
groun state inuces a cleaving o! a egeneracy o! a particularly special
nature1 that o! the spectrum o! possible woul-be observers. "ome
!iel is switche on that removes the egeneracy by virtue o! some
hereto!ore inert or passive structure1 i.e.1 latent structure that has
evelope to a critical point. 6his latent quantum structure must be tie
to a relevant quantum number an hence to a relevant quantum
observable. =ypothesis: all quantum systems possess some
egeneracy1 i.e.1 egeneracy with respect to at least one e!inable
quantum observable1 e0cept those systems RpossessingS conscious
states.
/ question arises at this stage concerning the relationship o! the
switche-on quantum !iel Cin con5unction with any other !iels that are
alreay presentD an the spectrum o! !luctuations supporte by the
collective bounary conitions represente by the physically realize
system.
3an there be a correlation o! the Re0ternal !ielS with that o! the
system_s !luctuation spectrum1 one1 which encourages their
convergence?
6he !act that time oes not appear ) imensional1 collapse into the
otherwise in!initesimally RthinS timeslices o! the present is ue to the
action o! consciousness presuppose to possess at least some capacity o!
memory. 6he RrateS at which time RpassesS shoul perhaps be largely1
or perhaps essentially1 etermine by the phase relations o! the in!inite1
myria an bunle together ob5ective times. 7erhaps it is only the
very manner in which these phase relations are integrate so as to
prouce a phenomenological time Cor temporalityD that etermines the
nature o! sub5ective time !or the iniviual an perhaps the iniviual
ientity o! the person Cwithin time as a potential sub5ect o! e0perienceD.
@ow to avoi an in!inite regress which threatens the iscussion at this
5uncture1 we must not allow that this RprocessS o! integration1 at its
ultimate level1 that is1 become itsel! temporal in the interaction process.
6his suggests that the integration o! a given bunle o! an in!inite number
o! RtimesS lies somehow with their intrinsic coherence. Ht seems that
three o! the !our basic attributes o! time1 rate1 irection an uration are
all somehow epenent upon the !aculty o! memory L the other1 time
orer1 oes not seem memory epenent an so may well be ob5ective1
an the RirectionS o! past time !lows may not have any real bearing
here.
Aather then saying that a system1 !acing a choice o! i!!erent states1
causes a split at Rthe universeS into several parallel ones1 why not 5ust
suppose !rom the outset that the computer1 as a physically realize piece
o! harware1 is itsel! the prouct o! a superposition?
6he human brain manages to sustain itsel!1 or various parts o! itsel!1 at
various times1 in quantum superposition states L even at temperatures
approaching *)) egrees -ahrenheit. 6he brain oes this through some
as yet to be iscovere isolation mechanism L something about how the
brain !unctions prevents in!luences !rom the e0ternal environment !rom
collapsing its internal quantum superposition states.
;0pectation value b intersub5ective an can be measure repeatelyV an
e0pectation value is an overetermine quantity. -luctuation b
sub5ective an can be etermine only onceV a !luctuation is an
uneretermine quantity.
;nergy !rom !oostu!!s only supply the bias voltages o! the networK o!
neurons. 6he real worK o! in!ormation processing occurs at the
!luctuation level. /ttraction as a patchworK o! !etishes that appears to
!use into a seamless whole. Fhen a general state o! issociative
consciousness begins to evelop1 this patchworK begins at once to
unravel1 causing a ecay in the natural-seemingness o! ones physical an
social environment.
6he =eisenberg ,ncertainty principle must have a close relationship to
the 7auli ;0clusion 7rinciple since the strength o! the e0clusion !orce
between particles o! appro0imately ientical quantum states must be
proportional to the egree o! overlap or coincience between the
probability ensity !unctions1 !or e0ample1 in the case where particle
position is concerne. "imilar observations hol !or probability
!unctions with respect to other quantum observables1 e.g.1 energy1
momentum1 angular momentum1 etc.
Fe can perhaps groun a istinction between two types o! vacuum
energy !luctuation in analogy to Oant_s istinction o! synthetic an
analytic propositions. 6he structures that cannot be anticipate by the
vacuum in the sense o! not having a corresponence with any purely
timeliKe !luctuation in the vacuum_s energy L these we may term
synthetic vacuum structures1 all the rest !or the time being we relegate to
the term analytic vacuum structures. Fhat may prove interesting to
investigate woul be the analogous breaKown in the parallelism o!
analytic versus synthetic with respect to a priori versus a posteriori1
pointe out by Oant !or propositions1 now with regar to vacuum1
structures as ob5ects o! thought versus ob5ects o! empirical observation.
@ovember 2)** Qd
/ccoring to Oant1 sense perception is not o! ob5ects in an
e0ternal worl1 but o! preigeste an reprocesse sense ata. 6he
perception o! the worl may be overetermine in part because the
physical worl is energy egenerate with ever !iner aitional etails
e0isting in potential awaiting application o! the appropriate new !iels1
e.g.1 magnetic !iels !or removing energy egeneracies.
6he principle o! causality is synthetic a priori in Oant_s theory o! critical
reason. 6he possibility o! metaphysics1 as well as the e!!icacy o! insight
an intuition seem to require the possible nature o! the synthetic a priori.
@aturally1 the !aculty o! consciousness is necessary in orer !or synthetic
propositions to be Known a priori. Fhat about analytic a posteriori
5ugment Cwhat Oant consiere impossibleD1 c.!.1 Puine.
H! one is to be open to communication to Rreceiving in!ormation1S that is1
then the system constituting ones min must posses reucible energy
uncertainty.
H! energy uncertainty meiates the passage o! time1 i.e.1 temporality1 then
perhaps e0ists an energy uncertainty unique to each iniviual
consciousness that intuits its own temporality. /n !urthermore1
perhaps the total energy uncertainty o! the quantum vacuum may be
ecompose into multiple !luctuation spectra1 with the correlations o!
!luctuations within one spectrum being mutually istinct !rom how these
!luctuations might become correlate across istinctly i!!erent spectra.
;ach such spectrum woul possess its own unique structure o! energy
uncertainty an hence its own1 unique temporality. ;ach timeline !or
each iniviual coul inee be RorthogonalS to that o! any other even
though each corresponing !our imensional spacetime continuum
possess three spatial imensions in common. Hn this way each
consciousness woul be spaceliKe separate !rom every other. 6hrough
the action o! gravitation1 the energy Cotherwise purely timeliKeD
!luctuations within each istinct vacuum energy spectrum1 i.e.1
sub5ectivity1 coul be communicate to each other through a!!ecte $-
momentum !luctuations. Fe may sel!-consistently assume that the
quantum vacuum energy !luctuations within a given spectrum are
nonlocally interconnecte while the !luctuations !rom istinct spectra
may only become locally interconnecte.
Fith the initial impulse o! the ?ig ?ang irecte perpenicularly
ClocallyD to the three imensional hypersur!ace in concert with local
conservation o! !our momentum1 C$-momentum is separately conserve1
at least appro0imately1 in weaK gravity !ielsD.
6he reconstitution o! the $-hypersur!ace !rom the vacuum energy o! the
(-hypervolume RbounS by this sur!ace occurs appro0imately along a
irection orthogonal to this hypersur!ace1 in the case o! only weaK
gravity !iels being present1 there!ore the Rirection o! timeS is locally
appro0imately inepenent o! position an velocity along the $-
hypersur!ace. -or a rapily moving spaceship e0periencing relativistic
e!!ects1 aitional e!!ects ue to global spacetime curvature become
observable.
6o be an open system1 a system must possess historicity1 that is1 it must
possess a spacetime history. 6he system must be properly speaKing
embee in or connecte to spacetime1 c.!.1 3ulbertson. 6his
spacetime itsel! must be an open system by virtue o! being a continuum
sustaine by some activity.
H! two measurement apparatus are a5uste in such a manner that the
!irst prepares the system as an eigenstate with respect to a particular
observable while the other applie to the same system in measurement
prouces a state o! quantum superposition with respect to orthogonal
a0es o! some conserve volume?
9rthogonality o! two !unctions implies their linear inepenence1 but is
the converse o! this also true? 4ravitation isrupts the linear
inepenence o! the orthogonal components o! conserve quantities.
Hntuition an !eeling necessarily involves a grasp o! the relatively
weighte probabilities o! component possibilities !orming with one
another a spectrum Csuperposition?D. 6his is why the terms e0pectation
value Co! an observableD is a oubly appropriate term !or the average or
mean eigenvalue o! an observable.
=ow oes the notion o! transmission i!!er between eigenvalues an
e0pectations values when a gravitational !iel is Rswitche onS within
the wave!unction_s e!ining region?
/s the gravitational !iel strength is increase1 the quantum mechanical
system becomes in some sense more cohesive but less coherent Cthe
eigen!unction spectrum becomes more anharmonic.
6he orthogonality Clinear inepenenceD o! the a0es o! sub5ective time
woul be guarantee by the inepenence o! the energy uncertainty o!
each iniviual_s brain !rom that o! the brains o! other iniviuals.
6he possibility o! transcenent1 transpersonal reality presupposes the
plurality o! consciousness in which the iniviuality o! each
consciousness is irreucible an mutually incommensurable with respect
to any other such consciousness. 6his maKes the ientity o! this
plurality !unamentally ineterminate. 6he cosmos arises through
collective act o! mutual etermination on the part o! these various
incommensurate consciousnesses.
6he relatively incommensurate nature o! iniviual consciousness
implies the impossibility o! superpositions o! conscious states o! istinct
persons. Hn other wors1 conscious states possess no e0ternally
obtainable CmeasurableD eigenvalue.
3onsciousness is the ultimate step in the causal chain o! the !orming o!
an observation. 7ositing consciousness itsel! as a possible observable is
there!ore a contraiction in terms1 as the observation o! a consciousness1
i.e.1 conscious state woul itsel! be the ultimate step in the
a!orementione causal chain with consciousness itsel! being the
penultimate Cor earlierD step in this chain.
6he essential nature o! consciousness1 rather than its innate an
continuous sel!-observation1 is actually not in any manner whatever
observable.
/n essential property o! what is properly calle min is the
transcenence o! 8in_s conitionality by its counter!actuality. 6his is
ue to 8in_s nature as not merely passive1 but possessing activity o! its
own1 both causally an categorically1 min_s reality-e!ining1 creative
property1 otherwise state.
6he manipulation o! ata by various1 interacting subsystems o! the brain
can only be ma0imally integrate through the brain_s interaction with
some active an ynamic substrate within which it lies embee.
6he notion o! each sub5ective will acting within a temporality unique to
its own consciousness is supporte by another notion o! each iniviual
brain accessing an interacting with its own unique vacuum signal
spectrum L the same on that originally guie the wiring up o! the
eveloping embryonic brain_s !ine structure1 i.e.1 its $-momentum
!luctuation correlation matri0. 6here is no irect coupling o! timeliKe
an spaceliKe momentum !luctuations in the absence o! a gravitational
!iel. 9!!-iagonal energy tensor component !luctuations are
responsible !or the e0pectation values o! these o!!-iagonal components
o! Y6uvZ.
:ualism: vacuum !luctuations are both transient perturbations in energy
as well as being a signal CrepresentationD an potential input/output
connection between1 e.g.1 brain an vacuum or bias input !or altering
vacuum_s sel!-interaction Cwithin or between vacuum spectra/omainsD.
"eptember 2)**
6he other mins problem may someay be aresse
empirically through analysis o! the vacuum electromagnetic !iel spectra
uniquely associate with iniviual consciousnesses1 e.g.1 microtubule
protein imer CtubulinD resonant structures1 !rom which necessary
general !eatures o! these spectra may be etermine1 which generally
characterize consciousness as such. H! there is no possibility o!
generalizing !rom iniviual instances o! consciousness to a general
concept o! consciousness1 then can it be conclue !rom this that it is not
the instantiation o! consciousness as such that constitutes an iniviual
consciousness? H! brain physico-chemical process/biophysical processes
o not prouce states of iniviual consciousness1 but merely tune to1
resonate with an in turn1 !ilter1 channel1 in!orm1 shape1 suppress1
ampen1 ampli!y1 etc. speci!ic vacuum spectra that are uniquely
associate with the ientity o! the person whose iniviual
consciousness it is1 then it might be suppose that there are !eatures o!
these quantum entangle/correlate vacuum !luctuation spectra that !orm
a necessary component o! iniviual consciousness-meiate personal
ientity. 6he Key question here is whether the evelopment o! the
human ientity is the result o! a ialectical1 give-an-taKe1 RblinS
collaborative process between brain embryogenesis an the !ormation1
processing an reprocessing o! quantum entanglement signatures within
the particular local vacuum state o! that epoch or whether inee the Key
component o! personal ientity lies with vacuum entanglement signature
networKs that pree0ist1 only perhaps playing a han in guiing brain
embryogenesis Cat the tubulin levelD once an initial resonant
compatibility has alreay been establishe between the vacuum
!luctuation sub-spectrum an the i!!erentiating !etal brain tissue. H!
more than one o! these Rsub-spectraS coul be ienti!ie as essentially
unerlying the cognitive states o! the iniviual1 say through !urther
e0perimentation along lines pioneere by "tuart =amero!! an relevant
i!!erences an similarities between such istinct spectra analyze1 then
perhaps the problem o! other mins coul receive input !rom empirical
science.
"ymmetry breaKing an the 7lurality o! consciousnesses.
6he event o! state vector collapse cannot be thought to taKe place
instantaneously1 but within an e!!ectively over the course o! some time
internal b /at1 the time uncertainty o! the system escribe by 7si1 the
wave!unction unergoing this collapse.
6he 3openhagen interpretation o! quantum mechanics requires a state
vector !or each observer o! the system.
/ change in the rate o! sub5ective passage o! time coul only be
perceivable i! sub5ective time is meiate through the egree o! mutual
epenence an connection o! the brain_s subsystems1 e.g.1 will1
perception1 sensation1 abstract reasoning1 etc.
3an 7siCr1tD = 7siCrD7siCtD be -ourier trans!orme into a !unction
7siCpD7siC;D1 that is1 as 7siCKD7siCwD?
6he corresponing probability ensity !unction is square integral with
respect to Cr1tD an is quaratic in the momentum an energy variables.
8omentum an energy ensities may be shi!te through shi!ting either
the quantity o! substance or volume Cor bothD.
/mbiguity o! e0perience lies with the polyphonic nature o! narrative.
6he ineterminacy an egeneracy o! the present as embee1 living1
as oppose to isolate1 eterminate invites the retroiction o! !uture
e0perience. 8emory prevents reversibility an reproucibility an
there!ore blocKs the crystallization o! ientity1 c.!.1 3ulbertson_s Aobot
with a historical past versus a copy o! this robot that is suenly
switche on. / !irst point o! i!!erence between the two is the !act that
the Rhistorical robotS can point to no e0perience within its memory o!
having been switche on with a heavily laen memory banK alreay in
place. 6his robot has the e0perience o! accumulating new memories at
various points within the process !illing up its memory banKs1 incluing
memories o! the revision o! still earlier memories an their meaning an
signi!icance in the light o! accumulating o! new memories. 6he
phenomenon o! the revision o! memories C!ormally requiring the
operation o! a 2
n
Can perhaps non-orthogonalD imension o! timeD
suggests that memory is not store in the brain only means !or
aressing memories that are not store locally b implications !or the
min-boy problem1 question o! immortality1 etc.
/s the state vector o! any quantum system is unique to each prospective
observer1 there!ore so to are the e0pectation values o! each o! the
system_s quantum observables as well as the squares o! these
observables unique though the state vector uniquely corresponing to
each prospective observer. Hn the case o! each observers own brain Cas
each is a bona !ie e0ample o! a quantum mechanical systemD1 the
observer is not merely prospective but always actual. Hn this way the
brain o! each observer may be suppose to respon Cvia !luctuation
resonanceD with only a given set o! quantum vacuum !luctuations out o!
the total spectrum o! such !luctuation in which his brain is practically
embee. /n this may1 o! course1 be presume to change in
comple0ion on account o! the temporality o! the quantum vacuum that is
continually riven !orwar1 as it were1 by the uncertain energy Cenergy
uncertaintyD o! this vacuum. /lthough i!!erent such sets o! partial
vacuum !luctuation spectra may perioically or coincientally couple
an ecouple !rom one another1 the coupling o! the !luctuations to one
another that belong to the same set Cpartial spectraD must be
!unamentally i!!erent in nature !rom transient cross-coupling o!
!luctuations between set Cpartial vacuum spectraD. 6he brain o! each
observer as a quantum system resists collapse o! its state vector when
itsel! mae the ob5ect o! another observer_s act o! observation Cquantum
measurementD.
?ecause o! a !unamental lacK o! coherence o! vacuum !luctuations
within which so-calle inert1 i.e.1 non-living/non-conscious quantum
systems are embee1 no resistance to state vector collapse1 i.e.1
RinertiaS is e0hibite by the system in response to acts o! measurement1
but the manner o! collapse is in this case nonetheless etermine by the
nature o! nonlocal1 resonant connection o! the ob5ect/ systems vacuum
!luctuation substrate to that o! the quantum observer per!orming the act
o! observation. "ome o! the RinertiaS an coherence o! the partial
vacuum !luctuation spectrum Cin which his brain is embeeD is
e!!ectively communicate to the system being observe. 6he i!!erent
state vectors that are permitte to result !rom a given observers_ act o!
observation is orthogonal to any other state vector resulting !rom
another_s act o! quantum measurement. "o the orthogonality o! the
various possible state vectors resulting !rom acts o! observation may be
thought to be closely relate to the !act o! the orthogonality o! the time
irections particular to the brain o! each quantum observer Cas meiate
through each observer_s unique quantum energy uncertainty1 that o! his
brain as a quantum system.D
Fhen the observer collapses the 7si !unction o! a quantum system Can
all material ob5ects are constitute by some quantum system or other1
with possible e0ception o! the brain itsel! because o! the non-unitary
nature o! the brain_s wave!unctionD1 the woul-be in!inite regress o!
quantum observation is terminate ultimately by the observer_s act o!
quantum measurement o! the state !unction o! his own brain together
with that o! the original e0ternal ob5ect o! quantum measurement. "o
collapse procees !rom the in!luence o! a nonlocally connecte quantum
vacuum !iel in which the observer_s brain is embee an to which
the e0ternal quantum system in con5unction with that constitute by the
observer_s brain has iscontinuously become couple. 6his
iscontinuous coupling o! the newly !orge nonlocal connectivity o! the
components o! the composite quantum system to the pree0istent
nonlocally connecte vacuum !iel1 i.e.1 that constituting the conscious
ientity o! the observer1 which is responsible !or the iscontinuous
collapse o! the 7si !unction o! the composite quantum-ob5ect/ quantum
brain system. "ince a istinct state vector escribes the quantum
system constitute by the e0ternal ob5ect o! observation1 one !or each
istinct possible observer1 while the origin o! 7si collapse is seen to be
generally materially transcenent1 i! !ollows that the consciousness o!
each observer is irreucibly unique an istinct !rom any other while
being at once1 each o! these consciousnesses1 transcenent entities.
6he quantum vacuum is constantly engage in a chaotic activity o! sel!-
measurement with these acts o! sel! measurement being themselves
caught up in !urther acts o! sel! measurement. Fithin this sel!-
measurement !lu0 o! the quantum vacuum1 there is not enuring ivision
o! sub5ect1 i.e.1 quantum observer !rom ob5ect1 i.e.1 quantum system.
6here are an ine!inite number o! such sel!-measuring quantum vacua.
/ny !inite quantity in mathematics ivie by an in!initesimal quantity
is grante to possess in!inite magnitue. / !inite quantity ivie by
R)S is sai to Rblow up.S ?low up to what? Ht is commonly assume
that such a RrationalS !unction as say1 any !inite whole or counting
number ivie by zero must represent an in!inite magnitue1 !acility
conceive o! as Rsimple in!inity.S ?ut the above is to assume that R)S
an an in!initesimal quantity are generally equivalent. a/b is a Rrational
numberS provie b oes not equal ) even though in this very special
case RaS an RbS are nonetheless both integers. Fe might eny that R)S
is an integer in the sense o! being a Rcounting numberS since to note the
absence o! anything1 i.e.1 saying there are R)S +_s or such an such_s is
Rnot to have counte.S
H! the quantity1 a/b where b=) is thought o! as a !unction o! integers
taKen !rom two istinct number lines1 then there appears to be no
!unction that generally compensate !or the inepenent ree!ining o!
RaS an Rb.S
/ mere concourse o! atoms woul have no motive to impress upon
another such atomic collocation the !act o! human beings being
constitute !rom a mere concourse o! atoms.
6he more moern version o! the psychological metaphysical truth
illustrate by "ocrates questioning o! the slave boy about geometrical
theorem_s Can interactive-ialectical process1 by the wayD might be to
suppose that the consciousness o! each iniviual person is a Kin o!
ynamical hologram o! partial in!ormation1 embee in a networK o!
physical traces Cc.!.1 :erria_s concept o! Rthe traceSD associate with the
mechanism by which recollection o! earlier e0periences can be evoKe
by appropriate sets o! sensory stimuli.6hese stimuli inuce a
reprouction or reenergizing o! the memory trace networKs which causes
the consciousness o! the person to linK up !or a moment with the rest o!
the hologram1 represente by the original e0perience that was shorthan-
encoe into the brain_s physical structure1 the vast ma5ority o! which is
not local to the brain itsel! but nonlocally encoe in the quantum
vacuum in which the brain is physically embee. Fe must istinguish
active versus passive recollecte e0perience-in!ormation !rom possible
new e0perience !rom e0perience only possible at a later time1 i! at all1
!rom e0perience only possible !or some other min1 etc.
8ay 2)*(
.anguage
is a system which enables the piecing together o! the shattere hologram
o! the otherGs thought. 6he shattering occurs whenever thought is !irst
put into wors.
8ay 2)**
9ne bit o! physiological evience !or "helraKe_s morphogenetic
!iel is how the relearning o! an utterly !orgotten tasK comes so much
easier than the initial learning o! this tasK. Ht is as though the neee
interconnections in the brain that !ormerly supporte the physical
encoing o! the tasK1 though now withere away1 have the ability to
reengage each other1 growing together once more as i! guie
teleologically by the abiing presence o! a ghostly template o! those
!ormerly networKe neural interconnections.
Hnertia is meiate by the coupling o! matter to locally-connecte
quantum vacuum !ielsV is iniviual consciousness meiate through
the coupling o! the brain_s quantum mechanical !unctioning to the
nonlocally-connecte quantum !iel? 6he so-calle Rbining problemS
within the philosophy o! min oes not encompass as usually state the
subquestion o! how the temporality o! the properly boun conscious
states are represente within consciousness1 i.e.1 the temporal integration
problem.
6he spin o! massless particles Cusually spin J" accoring to the prior art
an we maintain always spin JD is irecte along the irection o! motion1
while the spin vector !or massive particles Cusually spin { 1 again1
accoring to the prior an1 we believe1 always spin Y D orients itsel!
along the irection o! the particle_s motion progressively1 as the particle
is accelerate to higher velocities. 6his strongly suggests that spin {
particls also orient their spin in the irection o! motion within spacetime1
but that this is not perceive because spin { particles1 which are Rat restS
have a irection o! motion that is entirely timeli'e. /cceleration o! a
spin { particle merely results in the observation o! the particle_s angular
momentum Cspin {D in progressively !oreshortene .orentz !rames.
"pin is the nonvanishing component o! a particle_s or system o!
particles_ total angular momentum1 >
tot
= .
tot
+ "tot with .
tot
). =ow
is spin e!ine through the use o! commutation relations?
,ncertainties seem to be better behave than entanglements1 c.!.1
[uncertainties + correlations\ vs [!luctuations + correlations\.
@o perspective is more con!ining than the one !rom which one appears
to be Rso rightS about another person.
H can see how absolutely right you coul have been about "uzanne an
woul have been about me1 as well1 but unliKe the 9racle at :elphi_s
prophecies1 Knowlege o! you prophecy permitte an perhaps create
the possibility !or another reality L one in which your lo!ty1 highly
consiere opinions turn out to be/have been short-sighte. Ht is a
Knowlege that it is only possible to have gaine through an e0ercise o!
the will rather than through the intellect. ForKing within the intellect
alone an its associate current state o! Knowlege Keeps one con!ine
to only a single1 pro5ective branch o! the ever-bi!urcating tree o! possible
realities.
Hnterviewer: so how is it that no grauates o! your Rhow to be a
hero/heroineS course ever seem to receive any sort o! meals1 honors1
etc.?
6he 8yth o! the 9racle tells us about how our !ates can become
etermine through our cooperation1 however unwitting Con the sur!aceD
with this !ate. 9ne can stay within or move between ego-centere
continua. "taying within one o! these means being the creator o! it.
8oving one o! these means being the creator o! it. 8oving between
means abanoning recursively structure concatenation o! will an
intellect by which the ego an its worlview is valiate.
Fe may1 !or e0ample1 speaK o! the continuum o! .eslie an "uzanne1
which has been traverse.
6here may well e0ist a eep inconsistency between a !ecunity principle
Cserving as the input upon which the /nthropic 3osmological 7rinciple
is to operateD an any necessary principle o! internal coherence Can
consistencyD on the part o! the partially sel!-subsisting entities/creatures
that must also be embee within some subspace/continuum o! the
total set o! possible continua. 3oherence may ictate the capability o!
sel!-renormalization o! the state !unction1 say1 or some global 7si o! the
8any Forls Hnterpretation set1 the amission o! the moal CmetaD
category possible-possibles an1 hence1 o! the concepts o! metaphysical
worK an its per!ormance Cby organisms1 say1 through bacK-reacting
upon their embeing continua/vacuaD1 as well as a !urther moal
metacategory1 that o! contingent necessity1 an so on. Hn other wors1
the coherence o! certain types o! entities requires1 aitionally1
coherence on the part o! their embeing/conte0tualizing
continua/vacua. /ll o! the possibilities within the total set must not
possess1 as it were1 equal RsticKiness.S
8ust there obtain a real istinction between laws1 e.g.1 the structure o!
the physical constants1 an their sometimes !allible mani!estations? Cas
being merely the e0pressions o! relative probabilities?D 3ausality as it
mani!ests itsel! in the phenomenon o! coherence an cohesiveness1 say
on the part o! living organisms1 cannot be reuce to a ynamics o!
change in relative probableness o! pure Cor mi0eD quantum states.
"ensory stimuli trigger a reprocessing o! vacuum !luctuations within a
speci!ic spectrum1 changing the con!iguration o! this spectrum in terms
o! the relative proportion o! !iltere versus un!iltere !luctuations. 6he
ivision o! the vacuum into !unamentally istinct spectral classes1
corresponing to istinct iniviual consciousness Cas oppose to
i!!erent states o! a single consciousnessD.
6here are two istinctly i!!erent notions o! what is calle an open
system. 9ne1 that o! a single1 embeing substrate in which everything
inheres but which itsel! is beyon e!inition or limitation. 6he other1 a
is5ointly i!!erent an noncontiguous substitute !or each point o!
spacetime when one tunnels own into !rom this entry point ownwar1
as it were an in a irection away !rom the continuum encompassing all
o! the possible istinct starting points !or such hypothetical tunneling or
Rburrowing.S 6o suppose that every interval imension must ultimately
linK up with every other at some su!!iciently !ine or etaile scale o!
each is to have enie the possibility o! istinguishing RinternalS !rom
Re0ternalS by subsuming the !ormer within the latter as a more
appearance Cto whom1 we might asK1 howeverD. /s we have alreay
state on numerous occasions elsewhere1 the parao0 o! an in!inite
regress threatens whenever we attempt to unerstan the temporal
integrity/integration o! personal consciousness in terms o! a process
occurring within consciousness. Aather oes consciousness itsel!
appear as the very activity o! this process o! temporal integration.
.ooKing at things as they appear in the !requency omain1 this
integration process/ activity is that o! coherence an cohesiveness being
impose upon a !requency spectrum o! energy !luctuations.
Ht is the renering o! a spectrum o! orthogonal !requencies into one
possessing an irreucible anharmonically CaperioicityD that in the time
omain1 conversely1 must be represente in terms o! an aperioic
!unction. "o what is commonly terme the R!lowS or RstreamS o!
consciousness is either merely a representation within consciousness or
it is the e!!ect o! continual isturbance o! Cperturbation o!D consciousness
!rom outsie itsel!.
6o paraphrase 7ascal1 8an is situate between the e0tremes o! @othing
an 6he in!inite. <et it turns out1 as is tening to appear ever more
liKely in light o! recent evelopments in !iels such as quantum physics
an cutting ege computer science1 nothing is the in!inite an the in!inite
is nothing.
6his woul place man somewhere on the arcing tra5ectory o! the in!inite
e0ploring an R!leshing outS its unerlying !initue an returning again.
6his path woul not be a circle as this shoul represent mere repetition1
reenactment an play-acting1 but a hopelessly complicate Kin o! spiral
L the tra5ectory o! which cannot be speci!ie by pre-establishe
inepenent parameters. 6he !unction woul1 in other wors1 perturb
the space in which it otherwise shoul have been represente.
/ll the woners o! e0istence within society/culture o! being in 4o_s
presence: every glory in the sel! a twisting an perversion o! the proper
giving o! glory to 4o.
Qd
,nbe!angen: C*D uninhibiteV C2D impartial. =ere we see two
concepts1 which in ;nglish can only be brought into close relateness
through e!!ort o! philosophical re!lection1 but which in 4erman possess
a built-in connection with one another. =ere we are brought to a notion
o! impartiality as una!!ecteness. R:ie Aoboter hielten sich nicht an
4e!uehle un Iermutungen. "ie waren programmiert un taten ihre
7!licht1 ie ihnen vom positronischen 4ehirn iKtiert wure. "ie hielte
an 6atsachen un sonst nichts1 Ec.!.1 Iorstoss @ach /rKon1 p. *''1
8oewig Ierlag O4 Aastatt. /ber was ist genau !uer einen Aoboter eine
6atsache?
4o is not a being1 nor ?eing itsel!1 but the preconition o! ?eing itsel!.
"ince light always moves at $))1))) Km/sec relative to the quantum
vacuum an movement o! massive boies relative to this vacuum is not
possible1 i.e.1 )1 it !ollows that the velocity o! light relative to massive
boies is always RcS regarless o! the state o! motion o! sai boies.
Ht is easy to unerstan the meaning o! the 4erman verb1
Rausgerechnet1S although this wor is not really translatable into
;nglish.
/ chess e0pert calculates moves1 i.e.1 looKs ahea a number o! moves1
the granmaster R!eels his wayS aroun a position1 intuitively1 c.!.1 3hess
7sychologist1 Aeuben -ine1 7h.:. 6he most !luently bilingual people are
simultaneous translators1 although the very signal o! one_s passage to
!luency in a secon language is when one suenly no longer !ins it
necessary to attempt simultaneous translation. 6he same is true !or
what we might term R!luency o! thought.S 9ne achieves it once one
becomes !ree o! the necessity o! translating one_s thoughts into wors
when thinKing outsie the social conte0t1 i.e.1 internal or e0ternal. -or
instance1 H became able to thinK outsie o! a permutational/
combinational conceptual !rameworK only in my $)_s.
9ctober 2)**
Hmagine a chess machine that ecies its ne0t move by always
Keeping its eye on the Rwon game linesS or Rshortest won game linesS or
Rmost brilliant shortest won game linesS1 etc. !or its color1 i.e.1 white or
blacK. ;ach move woul have a virtually in!inite number o! both RwonS
an RlostS game lines to which it belonge. :etermining a Rbest moveS
appears to come own to probability given that the computer cannot
preict what moves a human player might maKe. 9! course the
machine_s choice o! Rbest moveS at any 5uncture woul be
overetermine in the literal sense o! there being an ine!inite number o!
won game lines in the Rown lineS o! that particular move choice. ?ut
there woul be almost an equal number Cor perhaps even a lesser
number?D o! Rlost gameS lines associate with that move choice. Hn light
o! this1 the capacity !or abstract thought seems unavoiable !or a
machine who_s move choice algorithm is to be Rtruly optimalS. ?ut it
seems that such abstract categories can only be evelope in the light o!
e0perience. :oes consciousness obviate the nee !or the otherwise per
impossible teleological R!ine-tuningS?
>esus is spoKen o! in the 7auline ;pistles o! the @ew 6estament as being
Rthe "econ /am.S CFe shoul i!!erentiate here Knowlege o! goo
an evil by its !ruits Cactuality/!actD versus this Knowlege in a more
abstract an unmani!est sense Cpotentiality/ hypotheticalD. 6here is the
taKing into one_s min that which woul not otherwise have occurre to
one versus the interpretation o! one_s spontaneous mani!esting o! one_s
true nature by the other/others.
Hs the i!!erence between >esus an /am merely that one chose to
maintain the connection to the transcenent sel! whereas the other chose
to breaK this connection?
-ourier analysis suggests to us that there is not one time which R!lowsS
but myria times1 in !act1 an in!inite number o! them1 all bunle
together1 an what we thinK o! normally as a single imension o! time1
an what some o! the more philosophical o! us puzzle over L the !act
that time has1 or appears to have1 only a solitary imension1 turns out
upon !urther re!lection to be an assumption about appearance1 which
coul be !urther !rom actually only i! time appeare1 rather to possess no
imensionality whatever. 6his is because a temporality which stretches
!rom everlasting to everlasting i! treate as a time !unction1 must be
represente in terms o! an in!inite number o! !unctions o! !requency.
6wo contrasting views o! the organization o! physical reality is one in
which the highest orer1 most sensitive an subtle processes are those o!
the highest orer an the other in which the greatest subtlety o! process
occurs at the lowest CsimplestD orer. -or purposes o! stability o! an
orer unerstoo as a !eebacK control system the greatest sensitivity o!
the system to outsie in!luences must lie at the highest orer an subtlest
levels o! the systems activity in which the bacKwar propagation o!
in!luences !rom the higher orers to the lower level orers are
energetically swampe L or the simpler processes at the lower levels are
in!ormationally swampe moving upwar to the higher orer Cmore
comple0D levels o! the system.
/ging in biological systems may be ue to the unconstraine interaction
o! higher orer an lower !requency processes/activities. 7arao0ically1
lower !requency physical processes as they mani!est themselves in
relatively short-live biological systems1 are not sub5ect to natural
selective bounary conitions. 6his seems to suggest that li!e evolve
!rom shorter to longer live iniviuals. -ertility compensates !or
shortness o! longevity1 however both are inices o! viability an health
o! an iniviual1 but not necessarily o! a group even species.
3learly selection must be taKing place at levels beyon that o! the
con!lict o! iniviuals within an across species. / cannot be suppose
the cause o! ?1 i! ? is presuppose by / L another !actor L R3S must
moulate an meiate the causal connection o! / an ?.
3ontrast the high school/college yearbooK phenomenon with the
necessity o! the metaphysical uniqueness o! the iniviual
consciousness.
Qd
6he chaotic !lu0 is !orever o!!ering itsel! up to be shape by the han
o! reason1 but is usually ignore !or reason is usually content to oze.
Hniviuality b onset o! cell i!!erentiation in embryological
evelopment. =ow are monozygotic ientical twins_ ientities
i!!erentiate an at what stage o! embryological or postnatal
evelopment?
3ontinuity o! connection to a uni!ie open system versus continuity o!
substance versus sameness o! !orm/substance as etermining ientity.
/ctive maintenance o! this connection through vigilance o! will.
6he reaer_s subvocalize1 narrative voice perhaps only hear in Rthe
min_s ear.S
6he !luctuations in the ego_s !abric o! thought otherwise Know as petit
perceptions1 may well only possess a Kernel principle C which can
always be applie more generallyD provie that the min proactively
seizes it in orer to maKe o! it something Cwhich perhaps later will pass
the threshol o! becoming sel!-sustaining/ isseminatingD.
3ompare the metaphysics o! the 8any Forls_ Hnterpretation o!
quantum theory with a 8any 3onsciousnesses Hnterpretation o! a certain
theory o! min. Hs one consciousness 5ust as goo as any other as an
in!initely upgraable sub5ect o! e0perience? =ow coul it be possible
to istinguish the case o! multiple egoic structurings o! a single
consciousness apart !rom each istinct such egoic structuring inhering in
its own1 istinct an iniviually unique consciousness? Fhat orer o!
consciousness coul have such a istinction within itsel! as a Rclear an
istinct iea?S 3learly an orer greater than that constitute by a
posite iniviual an unique consciousness among a !iel o! possible
other consciousnesses. "uch a higher orer o! consciousness woul
possess the ability to tracK changes to itsel! that involve its unergoing a
ivision.
Hnsiious so!tening o! one_s will to live as one important !actor in the
appearance o! egenerative isease.
Fhat we have been calling RconsciousnessS is actually almost the
converse o! what woul constitute real or true consciousness. Fe can
only have recollection o! consciousness e0perience or intuite through
the istorting lens o! the various !orms inhering in this consciousness.
Hs each consciousness evoKe through brain activity actually a i!!erent
person been tune to an pulle in !rom out o! the ether?
3an more than one tuner tune into the same signal in this case?
6o paraphrase 7ascal1 8an is situate between the e0tremes o! @othing
an the Hn!inite. <et i! it turns out1 as is tening to appear ever more
liKely in light o! recent evelopments in !iels such as quantum physics
an cutting ege computer science1 nothing is the in!inite an the in!inite
is nothing. 6his woul place man somewhere on the arcing tra5ectory
o! the in!inite e0ploring an R!leshing outS it s unerlying in!initue an
returning again. 6his path woul not be a circular one as this shoul
represent mere repetition1 reenactment1 an play-acting1 but a hopelessly
complicate Kin o! spiral L the tra5ectory o! which cannot be speci!ie
by preestablishe inepenent parameters. 6he !unction woul1 in other
wors1 perturb the space in which it otherwise shoul have been
represente.
6he question arises as to whether the continuum constituting entity
shoul be trans!orme by what be!alls the implicit unerlying omains
o! !initue when processe an renere e0plicit.
H have not the slightest oubt that1 within the space o! si0 months1 you
coul !in the most e0cellent unsuitable partner with which to spen the
rest o! your miserable li!eT
:escartes_ Rclear an istinct ieasS an the question o! how 8an ever
conceive the notion o! a transcenent :ivinity in the !irst place L also
relate clear an istinct ieas to the notion o! metaphysical presence.
/ll the woners o! e0istence within society an culture are erivative o!
the primal e0perience o! being in 4o_s presence: every glory in the sel!
a twisting an perversion o! the proper giving o! glory to 4o.
6he more original seeming are the pronouncements o! a balance an
rational min1 the more liKely o these statements re!lect some actually
perceive !eature o! some omain o! reality.
Ht has been sai that parao0 is 5ust truth staning on its hea in an
attempt to attract attention. 6he truth o! this statement is most reaily
seen by those blesse Cor curseD with a highly active ream li!e.
web=
;0ample C*D: R6he love that you withhol is the pain that you carry1S
c.!.1 paragraph *1 p. *)1
www.anromeaninsights.com/resources/transcripts/global*.html.
;0ample C2D: R6his ego ieal is the target o! the sel!-love which was
en5oye in chilhoo by the actual ego.S C-reu1 *2*(1 p. 2(D
Fithout conitions an limitations !or the manipulation/ CRmaniS-
RpulationSD o! spontaneity1 insight issipates by processes 5ust as
RspeeyS as those by which it is originally engenere. "uch a situation
woul prevent the linKing together o! i!!erent insights so that ieas
woul not be enable to buil upon one another. "hi!ts in groun
unerlying the transpiring o! events cannot be characterize by mere
alterations in the weightings o! pree0isting possibilities constituting a
close set.
R3onsciousness is the space within which consciousness evolves1S
c.!.1
web=
www.anromeaninsights.com/resources/transcripts/global*.html.
;piphenomena o! i!!erent1 substantively isconnecte processes
become linKe within e0perience an consciousness to establish conte0t
!or the prouction o! new phenomena1 as oppose to epiphenomena.
;piphenomena always inhabit the outer reaches o! phenomenal
mani!estation.
Ht is easy to become cynical about a person1 losing all interest in them
whenever they Rtip their han1S revealing what is riving them to be
something very basic an simple.
:iscuss the !allacy o! unspirituality1 that H liKe to term1 Rthe eternal
Finnebago travel vacationS concept o! personal !ul!illment.S
"uch nonsensical con!usions o! the conceptual !aculty occur in reams
as1 !or e0ample1 one_s e0plaining/ receiving an e0planation o! the
interesting !act that a given phrase in a certain language means one thing
when properly translate into one_s own language1 but something
altogether i!!erent when translate into say1 4erman.
"ome outstaning characters1 e.g.1 presient ?ill 3linton1 possess the
unique gi!t !or maKing a thoroughgoing narcissism appear to be a virtue.
9ther e0amples o! the emergence o! causality an rationality in reams:
the observance o! an attention to time an time Keeping evices1 e.g.1
one arrives at an appointment an hour early only to !in that one_s
associate has not yet arrive1 nor is the establishment prepare to o!!er
one a table/seat.1 the !rustration o! ream character Cprotagonist_sD
mercurial1 impulsive irrational will by the tenacity with which
mechanical1 electrical1 etc. evices operate accoring to consistently
logical though unKnown principles. / causal remarK concerning a
eveloping situation that one !ails to taKe note o! in the present scene
reaches a ominant state o! evelopment in a later scene1 e.g.1 a small1
hereto!ore unnotice particular growth on the sie o! one_s !ace. 9r
perhaps1 one has been inserte into a ream sequence with only
Rinaequate !uningTS 6he problems o! substance interprete in terms
o! the istinction o! borrowe versus printe money.
6here must be a grouning conte0t1 e.g.1 R8in o! 4oS !or any
in!ormational system1 which is alreay in place be!ore there can be a
processing o! raw precursor material that becomes in!ormation1 c.!.1
science !iction movies where the protagonist is receive by those alreay
long present L analogy with being calle !orth !rom the voi.
IorMstellen *. 6r. I. 5mn./sich 5mm v: introuce sb./ onesel! to sb.V
Cbei ?ewerbungD sich b: come/go !or [an\ interviewV ir ,hr [um eine
"tune\ b: put the clocK !orwar [one hour\V 2. Ae!l. I. sich C:at.D etw.
b: imagine sth.V Iorstellung ie aD C?egri!!D ieaV bD o. 7l. C7hantasieD
imaginationV cD C/u!!uehrungD per!ormanceV Cim OinoD showing.
HeaV imaginationV per!ormanceV showing are the i!!erent acceptations
o! [Iorstellung\ translate into ;nglish.
:enotations analogous to !ounational1 Rconte0t-!ree1S 7latonic !orms
CieasD1 connotations to erivative1 relative1 an conte0tual emanations
o! the corresponing !ouning enotations. ?ut might not the reverse
process be true also1 or even the ominant process o! the pair Co!
processes1 yet to be esignateD?
Ht is an innate an e!ining instinct o! consciousness to appropriate itsel!
as a sub5ect o! stuy. 3learly i! consciousness were a close an !inite
system1 phenomenon1 what have you1 it coul not properly separate itsel!
!rom itsel! so as to maKe itsel! the proper sub5ect o! its own stuy. "uch
stuy seeKs the iscovery o! some o! consciousness_ own ob5ective an
inepenently subsisting !eatures. <et i! consciousness correspons to
some open an in!inite substratum o! !orm an trans!ormation
CsubstanceD1 then how can consciousness be an ob5ect at all? Fith the
operation o! consciousness1 analysis an synthesis cannot as istinct
categories1 cannot be !ully isentangle !rom one another1 that is1 in the
special case where consciousness_ investigation o! its own essential
nature is concerne.
H! the e0istence o! the worl is consistent with the being o! each an
every consciousness1 it is only because the worl is equally the prouct
o! each an every consciousness1 as each consciousness represents both
a possible an an actual unity o! the worl.
Qd
;ach consciousness
represents an equally vali uni!ication o! ?eing as oes any other
Cpotential unity o! an as yet un!inishe e0istential orerD.
6he ine0 o! the truth o! a meme is not the in!ormation Cconte0t-!ree
ata1 really1 since in isolation1 a meme is not part o! an in!ormation
system an so contains no in!ormationD RcontaineS by the meme1 but
how aaptable is the meme Can its ataD to the requirements o! the most
success!ul system o! memes o! which it may !orm a part an in which it
may participate. @ietzsche woul have us believe that the stability o!
the !lu0 is always internal or internally generate. 6he !lu0 is always
internal or internally generate. 6he !lu0 in!orms itsel!1 accoring to
@eitzsche1 in other wors. 6here is no outsie or transcenent vantage
point relative to the !lu0 !rom which an in!orming in!luence may issue.
"ometimes characters within reams may utter puns an quips the
symbolic signi!icance o! which is only realize upon awaKening. /lso1
ream characters may maKe re!erences to events which have occurre
only in the immeiately previous scene even though the reamer_s
character himsel! is caught in the immeiate moment o! the present
scene having totally !orgotten that to which the ream character is
re!erring1 again1 only realizing this remarKable !act upon awaKening an
recollecting the ream in its greater entirety. :ream characters may
even repeat or rephrase their remarKs or questions in a seeming attempt
to re!resh the reamers iminishe short-term memory or in an attempt
to evoKe unerstaning o! what the ream character is talKing about.
"ometimes blatant logical or causal parao0es are inserte into the
!abric or action o! the ream1 the unconscious purpose o! which perhaps
seems to be that o! awaKening the reamer to a state o! luciity within
the ream worl itsel!.
8arch 2)*$
Hn the worl o! the ream1 conte0t is
turne insie-outV the literal is metaphorical1 the metaphorical1 literal.
8arch 2)*$ Kwo=
RH Know my lot. "ome ay my name will be linKe to the
memory o! something monstrous1 o! a crisis as yet unpreceente on
earth1the most pro!oun collision o! consciences1 a ecision con5ure up
against everything hitherto believe1 emane1 hallowe.S L -rierich
@ietzsche1 ;cce =omo
Ht is an e0ample o! a Kin o! pipe ream with smoKeless tobacco an no
pipe1 or a Kin o! catchy-souning metaphor in search o! a sub5ect.
9n the other han one_s ream character may act within a given scene
consistent with the conte0t o! the present scene properly interprete in
light o! what one_s character has learne/Knows through immeiately
previous scenes1 but !ailing to notice L an important !eature o! the
present scene that is 5arringly iscontinuous with his interpretation base
upon previous scenes. 9ne_s ream character may perhaps correct his
interpretation1 taKing this new !act into account1 have it pointe out to
him irectly or inirectly by a ream character1 notice this inconsistency
only upon waKing recollection o! the ream1 or1 !inally1 not at all. 6his
is an intriguing supposition about the ream reality1 namely1 that events
occur an in!ormation processe1 connections an ienti!ications mae
which the conscious sel! never shall taKe note o! the conscious sel! never
shall taKe not o!. 8oreover1 within the ream attempts are !orever
being mae through scenes an actors o! the ream ot communicate
messages to the reamer_s ream character1 which sometimes !ail1 or
only succee partially1 attempts at communication that will never be
recollecte an appreciate by the reamer or his waKing sel!.
-or e0ample1 H have approache as strange resience1 gotten the
attention o! the occupants insie an have cautiously bae them invite
me in. 8y ream character believes he has somehow been brought
bacK to the year *2(' an is on some Kin o! urgent mission1 perhaps to
warn the !amily o! some impening isaster. 6he occupants are a large
=ispanic !amily. H speaK with the hea o! the househol who strangely
enough is a isemboie hea sitting on a shel!. ?ut immeiately ne0t
to this shel! on a bacK wall is another person whose hea is the same as
the isemboie on e through properly attache to a boy. "o !ar my
ream character is only imperceptibly alarme by any sense o! things
within the scene being Rout o! place.S H !umble !or wors1 !inally
inquiring o! the !amily_s !ather what year it is an whether or not is it
*2('. H_m hoping my question will be not taKen as a pranK or 5oKe so
that the !amily might properly appreciate my esperately lost state o!
being. 6he !ather remains1 silent not answering1 an then H turn to see
an antique television set. H try to correct mysel!1 saying1 ER9h1 it must
be aroun *2&& or so -Lam H right?S 8embers o! the !amily answer in
general agreement with my guess.
H believe H Know the !uture inhabitants o! the house an remarK1 RH_m
!amiliar with some o! your ancestors who occupie this house.S H
intene by this to have sai escenants rather than ancestors. 6he
mother o! the !amily answers me by asKing i! H Know her granparents.
Fho live in the house $( years ago. H say Rno1 H mean the members o!
your !amily who will occupy this house $( years hence.S 6he intriguing
observation to be mae here is that the ream character represente by
the mother respone to the literal content o! my question rather than
what H intene to asK her an which H believe H ha asKe her.
6here has to have always been something since e0 nihilo nihil !it. /n
what better caniate !or such a being than that posite by "pinoza1
namely1 R a substance consisting o! in!inite attributes1 each o! which
e0presses eternal an in!inite essence.
Qd
"pinoza argues that there
coul be no cause or reason preventing the e0istence o! such a being.
3onsier: .eibniz_ 8onas as in!inite attributes o! "pinoza_s 4o
substance.
-or those who have e0perience eep trans!ormation in their sense o! in
their sense o! sel! an o! the worl an its possibilities1 there is a strange
appreciation !or the problematic nature o! personal ientity an even o!
the concept o! personhoo itsel!. 6his appreciation is perhaps !oune
on a sometimes pro!ounly mani!este sense o! ontological insecurity on
the one han sometimes Keenly !elt sense o! giiness concerning
unlimite possibilities !or the metaphysics o! the sel!. 6hrough a sense
o! the raical arbitrariness o! the particularity o! one_s worlly ientity
comes sense o! one_s own otherness as apeiron.
/ glimpse o! ine0haustible hope an o! 5oy as well as1 parao0ically1
horror become in this way available though at once unerstoo as
possibly !unamentally inaequate emotive metaphoricity.
9bserve that my otherness1 not in the sense o! its being relative to you as
some component1 Ce!inite or eterminable or notD o! all that which is
other relative to yoursel!1 but my otherness in the sense o! all o! that
which is other relative to the sel! that constitutes me an my
potentialities an possibilities1 is particular or peculiar to me though
itsel! in some important1 that is1 metaphysical sense1 ineterminate
because H am but part o! an ineterminate totality Cparao0ically
speaKing L more on this laterD1 an that my otherness inclues you as
well as mysel! as other relative to all others.
?ut parao0ically an moreover my otherness in this sense is peculiar to
mysel!. /nother way o! viewing this is that the unKnown Cas well as the
R,nKnowableSD possesses a rich though ineterminate or trans-
eterminate structure.
4roun is multiply ineterminate in the sense o! potentially being
constitute by multiple acts o! coetermination that are each iniviually
ineterminate an each incommensurate relative to the other. 4roun is
only partially uni!ie through these coetermine acts o! etermination.
Hneterminate groun becomes partially uni!ie while remaining
partially a multiplicity o! incommensurate ineterminate grouns o!
potential unique sel!-etermination.
9ne_s being is etermine in!inite or it is ineterminate within 4o.
9ne_s being is ineterminate but only along a certain irection or in a
certain sense1 being in other sense eterminate.
6he question arises as to whether each being is uniquely ineterminate
through a Kin o! struggle between an amongst multiple being1 each o!
which is all ways ineterminate or whether the ineterminacy unique to
each being has been preestablishe in some manner.
/!ter the !ashion o! the constraints o! the canonical !orms o!
versi!ication enabling an !acilitating the invention o! poetic insights
which otherwise woul have been iscovere only with great i!!iculty1
by chance1 or not at all1 we glimpse the possible valiity o! some
principle by which limitation actually prouces an e!!ect whereby the
possible is e0tene.
=ere limitation transcens mere !iltering1 channeling or even structuring
but results in a change in the character o! a system that is innately !ree o!
limitations o! any Kin1 i.e.1 an in!inite system.
6his is presumably because any !inite limitation applie to an in!inite
system must change the system in some way but altogether without
renering this system !inite.
Oant_s reconciling o! the notions o! uty an !reeom might consist in
essence simply in that our oing something !or a reason constrains the
time an manner o! our acting but maKes our action all the !reer because
o! it. 9n the other han1 aimless activity is in!orme by the particulars
o! happenstance1 animal instinct1 temperament1 conitione re!le0es1 etc.
8oreover1 ethical action is not at the mercy o! unreasoning !eeling an
sentiment although many i!!erent ethical systems are possible an the
choice o! which one submits one_s !ree volition to may be etermine
largely by personal pre!erence borne o! temperament.
Fors are a!ter all only souns. ?ecause the souns in our heas !orm
wors an the wors combine to !orm message we assume there must be
someone there in our heas speaKing those wors. ?ut is it that there is
only someone who_s listening. "peech is more intention than
representation the listening to it1 more the other way Rroun.
Fe shoul all o! us !eel an0ious to see Rhow will turn out.S
/s note be!ore1 the otherness o! the other oes not usually return us to
the sel! Calthough1 c.!.1 H-6hou relationshipD an that even the otherness
o! all others oes not unproblematically lea us bacK to the sel!. C6his
is a R)-scholarshipS article in the sense o! containing no e!inite
re!erencesD
3onsciousness an the Hnterpretation o! :reams HH1 an essay topic.
Hn the absence o! revelation1 the worl becomes a mere close room
!ille with things which are nothing more than they are. 9n seeming
way out o! this impasse is the enowing o! ob5ects with magical quality1
i.e.1 !etishizationV another is the enowing o! the space itsel! with a
Rmagicalness.S 3.!.1 the retire mile class couple_s Finnebago
propelling itsel! through the Ioi versus e0ploring the ine0haustible
riches o! 4o_s For.
H have always been sort o! nonpluse by the assertion that Rtime is an
illusion.S ?ut H !inally got what H thought was a hanle on this most
parao0ical proposition once H realize that H ha been all uring this
time uner the instinctive i! philosophical Can secret1 H might aD
assumption that by this assertion we must equate the unreality o! time
with mere Rstoppe timeS or with a Kin o! Rhalte temporal !low.S 9!
course1 such a notion o! time_s unreality shoul be one the min can_t
wrap itsel! aroun as the criticize interpretation o! Rtime is an illusionS
a!!irms time in orer to maKe it the sub5ect o! a negation. H only !ree
mysel! o! this sel!-contraictory acceptation o! the phrase once H
realize1 all that can be consistently1 i.e.1 non-contraictorily negate
with regar to time_s reality is1 to wit1 that *D time possesses Cob5ectiveD
irectionality an 2D time possesses Cagain1 ob5ectiveD magnitue1 i.e.1
RrateS Co! R!lowSD1 an $D that there might be moreover1 no real sub$ect
of temporal change may be consiere an aitional component to one_s
most !ull-blooe assertion concerning time_s unreality1 though this
might really RonlyS amount to the assertion that Rnothing e0ists1S i.e.1
that reality itsel! is illusion - such an assertion must perhaps be seen by
all as sel!-contraictory1 since a certain school o! metaphysics that is
complete unto itsel! Cthough ultimately !alse1 i.e.1 the =eraclitean1
because not encompassing in its system all o! reality L reality as a
totality is a istinctly 7armeniean notion1 by the wayD an so asserts
much more than 5ust the unreality o! time. "o we see how1 on the one
han1 the enial o! time_s reality is contraictory. ?ut there is another
sense in which the amission o! the reality o! time is itsel! also
contraictory L that o! conceiving o! time as the regiving o! totality.
H! a totality Cas suchD e0ists1 it can presumably be given only once. /n
this1 then1 brings us to the notion ! time as eternal now or eternal
Rnowness.S
?lening an hybriization are in no wise inepenent o! the manner in
which the phenomena are prouce Cas representationsD. /n e0ample1
o! this might be the blening o! the vocal in!lection s o! two persons1
regional accents1 etc. 6he hybriizing o! the characteristic tones
prouce by the i!!erent ban/orchestra instruments provies another
e0ample. /esthetics in this way transcens the physical limitations o!
technology or vice versa1 technology opens up possibilities o!
representation transcening the subtleties o! re!ine aesthetic 5ugment.
/nthropic cosmological1 !ractal1 sel!-reproucing1 8any-Forls
quantum universes are a simple mani!estation o! it L the overetermine
nature1 with respect to theoretical escriptions1 that is1 o! the nature o!
being.
6he preicate o!t repeate within /nselm_s ontological argument is that
o! Rnone greater than which can be conceive.S 6his preicate is use
by /nselm in a !ashion seeming to ienti!y conceivability with
possibility1 which1 with but a little honest re!lection1 is at once seen to be
the grossest o! metaphysical presumptions.
6here are certainly mathematical propositions1 !or e0amples1 that1
though true1 are quite beyon the possible conception CconceivabilityD o!
any !inite min.
8oreover1 on the view o! ;0istence as constituting a Kin o! limitation
o! ?eing1 then even shoul Re0istenceS be grante status as a bona !ie
preicate1 it cannot necessarily be consiere to be a Rper!ection.S /
?eing that can only be containe within e0istence through limiting itsel!
Cin some humanly inconceivable !ashionD is o! such a type that it
becomes less per!ectly what it is by merely e0isting. ?ut this grants the
possibility o! a being that is neither conceivable nor which is in
e0istence but which nonetheless can be consiere to be part o! reality.
6his notion is consistent with that whereby Re0istenceS is unerstoo as
merely Ra moe o! beingS.
;very e0istent is a potential Cor actual1 in the case o! brain circuitry1 sayD
instrument o! min. 6his is also true !or abstract entities such as
mathematical ob5ects1 theorems1 etc. 7sychology as a !eature o! the
min/mentality is a conitione moe o! min_s !unctioning an
e0pression.
6hat which seeKs a relationship with us is hat out o! which everything is
mae an which maKes everything. ,sually in this situation o! the
woul-be communication between isparate intelligence_s there is an
interchange between cultures1 one more an another less avance1 each
with its own collection o! notions some o! which are enotative concepts
that all members o! the culture Ce0cept possibly the shamans or meicine
men L more on thisD taKe literally an seriously.
@ow the superior must !in some manner o! communicating with the
lower Can vice versaD.
Fhen attacKing1 they always leave either their !lanK or rear e0pose.
Fhat manner o! being in !our imensions1 cast $- pro5ections a!ter the
manner o! these humans?
6he horse/horseman metaphor !or transmigration an metempsychosis.
6he more rational mine point out that 4o_s so-calle For is replete
with images1 symbols an metaphors an there!ore is probably 5ust an
e0tene1 collectively prouce myth or !able. 6hese very same critics
seem not to have asKe themselves in what manner might it be necessary
!or a higher intelligence to communicate with a lower one1 or how a
communication gap might be brige between mins o! perhaps
raically i!!erent patterns o! mental organization?
7resence has two natures1 the !amiliar1 that o! which the pattern has been
Keenly etche an enhance through repetitionV the other1 the novel1 the
strange1 mysterious an unusual.
"omehow it is thought by such people that they are immune !rom
prosecution as religious intolerants i! they themselves pro!ess no !aith1
an yet the very same will blame most o! the carnage o! the last twenty
centuries on the very same pre5uice_s.
-or e0ample1 4o may well not be a person in any sense presently
ascertainable to us. =owever1 there is nothing to prevent a course o!
evolution o! our concept maps wherein we may come to recognize the
personhoo o! 4o. "o concept maps are e!!ective in part ue to their
continuity with earlier versions o! themselves which parao0ically cut
across each other though with another nonetheless continuous.
6he continuity o! the coherent grouning o! topological trans!ormation
is an essential !eature o! what is calle min.
"uch operation o! min transcens substance but not essence.
/!ter all1 a given intersub5ective spacetime is characterize by only a
single topology.
:iscuss: relationships among the concepts temporality1 topology1
computers1 chess rules1 connectivity/graphs1 group theory symmetry
conservation Co! substance1 o! courseD spacetime trans!ormation
groupV spacetime is spatialize uni-topological continuum
multitopological spacetime?
Fhere econstruction an ;0istentialism intersect an overlap is where
the notion o! the arbitrary an convential meaning o! all human
institutions. 6rans!ormation o! means into ens grante ever more
sign!icance with the progressive e0cresence o! culture. 9nce H re!lecte
upon my insights into *D the arbitrariness an even grotesqueness o! the
human !orm an physiognomy as well as o! that o! the human vocal tract
an all the various utterances peculiar to my native tongue1 H at once
unerstoo the essential insight o! :erria an the other postmoerns
conceiving this iea o! the metaphysics o! presence an its
econstruction Can also o! the political importance o! the econstructive
agena/ pro5ectD. 6he Key to the insight concerning to critique o! the
notion o! metaphysical presence is that o! the issociative state an o!
unerstaning as clearly as possible the nature an signi!icance o! such
states.
>anuary 2)*2
Hs culture is the groun o! metaphoricity? ?ut metaphoricity in
turn appears to also be the groun o! culture. ?ootstrap causality1
supervenient causality CRtop-ownS causationD1 cultural conitioning o!
metaphoricity1 i.e.1 social etermination. .ibet_s e0periments hel !irmly
within the light o! the tenacious illusion o! !ree will bespeaK
supervenient causality.
7arao0ically !or postmoern criticism is the probable basis o!
issociative states in a transcenental !unction o! min. H say
transcenental because it shoul have never occurre to manKin to
question the very !ounation an groun o! the spontaneous secretion o!
this erstwhile !orever hien epistemic ontology o! what =usserl terme
Rthe natural stanpointS an what =eiegger calle :asein. "omehow
8an has manage to surmount a vantagepoint !rom which he became
able to glimpse sein as :asein1 thereupon etaching1 in e!!ect the RaS
!rom Rsein.S
6o progress as a stuent o! the :eriean metaphysics is at once to
embarK upon a possible angerous i! controlle e0periment in aopting a
schizophrenic bent o! min.
<ou say all o! these things are but abstractions1 but oesn_t this imply
that while reality transcens all abstract entities an concepts1 it also
encompasses an embraces themT
Ht is here that to us is suggeste an intriguing i! isturbing iea1 the
psyche that one inevitably mistaKenly ienti!ies as being the sel! is
actually only a secretion o! the sel! in concerte response to a collection
o! irritants the combine action o! which is never in any particular e0act
manner orchestrate.
6here is no such thing as a couple representing a RmatchS in the sense o!
mathematical or near ientity. 6his is because the iniviual human
oes not possess so clear an e!inite a conte0t-!ree ientity. Hentity
which is an arti!icial concept o! the representational moe o! being1 must
always be supplemente by the complementary moe o! the
participatory1 the realm o! "chopenhauer_s Fill1 i! ientity is to truly be
realizable. 6his is an e0istential notion to be !oun in "chopenhauer1 i!
one is intent upon !ining it.
@ot only is the psyche1 human or otherwise1 suggestible1 but so is @ature
hersel!. H! the min is itsel! an arti!act o! nature an natural processes
then the characteristics o! min shoul be present in nature or potentially
so1 or at least there shoul e0ist some potential moe o! interaction
between min an nature1 initiate by min !rom its sie1 that enables
an elicits the e0pression o! such potentialities within nature.
6he stable set o! traits an characteristics o! the psyche that one comes
to ienti!y as those peculiar to the sel! are really only arti!acts o! the
psyche in equilibrium with a longstaning environment compose o!
stable but intrinsically changeable conitions. Ht is always possible !or
conitions to change rastically or quicKly enough !or aspects o! the
psyche Csel!D to mani!est that the person woul not recognize as
belonging to him.
Fe may say that Fill is sub5ective but can become intersub5ective1
representation starts out as collective1 but may become sub5ective.
/lthough the normally constitute human psyche is relatively inure
against the suggestion o! a message uttere only once or twice1 this same
psyche possesses no evolutionarily selecte e!enses against the
suggestion_s being !irmly an eeply implante as a result o! the
message being repeate *)))1 *)1))) or even *))1))) times.
6he timelessness or near timelessness o! certain worKs o! art or more
generally imension to time1 apart !rom that associate with the
suppose ineluctable !orwar march o! reason in the guise o!
technological progress.
/ctions o! punishment1 the real motive an reason !or which being two
quite i!!erent grouns1 the one1 iniviual an pre5uicial1 the other
social-collective an rational Cthough perhaps rarely always1 too1 !rom
the stanpoint o! the iniviualD1 these two istinct grouns are con!use
an prouce in us a misguie metaphysical notion o! "in. /n act1
wor or thought can only be rightly eeme as Rsin!ulS i! it is traceable
within proper etiology to prie. 6here!ore the very same act may be
sin!ul !or one that is not !or another.
3onceptual !rameworK that one has inherite serve as a sca!!oling on
which the iniviual is meant to buil his own ei!ice o! thought only
then KicKing away the superstructure o! this sca!!oling.
4rowth o! the 8in in a irection too !ar asKew !rom that along which
one might most quicKly more !ully participate in one_s transcenent to
the sel!_s proper principle o! sustaining itsel!.
6he vestigial impulses which no longer have a irect ob5ect o! re!erence
may become irecte towars socioculturally enhance representations
thereo!.
Ht is always possible to stumble on a pattern o! wors that provoKes an
insight well in avance o! one_s intellectual maturity to have !reely
wille the inavertently enable conception into consciousness1 !or this
reason a peculiar Kin o! ontological insecurity or comple0 may at such
a 5uncture be engenere.
/ conte0t-!ree entity is never Rengenere.S
Hnvestigate: 3hristian e0istentialism_s notions o! grace1 raical !reeom1
etc. -eyeraben_s notion o! Ranything goes.S
6he wor RrealityS oes not necessarily re!er to a totality an saying so
epening upon one_s reasons an motives may be to substitute
RsemanticsS !or soun metaphysics.
Aeality is overetermine with respect to its past acts o! etermination1
uneretermine with respect to its !uture such acts1 an only
eterminate in its very moment o! its act being implante. =ow coul
we have e0pecte it to be otherwise? =orseman analogy o! the
soul/boy relationship.
Aeuni!ication o! the plural impersonal in the !orm o! the collective
personal. 6he parao0 o! the sub5ect o! e0perience by virtue o! its
simultaneously being over an uneretermineV overetermine so as
to be able to change Rwithin itsel!1S i.e.1 change while retaining ientity1
an uneretermine in orer to enlarge this ientity.
/pplication o! less than clearly an completely e!ine concepts an
e!initions which espite this remains robustly intelligible an coherent.
6he three persons: the "el!1 the 9ther1 the other o! the 9ther1
corresponing to the *
st
1 2
n
1 an $
r
1 persons. /lso1 there are the
obvious permutations o! persons !rom the perspective o! persons1 i.e.1
*
st
-*
st
1 *
st
-2
n
1 . . . 2
n
L *
st
1 . . . $
r
L $
r
. /n1 o! course1 these
interpersonal perspectives may themselves have a *
st
1 2
n
1 $
r
person
perspective. ?ut notice that the permutation o! personal perspective
involving the 2
n
an $
r
persons1 e0clusively involving the 2
n
an $
r
persons1 e0clusively are subsume into the *
st
person perspective at the
ne0t higher level.
3onsciousness is capable o! being the sub5ect o! change1 which amits
o! no coherent or uni!ie characterization or classi!ication whatever.
"uch changes nevertheless possess both cohesiveness an a Kin o! unity
o! a non-abstract nature. 3hanges in the structuring an ynamics o!
groun are one thingV a sea change shi!t in this substantive1 unerlying
groun is something altogether i!!erent.. 3onsciousness in other
wors1 is naturally equippe to register stresses1 shocKs1 twistings
tearings an renings o! its !abric1 the warp an woo! o! which are
presuppose by any propose analysis o! the !orm an content o! this
consciousness whose aim is the illumination o! the Rconsciousness-
mechanismS itsel! Cin all its mysteriousnessD. ?ut a general notion o!
consciousness woul nee to grasp what is similar between any two
consciousness1 over an above what can be ivine !rom the most subtle
an ingeniously minute analysis o! what are merely analogical
relationships between the structurings an ynamisms thereo!1 o! these
two consciousness.
6he evelopment o! such a general notion o! consciousness woul
eman1 an this general notion itsel! appeals to a hypothetical common
groun !or consciousness Cas suchD transcening the groun o! each an
every iniviual consciousness. Hn essence then an Re0planationS o!
human consciousness woul e!!ectively invoKe the e0istence o!
transcenent :eity. 9n the other han1 an amission or concession
within the metaphysics o! min that each iniviual consciousness is
irreucible in the sense o! arising out o! its own unique an iniviual
groun1 woul be to promote each iniviual groun1 woul be to
promote each iniviual consciousness to the ranK o! a transcenental
an in some sense1 eternally pre!igure entity1 where each such is
there!ore eternally separate an incommensurable !rom the other. 9n
the !irst view o! consciousness the istinctiveness o! ientities among
consciousness woul be base upon spatiotemporal1 conte0tual an
historical i!!erences an1 o! course i!!erences in initial an bounary
conitions to which each consciousness is sub5ect.
9n this view consciousness is 5ust a passive meium o! representation
that possesses no active !unction. Hniviual consciousnesses are here
i!!erent in the same way that the i!!erent water streams o! a sprinKler
system are separate. Hn other wors1 each quantity o! consciousness that
happens to be gathere together an sub5ect to the proper bounary
conitions o! a single nervous system Cthat is1 one o! the appropriate
sensitivityD shall perhaps evelop the appropriately recursive ynamic
structure that allows it to say RH.S
4iving man the power to choose the worl he lives in without granting
the Knowlege that 8an has this power reners the greatest 5ustice. 6his
maKes 8an_s choices truly !ree an not in!luence by calculate sel!-
interest.
-orms o! poetic versi!ication !unction analogously in in!luencing
ieation in at once limiting an enhancing or ampli!ying the creation
process. =uman suggestibility may well be a phenomenon o!
metaphoricity rather than being an e0pression o! some intrinsic !eature
o! the human psyche.
6he !irst impulse o! sel!-willing an the emergence o! consciousness as
a non!inite1 recursive ynamic are perhaps ual structures Co! time an
space perhaps that must become !use togetherD.
6he overetermination o! consciousness mani!ests itsel! in the
persistence through change o! a given iniviual consciousness while
the uneretermination o! consciousness lies with the ine!inite variety
o! possible realizable iniviual consciousnesses.
6he simultaneous commonality o! environment an language permits
Rtriangle peopleS an Rsquare peopleS to e!!ectively be a single people1
possessing a single art1 culture1 science1 etc.
?ecause there is no such thing as consciousness in general or as such
which all beings participate in in common with one another1 the being o!
consciousness is particular only in an analogical sense an so oes not
represent any limitation or conition being place upon any
consciousness-at-large or Las-such. Hn this way two or more
consciousness may only interact i! each is itsel! limite an each o!
these systems o! limitation are networKe together but without an actual1
irect linKage between these consciousness_s being engenere.
"o the collective limitation o! the plurality o! consciousness is not the
result o! their as it were pressing up against one another within some
pree0istent common !iel1 e.g.1 spacetime1 but this common omain or
inter-consciousness is an arti!act o! each consciousness having limite
itsel! through its own sel!-initiate action L a Kin o! collective reverse
bootstrapping o! all consciousness to prouce as arti!act1 the inter-
consciousness realm. 3onservation is only simulate through the
e!ining o! spaces enclose with respect to a set o! egrees o! limite
!reeom while nonconservation Can uniquenessD remains with respect
to bounaries not yet e!ine. /gain1 !acilitation seems to require
limitation Cas in construction o! concept grouns within the con!ines o!
poetic versi!ication constraints o! rhyme1 meter1 metaphor1 theme1 etc.D
3oncerning the !unamental question o! metaphysics: RFhy is there
something rather than nothing?S Fe may note that shoul reality not
constitute in any intelligible or rational or ob5ective sense Cor1 perhaps1 in
any senseD a totality1 then this question is reveale to have been
!unamentally misguie by the implicit !alse ienti!ication o! ?eing
with ;0istence through another !alse ienti!ication o! the two relations1
that o! ientity with that o! analogy.
6his woul perhaps amount to an attempt to reuce poetic truth to that o!
ob5ective truth. -or one can only reasonably asK something e0ists rather
than !ailing to e0ist i! the sub5ect o! this question is in some sense
e!inable Cas a Kin o! RthingSD. 9! course any RthingS as a eterminate
being both e0ists an oes not e0ist so long as it e0ists somewhere an
not somewhere else an we haven_t yet quali!ie our question to inclue
the conition o! place. "o this question o! RFhyS as a metaphysical
question about Rabsolute e0istenceS or being becomes why something
!or which its being is unconitione has the unconitional being that it
in !act en5oys? /n this question is only meaning!ul i! it is meaning!ul
to asK why other beings whose being is unconitione nonetheless
possess no being whatever. /n the only possible answer that oes not
appeal to the notion o! conitional-ness woul be the arbitrary choice o!
such beings to not possess or taKe on being L any other account !or
nonbeing woul necessarily invoKe conitions !or the being_s vacuity.
;0istence is always being within which is being with an unconitione
being are being not possessing e0istence. /ll e0istents are beings
Cwithin e0istenceD but not all beings e0ist1 in other wors.
6he naturalist woul point to the seemingly almost universal availability
o! a highly evelope state o! consciousness to members o! the human
species as a phenomenon o! cerebral cortical hypertrophy borne o! an
evolutionary momentum carrying into a late epoch in which the natural
selective pressures in !avor o! increase intelligence are virtually absent1
but which is nevertheless being sustaine through a continue Ci! not
actually sharpeningD unleashing o! earlier built up potential via the still
continuing evolutionary pressures pose by se0ual1 as oppose to1 so-
calle natural selection. ?ut we may equally well choose to view the
phenomenon o! a hyperevelope consciousness Can capacity !or such
consciousnessD as a ivinely proviential in!inite upgrae-ability o! the
min o! the iniviual human being because it is clear to any unbiase
thinKer that human consciousness has alreay e0hibite a state o!
evelopment !ar in e0cess o! the minimal level necessary !or the survival
an prosperity o! the human race as a whole in relation to the
competition pose by the other species o! the planet with whom we have
been !orce to share limite1 locally available resources. 9ne shoul
note here the vast chasm separating human intelligence !rom that o! its
closest1 most challenging competitor species.
/pril 2)**
?ecause natural
selection never ha the aaptation o! the iniviual in view1
Qd
but rather
the aaptation o! the breeing population as a whole1 a great variety o!
genes Can higher orer regulatory genesD woul have been selecte !or1
which later can be brought together in novel combinations never
anticipate by the evolutionary process1 an which nonetheless possess
an e0pression as bene!icial phenotypes !or the iniviual o!!spring. 6his
points up the rationality of the genetic coe1 which itsel! must possess an
evolutionary history preating the emergence o! se0ual reprouction by
at least a billion years9 Ht is this anticipatory nature o! the genetic coe1
which seems to point to the provience o! an intelligent esigner1 e.g.1
RHn the beginning was the WorS. 6he interpretation o! iniviual genes
in terms o! how they shoul be interprete within the multi-level gene
regulatory networK1 i.e.1 linguistically1 while the assemblage o! this
networK1 being base in the sel!-organizing principle o! atomic an
molecular matter1 points up the latent1 linguistic ynamical structure o!
!unamental matter as an e0pression o! the unerlying quantum vacuum
as creative1 intelligent groun o! being.
:ecember N1 2)*2
6he incience o!
/spergerGs amongst the chilren o! ;ngineers Cboth parentsD is *)0 that
o! the general population1 c.!.1 Economist magazine. 6he preisposing
high-level regulatory genes are in the genome because they promote
the survival o! the tribe over many *))1)))Gs o! years o! hunter-gatherer
li!e an hence were selecte !or by nature. =umanKin came very close
to e0tinction in sub-"aharan /!rica an later uring previous ice ages1
an the Egenetic bottlenecKE1 c.!.1e.g.1 mitochonrial :@/ stuies1 is
perhaps as small as *'1))) iniviuals. Ht is liKely humanKin woul
have alreay gone e0tinct ha it not been !or the e0pansion o! an
otherwise too limite genetic iversity brought about by the evolutionary
contribution o! surviving /spergerGs "ynrome behavioral genetics.
Qd
;0istence can only evelop well within the con!ines set by possible
being Ccoe0tensive with actual being when unconitione or absolute
being is consiereD. ?ut where no totality has been posite1 there is no
equating o! e0istence with something that is nothing more than
conitione being1 that is1 as 5ust being sub5ect to conitions or
limitations.
6o reiterate1 there can be no accounting !or that which is in no rational
sense a totality. /n this principle liKely applies equally valily to
consciousness. ?ut since as we have alreay argue1 there can be no
consciousness as such1 i.e.1 consciousness that is both uni!ie an
impersonal1 consciousness must be e!ine through itsel! alone so that
ironically1 it is personal consciousness which is consciousness as such.
7ersons there!ore are transcenental beings that only acquire sel!-
Knowlege through sel!-impose limitation. /nother way to say this is1
the istinction o! personal versus impersonal consciousness is merely a
relative an epistemological istinction. 9ntologically speaKing1
consciousness_s are istinct though each is essentially an unconitione
being an the ontological istinctness o! iniviual consciousness_s
represents a transcenental orer o! the plurality o! being1 this plurality
only becoming realizable through the various unconitional acts o! sel!-
limitation on the behal! o! the various transcenental persons.
"pacetime is an interconnecte1 ynamic latticeworK o! istinctly
originating temporalities. "pacetime is a linKing together o! timeliKe
!luctuations into a networK that transcens any instantaneous arising o!
multiple !luctuations. ;ach temporality represents the action within an
upon spacetime o! transcenental beings1 most o! whom remain
unconitione. Aational action is collective1 mutually limite action
that possesses an intersub5ective e0change meium supervening upon
the peculiarities o! each iniviual agent.
7otentiality is a phenomenon o! collective1 meiate irrational Cin the
sense o! reason-transceningD action in which irreconcilable i!!erences
are set asie or bracKete out. 6he groun o! rational representation is a
Kin o! universal translation meium the mechanism o! which can
possess no rational representation1 that is1 possesses no coherent
escription in terms o! iscursive1 intersub5ective symbols. / particular
application o! this principle is the transcenental nature o! language as
such or the irreucibility o! linguistic capacity to a principle possessing a
iscursively symbolic escription1 i.e.1 coherent representation in terms
o! natural language escriptions. .anguage is necessarily1 that is1 by its
essential nature a transcenental phenomenon o! the iniviual
consciousness. 8ore generally1 we may say that the acts by which
iniviual consciousness limits itsel! so as to enter the concourse o!
intersub5ectivity transcens all notions conceivable to this consciousness
when in its sel!-impose state o! limitation. "el!-limitation o!
consciousness is the archetype o! consciousness_ transcenental activity.
6here are no necessary conitions !or the archetypal act o!
consciousness_ sel!-limitation since consciousness in its essence is
unconitione being. /n yet consciousness_ will to act thus Cin
initially limiting itsel!D is all that is su!!icient !or this act to be carrie
through CrealizeD. 6he act o! sel!-limitation is on necessity a !reely
perpetual act1 in other wors.
au=
/quinas thought that each angel was the
lone specimen o! its species since angels were not suppose to possess
boies1 c.!.1 / =istory o! Festern 7hilosophy1 p. ('2. 6his is the e0act
situation !or each iniviual consciousness1 i! imagine !ree o! all
limitation an conition. 6he i!!erences between each consciousness1
as we have allue to1 are !acts o! a transcenent nature1 an such
i!!erences can never be graspe by an iniviual consciousness1 but
such truths themselves only possess being by subsisting within the
Knowlege an unerstaning o! a being transcening the being o! each
an every particular absolute1 unconitione though particular1 in!inite
being. 6his being is being itsel! or universal being.
/ natural language escription cannot contain an e0plication o! the
general nature o! language any more than can a system o! logic
emonstrate its own consistency. 8eans moreover cannot comprehen
ensV !act cannot comprehen valueV particle physics oesn_t e0plain the
!act o! physical e0istenceV !orm cannot comprehen substanceV ieas
cannot comprehen consciousnessV no particular can contain the
universal1 an so on. "o that which accounts !or e0istence as such
cannot be a mere e0istent among other e0istents1 but must belong to an
altogether higher1 broaer an eeper orer.
QdQd
?ut then this maKes it
possible !or e0istence to be preicate since it is seen as a limitation an
quali!ication o! being. 6his casts /nselm_s !amously clever argument
!or 4o_s e0istence in a new light. 3ontinuing to CmaniacallyD apply this
principle1 we must say that the origin o! orer itsel! possesses no
eterminate orer whatever. 9rer is seen here as a !unction o!
limitation that most generally originates in an act o! the unconitione in
limiting itsel!.
6he aboriginal act o! sel!-limitation woul have been the establishment
o! a transcenental orer compose o! an in!inite plurality o! in!inite
beings1 i.e.1 an unlimite number o! things1 each o! which is unlimite1
i.e.1 possessing no limitation in the sense that no one in!inite being is
capable o! entertaining a !orm within itsel! that cannot also be
entertaine by any other such being. @ote that although none o! these
beings are limite with respect to its substance or essence1 each
substance o! each such being istinct !rom that o! any other1 that is1
peculiar to itsel!. Ht is clear at this stage that 4o1 the author o! this
transcenental orer1 is =imsel! not limite with respect to =is en5oying
only a single1 istinct essence an substance. ;ach in!inite essence may
be unerstoo as a mere !acet or pro5ection o! the :eity. Fho =imsel!
is the integration1 rather than the mere summing together o!1 each an
every in!inite essence.
6his is because the transcenental orer o! in!inite essences was not a
iviing or !ragmenting o! the original :eity1 but is a creation by =im o!
an unlimite number o! =is images1 each being a Kin o! Rhost.S 6hese
images are holographic in the sense o! retaining a im recollection o!
themselves espite reuction to occupation o! a spatiotemporal realm1
which means also being contaminate by other essences_ incomplete
recollections o! themselves. 9n this view 4o oes not Re0istS though
=is !acets are imper!ectly represente within spacetime an though 4o
himsel! is the harmonious integration o! all possible in!inite being1 =e
=imsel! is not a being as such. Fe might better characterize 4o as
the suchness o! all possible in!inite being. Ht is clear !rom the iscussion
thus !ar that 4o oes not e0ist because any one o! his in!inite !acets
constitutes a being transcening Rmere e0istence.S /n though each o!
these ivine !acets possesses ientity as beings Ctranscening e0istenceD1
the ientity o! each is utterly lost as they are each an all per!ectly
harmoniously combine within 4o_s transcenental nature. Hn the
history o! the human race there are myria e0amples o! man attempting
through religion to counterbalance his less than supreme position within
the great chain o! being. H! not the iniviual person1 then his
consciousness in its eepest an broaest aspect is o! the same substance
as is the :ivine consciousness1 or man will surely evolve1 either
collectively as a race or iniviually in a spiritual a!terli!e to a level
equal to that o! :eity1 an so on. Fe try to counterbalance in our
mins 4o_s in!initely greater worth by in one manner or another
conceiving o! ourselves as in some important way equal to =imT /n
yet what 4o has in store !or us in the way o! our !uture evolution in
=im is !ar more than we coul ever hope !or or imagine. Fere =e to
give us a glimpse o! what it shoul be liKe to be greater than what lies
within our absolute potential !or being !or which =e has create us1 it
woul not be in our highest nature to either want or recognize this.
8an_s esire to be equal to 4o is inee a senseless an incoherent
e0trapolation o! a purely blin ambition.
6his being is in!initely egenerate an per!ectly symmetrical. 7erhaps
each o! 4o_s in!inite !acets is itsel! a per!ectly harmonious integration
o! all o! the in!inite number o! remaining in!inite !acets. Hn this manner
4o is continually trans!orming into =imsel! !rom out o! =imsel! on an
in!inite continuum o! Rharmonics1S so that 4o encompasses both ?eing
an 6ime. ;ach human being_s incompletely recollecte essence is
RcontaminateS as we sai by the imper!ectly recollecte essences o! all
other selves. Hn this way both the iniviual human being an
=umanKin itsel! are mae in the image o! 4o. 3hrist in =is humanity
is the son o! 8an1 i.e.1 8anKin1 in =is :ivinity1 the "on o! 4o. 3hrist
ha access to a greater recollection o! =imsel! in a way that no
iniviual is capable o!1 an this because o! the absent inter!erence o!
9riginal "in. Fhen 8anKin Cthrough /amD !irst realize his ientity
as a !act o! :ivinity1 he i so only in part1 but mistaKing this as a
glimpse o! his own ivinity.
/am mistooK the image of ivinity within himsel! as ivinity itself. Ht
is common !or the e0ceptionally gi!te or talente to imagine themselves
as perhaps being the most talente or the most gi!te. /n most o! us1
when strucK with a suen clarity o! vision concerning some pressing
state o! a!!airs1 ten instantly to assume that this must be the insight into
the situation. ?ut there is almost always more than one1 many in !act1
wiely ivergent ways to interpret the meaning or signi!icance o!
something that appears right an e0clusively so1 shoul this
interpretation1 rather than some other1 equally goo Cor betterD one have
R!allen inS one_s hea1 c.!.1 Retwas wunerscheones ist mir ganz
einge!allenTS 6his tenency o! impulsively presuming the truth o!
notions themselves borne o! an impulse is surely a characteristic !eature
o! magical thinKing concerning one_s !aculty o! 5ugment.
/lthough nature may well have long ago !errete out this tenency o!
leaping be!ore looKing where the angerous suen challenges o! a
concrete physical environment are concerne1 this tenency may have
actually been encourage1 on the other han1 where more abstract or less
immeiate threats are involve.
9! course numbers on_t really e0ist1 5ust their relationships.
Fe may !ollow
au=
.eibniz an summarize what has been sai thus !ar
concerning 4o1 8an an 8an_s relation to 4o by 5ust saying that the
per!ecte being that is woe!ully imper!ectly represente by any
iniviual human being is the being o! 4o !rom a single1 con!usely
renere point o! view or !rom the point o! view o! one o! 4o_s !acets1
con!use by the con!use points o! view1 to varying egrees1 o! other
!acets o! 4o.
Ht is a natural assumption that creation ab initio somehow requires
greater e!!ort o! e0planation than oes the persistence through change o!
this create orer once the har worK has been put behin whatever to
which it owes this e0istence. /n this presumption is to secretly invoKe
the notion o! the worl being1 in part1 ini!!erent to the passage o! time.
?ut i! reality is ini!!erent to the passage o! time1 it is always a i!!erent
an changing component o! this reality that possesses transitory
ini!!erence to temporality. 3.!.1
web=
Yheweb.com/witherall/e0istence.htmZ ?ecause the negation o! a
eterminate entity must be an equally eterminate1 i! unbeKnownst
absence1 very much a!ter the !ashion o! the physical relation o! matter to
antimatter1 an thus requiring negation to be within some pree0isting
system o! eterminate relations1 i! such an operation o! negation is to be
e!inable in its e!!ectV the negation o! the worl woul not be e!ine
shoul reality constitute a RworlS in name only1 being actually
ineterminate. 9n this view1 what is calle RnothingS woul be 5ust one
among any number o! unlimite ineterminate states an so not
possessing the special ontological status usually accore it within
systems o! metaphysics1 an so no special e0planation is require in
accounting !or eviation !rom such a state as might have otherwise been
suppose to be represente by the e0istence o! an actual RworlS such as
the present one in which we asKing the question !in ourselves. /ny
limitation on the part o! the unconitione beyon that require to
prouce an orer shall prouce isorer Crelative to the orer represente
by the !irst minimal act o! sel!-limitingD. H! e0istence as such is a
!unction o! limitation Cin its broaest scopeD1 then the e0planation o!
why there is Rsomething rather than nothingS lies with a motive or
reason rather than with a cause.
@ote that i! nothing in !act e0iste1 there coul have been no reason or
cause !or this !act1 accoring to any principle o! su!!icient reason1 that is1
without the invoKing o! being transcening Rthe uality o! e0istence
versus none0istence.S "o perhaps we may conclue !rom this that
there must be some su!!icient reason !or the !act that something e0ists
rather than nothing since there can be no su!!icient reason !or nothing
e0isting L other than itself9 "o the reason !or Rnothing e0isting1S in the
case where nothing e0ists must be either nothing itsel! or nothing only
Re0istsS Cis the caseD contingently Cperhaps necessarily soA. It is not clear
what a contingent nothingness means" however.
"eptember 2)**
H! all
possibilities e0ist or are realize1 then nothing is le!t over as a !aculty o!
creation an imagination in the bacKgroun as it were. /ll phenomena
then occupy the same level because everything is present an it is as
though there is no longer any groun !or or conte0t o! all the
phenomena. 6his is reminiscent o! the concept o! Rthe wave!unction o!
the universeS Can isolate wave!unction is not thought to have any
physical meaning in the theory o! quantum mechanicsD itsel! compose
o! myria correlate an uncorrelate ensity !uctions. / similar iea is
that o! the mass-energy system1 compose as a whole o! equal amounts
o! positive an negative energy such that an observer altogether outsie
the system encounters merely a voi.
6he proposition1 R@othing ;0ists1S necessarily though perhaps secretly
involves the notion o! nothing as a Kin o! completeness or totality. H!
nothing is conceive o! as not so much a total absence o! something1 but
as a Kin o! bacKrop against which something e0ists or not1 then it
!ollows that the proposition1 R@othing ;0istsS is always true regarless
o! whether something inee e0ists. 6his conclusion is clearly a
misstep on many peoples_ view because it treats the proposition as a
positive assertion concerning that !act o! e0isting o! a rei!ie
nothingness. 9n this apparently mistaKen view1 e0istence is always
relative in being always e0istence against the bacKgroun o! a rei!ie
nothingness. @othingness can only be consistently rei!ie by
consiering all positively e0isting things as abstractions borne o! some
limitation within absolute being. =ere thingness is a mani!estation o!
limitation within the monolithic totality o! harmoniously uni!ie being.
/n here nothingness is ienti!ie with the absence o! all relatively
e0isting entities1 that is1 as the monolith o! absolute being in the
complete absence o! all limitation upon its being.
6he ;nglish wor1 Re0istsS is taKen !rom the .atin Re0-sistereS meaning
Rto stan out.S
"o in this metaphysics1 ruin an ecay lea us bacK to a greater !ullness
o! being an the complete estruction o! the create orer constitutes the
negating o! all original negation within absolute being through which
creation was originally mani!est.
6he ineterminate is being an nothingness mi0e in un!athomable
proportions an so intermeiary between them1 unless1 o! course1 the
two inee interpenetrate in a way which alters the substance o! both1
the equating o! being an non-being is the contraiction !rom which
everything !ollows.
6here has to have always been something since presumably e6 nihilo
nihil fit1 an what better caniate !or this highly peculiar something
than that possessing the potential !or all things an to which all things
that e0ist ultimately owe their origin1 c.!.1
cit=
6he Jero 9ntology L
au=
:avi 7earce on Fhy /nything ;0ists1
heweb.com/witherall/zero.htm.
"eptember 2)**
9! course1 i!
au=
7armenies is right CR@othing oes not e0istTSD
an RnothingS has been rei!ie Cmae into a preicateD by an invali
e0trapolation !rom what e0ists1 then Re0istenceS itsel! is also an invali
e0trapolation to an improper general concept L invali because there is
no RoutsieS to e0istence1 which has to be e0clue so as to !orm the
abstract category o! e0istence Bua 7e6istingness8.
"eptember 2)**
?eing only
transcens the uality o! e0istence vs. none0istence i! being an
nothingness are inee one1 namely1 being as such is always apart !rom
mere e0istence. ?ecoming is a change in egree characterize by the
participation o! both e0istence in being as well as o! being in e0istence.
9ne way o! trying to unerstan the istinction o! being an e0istence
might be to observe that e0istents change through alteration in the
manner an egree in which they participate in being an the plurality
of being. Hn this way e0istents become an trans!orm1 then ultimately
passing away. 6he ineterminate !unctions as a Kin o! tertium atur
here as it is neither a being1 nor participates in being unless it becomes
the sub5ect o! an act o! etermination. Hs there only one ineterminate?
Ht seems reasonable to grant this since a plurality o! ineterminates is
5ust one among many possible partial eterminations o! an ineterminate
groun. 7erhaps we can bring some orer to the iscussion by positing
the ineteminate1 the e0istent1 an a given being as three successive
egrees o! the etermination o! CineterminateD groun. 9n this view1
all e0istents are compose o! a mi0ture o! greater or lesser relative
amounts o! being an nonbeing. @otice here that the role o! nonbeing is
playe by the ineterminate.
H! we have been correct in supposing that e0istence is always
characterize by limitation Co! some beingD1 then the most we can mean
by the proposition1 R4o ;0ists1S is that the ?eing o! 4o mani!ests
itsel! within the inter-sub5ect realm o! spacetime1 but i! we inten by this
proposition to assert that 4o is !ully containe within e0istence as one
e0istent among the multiplicity o! all other e0istents within the worl1
then the truth value we must assign to this proposition is1 namely1
R!alse.S -or 4o cannot !ully participate in =is ?eing by merely
e0isting. "ince the !ullest being o! the iniviual human being is only
Known an vouchsa!e to 4o1 it is only through a relationship with 4o
that one may evelop in the irection o! !uller participation in one_s
transcenent being.
;ach being within ;0istence possesses the spiritually instinctive an
yearning esire !or that which brings greater coherence an harmony to
its state o! consciousness an is naturally attracte to any belie! system1
philosophy or persons seeming to o!!er this. 6hough there are many
systems o! thought an belie! capable o! elivering on this promise o!
enabling the iniviual achieving higher states o! integration o! the sel!1
there are many o! these which can taKe the iniviual along his spiritual
5ourney only so !ar1 ultimately leaing him to a plateau o! spiritual
stagnation that once perceive within the epths o! this person_s soul1
triggers !eelings o! isillusionment in him an !acilitating his !all to a
spiritual level in his communion with 4o an with !ullest being lower
than that at which he ha with great hope starte. /ny spiritual progress
mae by the iniviual that is not also accompanie by a growing sense
o! compassion an humility will lea to this type o! isheartenment an
isillusionment. /s they say1 Rprie cometh be!ore a !all.S "uch
persons become bitter an come to covet in resentment1 though perhaps
only secretly1 the 5oy o! those perservering on a more success!ul path to
communion with 4o. 6hose who have taKen a !alse path to 4o an
who have !aile in their spiritual evelopment !eel betraye an can
become a anger to other seeKers when this eep bitterness enlists the
ai o! the !lawe wisom gaine !rom their now abanone spiritual
path. 7rie provoKes these poor souls to everywhere attempt to
iscourage those who aim !or a spiritual goal that they themselves
bitterly !aile to achieve1 c.!.1 the necrophilous character a la :romm.
8ay 2)*2
H !oun it interesting how the proucer o! the 2)*2 show1
cit=
Nasa
MVJ shows the bloopers !rom each episoe uring the !inal minute o!
that episoe. 6he subte0t o! this practice is perhaps a Kin o! anti-
Aanian message that it is not the greatness o! the iniviual1 but the
greatness o! the collaboration o! inviuals with iverse talents1 abilities
an !laws that prouces1 collectively a great an in!ormative science
show.
:ecember 2)** ess=
Fhen a !ellow human being is not in emotional control o!
themselves1 oes one taKe pains to treat the person compassionately or
blame the hapless soul !or this lacK o! control1 Rwash one_s hansS o!
responsibility !or the person as an en in themselves1 only willing to
revisit the person_s status as such once their behavior comes bacK into
line with civilize e0pectations?
7olicy1 regulation1 guiance1 hierarchy1 institution1 ritual1 ceremony1
collective1 group thinK1 proceure1 algorithm1 rhetoric1 politics1
metaphor1 analogy1 subconscious1 subliminal1 epiphany1 insight1
intuition1 moularity o! min1 sociolinguistics1 sociology o! science1 pre-
critical inoctrination1 social conitioning1 inbreeing1 sel!-selection1
se0ual selection1 behavioral genetics1 moulation1 !iltering1
ampli!ication1 enabling1 symbiosis1 syncretism1 synthesis1 erivative1
in!luence1 automatic writing1 muse1 trance1 paraigm1 norm1 mores1
e0pectation1 nonverbal communication1 neurolinguistic programming1
mimetics1 instinct
4o1 liKe nature hersel!1 mani!ests =imsel! in accorance with the
manner in which the spiritual evotee or seeKer questions an interacts
with the numinous transcenent.
Fhenever we maKe the move o! reuction o! phenomenon to category
or reality to totality1 we either sever connections within the system or
between the system an its groun1 resulting in either case in a
!unamentally inaccurate escription o! the system or the ynamics o!
its components.
R6he proposition para [italics mine\ has in it the iea o! transmission1
Rc.!.1 ,nerstaning 4alatians an the .aw1 p. *&. 6aKe1 !or e0ample1
the !ollowing RparaS wors: parameical1 paralegal1 paramilitary1
parapro!essional1 parapsychology1 paranormal1 parao01 paragoric1 etc.
R7araS in all o! the above carries the notion or inication o! almost as in
the pre!i0es1 quasi1 hypo1 sub1 emi1 semi1 etc. =owever1 the manner
by which the pre!i01 RparaS operates within the above given e0amples is
also eeper an subtler than that connote by those other1 similar
pre!i0es alreay given. R7araS carries the iea o! a similarity on
account o! the evelopment or nature o! some iscipline_s having been
inspire by the metho o! some Rproper scienceS or legitimate process.
6he interlacing o! sub5ective an ob5ective Ci.e.1 intersub5ectiveD is an
account o! the !act o! the necessary mutual incursion o! ata an
in!ormation upon one another. / proper unerstaning o! the sel!1 the
9ther an the worl seems one o! a raical ambiguity pose by two
equally broa an eep interpretations o! being an e0istence1 an
e0istential interpretation in!orme by the principles o! evolutionary
theory on the one han1 an what might be calle an essentialist one
in!orme by a notion o! 7lotinean escent1 on the other. /n i! this
ambiguity is sharp enough1 i! one will permit the metaphor1 then but the
slightest or most slightly evelope bias in one o! these !unamental
interpretations or the other puts one on the path o! e0tracting all o! the
meaning or esires along one leg o! this !orKing path or the other. 9ne
is virtually !ree1 or as !ree as one can possibly be while still possessing
the integral nature o! being-in-e0istence to choose one or the other o!
these hermeneutical paths.
.anguage is the means by which the enabling o! the intellect_s sel!-
organizational abilities is marshale. .anguage presents the per!ect
e0ample o! that which1 is in equal parts1 reay to han an present to
han.
Aeality is1 with respect to the !orms o! representation1 uneretermine1
with respect to the operation CchoiceD o! will1 overetermine.
=ere consciousness is less than a unity Cwithin e0istenceD while will
constitutes a multiplicity. "o reality is both uner an overetermine
with regar to theism_s being true or not1 i.e.1 with respect to the truth or
!alsity o! the proposition1 R4o ;0ists.S Fhichever interpretation o!
reality one chooses1 one will !in power!ul an persuasive con!irmation
o! one_s chosen interpretation. /n this is why one_s choice to submit
to the Fill o! 4o Cor not1 as the case may beD is a raically !ree one. Ht
is error there!ore to looK !or merely passively iscernible con!irmation
o! 4o_s e0istence !or this woul rener man_s choice unto a belie! in
4o a less than raically !ree oneT 4o consciousness is1 properly
speaKing1 an attunement o! the iniviual to the ivine will an so
transcens the realm o! representation1 i.e.1 that o! !orms/
trans!ormations tening or not to con!irm or iscon!irm theistic belie!.
4race is the antimony provoKe by ?eing-in-the-Forl. /n this is
why the wisom o! 8an is but !oolishness to 4o. Fithout the reality-
!iltering action o! will1 this reality can only mani!est itsel! to a ri!ting1
passive consciousness as an uneretermine1 !antasmagorical isplay
o! !orms possessing no stability or integrity. 6he active !iltering o!
reality by a !ocuse act o! willing reveals the multiplicity o! reality_s
capacity to cohere. Filliam >ames_ notion o! a RFill to believeS is here
an e0ceeingly relevant one. 9ne_s power o! choice maKes one_s will
responsible1 whether this is recognize by the passive unerstaning or
not. Fill mistaKes the passivity o! the unerstaning !or its own
powerlessness. <ou say that it is all a matter o! interpretation - all the
more reason !or choice being a ecisive !actor in etermining one_s
reality.
9ne woul otherwise give up ones birthright !or the mere price o! its
asKing. /n this is precisely the cynical hope o! all o! 4o_s enemies L
that the victory will be concee by a more power!ul opponent without a
!ight L easy enough to achieve i! one_s opponent can be convince that
he is powerless an that Rresistance is !utile.S
6he in!licting o! physical pain as well as psychological su!!ering in the
!orm o! intense mortal !ear1 causes a complete short-circuiting o! the
culture arti!act which is the victim_s sense o! his own unique ientity
now reveale to have been a precarious an illusory aggranizement o!
the true1 common enominator ientity o! a mere specimen o! human
animal.
=uman suggestibility an the ine!!ability o! the sub5ective nuances o!
thought an perception shoul be unerstoo through the analogy o! a
Rhall o! mirrorsS rather than that o! a Rhouse o! cars.S
"uch networKs o! incommunicable nuance contribute to the Rpro5ectS Cas
collective Rpro5ectionSD o! intersub5ective intersub5ectivity as ob5ective
intersub5ectivity. 6he subtler !eatures o! humanKin_s linguistic
enowment are boun up in a collectively hel1 private language-base
superstructure o! high level cognitive processing1 which ha been
graually1 Cbut only in partD in service to the social Cas oppose to
psychologicalD !unction o! interpersonal communication. ?y
mistaKenly supposing that the real RgoalS o! the evolution o! language
an linguistic ability was largely an primarily that o! the evelopment
o! an augmenting superstructure o! perceptual/ cognitive processing1
psychologists an linguistics researchers aliKe imagine1 quite
uncritically1 that the intelligible verbalizations o! a common culture1 i.e.1
those utterances o! natural language speaKers must somehow be !ully
analyzable in terms o! transmissible meanings an nuances o! meaning.
6his slowly emerging hulK o! a new paraigm at once broaer an
eeper than any which has come be!ore it1 may be unerstoo to be
signale by the supplanting o! the representational by the participatory
or involvement paraigm o! science. R?y 2)')1 physicists will have
learne how to teleport a molecule.S
Fe are !amiliar1 perhaps !rom the horoscope column o! our aily
newspaper1 !ortune cooKie messages1 etc. with the phrase1 Reclaration
o! love1S as in1 e.g.1 Ryou will receive a . . . R 6hese are states !or the
most part internally generate in the un!ortunate iniviual who is
convulse by the paro0ysms o! in!atuation1 c.!.1 R!atuous1S R!atuity1S etc.
/n the perhaps as yet unbeKnownst to him or hersel! even more
un!ortunate person1 !ining themselves in the path o! one o! these what H
liKe to term1 Rprotestations o! love1S shoul best realize that there can
inee be little that personally connects them to the true ob5ect o! the
love-strucK un!ortunate_s obsession.
@onetheless1 Rclassically !orbienS pairings are Known to occur1 e.g.1
pro!essional !emale L blue collar Cor even Rbrown collarSD male1 gay or
transgenere persons o! the opposite se01 political commentators o!
opposite party a!!iliation1 etc. "ometimes o pairings1 when
unusually !requent/ concentrate are whimsically e0plaine in terms o!
there being Rsomething in the air.S
@ow in the realm o! moern physics1 all classically !orbien
phenomena are ultimately accountable to the mysterious an
spontaneous action o! the quantum vacuum !iels1 what classical
physicists o! the previous century might have uncritically terme Rthe
ether.S ?ut the e0act manner in which these !iels bring about their
highly peculiar results is epenent to an e0traorinary egree upon the
available particular set o! initial an bounary conitions in !orce.
6o say that the ynamic is itsel! eterminate is at once to suppose a
complete physical escription where only the initial an bounary
conitions have been speci!ie without our having speci!ie to what
these conitions must be applie. 6here must be a resiuum o!
spontaneity in nature to supply us with the sub5ects an meia o! change
an so1 too1 temporality. Fe are remine here o! 7aul :avies_
impassione question1 Rwhat breathes !ire into the equations o! physics1S
which maKes these equations escriptive o! some really e0isting orer?
Fhence arises the substance1 which assumes the !orms escribe by the
equations o! mathematical physics1 in other wors?
6he substance1 which is the unerlying sub5ect o! the change1 is also the
cause o! this change1 an necessarily so1 !or this is 5ust one o! the staple
metaphysical notions o! sel!-e0istence an/or sel!-moving. "ubstance1
parao0ically1 is a nonlocal Rphenomenon1S an this1 because e0istence
is necessarily an open-ene act. Fe say that a process1 physical1
psychological1 or whatever is open-ene in this sense o! transcening a
!ormal escription as a eterministic process i! the process itsel!
participates in the act o! e0istence o! the elements o! the process
Cthemselves abstract entities1 o! courseD by virtue o! a eeper
participation within the act o! e0istence o! the very meium constituting
the process an its elements.
/n so the notion o! substance as universal1 conserve quantity is
reveale to be an inconsistent one. 6here is a tenency !or these
bounary conitions o! which we have so much spoKen to graually an
usually imperceptibly imprint themselves as semi-permanent a!tere!!ects
upon the otherwise spontaneously !luctuating meium which ha !or a
time !allen within their scope. /n the necessary eventual issipation
o! such impresse e!!ects never quite succees in becoming a total
iminution1 but remains encoe in the very !abric o! the !ormer host
substance. /n this encoing may later become entangle with !urther
such encoings o! !uture bounary conitions. "ubstance is not utterly
passive as it is usually presume to be1 but i!!erent substances
possesses istinct a!!inities !or i!!erent types o! conitions to which
they may become sub5ect.
9ne min seeming to itsel! inspire by1 but really carrie on the impetus
o! some iee !i0e1 imagines riving with unassailable logic1 straight to
its conclusion as though !ollowing a beeline1 though greater mins may
glimpse a gentle arc !orming some portion o! a circle in reasoning. H! a
!lash o! insight is always the completing o! a circuit in the brain1 then it
shoul not be surprising that there might always e0ist a vantage point o!
superior logic !rom which this !lash loses its azzle1 transparently
revealing unerneath some inevitable piece o! circular Can hence
questionableD logic. ?ut this is not to assert that the conclusions to
which insight leas us are !requently wrong. ?ertran Aussell was
!amous !or remarKing that the whole ei!ice o! mathematical thought
was nothing more than one enormous tautology. 6he mathematician1
Ourt 4eel1 e!!ectively isprove this isparaging assertion o! Aussell_s
by showing1 via his incompleteness theorem1 that truth is a stronger
notion than provability. 6he unity o! mathematics lies outsie the realm
o! mathematical escription. 6here is more to reality than mathematics.
"eptember 2)**
H have a sneaKing suspicion that 4eel_s Hncompleteness
6heorem has some important application to an poses nontrivial
interpretational problems !or the concepts o! initial conitions"
bounary conitions an ynamic fiel. 6his in turns suggests that the
istinction o! real versus virtual particleHfiel in quantum mechanics
may inee be problematic1 as well.
3ulture is the conte0t by which the capacity !or meaning in e0perience is
prepare1 which requires temporality an still more historicity1 namely
the participatory ialectic within temporality. ;sar-haen1 the son o!
the /ssyrian Oing "ennacherib1 mae sure to restore the 4o ?el-
8aruK1 restore his temple1 an maKe his piece with the go. Hs this a
per!ect illustration o! an instinctive behavior !ormerly satis!ying an
evolutionary societal !unction1 elaborate within or aapte to historical1
cultural conte0t?
=.4. Fells1 9utline o! =istory C*2&* ;itionD1 error on p. *%% where a
ate o! $%') ?3 is associate with "argon H.
6he narcissist somehow cannot brooK the ini!!erence e0hibite by those
o! his habitual environment o! whom he has taKen some egree o!
notice. Aather the narcissist pre!ers to imagine that the appearance o!
an ini!!erent attitue on the part o! such persons is really only a !aae
concealing a vascillation between sympathy an active is!avor or even
contempt an then bacK again.
9ne important element in the abstract nature o! scienti!ic metho is the
systematic enial o! any possible role o! the intentional content o!
scienti!ic observation an e0perimentation in the possible en!orcing o!1
e.g.1 the principle o! the uni!ormity o! nature1 etc.
6ranscenental unity is 5ust the unity o! all those entities that are
mutually transcening o! each other. 6he unlimite evelopment o!
each entity in no way necessarily threatens to bring one into contact1
coincience or con!lict with the other. 6his suggests that the otherness
o! each entity is particular or peculiar to itsel!.
"o here we encounter the notion o! the otherness o! the other. 6his
otherness o! the other inclues within its scope neither the sel! not the
sel!_s otherness - here unerstan Rthe sel!S to mean onesel! or one_s
sel!.
/lthough as 3ampbell has note1 that religious traitions are patchworK
!acaes o! metaphor1 which pose a Kin o! barrier between the spiritual
evotee an his 4o1 these traitions1 parao0ically1 also serve at once
to conuct the evotee away !rom the masKing realm o! conventional
appearances an eeper into the realm o! the ivine.
@othing is more limiting o! the creative intellect than the tenency to
treat metaphors as literal or enotative categories. 8etaphor is an open-
ene principle !or orering e0perience. 6he ine0 o! intellectual
maturity is the !acility with which one can penetrate to the core o! a
conceptual notion in orer to grasp its metaphoricity.
Fhen one !irst hazars to eviate !rom establishe practice an common
sense emboie in a set o!1 e.g.1 sa!ety regulations1 the min is !ocuse
an the sense o! potential alarm borne o! a nagging presentiment o! risK
all out o! proportion1 perhaps1 to the immeiate risK involve in this or
many particular cases. . .
Ht is liKe the setting in which a banK o!!icer or treasurer !irst engages in
the occasional embezzling o! petty sums. . . or in the maKing o! a
number o! small1 ba loans to !riens1 !avorite associates1 etc. Hn the
process the min loses1 graually an imperceptibly1 its original !ocus on
risK a!ter the habit o! violating the letter/spirit o! the regulations has ha
a chance to set in an establish itsel!.
Hn the same way that a eveloping see must access groun to mani!est
its latent orer1 an orer which must be in part other than or transcenent
o! itsel!1 the act o! e0perience prouces a novel convolution rather than
mere continuation o! elements plucKe !rom open-ene process.
/bstraction always prouces novel sets o! relationships1 simultaneously
iscovering an inventing one another in the absence o! a complete
CnonlocalD mani!ol. /ll illusions Co! insightD are equally convincing.
6he unity borne o! mutual agreement sustaine among incommensurable
sub5ectivities is necessarily emergent an open-ene.
/ny system o! representation1 i! syntactically rich enough1 is capable o!
!unctioning liKe a !irst language1 at which point the inertia o! meiation
rops away seemingly revealing the naKe content L but not be!ore
impregnating the represente with some o! its still untappe structurally
subtle potentiality. Hn this way is it seen that there can never be any neat
cleaving o! the sign !rom the signi!ie. Fe always change what we
want to say1 saying at once both less an more than we intene to
whenever we resort to the meiation o! iscursive symbols as well as a
particular genre o! speech CrhetoricD.
/ll eterminate perceptions are base in an original con!usion an
ambiguity1 which at some crucial point ha to be resolve along
particular lines.
?ohm says in 6hought as a "ystem1 p. *$N1 that1 RH thinK1 that matter
may be unlimite in it subtlety.S Ht seems the only viable alternative o!
unlimite Ci.e.1 in!initeD epth an/or subtlety.
6he term1 Rrei!ie abstractionS presumes that there is some necessary
an important istinction to be rawn between an abstract entity in!use
with or subsisting in a substance or RsubstancesS CpluralD versus such an
entity evoi o! all substantiality an Rhanging in thin airS Cor in1 i! you
will1 the Rmin_s eye.SD
8y open-ene1 uner-etermine Cor overetermineD email
communications to "uzanne an others are partly intene to illustrate
the little iscovere !act o! the possibility o! a broaer an eeper !orm
o! communication Cor metacommunicationD in which memes or rather
RprotomemesS can be e0change between two persons an their psyches
brought into a closer an more prouctive alliance/ interrelateness1 but
without either person having mae any commitments or irreversible
commitments to the use o! particular sets o! eterminate concepts or to
the aherence/subscription to similarly eterministic sets o!
values/5ugments.
6his !orm o! insinuating1 metaphorical-laen1 risK-taKing manner o!
communicating is intene to stimulate a sense o! Rphysical contact1S i!
you will between two normally istantly separate mins. Ht is a !orm o!
communication evincing some o! the ynamic o! a ance. -urther there
is a sense o! pushing1 pulling an grappling o! the two actual beings
eep within the Rcontrol roomsS o! the mins o! each. 3ommunication
between two intellects is always an illusion as intellect itsel! is 5ust an
aaptation an a tool. 6he intellect as Rpresent to hanS contains within
itsel! eep ivisions. Hntellect as RgearS or as being merely Rreay to
hanS maKes o! all communication a game o! the e0change o! metaphors
between two animals engage in1 e.g.1 courtship rituals1 combat1 social
boning1 establishing a social pecKing orer1 etc.
"aying that secretly all concept is really metaphor unermines the
hereto!ore allegely long establishe meanings o! both RconceptS an
metaphoricity itsel!. ?ut i! RconceptS an RmetaphorS were alreay
secretly unermine Cob5ectively inaequateD as such1 then how coul
the above escribe econstructive collapse o! meaning be brought
about1 unless the notion o! econstruction was itsel! alreay secretly
Rob5ectively inaequateS Cas representing its own action1 not in its e
!acto acting upon some system o! conceptsD? :econstruction is 5ust as
much a genre that necessarily invoKes the use o! rhetoric/ rhetorical
RevicesS/tools an pra0is to bring about Crather than coherently
representD these collapses we_ve been re!erring to.
8etaphors permit us to escribe to others insights that we have yet to
e0perience in eterminate1 crystallize !orm1 as well as !or them to
respon to these in a !ashion coorinate1 in turn1 in the absence o!
eterminate notions on their parts.
H e0perience an unusual !orm o! luci reaming this a!ternoon. Ht
involve a sort o! out-o!-boy e0perience1 as my eyes were wie open as
H lay on my right sie. H coul see that my han was still within a booK
H ha !allen asleep reaing1 but H coul not !eel any han insie the booK1
rather1 H was at this time able to seem to li!t my hans an !orce!ully clap
them together.
/lthough H coul still see my real han in the booK1 numb an useless1
then H actually succeee in rolling over on my other sie an almost
!alling out o! be. H i this even though H coul see that H han_t really
move at all. H was still lying on my right sie1 looKing at my han still
insie the booK H ha !allen asleep reaing. H was actually consciously
aware o! both sets o! e0periences simultaneously1 an my very stream o!
consciousness seeme to have actually succeee in bi!urcating.
7erhaps one o! my cerebral hemispheres was almost completely awaKe L
the other asleep an still in the mist o! a ream1 an a luci one at thatT
3ombine with my other e0perience o! having ha a ream e0perience
o! a !lash o! blue light that prouce a retinal a!terimage persisting many
secons a!ter being startle awaKe Cby the blue !lash actuallyD1 H_m
beginning to suspect that H_m starting to show signs o! incipient
schizophrenia. H thinK it is chronic high oses o! the amino acis1 .-
/rginine an .-9rnithine1 which are Known to be power!ul growth
hormone releasers. Fhat was recollecte as a bi!urcation o!
consciousness was only a representation o! such perhaps within a much
more uni!ie overarching state o! consciousness1 hence the
schi(ophrenia was only an illusion.
"ome principles are broa an eep an actually succee in
encompassing particular cases1 the connection to which we can only
recognize in retrospectV some simulate prescience by altering or !urther
etermining themselves as the !iel o! their omain e0pans !ar beyon
original emarcations1 acting liKe a proactive an responsive matri0 into
which each new particular plugs1 as i! by a preetermine Rsnapping in1S
an others possess an almost uncanny capacity !or Rsel!-e0tracting.S
:oes the ob5ectivity o! Rother minsS eroe the istinction o! sub5ective
versus ob5ective? 6his brings to min the istinction o! the other o! the
other versus the other o! the sel!.
6he boy o! her son ha only now been place upon the pathologist_s
table whereupon the woman was to view the boy in orer to ienti!y it.
6he pathologist li!te the sheet an the woman upon viewing her son
ienti!ie him without showing any visible reaction an remarKing more
to hersel! than to the pathologist1 Rwhy is his. . . uh. . . so large? 6he
meical e0aminer with arK humor muttere1 Rwhere both o! you are
going1 it is a etail o! which you are liKely to !orm the most intimate
acquaintance.S
9nly because H ha always anticipate someay encountering a woman
liKe 8ary1 was H able even with some i!!iculty o! repulsing the e!!ects
o! her notable charms upon my wavering 5ugment.
Qd
.et emptier vessels grouse !or !ilthy lucre with which they woul1 they
believe1 happily !ill themselves.
6he philosopher oes not merely passively receive ieas an e0perience
through a socioculturally preetermine set o! perceptual an cognitive
!ilters1 but tens to critically assess the operation o! such inherite
systems o! processing the ata o! both sense an reason.
6he orinary man on the street oes not attempt to evelop an
e0periment with new ways o! processing these ata but merely absorbs
by osmosis as it were patterns o! preprocesse ata perhaps a5usting by
trial an error as neee the manner o! applying them.
H! 8an the animal is but the prouct o! blin1 evolutionary processes1
then why is he himsel! not Rblin1S i.e.1 spiritually stumm as it were1
namely bere!t o! consciousness? /s "chroinger remarKe1 a worl
without consciousness woul be a play-acte out be!ore rows o! empty
stalls.
?ut the logic o! mimesis is anything but blin. /n we might
unassumingly suppose that pure or unaulterate mimesis constitutes the
prolegomena o! all metaphor however general so that the e0tension o!
metaphor to its !ormally conceive groun as pure mimesis reveals at
once mimesis as an abstraction !rom the concrete groun o!
metaphoricity an there!ore metaphoricity itsel! as both or at once open-
ene an recursive1 i.e.1 as consciousness in its essence though
transcenent o! all !ormal categorizability.
6hinK o! these eeper levels o! metaphor as analogous to the harmonics1
which1 though not iniviually istinguishable or consciously perceive1
nonetheless prouce subtle inter!erence e!!ects upon these harmonics to
which the tympanic membrane o! the min is sensitive.
>ust as conceptual thought presupposes metaphoricity1 all consciously
uniphonic prouctions presuppose latent polyphony. 7ure unity will not
stan out: will not RmaniS-R!est1S i.e.1 remain R!astS within or against the
Rmany.S
6his analysis o! the concept o! Rpure mimesisS may be e0tene an
applie in turn to the upstart iscipline o! meme theory. 6he structuring
o! protoplasm1 progressively more comple0 with time as meiate by the
interplay o! 8ono_s Rchance an necessityS with the cohesive structure
o! the genome CRgene-nomeS or Rgene-lawSD culminating with the
avent o! consciousness may perhaps be parallele to a similar
evolutionary process involving the meme structure in bringing about the
!irst appearance o! the ego.
Aather than the "criptures representing the transcription o! the reveale
For o! 4o1 we say that the evolving "criptures reach a critical level o!
coherence an comple0ity whereupon the revelation o! a notion an
intent is !acilitate through these te0ts. Aeligious memic structure
evolves1 in other wors1 to a plateau where ivine revelation is enable
an the genic structure o! matter evolves to a level on which the
enabling o! egoically structure consciousness taKes place.
/n although the corresponence truth o! a given religion or belie!
system1 with respect to these smaller particulars1 sub5ect as they are to
evolutionary tinKering1 may always be iscounte or calle into
questionV this process having serve the larger consieration o! the
overall or essential corresponence truth o! the particular belie! system
in question. -or e0ample1 although the particular bounary conitions1
necessary !or the !usion o! living substance into a coherent1 intelligent
system1 themselves having evolve in basic accorance with the
principles o! :arwinian theory1 the set o! conitions1 su!!icient to bring
about this !usion1 certainly inclue those attributable to a coherent
ynamic1 constraine an conitione only internally1 through the action
o! !its own iniviual essence1 when an where it has not yet protrue1
or pro5ecte itsel! into1 the omain o! bounary conitions an
limitations.
?ecause the mentality o! the intelligent organism can only evelop
through its interaction with a society an culture1 there seems to be no
real possibility o! properly simulating this evelopment through the
mere RownloaingS o! instruction sets into the gray matter o! one o!
these organisms. Fhat the organism RuploasS to its social culture1 an
how this culture respons to this in!ormation1 imparte to it by the
organism1 also plays an important role in the psychological/intellectual
evelopment o! the organism. Hn short1 the programmer must become
actively an mutually involve with the machine they seeK to Rin-
programS intelligence. ?ut1 o! course1 the programmer is necessarily
substantively charge in the process.
Fe may thinK o! consciousness as the groun o! representation that
prepares itsel!. 3onsciousness spans incommensurate te0turings o! an
within itsel!. :oes this suggest that the unity o! consciousness
transcens all possible !orms o! continuity Cas well as contiguityD? =ow
woul this question being answere in the a!!irmative conition our
unerstaning o! the notion o! consciousness_ plurality?
R6he subbasement o! the antechamber to the min_s sunnier prouctions.
. . R
H! the unity o! consciousness transcens that o! the iniviual person1
then are we to amit here that there is no possible barrier to the
issolution o! the sel! upon similar issolution o! the bounary
conitions to its transcenental ynamism? Fe cannot arrogate this
ynamism Cor its logicD to the temporal sel!.
6he sacri!ice o! 3hrist was necessary because 4o wishe to create
other !ree souls who woul choose to love1 worship an serve =im.
@othing risKe1 nothing gaine. 9ur attempts to penetrate the mysteries
o! 3hristian !aith are oome1 so long as our attempts towar
representation/corresponence rather than will/coherence.
:econstruction o! econstruction. :erria presumes presence in orer
to econstruct presence1 an so econstruction is in reality no critique1
but mere usurpation that is politically motivate.
H liKe to consistently apply the principle1 Rno one is great1 nothing is
great1 e0cept =e who mae me.S
6hese representations can be stimulate passively but without the
participation o! intention1 there can be no associate meaning.
"omewhat reminiscent o! =ume_s complaint that nowhere coul he ever
catch a glimpse o! himsel!1 we note here that although consciousness is
necessary Cas a Kin o! embeing grounD !or the entertaining o!
Rconscious e0periences1S consciousness is not itsel! actually a quality Cor
RqualeSD o! sai e0periences L consciousness is not containe within
e0perience1 but quite the contrary o! this is true1 we euce1 rather1 the
presence Cor e0istenceD o! a conscious state Cin both the case o! onesel!
an in the case o! anotherD through the witnessing o! wille or intene
action. ;0perience that is Rconscious1S in other wors1 is e0perience
RwithinS consciousness.
9n 5ust this view even thought is conceive uner the rubric1
Raction.S H am also remine here o! the scene !rom the movie1
Far o! the Forls1 when a capture 8artian remote or robotic eye
is energize an the recore images it casts be!ore astoune
onlooKers are commente upon by the clever scientist
emonstrating with the evice in e!!ect that Rthis is the way a
8artian sees us.S 6he very oness o! the istorte brightness
an color evince by the reenergize images Cwhich is1 o! course1 a
istinctly human perception1 is completely entangle or inter!use
with the allegely more ob5ective properties o! the brightness1 an
color themselves Cin aition to1 e.g.1 luminosity1 contrast1
resolution1 etc.D. /n so1 the comment o! the scientist is rather
hopelessly stucK in nacve realistic1 an there!ore to him hien1
assumptions Cabout the character o! a certain class o! 8artian
conscious statesD.
>ust an e0pert an 5uicious stimulating o! the brain o! a newborn in!ant
an consistently conucte into aulthoo1 all the while e0cluing the
input o! energies conveying sensory ata !rom an actual outsie worl1
coul not possibly permit the proper evelopment o! a normal an
reasonable internal moel o! the structure an ynamics o! ob5ects1 their
conte0ts an causal relationships1 which inhabit an inepenent e0ternal
worl. /n this provie also that the environment is not permitte to
respon to the eveloping in!ant_s responses to mocK e0ternal stimuli.
Hntention an consciousness must evelop more or less in step with one
another. /n this is perhaps because each necessarily invoKes the other
!unction in carrying out its own istinctive action.
Fe shoul recognize that the breaKwater represente by a paraigm shi!t
poses 5ust as much o! an obstacle to !orwar-looKing thinKers esiring to
glimpse the essence o! seminal iscoveries o! the !uture as it oes to
historians o! thought attempting to characterize the intellectual
environment prior to an !omenting the avent o! such paraigmatic
shi!ts.
6he particulars o! a !aith a5ust themselves over time uner the in!luence
o! both chance variation an mutual !eebacK1 promoting their coherent
interlocKing within the particular sociopolitical an cultural conte0t in
which they are to thrive.
H saw a bright blue !lash in a ream1 suenly awoKe1 opene my eyes
an observe an a!terimage o! a glowing1 semitransparent blue patch o!
light !or between ' an *) secons. :oes this mean that my retinal
cells were power!ully Can actuallyD stimulate with energies generate
eep within my sleeping brain? :oes the circuitry o! the brain
orchestrate the turning o! the boy_s energies to the coe0tensive an
collocate vacuum !iels o! the RseeminglyS a!!ecte boy parts/
tissues? "o uring a ream1 somehow the patterns o! stimulation1
normally engenere !rom the in!lu0 o! sensory ata tie to energies
impinging upon the various physical sensory receptor cells !rom the
outsie worl1 are in essence properly reprouce !rom orchestrate
internal1 e.g.1 neural1 resources connecte to the components o! the brain
responsible !or primary or seconary stage processing o! various moes
o! sensory ata. Fhat is interesting is that these resources are
connecte !rom the internal rather than !rom the e0ternal sie o! these
sensory processing components.
Ht has always been tacitly assume that the correlations e0isting between
or e0hibite by vacuum energy !luctuations1 i.e.1 purely timeliKe or
RimaginaryS momentum !luctuations o! the quantum vacuum1 must have
somehow originate Cthe correlations themselves1 that isD with RrealS
momentum !luctuations somewhere within the past light cone o! the
vacuum energy !luctuations in question.
/ny mechanism e0plaining this1 consistent with general relativity Can
causalityD1 woul necessarily the sel! gravitation o! the quantum
vacuum1 such that1 globally at least Cnonlocally also perhaps L in the
quantum mechanical senseD1 both locally real an imaginary momentum
!luctuations woul possess a mi0ture o! time- an space-liKe
components.
:epening on which protein one chooses to trace a istribution !or1 one
euces very i!!erent phylogenies1 c.!.1 4enome Aeseach ' C*22ND: pp.
**N-*2$.
web=
Chttp://www.arn.org/oces/oesign/o*22/ls*22.htmD
Hn!inite egeneracy o! the vacuum state means that an in!inite number o!
istinct vacuum con!igurations correspons to say1 the same energy o! ).
?ut what about the case o! a vacuum1 in!initely egenerate with respect
to all physical observables? =ow coul we meaning!ully speaK o! these
in!initely many vacuum Rcon!igurationsS being Ristinct?S Fith respect
to what parameters coul these egenerate vacua be istinct1 i!
i!!erences between or changes in them can never register in the !orm o!
correlate i!!erence changes to some vali1 physical observable?
6ruth may subsist in an implicit1 unprocesse !orm prior to e0perience
establishing a conte0t. 8atter continually being reconstitute out o!
quantities o! vacuum energy unergoing RtialS !lows woul be
observe to accelerate in a manner appropriate to this matter when
e0periencing a Rtial !orce.S
Aealize that there is actually Rnothing presentS in the component o! the
vacuum_s total energy ensity wherever the real CRspaceliKeS or
RtimeliKe1S epening upon one_s metho o! e!inition1 i.e.1 relative or
absoluteD an imaginary Csimilar e!initional proviso as aboveD.
6he ensities Co! perhaps only the RunbalanceS componentD o! vacuum
energies at two istinct locations may account !or two istinct Rrates o!
time passage.S /n even though the ensity o! the vacuum energy is
globally ecreasing on account o! the cosmological e0pansion1
nevertheless1 no alteration in the strength o! gravity or o! the magnitue
o! the gravitational constant nee result !rom this. /n e0ample shoul
help to illustrate this. "ay that the ensity o! the relevant component o!
the vacuum_s energy were *) parts at point / an *)) parts at point ?1
!urther away !rom a strong gravitating source. /ccoring to our simple
equating o! the relative vacuum energy ensity to the relative Rrate o!
time1S i! you will1 uring a given interval o! cosmic time1 i! the ensity
o! the vacuum energy at point ? has ecrease to 2) parts1 then1
accoring to our simple relationship between ensity an time rates1 the
ensity o! the vacuum energy at point / shall have ecrease to 2 parts.
=ere we see that the relative i!!erence in vacuum energies between the
two points has change !rom a relative i!!erence o! 2) parts to one o!
N2 parts.
3ertain culturally base truths pertaining to historically conte0t-sensitive
realities1 such as those !rom the economic1 political1 or social spheres1
are truths !or which the way ha to be prepare an which coul not
possibly have been arrive at through re!lection1 say1 on the part o! some
particularly gi!te "tone /ge thinKer. 6he basic elements o! conceptual
thought woul not be in place an available !or application in the
!orming o! still more processe conceptual structures.
@ow i! it is eventually iscovere that the ,niverse itsel! is shot through
an through with evolutionary change to the e0tent even o! variations1
however subtle an comple01 o! all the Known physical constants1 then
what we have 5ust state about culturally base truths shoul apply1 also1
to all o! the truths we might propose to investigate1 apart1 perhaps1 !rom
mathematical truths L an these themselves may turn out to be
questionable as truths o! absolute an unwavering certainty. ?ut along
with :escartes1 we must note that all o! this interrogation o! truth taKes
not at all away !rom the !act o! the consciousness that is engage in the
act o! questioning truth.
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWC"uper!ile Iol. IHHH
aboveDWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWC*2-)2-
))DWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWC"uper!ile Iol_s H-IHH
belowDWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
Fhat is calle RunKnownS is relative to the comprehening min in
question1 however1 is this min ultimately one an unique such that the
unKnown is in some important sense itsel! unique an perhaps also
uni!ie? 9r is the unKnown itsel! plural because min irreucibly is?
6he power o! metaphorical language consists in the !act that neither
speaKer in a pair o! communicants nees to have a correct
comprehension o! what either is saying !or a net communication to have
occurre even one placing both into a collectively more highly orere
state/cooperation.
/ iscontinuity say1 in a te0t1 is both highly suggestive an
ineterminate liKe a potential barrier both encouraging an iscouraging
quantum tunneling. ?oth uner an over etermine communications.
3onsciousness1 being nonspatial1 Cbut inherently temporalD seems as
liKely as any other to be the anchoring or !ulcrum point !or the ynamics
o! the action o! the gravitation which is the movement o! reality away
!rom min1 i.e.1 !rom the temporal to the spatial through the
i!!eomorphism o! progressive an continuous .orenz-booting o!
momentum-energy mani!esting itsel! as gravitational attraction.
3onsier the possibility o! a cosmic time irection associate the
irection along which the rate o! increase o! global entropy is ma0imal.
6his is to be contraste with the irection along which the local rate o!
change o! entropy is ma0imal. 9ne can also consier the time a0is
e!ine by the irection along which the sum o! the local an global
rates o! change o! the entropy is ma0imal. =ere we shoul ienti!y the
global with the nonlocal in the sense e!ine within ?ohmian quantum
mechanics.
3onsciousness etermines the holistic conitions that in turn etermine
actional motions o! will.
/ mani!estation o! a higher truth transcening the ual opposition an
this higher truth is 5ust the above statement1 perhaps.
Hnecision is combate through a cognitive mechanism o! the iniviual
consciousness. 6his cognitive tenency is quite the converse o! the
suggestibility o! the social sel!.
8ost people never articulate the metaphysical elements o! the paraigm
in!orming their religious1 political1 an ethical belie!s or opinions. H!
there is any !reeom o! thought !or such persons1 it must be within that
paraigm.
3ommunication between persons or across the generations an through
te0ts1 !or e0ample1 requires the sharing o! conte0t at some level.
6here are an unlimite number o! conte0ts suggeste by the
interpretations o! passages viewe in relative isolation.
7assive aggressive !ormulations motivate by pro5ections C!rom ol
sub5ects1 onto new onesD1 what might be terme metaphysical
perception.
6he set o! intelligible propositions ought to be smaller1 perhaps
belonging to a lower orer or class Cin terms o! magnitueD than the set
o! intelligible interpretations Cpropositional conte0ts/motivationD. ?y
!ar most propositions have not motivation whatever !or our
asserting/entertaining them.
3an a love-in!use everyayness prevail over theoretical insights borne
o! searching questions?
6here is local storage mechanism !or hanling iscursive1 ob5ect-
oriente ata which has a renering in the !orm o! patterne1 neural
!iring circuits. /ll other in!ormation1 not locally storable as a whole1
shoul not be store piecemeal as this woul cause inter!erence or
isruption o! !unctioning o! local memory circuits. Fith the avent o!
an agricultural base1 stable civilization1 selective pressure !or this
mnemonic !iltering mechanism was much reuce1 an nonlocal1
insight-base in!ormation coul now be accesse more generally by the
iniviual tribal member. "o only nonlocal1 iniviual consciousnesses
transcening in!ormation was place into nonlocal storage. @onlocal
realm is beyon space an time an there!ore beyon iniviuation1 c.!.1
"chopenhauer_s1 Fill an Aepresentation. Fithout an iniviual
re!erence !or the in!ormation1 it coul be combine with that !rom other
sources. "o is iniviuation by re!erence only an there!ore a mere
abstraction.
3onsciousness is 5ust conte0t o! ob5ect an woul-be ob5ects1 this
conte0t must either regress in!initely or RbootstrapS itsel!. 6he
bootstrap structure woul be in!inite an boune. "omehow multiple
bootstrapping !rom a single1 unitary process is logically inconsistent.
6he epth an breath o! the meanings that we !in ourselves !ace with
contemplating are such imension are surely at worK. ?ut i! these
conte0t are purely constructive than whence arises their substance?
@ormality an naturalness o! the human visage as the prime ine0 o!
what :eria terms Rpresence.S 6he sense o! presence is isrupte
when the sub5ect_s personality becomes issociate.
"onic@et
2
only loas those elements !rom the Hnternet not alreay store
locally. "o only change e0ists in the sense o! Rthe act o! e0isting.S
Fhat is ini!!erent to the passage o! time Cuntouche by changeD
commits no Ract o! e0isting.S ?ut is ?eing itsel! !oune in an act?
6he iniviual person1 eveloping within the realm o! iniviuation1 i.e.1
space an time1 begins !rom a relatively amorphous1 inchoate state1 an
graually becomes more highly orere1 a!ter the !ashion o! a
crystallization. 6here are always two istinct ways to unerstan this
incipient1 inchoate state1 namely as being either uneretermine or
overetermine.
"ub5ective music categories by phase within one_s personal
history/biography. @ot intersub5ective categorization?
3an coherence/ cohesiveness o! the same structure evolve?
:oes possessing Ra particularS consciousness have content1 evoi o! all
content
8eme theory as an important ai in econstructing metaphysical
presenceV is meme theory aequate !or econstructing really holistic
entities? /n are all such entities merely
Kw=
rei!ications?
6he R5ust so storiesS o! evolutionary theory e0plain the tinKering but not
the coherence an robustness o! that which is tinKere together. H! the
:@/ molecule i not emboy an intelligible coe an one possessing
multiple1 an perhaps un!athomable1 levels o! escription1 we might
suppose that a su!!icient cause o! evolutionary orer might be emboie
in some e0haustive set o! purely Re0ternalS conitions. ?ut this woul
be to !orget that the e0ternal so-calle1 is at least partly constitute an
orere through the action o! one o! its crowning1 allege proucts1 i.e.1
the human brain.
?ertran Aussell sai that physical laws escribe how nature happens to
behave1 rather than RgoverningS anything. ?ut can Aussell really be
right? Fhat about the physical laws escribing consciousness
proucing/structuring systems? / escription that acts as an
interpretative metaphor an as a see or Kernel in guiing an being
guie by the theory-e0periment observation cycle can harly be the
passive Knowlege structure as escribe by Aussell. 6he message as
interpretative metaphor Citsel! caught up in the ialectic o!
interpretation/hermeneutical circleD occupies the opposite en o! the
communication spectrum !rom the animal prouce signal1 which
merely enables a preetermine1 programme1 genetically etermine
instinctive response.
Hnstinctive itsel! is presumably still evolving so we shoul e0pect there
to e0ist some variation Cvery wie1 across a su!!iciently large population
or instinctual maKeup within humanKin.
9n account o! the spontaneous potential o! the human will to cause
quantum state vector reuction1 the action o! will Cor conscious
intentionD cannot be etermine through the eterministic evolution o!
some quantum mechanical wave!unction1 e.g.1 that escribing the brain
or subsystems o! the brain1 etc. o! any potential human observer.
3omparing our general state o! consciousness as we conceive o! it
Cwithin our present consciousnessTD nowaays with its general state o!
say1 *) years agoV this i!!erence appears to us as one o! istinct patterns
o! te0ture in!use Knowlege an our present state o! consciousness is
in!orme by e0perience not possesse o! the !ormer sel!1 5ust as the
!ormer sel! is possesse o! unerstaning an conceptions1 though
somehow relatively narrower1 themselves in!orme by e0perience in
many cases largely !orgotten by the present sel!. =owever1 such a
comparison o! two states o! consciousness1 both su!!iciently remove in
time !rom the present one which contemplates them1 as well as
su!!iciently so remove !rom each other1 has the !eeling an suggestion
o! two states o! consciousness not only i!!ering in the Knowlege an
e0perience in!using/su!!using them1 but also o! possessing istinctly
variant substances/being.
Fe shoul quali!y "chopenhauer_s assertion that iniviuation
presupposes space an time by saying rather1 that this ins true !or in!inite
iniviuation only. 8athematically1 any !inite ivision o! the unitary
Cor uni!ieD in!inite may itsel! constitute a !inite number o! istinct
in!inities Cistinct only with respect to the particular manner o! the
iviing each o! which remains uni!ie presumably along an Cin!inity L
nD number o! potentially istinct lines. Hn some sense1 there!ore1 !inite
ivision o! the in!inite maKes !or no real ivision at all.
H! orer i not escen !rom the in!inite through quali!ication
Cownwar-telescoping an there!ore groune/conte0tualizeD1 then it
ascene !rom not nothingness but !rom chaos. Fhat are the moral an
ethical implications o! an orer out o! chaos theory o! orer CcreationD
given what we alreay Know about such implications o! a theistically-
base create orer?
Hs all social interaction groune within some Kin o! spell or
momentum1 an is the goal o! the responsible/practical realist simply to
enhance an e0ten the uration o! li!etime o! such momentums1 the
ening o! which we recognize via glimpsing the ecay1 collapse or
unermining o! the sustaining groun o! a meshworK o! bounary
conitions1 e.g.1 social1 political1 economic1 cultural1 linguistic1 etc.?
R7erhaps the transient tension in the coiling o! circumstances has
become enature in some Kin o! vacuum.S
R7rimum mobileS originates isturbances that sprea through alreay
e0tant continuum1 collapse the 7si !unction but oesn_t e0plain the
pree0istence o! the system 7si escribes.
Fill that is unoppose acts through the meium o! its own substance1
not at all through the substance o! another1 an only with i!!iculty
through the meium compose o! the interoperability o! istinct
substances.
=ere we have the notion o! internal versus e0ternal istincguishability.
H! the consciousness o! the inviual is truly unitary1 then there seems no
goo reason !or a Kin o! Rinterior roomS or representational continuum
in which images are cast.
reviewing o! conclusion1 !inishe prouct resulting !rom a
collective or collaborative e!!ort.
inercommunicaiton between subpersons1 multiple occupants1
etc.
!inal ra!t o! e0perience a!ter components have been optimally
!itte together is surveye so that inconsistencies or
contraictions1 not present at any o! various lower levels1 may
be ienti!ie.
:o the ob5ects o! the imagination ever acquire any Kin o! inepenent1
mental e0istence1 over an above that o! the conitions within the min
that originally prouce them?
6ruth that is uni!ie may surely only be graspe by an in!inite may
surely only be graspe by an in!inite or transcenental min or1 shall we
say being. 6his being1 grasping the uni!ie truth that is1 by thus
encompassing it1 must be beyon it1 an so such a being is beyon unity1
beyon being itsel! uni!ie an hence the plurality o! transcenental
being.
3an truth be a unity1 when one among the truths it subsumes is 5ust that
there is more than one truth L at least two equally vali senses o! truth
must then be possible1 one transcenent an myria_s immanent? Hn
consciousness1 there is no limit to the unity o! truth.
Fe reaily accept ineterminacy interpretation o! classical
counter!actuals1 e.g.1 prevente accients Csay1 through aoption o!
change inustrial operational proceuresD uring a company_s last
reporte !iscal year1 etc.1 but we seem to have i!!iculty in grasping or
accepting an ineterminacy-base interpretation o! quantum probability
amplitues C!or events that actually are observeD as being somehow
raically counterintuitive. :o so-calle actual events1 possessing a
probability o! unity1 i.e.1 *.)1 have some special ontological status vis a
vis events possessing probabilities !alling in the interval ).) Y 0 Y *.).
/n what about events with probability = ).) L special ontological status
here as well?
Hn the absence o! su!!icient bounary conitions1 an amplitue cannot
even be e!ine. 6he ynamics o! the real procees with or without
bounary conitions. :oes this maKe o! 5ust an accounting evice?
/ issertation o! the buhistic notion o! RmonKey minS may be in
orer at some stage.
6he For b 8onotheism C7olytheism1 with 8onotheism as a special
case?D
6he ?reath b 7antheism1 but consier that the breath may either be
imbue or not with Rresonance.S Aesonance o! the breath presupposes
that it is sub5ect to some set o! !inite bounary conitions. 7erhaps this
is a goo e0ample o! metaphor guiing rather than leaing us own a
garen path. "o what literal entity is suggeste by the metaphor1 breath
without resonance?
H! the quantum state o! the observer_s brain an the quantum state o! the
system observe are merely in mutual superposition1 then how can
robust1 stable an cohesive Cas oppose to merely coherentD ob5ects
Rmani!estS themselves? Foul not continual !eebacK1 i.e.1 mutual
participation o! these two quantum systems1 one Rob5ectiveS an the
other1 Rsub5ective1S isrupt this superposition1 converting it into a
statistical mi0ture?
Hntersub5ective L between sub5ects an sub5ective b between a sub5ect
an the Rnon-sub5ect.S
9n account o! the spontaneous potential o! the human will to cause
quantum state vector reuction1 the action o! will Cor conscious
intentionD cannot be etermine through the eterministic evolution o!
some quantum mechanical wave!unction1 e.g.1 that escribing the brain
or subsystems o! the brain1 etc. o! any potential human observer.
6he cognitive !ilters CrepresentationsD that we implement in investigating
nature in!luences the representations through which she answers bacK
5ust as oes the manner in which we act upon her in!luences the manner
in which nature reacts to our probings.
3oherence is compose o! two parts1 attract1 bining to1 or
communication with a center on one han an repulsion1 isconnection
or insensitivity to an outsie realm. /n unlimite number o! istinct
structurings o! the iniviual_s consciousness.
?ut how oes consciousness register Rwithin itsel!S the various
moi!ications that it unergoes Ccause by both itsel! an that which is
other than itsel!D without at the same time unergoing an alteration in its
sel! same ientity.
6he phenomenon o! quantum mechanical tunneling is probably !ar more
general than 5ust the tunneling o! a particle RthroughS a potential energy
barrier larger than the particle_s classically etermine Kinetic energy.
Fe may speaK o! an entire quantum system RtunnelingS !rom one state
to another in which the RpotentialS is Rabstract1S i.e.1 o! some Kin other
than that o! the original conte0t1 that is1 energy. 7erhaps some Kins o!
thoughts are o! eterministic origin1 i.e.1 reucible while others are not1
i.e.1 noneterministic an irreucible. 7erhaps all sins o! commission
are at some eeper level o! escription really o! the omission type. /
sin is committe through the !ailure o! ever higher levels o! will an
consciousness to properly channel or sti!le1 as the case may be1 some
action prompte by simpler subsystems o! the psyche or their lower
level coorination.
H! the i!!erences between iniviual consciousnesses1 or between
whatever maKes !or these i!!erences1 cannot be overcome in the sense
o! such i!!erences subsisting within some larger category Cthan that
constitute by each1 iniviual consciousnessD1 then the istinction
which we have suppose subsists between the mental in general an the
physical in general becomes problematic an unsupportable.
H! istinctions are the proucts o! cognitive-rational-linguistic processes
then these istinctions are the traces o! acts o! abstracting an
categorization subsisting within a omain in which such i!!erences are
naturally overcome. ?ut such cannot rightly be suppose to be the case
where a istinction o! ontology Cor beingD is concerne.
/ istinction o! this sort which reaily suggests itsel! is that o!
RphysicalS versus Rmental.S
3learly the number o! potential human mins is vastly greater than is the
numer o! actual or perhaps even the number o! possible human brains.
6his being the case1 we might woner how the selection is e!!ecte o!
the particular potential human min that becomes actualize !rom
amongst those Requally viableS caniates upon there being institute
some particular actual1 !unctioning human brain-physiological structure.
:o the RcaniatesS ecie among themselves which will Ranswer the
callS to taKe up a resience within the space an time o! this particular
human e0istence? /n how might we suppose that the iniviual
caniates coul Know that each belongs to the same class1 as it were1 in
orer to ienti!y with whom to convene? Hs ecision ever reache by
each an everyone concerne not to !orm !rom among their number any
connection at all?
Qd
Fe have been assuming here throughout that a
human brain must always be egenerate with respect to some class o!
iniviual consciousness.
"o here we have unwittingly invoKe the notion o! class within the !iel
o! choice CparticipationD as oppose to that o! representation. /bstract
representation is the omain o! rational consciousness1 participation1 that
o! the will. /" the historical worKing out o! arbitrary will is interprete
through representation o! the collective rationality o! the CirrationalD
iniviual metaphor is transubstantiate into concept.
;quivocation o! sense is the !ounation o! both what is insight!ul as well
as nonsensical in the process o! creative thinKing1 an moreover by
pointing up the eterminative in!luence o! inherite linguistic structures
common to both per!ormances1 inavertently emonstrates the necessary
transcenence o! language by thought which is inspire as oppose to
misguie.
"o metaphor guies thought to greater heights as much as it in!luences
the prouction o! misguie thinKing. /n so although metaphor may
still be suppose to constitute the substance o! min1 both rational an
irrational1 the substance o! reason may1 parao0ically enough1 be both
broaer an eeper than that o! min as such even though reason clearly
appears to be but one among many o! min_s iverse !unctionsT 6his
may be because reason is only a !unction o! min by virtue o! the min_s
invoKing o! reason.
;ach person possesses an ineraicable1 organic e!ect in his personality.
6his e!ect is almost e0actly analogous to the blin spot o! the retina
where the myria nerves o! this organ o! sight bunle together to !orm
the optic nerve.
9nce one has submitte to the conitions that woul etermine a
eparture !rom inaction1 at once a hypnotic !orget!ulness taKes hol o!
one an one is propelle !orwar within the moment1 reacting all the
while to what is locally occurring an what is store in memory
concerning earlier Rlocal occurrences.S
4oing through the motions1 pro !orma-listic li!e style o! weaK-wille1
characterless iniviuals.
Aelationships between metaphysics an morals.
=igher levels o! CimpulseD control an the art o! success!ul living.
.ooKing to circumstances an other persons !or an e0planation o! one_s
i!!iculties1 !ailure1 unhappiness1 etc.
6aKing things too personally.
7reoccupations with conventional e!initions1 e.g.1 success1
attractiveness1 spirituality1 etc.
"piritual vacuity.
6emporality1 probability1 sample size an their entangle
interconnecteness. 6he problem o! mainstreaming probability moels
in regulatory risK evaluation. 6he importance o! sampling winow
enpoints an their sensitivity to initial conitions.
R=ar cases maKe ba lawS goes the ol saying !rom the rhetoric o! the
abortion ebate. ?ut worst case scenarios CRhar casesSD maKe !or
soun regulations. :oes this point up an important !eature in the
istinction o! law !rom regulation?
:iscuss how technology a!!ects morals1 politics1 culture1 etc.1 by simply
changing the bounary conitions to human impulses.
-antasy -ootball1 "ports "tats Knowlege1 etc. as important concerns o!
so-calle normal1 mainstream1 mile class males.
:oes quantum chaos or the ynamism o! this chaos enter into the
anharmonic resonating spaces o! the consciousness1 spontaneously
!orming orere structures that somehow manage to represent the
structure o! the bounary conitions which they have quit be!ore
reaching us?
6he essence Cor substanceD o! consciousness is metaphor. 6he
application o! conscious1 i.e.1 will1 is !ree because there can be no rule or
law governing the conceiving o! a metaphor other than the !ancy o! a
particular person1 sub5ect but not etermine by the conitions in which
the person !ins himsel!.
;0amples: the sKeleton guies the evelopment o! the so!ter tissues1 an
so on1 e.g.1 the bloo vessels1 nerves1 connective tissues1 etc. are normal
even within a han or !oot which e0hibits severe polyactyla. 6he
!eebacK control structure here e0hibits a Kin o! military comman an
control structure. Hs a similar mechanism involve in the interpretation
by the sleeping brain o! signals !iltere !rom its ranomly ischarging
brain stem.
6he monKey ieates as though his most tenuous an sub5ective
associations represent some Kin o! ob5ective logical in!erence to which
only he has privilege access.
6he irection o! time !or consciousness is nearly orthogonal to the
perceive irection o! time.
Ht shoul go without saying1 that i! there is a RmechanismS that unerlies
the ynamics o! consciousness_ sustainment as such1 that such a
mechanism_s action coul not possibly be verbally or iscursively
articulate.
7alimpsest is guie by more than one iea sometimes this is revision
an sometimes 5ust reusing o! the ata meium. .ogic o! revision is not
containe within that o! e0position guie by a uni!ie iea.
Fhat truth is the simplest an yet harest to glimpse1 which is
irreucible because uncreate L that truth most irectly uner our own
noses? 3onsciousness. 3an there be any istinction between
consciousness o! iniviual an consciousness as such.
:iscuss 8onKey-nature an narcissism/egotism. 7ro5ection an
positive !eebacK o! these pro5ections.
;vil possesses a wanton an will!ul main component1 but also a
component o! senselessness1 c.!.1 vague ieation o! hurting the innocent.
Hs all i!!erentiation 5ust the splitting1 i.e.1 RbreaKingS o! egeneracy_s
Csymmetry_sD?
/s the min evolves its internal symmetry Can hence1 orerD grows
causing a relatively !i0e stocK o! iscursive symbols to become more
highly linguistically egenerate.
<ou can_t hol water uring the spin cycle.
H! evil is nothing more nor less than the notable absence o! goo1 that is1
the absence o! goo in situations where we have come to e0pect its
appearance1 then vil becomes reuce to an abstract category subsuming
all posible instances in wihc goo is not Rresent.S ?ut this still leaves
open the possibility that goo itsel! might still be something more than a
mere abstraction1 namely that gooness might nevertheless possess a
Kin o! essence. Fe have iscusse alreay asome o! the Key
i!!erences between what is calle an essence an what we term as
merely an abstract category or abstraction. ?ut to recap1 an abstraction
elimits an subsumes a variety o! representations Co! some RthingS that
may itsel! be pro5ective an nothing more than theoretical or may be
alternatively o! some essenceD. /n ;ssence1 on the other han can only
provisionally an heuristically be unerstoo in terms o! an abstract
category1 but must be suppose to possess some at least partially
inepenent an sel!-sustaining being an consequently an active
organizing principle1 i.e.1 some ability to bring orer to chaos.
9! course gooness might possess an essence by virtue o! a consistent
!eature o! some broaer essence. Hn other wors1 the principle o!
organization o! gooness might be e0ternal to itsel!.
?ut gooness may only be a!ter all an iea that survives by being
subserve by impulses1 motives an !eeling that in the !inal analysis are
e0traneous an ulterior to its abstractly state principle. / per!ect
illustration o! this might be the phenomenon o! capitalism base upon
collective1 rational sel!-interest.
>anuary 2)*$
6he essence o! being human is
always having an ulterior motive.
Fe might asK whether the ,niverse has always an shall always possess
the potential or capacity !or proucing my particular1 allegely unique1
state o! conscious awareness. H! not1 then what is altere or e0hauste
within the continuum as a result o! historical interaction o! my
consciousness with Rthe rest o! the ,niverse?S
3ontrast the convergence o! phenomenon o! a certain type within a
given locality with the concerte mani!estation o! phenomena by a being
acting locally through or within a particular region o! spacetime.
3. ". .ewis has sai that goo succees in being goo with !ar greater
success than evil succees in being ba. "o !or .ewis evil or R;vilS is
5ust gooness perverte.
?eing vs. e0istence contraste with the uality. 9ught vs. shoul.
7erhaps the phenomenon o! conscience is 5ust as inherently mysterious
as that o! consciousness itsel!. 7arallel to the above istinctions o!
being/e0istence an ought/shoul is that o! essence/abstraction1 as well
as that o! concrete vs. !ormal unity.
/ given truth is but a ne0us or locus !or the growth o! conte0t-base
Knowlege an is there!ore1 open-ene an transcenental in the sense
that this truth1 shorn o! its various outgrowths1 is not itsel! anything that
can be capture within an articulate escription. 9nly truths sub5ect to
conitions may be escribe.
/ massive boy is attracte ceteris paribus towar a region o! spacetime
in which its bining energy is greater1 away !rom the region in which
this bining energy is lesser. Hn tanem with this we shoul state that
such boies move CaccelerateD towar regions o! spacetime in which the
Rvelocity o! timeS is relatively reuce an the velocity within the
spatial component o! spacetime is increase.
8etaphors are intene to connote what coul have been enote by
other means.
3onceivable inconceivable
7ossible practical transcenent
Hmpossible poetic ?
3.!.1 Q page '* o! blacK sKetchbooK !or iagrams o! two contrasts o!
actual theory versus propose new theory.
8etaphysics as collection o! e0istence plausibility arguments Cas
oppose to Re0istence proo!sS per seD !or Rthe gos_ R conception o! a
given true proposition concerning aspects o! the nature o! ultimate
reality.
/ll statements o! literal or enotative truth may be later interprete to
have secretly possesse all along a larger signi!icance by virtue o! a
metaphysical re!erence to some broaer conte0t.
6he construction CpiecemealD an rein!orcement1 perhaps over a great
length o! time1 o! a Kin o! linKage structure within some original1
pragmatic or instrumental conte0t may serve at some later occasion as a
template to catalyze the seeming sel!-organization o! analogous elements
within some initially incommensurate1 chaos-laen omain o! activity1
suggesting the presence o! some internal principle o! system integrity
an coherence Ci.e.1 principle o! Rinternal unitySD which though
appearing as sel!-sustaining1 is actually being maintaine through the
continuous application !rom outsie the system o! a set o! interpretive
!ilters an negative !eebacK inputs in which the circuits are complete
always !rom outsie the system itsel!.
6he consciousness o! the iniviual person possesses much greater
prospect !or importantly bacK-reacting upon the person_s brain
physiological processes1 an moreover possessing intrinsic continuity
CliKely very important !actor in sustaining personal ientity over time L
especially through the iscontinuities or potential isruptions introuce
by the continually replace an reshu!!le o! the material components1
an subsystems1 etc. o! the physical brainD1 i! consciousness is not
merely a pseuo- or Rpro5ectiveS substance continuously engenere by
brain activity1 but possesses a partially inepenent e0istence Cor beingD
is only structure via such brain activity.
6here is not a continuum that contains both o! an ine!inite plurality o!
istinct1 iniviual consciousnesses by virtue o! a commonality o! their
embeeness. "ustainment o! a consciousness_ origination within time
Cas oppose to it s origination wholly outsie o! timeD must1 at least in
part1 outstrip an equivalent escription o! the !unction o! this
consciousness within the !requency omain. ;0istence an
Rnone0istenceS are merely istinct moes o! greatest isparateness o! Ca
singleD being. 6he unity isplaye by a plurality o! e0istents1 however
concerte be their Cnecessarily inirectD interaction/interrelationship
shall never approach the unity o! mani!esting on the part o! a single such
being. /n this connection o! mani!estations solely by virtue o! their
stemming an having stemme !rom the sel!same1 ientical being
constitutes the irreucible resiue o! connecteness1 which passes
beyon all possible characterization L the commonality o! authorship
here !alls utterly outsie the bouns o! iscursive reason an is
!unamentally irrational.
6he relateness o! isparate beings consists in no more than the
consistency o! the interaction o! their respective bes o! mani!estation
relative to the mutually an collectively constitute continuum into
which each pro5ects its local1 temporal image.
H! groun oes not participate in the mani!estations that it engeners1 i!
substance is ini!!erent to the temporality evince by its mani!ol1
Raccients1S then there can harly be any su!!icient reason !or attributing
to a substance or groun any ownership o! its various accients or
mani!estations.
9! course1 returning to the state !rom which consciousness originally
arose1 maKes things 5ust as though this consciousness ha never
Re0isteS at all.
6he human brain1 as a metabolizing organ1 a utilizer o! orere energy1
Cin the !orm o! molecules o! /67D1 is continually generating entropy L
5ust liKe any other thermoynamic heat engine. =owever1 the brain
oes this while at the same time it continually generates new quantities
o! in!ormation. ,nliKe what is calle Rnegentropy1S the !low o! that is
theoretically reucible to concomitant !lows o! entropy1 the negation o!
in!ormation oes not truly !ul!ill a role as entropy L the negation o! ata
!ul!ills that role. Hn other wors1 the prouction o! in!ormation by a
thinKing1 perceiving human brain cannot be consistently moele as the
!low o! uncertainty Cquantum mechanical or otherwiseD out o! this
in!ormation-engenering organ.
.ove_s illusion o! its sel!-sustainment out o! an integral wholeness is
quicKly enough ispelle once the possession o! its ob5ect is
irretrievably past. /n the 5ealousy seemingly borne o! love is usually
unmasKe as that o! mere possessiveness an the resistance o! the ego to
a tangible symbol o! its impening e!lation. H! most theistic1 so-calle
RbelieversS woul 5ust !or a moment contemplate the proposition o!
4o_s repute R;0istenceS ispassionately1 that is1 without necessary
linKage o! this proposition to the psychologically necessary corollary o!
the iniviual soul_s immortality1 many might gain !or perhaps the !irst
time an honest glimpse o! the ontological insecurity that partly Can
importantlyD comprises the unique enowment o! the human species.
?arring the possibility o! some overarching1 superconsciousness within
which each iniviual consciousness may be1 metaphorically speaKing1
place one ne0t to another1 permitting a systematic1 comparative stuy1
no abstract Cin the proper senseD !eatures o! consciousness per se1 as
oppose to structurings o! this consciousness1 are eterminable.
H! the registering o! new thoughts an perceptions by persons acting
within the conte0t o! human e0perience is tantamount to the
per!ormance o! some small pacKet or bit o! metaphysical worK1 then it
only maKes sense that the e0plorations o! metaphysical e0planation
shoul be preoccupie with the application o! metaphor1 speci!ically
analogy. 6he give-an-taKe between respective sub5ectivities that
unerpins the realm o! the intersub5ective that each in turn therein taKes
up its conitional Can conitioningD being Ci.e.1 e0istenceD1 cannot itsel!
be a process that possesses an intersub5ective escription that aequately
accounts !or its ynamics.
6he octrine that reality is one is at once to imply that there is no room
in reality or ?eing !or more than one substance. 6he !urther implication
o! this is that i! soul as such e0ists1 the totality o! ?eing is constitute by
the being o! 5ust this one soul an that there!ore the notion o! a plurality
o! beings Cas oppose to mere e0istentsD is 5ust a contraiction too broa
an eep to be graspe by any being itsel! in the absence o! all
conitions1 i.e.1 Rillumination.S
=aving e0ercise the metaphysical presence CRlarger-than-li!e-liKenessD
o! some !eature1 thing1 person1 institutions1 whatever1 one might say that
what has taKen place is the econstructing o! some !etishize ob5ect.
;ssence i!!ers !rom abstract category in the important sense where the
various i!!erences in etail between the members o! the respective class
which are suppresse !or purpose o! e!ining an abstract category are
altogether lost while these istinctive etails remain latent an
potentially active/responsive in the case o! the etermination o! an
essence. 9ne might characterize the istinction here by noting that an
essence is a iachronic1 abstract category CabstractionD1 an an abstract
category is an e0ample o! a synchronic essence. "o the process by
which categories are generally brought into being Cthe very highest level
o! abstractionD is itsel! not an abstraction but an essence1 namely1 the
essence o! some particular person. "o the notion o! a person is that o! a
Kin o! iachronic an cohesive Ci! not altogether RcoherentSD category.
Qd
/n there is no concept o! personhoo as such because the etails that
must be suppresse in orer to e!ine the category1 person are 5ust those
points in which the tentative members o! the woul-be class1 persons
become the persons that they transcenentally are. Hn other wors1 H am
a person through the possession o! all o! those attributes that maKe me
unique1 that is1 istinct !rom that possesse any an all other persons
Can woul-be personsD.
R/nything you Know about can_t be you1S or1 R6he map is not the
territory1S
au=
*lfre Por(ybs'i.
=uman consciousness is e0pansive an open in the sense that we can
imagine how our very consciousness an sense o! ourselves1 both
iniviually an collectively woul-be raically change in light o!
unpreceente historical events1 e.g.1 the visitation o! ;arth by vastly
superior beings1 e.g.1 technologically avance e0traterrestrials. ?ut
consciousness is very limite1 but possessing great potential in the sense
that there are many such unpreceente happenings that we have not an
presently cannot conceive o! L still less1 the impact such events might
have upon human consciousness. /s
au=
>. ?. " =alane remarKe1
Reither there_s intelligent li!e on other planets or we are alone L either
way the implications are staggeringS. /n interesting thing about human
consciousness is that logically1 since we Know that one o! these two
alternative is true1 we shoul be e0hilarate1 however1 generally
speaKing no one is. Ht is as though the natural emotional reactions to
either contingency cancel each other out. 6he human min cannot
somehow embrace two mutually e0clusive alternatives an 5ust a
generalize agitation results as in the case o! gamblers awaiting the
outcome o! a sizeable bet in a contest which now appears it can go either
way.
Fe may contrast those who view ivine being as an outwar an upwar
pro5ection o! earthly e0istence into heavenly being with those who view
human e0istence in a manner 5ust the converse o! this.
6he state o! conscious awareness is the mani!est or1 more usually1 latent
state o! priviness to an copresence with the process o! the activity o!
ivine creative1 sustaining power that unerlies the metaphysical an
moral universe.
6he process o! evolution can be intelligently guie in the irection o!
greater goo1 even without the pre!iguring o! some eterminate1 esire
outcome.
@ow in terms o! the proper application o! the general term Ce0ample o!
abstract categoryD1 instinctive1 many human behaviors are !reely Cas
oppose to spontaneously?D perpetrate an so are not CproperlyD
escribe as being instinctive or Rinstinctual.S ?ut unerstaning the
term RinstinctiveS or RinstinctualS as enoting an essence Crather than an
abstract categoryD1 we might say that the behavior o! all animals are
instinctual in the sense o! being instinctually riven. =ere intelligence
or Rratio1S c.!.1 /ristotle_s claim that man is a Rrational animal1S is
unerstoo to be as much an aaptation o! an evolutionary process as is
the application o! intelligence. 9n this view1 since intelligent behavior
is still instinctual behavior an RintelligentS an RinstinctualS are ually
counterpoise1 we shoul say that intelligent behavior is a general or
abstract !eature o! certain types o! instinctual behavior.
=umanity may be ivie into two categories in terms o! how human
beings hanle su!!ering1 aversity1 humiliation1 isillusionment1 !ailure1
!rustration1 i.e.1 as a prie!ul go being impose upon or1 as a humble
servant being evelope1 trie an teste.
/ugust 2)*$ epi=
?e compassionate towar the smug an the cocKsure. 6heir sense o! loss is greater
than !or humbler !olK1 who count their blessings.
Hs sel!-awareness 5ust one among many possible particular structurings
o! consciousness or1 is it a peculiarly special structuring o! the same in
which it is important1 perhaps1 that it is a structuring prouce by the
very same brain processes that are prouctive o! whatever this sel!
consciousness is a structuring o!?
epi=
;ssence is partly comprise o! ChistoricalD origin1 substance an
continuity1 none o! which can harly be submitte to a complete
characterization in terms o! !ormal categories.
3ertainly i! we encountere particles possessing the very same
interaction an trans!ormation properties as some o! the alreay
iscovere elementary1 subatomic particles1 but o! much larger
spatiotemporal scale1 say1 appro0imating that o! billiar balls or1 perhaps
even smallish planetois1 a hypothesis as to the intelligent esign o!
these ob5ects might easily turn out to be the !avore opinion among all
the so-calle e0perts. 6he question here then becomes: how o we
e0plain the psychological signi!icance o! spatiotemporal scale in our
sub5ective impressions o! these ob5ects as being either o! RnaturalS or
supernatural origin?
3ompassion an wisom cannot grow but little without a necessary
tension e0isting between esire an obligation1 consciousness an will1
e!!ort an result that is encountere both within the sel! an witnesse
being playe out within the other. =ow else coul character be reveale
an realize?
9nly that which by its !ormal nature possesses a possible esign basis
may be built into the create orer. "omehow the attempt to !orm a
crystalline1 eterminate orer inevitably engeners iscontinuities.
6he incarnation1 ministry1 cruci!i0ion1 eath an resurrection o! 3hrist1
e!!ecting Cat least in potentiaD the reversal o! the erstwhile an woul-be
!ate o! all o! 8anKin1 precipitate originally by the e!!ective coupling
o! this power!ul1 symbolic act to a pervaing1 metaphysical
trans!ormation.
6he question arises as to whether or not brain processes1 taKing place at
the relevantly substantive level1 Ce.g.1 spatiotemporal scale o! physical
realityD prouce their e!!ect1 i.e.1 iniviual conscious states1 i.e.1 through
their symbolic signi!icance Cwithin a pree0istent RmicrolinguisticS
structureD.
-ree will is a tool o! instinct. "peculate upon the lessons learne about
humans by stuying mouse behavior. 6he so-calle unity o!
consciousness is 5ust the !ine grain o! the min_s moularity. "el! as
pro5ection o! survival !ocal vanishing point.
4ive a !ew remarKs concerning the psychology o! the human belie! in
substance.
:iscuss the istinction between essence an abstract category. ;ssence
may be thought o! as a concrete concept1 as a concept that possesses
coherence1 cohesiveness1 integral wholeness1 an a capacity !or growth
an evelopment. /n abstract category may be thought o! as sometimes
a Kin o! shaow cast within a pro5ective space o! a corresponing
essence an at other times1 a pure illusion1 i.e.1 not even the shaow o!
an essence1 but the shaow cast by an ob5ect implie1 pointe to1 but
which actually possesses no being1 i.e.1 oes not e0ist.
;0planations succee because o! the bacKgroun within which the
relations inhere. 6his is also true in the case o! any proper
Re0planationS o! consciousness. "peculate upon a R"helraKeanS
e0planation o! human consciousness.
9ught arising !rom is an consciousness arising !rom earthly creation
show Fill an Aepresentation arising together.
Hniviual substances possess no e0tension Cpro5ective spatialityD1 but in
concert with one another1 collectively1 spatiality1 as a merely relative
Can there!ore unconserveD quantity pro5ective spaces are constructe
an sustaine.
6he arising o! min !rom matter is 5ust as mysterious as the emergence
o! RoughtS !rom Ris1S c.!.1 Oant_s re!lection on what he consiere to be
the two greatest mysteries o! human e0istence1 i.e.1 Rthe starry heavens
above an the moral law within?S
-or a proper science o! consciousness to e0ist as apiece with a larger
multiisciplinary1 uni!ie science1 the very !abric o! the conceptual
mapping o! reality woul have to be ramatically altere L hence1 the
implication o! the e0istence o! secret1 higher Knowlege1 an there!ore1
by implication1 the being Cor beingsD to possess this Knowlege. -or
Knowlege to e0ist1 oes there always have to be a min somewhere in
which it Rsubsists?S Hn other wors1 i! Knowlege is ultimately not
abstract an !ormal1 then it requires continuity as part o! its basis.
H! this secret scienti!ic Knowlege is not reucible to intersub5ective Can
abstract structures o! relationsD1 then only the most evelope possible
consciousness1 the e0istence o! which is suggeste/implie here.
4o_s giving o! himsel! in instilling his breath in /am an his giving o!
himsel! Cin the boyD are somehow one an the same act.
Iiolent epictions are not harm!ul to the mature1 evelope min1 in an
o! themselves1 but without proper conte0t an guiing
e0planation/interpretation1 it can be positively inimical to the eveloping
soul.
9riginal "in an the !all o! 8an continually arises anew in each human
person_s biography1 in each generation. "o it is not original sin itsel!
that isseminates L 5ust its variations.
6here is a transcenentally separate time !or each iniviual
consciousness. 6here is no universal simultaneity in relativity theory.
6he !act o! nonlocality that is both limite an in!inite implies the
e0istence o! istinct internally coherent quantum vacua. Hnteracting
partitions o! =eisenberg uncertainty as proviing a possible solution to
the late time normalization parao0 Crelate to the argument !or
=eisenberg uncertaintyD originating with the quantum vacuum1 rather
than with real particles themselves.
6he monKey ieates as though his most tenuous an sub5ective
associations represent some Kin o! ob5ective logical in!erence to which
only he has privilege access.
Aeality is Listic an Lological ine!inite1 ambiguous1 an
overetermine. 9nly abstract !eatures are coherent C!ormallyD.
Hntrinsic coherence/cohesiveness oes not have a consistent !ormal
escription. Fill-phenomena are not reucible to a representation
because Fill an Aepresentation !orm with one another a uality1 c.!.1
au=
"chopenhauer_s Will an +epresentation.
/ healthy growth pattern !or the sel! is one which is outwar-
telescoping. 9ne is continually placing the events o! one_s Can their
patternD into a larger conte0t.
6he eterminism o! iniviual rama acte out in a heroic setting Cc.!.1
heroes o! 4reeK 8yths/.egens versus liberation o! the post-
historical/analytical1 spectator-liKe perspective o! the 9lympian gos.
H was the mouse too smart/cautious to try to taKe the cheese !rom the
trap.
"ometimes one must telescope inwar assuming a smaller1 more
earthboun ientity in orer to get one_s emboie sel! through the
trial/tribulation.
Fisom !only recollects its youth 5ust as a 4o contemplates the trials
an aventures o! his !avorite earthly hero.
Hs intense emotion roote in the breaKing !rom below o! the creature
CmonKeyD or a piercing o! the veil o! one_s personal heaven by the go
embeing one_s being.
Qd
"artre says that emotion is an attempt to
realize one_s esire by magic.
Ht is much more liKely that spatiality is a construct o! consciousness than
consciousness being a construct o! completely within spatiality.
6he phenomenon o! emergence involves the graual evelopment o!
new sustaining1 meiating groun1 which is progressively inepenent
o! the groun !rom which the interacting elements were originally
erive. ;mergence means the evelopment o! internal egrees o!
!reeom1 not commensurate with the egrees o! !reeom o! the
ingreient constituents o! the system.
"eptember 2)**
Chaos is the groun of
groun of e6istence while eiy is the groun of being.
/ sensitive1 reactive an ynamic meium o! elicate balance an
coorination that helpe the organism respon as quicKly an !le0ibly as
possible to a suen change in environment. 6hrough a !eebacK
process1 this meium came to taKe on a li!e an will o! its own.
H! such istinctions as those obtaining between1 say1 wisom an love are
in the !inal analysis reucible1 then human e0istence per se1 Rthe human
ramaS is itsel! an illusion o! no ob5ective reality an the reunancy o!
consciousness1 i.e.1 its ine!initely multiple realization in the lives o!
countless myria_s o! human beings who have been born o! this ;arth1
striven upon it !or a time1 an !allen bacK unto ruin L these shall have all
been the !anci!ul prouctions o! some solitary cosmic being. Hn this
case1 the e0periences o! one person o not become combine with those
o! any other an there is no such thing as a possible larger meaning !or
the e0periences o! iniviual human beings beyon what they
themselves gave to these e0periences.

6he overlapping uplicities o! the physical worl an the worl o!
consciousness in which physical ob5ects are arti!acts o! consciousness1
intersub5ectivity an the ineterminacy an nonlocality o! wave!unctions
o! quantum mechanical systems are mani!estations o! consciousness that
in!uses the physical.
@ew ata sets as potential templates !or the reprocessing o!
ata/in!ormation. /ll in!ormation is also ata !or reprocessing. Fhat
is the reprocessing potential o! human e0perience that maKes it so
metaphysically open-ene?
6ipler_s iea o! the 9mega 7oint as a point o! reprocessing an
uploaing o! human e0perience by an into the cosmic central
processing unit.
7rocessing is to reprocessing as iniviual human e0perience is to what?
.iKe >acK =aney_s R:eep 6houghtsS much though that passes !or
brilliant is at once inspire an totally misguie. 6his observation
woul ten to maKe us very curious about what essentially maKes !or
inspiration i!1 inee1 there is something besies commonly possesse
phenomenological !eatures to the phenomenon o! inspiration. /
phenomenon as such prompts us to ig own into its causal basis1
etiology Cin the case o! a RpathologySD1 or its other possible W-logical
!ounations.
4oo versus rehabilitate evil1 ;vil versus !allen gooness. C3.!.1
hanwritten notesD
-railty o! the boy an min in others can inspire the impulse to cull
weaKlings !rom the litter1 i.e.1 !eelings o! saistic cruelty1 or it can inspire
impulses to be solicitous1 pity1 compassion1 pro!oun concern1 i.e.1
!eelings o! nurturing.
3an a criminal human person be both un!ortunate victim o! society on
whom we shoul irect mercy an compassion an a saistic
aggressor/preator to be stampe out in a most harsh an pre5uicial
manner1 much liKe an animal lover ispatches a rabi og?
Hmagine a sticK !igure theater prouction about an unlove sticK !igure
human being. 6his woul be an e0cellent sub5ect o! stuy within a
psychology e0periment in which e0perimental participants_ sub5ective
reactions to what they are viewing is gauge an recore. 7articipants
are classi!ie into two categories1 as being either compassionate or
re5ecting Ctowar the un!ortunate sticK !igure.
Fe might question whether such a sympathetic character actually e0ists
since human beings very quicKly aapt to a harsh an unsympathetic
social environment by becoming themselves harsh an unsympathetic1
c.!.1 Rnoboy ever gave a amn about me1 so why in the hell shoul H
help youTS ?ut perhaps this !act shoul only compoun1 rather than
reuce our !eelings o! compassion !or members o! the owntroen1
homeless unerclass. "uch might point up the i!!erence between true
compassion or love versus the lower sentiment o! mere pity.
/ttacKing the genealogy o! an iea in terms o! previous religious or
sociopolitical conte0t in which this iea was originally conceive or
evelope harly constitutes the aequate maKings !or the iea_s
re!utation.
/ asKs ? a question about what ? values1 which can possess only one
answer appropriate to the value 5ugement o! ? mae by /. @ow / an
? have both !or some time been engage in social-boning talK an
although each !rom his part unerstans this to be the case1 one or both
nonetheless attributes a !act L reporting communicative intent to the
other. Fhat is parao0ical about this is that the whole point o!
engaging in social-boning talK is that the other participant with onesel!
in the iscussion is himsel! oing liKewise.
:ata processing base on quantum tunneling shoul not inter!ere with
the e0ecution o! the brain_s commans to contract this or that collection
o! muscle !ibers Cwhich is e!!ecte by purely classical/physical meansD1
but can be either !iltere out as structureless noise/spurious inputs.
6here is nothing elsewhere in the brain1 in the sense o! classical !orce or
momentum that is use by or can account !or the !act o! an electron or
ion tunneling across the potential i!!erence across a neural1 synaptic
cle!t.
9n the logarithmic scale o! brain processing power there is harly any
measurable i!!erence/ quantitatively between the thought processes o! a
RgeniusS versus those o! a Rcerti!iable moron.S Ht is the character an
quality o! a thought an not so much its i!!iculty level Cby some
scienti!ically base quantitative measureD that provoKes the response o!
terming something Rbrilliant.S
6rue sel! organization is not spontaneous assembly o! some coherent
structure accoring to some pree0isting algorithm1 but the spontaneous
assembly o! both the algorithm an the structure that is to hence!orth be
its realization. "o sel!-organization can only truly occur within an open
system Cone not possessing a eterminate structure an ynamicsD whose
action is meiate via nonlocal an noneterministic reactions an
interactions1 i.e.1 processes. 6eleology within an open system1 i.e.1
RincompleteS in a plenipotential sense1 necessitates an imaginative
!aculty o! will.
"imilar to our observation about the !act o! thought Cas suchD possessing
no abstract escription1 we might maKe the observation that entityhoo
Cin the sense o! RphysicalS ob5ectsD woul not amit an e0plication in
terms o! the Kinematics an ynamics o! entities.
Fithout an establishe !rameworK o! categorical istinctions an recipes
!or interpretation an action1 one is !ree to evelop one_s own system o!
istinction an supporting 5usti!icatory system o! implications1 c.!.1
conversation with ?laise 4uzzaro concerning responsibility !or
violations cite against /llison 8arine.
:iscuss the virtue an unintene consequences o! a regulatory system1
c.!.1 8icroso!t Finows hourglass icon Cthe preictable
RunpreictabilityS o! its appearance on one_s computer esKtop.
6he aura that some o! these longstaning philosophical questions have
about them is a !eeling that less than one orer o! magnitue woul
su!!ice to maKe their answer luicrously easy. 8any smart people
secretly perceive this !act an this perhaps e0plains the phenomenal lacK
o! interest in philosophical or metaphysical questions that us philosophy
craze !ish questioning the strange substance in which we breath1 swim
an have our being1 Ccoul this be a metaphor !or the relationship
philosophers have to their own orinary states o! consciousness?D taKe in
such questions. 9r perhaps each o! these philosophical truths1 i!
correctly state1 woul taKe the !orm o! an e0ceeingly comple0
theorem1 the truth o! which1 is not even meant to ever be graspe as a
uni!ie an whole insight.
6here is some gimmicK to there solution1 conceivable to some
preternatural human intellect1 which1 i! it coul be conveye to any
philosophically intereste person1 woul perhaps prouce an aha
e0perience that one woul soon enough assimilate.
6he pro!oun absence o! interest that Rorinary smart peopleS e0hibit
concerning questions that are searching an !ascinating !or many o! us
not so smart but having been bit by the e0istence-questioning bug.
6ruth versus issemination parao0 o! the 3hristian notion o! a personal
evil C"atanD.
-renzie1 impulsive behavior o! persons who allow the creature to taKe
over an irect their behavior.
6he question is whether each iniviual person possesses his own
groun !or his own being or whether his consciousness is simply
supervenient over the causal processes o! his own brain !unction.
"o much o! interpretation1 symbolic representation1 manipulation must
be instinctive or un-sel!conscious as there is so much comple0ity o!
structure to both semantics/ synta0 in human communication which has
been mastere only up to a simplistic level via mimesis1 but which then
seems to evelop on its own ynamic1 evolutionary Cgenetically-
programme?D path.
"till less can any e0planation !or the subtlety an virtuosity o! human
linguistic an nonverbal communication be accounte !or in terms o!
any available !orme instruction.
>esus sai1 R=e who gives up his li!e gains it an he who saves his own
li!e loses it..S @ow i! one believe this statement to be literal !act with
certainty1 then the very logic unerlying the supernatural power1 the
operation o! which1 this saying o! >esus escribes1 shoul be renere
null an voi. ?ut i! one RmerelyS believes this statement through !aith
to be somehow importantly metaphorically true C say in some
transcenent1 hyperliteral or1 larger than li!e sense1 then the logic o!
>esus_ saying has room within which to mani!est its most pro!oun truth.
"o on this new earthly li!e !or the 3hristian taKe place within a merely
metaphorical setting in which the choices each maKes possesses
metaphysical or reality-builing/e!ining importance.
-eebacK structure in which the bounary between phenomena an
groun is both appro0imate an relative an base on historical
continuity o! this !eebacK stretching bacK !ar enough so that re-
averaging e!!ects are negligible or unmeasurable. /n the postulate o!
ob5ective measurability is inconsistent with non-negligible e!!ects o!
historicity o! entanglement o! istinct causal levels o! escription. /n
e0ample o! supervenience Co! a statistical law over a causal processD
might be that o! the tenacity o! normalizability o! the wave!unction.
:iscuss the phenomenon o! R!eminine machismoS an its general
symptom o! an almost schizoi !eminine uplicity. ;0amine this
phenomenon in the particular e0ample o! the prioritizing o!
characteristic to be esire in a prospective mate Cvs. lover vs. victim
selecte uring Ra girls_ night out.S
?ecause o! this uplicity engenere by a con!lict between the
iniviual woman_s own substantive nees/requirements vs. those o! the
group hel by pro0y1 it is almost always !ruitless to attempt to cut a
woman out o! an away !rom Rthe pacK.S
Ythe controlling maleZV Ythe right man/3olin FilsonZV Ymoral
compartmentalizationZ
9ctober 2)*$ !cbK=
"am1 there was probably no way that 3olin Filson coul
have Kept the suspense builing a!ter the !irst thir o! his ?ooK1 6he
8in 7arasites. Ht was more than worth reaing the whole booK 5ust the
e0perience that buil up o! suspenseT -ew pieces o! !iction really
eliver on their promises because plot resolution is a le!t-brain thing Ca
close !ormD while suspense is an arti!act o! the right brain Copen-
eneD. Hn the ream Cthe archetype o! Eescape !ictionED1 the !igurative
an the literal are largely reverse. ,pon awaKening both must be put
bacK in their right!ul places.
Aeenactment as victim versus aopting the role Cor philosophy/ethicD o!
Rthe enemyS paraigm o! seeKing closure/resolution o! past relationship-
sel! issues by acting out within successive relationships.
Y-eynman/7arton ;!!ectZ
7arton ;!!ect as being ue to time ilation o! bining !orce-meiation
virtual boson e0changes?
/ny thing more than the voi itsel! is limitation.
8oral .aw possesses an inner necessity 5ust liKe physical law.
Aeconciliation o! 4o_s >ustice an 8ercy in satis!ying the logic o! a
real1 as oppose to a mocK creation.
"ub5ectivity is a raical !reeom to e!ine meaning Lwhen there is Rno
higher appealS versus when there is a Rhigher court.S 6o achieve
reality1 sub5ectivity must submit to the intersub5ective.
=umans are mammals up permanently on their hin legs. 6his seems a
cause !or much o! the human creature_s instinctive arrogance.
6elepathy is sometimes imagine as a !uture evolutionary evelopment
o! human mental capabilities1 perhaps only in the e0tremely istant
!uture o! the race. ?ut it seems more valuable to maKe Known one_s
thoughts to another only when one wishes them so Known.
Fe are not integrally whole1 it is 5ust that the pieces o! the 3himera that
is 8an are so very tiny an hence beneath the resolving power o! any
iniviual human being_s sel! perception. =ence we naturally appear
to ourselves to possess wholeness CRholinessSD an integrity as uni!ie
beings.
/ny appearance is capable o! being sustaine in its seeming inepenent
state o! animation C!or a timeD without this appearance possessing a
groun !or some being-hoo.
9ne reaches a point o! iminishing returns at the crossover !rom new
horizons being opene by the in!luence o! a power!ul1 evelope
personality to one_s growth1 becoming limite by terms set by this
person_s worlview.
;volution o! language is perhaps ue to a mi0ture o! collective error1
logical !allacy1 isingenuousness1 contamination by conceptual maps o!
!oreign speaKers o! the language1 etc.
9scillation is the most reunant action. 8oes mean the outcome o!
stimulus or e0citation is preetermine by an Rin!rastructure.S
3onsciousness is uncertainty non-conserving in its action1 o! course.
9ne shoul not 5uge a booK by its cover1 but it is wise to 5uge a booK
by the volumes in the booKcase lying ne0t to it.
Hs the iniviual consciousness a realization o! an in!inite symmetry
group1 i.e.1 a symmetry group comprising an unlimite Crather than
eterminate-in!initeD number o! elements an trans!ormations. Hs the
appearance o! !orms within consciousness ue to the removal o!
egeneracies?
6he action o! will presupposes the e0ternality o! consciousness to itsel!1
i.e.1 consciousness_ sel!-transcenence.
3an a parallel be rawn between the way matter an the quantum
vacuum interact through the e0change o! momentum an energy an the
way the brain e0changes ata an in!ormation with this Cvery same?D
vacuum?
Fhat attitue is cultivate by contemplating the being o! that which one
will never Know?
.et_s not con!oun the !lowering an proli!eration o! the unique with the
universal.
8ono_s statement that the genetic coe_s meaning is arbitrary: conte0t
can cause elements to more coherently interact. -iltering o! e0perience
through narrative metaphor: you live in their house1 o errans !or1 a
meieval scholar1 unrequite love1 chaste li!e1 aulterous thoughts1
sublimate by lay an noble servant - ynamics o! memes an
arbitrariness o! meaning.
6here is the accumulation o! missing complementary structure Chere
what is missing is e!ine in avanceD1 an then there is the activation o!
the !unction o! the Rcomplete structure.S 6here is also the ynamic to
consier o! the bacK reacting o! this activate structure upon its
sustaining groun.
6his is much liKe an e0ploe iagram view o! he integrally whole1 e.g.1
human boy1 5et engine1 etc.
7latonism is unermine by the notions o! a shi!ting groun an
metaphysical worK. 7latonism may be style as Rmetaphysical special
creation.S
@ot merely relative between elements given once an !or all1 but the
iniviuals themselves must be relative.
;ntities cannot persist through a changing groun unless they transcen
this groun in their origin an sel!-sustaining activity.
Fhat is the i!!erence between the ?ible containing 4o_s For an its
being 4o_s For? Hn other wors1 is the phenomenon o! language
universal or unique?
Hnspire versus illumine - as in bringing some light to a arK room.
:oes the structure o! the ;lsewhere Aegion Coutsie the 8inKowsKi
lightconeD require the action o! nonlocally connecte quantum !iels?
6he capacity to etect inconsistencies in thought1 perceive the
parao0ical1 sense irony1 istinguish vulnerable or unwarrante
assumptions !rom those that are more robust L these are 5ust a !ew
e0amples o! what maKes !or critical awareness. ?ecause we o not
Know i! this critical awareness is a necessary component o!
consciousness1 we cannot tell whether reams1 in which this component
o! consciousness is more or less utterly absent1 are actually e0perience
within the moment o! their being pro5ecte by the unconscious min or1
i! they only appear to have been e0perience consciously as a result o!
pro5ection by the recollection o! waKing consciousness.
6he istinctness o! iniscernibles CRwhen each is consiere by itsel!SD
is the !ounation o! the realization o! number. ?ut number itsel! as a
metaphysical category is itsel! the !ounation o! this istinctness.
@umber Cas categoryD is the basis o! its realization. Hs this proposition
tautologous vacuous?
"o-calle natural selection must be an e0tremely super!icial
mani!estation o! a eeper process o! selection taKing place on myria
multiple levels an possessing1 unliKe super!icial Rnatural selection1S its
own internal ynamic an principle o! orer. Ht appears that a solitary
imension o! time is an inaequate bacKrop !or evolutionary change.
/ solitary time imension1 however1 is probably an aequate stage !or
the playing out an mani!esting o! structures alreay realize.
=ow watching a Rsnu!! !ilmS on the Hnternet gave me the insight that
"atan !ervently wants Forl 7eace. Ht is similar to the iea o! how a
large scale1 inustrical/ agricultural chicKen !arm is able to prouce eggs
at such proigious capacity L by maintaining conitions in which the
chicKens o not have to compete !or !oo or mates. 6emperature1
humiity1 lighting1 etc. an all other relevant conitions are also
maintaine at ieal levels.
6he cruelty o! 3hrist_s treatment at the hans o! =is tormenters who
brought =im to the cross an cruci!ie =im provie the clearest
representation o! Rman_s inhumanity to man.S /n 3hrist willingly
su!!ere this utmost mani!estation o! original sin1 this act being the very
act by which 4o chose to reach own to 8an in o!!ering 8an the gi!t
o! salvation by grace through !aith. 6o be properly prepare to receive
the gi!t o! salvation1 each human being must personally ienti!y with the
sin committe against 3hrist in the perpetration o! the cruci!i0ion by
8an upon =im. 9ne must essentially see onesel! as equivalent to those
who torture an cruci!ie >esus 3hrist1 i! one_s heart is to be
su!!iciently receptive to the 4ospel_s message o! salvation. ?ut as long
as the iniviual run_s !rom this insight into his complicity in the
cruci!i0ion1 one is immune to conviction by the =oly "pirit. /!ter all1 it
is one_s own sin which has necessitate 4o_s act o! emboiment in the
!orm o! a man an =is sub5ection to cruci!i0ion at humanKin_s han.
>uly 2)**
6he notion o! original sin was invente by manKin because he
ha reache a stage in the evolution o! his awareness o! sel! which
permitte him to !irst glimpse in himsel! this hieous an hate!ul
ugliness which he Keenly realize ha always been lurKing there. Ht was
this same hieous sel!1 which was by its nature so vulnerable to the most
obscene !lattery. /bsolute power corrupts absolutely1 only because the
prospect o! absolute power entices so absolutely. 8an also recognize
that this part o! himsel! was so prie!ul that it woul Kill even a great
an loving bene!actor i! it but were given the chance. -or such a
bene!actor1 i! success!ul woul bring about a moral orer in which this
greey1 lust!ul1 covetous an hate!ul sel! woul !in no place.
QdQd
Aecast each biblical narrative1 which illustrates manKin_s !ailings
into a :"8 style list o! iagnostic inicators !or various personality
isorers.
6here is this uality o! in!ormation versus that which this in!ormation is
about. ?ut there is also the physical aspect o! this in!ormation as itsel!
a possible content intene or re!erre to by other in!ormation1 i.e.1 the
physical emboiment1 i! you will1 o! this in!ormation. /lso1 the
re!erentCsD o! in!ormation may Can usually oD contain in!ormation
itCthemD selC!Dves. Fhat about the istinction between the meaning o!
in!ormation1 its content1 an then the that to which the in!ormation
re!ers?
@ature appears to transgress so many o! the bounaries Co! vast1
pro5ective spaces that are ue to e0trapolations o! abstract
generalizations !rom too limite e0perience1 i.e.1 the Rmore o! the sameS
principleD implie by the categories pose by our theories. @ature oes
this because behavior base upon science_s simulate combination or
integration o! separate sets o! conitions into a whole is an inaequately
eep escription o! how such an actual whole woul !unction as a
system.
3an the temporality o! consciousness o! the iniviual as such really be
orthogonal with respect to the irection o! the temporality o! the
trans!ormation o! the !orms inhering within this consciousness?
Fouln_t this maKe consciousness_ !orms an !ormal trans!ormations
into 5ust an empty shaow play? 6he temporality e0hibite by the
!orms o! consciousness is erive !rom the temporality o! consciousness
as such. =ow oes the temporality o! each iniviual consciousness !it
into the physical picture o! temporality as being a mani!estation o!
!unamental processes taKing place within the quantum vacuum?
Fhen nature oes not Know how to procee !urther1 she hols hersel! in
abeyance until help arrives1 e.g.1 quantum superposition.
"eeing the sin nature in one_s !ellow man maKes !or a isheartening
cynicism. Aealizing that this appearance is but re!lections o! that sin
nature within one_s own being is a convicting e0perience.
3an perceive its own isunity1 4ohoo1 4oliKe1 goliness. :ivinity
o! otherness an the impulse to pro5ect this to RothersS Cas sel!D.
3oincience as learning epiphenomenon. 8ental illness as equal parts
weaKness o! the will with weaKness o! cognition.
-reu woul have been correct in viewing the ei!ice o! culture as being
a monolithic monument to the power o! se0ual sublimation. ?ut
"haKespeare ha a much eeper an broaer an hence more vali
theory o! what mae up the substance o! human e0istence. @ot only
se01 but circumstance1 e.g.1 o! birth as being noble or not1 say1 !ate1 an
one_s !ellow man are also important controlling !actors in maKing man
what he ultimately becomes.
/nother e0ample o! logocentrism: the notion o! R8anS Cwith a capital
R8SD.
Fe realize insights !requently1 on the one han1 through the noting o!
parallel istinctions1 but this taKes us only so !ar. ;ventually1 this
parallelism CegeneracyD is remove in light o! newly evelope
conitions. 9r were the two istinctions all along an secretly cutting
across one another? -or e0ample1 consier the notions o!
reproucibility an reversibility. ?ut here we say what is reprouce is
really only a set o! appearances1 or1 abstractions. Hs consciousness itsel!
the ultimate abstract generalization? 6here is always a i!!erent set o!
inputs require to prouce the same Cappearance o!D outputs an yet
there is at the same time1 a tenacious threa connecting the manner in
which the input sets are varie so as to maintain a constant output L this
is an e0ample o! the nonrepresentational/participatory nature o! a
!eebacK circuit.
8ust there result a shi!t in the nature o! the cases that we have always
assume !orme an e0haustive set1 once we iscover an altogether
hereto!ore unsuspecte new case?
:econstruction use to overthrow the oppression o! the great masters
an geniuses o! Rthe canon.S
8etaphysics o! presence1 logocentrism1 etc.
Fe mimic the outwar !orm while entertaining a peculiar acceptation o!
this !orm_s content1 which in!luences via the mechanism o! society1 an
evolution o! this !orm as though this cultural !orm possesse an inner
ynamism o! its own1 an human beings were seize by it as instruments
o! its worKing out. 6he RpresenceS o! the human !orm an
physiognomy1 above question1 e0cept by those whom the hive-min
suppresses with the label1 schizoi1 schizophrenic1 schizophreni!orm1
schizotypal1 etc.1 because !ailure to perceive this inevitably natural
human presence is the pro!oun earmarK o! a min in a issociative
state. ?ut secretly everyone Knows in their hearts that presence is not
absolute but an arti!act o! our tacit collusion into which we have all been
care!ully shephere by each previous generation. Fithout chilren as
a constant istraction an isruption to meitation upon the sel!1 its
e0istential preicament1 we shoul many o! us sooner or later thinK our
way out o! our cozy1 wet paper bag L much to our horror an ismay.
H! there are such things as phantom concepts1 then there must be such a
thing as real consciousness1 beauty1 gooness1 truth1 beauty1 gooness1
number1 in!inity1 contraiction.
9ne o! the intriguing characteristics o! ieas pointe out by meme
theory is the marKe tenency !or ieas to isseminate wiely long
be!ore they are !ully or even more or less well unerstoo.
6he tragic-romantic-poetic nature o! the phenomenon o! !aith as the one
attribute e0hibite by man that has any chance o! attracting the attention
an sympathy o! the 4os.
Qd
8etaphysical presence as a Kin o! !aith unerlying all human
eneavor1 c.!.1 "antayana_s worK on /nimal -aith.
?ecause H was o!!line an inGt realize it. 6he suggestion o! the 8ozilla
Rlow-resS inosaur1 which appears whenever one clicKs on a weblinK
when not connecte to the Hnternet1 here is humorous an somewhat
o!!ensive to us EinosaursE who1 even as aults1 preate the Hnternet1
namely1 that everything which happene be!ore the Hnternet is
EprehistoryE. Aemins me o! a paraphrase o! "antayanaGs Cthe
philosopherGs1 not the 8e0ican war heroGsD remarK that those who
iscount history are oome to repeat it.
Aobust cohesiveness o! a ynamic system epens on overetermination
itsel! base in quantum egeneracy. 6he phenotype-egeneracy o! the
human genome is necessary !or the robustness o! the human organism.
@ovember 2)*$
9! course1 the phenotype is capable o! !ocusing an !iltering
the !orces o! natural selection1 c.!.1 the two theories o! how both the sel!
an language starte !rom the outsie an worK their way RinsieS
though the enabling o! !ocusing an !iltering o! natural selective !orces
acting upon behavioral genetics o! say1 homo erectus.
/re all our escriptions base merely in phenomenology?
Fe so !luently speaK with our native tongue that we are normally quite
unaware o! the myria borrowing !rom !oreign sources1 the historical
crystallization o! the arbitrary1 an how the !lowing comple0ity o! our
8uttersprache largely mae up o! polysyllabic utterances each
ecomposable into monosyllabic grunts originally only so istinct as to
capture the istinctions o! perception an impulse available to
7aleolithic 8an.
3onsciousness is raically !ree i! essence is but a pro5ection o! this
consciousness. ;ssence is then
Kw
=rei!ication o! possibilities conceive
by consciousness.
:issemination can simulate the generality o! abstract essence that
otherwise is reveale in correlate mani!estations o! this essence1 c.!.1
Revery time a bell rings1 an angel gets its wingsS with Revery time you
smile1 you bless a chil.S
3reation1 i! it is to live up to the essential meaning o! the wor1 must
always begin as something1 though integrally whole1 is nonetheless
totally arbitrary Cwithout purpose?D but must acquire meaning through
the ynamism with which it sustains its integralness.
/ pure representation is a pure mani!estation an so possesses no
integral wholeness/ cohesiveness Cas a collection o! interacting elements1
that isD. 3an representations possess the nature o! physical boies?
/re RthingS an abstraction in some sense synonymous? 9r oes a
thing possess an integral wholeness lacKing in a representation? 9r is
the integral nature o! representations e0ternal1 as oppose to internal1 as
in the case o! CphysicalD things?
Hnsights can never be !ully communicate i! it taKes an entire
philosophical opus with which to o it. /s a certain unKnown limit
point o! iminishing returns has such an opus can inspire other great an
intuitive mins to !orm philosophical insights o! their own.
6o believe that we can e0trapolate evolution !orwar by looKing at our
pro5ections o! it into the past is to !orget that natural selection acts upon
ranom variations in hereitary characteristics.
:o we esire to see 4o to have our questions answere1 or is our
yearning !or answers to eep questions a symptom o! a esire to see
4o?
Iarious !orms o! egeneracy are necessary !or the growth o! structure in
which the process o! growth oes not inter!ere with those structures
alreay evolve an incorporate into the system.
6rans!ormation o! newly invente Cas oppose to RstocKSD metaphors
uring the course o! their mutual in!luence Csemantic !iel interactionD
as they are sequentially incorporate into a composition1 is a translogical
!orm o! thinKing that brings whole systems o! semantic relations into
play1 instantaneously1 rather than by sequential aition/construction.
6he istinction o! aliens-isguise-as-humans vs. humans is trans!orme
an taKen up into1 or moulate by1 the so-calle entity theory Co!
personal ientityD as a result o! our recasting this uality into a !orm
which appears to sharpen it Cc.!.1 image enhancement1 pattern
recognition1 etc.D.
rsc+
;ntity theory1 so-calle is actually pre!igure in
many gnostic writings as well as constituting a central metaphysical
ogma o! "cientology.
"etting impenetrable bounaries !or ourselves helps to strengthen the
meaning o! the !reeom that remains.
=ow oes 4o Know that there is not secretly some meta-4o above
him who remains silent an uninvolve1 permitting 4o to believe that
he is the master o! ?eing?
8ay 2)** Qd
/nalogous to how the ,niverse was
originally thought to be alone1 but later was iscovere to be a
RmultiverseS1 maybe 4o is only a small part o! the R8ulti-4oS.
3reation was in its !irst attempts a Kin o! instinctive solution to
ar'ness. Hnstinctive because it was happening everywhere an
everywhen1 perhaps at !irst only in !it!ul an abortive starts. /t !irst
there was brie! light1 but then this light was quicKly e0tinguishe1 then
light appeare but with a little more structure an ballast this time so that
it laste longer1 but then collapsing bacK into silent arKness. 6he !irst
time that this burgeoning1 bubbling an gurgling process o! min
attempting to bootstrap itsel! out o! nothingness ha gaine any real1
lasting an intellible !oothol on being 5ust might have been that very
instance in which you came into being9 :oes 4o have the same
uncertainty concerning the Re0istence o! other minsS as o we =is
allege creatures? 7resumably not because 4o possesses a privilege
access to the contents o! our mins which is even greater an more
intimate than the private access each iniviual has to the contents of
his own min. "o there must be two classes o! intersub5ectivity: that
between Rsmall sS selves an that between small s selves an Rthe big "S
"el!. C6he intersub5ectivity o! multiple big " "elves so-calle turns out
to be reucible to the same type o! intersub5ectivity as that between
Rsmall sS selves an this is perhaps the basis !or the uniqueness o! 4o_s
being qua Rbeing o! the groun o! beingS.D 6he sub5ectivity o! small s
selves must be somehow less private than the sub5ectivity en5oye by
the large " "el!. "o the sub5ectivity o! the small s sel! can be
aitionally entertaine by the large " "el!1 an this all because the
concept o! consciousness as !oune upon consciousness as an abstract
property hel in common amongst all small s selves is not an incoherent
notion. 3onsciousness possesses an outsie in aition to an insie.
6he notion o! topology o!!ers itsel! here !or consieration.
Qd
.iKe a postulate that is RemonstrateS in terms o! what is shown to
!ollow !rom it1 meaning-giving metaphors/narratives may be chosen at a
stage when they are virtually arbitrary1 but upon their issemination an
aaptive raiation an incorporation into the !abric o! the culture1 these
metaphors are RemonstrateS to be anything but arbitrary.
Hnconsistency an/or con!lict between the sel!-conscious an
unassuming moes o! presentation. Puantum 8ar0ist-7hysicist. 6he
way some o! the gos o! 9lympus amire their !avorite emigos.
/ conitional presupposes eterminate preconitions. 6he appearance
o! emergent novelty transcens any system o! conitional relations.
Qd
?y Rlyrical perceptionS is meant perception which seems to be the
observations o! a character within some narrative. ;0perience is here
recore elsewhere than 5ust in the memory o! the person whose solitary
perception it is an the perception itsel! seems to be an event in a story
as escribe by an omniscient narrator.
6he Rall you ha to o is asKS logical 5usti!ication !or the nature o!
3hristian prayer. Ht is only years a!ter the !irst !lush o! youth has passe
that one gets an insight into how large is the instinctive component o!
ating an courtship behavior. ?ut eventually even the most eicate
health nut meets with his true aging-riven ownwar per!ormance1 i.e.1
RyingS curve.
Qd
Ht is liKely that1 on 3homsKian principles o! the brain_s specialization1
that each person goes through li!e not Knowing some otherwise simple
principle1 i.e.1 missing some Key Rmeme1S one that almost everyone else
possessesT 3homsKy was !on o! saying that one can only be goo at
one or two things i! one is also very ba at a lot o! other things.
3ertainly this is to be e0pecte i! human evolution has always been
riven by natural selection operating almost e0clusively within a social
conte0t in which a certain egree o! genetic Can also RmemeticSD
specialization amongst the various tribal/clan members promote greater
survival !or the breeing population as a whole.
3ontemplate the meaning o! the phrase1 Rlyrical nature o! perception.S
-eebacK cycles o! cause an e!!ect within the purely locally connecte
matri0 o! the ynamic system cannot prouce the same level o! sel!-
resonance or an orere state o! integral wholeness to the e0tent
achievable through control meiate by nonlocal interactions.
@onlocally connecte systems though simultaneous with respect to one
time a0is in all istinct .orentz !rames may be nonsimultaneous with
respect to orthogonal time a0es.
3onsciousness presupposes egrees o! !reeom by which the min may
!orm an integral escription o! itsel!.
3onceptual thought b logical L 8etaphorical thought b associative
3onitioning o! a stimulus-response being through repetitive
5u0taposition. /ssociative mental processes can be superimpose upon
language Ca phenomenon that transcens RthoughtS that is e0clusively
associativeD to prouce patterne wor sequences that are suggestive to
the !aculties o! conceptual thought.
/nthropic cosmological principle is an attempt to maKe natural selection
o! ranom variation e0plain the presence o! all orer an comple0ity
rather than 5ust that o! biological systems1 which otherwise woul
presupposes a graciously provie orer o! atoms1 molecules1 an
physical law. 6here is an implie circularity o! the /nthropic
3osmological 7rinciple at worK here that is similar to that associate
with ;verett_s 8any Forl_s interpretation o! quantum mechanics. Fas
there then a secret agena behin the evelopment o! the anthropic
cosmological principle? Iariation1 even i! ranom1 oes not account !or
the orer o! that which is the sub5ect o! this variation. 6hat which is
!ounational to the orer o! a given system must itsel! possess an orer
greater than anything that might be mani!est within this system. -or
this !ounation coul have prouce something i!!erent !rom what oes
e0ist an the properties or relationships pointe up by a comparison o!
these variants cannot be e0hibite or containe within any one o! them
singly. 6his remins us o! the problem o! e!ining or iscerning a
Rconcept o! consciousnessS.
Qd
3onsciousness points to the being o! 4o
5ust as the will points to the !act that my actions are not reucible to the
vector sum o! all o! the !orces acting upon my physical being !rom
without. ?ut at some level o! the re!lecting o! the orer o! the iniviual
soul short o! actual per!ection1 the soul realizes its true ientity as a
broKen creation o! 4o requiring repair. Ht is probably that without the
avent o! >esus1 this repair o! the broKen ientity shoul not have been
possible.
6he presuppositions o! !aith cannot be arrive at by reason1 nor can the
propositions or reason1 e.g.1 comple0 mathematical theorems1 be arrive
at by !aith alone.
Ht has been sai or implie in one !ashion or another by some
unorthoo0 or 4nostic 3hristian thinKers that Reach human being
represents a more or less unsuccess!ul attempt to create a >esus.S Hn
other wors each o! us1 accoring to this amittely heretical view1
represents an unsuccess!ul attempt o! the ivine to incorporate itsel! into
the worl o! creation. 6his creation is consiere by orthoo0
3hristianity to be in a R!allenS state an this view is also share by all o!
the more 4nostic versions o! 3hristian belie!. 6he escent o! 4o into
=is creation1 through the avent o! 3hrist_s birth1 is a more or less open
amission that the !irst attempt1 represente by /am1 was not a
worKable path towar in!using the ivine nature into that o! creation1
an all o! us who have come a!ter constitute nothing more nor less than
a continue con!irmation o! this sa !act. /pparently1 it is the
meiation o! the process o! incarnation1 via the elements alreay present
within this create orer that pose the insuperable barrier to the entrance
o! the :ivine 7resence into the worl. /n this barrier has a very
convenient term by which we re!er to it. /n that term is simply "in.
6here is something inherent in the very substance o! creation1 which1 we
are tol1 was not put there by 4o1 but was introuce into creation by
8an1 having sprea liKe a virulent contaminant throughout the entire
e0panse o! this creation accessible to us. Fe are all chilren o! 4o the
?ible tells us1 an the more mystically incline o! us suspect that the
only thing which actually prevents us !rom being co-equal to 3hrist1 the
very !irst among 4o_s chilren1 is 5ust the presence o! this pervasive
contaminant o! sin1 which blocKs the connection between our immanent
an transcenent selves.
Qd
6aKing our lea !rom the wor holy1 which is etymologically speaKing1
closely relate to such wors as whole1 hale1 holistic1 hole1 etc.1 we may
suppose that1 given that 3hrist was holy1 an that no iniviual human
being possesses such holiness1 that there!ore1 3hrist represents in some
sense the entering o! the ivine soul into creation wholly intact1 while
each iniviual human being enters this same creation by being born.
/n continuing along with our etymologically inspire hunch1 we might
!urther suppose that the ivine presence e0ists alreay in creation1
in!using it in some way that is less than integrally whole an complete1
an that each human soul that comes to inhabit a newly engenere
human boy oes so through a graual gathering together o! this
i!!usely istribute1 ivine soul stu!!. ?ut this congealing1 i! you will1
o! the ivine soul stu!! always stops short o! a complete unity or uni!ie
soul1 but continues through earthly e0istence !rom this time until eath
in a state which is a Kin o! Rcorrupt versionS o! that soul which1 alreay
integrally whole1 entere the human boy o! the person >esus 3hrist. "o
there is a isorer in the manner in which1 either this soul stu!! is
istribute throughout physical creation1 or1 i! this pervasive presence is
itsel! per!ectly orere1 cannot ever become per!ectly mani!est within
corporeal human e0istence.
9r is min mostly an illusion while only its temporal snapshot1
consciousness1 actually subsists in reality. =ere consciousness1 through
Knowlege o! its various other temporal instantiations imagines that it
possesses an integrity beyon that which it amittely possesses within
any o! its given moments1 rei!ying itsel! into a transtemporal entity
calle 8in. 6his pro5ect is only mae possible however via the
!unctions o! memory an its accessibility Known as recollection.
7erhaps recollection is only a tuning o! the brain to a particular set o!
resources an memory is 5ust a region CspatiotemporalD o! greatly
enhance probability Crelative to something elseD !or the reacquiring o!
this proper tuning L a zeroing-in mechanism !or reaching a resonant
state.
3onsciousness is only a state an !unction o! min. 8in only presents
itsel! to a particular iniviual singly an then only in the !orm o! the
slimmest sliver o! its entire potential1 in!initely varie spectrum. Fe
may say that consciousness is min merely in its temporal aspect while
min itsel! appears to transcen consciousness1 which is so much as a
moving snapshot o! itsel! roote as it is in a particular spatial an
temporal conte0t.
8ay 2)**
6he unconscious perhaps participates within the
time stream o! e0perience conscious states1 its time stream though
without being limite to necessarily move in locK step with this stream
o! consciousness.
Fhat is it about a hunch that maKes it pan out an what maKes !or a
hunch that mis!ires?
Qd
Fhat is being pointe to here be the strengths an weaKnesses peculiar
to associative thinKing. 3ertainly associative thinKing1 when one either
has insu!!icient in!ormation or when the situation is too comple0 to be
analyze logically in the time available to one1 is a valuable !aculty even
i! sometimes proucing less than satis!actory results. ?ut the habit o!
inulging in associative thinKing in pre!erence to maKing reay use o!
logical thinKing an critical 5ugement is angerous1 both to one_s
physical being as well as one_s reputation among one_s peers. "ome
people1 whom we might escribe as intuitive or artistic1 show such
pre!erence as though they believe their associative mental processes
were somehow superior to RmereS logic. 6he RreasoningS o! such types
appears to be base upon a simple structural similarity o! ieas or a
liKeness to these ieas_ originating conte0ts. 6his Kin o! reasoning
evinces in these people a cognitive style an manner o! acting that
appears to most o! us1 who are more rational1 as !lighty1 !laKy1 an
inconsistent1 an all this with1 o! course1 !or these people sometimes
isastrous results. "uch persons as these may e0hibit a greater
impulsiveness than most. ,nusual an un!ortunate accients1 social
con!licts an legal preicaments seem to be!all them with great
regularity1 an their style o! living appears anything but routine. "uch
persons e0hibit a pattern o! always Rreinventing the wheelS at all levels
o! eneavor1 seemingly re!using to evelop any pat routines. 6he
tenency o! these people to maKe in any situation many previously
untrie1 e0ploratory attempts at interacting with the environment1
combine with a less than normal moicum o! caution1 may e0plain
most o! what positively goes wrong in their lives1 relative to those o! us
with more settle ways an li!estyle.
R/ !amily is a group o! iniviuals who all maKe the very same thing or
activity the central priority an !ocus o! their lives.S 6his is clearly an
unconventional e!inition o! !amily. Aee!initions liKe this are eceptive
in the sense o! being e0peient1 rhetorical manipulations where a
metaphorical re!erent is e!tly substitute !or the genuine article L a
tactic1 we might have observe1 that is more an more commonly use
nowaays !or political or propaganistic purposes. Fhat permits such
e!initions to become accepte1 with surprising swi!tness1 H might a1 is
that usually only a shi!t o! attention has been e!!ecte by such ree!ining
o! terms. Ht is inee true that the members o! a !amily Cin the !ull-
blooe1 traitional sense o! the termD strongly ten towar the same or
similar priorities1 even i! this is 5ust the !amily unit itsel! or its members.
6he ree!inition o! !amily above has simply replace !amily as the !ocus
o! !amily-hoo with some other thing or activity1 say science !iction
!anom Ceach can cite oneGs own e0ampleD. /n so the ree!inition here
has simply taKen what was common to !amily all along1 but which ha
been in the bacKgroun1 an brought this aspect to the !ore!ront an
pushing the traitional sub5ect o! the term into the bacKgroun. @o small
amount o! equity has been veste in a term1 such as in our e0ample
above L !amily1 an a ree!inition liKe that implie above may inee be
seeKing to borrow much o! this valuable stocK1 shi!ting as much o! it as
possible1 graually over time to the new entity or activity being labele
by this ol term. Ht was 5ust such sort o! manipulations o! the terms o!
public iscourse that 9rwell use to arKly illuminate the setting o! his
ystopian novel1 *2N(.
6here can1 o! course1 be no Rob5ectiveS or intersub5ective basis !or one_s
personal ientity1 in the sense o! there being an as yet uniscovere
ob5ective reason !or my being the particular iniviual that H am1 rather
than1 say1 the person who sat ne0t to me on the bus on the last occasion
on which H availe mysel! o! my city_s public transportation1 c.!.1
@agel_s booK1 6he Iiew -rom @owhere1 the chapter on 8in.
"tructural versus conte0tual-elemental aspects o! metaphors: many
i!!erent metaphors can be chosen to e0hibit a structural relationship
between newly perceive elements1 but this choice is narrowe when
one tries to !in the most appropriate content !or the metaphor.
Qd
Puantum cryptography an sub5ective states:
e!!able M ine!!able
9b5ective M ? M sub5ective M
"ub5ective M ob5ective M ? M
6he above table suggests that1 since we on_t really Know how to
interpret the con5oint categories1 ob5ective-e!!able an sub5ective-
ine!!able1 that the two Ra0es1S ob5ective-sub5ective1 e!!able-ine!!able are
not mutually inepenent or Rorthogonal.S .et us try another version o!
this table.
e!!able M ine!!able
"ub5ective
*
M M M
"ub5ective
2
M M M
e!!able M ine!!able
"ub5
*
/a "ub5
2
M M M
"ub5
*
v "ub5
2
M M M
3oincience as learning epiphenomenon. 8ental illness as equal parts
weaKness o! the will with weaKness o! cognitive capacity.
3an perceive its own isunity. 4ohoo1 4oliKe1 goliness1 etc.
RFelcome1 pro!essor .+?*N)21 to the 2*
st
3enturyTS :ivinity o!
otherness an the impulse to pro5ect this otherness to RothersS Cas sel!D.
Hnternal consistency vs. coherence within cognition/perception. 6he
peagogical esign basis o! the human imension o! reality.
7urposes o! consciousness: a clearinghouse o! unconscious processing
o! e0perience1 simulation o! mental states o! competitors1 preators1
potential mates1 this iea can be e0pane in terms o! -reu_s instinct
theory o! the psyche. 6he simulation o! potential mates as a !unction o!
consciousness may provie an evolutionary basis !or unerstaning the
natural selective value o! homose0uality.
Hnterpretation o! all current sensory an perceptual ata. 7lat!orm !or
comparison an prioritizing o! competing motivations an impulses. /s
a Kin o! hyper-short-term memory bu!!er in which evanescent time
parao0es generate by nonlocal quantum processes in the brain are
Rirone out.S 6he relative time orer is assigne an/or e!ine1 c.!.1
timing e0periments o! ?en5amin .ibet.
.iteral mineness vs. metaphysical presence.
>ust because one ha not articulate one_s intention !or action prior to
the taKing o! this action oes not imply that the action was unintentional
or unplanne.
H! a man RmaKes itS to age () without having marrie1 chances are that
he will remain a bachelor. ?esies having passe the phase o! being
goae against his better 5ugment by hormones to taKe up with what
will probably turn out to be an Runsuitable partner1S the critical
e0pectations o! women who have been traumatize out o! a romantic
attitue uring their youth the oler bachelor anticipates woul raically
trans!orm C!or the worseD lonely !reeom in !avor o! an oppressive an
harrie e0istence within a couple.
8oreover1 the lies about himsel! that he tol to himsel! in his youth are
not liKely to be graciously rein!orce by his new1 mili!e partner1 who is
more liKely to continually remin him o! his having become a !ailure
relative to conventional stanars o! Rsuccess.S 6he un-sel!-conscious
provie the grist !or analysis by the sel!-conscious.
/ll metaphysical riles can be best attacKe by analysis o! time_s
phenomenology.
3onsciousness cannot be erivative o! the interplay o! abstract symbols
or things since consciousness is the preconition o! all abstraction an
abstract processes.
8olecules per!orming computations in the absence o! a system o!
representation as the basis o! the evolution o! comple0ity seems ubious.
@othing to istinguish one alternate universe Cin the superpositionD !rom
another without intention an awareness. 6he superposition possesse
temporal symmetry Ctime translation symmetryD so that energy was
conserve.
7arao0 o! the perception o! time_s passage. 3ombination o! intuition
an imagination.
/ name shoul point up both the groun an the Kernel o! the
organizations inspire1 guiing iea an shoul be escriptive on
multiple levels as well as e0hibiting some sel!-re!erentiability.
Qd
?ut on the other sie o! this question brought up by this critique L no1
H say1 onslaught upon the notion o! presence1 is the critique1 now long
over ue1 o! our blinness to presence that1 but !or this blinness1 woul
be all too conspicuous.
Ht is what is most consistent about their moe o! being an acting an
there!ore to themselves most hien while to others the most
conspicuous !eature o! their manner o! presentation. Ht is liKe a hanle
on the person L the most easily graspable part o! the person.
6he i!!erence between miniscule an terri!ic is only one o! a mere three
orers o! magnitue.
8an !rom the past: R6his is all you_ve learne in *))) years?S
8an !rom the !uture: RFell1 yes1 but . . . uh. . . R
8an !rom *))1))) years hence1 R<es1 but it as up over the !ullness o!
time.S
Qd
/ctive political repression creates !ar more unesirable political
activity1 e.g.1 subversion1 than oes untrammele !reeom o! e0pression
encourage the same. ,ner repression both raical an raicalize
elements must be Kept in checK Cor put ownD while in a !ree society
only a relatively small number o! raical elements have to be ealt with.
=istorical/evolutionary versus simultaneous/comparative unerstaning
o! place1 events1 culture1 etc. .evel o! 5ugment beyon what coul
have been acquire in li!e an a level o! critical awareness which belies
a secret acquaintance with more !ull-blooe1 larger-than-li!e versions o!
everything we Know.
6he !eeling one has o! the inevitability o! one_s e0istence. Fhether or
not the !orm that this e0istence taKes is itsel! inevitable is a istinct
though perhaps relate question. H! !orm is intersub5ective1 then it
shoul have little i! anything to o with one_s personal ientity1 certainly
not its core or Kernel. 6hat H am the essence that H am is not something
that coul have been etermine by agreement as essences are by
e!inition Crather than conventionD not arbitrary nor are they things1
which is to say abstractions amitting o! some Kin o! concept. 6o say
that it coul have been possible to have been another person is to say
that there is only one consciousness1 which is able to taKe multiple !orms
with the result that consciousness becomes an entirely passive attribute
contributing nothing to the istinctiveness o! persons or to the
etermination an evelopment o! personal ientity over time. 6he
concept o! an active consciousness meium o! e0perience1 rather than a
merely passive one1 i.e.1 an intermeiary !or transmission without
aitions Cor losses L no entropy gainD1 poses some eep perple0ities !or
traitional notions o! consciousness.
;ither we are searching !or that ultimate quantity to which everything
reuces1 or we must amit to ourselves that at some point the in!inite
regress reveals itsel! in our reaching that thing or substance which is
e!ine in terms in itsel!.
Qd
Fisom may be terme sub5ective overgeneralizations that pass !or
ob5ective1 e0perience base Knowlege !or a number o! istinct but
relate reasons: suggestibility to the manner in which !uture e0perience
is !iltere through these generalizations1 as well as the altere a!!inity to
people1 places1 things1 an memes that ten to rein!orce an resonate
with them1 an1 moreover1 the tenency o! the RwisomS o! a person to
contribute signi!icantly to the structuring o! his social environment1 e.g.1
the Rguru phenomenon1S Fe might say here that !or the most part1 the
iniviual human being oes not acquire enough e0perience in a single
li!e span to evelop a truly thorough-going general Knowlege o! the
meaning o! human e0istence1 both iniviual an collective. Fhat is
interesting is that there is1 there!ore1 a meaning1 an perhaps
signi!icance1 as well1 to human e0istence which transcens any
particular human_s ability to perceive/cognize it.
7hilosophical an the speculative impulse may well be symptomatic o!
the incommensurate manner in which the le!t an right hemispheres
cognize the worl an process these cognitions1 particularly consiering
the ense nervous connection that e0ists between these two otherwise
largely separate Rbrains.S
6his subtle an conspicuous incompatibility between the
cognitive/5ugment !aculties o! the two hemispheres probably accounts
!or the pervasive an eep philosophical impulse1 particularly mani!est
in the ancient an still pressing problem o! the 9ne an the 8any
otherwise terme the 7latonic/;0istential ichotomy o! Rphilosophical
cognition.S
6his continual perple0ity an Rpattern vigilanceS may be a Key
mainspring o! conscious awareness or the maintenance o! a pitche level
o! the same1 which is clearly o! great survival value. :ialectic is the
reconciling o! the incommensurate.
Fe shoul not have any vali concept o! consciousness. Fe o have
some Kin o! concept1 however1 o! what we mean by the term. Fe have
an intuition o! what consciousnessV we intuitively ienti!y consciousness
with our perception o! this passage o! time. 3onsciousness cannot have
itsel! as an ob5ect o! its own thought1 which is abstract1 consciousness
itsel! being concrete in a !unamental or !ounational sense. Ht is !or
this reason that "pinoza thought o! souls as being istinct substances.
6he con!luence o! all o! these substances constitute the composite
substance o! the so-calle ob5ective worl.
6he essence o! consciousness1 which is recursive or sel!-similar1 is its
eneavor to succee in the irrational pro5ect o! maKing itsel! an ob5ect o!
thought Can ob5ect o! itsel! L to RcontainS itsel!D. Ht can only o this
through negation.
6his can only succee i! consciousness is worKing within a close
system. ?ut
H! the meanings o! "cripture transcen that o! the human level1 then at
the human level1 these scriptures must be metaphorical. ;0plore the
istinction between merely everlasting !rom eternal in relation to the
concept o! the soul.
Hmage1 insight1 e0ample o! some general !eature1 tren or type versus
concrete thinKing alou about something !rom one_s personal li!e. 6his
istinction points up opposite ens o! an artistic/Hntellectual spectrum o!
human mentality. 8any theoretical notions stem !rom hints given to the
analytical CRle!t brainSD sie o! the min by the creative1 pattern-seeKing
CRright brainSD sie o! the min in the !orm o! !ragmentary images
Cperhaps in the !orm o! !lashes o! recollectionD or metaphors1 themselves
more or less !ragmentary Crelative to latter evelopments1 that isD. Ht is
as though the right brain routinely eaves rops on the blocK-heae
subvocal chatter o! the le!t brain1 perioically utilizing intense bursts o!
non verbal communication Can e0ample o! which may well be the
arenaline-rush-liKe phenomenon Known as the a-ha e0perienceD as i! to
say1 Rhey1 silly1 on_t you see the implications o! what you_re saying Cto
yoursel!D here?S Ht seems the average1 uninspire person1 caught up in
the busy worl o! =eiegger_s ReveryaynessS may well operate simply
by his or her le!t an right hemispheres alternatively ceing control to
one another as ictate by the immeiate situation. 6he more creative1
sel!-conscious Can perhaps also1 more neuroticD iniviual whom we
term artistic or intellectual1 en5oys a much closer communication an
cooperation between his or her brain_s hemispheres1 though in the
!ormer the right assumes the ominant role while in the latter it is the
le!t hemisphere that is ominant. 6he so-calle genius1 e.g.1 4oethe1 is
that person in which this cooperation is more evenly matche.
6he biggest Rwhat i!S that we can imagine might well be the !ollowing1
what i! the principle Known as 9ccam_s Aazor turne out to be inimical
to the pursuit o! ob5ective truth L a Kin o! short-circuiting o! a woul-be
open-ene Can ultimately enlessD process o! philosophical eneavor?
9ccam_s Aazor epens !or its valiity an use!ulness upon another
principle L that Known as ceteris paribus1 i.e.1 Rother things being equal.S
/ll truth is sub5ective because truth is always speci!ic to a particular
omain1 level or Rappro0imationS o! reality1 itsel! too open-ene to be
uni!ie1 i.e.1 to allow !or what is calle ob5ective truth1 the Rcash valueS
o! which1 as mentione earlier1 is 5ust varieties o! intersub5ective truth.
6he notion o! appro0imation here is not taKen in the usual sense o!
appro0imation o! what is ob5ectively an precisely the case1 but in the
sense o! appro0imation as approach to that possessing neither a !i0e
RlocationS nor Rtra5ectory.S =ere appro0imation is relative to !urther
re!inements. 7art o! the process o! the evolution o! ieas1 whether in an
iniviual or collective setting1 is that o! bringing onesel! to a place by
bringing about a situation !rom which one can then start o!! in a new
irection an there!ore this process cannot be properly unerstoo as a
mere un!oling. /n un!oling is simply the e0hibiting o! the same
structure in some new manner L even in the sense o! the removal o! a
egeneracy o! latent structure in which newly arising conitions enable
causal conitional relationships between two latent1 but nonetheless
pree0istent causal structures1 one within the iniviual or collective
mentality1 the other1 within the e0ternal worl.
6he unity o! an iniviual consciousness cannot be unerstoo in terms
o! physical processes1 themselves unerstoo as intersub5ective
phenomena. 6he plurality o! consciousness1 i.e.1 the !act o!
consciousness_ multiplicity1 cannot be e0plicate in terms o!
intersub5ectivity itsel! owing to this very plurality. 6he ob5ective !act1
as oppose to merely intersub5ective1 !act o! this plurality transcens the
alreay mysterious principle unerlying the suchness an unity o! each
iniviual consciousness.
6o create a consort or companion !or himsel!1 4o ha to put quite a lot
o! himsel! into the pro5ect. 6he original impulse might well have been
to maKe !or himsel! a Kin o! !eminine oppelganger. ?ut to protect
against the possibility o! un!aith!ulness or outright rebellion1 4o ha to
buil into his creation a crucial !law. C7erhaps the !law was itsel! the
maKing o! .uci!er as a !eminine personality1 but that_s another question
best le!t !or laterD. ?ut the !law1 though it protecte 4o !rom actual
overthrow1 itsel! acte as the see o! the rebellious spirit that was to
slowly evelop eep within the .uci!er_s heart over the many ages that
passe be!ore the creation o! the material sphere L the worl was still
voi an without !orm at this stage as you will recall.
6he lesser angels may well have been the o!!spring o! many happy
unions between 4o an his not so per!ect !eminine ouble. 4o1
isplaying the natural enough relative lacK o! interest in all that sprung
!rom his loins1 appointe .uci!er to the thanKless role o! 8ommy. 6his
may appear to be getting a little -reuian at this point1 but it was the out
o! orer appearance o! the step chilren1 /am an ;ve1 that provoKe
the crash o! goo !eelings between 4o an his erstwhile !aith!ul
consort. Ht was at this time that .uci!er provoKe into myria !requent
bouts o! reevaluation o! his relationship to 4o1 to inclue no small
amount o! sel!-analysis1 that she hit upon the nature o! that built-in !law
place by 4o within her otherwise per!ectly constitute psyche. 6hat
!law being a more or less complete lacK o! a esire to recreate the sel! in
the 9ther. 4o ha all but create .uci!er in his own image with the
e0ception o! this single R!law.S
Fith the creation o! 8an1 4o ha utilize a seemingly altogether
i!!erent strategy: create man in his own image1 not !ully realize but
only in seeling !orm. ?ut in orer !or this strategy to be success!ul1 the
groun !or man_s !ull evelopment into numerous alter1 coequal gos
ha to have alreay been prepare. 6o be !ully liKe 4o man must
possess this same gi!t o! the esire to create in his own image. 6he
creation o! /am an ;ve was almost immeiately graspe an
unerstoo by .uci!er as a Kin o! mocKing an cartoonliKe renering o!
the relationship that she ha hel as sacre !or nearly an eternity past.
7erhaps .uci!er ha tempte 4o in a sort o! antiparallel sense to that
whereby ;ve tempte /am although this temptation was re5ecte on
the ethereal plane the converse temptation1 the mirror image o! this
temptation an its reception might be playe out with an altogether
i!!erent outcome.
Fhat signi!icance can be ascribe1 i! any1 to the importation o! archaic
terms !rom an equally archaic synta0 into a moern one?
?elie! in an all-power!ul an benevolent creator is conspiracy theory
turne on its hea L in ?iblical 3hristianity1 !or e0ample1 the conspiracy
is !or rather than against each iscoverer o! the conspiracy.
6he problem with some writers is that the urge to have something to say
is greater than the writers appreciation !or the seuctive potential some
ieas have to cause psychological harm.
6he !ree marKeting o! ambition that is politics. ;ach inepenently an
single minely pursuing his or her ambitious course.
6he overlapping o! ambitions o! the weaKer with the stronger until the
tables o! power are turne an o! the stranger with the weaKer. . .
/ egenerate state o! merely personal ambition.
Hniviuals in a community o! gossipers are proactive recipients o!
messages. 6his introuces ri!t1 but avois egeneration o! messages
into complete rivel1 but oes not prevent the engenering o!
preposterous propositions.
:oes energy e0change with the quantum vacuum ecrease the rate Cor
increase this rateD o! entropy prouction?
Fithout the capacity o! consciousness !or etaching us !rom the
immeiacy o! being the particular creature that we are1 it shoul be
impossible !or us to glimpse a general human nature worKing through
our being an then in turn perceiving the remainer which is the unique
Cnon humanD sel!.
Ht is only relative to a set o! practices that is accepte1 positively
accepte by the clan that other practices are hel to be taboo L otherwise
!ree e0perimentation with the cultural !orms is allowable by e!ault.
3ritique o! RpresenceS as estructive criticism o! 4o_s presence1
evience1 e.g.1 te0tual1 !or this presence1 an also a critique o! the
coherence an consistency o! the concept o! consciousness Cno concept
L no critique o! concept that oes not subsistD. :escartes_ iea that there
is no e0planation o! the origin o! 4o C4o_s presence D which suggests
that the mere e0istence o! this concept Cwhich oesn_t really RsubsistSD
suggests the reality o! that to which it points. 6he presence o! 4o is
really 5ust the reality o! consciousness Csecretly Known to the aversaryD.
6his helps us to interpret social an cultural changes that have
accelerate throughout the century 5ust past.
6hat empty substance rei!ie into something !uller o! near complete
spectra o! once arbitrary permutations now ensconce in the immemorial
o! im awning primitive awareness.
Ae tra!!ic light1 yellow tra!!ic light1 an green tra!!ic light: e0amine the
logic o! qubits1 trivalent logic1 the logic o! !ringe e!!ects1 transitions
paraigm shi!ts1 equivocations o! sense1 etc. . .
Fe speaK o! how lucK it is CRprovientialS is the wor that is sometimes
useD that contain limitations that we observe operating Cat the particular
spacetime scale that we happen to inhabitD are not still greater so that
certain !unctions that we are able Cin !act1 have evolve to per!orm or
evelope the capacity !or through cultural evolution1 e.g.1 technology1
sayD to per!orm1 but with some i!!iculty1 happen not to be impossible1
e.g.1 travel at reasonable spees on the groun through viscous air1 travel
on air1 i.e.1 via R!lying machines.S
6he two schools on this is the !unctions that are not possible in this
particular mi0master universe are simply inconceivable in the !irst
instance1 i.e.1 min a re!lection o! the orer o! the ,niverse versus min
actually participating with the universe so hat min through the partially
inepenent action o! imagination1 can prepare the groun !or the
emergence o! new possibilities.
6hings to eneavor to o that are truly beyon our capabilities1 we have
no hope o! imagining oing an this helps !oster the mistaKen piece o!
circular1 question-begging logic o! iscussions o! 8an_s capabilities:
anything that is conceivable is possible1 anything that is possible can be
one CeventuallyD1 anything that can be one Cthat 8an proposes to oD
8an will o. . .
?ut the enthusiasm that accompanies this logic has usually seen to it that
the *
st
premise has been secretly replace with the starKly unwarrante
assumption that1 R/nything that is possible is conceivable.S
6he conte0t o! in!ormation is unlimite because o! the unlimite
potential !or the processing o! in!ormation C question this assumptionD.
Hs it possible to e0haust the in!ormation content o! a collection o! ata?
/lthough there is eterminism within moments there is not necessarily a
etermination o! moments. :etermination as a will unto interpretation.
RHnter-pretation.S
Aetention o! linK structures1 but upating o! linKs L continuously o!
structure as being 5ust as important as content.
/ so-calle cool name must be simultaneously arbitrary an istinctive.
?etter to have a worl with evil an !ree will Can consciousnessD than a
worl !ree o! both goo an evil but occupie by nothing more than
biological automatons.
"o many i!!erent ways to thinK o! so many i!!erent things L low
barrier !or thought L a connection tunneling unerlying the association
o! ieas.
"houl we maintain an agnosticism with regar to the meaning o!
historical events o! Rearlier ages?S
:oesn_t the change o! revisionism presuppose that there must be some
alreay present1 correction interpretation o! historical events?
6he !ollowing are 5ust some o! what H consier to be the attributes o! a
goliKe Cas oppose to golyD person.
,nassuming nature
Hmmortality taKen !or grante
7ristine innocence
-reeom !rom pre5uice
4enerous
8agnanimous
6olerant
Fell-meaning
7leasant
3harming
4racious
3on!ient
-orgiving
=appy
3ontente
Aela0e
;ngaging
7ersonable
/miable
:iscipline
7ro!essional
3alm
;thical
3ompassionate
.oving
;mpathic1 etc.
-ocusing an intensi!ication o! in!ormation Cabout nothing1 i.e.1 evoi
o! intentionalityD an in a isperse1 istribute !orm1 into in!ormation
with intentionality.
.aws about appearances o! impropriety L as long as no one can
emonstrate intent to act unethically or unlaw!ully1 then eniability is
maintaine1 i.e.1 Rcover your assS C3</D laws. /ccountability to the
sensibilities o! the public1 however ignorant an misguie these might
be seen to be by the ruling class L sensibilities that coul be RbestirreS
quicKly enough an intensely enough to !orce !irings1 buget/!uning
cuts1 resignations o! o!!icials1 investigations1 estruction o! ambitious
careers1 ruin characters Cor the perception in the public_s eye o!
charactersD1 etc.
Aegarless o! what happens to the wave!unction1 one_s consciousness
oes not Rcome to a halt.S 6he wave!unction we are tol represents the
most that one can possibly ob5ectively Know about a quantum system
that is in a pure state Cwith respect to some system observableD.
"eptember
2)**
6his octrine o! the wave!unction is entirely consistent with the
iealistic octrine o! the unKnowability o! the thing in itsel!.
6he only thing in itsel! that one can have Knowlege o! Cin Aussell_s
sense o! privilege accessA is one_s consciousness o! this moment.
-ebruary
2)*$
/ccess to all other mental states perhaps ought to be escribe as
unprivilege1 incluing one_s own mental states !rom moments1 i.e1
Rbubbles o! the specious presentS other than this one. 6he question
arises1 o! course1 how are mental states or sense ata of mine at other
times to be istinguishe !rom the mental states of other mins at any
an all times? =ow coul we prevent collapse o! the istinction assume
between metaphysical an epistemological solipsism an moreover
between epistemological an methoological solipsism?
9! course1 i! the system is in a superposition state with respect to CwrtD
one particular observable1 it must be a so-calle pure state with respect
to each incompatible1 or con5ugate1 observable. /n this is 5ust the
basis o! the uncertainty principle via the theorems o! -ourier /nalysis.
6wo question arise here L one !or the moment appears to be merely
seconaryV the other more !unamental1 although we might !in Ca!ter
that this situation is actually the reverse o! this.D
Fhat oes the quantum state o! a given observer_s brain then represent?
6he most that that observer can Know about the quantum state an
evolution o! this state1 which his brain is presently in.
-or some reason1 the entanglement o! a given system_s wave!unction
with those !orming the system_s Rsum o! historiesS oes not trigger
ecoherence o! 7si.
9ne_s state o! consciousness is thought by some to represent the
continuous Rsel!-measurementS by the observer o! his own quantum
state Cthat o! his brain1 at least L base on the theory that it is processes
within one_s brain that constitute all that is relevant to consciousnessD.
"omehow this continuous sel!-measurement oes not cause any
reuction o! the brain_s 7si.
6his woul suggest that the brain is in an eigenstate o! the observable
which is to continual sub5ect o! Csel!D measurement.
8an must believe in something what letter thing to put one_s belie! in
than 4o.
/nother !unction o! consciousness is the reinvigoration o! an
reinstatement Cin new !orm or RacceptationSD o! Crecycling1 i! you willD
o! RweaKeneS viral meme !ragments that shoul otherwise be lost or
inter!ere with the !unction o! RhealthyS memes. 6he inter!erence
between consciousness an the unconsciousness acts as a Kin o!
universal !ilter.
6he worKaay1 orinary worl o! what =eiegger terme everyayness1
is actually a repository o! currently active metaphors.
Fhat is the meaning o! metaphors !or that which is presently Cor
altogetherD beyon our ability to articulate1 e.g.1 heaven1 hell1 purgatory1
etc.?
6hought is the abstracting o! the general !rom the particular. /ction1
intentional action1 that is1 on the other han1 is 5ust the converse o! this L
the concretizing o! the particular !rom the general. ?ut action itsel!1 by
its nature is an ine0tricable mi0ture o! abstraction1 application Co!
abstract notionsD1 an trial-an-error e0perimentation in which there
operates a continual !eebacK in the !orm o! mutual in!luencing
Cinter!erenceD o! thought upon application an application upon thought
in which nature is being actively e0plore by the observer-theorist-
e0perimenter 5ust as is the latter being e0plore by nature. @ature is
!orever attempting to evelop an re!ine her own theory o! Cthe separate
nature o!D the iniviual. :ialectic is the interplay o! the mutually
incommensurate1 i.e.1 ialectic is the means by which the rational
enlarges itsel!.
=ow to reconcile the allege open-eneness CRun!inishenessSD o!
reality with the systematic coincience o! history or the un!oling
revelation o! hereto!ore unbeKnownst historical etail with the
emergence o! novelty within e0perience1 i.e.1 with what we might
conveniently term1 borrowing somewhat !rom :erria1 as the always-
alreainess o! historical novelty?
6here is not irect communication between mins in the sense o! the
transmission o! anything. 6here is the cooperative requesting by each
!or ob5ectively analogous elements o! sub5ectivity1 either as recollection
or logical constructs. 6he nacve iniviual is the one who uncritically
aopts the !irst notion that springs to the !ore o! his thoughts as the basis
!or action or conclusive interpretation L who1 in a wor1 thinKs an acts
Rwithout looK bacK.S
6he epth o! the worl is in its breathV the breath o! the sel!1 in its
epths. @o matter how !ar the iniviual evelops within his own being
he will never be able to looK out in the worl an not !in all o! himsel!
alreay there Lthoroughly implicateT
6his woul suggest that the brain is in an eigenstate o! the observable
which is to continual sub5ect o! Csel!D measurement.
/ 7er!ect Iacuum1 6he @ew 3osmogony1 points up the blurre
istinction between theory CescriptionD versus blueprint Cprogram o!
applicationD.
6here were those who seeme critical o! his attempts at corresponence.
6he general style1 the iction an turns o! phrase1 o! which he mae
much an !requent use1 appeare borrowe at turns either !rom the
iscourse o! the e0istential *2
th
century novel or !rom those more serious
science !iction writers o! the mile years o! the 2)
th
who1 though now
arguably the greatest an most pro!oun authors within that much
misunerstoo genre1 ha been in their ay either too intellectual or too
seminal in their conceptions to have appeale to a contemporary marKet-
worthy auience1 their worKs only being reiscovere a!ter being
assimilate to the !ringes o! mainstream novelistic !iction1 e.g.1 9la!
"tapleton1 "tanislav .em1 7hilip O. :icK1 etc.
9! course1 the realization that one_s state o! consciousness at any given
stage constitutes merely a RsnapshotS o! one_s ientity1 poses some
puzzling i!!iculties !or anyone contemplating the 3hristian notion o!
resurrection within an a!terli!e: am H brought bacK as a nacve1
impulsive1 an hope!ul youth1 a stoli an single-mine mile age
ault1 or a calm an serene1 i! slightly be!ule elerly version o!
mysel!?
/ more precise way o! stating the !act o! the relativity o! time or the
Rrate o! its passageS Ca rather problematic notion1 by the wayD is to o
this in terms o! relative probability rates where the notion o! quantum
probability can only be renere logically consistent by bringing in the
notion o! probability ensity. :ensity o! what1 o! some Kin o!
substance o! events? /n the answer here is both L the probability
ensity o! that which constitutes the substance o! events as such. 8ore
speci!ically1 the relevant quantity is the ensity o! events within
spacetime1 rather than simply within space alone. 6his is because1
although it is prima !acie possible Con a eeper level within the conte0t
o! general relativity1 this can be questioneD !or motion to occur along
one spatial a0is without the necessity o! motion1 however small1 along
perpenicular spatial a0es1 this is not true where Rmotion along the time
a0is is concerne. 6his is in part because relative motion in space Can
its associate momentumD is epenent upon a borrowing uring some
earlier phase o! Kinetic energy associate with the erstwhile purely
timeliKe motion o! the starting masses.
Hs metaphysical presence a Kin o! !unamental bourgeois presumption?
,nbelie! is commonly a symptom o! the re!le0ive1 instinctive an
largely unconscious continual averting o! the eyes !rom the convicting1
!ear!ul might an grotesque beauty o! the ivine. "pirit blinness is o!
such epiemic proportions among otherwise highly intelligent an
sensitive souls Cpossessing !ar greater powers o! consciousness than
woul have been require !or survival1 perhapsD that there can only be
one e0planation open to us !or maKing sense o! this phenomenon: this
blinness e0hibite by each person within bourgeois e0istence secretly
results !rom a principle choice to1 in a =usserlian sense1 RbracKet outS
the spiritual imension o! e0istence. ?ut this is at the great peril o! each
because the human psyche has been aapte to the enurance o! chronic1
relatively low levels o! grie!1 rea an anguish to which one is
necessarily sub5ect while open to the imension o! the spiritual. ?ut
one can rarely recover su!!iciently !rom a crisis o! suen spiritual
awareness triggere Cusually by some inevitable trageyD later in li!e but
in large part ue to one_s having consistently !aile to prepare onesel! !or
such an eventuality by having pursue a course through li!e in perpetual
Rba !aith.S
6he Karmic principle1 i! we are permitte to personalize somewhat1
possesses a strong attraction !or ironic situations1 in !act1 this constitutes
a Kin o! quirK-liKe weaKness !rom the human perspective1 at least1 in
the moral 5ugement o! the ,niverse. Ht is perhaps possible to e0ploit
this weaKness an succee in manipulating the cosmic Karmic tenency1
provie that one_s ultimate aim is the sel!less service o! one_s !ellows1
human or Rcreaturely.S Hn short1 one can tempt Oarma by creating an
ironic situation in which onesel! merely loses !ace1 while the other is
mae Cvia Oarmic intervention within the arti!icial ironyD to reap some
personal or material bene!it. 9! course1 people who are conscious o!
the watch!ul eye o! the Oarmic principle o this all o! the time when
they give up some material avantage to another in e0change !or a
creiting to their name o! some positive Oarma. ?y quicKly returning
or perhaps even better Can more e!!ectiveD1 passing on to some other 1
any material bene!it one receives ue to the Karmic service o! one_s
!ellow man in the !orm o! one_s own Karmic service - in this manner
oes one not lose Rone_s rewar in heavenS or in the ne0t li!e in
e0change !or some !leeting1 temporal gain.
RFe cannot tell that we are constantly splitting into uplicate selves
Citalics mineD because our Citalics mineD consciousness RriesS Cquotes
mineD RsmoothlyS Cquotes mineD along only one path in the enlessly
!orKing chains. 6he many worls interpretation C8FHD o! the quantum
measurement CP8D problem is perhaps only an arti!ice !or proviing a
more succinct way o! unerstaning the ynamics o! P8 implemente
by a conscious observer1
Qd
similar1 say1 to the solving of *C circuit
problems through the use of comple6 variables.
Iiral meme tagging as a technique !or tracing out in!ormation circuits
!or purposes1 say1 o! etermining the presence an e0tent o!
communication between seemingly is5oint social circles.
Qd
H! consciousness is able to truly Rsplit1S then egenerate continuity o!
consciousness is implie with this egeneracy only being remove C an
the continuity o! the real sel!D groune through the introuction o! a
notion o! some Kin o! Rsuperconsciousness.S
6he philosophical investigator attempts to articulate that which ha
hereto!ore long been ine!!able within his own intuition while at the same
time awaKening the sense o! the ine!!able an its reality in his or her
reaer or listener. 8i0e with this is the opposite tenency1 that o!
passing a persistent autosuggestion o!! to the reaer or listener an this
suggestion either succeeing CisseminationD or conspicuously !ailing Ca
concomitant secret wish1 no oubt1 o! the authorD.
/ clear statement o! ob5ective that isolates the author_s ieational
process !rom con!usion also insulates the more creative !aculties o! his
or her min !rom the long maturing inchoate.
Fe liKe to thinK o! ieas1 sometimes1 as simply tools that we can use to
get to other ieas1 the general nature o! which we might alreay have
glimpse. ?ut perhaps a better way to unerstan the use an
utilization o! ieas is in terms o! the viral meme concept L viral memes
migrate1 soon a!ter having Rcause in!ection1S into the motivational1 in
aition to the logic circuitry1 which is more obvious an suggest to us
all sorts o! ways Ce0ploiting the available cybernetic control machinery
o! the neocorte0D that we can use them to get what we_re a!ter. Ht might
appear that these memes are inventing in use notions o! how to use them
C in orer to sprea themD which cater to our eepest esires an !ears.
?ut what maKes !or a success!ul meme? Hsn_t it that humans liKe a
particular meme1 elaborating on its theme1 combining it with other an
then passing them onto someone else either with the speci!ic intent o!
oing so or as a by prouct o! using them as a means to some other en
not speci!ically aresse in the meme_s content?
Hsn_t it we ourselves that etermine the nature o! the selective !orces
applying to memes? Hs it possible to looK at this iscussion in terms o!
the original quantities1 i.e.1 genes themselves?
-eelings o! alienation were originally inicators that one was in is!avor
within the clan or tribe1 say !or transgressing one o! its taboos1 or a still
more crucial situation o! one being strane in strange territory1 that
one_s social camou!lage may be renere ine!!ective1 or that one has
become a captive o! a !oreign or warring tribe.
8oern alternative music seems to be seeKing to strengthen our sense o!
ienti!ication Cperhaps with other isplace1 alternative li!estyle
iniviualsD while assuaging our ranKling !eelings o! alienation.
-or every concrete1 actual memory or associative circuit concretely
realize within one_s gray matter1 there are quite literally zillions o!
virtual such circuits being complete per secon 5ust beyon the
bacKgroun o! consciousness.
/ll matter unergoes a Kin o! respiration o! the locally available
vacuum energy. RHrrational orerS is a contraiction Cin termsD while R/
is an apple an / is not an appleS is also a contraiction1 but here the
contraiction is not merely implie CRimplieS in the sense o! logical
implication or1 perhaps1 in some other sense?D.
/n open-ene system1 i! it possesses a high orer o! unity or
cohesiveness1 oes not o so in any !ormal sense1 but in the sense o!
substantial continuity. ?ut there can be no universal simultaneity
RwithinS an open system.
3onsciousness is not ini!!erent to the passage o! e0perience through it.
3onsciousness is not merely a passive pro5ection meium !or the isplay
o! e0perience. Fe speaK o! sensations or perceptions RregisteringS or
not.
,se /ltavista "ystran to translate a wor list an then use /" to o a
rough translation1 using the worlist to clean up this rough translation.
,se this technique !or oce0 translation missions.
6he i!!usion o! consciousness !orwar an bacKwar in time is
essential to the process o! temporal integration o! consciousness
e0perience.
6he parao0 o! suggestion is that the more suggestible a person is the
stronger are the suggestions that manipulative people maKe to this
person L one woul thinK the opposite relation the more reasonable.
.et_s try to unerstan the intentionality o! concepts in terms o!
!le0ibility o! implementation in service to an implicit goal or purpose.
8ulti!acete an inchoate proto-metphors with conte0t reactivity an
contaminability. H@ !ormation as ne0i o! aaptivness/aaptability.
Fhile not e0periencing the suggestion o! some particular social conte0t1
humans spen most o! their time in a state o! autosuggestion.
:ignity is prie an humility blene in the person pursuing what they
Know to be there own path. 3hain o! ?eing1 3hain o! 6hought1 but not
necessary !or these to be preetermine to say they have reality1 the
conitions have been provie !or these to be realize in any number o!
ways.
6he lower1 creaturely part o! the sel! is envious an covetous towar the
higher sel! an its gi!ts1 the value o! which1 or course1 the creature sel!
oes not unerstan1 only lusting a!ter these gi!ts as hope !or
instruments !or !acilitating the acting out o! its narcissistic power
impulses. /lso1 the creature is covetous o! the esteem an worship o!
the transcenent sel!.
Aebellion o! .uci!er
?anishment o! .uci!er an his angels
3hosen 7eople
4iving o! the .aw
:ispensation o! 4race1 etc.
;ach transcenent/creature sel! acts out this metaphysical rama1
represente an playe out in the narratives o! the ?ible.
6ransactional /nalytical o! the history o! 4o an 8an_s relationship.
H! they can_t sell you1 they sell you out. . .
8yth o! the goo an evil twin1 !avore son1 etc.
6he higher sel! esires to e0perience itsel! as its own an while the
lower sel! wants to subvert consciousness into a means to its short-
sighte aims.
6he phenotype pro5ector again an the requirement o! thrown away
in!ormation CentropyD in the coherence an cohesiveness o! living
structures. 4enericness/genericity C4enerativityD an the ol school
year booK phenomenon.
6here is an uncanny sense o! each ay being totally new1 !ull o! the
promise o! revelation1 aventure1 an trans!ormation. 6he immortalist
perspective on the pursuit o! li!e_s en5oyments: there will always be
time later to have !un an aventure.
,rges an impulses that seem to appear suenly1 Rout o! nowhere1S
may represent early mani!estations o! evelopmentally triggere shi!t in
cybernetic control o! behavior by the person_s :@/.
Hs .ogic empirical? 3.!.1
au=
Aobert @ozicK_s 7hilosophical ;0planations.
/symptotic nature o! our pro5ections in relation to the question o!
presence.
/ !urther application o! the viral meme !ragment iea is the composing
o! a atabase o! Rseconary supporting observations/remarKsS in the
absence o! a e!inite primary thesis1 though this thesis is alreay
glimpse in a worless way by the author. 6his might be an e0ample o!
the intentionality o! creative thought.
9n genericness an the postmoern conition. 9n being caught
between immersion within the moern an in a etache1 postmoern
critical stanpoint.
6he tension between recognition o! these notes an ri!!s as being
arbitrary combine with the recognition o! these souns1 possessing
concavities1 irecte towar pro5ecte thematic centers. ;ach
successive note1 though !ollowing the one be!ore in time1 is by no means
cause by it.
=aving one a great eal o! goo an service to 4o an one_s !ellow
man will not lessen the pain an su!!ering unto eath1 5ust its
wretcheness.
H thinK o! goo things happening to ba people an ba things happening
to goo people as the phenomena o! the moral universe. Jero-point
!luctuations in the moral vacuum.
6hought must contain a component o! action an action o! thought. 6he
same observation applies to theoretical versus empirical. Aaises the
question o! the ob5ectivity o! the moral as a category. 3oncrete versus
abstract is another e0ample o! yin/yang uality.
6ruth is a stronger notion than provability: that there is a plurality o!
consciousness. /n oes this maKe the concept o! number
problematic?
Ht is easy to 5uge others who are Racting balyS in a situation that
onesel! has never be!ore e0perience1 still less the history leaing up to
as well as the immeiate conte0t embeing that person_s ecisions to
act/impulses to react. 6he question springs to min here. RFhat i! all
o! the conitions in which the other person_s consciousness is ensconce
were the very same set out o! which H was to thinK1 ecie an act? Hs
this person then not my own sel!? 6he answer here is Ryes an no.S
Fhen one applies ceteris paribus principle1 one is ealing only with
measurable quantities. ?ut is personal ientity merely a conition upon
consciousness1 or is it an absolute?
"omeay we will !in out that everything we_ve ever suppose is true
about reality is wrong an this supposition1 too1 will be wrong.
Fhy are humans so con!use? Ht_s because human intelligence1 that is1
the CallegeD !ore!ront o! evolving intelligence on the sur!ace o! this
planet1 has only 5ust now avance to a level lo!ty enough in its H.P. as a
species so that it is locate appro0imately ea center on the continuum
o! intelligence between the lowly amoeba an the R4o Knows what else
is out there.S 9nce we have the insight that there is no natural ivision
Ci.e.1 one establishe Rby the 4osSD separating the sub5ective !rom the
ob5ective1 we then are reay !or the realization that there_s really no Rout
thereS out there L 5ust as there_s really no Rin hereS in here1 so that we
see the e0ternal worl occupying us 5ust as we see our selves re!lecte in
an pervaing the so-calle e0ternal worl.
7ersistent intimations o! what might turn out to be a more rewaring
pattern o! living1 all along acKnowlege but stuiously ignore L a
perverse stubbornness o! !ree will in the !ace o! the superior 5ugement
o! the alter ego1 the unrealize woul-be sel!?
/ necrophile is an iconoclast o! the !irst orer.
6he attempts on the part o! critics o! 3hristianity to invaliate this
octrine by pointing out that the person o! >esus 3hrist probably never
actually e0iste are about as unsubtle as :econstructionists_ critique o!
metaphysics that consists essentially in noting that this iscipline erives
its name simply !rom the historical accient o! /ristotle having place
his e0position o! ontology a!ter his 7hysics. :oes the string o! symbols1
though it occur as a result o! an acciental con!luence o! characters1
have any less meaning !or not having been intene? -or once the
meaning is in han1 however it might arise1 is nonetheless intene when
it is passe on by its iscoverer who has recognize its meaning!ul
interpretation as an important message. 6he chance that a similar
message will be conceive by the recipient by chance o! the earlier
message has been given a signi!icant boost1 but not only this1 but the
chance that a synthesis o! a !amily o! such messages will be receive
CconceiveD by the person Cin the !orm o! an insight or epiphanyD.
6he @apster phenomenon1 simulacra1 :ouglas /ams1 an :erria.
Hn!inite perspectival vorte0 an the restaurant at the en o! the universe.
3oncerning the question o! 4o_s ?eing1 we must observe that the
unKnown1 even the raical unKnown possesses a structure. ?ut is this
structure simply groune in the open1 evolutionary potential o! our
concepts to eepen an broaen. Fhat is the istinction between the
groun !or a given evelopment having alreay been prepare versus the
lacK o! a RprepareS groun? :istilling !rom a long list o! one_s
!avorite songs a number o! elements common to several large groups o!
songs e0tracte !rom the list woul permit the person to reaily ienti!y
a number o! important issues an motivations !or his concerns an
behavior1 an woul constitute a Kin o! psychic raiograph o! the
person.
6opology o! ;0perience1 ;nergy1 8inima1 -itness .anscapes. . . -orm1
3ontent1 "ubstance. .
8etaphysical signi!icance o! what is represente by 3hrist1 that o! the
relation o! the incarnate1 emboie spatiotemporal to the higher1
transcenent sel!1 along with obeience to the mission o! this higher sel!.
6here is a nee to repair a breech in the metaphysical continuum ue to
a misstep on the part o! the sel! that occurre almost immeiately upon
its initial escent into spatiotemporal CimmanenceD.
6he wisom o! the e0crescent insight L the insight which asserts itsel! to
the e0clusion o! all others. 3an the e0perience o! all human beings be
combine in a 4o_s eye view1 without the nee !or being processe?
6he rich suggestiveness o! language seems to e0ten its reach !urther
than ought to be possible.
Rrational zero-point_ -- =eiegger
-rom :econstruction1 http://5ames!aulconer.byu.eu/econstr.htm1
R=owever1 4o_s >ustice surpasses ours1 so much so that it is inaequate
to use the same name !or it.S Fhat name shoul we use !or it1 then?
6he nature o! the growth an broaening an eepening o! concepts as
being more than a shi!ting an shu!!ling o! bounaries in the rerawing
o! conceptual maps within some close1 i! amittely quite large1 system
o! meanings an istinctions1 seems to be implicit in the above quote
passage. / notion o! the evolution o! thought as containing a necessary
revelatory Cbiblical senseD element is what seems to in!orm the statement
quote above.
6he egree o! consciousness is irectly relate to the subtlety o! integral
structures that may !orm an be sustaine within it. 6here seems no
natural limit to the evolution or egree o! evelopment e0hibite by
consciousness. /re certain thought !orms within consciousness more
intrinsically stable than others? 6he evolution o! consciousness is
in!luence by the !orms engenere within it. 6his is the notion that
consciousness cannot engener the awareness o! particular !orms while
being ini!!erent to the creation o! such !orms within itsel!. ;mpiricism
L consciousness is an empty container/blanK substance. Aationalism L
consciousness is a close system L no outsie worl.
3ool names must be simultaneously arbitrary an istinctive.
-rom
web=
www.hearteat2))).com/aum.html 1 p. *2 o 2N1 R/ metronome
heart to strangle li!e out by not allowing energy/in!ormation in an out.S
/ generalization o! this iea might be that o! a !inite Cthough1 perhaps1
Rnear in!initeS D collection o! interlocKe metronomes o! a wie
spectrum o! !requencies which1 via -ourier_s principle o! analysis1 is
seen to be a eterministic !unction o! the parameterize Cas oppose to
that o! quantum observableD time omain.
7ower born o! grace has no nee !or an ob5ect or sub5ect !or it to
ominate.
-orm an substance1 e0perience an the meium o! e0perience Cthe
RgrounS meiating e0perienceD are not is5oint categories
CRorthogonalSD.
Fhen one_s motivation !or acting out eviance is base in common1
orinary impulses1 then one may be RperverseS but not actually Rcrazy.S
C7henomenology o! the 8ysteriousD 6he notion o! return1 closure1
having travele in a circle1 reunion1 reenactment1 interruption1
isruption1 irruption1 contamination1 issemination1 !usion1 absorption1
envelopment1 enmeshment1 rematch1 irony1 nemesis1 sel!-similarity1
recursion1 resonance1 issonance1 cacophony1 incongruity1
incommensurability1 reconciliation1 con!ession1 catharsis1 enouement1
resolution1 anticlima01 sel!-consciousness1 Co! the present per!ormanceD1
nostalgia1 reminiscence1 mirroring1 re!lection1 imitation1 isillusionment1
isorientation1 issociation1 vertigo1 izziness1 acrophobia1 agoraphobia1
claustrophobia1 ivination1 vagueness1 haziness1 ambiguity1
intermittence1 rarity1 reciprocalness1 reactivity1 brightness1 re!lectiveness1
opaqueness1 camou!lage1 !aintness1 etc.
6he woner provoKe by Keen philosophical insights is owing to the
philosopher_s secret appeal to alreay-presentness. /ll invention is
innovation. 8ystery loses its appeal as such without its invoKing Ci!
only secretlyD the notion o! revelation.
4limpsing the alterity within the "el! an e0periencing compassion !or it
L this is quite i!!erent Cbut intimately relate toD the sympathy one !eels
!or aspects o! one_s sel! glimpse within the other. "uch is the
istinction between a universal an a merely provincial system o! ethics.
7eople who have never e0perience a moment o! inspiration simply
cannot sit !or a person who is speaKing while this person is in an
inspire moment_s grip an the common reaction is one o! mocK
bemuse1 Rhey1 get a loa o! this1S or one o! impatience1 irritation an
perhaps an abrupt stopping o! the conversation by the listener.
C@ecrophiliaD
/ccoring to =enri 8argenau1 Ra question is intelligible !rom a
scienti!ic point o! view only i! it satis!ies two conitions: C*D the
meaning o! the terms must be !i0eV C2D it must be in accor with the
conventions o! the science to which the question is put.S
"o 8argenau is saying that scienti!ic intelligibility emans !i0eness o!
meanings accoring to scienti!ic convention. =ere RintelligibilityS is
relative1 embee in the conte0t o! normal science Cin the Ouhnian
senseD. =ow are we to i!!erentiate the merely relatively unintelligible
!rom the absolutely unintelligible1 i.e.1 that which is Rbetween scienti!ic
paraigms1S or1 between any paraigms C!or that matterD1 in the broaer
senses o! iscourse an genre1 !rom that which is not in or RbetweenS
anything?
?ut by introucing the istinction o! absolutely versus relatively
unintelligible1 one is also implying acceptance o! a complementary
istinction presupposing the valiity o! the notion o! absolute
intelligibility1 i.e.1 intelligibility that is unmeiate an unconitione.
6he symmetries e0hibite by linguistic structures1 semantic1 syntactic1
morphological1 etc. suggest the e0istence Cin the sense o! a mathematical
e0istence proo!D o! categories !or which there are currently no assigne
instantiations. 6he question here is whether there is some substantive1
unerlying systematicity to linguistic structures Cas well as to the pattern
o! their evolutionD
-or e0ample1 what interpretations spontaneously suggest themselves to
the reaer who encounters the wor Rse!lS not unerstoo to be a
typographical error1 but a new coinage intene to introuce some new
concept o! the sel! or o! personal ientity? "o there is a role which
language plays in !ostering the concerte worKing out o! human
suggestibility an creativity. Ht is easy to see how one coul quicKly1 as
it were1 paint onesel! into a corner by coining too many new wors in
one_s iscourse1 i! it were not !or the !act o! concepts not being merely
passive escriptors1 but to some e0tent possessing a li!e o! their own1
both iniviually an collectively. "o that there is some egree o! sel!-
etermination o! concepts in their evolution as well as responsiveness to
the introuction o! new concepts an evolution o! other concepts to
which they have some Kinship.
6he question has actually been seriously asKe in numerous places in
peer reviewe scienti!ic literature whether a1 say1 chimpanzee1 rather
than a human being1 appropriately manipulating the proper laboratory
instrumentation coul succee in per!orming an observation o! the
classic two-slit apparatus that woul succee in proucing Rcollapse o!
the wave!unctionS so that the inter!erence pattern on the phosphorescent
bacKstop is isrupte1 to be replace with a bucKshot pattern o! electron
Cor photonD hits. 6his question may turn out not to be so silly i! it is
ever conclusively establishe that both the human observer_s brain
!unction an the quantum superposition state o! the two slit apparatus
e0ist in some Kin o! two-way interaction with the quantum vacuum.
6he hypertrophy o! one Kin o! consciousness at the e0pense o! another
Kin lies behin the phenomenon o! original sin. ;vil in the worl1 i.e.1
phenomenal evil versus that originating !rom or with the sel!.
?ut to say that all o! our concepts are abstractions is to assert a strictly
empiricist epistemology. 6o say that all o! our concepts are in reality
only metaphors is to have implie that abstraction is merely the
superposing Ca!ter the !ashion o! a photographic ouble e0posure or
palimpsestD o! either an earlier upon a latter or a later upon an earlier
conte0t. 6here may well be a signi!icant i!!erence between these two
types o! metaphor.
6he recursiveness o! consciousness is thought to be one o! its Cor theD
e!ining characteristicCsD Co! consciousnessD1 c.!.1 6he ;gyptian ?ooK o!
the :ea1 the 9urobouros as a symbol o! consciousness1 but perhaps it is
this much toute recursiveness o! Cthe iniviualD consciousness which
prevents the transcenental unity o! the plurality o! transcenent Csmall
R6SD selves an is ultimately responsible !or each ego being hel in the
thrall o! its eigentlichKeit o! substantial !orm.
"u!!ering teaches compassion. 4ooness gains sel!-Knowlege through
sacri!ice an the letting go o! attachments. 6he unity o! the sel! is more
o! the plurality o! selves. 6he transcenent sel! possesses absolute sel!
conte0t or
Qd
only has a conte0t when sel!-limite. Fe o not really
unerstan the gi!ts with which we have been blesse. :oes it maKe
sense to imagine a time an place where we have become the master o!
our gi!ts?
6hat !our-legge variety o! spier Known as the anthropo. Hs there any
real RneeS !or more than provisional or heuristic concepts1 given the
ubiquitous availability o! !eebacK? ?ut can metaconcepts nevertheless
be eterminate?
3ertainly 3hristianity i not originate as a conception within the min
o! a believer so we must not necessarily allow the character o! those who
!locK to belie! in an aherence to this octrine to bias our 5ugement
concerning the octrine_s relevance an valiity.
Aoles an RscriptsS meiate the sel!-consciousness o! the person in
orinary li!e. 6o glimpse the ob5ective sel! which is orchestrating an
implementing these roles one must apply the psychologically traine
observer_s eye to what is continuous versus what is iscontinuous about
the person_s behavior an style o! behavior within each an all o! these
social conte0ts in which the various roles an scripts are Rplaye out.S
6he sharper one_s state o! consciousness1 the more one !ins onesel!
aily con!ronte by contraiction1 incongruity1 absurity1 an all that is
hollow an !alse L not unliKe the growing parao0icalness o! the ream
when the sel! is in the act o! attempting to rouse itsel! by ropping ever
more hints !or itsel! o! the !alseness1 unreality1 an arbitrariness o! the
reamscape. "o it is not that the appearance o! incongruity an
contraiction galvanizes the sel! into awaKening so much as the avent
o! contraiction signals the alreay upwar movement o! consciousness.
Hs Rcognitive slippageS characterize by a crystallizing coherence o! the
hereto!ore incongruous?
ess=
Hnvestigate the implications o! belie! systems1 particularly
3hristianity1 being the prouct o! Rmimetic evolution.S ,rban legens1
which grow in the retelling1 seemingly in accorance with a :arwinian
evolution moel o! aaptive raiation1 o not really o so because o! the
ranom nature o! the R!orcesS proucing this variation.
9ctober 2)**
6he
Hnternet o!!ers us a virtually Cno pun inteneD ieal laboratory !or the
stuy o! the ynamics o! memetic !orces because o! the time
compression involve: the time scale on which the mutation1 metastasis
an viral replication o! memes taKes place there is highly compresse1
an several centuries o! Roctrinal innovationS such as what transpire
uring the !irst three hunre years a!ter the avent o! 3hristianity can
be playe out within mere weeKs or months Cin some instances1 aysD L a
time compression ration o! between *))):* an *))1))):*T Fhen
people e0perience epiphanies or insights the min is usually in a
particularly receptive an even suggestive state1 one in which the insight
is more liKely to be accepte or acte upon. Fhat is calle automatic
writing is a typical e0ample o! this an remember that the !irst !ive
booKs C7entateuchD o! the ?ible were originally written own at a time
when the 8ile ;ast was still heavily steepe in a long staning
religious oral traition in which the appearance o! writing was still new
an liKely regare as suspect1 as well as mystical an magical. 6he
mental !acilities1 which mature literate cultures notaly lacK1 i.e.1 that o!
spontaneously evising an innovating orally transmitte tales an o!
easily committing long sKeins o! these to active memory1 more or less
overnight ha to be combine with a process o! the eitorial prouction
o! myths an !olKtales in te0tual !orm. 6his enable a greater ieational
!luency an mastery o! these oral traitions though now in the presence
o! the relative social vacuum provie by the specialize conte0t o! a
literate priesthoo. ?ut the strength o! the bacK reaction o! the sel! upon
itsel! while in the act o! retelling a mythic narrative or !olKtale may have
been greater !or a priest or scribe who was instea solitary while in the
act o! setting this tale own in writing !or the !irst time. Ht is not
altogether certain whether those literate !ew o! that istant time !ully
unerstoo that the subvocalizations echoing in their mins upon
rereaing the sacre scriptures originate merely with the sel!1 c.!.1 The
Origin of Consciousness in the -rea'own of the -icameral 2in
C>aynesD. H have o!ten note that H e0perience strange or notable
coiniences uring perios an with much more !requency when H am at
once e0periencing a greater !low an variety o! ieas. /n my having
institute the habit o! always Keeping a pencil an pa o! paper within
reay reach1 incluing at my besie coincie with a steaily greater
in!lu0 o! insights an intuitions1 which at the time at least appeare
worthy of being written own. 6here is no arguing the much note
suggestibility o! the human min when in the glowing presence o! the
written wor. 9ne cannot help but see in this the suggestion that the
human min is not a!ter all unitary in its conscious !unctioning1 but there
is a natural partitioning in the subconscious origin o! ieas with some
ieas bearing the istinctive earmarKs o! having originate within the
right hemisphere1 others within the le!t. <oung chilren are introuce
to octrinal ieas an systems o! ieas at a tener age when their critical
!aculties have barely begun to !orm1 allowing a gooly number o! years
!or pregnant messages to be absorbe an internalize. <oung chilren
reaily accept theological notions at the same time as they are being
introuce to the characters o! "anta 3laus1 the ;aster ?unny an the
6ooth -airy. 6he theological notions in which these young chilren are
inculcate were originally conceive by broze age tribal peoples living
within a pre-inustrial patriarchical society. 6here appears to be two
istinct types o! narrative structure1 eite an uneite. 6he greater
concision1 logical clarity an coherence possesse by a narrative1 which
has been RreprocesseS by eiting1 o!ten in a collective or collaborative
conte0t comes at a cost o! RauthenticityS Ctrueness to the original
germinal insight emboie in the narrativeD. ?ut what this authenticity
points to is the simultaneously creative an isruptive ieational
!unctioning o! the brain_s right hemisphere. ?y thinKing an perceiving
with Rthe whole brainS1 creativity is properly seen as originating within
the uni!ie sel!. 9n the other han1 when an RunsophisticateS sel! stays
locKe up within a single hemisphere o! the brain Cbicameral minD1 any
notions or ieas1 which pass to it !rom the opposite hemisphere shall
inevitably be misinterprete as originating !rom an agent outsie the
sel!1 i.e.1 !rom some supernatural being.
-ebruary 2)*$
/ narrative structure o!
consciousness requires the continual integration o! sub5ectively
perceive time through a memory upating mechanism1 which
necessarily invoKes at least a two imensional temporality. @arrative1
i.e.1 Rcoherent an rationalS temporality1 however can only support a
single imension o! time. "o i! multiimensional time is require !or the
integration o! the sub5ective time stream or Rstream o! consciousnessS
an so !or the construction o! a pro5ective1 egoic sel! as narrative center
o! gravity1 then the notion o! parallel universes must be an apt metaphor
o! the suppresse groun o! subconsciousness as evince by the unity o!
the autobiographical memory o! the e0plicitly conscious sel!.
3onsciousness cannot be RincorrigibleS while being merely
metaphorical1 i.e1 evoi o! a veritable conceptual basis. 8etaphor
versus concept consciousness as meium or substance o! e0perience as a
pro5ection o! the sel! as an intentional ob5ect an Rstructure o!
consciousnessS.
Ht is liKely that there is a pro!oun mismatch in the rates o! maturation o!
the le!t an right hemispheres1 which has an evolutionary origin1 namely1
while chilren are uner the guiance an control o! their more power!ul
parents1 the all important !unction o! the critical !aculties is e0pertly
assume on their behal!. "imilar to the way in which the Rgenetic ust
binS theory o! aging maKes sense o! the raically change natural
selective !orces operating in ol age1 one shoul e0pect raically
i!!erent natural selective pressures acting on the !unctioning o! the
genetic regulatory networKs o! chilren. / revealing application o! the
4:? theory o! aging is illustrate in some outstaning problems
observe in nuclear transplantation CcloningD e0periments1 !or e0ample1
c.!.1 3. :avi /llis C2))%D1 R. . . H! the Key E9ct-( liKeE genes are not
activate1 clones ie immeiately a!ter implantation. H! those genes are
activate1 the clone may survive to birth an beyon. 6hese
consierations argue that clone animals1 even i! appearing EnormalE at
super!icial inspection1 may not be so but may harbor subtle
abnormalities that become phenotypically mani!est only at later ages
C>aenisch 2))(D. . .S
:ecember 2)*$
R7age an his team speculate that the loss o! genes on the
chimpanzee < may be ue to the chimpGs mating habits. ?oth male an
!emale chimps engage with multiple partners when they mate. 6his gives
a strong selective pressure on those genes that prouce sperm.
3onversely1 it puts less pressure on evolution to preserve those genes on
the < whose !unctions have nothing to o with reprouction. ?ecause
humans historically have been largely monogamous1 our <
chromosomes have been spare such selective-pressure imbalanceS1 c.!.1
=uman < 3hromosome "tays Hntact Fhile 3himp < .oses 4enes
CFhitehea Hnstitute publicationD an online linK:
http://www.newswise.com/articles/human-y-chromosome-stays-intact-
while-chimp-y-loses-genes
/n o! course1 there is nothing special or unique about a virus that it
oes not share with any appropriately structure Rset o! instructions1S
though which cannot be attribute to the virus so much as to the
!unamental properties o! the in!ormational meium in which the virus
RlivesS. /lthough it is interesting to note that a virus !unctions
somewhat in the role o! a conte6tuali(er or perhaps" rather a
7reconte6tuali(er8 of conte6t. 6he virus changes Rthe rules o! the
gameS as it were. ;pigentic an genetic regulatory networKs1 which
provie the interpretive conte0t !or any genetic base pair sequence1 an
which !unctione optimally uring one phase o! the li!e o! the organism1
on_t isappear once the organism enters successive phases o! its li!e
cycle L these networKs are still in place an are not so much Rswitche
o!!S as they come to require less obvious sequences o! RinstructionsS !or
their activation. 6he logic here is similar to that o! how the sel!-
organizing !orces C"9-D o! chemical evolution C3;D on_t have to stop
upon the avent o! a Runit o! hereityS at which the !orces o! :arwinian
natural selection C:F"D commence to operate. ?ecause :F" occurs
always within the conte0t o! "9-1 mutations to the :@/ molecule are
anything but ranom. 6he 4A@ oes not so much as1 e.g.1 guie
embryological evelopment as it taps into an puts to worK the ynamic1
sel!-organizing properties o! atoms an molecules1 which are in turn
in!orme in their trans!ormations by the ynamics o! the quantum
vacuum electromagnetic !iels. 6his maKes :@/ e!!ectively an
electromagnetic RwaveguieS !or the transuction Cas oppose to the
RtransmissionSD o! quantum in!ormation.
:ecember 2)*2
<eah1 te0tbooK1
alright. ?ut H ha about *) months to rea itT : D Oin o! shows that
mutations arenGt really ranom because a mutation only can contribute to
avancing evolution i! it is !irst registere by the alreay e0isting gene
regulatory networK. ;pigenetics acts in the role o! the higher level
programming language !acilitating this. HGm not an e0pert so HGm
speculating somewhat here. Fhat in the hell ever got you intereste in
;pigenetics? 6he !iel i not even e0ist 2) years ago by the way.
;volutionary biology has not yet absorbe this new sub!iel. :arwinian
theory says that in!ormation can only !low out o! the genome1 never into
it. 6his oesnGt maKe sense because all in!ormation networKs involve
!eebacK1 which is necessariliy two-way. 6he two pillars o! :arwinian
evolution are Enatural selectionE o! Eranom mutationsE. ;pigenetics
also shows that mutations arenGt ranom because they are selecte by the
gene regulatory networK Cas cybernetic control systemD an that this
selection isnGt at all EnaturalE. ;pigenetic changes o not change any
base pair sequences1 5ust the manner in which these sequences are
e0presse. "o any given sequence oes not have a preetermine
meaning1 but always epens upon the gene regulatory an epigenetic
conte0ts. "o EblinE cause-an-e!!ect is not at all what is involve here1
but the operation o! a language WanW an ongoing EinterpreterE o! this
language. C/gain1 no preset genetic meaningsD.
-ebruary 2)*$
;pigenetics
provies a mechanism by which the evolving breeing population can
bacK react upon the environment an in turn upon the !orces o! natural
selection themselves.

?ecause o! the syntactic an semantic properties o! the genome-
ribosome system1 nucleotie base pair sequences !unction in the role o!
meaning!ul Cor potentially meaning!ulD character strings. H am still trying
to unerstan
au=
>acques 8ono_s statement that the meaning o! the
coon is arbitrary. H seem to recall 8ono saying that the arbitrariness
o! the meaning o! gene sequences ha something to o with the nonlocal
nature o! the mechanism o! coon ecoing by the ribosome.
9ctober 2)**
9ne o! the outstaning attributes o! the syntactic/semantic system
represente by that o! the :@/ coon is the seeming built-in resistance
o! :@/ to the woul be e!!ects o! the R3hinese whispersS phenomenon.
7art o! the robustness o! :@/ may be attributable to the meaning
egeneracy o! energetically continguous or closely neighboring base pair
sequences. 6his same principle o! robustness coul also show up in
other egeneracies1 e.g.1 protein con!ormational states. "uch e0amples
o! Roperational energy egeneracyS point up the coherence an
cohesiveness o! the mechanisms o! :@/ C
Qd
:@/ sequences are the
e0pression o! what%D an protein e0pression1 which transcen the
combinational/ permutational paraigm o! ranom iscrete change.
CR:iscretenessS !orms the very component o! this robustness1 which we
are talKing aroun.D Iast Rin betweenS regions within the Rrugge
!itness lanscapeS CR!itnessS here is unerstoo in terms o! chemical
stability instea o! the usual acceptation o! R:arwinian !itnessSD o! the
:@/ combinational-permutational Rcomputational state spaceS must
!unction as bu!!er or null zones1 barriers o! chemical potential
i!!erences between neighboring though non-contiguous $
con!ormational states.
6he evolution o! living systems without the emergence o! consciousness
correspons to the evolution o! 3hristianity without a real1 ivine "avior.
?ut the evolution o! li!e with the ultimate emergence o! consciousness
points to the e0istence o! ob5ective truth preconitions1 e.g.1 here that o!
3hrist having ob5ective i! not !actual-historical signi!icance. Hn other
wors1 the way a message is receive has relevance to the question o!
whether there is purpose an intention behin its symbolic realization.
6his is part o! the intimate relation between will CintentionD an
consciousness. +obustness of the message points to an element beyon
selection within a !iel o! ranomly given possibilities. 3hrist is a
metaphysical reality1 even though =e has1 perhaps1 only been
imper!ectly mani!este within historical time.
:econstruction seems a most creative variety o! criticism1 parao0ically
enough. :oes econstruction presume to have metaphysical presence
on its sie? Fithout ob5ective probabilities1 we only have eterministic
intersection o! causal chains that ha never be!ore interacte.
6he contraiction o! Reterministic chanceS as close system behavior
o! an open system. 9nly 7rimum 8obile_s can interact in the absence
o! a uni!ie continuum C7lural AealityD.
3onservation laws applie to systems with time-varying substances
@on-conventional1 mutually agree upon message !orms1 e.g.1 woman
who suenly breaKs into saying R!ucKS !requently in her casual
conversation. Iolunteering re!erence to se0ually charge sub5ect matter
in conversation with strangers.
@ature versus @urture L
ForK etermines consciousness L 8ar0. . . 3onsciousness equally
etermines worK Cmeans o! prouction that the iniviual selects as his
moe o! maKing a livingD.
H! the means o! prouction an worKer consciousness o not stem !rom
the same groun1 then their mutual interaction must e!ine ialectic1
which is to say a ynamic. :ialectic is an evolutionary process that is
not reucible to an un!oling or mani!estation o! hien1 pree0istent
orer Cimmanent or transcenentD L this because o! the requirement o! a
plurality o! contingently relate though essentially separate grouns.
:ialectic naturally cuts across the uality o! immanent versus
transcenent because this uality is speci!ic to a particular groun.
:ialectic catches the transcenent orer up into temporal process by
e0posing its plurality1 resulting in the per!ormance o! metaphysical
worK.
6he Hnternet shoul !acilitate a paraigm shi!t in the nature o! social
organization1 evolution o! thought1 an o! communication1 ue to its
having e0pane the omain o! these sociocultural phenomena1 c.!.1
"tructure o! "cienti!ic Aevolutions1 Ouhn1 concerning the e!ining
conitions !or shi!t o! paraigms.
7araigm shi!ts an 4eel_s Hncompleteness 6heorem. 6he Hntelligible
versus 6he Aational . . . these two are usually equate1 but such an
equation Cor inequality !or that matterD between these two points up the
tautologous nature o! transcenent intellect Ceven without a 7latonic set
o! intelligible !ormsD.
9ctober 2)**
:econstructive analysis seeKs to e!!ect a paraigm shi!t in the
analyze worK1 which was Ealways alreayE. .evel1 c.!..1 * -rief
<istory of Epigenetics" 4ary -elsen!el1 R. . . Fith this Knowlege has
come the unerstaning that epigenetic mechanisms may in !act be
responsible !or a consierable part o! the phenotype o! comple0
organisms. /s is o!ten the case1 an observation that at !irst seeme
interesting but perhaps marginal to the main issues turns out to be
central1 although it may taKe a long time to come to that realization.
:ecember 2)*2
-rom the syllabus o! an introuctory grauate level course in
epigenetics: R-inally1 we will iscuss one o! the most controversial
topics in current biology: the hypothesis that environmentallyFinuce
epigenetic moifications can be heritable" contributing to isease
susceptibility of multiple generationsS [italics1 min\1 c.!.1 4&UC /XX?K
F -ehavioral Epigenetics" Dr. 2ari$a Puna'ovic" :all IJ>I
"o !ar only the secretly characteristic mani!estations o! open systems
have been seize upon as being relevant to the phenomenon/mechanism
o! consciousness.
@o e!ining abstract property or mechanism !or consciousness. @o
viral/isseminative basis !or consciousness as such.
H! the sequence o! prouctions o! the phenotype pro5ector are
noneterministic1 then how is it that the prouction o! any given
pro5ection is itsel! thought to be RgoverneS by a logical rule CRlawSD?
6ruth which is transcenent in the sense that we cannot maKe it ob5ective
because we are too involve with it versus transcenent in the sense o!
utterly remote1 ini!!erent1 platonic truth1 i.e.1 one way !low o!
in!ormation. :ialogical versus univocal truth1 etc.
9ne ineterminate groun connects to another through elaboration/
evelopment o! an abstract symbolic system which1 when su!!iciently
R!leshe out1S bacK-reacts upon the groun through the !ine etails
originally suppresse in orer to !orm the !ounational abstract
categories o! the !ormal1 symbolic system. -orms erive !rom
ineterminate groun estabilize it. 7oetic e0pressions bypass the
iscursive1 analytical min1 which suppresses the peripheral etails1
recapturing what was !iltere out via an evolution o! the comple0ity an
tight cohesion o! the !ilter structures. 6he permutational-combinational
moel o! the possibility space !ails when one is !orce to taKe
perspective born o! epth1 i.e1 an in!erre an/or perhaps implie
aitional imension that possesses content not eterminately present
within the n-* imensional !iel. 6he ?oltzmann brain hypothesis
raises the possibly neurotic concern that one_s consciousness is only
transient an momentary an that the memories one senses within any
given moment o! conscious e0perience is always an illusion in the
normal sense o! re!erence to the usual intersub5ective worl1 but not an
illusion in the sense that there must be other ?oltzmann brains that
inee contain the conscious e0periences re!erre to by the supposely
illusory memories recollecte within one_s own ?oltzmann brain. /
quantum entangle in!inite networK o! ?oltzmann brains collaboratively
pro5ecting spacetime in which each is an avatar inhabitant. 6he
?oltzmann brain hypothesis appears logically inconsistent because the
astrophysical evience !or the cosmological theory that supports the ??
hypothesis is reveale as illusory.
Qd
/lthough i! the ?? hypothesis were
true1 wouln_t one e0pect the system o! appearances pro5ecte by the ??
to be consistent with a true ?? hypothesis? 9n the other han1 i! we are
to preserve the current !inings o! astrophysics an cosmology an the
interpretations o! these !inings1 i.e.1 cosmological theories1 then won_t
we will have to accept the notion o! a vacuum R!luctuationS more liKely
proucing a brain embee in an intelligent species with an
evolutionary heritage on a planet occupying the habitable zone o! a class
4 yellow war! star constitute !rom a RuniverseS boasting o! an
astrophysics o! !ine-tune physical constants where there is significant
input of information from outsie the system. -or i! we once again turn
to the notion o! the Rmi0-masterS multiverse1 ranom chance an the
/nthropic 3osmological 7rinciple to account !or the otherwise unliKely
orer we see all aroun us1 we are again sale with the inconsistencies
pose by the ?oltzmann brain hypothesis. Hn other wors1 a
Qd
?oltzmann brain is not more probable Cas a !luctuationD than is a
whole universe possessing myria real brains because of the input of
information from outsie the system. Fe have to asK ourselves: RFhat is
the nature o! this outsie source o! in!ormation input?S 4iven the
Ralways alreainessS o! an intelligent groun o! being1 the probabilities
o! real universe versus -olt(mann brain is e0actly reverse. 2)*)
>uly 2)*2
:ata is conte0t-!ree in!ormation an in!ormation is conte0tualize
ata. 6here is another istinction to be mae along an a0is between
noise an signal1 which H believe cuts across the a0is o! ata-
in!ormation. @ew conte0ts can come into being1 which can create new
in!ormation !rom the same ata. 6he interpretation o! ata is not
preetermine an so in!ormation may not really be conserve quantity
Cin generalD. C
@ovember 2)*$
"o perhaps there is something liKe proto-
in!ormation1 apart !rom mere ata1 that is conserve.D =owever1
Wquantum in!ormationW may inee WbeW a conserve quantity1 which
aresses your point about us not being able to be EeleteE. 9n a
computer har rive !or e0ample1 EeletionE o! ata only means
removing the Eirectory treeE that allows the 37, to access the ata on
the har rive1 which remains in place. "ince the brain is probably 5ust a
!ilter an Einter!ace eviceE acting between multiple topological sectors
o! the quantum vacuum Cbetween multiple E?oltzmann brainsE1 i! you
willD1 the brain is itsel! 5ust a irectory tree o! the quantum vacuumGs
accessing ata !rom itsel!. 6he question is whether the class o!
?oltzmann brains represente by the ientity1 EJia -ahE is the most
general property o! ?oltzmann brains or not?
/ugust 2)*2
Fhat ynamic
meium is it that resonantly tunes to a succession o! ?oltzmann brains.
3an ?oltzmann brains be constitute into classes base on the category
o! consciousness1 H: structures o! consciousness that posits a category
subsuming a subset o! ?oltzmann brains?
Ht is clear that the highest evolve !unctions o! biological structures are
those that are capable o! accessing the subtlest levels o! quantum
ynamics Cthus !ar reacheD. "o is only application what is newly
prouce by evolution1 i.e.1 structures o! bounary conitions upon the
unerlying ynamical groun1 or oes evolution actually bacK-react
upon this ynamical groun so as to alter its ynamics. H! so1 then this
woul a!!ect the !unction o! structures that were perhaps long ago
alreay evolve into their present !orms. 6his woul be a genuine case
o! a higher level o! escription in!orming a lower one1 which is to say a
sort o! Rreverse emergenceS or1 more strangely1 a Kin o! bacK-
engineering o! the ynamics by the bounary conitions. Fithout this
possibility o! Rreverse emergenceS it woul appear that all evolution
succees in oing is taKing latent1 une0presse orer an trans!orming it
into actual1 e0presse orer. ;volution on this view woul not be
responsible !or any net increase in the amount o! in!ormation in the
universe. Fe might term the actual creation o! new orer through
physical temporal change involution. Ht is only when the groun o!
being comes into contact with its other that this type o! genuine
evolution CinvolutionD may actually occur. Ht appears that genuine
novelty is only possible though the interaction o! the groun o! being
with transcenence. /n e0ample o! transcenence might be the
simultaneous co-presence o! all conscious mental states. ?ut i!
transcenence is necessarily category-busting1 then the phrase1
Rsimultaneous co-presence o! all conscious mental statesS coul not
succee in picKing out a particular set o! entities out o! the !iel o!
RrealityS i! a search o! the universe o! iscourse Cintersub5ectivity b
ob5ectivityD must necessarily turn up empty. 6here are two views o! the
istinction o! the enotative vs. connotative: *D what a 2
n
or $
r
person
party says must be enclose in quotations1 e.g.1 RH e0istS while what a *
st
person party says may be correctly inscribe without quotes1 e.g.1 H e0ist.
2D any proposition uttere1 regarless o! by whom must always be
enclose within quotation marKs. ?ut the !orce o! using R]S cannot be
erive inepenently o! the notion o! RnaKe utterancesS. =ow o we
istinguish evience !or something being the case !rom evience !or
something_s mere possibility? 9r is all evience o! possibility to be
counte as evience o! !act? Fhat about probability base upon logical
analysis o! hereto!ore unquestione metaphysical assumptions lying
behin current physical/ cosmological theory?
Hs computing spee set to maKe a quantum leap?
http://gu.com/p/$!qeh

http://en.m.wiKipeia.org/wiKi/?lacK#hole#in!ormation#parao0

6he parallel quantum universes must be anchore within the neural
microtubule networK o! a single brain. 6he 7lancK mass-energy
quantum ecoherence limit speci!ies the bounary between appearance
an reality.
3hemical eterminism an sel!-organization in relation to the sugar-
phosphate glycosie bon to which the nucleotie base pairs are
connecte
"cience or scienti!ic evience will never be able to prove the e0istence
o! the 3hristian 4o but it may len support to the e0istence o!
"pinozaGs 4o.
-rom 6o my young !rien... G>ust rea that article on the octor
stuying Gea timeG. =e mentions the possibility o! memory being non-
neural. /re you !amiliar with how computer programmers avoi
memory issues when writing programs? 6hey use pointers1 a small
entity that simply re!ers to a location o! a comple0 entity which may
store typically larger ata. Foul be interesting to e0plore i! the brain
really worKe liKe that.
6he observation that ambient photons within the laboratory shoul not
be able to trigger the collapse o! a superposition state certainly applies to
the case o! the two slit e0periment per!orme using bucKyballs.

@evertheless an observer can use photon raiation o! precisely the same
momentum energy an polarization in orer to observe which slit the
bucKyball went through which oes succee in collapsing the
inter!erence pattern. 6his is true even though the very same types o!
photons e0iste amongst the ambient raiation with in the laboratory
when the observer was not looKing at the slits to see which slit each
bucKyball went through an this ambient photon raiation in the
laboratory oes not succee in causing the inter!erence pattern to
collapse apparently the observer maKes the i!!erence not the physical
interaction o! photons with the bucKyballs say through ollisions.

Hn other wors i! the observer is not watching which slit the bucKyball
goes through an 5ust looKs at the phosphorescence screen !or the
presence or absence o! an inter!erence pattern then he cannot rely on the
presence o! ambient proton raiation o! ientical character to that which
woul have been require to observe which slit the bucKyballs goes
through in orer to prouce collapse o! the inter!erence pattern with the
e0hibition o! particle-liKe behavior on the part o! the bucKyballs. "o it
oes not appear that a physical interaction is responsible !or collapse o!
the inter!erence pattern but rather the presence o! the observer looKing at
the slits.
;arthGs civilization must then be secretly e0tremely ol not only in the
gala0y !or but perhaps within the universe at large such that the average
istance o! peer e0traterrestrial civilizations namely those o! comparable
or greater technological evelopment may well be too great to be
etecte
Fe shoul now investigate what might well be calle the !
-errmi metaparao0 within the iscipline o! the philosophy o! min an
the problem o! other mins.
6he issolution o! a parao0 by way o! the avent o! a new paraigm
usually signals the appearance o! a metaparao0.

6he process o! biological evolution is not a hunre percent onwar an
upwar 5ust consier the case !irst consiere by :arwin himsel! o!
placing newer or moi!ie species in competition with their earlier !or
bears in the current environment o! the moi!ie species an how the
newer or moi!ie species woul merge victorious renering the
e0tinction o! the orer !orms !rom which they are erive an now
having sai this consier someone to reverse case where the newer or
moi!ie !orms o! the oler species are place in the !oler species
contemporary environment an allowe to compete with him there here
the avantage woul not be so clear o! the newer !orms over the oler
ancestral !orms because o! the consieration o! coevolution an ecology.

"eptember 2)*$
6hat an iniviual consciousnessG apparent peers are intelligent
is more a testament to the ultra-high !ine tuning o! that iniviual minGs
consciousness than it is to the !ine tuning o! the brains o! those peers.
@ote here that we are relating the !ine tuning o! consciousness with !ine
tuning o! brains.
6he parao0 is how an atheist who consiers himsel! moral an ethical
might answer this ilemma vs. how a 3hristian theist who also consiers
himsel! moral an ethical might answer this same ilemma.

6he belie! in a supreme intelligence or at the very least in a Gcosmic
programmerG o! the universe somewhat aKin to 4eorge .ucasG G6he
-orceG may continue among the relatively uneucate classes !or many
generations. "trangely1 there will be a rise in the belie! in both
epistemological solipsism as well as poly-metaphysical solipsism1 i. e.1
the belie! that the universe is a collaboration an sociolinguistic
construct o! myria iniviual consciousnesses. 6he eepening
realization that there is no evience !or ;6Gs will begin to rein!orce the
iea that we are members o! an at least billion year ol civilization living
within an Gancestor simulationG. 7hilosophers an cosmologists as well
as some physicists as well as a gooly number o! philosophy-eucate
people o! the not so istant !uture will taKe it !or grante that the
probability o! universe-simulacra1 !or e0ample1 ?oltzmann brains1 et al.1
greatly outstrip the probability o! so-calle GrealG universes. Fhich
realization is natural in light o! the compelling logic o! the anthropic
principle?
Ht seems all causal relationships within !our imensional space time can
be encoe as quantum entanglement on a two-imensional sur!ace. H
thinK this is pretty soli proo! o! the holographic universe theory.

Hnteraction o! istinct spectra o! nonlocally connecte energy
!luctuations to prouce locally connecte structures o! superpositions.
/ll o! the comple0 systems !oun in nature e0ist because o! the
occurrence o! a cataclysmic breaKing o! the symmetry o! the ancient
quantum vacuum. /n it is these bining !orces that sustain the
structure o! the vacuum_s !ermionic bounary conitions.
:oes the evolution o! thought emonstrate that concepts Ci! coherent an
intelligibleD always point beyon their initial scope Co!
comprehensiveness an comprehensibilityD.
8athew **:2'. 6he 6ruth o! the For o! 4o can only be unerstoo
through the guiance o! the "pirit. 8an cannot iscern the 6ruth o! the
For o! 4o by his own unerstaning.
H! 8an is simply a Rhigher primate1S then there is no reason !or 8an to
see any special truth or signi!icance in 4o_s For1 moreover1
humanKin shoul have never ha any reason !or conceiving o! the very
notion o! 4o in the !irst instance.
=a all humans been born with arK-lense1 esigner sunglasses
permanently a!!i0e to their !aces1 woul romantic poets have lamente1
Rwoul that my love was possesse o! limpi pools !or eyes so that H
might glimpse the epths o! her impassione soul? Foul this concept
be the same L woul it be i!!erent in a re!erenceable way? 6he
imagination can encompass i!!erence !rom actuality but only as a
perturbation o! the actual. Fhat is the nature o! the groun that maKes
intelligible the !ar-!etche seeming hypothetical? @onsensical
hypotheticals can be use in stepping stones in vali trains o!
speculation.
6here is not consciousness as such an yet there is suchness itsel!. Fhat
is the parao0 here?
7erturbation theory/ 7erturbation paraigm. Hs it possible to RperturbS a
paraigm as one oes a theory1 i.e.1 perturbation theory1 where one
maKes a !ew simpli!ying assumptions1 reucing the comple0ity o! a
theoretical escription o! a physical system to1 say1 the !irst or secon
orer? /ccoring to the nature o! paraigm as maKing the outer reaches
or bounary o! scienti!ic speculative consciousness1 there seems no
place !or the notion o! metaparaigm1 metaparaigmatic1 an so on.
@arration is the substance o! myth an the ego is the central an
uni!ying element o! all narration. 8yth must stem !rom processes
unerlying the constitution o! the ego.
7ouning isco beat combine with long1 sustaine1 airy chors invoKes
both the primal an the transcenent elements o! human sensibilities.
6he analogy o! the roa that buils itsel! 5ust a !ew steps ahea o! the
tra!!ic running along its sur!ace serves here.
Oant_s 3ritique o! 7ure Aeason is another e0ample o! what we term the
R9urobouros principleS o! !ounation criticism1 e.g.1 7opper1 "Kinner1
:arwin1 "artre1 4eel1 etc. 6he 9urobouros was !or goo reason the
;gyptian ?ooK o! the :ea_s symbol !or the transcenental nature o!
consciousness.
6he sel!-similarity o! each consciousness1 though per!ect in its essence
outsie o! time may pervasively mani!est itsel! within time but oes this
o! necessity only imper!ectly.
9ur concrete actions are boun together into coherent patterns by
language possessing a greater generality than can be containe within
the min o! the iniviual.
=ow is it that critical theories an/or methoologies1 i.e.1 behaviorism1
econstruction1 raical sKepticism1 !alsi!iability theory1 strong /H thesis1
:arwinian evolution theory1 etc. are capable o! escaping their own
sweeping critiques by1 e.g.1 in essence1 success!ully asserting that
assertions are impossible Cin the case o! econstructionD1 or1 there is no
logical thought as such but merely stimulus an response o! the
organism_s nervous system Cas in the case o! ?ehaviorismD. 6o prove
the unintelligibility o! something is not to isprove this thing_s e0istence.
6he relevant question here is: is a requirement o! ?eing its rationality1 or
stronger still1 its intelligibility?
Fhat are we to maKe o! the istinctly /merican common practice o!
leaving one or more television sets continuously running !rom early
morning until late at night? Hn this manner /merican househols have
mae the prime ob5ective o! avertising an marKeting !irms1 that o!
cultivating temporal tunnel vision L the Kin that has the potential to
anaesthetize a woul-be consumer_s ability to question meia-
propaganize assumptions concerning what maKes !or contentment in
li!e.
-or tens o! thousans o! generations1 the age o! () represente the near
e0treme o! human li!e span. Aather than irectly competing with
younger members o! the hunter-gatherer ban !or mates or1 inirectly1
through physical prowess isplaye on the hunt or in combat with
members o! enemy tribes1 the oler iniviual prove valuable as a Kin
o! consultant or mentor1 perhaps also as a spiritual leaer such as
shaman or witch octor. :ivisions o! labor within the clan woul also
be selecte !or an eventually incorporate into recurring genetic
combinations within the clan_s o!!spring with relative !requencies
consistent with the require relative percentage representation o! the
innate talents !or each labor specialty promoting the clan_s survival.
Qd
Fhat are selecte !or within evolution are not so much the genes
themselves as their e0pression or non-e0pression at relevant times.
4enes triggering or controlling the implementation o! behavioral
programs bene!icial to a tribal sage1 !or e0ample1 may have prove
positively eleterious to a *&-year-ol member o! the clan.
@ovember 2)*2
;qual rights uner the law1 i!!erential privileges within the
marKet. =ow can it be simultaneously true that *D the sel! is a social
CsociolinguisticD construction an 2D every other person with which one
becomes well acquainte is 5ust a pro5ection o! some aspect o! the sel!
C!or all practical-social purposes an intents1 that is1 in an e0clusively
epistemological rather than a metaphysical senseD? 6he sel! is a social
construction society-sel!V society is compose o! iniviuals who are
mani!estations an pro5ections o! the sel!-society. 6his is one way o!
breaKing own the sel!-re!erential structure o! society1 which is aKin to
the echo chamber/hall o! mirror sel!-re!erentiality o! the economy1 e.g.1
economic inicators !ee into the ynamics that is generating what these
inicators quanti!y. 7erhaps i! representations are unerstoo in light o!
the ruling metaphor o! an economy1 as RcurrencyS1 i.e.1 which is
continually e0change1 investe1 charge or pai as interest1 etc.? Hs
Rnatural lawS the opposite sie o! the coin o! a social :arwinism that has
been reprocesse in terms o! :arwinism_s hereto!ore verboten notion o!
Rgroup selectionS?
>anuary 2)*$
.amarcK_s gira!!e.
goo=
Y4roup selection
contraicts :arwinismZ 3hance mutations vs. 4A@1 epigenetics an
sel!-organization o! chemical evolution without unit o! hereity carrying
in!ormation prior to the avent o! the A@//:@/ epochV natural
selection vs. pree0isting enabling/bu!!ering combinational-permutational
as well as :@//A@/1 linguistic in!rastructureV Aaio1 6I1 Hnternet1
weblinK1 protocol1 registry1 ll1 clou computing1 etc. 6hese are all new
metaphors !or emergence within the conte0t o! provience Cmatter an
minD.
8any o! the seemingly isturbe patterns o! behavior reaily note in
moern1 inustrialize society are perhaps only erstwhile use!ul genetic
behavioral programs e0presse outsie o! their natural hunter-gatherer
social conte0t or accientally triggere by social an psychological
conitions inavertently emulating ancient behavioral cues.
R6hose swarming particle pairs !orm a screen that partially cancels the
electron !iel1S c.!.1
cit=
p. &&1 paragraph &1 :iscover 8agazine1 >uly 2)))
issue.
Qd
R/n we Know that all boun structures breaK up when their
energy ensity e0cees their bining energy1S c.!.1 p.&21 7aragraph *1
:81 >uly 2))).
"omehow !ree will an a conscious state o! awareness are intimately
connecte as both being mani!estations o! a raically open system1 i.e.1
one transcening space an time.g
?oth the nature o! the ego1 c.!.1 -reu_s reality principle1 as well as the
rational1 causal seeming nature o! the so-calle real worl are social
constructs1 not in the normal but in the metaphysical sense.
Qd
/lthough
the theoretical assertions o! science rarely survive paraigm shi!ts
unscathe1 the empirically-base propositions o! science1 which possess
only phenomenological content1 while relatively !ree o! metaphysical-
laenness1 ten to survive such !unamental shi!ts relatively intact.
C/:=: alternative treatment: cut sugar while aing chromium an
vanaium to the chil_s ietD
Qd
Ht is only where language e0tens the speaKer_s reach beyon his grasp
that the role o! symbols as moes o! arbitrary e0pression is transcene
an the collective consciousness actively participate in. C6he symbol
here acts as the locus o! a palimpsest o! successive eterminations o! its
multiple acceptationsD "ome unorthoo0 religious thinKers consier
4o_s sacri!ice o! Rhis only begotten "on1S >esus or1 alternatively1 4o_s
voluntary sub5ection o! himsel! to the limiteness o! "pace an 6ime
C"inD as a more or less open amission on :ivinity_s part o! its material
complicity in the enacting o! 9riginal "in.
Fhat is the parallel1 i! any1 between the "e!irot o! Oabbalah an the
R@ames o! 4oS in "u!i mysticism?
Hn a worl without 6ime1 the -ecunity 7rinciple inevitably spells
contraiction.
;vil necessarily e0ists within the create orer because 4ooness1
although uni!ie within the :ivine nature beyon 6ime1 loses this
per!ect unity within 6ime. 6here is an impulse !or 4ooness to regather
itsel! into a new unity within creation that1 o! course1 can never really
become a !inishe pro5ect.
=uman beings coul not have been create with Knowlege o! 4oo an
;vil1 but only with the potential or capacity !or acquiring this
Knowlege1 outsie of the presence of the Creator. 6his Knowlege o!
;vil1 there!ore can only be instille through e0perience1 that is1 through
the e0perience o! su!!ering Cphysical an psychologicalD.
>une 2)**
;vil is
necessary in the unboune process o! soul formation. ;vil in this
conte0t o! so-calle soul !ormation may be consiere the metaphysical
equivalent to e0perience as essential to the builing of character in a
more worlly conte0t. Hn this sense1 evil1 i! it coul be shown to be a
principle inepenent o! an transcening that o! mere privation
Cabsence o! gooD1 woul be compelling testimony to the givenness o!
goo as more than the mere absence of material evil.
Qd
?ecause the
presense o! sel!-consciousness an !ree volition isrupts the is5oint
nature o! goo vs. evil in the sense o! maKing impossible an
e0haustively case-covering 5u0taposition o! ual categories1 goo an
evil as istinctly active1 ynamic principles each in their own right
become genuinely possible. 6his is the connection o! original sin to the
concept o! a will istinct from the Divine Will.
4ooness possesses no quality as such in the absence o! ;vil1 i.e.1
4ooness in its absolute nature is simply the transcenent1 ivine
essence. 4ooness1 meiate through temporality1 that is1 plurality1
results in a tension between the myria acts o! sel!-limiting on the part
o! this gooness in its attempt to Know itsel!.
*
6his sel!-Knowing can
only be engenere in relation to the other. 6here are two basic !orms
to ignorance1 that by the transcenent o! its other selves1 an that o! the
limitation o! the 6ranscenent1 i.e.1 the sel!1 o! its transcenent origin.
4ooness is it simultaneous !orming an giving up o! attachments. ?ut
attachments must be !orme in orer to be given up in orer !or
4ooness to realize its true nature. ?eyon time an limitation1 the
ivine attributes remain in an uni!!erentiate state. 3hrist represents
the per!ect i!!erentiation o! the :ivine /ttributes within limitation an
represents the template by which all transcenent beings are to
accomplish the same goal. 6here is 4o be!ore the avent o! 3hrist an
then there is 4o a!ter this avent. 3hrist_s spirit1 or higher sel!1 is the
=oly "pirit. 4o the -ather is goo1 but only realizes this goo through
=is "on1 >esus 3hrist.
*

through relating itsel! to in its grappling with the other.
4o coul not create ;vil any more than 8an can create 4oo. Fhy
am H me1 within this place1 at this point in history? :oes the !act that
this question is equally vali !or everyone who might asK it1 rener this
question any more meaningless? Fhat ontological status is implicitly
accore this worl i! we eem valueless1 possibilities1 which there!ore
taKe on a certain ontological status above that represente by Rnull an
voi.S
3an 4o create a stone so heavy that 4o coul not li!t it? 6he
e0istence o! each o! us is testimony to an a!!irmative answer.
C2D
solely by
virtue o! their never having been realize within Aeality C?eing or ;0istence here L or both?D 6his is so only i! ?eing is
rational1 i.e.1 complete as a !ormal system o! relations1 without resiue or remainer1 which is to say without Kernel.
-olK metaphysics maintains that Reverything occurs in threes.S 6his
seemingly uncanny phenomenon o! everyay li!e may be partly
e0plaine in terms o! some basic principles o! cognitive an attention
psychology1 an perhaps re!lects the manner in which human beings
atten to an categorize new e0periences more than it oes the nature o!
reality in!orming the worl o! appearance.
3onsciousness1 in other wors1 as the basis in which !orms mani!est
must itsel! !all outsie o! the scope o! all possible !ormal mani!estations.
Ht occupies the Rraical outsie1S i! you will. 3onsciousness oes not
originate within spacetime an then somehow magically transcen this
constitutive matri0 at some later time1 say1 as a result o! having acquire
within itsel! collection o! !orms as one o! its pree0istent structures1 nor
as a result o! its having been riven or inuce to newly assume some
one o! its alreay given possible moes. ?ut consciousness1 i! it is
transcenent1 must be so by its very nature. /ll consciousness1 i! it is
transcenent1 must be so by its very nature. /ll consciousness is
transcenent consciousness. 6he notion o! transcenence is
incompatible with that o! necessary or su!!icient conitions !or some
entity possessing or e0hibiting transcenence. H! there are conitions
!or consciousness_ being C?eingD1 these conitions are not o! a temporal
nature. Fe may be quite puzzle at the notion o! conitionals that o
not invoKe the element o! time an question the meaning an valiity o!
such a category o! conitional. 6he concept o! moularity must be
much more broaly unerstoo i! the concept o! Rtimeless conitionalsS
is to be given a rational e0plication. Hs the temporal nature o! the will1
when acting R!reely1S merely an epiphenomenal e!!ect o! this will_s
inter!erence with elements embee within the spacetime continuum?
Fho is the entity constitute by the seeming unity o! the authorial voice1
this subtly benevolent an unassuming1 teaching companion?
6hose sophisticate human beings believe that gree an sel!ishness they
have put behin them1 but narcissism an egotism are the more civilize
wors !or these traits still very much present.
Ht tooK 5ust a couple o! secons as a ynamic an chaotic !lu0 o! thought
was converte1 through the suen pumping up o! tiny electric an
magnetic !iels o! 5ust as myria an tiny stray capacitance_s an
inuctance_s o! billions o! gray cells1 all acting in mysterious concert
now1 i! what each ha been oing 5ust instants be!ore was to have been
one_s only guie. 6he e0erting o! a !ree will was a bootstrapping o!
action 5ust as much was its ual consciousness in its !irst concerning the
intention that will now implemente.
Hs there always some systematic coinage o! compoun terms !orme
!rom simple relation terms that succees in Rcovering1S in both a
RcompleteS an RconsistentS manner1 but without generating
super!luous1 RemptyS categories Cuninstantiable1 useless compoun
termsD1 which woul necessitate an e0pane Cthough not properly
motivateD ree!inition o! primitive terms1 alreay given within the
system1 e.g.1 Rgranbrother1S Rgrancousin1S etc.1 in the escription o!
incest-genealogies?
Hs organic unity a conserve quantity in the evolution o! li!e or is this
unity suppose to be on the increase with time?
Fhat is the li!etime !or correlations between local quantum states !or
vacuum bounary conitions1 e.g.1 brain states1 an nonlocal quantum
states !or RtheS ynamical vacuum state Ritsel!.S
6he most compelling worK o! scholarship must convince prospective
critics that its thesis was all but alreay articulate1 short o! the actions
o! the particular scholar in bringing to light or establishing Key
remaining linKs in the literature o! his sub5ect1 which thereby
emonstrate the secret inherence o! the thesis in the boy o! worK
researche.
-eynman_s !acetious uni!ie theory equation1
, = )1 the total unworlliness
in the ,niverse is )1 has some interesting unerlying implication1 one o!
which is that1 the etails o! the structure Cinterprete broaly here to
inclue !unctionD o! the universe1 which are important1 are incorporate
into abstract !eatures coorinate via close !orm1 analytic e0pressions1
an those etails1 at the present stage o! theoretical evelopment1 are to
be !oun Can eventually shall be !ounD 5ust on the other sie o! what
we might conveniently term1 the Rwall o! abstractness.S "imultaneous
with this is the assumption that none o! the etails on either sie o! this
RbarrierS have been place there by RusS. /lthough abstraction is the
e!ining operation o! the important !aculty o! the min Can there!ore o!
the min itsel!1 Known as intellect1 an there!ore shoul be suppose to
possess a Key sub5ective element Cthis may turn out to be only with
respect to the actual impulse to !ormulate an abstraction or abstract
category1 say1 through coorinate impulses o! will an perceptionD1
what is le!t behin Ron the other sieS o! Rthe barrierSD is nonetheless
suppose to be *))% ob5ectively real.
Hs there some ivine equivalent to the -33 which assures that each
persons quantum vacuum inter!ace evice CbrainD operates within a
narrowly enough e!ine spectrum o! vacuum electromagnetic !iel
moes so that !or all practical purposes C!rom an evolutionary
stanpoint1 sayD Rcross talKS between RlicenseS !requencies selom
occurs?
Hmpulses o! the survival moe1 e.g.1 competition !or scarce1 li!e-
sustaining resources1 ha to be place somewhere !or sa!e-Keeping until
such time as they might again be neee. H! all o! these suppresse
competitive urges an impulses are RstoreS within the very same
compartment o! the Rconscious1S i.e.1 social-oriente sub-basement o!
the min1 then le!t to themselves !or long perios may !orm among
themselves some integrate1 sel!-sustaining ne0us with its own instinct
!or sel!-preservation1 not able to i!!erentiate substantive !rom merely
abstract or symbolic1 representational RthreatsS ivorce as these
impulses have been !rom the more rational1 social-oriente sel!1 an
ongoing participant in the mutuality o! relatively peace!ul hunter-
gatherer e0istence. .e!t with the resiue o! abstract categories an
relations o! the rational sel! but cut o!! !rom the active guiance o! this
sel!1 the creature concretizes the symbolic L rather the opposite !unction
to that o! the intellect1 that o! abstracting !rom the concrete !lu0 o! the
senses.
9ne o! the principles o! Karmic in!luence is that o! the e0hibiting o!
large1 an even gran scales o! space an time1 within the microcosm1
e.g.1 orerliness1 orer1 timing1 planning1 subtlety1 etc. Hnteresting here
is the notion o! this Karmic principle applie to another principle or
rather its operation1 that o! sublimation1 which is intimately relate to the
cultural comple0ity o! bot the iniviual an higher levels o! social
organization.
H! the R4host in the 8achineS moel o! the human sel! is appro0imately
vali1 an there seems goo reason to suppose that it is1 then what basis
have we !or the assumption that one_s iniviual sel! is to be ienti!ie
absolutely with the ghost an only relatively Cor contingentlyD with the
creative organism an not the other way aroun? Hn other wors1 what
basis have we !or ienti!ying our true ientities with the eternal spirit
an not the temporal primate organism1 itsel! estine to ultimate ruin1
eath1 an ecay?
Ht seems that boy an spirit are really a temporary symbiosis1 each
utilizing the !aculties o! the other to implement its own sel!ish aims: the
creaturely organism gives the spirit access to impulse1 sensation1 an
e0perience1 while the spirit gives the creature access to consciousness
an rationality. Ht is an equitable e0change between spirit an creature
o! a higher orer means o! survival !or the means by which "pirit may
per!orm its metaphysical worK C o! co-creationD within the realm o! the
limite. Hs salvation then 5ust the proper ienti!ication o! the symbiant
with the aims o! the inwelling "pirit. Hs there any bleeing over into
the creature_s worl o! that which registers within the realm o! the "pirit
as it actively engages itsel! with pro5ects within other realms o! the
limite? /lthough couple together at the level o! the mutually
grappling intentions o! each1 there is naturally no mutual recognition by
each o! the alterity o! the other. 7erhaps the basis !or compassion an
humility is to be !oun in this mutual recognition at the level o!
consciousness rather than o! oppose or merely accientally consonant
wills.
"ymmetry breaKing o! the uni!ie consciousness !iel an .urianic
Oabbalah. 6he phenomenon o! language as the restoration o! local
symmetry to the consciousness !iel. 6he breaKing o! a symmetry
involves the loss o! conversation o! some substance an is the breaKing
into the system o! the ineterminate with respect to the quantum the
conservation o! which has now been lost. Hn this way the system comes
into interaction with respect to variables previously !i0e.
=ow is the myth o! the Rremaining crucial elementS o! some newly-
restore system o! ancient occult Knowlege relevant to the paraigm o!
moern scienti!ic research1 e.g.1 the stanar moel o! particle physics1
the human genome pro5ect1 quantum computing1 etc.?
9ne shoul choose an open-ene name1 one amenable or aaptable to
an evolving interpretation.
>usti!ication !or one_s li!e style oes not consist merely in a pat-souning
account in the !orm o! a Rplea !or e0cusesS in combination with the
enliste support o! a networK o! liKe-mine iniviuals L this woul be
a mere rhetorical-political 5usti!ication basis !or one_s way o! li!e. 6he
truth !rom which all real 5usti!ication/ apologetics !lows must transcen
politics1 which constitutes a Kin o! Re0peience on a gran scale.S
=a culture an social organization been evolutionary epiphenomena1
i.e.1 ha they ha no e!!ect upon either natural or se0ual selection1 then
the interpretation o! moern man as a species o! primitive1 hunter-
gatherers1 !orce to aopt to li!e in avance1 inustrialize society1
woul unoubtely come across as riiculous an !ar-!etche.
Fe cannot arrive at a clear notion o! what maKes !or consciousness1 that
is1 its substance1 simply by maKing a su!!iciently comprehensive
cataloguing an stuy o! its !orms an content. Fe must alreay Know
Csecretly1 at leastD what consciousness essentially is i! we are to ienti!y
novel mani!estation C!ormD o! it1 even though such a iscovery woul
mean seeing1 uner some altogether new unsuspecte aspect1 the way in
which all o! its !orms1 with which we have en5oye long !amiliarity1
have e0hibite consciousness consistent with the new unerstaning o!
consciousness_ broaer essence.
"he e0hibite an air o! prepossesseness that the locals here succinctly
escribe as Rher having a corncob up her butt.S
H! in!ormation cannot be transmitte1 then how is it that a person is an
open in!ormational system? 8ental an physical are !orme as are will
an consciousness L Fill provies the cohesion !or consciousness
which1 in turn1 provies will with its ob5ects/representations.
6hings come into an go out o! e0istence. Hs this true o! ?eing? Hs
4o the same RthingS as ?eing? 9r is 4o what maKes !or the
possibility o! ?eing?
3onsciousness is integration within an open-ene conte0t with which
one has real time interaction. Hntegration which taKes place along lines
not recognizable by the collective. 3oherence is no proo! o! truth as is
atteste by the phenomenon o! insanity. /n in!le0ible template applie
to the open-ene conte0t. 6he one e0plicates here actions in terms o!
history an the other in terms o! the present conte0t. Oarma is the
signature imprint o! the iniviual_s consciousness upon the ynamism
o! the interaction o! his will with the in!ormation by the collective upon
this same ynamic. :oes a !inite time span o! consciousness imply that
all its structures are !orme o! staning waves?
Hnvestigate the relationship o! the concept o! raical arbitrariness to the
polyemanation octrine.
6e0tile !ashions1 automobile boy styles1 line ances1 etc. quicKly
enough !all into obsolescence.
=ow oes the phenomenon o! hype1 e.g.1 meia hype1 !it into the
econstruction o! metaphysical presence?
H! the single heli0 were truly liKe a symbol string Cieographic or
phoneticD then woul the genetic sequence !or a speci!ic protein truly be1
as 8ono says1 arbitrary? ?ut what i! the proteins coe !or are
themselves sub5ect to interpretation? 6his suggests a structural system
o! interrelate signs. 3an this particular system be econstructe?
8utual gene therapy as the literal !ul!illment o! Rbecoming one !lesh.S
6he means by which the literal implementation o! the erstwhile merely
metaphysical is to be accomplishe itsel! has important symbolic
signi!icance.
6he trans!ormation o! the metaphorical into a !orm o! its literal acting
out an !ul!illment seems to hol special an1 in some cases1 almost
spiritual signi!icance !or many human beings.
6here is no e0perience so pro!oun that its signi!icance cannot be
broaene an eepene within the inspire imagination o! humanKin.
6he !unamental error in the attempt to clari!y an simpli!y holy
scriptures is that o! attempting the bypassing o! the necessary guiance
o! the "pirit. H! success!ul1 this woul be a Kin o! Rshort circuitingS o!
the unerstaning o! the truth o! "cripture.
6he act o! e0pression creates the conitions !or the e0pression o! that
which is not alreay in the unerstaning. 6his is much liKe the
ialectic o! painting in which the !inishe worK bears little resemblance
to the beginning stages o! the worK.
8eloy is a superposition o! resonances occupying istinct times.
6he ignity o! an inhabitant o! gemeutlichKeit. 6he Jen o! being a
greeter at Fal 8art.
C@otes !rom conversation with >ennie 6ucKer 8c3lesKy1 evening o! >uly
2&1 2)))D
=e0agram =istograms. 9ne throws the H 3hing using either sticKs or
coins until one has thrown all &( =e0agrams1 however many throws this
might taKe. 9ne recors each o! the wishes uner its respective
=e0agram. / bar graph o! number o! wishes versus he0agrams reveals
the relative !requency o! he0agrams thrown uring the length o! the
session e0tening !rom the !irst throw until the throw upon which the
last he0agram appears. 6he interpretation o! the above histogram is
i!!icult an uncertain in the case where the wishes are change with
each throw L much easier i! the wish is Kept constant.
"helraKean e0planation o! the evolution o! the metho o! interpreting
the he0agrams. 6he interpretation o! the he0agrams evolves as a result
o! centuries o! empirical observation o! the e!!ects o! their use.
6he he0agrams coul be RthrownS utilizing a small quantity o!
raioactive material o! Known1 relatively short hal!-li!e. 6his quantity
o! raioactive material woul be place in appropriate pro0imity o! a
geiger-mueller tube connecte a igital counting evice. 6he
registering o! a ecay within the perio o! a hal!-li!e coul be interprete
as either a R)S or a R*S. "ince the assignment o! a R)S to1 e.g.1 RtailsS
an R*S to RheasS is entirely arbitrary at least upon the initial occasion
o! per!orming this e0periment1 c.!.1 Aupert "helraKe1 6he 7resence o!
the 7ast1 a number o! observations are here in orer.
6he he0agrams must e0hibit a uality there!ore upon the initial
per!ormance o! the above e0periment. 3onsiering that the H 3hing has
been in use !or many centuries1 it is i!!icult to conceive o! how the
uality o! the system o! he0agrams o! the H 3hing1 implie by the
assume equivalence o! the throwing o! sticKs an the throwing o! coins
in the etermination o! each he0agram1 coul alter signi!icantly over the
course o! a series o! trials e0tening over the li!etime o! a single person.
6his uality poses a problem !or the assumption that the speci!ic manner
in which the he0agrams are thrown an the speci!ic implements use
with which to per!orm the throwing o! the he0agrams1 i! the he0agrams
are unerstoo to convey messages containing some ob5ective valiity
an/or content originating outsie the min o! the person casting throws.
6he motivation !or implementing the throwing o! the H 3hing via use o!
a evice sensitive to raioactive ecays are the many speculations
concerning an connection between the quantum state o! an isolate
physical system an the quantum state o! the human brain.
Ht is not !or nothing that each iniviual strives an su!!ers uring his or
her li!e on this ;arth1 wening his way between hope an !ear1 5oy an
sorrow1 !aith an isillusionment1 etc.1 but something !rom his or her
e0perience is eposite in some !orm into the groun o! the e0istence o!
all1 c.!.1 "helraKe.
,pon my !irst throwing o! the H 3hing1 H encountere the &(
th
he0agram.
Fhich he0agram is the ual complement to this he0agram an what is
its interpretation?
;twas ist mir ganz 5etzt einge!allen. Hn!ormation cannot be transmitte
through only local1 causal processes. Fe can only trigger in one another
private recollections or insights.
"electing !or a selection process1 the evolution o! evolution. 6he
linKing o! genes !or phenotypes which enable a selection process
through proviing a more natural selection-!rienly set o! !itness inices.
8etaphor reveals the hien pervasiveness o! abstract structures.
8etaphor is an e0emplar o! abstract structure that cannot be preicte.
3ontingency is base in the evolution o! possibility an necessity.
3onsciousness is RmetaphorS as such.
;vil !ollows !rom each pursuing its own goo in ignorance o! the goo
being pursue by the other. 7rie must yiel on the part o! each so that
these goos may harmoniously combine.
Hnvestigate the hien ream structure o! waKing e0perience1 RwaKing
e0istence is the ream uner the control o! the ob5ectS L "antayana.
@o viable mechanism !or the !urthering o! evolution is le!t unutilize1
e.g.1 the encoing o! iniviual e0perience into Rreality.S 9! course1 too
much unity is a ba thing. ;lements an subsystems must possess a
certain egree o! autonomy i! the system o! which they are a part is not
to !unction in too great isolation. 9n the other han1 the system must
retain a certain necessary egree o! integrity as a whole1 i! it is to
pro!itably combine the separately originating contributions o! its
constituent elements an subsystems.
3hronic narcissistic !antasization may be thought o! as a Kin o!
hemorrhaging o! the sublimation mechanism normally presiing over
the istribution o! the i_s conserve psychic energy. /lternatively1 this
mental masturbation may be unerstoo as a short-circuiting o! the
tripartite structure o! the psyche.
"ubstance behin appearance is reveale through trans!ormation an
a!!inity.
3ommunication between persons as meiate via communication o!
RhigherS an RlowerS selves amongst themselves.
Hniviual consciousness has this special !unction over an above
serving the interests o! the iniviual_s survival.
4o chose out o! his great love to share his ivinity with other beings.
6he iniviual human soul was create not within time but as having
always Re0iste1S i.e.1 ha being as itsel! a transcenent1 in!inite being1
possessing creativity1 but only within the realm o! limitation CspacetimeD.
Qd
=uman e0perience is our gi!t to 4o an ivinity is 4o_s gi!t to us.
6his e0change o! human an ivine gi!ts is best realize within the
!igure o! >esus 3hrist.
8ight the Oarmic principle operate on both Re0ternalS an RinternalS
time scales? 6he Oarmic principle may be a mani!estation ! the !act
that reality is intersub5ective rather than ob5ective which means that
reality Cas such1 or1 Rsuch as it isSD is overetermine along myria
istinct though interrelate realities. 6he iniviual RpersonalS realities
woul not be recognizable by us as such because each o! our personal
worls is actually our iniviual interpretation o! a collective1 social
construct. "uperposition is o! ghostliKe copies o! classical worls1
i!!ering !rom each other in only inessential etails. 6he collectivity
upon which the worl o! appearances is base is qualitatively i!!erent
!rom the iniviual worls comprise by it.
6he most general property o! consciousness is ientity-in-i!!erence.
Fhat woul provoKe a human being to question that which is mot
!amiliar about his aily e0istence? Fors are always interprete in
terms o! other wors.
:econstruction always aopts linguistic evices that attempt to resist its
own econstruction. 6hese evices are themselves econstruction_s o!
the larger te0t o! which they are a part.
R7hysical ob5ectsS as icons o! the human neural networKs operating
system. 9b5ective oriente programming.
9ne is hanle an treate as Ra sel!S !or perhaps *N to 2( months by
!amily members prior to the birth o! one_s own sense o! sel!.
H! one_s li!e has been an inspiration to a !ew though still a warning to
many1 then it shall not have been live in vain.
Ht is the nature o! 8an_s arrogance to interpret the !act o! his maKing in
the image o! 4o as his possessing the very substance o! ivinity.
"ometimes the answer to a question is Ryes an no.S "ome either/or
questions presuppose an invali or incoherent ual istinction or !alsely
assume e0istence1 e.g.1 Rare some Krunelbleetzes blue1 yes or no?S "o
the theorems o! logic an mathematics are not inepenent o! semantics.
Fe cannot !airly evaluate the value or meaning o! e0perience at the
personal or iniviual level by placing this conte0t against the bacKrop
o! the gran scale o! the impersonal or collective Chive or societal
perspectiveD.
/lthough it is usually i!!icult to recognize signs/inications through
contrast with past patterns than it is by contrasting with latter eveloping
patterns.
9ne woul love to go bacK an relive all those choice moments o! one_s
past as everything woul seem so real because one woul be acting the
whole time. Aeasons !or our actions1 always goo enough1 can always
be ae to.
6he !acility o! communication o! abstract1 intersub5ective content has
isguise the uniqueness o! the iniviual_s personal e0perience1 even
!rom his awareness.
Hniviual-base venue !or genetically1 behavioristically etermine
e0perience taKing place within a cultural/social construct1 e.g.1 linguistic
eterminism. :econstruction an postmoernism is proo! o! a neurotic
philosophic consciousness.
6here must e0ist some most appropriate literal state o! a!!airs that a
beauti!ul poetic metaphor per!ectly escribes. 6he 7latonic !orms may
not be abstract concepts or categories1 but may be metaphors1 which
require e0perience !or their e!inition as well as the conte0t embeing
this e0perience.
7latonic orer as maniacal overKilling substantiation o! any truth claim.
C,nnecessary !or aequate support o! truth claimsD
/bsolute truth is nevertheless truth relative to some !i0e an eternal
system o! relations. Hn the absence o! such a timeless1 more than large
enough to support multiple1 con!licting truth claims.
9nly on the assumption o! a corresponing theory o! truth oes a truth
claim necessitate an e0istential claim.
/ny truth claim can be surmounte by an aequately subtle an
e0tene Cover timeD shi!ts in consciousness. /ll RlogicalS arguments
are at some level base upon an equivocation o! sense since
consciousness can always invent an establish still subtler istinctions
than can be suppporte by the categories1 an hence1 class relationships
presuppose in RrationalS argument. /ll rational argument is then
ultimately Riscourse-ive.S
6here are private language constraints as well as intersub5ective
openness in the !itting or aapting o! sub5ective intuition to collective
rationality. 6hese sub5ective constraints upon insight can in!orm prior
art as well as requiring a ialectical process o! aaptation to an !rom
this prior art.
epi=
6he ialectic oesnGt breaK reason1 ratherV reason is at
the very heart o! the ialectic.
Fe are all or most o! us what might be calle Rpetit politicians1S !orever
campaigning.
Fe parte a!ter each having coming to the irretrievable conclusion that
each was out o! the other_s league.
-unamentally i!!erent types o! people ten to view each other_s
character strengths as crippling limitations. /nother views one person_s
philosophy as rationalization !or !ailure while the philosophy o! the !irst
person is viewe by the other as an a hoc 5usti!ication !or living an
inauthentic li!e.
/ltere states o! consciousness hel a coherent social an cultural
!unction within early primitive1 tribal hunter-gatherer societies. 6he
capability to attain nonorinary states o! consciousness as well as the
tenency to seeK out substances in the natural environment !or creating
or enhancing such states o! consciousness has been selecte !or uring
many thousans o! generations.
8ost o! the behavior isorers1 incluing those traceable to brain
chemical or neurotransmitter imbalances1 may be trace to a normal
reaction o! an essentially psychically whole hunter-gatherer !orce !or
too long to live within a cacophonous late 2)
th
century urban society.
6his situation is !urther combine with the notable absence o! !ormerly
long available pathways o! psychic an social integration1 e.g.1 tribal
ritual1 myth1 religion1 an collectively a pharmacologically meiate
altere states o! consciousness. "uch altere states o! consciousness
permitte human beings to become one with Cby perhaps gaining a sense
o! being immerse withinD a transcenent being/ continuum1 either
personal or impersonal1 as well as to gain a sense o! becoming one with
all the members o! their tribe/ clan. Ht was inepenently1 an certainly
accientally1 iscovere that an echoing1 pouning soun stirre onesel!
an others to synchronous movement1 an also helpe to prouce a state
o! being more suggestible to both commans an communications.
H! young people are not provie with a su!!iciently competitive1 i! you
will1 social structure Cwith accompanying selections o! viable personae
e!initionsD1 then the genetically etermine e!ault moe is brought out
an aapte to the prevailing moes o! e0pression an communication
that most len themselves to this.
Aelative i!!erences in one_s own consciousness !rom one moment to the
ne0t or in the consciousness o! one person an another may be mae the
proper sub5ect o! theory an speculation1 however1 not so !or
consciousness in its naKe1 absolute essence.
:istinctions are always e!ine or note1 consciously or secretly1 in view
o! either an a priori or alreay establishe category within which these
istinctions are mae. 6here are certain istinctions there!ore which
can only be mae with respect to consciousness given the e0istence Cor
subsistence1 i! you willD o! some a priori concept or category o!
consciousness as such.
Fithout consciousness1 there is not a grasping o! latent or potential orer
!rom out o! its camou!lage o! chaos. 6he appearance o! one structure in
no way suggests another. =ow are we to interpret the notion o! the
creation e novo o! something as being suggeste by something alreay
present to han?
8etaphors !requently possess little o! any actual escriptive value1 but
the metaphors a name is recommene by a !usion o! pleasant i!
e0tremely vague an sub5ective associations.
3onsciousness necessarily involves action an agency in the
!unamental sense o! origination an sel!-moving. Ht is the primum
mobile o! the conscious min that !orever possesses the potential to act
in a manner that cannot be anticipate by any Kin o! universal causal
meium or groun. =ence1 the necessity o! the action o! consciousness
in collapsing the quantum state vector. 6he will collapses the
wave!unction because it acts !rom an origin positione1 i! you will1
altogether !rom outsie the eterministic spacetime o! the "chroinger
equation. 6his is what assures the transcenent nature o! the will an
why we shoul speaK o! it as being !ree. 9! course1 there can be no
naturalistic e0planation Cin the traitional acceptation o! this worD !or
the origin o! either the consciousness o! the iniviual or that o!
consciousness as such.
7otential is not !i0e1 once !or all1 in avance1 nor o potentials come
into being1 evolve an so on1 in accorance with the ictates o! potential
potentials as this Kin o! thinKing leas to an in!inite regress. ?oth
RpotentialS an RactualS are abstractions1 the istinction between them
being merely relative.
6he egree an quality o! the inter!ace between the transcenent1 higher
sel! an Rits brainS account !or i!!erences in the intellectual abilities
between persons.
6he etermination o! certain types o! truth an !act necessarily involves
!eebacK1 participation1 give-an-taKe between investigator an the
sub5ect o! stuy which to some e0tent necessitates a certain sel!-
!ul!illing o! prophecy. 6o eeply probe nature is to at once probe into
the penumbra o! the brain_s ynamic an reactive embeing substrate.
/t some eeper level o! probing into the a!!airs o! natural processes1
nature rops her guise o! passivity an taKes up an active1 cooperative
role in more !ully etermining hersel!. Fe say that nature reacts
passively an eterministically to the application o! an impulse or
stimulus to one o! her e0ternal inputs an actively an creatively when
this stimulus is applie to one o! her internal inputs.
.iKe the human psyche1 nature is comprise by both active an passive
components1 i.e.1 ynamics as well as Kinetics. Onowlege that is
representational is trans!erable through iscursive symbolic
communication1 i.e.1 communication in which there is no irect coupling
o! the ynamics o! one min to that o! another. 9n the other han1
Knowlege that is participatory is not trans!erable symbolically.
3onsciousness is relevant to the question o! what e0actly rives the
collapse o! the wave!unction in its role in bining an integrating
processes that must be escribe as being nonlocally connecte. Fill or
intention is relevant to this same problem in the sense that will1 when
e0presse in boily action or even as mere thought1 introuces a
isturbance to the continuum o! the quantum vacuum wholly or
essentially unanticipate by it. @ovelty is generate as a result o! the
intervention o! human action CwillD in the a!!airs o! the quantum
vacuum. 6he quantum vacuum must at once quicKly improvise a
response to this human meling/inter!erence in its RprivateS a!!airs.
6his response is a !using o! elements o! the human psyche with some o!
the quantum vacuum state_s own elements in which both sets o!
elements are initially somewhat incommensurable. 6he activity o! this
quantum vacuum is constitute by the combine collective interaction o!
all possible transcenent beings.
6he only way to in a single stroKe reconcile 7lato with the !act o! real
novelty an creativity at the metaphysical level an not 5ust at the level
o! RphysicalS Cmani!estationD is to promote these 7latonic !orms to the
status o! creative an !ree1 transcenent mins. 6he behavior o! ieas is
a!ter the !ashion o! viruses an genes1 i.e.1 mimetics1 appears consistent
with such an interpretation o! the 7latonic !orms.
Fe may thinK o! the human brain Can its associate local ynamicsD as
being a Kin o! egenerate eigenvalue associate with an unlimite
number o! Rstates1S i.e.1 transcenent beings. 6he attempt to encompass
the larger1 bacKgroun omain o! vacuum ynamics Cin which the
brain_s eterministic ynamics o! physical states has representationD so
as to uniquely speci!y the person associate with the brain in question1
Qd
shall only succee in uncovering a historical event1 namely1 that o! the
transcenent being selecting that particular vacuum ynamic Cwith the
brain e!!ectively acting as its RKernelSD as the vehicle or conuit o! its
own sel!-limitation. @o !uture evelopment in physics or brain science
shall iscover a eterminism within the scope o! its re!ine escription
o! brain processes Can their interplay with those o! the vacuum o!1 e.g.1
post quantum physicsD which emans that this or that brain Cor brain
stateD be Rthe cause o!S this or that particular conscious mental state Co!
this or that particular personD. -ig. *1
3ommon term
/ a
3onte0t conte0t
a 3ommon /
;nvironment
-ailure to unerstan metaphor because no e0perience with common
abstract structure o! conte0t-literal mineness.
>uly 2)**
Hnstea o! the
oler1 simpler iagram showing1 c.!.1 -ig. 21
3ommon term
/ a
7erson /_s iea 7erson ?_s iea
a 3ommon /
;nvironment
Hnso!ar as our theory o! conceptual re!erring/enoting is an actual
escription o! what happens Rinsie the hea o! each personS in a
conversation1 then we shoul e0pect our iagram illustrating the moel
o! the theory to possess sel!-re!erentiality1 i.e.1 imagine replacing
R7erson /_s ieaS an R7erson ?_s ieaS in -ig. 2 with two i!!erent
versions o! the the iagram in -ig. * an then perhaps essentially oing
this once more by replacing R3onte0tS an Rconte0tS within the two
versions o! the iagram in -ig. * with the iagram in -ig. 2. Hnuctively
this constitutes a representation o! an in!inite regress.
@oncommensurability o! two istinct ynamical grouns pertains to the
lacK o! momentum-energy e0change between them in which the istinct
grouns inee are unergoing a mutual e0change1 however one that is
completely out o! resonance. 6he resonance o! two or more grouns
shoul be internal to both an e0ternal to neither.
Hn a portable ocument !ile C7:-D i! on taKes the little han icon an
clicKs the mouse1 causing the han icon to grab the page an then pull
the page own across the screen rapily1 one begins to perceive a
!licKering o! the te0t on the screen. 6he !licKer !requency becomes
slower the !aster one pulls the page o! 7:- te0t ownwar across the
computer esKtop screen. /ny connection via analogy with quantum
tunneling !requency?
Fithout a meium can there be representation? 3an there be 7latonic
!orms without Rontological commitments?S1 c.!.1
cit=
/uieboo' to
Derria on Deconstruction. =ow can transcenentally e0clusive entities
connect within a common continuum? =ow can they initiate escent
into the realm o! limitation? Hs some pivotal hyper transcenent entity
require to trigger1 enable1 an orchestrate the necessary conitions !or
polyemanation an mutual contact within space?
6he tripartite organization o! the soul: intellect1 emotion1 an will.
Hnvestigate the concept o! spin as angular momentum about the time
a0is.
6o the ;arthly1 creaturely sel!1 intellect can only be a tool1 a means to the
!ul!illment o! instinctual esires. 3an all areas o! human eneavor be
shown to be sublimation o! instinctual rives?
3hoosing between i!!erent in!rastructures o! li!e. 6he same themes
an con!licts are worKe out in myria istinct conte0ts.
6he ne0us worl o! intersub5ective overetermination L a worl rich
enough to provie synchronistic valiation o! each iniviual_s ultimate
narcissistic !antasy L to be 4o.
-reeom means equivalent Crather than equalD access o! each iniviual
to their own Runi!ication centerS o! reality.
Fe must each an all agree to play roles that e0hibit the logic o! timeless
themes1 but also evelop altogether new e0istential themes1 an these
roles must be temporary Cin some senseD but this is complicate by the
!act that by transcening mere mani!estation within e0perience1 new
groun is brought into being1 i.e.1 R?eing1 itsel! is enlarge1 an the
groun o! one_s own transcenent being is metaphysically worKe upon
Cmetaphysical RworKS is per!ormeD. /ll creativity invoKes
metaphysical worK.
Fhat are we to thinK o! the !unamental !act that the quantum vacuum
supports the e0istence o! any evolve structure1 organic or inorganic1
even though such structures are genuinely novel in not being pre!igure
as e!inite potential latent structures o! this vacuum? "o when a new
organic structure comes in to being1 !or e0ample1 o the processes within
the vacuum that sustain the e0istence o! these new structures themselves
also come into being?
3onsciousness o! the particular iniviual remains unaltere in the !ace
o! all trans!ormations o! its state that it is capable o! being sub5ect to.
6his egeneracy o! consciousness with respect to all possible
observables points up its virtually in!inite symmetry.
9riginating an propagating causes are the timeliKe an spaceliKe
components o! causality.
cit=
/n <et the 3enter =ols 6he 7latonist/;0istentialist ebate in the
/ge o! :econstruction.
6hese two types o! causes characterize the causal meium in its active
an passive moes1 respectively.
-or two iniviuals to communicate a specialize language must grow
up between them which encoes the history o! a process o! tentative an
searching mutual grappling in the pursuit o! a common pro5ect.
Hnvention serves the nees o! iscovery.
3onsciousness_ collapse o! y with nonlocally connecte superpositions
proves it separate1 i.e.1 not originating in1 the nonlocal quantum vacuum.
Aecognizing one_s sel! in the other an recognizing otherness in one_s
sel! are two e0pressions o! the same insight.
/re substantives constitute by relations? H! a process is
overetermine1 then the particular causal sequence that historically le
to the e!!ect in question must itsel! be uneretermine.
7arao0ically1 the average sensitive human being is wrenche at times
by a eep impulse to e0perience gemutlichKeit an transcenence.
6he i!!erence between thoughts an perceptions: with perception1 the
initiative or motive lies outsie that person.
?y saying that a min or consciousness is an open system1 we are also
saying that an iniviual consciousness possesses no outsie.
6he past is the history o! bounary conitions an boun !luctuating
!iels. 6he !luctuations o! the vacuum o not cease when a given
moment becomes past.
6he Rshi!ting o! grounS phenomenon is owing to the cumulative e!!ect
o! collective collapse o! a vast number o! more or less istinct
wave!unctions.
6he occurrence to onesel! o! a very clear an istinct possibility
combine with the recognition o! its hereto!ore never having been
realize1 sometimes triggers a Keen sense o! having a premonition. H!
the characteristic ensity/time Cin the probabilistic senseD is comparable
to one_s li!etime given the probability rate L ensity an e0perience
volume o! the person1 then the occurrence o! this event is Roverue.S
6hese are all !actors1 probability rate ensity1 e0perience volume1 etc.1
which the subconscious/higher sel! may inee be able to calculate.
6he conscious min is alerte to all reasonable probabilities.
?ecause it is truly only our otherwise that is vulnerable to the insults o!
emboie1 spatiotemporal e0istence1 one !eels that tragey is only liKely
to be!all others L a clear case o! the equivocation by the ego between
two quite istinct metaphorical acceptations o! a concept L the origin o!
our unlearne intuitions1 with a startlingly varie mi0ture o! Keenly on-
target insights an miserably mistaKen presumption.
?acK-!ormation o! transcenent conte0t !or temporal metaphor is a
relevant notion at this 5uncture.
-oreKnowlege can be receive !rom the !uture provie it has no
eterminate enotative content which is nevertheless usually recognize
as such in hinsight.
9utcomes o! separate measurments o! i!!erent components o! a system
escribe by a single wave!unction though nonlocaly correlate1 canot
be utuilize !or supeluminal observer-to-observer communication. 6wo
nonlocally connecte events are not e0ternal to each other.
7innochio ;!!ect is where you !aKe ienti!ication1 Knowlege1
competency within a certain area until these become !actual in the sense
o! courtroom escription1 an hence real.
.i!e o! its own !ree will cooperates with the will o! 4o. 6he moral law
is built into the structure o! the universe 5ust into the structure o! the
universe 5ust as is the rationality o! the human min L why mathematics
is so unreasonably e!!ective in escribing the physical worl.
6he sense o! the wor chil in the phrase1 Rchilren o! 4o1S is that o!
!amilial relation. ?ut there is1 o! course1 the other obvious sense o! this
term the sense o! immature human being. Fhile we are on this ;arth
we are hope!ully aults !or most o! our lives an chilren o! 4o. /!ter
we have all accomplishe our unbeKnownst appointe missions here1 we
are then reay to become the Rgrown-ups o! 4o.S
Fhat better meium in which the in!inite regress o!
causation/e0plication1 can have its being as alreay complete1 than that
which is at once both most singular an1 paro0ically1 most general
Cbecause the preconition o! all thoughtD as well as the seat/groun o!
both will an representation1 that being1 consciousness. /n ene
reality Ctranscening any single uni!icationD this meium is actually a
plurality itsel! without boun1 i.e.1 in!inite multiplicity o! coequal
unities.
Fe always assume that our personal e0perience possess a valiity more
general than actual.
9rer is only encountere in its particular mani!estations1 but has it
ultimate origin in something which itsel! has no particular orer. 6his
something must then be itsel! bounless an is constitute by activity
without temporality1 i.e.1 activity in the absence o! changing !orms
Ctrans!ormationD. /ll !orms are R!lu0 stabilitiesS o! this activity an so
trans!ormation1 i.e.1 temporality without !i0e time scale1 is change to
these !lu0 stabilities which is really 5ust change in activity sub5ect to
e0ternally impose time scale.
/ Rtheory o! everythingS woul be a single or a list o! equations1 i.e.1
Re0plications o! the structure o! the empty set.S ?ut clearly there must
be an in!inite number o! i!!erent possible sel!-consistent structurings o!
) or the empty set CspeaKing most generallyD.
Hn!inity an ) are simply istinct poles o! the Ioi1 i.e.1 empty set. /
given ) contains within itsel! all o! the eterminations o! a given in!inity.
?ut 5ust as there are many in!inities there are many )_s each
corresponing to a counterpart o! opposite pole. /n the classes o!
opposite pole. /n the classes o! in!inity o not !orm with one another
any single hierarchy o! trans!initue.
Ht is only through birth an eath that the temporal an the eternal may
linK bacK to one another. 6he potential !or eath is the constant linK o!
li!e to its ynamic an creative groun.
.i!e per!orms uring its course creative1 metaphysical worK as it bacK-
reacts upon its groun through li!e_s engenering o! novel elements in
this same groun which themselves an their new ynamism grow
incommensurate with the elements an their ynamics o! the ol
!ounational groun Cpartly initially internalize by the living1
e0periencing thingD. 6his incommensurability o! ol an new groun
an groun elements/ynamics necessarily grows with time so that the
living creature grows less synchronize with the evolving groun o! its
eveloping being Cas oppose to e0istenceD1 resulting in the eventual
ReathS o! this creature. Ht is on account o! the growth o! an asynchrony
between the internal processes o! an entity an the processes o! its
groun that this being necessarily !aces ultimate issolution.
Qd
?ut note
that this egeneration unto eath is necessary in orer that the realm o!
being be enlarge by the processes of e6istence.
6his being more an more loses its ability to spontaneously aapt to the
shi!ting o! the groun o! its original Can presentD being1 largely ue to
the myria cumulative an collective e!!ects o! all other living things
upon this same physical groun. 6he same pseuo .amarKian processes
which en!orce a necessary limit on the li!etime o! each iniviual living
thing.
;ntropy egraes a living system because the system is giving up
in!ormation to the environment !aster than it can convert in!ormation
into bene!icial moi!ications o! its own structure. 3ontinuity is
important because some in!ormation has no absolute esign content1
e0ternal to itsel!1 in the sense o! changes to the pree0isting content rather
than coing !or a particular out-crystallization o! ynamic structure !rom
the present groun state.
8essages passe1 person-to-person1 along a long chain1 resulting in such
garbling o! message that it no longer bears any resemblance to the
original :egraation o! igital in!ormation through multistage
ampli!ier circuit. @o constraint upon how noise creeps into an
entangles with the original signal1 i.e.1 no syntactic or semantic
!iltering/processing accompanies egraation o! the signal. "o when
transmitters are active1 i.e.1 listener-speaKer1 signal in!ormation is
replace graually with an altogether new signal without egraing into
ranom signal1 i.e.1 Rnoise.S
6he omniscient narrator can interpret !or the reaer the present actions
o! the protagonist in terms o! events that are to be!all this character
much later in li!e1 c.!.1 p. 221 paragraph * o! 6he Aector_s Fi!e.
web=
www.hacKersclub.com
"he ha become a stern isciplinarian o! her inner chil.
"ince the quantum vacuum1 or zero-point !iel1 is ultimately responsible
!or that special an general relativistic e!!ects1 e.g.1 mass increase1 length
contraction1 time ilation1 etc.1 an also etermines the precise character
o! quantum phenomena1 e.g.1 7si-collapse1 tunneling1 resonance1 etc.1 we
are hope!ully 5usti!ie in supposing that the vacuum plays a substantive
role in etermining the e0act timing an synchrony/synchronization o!
all physical processes1 incluing neurological processes. /n since the
e0quisite timing o! signals transmitte both within an between neurons
are vital to the brain_s processing o! in!ormation1 the vacuum_s ynamics
must be intimately involve in the higher level !unctioning o! the brain.
Fe cannot unerstan in!ormation in the way ata are unerstoo1 that
is1 as eterminate an close or isolate entities. Ht only maKes sense
that the Rphenomena !orever unmani!est1S the virtual processes that
unerpin Cat every pointD causally eterministic processes o! the
mani!est orer1 be themselves1 nonlocally connecte an essentially
acausal.
6he greater egree o! integrity an wholeness that the temporal ego
brings to its e0perience1 the more valuable in!ormation woul be lost
uring the phase o! uploaing into the personal cosmic min. /n so
the less liKely that the ego_s unerlying integral structure shall be
isassemble so as to maKe other ata an in!ormation reaily available
to this min. 3ertainly the level o! resistance o! the ego to the
perceive horrors o! the !unamentally incomprehensible process o! his
Rbeing uploae1S shall only increase the magnitue o! the stresses
acting on an within its psyche. ;ach iniviual has a more or less
istinct built-in or instinctual Cbut largely subconscious D Knowlege that
RuploaingS is his ultimate !ate.
/ll o! these iniviual1 subconscious presentiments o! uploaing an
reprocessing mani!est themselves on the collective level as the notion o!
ivine 5ugement1 purgation1 etc.
3an e0perience be plugge into an altogether novel an perhaps alien
conte0t with the result that new meanings o! more power!ul signi!icance
Cthan is possible in1 say1 the conte0t o! one_s ;arthly li!eD are brought
!orth?
/ll arguments are Rcircular1S the question concerning an argument_s
RvaliityS is simply that o! whether or not this circle Co! the argument_s
circularityD can be encompasse within a human min or not1 that is1
whether the argument only R!ailsS when consiere !rom the stanpoint
o! a superhuman min or not. ?ecause the 7latonic subsistence o! logic
an rationality is itsel! ultimately a given1 that is1 an irrational atum1 all
arguments are either only conitionally vali or arbitrary/nonsensical.
6here can be no causal reason !or an eternally e0isting universe. 6here
can be no general proceure !or !orming abstract escriptions1 Cunless
the generality o! this proceure is necessarily inconceivable?D.
/ high !requency1 perioic !low o! quantum coherence an ecoherence
unerlies the R!low o! conscious e0perience.S
/s :escartes has cogently pointe out1 there is nothing more certain1
less liKely to turn out to have been mere illusion1 than the !act o! one_s
own Cconscious e0istenceD. @o greater certainty concerning the !act o!
4o_s e0istence may be erive !rom another !act than that o! one_s own
seemingly inubitable e0istence. 6he atheist secretly su!!ers !rom a
pro!oun sense o! his or her own ontological insecurity. 6he
ontologically secure iniviual is only !ace with the lesser crisis o!
belie!1 namely1 Ram H mysel! secretly 4o1 or is it someone greater than
even my higher sel!?S
6he recursiveness o! consciousness1 the necessity o! the min being both
a unity an an open system1 i.e.1 unlimite1 its !aculty !or sel!-
interaction with potential !or complete sel!-interpenetration Cability to
Rpass throughS itsel! to per!ect recursivenessD1 the nonsensical an
contraictory nature o! in!ormation being RtransmitteS through a
substantial meium L all o! this points to consciousness transcening
spatiotemporality1 itsel! merely the arena !or the mani!estation o!
consciousness_ representations an wille actions.
6he uniqueness o! consciousness means that its operation is not lawliKe.
Hts role as the groun !or the !ormation o! abstract categories implies that
it itsel! possesses no !ormal escriptions1 such which applies only to its
various representations CmentalD an proucts o! intention Cemboie
action1 i.e.1 physicalD. Hn other wors1 a given consciousness cannot
cease to be though it might be !orce to withraw itsel! !rom spacetime
Ce0istenceD. 6he important question !or the iniviual1 amittely
philosophically-mine human being to consier then is whether there is
some essential an necessary connection in !orce between himsel!1 i.e.1
his Rworlly egoS an the transcenent being whose being is absolutely
necessary to his temporal Can perhaps secretly eternal D conscious egoic
e0istence. Ht is clear that one_s necessary preconition !or conscious
e0istence that embes an enables the phenomena o! his ego1 i.e.1 this
transcenent consciousness/transcenental being woul not enable the
ego_s e0istence out o! a mere tri!ling1 escapist an thrill-seeKing
impulse1 but this ?eing esires to achieve CsomehowD genuine growth
through the e0perience o! pro5ecting itsel! Cthrough appropriateD acts o!
sel!-limitation. "ince this is to be a serious missionD pro5ect !or this
being1 real an lasting consequences must be a genuine possibility Can
e0press goalD o! sai being. 3onsequently1 this ?eing_s act o! sel!-
limitation is o! necessity an irreversible one. H! he is to return to his
transcenent sel!hoo1 this must be accomplishe by a path that oes not
pree0ist as present possibility. Aeturn can only be accomplishe
through the worKing out o! altogether new possibilities o! trans!ormation
than e0iste prior to this being_s escent. 8etaphysical worK must be
per!orme by this being1 in other wors1 i! the realm o! the transcenent
is ever to be reconquere. "o here we see that emanation o! ?eing into
;0istence cannot be mani!estation1 pure an simple1 but at once
necessitates novel an unpreceente acts o! creation.
3onsciousness may inee be a category1 but it is not an abstract
category. 7erhaps what we term consciousness is a metaphor o! one
Kin when applie to other persons an o! still another Kin when
applie to one_s own case L here a metaphor !or something intimately
connecte to the ego but utterly transcening it. 6he question o!
immortality is reucible to a question concerning the relationship o! the
transcenent sel! to the temporal ego. :oes the personal absolute1 i!
you will1 require the preservation o! its client-ego in orer to best
preserve the unique quality o! the Knowlege gaine through this
instrument1 which1 as alreay allue to1 cannot be a purely passive
instrument o! the personal absolute1 which itsel! must risK real
involvement/enmeshment with a spatiotemporal realm.
9ne is uncertain about what relationship one shoul maintain with
regar to the narcissistic i. -reu was mistaKen in some sense about
the limitations o! the i with regar to the operation o! the reality
principle.
H! an iniviual_s brain is networKe to a large pree0isting networK o!
other brains1 an this is one too quicKly CnonaiabaticallyD1 then the
threa o! continuity o! the ientity o! the person patche into the
networK is lost. Fhat basis is there !or ientity other than structure an
continuity? /iabatic changes to the quantum mechanical system are
those which are so subtle an slow that the unerlying groun state
quantum vacuum oes not reali(e that anything is being one to the
system. 3.!.1 the ship o! 6heseus1 the golen threa in the .abyrinth.
3ertainly there is nothing wrong with taKing a breather on a plateau
along one_s climb an cultivating a little complacency1 en5oying the
sense o! stability o! a local energy minimum. ?ut1 o! course1 this system
o! local energy minima can itsel! always shi!t. 3an the ynamics o! such
a shi!t be aequately escribe by eterministic1 =amiltonian ynamics?
,nless the phenomena o! min were inputs to brain/consciousness1 there
woul be no coherent/rational reason !or their appearance within the
presentational continuum. 6he phenomena o! min1 whether thought or
perception1 etc.1 must be in!ormative to appear. 3an we say the
istinction o! ata versus in!ormation is parallel to bounary conitions
versus ynamisms L to space versus time L to momentum versus energy?
;ntropy L close vs. open systems.
Fhen we prove to be right in our suspicions1 we rarely are aware o! how
right we truly are.
8ani!estation is never merely a pro5ection into a passive meium1 but its
groun/point o! origination is at once participating with the
e0pression/transmission meium.
6ransmission involves e0pression 5ust as e0pression involves
transmission.
Aecursiveness as a necessary !eature o! entanglement o! transmission
an mani!estation/e0pression.
9veretermination o! meaning in the sense o! multiple1 simultaneous
eterminations all o! which Cperhaps1 no two o! whichD can be hel in
the min1 i.e.1 comprehene at once. /aptability o! history to !uture1
broaer eterminations that shall inclue prior eterminations. "o an
aitional time a0is accommoates changes between CrationallyD
mutually e0clusive eterminations Cegeneracy o! causalityD.
:egeneracy as the realm o! the higher temporal imensional temporal
evolution. :ata concerns escriptions o! change along a single time
a0isV in!ormation escribes changes o! time a0es/time variables. Hs this
the reason time cannot be an observable in quantum mechanics where
collapse o! the wave!unction involves switching between i!!erent
temporal evolutions1 i.e.1 switching !rom one "chroinger equation to
another with respect to some incompatible observable. 6he successive
splitting o! egeneracies pertaining to a single moment in the sense o!
staggere over time1 multiple historical interpretations is e0clusively a
!unction o! the min o! iniviual historians.
:ialogue with the author upon reaing a te0t is possible at least in the
sense that the author_s evelopment o! his sub5ect or thesis insight!ully
anticipates the questions1 impressions1 misunerstanings an
epiphanies liKely to occur in the min o! the reaer in response to this
evelopment.
3ernerse: hoverV threaten L this is a case o! two acceptations being
separate wors in ;nglish an being !use in another language Chere1
"panishD.
=ow are vampirism an necrophilia relate? "ucKing the li!e out1
leaving a li!eless husK behin versus proving that the inner li!e principle
o! the other is an illusion an that the other is1 in !act1 not genuine other
at all. Fill to solipsism an necrophilia L what_s the connection?
6he min routinely utilizes a Kin o! ialectic in the !using together o!
ieas that1 hereto!ore separate1 were mutually incongruous. 6his
irreversibility o! ieas in interaction suggests that ieas1 when they !irst
occur to us1 are pristine an uncontaminate1 !ree o! cross contamination
with other ieas with which they otherwise Rrun together.S
Onowlege o! common versus istinctive Kins o! a thing/situation.
8uch creativity is e0pene in syncretistic eneavor L the e0ploitation
o! obscure covey holes within a genre L paraigm. ;ach genre may be
interprete as a more or less inepenent a0is o! variation o! !orms o! a
certain sort.
/nalysis: the peculiar an con!use1 sel!-re!erential logic o! narcissistic
representin_.
@oncommunicable sensory/perceptual contents L linKing together
CnetworKingD o! mins oes not change the polyvalent character o!
sub5ective e0perience within this composite meium. Fhat Kin o!
egeneracy is this? Ht is a case o! egeneracy with respect to all
possible !ormal/physical parameters L another basis !or saying that no
!ormal escription o! min is possible Cbecause there can be no !ormal
or physical basis !or istinguishing RistinctS minsD.
6he chaotic attractor notion o! thought may suggest !or them a R!ormal
content.S 6his !orm nature is etermine by the egeneracy structure.
6he egeneracy structure etermines the resonance spectrum. 3.:.
?roa woul have us believe that each o! us is secretly capable o!
perceiving everything happening elsewhere in the universe C!rom the
perspective o! the particular iniviual in question?D. 6hese Rparticular
iniviualsS are !ree to evelop their consciousness in any irection at
all without this evelopment inter!ering with the evelopments o! some
other iniviuals_ consciousnesses. 6his is the iea o! each iniviual
min possessing its own unique resonance spectrum. ,niqueness oes
not imply eterminacy in the case o! consciousness.
/lthough grace by evolution with a boy !ashione through countless
generations o! millions o! beings struggling against all os to survive1
most human beings woul pre!er to live li!e e0pening the bare
minimum o! e!!ort.
[H! my consciousness an that o! each intelligent person possess its own
unity1 then can there be room !or a still more per!ect unity1 that o!
consciousness as such? ?ut the notion o! a unity o! !eatures o! the
iniviual_s own consciousness which transcens the unity o! his
iniviual consciousness seems nonsensical1 i! not contraictory.\
,nity is always an RattributeS that is unique to the thing RpossessingS it.
6his unity1 being unique1 cannot be escribe iscursively. 6here can
be no complete !ormal theory o! what constitutes unity. 6he notion o!
unity can only be unerstoo in metaphorical terms. /ny attempt at
characterizing unity generally must involve elements not necessary to its
essence. 6his is because unity always subsists against a bacKgroun o!
a !unamentally nonuni!ie reality.
6hat which has never originally been RprouceS can certainly ever be
reprouce. 9nly the !ormal mani!estations o! the absolute possess a
historicity. 6he /bsolute possesses no history !or it has never interacte
with another1 other than itsel!. 6he realization o! !orm always
simpli!ies in some ways an complicates in others. 6he simpli!ying
abstraction o! !eatures o! the whole always invites into the mi0 new
elements at variance with new !orms thus engenere. 6he meium o!
e0perience is always in small part the creation o! which whose
e0perience is e0presse through it. "o there is no pure separation o!
e0perience !rom its meium. "o e0perience can never be capture in a
purely !ormal manner. 8oreover1 the meium o! e0perience can never
be truly passive.
Ht is the activities o! which we never grow tire the pursuit o! which our
vigor is ever renewe that are prompte !rom within our innermost
being.
6he implications o! this observation are harmless an peestrian enough
in the case o! the Known or acKnowlege habits o! min an boy1 but
potentially quite isturbing where newly reveale or introspecte1
longstaning patterns are concerne.
Ht is not so much the aopting o! new interests that signals a change in
the sel! as oes the turning away !rom an activity hereto!ore regularly
an !requently engage in1 the more so the greater this !ormer activity_s
!requency an regularity.
Fe o not !ail to reprouce novel an unique phenomena merely
because the causes that evoKe them in the !irst place cannot be
reprouce1 nor because this set o! causes has change or shi!te so that
we are now !ace with a search !or the proverbial haystacK neele to
ienti!y them through later incarnations. ?ut rather we have lost the
threa by which change to this set o! causes was introuce Ccontaining
both mani!est an EhienE causesD through having allowe our
vigilance o! an intimate involvement with such changing sustaining
conitions to lapse.
,nique phenomena are only reprouce through the maintaining o! a
threa. 6his threa acts to maintain the robustness o! newly engenere
!orms by heaing o!! the irrelevant eterministic e!!ects o! the
instrumental sie o! the ynamism1 the blinly given o!! epiphenomena1
mani!esting at lower integral levels o! process. 6his necessary
integration o! ynamical process involves the continual ree!inition o!
what might be terme causal equivalence classes. 6he stability o!
percepts an the !i0eness an purpose!ulness o! thought epen upon
this proactive integration o! ynamic abstract !orms. /n instinctual1
that is1 a robustly overarching theory o!1 the causal relateness1 as well
as the historicity o!1 the three basic interacting levels o! abstraction1
causation1 an in!ormation must alreay be in han !or this process o!
the continual istillation o! min !rom material process to continue
going through. Hn!ormation an abstraction are seen here as basically
inverse !unctions o! one another. Hn!ormation !unamentally alters the
possibilities !or the abstracting o! !orms !rom the ynamical causal
meium. /bstraction is the mani!esting o! the meium through !ilters
as well as the a5usting o! these !ilters inso!ar as the !iltering mechanism
is part o! a causal process. -irst level !iltering is then seen as base level
a5usting o! !ilters so that there is a still lower level o! !iltering relating
to the mere presence o! bounary conitions to the meium_s causal sel!
interaction. Hn!ormation involves an alteration in the character o! the
meium itsel!. /n there is a special type o! in!orming/in!ormation
which never involves the introuction o! any novelty whatever. 6his
in!orming is simply that o! the maintenance o! the threa o! continuity1
no more1 no less. 6here is a Kin o! novelty introuce in maintaining
constancy against the bacKrop o! continual !lu0 when the thing thus
maintaine is itsel! an abstraction1 at least in part1 !rom out o! this !lu0.
Fe are here re!erring1 o! course1 to the "el!1 which may be aptly
characterize here as the equivalence class o! all
voc=
equivalence classes
o! a certain type/sortal. @ot changing by taKing into account all
inessential changes is the tenacity o! the sel!.
@ot all limitation presupposes the most general limitation o!
spatiotemporality. /ll the while that we have spoKen o! temporality we
have secretly been re!erring to spatiotemporality. 6emporality itsel!1
shorn o! the intuition o! space1 is to us inistinguishable !rom the
timeless. 6he sense o! auition has o!ten been spoKen o! as being a
!aculty o! pure temporal perception. ?ut there is a trace o! spatiality
where nonmeaning!ul or noisy auitory streams are concerne. Ht is
only the meaning conveye by voice1 simultaneous with its very
utterance an issuing !rom within the min_s ear1 i! you will1 which
possesses this timelessness.
;ach must !in some creative eneavors1 which engage these
ynamisms that unerlie the aily-reenacte banal1 unprouctive
patterns o! sel!-talK1 instinctual psychological/egoic reaction. -ormerly
these impulses were engage within a tribal clan setting an by
continuously being acte out1 su!!icient mental pressure was avoiable
to prevent the bubbling !orth o! these impulses into consciousness.
8any !ragmentary impulses that regularly boy !orth in the psyche are
in search o! their !ormer tribal hunter-gatherer social conte0t.
Aeality uni!ie? /long only particular lines? ?ut mani!estation is
what e!ines the avenues o! uni!ication while at the same time
necessitating a eparture there!rom. 8ani!estation is a eparture !rom
unity that remains in some measure connecte to this origin. 6here is
nothing to prevent a unity !rom being enlarge through maintaining this
unity in the !ace o! growth.
Fe only recognize causes in terms o! the conitions through which they
act an which limit them an moreover o not istinguish i!!erent ones
as such. :istinct causes or the e0istence o! a plurality o! causes1 that is1
the !act alone o! the e0istence o! istinct causes1 such that their number
is greater than unity1 being reveale only when one set o! conitions !ail
to be reuce to another necessary to it. /n so the evolution o!
conitions is ialectical in nature by evolving the operation o! new
causes uring its course. ?ut whether new causes are evoKe1 ue to
changing conitions1 !rom the very same source it is not meaning!ul to
speculate upon unless one is presuming the possibility o! essentially
similar acts on the part o! istinct persons.
9nly natural superiority has a right to be respecte. 6he realm o! the
possible is the meium1 which supports the RtransmissionS o! actual
events as well as their transpiring in place. 6his meium o! possibility
is not ini!!erent to the passage o! actual1 historical occurrence through
its bulK1 but reacts anharmonically CaperioicallyD to all but the simplest
an most regular occurrences. /s we Know !rom stuying -ourier
analysis1 an aperioic !unction can only be appro0imate through a sum
o! sinusoial !unctions1 an then1 over only a !inite interval1 c.!.1 4ibb_s
phenomena1 an even an in!inite number o! sinusois must !ail to
properly represent the !unction over an in!inite interval. ?ut the notion
o! an aperioic !unction over an in!inite argument interval invoKes the
notion o! an in!inity by other than construction1 that is1 an in!inity not
!oune upon a pro5ection requiring enless repetition o! a !inite rule.
"uch a rule translate to a law woul be escribable neither in terms o!
inuction nor euction1 but points up an altogether i!!erent Kin o!
ratio. 6his type o! in!inity itsel! represents what might be terme an
in!inite rule1 e.g.1 a new Kin o! ratio without use o! counting numbers.
6he possibilities o! the ecision tree reconstitute themselves in reaction
to the action o! ecision_s taKing place. "o perhaps there is not such
thing as intention alone as purely contemplate action1 but intention
itsel! is action. Fhat is the meaning o! the coherence o! myria
unintene consequences?
Qd
6he gravity o! human action is Oarma.
H am amaze at the capacity the arbitrary has !or institutionalizing itsel!
an shocKe that this is its most urgent ambition.
6hat which is truly unique is usually 5ust imitation in search o! an ob5ect.
6he irrational oes not possess the potential !or automaticity. 8ay we
characterize evil as being inherently parao0ical1 the harmony o!
cacophony L as being a thorough going rational irrationality? 6he
mani!estation o! the absolute within the realm o! limitation is liKene
unto gooness itsel! corrupte unto perversion. ?ut this is not ientical
to what is evil. Fe must start !rom the premise that evil was born here
as a prouct o! this worl. Hgnorance is a necessary ingreient but so is
this wantonness o! a proactive survival instinct. ?ut there are also the
qualities o! arbitrariness an perverseness Cas oppose to RperversitySD.
Fhen one maKes a new istinction1 oes one point out what everyone
shoul have alreay Known1 but were unable to articulate to him or
hersel!?
;nergy is route1 channele1 !iltere1 etc. liKe a !lowing conserve !lui
possessing only a passive momentum1 i.e.1 not reacting bacK upon that
which conitions its Kinematics. Hn!ormation possesses an active
momentum an cannot be manipulate mechanically as a passive
substance. Hn!ormation possesses a ynamism through its action o!
in!orming all with which it comes into contact1 incluing other
in!ormation CRstreamsSD.
Hn a sense1 hypotheticals are not really possible because nothing can
really taKe place within the worl1 history or within the most orinary
situation as a truly isolate event. 6he hypothetical an the real are not
completely istinguishable.
8etaphysical presence an canonical1 classical1 stanar1 etc.
/n abreaction o! the reaction !ormation o! Rhopeless humanness.S
/ttributing one_s human nature to one_s iniviuality. 6his is a
narcissistic halo not unliKe that worn by the love ob5ectV every nuance o!
in!lection1 mannerism1 an habit is uniquely iniviual to the magical
person. /!ter the enouement o! the love a!!air1 all these are seen as
either a!!ectation or common.
Fhat possible evience coul be ascertaine !or events that1 i!
perceive1 automatically cover their tracKs1 erasing their memory traces
within the brain?
Fhen recollecting an ol !rien a!ter many years time1 must one taKe a
positivistic perspective?
?ut mustn_t there be an ob5ective orer alreay e0isting within which the
reality-by-agreement is to be worKe out1 inevitably through some
historical-temporal process. @o genuine ialectical process ever
worKe itsel! out without at once worKing through itsel!. :ialectic
requires that its RbacKgrounS continuum be caught up in the ialectic as
well.
-reeom is as much connection to an interaction with nonlocally
connecte in!ormation as it is inepenence !rom these.
@onlocality an the contingency o! a substantial meium or ether in the
RtransmissionS o! in!ormation1 woul nonlocally RmeiateS RinterS-
actions be reversible? 3an a nonlocal RmeiumS be consistently
assigne an entropy?
6he purely arbitrary 5ust by being place in the mi0 o! historically
mutually involve entities must necessarily taKe upon itsel! a
nonarbitrary historical signi!icance. 6his is part o! what maKes science
!iction time travel stories so interesting.
>uly 2)**
"tewie to ?rian: R6hat_s
such a ouche time traveler thing to sayS H imagine an "- story in which
the protagonist encounters a time traveler !rom the istant !uture who1
upon solemnly con!iing to our main character that he_s R!rom the $)
th
3enturyS1 receives an abrupt response !rom our man Cesigne to maKe
us Rignorant peasants_ 5ust a little prouD: RFhat great signi!icance is
your solemn revelation set against the immensity o! the ,niverse?S
6here is inee a tren H_ve recently notice in time travel science
!iction to ownplay the presumptuous narcissism o! !uturistic time
travelers L a tren the sees o! which were perhaps !irst plante by =. 4.
Fells in his seminal "- worK1 The Time 2achine1 whose protagonist *2
th
3entury 7hilosopher-"cientist taught us that progress is but an
appearance borne of fluctuation an too puny a scale of historical
vision to appreciate this fact. @ow recognize that a fluctuation is merely
the most natural manifestation of a system conceivable9 ;verything
which the system shall mani!est as robust new evelopment in the !uture
is !irst pre!igure in the ile1 roiling an bubbling be o! !luctuations o!
the system. 6his is much in the same !ashion as the young toler who1
babbling1 vocalizes every possible phoneme which he shall ever utter
uring ault li!e. 8eaning an signi!icance are the glue which maKe
e0periences stan out in our memory even a!ter most else has been
!orgotten !or the last time. 6his realization might help to maKe
biological evolution somewhat more palatable to reason. /!ter all1 can
the very groun o! being really li!t itsel! by its own bootstraps so as to
transcen itsel!]still less coul it engener a aughter which woul
outstrip the creativity o! her !atherT H am at this point strucK by the
isturbingly nihilistic revelation that we inee have a notion o!
consciousness without actually possessing consciousness as such or in
its suchness. 6he empiricists transporte !rom the age o! reason to our
allege postmoernity might settle upon the notion that thought is 5ust a
reprocessing o! the ata o! the senses1 which abstracts it !rom its original
timeline. Hn other wors1 thought is 5ust recollection in a !orm which is
isguise by an inaequate unerstaning o! the !unctioning o! the min.
6hat the ata o! the senses are originally e0perience in a temporal orer
oes not close o!! their participation in higher imensional conte0ts than
the uniirectional one constitute by the threa o! temporality. Fhen
e0periencing hypnogogic states Cusually e0perience 5ust be!ore the
onset o! sleep or upon awaKeningD one notices that myria an highly
istinct though stylize scenes Csimilar to types o! animationD !lash
be!ore one_s min_s eye at a rate o! about ).N)-).2) =z. 6he scenes o
not however e0hibit the continuity o! content an conte0t o! actual
ream scene sequences. Ht is as though the min is per!orming a
compute tomography o! its e0periential store o! sense ata an is
spontaneously reconte6tuali(ing them.
9h1 is that all it means to you? @o1 that_s 5ust the representational part.
.iKe attempting to move the limbs o! some transcenental !aculty1 one
occasionally !eels a prompting or impulse to act in a manner !or which
one is not in !act equippe.
Qd
6he question arises1 whence come such
inherently !ruitless stirrings?
"omehow !ancy an illusion1 when interwoven with action are regare
as o! greater worth an signi!icance than illusion an !ancy alone.
/s we have earlier note1 evil arises !rom the !inite person attempting to
act out o! his own absolute being. /n imbalance between the !aculties
o! mercy an 5ustice brought about in the process o! having mae the
sel! arti!icially ignorant o! its true nature. >ust as the notion o! the true
sel! points to something transcenental relative to !inite e0istence1 the
notion o! community is equally transcenental relative to the unlimite
state o! being o! the personal absolute. 6he imper!ect Knowlege
possesse by the !inite sel! concerning its transcenent counterpart
combine with the imper!ect Knowlege possesse by the transcenental
sel! o! otherness an the 9ther contribute to the emergence o! evil in the
realm o! !inite being. 6he Knowlege o! the one is partially given up in
orer to gain Knowlege o! the other in an attempt to realize a greatest
goo. 8anKin has always e0perience many inner promptings to e0ert
!aculties in a measure o! which he is not actually capable1 much liKe the
attempt o! an amputee to stir into action a phantom limb. 7hilosophical
eneavor1 particularly metaphysics1 represents this attempt to grapple
with questions too eep an broa !or a mere humanly limite
unerstaning. "ometimes iniviuals !ace with certain eath or
estruction in the !ace o! obviously superior !orce will suenly evelop
an e0tremely sharp conviction o! their natural invincibility L such as one
might e0perience in the !ace o! a grave threat encountere in reams in
which one suenly realizes one_s true ientity as a waKing sel! merely
asleep in a superior reality. 6he wrath borne o! !rustration an ve0ation
o! one_s shaow transcenent sel! !orce to eal with countervailing
wills an obstacles unKnown to it in its unlimite state o! being may
mani!est as what might be seen as evil behavior. 9ne !orgets that the
limitations with which one meets with aily are but inevitable symptoms
o! one_s chosen limite !orm shape by the comple0 realm o! limitation.
6he types o! uncertainty an/or !actors contributing to it: vagueness1
inter!erence e!!ects ue to e0changes o! energy1 inter!erence e!!ects ue
to e0changes o! in!ormation1 uncertainty ue to sheer comple0ity1 that
ue to active eception/isin!ormation1 Re0perimenter e!!ect1S i.e.1 the
e!!ect o! e0perimenter subconscious biases1 e0pectations1 an
pro5ections1 uncertainty introuce through transmutation through
changing meia1 translation losses/gains ClinguisticD1 viral contamination
by !oreign memes1 breaKing through o! combine subthreshhol e!!ects1
incompleteness1 ambiguity1 blinness/enial o! observer/e0perimenter1
channeling1 !ocusing1 !iltering e!!ects1 sociology o! Knowlege1
paraigm ominance1 etc.
9ne_s theories1 moels1 an paraigms that in!orm the interpretation o!
ata must be uner investigation along sie the phenomena being
investigate by way o! these.
?y boning with people o! the type that in the past hurt!ully re5ecte us1
we might !in1 !inally1 the Key to those re5ecting hearts. 6he con!use
Can usually represse1 as wellD esire is to symbolically Cor perhaps1 in
realityD return to the re5ecting person arme with the newly acquire
secret weapon !or KnocKing own CpenetratingD the battlements o! their
erstwhile icy hearts.
=er is to the Key to the polyemanationist octrine: there is unity in
iversity but which relative to intersub5ective agreement C;"6D Yreality
is agreementZ
"el!ishness an prie are barriers to the opening up an enrichment o!
the sel! by e0perience. ;0perience is never interprete in search o!
meanings larger than those concerning the sel! an its immeiate
nees/wants.
Fhen asKe to imagine any situation or entertain any new iea1 i! one
!ins that once set upon such a path o! !ancy or speculation that powers
o! intuition an insight commence to spring into action1 seemingly o!
their own accor1 then clearly unconscious contents are in process o!
being liberate1 latent connection o! parts o! the sel! are !ining a new
actualization1 resulting in a perceptibly i! not slightly heay an
vertiginous larger integration o! the sel!_s resources1 now alreay
unerway. 6hen we say that the ieas an images o!!ere to us !or
consieration have a trans!ormative power L they seem to lea us
vertically RupwarsS or Rownwars1S as the case might be1 but at any
rate1 taKe us away !rom the sterile sur!ace o! the banal in which our
ientity is normally !i0e1 compete with all o! the requisite attenant
boreom1 !rustration1 an restlessness that is the lot o! munane men an
women. -ortunately or un!ortunately1 !ew o! these ever reach a stage in
li!e o! being able to articulate the true source o! issatis!action with
li!e_s perceive possibilities.
>anuary 2)*$
-rom a recent -acebooK message:
R6hat is both a short an a long conversation1 "amT @ew isorer
iscovere: 7.":: E7ost 1angweilig "tress :isorerE. WE.angweiligE
means EboringE in 4erman. HG liKe to o!!er mysel! up as a Kin o!
Epatient zeroE in a groun breaKing stuy o! the isorerT : DS
6he pluralist worl o! 7lato_s ieas is not timeless but these ieas are
living beings. ?ut how to reconcile notions o! absolute1 in!inity1
unlimite1 etc. with temporality?
:issociation may 5ust be the retreating !rom our normal personas an
taKing up re!uge in the sel! that transcens an employs them much as a
puppet master might. ?ut issociation is a necessity o! social e0istence
in which the iniviual is e0pecte to completely per!orm in role1
accoring to the cognitive styles/moes most appropriate to social
spheres o! which his li!e is comprise. ?ut issociation is a two-way
implication: that o! the persona ecoupling1 e.g.1 !ugue state1 religious
conversion1 etc.1 !rom the true sel!1 an that o! the true sel! ecoupling
!rom the persona.
:ue to the operation o! culture in stanarizing an institutionalizing
patterns o! social interaction an behavior1 it is not necessary that
behavior be genetically etermine in all iniviuals within a given
breeing population1 e.g.1 clan or tribe. Ht is only necessary that a large
enough percentage o! this population be compose o! socially
ominant/in!luential iniviuals Cpossessing the ability to substantively
in!luence the cultural an social evolution o! the populationD !or the
survival value to the population o! the new set o! behaviors to be !ully
e0ploite. 6he more in!luence such ominant iniviuals wiel within
the relatively close society o! the breeing population1 an the more
e!!ectively the culture purveys the sprea o! new1 evolutionary-
avantageous behaviors1 the smaller the !raction o! iniviuals within
this population nee actually possess the genetic marKers !or the
evolutionary-avantageous social behavior. "o we shoul e0pect that
some small percentage o! a breeing population e0hibit patterns o!
behavior as an e0pression o! their Cgenetically-baseD being while the
ma5ority o! this population e0hibit these patterns through mimesis
in!orme by cultural in!luences. =ere we arrive at the notion that
socially ominant iniviual_s act out o! the inner promptings o! their
being while the 2'% o! a given social group are acting out a Rsecon
natureS etermine by the cultural patterns o! behavior ominant in their
social group.
Fe woul liKe our generalizations to be viewe as in!orme by a broa
an varie base o! e0perience. Fe woul liKe to give speci!ic e0amples
to be viewe as acts o! imagination.
;0perience is constructe so as to accommoate !uture evelopments.
/s the ensity o! quantum vacuum states ecreases with cosmic
e0pansion1 a blacKhole must give up enough quantum states Cper unit
timeD1 all o! which are istribute along an across the hole_s event
horizon.
?ecause o! the greater relative abstractness o! terms original to oler
languages1 e.g.1 "ansKrit1 4reeK1 .atin1 etc.1 it appears liKely that
language evolve out o! a progressive e0pression o! high level1 internal
in!ormation processing taKing place within our automata-liKe !orbears o!
the genus =omo1 who i not possess an iniviual-style consciousness.
/t some point1 the nonlocal quantum brain processes become mutually
isconnecte within the collective an reconnecte to istinct1 iniviual
CtranscenentD absolute mins.
:ynamic: opening up1 breaKing out or into a hereto!ore-eterministic
ata structure. 6he "upreme ?eing is the transcenent ?eing possesse
by all transcenental absolute ientities CpersonsD in common. ?ut this
commonality o! transcenent consciousness is only vali analogically
speaKing. <ou might thinK o! this !orm o! transcenence as trans!inite
transcenence.
Hs it necessarily the case that equivocation o! sense Co! the same term as
it appears in both the minor an ma5or premiseD necessarily rener a
syllogism invali1 or are there certain special circumstances1 that is1
restrictions upon the precise manner o! the equivocation1 which permits
the conclusion to go through? /n i! ineterminate or RpolyphonousS
meanings are amitte into the iscourse o! argumentation1 oes the law
o! e0clue mile still hol?
6he truly sacre an holy cannot be esecrate1 only our iea o! it. Ht is
the istinctions an system o! i!!erences that is create not that in
which these inhere.
Fhat is calle an open unity is a unity o! common transcenent origin o!
mani!estation. Ht is not a unity in an abstract or !ormal sense1 that is1 o!
escription. 6here!ore1 this unity_s mani!estations o not uniquely attest
to it as being their author. /ny caniate !ormal escription o! Rthe
processS by which mani!estation occurs woul have to be both broaer
an eeper than that pertaining to the prouction o! abstract escriptions1
e.g.1 in terms o! classes an categories. :oes what is calle intention
transcen the uality o! accient versus causal-eterministic?
6he analogous relateness o! the plurality o! iniviual sub5ectivities1
i.e.1 consciousnesses1 implies a copresence to an impersonal
transcenental consciousness.
3onsciousness is the ocean in which living ieas swim.
?obos in 7araise1 :avi ?rooKs C"imon & "chusterD
6he ;0urbanites1 /.3. "pectorsKy
6he Knowlege o! the nature o! consciousness is not intersub5ective1
which is to say1 iscursive. 6he iniviual seems to possess this
3artesian certainty o! his own state o! iniviual consciousness an yet1
there is nothing within his consciousness to which a possible verbal
escription might be attache which e0plains the nature o! this most
general !eature o! his momentary e0perience. Fith the iniviual_s own
consciousness apart !rom any !orms that might inhabit it1 the general an
the particular are one. 6hat is1 parao0ically1 the iniviual_s state o!
consciousness is at once o! greatest generality an greatest particularity.
Ht is a general category that possesses unlimite potential !or
instantiation Cover timeD1 but at any given moment is utterly singular. H!
the possibilities !or consciousness are not pre!igure1 then as
consciousness evolves1 it grows more singular an grows in its
generality.
6he groun o! the iniviual consciousness woul in this case have to be
partially constitute by what is occurring to other consciousnesses. 6he
substance o! consciousness is the in!usion o! its past states1 which are
non-repeatable1 as well as its possible !uture states1 which are i!!erent
by the time that they become actually e0hibite within it.
Hneterminacy leaves room !or the operation o! alterity1 that is1 that
which is at the present stage in commensurable with respect to
consciousness.
9ne_s e0perience shoul be rich enough that one can wait !or an apt cue
to subtly segue into the topic o! conversation o! one_s choosing.
Fhen one acts out o! a sense o! one_s absolute being1 one consiers
onesel! the en subserve by others consiere as means.
Fe o not nee to !etishize the customs1 !olKways1 an social structures1
or even the physical theories o! the past. 6here are an unlimite number
o! equally vali ways o! thinKing1 perceiving1 an being.
H have taKen no small amount o! solace in the thought that H am an will
probably !orever remain1 the single greatest bluner o! 5ugement that
you commit uring your short so5ourn on this planet.
/!ter the age o! ()1 you_re not liKely1 say1 to iscover some neat1 new
way o! cracKing your KnucKles. 6he same rule goes !or. . .
7ragmatism an 7luralism are istinguishe !rom Healist/8onist
philosophy most easily in terms o! how these octrines treat the notion
o! progress.
7ragmatism: not better 5ust i!!erentV Healism: not 5ust i!!erent1 but
better
3orresponence versus the coherence theory o! truth is aligne with the
istinction between iealism versus pragmatism.
,psie own vision-inucing goggles e0periments o! the *2')_s. Fhat
my han !eels liKe L is this RintrinsicS sense-meaning or institutionalize
arbitrary sensations linKe through !eebacK.
=ow oes participation C!eebacKD shape an crystallize representations?
@othing is real in a solipsistic universe. 7olyemanationist reality has
ma0imal realism meaning.
R/n >ustice !or "omeS
3enter as well as periphery1 !igure as well as groun1 rational as well as
irrational1 pragmatic an theoretical1 an so on1 !orm a ual set o!
categories. 3oherence an sel!-consistency that belong to a category o!
the ual pair also belong to the other. 6here is no reason why one ual
istinction cannot cut across another while retaining its coherence as a
ual set o! categories1 as well as the other uality retaining its coherence.
Aegarless1 o! one_s perception o! the magnitue o! one_s progress1 one
must not imagine having rawn any nearer to a !ull unerstaning o!
e0istence.
6here is a subtle rollover e!!ect that occurs uring conversation in a
secon language with a native to the culture o! this language. 9ne
begins by intening to say one thing but must actually articulate
something somewhat i!!erent occasionally what one actually musters to
articulate is only loosely relate to what one believes one originally
intene to say. 6his phenomenon is imperceptibly replace by a
perhaps unre!erenceable change Cin the min o! the speaKer here1 that isD
in the Kins o! things that the 2
n
language speaKer intens to say. Ht is
uring this transition that one ceases to have to constantly translate what
a native speaKer says into one_s mother tongue be!ore composing a
response.
H note here that H never have neee to translate what H wante to say
!rom some initial composition begun in ;nglish into the target 2
n
language. /pparently the !aculties o! language composition an
comprehension are istinct in their operation1 c.!.1 contrast between
Reep structureS an Rgenerative grammar.S
-ractal vowel souns o! the -rench language versus pure vowel souns
o! .atin1 4reeK1 =ebrew1 "ansKrit1 etc.1 i.e.1 tongues escene !rom the
7rotoinoeuropean. 6his observation also applies to the tonal
languages1 i.e.1 languages in which istinct meanings are conveye
through very subtle variations in vowel soun tonality1 e.g. the oriental
languages. /nother relevant i!!erence between oriental an occiental
languages is the one in terms o! the !irst possessing an ieographic
written language1 the other1 a phonetic. :oes the monotonality versus
the polytonality o! Hno-;uropean versus oriental languages have any
relevance to the istinctly i!!erent notions that the corresponing
cultures/societies hol concerning transcenence?
3an only rive the system at one or more o! its natural !requencies.
@atural li!etime o! historical moments RrivenS at newly !orme
resonance !requencies - the loss o! enthusiasm as the ecay o! a moment
o! eterminate potential eterminations.
Aeprocessing e0perience in terms o! new concept maps/networKs. 6he
canonical !orm creates a eterministic an stable space o! possibilities
about itsel!1 which is !ille !ractally.
/ hypothetically super-canonical space may be ensely !ille by
intersecting an interpenetrating1 !ractally-!ille canonical spaces.
H! there is no 4o1 then to whom am H to be grate!ul !or my goo
!ortune?
/ repetitive sensory stimulus only appears to inuce resonance i! the
min eems the stimulus to possess a potentially meaning!ul pattern.
9therwise1 the perception o! those stimulus sinKs !rom consciousness.
6hose with e0cellent short-term memory1 senses o! irection1 social
sKills o not nee to rely on reason an imagination.
6he whole picture is reveale stepwise so the meaning o! each step is in
terms o! a conte0t not yet reveale.
Fe can have metaphors !or abstract metaphors that have R!allen intoS
being literally interprete.
=ow is personal gratitue a coherent notion1 when so many are su!!ering
in this worl. Hs gratitue to 4o then 5ust gratitue !or eserve Cor
uneserveD !avoritism irecte towar onesel! an not others?
=ow o strange chaotic attractors !unction in neural networK memory
an learning? Yresonance o! strange attractorsZ Yneural networK
reamingZ
:ictaweb 68 portable web search igital :ictaphone with nerual net
base voice recognition. Hn!ormerge 68. Ycharacteristics o! /3/_sZ
3oncerning the question o! unity1 we shouln_t asK i! things are relate
to one another1 but how can they be relate so as to serve ob5ectives.
9ne element can always contaminate another1 i! only y allusion within
narrative there is not intersub5ective in!inite.
8etaphor an speci!ically analogy1 !ree the min !rom con!inement to
any particular euctive system.
"leep Farehouse on "iegen .ane. Fhite ;lephant in =ammon1 ./.
8en invente the concept o! !emininity. ;strogen treatments o!
prostate cancer. Hn5ection o! testosterone into cows1 causing them to
attempt mounting o! multiple other cows.
6he thesis o! core bise0uality being moulate by Re0traneousS !actors
presupposes the Rpre-postmoernS notion o! core ientity1 that is1 Rsel!-
ientity.S
7roactive sociality o! homeless people1 e.g.1 always waving hello to
people wearing tinte sunglasses. 8ore thought an perception
appears in a prepare Rgrist !orm.S
6ruly Reep coverS operatives on_t Know they worK !or the agencyT H!
you suspect you_re one o! us1 5ust call '''-''''.
4race receiving consciousness on creit L human e0perience is actually
!ree !loating1 ungroune e0perience.
Ht is parao0ical but there is such a thing as ReigenalterlichKeit.S
"ince one_s ientity is not yet !ully !orme1 one cannot be ientical with
onesel! an the istinction between sel! an other is not well !oune.
:oes the negation o! something Cas e0istentD secretly a!!irm it as
essence?
=ighly i!!erentiate people are people who_ve ha great success in
aapting to a particular environment. ?ut the more entrenche an
organism is in its Rper!ect aaptationS to an environment1 physical or
social1 the more precarious is the organism_s position.
;ssential to the concept o! !reeom is the concept o! arbitrary choice an
action. 3ertainly1 !or the revisionist critic1 there is never an arbitrary
action. 3an the reasoning o! a philospher o! soun min an boy be
subsume with that o! a paranoi schizophrenic uner a single1 bio-
physical logic?
6he tenency o! newly-!orme compoun wors to be unerstoo as
atomic1 gestalt wholes. 7resence is accentuate through art.
6hermoynamics o! orere structures. :ynamic entities or processes
generate new essences C7latonic !ormsD an so may be thought to
per!orm metaphysical worK ClaborD. Hs creation an novelty possible
within the realm o! the transcenent1 or is limitation unto immance1 e.g.1
space1 time an causality a necessary preconition? 9nly in relation to
an interaction with other transcenent alterities Ccontrast with:
RentitiesSD which can only be meiate through the realm o! the
immanent1 i.e.1 within time.
/nthropologic Hnn. /itional three millisecons between wors.
;verlasting to everlasting. /nthropo//rthropo is an unerstanable
con!usion. Aeveren 6ynall_s R!ire an brimstoneS sermon on the
sin!ulness o! 8an. / stay o! a !ortnight is require Cpurgatory?D.
3ommunicating rooms an a oor can be opene !rom one room into
any other Ce!ies normal $-imensionalityD Aeservations: timing is
everything.
6he Fatering =ole principle L the propinquity principle o!
mating/coupling1 c.!.1 :obie 4illis episoe !rom *2')_s.
Ht is only continual reminers1 lanmarKs o! memory that we believe to
be the !amiliar earmarKs o! an ob5ective everyay reality that prevent by
their continual re-presenting themselves to our consciousness1 this
consciousness !rom Re-rezzing1S not into nothingness1 but into chaos1 in
parallel with the vacuum being not emptiness1 but a hotbe o!
!luctuating momentum-energy.
Hnvestigate the thermoynamics o! =awKing raiation within the conte0t
o! cosmic e0pansion in terms o! the thermal coupling o! the $-an (-
vacua.
Ht is no coincience that the mass o! a blacK hole is irectly proportional
to the ratio o! the quantum vacuum an boun energy ensities.
6he e0osKeleton that e!ines the blin spot o! the person_s consciousness
calle personality. Aeality is only close with respect to the min that
re!uses or chooses not to perceive one or more o! its possibilities.
;vil is breaching the agreement1 mae in mutual goo !aith1 to not act
!rom out o! one_s absolute being. 9! course1 the attempt to actually o
this is oome to !ailure1 with rare e0ceptions1 an it is the acting as
though one is acting out o! one_s absolute1 transcenent being1 that is the
root o! evil in the spacetime realm. 6he action o! transcenence within
the immanent is what generates Oarma anew1 an which there!ore can1
more speci!ically1 rescin Oarmic bons1 e.g.1 physical law is violate i!
conservation o! energy is not maintaine L this is action !rom out o!
time.
6he elements combine an permute are not constants but change
throughout their combinatoric interaction. 6heir groun is not mere
suppresse !igure. 3reativity an e0pression occur han in han.
6here are no pure instrumentalities L the tool always reacts within the
grasp o! its user. 6he present to han an the reay to han cannot be
prize apart unless in abstracto.
/ !ormulation borne o! mere poetic sentiment must always be able to be
rei!ie when applie in all its rami!ications the overetermine worl.
@ature enlists our ai in her etermination o! hersel! in that our
paraigms1 theories as well as the methos o! probing an questioning
nature in!orme by these1 give her ieas o! which she avails hersel!.
8any laws or rules e0plain the sel!same ata set an so no one o! them
may be thought to actually govern the behavior o! nature.
7eople who Rhave pastsS typically e0hibit behavior in!orme by
emotional reactions that totally mysti!y those more nacve iniviuals
witnessing the isplay.
:erria is liKe :ionysius1 holing up a lantern in search o! an honest
representative o! metaphysical presence. Fe !alsi!y presence all o! the
time1 e.g.1 sel!-plagiarism. Fe are continually soliciting the pro5ection
o! superae presence unto our own incomplete beinghoo.
/lternately1 we engage in a practice o! re!lecting bacK our own
pro5ections o! our sel!hoo1 however accurate these interpretations o! the
other_s sel! may be in those terms1 so as to enhance the mutual !eeling o!
community.
6he proo! o! a concept is the use!ulness o! our agreement concerning its
meaning1 its application to omains apart !rom that o! its avent1 the
concept_s implications !or ethics1 culture1 politics1 society1 etc.1 an what
other such RpracticalS concepts whose engenering it enables.
:eterminate concepts or categories are liKe sca!!oling !or a builing or
training wheels on a bicycle.
3oncepts that are in essence simple while at once being i!!icult to
arrive at by virtue o! transgressing the categories o! our inherite
conceptual maps L such peculiarly simple concepts must have pro!oun
potential !or reconstituting these maps.
6he wise counsel o! a !rien oes two things: alter the rugge !itness
lanscapes o! the conscious min an nuge the !ocus o! impening will
an intention !rom one local energy minimum to a lower1 neighboring
one.
3ertain types o! iscussions o not lea anywhere CprouctiveD1
iverging on the whole !aster than the rates o! convergence o! iscussion
within any o! its subtopics.
@atural language strings are !unamentally i!!erent !rom transaction
coes in that any sequence is potentially meaning!ul an its transaction
generative.
?ecause the interaction o! science an RnatureS is a ynamic one1 neither
the sel!1 nor nature1 i.e.1 the physical realm1 is sel!-ientical.
>ohn :ean mae up stories to please the Fatergate inepenent council.
H! the substance o! reality is1 as =eraclitus says1 ceaseless change1 then
there is no such thing as Rpure potentia.S 7ure change woul be
completely ungroune change1 that is1 change in the absence o!
substance. "ubstance oesn_t appear to have any !unction other than to
satis!y the human !etish !or mechanism1 that is1 continuity which comes
at no cost an which requires not action inputte to sustain it1 to wit1
continuity !or !ree.
"eeing that naKe bunle o! irrational1 grasping motives o! a close !rien
suenly reveale is most assurely ugly as it is !rightening to glimpse it
within onesel!.
/lthough H have e0perience a number o! revelations1 epiphanies even1
since maKing your acquaintance1 they are revelations !or which H_ve
been in quite long preparation.
H! H get my ass shot o!! an H on_t see you again1 it_s been nice Knowing
you. =e suenly 5erKe as he leane !orwar an reache out with
both hans as though to catch the breath that carrie those wors in a
symbolic gesture to return it to his lungs. /n then waving his hans to
try to issipate this breath instea smiling blanKly an shaKing his hea a
little to convey the !utilities o! it all.
6he ineterminacy o! single acts o! etermination. 6he acts are
iniviually uneretermine an overetermine collectively. 8yria
preconitions that are mutually e0clusive each o! which giving rise to
the same uneretermine act. Hs this logically possible.
Fant to be remine o! your humanity? 6hinK yoursel! a go.
8oreover1 the interaction o! in!inite entities cannot be mechanistically
eterministic. ;ach must perceive the other act both !reely an
accoring to its nature.
6his animal was attempting to escape the grasp o! my argument1 a mere
abstraction1 treate as a li!e an eath threat. =e i this using wors as
a wil animal might employ tooth an claw.
Foul we eny to @ature hersel! the very limite creativity that we
possess an to whom we ultimately owe this wonrous !aculty? <es
an @o in i!!erent acceptations o! the uality o! a!!irmative versus
negative. <es. =uman creativity is an emergent phenomenon quite
RunanticipateS by the natural orer as it e0iste prior to the evolution o!
human beings1 which issue !orth !rom simpler li!e in a ialectical
process in which orer appeare in newly uni!ie plural reality rather
than the mere illumination o! what alreay ha its complete being but
hereto!ore latent within some metaphysical arKness.
Qd
=ere we have
not e0istence as a mani!estation o! essence1 but the e0istential converse
to a platonic orer1 in which all essence are historical evelopments. Hs
the historicity o! mathematics itsel! implicate in this ialectic o!
essence?
"tuying philosophy on one_s own in one_s private leisure hours is aKin
to the chess neophyte playing over a !ew well worn openings in the vain
hope that some hereto!ore uniscovere line o! play might !ate!ully
suggest itsel! to him. 6he very !ew vali chess openings that have been
iscovere uring the last *)) years or so !irst insinuate themselves in
the mins o! pro!essional players with at least an international master_s
grasp o! the game_s subtleties.
Qd
/ new philosophical principle is
perhaps stumble upon but always with a well-in!orme aim in view.
QdQd
6he RconcentrationS o! many eterminations [8ar0\ cannot be
e!!ecte by a uni!ie an single act o! etermination. Hn other wors1
the steps in the process o! evolution1 whether o! technology1 or o!
biological systems1 are not secretly super!luous. "ingle acts o!
etermination are what we might call unimoal while the steps in an
evolutionary series involve the mutual or successive action o!
incommensurable1 multiple moes or moalities.
Qd
9nly e0 post !acto
oes consciousness view the evolutionary process as uni!ie or1
unimoal.
/ugust 2)**
8ar0_s Rconcentration o! many eterminationsS is also
characteristically e0hibite by the evolution o! culture.
Kwo=
R?ut we
Know that at some point reversibility is lost an this must taKe place
when the structure can no longer be prouce !rom out o! the vacuum
Rin a single go1S but must be Rcobble togetherS !rom a number o! such
vacuum-engenere particles which are to e0ist in some Kin o! boun
structure maintaine through e0changes o! momentum between all o!
those particles Cwhich emerge !rom the vacuum in a single stepD. 6his
might well be ue to there being no e!inable Ranti-entityS with which
the RentityS can annihilate so as to return the pair to the quantum
vacuum !rom which they ha originate.S

6he above consierations
suggest that Rtrial an errorS as well as RtinKeringS possess not only the
usual empiricist interpretation1 but a rationalist interpretation as well
with equal or perhaps greater claim to be substantively involve with the
process o! technology_s an culture_s evolution.
6he e0istence o! 4o1 as oppose to 4o_s ?eing1 woul mean the
possibility o! a complete an absolute etermination o! 4roun through
the unity o! a single act.
/ugust 2)**
"uch an act woul not represent a creative act par e6cellence"
which seems to require that what is create leave open the evelopment
o! new possibilities an unanticipate irections o! evelopment. C=ere
the notion o! RirectionS is an unetermine generalization o! this term
!rom its normal use1 e.g.1 RirectionS in the sense o! say1 Rboot-strapping
chaosSD
6his woul mean an act o! etermination wholly inepenent o! any
other eterminations or acts o! etermination.
Qd
6here is no room !or
anything more than an illusory temporality within a worl that remains
within 4o_s actual e0istence.
Fhat maKes e0perience within !initue possible is the iniviual_s
potentia !or e0perience an !urthermore1 may be erive !rom the
limitation o! the iniviual_s own esse1 but the possible e0perience itsel!
is not erivable through mere limitation o! esse.
H! you research an stuy too long within the same isciplinary !iel1
your brain reaches a state o! near saturation in which very little that is
RnewS maKes a lasting impression. =yperte0tual organization o!
in!ormation minimizes this Kin o! saturation.
:iversity threatens those who cannot !eel secure without !eeling that
they are part o! a monolith.
Fhy write a booK about narcissism1 you asK. 4uys who rive picKup
trucKs always leave the tailgate open. Hs econstructing a !ilm as easy
as picKing out the genre in!luences at worK in i!!erent scenes o! a
4eorge .ucas movie?
6his tattoo shop woul perioically sen customers home saying1 we
haven_t gotten any !resh neeles in - we_re out. R?ut we ecie which is
right an which is an illusion.S 8ooy ?lues
?ecause o! the necessary ialectical material connection o! will an
representation1 there are no pure motives an intentions.
9b5ection to RcanneS1 Rprocesse1S or otherwise RinorganicS narration1
i.e.1 that which oes not grow an !low spontaneously1 authentically out
o! the person_s own thought an e0perience o! the moment.
Qd
Aetroactive bacK!illing o! consciousness by the subconsciousness
min to maintain illusion o! constant an continual Rpresence.S 6his is
also one in social interactions an conversation by the passing o!
processe material o!! as the real1 spontaneous prouctions o! the
moment. ?ut the subtleties o! the communications conte0t1 original
an sel!-plagiarize superimpose1 clash issonantly in the min o! the
listener1 suggesting inauthenticity o! the author/ speaKer. Friting seems
to involve this Kin o! inauthenticity more than oes speech. <et
inauthentically spontaneous communication !rom one person may enable
authentic e0perience/realization in another. 7otentials !or change o!
various orers1 e.g.1 uality1 trivalency1 etc.
:ecember 2)**
Ht is interesting to
note how the R.iKeS button worKs on -acebooK an how R.iKeS can be
quanti!ie in terms o! a RstroKeS as in RstroKe to one_s egoS an
submitte to a escription in terms o! a Rcalculus o! stroKesS in which
almost no iniviual -acebooK members realize that this calculus is
pervasively in operation. Fe can then apply the insights !rom this
unerstaning o! the R.iKeS button an how it !unctions to broaer li!e
conte0ts. @ote that the istribution o! instances o! the R.iKeS button
being clicKe on various people_s -acebooK pages coul be per!orme in
bulK an more or less iniscriminately or perhaps 5ust in accorance
with the very simplest o! algorithms Csay people press the E.iKeE button
on other -? membersG pages more or less 5ust in the e0pectation that
these E!riensE will press the E.iKeE buttons on their -? page later at
some point. /n so to each person1 who oes not perceive the horizontal
istribution o! R.iKe_sS Ci.e.1 along the R!rien a0isS o! the person hitting
their E.iKeE button - an not along WtheirW !rien a0is - so that they
remain unaware o! the bulK E.iKeE button clicKingD1 it appears that he or
she is receiving iniviualize RstroKesS !rom R!riensS. 6his
observation is perhaps the more vali1 the more !riens one has on one_s
-acebooK page1 who are not people with whom one is personally
acquainte an who one oes not have regular personal contact. Qd?ut
this istinction is perhaps ultimately illusory1 since personal contacts an
communications con!orm !airly closely to the -acebooK !rien-networK
communications template1 allue to above.
6he ebate concerning the reality o! miracles is !rame within a
particular networK o! assumptions concerning the meaning o! such
concepts as causality1 ob5ectivity1 physical law1 etc. 6he e!inition o!
miracle is1 in short1 !oune parao0ically upon a uni!ormitarian1
naturalistic hypothesis concerning physical reality.
@ature_s creative RintentionsS are in!orme by the creative labor o!
humanKin. 7hilosophy1 "cience1 6echnology1 6echnique1 /rt1 3ulture1
7hilosophy1 3onsciousness o! "el!.
Qd
9ne_s consciousness o! sel! is
one_s consciousness itsel!.
8ay 2)**
6here is no remainer or resiuum o!
Runi!!erentiate consciousnessS. 3onsciousness as such is a bac'F
formation o! the ego seeKing to imagine itsel! groune in ultimate
reality.
;ternal essence as a bacKwar pro5ection o! historically etermine
essences. ;0istence versus essence as merely a relativistic uality.
=istoricity bacK-reacts upon its CpartiallyD ineterminate groun. R7ure
grounS must e0ist/have e0iste !or time to have ha a beginning.
@o metaphor is Rper!ectS because o! the incomplete inter-translatability
o! istinct languages. /n so contents Re0presseS within language
cannot be !ully econstructe own to mere i!erance.
6o the startle response o! !ight or !light has been ae that o!
issociation.
Qd
3learly1 it is the constraints o! civilize society1 which
account !or this new possible response. 7erhaps natural selection only
represses the !requency o! the mani!esting o! a presently eleterious
trait1 but oesn_t altogether wipe it out1 holing it in reserve against the
ay that it might again be neee.
7ermutation as particular variety or moe o! e0pression versus istinct
messages. 3haracter: how our ignity triumphs over what we can_t live
own. 9ne_s RintellectualityS as a com!ortable illusion one entertains
about onesel!. ?ut1 o! course1 this is relative to matters o! e!inition
which is always open to ispute. :e!inition is the inissoluble blen o!
the arbitrary an the necessary. /lso1 this an other such labels are
!unctions o! one_s peer group an o! the social groups in which one
participates.
Qd
6he Rimpulse spectrumS theory o! personality
i!!erences.
8ay 2)**
H am no i!!erent than a criminal or a psychotic1 only
the spectrum o! the weighting o! the Rbasis eigen!unctionsS o! the
various possible human impulses is i!!erent. H realize that H woul be
a i!!erent person again be!ore this were live own.
9ne has to research an stuy so har1 e0periment !or so long1 that when
one is !inally able to Rcon5ureS new behavior !rom nature with the help
o! the newly evelope mathematical Rincantations1S one no longer
views this as a mastery o! magic.
Qd
"ince all science is RharS there is
no such thing as Rmagic.S
8ay 2)**
6he repeate e0perimentation has a
two-!ol !unction1 revealing to the e0perimenter the patterns within
nature an telegraphing to nature the character o! the greater etail in
which she mani!ests new structure.
Qd
8an_s min is an open system an i! his thoughts pro5ect ultimately
into nothingness1 it is one possessing a !ullness beyon possibility.
6he notion o! possibility presupposes limits1 which within a truly open
system cannot really e0ist1 but must be imagination. ?ut the imagination
o! what ?eing1 that o! manKin or 4o.
Hs meaning etermine by how many an what Kins o! connections can
be establishe/iscovere to e0ist between a new concept an alreay
Rwell establisheS concepts?
H! some perceive conte0t is a construct o! the intellect1 which is a
istinct moe o! consciousness relative to1 say1 the emotive !aculties o!
the min1 then certainly !eeling base1 e.g.1 social phenomena1 may not
!it rationally into this conte0t an1 in !act1 appear to raw energy !rom
some mysterious realm.
Fe regar much new phenomena through the lens o! as yet unarticulate
e!initions.
Qd
9ne starts observing an reacting to i!!erences between one_s present
an !ormer selves. 7erceptions an opinions grow out o! these Kins o!
comparisons1 creating a comple0ity o! personality un!athomable to a
youth who has not appreciably change since Riscovering his ientityS
as a teenager. "uch youths are seemingly here on ;arth R!or the !irst
time1S unsuspecting o! what us ol souls are thinKing.
-acts as ineterminate in absolute terms an only mae eterminate
through a series o! tentative representations !e into an intellectual
community. 6his is particularly evient where allege !acts regaring
the motivation o! iniviuals_ behavior as there is not a higher court to
which we can appeal than the iniviuals themselves. /n sometimes
the iniviual himsel! oes not unerstan what motivates his behavior
ue to the in!luence o! unconscious/ subconscious contents o! his psyche
an their ill unerstoo in!luences.
/ !rien RisappearsS an only a very select subset o! his associates an
more o! his !amily or coworKers remember that he even e0iste.
Qd
/ writer_s isgruntle !ormer associates always !ancy they Know the
well spring o! his ieas. ;nergy not traceable to the interaction o!
potentials is localizable in spacetime.
"pee entertaine within the imagination is 5ust a metaphor. /
metaphor1 perhaps1 !or a Kin o! transcenence. Fe might call
transcenence a case o! invention o! a metaphor !or which there is no
e0periential conte0t L intimations o! a worl beyon the appearances
through convergence o! transpose Cor inverseD metaphors. 6his is an
important mechanism to be note when one is involve in the
econstruction o! the metaphysics o! presence.
@onlocal1 supraliminal connections permeating the universe an the
historicity o! nature_s !urther etermination o! its lawliKe behavior
uring the course o! the ialectic o! 8an_s rationality an @ature_s
mutual grappling.
6he e0planation o! the appearances cannot1 !unamentally1 be groune
or e0plaine in terms o! still another set o! appearances1 i.e.1 RworlS
mani!esting an altogether i!!erent set o! anomalous-mysterious-strange
appearances. 6he alternative system o! appearances is invoKe only to
replace one mystery by another o! equal1 i! not greater Cbecause not
erive !rom an as R!amiliarS space o! appearancesD. 6his is the banal
inconsistency unerlying the appeal to Rother imensionsS to e0plain
anomalies cropping up within this system o! appearance/ mani!estation1
c.!.1 the problem of aetiology.
?ecause o! nonlocal correlations an physical superluminality an their
liKely role in the unerpinning o! the orer o! the consciousness o! the
iniviual1 there is no way to crucially ecie between a uni!ie an
ob5ective1 eterministic universe !rom a raically overetermine
cosmos whose eterminate structure resolves itsel! over the course o! a
historical evolution o! progressive RcrystallizationS in reaction to the
always eeper an more invasive probings o! the scienti!ic rationality.
/n since this RhistoricityS o! physical law in which 8an is so eeply
involve must impact upon the ynamics o! the RphysicalS meium o!
his own mental process1 this historicity is o! necessity ialectical in
nature.
6he nature o! theory etermines the Kins o! etection an measurement
evices constructe with which to perceive new physical phenomena.
6heory etermines the manner in which "cience interrogates nature an
so partially1 at least1 etermines the manner in which nature mani!ests
itsel! to the e0perimenter. /nomalies an ambiguities an novel
phenomena1 not pre!igure in theoretical preiction1 are given o!!
initially with the per!ormance o! !irst e0periments o! the new paraigm.
8uch thought is e0pene in resolving these equivocal e0perimental
results until a consistency is achieve. 6he scienti!ic community is
unwittingly colluing with a raically1 perhaps in!initely1
overetermine Rnatural orer.S /n a Kin o! historical ratchet e!!ect in
the progressive etermination o! nature1 base in the ialectical mutual
grapplings o! 8an_s min with incompletely crystallize nature. 6his is
similar to the manner in which the solipsistic elusional person imagines
the etails are constructe in a conversation that he overhears: the more
mental e!!ort he e0erts in attempting to ivine the etails o! what is
being iscusse between Rthe two other personsS1 the more richly
etaile becomes the overhear conversation. 6he two theories o! the
phenomenon o! the witnesse conversation1 the !irst that o! sense
perception o! publicly observable phenomena1 the secon that o!
creative imagination powere by internally generate psychic energy1
may turn out to be equally goo Re0planationsS !or what the solipsist1
elue or not1 observes appearing to occur in his surrouning
environment.
>uly 2)**
Fhat can we say about the tentatively pro!!ere
principle that ob5ectively1 both interpretations are eBually vali an
goo an that it is only in a political sense that one or the other is the
superior metaphysics? 6he physicist an philosopher :avi :eutsch
has pointe out that there is no vali istinction between the theory that
the subconscious o! the solipsist is responsible !or the observe
phenomena o! the e0ternal worl an the realist theory o! an ob5ective
e0ternal worl populate by myria other mins1 governe by general
physical laws an inepenent o! the !unction o! the psychic processes
o! the iniviual_s min.
"eptember 2)*2
H! the groun o! the quantum
observer_s min is unerstoo as the multiimensional temporal
integrative processes o! the whole1 an this whole is also unerstoo to
be necessarily open-ene1 which is the non-spatiality conition Con
temporalityD1 then metaphysical solipsism is e!!ectively isprove.
7erhaps the cosmos is a collaborative e!!ort an the salient !eatures o!
this cosmos are 5ust those !eatures owing principally to our puny e!!orts
in the collaboration1 where our is taKen to re!er to man'in. =igher
level collaborative artisans are only contacte an recognize by those
o! a lower level a!ter a su!!icient progression o! science an the worKing
out o! its social implications.
=owever1 the quantum mechanical phenomena o! nonlocality1
superposition1 ecoherence1 complementarity1 =eisenberg uncertainty1
tunneling1 virtual particle/ !iel reactions1 creation/annihilation
processes1 as well as the in!inite energy ensity o! the quantum vacuum
all seem each in their own way to compromise this bounary1 hereto!ore
secure an clearly elineate within classical physics between the
sub5ective an the ob5ective Cintersub5ectiveD. Ht is perhaps because the
Rcash valueS o! the ob5ective is the intersub5ective an on account o! this
allege bounary between the mental an the physical within the
min/brain o! each iniviual being ineterminate that the equivalence
allue to by :eutsch may !ail. 6he lesson o! the quantum vacuum is
that 7armenies was right when he asserte that1 Rnothing oes not
e0istS. 8ight the notion o! RoblivionS similarly prove to be an illusory
abstraction? 3onsciousness may be conceive as a connecting threa or
string1 which1 though it cannot breaK1 it can become impossibly tangle.
6he ynamics o! what the string connects to as well as how1 where an
when it connects to etermines the nature o! the psychic structures
prouce an/or represente by the string. 6he string must be suppose
to possess its own eternally pree6istent ynamics" that is" its own nature
Bua substance. H! there continues !or many ecaes to e0ist an eucate
an a!!luent technologically savvy class within the avance
inustrialize worl1 a new cultural evelopment H anticipate within the
ne0t ') years is what will be style Rthe new atheismS. ?y this H mean
metaphysical solipsism. 6he philosophy1 ethics an etiquette that
evelops aroun the eventual wier an growing acceptance o! the
solipsistic subculture shall help it to one ay become mainstream. Hn
this way1 Festern culture will catch up to where the =inu_s have been
psychologically !or many centuries.
Qd
6he econstruction o!
metaphysics1 i! success!ul woul result in its estruction1 which woul
lea to the collapse o! the istinction between metaphysical1
epistemological an methoological solipsism1 c.!.1
cit=
The Cnivie
Cniverse" RFe recall !rom chapter 2 that in a positivist philosophy1
epistemology an ontology are thus equate. ?ut as we also stresse
be!ore1 there is no real necessity to o this. Hnee in our ontological
interpretation o! the quantum theory1 we must say that although the
particles are inistinguishable1 they are still i!!erent1 an that each one
e0ists continuously an there!ore has its own ientity.S .eaing up to
this will be a growing proli!eration o! notions such as luci reaming1
anthropic cosmological principle1 technological singularity1 ?oltzmann
brains1 ancestor simulations1 quantum consciousness1 in!lationary theory.
Fhat appears common to all o! the above seemingly !anci!ul
conceptions is what :erria terms always alreainess.
@ovember 2)**
H! H were going to be a goo solipsist1 H woul maKe sure to
bespecKle the worl with a !air number o! acutely sel!-conscious
philosphers o! min e0hibiting every sign o! being unuly preoccupie
with the mystery o! consciousness an the problematic nature o! the
e0istence o! other mins.
6he !iel o! the sociology o! Knowlege may turn out to be 5ust as
important !or the so-calle har sciences as !or the social sciences an
humanities.
;ach cosmic iniviuality tries to create1 but there is no basis !or
istinguishing imagination !rom reality at this stage. 6here is no
possibility o! the creation being or becoming inepenent o! its creator.
>uly 2)**
9nly the gentle or violent clash o! myria istinct wills an their
grappling1 meshing imaginations can reuce the egeneracy o! reality
versus imagination.
R7ro5ectionsS that interact with each other must e0hibit unanticipate
behavoir1 i.e.1 must bacK-react upon Rthe pro5ector.S
3hoosing particular metaphors to state veile literal messages Ci! the
listener subconsciously interprets the metaphor elements in terms o!
their original literal conte0tD.
Aepetition1 reverberation1 $ or higher imensional souns1 rotation1
vibration/oscillation1 electrical ischarge1 rippling waves1 mist1 shaow1
arKness1 vagueness1 shimmering1 ambiguity1 vertigo1 buzzing1
cresceno-ecresceno1 increasing or ecreasing !requencies1 !aing in-
!aing out1 great heights. 6hese !igure in the phenomenology o! the
mysterious.
Hn reams there is no istinction between the literal an the metaphorical
because everything taKing place in reams is literal. Ht is only against
the bacKrop o! one_s waKing e0istence1 groune in memory/history1
that one is in a position to analyze a ream into istinct metaphorical an
literal components.
"uperpositions o! in!ormation1 meaning1 alternative statements o!
unerlying intene messages1 etc.
3omplementary to the process o! thought1 i.e.1 abstraction is the process
o! concretion o! etail in systems1 which are the physical realizations o!
some abstract esign.
Qd
/n e0ample o! this is the emergence
phenomenon o! the appearance o! RbugsS in large1 comple0 computer
programs. 6his phenomenon H will term supermoularity. 6he concept
o! autocorruption is important in this connection an may inee be
relate to 7enrose_s concept o! ecoherence as autoecoherence.
"eptember
2)*2
6he spontaneous ecoherence e0perience by an avance quantum
computer in the act o! calculating a chess move n moves ahea Cwhere n
is some su!!iently large1 i.e.1 RcriticalS numberD perhaps illustrates how
the 7lancK mass or 7enrose_s Rone graviton limitS represents not only an
upper energy threshol !or quantum superpose states1 but also an
absolute limit o! in!ormation ensity an computational comple0ity vis a
vis the unerlying an supporting quantum vacuum qua in!ormation
reservoir Ca!ter the !asion o! the in!inite heat bath !rom iscussions o!
the 2
n
.aw o! 6hermoynamicsD an in which the quantum computer
embee. Hnvestigate the concept o! nonlocal quantum entanglement
o! a quantum computer_s groun state with the global o! cosmic
quantum vacuum state1 i.e.1 universal groun state. 6he
autoecoherence threshol represente by the 7lancK limit may signi!y
that there is no universal quantum groun state1 i.e.1 global or cosmic
quantum vacuum !iel1 but that the so-calle quantum vacuum can only
be properly unerstoo as a quantum entangle albeit essentially
moular quantum !iel. 7arallel quantum universes may then reuce to
nothing more than the !alse pro5ections o! myria Buantum vacuum fiel
moules" each separate by an integral multiple of one 4lanc' energy.
/toms1 molecules1 macromolecules1 etc.1 cannot be mani!est by the
vacuum as one o! its possible !unamental energy !luctuations. /n yet
such structures can !orm !rom their constituents1 each o! which is a
!unamental !luctuation.
Qd
"o the vacuum serves as a peculiar Kin o!
groun !or matter structures in that this vacuum appears to be able to
sustain that which it cannot create. 6his situation e!ies .eibniz_
hallowe principle1 to wit1 that what is su!!icient to create a thing is
necessary at every succeeing instant to sustain the thing. ?ut the
converse is here implie: what sustains a given create orer nonetheless
lacKs the power to alone create this orer. 6wo observations are perhaps
relevant in this connection.
>uly 2)**
/lso what is not su!!icient to create a
thing may inee be necessary to sustain it. Hrreucible comple0ity is
when the su!!icient reason !or a thing transcens the sum o! the
necessary conitions !or that thing_s sustainment in e0istence.
9ctober 2)**
6he root unerstaning o! irreucible comple0ity as a general
phenomenon is to be sought at the bounary between the unity an
compositeness o! the groun o! e0istence1 i.e.1 at the 7lancK energy level
where particles cease to be able to be prouce Rin one goS as single
!luctuations o! the quantum vacuum ue to the spontaneous !ormation o!
virtual blacK holes Can thermalization o! woul be structure via
=awKing raiationD Cin this connection also see various remarKs about a
Rchronology protection mechanismSD
>uly 2)**
H! !unamental reality is in
the !orm o! information rather than inepenently e6isting funamental
particles1 then there is no real parao0 involve in su!!icient reasons
transcening any !inite sum o! necessary reasons. Hniviual
consciousness vis a vis brain evolution an evelopment is perhaps a
prime e0ample o! this amene principle. "u!!icient conitions await
contingent conitions1 no !inite sum o! which can ever replace the !ertile
ynamical1 holistic conte0t o! pree0istent !iels o! in!ormation that
inevitably enable the causal e!!icacy o! those contingent conitions in
engenering a conscious min.
H! we are to continue to hol to the .eibnizian principle1 we must state
that the matter1 by transcening in comple0ity that o! the structures
which can appear out o! the vacuum as one o! its !unamental
!luctuations1 must be itsel! participating with groun in the act o! its own
sustainment. 6his RsustainmentS o! matter by groun1 or whatever in
combination with !unamental groun1 acts as such1 constitutes the
temporality o! this matter structure. "o a portion o! the temporality o!
matter is consume with sustainment o! this matter_s comple0ity over
an beyon that which can be irectly sustaine by the action o!
!unamental groun which constitutes cosmic1 nonlocal time.
6here!ore matter must not only be upate by vacuum as it continually
re!orms out o! this vacuum energy1 but the vacuum itsel! must be
upate by the matter that it sustains. "o any matter o! greater
comple0ity than the most comple0 vacuum !luctuations1 must bacK react
upon vacuum. "o the vacuum cannot compute its ne0t state without
!irst RconsultingS the comple0 structures embee in it. /lthough the
vacuum oes not nee to consult the structures that it is capable o!
spontaneously engenering in orer to computer their succeeing states.
8atter thus acts as a bounary conition upon the vacuum1 causing it to
allocate some o! its computational time1 or clocK cycles C7lancK timesD
towar the calculation o! measures o! comple0ity beyon what it can
irectly compute. 6he vacuum requires in!ormation !rom matter
structures to ai it in its recomputation o! these structures over
succeeing clocK Rpulses.S
6his is why we may say that the vacuum cannot create in!ormation1 but
can create the conitions on which in!ormation can come into being. "o
the vacuum contains no in!ormation but is itsel! in!initely in!ormable1 or
the potential in!ormation content o! the vacuum is near in!inite. "o
in!ormation consists in the interaction o! matter an vacuum at their
inter!aces. 6his may help to account !or why the entropy o! a blacK hole
is irectly proportional to the blacK hole_s sur!ace area. 6he sur!ace
area o! the blacK hole1 i.e.1 its event horizon1 precisely e!ines the
inter!ace between matter an vacuum. Fithin the hole_s interior there is
literally no vacuum energy available to be e0change between matter
an vacuum in this region. /ll interaction o! the matter within a blacK
hole with the quantum vacuum must taKe place precisely at that sur!ace
e!ine by the hole_s even horizon.
/re ambiguity an uncertainty sub5ective e0periences o! quantum
superposition?
7rogrammers who collaborate to prouce large1 comple0 programs
usually built unintene1 e0tra logical consistency into the coe.
"o!tware bugs are !requently not ue to logical RerrorsS in the program
but to what might be terme the RsuperconsistencyS o! the program.
RFell !ounenessS o! the law1 theory1 perception1 etc. .aws o not
govern but are 5ust escriptions. /nalogies o not prove theses.
8etaphors o not e0plain why. =ow is structure/!unction an RwhyS is
purpose/intention.
>uly 2)**
;mergence is !rom the other sie o! the event
horizon. 6he ientity relation serves as a causal !ilter !rom which the
historical is istille !rom the merely eventual.
Qd
Fhy i!!ers !rom how
in that it is how to whom%
.ets looK at the sociology o! Knowlege where biblical scholarship an
philosophy o! religion are involve.
Aepresentations acquire meaning through our interaction with them an
through our abstraction !rom an application o! them to other settings.
Oarma is a mani!estation o! the tenencies in the soul responsible !or
acts an consequences at one scale o! time an space organizing reality
or1 more properly1 mani!esting on larger such scales.
Fhat i! we !in !ault with an rebel against the principles emboie in
the images lying within the collective unconscious?
6he re!lection o! the in!ormation-trans!ormation game o! sperm an
ovum at the level o! intellectual1 social an political interaction o! the
i!!erently genere.
Fe must live out that which we cannot worK out through thought.
/t this stage you are still a pro5ection1 a mar0ist-!eminist whose wisom
threatens to throw my sins an inaequacies into ironic perspective.
?eing in the presence o! 4o means gaining !ullest recognition an
awareness o! one_s "in nature. >usti!ie wrath versus merci!ul love.
/re we only able to glimpse the !orms/images in our subconscious that
we have put there since the time o! our birth? /n when all o! the
personal/iiosyncratic an cultural !orms/images are strippe away1 oes
each human being glimpse the same blanK nothingness?
6he RetailsS ignore or suppresse in orer to e!ine an abstract
concept or category are themselves abstractions.
/ hien assumption appears to lie behin :econstruction_s critique o!
such notions as gi!teness1 genius1 talent1 etc. 6hat assumption is that
there might be some moral or other 5usti!ication !or the suborination o!
the in!erior to the superior an so the concept o! superiority must be
econstructe.
9r there is an implicit acceptance o! the categories unerlying value-
ual comparisons but insistent enial that such comparisons coul ever
practically result in an in!erior-superior uality with respect to some
parameter commonly hel by both !eminists an se0ists to be
Rvaluable.S
@ature an nurture are both hel by their respective proponents in the
allue to controversy to be eterminisms o! human behavior1
personality evelopment1 etc. 6he more important such controversy is
that o! eterministic versus !reely chosen evelopment1 behavior1 etc.
3ertainly there e0ists a irect correlation o! a boy_s in!ormation content
an its inertial mass.
Fhen a vacuum-networKe neural-networK quantum computer RlearnsS
it is not possible !or the original con!iguration to be bacKe up !or
purposes o! resetting the state o! the machine.
8arch 2)*$
6his is relate to
the !act o! spacetime-liKe correlations belonging to a large set o!
quantum !luctuations than spaceliKe !luctuations in which a timeliKe
component is absent.
Qd
@atural selection etermines the !requency o! genes1 but not the genes
themselves. :oes the e0clusively ivergent nature o! evolution
Civergence o! physical processes usually results in entropy increaseD
mean that only microevolution within a particular species that can never
be reuni!ie occurs an not macroevolution?
,sing metaphors to maKe the simple an orinary1 e0traorinary an
mysterious. 6his activity seems to e!eat the usual intene purpose !or
invoKing a metaphor: to clari!y i!!icult new ieas in terms o! more
!amiliar Crather than lessD to the listener/reaer.
@ature is inee overetermine1 but e0hibits a tenency to collue with
the human theorists_ esire to rei!y his concept o! uni!ication in the !orm
o! some unique1 !inite set o! entities whose relationships are etermine
by a single1 sel!-consistent mathematical representations. "he oes this
by hiing !rom the view o! organize science glimpses o! any o! the
in!inite number o! other mathematically sel!-consistent escriptions. H!
mathematical laws actually RgoverneS physical phenomena1 there
woul be no RnecessityS !or an in!inite number o! equally vali
mathematical theories o! physics.
H liKe to thinK o! mysel! as the clever native o! the tribe whose pastime is
the serious stuy o! anthropologists. H liKe to provie valuable
instruction to my teachers. H am quite the amirer o! the unerog.
6he generation o! new ieas always involves the trans!ormation o! ol
Knowlege an establishe concepts as they are graually or suenly
illuminate anew. "o one oes not a a new bit o! in!ormation to the
atabase without triggering a shi!t in the ynamic equilibrium in the
integration o! this boy o! Knowlege.
"o the new bit o! in!ormation oesn_t !it an the atabase reintegrates to
accommoate something intimately connecte to1 but not ientical with
the original Rirritant bit.S
"o the original input is never incorporate into either the ol or the new
Knowlege base. "o what i one thinK one glimpse that triggere this
trans!ormation o! thought/Knowlege? "o never in!ormation itsel!1 but
something Rpointing toS Cin the sense1 perhaps o! a web browserD is
actually RstoreS within our gray matter.
6here nees to be some Kin o! RsiebanS o! communication in which
the e0change between total strangers o! socially unacceptable messages
is parao0ically1 generally sanctione by society. /n anonymous email
account !unctioning as a private bulletin boar between two persons
might serve such a purpose.
Ht seems that :erria_s motive in avancing the theory o! econstruction
is to emonstrate that Rthere is no there there.S
6he synta0 by which the semantics is RimplementeS has some
moulating e!!ect upon this semantics. 9! course1 there is the reverse
e!!ect1 especially in the !orm o! semantics resolving a semantic
ambiguity/ineterminacy1 e.g.1 Ron_t you remember that ;nglish teacher
we ha at ,niversity?S
6he ynamics o! the nth orer. 6he Kinetics is at the *
st
orer. @uance
an variation1 !luctuation an ambiguity are ontologically o! the *
st
orer
while the Rcanonical !ormsS the suport an server are
phenomenologically o! the *
st
orer.
6he higher the orer perturbation o! the theory1 the more closely oes
this theory appro0imate the reality o! its omain.
6his principle may be terme the ownwar ontology-upwar
phenomenology principle.
Qd
6he :9-,7 7rinciple.
Ae: the connection between "in an consciousness. /re there certain
types/trens o! ieation which simply woul not occur to one in the
absence o! an iniviual consciousness L certain psychological isorers
that 5ust Ron_t maKe senseS without the sub5ect o! e0perience.
:oes iniviual consciousness secretly unerly many o! the important
phenomena o! human psychology an culture L those not share with
other RintelligentS mammalian species?
3onsciousness is characterize by an ability to participate in the 2
n
an
higher abstract orers o! behavior. 3ertainly1 many !orms o!
psychological an behavioral/motivational eviance are insupportable in
the absence o! a Rghost in the machine.S @arcissistic an necrophilic
isorers seem to particularly support our hypothesis o! the necessity o!
consciousness in certain !orms o! psychological isorer. 6he
alternative hypothesis is that o! primorial instincts turne loose in the
socially constructe reality.
6he appearance o! computer so!tware bugs !requently points up1 not an
error in the construction o! a program1 but the program_s unanticipate
thorough-going consistency L the program_s mani!esting !eatures o!
greater generality than anything hel in the min o! the original so!tware
programmers1 which intene esign parameters being only highly
special cases o! the actual !unctionality o! the program as implemente.
6he nuances o! meaning are generally not e!ine an iniviuals o not
receive these subtler meanings through instruction1 but !rom them on
their own1 more or less.
6hree a0es: conscious-unconscious1 iniviual-collective1
sub5ective-Rob5ectiveS together !orm a $-imensional soli table
possessing eight istinct trias escribing mental states.
@ot separable by some intermeiary continuum oes not imply
continuity. Fhat istinguishes static !rom Kinematic variables? /re
only inepenent variables ynamic?
6he substance o! substance is !orm. 6he substance o! !orm is !unction.
@euronal circuit inclues itsel! in it own construction o! itsel!. / given
neural circuit can be e0pane in terms o! a sum o! other circuits. ;ach
store path1 i.e.1 one that has been rein!orce through prior use1 is also a
component o! myria other establishe neural circuits. 6he question
arises as to how important the $
r
orer image o! this circuit is relative to
its other $
r
orer components. 6he circuit cannot appear among the 2
n
orer components o! its escription. 8etaphor liKe concept is
escriptive1 but not merely escriptive. 8etaphor in!orms an irects
the processes o! which it is also a escription. Ht may turn out that
physical laws are not purely or merely escriptive.
Fhen we borrow concepts !rom one omain Co! eneavor1 sayD to
metaphorically unerstan another concept1 we are suspening
questioning1 or bracKeting out the questioning o!1 those concepts while
they are !unctioning in their role o! metaphorically structuring some
other concept. /n it is not necessarily the case that we unerstan the
concepts we are invoKing as metaphors any better than we o the
concept sub5ect to structuring/e0plication in terms o! these metaphors.
6here seems to be an assumption here that concepts somehow establish
themselves1 achieve closure in certain important ways an then go on to
serve uty as structuring or escriptive metaphors.
/re 6ruth an :issemination a ichotomy? @ot i! truth is ReepeneS
through issemination1 i.e.1 the aggranizement o! a concept by
per!orming worK in conte0ts !oreign to that in which it was concerne.
3oncrete-stable versus i!!use-unstable !orms a uality. 3onscious
thought taKes the !ormer !or its representations1 but the latter !or its
manner o! worKing out the relationships an trans!ormations o! these
representations in terms o! the concrete-stable.
Fhat woul communication with 4o be liKe? H coul not lessen his
uncertainty about anything though =e coul easily lessen mine. "o there
is apparently no two-way process o! in!ormation e0change here Cata
e0change which invoKe respective in!ormationD. ,nless 4o
e0periences limitation through human beings.
3an the system o! the brain be riven at !requencies other than those o!
its spectrum o! natural CresonanceD !requencies?
8eitate on this sentence: RFe are not claiming that all cultural values
coherent with a metaphorical system actually e0ist1 only that those that
o e0ist an are eeply entrenche are consistent with the metaphorical
system.S
6he 7latonist believes that it is the Rrepresente-asS which is
relativistic/e0istential in nature. ?ut that representations themselves as
ens in the chain o! interpretation are not conitione1 but only the
manner o! their being invoKe being sub5ect to limitation an
contingency.
/ particle moving through $-space at the spee o! light in vacuo1 oesn_t
Rhave timeS to Rin!ormS any o! the processes taKing place along its null1
i.e.1 timeliKe an spaceliKe tra5ectory.
Fhat constitutes a particular inertial !rame is no mere abstraction1 but is
physically meiate.
6he ;lsewhere region is actually a !our imensional !abric o! timeliKe1
spaceliKe1 an null connecte interior spaces. 6opology is built into
special relativity at its very !ounation.
:oes a real electron become virtual while quantum tunneling? 6he
electron is Ro!! mass shellS uring the process o! tunneling.
6he ;lsewhere region cannot be unerstoo as a pro5ective space with
trivial topology. 6he bounary between spaceliKe an timeliKe is an
average o! a ynamic process.
2
n
1 $
r
orer1 etc. emotional reactions base upon more or less tenuous
associations. 6he substrate1 or *
st
orer woul be genetically
etermine through natural selection acting upon chance variations
within a population1 but the connection between certain stimuli an
emotional reactions within the iniviual is physically an chemically
etermine. 6here is no law connecting elements o! a unique causal
process1 but i! one can uplicate the iniviual in the absence o! a
complete escription o! the original. . .
/veraging e!!ects in the !luctuating potentials within a large collection
o! iniviuals bu!!ering against e!!ect o! local vacuum !luctuations.
6his averaging e!!ect may enhance eterministic behavior o! iniviuals.
"pace voyage. . . 9nly one woman le!t. -or purpose o! the survival o!
the human race1 she agrees to sleep with all o! the ship_s crew in strict
rotation. 6he story buils up to a brilliant econstructive essay by the
woman about man_s venturing into space 5ust in an attempt to impress
the cosmic mommy so she will sleep with 8an L space e0ploration as
misguie attempt at transcenence. /ttempts at uni!ication o! science
as attempt to create/prove e0istence o! 4o. 9r the repository o! all
unrequite esires.
:egeneracy o! sense ata with respect to iscrete state space or
overetermination o! sense ata by brain states. 6his is closely
connecte with coherence o! sense ata.
"ince each person is unique1 i! conscious1 that is1 all one shoul be
concerne with are the super!icial compatibility1 logistics1 an li!e
in!rastructure questions. 9ur neurotic concern about picKing the right
person in terms o! a particularly appropriate sel! essence1 is a misguie
unenlightene pro5ect. @o essence in being not numerically ientical.
?ut the concept o! number is not straight !orwar where in!inite qualities
are involve.
/ who is not a Kin o! Rwhat.S ,nique entities are not instantiations o!
a category or class. Hs the iniviual not ientical with himsel! !or the
trivial reason that he has no ientity1 or1 because his being transcens
ientity1 i.e.1 a !orm1 however comple0.
3reation e0 nihilo an the create ob5ect being a !inishe worK1
inepenent o! is alreay1 ini!!erent to the passage o! time.
Ht is not necessary to RcompletelyS unerstan the asserting mae in
one_s acaemic papers1 or that these theses therein be altogether clear
an coherent because o! the way the collective supplements the
incompletely !orme system o! concepts an metaphors in the worK.
6he worK oes not have to be particularly coherent or brilliant an
original in its assertions i! the worK carries myria1 perhaps subtle1
earmarKs that enhance that worK_s isseminability. / worK is more
valuable the more it is cite by other authors. 6he number an
collection o! worKs cite by the worK are also relevant to its valuation by
the establishment.
6here is a consierable istinction between the unconscious an the non-
conscious. "imilar observations apply to uninteresting/non-interesting1
unemotional/non-emotional1 etc. R,nS apparently enotes RnonS but
with the potential/capacity !or Rnon-non-0S rather than non-R0S.
?ecause the evolutionary basis o! consciousness may have been one o!
pro5ective ienti!ication !or purposes o! e!ensive anticipation an social
integration1 it is to be e0pecte that many psychological an sociological
phenomena require the pro5ective !unctionality o! consciousness.
"ince esign1 whether RintelligentS or evolutionary1 only utilizes certain
!eatures o! their meium in the progress o! the evelopment o! its !orms1
emergence is inevitable as RuninteneS or non-mani!est aspects o!
mistaKen perception o! sense ata1 as the meia are brought into mutual
combination.
Aelation o! momentum current/!lu0 ensity vector. Iector rotation
angle is etermine by ratio o! !luctuation to e0pectation value term.
7arallel mirrors accelerate e0perience a !orce. 6he implie mass is
thought to originate !rom the inertia o! vacuum energy. ?ut it is the
inertia o! boun vacuum energy1 that is1 vacuum energy sub5ect to boson
!iel bounary conitions.
Qd
6his implie assumption is seen in
;instein_s erivation o! the inertia o! photon energy1 i.e.1 photon
bouncing bacK an !orth in a mirrore bo0.
Aatio is impose upon the incommensurable 6here is a problem with
the interpretation o! thought an perception in terms o! the !iltering o!
in!ormation Cbecause in!ormation itsel! requires !iltering?D.
6he progressive e!inition o! the "el! is seemingly so liKe the career o! a
single stran o! :@/ !loating in a soup o! amino acis. 6he timing
sequence in which complementary base pairs are encountere an attach
to the template single heli0 is etermine by chance1 but the en-
prouct1 the complete ouble heli01 is a !orgone result. 6his analogy is
almost Re0actS i! we allow great overetermination regaring what
constitutes a compatible Rbase pairS along the Rheli0S represente by a
person_s biological timeline.
>ust because H buy booKs about an ownloa articles on narcissism
oesn_t mean H_m a narcissist.
H! not issemination1 then truth. 3an chance Risseminate?S 9ne
woul e0pect that chance has no creative power an so can isseminate
because it has no the power to in!orm as it has no coherence1 or essence1
i.e.1 no RimageS1 c.!.1 RHmage o! 4o.S
Hs in!ormation sub5ect1 oes the in!orming1 or ob5ect is in!orme by
something else1 or1 perhaps both.
6he =alo e!!ect is sometimes an annoyance to people with specialize
egrees. ?eing a!rai to withhol or use labels such as an acaemic
correcting hersel! when re!erring to a nonacaemic !rien as being a
Rnonacaemic.S
Onowlege vampire seeKing !ree ,niversity lectures or the sel!-
absorbe person seeKing !ree therapy sessions.
RH_m not going to always claim heterose0ual privilege whenever H speaK
about my partner.
6he bottomlessness o! the no esign-basis ,niverse.
6he label RpseuoscienceS presupposes there is such a thing as RscienceS
an such a thing as an important istinction between them. ?y what we
term science is perhaps secretly only meant normal science in
au=
6homas
Ouhn_s sense.
6he min !ilters within consciousness. Fhat !ilters between an
amongst istinct consciousnesses? Hs the eternal iniviuality o! each
consciousness a pro5ection beyon its vanishing point1 i.e.1 origin in
some uni!ie1 transcenental consciousness. ?ut i! iniviual
consciousnesses are !ilterable1 then weren_t they all secretly separate all
along?
H_m not going to give you a list o! my !ave booKs1 music 3:_s1 movies1
websites1 etc.1 5ust so you can worK all o! this out o! conte0t stu!! into
some bogus1 straw version o! my personalityT
:oesn_t Know how to really respect a woman without being phony or
masochistic.
6he e!inition o! !laKiness is not Knowing your own min1 which is
inevitably mani!este in one_s inconsistency over relatively short spaces
o! time.
/ geeK believes he has the power o! implanting the ieas he !ins so
e0citing in the mins o! those not members o! his social group. 6he
geeK oes not unerstan the relevance o! changing social conte0t.
3om!ortable !amiliarity an incongruity. Hncongruity o! that which is
com!ortably !amiliar to one_s peers constitutes the issociative state1
accoring to the latest :iagnostic an "tatistical 8anual.
6he Rraw !eelsS start out as completely arbitrary sensation. ?ut oes
completely uni!!erentiate sensation1 not in!orme by some unerlying
physiological structures/!unctions !eel liKe anything at all?
Aesolving power con!licts stemming !rom social situations through
choice o! a liberating1 interpretive metaphor. 8etaphors can give
closure to one_s interpretation o! e0perience. 8ost seeK lives or
elusions1 literally !alse without any reeeming metaphysical1 poetic
truth C!or the iniviual alone1 perhapsD. 3an truth1 then1 i! only in a
poetic sense1 be that set o! belie!s which gives the iniviual the greatest
inner peace an harmony in his/her li!e.
3losure through ischarge o! potential i!!erence1 resonance1 least
energy1 thermoynamic equilibrium1 etc.
-orgery1 !orging a Rsignature.S -orging a relationship1 connection1etc.
6ruth an !acts are not uncovere an o not pree0ist1 but through a
ialectical process o! Knowlege sociology o! myria iniviuals testing
the reactions o! the worl to their attempts to impose their hypotheses
upon Rnature.S
Aepresentations are supplemente through the ialectical process o!
RresistanceS o! the worl to their application.
/pprehening Rconsciousness criminalsS operating consciousness above
permitte levels.
6he evelopment o! quantum computing will reveal the vacuum_s nature
as an in!ormation creating meium. Hn!ormation merely borne !rom one
place to another is about some Rob5ectiveS aspect o! reality.
Ae!erences within speeches re!lecting or e!!ecting nonlocal connections.
Aeverberations e0paning the chaotic attractors to encompass a new
abstract persona pro5ection. ?ut there is evience that multiple chaotic
attractors o! the same archetypal symbol can mutually inter!ere1 but only
estructively1 it appears. 6his points up antiparallel phase locKing.
Ht appears that there is no irect mutual inter!erence1 but both attractors
raw power !rom the same source.
/ paroy is impossible without the original alreay given.
"o certain worKs are not possible ue to constraints on meaning. ;ven
i! the worK is physically realize it is not recognize. 6he enotation o!
a grounless metaphor. @o set o! inputs that can prouce a totally
unmotivate notion?
7ro5ecting onesel! into one_s characters place within settings in which
they can represent the worKing out o! the unresolve con!licts an issues
o! the author.
6here is what is terme RsKill!ul niceness.S 6his is when some one acts
engaging towars one about whom they !orm at every turn the most
un!lattering 5ugements.
?e!ore returning home once more my prie will su!!er every manner o!
inignity.
;mission an absorption o! virtual photons can be unerstoo in terms
o! competing quantum vacuum processes o! vector boson an scalar
composite boson creation-annihilation. =ere the scalar bosons are
virtual electron-positron pairs1 c.!.1 part :.1 ?remsstrahlung "uppression
ue to pair creation Chttp://000.lanl.gov D. "u!!iciently high energy
photons can suppress pair prouctions1 as well. RPuantum e!!ectsS
become signi!icant !or /a; b;.
Aeality at the level o! mani!estation is etermine by !iltering an
!eebacK o! an between groun an the intersub5ective collective.
Aecognize the e0istence possibility o! superior consciousness1 then by
inuction1 what?
8ost intelligent1 sensitive people have a number o! these isorers but
in benign or nonvirulent !orm.
8ost o! what language oes1 it oes !or the iniviual1 intra or
in!rasub5ectivity1 in terms o! organizing an processing ata. 6his
!aculty was aapte later !or purposes o! communication.
=ow coul the clan organize itsel! aroun incommensurable ieas
Cbecause language ha not yet evolve as intersub5ective
communicationD? 3ommunication between members o! the tribe is
unconscious mani!esting itsel! in the realm o! reams not istinguishe
completely !rom Rreality.S 6hese collective reams became orally
transmitte myths a!ter the avent o! language. H! language can serve
the social organizational nees o! the tribe1 then collective reams woul
eventually atrophy1 leaving behin a vestigial !unction which can be
later enhance through proper training an iscipline by Re!!ete
iniviuals.S /rcane isciplines1 pracitces1 eviance as either
mani!estations o! !unctioning outsie sociobiological Resign
parametersS or o! trying to !unction within them once again.
=ow tightly Knit social organization prevents mani!estation Cat the
iniviual levelD o! narcissistic1 necrophilic1 borerline1 etc. 6he
continua contact an e0change between members o! the tribe an its
hierarchy allowe !or the release o! social tension1 psychological
impulses so that no accumulation occurre an no resonant ampli!ication
Cthrough observation without participationD i! beta males coul not
success!ully mount esirable alpha !emales1 itt was not !or lacK o!
trying. /n the potentially !rustrate se0ual impulses1 evelope while
!or a short while lusting a!ter these esirable !emales1 an quicKly
worKe o!! uring mostly unsuccess!ul battling with alpha males an
other beta males. =omose0uality o!!ere a simultaneous worKing o!! o!
se0 an aggressive impulse !or RominantS beta males an provie
sublimation o! se0ual impulse Cthrough se0 role inversionD !or the
subominant beta/gamma males.
9nly locally occurring energy egenerate changes in system state
wave!unction can be meiate through nonlocal interactions. "uch
nonlocal interactions o not taKe place within spacetime ue to their
typical supraliminal spees o! propagation. @onlocal in!ormation
e0changes !lows shoul not be a!!ecte by local spacetime curvature1
although local processes coupling to nonlocal e0changes on each an
may1 inee1 be so a!!ecte.
7olitics1 representation1 copyright1 traemarK1 rationality1
unconsciousness1 etc.
7h.:_s ten to be highly i!!erentiate in their opinions1 belie!s1 an
attitues.
Aelatives by virtue o! common escenants L time-reverse !amily tree.
8y iscussion on /pril % at lunch L ?lae Aunner1 meaning1 language1
reams1 myths1 collective unconscious1 evolution o! consciousness. . .
6he econstructe1 posthistorical worl inhabite by al us hip
metahumans who thinK they thinK1 imagine they imagine1 iscuss their
RillusionsS !reely amongst themselves. 6hese iniviual on_t love1 but
amire the sentiment o! love1 on_t hate1 but !eel a strong antipathy
towar hate in all its !orms.
6hough in!atuation neurons might !orm superpositions1 an mutually
inter!ere or resonate1 at turns1 love is a strictly classical entity. "e0 is
not monogamous1 but love certainly is so.
R-iel research1S is such a lame reason !or RoingS an interesting
stranger.
/rrogance1 as they say1 is so unbecoming in others.
@o common origin: paralleling1 analogically relate. 3ommon origin
but ivergent1 separate origins but convergent1 o! common origin1 but
convergent1 etc.
Hnconceivability is not an absolute !or any iniviual consciousness.
6he !orms are not sensory base but are systems o! i!!erence which
parallel one another.
6he problem o! reconciling time_s continuous !low with its integration.
@o integration o! ob5ective time? 6his is a topology problem.
6ruth an issemination are 5ust abstract parts o! a concrete continuum
o! the in!inite1 plastic trans!ormability that consciousness maKes possible
an necessitates.
H have note the corrosive e!!ect that the attitue o! care!ree unbelievers
Cin a state o! graceD has upon my highly intellectualize !aith.
7erhaps this is taKing 6/ too !ar1 but she appeals to the !eminine sie o!
my orthoontically-challenge1 inner .esbian.
H always seem to get Rthe worS last. 6his arrangement has a Kin o!
elegantly twiste symmetry opposite the alternative reality H originally
esire/imagine.
Aap music recors sales success an Aapper wannabe_s as virtual
success!ul Aap artists.
6he economics system as prime e0ample o! integrate1 real-virtual
systems.
:o recognition an imagination have a common origin? /re they
necessarily coe0tensive.
6rans!erring elements versus trans!erring conte0ts. 3onte0t is always
partial because they are open systems. Aepresentation o!
etermination/eterminacy = + o! which1 mathematics is a subbranch.
6he necrophile 5ealously guars his ontological status !rom
encroachment by other preteners to metaphysical presence.
3oherence is ream structure an ream structure is coherence L there is
nothing more.
9ne must never have the !eeling that there is some particular
person/thing which one must have to be complete. -or this woul be to
place ones center outsie o! the potentially authentic sel!1 that is1 within
the Rworl.S
/t [illegible\ one_s thoughts begin to !loo away !rom the sur!ace o! the
goo1 green ;arth.
6he ability to unerstan the ieas o! those smarter than onesel!.
Fe avoi people who ten to iscon!irm our theories about how li!e
worKs. Hnstitutions or structure which threaten our worlview are
viewe as mani!estations o! the irrational an we care!ully wen our
way aroun an past them. Hn orer to glimpse the rationality o! that
which originally striKes us as irrational or nonrational requires that we
per!orm at least a partial econstruction an the reconstruction upon the
!ounations o! our own philosophies1 belie!s an pre!erences. Fe act in
such a manner that we only encounter the worl which is consistent with
the worlview we espouse. ?ecause the worl itsel!1 or1 the worl as it
is1 is so raically rich an overetermine1 beyon any possible
rationalistic uni!ication1 only relatively small subomains o! the worl
may be worKe into more or less coherent unities. Ht is within such
subomains that the worlview o! the prou1 illusion-!ille iniviual
!ins its peace!ul coe0istence.
Hnstea o! the usual ichotomy o! per!ormers versus spectators which
escribes the two basic categories o! how persons go about their lives1 H
have settle upon a somewhat i!!erent ichotomy1 that o! perpetrators
versus etectives. Fhereas in terms o! the !ormer ichotomy H shoul
have been !orce to categorize mysel! as a mere spectator1 in terms o!
this new complementary set o! categories1 H can prouly style mysel! as
etective in the game o! li!e. 7erhaps not always so e0citing a career as
being one o! the more active perpetrators1 !or those o! Cpay close
attention hereD the appropriate intellectual temperament1 this career
hols high moments to which nothing in the more RactiveS li!e career
coul ever be aequately comparable.
6he mechanism by which the e!!ective spee o! light is ramatically
reuce in the laboratory through use o! a supercoole gas o! Aubiium
atoms may be essentially similar to the manner in which the spee o!
light is reuce within a vacuum o! reuce virtual 3ooper pairs o!
electron/positrons. Ht is interesting that the velocity o! light is the
prouct o! K1 wavenumber an !1 !requency1 which are intimately tie to
the momentum an energy o! the photons1 respectively.
Ht is !requently state that spontaneous emission o! e0cite atoms is
triggere by vacuum !luctuations. 6he question arises as to whether
these !luctuations are in the !orm o! real1 $-momentum !luctuations or
imaginary (-momentum1 i.e.1 energy !luctuations. Fe Know that the
ensity o! real photons within the volume occupie by e0cite atoms is
irectly proportional to the rate o! stimulate emission o! real photons
!rom the e0cite atoms. Fe coul invoKe the so-calle ?ose Hnclusion
7rinciple C?H7D to account !or the increase probability o! real photon
prouction Cthrough spontaneous emission1 stimulate by virtual
photonsD.
Hnstea o! always speaKing in terms o! ecrease vacuum imaginary
momentum !luctuations Cenergy !luctuationsD an enhance vacuum $-
momentum !luctuations Creal momentum !luctuationsD1 we coul1
instea1 thinK o! the vacuum momentum-energy !iel as a ghost matter
!iel. Hn this way1 the presence o! matter in a given region o! space
woul ecrease the ensity o! the ghost matter !iel by the precise same
amount by which it increase the ensity o! the matter !iel. "ince
photons propagate through the ghost matter !iel an the matter !iel
changes state through the mutual interaction o! the matter an ghost
matter !iels1 we shoul e0pect the velocity o! light to be lower in
regions o! space possessing a reuce ghost matter !iel ensity. -or
e0ample1 although a Aubiium atom is e0cite when it absorbs a photon
o! appropriate !requency1 this atom will only ecay when RstimulateS to
o so upon RabsorptionS o! a virtual photon. / question here is whether
virtual photons owe their e0istence1 in turn1 to the vacuum having mae
some Kin o! ownwar transition in its energy L which1 perhaps1 can be
e0plaine in terms o! the action o! virtual virtual particlesT
?ut K an ! are in reality the e0pectation values o! the wavenumber an
!requency1 an these values are epenent upon the =eisenberg
uncertainties an vacuum !luctuation intensities o! these respective
quantities.
YcZ = sqrt[nb;WW2 - /a;WW2o/nbpWW2 - /apWW2o\
8etaphors on_t prove the conclusions o! arguments but help to
emonstrate that a pattern in a current situation is more pervasive an
there!ore probably not entirely coinciental L even though no causal
connections1 i.e.1 linKs in the chain o! causal in!luences have yet to be
unearthe. =ere is the iea o! a pattern operating by its own ynamism1
inepenently o! the ynamic o! the meium o! its present conte0t. Fe
say1 then1 that this pattern in!orms its meium an helps to etermine a
conte0t !or its conte0t. 6his pattern is not merely e0presse through the
meium1 but moi!ies this meium by operating RthroughS it.
H reserve all my !aith an trust in my .or an "avior. 3oncerning all
else1 H am highly sKeptical. 3ulture puts an illusory !ace upon the
society o! human animals.
Aeal !ermions are bounary conitions upon the corresponing boson
!iels. ?ut !ermions themselves e0ist as quantum !iels. Fhat serves
as the bounary conitions !or these !ermion !iels? Fhat is unique
cannot be reprouce an there!ore cannot be recore. Aecors as
physically RinscribeS in some material system1 are not themselves
memories but evoKers o! memories. 6here are changes in these
Rmemory recorsS that will not a!!ect how a memory is evoKe an
some which will o this. 6here is1 in other wors1 a two-way acting
egeneracy in how the brain recors e0periences an how these recors
evoKe recollection o! their original e0periences o! which they are
Rrecollections.S
3.!.1 energy level iagram !or an atom with n iscrete energy levels.
/ll possible energy CatomicD transitions are inicate by appropriate
arrows connecting upper an lower energy levels. 6he groun state is
inicate as the lowest energy level in the iagram. Oeeping in min
the permutations an combinations o! virtual ownwar an upwar
energy transitions1 how oes a real !ermion sitting at state n perturb the
spectral ensity o! virtual transitions?
6ransitions o! !ermions correspon to the presence/creation o! bosons.
Aelate RtransitionsS to RtimeS an relate the creation/presence o! bosons
Cstemming !rom the !ermion transitionsD to Rspace.S
7lacement o! a !ermion at the @th energy level causes the ecay o! a
virtual !ermion locate at this energy level1 but1 a la -eynman path
integral !ormulation1 ecay by every possible permutation an
combination. ;ach o! the ecaye energy moes correspons to the
presence o! those momentum !luctuations1 i! the ecaye energy moes
are ecaye once an !or all1 or is the ecay o! these moes continual?
Fhat i!!ers between one consciousness an another L !orm1 substance1
something other?
6he 7lancK length is liKely to be an absolute measure o! the Rgraininess
o! spacetime.S Hnconsistent with the woul be the notion o! time
ilation/contraction o! the 7lancK time/!requency. "imilarly1 a length
contraction to imensions smaller than the 7lancK length are rule out.
/pproaching 7lancK imensions1 spacetime behaves accoring to the
cellular automata C3/D moel in which .orenz invariance/covariance
must be a
banone. =ere it is seen that the RphysicalS quantities o! mass1 length1
an time are erivative in the 3/ moel which is basically a ata an
in!ormation system.
8arch 2)**
Hs it any coincience that the 7lancK mass
correspons to a mass appro0imately equal to that o! a grain o! ust1
which lies 5ust at the visual resolution threshol o! the unaie human
eye?
Fhat is calle uncertainty has two istinct senses1 that o! vagueness an
that o! inecision. Hn!ormation is originate through an act o! will
Cinterpretation o! vaguenessD an consciousness represents the outcome
o! interpretation or the e!!ect o! a ecision.
;ach :@/ is the prouct o! the union o! two single heli0 molecules1
each single heli0 molecule taKen !rom one o! two ouble heli0
molecules compose o! con5oine1 complementary single heli0
molecules.
6he woner o! the intimately Known is no lesser than that o! the
mysterious unKnown. Foner is not a !unction o! Knowlege1 but o!
something transcening Knowlege. ;0amples o! which are the woner
the elerly person e0periences when recollecting her chilhoo an the
woner e0perience by a person in chilhoo.
@eurolinguistic programming an the subtleties o! natural selection.
6he natural selection mechanism must be in!initely subtler than any
escription that maKes narrative sense to inhabitants o! everyayness.
6his is on account o! the in!initesimal ratio o! historically occurring
genetic combinations to that number o! base pair combinations that are
chemically an thermoynamically possible.
Hs not the !everish thought o! philosophers so liKe similar attempts o! a
baby chicK to pecK its way out o! its egg shell? ?oth eneavors are
equally borne o! instinct an equally irecte towar a very real goal.
Fe are le to the conclusion that the selective avantage o! gene
sequences is an illusion1 along1 perhaps1 with all those sociobiological
an anthropological evolutionary narratives o! natural selection
scenarios1 now seen !or the sophistical an isingenuous R5ust soS stories
that they are.
Fe have all along naively assume that the environment is not quantum
correlate to the :@/ o! the iniviuals in the competition !or
reprouction an survival. H! the :@/ were itsel! compose o!
in!ormation1 then coul we say that its coe is arbitrary1 or 5ust. . .
6he sub5ectivity or intersub5ectivity o! perception oes not have any
relevance to the ontological question concerning the reality or
illusoriness o! these perceptions.
.iKe ,nion 7aci!ic trains with cars one can see through i! not empty1 but
which when empty are opaque1 metaphors RworKS because they are
rawn !rom real1 actual e0perience.
/ conscious computer woul not be able to e0plore its state space
without perturbing this state space in a non-negligible way1 unless the
state space is R5ust a pro5ection.S
Fithout Rthe arbitrariness o! meaningsS thought woul be eterministic
or1 the symbolic realm woul be a super!luous space within which
thinKing coul per!orm non substantive worK.
6he !act that there is no consciousness as such creates !or a us a eep
parao0. Ht seems to !ollow !rom this both *D the only i!!erence
between two iniviual consciousnesses is a lacK o! numerical ientity1
an 2D everything about iniviual consciousness is i!!erent1 e0cept that
they both are1 analogically speaKing1 e0emplars1 but not instantiations o!1
consciousness Cmine an/or his.D
4roun state is the basis o! the continuity o! change o! all that which is
its mani!estation. C/lthough there can be no Rpure mani!estationS o!
groun.D /n the possibilities o! a quantum system in a pure state
emboy the groun !or change Ccontinuous1 eterministicD !or that
system1 an so any change in the possibility space must be
iscontinuous.
-orm acquires substance. "ymbols possess a capacity !or recollecting
their earlier conte0ts. 6he meium an implements o! symbols an the
conte0ts or spaces occupie an traverse by these implements in their
various meia1 by-prouce conte0tual connections in the symbols they
serve an support. 6his partially accounts !or the arbitrariness o! the
particular comple0ion o! meanings that each symbol has through
historical possesses o! acquisition o! conte0ts.
Fhy oes a suen breaK in auio input create the sensation o! this
breaK originating within oneGs own nervous system? 6his impression
may be cause by an inavertent bacK ating o! memory1 placing an act
o! volition immeiately prior in time in memory to the perceive breaK.
3onsciousness is something one participates in: it is not something that
one can represent.
E4rowing up in ;arthGs "ol "ystem]G E] playe by Japho
?eeblebro0.E
Ht might be interesting to investigate how a person o! one culture
interprets mani!estations o! some other1 highly istinct culture1 e.g.1 how
a young girl o! the 3zech Aepublic might interpret 6he ?ob an 6om
"how.
"ymbolic elements o! a genetic nature o not require any over-arching1
guiing intention o! e0pression1 in orer to EcontainE in!ormation an
succee in the e0pression o! this in!ormation.
Hn!ormation is ata in conte0t1 but ata are the e0pression o!
in!ormation.
=unger o! the "oul1 by :eepaK 3hopra
"upersymmetry appears to be necessary to consistently escribe a
quantize vacuum state in which the spacetime can be arbitrarily
partitione into a $+* ;ucliean spacetime.
6he absence o! local observer base time oes not !ollow !rom the
none0istence o! a global or cosmological1 i.e.1 absolute time. H! global
time is viewe as a particular class o! inter relationship amongst local
times1 then global time woul not etermine loca time.
3an we always choose a noninertial or inertial !rame so that the ensity
matri0 is iagonalize so that we have a escription o! the system in
terms o! a pure state? H! so1 then the system as a whole cannot be
nonlocally connecte to another system.
/ system may be escribe by a 7si !unction1 but contain no subsets
escribe by their own1 local 7siCHD.
:iscreteness o! spacetime $+* partitioning1 each with its own local time
vacuum with cuto!! !requency1 omega1 cuto!!. 7er!ect supersymmetry
in each local vacuum is broKen Can not requireD. ;ach local vacuum
possesses a small enough quantum vacuum energy ensity i! partial
supersymmetry to solve the cosmological constant problem locally !or
each local spacetime CvacuumD.
6he time evolution o! pure state1 i.e.1 an eigenstate o! the =amiltonian1
oes not imply the temporal evolution ! possibility - possibility can only
change iscontinuously1 through 7si collapse.
6here can be no eterministic evolution o! the possibility space.
Fhat anchors the H thinK is the H thinK1 H thinK1 H thinK1 H thinK1 a
in!initum. Ht is a strange Kin o! >acobGs laer style !requency o!
interaction unerlying a connectivity which starts an ens in pure
vacuum but passes through an unlimite number o! the mutual grappling
o! two vacua. the inter!ace !or which may be the human brain.
6he human being is ual Co! somethingD not a unity an there!ore
nothing in its own right1 i.e.1 has no Eessence.E Ht was the way the
bilateral symmetry o! our boies hints at this unerlying lacK o! unity.
3an the normal imensions o! space an time be compose o! care!ully
piece together !ractal space times? /n can the EoscillationE o! min
along its Erecursion a0isE be escribe consistently !ractals Cor1 perhaps1
hyperimensional1 !ractalsD? /n abstract spatial continuum is the
prouct CepiphenomenonD o! the interconnection o! an in!inite number o!
!ibers an !iber bunles. 6he actual spatial continuum is the prouct o!
the interacting o! an in!inite number o! istinct Cessentially istinctD
time1 continua.
6he many worls that inter!ere with one another to prouce the actual
worl in which observations are per!orme are not EworlsE with
qualitatively istinct spatial an temporal !oliations which is to say tha
the time a0is within each o! the many worls o! ;verettGs interpretation
o! the quantum measurement problem oes not correspon to an
irreversible timeline. 8oreover1 the entropy o! each o! these worls1 !i it
can even be e!ine1 woul be a constant Ce!inable as zero?D. 7erhaps
entropy can only be a !unction o! subensembles o! ;verett_s Eworls.E
-ailures o! recollection1 action o! imagination1 placing uner erasure1
tautologies1 contraictions1 parao0es1 parables1 poems1 riles1 etc.1 all
the ways that human communication transcens binary logic.
:ata are the meium o! in!ormation an energy1 ultimately vacuum $-
momentum1 is the meium o! ata. 8ater is the meium o! vacuum $-
momentum. Iacuum $-momentum is the meium o! ata.
Iacuum imaginary momentum Hn!ormation/!orm
matter/substance vacuum $-momentum ata in!ormation/!orm.
4ravitation time riving !unction
Hnertia space amping !unction.
/ll images o! the /lien1 the other1 erives !rom insights into the
arbitrairness o! our own human !orm1 its bilaterl symmetry1 etc.
6he EmeiumE has both its iscrete an continuous parts.
6he Hnternet1 hope!ully shoul !acilitate the Rregathering o! the tribesS
which is the iniviualist_s search !or what he/she e!ines as intelligent
li!e.
/ universal time signal meiate i!!erently in i!!erent regions o!
spacetime.
7roblems e0ist with the interpretation o! the gravitational reshi!t.
<e1 thee1 thy1 thou1 etc. use in the Oing >ames ?ible rings in the ears o!
the average churchgoer as being somehow closer to the time ivine
language. Hnvestigate other e0amples o! the RhanwavingnessS o!
human thought an speculation.
Hn!ormation is conte0t epenent ata an truth1 then1 is conte0t
epenent what?
/apting tiny variations on top o! an enormous reservoir o! in!ormation
so that all o! the untrie combinations o! :@/ base pairs.
6he R!ertileS chaotic meium is RseeeS by a principle o!
orer/rationality. Hn this way the strengths o! !reeom an orer are
combine an the weaKnesses o! irrationality an in!le0ibility are
mutually compensate.
Feb search: arbitrariness o! the genetic coe.
;0trapolating the perceive behavior bacK towar some convergence
point !ar a!iel !rom that person_s actual center.
;motions evoKe: internal triggering o! ancient socio-se0ual genetic
algorithms.
"ong sig: R@ight or ay1 they_re 5ust not matchin_S
/ uni!ie reality which is in!inite may contain written itsel! the reason
!or its being/e0istence. "uch is not the case !or a plurality o! in!inite
beings composing reality.
6he pouning beat o! some rocK music is anticipating builing1 creates
primitive e0pectancy towar the hunt1 tribal way1 human sacri!ice1 etc.
/a7i 0 c = /a; is associate with spaceliKe momentum !luctuations within
the crystal lattice.
3hanges in the circulation an !low o! energy within the crystal requires
power input into an power trans!er through the crystalline matri0.
/ close1 ynamic system cannot be sel! sustaining in its ynamics as its
elements must be continually regenerate !rom vacuum !luctuation
energy.
6he energy ensity o! the vacuum inuce in the presence o! mass has1
liKe electromagnetic raiation1 an equation o! state wherein the energy
ensity is three times the pressure o! the raiation. Ht is this inertial
inuce vacuum energy that gives photons within this region an
e!!ective mass L a Kin o! electromagnetic photon mass.
Hnterestingly1 the photon is connecte with couple pairs o! electrons an
positrons. 6his coupling is e!!ecte through an appropriately correlate
positron pair1 where each positron erives !rom two contiguous1 virtual
e-e+ pairs. / similar statement applies1 where each electron also
erives !rom contiguous1 virtual e-e+ pairs. 6he space an time
components o! these virtual pairs are /a0i an /at1 respectively. 6he
ensity o! virtual e-e+ pairs in time is ecrease within a gravitational
!iel an reuce /a; combine with increase /at !or these virtual e-e+
pairs implies a lower virtual power input into spacetime. Fhile
increase /a7i 0 c over an increase /at woul imply a scale own local
value o! c an so a similarly reuce spaceliKe virtual power trans!er
capability. Hn this way the ability o! energy in matter an vacuum to
reistribute itsel! in response to applie !orces is similarly reuce1 i.e.1
increase inertia.
H! my consciousness an that o! each intelligent person possesses its own
unity1 then can there be room !or a still more per!ect unity1 that o!
consciousness as such? ?ut the notion o! a unity o! !eatures o! the
iniviual_s own consciousness which transcens the unity o! his
iniviual consciousness seems nonsensical1 i! not contraictory.
Hn nonrelativistic physics1 any linear momentum can be trans!orme
away via an appropriate 4alilean trans!ormation. 6his is not the case
with angular momentum because this is motion not taKing place within
an inertial re!erence !rame. Hn relativity1 the $-momentum can only be
trans!orme away while preserving total (-momentum. ,se
superposition to e0press /a.z in !our imensional spacetime. 6here is a
necessity o! P8 within relativistic physics.
4auge invariance is recapture through the introuction o! a new
interaction in the !orm o! an e0change particle CbosonD. =ypothesis:
global gauge invariance is lost when a given symmetry is broKen.
"earch: spin ) particles.
Fhen a symmetry is broKen1 a goo quantum number is lost. =ow is
the least action principle restore? /re the lost quantum numbers
recapture through the appearance o! a new gauge boson which is
e0change between the !ermions with reuce quantum number set?
Fith the loss o! a quantum number as a result o! symmetry breaKing
Cphase transition an loss o! some !iner structure within the vacuum
lattice structureD certain permutations o! state transitions1 which may be
virtual1 are lost which are perhaps reintrouce through momentum
transitions in the !orm o! virtual gauge boson e0changes1 an the
appearance o! new phases Cmeiating the phase transition o! new
vacuum stateD or a new groun state?
6he neutrino was postulate by -ermi in orer to have energy conserve
in nuclear ecay. 6he neutrino is a spin { particle C-ermionD. Fhen a
global gauge Cphase?D trans!ormation is not possible1 a broKen symmetry
e0ists1 necessitating the introuction o! an e0change particle Cgauge
bosonD which restores the broKen symmetry Clocally at least?D. Hs
momentum conservation regaine in this manner? Hs there a recoil
momentum !or !ermions e0changing bosons between themselves?
6he *)) 4eI energy cuto!! !or vacuum !luctuations may be ue to a
Kin o! temporal 3asimir ;!!ect where the resonance with harmonic
hyperspherical potential is ! = h/*)) 4eI.
/ll conserve ynamical variables are purely timeliKe in !ree space.
Hnertia an gravitation are phenomena associate with the pro5ection o!
these timeliKe !our vectors into spaceliKe components. /n important
question here is whether there is a conserve !our potential. :oes the
creation o! spaceliKe components o! !our potential inuce a change in
the timeliKe !our potential so that the sum o! time an spaceliKe
components o! some new !our potential vectorially sum to prouce a
new !our potential with the same magnitue as the inertial !ree space
!our potential. 7erhaps these ynamical variables are not purely
timeliKe in R!ree spaceS1 but possess balance timeliKe an spaceliKe
pro5ections.
6here is a istinction to be mae between the proposition that Rsubstance
is the basis o! continuityS an Rsubstance is e!ine as the basis o!
continuity. R
Aesearch what is calle 6he "hapiro ;!!ect in Aelativity 6heory.
6he anomalous gravitational component e0perience by pioneer Can
otherD spacecra!t may be e0plaine in terms o! the e!!ect o! the "un_s
gravity upon its surrouning vacuum !iel to increase this !iel_s mass
by a perhaps relate to the gravitational gamma !actor1 48/AcWW2. 6he
iscrepancy between preicte an observe sunwar acceleration will
increase as these space probes leave the solar system.
6he J7-_s cannot act on themselves inepenently o! impose bounary
conitions that alter the balance istribution o! the bosonic an
!ermionic components o! these !iels.
Fith the classical gravitational !iel ecaying with AWW-2 an the mass
o! the vacuum ecreases with R+S epenence to e0plain the 7ioneer
spacecra!t gravitational anomalies.
9r i! there is a time-varying1 cosmological constant1 i.e.1 vacuum energy1
a graient in the local ensity o! the vacuum energy woul contribute a
nonclassical component to the "un_s gravitational !iel.
6he pervasive appearance o! proviential coincience an meaning may
be e0plicable in terms o! an innate sel!-limiting structure o!
consciousness in that highest level processing o! sensory an internal
state ata taKes place within the unconscious which maintains a Kin o!
mentor role relationship to the conscious min1 which plays the
apprentice/ protggg role.
8aybe iniviual consciousness itsel! is a !unction o! the brain_s
internal moel o! its own mental states. 7erhaps the e0tra con!ience1
altruism an sense o! the urgency o! sel! preservation is worth the e0tra
processing power o! the brain evote to the maintenance o! a sel!
symbol. 3ertainly the raw ata processing power o! the iniviual brain
woul be much greater without the necessity o! maintaining the sel!
symbol1 but !or the clan or tribal collective1 survivability is greater i!
each iniviual possesses his own sel! symbol.
/ noneterministic system cannot maintain its orer without the input o!
in!ormation o! close systems1 the less restrictive requirement o! a
close system only neeing 4ibb_s !ree-energy to maintain its orer.
6he e0clue vacuum energy transitions e!ine the new momentum
!luctuations o! the crystal.
/ photon that oes not interact with any other real particle or !iel is 5ust
as real as a set o! neither timeliKe nor spaceliKe1 but null correlate
vacuum !luctuations. / photon must acquire mass in a gravitational
!iel L relative to an observer positione in R!ree space.S 6his is the
case because relative to this observer1 the photon possesses a !inite
timeliKe motion as it R!allsS into the gravitational well o! an1 e.g.1 star1
e.g.1 the "un.
9nly boun energy systems e!ine iscrete transition energy levels that
are !orbien to the vacuum state.
Hn the !ollowing1 c.!.1 /pril 2))) issue o! "cienti!ic /merican1 Puantum
6eleportation article.
Hn!ormation is transmitte superluminally in the quantum teleportation
e0periments1 but the coe necessary to rea this in!ormation1 must be
transmitte by conventional CsubluminalD signals.
?ecause teleporting 7si o! the system is to teleport all that e!ines the
system1 this is equivalent to teleporting the system itsel!1 c.!.1 principle
o! quantum inistinguishability o! ientical particles.
@o cloning theorem: cannot copy a quantum state without estroying the
Roriginal simulacrum.S
Aanom measurement o! a quantum state oes not Risturb the state1S
meaning the uncertainties are una!!ecte?
3an only quantum teleport what can e0ist as a !luctuation. 9nly pure
quantum states can possess an antistate. Hs thermoynamic equilibrium
require to be in a pure quantum state L !or matter without a !luctuation
equivalent?
; = pc !or photon an p = hK1 ; = hw. 6he photon is completely
spaceliKe in !lat space because it has no energy associate with a
timeliKe momentum.
/ pure quantum state oes not have to be purely timeliKe1 5ust couple
e0clusively to the vacuum Cthe ob5ect as a wholeD. 6he ob5ect can have
internal1 spaceliKe momentum e0changes an still be in a pure state L
5ust no momentum e0changes e0ceeing the momentum uncertainty o!
the ob5ect as a whole.

3an an observer move rapily enough relative to two nonlocally-
connecte particles o! alreay measure +/- { spin Cwithin the re!erence
!rame o! two spaceliKe separate1 inertial observersD so that within the
relatively moving CacceleratingD observer_s re!erence !rame1 a causal
in!luence coul have propagate !rom inertial observer /1 where a spin
measurement was per!orme1 to inertial observer ?1 where the
nonlocally-connecte-to-particle-/ particle ? acquires a spin eigenstate?
6he nonlocally connecte1 spin { particles are simultaneous within all
inertial !ramesV locally-connecte particles are non-simultaneous in all
inertial !rames.
6he velocity o! inter!erence patters e0hibite by interacting photons is
inee epenent upon the motion o! the observer.
6here may be an absolute uncertainty o! position etermine by the
7lancK length1 which is necessarily associate with an absolute
ma0imum ensity o! $-momentum !luctuations. 6he 7lancK particle
must be as close to an energy eigenstate as possible1 but perhaps it
cannot be in an actual energy eigenstate ue to the entropy o! its
=awKing raiation emitte by its minimal sur!ace area. Hs entropy
quantize through the entropy o! a 7lancK particle_s =awKing raiation?
Hnepenently e0isting !orce that one can then resolve into orthogonal
component. ?ut shoul one !ollow this same rule when representing a
vector compose o! !luctuations compose o! virtual momentum an
energy?
3lassical versus quantum may be generalize as intuitive Cbuilt upon
e0perience o! orinary realityD versus counterintuitive Ctranscening
orinary worlD. 3onceptually1 the intuitive is unerpinne by the
counterintuitive. 7ractically1 the counterintuitive is e!ine in terms o!
the intuitive. 6his is analogous to the philosophy o! metho emboie
in the 3openhagen Hnterpretation o! Puantum 8echanics.
7eople on_t change because they are either incapable or unwilling to
looK at themselves as others may see them.
9ne must issociate somewhat in orer to grapple with the
psychological processes that unerpin thought an emotion so as to
unerstan more !ully their laws o! trans!ormation.
H! the momentum-energy !luctuations rive the !luctuations in particle
position-time !luctuation instea o! momentum-energy !luctuations
riving !luctuations in the metric as an intermeiary step to causing
position-time !luctuations1 then perhaps the momentum-energy o! the
J7- nee not gravitate.
9nly close universes can arise !rom quantum tunneling1 c.!.1 -rom
@ewton_s .aws to the Fheeler-:eFitt ;quation1 by >ohn F. @orbury.
6he wavepacKet possesses a egree o! ispersion about the mean
position in spacetime occupie by the classical particle with tra5ectory
e!ine by a geoesic o! spacetime. 6he 4aussian wavepacKet is also
characterize by e0pectation values1 or mean values1 o! the quantities o!
momentum an energy. :oes the 4aussian wavepacKet o! a RparticleS
traveling along a spacetime geoesic o so only in an appro0imate
manner1 etermine by the e0pectation values o! position an time? H!
so1 then this has implications !or the ;instein equivalence principle1
particularly with regar to the =eisenberg uncertainties1 or !luctuations
in1 time1 position1 energy1 an momentum. 6he classical particle
geoesic spacetime tra5ectory may possess an unerlying ynamics in
which the istinction between RparticleS an spacetime is seen as not
!unamental. 8omentum an position !luctuations in the vacuum1 as
well as1 !luctuations in energy an time must not occur inepenently o!
on another1 but in a coorinate manner1 which maintains the constancy
o! h-bar as well as the conservation o! !luctuation momentum-energy.
"ince1 accoring to :avi ?ohm1 c.!.1 Puantum 6heory C*2'*D1 all
causal connections may be recast into the !orm o! correlations o!
!luctuations1 we might 5ustly suppose that the geoesic path o! a
classical particle through spacetime can be alternatively escribe in
terms o! a coherent set o! quantum correlations obtaining between the
!luctuation quantities in terms o! which the particle_s momentum-energy
may be e!ine an those !luctuations in terms o! which the particle_s
spacetime position may be e!ine. ?ut to complete this alternative1
!luctuation-correlation base escription o! particle ynamics1 we
require some way o! connecting !luctuations in the spacetime metric to
!luctuations in the particle_s position-time.
6he purpose in per!orming abstraction o! more relevant !eatures o! the
concrete an suppression o! the less so is 5ust so that we can worK with
the realm o! articulable symbols. Hn this way1 i! a truth is iscovere1 it
shall be reportable to the intersub5ective collectivity. 6here is a
istinction o! the more or less intrinsic an the more or less e0trinsic that
we seeK to iscover as we turn the ob5ect aroun1 this way an that1
within our RhansS Ctools an instruments o! probing1 etection1
measurementD. Fe are neurotic in not having con!ience that we truly
Know something without the ai o! the meiation o! symbols whole only
true purpose is to clue in others on what we ourselves are alreay
intimately acquainte with. / misconception lies behin the
philosopher_s an the scientist_s esire to RunlocK the secrets o!
consciousnessS rea: consciousness Ras suchS. ?ut what i! the !orms o!
consciousness are all that is communicable about that phenomenon1
while the Rraw !eelsS o! one iniviual_s consciousness versus that o!
another_s is a comparison voi o! any sense or meaning or simply
impossible Cin concept an applicationD. 6here is no collective1
intersub5ective Knowlege to be ha concerning that1 which is itsel!
in!ra-sub5ective1 what is liKe to be me. /n there is not sub5ective
Knowlege to be ha concerning the nature o! consciousness itsel! or as
such. H! there is no consciousness as such1 that is1 i! there is not abstract
!eature common to all iniviual consciousnesses1 such that each
iniviual consciousness is an instantiation o! this general
consciousness1 then each iniviual consciousness is unique an a law
unto itsel!. "o here we see that !orm is instantiate within an iniviual
consciousness1 but consciousness is not itsel! an instantiation o! any
general !orm. "o the iniviual consciousness is neither an assembly o!
!orms less general than itsel!1 nor is it an instantiation o! something more
general than itsel!. 6hat which is not an instantiation cannot possess a
general nature. ?ut that which is an instantiation o! a metaphor can
possess an analogical nature. Fhat sort o! analogy can obtain between
to entities which are themselves !ormally escribable? "o the mystics
are only partly correct: it is not the case that consciousness Cas suchD
simply isV this is true o! each iniviual consciousnessT "o the answer
to the question what is the secret o! consciousness? 6he secret o!
consciousness is the alterity o! other mins. 6he answer is as !ar as a
uni!ie answer is possible is the state o! one_s own being. 6his answer is
in!initely plural1 the Knowlege o! which is in!initely singular.
$-momentum !luctuations meiate reversible time. 6he imaginary
component o! (-momentum !luctuations meiate irreversible Centropy-
laenD temporal evolution. 9n this view1 the event horizon o! a blacK
hole being the collection o! points at which spaceliKe an timeliKe
intervals reverse themselves1 an hence1 timeliKe an spaceliKe
!luctuations e0change roles. 6here!ore1 we e0pect all irreversible
momentum e0changes to be taKing place at the blacK hole_s event
horizon. "o the entropy content o! the blacK hole stems entirely !rom its
sur!ace area Cevent horizonD an so the ensity o! the hole_s internal
energy shoul be epenent upon the inverse square o! the hole_s raius.
6he vacuum_s energy !luctuation spectrum1 within an accelerate
re!erence !rame1 is that o! a blacK boy C,nruh ;!!ectD. 6he =awKing
Aaiation spectrum o! a blacK hole is also that o! a blacK boy. 7article
prouction with a blacK boy spectrum may occur in a universe with
hyperspherical potential1 as in the case o! an accelerating cosmological
e0pansion.
3.!.1 e0ten in!lation theories1 Rcosmological quantum tunneling1S an
Rcosmological particle prouctionS1 etc.
Ht is natural to imagine the other as col1 loveless1 calculating an one_s
sel! as well meaning1 !orthright an honest. Hn the realm o! value
neutral an competence-oriente eneavors1 it is the other who is more
nacve an less calculating. 9ne_s own mistaKes occurre through
un!oreseeable collusion o! un!ortunate circumstance1 whereas the
mistaKes o! one_s competitor are bluners1 their successes are
attributable to a combination o! lucK an in!luential persons.
9ne can rea the verses o! the chapters o! the booK o! Aomans in reverse
orer an these chapters rea equally coherently.
H! the min was una!!ecte by its own representations1 then the state
space iea might be a worKable hypothesis !or the presentational
continuum.
3reativity emans !irst1 the evelopment o! Ra culture o! one.S 6o o
some violence to 8s. =ilary 3linton1 Rit taKes an iniviual.S "econ1
we must then become anthropologist to all our !ellows. 6he more
responsibility one taKes !or one_s own psychological an intellectual
evelopment1 the more alien appear the arti!acts an e0pressions o!
mainstream an/or mass culture.
/lterity is highly pervasive within any iniviual consciousness that is a
member o! the highly mobile1 in!ormation-saturate1 postmoern age.
;volutionary theory o! consciousness as constantly running an enemy
psyche simulation. =uman consciousness as a Kin o! enemy
intelligence-counter intelligence simulator.
:onate you ol1 use care commercial. 7icture a little auto coughing
an sputtering with cracKe healight an a !ew RteethS missing it its
grill. / couple iscusses taKing their ol car to the 5unKyar. 6he car1
sitting patiently in the garage1 awaiting the opportunity to serve its
river1 overhears all o! this talK. 6he car evinces a twiste1 sa !rown
an seems to she a couple o! tears. 6his little1 animate sequence tugs
at the hearts o! the 6I viewing auience. ?ut what oes such !acile
emotionality in response to mere cartoon images say about our
emotionality when responing to the presence o! our peers.
Fhy o arbitrary 5u0tapositions o! cultural mani!estations so !requently
RgelS an oes so in the mins o! most quite reaily? 6he !unction o!
Rinirect aressingS in the byte basic programming language.
:o inchoate RbitsS o! Rin!ormationS gel !irst an then the anatomy an
ta0onomy are inevitably worKe out later. 3an the suggestible human
min maKe any arbitrary 5u0taposition o! incongruous elements wel
together into a seamless whole. @o1 not without the requisite social1
cultural Revolutionary support.S 6he incongruity o! synchronic
elements can always be overcome by the teleological etermination o!
some iachronicity.
Fhen the gauge symmetry o! a quantum !iel is broKen1 this !iel is no
longer invariant uner global gauge trans!ormations. Hs local gauge
invariance in the absence o! global gauge invariance the same thing as
what is calle Rgauge covarianceS?
8ost o! my scienti!ic research consists in collecting circumstantial
evience !or the non-gravitating quantum vacuum gravity/inertia
hypothesis.
3haos is at the opposite en o! system behavior spectrum !rom highly
energy egenerate systems.
"cholarship is largely an e0ploration o! linKs within the implicit
hyperte0t.
7ossibility an actuality evolve in unison L how coul they not1 i! they
are at all tie to one another? 7ossibilities are largely suggeste by
actualities. 7ossibility lies in the imagination alone an is not latent an
pree0istent. ?ut the possible an the actual may not be separable e0cept
through an act o! conscious observation. Hn !act1 possibility1 actuality1
an necessity are not separate in an isolate1 eterministically evolving
quantum system. RHsolationS o! a quantum system1 which is
eterministically evolving accoring to the "chroinger equation1 must
be unerstoo to nevertheless remain couple to the vacuum !luctuation
!iel. Ht is 5ust that in this particular case1 the system is being sustaine
continuously an is not a conuit o! bacK-reaction o! an e0traneous
vacuum state upon this sustaining vacuum !iel.
H! a !iancge or newly we alreay !ins that she must hege or maKe
e0cuses !or her man/husban1 then here is the small gray clou on the
horizon o! their !uture li!e together. 6his little gray clou may inee
not arKen an grow over the ensuing Rearly years1S but the !ar greater
chance is that it shall. H cannot change or uly in!luence your ecision
as H woul liKe1 but you can trust that H will still be here a!ter things shall
have run their natural1 abortive course.
6he 4oo .i!e requires a stable1 aequate in!rastructure. 3hanging
initial conitions an !ailures o! marriages.
6he more intelligent1 talente1 creative1 ynamic1 etc.1 that two people
are1 the more important is the question o! compatibility in marriage.
/ctually1 it is a !unction o! imagination.
Aecursiveness o! creative thought an always alreainess o! metalevels
o! thought1 above an below. Fas Ralways alreainessS a concept
waiting to be iscerne or was it invente by :erria?
7ossibility an actuality cannot be completely isentangle as the are
not orthogonal.
H! the source o! inertia lies outsie the spatial bounary o! the ob5ect then
the Rob5ectS is only a system representation L liKe a computer esKtop
icon.
"ome mechanism1 which prevents irecte ispersion o! 7si pacKets1
i.e.1 acceleration o! 7si pacKets. 9ntological priority o! state space
escription over that o! the spacetime mani!ol.
6he energy o! a nonlocally connecte !iel cannot gravitate without a
moi!ication o! the ;instein !iel equations being require. :e!icit o!
vacuum energy gravitates since the vacuum energy is probably o!
negative magnitue.
H! civilization ha to rebuil itsel!1 i!!erent theories woul lea to the
iscovery o! very i!!erent theoretical entities1 which woul then be
rei!ie.
"tability o! e0tene ob5ects is supporte by 4olstone moes. Hnertia
is in terms o! e0citation an reconstruction o! 4olstone moes.
9bviously1 i! the energy ensity o! the quantum vacuum is on the orer
o! magnitue preicte by P81 matter cannot actually Rpass throughS
this meium1 but must traverse it by moving RatopS this hyperense
meium. 3ontinuous re!ormation o! particles an !iels woul be
inicate here. /t successive locations o! spacetime appears the only
viable means !or matter to have motion within the vacuum. / reay
analogy is the icon on a computer esKtop.
"pacetime is constitute out o! in!ormation an its activity. "o
in!ormation is not transmitte RthroughS spacetime. Hn!ormation has to
be nonlocally encoe1 that is1 i! any coe at all is necessary Cbecause
consciousness is unmeiateD
Hn a sel!-reproucing system1 the new incarnation o! the system must
also have Knowlege about how to reprouce itsel!. 6his poses a
recursion problem. "o the system cannot be a close or isolate system
an reprouce itsel! L it must continually raw in!ormation in !rom
outsie o! itsel!1 which is not the same as entropy leaving the system: a
limite amount o! entropy can leave the system1 but there is no
theoretical limit to the quantity o! in!ormation which can enter the
system !rom outsie.
/ unique1 non-reproucible process cannot possess a complete
escription in terms o! a set o! e!inable physical laws.
/ process cannot be completely unerstoo in terms o! its
phenomenological by-proucts.
Fithin a strictly logical chain o! in!luence1 there is no increase or
ecrease o! the quantity o! in!ormation represente by each logical step
in eriving the concluing proposition or theorem !rom the premises.
/lthough the successive prouction o! each step in the sequence o!
logically emonstrating a vali theorem1 as a mani!estation o! a process
o! thought on the part o! a human consciousness1 not in possession o!
either per!ect logic or o! unlimite calculating capacity1 woul not itsel!
necessarily be a eterministic manipulation o! ata Clogic is allegely
not empirically base1 but that is another storyD or o! symbols.
6he particular sequence o! in!erential operations may itsel! constitute a
Kin o! coe which locates Cienti!iesD the particular system o! in!erence
within some larger metasystem. 8any logical equivalencies cannot be
perceive irectly1 but require emonstration through rules o! in!erence.
"emantic equivalencies1 however1 are irectly intuite CperceiveD by
anyone who unerstans both propositions. "ame meaning an istinct1
logical structures versus i!!erent meaning an ientical logical
structures. /bstract structures1 liKe thermoynamic state variables1 are
overetermine entities. 3oncrete structure1 liKe quantum mechanical
observables1 are uneretermine entities.
:erria_s concept o! Ralways alreainessS seems to give the no to the
notion o! a timeless absolute. 3 = /a;/ /ap
@onestructive quantum measurement an observation without
inter!erence with the system. @onlocally connecte quantum states may
be unerstoo as Rco-presentS states. @onlocal interactions o not
appear to contribute to an ob5ect_s inertial mass.
3an the transcenent be unerstoo as that part o! reality lying
altogether outsie CpossibleD intersub5ectivity? Ht is clear that the
consciousness o! the iniviual is not itsel! an arti!act o!
intersub5ectivity1 but is sub5ectivity itsel!. 9nly the !orms that appear
within consciousness o! the iniviual stem !rom intersub5ectivity.
6he emagogue_s arbitrary conceptions an suggestibility o! his sub5ects
are e0actly complentary.
"ome counter-intuitive phenomena o! Puantum 6heory or1 why
Puantum 6heory e!ies the Oantian categories:
6ime-energy uncertainty an position-momentum uncertainty relations.
Hnistinguishability o! ientical particles.
7articles as localization_s o! a !iel quantity
Fave-particle uality
"uperposition principle
Puantum tunneling
"pontaneous emission/transition/ecay
Iacuum !luctuations
3reation o! matter out o! the vacuum
?ell nonlocality
Hnistinctness o! particle tra5ectories
"ymmetrization postulate
7auli e0clusion principle
?ose conensation
@onconservation o! energy
Hneterminacy o! wave!unction collapse
@onphysical nature o! wave!unction amplitue an phase
6ime not being an observable in quantum mechanics
Hntrinsic spin
3orrelation o! ranom signals
:egeneracy
Fhy is the energy ensity o! the vacuum not simply the energy
containe in each 7lancK volume summe together that can be pacKe
into a cubic meter1 in the case o! vacuum energy in >oules per cubic
meter? Hs it possible that the $-momentum components o! this
otherwise enormous vacuum energy largely counterpoise the timeliKe
component o! the quantum vacuum energy so that the ensity o! energy
o! the vacuum globally averages to some small value o! the
cosmological constant? Hs the enormous potential o! this largely sel!-
compensate vacuum energy only tappe when appropriate bounary
conitions are applie1 say1 those pose by boun systems o! real
!ermions?
"cattering amplitues !or collision o! two ientical particles inter!ere
constructively !or bosons an estructively !or !ermions1 c.!.1 p. *()'1
P81 vol. 2.
?ecause the symmetrization postulate oes not apply to well separate
particles1 a spin-base theory o! gravity woul be e0pecte to be a local
theory.
Iirtual particle/!iel reactions an processes may be viewe as the
!unamental processes unergone by vacua in their quiescent1
unperturbe state an real particles an !iels are mani!estation o! the
vacuum when perturbe by a riving source term such as an applie
electric or magnetic !iel.
Hn boun energy systems1 changes in energy are always associate with
emission or absorption o! bosons by the system as boun !ermions
unergo iscrete transitions in energy.
6he iscrete energy structure o! matter1 e.g.1 iscrete orbitals in the
=yrogen atom1 are moi!ie accoring to the splitting o! egeneracy_s
resulting !rom this atom being incorporate into a crystalline atomic
lattice. 6he e0act structure1 or !ine structure1 is coorinate to the vastly
increase number o! iscrete virtual transitions that the atom is now able
to maKe a!ter being incorporate into the boun1 material structure o! the
crystal. 6o each new possible iscrete energy1 transition there
correspons an e0change o! a virtual photon o! atoms within the crystal
o! lattice.
6he iscrete1 virtual transitions o! the crystal lattice energy which are
!orbien to the vacuum state o! the crystal occur1 but are riven by
vacuum momentum !luctuations1 mani!esting themselves as e0changes
in virtual bosons between !ermions o! the crystal lattice. 6he enhance
!luctuation momentum current ensity o! spacetime within the volume
occupie by the crystal e0ists in combination with a ecrease
!luctuation energy current ensity. 3onsequently1 the crystal inuces a
shi!t in the volume o! spacetime it occupies o! the !luctuation
momentum-energy current ensity so that the ensity o! uncertainty
energy1 /a; / cmWW$1 is ecrease by the same !raction that the ensity o!
uncertainty momentum1 /ap / cmWW$1 o! the quantum vacuum is
increase. 6he velocity o! the crystal mass through time is less than the
in vacuo velocity o! light by a certain !raction. 6his !raction is
etermine by the ratio o! the energy ensity o! the crystal to the energy
ensity o! the !ree space vacuum occupie by the crystal. 6his !raction
is also the !raction by which the velocity o! light through space is less
than that o! the !ree space vacuum. /n this !raction is etermine by
the ratio o! the !ree space momentum ensity o! the crystal relative to
the momentum ensity o! the volume occupie by the crystal.
/lthough the timeliKe momentum o! the relativistic mass is unchange
by the e!!ects o! the crystal lattice_s mass upon the supporting quantum
vacuum1 the timeliKe momentum o! the nonrelativistic mass1 has
ecrease by a !raction equal to the !raction by which the spaceliKe mass
o! the crystal has increase. "ince the crystal is at rest within its
embeing $-space1 we cannot consistently compare any shi!ts in the
timeliKe an spaceliKe momenta o! the bulK mass. 6he angle o! rotation
o! the spacetime coorinate system o! the mass1 i.e.1 the crystal lattice1
relative to a spacetime coorinate system in vacuo1 must then be
etermine by the relative shi!ts in the magnitues o! the timeliKe an
spaceliKe momentum !lu0 Cor currentD ensities. Hn orer to ecie
whether it is the momentum !lu0 ensities or the momentum current
ensities which are the relevant physical quantities1 we shall have to
maKe some general observations concerning how these two easily
con!use quantities compare.
-irst o! all1 the momentum current ensity is a !our vector1 while the
momentum !lu0 ensity is a one !orm. 6he relativistic e!!ects upon
mass1 length1 an time within special relativity erive !rom spacetime
rotations1 calle .orenz boosts1 o! some ob5ect_s !our momentum. 6he
relativistic e!!ects within general relativity are ultimately !oune upon
the possibility o! e!ining spacetime rotations o! the momentum !lu0
ensity o! the vacuum relative to its R!ree spaceS momentum !lu0
ensity. Fhat is interesting in comparing the momentum current
ensities o! special relativity with the momentum !lu0 ensities o!
general relativity is that the !ormer are e!ine !or bulK matter while the
latter are e!ine !or matter unerstoo as an interconnecte networK o!
!lu0 meta-stabilities in the activity o! the quantum vacuum. 6he
momentum o! matter1 unerstoo as the momentum o! vacuum
!luctuation !lu0es1 moulate by impose bounary conitions
Crepresente by the presence o! matterD1 is very much in Keeping with the
cellular automata theoretic interpretation o! matter as a pattern o!
oscillation o! the unit cells. 6he resistance to e!ormation an the
resistance to accelerate motion isplaye by cellular automata both
originate in the mutual bacK-reaction o! matter an vacuum.
6he matter o! special relativity possesses a continuous e0istence as inert
quantities o! bulK material1 i.e.1 substances1 ini!!erent to the passage o!
time. Fithin our interpretation o! general relativity unerpinne by
quantum processes1 matter oes not possess a continuous e0istence as a
substance1 but only as a more or less sustaine pattern o! activity in
vacuum. 6his activity is e0hauste in the !luctuations o! the quantum
vacuum_s momentum-energy.
/lthough length contraction is a reversible e!!ect within special
relativity1 time ilation is itsel! an irreversible operation.
Hs it possible to have neste quantum mechanical systems such that there
e0ist two or more istinct energy uncertainties1
9ctober 2)**
!or e0ample a
single1 overarching system may possess myria istinct RcompartmentsS1
each possessing its own ensity matri0 escription with associate
RentropyS.
Hn this way1 acceleration o! overlapping1 neste systems woul not be
merely relative1 but the acceleration o! one or the other system woul be
marKe by istinctly i!!erent spectra o! particles prouce out o! the
vacuum1 i.e.1 istinctly i!!erent type o! ,nruh raiation.
Fithin cellular automata theory1 there is no reason to view1 !or e0ample1
the electron o! the =yrogen atom as possessing an angular momentum
inepenent o! quantum mechanical1 i.e.1 intrinsic1 spin. 9n this view1 a
particle_s angular momentum is compose o! two parts1 timeliKe an
spaceliKe components o! intrinsic spin. 6he spaceliKe component o!
such an electron_s angular momentum woul be constitute by a
connection Cpossibly ?ell nonlocalD between the virtual e+e- pairs along
the electron_s orbital tra5ectory. 6he electron_s total angular momentum1
>1 is conserve an is compose o! the two parts such that > = . + ".
Hn special relativity it is possible to erive all o! the relativistic e!!ects o!
velocity upon mass1 length1 an time through treating the $-momentum
o! a mass as resulting !rom a spacetime rotation. 6his spacetime
rotation is 5ust the pro5ection o! the mass_ (-momentum1 initially
completely timeliKe1 i.e.1 imaginary1 onto a new spacetime coorinate
system1 rotate in the irection o! motion o! the mass1 relative to the
RrestS spacetime coorinate a0es. 6he inverse hyperbolic tangent o! the
ratio o! the mass_ real $-momentum to its initial imaginary (-momentum
etermines the angle o! spacetime rotation. /lternately1 at least !or v
c1 this angle o! spacetime rotation may be etermine by the ratio o! the
mass_ $-velocity to the velocity o! light Cin vacuoD.
Fhat we might term energy ensity energy space ensity is a !unction o!
both energy an volume. / complementary quantity may be e!ine as
inverse momentum time ensity. 6his quantity has units o! sec/ Kg-m-
secWW-* or Kg-mWW-*. 6his quantity is the momentum ensity o! time.
?ut time itsel! is not a quantity1 but only intervals o! time may be treate
as true quantities. 6he same observation applies to position an
position intervals.
6he energy content o! matter possess a seeming absolute physical
meaning because this energy is secretly relative to the energy o! the
vacuum. ?ut the component o! the vacuum_s energy1 which is not
constraine by any quantum !iel1 initial1 or bounary conitions1 oes
not possess an energy o! absolute magnitue. 6his is because1 in the
absence o! bounary conitions1 e.g.1 the age an physical raius o! the
observable ,niverse1 there is no possibility o! e!ining a global energy
ensity1 i.e.1 cosmological constant. 6his i!!iculty is similar to that o!
speaKing o! a gravitational potential when no position o! zero
gravitational potential has been e!ine.
?rain energy levels1 transitions between these energy levels an
corresponing e0changes o! RmomentumS between neurons.
6here is a ialectical1 two-way trans!ormation1 which taKes place
between hypothesis1 an theory1 which is riven by intuition. Ht is
similar to attempting to maKe conversation with a native o! a !oreign
language when one has only a ruimentary worKing Knowlege o! the
!oreign tongue. @ature is the native speaKer an 8an is the touristing
!oreigner. 6his !oreign language is mathematics an the !oreign native
an his language comprise here a unity. 8athematics is a uni!ie1
in!inite1 unboune1 but temporally evolving system. 3lasses o! in!inity
points to the possibility that mathematics_ in!inite sel!-Knowlege is
inaequate to span its epths.
Fhy shoul people be sent to hell when 4o is all goo an !air??? @o
one is ba enough to eserve living in eternal amnation.
:amnation is simply separation !rom 4o1 which is always ultimately
the choice o! the iniviual.
4o woul that all souls spen eternity in loving union with =im.
=owever1 4o1 in =is in!inite mercy1 coul not sub5ect an iniviual
with un!orgiven "in on his soul to Rstan eternally in =is 7resence1S as
this woul amount to a !ar greater torment !or this person than woul
result !rom the eternal separation o! this person !rom his 3reator.
-urthermore1 such a person is really not capable o! the love when 4o
esires !rom his Rchilren.S
@ow i! an iniviual were given !ull Knowlege o! the starK nature o!
the alternatives between which he wee to choose1 4o or separation
!rom =im1 the choice !or such a person coul harly be a !reely wille
one1 but woul be a merely Rcalculate choiceS coerce by !ear. 4o
esires that all choose =im out o! .ove.
Fell1 the consequence o! this choice !or each soul is !inal because real
choices are epenent !or their reality upon real consequences. 4o i
not esire to create a !alse an hollow realm in which the un!oling
ramas were to be so much mere play-acting. 4o esire to create not
to merely recreate. Aecreation constitute by ultimately pointless
amusements is perhaps an aequate istraction !or temporal 8an1 but
oes nothing to assuage a truly 3osmic .oneliness. 6he creation o!
8an opene up new Can realD e0periences o! !initue !or the 4ohea:
!ear1 5oy1 uncertainty1 hope1 ambiguity1 conceptual thought1 emotion1
revelation1 none o! these power!ul e0periences being possible !or a
?eing beyon 6ime an "pace an transcening all ual istinctions
such as .i!e/:eath1 4oo/;vil1 8ale/-emale1 etc.
/!ter all1 4o create /am1 an by e0tension1 all humans1 through
breathing into Rinanimate matterS the breath o! =is eternal "pirit. 6he
reality o! the human person requires that his/her inepenence !rom 4o
be potentially eternal. 6he possibility o! him/her actually loving 4o
requires that his/her choice o! 4o be raically !ree. 4o seeKs Aeal
.ove1 in other worsT
3omplete escriptions !rom rival viewpoints which cannot be
reconcile1 but only transcene1 e.g.1 reuctionism versus teleology.
; Z /a; b causes o! my oing R0S
; Y /a; b reasons !or my oing R0S
; Y /a; not boun by law o! conservation o! energy1 in!ormation is
operative here. ; Z /a; conservation laws apply an there is here merely
a manipulation o! conte0t-!ree ata accoring to eterministic laws.
3ausality b laws
Aeason b rules
8oern 7hilosophy by Aoger "cruton
9b5ects or !orms are eternal not because they have always secretly
e0iste1 but because they were create genuinely e novo. Ht will
always be the case that such ob5ects ha e0iste. /n eternal !orm or
ob5ect conceive in the traitional sense o! ReternalS may never actually
come to be concretize as an e0istent entity or thing.
/ real particle may be chosen as the origin o! a spacetime coorinate
system1 but a virtual particle1 i.e.1 a vacuum !luctuation cannot be so
chosen.
/ny number o! events may be simultaneous with one another1 that is1
occupy the same time. =owever1 this is not the case where space1 as
oppose to time1 is concerne.
7. $%N1 8oern 7hilosophy1 Aoger "cruton. 6he last paragraph applies
to my theory o! purpose o! human e0istence.
7. (N*1 871 A.". 6he "el! is a social construct so that the program o!
econstruction cannot be consistently carrie through. 7. (N21 4o is
not a particular being among particular beings in the same way that the
transcenental sel! is not. Fe are i!!erent !rom the worm in precisely
the same way in that we are similar to 4o. 6his answers the question1
i! 4o is as much greater than 8an as man is greater than a worm1 in
which 8an is certainly not intereste1 then how can 4o truly have an
interest in man1 i! not merely in the sense in which a zoologist is
intereste in a mere worm?
3ritique o! 7ure Aeason1 p. **&
:ynamical versus mathematical as a ichotomy within the categories.
6his is reminiscent o! the istinction o! conserve versus unconserve
quantities. 6hat which is quantize vs. that which is empirical.
3orresponence1 coherence1 pragmatic or consequential truth.
7aragraph two1 p. *(N1 there is the unity o! e0perience in the moment
an there is the unity o! e0perience within all moments o! e0perience
Cwithin all possible e0perience?D
p. $21 7aragraph 9ne. R6ime itsel! oes not alter1 but only something
which is in time.S
p. $2% 7aragraph 9ne.
p. $&%
;scape -rom -reeom
p. *(N
6he completely unassuming iniviual is equate with the typical or
average psychologically an socially well-a5uste iniviual. ?ut
when one consiers that society itsel! in the post inustrial age may
possess pathological traits. . .
-or the intelligent1 sensitive soul1 the worl must always be e0perience
through some sort o! psychological conition which assurely has been
catalogue in some clinician_s iagnostic manual or psychological
research 5ournal. 6he question is whether such Rpsychological
conitionsS are merely moes o! thought an perception which the
iniviual !ins convenient an e0peient !or the interpreting o! his
e0perience !or the at a particular 5uncture o! li!e1 or whether it is a
relatively in!le0ible mani!estation o! an abiing character trait.
p. *&&1 ;scape -rom -reeom. 3ensorship not at the printing press but
at the level o! the !ormation o! ieas. :issent is encourage to prevent
the people !rom perceiving monolith against which they might rebel.
-romm_s iea o! the power o! anonymous authority1 as oppose to the
e0ternal authority or conscience.
p. *&N1 ;ric =o!!er_s observation that e0-communists mae the best
!ascists an vice versa. Aaicalism versus e0treme authoritarianism is
-romm_s similar concept.
p. 2)21 3ritique o! 7ure Aeason
6hat which constitutes ob5ects out o! appearances presupposes the
operation o! the !orms o! intuition1 that is1 space an time. 6he
ynamical relation o! that which constitutes ob5ects relative to this
relation in its constitution o! the possibility o! ob5ects as such etermines
the gravity o! the particular ob5ects. 6he principle o! coherence by
which other ob5ects coul be engenere in its place as alterations o! the
original ob5ect constitutes the ob5ects_ inertia.
p. 2*2
6he appearance o! ob5ects o! e0perience as coetermine1 that is1 as
compresent with one another1 cannot con!orm to a causal principle
applying to relations iscernable between the compresent ob5ects1 i.e.1
the ob5ects are simultaneously present. 3hanges in state versus changes
in that1 merely to which states may be attribute.
3ritique o! 7ure Aeason1 pp. 22N-222
"ubstance is active because equate with the ineterminate the negation
o! which oes not yiel its ual opposite an so the eterminations o!
substance are never e0ternal but arise within it. "ince time is the
successive etermination o! substance1 we see that the basis o! all
change is the activity o! substance itsel! acting through itsel!. 6he
ultimate e0planation !or the interaction1 mutually1 o! various
etermination o! substance must lie with the action o! substance itsel!
within conition establishe through but not by1 previous o! its
eterminations.
H! there are not limitations or bounary conitions through which
substance acts1 then no ob5ect can be given which may be thought to
en5oy a particular state or other an so the concept o! inertia1 or the
resistance to a change in state1 woul not apply to such a completely
unrestraine activity on the part o! substance. /ttempting to apply the
concepts o! inertia an gravitation to the activity o! the quantum vacuum
in the total absence o! bounary conitions being place upon it remins
us o! the misguie attempt to constitute the transcenent groun an
the principle o! its activity in terms o! merely empirical relationships
obtaining between its various temporal mani!estations.
4ravity an inertia are i!!erent moes o! interaction or relationship
between e0istents as eterminations o! substance or groun an o not
apply to groun_s sel!-operation or activity.
-or an activity to e0ist it must1 !irst o! all1 persist1 that is1 maintain itsel!
against the activity o! the groun which brought it !orth to being with.
6he entity by e0isting1 serves as a conition upon groun_s continuing
activity in its prouction o! an meiation o! the changes to other
entities that it supports an this is how the gravitational in!luence o! one
entity upon another becomes possible.
3ritique o! 7ure Aeason1 p. 2$$
4ravitation cannot act instantaneously through nonlocal quantum
interactions.
"ince the negation o! the ineterminate is not e!ine in the sense o!
eterminate thing1 the etermination o! substance arises !rom within
substance itsel!.
Hn =ume1 there is no istinction between arising o! new ob5ects an the
alteration o! the same ob5ect. /pplication o! logic cannot be e0plicate
in logical terms.
6here are i!!iculties with the corresponence theory o! truth where
recursive propositions are concerne. 8ethoological arrangement
versus systematic unity.
Hntuition is the simultaneous arising e novo o! a new concept with its
!ouning e0emplar so intuition involves a much more intimate
relationship between the concept an one o! its ob5ects. 6he
unerstaning applies concepts to the categorizing o! its ob5ects. Fhat
about the application o! concepts to sensation which unerpins the
perception o! or emergence o! ob5ects within sensation?
6he momentum o! a particle cannot be greater than p = mc1 where m is
the mass o! the particle.
8easures o! uncertainty o! an observable in terms o! the observable_s
eigen!unction e0pansion. 6here are an unlimite number o!
eigen!unction spectra which possess the same uncertainty o! the
associate observable. Fe may istinguish the probability that a system
is in a particular quantum state1 7si1 !rom the probability that a
measurement o! a 7si observable will prouce the eigenvalue1 9C5D1
associate with 7siC5D. "uch a istinction woul e0ist where
egeneracy_s1 the probability o! 9C5D is greater than M7siM. H! the energy
uncertainty o! a particle coul be attribute to the particle itsel! an not
to some meium with which the particle interacts1 still better1 which
continually reconstitutes the particle1 then the uncertainty o! the
particle_s energy must be attribute to the observer.
R;r!ahrung als obS is intimately relate to the question o! the
mythological imension o! perception. 9b5ects given in the
presentational continuum are always arti!acts o! intentionality1 i.e.1 on
impose !lu0 stability. Hnertia is a property o! coherence. ;verything
changes as !ast as it can i! le!t to itsel!. 3hange is always communicate
!rom Routsie.S 9utsie has two aspects. 6hese may be terme
RconstituteS an Rconstituting.S
:asein is the uniquely human aspect o! human ?eing which cannot be
reuce analyze or represente or simulate Cby a computerD.
6he being which is unique to the iniviual ego is not the being which
e0ists in any communication meium.
9ne has the suspicion that one is not at home1 still more1 that one oes
not e0ist.
Hntimacy has been almost wholly converte into se0uality or a way o!
being unto se01 i! you will.
@o istinction between the pro!oun an the merely trivial or banal.
6here is no basis !or 5uging something more goo or beauti!ul than
another. 6he worKing vocabulary is always much smaller than the
recognition vocabulary. 3oincience o! meaning are generate by the
tenency o! the act o! perception to be thematic. 6he transcenent being
has no Knowlege o! itsel! as other. Fe have silently conspire
collectively to ignore the blatant !act that our lives are a mystery in
terms o! their origin1 moe1 an estiny.
8ay 2)*$ epi=
E<our reams are
someone elseGs waKing e0periences1 your waKing e0periences1 someone
elseGs ream.E C"el! as otherD
/ phrase uttere many times unre!lectingly until one ay one !ins
onesel! in the circumstances which at !irst occasione its !irst use. 9ne
then says to onesel!1 R9h1 so that_s what RtheyS mean by thisTS 9ne
!eels privilege to have entere into an connecte with one_s own
everyay culture.
9ne may now use the phrase in the presence o! others that only
unerstoo it by having pai lip service by mimicry an one may
attempt to signal one_s eeper1 substantive new unerstaning through
emonstrating a particularly Knowing an e0plicit use o! the phrase.
6he height o! clueless geeKiness woul be the case where one inulges
this impulse while secretly these others ha always unerstoo what the
meaning o! this magic phrase. 9ne_s riiculous misinterpretation o! the
situation woul probably be reaily apparent to the more perceptive
iniviuals.
?ecause the choice to per!orm an observation is initiate !rom outsie
the composite system observer_s brain/system-to-be-observe1 namely
through the !ree will o! the observer1 base in transcenence1 o! the
observer/e0perimenter1 the new quantum mechanical system1 though
e0panable in terms o! the eigen!unctions CenergyD o! the ol system1
must en up in either an e0cite or e-e0cite state1 assuming the system
ha previously been prepare in on o! its available eigenstates. ?ut
what about the case where the system is not in a prepare eigenstate?
6ime is not reucible to mere change occurring to e0istent things. -or
one coul imagine a case in which all processes in the universe ha been
!rozen into a state o! unchangeness an then asK !or who long this state
o! global unchangeness has been in e!!ect1 in a wor asK !or this state_s
uration.
6ime is not reversible. -or we can imagine that i! the irection o!
time_s !low were reverse1 then this event woul have to have occurre
at some particular time or other. H! the even o! time reversal is inclue
among the other evens maKing up the time stream so reverse then this
event woul recee ever !urther into the !uture1 an so1 with regar to
the new irection o! time hasn_t happene yet. Hn other wors1 the time
reversal1 in this case1 will have never happene at any time in the past
an coul not be thought to have occurre at all. 9n the other han1 i!
the event o! the time reversal is not inclue in the time stream reverse1
then it along with all its contemporaneous events recees ever !urther
into the past an so in this case too the time reversal cannot properly be
thought to have taKen place.
6here are a number o! i!!iculties with 8c6aggartGs !amous proo! o! the
unreality o! 6ime. 6he proo! presupposes that the preicates1 past1
present1 an !uture may be treate entirely on an equal !ooting as
categories. H believe this is !unamentally mistaKen because past1
present an !uture may be istinguishe by the !act that the past is
etermine1 the present is the activity o! the past etermining itsel!1 or o!
the present etermining itsel! as past1 whereas the term E!utureE oes not
re!er to a eterminate category at all1 that is1 i! Aeality is1 inee1 an
open system as we have argue !or e0tensively thought this te0t.
;ven the past itsel! may not be so easily characterize as eterminate
since the past1 at the time it was present1 may not have succeee in
!ully etermining itsel! as past at the precise moment in which that
hereto!ore present moment etermine itsel! as a !orever past moment.
Fe may then istinguish two presents1 what we may term the temporal
present an the eternal present. 6he temporal present is that part o! the
present which itsel! !ully succeee in etermining itsel! as past within
some previous present moment. 6he eternal present1 on the other han1
is that component o! this ientical present moment which e0iste in all
previous present moments an which may well e0ist in all succeeing
present moments1 namely that component which never succees in
etermining itsel! as past1 but which may there!ore be thought to have
the essential role in etermining the present as past in every case o!
temporal succession o! moments. 6here is1 o! course1 nothing to prevent
the e0istence o! a Kin o! present which !alls somewhere between these
two e0tremes o! the temporal an eternal present. -or e0ample1 part o!
the ineterminate with which some present moment is continuous may
not succee in etermining itsel! as past be!ore the ne0t succeeing
moment1 but may succee in oing so at some later moment. 9! course1
in a completely close universe1 in which time is completely reversible
an possessing no intrinsic scale1 the earlier/later istinction o! the ?
series is unercut while the istinction between past1 present an !uture
is liKewise unercut within the / series.
7ast may be thought o! as the Rinterprete present.S 6he !uture may be
thought o! as the Runinterprete present.S
;ternal present as groun 1 temporal present as presentational
continuum.
6his seems contraictory1 but there is an equivocation o! the sense in
which the term past is being use. R7astS may be unerstoo as
etermine or may be unerstoo in the more orthoo0 or common
sense relational sense1 that o! the relation o! some moment to the present
moment or to a moment later in time in relation to this moment.
9rer is a structuring o! ata an not o! in!ormation. 3lassical ata an
quantum in!ormation.
-eynman .ectures on 4ravitation.
p. *$21 eqn. *).*.2$1
/CuVvD L /CvVuD = /Cu1vD L /Cv1uD
Hn other wors1 the covariant curl is the same as the orinary curl.
8oreover1 by eqn. *).*.2*1
7hiVv = 7hi1 v1 in other wors1 the covariant
graients are the same as the orinary graients. =ow woul we
escribe in 4eneral Aelativity a vibrating $-hypersur!ace. Fouln_t
such a a Rmotion o! spacetimeS be consiere to be RnonphysicalS
within this theory?
"pace an time cannot be quantize because their complementary
observables1 momentum an energy1 alreay are quantize1 conserve
quantities.
7hi1 v 0 7hi1 v = Cphi1vDWW2 b= 7hi1v 0 7hi1 I1
>ust as WW2/0WW2 b= C/0DWW2? 6hen /0 is not an operator an
equations with /0 are not linear?
6here must be a non-phenomenological basis !or psychic continuity.
6ime parao0es stem !rom the attempt to Rspatialize time.S Fe can
illustrate this con!usion by contrasting changes in time zone ue to rapi
travel over the ;arth_s sur!ace versus Keeping a constant position on the
;arth_s sur!ace an RwaitingS !or the time zone to change ue to the
;arth_s rotation. H! going !orwar in time an cross international
ateline1 go bacK 2( hours Con ayD. H! going bacKwar in time an
crossing Hnternational :ateline1 go !orwar 2( hours C* ayD.
6he very substance o! one_s sub5ective reality is comprise by the
various personality blin spots compose o! all o! the unquestione
assumptions1 biases1 an pre5uices which sustain the hien conte0t o!
one_s conscious aily li!e.
Aelativity1 3osmology an 6hermoynamics
p. 22&1 7aragraph two. 6ime rate o! changes o! energy CrealD is
etermine by conitions prevailing at the bounary separating the
system !rom its surrounings. 7. 22*1 paragraph two1 the current
ensity o! every !lui element is ecreasing when the system is
e0paning an vice versa.
6he is .arge1 p.($
6he 8any Forl_s Hnterpretation o! P8 presupposes a clear-cut
istinction between real a virtual states CworlsD. ?ut since any
possible worl1 i! mae real1 cannot be what it is completely !ree o!
quantum superposition states1 we are !orce to introuce the concept o!
Rpossible possible worls.S Hn turn1 we must amit the Re0istence.S Hn
turn1 we must amit the Re0istenceS o! possible possible possible worls1
etc.1 a in!initum.
?ecause the e!inition o! orer is always at least partly conventional Cto
an ineterminate an changing egreeD1 as is re!lecte in the necessarily
partially arbitrary !ormulation o! physical laws1 we are !orce to amit
the relevance to the temporal evolution o! ynamical systems1 o! the
concept o! Rmetaentropy.S 6his concept o! metaentropy may be
connecte in an important way to the !act that even at ) egrees Oelvin1
a Rper!ect crystal1S !or e0ample1 possesses a nonzero energy1 which may
be attribute to the interaction o! the quantum vacuum with the crystal.
6hat which is necessarily not an ob5ect !or a consciousness must be
constitutive o! it.
3urrents in 7article 6heory1 ;ncycl. o! 7hys.
3onsciousness emans an open system because thinKing is only
provoKe when ol in!ormation is reprocesse an reinterprete in the
light o! new e0perience.
8etaphor is the opposite tenency to the renering o! the repetitive
unconscious by renering the novel !amiliar. 6rans!er o! conte0t to
maKe sense o! the novel an unique.
;0istence is 5ust ?eing place in a conte0t. =eiegger unearths
metaphors which have become mimetic.
7ersistence o! sel!1 stability o! sel! against historical conitions which1
by changing1 threatens to reinterpret the sel! along iscontinuous lives.
;0istence is ?eing in the presence o! limitation.
H! the immanent were a creative e0pression o!1 as oppose to a causal
mani!estation o!1 a realm transcening uality1 i.e.1 !orm1 then there
woul be an irreversibility to the linKing o! th etwo realms such that no
boy o! evience collecte !rom within the boune spatiotemporal
omain coul possibly server as proo! or ienti!ication o! the character
which originally brought this realm into e0istence.
6he argument against personal immortality is !requently base upon the
istinction between mnemonic versus boily continuity in which it is
claime that the !ormer is o! a weaKer variety than the latter. ?ut boily
continuity is only a statistically base appearance within the conte0t o!
quantum theory an is a uniquely classical physical concept1 vali only
within a certain limite omain an to a certain appro0imation.
Ht is thought that the ultimate means o! istinguishing min / !rom min
? is through the i!!erent physical locations o! their boies.
Hn a close system there is no basis !or istinguishing the !irst !rom the
secon1 thir1 etc. times the system has RoccupieS an ientical state.
"imilarly1 there is no basis !or istinguishing in conscious e0periential
content. ?ut states an persons are istinguishable though their not
being isemboie in the sense o! isolate. 6o say that a min
isemboie is really to imagine it1 super!icially1 as etache !rom a
boy1 but1 !unamentally1 as ecouple !rom the open system in which
the RboyS in its mere thinghoo is a mere inter!ace to an open-ene
in!ormation conte0t. ?ut i! a min were to be isemboie in this more
R!ull-blooeS sense1 it coul not constitute a min at all in the !irst
instance.
Hentity o! the sel! is ultimately by virtue o! its connectino to some open-
ene groun o! coherent1 convergent activity. H! this connection is
severe1 this sel! is instantly reveale as a mere pro5ection which is
suenly e0tinguishe. ?ut i! this connection is e0tinguishe.
?iirectional]
6hat activity o! the groun o! the sel! oes not cease with the estruction
o! the physical inter!ace o! this transcenent activity with the immanent
realm o! spacetime. Hmmortality1 there!ore1 may only be achieve i! one
comes to ienti!y onesel! with this unerlying sel! process1 rather than
its epiphenomenal mani!estation which is the ego.
>anuary 2)*2
Ht is liKely
that the groun o! being is a multiplicity with each iniviual
consciousness roote in its own unique transcenental groun.
3onsciousness may only be !ormally epiphenomenal1 but not
substantively so1 i! the causal relationships o! the brain_s ynamics are
themselves roote in an unerlying nonlocally connecte spectrum o!
quantum entangle vacuum stress-momentum-energy !luctuations. 9n
this view each iniviual person_s brain tunes to an resonantes with its
own unique spectrum o! nonlocally connecte vacuum electromagnetic
!iel !luctuations.
Fe thinK o! consciousness as an instantaneous or transient phenomenon1
but the appearance o! consciousness in attenance with various
integrate brain physiological processes seems to eman that
something cumulative is taKing place within the open-ene conte0t to
which it is connecte1 an which is its partial e0pression1 which
there!ore maKes a i!!erence to the ,niverse as a whole. @ow not all o!
the basis !or the temporal interpretation o! consciousness1 there!ore1 is to
be !oun within observable brain processes. 8oreover1 Aeality or the
,niverse Ras a wholeS is not a RwholeS in a way which coul ever be
!ormalize. 6he wholeness o! the ,niverse in this metaphysical sense
may only be uni!ie in a nonrepresentational !ashion1 say1 through will
or origination1 that is1 !rom outsie o! historical time. /n history itsel!
always originates !rom outsie itsel! Cparao0ically enoughD.
"eptember 2)*2
7eople who require a greater 5ustice born o! e0traorinary
vengeance !or a mass murer1 e.g.1 9Klahoma 3ity bombing1 than say1 a
recompense equivalent in magnitue to that o! the greatest su!!ering an
eath iniviually e0perience !rom among all o! the victims o! the
crime in question1 seem to instinctively subscribe to the notion that there
is such a thing as cumulative an collective su!!ering1 i.e1 su!!ering that
is aKin somehow to the sum o! the su!!ering o! all o! the victims in the
mass crime. 6his instinctive an subconscious belie! maKes per!ect
sense in a theist1 but maKes no philosophical or rational sense whatever
!or an atheist. Fhy o H say this? Fell1 because there is no active
e0periential matri0 in which the collective su!!ering o! the myria
victims is place so as to permit the su!!ereing_s processing as Ra sum
total o! human su!!ereingS. Hn the case o! the theist1 there is inee such
an active e0periential matri01 which is to say1 4o.
Hn our social interactions we are responing simultaneously to a blacK
bo0 an a !aae.
"ubstance1 which is the seat o! change1 must itsel! be timeless1
unchanging1 an hence1 conte0t !ree. 6hen how is it that come
substances unerlie one set o! phenomenal qualities an not another?
6he substance/phenomenon or appearance/reality istinction oes not
e0ist !or 4o.
Fhen a neural impulse passes !rom one part o! the brain to another1
there is actually no substance which passes physically between these two
locations in the brain.
@othing = @o 6hing?
@othing e0ists without a cause.
@othing is in!inite.
@othing is timeless.
@othing necessarily e0ists.
@othing is conscious.
@othing is its own reason !or being.
@othing is contingent.
@othing is inivisible.
@othing can travel !aster than light.
Kwo=
RHt is precisely because there is nothing within the 9ne that all things
are !rom it.S b 7lotinus
@othing is ineterminate. 6his can only be true i! a thing is e!ine as
such only to the e0tent that it possesses etermination.
@o thing is a mere absence. 6his is !alse1 since Rnothing is a mere
absenceS is !alse: there are things which are e!ine in terms o! an
absence.
@othing is an abstraction. 6his is !alse so some abstractions are things1
which is to say1 some entities are merely theoretical or mathematical.
6he complete negation o! nothing1 conceive o! so the ineterminate1
oes not imply the e0istence o! all things CpossibleD1 as no ineterminate
groun woul be le!t over to support/ sustain the e0istence o! the things
create !rom the ineterminate via its negation.
6hings come to e0ist through negation carrie on within the
ineterminate1 not through negation o! the ineterminate. @othing is
ientical to everything.
/n e0perimenter or observer per!orming quantum measurements is
aware o! consierably more than the particular system upon which he is
to per!orm a measurement. 6he e0perimenter/observer is also
connecte1 through the other sensory moalities o! his consciousness1
with other phenomena associate with the physical conte0t o! the
e0perimental setup/apparatus through the consciousness o! the
e0perimenter1 various mental contents or elements are nonlocally
connecte through all being simultaneously compresent within the
e0perimenters min1 sensorium1 etc. /n i! there is respective bacK-
reaction o! various o! these iniviual mental elements upon physical
system components/!eatures that collectively comprise the contents o!
the observers conscious perception1 then the nonlocality1 which is a
necessary !eature o! the observer_s consciousness1 then becomes a
contingent !eature1 through bacK-reaction1 o! the spatially istinct
components o! the quantum mechanical system uner observation. Hn
the particular case o! the spontaneous ecay o! a spin ) particle into
rapily separating +/- { spin !ermions1 the nonlocal connection o! the
results o! spin measurements per!orme upon both halves o! the original
system C7si-systemD1 i.e.1 the spin +*/2 an the spin L { particles1 is
e!!ecte via the continuity provie by the observer_s consciousness1
bacK-reacting bi-irectionally in time. 6o wit1 it is the nonlocality o! the
observers bacK-reacting consciousness1 occurring at both spin
measurements1 that is responsible !or the phenomenon o! ;instein1
7oolsKy1 Aosen C;7AD nonlocality o! these +/-spin { particles.
6he !low o! negative charges in one irection within an electronic circuit
may be alternatively escribe as the !low o! positive current in an
antiparallel irection. :oes RbacK-reactionS occur when this
matter/antimatter !low symmetry is broKen?
-requently when writing1 H e0perience a slight psychic R5oltS every time
H write a misspelle wor. H am more conscious o! he hyperte0tual
structure o! the psychological associations which lie behin my
intuitions an perceptions o! meaning. 6his is a case o! new technology
suggesting pregnant metaphors that worK on the human psychic
processes1 e!!ecting pervasive trans!ormations in the iniviual_s
perception o! his sel!1 the other1 an reality itsel!. 8etaphor is what
sustains the unboune openness o! thought.
Hmagine that the perioic table o! chemical elements possesse certain
blanK spaces or RgapsS in various o! its chemical group columns. 6hese
gaps woul here correspon with escriptions o! chemical elements not
actually !oun in nature1 not stable i! prouce arti!icially1 nor
obtainable even as short-live atomic/nuclear resonances. Hn such a
case as this1 we might suspect hat there was some inconsistency or
incompleteness in our chemical ta0onomic system. /ctually such a
system woul be terme RinconsistentS since the system o! escription
preicts entities not capable o! e0isting. 6he converse situation woul
be that tin which chemical elements were iscovere in the ebris o!
accelerator collisions1 which were not preicte by our chemical table o!
elements. 6his situation is best escribe as the system o! escription
Cemboie in our chemical tableD being Rincomplete.S ?ut it is not
i!!erence alone by which language an the unerstaning !unction1 but
i!!erence supplemente by insight.
4eel_s 6heorem1 by asserting an either-or proposition regaring the
incompleteness or inconsistency o! !ormal systems o! mathematics an
logic1 presupposes the truth o! the platonic hypothesis !or mathematics.
3ertainly this realization about 4eel coul have been arrive at through
the Hncompleteness 6heorem_s e!!ective assertion that R6ruth is a
stronger notion than provability.S -or i! the realm o! Rmathematical
entitiesS is not inee timeless Ceternal in the 7latonic heaven senseD1 but
possesses temporality1 i.e.1 noneterministic an noncomputable
changeableness1 then !ormal systems o! mathematics may at time1 tC*D1
be inconsistent an complete1 but at some later time1 tC2D become
incomplete but consistent.
7resence is presence. Ht oes not amit o! variety o! istinct Kins.
:istinct consciousnesses cannot be pure presences. 6he notion o! pure
presence implies absence o! epth1 potential or the merely intentional. /
somewhat relate parao0 to that o! Rpure presenceS is that pose by
pure intentionality. / pure presence may only possess an
epiphenomenal temporality1 that is1 temporality o! a pure presence is
completely erivative o! some unerlying temporal process that gives o!
pure presence as epiphenomenon. 7ure presence cannot be integrally
whole1 as the pure super!iciality o! presence possesses no internal egree
o! !reeom through which integration might be e!!ecte an sustaine.
6he 7auli 7rinciple only applies to boun systems o! energy there!ore
possessing iscrete energy eigenstates.
6he genuine possibility o! ob5ective Knowlege is base in the Rreally
therenessS o! that which !igures in the min_s perceptual interpretation
o! e0ternal sense ata. H! grace really e0ists it oes so in its purest !orm
as it is involve with consciousness as such. 6his is because there are
not conitions necessary to RmaKe consciousness alive.S /re iniviual
consciousnesses merely particular moi!ications o! some general or
universal consciousness as such.
6here is not actual1 substantial quality1 common to all iniviual
consciousnesses that maKes each o! them particular e0emplars o!
consciousness per se. ?ut then what oes maKe each iniviual
consciousness an e0emplar o! consciousness as such must be some
relation o! analogousness obtaining between each such e0emplar. 9r
perhaps such an analogical relateness is erivative wherein the real
mutual commonality o! iniviual consciousness e0emplars pertains to
each_s common relationship to alterity. 6his may be thought o! as the
mutually analogous manner in which each sel! is uniquely e!ine
through its relationship to ineterminate groun- even through this
groun be i!!erent in the particular case o! each iniviual.
3onsciousness is1 by its essential nature1 in a state o! constant change
an trans!ormation. 6he sel! is in!initely egenerate with respect to
global changes in consciousness. "o there is not global trans!ormation
to the sel!_s consciousness which coul succee1 master-slave !ashion1 in
trans!orming this sel! into that o! another this is because what give the
sel! its ientity is relationship to a proprietary ineterminate roun in
which the only connection between this relationship an that they which
other selves are relate to their ineterminate groun is one o! analogy
only. ?ut this similarity o! iniviual consciousnesses is o! necessity
transcenental.
Aesonance o! the quantum brain with its nonlocal vacuum state is
maintaine through some active principle o! synchronization1 e.g.1
phase-locKing !eebacK o! brain superposition states with some
eigenstate o! the nonlocal vacuum.
6ransmission o! in!ormation as oppose to energy between two or more
nonlocal vacuums woul involve an e0change o! a supraliminal
gravitational wave with ) momentum-energy which woul inuce a
change in 7si o! the other nonlocal vacuum which woul not change the
energy o! this vacuum. 6his change in 7siC2D woul not be on that
vacC2D was otherwise Rpoise to maKe.S @onlocal vacua mutually
interact to prouce a spacetime into which their noninteracting
components pro5ect which then may interact through the intermeiaries
o! real momentum an energy.
Fe are not reay to assimilate the behavior patterns o! others until we
have alreay imbue our perceptions o! their behavior through having
pro5ecte onto them something internal to the sel!.
3onsciousness is not characterize by 7si since the temporal evolution
o! 7si is a eterministic process1 while the temporal evolution o! an
iniviual consciousness is noneterministic. 7si evolves temporally in
the absence o! energy e0change o! the system characterize by 7si with
the vacuum zero-point energy !iel.
3reating the illusion o! presence so to contribute one_s !air share to the
economy o! vicarious1 heroic sense o! the iniviual_s sel!-signi!icance.
Fhether the brain be a close or an open system1 the sustainment o! an
iniviual consciousness requires an in!inite egeneracy o! the system
suppose to be prouctive o! conscious mental states.
Puantum superposition/quantum !luctuation versus R!uzzinessS o!
human consciousness1 the !unamental nature o! which is enless
change an trans!ormation. 3.!.1 Fheeler_s Rit !rom bit.S
@onlocality an bining o! conscious mental states. "omehow the
conscious observer oes not inter!ere with his own conscious states
merely by being passively aware o! his own mental states.
9bserver an observe are always characterize by commuting
observables. ;very measurement that the observer seeKs to per!orm
upon his own mental states is with respect to observables that commute
with the observables o! the eigenstate that the observe min as a
quantum mechanical system has alreay been prepare in. =ere
preparation an observation o! the observer-as-system are an
inissoluble unity.
Aatio an proportion are arti!acts o! an apply to the phenomena
particular to close systems.
/ sel!-!ul!illing prophecy operating in the bacKgroun o! the combine
action o! time an chance shall succee in con!irming any
prognostication.
3.!.1 Puantum noise in 7hotonics. 8omentum !luctuations with
energies e!ine by the allowe transition energies o! the crystal lattice.
Hs it possible that vacuum momentum !luctuations have a precise
position but cause particles to be Rsmeare outS in their position1 across
an interval o! /a0?
3oncepts names an the Ielveteen Aabbit ;!!ect. :e!inition through
use which begins !rom arbitrariness but with historical accumulation o!
conte0tual association with other better establishe concepts.
@o temporality in the prouction o! conscious mental states i! a
eterministic connection between input an output o! the Rsystem o! the
minS is assume. =ere we see that the action o! :erria_s concept o!
e!erance1 i.e.1 both i!!erence an e!erment is necessary to the
prouction o! meaning an perception.
Friters typically inulge in sel!-plagiarism an quote passages !rom
their worKs1 worKing material !orcibly1 boily into their spoKen
communications. /gain1 the motive behin this is to maintain the
illusion o! constant presence be!ore an constant connection with an
auience.
:oes the vacuum energy e0pan so as to maintain an isotropic1
homogeneous an minimal groun state energy? ;.g.1 so that there is
not spatial momentum !lu0 ensity variation? H.e.1 in such a way that
the vacuum possesses no mass. =ere we are consiering Rempty
spacetimes.S Hn nonempty spacetimes1 gravitation must e0ist to maintain
spacetime !latness.
6he ineraicable nature o! quantum vacuum energy !luctuations is
responsible !or the three !unamental laws o! thermoynamics
possessing merely relative or appro0imate valiity.
1. ;nergy can be neither create nor estroye.
2. ;ntropy always increases in any thermal processes taKing place
within a close system
3. 6he internal energy o! a per!ectly orere crystal is zero at ) egrees
O.
Pualitative changes woul taKe place !rom within the system_s
!rameworK o! escription. @ot so !or qualitative changes which stem
!rom alterations in the !rameworK itsel! which are not e0plicable in
terms o! processes within the changing !rameworK. 4lobal changes in a
system cannot be unerstoo in terms o! a summing together o! changes
within all o! the localities comprising the system.
3ausal connections between two entities in their aspect as eterminate
inepenently e0isting things were through interaction. 3ausal
connections between the phenomenal grouns o! both entities we term1
!ollowing ?ohm1 reciprocal relationship1 c.!.1 p. *((1 3ausality an
3hance in 8oern 7hysics.
;ach member o! the couple coul try to !in ways to con!irm
evaluative stereotypes. H on_t talK to strangers with ay planners.
;vangelical 3hristian1 "ales1 8arKeting1 /vertising1 ?usiness1 -inance.
. .
.osers go tot law school as a last itch attempt to acquire approval !rom
the internalize bourgeois parents.
:esperate an unerstanable loneliness: wiows1 wiowers1 ivorce
or never marrie iniviuals1 persons who have been or allowe
themselves to be marginalize.
=ow oes marginalization occur?
9nly that which persists through change unchange e0periences the
passage o! time. .iterally1 the passage o! time is a purely relative1
geometrical1 an hence1 !ormalizable phenomenon. Fhen ob5ects are
not ini!!erent to the passage o! time1 the temporality Re0perienceS by
the ob5ect is not reversible. H! change is iscrete1 then there is not
means o! i!!erentiating one rate o! succession !rom another1 on the one
hanV i! change is continuous1 on the other1 there is no means o!
i!!erentiating i!!erent urations o! the same unerlying continuous
substrate to this change.
-or temporal change to be integrable into more comprehensive wholes1
!requency must be more !unamental than time. ;nergy1 in other wors
must provie the basis o! temporality1 c.!.1
cit=
Time in 3uantum
2echanics C8uga1 8ayato1 ;gusquizaD:

Fe cannot thinK o! the RwavingS o! the amplitues o! 7si as some sort o!
continuous temporal change in the wave!unction because in the energy
representation o! this temporal evolution o! an amplitue1 the square o!
the wave!unction in this representation only maKes a swing in energy
o! /a; in an amount o! time1 t = */!1 an the change in energy must be
greater than /a; in this amount o! time1 i! this change in energy is to be
physically measurable an be consiere actual physical change.
Fhy o people continually looK aroun when in a public space? 7artly
this is a genetically programme survival1 oriente behavior.
/re they checKing to see i! someone out there is looKing at them? 6his
is common !or many younge people who are in the processes o!
eveloping their ientity an its representation or image. ;ach young
girl1 i! she is in some way better than average looKing is conscious o! her
potential celebrity in the ranom public space1 especially i! she is trying
to emulate some entertainment personality.
?roKen homes an !amilies
8ental illness
:rug abuse
"el!-in!licte poor health
6oo short range !inancial planning
:evelopment o! special interests versus assimilation to prevailing mass
culture
7ositive !eebacK through sensitivity an pro5ection o! anger an
hostility e0perience by both parties as each others_ hostility. :ouble
bin o! being labele when enial o! the label is one o! the symptoms o!
the label_s applicability.
,-* / , = [/\
;ach number represente as an in!inite square matri0 which can be
iagonalize.
7C*D = *
7C2D = 2
7C$D = $
7C(D = '
7C'D = %
.
.
:iagonalize 7mn
7W mn = [ 7** 72* 7$* . . . \
[7*2 722 \
[7*$
[ .
[
<oung men_s aggression1 territoriality1 mile class or bourgeois couple
without chilren1 trying to see i! a strange couple or woman is en5oying
more status1 !reeom1 beauty1 prosperity1 health1 recognition1 etc.
7ast1 present1 !uture: 8c6aggart_s 2
n
orer temporal preicates:
7ast in the past
7ast in the present
7ast in the !uture
7resent in the past
7resent in the present
7resent in the !uture
-uture in the past
-uture in the present
-uture in the !uture
7ro5ection onto an emulation o! persons are operations which may
become ine0tricably intertwine or con!use. 7ro5ection can be a
mani!estation o! the attempt to penetrate the mysterious alterity o! the
other. 8imesis may be a closely relate attempt at this penetration.
:erria_s long-staning critique o! the Rmetaphysics o! presenceS may
have an unerlying motivation o! a necrophilia o! metaphysical
proportions.
6here is apparently much scholarly evience !or the close Kinship o!
:erria an =egel.
Hmitation presupposes a pro5ection originating in the sel! L one pro5ects a
persona or ientity or moe o! being onto some person an then
incorporates ones pro5ection into one_s own being.
RFhat cause you to li!t your arm 5ust now?S RFhy you i1 o!
courseTS R:o you suppose that the boy were a close system1 or a
component o! a close system L that it coul bootstrap itsel! into action?
6he boy is merely the instrument o! a transcenent being.
6he unKnowable nature o! Rother mins.S
3onsciousness as an integral1 uni!ie open system.
6he is5oint o! orthogonal relationship o! sub5ective an intersub5ective
Aeality is too comple0 to be uni!ie.
Hrreucibility o! ientity.
=ow the human being i!!ers !rom the Rbeasts o! the !ielS:
6he moral sense
.anguage
3onsciousness o! sel!/;go
/ltruism
.aughter/humor
Foner
3uriosity
8ysticism
:reaming
;roticism
;mpathy
:etachment
7erception o! @othingness
8eitative "tates
6ranscenence
3ulture
8eans ;ns trans!orming
/rt
8usic
.iterature
7olitics
3ollective 3ombat/Far!are
Onowlege o! one_s own eath
Aeligion
8etaphysics/philosophy
"cience
/esthetic sense
6he question o! pro5ection trans!erre !rom the reaing/writing to the
speaKing/listening conte0t.
Hn!ormation concerns the RstateS o! some integral system. :ata
concerns ob5ects participating within such an integral1 open system in
which the particular embeing system is uncouple !rom the ob5ect.
epi=fcbk=
<ou accuse me o! having a chip on my shouler1 but how else am H
to regar those who woul gloat over my mis!ortune an still more1
secretly revel in my own!all an ruin?
epi=fcbk=
Ceteris paribus institutionalize non-investment in an iea or
thing commits one to its worthlessness in the absence o! proo!.
/ny behavior whose impulse or motive possesses prie in its genealogy
is no sin at all Crather1 is a mani!estation o! sinD.
Qd
"u!i mystics have put an une0pecte an surprising spin on the
concept o! Rpersonal savoir.S
epi=!cbK=
R6he petty1 mean-spirite person views the ambitions an reams
o! others as hubris1 but people in the grip o! a 5oy!ul vision are secretly
an inictment o! petty peoples_ own lacK o! Cor !aileD ambitions.S
Hs .orenz invariance/covariance an arti!act o! a broaer symmetry than
that escribe by the 7oincare group? 6his question arose in light o! the
necessity o! .orenz invariance being a mere mani!estation o! some
unerlying physical vacuum mechanism. /n might this broaer
symmetry be that o! supersymmetry? 6he spee o! light is an average
value because it is the ratio o! two uncertainties1 i.e.1 c = /a; / /ap = the
ratio o! timeliKe to spaceliKe (-momentum !luctuations.
"upersymmetry seems involve because the hypervolume o! uncertainty
may be arbitrarily partitione into timeliKe an spaceliKe momentum
CcurrentD ensity components C.orentz invariance o! the physical
vacuum ictates that there is no unique !oliation o! spacetime into a R$ +
*S structure o! space an timeD1 while these spaceliKe an timeliKe
components are respectively constitute !rom boson an !ermion
!luctuations o! the vacuum !iel.
9ctober 2)**
"upersymmetry allows
.orentz invariance o! the vacuum espite the presence o! an Renergy
cuto!!S1 e.g.1 o! the 7lancK energy or smaller.
epi=
H! others were really as concerne with my a!!airs as H suspect1 H
shoul alreay be ea or !amous.
epi=
6he curvature Knows that it will go own to ruin an woul rag its
RlorS own with it.
epi=
Fe thinK ill o! our betters to help us live own their ranKling
superiority.
4reater outcrossing enhances the control o! natural selection on the
course o! evolution by increasing the probability o! generating novel
genetic sequences. ?ut epening on the rate o! change in
environmental conitions1 either inbreeing or outcrossing will o!!er a
breeing population the greatest survivability in the short term. ?ut
both tenencies o! se0ual selection1 i.e.1 enogamous an e0ogamous
must be retaine in the global population !or ma0imal survivability o!
the species as a whole.
9ne_s eternal iniviuality can only be 4o_s Knowlege o! one_s
ientity. 9ne_s in!inite1 unlimite being is but one among the in!inite
number o! 4o_s living an in!inite ieas/principles.
=ere we have the notion o! orers o! in!inity. 3an a mathematical
group possess a nonenumerable in!inity o! elements an still be
comprise by trans!ormation symmetry? Hs this how permutation an
combination is reconcile with novelty an emergence?
8usic that inuces a state o! transcenence an ?uhistic etachment
prouces a great inner 5oy.
9ne_s metaphysics or ontology is only important !or aesthetic1 rhetorical1
moral/ethical1 political1 etc. reasons one_s metaphysics brings a certain
coherence to the spheres o! being-in-the-worl.
8orally egenerate: one_s principles o not imply a certain particular
moe o! conuct with respect to one_s !ellow human beings. 9n this
view1 even gangsterism cannot be terme Rmorally egenerateS as its
unerlying octrine prescribes a e!inite coe o! personal conuct.
/bstract versus literary metaphors. ;bonics seems replete with
abstract/linguistic metaphors.
R/s it wereS is an e0ample o! a seemingly ungrammatical iiom which
contains an untappe potential o! literal interpretation. Hn !act1 this is
how most iioms are born: they are !ragments o! enotative e0pression
surviving !rom a much earlier perio in the history o! the speaKer_s
language.
RHs it true that you are the pro!essor who !irst iscovere *)-*)-22)?S
epi=
"cholars are reiscoverers Cor merely opportunistsD in the garage sale
o! ieas.
Hn contrast to the linear concept o! time an progress we coul
counterpoise the notion o! each civilization eventually iscovering some
earlier1 more avance civilization who built a eeper layer o! the
in!rastructure that the younger civilization ha hereto!ore mistaKen !or
the system_s Rphysical universeS now reveale as simulation. "o
instea o! linear technological progressive1 we have the notion o!
progressive1 internal nesting o! simulations1 virtual realities.
Qd
:iscovery1 invention an technological avance are an ine0 not o! the
linear progressiveness o! time into the !uture1 but o! retrogression into
the past1 c.!.1 the RtheyS in!orme by :erria_s concept o! Ralways
alreainess.S
Hnsight as rationalization o! aspects o! the collective consciousness_
sociolinguistic in!rastructure o! thought.
Qd
/lthough the action o! pro5ection C!rom higher to lower imensional
spacesD is not generally a reversible operation1 the interaction an
interrelation o! these pro5ections within this lower imensional space
may inee be reversible an eterministic.
6he iachronic nature o! the sign supplements the synchronic nature1
i.e.1 instantaneous conte0t-base meaning o! the sign.
Fhat is the relation o! the motions o! 4o_s glory1 grace1 original sin1
transcenence. . .
Hntimate Knowlege o! original sin within onesel! is the channel o! !aith.
,n!ortunate to have been born with the thir eye partially uncovere L
but only partially. . .
Fe only rarely catch an insight into how surprisingly little perception or
RrealityS checKing is involve in most human social interactions.
;0amples. . .
3onvention1 institution1 organization1 etc.1 ultimately social or collective
Cconscious or unconsciousD is require !or the open-ene1 egenerate1
over-etermine chaos o! reality to mani!est itsel! in such a way as to
Keep istinct structure an !unction1 so that !unction is reucible to !orm
an hence communicable. 9nly conventions can be communicate.
"peech versus Friting. . .
?eing RcalleS to a mission1 pro!ession1 etc.1 versus taKing up one_s
!ather_s. -ouners o! institutions versus bureaucrats1 !unctionaries1
etc.1 occupying positions within a long-establishe institute1 !ounation1
etc.
eip=
6he ultimate meaning o! one_s li!e is two!ol: the ob5ect o! private
meitation an the raw material o! metaphor via which one may
commune with the other.
ess=
Hnvestigate the iea that conscious/unconscious representation/will1
perception/thought are inverte in the sense o! Rinsie-outS1 as are
internal an e0ternal1 uring reaming.
/ll iscussion an e0planation o! a theoretical nature necessarily
involves an irreucible component of 7hanFwaving8 a!ter the !ashion
o! Ran then at this step1 a miracle happens.S /ny attempt to reuce this
core o! vagueness through supplemental e0plications inevitably brings
istinctions1 etc.1 which can this themselves be questione Cas sources o!
contraiction1 con!usion1 parao0icalness1 an vaguenessD. 3ommonality
o! conventionally agree upon sociolinguistic culture consents to pass
over these spots o! vagueness.
3lose systems . . . relative to what? / system may be RopenS an yet
be inaccessible to human instrumentation or even to the human min
itsel!. / reay e0ample o! which is1 simply1 the sub5ective1 mental
processes o! the other. @onetheless1 there is inirect1 i.e.1 spacetime-
meiate mutual accessibility.
/ctive in!ormation Cin ?ohm_s senseD is concrete an non-
representational an is base in a system o! Ccausally connecteD
ynamically counterpoise wills. 9b5ective in!ormation is abstract an
representational an is base in a system o! correlate or Csuperpose?D
consciousnesses.
8in cannot enter an energy eigenstate an so is comprise by energy
!luctuations which are immune an e0empt !rom the action o! e0ternal
energy measurements1 i.e.1 observations.
Hn /ristotle_s hylomorphism theory1 matter an !orm are merely
relatively istinct.
Fas: aaa@otes L 3lipboar
3an min iscover the laws1 i! any1 which RgovernS its operations? 3an
the laws which it Re!inesS which escribe its operation limit min? /ll
RlawsS in the sense o! governing structures are provisional an heuristic1
which is to say1 hermeneutical.
Fhat H want to Know is1 who be this =erman ;utic1 an o he believe in
6he For o! 4o?S C"tuart <oung tol me that1 uring the mi *2N)_s1 a
young blacK man actually stoo up in his hermeneutics class at "8,
an earnestly asKe this questionTD
Foul the asymmetry o! time be proo! that time is plural an
nonuni!ie?
9ne integrates the i!!erential o! the !unctional representing the .orenz
trans!ormation along the geoesic path o! the test particle to trans!orm
!rom !rame /C01y1z1tD to ?C01y1z1tD within a gravitational !iel.
6he steay state response o! the system is1 uner certain conitions
Cbounary an initialD1 the in!inite sum o! all o! its possible transient
responses. 9! course1 each o! the system_s transient responses may be
alternatively represente in the !requency omain via -ourier analysis.
>azz1 unliKe most rocK1 is !or people living in the present moment1 who
are sentimental or nostalgic about the now while it is in the very act o!
happening. 3ontrast this to rocK/alternative with its constant elusions o!
re!erence an ego-pro5ections L very narcissistic. >azz helps one to
e0perience onesel! as other1 i.e.1 Rthe other as onesel!S.
6o unerstan original sin1 e0plore all those tenencies in oneGs maKeup1
which one is powerless to help or prevent. =owever much e0ploration
or investigation o! oneGs own sin nature one unertaKes1 never will a
trait1 tenency1 or character !law be unearthe which oes not
incorporate prie an ego as integral1 organic components. 7rie!ul
attacKs upon oneGs !ellow humans cannot be lightly e0cuse as
unerstanable mani!estations o! the survival instinct within the
symbolic realm. ;ven when these prie!ul attacKs are o! a e!ensive
nature1 they are typically unuly proactive.
=uman beingGs ientity is base in a transcenent orer1 but what is
responsible !or the being o! this orer?
3an the merely symbolic have an import beyon the epistemological1
i.e.1 metaphysical?
/merican !ilm possesses what might be terme a R!oveal !etish.S /lso
the rapiity with which scenes change in /merican !ilms is consierably
greater than this rate in ;uropean !ilms. R/t night1 the periphery o! the
eyeGs retina is more sensitive to !aint light than the center. 6his area o!
the eye is more sensitive to light1 color1 an etail in ob5ects. .ooKing
slightly to one sie o! a !aint ob5ect Caverte visionD1 so that the !aint
light !alls on the more sensitive outer part o! the retina1 usually reveals
the ob5ect more clearly than looKing irectly at it. ;ven with brighter
ob5ects1 this will reveal more etail. H! the ob5ect is in the center o! the
-9I avert your vision an give it a !ew moments. /llow your eyes to
absorb the light. 6he longer you looK1 the more the area comes into
!ocusS1 c.!.1 +eay &et /o # * <ea &tart to the &tars an -eyon.
-oveal !etish metaphor vs. retinal blin spot metaphor. 6he c/t is
parao0ical because it is an e0pression o! periphery at the !oveal center.
Aeconstituting the concept1 rerawing o! symbolic maps1 reprocessing o!
e0perience L this is what is calle thinKing L =eiegger_s transcenental
horizonal repositioning.
8etaphysical assumptions can only survive an thrive within the min
o! the solitary thinKer1 the cloister o! an intellectual1 mutual amiration
society1 or within the con!ine space o! religious subculture.
3ourtesy system: politeness1 manners1 e!erring to the other1 etc.
symbolizes enorsement o! such consieration e0tene to onesel!.
Fhy websites CpersonalD are geeKy/narcissistic wherein one showcases
ones !antasies about onesel!1 elusions o! aequacy1 ieal sel!1 etc.
;veryone presents their creentials as persons Rwith a li!eS1 i.e.1 as not
being Re0istentially challengeS an who Rhave something to say.S
/lthough the bounary conitions o! the vacuum which constitutes the
conuit o! consciousness may have inee evolve.
Qd
6he !act-value
istinction points to a higher orer o! being than in!ormation.
.oss o! continuity with personal nonlocal vacuum1 i.e.1 groun through
insu!!icient upating o! memory pointers.
3an_t the quantum vacuum be unerstoo as a cosmic internet an each
human neural networK a quantum computing terminal. 3an a given
nonlocal vacuum be accesse by multiple users? 6he quantum no-
cloning theorem suggests the impossibility o! this.
>azz1 unliKe most rocK1 is !or people living in the present moment1 who
are sentimental or nostalgic about the now while it is presently
happening. 3ontrast this to rocK/alternative music with its constant
suggestions o! elusions o! re!erence in the listener. >azz helps one to
e0perience onesel! as other.
6he problem with the !ilter theory o! thought an perception is that it
leaves no room !or iniviuality1 !or the unique contributions o! each
person to the sub5ective content o! his own e0perience. ?ut certainly
resonance with e0ternal in!ormation !iels o play some role1 perhaps1
the preominant one1 in the constituting o! the iniviual_s e0perience.
8ost o! the seemingly iniviual content is perhaps provie through
resonance not with some impersonal !iel1 but with the !iels o! others
RliKe onesel!.S
?iblical criticism as the a hominem argument against 4o. ?iological
criticism an @ecrophilia.
3an the min iscover the laws1 i! any1 which RgovernS its operation?
3an min be limite by the laws which it Re!inesS which escribe its
operation. /ll RlawsS in the sense o! Rgoverning structures1S are
provisional an heuristic1 which is to say hermeneutic.
RFhat H want to Know is1 who be this =erman @eutic1 an o he believe
in the For o! 4o?S
Foul the asymmetry o! time be proo! that time is plural an
nonuni!ie?
3onsciousness b time asymmetry an energy nonconservation. -ree will
b spatial asymmetry an momentum nonconservation. 3onsciousness b
telepathy. -ree Fill b teleKinesis.
6he :@/_s base pairs are arrange accoring to an are an e0pression o!
a Kin o! 3homsKian generative grammar in that gene sequences that are
utterly novel are nonetheless meaning!ul an most o! the RsuperiorS
genetic combinations remain untrie1 inee1 Z 22.2222]% o!
combinations superior to ones that have alreay been trie in the history
o! the human race on this planet have never once occurre1 naturally1
that is. ?ut on_t the untrie possibilities somehow Rin!ormS those that
actually come to e0ist?
/ugust 2)*$
/n amittely tiny minority o! gene
sequences that are inorinately unliKely to ever occur within the li!etime
o! the universe or1 inee1 within a span uring which a quarillion
universes might come into being an pass away1 are nevertheless
meaning!ul sequences o! genetic base pairs1 shoul they per impossible
occur1 leaing as they woul to either the coing o! highly !unctional
proteins or to a still higher an more e!!icient regulation o! the genome1
which has thus !ar evolve.
9ur !ailure to unerstan how prayer worKs is not a question o!
ignorance as there are no !acts that can be ascertaine about prayer_s
woul-be mechanism.
Hnsight is always the epiphany o! the obvious1 hereto!ore lain hien.
6he mani!estations o! original sin the iniviual is powerless to help1
i.e.1 gloating over the mis!ortunes o! our betters1 etc. Forship without
spirituality is iolatry. 7ro5ection o! otherness onto sel! is sel!-
glori!ication. 7ro5ection o! sel! onto other L these two moes !orm with
one another a superposition.
3oherence1 holism1 state space1 representation1 bining !orces1 cellular
automata1 etc. ;0ploring vs. iscovering versus imagining vs. inventing.
9! course1 the concept o! an orinary reality/worl is a pernicious myth.
6he oler one becomes the more historically etermine become one_s
emotions1 insights1 an perceptions an the more one e0presses onesel!
not to the 9ther but to one_s transcenent1 alter ego1 which stans in its
intimate an necessary complementary relationship to one_s !inite
spatiotemporal sel!. 9ne begins more an more to speaK R!or the recorS
only.
8an is !irst an !oremost in love with the proucts o! his own
imagination.
8yria istinct mins co-etermine a common meium o! their
compartmentalize an mutual interaction1 which in turn etermines
bounary conitions upon these transcenental mins.
:iscretion1 privacy1 personal reasons that we shoul be !ree to maKe up
as we go along when asKe to give an account. -reeom to interpret our
own recollections o! events to which only onesel! was witness. Fhat
was not a question !or one may become so at any time as a result o!
con!iential inquiries? 6he more personal one_s e0perience1 the more
latitue one has in sel!-e!inition !ree o! the tyranny o! so-calle
ob5ective stanars1 c.!.1 e gustabus non isputanum an Rthere is no
accounting !or taste1S RwalK a mile in a man_s shoesS1 etc. 6here are
always !acts an values in!orming one_s personal ecisions an
priorities1 which are incommensurate with those o! one_s peers. 8utual
respect is absolute among the gos. 6he consciousness o! persons
possesses only an analogical unity. 9ne_s consciousness is the
metaphor that one applies to unerstan that o! other persons1 but the
consciousness o! the 9ther is not literally liKe that o! one_s sel!.
6he polyemanationist octrine may be arrive at through the positing o!
merely two simple postulates.
Qd
9ne1 reality is too comple0 to be
ob5ectively uni!ie1 an two1 personal ientity1 in the broaest sense o!
iniviual consciousness1 is an unanalyzable1 irreucible concept. 6hese
two postulates are not really so inepenent o! one another1 an it may
be possible to subsume them uner a single1 broaer one. H!1 along with
Oant1 we consier the ob5ective to be merely that which can be a proper
ob5ect o! Knowlege1 then the postulate o! the irreucibility o! iniviual
consciousness means that a uni!ie consciousness1 or at least an
unerlying unity to all iniviual consciousness qua consciousness1 is
not possible so that there can be no ob5ect o! Knowlege !or such a
universal consciousness. 6his is all to say that the postulate o! the
irreucibility o! personal consciousness implies1 a la Oant1 that no
uni!ie ob5ect o! Knowlege e0ists1 an that1 there!ore1 reality itsel! is
not uni!ie.
Qd
?y tying the cash value o! concepts to possible or
potential e0perience1 the concept o! unity Co! realityD has no cash value i!
there is no hypothetical universal consciousness which can have reality
itsel! Cas a wholeD as an ob5ect o! its Knowlege. 6o wit1 i! there is not
any ob5ective unity o! consciousness so that iniviual consciousnesses
are reucible/analyzable1 then no R4o_s eye viewS o! reality is possible.
4iven the omniscience o! 4o1 this woul imply a non-uni!ie reality.
"peculate upon the possible meaning o! the phrase1 Rintersub5ective
sub5ectivityS. RHn Hnia the "anKya philosophy o! the 8any !ought the
Ieanta philosophy o! the 9ne1S
cit=
* Defense of Iealism"
auG
2ay
&inclair.
-urther evience !or the irreucibility o! personal ientities is the !act o!
the pro!ounly istinct nature o! !ormal1 temporal1 an numerical
ientity. 9ne is not Rnumerically ientical with onesel! e0cept in the
present moment1 but one is temporally ientical. 9ne may be !ormally
ientical to another in the somewhat restrictive sense o! that component
o! the sel! which possesses a !ormal escription may be structurally
ientical to this component in another iniviual. @o amount o!
temporal evolution will bring two entities1 originally separate1 into a
coincience o! rigorous numerical ientity. @ow ue to various
conservation laws1 this is not even possible !or quantum particles that
are themselves completely inistinguishableT "o it appears !rom the
iscussion thus !ar that there are at least !our istinct Kins o! ientity:
!ormal1 temporal1 numerical1 an what we will term here quantum
ientity.
>anuary 2)))
/ purely enotative concept L is such a thing possible? :oesn_t
abstraction necessitate the creation o! metaphor? :o we have a concept
o! what constitutes a metaphor? 9r is metaphor1 parao0ically1 itsel!
merely metaphorical? 8ay we liKen an ob5ect present-to-han1 as a
representation while a tool is an ob5ect reay-to-han? Hs this an
essential component o! creativity an the unpreictability o!
technological evolutions L which the present-to-han can always
trans!orm into the reay-to-han? /re wors essentially recursive
through a blurring o! the use/mention istinction? 9nly eterministic
causal !unctions may enote. 6his is a parao0 o! enotation.
4enetic ust bin theory o! aging is the theory that natural selection only
applies to the !itness o! the genome uring pre-reprouctive an
reprouctive years. 4enes that are Rswitche onS or e0presse uring
the post-reprouctive part o! the species li!e span can never be culle out
o! the gene pool through natural selection. 3ertainly genes which only
e0press themselves a!ter the en o! the reprouctive years plus the
maturation o! time o! the youngest iniviuals in total contribution o!
o!!spring can have little or no e!!ect upon the !itness/survivability o!
those o!!spring.
-reu sai that culture was a mani!estation o! the sublimation o!
!rustrate se0ual impulses. 7hilosophy is maintaining iealism in the
!ace o! isillusionment. Ht is also itsel! a Kin o! sublimation L which o!
!rustrate impulses to counter various a!!ronts an insults to the ego.
Fhat is quite puzzling about what is calle iscourse is that1 unliKe in
the cases o! language1 logic1 mathematics1 etc.1 i.e.1 metalanguage1
metalogic1 metamathematics1 etc.1 there oes not seem to be any means
o! grouning the concept o! metaiscourse.
Fhen two sub5ects encounter1 perceive an converse with one another
concerning this ob5ect encountere in common1 what each speaKs
concerning it is one_s own success!ul partial e!!orts in constituting the
ob5ect1 i.e.1 that which is in harmony1 not with the ob5ect per se1 but with
other constitutive !orces by which the ob5ect is being sustaine as such.
/ll unsuccess!ul attempts at oing this1 i.e.1 those which aren_t rati!ie
by the history o! this collectivity whose combine action have
historically constitute the ob5ect1 or at least what oes not have any
chance o! honoring any prior claim to the ob5ect_s constitution L these
e!!orts almost always !in themselves suppresse1 unless some larger
collective boy o! prior claims on the ob5ect_s ientity can be ascertaine
an appeale to.
8oularity an holism must merely be moes between which a control
system selects1 in the case o! truly !le0ible cybernetic or aaptive
biological systems. @aturally such a control system will e!y the
categorical istinction o! moular versus holistic.
6he higher the gene in the gene regulatory networK C4A@D1 the more
liKely an the greater egree to which this gene acts as a two-way
inter!ace between the genome an the environment. 6he 4A@ selects
between1 !or e0ample1 the e0ogamous an enogamous tenencies in
se0ual selection base upon the stability or instability o! the breeing
population_s environmental conitions1 i.e.1 between miscegenation an
incest. /s we ascen the 4A@1 we move up the continuum !rom signal
to sign to metasymbol1 etc.
7erhaps the structural genes provie signals to the open chemical system
in which it is embee an with which it e0changes energy1 ata1 an
in!ormation. ?ut what is introuce to the 4A@ at its RtopS are perhaps
not signals1 but signs.
6here are not characters !or vowels in the =ebrew alphabet.
3onsonants1 which are 5ust interruptions an channelings1 i.e.1
moulations o! the breath Co! li!eD are all that is recore within a
=ebrew te0t. 6his !act seems to bear witness to the implicit
acKnowlegement by =ebrew culture that te0t by itsel! is not connecte
to the breath which gives substance1 in the !orm o! resonant soun1 to
speech evoKe by a written te0t. /s we Know !rom the early chapters o!
4enesis this breath was originally imparte to the inert lump o! clay in
human !orm1 i.e.1 /am. =ere sin as rebellion against 4o may be
unerstoo in terms o! the metaphor o! the silencing o! thought by the
subversion o! the authority o! speech by te0t.
Aeality is perhaps !inal in the sense o! being an absolute1 but there is not
!inality in the min_s conception o! this reality.
RmaKe the worse sie o! an argument appearS receive the !ollowing
correction !rom this te0t program_s grammar checKing so!tware. RmaKe
the worse sie o! an argument appearsS "o the grammar program was
going by the rule o! simple verb agreement1 inepenent o! larger
grammatical conte0t.
6he parao0 o! in!ormation processing an the open-eneness o!
internality. 6opological change is transcenental because o! the
necessary iscontinuity o! substance involve.
Ae: 6o :esiato_s 7robability Fave :ispersion Hnterpretation o!
Aelativity. 6o inclue inertia use the analogy o! an A.3 circuit. 6he
R.S an R3S components o! the circuit meiate time/energy an the RAS
component1 the position/momentum component o! the =eisenberg
uncertainty.
R,nre!erenceable changes in the system.S "ub5ective vs. ob5ective
without an RHnterworlS being given. 8erleau-7onty thought that the
absence o! an interworl woul lea to solipsism. 6he repeatability o!
e0perimental results is commonly thought to be a perquisite !or the
possibility o! scienti!ic eneavor. 7erhaps all that is really require is
the appearance o! repeatability o! e0perimental results. "ince the
observer an the system or systems being observe1 sub5ect to
e0perimental probing1 etc. are equally physical systems Cat least this a
common assumption within conventional scienceD1 it may be possible !or
e0perimental results to not be strictly repeatable while maintaining the
appearance o! the esire repeatability1 provie that appropriate
compensatory a5ustments to the observerCsD brainCsD taKe place between
successive iterations o! the sel!-same e0periment. 6his is relate to
?ohm_s statement that all causal relationships coul be alternatively
e0presse in terms o! correlations.
>uly 2)**
H! such a situation were inee the case1 then not only the
ob$ectivity1 but also the rationality of the universe woul be an
appearance stemming !rom sustaine collaborative e!!ort.
@o metaphysical escription can claim greater valiity than another can.
6his clash o! metaphysical epiction o! reality1 i.e.1 what is the case.
"peaKing o! Rthe lure o! the moonS by anthropologists1 scientists1 e.g.1
3arl "agan1 are engage in a pro5ection o! a moern poetic metaphor
onto the consciousness o! primitive people_s. 6he moon allegely le
8an to RlooK upS an notice the heavens.S 3ontents o! consciousness_
late historicity are !requently seize upon in orer to e0plicate the
motivations an perceptions o! ancient or primitive peoples. 9n the
other han1 rawing !rom the observation o! i!!erent species o!
primates is boun to be a misleaing oversimpli!ication.
6he ignity o! a human being is connecte with several istinct
consierations having to o with the nature o! sub5ectivity. -irstly1 the
iniviual possesses a great store o! potential which1 though perhaps
never utilize uring the course o! his human e0istence1 is nonetheless
uniquely possesse by1 an valuable to1 his actually realize sel!. 8uch
that is actual is not communicable through iscourse-ive1 that is1
iscursive language. /ny given iniviual is liKely to possess resources
o! happiness an spirituality not tie to visible or tangible activities or
goos. "ome o! the humblest persons are those possessing greatest
inner peace.
AocK an so-calle alternative music seem care!ully cra!te to
encourage narcissistic elusions o! re!erence in the listener.
:econstructionists are: iol smashers1 nihilists1 sincere searchers a!ter
truth1 accepting no mere verisimilitue thereo!1 sKeptics1 8ar0ists1
e0istentialists1 phenomenologists1 !aile philosophers1 poets painters1
novelists1 ebunKers o! poseurs an imposters1 isappointe believers in
the power o! transcenence L isillusione woul-be metaphysicians.
H! is were not a !act that some human genomes are better than others1
there woul be nothing !or :arwinian natural selection to worK with.
9! course1 some iniviuals are genetically superior to othersT
;0ogamous se0ual urges possess a soun evolutionary basis in
protecting the breeing population !rom averse environmental change.
/lthough the !orm o! orinary human communication is largely a!ter the
!ashion o! an absolute1 the substance thereo! is by an large
metaphysical. /n iiom may be thought o! as a latent metaphor
e0presse in the grammar current when the iiom_s metaphor was more
or less e0plicit.
9ne may inee mistaKe the intuition o! the irreucibility o! one_s
personal ientity !or a glimpse o! solipsistic truth. @o clearer basis !or
the !ounation e0ists !or the istinction o! goo an evil1 which at the
same time respects !reeom o! the will. @ot 5ust irreucibility o!
personal ientity but inevitability o! one_s e0istence is a mistaKen
intuition o! the !act o! the absolute personal choice to e0ist1 to escen
!rom the realm o! unconitional1 personal ?eing. ?ut how can being be
unconitional an be base in one_s particular "el! in contraistinction
to the "elves through which others en5oy their ?eing? Hs the !law in the
metaphysics o! being not the mistaKing o! presence !or absence1 but the
mistaKing o! one presence !or another? 9! course1 eterminate being is
necessarily limite being !or etermination is limitation. @egation can
only be e!ine through the negation o! some prior or pree0isting
negation. 6here can be no negation o! being which is absolutely
positive an not epenent upon some pree0istent negation. ?eing
inepenent o! worlhoo is absolute being1 that is1 being inepenent
o! negation. "uch being is not system epenent an so is given
without any !rameworK !or negation to operate.
6he basis o! absence is the RgapS cause by the misienti!ication o! one
!orm !or another.
/ mass moves as though it has a conserve !our-momentum within a C+
++-D signature !our-imensional spacetime. 6ime a0is as irection o!
centripetal/centri!ugal !orce maKes the notion o! local spacetime
concrete.
6he more original a proposition which oes not con!lict with prior art1
the greater the appeal to the authority o! the unKnown.
/ction at a istance seems parao0ical an counterintuitive. :oes this
require that action at a istance be a mere appearance?
6he past_s !uture has no past ientical to it. :oes irreversibility
there!ore imply multiimensional or in!inite imensional time?
8orality is 5ust the ethics o! narrow-mine people.
Fe seem to automatically grant presence to that o! which we are
remine. 9r is it presence grante to that through which we recollect
something that is emotionally charge?
"ignal is to sign as ata is to in!ormation. ;very sign possesses a signal
component ue to the physical meium in which the sign is emboie.
.ogocentrism an the Kingom o! ens.
Ow=
rei!ication o! instinct an
technique into art1 which is an en in itsel!. Hnstinct is !or repeating the
cycle o! li!e. 6echnique is to !acilitate the solution o! the survival
problem. /vent o! agriculture an the birth o! the urban way o! li!e1
the creation o! writing an the evolution o! language. /n open system
cannot be ientical with itsel! because it has not ientity. ?ut a uni!ie
open system has an ientity. /rbitrary symbols o not bacK react upon
the messages o! which their strings are arbitrary e0pressions. 8uch
insight is amittely the iscovery o! relationships o! ieas burie eep
within the semantic/syntactic structure o! language. .atent comple0es
o! meaning an logic may not meiate seemingly orinary
communications1 comple0es which have never been abstracte or
ERbrought to light.S
?ecause o! the classical :arwinian concept o! the gene as e0pressing but
not e0changing in!ormation with the e0ternal environment1 the gene an
its sequences possess arbitrary meaning.
Aather than whole genetic sequences having been selecte !or a!ter the
avent1 this selection must have !unamentally taKen place at the time
the relative molecular stabilities o! all possible gene sequences was
worKe out Cin the vacuum between virtual base pair sequencesD1 c.!.1
protein !oling solutions !oun by nature in *)WW-*2 secons.
9bviously these protein !oling solutions are !oun so quicKly because
o! massively parallel computations per!orme by the nonlocally
connecte quantum vacuum state with which the enature protein
interacts. 7erhaps base pair sequences rather than gene sequences were
selecte !or.
"ome philosophers wisely seeK to mine the metaphysical an
metaphorical eposits o! insight somehow lai own within the language
an myth o! the past ')1))) years o! man_s cultural history !or
iniviual revelations o! their own. 6hese philosophers are what might
be terme archeologists o! the collective human psyche. 6he
metaphysics o! the iniviual are largely erive !rom the unconscious
metaphysical assumptions inherite by collective humanity.
/ combination o! Jen-liKe wisom an logical incoherence is to be
!oun in <ogi ?era-isms.
?iographies always possess greater coherence than the lives they
escribe. ?ut then this observation is generally true o! narratives an
the situations they escribe.
=umans engage in narcissistic !antasies instinctively an spontaneously
an neither unerstan the necessity nor the manner o! analyzing them.
"o the wor is always a simulacrum o! itsel! rather than being
semantically sel!-ientical. 3onnection to myria absent conte0ts helps
to supplement the inaequate presence marKe by the use o! the wor in
the present conte0t.
Ht is not the wor but the palimpsest1 which is the unit o! RtransmitteS
meaning. 6his palimpsest is a Kin o! metaphor memory in which the
Rwoul-beS units o! meaning represente by the literal wor-as-toKen-
inscription are processe.
R<ou on_t get it.S R6here is no RitS to get.S "o says :erria to one o!
his starry-eye amirers who wishes to simply behol this great
philosopher an stan Rin his presence1S believing himsel! to have
!inally reache the same epiphany as was aboriginally glimpse an
e0poune by the great philosopher.
?ooK 6itle: :erria_s @ecrophilic 7ro5ect
-ailure o! sel! ientity through non-interability or non-repeatability o!
wors. "o to repeat a wor is to mention the wor with various
provinences with its various prior uses.
6wo passing strangers waving to one another: ?eing_s
acKnowlegement o! itsel!.
@ostalgia versus presence in the present1 e.g.1 music o! the royal court as
elegant1 grace!ul1 noble1 regal1 etc. /rbitrary or only subtly culturally
inicate choices o! musical theme1 in the case o! prouctions within an
emergent genre1 become sharper an more marKe with time as the
genre evelops itsel!. .inKage o! new themes1 as well as the !orging o!
new linKs between ol1 taKing place within the eveloping genre are
always etermine via !actors more or less e0traneous to what are later
unerstoo as principles o! thematic an artistic unity a!ter this genre
has reache Rmaturity.S :econstruction is partly a bacK engineering o!
this historical process in which Rchance an necessityS !orm an
inissoluble mi0ture. 3hance1 not as an absolute1 but in the sense o!
alterity an e0traneousness with respect to preetermine an coherent
lines o! eterministic evelopment1 is necessarily involve in the
evolution o! genre because ialectical evelopment is always constitute
by clashes between incommensurable !orces. "o presence e0ists prior to
its being recognize upon an !or a time a!ter its avent. Ht is with the
un!air avantage o! hinsight the thinKers !urther own the line o!
cultural evolution that these entities or RpresencesS are ienti!ie. ,pon
these presences being ienti!ie it becomes possible to step outsie o!
their magical in!luence L not unliKe the phenomenon o! abreaction in the
psychoanalytic sub5ect.
8usic "cenes :ialogue 8usic ` ` `
?ooKs H want to write:
3rystal ?lue1 6he @ecrophile1 6he =egelian ;i!ice o! 7ostmoernism1
7henomenology o! the 8ysterious1 "pin ?ase :igital 8echanics o!
"pacetime1 @acve 7resumption: 6he -aile 7ro5ect o! =ar /H1 6he @o-
:esign ?asis o! =uman 3onsciousness.
9pen system unity an consciousness L are they compatible? 6he ob5ect
provies a conte0t !or the ob5ect_s conte0t.
6he enless proli!eration o! specialize languages o! various1 e.g.1
pro!essional1 acaemic1 etc. eclipses is no more in e!!ect than is the
culture itsel! in!luential in its structuring o! the lives o! iniviuals. 6he
language o! mainstream or RominantS culture may be liKene to a
pigin language which comes into being piecemeal solely !or getting on
with the unavoiable inter-ealings o! various subcultures1 e.g.1 police
an local urban gang. 9nly the language that one is born an raise up in
gives one Rtransparent accessS to both sel! an the other Cbut RotherS
within one_s own subculture/clanD. "el! as social1 linguistic construct
meiate through subcultural acculturation. ?orerline personality
isorer as a isease o! social sel!-construction an maintenance. Ht has
been argue against bilingual elementary eucation that i! immigrant
chilren are taught ;nglish prior to having complete the process o!
mastering their Rnative tongueS there results a pseuo-bilingual
iniviual with logical an cognitive impairments cause by his lacK o!
possession o! a native tongue or !irst language. :i!!iculties on the part o!
urban ghetto blacK chilren in internalizing the ominant language an
its values/norms in the public school system are not ue to cognitive or
intellectual in!eriority on their part but are culturally in!luence an
principle iniviual choices Cin large partD.
Ht has been note that groups o! babies raise together spontaneously
evelop a language between themselves. Fas this a pattern establishe
by evolution1 which is no longer being !ollowe? /re man_s current
social arrangements so vastly at os with the social organization that he
!ollowe !or countless millennia that he is presently unwittingly
hanicappe by cognitive1 psychological an social ills o! his own
maKing. 6his is why the stuy o! anthropology is perhaps the most
important acaemic eneavor.
6he !ollowing e0cerpt is taKen !rom :erria an the ;n o! =istory
C*222D.
R:erria claims that he can use the same terms as his opponents1 while
enying that they carry the same signi!icance !or him1 since he is to be
consiere as using them funer erasure_ Csous ratureD: that is1 as i! they
ha a line crosse through them. /nother way to thinK o! this metho
o! operation woul be to imagine that everything :erria says is in
quotation marKs.S 3onsier the !ollowing e0cerpt !rom this aaa@otes L
clipboar te0t.
7ictorial representation is !ollowe by abstract or stylize representation1
which is in turn !ollowe by arbitrary representation in the !orm o!
language/writing. /bstract versus concrete is not an e0act binary
opposition because however concrete e0perience is1 it presupposes a
certain amount o! processing an !iltering o! sensory Cboth RinternalS
an Re0ternalSD ata. 6he RconceptS RarbitraryS oes not quite succee
in being what it appears to be because arbitrary representations are
always implemente within some meium in which the meium taKes on
some small but not none0istent role in etermining the meaning o! the
so-calle arbitrary symbols transmitte Rthrough it.S
Qd
Fe see that each
entity is what it is in part by being in!use with its other. 6his is
particularly striKing in the case o! representation in which there is a
close system o! complementary !igure an groun. H! it is true that we
o not really possess genuine concepts1 then whenever a concept is
re!erre to by its name1 we shoul1 in recognition o! this !unamental
limitation o! all our concepts1 place the concept name within quotation
marKs. 6he lacK o! clarity an istinctness o! all concepts means that
the binary opposition o! use versus mention must breaK own1 an
con=
3artesian epistemology along with it. ?ut perhaps this vagueness o!
concepts is one aKin to the vagueness involve with the =eisenberg
,ncertainty 7rinciple in which the vagueness is ue to the operation o! a
ynamism1 rather than being the prouct o! lacK o! Knowlege with
reactivity o! the system to observer inter!erence. ?ecause concepts
Rper!orm worKS within the min o! the iniviual1 although perhaps
intene to be merely escriptive in the conte0t o! intersub5ective
communication1 there must be some bacK-reaction o! concepts upon the
process o! thought that both a.1 brings them into being1 an b.1 utilizes
them !or the meiation o! both in!rasub5ective an intersub5ective
thought.
6he above was written by me a couple o! weeKs be!ore having rea the
above e0cerpt !rom :;=. 6he above was also written be!ore having
learne about :erria_s critique o! the Re!!acement o! the signi!ierS as an
illusory phenomenon o! language_s transparence to the transmission o!
meaning. 6he notion o! the entity being what it is being in part
epenent upon Rbeing in!use with the otherS coul have been erive
!rom a notion o! mine !rom at least several years ago Clong be!ore H ha
stuie postmoernism/econstructionD. ?ut it can also be more
irectly a rephrasing o!
au=
:erria_s notion o! Rno thing being ientical
with itsel!.S
:erria_s concept o! Rthe e!!acement o! the signi!ierS in speech as being
the conition o! the iea o! truth1S c.!.1 p. *)N1
cit=
9n :econstruction
C*2N2D. 6he !act that the signi!ier can never be completely e!!ace
means that the meaning o! symbols1 whether written1 spoKen or thought1
can never be truly arbitrary. "o a pun is probably never base purely on
an acciental semantic Kinship o! similar souning wors an phrases
themselves possessing no common etymological or cultural-genealogical
origin. / pun is not an isolate linguistic quirK but is an e!!ect o! a
systematic phenomenon o! language1 which must have a basis in
language as such.
Qd
9ther seeming coinciences or RegeneraciesS o!
language an linguistic practice1 i! recurrent an pervasive1 are not to be
e0plaine away as acciental. ?esies1 such a notion o! the complete
arbitrariness o! symbols leaves no place !or will within the truth pro5ect.
7art o! the collective negotiation towar truth is irect interaction in the
!orm o! grappling1 pushing1 pulling1 yieling an relenting o! wills rather
than the transmission o! ata an the invoKing o! in!ormation. 6he point
here is that there is always a certain amount o! this collective grappling
o! wills upon one another which taKes place within even the most
routine or orinary types o! conversation1 which then cannot be viewe
simply as orinary1 culture-speci!ic e0changes o! in!ormation.
Fhat is all o! this aiming at you might asK? Fell1 it is a notion which is
perhaps !ormally aKin to but contrary in spirit to :erria_s notion o! the
meium o! language being less than transparent a meium !or the
transmission o! meaning. 8y impulse to 5u0tapose an comment upon
the e0cerpte te0t above was the burgeoning notion that language is 5ust
as much a reactive an ampli!ying meium as it is a re!ractive an
issipating meium. 6he notion o! meaning ampli!ication is certainly
intriguing. Ht is aKin to image or pattern recognition an enhancement.
8eaning can be ampli!ie1 !iltere1 concentrate1 etc. through the action
o! its transmission meium. C3an two inepenent noise streams
inter!ere in such as manner as to enhance
Kw=
speci!ie comple0ity?D
Qd
9! course all o! this iscussion presupposes that the author has
something Rin minS which he seeKs to utilize language as a partially
!allible1 partially serenipitous tool with which to e0press this
something.
8any years a!ter having establishe a more or less !i0e an success!ul
routine o! li!e an li!e style1 an stable social conte0ts !or each o! the
various istinct roles that one is calle upon to play in one_s li!e1 the
eman upon the brain to prouce new neural interconnections has long
ago stabilize at a level much lower than that eman which was
necessary in youth.
6emporal causality versus ontological causality. C;""D
9ne basis !or the interpretation o! reams is the iea that the relation o!
worl an ego become inverte so that everything e0ternal is a
mani!estation o! the sel!_s alter aspects.
/n e0istential claim is a claim that a category is instantiate.
Qd
Hs this
also true o! the e0istence o! an iniviual consciousness?
6he esire to prove to onesel! that something !ails to transcen1 is
nothing other than our concept o! it.
Qd
6ranscenence is relative to a
particular set o! limitations an so transcenence always becomes
immanence again as eeper limitations are reveale. .ogic is the
ultimate limitation upon reality1 spatiotemporality the penultimate.
7art o! what constitutes in!ormation is ata. /n e0ample o! this is a
cipher string with !ar more permutations than there are coe pieces o!
in!ormation. 6his reuces con!usion o! two or more istinct
bits/pacKets o! in!ormation or the !alse appearance o! in!ormation1 e.g.1
hallucinations.
Qd
6o ienti!y a complete set o! necessary RenablersS or
triggers1 as oppose to causes o! a phenomenon in han oes not equal a
causal e0planation !or that phenomenon. 6he sum o! necessary causes
!or some e!!ect is only !inite1 which is equivalent to a su!!icient cause1
but only within a pree0istent system/meium.
/lthough what is asserte about various seminal thinKers o! the Festern
philosophical traition is incorrect because1 in reality irecte against a
straw man o! its own imagination1 as an abstract theory in search o! a
sub5ect matter1 econstruction seems to be a use!ul an instructive
school o! literary/cultural criticism.
/necotal Knowlege can be vali when it is Knowlege by
acquaintance Cin the Aussellian senseD. "ub5ectivity is not in its essence
comprise by any ob5ective contents an so its structure is impose !rom
outsie1 is intersub5ective an conventional. ?etween threshol o!
awareness an certainty is the subconscious hunch.
:uality is never a simple single level structure but is !ractal an
multilevele. :oes the iniviual_s sel!-Knowlege transcen the
sub5ective vs. ob5ective ichotomy? Hn the case o! one_s Knowlege o!
onesel! by acquaintance Cin the Aussellian senseD1 this Knowlege is
Qd
ob5ective while not being Calmost by e!initionD intersub5ective.
7erhaps the only way that we can recover the ob5ective = intersub5ective
equivalence is to achieve an unerstaning o! the sub5ective sel! as
social construct1 linguistically an culturally base.
3oincience: i! some thing previously encountere in the environment
suenly connects with new in!ormation that is important1 this thing
suenly arises in consciousness. Hs conte0t necessary !or mani!estation
o! ob5ects within consciousness?
Qd
3learly it is the genes themselves an not their combinations which
are selecte !or. 6his is because only an in!initesimal !raction o! all
possible genetic combinations have ever been e0presse an e0pose to
the action o! natural selection.
Fe have all along con!use resonance !or Rpresence.S Aesonance
properties are base in the i!!erences in activity Cwhich is ultimately
ecomposable in terms o! a spectrum o! !requencies o! oscillationsD
rather than being base upon some unitary presence an its ongoing
!unctioning. 7resence is absolute1 but resonance is merely relative.
6he ob5ectivity = intersub5ectivity equation is isrupte by the simple
!act that the iniviual an his sub$ective iniviual consciousness has
an ob5ective e0istenceT
6he concept o! metaphor presupposes that there is some pristine purely
literal conte0t !rom which we metaphorically borrow. ?ut there is not
such thing as this Kin o! Rpure conte0t1S i.e.1 con-te0t. ;very iscourse
is always in!use with elements an structures !rom other iscourses.
3oncept: to abstract !rom the iscursive CRiscourse-iveSD conte0t
within which one is presently positioneV metaphor: to abstract !rom
another iscursive conte0t an import this abstract structure into the
present iscursive conte0t. Ht is instructive to meitate on the
connotation o! the etymologically closely relate wors iscourse an
iscursive. Fhen one is within a given iscourse an oes not have
access to any other1 then one_s language is not merely enotative1 one_s
language becomes a tool which is purely reay to han. Fe see that the
term enotative is epenent !or its !ullest sense upon what is pointe up
by the complementary term connotative. 6he istinction o! conceptual
versus metaphorical is unermine by the !act o! the none0istence o! any
pure universe o! iscourse in which the terms o! the iscourse are purely
enotativeV each iscourse !rom which we borrow is itsel! hierarchically1
but only loosely hierarchically structure. CRhierarchicalS in a
metaphorical senseD
6hat which has the greatest presence is that o! which we have hear the
most o!t. Hs logocentrism a necessary outgrowth o! consciousness or
social sel!-consciousness. 8etonymy is
Kw=
rei!ication o! a part. 6he
invention o! historical !igures1 epochs1 etc. Fhen people or situations
are bigger an more respectable than li!e we are eep within
logocentrism. 8iller1 "mith1 3larK1 etc.1 last name an !amily name
inheritance. Aesonance1 repetition1 presence . . . :i logocentrism e0ist
prior to the evelopment o! writing? .earning to soun out wors in
Kinergarten. :e!inite versus ine!inite articles. Hmage enhancement
through memory o! neural networKs. 6he celebrity presence
phenomenon an logocentrism L the stalKing o! !amous/attractive
people. 9bsessions1 !etishes1 phobias1 iseases o! logocentrism1
necrophilia even =in :rommDs e6tene senseA. 8imesis1 clear an
istinction conceptions . . . 6he basis o! all o! our pretensions an
illusions. Fill we amit that it is grace L that reality is continually
conspiring with us. . . =eiegger_s istinction o! present to han versus
reay to han parallels representation vs. will. 6he Fill to 7ower/6ruth1
@ietsche L philosopher_s hammer Lestroying the iols1 presumptions o!
culture. 6he perceive sense o! ientity an sel! grows with the
progressive enrichment o! the iniviual_s cultural conte0t.
6he logocentric may be characterize as anything1 which reuces the
human being_s sense o! gewor!enheit.
>une 2)**
6here is the literal-mine notion o! the Rproperly receive
pronunciationS o! Rthe Oing_s ;nglishS an there is the notion o! the
inevitability o! the evolution o! language1 e.g.1 Ri! noboy every RtalKe
wrongS1 we_ all still be speaKing mile ;nglishTS .et_s not con!use
process with proucts. H am remine o! the parent who !ervently i!
secretly wishes that their toler woul never grow up or the chil who
wishes that his pet woul always remain the cute puppy or Kitty that he
loves. >ust thinK o! the puzzle an perhaps !rustrate monsignor who
encounters the young catechism stuent_s questions: i! you ie o! ol
age1 then how ol are you in heaven1 or worse yet1 this nacve gnostic
question]Show oes 4o Know that there_s not someone unKnown to
him who is greater than him1 but who 5ust lets 4o thinK he_s in
charge?S
;volution e0plains change1 but not stability1 which is owing to the
chemical an physical properties o! :@/1 more generally1 the sel!-
organizing properties o! matter. 6he ratio o! the number o! genetic
combinations capable o! being e0presse as proteins versus the number
o! genes which cannot be in this way e0presse cannot be thought to be
essentially relate to the in!ormation content o! e0presse genes1 but
only to a quantity o! a subclass o! in!ormation. Fhat is the nature o!
this subclass? 3.!.1 gene regulation.
.ogic an science an all isciplines o! Knowlege which !low out o!
them1 are heavily base upon the ol ceteris paribus principle1 i.e.1
Rother things being equal1S these two or more things are equal1 their
ientity !ailing only in unimportant ways. =owever1 the ways in which
ientities all ultimately !ail Ceven where only a single RentityS is
concerne1 c.!.1 temporalityD are truly only RunimportantS with respect to
a pragmatic purpose in view L i! we try to transcen the realm o! mere
pragmatism1 we !in ourselves pro5ecting out into the unKnown an
unKnowable in ways that cannot possibly be given soli !ounation.
Aegularity is a !unction o! what we might conveniently term Rthe
bounary conitions o! scale.S Hs logocentrism merely a conition o!
the myopia o! the intellect an perception?
6he uncanny corresponence that seems to obtain between our
perceptions o! the worl_s structure an behavior on the one han an
language an mathematics on the other suggests that the same
unerlying matri0 organizes all three.
/n important i!!erence e0ists between ialogue between two persons
an the RialogueS that one has with onesel!. =ow much oes te0t rely
on this sel!-ialogue versus interpersonal ialogue.
=ave we all along mistaKen the Fill !or 3onsciousness? >ust
contemplate the apparent converse relationship o! will an
consciousness. 3onsciousness is the registering Cor the capacity o! this
registeringD o! the local upon the nonlocal1 the iscrete upon the
continuous1 etc. Fill is the converse o! this L the registering o! the
nonlocal by the local1 the continuous upon the iscrete1 etc.
3onsciousness may not e0ist as anything other than a representation o!
Fill.
H! personal ientity is Rreucible1S then it can be broKen own into a set
o! iscrete elements/systems which by their interaction1 Rprouce1S i.e.1
RproS L RuceS Cpro ucere1 lat.D. ?ut interaction within a close
system possesses *D no conte0t an 2D bacK-reacts upon no transcenent
groun. Ht is the Rstimulation o! time.S /n the reciprocal in!orming
o! this system which Rstimulates grounS which completes the circuit1
closes the loop o! consciousness_ circle. ;gyptian symbol o!
consciousness was1 a!ter all1 the 9urobouros.
;ach iniviual person is his or her own ?rahman. 6his is what /tman
= ?rahman really means L not that there is only one consciousness or
RoversoulS e0periencing through each as though iniviual human
beings are mere terminals connecte to a single networK. 6he /tman is
not then merely some !acet or re!lection o! the unitary1 eternally
pree0istent ?rahman1 but is ?rahman itsel!. ?rahman transcens unity
an plurality. ?ut how is this possible1 you asK? Hsn_t such a notion
inherently contraictory. @o1 it is merely parao0ical. 6he human
person1 along with its boy1 may be liKene to a computer terminal1 but
the networK is that iniviual_s eternal consciousness. 6he
ienti!ication o! consciousness with a Kin o! meta-senseatum1 prevents
us !rom unerstaning that consciousness is inepenent o! what
structures it because the conitions !or its structuring come !rom within
it whenever it limits itsel! an inter!aces with other consciousnesses
unergoing the same sel! limitation. RFhen one ies1 where oes the
soul or min go?S @owhere is the answer !or although the min
mani!ests itsel! within space an time1 the min oes not itsel! occupy
space an time. H! the min moves at all1 it oes so into an out o! time1
but without moving through space. 6his is where the e0istence an
ynamics o! min seems to require that the worl possess at least !ive
istinct imensions1 but probably more as there must be more than one
avenue o! approach !or more than merely two istinct mins so as to
negotiate the structure o! the spacetime continuum. H! min constitutes
spacetime1 iniviually Cmental spaceD an collectively Cphysical spaceD1
then there shoul be some Kin o! intimate connection between
inertiogravitation an consciousness with respect to the constituting o!
spacetime.
/pril 2)*$

cit=
RHsaac .uria propoune the octrine o! the T(imt(um1
Cmeaning alternatively: E3ontraction/3oncealment/3onensation/3oncentrationED1
the primorial "el!-Fithrawal o! :ivinity to EmaKe spaceE !or subsequent
3reation. 6his reconciles the Hn!initeness o! 4o with !inite 3reation1 preventing
create realms !rom being nulli!ie into non-e0istence within their source o!
vitalityS1 c.!.1
http://en.wiKipeia.org/wiKi/.urianic#OabbalahX7rimorial#6zimtzum#-
#3ontraction#o!#:ivinity.
Hnvestigate the phenomenon o! logocentrism an buzzwors1
importation o! !oreign phrase to e0press emphasize or R!ancyS
thoughts. :oes meaning always have to be base in sub5ectively
present contents or can it sometimes be structural or completely
conte0tual?
;pigram: 8yth comprises analogies o! transhistorical historicity in
which timeless elements o! human nature worK out their temporal
e0pression.
3onsciousness is not e0plicable or escribable in terms o! abstract
representations because consciousness is itsel! the originator an
sustainer o! all representations. 3onsciousness1 rather than being a
phenomenon base in !ormal or eterministic1 causal operations1 an
there!ore potentially possessing a complete or close !orm escription1 is
a mani!estation o! will an volition. Fhat we have all this time been
ienti!ying as consciousness has been merely a misienti!ication o! the
collective impression o! myria sense ata. 6hese sense ata are
themselves merely arti!acts o! consciousness1 which collectively
prouce a subtle meta-sensation or meta-perception1 as it were1 which is
ienti!ie as literal consciousness. Hn !act this meta-perception base in
collective presentation o! sense ata to the sub5ect is itsel! not the
meium o! e0perience but is embee an supporte within this
meium. =ere is a classic e0ample o! the
Kw=
rei!ication o! metaphor
into concept. Ht may be that concepts occupy the omain o! the
collective1 intersub5ective communications space while metaphors are
conceive an utilize by iniviual members o! this space.
6he actual process o!
Kw=
rei!ication taKes place when myria iniviuals
become linKe together into sympathetic collectives1 e.g.1 uring
culturally or historically signi!icant events in which presente speech is
capable o! proucing a much greater resonance1 proucing an
augmente sense o! signi!icance.
Ae: star treK transporter technology. Ht shoul be possible to
RtransportS any structure1 which can be instantiate. 6he uniqueness o!
the sel! implies that it is neither the result o! an instantiation1 nor is the
sel!-capable o! itsel! being the sub5ect o! instantiation. H! continuity is
an essential RpropertyS o! the sel!_s ientity1 then the sel! must be
constitute by a system which is necessarily open with respect to the
imension o! time. Ht can be shown that this requirement o! temporal
openness itsel! emans the requirement o! spatial openness.
6he phenomenon o! insight suggests that the in!orming o! some thought
processes oes not require consciousness. 3onsciousness only appears
to come into play when what is taKing place at the level o! the
subconscious proves thematically1 practically1 etc. relevant to the
situation o! the emboie host o! that consciousness or1 proves to be a
crucial connection o! pree0isting but !ragmentary Knowlege. ?ut
this iea oes not appear to satis!actorily account !or the !act o! this
constant bacKgroun o! what might be terme orinary consciousness
until it is realize that the e0istence o! a constant an ubiquitous
bacKrop o! orinary consciousness is altogether a myth. 6he
continuity o! consciousness is not some !ragile wisp o! a threa such
that1 shoul it be isrupte1 the ientity o! the iniviual precariously
supporte by it shoul be irrevocably lost. @or is the continuity o!
consciousness to be liKene to some Kin o! inconceivably tensile strong
connecting cor. ?ut the continuity o! consciousness1 which !rames the
basis o! iniviual ientity1 is capable o! continually being reacquire by
the iniviual. "o temporal continuity o! the iniviual which at !irst
appeare to unerpin his ientity is itsel! epenent upon a continuity o!
an altogether i!!erent Kin L that o! continuity with a substratum.
Aay Ourzweil_s talK on 3-"7/@.
@o preciseness o! etail in copying a person_s brain will permit the
uplication o! his consciousness in the absence o! the maintenance o!
crucial continuity.
6he problem o! logocentrism has eep implications !or another
important problem1 that o! arti!icial intelligence. 6he reason that the
pro5ect o! !ormalizing the process o! thought might ultimately prove
unworKable is that the !ormal aspects o! the process o! thought are
purely phenomenal an representational.
H! one_s recollection o! one_s reams can be truste1 that is1 then
numerous recollection o! having re!raine !rom the acting out o! se0ual
or aggressive impulses might inicate that -reu_s hypothesis o! reams
as mere subconscious acting out o! represse wish !ul!illment may be an
oversimpli!ication.
7art o! logocentrism lies in the structuring o! moments as possessing
relevance beyon their span. 3an we use this pro5ective language o!
eternal signi!icance all the while remaining cognizant o! living within
the structure paltritue o! the moment. /n is this perhaps the basis o!
sentimentality L the sensing o! the irony o! pro5ections o! culturally
base human signi!icance seen against the bacKrop o! ob5ective
insigni!icance. 9r is sentimentality base in realizing how one linKs up
with the rest o! humanity cross-culturally an cross-historically through
the universality o! basic human e0periences. .iKe the e!!ect o! hearing
a playing o! the "tar "pangle ?anner in the presence o! ')1))) other
RpatrioticS human beings.
3reative people are able to Rlive ownS the inignities an
isappointments o! li!e through the e0pression o! their inner con!licts
which connects them to similar con!licts in !ellow su!!erers. Fhile at
the same time symbolizing a healing path to their solution1 resolution1 or
merely their closure. "uch con!licts ranKle the uncreative iniviual who
must contrive inner compensatory perceptions an ieation which
inevitably gives rise to neurotic acting out which mysti!ies their more
unassuming1 well-a5uste peers.
epi=
R>ust because you are creative oesn_t mean you have to o that !or a
living.S
6he morbi esire to be a R!ly on the wallS characterizes a passive Kin
o! necrophilia in :rommDs sense of the necrophilous character. /s
progressively more avance surveillance technology becomes wiely
available to the average person1 uncreative1 powerless1 an neurotic
types will be in a newly ieal position to iscreit all those !or whom
they harbor a smolering 5ealousy an resentment. =umans o! normal or
above average intelligence are easily bore with almost anything
repetitive. 6he repetitiveness1 easy preictability1 an transparency o!
acts o! the narcissistic imagination1 however an the !act that1 a!ter years
on en1 one never seems to grow weary o! their enless replaying1
strongly suggests that it is not the whole person in !ungDs sense" but a
very small-soule1 petty an mean-spirite component o! the human
psyche1 which tirelessly lu0uriates in this series o! vignettes1 this show
in which this little but power!ul !ragment o! the sel! is the central star.
epi=
?linness to the mystery o! e0istence is intimately relate to the
problem o! .ogocentrism. Ht has been sai that the most pro!oun
metaphysical puzzle is that o! the !ollowing: Rwhy is there something
rather than nothing?S H say that a mystery !ar transcening this one is the
more intimately private mystery o! one_s personal e0istence L not the
mystery o! ob5ective e0istence. 6he answer to the ob5ective mystery1 i!
you will1 is Rout thereS although humanKin or even its more gi!te
escenants may inee never succee in ivining it. 6hough it may be
any number o! brilliant iniviuals who are born within the ne0t
thousan years1 say1 who shall have an equal chance1 i! talent alone
su!!ices1 to iscover it.
Qd
=owever1 onesel! alone may arrive at the
answer to the mystery o! one_s own e0istenceT Ht is not by virtue o! some
abstract !eature or relation that one possesses the ientity one has. 6he
uniqueness o! one_s ientity quite succees in ruling out such a basis !or
personal ientity. Hn other wors1 it is not by virtue o! one_s ientity
instantiating some general concept" category or class that one has come
to be or is who one is. Ht is at this point that one is !ace with the real
an possibly isturbing implications o! the uniqueness o! one_s being. H!
the cru0 o! one_s personal ientity is truly eternal1 then the basis o! one_s
ientity woul simply be a Kin o! continuity o! some monaic
substance wherein temporal continuity is only one among multiple
aspects.
7ermanent reuction in the genetic iversity o! a given enangere
species is easily enough e0plaine in terms o! the relative probability o!
a given genetic combination1 i.e.1 genome with respect to other probable
genomes. 6he more a species_ gene pool contracts the greater the
relative probability o! the occurrence o! a given genetic pattern. "o i!
concerne organizations are to rebuil a species1 it may only o so
quantitatively1 but not qualitatively. / reuction in the number o!
iniviuals in a given breeing population by hal! results in a much
greater than hal! reuction in the number o! possible permutations o!
genes within the genome. /lso1 the probability o! large !luctuations
about the Rgenetic meanS is greatly increase since in general the
magnitue o! !luctuations is proportional to one over the square root o!
n.
>anuary 2)*2
6his peculiar mathematical property o! !luctuations seems
well suite to the aims o! evolution as a blin1 conative ynamic
enlessly e0ploring a rugge !itness lanscape1 which is itself shot
throughFanFthrough with esign.
>anuary 2)*(
@o a!terli!e in WthisW timeline.

Aanom mutation combine with natural selection coul only be
e!!ective in maneuvering through an along a rugge !itness lanscape
o! potentially more highly orere biological systems i! mutation is
thought to be !unamentally similar to the a5ustment but chance o!
settings on a machineGs operating system.

Qd
-urther evience that churches are houses o! spiritual complacency: all
one has to o is atten any Christian church an listen to the preacherGs
opening prayer. =ow passionate is he in the elivery o! this prayer?
:oes the preacher looK up to heaven? Fhat are his mannerisms1
gesticulations an !acial e0pressions evient uring the elivery o! the
prayer? :oes his boy language conspire to signi!y great humility1 great
love an great 5oy? ,sually it patently oes not1 an this is the per!ect
inicator that the preacher1 eep in his inner being oes not really
believe what he preachesV he oes not really believe the woner!ul
promises that have been mae to him an all 3hristians in 4oGs wor.
9n the other han1 i! he maKes a convincing isplay as a petitioner1
humble be!ore his 3reator1 wouln_t what we Know in our hearts about
human hollowness an super!iciality cause us to suspect !acticity in the
great ma5ority o! cases?
)**2*(

8y e0perience o! another person_s perceptions1 thoughts1 etc. coul only
be perceive to be communicably i!!erent provie that the other
person_s perceptions o! ob5ects1 !or e0ample1 is structure i!!erently1
i.e.1 the !orm is i!!erent although the Rraw !eelsS is not perceive to be
i!!erent. /ny i!!erences1 which can be perceive1 can be mae the
sub5ect o! language which is e0clusively a system o! i!!erences. 6he
e!inition o! similarity implicitly presupposes ientity o! e0periences.
Ht is i!!icult to grasp this at !irst because we are bewitche by the notion
o! re!erring perception to ob5ects. :i!!ering perceptions o! a given
ob5ect/situation are re5oine at opposite ens by virtue o! i!!erent
iniviuals possessing both a common language an a common
environment.
/s wonrous as awaKening in the !uture a!ter many years o! sleep might
at !irst seem1 one_s greatest impression woul be that o! isolation an
loneliness.
Hnteractive versus representational passive learning in chilren. "mall
chilren have very little conte0t !or interpreting representations.
.ogocentrism is partly comprise by the
Kw=
rei!ication1 i! you will1 o!
technique Cborn o! necessityD into art1 that is1 as something which is
appreciate as an en in itsel!. Ht is sel!-awareness itsel!1 which is
responsible !or this R
Kw=
rei!ication o! technique.S
7ictorial representation is !ollowe by abstract or stylize representation1
which is in turn !ollowe by arbitrary representation in the !orm o!
language/writing. /bstract versus concrete is not an e0act binary
opposition because however concrete e0perience is1 it presupposes a
certain amount o! processing an !iltering o! sensory Cboth RinternalS
an Re0ternalSD ata. 6he RconceptS RarbitraryS oes not quite succee
in being what it appears to be because arbitrary representations are
always implemente within some meium in which the meium taKes on
some small but not none0istent role in etermining the meaning o! the
so-calle arbitrary symbols transmitte Rthrough it.S Fe see that each
entity is what it is in part by being in!use with its other. 6his is
particularly striKing in the case o! representation in which there is a
close system o! complementary !igure an groun. H! it is true that we
o not really possess genuine concepts1 then whenever a concept is
re!erre to by its name1 we shoul1 in recognition o! this !unamental
limitation o! all our concepts1 place the concept name within quotation
marKs. 6he lacK o! clarity an istinctness o! all concepts means that
the binary opposition o! use versus mention must breaKown1 an the
3artesian epistemology along with it.
/n open system shoul be in!inite not only in quantity but also in
quality. 6he unity o! an open system must be a transcenental unity L a
unity simultaneously o! an within the in!inite. / basic principle
generally e0hibite by the evolutionary process is the !reeom o!
parameters that are le!t unboun by the ictates o! natural selection.
Hs it conceivable !or mathematical entities to be the proucts o!
engineering? 6he e0istence o! physical meia structure an organize
accoring to mathematical principles/relationships may be e0plaine in
terms o! eternally pree0istent physical meia/ynamics in combination
with various type o! selection mechanism1 selection. ?ut such
evolutionary mechanisms woul not be available to account !or
mathematical orer such that1 i! mathematical/logical orer coul be
shown to be in some important way contingent rather than necessary1
then this orer woul itsel! have to be viewe as arti!icial.
Fhat we have here is what =eiegger might have terme a shi!t o! the
reay-to-han to the present-to-han. 3lose !orm mathematical
relationships are mere escriptions1 which correspon to open !orm
!eebacK structures within the quantum vacuum. 6riggering reminers
are tuning parameters o! morphic resonance.
R?ut we won_t over tighten the ligament so he won_t get his mobility
bacK.S 6his is an e0ample o! a raically ambiguous sentence L raical
in the sense that the alternative interpretations are contraries.
8orphic resonance with the latent e0perience o! progressively more
issimilar entities/mins will reveal more abstract !eatures o! share
e0perience.
/s quicKly enough becomes apparent when someone mishears or
misunerstans onesel!. Hs there a type o! Rmis-reachingS or
RmisunerstanS o! material !or which there is no possible checK1 i.e.1
the sub5ective components o! the contents o! ones consciousness1 which
are taKen to be equally containe in our communications to
listeners/reaers? Hs it meaning!ul to postulate such a component o! the
content o! consciousness1 i.e.1 sub5ectivity/
6hinK o! all particles being e0citations o! the vacuum accoring to an
analogy with thoughts1 perceptions1 !eelings1 an other mental structures
being e0citations o! the gray matter within our brains.
"ociety an culture ampli!ies the alreay e0tant1 but moest physical an
psychological i!!erences between the se0es.
/mpli!ication always increases the magnitue o! noise along with
signal1 but also introuces aitional noise. Hs there a Kin o!
ampli!ication in which not only aitional noise is introuce by also
aitional signal? "ome o! the aitional noise introuce woul
inevitably be e0traneous in!ormation signals1 i.e.1 signals !rom other
transmitters. @oise1 we might say1 all comes !rom the same place1
whereas in!ormation signals come !rom istinct transmitters. 6his
points up the question o! whether there is any nonarbitrary basis !or
istinguishing what is calle RnoiseS !rom what is calle Rsignal.S
8ight noise arise !rom the incoherent inter!erence o! a number o!
istinct in!ormation signals. Fhat then arises !rom their coherent
inter!erence? =ere we see the necessary e0istential re!erence o! an
un!ille covey hole o! a Rtabular system1S e.g.1 blanK bo0 in the perioic
table o! elements1 RmissingS top quarK o! quantum chromoynamic
theory1 etc.
6he groun o! e0istence oes not e0ist1 but has being. Ht has !orm but
not substance. 6he groun o! being oes not itsel! possess being. Ht
has neither !orm nor substance. ?ut this gets problematic through the
necessary complications resulting !rom i!!erentiating these concepts
an istinctions !or both the unique1 iniviual an sub5ective !rom the
rational1 collective an intersub5ective. 6he relation represente by
RaboutnessS cannot be a per!ect one1 but necessarily involves a
pro5ection. /boutness unerstoo as a real relation not involving
pro5ection1 an hence1 a certain egree o! illusion1 is quite parao0ically1
the meaning!ul re!erence to a thing1 a RcorresponenceS with it which
must touch the ob5ect without touching it. 6his is to e0tract a e!inition
o! RaboutnessS through the consistent observation o! the term_s use.
Fhat sort o! necessary con!usion are we lane in when we contemplate
the question1 Rwhat is the term RaboutnessS about?S
:o we have a general problem o! iscontinuity o! meaning i! we
imagine that abstract terms can be treate as substantives whenever their
meaning an !unction become themselves the sub5ect o! philosophical
inquiry?
:o iniviual persons !unction as Rpoles o! realityS 5ust as o the poles
o! a !unction in the comple0 C/rganD plane1 where the solutions o! the
comple0 polynomial !unction approach points along an asymptote? 3an
certain wors in a language !unction in this way asymptotically1 with the
poles o! meaning care!ully hien within the !abric o! iscourse?
Foul this be a case o! meaning !unctioning accoring to a pro5ection
an not in terms o! corresponence with essences? 3.!.1 worKs o!
+avier Jubiri.
6he activity o! thought may be place in an orer upon a spectrum or
a0is accoring to the egree to which this activity isrupts its own1
constitutive groun. 6he notion o! orinary physical ob5ects1 as
oppose to ultrahigh energy subatomic particles1 perhaps occupies one
en o! this spectrum1 the en at which there e0ists the least possible
isruption. Fhile on the opposite en lies metaphysical or
psychological conceptual insight1 as oppose to abstract analysis where
the potential !or isruption is perhaps at its greatest. "ome activities o!
thought will interact strongly with it1 but without isrupting it in any
way L this is a Kin o! resonance o! the activity o! thought with its
groun. /n these resonance properties are i!!erent in cases where
collective thought Ca notion inamissible in Aanian thoughtD is
concerne.
Fittgenstein_s revelation to us that meaning is etermine through use in
accorance with various iscourse-epenent language games might
appear to unercut our ability to inepenently philosophize. 6he
question arises whether or not assertion loses some o! its !orce when it is
unerstoo as taKing place solely within iscourse-epenent language
games. 6he concept o! the iscourse-epenence o! propositional
assertion is an acKnowlegement o! the perhaps metaphorical
CconnotativeD nature o! thought that is o! necessity conte0tually boun.
/ common iscourse is presuppose by any meaning!ully progressive
activity o! sociopolitical cooperation. Fhat woul in the conte0t o! !ree
marKet economic theory be terme collusion. Fhereas it is the
breaKown o! a lingua !ranca o! common iscourse within the
sociopolitical arena which leas to the breaKing o!! o! mutual
negotiations an the !alling bacK onto naKe competition o! oppose
powers. 3ommonality o! iscourse is simply an agreement1 either
consciously articulate or implicit1 in the way terms are to be e!ine.
Ht is also constitute by the scope o! re!erence o! various commonly hel
categories an the methos utilize in implementing them. /n the
collective aherence to a means o! arbitration even when its
conseBuences are seemingly ineBuitable 1 i.e.1 principles1 but lacKing
these1 susceptibility to particular canons o! rhetoric also1 in part1
constitute it.
6hat the various epiphenomena o! language such as rhyming1 meter
CcaenceD1 punning1 alliteration1 etc.1 o not always mani!est themselves
e0clusively as such suggests not the hien irrationality o! language1 but
its hyperrationality. 6here is a eepening o! meaning which taKes place
suenly when1 noting the eeper abstract meanings o! wors through
having contemplate the unity o! their isparate acceptations1 hereto!ore
unnotice or thought altogether unrelate1 one glimpses the application
o! a single concept in two substantively istinct universes o! iscourse.
Fe !orget that wors re!er to thoughts1 i! they re!er at all1 rather than to
Rthings.S 6houghts1 on the other han1 o not re!er to or correspon
with anything at all1 but rather cohere.
6here are two Kins o! RtracKingS o! a solution: via a ynamical
mathematical-liKe relationship1 via a grasping o! the solution which
tenaciously hols onto it as it attempts to !lee unerstaning. Hn the !irst
case there is corresponence between the escription o! the ynamical
system an the system itsel!V in the secon case there is coherence o! the
!eebacK o! the system an that o! the min seeKing to Rcomprehen it.S
6he laer o! e0crescent i!!erence lies in the invention an iscovery o!
ieas. 6here shoul be a verbal noun that is miway on the spectrum o!
meaning that lies between invention an iscovery. "ca!!oling o!
thought. ;very arenaline rush1 which comes with the revelation o!
insight1 intimates a previously unsuspecte source o! creative power. Ht
is the intimately personal insight o! sel! iscovery that unerlies the zeal
!or intellectual activity1 is it1 not the esire !or communication?
Fe can maKe a parallel istinction to that o! real versus virtual particles
with regar to real versus virtual thoughts. Fhat allows this is the
quantum vacuum_s role as not only a reservoir o! energy but also o!
in!ormation.
/quinas: that which is sub5ect to ivision possesses potentiality L the
ecomposition o! the 7si in terms o! an incompatible observable1 giving
rise to an uncertainty o! this observable an so temporal !luctuations in
this observable. Hn!inite regress o! the !inite containing an integral
escription o! itsel! an things are only completely e0plicable in terms
o! an in!inite conte0t L but multiple in!inite embeing conte0ts are
available. Fhat maKes the i!!erence is which o! these in!inite conte0ts
actually embe the RthingS in question.
-orget!ulness1 being easily istracte1 poor sense o! irection1 etc. L
these are some o! the symptoms o! being in a ream state1 or at least a
state o! incomplete waKe!ulness.
"ome o! these symptoms o! consciousness e!icit or inaequate thought
control are base upon an iealization o! consciousness1 which are in
turn base upon an implicit notion o! what per!ect consciousness an
per!ect thought control might be liKe. 7erhaps it can be shown that
these iealizations o! consciousness an will presuppose precise
etermination1 simultaneously1 o! incompatible preicates.
:oes the inepenence o! the spin quantum number !rom .orentz
trans!ormations imply that there is no substance interaction1 i.e.1 in the
sense o! proucing ynamical e!!ects1 between spin an R!lat
spacetime.S
/ philosophical conunrum in mathematics is create because o! the
ichotomy in the ;nglish language represente by the ual opposition1
invention versus iscovery. 7erhaps there is another language in which
such a istinction oes not e0ist1 but wherein there is simply some wor
or other which possesses a meaning miway between or inclusive o!
both o! these notions. / similar arbitrary C in the sense o! its language-
bounenessD ual istinction is represente by the opposition1 ata
versus in!ormation.
Fhat we have been saying is that reality is not arboreal but rhizomatic in
its organizationV it is a multiplicity o! potential unities.
9ne possibility1 which oes not appear to have been entertaine because
it is unthinKable within the presently reigning scienti!ic paraigm1 is the
!ollowing. /t some level o! physical reality1 perhaps at its very subtlest
an eepest1 within the core o! each iniviual person_s ?eing operates a
ynamic an1 yes1 unique1 set o! physical laws. 6hese iniviual
physical laws1 accoring to which this an only this particular person_s
ynamic being operates1 must be o! an altogether istinct orer !orm the
conventionally base1 intersub5ective laws o! classical an even quantum
physics operates.
Fhat is the general nature o! e!!ects resulting !rom the !iltering or
interaction o! unique entities within a !ormalizable system?
9ne might say that the ,niverse is a Kin o! institution o! the collective
o! ivine persons1 which solves the problem o! their isolation1 but at the
cost o! their !reeom.
6he !ree will o! the iniviual1 the irect evience !or which is only
glimpse by the iniviual himsel!1 is the surest testimony to the !act
that the iniviual is a coherent1 open system an is beyon any possible
escription. 6his iniviual is its own primum mobile. 6he !ree will
o! the iniviual bespeaKs his in!initue.
-reeom an originality are the characteristics o! minV automaticity is
the e!ining characteristic o! boy.
6he operation o! the !ree will o! iniviuals prouces a bacK-reaction
within the quantum vacuum1 which prouces nonlocal e!!ects upon this
vacuum that results in local e!!ects upon prepare quantum systems
Cescribable by a particular wave!unction1 7siD.
Fhen the brain maKes a transition to one global energy level to another
through a virtual transition1 neural synapses act liKe >osephson 5unctions
across which neural impulses quantum mechanically tunnel. /nother
way to see the possibility o! quantum tunneling within the brain_s neural
networK might be via consieration o! the 5umping !rom one classical
!ormal logico-euctive system to another when this transition is not
meiate by some metalogical system embeing the initial an !inal
!ormal systems. 6he brain may be viewe in this way as a collection o!
switches an routing circuits !or the quantum vacuum energy !iel out o!
which it is continually being recreate Calong with all other matterD.
Fhen the brain thinKs1 it simply connects utterly novel circuits within
the vacuum !iel1 as well as inhibiting others1 which isrupts the
otherwise uni!ie pattern o! in!ormation processing within this vacuum1
causing the vacuum to Rrecalculate a new uni!ie ynamic state.S
;0istence an none0istence are not truly ual opposite CbinaryD
categories as both categories may have being as such in common1 e.g.1
mathematical L one speaKs o! a theorem Re0istingS or Rnot e0istingS.
6he question arises in this connection1 however1 as to whether ?eing an
@othingness !orm with one another a binary opposition.
6he topological R!etish o! substanceS. 3ontinuity is o! two types: the
continuity o! a thing with itsel! through time Ccontinuity HD an the
continuity o! a thing with the substrate out o! which it was constitute
an is continuously sustaine Ccontinuity HHD. Ht perhaps seems a !orgone
conclusion that continuity o! the !irst type necessarily epens upon that
o! the secon type. 3hange seems to presuppose a sub5ect o! change
an so continuity H is important !or temporality1 but1 as note many times
earlier1 a close system possesses structure1 perhaps1 but no !unctionV it
oes not interact with anything outsie itsel!. /ll possible interactions1
which a given ob5ect may have with other entities1 i.e.1 the Routsie1S are
pre!igure by the interaction it continually has with the ob5ect_s
embeing substrate1 which constitutes an sustains its e0istence.
/pril
2)**
Fhat taKes place within a close Cstan-aloneD system cannot maKe
re!erence to anything within a omain1 ieal or real1 lying beyon itsel!
an so everything which happens insie the system is etermine by
happenings within the system. Fhat happens with the system is conte0t-
!ree an hence is not Rabout anythingS. "uch as system lacKs what is
terme intentionality. http://plato.stan!or.eu/entries/content-
e0ternalism/
6here can be no overall coherence o! reality an coherence taKes place
within a given moment. ;ach moment has a characteristic hal!-li!e.
3ontinuous shi!ting o! the microparaigm o! everyayness1 which serves
as the unerlying groun o! each moment1 causes the moment to !all
behin in its attempt to Keep up with this unerlying change. 6he
moment must maintain itsel! by virtue o! the same sort o! activity1 or1
interactivity1 which relates it to its groun out o! which it was originally
constitute. 6he moment can only Keep up with the trans!ormation o!
its groun by abanoning the preservation o! its istinct ientity.
3oherence is base upon !iltration o! in!orming signals !rom groun.
6here are two Kins o! passing away there!ore: issolution an
obsolescence. /n these two types o! passing away are in constant
opposition with one another. 6his is what accounts !or the transience o!
the moment.
6here is a tension between seeing more an more the hollowness o!
rhetoric an glimpsing insights into its signi!icance1 which transcens
everyayness. 6he iniviual participant in the iscourse can contribute
certain small innovations in iscourse1 in the !orm o! new rhetorical
evices. Aaical revolutions in a iscourse are by e!inition not
possible as they utterly isrupt the conte0t o! iscourse so that invention
an innovation are no longer taKing place within the iscourse.
:iscourse evolves historically an collectively as technology an society
unergo their mutual in!luence. .anguage contains conceptual
structures1 which no iniviual person place there. .anguage e0hibits
the thought o! the collective consciousness.
@othing is coinciental which the min can seize upon as a missing
puzzle piece o! signi!icance.
Fe must realize that all along what we have been calling reality has 5ust
been its mani!estation. $))) /:
Fhether one is a believing 3hristian or a con!irme atheist1 one has to
amit that any thorough e0amination o! accounts o! the li!e o! >esus
oes not reveal1 uner any egree o! scrutiny1 the least suggestion that
>esus was not a person possessing the greatest humility1 integrity1 an
love !or his !ellow humans.
H! the truth cannot be Known1 then what is to serve as truth_s Rstan-inS
or representative?
7er!ormativity: abanoning representation1 e.g.1 the iscovery o!
general laws1 an seeKing practices1 proceures that RworK.S
@ecrophilic representations o! Knowlege are only possible through
issection an isruption o! the ob5ect. R/nthropologyS participatory
Knowlege only possible through a isruption o! the sub5ect. 6he
consierable unerlying in!luence in the aesthetics operative in the
appeal o! scienti!ic theories1 philosophical tenets1 religious octrines1
etc.1 nees to be e0plore more !ully.
"ome !oreign wors1 e.g.1 Rgemeutlich1S RschmucK1S etc. soun more
liKe what they are intene to mean to an ;nglish speaKing person than
o their corresponing ;nglish translations. 6his observation seems to
go against "aussure_s iea o! the connection o! meaning an signi!ier
being completely arbitrary. Fhat can be sai about systems in which
categories are generate permutationally1 combinationally1 but in which
Rnull categoriesS appear? @ull categories are categories in which
signi!icance o! the categories is arbitrary with respect to the system o!
enote meanings1 but which seems to complete the system while more
or less maintaining the system_s sel!-consistency. @umerous e0amples
o! this can be rawn !rom the !iels o! chemistry1 biology an particle
physics.
RFe shoul see the sign as arbitrary1 that is its relation with the concept
signi!ie1 or the thing that is its re!erent1 is acciental1S c.!.1 /uieboo'
to Derria on Deconstruction.
?ecause ?eing cannot be merely Ra being1S i! !ollows that ?eing is not a
unity1 a !inishe thing.
6hought to some signi!icant e0tent always appears out o! conte0t with
respect to its embeing consciousness. 6hough always requires
aitional processing1 i.e.1 Rreprocessing1S to taKe hol o! its estine
meaning. 6hought is always tentative1 not merely a representation1 but
always partly a move to galvanize the will.
/ll have sinne an !allen short o! the glory o! 4o. /re each o! us
here together because each has committe the sin e!ining an
characteristic o! its being.
3ult usually interprete an rei!ie epiphenomena o! hormonally
meiate genetically programme responses to internal an e0ternal
stimuli. /re charitable acts mani!estations o! the charitable spirit Cspirit
o! charityD or1 is the notion/concept o! charity an abstraction !rom
myria similar actions. =ow are we to unerstan the play o!
i!!erence amongst the sub5ective e0periences o! istinct iniviuals.
3an we interpret these i!!erences along the lines o! those within a
single iniviual. -iltering o! signals/signs1 their ampli!ication1
generalization into abstract categories1 an then their
Kw=
rei!ication.
6he clarity o! a communication is etermine by the level o!
insight!ulness o! the listener. Fors are only elements o! a hint
intene to prouce a hunch in the recipient. 6he ob5ection that a
proposition or argument is base on a R!uzzy conceptS is not to
e!!ectively assert that this concept !unctions Rinaequately.S Fe Know
the !uture1 but our lips are seale concerning all o! its a!!airs e0cept
those which are still ineterminate.
>esus_ sacri!ice was both a symbolic an a metaphysical un-oing o! the
original sin o! 8an1 originating in turn with .uci!er_s prou1
vainglorious rebellion against 4o.
6he height o! intellectual suggestibility is that ieas which woul have
never occurre to us quicKly appear inevitable a!ter their avent.
/aptation o! stimuli1 !or e0ample1 reasons which on_t necessarily have
anything to o with in!ormation processing. :egeneracy o! ata an
energy with respect to in!ormation: "ince wave!unctions are an arti!act
o! close systems1 ue to the necessity o! speci!ying their initial an
bounary conitions1 7si cannot be ienti!ie with in!ormation1 unless
7si is an in!inite superposition o! a continuity o! eigen!unctions.
Fhatever is responsible !or an iniviual_s consciousness is also
responsible !or all o! that iniviual_s choices an actions. Fhat oes
the rampant increase in the number o! persons possessing prescriptions
!or antiepressants an anti-an0iety meication suggest? :awning
greater awareness o! sel! which is hanle in two basic an istinctly
i!!erent ways epening upon the temperament o! the person as being
either inner- or outer-irecte.
7erceptron 3onvergence 6heorem: 6he perceptron converges a!ter a
!inite number o! presentations o! stimulus-response pairs because the
imensionality o! the !inite imensional vector spaces o! the solutions
Csolution spaceD is no greater than the collective imensionality o! the
sum total o! stimulus-response pairs presente to the perceptron.
3onvergence o! iterative solution o! transcenental !unctions: -irst
e0pan the transcenental !unctions into polynomial representations.
7erceptron pro5ects a series e0pansion base upon an iteratively
evelope rule !or calculating the coe!!icients o! the polynomial terms.
6he real perceptron vector1 a pro5ection base upon the !inite set o!
stimulus-response pair representations1 must approach the solution
vector closely enough !or convergence to Rset in.S
,se the story o! how /ristotle_s chapter1 8etaphysics1 trans!orme into
the concept by which that term is Known in moern times. 6his story
shoul serve to illustrate the insiious sel!-organizing properties o!
.ogocentrism. Fhat appears to motivate all these people with
Feb7ages on the Hnternet is not merely the e0pression o! what they !eel
is unique about themselves1 e.g.1 acting nobly1 Runto eath1S1 i.e.1 R5ust
!or the recor1S cracKing 5oKes to which only onesel! is privy Csel!
stimulation/ampli!ication o! one_s incommunicable networK o! private1
Ryou ha to be thereS associations1 but in orer to actually communicate
to Rthe otherS all o! this. 6he 9ther is in reality the parental !igure.
6he !igure-groun uality o! sKepticism versus !aith1 truth vs. relativism1
holism vs. reuctionism1 liberal vs. conservative1 nature vs. nurture1
original unerstaning vs. legal positivism1 logocentrism vs.
postmoernism1 monist vs. pluralist1 capitalist vs. socialist1 etc.
Ht is perhaps easier to !ollow the author o! a raical octrine i! one !eels
that1 rather than being his arbitrary creation1 he is but its iscoverer.
6his way the aherent or evotee o! the octrine can imagine that both
he an Rthe guruS are participating in a revelation an its issemination
which is o! greater signi!icance than either.
/ 3onstitution shoul be viewe as a Kin o! braKe upon rampant social
an political evolution. Ht is not meant to be a ocument1 which
provies a once !or all promulgation o! limits/structure.
6he contingency o! environmental conitions applie in the !orm o!
natural selection to ranom mutations in the human genome is belie by
the iniviual_s sense o! his own coherence an inevitability he vitally
!eels that his e0istence possesses.
6he action o! will is how to account !or the stability an persistence o!
systems an structures evoi o! e0ternal !ounation. Hnchoate
origination versus the uncovering o! 7latonic !orms.
=ow novelty is generalize through permutation an combination o!
elements o! an open system. :oes the openness o! the system eman
that Rits elementsS be in!ormational conuits rather than bits o! ata?
6he elements o! an open system can never completely belong to that
system but participate at the same time Rin other systems.S 6his brings
up the question o! how oes one istinguish two or more open systems
when1 each by virtue o! being open1 is not sel! ientical. =owever !ree
we liKe to consier ourselves with regar to our emotional1 intuitive1 an
intellectual !aculties1 etc.1 there is espite this the im recognition that
we are all boun within the con!ines o! the epoch o! history in which we
resie. 6he latest technological evelopments an the playing out o!
revolutionary social an cultural implications1 these we certainly will not
have a goo grasp o!1 particularly as they emerge towar the eclining
years o! our lives. /ny still later evelopments are beyon the
vanishing horizon o! our !inite so5ourn on this planet.
6he history o! philosophy is a testament to manKin_s greatest e!!orts to
thinK his way out o! the wet paper bag that has Kept his min in
arKness. 6here is a growing sense an e0pectancy that the !ibers o!
this bag are beginning to separate. 8an may well regret getting what he
!or so long has apparently been seeKing.
?aKhtin_s concept o! ieas as living entities is allue to in his 7roblems
o! :ostoevsKy_s 7oetics. 8etaphor constitutes the ialogic essence o!
ieas. =ere is the notion o! essence not base in the intrinsic nature o! a
sel!-ientical entity.
Ht is possible !or the course o! evelopment o! the iniviual to be
altere by circumstance because myria an in !act unlimite istinct
possible uni!ications o! the sel! are always open to it. 6his is perhaps
the basis o! the !reeom o! the will.
9perations o! a generality greater than that consciously intene by a
te0t_s author are always reveale upon re!lection o! the author upon the
operations by which the te0t has been constructe/is being constructe
CuseD. 6he author may thence!orth procee to prouce aitional te0t
in which such higher level operations are written about CmentioneD. "o
there appears to be an upwarly spiraling ialectic o! use an mention
relating the te0t to the author_s re!lections upon his state o! min uring
the te0t_s construction. 6here oes not appear to be any natural
termination point in this upwar spiral o! te0t/commentary L
use/mention.
-or language to possess the capacity o! !unctioning in the econstructive
role in which :erria intens to utilize it1 language must possess
application beyon system an beyon the realm o! the empirically
Knowable. .anguage must allow the possibility o! metaphysics i! it is
to !unction as a econstructive tool.
"pace is an outsie without an insie an 6ime is an insie without an
outsie. "pace an 6ime require eterminate an ineterminate
topologies1 respectively. /cting out an internal genetic program
embee in culture an moulate by immeiate circumstances1 acting
upon a eterminate set o! ata inputs. @ee this process be in!orme by
anything so nebulous in its conception as consciousness?
3onvergence an coherence1 a pulling towar a center which is not
secretly an imbalance between opposing pushing !orces seems to
eman action at a istance an suggests the action o! a Kin o! Rurge
towar a center.S @onlocal quantum connectivity shoul su!!ice to
prouce such e!!ects in systems o! particles an !iels.
;ncountering a wor in quotes causes us to pause an re!lect upon the
possible broaer an eeper meanings intene by the author o! the te0t1
meanings which are somehow encoe within the unerlying thrust o!
novelty which might be invoKe by the te0t as a whole. 6he quotation
marKs are a request to the reaer to suspen their normal re!le0es o!
interpretation. 6he ineterminacy o! the te0t quicKly grows out o!
bouns as one places more an more wors o! the te0t within quotation
marKs. 6he te0t is open-ene against un!oreseen evelopments o! new
metaphorical groun. ?ut coul such novel interpretations o! the te0t
which may be applie to it in light o! a shi!t in groun have been
e0presse in a i!!erent te0tual !ormulation prior to any shi!t having
occurre. 6he possibility o! this woul imply that cultural an social
change are epiphenomenal an have no inepenent in!orming in!luence
upon the ineterminate matri0 !rom which the system o! i!!erences
emboie in the te0t are rawn. Ht woul still more imply that cultural
an social structures are nothing more than implicit but nonetheless
eterminate semiotic structures. 6he collective culture as ynamic
!eebacK structures o! the interplay o! Rcultures o! one.S 6his interplay
metastablizes itsel! a!ter the !ashion o! the emergence o! stable ynamic
structures o! cellular automata. Hs the stability o! the ienti!ications o!
meaning groune in the iiomatic conceptions o! meaning within the
collectivity o! counterpoise Rcultures o! one.S
H must escribe the implications !or a octrine o! what might be calle
Rcollective iealismS o! the events taKing place in a ream H recently
ha. H was in an un!amiliar house into which entere an attractive
young woman. 6his woman apparently ha some business she was
attening to in this house. H suenly become aware o! the soun o! a
clocK-raio type o! alarm. H_m searching all over the house !or the
source o! this alarm1 but my hea is not very clear as H search through a
Kin o! 5unK room !ille with myria somewhat antiquate looKing
electronic evices1 complete with tangle electrical cors. /ny one o!
the evices coul have been the source o! the annoying alarm. H_m
an0ious to turn o!! this alarm so that H can then set about chatting up the
woman1 so that H can1 o! course1 hope!ully get her into be. ?ut there
was a istinct absence o! the usual physical laws operating within this
ream1 i.e.1 e.g.1 conservation laws1 causality1 etc. ?ut what is really
lacKing her is the logic o! the reamer_s own min. =a H ha greater
presence o! min1 H coul have easily ienti!ie Rthe sourceS o! the
alarm Cwhich1 o! course1 is really my alarm clocKTD1 shut it o!! an
procee on to more interesting scenes. <ou can_t hear what the people
are saying as you pass aroun the corner1 because you on_t really try to
listen to what they are saying. <ou can_t really !in what you_re looKing
!or because you_re not really looKing systematically or iligently
enough1 etc. /ll this points up the possibility !or a viable alternative
e0planation !or the relationship o! persons an o! persons to the worl
Rin which they live.S
Hn reams we isconnect !rom the collective Cvo0 populiD an practice
the Rcharm o! maKingS solo. ;very nemesis has a nemesis o! its own.
=ow power!ul are the e!!ects o! se0ual selection relative to those o!
natural selection. Fhen cultural stanars an norms o! what is
beauti!ul or attractive mutate/shi!t. 6he pattern o! se0ual selection may
raically shi!t. Hentity supplementation through use o! ientity
accessory a-ons.
-rom a conversation with >ennie: se0ual selection becomes more
important the more mobile a society becomes a!ter clan1 !amily1 an
community barriers have broKen own. /re iniviuals_ genetic
compatibility iscovere/meiate through e0change o! chemical
pheromone messages? 3ompatibility in marriage means not Rhaving to
worK to sustain the marriage.S 8aturity is reache earlier in less
comple0/ avance societies an in these societies iniviual personality
i!!erences cannot be evelope as !reely or iiosyncratically as they can
be in more avance an a!!luent cultures. 9ur 5ugements o! others1
especially when articulate1 are always prophecies o! 5ugements that
will come to be mae o! us. 6he only way to breaK the bon o! Oarma
is to su!!iciently isrupt the continuity o! the sel!1 say1 through a
humbling conversion e0perience.
Hnterconvertibility o! istinct phenomenological meia. Hs the notion o!
substance implie here? Fhat bearing oes topology have on the
problems o! substance? 6he process by which metaphors are chosen to
represent1 convey1 enable the insight o! a given poetic motion1 an the
manner in which wors are chosen to articulate the metaphor Cas well as
what it representsD. 6his process must be e0amine an observations
concerning human impressionability1 suggestibility woul be brought to
bear on our unerstaning o! this metaphor-creation process. /lso1 the
;l 4reco !allacy must play an important role in this iscussion.
?roKers versus purveyors o! ieas . . .
Hntersub5ectivity o! resonant structures/!ilters1 c.!.1 triangle-square
inversion1 i.e.1 ;l 4reco parao0.
:eath as a spiritual separation !rom 4o. "o what woul being
eprive o! the in!orming interaction o! the iniviual an :ivine souls
be liKe? 3haotic an reamliKe? Foul there be evolution o!
causality?
Fhat is it that we taKe !or grante about our worl which might easily
have been i!!erent an which might !ascinate1 perple0 an !righten
beings !rom other planets or imensions. ;ach person other than
onesel! comes !rom another imension.
:escartes_ seuctive iea concerning the e0istence o! 4o was the
question
epi=
Rwhence comes the iea o! 4o?1S i! there is nothing to
which this iea correspons in reality?
epi=
/ critic is most vehemently critical when !ace with those telltale
earmarKs o! absent talent1 which he e0hibite in his own abanone
worK.
?ecause representation an escription presupposes consciousness1 the
iscovery o! the e0planation !or consciousness will actually be an
invention on the part o! each iniviual person as he evelops a new
consciousness !rom a pre-e0isting one. Fe must istinguish between
the problem o! e0plaining the origin o! the iniviual consciousness
!rom the much broaer problem o! e0plaining the origin o!
consciousness as such. 6his istinction between consciousness an its
various mani!estations points up a breach between the ual categories1
iniviual an collective1 in!rasub5ective an intersub5ective. 3.!.1 Fell
/1 on the impossibility o! utilizing inuction to evelop intersub5ective
laws o! consciousness.
@ew interpersonal languages are constructe through a collective1
ialectical process in which no in!ormation is ever transmitte !rom one
person to another. /re issues o! currency1 !amiliarity1 issemination1
etc.1 really separate !rom those concerne with ob5ective truth?
6he truth o! the collective as constitute by a circular argument which is
only persuasive to those who1 as Ouhn says1 Rstep into the circle.S 6he
circle may only be complete a!ter passing through multiple levels an/or
conte0ts.
.i!e an 8in are e0amples o! things in themselves1 although these are
only Known through their mani!estations1 which are always mere
representations. 3reation is the prouction o! a rational orer !lowing
out o! an irrational groun.
H! the te0t has a Kin o! vital essence as though possessing a will Cor
min o! its ownD1 then the econstructive process can move !orever
along an in!inite ownwar spiral. =ow is the /byss any i!!erent !rom
the place we now occupy? ?oth are in!initely eep. Ht is 5ust that we
use the metaphor o! the imagery o! a eep chasm or hole without
realizing that the in!inite epth thusly symbolize is only along a single
eterminate imension. Fhere we are now is 5ust as eep as any abyss1
but itsel! contains many more imensions !or its in!inite epthT ?ut i!
the te0t is actually only a chimerical construct1 then shoul there be an
en in sight !or its econstruction?
7hilosophers ha acquire a stocK o! metaphors which they ha learne
through imitation to put to use unre!lectingly but in accorance with a
number o! tacitly establishe conventions. :econstruction calls into
question these borrowe metaphors an their conventions o! application
an so e0poses the naKe an inelicate bacKsie o! philosophy as mere
opinion rhetorically e0presse.
?inary oppositions spoKen o! in :erria_s theory are transcene in the
operation o! quantum computers an o! the min itsel!.
Aather than !eeling alarme an con!use by mi0e emotions an
impulses1 H interpret the phenomenon !avorably as the intermittent
crossing over to a set o! istinctions cross-cutting the ol L or H_m
alreay past this point an am pro5ection onto the ol sets o! ual
categories some other set cutting across the ol one.

Aather than ismissing truth as sub5ective1 shall we say that it subsists at
the level o! the personal. ?ut there is always an unpreictable reaction
resulting !rom the push to application Co! a given truthD to eeper levels
o! contact an interaction with alterity1 both iniviual an collective.
@ew truth is always reveale through a trans!ormation1 shi!ting o!
groun C a!ter the manner o! paraigm shi!tsD through the in!luence1 o!
suppresse concretion1 i.e.1 that which we alreay possesse Cthis remarK
is particularly relevant in connection with attempts to Re0plainS
consciousnessD within a seamless whole Cbut inaccessibleD. ?ut these
awKwar1 unimportant etails o! concretion were not suppresse in a
!ashion as systematically as they burgeon !orth in resurrecte !ormT
?ehin the crumbling ei!ice o! a paraigm in transition. /n so
something altogether new is gaine by the erecting o! paraigms1
construction o! theories1 an their progressively eeper an more
systematic application to that groun which originally gave birth to the
currently reigning paraigm. 6he attempt to Re0plain consciousnessS
comes !rom a issatis!action o! alreay being in possession o! its
Cconsciousness_D secret1 in the participatory sense o! will1 an so !rom a
esire to recreate consciousness within the realm o! representation. ?ut
representation always involves a choice1 which throws us bacK upon the
!aculty o! the will. 6he attempt to !in an innate representation o!
consciousness1 apart !rom consciousness_ alreay being a representation
o! itsel!1 is a !unamentally misguie one.
6he arbitrary groun o! metaphoricity an overetermination o! the
physical worl in relation to the Runreasonable e!!ectivenessS o!
mathematics1 logic1 theoretical basic science1 etc.
6he =egelian ;i!ice o! 7ostmoernism. / humorous econstruction o!
:econstruction in the spirit o! /lan "oKal_s quantum gravity sociology
paper. 6he 7henomenology o! the 8ysterious. 6he @ecrophile.
/strology: the power o! a great an ancient metaphor.
Fhat postmoernism is versus what postmoernism says about itsel!.
Ht is one thing to raw metaphors !rom pre-e0isting conte0ts. Ht is quite
another to create a new metaphorical groun L here is where the secret
o! the Rarbitrariness o! meaningS an o! logocentrism is to be
iscovere. Ht is actually the arbitrariness o! the act o! preparing the
new metaphorical groun that unerlies the notion o! Rthe arbitrariness
o! meaning.S 6his arbitrariness o! new meanings is very much
epenent upon the meaning o! preestablishe symbols being
ineterminate in the ynamic sense o! greater etermination o! the
symbols along one irection can always be accompanie by a !alling
into the ineterminate along other irections1 which can only be
etermine at a still later time. 6his Kin o! arbitrariness o! meaning is
closely relate to >acques 8ono_s e0planation !or the arbitrariness o!
the meaning o! the base pairs o! the genetic coe. Hn this situation1
meaning is always by convolution with signals not alreay
e!ine/given. 6he concept o! operational moi!ication versus the
unconsciousness o! automaticity has relevance here. /lso the brute
!orce connection between sensation an the Rvibration o! nerve !ibersS.
?ut isn_t the invention o! a metaphor also at a eeper level to raw !rom
an outsie conte0t? Hs each iniviual consciousness itsel! an ultimate
metaphor CmeaningD? ?ut mustn_t all the material !or the metaphor o!
sel! be rawn !rom the physical conte0t o! the boy an its sensory
!aculties? Hs sensation really perception1 in part1 because o! its necessity
o! possessing moality?
"uggestibility1 impressionability1 marKeting1 avertising1 sociology o!
Knowlege1 connection o! !unamental scienti!ic research to
military/inustrial comple01 intellectual the!t o! grauate stuent_s ieas1
why stuents are initially lea to pursue the basic sciences1 philosophy1
etc.1 the esire to please the parent1 the slavishness in the human soul
C-rommD1 Rtrue believerS synrome1 con!orming to ieals1 images1 etc.
7latonism: there is a more true e0perience o! what it is to be onesel!
than one is able to have at present. 7ostmoernism: 8y e0perience o!
being who H am is inee 4o_s e0perience o! being me.
;pigram: 8eloy maKes the min suggestible !or the 7oet_s metaphor.
>esus as the son o! 8an an as the son o! 4o. :i "atan have a goo
reason to rebel? ;lohim as the wor !or a plural 4o. R/re ye not
gos?S >ohn the ?aptist as the reincarnation o! ;lias C;li5ahD. ;li5ah
never su!!ere physical eath1 but was assume into heaven. R6ell
them that it is RH amS who sent you.S >esus as the 2
n
/am. R/ll have
!allen short o! the 4lory o! 4o.S R.et there be lightTS 4o spoKe
reality into e0istence. RHn the beginning was the For an the For
was with 4o. . . R Hn the beginning the worl was !ormless an voi.
4o_s spirit move upon the waters o! Rthe :eep.S 3haos is the !ather
o! Oronos1 c.!.1 the relationship between /a; an temporality. 6he !ate o!
the soul is open-ene1 but the spirit must always return to the -ather
whom mae it.
/lthough the yin an yang symbol is interprete as a liberating symbol1
it actually represents how uality is itsel! a mani!estation o!
Rcloseness.S .ocal causal relationships meiate by nonlocal causal
correlations.
"o long as a prophecy is not !orgotten1 it is estine to be Rproven true1S
but rarely in a manner or along the lines anticipate.
Fhat is the relationship between prayer1 !ree will1 :ivine
!oreKnowlege/omniscience?
:egeneracy overlapping pro5ections with potential !or e0tra
imensionality. /re the curle up imensions o! string theory relate to
quantum egeneracy?
4o puteth in their hearts1 4o will haren their hearts1 etc. Hs this
un!air preestination o! persons unto conemnation? ;0plain how it is
not un!air1 say1 through applying 7lato_s theory o! !orms to the concept
o! personal ientity.
Fe on_t realize our uniqueness because we are constantly surroune
by our !ellows.
=ow is the mystery o! our own e0istence on this planet any less
signi!icant than that o! aliens on other planets? Hs personal ientity a
question o! topology?
/ny arbitrary thought1 wor1 or action bacK-reacts upon the person
bringing it !orth1 c.!.1 Rvibration o! nerve !ibers.S ?ut the brain is here
embee in an open-ene conte0t an so there can be no reversibility1
reproucibility1 symmetry1 causality1 etc. o! this bacK-reaction1 but all o!
these general !eatures are pro5ections1 incluing the appearance o! a
eterminate sel!.
.anguage as epiphenomenon with powers1 e.g.1 astrology1 tarot reaing1
etc. /ny symbolic system which is both sel!-consistent an o!
su!!icient comple0ity1 relative to the e0isting paraigms1 will encounter
its own pro5ections Rwithin nature.S
6ruth which is transcenental in the sense that we cannot maKe it
ob5ective because we are too involve with it versus remote1 ini!!erent
platonic truth1 i.e.1 on way !low o! in!ormation. :ialogical versus
universal truth. 6ruth as the ialogue o! isputing 8uses. 6he "ophists
o! ancient 4reece were note !or being able to maKe the worse sie o! an
argument appear to be the better one. 9! this they were e0ceeingly
prou.
9ne ineterminate groun connects to another through elaboration an
evelopment o! an abstract symbolic system which1 when su!!iciently
!leshe out bacK-reacts upon the groun !rom which it was originally
abstracte via the !inest etails originally suppresse in orer to !orm the
!ounational abstract categories o! the !ormal1 symbolic system. -orms
erive !rom ineterminate groun estabilizes it. 7oetic e0pressions
bypass the iscursive1 analytical min which was !iltere out via an
evolution o! the comple0ity an tight cohesion o! the !iltere structures.
Hnteraction o! istinct spectra o! nonlocally connecte quantum energy
!luctuations to prouce locally connecte structures o! superpositions.
/ny su!!iciently Knowlegeable probing o! the matri0 o! physical law
woul reveal the truth about reality as simulation/representation. 6he
same situation woul obtain !rom an iniviual_s sKill!ul probing o! his
own gray matter with an electroe.
@ucleation o! conte0t as RreverseS o! conte0tual etermination.
7arao0 o! temporality in cellular automata theory. 6ime ilation points
to the e0istence o! conservation laws1 e.g.1 energy1 in!ormation1 etc.
=ow is correlation in!erior to causality as a scienti!ic e0planation o!
physical processes? 3oorination an interaction o! istinct
temporalities prespatially to prouce spatiality1 i.e.1 !orms an their
ynamic interplay an trans!ormation.
6riggering nature_s internal programs1 themselves operating by magic1
but the proceures by which they are activate an controlle are
ob5ective an scienti!ically escribable or Knowable. :ynamics versus
Kinematics o! initial an bounary conitions. H wrote the bibliography
prior to !irst ra!ting the booK.
-luctuation spectra as iniviual mins. 6emporality as the realm o!
!orm an metaphor. 8etaphor as the meium o! communication.
:i!!erent conscious motives an reasons pertaining to the seeming
requirements o! circumstance Ce0peienceD but which have an
unerlying unity in the psychological nees/rives within the iniviual.
8olecular ?iology: iscovering the laws governing the enabling an
control o! implementation o! RmagicalS genetic programs. 6he neural
networKs o! RnonentitiesS connecte to the cyber ne0us1 which will
supplant the Hnternet in the !uture1 will 5ust be absorbe into the
harware o! this vast networK an provie e0ecution/implementation !or
the purposes o! other entities on this !uture networK.
Fhat possible quantum-base litmus test e0ists !or the presence o!
consciousness?
"ubconscious thought as thought that is en!ole or implicate Cin
?ohm_s senseD with respect to a particular current language or symbol
system. 6he star treK myth is too pervasive an resonant to not
in!luence raically the cultural an social evolution o! the !uture. Hn the
case o! the =ans 8oravec scenario1 once all o! the biological
components o! the person_s brain have been replace with those mae o!
silicon1 there woul then seem to be no natural or absolute limit to the
!unctional e0pansion o! the spee an memory capacity1 say1 o! the
silicon brain which is presently the implementation o! the person_s
iniviual consciousness.
>uly 2)**
:oes the so-calle ecoherence limit
act as a bounary between not only the quantum an classical worls1
but also between conscious an subconscious omains o! !unctioning o!
the human brain?
>une 2)*$
9r perhaps even between istinct
consciousness_s ue to RnaturalS partitions in the quantum vacuum
spectral !iel1 c.!.1 anthropic principle applie to the cosmological
constant problem Cany given observer can only measure the ensity o!
his vacuum an so his measure vacuum energy ensity is that require
!or an appro0imately R!latS global spacetime.D
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubme/*2(*&NN* RPuantum control
e0periment reveals solvation-inuce ecoherenceS1 c.!.1 below:
R"olvation involves i!!erent types o! intermolecular interactions:
hyrogen boning1 ion-ipole1 an ipole-ipole attractions or van er
Faals !orces. 6he hyrogen boning1 ion-ipole1 an ipole-ipole
interactions occur only in polar solvents. Hon-ion interactions occur only
in ionic solvents. 6he solvation process will be thermoynamically
!avore only i! the overall 4ibbs energy o! the solution is ecrease1
compare to the 4ibbs energy o! the separate solvent an soli Cor gas
or liquiD. 6his means that the change in enthalpy minus the change in
entropy Cmultiplie by the absolute temperatureD is a negative value1 or
that the 4ibbs !ree energy o! the system ecreases. 6he conuctivity o! a
solution epens on the solvation o! its ions. =yration also a!!ects
electronic an vibrational properties o! biomolecules.S

Onowlege o! the !uture woul have to be nonlocally encoe. 3asting
own .uci!er: when the stream tries to rise to the level o! its source.
>ust as in the isintegration o! the ream protagonist_s worl when he
ienti!ies himsel! with the reamer himsel!. -ull consciousness results
in the issolution o! !orm. -orms an their interplay is sustaine by the
energy i!!erence between !ull consciousness an the 8aya or ream
consciousness. 8aKing istinctions liKene to blin groping. ,sing
the !aculty o! reason to e0plain the origin o! reason or e0plain away the
author o! reason. 3an over etermination simulate two-way
etermination between sub5ective an ob5ective reality? Fhy o ba
theories worK?
Hn!ormation has never entere the brain through the senses. R6ip o! the
tongueS phenomenon L accessing in!ormation without symbols. Hs there
no such thing as illusion L which cannot somehow later be revise
/reinterprete to be a reality?
Aeplacing the brain1 neuron by neuron1 with quantum transistors1 say1
while the person remains conscious throughout the proceure1 was
propose by =ans 8oraveK1 in his booK1 entitle1 8in 3hilren.
"upposely1 by remaining conscious uring the entire proceure o! the
substitution o! quantum computer !or neural biological components
permits maintenance o! the person_s threa o! personal ientity1 say1
through his conscious maintenance o! nonlocally connecte correlations
o! his quantum brain states. 9! course1 these nonlocal connections coul
not be maintaine through any causal process1 i.e.1 coul not be
maintaine mechanically1 e.g.1 though application o! some Kin o!
computer program or !ormally computable proceure. 3ertainly such a
trans!ormation o! a person_s brain !rom biological to inorganic coul not
be e!!ecte entirely R!rom outsie1S i.e.1 while the person is asleep1
anaesthetize1 or otherwise unconscious.
6o "earle1 robots cannot be conscious1 5ust as simulate thunerstorms
can never maKe anyone wet.S 3onsier the possibility that everything is
simulation. Hs this a meaning!ul or coherent possibility? Fhat coul it
possibly be liKe !or ReverythingS to be a simulation1 as oppose to
Rreal?S
"el!-plagiarizing as maintaining the !aae o! soul presence. "ocial
moes o! interaction as mutual tuning o! n + * overetermine1
egenerate interpretative/associative networKs.
;igenstate o! the unboun vacuum is a Kin o! Rquantum mechanical
metaphorVS without being boun1 the vacuum can possess no
eterminate moes. 6he esire to be 4o mani!ests itsel! in the esire
to assume the role o! the 9ther. 9therness in R is always greenerS
phenomenon. Aomanticizing the RcozinessS o! the small e0istence an
con!using a esire to visit with a esire to live in a place/situation.
9therness may represent the ultimate !orget!ulness o! the "el!.
6ranscenence as esire to escape the bonage o! the "el!. ;scape !rom
the persona versus escape !rom the "el!.
6he eneavor o! writing as Rhaving something to sayS is perhaps
pursue by the novice1 woul-be1 or ilettante writer in that spirit o!
!aith as e0hibite in such chilren_s stories as 6he Ielveteen Aabbit an
7inocchio. 6he eneavor starts out unclear1 misguie1 with more
esire to write than important or original sub5ect matter to write about1
but graually1 with enormous persistence in the !ace o! grave sel!-oubt1
one_s writing comes into being.
6he creature is our earthboun sel!1 !ashione by chance an
competition !or survival. 6his part o! one_s being certainly possesses no
eternal aspect an must go own to ruin with the eath an ecay o! the
boy. /n one cannot thinK o! any goo reason why this part o! the sel!
is eserving o! anything more than a brie! play upon this ;arth. 6he
creature possesses !alse transcenence. Puantum physics says1 Rthere_s
an orinary worl out thereTS Oarmic asymmetry: give versus receive
an lose versus taKe.
.oans an 4rants: 8athew .esKow: *-N%%-asKlesKow or *-N%%-2%''$%'
Oaren 8onteleone phone: ')(-$('-*'N$email: Owmst2+pitt.eu
6he ?ible is particularly vulnerable as a te0t to econstructive
interpretations1 especially in terms o! a center/periphery inversion type
o! interpretation. /n this seems intentionally so ue to the ensity
metaphor such as irony1 parable1 ambiguity an the presence o! wiely
intersperse cryptic verses which threaten to subvert any casual1 prima
!acie reaing o! this te0t. 4nosticism represents an ancient e0ample o!
a econstructive reaing o! the ?ible.
Hniviual !reeom is always enable an !acilitate within some social
L technological structuring which at the same time necessarily places
constraints upon the unrecognize moes o! iniviual acting an being
which are iiosyncratic with respect to this structure. /t the same time
new moes o! e!ining the sel! are engenere which are largely
un!oreseen prior to the avent o! the new technological in!rastructure.
Puaint: an arti!act o! an engenering conte0t no longer in !orce. 6he
common phrase1 Ranything is possibleS is to be unerstoo as1 not that
any possible !orm alreay e0ists Cor subsistsD within some 7latonic
realm1 merely waiting to be uncovere1 but that the uniniviuate
groun can be mae to mani!est any !orm which can at !irst be imagine
either iniviually or collectively.
;pigenesis versus pre!ormation.
/n intellectual groupie1 a mocKingbir among intellectuals.
/ marrie mother o! two whom is secretly a single mother o! three.
Ht is possible to have a eterminate amount o! ata1 but it is not possible
to have a eterminate amount o! in!ormation. 6his istinction lies with
the !act that ata are arti!acts o! a close system1 while in!ormation1 o!
an open system.
6he eath o! the present moment is simultaneous with the birth o! the
ne0t. Ht is this !act which leas us to speaK o! the stream o! conscious
e0perience. ?ecause the !low o! this RstreamS is ineluctably !orwar1
reversible operations or trans!ormations taKing place in the conscious
brain1 though necessary1 perhaps1 to the enabling o! conscious
e0perience1 cannot o! themselves be collectively su!!icient to its positive
prouction.
/n antiparticle can be consistently escribe as a particle travelling
bacKwars in time. 6he process o! the creation o! virtual
particle/antiparticle pairs is a reversible process1 accoring to quantum
mechanics. Fe might imagine more comple0 virtual structures1 i.e.1
composite particles1 such as simple molecules1 being reversibly create
out o! the vacuum Calong with their Ranti-moleculesSD in that they are
immeiately estroye again Creturn to the quantumD within a
e0ceeingly brie! perio o! time speci!ie by the =eisenberg ,ncertainty
7rinciple.
7erhaps virtual bosons are e0change between both real an virtual
!ermions in a completely iniscriminate !ashion.

/ugust *222
9! course1 strictly speaKing1 this type o! creation/annihilation is
only possible i! the virtual molecule/anti-molecule pair collectively
constitute a spin zero Rparticle.S CHt may be possible to unerstan
Rspin )S as being spin about the particle_s local time a0is an Rspin *S
being spin about an a0is oriente in some way in the $-imensional
space to which the local time a0is is orthogonalD. "uch tiny systems
coul be consistently an e0haustively escribe with quantum theory
by some !inite set o! quantum numbers1 being in this way
inistinguishable !rom any other system e!ine by the same quantum
numerical set. 6hese quantum numbers1 as such1 ine0 observables1
which are conserve physical quantities. ?ut we Know that at some
point reversibility is lost an this must taKe place when the structure can
no longer be prouce !rom out o! the vacuum Rin a single go1S but must
be Rcobble togetherS !rom a number o! such vacuum-engenere
particles which are to e0ist in some Kin o! boun structure maintaine
through e0changes o! momentum between all o! those particles Cwhich
emerge !rom the vacuum in a single stepD. 6his might well be ue to
there being no e!inable Ranti-entityS with which the RentityS can
annihilate so as to return the pair to the quantum vacuum !rom which
they ha originate. Fe may suppose that it is here that physical
processes escribable in terms o! nonconserve quantities come into
play. /lso1 it is here that some o! the annihilation energy resulting !rom
combination o! an entity an its Rpseuo-anti-entityS is thermalize1 an
this1 even when the entity an anti-entity are each in a pure1 unmi0e
quantum state to begin with. "uch systems1 possessing no anti-entity1
woul consequently possess irreversibility an hence a e!inable
entropy. Hs it at this point that the phenomena o! inertia an gravitation
emerge or become signi!icant? :o irreversible structures participate in
more than one istinct vacuum state? 9r o they 5ust possess some Kin
o! inepenence !rom a single vacuum state1 preventing the vacuum
!rom RanticipatingS an anti-structure? Ht is interesting to note that
irreversibility creeps into those systems that cannot be maintaine by the
same processes by which they were originally engenere. Ht is at this
very same stage where physical processes within the system are no
longer irectly1 but only inirectly supporte by quantum vacuum
processes. :oes this constitute a criterion !or what are novel structures
supporte by the vacuum energy !iel1 i.e.1 structures which are truly
emergent with respect to the vacuum supporting their subsistence?
Fe o not e0pect nonlocal energy istributions to possess inertia or to be
sources o! gravitational !iels. Hnertia an gravitation are phenomena
base in the istribution an ynamics o! the istribution o! momentum
an energy within !our imensional spacetime. /n iniviual vacuum
!luctuation possesses only an uncertain momentum energy which
there!ore possesses no eterminate composition o! momentum energy.
6his is base on the hypothesis1 erive !rom statements o! :avi ?ohm
in his worK1 Puantum 6heory1 that all causal relationships between the
e0pectation values o! physical quantities are constitute out o!
correlations o! !luctuations in the values o! these physical quantities. Hn
other wors1 it is only coherent networKs o! interrelate momentum
energy !luctuations that e0hibit the bacK-reaction o! inertia1 because it is
only within such coherent !luctuation networKs that
6he construction o! Rsqueeze statesS in which the momentum
uncertainty along a particular a0is is ecrease at the e0pense o!
increases in this uncertainty along other orthogonal a0es supplies
tangible proo! that the spacetime components in quantum mechanical
momentum-energy uncertainty !orm with one another a conserve !our
vector. H! this is true1 then it shoul be possible to construct a squeeze
state in which the energy uncertainty o! a system is increase ue the
construction o! squeeze states in which a component o! the $-
momentum uncertainty is ecrease.
6hrough a .orenz trans!ormation the e0pectation values o! all
components o! $-momentum can be a5uste to zero so that the quantum
uncertainties in the components o! $-momentum are wholly constitute
by the respective momentum !luctuation terms. 6he question arises as to
whether the timeliKe component o! the (-momentum can liKewise be
Rtrans!orme awayS through such a simple operation as a .orenz
trans!ormation?
Hn the absence o! accelerate motion or gravitational !iels1 the velocity
o! light is a universal constant. 6o trans!orm away all o! a mass_
timeliKe momentum woul require that one utilize a !rame o! re!erence
which is itsel! moving at the spee o! light within some $-hypersur!ace.
6here is a Kin o! symmetry between the spaceliKe an timeliKe
components o! an ob5ect_s momentum: no component o! a massive
ob5ect_s spaceliKe velocity may reach the spee o! light an1 the ob5ect_s
timeliKe velocity can never reach zero.
@ow !rom previous iscussion we are aware that no massive boy
actually possesses a timeliKe momentum such that its velocity through
time is actually *))% o! the spee o! light Cin vacuumD. 6he symmetry
unerlying momentum-energy woul be broKen1 i! we allowe what is
permitte in !ree space1 namely a .orenz trans!ormation wherein an
ob5ect is given a component o! $-velocity which1 though still less than
the velocity o! light in !ree space1 is nonetheless greater than the timeliKe
velocity o! the ob5ect. 6he structure o! spacetime within the $-
hypersur!ace surrouning the ob5ect must have been altere so as to
prevent the acceleration o! an ob5ect to velocities within this part o! the
hypersur!ace which are greater than the timeliKe velocity o! co-locate
ob5ects at rest relative to the chosen coorinate system. 6he appearance
o! tial !orces responsible !or the initial acceleration o! ob5ects release
in a gravitational !iel is easily e0plaine in terms o! conservation o!
!our momentum in con5unction with the spatially varying local velocity
o! light.
/ hollow sphere !ille with electromagnetic raiation1 i.e.1 photons1
possesses an aitional mass equal to the total energy o! the photons
ivie by the spee o! light square1 solely ue to the impulsive !orces
an accelerations e0perience by the photons as they bounce aroun
insie the sphere.
9! course1 !rom the :e?roglie relation1 p = h/ 1 an the re shi!ting o! -
photons moving in the irection o! the sphere_s motion an the blue
shi!ting o! photons moving in the irection contrary to this motion1 we
can easily euce that when the sphere is uni!ormly accelerate1 there
will result an increasing i!!erential o! impulsive momenta eveloping
between the re an blue shi!te photons. Hn other wors1 the
instantaneous change in this momentum i!!erential with respect to time
will correspon to a !orce1 - = C/apD/t1 which will oppose the
acceleration o! the photon-!ille sphere. 6his !orce ivie by the
acceleration o! the hollow sphere will1 o! course1 yiel the e!!ective mass
o! the photons. @ote that it is only because the photons change irection
through interaction with Cimpacting againstD the hollow sphere that the
photons collectively acquire an e!!ective mass.
9ctober 2)**
6his remins us
o! our recurring suspicions that Rinertial massS is owing1 at least in hal!
part1 to the internal bining !orces o! matter1 which contribute to the
RrigiityS o! massive ob5ects. Hnertia is owing to an innate constriction
in the banwith available !or conveying the RinstructionsS !or how
nonlocally connecte quantum vacuum !iels shoul change in response
to the application o! Rimpresse !orcesS. 6his banwith constriction is
always in e!!ect whenever an observer initiates a causal chain through
!reely wille action as such actions cannot be inclue in any global
wave!unction escription o! the system to which the action is applie
an is always absent when gravitational fiels are not in play. 6his
points up a liKely intimate connection between the istinctions1
consciousness vs. freely wille agency an inertia vs. gravitation.
Aeversibility1 gravitation1 an inertia.
H! in!ormation1 as oppose to ata1 is always an arti!act o! some
sub5ective conte0t1 then it is not by virtue o! Rin!ormingS in this sense to
which one owes one_s iniviuality an ientity. /ll communication
between mins is to engage in metaphor. 6his is a large part o! the
meaning o! intersub5ectivity. 8etaphor is the importing o! one literal
conte0t into another one in which the contents borrowe !rom the
importe conte0t can be seen in greater generality. 6his constitutes the
primary mechanism unerlying the ampli!ication o! meaning.
Oant_s transcenental unity o! apperception cannot be a mere
representation on the part o! a collective.
6he !unamental parao0 o! ultimate Aeality is that its nature is neither
that o! a multiplicity nor that o! a unity1 unity an multiplicity being
merely moes o! its mani!estation. 6he unerlying process by which the
ineterminate etermines itsel! through the mani!esting o! !orm cannot
itsel! be etermine ob5ectively1 but only retroactively as part o! a still
later act o! etermination.
3onservation laws o not necessarily inter!ere with the act o! in!orming
o! physical processes they govern1 provie that a critical
synchronization o! the changes in the components relative to one another
which together constitute the conserve quantity. 6he re!erence !rame in
which the relative changes in the components are synchronize in the
e0actly correct manner so as to maintain conservation1 must be unique.
6he ynamical o! the brain_s !unctioning is not to be sought within the
brain itsel! but in the moulation o! the brain_s embeing conte0tual
meium in its sel!-interaction.
.ocal interactions o! neurons in the brain etermine alterations to the
bounary conitions to the nonlocally-connecte vacuum !iel with
which neurons an neuron moules are interacting.
6hose who are isillusione !requently seeK to !ee o!! the naivete o!
those who remain care!ree.
Hniviualism will become more truly e0presse1 as the social/cultural
support !or its e0pression will be within the cyberculture community.
Hniviualism will no longer be so obviously tie to con!ormity to local
groups. /n iniviualist will not appear to possess any visible means o!
social support an all o! his signi!icant social activities will be in the
!orm o! retreats1 outing1 planne hang-outs with other iniviuals met
an courte1 i! you will1 entirely within online communities. Aise o! the
RisolateS counter-culturalist. 4oos an services will also no longer be
purchase at locally available shops an stores1 as these local !acilities
will only cater to the mainstream local community. -or those who still
live an socialize within their immeiate environ1 the Hnternet will
continue to be seen/use merely as a school1 worK tool an
entertainment meium mostly geare !or use by younger househol
members.
/ shi!t will taKe place !rom being a member o! one_s local community
an anonymous online to 5ust the reverse o! this1 namely1 to being a
member o! one or many i!!erent online communities an an anonymous
weller within a largely unKnown local community.
6he new1 cyber technology will engener new social an cultural entities
an relations1 enable novel economic an political structures while at the
same time generating many new legal1 social1 ethical1 an logistical
problems that will necessitate the creation o! new institutions not yet
imagine.
6he ego is the spacetime counterpart to the "el!1 itsel! lying beyon
space an time. 6he ego is !orever banne !rom insight into the so-
calle mechanism by which it was constitute an through which it is
sustaine within e0istence. 9nly a min which transcens ego can
possibly grasp the means by which the ego is constitute.
6he most which can be reasonably re!erre to by the label1 RnothingS 1 is
quite literally that !rom which phenomenal things are mani!este
generally in a moment in which no mani!estations are present1 that is1 in
which no phenomena are given. 6his groun o! phenomenal
mani!estation is nothing other then what the =inus or other mystics
have traitionally re!erre to as Rpure consciousnessS1 i.e.1
Rconsciousness without an ob5ect.S "omewhat parao0ically1 to inten
by the term1 RnothingS a literally absolute absence or nothingness is to
taKe this abstraction an to Rrei!yS itT
6he !unction o! all !unctions cannot itsel! be the argument o! any
!unction that it comprises. "o oes this imply that the !unction o! all
!unctions is not itsel! a eterminate !unction.
6he toKen-type istinction oes not apply to iniviual persons in the
sense that each iniviual consciousness cannot be a toKen o! some
general type1 which we might re!er to as consciousness per se1 or as
such. 6his is because consciousness is presuppose by the
unerstaning Cin the Oantian senseD an the unerstaning is
presuppose by application o! the RcategoriesS. 6his is all to say that the
process by which abstract categories are brought into being1 generally
speaKing1 which is thought or thinKing1 cannot possess consciousness Cas
a general conceptD as one o! its ob5ects o! thought. 6his is to say1
moreover1 that there is no category o! consciousness as such. 6his
seems to imply that presumably istinct iniviual consciousnesses are
not each particular instantiations o! consciousness in general. "o what
then maKes them each an all e0emplars o! consciousness unless they be
one by partaKing o! the very same substance. ?ut then what i! the
substance o! each iniviual consciousness is istinct an yet not an
instantiation o! consciousness as such Cthere being no such general
categoryD?
8in transcens a state escription. 6his is because it involves the unity
o! an ineterminate which is inherently parao0ical.
?ecause temporality requires an open system1 spacetime can only be a
local appro0imation an can possess no ob5ective e0istence. -or
spacetime to possess an ob5ective e0istence1 it woul have to be an
ob5ect among other ob5ects within itsel!. 6his notion is certainly
nonsensical.
6here can be no consistent an complete phenomenological escription
o! min since min is presuppose by all phenomena. /s !ar as a Rnon-
phenomenologicalS escription o! min is concerne1 it is har to
conceive o! phenomena being reucible to something simpler or
prephenomenal. /pparently1 phenomena are abstractions which are
RreucibleS to processes more comple0 than themselves. "till less
woul it be conceivable how phenomena are a mani!estation o! a realm
more subtle an more comple0 than one which coul be given a
phenomenological escription.
6he entertaining o! so-calle clear an istinct ieas is always the short-
circuiting o! a process that was at that moment still ongoing. Ht is as
though thinKing is always the caching in !leeting glimpses o! something
larger an more comple0 than that to which it is e0peiently aapte.
?ut we cannot 5ustly term these R!leeting glimpsesS partial thoughts
unless we are secretly supposing that there might e0ist some graner
insight Csuch as might have been entertaine by some more brilliant an
goliKe incarnation o! onesel!D a small portion o! which protrue into
one_s mental space1 too small to accommoate the whole. ?ut thought
only e0ists by remaining connecte to the ynamic imaginative groun
!rom which it is conceive1 this groun being itsel! open-ene. "o
thought only becomes eterminate through its aaptation to an
environment1 through its being implemente. :etermination is the
result o! the conte0t bacK-reacting upon the interacting Kernel. "o
nothing in itsel! as a !inishe RthingS can be an actual complete
etermination. 6here can only be complete etermination with respect
to a ynamical category1 perhaps1 which is no more eterminate than that
category. 6here is on this view no such thing as pure thought
possessing no ob5ect or intention. -or to the e0tent that thought loses
grasp o! its ob5ect1 to this e0tent oes it evaporate into the voi o!
minlessness.
;nless activity is unerstanable because o! the transcenence o! all
possible unity combine with the motive towars unity. 6his remins us
o! the necessary connection between energy uncertainty an temporality.
6he holographic moel or paraigm has ominate our recent
unerstaning o! how the min !unctions. 9ne view in!orme by this
paraigm is that i! a thought is vague1 it is merely because it has not yet
been connecte to its proper conte0t. 6he way this is one is
presumably to remove !rom it all e0traneous conte0t L to !ilter out all
other thoughts with which it is con!oune. 6his is the iea o! thought
as pure insight or perception. ?ut are the con!ouning1 noisy thoughts
themselves not also pure L 5ust themselves con!oune with other Rnoisy
thoughts.S Fhy oes this notion o! having thoughts as stemming !rom a
mechanism o! pure !iltering not have a chance o! e0plaining anything o!
importance about the !unctioning o! thought? /n what maKes the
i!!erence between noise an signal1 in this case1 i! not merely the
intention o! the thinKer?T 3onsciousness as a phenomenon associate
with the continual an continuous upating o! the brain_s memory linKs.
3onsciousness may rather be the cause an not the e!!ect o! this process1
probably subneural1 which ynamically staves o!! what web esigners
commonly re!er to as RlinK rotS.
Ht is common !or specialists such as psychologists1 anesthesiologists1 an
even certain members o! the recreational rug culture1 as well as some
mystics an philosophers1 to re!er to the possibility or e0istence o! not
merely altere1 but ecrease/increase levels o! iniviual
consciousness.
6he question arises !or some philosophers o! min whether any
consistent an literal meaning may be applie to notions o! any Kin o!
shi!t in conscious state1 i! this state is consiere not as a representation
within consciousness L !or a shi!t o! this type woul only be a shi!t in
consciousness in a metaphorical or more particularly1 elliptical sense L
but as somehow a shi!t in consciousness as a whole1 that is1 as a Rglobal
shi!t in consciousness.
=ypothesis: when is in any eigenstate o! the =amiltonian1 a _
superposition state o! with respect to purely time-varying _
eigen!unctions !ully accounts !or the uncertainty in the li!etime. H was
5ust trying to say that1
C01tD = C)DC0D 0 e0pCiwtD !or whenever is in _ _ _ _
an eigenstate o! =.
/ 6heory o! ;verything woul be able to etermine the true
=amiltonian1 =1 !or any system1 incluing !or Rthe whole ,niverseS.
"uch a theory woul rener any energy !luctuation term in =1 =C!lucD1 a
mere phenomenological arti!act o! our previous ignorance o! the correct
re!inement o! quantum theory1 / R6:;S woul convert the =eisenberg
,ncertainty 7rinciple into a purely epistemological principle. "uch a
system woul possess no !unamental !luctuations because it woul
possess no ineterminate RoutsieS with which it coul be in the process
o! ynamically e0changing energy. Hn such a situation1 the Rpower
inputS to the ,niverse as a whole woul be ientically ).
Ht is har to conceive o! how anything coul ever happen within such a
Rzero power inputS evice. Hn short1 Ht is har to conceive how a
,niverse with zero power input coul be right!ully sai to possess any
real temporality1 besie enlessly repeating patterns o! inter!erence
between a close set o! time-inepenent eigen!unctions.
3onscious mental RstatesS must be !unctions o! the temporal evolution
o! the brain an cannot be merely !unctions o! the brain_s state-quantum
or classical. "ince the temporal evolution o! the brain as a quantum
mechanical system is epenent upon at least a small energy uncertainty
base1 in turn1 upon spontaneous energy !luctuations in the vacuum1 it
!ollows that the brain cannot be capture in a close system escription.
/n on account o! the associate time uncertainty o! the uncertain
energy with which the brain interacts1 vacuum energy !luctuations
originating at Ri!!erent timesS are interacting. ?ut here the time orer
o! events cannot be establishe accoring to the methos set !orth by
;instein because these methos involve the use o! light beams !or the
measurement o! space an time isplacements1 an the !luctuations
separate by time intervals less than the time uncertainty o! the system
cannot possibly be measure in this manner. 6his is because the time
uncertainty is e!ine in terms o! an energy uncertainty compose o!
vacuum energy !luctuations which may be nonlocally connecte an
may be consiere to be simultaneous with respect to any conventional
metho !or the measurement o! time intervals. "uppose that time orer
is generally unerpinne by such RinstantaneousS nonlocal interactions.
6his might guarantee their simultaneity1 each with respect to the other.
@o time measurement base upon causal mechanisms coul possibly
establish that one or another o! the vacuum energy !luctuations
contributing to the system energy uncertainty was prior in time to the
other. "imilarly1 system momentum uncertainty is meiate via the
collective action o! myria vacuum momentum !luctuations which
themselves establish the quantum positional uncertainty within the
system.
8ight we suppose that quantum energy !luctuations may occupy the
same time but not the same spatial location1 while similar momentum
!luctuations may occupy the same spatial location1 but may not be
simultaneous with one another? -or i! two given momentum
!luctuations were nearly mutually simultaneous1 this woul imply the
e0istence o! a two component quantum system itsel! possessing ma0imal
energy uncertainty Cat the e0pense o! the energy o! the two !luctuations
themselvesD? 7erhaps a parallel argument coul be pose against two
energy !luctuations occupying the same spatial location: momentum
uncertainty woul be ma0imize at the e0pense o! the momentum o! the
two !luctuations?
6here must be other moes o! etermination besies the historical as
history itsel! is never etermine with !inality. 6here can be no !inal
interpretation o! the meaning o! human e0istence.
Aeversibility is implie by the inepenence o! the probabilities o!
eigenvalues which is in turn ue to orthonormality o! eigen!unctions. Hs
there any epenence o! bounary conitions on the energy in this type
o! iealize system?
8etaphor: consciousness as Rview!inerS. .ogocentrism L view!iner
consciousness. 3oming into being an passing away are two i!!erent
phenomenal streams. -igure/groun structure implies that there is not
literal view !ining !unction to min L no searchlight metaphor worKs
here. 6he operation o! metaphor is metaphor.
3onsciousness oes not e0ist in any o! the superpose parallel worls
preicte by =ugh ;verett_s interpretation o! the quantum measurement
problem. 6his is because consciousness is probably comprise by the
interaction o! these otherwise RparallelS worls. Ht is interesting to note
that each o! the worls thusly superpose to !or an ;verett-style
superposition is itsel! a classical worl.
3learly intentionality cannot be possesse by any RthingS.
6he polyemanationist octrine may be arrive at through the positing o!
merely two simple postulates. 9ne1 reality is too comple0 to be
ob5ectively uni!ie1 an two1 personal ientity1 in the broaest sense o!
iniviual consciousness1 is an unanalyzable1 irreucible concept. 6hese
two postulates are not really so inepenent o! one another1 an it may
be possible to subsume them uner a single1 broaer one. H!1 along with
Oant1 we consier the ob5ective to be merely that which can be a proper
ob5ect o! Knowlege1 then the postulate o! the irreucibility o! iniviual
consciousness means that a uni!ie consciousness1 or at least an
unerlying unity to all iniviual consciousness qua consciousness1 is
not possible so that there can be no ob5ect o! Knowlege !or such a
universal consciousness. 6his is all to say that the postulate o! the
irreucibility o! personal consciousness implies1 a la Oant1 that no
uni!ie ob5ect o! Knowlege e0ists1 an that1 there!ore1 reality itsel! is
not uni!ie. ?y tying the cash value o! concepts to possible or potential
e0perience1 the concept o! unity Co! realityD has not cash value i! there is
not hypothetical universal consciousness which can have reality itsel! Cas
a wholeD as an ob5ect o! its Knowlege. 6o wit1 i! there is not any
ob5ective unity o! consciousness so that iniviual consciousnesses are
reucible/analyzable1 then no R4o_s eye viewS o! reality is possible.
4iven the omniscience o! 4o1 this woul imply a non-uni!ie reality.
Hn this case1 the cash value o! the concept o! ob5ectivity is that less
restrictive concept o! intersub5ectivity. ?ut as one suspects1
something_s cash value oes not necessarily e0haust that thing_s value in
other respects. 6he sub5ective becomes ontologically prior to the
intersub5ective1 itsel! an ongoing construct !rom the enless negotiation
between sub5ectivity_s. Ht is here that we see that perhaps it also !ollows
that a less than uni!ie ob5ective reality in turn implies the irreucibility
o! personal ientity C in the sense o! iniviual consciousnessD. ?ut
perhaps only within the scope o! Oant_s 6ranscenental Healism are our
two postulates truly intere!inable.
"eptember 2)**
?y e!inition1 or so it
appears1 the sub5ective an the intersub5ective are is5oint categories.
=owever1 the problem re!erre to elsewhere concerning one1 the unity o!
consciousness an two1 the possibility o! a Rconcept o! consciousnessS
as a general category1 i.e.1 o! some most general property o! e0perience
suggests that these two categories are not really is5oint. /n this is
because1 in the absence o! a general concept o! consciousness1 which
uni!ies all e0emplars o! consciousness1 both actual an merely possible1
the intersub5ective !alls short1 perhaps consierably1 o! the scope o! what
we term Rob5ectiveS. 6he ob5ective on our view transcens the
intersub5ective1 i.e.1 all that which iniviual mins coul possibly agree
upon among themselves while avoiing contraiction. H! the
requirement is that this conventional agreement must be in theoretical
terms1 then perhaps there is some application here o! 4eel_s
Hncompleteness 6heorem or some generalization thereo!. 6he sticKing
point unerlying these speculations is that notion o! the incorrigibility of
sub$ective conscious e6perience. H! the iniviual_s consciousness is
never actually e0perience by him as an iniviual sub5ective
e0perience1 !or e0ample1 is never notice by him because it is always
present Can so can never be contraste with the case o! its being absent1
that is uring unconsciousness o! which one has no e0perience1 an by
e!initionD1 then he has no concept o! consciousness an is not in a
position to !orm such a concept. 6his is somewhat along the lines o!
=ume_s complaint that he coul never observe his self1 but only various
particular e0periences o! his presumptive sel!. "o perhaps there can
only be a concept o! consciousness i! my iniviual consciousness is
actually an ob5ective !eature o! all o! my waKe!ul an sel!-aware
e0periences.
"eptember 2)*$
http://www.issertationtopic.net/oc/(%*2'' EE3oncept o!
consciousnessE in the above an other particular senses an acceptations
o! the phrase are mere metaphors. 6o !orm a bona !ie general concept
o! something requires abstraction !rom multiple instances or e0emplars.
"ince each min only Knows its own sub5ective consciousness1 there is
only a single instance on which to raw. "o the iniviual oesnGt
possess a concept o! consciousness e0cept in the !orm o! an ine!!able
intuition !or which there is no rational vouchsa!e. C6he Eintersub5ective
sub5ectiveE is a contraiction in termsD 6he mystery here is: how is the
egeneracy split1 i.e.1 that o! the ontological/epistemological?E 9r recast
this way: how is the egeneracy split1 namely that o! consciousness
being a one or o! consciousness being a many? ;0perientially1 these two
cases are inistinguishable in light o! sub5ective consciousness_
Rincorrigibility principleS or ?ishop ?erKeley_s Esse est 4ercipi Cto be is
to be perceiveD principle. / concept or category o! consciousness is
!orever out o! reach o! both the iniviual an the collective L out o! the
reach o! the iniviual because he can only Know consciousness !rom
his own case1 although there must be multiple instances o! a class o!
entity available !rom which to abstract in orer to !orm a concept o!
category1 out o! the reach o! the collective since the notion o!
intersub5ective sub5ectivity is a contraiction in terms. 3ommon sense
tells us that other mins inee e0ist1 equal an alongsie our own
within a worl hel in common. /n since so such concept can be
logically constructe or insight!ully intuite1 the belie! that each
iniviual consciousness1 that o! onesel! an one_s peers1 !or e0ample
!ollows rationally !rom the belie! that each iniviual consciousness is
an instantiation o! some transcenental concept o! consciousness. 6he
situation is rather analogous to the case where a person is only able to
visually e0perience but a single color1 say re1 which is the philosopher
o! min_s !avorite. 3oul such a person !orm a general concept o! color
when he is only able to worK !rom a single sample? 9nly a person
capable o! e0periencing multiple colors coul possess a concept o! color.
8erely the potential !or maKing an observation is enough to collapse the
wave!unction1 but only because observers are actually possible within
such a universe in which wave!unctions RliveS. 6his is to sharpen the
/nthropic 3osmological 7rinciple to its !inest cutting ege.
RHt is sometimes suppose1 by those who o allow that
consciousness is a reality not caught by any o! the octrines we
have consiere1 that none the less nothing enlightening can be
sai o! it. Ht is a Kin o! given1 something o! which we o have
irect acquaintance1 but it is impossible to give any analysis o! it. Ht
is sometimes suppose1 more e0tremely1 that irect acquaintance or
introspection is so uncertain or !allible that not merely no analysis
but nothing o! value can be got by means o! it. Fe are in
possession o! no concept o! consciousness at allS1 c.!.1 8in an
?rain1 / 6heory o! :eterminism C*2NND1 =onerich.
http://booKs.google.com/booKs?i=-9(5hil.7'K3 =<7;A.H@O
Ehttp://booKs.google.com/booKs?
i=-9(5hil.7'K3 & pg=7/%% & q=
%22no+concept+o!+consciousness
%22 & hl=en & sa=+ & ei=$84,s4r:N5i2gFr#(4<3w & ve=)3
3)P&/;w//E & =<7;A.H@O Ehttp://booKs.google.com/booKs?
i=-9(5hil.7'K3 & pg=7/%% & q=
%22no+concept+o!+consciousness
%22 & hl=en & sa=+ & ei=$84,s4r:N5i2gFr#(4<3w & ve=)3
3)P&/;w//E pg=7/%% =<7;A.H@O
Ehttp://booKs.google.com/booKs?
i=-9(5hil.7'K3 & pg=7/%% & q=
%22no+concept+o!+consciousness
%22 & hl=en & sa=+ & ei=$84,s4r:N5i2gFr#(4<3w & ve=)3
3)P&/;w//E & =<7;A.H@O Ehttp://booKs.google.com/booKs?
i=-9(5hil.7'K3 & pg=7/%% & q=
%22no+concept+o!+consciousness
%22 & hl=en & sa=+ & ei=$84,s4r:N5i2gFr#(4<3w & ve=)3
3)P&/;w//E q=%22no+concept+o!+consciousness%22
=<7;A.H@O Ehttp://booKs.google.com/booKs?
i=-9(5hil.7'K3 & pg=7/%% & q=
%22no+concept+o!+consciousness
%22 & hl=en & sa=+ & ei=$84,s4r:N5i2gFr#(4<3w & ve=)3
3)P&/;w//E & =<7;A.H@O Ehttp://booKs.google.com/booKs?
i=-9(5hil.7'K3 & pg=7/%% & q=
%22no+concept+o!+consciousness
%22 & hl=en & sa=+ & ei=$84,s4r:N5i2gFr#(4<3w & ve=)3
3)P&/;w//E hl=en =<7;A.H@O
Ehttp://booKs.google.com/booKs?
i=-9(5hil.7'K3 & pg=7/%% & q=
%22no+concept+o!+consciousness
%22 & hl=en & sa=+ & ei=$84,s4r:N5i2gFr#(4<3w & ve=)3
3)P&/;w//E & =<7;A.H@O Ehttp://booKs.google.com/booKs?
i=-9(5hil.7'K3 & pg=7/%% & q=
%22no+concept+o!+consciousness
%22 & hl=en & sa=+ & ei=$84,s4r:N5i2gFr#(4<3w & ve=)3
3)P&/;w//E sa=+ =<7;A.H@O
Ehttp://booKs.google.com/booKs?
i=-9(5hil.7'K3 & pg=7/%% & q=
%22no+concept+o!+consciousness
%22 & hl=en & sa=+ & ei=$84,s4r:N5i2gFr#(4<3w & ve=)3
3)P&/;w//E & =<7;A.H@O Ehttp://booKs.google.com/booKs?
i=-9(5hil.7'K3 & pg=7/%% & q=
%22no+concept+o!+consciousness
%22 & hl=en & sa=+ & ei=$84,s4r:N5i2gFr#(4<3w & ve=)3
3)P&/;w//E ei=$8 =<7;A.H@O
Ehttp://booKs.google.com/booKs?
i=-9(5hil.7'K3 & pg=7/%% & q=
%22no+concept+o!+consciousness
%22 & hl=en & sa=+ & ei=$84,s4r:N5i2gFr#(4<3w & ve=)3
3)P&/;w//E 4,s4r:N5i2gFr#(4<3w =<7;A.H@O
Ehttp://booKs.google.com/booKs?
i=-9(5hil.7'K3 & pg=7/%% & q=
%22no+concept+o!+consciousness
%22 & hl=en & sa=+ & ei=$84,s4r:N5i2gFr#(4<3w & ve=)3
3)P&/;w//E & =<7;A.H@O Ehttp://booKs.google.com/booKs?
i=-9(5hil.7'K3 & pg=7/%% & q=
%22no+concept+o!+consciousness
%22 & hl=en & sa=+ & ei=$84,s4r:N5i2gFr#(4<3w & ve=)3
3)P&/;w//E ve=)33)P&/;w//Xv=onepage =<7;A.H@O
Ehttp://booKs.google.com/booKs?
i=-9(5hil.7'K3 & pg=7/%% & q=
%22no+concept+o!+consciousness
%22 & hl=en & sa=+ & ei=$84,s4r:N5i2gFr#(4<3w & ve=)3
3)P&/;w//E & =<7;A.H@O Ehttp://booKs.google.com/booKs?
i=-9(5hil.7'K3 & pg=7/%% & q=
%22no+concept+o!+consciousness
%22 & hl=en & sa=+ & ei=$84,s4r:N5i2gFr#(4<3w & ve=)3
3)P&/;w//E q=%22no%2)concept%2)o!%2)consciousness
%22 =<7;A.H@O Ehttp://booKs.google.com/booKs?
i=-9(5hil.7'K3 & pg=7/%% & q=
%22no+concept+o!+consciousness
%22 & hl=en & sa=+ & ei=$84,s4r:N5i2gFr#(4<3w & ve=)3
3)P&/;w//E & =<7;A.H@O Ehttp://booKs.google.com/booKs?
i=-9(5hil.7'K3 & pg=7/%% & q=
%22no+concept+o!+consciousness
%22 & hl=en & sa=+ & ei=$84,s4r:N5i2gFr#(4<3w & ve=)3
3)P&/;w//E !=!alse
3onsciousness e0ists1 but we can !orm no concept o! it as the
intersub5ective cannot grasp it. 3onsequently1 ob5ectivity transcens
intersub5ectivity.
/lthough each being participating in the negotiate ob5ectivity o!
spatiotemporal reality possesses in!inite resources1 this ob5ective realm
nevertheless transcens each being_s iniviual capacity !or
apprehening this open-ene totality. 6he negotiate ob5ective realm
constitutes a higher orer o! in!inity or limitlessness/ineterminacy than
that o! any iniviual in!inite being. 6his negotiate1 ob5ective
Cintersub5ectiveD realm1 though not an ob5ect o! Knowlege !or any
possible consciousness1 is nevertheless ynamically uni!ie through the
continue mutual !ree participation.
;ach iniviual in!inite being has given up the groun o! its ientical
being an 5oine itsel!1 in reuce !inite !orm1 to the new ineterminate
groun o! being which collectively negotiate an maintaine.
Ht is interesting that the intersub5ective aspects o! the ego are not merely
those which are share by all egos as such. 6his points up the
istinction between the representational an participatory paraigms o!
what constitutes Knowlege. / pure representation somehow succees in
corresponing with its ob5ect without1 as it were1 touching it.
3orresponences are in this way pure1 absolute1 an conte0t-!ree.
2)*)
?ut
i! representation is an act of reference such that a close system o!
representation is necessarily rule out1 that is an unlimite grouning
conte0t is require by any such act1 then . . .
"omeone who has only ever Rseen reS cannot appreciate RreS the way
someone who can perceive the entire visible spectrum. H! ?erKeley_s
principle o! esse est percipi applies to the nature o! consciousness such
that my iniviual consciousness is the most general property or quality
o! my sub5ective e0perience1 then it !ollows that an e0perience in Rmy
consciousnessS only serves as mine i! the e0perience is structure by the
neural !unctioning o! my brain. 6his brings up the problem o! how we
etermine what constitutes my brain" my e6perience" my consciousness.
;ven though every iniviual may have the same consciousness this
oes not mean that the e0perience o! other iniviuals coul be Known
to me.
>uly 2)**
"o i! there is in some sense a of consciousness analogous to
the visible light spectrum1 then a being capable o! e0periencing the
consciousness o! many i!!erent Cincluing RhypotheticalSD persons
woul be able to have a !ully appreciation o! Rwhat it_s liKeS to be me
than inee H can. 6his woul be a case o! the meium of e6perience o!
one person being at once the sub$ect of e6perience !or another. 6his
points up the possibility o! a meium within a meium of e6perience.
=ere Rraw !eelsS is not a simple or well !ormulate notion1 nor is Rwhat
it !eels liKe to be an 6S1 since there is the possibility o! w" y" (" etc. having
their own e0perience o! 6Fness.
Foul istinct iniviual consciousnesses given the implie
metaphysics o! min here be 5ust i!!erent ynamic moes o!
!unctioning o! a single1 unitary consciousness? =ow are !orms suppose
to inhere in their respective substances i! inee there is a sharp or
categorical ivision between !orm an substance as such?
Ht is only through collective action o! inepenent agents that Aeality is
uni!ie. 6his is to say that reality is not ob5ectively uni!ie in any
absolute way which has a representations1 but reality is uni!ie by virtue
o! the brute !act o! its having a means o! origination an sustenance.
Aeality can only Re0istS i! it is a prouct1 is embee within a conte0t1
that is1 i! a transcenent realm is given. 6here is no meaning or sense to
the woul be concept1 Runity o! the transcenentS. 6his is because
transcenence implies1 or presupposes1 a loss1 lacK1 or nonapplicability
o! iniviuality an iniviuation. Hn other wors1 the transcenent is
not one nor is it a !inite number.
6here is no re!erence without participation with a conte0t. /n this is
why no interpretation can ever be !inal or absolute1 but is always open-
ene an on-going.
Fhen one contemplates the in!inity o! in!inite beings which collectively
constitute ob5ective reality as intersub5ectivity an at once realizes that
the concept o! iniviuality is meaningless outsie o! spatiotemporality1
it is at this moment that one glimpses 4o. 6his 4o transcens ientity1
that is1 the uality o! e0istence versus none0istence1 c.!.1
"eptember 2)**
@ozicK_s 4hilosophical Investigations" !ootnote1 p. *2': RH am tol by
"iney 8orgenbesser that in a novel by 7eter :eIries a minister is
asKe by a trouble parishioner whether 4o e0ists1 an replies R4o is
so per!ect he oesn_t nee to e0istS. 9ne cannot relate anecotes o!
8orgenbesser_s wit without mentioning the !ollowing classic: uring an
invite talK at a lecture hall o! stuents on the philosophy o! language at
3olumbia ,niversity in the *2')Gs1 90!or :on1 >. .. /ustin note
importantly that1 Ewhile a ouble negative may !unction as a positive
an oes so in many i!!erent languages1 never have H in my lengthy
career o! intensive stuy o! the worlGs languages1 note or hear cite a
single instance o! a ouble positive use as a negative.E -rom the bacK
o! the lecture hall1 pipe up a nasally young "yney 8orgenbesser1
muttering ismissively in his characteristic ?orscht ?elt accent . . GG<eah1
yeah.GG

8uch metaphysical con!usion stems !rom naively treating the concepts
o! ?eing an ;0istence interchangeably.
6he concept o! ?eing is the only concept which cannot be
intersub5ectively e!ineV it is not negotiate. Fe see that there is a
reality beyon agreement between persons.
6he critics o! logocentrism try to assert that 8an has no concept o!
?eing. ?ut can such an assertion be a coherent one? Hs the most that can
be asserte about1 attribute to1 ?eing merely ;0istence? /re we to
unerstan by ?eing a conte0t-!ree e0istent?
Fe may say that ?eing escens an ;0istence rises. 6he conscious ego
is the arti!act o! their meeting. 6he conspiracy o! the temporal an the
;ternal is 8an. 6he representations o! the collective constrains the will
o! the iniviual. ;ach simultaneously elimits an e0tens the reach o!
the other.
,nique entities1 i! they can be compare to one another at all1 this can
only be one through analogy. 6his remins us o! /ristotle_s comment
that the unity o! ?eing is analogical. "o i! an entity possesses ?eing1 it
is only through what is truly unique1 that is to say1 irreucible an
irreproucible1 not to mention irreversible1 which characterizes the
entity. 6his is aKin to our earlier assertion that an entity_s e0istence is
but a metaphor1 perhaps the broaest1 !or that entity_s ?eing. /n so
comparing two ?eings is e0hauste by a comparison o! metaphors. ?ut
the type o! metaphor with which we are concerne is peculiar in the
sense that we o not Know the original conte0t !rom which the
borrowing is taKen in each case.
9ctober 2)*2
EFe o not Know who we areV we o not Know what we areV we
o not Know where this is. Ht is the same !or all o! us. 8anKin oes not
Know anything.E
6here is a strong innate human tenency to thinK about time an
uration1 that is1 temporality1 through the use o! a spatializing metaphor.
Fhen thinKing o! origins an origination1 secretly an subconsciously it
is suppose that all things which originate1 even aboriginally1 must have
lain in wait1 latent or hien1 somewhere in the immanent omain o!
creation1 i! only in a isperse or istribute !orm1 always having
possesse the potential to converge an congeal1 an this potential
merely having patiently waite its turn to be enable by the propitious
tricK o! the play o! conitions an circumstances1 to maKe itsel!
mani!est. ?ut mani!estation is always connecte with a RwhereS though
originating lies with a RwhenS an it is the appearance o! the groun o!
some novel event or thought which constitutes its arising fin 6imeS. 6he
possible an the necessary are inee one1 it is merely that the possible
is never absolutely given but is itsel! unergoing evelopment an
change. Fere the necessary !i0e by immutable laws o! logic an nature
the contingent woul . . . . . .
6he vanishing1 perspectivistic point an highest convergence o! thinKing
is consciousness as an open1 unboune system o! woul-be relateness.
6his consciousness possesses no !inality1 either in what it woul inten
or represent. 6he !act o! the plurality o! consciousness1 rather than its
possession o! eterminate an preetermine moes1 is a transcenent
given.
/pril 2)**
/ commonly hel notion by philosophers o! min1 that is1 o! those
who acKnowlege the e0istence o! consciousness1 is that it is the
structure o! selfFconsciousness that maKes !or iniviual i!!erences in
consciousness an that prior to the evelopment o! a sel!/other concept
an with it sel!-consciousness there is no iniviual ientity uniquely
associate with that consciousness1 c.!.1 "artre_s -eing an Nothingness.
6he implication o! this is that in its substance consciousness is universal
though perhaps in!initely iverse in its amissible forms Bua egoDs.
3oncepts are only suggeste to us through metaphors guiing thought_s
e0ploration1 an intuition is the insight into the connection whereby
metaphors1 only erivable !rom e0perience an its contingency1 point to
the givenness o! concepts1 seemingly pre!iguring e0perience.
6ruth lies in the agreement amongst a plurality o! transcenences.
6he imagery o! reams an the rhyme e0hibite in the peculiar
un!oling o! ream events1 is not trying to tell anything signi!icant to the
pro5ective sel! that is participating in the reamscape. -or everything
which taKes place within reams is either a mani!est threat or a
becKoning. 6o the immerse participant o! the ream1 everything is to
be taKen quite literally. :reams1 the substance o! which is metaphor1 in
the hinsight o! waKe!ul consciousness1 are !or the ream pro5ection o!
the sel!1 reactions to situations in meia res1 an constitute pure
e0perience in which there is no istinction between thought1 speech1
intention an act. Hn the ream there is no metaphorical reality an a
symbolic orer is in it wholly absent. /n it is !or this reason that the
realm o! the ream is not stable an well-behave an in which the
merest arising notion violently ripples through its continuum.
Ht is the out-crystallization o! the various !aculties o! the min that
permits the e0istence o! consciousness as the resiuum o! what is
common to them all.
"o we see now that it only in that which the sel! taKes to be literally at
han an happening that constitutes reaming.
Qd
6o the e0tent that
thought is not at once action oes it possess reality an constitute
!reeom. 6hought which oes not isturb the conitions o! its own
bringing !orth etermines itsel!.
8etaphor is characterize by what we might term Ras thoughnessS.
QX
-ut asFthoughness may posit itself without a prior conte6t in terms of
which a preFe6isting orer shall be e6hibite within some altogether new
conte6t. -or we are speaKing here o! an unerlying aboriginal orering
principle in accorance with which metaphor1 typically mani!esting
itsel! as a borrowing an importation o! structure1 either in!orming or
escribing1 a transpiring within an alternative conte0t1 but which oes
not essentially constitute a borrowing. Iiral contamination may e0plain
the toKen appearance o! li!e at some particular place an time1 but not its
aboriginal emergence Ras suchS.
8yth is an original an originating metaphor which e0hibits the eeper
orer an rawing out its meaning through the personi!ication an
ob5ecti!ication o! principles within a conte0t enhancing the ynamics o!
their operation.
/ll orer1 incluing that o! the natural one1 is institutional an
conventional. 8uch o! the perceive absolute value o! an ob5ect1 belie!1
practice1 li!e style1 etc.1 consists in the notable absence o! any serious
competitors. :ue to the mobility1 both virtual an real1 o! the iniviual1
as well as that o! the lanscape o! his local environment1 valuation has
become precarious an unstable.
4o_s mercy erives !rom the personal aspect o! :eity. :ivine 5ustice
!rom its impersonal aspect. ;0amples o! the impersonal aspect1 taKen
!rom biblical stories are the !ollowing: the passing over o! >ewish
househols by the angel o! eath ue to the simple presence o! a
mani!est sign. :eath o! *
st
born o! every species1 not 5ust o! human
beings. >esus_ perception o! power raining !rom his being when the
woman esirous o! being heale1 mae contact with his garment.
,nbelievers or luKewarm believers o not believe that a personal 4o
coul conemn any person to eternal amnation. 3onsier the
punishment o! succeeing generations !or the transgressions o! their
!ore!athers. C;pigenetic changes have been observe to persist !or
appro0imately seven generations.D 6here are three moes o! eity: the
personal1 impersonal1 an that which meiates between the two. >esus
trie to reestablish the role o! the meiator between these two otherwise
irreconcilable aspects o! the ivine.
6hat li!e is compose o! continual eath an rebirth is establishe by
simply observing the passage o! time !or the iniviual. Fhen one is in
temporality one is never ientical with onesel!.
Qd
Hn my relation to the other H possess !our selves: my sel!1 my iea o!
my sel!1 the other_s iea o! me1 my concept o! the other_s iea o! me.
?ut1 o! course1 my concept o! the other_s iea o! mysel! is meiate by
my concept o! the sel! o! the other1 rather than his or her concept. "o we
see that my relation to the other is no simple1 yaic one.
Fe normally thinK o! impulses1 thoughts1 an emotions provoKing an
moulating the behavior which is the moe o! their e0pression. ?ut the
acting out o! various behaviors liKewise will prouce a number o!
internal1 psychological states which otherwise woul have provie such
boily action to taKe place as toKens o! their e0pression. Hn some cases1
these inner states1 thusly provoKe1 are ancient1 instinctual states which
no longer spontaneously occur in moern humans. ;cstatic ance is a
notable e0ample o! this.
6he mani!estation o! that which is unique1 truly novel1 oes not !it at
!irst into a pre-e0isting category1 but may be aapte to !it later. 9nly
min is capable o! engenering new !orms.
/n entity possessing personhoo is too comple0 to possess an ientity.
Hentity is an attribute solely o! abstract entities. /n what is the
meaning o! an entity possessing ientity as one o! its attributes?
H! in an attempt to accelerate by mechanical means a per!ectly spherical
mass leas not to a change in the location o! this boy_s center o! mass
in the irection along which we woul attempt to maKe it move1 but
instea1 to a supe!lui-liKe streaming o! its composite material aroun
the han an between the !ingers which together woul urge it !orwar1
then espite this action having lea to a reistribution o! the boy_s
mass1 no energy may be suppose to have been e0pene Cis there a
question o! egeneracy here?D throughout the course o! this operations.
"uch a strange ob5ect may be sai to possess not inertia. Ht is hope!ully
obvious !rom what has been consiere thus !ar that1 were it but !or the
absence o! all internal bining !orces within this RmassS1 at least some
small acceleration o! the boy_s center o! mass woul have been e!!ecte
in the irection along which one_s han was attempting to urge it. Fe
note the absence1 in the case consiere above1 o! all compression !orces
in the irection o! the boy_s woul-be acceleration. 6he opposite-
irecte tension !or is liKewise zero1 as the matter istribution was still
prior to our attempting to move it. 8oreover1 all shear !orces within the
mass were similarly zero. @ow it is but a simple an reversible linear
trans!ormation o! spacetime coorinates connecting the representation o!
a matter istribution as possessing pressure1 energy ensity an stress
Crelating to the presence o! shear !orces within the boyD to another
representation o! this istribution as one possessing only energy ensity
an pressure but without any stress ue to shear !orces. Hn other wors1
locally at least1 shear !orces can always be trans!orme away through an
appropriate choice o! spacetime coorinates.
?ut it is clear that a mere change in coorinate system will have no
e!!ect whatever upon any actual physics L this is merely a somewhat
in!ormal restatement o! the principle o! general relativity. "o any mass
istribution not possessing o!!-iagonal terms in its energy tensor in one
system o! coorinates1 may be represente within some new coorinate1
may be represente within some new coorinate system as having an
energy tensor possessing such o!!-iagonal terms Cstress termsD an
owing to the e0istence o! shear !orces within the boy. @ow it is the
bining !orces within a boy which are responsible !or that boy
possessing !orces o! compression1 tension1 an shear. 6he question
which !aces us now is this: might a boy possess an energy tensor with
only a term with this being true !or all possible trans!ormations o! the
spacetime coorinates?
Hs there some component o! the energy tensor which cannot be1 locally at
least1 trans!orme away? @ow a trans!ormation o! the spacetime
coorinates can always be !oun which allows us to locally trans!orm
away a boy_s gravitational !iel.
Fhat are we to maKe o! the 4ibb_s phenomenon in the case o! waves o!
the probability istribution o! quantum states? 8ight we e0pect
e0tremely counter-intuitive behavior by quantum systems at the
spacetime bounaries o! their system wave!unctions?
6here is no absolute e0istence. 6hings always e0ist by subsisting within
some conte0t in which they are embee through being rawn !rom
an sustaine by that conte0t. 6his is by virtue o! original constitution
an reconstitution.
6he avantage o! being one_s own therapist is that counsel receive !rom
onesel! o not engage the !aculty o! human suggestibility which the
perhaps imposing authority o! the therapist typically evoKes.
9b5ectivity possesses abstractness an conventionality.
@othing maKe us !eel our peer so in!erior as when we glimpse how
unambitious are his !antasies.
-or quantum tunneling1 /a0 Z= /a0C)D an/or Cboth?D /a; Z= /a;C)D.
/lthough it is a statement o! the obvious1 psychological states1 or their
contents1 only become conscious when they cannot be containe within
the unconscious min1 when they cannot be processe in terms o! patters
o! impulses1 or reucible concatenations o! such patters alreay store in
local memory. ,sing a computing analogy1 when programs are not
available in memory o! the stan-alone system1 a metaprogram is
activate which commences searching !or the necessary coes out in the
networK to which the stan-alone terminal has now become connecte.
Hn other terms1 when the local system oes not resonate with a !requency
trans!orm o! a set o! e0ternal inputs1 the resonant structure o! the local
system must be altere through being resonantly tune. 6he system
cannot1 however1 tune or synchronize itsel!V i! it coul have one this1 it
woul have alreay possesse these resonances Ron !ileS within itsel!
ClocallyD. "o tuning o! the resonant structure o! the stan-alone system
must be accomplishe !rom outsie itsel! through interaction with some
larger1 embeing1 resonant energy !iel.
/s
au=
:avi :eutsch remarKe in chapter * o! his booK1 6he -abric o!
Aeality1 6he eeper an e0planation is1 the more remote !rom immeiate
e0perience are the entities to which it must re!er.S 3onsciousness is the
eepest e0planation to which we might turn in orer to e0plain that
phenomenon most remote !rom e0perience parao0ically1 which is
consciousness itsel!. ?ut here we may be speaKing o! consciousness in
two isparate senses. @ot only is perception !iltere so as to unerscore
recently acquire themes1 but attention an memory are also selectively
channele in service to the themes now having the greatest currency. H!
the subconscious is merely one planning step ahea o! the conscious
min1 then the manner in which the goals an aims o! the conscious
min are achieve will be moulate in such a way that these conscious
aims are satis!ie with unintene sie consequences1 !orming with one
another a coherent pattern1 the meaning o! which can perhaps be ivine
at a later time when one_s sel! Knowlege has evelope !urther.
Fho is this being within me1 engage in a constant clamor !or my
attention? 6he answer must be. . . it is H an only H.
?ut i! there can be no !inally complete worK1 i! only in part1 then can
there be no progress?
3losure taKes place through an open-ene process. R9ur concept o!
per!ection is !lawe.S
@eurotic compensatory acting out is base as is all neurotic behavior
upon the magical thinKing which we believe is more appropriate to the
way o! li!e o! primitive man. 6he acting out is !or restoring some Kin
o! balance within the iniviual_s psyche1 but prouces unintene
consequences in society. Hn conversation1 this type o! compensation is
more common: one tries to o!!set the unintene impact o! one_s
previous wors an the con!lict between one_s representation o! sel! an
what one Knows o! one_s actual sel! are now simply e0ternalize in the
contrast o! contrary statements in the memory o! the person to whom
one maKes the o!!setting statements.
Fhere one is not !ree to prevaricate concerning the !acts o! a case1 one is
always !ree to interpret one_s own motives1 provie one has graspe the
necessary multi-valency1 an hence1 ineterminacy1 o! the motivation o!
all behavior.
6he ieal relationship history is when one_s !rien is unsuccess!ul !or a
time1 one lens them support until they become success!ul1 the person is
grate!ul an vice versa.
3oncerning success H am remine o! a bumper sticKer H saw once on an
early moel subcompact which rea1 R6he more you Know1 the less you
nee.S "o one must become success!ul in one o! three ways1 or in
ami0tures o! these three: one must become success!ul in business1 one
must become success!ul in the a!!airs o! the min an spirit1 or one must
become success!ul in the raising o! a !amily1 in ami0tures or1 ieally1 in
all three.
Qd
6he parao0 o! the econstructive eneavor: structure is always
utilize to econstruct the structure. :econstruction is not the
estroying o! the 6ower o! ?abel1 but merely an attempt to buil it
higher than be!ore. :econstruction is not the attempt o! the stream to
rise higher than its source. Ht is the attempt to assert that the stream is
always alreay higher than its source.
:oes consciousness have trans-human potential? Hs consciousness by its
very nature transcenental?
/nytime the perceptual !ilters are iscontinuously a5uste1 a conscious
thought is engenere.
/ compromise is !requently negotiate by couples in which one partner
is noticeably more attractive/ wealthy1 etc. than the other whereby the
more attractive partner is grante greater liberties in the marriage while
the less attractive partner remains monogamous an either enies or
reinterprets the in!ielity o! the more attractive partner.
Ht is only nonzero e0pectation values o! momentum-energy which may
possess gravitational mass/inertial mass equivalency. 6he e0pectation
values may always be erive !rom a combination o! !luctuation terms
an uncertainties. 6he !luctuation term !or the energy may be wholly
attribute to the vacuum whereas its uncertainty in its energy to the
e!!ect o! the !luctuation energy upon our energy-measuring apparatus L
what per!ect calibration cannot eraicate Cin principleD. 8ass-energy is
a result o! an imbalance in these two energy terms. Hn this way particles
are seen to be not !lu0-stabilities in themselves1 but structure alterations
in the !lu0-stabilities as a result o! the in!luence1 penultimately o! our
energy-measuring evices-ultimately per von @eumann L upon the
in!luence o! not the iniviual min per se but the consciousness
!unamental in nature1 which is structure through the comple0 system
o! bounary conitions upon the quantum vacuum !iel being measure
Cin essenceD constitute through the operation o! the observer_s brain1
since the e0istence o! the brain as a mass-energy system1 woul
otherwise presuppose1 i! ienti!ie with the observer_s iniviual
consciousness1 the e0istence o! that which its observations are
potentially constituting.
6here mere possibility o! observation results in the reuction o! the state
vector. H! a great enough interlocKing !eebacK between such
possibilities comes about which then alters the statistics o! the matter
an energy Cincluing the embeing vacuum energy !ielD1 which
results in a great enough contraction/collapse in the ensity rate o! these
state vector reuctions through the conversion o! is5oint states into
correlate mi0tures1 proucing an overall coherent state1 then a barrier
will spontaneously be create between internal an e0ternal1 i.e.1 a
ruimentary real1 as oppose to merely hypothetical1 possible observer
will be engenere.
3onspiracy between perception an logic/mathematics in which the
intentional ob5ect is in!erre an then perceive. :egeneracy1
pseuoegeneracy1 one graviton limit1 irreversibility1 etc.
H! all topological trans!ormations o! spacetime at the quantum level may
be reucible to successive or collective symmetric an antisymmetric
topological trans!ormations groune in virtual boson an !ermion
particle e0changes1 then spacetime topology woul be etermine by
vacuum quantum statistics. "o this spacetime topology1 about which
general relativity is unecie1 woul be etermine by the quantum
statistics o! the quantum vacuum. 9n this view1 gravitation an inertia
woul necessitate RpreloaeS quantum vacuum bounary conitions.
"o gravitation1 in particular1 coul no longer be treate as possessing its
own1 unique an universal quantum !iel1 but woul be particular in that
gravitational !iels woul simply be vacuum !iels + particular bounary
conitions supplie !or this vacuum.
9! course1 the zero-point energy !iel is responsible !or inertia since
matter remains at rest1 i.e.1 continues travelling at near the spee o! light
along the time a0is1 ue to its energy being continually replenishe !rom
out o! the vacuum energy.
=ow oes communication between two human brains Cthrough the
normal meium o! a natural languageD a!!ect1 i! at all1 the moe o!
interaction o! each respective brain with the quantum mechanical
vacuum in which each is embee? /n shoul there be some notable
i!!erence between merely the passing o! ata RsignalsS between two
mechanical neural networKs versus the e0change o! actual in!ormation-
base symbols?
Hs every creation o! the human min really o! necessity two-ege?
8ust our creations !unction as insiious co-creators with us their
inventors? 3an there be no such thing as pure mani!estation1 perhaps
because there can be no unobserve emonstration? :oes some ba
e!!ects stem !rom every otherwise RgooS action? /n is the converse
true as well1 oes some goo stem !rom every otherwise evilly intene
action? Hs this simply a variant o! the yin/yang principle applie within
the moral sphere?
H! only we coul compose our thoughts with the instant immeiacy with
which we grasp the conceptions o! others. 9ur worKing a recognition
vocabularies are probably an orer o! magnitue i!!erent in size1 e.g.1
*)1))) wors versus1 say1 *))1))) or 2))1))) wors. Hs suggestibility a
human or merely a general neural networK characteristic?
Hs all !eebacK merely an ampli!ication o! a !eebacK which alreay
e0ists1 but which is too small to normally be observe? 6his might
inee !ollow i! it were to turn out that all local Cclassical physicalD
interactions are actually meiate by nonlocal quantum interactions.
Fhen we say that wors can only really Rre!erS to something beyon
themselves as a linguistic toKen i! they succee in some !ashion to
actually RtouchS something beyon their inciental physical instantiation
Cas sounD1 then we are supposing that language in principle cannot be a
close system-base phenomenon. 6o say that an open system is uni!ie
is to say that the system is really close Cbut only with respect to the
particular Runity parameterS concerneD.
6he worl wie web an internet will someay become so e0tensive an
integrate that you will be able to type any arbitrary sequence o! wors
into a search engine an call up website linKs Cor whatever the
equivalent by thenD containing somewhere within them that precise
escription. 6his is a Kin o! breaK even point. "till later1 many more
than one RlinKS in the networK will be calle !orth by any escriptive
phrase. /t this point one will have to maKe a istinction which will only
be able to be mae i! one interacts with the networK.
/ll vector quantities are conserve. H! a vector quantity oes not appear
to be conserve1 this is only because the vector is merely a component o!
some higher imensional vector quantity. -or instance1 although neither
time nor space are conserve physical quantities1 an there!ore neither
conserve nor quantize quantities1 they are collectively when combine
together into a spacetime !our-vector.
6he velocity o! light is the velocity o! time. Ielocity through space is
always at the e0pense o! velocity through time an vice versa. 6he
parameter by which this e0change o! motion Cbetween space an time
irectionsD is meiate1 such that the law o! CprobabilityD conservation is
uphel1 is that o! mass. 6he particular mani!estation o! probability
conservation1 which is relevant here1 is that o! !our momentum
conservation. / question which is relevant here is whether !our-
momentum !luctuations are conserve. H! such !luctuations are
conserve1 then given the conservation o! the e0pectation values o! !our
momentum1 it woul immeiately !ollow that the =eisenberg
uncertainties in each component o! the three momentum an in the
energy themselves con5ointly !orm a !our vector o! =eisenberg
uncertainty in !our momentum. Hn such a situation we e0pect a
generalize an relativistic statement o! the =eisenberg ,ncertainty
Aelation o! the !ollowing !orm. 6he ot prouct o! the !our momentum
uncertainty vector with the spacetime uncertainty vector must be greater
than or equal to 2h/pi1 i.e.1 Z= (h/2pi. Hn the absence o! Rboun energy1S
i.e.1 !ree space Cwhere Rno gravitational !ielS is presentD1 this ot
prouct woul be between the !our momentum !luctuations o! the
quantum vacuum an the R!luctuations o! the spacetime interval.S
6here is obviously a connection between quantum mechanical three
momentum !luctuations an energy !luctuations1 i.e.1 timeliKe
component o! the !our momentum !luctuations1 which tens in the right
irection ue to the property o! bosons an !ermions obeying Ropposite
7auli principles.S
Fe are perhaps implying a Kin o! ouble-counting by speaKing o!
!luctuations o! both the !our momentum an the spacetime interval. Ht
may be that there is no physical meaning in the concept o! spacetime
interval !luctuations !or such !luctuations woul also be present within
any spacetime measuring apparatus/evices which we might attempt to
measure them. Fe cannot irectly Rgrapple withS the space an time
variables1 but only inirectly1 through the manipulation/use o!
momentum/energy.
"o how is the manipulation o! momentum energy systems1 e.g.1 matter1
by other momentum energy systems1 i.e.1 people1 not an e0ample o! the
latter systems CpeopleD pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps.
Aelevant consierations here are the ghost in the machine paraigm1 !ree
will an eterminism1 collapse o! the wave!unction1 contrast o! local an
nonlocal interactions1 etc.
Fe may thinK o! the inuction o! wave!unction collapse in a quantum
system through the per!ormance o! certain measurements upon that
system as in some sense the Rshort-circuitingS o! the system in question.
6his may e0plain the e!!ects note o! ;;4 measurements upon
per!ormance controlle by the parts o! the brain being measure.
6he rise o! the internet an the concurrent ecline in television
viewership is proo! that most people pre!er lower banwith
communications an more channels along with interactivity than they o
high banwith within a relatively paltry number o! channels with
programming etermine by outsie agencies1 i.e.1 no interactivity.
Ht is true that most intelligent people live within a worl o! absolutes1 as
this type o! worl requires the least amount o! metaphysical
philosophical e!!ort to support it. Hn !act1 one might term the worl o!
the everyay mile class person as a state o! living an being in
perpetual metaphysical !ree !all.
/n e0ample o! the unersie o! the elaborate an apparently seamless
tapestry which is the human min might be the inevitable connection
between laughter an ticKling. /nother might be the tenency o! many
people to sneeze upon emerging !rom inoors an suenly into bright
aylight. /nother is the tenency !or a limb to become numb1 i.e.1 to
R!all asleepS i! one assumes an unaccustome pose !or too long a time.
/ similar e0ample !rom the !amiliar worl o! the personal computer
might be the tenency within microso!t operating systems !or an hour
glass to be evoKe by any action which ta0es the computers limite
processor spee L even those actions not speci!ically taKen into account
in the esign o! that particular warning !eature.
6he only way that nonlocality can be consistent with special relativity
woul be i! the instantaneous etermination o! spins C!or oppositely
RspunS particlesD were instantaneous not 5ust in the e0perimenter_s !rame
o! re!erence1 i.e.1 laboratory !rame1 but in all possible re!erence !ramesT
6here is a !ine line e0isting between optimal sensitivity to the in!orming
in!luence o! quantum vacuum energy !luctuations an optimal
inepenence !rom sai !luctuations.
Fithout ismissing /strology out o! han1 let us asK the question1 R why
oes this esoteric science appear to possess some power all its own !or
organizing our Knowlege1 particularly personality types CspatialD an
the ynamics o! their li!e_s paths CtemporalD? 6aKing the lea !rom
"helraKe1 perhaps1 we might hypothesize that the basis !or /strology_s
uncanny e!!ectiveness may lie with the sheer mass o! creative thought by
which its principles were evelope an creatively applie over the past
!our millennia. 6his woul only be possible i! there e0ists a great eal
which remains uneretermine about reality. "till more is reality a
raically open system. ?ut this implies an unlimite amount o!
uneretermination !or reality. "o how can reality possess any stability
o! structure an process1 given this unlimite openness? /pparently
there must be some Kin o! Rbu!!eringS between i!!erent RlevelsS o!
reality1 which amounts in essence to some Kin o! ba!!le obtaining
between chaos an orer which nonetheless permits both in!orming an
bacK-reaction to taKe place between them.
"calar waves are purely in!ormational rather than !orce-meiating.
"calar waves have e!!ects upon an otherwise close ynamic system
which cannot be reprouce within a true1 isolate system1 i! only
because o! the mutual othogonality o! scalar an vector waves.
6he action o! the will is not generally speaKing in con!lict with the
mechanism o! operation or the principle o! this mechanism o! any
process by which its ictates might be carrie out. 8oreover1 the
operationCsD unerlying the action o! the will are completely !ree !rom
the in!luence o! an unconstraine by Cby e!initionD the etails o! all
these particular e0ecutive mechanisms. Ht is this general RnegativeS
characteristic o! will which suggests that its operation lies in its
in!orming !unction an the intimate relationship o! consciousness an
will is thus !urther pointe up. Ht is probable that all o! the woul be
e0ecutive operations/!unctions utilize by will to implement its
irectives act locally1 within the !rameworK o! mechanistic causality1
while will itsel! possesses a nonlocal nature which is apiece with the
integral nature o! consciousness. 3oherence may taKe two !orms here:
where bounary conitions to the local ynamism are present1
reverberative1 where bounary conitions are entirely absent1 this
coherence is aperioic in nature.
6he introuction/insertion o! bounary conitions into a ynamism
where such constraints are hereto!ore absent requires an in!orming o!
process1 which is necessarily nonlocal. 6his is because the e0istence o!
a particular topology an metric to spacetime is itsel! a set o! bounary
conitions upon some ynamism an is probably the most general Kin
o! bounary conition or constraint imaginable. /lso a change in
bounary conitions which cannot be eterministically evolve !rom a
previous set must have been introuce Rby han.S
"omehow the "el! is not commonly thought to be an authority worthy o!
hee an authority is more com!ortably locate in the other. 6he greater
the istance between onesel! an one_s authority1 the more weight will
that authority_s pronouncements carry. 4o is a hany illustration o!
this principle.
6he Raha e0perienceS comes about whenever an act o! creativity is such
that1 simultaneously with it1 one glimpse some essential part o! its very
mechanism.
;ach new generation ignores the amonitions o! the previous one. 6he
ol mistaKes are repeate in slightly new variations1 espite the raically
altere appearances presente by the cutting egemost mani!estations.
<outh con!uses style with substance an this essentially accounts !or
why it oes not pay better hee to the lessons base in the li!e
e0periences o! elers.
6here is an inherent i!!iculty in converting nonlocally base intuition
an insight into proceural rule base locally coe Knowlege. 6he
analogy is not with that o! mere coing/ecoing1 but with aressing1
uploaing1 ownloaing1 installing1 con!iguring1 initializing1 running1
!eeing-bacK1 upating1 etc.
Fe never entirely get over the esperate nee to receive the positive
parental RstroKe.S
Ht is rarely i! ever investigate whether there are inee any signi!icant
behavioral i!!erences between the races1 an still less has there been
much i! any research evote to a possible evolutionary e0planation !or
such i!!erences. "uch i!!erence have been perceive by many !or
generations1 but have selom i! ever been commente upon within polite
society or within pro!essional or scienti!ic publications. Ht is !airly easy
to imagine how pro!oun i!!erences in geography1 !or e0ample1 in
which the various races evolve1 perhaps quite istinct !rom that o! their
more istant common ancestors1 may have playe a role in establishing
those sometimes notable i!!erences.
/ reay e0ample might be how wie-open tunra1 steppe1 savanna1 etc.
places less premium upon quicK reaction time an more emphasis upon
the ability to !ormulate a plan that requires more than a !ew moments
thinKing versus the requirements that the crampe quarters o! a ensely
vegetate 5ungle or bush environment 1 inhabite by !erocious preators
possessing lightning !ast re!le0es1 might eman not so much in the way
o! re!lection an !oresight as it woul abilities similar to those possesse
by the preators. @ote here that within the wie open environments the
enemy most natural to man woul be man himsel!.
6he present astrophysical observations inicating a general acceleration
o! the cosmological e0pansion woul seem to imply that a
hyperspherical potential oes1 inee1 e0ist. 6his potential possesses a
graient along the local time a0es at every point within spacetime.
8ight gravitational potentials ultimately erive !rom the local
hyperspherical potential through the peculiar interaction o! massive
particles1 or more generally1 energy in boun !orm1 i.e.1 bining energy1
with this potential?
6he balance maintaine between the current ensity o! $-momentum
!luctuations/e0changes an the current ensity o! energy
!luctuations/e0changes accounts !or the tren o! cosmological e0pansion
in its 2
n
time erivative. "o i! the e0pansion rate o! the universe is
accelerating Cwithin observable $ imensionsD1 then there must be a shi!t
in the momentum-energy istribution o! the vacuum such that the
ensity o! its $-momentum e0changes is ecreasing Cboies are
becoming less massiveD an the ensity o! its energy increasing. 6he
ynamics o! the cosmological e0pansion1 whether it is overall
accelerating or ecelerating1 is attribute to the relative strengths o! the
cosmological constant Cthe vacuum energy ensityD an the gravitational
energy o! the universe.
6he sort o! R!orceS that changes the istribution o! momentum-energy
without altering the magnitue o! the !our momentum is one with a !our
!orce magnitue o! ).
H! we are not 5ealous1 then perhaps at turns amaze an the wist!ul when
seeing our own unrealize potential e0presse through the actions o! a
younger person.
Fhat e0plains much o! people_s seemingly arbitrary an irrational
behavior is the in!luence o! !etish thinKing. -etish thinKing is merely a
symptom o! a min that is esperately grasping at meaning.
6he reucing valve theory o! min breaKs own the natural istinction
between thought an perception1 memory an imagination.
/ny string can be interprete so as to appear to contain a message. /ny
con!iguration o! souns1 color patches1 etc. can be relate to through
perception so as to possess coherence an unity as an aesthetic ob5ect.
6hought originates in a parallel istribute parameter manner1 but must
be communicate in a serial or sequential translation.
"eeKing an e0planation !or transcenence is analogous with imly
recollecting chilhoo or in!antile e0periences an oes not e0plain the
transcenent quality o! these early e0periences themselves.
Hn the light o! greater Knowlege an e0perience1 any te0t o! su!!icient
comple0ity may be open to ever more novel metaphorical
interpretations. 6he te0t moulates e0perience at a certain metaphorical
level o! interpretation to shape the !orging o! new associations an
meanings.
4erman :ing versus ?eingt:
Fhat are connotations so obvious in one language that they are not even
consciously realize are in another language non-e0istent in relation to
the relatively super!icial iea enote by wors in two languages. 6he
connection o! enotation an connotation may be otherwize arrive at
through laborious metaphysical argument an logic in the latter language
an only realize through instructive insight in the !ormer.
Aeality is in the sub5ective i!!erences which are abstracte !rom.
3onsciousness might be thought o! as the Rether o! the min1S while the
ether o! spacetime may be thought o! as the Rconsciousness o! the
,niverse.S
6here is the !ormation o! concepts which1 is suggeste by ata an there
is the converse process o! the interpretation o! ata in the light o!
concepts.
?ecause ata amit o! an unlimite number o! istinct1 though perhaps
always relate1 Cwhere a single min is the interpreter1 at leastD no
particular thought is necessarily implie by any particular set o! conte0t-
!ree ata.
:ata may be abstracte !rom in!ormation an in!ormation yiel !rom the
interpretation o! ata. 6here is1 however1 a istinction to be mae with
regar to in!ormation so that interpretation o! ata which reveals the
intene in!ormation an those interpretations o! ata that o not. ?ut
this istinction presupposes that the conscious intention is always the
ultimate arbiter o! interpretation1 an this is not always the case.
/ny conscious being only Knows about its previously intene messages
through an act o! sel!-interpretation. Fe1 there!ore1 may say that the
meaning o! ata is merely that one which e0peiently !its larger
meanings1 an the revisionistic attribution o! them1 are always open in
light o! some as yet uniscovere uni!ying1 meaning-enhancing
metaphor.
7hil (2(* @otes !rom /ugust *222
Fe learn about our own min as well as the mins o! others through
Csuper!iciallyD the same manner L that is1 through e0perience.
Ht is not possible to Know everything about the mental state that one is in
although this oes not necessarily mean that is it possible !or one to be
mistaKen about the true character o! the mental state one is in. 6here is a
certain ine!initeness to phenomena which is associate only with their
bouneness to temporality. /n not with their ine!initeness at a
particular instant. Hn quantum mechanics a system e0periences temporal
evolution ue to the ine!initeness o! the wave!unction escribing the
system an such an ine!inite wave !unction can only be gotten by
solving the "chroinger wave equation when utilizing a =amiltonian
possessing a perturbation term1 itsel! not sharply e!ine. 8in seems
to be !orme by the process by which it acquires the tools with which it
might attempt to escribe itsel! to itsel!. 6hat component o! min1
shoul it e0iste at all1 which transcen language1 which his to say1 all
means o! escription. 6his component o! min nee not be consistent in
character1 structure1 etc. across the variety o! mine iniviuals. ?ut
here !ace1 yet again1 the problem o! min being greater than any possible
e!inition o! itsel!. / possible answer here is 5ust that part o! the
Knowlege which one has about min one acquires !rom one_s own case.
Fe shoul perhaps say that these components o! min lying beyon its
e!inition are not ine!!able1 only that what i!!erent mean by the same
wors applie to the escription o! their own mins i!!er in ways not
etectable.
?ut it is always possible that there is some overlap between the manner
in which we Know about the mental states o! others an the manner in
which we Know about our own mental states. Hn this way1 having a vali
means by which to have some Knowlege about the mental states o!
others nee not militate against the privilege access which we have o!
our own mental states1 i! only because it is only the privilege access we
have o! our perceptions o! the behavior o! others which gives us this
partial Knowlege o! their mental states.
Ht might be the case that what is essential to ienti!ying mental states lies
not in behavior per se but with other correlate mental states occurring
later in time or recollecte !rom memory.
R8oreover1 since . . . rely on.S 6his simply oesn_t !ollow at all1 but
relies on ualistic assumptions1 H believe. :oes actual Knowlege nee
to be meiate Knowlege?
R/ satis!actory . . . o! behavior.S ?ut not necessarily 5ust those ties
between the mins o! others an their behavior.
Fe must istinguish between taKing behavior into account in a primary
!rom merely a seconary way. 6his is precisely the sort o! approach
which H propose to taKe.
"ome con!usion o! terminology here which obscures the question at
han. Ht is clear that we can_t get anywhere in 7hilosophy o! 8in i! we
can_t give thorough e!initions o! mental an physical1 internal an
e0ternal1 etc.
8atter is simply min in one o! its in!inite variety o! appro0imations o!
itsel! by itsel!. Fhat we call min is simply reality in its
unappro0imate unabstracte inissoluble unity.
Fe remove consciousness !rom e0perience1 !ragment this e0perience
into parts an then1 we are surprise when we can_t snap these parts bacK
together to prouce the inissoluble whole or unity !rom which these
parts were originally abstracte.
:escartes1 =ume1 Oant1 .ocKe1 et al.1 are rawn heavily !rom an
ebate with in the 7hilosophy o! 8in.
Fhat maKes a sensation mine rather than yours? 8aybe there is only
one consciousness1 reuce an channele by the iniviual brain so that
there is only one person with an ine!inite number o! i!!erent1
isconnecte sets o! integrate e0periences. ;0perience presupposes
integration1 however.
Oant: the sel! that constructs the worl L the transcenental ego. 6he
sel! we construct is the empirical ego. Aea */1 an p. *&2 o! "mart
own to p. *NN.
4eel_s results concerning truth an provability are perhaps not so
surprising when one consiers that there unoubtely is a continuity by
which one booK may be trans!orme into another through the mere
continual substitution o! wors1 but intuitively1 there oes not seem to be
a continuous trans!ormation o! the ieas o! one booK into those o!
another which coul possibly parallel that base on the mere substitution
o! wors.
RHS1 RnowS1 RhereS1 are e0amples o! egocentric particulars. 6he
bounary lines o! that escribe by egocentric particulars are somewhat
elastic.
6hat H re!ers to the one who utters is a linguistic convention which seems
to presuppose the e0istence o! one an only one sel!.
RH o not e0istS poses a con!lict between the act o! asserting an the
content o! the assertion.
:escartes hols that thought is transparent to itsel!1 but "pinoza thought
that
Qd
to be aware o! a thought is to invoKe another thought. =ume
seeme to have similar ieas.
6he corresponence iea that the thought re!ers to itsel! without the nee
!or the RHS as a meiator.
6hought requires a thinKer. Cnot necessarilyD /ccoring to Puine1 i! a
means cannot be !oun to replace terms with alternative !ormulations
then we are committe to the e0istence o! that re!erre to by these terms.
=ume uses such wors as RHS1 RmyS1 Rmysel!S1 etc.1 in orer to state his
argument enying the e0istence o! the sel!.
3ontiguity in time1 space1 an necessary connection o! cause an e!!ect.
Ht is perhaps reasonable but not necessarily the case that all physical
processes are susceptible to scienti!ic e0planation. Ht is perhaps
precisely where physical processes cease to be e0plicable scienti!ically
that the relative iscontinuity between the mental an the physical is to
be !oun: it is at that level at which the iniviual components in terms
o! which e0planation procees cease to behave as inepenently
e0isting entities.
6he i!!iculty in saying what it means !or something to be quantum
mechanical1 relativistic1 ergoic1 etc. in no way may be taKen as strong
reason !or believing that reality is classical1 spatiotemporally absolute1
eterministic1 respectively.
9ne is then blaming one_s inability to !orm a e!inition upon the
incoherence1 lacK o! sel!-consistency1 etc. o! the concept to which the
wor attempts to re!er. Fhen we encounter physical processes which
seem to etermine themselves by a quantity o! in!ormation greater than
that prescribe amount which we are able to possess about this process1
then we may be secure in supposing that this process possesses an
integrity an wholeness which may only be truly escribe as Rmental.S
Fhat might be consiere to be mental characteristics?
Iagueness or ambiguity
@oneterministic
@on-spatial
6emporal
.ower levels recapitulate higher
6eleological
"imultaneously interconnecte
"el!-representing
"el!-re!erential or recursive
6he reason why all o! the Oantian categories seem to apply at the level
o! observation at which classical physics operates an why each o! the
categories seems to be violate1 one by one1 at the level where classical
physics leaves o!!1 an where quantum physics taKes up1 is that min
cannot give a uni!ie escription o! its own Knowlege o! itsel!
CmeiateD an constitutes an unmeiate Knowlege o! min o! itsel!.
6here!ore1 the process by which min Knows what it taKes to be the
e0ternal worl must be essentially complementary to the way in which
min realizes CKnowsD itsel! L without meiation.
*-N))-&$N-*2)) -ree 8oney to 3hange <our .i!e
6he e0perientially base etails which were remove !rom the
categorical escription when the category was originally RabstracteS
are partially reconstitute when these abstract symbols are allowe to
interact an combine. ?ut i! the process o! abstraction is not itsel! a
reversible process1 then this RreconstitutionS cannot really recoup the
original groun !rom which the combine escriptive/enotative
elements were originally abstracte. /n so a new groun is prepare in
response to the bacK reaction o! combine symbols upon the groun that
they originally stemme !rom as isolate abstract symbols CelementsD.
6hose o! us who have routinely per!orme tasKs on a computer terminal
that is connecte to a networK have notice that on some occasions the
response at our terminal to requests !or in!ormation1 calculations1 etc.
taKe place at a normally rapi pace1 whereas on other ays or times
uring the ay1 these commans are e0ecute with a !rustratingly pain!ul
slowness1 i! they are per!orme at all1 that is. 6his may be unerstoo
in terms o! the conservation o! R!loating pointS operations or R!lopsS
which must be ratione between large multiplicities o! i!!erent
machines.
H! the vacuum energy oes not itsel! gravitate1 then shoul we e0pect all
o! the general relativistic e!!ects1 such as mass increase1 length
contraction1 time ilation1 etc.1 to also apply to this vacuum1 5ust as it
normally oes to real particles an !iels?
Hn a very real sense1 the une0ceptional man must !in himsel! a RvirginS
to marry1 i! he is to be satis!ie that he has chosen the best possible mate
!or himsel!. RIirginS in the sense that the woman is unaware that with
respect to some important trait/!eature o! males1 she Rcoul o better.S
6he manner in which the sel! initially grapples with the newly impose
spatiotemporal limitation is arbitrary1 but becomes less so over time. 6o
the e0tent that one_s response is not arbitrary1 one_s response is
etermine through alterity which has become incorporate1 virus-liKe1
into the sel!_s own structure.
6he human nervous system is constitute in such a way that repetition o!
a message or communication intensi!ies an eepens1 pulling
progressively more elements !rom a penumbra o! still more inirectly
relate notions. Ht is the builing up o! a resonance which spreas
throughout the min_s associative resources1 a revitalization o! the latent
memory linKs1 allowing the activation o! progressively larger an
comple0 memory circuits1 proucing e0periences more comple0 than
those associate with the subcircuits o! memory originally lai own by
live e0perience. 6his is the very opposite o! the automaticity seen in
mentally retare humans or in primates.
/ll o! the genes which can be !oun in a complete human genome can
be !oun in simpler combinations within the other species o! li!e sharing
the planet with man. Hn this sense1 the human may be1 in a very real
sense1 thought o! as a chimerical being. "ince by !ar most o! the genetic
combinations have never been trie over the course o! evolution on this
planet1 many o! these combinations being !avorable relative to the
present environment1 an many more1 by !ar1 relative to hypothetical
environments1 most o! which may never be realize in the history o! the
universe1 there must be some principle o! the engenering o! orer
which is at once broaer an eeper than that pose by stanar
:arwinian natural selection. H! we view evolution as being purely
aaptive1 then abstract categories o! !itness which we presently hol may
not have any absolute signi!icance. Hntelligence which is e!ine as the
capacity !or aaptation to environmental change within the single
li!etime o! an iniviual o! a species1 is itsel! an aaptation to a
particular environment.
Qd
6his is perhaps a very isturbing notion1 !or
it means that environments may be possible in which intelligence is not
selecte !or.
H !in my unaccustome surrounings 5ust as strange as o you !in
yours L even though each o! us is irreconcilably alien with respect to the
other.
8aKing merely a cameo appearance in this li!e. Iiews li!e as merely an
orientation !or something really serious.
6he restrictions upon the possible pose by our conceptual !rameworK
cannot be violate without at once some substantive an signi!icant shi!t
in the meaning o! its categories. 6his perhaps helps account !or why
human beings are so psychologically aaptable.
Fhy sin is a necessary !unction o! losing the connection to the
transcenental sel!. Hs sin merely a !unction o! uncertainty an
ignorance? ,ncertainty o! utilitarian payo!!/paybacK b ignorance o! the
interests o! other persons/one_s own Cultimate transcenentalD interests?
L that is1 ignorance o! how the other person_s interests are secretly
consonant with one_s own eeper interests?
Fhat transcenental beings truly possess in common is possesse in
common only in a metaphorical1 speci!ically1 an analogical sense. 6his
common property is otherness1 or alterity. /lterity is the only category
which nee possess neither a !ormal unity1 nor a common point o!
re!erence1 nor any e!inable continuity. /n it is there!ore !rom this
that the other categories subsist1 either through conventional agreement1
or through a participatory1 irect mutual grappling. 6hat which is the
nature o! the other/alter sel! is1 inee unKnowable to one. =owever1
one_s otherness that one etects within onesel! L this1 oes one truly
possess in common with other transcenent beings L !or they too1 liKe
onesel!1 possess an irreconcilable alterity within themselves. "o we are
now inquiring whether the alterity o! the other is itsel! alter with respect
to one_s own alterity. /lterity is1 o! its very !ormless Cessence-lessD
essence1 transcenental1 which is to say1 ivine. 6his brings us to the
question o! the alterity pose by social groups or collectives. 3oul the
unity possesse by alterity as such be the transcenental unity spoKen o!
by Oant? 6his unity cannot be erive but is absolute. H! such a unity
is in some sense living1 then we must say that here we have !oun the
most !itting concept o! 4o. 3learly such a concept woul possess
abstractness1 none greater than which can be conceive. 6his alterity
we also possess in common with other selves an on which we can all
agree in common. Fe are each o! us1 in similar ways1 limite by1 an at
os with1 the various collectivities o! which we !orm sometimes but a
small i! not insigni!icant part. 6his is alterity1 which we share with one
another by virtue o! the otherness that each o! us poses with respect to
the collectives in whom we participate1 in both action an
representation.
8uch speculative argument within philosophy consists in the seizing
upon some commonly hel or value culturally or linguistically base
assumption as a !ulcrum point !or the thesis being emonstrate. 9ne
must motivate one_s selection o! a particular question as being a worthy
sub5ect !or iscussion an ebate.
9ne_s psyche oes not usually mature in the precise irection o! one_s
choosing so as to closely appro0imate one_s ieal sel!.
6he implications !or postmoern theory pose by the quantum
superposition principle. -rom a contraiction1 all propositions !ollow.
-rom a superposition1 2
@
quantum states !ollow.
9ne !eels one_s otherness most Keenly when in the presence o! Rthe
one.S
/rt cane be a re!lection or an in!luence1 or both.
Qd
?ecause o! the ynamic bacK-reaction o! language upon the
poet/author1 he cannot really assert what he intens or perhaps even
inten what he asserts. "ince both tautologies an contraictory
utterances lea to some RsensicalS Cnot nonsensicalD reaction in the
listener/reaer1 communication never taKes place within any particular
theoretical/logical system. 9ur nervous systems respon1 millisecon by
millisecon to sensory inputs1 however1 the min itsel!1 only e0periences
temporally integrate structures an respons to them.
Hnsights emboy a more general concept than the conte0ts in which they
originally are conceive an to which they are applie.
@ature is awaiting the opportunity to cooperate with us in the realization
o! pro5ects not yet imagine. 6hat which is responsible !or
organization/structure as such itsel! possesses no e!ine/e!inable
pattern o! organization. :oes this suggest that within the ineterminate
groun !rom which all orer originates that there is not ob5ective
istinction between actual an potential?
"peaKing reality into e0istence1 e.g.1 R.et there be lightT1S versus
speaKing e0istence into reality1 e.g.1 RH now pronounce you man an
wi!e.S
6he civilization ha to rebuil: i!!erent theories woul inevitably lea
to the iscovery o! very i!!erent entities. 6he stability o! e0tene
ob5ects is supporte by 4olstone moes1 c.!.1 =. ,mezawa an =.
8atsumoto1 8. 6achiKi1 6hermo -iel :ynamics an 3onense "tates1
90!or1 *2N2. Hnertia may be escribe in terms o! e0citation an
reconstruction o! 4olstone moes. 3.!.1 Ialone_s thermoynamice
gravity theory.
6he parao0 o! in!ormation processing an the open-eneness o!
internality. 6opological change is transcenental because o! the
necessary iscontinuity o! substance involve.
6he creativity gains wisom1 the entity gains compassion. ;ach has
what the other organically lacKs. / symbiosis which shoul grow tighter
as the symbiant goes through his li!e cycle. 6here is no reason to
believe that each human person oes not equally represent the choice o!
4o to become 8an. 6he special istinction represente by the case o!
>esus is that =e somehow i not lose the connection to his in!inite sel!
through the process o! becoming limite in space an time. 7erhaps
original sin is the only i!!erence between >esus an the rest o! us:
having been born o! a virgin1 >esus oes not receive the male se0-linKe
blot C9riginal "inD originally incorporate into the R5unK componentsS o!
the human genome. "in is inee represente in the 4enesis story as
having a viral1 contaminating character. ;0istence rises as ?eing
escens. ;ach human is a largely unsuccess!ul attempt to maKe a
>esus.
9pen-ene symbols an representation. 3onventional agreement
establishe with the evelopment o! language or uring communication.
6he mystery o! .ogos.
=amero!!_s worK on the mechanism o! general anaesthesia supports
=u0ley_s theory o! the brain as the reucing valve o! the min.
;cclesiastes L the "pirit returns to 4o alwaysV the soul returns only i!
5uge to be without sin. Ht may turn out that /ristotle_s theory o! the
"oul as being Rthe !orm o! the boyS may not be too !ar a!iel.
"eptember
2)**
/long these lines1 the boy may be conceive o! as Rthe sca!!oling
o! the soulS or the Rsoul_s wombS1 which is aKin to a template or mol1
which is broKen an cast o!! once the substance within it has achieve its
intene mature !orm. / similar analogy is the @ew /ge conception o!
the ;arth as a Rschool !or soulsS. 6he temporal nature o! sel!-
construction cannot be avoie Can RintelligentS being cannot be create
Rin one goSD because RcreationS via =egel_s Rnegation o! the negationS
!alls eternally short o! the true goal o! the ivine1 namely that o!
engenering beings who are Raltogether newS an hence possessing the
potential !or !reeom an sel!-etermination. 6he ineterminate an
temporality in other wors are inseparable1 c.!.1 quantum energy
uncertainty as the sole meiator o! changes in the energy states o! a
quantum mechanical system1 c.!.1 8ichael /. 8orrison1 Cnerstaning
3uantum 2echanics. 6he irreversibility o! temporality is in essence the
nontrivial aspect of temporal change.
9ctober 2)*2
Fhat is the liKely
metaphorical relationship between causal supervenience an ob5ect
oriente programming?
6he parao0 o! in!ormation processing an the open-eneness o!
internality. 6opological change is transcenental because o! the
necessary iscontinuity o! substance involve. 8atter has the e!!ect o!
trans!orming the super symmetric hyper potential nonisotropic
istribution o! components o! the hyperspherical potential. Puantum
tunneling rate competes with the pair creation rate. ;ven though RH am
4oS says >esus1 R H will submit to 8an.S Ht was the !ailure to submit to
an be lower than 8an which lea to .uci!er_s choice to lea a rebellion
in heavan. ;ach believer must be able to submit to the Fill o! 4o
though he has the sinKing an arrogant suspicion that he is himsel! a
4o. 8ultiple incommensurable grouns o! ?eing. /s you
contemplate tossing those memories in the ust bin you are given a start
L you realize that she_s oing this too. 8ost people are
misunerstoo/!eel that they are misunerstoo because they o not
unerstan themselves Cpossess a rigi enough ientity conceptD. 6hese
iniviuals react to the in!ringement o! !avorable potential ientity
!eatures an character traits. 9ntological plurality: but the 8uses o
ispute among themselves. 7ermutation an combination across
conte0ts: the power o! genetic recombination.
6he problems o! coherence an in!inite regress in ;verett_s
interpretation o! quantum measurement problem. ;ternal return without
repetition o! events: eternally upwar arching spiral.
6he 4os are so very intereste in the struggles an e0ploits o! Rmere
mortalsS not because they are bore up on 8t. 9lympus1 but because we
represent hanicappe versions o! themselves. R3haracterS versions1 i!
you will.
6wo myths point up the crystallization o! meaning as it evelops
organically1 ialectically an noneterministically within open-ene
conte0ts: 6he Ielveteen Aabbit an 7inocchio. / ialectical
evelopment occurs without its groun being avantage by all o! its
signi!icant steps being pre!igure as negations awaiting a process o!
Rnegating the negation.S "uch a evelopment is not constitute by the
mere enabling o! latent orer by evolving contingent conitions.
8ental phenomena maKe i!!erence to the person whose mental states
they constitute1 an so cannot be mere epiphenomena. 8etaphysical
worK is per!orme by the iniviual as a result o! his e0perience in the
worl. ,se here the analogy o! the ";6H at home pro5ect.
Fhat is calle sanity is relative to the openness an iversity o! the
society. @o iscrete1 close system contains in!ormation about itsel!1
possesses no integral escription o! itsel!. /n so any open system must
in a sense possess a Kin o! unconsciousness. =ow shoul the system
istinguish contents which emerge !rom this RunconsciousnessS !rom
those contents originating !rom a Rgenuine e0terior?S /n can there be
a true istinction o! inner vs. outer !or such an open system? 8oreover1
is there any istinction to be mae between that which is in!orme !rom
that which oes the in!orming? Hn!ormation1 there!ore is not inert1 but
ynamic1 not a substantive1 but an ongoing action o! in!orming. =ow
are we to interpret memory in light o! this !act? / plurality o! these
open spaces remins us o! .eibniz_ monas. 4iven this plurality1 that
each member is RopenS but not to any o! the others1 without some
meiation being provie wholly !rom outsie all1 which implies the
collectivity o! the sum o! each becoming limite in some way. ?ut there
is not way to e!ine that which is e0terior to all since a totality is here
implie which is as yet unwarrante. /n it certainly oes not !ollow
that that which is e0terior to each o! two must there!ore be e0terior to
both. "o how oes each become limite by something transcening it
without this something transcening RbothS? 6he answer here is i! this
something transcening each is nonetheless interior to both. Hn this way
the interiority lies with the !using an mutual limiting o! each.
?ecause there are metalevels o! the sel!/other relation1 how oes this
complicate our unerstaning o! language? 6he sel! as other is itsel! the
arti!act o!1 meiate through1 language.
;ven arbitrary sequences o! wors call !orth meaning!ul concepts.
.ogically1 a tautology oes not provie any in!ormation. / tautology
such as Rwhen you notice a change1 you notice a change1S oes1
however1 succee in conveying something1 i! only because the listener is
in a state o! change uring the very brie! time that it taKes !or him to
hear the statement o! the tautologous proposition. @ot only oes the
central nervous system respon to Rlinguistic auitory inputsS at the
level o! uni!ie phoneme comple0es1 i.e.1 integral wors an phrases1 but
also to each iniviual vibration composing iniviual phonemes.
6ime cannot be irectly integrate1 that is1 through the collective action
o! temporal !unctions. 6ime integration must be e!!ecte in the
!requency omain.
"o the human min erives in!ormation !rom tautologies as well as
maKing sense o! literal contraictions. 6his suggests that language is
essentially translogical. 6his is because secretly the human min
!unctions in terms o! three- an higher-value logics1 but must per!orm a
reuction to a two-value logic when !inally articulating the
results/conclusions o! its higher-value logical operations.
6he critic is the !aile cra!tsman whose central motive was once
creation but which has become that o! the estruction C or
econstructionD o! the worKs o! others more !ortunate an talente. 6he
critic must unmasK the creative artist as a poseur an ilettante.
6here is no meaning in a li!e consume with enlessly circulating
currents o! activity1 never ultimately !eeing bacK to groun or1 shall we
say1 to otherness1 i.e.1 alterity.
3antor_s iagonal argument an conitional convergence o! in!inite
series. Hn!inite systems o not have a e!inable moe structure. 6his
!inite moe structure is perhaps only possible in a provisional sense1 but
can never be preetermine.
@on;ucliean /rithmetic. Hn!inite subseries become conte0t sensitive
when rearrange as though they are mere !inite series. Fhen the
number o! equivalence class relations becomes in!inite1 the inuction
may !ail. Hn!initue necessarily introuces a topological structure.
;ucliean geometry may be thought o! as geometry evoi o!
topological structure in the sense o! having a RnullS topological
structure. 6hese consierations lea us to pose the question: Rwhat is
non-;ucliean arithmetic?
6here is some arbitrariness in every thought1 action1 etc. ?ut
arbitrariness cannot be measure or quanti!ieV it is1 rather1
ineterminate.
6here must be inepenent con!irmation at each step in a chain o!
reasoning. 3ausal chains must always potentially accommoate
un!oreseen inter!erence !rom outsie.
Hs consciousness always intentional? 3ertainly thoughts must always
have an open-ene conte0t1 i.e.1 re!erence to something outsie o!
themselves. ?ut this outsie re!erence coul be to something
ineterminate an there!ore not an intentional ob5ect.
8etaphor an metacategory1 abstract category o! abstractions.
Hrreucibility o! the iniviual consciousnesses implies that each is
a substance. "o how can there be i!!erent substances i! istinct
substances cannot i!!er in terms o! any iscernible properties? Fhat
i!!ers between istinct R!eeling substancesS transcens property1
quality1 or1 !or that matter1 any !ormal conceptions. Fhat allows
substances to be istinct then while each being Re0emplarsS o! substance
as such? :iscontinuity in the sense o! topological separateness may
groun the istinction o! substances but i! we cannot then turn to qualia
or property in terms o! which to taKe them all as e0emplars o! substance
as such then how are we to groun the substantial nature o! substances
qua substances?
/ll e0perience begins in the !orm o! insight1 as a metaphorical
representation o! aspects o! being. 6wo representations o! 4o L as the
wholly other or as the groun o! the ?eing o! the sel!1 or1 perhaps1 o!
sel!hoo as such. 6he essence o! all insights into ?eing is suchness.
9nly the unique possesses Rreal e0istenceS. ;0plore the relationships o!
?eing1 Aeal ;0istence1 ;0istence1 an "ubsistence.
"ince we must always e!ine RsanityS in terms o! psychological stability1
an important question here is internal or e0ternal stability. ;0ternal
stability relates to how close one is to the Rcenter o! the mainstream.S
3ontinuing the metaphor1 since the velocity o! current is greatest within
the center o! the stream1 there is a tenency !or !lotsam on the periphery
o! the stream to ri!t towar this center o! greatest ownstream velocity.
6his is a Kin o! stability1 but it is stability ue to the operation o!
e0ternal !orces.
Foul the empirical nature o! logic an mathematics imply
temporality !or mathematical entities o! a particular class or
unclassi!iable type. 6his is the question o! the Re0istenceS o! universals.
3ulture as a broacast signal. ;0ample: the /!rican /merican
perspective. 3onceptual structures as similar to Rtraining wheelsS. :o
perceptual structure have their principle value as peagogical evices?
9r still more generally1 their purpose lies with !itting open-ene insight
to a close analytical !orm !or application an implementation. 6o worK
entirely within a given conceptual !rameworK/structure is to constrain
one_s creative an !ree thought within the con!ines o! another_s
mechanism !or applying the merely practical component o! his thought
to the e0ternal worl. 9r this conceptual !rameworK simply constitutes a
Kin o! structure !or the triggering o! inepenent insight in a isciple1
not !or merely the reprouction o! the author_s original insight.
,nity o! classical an quantum mechanics. 3ontraiction o!
acausality. :e!y the logic o! Rgot a li!eS versus Rgot no li!eS. R8y
humanS instea o! RHS as the !irst person singular part o! speech. =ow
woul such a linguistic innovation a!!ect society1 culture1 religion1 etc.?
6he supernatural as emboiment1 e.g.1 telepathy1 teleKinesis1
clairvoyance1 premonition1 etc1 as applie to the actions o! one_s own
boy. 6here are certainly times when we cannot preict what we will o
in a certain situation or which o! two simple alternative courses o! action
we might ecie to taKe within the immeiate !uture such as whether to
return to one_s home now that evening is upon one or to remain an e0tra
ay as a welcome visitor in the househol o! a !rien.
3ontingency is interwoven into every act o! etermination o! the
will. =ow are we to live with this brute !act o! human e0istence? .iKe a
6ourette_s "ynrome victim1 we are engaging in continual revisionism
the purpose o! which is to create the appearance o! a seamless an whole
ientity. 6his is a bran o! "artre_s ?a -aith. ?ut perhaps there is no
natural an istinct bounary e0isting between the process o! the
motivation o! one_s behavior an the seemingly a hoc rationalization o!
this behavior a!ter its commission.
/ristotle suppose that the soul was simply the R!ormS o! the boy Cc.!.1
"helraKeD. Fhat woul istinguish soul !rom boy i! the soul is a
close system1 e0cept !or its interaction with the boy1 itsel! also a
close system? 6here can be no real istinction between two close
systems that interact only among themselves.
Hs the brain capable o! RtuningS into more than one iniviual
consciousness? /n a!!irmative answer woul seem to suggest that the
brain is not the essential basis !or iniviual consciousness1 but merely a
conuit !or its creativity to enter the worl o! space an time. 3an there
be hysteresis in the vacuum energy !iel ue to its interaction with the
brain_s microtubule networK? Fouln_t such a hysteresis account !or a
Kin o! Rphantom e!!ectS upon this vacuum state? 6he argument can be
mae that i! the system cannot respon to the vacuum_s !luctuations1
then neither can the vacuum respon to the !unctioning o! the system.
9! course1 the response o! the vacuum to the system is not in any sense
the response o! the vacuum as a whole. Fhat is meant by Rresponse o!
the vacuumS is an alteration in the pattern o! the vacuum_s sel!-
interaction.
*-CN))D- &((-%%$$ !or @ationwie locations o! ?orers ?ooKs stores.
Hs the brain too comple0 !or its processes to be uni!ie1 in either a
volitional or a representational sense? 6he worl is so vast an comple0
that it can mani!est itsel! as being uni!ie consonant with the pre!erences
o! any iniviual inhabiting it. Hntuitively relate to the question o!
personal ientity. 3onstitution as the basis o! stability.
Hs probability conserve in the ispersion equation? 7si_s are
8inKowsKi spacetime solutions to :irac_s equation. "o gravity is
consiere as a mere perturbation o! 8inKowsKi spacetime. "o this
theory only applies to the weaK-!iel limit an is a linearize gravity
theory.
6he metric remains 8inKowsKian1 only spatiotemporal variations in
polarizability can be represente consistently as a Cmerely
phenomenologicalD variation in this metric on the 8inKowsKi mani!ol.
/re all 7si polarizable? 7article-wave uality. 6he wave!unction !or a
photon CparticleD is 5ust its electromagnetic wave escription. ?ut what
about a 7si which escribes some macroscopic system?
<ou Keep a lot o! icons on your esKtop because you can_t
remember the hierarchical aress o! a !ile. 3lutter o! conscious min is
a !unction o! ecrease accessibility o! memory. Hs in!ormation about
how to access memory itsel! store in memory? :@/ is embee in a
morphic resonant !iel an is there!ore conte0t sensitive an so conte0t
epenent.
3oherent versus incoherent interacting !luctuations. 6hought
control mani!ests itsel! as telepathy1 i.e.1 intention1 but not thought is
RreaableS to the telepath given the e0istence o! a substantive
connection between him an his sub5ect. Hntention has to o with
impening e0ecution o! instructions an is meiate by local
interactions. 6hought has to o with the in!orming o! intention1 the
proviing !or its content1 an is meiate via the nonlocal interactions.
6here is a !ar greater number o! organizations an associations than
there are iniviuals to become members within them. 6his notion
relates to the conte0t o! ivie loyalties an multiple an inconsistent
social ientities. 8ultiple consciousnesses are coe0tensive with
multiple Cob5ective?D realities? 7sychic power is the RglueS which hols
together the min ancoheres it.
7arao0: 6hat which possesses an ientity cannot be reprouce.
6here is no nature1 only technology. Aespiration o! creation1 which
breathes the energy o! the quantum vacuum. 6hat_s the only way you
get anywhere1 baby1 you go on a Rhea tripS.
6heories establish relationships between coes an their elements1 but
not how the coes are originate1 coes are not originate !rom other
coes1 that is.
Aeality is conventional. 7ersonal ientity is irreucible1 an reality
is too comple0 to be uni!ie. @atural law is erive !rom a composite o!
myria !reely-wille intentions/actions. "ince1 accoring to our octrine
o! reality being conventional an constitute out o! the transcenental
collective1 the classical physical behavior leaves o!! an the quantum
behavior taKes over at the stage at which the consensus o! transcenent
beings breaKs own1 it !ollows that the !ree will o! one o! these
transcenent beings must be constitute through processes transcening
operation o! natural law.
;0istence rises an ?eing escens. Fhere they meet is in the
phenomenon o! 8an. /s coherence o! a ynamic structure increase1 the
role o! quantum !luctuations in it ecreases.
@o clear istinction obtains between the literal an the metaphorical.
;ven the amne soul_s spirit returns to the 3reator that mae it. 6he
phenomena o! initial incarnation an reincarnation are substantively
istinct occurrences.
Fe must istinguish an open system !rom what is merely a
subsystem open to a larger1 close system. @o meium is available to
carry the in!luence o! one transcenent being upon another. 6his is true
simply by the e!inition o! the transcenent as unlimite or absolute.
=uman beings only appear to be separate an isolate !rom one another.
6heir subconsciousnesses are connecte an in constant interaction.
6his was a basic tenet o! the ;gar 3asey theosophical octrine.
RHS am the way1 the truth an the li!e. /nyone who can say RHS is 4o.
,niversal salvation !or all RH_sS?
8aKing o! istinctions as the channeling o! insight1 e.g.1 R9h this must
be what is calle +S1 or R6his is all but <S. 6he result o! the bacK
reaction o! erstwhile unre!lectively use language.
/cquiring an appreciation !or the Rol classicsS.
6ruth must be multivalent. Fhich means that it must also be
univalent. ?ecause consciousness is not uni!ie1 the ultimate
unerpinning o! one_s position shaes into the nonverbal an
non!ormalizable. "o the eepest truth is establishe through negotiation.
8eitation upon the !igure o! the spiral. .eaving a plane without
e0ploring its entire sur!ace. Aeunancy o! !ractal representations.
;nless territory to e0plore within a !ractal omain1 with enless variety
o! nothing truly novel.
H! the thesis o! the unity o! the sel! is !alse1 then what new
interpretation must we maKe concerning the role o! an iniviual
consciousness? Ht may well be the case that1 within the realm o! Fill1 as
oppose to Aepresentation1 the Rsel!S is compose o! a plurality o! more
or less inepenent centers o! volition.
?ecause we unerstan the intention o! the speaKer even when he breaKs
Sthe rulesS1 this shows the inepenence o! language !rom thought1 that
is1 its role as an implement !or the e0ecution o! a comman.
/lthough the yin/yang symbol is interprete as representing liberation
!rom uality1 this symbol actually represents how uality is itsel! a
mani!estation o! closeness. .ocal causal relationships are meiate by
nonlocal causal correlations1 c.!.1 Puantum 6heory C*2'*D by :avi
?ohm.
7assive perception relates to the corresponence theory o! truth.
Fhat may be terme pro-activity in human perceivers is constitute by
aggressive pattern recognition involving pro5ection. .yrical speech is
highly elliptical but suggestive an evocative.
Hn the in!inite state1 every possibility is present an realize.
;0ternality !or some being implies the e0istence o! an encapsulating
bounary1 limiting this being_s e0tent. 7ure internality is unboune an
in!inite. 6he internality o! !inite1 emboie beings which is mutually
irreconcilable or incommensurable amongst them1 suggests the plurality
o! pure intentionality.
Ht is as though1 in the absence o! mirrors to interact with1 the vacuum
!luctuations have Rnothing to push againstS. 6he parallel mirror
con!iguration suppresses the ensity o! momentum !luctuations normal
to the mirror planes. 6his results in a ecrease in the plane-normal
component o! the momentum uncertainty an hence inuces the mirrors
along the plane-normal a0is connecting their plane centers. 6his change
in /a+ CnormalD is inepenent o! the masses o! the mirrors. /pparently
the 01y1z components o! momenta are relate to the timeliKe component
o! momentum1 but not to each other1 at least not in !lat spacetime1 that is.
6he arbitrariness an conventionality o! meaning: we can only
grasp essences through either insight or through the maKing o!
istinctions. Fhat about when insight consists merely in the iscovery
or invention o! a istinction?
?ecause we are constraine by appro0imately one billion years o!
evolution to not contemplate the positive aspects o! eath an
none0istence1 there e0ists a species-wie internal barrier within the
potentiality o! humanistic thought.
:ata are coes giving one access to in!ormation. :ata relate to $-vector
components while in!ormation relates to a (-vector component. Fhen
something is a component o! a !our vector is so o! necessity. =owever1
$-vector components may also be (-vector components.
Fhen the more primitive an chilliKe components o! the human
psyche are represse below consciousness1 there accumulates a push on
the part o! these represse elements to e0press themselves1 usually
through some abrupt breaKing through o! the conscious min_s e!enses1
which are supporte by conventional1 societally-e!ine reality.
;7A in curve spacetime an RispersionS o! probability istribution
eigen!unctions.
@o istinction obtains between asKing an telling. 6hough1
speech1 an action are istinct !or !ree agents1 but not !or automata. .et
us investigate the istinction between RisseminationS an RtruthS.
"ensory images as barriers representing the grouning-out Cshort-
circuiting1 i! you willD o! thought.
"ince thought oes not RoriginateS with sensory perception Calthough it
perhaps conitions sensory perceptionD1 the halting o! thought with the
sensory perception occasioning it1 may itsel! be a Kin o! short circuit.
6he people who were spare a !atal plunge by virtue o! the last
minute rebuiling o! the support structure uner the town brige may
perhaps not be thought to constitute a eterminate set o! persons o!
eterminable ientity.
6hese woul merely be representations within the sel! that one alreay
has Knowlege o! an so no actual in!orming may be suppose to have
taKen place. 3ommunication is not possible between in!inite or
transcenent beings1 in other wors.
/s soon as we become aware o! a new Kin o! sin1 sure enough1 soon
therea!ter we iscover this same blot upon our own souls.
4o i not inten !or humans to 5ust play along with =im an so there
is no preetermine set o! rules by which li!e is to be pursue.
3onsciousness1 originating metaphor1 crystallization1 anatomy1 etc.
3hange an trans!ormation reveal the impersonal. Ht is the revelation
about the changes that we see those close to us unergoing which
prouces a state o! ismay that we might simplistically imagine is mere
hypocrisy or inconsistency o! character.
8usic1 art1 literature1 etc. are Kernels aroun which greater meaning o!
li!e_s sense o! e0istence can crystallize. Fhy /strology is use!ul.
Hncipient appearance o! insights are always only hal!-crystallize.
3omplete escription an temporality are mutually e0clusive.
6here can be no !inality o! meaning. 8eaning is organic1
multivalent1 open1 raically ambiguous.
6he overcoming o! issonance o! multiple conte0ts.
Aepresentationally1 consciousness is a plurality. ?ut in a participatory
sense1 it is uni!ie.
6ransmission o! ata within a system versus the in!orming o! the activity
o! this system.
6emporality1 ecay1 an :eath all possess the same source.
6he true nature o! prophecy as collective sel! etermination glimpse
an articulate by some harbinger.
Fhat is the anatomy o! a ba philosophy?
6hat which is not growing is in the process o! ecay.
Ht taKes about 2) years o! twiling with the Knobs to pull in the insight.
6he concept o! Rnegative coherenceS. /n e0ample o! which is
sening a group email message: although the email aresses o! all is
available to each1 no one in the group Knows what the relationship o! the
other people are to the person sening the message1 an so each re!rains
!rom posting a reply to any o! the others which maKes re!erence to the
original aresser.
6he bacK-reaction o! metaphorical thought to prouce a revise an
!ictional account o! the conte0t !rom which the symbols are being
borrowe.
Fhen postmoern thinKers an other critics o! logocentrism assert
that philosophers have no concept o! being1 are they maKing an assertion
liKe1 Rphilosophers have no concept o! RKrunlebleetzS1 where the wor
in quotes is wholly une!ine? 9! course not1 what these critics are
really saying is any number o! things liKe1 what is calle ?eing is
secretly merely a synonym !or a more peestrian term liKe thinghoo or
e0istence so that what is actually being enie or ReconstructeS is a
istinction an perhaps what is being intene by the assertion o! no
concept o! ?eing is that there is no positive e!inition o! the concept
a!ter the !ashion o! the statement1 Rnot this1 not thatS1 in the wors o!
"vetaKetu_s !ather who later tells "vetaKetu1 by the way1 Rtat tvam asiS1
i.e.1 Rthou art thatS. Hn this way the post moernist critic is saying that
?eing is the e0ample par e0cellence o! R5e_n se quaS L RH Know not
whatS.
>uly 2)**
:econstruction then is ieally the program o! removing the
linguistic an terminological camou!lage so as to reveal that two
allegely istinct an importantly relate concepts are really only
i!!erent metaphors !or the same thing an so really only synonymous1
i.e.1 that their seemingly istinctive conte0ts are ultimately the same.
6he Rimportantly relatenessS o! the two concepts consists only in their
having possesse all along a common source that ha been arti!icially
obscure by language an traition.
?ut the metaphysician may counter that concepts are always erivative
in the sense o! being abstract an everything is erive !rom ?eing so
?eing itsel! is not erive !rom anything !oreign to itsel!. Aather than
asserting that we have no concept o! ?eing as istinct !rom that o! mere
e0istence1 shall we say instea that what is calle Re0istenceS is the
metaphor possessing the greatest comprehension o! ?eing. ?ut oes a
metaphor necessarily point to the subsistence1 i! you will1 o! a
corresponing concept? 7erhaps poetic conception CtruthD is a case o!
metaphor for which there is no concept. 7oetic truth o! some saying or
aphorism means that things transpire or behave Ras though the saying
were literally trueS1 without it actually being so. Hn a omain o! pure
simulation1 as-thoughness an as-i!ness have to be given much greater
care an consieration than otherwise.
@o1 we can certainly have concepts or notion so o! things which o not
Re0istS as such1 e0amples o! which are1 !aith1 beauty1 gooness1 etc. "o
we might say that these qualities o not e0ist as such e0cept in a
conventional1 poetic or pragmatic sense.
9nly representations or phenomena are temporal1 the origin o!
which e0ists outsie o! time Ceach time streamD an collectively these
origins constitute the common intersub5ective spacetime o! all these
phenomenal selves. 6he !unction o! will an necessity are incompatible.
6he only way 4o coul purchase us is through his bloo. 6his was the
>uaism to 3hristianity paraigm shi!t. 4o ha to give up his !reeom
so that 8an coul be grante his.
3onsciousness must be a language-epenent social construct. -or
otherwise1 the istinction between sel! an not-sel!1 or other1 woul be
merely theoretical1 symbolic1 an arbitrary.
6hought an perception are the result o! a partitioning o! a single mental
act. Fe necessarily participate in all o! our representations an the
ob5ective is always1 in part1
Kw=
rei!ication perpetrate by the sel!.
Hmper!ect uni!ication creates structure an change. /ll ob5ects are
resonant which implies the interaction o! moes. =armonic moes
interact to prouce stable !orms while anharmonic moes prouce
eterministic change in !orms only appro0imately stable.
?ut within an open system1 there can be no preestablishe moal
structure. Ht is now seen why possibility1 contingency an necessity are
moal concepts. / close system is itsel! an ob5ect possessing some
stability an hence a moal structure o! sorts. ?ut the inter!ering moes
are in this case interacting open systems uni!ie internally rather than
e0ternally.
3onsciousness is characterize by a continual change in its connection
to itsel! an so oes not occupy any topological mani!ol L still less oes
it occupy1 there!ore1 any space1 but is essentially internal an not through
any given bounaries1 !or this woul constitute a merely contingent
internality.
/lthough there are many e0emplars o! ?eing1 there is no general
concept o! it1 erive through e0trapolation !rom the characteristics o!
these e0emplars. -or this woul suggest that ?eing were an accient
along with other preicates moi!ying particular iniviuals. 7erhaps
the notion o! the e0ternal relateness o! ?eings1 otherwise unmeiate
C than through the Kin o! space we are presupposingD is contraictory or
at least an incoherent notion. =ere is the notion o! the internal
relateness o! iniviuals constituting a plurality wherein no space is
given because not yet constitute through this internal relateness.
"o we are implying that plurality an multiplicity are concepts
inepenent o! the concept o! space.
6he istinction between ?eing an ;0istence is e0actly analogous to that
o! in!ormation an ata.
3an there be any temporal relateness o! two or more consciousnesses?
Fhat is presuppose in the notion o! the possible plurality o!
consciousness?
6he reality e0perience by conscious entities is a social construct1 not on
the part o! these entities themselves1 but on the part o! a collective
compose o! transcenental beings. ;ach consciousness is an open
system o! relations an so each has access an is embee in a istinct
ineterminate groun !rom which it erives its iniviual temporality.
3ertainly there can be no e0ternal relateness on the part o! istinct
temporalities as time is1 accoring to Oant1 inner sense.
7latonic -orms an "uchness. "imilarity presupposes ientity
Cpossible through continuous moi!icationD -irst Hmpressions.
-rustration an repression lea to neurosis. =uman beings are naturally
borerline personality isorere1 but this tenency is normally
channele an limite through clan/tribal social interactions. ?orerline
7ersonality :isorer is an e0ample1 as probably many psychiatric
isorers may well prove to be1 a native moe o! psychic !unctioning
which arises when the iniviual is !orce to operate outsie the esign
parameters o! his psyche which are essentially social in nature. 6his
remins us somewhat o! A.:. .aing_s assertion that insanity was a sane
response to insane living conitions. 6hese esign parameters were
!ashione by ol1 long-staning environmental requirements via natural
selection.
?ose conensation o! =e-( is an e0ample o! the behavior o! nature at a
!unamental level sub5ect to bounary conitions hereto!ore none0istent.
7hilosophies compose o! ever-e0tene metaphors. 6he results o!
speculative reason must always be reinterprete in the light o!
e0perience.
.ogic-chopping reason versus over-e0tene metaphors.
"orting relates to ata-processing1 whereas the e!ining o! sortals relates
to Rin!ormation processingS.
Fe are always the gos o! our own com!ort zone.
8uch which passes !or the !ailure o! law is really only the !ailure o! its
application.
6here can be no oubt that science1 particularly the social sciences1 are
aulterate by political concerns an agenas. "uch consierations !orm
a large part o! the sociology o! Knowlege.
Fithin this !luctuating spacetime is somewhat o! an inconsistent
phraseology as the spacetime metric oes not speci!y a unique spacetime
topology.
"chroinger_s 3at 7arao0: long chain superpositions may not be
possible i! ob5ects !urther up the chain possess greater energy
uncertainty than the linK immeiately preceing. ,nitary evolution oes
not apply to macroscopic ob5ects. "pacetimes cannot superpose because
o! ill-e!ine bounary conitions. @o spacetime-!ree superpositions
are amissible1 in other wors.
R.iveS an R:eaS cat o not constitute1 however1 i!!erent states o! the
same system. ?ut isn_t that what is really require in orer !or a
superposition to e0ist?
6here are two !orms o! insanity: one which we might term
craziness which is the incoherent !orm an the other1 maness1 the
coherent !orm.
Ht is now !airly common !or persons requiring elicate an angerous
brain surgery to be lowere in core boy temperature to about ()
egrees -ahrenheit !or (' to 2) minutes uring the surgical proceure
an a!terwars graually reheate to normal boy temperature. :uring
the surgery1 when the boy_s core temperature is 5ust a !ew egrees
above !reezing1 heartbeat1 respiration1 an brain-wave activity are totally
absent. -or such iniviuals to survive1 it must be that the basis !or the
continuity o! personal ientity lies with physical processes beneath the
cellular level. 6his strongly suggests that iniviual personal ientity1 as
such1 was never shape1 or its precursors1 i! any1 in ynamic interaction
with1 natural selection.
6he iniviual person possesses a tripartite organization to his
being which mirrors that o! the 4ohea: -ather1 "on1 an =oly "pirit.
;ach one o! us is an incarnation o! :ivinity. <ou might say that each
human person is an unsuccess!ul attempt to RmaKe a >esusS. =owever1
>esus was the only e0ample o! his incarnation in which the linK between
the immanent an transcenent was not wholly severe.
6here are two basic components maKing up the ynamics o! the human
being. Fe might unerstan these components in terms o! the
metaphors o! the raio/6I tuner an its ynamics1 that o! its electronic
harware1 an the electromagnetic meium containing the signals
capable o! being ampli!ie an transuce into raio an 6I RimagesS.
/ receiver run in reverse is a transmitter. / motor run in reverse is a
generator. 6hese are metaphors o! in!ormation an energy which1 i! not
care!ully use1 lea us to the notion o! action an in!ormation being
conserve quantities1 sub5ect to a reversible ynamics an continuity
equation.
Fhen momentum is not conserve1 we are ealing with action.
Fhen energy is not conserve1 we are treating o! in!ormation. 6he
corresponing pseuo-nonconserve quantities here are R!orceS an
RpowerS.
8eitation on the beating o! one_s own heart.
/s we recollect bacK to progressively earlier years o! chilhoo1 we
stumble upon a winling number o! recollections as we tun bacK those
early years. <et isn_t e0perience suppose to be the more memorable1
the newer its content1 an the more impressionable the min which is its
sub5ect? 6he !utility o! memory is as much a !unction o! the power o!
attention as it is o! our power o! recollection.
Iivi reams as power!ul an imaginative reconstitutions o! comple0
patterns o! memory traces lai own uring A;8 sleep. :reams are
usually only vivily remembere i! something awaKens us while still in
the grip o! their illusion. :oes the power o! recollections1 whether o!
reams o! early chilhoo e0periences1 have less to o with the power o!
these e0periences as they originally occurre or with our power o!
recollection as much as it has to o with how well our present state o!
min harmonizes or resonates with the earlier occurring energy patterns
within the brain?
?ut people are marKing our wors when we least suspect it. Fe may
have provie the one1 small but crucial element that was missing in
their attempts to grapple with some isturbing question or oubt
burening their souls.
>ust as the cultures scattere across the globe may almost literally be
characterize as still living in the *2
th
1 *N1 *%
th
3enturies1 mile ages1
etc.1 we may similarly characterize the various cultural strans within
the avance inustrialize societies o! the Fest as inustrial1 moern1
postmoern1 etc.
?a 7hilosophy: =eiegger an 4ilbert Ayle are two reay
e0amples whose philosophizing seems largely base in a sKille an
perhaps even a little cynical an play!ul e0ploitation o! the latent
structures o! thought locKe within the linguistic heritages o! 4reeK1
4erman1 an ;nglish.
8ining latent structures o! thought that are embee in language.
=yper e0tension o! metaphorical relationships.
7ushing the envelope through bol an aring contrariness1 e.g.1
sKepticism1 iealism1 nihilism1 pessimism1 etc. ;0cessive coining o!
new terminology1 particularly through linguistic borrowings1 e.g.1 !rom
the -rench1 4reeK1 etc.
;0cessive literary allusion.
8ining or Rripping o!!S the metaphysics o! various religions octrines1
e.g.1 "chopenhauer.
"peaKing enlessly about what was shown1 what will be shown by
arguments uner iscussion.
/ssuming that poetic truth an metaphysical truth are really
synonymous.
Fe might woner why1 i! two systems o! therapy are base upon
contraictory premises about human perception an motivation1 how it
is that both therapies have about equal success in application to the
treatment o! neurotic an mentally isturbe patients? 9ne1 they are
success!ul !or i!!erent types o! people an i!!erent types o!
psychological isturbance. /lso1 although the two therapies may
possess many iniviual assertions o! !act that contraict each other1 the
two therapies as whole systems o not actually contraict one another.
8eshing o! intentionality requires organization !rom above. 6he
loss o! limitation o! builing-blocK elements in organization/evolution
!rom below which is simultaneous with the organization !rom above
through increasing limitation o! groun !rom which the RelementsS were
originally abstracte.
9ur recognition vocabulary is very much larger than is our worKing
vocabulary an wors start out as only recognize an then through use
o! these wors the recognition o! persons in ones social conte0t causes
iniviual an collective behavior which !i0es the meaning o! the wors
in the person_s worKing vocabulary.
Hn the ays o! =erbert =oover1 government controls were o! the society
by the government1 whereas toay the government controls are more o!
the nature o! controls o! the government an society together as an
integrate system.
8ysterians. 3. Fright 8ills
6here is always a egree o! !reeom in the crystallization o!
meaning.
/nthropological an evolutionary theories o! iversity. "ociology o!
Knowlege. 6otalization is not worKable because o! the entanglement o!
super!icially istinct levels o! escription.
;pistemology an 9ntology are not completely istinct isciplines.
Oantianism.
>esus: Ht_s not the whole that nee a physician1 but the sicK. C;ven
thought the RwholeS are really the most pathological1 e.g.1 7hariseesD
Fho_s right an who_s wrong? /ny stanars beyon agreement?
"omething non-conventional about how agreements are reache Cas
suchD.
?right ieas hatche in isolate thinK tanKs1 a!!ects conitions1 but
not in any RtangibleS way.
/ll communication through representations are actually
interactive/participatory in nature. Hn a linear worl1 orer o! magnitue
i!!erences are e0tremely large1 but in a worl possessing chaos. . ..
3onsciousness !rom a eep well through a narrow tunnel. . . .
H! your constituents are so lowly1 8r. 7olitician1 how then can your
position as their representative be so lo!ty?
.anguage etermines thought. Fe say more what we are able to say
than what we want to say. /n e0ample o! this is attempting conversation
in a secon language in which one is not entirely !luent with an
intelligent native o! that language.
Fhat is signi!ie by the phrase1 Rthe bacK-
Kw=
rei!ication o! meaningS?
"eeing in!luences o! an inbre population versus seeing !ragments o!
subliminal racial/ethnic in!luences.
/ choice alters the statistics. ?ut changing the statistics alters choice1 as
well.
;0cite by glimpses o! alterity within the sel! L this is not arrogance o!
ba !aith when the other ob5ecti!ies or sees himsel! rei!ie in your
presence.
6hat which applies to the escription o! phenomena cannot
substantively e0plicate the processes unerlying phenomena qua
phenomena Cas suchD.
:uality may be conceive o! in two !unamentally istinct ways. /s
opposite e0tremes o! a single spectrum1 or as orthogonal a0es embee
in a mani!ol.
"tatistics o! people Rletting themselves goS an enlessly copying a page
o! te0t. Fhat is the unerlying common principle here?
R"our grapesS as a re!usal to acKnowlege contingency_s interweaving
into the !abric o! one_s eveloping biography. /lthough the behavior o!
the iniviual within his historical conte0t is not literally etermine1 it
is nevertheless etermine in an analogical sense. /t least this is how
we attempt to subue the threat o! raical contingency which threatens
to unermine the integrity o! the ego an1 hence1 its sovereignty.
Hntelligence is itsel! an aaptation. @o general concept o!
intelligence is on account o! this possible. ?ut is this really a coherent
possibility?
/ tissue o! private associations bearing the super!icial resemblance to an
ob5ective re!erence1 an which we believe we share with our !ellow
humans. Hntersub5ectivity !unctions so well as a Kin o! Rcash valueS o!
ob5ectivity that the logic an mechanism o! equating the two1 i.e.1
intersub$ectivity G ob$ectivity must surely hol serious implications !or
the concept o! universal or transcenental min1 not merely as a concept
erive !rom abstract thought1 c.!.1 the general concept o! how abstract
thought is generate cannot itself be an abstract thought in terms o!
some prouct/output o! a temporally base1 physical process o!
abstraction.
"o intelligence is not merely a capacity to aapt to change. 6he pre!i0
RpostS re!ers to a pervasive apostasy within moern culture.
Fhat woul you say is the problem in a situation o! this type?
3onscious an unconscious moes o! etermination are istinct.
3onscious an unconscious moes o! etermination are istinct.
-igure an representation implies isconnecteness1 groun an
participation1 a connecteness.
9nly part o! that which is truly alive protrues into spacetime.
4ravity1 consciousness1 !ree will1 eterminism1 . . .
6he "el! is in!use with a great amount o! otherness: involuntary
thoughts1 impulses1 emotional reactions1 etc. 3ontingency seems to
escape the istinction between sel! an other.
7ostmoernity1 posthistorical1 postinustrial1 post mortem.
6he concept o! universal wave!unction is inconsistent with
relativity theory. +C7siC01tDD = +V 6C7siC01tDD = 6.
@o such thing as an ob5ect at rest is treate within relativity theory. 6his
is also a perhaps more essential truth o! the quantum theory.
9nly i! time is unerstoo as a rate rather than a imension liKe an e0tra
spatial imension can the iea o! a spatiotemporal variations in
spacetime1 i.e.1 gravity waves1 be renere sel!-consistent or coherent.
6he appearance o! in!inite quantities1 such as mass1 length1 time1 ensity1
etc.1 points to the breaown o! the relativistic escription o! reality
uner e0treme bounary conitions.
6he parao0 o! etermination consists in this: it is simultaneously
uner- an overetermination.
Hnertia may perhaps be e0plaine in a more uni!ie manner as stemming
!rom resistance to changes in (-angular momentum.
8aness an 4enius are probably both characterize by the sel!-same
!eeling o! prepossession in the epiphany o! an emergent but inevitable-
seeming notion. Fe_ve all hear the e0pression o! Rgreat mins thinKing
aliKeS. 6he question as to whether great theories are iscovere o!
invente appears epenent upon the amount o! beauty an elegance
possesse by the theory uner consieration: the theory o! general
relativity1 !or instance1 appears to many theoretical physicists to have
been a great iscovery1 the so-calle stanar moel o! particle physics1
to have been a great theoretical invention or construct. /nother
important !actor in eciing this issue with respect to a particular theory:
was the theory largely the creation o! a single person within a relatively
short span1 or was it largely a collaborative e!!ort taKing
place over an e0tene perio.
Fhat is the nature o! supervenience1 more particularly1 causal
supervenience.
9ne perhaps only nees to have stuie the Rgreat philosophersS in orer
to possess a wealth o! material !rom which to raw !or merely
illustrative purposes1 as well as1 perhaps1 to len more authority to one_s
own thought1 i.e.1 scholarship.
6hose who are aept in the use o! metaphor are continually
misunerstoo by the more literal-mine. Hn conversation the us o! an
e0tene metaphor may lea other persons in the iscussion to seize
upon the literal content o! the metaphor or illustration1 misinterpreting
the thrust or point o! the iscussion as being about something re!erre to
literally in the conte0t o! the metaphor.
,nassumingness versus hea-tripping as a basic moe o! being.
3anonical !orms1 permutations1 combinations1 etc.1 as applying to
Re0pectations valuesS. Hnvestigate some possible eeper reasons !or
having applie the term1 Re0pectation valueS to the value Y7si M + M 7siZ.
Fhy people !eel the nee to inulge in name-ropping.
3onsciousness as the Forless1 the Hnescribable1 the ,nnamable.
/ll metaphor as secretly pointing to something literal. . . .
3oherence as the essence o! a gravitating boy possessing inertia.
6here is no causal relationship obtaining between abstract entities.
/bstract entities may be Kinematically relate1 but not ynamically
relate.
/ny system whose behavior can be preicte accoring to a !ormula o!
linear relationships must be a close1 atemporal system.
7ostmoern e0position o! the principles o! astrology. Hs /strology
e!!ective !or general system-theoretic reasons1 or are there reasons !or its
e!!ectiveness which are peculiar to itsel!? /strology is not e!!ective ue
to any ob5ective ientities obtaining between changing abstract1 zoiacal
relationships o! the heavenly boies to evolving relationships within the
many spheres o! one_s sub5ective e0istence1 such as to ones social
relationships. Aather /strology becomes e!!ective in its iniviual
practice through a two step process o! the ienti!ication1 as oppose to
ientity1 o! these zoiacal relationships to aspects o! one_s preicament
Cby the astrologerD which are only aapte to one_s unique situation by
the iniviual himsel! i! one possesses su!!icient creativity an
imagination in not so much the recognition o! parallels as the
etermining o! sub5ective elements a!ter a !ashion which e0hibits such
parallels with respect to the astrological interpretive structures.
Hnterpretation as inter pre tation. ;tymological analysis is capable o!
pointing up the linguistic in!rastructural metaphor-ical basis o! the
literal.
6o term something RmetaphorS is not necessarily to enigrate its
e0planatory value.
6he transcenent lying at the core o! the immanent in the negotiation !or
ob5ectivity.
.anguage is the boy o! the min1 intuition1 its soul. 6he KnocK one
oes not hear is the KnocK which awaKens1 the KnocK one hears is !or the
awaKening o! others.
R@o 6hingS is the groun which is prior to all RthingsS an so is
ReverythingS in the sense o! being the origin o! all things. 9ne must
become Rno thingS in orer to achieve union with the groun !rom
which all ual opposite !orms arise CRthingsSD. 6o RtranscenS means to
become Rno thingS. R4rounS is transcenent in this speci!ic sense1 i.e.1
it is Rno thingS itsel!. 7lurality presupposes RthinghooS which1 in turn1
emans conitions1 limitations1 which is to say1 bounaries. -rom
which it !ollows that there can only be one Rno thingS or groun o!
e0istence. ?ut there is no limit upon the number o! grouns o! ?eing1 as
?eing transcens ;0istence. -ollowing 7lato1 we say that ;0istence
constitutes the limitation o! ?eing.
H! Aeality is inee 9ne1 then Ht is not so in any !ormal or abstract sense
because 4roun is itsel! generally prior to !ormal categories or
abstractions. 6he 4roun is to be ienti!ie with Cnot RienticalS toD the
8ile which is !orever e0clue by reason an !ormal logic.
6wo ranom !luctuations patterns1 each iniviually containing no
in!ormation1 but in which the two !luctuation patters are correlate by
virtue o! both belonging to the same quantum system escribe by a
single state !unction1 . Hn!ormation oes not a because = * + _ _ _
2 an 7 = W = M MWW2 = *W * + 2W 2 + 2 *W 2. :ata _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
can be combine aitively. Hn!ormation cannot be so combine.
3orrelations arise through the cross term1 *W 2. _ _
:ata are abstracte !rom the ensity !unctions1 M MWW21 an in!ormation _
is abstracte !rom the wave!unctions1 CHD. -luctuations which appear _
local1 may always contain contributions !rom nonlocal correlations. -or
e0ample1 YpWW2Z = Y MpWW2M Z = Y * + 2MpWW2M * + 2Z = _ _ _ _ _ _
Y *MpWW2M *Z + Y 2MpWW2M 2Z + Y *MpWW2M 2Z. 6he last term _ _ _ _ _ _
may be the nonlocal correlation o! momentum !unctions.
Hn!ormation cannot become intersub5ective1 i.e.1 ob5ective1 until they
have been reuce to ata. Hntersub5ectivity seems necessary to
ob5ectivity because M WW2M is always Y 5M 5Z or Y 5M KZ1 interaction _ _ _ _ _
an sel!-interaction.
Hn!inity has structure: !orm an !ormlessness are in it unite.
/ll observables may be ecompose into the creation an annihilation
operators o! the 2
n
quantization !ormalism o! quantum mechanics.
8athematics seems to be more than a mere language in the sense o! an
arbitrary system o! escription.
R?ut what1 asKs Fheeler1 breathes !ire into the equationsS: how to
etermine when RnowS is?
Fhen convergence o! in!inite sums is epenent upon the orer in
which subsums are organize1 the in!inite sum possess an intrinsic
topology.
8athematics is the language o! the inconceivable.
/mplitues are liKe waves1 but unliKe them1 the o not carry any energy
nor o they require any meium in which to travel.
;ssay 7roposals: R7assive/aggressive behaviors in those who have little
or no power in the Rbig arenasS o! li!eS1 R;go-preserving ieationS1
R/lien-ness o! the human !orm L whence came such ieas?S1 R3arl
"agan_s hypothesisS CR7seuosagan hypothesisSD1 R9rigins an meaning
o! small coinciencesS1 R 6he reminer theory o! fpseuo-signi!icance_S
9ne li!etime1 however long1 is not enough time to e0hibit even a !raction
o! the abilities an evelop the potential o! an iniviual human min.
6he case-value o! concepts an their open-ene evolution.
/0iom $: 6he alterity o! the other is raical.
"ub5unctivity o! metaphor in postmoern criticism
/ny energy input !rom RoutsieS must mani!est itsel! as raical novelty1
otherwise1 suspect an Rinsie 5obS.
Ht is the action o! the !ree will o! the observer1 not his iniviual
consciousness per se which inuces collapse o! the system
wave!unction.
6he brain_s moal structure is not merely !or the e0ecution o! !reely
wille acts.
Hs the min the inter!ace between two transcenent beings?
<ou Know you are in enial when you looK !or multiple con!irmations o!
a !act which shoul be obvious.
.iving humbly1 unassumingly1 an without illusions. /sK yoursel! i! you
coul o it.
7rocessing in!ormation: what about Re0!ormationS1 Run!ormationS?
?uilt-in aaptability to increase meaning L o! e0perience1
"eptember 2)**
c.!.1
the rationality o! the genetic coe1 :@/. Aationality as spanning an
connecting all possibilities1 not merely those that !it into or con!orm to
any particular system. 6his is a notion o! rationality that transcens
logic because perhaps the logic o! rationality is simpler than that of
4eano arithmetic.
Aeproucible phenomena are local phenomenaV irreproucible or
original phenomena are nonlocally base.
@o moal structure !or the in!inite though1 accoring to 3antor1 there is
inee a hierarchical structure. 6he true nature an limitations o!
representations. . . 6he situation is more comple0 than ynamism an
bounary conitions upon this ynamism.
"he allowe her stalKer to linK his website to her own webpage.
6hings trigger associations which cause us to search those things !or
aitional !eatures possesse by the earlier ob5ects with which we are
associating.
Aepresenting Rwhere you are !romS is a Kin o! showing o!!.
;volution o! language constitutes the processing o! e0perience at the
collective level1
"eptermber 2)**
a rerawing o! concept-maps. ?ecause
language necessarily etermines thought1 partially at least1 no one
language is per!ectly translatable into another. 6he Rrollover e!!ectS1
which signals the language learner_s having gaine !luency in a secon
language is evience o! this: the language learner evelops habits o!
thought within the secon language in the contually reapplie heat o!
conversation in which he changes what he wants to say1 but lacKs the
proper e0pressions !or1 in orer to say something similar or merely
relate 5ust to Keep the conversation going1 utilizing the secon language
e0pressions he presently commans. ?y the time the language learner
becomes able to e!!ortlessly Keep up in conversations with natives1 these
many new habits o! his associating ieas e0presse within the new
language1 !orge uring his struggles to gain !luency have by this time
grown into a large accumulate mass o! associations1 which !orever
more a!!ect not only the speaKers wor an phrase selection1 but also his
selection o! ieas an concepts.
-ebruary 2)*$
3onsier the pre!ace !rom
au=
8ichel "erres_ booK o! essays
entitle1 R6he 7arasiteS: R8ichel "erres1 the polymath1 presents his
translator with an e0tremely aruous tasK. / i!!icult style1 multilingual
puns1 a wealth o! Knowlege an re!erences-all combine to maKe the te0t
not at all easy to eluciate. 6wo wors merit brie! mention in this
pre!ace. 6he !irst is the title1 parasite. Hn -rench1 the wor has three
meanings: a biological parasite1 a social parasite1 an static. The English
parasite correspons only to the first two meanings in :rench [italics
mine\. 6hus the reaer shoul always be aware o! this aitional
resonance in the -rench that is not translatable into ;nglish. 6he secon
wor is hote1 which correspons to both host an guest in ;nglish. H
have use guest an host in ;nglish where one o! the two meanings was
implie more than the other1 but the other wor is always implicitly
present [italics mine\. /t times1 H have use the two together to rein!orce
the ouble meaning.S /s remarKe in the FiKipeia entry on 8ichel
"erres Con the ate o! this writingD1 R"erres earne a reputation as a
spell-bining lecturer an as the author o! remarKably beauti!ul an
enigmatic prose so reliant on the sonorities o! -rench that it is
consiere practically untranslatable.S
Fhen changing o! private language representations are not merely
translation1 we have in!ormation processing at the level o! the
iniviual1 as oppose to the collective.
6he equation o! a su!!icient conition !or something_s coming into being
is logically equate with some eterminate sum o! necessary conitions.
6his !ormula only applies to close or !ormal systems. 6his is because
open systems always possess Rthat which is conitione1S the resiuum
le!t a!ter all necessary conitions being remove.
:eterministic causality has to o with the Kinematics o! relationships
between conitions1 with the Rthat which is conitioneS assume to be
utterly inert an ini!!erent to the passage o! time. <et it is the very
substance o! all conitions in which temporality consists.
/re we to suppose that irection an RrateS o! time_s passage is
conitional.
6here is always1 in part1 a rawing !rom the cultural linguistic heritage
an partly arbitrary coinage involve in the naming o! similarities an
i!!erences note in new e0periences by collectives.
8etaphor is involve in the organic growth o! the meaning o!
relationships as the rawing o! similarities between things base in
sometimes raically i!!erent conte0ts points up greater meaning !or the
transplante relationships. 6he orientation towar this increase in
meaning can be o! two istinct types1 epening upon the basic
character o! the Knower/observer: the increase can either be interprete
as an un!oling o! pree0isting latent meaning an relateness1 or as a
creation o! genuinely novel meaning1 mae to ovetail with earlier
e0perience1 but not through a merely revisionistic interpretation.
"ynonymic trans!ormations are the trans!ormations o! associative
networKs as current best estimates o! relateness.
6he e0ample o! Rpeople looKing liKe their carsS or their ogs is similar
to the phenomenon o! marrie couples growing to resemble one another
a!ter many years together.
H woul escribe my psychic abilities1 still unerevelope. Fhy we
cannot control an systematically evelop these abilities may relate to
the Rroot locus o! control problem.S 6he stream cannot rise higher than
its source1 but may attain to the level o! its source1 but the e0pectation
value o! its energy must be zero L although instantaneous !luctuations o!
energy may nonetheless be present within such a stream.
Fhat is the relationship between popular song an narcissistic !antasies.
RFe o not accept these challenges now so that !uture generations will
!ace lesser ones. ?ut in orer to permit them to meet still greater ones.S
?ecause one li!e is not enough !or either moral or intellectual
evelopment o! the potential !or both which many human beings
possess. 6his woul epen upon not all e0istence preceing its
essence. 9n the other han1 a raical statement containe by this a0iom
o! e0istentialist philosophy leaves no room !or the operation o!
consciousness: i! consciousness is the irect intuition o! 6ime1 then
neither per!ect1 crystalline per!ection Cpure essenceD nor raical !lu0ion
Cpure e0istenceD provies aequate space !or the !unction o! temporality1
nor !or the intuiting o! it by 8in. 6his is so because the intuition o!
time must taKe place within 6ime itsel!.
:egrees o! openness o! a close system1 o! closeness o! an open
system. . . Fhat about the en points o! this spectrum L only
approache1 but never achieve.
:irectionality o! time ilation as ue to relative velocity L proo! o!
spacetime structure? 6he spee o! time which is the magnitue o! its
velocity CKnown as proper timeD is always c. 6he component o! velocity
o! an ob5ect along the irection o! my time a0is is base on the
pro5ection o! its time a0is upon mine.
Ht is the contraictions which rive the temporal evolution.
3ontraictions between ual opposites which have been invente by the
min1 that is. /n so then are these ual opposites not1 a!ter all1 real?
Fhat about the contraictions !oun in the reamscape which alert us to
the !act that the un!oling is o! unreal events?
Hn the real worl1 these contraictions are as subtle as those unerlying
the brain_s integrative processes.
7rocessing in!ormation is increasing the conte0t o! ata connecting ata
together.
@o pure reception or transmission o! in!ormation is possible. 7ure
reception is in!ormation entering a Rea enVS pure transmission is
in!ormation emanating !rom an isolate system.
.i!e is a gol mine o! metaphors. Fe can only achieve epth by !irst
acquiring breath.
8etaphors appear arbitrary initially1 but crystallize into virtual
inevitability with continue use/participation with them.
6he RsourceS originates within the sel! or !rom outsie it. 4lory be!ore
eath versus glory a!ter.
Fhat !requently maKes it i!!icult to let go is the thought that the love
ob5ect is in con!lict1 that a Kin o! mythic battle between the !orces o!
goo an evil is taKing place eep within the love ob5ect_s psyche.
/n1 o! course1 onesel! represents the !orces o! goo an orer1 the
competitor1 those o! evil an chaos. 6o regain the lost love ob5ect can
only be accomplishe by !reeing the Rimprisone chilS or RangelS
which has been abucte by the narcissistic sel!. 9ne must heroically
retrieve the splinters !rom eep within the min o! the love ob5ect.
6ypically1 only onesel! has the intimate Knowlege o! the love ob5ect
which woul be require to e!!ect the RrescueS implie here. ?ut one
must !irst get through the battlements.
au=
;rnst ?ecKer_s Rheroic sense o! sel!-signi!icanceS: myth always
in!orms the sense o! sel! o! the iniviual as much as it in!orms that o!
the collective.
Fhen a person or thing achieves the status o! being an icon1 it no longer
has to 5usti!y itsel!.
?ecause music activates the right hemisphere it tens at the same time to
suspen the activity o! the le!t L an alreay high level o! human
suggestibility is renere even greater.
7oetry is so power!ully suggestive because coherent thought manages to
be e0presse espite the imposing o! metrical1 metaphorical/allegorical1
an stylistic constraints. 6his is what enhances the wholeness an
originality1 an hence1 secret appeal to the authority o! the poet as
conuit o! ivine insight.
6he psychological pain is greatly ameliorate whenever some lasting or
broaer lesson can be rawn !rom an in5ury to one_s prie or sel!-esteem.
/ splitting between abucte chil an Rcol1 calculating bitchS
!requently helps rive the ambiguity o! the interpretation o! re5ection
an1 in turn1 the chaotic play o! con!licting emotions. H am here
remine o! the :uran :uran song1 R?ecause you_re lonely in you
nightmare1 let me in.S
8eaning !requently starts out as enotative1 but through continue use
by many i!!erent speaKers1 the associations with myria i!!erent
conte0ts piles up an the term becomes largely connotative. 6he more
intimately Known are speaKers to one another1 that is1 the more
associative networKs they hol in common1 the more connotative will be
their communications.
>uly 2)**
?y e0tension all o! the messages which
traverse one_s grey matter possess no innate enotation at all1 but are
purely connotative1 c.!1 Aussell On Denoting. :enotation is an abstract
arti!act o! connotation.
Fho you are is what you care about.
3an a !unamental shi!t in consciousness be re!erence by the
iniviual?
Ht is as though each entity has its own ineterminate groun. ?ut what
maKes this seem possible is the possibility or e0istence o! multiple
transcenent beings to which these entities can be ob5ects o! Knowlege.
Hs it possible to have a comple0 signal which results !rom the
moulation o! one signal by another1 but which is not equivalent to a
superposition o! two or more signals?
/perioic !unctions such as are treate by chaos theory1 cannot be
represente as a superposition o! perioic !unctions. /s note alreay1
perioicity is only possible within a close ynamical system. "o the
e0istence o! chaos is an inication that Routsie in!luencesS are at worK.
6he collective can create worKs possessing an orere ambiguity an
latent structure o! networKe metaphors o! greater comple0ity than what
can be prouce by any single iniviual. /vance technology is a
per!ect e0ample o! the superiority o! the collective to the iniviual.
6enuous metaphors: the means by which the overetermine chaos is
!iltere an vague associations ampli!ie into crystalline conceptions.
:ual quality with the capacity to trans!orm into its opposite vs. without
such a capacity.
.ogic versus !ining the path which taKes one between systems. @o
metasystem e0ists which ictates. 6his change o! systems. 9ne may
nee to enter a R!alse set o! inputsS to provoKe the person to 5ump
systems.
6enaciously robust song lyrics are timeless.
H! you try to thinK about what a metaphor literally means in terms o! the
imagine elements signi!ie within it there is a great eal o! ambiguity
but o! an unimportant Kin. 8etaphors have an uneretermine literal
meaning.
"artre says in ?eing an @othingness that Ras long as we are conscious
o! what we are1 we can never entirely be what we are.S 9therwise1 we
are lane in an in!inite regress. Hn other wors1 a conscious being is
never ientical with itsel! an yet there is nonetheless a basis o! his
continuity through time. :oes this !act point up the transcenental
RnatureS o! the sel!? Fhat i! the very nature o! the transcenental sel! is
precisely its in!inite regressiveness. 6he sel! in this case woul be
in!inite an boune while its incarnation is !inite an unboune.
:ue to the overetermination o! nature1 empirical con!irmation can be
!oun !or any theory1 so long as the theory is internally consistent.
3onsier the bacK-reaction o! the creative processes o! each iniviual
min upon the collective groun_s activity !rom which physical law
erives.
Hn!ormation versus ata is not an absolute but merely a relative ual
opposition.
6he temporality o! the past: the past when present i not possess
enough time to Rcrystallize.S
Fhat is the i!!erence between e0pression an communication? ,tilize
in the iscussion the !act that communication is meiate through the
use o! Re0pressions.S
Aepresenting Rwhere you_re !rom.S
6he appeal o! contemporary music. 6his appeal has !requently been
thought to be transcenence1 but in reality1 it is usually 5ust narcissistic
sel!-glori!ication.
=ow can Rcomplete integrityS be always esirable in a postmoern
worl which requires one to play so many incompatible roles? Hsn_t
some R!laKinessS goo as a viable aaptation to postmoern conitions
o! social e0istence?
Fhen H was in my late teens an early twenties1 H was in the habit o!
attempting to R!igure outS the answers to the philosophical questions
which puzzle me most. @ow1 about *) to *' years later1 H am still
wrestling with these same questions1 only H now simply prepare my
min so that appealing approaches to solution1 not answers Rawn on
me.S
Hs all belie! an ieology really 5ust isingenuity? Fhat about the
person who runs in !ear o! the necrophile L one who secretly Knows that
it is what is !alse within onesel! which attracts his reuctive gaze? Hs it
the necrophilic urge which really motivates the stalKer?
6hose iniviuals who are born with the imprint o! a particular !acial
e0pression are highly biase an specialize in their mental an
emotional !unctioning.
3an 4o_s genetic blueprint be etermine by subtracting 8ary_s :@/
!rom >esus_? H! not1 why not?
Fhen you view patterns o! conitioning as being superimpose upon a
vacuum1 you begin to unerstan their pervasive etermining power.
/n yet H possess a greater relevance an universality in your li!e than
can be so easily ismisse as our having met completely by chance.
6his is a Kin o! sociological e0ample o! the anthropic cosmological
principle. 7erhaps we coul term this the anthropic sociological
principle?
,nique enabler o! changes in the sel! L is this possible?
Aeturning without immeiately realizing it L returning without ever
realizing it. Aealization cannot e0haust reality. 8ore e0ists than can be
rei!ie. Aeality can never show itsel! !alse1 can never worK itsel! into a
cul-e-sac1 a lie that it cannot lie its way out o!. /n so there must
always remain su!!icient play in the system !or it to worK out its
apparent contraictions an inconsistencies. H! the inconsistencies are
su!!iciently severe they will in!ect the min o! the observer/participator.
?ut our emotions an motives are also alloye with compassion an
loving concern1 5ust with mean-spirite impulses.
Fhat_s the i!!erence between Knowing an not having access an not
Knowing at all?
H! the !iltering structures are inepenent o! the !lu01 then they may not
be thought to contain in!ormation?
/ll o! our categories are liKe laers we climb an then KicK away !rom
ourselves.
6he meia-manu!acture image o! !emininity.
Ht was men who invente .ingerie.
,ntil the *2
th
century1 women_s roles in theater were playe e0clusively
by male actors.
8ale homose0uals e0hibit a Kin o! hyper!emininity.
6he represse elements o! the sel!1 accoring to >ung1 are !ree to !orm
among themselves a more or less uni!ie1 integral alter ego an
operating beneath the awareness o! the socially-e!ine sel!.
3ulture an society tries to e0aggerate the se0ual i!!erences between
i!!erently genere iniviuals.
+<<1 +++1 etc. iniviuals.
Ow=
rei!ication an meaning crystallization. ;0ample: the over-use
term1 Rgenius.S =ow oes this relate to logocentrism?
6he meaning that those actions have1 the meaning that we give them.
6emporal bacK-action.
?ut how are we to unerstan the bacK-reaction o! one open system
upon another?
Fill implies originality1 power1 an creativity.
6hose who respect an seeK power o not value peoples_ private
opinions1 motivations !or imaginary actions which they lacK the courage
to put into practice. 6o these people reams which are never translate
into action are Rless than nothing.S Hs there such a thing as completely
issociate e0perience? /t what point oes !antasy li!e become
issociative e0perience? /cts o! true creativity always protrue into
the establishe orer in multiply connecte !ashion.
/ particularly grave sin it is to believe in your heart that the law o!
Oarma will serve to avenge the in!ringement o! one_s petty1 sel!ish
interests.
Hnvestigate these two istinct aspects o! temporality: succession versus
!ormation.
6he instinctive1 intrinsic meaning which is an unintegrate response o!
the higher central nervous system. 6his is be!ore the instinctive sense-
perception reactions have been associate with e0perience.
/s they way1 Rwhen you invest in RgolS1 you invest in something
RsoliS.
6he quotation marKs inicate that we are secretly rei!ying a comple0 o!
phenomenal qualities. /re the phenomenal qualities we attribute to
ob5ects no more ob5ectively connecte to them than they are in cases o!
synesthesia?
/ part o! the sel! is arreste at each step along the learning curve. Fhat
is it which oesn_t change about a person? 6heir consciousness. "he
the baggage o! your iniviuality an you_ll climb that laer more
quicKly.
H! a preiction is partly base upon the processing an interpretation o!
other preictions1 oes the !irst preiction have greater probability than
i! it is picKe out o! Rthin air.S
6he so-calle spirit worl oes not istinguish between images which
are only metaphors !rom images which represent something concrete.
6he problem o! etiology an the in!inite !ormal mani!estation o! the
!ormulas.
:uality is system-epenent. 6rue versus -alse versus @ew "ystem.
6his precisely the basis o! =ans Aeichenbach_s three-value logic which
is evelope in his worK1 6he 7hilosphical -ounations o! Puantum
8echanics.
R@atureS an the theorist worK in cooperation.
Aeality is one1 a unity1 but in a manner which transcens our usual
istinction between unity an plurality. 6his woul be a true1
transcenent unity.
6he human being never operates out o! his entire consciousness but
switches between i!!erent ones as between istinct moes Hs it !rom this
that we RintuitS the possibility o! reincarnation?
Fhat about the case in which we believe we have a concept o!
something liKe1 say1 soul or !ree will1 however1 upon !urther scrutiny the
notion RcrumblesS into a loose collection or montage o! abstractions
CtaKen !rom e0perienceD although this e0perience may be itsel! rationally
constitute a la Oant.
6here is not way you can Know what will happen tomorrow1 but when
tomorrow comes1 sure enough1 you will Know it. Ht is only the part o!
the sel! which oesn_t change which e0periences time an change. 6he
true sub5ect o! e0perience is eternal1 transcenent.
Aaio station that plays nothing but scratchy1 popping an hissing vinyl.
H haven_t even gotten all o! my toys together so how can H even get reay
to play?
8aKing istinctions within a category which possesses vagueness. Hs
this any guarantee that our lo!tiest concepts will not somehow !ail to
re!er? .iKe those o! 4o1 "oul1 !ree will1 etc.
.iKe the spaces in the walls o! the 8ormon temple1 the architect ha not
iea what these passages in the walls overhea woul be use !or. . .
6his is what is peculiar about the e!ining o! such open-ene concepts.
:o they begin as metaphors1 hal!-baKe notions1 ambiguous1 vaguely
emotionally-charge images? 6he collective unconscious appears to
create these open-ene notions an the collective consciousness !ins
myria uses !or them L only later o they become !leshe out as to their
ultimate meaning an signi!icance.
Hnventive persons o! a stereotypical group can always ree!ine an
reprocess this stereotype. ?ut most members o! Rthe groupS are not
aware o! this possibility.
Fhat is the rational an moral basis !or necrophilia1 broaly speaKing?
<ou are not trying to !igure her out1 5ust to reconcile the contraictions
within your own construct or representation o! her.
Hntelligence is positively correlate with strength o! neural ischarge. Hs
this because strength o! the neural ischarges is correlate with the
strength with which the min is stimulate by the brain? 6his is
somewhat in contrast to the Rreucing valveS or Rraio receiverS analogy
o! conscious perception an thought.
Fe must istinguish between !orming abstractions versus manipulating
pre-e0isting ones. "ince communication is always a process comprise
o! both in mutual proportions which can never be completely
isentangle1 language can never be merely an implement
istinguishable !rom that to which it is Rapplie.S
6he matri0 o! language is reactive an not passive.
Hn the absence o! genuine creative power1 there is the isplay o! mastery
available to the critic: the e!!ecting o! a brilliant reuction. Aeuction
o! a creative worK to a collection o! in!luences CmemesD is to e0ploe
utterly its claim to authorship.
Hnstea o! coining new terms out o! thin air1 many philosophers pre!er to
borrow terms !rom some status-con!erring language such as 4reeK1
4erman1 or -rench. /nother evice use is to stretch the scope o! some
highly !amiliar term or aopt one o! these !amiliar terms to an acception
which is on the periphery o! normal usage.
4raually1 more an more o! the routine impulses1 emotions1 an
thoughts are relegate to Rthe creature_s omain.S
6he essential in re!lective thought may be contraste with the
proviential.
Fhy1 espite all that postmoern literature has state hereto!ore1 we 5ust
can_t seem to Rget away !rom 7lato?S
Fhat !unction is serve by narcissistic !antasy an shoul we permit it
to continue L is it a necessary element in the normal1 healthy li!e o! the
psyche?
6opological proo! o! the transcenental nature o! consciousness as a
category1 quality1 or property.
8emory an imagination e0plore in terms o! the igital 3at "canner_s
reconstitution o! imaging ata in the !orm o! slices which were never
originally taKen?
Hs the hien1 unerlying rationality o! e0perience which permits the
phenomenon o! imagination?
6here is internal versus e0ternal perception but oes this istinction
apply as well to thought?
>oy is immeiate an oes not require the promise o! anything.
.ogocentrism is an arti!act o! the neural networK_s enhancement
subroutines.
Hllusions as such are not necessarily !alse representations. ?ut the truth
o! illusions is essentially inciental1 or perhaps1 co-inciental. "o the
raical alterity o! the other is overcome by the transcenental unity o!
consciousness qua consciousness. ?ut !rom raical alterity we must
istinguish transcenental alterity.
6he eterminacy o! thought is base solely upon the !i0e or
eterministically changing bounary conitions upon the !low o! ata
an trans!ormations o! ata structures. ?ut the changes in the highest
level bounary conitions cannot be eterministic.
?y virtue o! the being o! more than two transcenent alterities1 we may
speaK o! higher orers o! alterity in the sense o! these alterities being
istinct !rom one another in istinct ways. ?ut o such higher orer
istinctions presuppose the possibility o! the similarity o!
transcenentally istinct alterities?
6hought prepares the avent o! insight. 4ene/meme hypothesis o!
te0tual composition. 4enes an a genetic coe may provie the greatest
access o! ata structures to ynamic in!ormation e0change/processing.
Ht is perhaps remarKable that since Iictorian times1 the spiritual realm
has been ienti!ie with the !ourth imension.
=ere again1 is a case o! a thinKer hitting upon a great truth well in
avance o! the emergence o! an aequately prepare groun !or this
iscovery.
6here are broa implications which result !rom choosing to linK through
association1 two hereto!ore istinct conte0ts.
9nly RwillS can per!orm the reuction !rom in!inite !ormlessness to the
assumption o! !orm.
6wo Kins o! /bsolute1 that o! Fill an Aepresentation.
6hought as a mani!estation o! con!usion1 isunity1 or an attempt at
reintegration o! recollection.
6hought as revelation or insight. 6he subconscious or unconscious
RthinKsS in complete thought chains which are large1 close networKs
o! associate meaning. 6hese thought togelogies intrue into the
conscious min at myria points within the conscious min_s time
stream.
6o see a te0t or structure in a new conte0t is to see1 simultaneously1 what
is arbitrary an what is RnaturalS about the structure.
/ program which oesn_t change the operating system cannot etect all
programs which can CvirusesD.
6he relationship between the ego an the i1 when a healthy one1 is one
where the one receives inspiration an the other1 glory.
=ume_s arguments against consiering constant con5unction as a
emonstration o! causal connection can1 perhaps1 be applie to the
constant con5unction o! the narcissistic i along with the rational1
re!lective sel!_s ieation.
;vil is silliness masqueraing as something serious.
6ry to imagine the epth o! the love-hate relationship which "atan has
with the .or. 6his is simply not possible !or us.
Hnvestigate the necessity o! memory loss/!orgetting with respect to a
thermoynamic analogy with an open system_s entropy.
6he relationship between selves an ?eings is reminiscent o! that
between mathematical in!inity an 3antor_s !irst trans!inite carinal1
aleph-null.
/ny categories o! transcenent beings woul themselves transcen any
conceptual !rameworK.
6he mental versus physical istinction is transcene in this realm.
?ecause e0istence versus none0istence is really only presence versus
absence which is not a tautologous is5unction within an open system.
"o both e0istence an none0istence require conitions an an
e0planation.
Fhere the meanings are preetermine until place within a linguistic
conte0t Cpost-linguisticD1 we are here really only concerne with signals.
Aeality as oppose to simulation: ynamic participation an
collaboration between istrict alterities rather than character
representations.
H suppose that i! we_re going to show the arbitrariness o! ;nglish wors
we_ best start with the Rplease-thanK youS wors. . .
3ombining the quantum inistinguishability principle with special
relativity leas to the hypothesis o! the continual re!reshing o! all matter
with vacuum energy.
Hnsight gains authority with being articulate with only the best-
souning phrases.
?ut in massive ob5ects1 much o! the re!reshing o! energy is through the
mass itsel!. /n so a Kin o! ientity an continuity is create.
H Know that there are insights that H am going through li!e without
because there are certain mis!ortunes that H have not yet su!!ere.
=ow nonlocality completely ivorces reality !rom its hereto!ore basis in
the notion o! substance.
6he person o! !ew accomplishments oes not !eel goo about himsel!
an seeKs to hitch his homely wooen cart to a rising star.
:iscuss the inversion paraigm shi!t in the transition !rom classical to
quantum physics.
Fhen the brain is networKe with the nonlocally-connecte quantum
vacuum1 it e0ists in a ghostliKe superposition o! myria mutually-
e0clusive near copies o! itsel!.
@ecrophilia: to e0pose the lying imposter o! appearance.
RH promise you1 H_m going somewhere with this.S Puote !rom a preacher
hear on a raio broacast1 which intuitively seems to touch upon the
earlier statement about how Rone cannot get away !rom 7lato because
one must utilize the -orms in orer to econstruct them.S
-ailure o! 8emory Cnot really clear about why H wrote this L probably
an iea !or a booKD
6he spee o! light is in!inite when relativistic e!!ects are not taKen into
account. -or instance1 a space traveler moving at %).%% o! the spee o!
light will only require 2 years Chis timeD to travel !our light years Cas
recKone !rom ;arth1 that isD.
,-9_s are perhaps best unerstoo1 in general terms1 as RanomalousS in
the Ouhnian sense which merely RtelegraphS eep !laws within the
system o! metaphysical assumptions CparaigmD upon which present
physical an psychological theories are base.
>anuary 2)*$
Hn some o! the
heaier science !iction stories1 it is always assume that the mentality o!
e0traterrestrials is so1 ahem1 alien1 that the only way communication can
taKe place between them an us is in a !orm that is oneFway an this by
virtue o! the ability o! aliens possessing superior intelligence to pull
stocK metaphors !rom the subconscious Cwhich is in the mist o!
responing to the presence o! the aliensD o! hapless ;arthlings in orer to
re!lect these bacK. ?ut really one woners i! this isn_t in !act how
everyone initially comes to maKe contact with the outsie worl anyway1
i.e.1 in!ants acquiring the language o! the vastly superior Rbig people
who maKe !unny souns.S 6his suggests an illustrates the notion that i!
we are ever to communicate with e0traterrestrials1 several preconitions
must !irst be in place: *D they must be more intelligent than us. 2D they
must have been in the past1 perhaps in the very istant past1 much as we
are now. $D they must have an e!!ective metho o! getting us to acBuire
their language an concepts Cwhich we currently have not the slightest
clue aboutD. 7rior to contact1 however1 there will have to be some sort o!
common enominator o! mental process an protolanguage to enable
this1 which points up a very important insight. "uccess!ul
communication with e0traterrestrials1 perhaps someay in man_s istant
!uture1 shall only come about within the conte0t o! some over-arching
provience. Fhether that provience is in the !orm o! the Rintelligent
esignS o! an eternally pree0isting universe as a sel!-causing1 intelligent-
though-impersonal organism or o! some superhuman person - intelligent
esigner/creator is besie the point. ?ut the Key !actor in whether the
communication !rom the superior intelligence is actually ever receive is
the !ollowing: oes the recipient o! the communication ever get the iea
to econstruct the metaphorical te0ture in which the communication was
place1 i.e.1 Runwrap the !aae o! the messageS so as to get at an actual
message? 9r woul this be to have been merely success!ully
inoctrinate into the new1 originally alien conte0t?
/ny action e0cept re!raining !rom the unnecessary is vulnerable to a
revisionistic interpretation.
Fe might term this higher orer uality1 the uality o! temporality. 6he
right hemisphere an the le!t seem to be in an enless metaphysical
ebate. 6he right attempts to broaen1 the le!t hemisphere to restrict the
scope o! the meaning o! the constructs o! language.
8ultiple ata copies necessary because o! limite ata access
in!ormation available C accessible?D
7rocessing in!ormation is not etermination o! intene conte0t.
Aeuctionism an holism are both e0amples o! eterminism1 the !ormer1
causal1 the latter1 teleological.
9A is there such a thing as Rba genes?S
Fe must remember that there is not ultimate uality within an open-
system. <et temporality seems to presuppose uality. ?ut open-
eneness that preclues uality also seems to require temporality.
6hese are two !unamentally istinct moes o! temporality1 that o!
close versus open system temporality.
=ave you ha a ream about a stranger? :o you want to Know i! this
person actually e0ists? "oon the internet will be large an integrate
enough !or you to actually have some chance o! !ining this person
through running a Rream-matching search.S 6his type o! search
involves a search engine taKing ream escriptions o! people1 places an
events !rom the night be!ore1 entere into a website atabase uring the
!ollowing 2( hour perio by hope!ully millions o! participants
worlwie possessing e0ceeingly active an vivi ream lives.
=uman beings_ sel! image an sense o! sel! worth is highly relativistic.
6he RcracKpot-lightening roS isin!ormation campaign theory o! the
Aoswell Hncient.
=uman beings o not realize how truly similar to each other they are1
without regar to inessential particulars. 6his iea is supporte by the
notion that every human being possesses the same qualitative spectrum
o! impulses/motivations as every other human being. Fhat really
accounts !or the vast i!!erences in the behaviors emonstrate by
i!!erent people Cgroups o! peopleD is the weighting o! these impulses
with respect to one another. 6his notion can only be renere truly
consistent by amitting the e0istence o! unconscious an represse
impulses.
9ne must begin to e0amine the sub5ective an anecotal basis o!
classi!ication schemes.
8any !orms o! psychoses are simply !luctuations which lie behin
e0pectation values !or coorinate behavior assuming a coherent1
macroscopic !orm.
4eel-numbering an human suggestibility with respect to eriving
alternative meanings !rom sentences reconstitute !rom sentences in
which the spaces between the wors have been remove. Fhat about
the mathematical =ebrew language in this regar? 4eel-numbering is1
o! course1 arbitrary.
>uly 2)**
6he !act that in the =ebrew language all of
the letters are also numbers means that /o was in fact the originator of
/,elFnumbering9
Aeality can only mani!est itsel! in a e!ine manner through interacting
with the other C!eebacKD.
6he music is still playing an we have not yet !oun our proper
respective places.
/ll outwar mani!estation is !oune upon some con!lict within the
ether.
Fhenever hereto!ore unKnown conitions are engineere within the
open-ene substrate Cquantum !ielD1 the ynamism then reveals
hereto!ore unsuspecte moes o! operation.
/strology1 5ust as in the case o! so-calle Rnormal scienceS only RworKsS
because o! the mass o! collective !eebacK between theorists_ an
e0perimenters_ assumptions an an ineterminate1 eternally incomplete
an open-ene Rnature.S
:econstruction unermines motivation towar the prouction o! great
an RinspireS worKs. Aelevant topics here are: 6he 4os1 the 8uses1
4enius1 Aomanticism o! 8aness1 all o! which must be thrown out.
:egeneracy o! the state o! nothingnessV its egeneracy shoul be
in!initely egenerate with respect to all possible variables.
Fe cannot live our lives in the e0pectation that we will in every C or
any D case be Rvinicate.S
"trange or chaotic attractor theory o! both love an meaning. 8eaning
is create because it is arbitrary.
6he ay that interactive virtual reality technology permits us to RwalK a
mile in the shoes o! our brotherS will be the ay that ushers in the age o!
the universal brotherhoo o! 8an.
6he worl wie web an the Hnternet will someay become so e0tensive
an integrate that you will be able to type any sequence o! wors into a
search engine an call up linKs to websites containing somewhere within
themselves that precise escription.
>uly 2)**
.et_s say this were true
because1 !or e0ample our reality is secretly an ancestor simulation an
there_s an ine!inite number o! these simulations RrunningS on the
RsystemS1 an the breaKthrough in quantum computing has allowe us
within this simulation to connect to the Hnternet server on which ours as
well as all o! these myria other ancestor simulations are running.
7ossibilities not realize in our simulation supposely must be realize
in some other simulation. Fhat this really means though is 5ust that the
escription o! each case or state o! a!!airs not realize in our simulation
must have literal corresponence with some state o! a!!airs within one or
more o! the other simulations. ?ut this is not at all the same thing as all
the possibilities e!inable !or us here necessarily being realize
somewhere else. Fe coul replace the notion above o! server Con
which the myria ancestor simulations are RrunningSD with the notion1
consciousness as such an replace the concept1 Rancestor simulationS
with that o! iniviual consciousness an we woul have here an e0act
analogy. 6his line o! speculation is starting to remin us o!
Fittgenstein_s iscussion o! a private language.
Qd
3an we 5ust agree that the technology involve in the prouction o!
one_s conscious states represents the !ruits o! a science appropriate to a
class III civili(ation% Fhile the sub5ect matter o! the content o! these
conscious states is that o! a civilization that is still a !ew centuries away
!rom being class )T 6he theoretical height o! technological evelopment
shall be nothing more nor less than our reproucing the technology that
*D maKes conscious states possible an 2D maKes the content o! the
conscious states to be coherent an about the e6istence of a rational =in
the sense of cause an effect" conservation laws" etc.A ob5ective worl.
?ut clearly i! such attempts at reprouction o! technology succee1 it
will be at one remove an be!ore this point is reache1 we shall have
etecte the ancestor simulation an learne to manipulate an then
RmasterS its ynamics. Ht is the etection1 measurement an iscovery
o! the causal laws o! the ancestor simulation_s ynamical computational
substrate that shall be responsible !or our success in pushing our own
technological evelopment to the limits pose by relativistic quantum
mechanics. Fhat i! the mystery o! consciousness is not to be sought in
the e0amination o! physics an chemistry Cthe phenomena o! anaesthesia
certainly inicate that chemistry is not important to the processes
unerlying consciousnessD because these are only the rules o! the
simulation Cthe algorithmD. 3onsciousness represents the locus in which
the simulation must Rtie itsel! o!!S liKe the Knotte ens o! threa on the
unersie o! some elaborate weaving an represents the very point o!
contact between the simulate worl an the real worl inhabite by
either *D the real person resurrecte1 2D a member o! the class H or HH
civilization who is playing an A74 with the ancestor as his RavatarS1 $D
genuinely new persons who are simulations o! ancestors o! the esigners
o! the simulation program1 but in this sense the consciousness o! the
ancestor is not a simulation Cthat_s a mani!estation o! the bottom level or
)
th
level o! a hierarchy o! simulations.D 6he question arise here o!
whether the ancestor simulation is iniviual or communal. Ht oesn_t
seem to maKe much sense to suppose that a RsimulationS o! the
interaction o! persons long ea woul secretly be the interplay o! A74
avatars Ccontrolle by real persons who are themselves members o!
some class H or HH civilizationD unless the simulation were an ancestor
reenactment.
"eptember 2)**
"imilar to the !igure groun trans!ormation e!!ecte by the
3opernican Aevolution an reenacte by Oant in the !iel o!
epistemology1 linguists an sociologists inverte the relationship o!
iniviual an society: !ar !rom society being compose by iniviuals1
iniviuals were1 in their very sense o! sel!-ienty1 constitute by social
relations an !orces.
6he purpose o! substance is !or continuity which is neee as a conuit
or path !or something else? Ae: scalar waves. =istoricity is temporal
conte0t. 3ontrast this with Rspatial conte0t.S
6here is no istinction between pro0imate an remote causes in a
eterministic chain. 6o avoi eterminism1 space woul have to be
constitute by the causal relations themselves.
Hnterrogation techniques: control questions1 repeat questions in !ront o!
the source an some o! his/her associates who are also present.
3an in!ormation be completely !ree1 i.e.1 not Rtouching uponS that which
is in!orme by it?
:ata merely point to in!ormation aresses or linKs within a networK.
:ata concerns representational Knowlege ob5ects. :ata tell the stan-
alone system where to patch into the networK. 9! course1 the RplaceS
into which one must patch changes in a manner which can only be
tracKe Cnot traceD so long as one remains RconnecteS to the networK.
Fhy must there always be sie consequences/e!!ects to enemy
esigne/engineere process/proceure.
6he logos o! illusion versus the illusion o! logos. ?ecause o! the
overetermination o! all phenomena1 a given particular perception oes
not point to any unique situation o! conitions within Rthe e0ternal
worl1S oes not point to anything in particular being the case. <et this
preicament woul not seem to apply to the presence o! one_s own
contents o! consciousness. Hn this case1 the phenomena o not seem to
be overetermine1 an this is perhaps ue to the !act that conscious
mental contents point to themselves1 while at the same time pointing
beyon themselves. 6hat is1 conscious mental contents possess
intentionality espite succeeing1 unliKe perceptions o! the e0ternal
worl1 in also pointing to themselves. 6hese mental contents point to
themselves as something e0ternal. ;merging as they o !rom an open1
ineterminate system1 they cannot have been brought into being through
any sort o! eterministic process1 but must have been brought into being
intentionally. 6hey point to that in which a causal chain originates. -or
any linK in the chain which is not a point o! origination Crather than
propagation accoring to some rule or otherD carries something through
itsel! unchange. @onlocality o! mental action is implie by the
coherence o! the in!luences o! multiple points o! origination which have
ha not previous causal connection to one another.
Hn an open system1 one cannot maKe categorical assertions. 9! course1
the above statement is an e0ample par e0cellence o! a categorical
assertion.
@o !alsi!iability o! the !alsi!iability octrine because1 i! this octrine is
vali1 there is no such thing as the positive con!irmation o! a theory.
7ure @othingness is liKe the per!ect 7latonic triangle L an abstraction
only cruely appro0imate in reality. 6he notion o! Rpure
consciousnessS liKewise re!ers to nothing in reality but is merely an ieal
or abstraction. 3onsciousness is always greater in scope than any
e!inition: the process o! abstraction always presupposes consciousness
supporting the process. 6his is what maKes the concept o! consciousness
a transcenental concept as well as grouning the meaning o!
RtranscenentalS by virtue o! the con!irme application o! this concept.
R6ranscenentalS is naturally enough a sel!-re!erential notion.
>ust liKe the person who always purchases gi!ts !or others which they
themselves woul liKe to receive. ?elieving that associations that are
signi!icant !or onesel! are in some way generally signi!icant.
H! the human consciousness is truly an open system1 then can it be totally
an utterly remove !rom what is1 !rom what has being? Foul the
removal o! this ine!inite1 an hence in!inite1 being leave behin an
unlimite an open realm only with an unlimite class o! potentialities
remove?
6he popularity o! television is proo! o! how pervasive !antasy is in the
li!e o! the average member o! moern society.
6he observable universe is 5ust an e0tension o! the ;arth. Ht may be that
humanity in its greatest generality is cultural arti!ice1 physical law1
technological arti!acts.
R/ human being woul not possess the consciousness to seeK that which
oes not e0ist.S
6ranscenence requires Rmeta-alterity.S 6his is because each iniviual
consciousness possesses unlimite potential !or its evelopment1
possesses unlimite alterity. "o meta alterity woul be the alterity with
respect to Rother consciousnesses.S
:enumerable in!inity can be easily viewe as a mere iea base on an
e0tension o! the !inite1 however1 the vast structure o! higher orer
in!inities reveale originally by 3antor_s worK1 base upon his iagonal
argument1 suggests that in!inity may not be a mere notion or
construction.
6he !inite1 then1 may well be a construct enie !rom in!inity.
?ecause o! the ynamic bacK-reaction o! language upon the poet/ author1
he/she cannot really assert what he intens or perhaps even inten what
he asserts. "ince both tautologies an sel!-contraictory utterances lea
to RsensicalS reactions in the listener/ reaer1 communication never taKes
place within any particular theoretical system.
9ur nervous systems respon1 millisecon by millisecon to sensory
inputs1 however the min itsel! only e0periences temporally integrate
structures an respons to them.
Ht is because o! overetermination that moularity is possible an can be
e!!ective. ;0plore relation o! over- versus uner-etermination.
6he in!ection o! thought an perception by the meia_s representational
!orms.
Fith statistical analysis applie to huge masses o! ata1 hereto!ore
unobtainable without integrate computer an communications
technology1 it is no longer necessary to Keep such rigi control over
e0perimental conitions1 say through the pooling an integration o!
anecotal in!ormation. /t some point even reams1 reveries1 an
Rvagary_sS might provie valuable empirical ata !or the construction o!
new1 revolutionary epistemological Can perhaps even cosmologicalD
theories.
/n e0ample might be an integration o! people_s ream sequences which
is aily upate to a Rream archive.S Foul we e0pect to iscover any
theoretically signi!icant patterns o! correlation/connection between the
ream elements o! various persons who ha been mutually concurrent
reams.
R>ust thinK1 i! we han_t turne that corner at the same time1 we woul
have never met.S Fell1 then1 we might have both met someone else
more suitable1 i! only in the long term.
=uman beings seem innately blin to the richness an comple0ity o! the
realm o! counter!actuals.
6he collapse o! the 7si !unction is proo! o! nature_s capacity !or aapting
to the inter!erence pose by the human being_s mercurial will.
/lthough the :@/ o! each iniviual human is virtually unique1 one out
o! *)WW%1 say1 the e0pression o! these :@/ is hugely overetermine1
e.g.1 myria base pair sequences coe !or ientical proteins. 6his might
not really be the case1 however1 !or higher orer regulatory base pair
sequences responsible !or higher orer genetic regulation1 i.e.1 regulation
o! other genes whom themselves prouce proteins or regulate genes
which o Cstructural genesD.
6he unconscious oes not have the !acility !or aapting symbols to its
communication nees that the conscious min possesses. :uring
waKing states o! consciousness1 the requisite psychic energy !or the
prouction o! ream imagery sequences is not available to it1 so the
unconsciousness tries to get our attention through repetition rather than
by variation.
Fhen reality oes not possess a complete escription1 oes this really
mean that any attempt to escribe it is 5ust as goo as another? 6here
are the aitional criteria o! internal consistency1 coherence1 an
sensitivity1 receptivity or reality to the escription as well as to its
application.
6he !actual realm is not complementary to Rthe counter!actualS Rrealm.S
/ccoring to quantum theory1 mere possibilities can have a physical
e!!ect which is observable.
H! parents who are raising a chil never met1 each might have ha their
own other chil with some one else.
Hs personal ientity overetermine? 6he Rmultiple0er-emultiple0erS
property o! language.
Fhat are the meaning creating an sustaining mechanisms that unerpin
logocentrism?
?eing irreconcilably i!!erent implies irreucibility when it is itsel!
Runer a general category.S 6he iniviuals all are members o! the same
class yet are Rmutually irreconcilable.S
8easure against ine!!able Knowlege1 every utterance is merely
!igurative.
6he concept o! prayer is a con!using one an may not be able to be
uni!ie uner a eterminate concept.
Fittgenstein_s notion o! !amily resemblance may apply here.
/re the interesting !eatures o! your assertions inciental or intentional?
9n the hypothesis that only Rpure energyS can be spontaneously create
within a ;ucliean or R!latS quantum vacuum1 e.g.1 virtual !ermion/anti-
!ermion pairs1 it !ollowe that boun energy structures1 e.g.1 atoms1
molecules1 etc.1 are Runanticipate structures.S "uch structures which
cannot be preicte !rom the !lat quantum vacuum can1 inee1 be
engenere with a curve spacetime which necessarily itsel! possesses
some Kin o! boun structure a!ter which a momentum-energy
!luctuation may pattern its own boun structure. 7erhaps the curve
vacuum may be ecompose into two is5oint components: a purely
R!latS an a purely RcurveS one. 6he vacuum momentum-energy
!luctuation1 when engenere within a curve spacetime1 may be
thought to prouce a bacK-reaction upon the vacuum state !rom which it
is engenere1 at least upon its R!lat part1S which cannot anticipate the
appearance o! such boun structures. 3oul this be simply because
energy an three momentum are normally orthogonal to one another
with a !lat spacetime? Fhy o we e0pect the Kin o! bacK-reaction
allue to above? ?ecause the vacuum state prior to the appearance o!
the boun structure !luctuation cannot1 at least in its purely !lat
component1 continue in a parallel phase space evolution with it. 6here is
also the possibility that newly engenere boun Cmomentum-energyD
structures possess access to alternative vacuum states altogether is5oint
!rom the vacuum states originally proucing them as !luctuationsT 6his
woul account !or a continue bacK-reaction o! boun energy structures
upon a chosen unitary vacuum state. 9n this view1 boun momentum-
energy structures connect multiple vacuum states. 8oreover1 gravitation
Can inertia1 as wellD may be a !unction o! the interaction o! multiple1
hereto!ore1 uncommunicative vacuum states. /lso1 a curve vacuum
state1 i.e.1 a curve spacetime1 shoul be moele as an inter!erence
pattern o! multiple vacuum states1 previously is5oint.
H! the hypothesis that mass is simply Rboun energyS is correct1 then we
woul e0pect a shi!t in the balance between momentum an energy
!luctuations to taKe place C in !avor o! increase momentum !luctuations
an ecrease energy !luctuationsD as a mass approaches a gravitating
boy. 6his shi!t1 o! course1 woul go han in han with a contraction in
the positional uncertainty an increase in the time uncertainty.
/ vacuum state escribe by a curve spacetime may prouce comple0 1
boun energy structures. 9! course1 when energy is supplie to the
vacuum !rom outsie as in the case o! high power lasers1 linear
accelerators1 strong electric !iels1 etc.1 any number o! boun energy
structures may be prouce. Puantum numbers accounting must be
obeye1 however. 6he e0pectation value o! all quantum numbers within
the vacuum is zero.
Fe o not appear to maKe or unerstan a istinction between concepts
which have only a social or collective 5usti!ication versus those
originating at coherent insights or conceptions within the min o! the
iniviual.
9perational concepts an methoologies are sometimes RcorrupteS into
metaphysics.
Fhat is the Rcash valueS o! metaphysics?
:oes language possess a conte0t without the collective L can an
iniviual really philosophize in a vacuum?
/strology_s preictions an e0planations are sel!-!ul!illing because o!
the nature o! perception to be heavily !iltere. /n astrology is a
structure which1 virus-liKe1 RtaKes overS the iea-synthesizing machinery
o! the min1 replacing the inchoate thoughts o! weaK mins with its
preetermine crystalline ones.
@o in!ormation is conveye by a signal that is not part o! a !eebacK
loop. "o there really is no such thing as Rpure transmissionS o!
in!ormation. /n any close system o! circulating energy currents can
be ecompose into a set o! pure transmissions within spacetime. /
system o! triggers an reactions. @o possibility o! synchronization1
timing or re!erence !rame without an embeing ynamic substrate.
/nother proo! o! the necessity o! antiparticles might be given in terms o!
the application o! the law o! conservation o! !our momentum to vacuum
!luctuation energy. "imilarly1 the e0planation !or the 7auli an ?ose
principles may be erive !rom the same application o! this law o! !our
conservation to !luctuations o! quantum vacuum momentum-energy1 or
the application o! the continuity equation to virtual particle current
ensities.
)%-2$-22
?ut i! such a conservation law applies to vacuum !luctuations
Cvirtual particlesD1 then this woul imply the e0istence o! nonlocally
connecte Can interlocKeD matter an !orce !iels. 7erhaps momentum
conservation only applies to the vacuum e0pectation values1 not all
components o! which being zero within a nonvanishing gravitational
!iel. Hs subvocalization 5ust the by prouct o! social conitione
response or is the mute part o! the brain able to hear an unerstan the
subvocal utterance o! the le!t?
?ecause we have the gi!t o! the creator1 we cannot live within this worl1
but only partly1 i! we are not to perturb the laws by which it operates.
)%-
2$-22
6he polarization o! the photon acts in a !ormally similar way to the spin
o! massive particles.
seanet.com/Ksbrown/Kmath$().htm
Hn other wors1 the
electromagnetic wave is the wave!unction o! the photon Cspin * particleD.
-eynman sai that the Rphoton is the only spin * elementary particle1
c.!.1 6heory o! -unamental 7rocesses.
/ construct can be econstructe1 a person_s motives1 interest1 etc.1 but
not what is unmeiate by language.
.anguage is the masK o! sub5ectivity.
6he will towars coherence grappling with the overetermine chaos.
6he human being in his heart cannot be ienti!ie with any particular
role or persona.
;0plain how the gohea achieves the greatest unity through iversity o!
creation.
6he relations encompasse by astrology are neither arbitrary no
necessary.
Ht seems that the only way that equipartation o! momentum-energy can
be maintaine Cwith regar to e0pectation valuesD is i! there is some
embeing meium !or interacting gas particles in which stresses an
strains can be evelope an e0change. Ht appears that there is a
thermoynamic requirement !or a vacuum stress-momentum-energy
!iel. "pontaneous emission1 !or e0ample1 is necessary !or
thermoynamic laws to be uphel uring e0changes o! energy between
e0cite atoms an an electromagnetic !iel. ?ecause the vacuum
!luctuations o not themselves possess inertia as iniviual particles1 this
may possess collective inertia through nonlocal connectivity. Hs bacK-
reaction an inertial characteristic?
3an nonlocally connecte quantum !iels be connecte to locally
connecte Rcausal1S classical !iels? 3hanges in energy along a
continuum o! egenerate energies1 i.e.1 changes in the absence o!
changes in the system wave!unction may constitute a Kin o! 2
n
imensional time.
6he statistics o! real particles an !iels is taKen boily !rom the
statistics o! the quantum vacuum. Iacuum statistics are etermine by
spin. 6he other quantum numbers constitute constraints upon those
statistics emboie in the quantum mechanical selection rules.
Fe are all most presumptuous in our !amiliarity with one another CAe:
the transcenental emanationism octrineD
Aanom shu!!ling o! genes oes not e0plain the emergence o! coherence
L unless some sequences are more intrinsically/chemically stable than
others.
R;ven 4o coul not speaK reemption into e0istence.S -- >immy
"waggart
6hat which cannot be prouce by the vacuum in an unmeiate !ashion
cannot be RcompreheneS by it.
"o there appears to be a connection here between wave!unction collapse
an inertia.
7eople ree!ine themselves in reverie not in reality.
9ne can aapt the sel! that hereity an culture has mae o! one1 but not
to trans!orm onesel! altogether.
"el! trans!ormation is a recurrent !antasy with primitive roots in the
genetically programme !light/escape response1 or perhaps1 the pu!!ing
up o! physical appearance in orer to !righten a potential enemy.
6he spurne an !orlorn lover o! in!atuate person cannot isengage
!rom the love ob5ect in any absolute sense1 but he must !irst change the
way that he perceives/ thinKs about the love ob5ect prior to Rletting go.S
Hnvestigate the meaning o! a gravitational !iel itsel! CinepenentlyD
altering the =eisenberg uncertainties in /a0 an /at. :on_t /ap an /a;1
alone1 aequately account !or /a0 an /at?
"o then1 oes matter istort /a0 an /at irectly at the quantum level or
inirectly through matter_s gravitational !iel?
/ phenomenological theory can be R!leshe outS in an unlimite
number o! istinct ways1 in terms o! its statement o! unerlying
mechanisms. ?ut certainly these mechanisms shoul !all together into a
e!inable Requivalence class.S ?ut coul such an equivalence class be
unique?
6he only i!!erence is that part o! the system o! multiply re!lecte mirror
images is not iscernible. 7art o! the associative networK begins to
protrue into consciousness. 6his is issociation. Hs it inauthentic to
respon to persons in terms o! their !acete re!lections an not to them
personally? 6his association networK o! all in all1 interpenetrating
ientities has always been operative1 but is only now becoming
conscious.
/pril 2)**
/n e0ample o! issociation is the loss o! natural
R!ellow !eelingS or o! the RworKaay consciousnessS. "till more
issociation is e0empli!ie by a loss o! the perception o! the
RnaturalnessS o! one_s mother tongue Coral or in printe !ormD1 one_s
own boy/boily !unctions an that o! the human !orm/!unction o!
others. 3haracteristically human mani!estations such as greetings1
courtesies1 laughter1 !acial e0pressions o! emotion1 boy language1
applause1 ancing1 sport1 play1 i.e.1 things humans o without rational
reason or instinctively all appear to the issociate person as arbitrary.
8oreover1 institutions that provie a culturally grouning conte0t !or
human e0istence an eneavor1 e.g.1 government1 military1 religion1
!raternal organizations1 etc.1 also seem pointless an arbitrary. 6he
issociate iniviual is the eternal social anthropologist who hails !rom
some other planet than the one to which he appears to have been
temporality poste. 6his all necessarily involves etachment !rom the
networK o! socially conitione meaning associations1 e.g.1
sociolinguistic culture. 6he current tren in literature1 art an science
represente by postmoernism an econstruction is perhaps an e0ample
o! issociative etachment having become appropriate by intellectual
culture. 8anKin is intensely an awKwarly sel!-conscious well
beyon where he has reason to be1 i! his evolution were truly attributable
to natural selection alone. 3learly the way !orwar to resolving this
apparent parao0 is to gain a eeper an broaer notion o! what is
terme natural. Cc.!.1 perennial bachelor or woul-be bachelor who
taKes a !oreign wi!eD.
@ovember 2)**
Fhat isunity e0ists within the human psyche? 8oreover1
how is it that this isunity is even etectable so as to be mae the sub5ect
o! critical e0amination an comment? "imilar remarKs apply to the
minority human tenency to critically e0amine an speculate upon such
sub5ects as temporality an change1 consciousness1 !ree will1 the
aesthetic sense1 humor1 laughter1 etc. =ow i man manage to achieve
enough success in Rgetting outsie himsel!S so as to maKe the most
unsel!-consciously natural general aspects o! his psyche an sociality the
sub5ects o! intense philosophical an scienti!ic scrutiny? 6he answer to
this seeming parao01 o! course1 might well be that1 he has not in fact at
all succeee in oing this9 6hen the question becomes: Rwhere i
man ever get the iea that he coul get outsie himel!S in the !irst place?
/ central notion unerlying the metaphysical sensibility is that o! limits.
=umanKin evelope the notion o! limits because he evelope the
moel o! the sel! as emboie an as occupying a space1 which
presuppose an intuition o! temporality that in turn presuppose a
general temporal integrative !unction. "o the stu!! at the outer reaches
o! man_s !uture metaphysical speculation L his philosophical horizon1 i!
you will1 is Ralways alreayS substantively a part o! the psychic
processes unerlying man_s integration into a volitional sel!. .inguistic
processes must have starte out as a Kin o! Rassembly languageS or
Rmachine coeS enliste by the brain !or the purpose o! reprocessing
sense ata into various istinct moalities. "omehow the brain hit upon
the tricK o! turning this linguistic processs Rinsie-outS.
>une 2)**
6he mature bachelor Knows that to marry means to go through li!e
accompanie by a witness who shall 5uge him in almost everything he
oes an in whose 5ugments he shall usually be !oun wanting.
"uenly he shall1 as marrie man have to taKe on an e0tra conscience1
that o! how his ecisions an conuct shall liKely appear to his new
constant companion. 6he en result is now that instea o! en5oying
having put away his youth1 which ha so much to prove to itsel! an
others1 he must now be reay at any moment to play the part o! this
e0tra1 super!luous persona1 that o! husban. =is wi!e shall looK to him
to solve the problems an resolve the isputes that she in her
impulsiveness shall regularly create !or him an not merely to !inish the
!ights that she shall start in public gathering places with strangersT =e
must also remain vigilant now o! two timetables an two sets o!
e0pectations1 the one always the more aggressive an ambitious than the
otherT
6he moment o! inertia analogy !or the metaphorical origin o! logocentric
notions.
7ro5ections alluing to the presence o! spaces that o not e0ist in actual
!act. Iirtual optical images analogy.
.ogocentrism is a isease o! the unerstaning in which metaphors are
rei!ie into concepts. 6his is
Kw=
rei!ication at one remove.
8eaning lies within a tissue o! metaphors. 6his is particularly evient in
the almost transcenent wholeness o! meaning evoKe by poetry an
song lyrics which are particularly metaphor-ense varieties o! literature.
3oncepts which possess no ual are not communicable1 cannot be
capture through iscursive symbols1 e0cept through1 perhaps1 the
negation o! concepts which themselves possess some ineterminacy.
6his is simply the nonual which /vaita Ieanta speaKs o!.
9! course1 the non ual is the ual o! the ual1 i! we engage in ual
thinKing1 that is.
?ut nonual thinKing oes not see itsel! as the ual o! the ual so is sel!-
transcening as a category.
Fe have emotions about most e0periences because they in turn re!lect
other earlier e0periences wherein the associate emotions were more
immeiate. 6hese earlier emotions in their turn shoul ultimately re!er
to a networK o! earliest hel e0periences that were Rconcretely evoKe.S
?oth retention o! memory an anticipation are require in orer to
R!oregroun the moment.S
9ne must believe what one_s true sel! wants to be true. 6his statement
may be interprete in two !unamentally istinct ways. 6his is ue to
the ambiguity o! the term Rsel!.S Fhich sel! is it that esires a belie! to
be true. 6he above statement is either a statement o! human nature or it
is a moral imperative.
Fhen a mass is accelerate1 it not only accelerates in a spatial irection
but also it ecelerates along the time a0is. "o the mass e0changes less
energy with the vacuum an more energy Cin the !orm o! $-momentumD
with itsel!. "o !luctuation momentum ensity increases in the e0act
same proportion as oes the !luctuation energy ensity ecrease.
-luctuation momentum an energy current ensities !orm a !our vector
which is trans!orme through a 2
n
ranK tensor.
6he spee o! light is a limiting velocity in vacuum because c in reality
represents Rthe spee o! timeS in that1 when an ob5ect is Rat rest1S i.e.1 in
$- ;ucliean space1 it is being reconstitute !rom energy Cvacuum
energyD at a ma0imum rate Cthis is !or the time being1 not to taKe any
e0otic Rsqueeze statesS into consierationD along a !ourth imensional
spatial a0is. 9! course1 to some tiny egree the mass is reconstituting
itsel! !rom its own energy store C the basis !or inertia an1 more subtly1
gravitation1 as well.
?ecause o! the ientity o! all quantum particles o! similar type1 there can
be no substantive istinction between one such particle at one place Cor
time D !rom another such particle at another place Cor time D.
Hntuition1 insight1 toy moels which are abstract an inepenent o! prior
art1 moels trying to consistently incorporate prior art while elegantly
e0plaining the problem_s Rsolution.S
:o associations begin as arbitrary connections unerpinne by mere
correlation? ?ut the arbitrariness is reuce through !eebacK in the
presence o! constant patters o! input. 6he brain_s associative networKs
can only !orm an be sustaine by intentional input. $-vector inputs
relate to social/linguistic an scalar inputs relate to quantum coherent
inputs.
"ubtle an ynamic relationships between necrophilia an
saomasochism. 8asochism relates to the other as mysterious. "aism
relates to the other as mere ob5ect. "el! reuces the other in the latter
case1 is reuce by the other in the !ormer.
Hn reams the literal an the metaphorical reverse their roles.
Oarma operates in a completely impersonal manner. Oarma Knows no
!avorites an Ris not a respecter o! persons.S
6he :arK /ges never having taKen place might serve !or an e0planation
!or the e0istence o! technology !ar in avance o! that o! the 2)
th
3entury
mainstream. ,nre!erenceable changes in an in!ormational system an
the e0planation o! the success o! astrological preictions.
Aepresentation is to truth as participation is to issemination. -orm
versus substance. 3onte0t-!ree ientity versus closest continuer as the
caniate or representative !or being a particular person L what system
meiates/ecies what woul be the
phr=
closest continuer?
-ebruary 2)*(
6he principle o! causality realize in turn upon the closest
continuer principle. 6he very same mechanism o! !ine tuning o!
!unamental physical constants which calle one !orth !rom the sleeping
voi is the very same mechanism which is responsible !or transporting
one through time . 6he theory o! the multiverse cannot save us !rom a
conclusion o! intelligent esign because it violates the principle o!
causality !irstly there is no guarantee that other mins with whom H am
allegely !amiliar accompany me as H temporarily evolve through the
vastness o! the multiverse the closest continuer to the present moment is
the successive moment1 but the successive moment1 rather than being
along a eterminate timeline is now set within the enormity o! a vast
hyperimensional multiverse o! ever so slightly istinct versions o! the
current universe. 6he groun o! being itsel! possesses Know being but
contains within itsel! all possibilities o! being. 6he origin o! temporality
is to be !oun within the groun o! being consequently whatever can be
!oun as the origin o! temporality must be a part o! this groun o!
being.
/!ter enough centuries1 all temporal continuity is completely washe out
an so travel to the past !rom the istant !uture epochs was not rule out
on account o! causal consierations.
Hn the e0change o! substance in the continual reconstitution o! an ob5ect1
there is a iscontinuity an hence topological change.
/n now1 we will practice 8icroso!t For by taKing notes on >acques
:erria1E6he Aetrait o! 8etaphor1E which was publishe in ;@3.H6H3
2:2 C*2%ND: '-$$. /s we Know1 the eitors point out that the article worKs
with two semantic systems !or the wor A;6A/H61 which has a variety
o! meanings in -rench.

6he reason that wors ten to have myria meanings is that wors
coine to enote things or activities within some original conte0t are
borrowe !or use in an un!amiliar or less !amiliar one. ?ut the !irst
enotative terms were actually metaphor since various images were
being assimilate over time Cin the sub5ective e0perience o! primitive
manD to the notion o! a thing which appeare an reappeare. "o ob5ects
are istille out o! the !lu0 o! e0perience in the eveloping !eebacK
between the in!ant an his environment an constitute a Kin o! rei!ie
metaphor. /n this is what the "el! really is. 6his is somewhat Oantian
an is along the lines o! what 7iaget says about cognitive evelopment
in the sensorimotor stage: the in!ant learns through interacting with a
reactive environment that the image o! her han moving1 the soun it
maKes when it striKes a mobile hanging over her crib1 the !eeling in her
han1 the Kinesthetic sensations in the arm an shouler muscles are all
part o! the same Rthing.S 6his integration o! sensation has to be learne
!rom e0perience. ;0istence e!initely precees essence an ob5ects in
the e0ternal worl an the "el! emerge !rom the !lu0 o! issociate
sensation simultaneously. Fe commonly here o! the RthrownnessS o!
the iniviual. 8ore correct here is to speaK o! the thrownness o! the
sel! an its worl together in a single act.
8etaphor represents the right brain version o! the le!t brain/analytical
activity o! the instantiation o! abstract categories. 6here is always
somewhat o! an insight involve in use o! metaphor an itGs a linguistic
competency not liKely to ever be equale by a machine. Fhen we learn
a language this latent structure o! metaphor lying at various levels
beneath the sur!ace o! language is subconsciously assimilate an it
conitions an elimits all thought1 even at its most creative. ;specially
then. @ow mostly what =eiegger oes when heGs oing metaphysics is
to unearth this latent structure by going bacK1 he thinKs1 much closer to
where it originate. ,sually in the 4reeK. Fhen you rea =eiegger
you realize that1 at bottom1 thatGs all metaphysics really is - itGs 5ust
archeology o! language1 the EminingE o! latent metaphors which are
masqueraing as purely enotative concepts or logical categories. Fhen
HGm oing metaphysics1 H always !eel that HGm not completely in control
o! what HGm thinKing an sometimes H !eel liKe HGm more or less a passive
vessel into which insights !low an intuitions crystallize. /n thatGs
because H thinK that HGm suppose to be utilizing clear an istinct
categories although HGm really utilizing metaphor. /ll o! the time1 in !act.
6his is why logocentrism oesn_t really worK. /n logocentrism is itsel!
the
Kw=
rei!ication o! a metaphor an oes not really quali!y as a truly
enotative concept. :econstruction econstructs itsel!. 6he statement
that absolute truth is !alse cannot be absolutely trueT :econstruction is a
giant case o! question-begging1 H thinK.

Hn instantiation o! a concept or logical category1 the grasping o! a
particular is pre!igure in the pre-e0isting concept or !orm which is not
e0pane or enlarge through this re-cognition uner the concept o! one
o! its concrete particulars. Hn metaphor1 however1 there is a creative
interpretation o! the unKnown or un!amiliar through the importation o! a
conte0tual web o! associations Cbase in e0perienceD as oppose to
logical relations or abstract categories.. / static1 stable orer in the ol
conte0t becomes a ynamic orering principle whenever it is
transplante into the new conte0t. 6he ynamism is generate by the
reactivity o! the new conte0t as groun into which a see or viral
contaminant o! !oreign meaning is introuce. Hn metaphor an
inuctive as oppose to a euctive step is taKen which enlarges the
original category that was borrowe. /n all o! the entities treate o!
enotatively are1 as allue to alreay1 metaphorical constructs. 6his is
what maKes metaphor open-ene an irreucible in the scope o! its
action1 as well as translogical. ?ecause logic presupposes metaphorical
relationships an so the process by which !ormal categories are
generally brought about cannot itsel! be given a !ormal escription1
which is to say1 no !ormal escription can be given !or how !ormal
escriptions are generally brought into being. 8etaphor1 which is
prelogical1 unerlies the prouction o! all !ormal categories/abstract
concepts.

9ne o! the systems has to o with retreats1 retracings1 withrawals1 an
soon: leaing to questions o! economy1 pathway1 passage1 an
circulation. 6he secon system has to o with erasure/rubbing but also
usury1 by which use an wear ?,H.: ,7 or increase value/meaning.

6here are two Kins o! metaphor - two senses in which metaphor is a
EAetrait.E 6he !irst is the interpretation o! the new in terms o! the ol.
6he secon is the reverse o! this: the reinterpretation o! the ol in terms
o! the new1 such as a metaphor1 suggeste1 !or e0ample1 by new social
relations enable by evelopments in technology. /n e0ample o! this
might be the rawing o! an analogy between the rise o! the Hnternet an
the Forl Fie FebGs impact upon postmoernity an the social/cultural
impact o! the printing press upon the Aenaissance in ;urope C in terms o!
the !reeing-up o! iniviualismD. ?y maKing o! history a 7alimpsest1 we
maKe the transition CpassageD into
the !uture less iscontinuous an more comprehensible.


Fornness1 worn-outness1 will be important here as well1 since :erria
will be talKing about metaphor as something ol1 something coming near
its en. Hs :erria talKing about the ening o! =istory in the sense o!
the en o! gran narratives?

8yth is metaphysics clothe in metaphor. 6he most !unamental myth
is that o! the ;go or "el!-consciousness. 6he ;go is the most
!unamental o! myths because it represents the operation o! metaphor at
its most !unamental: consciousness is an unboune !lu0 which is in
continual change along a etermine but not preetermine path. 6he
;go possesses continuity throughout this !lu0ion espite its always being
the arti!act o! an ever changing groun. 6he ;go always manages to
reconstitute itsel! as such against this changing1 grouning !lu0 o!
altering consciousness. 6he ;go in the present moment is always the
importation o! a structure !rom the previous momentary groun
CconsciousnessD into a new one all the while remaining the sel! same
;go. "orry i! H_m belaboring the obvious.

:erria begins by pointing out that metaphor worKs with these notions
o! passage an circulation: inhabiting1 transporting onesel!1 passing
through1 an so on: all o! this is o! course is goo !or poetry in general1
an given my !i0ation1 !or Ialle5o in particular. / Key initial iea is that
while we thinK we EuseE metaphor1 it in !act comprehens us1 sweeps us
away1 isplaces us: we aren_t liKe a pilot in his ship1 we#re :AH-6H@41
sKiing.
6he importation o! the structuring o! the ol groun !rom the preceing
moment manages always C or almost alwaysD to impose a new structure
upon the newly emerging groun which returns the ;go to itsel!. 6his
return o! the "el! to Htsel! continually1 all the while the groun o!
consciousness !luctuates unerneath it1 represents the power o! metaphor
in its greatest generality.
-or this reason we might term 8in the metaphor o! all metaphors. /n
that is inevitable1 !or no speech is possible without metaphor.


[Ht is not clear to me why :erria thinKs metaphor is coming to the en
o! its li!e#he says it#s ol1 oes he say how he Knows it#s almost
RretiringS Che says it is retiringD?\ ?ut here comes something: because
it#s ol1 it has 89A; an not less weight: a lot is attache to metaphor.
8etaphor is Ea
suspensive withrawal an return supporte by the line C6A/H6D
elimiting a contourE C2D [this again is goo !or Ialle5o\.

@ow he asKs why we privilege =eiegger#s te0t Che oesn#t say which
te0tD on this topic. Ht seems to be because o! =#s concentration on
6A/H61 in the sense o! line1 the Etracing incision o! languageE C*)D.
@ow : reveals two o! =#s titles: :;A "/6J I98 4A,@: an
,@6;AF;4" J,A "7A/3=;. =e also remins us1 in his inimitable
way1 that he will quote himsel! CEF=H6; 8<6=9.94<: 8etaphor in
the 6e0t o! 7hilosophyED but this is not in orer to raw attention to
himsel! but rather1 so as not to have to repeat here what he sai there
Cyeah1 yeah1 >acques-babyD.

6his is getting i!!icult. : is going to slip himsel! through one o! =#s
notes on metaphor - in which Ethe metaphoric e0ists only within the
bounaries o! metaphysicsE - as iscusse by Aicoeur in ./
8;6/7=9A; IHI;1 whose eighth essay1 in turn1 iscusses :#s EFhite
8ythologyE piece. [4ossip: the current piece by :erria was rea at a
symposium in 4eneva where Aicoeur also rea.\ /nyway1 the point is
that we will be relating metaphor an metaphysics here1 in the above
sense1 that the metaphoric e0ists only within the bounaries o!
metaphysics. [4uessing: as we Know1 : wants to get beyon
metaphysics1 so H suppose this article will try to lea us beyon
metaphor: let#s see1 that#s interesting1 it souns 6=;9.94H3/. to me
an H Know : woul probably hate me !or thinKing so.\

: says A in#t pay enough attention this point o! =#s. "o now he will
critique A. -irst point. A1 accoring to :1 assimilates : too easily to =.
"econ point. 8ore on A#s misreaing o! EFhite 8ythologyVE over-
assimilation to =. [@ot having rea EF8E or the =eiegger piece on it1
it#s har
!or me to comment here.\ [4ossip: : comes !rom a repressive !amily
bacKgroun1 H can tell1 he#s liKe me1 Keeps saying Ebut that#s not what H
sai1 how can you attribute it to meE - he is very !i0ate on being
precisely unerstoo1 H agree intellectually with that !eeling1 but what H
am gossiping about here is
his tone.\ =ere1 he#s also ma at A because1 : says1 A criticises : !rom
the place to which : ha himsel! carrie the critique.
/ Key point appears to be that accoring to A1 EF8E maKes eath or
ea metaphor is watchwor - this iea o!!ens : Cnote though that A#s
te0t is calle .HI; 8;6/7=9AD. Fhat : purports to really be talKing
about is the 6F9 :;/6=" or ";.--:;"6A,36H9@" 9-
8;6/7=9A [he oesn#t e0plain this here1 we have to rea EF8E
which H#m beginning to suspect is more interesting than the piece at
han\.

@ow we talK about economy. /. usury ?. the law o! the house 3.
;A;H4@H" [?\ :. passage1 !raying1 trans!er1 translation1 withrawal
Cbecause1 H intuit1 metaphor 69:/< is withrawing1 accoring to :D.
@ow we looK at mother-tongue an !ather-language#again1 complicate
little arguments1 my !irst guess here is that mother-tongue is not
metaphoric1 but !ather-language is metaphorical an metaphysical1 has to
o with !ormal language1 the law1 an so !orth.
Aetreat1 tracing1 translation#let#s talK about Etraits1E then. Fe nee
metaphor when we can#t get to ?eing#i! we coul get there1 there woul
be no metaphor. /n1 what =eiegger calls metaphysics H6";.-
correspons to a withrawal o! ?eing. "o we only get out o!
metaphysical/metaphorical iscourse by a withrawal o! the withrawal
o! ?eing.

["H:; @96;: 3987/A; 69 6=; @H;6J3=;/@ 6/.O 9@
8H@;A/." H@ 6=; <;":
3987/A;:Z 69 6=/61 6=H" ";;8" I;A< F;"6;A@ /@:
;@3.9";:1 /@: 3987/A;: 69 ;/"6;A@ A;.H4H9@1 F;..1
@;;: H "/< 89A;?\ /nyway1 what we#re going to get with
metaphor is a series o! retreats1 withrawals#this is how metaphor gets
so comple0#as it withraws1 it Egives placeE to Ean abyssal
generalisation o! themetaphoric.E
?eing1 liKe metaphor1 Ewithraws into its cryptE [I/87HA;" /4/H@T
:9;" 6=H"
8/O; ?;H@4 / I/87HA;? 7A9?/?.<1 :/" "6H8861 H6 -H6".\
?,61 an this is going to be important1 we get a 3/6/"6A97=; when
metaphoricity no longer allows itsel! to be containe in its
#metaphysical# concept#when CH 6=H@OD metaphor stops being a
metaphor o! something that is absent Cbut whose absence is palpable1 as
in the absence o! /braham#s 4oD.
;0istence is1 o! course1 the conte0tualizing o! ?eing. 6he withrawal o!
?eing woul mean the loss o! coherence o! the groun o! e0istence.
8etaphor is the continual reconte0tualization o! ?eing which maintains
this coherence o! groun. 8etaphor1 in its root an most basic
mani!estation1 e!!ectively simulates the continue presence o! ?eing.
?ut this is !or some not satis!actory. 9ne tragically esires the ?eing o!
the 9ther. ?ut secretly the ?eing o! the "el! an the ?eing o! the 9ther
are one an the same. -or one is the 9ther !or the 9ther. ?ut one can
see !rom one_s own case1 that one is more than merely the 9ther !or the
9therT 8etaphysics is the attempt to iscursively escribe what can
only be glimpse1 which is the coherence o! e0istence in the light o!
?eing_s presencing as 9ther. 8etaphysics tries to reconstitute ?eing
!rom out o! the coherence o! ?eing_s e0istence even in ?eing_s absence.
6he immeiacy o! ?eing obviates the necessity o! metaphysics as
Eontological neurosisE cause by its withrawal. 9n the other han1 the
thrownness o! ?eing is its thrownness as "el! an 9ther simultaneously.
6he "el! is a sociolinguistic construct. 6he sel! only emerges within the
social environment o! a linguistic community. 7art o! the process o!
learning any given tasK is that o! the maKing o! subvocalize1 mental
notes to onesel! as one is attempting to per!orm an master the tasK. "o
this is here not entirely a case o! learning by oing. ?ut when it comes
to learning the RtasKS o! becoming minimally competent in one_s !irst
language - this is entirely an e0ample o! Rlearning by oingS. 6he
unerstaning o! what one is oing appears later a!ter the necessary
preparation o! groun.
Fe have here the real thing in han an we can ispense with saying
what something is liKe. 9ur i!!iculties in having an authentic
relationship with ?eing which woul have power!ully valiate the sel!
stimulates in us an impulse to hate!ully gossip - to talK ba about
?eing. 8etaphysics is an attempt to econstruct ?eing which is
motivate by a arK1 unerlying necrophilic urge to tear own1
emysti!y1 an emythologize the 9ther which seems to have re5ecte
us1 not unliKe a haughty an unapproachable1 woul-be lover. ?ut it is
not ?eing which has one the re5ecting here. Aather this necrophilic an
estructive impulse1 which mani!ests itsel! in the !orm o! a metaphysics
o! ?eing1 is precipitate not through ?eing_s callous re5ection o! us1 but
on account o! rage against impotence to intimately relate to ?eing.

?ut there is another sort o! metaphor in =eiegger1 a non-metaphysical
one. [/@: /6 6=H" 79H@61 H /4/H@ 39@-;"" H :9@#6 O@9F: H
6=H@O :;AAH:/ A;/:" =;H:;44;A 89A; F;"6;A@- .<
6=/@ H1 /@: 6=H" 8/< ?; 39AA;36#?,6 "98;9@; 6;.. 8;
"98;6=H@4 9@ =;H:;44;A1 H A;/: =H" ?;H@4 H@ "9A6 9- /
J;@ ";@";1 6=9,4= H F9,.: "/< =; H" 89A; H@6;A;"6;:
H@ /@ /@6=A9789A7=H3 F=9.; 6=/@ /A; 6=;";
;/"6;A@ 6<7;" #H 4;6 6=; "6A/@4; -;;.H@4 6=/6 H
:9@#6 O@9F ;@9,4= 69 =/I; /@ 97H@H9@1 ?,6 6=/6 9@
6=; 96=;A =/@: H- H O@;F ;@9,4= 69 97H@; H F9,.: ?;
H@"H:; 6=; :H"39,A"; /@: =/I; 69 /4A;; FH6= H6. \
;n o! metalanguage1 metaphysics1 meta-rhetoric1 but pure
metaphoricity# ?y now we#re talKing about !amous =eiegger lectures
liKe E6he @ature o! .anguage.E 8etaphors1 wors1 are H@3H"3H9@"1
tracings#as in woo-cuttings1 gravures1 engravings#an these incisions
maKe possible gra!tings1 so to speaK1 splicings# an ?;H@4 H6";.- H"
/ :HI;A4;@3;1 / "7.H66H@41 "98;6=H@4 39@"6/@6.< H@
FH6=:A/F/.1 / ?9A:;A [WWW/4/H@ 6=H@O I/..;>91 6=H"
H" I;A< ",44;"6HI; -9A E.H@:;"E\#H6" H@"3AH76H9@
",33;;:" 9@.< H@ ?;H@4 ;--/3;: Cthat#s the ;nglish
translation1 a more interesting a!!irmation than the -rench original
Rn#arrive qu#a s#e!!acerSD#being happens an comes about only in
e!!acing itsel!#Cthere is more on thisD 6he essence o! speech is
H@3H"H9@ [this is interesting1 we speaK o! Eincisive argumentsE but here
speech H" incision\#H@3H"H9@ ?AH@4" 694;6=;A /@:
";7/A/6;" 6=; I;H.H@4 /@: 6=; ,@I;H.H@4 [now there#s a
metaphorical phrase#VDD so toay1 metaphor is withrawing1 splicing1
un/5oining. Fhat is happening? RAien1 pas e reponse1 sinon que e la
metaphore le retrait se passe e lui-meme.
H have o!ten marvelle at how the movement o! ?eing through time is at
the sel!same1 ientical instant1 both a passing away an a coming into
being. Hn other wors1 the coming into being an the passing away o! the
"el! within the !lu0 o! consciousness Curing each passing instantD are
groune in the very same phenomena1 an this parao0 o! passage is
essential to the continuity o! e0perience time.
)%/2N
Aepresentation is groune in the participatory an the ob5ective is
no more RrealS than the intersub5ective. Aepresentations are metaphors
an convenient recapitulations o! an open-ene historical process. /ll
!orm is metaphorV the concrete always transcens the metaphorical.
)%/2N
6he !eeling one has o! the inevitability o! one_s e0istence. Fhether or
not th e!orm that this e0istence taKes is itsel! inevitable is a istinct
though perhaps relate question. H! !orm is intersub5ective1 then it
shoul have little i! any thing to o with one_s personal ientity1
certainly not its core or Kernel. 6hat H am the essence that H am is not
something that coul have been etermine by agreement as essences
are by e!inition Crather then conventionD not arbitrary nor are they
things1 which is to say abstractions amitting o! some Kin o! concept.
6o say that it coul have been possible to have been another person is to
say that there is only one consciousness which is able to taKe multiple
!orms with the result that consciousness becomes an entirely passive
attribute contributions nothing to the istinctiveness o! persons or to the
etermination an evelopment o! personal ientity over time.
?eginning o! Fell /
>bn.com 3hrysin 9il o! ;vening 7rimrose: prevents
aromatization.
6=H" :93,8;@6 "=9,.: ?; A;F9AO;: H@69 =<7;A6;+61
H- 6=; H:;/" 39@6/H@;: FH6=H@ H6 /A; 69 ?; 7A97;A.<
9A4/@HJ;:. 7A;.H8H@/A< 69 6=H"1 6=H" :93,8;@6 H" 69
?; A;-F9AO;: ,"H@4 / "H87.; H@:;+H@4 "<"6;8 F=H3=
FH.. -/3H.H6/6; 89A; ;--H3H;H@6 ,"; 9- 6=; E-H@:E
,6H.H6< /@: 69 ";AI; /" / 7A;3,A"9A 69
A;9A4/@HJ/6H9@ 9- 6=H" :93,8;@6 H@69 / =<7;A6;+6.
$/( o! this ocument have yet to be transcribe as a write !ile.

6he philosopher is superior to the common man1 i! only because he is
able to en5oy his unhappiness. 9ne is isillusione1 but one has the
consolation o! believing that one has stumble onto some great an
noble truth. Ht is the type o! person who is move by mystery rather than
spectacle an who views parao0 as an intimation o! the emergence o!
some greater unerstaning rather than reacting with an abrupt 5ugment
o! somethingGs being nonsensical or riiculous.
)2/2N
6here is a !unamental ichotomy in the principle o! motivation an o!
temperament here which constitutes the eepest ivision e0isting within
humanKin. 6he two !unamental attitues towar the uncertain an
ambiguous is that o! *D the phenomenon is all but. . . an 2D the
phenomenon is nothing but. . . Hn the !irst instance there is the tenency
to unerstan Aeality as being organize !rom above an the partial
glimpse o! this higher reality is what sometimes is e0perience by
onesel! an other liKe mine persons as the numinous or mysterious.
/n in the secon instance there is the tenency to view Aeality as being
reucible to something which is in principle simpler than what is at !irst
suggeste by the ambiguous appearances. 6his tenency is that o!
viewing Aeality as organize !rom below.
Fe may more succinctly characterize this ichotomy o! temperament as
that o! the mystic versus the necrophilous character.. 6he necrophilous
character possesses no sense o! the mystery concerning his own
e0istence1 or i! he oes1 represses it since it is something that he cannot
at once master an penetrate. =e may well !in his e0istence quite
peestrian an orinary1 i! not altogether wearisome. 6he mystic !eels
that there is no Re0planation !or e0istenceS because Aeality coheres at a
level above an beyon that o! iscursive symbols. 6he mystery may
only be hinte at through the use o! metaphors such as pregnant images.
6he necrophilous character believes that Aeality possess no
Re0planationS because the wors always generate more meaning than
what is actually present. 6he necrophile is bore with his own company.
Fhile the mystic cannot seem to rop into the unassuming1 unsel!-
conscious moe o! being which seems so natural to his !ellow humans -
or i! he can1 he cannot o it !or very long. =e is continually startling
himsel! awaKe !rom this orinary worKaay consciousness. 6he
necrophilous character !eels intense 5ealousy1 usually represse1 an
resentment towar the mystic. =e !eels quite certain that the mystic is
the grossest Kin o! poseur. =e will try to unmasK this poser who1 i! he
turns out to be genuine Cin the sense o! believing his own claptrapD must
instea be isillusione or mae the ob5ect o! riicule1 not o! scorn
which1 although altogether appropriate !or the poser1 is not the 5ust
esserts o! a well-intentione1 nacve evotee o! the central mystery. 6he
necrophile hols a similar attitue towars ieas. /ll gran an
pro!ounly i!!icult ieas must be either RunmasKeS as !alse or prove
to be nacve1 pu!!e up an riiculous conceptions. 6he only Kin o!
power permissible in the min o! the necrophile is naKe1 brute1
mechanical power - power the origins o! which are transparent an
unerstanable1 such as the power which stems !rom physical might1
wealth or in!luence. 6o the necrophilous character1 power is merely a
contrive implement an oes not have a sel!-e0istence or mysterious
origin. / mysterious power cannot be manipulate an enliste by the
necrophile to reliably ai him. "uch a power cannot be relie upon to
!aith!ully serve the worlly interests o! its woul-be manipulator. "uch
a power might have to be treate as an en in itsel! an not merely as a
means to the accomplishment o! the necrophile_s myopic ens. 6o such
a power the necrophile may well be !orce to give an account. "uch an
awesome power threatens to !orce the necrophile to give an account o!
his li!e an ways.
"uch a mysterious power threatens to valiate an ob5ective moral orer.
/n this is what the necrophilous character !ears most o! all.
@ecrophilia is not an attraction to eath1 in its essence. Ht is rather much
more1 a pro!oun !ear o! li!e1 or the mystery o! li!e1 which masqueraes
as a love !or arK an eathly things an in!luences. ;ven such new-age
notions as Rthe higher sel!S Cin the absence o! a veritable Transcenent
OtherD are shunne since the growth o! the sel! into one o! its higher
!orms is inconsistent with the aggranizement o! a greey1 lust!ul1
envious1 an mean-spirite ego. 6he growth o! the higher sel!1 shoul it
e0ist1 might coincie with the pain an loss o! sovereignty o! the
smaller1 cringing sel! o! the necrophilous character. @othing must be
one to cultivate the growth o! the higher sel! an its e0istence must be
enie to onesel! but most !orce!ully to others. Hn essence1 the
necrophile has pitche a rebellion against li!e1 an is motivate by the
same impulse which cause .uci!er to lea the rebellion in heaven. 6his
impulse1 in the !orm o! a question1 is the !ollowing: R=ow come H in_t
get to be 4o?S H! H am not 4o1 then how coul anyone else be? /n
so1 whenever the necrophile encounters a person or persons seeming to
emboy1 however1 imly1 the !orm o! the ivine1 these persons are
instinctively hate an espise i! they cannot be sa!ely place beneath
contempt. /n so1 5ust as "atan represents the necrophilic 4o1
satanism itsel!1 there!ore1 is merely a particularly visible mani!estation
o! the necrophilous rive. 6he necrophile spens his li!e !orce!ully
trying to eny the e0istence o! 4o by simply enying the e0istence an
legitimacy o! li!e in all o! its myria !orms. ?eauty1 4ooness1 an
6ruth are the primary eviences o! the e0istence o! a gran esign.
/lthough the theological argument !rom esign is not the most logically
subtle L in !act it is the least so L o! all o! the traitional arguments !or
the e0istence o! :eity1 it possesses the greatest appeal to human
intuition. "o the necrophile enies 4o through a enial o! these three
primary mani!estations o! :ivinity. /n so the necrophile is
preoccupie with that which is ugly1 that which is ba1 an that which is
a lie. Ht is only when the necrophile is overwhelme by li!e an the
living that he retreats !rom a irect assault an begins seeKing re!uge in
:eath through a preoccupation with ecaying or li!eless things. 6he
necrophile seeKs protection in :eath since1 to him1 eath constitutes the
ultimate isproo! o! li!e1 an hence o! the ivine orer. 6he peculiar
mani!estation o! necrophilia1 with which the term is ienti!ie in the
popular imagination which has been in!orme by -reuian
psychoanylitic theory1 is the se0ual attraction that necrophilous persons
!eel almost e0clusively !or the boies o! recently e0pire persons1
usually o! the opposite se0. 6his oes not constitute a positive
attraction !or the ea1 but is merely a result o! the reirecting o! an
otherwise normal se0ual impulse away !rom the living boies o!
consciously aware persons. Ht is perhaps the case o! a merely bash!ul
lust which seeKs to relieve itsel! when an where no one is looKing.
6here is also the !actor o! one_s power being insecure in the presence o!
the mysterious an unpreictable otherness o! a living se0ual partner.
/rounsal here may be e0plaine by the encountering o! a situation or
conte0t in which repression o! the se0ual impulse is suenly remove.
/n this ynamic is mistaKenly ienti!ie by the necrophile as a positive
attraction to ea persons.
"omeone with Rnothing to hieS has nothing to !ear !rom the incisive
!ocus o! the necrophile_s gaze. ?ut the necrophile has no real or lasting
interest in an unassuming person.
6he ultimate substrate o! Aeality1 i! any such Ee0istsE1 woul not itsel! be
EorganizeE in any orinary sense1 but woul possess the unlimite
capacity to mani!est organization on any number o! levels.
-ebruary *22N
6his remins us o! "chopenhauerGs claim that the thing-in-
itsel! lies in a realm beyon iniviuation which1 accoring to him1 taKes
place only in the realm o! phenomena. 6his seems to imply that
"chopenhauer believes there to be only one ineterminate1 or in!inite
being. .eibniz ha alreay given an argument that 4o was a substance
o! which there coul only be one.
8arch *22N
H! the concept o! appearance is unerstoo in terms o! the
appearance/reality istinction1 then :ivine omniscience woul not
permit 4o to e0perience the phenomenal without sel!-limitation.
/ppearance is here unerstoo as stemming as much !rom Knowlege as
!rom ignorance.
"ubstance represents simply the most general property o! Aeality an
there!ore1 i! Aeality is inee 9ne1 then there woul be only one
substance which woul never unergo change.
?ut it is har to see how this sel! same substance coul be connecte
with all o! the phenomenal changes which supposely inhere in it when
there is no correlate change or trans!ormation occurring to this
substance which coul be sought as the source o! the ynamics o! these
phenomenal qualities. 6here is a similar logical i!!iculty in imagining
the connection o! two things occupying genuinely istinct spaces or
continua. 9ne must secretly suppose that there is some embeing meta
or hyperspace grouning the relationships o! two ob5ects. Ht is as though
the substantial an the phenomenal belong to two entirely istinct
temporal series - one in which nothing ever happens an another in
which all that e0ists is pure !lu0 without any eterminable orer to the
play o! trans!ormations. Hn reality it is a misnomer to speaK o!
trans!ormations taKing place within this hypothesize realm o! pure
!lu0ion. -or the notion o! trans!ormation presupposes that there is
something unerlying an connecting i!!erent stages o! the same
trans!ormation which is common to all stages1 that is1 the notion o!
trans!ormation itsel! presupposes the e0istence or being o! unerlying
substance. H! trans!ormation presupposes substance1 then perhaps so too
oes substance presuppose trans!ormation. -or there must be some
i!!erence between a purely !leeting substance an an everlasting one.
Aather1 there must be some meaning attache to the notion o! the
temporal uration o! substance. 6he trans!ormation here is then simply
that o! the substance continuing to be what it is an not changing. 6he
substance is continually in the act o! trans!orming itsel! into. . . itsel!.
?ut i! there is no logically consistent concept o! pure phenomenal
change1 then neither can the negation o! this concept be given a logically
consistent !ormulation. 6he negation o! pure !lu0 cannot be e!ine any
more than can the negation o! the ineterminate be e!ine. Fithin a
close system o! categories1 a proposition1 theorem1 etc.1 an its negation
are clearly e!inable. ?ut in what Kin o! system shoul we e0pect a
concept to contain1 or be seen as ultimately ientical to1 its negation?
/n e0ample o! which might be the concepts o! pure substance an pure
!lu01 or trans!ormation.
Ht is interesting to note that in special relativity there is no such thing as a
pure matter or charge ensityV only matter currents an charge currents
are treate within this theory. / matter ensity is only conceivable
within special relativity i! an in!inite time ilation is permitte. "o !rom
this stanpoint1 !lu0 is the primary substrate o! reality in relativity theory
an energy taKes preceence over matter1 since matter is not conserve
within special relativity although energy is suppose to be a conserve
quantity. 6his tren away !rom the notion o! substance an towar that
o! !lu0 is much !urther avance within the quantum theory an still
more within relativistic quantum !iel theory1 in which1 as note
elsewhere1 even energy itsel! is no longer treate as per!ectly but only
appro0imately conserve1 that is1 on the average1 i.e.1 over su!!iciently
large time intervals. 9ne might well woner what inee is the relevant
conserve quantity within quantum !iel theory1 i! it is not to be energy1
that is1 what serves as the conserve substance within this theory. 6his
conserve quantity is probability. 6he important question arise here o!
what symmetry Can mathematical symmetry groupD correspons to a
conserve probability?
Fe shoul note here that neither is energy strictly speaKing conserve
within classical general relativity Cas gravitational energy is not
localizable within this theoryD so that no consistent energy continuity
equation can be written own as a tensor i!!erential equationV only a
pseuo tensor equation o! continuity may be written own !or the total
energy - an equation which is1 there!ore re!erence !rame epenent.
9n account o! this lacK o! a pre-establishe orer on the part o! that
which is in the business o! mani!esting orer1 it !ollows that the manner
in which the orer is mani!este is not etermine in the sense o! having
!orm1 an that which unerlies this mani!esting is itsel! ineterminate.
6o be etermine has two relate but quite i!!erent meanings1
epening upon whether one is speaKing o! a etermine representation
or a etermine will. /n moreover1 this substrate initially possesses
raical !reeom o! creation an e0pression. ?ut i! that orer which is
create is to possess any reality even i! merely a relative one1 then this
orer must act bacK upon the groun o! which it is a mani!estation. Ht
must possess a will o! its own. 6his is the iea that 4o cannot really
grant !reeom o! the will to his creatures unless =e gives up in the same
instant1 at least in some small measure1 his hereto!ore illimitable
"overeignty.
"o real creation1 that is1 the creation o! that which possesses its own
essence an principle o! being1 cannot be the bringing into being o! a
mere e0istent thing1 that is1 a merely abstract entity. Aeal creation
involves the engenering o! altogether new groun possessing its own
ineterminacy an potentiality1 not borrowe !rom the groun out o!
which it was etermine.
/pril *22N
9r i! borrowe !rom this groun1 then only within our manner o!
conceptualizing creation here since a truly ineterminate groun woul
not possess any eterminate bounaries marKing it o!! !rom anything
else1 nor woul this groun possess any ienti!ying properties which it
coul either share or not share with some other groun. "o to say that
there is only one Hneterminate is not to maKe a positive assertion.
6here is only one Hneterminate 4roun in the sense that there is no
possible support !or the claim that the number o! ineterminate grouns
is greater than ,nity.
"o now we have the notion o! relative ineterminacy. 6his is
ineterminacy o! the groun !rom the point o! view o! that which this
groun has etermine. Aeal creation always presupposes the
prouction o! that which can !unction as cocreator with that by which it
has been create.
8arch *22N
"ome !orms o! maness such as schizophrenia an manic
epressive mania may be mani!estations o! insight which are inventions
rather than innovations.
3ompromise may be the substance o! reality.
Aather than saying that the law o! e0clue mile is violate1 we may
suppose that a contraiction is not even possible as an abstraction - let
alone coul a contraiction re!er to something genuinely real.
-ebruary *22N
@onlocal interactions shoul not contribute to the e!!ective
mass o! a particle. Fhen the bounary conitions upon the quantum
vacuum are altere in a manner which necessitates nonlocal interactions1
the wave!unction escribing the system which is sub5ect to these
bounary conitions will unergo a iscontinuous change. 6his is what
is !amiliarly terme the Ecollapse o! the wave!unction.E 6his Kin o!
nonlocal change to bounary conitions necessarily requires the system
to participate in some momentum or energy nonconserving type o!
interactions. H! certain interactions are not possible in the absence o! the
right quantities o! in!ormation1 then in!orme action Ewithin a systemE
cannot consist in merely altering the probabilities o! occurrence !or
some pree!ine eventCsD in a systematic way1 say1 in terms o! merely
changing their temporal or spatial !requencies1 but must involve the
engenering o! raically new possibilities such that the probabilities are
not conserve !or the pree!ine set o! possibilities1 say1 o! iscrete
system state con!igurations. Fe have alreay iscusse how all
conservation laws are special cases o! the law o! probability
conservation. /n it is the iscontinuous change in the probabilities
implie by probability nonconservation which mani!ests itsel! in the
!orm o! iscontinuous changes in the quantum mechanical wave
!unction. /!ter all1 the probabilities !or each iscrete system state are
merely the appropriately weighte squares o! the associate state
eigen!unctions. 3ertainly the long recognize intimate relationship
between consciousness an the quantum mechanical wave!unction is
groune n the phenomenon o! the !ree will o! the observer per!orming
a wave!unction-collapsing measurement.
6he 5umping bacKwar an !orwar in time1 taKing place within the
iniviual consciousness1 an perhaps responsible !or constituting its
spatiotemporality1 as an activity simultaneous with itsel! in i!!erent
times1 must be meiate by nonlocal interactions taKing place in each
moment o! the time continuum which is in temporal sel!-interaction.
6hus we see that the nonlocal interactions o not e0perience the passage
o! time in the normal sense.
6he 3athars1 a heretical gnostic sect an secret society within
3hristianity uring the mile ages1 believe that upon ?aptism1 the
convert was not to receive the =oly "pirit1 but his own spirit1 this person
having e0iste up to this seminal event as a mere soulless Ebeast o! the
!iel.E. Hn this sense1 the creation o! /am was simultaneous with his
?aptism1 i.e.1 4oGs in-breathing o! =is "pirit into the !orm mae o! clay
which then at once became an inepenently living being. 8oreover1
the original sin o! /am was the besmirching o! /amGs soul1 but was1
much more importantly1 in the cosmic scale o! things1 the attachment o!
"in to the "pirit o! 4o =imsel! which we may surmise was to 4o an
intolerable situation which emane a esperate remey1 c.!1 the ?ooK
o! ;cclesiaste in which it is state that upon eath the spirit returns to
/o who mae it. 4o taKes the !orm o! a man an submits to both
temporal an spiritual punishment in e0piation !or "in which1 although
committe by man1 i.e.1 /am1 4o assumes responsibility !or - perhaps
because 4o create the possibility !or "in to e0ist through =is having
create 8an.
>uly *22N
Hn most !orms o! 4nosticism1 the 3osmic orer as e0hibite
through the character an relationships o! the principle persons o! the
?iblical 3reation "tory1 4o1 =is "on1 .uci!er1 /am1 an to some
e0tent also1 ;ve1 are !unamentally inverte. /n inversion o! this type
might be the !ollowing. 4o re5ects .uci!er1 who e0iles himsel!1
broKen-hearte !rom 4o_s Kingom1 taKing up resience in the 4aren
in orer to teach 8an to outwarly realize his sleeping ivinity so that
.uci!er might !in a new :ivinity to worship an serve. /nother
version is that .uci!er assumes1 as best he can1 the ientity o! the 4o
who has re5ecte him. 6his tacK is1 !or .uci!er1 the best Kin o! solution
he can !in which has a chance o! easing his pain o! re5ection. H! one
can become that which one !ormerly worshippe an which re5ecte
one1 one may overcome the heartbreaK. .uci!er oes not succee in
emulating 4o in =is ivine capacity so well as he succees in
emulating those saistic an cruel aspects in 4o which .uci!er most
intensely perceive as a result o! his pro!oun e0perience o! re5ection by
4o. /opting with respect to 8an the precise aspect o! the :ivine_s
relationship with .uci!er which le to .uci!er_s heartbreaK - this turns
into a practical solution to .uci!er_s pain o! re5ection at 4o_s han. ?y
passing an in5ury receive onto another1 the brunt o! the psychological
pain !rom this in5ury may be reirecte away !rom the ego. 9ne !eels
power!ul to the e0tent that one succees in ienti!ying with the 9ther.
C6he transcenental otherD ?eneath the sur!ace o! this emulation o! the
impersonality o! the 9ther is the trans!erence o! psychological pain
receive at the hans o! the 9ther to the 9ther represente as "el! while
the "el! is at once represente as the 9ther. 6he psychological strategy
aopte here is that o! traing places with one_s torturers1 assuming their
goliKe impersonality1 an submerging psychic pain through a
representing o! this pain_s being reirecte to the 9ther as "el! - with
this reirection itsel! isguise in the assumption o! the other_s ientity
by the "el!.
/ugust 2)*$
Ht is 5ust in this sense that R4o oes not e0istS: 4o is the
transcenental other1 meaning that /o is always alreay the other. "o
the answer to "atan_s querulous question1 R=ow come H in_t get to be
4oS is 5ust the !ollowing L noboy gets to be /o. /n it is only in this
e!inite an precise sense that we may unerstan that1 by e!inition1
R4o oes not e0istS1 namely1 4o is not a person" which is to say that
personhoo is not a transcenental state or conition =of consciousness
or of whateverA. 6he notion o! Rtranscenental conitionS is a
contraiction in terms. 7ersons may participate in ivinity but only by
achieving transcenental states o! consciousness beyon the personal.
3onversely1 R4oS can become a person1 a temporal being by achieving
an immanent state1 but this is only a pro5ection or elimitation o! being
Ca Kin o! simulacrumD1 but not a being in itsel!. Hn terms o! the various
other i!!ering senses an meanings o! this proposition1 su!!icient logical
emonstration or empirical proo! appears to be as yet unavailable to us.
/lthough there is no such thing as the person1 /o1 we cannot euce
!rom this that 4o oes not e0ist Cin the sense o! =is not possessing
-eingD. CAelate the continuum o! being to the mathematical continuum
an 4o to /leph1 the continuum hypothesis to the hypothesis o! 4o_s
Re0istenceS.D 4o is a personi!ication o! beingFatFlarge or being as such.
"o picK any person at ranom an asK them i! they are 4o1 i! they
always answer truth!ully1 they must say R@oS. 7erhaps all that is
necessary is to slightly alter the e!inition o! personhoo such that there
can be no Rcomplete picKlistS o! persons such that 4o coul be !oun
on the list. "urely1 this is not so rastic a change in the e!inition o!
person such that1 i! 4o were a person in every sense e0cept this one1 it
woul still be meaning!ul to assert that =e e0ists. H! a necessary
conition !or personhoo is consciousness1 then no person e0ists in an
intersub5ective sense because consciousness is not intersub$ective.
"o the engenering o! newly organize structures cannot be unerstoo
as a mere abstracting or !iltering o! latent structure1 that is1 selection.
@ow this isplaces the whole :arwinian paraigm - what we might term
Cwith 8onoD as creation through the interaction o! 3hance an
@ecessity. Hn a sense this paraigm assumes special creation ab initio1
but instea o! the special creation o! a large but iscrete variety o!
animal species1 the @eo-:arwinian paraigm very tacitly assumes a
special creation o! latent orer represente by the !irst primitive genome
- or o! the latent orer o! the sel!-organizing potentialities o! matter
which sustain its e0istence. Hn this sense1 o! course1 evolutionary theory
oes no more than can any ErationalE e0planation - it simply pushes the
root cause bacK another step. 9! course1 chemical evolution is assume
to have le up to the emergence o! the genome itsel!1 but this is a Kin o!
evolution accoring to another paraigm altogether - that o! sel!-
organize comple0ity. :r. "tuart Oau!!man o! the "ante -e Aesearch
Hnstitute may well represent the leaing avocate o! this postmoern
evolutionary paraigm.
/ unit o! hereity must alreay be available i! natural selection is to
have opportunity to !oster evolution. H! chemical evolution i not
arbitrarily cease upon the emergence o! the !irst primitive genomes1 but
continues to operate in the present epoch1 then mutation o! the :@/ may
well not be a truly ranom process. 3ertainly the relative stabilities o!
various genomes will a!!ect how they respon to more or less ientical
mutation triggering events. 9ne new technique o! etermining the
relateness o! two i!!erent species or subspecies o! animal is to
encourage hybriization o! single :@/ strans taKen !rom each an then
etermining the temperature at which the hybri :@/ ecomposes. ?y
this metho it ha been etermine that only a *.&% i!!erence e0ists
between the :@/ o! chimpanzees an humans. 6here are subspecies o!
bir which are by this measure more closely relate.
E"pecie-ationE within a single generation is commonly observe in a
large number o! species o! !lowering plants. 6he mechanism o! this
instantaneous speciation is terme polyploiy. Hn a sense there is no real
speciation taKing place here. Aather1 in some earlier epoch1 graually
over time1 we might suppose1 a phenomenon which arises as the
appearance o! a new species but which we might more aptly term
genera-ation has taKen place. Hn other wors1 a new plant genera has
come into being which is comprise by all o! the polyploiically relate
species1 only one o! which at !irst mani!ests itsel!. Fhen merely a
eterminate set o! enabling conitions is require to prouce some new
structure or !unction an this relationship is reproucible1 then this oes
not at all constitute evolution1 but merely the enabling o! latent orer1
itsel! requiring a legitimate evolutionary cause. -or evolution is a theory
o! the origin o! orer1 not o! the graual mani!esting o! a latent orer
which is inserte without e0planation1 by han1 i! you will1 into the
process. 6o wit1 a genuine evolutionary e0planatory paraigm will
require a EmechanismE o! the prouction o! orer an not merely that o!
the mani!esting o! a pre-e0istent latent orer which remains mysterious.
>acques 8ono has state that the genetic coe must be arbitrary. Fhat
this means is that there can be no one-to-one !unctional relationship
between a string o! base pairs an the protein !or which it is the coon
sequence. Fhat is meant here is that the genetic coe must be conte0t
sensitive an the e0pression o! genes must be orchestrate by not only
higher orer regulatory genes1 but the meaning o! the genome as a whole
must not be thought to be !i0e !or all time1 but itsel! must be conte0t
epenent. Fhat this broaer conte0t might be1 no one has been able to
e!initively say in naturalistic terms. 9rer by its very nature cannot be
a conserve quantity which1 liKe energy1 can be transuce !rom one
meium to another unchange. 6his woul amount to saying that the
meium oes not contribute anything to the messageGs content being
e0presse through the meium.
:ecember 2)*$
"ee the FiKipeia entry on
pragmatics1 c.!1 http://en.wiKipeia.org/wiKi/7ragmatics !or a hint at the
open-eneness o! genetic meaning1 which points to a ynamic
interpretive matri0 in which genetic in!ormation can be enlessly
reprocesse1 e.g.1 mental substrate1 c.!1 semiosis Csee
6he genotype-phenotype opposition is not a pat one in light o! the notion
o! regulatory genes an epigenetics. 6he phenotype is proteins an their
organization1 i.e.1 the boy o! the organism an its various static an
eterministic traits. 6he static structure o! the boy1 i.e.1 at a particular
moment in time is an e0pression o! the organism concerne_s :@/ in its
protein-coing capacity. Fhat then is the e0pression o! the organism_s
:@/ in its regulatory capacity%
"eptermber 2)**
6he incomplete translatability
o! e0pressions !rom one language into another is proo! that language is
not a passive implement !or the transmission o! ieas an that language
possesses some in!luence on the process o! thinKing an ieating.
:ecember
2)*2
H! it is correct to interpret :@/1 particularly regulatory :@/ an its
epigenetic moi!ications as a language Can all evience up to now
points to the valiity !o thisD1 then :@/ is not merely the passive sub5ect
o! environmental insults1 e.g.1 cosmic ray impacts to its structure1 which
have hereto!ore been suppose to engener so-calle ranom mutations1
but itsel! must play some role in etermining the nature an implications
o! any an all mutations.
9ctober 2)*2
6he active or ynamic1 as oppose to
passive nature o! language points up the long suspecte !act o! the
nature o! the sel! as a social construction. Aationality is the means o!
spanning the chasm in multiple steps1 the chasm o! transcenent
separateness o! peculiar selves. Fithout language1 consciousness woul
have !orever remaine unaware o! itsel!. Ht was only through a
caleiescopic plurality o! !inite e0istences embee within the socially
nutritive meium o! language that Ra sel! comes to minS.
"eptember 2)**
H!
:@/ really is a language1 then the above general observation must
apply to :@/: mutations to DN* cannot really ever be 7ranom8. /
worlwie consortium compose o!1 e.g.1 ;pigenomics /41 ;ncoe1
4;@-/,1 ;7H4;@98; @o;1 c.!.1 Epigenetics =C. Davi *llisA will
liKely map the human epigenome by the early 2)2)_s. Fhat might be
terme RepiepigenomicsS: however1 it may be that Ee0oticE enzymatic
activities shall be orchestrate !rom relic in!ormation no longer
emboie in genomic or epigenomic control1 but now latent in networKs
o! catalytic pathways1 which also epen in part on the sel!-organizing
properties o! atoms an molecules1 the very same which provie the
motive !orce !or the !irst billion years o! chemical evolution1 which le
to the creation o! the !irst primitive units o! hereity. "o the point here
is that1 7epiepigenomics8 or not" you can_t get away !rom the !act that
the sel!-organizing properties o! atoms an simple organic molecules
continue to remain o! vital importance to evolution an to the irreucible
comple0ity o! what happens within the cell. Ht may be !oun that these
Ee0oticE enzymatic activities are orchestrate !rom relic in!ormation that
is no longer emboie in genomic or epigenomic control1 but which is
now merely latent within various networKs o! catalytic pathways1 which
also epen on the sel!-organizing properties o! atoms an molecules L
the very same one1 which rove the !irst billion years o! chemical
evolution prior to the avent o! the !irst reproucing1 in!ormation-
bearing molecule. Ht is currently not Known RFhat e!ines the
mechanisms con!erring inheritance an propagation o! epigenetic
in!ormationS1 c.!.1 3. :avi /llis C2))%D. -or the most part1
transcription !actor bining is transient an lost in successive cell
ivisions. -or persistent gene e0pression patterns1 transcription !actors
are require at each subsequent cell ivision. /s such1 epigenetic control
can potentiate a primary signal Ce.g.1 promoter stimulation1 gene
silencing1 centromere e!initionD to successive Cbut not ine!initeD cell
generations by the heritable transmission o! in!ormation through the
chromatin templateS1 c.!.1 Epigenomics =IJJNA. 6his mechanism greatly
enhances the stability o! the genome in the !ace o! relatively transitory
environmental pressures an acts to E!ilter the process o! natural
selectionE.
9ctober 2)**
R"tanar genetic analysis o! mutant alleles o! the
=96=;/: gene1 which regulates organ !usion in /rabiopsis1 reveale
that normal rules o! 8enelian genetics were not being !ollowe C.olle
et al. 2))'D. Ht was iscovere that i! heterozygous =96=;/:/hothea
plants sel!-!ertilize an prouce a homozygous hothea/hothea plant1
an then this homozygous hothea/hothea plant was allowe to sel!-
!ertilize1 the progeny !rom this homozygous parent reverte to a
=96=;/:/hothea genotype at a !requency o! up to *'%. 6his
stunning level o! wil-type reversion prouce an e0act uplicate1 at the
nucleotie level1 o! the wil-type gene seen in the earlier generations.
6his reversion was not limite to the =96=;/: locus-several other
loci ha similar !requencies o! reversion to wiltype alleles. =owever1
all the reversions require that the parent be homozygous
hothea/hothea. 6he gene prouct o! =96=;/: i not o!!er an
obvious e0planation as to how this coul occur1 but iscussions certainly
suggeste that an archival copy o! the wil-type gene was transmitte1
perhaps via A@/1 through successive generations. /lthough it coul be
argue that this phenomenon is outsie the purview o!EepigeneticsE-ue
to the change in :@/ sequence-the heritable transmission o! the
putative archive copy oes not !ollow normal genetic rules.
Qd
@evertheless1 this phenomenon has enormous implications !or
genetics1 especially in evolutionary thinKingS1 c.!.1 3. :avi /llis
C2))%D. =ere again1 we see that the Rtwo pillarsS o! classical neo-
:arwinian1 namely the principles o! Rnatural selectionS an Rranom
mutationS are both seriously unermine by iscoveries in the rapily
eveloping !iel o! epigenomics. 8etaata masqueraing as
in!ormation is that which is RtransmitteS1 that is1 moves through $-
space-*-time Cclassical spacetimeD. ?ecause o! the quantum Rno-
cloningS theorem o! quantum in!ormation theory1 it is perhaps
theoretically inamissible to permit Rtransmission o! quantum
in!ormationS1 only quantum in!ormation tagge with inseperable
=eisenberg quantum uncertainty Cat least uring RtransmissionS or
between RtransmitterS an RreceiverSD. "ub5ective states as in!ormation:
i! these are amitte as a category1 then what possible interpretation
coul be mae o! the possible signi!icance o! so-calle Rmeta-
in!ormationS? 2eta merely in the sense o!!ere within the conte0t o!
Rin!ormation reprocessingS1 e.g.1 transpersonal meanings erive !rom
iniviual human e0periential in!ormation1 reprocesse collectively1 say1
by way o! an RaKashic recorS. / proper taKing into account o! the
limitations o! language along with an analysis o! the concepts o!
Rsub5ectiveS1 Rob5ectiveS an Rintersub5ectiveS might lea us to conclue
that all substantive terms must be replace by the same terms interprete
in quotation marKs an all terms bracKete within quotations must be
replace by the quote terms bracKete within ouble-quotes1 etc. Fere
it the case that all concepts are really only Rmasqueraing metaphorsS1
then the problem o! there being no bona !ie Rconcept o! consciousnessS
becomes either *D more or 2D less problematicT Ht may turn out that
Oant_s eccentric category o! noumenon CRthing in itsel!SD encompasses
thoughts as well as Rphysical ob5ectsS.
"eptember 2)*2
8utations are pre-
!iltere Cin the sense o! operating always prior to the operation o!
:arwinian natural selectionD by way o! the sel!-organizing properties o!
atoms an organic molecules1 as well as by the multi-level regulatory
genetic structure qua cybernetic control system o! the entire genome an
also by epigenetic moulation o! the e0pression o! this genome1 the
speci!ic moulation o! which being itsel! heritable. 6he ultimate
!iltering an selecting conte0t !or genetic mutation may be that o! the
ownwar causation o! nonlocal quantum entanglement with the
quantum vacuum !luctuation !iel.
8arch *22N
7erhaps we are touching upon here the much misunerstoo
conception which !orms the basis o! 8arshal 83luhanGs seminal worK1
6he 8eium is the 8essage.
;0pression always involves the arising o! in!ormation in situ1 to wit1
!rom out o! time. 6his remins us o! the rather interesting !act that
uring neural transmission1 there is no physical quantity which is
actually transmitte !rom one neuron or neuronal comple0 to another.
Aather1 it is a isturbance in the collective !unctioning o! these neural
comple0es which is EpropagatingE through the brain. ?ut how woul we
begin to separate out what may be thought o! as unassuming neural
!unctioning !rom what is a isturbance o! this !unctioning? Fe may say
that the isturbance is always orthogonal1 or at right angles to the
!unctioning o! the neuronsT Hn this sense1 isturbances never enter the
brain spatially !rom outsie it since there is not a nonarbitrary way o!
e!ining what constitutes the spatial bounaries o! the brain1 c.!.1 :avi
:eutsch in this connection. @onlocal connectivity provies the open-
ene conte0t !or all local interactions taKing place within the quantum
neural networK1 i.e.1 the brain.
>uly *22N
6he communication o! the le!t an right hemispheres cannot be
moele as appropriately time sequences o! inputs introuce to each
hemisphere separately. 6he sychronization o! causally connecte events
is not as subtle as that o! nonlocally connecte events.
Qd
"ince
superposition e!!ects are require !or ob5ects to possess macroscopic
properties1 we o not e0pect such ob5ects to be capable o! !orming
superposition states amongst themselves. 6his is similar to the argument
against the e0istence o! spacetime constitutive processes taKing place
within a particular spacetime continuum.
Puantum inistinguishability an the ientity o! particles o! liKe Kins is
perhaps relate to the istinction between the unitary evolution an the
ob5ective reuction o! the wave!unction. 6he hyrogen atom is the only
atom on the perioic chart !or which an e0act solution !or "chroinger_s
equation e0ists. /t what level in the hierarchy o! matter oes the
ientity o! iniviuals o! a given Kin breaK own?
Qd
6he very ientity
o! all electrons1 protons1 neutrons1 an other R!unamentalS particles
strongly suggests that these particles are not real1 but are mere
abstractions.
/pril 2)**
/pparently at the 7lancK mass level1 superpositions
o! mutually e0clusive states o! the same system are no longer possible
because Buantum inistinguisability brea's own at the 4lanc' level.
>uly *22N
/ll thought an perception originally arise as insight through an
in!orming o! mental processes intening other ob5ects. 6his in!orming is
always a moulation o! pre-e0isting mental activity. Hn!orming implies a
change in global pattern o! mental activity. 6o wit1 there is never the
!low or transmission o! in!ormation between i!!erent parts o! the brainV
there is only the in!orming o! the !low o! ata streams within the brain.
Hn!ormation always shes light on what is alreay Known an the
application o! in!ormation to a new situation cannot be generally
preicte. 6his is the bacK reaction o! in!ormationGs content upon itsel!.
6he e!!ect o! in!ormation upon a situation is there!ore never truly
reversible.
/pril 2)**
Ht is !or this reason that the meaning o! genetic base
pair sequences is not set once an !or all. 4ene regulation an
interpretation are always require !or etermining gene e0pression.
/lthough ata may be associate with momentum an energy an be
thought to possess spatiotemporal location1 what is calle in!ormation1
liKe gravitational energy1 cannot be assigne any physical location
whatever an can be !urther liKene to the in!ormation o! a moulate
carrier wave which emanates !rom no particular waveguie1 but resies
in the very aether itsel! as one o! its unbien vibrations.
:ecember 2)*2
Ht is
har to square the quantum theoretic notion o! the conservation o!
quantum in!ormation with this more general property o! the nonlocality
o! quantum in!ormation1 i.e.1 the !act that a continuity equation is not
e!inable !or quantum in!ormation.
>acques 8ono has state that the genetic coe is an arbitrary one1 Cc.!.1
"tephen 3. 8eyer_s short youtube lectures on the !ailure o! Rchemical
eterminismS o! genetic base pair sequences.D Fhat he means by this is
that what taKes place at a series o! base pairs on one segment o! the
:@/ is una!!ecte by what may be taKing place on some other segment
o! the same molecule. Ht seems as though 8ono is equating
arbitrariness with inepenence o! conte0t. ?ut arbitrariness in this
sense may inee be somewhat o! a misnomer as what 8ono is really
re!erring to by this term is the unlimite semiosis o! the genome qua
message1 its sensitivity to an open-ene conte0t. /rbitrary in the sense
o! there being no !i0e e0pression an no !inal interpretation1 but this is
not to say that any meaning whatever can be attache to a given genetic
base pair sequence. 6here may be an in!inite or merely ine!inite
number o! istinct meanings that can be !unctionally assigne to a given
genetic base pair sequence without all possible meanings being thusly
assignable an this since:
Qd
*D 3antor L the in!inite is hierarchically
structure an 2D 4eel - the provability o! logico-euctive theorems is
epenent upon one_s choice o! a0iomatic basis.
Fe cannot give the concept o! conservation any coherent !ormulation !or
open1 unboune systems. @either can any continuity equation be given
!or the unerlying processes constituting the bouneness o! close
systems1 that is1 !or the process o! the systemGs initial mani!esting o!
itsel!. 6he whole notion o! quantity itsel! must be altogether thrown out
when raically open systems are uner consieration. / reay e0ample
o! which is the ineraicable i!!iculty in e!ining the entropy o! an open
system. 7ermanence1 continuity1 conservation principles1 causality1
substance1 probability1 entropy1 even moality at its most general - such
physical concepts may only be conventionally or provisionally e!ine
!or close systems1 !or all systems are ultimately open1 an it is only the
severity o! appro0imation which etermines the e0tent o! a systemGs
closeness. 6here is no such consistent concept as global moality.
Qd
Hn
other wors1 necessity an possibility are system epenent concepts.
6he consolation o! philosophy is very much liKe that en5oye by the
!ame-hungry research scientist who brilliantly conceives a theory which
proves the en o! the worl in the not so istant !uture. 6here are those
who woul be please at the thought that the worl was to come to an
en with or soon a!ter their eath.
/pril *22%
6he truly great ieas are no less so !or never having been !acts
within "pace an 6ime. Fhen a great conception appears within the
min o! the iniviual an never within the collective1 metaphysical
worK has been per!orme. Ht is only by intention or Fill that any !orm
may arise within a reality which is truly open an unlimite. /n it
cannot have been by a mere chance occurrence1 !or chance is what
results when one close reality impinges upon another to which it has
hereto!ore never been connecte an where these two realities1 i! you
will1 e0ist as part o! one an the same close system1 c.!.1
au=
3orliss
.amont_s treatment o! !ree will.
8ay *22%
=ow1 one may asK1 can two close systems e0ist together within
another close system without ever having1 in the in!inite past interacte
together? 6he parao0 o! the truly close system1 in the sense o! its
being spatially close is that1 i! the system has e0iste !or an eternity
past1 then this system at !irst glance appears to be an open !our
imensional spacetime. 9r it is a close ( imensional space. / close
spacetime is an incoherent notion. 6he very concept o! EparticleE is
inapplicable to an open or in!inite space since no 4aussian wavepacKet
is e!inable unless spatial bounary conitions are supplie along with
initial conitions upon the wavepacKet1 c.!.1
cit=
3uantum :iel Theory in
Curve &pacetime.
Qd
Ht is !or this reason that a RparticleS is not
ini!!erent to the passage o! time. Hnertia is the signature o! this lacK o!
ini!!erence.
"eptember *22%
6here is subtle contraiction at worK here1 however1 an we
are remine o! the simple !act that staning waves cannot be set up in a
string o! in!inite length. /n this is what a close ynamical system is1
in essence. 6he system necessarily possesses only a !inite i! large
number o! istinct states which the system may be picture as visiting in
succession over an over again enlessly. ?ut i! this system is truly
close1 then there appears no ob5ective meaning !or time spent in a
particular state1 the ErateE at which the system passes !rom one state to
the ne0t1 or number o! times that the system repeats a gran cycle in
which it has passe through all available states1 c.!.1
prn=
4oincareD
+ecurrent Time. 6he passage o! time is1 as we say1 always relative to an
environment with which the system in question e0changes energy. 6he
rapiity with which a given physical may potentially change its energy
may be attribute entirely to the vacuum Cits energy !luctuationsD. 6he
result o! any observation1 i.e.1 an eigenvalue1 is the result o! an abrupt
conspiratorial act on the part o! the min o! the observer an the
vacuum. /gain1 the classical worl o! everyay ob5ects is generate by
an interaction o! the observer an his vacuum - the intricate relationship
o! constructive an estructive inter!erence o! the consciousness an
vacuum !iels1 i! you will1 in terms o! the interaction o! observer
uncertainties an vacuum !luctuations !or the very same quantities. H say
his vacuum because the vacuum1 being in!inite1 cannot be a uni!ie
thing1 but must e0ist in in!inite multiplicity. /n this brings us to the
sub5ect which H really want to speaK about.
H! the system was came into being at some time in the !inite past1 on the
other han1 then it must be a mere aggregate o! elements1 themselves
e0isting !rom eternity past. 6hese EelementsE then represent the
openness o! spacetime an1 by e0tension1 their aggregates possessing a
!inite li!etime. -or otherwise1 these elements were themselves create
out o! nothing1 an hence1 by e0tension1 any later aggregations o! such
elements. "ome element which has been create e0 nihilo has come into
reality !rom outsie an this1 in turn1 presupposes that reality is itsel! an
open1 or raically open1 system. "o Aeality must either be spatially open
or temporally open an this is to say that Aeality must be an open
spacetime.
/ugust *22%
9ne must sacri!ice clarity to e0press that which is somewhat
beyon the orinary. Hn a way1 this statement e0hibits in microcosm the
proposition which is elaborate below L which H will not state but which
is1 H thinK1 easily enough ivine on a secon i! not a !irst sympathetic
reaing.
/rguably the greatest analytic philosopher o! all time was1 i! not
?ertran Aussell1 then the philosopher who was !or a short time
Aussell_s most brilliant pupil1 .uwig Fittgenstein. .uwig is !amous
!or saying1 Rwhereo! we cannot speaK we must remain silent.S .uwig
began as a logical positivist an has always been thought to be the
Iienna 3ircle_s greatest member though he was actually himsel! never a
member. .uwig was also a logical atomist at this time1 largely as a
result o! Aussell_s in!luence on him. 6he young Fittgenstein believe
that metaphysics was merely a symptom o! the con!usion o! istinctions
usually through the unKnowing equivocation o! two or more senses or
connotations o! a wor uring its use within a single argument1 through
the treating o! metaphors or poetic notions as having literal application1
or through the maKing o! vacuous istinctions1 an e0ample o! which !or
you may be that o! e0istence versus ?eing1 which H maKe use o! below.
@eeless to say1 later in li!e1 although when he was still well within his
prime as a thinKer1 .uwig reverse his view on the wholesale vacuity
o! metaphysics1 now re!erring to some o! his most cherishe earlier hel
philosophical octrines as themselves luicrous1 such as that true
propositions correspon to R!acts.S
@ow i! 4o has !ree will1 then1 as we sai1 =e chose to e0ist. ?ut such
a choice is only genuine provie that1 in the case that 4o i not e0ist1
that this too woul have been =is choice. "o although 4o may not
e0ist Cby choiceD1 =e nonetheless possesses ?eing1 which transcens the
categories o! e0istence vs. none0istence. 6he question1 there!ore1 is not1
R:oes 4o e0ist?1S but is ;0istence in 4o? Fhether or not ;0istence
is or is not in 4o is irrelevant to the question o! 4o_s ?eing. 4o_s
e0istence is an urgent moral question o! 5ugment o! the comparative
value o! 4o an not a metaphysical question !or 8an. 4o e0ists1 4o
is merely the 4limpse o! the 6ranscenent at the cusp 5oining the
6ranscenent to its voluntary sel!-limitation which is1 most generally
speaKing1 the engenering o! the possibility o! a "pacetime. 6he
6ranscenent itsel! is !orever beyon Aepresentation. /n a reuction
to its various moes correspons to the e0istence o! various egos living
in the worl. ;0istence in a wor is conitione being1 but being1 which
is conitione not through or within space an time1 an here lies the rub
so to speaK.
Ht is true that the in!inite i! inee a unity1 which we have alreay sai1 is
too comple0 to be such1 woul1 o! course1 possess the motive to enter the
realm o! sel!-limitation out o! mere solitary curiosity1 as the in!inite
cannot en5oy the e0perience o! limitation o! any Kin1 such as hope1 !ear1
uncertainty1 isappointment1 betrayal separation an reunion1 surprise1
growth1 etc. 6o an in!inite min there is no istinction between truth
which is trivial an that which is pro!oun. 6here is not possibility o!
communication since communication o! in!ormation is at once the
reuction/removal o! uncertainty1 not a possibility !or an omniscient
being. -or such a ?eing there can be no revelation1 no insight or
epiphany1 no sense o! woner or mystery. /ristotle_s view o! 4o by
the way was that o! thought eternally contemplating itsel! in the act o!
contemplating itsel!.
!b=Q?rettage 8unKial uring /ugust 2)*(

-irst :ra!t in :ecember *22'
/lthough e0istence
possesses a ual opposite1 namely1 none0istenceV what is properly calle
?eing itsel! possesses no ual opposite. ?eing1 however1 can neither be
thought to possess any !ormal unity since1 as we sai1 it oes not
participate in uality. ?eing is beyon space an time as these are1
accoring to Oant1 mere !orms o! intuition out o! which all more
particular !orms are mani!est. Fe have the plurality o! e0istence which
participates in the same being an we also have the plurality o! e0istence
which participates in the plurality o! being itsel!. Ht is this istinction
within plurality which necessitates the appearance o! sub5ectivity. 6he
plurality o! e0istence presupposes that a space is given. "pace is not
presuppose in the plurality o! being. 8ay we say that e0istence
participates in its being through a temporal moe1 in turn1 meiate by
its groun as the inter!ace between itsel! an its being? ?ut i! ?eing
opens outwar1 i! you will1 yet remains prior to space1 which is
necessarily constitute out o! ?eing1 then the openness o! ?eing is
internal to itsel!. /gain1 we are !ace with "ub5ectivity. ?eing is
constitute outsie o! space an timeV ;0istence is constitute within
space an time an is groune through the limitation1 sel!-impose1 o!
some unique1 as oppose to particular1 ?eing. ?ecause ?eing is
incomplete in the sense o! lacKing any possible !ormal unity1 incluing1
as allue to alreay1 all spatiotemporal1 i.e.1 substantial1 unity1 we say
that anything which possesses being only oes so !or itsel! although a
given being may e0ist !or another being through that beingGs e0istence1
which1 again1 is a sel!-impose limitation o! itsel!1 initiate by itsel!.
;0istence is the broaest category which we may apply to iniviuals in
our classi!ication o! them into sets or classes.
;0isting together is the most general property which a number o!
iniviuals may possess in common with one another. 6he
incompleteness o! ?eing lies in its over!lowing superabunance with
respect to all possible categories o! e0istence. ?ut the incompleteness o!
?eing with respect to the categorically possible in turn implies the
incompleteness o! thought as the process by which categories are
brought into being. 7arao0ically1 the incompleteness o! ?eing with
respect to its woul-be !ormal unity consists not in a !ailure or lacK1 but
as alreay asserte1 in a superabunance. Fhat maKes all ?eings
themselves e0amples o! ?eing Htsel! is not some property or attribute
which all possess in common with one another1 that is1 what is calle
?eing is not a category which supervenes over its e0emplars1 various
an unlimite in number an e0tent.
/pril 2)**
Ht is 5ust such a
consieration that poses problems !or a Rconcept o! consciousnessS
Fhat maKes a ?eing an e0ample o! ?eing Htsel! is that which is utterly
unique to Htsel!. ?eing there!ore may more !ully realize itsel! within
e0istence1 that is1 within space an time1 i! it embarKs not once1 but upon
an unlimite number o! separate occasions1 into e0istence1 an then may
most !ully uni!y itsel! through the interaction with itsel! within
e0istence. 6his is actually the scheme by which ?eing most !ully
realizes itsel!. ;ach in!inite ?eing within the in!inity o! in!inite ?eings
more !ully realizes the pro5ect o! the ultimate realization an uni!ication
o! ?eing proper1 i.e.1 4ohoo1 through each entering the realm o!
limitation an participating with 9thers who have by the inner necessity
o! ?eingGs striving to uni!y itsel! have also been le to o the very same.
6he metaphor which we will apply here is the impulse to escape the
conition o! 3osmic .oneliness which ?eing may overcome only
through its own limitation. "o rather than the !ragmenting o! the
in!inite1 which is assume to alreay be solitary an hence alreay
uni!ie1 in entering the realm o! limitation in orer to embarK upon the
pro5ect o! reuni!ication o! itsel! within 6ime which is mere re-creation1
or1 i! you will1 recreation1 we have instea the very serious an real
pro5ect o! the uni!ication o! that which1 though in!inite1 is not itsel!
e0haustive or uni!ie. 6his pro5ect is genuine creation1 not a mere
recreational recapitulation. 6his is because the act o! limitation which
each Hn!inite ?eing imposes upon itsel! is not an act o! limitation in the
sense o! mere negation !or this woul imply that this ?eing coul recoup
itsel! through the simple act o! negating the negation an1 again1 the
original act o! limitation is seen !or meaningless play an without power
to connect this ?eing to /nother. 6he limitation unergone by ?eing
must not be base in terms o! negation within itsel!. 6his is consistent
with one o! the outstaning properties o! the in!inite: no !inite reuction
o! the in!inite iminishes it. Aeal "acri!ice is necessitate in the act o!
contacting the 9ther. 9ne oes this in the !aith that the 9ther is oing
the same. 6his is the beginning o! -ear an o! =ope. =ope leas the
sel! into greater community with others while !ear leas the sel! to
retreat away or alienate itsel! !rom this community1 perhaps through
attempting to in5ure it. 6his is why real achievement cannot be
accomplishe without the entailment o! real risK. 6here is the risK that i!
one limits onesel! so as to enter "pace an 6ime in the hope o! achieving
community1 one will !orget oneGs original sacre purpose1 base in the
aboriginal esire o! the true "el!1 an enter with others into an economy
instea. ;conomy may be thought o! as !alse community in which each
treats the other not as an en in himsel!1 but as a means to the !ul!illment
o! the unenlightene ens o! the !alse sel!-concerne only with its
incestuous interests the pursuit o! which o not permit the occurrence o!
authentic growth. 6hose !ew who have !allen !rom the Hn!inite who
have not lost all connection with it or who have reiscovere this
connection through having learne to contact itV those persons are
!orce!ully impresse with the all important nee to help the others
remember this connection an so to prevent them !rom being lost. 6he
iea o! being save is not that o! regaining eternity - !or one has alreay
willingly le!t this state with all o! the very real risKs an sacri!ices
necessarily entaile by this !oolhary act. @o. 9ne must regain eternity
but without the cosmic loneliness o! pure iniviuality or the oblivion o!
absorption in some impersonal1 transcenental unity
)&/2N
1 an this means
an everlasting li!e o! a loving community o! iniviuals all helping each
other in the achievement o! this goal which will never be per!ectly
attaine. 6he in!inite must thrust itsel! into the unKnown to meet with
the wholly other which it seeKs an which can be the only satis!action o!
its quest. 9ne must so to speaK be born. Fe see that the pro5ect o!
?eing is that o! community an not that o! mere ,nity. 6his pro5ect is o!
necessity inherently meaning!ul. Hn the absence o! the sel! limitation o!
the in!inity o! in!inite ?eings necessitate by each casting itsel! own
into the Aealm o! "pace an 6ime1 @o one may communicate with the
9ther so as to enact the pro5ect o! 3ommunity. .ove o! the 9ther as an
en in Htsel! an not merely as a means to the realization o! oneGs own
ens is compose o! two parts. 9ne must not only love the 9ther as
oneGs "el!1 one must love oneGs "el! as 9ther. 9b5ectivity is necessarily
intersub5ectivity. 3reation o! that which possesses real e0istence can
only be accomplishe in cooperation with other persons. 3reation
within the "el! alone is aKin to the mere enless shu!!ling o! elements
alreay given. Fhat presies over or integrates the in!inity o! in!inite
beings is the one thing which all o! these beings possess in common with
one another: the pro!oun nee to complete themselves through the
sacri!ices o! losing themselves in something in common with another or
others an acquiring with them esire community. 6hat which
prompts this sacri!ice is .ove. Fe sai earlier1 you will recall1 that
4roun etermines Htsel! as 9ther. 6he ethics an morality implie by
this octrine is certainly worth investigating.
/pril 2)**
6here is contrary to
the implie ethics here that ethic base upon the notion o! universal
brotherhoo. / true ethics necessitates oing what is right not as a
means to an en1 but as Oant says as an en in itself. 3ertainly i!
iniviual consciousnesses are e0emplars o! such on account o! what is
unique to each1 rather than what is common to all1 then oing right by
the other involves the sharpest !orm o! ethics imaginable. /s /yn Aan
says1 Rany system o! ethics is base on an erive1 implicitly or
e0plicitly1 !rom a metaphysics.S6he other that is wholly other is truly a
moral en in itsel!. .imitation is not a circumstance that consciousness
5ust happens to !in itsel! in1 but is an act.
/pril *22N
6he solitary !inite is a super!icial abstraction which logically
implies the possibility o! the e0istence o! other !inite beings. ;thics an
morality possess application an meaning within a social conte0t but one
which is transcene by the solitary in!inite. 3onsciousness is not a
meium1 among other meia1 o! e0perience. ;0perience is always
iniviual rather than collective.
/ugust 2)*( !b= CQ?rettage 8unKialD R
;ach an every conscious being is 4o escape
!rom cosmic loneliness in the leap o! !aith o! taKing upon himsel! the
limitation o! space1 time an causality...in the hope that there are others
who1 !ollowing the same logic an striving have inee one the same
an committe the !oolhary an esperate act o! e0ploring the realm o!
Enot Knowing everythingE. 6he worl is a pro5ective space an a Kin o!
!or the most part unwitting collective A74.S
>uly *22%
@ow an open space-time cannot possess a eterminate spacetime
topology1 by arguments presente elsewhere. 6he appearance o! stable
topological structures1 there!ore1 must be sustaine through patterns o!
!luctuation in spacetime topology which are engenere !rom outsie
any spacetime. ;ach particular global topology1 itsel! a close system o!
spacetime though e0tening1 perhaps1 billions or tens o! billions o! light
years1 must possess its own unique con!iguration energy1 5ust as
transitions !rom one topology to another have their characteristic energy
i!!erences. "ince both "chroingerGs wave equation o! motion1 as well
as ;insteinGs gravitational !iel equations1 presuppose an alreay given
spacetime topology1 transitions !rom one topology to another will not be
escribable by the wave equation1 nor will the characteristic energy o! a
particular topology1 i.e.1 the power input require to sustain this topology
in e0istence !or a perio o! time1 be inclue as a gravitational source
term !or the !iel equations. 3learly1 gravitational source terms interact
accoring to general relativity only i! they are containe within the sel!
same topological mani!ol an so !luctuations in the sub-microscopic
topology o! spacetime1 or the energy intrinsic to such !luctuations1 must
not be inclue in the gravitational source term1 6i1K1 o! the ;instein
!iel equations.
)2/2N
@ow !luctuations in the energy o! the quantum vacuum must be
e0tremely violent be!ore e0pecting any gravitational e!!ects. Hn other
wors1 the energy o! the vacuum !luctuations must approach the 7lancK
energy be!ore we are !orce to give consieration to Puantum 4ravity
theory. ?ut again1 it is at precisely this stage at which spacetime
topology begins !luctuate non-negligibly an potential source terms !or
6i1K begin to Eslip through the cracKs.E 3onsierations such as this may
provie a natural e0planation !or the allege high energy cuto!! o! the
gravitational source term within theories such as "aKharovGs.
PP: Hs establishment o! the global spacetime metric equivalent to the
establishment o! a spacetime topology? @o. */2N
&/2% ?ecause causal relationships are always escribable in terms o!
sets o! i!!erential equations1 these relationships must be suppose to
inhere within a continuously i!!erentiable mani!ol o! eterminate
topological structure. /lterations in the topology o! a continuously
i!!erentiable mani!ol cannot be escribe by a set o! i!!erential
equations e!inable on the original mani!ol. 6his is why we o not
e0pect that the energies o! the submicroscopic topological !luctuations
may comprise a contribution to a gravitational source term in the
;instein !iel equations. / supermani!ol must groun the
trans!ormation o! one topology into another nonequivalent topology
such that this topological inequivalence is ultimately reucible within
the supermani!ol o! higher orer topological structure which remains
constant throughout the lower orer topological trans!ormation. 6he
!ormalism o! 4eneral Aelativity is not equippe to escribe such a
topological supermani!ol.
%/2% 6his remins us o! attempts to groun the iscontinuous change
in the wave!unction which in between measurements evolves
eterministically accoring to the "chroinger equation o! motion in
terms o! some nonlinear time-epenent version o! the "-eqn.
@otice that the trans!ormation o! one topology into a nonequivalent one
necessitates a breaching o! the original topological mani!ol introucing
iscontinuities which prevent the e0istence o! any brige !unctions being
e!ine meiating the trans!ormation which possess continuous
i!!erentiability. @o consistent solutions to a given set o! i!!erential
equations e0ists i! the only possible solutions are !unctions which are
themselves not continuously i!!erentiable. /ll topological
trans!ormations must be escribe in terms o! brige !unctions which
cannot be e!ine on the mani!ols being trans!orme an so all
topological trans!ormations must be meiate !rom outsie all mani!ols
o! eterminate topological structure taKing part in the topological
trans!ormations. "ince a metric presupposes an embeing topological
mani!ol1 geometroynamic !luctuations in spacetime topology cannot
be escribe within general relativity theory.
7ro5ections o! topological trans!ormations in a given space onto a
subspace may present the appearance o! nontopological trans!ormations
within the smaller space. H! a chance event yiels meaning an
signi!icance1 it is only because o! a common1 unerlying CconcreteD
groun o! the two things connecte. 6he truly concrete1 that is1 the
ultimate groun o! ?eing1 cannot be ivie1 but can only appear so. 6o
entertain the notion o! two separate grouns1 themselves possessing no
unerlying an still more ultimate groun connecting them in the sense
o! maKing them1 one with the other1 CsubstantiallyD continuous1 is to set
up e!initions in a manner which invites sel!-contraiction. Fe Know
that the action by which the continuum o! space an time are constitute
presupposes a Kin o! temporality1 but one without scale or irection in
which the connectivity o! the pre-phenomenal is internal but at once
without bounaries.
%/2% :elaye choice e0periments iscussion here.
Fe have characterize the mental as containing structure which is
organize in a top-own manner an the physical as containing structure
organize in a bottom-up manner. /nother way o! characterizing the
istinction between the mental an the physical is: the continuum o!
min possesses an insie but no outsie while the physical possesses an
outsie but no insie1 c.!.1 ecoherence1 Ainler horizon1 irreucible
comple0ity1 7lancK mass limit1 one-graviton limit1 etc.
/pril 2)**
H!
7enrose_s Rone-gravitonS limit coul be shown to be reache much
earlier than the level presente by the 7lancK mass energy level o!
quantum !luctuation1 then this lower energy threshol coul be use to
calculate the number o! istinct1 non-communicating vacua which
comprise the global/ cosmo-logical vacuum. 6his number o! istinct
quantum vacua coul perhaps be equate with the number o! istinct
consciousness_ capable o! reucing the wave!unction. 9n this view how
might we interpret the phenomenon o! the quantum superposition o!
istinct vacua.
6he groun o! ?eing which transcens the istinction o! min vs. matter
must then possess both an insie an an outsie but where the
bounaries between insie an outsie cannot be eterminate1 but must
be both inistinct1 an when glimpse1 !luctuating. H! >esus never
Ee0iste1E woul the account o! his Eli!eE as tol o! in the ?ible be any
less signi!icant !or those who believe in =im? 6he origin o! all great
ieas is ultimately the same1 regarless o! the particulars o! their earlier
historical mani!estations.
6he istinction between gentile an >ew consists in this: the >ew
oes not thinK that >esus was the 3hrist whereas the gentile oes not
thinK that =itler was the antichrist. 6he >ew looKs to the establishment
o! the Oingom upon the ;arth. 6he 4entile looKs to this Oingom
being establishe in =eaven. =uman intelligence has evolve to a point
5ust short o! that require to conceive a genuinely interesting thought.
6he proposition that1 E there is no such thing as absolute truth1E is itsel! a
proposition which can only be true in a relative sense1 since this
proposition inclues itsel! in its sweeping re!erence1 an there!ore in an
absolute sense1 this proposition is !alseV consequently1 absolute truth
e0ists.
'/2% ?ut may we1 there!ore1 say then that Eabsolute truth e0istsE only
provie that certain conitions obtain? "ince1 as emonstrate above1
the contraictory to this1 Eabsolute truth oes not e0ist1E is a true
proposition only provie certain conitions1 i.e.1 this proposition is only
true in a relative sense1 we are1 again1 lane in a contraiction. 7erhaps
the conition which must be provie !or the proposition that absolute
truth oes not e0ist to be true is that single conition where no absolute
truth e0ists. ?ut i! e0istence is merely unconitione1 transcenent
?eing with certain conitions ae1 then absolute truth1 i! it Ee0ists1E
woul never actually e0ist though it woul possess unconitione ?eing.
.et proposition 7 be: absolute truth oes not e0ist. 7 implies1 through
the implicit sel!-re!erentiality o! 71 that YZ b7. 7 oes not actually imply
that [ \ b71 since b7 might be true1 but only conitionally. ?ut can the
conitional truth o! the proposition that absolute truth e0ists1 i.e.1 that b7
is conitionally the case1 be given a coherent meaning?
**/2%Hn other wors1 is it meaning!ul to speaK o! contingent necessity?
"urely in the sense o! the necessity o! physical law1 since we can
imagine the physical laws having been structure i!!erently than they
are in this ,niverse. ?ut what about !or necessity in the sense o! logical
necessity? -or that matter what about the contingently possible? 6hese
comple0 or metamoal categories may only maKe sense i! the law o!
e0clue mile is itsel! mae conitionally true as a law o! logic.
6o say that Eabsolute truth e0istsE is itsel! conitionally true is to
suppose that although Aeality is 9ne1 it might equally well have been a
8any1 or to hol the supposition that although a 8any1 Aeality might
well have been a 9ne. Fhich ever o! the two ontologies happens to be
the case may epen upon conitions outsie o! the Aeal1 provie that
Aeality is a 8any !or there is no Ereality itsel!E in this case. ?ut i!
Aeality is a 9ne1 then the necessary conitions !or this !act woul be
containe within the 9ne Htsel!1 which woul there!ore possess sel!-
e0istence. "o i! the 9ne e0ists conitionally1 it oes so in name onlyV in
Aeality1 the 9ne has absolute e0istence: i! a 9ne e0ists1 it must have
always e0iste. ?ut this is merely to re!er to the 9ne in its temporal
aspect o! everlastingness. =ave we also emonstrate that i! a 9ne
e0ists1 it not only must have always e0iste Cin 6imeD1 but it e0ists
necessarily1 i.e.1 the 9ne1 i! it e0ists1 coul not possibly have not e0iste?
Fe cannot asK whether the 8any might not have e0iste1 since this
woul be to implicitly re!er to this 8any as i! it were secretly1 in actual
!act1 a 9ne.
-ebruary *22%
6his euction1 i! vali1 seems a bit vacuous. H! one is not
willing to accept what appears to be a rather ubious bit o! logic-
chopping1 one might nevertheless reaily concee that the premise that
there is no absolute truth at least presupposes1 i! only as a category1 the
e0istence o! what it e0pressly enies. Hn this way it is seen that the
premise is better !ormulate to !it its intene assertion i! it were to rea1
Ethe category1 absolute truth1 is1 not instantiate1E or1 perhaps1 what is
intene in the original !ormulation is the stronger assertion1 Ethe
category o! absolute truth is necessarily not instantiate.E ?ut this is to
amit1 again1 its e0istence. 6he proo! o! a truth1 on the corresponence
theory o! truth1 consists in the instantiation o! an e0istential claim. 6he
proo! o! a truth1 on the coherence theory o! truth1 consists in the
conceivability o! a propositional claim1 which may1 or may not1 maKe an
aitional e0istential claim. 6here are two istinct varieties o!
impossible e0istence: the category propose o! thing is1 itsel!1
unintelligible1 or1 the category is intelligible1 however1 it is necessarily
not instantiate - ever. 6he concept o! coherence o! an unboune
system presupposes that unity is not a necessary conition o! !or
coherence. 6his brings up the puzzling question o! necessary
none0istence. 3an anything which has never e0iste be!ore some time
in the in!inite past nevertheless come into being at some !uture time? 6o
answer in the negative implies that anything which e0ists now must have
alreay e0iste in the past on an unlimite number o! previous occasions
in an eternally recurring close system o! events. ?ut this cannot be the
case !or a reality possessing openness an temporality. "o the non-
occurrence o! a given event or non-e0istence o! a given thing uring the
in!inite past oes not imply its necessary non-e0istence. ?ut is some
event or thing possible even i! it has never occurre or e0iste in the past
an even though it will never e0ist at any time in the !uture? "uch
questions may only appear to be asKeV in actuality such questions
cannot be asKe because a re!erence is being mae to something
ineterminate as though it were a e!inite entity - in this case the in!inite
past or !uture. 6he in!inite past or !uture cannot be thought to contain a
eterminate set o! ob5ects such that meaning!ul statements may be mae
about what either is or is not a member o! either set. Ht has been
remarKe that it is necessarily impossible !or any person to !orm a
complete escription o! the worl which contains him ue to the
necessary upcropping o! an in!inite regress o! successive escriptions.
?ut i! at some !uture time the person !orming the escription no longer
e0ists1 then the above logical i!!iculty is remove an a merely
practical Cbut insuperableD one place in its stea. 6his hypothetical
person may !orm a complete escription o! the !uture without !ear o!
being embroile in in!inite regress.
*)/2% ?ut the !orming o! a escription o! oneGs mental state1 which is
what !orming a complete escription o! the worl ultimately comes to1
consists only in an act o! etermination o! oneGs mental state which is its
own escription although inconceivably enlarge in its representational
content. -or this is the most that a complete escription o! reality can
mean i! it is to be a real escription in the sense o! a possible ob5ect o!
Knowlege1 that is1 e0perience. ?ut such a etermination o! a
superhuman mental state Csuperhuman1 i! it is to encompass Aeality as a
wholeD must arise !rom something altogether outsie o! the escription
itsel!1 i! the above in!inite regress is to be avoie. /n so a so-calle
complete escription o! Aeality must arise !rom that which possess no
escription an the mechanism o! this act by which this escription is
arrive at cannot be containe within the escription - again1 in orer to
avoi the vicious regress. /n so the process by which the
ineterminate etermines itsel! is1 itsel!1 ineterminate1 which is to say1
acausal. @ot all o! the escription may be representational but must
contain a nonrepresentational component. 6here must be something
unerlying an supporting these representations as appearances which
cannot be inclue in the EcompleteE escription.
)&/2N
@ow assuming that one_s state o! consciousness correspons to a
particular brain state1 then we might suppose that someone or something
must Know that the brain is in that particular state in orer !or the proper
sub5ective mental state to be mani!est1 i.e.1 one which represents the
actual state which the brain presently occupies. Hn other wors1 the brain
state must re!er to something beyon its own literal structure. 6o avoi
any enlisting o! supernatural agencies1 we must suppose that the
consciousness mani!est by the brain results !rom the brain somehow
looKing at itsel! to see what state it is in so that1 i! you will1 the brain can
Know how it !eels1 that is1 what its sub5ective state is. 6he point is that
this iea leas to an in!inite regress i! we assume that the brain
represents a close system. / so-calle state can only possess a
concrete1 as oppose to a merely abstract1 signi!icance i! it is place
within an open conte0t1 itsel! not consistently treatable as a state or
superstate1 i! you will. 6he attempt to impose a state escription upon a
temporally evolving ynamic1 i.e.1 a open system1 leas to a system
which changes its state noneterministically. 6he origin o! the
!luctuation =amiltonian o! a quantum mechanical system owes generally
to escribing the system with a merely appro0imate =amiltonian leaing
to an appro0imate system wave!unction. 6he system unergoes
transitions between its various appro0imate eigenenergies ue to the
outsie in!luence o! the !luctuation =amiltonian1 =
!luc
. 6he quantum
system with its !luctuation =amiltonian is 5ust an abstraction !rom the
open-ene energy conte0t o! the quantum vacuum !iel itsel!1 !or when
all sources o! real particles an !iels have been taKen into account in the
construction o! the system =amiltonian1 a certain small !luctuation term
remains which cannot be absorbe into the system =amiltonian so as to
e!ine a purely time-inepenent system. 6his !luctuation term is owing
to the e0istence o! a quantum vacuum zero-point energy !iel. Ht is this
term1 what we will call1 =
zp!
1 which prevents any quantum system !rom
ever e0isting in a true energy eigenstate with 1
=
)
e
-i
/n this is why we have been saying that the !luctuations in vacuum
energy are the cause o! the time-epenent evolution o! quantum
systems generally.
)&/2N
?ut because the !uture is not etermine1 it oes not constitute a e!inite
categoryV we can only meaning!ully re!er to events which may or may
not taKe place at a !uture time an not to events which will or will not
occur.
)*/2N 6here is not a unique connection in the sense o! a one-to-one
!unction between internal an e0ternal representations1 as the connection
here is etermine completely through !eebacK between the neural
networK an its environment. 6he reason !or this is that language is only
capable o! conveying istinctions an similarities1 relationships o! class
inclusion/e0clusion.
Hn other wors1 the relationship o! language to the e0ternal worl is a
strictly !ormal symbolic one.
Ht is a peculiar characteristic o! language that we are so able to iscuss
things without precisely Knowing what they are about an !requently
part o! the reason !or our iscussion o! them is 5ust so that we can clari!y
their meaning. 6here are two istinct views o! this clari!ication process.
9ne1 that we start with a vague notion an then apply theoretical or
semantic constraints in orer to more sharply e!ine it so as to maKe it
serve the purpose we have in min. 6he other1 is that the notion in a
latent sense alreay e0ists in all the golory o! its particularitybut must be
e0tracte !rom an obscuring tangle o! relate concepts. 6he one view is
that this clari!ication process is one o! the constructing o! categories1 the
other1 one o! maKing istinctions between categories which we alreay
possess.
*)/2% 6here are a number o! i!!iculties with 8c6aggartGs !amous
proo! o! the unreality o! 6ime. 6he proo! presupposes that the
preicates1 past1 present1 an !uture may be treate entirely on an equal
!ooting as categories. H believe this is !unamentally mistaKen because
past1 present an !uture may be istinguishe by the !act that the past is
etermine1 the present is the activity o! the past etermining itsel!1 or o!
the present etermining itsel! as past1 whereas the term E!utureE oes not
re!er to a eterminate category at all1 that is1 i! Aeality is1 inee1 an
open system as we have argue !or e0tensively thought this te0t. ;ven
the past itsel! may not be so easily characterize as eterminate since the
past1 at the time it was present1 may not have succeee in !ully
etermining itsel! as past at the precise moment in which that hereto!ore
present moment etermine itsel! as a !orever past moment. Fe may
then istinguish two presents1 what we may term the temporal present
an the eternal present. 6he temporal present is that part o! the present
which itsel! !ully succeee in etermining itsel! as past within some
previous present moment. 6he eternal present1 on the other han1 is that
component o! this ientical present moment which e0iste in all
previous present moments an which may well e0ist in all succeeing
present moments1 namely that component which never succees in
etermining itsel! as past1 but which may there!ore be thought to have
the essential role in etermining the present as past in every case o!
temporal succession o! moments. 6here is1 o! course1 nothing to prevent
the e0istence o! a Kin o! present which !alls somewhere between these
two e0tremes o! the temporal an eternal present. -or e0ample1 part o!
the ineterminate with which some present moment is continuous may
not succee in etermining itsel! as past be!ore the ne0t succeeing
moment1 but may succee in oing so at some later moment. 9! course1
in a completely close universe1 in which time is completely reversible
an possessing no intrinsic scale1 the earlier/later istinction o! the ?
series is unercut while the istinction between past1 present an !uture
is liKewise unercut within the / series.
H! reality is an open system1 then not only the present1 but also the past1
must possess temporality.
'/2% @ow oesnGt the mere non-empty e0istence Cin the sense only1
perhaps1 in which mathematical entities Ee0istED o! a category
presuppose the possibility o! its being instantiate? 6he answer to this
is: only in the case where a coherence theory o! truth is aopte1 i.e.1
where the coherence theory o! truth correspons to actual nature o!
truthT /pparently1 the 3oherence 6heory o! 6ruth cannot be true in an
absolute sense !or absolute truth smacKs o! corresponence. Fe are here
inquiring into the truth about the 6ruth.
/s we suggeste earlier1 the mere intelligibility o! a mathematical
or logical proposition seems to imply the truth o! some proposition o!
the same type. ?ut accoring to the mathematician Ourt 4eel1 this is
not really true1 since one can always e!ine mathematical or logical
propositions which through a peculiar sel!-re!erentiality can neither be
etermine to be true or !alse. 9r i!1 on the other han1 all true theorems
may be prove true an all !alse theorems prove !alse within a
particular a0iomatic system o! in!erence1 then it must also be possible to
EproveE certain !alse theorems true as well as certain true theorems !alse
within this same system. 6he system in this case is re!erre to as being
inconsistent.
H! truth in mathematics an logic is entirely by construction1 then
such propositions1 i! they cannot be emonstrate to be true or !alse
must be neither an hence the law o! e0clue mile is here violate.
6o save the law o! e0clue mile1 which is a broaer law than that o!
mere noncontraiction1 we must amit the Ee0istenceE o! mathematical
an logical propositions which are true in a manner other than Eby
construction.E 6his is to amit that the truth o! certain theorems may
only be EseenE through the operation o! intuition. 6he truth o! theorems
woul not be in this case always communicable. Ht is interesting to note
that an algorithm can only emonstrate the truth o! theorems which are
themselves Ecommunicable.E 6he communication o! such theorems
woul be1 o! course1 in the !orm o! a transmission o! ata concerning
their proo! by construction. 6he realization o! the truth o! a
noncommunicable theorem woul be through an act o! in!orming
through an act o! cognition. 6he intuitive emonstration o! the truth o! a
noncommunicable theorem woul taKe place through two acts: the
!ormulation or articulation o! a particular theorem an then its
interpretation such that the theorem mani!ests its truth to the min
conceiving it. Ht may be that the conceiving o! the statement o! the
theorem is simultaneous with the preparation o! the imaginative groun
!rom which its truth will be intuite.
6his is similar to the statement that there are algorithms which can
be implemente in a parallel ata process which cannot be represente
as a sequence o! iscrete logical operations. / metaphor !or this is the
e0istence o! theoretical mating positions on a chessboar which cannot
be constructe in the sense o! never coming about through over the
boar play1 but which can nevertheless e0ist as an appropriate
arrangement o! blacK an white chess pieces on a chessboar. Ht woul
only be through a violation o! the rules o! play !or such a mating
position to be generate by Eover the boar play1E which is to say1
returning to our metaphor1 that the construction is !alse o! a theorem
which is true in reality. -or instance1 in one e0ample o! such an invali
Econstruction1E one might allow the white Oing an Onight to occupy
the very same square on the chessboar in orer that mate o! the enemy
Oing might be e!!ecte on whiteGs very ne0t move.
>une 2)**
H! one coul
emonstrate that 4eel_s proo! o! his Hncompletness 6heorem possesses
a serial structure o! euctive steps1 which is secretly violate by the
simultaneous insertion o! two or more euctive steps1 then the proo!
coul in this way be overturne an emonstrate to be invali.
9ne must have in!ormation about how to process ata to engener
new in!ormation. -or in!ormation to be Eprocesse1E it must !irst be
converte into ata an then this ata processe through interpretation
base upon in!ormation about this ata. 6he conversion o! in!ormation
into ata an its reconversion bacK into in!ormation oes not usually
result in the reconstitution o! the original in!ormation. :ata are coe
in!ormation1 but in!ormation is not simply ecoe ata. 6he mutual
interconversion o! ata an in!ormation cannot be unerstoo in terms
o! a strictly causal process since the conversion o! each into the other is
overetermine. 6his is because strict causality presupposes
reversibility1 among other things Csuch as reproucibilityD an one
cannot insist that a process be at once causal an overetermine as the
reverse o! an overetermine process is an uneretermine process
which is inherently acausal.
:ata an real energy1 are intere!inable since both are !unctions o!
close systems which are themselves intere!inable. @eural processes
irectly involving real particles an !iels pertain to the processing o!
ob5ect-oriente ata1 i.e. intersub5ective ata or ata o! i!!erentiate
Ciscursively symbolicD representations. "ubneural1 or neuronal1
processes irectly involving virtual particles an !iels pertain to
integration o! ata require !or constitution o! ob5ective space-time1 the
constituting o! the will or intention o! action1 an the processing o!
nonlocally connecte ata into participatory conte0t-epenent1 non-
representational in!ormation. Fe will never be able to say how human
consciousness comes into being1 but we can meaning!ully speculate
about Ewhy human consciousness?E Fe can only answer the Ehow
question1E partially through ienti!ying aitional necessary conitions
!or iniviual consciousness. ?ut there can be no !inite sum o!
necessary conitions constituting a su!!icient conition !or the
occurrence o! consciousness.
Qd
6his is because the necessary conitions
are actually only bounary conitions which1 as we sai earlier1 are
necessarily spatiotemporal. 6hese bounary conitions apply to a
ynamic process not itsel! con!ine to any particular spacetime
continuum. 6he su!!icient conitions !or consciousness lie with both the
bounary conitions an the ynamical process constraine by these
bounary conitions. Fe may say that virtual particle processes o not
constitute real particle processes but that real particles an !iels act as
impose bounary conitions upon the overetermine vacuum
processes resulting in the appearance o! virtual processes mimicKing the
real processes. 6he real an virtual processes must be constitute
together or not at all. 6his is an application o! the principle o! irreucible
comple0ity.
:ecember *22%
Hn any causal sequence there is the question o! whence the
terms o! the sequence generally arise. 6he etermination o! an e!!ect
possess two perhaps !unamentally istinct parts: *. the etermination
o! one toKen in the causal sequence by that toKen immeiately preceing
it an 2. the etermination o! the types o! which each are merely toKens.
6his istinction between types an toKens o! the terms o! a causal
sequence remins us o! the istinction mae by Oant o! that which
constitutes the groun o! possible e0perience versus that which
constitutes the groun o! a particular e0perience the possibility o! which
is assume to be grante.
?ut moreover1 because categories are necessarily abstract an the
entities to which they re!er are concrete1 the concrete iniviual may
instantiate the category but it is also a continuous instantiation o! a
continuum o! certain re!inements o! the sai category.
'/2% Ht must be amitte1 however1 that this continuum is itsel! an
abstraction1 i! it is not unique1 that is. 6hat which is unique may not be
thought o! as compose o! nonunique elements. 6hat phenomenon
which is reproucible may be reuctively e0plaine in terms o! entities
occupying the ne0t lower level o! organization. / truly unique
phenomenon is an e0pression o! a level o! organization higher than the
level it occupies because it must be a mani!estation o! an open system o!
relations. Aelations which1 within a close system are abstract1
presuppose EconcreteE entities between which these Ce0ternalD relations
subsist. Fithin an open system1 entities are necessarily abstract an
presuppose a pre-e0isting set o! CinternalD concrete relations.
Fhat we cannot say is what e0actly is the tra5ectory o! this continuous
instantiation o! this continuum o! categories. 6his line o! thought seems
to presume that the abstract an the concrete are not is5oint but towar
opposite ens o! a continuum. =ence1 both are abstractions !rom the
continuum an both are concrete elements along the continuum. H! this
is the case1 then the continuum itsel! is neither an abstraction o! !orm
!rom some concrete meium1 nor is it a concretization o! some pre-
e0isting set o! abstract relations. 6he sub5ective mental states o! other
mins simultaneously possess ob5ective e0istence as things. 6he
otherness o! other minsG sense ata is 5ust as remote as the otherness o!
ob5ects within the noumenal realm.
>une 2)** Qd
6he nominally ual
categories1 mental vs. physical are complicate by the !act that each
iniviual consciousness must regar the mental states o! other mins as
not !unamentally istinct !rom physical states an moreover not
!unamentally istinct !rom the mental states o! other other mins.
$/2% 6here are1 however1 two preominant schools o! thought on the
sub5ect o! truth. 6he !irst is terme the corresponence theory o! truth.
6he secon is Known as the coherence theory o! truth. H! reality is
bottomless1 so to speaK1 that is to say1 open1 then it is clear that a
coherence theory o! truth implies that an absolute truth1 that is1 a
timeless1 eternal truth1 cannot e0ist. 6his is because 5ust as a merely
relative coherence-truth re!ers to a particular system o! relationships
cohering in equilibrium !or a limite perio o! time within a limite
omain1 an absolute coherence truth re!ers to a universal system o!
relationships cohering in equilibrium throughout the whole o! reality !or
all time. ?ut an open-system cannot constitute a whole o! any KinV the
all is not e!inable in such an open system an no truly static system o!
relationships can e0ist within it. ,nless this system was close
temporally1 only opening itsel! to temporally through its own action an
not the action o! any process outsie o! itsel!.
/ugust 2)))
/n open-system
oes not possess a possible complete escription an so must always be
unergoing temporal evolution with no universal irection o! time being
e!inable !or this system. /bsolute 6ruths are inamissible1 by
e!inition1 within coherence truth theories1 in other wors. 6he theory o!
truth terme 7ragmatism may be thought o! as a lesser1 thir contener.
Fithout the possibility o! a universal irection o! time Cbecause Aeality
is an open system ue to an ineterminate grounD1 time must be1 not
merely multiimensional1 but in!inite imensional. /n isolate system1
possessing only a !inite number o! istinct states1 cannot amit the
e0istence o! solutions involving multiple time imensions1 e.g.1 ! = !Ct*1
t21 t$1 . . . D. /itional imensions o! time within close ynamic
systems are always reucible to a ynamism in which temporality is
simpli!ie to a single temporal imension but at the e0pense o! a more
complicate ynamics within the single time imension. Fhat
introuces the ineliminable necessity o! aitional imensions o! time is
the breaKing in upon the hereto!ore close ynamic system !rom outsie
itsel!. Hn other wors1 the introuction o! aitional spatial imensions
must always be accommoate by the appearance o! an equal number o!
temporal imensions.
>une 2)** Qd
6he intersub5ective component o! the
sub5ective time imension o! each iniviual consciousness is parallel to
the intersub5ective component o! the sub5ective time imension o! any
other iniviual consciousness. =owever1 the sub5ective time imension
o! each iniviual consciousness is orthogonal to that o! any other such
consciousness.
'/2% 6he highest imension o! time always supervenes over the Elower
time imensions1E spatializing them. Hnso!ar as time !or a temporal
interval possesses irection1 throughout this interval the temporal
interval is spatial. H! local irections o! time can be reconcile over
larger omains1 that is1 !itte to a supervening time irection over this
larger omain1 then these local time imensions are spatializable. /n
so any spacetime must have only one time imension1 although it may
possess any number o! spatial imensions. 6his is to say that an open
system1 a truly open one1 that is1 what we have terme earlier a
Eraically open system1E must not be open merely through the breach o!
a bounary as any bounary is open to two spaces which together e!ine
it. 6his we will term a spatially relative bounary. Fhere a time
imension becomes involve we obtain a bounary not e!inable by
opposing spaces1 one !inite1 the other in!inite.
Qd
8ight the brain o! an
iniviual human be merely an /tman-?rahman inter!ace evice.
.ocal causal interactions obtain between the e0pectation values o!
given physical observables. @onlocal causal interactions obtain between
the instantaneous values o! physical observables1 i.e.1 is responsible !or
the e0istence o! correlations between !luctuations. ;0pectation values o!
an observable can only be e!ine when the wave!unction in question1
!rom which these values are erive1 is boune in space an time.
8easurement o! a quantum mechanical observable presupposes the
presence o! bounary conitions on the wave!unction representing the
system in question. Hn this case1 the wave!unction may be represente as
a !inite superposition o! eigen!unctions o! that observable. H! a
wave!unction is unboune1 then is must be represente as a continuum
o! an in!inite superposition o! eigen!unctions.
%/2% 6hese eigen!unctions o! such an in!inite superposition cannot be
iniviually normalize without the arti!ice o! the elta :irac !unction
being inclue within the normalization integral. Hn other wors1 the
eigen!unctions within a superposition continuum cannot be represente
within a =ilbert space. 3onsequently1 =ilbertGs action minimalization
integral cannot be compute !or a system represente by a continuum o!
eigen!unctions1 i.e.1 !or an unboune wave!unction1 an so such a
system cannot be escribe by ;insteinGs gravitational !iel equations1
since the !iel equations an the =ilbert action integral are precisely
equivalent. Fe are saying that the stress-momentum-energy tensor1
6i1K1may only be nonvanishing provie that this tensorGs associate
eigen!unction is spatiotemporally boune. 6he !unamental
!luctuations in the vacuumGs momentum-energy represent 5ust the sort o!
unboune action !or which an action minimization integral cannot be
e!ine.
*2/2% /n important observation in this connection is the !act that the
gravitation energy in 4eneral Aelativity cannot be localize in the
speci!ic sense that when one attempts to inclue the gravitational energy
in the total stress-momentum-energy tensor o! the !iel equations1 a
pseuotensor results which is not generally covariant. 6he energy o! this
pseuotensor is only conserve in certain speci!ic coorinate systems1
such as in harmonic coorinate systems. 7arallel transport o! a small
volume in which the total energy is e!ine by this pseuotensor is not
generally reversible an we o not here have a conservative !orce. Ht has
been sai that the inverse-square law breaKs own in strongly curve
spacetimes. 6his !act may well be relate to the problem o! the
localization o! gravitational energy within the theory o! 4eneral
Aelativity. 6hermoynamically1 the vacuum momentum-energy !iel
constitutes an e0emplar par e0cellence o! a thermal heat bath1 the
interaction with which by any other energy system will result in the
appearance o! irreversibility within this systemGs temporal evolution. Fe
note here that the temporal evolution o! the "chroinger equation is1
strictly speaKing1 reversible. /lso1 we note elsewhere the very close
similarity between the "chroinger an :i!!usion equationsV more
particularly1 that a mere substitution o! it = tG within the "chroinger
equation trans!orms it into the :i!!usion equation.
7arao0ically1 to assert the truth o! a given proposition categorically1 is
to say that the proposition is true uner all possible conitions1 incluing
the very special conition o! no conitions1 i.e.1 without quali!ication -
o! any Kin. .anguage is the meium o! communication between
istinct minsV it is not the process by which thought originates as such
within an iniviual min. Fhy then1 oes each intelligent iniviual
possessing the gi!t o! language seem to require its use in orer to1 not
merely !ormulate a thought !or himsel!1 !or this is always potentially
with intersub5ective communication in view1 but to have Knowlege o!
what he1 himsel!1 is thinKing at the present moment? Ht is because1
secretly1 intersub5ective communication is taKing place within the
iniviual1 that is1 between himsel! at the moment certain ata were
originally interprete an store in his brain as a quantity o! in!ormation
an the present moment1 when he is in a somewhat1 an perhaps
substantively1 i!!erent uni!ie mental state. 6he mental process by
which the present mental state o! the iniviual is boun together into an
integral whole1 i.e.1 presentation1 an which unerpins his immeiate
e0perience o! what has been terme the Especious presentE is wholly
prior to the phenomenon o! language. .anguage is always re-
presentation. Fhen one is trying to remember a thought one has ha
earlier one is casting about permutationally an combinationally an a
!lu0 o! wors an phrases bubbles into consciousnessV it seems that the
less one is sure o! what one is trying to remember1 the more one relies
upon these subvocalizations in the attempt to remember. 9n the other
han1 when one suenly has a clear insight or conceptual breaKthrough1
one simply e0periences a Kin o! penetrating !eeling o! new
unerstaning1 initially without wors. .ater1 when one must
communicate the insight to others1 or to maKe sure one oes not !orget
the insight1 one commits it as best one can to a !ormulation in terms o!
wors.
@ovember *22%
6o aopt a conceptual !rameworK1 entertain new ieas within
this !rameworK1 an to eventually transcen this !rameworK1 oes not
bring one bacK to the position which oneGs thought occupie prior to
taKing up that particular !rameworK o! thought. 6his is the
!unamentally irreversible an creative nature o! thinKing. 9neGs
thinKing can be outsie o! a particular theoretical !rameworK in two
!unamentally istinct ways: oneGs thinKing may taKe place prior to the
realization o! a theory an oneGs thinKing may ensue a!ter having set
asie this theory. 6hese two i!!erent processes o! thought which taKe
place in the absence o! a given theoretical or conceptual !rameworK
cannot be equivalent. 6his is1 again1 the irreversibility o! etermination
o! thought through the application to it o! abstract categories.
6raitional logic oes not taKe this irreversible temporality o! thought
into its account. 6he law o! e0clue mile is vali only !or thought
remove !rom its temporal conte0t an is vali only !or thought which is
temporally conte0t-!ree. 6his is why thought in its essence is a
!unamentally creative process which cannot be capture within a
timeless or conte0t-!ree1 which is to say1 !ormal or purely abstract
escription. =ere e-scription may be liKene e0actly to e-coing.
=owever1 what might be terme scription is not the same as encoing.
6he encoing o! a cipher is always overetermine while the ecoing
o! a cipher is always uneretermine. Hn a eterministic ata
manipulation1 there e0ists neither over- nor uneretermination o! ata.
;ncoing is the representation o! the open-ene within the close.
:ecoing is the representation o! the close within the open-ene.
6his suggests that there are two istinct species o! e0istence1
relative an absolute. /bsolute e0istence is unconitione e0istence.
Aelative e0istence is conitione e0istence. Fhen one asKs the
question1 Eoes 4o e0ist?1E one is merely asKing whether =e e0ists or
oes not e0ist in a conitione relative sense1 i.e.1 in the sense in which
blacK holes1 people1 animals1 subatomic particles1 etc.1 e0ist. Fe are
then asKing whether 4o e0ists merely as one particular being among
other particular beings. @ow 4o1 as a peculiar being1 may well not
e0ist. 6o e0ist in the !ullest sense in which that wor1 e0ist1 re!ers1 is to
possess being in a strictly quali!ie1 conitional sense1 that is1 within
space an time. ?eing1 itsel!1 is that which always unerlies mere
e0istence. ?eing1 itsel!1 transcens the categories o! e0istence an non-
e0istence. 6hat there must be absolute truth cannot be true unless there
is something which constitutes this absolute truth as such. 6his
something which constitutes the absolute truth as such cannot merely be
the proposition that there is no such thing as absolute truth1 !or this is
contraictory. @either can the proposition that absolute truth e0ists re!er
only to itsel! without re!erence to some other absolutely true proposition1
!or this is vacuity. 6here cannot merely be the single true proposition1
i.e.1 that there is no such thing as absolute truth. 6his something which
constitutes the truth that there is absolute truth must itsel! be an
aitional truth separate !rom the truth o! the proposition that the
proposition that Ethere is no such thing as absolute truthE is !alse. ?ut
this seems to contraict another intuition o! ours about the nature o!
absolute truth1 namely1 that it possesses an unconitione e0istence
whence all other truths must be erive !rom it1 provie certain
conitions1 which1 themselves1 are place- an time-epenent. Hn other
wors1 to say that the statement that Eabsolute truth e0istsE cannot be
vacuous1 that it must re!er to more than its own truth1 implies that
Eabsolute truth e0istsE is epenent upon some other separate truth1
which then constitutes a conition upon itT
/pril *22%
H! space an time are only !orms o! intuition per Oant1 abstract
categories o! greatest generality1 an hence not Ereally e0istent1E then the
constitution o! these !orms must itsel! occur outsie space an time. H!
ob5ects e0ist1 inepenently o! the !unctioning o! the min1 then they o
not e0ist in this way within space an time1 but are transcenental
ob5ects. 6he realm o! the transcenent must have being because the
immanent cannot possibly constitute itsel! as such !rom out o! itsel!.
7articular immanent e0istents may inee be erivative !rom out o!
other immanent entities1 but what we are saying is that the immanent in
general1 that is the immanent as such1 cannot erive !rom itsel!. -or
e0ample1 i! 6ime is a -orm1 it must be constitute as such wholly !rom
outsie o! 6ime. 6he constituting o! 6ime itsel! is not a temporal
process. Fithout uality an its mani!estations as appearing an
isappearing !orms1 there is no means o! marKing or noting the passage
o! time. Fithout that which transcens uality1 that is1 ineterminate
substance1 there is nothing to unerlie change.
Fhen we speaK o! uality being transcene an o! the mile not being
e0clue1 we are not stating that the law o! noncontraiction is !alse.
3ertainly within any !ormal or close system o! categories any
proposition o! the !orm / an not / is contraictory an nonsensical.
6he mile must be e0clue within such !ormal systems. ?ut within
open systems o! categories in which changes in the system o! categories
e0isting at one moment cannot be unerstoo in terms o! that set o!
categories such that the evolution o! the !ormal system is not
!ormalizable1 certainly within these systems neither / nor not / can be
applie to the whole o! which the system is but a mani!estation1 because
there is not such a whole to speaK o!. =ere mani!estation is not a mere
ownwar pro5ection o! a larger system or ob5ect !rom a higher
imensionality into one o! its subspaces. =ere the so-calle mile is
the inevitably ineterminate an unboune remainer.
6here is no timescale an no irection !or its !low. ?ut the absence o!
mani!estation o! !orm oes not necessarily imply the absence o! activity.
**/2%6here is change which unerlies the changes which are
e0perience by iniviual things1 but there is also change which
unerlies the persistence o! things which may !or a time not unergo any
changes whatever. /n so the transcenence o! the uality o! !ormal
mani!estation oes not imply a Kin o! static1 blocK universe1 !or stasis is
only an appearance sustaine by activity which is mani!este on a
particular spatial/temporal scale. -or -orm to arise ab initio1 there must
be an intention since there cannot be any reason1 in the sense o!
su!!icient reason1 !or one set o! !orms rather than another to be brought
into being !rom out o! a raically open system possessing no intrinsic
spatial or temporal scale or spacetime irectionality1 i.e.1 causality - no
reason !or a particular set o! !orms to arise be!ore !orm as such has been
establishe. -orms o not e0ist in potential in such an open system
which are then merely uncovere or mani!este. ?elow are a list o! ual
opposites. 8any o! these ual categories appear to neatly line up with
one another1 !orming parallel istinctions. 9ther o! these ual pairs
emboy istinctions which cut across those istinctions set up by other
pairs. "ome o! these pairs are:
?eing e0istence
imaginary real
irrational rational
inuctive euctive
coherence corresponence
intuition logic
!unction !orm
creative critical
paraigm shi!t normal science
theory application
ambiguity certainty
ynamism bounary conitions
ynamic static
relative absolute
nonequilibrium equilibrium
nonergoic ergoic
quantum classical
potential Kinetic
time-epenent time-inepenent
wave!unction amplitue
wave equation i!!usion equation
spin angular momentum
4eel-complete 4eel-incomplete
=ilbert "pace "pacetime
inistinguishable istinguishable
?ose 3onensation 7auli ;0clusion
egenerate nonegenerate wave!unction
antisymmetric symmetric
transitory permanent
empirical theoretical
iniviual collective
in!inite !inite
transcenent immanent
integral i!!erential equation
unstable stable
contingent necessary
e0istence essence
real ieal
auitory visual
nonenumerableenumerable
elastic inelastic
reactive inert
spontaneous stimulate
eternal everlasting
nonual ual
monistic pluralistic
Aeuction o! 7si 6emporal evolution o! 7si
-requency omain 6ime omain
unique reproucible
6ime "pace
?ecoming ?eing
;nergy 8omentum
continuous iscrete
!ormlessness !orm
groun mani!estation
constituting constitute
source stream
@onrepresentational Aepresentational
Fill Aepresentation
?ell nonlocality ?ell locality
3orrelation 3ausation
;lsewhere Aegion /bsolute 7ast/-uture
8ental 7hysical
concrete abstract
parallel sequential
holistic reuctionistic
!inal causation e!!icient causation
!ormal causationmaterial causation
!luctuation e0pectation value
!ermion boson
gravitation inertia
superposition mi0ture
ob5ective reuction ecoherence
noncomputable computable
imagination Knowlege
invention iscovery
open system close system
conte0t-epenent conte0t-!ree
in!ormation ata
irreversible reversible
entropy !ree energy
virtual real
wave/!iel particle
vacuum e-m raiation reaction !iel
normal orering symmetrical orering
plenum vacuum
convergent ivergent
coalescence e0pression
unetermine overetermine
groun mani!estation
noumenal phenomenal
chaotic orerly
noneterministiceterministic
ineterminate eterminate
=eraclitus 7armenies
creativity automaticity
love prie
poetry prose
connotative enotative
semantics synta0
6his is because an open system cannot be partitione into ual is5oint
sets which together escriptively e0haust the system. /n so the
system1 not able to be uni!ie at a purely !ormal level1 must always
mani!est !orms as ynamically changing i! it mani!ests them at all. 6he
system1 in other wors1 will always possess a mile which cannot be
e0clue by any logical 5u0taposition o! !ormal categories an !rom out
o! which utterly novel !orms will always be emerging in a way not
e0plicable in terms o! the !orms which have been previously mani!este
by the system. 6his is1 !or e0ample1 why a perturbative analysis o! a
quantum mechanical system always yiels a system which cannot be
valily represente in an energy eigenstate. 6he spatiotemporal/ causal
realm transcenant o! space an time. 3ausality is a mani!estation o! a
particular scale o! space an time having alreay been establishe.
3onsequently1 the process by which a particular scale o! space an time
is establishe or posite is itsel! not analyzable in terms o! causal
concepts. @ow emboie e0istence presupposes the prior !ouning o! a
particular spatiotemporal scale !rom out o! an unlimite set o! such
possible scales. 6he emboiment o! the iniviual must there!ore be
initiate !rom out o! a realm beyon "pace an 6ime1 an the ego so
emboie is sustaine in e0istence within the realm o! space an time by
the same process an activity by which it was originally emboie1 that
is by which the ;go was originally constitute as such.
6o assume that the human person or ego was constitute in a manner
whereby this ego is analyzable through a process o! !ormal or causal
reuction1 is to assume that its spatiotemporal scale is built up out o!
progressively smaller an smaller spatiotemporal scales. ?ut there can
be no !i0ing o! spatiotemporal scale !rom below !or this is blin process
which possesses within itsel! no natural stopping point in the hierarchy
o! possible particular spatiotemporal scales1 that is1 through a process o!
organization !rom below1 as it were. 6here is no natural stopping point
in the ascent !rom lower to higher spatiotemporal scales because the
lower scales o not comprise the higher an have no Knowlege o! them1
but the higher compreses the lower. 9nce the !orms o! space an time
are supplie1 one then enters the realm o! Aepresentation: prior to this
one is entirely in the realm o! Fill C in "chopenhauer_s senseD or its
potentiality. Fhen one asKs hat is the origin o! something as such1 one
is asKing !or a erivation or e0planation o! something which in no way
involves sel!-similarity or recursivelness1 such as the e0planation o!
certain subatomic particles in terms o! a set o! interacting particle-liKe
constituents. Fhen1 !or e0ample1 one asKs !or an e0planation !or
particles as such1 i.e.1 when one asKs !or an e0planation o! particlehoo
in general1 one is at once thrust outsie o! the realm o! reuctive
e0planations1 an one must turn to an e0planation involving a process or
organization which acts !rom above the level o! particle mani!estations.
;verything which we have been saying here perhaps intimates what
might be the meaning in ?uhist 7hilosophy o! the term1 "uchness.
'/2% Ht is thought that activity must be precee by the e0istence o!
either monistic or pluralistic substance so that any possible activity is
5ust the movement o! either atoms Cplural substanceD or the movement
associate with waves or oscillations Cmonistic substanceD.
/n e0ample o! the sustaining o! a phenomenal !orm against a
continual change in the unerlying groun is the egenerate
wave!unctions. 6he wave!unction represents the most that can be
Known about a quantum system1 but when egeneracy o! the
wave!unction e0ists1 it is possible !or the wave!unction to unergo
temporal evolution while one or more o! the observables groune in the
changing wave!unction persist unchange.
P: :oes the !act that a quantum system is in an energy superposition
state presuppose that the system is unergoing !luctuations in its energy?
/: Hn representing the wave!unction o! a comple0 quantum system in
terms o! an appro0imate set o! eigen!unctions1 one necessarily
introuces virtual transitions between the appro0imate eigenvalues o!
these eigen!unctions as a way o! representing the in!luence o! the
relatively small !luctuation component o! the =amiltonian o! the system.
6his is because an open system cannot be partitione into ual is5oint
sets which together escriptively e0haust the system. /n so the system1
not able to be uni!ie at a purely !ormal level1 must always mani!est
!orms as ynamically changing i! it mani!ests them at all. 6he system1
in other wors1 will always possess a mile which cannot be e0clue
by any logical 5u0taposition o! !ormal1 that is1 ually opposite1 categories
an !rom out o! which utterly novel !orms will always be emerging in a
way not e0plicable in terms o! the !orms which have been previously
mani!este by the system. 6his is1 !or e0ample1 why a perturbative
analysis o! a quantum mechanical system always yiels a system which
cannot be valily represente in an energy eigenstate.
6he concept o! nothingness is inamissible within quantum
mechanics since it requires that an unlimite set o! noncommuting
CincompatibleD observables be simultaneously zero. 6he spatiotemporal/
causal realm is necessarily sustaine through a process which itsel! is
transcenent o! space an time. 3ausality is a mani!estation o! a
particular scale o! space an time having alreay been establishe.
3onsequently1 the process by which a particular scale o! space an time
is establishe or posite is itsel! not analyzable in terms o! causal
concepts. @ow emboie e0istence presupposes the prior !ouning o! a
particular spatiotemporal scale !rom out o! an unlimite set o! such
possible scales. 6he emboiment o! the iniviual must there!ore be
initiate !rom out o! a realm beyon "pace an 6ime1 an the ego so
emboie is sustaine in e0istence within the realm o! space an time by
the same process or activity by which it originally became emboie1
that is1 by which the ;go was originally constitute as such.
6o assume that the human person or ego was constitute in a
manner whereby this ego is analyzable through a process o! !ormal or
causal reuction1 is to assume that its spatiotemporal scale is built up out
o! progressively small an smaller spatiotemporal scales. ?ut there can
be no !i0ing o! spatiotemporal scale !rom below !or this is blin process
which possesses within itsel! no natural stopping point in the hierarchy
o! possible particular spatiotemporal scales1 that is1 through a process o!
organization !rom below1 as it were. 6here is no natural stopping point
in the ascent !rom lower to higher spatiotemporal scales because the
lower scales o not comprise the higher an have no Knowlege o! them1
but the higher comprises the lower. 9nce the !orms o! space an time
are supplie1 one than enters the realm o! AepresentationV prior to this
one is entirely in the realm o! Fill Cin "chopenhauerGs senseD or its
potentiality. Fhen one asKs what is the origin o! something as such1 one
is asKing !or a erivation or e0planation o! something which in no way
involves sel!-similarity or recursiveness1 such as the e0planation o!
certain subatomic particles in terms o! a set o! interacting particle-liKe
constituents. Fhen1 !or e0ample1 one asKs !or an e0planation !or
particles as such1 i.e.1 when one asKs !or an e0planation o! particlehoo
in general1 one is at once thrust outsie o! the realm o! reuctive
e0planations1 an one must turn to an e0planation involving a process o!
origination which acts !rom above the level o! particle mani!estations.
;verything which we have been saying here perhaps intimates what
might be the meaning in ?uhist 7hilosophy o! the term1 "uchness.
>anuary *22N
6he !unamental error committe by the 7hilosophy o! 8in
Known as !unctionalism is the !ollowing. -unctionalists contraict
themselves by saying that the iniviual consciousness is e0haustively
escribable1 at least in principle1 as a !unction o! brain physiological
processes1 while treating the brain as an ultimately close system which
can1 again1 in principle1 be given a complete escription within the
conte0t o! some !uture physical theory. ?ut to say that consciousness is
a !unction o! the brain is to say that consciousness is liKene to !C0D with
the brain processes liKene to 0 itsel!. ?ut saying the 0 represents an
essentially close system is to eny the e0istence o! !C0D because 6 must
be accessible to the reach of f=6A" which implies that 6 cannot be close
system. 6his is the basic contraiction implie by !unctionalism.
@ovember 2)*$
6he brain may participate in the raically recursive structure
an ynamics o! consciousness1 but itsel!1 being a !inite system cannot
consistently represent true recursiveness.
?ut the !unctionalist may counter1 EH! consciousness is not a !unction o!
the brain1 then what1 may one asK1 is it a !unction o!?E H! consciousness
is recursive1 that is1 is merely a !unction o! itsel!1 then this consciousness
must be in!initely comple01 !or otherwise it is in principle impossible !or
consciousness to e0hibit itsel! within itsel!. 6he question naturally
arises as to whether the sel!-similarity o! consciousness is complete or
per!ect. Fhat maKes the iniviual consciousness an e0emplar o!
consciousness itsel! is not anything which1 can be given a !ormal
escription1 which is to say1 is ob5ective1 nor is it in principle possible
that the Key !eature which maKes my consciousness an e0emplar o!
3onsciousness - but which at the same time permits my consciousness to
be i!!erent !rom that o! yoursel! or some other person - that is1 nor is it
possible !or this !eature to be present to mysel!1 in the sense o!
constituting a !eature o! my presentational continuum or sub5ective
phenomenal realm. 6his leas us to attribute to consciousness per se1 or
consciousness as such1 a !eature which is neither completely !ormal nor
concrete. 6his leas to two possible conclusions about this important
istinction: *D either what is terme E!ormalE an what is terme
EconcreteE together o not constitute genuinely is5oint categories1 or 2D
consciousness occupies a realm !orever beyon the grasp o! is5oint
categories1 that is1 consciousness occupies1 i! you will1 the ine!inite
omain o! the e0clue mile1 the realm terme by the 4reeKs1
/peiron. 6he secon possibility is no oubt !amiliar to us an has been
suggeste many times within the mystical traitions o! virtually every
ma5or worl culture. 6he !ormer possibility is then perhaps the more
novel an interesting one. Fe may paraphrase it in the !ollowing
manner. EFhat is terme EconcreteE is itsel! partly constitute as an
abstract category an what is terme EabstractE always possesses some
worlly e0istence as a concrete entity. 6his view may !it in nicely with
the so-calle interactionist view o! min/brain1 which has been put
!orwar by 7opper an more !ully elaborate by ;ccles.
9ne reay means o! avoiing this contraiction is to !all bacK upon
psychophysical ualism.
4o1 by e!inition1 possesses what is calle !ree will. 8oreover1
=e possesses a will1 which is unconstraine in any conceivable way1 but
is only limite by an through itsel!. 6his means1 !or instance1 that i!
4o e0ists1 he oes so because he chose to e0ist. Fhen 4o chose to
e0ist1 he chose to rener his timeless1 unconitione ?eing into a
conitione ;0istence. Hn !act1 this is the only pure e0ample o! the
e0ercise o! !ree will: the e0ercising o! choice in the complete absence o!
any conitions whatever1 the choice to e0ist by an entity possessing
?eing but not e0istence. ?ut the only way in which a 4o which
genuinely e0ists might have ha a !ree choice as to whether or not =e
e0ists1 it must be the case that i! =e ha not e0iste be!ore - ever1 it
woul have been only because 4o ha chosen not to e0ist.
'/2N Ht woul be nonsensical to eman that the groun o! e0istence
be at once on a merely equal !ooting with all other particular e0istents
inhering within it1 namely1 that it be an e0istent thing. /lthough this
argument seems to suggest that 4o1 the groun o! all that e0ists1 oes
not itsel! e0ist1 we must realize that not to e0ist may be interprete in
two quite isparate ways: nothing may be unerstoo as a complete
absence or1 it may be unerstoo as that which is1 quite literally1 Eno
thingE.
(/2% @ow a being can only possess a genuinely !reely-wille choice
!rom among mutually e0clusive alternatives1 i.e.1 contraictories1 i! this
being itsel! transcens the unerlying categorical istinction o! these
alternative choices. ,nity behin phenomena means that there is some
over arching !orm1 which comprises1 e0plains1 or encompasses in some
way all the various passing mani!estations. 6his is what is calle !ormal
unity. ?ut the Kin o! unity we are speaKing o! an that the mystics
through the ages have spoKen o! whenever they re!erre to reality being
9ne1 is not a !ormal unity1 but a unity o! origin or origination. 6his is
the unity o! Fill rather than the usually intene meaning o! unity as
unity o! Aepresentation. -ormal unity always !alls short o!1 an cannot
e0haust1 still less outstrip1 the unity o! origin.
?ut we have not been strong enough in the manner in which we have
state our argument1 !or the !ree will o! 4o requires that1 i! 4o has
never in the past been in e0istence1 then this too was the result o! =is
choice. =ere we see that 4oGs choice o! e0istence !or himsel!1 which
is to say1 conitione1 as oppose to unconitione being requires1 o!
course1 that 4o be capable o! maKing choices utterly outsie the
continuum o! historical time. Ht requires that 4o possess an
unconitione e0istence. 6here can only be one entity that possesses an
unconitione e0istence. 6his !ollows because i! there were two or
more entities possessing unconitione e0istence1 we coul asK o! any o!
these entities1 what conitions le to the particular entity being what it is
rather then one o! the other entities possessing unconitione e0istence.
?ut this woul be to imply that each o! these entities possesse
conitione e0istence in the sense o! maintaining their mutual
istinctness. 6his highest e0pression o! !ree will constitutes its ultimate
characterization: the ability to act !rom outsie the spacetime continuum
altogether. Ht is perhaps alreay apparent !rom what has been sai thus
!ar that our concept o! 4oGs ?eing transcens the category o!
e0istence/none0istence.
>anuary *22N
/ny !reely wille action o! the observer must inuce a collapse
o! the wave!unction escribing the brain o! this observer. 6here is no
such thing as a purely EvoyeuristicE observation1 ue to the inevitable
in!luence that the observer has upon the system he is observing. 6his is
ue to either a change in the energy o! the system which is not
accompanie by a change in the energy o! the system containing both
the observer an the system he is observing - in this sense the observerGs
observation is no observation at all in the sense o! an operation which
engeners new Knowlege in the observer. 9r this is ue to an inuce
iscontinuous change in the wave!unction o! the system uner
observation. / !reely wille action oes not !it within the con!ines o!
either a eterminate spacetime or within a eterminate phase space.
8arch
2)*2
6he potential con!lict between istinct observers_ consciousnesses is
resolve i! each observer_s consciousness only resonantly tunes to its
own unique groun or vacuum state. ;0perimentally this coul be
investigate by comparing the observer-base quantum e!!ects o! an
observer observing his own brain state versus a i!!erent observer
observing these brain states.
/s remarKe in an earlier iscussion1 since the negation o! the
ineterminate is itsel! not a eterminate thing1 in the event that negation
remains a well-e!ine logical operation1 or1 i! negation requires prior
etermination in orer !or it to be e!ine as an operation1 it !ollows that
the ineterminate necessarily e0ists in an unconitione sense. "ince
the absolute negation o! the ineterminate oes not yiel what woul
appear on the sur!ace to be its !ormal opposite1 i.e.1 etermination1 the
principle o! etermination must lie within the ineterminate itsel!.
2/2% @egation1 there!ore1 can only be e!ine within a Kin o! local
!igure-groun system o! potential !orms or structures. Fithout the
assumption o! such a pre-e0isting1 !i0e gestalt system o! !orms an
relations1 the negation o! a negation oes not bring us bacK to the !orm
or relation with which we starte. 3hange o! the system o! relations an
!ormal structures which oes not rener negation sel!-inconsistent in the
manner allue to must merely be a local change which is groune in a
larger unchanging system o! metarelations an meta!orms/structures.
Fithin a close1 an hence atemporal1 system o! categories there is no
!unamental istinction between !orms1 meta-!orms1 meta-meta-!orms1
etc. @egation is not e!inable within an open system o! categories
where raical1 that is1 merely genuine1 temporality e0ists. 6his is what is
meant by our assertion1 mae elsewhere alreay that Etemporality is the
irreucibility o! !unction to !orm.E
6his !ollows logically: H! ? is not b/1 then either ? = / or ? is a
component o! /. 6his is1 i! course1 i! we are to preserve the logical law
o! the e0clue mile. 6his is all to say that Ethe principle o!
etermination must lie within the ineterminate itsel!E is to say that what
are calle EeterminateE an EineterminateE must not be is5oint
categoriesV rather1 the eterminate must re!er to the class o! !orms which
can be assume by the ineterminate. "o there is not negation o! the
ineterminate in general because there clearly can not be a concept o!
the ineterminate which merely equals the sum o! the negations o! all
possible eterminations. Fe might suppose that the ineterminate is the
integration o! all possible !orms1 both mani!est an non-mani!est. 6he
act o! mani!estation is logically prior an not reucible to the act o!
particular negation through the negation o! a particular non-mani!est
!orm.
/ theory survives passage through many stages o! revision because it is
Rstable against tinKeringSV it is a RrobustS theory1 in other wors. ?ut
what1 may we asK1 maKes !or robustness o! theories? -or one1 the basic
elements o! the theory must start out vague an overetermine.
/lthough the progress o! the theory1 at least in its initial stages1 epens
upon an illusion o! unique etermination or only slight
uneretermination o! its basic concepts1 equations1 etc. "o it is
actually the relationship o! the initial eterminate meanings o! the basic
theoretical elements with respect to the myria latent meanings secretly
!alling within each term_s RpenumbraS which supplies the groun !rom
which the theory is to success!ully evelop. "tability in this process o!
the growth o! theories is greater i! the basic concepts are constant with
only their representations !le0ibly open to change.
2/2% /n this is what is meant by the assertion that mani!estation as
such1 that is1 within an open system o! potential categories1 taKes place
not through a mere act o! uncovering o! that which alreay e0ists in
potentia. 6his is why the metaphor o! consciousness as merely a Kin o!
illuminating light that reveals the pre-e0istent ultimately !alls short o!
imaginatively capturing what consciousness is in its essence. Ht is rather
through the continuous activity o! consciousness that the !orms o!
thought an perception are sustaine as suchV consciousness creates
!orms that have never be!ore e0iste - !orms which are absolutely novel
occurrencesT 6he number o! possible mani!estations o! consciousness
sustaine by it is in!inite in number1 but this set o! !orms1 though
in!inite1 possesses merely enumerable in!inity1 that is1 an in!inity o!
moes o! etermination as !orm. 6he in!inity en5oye by the
ineterminate groun o! ?eing1 i.e.1 pure consciousness1 is itsel!
nonenumerableT 9ne may intuitively realize that there is no inherent
reason why oneGs consciousness coul not be structure with a greater
subtlety than that o! which oneGs own brain is capable an this is because
the structuring o! oneGs consciousness has1 in !act1 evelope in
comple0ity along with the growth an greater structuring o! oneGs brain
!rom in!ancy into aulthoo.
3ontrary to what many philosophers o! min ten to believe1 qualia or1
what are sometimes re!erre to as Eraw !eelsE1 Ewhat itGs liKe-nessE1 etc.1
is not what is the most inherently mysterious thing about consciousness.
6here is something that goes towars maKing a given iniviualGs
consciousness what it is1 that is1 a particular e0ample o! consciousness
itsel!1 which is never given within the iniviual e0perience o! any
conscious person. /n that property is simply whatever is common to
all actual an possible iniviual consciousness an which there!ore
cannot be unique to my iniviual consciousness in maKing it mine as
oppose to yours. 6his property is more general than the most general
property o! my sub5ective e0perience o! which maKes it mine1 in other
worsV it is not concrete1 but abstract an so cannot be relate to any o!
the qualia coloring or !leshing out1 i! you will1 my particular
consciousness. 6his yiels the parao0ical result that it is possible !or
one to be conscious in the complete an utter absence o! any qualia
whatever. 6he only alternative to this is to suppose that there is only one
consciousness that is simply structure i!!erently by i!!erent brains1
say1 in the case o! human beings.
/pril 2)**
9nly a transcenental min
woul be capable o! !orming a conception o! consciousness as such an
then only by being able to e0perience !or himsel! the spectrum o!
istinct iniviual consciousness_ so as to !orm the abstract category
wherein each iniviual consciousness taKes on the aitional1 trans- or
supra-sub5ective1 as oppose to intersub$ective1 meaning as mere
e6emplars of consciousness per se. =ere we see the intimate connection
between the problem o! other mins an the problem o! an Other 2in1
namely that o! the e0istence o! 4o. -aith in the !ormer seems to
presuppose !aith in the latter.
6he act o! unerlying mani!estation is non-representational an
hence necessarily non-logical - again1 not the mere negation o! a
particular nonmani!est !orm1 that is1 not the mere negation o! a negation
o! a particular mani!est !orm. 6his act o! mani!estation which is not the
mere negation o! negation is there!ore intentional because the ob5ect or
goal o! the act is not e!ine prior to the act which is not a mere
selecting out !rom amongst. Hn other wors1 the mani!estation o!
particular !orms !rom out o! the ineterminate groun arises not !rom the
bringing into appropriate relateness a number o! parts1 not !rom the
supplying o! some aitional necessary conitions. 6his remins us o!
our observation that the appearance o! a particular state within an
ergoic system possessing an in!inite number o! possible states is
necessarily in!initesimal. /ll Esel!-organizationE is merely an
appearance o! such1 an in reality originates through the interaction o!
EelementsE or EconstituentsE with the ineterminate groun which
supports their e0istence an not merely through their mutual interaction.
6his is why the phenomenon o! sel!-organization cannot be ElawliKe.E
6wo EelementsE are relate to one another never in any irect EphysicalE
sense1 but through each being relate to the same prephenomenal
groun.
>esus1 in a philosophical moment1 might have well sai1 EH! it is possible
!or you to !orget me1 it is possible !or you to !orget everything you
Know1 in which case1 oblivion is !or you a real possibility.E
>une 2)**
H! /1 it
is true that one only Knows one_s own psychological states an ?1 there
is no all-Knowing1 all-embracing transcenental groun o! being1 i.e.1
/o an 31 only eternal oblivion awaits one upon eath1 then :1 it
!ollows that metaphysical solipsism is true by e!ault. "o the converse
o! this is also true1 namely that
b: Z [b/ v b? v b3\
?ut intuitively1
nb/ Z [b? & b3\o & nb? Z [b3 & b/\o & nb3 Z [b/ &
b?\o
3onsequently1
b: Z b?V
which is to say that the !alsity o! solipsism implies the e0istence o! 4o.
Qd
9nly the !act o! the e0istence o! 4o grouns consciousness in a
concept o! consciousness an vouchsa!es consciousness_ ob$ectivity an
so the consciousness o! the other as more than a metaphor that onesel!
arbitrarily aopts. "o-calle efault solipsism shoul then be e!ine as
metaphysical solipsism in which oneself is not /o. Hntuitively we Know
that the other of the other e6ists1 namely that the notion o! the X
th
person
is a meaning!ul concept. =owever1 in the absence o! a transcenental
being who is the groun o! being1 there seems no real reason to suppose
that there is any real istinction between the M
r
an the X
th
person1 that
is1 no real istinction between the other an the other of the other. =ow
oes this istinction relate to that o! the other an onself as other% Hn the
absence o! the all embracing1 all Knowing groun o! being1
consciousness !orever must remain a metaphor an hence the mystery o!
consciousness must remain isoluble1 e0cept i! the consciousness o! the
sel! is in !act consciousness as such an eternally pree0istent. 6he
psychological states o! others may only in this case be Known in more
than a mere metaphorical sense i! all o! them can be Known on an equal
!ooting wherein the istinction o! sel! vs. other is less than !unamental1
which is to say erivative.
>une 2)**
H! human consciousness is 5ust a transitory structuring o! a more
!unamental consciousness1 e.g1 quantum vacuum consciousness !iel1
then iniviual human e0perience is rational because the e0periences o!
each an every human can be !itte together into the larger picture
represente by the e0perience o! this !unamental consciousness1 that is1
iniviual human e0perience can be reprocesse in terms o! how it
compares an contrasts with that o! every other human whose iniviual
conscious e0periences have been cumutatively epostite into a rational
matri0 o! collective e0perience. /n apt metaphor here is that o! the taste
bus o! a tongue in which the person whose tongue is oing the tasting
is aKin to 4o while the iniviual taste bus collecting the taste sensory
ata are the entire population o! sel!-conscious beings.
epi=!cbK
;very time 7hilosophy has in its long history prouce a
conclusive result1 this result has been taKen !rom her an mae into a
separate iscipline. -or this reason 7hilosophy may be liKene to the
!allow acreage mistaKen !or in!ertile lan. 7sychology on the other
han1 seems these ays to yiel prouctive results only when it borrows
!rom other isciplines1 e.g.1 arti!icial intelligence1 cognitive science1
brain physiology1 biophysics1 pharmacology1 criminology1 statistics1
anthropology1 sociology1 sociobiology1 economics1 linguistics1 etc. with
relatively little istinctive scienti!ic content to call its own. 9nce one o!
the greatest an most in!luential schools o! this in!ant science1
?ehaviorism1 now seems to have been e0ploe by the !ailure o! har /H
on the one han1 an the success o! 3homsKian linguistics on the other.
/lthough pure or general 7sychology no longer seems able to contribute
much to the avancement o! its science1 the !iel nonetheless possesses a
bright outlooK in light o! an interisciplinary spirit o! research1 which is
to say1 on account o! its philosophy o! applie science.
epi=
6he unerlying psychological rive spurring all human eneavors
towars greatness is not per -reu the esire !or se0ual grati!ication1 but
the esire to be not worshippe as a go1 but to be worshippe as 4o
=imsel!. 6his is what cause .uci!erGs own!all1 not his esire to grati!y
his Enasty bits1E supposing he possesse them.
6o abstract is to ignore etails !or the saKe o! noticing similarities
between things1 eveloping concepts an e!ining classes an their
relations. Fe are very limite in the number o! simultaneous etails that
we are able to cognize in the so-calle Eworl aroun us1E an so this
worl cannot help but taKe on !or us a highly stylize appearance1 each
moment a scene that is part o! a epiction within a story tol to a small
chil. 6his reassuring cartoon o! a worl1 !ille with myria
mythological entities - tables1 chairs1 animals1 trees1 etc. - the human
!orm itsel! is a mere conveniently symbolic point o! re!erence to guie a
eveloping min through its gestating worl1 c.!.1 Rsoul !ormationS
school o! theoicy.
Qd
"ociety1 the e0change o! ieas1 inso!ar as it is not the mere act o!
mutual signi!ying or labeling !or one another things an their
happenings1 is to be liKene to an economy where banK checKs1 never
cashe1 are trae !or commoities which are never tangibly prouce
an trans!erre1 so that no one in this economy ever really Knows what
has been bought or what that which has been bought or sol really costs.
/ parao0 is only a contraiction within an in!ormation system which
oes not amit the presence o! that system-speci!ic ambiguity.
:ualism an :isemboie ;0istence
:ualism1 as a philosophical position within the philosophy o! min1 can
be seen as an outgrowth o! a prescienti!ic1 religious belie! in the
e0istence o! an immortal soul which set human beings apart !rom the
rest o! nature. 6his soul enowe the human being with will1 purpose
an sel!-awareness1 as well as a place within a transcenent orer
beyon earthly li!e. Hn this way human beings were thought Cthrough the
concept o! the soulD to have originate through the ownwar causation
o! ivine creativity. 6he concept o! the soul1 which is the precursor to
the philosophical octrine o! ualism Cthrough :escartesD1 ha1 in its
turn1 an even oler origin in the animism o! prehistoric peoples.
/lthough the octrine o! an immortal soul1 o! an animating spirit
capable o! operating an e0isting inepenently o! the physical boy1
inee1 seems to open the way to belie! in such phenomena as ghosts1
poltergeists1 etc.1 ualism as a philosophical octrine oes not
necessarily imply or even permit the e0istence o! such EsupernaturalE
phenomena. Hn what !ollows1 we will try to argue that although ualism
can be given a rational an philosophical 5usti!ication1 supernatural
phenomena1 such as ghosts1 which might seem to be implie by this
octrine1 are really not consistent with it. 6he particular variety o!
ualism which we believe to have a scienti!ic/e0perimental basis which
at the same time seems to e0clue the e0istence o! isemboie spirits
or ghosts is the one put !orwar by >ohn 3. ;ccles in his booK1 =ow the
"el! 3ontrols Hts ?rain C="3H?D. ;ccles_ hypothesis o! min-brain
interaction is that o! the microsite. 6he basic iea behin ;ccles_
microsite hypothesis is that the human brain possesses !inely-etaile
structures responsible !or the generation o! neural impulses which
operate through e0change o! such small quantities o! energy that these
structures can be moi!ie in a probabilistic manner through Equantal
processes.E ;ccles presents a rather technical iscussion in sections 2.(
an 2.' o! his booK !or a quantum mechanical moel o! the operation o!
these quantal processes. 6hese smallest physical structures o! the neural
synapse which can be irectly in!luence by the min are what ;ccles
calls enrons. 6he mental structures which inter!ace with these
enrons are calle by ;ccles1 psychons. @ot all o! the etails o! the
enron structure nee be iscusse here. "uch a iscussion1 as well as
the etaile one concerning quantal processes o! min-brain interaction1
are beyon the scope o! this paper an woul perhaps obscure our basic
question. =owever1 some basic components o! ;ccles_ enron are
iscusse below to ai in our unerstaning o! how ;ccles escribes
synaptic !iring. 6he basics o! how the enron is structure an
!unctions will perhaps show how nonphysical in!luences o! the
iniviualGs min may materially a!!ect the overall !unctioning o! his
brain. 6his may be only to show how the !unctioning o! the brain is
open to nonphysical in!luences an how brain !unction is not completely
etermine without a brain-min interaction liKe that propose by
;ccles. 8oreover1 the iscussion o! quantal processes by ;ccles in
chapter 21 re!erre to above1 is important in this connection i! only
because1 in it1 ;ccles seems to emonstrate mathematically that the
energies require to alter the probabilities o! neural synaptic !iring1
through the triggering o! bouton e0ocytosis1 are comparable in size to
the quantum Ezero-point energyE which results !rom =eisenberg energy
uncertainty1 in turn1 originating inepenently !rom the brain itsel!.
/ccoring to ;ccles1 the probability o! bouton e0ocytosis in neurons1
particularly o! neurons within the supplementary motor array C"8/D1
can be altere by the min o! the iniviual without violation o!
conservation o! energy. 6his is because1 as 8argenau states1 as quote
by ;ccles in ="3H?1 Esome !iels1 such as the probability !iel o!
quantum mechanics1 carry neither energy nor matter.E ?outon
e0ocytosis is the mechanism by which the neural synapse !ires1 through
the emission o! vesicles o! neurotransmitter into the cle!t o! the synapse.
;ccles believes Cchp. (.'D that Ethe synaptic vesicles are recognize as
quantal pacKages o! the pre!orme transmitter molecules... that are reay
!or release as a quantal pacKage into the synaptic cle!t in a unitary
operation.E 6his unitary operation1 particularly !or the cluster o! neurons
o! the supplementary motor array1 where mental intentions are
translate1 accoring to ;ccles1 into a set pattern o! neural synaptic
!irings leaing to a particular boily action - this unitary operation is that
o! the action o! the iniviual min upon the microsite which ;ccles
believes to be the paracrystalline presynaptic vesicular gri. E6he
ientity theorist is committe to the octrine that mental events per se
cannot contribute to the generation o! neural events1 which is a octrine
o! the closeness o! Forl *.E 6he Eprobability !iels1E re!erre to
above1 relate to a variety o! i!!erent patterns o! synaptic !iring1 an so
are not themselves isemboie an inepenently e0isting since they
are probabilities o! i!!erent physical brain states - they are meaningless
without an alreay e0isting brain. 6he iea o! isemboie ghosts or
spirits is inconsistent with this interactionist view o! the Emin-brain
inter!aceE as set !orth by ;ccles in ="3H?. 6his is because the e0istence
o! a physical brain is presuppose by the probability !iels C!or i!!erent
coorinate patterns o! neural synaptic !iringD. 9n the other han1
cerebral !unctioning without the ability o! these probabilities to be
trans!orme into actual1 physically observable patterns o! neural
synaptic !iring leaves no room !or the operation o! will an intention.
?orrowing !rom 7opper_s le0icon1 the openness o! Forl * oes not
mean its openness merely to other parts o! itsel!1 but o! its openness to
Forl 2 an/or Forl $1 the e0periential an mathematical worls1
respectively.
6emporal coherence can only be e0plaine in terms o! the e0istence o!
temporal bubbles o! non-in!initesimal uration which e0hibit
cohesiveness an which are capable o! unergoing trans!ormations over
time.
>une 2)**
"ince a time imension alreay obtains within the bubble1
any temporal change unergone by the bubble as a whole must be
orthogonal to temporal change within the bubble. 6he temporal
cohesiveness o! consciousness woul surely be isrupte within a strong
gravitational !iel or even within a region o! spacetime wherein the
presence o! gravity is very much weaKer than * gee. 6his is because
biological an subsequently human evolution tooK place entirely within
the presence o! a * gee gravitation !iel an iniviual human
consciousness !irst arose ue to the evolving brain_s having learne to
e0ploit a pree0istent Rconsciousness !ielS so as to bypass hereto!ore
ever-present restriction impose by blocK-heae an clunKy1 stimulus-
response computing. 6emporal coherence1 o! course requires that time
possess a imensionality Rtranscening unityS. "o temporal coherence
or cohesiveness" rather !orever outstrips the resources o! uni!ie
escriptions in terms o! spatial relationships or eterministic processes
Cimplying spatilize time1 e.g1 ;instein_s RblocK universeSD
6here is something parao0ical about the ineterminate1 an that is that
its negation is not itsel! eterminate1 an this seems to imply a Kin o!
contraiction. 6his woul ten to suggest that ineterminacy is not an
abstract category or property o! somethingV rather it is the substance o!
Aeality an constitutes its groun. Fe sai earlier that the operation o!
negation was only e!ine within a particular system o! categories. 6his
assertion may be better unerstoo in terms o! the composition o! a
EwholeE in terms o! various sums o! complementary1 or is5oint1 parts.
6he negation o! a given set or category woul be another set1 category1
or sum thereo!1 such that1 taKen together the original set plus its
complement woul reconstitute the whole comprising them. 3learly1
then1 there is no possibility o! e!ining the negation o! a category which
results !rom its abstraction !rom a EwholeE not possessing closure with
regar to the total number o! i!!erent possible categories1 i.e.1 !inite
carinality. Hn other wors1 since what we will call an Eopen setE
possesses a nonenumerable carinality1 no particular number o! is5oint
sets may be e!ine !or it which e0haustively covers the open set: i! no
possible escription e0hausts the set1 then1 in particular1 no two
component sets may constitute a is5ointly e0haustive escription o! the
set. ?ut this is only another way o! saying that one cannot speci!y a
category such that it an its negation con5ointly e0haust such an open
set.
>uly 2)**
1ut what about a set that is an organic whole such that it
cannot be "i*i"e" into two "is:oint !arts? In the case of a cellular
automata9 the algorithm "ri*ing the temoral e*olution of the
simulation woul" not be fully formalizable; ,he "is:ointness of two
subsets means that in the case of the original abstraction from the
whole <the set that is to be "is:ointly com!ose"9 not the .hoe as
such= that forme" each subset wherein a 3s!ecific?= coect!on of
"etails was ignore"2treate" as irrele*ant in or"er to constitute each9
those su!!resse" "etails of each subset necessarily fin" themsel*es
inclu"e" in the category of the other subset; ,hese consi"erations
!rom!t us to in*oke a new !rinci!le9 namely that the +ynam!cs o,
the se, !s ocate+ !n the other. ,his suggests that the most intimate
knowle"ge of the self is gaine" not by the self looking within but
through obser*ation an" e>amination of the beha*ior of the other;
,his me"itation on the nature of negation has le" us to the
realization that the o!eration of negation is itself an in"eterminate
o!eration;
/n this is to say that the operation o! negation is not e!inable on an
open set. "uch an open set cannot possess a unique !ormal unity o!
structure. /n arbitrary number o! possible incomplete uni!ications o! the
set may nonetheless be pro!!ere. Ht is only meaning!ul to thinK o! the
negation o! a eterminate structure or thing within a particular system o!
categories. 6he e!inition o! the !unction o! negation is itsel! system
epenent1 an so1 when one speaKs o! the ineterminate in general" one
is engage in a subtle sel!-contraiction1 subtle in the sense that the
notion o! contraiction is1 itsel!1 a logical or syntactical notion whereas
the origin o! the particular contraiction !acing us1 with respect to the
notion o! the in general eterminate an its negation1 is one o! a
istinctly semantic nature1 an synta0 an semantics are normally
unerstoo as being mutually irreucible. 7arao0ically1 the essence o!
what is calle thin'ing is the activity o! taKing thought in its
unassuming1 un-sel!-conscious1 naturally occurring process1 as the ob5ect
o! thought itsel!. /ll su!!icient causes1 so-calle are merely necessary
causes operating in the presence o! that which complements an
completes their action so that we may say that their action consists
solely o! an enabling or triggering o! a sel!-meiating process through its
being impresse upon those necessarily abstract entities an guiing
them in the imper!ect imitation o! this their groun. Fe can never
speci!y the complete sum o! necessary causes constituting the su!!icient
cause o! a particular phenomenal event. H! all that really e0ists is the
/bsolute1 the Forl 8in1 then that is one thing1 but i! there e0ists a
plurality o! mins1 then there must e0ist that which is itsel! not min1
Qd
!or we must account !or the EbetweennessE o! the various mins
constituting this plurality. 6he plurality o! mins necessarily
presupposes a spatiotemporal or at the very least an intersub$ective
continuum an a means o! emboiment meiate by !orms. 6he plural
state o! min cannot be eternal as it is epenent upon space an time
an so must be limite both spatially an temporally. 9nly those aspects
o! the iniviual min which are not containe within the spatiotemporal
conte0t are continuous with the groun !rom which the iniviual ego
originally sprang an lies within the inmost being o! that iniviual1
Qd
which1 again
>uly 2)**
it fins most intimate testimony of in the other.
-or this is the very same groun !rom which space an time are
themselves originally constitute. @ow here is the rub: i! there is not
is5oint ual ecomposition o! the whole1 then the other Can not 5ust
some metaphysical transcenental otherD is transcenentally other.
-ebruary *22N
6his notion is very much along the lines set !or by
"chopenhauer in his metaphysical system1 itsel! owing much to Oant.
6here is not a ual constituting o! space an time1 one mental1 the other1
physical. 6he action unerlying the constituting o! the spatiotemporal
continuum is prior to the !ormal istinction o! physical an mental. 6his
is why spiritually an metaphysically-mine physicists an other
scientists are beginning to looK to the eep connections subsisting within
the so-calle nonlocally-connecte quantum !iel1 or vacuum1 !or the
unerlying basis o! iniviual consciousness1 as these nonlocal
connections within the quantum !iel are responsible !or those newly
iscovere quantum e!!ects which seem to violate the hereto!ore
inviolable limitations pose by relativistic causality1 e.g.1 conservation o!
momentum-energy. /n so the iniviual oes not transcen the
limitations o! his own ego by looKing beyon the bounaries which
e!ine his ego as separate !rom the egos o! other iniviuals1 that is1
within the space set up 5ust on the other sie o! the ego bounaries an
complementary to the space in which the person has his iniviual
being1 but by looKing within himsel! where these ego bounaries o not
e0ist an have never once e0iste. 6his is much liKe iving so eep
own a well that one reaches the subterranean groun-water with which
the waters o! all wells in a !iel are mutually continuous.

>une *22%
@onlocal connections !orm the basis o! communication within a
single min1 while local connections !orm the basis !or potential
communication between mins. 6his is ue to the intimate role o! the
iniviual observer in the partitioning o! reality into real vs. virtual
is5oint omains. -or instance1 the status o! a particular particle or !iel
as being real or EmerelyE virtual is entirely epenent upon the inertial
!rame o! re!erence o! some particular observer. H! we conveniently thinK
o! the reuction o! the wavepacKet representing a particle in a
superposition state Co! i!!erent virtual versions o! itsel!D1 then we see
that1 in light o! the !rame-epenence o! the real vs. virtual categorical
istinction1 accelerate motion1 an1 in essence1 gravitation1 must play a
crucial role in the process o! the collapse o! the wave!unction or the
EconversionE o! a virtual particle into a real particle. ,his is because it
is not a mere misnomer that the term #*irtual% is a!!lie" to both
!articles an" states; 6his is perhaps relate to 7enroseGs claim that
quantum gravity is relevant to the process o! reuction o! the
wavefunction in the absence of its ecoherence through environmental
interactions1 i.e.1 what 7enrose terms ob5ective reuction.
6he collapse o! a wave!unction not possessing bounary
conitions1 that is1 compose o! a continuum o! an in!inite number o!
eigen!unctions1 creates an in!inite quantity o! in!ormation. /nother way
o! seeing the necessity o! a 7enrose-mechanism o! ob5ective reuction o!
the wave!unction is to thinK in terms o! the spacetime within which the
wave!unction must be e0presse. -irstly1 let us taKe note o! the !act that
the wave!unction oes not itsel! have a EphysicalE meaningV only the
square o! the wave!unction represents the measurement o! physical
observables1 that is the probability ensities o! their associate
eigenvalues. 6he wave!unction itsel!1 rather1 represents the most
complete escription o! a quantum system - the most that an observer1 or
hypothetical observer1 can possibly Know about the system represente
by this wave!unction. 8oreover1 the phase o! the wave!unction has1
apparently1 no absolute physical meaning1 only the i!!erence in the
phase o! two or more wave!unctions/ eigen!unctions. Fe may suppose1
hypothetically1 that secretly1 a necessary conition !or the proper
normalization o! a given wave!unction might be the !ollowing conition:
the sum o! the phase i!!erences o! consecutive eigen!unctions must a
to an integral multiple o! pi in the case o! a purely symmetric
wave!unction1 whereas the sum o! phase i!!erences o! consecutive
eigen!unctions must a to an integral multiple o! pi/21 in the case o! a
purely antisymmetric wave!unction. :espite the !act that the
!requencies o! each eigen!unction are istinct1 the collective temporal
evolution o! all o! the eigen!unctions comprising a given wave!unction
manages to maintain this precise relationship1 state above1 !or the
eigen!unction phase i!!erences1 but only i! this temporal evolution taKes
place within an inertial !rame o! re!erence.
9! course1 there shoul be a relatively simple way to prove this
assertion mathematically. 6he proo! o! this may be relate to the !act
that a given wave!unction may be e0pane into a unique spectrum o!
eigen!unctions which1 in turn1 can be iniviually e0pane into
eigen!unction spectra with respect to an incompatible
operator/observable. 6he temporal evolution o! 7siC01tD is 5ust a constant
multiplie by a time-varying CrotatingD phase !actor which1 !or an
iniviual wave!unction1 possesses no physical signi!icance - only
relative i!!erences in amplitue phase has a physical meaning.
@ow i! the human brain is not capable o! entering a peculiar quantum
coherent state1 then there is no question o! comparing the phases o! the
brainGs wave!unction1 or its relevant nonlocally-connecte components1
with the phases o! each eigen!unction o! the quantum system being
EobserveE by the iniviual whose brain is in question in this regar. Ht
is well Known that ecoherence an collapse o! a given wave!unction
will taKe place through the entanglement o! the wave!unction with its
surrouning environment. 8ight a wave!unction become entangle with
the quantum coherent state o! the observerGs brain1 irectly resulting in
the collapse o! this wave!unction?
Qd
?ut the entanglement o! one
coherent wave!unction with another shoul merely prouce a new
superposition - not ecoherence.
9ctober *22&
9n this view1 the min o! the iniviual1 i! only one among a
many1 must itsel!1 be a Kin o! abstraction within the ,niversal 8in1
but an abstraction that is always being re-thought1 since the operation o!
the iniviual min is not generally !ormalizable.
6here is no such thing as nothing. @othing1 by its very nature1 is a
none0istent entity: it is its own negation. Fe might be tempte to say
then that Esomething1E being the opposite o! nothing1 must e0ist. ?ut not
5ust any EsomethingE constitutes the opposite or negation o!
nothing/nothingness1 but only a something which is1 itsel!1 the unity o!
all that might possibly e0ist1 an the very essence o! which is to e0ist.
Qd
9n this view what we must term /o is the truest negation o!
nothingness an so also the ultimate bootstrap process.
8ay *22%
?ut i! the worl is in reality an open system1 which is to say1 not
merely enumerably in!inite or unlimite1 but nonenumerably in!inite1
then this system transcens any unity o! !orm whatever1 even though
perhaps possessing unity o! origin. 6he negation o! such a bounless
totality beyon totalizing coul not constitute an actual nothingness.
/n so there is a category !or that which transcens the ual opposite
categories o! e0istence versus none0istence.
Hn other wors1 nothing1 not being possible because containing
within itsel! its own negation1 implies that there must have always been
something Cor otherD. ?ut the only guarantee that there has always been
something is the e0istence o! something which contains within itsel! its
own a!!irmation1 i! you will1 the reason !or its own e0istence. /
!unamental an most general property o! a thing which contains within
itsel! the reason !or its own e0istence is that o! recursion1 something
which is e!ine solely in terms o! itsel!1 a recursive structure. 6here are
logical grouns !or believing that there can be only one recursive
structure1 that there can be only one sel!-e0istent entity - with this entity
being the EgrounE !or e0istence o! all other entities. / recursive
structure1 i! it may be thought to be composite1 woul be compose o!
parts which are totally interepenent upon one anotherV no part is the
cause o! any other without also being itsel! cause by this other part an
so i! this recursive structure ha a beginning in time1 it must have been
given e0istence through a pre-e0isting1 broaer an more comple0
recursive structure. Fe see now that a given !inite recursive structure
comes into e0istence through a process o! uncovering or abstraction
!rom a more comple0 whole - through a process o! negation. Fe are
remine o! 8ichelangeloGs claim that a truly great worK o! sculpture
alreay e0ists within its marble blocK an that all he i in orer to
prouce his worKs o! sculpture was to !ree them !rom the marble in
which they were imprisone.
6he istinction between the EmentalE an the EphysicalE may be
rawn in the !ollowing way: both are wholes compose o! parts1 both
possess principles o! organization1 but what is terme a physical whole
is e!ine e0clusively in terms o! its constituent parts while the EpartsE
which EcomposeE what is terme a mental whole are1 themselves1
e!ine in terms o! the whole which they compose. 6he reconstruction
o! a mental whole must be guie in a top - own manner whereas the
construction o! a physical whole must be guie in a bottom - up
manner. 6he principle o! a mental whole must e0ist prior to its actual
realization C in terms o! whatever substanceD. Fithout substance change
is not possible. 3oe0tensive with this principle is: change owes itsel! to
a lacK o! etermination1 to a e!icit o! ?eing1 to negation. -rom which it
at once !ollows that substance1 rather than being the seat o! being1 o!
thinghoo1 as common sense conceives it to be1 it owes its e0istence1 to
the contrary1 to a lacK o! being. Ht is not possible !or a eterminate thing
to be mae up out o! substance inso!ar as this thing possesses
etermination.
>uly 2)**
9ur remarKs about the processes o! abstraction1
negation1 is5ointness1 organic wholeness1 the relationship o! sel! an
other1 must be ree0amine in light o! the !unamentally istinct moes
o! sel!-organization o! mental vs. physical wholes.
@ovember *22%
Fe are all !amiliar with the humorous philosophical aage that
Etime e0ists because otherwise everything woul happen all at once.E
/lthough this aage is usually e0presse in a !acetious vein1 there is
perhaps greater signi!icance behin it than many people realize. H!
Aeality possesse no totalization C to borrow !rom the post-moern
le0iconD1 that is1 i! Aeality is not a ,nity o! any Kin C because as a
totality Aeality cannot be a mere Kin or sortalD1 then Aeality cannot be
given or represente within a single moment1 but a plural mani!ol o!
moments are require !or its e0hibition/e0pression. 6here is perhaps an
argument to be mae !or an in!inity o! moments CnoniscreteD being
require !or this: a !inite sequence o! moments may be equivalent to a
single moment. /n in!inite space cannot necessarily maintain its
orthogonality towar possible time imensions. Hn other wors1 there
can be no global EnowE or Epresent.E
E7astE1 EpresentE an E!utureE are merely relative an not absolute
preicates. Hn !act the incompatibility o! temporal preicates which so
trouble
au=
8c6aggart may be absolutely require in orer to guarantee
the possibility o! the continuity o! EtimeGs !low.E 6he reality o! the so-
calle specious present woul also seem to require this incompatibility
o! merely relative temporal preicates.
Ht is easy enough to see that continuity is require !or the subsistence o!
what is calle historical time which we will hence!orth re!er to as
temporality. Hneterminate substance is the only basis !or the continuity
unerlying all change. 6here are many reasons !or !avoring a top-own
as oppose to a bottom-up structuring o! comple0 in!ormational
systems. Fe may point up the truth o! this statement by listing a number
o! e0amples. *D "ocratesG view on eucation. 2D 8ichelangeloGs view o!
the act o! creation in sculpture. $D 6he =inu unerstaning o! the Ioi
as a 7lenum. (D 6he >ames - ?ergson - 7opper theory o! the Eorigin o!
consciousness.E 'D 3haos theoryGs view o! seemingly chaotic systems as
ultra-high ensity in!ormation systems. &D 6he holographic moel o!
!unamental particles an their interactions. %D 6he !act that the
e!!ectiveness o! natural selection presupposes the e0istence o! a comple0
gene regulatory hierarchy. ND 6he !act that technological evelopment
consists entirely1 in principle1 o! increasing sophistication in the
manipulation o! bounary conitions to a pre-e0isting ynamism which
itsel! oes not amit o! any moi!ication whatever.
6he notion that orerly structures an systems can be !orme out
o! the ranom shu!!ling over an immense perio o! time o! an equally
immense state space Ce!ine in terms o! abstract variablesD1
presupposes the operation o! a Kin o! progress-oriente Eratcheting
e!!ect.E 7urely ranom shu!!ling o! state space con!igurations means
that no !eebacK1 either positive or negative e0ists between the various
states o! the space1 that all o! the states are equally weighte in
probability. 6his notion o! what is calle an ;rgoic "ystem1 moreover1
violates the principle o! relativity in the sense that1 although i!!erent
probabilistic weighting o! particular states1 or1 clusters o! states1 is
isallowe !or a case o! genuinely ranom shu!!ling o! states1
nevertheless1 the probability weighting o! certain state space
con!igurations is permitte to be moi!ie with time. "peci!ically1 they
are moi!ie with time because somehow once a E!avorableE
con!iguration has been Ehit upon1E it becomes much more probable in
the !uture ue to the in!luence o! :arwinian natural selection. 6here
seems to be two signi!icantly i!!erent classes o! mutations upon which
natural selection operates as a purely critical1 as oppose to a creative1
process. -irstly1 an most importantly1 those mutations occurring to the
regulatory genes1 an seconly1 those mutations a!!ecting the Kins o!
proteins which are mae available to a eveloping organism1 the so-
calle point1 or structural1 genetic mutations.
H! a Econscious computerE is ever evelope in what will
unoubtely be the !ar istant !uture1 this mysterious property o! such a
evice will in no way stem solely !rom the esign or blueprint by which
its engineers will have conceive its constructionV the blueprint will1 o!
course1 be a necessary component in the realization o! such a conscious
machine1 but will have been erive !rom a necessarily somewhat
!ortuitous iscovery1 owing to much trial an error investigation1 o! the
EcorrectE harware inter!ace o! the evice with the recursive1 sel!-
organizing matri0 o! quantum - vacuum energy !luctuations which
unerpin an meiate the stability o! all !unamental particles an their
e0change !orces. "uch a harware inter!ace constitutes the man-mae
component o! the complete set o! bounary conitions being applie1
locally1 to the vacuum electromagnetic !iel1 assuming that the inter!ace
is to be an electronic evice - i! not1 then other components o! the total
vacuum !luctuation !iel will come into play. 6hese bounary
conitions shoul1 presumably1 are able to be reorganize over time
through continue interaction with the vacuum electro-magnetic !iel.
6he harware must not be in!le0ible1 in other wors1 an not act as a
!inal set o! bounary conitions upon the !iel1 but must act merely as a
EseeE set o! transitional bounary conitions1 amenable to
trans!ormation in response to interaction with the !iel. 6he !iel1 which
is open-ene1 must irect the organization o! the EharwareE inter!ace1
ultimately in accorance with its own requirements.
&/2% "u!!icient conitions !or the occurrence o! a given event are
always merely Eprovisional.E
(/2% 6he question arises whether changes in these bounary
conitions to the !iel1 that is1 !or e0ample1 the transmission o! neural
impulses through a brainGs neural networK1 prouce or are associate
with perceivable phenomena occurring within some personGs min1
whose brain it is1 because. . .
*D either a comple0 isturbance is set up in the vacuum !iel which
propagates through this vacuum1 inucing a sweeping Cover timeD but
subtle alteration in the large-scale local system Crelative to the brainGs
overall imensions1 sayD which somehow !ees bacK1 moulating !uture
!unctioning o! the brainGs neural networK1 or . . .
2D 6hese changes in the bounary conitions to the !iel alter the sel!-
interaction o! the vacuum !iel. 6he sel!-interaction can only be e!ine
locally1 however. 6here is no such entity as global sel!-interaction since
there is no global or totally uni!ie vacuum !iel as the vacuum !iel is
essentially characterize by transient phenomena an constant change.
Ht woul seem that any global uni!ication woul have to subsist outsie
the vacuum !iel. ?ut there can be no outsie to the vacuum !iel since
the vacuum !iel is itsel!1 as alreay note1 a raically-open systemT Hn
such a system1 there can be no eternally-pre-e0istent !orms or !orms o!
action/behavior. "uch !orms must always be provisional1 e0perimental1
an ultimately temporal1 which is to say1 not everlastingT 6he concept
o! the so-calle global sel!-interaction emboies a contraiction1 though
perhaps a subtle one. 6his is because such a sel!-interaction woul have
to be meiate through something other than itsel! - that is1 what
meiation means1 in essence1 the worKing through an intermeiary. 6he
contraiction then is that the global system must moulate its global
behavior/action at once through itsel! an !rom outsie itsel!. 6here
cannot be per!ect continuity in the interaction between the !orms
inhering within the global system since1 i! one goes own eep enough
into the activity unerlying the interplay o! these !orms1 one reaches an
intermeiary substrate o! activity wherein the bounaries between these
!orms as separate is altogether lost. ?ut per!ect continuity1 !or instance1
physical continuity Cescribable by a continuity equation involving some
conserve quantity or quantitiesD1 is absolutely require i! a causal
analysis o! the behavior o! a ynamical system1 say1 is to be possible.
6he interaction o! the ynamism o! the global system is ultimately not
meiate by1 or e0plicable in terms o!1 these very same !orms which are
temporarily sustaine in e0istence by this unerlying ynamism. 6his is
intimately relate to what has been sai earlier about a process not being
e0haustively escribable in terms o! its by-proucts1 its epiphenomena.
?ut 5ust because one cannot e0haustively escribe a process in terms o!
its by-proucts oes not necessarily maKe o! them epiphenomena: there
may still be some use or !unction to these by-proucts/!orms at levels
logically or ontologically prior to them.
/ true epiphenomenal mental state woul constitute a conte0t-!ree
mental state containing no in!ormation. E8ental stateE in such an
instance woul be misnomer.
H! one were to apply this iea to the 8in an its
sensory/perceptual/conceptual Ephenomena1S one woul be !orce to
view their obtrusion/eruption into the realm o! consciousness as wholly
irrational. 6here may well be spatiotemporality at this unerlying level
o! activity1 but it must be a spatiotemporality utterly without scale or
irectionality. 6his unerlying substrate is there!ore beyon the
limitations o! time an place. Hs it still possible1 however1 to conceive o!
activity as such as taKing place at such a !unamental level? Fe may
say that the temporality o! the interplay o! !orms sustaine by the
posite global substrate/system stems !rom the !act that the bounaries
implie by the !orms themselves o not striKe own to the bottom o! an
ultimate unerlying substrate because such a substrate oes not e0ist:
metaphorically speaKing1 Aeality is bottomlessT 6he changes o! the
!orms relative to one another are realize as illusory an so vanish once
one gets to that level o! lower substrates where the bounaries
constituting the separateness o! these !orms leaves o!!. 6he ultimate
application o! metaphor is simply in the sustenance o! oneGs sel!-same
ego !rom moment to moment espite ever changing !lu0es o! sensation1
thought1 an perception. 6he ego is the ultimate mythological
e0pression o! consciousness. 6his is perhaps why philosophers o! min
have terme the min the metaphor o! all metaphors.
)*/2N Fors are !requently borrowe !rom other languages1
particularly !rom -rench or 4erman1 an use by ;nglish
speaKers/writers !or purposes o! creating special emphasis o! a concept
which is either altogether new or which is being presente or represente
in an unaccustome an novel1 interesting light. @ow it is not that these
borrowe !oreign wors or phrases possess such intriguing meanings
within their root languages1 !or they usually have orinary i! not
peestrian meanings as they are use by native speaKers. 6aKe the !airly
common borrowing !rom the -rench1 E>e ne se qua.E Hn the -rench1 this
merely means1 EH Know not what.E /n i! one were to say concerning
some person with an elusive talent1 he possesses a certain1 EH Know not
what1E this woul well !ail to connote the !act that the person en5oys
some intriguing an mysterious quality.
Fhenever one encounters these !oreign borrowings1 notice that
that they are always italicize. 6he !unction o! italics is to provoKe the
min to pause to well on the wor with the thought that a point has 5ust
been mae which is revelatory1 that a pregnant Kernel o! thought or
insight is to be reache in the reaerGs min 5ust at this precise moment
an the emphasis is provie so that the reaer Knows to watch !or this
event. 6he emphasis o! the italicize !oreign borrowing is intene to
signal1 Ethe conte0t thus !ar provie shoul be 5ust now su!!icient !or
the intene message to precipitate or crystallize in the min o! the
vigilant reaer.E 6his tactic worKs i! the reaer has some !amiliarity
with the language !rom which the wor is borrowe1 !or the literal
acceptation o! the !oreign phrase will1 uner the in!luence o! the conte0t
into which it is borrowe1 transmute spontaneously into the require
metaphor precisely elineating the authorGs intene notion. @ow oes
this manner o! stimulating the metaphorical thought o! the reaer
sometimes lea the author to communicate with him at cross purposes?
8etaphor is an arti!act o! what might be terme Eintersub5ective
sub5ectivity.E @ew meaning always seems to evelop organically. Fhat
is meant here is that new meanings arise !rom ol1 through
reinterpretationV they are never brought in !rom outsie pre-e0isting
bounaries1 liKe material !or a construction pro5ect. Aather1
reinterpretation results in a ree!ining o! bounaries.
Fe may say that what we sense constitutes a much larger omain
than what we perceive an that what we perceive constitutes a larger
omain than what we cognize1 i.e.1 what we can articulate to ourselves at
the moment o! the cognition. 6he cognitive omain is still larger than
the omain o! that which we can recollect an articulate to others.
8etaphorical thinKing is the simultaneous realization o! some
abstract !eature o! one particular conte0t an its application towar an
unerstaning o! the ynamics o! some super!icially unrelate conte0t.
/nother way in which language seems to e0hibit this peculiarity is in its
role o! re!erring to concrete iniviuals. -or e0ample1 i! we were to
mention Rthe person you were sitting ne0t to on the *))
th
occasion Cin
your li!eD on which you travelle by bus while sitting ne0t to a e!inite
iniviual person1 perhaps still living1 an without the slightest iea that
he or she is being talKe about at this very moment. H! my listener is not
a city weller1 there is a very real possiblity that the label1 R*))
th
personS
re!ers to a person o! the Cto youD istant !uture L a person yet to be
etermine or perhaps to a none0istent person1 assuming you almost
never taKe the bus. Ht might be thought that your hypothetical bus
companion o! the !uture is basically i!!erent !rom the real person whom
you roe the bus with at some unKnown occasion in the past. /!ter all1 it
coul have turne out that we an our bus companions are all members
o! a highly neurotic society where people are in the habit o! Keeping
meticulous recors o! everything which ever happens to them even to
the e0tent o! Keeping an accurate count o! the number o! times which
liKe events occur so that i! the esire ever striKes us we may quicKly !lip
through a blacK notebooK in orer to etermine the ientity o! the *))
th
person with whom we roe the bus. ?ut the equally anal retentive rural
weller who has only rien the bus1 say1 a ozen times in his li!e: he
has no way o! etermining the ientity o! companion X*)). ?ut
returning to reality we must say that in either case: real past or
hypothetical !uture person X*)) that a physically real human being is
involve.
/pril 2)**
6here are circumstances in which perceptions are
commonly or unre!lectively suppose to re!er to concrete iniviualsV
moreover1 this very type o! perceptual circumstance plays no
insigni!icant role in constituting the warp an woo! o! one_s worKaay1
unre!lective consciousness. /n e0ample might be the myria cars1
houses1 people that one observes while !lying at several thousan !eet in
a passenger airliner. 9ne is unre!lectively positive that each
recognizable ob5ect seen on the groun !rom great istance correspons
either to a person or is uniquely relate to a speci!ic person or group o!
persons.
*)/2% 8etaphor may be thought o! as representing the ynamic
potential o! the unlimite scope o! the application o! logical categories
in which semantics transcens synta0. 8etaphor as it unerlies the
creative capacities o! min is not merely the implementation o! abstract
categories within new1 un!amiliar conte0ts1 but the unboune capacity
an inclination !or oing this in a truly pervasive manner. 8etaphorical
imagination is never !oregone1 but always essentially creative. /nyone
will grant that no single iniviual or group o! iniviuals invente
human language. / certain amount o! metaphorical thinKing is built into
each o! the thousans o! istinct but relate human languages through
the !act o! the typical linKing o! several istinct meanings o! concept-
enoting wors by virtue o! such wors possessing any number o!
i!!erent connotations or acceptations1 e.g.1 the wor1 cara1 in "panish1
which has the separate but intimately relate meanings1 ear1 !ace1 an
e0pensive. "ometimes within a collection o! relate languages there
e0ist wors which have relate connotations by virtue o! their common
escent !rom a wor in the root language o! that language !amily1 while
this root wor suggests a metaphysical or theological iea.
-or e0ample1 the ;nglish wor "in an the 4erman wor "inn.
?oth wors are relate to a root wor in the proto-Hno-;uropean root
language o! these two languages. 6he 4erman wor "inn means1 sense
or consciousness an the iea suggeste by the e0istence o! a proto-
Hno-;uropean wor !rom which both stemme in which the two ieas
o! "in an "inn are intimately relate is that o! "in arising !rom the
emergence o! a sense o! "el! istinct !rom that o! others as well as !rom
the 9ther1 namely 4o1 which le to the loss o! harmony between the
human an :ivine wills1 that is1 the !all o! 8anKin as represente in the
?iblical story o! the 4aren o! ;en. /lthough the wor "inn by itsel!
oes not have the same meaning as the wor "in in ;nglish1 there is1
however1 the compoun wor in 4erman1 "inn!lut1 which literally means
the 4reat -loo sent by 4o as punishment !or manKinGs sin!ulness. 9!
course1 the converse o! this is true as well: wors which originally !use
together two meanings in the root language later become two separate
wors in some escenant language. /n e0ample o! this are the 4erman
wors1 Aealitat an FirKlichKeit1 wors which stan !or reality in its
temporal an eternal moes1 respectively. ?oth o! these wors
originally stemme !rom a single .atin cognate. Hn light o! these
consierations the ?iblical story o! the 6ower o! ?abel taKes on a new
an perhaps larger signi!icance.
6he question that concerns us is whether or not the human sel! that each
iniviual human is1 is 5ust one particular !orm among many possible
particular !orms1 or whether the iniviual human being is in his epth
that through which his temporal ego is 5ust an e0pression. H! 5ust a !orm1
then there appears !rom what has alreay been sai1 no chance !or the
sel! that each is to participate in ;ternity1 to have li!e beyon the
temporal. Fe Know that consciousness itsel!1 or as such1 is not a mere
!orm or e0pression o! something else which is itsel! not consciousness.
6his much we Know about E!orms.E 6hey are always constitute
out o! that which is other than what they are: matter is erive !rom
energy1 water which is a liqui is erive !rom hyrogen an o0ygen
which are gases1 !igure in painting is erive !rom groun1 living !rom
nonliving. ;ach !orm or structure1 it seems1 can be erive !rom its own
opposite1 provie certain conitions. ;ach !orm is eterminate an so
possesses a e!inable1 ual opposite. ?ut what about that which is not
close1 but open1 not en!rame1 but bounless? 6his is what we have
been calling the Hneterminate1 which possesses no ual opposite1 rather1
all ual opposites erive !rom itT / truly eterministic computing
evice in a certain sense possesses no genuine temporality1 although in
another sense the evice inee possesses temporality as a particular
physical realization o! a evice harware esign. Hn the !irst sense1 the
evice EcomputesE without utilization o! its energy uncertainty as a
physical1 that is1 a quantum mechanical evice - the !act that the evice
is a quantum mechanical implementation o! a computing evice is
merely inciental to its !unctioning as a classical physical system. @o
in!ormation processing is associate with virtual transitions o! the
quantum state o! the evice. 6here is merely the processing o! Eata1E
the ata are converte into genuine in!ormation at output provie that
someone1 i.e.1 some consciousness1 reas an/or interprets this outputte
ata.
-ebruary *22%
6here can be no increase in available in!ormation o! one
thermoynamic system without a concomitant increase in the entropy o!
some larger thermoynamic system to which the smaller system is
connecte1 say1 through the e0changing o! matter an energy. @ow the
quantity o! entropy o! a reversible system can never change1 i! the 2n
.aw o! 6hermoynamics is generally vali. -rom which consieration
it immeiately !ollows that the in!ormation content o! a reversible
system can never change. Fe sai earlier that in!ormation was ata
place in conte0t1 that conte0t is neee to maKe ata re!er beyon
themselves so as to possess meaning. Fe also sai that processes taKing
place in an Eopen-eneE conte0t coul not be1 strictly speaKing1
reversible.
:ecember *22%
9ur eman !or the conte0tual embeing o! ata in orer !or
in!ormation to e0ist may be questione. 7erhaps it is possible !or
in!ormation to be brought into being without ata.
Qd
6he requirement
!or conte0t is really a requirement !or metaata in the !orm o! a two-way
EcommunicationE between ata an its conte0t !or it to !unction as
in!ormation.
"till more1 all three laws o! thermoynamics are contraicte when
the in!luences o! the open system o! the vacuum energy !iel are taKen
into account. 6he *st .aw o! 6hermoynamics: this is 5ust the stanar
energy conservation law an energy is not conserve in virtual quantum
processes. 6he 2n .aw o! 6hermoynamics: the entropy o! all close
thermoynamic systems must increase as a result o! processes taKing
place within this system. 6he quantum vacuum is not a spatially close
system since its very action constitutes any local spacetime. 8oreover
the temporal evolution o! all physical systems is reucible to changes in
system energy1 iscretely or continuously. H! the system is in an energy
eigenstate1 then only the phase o! the system_s wave!unction evolves.
?ut the absolute phase o! a quantum mechanical system has no physical
meaning within quantum theory - only relative phases have physical
meaning. ?ut i! the two systems with a relative phase i!!erence can be
consistently escribe as a single system with a unique wave!unction1
then the relative phases o! the two RcomponentS subsystems cannot be
Known without interacting with the system through some thir system.
&o a Buantum system in an energy eigenstate possesses no genuine or
physical temporality. 6he $r .aw o! 6hermoynamics: the energy o! a
per!ectly orere crystal at ) egrees Oelvin is zero. 6he quantum
vacuum possesses an ineraicable temperature. Ht also possesses an
entropy an this vacuum is in continual interaction or energy e0change
with all ob5ects in spacetime. @o crystal coul e0ist in a Eper!ectly
orereE state so long as it e0changes energy with a thermal reservoir
possessing entropy such as the quantum mechanical vacuum. Aeversible
systems there!ore1 contain ata but o not actually contain in!ormationV
however1 such systems o potentially contain in!ormation1 but not
in!ormation with a preetermine content1 or re!erence.
6here is a con!usion o! the irection o! time with the temporal
evolution o! physical processes to states o! progressively greater
entropy. Fe are either re!erring to a global or cosmic time when we
speaK o! the Girection o! timeE or we are only speaKing in this way
metaphorically. ?ut a global time is only e!inable i! reality is a close
system. ?ut since there is no place !or irreversibility within a truly
close system1 the notion o! a irection o! time maKes no sense in either
the case o! a close or an open cosmic system. 6he notion is incoherent
in the case o! an open system because o! the incoherence o! any notion
o! there being a global time which then might be suppose to be
irreversible. Hn the case o! a close system1 there is simply no possible
basis !or irreversibility within a system possessing a !inite an
unchanging number o! iscrete states.
;ven i! we were to observe physical processes to taKe place in the
opposite irection such that the entropy o! the systems in which these
processes are occurring were to ecrease1 this woul nevertheless be the
case o! time moving !rom the past to the !uture through the present. 6he
concept o! the Eirection o! timeE is incoherent since there is not a
coherent meaning which can be attache to the hypothetical reversal o!
this allege time irection1 by arguments state elsewhere in this te0t.
Fe have elsewhere sai that Enothing means anythingE in the absence o!
a grouning conte0t1 which ultimately ha to be open. 3onversely1
nothing e0ists1 as a etermination o! groun1 in the absence o! locally
impose bounary conitions. 6his is the most that we can mean by the
term Ething1E namely a particular etermination o! Egroun.E 6he
groun is not itsel! a thing. /n so the concept o! EnothingE oes not
involve the negation o! groun. /s we argue hereto!ore1 the concept o!
negation is not e!inable with respect to a raically uneretermine
groun. 6he meaning o! any !orm abstracte !rom the groun as a
particular etermination o! this groun1 locally an temporally1 epens
upon a connection between the !orm an its groun. 6his connection is
not !orge a!ter the !orm is mae mani!est1 but is a resiuum o! groun
which is within the purview o! the concept or !orm an maintaining
contact with the original groun !rom which the !orm was initially
abstracte. 6his !orm continues even though its groun never remains
what it is1 being a constantly changing !lu0. Hn this way !orms are over-
etermine phenomena roote in an uner-etermine substrate1 i.e.1 the
groun. -orms are not transitory espite the bacKrop o! an in!inity o!
possible alternative !orms which might have come into being in their
place1 an so all !orms which persist are intene.
@ovember *22%
"ince the etermination o! !orm through the abstraction o!
!orm !rom ineterminate groun is not mere mani!esting or uncovering
o! something pree0istent as potentia1 that there!ore the etermination o!
!orm in the groun must constitute an act o! creation o! a creative
process or creativity1 a necessary component o! which is intentionality.
8ay *22N
;ssential to the notion o! intentionality is the capacity !or
consciousness to entertain thoughts about that which is not at the time
being represente within consciousness1 to wit1 the capacity !or
ob5ectless thought. Hntentionality is essential to metaphor.
/pril *22%
6he !igure/groun analogy to the !orm/!ormless istinction breaKs
own when one realizes that in painting1 !or e0ample1 the groun can
always become !igure an the !igure1 groun1 as long as one is talKing
about what representation e0ists solely within the limitations o! the
paintingGs en!raming1 i! you will. ?ut when speaKing o! !igure an
groun in their metaphysical sense1 groun is always beyon
representation in its entiretyV there is a continual succession o! !igures1
or representations1 which succee one another an so which marKs the
passing o! time1 but there is never a complete gestalt inversion such as
one e0periences while beholing certain contrive ambiguous visual
patterns such as are use in psychological testing. 6his is because in
painting !igure an groun together are merely !igure within a larger
system o! representation. 9ne can see the painting in its !rame as such
an ob5ect hanging on the wall o! an art gallery. ?ut in the metaphysical
sense1 one cannot o this. 4roun is not secretly !igure in some larger
system. 6he notion o! a possible larger system is completely
inamissible where a genuinely open system is concerne1 which
4roun is. Ht always remains what it is1 that is1 4roun. Ht is inherently
ineterminate with respect to any possible system o! representation.
6his is why !orms in Aeality1 what we might call Ereal !orms1E cannot be
unerstoo simply as negations within some larger !ormal system1 an
this is the reason !or the inaequacy o! 6he 7rinciple o! ;0clue
8ile within 9ntology1 even i! it is a per!ectly vali an use!ul
principle within a particular system o! logic.
9ctober *22%
Hn -ichteGs 6heory o! "ub5ectivity1 he proposes his concept o!
the sel!-positing ego which at once posits the not-sel!. ?ut the not-sel!
o! a particular ego cannot be thought to inclue other egos in the
sweeping category o! the particular egoGs not-sel!1 i! the categories o!
mental an physical are inee istinct.
/ugust 2)**
6hough selves are
istinct1 so too1 are Rnot-selvesS istinct1 so each sel! must possess its
own transcenental groun1 which perhaps poses a real problem !or the
concept o! intersub5ectivity. /s we have remarKe be!ore1
Rintersub5ectivity is the cash value o! ob5ectivityS1 but econstructing the
metaphor1 cash value points up the !ollowing parao0: Rintersub5ectivity
= ob5ectivityS is an intersub5ectively agree upon principle1 which
ultimately epens upon these two concepts being transcenentally Cin
RrealitySD istinct. 7art o! what maKes the equivalence1
Rintersub5ectivityS = Rob5ectivityS vali is the ultimate truth o! the
relation1 Rintersub5ectivity b= ob5ectivityS . 3lever-seeming1 but R!ishyS
arguments which appear to establish remarKable1 counterintuitive
conclusions typically employ the cynical rhetorician_s in!ormal !allacy
o! the equivocation o! sense in the particular case where the scope o!
two or more concepts are either broaene or restricte uring the
course o! a single euctive argument1 c.!.1 the proo! that Rtime =
moneyS1 etc.
9nly in appropriate ynamic con5unction with this !luctuating
energy matri0 will any realization o! a harware esign possess the
topological energy structure su!!icient to tap the pre-e0isting
Econsciousness potentialE o! spacetime. Hn other wors1 it is only the
grace o! AealityGs !unamental ynamism which will permit the eventual
construction o! a so-calle conscious computing evice. 6his empirical
iscovery o! the correct inter!ace esign will mani!est itsel! perhaps
uring a testing phase where a long series o! simulate sensory inputs1 o!
increasing comple0ity1 are in the process o! being !e into the evice
while its output signals CresponsesD are being closely monitore. 6he
memory meium o! the evice will begin to accumulate store or
remembere inputs which it has never receive through its various
sensory apparatus. Hentical sets or series o! inputs will prouce
signi!icantly i!!erent series o! outputs both !rom an iniviual machine
over time as well as !rom i!!erent machines at the same time - even i!
these machines possess ientical esigns.
9ccasionally1 raically i!!erent series or sets o! inputs will
prouce ientical sets o! outputs. / signi!icant portion o! the !unctional
relationship between output an input will epen upon changes in
energy in the internal components o! the machineGs harware which are1
themselves1 smaller than the overall quantum energy uncertainty o! the
evice as a whole. 8oreover1 no mutually orthogonal set o!
eigen!unctions will escribe the E!unctioning componentsE o! the evice.
6his is why we have been saying that the abstract spatial structure o! our
hypothetical computing evice is non-topological. 3learly1 any
realization o! a static blueprint !or a computing evice1 regarless how
comple01 in the !orm o! a ynamically !unctioning prototype1 will itsel!
be merely a topological trans!ormation o! the blueprint !rom 2 or
perhaps $ spatial imensions to ( spatial imensions rather than the non
- topological trans!ormation !rom $ spatial to ( imensions o! $ space
an * time. 6his is because the state space o! the transcribe structure1
i.e.1 the esign1 can be aequately escribe in spatial terms. Hn a very
real sense1 an ob5ect may not be thought to possess an internality unless
it possess an a genuine EoutsieE in the sense o! a raically open system
- a system which cannot be containe within a close systemV a system is
EcloseE only i! it is !inite an neither receives nor transmits energy to or
!rom any system e0cept itsel!. "uch a close system possesses no
Eoutsie.E 6here is no nee to invoKe a temporal escription o! this state
space - the only reason one woul attempt it is because we pro5ect our
genuine temporality onto the minGs eye realization o! the computing
evice in its act o! E!unctioning.E
=enri ?ergson1 in his essay1 6ime in the =istory o! Festern
7hilosophy1 complaine o! a con!usion which inevitably croppe up
whenever metaphysicians attempte to analyze the problem o! motion.
Fith a Kin o! gentle contempt he escribe the !rustration o! these
philosophers in trying to reconstruct linear motion !rom in!inite series o!
EimmobilitiesE1 i.e.1 !i0e points o! in!initesimal length. =e e0plaine
their !ailure as being ue to their ignorance o! the nature o! a linear
interval as a mere pro5ection o! Emobility onto immobility.E
*)/2& "imilar in principle to this is the pro5ection o! the mental
qualities o! meaning an intentions upon what are in a very real sense
merely inanimate ob5ects1 that is1 igital computers. 9ne speaKs usually
unconsciously1 or perhaps1 glibly C i! one is a Ehar /HE proponent liKe
8insKyD about how the computer processes Ein!ormation.E 6o avoi
begging the question o! whether computers actually thinK by secretly
importing meaning!ulness into what the computer is oing1 one shoul
re!er instea to the processing o! EataE by the computer. Hn!ormation
results !rom the interpretation o! ata. 3onversely1 ata maybe thought
o! as in!ormation remove !rom its original meaning-grouning conte0t.
Fhat igital computers manipulate is conte0t-!ree in!ormation1 that is1
ataV the output !ollows logically an eterministically !rom the inputte
Eata.E
*)/2& 6his pro5ection1 naturally as such1 oes not capture the whole
phenomenon1 but merely a point o! view with respect to it out o! an
in!inity o! equally vali points o! view1 an so !rom a single pro5ection1
or even a !inite number o! pro5ections1 one is never permitte to
reconstruct the original ob5ect as it is.
"ub5ectivity an 9b5ectivity are only separate through the action
o! etermination. 6he most that we can possibly mean by the term1
ob5ective1 is intersub5ective. 6hat is1 what is ob5ective are those !eatures1
necessarily abstract1 which can be conventionally agree upon by
i!!erent sub5ectivities1 which is to say1 those !eatures which can be
escribe in terms o! iscursive symbols1 or language1 which by their
essential nature are only able to convey i!!erences or similarities o!
various orers or levels1 in other wors1 class inclusion or e0clusion.
6he !ormation o! categories is not always epenent upon a hereto!ore
consciously an conventionally agree upon negation o! certain aspects
o! commonly perceive phenomena as irrelevant1 but certain aspects o! a
phenomenon are altogether misse through the limitations o! perceptual
apparatus which are themselves partly conitione by the abstractive
scheme unerlying the common language o! perceivers/observers.
"ince1 as we allue to alreay1 ob5ectivity is e0hauste by what we
have terme intersub5ectivity1 the genuinely sub5ective1 that is1 that
which is uniquely peculiar to an iniviualGs psychic/mental processes1
must be altogether is5oint !rom the intersub5ective1 or1 ob5ective1 i.e.1
that which can be treate in terms o! abstract categories. -rom which it
!ollows immeiately that the sub5ective cannot have a !ormal or abstract
CtimelessD representation1 but necessarily !alls uner the omain o! the
participatory CtemporalD. 6he representational !orm o! Knowlege is
conte0t-!ree while the participatory !orm o! Knowlege is raically
conte0t-epenent. H say raically because the epenence is upon
conte0t which is not itsel! representational.
Ht is easier to unerstan the !unamental limitations o!
representations i! one consiers them as arti!acts o! a system o!
representation. >ust as the stream cannot rise higher than its source1 so is
it impossible !or a process to be completely unerstoo in terms o! its
phenomenological byproucts CepiphenomenaD.
)(/2N
6he process by which the phenomena are create is one with the
process by which these phenomena are sustaine in e0istence. "o the
phenomena cannot succee in pointing to the processes sustaining them.
"o a phenomenological theory will never be Ereality covering.E
/n important instance o! this is the logical impossibility o! creating a
!ormal escription o! the process by which !ormal escriptions are
generally arrive at.
/pril 2)**
6his invoKes the notion o! a category that
cannot be arrive at by abstraction1 but which subsists in some
funamental process. 9n this view1 consciousness as the essence o!
intelligence must itsel! be a !unamental process to reality an not
erivative. 6he brain there!ore oes not prouce consciousness1 but a
most merely structures1 !orms or channels this consciousness. 6his
observation is1 o! course1 intimately relate to the 4eel Hncompleteness
6heorem. 9nly in appropriate ynamic con5unction with this !luctuating
energy matri0 will any realization o! a harware esign possess the
topological energy structure su!!icient to tap the pre-e0isting
Econsciousness potentialE o! spacetime. 6o have a past1 something must
be couple to a conte0t which is changing with time1 an this conte0t
cannot be a system which is1 itsel!1 conte0t-!ree. 3learly1 any
realization o! a static blueprint !or a computing evice1 regarless how
comple01 in the !orm o! a ynamically !unctioning prototype1 will itsel!
be merely a topological trans!ormation o! the blueprint !rom 2 or
perhaps $ spatial imensions to ( spatial imensions rather than the non
- topological trans!ormation !rom $ spatial to ( imensions o! $ space
an * time. 6here is no nee to invoKe a temporal escription o! the state
space o! the hypothetical computing evice we have been consiering -
the only reason we woul attempt it is because we pro5ect our genuine
temporality onto the minGs eye realization o! the computing evice in
its act o! E!unctioning.E 6his is an e0ample o! the subtle an tenacious
persistence o! animistic thought into moernity. =enri ?ergson1 in his
essay1 6ime in the =istory o! Festern 7hilosophy1 complaine o! a
con!usion1 which inevitably croppe up whenever metaphysicians
attempte to analyze the problem o! motion. Fithin larger state spaces1
however1 computations must be per!orme through the e0ploitation o!
inigenously available orer alreay e0isting within the state space
through utilizing the ynamical attractors o! the state space via an over
arching structure linKing them ynamically. Fe must realize that
E!avorable combinationsE are not Ehit uponE by chance an then
magically locKe in an sustaine against the thermal !luctuations o!
energy which supposely originally le to their !ormation1 but that these
!avore con!igurations1 themselves1 represent con!igurations o! least
energy within a necessarily pre-e0istent system in which the energy
minimum con!iguration is alreay e!ine prior to its being realize in
actuality.
8athematically speaKing1 a minimization integral oes not Ee0istE
i! the integral1 or various parameters o! its argument1 i.e.1 o! which this
integral is a !unction1 o not satis!y certain bounary conitions. Hn
other wors1 it is only by virtue o! nonlocal quantum correlations that
this system might uni!y itsel! so as to possess an ob5ective simultaneity.
?ut correlations within a system imply convergent temporal evolution o!
the systems component processes. 6here is1 however1 no place !or the
phenomenon o! convergence within either eterministic computational
statespaces1 nor within an ergoic ynamical system. Hn!ormation is not
here a conserve physical quantity an so i! in some conte0t energy an
in!ormation are inter-e!inable1 this is because within this conte0t the
principle o! the conservation o! energy oes not strictly hol.
$/2N
3onservation laws only apply to what may properly be terme
substances. 7rior to the avent o! atomic theory in the *2th 3entury1
matter was thought to be a substance an there!ore a conserve quantity.
Fith the avent o! the theory o! "pecial Aelativity an ;instein_sG
!amous equation1 ; = mc21 matter was seen to be not conserve in some
physical processes because o! its interconvertibility into energy1 itsel!
thought to be the physical quantity which was truly conserve. ?ut in
light o! avances o! quantum theory1 particularly within the sub!iel o!
relativistic quantum !iel theory1 which treats o! virtual particle/!iel
reactions1 it is Known now that not even EenergyE is conserve an so
can no longer be consiere to be the ultimate unerlying conserve
substance or reality. 6o what substance can moern physics point which
is interconvertible with energy an which obeys a conservation law1
quali!ying as the substance o! physical reality1 i! you will?
$/2N
?ecause energy is ultimately not conserve1 there is a pro!oun
i!!iculty in maKing the notion o! ob5ective space an time coherent.
-or space may only be ob5ectively e!ine operationally in terms o! the
spatial relationships o! boies compose o! some conserve substance.
8oreover1 time must be also operationally e!ine i! it is to be
unerstoo as a genuinely ob5ective concept1 that is1 in terms o! the more
primitive notions o! simultaneity1 temporal orer1 an uration. "ince
there may be no unerlying permanent substance to rener the e0istent
ob5ectively real1 space an time must be reuce to being merely relative
an phenomenal.
/nother reason to believe that a physical continuity equation oes
not apply to in!ormation is that in!ormation appears to resie in between
the iscrete energy levels o! crystalline1 or quasi-crystalline quantum
systems1 an so in!ormation is not here really localizable1 in principle.
/ny !unctionalist theory o! min must run up against mental states !or
which it cannot supply corresponing !unctional states. 6his is because1
in essence1 ientically prepare quantum mechanical states1 themselves
constituting the most e0acting e!inition o! !unctionalist brain states1
!requently prouce a wie variety o! outcomes whenever measurements
are per!orme on them with respect to observables incompatible with
that observable with respect to which the quantum system was prepare.
H! !unctional states are thought to be neutral with respect to the actual
physical manner in which they are realize1 then this means that oneGs
!unctional theory o! min oes not taKe i!!ering physical conte0ts into
its account o! how the particular contents o! consciousness originate in
the appearance o! istinct speci!ic brain states. 6he interpretative
conte0tual structure must be the ultimate arbiter o! the meaning o! brain
states1 an these brain states must remain raically ambiguous in the
absence o! such conte0tual structure - this structure must not itsel! be
Econte0t-!ree.E 6wo separate entities can never interact with one another
as e0haustively an subtlety as oes the ynamical substrate sustaining
their e0istence in interacting with itsel!. 6here can be no ultimate
commensurability o! a meium with respect to the representations within
it. 6his is because the root abstraction unerlying all !urther abstraction
is that o! bringing into being the meium through which all
representations are to be e0presse.
)&/2N
6his aboriginal process o!
abstraction1 i.e.1 symbolic an syntactic structure construction being
itsel! necessarily non-!ormalizable1 i.e.1 the process o! abstraction is not
itsel! a !ormal proceure.
6here is something parao0ical about the ineterminate1 an that is
that its negation is not itsel! eterminate1 an this seems to imply a Kin
o! contraiction. 6he !unction o! negation is itsel! system epenent.
"ynta0 an semantics are normally unerstoo as being orthogonal
notions. /ll su!!icient causes so-calle are merely necessary causes
operating in the presence o! that which complements an completes their
action. ?ut not 5ust any EsomethingE constitutes the opposite or negation
o! nothing/nothingness1 but only a something which is1 itsel!1 the unity
o! all that might possibly e0ist1 an the very essence o! which is to e0ist.
H! the possibility space is itsel! open1 that is1 in!inite1 then the notion o!
the negation o! nothingness remains not e!inable. @egation must
remain a !ormal concept1 an appro0imation !or an action which contains
but transcens a negation. Fe see now that a given !inite recursive
structure comes into e0istence through a process o! uncovering or
abstraction !rom a more comple0 whole - through a process o! negation.
6his notion o! what is calle an ;rgoic "ystem1 moreover1
violates the principle o! relativity in the sense that1 although i!!erent
probabilistic weighting o! particular states1 or1 clusters o! states1 is
isallowe !or a case o! genuinely ranom shu!!ling o! states1
nevertheless1 the probability weighting o! certain state space
con!igurations is permitte to be moi!ie with time.
6here seems to be two signi!icantly i!!erent classes o! mutations upon
which natural selection operates as a purely critical1 as oppose to a
creative1 process. -irstly1 an most importantly1 those mutations
occurring to the regulatory genes1 an seconly1 those mutations
a!!ecting the Kins o! proteins which are mae available to a eveloping
organism1 the so-calle point1 or structural1 genetic mutations.
6here is something parao0ical about the ineterminate1 an that is
that its negation is not itsel! eterminate1 an this seems to imply a Kin
o! contraiction. Ht is only meaning!ul to thinK o! the negation o! a
eterminate structure or thing within a particular system o! categories.
6he e!inition o! the !unction o! negation is itsel! system epenent1 an
so1 when one speaKs o! the ineterminate in general one is engage in a
subtle sel!-contraiction - subtle in the sense that the notion o!
contraiction is1 itsel!1 a logical or syntactical notion whereas the origin
o! the particular contraiction !acing us1 with respect to the notion o! the
in general eterminate an its negation1 is one o! a istinctly semantic
nature1 an synta0 an semantics are normally unerstoo as being
orthogonal notions1 or inepenent o! each other. 6hey are relate
through a conventional agreement about their possible application.
6here is no such thing as nothing. @othing1 by its very nature1 is a
none0istent entity: it is its own negation. Fe might be tempte to say
then that Esomething1E being the opposite o! nothing1 must e0ist. ?ut not
5ust any EsomethingE constitutes the opposite or negation o!
nothing/nothingness1 but only a something1 which is1 itsel!1 the unity o!
all that might possibly e0ist1 an the very essence o! which is to e0ist. Hn
other wors1 nothing1 not being possible because containing within itsel!
its own negation1 implies that there must have always been something
Cor otherD.
&/2% / thing which is its own negation is the ual opposite o! that
which contains within itsel! the su!!icient reason !or its own e0istence.
?ut the only guarantee that there has always been something is the
e0istence o! something1 which contains within itsel! its own a!!irmation1
i! you will1 the reason !or its own e0istence. / !unamental an most
general property o! a thing which contains within itsel! the reason !or its
own e0istence is that o! recursion1 something which is e!ine solely in
terms o! itsel!1 a recursive structure. 6here are logical grouns !or
believing that there can be only one recursive structure1 that there can be
only one sel!-e0istent entity - with this entity being the EgrounE !or
e0istence o! all other entities. 6his remins us o! "pinozaGs claim that
there can only be one "ubstance.
/ recursive structure1 i! it may be thought to be composite1 woul
be compose o! parts which are totally interepenent upon one anotherV
no part is the cause o! any other without also being itsel! cause by this
other part an so i! this recursive structure ha a beginning in time1 it
must have been given e0istence through a pre-e0isting1 broaer an
more comple0 recursive structure. Fe see now that a given !inite
recursive structure comes into e0istence through a process o! uncovering
or abstraction !rom a more comple0 whole - through a process o!
negation. Fe are remine o! 8ichelangeloGs claim that a truly great
worK o! sculpture alreay e0ists within its marble blocK an that all he
i in orer to prouce his worKs was merely to !ree them !rom the
marble in which they were imprisone.
6he istinction between the EmentalE an the EphysicalE may be
rawn in the !ollowing way: both are wholes compose o! parts1 both
possess principles o! organization1 but what is terme a physical whole
is e!ine e0clusively in terms o! its constituent parts while the EpartsE
which EcomposeE what is terme a mental whole are1 themselves1
e!ine in terms o! the whole which they compose. "uch acts o!
abstraction !rom a EwholeE which is in reality an open system1 that is1
in!inite1 which is to say1 ineterminate1 must be initiate/constitute
!rom an arena which contains spacetime an not1 rather1 containe
within it. 6he reconstruction o! a mental whole must be guie in a top -
own manner whereas the construction o! a physical whole must be
guie in a bottom - up manner. 6he principle o! a mental whole must
e0ist prior to its actual realization C in terms o! whatever substanceD.
Fithout substance change is not possible. 3oe0tensive with this
principle is: change owes itsel! to a lacK o! etermination1 to a e!icit o!
?eing1 to negation. -rom which it at once !ollows that substance1 rather
than being the seat o! being1 o! thinghoo1 as common sense conceives it
to be1 it owes its e0istence1 to the contrary1 to a lacK o! being. Ht is not
possible !or a eterminate thing to be mae up out o! substance inso!ar
as this thing possesses etermination.
)*/2% Fe might also say that without activity substance is not
possible. 6he ob5ection naturally arises1 how can one posit activity as
prior to substance since any activity must be an activity o! some thing or
things. 6his ob5ection1 natural enough1 contains the assumption1
implicitly1 that all activity ultimately reuces to that o! some
!unamental constituents which themselves are not composite an which
hence o not themselves possess any intrinsic activity1 that is to say1 no
internal activity. =ere all change is conceive o! as reucible to the
changes in the con!igurations o! !unamental particles o!
substance/stu!!1 i.e.1 atoms. 6here is implicit here1 still more1 an
assumption about the nature o! time: each o! these atoms e0periences
the passage o! time in a completely ini!!erent manner. Hn a wor1 i! the
phenomenon o! activity is e0haustively pervasive1 i! all things are
constitute out o! activity an/or the potential !or activity1 then no real
substances e0ist1 only the appearances o! such.
&/2% ?ut the physical concepts o! activity an potential may be
intere!inable so that neither is primary. 6he general temporal evolution
o! potentials may be thought o! as activity1 while activity within an open
system cannot occur within a !inite possibility space so that the potential
!or novel patterns o! activity is always present. Hn this way1 activity
itsel! must always possess potentialV the potential is never merely so1 but
must itsel! always be unergoing activity. "patiotemporal scale may
become establishe through a comple0 system o! ecoupling o! spatial
an temporal !requencies o! some abstract region o! the quantum
vacuum !iel !rom itsel!.
Fe have sai elsewhere that any particular thing must be a
particular etermination o! groun at one particular time an another
etermination o! groun at another particular time1 i! one is to suppose
that the very same thing has continue in e0istence !rom that time to the
other time. Ht is easy enough to see that continuity is require !or the
subsistence o! what is calle historical time which we will hence!orth
re!er to as temporality. Hneterminate substance is the only basis !or the
continuity unerlying all change. =owever1 ineterminate substance1
not possessing a complete escription at any particular time1 must itsel!
be comprise by activity. Fe must realize that E!avorable combinationsE
are not Ehit uponE by chance an then magically locKe in an sustaine
against the thermal !luctuations o! energy which supposely originally
le to their !ormation1 but that these !avore con!igurations1 themselves1
represent con!igurations o! least energy within a necessarily pre-e0istent
system in which the energy minimum con!iguration is alreay e!ine
prior to its being realize in actuality. :arwinian natural selection is in
reality 5ust the channeling o! genetic ri!t which is entirely compose o!
neutral1 ranomly occurring1 point CstructuralD mutations o! amino aci
coons1 i.e.1 base pair triplets. 6hree things not Ee0plaineE by natural
selection:
*D the !act that the :@/ molecule contains in!ormation
2D the !act that this in!ormation containe within the :@/ can be
e0presse through the coing o! protein structures.
$D the original !ormation o! the gene regulatory1 genetic cybernetic
control structure.
6he trans!ormation occurring within an in!ormational/ cybernetic
system which owe to the in!luence o! conte0t upon the system cannot be
reuctively unerstoo in terms o! operations e!inable within this
system. Fithin a close computational state space1 which is to say1 a
state space with merely a !inite number o! istinct possible states1 there
is no room !or the operation o! such principles as convergence. 6he
phenomenon o! convergence is !unamentally nonlinear in nature.
3onservation o! momentum an energy is strictly maintaine within this
system so long as it remains close. 6his is1 o! course1 assuming that the
system containing the !irst system is itsel! a larger close system so that
action an reaction o! the smaller system upon the larger an vice versa
is maintaine. Hn a close ynamical system1 momentum an energy are
each conserve separately. 6his type o! conservation law is much more
restrictive than the mere conservation o! momentum/energy conceive
o! relativistically as the conservation o! !our-momentum. ;nergy which
is only locally connecte1 say through the operation o! classical cause
an e!!ect1 may prouce the appearance o! convergence or convergent
processes within a system e0changing this energy1 but this convergence
will be merely statistical in nature an will necessarily be Eshort-liveE
an will not e0hibit robust stability in the !ace o! thermal perturbations1
!or instance. 6he emergence o! orer in such a system is only an
appearance1 there!ore1 an cannot be built upon to prouce greater orer.
.ocally-connecte energy obeys the continuity equation o!
classical physics an cannot1 there!ore1 be thought to possess or
EcontainE in!ormation content. Hn other wors1 statistical changes in
momentum an energy1 wherein momentum an energy are each
separately conserve1 cannot prouce the coherence require by the
system in orer !or it to acquire stability as a sel!-e0isting an semi-
permanent entity. @onlocal connectivity cannot be accommoate
within the spacetime o! classical relativity. @onlocal quantum
correlations point to the e0istence o! a continuum transcening that o!
classical spacetime. Fe cannot simply ienti!y this transcenent realm
or continuum with the in!inite imensional =ilbert "pace o! Puantum
8echanics because the structure o! any given =ilbert "pace must vary in
a spatiotemporal manner through the spatiotemporal evolution o! the
wave!untion1 7siCr1tD.
Hntentionality is a temporal coherence on a larger scale than that
require by orinary system-ynamic coherence1 which is base upon
reverberative !eebacK. Ht is1 by the way1 oubt!ul whether a state space
is e!inable over an in!inite number o! istinct possible states. Hn !act1 a
=ilbert space cannot be e!ine !or a continuous spectrum o!
eigen!unctionsV such a continuum must be !irst appro0imate in terms o!
a Enear-in!initeE set o! Enearly-continuousE spectrum o! eigen!unctions
corresponing to a pseuoboune wave!unction.
,ntil the phenomenon o! 9ntogenesis is !ully unerstoo1 naturalistic
science hasnGt a ghost o! chance o! ever unerstaning the much broaer
an eeper phenomenon o! 7hylogenesis.
Fithin a close thermoynamic system1 in which conservation o! energy
must hol1 the general e!!ect o! perturbations upon orere structures
such as macromolecules is to egrae these structures with concomitant
increases in entropy. 6he ranom perturbations1 which are1 themselves
incapable o! sustaining the e0istence o! orere structures1 cannot be
invoKe to e0plain the origin o! these very same orere structures. Hn
this assertion H am ahering to the view1 !irst clearly state by the
rationalist philosopher .eibniz1 that Ethose conitions su!!icient to create
a thing are necessary at every succeeing instant to sustain this thingGs
e0istence. 6hese conitions are the activity o! abstraction1 which is
continuous an never per!ectly complete. 6he notion o! su!!icient
reason is epenent on the possibility o! erive sel!-e0istence.
Fithin the theory o! quantum mechanics1 however1 the principle o! the
conservation o! energy oes not generally hol1 even !or those systems1
which1 classically speaKing1 must be consiere to be close. Fithin
such systems1 there!ore1 the 2n .aw o! thermoynamics is not1 strictly
speaKing1 vali. Ht is perhaps not the quantum nature o! the ,niverse
itsel!1 which reners the law o! conservation o! momentum invali1 but
the !unamental !act o! the ,niverseGs being a raically open system.
Fhat are calle critical processes an what are calle creative processes
may act iniviually within a particular ynamical system1 or even in
combination with one another1 but either cannot be reuctively escribe
in terms o! the other. Ht is these seemingly magical sel! - organizing
properties o! matter1 owing to the recursiveness o! its ultimate
Econstituents1E which maKe any attempt to calculate the EimprobabilityE
o! biological macromolecules an incoherent an meaningless enterprise.
"imilar activities are the routine pastime o! myria scienti!ically incline
creationists attacKing evolution. 6he staggeringly large numerical ratios
which they cite against the Echance occurrenceE o! the simplest
euKaryote :@/ are calculate upon a permutational /combinational
moeling o! a prebiotic EsoupE in which chance collisions continually
occur between precursor molecules1 e.g.1 pepties1 amino acis1 nucleic
acis1 etc.
:ecember 2)**
6he coherence an cohesion o! combinational-
permutationa systems implies the e0istence o! a !iner grain o! ynamics
unerlying the e0plicit Kinematic statespace. /pplying the /nthropic
3osmological 7rinciple here1 we shoul suppose that any worl which
8an emerges into Cor Rout o!S1 c.!.1 /lan FattsD1 which happens to
contain molecules encoing biological in!ormation1 woul most liKely
possess an overetermine causality1 i.e.1 many i!!erent pattern or large
classes o! patterns o! genetic base pair sequences woul coe !or more
or less the same human species. /n or course1 i! we are honest with
ourselves1 the /nthropic 3osmological 7rinciple isn_t about some
novelly peculiar logic that maKes the e0istence o! the human species
virtually overwhelmingly liKely in the ,niverse1 itDs about the virtually
overwhelmingly li'ely e6istence of you in the Cniverse" to paraphrase
!oseph Campbell.
6he serious problem with such a moeling approach is that it is not
an empirically erive statistical calculation as in actuarial
computations1 where a istinct probability is assigne to each possible
event within a pool1 base on the observe relative !requencies o! each
event1 but is an abstract calculation where the probabilities are !i0e at
the outset an remain unchange throughout all series o! calculations.
Hn this way so-calle scienti!ic creationists beg the question o!
evolutionGs possibility. -or e0ample1 there are a vast number o! nucleic
aci reactions taKing place within the ribosome organelle o! every living
animal cell which in the absence o! certain meiating enzymes will taKe
place anywhere !rom 2 to 2) orers o! magnitue more slowly than i!
these enzymes are present - the ribosome is responsible !or EtranslatingE
the coe in!ormation o! nucleic acis into various macromolecules
CproteinsD an in so oing e0pressing the genotype o! the eveloping
organism. Fe see !rom this e0ample that the probability o! the
occurrence o! various macromolecules essential to the appearance o! the
!irst reproucing1 metabolizing organic units begins in!initesimally small
when the moleculeGs precursors are yet unavailable1 but that this
probability grows by large iscontinuous 5umps each time one o! these
precursors1 the precursorsG precursors1 etc. arise inavertently in the
prebiotic EsoupE so that by the time the e0haustive set o!
macromolecular precursors is present1 the !ormation o! the original
macromolecule is virtually assure.
6he ribosome itsel!1 espite its inorinately comple0 structure1 has
been observe uner e0perimental conitions to re!orm spontaneously
a!ter having been issociate within a care!ully prepare enzyme bath
into its precursor polynucleotie constituents - an this within the space
o! only several hoursT Ht is inee true that a countless variety o!
i!!erent enzymes Co! the precisely correct typeD must be simultaneously
present along with the polynucleotie matri0 !or this seemingly magical
act o! spontaneous sel! - organization to occur. 6his is because the sel! -
organization o! such an enormously comple0 organic structure epens1
throughout the entire process1 upon the almost simultaneous
5u0taposition Ccollision is a better termD o! three or more precursor
molecules which all happen to have the e0actly correct spatial
orientation1 with su!!icient Kinetic energy to overcome the activation
energy barrier against the reaction occurring. Ht shoul be note here
that 5ust the chance o! any three compatible molecules C in terms o! a
esire prouct D colliing at once with the roughly correct spatial
orientation is an event with a probability only in!initesimally greater
than zero - let alone the question o! proper activation energies.
/n so1 even i! the primorial ;arth possesse the appropriate
reucing atmosphere with oceans chalK !ull o! all o! the require
precursor molecules !or the ribosome to properly !orm1 without the
necessary catalyzing co!actors C the enzymes D there woul not liKely
have !orme a single such structure by this late epoch. 6hen perhaps
there must have been an e0tremely long perio o! time uring which the
necessary enzymes appeare on the scene1 one might thinK. 9ne
suspects1 then1 a similar sel! - organizing process behin the !ormation
o! these necessary enzymes1 the only i!!erence being that the precursors
which we are now concerne with are simpler1 while their precursors
must have been simpler still1 an so on. ?ut the precursor
macromolecules !or many particular enzymes have1 inee1 never been
manu!acture C because we onGt Know how to o itD1 but have to be
obtaine !rom more comple0 molecules than themselves1 i! not !rom
living or recently living organisms. 6he theory o! evolution1 chemical
evolution in this case1 has secretly conitione us to believe that there
must be some e!inite i! inorinately comple0 sequence: precursors +
co!actors b simpler precursors + co!actors b etc. leaing bacK to the very
simplest organic molecules which !orm by sel! - organization
spontaneously an easily in a wie variety o! environments an without
the nee !or co!actors or helper molecules o! any Kin1 an that it must
have been such a process Conly in reverseD which ultimately lea to the
!irst sel! - reproucing biological units which coul then be evelope
!urther through :arwinian natural selection.
$/2% Ht is interesting !or opponents o! the :arwinian theory that1 by
!ar1 most o! the !avorable characteristics which have been selecte !or by
the process o! evolution have never be!ore been mani!est in nature since
they are the phenotypic e0pression o! hereto!ore untrie genetic
combinations. 6his rue!ul !act !or :arwinians suggests that the greater
part o! the riving !orce behin the progressive comple0i!ication o!
living !orms is owing to a physical process which cannot ever be
capture within the purview o! the natural selection mechanism1 which
is purely critical in its action1 as note elsewhere1 an this process is
itsel! !unamentally creative. @atural selection i not engener the
genetic coe since it necessarily presupposes the prior e0istence o! this
coe !or its e!!icacy in bringing about more comple0 organisms.
6he notion o! sel! - organization gives some o! us pause because it
concerns a natural process which sits precisely on the !ence between
what might be calle less - than - sel! - organization1 i.e.1 !ormation !rom
simpler components1 an what is aptly calle greater - than - sel! -
organization1 i.e.1 !ormation !rom more comple0 components - an it is
5ust such a notion which strongly suggests a top - own hierarchy within
the natural orer which can only have intelligence at its ape0.
/t every step in the chain in the !ormation o! higher level
precursor molecules1 the meiation o! the require reactions is
accomplishe via sel! - organization principles: those who attempt to
calculate the probability against EchanceE !ormation o! important
precursor molecules !orget a very important general principle !irst
articulate by the great rationalist philosopher .eibniz - which is - that
set o! conitions which in combination are su!!icient to prouce some
comple0 structure must necessarily remain in operation at every
succeeing moment to sustain the e0istence o! this structure. 6he upshot
o! this is that a comple0 structure1 which owes its origin to mere chance1
cannot enure1 still less coul it respon to its environment in an
aaptive !ashion. 6here are possible bounary conitions which might
be easily place upon the ynamic o! the E!lu0E which are nonetheless
in!initely improbable as EnaturalE occurrences1 which is to say that the
operation o! intelligence is require to institute them.
6he asymmetrical nature o! time perhaps has some bearing on the
hierarchical structuring o! comple0 macromolecules. 6he !act that a
molecule has been !orme !rom a set o! simpler constituents oes not
guarantee that it can then be ecompose bacK into this set o!
constituents. "imilarly1 the !act that a molecule has been broKen own
into a set o! simpler constituents oes not guarantee that it can be
recompose !rom this sel!same set o! constituents. 4eometric
symmetries are responsible !or the time constancy o! ynamical
quantities. "ymmetry uner translations in the 0-irection1 !or e0ample1
is responsible !or conservation o! momentum irecte in the 0-irection.
"imilar statements apply !or the y an z irections. 6his implies that
energy is conserve only !or operations1 ynamic systems1 etc.1 which
are symmetric uner time translations. Hn other wors1 energy is only
conserve in system whose temporal evolution is reversible. 7erhaps the
asymmetrical nature o! temporality implies that any su!!iciently large set
o! macromolecules may be partitione into two is5oint partsV those
molecules possessing a bottom - up structure an those possessing a top
- own structure. 6his istinction1 which H am rawing1 is not a soli
theoretical oneV it is a pragmatic istinction1 which assumes that status o!
a theoretical istinction when we re!er to molecules occupying either
e0treme en o! the probability spectrum Cin terms o! their ability to !orm
EnaturallyE !rom simpler partsD.
3ausality always taKes place through a meium o! sheer
unrestraine activity. 6his ultimate meiumGs own activity cannot itsel!
be causal in nature1 but must transcen causality. 3ausality presupposes
the meium in which it operates. 6his is because causal interactions
always taKe place between eterminate entities an so always at a
particular level o! abstractness. 6here can be no interaction in a causal
sense o! parts with wholes.
3ausality1 which may be !iguratively thought o! as Ehorizontal
interactions1E is transcene by what might equally !iguratively be
terme Evertical interactions1E although a better term !or this might be
abstractive or concretizing trans!ormations1 epening upon whether one
is speaKing o! trans!ormations taKing a system to levels o! higher or
lower levels o! abstraction1 respectively. 6he relationship between the
horizontal an vertical interactions1 so calle1 is analogous to the
relationship between the temporal an the eternal. Ht shoul seem sel!-
evient that the process by which abstract categories are brought !orth1
i.e.1 abstraction1 must itsel!1 e!y any attempt to !ormalize it in terms o! a
!inite set o! abstract categories particular to a speci!ic level o!
abstractness within the hierarchy o! all possible abstractions.
/bstraction1 being a temporal process1 cannot be capture within an
atemporal !rameworK - there will never be a set o! equations or
otherwise abstract relationships which will be able to tell us what
istinguishes a moment in time when it is present !rom the same
moment in time when it is past.
Hntuitively1 we may say that this istinction lies between this
moment1 when separate !rom the groun which brought it !orth1 an
this moment uring the instant in which it was continuous with its
groun1 which is to say1 the instant in which its groun was bringing it
into being. 6he groun itsel! is1 o! course1 never separate !rom itsel!
an so is always in the present. 6his prephenomenal groun1 since it is
always bringing things into being1 since this is the very essence o! its
nature1 cannot itsel! be a being o! any sort. 6emporality lies with
ineterminateness1 openness an ine!initeness. 6ime1 which we are
thinKing o! as temporality in the past1 is the history o! successive
eterminations o! the ineterminate groun wholly !rom outsie itsel!.
6he groun is etermine by itsel! as other. Hn other wors1 !or the
groun o! being1 its sub5ectivity an ob5ectivity are one. "ub5ectivity
an 9b5ectivity are only separate through the action o! etermination.
6he wholly ineterminate requires no e0planation an1 in !act1
transcens the notion o! e0istence because e0istents are simply various
eterminations o! groun.
*2/2& -rom which it !ollows immeiately that the intereterminate
groun transcens the categorical istinction o! e0istence versus
none0istenceV an these categories are seen in light o! this to be not
genuinely is5oint1 not because these categories in reality overlap though
unerstoo as istinct1 but in the sense o! these two E!unamental
categoriesE not being con5ointly e0haustive: whether or not groun is
presently etermine as some particular mani!est !orm is !orever an
issue inepenent o! the necessity o! grounGs being. 6o say either / or
not-/ says nothing about the grounGs intrinsic nature. ;ven to posit
such a nature Cper seD !or groun is simply to1 once again1 inulge in a
speci!ication o! one o! its possible eterminations. =ere we are
implying a istinction between what is calle being an what we might
term Ethe merely e0istent.E 3ausal relationships are always partial in
nature an there!ore are always mere appro0imate relationships. 6his is
because causal relationships can only e0ist between eterminations
Ce0istentsD which belong to i!!erent moments in time1 an in the
intervening time the EwaKeE o! the earlier etermination has necessarily
EspreaE in its in!luence on later events1 although this earlier event
prevents the later !rom being e0haustively etermine by the
instantaneous conte0t o! its present moment. 6he past is always !ree to
change1 but only within the bounaries set by its original etermination.
6hat which is in principle unKnowable is not secretly escribable in
terms o! some eterministic algorithm1 but only by an algorithm1 which
is in principle unKnowable1 that is to say1 in principle incomprehensible.
6hat escription1 which oes not epen upon temporality1 cannot
capture the subtleties o! the action o! the quantum vacuum1 itsel!1 the
timeless CeternalD originator o! temporality. 6hat which is
noneterministic is noncomputable in its operation.
>uly 2)**
6he two postulates o! special relativity may be uni!ie uner this
single postulate: the vacuum behaves in relation to light as though it is
not supporting its propagation. Hn other wors this meium o! virtually
in!inite energy ensity must behave as though it is not supporting the
propagation o! light. 6he .orentz invariance o! the vacuum is
emonstrate by the orerly many in which the correlational structure o!
vacuum !luctuations systematically changes uner a .orentz
trans!ormation. H imagine that a propagating gravitational !iel Cnot
necessarily a RwaveSD passing through a region o! the vacuum must
e!!ect a suen change in the correlational structure o! the spin-) an
spin-* !luctuations o! this vacuum in a manner that is characterize by a
change in the local ensity o! collective spin-2 !luctuations. 6his change
to the correlational structure o! the local region o! the vacuum coul not
have been preicte !rom a tracing out o! the past temporal evolution o!
this local region. "o the trans!ormation o! the local vacuum shoul not
normally be essentially causality-preserving1 e0cept !or the !act that1
inclue in the trans!ormation o! this vacuum is also a change in its
=eisenberg uncertainties in postion1 momentum1 time an energy1 which
masK the causality violations. "o causality is not merely eterminismV it
is
Qd
eterminism combine with a reliable mechanism for hiing
causality violations. 6his is in accor with =eraclitus_ notion that Rthe
latent is the master o! appearancesS.
:ecember *22&
Ht is not possible to e!ine a eterministic tra5ectory in phase
space i! the phase space o! the system is e0paning1 say1 ue to the
e0pansion o! the ,niverse. 6his is because no non-arbitrary one-to-one
!unctions o! the phase space variables can be e!ine to represent the
eterministic evolution o! the system through the e0paning phase
space. Hn other wors1 there is no non-ynamical embeing
EsuperstatespaceE in terms o! which the evolution o! the tra5ectories with
respect to the state space variables o! the e0paning state space may be
e!ine. Fe always gain Knowlege o! a systemGs behavior through the
positing o! a eterministic moel o! the system1 but at the e0pense o!
relegating unerstaning o! the motive mainspring o! the system to the
mysterious. Oinematics ignores the ynamics1 which sustains the
illusion o! the permanence o! the entities with respect to which the
Kinematic variables are e!ine: 6ime cannot be capture within a
!ormal escription.
;+7;AH8;@6: H! very sensitive spectroscopic observations can be
mae o! the e!lecte stellar images preicte by general relativity to
occur uring a total solar eclipse1 then chromatic ispersion o! the
various optical wavelengths may be observe inicating that the true
mechanism o! gravitational light e!lection is not on account o! space-
time curvature prouce by the "unGs mass1 but ue to the re!raction o!
the starlight on its passing through a vacuum o! raially ecreasing zero-
point energy ensity. Fe woul e0pect the zero-point ensity o! $-
momentum o! the vacuum to actually increase in step with the raially
ecreasing vacuum energy ensity. "ince we assume that in !ree space
the !luctuations in vacuum !our-momentum Cwhich are either ) or !all
outsie the scope o! 6
i1K
D are equipartatively istribute among the !our
istinct !our-momentum components1 any ecrease in the ensity o!
energy !luctuations in the vacuum woul be e0presse in an equal
increase in each o! the $-momentum components Ci! geometry1 i.e.1
curvature1 is not taKen into accountD equal to the cube root o! ;
vac
@ow it is the geometry o! the matter istribution as well as its ensity
istribution which etermines the geometry o! the reistribution o! the
vacuum_s !our-momentum !luctuation components.
)&/2N
:H"3,""H9@: 6his is ue to the general properties o! re!ractive meia
where wavelengths o! i!!erent energy Ci!!erent sizeD traversing a
re!ractive meium must !ollow slightly i!!erent tra5ectories with shorter
wavelengths being re!racte more than longer wavelengths. "ince the
vacuumGs zero-point energy is the zero-calibration o! all energy
measuring instruments1 it is e0pecte that the energy o! a photon passing
through a vacuum o! increasing zero-point energy will e0perience an
apparent shi!t in its observe energy Cgravitational reshi!t D
commensurate to the change in the zero-point energy between the point
o! its emission an the point o! its absorption C by an energy measuring
instrument D. 4ravitational time ilation is also e0plicable in terms o!
the propose vacuum mechanism o! gravitation.
;+7;AH8;@6: 9bserve ecreases in the barrier tunneling
probabilities within a Ee-tuneE resonant cavity. 6his cavity woul
enclose the potential energy barrier an will possess a speci!ic geometry
such that vacuum electromagnetic !iel !luctuations are suppresse
which possess an energy appro0imating the i!!erence in energy between
the tunneling particle an the potential barrier.
;+7;AH8;@6: "et up a series o! 3asimir capacitor plates in which the
separation between the plates is change by a iscrete amount as one
moves in line !rom one plate to the ne0t. "tarting !rom the en o! the
series where the plate separation is smallest1 pro5ect a coherent beam o!
photons through the series o! plates an observe the shi!t in the beamGs
!requency. 6he !ractional change in the vacuum electromagnetic !iel
energy ensity shoul give the !ractional change in the !requency
CenergyD o! the coherent light beam. 6he beam may also be pro5ecte
through the series o! 3asimir plates at a small angle an the amount o!
re!raction o! the beam measure. 6here is a practical problem
concerning the interpretation o! the energy uncertainty o! unstable
EelementaryE particles. 7hysicists o not seem to have convince
themselves as to whether this energy uncertainty which is responsible !or
the eventual ecay o! all unstable particles is to be unerstoo as being
inherent in the structure o! the particle itsel!1 or as inherent in the energy
structure o! the vacuum which perhaps inuces the ecay o! the particle
through perturbing energy !luctuations o! a !unamental nature. 6he
!act that a particle possesses an uncertainty in its energy1 however
arbitrarily small1 implies that there is a nonzero !inite probability that the
particle will e0perience a !luctuation in its energy large enough to inuce
ecay o! the particle. /ccoring to 8illoni1 a preeminent thinKer on the
sub5ect o! the quantum vacuum1 the energy uncertainty o! an unstable
e0cite atom1 !or instance1 is owing not only to the perturbative
in!luence o! the vacuum electromagnetic !iel1 but also to what is calle
Eraiation reaction.E ?oth o! these components play a !ormally equal
role in composing the overall energy uncertainty1 /a;1 o! the unstable
atom. 9! course1 the uncertainties in any observable1 not 5ust in the
energy1 are1 we might well say1 raically overetermine. 6his is
because1 !or e0ample1 in the case o! the energy uncertainty1 there is a
truly ine!inite number o! i!!erent ami0tures o! eigenenergies which1
i! superpose1 will sum together to give one an energy uncertainty o!
precisely /a;1 whatever /a; happens to be !or the system one is
consiering. /ap 0 /a0 Z= h an the tunneling o! a particle across a
potential energy barrier can there!ore be interprete in two
complementary ways: one may suppose that the tunneling particle
possesses a positional uncertainty which is greater than or comparable to
the with o! the barrier1 or one might suppose1 contrariwise1 that the
momentum uncertainty o! the particle is such that there is a liKelihoo
that the particle will e0perience a momentum !luctuation strong enough
to EboostE the particle EoverE the potential barrier. ;ither interpretation
seems to aequately moel the particleGs tunneling across the potential
barrier. 6he !irst interpretation relies on the positional uncertainty
inherent per the wave escription an the secon interpretation on the
momental uncertainty per the particle escription. Hn the !irst case we
are thinKing o! a momentum !luctuation o! a waveliKe entity with
positional uncertainty whereas in the secon we are thinKing o! a
!luctuation in the particleGs position to which is associate a momentum
uncertainty. Fe may say that the momentum uncertainty o! a particle is
inherent in the particle while its positional uncertainty is inuce by the
attenant !luctuations in its momentum whereas the positional
uncertainty o! a wave is inherent while its momentum uncertainty is
inuce by the attenant !luctuations in the waveGs position.
>uly *22N
Hn the -ourier e0pansion o! a !unction o! 0 an t1 !C01tD1 which
possesses iscontinuous enpoints1 we !in that no matter who many
harmonics are ae together1 there will continue to e0ist at these
enpoints both an unershoot an an overshoot. 6his is what is calle
4ibb_s phenomenon. Hnterestingly1 the magnitue o! the overshoot is
una!!ecte by the number harmonics one as together to construct the
-ourier trans!orm1 -CwD.
Qd
Hn orer !or the !unction to be RproperlyS
e0presse in terms o! -CwD1 either we must eviate !rom per!ect
orthogonality o! the energy eigen!unctions which we are summing
together to appro0imate !C01tD1 or we must not permit !C01tD to be truly
iscontinuous. 6his suggests that an interaction o! amplitues
corresponing to e0tremely low probabilities unerlie the ynamics o!
quantum tunneling phenomena.
>uly 2)**
6here is grist !or an analogy
here which might be use to help illuminate the problem o! evil in
3hristian theology1 c.!.1 FO? appro0imation o! potential barrier
problem1 imaginary momentum o! a tunneling electron1 4ibb_s
phenomenon1 electromagnetic !ringe phenomenon1 4ibb_s !ree energy1
wave!unction basis !unctions1 analyticity o! a !unction1 =eisenberg
uncertainty an =awKings Rchronology protectionS mechanism1 etc.
"pacetime !luctuations are relate to momentum-energy !luctuations in
the sense that the more violent the spacetime !lu01 the more calm
becomes the momentum-energy !lu0. 6he most precise spacetime
tra5ectory woul them be etermine by !luctuations o! momentum-
energy o! the greatest possible violenceT / serious problem !or general
relativity presente here is that violent momentum-energy !luctuations
shoul normally be associate with equally violent gravitational !iel
!luctuations1 i.e.1 gravitational waves or great energy1 but this is
inconsistent with mil !luctuations in the spacetime metric.
:ecember *22&
@o massive boy can travel !aster than the velocity o! light
because there is no stable1 continuously e0isting meium1 as in the case
o! the Estill airE !or soun1 which supports the propagation o! light.
Aather1 the quantum mechanical vacuum1 speci!ically the quantum
vacuum electromagnetic !iel1 EsupportsE the propagation o! real
electromagnetic waves1 i.e.1 real photons1 in the particle escription.
6his meium supportive o! the transmission o! light is compose o!
vacuum !luctuations o! momentum-energy otherwise Known as zero-
point !luctuations o! the vacuum. 6his quantum vacuum cannot serve as
an absolute re!erence !rame relative to which an observer coul move at
some !inite velocity1 an this is why the velocity o! light must always
have the same value1 c1 regarless o! the state o! motion o! any observer.
Fhat prevents the vacuum !rom being seize upon as an absolute
re!erence !rame is the !act that it is compose o! energy !luctuations
which possess a positional uncertainty1 /a01 an a time uncertainty1 /at1
such that /a0//at = Y c Z. Fe say 1 Y c Z instea o! c because locally1 that
is1 over submicroscopic istances1 the velocity o! light can be e0ceee
within Esubmicroscopic times.E 6his is all to say that1 the velocity o!
light1 c1 = Y c Z over istances1 01 Z /a0 over times1 t1 Z /at. 6his suggests
that the 8inKowsKi light cone representation o! spacetime must begin to
breaK own as one approaches the verte0 o! the light cone - the
bounaries between the tiny region1 absolute past/here-now/absolute
!uture1 an the elsewhere region must lose its neat rectilinearity as one
approaches spacetime imensions1 01t Y /a01 /at. Ht is as though spacetime
possesse a Kin o! EgranularityE mae up o! three imensional EcellsE
o! minimum imension1 /a01 an li!etime1 /at. 6he li!etime o! a given cell
may be re-e0presse as a !requency1 *//at1 so that we may thinK o! each
EcellE as being continuously recreate or re!orme at !requency1 ! = *//at1
where /at is1 again1 the li!etime o! the cell. 6he energy1 /a;1 o! each cell
is constantly being absorbe by the vacuum an recreate at the
!requency1 !1 escribe above. /n analogy with oneGs personal computer
will serve to help us unerstan how what has been sai thus !ar bears
on the problem o! the origin o! the !inite1 not-to-be-e0ceee value o!
the spee o! light1 c. Ht is obvious upon a momentGs re!lection that i!
one EgrabsE an icon on the le!t han sie o! oneGs computer screen by
EclicKing on itE once an EraggingE this icon across the screen that one
cannot move the icon in this way arbitrarily quicKly1 but there is some
precisely e!inable limit to how !ast any ob5ect represente on the screen
can move across it. 6his limit1 i! one is talKing about an EiconE the size
o! a single pi0el1 is etermine quite simply !rom two easily
ascertainable parameters1 the with o! a Epi0el1E i.e.1 the minimum
image length scale or resolution o! the computer screen1 an the clocK
rate o! the computerGs 37,1 or central processing unit. -or e0ample1 i!
the clocK rate o! the 37, is *))8hz1 that is1 *)) million C*)ND cycles
per secon1 an the pi0el Cassume to be squareD imension is1 say1 *))
microns C *)-(D meters1 then the theoretical limit to how !ast a pi0el-
size Erepresente ob5ectE may move across the computer monitor is
about *)N 0 *)-( = *)( meters/sec. 6his is an e0tremely high velocity1
an the actual practical limit is probably several orers o! magnitue
smaller than this !igure1 say1 aroun *) meters/sec !or an average size
icon. 6he reason !or this i!!erence in the theoretical an practical limits
in the Erepresente ob5ect1E velocity1 or the Erepresentational velocityE
!or a particular computer monitor we will go into in greater etail a little
later. "u!!ice to say here that the cru0 o! the problem o! the !inite limit
on propagation spee has everything to o with the !act that the
Eob5ectsE which we have been consiering are1 in reality1 not ob5ects at
all1 but are merely Erepresente ob5ects1E or Eob5ect representations.E /s
long as one supposes1 perhaps unre!lectingly1 that Ephysical ob5ectsE are
har an massy1 compose o! some simple1 uni!!erentiate Estu!!E
which persists through time ine!initely because quite ini!!erent to the
Epassage o! time1E an as long as one conceives o! space as a Everitable
emptinessE through which matter may ini!!erently pass1 then the iea o!
an absolute limit to the velocity o! masses through Ethe voiE must seem
as arbitrary as the gravitational action between masses separate by an
empty voi seems inherently mysterious. ?ut accoring to moern
quantum theory1 all operators corresponing to physical observables are
ecomposable in terms o! two !unamental operators1 / an /t1 the
annihilation an creation operators. 6his is what is calle the 2n
quantization !ormalism1 an this theory supplants the semi-classical1
Eol quantum theoryE o! ?ohr1 Auther!or1 an 7lancK. 6he so-calle
Esolar systemE moel o! the atom which is still being taught in high
schools throughout the avance1 inustrialize worl is an outstaning
arti!act o! this early version o! quantum theory. 6hus !ar1 the analogy
with the computer strongly suggests the type o! mechanism which may
lie behin the universal spee limit represente by the velocity o! light i!
one associates the pi0el length an CclocK rateD-* with the inherent
length an time scales o! spacetime1 /a0 an /at1 i!1 inee1 these e0ist.
6his woul be possible i! the energy an momentum uncertainties1 /a;
an /ap1 which engener /a01 /at1 coul be trace to the !luctuating
momentum-energy o! the quantum vacuum itsel!. Fe may argue in
!avor o! this in the !ollowing way.
6here are two ways to interpret the ecay o! an unstable nucleus
through the e5ection o! an alpha particle. 6he traitional approach is in
terms o! the positional uncertainty o! the alpha particle which is
Ee5ecteE 6his particle has a nonzero probability o! being !oun outsie
the nucleus ue to positional uncertainty o! the particle1 /ar. /n
alternative approach is to thinK in terms o! the energy uncertainty o! this
e5ecte particle. ?y virtue o! a nonzero energy uncertainty1 there is a
small probability that the particle will e0perience an energy boost1 /a;1
greater than the nuclear bining energy associate with the strong
nuclear !orce bining the particle to its nucleus. 6raitionally1 this
energy !luctuation was thought to have originate within the nucleus
itsel!. Ht is more liKely that this !luctuation energy is supplie by the
quantum vacuum in which the unstable nucleus is embee an with
which it is in continual interaction C momentum-energy e0change.
3all the energy o! an energy !luctuation1 ;0 1 an call any
!luctuation in energy larger than ;01 ;z. H! the energy uncertainty1 m;1
is thought to be associate with a particle itsel!1 then we !ace the serious
problem o! a nonlinearity in the probability istribution !unction
escribing the spectrum o! energy eigenstates which comprise the
energy uncertainty o! the particle. 6his is because the occurrence o! an
energy !luctuation1 ;z Z ;01 implies that no !luctuation in energy1 ;0 Y ;
Y ;z1 has alreay been e0perience by the particle1 !or this woul have
meant the previous issolution o! the particle1 whereupon the probability
o! energy !luctuation1 ;z1 o! the particleGs intrinsic energy woul become
). "o we see that the probability o! the occurrence o! perturbation
energy1 ;z Z ;01 i.e.1 7C;zD1 must be moi!ie so that the new
probability1 taKing into account the interepenence o! all perturbation
probabilities !or energies1 ;z Z ; Z ;01 that is1 7GC;zD1 becomes1
[ * - "C7C;DD on [;
)
to ;
0
\ = "C7GC;DD on [;
0
to ; \
6his situation oes not lea to a iscontinuity in the perturbation energy
probability !unction1 however1 as
[ * - "C7C;DD\1
is e0actly zero at the EcuspE where the moi!ie probability !unction1
7GC;D1 begins an the original probability !unction1 7C;D1 ens1 in the
composite !unction1 which is given below1
7 = 7C;D1 !or ) Y ; Y ;0
7 = [* - "C7C;DD\1 !or ; Z ;0
=owever1 i! the original probability !unction1 7C;D1 is normalize1 then
the new1 moi!ie probability !unction1 7GC;D1 cannot be normalize.
H!1 on the other han1 we normalize this new !unction1 we then !in
that the preicte probabilities !or each o! the energy eigenstates1 which
together comprise the total energy uncertainty o! the quantum
mechanical system in question1 will no longer con!orm to the results o!
e0periment because the original probability istribution !unction1 7C;D1
is now no longer properly normalize. 6his is because the original
wave!unction1 upon which the perturbation energy probability !unction
is base1 is1 in !act1 the correct wave!unction - the moi!ie probability
!unction1 given above1 is simply !alse: very simply1 we must not
interpret the energy uncertainty o!1 e.g.1 unstable subatomic particles1 as
resiing with the particles themselves1 but with the quantum mechanical
vacuum state with which these particles continually interact1 via constant
energy e0change with this vacuumV more accurately1 the particles1
themselves1 are constitute by various energy e0changes between the
vacuum an itsel! an the particle is continually being reconstitute out
o! the continual trans!ormation o! this vacuum energy. Ht is the
organization o! this vacuum energy into a !orm represente by the
particle which more or less possesses permanence or persistence through
time that we normally thinK o! as intrinsic to a particle as such1 not the
vacuum energy itsel!1 since it is the cyclic replenishing o! the particleGs
energy out o! this vacuum which itsel! marKs the passage o! time !or the
particle. 6his argument !or the vacuum as the origin o! particle energy
uncertainty !ollows !rom the assumption that the proucts o! the
spontaneous isintegration o! the original particle are collectively
escribe by the original particleGs wave!unction even a!ter the
components have separate into which the particle has isintegrate.
=ere we have a situation which is quite issimilar in principle to the
abrupt change to the structure o! the =yrogen atomGs groun state
energy inuce by the suen switching on o! a magnetic !iel in its
vicinity. 6he =amiltonian o! the =yrogen atom is altere through the
suen aition o! the energy o! the magnetic !iel1 however1 an this1 in
turn1 precipitously alters the wave!unction o! the =yrogen atom which
is calculate !rom the =amiltonian !unction via the time-inepenent
"chroinger equation. Puantum physicists will say that the energy
levels o! the =yrogen atom were egenerate with respect to the spin
quantum number until the switching on o! the magnetic !iel coupling to
the atomGs spin altere the =amiltonian1 an1 hence1 its attenant
wave!unction. 6he origin o! the iscontinuous change in the =yrogen
atomGs wave!unction is as much ue to the intrinsic spin structure o! the
atom as it is to the suen appearance o! a magnetic !iel to which the
spin couples. Hn the case o! the spontaneous isintegration o! the
unstable particle1 no new term nee be ae to the particleGs
=amiltonian to account !or the isintegration event which was not
alreay present prior to this event an this is why no change in the
particleGs wave!unction1 iscontinuous or otherwise1 is observe1 but1 as
we inicate alreay1 the very same wave!unction su!!ices to escribe
the proucts o! the isintegration as were su!!icient to escribe the
particle uring the moments leaing up to this inherently unpreictable
event. Ht is simply that the original =amiltonian escribing the total
energy o! the unstable particle all along containe an energy term which
was una!!ecte by the isintegration event. 6his energy term must not
have been associate with the original atom1 but was inepenent o! it
an equally present both be!ore an a!ter the isintegration tooK place:
the vacuum energy term o! the =amiltonian. 6he in!luence o! the
vacuum energy term o! the =amiltonian is probably generally
responsible !or the phenomenon o! entanglement o! wiely separate
quantum states which ha previously interacte. 6he nonlocal
connectivity o! the local vacuum energy terms in the =amiltonians o! the
quantum states1 consiere separately1 may provie the mechanism !or
such entanglement o! quantum states.
)*/2% 7erhaps the same wave!unction escribes the proucts o! the
isintegration because the total energy o! the proucts remains the same
as that o! the particle 5ust prior to the isintegration event an what
maKes this possible is a change in the vacuum energy term o! the
=amiltonian which compensates the changes to all the other energy
terms1 conserving the total energy. 9r perhaps1 rather1 the change in
energy EcausingE the isintegration1 because Y= /a;1 cannot be etecte
because energy perturbation possesse a uration o! Y /at?
*2/2& /n alternate way to view the breaKown o! the 8inKowsKi
lightcone escription1 which seems to imply1 by the way1 that gravitation
must be taKen into account over submicroscopic istances an times1 is
to thinK o! c representing the actual in!initesimal/instantaneous value o!
the velocity o! light with the bounaries between Ehere-nowE an
EelsewhereE remaining well-e!ine all the way to the verte01 but with
greater an greater !luctuations in momentum an energy as one
approaches this verte0. 6he breaKown o! the 8inKowsKi escription is
now represente in terms o! e0changes o! energy between the absolute
past an absolute !uture an e0changes o! momentum between the
Ehere-nowE region an the EelsewhereE region.
'/2% 6his alternative escription o! the breaKown o! the 8inKowsKi
lightcone escription replaces the more traitional interpretation o! this
breaKown where the spacetime bounaries e!ining the coneGs verte0
e0perience geometroynamic !luctuations in the topology o!
submicroscopic spacetime which some theorists have trie to unerstan
in terms o! oscillations in the relative proportions o! graviton processes
in the !orm o! graviton creation/annihilation with respect to graviton
emission/ absorption. Hn the alternative interpretation1 allue to above1
virtual graviton interactions are renere super!luous1 being replace by
merely creation/annihilation an emission/absorption o! !iel
momentum/energy in the !orm o! a spectrum o! virtual bosons meiating
the nongravitational !unamental !orces1 i.e.1 the electromagnetic1
strong1 an weaK nuclear !orces1 an o! which gravitation is a
phenomenal mani!estation. 9n this view1 gravitation is a Eparasitic
!orceE which oes not possess a unique e0change particle. "o one view
o! the vacuum is that o! a matri0 o! Ezero-pointE !luctuations in energy
o! li!etime1 /at1 an momentum !luctuations possessing an uncertainty in
position1 /a0.
'/2% Hn the same way that momentum e0changes between subatomic
particles meiate the attractive/ repulsive !orces acting between them in
three imensions an in this way constituting the boun energy structure
o! matter to which inertia owes its origin - in this way the energy
e0changes between i!!erent simultaneity planes which mani!ests itsel!
as quantum energy !luctuations associate with =eisenberg energy
uncertainty1 meiate !orces which may either spee up or slow own the
rate o! cosmological e0pansion CtimeD.
)&/2N
"uch !orces may be
intimately involve with the unerlying mechanism o! gravitation within
the quantum mechanical vacuum.
@ow it 5ust so happens that one way o! e0pressing the spee o! light is in
terms o! /a0 an /at1 that is1
c = Y c Z = /a0//at
Hn orer !or one to travel a measurable istance relative to a given
vacuum !luctuation1 one must be able to travel a istance1 01 Z /a0 within
the time1 /at1 that the !luctuation is in e0istence. 6his is merely to say1
that one must begin traveling at a velocity greater than c be!ore oneGs
motion becomes measurable relative to the physical vacuum. ?ut o!
course one must1 presumably1 !irst have attaine sub-light velocities
relative to this physical vacuum be!ore actually reaching c an beyon.
@ow i! oneGs velocity is not measurable relative to the reservoir o!
vacuum !luctuations1 then how can oneGs acceleration relative to these
!luctuations be measurable or have a physical meaning? H! the value o!
some variable is constant1 then surely its !irst time erivative is zero. "o
i! the velocity o! the observer is necessarily zero relative to vacuum
!luctuations1 then oneGs acceleration relative to these same !luctuations
must also be zero. ?y ;insteinGs equivalence principle1 then neither can
the vacuum accelerate relative to any istributions o! mass an energy
within spacetime. 6his simply means that a given mass cannot e0ert a
gravitational !orce upon the vacuum !luctuations1 nor can the vacuum
!luctuations e0ert any gravitational in!luence upon masses.
*2/2% 9ne o! the e!!ects o! a gravitational !iel is that the vacuum
actually acquires a mass because the alteration in the vacuum statistics
inuce by a mass istribution !alls o!! only graually with istance -
with the inverse-square in the case o! spherical mass istributions. 6he
ensity o! momentum !luctuations C in the !orm o! the vector boson
e0change particles D in the quantum vacuum is greater than its !ree space
value in the vicinity o! mass istributions. "imilarly1 the ensity o!
energy !luctuations in the !orm o! the ensity o! virtual
!ermion/anti!ermion creation-annihilation events within the vicinity o!
these mass istributions is corresponingly ecrease. "ince the ensity
o! the =eisenberg uncertainty in $-momentum increases with closing
istance to a given massive boy1 we shoul e0pect a net !iel
momentum o! the vacuum in the irection o! the boyGs centroi o!
mass. /t the same time1 the =eisenberg uncertainty in the vacuumGs
purely imaginary component o! its (-momentum shoul ecrease in the
irection o! the centroi o! mass o! this boy. /nother way o! looKing at
this is to thinK o! the virtual !ermion/anti!ermion pairs as having two
i!!erent interpretations: they may be viewe either as an energy
!luctuation or as a momentum !luctuation Cphoton1 in the case o! an
electron/positron pairD
)&/2N
"o a test mass shoul e0perience an energy graient in the irection o!
the massive boy Cor its centroiD. 6his energy graient only points in
the correct irection1 i.e.1 towar the mass rather than away !rom the
mass1 i! the relativistic mass o! the test mass is tie Cin the appropriate
mannerD to the momentum an energy ensity o! the vacuum. /s the
test mass approaches the massive boy1 the ensity o! momentum
!luctuations within the test mass increase in ensity - through the
enhancing e!!ect o! the increase ambient ensity o! $-momentum
!luctuations within the vacuum in which the test mass momentarily is
resiing1 while the ensity o! energy !luctuations within the test mass
ecreases in a corresponing an complementary manner to the increase
in the ensity o! $-momentum !luctuations. 6his e!!ect is to be
e0plaine by the !act that the 7auli ;0clusion 7rinciple applies equally
to real an virtual !ermions an by the aitional !act that the
mechanism unerlying both lasing an ?ose conensation Cwhich has
the e0act opposite e!!ect upon bosons which the 7auli 7rinciple has upon
!ermionsD itsel! also applies iniscriminately to both real an virtual
bosons. ?ecause the $-momentum an purely imaginary (-momentum
Ci.e.1 energyD !luctuation ensities may be unerstoo as components o! a
conserve ( vector1 i.e.1 that o! total (-momentum1 the energy
uncertainty o! a local region o! the quantum vacuum can be a!!ecte by
the presence o! real bosons 5ust as the purely spatial components o! the
!luctuating ( momentum in this vacuum may be a!!ecte by the presence
o! real !ermions. 6he equality o! the e!!ects o! real !ermions with real
bosons upon the statistics o! the vacuum a!!ecting gravity may perhaps
be e0plaine in terms o! the equivalence in the escription o! mass as
either !ermions acting via the 7auli 7rinciple upon this vacuum or as
purely bosons so acting1 through the appropriate combining o! !ermions
into pairs so as to represent them as Ee!!ective bosons.E
/ very important paper on the origins o! quantum noise contains a
number o! observations which len support to the above iea o! treating
the momentum an energy uncertainty C in terms o! their !luctuationsD as
components o! a !our vector. 7articularly supporting selections !rom this
paper Cgiven belowD are highlighte in blue with the remaining te0t in
re.
6he 9rigins o! Puantum @oise in 7hotonics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3harles =. =enry
?ell .aboratories1 .ucent 6echnologies1 8urray =ill1 @> )%2%(-)&$&
Auol! -. Oazarinov
?ell .aboratories1 .ucent 6echnologies1 ?reinigsville1 7/ *N)$*-2$'2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fe e0plain the origins o! quantum noise an how quantum noise in
lasers an ampli!iers can be escribe by classical noise sources.
H. "pontaneous 3urrent
3lassical noise is ue to thermal motion. Puantum noise has a i!!erent
origin. Ht results !rom !luctuations that we associate with the =eisenberg
uncertainty principle. -or e0ample1 consier a moel o! an atom
consisting o! an electron in a potential well shown in -ig. *. "uppose the
electron is in its groun state. /s a result o! the con!inement an the
uncertainty relation o! position an momentum1 the electron has
momentum !luctuations. 6here is an energy associate with these
!luctuations which raises the groun state in energy above the bottom o!
the well.
-igure *: 8omentum !luctuations o! an electron in
the groun state occur at the !requencies o! transitions to e0cite states.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6his is elementary quantum mechanics1 but one topic usually not
iscusse in quantum mechanics is the !requency spectrum o! the
momentum !luctuations. Hn noise theory1 the !requency spectrum o! a
ranom variable is !oun by calculating the correlation !unction o! the
variable at two times. 6his is most easily one in the =eisenberg picture
o! quantum mechanics1 where the operators are time-epenent an the
wave !unctions escribe initial states. / simple calculation shows that
the correlation !unction o! the momentum operator at two times is
6his calculation shows that the momentum !luctuations are compose o!
all the !requencies o! transitions !rom the groun state to e0cite states.
6hus momentum !luctuations occur at optical !requencies.
6he electron is charge1 so there is a current associate with the electron
momentum:
Fe call this !luctuating current that is present even in the absence o! an
applie !iel a Espontaneous current.E Ht is a source o! quantum noise.
8a0wellGs equations1 relating electromagnetic !iels to charge an
current sources1 hol in the quantum theory. -or the propagation o!
transverse waves1 they reuce to a wave equation !or the vector potential
with a spontaneous current source:
Fe will re!er to the vector potential as the E!iel.E 6here is also current
inuce by the !iel. >ust as in classical theory1 the inuce current can
be appro0imate as proportional to the !iel an inclue in the wave
equation by a ielectric !unction. 6he solution o! this equation is a !iel
raiating !rom the atom an carrying away energy. Ht appears that an
electron in its groun state will lose energy.
HH. Iacuum -iels
6his energy loss is prevente by the other source o! quantum noise:
vacuum !iels. 6he !iel o! raiation can be e0pane in moes. Hn !ree
space1 the moes are transverse plane waves o! all wavelengths an
propagating in all irections. 6he !iel o! each moe oscillates
sinusoially at the moe !requency liKe a simple harmonic oscillator. Ht
is well Known that a quantum treatment o! a mechanical simple
harmonic oscillator results in an evenly space set o! energy levels. ?y
assuming that the moe !iel amplitue an its time erivative are
operators with commutation rules similar to those o! position an
momentum1 the moe also acquires an evenly space set o! energy levels
C-ig. 2aD. ;ach energy level is interprete as a i!!erent number o!
photons in the moe.
-igure 2: ;nergy levels o! an optical moe CaD an electron energy levels
in a semiconuctor CbD. 6he positive !requency !iel an spontaneous
current operators are lowering operators1 while their =emitian
con5ugates are raising operators.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6he commutation rules lea to an uncertainty relation !or the amplitues
o! magnetic an electric !iels o! the moe1 which are proportional to the
vector potential an its time erivative. .iKe the atomic groun state1 the
moe groun state o! zero photons has an uncertainty relate !luctuation
associate with it1 the !iel o! Evacuum !luctuations1E an these
!luctuations raise the energy o! the groun state above the minimum
classical moe energy o! zero.
6he atom that is losing energy in its groun state is bombare by
vacuum !iels o! the continuum o! moes o! the surrouning space.
"ome o! this energy is absorbe by the atom an it can be shown that
this absorption e0actly cancels the energy loss by the raiation o!
spontaneous currents1 stabilizing the atomic groun state [*\.
Fhen the electron is in an e0cite state1 vacuum !iels are not absorbe
but instea stimulate spontaneous emission. 6he raiation emitte by the
spontaneous current is also spontaneous emission1 so spontaneous
emission has two sources. :alibar et al. [*\ have argue that the two
sources contribute equally to the spontaneous emission rate.
HHH. "hot @oise
/s an e0ample o! how vacuum !iels an spontaneous currents create
noise1 consier a noise !ree optical signal traveling own an absorbing
optical waveguie C-ig. $D. 6he signal !iel is attenuate. 6he incient
vacuum !iel is also attenuate1 but is replenishe by spontaneous
current emission !rom the absorbing electrons within the waveguie. 6he
beating o! the signal !iel with the vacuum !iels causes !luctuations in
the energy !lu0. Fhen the signal is etecte by an opaque photoetector1
these !luctuations account !or the shot noise observe in the
photocurrent.
-igure $. "ignal an vacuum !iels in an absorbing waveguie.
Hllustration o! the sources o! shot noise: the beating o! the signal !iel
with vacuum !iels an with spontaneous currents within the
photoetector.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H! some o! the signal passes through the photoetector1 there is an
aitional source o! noise ue to !luctuations in the rate o! optical
absorption cause by the beating o! the signal !iel with spontaneous
currents o! electrons within the photoetector. 6he !luctuations in the
rate o! optical absorption account !or shot noise when the photoetector
is nearly transparent.
HI. 9rer-:epenent /verages
6he wave equation1 ;q. C2D1 looKs liKe a classical !iel equation.
=owever1 in quantum theory current an !iel are =eisenberg operators
an they i!!er !rom classical variables in several important ways.
9perators o not have numerical values. 6o obtain numbers an maKe
theoretical preictions we must evaluate averages o! the =eisenberg
operators within the initial states o! the system. -or e0ample1 in ;q. C*D
we calculate the correlation !unction o! two =eisenberg momentum
operators at i!!erent times within the atomic groun state.
=eisenberg operators are usually non-commuting. -or e0ample1 i! we
e0change the two momentum operators by e0changing t* an t2 in ;q.
C*D1 we get a i!!erent e0pression. 6his shows that the =eisenberg
operators representing the same variable1 momentum1 at two i!!erent
times1 o not commute1 an consequently the correlation !unctions
epen on the orer o! the momentum operators. 3orrelation !unctions
that epen on the orer o! the variables o not occur in classical theory
an the transition in the character o! the noise !rom quantum to classical
is a transition to orer-inepenent correlation !unctions.
Hmportant e0amples o! orer-epenent correlation !unctions occur
when we ivie the !iel an current operators into their positive an
negative !requency parts. 6his can also be one !or a classical !iel.
?ecause the !iel is real1 the positive an negative !requency parts are
comple0 con5ugates:
where1 by convention1 e Liw t is a positive !requency. 6he prouct o! the
positive an negative !requency !iels is 5ust the prouct o! two comple0
numbers an oes not epen on their orer.
/ similar ivision can be mae !or !iel an current operators. ?ecause
the average values o! these operators are real1 the negative !requency
operators are the =ermitian con5ugates o! the positive !requency ones
an are written with a agger. Ht can be shown !or vacuum !iels that the
Enormally orereE average o! the prouct1 with the positive !requency
!iel to the right1 is zero1 whereas it is not zero !or the other orer.
"imilarly1 the normally orere correlation !unction o! spontaneous
current !or electrons in the groun state is zero. -or an e0cite state1 the
other orer o! correlation !unction is zero.
6he reason why these averages are zero can be !oun by e0amining the
matri0 elements o! =eisenberg operators between a pair o! energy levels1
illustrate in -ig. 2CaD + CbD. 9nly !requency components at the transition
!requency o! the levels contribute to the matri0 element. 6he positive
!requency =eisenberg operators act liKe lowering operators an only
have matri0 elements !or ownwar transitions1 while the negative
!requency =eisenberg operators act as raising operators. 6he normally
orere averages within the groun state are zero because there are no
levels below the groun state to lower to. "imilarly1 the spontaneous
current correlation !unction is zero in the e0cite state because1 !or
spontaneous current !requencies o! interest1 there are no levels above the
e0cite state to raise to.
I. 6ransition to 3lassical .angevin -orces in a .aser
6hese orer-epenent averages are necessary to e0plain the properties
o! quantize raiation1 such as those o! vacuum !iels. =owever1 laser
noise is success!ully moele with classical noise sources calle
.angevin !orces that have orer-inepenent correlation !unctions. =ow
o these non-commuting sources o! quantum noise give rise to classical
.angevin !orces?
6o answer this question1 let us consier a simple moel o! a laser with a
gain meium compose o! two level atoms C-ig. (D. 6he average upper
level occupation is varie along the horizontal a0is. /s it increases1 we
go !rom a col system with only lower levels occupie to !ull inversion
with only upper levels occupie. Fith increasing inversion1 the gain
changes !rom negative to positive1 i.e.1 !rom absorbing to ampli!ying.
6he normally orere correlation !unction is ue to electrons in the
e0cite state an increases with inversion1 while the other orer comes
!rom electrons in the groun state an ecreases with inversion.
-igure (: 6he gain1 photon number an spontaneous current correlation
!unctions are plotte versus the average upper state occupation. 6he
cases o! a lossless an a lossy cavity are shown. 6he correlation !unction
curves cross at laser threshol1 where spontaneous currents act liKe
orer-inepenent classical .angevin !orces.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"uppose we have a close lossless cavity containing only the gain
meium. 6he photon number then results !rom the equilibrium between
spontaneous emission an optical absorption. .aser threshol occurs at
the transparency point1 where absorption goes to zero an spontaneous
emission buils up. @otice that at laser threshol the curves o! the two
correlation !unctions cross1 resulting in spontaneous currents with orer-
inepenent correlation !unctions.
H! we introuce a loss in the !orm o! aitional absorbing atoms that
remain in their groun state1 e.g.1 atoms with short li!etimes in the upper
level1 the population inversion o! the gain meium neee to overcome
loss an reach threshol increases. 6hese aitional atoms contribute to
the upper correlation !unction curve1 shi!ting the intersection point to
that o! the new laser threshol.
Fe see that electrons in the upper level contribute to gain an to the
normally orere correlation !unction. ;lectrons in the lower level
contribute to loss an to the correlation !unction with the other operator
orer. /s photon number increases1 gain approaches loss an the noise
source correlation !unctions approach the orer-inepenent behavior o!
classical .angevin !orces. Ht can be shown that the transition to classical
.angevin !orces also taKes place in open laser cavities1 where
transmissions out o! an into the cavity introuce loss an noise ue to
vacuum !iels.
IH. 6ransition to a 3lassical @oise -iel in /n /mpli!ier
/ similar transition to orer-inepenent averages occurs !or the noise
!iel in a traveling wave optical ampli!ier C-ig. 'D. 6he incient vacuum
!iel is ampli!ie as it propagates along the ampli!ying waveguie1 but it
retains orer-epenent averages with the normally orere average
equal to zero. -iels emitte by spontaneous currents o! electrons in the
e0cite an groun states o! the gain meium are ampli!ie an
contribute to the noise !iel. 6hese !iels also have orer-epenent
averages. =owever1 when all three contributions are inclue1 the
averages o! the total noise !iel can be shown to grow in an orer-
inepenent manner1 with the i!!erence between the two averages
remaining constant at its value !or the incient vacuum !iels. 6his
constant i!!erence is ue to uncertainty relate !iel !luctuations. /t
high ampli!ication1 it is negligible an the noise !iel1 re!erre to as
ampli!ie spontaneous emission1 can be treate as a classical !iel with
orer-inepenent averages.
-igure ': 6he averages on the noise !iel in an
ampli!ying waveguie grow in an orer-inepenent manner.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IHH. "ummary
"pontaneous currents an vacuum !iels are complementary sources o!
quantum noise. 6ogether1 they account !or the stability o! electronic
groun states1 spontaneous emission1 shot noise an the transition !rom
quantum to classical noise that occurs in lasers an ampli!iers. / broaer
iscussion o! quantum noise in photonics1 incluing erivations o! these
results1 is given in our review [2\. Fe can provie a reprint o! this paper
to anyone intereste in this sub5ect.
Ae!erences
*. >. :alibar1 >. :upont-Aoc an 3. 3ohen-6annou5i1 EIacuum
!luctuations an raiative reaction: ienti!ication o! their respective
contributionsE >. 7hys. C7arisD vol. ($1 *&*% C*2N2D.
2. 3. =. =enry an A. -. Oazarinov1 Puantum noise in photonicsGG1 Aev.
8o. 7hys.1 vol. &N1 @o. $1 pp. N)*-N'$1 C*22&D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
?rian1
Fhat !ollows may well be an interesting paper in light o! the
possibility that the ,niverse may possess closure mass. /s you Know1
with merely a critical ensity o! mass energy Cno more1 no lessD the
,niverseGs e0pansion must slow own asymptotically1 i.e.1 it Keeps
slowing but never actually stops. "o one woul e0pect a graual
slowing own o! masses along the ict a0is1 right? ?ut then to preserve
!our momentum there must be a compensating increase in real
momentum. @ow imaginary momentum is 5ust the energy o! the
quantum vacuum energy !luctuations which meiate the avance o!
masses through time1 i.e.1 the Etime componentE o! the !our momentum.
6he real momentum !luctuations1 you recall1 are boun up in Cno pun
inteneD the e0change o! spin * !orce carrying virtual particles CbosonsD
which meiate the bining !orces holing matter together. ?ut is this all
better unerstoo in terms o! conserve current ensities1 rather than in
terms o! momenta an energy?
/s an asie1 H have o!ten wonere i! there coul be some neat
corresponence between inertial mass an momentum !luctuations o!
spin * an between gravitational mass an energy !luctuations o! spin )
Cspin +*/2 spin -*/2 virtual pairsD an i!1 there!ore1 the equivalence
principle Cis it the EstrongE or the EweaKE1 H canGt rememberTD1 that is1 the
equivalence o! gravitation an inertial mass !or any given boy might be
attribute to the balance maintaine between the altere ?ose an -ermi
statistics o! the vacuum with which masses interact Can1 in !act1 out o!
which they are continually reconstitute !romTD 9ne might suppose that
a !luctuation in !our-momentum which is suppresse in one !orm1 e.g.1
electron/positron pair1 might be Re0presseS in another !orm.
?rian1 your iea that inertia arises !rom the i!!iculty that mass has in
climbing out o! its own retare potential well1 H believe1 !its in with this
notion.
3,later1
Aussell
H87.H3/6H9@" 9- @9@-39@"6/@6 .H4=6 I;.93H6<
:ear ?rian1
/s you might well imagine1 HGm very please1 inee1 that the
neutrino has been iscovere to have a mass o! not less than ).)% eI an
probably closer to ).* eIT H always strongly suspecte that the neutrino
possesse a small mass since itGs a spin */2 particle which perturbs the
statistics o! the quantum vacuum 5ust as much as oes an electron or
quarK. /n since weGve been saying that the gravitational e!!ects o!
matter stem !rom this matter vacuum spin coupling1 !ermions through
the 7auli 7rinciple an bosons through the complementary E7auli
Hnclusion 7rincipleE1 provie1 o! course1 that the bosons are localize
through the imposing o! appropriate bounary conitions.
9n the question about the mass o! !reely traveling1 EunbounE
photons though1 H have to asK mysel!1 EFouln_t one e0pect that an
e0tremely high !lu0 laser beam woul enhance the probability o!
vacuum electromagnetic !iel !luctuations o! the same energy1 helicity1
an polarization1 that is to say1 o! the same quantum state as the photons
o! the beam1 at least in the space within or very near to this beam? 9ne
might answer that1 well i! the photons are being absorbe an re-emitte
by virtual atoms within this vacuum1 then maybe. Iirtual atoms?
Iirtual ogs an cats? 3an only truly !unamental particles Ee0istE as
!luctuations within the vacuum? Hs that the test o! !unamental
particlehoo1 to be reproucible as a vacuum momentum or energy
!luctuation? Hnteresting question1 H thinK. :onGt you?
7.".1 you might want to o a couple o! bacK o! the envelope calculations
with1 say1 neutrinos constituting 2)% or 2'% o! the mass o! the
,niverse1 an come up with a rough an reay !igure o! neutrino mass
which woul succee in Eclosing o!! the ,niverse.E 4ravitational1 H
mean1 o! course. .et me Know what you come up with1 9.O.? /lso1 H
onGt believe that neutrino/antineutrino annihilations have been
observe. H woner what Kin o! boson youG get? 7robably a F or J
particle1 H imagine. ?ut H canGt be sure. 4otta o some research on that
one.
6alK to you soon then1 ?rian.
?est Aegars1
Aussell
@eutrino @ews
6=; :H"39I;A< 9- @;,6AH@9 9"3H../6H9@"
web=
nu#timeline.html at www.phys.hawaii.eu
=owever1 the observerGs motion cannot be measurable relative to the
vacuum as long as he travels with a velocity which is less than the
velocity o! light relative to any arbitrarily chosen re!erence !rame. 6his
is because1 at velocities less than c1 the observer can only cover a
istance relative to any given vacuum !luctuation o! 0 Y /a01 where /a0 is
the positional uncertainty o! the vacuum !luctuation along the observerGs
irection o! motion. 6he observer can travel no greater istance than
this since the li!etime o! the !luctuation is 5ust /at = /a0/c1 while his
velocity is v c. ?ut relative istances1 01 which are less than the
positional uncertainty1 /a01 are1 by e!inition1 non-measurable. .et
us now return to the question which arose in connection with our
computer screen analogy o! the velocity o! light problem. Fe sai that
the theoretical an the practical limits on1 call it cursor spee1 was
several orers o! magnitue less than the theoretical limit1 that1
practically speaKing1 the cursor1 i! you will1 coul move across the
computer screen no !aster than1 say1 *) meters/secon1 rather than the
theoretical !igure !or an iniviual pi0el o! *)( meters/secon. 6o a !irst
orer o! appro0imation1 this is ue to the !act that the cursor is mae up
o! roughly 2)) iniviual pi0els an that what the computer is actually
oing when one pulls the cursor across the screen utilizing a mouse is
moving each o! the 2)) pi0els across the screen simultaneously. 6his is
e!!ectively 2)) times as many Ecalculations1E consuming a minimum o!
one clocK cycle each o! 37, time in moving a pi0el a istance o! *
pi0el. "o apparently there is a price to pay !or maintaining the
coherence o! the cursor Cas a single Eob5ectED so that it oes not istort or
change shape as one pulls it rapily across the computer screen. Ht is as
though each o! the pi0els is a Egnat1E to borrow still another analogy1 an
i! the EswarmE o! gnats Cthe group o! pi0els maKing up the cursorD is to
move as a unit1 then there has to be some Kin o! coorination1 in terms
o! in!ormation Cor energyD e0changes between the gnats so that when
one gnat taKes the lea an moves in a new irection Cbecause it is the
!irst to see an approaching obstacle1 sayD the other gnats must get the
wor quicKly enough so that the swarm can change irection as a whole
without e!orming in shape.
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

6he 8a5or 6ransitions in ;volution C*22'D by >ohn 8aynar "mith
6he 9rigins o! 9rer C*22$D by "tuart Oau!!man
http://www.scrib.com/oc/222(%NN2(/6he-9rigins-o!-9rer-"tuart-a-
Oau!!man

;ssay on -ranKenstein1 ue 6hursay morning1 /pril 22
th
$-' pages
ouble space
*S margin le!t1 right1 top an bottom
title page
*2 pt 6imes @ew Aoman !ont

;ssay on -ranKenstein1 ue 6hursay morning1 /pril 22
th
$-' pages
ouble space
*S margin le!t1 right1 top an bottom
title page
*2 pt 6imes @ew Aoman !ont

;ssay on -ranKenstein1 ue 6hursay morning1 /pril 22
th
$-' pages
ouble space
*S margin le!t1 right1 top an bottom
title page
*2 pt 6imes @ew Aoman !ont
6he simplicity o! physical laws is liKely an illusion an more liKely
evience that the ,niverse is a simulation. 6he conceit that manKin is
able to ivine the secrets o! the ,niverse1 but at the cost o! overlooKing
the central secret L we are living in a care!ully manage computer
simulation.
.i!e may have restarte as many as si0 times ue to asteroi/planetoi
impacts. /t some iviing line along the continuum o! mathematical
comple0ity a threshol may be crosse past which no min is possible
that can grasp this comple6ity. 6he universal min woul then have two
!orms1 in!inite an trans!inite. 6he number line is actually ual-
continuous with two intertwine number lines1 i.e.1 real immanent an
real transcenental number lines. 6his is because spatiotemporal
variation in the ratio o! iameter to circum!erence1 i.e.1 RpiS1 must
always be such as to remain transcenental quantity1 though a changing
one. 6he length o! the circum!erence must be transcenental. Hs in!inity
a transcenental number? /re the immanent an transcenental
components o! the real line parallel all the way to in!inity? 9r is one
relate to the other as are the iameter an circum!erence o! a circle?
Hs gravitational relativistic mass increase coincient with relativistic
increase in the bining energy resulting !rom relativistic mass increase
o! !orce e0change particles1 c.!.1 -eynman_s parton moel o! relativistic
quarKs.
.imitless substitution o! cash !low meia. /t some point we arrive at the
concrete substantial/ethereal !low o! conte0tualize in!ormation. Fhat i!
the continuity equation applie to nonlocal in!ormation? 6ranscenental
numbers encoe all possible topological relationships1 i.e.1 topological
istinctness o! transcenental numbers. 6rans!inite carinality rather
than mere orinality because transcenental numbers are in!inite
numbers an also name ob$ects.
?ohm_s causality principle leas us to a vacuum statistics base theory
o! inuce quantum gravity i.e.1 a quantum gravity theory without any
gravitation per se. 6he universe 7si oes not collapse in the !ace o! an
omniscient being because quantum uncertainty is ontological an not
epistemological? :isturbance o! 7si is a isturbance to bounary
conitions1 not irectly o! 7si itsel! where a hypothetical observer coul
ascertain 7si_s state. C7ast o! !utureD
3an genuine causality e0ist without classical correlations? 6he
iverging superpose causal chains in "chreinger cat systems must
breaK own at the 7lancK limit. "mallest blacK hole meets largest
quantum vacuum !luctuations L not ue to omination o! quantum
mechanics by general relativity1 but ue to the intersection o! 4A an
P8 within the conte0t o! a correct quantum gravity theoryT 6his is to
be e0pecte because the vacuum oes not gravitate an so the strong
equivalence principle is not strictly correct L inuce gravity theory or
e!!ective !iel theory.
6here is a reprocessing o! human e0perience that closes it o!! an
another that opens it up. 7ercept cohesion1 overetermination . . .
probability as irreucible Cto close !iel o! combinational/permutational
elements an spontaneous ecoherence as !lip sie to spontaneous
coherence.

:an1
H_m in a lot o! pain a!ter inguinal hernia surgery L even with a he!ty
supply o! .ortabT =owever1 H ha to comment that H thinK that
entanglement1 the universal processor1 :avies-,nruh raiation an
7enrose_s Rone graviton limitS are all involve with the solution o! the
Rcosmological constant problemS. H believe that the vacuum energy
ensity is partitione between an almost in!inite Rcontinuum o! iscreteS
Cas is wereD .orentz !rames1 each separate by energy level L yeah1 you
guesse it L each .orentz !rame energy level Cwhat H liKe to term
RJeitschichtenSD is separate by a 7lancK mass_ worth o! energy.
"prea out the immense preicte vacuum energy ensity across all o!
these (eitschichten =/erman for time slicesA an you get a more
reasonable !igure approaching the observe cosmological constant
value. ;ntanglement is conserve1 but once physical processes attempt
to go beyon the one graviton limit1 there evelops an entanglement
banwith bottlenecK between the laboratory !rame an neighboring
zeitschichten1 i.e.1 .orentz !rames1 causing the cosmic 37, to have to
RguessS at what the ne0t state o! the internally nonlocally connecte
Cwith itsel!D laboratory .orentz !rame CzeitschichtD is1 especially to
inclue the o!!ening quantum system that_s attempting to access
entanglement in!ormation !rom its neighboring .orentz !rames1 causing
ecoherence or 7si collapse.
6here_s more to this intuition1 but it will have to wait until H am in a little
less pain. H thinK the cosmic 37, banwith !or entanglement
communications is o! course limite by Cin the absence o! clever
quantum error-correctionD the one graviton limit because it_s at this
precise value o! the neee energy banwith !or receipt an
transmission o! entanglement in!ormation that is equal to or greater than
the entanglement in!ormation coing capacity Cstorage capacity1 i! you
willD o! the immeiately neighboring .orentz !rames. H! this is more or
less correct1 then one woul e0pect the state o! any quantum computer to
lose its quantum coherence L in e!!ect1 yes1 quantum computers really
can tap into the information processing capacity of parallel universes"
but only to each immeiately neighboring one. 9therwise1 the one
graviton limit is e0ceee !or entanglement banwith o! the coupling
between quantum .orentz !rames */ with its neighbors1 2? an $31 i!
you will. Fhat_s that phone number again? /lways nice hearing !rom
a !ellow philosopherT
Auss
-----9riginal 8essage-----
-rom: Ian 4ent1 :aniel [mailto:vangentQoKstate.eu\
"ent: Fenesay1 -ebruary 2N1 2))% N:($ /8
6o: Aussell 3larKV Aussell " 3larK
"ub5ect: -F: ;ntanglement1 what is it?
=i Auss1 H was out most o! yesteray worKing on campus. H am
sorry H i not get a chance to respon to your email. /nytime
between (:$) an ':$) is goo !or me.
.ooK what 5ust poppe out o! the bushesT Foul you rea
-ontana_s paper an tell me what you thinK. Ht looKs liKe we have
RsolveS the !unamentals o! science with our e0perimentsT C:
Aegars1
:an
?rom: Aobert :esbranes [mailto:resbranesQcegetel.net\
Sent: Fenesay1 -ebruary 2N1 2))% (:(( /8
,o: Ian 4ent1 :aniel
Sub:ect: -w: ;ntanglement1 what is it?
:an:
/ttache a mail !rom 4iorgio -ontana. /n ol !rien o! mine H i
not hear !rom !or years. =e liKes our worK1 he says that we have
solve the problem o! Ehyperspace communicationsE. 6he
,niversity o! 6rento where he is a pro!essor is probably in contact
with 7irelli. /pparently1 he thinKs that P8 an =yperspace e0plain
entanglement. H must rea his paper.
Aegars1
A:

----- 9riginal 8essage -----
?rom: 4iorgio -ontana
,o: resbranesQcegetel.net
Cc: Aobert ?aKer
Sent: Fenesay1 -ebruary 2N1 2))% *:$2 /8
Sub:ect: ;ntanglement1 what is it?
=i1 Aobert. 8aybe you remember me. H applie =alpernGs theory o!
gravitons !rom atomic transitions to =6"3 3ooper pair !or maKing
a 4/";A an evelope the concept with another Aobert1 letGs
also see what he thinKs o! this story. <our approach is escribe
here: http://e-quantic.com/gv#ghrtz.htm . H inee believe that the
emission coul be relate to s- transitions C3u (s-$ electronsD in
<?39 as =alpern teaches. H! you can o the e0periment1 this is
!ine1 the soon we have a result1 the soon we can start improving the
same an using the =-4Fs !or applications. 8y ,niversity is not
helping. /!ter eight years H also have some ieas regaring the
relation between P8 an 4A. 4A is probably becoming ol....
P8 is !irmly alive. 6he best H can o now is to cite some web
pages: =yperspace1 hosting space-times:
web=

http://www.elmar0.com/!ontana/=yperspace#"6/H-#
=<7;A.H@O
Ehttp://www.elmar0.com/!ontana/=yperspace#"6/H-#2))%.ppsE 2)
)%.pps CclicK cancel two times i! a pass is asKeD 6he linK
between P8 an the =yperspace an reason o! entanglement
web=
http://ar0iv.org/abs/physics/)'***'% .ot o! other concepts:
web=
http://www.elmar0.com/!ontana/ 3ongratulations !or the
entanglement e0periment1 H am really e0citeTT <ou have solve
the problem o! =yperspace communications. Fith best regars1 r.
4iorgio -ontana

,niversity o! 6rento - Htaly
web=
http://www.ing.unitn.it/b!ontana/

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW)%-*$-
)NWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
;ntanglement is instrumental in the maintenance o! thermal
equilibrium? Yentropy analoguesZ convection cell an
temperature analogues1 i.e.1 "hannon vs. von @eumann entropy.
C>uly 2))ND
Ainler horizon CA=D e0paning as a 2-sphere sur!ace at the spee
o! light implies what about storage o! quantum in!ormation in
vacuum nonlocality? 6he A= at !irst represents merely the loss o!
nonlocally encoe in!ormation1 but with increasing intensity o!
,nruh acceleration evelops a growing classical C"hannonD
entropy component. :ecoherence as loss o! vacuum nonlocality.
=eat capacity o! .i- chips1 energy !lu0 rate1 rate o! cooling to
surrounings. =ow can R?remsS photons be entangle? @o
RhitsS on 4oogle !or search string1 Yentangle ?remstrahlungZ nor
!or Y?remstrahlung entanglementZ1 etc. 6he !ive to 2' egree
cone o! ?rems raiation has a tiny component mi0e in o! genuine
entangle photons1 perhaps? ?ut is this !raction so small that it
can_t really be contributing to the :esbranes-Ian 4ent e!!ect?
:ream logic o! revisionistic causality1 rationalistic lying an
Ouhn_s structure o! scienti!ic revolutions.
6he esire to control o!ten masqueraes as a esire !or Knowlege
an unerstaning. H! H eepen my cooperative relationship with
the other1 e.g.1 @ature1 then H become entitle to in!ormation that
comes to me in an evolutionary way. 3onnection an noe1 brige
an banK are complementary as one an not the other. Aather each
shoul realize that they are both ens an means to each other an
in ineterminate an changing proportions.
6he nacve realistic belie! in 4o is !oune on the nacve realistic
belie! in a 4o_s ;ye view o! so-calle RAealityS. "ince no team
o! psychologists an brain scientists observes an recors one_s
every move Can !unctional 8AH responseD throughout the course
o! one_s li!e1 the sense o! proportion possesse by a certain
personality type emans this all-Knowing observer who can point
out all o! our moral Can Rgrowth psychologySD missteps so as to
maKe our earthly tormentors su!!iciently penitent !or their moral
missteps.
.iKe a Ainler horizon a vacuum nonlocality :ecoherence horizon1
c.!.1 vacuum energy as RarK energyS. /ccumulate memes o!
ecaying soul as R!ertilizerS !or cosmic consciousness evolution1
c.!.1 human e0periential ata reprocessor matri0.
Fhy not worK with the hypothesis that the Ainler horizon an the
gravitational :ecoherence horizon are the very same bounary?
"o oes the gravitational reshi!t then become interprete as a
shortening o! coherence lengths? 6he increasing =eisenberg
energy uncertainty Calong the raial irection1 outwarD accounts
!or the increasing probability rate o! :ecoherence1 e.g.1 e0cite
atomic an nuclear states1 c.!.1 :esbranes an Ian 4ent_s C2))(D1
on quantum entanglement mechanism o! nuclear isomer e0cite
state li!etimes. 6hese an similar consierations might o!!er a way
to reconcile gravitational time ilation with gravitationally
enhance CaccelerateD :ecoherence processes. >uly 2)** Hs it true
that a Ainler horizon cannot !orm within a static universe1 i.e.1
one not unergoing cosmological e0pansion or contraction? /pril
2)** 6he interpretation o! spontaneous emission o! e0cite atomic
states in terms o! RstimulateS emission via virtual photons might
suggest that there is an increase in the rates o! spontaneous
emission or1 shortening o! the hal!-lives o! e0cite atomic states in
a gravitational !iel1 which on the sur!ace seems to be at os with
what woul normally be e0pecte on account o! gravitational time
ilation.
"omeone with an HP score that high must either possess a socially
awKwar sie or runs the great risK o! being a sociopath Cmerely
sKille at simulating proper social a5ustment though without
really !eeling belonging/connectenessD. "ociopathy must involve
a certain egree o! issociation o! socially constructe
consciousness.
Iacuum energy may be partitione among .orentz !rames separate by a
single graviton e0change C7lancK massD. /cceleration is !unamentally
irreversible as RecelerationS merely pushes one CRboostsSD to still
higher .orentz !rames. 6here must be a way to use share quantum
encrypte Keys to valiate the manu!acturing process !or1 e.g.1
pharmaceuticals.
7erception is the prouct o! the mutual inter!erence o! the sub5ective an
ob5ective ensity matrices1 i! you will1 ecoherence in which the role o!
the observer can have a large in!luence on the character o! the perceive
system behavior.
9bserver-inuce ecoherence is analogous to the isruption o! the
reamscape that inevitably occurs once the critical !aculties o! the
reamer begin operating within Can maKing upD the reamscape.
7erhaps quantum parallel universes may be ienti!ie with iscrete
.orentz !rames separate by at least one graviton C7lancK massD. 3oul
this help us with the RweaKness o! gravityS parao0?
;ach RzeitschichtS is connecte within itsel! via AezniK_s vacuum
nonlocality an constitutes its own .orentz !rame1 c.!.1 !alling neutron
e0periments emonstrating quantize gravity. 7articles can sometimes
tunnel between zeitschichten1 which can be a mechanism o! gravitational
ecoherence1 i.e.1 neighboring .orentz vacua as thermoynamic heat
sinKs !or ecohering quantum coherent states. 6he one graviton limit
elimits all characteristically quantum phenomena1 e.g.1 superposition1
quantum tunneling1 inter!erence 7si-collapse1 quantum computing1 etc.
Aelate :avies-,nruh raiation to notion o! RzeitschichtenS.
6imeliKe angular momentum has to be accepte as a rational notion
because a .orentz trans!ormation1 speci!ically1 a .orentz boost converts
a purely spatially istribute angular momentum into one with both
spaceliKe an timeliKe components L spin an $-momentum egrees o!
!reeom become entangle1 in other wors. Fe might woner then how
a .orentz boost might be e0pecte to a!!ect a composite spin-) system1
i.e.1 one in a ?ohm singlet state. Fe woul start by analyzing how a
.orentz boost a!!ects the entanglement o! the component spin-*/2
particles in which the unerlying entanglement o! a singlet state is
completely ecohere? 4ravitational potential !orms a squeeze
vacuum by shrinKing the energy istance between neighboring
zeitschichten. 6here is also a truncation o! nonlocal quantum
connectivity with spaceliKe separate regions o! the quantum vacuum
electromagnetic !iel1 which might a!!ect microtubule !unction as well
as the ecoherence processes within quantum computers. 6here shoul
be enhance tunneling o! !ermion-anti!ermion pairs into observable
spacetime. Iirtual boson e0change within the vacuum shoul become
more energy egenerate as the vacuum becomes more polarization
entangle1 i.e.1 increase vacuum polarization.
/pril 2)**
Fhat e0actly is
the relationship between =eisenberg uncertainty an quantum
entanglement? 8ore speci!ically1 can the =,7 remain vali espite the
e!!ects o! quantum entanglement?
8arch 2)*$
Hn the -ourier !requency
spectrum ecomposition o! a time omain !unction1 the te0tbooK
treatment always assumes that the basis !requencies are uncorrelate an
are merely arithmetically summe together. 3learly1 i! correlations
between the basis !requencies are amitte1 then the simple relation
/a;/at Z/= h must be quali!ie.
@ovember 2)*$
/s o! @ovember &1 2)*$1 the
!ollowing search Y Egravitationally squeeze vacuumE -wormhole L
wormholesZ only prouce a single hit Crelating to an amateur
physicist_s RcranKS aether theoryD
:oes the !act that ecoherence processes are accelerate by a
gravitational !iel while time Can all other symmetric temporal
processes are ilateD pose a problem !or the ;instein_s equivalence
principle? :uring gravitational ecoherence1 the accelerate !ashion
because the bangap between .orentz !rames or zeitschichten is
reuce1 but the =eisenberg energy uncertainty is corresponingly
ecrease as well. "o oes this mean that a gravitational potential
oesn_t really pose a i!!iculty !or the equivalence principle? 6he
quantum vacuum is both more polarize an more energy egenerate in
a gravity !iel than in !ree space.
>ohn "waim in his ar+iv paper1 the 7auli 7rinciple an ",C2D vs. ",C$D
in .oop Puantum 4ravity1 ar+iv: gr-qc/)$)')%$v* that R5=* eges o!
spin networKs ominate in their contribution to blacK hole areas as
oppose to 5 = {.S
?ecause o! the epenence o! the energy ban gap between neighboring
.orentz !rames Ca5oining parallel quantum universesD on the local
velocity o! light through the !ormula1 /a; b sqrt[hcWW'/4\1 which !ails to
i!!erentiate between horizons o! blacK holes o! i!!erent mass1 it might
be reasonable to postulate a 2n orer term !or the ban gap energy
!ormula. 6his may perhaps be achieve by showing the epenence o!
the local velocity o! light within a sur!ace tangent to the horizon o! a
blacK hole o! a given mass.
;ntanglement may be interprete as a witness an a recor o! present or
past coupling1 e0change carrier bining1 bouneness Cin the sense o!
initial an bounary conitionsD o! the now unboun1 separate
components. Hs this consieration relevant to Ian -lanern_s Rspee o!
gravityS controversy?
Hs there an important connection between the principle o! quantum
entanglement conservation an ;instein_s weaK an strong equivalence
principles? 6here are two types o! e!initions o! aiabatic temporal
evolution vis a vis ecoherence an wave !unction collapse: ;/t Y
/a;//at an /a; Y mplc2. Fhere mpl is the plancK mass1 c.!.1 ecoherence
within a given zeitschicht vs. ecoherence between zeitschichten.
6he !act that spacetime is not so much e0paning as being
remanu!acture or upate as a progressively larger (-volume with time
suggests that these new aitions to the spacetime continuum are not all
that are being cast up or simulate by the bacKgroun1 transcenent
RhyperspacetimeS1 but rather the entire temporal evolution o! spacetime
is itsel! a simulation on a hypertime registere on some cosmic 37,Z
Ian 4ent an :esbranes 6.: e0periment was attempte either
Fithin the ecoherence winow or
9utsie the ecoherence winow
6he ecoherence o! separate components o! a unitary quantum system
into what appears to be correlate an quantum entangle subparts? Fe
nee to have ata on the ecoherence time o! the chips Cor o! the
metastable e0act states o! trappe electron thereD. 6aKe heat equation
an compare it with "chroinger wave equation with speci!ic regar to
the phenomenon o! thermal ecoherence. .ooK at *st an 2n
erivatives o! solutions to both equations.
:oes the convolution integral o! input an output signals Cslave vs.
master 6.:_sD show any telltale signs o! classical or quantum
entanglement?
6he relationship between "hannon_s bits an Ion @eumann_s qubits is
e0actly analogous to ?ohm_s relating o! causal connections an quantum
correlate !luctuations. Puantum coherence is e0change between the
two basic quantum statistical CsymmetryD components o! the quantum
vacuum super!lui1 c.!.1 e0periments with entanglement swapping
between =e$ an =e( super!luis.
8etaphors are so e!!ective because they are generalizations !rom
concrete e0emplars that secretly emboy or are in!orme by a principle
that is not truly glimpse until that principle is creatively applie to at
!irst seemingly isparate cases. Hn this way is ?ohm_s principle realize
as the inuctive grouning the euctive.
6he transmission o! superpose states1 say between photons an atoms1
i.e..1 quantum uncertainty is proo! that entanglement unerlies the
transmission o! in!ormation where the transmission o! the measurement-
component o! this in!ormation is always chronology-protecte.
/re events so memorable because they are entangle with our !uture
recollections o! them? 7arao0ically1 the space o! intene meaning1 o!
what we are trying to or may attempt to say1 is larger than the space o!
istinct linguistic sign strings.
>uly 2)**
Qd6hinK o! replacing the igits in 3antor_s iagonal argument
with arbitrary but remembere/econ!licte symbols. RAicharGs parao0
leaves an untenable contraiction1 which must be analyze to !in an
error.
cit=
R6he propose e!inition o! the new real number r clearly
contains a !inite string o! characters1 an hence it appears at !irst to be a
e!inition o! a real number. =owever1 the e!inition re!ers to
e!inability-in-;nglish itsel!. H! it were possible to etermine which
;nglish e0pressions actually o e!ine a real number1 an which o not1
then the parao0 woul go through. 6hus the resolution o! AicharGs
parao0 is that there is no way to unambiguously etermine e0actly
which ;nglish sentences are e!initions o! real numbers Csee 4oo
*2&&D. 6hat is1 there is no way to escribe in a !inite number o! wors
how to tell whether an arbitrary ;nglish e0pression is a e!inition o! a
real number. 6his is not surprising1 as the ability to maKe this
etermination woul also imply the ability to solve the halting problem
an per!orm any other non-algorithmic calculation that can be escribe
in ;nglishS1 c.!.1 http://en.wiKipeia.org/wiKi/Aichar#parao0.
-ebruary 2)*$
;very mile school stuent Knows that the iagonal o! a right triangle
is larger than either o! the triangle_s legs. Hn light o! the above solution to
RAichar_s parao0S1 we may perhaps glimpse an all along hien e!ect
in 3antor_s RiagonalS. H! 3antor_s iagonal is longer than it must be
in!initely longer. /n there is no e!inition o! in!initely longer that can
be mae consistent. Hs there a hien contraiction in cantors iagonal
argument? Fe can apply Aichars parao0 to unearthing the
contraiction o! cantors iagonal argument Aichars parao0es !oune
on the notion that there is une!inability at worK. a similarly ill e!ine
notion lies at the root o! cantors e!initions !or his iagonal argument.
7art o! the problem is the 3antor is using the logic o! !inite arithmetic to
maKe propositions concerning in!inite quantities. H! each n!inite real
number is truly istinct then it taKes an in!inite number o! natural
numbers to speci!y each.
6he irreversible component o! temporal evolution1 what ?ergson might
have terme genuine temporality is riven e0clusively by ecoherence
inucing vacuum processes. 3oul this !act give us a better
unerstaning o! the close relationship o! time an energy uncertainty?
Aeversible temporality is supporte by coherent vacuum processes1
moreover.
6he sub5ect-ob5ect istinction Calong with all the mysteries an
parao0es it generatesD cannot be !orme within a eterministic
universe. 6he possibility o! oblivion an the R7latonic groun o! ?eingS
L what i! everyone !orgets everything1 what nature must physical reality
possess to allow the possibility o! Rre-miningS?
;0ceeing .loy_s limit on the number o! quantum entangle particles
woul emonstrate both the reality o! that system o! particles Can o! the
,niverse o! which this system is but a small partD an the reality o!
parallel quantum universes as in !act being parallel classical universes.
,se /lvin 7lantinga_s thesis on 9ther 8ins to emonstrate that atheism
is equivalent to maintaining solipsism.
web=
www.amninteresting.com/?p=N)% L /pplying :arwinian natural
selection to !iel programmable gate array C-74/D circuits !or
eveloping pattern recognition capabilities o! /H.
6he ensity matri0 escribes an accelerating particle because a
ecohere pure state is not purely !ermionic nor bosonic1 i.e.1 neither
symmetric nor antisymmetric. / pure 7si must be either !ermionic or
bosonic1 that is1 there can be no superposition o! !ermionic with bosonic
states. 9ne component o! IoloviK_s bivacuum super!lui accounts !or
RarK energyS L the other component !or RarK matter.S R/ value o! 4
?
Y 4
-
can reconcile the current RtensionS between the abunances o!
:euterium an (=e preicte by primorial nucleosynthesis. Fe
comment brie!ly on other cosmological e!!ectsS1 c.!.1 Do :ermions an
-osons 4rouce the &ame /ravitational :iel%"
au=
?arrow an "cherrer1
./@. /r+iv C2))(D. CFhere 4
?
is the gravitational contant !or bosons
an 4
-
is the gravitational constant1 /" !or !ermions.D
6hat causal connections1 i.e.1 locality might via ?ohm_s causal principle
be recast in terms o! nonlocally connecte quantum correlate vacuum
!luctuations gives much support to the notion that the quantum vacuum
is the cosmic 37, an the universe an implementation o! its
programme Cquantum computeD simulation o! physical reality.
:oes the istinction o! nonlocal von @eumann in!ormation vs. local
"hannon in!ormation have anything to say concerning the istinction o!
intelligent esign vs. :arwinian evolution? C"hannon evelope the
theory o! the limits o! in!ormation transmission in the presence o!
noise.D ;nergy without in!ormation is 5ust inert1 uni!!erentiate
substance1 which is an utter !iction-nothing at all. Hs that why most o!
the vacuum_s energy appears to possess no inertial/gravitational import?
Puantum 6heory1 p. (N1 sec. 2$1 spin an spatial symmetry. .abels may
mislea us but they also serve the valuable !unction o! tying active
in!ormation to a historical an conceptual !rameworK within the
conscious min an so protecting the nervous system !rom havoc. 6his
is the notion o! Rmanage horrorS an the e!!ective unerlying principle
to -reu_s abreaction.S Fhen it comes to philosophical notions we
speaK o! things more in ol age than we thought we ha spoKen o! them
in our youth. 7erhaps one o! the principle !unctions o! consciousness is1
in aition to proviing us with a simulation o! the other Csocial
recursiveness here may be tie to the :icKean pluri!orm mythosD1
per!orms a psyche stabilizing abreactive !unction L the conscious min
helps to relieve the stresses on the unconscious min as well as the
converse Cthe typical -reuian notion o! the relation o! the conscious to
the unconscious minsD. Fhat oesn_t seem to have been consiere in
connection with attempts to reconcile the physics o! the very small
Cquantum mechanicsD with the physics o! the very large Cgeneral
relativityD is the mechanism which prouces the phenomenon o! the
orinary worl o! space1 time an causality !rom a processual groun in
which these three are not yet istinguishable1 i.e.1 the worl o! quantum
nonlocality. 7erhaps the physics o! the large an the small can only be
uni!ie not within consciousness but by virtue o! consciousness an not
a general or universal consciousness1 but an emboie consciousness1
i.e.1 a consciousness pro5ecte within a rational spacetime Ccausal
spacetimeD.
www.amninteresting.com/?p=N)% 9nly $% o! the original *)) circuit
elements !oun their way into the ()))+ generation evolutionary chip
esign. -ive circuits became isconnecte !rom the rest o! the chip1 but
which still prove crucial to the pattern recognition capabilities o! the
circuit - the circuit ha e0ploite stray inuctance an capacitance as
well as analogue shaes o! R)S an R*S in machine states.
6his is reminiscent o! the a hoc e0ploitation o! the most subtle physics
o! the quantum vacuum Cconsciousness !ielD by the evolving quantum
microtubule substructure o! the evolving homo sapiens brain. Ht is no
coincience that the plateaus o! !itness lanscapes that evolving species
o! organism manage to reach a!ter long an har won competitive
struggles to survive shoul be so ensely pacKe1 one ne0t to another.
/n this game observation certainly applies to !itness lanscapes
reinterprete as stable states o! spontaneous Cor stimulate latent
spontaneousD reorganization o! germ plasm genetic material1 i.e.1 base
pair sequences.
Hs there a theory out there interesting enough to maKe the scales !all !rom
our eyes1 which is yet comprehensible? Hs there any way !or the Rah-
hahS e0perience to be e0tene !or signi!icant perios or is this
e0perience by its very nature !leeting?
6he :erriean Ralways alreainessS o! gene regulatory networK as
groun o! evolutionary change points to the e0istence o! this Reep
timeS that must be unerstoo to be the time outsie o! but absolutely
necessary to the irecte time pointe up by the evolution o! biological
comple0ity.
8ass or inertia is inepenent !rom the voi1 which sustains all motion1
put somewhat poetically. /ny structure which can be moele as a state
Can hence unitary !luctuationD o! the vacuum possesses no conte0tual
in!ormation. 8oreover1 a system outstripping the vacuum_s in situ
computational capacity squelches nonlocal connectivity with the
outlying e6 situ vacua o! the universe. :oes time ilation buy time !or
the inertial system to maintain its nonlocal connectivity to the e6 situ
vacuum? 8ore liKely time ilation represents the falling out of synch of
the in situ with the e6 situ vacuum state.
>uly 2)**
4ravitational time ilation
is local while quantum entanglement CnonlocalityA is1 well1 nonlocal.
=owever1 the only thing about the nonlocally connecte components1
e.g1 spin { electron an positron1 say1 o! the original unstable spin )
particle1 which is i!!erentially a!!ecte by time ilation is the rotation o!
their quantum phases. 3learly the quantum phases o! the two spin {
particles must occur at at ifferent rates etermine by the ifferential
gravitational time ilation operating at their respective =instantaneousA
spacetime positions. 6he parao0ical question which arises in this
connection is the !ollowing: accoring to which local spacetime clocK
oes the quantum phase o! each component rotate1 that o! the electron or
that o! the positron Cthe matter particle or the antimatter particle%A =ow
great oes the relative i!!erence in the rates o! local time ilation have
to become be!ore the nonlocal connection between the two particles
collapse/ecoheres? 7enrose_s Rone-graviton limitS suggests itsel! here
so that ecoherence o! the 7si nonlocally connecting the two particles
shall occur when a single .orentz !rame CWeitschichtD can no longer
contain both particles. 9nce this point is reache1 it is no longer possible
to maintain that the temporal evolution o! each particle is along one an
the same timeline Cistinct !rom their 8inKowsKian worllinessD. 6he
nonlocal connection between the particles is then broKen an we must
asK1 Rwhat happene to the qubit o! quantum in!ormation hereto!ore
encoe in this nonlocal connection?S Ht is by virtue o! a particle_s spin
that one particle_s timeline is istinguishe !rom that o! another. 6his
suggests that a particleDs intrinsic spin points up theHa timeli'e egree of
freeom of the particle. Fhat is also suggeste here is that the structural
integrity o! any given Weitschicht is etermine by the networK o!
quantum entanglement relations that hol on an throughout this
spacetime !olio o! thicKness1 /at1 where the complementary /a; is
etermine by the 7lancK mass an the local velocity o! light1 c. 3an
quantum nonlocal connections between real particles in con5unction with
quantum correlations o! vacuum !luctuations Cvirtual particles an
!ielsD together su!!ice to coe !or the structure o! spacetime1 as well as
its temporal evolution? Hs the iscrete cosmological reshi!t the only
now reaily observable evience !or the Weitschicht structure o! global
spacetime? /re all o! the cosmological anomalies1 e.g.1 small
cosmological constant1 arK matter1 arK energy1 iscrete cosmological
reshi!t1 7ioneer anomaly1 massive neutrino1 none0istent graviton1
Rspee o! gravityS1 time-varying velocity o! light1 nonetection o!
gravitational waves1 etc.1 merely 2
n
orer e!!ects o! general relativity
applie to an inuce-gravity-quantum-vacuum unergoing
cosmological e0pansion1 while the allegely well unerstoo1 con!irme
preictions o! general relativity1 e.g.1 time ilation1 length contraction1
relativistic mass increase1 gravitational reshi!t1 raar echo elays1
perihelion precession1 etc.1 are merely the !irst orer e!!ects o! inuce
gravity?
:oes this imply that ecohere systems possess no conte0t-!ree
representation within the vacuum? 6his is parao0ical1 perhaps in light
o! the quantum Rno-cloningS theorem. @o time is require in terms o!
vacuum reprocessing !or the e0istence o! a !unamental quantum state1
such as a !unamental virtual particle. ?ut the creation o! a particle
through perturbation o! the vacuum !rom outsie as it were oes entail a
reprocessing by the vacuum an so such a particle is real an possesses
mass. Aeprocessing in this sense is an intrinsically conte6tual process.
/s mentione alreay the realness or virtualness o! particle pairs is
relative to a Ainler horizon. ?y relating the Ainler horizon to the
Secoherence horizonS1 one necessarily brings in the relevance o!
Weitschichten. "el!-organization without intelligent esign Co! an abiing
or ongoing natureD might imply that !unamental particles are pieces o! a
Rshattere hologramS Cthe Rcosmic ylemS?D
>uly 2)**
6he notion o! the
conservation o! quantum entanglement in con5unction with another
notion1 namely that o! all matter an energy having become quantum
entangle at the big bang might seem to support this interpretation1 c.!1
au=
=aral .asch_s series1 *lpha Centauri. "o-calle evolution may then
turn out to be involution in a isguise form1 which is to say a
trans!ormation over time o! quantum into classical correlations. 9!
course1 the istinct manner in which the cosmic ylem or hologram
shatters etermines the pattern o! nonlocal connections o! the hologram
!ragments.
6he esign o! this aboriginal whole may consist in the simplistic
!ormula1 voi = per!ect uni!ication. :oes ecoherence represent
eviation !rom this equation?
;volution then may be unerstoo as a Kin o! memory-riven process
meiate by ancient quantum correlations. 6he !unamental question
then becomes i! the cosmic ylem has always e0iste1 then what cause it
to shatter?
H! it hasn_t Ralways e0isteS1 what cause it to !orm in the !irst place?
Puantum !luctuations in both cases? 3onsier that there is no R!irst
placeS.
Puantum uncertainty is thought to power the phenomenon o! quantum
tunneling. 6his might seem to imply that quantum systems cannot
tunnel through an energy barrier that is larger than the system_s
=eisenberg energy uncertainty. 3oinciences are !ar better e0plaine in
terms o! the ecoherence !orestalling properties o! the subconscious.
"ince ecoherence is integral to the establishment o! a meaning!ul arrow
o! time1 encoing o! meaning in the subconscious may !acilitate
temporal entanglement an appear to support bacKwar-acting
causation. 6he mechanism here is similar to that appearing to support
superluminal signal transmission in quantum tunneling communications
e0periments. "witching moalities o! cognitive !unction an social
interaction.
Qd
Hn accor with .evinas_ notion o! the sel! vs. other
CminsD1 the sel! is no more real a pro5ection or construct than is :eity1
in !act it is less real1 hence the opposition o! theism an solipsism. 6he
growth in comple0ity o! biological systems CevolutionD oesn_t appear to
!it within the con!ines o! a single temporal imension 5ust as classical
causality !ails to capture their comple0ity.
au=
.evinas_ thesis that the
other is prior an more !unamental than the sel! is important to
philosophical theism1
/pril 2)**
c.!.1 Hntrouction !rom The 1evinas
+eaerRGFe are all responsible !or everyone else - but H am more
responsible than all the others . f6his remarK1 spoKen by /lyosha
Oaramazov in 6he ?rothers Oaramazov1 is one .evinas is !on o!
quoting. Ht is a neat inication o! the nature o! a thought that1 in the
wors o! >acques :erria1 Gcan maKe us tremble_. * Hts challenge is an
e0cessive one: a moe o! being an saying where H am enlessly
obligate to the 9ther1 a multiplicity in being which re!uses totalization
an taKes !orm instea as !raternity an iscourse1 an ethical relation
which !orever precees an e0cees the egoism an tyranny o! ontology.
"o in practice1 =usserlGs system oes not amit meanings that are
irreucible to representation. ?ut !or .evinas1 these non-representational
intentionalities are precisely the ethical encounter with another human
being. Ht is this contestation o! the ontological by the ethical that
ultimately leas .evinas to isagree also with =eiegger. ;ven as the
latter herals the en
o! the metaphysics o! presence1 he continues to thinK o! being as a
coming-into-presence.S /s moes o! ?eing1 authenticity an
inauthenticity Cthese e0pressions have been chosen terminologically in a
strict senseD are both groune in the !act that any :asein whatsoever is
characterize by mineness Cass :asein uberhaupt urch >emeinigKeit
bestimmt istD. ;thical philosophy must remain the !irst philosophy. /n
this is because the Rcash valueS o! ob5ectivity is intersub5ectivity an a
rational worl is an ethical collaboration between persons who are
ultimately mutually transcenental. 9! course1 logically speaKing1 the
alternative here is an irrational worl that is an unethical collaboration
between persons =ruthless competitionA.
QXQX
Aationality here is
erivative with respect to ethics.
Puantum entanglement is the mechanism supporting curve momentum-
energy.
"ubstrate-inepenence is a nacve realistic assumption o! the har /H
school1 c.!.1 .eibniz. R8ill argument.S
:ali_s
prn=
2aelstrom 4rinciple o! a hoc !ine etail. R;l 4reco 7arao0S
principle o! intersub5ectivity1 i.e.1 ;l 4reco in_t raw animals an
!igures in a istorte manner because he perceive them that way.
:ali_s 8aelstrom 7rinciple C:87D might play a signi!icant role in
interpreting quantum nonemolition/quantum eraser e0periments vis a
vis observer sel!-inter!erence e!!ects which are relate to the recursive
structure o! consciousness as a necessarily convergent in!inite series.
6he logic o! the
prn=
?lan Hni!!erence 7rinciple is ientical to that o! the
hyp=
"agan =ypothesis.
R7lanting !or 3ampbell culminates in the !ormation o! what he calls the
Rhieratic city state1S in which the mystical bon linKing all members o!
the planting community gets magni!ie.S ?ut the iniviuals must
possess the consciousness potential to respon to this social conte0t Cthat
is by the way o! their own creatingD in eveloping the go consciousness
peculiar to this type o! society. "imilar remarKs may be mae
concerning the sel!-organizing properties o! atoms vis a vis the creativity
o! nature as secretly the 4o-3reator1 c.!.1 pp. N)-N*1 >oseph 3ampbell1
/n Hntrouction. 6he creativity o! atoms an molecules is mani!est only
signi!icantly within the conte0t o! comple0 biological/chemical systems
L a paraigm o! Rirreucible comple0ityS or so it appears. "imilarly1 the
go-conscious an min!ul sel! as goly citizen is a social construct.
3omple0 states o! a!!airs that e0ist only as a slice-o!-li!e !rom out o! a
Rboot-strapS process beg the question as to who Cor whatD put the boot
strap as a whole into e!!ect Bua infrastructure L surely a process that is
!unamentally temporally orthogonal to the boot-strappe
process/internal time line or irection.
Qd
3hanges in spacetime
curvature woul e!!ect quantum entanglement in higher temporal
imensions Cthat are perhaps crucial to proper psychological/cognitive
!unctionD.
Hn other wors1 loss o! bone ensity might turn out to be the least o!
eep space e0plorers_ problemsT Fhat maKes energy into matter is
in!ormation. "o then is causality Cin the sense o! "earles_ Rcausal
e!!icacyS contra har *ID merely a correlational recipe !or the
structuring o! !luctuations? 9r is substantiality o! matter ue to a special
Kin o! in!ormation1 i.e.1 historical in!ormation Cwhich transcens
-eynman_s Rsum o! historiesS !or alternate system con!igurational
pathsD? IoloviK_s statement that the ensity represente by the
cosmological constant is equal to the cosmological matter ensity is the
statement o! an /rchimeian principle whereby material e0istence is
sustaine only within a !alse vacuum state.
9ctober 2)**
/rchimees is by
the way allege to have boaste that i! he were provie a lever large
enough an a stable enough !ulcrum1 he woul be able to Rmove the
worlS. Aecently alarm has arisen over the start up o! the .arge =aron
3ollier C.=3D over concerns that a high energy collision prouce in
the monster accelerator might trigger collapse o! the R!alse vacuumS1
resulting in the estruction o! the ;arth1 i! not eventually o! the whole
observable ,niverse. R6he nature o! a !alse vacuum is a !alse energy
minimum1 liKe the !alse bottom o! a roller coaster rie. 6he roller coaster
can only climb the ne0t hill an reach the true bottom o! the rie i! it has
enough Kinetic energy to get over the hump o! the ne0t hill. H! the roller
coaster oes not have enough Kinetic energy1 it gets stucK in the !alse
bottom o! the rie1 which is an unstable state1 liKe a !alse vacuumS1 c.!.1
cit=
Nonuality: * &cientific 4erspective.
"imlarly oes liberate represse consciousness power the
mani!estations o! the CrelativelyD unconscious reamscape. =uman
memory trace Cas oppose to simple memoryD is continually being
reprocesse in 2- time. 6he human being respons to stimuli on two
levels L concrete an abstract1 c.!.1 causality vs. correlation. "upeman_s
R"S symbol on his chest is reinterprete revisionistically as heralic
symbol o! home planet noble !amily vs. human interpretation as merely
the *
st
letter o! "uperman_s name. C
cit=
?ush on the 3ouch1 :e>oseph
-ranKD.
H! the ine0ing1 re!erencing an categorizing o! in!ormation in a library
is less than perfect" then in!ormation can be lost Cin the sense o! not
being accessible !rom RoutsieSD1 but oes this mean that the in!ormation
has been RestroyeS or e-stroye? R"troyS seems etymologically
relate to the wors RstrayS an RstrewS. 3an etymology provie us
with a clue to analysis with scienti!ic1 i.e.1 ob5ective signi!icance?
3an conceiving o! a crucial 4eanKen e0periment have the same e!!ect
on the quantum omain as observation1 inevitable potential observation1
potentially recorable1 potentially communicable observation?
3onscious sel! as pro5ection o! more intelligent subconscious sel! as a
Kin o! Rpurchasing agentS !or the unconscious sel!. 3ommunicates to
conscious sel! through metaphors perceive by conscious sel! as
intuitive insight or revelation.
6he 3ooper pair currents in 7oKletnov_s rotating superconucting isK
inuce a small spin-) ?ose enhancement o! spin-) !luctuations in the
quantum vacuum or1 alternatively an enhancement o! magnetization
entanglement o! virtual e+e- pairs in the vacuum. "pin entanglement
equilibrium !orces en!orce the quantum mechanical e0pectation values
as oppose to abstract1 post hoc classical statistical averages.
au=
>acK "ar!atti in his R:estiny 8atri0S Hnternet postings asserts that
/azp!C0D Y ) is the basis o! arK matter an is the cause o! an attractive
!iel1 while /azp!C0D Z) he associates with arK energy an the repulsive
!iel1 which he says is the cause o! the accelerate cosmological
e0pansion. C"ee
au=
Oaiverainen_s ?i-vacuum theoryD. Ht might be a goo
iea to moel the e!!ect upon the ual super!lui vacuum structure pose
by a passing gravitational wave Cquarupole raiation meiate by
composite spin-2D instea o! a unique spin-2 particle or gravitonD.
Oaiverainen_s bi-vacuum theory possesses important !eatures in
common with
au=
IoloviK_s ual super!lui inuce gravity theory as well
as with "ar!atti_s :estiny 8atri0 theory. H ha alreay hit on my spin-*
an composite spin-) ual-vacua theory o! inuce gravity prior to
reaing "ar!atti_s an Oaiverainen_s theories as well as prior to my
having become acquainte with IoloviK_s inuce gravity theory1 c.!1
cit=
The Cniverse in a <elium Droplet.
"eptember 2)*2
6he implications o! IoloviKGs worK are that E;verything Hs
HnuceE1 e.g.1 gravity1 inertia1 supersymmetry1 etc. via quantum
entanglement o! virtual !ermions an bosons in the !orm o! the various
particles require by the the !ormal theories thereo! /" 39879"H6;
7/A6H3.;"1 which is to say WquasiparticlesW. 3onsequently1 the =iggs
?oson is a composite1 as well as the graviton.
:arK energy an the accelerate e0pansion o! the universe may be
e0plaine in terms o! the e!!ect o! ecreasing real !ermion ensity on the
ensity o! !ermionic vacuum !luctuations1 namely in contributing to the
increase in the ensity o! virtual !ermion-anti!ermion vacuum energy
!luctuations an to a corresponing ecrease in the ensity o! virtual
boson !luctuations in the vacuum such that the local value o! c
throughout the universe is increasing. Hn this way oes the e0pansion o!
the universe appear to accelerate. / mocK gravitational !iel component
may be associate with the local e!!ects o! 4A time ilation on the
e0paning vacuum momentum-energy !iel. 6he 7ioneer anomaly may
be an e!!ect o! arK matter an arK energy within an e0paning
universe1
>une 2)**
which shoul be reconcile with the growing
iscrepancy between the ephemeris an e6paning cosmological frames
of reference. :arK matter on the other han may be unerstoo as ue to
an inuce gravitational e!!ect somewhat aKin to gravitational vacuum
polari(ation1 c.!.1
cit=
3uantum ;acuum an Dar' 2atter =
auG
<a$u'ovic"
IJ>>A.
;0plore the story o! the rop that thought it was the ocean because mae
o! the same stu!! in connection with the emergent property o! wetness1
c.!.1
au=
8ill_s argument concerning RwetnessS. /lso looK at the iea o! a
chilren_s story that uses the rop/ocean analogy/story to teach the
i!!erence between the spirit becoming one with 4o_s "pirit !rom the
soul going to be RwithS 4o. 3onsier the breaKown o! the equation o!
Rin!ormation = negentropyS in light o! the nonlocal properties o!
quantum entangle thermoynamic systems.
9ctober 2)**
Ht appears liKely
that the 2
n
.aw o! 6hermoynamics in its present !orm oes not apply
to the
prn=
mi6ing of <eisenberg uncertain energies as it oes to say1 the
mi0ing o! ieal gases. H! the quantum vacuum contains in!ormation1 it
shoul be able to absorb quantum uncertainty in a manner analogous to
how a thermoynamic heat bath absorbs negentropy. Puantum
uncertainty acts as the ieal envelope o! nonlocally connecte or
quantum entangle Cquantum correlateD vacuum !luctuations. 6he
quantum uncertainty with respect to a particular observable is not
conserve because it is rather the prouct o! the quantum uncertainties
with respect to incompatible observables that is conserve an this1 a!ter
the !ashion o! a phase space. 6he question arises as to whether such
uncertainty phase spaces can unergo a Kin o! crystallization such that
the Rgrain sizeS o! the phase space e!!ectively shrinKs. 6he in!ormation
CnegentropyD liberate by such a conensation/crystallization process
woul be e0pecte to enter into the correlations appearing between the
shrinKing crystalline cells o! uncertainty phase space. 6he uncertainty
envelope possesses some properties o! an Revent horizonS. 6here is
something parao0ical about the manner in which the !luctuations that
compose =eisenberg energy uncertainty are suppose to be correlate.
@ote that all o! the correlate !luctuations1 which constitute the bulK o!
all o! the masses1 which !ell into the blacK hole Can which otherwise
woul have constitute the bulK o! the accreting blacK hole massD1 are
constraine by the laws o! quantum mechanics an -lac' <ole
Thermoynamics to occupy the sur!ace o! the blacK hole. /n it is the
absolute minimum quantum uncertainty represente by the 4lanc'
surface area as the minimum 2 crystalline cell size1 which etermines
the ratio o! blacK hole mass to sur!ace area1 i.e.1 8
s
/A
s
2
. C6his ratio is
consierabley smaller than what is preicte in stanar ;ucliean
geometry1 i!!ering by a !actor o! pi.D 6his says something very
important about the role o! vacuum !luctuations an their correlations1
both quantum an classical1 in the etermination o! spacetime structure
in relation to mass1 i.e.1 inertia an gravitation. 6he suspecte
holographic structure o! the blacK hole event horizon engeners another
suspicion regaring the structure an relateness o! the vacuum
!luctuations originally composing the masses1 which !ell into the blacK
hole uring its !ormation !rom a growing accretion mass1 which in turn
speaKs to concerns over the blac' hole information parao6.
-ebruary 2)**
/re there important but hereto!ore une0plaine perturbative
e!!ects o! the 4ibbs_ 7henomenon when applie to quantum probability
ensity !unctions?
>une 2)*2
H! we believe !ervently in a so-calle concept of consciousness1 but
are !orce to amit to ourselves on the other han that no single inviual
possesses Cor even can possessD this concept1 then we are at once !ace
with the necessity o! a transcenent universal min wherein each
iniviual human min is but a single instance or instantiation o! this
transcenent consciousness. 6he evelopment o! each iniviual min
is then aKin to crystallization or the !ormation o! myria iniviual
crystals within a saturate salt solution1 still less o! the solvent itsel!.
6here is really no way to euce the nature o! the solution !rom the the
properties or each cyrstal_s chemical structure alone1 if the peculiar
nature of the solvent is not further ta'en into account" namely how this
solvent changes the interactions o! the crystal_s !unamental
consitituents1 i.e.1 its anions an cations !orming each crystal. Fhat H
am alluing to in the above is that consciousness by its very nature" e.g."
/,elian" etc." must be bigger than any concept we can efine for it
within any iniviual consciousness. Fe have or en5oy consciousness1
but we o not actually possess any coherent concept o! it. Fe
participate in consciousness in orer to be conscious. 6his is to point up
the simultaneous importance o! both conte6t an substance" coherence
an continuity or" solvent an solute" if you will. Fe are moving
towars the insight that transcenent min an lonely or isolate
iniviual min are opposite sies o! the very same coin. Hn essence1
this is the precise relationship o! theism an solipsism. Ht is substantial
continuity with groun without which groun can provie no meaning-
con!erring conte0t to whatever is within this groun. Ht might be
suppose now that any quantum entanglements generate between
interacting particles an !iels are merely istille !rom such
entanglements that pree0ist within the quantum vacuum as
spatiotemporal groun1 but that beyon a certain threshol o!
comple0ity1 perhaps quantitatively emboie in inertia or mass o! the
system o! particles an !iels altogether new entanglements are brought
into being1 which can Rin!ectS the unerlying quantum vacuum in turn
an in this manner genuinely new ynamical relationships are
themselves brought to the !ore.
>une 2)*2
Jermelo--raeKen "et 6heory with the a0iom o! choice
http://en.wiKipeia.org/wiKi/Jermelo%;2%N)%2$-raenKel#set#theory
or RJ-3 is intene to !ormalize a single primitive notion1 that o! a
hereitary wellFfoune set1 so that all iniviuals in the universe o!
iscourse are such sets. 6hus the a0ioms o! J-3 re!er only to sets1 not to
urelements Celements o! sets which are not themselves setsD or classes
Ccollections o! mathematical ob5ects e!ine by a property share by
their membersD. 6he a0ioms o! J-3 prevent its moels !rom containing
urelements1 an proper classes can only be treate inirectly.S
Hniviual instances o! consciousness inee o possess at least one
property in common with one another1 however this property cannot be
given an intersub5ective escription. 6hus the property !alls altogether
outsie the realm o! all possible linguistic escription. Ht is in this sense
in which we say that consciousness is transcenent1 though this is in two
istinct ways: %4 no iniviual can convey what his unique states o!
consciousness are liKe to any other person an 54 no iniviual can
comprehen what is the quality or property o! his consciousness that is
hel in common with the consciousnesses o! any an every other
conscious person. 6his is an e0ample o! an informative tautology1 i.e.1 a
tautology which emboies a metaphysical principle that can !unction as
a guie to interpretation between istinct theories1 which cannot be
empirically istinguishe. /pplying ?erKeley_s esse est percipi
principle to this elusive commonly hel e!ining property o!
consciousness1 we are le to the notion o! a universal or transcenent
min1 who is1 alone1 aware o! the sub5ective nature o! this e!ining
property. 6his e!ining property is not abstract an there!ore cannot be
constructe. Ht is !unamental1 ruimentary an irreucible. Ht is the
something that has always been since e6 nihilo nihil fit.
/ugust 2)*2
Fe
cannot get at the unique property that maKes our iniviual
consciousness unique1 nor can we get at that property1 which e!ines
consciousness as such =an which is altogether more general than the
efining property of oneDs iniviual consciousnessA. 6he pivotal
question is whether these two properties1 one allegely particular1 the
other transcenentally general1 are not inee one an the same.
8etaphorical rei!ication may be at the root o! the assumption that these
two properties must in !act be ifferent.
>une 2)*2
3onsciousness cannot possess an essence in the sense o! a
e!ining1 master quale since such a Rmaster qualeS coul only be e!ine
in terms o! a consoliation o! not merely multiple quale !rom the
consciousness o! an iniviual min1 but in terms o! multiple quale
across an unlimite an inefinite number of iniviuals. Fe can only
!orm a proper abstract category o! consciousness i! we can maKe
multiple observations o! consciousness so that we can ignore irrelevant
etails Cetails that unimportantly vary between i!!erent instances o!
some phenomenonD1 so as to get at the e!ining general property or
attribute upon which we might base a general category. Aeproucibility
o! observations is important in this connection. =owever1 on account o!
the memory e!!ect or what might be terme a Kin o! Rpsychic
hysteresisS1 everything changes within the phenomenal !iel1 e0cept the
iniviual consciousness itsel!1 so that anything broaer than this can
never appear to vary within any possible phenomenal !iel o!
consciousness o! any particular iniviual. ;ach o! us possesses but a
single e0ample o! consciousness - our own as possible sub5ect o!
observation an e0periment. /n thus !ar1 consciousness oes not
appear to possess any intersub5ective an hence measurable properties.
8uch thought is being given these ays1 however to thought
e0periments an the esign o! new e0periments centere aroun the
operation o! a Rquantum consciousness etectorS. Hn the mean time1
ever more etaile observations are being per!orme o! the brain
through the use o! ever more sensitive !unctional 8AH iagnostic
imagning systems. 6hrough viewing vieos o! mysel! with an
interaction with others1 H can easily see mysel! as ontologically on a par
with other human beings. ?ut this is only a metaphor !or what 4o
alone has the ability to o L observe1 real time1 simultaneously1 the
sub5ective an even introspective !unctioning o! multiple human
consciousnesses. 4o alone in other wors can possess empirical
evience !or the e0istence o! other mins.
RFe re!erre earlier to the nee !or a !ormal1 a0iomatic approach. Fhat
problems arise in the treatment we have given? 6he problems relate to
the !ormation o! sets. 9neGs !irst intuition might be that we can !orm any
set we want1 but this view leas to inconsistencies. -or any set 0 we can
asK whether 0 is a member o! itsel!.
:e!ine J = n0 : 0 is not a member o! 0o.
@ow !or the problem: is J a member o! J? H! yes1 then by the e!ining
quality o! J1 J is not a member o! itsel!1 i.e.1 J is not a member o! J.
6his !orces us to eclare that J is not a member o! J. 6hen J is not a
member o! itsel! an so1 again by e!inition o! J1 J is a member o! J.
6hus both options lea us to a contraiction an we have an inconsistent
theory. 8ore succinctly1 one says that J is a member o! J i! an only i!
J is not a member o! J. /0iomatic evelopments place restrictions on
the sort o! sets we are allowe to !orm an thus prevent problems liKe
our set J !rom arising. 6his particular parao0 is AussellGs parao0.
6he penalty is that one must taKe more care with oneGs evelopment1 as
one must in any rigorous mathematical argument. Hn particular1 it is
problematic to speaK o! a set o! everything1 or to be CpossiblyD a bit less
ambitious1 even a set o! all sets. Hn !act1 in the stanar a0iomatisation o!
set theory1 there is no set o! all sets. Hn areas o! mathematics that seem to
require a set o! all sets Csuch as category theoryD1 one can sometimes
maKe o with a universal set so arge that a o! orinary mathematics
can be one within it Csee universeD. /lternatively1 one can maKe use o!
proper classes. 9r1 one can use a i!!erent a0iomatisation o! set theory1
such as F. I. PuineGs @ew -ounations1 which allows for a set of all
sets an avois +ussellQs parao6 in another way.S
6he emergence o! consciousness may be unerstoo as the initial
tapping o! the nonlocally connecte quantum in!ormation reservoir? Ht
is reasonable to suppose that any reemergence or secon !lowering o!
consciousness will come !rom tapping this RaKashicS recor once more
but in a new manner1 !rom a new irection. 6his o!!ers a new !iel o!
e0ploration that shall o!!er an outlet close o!! to manKin by the
insuperable technical i!!iculties involving in attempting interstellar
travel.
/cceleration in the pace o! technological progress is e0pecte to result
!rom the institutionalization o! igital in!ormation systems Csee when
quantitative change becomes qualitative changeD.
4reater ensity o! $-momentum !luctuations is associate with smaller
ensity o! timeliKe or imaginary (-momentum CenergyD !luctuations1
which in turn leas to an increase entropy ensity.
6he past time interval1 t
)
t
*
e0pans ue to cosmological e0pansion to
the new past time interval1 t
)

t
*

. 6his woul be e0pecte to only

occur to RpastS time uncertainties. /re past virtual particles an !iels
actually RpastS. @ot liKely i! virtual particles an !iels are responsible
!or etermining temporality1 its rate1 irection an R!lowS. =amero!!
says that time may inee not !low in any ob5ective sense1 but that the
R!low o! timeS may be a purely sub5ective phenomenon. 6emporal !low
is a relational phenomenon in that there is no meaning to be assigne to
conte0t !ree temporality.
?owing to reason. . . in!le0ibly !ollowing coi!ie law1 stubbornly
re!using to acKnowlege reason1 or acKnowleging1 but re!using to
!ollow reason_s ictates L a blaspheming o! logic1 as it were.
7robability in P8 is not 5ust owing to the e!inition o! an average or
e0pectation value1 but is !luctuation o! an average or e0pectation value1
but is !luctuation base an hence ynamic. "o an e!!ective spin-2
woul be e0pecte to be a ynamic averaging1 that is an averaging o!
spin-)1 {1 *1 $/21 etc. 6o save ;instein_s strong equivalence principle1
we have to assume CaD hien spatial imensionCsD to place the enormous
curvature that is otherwise hien with respect to norm $ + * 8inKowsKi
spacetime.
:iscuss "ar!atti_s characterization o! arK matter an arK energy in
terms o! /azp!C0D ZY ). H! time Rstops6 at the event horizon o! a blacK
hole !or an outsie observer1 but continues !or the in!alling observer1
then clearly we are talKing about two orthogonal time imensions. 6his
type o! 4eanKen e0periment o!!ers a clue about how to relate time to a
bona !ie (
th
spatial imension. 6o wit1 between in!inity an the event
horizon o! a blacK hole1 the irection o! time rotates 2) egrees1 i.e.1
!rom orthogonal to the local $-hypersur!ace to being tangential to this
local $-hypersur!ace Co! the istant observerD.
Qd
Aegarless o! how high the potential barrier may be1 the behavior o!
the wave!unction in the close vicinity o! this barrier is !unamentally
i!!erent !rom this behavior !or the wave!unction near an actual in!inite
potential barrier1 e.g.1 the 7si cannot tunnel across a barrier o! in!inite
height1 the behavior o! the 4ibbs_ phenomenal noise at this bounary is
rational1 as oppose to the case !or a !inite potential barrier.
>une 2)**
6his
observation has important implications !or a quantum-base theoicy"
e.g1 why eternal separation from /o o! !ree-wille persons1 who have
chosen not to repent1 is not only 5usti!iable1 but $ust" given the
collaborative an even co-creative environment represente by heaven
in the !ace o! the insiious1 viral mimetic nature o! sin.
Hnertia may be unerstoo in analogy to the appearance o! !rictional
!orces in that inertia is the inevitable e!!ect o! the interaction Cwechsel
wirKungD o! multiple sources Cwhen one o! those sources is the quantum
vacuum/vacuaD.
"chroinger equation is to realization o! possibilities as is non-aiabatic
changes to the bounary conitions to the "-equation the creation of new
possibilities.
/lthough the entangle elements may be copie1 the pattern o! their
quantum entanglement cannot1 an it is this pattern that unerlies the
temporal certainty o! conscious entities. "ubstantial continuity is the
transmission o! quantum entanglement between the system an itsel! at
each successive moment. 6hus o we arrive at a e!inition RmomentS.
Hs the past as much a pro5ection or e0trapolation as is our e0pectations
!or the !uture? Aeality is intersub5ective agreement. 6here is no Rthey
vs. the sel!S. 6he special istinguishing characteristic o! 5azz is its
capacity !or intensi!ying one_s perception an appreciation o! the now.
;nless intercalation o! nature1 nurture1 nature1 nurture1 etc. Fhat others
accept as a matter o! course provoKes woner in the philosopher. 6he
stanar human re!erence !ace is why people_s straight !aces
subconsciously appear to have speci!ic e0pression. 6he most !antastic
coinciences always escape notice ue to the combination/permutation
laziness o! the human intellect. Fhen the biological imperative rela0es
its grip is when culture lens a helping han. 6he parao0 o! the
ineterminacy o! spacetime character along the abstract L real
continuum an the separability o! the (
th
spatial imension !rom the
genuine temporal imension. Foul the ienti!ication o! a real (-
spatial a0is with time introuce absolute spacetime an a pre!erre
re!erence !rame1 inavertently? Aelate ine!inite counter!actual entities
to the ambiguity o! the (
th
spatial imension as a time imension.
3oul a vali quantum gravity theory provie us with an algorithm !or
e0tracting the transcenental !rom the real line. 6his is because pi
e!!ectively varies continuously in a spatiotemporally varying
gravitational !iel. H! the electron has no structure but is e!ine in
terms o! its interaction with quantum vacuum electromagnetic processes1
then shouln_t the electron mass be e!inable in terms o! its
electromagnetic sel!-energy as .orentz imagine?
Hn the sphere pacKing thought e0periment the e!!ect o! increasing gravity
an the curvature o! spacetime is to graually trans!orm the mass
volume relationship !rom cubic to linear. 6his is a general relativistic
e!!ect. /t the same time the vacuum entanglement banwith
connecting the local vacuum immeiately occupie by the massD an the
conte0tualizing global quantum vacuum is becoming progressively more
restricte. 4eneral relativity is a causal !rameworK Cvia ;instein_s
e!inition o! spacetime in terms o! the propagation o! light1 e!!ectively
causality an ?ohm_s principle o! quantum causality1 i.e.1 that causal
connections are equivalent to correlations o! !luctuations must meiate
the realization o! the ;instein causality principle1 that is1 4A is e!inable
in terms o! P8 an not vice versa. 6he shi!t in spacetime geometry
Ctopology?D with increasing g-!iel may be characterize in terms o! a
shi!t in !luctuations !rom quantum to classically correlate L with the
e0pecte attenant increase in entropy. /s the matter ensity o! a hot
volume o! gas increases so oes its entropy L initially with the cube an
graually more an more with a ecreasing rate approaching the square1
i.e.1 proportional to the volume_s sur!ace area. Fhere i this i!!erence
in entropy propagate1 i.e.1 that entropy equal to the i!!erence in cubic
proportional an square proportional?
8ore massive ob5ects are more ecoherent L in the sense o! more cut o!!
!rom the nonlocal correlations o! the global vacuum Cas cosmic quantum
37,D in its moeling o! the state o! ob5ects an calculation o! !uture
states o! these ob5ects1 an in this way e0hibit greater inertia an Cin
con5unction with a locally e0paning spacetimeD greater gravitation.
:iscuss the implications an complications o! the phrase1 human beings
only thinK they_re consciousV consciousness actually oesn_t e0ist.
Hs there any !unamental istinction between the e!!ect o! ecoherence
o! an arti!icial Carti!icially intelligent in!ormation storage system upon
appearances Cor notD o! the recore pattern o! electron striKes on the
two-slit phosphorescent screen an this quantum e!!ect upon a lone
conscious witness to the appearance Cor notD o! an inter!erence pattern
on the phosphorescent screen? H! so1 then there is a nee to analyze the
relationship o! consciousness1 ob5ectivity-as-intersub5ectivity1 ?ohmian
causal principle an quantum ecoherence.
=eisenberg uncertainty o! only stress-momentum-energy necessarily
implicates temporal change1 e.g.1 /a0 oes not necessarily imply
R!luctuation in 0S e0cept inirectly through constitutive causal
relationships. =ow can the nonlocally entangle quantum vacuum
!luctuation !iel1 which is .orentz invariant implement the ?ohmian
causality principle an mani!est temporal orer1 scale an irectionality.
;ach transcenental number Co! which there is an in!inite1 possibly
trans!inite numberD possesses a richness o! in!ormation equal to my
esign challenge1 c.!.1 polysolipsism as oppose to 7lotinean
polyemanationism.
8ay 2)*$
/lthough solipsism is emonstrate by
au=
Fittgenstein to be incoherent ue to the incoherence o! the notion o!
private language1 Fittgenstein_s argument oes not succee in the same
way in ispatching what might be terme polysolipsism. -ollowing
au=
7lantinga1 polysolipsism invoKes some !orm o! continuum unerlying
collective intentionality an sai continuum is essentially proviential in
nature. Ht is no coincience that !ar more original thought an insight is
stimulate by a crisis within a theoretical !ounation1 i.e.1 contraiction
an parao01 e.g.1 the challenge o! a reigning scienti!ic paraigm than by
the challenge o! applying an establishe theory. 6he inertia o! the current
scienti!ic paraigm is social in nature1 while the insight challenging it is
subcultural an possibly base upon the insights o! a single iniviual1
although it coul be argue that such an inspire issenter is always
himsel! the prouct o! an intellectual climate1 i.e.1 there is a collective
groun !or any challenge to a currently ominant scienti!ic paraigm. Hn
a wor1 polysolipsism !ragments into a shower o! inistinguishable
solipsisms in the absence o! 4o. =owever1 this argument may perhaps
only carry through i! 4o is =imsel! a plural being1 c.!1.
cit=
Rlet us maKe
8an in our own image.S 7olysolipsism is reveale contra hyp as1
inee1 polyemanationism.
epi=
E/ny iscipline that is paraigm-boune
an riven is potential prey to the specter o! positivism.E
"eptember 2)*$ epi=
R;ach paraigm presupposes a particular metaphysic.S
8ay 2)*$
/rguments against solipsism always appeal to the public nature o!
language an conceptual thought. 6he presumption here is that language
etermines thought because to the e0tent1 however small1 that thought
etermines language1 this is through the operation o! metaphor Call
concepts are really Rrei!ieS metaphorsD. Ht is not clear whether metaphor
is necessarily public an intersub5ective in nature. Fittgenstein_s private
language argument against solipsism may ultimately !ail because o! the
non-analyzability o! the sub5ective in intersub5ective1 which is to say1
linguistic terms. .anguage presumes a listener1 a reaer1 an auience at
least in practice an in common sense1 but to say that this is necessarily
so requires more than han-waving arguments. 7erhaps the irreucible
comple0ity argument that is normally enliste on the behal! o! 3hristian
apologetics can be applie to the logical structure o! the sequence o!
!unny noises mae by big people that the in!ant hears1 which he
eventually pieces together an learns to interpret in terms o! meanings.
/n i! irreucible comple0ity can be erive !rom speci!ie comple0ity
qua encoe in!ormation an in turn it can be emonstrate that the only
proper conte0t !or in!ormation is min1 then this may pose a way out o!
the solipsistic impasse le!t behin by !aile Fittgensteinian arguments.
"ince consciousnesses cannot be superpose1 c.!.1 geanKen e0periments
o! "chroinger_s 3at an Figner_s -rien1 only istinct vacuum
resonant tuning !ilter states o! the entangle brain microtubule tubulin
imer networK can be superposeV an so it !ollows that the many
worls interpretation o! quantum mechanics implies a noneterministic
branching o! the observer_s consciousness to alternate resonant tunings
o! his neural microtubule networK wherein each unuse branch
represents a close uplicate o! his physical sel!1 i.e.1 brain microtubule
networK1 which is . . . either resonantly tune to someone else_s
consciousness or to no consciousness at all1 i.e.1 to a Rphilosophical
zombieS state. Hn other wors1 8r. 4olman_s Puantum >umping
!inancial prosperity techniques can only worK !or 8r. 4olman.
/ugust 2)*$
.anguage may have originally starte out as a Kin o! internal machine
synta0 !or the processing sensory ata.
Puantum entanglement is 5ust a mani!estation o! the temporal continuity
o! that which possesses no substance. "o time ilation1 length
contraction an relativistic mass increase are all e!!ects o! the
moulation o! quantum entanglement in the quantum vacuum
!luctuation !iel1 c.!.1
cit=
ID 3uantum /ravity from 3uantum
Entanglement.
Iirtual particles may be promote to the status o! real particles through
change in vacuum bounary conitions. /ll massive particles were
create originally through the interaction o! in!lation an cosmological
e0pansion with =eisenberg momentum an energy e0pansion with
=eisenberg momentum an energy uncertainty. 3osmic in!lation is a
raical trans!ormation o! quantum vacuum bounary conitions. Fhat
etermines whether a collection o! virtual particles constitutes a real
system o! particles epens on the presence o! entanglement
in!ormation. Hn other wors1 in!ormation can generate really e0isting
particles. 6aKing our lea !rom the 9l 6estament 4o1 we suggest here
that real particles can be prouce !rom the vacuum via a sonoluminous
mechanism. Hn the same way that the e0pectation values o! momentum
an energy can be erive !rom the uncertainties an !luctuations in p
an ;1 so can the e0pectation values o! space an time be erive !rom
C/a01 !luc-0D an C/at1 !luc-tD.
8oal realism shoul be questione in light o! the 7lancK mass limit or
alternatively1 in terms o! 7enrose_s Rone-graviton limitS. 6he !irst living
organisms woul have arisen by chance in an in!inite number o!
planetsS1 c.!.1 p. *'' C?arrD1 8oern 7hysics an /ncient -aith. Fhat
about a proper consieration o! coherence1 cohesiveness an stability1
i.e.1 robustness in the !ace o! perturbations Cthe very same or
complementary to those originally bringing the !irst primitive organisms
into being?D
Aobustness is 5ust as necessary in the one-in-myria slightly varying
universe as in the case o! a truly unique universe. 3ompare the analysis
o! the e!!ect o! so-calle !ree will an consciousness upon the quantum
7si in light o! the notions o! intention an intentionality.
6he human brain evolve to a point at which the comple0 microtubule
networK began to access the quantum vacuum !iel in orer to reprocess
an reconte0tualize patterns o! enhance an suppresse neural !iring
an !iring sequence probabilities Cthe bounary conitions !or the
superposition are not themselves superposeD yieling a iscontinuous
5ump in human intelligence an taKing human intellectual capabilities
well beyon the ictates o! survival within a hunter-gatherer clan. 6he
important iea not to lose sight o! here is that this quantum vacuum
in!ormation !iel i not itsel! evolve qua in!ormation processing
in!rastructure Cthough this !iel presumably changes in subtle ways
perhaps to accommoate "helraKean !ormative causation as well as
perhaps acting as a Kin o! aKashic recor.
Qd6he complementary uncertainties o! con5ugate variables suggests
that the quantum in!ormation neee to more !ully speci!y1 !or e0ample1
position o! a particle is provie by the increase in uncertainty o! the
con5ugate variable1 here1 momentum. 6he con!iguration o! nonlocal
correlations o! the amplitues maKing up the con5ugate momentum
uncertainty is the source o! the quantum in!ormation with which the
position o! the particle becomes more precisely speci!ie.
4ravitation cannot act upon a pure 7si1 say by constraining the
spacetime evolution o! 7si to a curve geoesic path1 without 7si
becoming ecoherent to some appropriate egree. 6his is because the
evolution o! a pure 7si is reversible in !lat spacetime1 while the action o!
the gravitational !iel is irreversible. 3onsciousness terminates the
in!inite regress o! quantum system1 metasystem1 meta-metasystem1 etc.
/pril 2)**
4ravitation an consciousness both have a quantum in!ormation
basis analogous to how thermoynamic phase state relates to the system
egrees o! !reeom.
=ence1 consciousness cannot be an observable in quantum mechanics1 in
principle. Oant_s a priori/a posteriori istinction shoul be applie to the
concept o! the collective reprocessing o! the ata o! iniviual human
e0perience. 6he ynamical action o! the physical substrate !or the
aKashic recor which lies at the root o! this collective e0periential
reprocessing blurs this Oantian istinction. /ccoring to "helraKe1
physical laws are merely habits o! nature which through myria
repetitions have become !unamentally ingraine.
>uly 2)*2
RH go to
encounter !or the millionth time the reality o! e0perience an to !orge in
the smithy o! my soul the uncreate conscience o! my race.S L >ames
>oyce
6he mechanism unerlying gravity an inertia shoul be sought in the
processes responsible !or graual ecoherence o! a quantum mechanics
system_s ensity matri0. Fe hear everywhere about how Rconsciousness
collapses the wave!unctionS. ?ut might some Kin o!
observer/consciousness !iel responsible !or graual ecoherence !or
inuce gravity turn out to be intimately relate i! not ientical !iels?
Puantum !luctuations as stemming !rom ynamics o! the observer
!unction.
3orliss .amont e!ine a chance event as constitute by the intersection
o! two causally inepenent chains o! events.
au=
=ermann Feyl e0plains
the statistical nature o! quantum observations in a similar manner. 6he
act o! observation brings observer an system together in a manner
be!itting no prior interaction of observer with observe. 3ertain 7si
collapse an AhoCphi
i
D

ecoherence e!!ects are bought about not by
changes in an observer_s state o! Knowlege so much as by a change in
the Knowlegeability o! merely hypothetical observers. 3onsciousness is
not itsel! !unamental to the quantum e!!ects o! observation1 but some
ynamic process unerlying an !unamental to the operation o!
consciousness gets establishe as an ob5ective an not merely sub5ective
or even intersub5ectively erivable abstract category o! e0perience. 6his
may prove use!ul to the metaphysical conunrum o! Rother minsS i! not
as an actual isproo! o! metaphysical Cas oppose to merely
epistemologicalD solipsism. Hnvestigate the notion o! conservation o!
cohesiveness an/or coherence in the evolution o! cohesive an/or
coherent systems1 c.!.1 p. 2'2 o!
cit=
8oern 7hysics an /ncient -aith.
goo=
4oogle searches: Yis not a !unamental !orceZ1 Ygraviton oes not
e0istZ1 Yinuce gravityZ an Ye!!ective !ielZ1
Yspontaneous/ynamical symmetry breaKingZ1 Yinuce/e!!ective
supersymmetryZ 4o acts accoring to what =e Knows you believe1
not accoring to what you believe you Know. Hs this the anti-
philosophical 4o?
-or some reason human beings are gi!te with programs !or
reprocessing the ata o! their iniviual e0perience into new abstract
!orms.
epi=
6he processing o! ata is at once the reprocessing o!
in!ormation.
?ut what i! this so!tware is the same as that use to perceive an
ambiguous environment?
QdQd
9ne consciousness1 myria mins vs.
myria consciousnesses1 myria mins constitutes a egeneracy o! case1
that is to say1 phenomenologically speaKing. H! ?ishop ?erKeley_s ;sse
est 7ercipi principle is invoKe an applie here Cto consciousnessD1 then
it appears that the only outsie !orce Ce.g.1 magnetic in the case o! spin
egeneracyD available to Rsplit this egeneracyS Cistinguish these two
egenerate casesD is a transcenent e0ternal observer. 3ollecte ata o!
iniviual e0perience is remove !rom its original human conte0t an
place into a transhumant conte0t1 c.!.1 ol!actory lobe L tongue taste bu
analogy. Fe nee a wor that is con5ugate to the term revisionism1 e.g.1
sich vervorstellen1 usw. =istory is a reprocessing or reimaging o! the
ata o! the past. 3onceptualize RreimagingS vs. RrevisionismS as
complementary or rather1 antagonistic !orms o! e0periential ata
reprocessing. Fe Know that the ata o! iniviual human e0perience
treate collectively Can there are perhaps limitless number o! istinct
ways to o thisD engeners a possible transhuman content. Fhich
algorithm !or collective Rmatri0 styleS reprocessing o! this ata o!
iniviual human e0perience is perhaps best etermine by either
political strategy Cor e0peiency1 !or that matterD or by the programmers
who set the initial an bounary conitions !or the pro5ecte avatars +
simulate environment system. 6o be merely possible in a certain realm
Csay1 equivalent to the quantumD is tantamount to that iea_s real
e0istence. 3oherence/nonlocality1 quantum !luctuations L nonlocal
cohesion. :ecoherence/locality1 classical !luctuations L local cohesion.
3onservation o! cohesion/sel!-organization.
6he substantive role o! gravity in spontaneous ecoherence1 the !act o!
gravitation propagating at the spee o! light an o! quantum nonlocal
correlations propagating at in!inite spee suggests that spacetime
curvature is encoe into only one o! two !unamental components o!
the quantum vacuum1 i.e.1 the ecoherent o! classical component the
coherent component which constitutes the vast bulK o! the quantum
vacuum energy ensity oes not itsel! irectly contribute to the inertia o!
the vacuum.
au=
IoloviK_s proo! that the cosmological constant tracKs the average
cosmic matter ensity may in!orm the investigation into the unerlying
origin o! so-calle arK matter. 6he creative substrate oes not possess a
permutational structure1 is not eterministic an is not constraine by
symmetry1 e.g.1 spacetime interval1 conservation principles1 etc.
prn=
9nly
a tiny !raction o! the ense !iel o! quantum correlations Cboth correlate
an uncorrelateD ever mani!ests itsel! in the !orm o! causal relationships
an the !act that both etection an etectability o! a quantum correlate
particle is su!!icient grouns !or reuction o! the particle wave!unction1
7siC*12D b= 7siC*D 0 7siC2D suggests that the contents o! consciousness
present at any given moment merely represent the set o! contents
currently attene to an says nothing about the e0clusion o! other
contents1 themselves either part o! another iniviual consciousness or
o! consciousness as a whole or as such. Ht is consierations liKe this
which help us to realize that the many worls an many mins
interpretations o! quantum mechanics may inee represent essentially
the same quantum metaphysics. Cpage %21 "eptember 2))ND
9ctober 2)**
Fe
see how the correlations representing causal relationships might be the
e!!ect o! the mutual inter!erence o! istinct sets o! acausal correlations1
c.!.1 the principle o! intersub$ectivityob$ectivity. @ote that this
implication is not two-way1 an that is because we have not rule out the
possible in!luence o! transcenental min/consciousness as such upon
the realm o! ob5ectivity.
?ecause spin connotes spatial orientation1 a change in the constitutive
!luctuations o! the vacuum1 which by their correlations constitute matter
an spacetime1 curvature may turn out to be only a spatial metaphor !or
the implications o! quantum correlate spin !luctuations. 6he
irreversibility introuce through the mi0e symmetry o! the ensity
matri0 L symmetry is mi0e symmetry o! the ensity matri0 L symmetry
is the most general property o! the vacuum !luctuation !iel because it
connotes all conservation laws an mi0e symmetry represents non-
conservation1 e.g.1 gravitational energy an spacetime path
irreversibility.
;ntropy represents a lacK o! in!ormation on the part o! the cosmic 37,1
i.e.1 the quantum vacuum. Hs it correlations or 'nowlege about
correlations that is relevant? Aevisit the notion o! the solipsistic
CobservableD between i!!erent values o! the !unamental physical
constants characterize an ine0e by the istinctness o! iniviual
consciousness?
"calar L energy L timeliKe
Iector L momentum L spaceliKe
8i0e scalar-vector b spin-21 composite as ine0 o! spin )1 * mi0ing an
part o! the vacuum not capture by a single C$ + *D spacetime slice.
>anuary 2)**
/ccoring to
au=
6a5mar an
au=
:e8atos1 the cosmological
constant can be interprete as a consequence o! a massive graviton.
4raviton mass is here thought to be epenent upon the local ensity o!
matter. 6his is similar to IoloviK_s preiction that the cosmological
constant tracKs the matter ensity at cosmological scalesV also c.!.1
au=
7roKhoviniK. Hn IoloviK theory there is no spin-2 graviton per se1 spin-
2 is a composite or quasiparticle CRquasigravitonSD epenent upon
quantum entanglement properties o! the vacuum conceive o! as a two-
component super!lui1 c.!.1
au=
Oavairainen_s bivacuum theory o! the
graviton.
9ctober 2)**
Hn IoloviK theory1 virtually all o! the characteristic
phenomenological !eatures o! general relativity may be simulate with
super!lui mi0tures o! =e-$ an =e-(.
Hn 6a5mar_s theory1 the mass o! @iobium 3ooper pairs is relate to an
e!!ective graviton mass ue to a
prn=
gravitomagnetism e!!ect o! rotating
superconuctors1 c.!.1
au=
8oanese theory o!
au=
7oKletnov gravity
shieling e!!ect. .eibniz_ principle o! what creates1 sustains applie to
the necessary coherence o! that which emerges an sustains itsel! tells us
two things about the Rgroun o! beingS L it_s open Can open systemD1 an
i! a permutational-combinational structure is impose on this !iel1
entity selection rules are engenere that support the e0istence o! the
various entities selecte !or L gaps or islans o! non-being in the
selecte !or L gaps or islans o! being CstabilityD an non-being
CinstabilityD within the permutational L combinational structure1 are part
an parcel with the coherence an stability e0hibite by that which
emerges an sustains itsel! against perturbations C!luctuationsD. / reay
e0ample here is the 7erioic 6able o! 3hemical ;lements or the
partitioning o! the subatomic worl into the various species o!
!unamental !ermions an bosons.
/ny philosophical argument that implies solipsism in either its !orms1
6ype H1 HH or HHH1 i.e.1 its metaphysical1 epistemological an
methoological !orms1 e.g.1 /nthropic 3osmological 7rinciple1 must be
ismisse out o! han. 6his is on account o! the stanars o! sounness
an valiity !alling short o! applying to any argument that implies the
necessity o! there being no hearer or grasper of the state argument1
e.g.1 a signal that cannot be registere in the in!ormation system1 i.e.1 no
conte0t !or the communication.
>une 2)**
Fithout the possibility o!
con!irmation o! observation by other observers1 i.e1 intersub5ectivity1 the
phenomena observe cannot be groune more !irmly than can mere
illusion. Hn !act1 there can be no ob5ective istinction between the two.
Ht is precisely when physical systems begin to lose their instantaneous or
nonlocal connectivity1 that within the system as well as between the
system an quantum vacuum1 that the system must taKe on mass an
e0hibit inertia Can gravitationD1 c.!.1
cit=
p. *))
cit=
6he =olism o! the @ew
?iology1
cit=
8acroshi!t 2))*-2)*) by
au=
;rvin .aszlo. :@/ may inee
be a language1 but liKe a language not all possible syllable sequences
correlate with a particular meaning at any particular time1 but a given
sequence that is meaningless at one time may be assigne a speci!ic
meaning at a later time1 c.!.1 linguistic evolution which attens cultural
evolution.
>une 2)**
6his observation ties in with >acques 8ono_s
observation that the genetic coe is arbitrary. /n the arbitrariness o!
:@/_s meaning is irectly connecte with the !unctionality o! the
ribosome as genetic base pair translator within the conte0t o! a particular
cellular environment.
3oul the relationship between particular untrie gene sequences an
phenotypic e0pressions be programme via !eebacK between sequences
alreay !iel teste an the1 e.g.1 !ormative causal1 morphogenetic !iel?
0WW2 + yWW2 + zWW2 L cWW2tWW2 = ) = "1 spacetime interval !or a !lat
spacetime1 i.e.1 in !lat spacetime every spacetime point is instantaneously
connecte to every other. 4ravitation represents a escription o! this
connectivity. Yuntrie sequencesZ 3an there be !eebacK !rom untrie
genetic sequences even though their phenotypic e0pression is not yet
etermine? ;very change in the part must be accommoate by
a5ustments in other parts o! the whole. 6his belies coherence an
cohesiveness in the system o! the whole an its parts so that not every
combination an permutation o! parts can represent/ be a coherent1
stable an viable structure.
/bstract a class !rom a group o! seeming ientical iniviuals1 e.g.1
electrons. "pacetime geometry1 i.e.1 ;instein causality is encoe a la
au=
?ohm in the !orm o! inner-outer quantum entanglement1 c.!.1
au=
?enni
AezniK an $-way vacuum nonlocality.
6he presence o! real particles an !iels breaKs the supersymmetry o! the
quantum vacuum1 giving the vacuum a mass appro0imating that o! the
real particles an !iels breaKing the supersymmetry1 c.!.1 IoloviK.
Ysupersymmetric oscillatorZ. 6he energy levels !or the bosonic an
!ermionic oscillators are +hw/2 an Lhw/21 respectively. 6he vacuum
state Cgroun stateD energy = ) !or unbroKen supersymmetry Cby
e0tension1 spacetime symmetryD. 6he :evil_s :ouble ?in. 9r how "t.
7aul turne the tables on "atan. / 7ostmoern 3hristian Ae!lection on
how the -ather ae insult to the Hn5ury o! >esus when =e raise up "t.
7aul.
3oherence an cohesion require a !itness lanscape that has a great eal
o! ruggeness built into it. /nalogous to a probability ensity lanscape
L no continuity in the !ossil recor is e0plicable. ?ut sel!-organization is
require ab initio1 c.!.1 "tuart Oau!!man L 9rigins o! 9rer.
http://www.scrib.com/oc/222(%NN2(/6he-9rigins-o!-9rer-"tuart-a-
Oau!!man AemarKs on the so-calle ?lacK =ole Hn!ormation 7arao0:
open system1 conte0t-sensitivity1 irreversibility1 entropy L what_s the real
parao0 here anyway? Fhoever sai in!ormation ha to be conserve?
3onservation o! in!ormation taKes emergence out o! the process o!
evolution an maKes o! it a sham. Fith locKstep etermination we are
!ace with the problem o! etiology o! appearances1 particularly orinary
perceptions o! the so-calle e0ternal worl.
Qd
6emporality oes not
really enter into eterministic causality L it is liKe asKing the uration o!
a moment in which nothing happens. ?ohm_s causal principle o!!ers a
way out here because causal relations are but a tiny subset o! the
spectrum o! possible ways that !luctuations may be quantum correlate.
C2)*)D /ll egenerative iseases are oubly egenerative in this sense:
prior to the avent o! meical science the onset o! any egenerative
isease impaire the viability o! the organism to the e0tent that the
organism coul not pass on its genetic in!ormation to o!!spring. 6his
woul result in a Kin o! ecompression o! natural selective pressure
against untowar ranom genetic mutations in turn resulting in the
egenerative process becoming organic/systemic to the organism as a
whole.
>une 2)**
9ne shoul e0pect that any genetically base egenerative isease
that historically Kille be!ore the su!!erer reache the age o!
reprouctiveness to have acte cumulatively over the millennia as a Kin
o! ust magnet Cc.!.1 Rgenetic ust binS theory o! agingD1 attracting other
egenerative isease genes1 perhaps some o! them a!!ecting behavioral
gene e0pression an hence the e!!ectiveness o! =u0ley_s Rreucing
valveS o! the min.
6here is really nothing to istinguish one consciousness !rom the other
in terms o! a category scheme base upon i!!erences in intrinsic
properties1 that is1 in the utter absence o! some general property that is in
a metaphysical sense e!initive o! consciousness as such. Ht is clear that
iniviual consciousnesses are inee istinct1 however in a way that
transcens the perceptual an intellectual capacities o! any possible
iniviual min. "uch istinctiveness o! iniviual consciousnesses
woul have to be e6trinsic1 meaning the istinctiveness woul have to be
in terms o! some e0ternal relations possesse by some consciousnesses
an not by others1 which is1 again1 not by virtue o! any abstract or
intrinsic properties. ;verything H can say about my iniviual
consciousness in terms o! its allege uniqueness can also be truth!ully
sai by any other conscious entity.
"eptember 2)**
/ complete isabling or
even estruction o! the =u0lean reucing valve o! the min1 i.e.1 the
brain1 woul not then mean the estruction o! consciousness1 5ust o! an
egoicallyFstructure consciousness. 6he ynamical groun that
originally provie the conte0t !or the orchestrate electrical activity in
the brain that unerpinne the !irst glimmerings o! sel!-awareness o! the
iniviual L that ynamical groun i not vanish or !all apart with the
ys!unction1 eath an ecay o! that iniviual_s brain1 but continues
uniminishe. @owaays this ynamical groun o! iniviual
consciousness woul be style the quantum vacuum1 or more
particularly1 the quantum vacuum electromagnetic !iel. 6he question
concerning the !ate o! any ecease iniviual consists o! two parts: *D
was he consciously sel!-aware in the !irst instance1 that is when he was
alive? 6here_s no use wonering over the possibility !or a merely
intelligently behaving metaphysical (ombie. 2D i his brain when it was
alive create connections in the portion o! the quantum vacuum !iel with
which it resonantly tune1 which are capable o! sustaining themselves
among the other e!ining characteristics o! li!e? /n oes this networK
o! presume inuce quantum nonlocally connecte an sel!-sustaining
vacuum electromagnetic !iel !luctuations become swampe an
overwhelme by the vastly larger !iel o! correlate !luctuations with
which they suenly come into contact1 now that the brain no longer
!unctione to !ilter an screen them out as e0traneous to the earthly li!e
o! the erstwhile human organism? Fhat happens when1 with a no to
"antayana1 the ream is no longer uner the control o! the ob5ect? :oes
consciousness merely continue though utterly empty o! speci!ic
contents? 6aKing the !irst person perspective1 presumably there_s a goo
reason why H was me with this boy H happene to have an not
someboy else an this has something to o with there being a
pree0istent unique spectrum o! in!ormation signals in the vacuum to
which my eveloping !etal brain !irst resonantly tune1 which was
maintaine via some mysteriously proviential !eebacK mechanism
Cunless we want to apply the anthropic cosmological principle to why
this !eebacK mechanism happene to be in placeD1 which institute a
unique eveloping signature o! superimpose quantum nonlocal
connectivity within this unique vacuum signal spectrum1 amassing
quantum nonlocal connections as time went on Csub5ectively
e0perience as sensation1 perception1 thought an emotion1 etc.D 6he
memories that perishe upon the commencement o! the issolution o!
my neural networK Cassuming the !irst person perspective !or the
momentD were really only aress linKs regulating the behavior o! other
aress linKs1 etc.1 which collectively broKe the har encryption o! a
small subspectrum o! the vacuum electromagnetic !iel in!ormation
signals1 enabling certain otherwise unavailable sel!-interactions
CreprocessingsD o! the embee nonlocal connections within this !iel.
6he groun in other wors o! the iniviual_s consciousness1 which was
what enable him to become conscious in the !irst place]that oesn_t
cease to e0ist upon the eath o! the iniviual_s brain. Ht is true that the
brain oes not merely act as a means !or consciousness to gain access to
certain as oppose to other states o! itsel!V the brain actually RweavesS
new states that in_t e0ist be!ore1 however1 once the states are create
in the quantum vacuum1 they are preserve via the principle o!
conservation o! quantum entanglement Cquantum in!ormationD. /ll that
we nee now is some vali theorem that tells us that quantum
entanglement in the vacuum is the RphysicalS basis !or in!ormation
storage in quantum mechanical systems. 4rante this1 all we nee ne0t
is some empirical research that emonstrates that the iniviual_s brain
is a quantum mechanical system so that his access to this quantum
in!ormation in the vacuum is through his brain as 7memory aress
system8. 9n this view1 new memories1 which are encoe in the brain
as new neural interconnection networKs1 are able to resonantly tune to
the memories they encoe because these new networKs enable 5ust the
right pattern o! resonant tuning1 which can aress the newly lai own
networKs o! nonlocally connecte vacuum in!ormation signals Cquantum
nonlocally correlate vacuum !luctuationsD that were originally encoe
in the vacuum at the time the1 e.g.1 thoughts1 perceptions1 etc. were
originally consciously e0perience.
>une 2)*( eml=
/s is commonly sai1 Ewithout conte0t there is no meaningE. /
given brain as a close system is not1 in an o! itsel! prouctive o! a
personGs iniviual consciousness1 whose brain it is. Aather1 the brain is
embee at the subatomic level1 i! you will1 in the nonlocally
=instantaneouslyA connecte quantum vacuum electromagnetic !iel or at
least some subspectrum o! this !iel. 3hemical activity within the brain1
i! isolate coul not possibly maKe re!erence to anything outsie o! its
!inite sel! - thought1 which necessarily is intentional an ma'es
reference beyon the representative symbols at its isposal1 clearly
cannot !unction as a close system. Hn !act1 because
general anesthesia is cause by only a specific concentration being
reache in the brain lipis o! the anesthetize patient o! ).)' moles/liter
an not the chemical properties o! the anesthetic gas1 vapor1 !ume or
mist1 etc.1 then it is not the chemical action within the brain which
constitutes a su!!icient conition !or consciousness. 6hough this
obviously is a necessary conition.
There is no ZcrossFtal'Z between my thoughts an yours because my
brain is resonantly tuning to an altogether ifferent freBuency spectrum
of nonlocally connecte vacuum electromagnetic fiel fluctuations.
[These fiel fluctuations of the vacuum are >JJ\ responsible for the
<eisenberg energy uncertainty of Buantum mechanical systems" H]E"
which accoring to <eisenberg" H]t [ hHH]E. In other wors the passing
of time for a Buantum mechanical system is epenent upon H]E which
stems from the Buantum vacuum. *ny conition which is itself
necessary for the passage of time woul itself possess no beginning in
time. &o the nonlocally connecte Buantum fiel spectra of each of our
mins is eternally pree6istent. This supports 2i'eDs iea of our eternal
pree6istence. I have glosse over some etails here but this is the iea.

>une 2)**
6his is on account o! the necessary absence o! a private language
Csee Fittgenstein_s private language argumentD. :i!!erences between
iniviuals in terms o! the so-calle raw feels o! their sub5ective
e0perience1 which o not trace i!!erences in !unctionality in a
commonly share worl necessarily transcen the escriptive capacities
o! human language. :oes this pose a parao0 o! sorts !or the concept o!
consciousness per se in that there is no rational basis !or constituting a
general concept o! consciousness?
;ven early quantum computers are thought to be soon capable o!
moeling hypercomple0 phenomena such as protein !oling an weather
systems. 6his in part may be the case because the ynamics o! the
quantum computing process itsel! shall e0hibit spontaneous sel!-
organization such as typically characterizes the problems uniquely suite
!or moeling via quantum computation. 6his brings to min the issue o!
tangle levels o! escription1 that o! moele an moeling systems.
>une
2)**
6his Kin o! entanglement o! levels o! escription is liKely to be one
o! the principal hallmarKs o! Ourzweil_s technological singularity.
,ncertainty has a e!ine structure an oes not i!!use in accorance
with the 2
n
.aw. 6he in!ormation connecte with processes possessing
energies smaller than the /a; o! the system may e!y analysis in terms o!
istinct states !itting into a combinational/permutational state space
structure. :oes the 2
n
law act uni!ormly on both sies o! the
Runcertainty barrierS? 6here are eterministically structure moments
that are importantly relate to the quantum wave!unction. -ree will
breaKs the eterministic chain an so has a substantive e!!ect on the
wave!unction on this view.
6he intelligibility o! the cosmos is unerlie by a narrative structure.
?ut there is a super!luity o! available mechanisms to choose !rom
because o! the overetermination o! process which is essentially non-
metaphysical1 i.e.1 phenomenal. 7hysical process relies on a !iltering o!
metaphysical eterminations. 3oherent or rather shall we say1 cohesive
statistical mi0tures cannot possess counterparts in parallel universes1 i.e.1
cohesive structures o not superpose. Aationality as the greatest unity o!
an most encompassing o! the conte0ts o! recore e0perience1 i.e.1
aKashic recor1 morphogenetic !iel.
>une 2)**
9r better yet1 rationality as
the open-eneness to reprocessing in terms o! ever new an changing
conte0ts?
6he scholarly min has its center o! volition shi!te !rom the limbic
system to the cerebral conte0t. 6hese people regar ieas as living
beings L seuctive ba ieas require some sort o! anti-viral protection.
Ht_s puzzling that the ," !lag with straight stripes connotes RmilitaryS
while a similar !lag with wavy stripes connotes RcivilianS.
7si collapse cause by both unpreictability o! action an by e0ceeing
some sort o! comple0ity threshol. Hnertial e!!ects may stem !rom
coupling CentanglingD o! hereto!ore istinct vacua.
?ran as part o! a system o! RmarKingS in service to collectively
implemente class segregation. Aacism is 5ust the most obvious an
most easily an irectly legislate against !orm o! bias an pre5uice.
;ach system o! pre5uice is subsume by some broaer an subtler one.
au=
>ostein 4arer_s philosophical novel1 &ophieDs Welt appears to have a
peophilic subte0t1 which may actually be a necrophilic Cin -romm_s
senseD subte0t. @ecrophilia by pro0y L get the person being corrupte to
rip the !ace o!! o! their worl themselves instea o! you/the other
removing their/the person_s R!aceS.
6here are no inertial e!!ects involve in the mere global phase evolution
o! the system wave!unction. 3an_t remember what one was not all along
conscious o! L structural component o! masKing quantum solipsistic
universe. H! the brain is stable1 the embeing quantum vacuum
becomes more pro!icient at interpreting brain activity. 7robably through
temporal nonlocal correlations meiate via quantum vacuum aKashic
recor.
R6he "ansKrit wor aKasa Cether or spaceD erives !rom a CtowarsD an
Kasa Cto be visible1 to appearD. /Kasa is the subtle EbacKgrounE against
which everything in the material universe becomes perceptibleS1 c.!.1
cit=
:;8<"6H-<H@4 6=; /O/"=/1 Consciousness an the 3uantum
;acuum by
cit=
Aalph /braham an
cit=
"isir Aoy.
4roun o! being contains potentially all sustainable appearances within
itsel! so regarless o! how the ivine ember is blaste apart into sparKs1
c.!.1 .urianic Oabala1 the sparKs1 regarless o! their iniviual
properties1 bear a connection to the !ormer holographic whole prior to its
splitting apart so there must be some set or sets o! conitions possible
such that the whole an its larger subparts can be reconstitute1 promise
o! the thrill o! meeting by chance a member o! one_s home planet. Fhat
hols bacK the potential rapture o! such an e0perience is our i!!iculty in
actually recollecting our long lost home worl. "tability an
cohesiveness/ coherence are on opposite sies o! the coin. =ow oes the
potential !or increase comple0ity buil up behin the scenes outsie o!
natural selection_s watch!ul gaze? C6wo imensional time again?D
9bviously some sort o! sel!-organizing process an liKely the same one
that brige the gap between the !irst atoms o! 31 =1 9 an @ an the
!irst units o! hereity. 6he causal is not the only subpart o! nonlocally
correlate !luctuations1 but the nonlocal meiates the local Cthis is
arguable in light o! spontaneous ecoherence theoryD spee o! gravity.
:ata is inepenent o! classical Cas oppose to quantumD meia1 but
becomes in!ormation in the conte0t o! the quantum vacuum. 6oy Kinetic
moels that have been highly abstracte !rom some subtle1 ynamic
meium are unliKely to provie an aequate mechanism.
au=
8iles ;lrige L Revolution cannot !orever be going on somewhere
elseS L relate t.o +!mens!ona t!me an sel!-organization to this remarK1
@ovember 2)**
c.!.1
au=
Oau!!man_s Rrugge !itness lanscapesS an the notion
o! two istinct1 but !unamentally relate orers o! evolution1 one which
scales local topographic ma0ima1 the other1 !orsaKing local ma0ima !or
more global ma0ima. / still higher Can perhaps qualitatively i!!erentD
orer o! evolutionary evelopment is to be sought in the hypothetical
ynamic mechanism riving the evolution o! rugge !itness lanscapes
as a whole. /ccoring to -rench ?iologist1
au=
:enis :eboule1 Rit_s very
har to imagine that this entire process happene in a very linear1
graual manner with an animal that evolve to be more an more
upright an to walK better an better. <et it_s still the preominant
thinKing o! the ay1 more so than the iea o! a relatively ma5or
trans!ormation1 which allowe one species1 at one point in time to
evelop the morphological !eatures necessary to have the stability to
stan on two legs an walK1 c.!.1 the ocumentary !ilm1
cit=
:uture :ocus:
<omo :uturis. /lso see 7aleontologists1
au=
>ean 3haline1
au=
/nne
:ambricout 8alasse_ an 7hilip 6obias in connection with the
revolutionary ieas presente in this ocumentary !ilm.
prn=
6he vast
ma5ority o! evolution tooK place uring the !irst three billion years
be!ore multicellular organisms arose1 which suggests that much o! the
evolution which tooK place a!ter the avent o! the !irst multicellular
organisms may well have been in the !orm o! selective triggering an
enabling o! pree0istent genetic algorithms !irst lai own uring the
e0ceeingly long unicellular stage o! evolution. Hn other wors1 the
potentiality o! the genome !or e0pression as highly aaptable an
variegate multicellular li!e was lai own uring the long history o!
unicellular evolution1 while the evolution o! multicellular li!e was more
or less 5ust an e0pression o! this potential through a combination o!
internally irecte mutation an environmental imprinting via epigenetic
control1 almost entirely through the operation o! long-staning1 pre-
pacKage mechanisms an almost not at all by way o! RranomS
mutations. 3.!.1 7h.:. 6hesis:
cit=
Towars music perception by
reunancy reuction an unsupervise learning in probabilistic
moels" au
=
"amer /. /ballah1 :epartment o! ;lectronic ;ngineering1
OingGs 3ollege .onon C2))2D. 6he many worls an sum o! histories
!ormulations o! quantum mechanics naturally invoKe two or higher
imensional time.
RHn the visual omain1 the input representation alreay satis!ies these
requirements to a large egree an is thus amenable to segmentation an
grouping using 4estalt principles.
au=
?regman C*22)1 p. &D observes that1
RHn vision1 you can escribe the problem o! scene analysis in terms o!
the correct grouping o! regions.S 6his is a convenient !act about the
retinal image: it has regions. ?regman goes on to asK1 R?ut what about
hearing? Fhat are the basic parts that must be groupe to maKe a
soun?S 6his is a very goo question. 6hose RpartsS are not at all
apparent in a irect1 time-omain representation o! the acoustic
wave!orm. ?regman oes not well on this point1 an moves on to a
consieration o! spectrograms1 which1 conveniently1 are somewhat
analogous to images: R9nce we see that the soun can be mae into a
picture1 we are tempte to believe that such a picture coul be use by a
computer to recognize speech souns.S Fhereas regions o! activity ue
to i!!erent auitory ob5ects may not be istinct in the time omain1 Cor
inee1 the one-imensional !requency omain o! a global -ourier
trans!ormD they may become so in the two-imensional time-!requency
plane.S
6he more massive is an ob5ect1 the more vacuum entanglement it
participates in an so the more unanticipate 7si collapses isturb it1
contributing to the system is ecoherence.
Qd
/ .orentz trans!ormation
entangles the spin an momentum egrees o! !reeom1 i.e.1 spin-*/2 an
spin-* become entangle. 6his shoul mean that spin +*/2 an spin -*/2
o! a 3ooper pair become less entangle with respect to intrinsic spin on
account o! entanglement conservation.
3.!.1 ;acuum entanglement enhancement by a wea' gravitational fiel1
au=
8. 3liche an
au=
/. Oemp!1 :epartment o! /pplie 8athematics1
,niversity o! Faterloo1 Faterloo1 9ntario1 3anaa @2. $4* C:ate:
/ugust *(1 2)**D /bstract: R"eparate regions in space are generally
entangle1 even in the vacuum state. Ht is Known that this entanglement
can be swappe to separate
prn=
,nruh-:eFitt etectors1 i.e.1 that the
vacuum can serve as a source o! entanglement. =ere1 we emonstrate
that1 in the presence o! curvature1 the amount o! entanglement that
,nruh-:eFitt etectors can e0tract !rom the vacuum can be increase.S
Hn this conte0t1 it was recently shown [&\ that1 in an e0paning space-
time1 the entanglement o! the vacuum ecreases signi!icantly ue to the
e!!ects o! the
prn=
4ibbons-=awKing temperature.S R@amely1 we will
show that a weaK gravitational !iel1 such as that cause by a planet1 can
enhance the e0traction o! entanglement !rom the vacuum.S
voc=
?osKop 8an unoubtely interbre with their less brainy homo
sapiens contemporaries so these big brain genes are still in the human
gene pool an there!ore may be selecte !or again.
Qd
Hmagine a
technocratic state where reprouctive success within the caste o! artists
who esign cutting ege virtual reality programs epens on how
e!!ective their igital creations succee in socially conitioning an
paci!ying the consumerist unerclass.
>une 2)**
;ventually virtual reality technology will evelop to a stage where
the quantum uncertainties associate with quantum computation o! an
ancestor simulation shall merge with similar quantum uncertainties o!
the physical systems being simulate. Ht is at this stage that Ourzweil_s
technological singularity shall ma'e its first appearance1 c.!.1
cit=
The
&ingularity is Near =IJJVA.
Hn most popular science e0positions o! quantum entanglement1 the writer
is sure to inter5ect something liKe Reven particles locate at opposite
sies o! the gala0y Cor universe1 !or that matterD remain ine0tricably an
instantaneously linKeS. / proper treatment o! ;7A in curve spacetime
o! course e0ploes such nacve conceptions o! quantum entanglement
while reemphasizing the persistent necessity o! a viable theory o!
quantum gravity1 a theory which by the way shows no sign o! giving up
eluing the attempts o! quantum theorists to escribe it. =ien
nonlocality was emonstrate by
au=
Owiat et al. by applying techniques
!or istilling ma0imally entangle states C!rom non-ma0imally entangle
inputsD to partially mi0e states1 revealing hereto!ore hien nonlocal
correlations.
au=
"tarKman1 JlosniK an -erreira o! the ,niversity o! 90!or have
evelope an Rether theoryS that simultaneously e0plains arK matter
WanW arK energy. "ee
au=
?eKenstein_s proo! o! the 89@: gravity
hypothesis1 c.!.1
au=
/nreas /lbrecht.
au=
.orentz !rames o! re!erence
separate in energy by more than a 7lancK mass cannot be connecte by
a .orentz trans!ormation. Hn analogy with the ecrease buying power
o! currency cause by an uncontrolle printing press1 the inertia o!
massive boies is weaKene in a vacuum possessing a relatively higher
current ensity o! composite spin-) !luctuations1 i.e.1 larger =-energy
uncertainty ensity o! quantum vacuum i! you will1 which in turn
implies quicKer response o! massive particles to unanticipate
perturbations. C9ctober 2))N1 p. %%D
Cp. %ND <ou see1 a relatively small /at !or vacuum means relatively quicK1
that is high !requency response o! the vacuum in accommoating
applie !orces1 i.e.1 quicKer response to applie !orce really only means
smaller inertial mass.
>une 2)**
"maller bining !orces associate with a
lesser inertial mass also coincie with a lower ensity o! virtual vector
boson particle e0changes within the mass_ bulK1 namely with a smaller
ensity o! $-momentum e0changes1 i.e.1 smaller /ap. "o larger /a; an
smaller /ap are consistent with our intuitions about mass an inertia1 i.e.1
small /at = high !requency1 meaning a light an RquicKly ancingS
particle while a large /a0 means a RlighterS1 more RiaphanousS an
R!uzzierS particle. Hn other wors1 the preicte relationships o!
spacetime to momentum-energy uncertainties within the quantum
vacuum are consonant with our intuitions about inuce gravity.
Qd
:@/ oes not contain in!ormation but encoes this in!ormation within
the conte0t o! a system that preates the origin o! the simplest primitive
:@/.
Hs the generalize Ainler horizon a ecoherence bounary? Hnvestigate
au=
Jhao_s theory o! arK !lui as unerlying arK matter an arK energy.
/ change over billions o! years in the istribution o! spectral lines might
be masKe by a compensating change in atomic spectra over billions o!
light years1 i.e.1 Rre!resh principle.S
:ecoherence was the price the 3reator was !orce to pay to maKe a
,niverse many orers o! magnitue larger than 7lanK_s constant. 6he
ecoherence limit not only e!ines the bounary between the quantum
an classical worls1 but also that separating 4o_s will !rom his
creation1 the bounary between sub5ective an intersub5ective1 c.!.1 the
ol Aoman aage: ;o6 4opuli" ;o6 Dei. Fhen the possibility space
threatens to become too large !or moeling in terms o! combination an
permutation1 ecoherence enters the picture. C:iscuss the i!!erence
between spontaneous an so-calle ynamical symmetry breaKingD.
>une
2)**
"ee
au=
Filliam >ames_ theory o! consciousness in which
consciousness is an aaptation o! a brain grown too comple0 to
aequately regulate itsel! Cin accorance with the eterminism o!
stimulus-response.
"eptember 2)**
?ohm_s causality principle is consistent
with the operation o! ownwar causation1 i.e.1 supervenience.
3lassically eterministic process maKe no re!erence to the outsie an so
cannot be about anything" i.e.1 o not possess any content.
http://plato.stan!or.eu/entries/content-e0ternalism/
7hysics or instrumentality1 i.e.1 R!oolsS is what the 3reator neee to
!ashion a creation larger than =e coul imagine Can irectly
consciously controlD1 which is to say inepenent o! =is ivine will.
6he :ivine 8in may only penetrate an in!luence =is creation at
multiple points o! contact1 each o! which represents a subcritical
inter!ace between 3reator an create1 c.!.1 luci reaming phenomenon
o! waKe!ulness isrupting the !abric o! the reamscape.
>une 2)**
=owever
a character can be introuce within the ream without necessarily
isrupting the logic o! its un!oling narrative the way the burning1
wasting gaze o! the reamscape_s creator woul. 6his consieration
perhaps e0plains 4o_s preilection !or inter!ering with his creation
through the 5uicious use o! prophets.
Fhy can we !requently apply unanticipate conte0t to previous systems
o! thought1 e.g.1 ecoherence theory an
au=
"chopenhauer_s RFill an
AepresentationS?
R6he so!tware came up with its rules a!ter analyzing $)) popular rocK1
pop1 country an A&? songs an their accompanying chorsS1 c.!.1 p. 2*
o!
cit=
@ew "cientist1 /pril *2-*N1 2))N.
=ow can the creative process in music composition Cor o! any creative
artistic eneavor !or that matterD be success!ully simulate on a
computer program1 unless the creative process simulate incorporates a
selection process secretly base upon a system o! !ilters L at least up to
but not incluing the intuitive or rather insight!ul leap to the RiscoveryS
o! a new musical genre. :iscourse is to ialogue as genre is to art.
4enres are RiscovereS in the sense that its !ouning e0emplar is
conceive without the Knowlege o! all that !uture artists will maKe o!
this. Ht is true to say that certain compositions coul have never been
creatively conceive without the always alreainess o! the genre an its
!ouning canonical worKs1 although such compositions coul have per
impossible been stumble upon by a computer program. =igh level
computer language so!tware structures causal supervenience1 c.!.1 the
Rmultiplier e!!ectS o! Rautonomous moularityS o! Rpower!ulS computer
programs1 programs that bring their conte0t with them in the !orm o! a
simulate environment1 i.e.1 RbootstrapS. 6he e!eat o! local variable
theory means that classical properties cannot be viewe as
thermoynamic variables set within some vacuum Requations o! stateS
relative to their quantum counterparts. 6he parao0es o! ecoherence1
e.g.1 gravitation accelerates the rate o! ecoherence an causes 4A time
ilation Creally?D. P8 is thought to lie behin the biophysics o!
consciousness an li!e an yet it is the ecoherence phenomena that
prevent the "chroinger_s cat !rom e0isting in a superposition.
;nhance tunnel e!!ect !rom engineering vacuum bounary conitions.
/pplication to !usion reactor esign1 perhaps?
/bstract a class !rom a group o! ientical iniviuals1 e.g.1 electrons.
"pacetime geometry1 i.e.1 ;instein causality is encoe a la ?ohm in the
!orm o! inner-outer quantum entanglement1 c.!.1 ?enni AezniK an $-
way vacuum nonlocality.
:ecoherence prevents abstract classical states !rom e0isting in quantum
superpositions. Yclassical superpositionsZ R9rinariness as
pseuo-Rnegative probabilitiesS1 c.!.1 being on Rthe Hslan.S /n ob5ect
smaller than a 7lancK mass coul not be compresse to a blacK hole
ensity. "o can masses smaller than m
plancK
e0ert gravitation?
6opology o! turbulent oil in otherwise still water1 c.!.1
au=
Oau!!man_s
!itness lanscape_s !uture as mental pro5ection L illusion with unteste
sel!-consistency vs. actual ecoherent temporal evolution. =ow woul a
Festern ;uropean o! the *N
th
century perceive a pop meloy !rom the
2)
th
or 2*
st
centuries L surely it woul soun li'e something. ?ut
wouln_t the un!amiliar meloies have to be unerstoo in terms
un!amiliar to a moern listener? 6his points up the rile o! the
sub5ective-ob5ective uality. Fhat woul it mean !or such a uality to
be transcene? 3an_t we merely substitute a new uality or1 system o!
ual categories !or an oler one1 provie we want our novel
interpretations to be intelligible/communicable? 7ostmoernism L a
econstruction an rebellion against narrative structure o! being. 6his is
really against narrative structure o! being. 6his is really a rebellion
pitche against the 3reator. H! we act so as to e!ine ourselves in terms
o! a narrative structure o! being1 then we subconsciously subscribe to a
theocentric notion o! ?eing. H! we were to patch together 7lanK mass
size chunKs in orer to teleport a macroscopic ob5ect1 we woul have to
recover connections that !ormerly e0iste between the chunKs as well as
between the chunKs an the original embeing conte0t1 i.e.1 vacuum.
7resumably there are istinct vacua !or istinct consciousness Ceach with
their unetectably small i!!erence in corresponing physical constantsD.
:arK !lui mimics both arK matter an arK energy. 6he isruption o!
vacuum entanglement by scalar-vector !iel mimics e0change o! spin-2
boson Ci.e.1 Rcomposite gravitonSD.
7robabilistic quantum mechanics L vacuum statistics moeling
appro0imates an guesses !uture states i! eterministic1 classical
systems. 6hat ( inverse cube gravity prouces unstable orbits says
something about this vacuum statistical moeling algorithm.
;nless abstract states as !luctuations1 but once you start linKing them
together they acquire mass an ecoherence qua !luctuations. 6rans-
ecoherent structures cannot be conceive o! by an iniviual min1 but
only collaboratively1 c.!.1 polyemanationism. >ust liKe a generalize
Ainler horizon1 ecoherence spatial bounary1 there is a temporal
ecoherence horizon. Cp. N*D
/pril 2)**
:ecoherence o! timeliKe
!luctuations e!eats time scale reuctionism an necessitates the
emergence o! multi-imensional time.
9rer sustaine in the !ace o! ynamic probability Copen systemD
Ranything_s possibleS represents continuous intelligent conte0t in a
raically open system.
Puantum bacK-reaction an tunneling through the ecoherence limit.
Oinematic as oppose to ynamic probability. =ow to reconcile
conte0t-epenence with in!inite conte0t-ecoherence an !itness
lanscapes. ?ootstrappe evolving !itness lanscapes a la
au=
"ar!atti an
au=Oau!!man. ?7:1 love o! pro5ections as solipsistic sel!-stuy.
@ecrophilic as outwar pro5ection o! sel!-econstruction L pro!iling1
parabolic !orms.
"ophistical structure o! reality poise upon a Kni!e-ege separating
evolution an esign. "table1 razor-ege balancing o! a system on a
conceptual uality points to either transcenence o! the uality or
esign. 3osmological constant problem an Kni!e-ege1 tune balance
e0pansion. "tability was built in through use o! non-gravitating
Cvariably gravitatingD vacuum energy.
"ynesthesia an overlap o! conscious an unconscious nerve !iber
transmissions. 3ausal locK-step: all times are the same: nonlocality
locK-step: all places are the same. :irection o! time is establishe via
ongoing ecoherence processes Cecoherence as more ynamic/active
than mere ecay1 c.!.1
prn=
von @eumann vs. "hannon entropy. 6urn
aroun time !or heate quantum entangle 6.:_sV istance separating
chips1 coherence length1 ecoherence time an chronology protection
police. "ynesthesia an metaphor1 abstraction1 language1 etc.
6he inistinguishability o! particles in the case o! ?ell_s spin +*/2 an
spin -*/2 particles unerlies the istinctly quantum phenomenon o!
nonlocality. 8oreover1 the inistinguishability o! iniviual vacuum
!luctuations1 i.e.1 virtual particles unerlies the .orentz invariance o! the
vacuum. =ence .orentz invariance an quantum nonlocality may be
seem to be opposite sies o! the same coin as it were1 c.!.1 absolute space
an inivisible unity1 i.e..1 nonlocality o! @ewton_s RsensoriumS Co! the
minD1 c.!.1
cit=
*ppearance an +eality1 p. *'%1
au=
7eter Oosso. Cp. N2D
4o as intersub$ective sub$ectivity . . . "o e!ine1 i! 4o oesn_t e0ist
qua other1 then he e0ists qua self1 c.!.1
au=
/lvin 7lantinga_s argument !or
the e0istence o! other mins. RHntersub5ective sub5ectivityS appears a
sel!-contraictory concept1 but is actually transcenental Cin the sense o!
surmounting a !unamental ual istinctionD. H! "chroinger_s cat is
isolate enough to enter a superposition1 then the quantum processes
unerlying the li!e o! the living branch o! the superposition woul be
e!!ectively squelche.
/pril 2)**
6he case o! there being only one
consciousness in which each an all participate is inistinguishable !rom
the seemingly raically i!!erent case o! each possessing their own1
unique iniviual an is5oint consciousness. -or i! my consciousness is
the most general property of my e6perience1 then there cannot be some
still more general property o! my e6perience that is hel in common with
all other iniviual consciousness_ Bua e6emplars of consciousness per
se. C6his is an e0ample o! an application o! the principle o!
prn=
the
incorrigibility of sub$ective e6perience.D 6he way out o! this apparent
impasse is to posit that what is inee the most general e0periential
property o! all iniviual consciousness_1 one that is still more general
than the most general property o! my Can each an everyone else_sD
iniviual e0perience can only be the aspect that each an every
iniviual consciousness Cas inherently temporalD possesses in eternity.
Hn other wors1 what maKes my consciousness an e0emplar o!
consciousness per se is a transcenental property" which in no wise
manifests itself in time" that is" as the temporal uration =ureeDA of my
sub$ective e6perience. 6his most general property o! consciousness1
which is really the only bulwarK against ab5ect metaphysical solipsism is
in no way to be !oun within time1 that is1 within any iniviual
temporal consciousness. Fhat we are asserting about consciousness
possesses obvious theological import. 4o Knows the inner1 sub5ective
e0perience o! each o! us outsie of time" an it is a general property o!
intentionality1 that o! the 3reator in having conceive o! each o! us1
atemporally1 that unites us one to each other in
prn=
the brotherhoo of
sentience.
:ecember 2)*2 prn=
=ere are two intimately relate seeming contraictions1 one
points to a transcenental insight while the other to the mere nonsense o!
a contraiction in terms:
*D "ub5ective intersub5ectivity. 2D Hntersub5ective sub5ectivity.
=ow woul one vouchsa!e against one possible gnostic scenario in
which 4o is unable to prove to =imsel! that there is no other secretly
Re0istingS RhigherS RbeingS who merely allows 4o to thinK =e_s in
charge1 c.!.1 -ischer 7rice activity boar passenger steering wheel an
isplay panel Cquite in opposition to the control levers operate by a
river_s eucation instructorD. Fhy oes 7lantinga thinK that the other
mins problem is relevant to questions concerning 4o_s ;0istence?
4o_s absence vis a vis a sel!-impose prime irective?
6he concept o! a concept o! consciousness is thoroughly interwoven into
the Festern philosophical iscourse o! the past 2')) years1 the iscourse
o! the various social sciences1 colloquial iscourse1 an so on1 an yet
the concept o! consciousness itsel! oes not e0ist? 6his general
consciousness is perhaps then merely the pro5ection o! sel!-
consciousness Cparao0ically as intersub5ective sociolinguistic
construct?D
!ic=
7hoton echo testing ha reveale what ha to be Kept a secret L they
were not conscious1 but only possesse the illusion o! consciousness an
not !or themselves1 but !or those conscious entities observing them.
Iiral memes o! transcenence ha long ago in!ecte their sociolinguistic
culture1 the !act o! which they ha even mae a sub5ect o! specialize
stuy. 6he new 4ulliver_s travels1 c.!.1 RH_ve got a pain in my 4ulliverS1
conscious aventurer visits a planet o! zombies an then a planet o!
hyperconscious !ree-wille iniviuals1 c.!.1 .ibet an 7enn!iel_s
research1 c.!.1 RH_m not aware o! my thoughts until they_ve alreay
occurre.S Fithout ecoherence1 nonlocality woul cause too much
cross talK Cinter!erenceD between in!ormation channels. 6here are only
less than *)
*)
people1 but creit car companies issue creit cars with
*)
*%
permutations L occipital lobe simulation/pro5ection b home mae
virtual reality. Cp. N$D
/pril 2)**
6he e0istence o! Rempty
combinations/permutationsS may be nonetheless important in the
bacKgroun to provie an in!ormation !luctuation !irewall an supply
meaning to those permutations that are reali(e in practice.
:ecember 2)*2
6his is why it is necessary that the number o! Cactual as oppose to
merely possibleD parallel universes shoul never come close to
outstripping the number o! istinctly possible worls.
prn=
Puantum
ecoherence provies as natural as any a means o! en!orcing this
necessary contion. 6he inertia o! the bubble is to be sought in the
ynamics o! the surrouning !lui. 6he classical physical reality o!
quantum mechanics systems in the bounary o! irreversible processes
riving quantum ecoherence.
9ctober 2)**
7erhaps the bulK o! the brain_s
neural microtubule networKs are eicate to the quantum-nonlocally-
base har encryption o! the iniviual_s *D conscious thought an
perception an 2D subconscious an autonomic control systems
processes.
7hotographic one-to-one corresponence1 holographic paraigm L
ecoherence irreversibility1 secretly reversible L en!olment/un!olment
L iscrete successive !rames separate by inistinguishable changes can
nonetheless prouce perception parallel !rames so inistinguishability is
conte0t epenent. :ampe oscillation1 unstable !eebacK1 mass on
spring in tube !ille with viscous !lui. Fhat RviscosityS oes arK
matter Rvacuum arK matterS1 enhance. R,pper limits o! ownwar
causation.S Hs ownwar causation limite to start !rom the iniviual
min or can it start !rom a higher level1 e.g.1 4aia1 @oosphere1 C6eilhar
e 3harinD1 6ipler_s 9mega 7oint. 8cOenna_s novelty conserving
engine1 ranom number generator powere by isotope ecay.
web=
http://noosphere.princeton.eu1 www.novicee!!ect.com C4regory
/lsburyD. ;mpty spacetime that soli ob5ects move through to !ull voi
that pro5ecte ob5ects move atop. 4enotypes are not selecte !or by se0
or environment provie the latent logic o! the gene regulatory networK.
3reative possibilities you can_t reach CRyou can_t get there !rom hereSD
without some narrative structure. 7si-collapse L the letter Killeth the
spirit. RHnsieS as outsie the quantum vacuum or R:ivine 8inS.
=uman consciousness is either an illusion or it is an arti!act o! a much
more power!ul mentality than that which human beings apparently
possess1 suggesting that the human min1 i! potentially much more
power!ul than it is at present an moreover that i! consciousness is a gi!t
whose real purpose is oriente to the !uture L a Kin o! anticipatory
mental in!rastructure bespeaKing a gracious intelligent esign. :o
vacuum !luctuations merely enable meaning!ul stochastic resonance or
o they possess an actual in!ormation content? Cp. N(D
/pril 2)**
6he higher sel! at the en o! the history o! the sel!1 which acts as
the !ather an spiritual mentor o! the temporal evolving sel! can be seen
as a metaphor !or the eternal aspect o! the sel!.
Hs there no near approaching limit o! human evolution because o! the
e0istence o! consciousness or is consciousness built in by esign to
!acilitate mental !unctions that nature has not yet grace 8an with at his
current relatively lowly stage o! psychic evolution? =ow oes the
concept o! the RatagramS e0plain the separation o! e0ecution an
communication moes o! neural transmission1 c.!.1 in!ormation in
envelopes in which contents are immaterial until receive an converte.
6he unlimite capacity !or trans!ormation o! particles sub5ect to
quantum number conservation points up the raical relativity o! $-space
as an arbitrary $-hypersphere slice o! an absolute (-hypervolume.
Puantum error correction is intimately connecte with the consciousness
!unction when casting something up in the imagination L say the way an
inventor oes1 trying out several alternative esigns in his min_s eye.
6he enial o! "upreme ?eing is tantamount to saying that there is no
such consciousness as consciousness as such or in general or 5ust
consciousness qua consciousness o! which iniviual human
consciousness may there!ore be consiere to be a mere instantiation. Hn
this way solipsism an atheism are seen to be closely aKin. 6he belie! in
Rother minsS is belie! in multiple instantiations o! Rthe otherS1 i.e.1 the
raically other.
Puantum error correction is closely relate to the consciousness
!unction. Fhen acting something up in the imagination1 say the way an
inventor oes1 trying out several alternative esigns in his min_s eye.
6he intention as to the presentation is !orme *
st
an yet the thinKer still
seems to require the aitional step o! representation. 3learly what is
involve here is a Kin o! neural short circuiting unerlying
communication between i!!erent Can largely inepenent !aculties o!
min.D =ow oes one istinguish implementation/e0ecution neural
signals !rom communication signals1 e.g.1 local vs. nonlocal? Cp. N'D
:oes the 7auli 7rinciple applie emocratically to both real an virtual
particles e0plain the structure o! ?ohm_s quantum potential within the
conte0t o! the two-slit e0periment? =ow is raising the threshol o!
etection circuitry istinct !rom reucing noisiness in the etection
circuitry_s environment? /nalysis o! the relationships between blacK
bo01 c.!.1 outputs in!orms one as to the contents o! the bo01 c.!.1 4eel_s
theorems. @ecessity o! becoming the system in orer to stuy it
success!ully. 3onsciousness as R!rom-somewhere-elsenessS L not only
is conte0t neee1 but a basis !or comparison Csomewhere else1 e.g.1
other culture to evaluate sense ata in terms o! "ocrates an the slave
boy L learning as recollection. Aeverse vision e0periments o! the
*2')_s . . . how oes one Know that one_s visual !iel is upsie-own
unless there is a secret or hien aitional symmetry a0is besies that
o! spatial-vertical that points up/coes !or the broKen. :oes so-calle
sel!-consciousness necessarily point to the Rbeing o! the otherS as well
as o! the sel!? 9r is this the role playe by consciousness as such1 i.e.1
consciousness qua consciousness?S Hs consciousness as such only an
abstraction !rom instances o! sel!-consciousness or are sel!-
consciousnesses abstract structures o! consciousness as such secretly
mutually relate in a manner transcenent o! each? 6he e0changing o!
space an time a0es at the blacK hole event horizon is consistent with an
e0change o! /a; !or /ap1 b8 an b7 entanglement1 collection collective
spin ) !or spin-*. 6here must be an e!!ective Ainler horizon associate
with !reely wille action an conscious thought an perception1 e0cept
instea o! in!ormation loss we are concerne here with in!ormation
creation1 both o! which constitute in!ormation non-conservation with
which must be associate some type o! entropy.
Qd
6ime ilation might
not scale uni!ormly at all scales ue to processes unerlying quantum
ecoherence1 e.g.1 conscious thought an perceptual processes1 c.!.1
space sicKness.
8ay 2)*$ Kwo=
RHn aition to physical angers1 space!light
also causes mental stress. /stronauts on long-uration missions an the
!irst space settlers on a planet can evelop a number o! ebilitating
psychological isorers1 incluing the solipsism synrome an the
"himanagashi synrome. 7sychologists escribe the solipsism synrome
as the state o! min in which a person begins to !eel that everything
aroun him or her is a ream an is not part o! reality. 6his isorer
coul easily arise among people serving on e0tene missions in a
con!ine1 arti!icial Chuman-maeD environment1 such as that o! an
interplanetary spaceship or an orbiting space plat!orm. 6he
"himanagashi synrome Ca term erive !rom an e0ile punishment in
!eual >apanD is a !eeling o! isolation in which iniviuals begin to !eel
le!t out o! the mainstream o! li!e. 6his can easily occur among active1
intelligent people who now !in themselves con!ine to physical
environments that1 while perhaps com!ortable1 are nonetheless very
remote. 3are!ul esign o! !uture space living quarters an reaily
available1 high-quality communications linKs with ;arth shoul help
prevent the onset o! such psychological isorers or at least relieve some
o! a person_s emotional istress until more e0tensive psychological
treatment is availableS1 c.!.1
cit=
"pace 6echnology1 4reenwoo 7ress
C2))$D.
=igh level computer language so!tware structure_s an causal
provenience1 ecoherence1 recoherence an 7latonic !orms. 6o get !rom
one local rugge !itness lanscape ma0imum to a nearly higher A-.
local ma0imum1 the ynamics o! sel!-organization emboie in chemical
evolution1 c.!.1 the chemical potential !or organo-chemical reactions is
much neee. *
st
brain activity as RregistrationS o! brain on cosmic
37,. ?acK-reaction o! evolution upon the sel!-organizing properties o!
atoms an molecules is equivalent to a temporal parao0 i! sel!-
organization is e!!ecte e0clusively by causal principles1 mass is a
!unction o! correlation o! vacuum !iel !luctuations because introucing
in!ormation bearing correlations causes YpZ an Y;Z not= )1 i.e.1 yiels
mass. ?ecause o! the relative shi!t o! ecreasing /a; an increasing /ap
in a gravitational !iel1 a smaller ensity o! i-momentum !luctuations
RcontrolsS a smaller number o! i-momentum !luctuations1 i.e.1 increase
quantum noise an hence quantum ecoherence1 Cp. N&D
.ooK at a simple !luctuation-correlation moel in which the current
ensity o! !luctuations an correlations are each separately conserve in
terms o! the sums respectively o! spin-) an spin-* correlations an o!
spin-) an spin-* !luctuations. @ote: everywhere we use the terms
RcorrelationsS o! the system !rom ?ohm_s causality principle.
@onlocally connecte events are not merely simultaneous: they are
simultaneous in all .orentz !rames Ccontaine within a single zeitschicht
bunle?D / zeitschicht bunle contains a spectrum o! .orentz !rames all
o! which are less than one graviton mass apart in the energies o! their
respective vacua. 4ravitational time ilation is the result o! interactions
within a system no longer reporte/upate to the global quantum
vacuum in real time1 i.e.1 the appearance/generation o! local vacuum.
Fe may thinK o! ban with connecting the system to the global vacuum
as possessing spaceliKe an timeliKe components. 6he separate
conservation o! bs an b. within b> seems to suggest that bs an b. are
orthogonal1 i.e.1 bs
u
orthogonal to .
0
1 .
y
1 .
z
1 i.e.1 timeliKe1 or perhaps
more properly1 Rlight liKeS.
.ight cone rawing with upper light lines labele as $pi/( an p/( an
bottom light lines labele as 'pi/( an $pi/(. C).%)%D
2
b { V cospi/( = -
sinpi/( b ).%)%
8agnitue an irection o! angular momentum vectors1 .
u
Cwhere u = )1
*121$D may escribe a curve spacetime1 similarly !or phase in!ormation.
3an a corresponence be rawn between s
0
1 s
y
s
z
an C0
u
p
v
L 0
v
p
u
D ?
3hange in the measure rate o! gravitational ecoherence is out o! step
with the uni!orm change in the rates o! all other physical processes ue
to gravitational time ilation. /n this woul constitute a means o!
absolutely istinguishing a gravitational !iel !rom acceleration in the
absence o! a gravitational !iel. 6his may be another groun !or
believing that e0tene stays in low or zero-gee environments or
particularly environments where gravitational tial !orces are
e0ceeingly weaK or absent might be e0pecte to cause a !orm o! Rspace
sicKness.S
Ht shoul be clear that the $-angular momentum o! a spinning gyroscope
is not conserve. 6hus the concept o! timeliKe rotations1 i.e.1 angular
momentum about the time a0is is seen as necessary in relativity theory.
Qd
Aussell_s parao01 accoring to 4eel reveale that it was not the case
that each property etermines a class o! things possessing this property1
c.!.1
cit=
/ Forl Fithout 6ime1
au=
<ourgrau C2))'D. /n application o!
which insight somewhat by way o! generalization is that your iea or
perception o! a thing can be similar to mine without at once being
ientical to some iea or perception of which IDm capable.
tgb=
R?ut
bounary conitions place upon consciousness serve not only to
channel1 structure an elimit global consciousness1 but also to
resonantly tune to both intersub5ective an Rtrans-sub5ectiveS contents o!
consciousness.S
"eptember 2)*$
6he concept o! consciousness is
transcenental in the cases o! either consciousness being a one or a
many: in the case o! consciousness being a unity/unitary1 the iniviual
cannot R!eel his own iniviual consciousnessS1 but only his own
particular structuring o! this unitary consciousnessV in the case o!
consciousness being a plurality1 the iniviual only ha his own solitary
case !rom which to abstract in orer to !orm a concept o! consciousness
as a category.
8arch 2)*(
Hn the !ormer case1 one oes not possess a genuine
concept o! consciousness1 i.e.1 one oes not possess a concept o!
consciousness at all L the Overmin oes an somehow reveals this to
oneT in the latter case1 one oes not possess a concept o! consciousness
at all though this concept oes subsist" transcenentally.
/n important istinction here is that between Rinter-R an Rtrans-R
sub5ective.S 8oreover1 that you an H1 he an she as sentient beings can
each an all be e0amples1 or shall H say1 e6emplars o! consciousness
Chaving entitiesD without there being some most general property o! each
an everyone_s conscious e0perience on the one han or consciousness
itsel! on the other1 which maKes our e0periences conscious or e!ines
consciousness as such1 enables us to entertain a e!inition1 i! not a
concept proper1 o! consciousness that escapes the implication o!
solipsism. 9therwise we are !ace with the ilemma pose by my
conscious e0perience possessing some most general property such that it
is my e6perience an possessing some still more general property such
that my conscious e0perience is an e0ample o! consciousness e0perience
as such even though no conscious being can have any concrete
awareness o! such a Rmost general propertyS o! his or her e0perience L
an apparent contraiction. 9ur concept o! consciousness might then
nee to be !oune on some altogether i!!erent type o! relationship than
that o! property-base class relationship1 i.e.1 membership in a class by
virtue o! some commonly hel property. Fe are remine o! the ol
meieval istinction between substance an attribute1 as well as o! the
i!!erence between mathematical proo! by in!erence1 i.e.1 class
inclusion/e0clusion an such proo! via irect intuition or insight. Fe
might simply suppose that it is some most general attribute1 which my
conscious e0perience always has that maKes it my conscious e0perience
an the substance in which this most general attribute inheres that maKe
my conscious e0perience conscious as such. H! a person coul only
e0perience one color1 e.g.1 RreS coul we realistically assert that this
person possesses the concept o! color? Fe woul say1 rather that only
someone capable o! e0periencing all or at least many o! the colors o! the
rainbow coul possess a reasonable or vali concept o! color. 8aybe we
are now getting closer to unerstaning "pinoza_s notion o! the
relationship o! the human to the ivine min. Cp. NND Fe have a
i!!iculty in e!ining what is calle consciousness much a!ter the !ashion
that philosophers have i!!iculties in e!ining logic. C"ee the e0cerpt
below !rom :ale >acquette_s 4hilosophy of 1ogicD
,@:;A"6/@:H@4 6=; 7.,A/.H6< 9- .94H3"
R6he more recent e0tensive growth o! symbolic logics maKes it harer
than ever to sustain the attitue that logicians are in search o! a single
!ormalization that will stan as the logic o! all thought an iscourse.
Fhat is suggeste in the spirit o! moern specialization is a plethora o!
i!!erent logics1 many o! which are euctively incompatible with one
another1 some o! which are at most overlapping in their theorems an
algorithmic methos or in some o! their results1 an some that are so
istant !rom one another that it is har to see the sense in which they can
all claim to be logics. 6his1 o! course1 returns us to the problem at han.
=ow is it that all o! these !ormal systems can rightly claim to be logics?
Fhat can we learn about the concept o! logic itsel! that !or the !irst time
in its history is so iverse in its !ormulations across the boar in
mathematics an philosophy? 6here are several possibilities that
immeiately come to min1 an it may be worthwhile to isplay them
systematically !or the saKe o! comparison.
*. 6here is a universal logic. 6he alternative !ormalisms that are
currently on o!!er as logics are in !act something other than logic. 6hese
!ormal languages may eventually !in a istinct name an separate
category. 6he proli!eration o! what are presente as i!!erent logics can
accoringly be unerstoo as a sometimes eliberate an sometimes
subconscious attempt on the part o! logicians to ienti!y the one an
only correct logic that has yet to emerge as the legitimate successor o!
syllogistic logic.
2. /ll o! the various systems o! logic that seem so is5oint toay will
eventually or can potentially be uni!ie an integrate as a single super-
system. "ome systems that o not len themselves to such incorporation
may !all by the waysie as !au0 logics. 6he contemporary proli!eration
o! istinct logics is comparable to the prior systematization o! other
mathematical isciplines liKe ;ucli_s geometry1 that evelope out o! a
hogepoge o! practical methos o! measurement an calculation
recipes that were !inally brought together uner a single set o! a0ioms.
Fe are1 speaKing historically1 currently in a pre-systematization phase in
the evelopment o! symbolic logic1 worKing piecemeal on the !ragments
o! what will eventually emerge as a gran synthesis in a !uture logic o!
enormous power an comprehension.
$. 6here is no universal logic1 but there is a universal concept o! logic
that & :ale >acquette unerlies one an all o! the many i!!erent logical
!ormalisms that have been avance. 9n this view1 it becomes the tasK
o! the philosophy o! logic to analyze an e!ine the concept o! logic in
terms o! its necessary an su!!icient conitions in such a way that all o!
the logics properly so-calle will properly !it within its conitions.
(. 6here is a universal logic an a universal concept o! logic1 but we can
never !ully or con!iently come to Know what it is. Fe are thus in a
situation that is similar to that o! "ocrates in 7lato_s early aporetic
ialogues1 in which a concept persistently elues us as we try to nail
own its necessary an su!!icient conitions. Fhat we o instea1 as the
ne0t best choice1 is to propoun many i!!erent !ormal systems1 each o!
which purports to be a logic1 an some o! which may purport to be the
logic1 but without any conceptual guiance as to how closely or istantly
any chosen !ormalism might be appro0imating the ieal. 6he
proli!eration o! flogics_ is thus itsel! a symptom o! our lacK o! a
conceptual polestar. 6he best appro0imation might then be regare as
the one1 i! any1 that gains the most wiesprea acceptance or turns out to
have the most !ruit!ul applications.
'. 6here is no universal logic or universal concept o! logic1 but
something rather liKe a later Fittgensteinian !amily resemblance among
isparate logics. 6he overlappings o! one logical system with respect to
another in the entire networK o! logics must then be care!ully mappe
out so that we can unerstan the conceptual interrelations between
i!!erent Kins o! logic1 in aition to grasping their historical-
genealogical an thematic interconnections. .ogics as Fittgenstein sai
o! mathematics1 an no oubt also with symbolic logics in min1 are in
that case rather liKe a city with a central core an suburbs burgeoning in
various irections to serve a variety o! i!!erent Kins o! e0pressive an
in!erential nees1 with no prospect o! uni!ie integration into a single
super-system.
&. 6here is no universal logic1 universal or !amily resemblance concept
o! logic that can hope to incorporate all o! the isparate systems o! logic.
6hese systems are rightly calle logics only nonminimalistically1 in that
they are !ormal systems evelope an re!erre to institutionally as
logics by pro!essional logicians. 6here is no possibility o! such logics
being integrate1 an no prospect o! unerstaning any eeper
connections by virtue o! which they are relate. 6hey are all logics
simply because they are given that name by persons who are part o! a
pro!essional scienti!ic an philosophical community with the
institutional authority to esignate them as such. Hn the past1 there was
only one logic because logicians were too limite in their imaginations
or too hieboun by traition to venture out in i!!erent irections. 6he
iea o! a uni!ie integrate logic or overlapping !amily resemblances
among logics is a myth lacKing any practical !ounation.S
?ut !or instance my concept o! RreS can easily be ientical to yours
because we can agree on all e0emplars o! re in our common
environment an this even though your e0perience o! RreS an mine
may in no wise be ientical. Cor 5ust ientical in the sense that each o!
our concepts o! RreS were built up i!!erently1 out o! a i!!erent networK
o! e0emplars?D Hn this way we see that my concept o! re can be
ob5ectively the same though sub5ectively i!!erent !rom yours. 3an we
then go on to real RconsciousnessS wherever in this argument we
encounter the wor RreS without loss o! generality an hence valiity?
H! not1 then consciousness cannot be aequately perceive as an inert
space or substance1 ini!!erent to what plays out within it or through it.
Ht is here where we meet with the suspicions o! 4eel_s Hncompleteness
6heorem an 7enrose_s non-computability. 3ompare Rintersub5ectivity
is the cash value o! ob5ectivityS with Rconsciousness is the most general
property o! my e0perience an my consciousness an the property o! my
e0perience an my consciousness an the other_s consciousness must
nees be ifferent. 9b5ectivity a greater notion than intersub5ectivity1
truth a stronger notion than provability? 6he non-computable nature o!
conscious thought: the process by which thought generally is brought
into being Cas oppose to being merely RintuiteSD cannot itsel! be a
thought. 6he thing an the class to which it belongs cannot be one an
the same without being a special Kin o! class. 6he iniviual processes
no better concept o! consciousness than oes the color blin man who
sees only subtle shaes o! grey possess a concept o! color an its
viviness. 9ne might ob5ect that there are myria istinct states of
consciousness !rom which one coul abstract so as to !orm a general
concept o! a state of consciousness. ?ut a state is a !orm an not a
quality or substance1 still less is a concept o! a state o! something
equivalent to a concept o! that something in its unquali!ieness o! not
being in any state whatever. "o i! we believe in a concept o!
consciousness without possessing one such ourselves1 then we are
secretly maKing our !aith in the other tantamount to our !aith in a
transcenent being or :eity. Fhat structure must nature possess that
woul permit an incorrect theory to go on success!ully !or one or two
centuries be!ore the !irst inconsistency were etecte? Fe buil the
ei!ice o! truth with !acts that things are !acts are what they are. :oes
this soun liKe a sane way to go about constructing a sKyscraper?
Hn!ormation implies novelty1 that is1 o! ata in recipient in!ormation
systems at the in!ormation as initial processing o! a unique set o! ata.
prn=
Hsing moel noncomputability1 c.!.1 @ew "cientist1 9ct. (-*)1 2))N1
RFhy @ature is @ot the "um o! Hts 7arts.S ?ohm_s R
prn=
beablesS are
relevant here. 6eleportation transports quantum uncertainty away !rom
the point o! quantum state preparation. 6his can be thought o! as a Kin
o! waste heat being given o!!. 8aintaining the analogy with
thermoynamics1 teleporte1 /aP may be thought o! as quantum entropy.
=ow o we interpret the viral in!ormation o! vacuum groun state
inepenence? Fith hien variables e0clue the ;verett 8FH P8
theory leaves no room !or thermal bath states to unerpin irreversible
physical processes which in turn support the emergence o! novel
ynamical systems. ?oth substance an ynamics transcen
computation1 i.e.1 are responsible !or causality transcening mere
simulation1 c.!.1 >ohn "earle_s comparison o! real versus simulate
metabolism. =ow coul a eterministic simulation prouce any Rreal
entropyS anyway? 3lassical entropy can also be shown to be o! a
quantum mechanical origin. :oes quantum entropy1 e.g.1 ?lacK =ole
in!ormation loss1 point to some broaer1 eeper conte0t than either the
quantum or classical vacuum? /lthough natural selection never ha a
per!ectly aapte iniviual in view1 it i aim at the illusion o! the
per!ectly aapte iniviual. Hn the same way that language arose
through babbling becoming tie to a learning by oing program !rom
outsie as it were1 the sel! !irst arose as a subconscious pro5ection onto
the $
r
person1 c.!.1 >ayne_s theory relate to the passivity o! the
conscious sel! to the subconscious processing o! sense-perception an
remembere sense perception. 9b5ectivity as the root o!
intersub5ectivity as oppose to intersub5ectivity itsel!1 c.!.1 4o an
9ther 8ins by /lvin 7lantinga. :oes "ynesthesia econstruct the
hypothesis o! metaphor as causal chain breaKer or merely show the
necessity o! consciousness as a transcenental concomitant !unction to
metaphor? Cp. 2)D
>anuary 2)*2
H propose an upate o!
au=
7lantinga_s /o an Other 2ins in
the light o! new evelopments in analytic philosophy1 cosmology L
particularly in the analysis o! the unerlying logic o! the /nthropic
3osmological 7rinciple an interisplinary sciences1 e.g.1 biophysics
entitle1
Qd
/o an Other &olipsists. 6he true inner logic o! the
/nthropic 7rinciple is riven home by Aay Ourzweil when he begins
iscussing the sheer improbability o! oneGs own birth1 i.e.1 in terms o! the
compoune unliKelihoo o! the particular egg an sperm coming
together !rom oneGs own parents1 the same having alreay occure !or
their parents1 granparents1 greatgranparents1 etc.
8arch 2)*2
"ee *:**:)) o!
the ";6H youtube vieo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F&h,(l"2#KH =<7;A.H@O
Ehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F&h,(l"2#KH & !eature=relateE &
=<7;A.H@O Ehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=F&h,(l"2#KH & !eature=relateE !eature=relate
/pril 2)*(
6he real !orce o! 7lantingaGs thesis oes not hit home until the
!inal !ew pages - the rest o! the booK leaing up to this is 5ust !or Esetting
up the punch lineE1 which is1 to wit1 i! one has enough !aith to believe in
other mins an an e0ternal worl1 then one has more than enough !aith
to believe in a transcenent or universal min. 8y taKe-away !rom this
booK in the !orm o! a concise epigram: EH! naive realism is metaphysical
baKing power1 then atheism is 5ust hal!-baKe solipsism.E E4o an
9ther 8insE represents the !irst truly novel an e0citing thinKing
within the !iel o! 3hristian apologetics o! the last N)) years1 up until
the time o! this booKGs publication in *2&%. 6his is a very strong
sentiment1 but H am !ar !rom alone here. Lime Cat "omeone nees to
upate /lvin 7lantingaGs epic worK !or the current 3entury1 to begin
with1 upate the title - say1 E4o an 9ther "olipsistsE. @ot sure H am up
to the 5ob1 as H am not an acaemic. 6hough
as www.scrib.com portens1 the lanscape o! acaemic publishing is a-
changing...
8ay 2)*(
H woul have eserte my !aith in a ivine orer many years ago
ha H not iscovere /lvin 7lantinga_s E4o an 9ther 8insE Wa!terW H
ha alreay iscovere that humanKin can possess no general concept
o! consciousness Cthe timing o! this was rather !ortunate !or meD1 though
H cannot e0orcise !rom my min this certainty that such a concept
nonetheless Ee0istsE Cwell1 EsubsistsE1 more aptlyD1 transcenentally. Ht
seeme to me that only a transcenental min can vouchsa!e the
subsistence o! a transcenental concept an without such a concept1 H
coul not accept Wother minsW as other instantiations o! mins as such
as inee H unerstoo my min to be a la DescartesD Cogito Ergo &um.
6hus H was lea to this ual opposition1 *theism vs. &olipsism. "ince H
ha to re5ect one or the other o! this logical is5unction1 H chose to re5ect
solipsism. =ence1 H cannot have trucK with evangelical or proselytizing
militant atheists. =owever1 honest agnostics1 H amire an aore.
7lantinga_s booK CaboveD maKes the claim that it taKes no more !aith to
believe in other mins an an e0ternal worl1 than it oes to believe in a
:eity. H accept this argument i! one recasts R:eityS into Rivine orerS
or Rivine groun o! beingS. 6o invoKe 7lantinga_s booK as containing
an argument !or ?iblical 3hristianity woul be to inulge in non
seBuitor. Lime Cat ?ecause metaphors can e!tly masquerae as bona
!ie concepts1 many woul oubt my premise about the impossibility o!
an immanent concept o! consciousness1 as oppose to a transcenental
one. :onGt have room here1 but it has to o with the contraiction
involve in !orming an intersub5ective escription o! the sub5ective. "o
yes1 H guess HGm implying that FittgensteinGs E7rivate .anguage
/rgumentE secretly slips in the ivine orer via the bacK oor. 6here lies
the rub.
/pril 2)**
Aeligious !aith is easier to embrace while at once upholing the
intellectual ethics associate with the value o! Aeason1 i! one recognizes
that !aith in its essence is the only bulwarK against raical sKepticism1
which an integral rationality must avocate in the utter absence o! a
notion o! transcenence. 9ne must not lose sight here o! the necessity o!
the notion o! transcenence incluing transcenence of the ego.
9therwise the ego posits itself as Oant_s thing in itsel! or noumenon an
the e0ternal worl as the realm o! the immanent relative to which the
self is un'nowable. 6here are only two persons who can Rget insie your
heaS the sel! an the other of all others. 6he notion o! the
transcenental sel!1 i.e.1 the &elf" is in contraistinction to the other o! all
others1 i.e.1 the transcenental other" i.e." the Other. 6he only solution to
the problem o! epistemological solipsism is to posit the transcenental
other. 6he solution to the problem o! epistemological solipsism is not
open or available to the ego1 but can inee be graspe by the
transcenental other.
8arch 2)**
6here is the o!t-hear phraseV Rone o! a Kin.S ?ut this phrase
e!ines a coherent notion only in a metaphorical sense. ?ut in this case1
we are ealing with something o! a close system1 one presumably
possesse o! a !ormal1 i.e.1 !ormally escribable structure. Ht might be
thought that something without e!inable bounaries coul be both
unique an an e0emplar o! a class1 e.g.1 a spiral nebula. ?ut here the
Rnon-e!inabilityS is only with respect to nuances o! structure that play
no Key role in e!ining the entity as such. =ere1 in the case o! a spiral
gala0y1 what is unique about the ob5ect are aspects o! the ob5ect that
coul be i!!erent in an unlimite number o! ways without changing the
category o! ob5ect. 3onsciousness however1 is absolutely crucial to the
e!ining o! the person_s ientity as such. H! the other an H are each
unique in our consciousness-meiate ientities an both e0amples o!
what are terme Rconscious beings1S then our respective consciousness_s
must only be RuniqueS in a manner that oes not respect the istinctness
o! our ientities. 3onsciousness is unique in its essence but not as a
phenomenon is another parao0ical statement1 which invoKes this
con!usion o! the unique e0ample. 3onsciousness is unique in creation
an what maKes an iniviual an e0ample o! a conscious iniviual is
that his consciousness is substantially continuous with einiviuate
consciousness. 6he iniviual is sel!-conscious to the e0tent that he
recognizes his iniviuality as an illusion. 9therwise in orer to accept
that *D consciousness essentially e!ines personal ientity1 2D there are a
plurality o! conscious persons an $D each o! the plurality o! persons is
an e0ample o! consciousness because o! some abstract quality or
property that each consciousness possesses in common with all other
e0amples o! consciousness1 one must1 along with 7lantinga invoKe a
,niversal 8in1 one capable o! e0amining all o! the e0amples o!
iniviual consciousness an seeing them as such.
7robability manipulation an ual coherent/ecoherent causality. Fhy
o population statistics worK when populations are compose o! !reely
wille iniviuals? .anguage as time-integrate an causally
eterministic1 simultaneously. "upervenient or RverticalS causality.
/pply /37 to !ortuitous time scale o! stellar !usion. Aee0amine time
scale reuctionism in light o! ecoherence times. 4ravitational time
ilation: coherent vs. ecoherent temporality. Aeal e0istence. 6he
vacuum oes not gravitate1 but !acilitates gravitation o! mass-energy
systems that it supports. 6his is analogous to how the patient cannot !eel
pain when the surgeon cuts into his brain with th scalpel. ,se cosmic
37, inertia argument to emonstrate how the "chroinger 3at can_t be
RaliveS in one hal! o! the superposition state because classical physics is
essential to li!e processes1 e.g.1 thermoynamic irreversibility. Fithout
ecoherence1 there woul be no way to separate out the entanglement o!
one system !rom another !rom the vacuum as the Sgroun o! being.S
6he geometry o! ensity vs. gravity1 i.e..1 changing !rom inverse cube to
inverse linear ensity !unction suggests that the topology o! quantum
entanglement is relevant to inuce gravity theory.
8arch 2)** au=
IlatKo Ieral has publishe a paper in the ar+iv that
emonstrates that the conversion o! entanglement !rom virtual 3ooper
pairs to bosons is irreversible1 which is consistent with the vacuum
statistics interpretation o! the :avies-,nruh raiation o! a Ainler
horizon in inuce gravity.
8ay 2)*(

,nerlying popularity o! toilet humor proves no one has ever
success!ully complete their toilet training. @eurosis as haunting o!
incompletely negotiate li!e evelopmental stages. Iacuum saturation
e!!ect is e!ine as. . .
4ravitational ecoherence an spacetime topology/entanglement
change1 !rom inverse cube to inverse linear1 compacti!ication o!
imensions1 shows that spacetime structure is encoe through ?ohm_s
causality principle. ?ounary between conscious an unconscious is
sociolinguistic. "uppresse abstractive etails are latent cross-cutting
neural networK pattern recognitions that can be Rre-reprocesseS to get
!rom A/8 to A98 level o! brain !unction. 6he inter!erence e!!ects o!
quantum observation is secretly analogous to !eebacK e!!ects resulting
!rom a patient stuying an image o! a !unctional 8AH scan o! his own
visual corte0. 4ravitational time ilation is associate with reuction in
virtual particle !requency an contraction o! the particle_s :e?roglie
wavelength. Hs the contraction o! the :e?roglie wavelength *))% ue
to the acceleration o! the virtual particle an hence taKing on o! mass by
the particle in con5unction with /a;//ap Y c CvacuumD or is it ue to the
progressive mutual entanglement o! the virtual photons? 9r woul this
require the particle to Rlive longerS than one harmonic oscillation1 i.e.1
!or the particle to be unerstoo as taKing on mass in the gravitational
!iel? Hn this way the virtual particle taKes on both mass an
acceleration together. ?ut the particle can_t taKe on its !ull mass until it
becomes !ully real. =ence we must interpret the 4A e!!ects on
conversion o! virtual to real statistically. Hn aition to general
relativistic mass increase o! boies !reely !alling in a gravitational !iel1
the vacuum itsel! taKes on mass even though this vacuum possesses no
mass in !ree spacetime. 6his means that the ne0us o! inertia is not mass1
but the normally non-gravitating energy o! the !ree space vacuum1 c.!.1
Oavairainen_s1 p. *'-2) o! his lanl.gov paper o! aroun 2))%-2))N.
Hn retrospect we only see the causal chain we have le!t behin although
in real time there were myria 5unctures at which this claim coul have
branche an multiplie. 6here is inee a Kin o! stability an
robustness o! causal branches1 but only between the branch points where
inepenent sensitivity to initial an bounary conitions may e0ist.
6he only thing we perceive or observe in the ob5ect is its quantum
vacuum signature. Hn the case o! ecoherent brain_s vacuum state an
the vacuum state o! the ob5ect being stuie. :ecoherent-size systems
Crelative to the 7lancK mass/cosmic 37,D cannot be compute via the
"chroinger equation1 an so e0hibit inertia1 e.g.1 time ilation1 etc.
Fhat is the special relationship o! -rommian necrophilia to the concept
o! ignity? Fell certainly the ignity o! the iniviual implies a certain
irreucibility o! the iniviual1 i! not actual uniqueness. Puestion: how
can two iniviuals be ientical in every way e0cept numerically an yet
each be irreucible unless this irreucibility is that o! being itsel!1 i.e.1 in
the sense that the question RFhy is there something rather than
nothing?S is an irreucible question.
Puantum observer L system isturbance is not a causally meiate but
via non-local correlations. =ow oes man have the presence o! min to
woner who it is that woners Cmeta-wonerD? /n yet there is a gaping
hole in man_s sel! Knowlege right at the points o! !unamental
integration1 c.!.1 e.g.1 optic nerve/blin spot.
@ovember 2)**
R6he ;go1 as
note1 is simply the content o! your 7"8 at this moment Cyour boily
sensations1 your emotional state1 your perceptions1 memories1 acts o!
will1 thoughtsD. ?ut it can become the ;go only because you are
constitutionally unable to realize that all this is 5ust the content o! a
simulation in your brain. Ht is not reality itsel! but an image o! realityU
an a very special one inee. 6he ;go is a transparent mental image:
<ouUthe physical person as a wholeUlooK right through it. <ou o not
see it. ?ut you see with it. 6he ;go is a tool !or controlling an planning
your behavior an !or unerstaning the behavior o! others. Fhenever
the organism nees this tool1 the brain activates a 7"8. H!Uas1 !or
instance1 in reamless eep sleepUthe tool is not neee anymore1 it is
turne o!!1S c.!.1
cit=
The Ego Tunnel: The &cience of 2in an the 2yth
of the &elf C
au=
8etzingerD. @o vacuum virtual replicas larger than a
7lancK mass. Aelate this limit to the 7auli ;0clusion 7rinciple an to
conserve quantum entanglement ensity1 i.e.1 cosmic 37, in!ormation
ensity conservation. 3an ecoherence/7lancK mass virtual replica limit
a 7auli "tate "aturation 7rinciple applie generally to spacetime? 6he
quantum vacuum is unable to solve @7 complete problems Cin real timeD
means that there may be a hien absolute re!erence !rame an cosmic
clocK.
Hne!inite1 unlimite semiosis: open-ene !inal conte0t o! in!ormation1
unlimite potential !or intelligible reprocessing o! in!ormation L
opposite o! the case o! conte0t-!ree in!ormation1 c.!.1 Rbeliebige
unwahrscheinlichKeitS. Hn!ormation is not Rabout ob5ectsS so much as
ob5ects are constructs an arti!acts o! in!ormation. Aesearch
au=
"hipov_s
papers iscussing (- angular momentum an inertia o! spacetime
rotation. 3an mass be erive !rom moments in ( spacetime?
3onservation o! $-momentum epenent upon secret laws o! (
momentum conservation1 then similarly !or the case o! colliing
gyroscopes in $. /ccoring to
au=
7ribram1 an out-o!-!ocus photographic
image1 that is1 the RblurS contains the actual image Cin an inter!erence
pattern o! out-o!-!ocus rays o! re!lecte lightD1 an so is in essence a
hologram. 8ight the nonlocally correlate wave!orms that compose the
=eisenberg uncertainty o! an observable contain in!ormation about the
precise value o! the observable1 but which is not intersub5ectively
eterminable1 only sub5ectively1 by the observer who per!orms the
measurement o! the observable? 6he conscious brain is an inter!ace
evice i! you will1 rather than an en station in the process o! conscious
thought an perception1 which opens up the narrow 7lancK iameter
wormhole necK connecting two or more normally topologically is5oint
vacua.
3oncerning the istillation o! orer !rom chaos an the obviating o!
esign via the /nthropic cosmological principle applie to the
multiverse one is secretly relying upon the ubiquitous operation Can H
o mean RubiquitousSD o! what construction engineers re!er to as a
ratchet1 i.e.1 to RlocK inS any Cto li!e an intelligence L not to mention
consciousnessD avantageous inavertent RavancesS mae within the
buzzing1 blooming tumult o! unrestraine creative tinKering on the part
o! the groun o! being otherwise Known as =eraclitus_ !lu0. ?ut o!
course a ratchet is a mechanism an e6 mechanismus mechanismus fit so
to speaK1 paraphrasing a similar .atin phrase. H! someay li!e is shown
to not be a mechanism1 then we have a case o! genuine emergence an
this woul violate the
prn=
Rratchet principleS o! evolutionary
evelopment1 which can only apply to a state machine1 i.e.1 a evice in
which all possible !uture states in some sense alreay e0ist in the sense
o! alreay being e!ine an we have to asK the question what maKes !or
the i!!erence between the actual an merely possible in this case. 6here
is no room !or such a istinction in the case o! a eterministic state
machine.
>anuary 2))%
-eynman path integral etermination o! groun state energies o!
atoms L this calculation technique may be use to etermine the groun
state energy o! the vacuum. 6he same principle which e0plains the
suppression o! the ecay o! Ayberg e0cite atoms coul be illustrate
in an e0periment where the barrier tunneling rates are suppresse in the
barrier region Cusing resonant cavities1 !or e0ampleD.
>esus sai there woul be those who woul cast out evils in =is name
who woul not be recognize on the ay o! 5ugment. >esus !elt the
energy go out o! =im when the woman touche his garment. 6he @ew
6estament can be econstructe in support o! an impersonal 4o1 e.g.1
Ethe -orceE. 6his econstructive enterprise !ails in light o! the concept
o! the Ee0ecutiveE in!rastructure an machinery o! the :eityGs will. 6his
might also be applie to the Eauthor as :eity o! the te0t.E :erria woul
attempt to give a necrophilic reuction o! the authorGs intent through an
analysis o! the ynamics o! the authorGs consciously an unconsciously
chosen literary evices.
au=
?ohmGs
prn=
Ranalogy o! thoughtS an P8
etermination within a bubble an emergent causality in between
bubbles. :ecoherence time an time ilation represent an e0ample o! the
violation o! .orentz invariance Cbecause a gravitational fiel actually
enhances an accelerates ecoherence processesD. ;instein says that
gravity is not a !orce. @ow
prn=
.orentz invariance o! the graviton/one
graviton limit violates the ;instein equivalence principle.
9ctober 2)**
4ravitation breaKs the spacetime symmetry o! the vacuum1 this
symmetry being normally mani!est in the conservation o! quantum
entanglement between spaceliKe an timeliKe !luctuations o! the the
vacuum1 i.e.1 entanglement is not conserve within gravitational !iels.
"ince conservation principles are inevitably associate with continuity
equations1 one has to asK here1 Rwhat is the physical quantity whose !low
in spacetime is conserve because continuous?S 9n an intuitive level
oesn_t the whole concept o! RnonlocalityS !ly in the !ace o! any notion
o! the continuity o! RentanglementS as some Rconserve substanceS. Ht is
consierations such as these1 which give us pause concerning a literal
principle o! Rentanglement conservationS. / possible way out here is to
suppose that it is 5ust the very nonconservation o! entanglement Cwith
respect to certain 8inKowsKi spacetime egrees o! !reeomD1 which
engeners a gravitational !iel in the !irst place. R6he nature o! all
spontaneous symmetry breaKing1 an the !ormation o! all coherently
organize boun states1 can be unerstoo as the nature o! spin
alignment on those sur!aces. Fhole integer spins ten to align with each
other because they behave liKe commuting numbers1 an hal! integer
spins ten to anti-align with each other because they behave liKe anti-
commuting numbers. 6he nature o! spin alignment also re!lects the
symmetry o! empty space. 6he actions o! the universe are only animate
because o! the tenency !or spin alignment1 c.!1 Nonuality: * &cientific
4erspective.
sto=
"-/-antasy short story iea: eventually one coul be born whom
woul be given their proper name. 4reat power is receive by them
whom hear themselves aresse by their true name.
"ubliminal structure o! memory maKing mental connection the same as
5otting own something on a note o! paper1 or is there a qualitative
i!!erence?
Qd
There is no eBuivalent enearment in English to the
/erman phrase" Zalte !ungeZ. 6he 7si moel o! a system in the
quantum vacuum moeling capability o! the vacuum is limite1 c.!.1
cosmic cpu analogy. + believes heGs seen eeply into the latent meanings
o! the language1 but 5ust ha been re!lecte on languageGs latent
meanings. Cnot sure what was intene hereD
6he blacK hole event horizon represents the limit at which ma0imal
polarization entanglement o! virtual photons is observe. 6his supports
my hypothesis that the gravitational reshi!t is owing to a spatially
ecreasing graient in polarization entanglement Can o! ?ose
conensationD o! virtual photons as $-momentum !luctuations CspaceliKe
momentum !luctuationsD1 e0tening !rom the blacK hole event horizon to
in!inity. "ee ar+iv:
cit=
quant-ph/)&)()&'v* *) /pr 2))&1 signatures o!
the ,nruh e!!ect !rom electrons accelerate by ultra strong laser !iels1
au=
"chuetz!el1 "challer an =abs.
>uly 2))N
,pon acceleration the Ainler horizon Cwhich !orms a 2-sphere
5ust as in the case o! a bona !ie blacK holeD !orms instantaneously Ci!
the vacuum structure o! the Ainler horizon is supporte by vacuum
entanglementsD" but also seemingly must e0pan outwar at the spee o!
light. :oes the cosmological acceleration1 =c point to a
prn=
:avies-,nruh
thermal component to the vacuum that may be ienti!ie with the
cosmological constant?
au=
"molin says that the ,nruh raiation is
powere by the engines whose thrust is causing the acceleration. 6his
suggests that the vacuum must o worK in orer to properly upate its
quantum state1 i.e.1 vacuumCtC)DD + [worK energy\ = vacuumCtC)D + *D +
[waste heat\ --Z entropy with waste heat possessing the ,nruh
temperature. 3oul the 2.% O cosmological bacKgroun raiation be the
temperature o! the heat reservoir o! the 3arnot engine which is riving
the irreversible component o! the ,niverseGs temporal evolution
Ccosmological e0pansion along its ma0imal entropy graientD - or 5ust a
relic thereo!? E6he photons that maKe up the vacuum electric an
magnetic !iels come in pairs that are correlate in e0actly the same
way. Fhat is more1 each photon etecte by our accelerating observers_
thermometer is correlate with one that is beyon her horizon.E1 c.!.1
p.N(1
cit=
6hree Aoas to Puantum 4ravity. " = //(pi41 where / is the
area o! the event or
prn=
Ainler horizon. :oesnGt the Ainler horizon
increase over time? =ow o we etermine the A=Gs shape?
:ecember 2))&
?ecause entanglement is conserve1 we may not nee to Know
the speci!ics o! ecoherence mechanisms in orer to unerstan
quantum statistical basis o! gravitational time ilation1 c.!.1
cit=
ar+iv:con-mat/)()%)'N v* 2 >ul 2))(
7si-collapse is itsel! the very mechanism o! chronology protection.
EAinler horizons an chronology protectionE. :oes spin Ceterminate
an 7si-collapseD or ineterminate C7si-uncollapseD e0presse in a
.orentz-booste re!erence !rame necessarily contain a timeliKe
component? Foul there be a Ainler horizon separating the booste
.orentz !rame !rom the Erest !rameE?
E<ou Know who you areTE 9! course1 the aressees o! this sort o!
statement may not Know each other an may well not be Known by the
person uttering the remarK. :o automaticity an consciousness occupy a
Kin o! H onGt Know1 H Know1 H Know that H Know1 H Know that H Know that
H Know. . . continuum? 9r is there a iscontinuity between the nC)D an
nC*D cases that prevents such an inuctively base !ormula !rom being
establishe? :oes quantum inistinguishability breaK own in a
gravitational !iel? 9ne cannot prouce two quantum-entangle beams
o! photons !rom passing a thermal beam o! photons through a beam
splitter. 6his ten to suggest that all cases o! the prouction o! quantum
entanglement is really entanglement swapping1 which is consistent with
the notion o! the conservation o! entanglement. 3lassical entanglement
is prouce1 however in the above type o! e0periment. :avies-,nruh
raiation always consists o! two components1 photons possessing a
thermal ?ose-;instein istribution an electron-positron pairs
possessing a thermal 7lancK-;instein istribution. 3an we conceive o!
the blacK hole event horizon as a Kin o! Ebeam splitterE acting on a
thermal beam o! Yvirtual anyonsZ1 proucing two thermal beams with
istinct quantum statistics that are not merely quantum correlate1 but
correlate in some still more !unamental !ashion1 say via a local hien
variable mechanism that is hien behin the blacK hole horizon? :onGt
we alreay Know that the statistics o! the two ,nruh beams are
nonlocally correlate? /nyonic hien variable processes 5ust on the
other sie o! the blacK hole horizon? 6imeliKe e0citations1 correlations.
Puantum correlations Co! !luctuationsD !alling into a blacK hole go !rom
spaceliKe to timeliKe in quality. / */2-silvere mirror !unctions 5ust liKe
a beam splitter. 6he two istinct thermal emissions are prouce by two
mechanisms acting at ma0imum1 ?ose enhancement an 7auli blocKing.
,ncertainty raiation relate to :irac hole theory o! the vacuum. Ht
seems we have a iscontinuity o! twice the mass energy o! the electron
CEresseE mass is meant hereD. :o the negative bining energies o! the
electron-positron pair help to remove the ban/mass gap in the P;:
vacuum so as to enable a smooth continuity between the anyonic event
horizon processes connecting the ?ose enhancement an 7auli blocKing
mechanisms o! =awKing raiative particle prouction at the blacK hole
event horizon.
Qd6he reuce number ensity o! energy !luctuations1 i.e.1 energy
transition in the crystalGs couple harmonic oscillators1 controls an
enlarge number ensity o! $-momentum !luctuations. 6his constitutes
a squeeze state/phase space an squeeze =eisenberg momentum-
energy uncertainty !or the crystal in which the momentum !luctuations
have become more highly energy egenerate an moreover more highly
quantum correlate Cby virtue o! being controlle by a relatively smaller
matri0 o! energy !luctuationsD. Hn associate with increase egeneracy
!or the spectrum o! momentum !luctuations is associate with increase
quantum correlations via entangle virtual photons polari(ation even
though in the !ace o! increase overall =eisenberg $-momentum
uncertainty !or the crystal.
=al!-silvere mirror hols an analogy to the event horizon o! a blacK
hole. / coe electromagnetic wave transmission passing through a
hal!-silvere mirror in which the photons are quantum correlate1 say in
terms o! polarization results in a splitting o! the quantum correlations o!
the photons into two components1 one hien an the other public.
=ow o the mutual quantum correlations alter !or the photons in the
sample that oes not pass through the hal!-silvere mirror1 but which are
re!lecte an comprising the inaccessible sample1 c.!.1 my lunch
conversation with
per=
Jia on *2/)*/)&. HGll try to incorporate this iea
into my present worK on the blacK hole in!ormation parao0.
?ohmGs e0planation o! =eisenberg uncertainty in terms o! quantum
correlations are the Key to istinguishing Kinematic !rom ynamic
processes in the quantum vacuum1 e.g.1 istinguishing abstract special
relativity !rom concrete general relativity1 interaction-!ree !rom
interactive quantum !iel theory.
"eparate out an istinguish what are merely YKinematical e!!ectsZ
resulting !rom an abstract .orentz trans!ormation1 e.g.1 the Ysqueezing
o! statesZ o! a crystal !orme o! Ycouple harmonic oscillatorsZ !rom
the Yynamical e!!ectsZ associate with a Ycontinuum o! .orentz
trans!ormationsZ. Hmportant tags in this iscussion are: egeneracy o!
energy1 arrow o! time1 =eisenberg uncertainty1 Yinteraction pictureZ1
evolution o! operators vs. evolution o! states1 bacKgroun epenent vs.
inepenent P-61 a a+1 bounary conitions istinguishe !rom conte0t1
Y?ohmGs .awZ1 Y!luctuation-issipation theoremZ1 relationships o!
8inKowsKi an Ainler vacua.
Hs the Ainler horizon 2 or $V oes it !orm instantaneously an is it
!ormation meiate locally or nonlocally?
=e has long since learne !ollow .ewisG amonition to shun the prou
woman1 who spreas misery in her waKe in the collecting o! many
insincere amirers1 an whose inconstancy seems integral to the monthly
trans!er o! orchestrate control o! the host woul-be mom by the
outgoing to the incoming ambitious little ovum. C/n i! womanGs
inconstancy seems guie by the phases o! the moon1 this is only
because o! ovocentrismD
6he rootC@D an inverse rootC@D probability laws are mae consistent by
invoKing the notions o! enabling an isabling mutual cancellation o!
!luctuations. =ow are the notions o! emergence an the novelty o!
groun interprete in terms o! this reconciliation? :oes logic an/or
mathematics an physicals laws possess a narrative structure? =ow
oes the uncanny success o! e0change o! networKe elements !or
engenering new rational an coherent systems relate to the principle o!
4eel numbering?
?5orK song plays at the en o! movie1 -eing !ohn 2al'ovich Cwhile
creits rollD. /ctress /nne >ameson was in three movies in which she
mentally spaces out while searching !or her lost chil an those aroun
her oubt her veracity an sanity. Y>ohn @elson :arbyZ was the !irst
ispensationalist.
:ecember 2))&
Puote !rom much earlier in this paper is the !ollowing
observation: E* ball whirling on a string when release moves of with a
momentum irecte at a tangent to its former orbit an perpenicular to
the rotational a6is of this orbit. &o using this simple moel for the
conversion of angles into linear momentum" we might suppose that an
angular momentum that coul be translate into linear momentum
irecte along any a6is within MFimensional space =of a certain inertial
frameA must itself be irecte along an a6is ^orthogonal to 6" y" ( within
this certain inertial frame_.Z "o the !act that electron-positron
annihilation raiation may be oriente along any a0is within $-space
means that1 i! the linear momentum o! the annihilation photons stems
!rom a conversion o! spin angular momentum into linear momentum
C@ote that a .orentz boost inuces quantum entanglement between the
spin an momentum egrees o! !reeom an that the ultimate 1orent(
boost is the irect conversion of matter into energy" i.e." photonsD1 which
in analogy to the release ball whirling on a string suggests that in some
relevant sense fermionic spin egrees of freeom are t!me!ke +!recte+9
?ut shouln_t this iscrete perioicity o! recessional velocity
C%2Km/8pcD mean that we have evience o! a wave!unction escribing
cosmological scale phenomena. 9r 7si structure on large scale mass-
energy systems. 6he iscrete spectrum o! cosmological e0pansion rate
with increasing istance - in increments o %2Km/s/8ega7arsec is
evience that the universe is tunneling through a hyperspherical
potential barrier1 which also woul e0plain the imaginary momentum o!
masses at rest that are moving at appro0imately c in a timeliKe
irection? Oin o! remins me o! the FO? appro0imation o! the
barrier tunneling problem where you get e0ponentially ecaying
oscillatory solutions !or the wave!unction within the barrier as well as an
imaginary momentum an negative Kinetic energy !or the tunneling
particle represente by the FO? appro0imate wave!unction. C!rom
email to :an Ian 4ent1 ate @ovember 2&1 2))&D
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW *2-)2-)&
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
;igen!unctions o! a an a+ - any well behave 7si may be e0pane in
terms o! these. E-luctuations an correlations etermine the average o!
any physically observable quantity1 so that they escribe all !eatures o!
the istribution that we have any nee to Know about.E1 p. 2)*1 Puantum
6heory C?ohm1 *2'*D. 6he increasing correlation o! e0change photons
is re!lecte in the ecrease /a; associate with the broaene /ap.
/n accelerating electric charge emits electromagnetic raiation Co! what
spectrum?D1 but a charge accelerating while in !ree !all is moving
inertially an oes not emit raiation. Hs this in some ways similar to the
way that =awKing raiation is not observe by an observer !alling !reely
into a blacK hole? "imilar also to the !act that an inertially accelerating
observer oes not observe a thermal spectrum o! :avies-,nruh
raiation?
Puantum uncertainty is unerpinne by the !luctuations that lea to
ecoherence. ;ach o! the many worls o! the 8FH quantum theory are
themselves by the bi!urcative nature o! reality pointe up by !ree will
an consciousness. ?ut temporal evolution o! each possible worl is
riven by the /a; within that worl Cor by a /a; outsie the worl - !rom
global vacuum state?D :ecoherence an emergence are both
nonunitary.
-ree will as choosing between i!!erent states o! consciousness out o! a
spectrum that is not preictable or eterminate. Hn!ormation as ata
concerning unpreictable changes to the global vacuum state/ cosmic
cpu. 6he inertial mass o! the blacK hole must be encoe in the
!luctuation-correlation matri0 on its EeventE horizon.
7auli blocKing can prevent spontaneous creation1 but can also prevent
spontaneous annihilation or 5ust a!!ect the relative polarization o!
photons prouce !rom an annihilation - Y?ose enhancementZ Y7auli
HnclusionZ Ywarpe -eynman iagramsZ Ysqueeze -eynman
iagramsZ Ysqueeze propagatorsZ YtimeliKe e0citationsZ Ytime is a
parameterZ
8ay 2)*(
RHn !act1 we coul even have guesse the sign on physical
grouns: -or !ermions1 the energy is lowere to secon-orer by virtual
transitions through oubly occupie states which1 thanKs to the 7auli
e0clusion principle1 can only occur i! the two spins are anti-aligne. -or
bosons1 these virtual transitions lower the energy more when the two
spins are aligne than when they arenGt1 ue to 2. Fe roppe overall
energy shi!ts anyway1 so weGre not getting the groun-state energy right1
but we are getting the energy splittings in the low energy spectrum
correct1 which is much more important. ?ose enhancement o! the
tunnelingS1 c.!.1
https://5ila.colorao.eu/sites/e!ault/!iles/assets/!iles/publications/!oss#!
=<7;A.H@O
Ehttps://5ila.colorao.eu/sites/e!ault/!iles/assets/!iles/publications/!oss#
!eig#thesis.p!E eig#thesis.p!1 3uantum simulation of manyFboy
physics with neutral
atoms" molecules" an ions.
@onzero cosmological constant !rom emergent 8ocK gravity. :oes
mocK gravity !all o!! with inverse square1 cube1 etc.?
/a;/a8 Z= h b relate this uncertainty relation to 7olarization an
8agnetization an then to permeability a permittivity.
6he =awKing temperature vanishes relative to an observer in inertial
motion1 c.!.1 time inepenent "chreinger equation vis a vis =eat
;quation.
6he !unamental tension between general relativity an quantum
mechanics is that between the linear superposition principle an
;insteinGs principle o! equivalence. =a the observer been !alling
inertially the whole time then the quantum in!ormation that woul have
otherwise been lost is preserve1 but this is not truly Epublic
in!ormationE because a Ainler horizon separates two istinct vacua1
which P-6 tells us cannot be superpose or entangle so as to permit
teleportation o! not !ully public1 i.e.1 ElocalE as oppose to global
in!ormation. Ht is the general relativistic i!!erences in vacua that
unermines entanglement supportive o! teleportation in the !irst place.
>uly 2)**
6o receive quantum entanglement-encoe in!ormation1 one must
possess the appropriate Rquantum KeyS. C:uring quantum teleportation1
quantum states along with their <eisenberg uncertainties are
RtransporteS superluminally.D Hn the case o! the human brain1 this
RKeyS may be thought o! as Rmetain!ormationS1 i.e.1 information about
information that instructs the brain how to a5ust its quantum vacuum
!requency !ilters CRprequenciesSD so that the brain can RtuneS itsel! an
RreceiveS those !requencies. / certain prequency spectrum o! the brain_s
quantum mechanical processes must be maintaine in orer !or bining
to occur Csee Rthe bining problemS in the philosophy o! minD in orer
to RcreateS an sustain the consciousness o! the iniviual. ?ut what is
liKely being a5uste here is only the bounary conitions upon a certain
relatively small spectrum o! the vacuum electromagnetic !iel_s selfF
interaction. The concept of the action of eity as well as that of min is
that in which emergence an 7always alreainess8 are reconcile
Cthrough the Ralways alreainessS o! the potential !or novelty in a sel!-
sustaining1 intelligent an creative beingD. "o the tactic we shoul use
!or ienti!ying the !ingerprints o! eity on its creations is to *D ienti!y
areas o! genuine emergence an 2D iscover the laws o! quantum
nonlocality that orchestrate this emergence1 c.!1 emergence o! conscious
states Cbut not necessarily o! consciousness itsel!TD in the nonlocally
connecte action o! electrons an vacuum electromagnetic !iels in the
brain_s microtubule imers. 6he intersub$ective clearly cannot e0plain
the sub$ective Cwhat woul amount to a contraiction in termsD1 although
the collaboration o! the sub5ective must clearly e6plain the
intersub$ective. 6here inee may be no nee to e0plain the Re0istenceS
o! 4o Cwell1 really o! his being1 collectivelyD1 but an e0planation woul
be require1 i! we esire to maintain that this /o is iniviual an
unique. 6his is why the Rtop-ownS1 in!ormation-base metaphysics
5ust maKes more sense than a raical materialistic one wherein all
wholes are e0plaine e0clusively in terms o! their parts. @ote that the
sub5ective in its !reely-wille collaboration to prouce the
intersub5ective is not e6actly what one woul call a case of a whole
being compose of its parts9 C6wo istinct notions o! Rinepenently
e0istingS implie here.D
"o really the ?lacK =ole Hn!ormation parao0 boils own to the trivial
observation that there can be no communication between Ainler H an
Ainler HH weges.
au=
Jeilinger - superposition o! ?ucKy balls - oes superposition require
nonlocality? <es1 ?ucKy balls are less than the 7lancK mass istinct in
energy.
6he amoeba on the test particle oes not see the superposition o! the test
particleGs state1 i! the amoeba is also in a superposition state1 entangle
as it is with the test particle. 6he @o 4o 6heorem !or quantum vacuum
superposition poses a serious problem !or the 8FH interpretation o! the
quantum measurement problem.
?acKgroun spacetime or not maKes a i!!erence in resolution o! blacK
hole in!ormation parao0. :oes the prohibition against superposing
vacua also mean no superposition o! gravitational !iels1 i.e.1 matter
istributions greater than 7lancK mass /am?
6he ecoherence o! spontaneous emission shoul increase with the
increase in spectral energy ensity o! the vacuumGs $-momentum
!luctuations1 i.e.1 ensity o! virtual bosons CphotonsD. 6his is
accompanie by increase 7auli blocKing. Y
prn=
7auli blocKingZ
Y
prn=
?ose enhancementZ YreciprocalZ Ysee sawZ
?ut ecoherence processes are temporal processes sub5ect to the
in!luence o time ilation. Fe must be tinKering with the unerlying
mechanism o! gravity1 e.g.1 ecoherence processes. Cseeming parao0?D
6his is similar to how the e0tra temperature !rom =awKing raiation
coul accelerate chemical or nuclear processes even though time ilation
is greater where the =awKing temperature is greater.
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW **-2$-)&
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
;ntanglement oes not scale with the volume1 but scales with the area.
8echanisms o! 7auli blocKing an ?ose enhancement as etermining
the irection o! time in a gravitational !iel.
:on_t try to guess the !unction right o!!1 5ust state in general what
properties the !unction must possess an apply this to i!!erent problems
!or which you alreay have some reaily available results1 e.g.1 ielectric
meia. Puantum an classical correlations o! couple harmonic
oscillators both scale with sur!ace area in three imensions. ?ut is this
true or is this !our imensions or C$ + *D spacetime?
@ewtonGs bucKet e0periment tells us that /a01 /at1 /ap1 /a; cannot conspire
to relative to the vacuum. Yentanglement an uncertaintyZ
. an " are inepenent 5ust as are .01 .y1 an .z. -or this reason an
!or reasons that bosonize !luctuations are orthogonal o we view
collective spin-) !unctions as timeliKe.
:ecompose 7si into symmetric an antisymmetric components. :o the
same !or the ensity matri0 an relate .orentz trans!ormations o! Aho to
entanglement swapping an squeeze states. Puantum -luctuations in
7hotonics.
:ecoherence an squeeze states1 c.!.1 OaivairanenGs ?i-Iacuum 8oel
an IoloviKGs ?i-Iacuum theory.
Aelate the a an a+ spectrum to the =eisenberg uncertainties1 /a01 /ap an
/a; C/a=mD.
Aeality is a one1 reality is a many. . . both are trueV -ate vs. 3hance. . .
both are true. 6his points up the transcenental nature o! reality as
!orever prior to conceptual istinctions1 e.g.1 wholeness vs. reucibility1
!ree will vs. automata-liKe behavior1 grace vs. worKs. . .
3oinciences - meaning!ul or pro5ecte !rom wish!ul imagination? c.!.1
micro-Oantianism. :iscuss the ;7A e0periment in curve spacetime
an necessity o! ecoherence an intrinsic nonlinearity o! gravity1 c.!1.
FheelerGs remarKs that matter tells space how to curve an curve space
tells matter where to go.
Fhat the oler generation never liKes noticing is how though the youths
o! the succeeing generation lose the threa o! values or special sKills. . .
or some such1 o! which olsters are so prou1 these youths o manage to
reenter the lost threa1 but then o so with a vengeance.
-ree will necessitates a !unamentally probabilistic theory an one
amitting 8FH parallel worls1 but how to characterize this gap
between the coherence limit1 e.g.1 ?ucKy ?all superposition an the bona
!ie macroscopic plurality o! the alternate consequences o! !ree wille
human choice? /n is this gap only an apparent one? Hn other wors1
are we humans really resients o! the cosmic 37, riven holographic
universe an macroscopic omains are a mere pro5ection o! the human
Csuch as it isD intellect Chuman rationality Bua ratioFnality% Fe nee to
show that there is an inepenent quantum statistical mechanism o!
ecoherence that also unerpins the breaKing o! spacetime symmetry.
6ell a ?orgesian story about how heaven is not really heaven at all1 but a
solipsistic hell1 !or e0ample1 one encounters many !amiliar lost !amily
an !riens in the a!terli!e an is tol by an archangel or other resient
authority that every person one can conceivably recognize is present. . .
an the notion eventually awns on our protagonist that many o! the
people that other people shoul recognize are not present. . .
6he !ermion an anti!ermion are not really entangle any way so close
to the event horizon. 6he only reason the pair can nonetheless be
spontaneously create is that the energy egeneracy an /ap ensity are
so high1 c.!.1 FignerGs .ittle 4roups an entanglement o! momentum an
spin egrees o! !reeom - continuous transuce teleporting o! spin
in!ormation. "o the !ermion that !alls into the hole has no entanglement
in!ormation1 but was merely in the opposite state with respect to
quantum numbers !rom the partner !ermion that escapes the horizon.
6he source o! irreversibility an entropy is the vacuum energy
!luctuations CtimeliKeD. @ote that all o! the timeliKe /a; !luctuations
have to be rotate into spaceliKe /ap !luctuations which1 instea o!
emanating !rom a timeliKe hypersur!ace now emanate !rom a spaceliKe
event horizon. Y;nergy egeneracy o! quantum super!luisZ Y;nergy
egeneracy an time ilationZ
6he time ilation o! virtual bosons in a gravitational !iel in which
energy egeneracy is progressive with increase in /ap ensity. 6he
!ermion state teleporte is that !rom the !ermion that has !allen into the
horizon. :avies-,nruh raiation is emitte !rom a Ainler horizon 5ust
as =awKing raiation is emitte !rom the event horizon o! a blacK hole.
Qd
;0plore the concept o! the ?ohr complementarity o! ?ose
conensation an 7auli blocKing through an e0amination o! quantum
entanglement conservation. 6he 7auli blocKing e!!ect shoul be a simple
!unction o! the egree o! 7auli blocKing within a single 3ooper pair1 e.g.1
7auli blocKing o! the !ermionic !luctuations o! the vacuum
electromagnetic !iel shoul be *))% !or the !ree real !ermions within a
quantum vacuum !luctuation !iel in which the mutual quantum
correlation o! virtual !ermions an anti!ermions is 7si. 6hough such an
e0treme case is not e0pecte to occur because conservation o! spin
requires creation an annihilation o! virtual !ermions an anti!ermions in
spin-opposite pairs o! collective spin-). /s usual however1 the
=eisenberg uncertainty principle can be relie upon to ai in the sKirting
o! otherwise strict CclassicalD conservation laws - here the operative
uncertainty principle is /aphi/a. Z= h1 where 7hi is the spin orientation
phase angle an . is the angular momentum Cspin in this caseD. 7auli
blocKing is a !unction o! both the egree o! correlation o! spins o! the
virtual !ermion an anti!ermion within each iniviual 3ooper pair1 as
well as the egree o! correlation o! the spins o! real !ermions in the case
o! partial blocKing o! virtual by real 3ooper pairs. 9! course1 we e0pect
?ose enhancement o! virtual by real 3ooper pairs1 c.!.1 superconucting
gravitomagnetic e!!ect. /t high enough =awKing temperature1 ?ose
conensation o! virtual photons breaKs own1 posing a constraint upon
the inuce gravity can compensate !or insu!!iciently low temperature1
c.!.1 !or proucing !ermionic ?ose conensate1 c.!.1 FiKipeia on
!ermion conensation.
QX1 prn=
8icrosleep is moulate by 3ramerGs
prn=
avance quantum wave?
?ut oesnGt this imply a much longer ecoherence energy threshol?
!ic=
.onely1 nery1 con!irme bachelor Equantum statisticianE1 i.e.1 actuary
turne Equantum metaphysicsE researcher stumbles onto a !rightening
secret1 the !atal accient rate shoul be appro0imately ouble its rate
historically - the reason1 people go through their lives e0actly hal!
asleep1 asleep hal! the time Cin a !ractal temporal patternD. /n it turns
out that 3ramerGs 6ransactional interpretation o! P8 is the saving grace
that !acilitates this1 as well as e0plaining some hereto!ore mysterious
R
prn=
"helraKianS phenomena. 6he rat shoul hit a ea en in the maze
twice as o!ten as he actually oes Cprovie the rat is always Kille
whenever it hits a ea en1 c.!.1 R
prn=
quantum suicieSD. ForK the whole
in!inite quantum potential barrier iea into this iscussion at some point
as well as worKing in the notions o! har /H1 misguie search !or
gravity waves1 etc.D :iscuss necrophilia in -rommGs sense an in this
connection iscuss those people who hee the avance wave better
than other mortals - only to !ail to hee the most important avance
wave o! all - the one emanating !rom the surge o! cosmic arenaline
cause by their being cast into the laKe o! !ire. 6he enial o! the Emost
important avance waveE shoul be connecte with the solution to the
?lacK =ole Hn!ormation 7arao0 as well as to -rommGs necrophilia.
/lso showcase an upate
au=
3. ". .ewisG observations concerning the
Espiritual cancerE o! prie Cin contrast to Emere vanityED. 6hough it is the
avance wave !rom the amne cosmic arenaline rush an not !rom
hell itsel! that the amne !ail to heeV e0plain this in terms o! the
metaphysical/theological importance o! the istinction between Emean
in!initeE potential barrier Cseparating heaven an hellD an Eactual
in!initeE barrier. /lso e0plain the Kni!e ege or raical ambiguity o!
esign vs. evolution in relation to the !ree will choice o! serving/not
serving 4o. -ree will taKes us beyon the ecoherence limit an
shows consciousness as the ultimate realm with all o! the avantages1
but none o! the isavantages o! =ilbert space1 e.g.1 lacK o! comple0ity
to represent mi0e quantum states.
>uly 2)**
6his notion is humorously
pointe up by -uturama episoe *'1 season & in which -ry !irst becomes
an then meets 4o: Rwhen you o things right1 no one realizes you_ve
one anything at allS or something very similar.
:iscuss
au=
Auol! 9ttoGs notion o! the =oly as well as the pun EholeyE
vs. wholly vs. EholyE in terms o! the !ractal porosity o! consciousness
Can the willD. :oes the :evil !in his way into the porous structure o!
consciousness an the will1 rotting it liKe a cancer causing virus?
Qd
/ gravitomagnetic e!!ect that is trillions o! times greater than that
preicte by 4A has been observe !or rotating superconucting isKs.
6his inicate a quantum vacuum statistical basis !or gravity if the
interaction of real Cooper pairs in the superconuctor with virtual
Cooper pairs in the vacuum is reveale to be the specific mechanism for
the effect.
?lacK hole in!ormation parao0 may be solvable in terms o!
entanglement swapping between an event horizon isrupte quantum
correlation o! virtual e+ an e- o! a 3ooper pair spontaneously create
near the horizon with the annihilation photon pair create when the
le!tover e+ or e- !rom the estroye virtual 3ooper pair recombines with
an e- or e+ stolen !rom a newly create virtual 3ooper pair in its
neighborhoo. 6he lost spin coupling in the !orm o! polarization
entanglement o! the annihilation photons composing the =awKing
raiation o! the hole.
>uly 2)**
9ne must not !ail to consier that not only
oes the blacK hole_s event horizon Rswallow in!ormationS1
Qd
but so too
oes it also estroy Creuce to zeroD1 any =eisenberg uncertainty Cwith
respect to energy i! not necessarily to $-momentumD1 which means that
blacK holes must transuce in!ormation encoe in one set o! egrees o!
!reeom into that o! another complementary set.1 say through quantum
entanglement swapping.
>uly 2)**
H thinK o! a blacK hole_s event horizon
here as a Rrecycling pointS !or quantum nonlocal in!ormation1 i.e.1
stripping o!! the correlations which provie the basis !or the quantum
in!ormation content o! matter an then beaming this in!ormation bacK
out into space C=awKing raiationD.
6he event horizon must be energy egenerate. 6his claim is consistent
with the event horizon representing a ma0imally ?ose-conense state.
Yenergy egeneracyZ Ytemporal evolutionZ Y"chreinger equationZ.
Qd
Aee!inition o! entropy was necessitate by nonlocality. ;ntropy
became ree!ine !rom chaos Ca ubious conceptD to e6traneous
information. /ll state variables such as pressure1 volume an
temperature must now be ree!ine in a nonlocal manner.
7rospectus 6opics:
H ha presente an argument !or the .orentz invariance o! the vacuum in
the sci.physics !orum in late *22(1 which caught >acK "ar!atti_s attention.
Aelate this to .orentz trans!ormation o! /a0-/at an /ap-/a; !or an observer
in a uni!orm state o! motion. :iscuss a@ an a !ormulation !or 0m an
pm an e0tening this !oumulation to the e!inition o! =m.
au=
-eynmanGs
observation that quantum statistics Can selection rulesD are emocratic
with respect to istinction of real vs. virtual fermions an bosons1 c.!.1
3ED: The &trange Theory of 2atter. :iscuss the trans!ormation o!
virtual to real in the !orm o!
au=
:avies-,nruh raiation an how a
Ainler horizon is closely relate to Can may inee be a generalization
o!D a blacK hole event horizon. :iscuss
prn=
7auli blocKing an
prn=
?ose
enhancement mechanisms unerlying
prn=
.orentz invariance/covariance
o! vacuum.
prn=
-eynmanGs parton moel1
cit=
Puantum @oise in 7hotonics1
au=
Olempner & =aroche on
cit=
3avity Puantum ;lectroynamics an
reinterpretation o!
prn=
;instein coe!!icient o! spontaneous emission.
au=
FignerGs .ittle 4roups. ;ntanglement an acceleration/gravity. =ow
vacuum !luctuations are the true source o! =eisenberg uncertainty.
Aelate
prn=
"chreinger equation to
prn=
=eat equation1 e.g.1 EiE coe!!icient
an */sqrtC@D !luctuation size parameter to the
prn=
:avies-,nruh
temperature. YFeis-JuminoZ
Qd
"upersymmetry is that symmetry
where Ea boson !iel an a !ermion !iel can rotate into each other by an
angle1 phi1 p. 2(&1
cit=
4ravitation an 4auge "ymmetries L
au=
?lago5evicG
prn=
"upersymmetry uni!ies spacetime with the internal symmetries within
relativistic P-6. "ee
au=
@ieuwenhuizen1 "ohnius1 Fest1 "rivastava1
C?ailin an .oveD1 *2N*1 *2N'1 *2N&1 *2N&1 *22(1 respectively.
Y
au=
7oincareG 4roupZ Y
au=prn=
8a5orana spinorZ Y3hiral spinorZ Y6ensors
in terms o! spinorsZ
8arch 2)**
Ht is the quantum statistics o! the vacuum that en!orces the
.orentz invariance o! quantum entanglement. /ll other mani!estations
o! .orentz invariance1 e.g.1 electromagnetic !iels1 is on account o! this
Rvacuum statisticsS o! ?ohm_s Rcorrelate !luctuations.S
Qd
6o bring
time in as more than a mere escriptive parameter1 we nee a theorem
that shows that instantaneously correlate fluctuations =as oppose to
fluctuations `correlate across time`A cannot be eBuivalent to a set of
causally connecte particles an fiels.
@ovember 2))&
/s
cit=
8isner1 6horne an Fheeler say in 4ravitation1 Rcurve
spacetime tells matter how to move an matter tells spacetime how to
curveS an so the phenomenon of inertia must be groune in the action
of matter upon vacuum in combination with the bac'Faction of vacuum
upon matter. 6he comple0ity threshol where matter becomes too
comple0 to be simulate by the eterministic1 time-inepenent
"chreinger ;quation1 is precisely the threshol at which both
spontaneous spacetime symmetry breaKing1 mani!esting as spontaneous
quantum ecoherence1 thermoynamic irreversibility1 inertia an
gravitation suenly mani!est themselves.
Qd
CPuantum systems o!
smaller mass than the 7lancK mass L which we_ll taKe as the
ecoherence limit L still have a gravitational an inertial e!!ect1 but o! a
istinctly i!!erent character than o more massive boies1 i.e.1
signi!icantly larger than the 7lancK mass1
Qd
which is a topic that
e!initely bears !urther investigation.D 6he polarization an
magnetization !iel strengths shoul e0hibit the same sort o!
incompatibility as quantum observables as o the ; an ? !iels. 4iven
impresse static ; an ? !iels o! magnitue )1 a .orentz trans!ormation
applie to a ielectric material shoul cause a shi!t in which polarization
is ecrease an magnetization increase. /ll quantum inter!erence
e!!ects are really quantum sel!-inter!erence e!!ects1 the origin o! which
may well be sel!-inter!ering processes within the so-calle quantum
observer. Hs in!ormation conserve i! the quantity o! in!ormation remains
constant while the contents o! in!ormation vary? 6he ynamical groun
!or spontaneous symmetry breaKing seems in the same vein as the
groun that provies the meaning giving conte0t to brain physiological
processes maKing up the contents o! the conscious min. 6he electric
an magnetic !iel strengths are mutually incompatible through the
incompatibility o! position an momentum applie to electric charges
an currents. "peci!ying the position o! an electric charge more
precisely permits more precise speci!ication o! the chargeGs static electric
!iel1 but at the price o! an uncertain charge momentum1 which must be
associate with a corresponing uncertainty in the electric current an
hence in the magnetic !iel strength. "imilarly1 the more accurately is
the magnetic !iel speci!ie1 the more precisely is the charge momentum
speci!ie1 which by the uncertainty principle1 the less precisely can the
charge position be measure1 leaing to a less precisely measurable
electric !iel. Hn -eynmanGs parton quarK moel the interaction between
quarKs CpartonsD becomes time ilate so that the bining energy o!
partons CmaKing up a single haronD ecreases as v approaches c. .iKe
any other accelerating mass1 i! bining energy is the basis o! inertia an
is lost with acceleration an as a !unction o! relative velocity1 in
accorance with the correct !unctional relationship -C;bD Cv1 aD1 then the
amount o! bining energy given upon the mass reaching c must be
mcWW2. =owever1 as a haron !alls into a gravitational !iel it enters a
region o! vacuum where energy !luctuations1 emboie in the
vacuumGs /a; are progressively trans!erre into $-momentum
!luctuations1 emboie in the /ap o! the vacuum. 6he magnetization o!
the quantum vacuum in the !orm o! the quantum entanglement o!
electrons an positrons within virtual 3ooper pairs1 create an
annihilate spontaneously in accorance with the magnitue o! the
ensity o! the vacuumGs =eisenberg uncertain energy is progressively
egrae in ever stronger gravitational !ielsV the virtual e+Gs an e-Gs
become progressively more inepenent an the molecular bosonic
character o! the spontaneously create virtual 3ooper pairs is
progressively egrae1 which may be unerstoo as ecoherence an
breaKing o! spontaneous symmetry Co! spacetime1 which inclues the
electromagnetic gauge?DV in this way the 7auli 7rinciple acts ever more
strongly upon the constituent !ermions o! the spontaneously create an
annihilate virtual 3ooper pairs. /n this is the mechanism by which
matterGs e!!ect upon the quantum statistics o! the vacuum is strengthene
in progressively more intense gravitational !iels.
http://phys.org/news/2)**-)N-arK-illusion-quantum-vacuum.html
>anuary 2)*(
/bstract: R6he notion o! quantum in!ormation relate to the two
i!!erent perspectives o! the global an local states is e0amine. 6here is
circularity in the e!inition o! quantum in!ormation because we can
speaK only o! the in!ormation o! systems that have been speci!ically
prepare. Hn particular1 we e0amine the !inal state obtaine by applying
unitary trans!ormations on a single qubit that belongs to an entangle
pairS1 c.!.1 http://ar0iv.org/p!/quant-ph/)$)()&).p! 4arao6 of
3uantum Information by "ubhash OaK1 .ouisiana "tate ,niversity Cnow
9Klahoma "tate ,niversity at "tillwaterD

ess=9ctober 2))&
Hn terms o! our current an natural scheme o! categories1 the
Ethat which createsE is also Ethat which sustainsE o! .eibnizG 7rinciple
are unerstoo as istinct1 e0ternally by :arwinian 6heory1 internally by
theologians. 6o success!ully remove both E:eusE as well as 4o by
e0tension1 i.e.1 E:eus e0 8achinaE !rom the naturalistic worl view o!
cosmogony1 one has to see the creative principle within the sustainment
principle Ca!ter all1 accoring to naturalism1 the ,niverse has always
been hereD while at once letting go o the tenency to wish to see this
principle the other way roun. / tenuous application o! this new
unerstaning o! .eibnizG 7rinciple might be within the ebate between
8achian an classical relativistsG unerstaning o!
prn=
;instein_s
;quivalence 7rinciple1 e.g.1 must we treat
prn=
equivalent .orentz !rames
as possessing a common origin1 say1 either through vacuum
entanglement or via cosmological initial conitions? - or woul we treat
them thus on purely !ormal grouns?1 that is1 is ;insteinGs ;quivalence a
Kinematic or a ynamic principle? H! the so-calle stu!! o! which the
worl is mae was not create an Ehas 5ust always been here1E then
.eibnizG 7rinciple must breaK own - though perhaps only within the
unerstaning1 c.!.1
au=
Oant_s notion o! Ethe unerstaningE. Hn other
wors the ynamics is Esqueeze outE by the Kinematics. "imultaneous
reinterpretation along metaphorical a0es while !orging a line o! literal
e0position behaves aKin to multi-temporal process. /t root o! all
quantum inter!erence phenomena is sel!-inter!erence o! the !iel1 which
can mani!est itsel! as particles though only when this sel!-inter!erence
loop becomes short circuite1 either by an observer or potential observer.
8y review o! the spin an orbital angular momentum theory suggests
that these two quantities are separately conserve 5ust liKe the separate
components o! $-momentum are conserve1 well at least !or the case
where v/c *.
Qd
6he separate conservation o! " an . seems to imply
that & oesnQt e6change ! with 1 in an analogous way to how say"
colliing gyroscopes =with rough surfacesA might e6change angular
momentum between li'e components of 1 =in such a manner tha 16 G
16> a 16I G constantT same for 1y" 1(" etc. 9ne might e0pect that !or
the relativistic case that there woul be a breaK own in the separate
conservation o! components o! not only $-momentum1 but $-angular
momentum1 $-spin1 etc.1 c.!.1 reinterpretation o! ;insteinGs perihelion
precession problem1 origin o! inertia in gyroscopic resistance to
acceleration1 an so on. =awKing raiation shows the e0treme case where
the entanglement o! spins has been *))% trans!orme into /ap
mani!este as the $-momentum !luctuations at the event horizon sur!ace.
Hs there a eep connection between the two basic varieties o! in!ormation
non-conservation vis a vis continuous vs. iscrete ecoherence o! the
ensity matri01 that is1 loss o! quantum in!ormation across a Ainler
horizon vs. collapsing o! 7si by a !reely wille interaction o! an observer
with a quantum system? 8agnetization Cspin polarizationD o! virtual
3ooper pairs may be consiere internal entanglement. ;0ternal
entanglement o! virtual pairs may be escribe in terms o! polarization
o! the quantum vacuum. 6he bonage to ecay as escribe in the ?ooK
o! Aomans. Fa0ing ol an wearing out. H! the ,niverse were secretly
a computational system1 then we coulnGt really have an entropy
!low/graient without a complementary in!ormation !low/graient. Hn
the same way that ;instein euce spontaneous emission !rom purely
thermoynamic consierations1 we may be able to euce nonlocality
!rom the necessity o! a thermoynamic groun Cthermal vacuum
statesCsDD !or enabling !lows o! entropy an conversely1 transmission o!
in!ormation. 3haos-3osmosV 3omple0--Z"imple 4ive an e0ample o!
multiple copy o! a conte0t-sensitive content o! in!ormation. 6he only
way to sie step the 2n .aw is to receive input !rom outsie spacetime.
3learly the vacuum must be in a Epreppe stateE !or orer to arise
spontaneously. Fhen spin has been etermine to be in the + 0-
irection with eigenstate "01 then the values o! "y an "z are
ineterminate. "o what then i! no spin measurement ha been
per!orme? 6hen all three spins woul be ineterminate Cin the sense o!
EupE an/or EownE along each spatial a0isD - an so the spin must be
etermine secretly to be "w or timeliKe. C:oes this imply absolute
irection o! time - no - because the orthogonal "iGs are ineterminate?
.iKe .eibnizG clocK whose ticKing was only notice once it ha stoppe1
oneGs bizarre metaphysical assumption1 i.e.1 more or less that li!e is an
illusion an not real1 was e0ploe by the evastating critique o! the
"chreinger_s 3at 7arao0. 6he relate phenomena o! spontaneous
symmetry breaKing Cuner in!initesimal perturbationsD1 spontaneous
ecoherence1 wave!unction collapse1 e.g.1 spontaneous emission1
quantum tunneling1 etc. constitute proo! o! the ob5ective nature o!
classical physical reality - classical physics !s the correct +escr!pt!on o,
phys!ca rea!ty at !ts appropr!ate scae7 6his is what ob5ectively real
means vis a vis recent pseuoscience watershe o! >ungian quantum
voooo EWhat the -leep Do We 'nowZ style bullshit. 6he phenomenon
o! spontaneous ecoherence1 which is one an the same with the
inaequacy o! the eterministic time-inepenent "chreinger equation
Can erivative
prn=
Olein-4oran an
prn=
:irac equationsD as a complete
escription o! the quantum !iel1 again1 is proo! positive that the
,niverse is not a simulation" but is real. 6his ErealnessE is importantly
relate to the phenomena o! !ree will an consciousness. ?oth !ree will
an consciousness EsurpriseE the allege groun o! physical being1 i.e.1
startle the quantum vacuum as cosmic 37, o! Esimulate ,niverseE
leaing to the !altering o! the simulation in capturing the state o! the
,niverse. ;ntanglement entropy is not covariant. Iacuum supports
superposition so superposition o! istinct vacua is no allowe.
"uperposition principle vs. principle o! equivalence. 6he !act that per!ect
isolation o! a quantum system oes not prevent environmental
ecoherence implies that the vacuum !luctuation !iel inuces
ecoherence. 6he min allegely oes this as well through the action o!
its consciousness. 6he min concentrates quantum entanglement an so
observation enhances the e!!ect o! vacuum-base environmental
ecoherence. ?ut then part o! what iscom!its the quantum vacuum is
the unanticipate will o! the conscious observer1 implying that the brain
o! the observer is somehow altogether outsie Ethe environmentE. Ht is
the inistinguishability o! quantum particles that leas to teleportation
an substance-liKe properties o! quantum in!ormation which e!y
conte0t-sensitivity1 up to a point1 that is. ;7AGs position was that a
measurement must be preetermine i! it can be Known with certainty.
?ut the ecision whether or not to maKe this measurement is not
preetermine. 6he less well correlate Cvia quantum entanglementD
are the1 e.g.1 electron an position maKing up a virtual 3ooper pair1 the
less oes the pair behave as a collective spin-) particle1 i.e.1 boson an
the more o the particles o! the pair behave as inepenent !ermions to
which the 7auli 7rinciple is completely emocratic1 not maKing
istinction between virtual an so-calle real particles. =ence!orth we
will term this notion o! the raically emocratic 7auli 7rinciple.
-eynmanGs 7auli 7rinciple or1 E-eynmanGs 7rincipleE !or short. /a; is
ecreasing all the while e+ an e- are becoming more mutually
inepenent1 which shoul normally imply a greater /a;. ??? e+e+e-e-
e+e+ --Z +*1 +)1 -*1 -)1 +*. . . =ow o we interpret E+E an E-E in E)+E
an E)-E ? 6he mitochonrion is now thought to have once been an
inepenent bacterium that Egave up too many genesE a!ter which it
coul only survive in symbiosis with a euKaryote cell. 6his
ine0plicably suggeste to me the contrast between EsinE an EgraceE as
being complementary entities. Fhen spin has been etermine to be in
the + 0-irection1 say with state1 "C0D1 then the values o! "CyD an "CzD
are ineterminate1 i.e.1 there is a total o! $&) egrees o! uncertainty1 you
might say because o! *N) egrees o! /a"CyD + *N) egrees o! /a"CzD.
3oul it be that the *N) egree rotation o! a spin-*/2 particle in the 0-y
plane1 !or e0ample Crather than in the 0-z plane - both rotations
representing a change !rom s = "C0D to s = -"C0D1 by the wayD is secretly
accompanie by rotations in the =eisenberg uncertainties in th spin in
other orthogonal irections? Fe shoul not here that the antiparticle to
particle with spin1 +"CzD must have an opposite spin o! -"CzD1 which is
apparently part an parcel to the antiparticleGs interpretation Coriginally
by -eynmanD as the same particle1 though moving bacKwar in time. H
suppose that the spin uncertainties were rotate along with the
eterminate component o! the particleGs spin being rotate because1
when the state P o! a particle is teleporte1 the =eisenberg uncertainty in
P1 /aP is also teleporte. 6his way1 interpreting particle propagation as
the continuous teleportation o! the particle implies that a .orentz boost
not only trans!orms P1 but also trans!orms /aP. 3on!irme that the
Eprior artE literature asserts that the spee o! light in vacuum is increase
in a 3asimir vacuum an that this is on account o! a ecrease in the
number ensity o! scattering virtual electron-positron pairs in the path o!
a propagating photon1 which must be interprete as a ecrease in /ap
relative to /a; !or the the quantum system o! conucting plates an
vacuum between the plates. 6he polarization o! light rotates as it passes
through ielectric meium C-araay rotationD. Ymagnetization
rotationZ1 Yspin polarize electronsZ ;lectrons have :e?roglie
wavelengths because o! the *-loop propagation via continual substitution
within e+e- virtual pairs1 which are timeliKe !luctuations an so1 by
-ourierGs theorem must be represente by a wavepacKet o! !requency
omain !unctions. 3ollective spin-* an spin-) are in competition in
supporting the propagation o! photons an electron/positron pairs1 i.e.1
e+e-1 e-e+1 e+e+1 e-e-. Fhen /asC0D1 /asCyD1 an /asCzD are nonzero1 then
oes this imply that /asCwD = )1 i.e.1 the spin is pointing in a timeliKe
irection? :uring a .orentz boost1 spin an momentum egrees o!
!reeom become entangle1 c.!.1 FignerGs E.ittle 4roupsE. 3ooper pairs
have *))% anti-correlate spins1 +/- "CiDGs Cwhere i = *121 or $ or
superposition o! *12 an $ an the +/- /a"CiDGs cancel because o! the
entanglement o! the +/-"CiDGs.D Hn the same way that we might asK
whence comes the energy liberate by a matter-antimatter annihilation
reaction we might also asK1 Ewhence comes the e0tra $-angular
momentum that we canGt account !or !rom @ewtonian mechanics which
appears as perihelion precession o! the planet 8ercuryGs orbit an which
is preicte by the 4eneral 6heory o! Aelativity?E 3oul the
anomalous boost in 8ercuryGs $-angular momentum stem !rom the
trans!ormation o! the planetGs (-angular momentum through a cyclic
continuum o! acclerate !rames? Hn which case there msut be a hien
component o! timeliKe angular momentum possesse by the planet1
which becomes more an more spaceliKe as the planet orbits closer to
the "un. 6his hien timeliKe component o! angular momentum resies
with the collective elementary spin-) o! the planetGs bulK material1 the
properties o! which are etermine by hien quantum entanglement o!
all particles composing the planetGs mass. 3ausality1 simultaneity an
spin-*/2 measurement: Hn one re!erence !rame1 /lice measures her
particleGs spin *stV in another re!erence !rame1 ?ob measures his
particleGs spin *st. E?ohmGs .awE only applies when certain
entanglement conitions obtain. 7robability against a certain sel!-
ecohering system oesnGt necessarily increase moving bacKwar in time
Ceven taKing emergence into accountD. :ecoherence is in opposition to
emergence. Yquantum emergence theoryZ Yspinor relativityZ :uring
propagation1 what is the relationship between the net angular momentum
vector an the linear momentum?1 e.g.1 the photonGs spin is Yparallel to
its irection o! motionZ. H! spin-*/2 is to be associate with timeliKe
angular momentum that is irecte parallel or anti-parallel to the
irection o! timeliKe propagation1 then the equation o! a complete
wave!unction phaseshi!t with a %2) egree Crather than $&) egreeD
rotation o! the spin-*/2 particle can be intuitively unerstoo in terms o!
(-rotations o! the particle within spacetime. H! a spin-*/2 particle1 say
sCzD = +/- */2 is .orentz booste to near EcE1 then1 as recKone !rom the
original laboratory re!erence !rame1 what is the irection o! the particleGs
spin1 sCzDG in terms o! sCzD? 6he spin o! an elementary particle cannot be
altere1 only the irection in which the spin o! the particle pionts. :oes
this suggest that when /a"C0D1 /a"CyD1 an /a"CzD are nonzero that the spin
must be etermine to be +/- */2 in some orthogonal irections that is
EincompatibleE with E0E1 EyE an EzE? 6he EincompatibilityE woul
perhaps be inirect1 e.g.1 /a0CiD is incompatible with /apCiD1 /at is
incompatible with /a; an /a0CiD an /at !orm a (-vector while /apCiD
an /a; !orm a !our vector.
6alent is sublimate rather than the motive lying with appreciation or
en5oyment o! the speci!ic sub5ect matter.
6he Eno-cloningE theorem is essentially a statement o! the principle o!
the conservation o! entanglement1 which supplants the classical physical
notion o! Estu!! conservationE. Fithout the activity o! substance1 which
is irreucible to !orm1 Cimplying an unconserve quantityD there can be
no legitimate temporality.
E"tu!!E is actually a quantum construct that is not conserve1 though
inee1 perhaps quantum entanglement is. Hn the way1 ecoherence
becomes a physical necessityT HtGs not the momentum o! the photon
C=eisenbergGs light microscope thought e0perimentD1 but the state o!
Knowlege o! the observer Cor mere EKnowlegeabilityE o! some
hypothetical/possible observer?D that reuces 7si?
E/aP aboutE1 i.e.1 /aP in conte0t-collapse by the mere possibility of
measurementH'nowlege. E/aP o!E1 i.e.1 /aP out o! conte0t - can only be
collapse by actual measurement/Knowlege o! observer Cwhich we are
assuming here can only be gotten by measurement1 but there are so-
calle Enon-emolitionE measurements that e0ploit ?ell nonlocality.
;nvironmental ecoherence is relate to consciousnessG role in
collapsing 7si. Fhat about when in!ormation emboie in /aP is tie to
a microscopic state?1 c.!.1 2-states superposition1 environmental
ecoherence has the same e!!ect as observation1 i.e.1 binary opposition.
6his is not the case !o systems o! su!!icient comple0ity. ?ut such
systems can start out conte0t-!ree an binary opposition-reucible1 but
lose this character ue to environmental entanglement. 6he structure o!
spin ecoherence show that uner su!!iciently large accelerations1 spin
possesses the property o! timeliKe angular momentum. Hnvestigate the
quantity1 > = . + " in a .orentz-booste conte0t. 7ropagation may
perhaps be interprete a la ?ohmGs .aw/7rinciple in terms o!
YEcontinuous teleportationEZ. @ot Knowing what in!ormation was
teleporte - 5ust that the state1 P was transmitte is suggestive o! a
YEsubstance paraigmEZ. Zb...cZ means perform /oogle search on
contents of angle brac'ets.
6he complementarity relation between nonlocal an local CclassicalD
in!ormation in aition to evience that entanglement is a conserve
quantity Cquantum X = quantity o! von @eumann in!ormationD suggests
that all in!ormation-bearing structures istill
prn=
von @eumann
in!ormation !rom quantum entanglement that ultimately e0ists within the
vacuum1 i.e.1 all entanglement erives !rom vacuum entanglement. =ow
o we istinguish uncertainty o! !rom uncertainty about an are they
sometimes the same thing1 e.g.1 intentionality o! consciousness.
:ecember
2)**
Hnvestigate the parao0ical notion that the essential intentionality o!
consciousness is intentionality in the absence of the ob$ect. /n yet this
is very much in the nature o! pure consciousness1 unerstoo as the
immeiate ob5ect o! ?uhist meitation techniques.
prn=
IeralGs notion o! how photons appear to taKe on mass in a
superconuctor that is mani!esting the
prn=
8eissner e!!ect ue to
quantum entanglement between electrons that have !orme 3ooper pairs
seems closely interrelate to mine an IoloviKGs ual super!lui vacuum
moel !or inuce gravity1 c.!.1
au=
IeralGs
cit=
paper on entanglement
unerlying the bulK properties o! matter such as the complementarity
between magnetization an magnetic susceptibility. 6his was suggeste
to me when H chance upon the @ew "cientist article1
cit=
3uantum 3uir'
2ay /ive Ob$ects 2ass.
6eleportation involves transmission o! unmeasurable quantities1 /aP an
states protecte by the no-cloning theorem. 3lassical in!ormation
pacKage as quantum in!ormation1 e.g.1 turn aroun time !or correlations
o! heate .i- chips with metastable states.
:e?roglie wave!unction as wavelength o! a physical wave versus as a
wavelength !or a 7si. 7lancK cuto!! !or energy o! highest !requency
prn=
:e?roglie matter wave implies such a cut o!! !or most ense
encoing o! quantum in!ormation1 i.e.1 vacuum in!ormation saturation.
6ie this in to the two istinct interpretations o! grouns !or ecoherence.
Ypolarize 7siZ1 Ymagnetize 7siZ
.ocal realism is !alse an quantum ecoherence necessitates inertia an
the reality o! classical in!ormation emboie in the local systems an
states. Aeality o! nonlocal Estu!!E.
/ eterministic chaotic system coul not be moele in terms o!
correlate quantum !luctuations1 which woul be a linear escription. Hs
the turn aroun time the classical in!ormation that must be sent along
with the teleporte in!ormation? 3ontinuity o! bounary conitions in
the electron two slit e0periment.
6he no-cloning theorem is essentially a statement o! the principle o!
entanglement conservation1 which supplants the notion o! Estu!!
construct that is not conserve1 though entanglement is - so ecoherence
becomes a necessity. HtGs not the momentum o! the photon C=eisenbergGs
light microscope thought e0perimentD1 but the state o! Knowlege o! the
observer CKnowlegeability o! hypothetical observer?D that collapses 7si.
/pril 2)*(
R/ typical e0pression o! this uncertainty is the =eisenberg
uncertainty principle1 where1 the more precisely we Know the position o!
a particle1 the more imprecisely we Know its momentum Can vice
versaD.9pinions are ivie as to whether this epistemological
uncertainty is also an ontological uncertainty. 9! some relevance here is
the !ollowing observation by Puentin "mith: E=eisenberg originally
interprete [the uncertainty\ relations epistemically1 but ?ohr convince
him in private communications to accept a veri!icationist metaphysics1
with its attenant ontological interpretation o! the uncertainty relationsE
C"mith 2))21 *$%D 6here are many competing interpretations o! the
quantum mechanical mathematical !ormalism.S
web=
http://5ournals.aps.org/prl/abstract/*).**)$/7hysAev.ett.*)2.*))()(
http://www.scienceaily.com/releases/2)*2/)2/*2)2)%*2'*'(.htm
web=
http://www.questia.com/library/5ournal/*7$-
%2*%&($**/methoological-solipsism-an-the-multiverse
/pril 2)*(
R8ethoological "olipsism an the 8ultiverseE e!ens the
many-universes interpretation o! quantum physics1 but raws attention to
a ma5or philosophical obstacle to the interpretationGs acceptance: the
question o! why1 i! there are many universes1 all on a par with one
another1 at a particular time the GHG is mani!est in only one. 6his is Known
as the Gpre!erre basisG problem. 6he so-calle methoological solipsism
approach1 introuce by :riesch an employe by philosophers1 such as
7utnam an -oor1 is use to answer the question.S
web=
http://philpapers.org/rec/OH@8"/ 6aKe !or e0ample my !riens1
Jia1 4ilberto an >ohn. Ht is unliKely that mine is the universe in which
their consciousnesses are quite as precisely tune1 that is in a biocentric1
anthropically principle sense1 as is mine. /lthough solipsism per se is
inee !alse in its usual metaphysical acceptation1 the anthropic
cosmological principle as applie to the multiverse is inee
funamentally solipsistic. 6he cosmos has to be $ust right for me first
an nee only possess a verisimilitue o! plausibleness !or everyone
else. /t their most e0treme ecimal e0pansions1 on their rightmost en1
the !unamental physical constants are biocentrically !ine-tune !or my
moe o! conscious !unctioning1 since it is H here who consiers the
question1 or not1 i! the !ine-tuning ha been biase in !avor o! someone
else. H have no oubt that Jia1 4ilberto an >ohn actually e0ist L 5ust
not in this1 my universe as the chance o! this woul maKe any high
staKes slot machine win or series o! consecutive wins pale in
probabilistic signi!icance. ;ach consciously e0ists in his own
biocentrically !ine-tune universe an is attene by intelligently acting
human simulacra1 which inevitably inclues my philosophical-
zombie!ie oppelganger. 6he various !rienly personages that H
simulate in my brain an pro5ect outwar into my virtual space are
inee mere zombies at least inso!ar as they are my pro5ections1 perhaps
guie intelligently by ata inputs ultimately stemming !rom the
biocentrically !ine-tune human pro5ecting !rom beyon his own cozy
corner o! the multiverse. "o we see that teasing out some o! the
philosophical implications o! the multiverse an anthropic principles
introuces a new metaphor that raically shi!ts the quality o! sub5ective
social e0perience. 6he euction is per!orme in an as if moe.
9! course1 one simple approach to the cosmological constant problem is
to suppose that the vast bulK o! the quantum vacuum is in a ?ose-
conense Ezero stateE where the ?ose particles maKe no contribution to
the vacuumGs energy ensity or pressure1 c.!.1 p. %(1 8c4raw =ill
3oncise ;ncyclopeia o! 7hysics.
E.ines o! inuction ue to a conuctor of any shapeE must !orm a close
path about the conuctor. =ow o you !orm a Eclose pathE about a
conuctor that happens to be an event horizon?
6he electronGs spinning about its a0isE is not to be unerstan literally as
in the ays o! the ol quantum theory but merely !iguratively. =owever1
the question nonetheless arises as to which a0is1 i! inee not a spatial
one1 about which the electron oes in !act literally turn.
4regory ?en!orGs "- short story1 E/nomaliesE gives a goo intuitive
insight into the causes o! quantum ecoherence.
/ Equantum substanceE isnGt ienti!ie until you have speci!ie all
possible Buantum numbers. 9bservations o! quantum systems o!
!ermions speci!ie in terms o! a particular list o! quantum numbers shall
instantiate the 7auli 7rinciple1 provie that the speci!ie list o! the
quantum numbers constitutes a complete set o! quantum numbers. H!
one quantum is le!t unetermine1 then the system remains capable o!
behaving as though insubstantial. W"ee relationship o! cellular
automata C3/D theory with theory o! entanglement an quantum
ecoherence.
Hnterpret principle o! equivalence1 motion o! test boies1 event horizon1
gravitational reshi!t1 perihelion precession1 e!lection o! starlight1 an
raio time elay in terms o! IoloviK ual super!lui vacuum theory.
.ooK at causal structure in special relativity in terms o! ?ohmGs 7rinciple
an then the eparture !rom this principle necessitate by the theory o!
general relativity. 7erturbations o! quantum statistics o! the vacuum by
real particles an !iels that can be processe by the vacuum + matterGs
nonlocal connectivity1 i.e.1 processe Cas though by a cosmic 37,D while
?ohmGs 7rinciple remains inviolate o not contribute to inertial or
gravitational mass or1 !or that matter1 to ecoherence o! the nonlocally
connecte vacuum !iels an no irreversible or time-asymmetric
processing occurs1 i.e.1 no entropy is generate.
6he twin parao0 is revolve by noting that 8 an 89 have i!!erent
notions o! simultaneity in comparing their clocK reaings.
=ow can the !iel equations o! 4A be truly nonlinear i! the tensor
equations o! 4A are coorinate system inepenent. 8aybe the pesKy
non-gravitating vacuum component o! the cosmological constant
secretly appears within all three terms o! the !iel equations an so
canceling out. 6he solution to the cosmological constant problem
woul then be trivial.
6he C-D sign occurring in the e0pression !or the spacetime interval1 which
serves to istinguish time !rom space1 to the C-D sign that serves to
istinguish !ermionic or asymmetric wave!unction !rom bosonic or
symmetric wave!unction. 6his was !irst suggeste to me by the
equation1
M7siM = M7siCsD + i7siCaDM = C7siCsD + i 7siCaDD0C7siCsD - i7siCaDD = 7siCsDWW2
+ 7siCaDWW2 = M7siCsDM + M7siCaDM
6here are spatial rotations an spacetime rotations CaKa .orentz
trans!ormationsD1 so it seems reasonable to suppose that the motion o!
Etime rotationE is a vali number. Fe must istinguish wish rotations o!
the time a0is !rom rotations EaboutE the time a0is.
"o !ermions may be interprete most broaly as substance/!igure an
bosons as insubstantial/groun. E4rounE as merely hien figure1 that
is1 as merely complementary to groun shuts out the ynamics by which
!igure trans!orms itsel! into its complement given certain bounary
conitions Ciscrete quantum transitionsD or continuous trans!ormations
Cthrough continuous change in the quantum !iel bounary conitions?D
C"ee .eggett C*2N%D1 especially chapters ' an &.D EHnteractionismE
theory o! min is most compatible with the 3openhagen E3ollapse
8oelE o! the quantum measurement problem.
9ne solution to the quantum measurement problem might be to involve
C*D inter!erence between quantum superpose states o! the system uner
observation with superpositions o! an observerGs perceptions o! the
system1 in aition to invoKing C2D nonlocal connectivity o! the quantum
brains o! multiple simultaneous observers o! the system. 6he nonlocal
connectivity o! the vacuum is not uni!orm but is comprise by cells or
omains o! greater nonlocal connectivity.
6emporality implies that the system is not in an energy eigenstate.
Fhen
prn=
?ohmGs 7rinciple is violate an entanglement is not
conserve1 a ynamics as oppose to a merely Kinematic process is
ongoing1 an o! course a certain amount o! entropy Cvon @eumann or
"hannon?D is generate. ;ntanglement non-conservation !orms the
basis o! temporal evolution an is !unamentally non-computable.
3lassical in!ormation constitutes the bounary conitions !or quantum
in!ormation. 6he reverse o! this is true as well1 i.e.1 quantum
in!ormation constituting the bounary conitions !or classical
in!ormation1 though only up to a threshol. 6his threshol is situate at
the onset o! irreversibility in the systemGs changes in state.
Q?
Fhen
quantum in!ormation capacity o! a system is outstrippe by the systemGs
classical in!ormation1 it is here that the system begins to unergo
ecoherence.
/s the rate o! increase in classical in!ormation begins to outstrip the
quantum in!ormation processing power o! the system1 then it is here
where the system e0periences a relativistic increase in mass. /ssociate
with this is a relativistic increase in momentum acting in the opposite
sense to the vector o! the impresse acceleration1 which is the origin o!
inertia. 3onservation o! quantum entanglement may b emonstrate
through analysis o! the generalize uncertainty relations !or so calle
squeeze states.
Hn the equation !or the erivation o! ; = mcWW21 interpreting the term
uner the integral1 mv/sqrt[* - vWW2/cWW2\ as the prouct o! an invariant
EmE with a relativistic velocity1
vG = v/sqrt[* - vWW2/cWW2\ appears to yiel an energy o! mcWW2 long
be!ore v reaches the value o! EcE in the upper boun o! the integral.
Fhy?
"P,H:" may be use to measure quantum scale changes in magnetic
susceptibility1 which in turn coul be use to measure magnetization
entanglement in bulK material. "P,H:_s coul measure small changes
in susceptibility at i!!erent gravitational potentials as well as changes in
quantum gravitational noise in vacuum.
:iracGs equation really calls !or creation an annihilation o! ( spin-*/2
particles in vacuum1 or rather1 a/a+ o! superposition states o! ( spin-*/2
particles. 3an a particular .orentz !rame be associate with a particular
possibility !or a quantum measurement?
Hnstea o! using 81 the magnetization as an ine0 o! entanglement1 it
might be better in light o! the paper1 2agnetic &usceptibility as a
2acroscopic Entanglement Witness1 Ieral et al. to utilize mu the
permeability an ch! the susceptibility as such an ine0. =ope!ully
another similar paper shall be publishe soon in which it will be shown
that electric susceptibility can be a witness o! electric ipole
entanglement.
Fe have !ree will in the sense o! our brains being able to outstrip the
quantum computing capacity o! the local vacuum1 but it is still !or
worKing out our character1 which is also our !ate - but a !ate that can
change i! caught up with that o! others.
?ohmGs principle/law is transcenental across the temporal horizon
where causal law becomes too comple6 to be moele by a matri6 of
correlate Buantum fluctuations - this is the iea o! historical
eterminism within but not between historical moments1 c.!.1 4ibbGs
phenomenon1 ege e!!ects o! electromagnetic !iels at bounary
sur!aces1 etc.
:iscuss: locally versus globally meiate causality1 Ainler horizons1
?ohmGs .aw an ecoherence o! quantum in!ormation.
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW*)
-)%-)& WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
=ow o we characterize what happens to the psyche o! a young
bureaucrat who is at !irst !orce but then with time less an less !orce
to rationalize the irectives o! his so-calle superiors as being in accor
with his own personal 5ugment?
=ow is a series o! vacuum !luctuations nonlocally connecte
!unamentally istinct !rom a series which is simultaneous Cthe
components o! the series1 one to anotherD only in a unique .orentz
!rame? :oes causal connection transcen mere quantum correlation
rather than being merely a subclass thereo!? - in the sense o! e0ceeing
the one-graviton 7lancK mass virtual blacK hole limit? /n woulnGt the
transcenence o! quantum in!ormation by classical in!ormation1
parao0ically enough play an important role in e0plicating ecoherence
an collapse phenomena?
Hn other wors1 can a set o! nonlocally connecte up to but not incluing
the one-graviton limit? 6he rile o! the woul-be gravity an inertia
o! the quantum vacuum1 i.e.1 the cosmological constant rile is
intimately boun up with this consieration. 7erturbation o! the action
o! the vacuum state cannot be treate perturbatively1 i.e.1 as a summation
o! plane waves Cnon-interacting particlesD is precisely the point at which
spacetime is oblige to curve. @ote that EparticleE is an ill-e!ine
notion in strongly curve spacetimes. Aather than ecoherence being
an e!!ect o! gravitation1 it seems more logical to suppose that gravity is a
special case o! ecoherence processes within the quantum vacuum.
IoloviKGs suspicion that the cosmological constant tracKs the
cosmological CaverageD mass ensity o! the ,niverse combine with the
!act that in 4A gravitational energy Cto inclue gravitational bining
energyD is nonlocal leas us to a possible mechanism !or IoloviKGs
equating o! the two energy ensities1 cosmological constant an average
mass ensity o! the ,niverse.
web=
www.cornpone!licKs.org/A/4/:.html - review o! Aosencrantz an
4uilenstern are ea.
6he /nti-4nosticism o! ;. 8. 3ioran - essay in 7robe magazine/ezine.
/ "hort =istory o! :ecay1 ;. 8. 3ioran.
E/ thumbprint oesnGt open the oor o! perception1 it blows it o!! the
hinges. <ou melt into eternity. <ou let go an ie into the moment
which is all. 6here is no you anymore at all. 6he intensity o! this canGt
be escripe1 but you realize as youGre slipping away that itGs !amiliarE.
H! consciousness truly e0ists an is not an illusion Ci! thereGs something
le!t over once all mental contents have been removeD1 then the sel!
woul be truly at home in an a citizen o! so to speaK the realm of
-eing" which is to say" eternal being.
7olonium =alos: ,nre!ute ;vience !or ;arthGs Hnstant 3reation1 c.!.1
;arth "cience /ssociates1 7. 9. ?o0 *2)&%1 Ono0ville1 6@ $%2*21 c.!.1
Y6he ;nigman o! 7olonium =alosZ
6hat meium which serves as the Egroun o! beingE cannot be !ully
reconstitute through a cobbling together o! entities originally abstracte
!rom this ynamic1 creative an sustaining meium. "ome embeing
an enabling conte0t woul be neee to !ill in C!lesh out1 i! you willD
the aboriginally suppresse etails that constitute the original
categories Crea: EthingsED that one is seeKing to cobble together into a
coherent whole.
H! we are always in time an never separate in our being !rom its !low1
that is1 compose o! this very !low that also comprises the temporality o!
the outsie worl1 then how inee o we sub5ectively recKon timeV how
is it possible !or us to e0perience temporality at all1 unless there is some
component in us that itsel! resists this !low?
"el!-organization o! matter is a symptom o! the !eebacK o! quantum
entanglement in time. 8ultiimensional temporality is e0perience by
the quantum uncertainties or by the virtual processes composing them1
an it is within =eisenberg uncertianty that timeliKe quantum
entanglement has the egree o! !reeom to act. 7hilip O. :icK might
have speculate that we are all robots persisting in the !antasy that we
are human. Hn a sense this is the implication o! the worKs o! ?aurillar
an .acan1 etc.
Fhen listening to intelligible speech one is simultaneously sub5ect an
ob5ect1 meaning that one reacts simultaneously in two istinct ways1
mechanical Can moronicallyD an insight!ully. =ow are both responses
to speech reconcile on many istinct scales o! behavior an action Cin
the sense o! spatiotemporal scaleD? 6he !unction o! this opposition is
best unerstoo through the concept o! iscourse - liKe 3ampbellGs
religious images1 iscourse both limits an !acilitates thought an
e0perience.
Hnstitutions an bureaucracies so utterly transcen the sub5ective
rationality o! the iniviual. Hnstitutional wisom is both necessary an
not necessary to the survival an vitality o! a bureaucratic organization1
c.!.1 ?ohrGs remarKs about eath o! the previous generation o! physicists
being necessary to the EavancementE o! physics. 6he nature o!
language as ne0us o! otherwise irreconcilable contemporaneous
speaKers/ authors or generations o! practitioners must account !or the
openness o! institutionalize Knowlege Cas all Knowlege must beD to
its being enlessly reprocesse without reaching e0haustion o! its
content1 which is both conte6tFepenent an conte6tFeterminative.
/ll o! the sub5ects o! Knowlege must be recast as the interpretation o!
these sub5ects o! Knowlege1 e.g.1 history = interpretation o! history1 etc.
6he istinction between ErealE an EvirtualE breaKs own at the 7lancK
scale. "pacetime is con5ugate to momentum-energy in P8 an so it
only maKes sense that there shoul be this intimate connection between
space1 time1 matter an energy.
3oncrete reality as interimensional ne0us. ?ecause o! consciousness1
reality is necessarily simulation. Fhen you stop an thinK about it1
interpersonal communication1 particularly human speech is a bizarre
process base as it is on what can easily be mae to appear a !ar !etche
metaphysics.
"uppose the universe is a blacK hole Cis o! critical ensity so that
spacetime is consiere R!latSD that is unergoing cosmological
e0pansion. 6he mass o! the universe must then increase as you pointe
out C H suppose this increase is recKone !rom in!inityD. H! the ensity o!
the zero-point energy insie the hole is ecreasing while in interaction
with the =eisenberg uncertainty principle1 then uring the time that an
energy !luctuation lasts the zero-point has every so slightly ecrease
an so not all o! the energy borrowe !rom the vacuum uring the
li!etime o! the !luctuation nee be pai bacK. "o here to is a mass
generation mechanism. Fe now have the basis !or a new equation o! two
time rates o! change in mass L one cosmological an the other quantum.
"o the zero-point energy o! the vacuum oesn_t possess any inertial
mass until something is one with this energy Cwithin the conte0t o! a
curve spacetime1 e0paning or contractingD. 6his equation may perhaps
point to some new physics or at least help reassure us that it is only
ifference in vacuum energy ensity that are gravitational an inertially
signi!icant.
=ow is a series o! vacuum !luctuations nonlocally connecte
!unamentally istinct !rom a series which is simultaneous Cthe
components o! the series1 one to anotherD only in a unique .orentz
!rame? :oes causal connection transcen mere quantum correlation
Csomewhat contrary to the spirit o! :avi ?ohm_s observations on the
sub5ect1 perhapsD. . . rather than being merely a subclass thereo! L in the
sense o! e0ceeing the one-graviton1 7lancK mass virtual blacK hole
limit?
Hn other wors1 can a set o! nonlocally-connecte quantum !luctuations
only success!ully moel causality up to but not incluing the one-
graviton limit? 6he rile o! the woul-be gravity an inertia o! the
quantum vacuum1 i.e.1 the cosmological constant rile is intimately
boun up with this consieration. 7erturbation o! the action o! the
vacuum state that cannot be treate pertubatively1 i.e.1 as a summation o!
plane waves Cnon-interacting particlesD is precisely the point at which
spacetime is oblige to curve. @ote that RparticleS is an ill-e!ine
notion in strongly curve spacetimes. Aather than ecoherence being an
e!!ect o! gravitation1 it seems more logical to suppose that gravity is a
special case o! ecoherence processes within the quantum vacuum.
?ecause causal relationships are always escribable in terms o! sets o!
i!!erential equations1 these relationships must be suppose to inhere
within a continuously i!!erentiable mani!ol o! eterminate topological
structure. /lterations in the topology o! a continuously i!!erentiable
mani!ol cannot be escribe by a set o! i!!erential equations e!inable
on the original mani!ol. 6his is why we o not e0pect that the energies
o! the submicroscopic topological !luctuations may comprise a
contribution to a gravitational source term in the ;instein !iel
equations. / supermani!ol must groun the trans!ormation o! one
topology into another nonequivalent topology such that this topological
inequivalence is ultimately reucible within the supermani!ol o! higher
orer topological structure which remains constant throughout the lower
orer topological trans!ormation. 6he !ormalism o! 4eneral Aelativity is
not equippe to escribe such a topological supermani!ol.
6his remins us o! attempts to groun the iscontinuous change in the
wave!unction which in between measurements evolves eterministically
accoring to the "chreinger equation o! motion in terms o! some
nonlinear time-epenent version o! the "-eqn.
@otice that the trans!ormation o! one topology into a nonequivalent one
necessitates a breaching o! the original topological mani!ol introucing
iscontinuities which prevent the e0istence o! any brige !unctions being
e!ine meiating the trans!ormation which possess continuous
i!!erentiability. @o consistent solutions to a given set o! i!!erential
equations e0ists i! the only possible solutions are !unctions which are
themselves not continuously i!!erentiable. /ll topological
trans!ormations must be escribe in terms o! brige !unctions which
cannot be e!ine on the mani!ols being trans!orme an so all
topological trans!ormations must be meiate !rom outsie all mani!ols
o! eterminate topological structure taKing part in the topological
trans!ormations. "ince a metric presupposes an embeing topological
mani!ol1 geometroynamic !luctuations in spacetime topology cannot
be escribe within general relativity theory. @or shoul they
collectively contribute to a single vacuum state possessing an inertial
mass equivalence1 which we then nee to account !or in our attempts to
solve the cosmological constant rile1 i.e.1 Rnon-gravitatingS quantum
vacuum.
7ro5ections o! topological trans!ormations in a given space onto a
subspace may present the appearance o! non-topological trans!ormations
within the smaller space. H! a chance event yiels meaning an
signi!icance1 it is only because o! a common1 unerlying CconcreteD
groun o! the two things connecte. 6he truly concrete1 that is1 the
ultimate groun o! ?eing1 cannot be ivie1 but can only appear so. 6o
entertain the notion o! two separate grouns1 themselves possessing no
unerlying an still more ultimate groun connecting them in the sense
o! maKing them1 one with the other1 CsubstantiallyD continuous1 is to set
up e!initions in a manner which invites sel!-contraiction. Fe Know
that the action by which the continuum o! space an time are constitute
presupposes a Kin o! temporality1 but one without scale or irection in
which the connectivity o! the pre-phenomenal is internal but at once
without bounaries. >ust musing a little here.
given a constant mass o! particles in a volume1 I with a collective mass1
8 in which this volume is uni!ormly e0paning1 the ensity o! the
volume shoul ecrease with the inverse cube. ?ut i! the particles are
themselves energy !luctuations continuously being create an estroye
an recreate an so on. . . 1 then we woul e0pect that the number
ensity o! these !luctuations to ecrease with the inverse cube as the
wavelengths o! the particles stretch in accorance with the changing
length scale ictate by the uni!orm e0pansion o! the space in which the
!luctuations continually occur. 6hese !luctuations collectively are the
vacuum zero-point !iel1 which thusly ecreases with the inverse !ourth
power with uni!orm e0pansion o! the volume containing this vacuum
energy.
@ow i! the vacuum energy constitutes the Rcalibration )S against which
the collective mass o! massive particles containe within the e0paning
volume is to always be recKone1 then the mass ensity Csomething
we_re !or the time being assuming is i!!erent !rom the vacuum energy
ensityD shoul e!!ectively ecrease with the inverse square C5ust as in
the case o! an e0paning blacK holeD. 6o wit1 the ensity o! particles
ecreases with the inverse cube an the vacuum energy against which
the mass o! the massive particles is measure ecreases with the inverse
!ourth power.
Hntuitively it is easy to see that a very long live1 long wavelength
vacuum !luctuation shall be stretche by the e0pansion somewhat uring
the li!etime o! the !luctuation an so when its energy is Rpai bacKS to
the collective vacuum state1 not as much energy has to be pai bacK as
was originally borrowe when the vacuum !luctuations began - in orer
to satis!y the =eisenberg uncertainty principle an+ energy conservation.
Fhere i the component o! energy go that in_t have to be pai bacK?
Ht went into the creation o! aitional mass o! the massive particles
participating in the overall cosmological e0pansion. 6his is how H
reconcile the two types o! mass increase so as to show that they are one
an the same1 5ust looKe at !rom opposite ens o! the telescope1 i! you
will1 quantum versus cosmological. 6he blacK hole mass-raius
relationship then may be 5ust the natural outcome1 cosmologically o! a
close e0paning spacetime. 7ushing together a lot o! mass through the
7auli ;0clusion 7rinciple !or !ermions an the R7auli Hnclusion
7rincipleS !or bosons in the e0treme case recapitulates this cosmological
structure1 when the increasing mass ensity Cas more an more mass is
pile together within smaller an smaller volumeD causing the collapsing
mass to e!!ect a continual local reuction Cwithin the ecreasing volume
o! the collapsing massD in the vacuum energy within the ecreasing
volume an against which the collapsing mass_ energy must be
continually recalibrate so that the mass relativistically increases1
eventually !orming a local Cas oppose to a global blacK holeD.
?rom: :aniel Ian 4ent [mailto::aniel.Ian4entQ./.49I\
Sent: 6uesay1 /ugust 221 2))& **:'2 /8
,o: Aussell " 3larKV Jia -ah
Sub:ect: 8obius loops an entanglement
=i Auss1
@ow1 letGs say that we EcreateE two entangle particles or photons. 8ust
the two particles now Ecatch a rieE on two Echain-linKeE 8obius
loops1 each heaing o!! in i!!erent Eirections?E 9r o the particle
potentials occupy the entire ElinKeE ouble 8obius loop? 6hat is the
only way H can see Equantum teleportation o! stateE to another particle
across the universe. 6hese linKe 8obius loops woul have to be in
e0istence ?;-9A; the two photons happen to catch a rie on it in orer
to e0plain observe quantum entanglement phenomenon.
)h!s makes sense to me 1ecause the creat!on o, oca :uantum
entangement pro1a1y comes a1out through tapp!ng preex!stent
go1a :uantum entangement such that pro1a1!!ty an+ :uantum
entangement an+ !n,ormat!on !s conser#e+. Ho.e#er; !n,ormat!on !s
not conser#e+ ,or :uantum entangement !n#o#!ng superpos!t!ons o,
:uantum states that are separate+ 1y more than a Panck mass < th!s
.ou+ correspon+ to the superpos!t!on o, +!st!nct :uantum #acua;
.h!ch !s a1soutey rue+ out !n :uantum ,!e+ theory < you can ony
+o th!s .!th!n the #ery !m!te+ 1oun+ary con+!t!ons set 1y the ocay
pre#a!!ng He!sen1erg energy uncerta!nt!es. But .!th!n the 1oun+s set
1y :uantum uncerta!nty; I .ou+ agree that oca :uantum
entangement !s create+ 1y 1orro.!ng ,rom preex!stent go1a
:uantum entangement; !.e.; :uantum entangement o, states o, the
same #acuum state; !.e.; o, :uantum entange+ #acua .!th an energy
sprea+ smaer than a Panck mass. In th!s .ay; causa!ty !s
exhaust!#ey +escr!1e+ !n terms o, :uantum correat!ons o, :uantum
,uctuat!ons 3.!th!n the se,=same #acuum state4.
:uring noncoherent photon prouction by electron cascae1 such as in
an orinary light bulb1 only about 2 in *)m** photons create by the
light bulb are consiere entangle with one another. /re these linKe
loops then relatively ErareE or must the lucKy entangle photon pair have
special properties in orer to Ecatch a rieE on two linKe 8obius loops?
8aybe it is both o! those possiblitiesT
)he >spec!a property6 !s 1oth photons +er!#e+ ,rom the same #acuum
state; !.e.; they are entange+ 1ecause they are 1oth entange+ .!th the
same #acuum state to 1eg!n .!th. I suppose some k!n+ o,
+!mens!oness rat!o; say o, t.o +!,,erent #acuum energy +ens!t!es
3cosmoog!ca constant +!#!+e+ 1y Panck +ens!ty !n the extreme case74
m!ght come !nto pay !n cacuat!ng the pro1a1!!ty o, t.o photons = o,
a g!#en .a#eength; separate+ 1y a certa!n spacet!me !nter#a 1et.een
the t.o :uantum uncerta!n spacet!me po!nts at .h!ch create+; 1e!ng
%''? :uantum correate+.
@ow1 H imagine an atom. H can envision the atom as many neste !ractal
8obius loops all interconnecting with one another so that everything in
the atom is Esel!-entangle.E @ow1 woul the 7auli e0clusion principle
mean that only one loop can be occupie by two electrons at a time with
opposite Espins?E Hn this case1 the spin woul 5ust be a result o! which o!
two irections the respective electrons are moving within the loop.
Yes; that smacks o, goo+ common sense/!ntu!t!on. I 1uy that !+ea.
@ow1 spontaneous !ission o! the nucleus occurs an must surely cause a
EbreaKingE o! about hal! o! the loops !rom one another Calthough !ission
proucts o! the original nucleus are thought to remain entangle !or a
brie! perio o! timeD. Fhat maKes the nucleus unstable? Hs there a Eloose
enE o! a broKen 8obius loop !lying in the vacuum !lu0 breeze which
when tugge causes the original nucleus to EunravelE into two nuclei?
@!st!nct topoog!es cannot 1e >groun+e+6 !n the #ery same spacet!me.
"eary open an+ cose+ oops possess +!st!nct topoogy; Aust as t.!ste+
an+ non=t.!ste+ oops possess +!st!nct topoog!es. @!st!nct topoog!es
then cannot 1e superpose+ an+ any superpos!t!on o, :uantum states
that threatens 1ranch!ng !nto to t.o or more topoog!es ,or the system
sha coapse >un+er !ts o.n .e!ght6; !, you .!. )h!s !s not an
ans.er; 1ut a cons!+erat!on !n reat!on to your :uest!on.
?enni AezniK has a lot to say about vacuum nonlocality an .orentz
trans!ormations o! entanglement. <our iagram maKes sense i!1 instea
o! .orentz trans!ormations1 you thinK in terms o! progressively greater
accelerations1 !rom say =c C=ubble_s constant time the spee o! lightD1
that is to say1 the cosmological acceleration to the 7lancK acceleration.
H_ really liKe to try the owsing e0periment1 by the way. /n maKe sure
an borrow a timepiece tie to an atomic clocK signal an establish some
Kin o! synche up communication linK with :r. :e?ranes when you
guys o your entanglement e0periment.
6here shoul be an equivalence between the so calle Rone gravitonS
limit1 i.e.1 7lancK mass in the comple0ity o! vacuum !luctuations an the
comple0ity o! what can be teleporte nonlocally between points / an
?. "ince to escape the spee o! light restriction on propagation o! energy
o! the speci!ic Kin iscusse by ;instein1 which is to say energy that
possesses inertia" we nee a chain o! merely correlate Cthough causally
inepenentD1 that is1 Buantum correlate vacuum !luctuations along the
entire tra5ectory to support the passage o! the energy or in!ormation that
shall there!ore propagate without inertial effect. ;ach iniviual
quantum !luctuation nonlocally correlate to its neighbor in the chain
!orming this tra5ectory woul there!ore be below the one graviton limit
or cuto!!. 6his woul also serve as a natural limit on the egree o!
quantum correlation o! one quantum !luctuation o! the vacuum an its
immeiate neighbor within the tra5ectory o! nonlocally propagating
in!ormation/energy. 6he cosmological constant problem being solve on
this view through both current ensity o! quantum correlation an
ensity o! quantum coherence Co! each iniviual quantum !luctuationD
being hel below this same 7lancK mass or 7enrosian one graviton limit.
Hnertial mass is thus seen as being intimately relate to a Kin o!
symmetry breaKing o! the quantum vacuum involving !luctuations in this
vacuum_s stress-momentum-energy becoming classically correlate on
top o, being ma6imally Buantum correlate Cor more generally1 where
the sum o! the ensities an current ensities o! classical + quantum
in!ormation e0ceeing the one graviton limit in the cases o! quantum
!luctuation an quantum teleportation1 respectivelyD an so inertial mass
is then entirely a !unction o! classical in!ormation an there!ore
e0clusively an arti!act o! istinctly classical as oppose to istinctly
quantum physics. 6here is a coincience between the e!inition o! a
classical blacK hole Cin terms o! escape velocity o! a boy being equal to
the spee o! light1 c.!.1 .a7lacian blacK holesD with the e!inition o! a
quantum blacK hole in the sense o! yieling ientical "chwarzchil blacK
hole equations. 6he quantum blacK hole must be analyze in terms o!
this conservation o! entanglement concept o! ours. . . say where quantum
entanglement shi!ts !rom a mi0ture o! spaceliKe an timeliKe to being
e0clusively spaceliKe1 c.!.1 spin-) !ermion-anti!ermionic !luctuations vs.
spin-* bosonic !luctuations.
:onGt Know why H inGt realize this earlier1 but a !ermion rotate $&)
egrees only goes roun a 8obius loop once an has to go aroun
WtwiceW in orer to reach its original orientation. H believe the 8obius
twist is in the !our space that the universe is e0paning into. 6aKe a strip
o! paper an maKe a 8obius strip by oing a hal! twist o! the ens an
taping them together. H! a cut out o! a tracing o! a han1 say a le!t han is
sli along the 8obius strip loop one cycle1 it comes out mirror reverse
an must be sli aroun one more cycle on the 8obius strip or loop to
come bacK to its original orientation in W$ imensionsW1 this even
thought the cut out an strip are two imensional. ?ut the 8obius strip
has to be twiste through $ imensions to be constructe. "o by analogy
Caing a imensionD the rotation o! the !ermion by %2) egrees is
analogous1 but one must a one imension so that the rotation taKes
place in !our space. "o rotating a !ermion with a magnetic !iel by only
$&) egrees must secretly be taKing the !ermion through a 8obius twist
in !our imensional space. H thinK in this way the timeliKe nature o! the
!ermion-anti!ermion pair can be proven an such a spin ) vacuum
!luctuation proven to be also purely timeliKe. 8y google search linK
CaboveD emonstrates that no one has really remarKe about this - as the
linK prouce E) hitsE. "eems so obvious now though1 right? "o the
e0istence o! (-spacetime can be seen as proo! o! a pure ( space as
well1 once quantum statistics o! !ermions is taKen into account. Fhat o
you thinK? C=ow your !ace looKs in your riverGs license picture1 !or
e0ample woulnGt match with how you looK in a mirror unless you were
sent through this same $2) 8obius loop1 by the way - heheTD
6here is a camp o! molecular biologists who claim that the
:@//A@//7rotein system that currently e0ists an even that o! the
earliest most primitive Kin is/was possesse o! an Eirreucible
comple0ityE1 e.g.1 mousetrap. .iKe the net o! Hnra there ha to be a
Kin o! simultaneously arising o! the entire system at some critical level
o! initial comple0ity. 6his may seem to suggest that the comple0ity o!
simple coherent biochemical systems must be abstractions !rom the top
own rather than EconcretionsE !rom the bottom up.
>uly 2)**
H! the
substrate o! being an change is one compose o! information rather
than say" inepenently e6isting particles =which are inifferent to the
irreversible passage of timeA" then using a bottom-up approach to
e0plain the evolution o! comple0 systems woul appear to be a stubborn
oversight.
6his is similar to the notion o! how the min o! 8an escene !rom the
transcenent through progressive limitation rather than upwar !rom the
immanent through a builing up !rom combinations o! the simplest
components o! matter1 31 =1 91 @1 etc.
6here shoul be some Kin o! simple trig !unction o! the angle o!
alignment Csuch as cosine o! a ouble angle1 etc.D o! the virtual electron
an positron spins in the virtual 3ooper pair that coul be an ine0 o!
the egree o! quantum entanglement or anticorrelation o! the two spin-
*/2Gs.
Qd
6he !act o! the orientation o! spin o! a spin-*/2 particle being
epenent upon the observerGs choice o! re!erence !rame Cin the sense o!
the choice o! magnetic !iel irectionD an ineterminate otherwise
Cunless you happen to have some classical in!ormation bits !rom a
previous incarnation o! the system that isD is somehow importantly
connecte with relativity.
Fe o! course must not lose sight o! the peculiarity o! the antisymmetry
o! the !ermionic wave!unction when trying to picture the relative spatial
orientation Cin the sense o! relative mutual rotation o! the spin +/- */2 o!
the electron an positron composing the same 3ooper pair.D 6hat is1 i!
we are going to looK !or some spatial analogue !or entanglement o!
spins1 what we have terme Emagnetization entanglementE. Aemember
that you must rotate a !ermion %2) egrees to get bacK the wave!unction
you starte with.
/ positron is an electron moving bacKwar in time1 suppose. "o whatGs
the minimum spacetime rotation !or the electron an the positron which
gives bacK the composite spin-) particle C3ooper pairD with which one
starte?
8ight the physical remains as mere vacuum !iel initial an bounary
conitions become entangle with the general bounary conitions o!
the larger environemnt1 while the spectrum o! vacuum !iels with which
the ecease personGs brain once typically resonate an quantum
entanglement must simply continue in the absence o! those speci!ic
bounary conitions constitute by the personGs quantum microtubule
networK? Fe shoul associate the structures o! consciousness with the
particular spectra o! vacuum !iels1 which themselves probably have
always been entangle to some egree with the vacuum at large.
8omentum-energy is conserve an there are quantum numbers !or
momentum an energy1 but spacetime as the complementary quantity1 H
suspecte has no quantum number1 i.e.1 itGs not a conserve quantity an
so1 without a quantum o! spacetime1 we shoul not e0pect gravitons Cor
gravity waves1 !or that matterD to e0ist. ?esies1 we have spin-*/2 an
spin-*1 which is all we nee to maKe particles o! spin-)1 spin-$/2 an
spin-21 etc. 6hereGs no nee !or a !unamental spin-2 particle. @atureGs
conservative in that way. "pacetime may turn out to be more than an
elegant an merely convenient metaphor1 since the spacetime interval is
conserve ue to conservation o! momentum energy an the
complementary relationship o! $-momentum/space an time/energy1 but
acts much liKe a Rconserve !luiS 5ust as momentum-energy oes.
Fell1 it looKs liKe the relationships o! polarization1 71 magnetization1 8
an permittivity an permeability are 5ust right1 i! you assume )
magnetic an electric !iel strengths !or the vacuum1 i.e.1 Y;Z an Y?Z
= ) !or vacuum Cwhich seems reasonableD to support the iea o!
!ermionic an bosonic entanglement being two i!!erent !orms o! a
generalize quantum entanglement which is conserve. ;ntanglement
conservation is probably more !unamental than mere probability
conservation1 since the e0act quantum mechanical analogue !or classical
probability is sqrt[7si 0 7siW\ where 7si is pure state wave!unction1
while the generalization o! this quantity is o! course the ensity matri0
where the phase relations o! the components o! the ensity matri0 Can
their temporal evolutionD represents the istribution o! quantum
entanglement in the statistically mi0e system.
?y @oetherGs theorem
prn=
there shoul be an unerlying symmetry !or
quantum entanglement CP;D as a conserve quantity as well as a
quantum number uniquely associate with P;. 6he symmetry may turn
out to be orinary spacetime symmetry Cbut o! a eeper Kin than that
pointe up by mere momentum-energy vector or1 stress-momentum-
energy tensorD. /n o! course the quantum number associate with P;
symmetry must be the inverse o! von @eumann entropy1 which weGll call
von @eumann in!ormation Cin contrast to classical1 igital or E"hannon
in!ormationED. E79./AHJ/6H9@ I;369A". Hn the theory o! the
electromagnetic !iel: two vectors1 7 an 81 given by 7 = : - e; an 8
= ?/u - =1 where : is the isplacement1 ; the electric !iel strength1 ?
the magnetic inuction1 = the magnetic !iel strength1 an e an u the
permittivity an permeability respectively in empty space.E
cit=
Dictionary of 4hysics C*2N)D
H woner i! we can taKe as a general principle !or maKing up geanKen
e0periments about possible analogue Ci.e.1 mechanicalD moels o!
gravitation the !ollowing:
prn=
"ee what happens to physical quantities in
the vacuum when trans!orming to an accelerate re!erence !rame an
invoKe ;insteinGs equivalence principle Cboth principles1 strong an
weaK1 inertial mass = gravitational mass an gravitation equivalent to
accelerationD in orer to propose 5ust these types o! changes to these
vacuum physical quantities as the unerlying mechanism !or sustaining a
gravitational !iel.
Hs the change in con!iguration energy o! the vacuum !iels that must
a5ust in some way when a particle1 such as a proton or muon is
remove !rom the region o! the vacuum? 6his is liKe thinKing o! the
particleGs inertial mass in terms o! the mass equivalence o! the particleGs
vacuum enthalpy.
Oin o! liKe calculating the *st orer propagator/state o! a particle as a
*st orer mani!estation o! the unerlying vacuum !iel1 by summing up
all the 2n orer an all higher orer corrections to the propagator?
H Kin o! imagine the atoms composing any bit o! matter1 any mass as
ynamically grouping themselves into composite bosons an !ermions
through a continual mutual e0change o! quantum entanglement between
these virtual EcellsE an EomainsE !orme o! arbitrary groupings o!
entangle atoms that are continually reconstituting themselves so as to
maintain a Kin o! entanglement equilibrium1 i.e.1 continual avoiance o!
squeeze states while maintaining overall conservation o! entanglement
throughout the bulK o! the mass. =owever1 upon acceleration1 squeeze
states !orm but in accorance with a Kin o! action or minimization
principle that maintains a shi!te thermoynamic equilibrium within the
mass1 i.e.1 some entropy is inevitably prouce by acceleration.
CAeversibility o! time-inepenent "chroinger equation eterministic
evolution1 !oreseeable by the cosmic quantum vacuum 37, must breaK
own1 necessitating ecoherence processesD /n the net bulK
entanglement within the mass shi!ts !rom spin-) to spin-* through a shi!t
in the istribution o! entanglement1 mimicKing what woul be e0pecte
!or a vacuum with equivalent gravitational potential Cin terms o!
equivalent accelerationD. / Ainler horizon Cas a generalization o! an
event horizonD !orms an :avies-,nruh raiation is observe that is
consistent with the entropy o! the newly !orme Ainler horizon . . .
whewT 9! course1 the permeability an permittivity within the bulK
matter also trans!orm so that the spee o! light within the mass changes
to re!lect the new vacuum that the mass sees Ci.e.1 !or e0ample1
polarization an RmagnetizationS o! the quantum vacuum
electromagnetic !ielD while uner acceleration1 an so on. . .
HGve been looKing at this iea o! the vacuum not gravitating. -orce may
be characterize as either time rate o! change in $-momentum or as
space rate o! change in energy CtimeliKe (-momentum1 i! your willD.
@otice that when a photon either !alls into a gravitational potential or
Eclimbs outE o! one that the ratios1 /ap//at an /a;//a0 are constant1
implying that the vacuum e0erts no !orce on the in!alling or escaping
photon.
@otice also that the photonGs (-momentum is unchange though
climbing out o! a potential an reshi!ting in the process. 6his is because
the increase in the local velocity o! light Ci.e.1 acceleration o! the photonD
as the photon reaches regions o! ecrease potential Cas the photon
climbs outD is e0actly o!!set by the ecrease in the photonGs !requency -
these act in opposing senses so that the photonGs (-momentum is
conserve.
HGve also been thinKing that the notion o! =eisenberg uncertainty shoul
be relate more irectly to the iea o! relative ecoherence o! the
timeliKe1 spin-) Cvirtual 3ooper pair creation-annihilationD an
spaceliKe1 spin-* Cvirtual boson e0changes within $-spaceD components
o! the !luctuating quantum vacuum in a changing gravitational potential.
H thinK that an increase /ap Cuncertainty in $-momentumD governing the
ecrease ensity o! creation-annihilation o! virtual 3ooper pairs within
a strong gravitational potential coul be interprete as an increase
internal ecoherence o! the 3ooper pairsG wave!unction Cor ensity
matri0D an the ecrease /a; Cuncertainty in imaginary (-momentumD
governing the increase ensity o! virtual boson e0changes in this strong
potential coul be interprete as a ecrease1 i.e.1 increase coherence1
hence entanglement o! these virtual bosons. 6his seems elegant an
invites more systematic thought about =-uncertainty an its relation to
ecoherence an entanglement in a gravitational potential relative to !ree
space spacetime.
/pril 2)**
:ecrease energy uncertainty allows less room !or entanglement
o! virtual !ermion-anti!ermion pairs. "imilarly1 increase momentum
uncertainty allows !or greater mutual quantum entanglement o! virtual
bosons.
Puestion: i! an electron an a positron mutually annihilate1 the pair o!
photons prouce will have per!ect correlation o! their polarizations1
provie that the spins o! the electron an positron were per!ectly
entangle so as to be anti-parallel. H! the entanglement o! the + or # */2
spin o! the electron an positron is )1 then the polarizations o! the
photons prouce in the mutual annihilation shall be completely
ecohere1 correct? H! HGm right1 then woulnGt this support the iea o!
there being a close relationship between entanglement o! virtual 3ooper
pairs an virtual photons in a gravitational !iel1 at least in essence1 you
Know1 in terms o! the whole conservation o! entanglement concept as
applie to bosonic an !ermionic vacuum !luctuations o! momentum-
energy1 c.!.1 http://en.wiKipeia.org/wiKi/;lectron-positron#annihilation
/ ielectric meium has a reuce velocity o! light because o! the
continual absorption an reemission o! the photons as the photon passes
through the meium. 6he ecrease velocity o! light in a vacuum
where a strong gravitational !iel is present might be unerstoo in a
similar manner L the electron-positron creation-annihilations are o!
lower ensity in a gravitational !iel an so a photon must compensate
by possessing a greater momentum uncertainty to brige the gap create
by the reuce energy uncertainty o! this gravitational potential in!use
vacuum.
8athew ?rzezinsKi @ew <orK 6imes article about 8ilitary_s resistance
to introuction o! new war!ighter technology.
mm ine0es passages or equations o! interest
3an you grant that the ratio o! the =eisenberg energy uncertainty to the
=eisenberg momentum uncertainty1 /a;//ap b c? =ow about that /ap
an /a; together !orm a (-vector o! momentum-energy uncertainty1
which is .orentz-invariant? C@ote: we woul e0pect in a non-symmetric
gravitational !iel !or there to be a stress-momentum-energy uncertainty
tensor1 nicht wahr?D
3an you grant that the e0change o! virtual photons between two
electrons constitutes a !luctuation in the vacuum_s $-momentum? Ht is
also a !luctuation in the vacuum_s energy1 but not o! its $-momentum?
Hn this sense1 the collective spin-) !luctuations in the vacuum_s
momentum-energy are orthogonal to the spin-* C$-vectorD !luctuations in
vacuum momentum-energy.
?ut this orthogonality o! spin-) an spin-* vacuum momentum-energy
!luctuations only obtains !or the case o! the so-calle !ree space vacuum
an constitutes a Kin o! quantum statistical basis !or spacetime
symmetry.
?y the way1 since /aP = [YP -
2
Z - YPZ
2
\ with the !irst term uner the
raical being the !luctuation term an the secon the square o! the
e0pectation value o! P1 it !ollows that in the absence o! matter1 i.e.1 in
vacuum1 the =eisenberg uncertainty in P1 /aP is ientical to the
!luctuation in P.
@ow lets asK what happens to the ratio1 /a;//ap when viewe !rom an
accelerate re!erence !rame.
/at ilates an /a0 Cin the irection o! motionD contracts. 4iven that
/a;/ap = h an /ap/a0 = h1 it !ollows that !rom the perspective o! an
accelerate re!erence !rame1
/a; contracts an /ap
ilates Cgets largerD
6he hypothesis here is that /a; an /ap mutually change when viewe
!rom an accelerate !rame o! re!erence so as to represent a spacetime
rotation o! /a; an /ap as components o! a conserve (-vector.
@ow i! /a; relativistically shrinKs Cremember in vacuum /a; is the
!luctuation in the vacuum_s energyD an the incompatible observable
CparameterD1 /at ilates1 then this can be represente consistently1 H
believe as a ensity o! creation-annihilations !or virtual 3ooper pairs
being reuce an there!ore the !requencies o! temporal processes1
which !unamentally epen upon =eisenberg energy uncertainty must
taKe place at a slower rate. "ince /a; relativistically shrinKs1 by what
has alreay been sai1 /ap the !luctuation in the vacuum_s $-momentum1
must increase an the ensity o! virtual boson e0changes taKing place
within matter containe within this trans!orme vacuum must there!ore
increase as well1 leaing to an increase in the bining energy ensity o!
the mass1 which is associate relativistically with an increase in mass.
6he reason H ienti!y /a; with timeliKe !luctuations is because /at is an
incompatible =eisenberg uncertainty relative to /a;. /n H interpret
spin-) CscalarD to be a timeliKe oriente vector1 i.e.1 it_s really spin-*
though oriente parallel to the local time a0is. H interpret spin-* C$-
vectorD to be a spaceliKe vector1 it_s really spin-)1 but oriente parallel to
a spatial irection.
6here!ore1 the trans!ormation o! space an time1 contraction an
ilation1 which occurs when moving to an accelerate !rame is parallele
by a trans!ormation o! $-momentum an energy Cconceive o! as
timeliKe oriente momentum or RimaginaryS momentum L because o!
the 8inKowsKi C+1+1+1-D signature o! spacetimeD. 6he trans!ormation is
otherwise Known as a .orentz boost. 8agnetic an electric !iels
mutually trans!orm1 magnetization an polarization trans!orm an the
=eisenberg uncertainties in p an ;1 /ap an /a; trans!orm a!ter the
!ashion o! a spacetime rotation o! (-momentum C(-momentum
uncertainty in this caseD.
6he bulK properties o! matter such as magnetization an polarization are
entanglement riven an so the trans!ormation o! entanglement cause
by acceleration shoul cause a trans!ormation o! the magnetic
permeability an electric permittivity o! the quantum vacuum through
trans!orming the equilibrium magnetization an polarization o! the !ree
space vacuum. 6his is suggeste by reviewing the basic !ormulas !or
polarization an magnetization1
A = B - "V 4 = 1 L -/-
@otice that an increasing polarization1 A an a ecreasing magnetization1
49 which is to be unerstoo as a spacetime rotation Cin accorance with
the relativistic !ormulation o! 8a0well_s ;quationsD. 6he question
arises whether the e0pectation values o! B an 19 CBD an C1D in !ree
space vacuum are inee (.
6he basis !or the thermal temperature istribution !or :avies-,nruh
raiation is the increase ensity o! virtual boson e0change taKing place
between the bubbling virtual cooper pairs. Hs the source o! the entropy
associate with the ,nruh temperature the increase isorer o! the
previously CalmostD per!ectly antiparallel electron-positrons o! each
virtual cooper pair? Hn per!ectly !lat spacetime1 there woul be no sel!-
7auli blocKing an no virtual boson e0changes an no initial an
bounary conitions L eternal universe o! in!inite size.
6he limit on the size1 i.e.1 RmassS o! quantum !luctuations o! the vacuum
shoul etermine the limit on mass o! quantum states that can be
superpose. Iacuum bounary conitions1 which prouce Rcompoun
!luctuationsS1 which cannot occur in the !ree space vacuum as simple
!luctuations may now be unerstoo to be !luctuation structures RinS the
vacuum an not simply Ro!S the vacuum. Ht is at this stage in
comple0ity where the system must be suppose to possess some
inepenent in!ormation content.
/pril 2)**
Hn!ormation is a quantity
relative to the state o! Knowlege o! the quantum vacuum unerstoo as
primary ne0us o! information processes. 6he in!ormation content o! a
system o! correlate vacuum energy !luctuations is relate to the inuce
lag in cosmic time necessarily involve in the system_s upating o! its
own state1 as well as the vacuum_s upating o! its image of the state of
this fluctuationFcorrelation structure1 c.!.1 fluctuationFissipation
theorem an entanglement ecay.
3an an event occur !or two or more unrelate reasons similar to
egeneracy in quantum mechanics?
6he imagination prompts us to !orm conceptions o! things we coul
have conceive espite not possessing the wors1 however not in orer
to escribe1 but to trigger the networK o! otherwise consciously
inaccessible associations L changes in consciousness necessarily go
along with this polymath o! metaphor generation that is largely
unconscious.
8agnetization o! virtual 3ooper pairs may be consiere internal
entanglement. ;0ternal entanglement o! virtual pairs may be escribe
in terms o! polarization o! the virtual photons o! the quantum vacuum.
6here is a !unamental i!!erence between comman an e6ecution that
is not su!!iciently unerstoo by proponents o! har /H Carti!icial
intelligenceD.
H! you count the number o! 7lancK areas that !it on the sur!ace o! a blacK
hole or raius1 A an apply ?oltzmann_s !ormula !or entropy1
consiering each o! these 7lancK areas to constitute a single bit o!
in!ormation1 then can you get the correct value !or the =awKing
temperature o! the hole in this way?
H ten to thinK that all o! the blacK hole_s in!ormation is containe on its
sur!ace1 where the timeliKe collective spin-) imaginary momentum
!luctuations Cin the !orm o! creation-annihilation o! 3ooper pairsD has
been completely trans!orme into spaceliKe $-momentum !luctuations in
the !orm o! virtual photons promote to being real photons raiate !rom
the hole_s shrinKing sur!ace as blacK boy raiation. ;ach photon
emitte !rom the hole is purely thermal because representing the mutual
annihilation o! positron-electron pairs whose mutual spin-*/2
orientations have become totally isentangle. /lthough the
electromagnetic spectrum o! the hole_s emission is that o! a blacK boy1
i.e.1 perfectly thermal" all o! the entanglement in!ormation lost !rom the
total ecoherence o! the virtual electron-positron pairs create an
annihilate at the hole_s event horizon is retaine in the polari(ation
entanglement of the photons emitte from the holeDs event hori(on. C6his
is our iea o! quantum entanglement in the vacuum being a conserve
quantity1 relate via @oether_s theorem to some symmetry L H insist this
symmetry is quantum statistical in nature an is closely connecte with
spacetime symmetry itsel!. 6his is consistent with ma0imal re-shi!ting
o! the blacK hole_s thermal photon emissions C=awKing raiationD as
viewe at in!inity Cwhere the hole_s potential = )D an also consistent
with a photon !alling into the hole !rom in!inity being infinitely blueF
shifte. /ll o! the entanglement o! in-!alling photons with the
progressively more entangle virtual photons o! the vacuum e/m
!luctuations that lie ever closer to the hole_s event horizon L in the sense
o! :e?roglie wave contraction with progressive virtual photon
entanglement in the vacuum progressively closer to the hole_s event
horizon.
Fell looK at the sur!ace o! a blacK hole as the e0treme case where
ecoherence1 entropy an time ilation all occur together. Fhen a
virtual 3ooper pair is spontaneously create 5ust this sie o! the event
horizon1 one component o! the pair1 let_s say in this case a positron1 !alls
into the hole an its partner1 the le!tover electron1 must mutually
annihilate with another positron !rom an altogether i!!erent virtual
3ooper pair that is also spontaneously create locally Crelative to the un-
partnere electronD an 5ust this sie o! the event horizon L this
represents *))% ecoherence o! the original 3ooper pair in the sense o!
all entanglement in!ormation seemingly having been lost with the
partner !ermion that !ell into the blacK hole.
6he entanglement in!ormation is really conserve an comes out o! the
mutual annihilation o! the le!tover partner virtual electron with the new
virtual positron that was create as part o! the newly create virtual
3ooper pair. H! spin-) in R!ree spaceS spacetime is unerstoo as
timeliKe spin-*1 then this same spin-) particle becomes spaceliKe spin-*
very near the sur!ace o! the blacK hole. 6his is because space an time
a0es actually RswapS with one another between in!inity C!ree spaceD an
the sur!ace o! the blacK hole.
6hat magnetization entanglement gets encoe in the !orm o! the
photon-antiphoton pair that results !rom this new pair_s annihilation.
6he photon-antiphoton pair is *))% ?ose conense an is there!ore
really a single photon1 which is also entangle with all o! the virtual
photons presently Cwithin /at1 which is virtually in!inite at the event
horizon1 c.!.1 holographic principleD raiate !rom the blacK hole_s
sur!ace Cevent horizonD. H believe this because H believe that there is
ma0imal virtual photon ?ose conensation at the blacK hole_s sur!ace.
/s the two photons Cnow conense into a single photonD raiate
thermally !rom the hole_s sur!ace in the !orm o! =awKing raiation1 this
polarization entanglement Co! all the photons raiate !rom the hole_s
sur!ace along with our particular conense photon L aroun which our
iscussion is centereD will eventually be returne to the vacuum as
progressive magnetization entanglement o! virtual electron-positron
pairs along the photon_s tra5ectory !rom the hole_s sur!ace to in!inity.
6here will be a 2)
o
spacetime rotation in the photon traveling !rom the
hole_s event horizon to in!inity. 6he spin-* photon becomes spin-) at
in!inity an is once again a virtual 3ooper pair being successively
create an annihilate.
/lso at in!inity all o! the polarization entanglement o! the propagating
=awKing raiation photons has been lost bacK to the vacuum in the !orm
o! a trail o! enhance vacuum magnetization entanglement o! the virtual
3ooper pairs that compose the tra5ectory o! the photons in the !orm o!
2
n
orer propagators !or the escaping photons. @ote that in moving
!rom the sur!ace o! a blacK hole to in!inity1 the light cone tips bacK !rom
its time a0is oriente towars the hole_s center to being oriente away
!rom the hole_s center. 6his represents a rotation o! *N) egrees in
space1 but is in !act only a mutual rotation o! the light cone_s space an
time a0es o! 2) egreesT 6he oscillating electric an magnetic !iels
which compose a photon are 2) egrees out o! phase with one another.
H_ve o!ten thought that the !act that you have to rotate a !ermion by %2)
o
to get the original !ermion wave!unction bacK is connecte with the !act
that there is a $&)
o
spacetime rotation o! the photon_s spin in taKing the
photon !rom in!inity to the sur!ace o! a blacK hole an bacK again.
6hat magnetization entanglement gets encoe in the !orm o! the
photon-antiphoton pair that results !rom this new pair_s annihilation.
6he photon-antiphoton pair is *))% ?ose conense an is there!ore
really a single photon1 which is also entangle with all o! the virtual
photons being at that moment raiate !rom the blacK hole_s sur!ace
Cevent horizonD. H believe this because H believe that there is a ma0imal
virtual photon ?ose conensation at the blacK hole_s sur!ace.
/s the two photons Cnow conense into a single photonD raiate
thermally !rom the hole_s sur!ace in the !orm o! =awKing raiation1 this
polarization entanglement Co! all the photons raiate !rom the hole_s
sur!ace along with our particular conense photon L aroun which our
iscussion is centereD will eventually be returne to the vacuum as
progressive magnetization entanglement o! virtual electron-positron
pairs along the photon_s tra5ectory !rom the hole_s sur!ace to in!inity.
6here will be a 2) egree spacetime rotation in the photon traveling
!rom the hole_s event horizon to in!inity CR!ree spaceS spacetime1 or
RvacuumSD. 6he spin-* photon becomes spin-) at in!inity an is once
again a virtual 3ooper pair being successively create an annihilate.
H_ve o!ten thought that the !act that you have to rotate a !ermion %2)
egrees to get the original !ermion wave!unction bacK is connecte with
the !act that there is a $&) egree spacetime rotation o! the photon_s spin
in taKing the photon !rom in!inity to the sur!ace o! a blacK hole an bacK
again?
?y e0amining Kinematic e!!ects upon =eisenberg uncertainties an
quantum entanglement o! .orentz trans!ormations1 i.e.1 special
relativity" we can via application o! ;instein_s equivalence principle
maKe perhaps less than misguie guesses at the !luctuation-correlation
structure o! the gravitating quantum vacuum. Fe shoul measure the
relative ecoherence o! the e
+
e
-
1 i.e.1 spin-) an 1 i.e.1 spin-*
components o! the vacuum in terms o! the relative magnitue o! /a;
an /ap. Hn a gravitational potential an inU!alling or escaping photon
!eels no R!orceS because both ratios1 /a;//a0 an /ap//at are unchanging
along the photon_s tra5ectory. 6he ratios1 /a;//ap an /a0/at o however
change in opposite sense.
Hn other wors1 the changing local velocity o! light increases as the
photon climbs up the gravitational potential at the same time as the
length in the irection o! the photon_s propagation e0pans which the
photon_s !requency Cas oppose to perioD ilates. 6he photon
accelerates as its !requency ecreases. Hn this manner is the photon_s (-
momentum conserve though propagating through a change in
gravitational potential. 6o relate relative ecoherence to spin-) an
spin-* vacuum !luctuations1 we must e0amine the /a; o! $-momentum
!luctuations vs. the /ap o! energy !luctuations1 i.e.1 timeliKe p-uncertainty
o! spaceliKe momentum !luctuations an spaceliKe p-uncertainty o!
timeliKe momentum !luctuations.
Hnstea o! spin an angular momentum1 > = . + "1 lets looK at the
unerlying phase space within which > is interprete as a *-!orm an
relate spacetime curvature to curvature o! phase space. Fhat about the
relationship o! @-imensional con!iguration space to phase space which
is in turn relate to entanglement istribution an squeeze states1 say o!
an e0tene couple harmonic oscillator/crystal? .ooK at helicity o!
annihilating e
+
e
-
pair an helicity o! resulting pair.
?arry "etter!iel proposes that the J7;1 zero-point energy o! the
vacuum is the resiual energy !rom the ?ig ?ang1 in!lation1 etc. H! there
is some ynamic energetic process istribute throughout the cosmos1
which is ecaying or otherwise changing with time1 an this process
a!!ects the manner o! light_s propagation1 then we are liKely to
incorrectly estimate the variables entering into the equation escribing
this process i! inee we epen on in!ormation about the nature o! light
that is our only observational inicator o! how this process is un!oling.
:avies-,nruh temperature is ) !or inertially in-!alling particles such as
photons. 9ne Kin o! vacuum entanglement !or inertial motion an
another !or non-inertial motion.
=ow much energy oes it taKe to convert a gas o! spin-* bosons1 e.g.1
photons into a gas o! collective spin-) 3ooper pairs C*))% quantum
anti-correlate spinsD?
=yperentanglement L the superposition o! all superpositions L the
conte0t o! all possible superpositions. =yperentanglement is quantum
entanglement that cannot be ecohere by even in!inite acceleration.
=euristics are necessary because learning an communication1 even
memory is always constructs that involve a ialectical process1 which is
to say a process that is not groun-inepenent.
6he converse o! the proposition that the sel! is a social construct is the
proposition that the other is a pro5ection o! the sel!1 Oantian 3opernican
Aevolution Cin reverseD.
:on_t wait !or the e0perience to be past be!ore it becomes a memory.
6his is an almost incoherent ma0im in ;nglish. ?ut in common1 it is
quite an elegant e0pression.
3lassical in!ormation is a subset o! quantum in!ormation. "o when H
receive in!ormation !rom someone an my brain processes the sensory
ata carrying this in!ormation1 my brain as a quantum computer simply
changes its state o! quantum entanglement with the quantum vacuum
!iel with which its neural microtubules are in continual interaction. Hn
this way1 it is realize that H haven_t actually receive any in!ormation
!rom the other person at all. H_ve 5ust receive a set o! instructions !or
ownloaing1 i! you will the appropriate nonlocally encoe signals that
we might suppose were alreay there in the vacuum !or perhaps a very
long time an the circuits o! my microtubule networK have only 5ust now
been returne so as to receive them. 6he question arises as to whether
the signals ha to be originally put there by anyboy Cmaybe by the
person !rom whom H receive the communicationD.
:ecember 2)**
R/bstract.
Puantum entanglement is shown to be the only acceptable physical
solution to the bining problem. 6he biological basis o! interneuronal
entanglement is escribe in the !rames o! the -neure0in-neuroligin
moel evelope by 4eorgiev C2))2D an is propose novel mechanism
!or control o! the neurons that are temporarily entangle to prouce
every single conscious moment e0perience as presentS1 c.!.1
cit=
&olving
the bining problem: cellular ahesive molecules an their control of
the cortical Buantum entangle networ'. C4eorgiev1 2))$D
Iiewing a ielectric slab !rom the stanpoint o! an accelerate re!erence
!rame1 not only the polarization an magnetization o! the slab1 but also
the electric permittivity an magnetic permeability trans!orm.
7olarization an magnetization quantum entanglement o! spontaneously
create an annihilate virtual photons an virtual !ermion-anti!ermion
pairs also unergo a continuum o! .orentz trans!ormations.
http://phys.org/news/2)**-)N-arK-illusion-quantum-vacuum.html
/t the event horizon o! the blacK hole1 an *))% swap has occurre o!
quantum entanglement o! spin-*/2 composite o! virtual composite spin-)
3ooper pairs Cwhat might be terme magnetization entanglementD into
the *))% polarization entanglement o! virtual photons Cphoton pairs?D.
Aotating 3locK 7uzzle L when an apparent parao0 stems !rom logic that
is not thorough-going enough Cthis1 however turne out not to be the
case where R4eel_s 7arao0S was concerneD. What was /,elDs
parao6" c.f." Wi'ipeia.org. 6he square en table clocK reas1 R&:*'S.
6urn the clocK 2)
o
clocKwise an it now reas R2:$)S1 then turn the
clocK clocKwise another 2)
o
an the clocK reas R*2:('S. 6urning the
clocK another 2)
o
clocKwise an the clocK reas $:)). 6urn it once
more an the clocK once again reas R&:*'S. 6his gives us a total o! *$
hours. 6his is the parao01 which is easily enough solve when you
realize that the hour han is accumulating a retaration in its clocKwise
progression aroun the clocK !ace o! *' minutes per | turn.
3an an iea which has no author1 e.g.1 is stumble upon by many
inepenently o! one another be a valuable spiritual teaching? Fhen
the ensity o! virtual 3ooper pairs is prouce an Cto conserve
entanglement the ensity o! virtual bosons is relatively enhance we
have a case in which a smaller ensity o! changes in energy in
controlling a larger ensity o! changes in $-momentum responsible !or
bining !orces accounting !or matter_s rigiity an inertiaD. ;0cept !or
masses approaching blacK hole ensity1 most o! the (-momentum o! the
mass remains imaginary an timeliKe. 6ime ilation an relativistic
mass can be seen to be intimately relate in terms o! this cellular
automata C3/D analogue moel !or 4A. "houl this 3/ moel best be
simulate on a classical or quantum computer?
:evelop a piece o! so!tware that ranomly shu!!les test questions an
answers an assigns each answer Key iniviually to a stuent. H! one
stuent gets the same answers as another1 then this will be proo! positive
o! cheating1 the number o! istinct answer sequences being *)T !or a *)-
question e0am.
Aesearch which subscriptions an service contracts are most i!!icult to
cancel1 e.g.1 /9. an o!!er a web-base service o! canceling an
ocumenting cancellation o! sai service contracts.
"el!-7auli blocKing o! spontaneously create an annihilate virtual
3ooper pairs Cpartially ecohere in the sense o! impaire magnetization
entanglementD within the !luctuating quantum vacuum constitutes
perhaps the suppression o! timeliKe quantum correlations o! otherwise
pure imaginary (-momentum !luctuations. Hn this way quantum
entanglement o! timeliKe !luctuations in vacuum momentum-energy is
trans!erre to quantum entanglement o! spaceliKe !luctuations in vacuum
momentum-energy. ?y the way1 the spee o! light woul be in!inite in
the case o! *))% magnetization entanglement o! the spontaneously
create/annihilate virtual 3ooper pairs. 8agnetic permeability an
permittivity represent the bulK electromagnetic properties o! the
quantum vacuum that are owing to the relative polarization an
magnetization entanglement o! virtual bosons an virtual 3ooper pairs
continually an spontaneously create within the vacuum on account o!
the =eisenberg momentum an energy principles.
.ooK at polarization an magnetization in a ielectric/iamagnetic
meium an 1 !or this meium with regar to entanglement o! 7 - "
an 8 in the meium. .ooK at generalize .orentz !orce in terms o!
relativistic trans!ormation o! timeliKe ?-!iel C;-!ielD into spaceliKe ?-
!iel. .ooK at collective spin states/ensity matrices !or e
+
e
-
!or !ull
range o! possible entanglement o! e
+
with e
-
!rom the same 3ooper pair.
H
von@eumann
L H
shannon
= H
q
L H
c
= H
e

H
q
= H
quantum
H
c
= H
classical
H
e
= H
entanglement
:@/ represents classically encoe quantum in!ormation an quantum
encoe classical in!ormation.
3lassical in!ormation L in!ormation about initial an bounary
conitions.
Puantum in!ormation L in!ormation about nonlocal ob5ects encoe
through quantum entanglement o! vacuum !luctuations
:istinguish YtimeliKe entanglementZ !rom YspaceliKe entanglementZ
@ovember 2)*$
http://ar0iv.org/!in/quant-ph/*/au:+9lson#"/)/*/)/all/)/*
C/uthors have written many papers concerning timeliKe vacuum
entanglementD
3lassical quantum an RrobustS in!ormation1 i.e.1 in!ormation that
cannot ecohere1 e.g.1 say ue to in!inite accelerations.
Ycovariance versus invarianceZ
3oherent meme comple0es both possess or e0hibit an are preatory
upon other coherent meme comple0es1 383_s are entity liKe. Fhat o
istribute nonlocal e!!ects o! ;7A in curve spacetime have to say
about local ;7A e!!ects in curve spacetime.
=uman nature is a re!lection o! ivine nature or ivine nature is a
re!lection o! human nature? ?ut it taKes consciousness to even come to
Know what human nature isT
H! the photon spens part o! its time as an electron-positron pair1 then we
might suppose that the wave!unction escribing such electron-positron
pairs is ientical with the vector potential o! the propagating photon. /s
the photon R!allsS into a gravitational potential it is entering a vacuum o!
progressively greater ensity o! $-momentum !luctuations1 i.e.1 virtual
photons with which there!ore the photon increasingly interacts1 meaning
also progressive ecoherence o! the wave!unction o! the photon or o! its
vector potential /
u
. 6his ecoherence is mani!est as increase
entanglement o! the !alling photon with the succession o! virtual photons
along the photon_s tra5ectory. 6here is an associate increase mutual
isentanglement o! the virtual electron-positron pairs Cthat is1 o! each
virtual pair_s component electron an positron partsD along the photon_s
tra5ectory Can which constitute the timeliKe component o! the photon_s
propagator.D 6his may be alternately seen as the photon encountering1
as it !alls within the gravitational potential1 a quantum vacuum that is
progressively more polarize an less magneti(e. 6his leas us to
believe that the photon !alling into the gravitational potential also enters
a vacuum o! progressively ecohere virtual 3ooper-paire electron-
positrons. @ote that the more ecohere are the virtual 3ooper pairs Cin
the sense o! loss o! mutual quantum correlation o! the pairs_ component
electron an positron partsD1 the less o the virtual electron an positron
components o! the 3ooper pair e0ist as pure collective spin-) Cthe spins
o! the electrons an positrons belonging to the same 3ooper pair are no
longer precisely anti-parallel or *))% quantum anti-correlateD an so
there shoul be an enhance sel!-7auli blocKing o! virtual !ermions/anti-
!ermions continuously being create an annihilate Can recreate an
re-annihilateD by the quantum vacuum Cat each spacetime point along
the photon_s tra5ectoryD1 that is1 relative to the case o! the !ree space
vacuum. 6he increase mutual entanglement o! the virtual photons
along the path o! the in-!alling photon_s tra5ectory1 which accounts !or
the gravitational blueshi!t o! the in-!alling photon through the change in
:e?roglie wavelength o! the entangle virtual photons1 by the way may
be unerstoo as ?ose conensation. Hncrease ?ose conensation o!
Cspin-*D virtual photons in con5unction with increase 7auli blocKing o!
Cspin-)D virtual 3ooper pairs goes han in han with a shi!t in the
ensity o! the vacuum_s momentum-energy !luctuations !rom less
timeliKe1 imaginary momentum !luctuations towar more spaceliKe $-
momentum !luctuations. <ou can also looK at this shi!t in momentum-
energy components o! the vacuum_s momentum-energy !luctuation
matri0 along the path o! increasing gravitational potential as the photon
e0periencing a vacuum o! increasing polarization an ecreasing
magnetization. =mmmm. . .
=ypotheses o! my theory1 which are not establishe by prior art:
Hmaginary momentum !luctuations are collective spin-) *))% quantum
anti-correlate virtual spin +/- { !ermions. Hn !ree space these
imaginary momentum !luctuations constitute the vacuum_s energy
ensity Cas oppose to its pressureD such that /a;
vac
2
- /ap
0
2
- /ap
y
2
- /ap
z
2
= /ap
imaginary
2
. Fhen /a;_ Z /a;1 then /a;_//ap_ Y /a;//ap such that c_ Y c
vacuo
means in terms o! the quantum noise in photonics moel that less
imaginary momentum !luctuations control more real or $-momentum
!luctuations. / reuce spee o! light locally means that1 locally virtual
bosons are becoming more highly correlate an imaginary momentum
!luctuations1 less correlate. 7hoton tra5ectories in a gravitational !iel
represent a conserve quantum entanglement an hence1 a conserve
=eisenberg uncertainty.
8aybe there is a quantum in!ormation treatment o! the ol .e"age
analogue theory o! gravity1 which can e0plain the e!!ect o! bulK matter
upon the vacuum in terms o! isrupting the quantum entanglement o! the
spin +/- { components o! virtual 3ooper pairs1 e.g.1 electrons1 muons1
neutrinos1 etc. H! the quantum correlation o! say virtual e
-
e
+
_s within a
given small volume o! quantum vacuum is essentially nonlocal though at
the same time this nonlocal quantum correlation were locally meiate"
then we might e0pect some sort o! inverse-square law o! the istribution
o! these correlations in terms o! the local istribution o! matter. Fhat
shoul we e0pect to happen to the ensity matri0 escribing a real
3ooper pair1 which !alls into a say neutron star_s gravitational potential?
Ht is the belie! here that what happens to this ensity matri0 over time1 as
the pair !alls towar the neutron star is 5ust a re!lection o! changes that a
comoving observer woul observe !or the ensity matri0 escribing
virtual 3ooper pair creation-annihilation along the tra5ectory o! the
!alling real 3ooper pair. Hn other wors1 gravity oes not alter the P8
statistics o! vacuum !luctuations1 but rather matter oes this1 an the
altere P8 vacuum statistics is what itsel! constitutes the gravitational
!iel.
6om Ian -lanern notes the !ollowing in his
web=
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/spee#o!#gravity.asp that R6he
rubber sheet analogy is represente as a way o! visualizing why boies
attract one another. =owever1 in that regar1 it is highly e!ective. /
target boy sitting on the sie o! an inentation woul stay in place1 with
no tenency to roll ownhill1 unless there were alreay a !orce such as
gravity unerneath the rubber sheet pulling everything ownhill. /n
this !ailure o! the analogy helps us ienti!y the precise problem with the
curve space-time escription o! gravity L the lacK o! causality. Fithout
consieration o! why a target boy is inuce to accelerate through
space1 an how quicKly it receives upates o! in!ormation about how to
accelerate through space1 neither the space-time curvature e0planation
nor the rubber sheet analogy can help us unerstan why gravity appears
to act so much !aster than light.S
H! causality is a subset o! correlation1 5ust a particular structure o!
vacuum !luctuations an their quantum correlations/entanglement1 then
perhaps the transmission o! all "hannon CclassicalD in!ormation is
secretly encoe as Ion @eumann CquantumD in!ormation in the !orm o!
quantum correlations1 both timeliKe an spaceliKe.
9ne who appears ma i! acting alone almost assurely is ma. ?ut the
seeming ma !ellow may inee be acting thus in concert with others
an in support o! some group purpose so that appearances can be
eceiving.
H! quantum entanglement is viewe as the lines o! quantum
communication/in!ormation !low Cgoverning the spaceliKe an timeliKe
quantum correlation o! vacuum !luctuations in vacuum momentum-
energyD when viewing matter + vacuum as a quantum computing
simulation1 then !or e0ample1 time ilation ue to gravity may be
unerstoo in terms o! ecrease in quantum entanglement in time with
associate increase in quantum entanglement in $-space such that
entanglement in C$ + *D spacetime is a conserve quantity1 c.!.1
au=
"achs_
concept o!
prn=
Rconservation o! interactionS.
au=
Iico thought we coul be certain about what we construct1 e.g.1 .aw1
8athematics1 6heology1 etc. ?ut consier that we must manipulate
elements over which we lacK complete control anytime we evelop such
human constructs.
6here has to be a nucleus o! nonlocally correlate !luctuations that can
serve as the basis o! the observer within accelerate !rames. :iscuss
integro-i!!erential version o! Jeno_s parao0.
Qd
:iscuss why the psychological malaies associate with leaving
;arth_s gravitational !iel only a!!ect certain persons1 e.g.1 in relation to
"earle_s notion o! zombies an the octrine o! ivine election Cscience
!iction short story ieaD.
@ovember 2)*$
H thinK an interesting premise !or a science !iction story1
somewhat in line with the popular myth o! Rancient aliensS might be one
o! an impening oomsay scenario1 which manKin !ins itsel! quite
helpless to !orestall1 e.g.1 massive asteroi impact1 but !rom which he is
rescue almost at the last minute C!or ramatic e!!ect1 o! courseD1 when
ancient planetary e!enses awaKen an spring into action1 e!enses
originally installe by our sa!ety-mine an !ar-seeing ancient alien
mentors1 !or e0ample a subterranean battery o! particle beam cannons1
which1 5ust in the nicK o! time1 in concert blast the approaching space
rocK to harmless bits. 6he accompanying iea here is that o! a Rprime
irectiveS a la "tar 6reK that comes complete with a built-in e0ception
!or hanling special cases such as an impening planetary isaster.
8ight 4eelian noncomputable components o! min lie with this
component that is impervious to the e!!ects o! ecoherence. 6he in!inite
potential barrier1 impervious to ecoherence component o! min_s
nonlocal quantum !luctuations an ivine election vs. zombiehoo.
:egeneracy pressure opposes the positive !eebacK o! ?ose
conensation o! !orce-meiating e0change particles in a gravitationally
collapsing ust clou. =ow oes virtual boson entanglement scale with
the cosmological e0pansion an coul this have any bearing on a time-
varying gravitational constant?
3ouple harmonic oscillator moel !or !ermion-boson1 scalar-vector or
rather scalar-spinor-vector system1 i.e.1 spin +/- {1 )1 * system. "pin-2
or RtensorS comes into play by virtue o! perturbations o! the quantum
correlations between the spin-*/2 an spin-* components o! the system.
"pin-2 is thus always erivative1 i.e.1 gravity is an Re!!ective !ielS or a
Rparasitic !orceS not unliKe the van er Faals !orce.
/ugust 2)**
/n inuce
gravity theory a la ;olovi' o!!ers the path to !urther uni!ication o!
physical phenomena1 namely that o! gravity1 arK matter1 arK energy1
7ioneer-anomalous acceleration !iel1 iscrete cosmological reshi!t1
etc.
Fhy is it wrong-heae to suppose that the ,niverse might be a
simulation C!or the same reason that solipsism is wrong-heae or the
iea that one_s whole e0istence has been nothing more than a ream.D
Fhat Rbreathes !ireS into the equations o! physics? Fhy the physics1
itsel! o! courseT ?ut where e0actly oes the Rphysics itsel!S resie? Ht
resies in the noncomputable Cnon-quantum-computer-simulableD
substrate o! the quantum vacuum.
9ctober 2)**
"o this then is the .itmus test
o! the reality o! the ,niverse in contraistinction to it_s being merely a
mani!estation o!1 e.g.1 an Rancestor simulationS1 namely that some its
Rphysical processesS are noncomputable. 9n the other han1
uncomputable correlations that consistently behave as though they
unerly a causal connection/connectivity where no causal relationship
can be susse !rom the observable phenomena might suggest the
opposite case o! our worl in fact being an ancestor simulation.
$-way vacuum nonlocality an the RpolymonotheisticS metaphysics.
YFigner !unctionsZ1 Ymi0e state entanglementZ
6he component o! quantum entanglement that is ineraicable1 i.e.1 that
component that oes not vanish even uner in!inite accelerations1 must
be !unamentally i!!erent than the much larger component o!
entanglement that egraes uner uni!orm accelerations. 6his
ineraicable component o! quantum entanglement is probably that which
never enters into intersub5ective processes1 but is responsible !or the
bining o! mental contents an o! the integrity o! the iniviual
consciousness in general. Ht is also that component which can never be
analyze in terms o! causal relations such that the class o! !luctuations
an correlations that were create at the ?ig ?ang is necessarily larger
than that class o! !luctuations an correlations that became nonlocally
connecte at this beginning point. ;ach iniviual consciousness is
groune in its own spectrum o! nonlocally connecte vacuum
!luctuations. ?ut there are !unamentally two istinct types o! quantum
correlate vacuum !luctuations1 those which provie the groun o!
sub5ectivity1 i.e.1 consciousness an those that provie the unerlying
groun o! causal relations or potential causal relations. It is in the
realm of potential causal relations where we have this interomain of
the two types of nonlocally correlate fluctuations.
7arao0ically1 it is the !act o! the =eisenberg uncertainty principle_s
being an ontological rather than an epistemological principle1 which
grants quantum systems their ontological observer inepenence.
"trict causality must be compromise within an e0paning spacetime
where either vacuum energy or phase space are not conserve quantities1
c.!.1 email to :an Ian 4ent concerning origin o!
prn=
,nruh raiation1
)'/*2/)&1 c.!.1
cit=
3uantum /ravity by
au=
.ee "molin.
; & 8 can be seen to be incompatible observables through application
o! /a0/ap Z= h to the case o! static charge electric !iel an charge current
magnetic !iel.
"tatic charge implies it seems that /a0 !or e
-
= ). /a0
e-
Y /a0 an /at_ Z /at
an also /ap_ Z /ap an /a;_ Y /a;.
"o .orentz trans!ormation trans!orms /ap an /a; as components o! a
!our vector [/ap
i
1 /a;\ = /ap
u
.
/pril 2)**
3onversely1 /ap an /a0 as well as /a;
an /at trans!orm in accorance with the .orentz trans!ormation because
; an 8 o.
Aanom !iel o! quantum !luctuations averages to zero1 but what i!
correlations are introuce into this !luctuation !iel? Fouln_t we then
e0pect nonzero average !or p
i
an ;?
/a0 implies uncertainty in the ;-!iel1 5ust as /ap implies uncertainty in
the ?-!iel. 3oul the 2.%
o
38? raiation be an arti!act o! quantum
entanglement meiate ,nruh raiation? /!ter all1 it has been
etermine o! late that the cosmological e0pansion is not uni!orm1 but
rather is accelerating L so that at least some component o! the 38?
must be ,nruh raiation1 implying a systematic error in estimating the
age an size o! the ,niverse C as well as its matter ensityD.
6he artist_s urge to create trusts in there being many liKe himsel! though
in latent !orm1 asleep an waiting the proper stimulus Cprovie by the
artist_s own creative e0pressionD to awaKen.
Hn the case o! inertial motion there is a symmetry that implies that
creation annihilation are balance. =ere causal relations are base in
coherent quantum correlations o! vacuum !luctuations. Hn the case o!
non-inertial motion1 there is some ecoherence o! quantum correlations
Cphase relationsD o! vacuum C!ermionicD !luctuations.
8ass can be e!ine in terms o! the istribution o! angular momentum
within spacetime > = m r. _
YbucKyballsZ & Y7enroseZ & Ygraviton limitZ R<ou can_t get a
i!!erent vacuum by simply builing a superconuctor.S
Fe may !ollow 7armenies an imagine that all change is the result o!
unsuccess!ul attempts by min to grasp the being o! ineterminate Cor
in!inite1 *peironD1 c.!.1 appro0imation errors as !luctuations1 c.!.1
perturbation theory. Fhen consiering the valiity or sounness o! an
iea always remember to treat the iea as i! it ha not originate with
onesel!. Hn this way one can limit the bewitchment !actor. ?ohm_s
analysis o! causation in terms o! !luctuations an their correlations
implies the .orenz invariance o! the quantum vacuum as well as the
constancy1 which is to say in this conte0t the observer inepenence o!
the velocity o! light. =is analysis may also imply an asynchronous
cellular automata moel o! the vacuum.
RH woul hope that we scholars are not the ones who are hyping the
ocumentS1 c.!.1 8arvin 8eyer interview on the 4ospel o! >uas. @ot
that he has or oes Rhope that. . .S :oes the sub5unctive moo or tense
!unction in the same way !or the *
st
person as it oes !or the 2
n
1 $
r
1 etc.
persons?
/ccoring to the "outhern ?aptist octrine o! election1 man is not
capable o! choosing 4o for the right reasons L he can only choose 4o
!or the pleasures o! heaven an/or in orer to escape the agonies o! hell.
Hn the vein o! moern psychology1 this is to say that man_s choice o! 4o
is structure as mere stimulus-response born o! a mechanical or
instinctive animal program o! minimizing pain an ma0imizing pleasure.
8an cannot choose 4o !or moral reasons. 6his leaves open the
question o! whether 8an can re5ect 4o !or moral reasons1 that is1 !or
reasons o! conscience? 6he valiity o! the ?ible as a message !rom the
transcenent an wholly other L as not stemming !rom 8an himsel! L is
vouchsa!e by the octrine o! election.
epi=fcbk=
6hat is1 i! 8an lacKs the
moral sense an capacity to choose 4o1 then the message o! the ?ible
coul have harly been cra!te by humanKin. H! 8an oes possess this
moral sense1 then whence oes it originate?
Ae!lections on Iernor Iinge_s an Aay Ourzweil_s notions o!
RsingularityS as threshol where /H e0cees the grasp o! =H Chuman
intelligenceD in relation to a !unamental characteristic o! consciousness.
9ne o! the emarcators o! conscious vs. unconscious is 5ust this
emergence o! positive !eebacK o! intelligence upon itsel! in terms o! the
bounary conitions to the consciousness altere by this !iel in the
irection o! the level o! the iniviual. 6he point at which /H outstrips
R=HS constitutes the emergence o! this positive !eebacK Cbetween
intelligence an the conitions !or intelligenceD in Iinge_s RsingularityS1
i.e.1 this emergence at the level o! the collective.
-ebruary 2)*$
6here is a new
term in the le0icon o! /H Known as
Kw=
R/rti!icial 4eneral HntelligenceS
or /4H. Ht is liKely that there is a contraiction at the heart o! this new
RconceptS in terms o! its inconsistency with respect to 4eel_s
incompleteness theorems1 the raically open-ene an creative nature
o! biological evolution Cgroup rather than iniviual selectionD an
Qd
the
notable absence of a concept of consciousness Cin terms o! general
property attribution as the basis o! abstract category constructionD.
7latonist mathematics1 perhaps !urther motivate by 4eel_s
3onsistency an Hncompleteness 6heorems suggests that
Qd
there may
inee be a concept of consciousness" but not by construction. /
concept1 class or general category o! consciousness may be an inborn
feature of being so to speaK wherein the various instances o!
consciousness automatically an concretely selfFientify as
instantiations o! the concept. 6his is consistent with the notion that
consciousness as inherently sub5ective1 cannot be intersub5ectively
e!ine C
Qd
note the contraiction in terms o! e!ining the in!ra-
sub5ective in terms o! the inter-sub5ectiveD.
Crelate to the Rg5 vuS e0perienceD ?irs an ?unnies hippy
moern ay hippy girl. 3ommon souning phrase that is on
everyone s tongue in some parallel universe. 6here is choice in how
consciousness abstracts !rom its own ynamic substance. /s in all
abstraction1 subtler linKages o! ynamic control ClinKing e0istent abstract
entities to their engenering/supporting grounD are isrupte1 an yet
we are suppose to accept the possibility o!1 not to mention the
!ormal/relational bouneness o!D the artificial or abstract entity being
reconstitute by its own artifacts complete with those artifactsD
collection of less subtle interactions L this is what lies at the heart o! the
notion o! our one ay engineering a conscious /H. 6he emergence o!
consciousness within slowly evolving primate brains must then be
consiere the . . .
R:g5 vuS happens Rwhen they change something in the 8atri0S L there
may inee be a Kernel o! insight here that goes beyon the classical
e0planation o! the Rmis!ilingS o! a short term memory into long term
memory1 where this memory possesses no cross-re!erencing with other
memories !ile in short term memory which possess the same or similar
Rtime stampS. 7aranoia an quantum solipsism CRquantum immortalitySD
L as the iniviual_s sub$ective consciousness moves !rom one parallel
universe to the ne0t1 the iscontinuities in his memory !in no support in
the iscontinuities o! intersub$ective memory Csee analogy o!
military/corporate RbratS who was !orce while growing up to move
!requently !rom one neighborhoo an school system to the ne0tD C=ow
one_s biography conitions one_s contributions to philosophy1 c.!.1
biography o! ;ric ;ricKsonD.
R/ chameleon_s eyeballs swivel on two i!!erent a0es as we can_t even
remotely imagine what a !lower looKs liKe to a chameleon1S c.!.1 4oogle.
/ goo philosophical essay topic woul be
goo=scrib=
Rwhy H am not a brain
in a vat.S
mm ine0es passages or equations o! interest
/a7 0 /aP Z/= h an 71 P Y /a71 /aP are not measurable. 6his is
equivalent to saying that 7 an P cannot be causally manipulate1 that
is1 in accorance with a computable program. ?acK-reaction upon the
!iel cannot be in intersub5ective terms. :o noncomputable processes
unerlie all computable processes? 3omputable as the
bounary/bounary conition to/upon the noncomputable. 3an abstract
or !ormal symbols evoKe the !unamentally open-ene process by
which they were abstracte !rom noncomputable processes? /n woul
something liKe this be the only way that the pro5ect o! Rhar /HS has any
real prospects?
6ypes o! quantum correlations o! !luctuations composing the spectra
o! /a7 an /aP where /a7/aP Z/= h.
/a7 /a71 /a7 /aP1 /aP /aP ` `
/nti-sel!-correlations?
Fe must epart !rom strict conservation o! momentum-energy when
stress becomes signi!icant an must be taKen into account: p
-
6
-
.
:oes a shi!t in the correlation-!luctuation spectrum unerlie the
transition1 p
-
6
-
? :iscuss the impersonal nature o! mutual
attraction o! prospective mates.
mm;ssay iea: R6he .esson o! the Fave!unctionS
The iniviual particle behaves $ust li'e the statistical ensemble.
"eptember
2)*$
C6his is liKely an arti!act1 i! you will1 o! the quantum principle o! the
inistinguishability o! !unamental Cor1 more generally1 RquantumS
particlesD.
Aeal particles su!!iciently isolate behave as though virtual until place
uner continual observation.
6he vacuum becomes progressively more electrically polarize an less
magnetize1 but can this be unerstoo in terms o! increases in both the
magnetic permeability an electric permittivity an not ue to speci!ic
electromagnetic action but as a sie e!!ect o! changing the timeliKe an
spaceliKe components o! quantum correlations in bosonic an !ermionic
quantum !luctuations?
Qd
H! e0perimentally measure particle masses are ue to the energies o!
these particles as e0citations o! the vacuum =amiltonian1 then particle
mass e!ine in this manner may only be consistent with the inertial
mass o! the particle Cas reluctance o! the vacuum =amiltonian to become
progressively e0cite along a spacetime tra5ectoryD1 i! the unperturbe
vacuum possessing spacetime symmetry be compose o! bosonic an
!ermionic !luctuations which together cancel out to some vanishingly
small value !or a cosmological constant1 representing the local e!!ect
upon the vacuum o! global gravitation. Fhat !ollows is a reprint !rom
elsewhere in this ocument: RJia1 H thought that on a -riay1 HG give
you something to puzzle over.S
R9O1 you begin accelerating in a spaceship along the 0-irection.
Puestion: oes this a!!ect the velocity o! the ship along the y- or z-
irections? Fell1 normally in a EvacuumE the answer is Eno.E
=owever1 imagine !or a moment that the spaceship is accelerating
through what we might term here an Eactive meiumE1 say a meium
able to inuce rag where the amount o! rag is governe by a Kin o!
stress-strain-shear meium resistance tensor. /n how the meium is
interconnecte between 0- with y- an z-irections woul etermine the
resistance put up by the meium as a result o! a boyGs acceleration
through the meium along the 0-irection.
Fell1 thinK about how as an ob5ect accelerates1 it travels ever slower
through time1 the !aster it moves through space. "pace an time in so-
calle E!ree spaceE are mutually perpenicular so how can accelerating
along the 0-irection in space cause a eceleration along the ict-
irection?
C>ust thinK about how the range o! a pro5ectile can be calculate without
e0plicit re!erence to the acceleration o! gravity which is always
perpenicular to the !orwar momentum o! the pro5ectile own range. D
,nless E!ree spaceE isnGt E!reeE at all1 but is part o! an intrinsically
EwarpeE spacetime. 6his is a 8achian iea o! course that in genuinely
!ree space1 i.e.1 within a truly E!latE (-imensional spacetime1 ob5ects
shoul not be e0pecte to present any resistance to our attempt to
accelerate themT R6he 8achian iea is basically this: inertia in E!ree
spaceE C!lat spacetimeD is a mani!estation o! the interaction o! boies
interaction with the gravitational !iel o! the ,niverse.S 6here has to be
some Kin o! tensor !iel Co! at least 2
n
ranKD1 which connects the $-
momentum an imaginary (-momentum !luctuations o! the vacuum in
orer to connect the orthogonal space an time a0es to enable changes in
imaginary (-momentum in response to changes in $-momentum. Hn this
way increases in relativistic mass an time ilation are seen to be
Ropposite siesS o! the same physical process unerlying the reaction o!
spacetime or its vacuum to accelerations1 i.e.1 increase in /ap in
con5unction with ecrease in /a; such that the ensity o! vector boson
e0changes Cmeiating bining energy an hence massD increases1 while
the ensity o! scalar boson Cvirtual 3ooper pairD creation-annihilations
ecrease Cmeiating changes in energy an hence timeD.
Hn light o! evelopments in Rinuce gravity theoryS
Qd
it might be more
appropriate to thinK o! 8achian gravitation as cause by the mass_
interaction with the quantum vacuum so as to prouce a gravitational
fiel when the mass is in inertial motion an an inertial fiel when the
mass is in noninertial motion. C9r we can consier changing mi0tures o!
inertial an gravitational mass1 epening upon the ynamicsD.
Qd
9! course1 i! local gravitational !iels are present1 then the boy must
also interact with this local !iel in aition to the ,niverseGs g-!iel an
hence the e!!ective inertial mass o! the boy woul be e0pecte to be
larger !or a mass present near a massive boy Can general relativity can
preict 5ust how large this e!!ect isD.
9therwise1 H 5ust
Qd
canGt see how acceleration along E0E can a!!ect
motion along EictE without such an intrinsic coupling o! time an space
as be!its a universal/global gravitational !iel.
Fhat o you thinK?
AussellS
Fhenever there opens up a breaK in the causal chain an one at some
level realizes this1 there lies one_s true moral responsibility. /lso1 even
without such a breaK in the chain o! eterministic action1 i! one merely
has insie Knowlege1 e.g.1 awareness o! the sensitivity in initial
conitions1 c.!.1 awareness o! the sensitivity in initial conitions1 c.!.1
chaos theory1 catastrophe theory1 etc. there too oes one bear the buren
o! moral responsibility1 e.g.1 RH saw the bus coming !rom my vantage
point aroun the corner !rom where you were about to cross the street
an H i not warn youTS H! you are hit by the bus is my culpability as
great as i! H ha pushe you into the bus_ path1 to with1 are sins o!
omission as great as those o! commission1 i! the responsible party in
both instances1 i! equally aware o! the harm!ul outcome an equally able
to intervene% 6he argument coul be mae that1 in the case o! the
oncoming bus1 the culpability is actually greater !or the person who
!aile to act L as the person who to the positive action to cause harm
must have been at that time uner the grip o! a power!ul impulse or
compulsion. ?ut society an its ethical mores an legal system o not
unerstan the istinction between omission an commission in this
way. Fhy not? Fhat Kin o! blinness is at worK here1 c.!.1 the moral
blinness that prevents most people nowaays !rom glimpsing the horror
o! abortion in the ,nite "tates.
Fe Know that there can be no genuine creativity in evolution. -or
otherwise this woul imply that the sel!-organizing properties o! atoms
an molecules are bacK-reacte upon an change by the progress o!
comple0ity o! li!e !orms. Hnitial an bounary conition as well as
causal relationships cannot be merely constraints upon quantum
!luctuations an their conitions.
mm ine0es passages or equations o! interest
6he artist_s urge to create trusts in there being many liKe himsel! though
in latent !orm1 asleep an waiting the proper stimulus Cprovie by the
artist_s own creative e0pressionD to awaKen.
Hn the case o! inertial motion there is a symmetry that implies that
creation an annihilation are balance. =ere causal relations are base in
coherent quantum relations are base in coherent quantum correlations
o! vacuum !luctuations. Hn the case o! non-inertial motion1 there is some
ecoherence o! quantum correlations Cphase relationsD o! vacuum
C!ermionicD !luctuations.
8ass can be e!ine in terms o! the istribution o! angular momentum
within spacetime > = m r. _
YbucKyballsZ & Y7enroseZ & Ygraviton limitZ R<ou can_t get a
i!!erent vacuum by simply builing a superconuctor.S
Fe may !ollow 7armenies an imagine that all change is the result o!
unsuccess!ul attempts by min to grasp the being o! ineterminate Cor
in!inite1 *peironD1 c.!.1 appro0imation errors as !luctuations1 c.!.1
perturbation theory. Fhen consiering the valiity or sounness o! an
iea always remember to treat the iea as i! it ha not originate with
onesel!. Hn the way one can limit the bewitchment !actor. ?ohm_s
analysis o! causation in terms o! !luctuations an their correlations
implies the .orenz invariance o! the quantum vacuum as well as the
constancy1 which is to say in this conte0t the observer inepenence o!
the velocity o! light. =is analysis may also imply an asynchronous
cellular automata moel o! the vacuum.
RH woul hope that we scholars are not the ones who are hyping the
ocumentS1 c.!.1 8arvin 8eyer interview on the 4ospel o! >uas. @ot
that he has or oes Rhope that. . .S :oes the sub5unctive moo or tense
!unction in the same way !or the *
st
person as it oes !or the 2
n
1 $
r
1 etc.
persons?
/ccoring to the "outhern ?aptist octrine o! election1 man is not
capable o! choosing 4o for the right reasons L he can only choose 4o
!or the pleasures o! heaven an/or in orer to escape the agonies o! hell.
Hn the vein o! moern psychology1 this is to say that man_s choice o! 4o
is structure as mere stimulus-response born o! a mechanical or
instinctive animal program o! minimizing pain an ma0imizing pleasure.
8an cannot choose 4o !or moral reasons. 6his leaves open the
question o! whether 8an can re5ect 4o !or moral reasons1 that is1 !or
reasons o! conscience? 6he valiity o! the ?ible as a message !rom the
transcenent an wholly other L as not stemming !rom 8an himsel! L is
vouchsa!e by the octrine o! election. 6hat is1 i! 8an lacKs the moral
sense an capacity to choose 4o1 then the message o! the ?ible coul
have harly been cra!te by humanKin. H! 8an oes possess this moral
sense1 then whence oes it originate?
Ae!lections on Iernor Iinge_s notion o! RsingularityS as threshol where
/H e0cees the grasp o! =H Chuman intelligenceD in relation to a
!unamental characteristic o! consciousness. 9ne o! the emarcators o!
conscious vs. unconscious is 5ust this emergence o! positive !eebacK o!
intelligence upon itsel! in terms o! the bounary conitions to the
consciousness altere by this !iel in the irection o! at the level o! the
iniviual. 6he point at which /H outstrips R=HS is the emergence o!
this positive !eebacK Cbetween intelligence an the conitions !or
intelligenceD in Iinge_s RsingularityS1 i.e.1 this emergence at the level o!
the collective.
Crelate to the Rg5 vuS e0perienceD ?irs an ?unnies hippy
moern ay hippy girl. 3ommon souning phrase that is on
everyone s tongue in some parallel universe. 6here is choice in how
consciousness abstracts !rom its own ynamic substance. /s in all
abstraction1 subtler linKages o! ynamic control ClinKing e0istent abstract
entities to their engenering/supporting grounD are isrupte1 an yet
we are suppose to accept the possibility o! not to mention
!ormal/relational bounenessD being reconstitute by its own arti!acts
complete with those arti!acts_ collection o! less subtle interactions L this
is what lies at the heart o! the notion o! our one ay engineering a
conscious /H. 6he emergence o! consciousness within slowly evolving
primate brains must then be consiere the . . .
R:g5 vuS happens Rwhen they change something in the 8atri0S L there
may inee be a Kernel o! insight here that goes beyon the classical
e0planation o! Rthe mis-!ilingS o! a short term memory into long term
memoryS where this memory must possess no cross-re!erencing with
other memories !ile in short term memory with the same or similar
Rtime stampS. 7aranoia an quantum solipsism CRquantum
immortalitySD L as the iniviual_s sub$ective consciousness moves !rom
one parallel universe to the ne0t the iscontinuities in his memory !in
no support in iscontinuities o! intersub$ective memory Csee analogy o!
military/corporate RbratS who was !orce while growing up to move
!requently !rom one neighborhoo an school system to the ne0tD C=ow
one_s to biography conitions one_s contributions to philosophy1 c.!.1
biography o! ;ric ;ricKsonD.
R/ chameleon_s eyeballs swivel on two i!!erent a0es as we can_t even
remotely imagine what a !lower looKs liKe to a chameleon1S c.!.1 4oogle.
/ goo philosophical essay topic woul be Rwhy H am not a brain in a
vat.S
/a7 0 /aP Z/= h an 71 P Y /a71 /aP are not measurable. 6his is
equivalent to saying that 7 an P cannot be causally manipulate1 that
is1 in accorance with a computable program. ?acK-reaction upon the
!iel cannot be in intersub5ective terms. :o noncomputable processes
unerlie all computable processes? 3omputable as the
bounary/bounary conition to/upon the noncomputable. 3an abstract
or !ormal symbols evoKe the !unamentally open-ene process by
which they were abstracte !rom noncomputable processes? /n woul
something liKe this be the only way that the pro5ect o! Rhar /HS has any
real prospects?
6ypes o! quantum correlations o! !luctuations composing the spectra
o! /a7 an /aP where /a7/aP Z/= h.
/a7 /a71 /a7 /aP1 /aP /aP ` `
/nti-sel!-correlations?
Fe must epart !rom strict conservation o! momentum-energy when
stress becomes signi!icant an must be taKen into account: p
-
6
-
.
:oes a shi!t in the correlation-!luctuation spectrum unerlie the
transition1 p
-
6
-
? :iscuss the impersonal nature o! mutual
attraction o! prospective mates.
mm;ssay iea: R6he .esson o! the Fave!unctionS
6he iniviual particle behaves 5ust liKe the statistical ensemble. Aeal
particles su!!iciently isolate behave as though virtual until place uner
continual observation.
6he vacuum becomes progressively more electrically polarize an less
magnetize1 but can this be unerstoo in terms o! increases in both the
magnetic permeability an electric permittivity an not ue to speci!ic
electromagnetic action but as a sie e!!ect o! changing the timeliKe an
spaceliKe components o! quantum correlations in bosonic an !ermionic
quantum !luctuations?
H! e0perimentally measure particle masses are ue to the energies o!
these particles as e0citations o! the vacuum =amiltonian1 then particle
mass e!ine in this manner may only be consistent with the inertial
mass o! the particle Cas reluctance o! the vacuum =amiltonian to become
progressively e0cite along a spacetime tra5ectoryD i! the unperturbe
vacuum possessing spacetime symmetry be compose o! bosonic an
!ermionic !luctuations which together cancel out to some vanishingly
small value !or a cosmological constant representing the local e!!ect
upon the vacuum o! global gravitation. Fhat !ollows is a reprint !rom
elsewhere in this ocument: RJia1 H thought that on a -riay1 HG give
you something to puzzle over.
9O1 you begin accelerating in a spaceship along the 0-irection.
Puestion: oes this a!!ect the velocity o! the ship along the y- or z-
irections? Fell1 normally in a EvacuumE the answer is Eno.E
=owever1 imagine !or a moment that the spaceship is accelerating
through what we might term here an Eactive meiumE1 say a meium
able to inuce rag where the amount o! rag is governe by a Kin o!
stress-strain-shear meium resistance tensor. /n how the meium is
interconnecte between 0- with y- an z-irections woul etermine the
resistance put up by the meium as a result o! a boyGs acceleration
through the meium along the 0-irection.
Fell1 thinK about how as an ob5ect accelerates1 it travels ever slower
through time1 the !aster it moves through space. "pace an time in so-
calle E!ree spaceE are mutually perpenicular so how can accelerating
along the 0-irection in space cause a eceleration along the ict-
irection?
C>ust thinK about how the range o! a pro5ectile can be calculate without
e0plicit re!erence to the acceleration o! gravity which is always
perpenicular to the !orwar momentum o! the pro5ectile own range. D
,nless E!ree spaceE isnGt E!reeE at all1 but is part o! an intrinsically
EwarpeE spacetime. 6his is a 8achian iea o! course that in genuinely
!ree space1 i.e.1 within a truly E!latE (-imensional spacetime1 ob5ects
shoul not be e0pecte to present any resistance to our attempt to
accelerate themT R6he 8achian iea is basically this: inertia in E!ree
spaceE C!lat spacetimeD is a mani!estation o! the interaction o! boies
interaction with the gravitational !iel o! the ,niverse.S
Hn light o! evelopments in Rinuce gravity theoryS it might be more
appropriate to thinK o! 8achian gravitation as cause by the mass_
interaction with the quantum vacuum so as to prouce a gravitational
!iel when the mass is in inertial motion an an inertial !iel when the
mass is in noninertial motion.
9! course1 i! local gravitational !iels are present1 then the boy must
also interact with this local !iel in aition to the ,niverseGs g-!iel an
hence the e!!ective inertial mass o! the boy woul be e0pecte to be
larger !or a mass present near a massive boy Can general relativity can
preict 5ust how large this e!!ect isD.
9therwise1 H 5ust canGt see how acceleration along E0E can a!!ect motion
along EictE without such an intrinsic coupling o! time an space as be!its
a universal/global gravitational !iel.
Fhat o you thinK?
Aussell
Fhenever there opens up a breaK in the causal chain a one at some
level realizes this1 there lies one_s true moral responsibility. /lso1 even
without such a breaK in the chain o! eterministic action1 i! one merely
has insie Knowlege1 e.g.1 awareness o! the sensitivity in initial
conitions1 c.!.1 awareness o! the sensitivity in initial conitions1 c.!.1
chaos theory1 catastrophe theory1 etc. there too oes one bear the buren
o! moral responsibility1 e.g.1 RH saw the bus coming !rom my vantage
point aroun the corner !rom where you were about to cross the street
an H i not warn youTS H! you are hit by the bus is my culpability as
great as i! H ha pushe you into the bus_ path1 to wit1 are sins o!
omission as great as those o! commission1 i! the responsible party in
both instances1 i! equally aware o! the harm!ul outcome an equally able
to intervene% 6he argument coul be mae that1 in the case o! the
oncoming bus1 the culpability is actually greater !or the person who
!aile to act L as the person who committe the positive action to cause
harm must have been at that time uner the grip o! a power!ul impulse
or compulsion. ?ut society an its ethical mores an legal system o
not unerstan the istinction between omission an commission in this
way. Fhy not? Fhat Kin o! blinness is at worK here1 c.!.1 the moral
blinness that prevents most people nowaays !rom glimpsing the horror
o! abortion in the ,nite "tates.
Fe Know that there can be no genuine creativity in evolution. -or
otherwise this woul imply that the sel!-organizing properties o! atoms
an molecules are bacK-reacte upon an change by the progress o!
comple0ity o! li!e !orms. Hnitial an bounary conition as well as
causal relationships cannot be merely constraints upon quantum
!luctuations an their conitions.
/pril 2)**
6his woul prevent the
possibility !or the genuine emergence o! orer as oppose to the
revealing or enabling o! pree0istent latent orer.
"uppose the universe is a blacK hole Cis o! critical ensity so that
spacetime is consiere R!latSD that is unergoing cosmological
e0pansion. 6he mass o! the universe must then increase as you pointe
out C H suppose this increase is recKone !rom in!inityD. H! the ensity o!
the zero-point energy insie the hole is ecreasing while in interaction
with the =eisenberg uncertainty principle1 then uring the time that an
energy !luctuation lasts the zero-point has every so slightly ecrease
an so not all o! the energy borrowe !rom the vacuum uring the
li!etime o! the !luctuation nee be pai bacK. "o here to is a mass
generation mechanism. Fe now have the basis !or a new equation o! two
time rates o! change in mass L one cosmological an the other quantum.
"o the zero-point energy o! the vacuum oesn_t possess any inertial
mass until something is one with this energy Cwithin the conte0t o! a
curve spacetime1 e0paning or contractingD. 6his equation may perhaps
point to some new physics or at least help reassure us that it is only
ifferences in vacuum energy ensity that are gravitational an inertially
signi!icant.
=ow is a series o! vacuum !luctuations nonlocally connecte
!unamentally istinct !rom a series which is simultaneous Cthe
components o! the series1 one to anotherD only in a unique .orentz
!rame? :oes causal connection transcen mere quantum correlation
Csomewhat contrary to the spirit o! :avi ?ohm_s observations on the
sub5ect1 perhapsD. . . rather than being merely a subclass thereo! L in the
sense o! e0ceeing the one-graviton1 7lancK mass virtual blacK hole
limit?
Hn other wors1 can a set o! nonlocally-connecte quantum !luctuations
only success!ully moel causality up to but not incluing the one-
graviton limit? 6he rile o! the woul-be gravity an inertia o! the
quantum vacuum1 i.e.1 the cosmological constant rile is intimately
boun up with this consieration. 7erturbation o! the action o! the
vacuum state that cannot be treate pertubatively1 i.e.1 as a summation o!
plane waves Cnon-interacting particlesD is precisely the point at which
spacetime is oblige to curve. @ote that RparticleS is an ill-e!ine
notion in strongly curve spacetimes. Aather than ecoherence being an
e!!ect o! gravitation1 it seems more logical to suppose that gravity is a
special case o! ecoherence processes within the quantum vacuum.
?ecause causal relationships are always escribable in terms o! sets o!
i!!erential equations1 these relationships must be suppose to inhere
within a continuously i!!erentiable mani!ol o! eterminate topological
structure. /lterations in the topology o! a continuously i!!erentiable
mani!ol cannot be escribe by a set o! i!!erential equations e!inable
on the original mani!ol. 6his is why we o not e0pect that the energies
o! the submicroscopic topological !luctuations comprise a contribution
to a gravitational source term in the ;instein !iel equations. /
supermani!ol must groun the trans!ormation o! one topology into
another nonequivalent topology such that this topological inequivalence
is ultimately reucible within the supermani!ol o! higher orer
topological structure which remains constant throughout the lower orer
topological trans!ormation. 6he !ormalism o! 4eneral Aelativity is not
equippe to escribe such a topological supermani!ol.
6his remins us o! attempts to groun the iscontinuous change in the
wave!unction which in between measurements evolves eterministically
accoring to the "chreinger equation o! motion in terms o! some
nonlinear time-epenent version o! the "-eqn.
@otice that the trans!ormation o! one topology into a nonequivalent one
necessitates a breaching o! the original topological mani!ol introucing
iscontinuities which prevent the e0istence o! any brige !unctions being
e!ine meiating the trans!ormation which possess continuous
i!!erentiability. @o consistent solutions to a given set o! i!!erential
equations e0ists i! the only possible solutions are !unctions which are
themselves not continuously i!!erentiable. /ll topological
trans!ormations must be escribe in terms o! brige !unctions which
cannot be e!ine on the mani!ols being trans!orme an so all
topological trans!ormations must be meiate !rom outsie all mani!ols
o! eterminate topological structure taKing part in the topological
trans!ormations. "ince a metric presupposes an embeing topological
mani!ol1 geometroynamic !luctuations in spacetime topology cannot
be escribe within general relativity theory. @or shoul they
collectively contribute to a single vacuum state possessing an inertial
mass equivalence1 which we then nee to account !or in our attempts to
solve the cosmological constant rile1 i.e.1 Rnon-gravitatingS quantum
vacuum.
7ro5ections o! topological trans!ormations in a given space onto a
subspace may present the appearance o! non-topological trans!ormations
within the smaller space. H! a chance event yiels meaning an
signi!icance1 it is only because o! a common1 unerlying CconcreteD
groun o! the two things connecte. 6he truly concrete1 that is1 the
ultimate groun o! ?eing1 cannot be ivie1 but can only appear so. 6o
entertain the notion o! two separate grouns1 themselves possessing no
unerlying an still more ultimate groun connecting them in the sense
o! maKing them1 one with the other1 CsubstantiallyD continuous1 is to set
up e!initions in a manner which invites sel!-contraiction. Fe Know
that the action by which the continuum o! space an time are constitute
presupposes a Kin o! temporality1 but one without scale or irection in
which the connectivity o! the pre-phenomenal is internal but at once
without bounaries. >ust musing a little here.
given a constant mass o! particles in a volume1 I with a collective mass1
8 in which this volume is uni!ormly e0paning1 the ensity o! the
volume shoul ecrease with the inverse cube. ?ut i! the particles are
themselves energy !luctuations continuously being create an estroye
an recreate an so on. . . 1 then we woul e0pect that the number
ensity o! these !luctuations to ecrease with the inverse cube as the
wavelengths o! the particles stretch in accorance with the changing
length scale ictate by the uni!orm e0pansion o! the space in which the
!luctuations continually occur. 6hese !luctuations collectively are the
vacuum zero-point !iel1 which thusly ecreases with the inverse !ourth
power with uni!orm e0pansion o! the volume containing this vacuum
energy.
@ow i! the vacuum energy constitutes the Rcalibration )S against which
the collective mass o! massive particles containe within the e0paning
volume is to always be recKone1 then the mass ensity Csomething
we_re !or the time being assuming is i!!erent !rom the vacuum energy
ensityD shoul e!!ectively ecrease with the inverse square C5ust as in
the case o! an e0paning blacK holeD. 6o wit1 the ensity o! particles
ecreases with the inverse cube an the vacuum energy against which
the mass o! the massive particles is measure ecreases with the inverse
!ourth power.
Hntuitively it is easy to see that a very long live1 long wavelength
vacuum !luctuation shall be stretche by the e0pansion somewhat uring
the li!etime o! the !luctuation an so when its energy is Rpai bacKS to
the collective vacuum state1 not as much energy has to be pai bacK as
was originally borrowe when the vacuum !luctuations began - in orer
to satis!y the =eisenberg uncertainty principle an+ energy conservation.
Fhere i the component o! energy go that in_t have to be pai bacK?
Ht went into the creation o! aitional mass o! the massive particles
participating in the overall cosmological e0pansion. 6his is how H
reconcile the two types o! mass increase so as to show that they are one
an the same1 5ust looKe at !rom opposite ens o! the telescope1 i! you
will1 quantum versus cosmological. 6he blacK hole mass-raius
relationship then may be 5ust the natural outcome1 cosmologically o! a
close e0paning spacetime. 7ushing together a lot o! mass through the
7auli ;0clusion 7rinciple !or !ermions an the R7auli Hnclusion
7rincipleS !or bosons in the e0treme case recapitulates this cosmological
structure1 when the increasing mass ensity Cas more an more mass is
pile together within smaller an smaller volumeD causing the collapsing
mass to e!!ect a continual local reuction Cwithin the ecreasing volume
o! the collapsing massD in the vacuum energy within the ecreasing
volume an against which the collapsing mass_ energy must be
continually recalibrate so that the mass relativistically increases1
eventually !orming a local Cas oppose to a global blacK holeD.
?rom: :aniel Ian 4ent [mailto::aniel.Ian4entQ./.49I\
Sent: 6uesay1 /ugust 221 2))& **:'2 /8
,o: Aussell " 3larKV Jia -ah
Sub:ect: 8obius loops an entanglement
=i Auss1
@ow1 letGs say that we EcreateE two entangle particles or photons. 8ust
the two particles now Ecatch a rieE on two Echain-linKeE 8obius
loops1 each heaing o!! in i!!erent Eirections?E 9r o the particle
potentials occupy the entire ElinKeE ouble 8obius loop? 6hat is the
only way H can see Equantum teleportation o! stateE to another particle
across the universe. 6hese linKe 8obius loops woul have to be in
e0istence ?;-9A; the two photons happen to catch a rie on it in orer
to e0plain observe quantum entanglement phenomenon.
)h!s makes sense to me 1ecause the creat!on o, oca :uantum
entangement pro1a1y comes a1out through tapp!ng preex!stent
go1a :uantum entangement such that pro1a1!!ty an+ :uantum
entangement an+ !n,ormat!on !s conser#e+. Ho.e#er; !n,ormat!on !s
not conser#e+ ,or :uantum entangement !n#o#!ng superpos!t!ons o,
:uantum states that are separate+ 1y more than a Panck mass < th!s
.ou+ correspon+ to the superpos!t!on o, +!st!nct :uantum #acua;
.h!ch !s a1soutey rue+ out !n :uantum ,!e+ theory < you can ony
+o th!s .!th!n the #ery !m!te+ 1oun+ary con+!t!ons set 1y the ocay
pre#a!!ng He!sen1erg energy uncerta!nt!es. But .!th!n the 1oun+s set
1y :uantum uncerta!nty; I .ou+ agree that oca :uantum
entangement !s create+ 1y 1orro.!ng ,rom preex!stent go1a
:uantum entangement; !.e.; :uantum entangement o, states o, the
same #acuum state; !.e.; o, :uantum entange+ #acua .!th an energy
sprea+ smaer than a Panck mass.
/pril 2)*2
C6his implies a means o!
reconciling conservation o! quantum in!ormation with leaving room !or
emergence in the sense o! the creation o! genuinely new in!ormation1
which may inee be alreay inclue in the component o! the vacuum
that is constitutive o! causal spacetime an so never locally or
intersub5ectively accessible. Fhat is the term we shoul use to
esignate that component o! the ob5ective1 which is not intersub5ective1
i.e.1 inclues but always RtranscensS the intersub5ective? D. In th!s .ay;
causa!ty !s exhaust!#ey +escr!1e+ !n terms o, :uantum correat!ons o,
:uantum ,uctuat!ons 3.!th!n the se,=same #acuum state4. *e
cons!+er the ong stan+!ng pro1em !n ,!e+ theor!es o, 1osons that the
1oson #acuum +oes not cons!st o, a Bsea9; un!ke the ,erm!on #acuum;
c.,; http://arx!#.org/a1s/hep=th/'C%5C'5
/pril 2)*2
RFe show with the help o! supersymmetry consierations that the
boson vacuum inee oes also consist o! a sea in which the negative
energy states are all R!illeS1 analogous to the :irac sea o! the !ermion
vacuum1 an that a hole prouce by the annihilation o! one negative
energy boson is an anti-particle. =ere1 we must amit that it is only
possible i! we allow Uas occurs in the usual !ormalism anywayU that
the R=ilbert spaceS !or the single particle bosons is not positive e!inite.
6his might be !ormally cope with by introucing the notion o! a ouble
harmonic oscillator1 which is obtaine by e0tening the conition
impose on the wave !unction. 6his ouble harmonic oscillator inclues
not only positive energy states but also negative energy states. Fe utilize
this metho to construct a general !ormalism !or a boson sea analogous
to the :irac sea1 irrespective o! the e0istence o! supersymmetry. 6he
physical result is consistent with that o! the orinary secon quantization
!ormalismS1 c.!.1
au= cit=
=abara1 @ielsen1 @inomiya1 http://ar0iv.org/abs/hep-th/)$*2$)2v$.
:uring noncoherent photon prouction by electron cascae1 such as in
an orinary light bulb1 only about 2 in *)m** phtons create by the light
bulb are consiere entangle with one another. /re these linKe loops
then relatively ErareE or must the lucKy entangle photon pair have
special properties in orer to Ecatch a rieE on two linKe 8obius loops?
8aybe it is both o! those possiblitiesT
)he >spec!a property6 !s 1oth photons +er!#e+ ,rom the same #acuum
state; !.e.; they are entange+ 1ecause they are 1oth entange+ .!th the
same #acuum state to 1eg!n .!th. I suppose some k!n+ o,
+!mens!oness rat!o; say o, t.o +!,,erent #acuum energy +ens!t!es
3cosmoog!ca constant +!#!+e+ 1y Panck +ens!ty !n the extreme case74
m!ght come !nto pay !n cacuat!ng the pro1a1!!ty o, t.o photons = o,
a g!#en .a#eength; separate+ 1y a certa!n spacet!me !nter#a 1et.een
the t.o :uantum uncerta!n spacet!me po!nts at .h!ch create+; 1e!ng
%''? :uantum correate+.
@ow1 H imagine an atom. H can envision the atom as many neste !ractal
8obius loops all interconnecting with one another so that everything in
the atom is Esel!-entangle.E @ow1 woul the 7auli e0clusion priciple
mean that only one loop can be occupie by two electrons at a time with
opposite Espins?E Hn this case1 the spin woul 5ust be a result o! which o!
two irections the respective electrons are moving within the loop.
Yes; that smacks o, goo+ common sense/!ntu!t!on. I 1uy that !+ea.
@ow1 spontaneous !ission o! the nucleus occurs an must surely cause a
EbreaKingE o! about hal! o! the loops !rom one another Calthough !ission
proucts o! the original nucleus are thought to remain entangle !or a
brie! perio o! timeD. Fhat maKes the nucleus unstable? Hs there a Eloose
enE o! a broKen 8obius loop !lying in the vacuum !lu0 breeze which
when tugge causes the original nucleus to EunwravelE into two nuclei?
@!st!nct topoog!es cannot 1e >groun+e+6 !n the #ery same spacet!me.
"eary open an+ cose+ oops possess +!st!nct topoogy; Aust as t.!ste+
an+ non=t.!ste+ oops possess +!st!nct topoog!es. @!st!nct topoog!es
then cannot 1e superpose+ an+ any superpos!t!on o, :uantum states
that threatens 1ranch!ng !nto to t.o or more topoog!es ,or the system
sha coapse >un+er !ts o.n .e!ght6; !, you .!. )h!s !s not an
ans.er; 1ut a cons!+erat!on !n reat!on to your :uest!on.
?enni AezniK has a lot to say about vacuum nonlocality an .orentz
trans!ormations o! entanglement. <ou iagram maKes sense i!1 instea o!
.orentz trans!ormations1 you thinK in terms o! progressively greater
accelerations1 !rom say =c C=ubble_s constant times the spee o! lightD1
that is to say1 the cosmological acceleration to the 7lancK acceleration.
H_ really liKe to try the owsing e0periment1 by the way. /n maKe sure
an borrow a timepiece tie to an atomic clocK signal an establish some
Kin o! synche up communication linK with :r. :e?ranes when you
guys o your entanglement e0periment.
6here shoul be an equivalence between the so calle Rone gravitonS
limit1 i.e.1 7lancK mass in the comple0ity o! vacuum !luctuations an the
comple0ity o! what can be teleporte nonlocally between points / an
?. "ince to escape the spee o! light restriction on propagation o! energy
o! the speci!ic Kin iscusse by ;instein1 which is to say energy that
possesses inertia" we nee a chain o! merely correlate Cthough causally
inepenentD1 that is1 Buantum correlate vacuum !luctuations along the
entire tra5ectory to support the passage o! the energy or in!ormation that
shall there!ore propagate without inertial effect. ;ach iniviual
quantum !luctuation nonlocally correlate to its neighbor in the chain
!orming this tra5ectory woul there!ore be below the one graviton limit
or cuto!!. 6his woul also serve as a natural limit on the egree o!
quantum correlation o! one quantum !luctuation o! the vacuum an its
immeiate neighbor within the tra5ectory o! nonlocally propagating
in!ormation/energy. 6he cosmological constant problem being solve on
this view through both current ensity o! quantum correlation an
ensity o! quantum coherence Co! each iniviual quantum !luctuationD
being hel below this same 7lancK mass or 7enrosian one graviton limit.
Hnertial mass is thus seen as being intimately relate to a Kin o!
symmetry breaKing o! the quantum vacuum involving !luctuations in this
vacuum_s stress-momentum-energy becoming classically correlate on
top o, being ma6imally Buantum correlate Cor more generally1 where
the sum o! the ensities an current ensities o! classical + quantum
in!ormation e0ceeing the one graviton limit in the cases o! quantum
!luctuation an quantum teleportation1 respectivelyD an so inertial mass
is then entirely a !unction o! classical in!ormation an there!ore
e0clusively an arti!act o! istinctly classical as oppose to istinctly
quantum physics. 6here is a coincience between the e!inition o! a
classical blacK hole Cin terms o! escape velocity o! a boy being equal to
the spee o! light1 c.!.1 .a7lacian blacK holesD with the e!inition o! a
quantum blacK hole in the sense o! yieling ientical "chwarzchil blacK
hole equations. 6he quantum blacK hole must be analyze in terms o!
this conservation o! entanglement concept o! ours. . . say where quantum
entanglement shi!ts !rom a mi0ture o! spaceliKe an timeliKe to being
e0clusively spaceliKe1 c.!.1 spin-) !ermion-anti!ermionic !luctuations vs.
spin-* bosonic !luctuations.
:onGt Know why H inGt realize this earlier1 but a !ermion rotate $&)
egrees only goes roun a 8obius loop once an has to go aroun
WtwiceW in orer to reach its originally orientation. H believe the 8obius
twist is in the !our space that the universe is e0paning into. 6aKe a strip
o! paper an maKe a 8obius strip by oing a hal! twist o! the ens an
taping them together. H! a cut out o! a tracing o! a han1 say a le!t han is
sli along the 8obius strip loop one cycle1 it comes out mirror reverse
an must be sli aroun one more cycle on the 8obius strip or loop to
come bacK to its original orientation in W$ imensionsW1 this even
thought the cut out an strip are two imensional. ?ut the 8obius strip
has to be twiste through $ imensions to be constructe. "o by analogy
Caing a imensionD the rotation o! the !ermion by %2) egrees is
analogous1 but one must a one imension so that the rotation taKes
place in !our space. "o rotating a !ermion with a magnetic !iel by only
$&) egrees must secretly be taKing the !ermion through a 8obius twist
in !our imensional space. H thinK in this way the timeliKe nature o! the
!ermion-anti!ermion pair can be proven an such a spin ) vacuum
!luctuation proven to be also purely timeliKe. 8y google search linK
CaboveD emonstrates that no one has really remarKe about this - as the
linK prouce E) hitsE. "eems so obvious now though1 right? "o the
e0istence o! (-spacetime can be seen as proo! o! a pure ( space as
well1 once quantum statistics o! !ermions is taKen into account. Fhat o
you thinK? C=ow your !ace looKs in your riverGs license picture1 !or
e0ample woulnGt match with how you looK in a mirror unless you were
sent through this same $2) 8obius loop1 by the way - heheTD
6here is a camp o! molecular biologists who claim that the
:@//A@//7rotein system that currently e0ists a even that o! the
earliest most primitive Kin is/was possesse o! an Eirreucible
comple0ityE1 e.g.1 mousetrap. .iKe the net o! Hnra there ha to be a
Kin o! simultaneously arising o! the entire system at some critical level
o! initial comple0ity. 6his may seem to suggest that the comple0ity o!
simple coherent biochemical systems must be abstractions !rom the top
own rather than EconcretionsE !rom the bottom up. 6his is similar to
the notion o! how the min o! 8an escene !rom the transcenent
through progressive limitation rather than upwar !rom the immanent
through a builing up !rom combinations o! the simplest components o!
matter1 31 =1 91 @1 etc.
6here shoul be some Kin o! simple trig !unction o! the angle o!
alignment Csuch as cosine o! a ouble angle1 etc.D o! the virtual electron
an positron spins in the virtual 3ooper pair that coul be an ine0 o!
the egree o! quantum entanglement o! anticorrelation o! the two spin-
*/2Gs.
6he !act o! the orientation o! spin o! a spin-*/2 particle being epenent
upon the observerGs choice o! re!erence !rame Cin the sense o! the choice
o! magnetic !iel irectionD an ineterminate otherwise Cunless you
happen to have some classical in!ormation bits !rom a previous
incarnation o! the system1 that isD is somehow importantly connecte
with relativity.
Fe o! course must not lose sight o! the peculiarity o! the antisymmetry
o! the !ermionic wave!unction when trying to picture the relative spatial
orientation C in the sense o! relative mutual rotation o! the spin +/- */2 o!
the electron an positron composing the same 3ooper pair.D 6hat is1 i!
we are going to looK !or some spatial analogue !or entanglement o!
spins1 what we have terme Emagnetization entanglementE. Aemember
that you must rotate a !ermion %2) egrees to get bacK the wave!unction
you starte with.
/ positron is an electron moving bacKwar in time1 suppose. "o whatGs
the minimum spacetime rotation !or the electron an the positron which
gives bacK the composite spin-) particle C3ooper pairD with which one
starte?
8ight the physical remains as mere vacuum !iel initial an bounary
conitions become entangle with the general bounary conitions o!
the larger environment1 while the spectrum o! vacuum !iels with which
the ecease personGs brain once typically resonate an quantum
entanglement must simply continue in the absence o! those speci!ic
bounary conitions constitute by the personGs quantum microtubule
networK? Fe shoul associate the structures o! consciousness with the
particular spectra o! vacuum !iels1 which themselves probably have
always been entangle to some egree with the vacuum at large.
8omentum-energy is conserve an there are quantum numbers !or
momentum an energy1 but spacetime as the complementary quantity1 H
suspecte has no quantum number1 i.e.1 itGs not a conserve quantity an
so1 without a quantum o! spacetime1 we shoul not e0pect gravitons Cor
gravity waves1 !or that matterD to e0ist. ?esies1 we have spin-*/2 an
spin-*1 which is all we nee to maKe particles o! spin-)1 spin-$/2 an
spin-21 etc. 6hereGs no nee !or a !unamental spin-2 particle. @atureGs
conservative in that way.
Fell1 it looKs liKe the relationships o! polarization1 71 magnetization1 8
an permittivity an permeability are 5ust right1 i! you assume )
magnetic an electric !iel strengths !or the vacuum1 i.e.1 Y;Z an Y?Z
= ) !or vacuum Cwhich seems reasonableD to support the iea o!
!ermionic an bosonic entanglement being two i!!erent !orms o! a
generalize quantum entanglement which is conserve. ;ntanglement
conservation is probably more !unamental than mrere probability
conservation1 since the e0act quantum mechanical analogue !or classical
probability is sqrt[7si 0 7siW\ where 7si is pure state wave!unction1
while the generalization o! this quantity is o! course the ensity matri0
where the phase relations o! the components o! the ensity matri0 Can
their temporal evolutionD represents the istribution o! quantum
entanglement in the statistically mi0e system.
?y @oetherGs theorem there shoul be an unerlying symmetry !or
quantum entanglement CP;D as a conserve quantity as well as a
quantum number uniquely associate with P;. 6he symmetry may turn
out to be orinary spacetime symmetry Cbut o! a eeper Kin than that
pointe up by mere momentum-energy vector or1 stress-momentum-
energy tensorD. /n o! course the quantum number associate with P;
symmetry must be the inverse o! von @eumann entropy1 which weGll call
von @eumann in!ormation Cin contrast to classical1 igital or E"hannon
in!ormationED. E79./AHJ/6H9@ I;369A". Hn the theory o! the
electromagnetic !iel: two vectors1 7 an 81 given by 7 = : - e; an 8
= ?/u - =1 where : is the isplacement1 ; the electric !iel strength1 ?
the magnetic inuction1 = the magnetic !iel strength1 an e an u the
permittivity an permeability respectively in empty space.E @!ct!onary
o, Phys!cs C*2N)D
H woner i! we can taKe as general principle !or maKing up 4eanKen
e0periments about possible analogue Ci.e.1 mechanicalD moels o!
gravitation the !ollowing: "ee what happens to physical quantities in the
vacuum when trans!orming to an accelerate re!erence !rame an invoKe
;insteinGs equivalence principle Cboth principles1 strong an weaK1
inertial mass = gravitational mass an gravitation equivalent to
accelerationD in orer to propose 5ust these types o! changes to these
vacuum physical quantities as the unerlying mechanism !or sustaining a
gravitational !iel.
Hs the change in con!iguration energy o! the vacuum !iels that must
a5ust in some way when a particle1 such as a proton or muon is
remove !rom the region o! the vacuum? 6his is liKe thinKing o! the
particleGs inertial mass in terms o! the mass equivalence o! the particleGs
vacuum enthalpy.
Oin o! liKe calculating the *st orer propagator/state o! a particle as a
*st orer mani!estation o! the unerlying vacuum !iel1 by summing up
all the 2n orer an all higher orer corrections to the propagator?
H Kin o! imagine the atoms composing any bit o! matter1 any mass as
ynamically grouping themselves into composite bosons an !ermions
through a continual mutual e0change o! quantum entanglement between
these virtual EcellsE an EomainsE !orme o! arbitrary groupings o!
entangle atoms that are continually reconstituting themselves so as to
maintain a Kin o! entanglement equilibrium1 i.e.1 continual avoiance o!
squeeze states while maintaining overall conservation o! entanglement
throughout the bulK o! the mass. =owever1 upon acceleration1 squeeze
states !orm but in accorance with a Kin o! action or minimization
principle that maintains a shi!te thermoynamic equilibrium within the
mass1 i.e.1 some entropy is inevitably prouce by acceleration.
CAeversibility o! time-inepenent "chroinger equation eterministic
evolution1 !oreseeable by the cosmic quantum vacuum 37, must breaK
own1 necessitating ecoherence processesD /n the net bulK
entanglement within the mass shi!ts !rom spin-) to spin-* through a shi!t
in the istribution o! entanglement1 mimicKing what woul be e0pecte
!or a vacuum with equivalent gravitational potential Cin terms o!
equivalent accelerationD. / Ainler horizon Cas a generalization o! an
event horizonD !orms an :avies-,nruh raiation is observe that is
consistent with the entropy o! the newly !orme Ainler horizon . . .
whewT 9! course1 the permeability an permittivity within the bulK
matter also trans!orm so that the spee o! light within the mass changes
to re!lect the new vacuum that the mass sees while uner acceleration1
an so on. . .
HGve been looKing at this iea o! the vacuum not gravitating. -orce may
be characterize as either time rate o! change in $-momentum or as
space rate o! change in energy CtimeliKe (-momentum1 i! your willD.
@otice that when a photon either !alls into a gravitational potential or
Eclimbs outE o! one that the ratios1 /ap//at an /a;//a0 are constant1
implying that the vacuum e0erts no !orce on the in!alling or escaping
photon.
@otice also that the photonGs (-momentum is unchange though
climbing out o! a potential an reshi!ting in the process. 6his s because
the increase in the local velocity o! light Ci.e.1 acceleration o! the photonD
as the photon reaches regions o! ecrease potential Cas the photon
climbs outD is e0actly by the ecrease in the photonGs !requency - these
act in opposing senses so that the photonGs (-momentum is conserve.
HGve also been thinKing that the notion o! =eisenberg uncertainty shoul
be relate more irectly to the iea o! relative ecoherence o! the
timeliKe1 spin-) Cvirtual 3ooper pair creation-annihilationD an
spaceliKe1 spin-* Cvirtual boson e0changes within $-spaceD components
o! the !luctuating quantum vacuum in a changing gravitational potential.
H thinK that an increase /ap Cuncertainty in $-momentumD governing the
ecrease ensity o! creation-annihilation o! virtual 3ooper pairs within
a strong gravitational potential coul be interprete as an increase
internal ecoherence o! the 3ooper pairsG wave!unction Cor ensity
matri0D an the ecrease /a; Cuncertainty in imaginary (-momentumD
governing the increase ensity o! virtual boson e0changes in this strong
potential coul be interprete as a ecrease1 i.e.1 increase coherence1
hence entanglement o! these virtual bosons. 6his seems elegant an
invites more systematic thought about =-uncertainty an its relation to
ecoherence an entanglement in a gravitational potential relative to !ree
space spacetime.
Puestion: i! an electron an a positron mutually annihilate1 the pair o!
photons prouce will have per!ect correlation o! their polarizations1
provie that the spins o! the electron an positron were per!ectly
entangle so as to be anti-parallel. H! the entanglement o! the + or # */2
spin o! the electron an positron is )1 then the polarizations o! the
photons prouce in the mutual annihilation shall be completely
ecohere1 correct? H! HGm right1 then woulnGt this support the iea o!
there being a close relationship between entanglement o! virtual 3ooper
pairs an virtual photons in a gravitational !iel1 at least in essence1 you
Know1 in terms o! the whole conservation o! entanglement concept as
applie to bosonic an !ermionic vacuum !luctuations o! momentum-
energy1 c.!.1 http://en.wiKipeia.org/wiKi/;lectron-positron#annihilation
/ ielectric meium has a reuce velocity o! light because o! the
continual absorption an reemission o! the photons as the photon passes
through the meium. 6he ecrease velocity o! light in a vacuum
where a strong gravitational !iel is present might be unerstoo in a
similar manner L the electron-positron creation-annihilations are o!
lower ensity in a gravitational !iel an so a photon must compensate
by possessing a greater momentum uncertainty to brige the gap create
by the reuce energy uncertainty o! this gravitational potential in!use
vacuum.
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW *)-*'-2))&
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
6he mitochonrion is now thought to have once been an inepenent
bacterium that Egave up too many genesE a!ter which it coul only
survive in symbiosis with a euKaryote cell. 6his ine0plicably suggeste
to me the contrast between EsinE an EgraceE as being complementary
entities.
Fhen spin has been etermine to be in the + 0-irection1 say with state1
"C0D1 then the values o! "CyD an "CzD are ineterminate1 i.e.1 there is a
total o! $&) egrees o! uncertainty1 you might say because o! *N)
egrees o! /a"CyD + *N) egrees o! /a"CzD. 3oul it be that the *N)
egree rotation o! a spin-*/2 particle in the 0-y plane1 !or e0ample
Crather than in the 0-z plane - both rotations representing a change !rom s
= "C0D to s = -"C0D1 by the wayD is secretly accompanie by rotations in
the =eisenberg uncertainties in the spin in other orthogonal irections?
Fe shoul not here that the antiparticle to particle with spin1 +"CzD must
have an opposite spin o! -"CzD1 which is apparently part an parcel to the
antiparticleGs interpretation Coriginally by -eynmanD as the same particle1
though moving bacKwar in time.
H suppose that the spin uncertainties were rotate along with the
eterminate component o! the particleGs spin being rotate because1
when the state P o! a particle is teleporte1 the =eisenberg uncertainty in
P1 /aP is also teleporte. 6his way1 interpreting particle propagation as
the continuous teleportation o! the particle implies that a .orentz boost
not only trans!orms P1 but also trans!orms /aP.
3on!irme that the Eprior artE literature asserts that the spee o! light in
vacuum is increase in a 3asimir vacuum an that this is on account o! a
ecrease in the number ensity o! scattering virtual electron-positron
pairs in the path o! a propagating photon1 which must be interprete as a
ecrease in /ap relative to /a; !or the quantum system o! conucting
plates an vacuum between the plates. 6he polarization o! light rotates
as it passes through ielectric meium C-araay rotationD.
Ymagnetization rotationZ1 Yspin polarize electronsZ
;lectrons have :e?roglie wavelengths because o! the *-loop
propagation via continual substitution within e+e- virtual pairs1 which
are timeliKe !luctuations an so1 by -ourierGs theorem must be
represente by a wavepacKet o! !requency omain !unctions. 3ollective
spin-* an spin-) are in competition in supporting the propagation o!
photons an electron/positron pairs1 i.e.1 e+e-1 e-e+1 e+e+1 e-e-.
Fhen /asC0D1 /asCyD1 an /asCzD are nonzero1 then oes this imply that
/asCwD = )1 i.e.1 the spin is pointing in a timeliKe irection?
:uring a .orentz boost1 spin an momentum egrees o! !reeom
become entangle1 c.!.1 FignerGs E.ittle 4roupsE. 3ooper pairs have
*))% anti-correlate spins1 +/- "CiDGs Cwhere i = *121 or $ or
superposition o! *12 an $ an the +/- /a"CiDGs cancel because o! the
entanglement o! the +/-"CiDGs.D
Hn the same way that we might asK whence comes the energy liberate
by a matter-antimatter annihilation reaction we might also asK1 Ewhence
comes the e0tra $-angular momentum that we canGt account !or !rom
@ewtonian mechanics which appears as perihelion precession o! the
planet 8ercuryGs orbit an which is preicte by the 4eneral 6heory o!
Aelativity?E 3oul the anomalous boost in 8ercuryGs $-angular
momentum stem !rom the trans!ormation o! the planetGs (-angular
momentum through a cyclic continuum o! accelerate !rames? Hn
which case there msut be a hien component o! timeliKe angular
momentum possesse by the planet1 which becomes more an more
spaceliKe as the planet orbits closer to the "un.
6his hien timeliKe component o! angular momentum resies with the
collective elementary spin-) o! the planetGs bulK material1 the properties
o! which are etermine by hien quantum entanglement o! all
particles composing the planetGs mass. 3ausality1 simultaneity an spin-
*/2 measurement: Hn one re!erence !rame1 /lice measures her particleGs
spin *stV in another re!erence !rame1 ?ob measures his particleGs spin *st.
E?ohmGs .awE only applies when certain entanglement conitions
obtain. 7robability against a certain sel!-ecohering system oesnGt
necessarily increase moving bacKwar in time Ceven taKing emergence
into accountD. :ecoherence is in opposition to emergence. Yquantum
emergence theoryZ Yspinor relativityZ
:uring propagation1 what is the relationship between the net angular
momentum vector an the linear momentum?1 e.g.1 the photonGs spin is
Yparallel to its irection o! motionZ.
H! spin-*/2 is to be associate with timeliKe angular momentum that is
irecte parallel or anti-parallel to the irection o! timeliKe propagation1
then the equation o! a complete wave!unction phaseshi!t with a %2)
egree Crather than $&) egreeD rotation o! the spin-*/2 particle can be
intuitively unerstoo in terms o! (-rotations o! the particle within
spacetime.
H! a spin-*/2 particle1 say sCzD = +/- */2 is .orentz booste to near EcE1
then1 as recKone !rom the original laboratory re!erence !rame1 what is
the irection o! the particleGs spin1 sCzDG in terms o! sCzD?
6he spin o! an elementary particle cannot be altere1 only the irection
in which the spin o! the particle points. :oes this suggest that when
/a"C0D1 /a"CyD1 an /a"CzD are nonzero that the spin must be etermine to
be +/- */2 in some orthogonal irections that is EincompatibleE with E0E1
EyE an EzE?
6he EincompatibilityE woul perhaps be inirect1 e.g.1 /a0CiD is
incompatible with /apCiD1 /at is incompatible with /a; an /a0CiD an /at
!orm a (-vector while /apCiD an /a; !orm a !our vector.
6alent is sublimate rather than the motive lying with appreciation or
en5oyment o! the speci!ic sub5ect matter.
6he Eno-cloningE theorem is essentially a statement o! the principle o!
the conservation o! entanglement1 which supplants the classical physical
notion o! Estu!! conservationE. Fithout the activity o! substance1 which
is irreucible to !orm1 Cimplying an nonconserve quantityD there can be
no legitimate temporality.
E"tu!!E is actually a quantum construct that is not conserve1 though
inee1 perhaps quantum entanglement is. Hn the way1 ecoherence
becomes a physical necessityT HtGs not the momentum o! the photon
C=eisenbergGs light microscope thought e0perimentD1 but the state o!
Knowlege o! the observer Cor mere EKnowlegeabilityE o! some
hypothetical/possible observer?D that reuces 7si?
Qd2)*()(
E/aP aboutE1 i.e.1 /aP in conte0t-collapse by the mere possibility
of measurementH'nowlege. E/aP o!E1 i.e.1 /aP out o! conte0t - can only
be collapse by actual measurement/Knowlege o! observer Cwhich we
are assuming here can only be gotten by measurement1 but there are so-
calle Enon-emolitionE measurements that e0ploit ?ell nonlocality.
;nvironmental ecoherence is relate to consciousnessG role in
collapsing 7si. Fhat about when in!ormation emboie in /aP is tie to
a microscopic state?1 c.!.1 2-states superposition1 environmental
ecoherence has the same e!!ect as observation1 i.e.1 binary opposition.
6his is not the case o! systems o! su!!icient comple0ity. ?ut such
systems can start out conte0t-!ree an binary opposition-reucible1 but
lose this character ue to environmental entanglement. 6he structure o!
spin ecoherence show that uner su!!iciently large accelerations1 spin
possesses the property o! timeliKe angular momentum. Hnvestigate the
quantity1 > = . + " in a .orentz-booste conte0t. 7ropagation may
perhaps be interprete a la ?ohmGs .aw/7rinciple in terms o!
YEcontinuous teleportationEZ. @ot Knowing what in!ormation was
teleporte - 5ust that the state1 P was transmitte is suggestive o! a
YEsubstance paraigmEZ.
/pril 2)**
7erhaps ecoherence occurs when the
system_s state space can no longer contain the spectrum o! possibilities
!or the system_s behavior or1 still more1 the quantum vacuum as the
groun o! being !or the system is no longer aequate to encompass the
real time possibilities o! the system. =ere is the connection between
gravitation an ecoherence1 gravitational time ilation in which the
system requires more time to temporally evolve than is available to it
locally.
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW *)-*'-2))&
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ E($()$'((F
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++
6he complementarity relation between nonlocal an local CclassicalD
in!ormation in aition to evience that entanglement is a conserve
quantity Cquantum X = quantity o! von @eumann in!ormationD suggests
that all in!ormation-bearing structures istill von @eumann in!ormation
!rom quantum entanglement that ultimately e0ists within the vacuum1
i.e.1 all entanglement erives !rom vacuum entanglement. =ow o we
istinguish uncertainty o! !rom uncertainty about an are they
sometimes the same thing1 e.g.1 intentionality o! consciousness.
IeralGs notion o! how photons appear to taKe on mass in a
superconuctor that is mani!esting the 8eissner e!!ect ue to quantum
entanglement between electrons that have !orme 3ooper pairs seems
closely interrelate to mine an IoloviKGs ual super!lui vacuum moel
!or inuce gravity1 c.!.1 IeralGs paper on entanglement unerlying the
bulK properties o! matter such as the complementarity between
magnetization an magnetic susceptibility. 6his was suggeste to me
when H chance upon the @ew "cientist article1 EPuantum quirK may
give ob5ects mass.E
6eleportation involves transmission o! immeasurable quantities1 /aP an
states protecte by the no-cloning theorem. 3lassical in!ormation
pacKage as quantum in!ormation1 e.g.1 turn aroun time !or correlations
o! heate .i- chips with metastable states.
@ovember 2)**
Hs it possible !or
uninterprete yes/no ata to be transmitte using quantum entangle .i-
chips? R=itachi has sol a evice base on optical topography that
monitors brain optical topography that monitors brain activity in
paralyze patients so they can answer simple questions. -or e0ample1
by oing mental calculations to inicate EyesE or thinKing o! nothing in
particular to inicate EnoES1 c.!.1 -rain Device 2oves Ob$ects by
Thought Ob$ects by Thought1
http://www.scrib.com/oc/'$2()2(/move-evice-using-brain.
:e?roglie wave!unction as wavelength o! a physical wave versus as a
wavelength !or a 7si. 7lancK cuto!! !or energy o! highest !requency
:e?roglie matter wave implies such a cut o!! !or most ense encoing
o! quantum in!ormation1 i.e.1 vacuum in!ormation saturation. 6ie this in
to the two istinct interpretations o! grouns !or ecoherence.
Ypolarize 7siZ1 Ymagnetize 7siZ
.ocal realism is !alse an quantum ecoherence necessitates inertia an
the reality o! classical in!ormation emboie in the local systems an
states. Aeality o! nonlocal Estu!!E.
/ eterministic chaotic system coul not be moele in terms o!
correlate quantum !luctuations1 which woul be a linear escription. Hs
the turn aroun time the classical in!ormation that must be sent along
with the teleporte in!ormation? 3ontinuity o! bounary conitions in
the electron two slit e0periment.
6he no-cloning theorem is essentially a statement o! the principle o!
entanglement conservation1 which supplants the notion o! Estu!!
conservationE !rom classical physics. E"tu!!E is actually a quantum
construct that is not conserve1 though entanglement is - so ecoherence
becomes a necessity. HtGs not the momentum o! the photon C=eisenbergGs
light microscope thought e0perimentD1 but the state o! Knowlege o! the
observer CKnowlegeability o! hypothetical observer?D that collapses 7si.
9! course1 one simple approach to the cosmological constant problem is
to suppose that the vast bulK o! the quantum vacuum is in a ?ose-
conense Ezero stateE where the ?ose particles maKe no contribution to
the vacuumGs energy ensity or pressure1 c.!.1 p. %(1 8c4raw =ill
3oncise ;ncyclopeia o! 7hysics.
E.ines o! inuction ue to a conuctor of any shapeE must !orm a close
path about the conuctor. =ow o you !orm a Eclose pathE about a
conuctor that happens to be an event horizon?
6he electronGs spinning about its a0isE is not to be unerstoo literally as
in the ays o! the ol quantum theory but merely !iguratively. =owever1
the question nonetheless arises as to which a0is1 i! inee not a spatial
one1 about which the electron oes in !act literally turn.
4regory ?en!orGs "- short story1 E/nomaliesE gives a goo intuitive
insight into the causes o! quantum ecoherence.
/ Equantum substanceE isnGt ienti!ie until you have speci!ie all
possible Buantum numbers. 9bservations o! quantum systems o!
!ermions speci!ie in terms o! a particular list o! quantum numbers shall
instantiate the 7auli 7rinciple1 provie that the speci!ie list o! the
quantum numbers constitutes a complete set o! quantum numbers. H!
one quantum is le!t unetermine1 then the system remains capable o!
behaving as though insubstantial. W"ee relationship o! cellular
automata C3/D theory with theory o! entanglement an quantum
ecoherence.
Hnterpret principle o! equivalence1 motion o! test boies1 event horizon1
gravitational reshi!t1 perihelion precession1 e!lection o! starlight1 an
raio time elay in terms o! IoloviK ual super!lui vacuum theory.
.ooK at causal structure in special relativity in terms o! ?ohmGs 7rinciple
an then the eparture !rom this principle necessitate by the theory o!
general relativity. 7erturbations o! quantum statistics o! the vacuum by
real particles an !iels that can be processe by the vacuum + matterGs
nonlocal connectivity1 i.e.1 processe Cas though by a cosmic 37,D while
?ohmGs 7rinciple remains inviolate o not contribute to inertial or
gravitational mass or1 !or that matter1 to ecoherence o! the nonlocally
connecte vacuum !iels an no irreversible or time-asymmetric
processing occurs1 i.e.1 no entropy is generate.
6he twin parao0 is revolve by noting that 8 an 89 have i!!erent
notions o! simultaneity in comparing their clocK reaings.
=ow can the !iel equations o! 4A be truly nonlinear i! the tensor
equations o! 4A are coorinate system inepenent. 8aybe the pesKy
non-gravitating vacuum component o! the cosmological constant
secretly appears within all three terms o! the !iel equations an so
cancels out. 6he solution to the cosmological constant problem woul
then be trivial.
6he C-D sign occurring in the e0pression !or the spacetime interval1 which
serves to istinguish time !rom space1 to the C-D sign that serves to
istinguish !ermionic or asymmetric wave!unction !rom bosonic or
symmetric wave!unction. 6his was !irst suggeste to me by the
equation1
M7siM = M7siCsD + i7siCaDM = C7siCsD + i 7siCaDD0C7siCsD - i7siCaDD = 7siCsDWW2
+ 7siCaDWW2 = M7siCsDM + M7siCaDM
6here are spatial rotations an spacetime rotations CaKa .orentz
trans!ormationsD1 so it seems reasonable to suppose that the motion o!
Etime rotationE is a vali number. Fe must istinguish rotations o! the
time a0is !rom rotations EaboutE the time a0is.
"o !ermions may be interprete most broaly as substance/!igure an
bosons as insubstantial/groun. E4rounE as merely hien figure1 that
is1 as merely complementary to groun shuts out the ynamics by which
!igure trans!orms itsel! into its complement given certain bounary
conitions Ciscrete quantum transitionsD or continuous trans!ormations
Cthrough continuous change in the quantum !iel bounary conitions?D
C"ee .eggett C*2N%D1 especially chapters ' an &.D EHnteractionismE
theory o! min is most compatible with the 3openhagen E3ollapse
8oelE o! the quantum measurement problem.
9ne solution to the quantum measurement problem might be to involve
C*D inter!erence between quantum superpose states o! the system uner
observation with superpositions o! an observerGs perceptions o! the
system1 in aition to invoKing C2D nonlocal connectivity o! the quantum
brains o! multiple simultaneous observers o! the system. 6he nonlocal
connectivity o! the vacuum is not uni!orm but is comprise by cells or
omains o! greater nonlocal connectivity.
6emporality implies that the system is not in an energy eigenstate.
Fhen ?ohmGs 7rinciple is violate an entanglement is not conserve1 a
ynamics as oppose to a merely Kinematic process is ongoing1 an o!
course a certain amount o! entropy Cvon @eumann or "hannon?D is
generate. ;ntanglement non-conservation !orms the basis o! temporal
evolution an is !unamentally non-computable. 3lassical in!ormation
constitutes the bounary conitions !or quantum in!ormation. 6he
reverse o! this is true as well1 i.e.1 quantum in!ormation constituting the
bounary conitions !or classical in!ormation1 though only up to a
threshol. 6his threshol is situate at the onset o! irreversibility in the
systemGs changes in state. Fhen quantum in!ormation capacity o! a
system is outstrippe by the systemGs classical in!ormation1 it is here that
the system begins to unergo ecoherence.
/s the rate o! increase in classical in!ormation begins to outstrip the
quantum in!ormation processing power o! the system1 then it is here
where the system e0periences a relativistic increase in mass. /ssociate
with this is a relativistic increase in momentum acting in the opposite
sense to the vector o! the impresse acceleration1 which is the origin o!
inertia. 3onservation o! quantum entanglement may be emonstrate
through analysis o! the generalize uncertainty relations !or so calle
squeeze states.
Hn the equation !or the erivation o! ; = mcWW21 interpreting the term
uner the integral1 mv/sqrt[* - vWW2/cWW2\ as the prouct o! an invariant
EmE with a relativistic velocity1
vG = v/sqrt[* - vWW2/cWW2\ appears to yiel an energy o! mcWW2 long
be!ore v reaches the value o! EcE in the upper boun o! the integral.
Fhy?
"P,H:" may be use to measure quantum scale changes in magnetic
susceptibility1 which in turn coul be use to measure magnetization
entanglement in bulK material. "P,H:s coul measure small changes
in susceptibility at i!!erent gravitational potentials as well as changes in
quantum gravitational noise in vacuum.
:iracGs equation really calls !or creation an annihilation o! ( spin-*/2
particles in vacuum1 or rather1 a/a+ o! superposition states o! ( spin-*/2
particles. 3an a particular .orentz !rame be associate with a particular
possibility !or a quantum measurement?
Hnstea o! using 81 the magnetization as an ine0 o! entanglement1 it
might be better in light o! the paper1 E8agnetic "usceptibility as a
8acroscopic ;ntanglement FitnessE1 Ieral et al. to utilize mu the
permeability an ch! the susceptibility as such an ine0. =ope!ully
another similar paper shall be publishe soon in which it is shown that
electric susceptibility can be a witness o! electric ipole entanglement.
Fe have !ree will in the sense o! our brains being able to outstrip the
quantum computing capacity o! the local vacuum1 but it is still !or
worKing out our character1 which is also our !ate - but a !ate that can
change i! caught up with that o! others.
?ohmGs principle/law is transcenental across the temporal horizon
where causal law becomes too comple0 to be moele by a matri0 o!
correlate quantum !luctuations - this is the iea o! historical
eterminism within but not between historical moments1 c.!.1 4ibbGs
phenomenon1 ege e!!ects o! electromagnetic !iels at bounary
sur!aces1 etc.
:iscuss: locally versus globally meiate causality1 Ainler horizons1
?ohmGs .aw an ecoherence o! quantum in!ormation.
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW **-)%-)&
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
6he electric an magnetic !iel strengths are mutually incompatible
through the incompatibility o! position an momentum applie to
electric charges an currents. "peci!ying the position o! an electric
charge more precisely permits more precise speci!ication o! the chargeGs
static electric !iel1 but at the price o! an uncertain charge momentum1
which must be associate with a corresponing uncertainty in the
electric current an hence in the magnetic !iel strength. "imilarly1 the
more accurately is the magnetic !iel speci!ie1 the more precisely is the
charge momentum speci!ie1 which by the uncertainty principle1 the less
precisely can the charge position be measure1 leaing to a less precisely
measurable electric !iel. 6he loss o! magnetization entanglement o!
!ermion-anti!ermion pairs is riven by the increase uncertainty in the
local magnetic !iel vector. 6his shoul be concomitant with the
reuce uncertainty in the local electric !iel vector an the increase in
polarization entanglement.
Hn -eynmanGs parton quarK moel the interaction between quarKs
CpartonsD becomes time ilate so that the bining energy o! partons
CmaKing up a single haronD ecreases as v approaches c. .iKe any
other accelerating mass1 i! bining energy is the basis o! inertia an is
lost with acceleration an as a !unction o! relative velocity1 in
accorance with the correct !unctional relationship -C;bD Cv1 aD1 then the
amount o! bining energy given upon the mass reaching c must be
mcWW2. =owever1 as a haron !alls into a gravitational !iel it enters a
region o! vacuum where energy !luctuations1 emboie in the
vacuumGs /a; are progressively trans!erre into $-momentum
!luctuations1 emboie in the /ap o! the vacuum. 6he magnetization o!
the quantum vacuum in the !orm o! the quantum entanglement o!
electrons an positrons with in virtual 3ooper pairs1 create an
annihilate spontaneously in accorance with the magnitue o! the
ensity o! the vacuumGs =eisenberg uncertain energy is progressively
egrae in ever stronger gravitational !ielsV the virtual e+Gs an e-Gs
become progressively more inepenent an the molecular bosonic
character o! the spontaneously create virtual 3ooper pairs is
progressively egrae1 which may be unerstoo as ecoherence an
breaKing o! spontaneous symmetry Co! spacetime1 which inclues the
electromagnetic gauge?DV in this way the 7auli 7rinciple acts ever more
strongly upon the constituent !ermions o! the spontaneously create an
annihilate virtual 3ooper pairs. /n this is the mechanism by which
matterGs e!!ect upon the quantum statistics o! the vacuum is strengthene
in progressively more intense gravitational !iels.
http://phys.org/news/2)**-)N-arK-illusion-quantum-vacuum.html
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW **-)(-)&
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
Hn terms o! our current an natural scheme o! categories1 the Ethat which
createsE is also Ethat which sustainsE o! .eibnizG 7rinciple are unerstoo
as istinct1 e0ternally by :arwinian 6heory1 internally by theologians.
6o success!ully remove both E:eusE as well as 4o by e0tension1 i.e.1
E:eus e0 8achinaE !rom the naturalistic worl view o! cosmogony1 one
has to see the creative principle within the sustainment principle Ca!ter
all1 accoring to naturalism1 the ,niverse has always been hereD while at
once letting go o! the tenency to wish to see this principle the other
way roun.
/ tenuous application o! this new unerstaning o! .eibnizG 7rinciple
might be within the ebate between 8achian an classical relativistsG
unerstaning o! ;instein_s ;quivalence 7rinciple1 e.g.1 must we treat
equivalent .orentz !rames as possessing a common origin1 say1 either
through vacuum entanglement or via cosmological initial conitions? -
or woul we treat them thus on purely !ormal grouns?1 that is1 is
;insteinGs ;quivalence a Kinematic or a ynamic principle?
H! the so-calle stu!! o! which the worl is mae was not create an
Ehas 5ust always been here1E then .eibnizG 7rinciple must breaK own -
though perhaps only within the unerstaning1 c.!.1 OanGt notion o! Ethe
unerstaningE. Hn other wors the ynamics is Esqueeze outE by the
Kinematics.
"imultaneous reinterpretation along metaphorical a0es while !orging a
line o! literal e0position behaves aKin to multi-temporal process.
/t root o! all quantum inter!erence phenomena is sel!-inter!erence o! the
!iel1 which can mani!est itsel! as particles though only when this sel!-
inter!erence loop becomes short circuite1 either by an observer or
potential observer.
8y review o! the spin an orbital angular momentum theory suggests
that these two quantities are separately conserve 5ust liKe the separate
components o! $-momentum are conserve1 well at least !or the case
where v/c *. 6he separate conservation o! " an . seems to imply
that " oesnGt e0change > with . in an analogous way to how say1
colliing gyroscopes Cwith rough sur!acesD might e0change angular
momentum between liKe components o! . Cin such a manner tha .0 =
.0* + .02 = constantV same !or .y1 .z1 etc.
9ne might e0pect that !or the relativistic case that there woul be a
breaK own in the separate conservation o! components o! not only $-
momentum1 but $-angular momentum1 $-spin1 etc.1 c.!.1 reinterpretation
o! ;insteinGs perihelion precession problem1 origin o! inertia in
gyroscopic resistance to acceleration1 an so on.
=awKing raiation shows the e0treme case where entanglement o! spins
has been *))% trans!orme into /ap mani!este as the $-momentum
!luctuations at the event horizon sur!ace. Hs there a eep connection
between the two basic varieties o! in!ormation non-conservation vis a
vis continuous vs. iscrete ecoherence o! the ensity matri01 that is1
loss o! quantum in!ormation across a Ainler horizon vs. collapsing o!
7si by a !reely wille interaction o! an observer with a quantum system?
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW *)-2%-)&
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
8agnetization Cspin polarizationD o! virtual 3ooper pairs may be
consiere internal entanglement. ;0ternal entanglement o! virtual pairs
may be escribe in terms o! polarization o! the quantum vacuum.
6he bonage to ecay as escribe in the ?ooK o! Aomans. Fa0ing ol
an wearing out. H! the ,niverse were secretly a computational system1
then we coulnGt really have an entropy !low/graient without a
complementary in!ormation !low/graient. Hn the same way that
;instein euce spontaneous emission !rom purely thermoynamic
consierations1 we may be able to euce nonlocality !rom the necessity
o! a thermoynamic groun Cthermal vacuum statesCsDD !or enabling
!lows o! entropy an conversely1 transmission o! in!ormation. 3haos-
3osmosV 3omple0--Z"imple
/n e0ample o! multiple copy o! a conte0t-sensitive content o!
in!ormation. 6he only way to sie step the 2n .aw is to receive input
!rom outsie spacetime. 3learly the vacuum must be in a Epreppe
stateE !or orer to arise spontaneously.
Fhen spin has been etermine to be in the + 0-irection with eigenstate
"01 then values o! "y an "z are ineterminate. "o what then i! no spin
measurement ha been per!orme? 6hen all three spins woul be
ineterminate Cin the sense o! E+E an E-E an EupE an EownED - an so
the spin must be etermine secretly to be "w or timeliKe. C:oes this
imply absolute irection o! time - no - because orthogonal "iGs are
ineterminate.
.iKe .eibnizG clocK whose ticKing was only notice once it ha stoppe1
oneGs bizarre metaphysical assumption1 i.e.1 more or less that li!e is not
real1 was e0ploe by the evastating critique o! the "chroingerGs 3at
7arao0.
;ntanglement entropy is not covariant. Iacuum supports superposition
so superposition o! istinct vacua is no allowe. "uperposition
principle vs. principle o! equivalence. 6he !act that per!ect isolation o!
a quantum system oes not prevent environmental ecoherence implies
that the vacuum !luctuation !iel inuces ecoherence. 6he min
allegely oes this as well through the action o! its consciousness. 6he
min concentrates quantum entanglement an so observation enhances
the e!!ect o! vacuum-base environmental ecoherence. ?ut then part
o! what iscom!its the quantum vacuum is the unanticipate will o! the
conscious observer1 implying that the brain o! the observer is somehow
altogether outsie Ethe environmentE. Ht is the inistinguishability o!
quantum particles that leas to teleportation an substance-liKe
properties o! quantum in!ormation which e!y conte0t-sensitivity1 up to
a point1 that is.
;7AGs position was that a measurement must be preetermine i! it can
be Known with certainty. ?ut the ecision whether or not to maKe this
measurement is not preetermine. 6he less well correlate Cvia
quantum entanglementD are the1 e.g.1 electron an position maKing up a
virtual 3ooper pair1 the less oes the pair behave as a collective spin-)
particle1 i.e.1 boson an the more o the particles o! the pair behave as
inepenent !ermions to which the 7auli 7rinciple is completely
emocratic1 not maKing istinction between virtual an so-calle real
particles. =ence!orth we will term this notion o! the raically
emocratic 7auli 7rinciple. -eynmanGs 7auli 7rinciple or1 E-eynmanGs
7rincipleE !or short. /a; is ecreasing all the while e+ an e- are
becoming more mutually inepenent1 which shoul normally imply a
greater /a;. ???
e+e+e-e-e+e+ --Z +*1 +)1 -*1 -)1 +*. . . =ow
o we interpret E+E an E-E in E)+E an E)-E ?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++ E($()$'((F
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
=ow o we characterize what happens to the psyche o! a young
bureaucrat who is at !irst !orce but then with time less an less !orce
to rationalize the irectives o! his so-calle superiors as being in accor
with his own personal 5ugment?
=ow is a series o! vacuum !luctuations nonlocally connecte
!unamentally istinct !rom a series which is simultaneous Cthe
components o! the series1 one to anotherD only in a unique .orentz
!rame? :oes causal connection transcen mere quantum correlation
rather than being merely a subclass thereo!? - in the sense o! e0ceeing
the one-graviton 7lancK mass virtual blacK hole limit? /n woulnGt the
transcenence o! quantum in!ormation by classical in!ormation1
parao0ically enough play an important role in e0plicating ecoherence
an collapse phenomena?
Hn other wors1 can a set o! nonlocally connecte up to but not incluing
the one-graviton limit? 6he rile o! the woul-be gravity an inertia
o! the quantum vacuum1 i.e.1 the cosmological constant rile is
intimately boun up with this consieration. 7erturbation o! the action
o! the vacuum state cannot be treate perturbatively1 i.e.1 as a summation
o! plane waves Cnon-interacting particlesD is precisely the point at which
spacetime is oblige to curve. @ote that EparticleE is an ill-e!ine
notion in strongly curve spacetimes. Aather than ecoherence being
an e!!ect o! gravitation1 it seems more logical to suppose that gravity is a
special case o! ecoherence processes within the quantum vacuum.
IoloviKGs suspicion that the cosmological constant tracKs the
cosmological CaverageD mass ensity o! the ,niverse combine with the
!act that in 4A gravitational energy Cto inclue gravitational bining
energyD is nonlocal leas us to a possible mechanism !or IoloviKGs
equating o! the two energy ensities1 cosmological constant an average
mass ensity o! the ,niverse.
web=
www.cornpone!licKs.org/A/4/:.html - review o! Aosencrantz an
4uilenstern are ea.
6he /nti-4nosticism o! ;. 8. 3ioran - essay in 7robe magazine/;zine.
/ "hort =istory o! :ecay1 ;. 8. 3ioran.
E/ thumbprint oesnGt open the oor o! perception1 it blows it o!! the
hinges. <ou melt into eternity. <ou let go an ie into the moment
which is all. 6here is no you anymore at all. 6he intensity o! this canGt
be escribe1 but you realize as youGre slipping away that itGs !amiliarE.
H! consciousness truly e0ists an is not an illusion Ci! thereGs something
le!t over once all mental contents have been removeD1 then the sel!
woul be truly at home in an a citizen o! so to speaK the realm of
-eing" which is to say" eternal being.
7olonium =alos: ,nre!ute ;vience !or ;arthGs Hnstant 3reation1 c.!.1
;arth "cience /ssociates1 7. 9. ?o0 *2)&%1 Ono0ville1 6@ $%2*21 c.!.1
Y6he ;nigma o! 7olonium =alosZ
6hat meium which serves as the Egroun o! beingE cannot be !ully
reconstitute through a cobbling together o! entities originally abstracte
!rom this ynamic1 creative an sustaining meium. "ome embeing
an enabling conte0t woul be neee to !ill in C!lesh out1 i! you willD
the aboriginally suppresse etails that constitute the original
categories Crea: EthingsED that one is seeKing to cobble together into a
coherent whole.
H! we are always in time an never separate in our being !rom its !low1
that is1 compose o! this very !low that also comprises the temporality o!
the outsie worl1 then how inee o we sub5ectively recKon timeV how
is it possible !or us to e0perience temporality at all1 unless there is some
component in us that itsel! resists this !low?
"el!-organization o! matter is a symptom o! the !eebacK o! quantum
entanglement in time. 8ultiimensional temporality is e0perience by
the quantum uncertainties or by the virtual processes composing them1
an it is within =eisenberg uncertainty that timeliKe quantum
entanglement has the egree o! !reeom to act. 7hilip O. :icK might
have speculate that we are all robots persisting in the !antasy that we
are human. Hn a sense this is the implication o! the worKs o! ?aurillar
an .acan1 etc.
Fhen listening to intelligible speech one is simultaneously sub5ect an
ob5ect1 meaning that one reacts simultaneously in two istinct ways1
mechanical Can moronicallyD an insight!ully. =ow are both responses
to speech reconcile on many istinct scales o! behavior an action Cin
the sense o! spatiotemporal scaleD? 6he !unction o! this opposition is
best unerstoo through the concept o! iscourse - liKe 3ampbellGs
religious images1 iscourse both limits an !acilitates thought an
e0perience.
Hnstitutions an bureaucracies so utterly transcen the sub5ective
rationality o! the iniviual. Hnstitutional wisom is both necessary an
not necessary to the survival an vitality o! a bureaucratic organization1
c.!.1 ?ohrGs remarKs about eath o! the previous generation o! physicists
being necessary to the EavancementE o! physics. 6he nature o!
language as ne0us o! otherwise irreconcilable contemporaneous
speaKers/ authors or generations o! practitioners must account !or the
open-ness o! institutionalize Knowlege Cas all Knowlege must beD to
its being enlessly reprocesse without reaching e0haustion o! its
content1 which is both conte0t-epenent an conte0t-eterminative.
/ll o! the sub5ects o! Knowlege must be recast as the interpretation o!
these sub5ects o! Knowlege1 e.g.1 history = interpretation o! history1 etc.
6he istinction between ErealE an EvirtualE breaKs own at the 7lancK
scale. "pacetime is con5ugate to momentum-energy in P8 an so it
only maKes sense that there shoul be this intimate connection between
space1 time1 matter an energy.
3oncrete reality as interimensional ne0us. ?ecause o! consciousness1
reality is necessarily simulation. Fhen you stop an thinK about it1
interpersonal communication1 particularly human speech is a bizarre
process base as it is on what can easily be mae to appear a !ar !etche
metaphysics.
"uppose the universe is a blacK hole Cis o! critical ensity so that
spacetime is consiere R!latSD that is unergoing cosmological
e0pansion. 6he mass o! the universe must then increase as you pointe
out C H suppose this increase is recKone !rom in!inityD. H! the ensity o!
the zero-point energy insie the hole is ecreasing while in interaction
with the =eisenberg uncertainty principle1 then uring the time that an
energy !luctuation lasts the zero-point has every so slightly ecrease
an so not all o! the energy borrowe !rom the vacuum uring the
li!etime o! the !luctuation nee be pai bacK. "o here to is a mass
generation mechanism. Fe now have the basis !or a new equation o! two
time rates o! change in mass L one cosmological an the other quantum.
"o the zero-point energy o! the vacuum oesn_t possess any inertial
mass until something is one with this energy Cwithin the conte0t o! a
curve spacetime1 e0paning or contractingD. 6his equation may perhaps
point to some new physics or at least help reassure us that it is only
ifference in vacuum energy ensity that are gravitational an inertially
signi!icant.
=ow is a series o! vacuum !luctuations nonlocally connecte
!unamentally istinct !rom a series which is simultaneous Cthe
components o! the series1 one to anotherD only in a unique .orentz
!rame? :oes causal connection transcen mere quantum correlation
Csomewhat contrary to the spirit o! :avi ?ohm_s observations on the
sub5ect1 perhapsD. . . rather than being merely a subclass thereo! L in the
sense o! e0ceeing the one-graviton1 7lancK mass virtual blacK hole
limit?
Hn other wors1 can a set o! nonlocally-connecte quantum !luctuations
only success!ully moel causality up to but not incluing the one-
graviton limit? 6he rile o! the woul-be gravity an inertia o! the
quantum vacuum1 i.e.1 the cosmological constant rile is intimately
boun up with this consieration. 7erturbation o! the action o! the
vacuum state that cannot be treate pertubatively1 i.e.1 as a summation o!
plane waves Cnon-interacting particlesD is precisely the point at which
spacetime is oblige to curve. @ote that RparticleS is an ill-e!ine
notion in strongly curve spacetimes. Aather than ecoherence being an
e!!ect o! gravitation1 it seems more logical to suppose that gravity is a
special case o! ecoherence processes within the quantum vacuum.
?ecause causal relationships are always escribable in terms o! sets o!
i!!erential equations1 these relationships must be suppose to inhere
within a continuously i!!erentiable mani!ol o! eterminate topological
structure. /lterations in the topology o! a continuously i!!erentiable
mani!ol cannot be escribe by a set o! i!!erential equations e!inable
on the original mani!ol. 6his is why we o not e0pect that the energies
o! the submicroscopic topological !luctuations may comprise a
contribution to a gravitational source term in the ;instein !iel
equations. / supermani!ol must groun the trans!ormation o! one
topology into another nonequivalent topology such that this topological
inequivalence is ultimately reucible within the supermani!ol o! higher
orer topological structure which remains constant throughout the lower
orer topological trans!ormation. 6he !ormalism o! 4eneral Aelativity is
not equippe to escribe such a topological supermani!ol.
6his remins us o! attempts to groun the iscontinuous change in the
wave!unction which in between measurements evolves eterministically
accoring to the "chreinger equation o! motion in terms o! some
nonlinear time-epenent version o! the "-eqn.
@otice that the trans!ormation o! one topology into a nonequivalent one
necessitates a breaching o! the original topological mani!ol introucing
iscontinuities which prevent the e0istence o! any brige !unctions being
e!ine meiating the trans!ormation which possess continuous
i!!erentiability. @o consistent solutions to a given set o! i!!erential
equations e0ists i! the only possible solutions are !unctions which are
themselves not continuously i!!erentiable. /ll topological
trans!ormations must be escribe in terms o! brige !unctions which
cannot be e!ine on the mani!ols being trans!orme an so all
topological trans!ormations must be meiate !rom outsie all mani!ols
o! eterminate topological structure taKing part in the topological
trans!ormations. "ince a metric presupposes an embeing topological
mani!ol1 geometroynamic !luctuations in spacetime topology cannot
be escribe within general relativity theory. @or shoul they
collectively contribute to a single vacuum state possessing an inertial
mass equivalence1 which we then nee to account !or in our attempts to
solve the cosmological constant rile1 i.e.1 Rnon-gravitatingS quantum
vacuum.
7ro5ections o! topological trans!ormations in a given space onto a
subspace may present the appearance o! non-topological trans!ormations
within the smaller space. H! a chance event yiels meaning an
signi!icance1 it is only because o! a common1 unerlying CconcreteD
groun o! the two things connecte. 6he truly concrete1 that is1 the
ultimate groun o! ?eing1 cannot be ivie1 but can only appear so. 6o
entertain the notion o! two separate grouns1 themselves possessing no
unerlying an still more ultimate groun connecting them in the sense
o! maKing them1 one with the other1 CsubstantiallyD continuous1 is to set
up e!initions in a manner which invites sel!-contraiction. Fe Know
that the action by which the continuum o! space an time are constitute
presupposes a Kin o! temporality1 but one without scale or irection in
which the connectivity o! the pre-phenomenal is internal but at once
without bounaries. >ust musing a little here.
given a constant mass o! particles in a volume1 I with a collective mass1
8 in which this volume is uni!ormly e0paning1 the ensity o! the
volume shoul ecrease with the inverse cube. ?ut i! the particles are
themselves energy !luctuations continuously being create an estroye
an recreate an so on. . . 1 then we woul e0pect that the number
ensity o! these !luctuations to ecrease with the inverse cube as the
wavelengths o! the particles stretch in accorance with the changing
length scale ictate by the uni!orm e0pansion o! the space in which the
!luctuations continually occur. 6hese !luctuations collectively are the
vacuum zero-point !iel1 which thusly ecreases with the inverse !ourth
power with uni!orm e0pansion o! the volume containing this vacuum
energy.
@ow i! the vacuum energy constitutes the Rcalibration )S against which
the collective mass o! massive particles containe within the e0paning
volume is to always be recKone1 then the mass ensity Csomething
we_re !or the time being assuming is i!!erent !rom the vacuum energy
ensityD shoul e!!ectively ecrease with the inverse square C5ust as in
the case o! an e0paning blacK holeD. 6o wit1 the ensity o! particles
ecreases with the inverse cube an the vacuum energy against which
the mass o! the massive particles is measure ecreases with the inverse
!ourth power.
Hntuitively it is easy to see that a very long live1 long wavelength
vacuum !luctuation shall be stretche by the e0pansion somewhat uring
the li!etime o! the !luctuation an so when its energy is Rpai bacKS to
the collective vacuum state1 not as much energy has to be pai bacK as
was originally borrowe when the vacuum !luctuations began - in orer
to satis!y the =eisenberg uncertainty principle an+ energy conservation.
Fhere i the component o! energy go that in_t have to be pai bacK?
Ht went into the creation o! aitional mass o! the massive particles
participating in the overall cosmological e0pansion. 6his is how H
reconcile the two types o! mass increase so as to show that they are one
an the same1 5ust looKe at !rom opposite ens o! the telescope1 i! you
will1 quantum versus cosmological. 6he blacK hole mass-raius
relationship then may be 5ust the natural outcome1 cosmologically o! a
close e0paning spacetime. 7ushing together a lot o! mass through the
7auli ;0clusion 7rinciple !or !ermions an the R7auli Hnclusion
7rincipleS !or bosons in the e0treme case recapitulates this cosmological
structure1 when the increasing mass ensity Cas more an more mass is
pile together within smaller an smaller volumeD causing the collapsing
mass to e!!ect a continual local reuction Cwithin the ecreasing volume
o! the collapsing massD in the vacuum energy within the ecreasing
volume an against which the collapsing mass_ energy must be
continually recalibrate so that the mass relativistically increases1
eventually !orming a local Cas oppose to a global blacK holeD.
?rom: :aniel Ian 4ent [mailto::aniel.Ian4entQ./.49I\
Sent: 6uesay1 /ugust 221 2))& **:'2 /8
,o: Aussell " 3larKV Jia -ah
Sub:ect: 8obius loops an entanglement
=i Auss1
@ow1 letGs say that we EcreateE two entangle particles or photons. 8ust
the two particles now Ecatch a rieE on two Echain-linKeE 8obius
loops1 each heaing o!! in i!!erent Eirections?E 9r o the particle
potentials occupy the entire ElinKeE ouble 8obius loop? 6hat is the
only way H can see Equantum teleportation o! stateE to another particle
across the universe. 6hese linKe 8obius loops woul have to be in
e0istence ?;-9A; the two photons happen to catch a rie on it in orer
to e0plain observe quantum entanglement phenomenon.
)h!s makes sense to me 1ecause the creat!on o, oca :uantum
entangement pro1a1y comes a1out through tapp!ng preex!stent
go1a :uantum entangement such that pro1a1!!ty an+ :uantum
entangement an+ !n,ormat!on !s conser#e+. Ho.e#er; !n,ormat!on !s
not conser#e+ ,or :uantum entangement !n#o#!ng superpos!t!ons o,
:uantum states that are separate+ 1y more than a Panck mass < th!s
.ou+ correspon+ to the superpos!t!on o, +!st!nct :uantum #acua;
.h!ch !s a1soutey rue+ out !n :uantum ,!e+ theory < you can ony
+o th!s .!th!n the #ery !m!te+ 1oun+ary con+!t!ons set 1y the ocay
pre#a!!ng He!sen1erg energy uncerta!nt!es. But .!th!n the 1oun+s set
1y :uantum uncerta!nty; I .ou+ agree that oca :uantum
entangement !s create+ 1y 1orro.!ng ,rom preex!stent go1a
:uantum entangement; !.e.; :uantum entangement o, states o, the
same #acuum state; !.e.; o, :uantum entange+ #acua .!th an energy
sprea+ smaer than a Panck mass. In th!s .ay; causa!ty !s
exhaust!#ey +escr!1e+ !n terms o, :uantum correat!ons o, :uantum
,uctuat!ons 3.!th!n the se,=same #acuum state4.
:uring noncoherent photon prouction by electron cascae1 such as in
an orinary light bulb1 only about 2 in *)m** photons create by the
light bulb are consiere entangle with one another. /re these linKe
loops then relatively ErareE or must the lucKy entangle photon pair have
special properties in orer to Ecatch a rieE on two linKe 8obius loops?
8aybe it is both o! those possibilitiesT
)he >spec!a property6 !s 1oth photons +er!#e+ ,rom the same #acuum
state; !.e.; they are entange+ 1ecause they are 1oth entange+ .!th the
same #acuum state to 1eg!n .!th. I suppose some k!n+ o,
+!mens!oness rat!o; say o, t.o +!,,erent #acuum energy +ens!t!es
3cosmoog!ca constant +!#!+e+ 1y Panck +ens!ty !n the extreme case74
m!ght come !nto pay !n cacuat!ng the pro1a1!!ty o, t.o photons = o,
a g!#en .a#eength; separate+ 1y a certa!n spacet!me !nter#a 1et.een
the t.o :uantum uncerta!n spacet!me po!nts at .h!ch create+; 1e!ng
%''? :uantum correate+.
@ow1 H imagine an atom. H can envision the atom as many neste !ractal
8obius loops all interconnecting with one another so that everything in
the atom is Esel!-entangle.E @ow1 woul the 7auli e0clusion principle
mean that only one loop can be occupie by two electrons at a time with
opposite Espins?E Hn this case1 the spin woul 5ust be a result o! which o!
two irections the respective electrons are moving within the loop.
Yes; that smacks o, goo+ common sense/!ntu!t!on. I 1uy that !+ea.
@ow1 spontaneous !ission o! the nucleus occurs an must surely cause a
EbreaKingE o! about hal! o! the loops !rom one another Calthough !ission
proucts o! the original nucleus are thought to remain entangle !or a
brie! perio o! timeD. Fhat maKes the nucleus unstable? Hs there a Eloose
enE o! a broKen 8obius loop !lying in the vacuum !lu0 breeze which
when tugge causes the original nucleus to EunravelE into two nuclei?
@!st!nct topoog!es cannot 1e >groun+e+6 !n the #ery same spacet!me.
"eary open an+ cose+ oops possess +!st!nct topoogy; Aust as t.!ste+
an+ non=t.!ste+ oops possess +!st!nct topoog!es. @!st!nct topoog!es
then cannot 1e superpose+ an+ any superpos!t!on o, :uantum states
that threatens 1ranch!ng !nto to t.o or more topoog!es ,or the system
sha coapse >un+er !ts o.n .e!ght6; !, you .!. )h!s !s not an
ans.er; 1ut a cons!+erat!on !n reat!on to your :uest!on.
?enni AezniK has a lot to say about vacuum nonlocality an .orentz
trans!ormations o! entanglement. <ou iagram maKes sense i!1 instea o!
.orentz trans!ormations1 you thinK in terms o! progressively greater
accelerations1 !rom say =c C=ubble_s constant time the spee o! lightD1
that is to say1 the cosmological acceleration to the 7lancK acceleration.
H_ really liKe to try the owsing e0periment1 by the way. /n maKe sure
an borrow a timepiece tie to an atomic clocK signal an establish some
Kin o! synche up communication linK with :r. :esbranes when you
guys o your entanglement e0periment.
6here shoul be an equivalence between the so calle Rone gravitonS
limit1 i.e.1 7lancK mass in the comple0ity o! vacuum !luctuations an the
comple0ity o! what can be teleporte nonlocally between points / an
?. "ince to escape the spee o! light restriction on propagation o! energy
o! the speci!ic Kin iscusse by ;instein1 which is to say energy that
possesses inertia" we nee a chain o! merely correlate Cthough causally
inepenentD1 that is1 Buantum correlate vacuum !luctuations along the
entire tra5ectory to support the passage o! the energy or in!ormation that
shall there!ore propagate without inertial effect. ;ach iniviual
quantum !luctuation nonlocally correlate to its neighbor in the chain
!orming this tra5ectory woul there!ore be below the one graviton limit
or cuto!!. 6his woul also serve as a natural limit on the egree o!
quantum correlation o! one quantum !luctuation o! the vacuum an its
immeiate neighbor within the tra5ectory o! nonlocally propagating
in!ormation/energy. 6he cosmological constant problem being solve on
this view through both current ensity o! quantum correlation an
ensity o! quantum coherence Co! each iniviual quantum !luctuationD
being hel below this same 7lancK mass or 7enrosian one graviton limit.
Hnertial mass is thus seen as being intimately relate to a Kin o!
symmetry breaKing o! the quantum vacuum involving !luctuations in this
vacuum_s stress-momentum-energy becoming classically correlate on
top o, being ma6imally Buantum correlate Cor more generally1 where
the sum o! the ensities an current ensities o! classical + quantum
in!ormation e0ceeing the one graviton limit in the cases o! quantum
!luctuation an quantum teleportation1 respectivelyD an so inertial mass
is then entirely a !unction o! classical in!ormation an there!ore
e0clusively an arti!act o! istinctly classical as oppose to istinctly
quantum physics. 6here is a coincience between the e!inition o! a
classical blacK hole Cin terms o! escape velocity o! a boy being equal to
the spee o! light1 c.!.1 .a7lacian blacK holesD with the e!inition o! a
quantum blacK hole in the sense o! yieling ientical "chwarzchil blacK
hole equations. 6he quantum blacK hole must be analyze in terms o!
this conservation o! entanglement concept o! ours. . . say where quantum
entanglement shi!ts !rom a mi0ture o! spaceliKe an timeliKe to being
e0clusively spaceliKe1 c.!.1 spin-) !ermion-anti!ermionic !luctuations vs.
spin-* bosonic !luctuations.
:onGt Know why H inGt realize this earlier1 but a !ermion rotate $&)
egrees only goes roun a 8obius loop once an has to go aroun
WtwiceW in orer to reach its originally orientation. H believe the 8obius
twist is in the !our space that the universe is e0paning into. 6aKe a strip
o! paper an maKe a 8obius strip by oing a hal! twist o! the ens an
taping them together. H! a cut out o! a tracing o! a han1 say a le!t han is
sli along the 8obius strip loop one cycle1 it comes out mirror reverse
an must be sli aroun one more cycle on the 8obius strip or loop to
come bacK to its original orientation in W$ imensionsW1 this even
thought the cut out an strip are two imensional. ?ut the 8obius strip
has to be twiste through $ imensions to be constructe. "o by analogy
Caing a imensionD the rotation o! the !ermion by %2) egrees is
analogous1 but one must a one imension so that the rotation taKes
place in !our space. "o rotating a !ermion with a magnetic !iel by only
$&) egrees must secretly be taKing the !ermion through a 8obius twist
in !our imensional space. H thinK in this way the timeliKe nature o! the
!ermion-anti!ermion pair can be proven an such a spin ) vacuum
!luctuation proven to be also purely timeliKe. 8y google search linK
CaboveD emonstrates that no one has really remarKe about this - as the
linK prouce E) hitsE. "eems so obvious now though1 right? "o the
e0istence o! (-spacetime can be seen as proo! o! a pure ( space as
well1 once quantum statistics o! !ermions is taKen into account. Fhat o
you thinK? C=ow your !ace looKs in your riverGs license picture1 !or
e0ample woulnGt match with how you looK in a mirror unless you were
sent through this same $2) 8obius loop1 by the way - heheTD
6here is a camp o! molecular biologists who claim that the
:@//A@//7rotein system that currently e0ists a even that o! the
earliest most primitive Kin is/was possesse o! an Eirreucible
comple0ityE1 e.g.1 mousetrap. .iKe the net o! Hnra there ha to be a
Kin o! simultaneously arising o! the entire system at some critical level
o! initial comple0ity. 6his may seem to suggest that the comple0ity o!
simple coherent biochemical systems must be abstractions !rom the top
own rather than EconcretionsE !rom the bottom up. 6his is similar to
the notion o! how the min o! 8an escene !rom the transcenent
through progressive limitation rather than upwar !rom the immanent
through a builing up !rom combinations o! the simplest components o!
matter1 31 =1 91 @1 etc.
6here shoul be some Kin o! simple trig !unction o! the angle o!
alignment Csuch as cosine o! a ouble angle1 etc.D o! the virtual electron
an positron spins in the virtual 3ooper pair that coul be an ine0 o!
the egree o! quantum entanglement o! anticorrelation o! the two spin-
*/2Gs.
6he !act o! the orientation o! spin o! a spin-*/2 particle being epenent
upon the observerGs choice o! re!erence !rame Cin the sense o! the choice
o! magnetic !iel irectionD an ineterminate otherwise Cunless you
happen to have some classical in!ormation bits !rom a previous
incarnation o! the system1 that isD is somehow importantly connecte
with relativity.
Fe o! course must not lose sight o! the peculiarity o! the antisymmetry
o! the !ermionic wave!unction when trying to picture the relative spatial
orientation C in the sense o! relative mutual rotation o! the spin +/- */2 o!
the electron an positron composing the same 3ooper pair.D 6hat is1 i!
we are going to looK !or some spatial analogue !or entanglement o!
spins1 what we have terme Emagnetization entanglementE. Aemember
that you must rotate a !ermion %2) egrees to get bacK the wave!unction
you starte with.
/ positron is an electron moving bacKwar in time1 suppose. "o whatGs
the minimum spacetime rotation !or the electron an the positron which
gives bacK the composite spin-) particle C3ooper pairD with which one
starte?
8ighte the physical remains as mere vacuum !iel initial an bounary
conitions become entangle with the general bounary conitions o!
the larger environemnt1 while the spectrum o! vacuum !iels with which
the ecease personGs brain once typically resonate an quantum
entanglement must simply continue in the absence o! those speci!ic
bounary conitions contitute by the personGs quantum microtubule
networK? Fe shoul associate the structures o! consciousness with the
particular spectra o! vacuum !iels1 which themselves probably have
always been entangle to some egree with the vacuum at large.
8omentum-energy is conserve an there are quantum numbers !or
momentum an energy1 but spacetime as the complementary quantitiey1 H
suspecte has no quantum number1 i.e.1 itGs not a conserve quantity an
so1 without a quantum o! spacetime1 we shoul not e0pect gravitons Cor
gravity waves1 !or that matterD to e0ist. ?esies1 we have spin-*/2 an
spin-*1 which is all we nee to maeK particles o! spin-)1 spin-$/2 an
spin-21 etc. 6hereGs no nee !or a !unamental spin-2 particle. @atureGs
conservative in that way.
Fell1 it looKs liKe the relationships o! polarization1 71 magnetization1 8
an permittivity an permeability are 5ust right1 i! you assume )
magnetic an electric !iel stengths !or the vacuum1 i.e.1 Y;Z an Y?Z =
) !or vacuum Cwhich seems reasonableD to support the iea o! !ermionic
an bosonic entanglement being two i!!erent !orms o! a generalize
quantum entanglement which is conserve. ;ntanglement conservation
is probably more !unamental than mrere probability conservation1 since
the e0act quantum mechanical analogue !or classical probability is
sqrt[7si 0 7siW\ where 7si is pure state wave!unction1 while the
generalization o! this quantity is o! course the ensity matri0 where the
phase relations o! the components o! the ensity matri0 Can their
temporal evolutionD represents the istribution o! quantum entanglement
in the statistically mi0e system.
?y
prn=
@oetherGs theorem there shoul be an unerlying symmetry !or
quantum entanglement CP;D as a conserve quantity as well as a
quantum number uniquely associate with P;. 6he symmetry may turn
out to be orinary spacetime symmetry Cbut o! a eeper Kin than that
pointe up by mere momentum-energy vector or1 stress-momentum-
energy tensorD. /n o! course the quantum number associate with P;
symmetry must be the inverse o! von @eumann entropy1 which weGll call
von @eumann in!ormation Cin contrast to classical1 igital or E"hannon
in!ormationED. E79./AHJ/6H9@ I;369A". Hn the theory o! the
electromagnetic !iel: two vectors1 7 an 81 given by 7 = : - e; an 8
= ?/u - =1 where : is the isplacement1 ; the electric !iel strength1 ?
the magnetic inuction1 = the magnetic !iel strength1 an e an u the
permittivity an permeability respectively in empty space.E @!ct!onary
o, Phys!cs C*2N)D
>uly 2)*$
6he equating o! in!ormation with a reuction in uncertainty
C"hannon in!ormationD oes not !ully capture the nature o! in!ormation
as our uncertainty1 which is intentional in nature1 i.e.1 it_s uncertainty
about something. =ow might we interpret a reuction in uncertainty that
is not intentional1 say when we learn about something that we previously
Knew nothing about? 6hat is new in!ormation1 but oes not represent a
reuction in any uncertainty about something in particular. Hs the past
robust against two-imensional temporal !luctuations? Hmagine that the
blin spot o! the eye is irectly over the !ovea. Fhat are the
metaphorical philosophical implications o! this thought e0periment? 6he
acquisition o! a !irst language by an in!ant or small chil necessarily
involves a bootstrapping process. 6his is because the !unny souns
mae by the people which the in!ant hears o not contain any
in!ormation in an o! themselves. 6he neo-arwinian mechanism o!
evolution is !orme o! two components one is strictly critical in nature
an the other ranom. 3reativity can be !oune on neither1 however
weGre suppose to believe that acting together these two components o!
the evolutionary mechanisms are su!!icient to prouce new genetic
in!ormation. Fhat is the primary istinction between new in!ormation
e0isting in!ormation which appears new because it has been
reprocesse? 6he !ine tuning o! physical constants is so terribly e0act
an precise that the ob5ect o! this tuning coul only be that which is the
most speci!ic thing possible. 6his brings up the intriguing question
whether or not selection !or a spectrum or array o! istinct
consciousness_s constitutes a more precise target !or the 8i0master
universe to hit than is a speci!ic iniviual consciousness? Ht is i!!icult
to imagine that our conception o! the universe is nothing more than a
pro5ection mae !rom a stanpoint o! abysmally limite Knowlege. Fe
mistaKenly an subconsciously conceive o! the unKnown as the totality
o! what we Know that we onGt Know.
H woner i! we can taKe as general principle !or maKing up geanKen
e0periments about possible analogue Ci.e.1 mechanicalD moels o!
gravitation the !ollowing: "ee what happens to physical quantities in the
vacuum when trans!orming to an accelerate re!erence !rame an invoKe
;insteinGs equivalence principle Cboth principles1 strong an weaK1
inertial mass = gravitational mass an gravitation equivalent to
accelerationD in orer to propose 5ust these types o! changes to these
vacuum physical quantities as the unerlying mechanism !or sustaining a
gravitational !iel.
Hs the change in con!iguration energy o! the vacuum !iels that must
a5ust in some way when a particle1 such as a proton or muon is
remove !rom the region o! the vacuum? 6his is liKe thinKing o! the
particleGs inertial mass in terms o! the mass equivalence o! the particleGs
vacuum enthalpy.
Oin o! liKe calculating the *st orer propagator/state o! a particle as a
*st orer mani!estation o! the unerlying vacuum !iel1 by summing up
all the 2n orer an all higher orer corrections to the propagator?
H Kin o! imagine the atoms composing any bit o! matter1 any mass as
ynamically grouping themselves into composite bosons an !ermions
through a continual mutual e0change o! quantum entanglement between
these virtual EcellsE an EomainsE !orme o! arbitrary groupings o!
entangle atoms that are continually reconstituting themselves so as to
maintain a Kin o! entanglement equilibrium1 i.e.1 continual avoiance o!
squeeze states while maintaining overall conservation o! entanglement
throughout the bulK o! the mass. =owever1 upon accleration1 squeeze
states !orm but in accorance with a Kin o! action or minimization
principle that maintains a shi!te thermoynamic equilibrium within the
mass1 i.e.1 some entropy is inevitably prouce by acceleration.
CAeversibility o! time-inepenent "chroinger equation eterministic
evolution1 !orseable by the cosmic quantum vacuum 37, must breaK
own1 necessitating ecoherence processesD /n the net bulK
entanglement within the mass shi!ts !rom spin-) to spin-* through a shi!t
in the istrubution o! entanglement1 mimicKing what woul be e0pecte
!or a vacuum with equivalent gravitational potential Cin terms o!
equivalent accelerationD. / Ainler horizon Cas a generalization o! an
event horizonD !orms an :avies-,nruh raiation is observe that is
consistent with the entropy o! the newly !orme Ainler horizon . . .
whewT 9! course1 the permeability an permittivity within the bulK
matter also trans!orm so that the spee o! light within the mass changes
to re!lect the new vacuum that the mass sees while uner acceleration1
an so on. . .
HGve been looKing at this iea o! the vacuum not gravitating. -orce may
be characterize as either time rate o! change in $-momentum or as
space rate o! change in energy CtimeliKe (-momentum1 i! your willD.
@otice that when a photon either !alls into a gravitational potential or
Eclimbs outE o! one that the ratios1 /ap//at an /a;//a0 are constant1
implying that the vacuum e0erts no !orce on the in!alling or escaping
photon.
@otice also that the photonGs (-momentum is unchange though
climbing out o! a potential an reshi!ting in the process. 6his s because
the increase in the local velocity o! light Ci.e.1 acceleration o! the photonD
as the photon reaches regions o! ecrease potential Cas the photon
climbs outD is e0actly by the ecrease in the photonGs !requency - these
act in opposing senses so that the photonGs (-momentum is conserve.
HGve also been thinKing that the notion o! =eisenberg uncertainty shoul
be relate more irectly to the iea o! relative ecoherence o! the
timeliKe1 spin-) Cvirtual 3ooper pair creation-annihilationD an
spaceliKe1 spin-* Cvirtual boson e0changes within $-spaceD components
o! the !luctuating quantum vacuum in a changing gravitational potential.
H thinK that an increase /ap Cuncertainty in $-momentumD governing the
ecrease ensity o! creation-annihilation o! virtual 3ooper pairs within
a strong gravitational potential coul be interprete as an increase
internal ecoherence o! the 3ooper pairsG wave!unction Cor ensity
matri0D an the ecrease /a; Cuncertainty in imaginary (-momentumD
governing the increase ensity o! virtual boson e0changes in this strong
potential coul be interprete as a ecrease1 i.e.1 increase coherence1
hence entanglement o! these virtual bosons. 6his seems elegant an
invites more systematic thought about =-uncertainty an its relation to
ecoherence an entanglement in a gravitational potential relative to !ree
space spacetime.
Puestion: i! an electron an a positron mutually annihilate1 the pair o!
photons prouce will have per!ect correlation o! their polarizations1
provie that the spins o! the electron an positron were per!ectly
entangle so as to be anti-parallel. H! the entanglement o! the + or # */2
spin o! the electron an positron is )1 then the polarizations o! the
photons prouce in the mutual annihilation shall be completely
ecohere1 correct? H! HGm right1 then woulnGt this support the iea o!
there being a close relationship between entanglement o! virtual 3ooper
pairs an virtual photons in a gravitational !iel1 at least in essence1 you
Know1 in terms o! the whole conservation o! entanglement concept as
applie to bosonic an !ermionic vacuum !luctuations o! momentum-
energy1 c.!.1 http://en.wiKipeia.org/wiKi/;lectron-positron#annihilation
/ ielectric meium has a reuce velocity o! light because o! the
continual absorption an reemission o! the photons as the photon passes
through the meium. 6he ecrease velocity o! light in a vacuum
where a strong gravitational !iel is present might be unerstoo in a
similar manner L the electron-positron creation-annihilations are o!
lower ensity in a gravitational !iel an so a photon must compensate
by possessing a greater momentum uncertainty to brige the gap create
by the reuce energy uncertainty o! this gravitational potential in!use
vacuum.
8athew ?rzezinsKi @ew <orK 6imes article about 8ilitary_s resistance
to introuction o! new war!ighter technology.
mm ine0es passages or equations o! interest
3an you grant that the ratio o! the =eisenberg energy uncertainty to the
=eisenberg momentum uncertainty1 /a;//ap b c? =ow about that /ap
an /a; together !orm a (-vector o! momentum-energy uncertainty1
which is .orentz-invariant? C@ote: we woul e0pect in a non-symmetric
gravitational !iel !or there to be a stress-momentum-energy uncertainty
tensor1 nicht wahr?D
3an you grant that the e0change o! virtual photons between two
electrons constitutes a !luctuation in the vacuum_s $-momentum? Ht is
also a !luctuation in the vacuum_s energy1 but not o! its $-momentum?
Hn this sense1 the collective spin-) !luctuations in the vacuum_s
momentum-energy are orthogonal to the spin-* C$-vectorD !luctuations in
vacuum momentum-energy.
?ut this orthogonality o! spin-) an spin-* vacuum momentum-energy
!luctuations only obtains !or the case o! the so-calle !ree space vacuum
an constitutes a Kin o! quantum statistical basis !or spacetime
symmetry.
?y the way1 since /aP = [YP -
2
Z - YPZ
2
\ with the !irst term uner the
raical being the !luctuation term an the secon the square o! the
e0pectation value o! P1 it !ollows that in the absence o! matter1 i.e.1 in
vacuum1 the =eisenberg uncertainty in P1 /aP is ientical to the
!luctuation in P.
@ow lets asK what happens to the ratio1 /a;//ap when viewe !rom an
accelerate re!erence !rame.
/at ilates an /a0 Cin the irection o! motionD contracts. 4iven that
/a;/ap = h an /ap/a0 = h1 it !ollows that !rom the perspective o! an
accelerate re!erence !rame1
/a; contracts an /ap
ilates Cgets largerD
6he hypothesis here is that /a; an /ap mutually change when viewe
!rom an accelerate !rame o! re!erence so as to represent a spacetime
rotation o! /a; an /ap as components o! a conserve (-vector.
@ow i! /a; relativistically shrinKs Cremember in vacuum /a; is the
!luctuation in the vacuum_s energyD an the incompatible observable
CparameterD1 /at ilates1 then this can be represente consistently1 H
believe as a ensity o! creation-annihilations !or virtual 3ooper pairs
being reuce an there!ore the !requencies o! temporal processes1
which !unamentally epen upon =eisenberg energy uncertainty must
taKe place at a slower rate. "ince /a; relativistically shrinKs1 by what
has alreay been sai1 /ap the !luctuation in the vacuum_s $-momentum1
must increase an the ensity o! virtual boson e0changes taKing place
within matter containe within this trans!orme vacuum must there!ore
increase as well1 leaing to an increase in the bining energy ensity o!
the mass1 which is associate with a relativistically increase in mass.
6he reason H ienti!y /a; with timeliKe !luctuations is because /at is an
incompatible =eisenberg uncertainty relative to /a;. /n H interpret
spin-) CscalarD to be a timeliKe oriente vector1 i.e.1 it_s really spin-*
though oriente parallel to the local time a0is. H interpret spin-* C$-
vectorD to be a spaceliKe vector1 it_s really spin-)1 but oriente parallel to
a spatial irection.
6here!ore1 the trans!ormation o! space an time1 contraction an
ilation1 which occurs when moving to an accelerate !rame is parallele
by a trans!ormation o! $-momentum an energy Cconceive o! as
timeliKe oriente momentum or RimaginaryS momentum L because o!
the 8inKowsKi C+1+1+1-D signature o! spacetimeD. 6he trans!ormation is
otherwise Known as a .orentz boost. 8agnetic an electric !iels
mutually trans!orm1 magnetization an polarization trans!orm an the
=eisenberg uncertainties in p an ;1 /ap an /a; trans!orm a!ter the
!ashion o! a spacetime rotation o! (-momentum C(-momentum
uncertainty in this caseD.
6he bulK properties o! matter such as magnetization an polarization are
entanglement riven an so the trans!ormation o! entanglement cause
by acceleration shoul cause a trans!ormation o! the magnetic
permeability an electric permittivity o! the quantum vacuum through
trans!orming the equilibrium magnetization an polarization o! the !ree
space vacuum. 6his is suggeste by reviewing the basic !ormulas !or
polarization an magnetization1
A = B - "V 4 = 1 L -/-
@otice that an increasing polarization1 A an a ecreasing magnetization1
49 which is to be unerstoo as a spacetime rotation Cin accorance with
the relativistic !ormulation o! 8a0well_s ;quationsD. 6he question
arises whether the e0pectation values o! B an 19 CBD an C1D in !ree
space vacuum are inee (.
6he basis !or the thermal temperature istribution !or :avies-,nruh
raiation is the increase ensity o! virtual boson e0change taKing place
between the bubbling virtual cooper pairs. Hs the source o! the entropy
associate with the ,nruh temperature the increase isorer o! the
previously CalmostD per!ectly antiparallel electron-positrons o! each
virtual cooper pair? Hn per!ectly !lat spacetime1 there woul be no sel!-
7auli blocKing an no virtual boson e0changes an no initial an
bounary conitions L eternal universe o! in!inite size.
6he limit on the size1 i.e.1 RmassS o! quantum !luctuations o! the vacuum
shoul etermine the limit on mass o! quantum states that can be
superpose. Iacuum bounary conitions1 which prouce Rcompoun
!luctuationsS1 which cannot occur in the !ree space vacuum as simple
!luctuations may now be unerstoo to be !luctuation structures RinS the
vacuum an not simply Ro!S the vacuum. Ht is at this stage in
comple0ity where the system must be suppose to possess some
inepenent in!ormation content.
3an an event occur !or two or more unrelate reasons similar to
egeneracy in quantum mechanics?
6he imagination prompts us to !orm conceptions o! things we coul
however conceive ha we not possesse the wors not to escribe but
to trigger the networK o! otherwise consciously inaccessible associations
L changes in consciousness necessarily go along with this polymath o!
metaphor generation that is largely unconscious.
8agnetization o! virtual 3ooper pairs may be consiere internal
entanglement. ;0ternal entanglement o! virtual pairs may be escribe
in terms o! polarization o! the virtual photons o! the quantum vacuum.
6here is a !unamental i!!erence between comman an e6ecution that
is not su!!iciently unerstoo by proponents o! har /H Carti!icial
intelligenceD.
H! you count the number o! 7lancK areas that !it on the sur!ace o! a blacK
hole or raius1 A an apply ?oltzmann_s !ormula !or entropy1
consiering each o! these 7lancK areas to constitute a single bit o!
in!ormation1 then can you get the correct value !or the =awKing
temperature o! the hole in this way?
H ten to thinK that all o! the hole_s in!ormation content is containe on
its sur!ace1 where the timeliKe collective spin-) imaginary momentum
!luctuations Cin the !orm o! creation-annihilation o! 3ooper pairsD has
been completely trans!orme into spaceliKe $-momentum !luctuations in
the !orm o! virtual photons promote to being real photons raiate !rom
the hole_s shrinKing sur!ace as blacK boy raiation. ;ach photon
emitte !rom the hole is purely thermal because representing the mutual
annihilation o! positron-electron pairs whose mutual spin-*/2
orientations have become totally isentangle. /lthough the
electromagnetic spectrum o! the hole_s emission is that o! a blacK boy1
i.e.1 perfectly thermal" all o! the entanglement in!ormation lost !rom the
total ecoherence o! the virtual electron-positron pairs create an
annihilate at the hole_s event horizon is retaine in the polari(ation
entanglement of the photons emitte from the holeDs event hori(on.
C6his is our iea o! quantum entanglement in the vacuum being a
conserve quantity1 relating via @oether_s theorem to some symmetry L H
insist this symmetry is quantum statistical in nature an is closely
connecte with spacetime symmetry itsel!. 6his is consistent with
ma0imal re-shi!ting o! the hole_s thermal photon emissions C=awKing
raiationD as viewe at in!inity Cwhere the hole_s potential = )D an also
consistent with a photon !alling into the hole !rom in!inity being
infinitely blueFshifte. /ll o! the entanglement o! in-!alling photons
with the progressively more entangle virtual photons o! the vacuum
e/m !luctuations that lie ever closer to the hole_s event horizon L in the
sense o! :e?roglie wave contraction with progressive virtual photon
entanglement in the vacuum progressively closer to the hole_s event
horizon.
Fell looK at the sur!ace o! a blacK hole as the e0treme case where
ecoherence1 entropy an time ilation all occur together. Fhen a
virtual 3ooper pair is spontaneously create 5ust this sie o! the event
horizon1 one component o! the pair1 let_s say in this case a positron1 !alls
into the hole an its partner1 the le!tover electron1 must mutually
annihilate with another positron !rom an altogether i!!erent virtual
3ooper pair that is also spontaneously create locally Crelative to the un-
partnere electronD an 5ust this sie o! the event horizon L this
represents *))% ecoherence o! the original 3ooper pair in the sense o!
all entanglement in!ormation seemingly having been lost with the
partner !ermion that !ell into the blacK hole.
6he entanglement in!ormation is really conserve an comes out o! the
mutual annihilation o! the le!tover partner virtual electron with the new
virtual positron that was create as part o! the newly create virtual
3ooper pair. H! spin-) in R!ree spaceS spacetime is unerstoo as
timeliKe spin-*1 then this same spin-) particle becomes spaceliKe spin-*
very near the sur!ace o! the blacK hole. 6his is because space an time
a0es actually RswapS with one another between in!inity C!ree spaceD an
the sur!ace o! the blacK hole.
6hat magnetization entanglement gets encoe in the !orm o! the
photon-antiphoton pair that results !rom this new pair_s annihilation.
6he photon-antiphoton pair is *))% ?ose conense an is there!ore
really a single photon1 which is also entangle with all o! the virtual
photons presently Cwithin /at1 which is virtually in!inite at the event
horizon1 c.!.1 holographic principleD raiate !rom the blacK hole_s
sur!ace Cevent horizonD. H believe this because H believe that there is
ma0imal virtual photon ?ose conensation at the blacK hole_s sur!ace.
/s the two photons Cnow conense into a single photonD raiate
thermally !rom the hole_s sur!ace in the !orm o! =awKing raiation1 this
polarization entanglement Co! all the photons raiate !rom the hole_s
sur!ace along with our particular conense photon L aroun which our
iscussion is centereD will eventually be returne to the vacuum as
progressive magnetization entanglement o! virtual electron-positron
pairs along the photon_s tra5ectory !rom the hole_s sur!ace to in!inity.
6here will be a 2)
o
spacetime rotation in the photon traveling !rom the
hole_s event horizon to in!inity. 6he spin-* photon becomes spin-) at
in!inity an is once again a virtual 3ooper pair being successively
create an annihilate.
/lso at in!inity all o! the polarization entanglement o! the propagating
=awKing raiation photons has been lost bacK to the vacuum in the !orm
o! a trail o! enhance vacuum magnetization entanglement o! the virtual
3ooper pairs that compose the tra5ectory o! the photons in the !orm o!
2
n
orer propagators !or the escaping photons. @ote that in moving
!rom the sur!ace o! a blacK hole to in!inity1 the light cone tips bacK !rom
its time a0is oriente towars the hole_s center to being oriente away
!rom the hole_s center. 6his represents a rotation o! *N) egrees in
space1 but is in !act only a mutual rotation o! the light cone_s space an
time a0es o! 2) egreesT 6he oscillating electric an magnetic !iels
which compose a photon are 2) egrees out o! phase with one another.
H_ve o!ten thought that the !act that you have to rotate a !ermion by %2)
o
to get the original !ermion wave!unction bacK is connecte with the !act
that there is a $&)
o
spacetime rotation o! the photon_s spin in taKing the
photon !rom in!inity to the sur!ace o! a blacK hole an bacK again?
6hat magnetization entanglement gets encoe in the !orm o! the
photon-antiphoton pair that results !rom this new pair_s annihilation.
6he photon-antiphoton pair is *))% ?ose conense an is there!ore
really a single photon1 which is also entangle with all o! the virtual
photons being at that moment raiate !rom the blacK hole_s sur!ace
Cevent horizonD. H believe this because H believe that there is a ma0imal
virtual photon ?ose conensation at the blacK hole_s sur!ace.
/s the two photons Cnow conense into a single photonD raiate
thermally !rom the hole_s sur!ace in the !orm o! =awKing raiation1 this
polarization entanglement Co! all the photons raiate !rom the hole_s
sur!ace along with our particular conense photon L aroun which our
iscussion is centereD will eventually be returne to the vacuum as
progressive magnetization entanglement o! virtual electron-positron
pairs along the photon_s tra5ectory !rom the hole_s sur!ace to in!inity.
6here will be a 2) egree spacetime rotation in the photon traveling
!rom the hole_s event horizon to in!inity CR!ree spaceS spacetime1 or
RvacuumSD. 6he spin-* photon becomes spin-) at in!inity an is once
again a virtual 3ooper pair being successively create an annihilate.
H_ve o!ten thought that the !act that you have to rotate a !ermion %2)
egrees to get the original !ermion wave!unction bacK is connecte with
the !act that there is a $&) egree spacetime rotation o! the photon_s spin
in taKing the photon !rom in!inity to the sur!ace o! a blacK hole an bacK
again?
?y e0amining Kinematic e!!ects upon =eisenberg uncertainties an
quantum entanglement o! .orentz trans!ormations1 i.e.1 special
relativity" we can via application o! ;instein_s equivalence principle
maKe perhaps less than misguie guesses at the !luctuation-correlation
structure o! the gravitating quantum vacuum. Fe shoul measure the
relative ecoherence o! the e
+
e
-
1 i.e.1 spin-) an 1 i.e.1 spin-*
components o! the vacuum in terms o! the relative magnitue o! /a;
an /ap. Hn a gravitational potential an inU!alling or escaping photon
!eels no R!orceS because both ratios1 /a;//a0 an /ap//at are unchanging
along the photon_s tra5ectory. 6he ratios1 /a;//ap an /a0/at o however
change along two ratios change in opposite sense.
Hn other wors1 the changing local velocity o! light increases as the
photon climbs up the gravitational potential at the same time as the
length in the irection o! the photon_s propagation e0pans which the
photon_s !requency Cas oppose to perioD ilates. 6he photon
accelerates as its !requency ecreases. Hn this manner is the photon_s (-
momentum conserve though propagating through a change in
gravitational potential. 6o relate relative ecoherence to spin-) an
spin-* vacuum !luctuations1 we must e0amine the /a; o! $-momentum
!luctuations vs. the /ap o! energy !luctuations1 i.e.1 timeliKe p-uncertainty
o! spaceliKe momentum !luctuations an spaceliKe p-uncertainty o!
timeliKe momentum !luctuations.
Hnstea o! spin an angular momentum1 > = . + "1 lets looK at the
unerlying phase space within which > is interprete as a *-!orm an
relate spacetime curvature to curvature o! phase space. Fhat about the
relationship o! @-imensional con!iguration space to phase space which
is in turn relate to entanglement istribution an squeeze states1 say o!
an e0tene couple harmonic oscillator/crystal? .ooK at helicity o!
annihilating e
+
e
-
pair an helicity o! resulting pair.
?arry "etter!iel proposes that the J7;1 zero-point energy o! the
vacuum is the resiual energy !rom the ?ig ?ang1 in!lation1 etc. H! there
is some ynamic energetic process istribute throughout the cosmos1
which is ecaying or otherwise changing with time1 an this process
a!!ects the manner o! light_s propagation1 then we are liKely to
incorrectly estimate the variables entering into the equation escribing
this process i! inee we epen on in!ormation about the nature o! light
that is our only observational inicator o! how this process is un!oling.
:avies-,nruh temperature is ) !or inertially in-!alling particles such as
photons. 9ne Kin o! vacuum entanglement !or inertial motion an
another !or non-inertial motion.
=ow much energy oes it taKe to convert a gas o! spin-* bosons1 e.g.1
photons into a gas o! collective spin-) 3ooper pairs C*))% quantum
anti-correlate spinsD?
=yperentanglement L the superposition o! all superpositions L the
conte0t o! all possible superpositions. =yperentanglement is quantum
entanglement that cannot be ecohere by even in!inite acceleration.
=euristics are necessary because learning an communication1 even
memory are always constructs that involve a ialectical process1 which
is to say a process that is not groun-inepenent.
6he converse o! the proposition that the sel! is a social construct is the
proposition that the other is a pro5ection o! the sel!1 Oantian 3opernican
Aevolution Cin reverseD.
:on_t wait !or the e0perience to be past be!ore it becomes a memory.
6his is an almost incoherent ma0im in ;nglish. ?ut in common1 it is
quite an elegant e0pression.
3lassical in!ormation is a subset o! quantum in!ormation. "o when H
receive in!ormation !rom someone an my brain processes the sensory
ata carrying this in!ormation1 my brain as a quantum computer simply
changes its state o! quantum entanglement with the quantum vacuum
!iel with which its neural microtubules are in continual interaction. Hn
this way1 it is realize that H haven_t actually receive any in!ormation
!rom the other person at all. H_ve 5ust receive a set o! instructions !or
ownloaing1 i! you will the appropriate nonlocally encoe signals that
we might suppose were alreay there in the vacuum !or perhaps a very
long time an the circuits o! my microtubule networK have only 5ust now
been returne so as to receive them. 6he question arises as to whether
the signals ha to be originally put there by anyboy Cmaybe by the
person !rom whom H receive the communicationD.
Iiewing a ielectric slab !rom the stanpoint o! an accelerate re!erence
!rame1 not only the polarization an magnetization o! the slab1 but also
the electric permittivity an magnetic permeability trans!orm.
7olarization an magnetization quantum entanglement o! spontaneously
create an annihilate virtual photons an virtual !ermion-anti!ermion
pairs also unergo a continuum o! .orentz trans!ormations.
http://phys.org/news/2)**-)N-arK-illusion-quantum-vacuum.html
/t the event horizon o! the blacK hole1 an *))% swap has occurre o!
quantum entanglement o! spin-*/2 composite o! virtual composite spin-)
3ooper pairs Cwhat might be terme magnetization entanglementD into
the *))% polarization entanglement o! virtual photons Cphoton pairs?D.
Aotating 3locK 7uzzle L when an apparent parao0 stems !rom logic that
is not thorough-going enough Cthis1 however turne out not to be the
case where R4eel_s 7arao0S was concerneD. What was /,elDs
parao6" c.f." Wi'ipeia.org. 6he square en table clocK reas1 R&:*'S.
6urn the clocK 2)
o
clocKwise an it now reas R2:$)S1 then turn the
clocK clocKwise another 2)
o
an the clocK reas R*2:('S. 6urning the
clocK another 2)
o
clocKwise an the clocK reas $:)). 6urn it once
more an the clocK once again reas R&:*'S. 6his gives us a total o! *$
hours. 6his is the parao01 which is easily enough solve when you
realize that the hour han is accumulating a retaration in its clocKwise
progression aroun the clocK !ace o! *' minutes per | turn.
3an an iea which has no author1 e.g.1 is stumble upon by many
inepenently o! one another be a valuable spiritual teaching? Fhen
the ensity o! virtual 3ooper pairs is prouce an Cto conserve
entanglement the ensity o! virtual bosons is relatively enhance we
have a case in which a smaller ensity o! changes in energy in
controlling a larger ensity o! changes in $-momentum responsible !or
bining !orces accounting !or matter_s rigiity an inertiaD. ;0cept !or
masses approaching blacK hole ensity1 most o! the (-momentum o! the
mass remains imaginary an timeliKe. 6ime ilation an relativistic
mass can be seen to be intimately relate in terms o! this cellular
automata C3/D analogue moel !or 4A. "houl this 3/ moel best be
simulate on a classical or quantum computer?
:evelop a piece o! so!tware that ranomly shu!!les test questions an
answers an assigns each answer Key iniviually to a stuent. H! one
stuent gets the same answers as another1 then this will be proo! positive
o! cheating1 the number o! istinct answer sequences being *)T !or a *)-
question e0am.
Aesearch which subscriptions an service contracts are most i!!icult to
cancel1 e.g.1 /9. an o!!er a web-base service o! canceling an
ocumenting cancellation o! sai service contracts.
"el!-7auli blocKing o! spontaneously create an annihilate virtual
3ooper pairs Cpartially ecohere in the sense o! impaire magnetization
entanglementD within the !luctuating quantum vacuum constitutes
perhaps the suppression o! timeliKe quantum correlations o! otherwise
pure imaginary (-momentum !luctuations. Hn this way quantum
entanglement o! timeliKe !luctuations in vacuum momentum-energy is
trans!erre to quantum entanglement o! spaceliKe !luctuations in vacuum
momentum-energy. ?y the way1 the spee o! light woul be in!inite in
the case o! *))% magnetization entanglement o! the spontaneously
create/annihilate virtual 3ooper pairs. 8agnetic permeability an
permittivity represent the bulK electromagnetic properties o! he quantum
vacuum that are owing to the relative polarization an magnetization
entanglement o! virtual bosons an virtual 3ooper pairs continually an
spontaneously create within the vacuum on account o! the =eisenberg
momentum an energy principles.
.ooK at polarization an magnetization in a ielectric/iamagnetic
meium an 1 !or this meium with regar to entanglement o! 7 - "
an 8 in the meium. .ooK at generalize .orentz !orce in terms o!
relativistic trans!ormation o! timeliKe ?-!iel C;-!ielD into spaceliKe ?-
!iel. .ooK at collective spin states/ensity matrices !or e
+
e
-
!or !ull
range o! possible entanglement o! e
+
with e
-
!rom the same 3ooper pair.
H
von@eumann
L H
shannon
= H
q
L H
c
= H
e

H
q
= H
quantum
H
c
= H
classical
H
e
= H
entanglement
:@/ represents classically encoe quantum in!ormation an quantum
encoe classical in!ormation.
3lassical in!ormation L in!ormation about initial an bounary
conitions.
Puantum in!ormation L in!ormation about nonlocal ob5ects encoe
through quantum entanglement o! vacuum !luctuations
:istinguish YtimeliKe entanglementZ !rom YspaceliKe entanglementZ
3lassical quantum an RrobustS in!ormation1 i.e.1 in!ormation that
cannot ecohere1 e.g.1 say ue to in!inite accelerations.
Ycovariance versus invarianceZ
3oherent meme comple0es both possess or e0hibit an are preatory
upon other coherent meme comple0es1 383_s are entity liKe. Fhat o
istribute nonlocal e!!ects o! ;7A in curve spacetime have to say
about local ;7A e!!ects in curve spacetime.
=uman nature is a re!lection o! ivine nature or ivine nature is a
re!lection o! human nature? ?ut it taKes consciousness to even come to
Know what human nature isT
H! the photon spens part o! its time as an electron-positron pair1 then we
might suppose that the wave!unction escribing such electron-positron
pairs is ientical with the vector potential o! the propagating photon. /s
the photon R!allsS into a gravitational potential it is entering a vacuum o!
progressively greater ensity o! $-momentum !luctuations1 i.e.1 virtual
photons with which there!ore the photon increasingly interacts1 meaning
also progressive ecoherence o! the wave!unction o! the photon or o! its
vector potential /
u
. 6his ecoherence is mani!est as increase
entanglement o! the !alling photon with the succession o! virtual photons
along the photon_s tra5ectory. 6here is an associate increase mutual
isentanglement o! the virtual electron-positron pairs Cthat is1 o! each
virtual pair_s component electron an positron partsD along the photon_s
tra5ectory Can which constitute the timeliKe component o! the photon_s
propagator.D 6his may be alternately seen as the photon encountering1
as it !alls within the gravitational potential1 a quantum vacuum that is
progressively more polarize an less magneti(e. 6his leas us to
believe that the photon !alling into the gravitational potential also enters
a vacuum o! progressively ecohere virtual 3ooper-paire electron-
positrons. @ote that the more ecohere are the virtual 3ooper pairs Cin
the sense o! loss o! mutual quantum correlation o! the pairs_ component
electron an positron partsD1 the less o the virtual electron an positron
components o! the 3ooper pair e0ist as pure collective spin-) Cthe spins
o! the electrons an positrons belonging to the same 3ooper pair are no
longer precisely anti-parallel or *))% quantum anti-correlateD an so
there shoul be an enhance sel!-7auli blocKing o! virtual !ermions/anti-
!ermions continuously being create an annihilate Can recreate an
re-annihilateD by the quantum vacuum Cat each spacetime point along
the photon_s tra5ectoryD1 that is1 relative to the case o! the !ree space
vacuum. 6he increase mutual entanglement o! the virtual photons
along the path o! the in-!alling photon_s tra5ectory1 which accounts !or
the gravitational blueshi!t o! the in-!alling photon through the change in
:e?roglie wavelength o! the entangle virtual photons1 by the way may
be unerstoo as ?ose conensation. Hncrease ?ose conensation o!
Cspin-*D virtual photons in con5unction with increase 7auli blocKing o!
Cspin-)D virtual 3ooper pairs goes han in han with a shi!t in the
ensity o! the vacuum_s momentum-energy !luctuations !rom less
timeliKe1 imaginary momentum !luctuations towar more spaceliKe $-
momentum !luctuations. <ou can also looK at this shi!t in momentum-
energy components o! the vacuum_s momentum-energy !luctuation
matri0 along the path o! increasing gravitational potential as the photon
e0periencing a vacuum o! increasing polarization an ecreasing
magnetization. =mmmm. . .
=ypotheses o! my theory1 which are not establishe by prior art:
Hmaginary momentum !luctuations are collective spin-) *))% quantum
anti-correlate virtual spin +/- { !ermions. Hn !ree space these
imaginary momentum !luctuations constitute the vacuum_s energy
ensity Cas oppose to its pressureD such that /a;
vac
2
- /ap
0
2
- /ap
y
2
- /ap
z
2
= /ap
imaginary
2
. Fhen /a;_ Z /a;1 then /a;_//ap_ Y /a;//ap such that c_ Y c
vacuo
means in terms s! the quantum noise in photonics moel that less
imaginary momentum !luctuations control more real or $-momentum
!luctuations. / reuce spee o! light locally means that1 locally virtual
bosons are becoming more highly correlate an imaginary momentum
!luctuations1 less correlate. 7hoton tra5ectories in a gravitational !iel
represent a conserve quantum entanglement an hence1 a conserve
=eisenberg uncertainty.
8aybe there is a quantum in!ormation treatment o! the ol .e"age
analogue theory o! gravity1 which can e0plain the e!!ect o! bulK matter
upon the vacuum in terms o! isrupting the quantum entanglement o! the
spin +/- { components o! virtual 3ooper pairs1 e.g.1 electrons1 muons1
neutrinos1 etc. H! the quantum correlation o! say virtual e
-
e
+
_s within a
given small volume o! quantum vacuum is essentially nonlocal though at
the same time this nonlocal quantum correlation were locally meiate"
then we might e0pect some sort o! inverse-square law o! the istribution
o! these correlations in terms o! the local istribution o! matter. Fhat
shoul we e0pect to happen to the ensity matri0 escribing a real
3ooper pair1 which !alls into a say neutron star_s gravitational potential?
Ht is the belie! here that what happens to this ensity matri0 over time1 as
the pair !alls towar the neutron star is 5ust a re!lection o! changes that a
comoving observer woul observe !or the ensity matri0 escribing
virtual 3ooper pair creation-annihilation along the tra5ectory o! the
!alling real 3ooper pair. Hn other wors1 gravity oes not alter the P8
statistics o! vacuum !luctuations1 but rather matter oes this1 an the
altere P8 vacuum statistics is what itsel! constitutes the gravitational
!iel.
6om Ian -lanern notes the !ollowing in his
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/spee#o!#gravity.asp that R6he
rubber sheet analogy is represente as a way o! visualizing why boies
attract one another. =owever1 in that regar1 it is highly e!ective. /
target boy sitting on the sie o! an inentation woul stay in place1 with
no tenency to roll ownhill1 unless there were alreay a !orce such as
gravity unerneath the rubber sheet pulling everything ownhill. /n
this !ailure o! the analogy helps us ienti!y the precise problem with the
curve space-time escription o! gravity L the lacK o! causality. Fithout
consieration o! why a target boy is inuce to accelerate through
space1 an how quicKly it receives upates o! in!ormation about how to
accelerate through space1 neither the space-time curvature e0planation
nor the rubber sheet analogy can help us unerstan why gravity appears
to act so much !aster than light.S
>uly 2)**
"pacetime curvature must be
interprete in terms o! i!!erential rates o! cosmological e0pansion o! a
!our imensional ;ucliean spatial mani!ol. 6he the question arises o!
how we escribe the cosmological e0pansion o! this ( mani!ol !rom
observation vantage points represente by ifferent inertial frames of
reference% Foul this aitional consieration necessitate a treatment
o! the problem in terms o! a !ive imensional absolute spacetime?
H! causality is a subset o! correlation1 5ust a particular structure o!
vacuum !luctuations an their quantum correlations/entanglement1 then
perhaps the transmission o! all "hannon CclassicalD in!ormation is
secretly encoe as Ion @eumann CquantumD in!ormation in the !orm o!
quantum correlations1 both timeliKe an spaceliKe.
9ne who appears ma i! acting alone almost assurely is ma. ?ut the
seeming ma !ellow may inee be acting thus in concert with others
an in support o! some group purpose so that appearances can be
eceiving.
H! quantum entanglement is viewe as the lines o! quantum
communication/in!ormation !low Cgoverning the spaceliKe an timeliKe
quantum correlation o! vacuum !luctuations in vacuum momentum-
energyD when viewing matter + vacuum as a quantum computing
simulation1 then !or e0ample1 time ilation ue to gravity may be
unerstoo in terms o! ecrease in quantum entanglement in time with
associate increase in quantum entanglement in $-space such that
entanglement in C$ + *D spacetime is a conserve quantity1 c.!.1 "achs_
concept o! Rconservation o! interactionS.
Iico thought we coul be certain about what we construct1 e.g.1 .aw1
8athematics1 6heology1 etc. ?ut consier that we must manipulate
elements over which we lacK complete control anytime we evelop such
human constructs.
6here has to be a nucleus o! nonlocally correlate !luctuations that can
serve as the basis o! the observer within accelerate !rames. :iscuss
integro-i!!erential version o! Jeno_s parao0.
:iscuss why the psychological malaies associate with leaving ;arth_s
gravitational !iel only a!!ect certain persons1 e.g.1 in relation to "earle_s
notion o! zombies an the octrine o! ivine election Cscience !iction
short story ieaD.
8ight 4eelian noncomputable components o! min lie with this
component that is impervious to the e!!ects o! ecoherence. 6he in!inite
potential barrier1 impervious to ecoherence component o! min_s
nonlocal quantum !luctuations an ivine election vs. zombiehoo.
:egeneracy pressure opposes the positive !eebacK o! ?ose
conensation o! !orce-meiating e0change particles in a gravitationally
collapsing ust clou. =ow oes virtual boson entanglement scale with
the cosmological e0pansion an coul this have any bearing on a time-
varying gravitational constant?
>uly 2)**
/re the latest a hoc innovations
o! astrophysics represente by ar' matter an ar' energy better
unerstoo in terms o! :irac_s or :icKe_s notion o! a spatiotemporally
varying gravitational RconstantS? /ctually1 a goo theory o! inuce
gravity shoul provie a uni!ie e0planation o! all o! the
astrophysical/cosmological anomalies1 e.g.1 ar' matter" ar' energy"
iscrete cosmological reshift" vanishing cosmological constant"
4ioneer anomaly" the -lac' <ole Information 4arao6" timeFvarying
spee of light an gravitational 7constant8" in aition to e0plaining
what is !ast becoming the embarrassing !ailure to etect gravitational
waves1 the persistent !ailure to quantize gravity1 i.e.1 no spin-2 graviton1
as well as emonstrating that the search !or a particular e0change boson
as the basis !or particle masses/inertia is a !unamentally misguie one.
/n a theoretical e0planation !or a small neutrino mass shoul !all out
o! the theory as an unintene bonus. Fhether such a theory coul she
light on Ian -lanern_s Rspee o! gravityS conunrum is another matter.
"uch an inuce gravity theory has to be spin- or quantum statistics-
base1 we thinK1 because Buantum statistics is in fact the broaest
possible basis for escribing funament physical processes. Fe say this
because ?ohm_s causal principle Cwhich states that all causal
connections may be equivalently recast as correlations o! quantum
vacuum !luctuationsD woul in this case allow us to e0plain the
ynamics o! all change" both local an nonlocal. 9! course1 as allue
to alreay1 ?ohm_s causal principle is actually a special case o! a broaer
Buantum fluctuation-correlation principle. @eee are /r+iv papers on
quantum entanglement an :e?roglie wavelength1 time varying vacuum
energy ensity1 composite spin-2 gravitons1 uni!ication o! 7auli-blocKing
an ?ose-enhancement as applie to real vs. virtual particles1 .orentz
trans!ormations applie to =eisenberg energy uncertainties1 FO?
appro0imation applie to the Runiverse wave!unctionS1 conservation o!
(-angular momentum an 8ercury_s perihelion precession1 an so on]
cont=
8ay 2)*(
Duantum "orreat!ons .h!ch Impy "ausat!on
http://lanl.ar0iv.org/p!/*$)2.2%$*.p! /bstract: RHn orinary1 non-
relativistic1 quantum physics1 time enters only as a parameter an not as
an observable [*\: a state o! a physical system is speci!ie at a given
time an then evolve accoring to the prescribe ynamics. Fhile the
state can1 an usually oes1 e0ten across all space1 it is only e!ine at
one instant o! time1 in con!lict with special relativity where space an
time are treate on an equal !ooting. =ere we asK what woul happen i!
we e!ine the notion o! the quantum ensity matri0 !or multiple spatial
an temporal measurements. Fe introuce the concept o! a pseuo-
ensity matri0 which treats space an time iniscriminately. 6his matri0
in general !ails to be positive !or timeliKe separate measurements1
motivating us to e!ine a measure o! causality that iscriminates
between spaceliKe an timeliKe correlations. Hmportant properties o! this
measure1 such as monotonicity uner local operations1 are prove. 6wo
qubit @8A e0periments are presente that illustrate how a temporal
pseuo-ensity matri0 approaches a genuinely allowe ensity matri0 as
the amount o! ecoherence is increase between two consecutive
measurements.S
3ouple harmonic oscillator moel !or !ermion-boson1 scalar-vector or
rather scalar-spinor-vector system1 i.e.1 spin +/- {1 )1 * system. "pin-2
or RtensorS comes into play by virtue o! perturbations o! the quantum
correlations between the spin-*/2 an spin-* components o! the system.
"pin-2 is thus always erivative1 i.e.1 gravity is an Re!!ective !ielS or a
Rparasitic !orceS not unliKe the van er Faals !orce.
Fhy is it wrong-heae to suppose that the ,niverse might be a
simulation C!or the same reason that solipsism is wrong-heae or the
iea that one_s whole e0istence has been nothing more than a ream.D
Fhat Rbreathes !ireS into the equations o! physics? Fhy the physics1
itsel! o! courseT ?ut where e0actly oes the Rphysics itsel!S resie? Ht
resies in the noncomputable Cnon-quantum-computer-simulableD
substrate o! the quantum vacuum.
$-way vacuum nonlocality an the RpolymonotheisticS metaphysics.
YFigner !unctionsZ1 Ymi0e state entanglementZ
6he component o! quantum entanglement that is ineraicable1 i.e.1 that
component that oes not vanish even uner in!inite accelerations1 must
be !unamentally i!!erent than the much larger component o!
entanglement that egraes uner uni!orm accelerations. 6his
ineraicable component o! quantum entanglement is probably that which
never enters into intersub5ective processes1 but is responsible !or the
bining o! mental contents an o! the integrity o! the iniviual
consciousness in general. Ht is also that component which can never be
analyze in terms o! causal relations such that the class o! !luctuations
an correlations that were create at the ?ig ?ang is necessarily larger
than that class o! !luctuations an correlations that became nonlocally
connecte at this beginning point. ;ach iniviual consciousness is
groune in its own spectrum o! nonlocally connecte vacuum
!luctuations. ?ut there are !unamentally two istinct types o! quantum
correlate vacuum !luctuations1 those which provie the groun o!
sub5ectivity1 i.e.1 consciousness an those that provie the unerlying
groun o! causal relations or potential causal relations. It is in the realm
of potential causal relations where we have this interomain of the two
types of nonlocally correlate fluctuations.
7arao0ically1 it is the !act o! the =eisenberg uncertainty principle_s
being an ontological rather than an epistemological principle1 which
grants quantum systems their ontological observer inepenence.
"trict causality must be compromise within an e0paning spacetime
where either vacuum energy or phase space are not conserve quantities1
c.!.1 email to :an Ian 4ent concerning origin o! ,nruh raiation1
)'/*2/)&1 c.!.1 Puantum 4ravity by .ee "molin.
; & 8 can be seen to be incompatible observables through application
o! /a0/ap Z= h to the case o! a static charge electric !iel an a charge
current magnetic !iel.
"tatic charge implies it seems that /a0 !or e
-
= ). /a0
e-
Y /a0 an /at_ Z /at
an also /ap_ Z /ap an /a;_ Y /a;.
"o .orentz trans!ormation trans!orms /ap an /a; as components o! a
!our vector [/ap
i
1 /a;\ = /ap
u
.
Aanom !iel o! quantum !luctuations averages to zero1 but what i!
correlations are introuce into this !luctuation !iel? Fouln_t we then
e0pect nonzero average !or p
i
an ;?
/a0 implies uncertainty in the ;-!iel1 5ust as /ap implies uncertainty in
the ?-!iel. 3oul the 2.%
o
38? raiation be an arti!act o! quantum
entanglement meiate ,nruh raiation? /!ter all1 it has been
etermine o! late that the cosmological e0pansion is not uni!orm1 but
rather is accelerating L so that at least some component o! the 38?
must be ,nruh raiation1 implying a systematic error in estimating the
age an size o! the ,niverse C as well as its matter ensityD.
6he artist_s urge to create trusts in there being many liKe himsel! though
in latent !orm1 asleep an waiting the proper stimulus Cprovie by the
artist_s own creative e0pressionD to awaKen.
Hn the case o! inertial motion there is a symmetry that implies that
creation an annihilation are balance. =ere causal relations are base
in coherent quantum relations an are base in coherent quantum
correlations o! vacuum !luctuations. Hn the case o! non-inertial motion1
there is some ecoherence o! quantum correlations Cphase relationsD o!
vacuum C!ermionicD !luctuations. =igher orer noninertial motions
woul appear as though originating altogether !rom outsie spacetime.
Hrreucible comple0ity o! noninertial motions within spacetime woul
have this appearance o! originating from outsie the spacetime.
3ollapse o! 7si may be meiate via a Rguessing algorithmS.
8ass can be e!ine in terms o! the istribution o! angular momentum
within spacetime > = m r. _
YbucKyballsZ & Y7enroseZ & Ygraviton limitZ R<ou can_t get a
i!!erent vacuum by simply builing a superconuctor.S
Fe may !ollow
au=
7armenies an imagine that all change is the result o!
unsuccess!ul attempts by min to grasp the being o! ineterminate Cor
in!inite1 *peironD1 c.!.1 appro0imation errors as !luctuations1 c.!.1
perturbation theory. Fhen consiering the valiity or sounness o! an
iea always remember to treat the iea as i! it ha not originate with
onesel!. Hn this way one can limit the bewitchment !actor. ?ohm_s
analysis o! causation in terms o! !luctuations an their correlations
implies the .orenz invariance o! the quantum vacuum as well as the
constancy1 which is to say in this conte0t the observer inepenence o!
the velocity o! light. =is analysis may also imply an asynchronous
cellular automata moel o! the vacuum.
RH woul hope that we scholars are not the ones who are hyping the
ocumentS1 c.!.1
au=
8arvin 8eyer interview on the
cit=
4ospel o! >uas.
@ot that he has or oes Rhope that. . .S :oes the sub5unctive moo or
tense !unction in the same way !or the *
st
person as it oes !or the 2
n
1 $
r
1
etc. persons?
/ccoring to the "outhern ?aptist octrine o! election1 man is not
capable o! choosing 4o for the right reasons L he can only choose 4o
!or the pleasures o! heaven an/or in orer to escape the agonies o! hell.
Hn the vein o! moern psychology1 this is to say that man_s choice o! 4o
is structure as mere stimulus-response born o! a mechanical or
instinctive animal program o! minimizing pain an ma0imizing pleasure.
8an cannot choose 4o !or moral reasons. 6his leaves open the
question o! whether 8an can re5ect 4o !or moral reasons1 that is1 !or
reasons o! conscience1 e.g.1 a conscientious ob$ector in war. 6he valiity
o! the ?ible as a message !rom the transcenent an wholly other1 that
is1 as not stemming !rom 8an himsel! L is vouchsa!e by the octrine o!
election.
Qd
6hat is1 i! 8an lacKs the moral sense an capacity to choose
4o1 then the message o! the ?ible coul have harly been cra!te by
humanKin. H! 8an oes possess this moral sense1 then whence oes it
originate?
Ae!lections on
au=
Iernor Iinge_s notion o! RsingularityS as threshol
where /H e0cees the grasp o! =H Chuman intelligenceD in relation to a
!unamental characteristic o! consciousness. 9ne o! the emarcators o!
conscious vs. unconscious is 5ust this emergence o! positive !eebacK o!
intelligence upon itsel! in terms o! the bounary conitions to the
consciousness altere by this !iel in the irection o! at the level o! the
iniviual. 6he point at which /H outstrips R=HS is the emergence o! this
positive !eebacK Cbetween intelligence an the conitions !or
intelligenceD in Iinge_s RsingularityS1 i.e.1 this emergence at the level o!
the collective.
Crelate to the Rg5 vuS e0perienceD ?irs an ?unnies hippy
moern ay hippy girl. 3ommon souning phrase that is on
everyone s tongue in some parallel universe. 6here is choice in how
consciousness abstracts !rom its own ynamic substance. /s in all
abstraction1 subtler linKages o! ynamic control ClinKing e0istent abstract
entities to their engenering/supporting grounD are isrupte1 an yet
we are suppose to accept the possibility o! not to mention
!ormal/relational bounenessD being reconstitute by its own arti!acts
complete with those arti!acts_ collection o! less subtle interactions L this
is what lies at the heart o! the notion o! our one ay engineering a
conscious /H. 6he emergence o! consciousness within slowly evolving
primate brains must then be consiere the . . .
cont=

R:g5 vuS happens Rwhen they change something in the 8atri0S L there
may inee be a Kernel o! insight here that goes beyon the classical
e0planation o! Rthe mis-!ilingS o! a short term memory into long term
memoryS where this memory must possess no cross-re!erencing with
other memories !ile in short term memory with the same or similar
Rtime stampS. 7aranoia an quantum solipsism CRquantum
immortalitySD L as the iniviual_s sub$ective consciousness moves !rom
one parallel universe to the ne0t the iscontinuities in his memory !in
no support in iscontinuities o! intersub$ective memory Csee analogy o!
military/corporate RbratS who was !orce while growing up to move
!requently !rom one neighborhoo an school system to the ne0tD C=ow
one_s biography conitions one_s contributions to philosophy1 c.!.1
biography o! ;ric ;ricKsonD.
R/ chameleon_s eyeballs swivel on two i!!erent a0es as we can_t even
remotely imagine what a !lower looKs liKe to a chameleon1S c.!.1 4oogle.
/ goo philosophical essay topic woul be Rwhy H am not a brain in a
vat.S
/a7 0 /aP Z/= h an 71 P Y /a71 /aP are not measurable. 6his is
equivalent to saying that 7 an P cannot be causally manipulate1 that
is1 in accorance with a computable program. ?acK-reaction upon the
!iel cannot be in intersub5ective terms. :o noncomputable processes
unerlie all computable processes? 3omputable as the
bounary/bounary conition to/upon the noncomputable. 3an abstract
or !ormal symbols evoKe the !unamentally open-ene process by
which they were abstracte !rom noncomputable processes? /n woul
something liKe this be the only way that the pro5ect o! Rhar /HS has any
real prospects?
6ypes o! quantum correlations o! !luctuations composing the spectra
o! /a7 an /aP where /a7/aP Z/= h.
/a7 /a71 /a7 /aP1 /aP /aP ` `
/nti-sel!-correlations?
Fe must epart !rom strict conservation o! momentum-energy when
stress becomes signi!icant an must be taKen into account: p
-
6
-
.
:oes a shi!t in the correlation-!luctuation spectrum unerlie the
transition1 p
-
6
-
? :iscuss the impersonal nature o! mutual
attraction o! prospective mates.
Qd
;ssay iea: R6he .esson o! the Fave!unctionS
6he iniviual particle behaves 5ust liKe the statistical ensemble. Aeal
particles su!!iciently isolate behave as though virtual until place uner
continual observation.
6he vacuum becomes progressively more electrically polarize an less
magnetize1 but can this be unerstoo in terms o! increases in both the
magnetic permeability an electric permittivity an not ue to speci!ic
electromagnetic action but as a sie e!!ect o! changing the timeliKe an
spaceliKe components o! quantum correlations in bosonic an !ermionic
quantum !luctuations?
H! e0perimentally measure particle masses are ue to the energies o!
these particles as e0citations o! the vacuum =amiltonian1 then particle
mass e!ine in this manner may only be consistent with the inertial
mass o! the particle Cas reluctance o! the vacuum =amiltonian to become
progressively e0cite along a spacetime tra5ectoryD i! the unperturbe
vacuum possessing spacetime symmetry be compose o! bosonic an
!ermionic !luctuations which together cancel out to some vanishingly
small value !or a cosmological constant representing the local e!!ect
upon the vacuum o! global gravitation. Fhat !ollows is a reprint !rom
elsewhere in this ocument: RJia1 H thought that on a -riay1 HG give
you something to puzzle over.
9O1 you begin accelerating in a spaceship along the 0-irection.
Puestion: oes this a!!ect the velocity o! the ship along the y- or z-
irections? Fell1 normally in a EvacuumE the answer is Eno.E
=owever1 imagine !or a moment that the spaceship is accelerating
through what we might term here an Eactive meiumE1 say a meium
able to inuce rag where the amount o! rag is governe by a Kin o!
stress-strain-shear meium resistance tensor. /n how the meium is
interconnecte between 0- with y- an z-irections woul etermine the
resistance put up by the meium as a result o! a boyGs acceleration
through the meium along the 0-irection.
Fell1 thinK about how as an ob5ect accelerates1 it travels ever slower
through time1 the !aster it moves through space. "pace an time in so-
calle E!ree spaceE are mutually perpenicular so how can accelerating
along the 0-irection in space cause a eceleration along the ict-
irection?
C>ust thinK about how the range o! a pro5ectile can be calculate without
e0plicit re!erence to the acceleration o! gravity which is always
perpenicular to the !orwar momentum o! the pro5ectile own range. D
,nless E!ree spaceE isnGt E!reeE at all1 but is part o! an intrinsically
EwarpeE spacetime. 6his is a 8achian iea o! course that in genuinely
!ree space1 i.e.1 within a truly E!latE (-imensional spacetime1 ob5ects
shoul not be e0pecte to present any resistance to our attempt to
accelerate themT R6he 8achian iea is basically this: inertia in E!ree
spaceE C!lat spacetimeD is a mani!estation o! the interaction o! boies
interaction with the gravitational !iel o! the ,niverse.S
Hn light o! evelopments in Rinuce gravity theoryS it might be more
appropriate to thinK o! 8achian gravitation as cause by the mass_
interaction with the quantum vacuum so as to prouce a gravitational
!iel when the mass is in inertial motion an an inertial !iel when the
mass is in noninertial motion.
9! course1 i! local gravitational !iels are present1 then the boy must
also interact with this local !iel in aition to the ,niverseGs g-!iel an
hence the e!!ective inertial mass o! the boy woul be e0pecte to be
larger !or a mass present near a massive boy Can general relativity can
preict 5ust how large this e!!ect isD.
9therwise1 H 5ust canGt see how acceleration along E0E can a!!ect motion
along EictE without such an intrinsic coupling o! time an space as be!its
a universal/global gravitational !iel.
Fhat o you thinK?
Aussell
Fhenever there opens up a breaK in the causal chain a one at some
level realizes this1 there lies one_s true moral responsibility. /lso1 even
without such a breaK in the chain o! eterministic action1 i! one merely
has insie Knowlege1 e.g.1 awareness o! the sensitivity in initial
conitions1 c.!.1 awareness o! the sensitivity in initial conitions1 c.!.1
chaos theory1 catastrophe theory1 etc. there too oes one bear the buren
o! moral responsibility1 e.g.1 RH saw the bus coming !rom my vantage
point aroun the corner !rom where you were about to cross the street
an H i not warn youTS H! you are hit by the bus is my culpability as
great as i! H ha pushe you into the bus_ path1 to with1 are sins o!
omission as great as those o! commission1 i! the responsible party in
both instances1 i! equally aware o! the harm!ul outcome an equally able
to intervene% 6he argument coul be mae that1 in the case o! the
oncoming bus1 the culpability is actually greater !or the person who
!aile to act L as the person who to the positive action to cause harm
must have been at that time uner the grip o! a power!ul impulse or
compulsion. ?ut society an its ethical mores an legal system o not
unerstan the istinction between omission an commission in this
way. Fhy not? Fhat Kin o! blinness is at worK here1 c.!.1 the moral
blinness that prevents most people nowaays !rom glimpsing the horror
o! abortion in the ,nite "tates.
Fe Know that there can be no genuine creativity in evolution. -or
otherwise this woul imply that the sel!-organizing properties o! atoms
an molecules are bacK-reacte upon an change by the progress o!
comple0ity o! li!e !orms. Hnitial an bounary conition as well as
causal relationships cannot be merely constraints upon quantum
!luctuations an their correlations.


Puantum entanglement must be maintaine between !luctuations o!
incompatible observables o! the same system in orer !or the system to
obey the =eisenberg uncertainty principle C=,7D !or the incompatible
observables. :oes an ontological interpretation o! the =,7 require that
quantum correlations an !luctuations be ontologically an causally
prior to causal in!luences?
6he !ine-tuning problem1 parallel quantum universes an the relation o!
mutually intersub5ective iniviuals contraste with the relation o!
sub5ective to intersub5ective.
Qd
-ine tuning problem may be solve i!
each sub5ective consciousness is allowe to sKip between parallel
universes. Hn this way1 a !unamental component o! coherence o! the
e0ternal worl so-calle is on account o! a continuous pro5ection o! the
sel!. C:e5a vu L some o! memory storage is non-localD
/pril 2)*$
6here
may well be a new an eep principle at worK here1 that o! continuous
selfFselection. 6he principle may nee a corollary1 e.g.1 R@-thropic
biasS1 an so on.
8arch 2)*(
/ recasting o! the /nthropic 3osmological 7rinciple as an NF
thropic Cosmological 4rinciple" in which each universe out o! a semi-
in!inite subset o! N universes in the multiverse is !ine-tune to the
consciousness !iel o! some particular iniviual sel!1 so that a personal
Ciniviually RtailoreSD /nthropic 3osmological 7rinciple applies to
each an every conscious observer. Hn this way1 it becomes unimportant
what the etiology o! interpersonal interaction an communication truly
consists o! CRconsistsS is here a substance metaphorD. 9ne can rest
assure that1 somewhere in the vast multiverse there is inee an
anthropically centere sub$ect" an not $ust a 7philosophical (ombie8
iale into the representation with which one is interacting an
communicating. /n this is equivalent to this same parallel universe
possessing two people1 ientically similar to onesel! an the other1 who
are having the ientically similar interaction/communication as one
imagines onesel! to be having1 c.!.1 WittgensteinDs 2istress_ Rsomeboy
at a winow1 lurKing.S http://bit.ly/*5gli42
9! course1 one might complain that there is some convolute an tricKy
mechanism o! intentionality secretly being invoKe here1 but as ;instein
use to be !on o! saying1 the solution to some rile o! nature must be
as simple as possible1 but no simpler. 6he multiverse an its ineluctable
philosophical valet1 the anthropic cosmological principle1 espite the
rather isturbing unerlying logic o! this cosmological moel1 which
seems to so seriously !lout nacve realist common sense1 may1 so to speaK1
constitute the magical integration o! area uner the best possible curve
!itte to the astrophysical ata thus !ar at cosmologists_ isposal. /theist
philosophers will 5ust have to come to grips with the !act that the price1
that must pai !or getting the multiverse moel an its attenant
anthropic principle to per!orm all o! the metaphysical heavy li!ting1
!ormerly per!orme !or millennia by 4o1 is that o! egeneracy. /n it
is the nature o! egeneracy that it shall rear its ugly hea always when
an where you were not e0pecting it. -irst an !oremost1 there is the
resulting egeneracy o! the epistemological an the metaphysical as two
hereto!ore istinct varieties o! solipsism. 6his is o! no trivial
consequence to some acaemic philosophers1 who have hereto!ore
routinely relie on this istinction when constructing emonstrations o!
solipsism as the absur Cab-sur1 etymologically]cannot be saiD
implication o! their opponent_s arguments1 more or less e0pecting these
reuctio_s to carry the argumentative !orce o! a logician_s proo! by
contraiction. 6here is1 seconly1 the egeneracy o! Rthe one an the
manyS with regar to the iniviual an iniviuals. 6hat is1 as allue
to by ;rwin "chroinger in 2atter an 2in1 there has only ever been
one min so that each iniviual min is but one or another
instantiations o! this min. 6here can only then be a concept o!
consciousness1 i! somehow the nature o! the meium o! e0perience o!
multiple istinct iniviual consciousnesses can be combine in a Kin
o! 4o_s ;ye Cor 4o_s 8inD Iiew an the elusive most general
property o! e0perience abstracte !rom these multiple instances. 4o
woul liKely have access still more privilege an RincorrigibleS than
woul each iniviual min1 who only ever has its own privilege
access1 as oppose to 4o_s so to speaK aministratorDs access.
http://booKs.google.com/booKs?i=%oFq;2h35N3 =<7;A.H@O
Ehttp://booKs.google.com/booKs?
i=%oFq;2h35N3 & lpg=7/'N & ots=/Pz7<A'n<b & q="chroinger
%2)%22plurality%2)o!%2)consciousness%22 & pg=7/'NE &
=<7;A.H@O Ehttp://booKs.google.com/booKs?
i=%oFq;2h35N3 & lpg=7/'N & ots=/Pz7<A'n<b & q="chroinger
%2)%22plurality%2)o!%2)consciousness%22 & pg=7/'NE lpg=7/'N
=<7;A.H@O Ehttp://booKs.google.com/booKs?
i=%oFq;2h35N3 & lpg=7/'N & ots=/Pz7<A'n<b & q="chroinger
%2)%22plurality%2)o!%2)consciousness%22 & pg=7/'NE &
=<7;A.H@O Ehttp://booKs.google.com/booKs?
i=%oFq;2h35N3 & lpg=7/'N & ots=/Pz7<A'n<b & q="chroinger
%2)%22plurality%2)o!%2)consciousness
%22 & pg=7/'NE ots=/Pz7<A'n<b =<7;A.H@O
Ehttp://booKs.google.com/booKs?
i=%oFq;2h35N3 & lpg=7/'N & ots=/Pz7<A'n<b & q="chroinger
%2)%22plurality%2)o!%2)consciousness%22 & pg=7/'NE &
=<7;A.H@O Ehttp://booKs.google.com/booKs?
i=%oFq;2h35N3 & lpg=7/'N & ots=/Pz7<A'n<b & q="chroinger
%2)%22plurality%2)o!%2)consciousness
%22 & pg=7/'NE q="chroinger%2)%22plurality%2)o!
%2)consciousness%22 =<7;A.H@O Ehttp://booKs.google.com/booKs?
i=%oFq;2h35N3 & lpg=7/'N & ots=/Pz7<A'n<b & q="chroinger
%2)%22plurality%2)o!%2)consciousness%22 & pg=7/'NE &
=<7;A.H@O Ehttp://booKs.google.com/booKs?
i=%oFq;2h35N3 & lpg=7/'N & ots=/Pz7<A'n<b & q="chroinger
%2)%22plurality%2)o!%2)consciousness
%22 & pg=7/'NE pg=7/'NXv=onepage =<7;A.H@O
Ehttp://booKs.google.com/booKs?
i=%oFq;2h35N3 & lpg=7/'N & ots=/Pz7<A'n<b & q="chroinger
%2)%22plurality%2)o!%2)consciousness%22 & pg=7/'NE &
=<7;A.H@O Ehttp://booKs.google.com/booKs?
i=%oFq;2h35N3 & lpg=7/'N & ots=/Pz7<A'n<b & q="chroinger
%2)%22plurality%2)o!%2)consciousness
%22 & pg=7/'NE q="chroinger%2)%22plurality%2)o!
%2)consciousness%22 =<7;A.H@O Ehttp://booKs.google.com/booKs?
i=%oFq;2h35N3 & lpg=7/'N & ots=/Pz7<A'n<b & q="chroinger
%2)%22plurality%2)o!%2)consciousness%22 & pg=7/'NE &
=<7;A.H@O Ehttp://booKs.google.com/booKs?
i=%oFq;2h35N3 & lpg=7/'N & ots=/Pz7<A'n<b & q="chroinger
%2)%22plurality%2)o!%2)consciousness%22 & pg=7/'NE !=true
6here is a story !eaturing Fittgenstein_s usual startling cleverness1 now
regare as largely apocryphal in which .uwig is meeting a colleague
in the Pua in 3ambrige an asKs him1 R6ell me1 why o people say
that it was natural !or men to assume that the sun went aroun the earth1
rather than the that the earth was rotating?S =is !rien sai: EFell1
obviously1 because it 5ust loo's as i! the sun is going aroun the earth.E
6o which .uwig replie: EFell1 what woul it have looKe liKe i! it ha
looKe as if the earth were rotating?E /n this is very much the situation
here with consciousness: the case where consciousness is a one1 i.e.1
each person_s iniviual consciousness is merely its own instantiation o!
consciousness per se or at large versus the case where consciousness is
a many1 i.e1 each iniviual consciousness is raically unique an coul
some iniviual per impossible e0perience the consciousness o! an
other1 he woul !in the e0perience so utterly con!using an alien that he
shoul not ream o! applying the wor consciousness to any of the
mental states of that other.

@ow this is not all to imply that the worl is truly each person_s oyster in
the !ull blooe sense o! each person actually creating his own universe
li'e a caterpillar constructing its cocoon. ?ut rather that there are
aitional consierations1 besies the anthropic ones o! the intimate
involvement o! consciousness with ecoherence an wave!unction
collapse1 Figner_s !rien1 application o! the 7auli ;0clusion 7rinciple to
quantum entangle systems1 etc. that suggest either a * to * or at least a
) to * corresponence between mins an universes. 6here is something
about the unity an integrity o! a given universe that seems crucially
important to the unity an integrity o! the sel! because o! the obvious
importance o! the !ine-tuning question to applications o! the anthropic
principle to the multiverse1 an particularly this Buestion of the fineF
tuning of consciousness. http://www-
astro.physics.o0.ac.uK/barg/p!/-6#o!#consciousness.p!
6his woul be a raical application o! ?ohm_s causal principle1 i.e." that
every causal connection may be eBuivalently represente as a particular
pattern of correlation of fluctuations =causal connections are $ust
structures of Buantum entangle fluctuations in isguiseA to the
multiverse moel1 which implies an equally raical generalization o! this
principle. Hs the Key to the mysterious connection between
counterintuitive quantum phenomena as consciousness-inuce sel!-
inter!erence e!!ects not !ar behin?
R6ranscenental iealism is a philosophy that e0plaine e0perience by
appealing to necessary an universal aspects o! the human min as
oppose to metaphysical iealism1 which tries to e0plain e0perience by
appealing to an ieal or immaterial substance1 c.!.1
cit=
!. /.
:ichte1 *theismusstreit" Wissenschaftslehre" an +eligionslehre.

physical -ine 6uning o! the ,niverse !or li!e are normally regare as
separate problems. H argue that there are in !act close parallels between
the two an that the occurrence o! consciousness can be essentially
recast as an aitional -ine-6uning problem in nature. Hn !act1 the
occurrence o! consciousness turns out to require much more -ine 6uning
than the emergence o! comple0 chemistry an physical li!e. 8otivate
by recent trens in cosmology1 H iscuss a f8ultiverse solution_ to this
problem. H shall broaly conclue that philosophers o! min an
cosmologists have much to talK aboutS1 c.!.1 The :ine Tuning of
Consciousness.
web=
http://www-astro.physics.o0.ac.uK/barg/p!#thesis/!tc.p! "ee the
!ollowing abstract !rom 6arg_s paper:
R6he emergence o! consciousness !rom inanimate matter an the
interpretation o! the physical -ine 6uning o! the ,niverse !or li!e are
normally regare as separate problems. H argue that there are in !act
close parallels between the two an that the occurrence o! consciousness
can be essentially recast as an aitional -ine-6uning problem in nature.
Hn !act1 the occurrence o! consciousness turns out to require much more
-ine 6uning than the emergence o! comple0 chemistry an physical li!e.
8otivate by recent trens in cosmology1 H iscuss a f8ultiverse
solution_ to this problem. H shall broaly conclue that philosophers
o! min an cosmologists have much to talK about.S
6he reasons !or ahering to the law are social1 e.g.1 on_t eat !oo that_s
been o!!ere up to pagan gos1 etc. 4race abouns1 however at the
level o! the iniviual.
Fhy o memes possess greater signi!icance than mere units o!
imitation? RFhat breathes !ire into the equationsS that maKes them
escriptive o! a real physical process?
Iirtual 3ooper pairs Co! all !ermion speciesD may !unction as a
composite spin-) =igg_s boson. 4eneral Aelativity oesn_t inclue spin
within its logical !rameworK1 c.!.1 7roblems in the Ioi1 9enwal. 4A
claims matter creates spacetime1 but what properties o particles have
that coul constitute or structure spacetime?
Kwo= 8arch 2)*2
R6he =iggs
boson is a hypothetical massive scalar elementary particle preicte to
e0ist by the "tanar 8oel in particle physics. *t present there are no
'nown elementary scalar =spinFJA particles in nature [italics mine\1
although many composite spin-) particles are Known. 6he e0istence o!
the particle is postulate as a means o! resolving inconsistencies in
current theoretical physics1 an attempts are being mae to con!irm the
e0istence o! the particle by e0perimentation1 using the .arge =aron
3ollier C.=3D.S
Kwo=
R"ome people replace elementary =iggs bosons by composite spin )
bosons1 an alternative ubbe technicolour1 but these theories have
!allen into is!avor recently an H will not iscuss them !urther toay.S
Kwo=
R6he =iggs is now interprete as the lightest scalar !iel with the
same quantum numbers o! the !ermion-anti!ermion composite !iel. 6he
.agrangian part responsible !or the mass generation o! the orinary
!ermions will also be moi!ie since the =iggs particle is no longer an
elementary ob5ect.S
:iscuss phenomenon o! ream characters taKen !rom real li!e aging in
step with the aging process o! the reamer. Fhat is the implication o! the
aging o! our memories vis a vis von @eumann in!ormation an
consciousness as ecoherence protection mechanism Cintelligent esign
an =eisenberg compensate quantum error correctionD
:ecoherence an its relation to the groun o! being.
con=
-irstly1 i! all
possibilities are realize say1 in quantum parallel universes1 then each
parallel reality is completely conte0t-!ree an cut o!! !rom any
embeing groun of its own possibilities. Ht is possible that RpotentialS
in its acceptation in terms o! possibility an probability is intimately
relate to the acceptation o! this term as component o! ;instein_s *&
component metric tensor. Ht seems that probability is an inert or ea
notion without there being some ynamic structure to the totality o!
unerlying possibilities that in!orm it. Fe must square that concept o!
parallel worls/universes with this concept as implie by the e0istence
o! human !ree will. 6here are possible worls that are connecte by
virtue o! being outcomes o! the istinct !ree will choices o! a single
iniviual1 i.e.1 Rsub5ectiveS an then there are those Rintersub5ectiveS
possible worls on the other han that are correlate in a much more
abstract way1 e.g.1 where the istinct possibilities belong Cor o not
belongD CH can_t ecie whichD to a single in!orming groun
Cconsciousness?D. H! everything in reality is intersub5ective1 then this
leaves no room !or the collective sub5ectivity in terms o! which the
intersub5ective must be e!ine. H@ other wors1 a naturalism that is too
thorough going is sel!-e!eating.
6here can be no sub5ect o! change L only change !rom one parallel
universe to another1 liKe the !litting o! a consciousness to i!!erent
parallel universe incarnations o! itsel!. ?ut certainly the quantum
correlations themselves unerlie the structure an ynamics o!
consciousness an so each istinct correlational structure cannot be
ienti!ie with a istinct parallel universe !or otherwise there is no basis
!or the continuity o! consciousness across parallel universes.
7arallel worl in which my consciousness is preserve may not preserve
the consciousness o! other mins. 6he history o! a human being in any
one universe must then be merely the history o! that human boy an its
staning set o! memory traces Cwithin that human_s brainD *n thus
memory traces in the brain onDt etermine iniviual human
consciousness as such" but perhaps merely inform an structure it
temporarily as istinctly classical physical phenomena.
Ht is probable that the matri0 o! quantum vacuum !luctuations quantum
correlate with the brain_s current !unctioning by virtue o! this same
brain_s past !unctioning constitute an ever-growing embeing quantum
vacuum conte0t !or !uture !unctioning. 6his suggests that the
Rswitching onS o! consciousness uring some crucial stage in the brain_s
evelopment is enable at least in part by a networK o! quantum
correlations in the vacuum lai own uring the history o! the brain_s
bacK-reaction upon the quantum vacuum_s !luctuation matri0 between
conception an the moment o! consciousness_ Rswitching onS.
/s note in 8atthew >. :onal_s paper on the 8any 8ins
Hnterpretation o! Puantum 6heory1 the human brain is !ar too comple0 to
be represente in terms o! a pure quantum state. Hn other wors1 the
ensity o! quantum correlations e0hibite by the brain uring the course
o! its normal !unctioning is !ar too comple0 to be completely groune
within the correlation-!luctuation matri0 o! the embeing quantum
vacuum with which the brain locally inter!aces. Ht is interesting that
here we see a basis !or the necessary RinteriorityS o! the brain_s
!unctioning1 i.e.1 consciousness as well as a highly probable an
plausible physical basis !or the necessity o! the observer_s act o!
conscious observation o! Can/or !reely-wille interaction withD a
prepare quantum system inucing that system_s state vector !unction to
unergo RcollapseS.
;ugenicist thinKing is power!ully in!orme by the misguie notion o!
Rmost !it iniviualS. "ince what natural selection is inee Rriving
atS is a !ittest breeing population1 i.e.1 natural selection qua selection
can be no more selective than the mechanisms provie it by population
genetics allows1 there is no R!ittest iniviualS organism as such. 6he
conitions !ostering the operation o! natural selection are not in place ab
initio an there!ore there must be aitional complementary mechanisms
o! evolutionary change at worK1 e.g.1 sel!-organization1 entelechy1
morphogenetic !iels1 irecte mutation an so on.
/pril 2)**
/ system o!
iniviuals represente by the breeing population1 each possessing
ranomly istribute strengths an weaKnesses1 talents an tenencies1
relative to one another an to the group average1 represents a much
easier istillation o! in!ormation !rom entropy than oes any
hypothetical breeing population entirely compose o! more or less
ientically Rieally aapteS iniviuals. ?esies such as monoculture
breeing population woul be wipe out by the !irst environmental
challenge that prove too i!!icult !or only one o! its members. "o
genetic iversity is both easier to prouce an easier to maintain than is
the evolution o! the illusory Rieal specimenS.
>uly 2)**
9! course1 what
natural selection is aiming at in aapting the organism to its
environment is not so much the environment itself as it is the long term
environment such as it mani!ests itsel! in the hans o! ancestors to their
!uture o!!spring. 6he rationality o! the :@/ Bua language means that
the aim o! natural selection must be something even broaer than that o!
the breeing population_s aaptation to its current environment because
o! the !act o! the obvious avantages to be gaine !rom out-crossing o!
iniviuals !rom one breeing population to those o! some other
breeing population1
>anuary 2)*2
c.!.1 The Dar' Tria: :acilitating a &hortF
Term 2ating &trategy
cit=
C
au=
>onasen 2))ND: R-inings are consistent
with a view that the :arK 6ria !acilitates an e0ploitative1 short-term
mating strategy in men. 7ossible implications1 incluing that :arK 6ria
traits represent a bunle o! iniviual i!!erences that promote a
reprouctively aaptive strategy are iscusse. -inings are iscusse
in the broa conte0t o! how an evolutionary approach to personality
psychology can enhance our unerstaning o! iniviual i!!erences]S
"eptember 2)*2
R@o one oubts the wisom o! managing the germ-plasm o!
agricultural stocKs1 so why not apply the same concept to human
stocKs?S 6he preceing was a quote !rom the avi :arwinian1 >ulian
=u0ley. Hn light o! what has been sai up to this1 we might suspect that
there is a con!usion or misconsception lying at the root o! =u0ley_s
insight1 something along the lines o! Aussell_s Rcategory mistaKeS. Hn
short any changes observer to ensue !rom a manipulation o! the
genome o! Ragricultural stocKsS constitutes a re!erenceable change1 one
which can more or less easily be categorize an even quanti!ie.
=owever1 manipulations o! the human Rgerm plasmS woul result in a
change in the psychological traits an values o! the race to inclue those
members engage in !uture genetic manipulations o! the race. /n so to
start own the path o! human genetic manipulation1 especially where the
e0presse goal is that o! increasing the talent an intelligence o! the
race1 is to set !orth on a path within a realm o! e0tremely low visibility.
6he accelerate cosmological e0pansion may perhaps be e0plaine in
terms o! the peculiar shape o! the hyperspherical potential barrier
through which the universe is tunneling. 6he universe shoul be losing
imaginary momentum as it tunnels through this barrier an hence1 by
conservation o! !our momentum1 must be gaining real momentum1 i.e.1
accelerating in its e0pansion throughout $-space.
Qd
:arK energy is then
a mani!estation o! the loss o! imaginary momentum by matter as the
universe tunnels through the initial hyperspherical potential barrier.
Fhat is the relationship between /a; an ;1 when it is possible !or
; Z /a;1 i! only !or a perio1 t Y /at?
6he 7enrose Rone graviton limitS may be variable an not epen upon
7lancK imensions. "pontaneous ecoherence may be tie instea to
the local value o! /a;.
7urely thermal !luctuations arise !rom interaction o! the system with
outsie environment. 7urely quantum !luctuations arise !rom outsie o!
the local simultaneity hypersur!ace.
7urely thermal !luctuations arise !rom interaction o! the system with
outsie environment. 7urely quantum !luctuations arise !rom outsie o!
the local simultaneity hypersur!ace. 6his is implie by the "chroinger
Fave ;quation an the =eat ;quation being relate by a FicK rotation.
7si = sum o! symmetric an antisymmetric parts. Hn gravitational !iel
the probability ensity !unction can no longer be represente in terms o!
purely symmetric an antisymmetric parts. 3ross-terms in the ensity
matri0 are relate to the symmetric-antisymmetric cross terms in the
norm o! 7si as e0presse as the sum o symmetric an antisymmetric
parts.
/nalogy: composite spin ) !luctuations potential energyV spin *
!luctuations Kinetic energy
$ electric !iel as ( cylinrical ( magnetic !iel Ccoiling aroun the
time a0isD nees to be complemente by alternatively escribing the
pure electric !orce as a .orentz !orce acting between a timeliKe current
ensity an a hypercylinrical magnetic !iel coiling aroun the time
a0is. Hn the so-calle pure electric !iel case1 the time a0es o! both
current ensities are e0actly parallel. 6his is not the case !or curve
spacetime an we see the magnetic !iels can be prouce through
interaction o! charge particles with a gravitational !iel.
6he $-boy problem has no !ormal solution Conly i! an absolute
re!erence !rame is not assume?D. "uch is perhaps the situation1 too in
the historical milieu when three or more riving historical !orces are at
worK an there is no e0planation !or the un!oling o! events in terms o!
the historical !rame o! re!erence1 i.e.1 worl view1 o! one or the other o!
these historical !orces1 i.e.1 agents1 e.g.1 government1 military1 church1
peasantry1 etc. Cthe protein !oling problem is similarly insolubleD. 6he
!unamentally i!!erent historical interpretation lies within the
historian_s error o! appro0imation. / theory o! the behavior o! error
must constitute the penultimate theory.
"earle_s argument that Rcomputation aloneS can_t be constitutive o!
consciousness is similar to the notion that all in!ormation as oppose to
ata are conte6t epenent. 9n the other han i! H thinK o! a string o!
)_s an *_s along with the coe !or translating what sai output strings o!
)_s an *_s are suppose to mean1 then there_s a Kin o! active process o!
error correction1 etc. by which H maintain a string against entropy
proucing perturbations which in the quantum case means protection is
5ust controlling this ecoherence Csame thing really as protection against
ecoherence pure an simple.D
3onte0t is require !or meaning but metaconte0t is require !or
consciousness o! meaning.
Qd
/ll language is secretly meta-language L this is one o! the pro!ounest
an most basic insights we can glean !rom the econstruction
movement.
-
i

H
C01tD the essence o! abstraction1 while the S symbol - _ -
in this equation represents the origin o! von @eumann entropy.
/ parallelism e0ists between what might be terme Rbottom-upS
abstraction an Rtop-ownS abstraction an epistemological versus
ontological uncertainty.
Hntegration o! temporal change requiring 2- or greater time1 e.g.1
nonlocal connectivity meiate via superluminal quantum correlations1
c.!.1 ?en5amin .ibet_s e0periments showing ')) ms retroactive re!erral
to the past o! higher level processing o! sensory inputs. Hntelligent
esign perhaps in the sense o! response o! the groun o! being Can
changeD to changing bounary conitions an then later with the avent
o! iniviual consciousness1 this creative response.
;volutionary change/steps can be too small to have any survival value
an so are organize accoring to some altogether istinct creative1 sel!-
organizing principle.
8onism oesn_t maKe sense because it only maKes sense to speaK o!
Kins i! you inee have more than one Kin. 4enera an species aren_t
istinct unless you have at least two species.
?ut in principle we on_t have to rely on natural selection. H! we ha an
e0haustive enough theory o! the correlation Cwhich may well never be
*))%1 by the wayTD between genotype an phenotype1 then presumably
we coul reprouce or even improve consierably upon the orer
engenering mechanism o! natural selection that has all along !ostere
evolutionary evelopment. 9ne avantage o! natural selection o!
ranom mutations is that the process is not !ormalizable an so immune
to the limitations pointe up by 4eel_s theorems. "uch a Rcomplete
theoryS shoul be able to i!!erentiate between series o! genetic
mutations giving rise in the short term to ientical phenotypes in terms
o! how in the longer term the evolutionary evelopment o! the
phenotypes shall iverge with !urther selection within the !iel o! short-
term phenotypic-egenerate genetic base pair sequences.
Qd
@otice that
natural selection is not able to maKe this Kin o! !ine istinction between
what might be terme Rshort term phenotypically egenerateS base pair
sequences.
7si-collapse an the =alting 7roblem. 3hanging a )/* into a */) an
avancing a binary string CmemoryD to the le!t or to the right unerneath
the reaer/hea are orthogonal proceures CnormallyD1 c.!.1 4eel_s
6heorem an P8 7si !unction.
@ *- i!!erential equations are equivalent to * @- i!!erential equation
so that causality becomes escribable as a special case o! nonlocal
correlation o! !luctuations.
=ow is altruism consistent with natural selection1 especially in the case
o! social insects?
3an we turn a proo! Cvia worK energy theoremD that the gravitational
potential per!orms worK upon accelerating masses into a proo! that
4
per!orms worK upon the quantum vacuum L accoring to
au=
IoloviK_s
theory o! vacuum mass as inuce by gravity L yes.
R6hey are not intereste in the historicity o! the ?ibleS L /lan Fatts.
au=
;sa 4raves L 6heistic ;volution
6here must be theoretically possible beings isolate/cut o!! !rom the
rugge !itness lanscape on which we evolve. ?ut both !itness
lanscapes shoul be able to !it into a single1 larger lanscape as coul
not be sustaine by a Rnatural environmentS. 6his lacK o! a common
supporting natural environment is what perhaps accounts !or the two
!itness lanscapes being is5oint.
6uring machine may be representation in terms o! a !actorizable 7si.
au=
Ion @eumann entropy comes into the picture once we can no longer
represent 7si in terms o! a straight prouct o! eigen!unctions.
"earle_s 3hinese Aoom argument begs the question. . . iscuss grouns
!or this criticism.
6iming/time scale o! computations an resonance with unerlying
networKe processes are a consieration L in short1 time scale matters
an i!!erent time scales involve necessarily istinct computing
conte0ts.
8ust we use Rbottom-upS builing materials !or the construction o! an
/H with cognitive abilities?
-ermionic topology L close strings?/bosonic topology L open strings?
6hermoynamics o! non-inertial !rames points to a new e!inition o!
worK-energy by a gravitational !iel.
"ometimes the application o! a concept is simultaneously the e0tension
o! that concept though not all such attempts to simultaneously e0ten
an apply a concept or principle are necessarily success!ul. Fhy?
:oes this require the notion o! metaconcept? 3ontrast abstraction from
above vs. abstraction from below.
/rtistic creation is usually a social construction an always a cultural
e0pression. Hniviual culture may e!y rational characterization in
terms o! conventional e!initions.
;rotic energy is an impersonal blin lust which through a socially an
culturally meiate system o! pro5ections Conto the ob5ect o! esireD
becomes personal.
6ranscript o! )&/)2/)' email e0change between Aussell 3larK an Jia
-ah:
R=ey Auss1
/ccoring to ?ell_s 6heorem1 !or anything to e0ist1 it must be observe
by another thing-each epens on the other !or e0istenceT :oes that
mean when you_re not observing me1 H_m not here?
JiaS
RAather1 i! H_m not observing you1 IDm not here. Aeasons !or saying
this:
*D ;go is a sociolinguistic construct1 !irst an !oremost. . .
2D Hniviual consciousness as such is thought to be erive !rom a
graual evolutionary evelopment o! an internal moel of the other" e.g.1
competitor1 potential threat1 prospective mate1 etc. L a moel1 which at
some point got applie to the sel!.
Qd
$D 6his originally outwarly-pro5ecte-onto-the-other selfhoo also
serve to attribute meaning to the otherwise meaningless babble1 which
once accompanie everything which humans un-sel!-consciously i
Cthis Kin o! vocalization was aKin to what babies mani!est between *N
an 2( months o! ageD. .inguistic meaning starte out only as
attribute to the other. -or perhaps the !irst several *))1))) years o!
manKin_s linguistic history1 language was unerstoo by a hoc
attribution o! meaning to the other_s vocalizations base on an observe
an learne correlation between patterns o! vocalization an patterns o!
behavior observe in the other. 9nly many *)1)))_s o! years later than
this i humans use these comple0 vocalizations !or themselves to
consciously communicate with the other.
3ontraiction an tautology are inications o! language being straine to
its natural limits by a min greater than any linguistic map.
3onsciousness is not so much an emergent property o! brain processes
as it is an incorporation o! a tricK o! tapping into a pre-e0isting
continuum o! computational spaces in connection with 4eel_s
Hncompleteness 6heorem. Csee limitation as Rsca!!olingSD
Fe on_t notice all o! the non-coinciental possibilities so as to better
appreciate the Rtruly coincientalS onesT
"ome can sense the presence o! a Kin o! RgovernorS impose upon the
intuitive !aculties o! the min preventing it !rom at once grasping what
shoul be most natural !or it to grasp L the reality o! the presence o!
4o. 6his governor1 this blocKage is o! course a mani!estation o! sin1
that is1 o! man_s !allen-ness.
:isengagement o! the limitations upon consciousness1 which is graual
an an essential part o! the natural ening o! the human li!e cycle versus
the suen cutting short o! a li!e may have an e!!ect analogous to the
breaKing own o! the placenta prior to birth. 3omplications !or the
emerging soul are then the natural outcome.
"ee quote o! =eisenberg by .yre in R/gainst 8easurement?S L 9n the
3oncept o! Hn!ormation1 p. 2 !ootnote. /s
au=
/lan Fatts points out1
there is no wor in "ansKrit !or RmatterS. /lso Fatts_ note that our
wors1 RmotherS1 RmeterS Cas in unit o! measureD an RmatterS all
originate !rom the same "ansKrit wor !rom which RmayaS is erive in
that language.
6he psychic energy investe in the erecting an maintaining o!
bounaries is !ree up an becomes available !or !ueling creativity. Ht is
e0actly analogous to the mechanism o! conserve psychic energy1 which
inevitably counteracts the e!!orts o! neurotic iniviuals to control the
content o! their own reams1 i.e.1 to Rream luciity.S C/lthough the
reverseD ?ecause !rom the otherwise orinary consciousness o! the
neurotic iniviual is ble o!! the otherwise !reely available creative
energies L energies that coul have been enliste !or creative purposes1
but which upon the iniviual_s awaKing once again supply the psychic
energy require to re-erect the bounaries supporting psychological
repression.
H! the !luctuation !iel constitutes a meium always at rest with respect
to itsel!1 then ob5ects also constitute by this !iel may appear to be in
absolute motion Ci.e.1 in motion with respect to the meiumD though this
motion is1 in !act merely relative1 i.e.1 only the motion o! one ob5ect
relative to another. Fhat type o! correlations bin the meium into a
potential absolute re!erence !rame?
Fhat appears a straight path is always an arc1 however wie. 6he circle
is built into all motion1 all change. 6he irrationality o! the ratio o! the
circle_s circum!erence to its CstraightD iameter. Hs this because the
appro0imation o! a straight line motion by oscillatory CwaveliKeD motion
necessarily evoKes a generalize 4ibbs_ phenomenon1 c.!.1 Rirrational
probabilitiesS. Aeverse a e!inition o! the orer o! being in /nselm_s
9ntological /rgument. /ssume that Re0istenceS is a lower !orm o! being
than Rnone0istenceS1 i.e.1 being unmasKe o! all limitation. 8oreover1
e0istence is the most general instance o! the limitation o! being. 6he
relationship o! min to consciousness is aKin to that o! e0istence to
being. Hs this still true when we re!lect that min is in consciousness Cas
a structuring o! consciousnessD 5ust as consciousness is on account o! the
!unamental activity o! min?
Fe are all the Rchilren o! 4oS because we are begotten1 not mae1 c.!.1
au=
-euerbach_s The Essence of Christianity1 p. 2)$ C?arnes & @oble
?ooKsD.
4eel_s theorem seems to be equally proo! an isproo! o! the 7latonic
heaven o! mathematical truth. 7roo!: truth is a stronger notion than
provability L this is the basis o! mathematical incompleteness.
:isproo!: mathematical truth oes not constitute a unity L this is what
incompleteness means. ?ut given the ontological priority o!
mathematical entities1 mathematics_ incompleteness is not a falling short
of a woulFbe or possible greater unity. /n !or this reason the
incompleteness o! mathematics cannot be properly interprete as the
inaequacy o! mathematics as basis !or all !uture rational escription1
but must be interprete as mathematics_ superabunance1 i.e.1 greater
than unity.
8arch 2)**
Fe commonly thinK o! mathematics as requiring a
!ounation1 as being built !rom the groun up1 so to speaK because thatDs
how we humans thin'. ?ut the evience thanKs to 4eel is quite to the
contrary1 because o! mathematics_ lac' of a founation1 it can_t really be
built or constructe automatically1 that is1 without any thought going into
it.
Qd
6he mathematical ei!ice is an abstraction that cannot be uni!ie
abstractly an this is the broa hint that mathematics is the prouct o! a
transcenental min.
@ovelty is 5ust the transcenence o! the groun o! being by the entities it
supports1 c.!.1 structures o! the quantum vacuum too comple0 to be
timeliKe !luctuations o! this vacuum. /n the quantity o! inertial mass
is proportional to the ensity o! the Cto the vacuumD novel in!ormation
containe within it.
/pril 2)**
"paceliKe !luctuations may only maKe sense
as entangle timeliKe !luctuations wherein this entanglement surpasses a
certain threshol o! comple0ity1 i.e.1 such that the composite cannot be
encompasse within a single timeliKe !luctuation.
>uly 2)**
6his Kin o!
transcenence is perhaps a goo e0ample o! Sthe stream rising higher
than its sourceS1 what =eraclitus emphatically sai is impossible. 9!
course1 what is to prevent the stream from acBuiring another an higher
source%
Qd
H! the whole is greater than the sum o! its parts1 then this is
telling us something very important about the nature o! those parts1
namely1 that they are abstract.
/ugust 2)*2
Puite apart !rom the holographic
principle o! parts e!ine in terms o! wholes1 we have the contrary an
perhaps complimentary principle o! the virus1 which is to say1 the Kernel-
subverting an hence system-trans!orming action o! the single invaing
particle. 8ust there be some pree0isting rational basis !or the
interoperability o! the system an its invaing virus such as a common
mimetic language or linguistic system? "o o the holographic an
complementary viral principles presuppose a Kin o! proviential
rationality?
:istribute parallel human e0perience permits combination an
reprocessing o! the ata o! e0perience in a way that can_t be prouce
within the e0perience o! any iniviual human being unergoing uni!ie
e0periencing. Fhen a stupi an ignorant person gets an insight an
attempts to implement it1 he quicKly comes to the attention o! those who
unerstan how the worl worKs an soon a!ter the guarians o! the
worKaay worl o! honest inustrious people are themselves alerte.
Ysca!!oling o! spiritZ similar to 6erence 8cOenna_s characterization o!
the boy as Rplacenta o! the soul.S
Qd
8atter allows more comple0
moes o! vacuum !luctuation than what the quantum vacuum can
support on its own. 6his is what ecoherence is about. 8cOenna talKs
about biology serving to ampli!y quantum uncertainty.
:iscuss /simov_s short story1 R6he 3hronoscopeS in terms o!
implications o! such an observational instrument. ;arious uncertainties
woul inter!ere to blocK collecting o! concrete evience with which to
econstruct all mythic narratives1 that is1 without engenering other1
perhaps graner onesT
.acK o! temporal change in a close system1 which there!ore must be
escribe by a pure state 7si with a single global 7hi1 itsel! possessing
no physical meaning. "o it is the -
i5
with its locally istinct an
varying `
i5
that introuce Cat onceD temporality an irreversibility.
6aKe the e!inition o! in!ormation as a reuction o! uncertainty an then
consier the ambiguity Cor mutual inconsistency o!D =eisenberg
uncertainty as epistemological/ontological. /ssume the two
interpretations are really the same L implications being what?
6ranscenence o! epistemology by ontology is similar to 4eelian
transcenence o! !ormal provability by truth L I0P8R)(N)7
"how that the 4eel numbering RtricKS is burie within the logic o!
3antor_s iagonal argument -ractal1 recursive or sel!-re!erential
structure o! the way the brain processes its ata1 i.e.1 recursively
structure thinKing an perceiving gives us the iea we are being guie
by 4o or 4o is speaKing to one. 6his represse solipsism is pro5ecte
outwar. ;ventually a hien realm was invente into which the
represse solipsistic impulse coul be pro5ecte. 6he meaning!ulness
o! comparing1 contrasting an grouping into natural abstract categories
o! sub5ective e0perience an more generally1 sub5ective contents o!
multiple mins is posite by our intuition.
;volution o! the theorem proving system an !ormalizability o! theorem-
proving/thought. 3antor_s :iagonal /rgument Cthree imensional
versionD an 4eel_s 6heorem. 6hinK o! the RiagonalS as the
unprovably true theorem.
Hs it any coincience that RbrainS an RbraneS are homonymous?
@egation within an open system is necessarily creative in its
implications. 6here are two conceptions which manKin has which he
shoul not have ever iscovere L consciousness an transcenent eity.
?acK !ormation o! a *
st
person !rom a $
r
person particular Can vice
versaD is how we arrive at the notion o! consciousness. 6he big heresy
o! which none are speaK is that this is how the concept o! 4o was
arrive at.
=eiegger_s concept o! the relationship between metaphysics an
language is supporte by the theory that linguistic structures1 i.e.1
semantic syntactic structures were originally in service e0clusively to
mechanisms o! the brain_s subconscious reprocessing o! sensory an
perceptual ata.
=e was Known to have ha policy isputes with the !ormer security o!
state. 6here is no logic L only rhetoric everything is a ream. Fe can_t
really Know anything1 there is no absolute truth1 everything_s relative1
etc.
3urve orthogonal time Cassociate with conscious thoughtD yiels
curve spacetime. 6he bacKwars re!erring stimuli suggeste by
.ibet_s brain stimulation an reaction time e0periments may e0plain the
isruption o! the eigen!unction phase relationships that inevitably taKe
place uring an observation o! a quantum system by a conscious
observer.
Fe maKe up a proceure to cover CoverD the areas to which we have
hereto!ore been conceptually blin1 i.e.1 the system recognizes the
limitations o! Cor merely that the system is limiteD itsel! an switches to
a new set o! a0ioms Cmaybe also rules o! in!erenceD.
>uly 2)**
Ht seems
obvious that the proceure o! selecting or aing or removing a0ioms so
as to change the omain o! provability woul not be !ormalizable one.
R6hroughout most o! these 2')) years scienti^c Knowlege was viewe
rationalistically1 an it was assume that the atomic constituents were
some Kin o! sel!-evient a0ioms involving basic categories that
require no e^nition. =owever1 beginning in the Aenaissance there was
a growing recognition o! the value o! observation an e0periment Cactive
intervention in natureD an a corresponing increase in sKepticism about
the Rsel!-evienceS o! any propositionS1 c.!.1
web=
.http://web.eecs.utK.eu/bmclennan/3lasses/,=2&%/hanouts/F-H/cN
.p!
8ay 2)*2
7ositivism is not altogether ivorce !rom the mysticism to
which upon !irst inspection it seems iametrically opposite. 6his is
because the more thorough-going version o! positivism is the one which
oes not say that nothing lies on the other sie o! any line emarcating
the bounary between the empirical an the metaphysical1 only that
nothing can be sai about what lies beyon this line.
Ht is by a Kin o! grace that the recursiveness o! mental !unction permits
this sKipping outsie o! the system o! the min L what is thus !ar
establishe as system anyway.
>esus terme the R2
n
/amS. Fhy? ?ecause again go has breathe
=is "pirit into !lesh in the absence o! "in1 c.!.1 8" For list o! mine1
R7uzzling "criptures.S
9ur success!ul philosophers are the !ouners o! schools o! thought or o!
the critique o! such a school1 c.!.1 cynicism o! the "ophists.
R"ome philosophers who re5ect substance ualism nonetheless accept
Rproperty ualismS. R7ropertyS here suggests RbounaryS as in
Rbounary conitionsS. Yarcheology o! language1 =eieggerZ
RHnternalS + RnumberS R=S Re0ternalS
3antor_s iagonal argument applie to the game theory o! chess. 8ust
probabilities play a role in optimal chess play?1 c.!.1 ;mpeocles_
critique o! a close system o! atoms an voi as capable o! RlogicalS
thinKing.
3an classical correlations supplement perturbe quantum correlations so
that 7si normalization is preserve? "imilarity o! e!!ect o! gravity an
consciousness in the ecoherence o! 7si.
?ut what we want to Know is: are there interesting1 which is to say1
nontrivial mating positions on the chessboar1 Csay1 i! only !or certain
initial an bounary conitions1 e.g.1 *
st
*) moves are . . . must reach a
certain position in less than @ moves1 etc.D in which over-the-boar play
cannot reprouce the mating positions in question? Hn a way the
positing o! a given number theoretic !ormalism is to abstract !rom what
we presume is alreay an abstract realm1 i.e.1 that of mathematics itself.
@otice that checKmate positions not obtainable in over-the-boar play
have a peculiar structure L one o! so-calle irreucible comple0ity Cc.!.
Hnra_s @et_s Rsimultaneous arisingSD. @onlocality is no oubt
important in these Kins o! structures. :oes the chessboar maKe !or a
moel o! an Rinconsistent systemS?
RPuantum theory oes not preetermine the cut between the system an
the apparatus1 nevertheless the cut is necessary in orer to apply
quantum theory to reality.S C6he observer oes this in accor with his
intentional choice base on his perception o! the combine system +
apparatus system.D
Qd
R-rom the 3openhagen viewpoint the iea o! a wave!unction o! the
universe is a physically senseless e0trapolation o! the mathematical
!ormalism1S c.!.1 R/gainst 8easurement? L 9n the 3oncept o!
Hn!ormationS C*22%D1
au=
=olger .yre.
"everal ways !or a computational system to access classically !orbien
states: C*D quantum tunneling1 C2D teleportation o! states1 C$D collapse o!
7si1 C(D manipulation o! ecohering component phases using quantum
error correction algorithms.
Qd
R6he present momentum moving through
the te0t unscrambles the letters1S c.!.1
au-
6erence 8cOenna on the
Oabalistic coe.
<ou Know what the te0t is getting at because you_ve seen the whole
thing be!ore. Ht_s this iea o! "ocrates an the slave boy an his theory
o! Knowlege he raws !rom this story. 6he testimony o! consciousness
is that we_ve been through all o! this be!ore1 in !act1 i! we believe
au=
@ietzsche1 an in!inite number o! times.
R6he present moment moving through the te0t unscrambles the lettersS
C=assiic-Oabalic notion o! R?ible 3oeSD
<ou Know what the te0t is getting at because you_ve seen the whole
thing be!ore. Ht_s this iea o! "ocrates an the slave boy an his theory
o! Knowlege as RanamnesiaS1 which he raws !rom this story. 6he
testimony o! consciousness is that we_ve been through all o! this be!ore1
in !act1 i! we believe @ietzsche1 infinite number of timesD. @ovel
sensation abstracte !rom C!iltereD an conte0tualize by memory1
integrate temporally via retention within a bubble o! Rspecious
presentS.
"tuy o! human !olly as mani!estation o! the unquiet RmonKey minS o!
?uhist philosophy.
"everal ways !or a computational system to access classically !orbien
states: C*D quantum tunneling1 C2D teleportation1 C$D -collapse C(D `
manipulation o! ecohering ensity matri0 component phases via
quantum error correction algorithms.
?ut what we want to Know is: are there interesting1 which is to say1
nontrivial mating positions on the chess boar1 say1 i! only !or certain
initial an bounary conitions1 e.g.1 *
st
ten moves are. . . must reach
position in less than @ moves1 etc. in which over-the-boar play cannot
reprouce the mating positions in question?
Hn a way1 the positing o! a given number theoretic !ormalism is to
abstract !rom what we presume is alreay an abstract realm1 i.e.1
mathematical itself. 6his is one taKe on the essence o! the 4eel
Hncompleteness 6heorem. /ny system which encompasses less than the
whole Cassuming it 7latonically subsists in mathematical realityD
constitutes an abstraction in which the suppresse etails must always be
crucially important. 8athematical unity i! it Re0istsS must be
irreucible in its nature.
3antor_s iagonal argument may be applie to the game theory o! chess.
8ust probabilities play a role in optimal chess play?1 c.!.1
au=
;mpeocles_ critique o! close system o! atoms-an-voi as capable
o! Rlogical thinKingS. /n important notion in this connection is the
irreucibility o! mathematics to logic1 c.!.1 4eel C*2$)D. "trangely
enough1 the philosophical bias o! most thinKers who abhor the
constricting conceptions o! min o! such arti!icial intelligence worKers
as 8insKy et al. is secretly that logic is irreucible to mathematics1 i.e.1
thought cannot be reuce to Ra concourse o! atomsS C;mpeoclesD such
as might be escribe by a mathematical tra5ectory. ?ut 4eel_s *
st
theorem emonstrates 5ust the converse o! what is containe in this bias
against the agena o! Rhar /H.S =olger .yle Car+iv: quant-
ph/2%)2)'2v2D quotes
au=
=eisenberg C*2$)D1 p. ((1 R]wenn man as
ganze ,niversum in as "ystem einbezoege L an ist] ie 7hysiK
verschwunen un nur noch ein mathematisches "chema geblieben1S ]
i! the whole universe were to be inclue into the system then physics
woul vanish an 5ust a mathematical scheme remainsS Ctranslation by
.yleD.
Qd
Hn other wors1 the quantum mechanical Rpure stateS is really
only an abstraction an the physics only enters in when ecohering
Ccontinuous or iscreteD thermoynamic processes are taKen into account
L in short1 real temporality is irreversible temporality.
RPuantum mechanics oes not preetermine the cut between E an (1
nevertheless the cut is necessary in orer to apply Buantum theory to
reality8"c.!.1 R/gainst 8easurement? L 9n the 3oncept o! Hn!ormationS
C*22%D1 .yle. 6he observer per!orms this RcutS in accorance with his
intuitions1 choice1 base on his perception o! the combine E F (
system.
R6here!ore the CI viewpoint that the iea o! a wave!unction o! the
universe is a physically senseless e0trapolation o! the mathematical
!ormalism1S c.!.1 .yle C*22%D "o are perhaps such abstractions as blacK
holes1 gravity waves1 cosmological constants1 superstrings1 etc.
R.ight ;0cees Hts 9wn "pee .imit1 or :oes Ht?S C
au=
>ames 4lanzD
Fhat isrupts the eterminism o! the time evolution o! the wave!unction
Cin accorance with the time CinDepenent "chroinger equationD
inuces ecoherence or collapse o! . R3ollapseS is presumably 5ust `
RecoherenceS on an ultra small time scale o! _s evolution. 4ravity `
oes this presumably because gravitational energy is not a conserve
quantity in general relativity. /n observer/e0perimenter may ecohere
the `
H
presumably because he/she oes not share the groun state o! the
system he/she is probing/measuring. 6he environment in its turn via
thermal energy e0changes with the prepare quantum system ecoheres
the state !unction o! the system because a time reversal o! !luctuations
within the a!!ecte volume1 I Cwith which thermal !luctuations interactD
an presumably these correlate quantum !luctuations within the volume
cannot reprouce the time-reverse set o! thermal inputs to the volume1
I L oes e0clusion o! the timeliKe e0citations mean e0clusion also o!
timeliKe correlations? 6his is the !unamental irreversibility1 which
cannot be accommoate by the "chroinger wave equation !or . / `
given region o! quantum vacuum thus cannot moel all possible changes
within itsel! that can nevertheless be inuce to occur within it as a
result o! e0ternal inputs1 what we have terme surprising of the vacuum
outsie perturbations.
8ay 2)*2
Puantum mechanical phenomena cannot be unerstoo in terms
o! 5ust a Rsoupe upS Rmicro-classicalS physics1 i.e.1 in terms o! the
Kinetics o! subatomic particles Rbu!!eteS by vacuum energy !luctuations
in the !orm o! o!!-mass-shell particles1 i.e.1 Rvirtual particlesS. 6his is
largely because the =eisenberg ,ncertainty 7rinciple1 which leas to
appearance o! vacuum !luctuations is an ontological an not an
epistemological principle. "o the apparent Kinetics o! real particle-
virtual particle interactions is a mani!estation o! a !unamental vacuum
ynamics. :iscuss the interpenetration o! the categories1 ontological
an epistemological.
=ow is mathematical intuition vis a vis 4eel_s theorem relate to the
chil_s Knowlege o! grammatical sentences it has never once hear?1
c.!.1 relation o! 3homsKy grammars to 6uring state machines an
Rhalting problemS to 4eelian incompleteness.
3antor_s !raming o! the continuum hypothesis in terms o! a set o! natural
numbers an the power set analogous to space o! articulate meaning
within a particular language Cat a particular stage o! its evolutionD an
the space o! meaning o! all possible languages which also use 7EnglishF
seeming8 wors an phrases.
4eel_s iagonal .emma there has to be a CpossibleD language Co!
seeming ;nglish D in which any given ;nglish sentence/proposition
is a sel!-re!erential statement in that possible language o! seeming
;nglish1 i.e.1 "eemglish 1 c.!.1 Hncompleteness C2))'D 4olstein.
:o we nee a corollary to 4eel_s *
st
6heorem which reassures us
that. . . either it applies to unprovable true theorems that are not sel!-
re!erential or that some theorems that are true an unprovable Cwithin
arithmetic or better may not seem sel!-re!erential Ccryptic triviality o! all
seemingly non-trivial unprovably true theorems or all theorems are
secretly sel!-re!erential?
>uly 2)**
3oul we etermine a restriction upon
4eel_s theorem !or a certain class o! a0iomatic systems such that his
theorem can only be emonstrate utilizing trivially sel!-re!erential
propositions within those system? 6his woul be somewhat in
accorance with the spirit o! Aussell_s theory o! escriptions/types1 an
i! possible woul unercut all attempts to apply 4eel in support o!
mystical ieas.
3ausal relations have logical structure an classical physics represents a
!ormal system. Puantum mechanics o!!ers the possibility o! classically
!orbien physical states1 very much aKin to 4eel_s unprovably true
theorems.
;ither the human min surprises all machines Cto be more precise it can
ecie more number theoretical questions than any machineD or else
there e0ists number theoretical questions uneciable !or the human
min1 c.!.1
au=
=ao Fang on
au=
Ourt 4eel_s belie!s about the implications
o! his *
st
incompleteness theorem. 3learly there are number theoretic
questions uneciable !or the human questions uneciable !or the
human min1 i! only because what is essential by such theorems is
beyon the human Ken. /re theorems which are uneciable !or the
human min merely because of their comple6ity ever a countere0ample
to the triviality o!1 !or e0ample1 uneciable theorems o! -raenKel-
Jermelo set theory?
6his brings up the question o! whether such uneciable theorems must
always be implicitly or e0plicitly sel!-re!erential an whether sel!-
re!erential propositions must always be trivial Csemantically speaKingD1
that is1 can sel!-re!erential propositions possess interesting content1
which is to imply that propositions uneciable to the human min
Cbecause beyon its 'enD coul also be nontrivial1 that it1 interesting if
only we coul fathom their content" i.e." unerstan what they assert.
Fhat might the bounary between Cto humansD intuitively eciable vs.
uneciable number theoretic propositions be structure liKe? 6opology
Co! the RspaceS o! number theoretic propositionsD is certainly important
here H thinK about Oau!!man_s rugge !itness lanscapes in this
connection L an 8ono_s claim that the coing o! genetic in!ormation
within the :@/ is arbitrary. Hs this bounary continuous1 !ractal1
multiply-connecte1 etc. 6hese type general consierations might result
in a loss o! !aith in the Chereto!ore unquestioneD assumption on the part
o! Rhar /HS critics that human_s ability to grasp true number theoretic
propositions unprovable within any number o! !ormal systems
necessarily implies there are no such RungraspableS or uneciable
number theoretic propositions !or humans Cclearly there are1 but this is
assume to be a !unction o! a Rsimple over-comple0ityS relative to the
human intellects !ormal computational capacityD. ?ut this is where Rthe
rubS lies as !ar as 8insKy et al. are concerne.
@ee to !inally elaborate the iea o! humans as symbiotic beings1 i.e.1
primate-spirit1 c.!.1 7hilip O. :icK_s R7luri!ormsS. "pirits catalyze the
operation o! the primate brain in quantum mechanical moe o! the
primate genome into higher !orms. 3an iniviual human beings1
whole races1 epochs1 planets1 etc. be !orsaKen by such avantages an
isavantages con!erre on each by the other? Fhat moe o! operation
or its signature is it which attracts one o! these beings to 5oin with a
host?1 c.!.1 R"ecrets o! 7owerS1
au=
Hngo "wann. "ee quote o! =eiseberg
by .yre in R/gainst 8easurement?S L 9n the 3oncept o! Hn!ormation1 p.
2 !ootnote.
R3homsKy prove that the grammar o! a natural language cannot be
reuce to a !inite-state automaton1S c.!.1 4oogle search. R4ol prove
that no amount o! correct e0amples o! sentences are enough to learn a
language1S c.!.1 4oogle search.
:iscuss why the conscious brain is embee in a R!alse vacuumS state1
not entirely sharing the groun state o! so-calle ob5ective physical
reality. 6his is in part ue to much o! the brain_s activity consisting o!
quantum mechanical tunneling Cwith generation o! much imaginary $-
momentumD. 9ther contributors to the sustainment o! !alse vacuum are
timeliKe quantum correlation o! global brain states1 utilization o!
multiple spaceliKe-separate physical C!ree spaceD vacua1 quantum
CenseD coing an ecoherence amping through quantum error
correction strategies1 etc.
Qd
;ntropy prouction on account o! the
brain_s operation shoul be compose at all times by a classical an a
von @eumann component1 helping to e0plain ecoherence o! quantum
systems Ci.e.1 RvacuaSD in interaction with a conscious brain.
Fhat i!!iculties shoul we e0pect in our attempt to -ourier trans!orm
CaD time omain !unctionCsD where time is irreversible? 3an temporal
irreversibility be trace to the !act that the absolute phase o! 7si
possesses no physical meaning though relative i!!erences in phase o?
C6his is why ensity matri0 with ecohere phases imply irreversibilityD
:oes entropy necessarily creep into the picture once we become
embroile in multiple vacua/groun states? "o is irreversibility
connecte with the taKing on o! physical meaning by the normally
purely abstract quantum mechanical phase?
Fhat type o! correlations between multiple vacua imply multiplicity o!
temporal imension? Hrreversibility o! quantum
measurement/observation is perhaps on account o! entanglement o!
brain groun state with that o! observe system?
Foul this observation/iea give us a way o! revealing the true
unerlying epistemological nature o! =eisenberg uncertainty which must
appear ontological because o! the privilege epistemological access o!
the observer to the contents o! his own sub5ective groun state?
Hrreversibility is a cause or a phenomena o the breaKing o! spacetime
symmetry? 7arameters that in isolate/insulate systems pose no
physical meaning become physically important1 e.g.1 re!erence !rame1
absolute energy/S)S o! energy1 absolute phase1 vector potential1
orientation in space1 irection in/through time1 ect. 6hese are all
e0amples o! conte0t-sensitivity an/or metaphoricity. :ecoherence as
phenomenon o! entanglement with alien groun states.
?reaKown in the ivision between synta0 an semantics/meaning
which blocKs pro5ect o! reucing semantics to synta0.
3onscious communication transcens that a!!ore by systems o!
conventionally etermine representation.
-ree will gives human beings the ability to Rblu!! the wave!unctionS. H
see elaye choice measurement theory1 c.!.1 possibility o! Runoing a
quantum measurementS concept o! Rquantum taKe CtaKieD bacKsSV "ee
quantum gambling theory.
:o we carry out threats intene merely as blu!!s so as to shore up
alternative quantum CecisionD wave!unction branches !or our 8FH
quantum universe counterparts1 an is this possibly seemingly altruistic
behavior rational sel!-interest within the conte0t o! an 8FH quantum
theoretic "mithian !ree marKet? Hs it only an 8FH variety o! quantum
theory that truly can e0plain the notable1 even remarKable phenomenon
o! sel!-sacri!icing altruism1 c.!.1 ethics o! quantum game theory an
Rquantum -errariS game show geanKen e0periment.
3an we turn a proo! Cvia worK energy theoremD that the gravitational
!iel per!orms worK upon accelerating masses into a proo! that the !iel
per!orms worK upon the quantum vacuum L accoring to IoloviK_s
theory o! vacuum mass as inuce by gravity L yes.
6here must be theoretically possible beings isolate or cut o!! !rom the
rugge !itness lanscape on which humanKin evolve. ?ut both
!itness lanscapes shoul be able to !it into a single larger lanscape1
though perhaps one so large as coul not be sustaine by a Rnatural
environmentS.
Y6hey are not intereste in the historicity o! the ?ibleZ C/lan Fatts
lectureD C4oogle search phraseD
Fittgenstein_s !amily resemblance basis o! categories applie to
philosophy o! min. H! you actually RgetS the philosopher_s insight1
your reaction to this revelation will necessarily be unique enough to
establish you hea an shoulers about imitators1 i.e.1 an author o! ieas
in your own right CR7h: millS principleD.. Hs this on account o!
enthusiasm alone Cemotional charge elivere to ieas germinating
within the !orebrain !rom the limbic systemD?
CHnsert e0planation o! why Rquantum -errariS game show thought
e0periment oesn_t worK L !rom emails to Jia an 3hrisD
Puantum mechanical phase o! a spin-*/2 particle is timeliKe an
spaceliKe in equal parts. 6he composite spin-) particles 7si is purely
timeliKe Cinertial !rame e0ists in which spin-*/2 particle is in an energy
eigenstateD with ecoherence1 otherwise purely spaceliKe spin-* bosons
an purely timeliKe composite spin-) bosons become mi0e1 timeliKe-
spaceliKe or Rspacetime-liKeS. 6here is a thermoynamic cost in
maintaining such a spacetime-liKe Rmi0e stateS1 c.!.1 2.%
o
O cosmic
bacKgroun raiation is 5ust generalize =awKing raiation association
with evaporation o! cosmic blacK hole L that which we interpret as the
?ig ?ang.
3onservation o! entanglement: increase spin-* ?ose conensation
correspons to ecrease composite spin-) ?ose conensation1 restating
a turn to increase virtual 3ooper pair ecoherence. Aelate polarization
o! ielectric meium to increase spin-* to ecrease magnetization o! a
paramagnetic meium.
/
-
rotates the phase o! a neutral !ermion1 e.g.1 neutron. 6his ?ohm-
/haranov e!!ect is connecte with the timeliKe component o! spin-*/2.
C8 ecoherence o! composite spin-) connection?D `
6he ( symmetry o! !ermions an the 2 symmetry o! bosons must be - -
relate to the !act that1 .
+
"s G
+
"*
6he aitional 2 Cover an above the R2 -symmetry o! bosonsD o! - -
!ermions must be relate to the !act that spin +*/2 is always paire with
spin L*/2 in a !ermionic quantum !iel1 which is timeliKe while spin +/-
{ particle in isolation must be real an virtual { particles must always
create/annihilate in !orm o! composite spin-) !iels.
"pin-*: pure spaceliKe
"pin-): pure timeliKe
"pin-*/2: { spaceliKe1 { timeliKe
3omposite spin-): spaceliKe components cancel1 leaving only timeliKe
spin-).
Hn "pecial Aelativity a mass is accelerate1 both /ap an p increase
along the irection o! motion. /ap increases ue to .orentz--itzgeral
contraction o! /a0 an p increases ue to ilation o! /at an ecrease in
; ue to ecrease in /a; an increase in ; in accorance with ;
= /a;.
6hermoynamics o! accelerate re!erence !rames suggests that a
gravitational !iel per!orms worK upon the quantum vacuum.
C `
mv
/
t
+
vm
/
t
D
W
s ) !or propagating gravitational !iels. 6his is -
because the orientation o! the vectors1 -
*
an -
2
relative to +s are o!
unequal magnitue
Cwhere
mv
/
t
= -
*
an
vm
/
t
= -
2
D
3ausal powers are clearly tie to counter!actuals1 which are sensitive to
the physical conitions set by the unerlying physical ynamics by
which algorithms are implemente1 which are !ormally
ineterminate/uneciable. /n no clear istinction can be rawn
between implementation o! an algorithm an the algorithm_s !ormal
structure Bua algorithm. 3learly1 i! how !C0D = 01 where R!C0DS is output
an R0_ is input is important to the ynamics o! mental states1 then we
will never be in a position to !in another equation1 !_C0_D = 0_1 which
possesses the require property1 unless we can write1
R!CR0SDS
R=S R0ST
?ut the invoKing o! R R0S S in the place o! R=S means abanoning CaD
purely !ormal relationCsD. 6he irreucibility o! !unction o! !orm is
pointe to by the invoKing o! R=S1 which is at once to evoKe the notion
o! Rirreucible temporality.S R=S also carries the notion o!
Requivocation o! senseS1 which is the very essence o! metaphoricity.
/n it is this !acility !or equivocation o! sense that presumably permits
a la 4enrose !or the human min to sie step the limitations o! logic1 i.e.1
R!ormal symbol manipulationS o! which "earle is so critical1 pointe up
by 4eel_s incompleteness theorem. 3onte0t sensitivity o! brain
processes epens upon a comple0ity o! R!unctionS capable o routinely
out stripping the computational capacity o! the unerlying embeing
quantum vacuum. 7resumably again1 probability is not conserve by
these types o! processes Csince probability is only e!inable against some
uni!ie1 normalizable vacuum or groun stateD an so such processes are
causality-transcening.
"mall probability that a ball will pass through a wall rather than bounce
bacK1 via quantum tunneling o! the ball_s wave!unction. ?ut an
aggregation o! particles woul ecohere long be!ore say1 a tennis ball-
size scale is reache. =owever1 can the phases o! the components o!
the ensity matri0 be tune an stabilize so that the ball more or less
Rtunnels throughS. ;ither Knowlege o! or !eebacK with the wall1
neither o! which may be possible1 woul be require.
Hntegration o! brain states over time requires some interaction between
such timeliKe separate states. 6his in part accounts !or the ability o!
brain !unction to inuce Cberraschung o! the quantum vacuum1 !urther
inucing collapse o! pure quantum states.
6o thinK that consciousness coul be evoKe through the enacting o!
some preetermine Cor even Rpre-preetermineD sequence o! physical
events is surely to inulge in superstitious thinKing o! the most basic
sort.
/lthough true that Rwithout conte0t1 there is no meaning1 it is also true
that without iniviuation1 i.e.1 i!!erentiation o! a being !rom its groun
Cor Rgroun properSD1 there can be nothing sub5ect to an interpretation
an hence no meaning here either. :eterministic brain processes are
processes taKing place in a close system an which cannot there!ore
have any re!erence outsie the system or be Rabout anythingS.
Hs it quantum uncertainty that maKes !unction irreucible to !orm1 (
pseuo-spacetime irreucible to C$ + *D 8inKowsKi spacetime?
Ht is suppose that Rthe greater the accuracy . . . in the measurement o!
spatiotemporal coorinates1 the stronger the gravitational !iel generate
by the measurement1S c.!.1 to Buanti(e /ravity1 3hristian Fuetrich1
,niv. o! 7ittsburgh. C6he way out o! this implie ilemma is to
istinguish between epistemological an ontological interpretations o!
the =eisenberg ,ncertainty 7rinciple.D .laborate on this further
"pontaneous versus inuce quantum uncertainty1 i.e.1 unboun vs.
boun !luctuation energy.
6here is an in!ormation theoretic basis1 perhaps through invoKing a
cellular automata moel o! the quantum vacuum !or relating the e!!ects
o! inertia1 gravitation an consciousness in which the !inite banwith
an computational capacity o! the vacuum play an important role.
?acK-reaction an uncertainty are perhaps mutually inconsistent. ?acK
reaction increase with accuracy o! Cto the groun state or vacuum !ielD
Runanticipate inputs o! momentum-energy uring minute e0perimental
probings1 i.e.1 measurements.
6he presence o! a gravitational !iel requires some bacK-reaction o! the
vacuum inuce mass upon the !ree vacuum itsel!.
/bsolute 7si is not an observable L P8.
/bsolute !requency is not an observable L "A.
7si an !requency in some sense con5ugate or RincompatibleS?
:oes the phenomenon o! P8 measurement emonstrate the e!!icacy Cas
oppose to the epiphenomenal nature o!D human consciousness?
6he Rsomething-it-is-liKe-nessS o! certain brain processes Cassuming a
reuctionist view o! mental statesD is in essence the intentionality o!
brain states. ?ut consciousness seems to require the interaction o! brain
states Cacross timeD.
6he blin spot o! personality liKe the nucleus o! the cell is the very target
!or manipulation o! the whole structure. /ltruism1 rational sel!-interest
L a!ter a certain age cynicism can only be avoie through ienti!ication
o! sel! with a higher sel!1 political1 intellectual1 spiritual1 etc.
3an we in the same way the curl-!ree electric !iel may be represente
by a ivergence-!ree !iel1 namely by its spaceliKe component can we
represent a gravitational !iel as the spaceliKe part o! a !our imensional
torsion !iel?
3harge ensity in three imensions is the timeliKe component o! the
current ensity in !our imensional a ;-!iel is spaceliKe component o!
!our imensional ?-!iel?
Aelation o! current ensity to spin when e
+
an e
-
are per!ectly anti-
correlate the current ensity in !our imensions is ). Fith loss o! anti-
correlation a timeliKe Cor spacetime-liKeD current ensity evelops L
suggesting Oaluza-Olein ' spacetime.
6he notion o! a limit1 c.!.1 RHn!inite use o! !inite thingsS C-3homsKyD
Fe speaK o! numbers being so large as to be meaningless.
-low o! money in a !ree marKet economy.
R<our banK account oesn_t !luctuate e0cept accoring to the
vicissitues o! your own e0istence1S c.!.1 6errence 8cOenna lecture on
the structure o! temporality.
/ny time H checK on my savings account inquiring how much d is
containe there1 the teller prints up a slip with a balance inicate on it
an hans it to me. Fith this proceure H am usually satis!ie.
;ach bit o! energy is correlate to multiple conte0ts/continua an so
causality must be the theory you get when you consier 5ust a single
groun state.
Fe see the overlap o! !ree will an consciousness in our stuy o! the
istinctly i!!erent quality o! vacuum !luctuation energy !rom when
!luctuation is spontaneous as oppose to Rreactive.S
/ristotle_s R!ormS an RsubstanceS are inistinct where structures below
the ecoherence threshol are concerne.
6he quantum-classical continuum shoul not be ienti!ie with
spatiotemporal scale per se but with nearness +/- to the
ecoherence/recoherence bounary. 6here are other conitions besies
scale1 e.g.1 comple0ity which !igure into this threshol.
6his means we must thinK in terms o! =eisenberg stress-momentum-
energy uncertainty1 /a6
uv
.
@ot only are quantum correlations responsible !or bulK properties o!
matter such as polarization1 magnetization1 etc.1 inertia as well vacuum
!luctuations1 !or e0ample1 taKe on mass in a gravitational !iel an thus
contribute to the cosmological constant ue entirely to the character o!
nonlocal correlations guiing1 pilot-waveliKe the quantum processes
unerlying nongravitational bining !orces/energies1 rather than some
unquali!ie substance with a magical intrinsic property o! massiveness.
9ne can_t properly .orentz trans!orm a ensity matri0 with partially
ecohere phase relationships e0isting between the ensity matri01 i.e.1
the components o! the ensity matri0. / transition must occur between
quartic Ci.e.1 (-imensionalD an RquinticS ensity matrices1 i.e.1 the
quantum vacuum cannot support the coherence o! quantic an higher
imensional ensity matrices. 6his is ue to a theorem o! 4alois_ on
none0istence o! root !ormulas !or polynomials o! egree-' an higher.
Puantum ecoherence as a vacuum comple0ity threshol may
e0istentially RgrounS min an !orce us to a theory o! min that
transcens the >ames-?ergson-=u0ley theory1 Cthe theory which secretly
implies that the min o! each person is a RunityS instea o! a Rtame
cacophonySD. 8an is not any longer in the image o! 4o1 not Rin the
image o!S anything. 6his is the true meaning o! e0istentialism.
an o! ` _ -
i5
etermines spacetime symmetry1 c.!.1 problems with a
.orentz trans!ormation o! ecoherent ensity matrices. / woul-be
quantum gravity theory woul be concerne with 6
-
that is itsel! not
!ully spacetime symmetrical. R?locKingS o! vacuum signals is an
irreversible process L is not a simple negation1 but a critically comple0
Ci.e.1 threshol L transceningD process. 6he price o! uniqueness an
!reeom is that the ientity o! the person is not preetermine. Hs this
relevant to eveloping a moern theoicy? Aee0amine the booK o!
4enesis in terms o! these consierations.
6he connection between system an new vacuum state establishe too
late or at insu!!iciently many points along the system_s temporal
evolution or system is too comple0 so that su!!icient banwith o!
connection with vacuum state is unavoiable. @ature o! correlations o!
system with itsel! at i!!erent system_s CirreversibleD temporality.
9ur e!ects we com!ortably an philosophically attribute to less than
per!ect human nature1 our virtues to aspects o! our personal an
iniviual character.
/re our mins aapte to a boune or bounless processes CRthe
environmentSD? Fhat component o! consciousness is epiphenomenal?
H! min is an aaptation to a transcenent environment1 then how can
consciousness be in any sense RepiphenomenalS? =ow can language so
secretly invoKe the absolute observer1 i.e.1 R4oS?
"hipov_s rotational law o! inertia: the rotate soli boy will rotate
inertially as long as e0ternal !orces o not act on it1 c.!.1 theoretical an
e0perimental research o! inertial mass o! a !our-imensional gyroscope.
/strology appeals to many !or the same reason as oes a meloy L it
e0hibits something pervasive an !unamental that is normally hien
!rom us1 i.e.1 in the case o! astrology the ialectic o! the struggle o!
consciousness with an un!ree animal_s to e!!ect a !reely acting human
will. 6he notion o! con5unctions an our vigilant watching !or them as
opportunity !or spirit to intervene in otherwise mechanical an moronic
physical processes.
au=
@. I. -ilatov_s e0periments with colliing gyroscopes or other
e0periments involving acceleration o! rapily spinning gyroscopes
shoul show a eviation !rom @ewton_s laws o! motion that can only be
e0plaine by the notion o! timeliKe components o! angular momentum1
which is to imply that spacetime e0ists against a bacK rop o! absolute
!our imensional space1 c.!.1 @ewton_s bucKet e0periment an 8ach_s
theory o! inertia.
Hn !our imensions there is no net acceleration on account o! impresse
!orces1 but merely a rotation o! (-momentum an so presumably the
resistance to impresse !orces is ue to resistance o! the mass to changes
in the mass_ (-angular momentum.
"omething aKin to IoloviK_s super!lui vacuum might serve as a Kin o!
e!!ective !iel o! Re!!ective supersymmetryS or Rinuce
supersymmetryS1 obviating the presume necessity o! superpartners as
part o! the solution to the cosmological constant problem.
R-or many years it has been con5ecture that these two types o!
super!luiity are in !act alternative limits o! a single universal
phenomenon1 an that one coul continuously pass !rom !ermionic to
bosonic super!luiity by properly varying the !ermionic interaction
parameters1 c.!.1 6he Aole o! ?oson--ermion 3orrelations in the
Aesonance 6heory o! "uper!luis1 ar+iv: con-mat/)()(2$(v2 ** /7A
2))(.S 6he above worK is relevant to a theory o! inuce
supersymmetry1 that is1 a theory o! supersymmetry that treats
superpartners as quasiparticles. @o unique e0change particle require
meiating gravitation an no unique particle neee to enow particles
with mass1 i.e.1 no =iggs boson. "upersymmetry is ynamically broKen
in a super!lui vacuum1 c.!.1 IoloviK.
RFhen particles are prouce in a collision1 they are not particles that
were somehow insie the colliing particles. 6hey are really prouce
by converting the collision energy into mass1 the mass o! other
particles.S 6his is another e0ample o! how quantum mechanics violates
our intuitions by revealing Rthe ontology o! epistemologyS1 5ust as in the
case o! the =eisenberg principle that is commonly mistaKen as an
epistemological principle1 c.!.1 =eisenberg_s .ight microscope
e0periment1 rather than an ontological principle1 i.e.1 scope an limits o!
Knowlege is reveale as a limitation o! being1 c.!.1 "upersymmetry1 p.
%' C2)))D.
6he ecoherence threshol limits the comple0ity o! what systems may
be teleporte1 appear out o! the vacuum as a !luctuation or e0ist in a
superposition state. Iacuum !luctuations constitute the ontological
component o! =eisenberg uncertainty. @onlocal correlations cause the
magnitue o! vacuum !luctuations to become smaller than their
corresponing =eisenberg uncertainties. 7si-ob5ective while the ensity
matri0 is an ami0ture o! ob5ective an sub5ective components. =ow
oes quantum ecoherence a!!ect the ensity matri0? ?eginning to see
the connection between gravitation1 ecoherence1 consciousness an the
Rirection o! time.S
;lsewhere region shoul be emarcate accoring to a ecoherence
threshol Conset o! irreversibilityD rather than spatially. 9nly the
ecohere component o! the vacuum contributes to the vacuum_s inertia.
Fhat istinguishes real !rom virtual particles CRparticleS not being a
concept within quantum !iel theoryD is mere probability1 i.e.1 particles
!urther fo!!-mass-shellS are less probable. @ote that a scalar on the
momentum-energy graph correspons to a vector within 8inKowsKi
spacetime.
=owever1 once the threshol is passes at which structures become too
comple0 to e0ist as R!luctuationsS o! the vacuum_s energy1 c.!.1 =awKing
raiation an the blacK hole in!ormation parao01 the istinction
between RrealS an RvirtualS becomes shall we say1 more R!ull-blooeS.
6his threshol is also that connecte with gravitational ecoherence.
6he reality o! ine!inite counter!actuals seems to be require by the
realness o! e0istent as oppose to imaginary entities an seems more or
less e0clue by a non-eterministic universe. Fhat about egenerate
eterminism? C"ee recent ar+iv preprints on the limits o!
inter!erometry o! RbucKyballsSD
7articles move about in such a manner that they remain locally real L
consistency o! mass-shell representation o! spacetime? 6his is 5ust a
restatement o! the !act that quantum mechanical e0pectation values
correspon to the preictions o! classical physics. Ht is also a
restatement o! the principle o! probability conservation in quantum
mechanics.
6he invoKing o! natural selection to e0plain the growth o! biological
orer is vis a vis consciousness to borrow orer !rom a continuum that
itsel! was esigne.
Puantum cryptography an nonlocality L vanishing point o! substance
basis o! in!ormation L in!ormation can be ivorce !rom material
substrate1 c.!.1 Dualism an Disemboie E6istence. ?ut is the
in!ormation continuity timeliKe Cin sense o! a pre!erre !rame o! so-
calle cosmic timeD? Fhen ecoherence limit is e0ceee1 in!ormation
becomes localize1 e.g.1 superposition1 vacuum !luctuation1
entanglement1 quantum encryption an/or teleportation comple0ity
limits are reache.
>une 2)*$
E/ RbrainS cannot 5ust pop into e0istence as a
result o! a single entropy !luctuation on account o! the 7lancK mass-
energy ecoherence limit qua 7enrose_s Rone-graviton limitS. =owever1
a possible istinct coherent quantum state o! a given particular brain
microtubule quantum-entangle protein imer networK can inee arise
as a !luctuation1 given that the appropriate initial an bounary
conitions have alreay been supplie via a pree0isting biological brain
or other !orm o! neural networK. 6hese type !luctuations are what might
be aptly terme Rvirtual ?oltzmann brainsS. 8oreover1 ?oltzmann
brains might be e0pecte to occur within a quantum computer that is
running a simulate universe program. Oey Fors: ?oltzmann brain1
?iocentrism1 /ncestor "imulation1 @icK ?ostrom1 Aobert .anza1 "tuart
=amero!!1 Aoger 7enrose1 one-graviton limit1 quantum ecoherence1
quantum entanglement1 vacuum !luctuation1 7lancK mass1 microtubule1
9verton-8eyer.E
?ounary conitions upon the quantum !iel become overly comple01
then pure state oes not so much as RecayS as trans-!orm into a mi0e
state Cas oppose to a superposition that can be .orentz trans!orme1 or
change o! basis per!orme in some other way into a pure stateD.
Fhenever a critical process creates1 it borrows. 6he ual categories o!
creative vs. critical may have to be recast as Rsel!-plagiarismS vs.
plagiarism o! the worKs o! others. 6his revision might be mae
necessary by the iscovery that the sel!-other istinction is erivative1
say !rom a groun o! impersonal ynamic processes. Fhat o we really
mean by RynamicS Csimply in opposition to RKinematicS?D
7hase relations curve spacetime/geometric ecoherenceV phase
relations timeliKe an spaceliKe correlations/statistical ecoherence.
3reation an annihilation operator representation o! operators erive
!rom classical physics1 c.!.1 ?ohm_s statement/theorem about causality
an correlate !luctuations.
6emporal protection is emboie in the notion o! conservation o!
electrical charge.
7hase relations o! -
i5
components1 properties o! matrices1 =eisenberg
representation o! the wave!unction an topology are closely relate
concepts.
"chroinger =eisenberg: symmetries o! 7si are translate into
symmetries o! operators/physical observables1 c.!.1 matri0 symmetries.
:oes 4alois_ polynomial RHncompleteness 6heoremS tell us anything
about the nature o! space that embes spacetime?
6here are some results o! mathematics that are so counter-intuitive they
seem to eman an unerlying physics L other such results1 an
unerlying mentality.
3onservation o! (-momentum alone is not su!!icient to bar !aster-than-
light travel. 6his is simply because CmicD
2
= CmC-icDD
2
6here must be some aitional conservation law Cor broKen symmetryD
that prevents this. Fhat symmetries/ broKen symmetries unerlie
chronology protection?
9r is1 again unening vigilance o! an observer Cor his consciousnessD
require? :ecoherence theory limitation upon comple0ity o! simple
vacuum energy !luctuations poses limitations upon the ?ergson->ames-
=u0ley Rreucing valveS theory o! brain-consciousness.
7hilosophical bias e0ists which says that all real unities are unerive
not constructe1 which enies unity in novelty1 enies unity o! emergent
entities.
=ow can some in!rastructure o! consciousness which is itsel! ini!!erent
to the passage o! time play a role in the temporality o! consciousness?
8arch 2)*2
H liKe the visual metaphor o! seeing so !ar that you even see Ethe
other sieE while all along a brige has secretly been in place.
https://www.!acebooK.com/photo.php?!bi=*)*))2&*(%*$')%$'
=<7;A.H@O Ehttps://www.!acebooK.com/photo.php?
!bi=*)*))2&*(%*$')%$' & set=a.*)*))*$)2$'2)'(2'.2%'&$''.2$()2
'() & type=$ & theaterE & =<7;A.H@O
Ehttps://www.!acebooK.com/photo.php?
!bi=*)*))2&*(%*$')%$' & set=a.*)*))*$)2$'2)'(2'.2%'&$''.2$()2
'() & type=$ & theaterE set=a.*)*))*$)2$'2)'(2'.2%'&$''.2$()2'()
=<7;A.H@O Ehttps://www.!acebooK.com/photo.php?
!bi=*)*))2&*(%*$')%$' & set=a.*)*))*$)2$'2)'(2'.2%'&$''.2$()2
'() & type=$ & theaterE & =<7;A.H@O
Ehttps://www.!acebooK.com/photo.php?
!bi=*)*))2&*(%*$')%$' & set=a.*)*))*$)2$'2)'(2'.2%'&$''.2$()2
'() & type=$ & theaterE type=$ =<7;A.H@O
Ehttps://www.!acebooK.com/photo.php?
!bi=*)*))2&*(%*$')%$' & set=a.*)*))*$)2$'2)'(2'.2%'&$''.2$()2
'() & type=$ & theaterE & =<7;A.H@O
Ehttps://www.!acebooK.com/photo.php?
!bi=*)*))2&*(%*$')%$' & set=a.*)*))*$)2$'2)'(2'.2%'&$''.2$()2
'() & type=$ & theaterE theater
Hntonation an rhythm e!!ect case o! uptaKe o! an processing o!
communicate ata. Hnvestigate the role o! mimetics in communication
o! novel in!ormation.
Fhy is a system less !unamental i! it cannot appear or e0ist as a
sustaine !luctuations?
.eibniz_ 7rinciple that which creates also sustains carries over into the
e!inition o! su!!icient cause as the sum o! all necessary causes.
3an we alter or shi!t the bounary between !unamental an erivative
structures? 3an being bacK-react upon its groun?
Hs the ot prouct o! a timeliKe an anti-timeliKe spin-*/2 particle is )
even though the mutual angle is *N) egrees?
6he ot prouct o! two orinary spaceliKe vectors is 2)
o
. /re these
observations about ot proucts !or spinors an vectors relate to the
!act that espite the way the 8inKowsKi light cone is rawn1 there is
e!!ectively only a ('
o
traverse !or 0 an t to coincie?
6hat is1 acceleration cause a mi0ing o! space an time components that
may be re!lecte in charges in the quantum entanglement o! virtual
bosons an !ermions.
:o the symmetries o! the 7si inicate how 7si couples to its
particle/!iel?
;0plore the connection between ecoherence an inertia.
/ purely resonant ensity matri0 in which each element o! -
i5
may be
seen as a purely timeliKe !luctuation with the phase relations o the -
i5
completely etermine through nonlocal quantum correlations L this
represents the case where all entries in the ensity matri0 may be
change simultaneously. Hn such a case we say that -
i5
correspons to
a system possessing e!!ectively no inertial mass. =owever1 such a
system may taKe on an e!!ective inertial mass shoul we interact with the
system so as to isrupt the purely resonant phase relations o! the -
i5
so
that we now have a ensity matri0 with a mi0ture o! nonlocal an
classical correlations.
3ausality is !ully etermine by correlations1 quantum an classical in
various ami0tures. Fhat etermines these correlations is quantum
statistics o! !luctuations an bounary conitions upon the !iels so
!luctuating. 6he groun o! wave!unction collapse is ecohering
vacuum processes.
H on_t Know the answer1 either but it is obviously relate to topology o!
!luctuations an their correlations. Fe Know this much: that in the case
o! gravitational ecoherence1 the relationships o! the quantum phases o!
the components o! the ensity matri0 are Risrupte.S 8eaning that a
.orentz trans!ormation cannot return the ensity matri0 to its previous
state1 say 5ust prior to the gravitational !iel being Rswitche onS. /
biological transition must occur1 which also lies behin the collapse o!
the wave!unction. ?y the way1 H thinK it was -eynman who pointe out
the i!!erences in the topology o! !ermions an bosons.
3onservation laws are violate !or vacuum processes an !or processes
in which the vacuum plays a role. ;nergy is not conserve in general
relativity. 6his is why we say that gravity breaKs spacetime symmetry.
3omplementary quantum statistical e!!ects o! real !ermions an real
bosons upon their virtual counterparts which is reciprocal. 6reating /a;
an /ap as a conserve (-vector. 6reating virtual !ermion pairs as scalar
an virtual bosons as vector1 which are combine into a conserve (-
vector in analogy to how relativistic 8a0well_s equations treat rest
charge as the scalar component o! (-current ensity. .ooK at relativity_s
e!inition o! (-angular momentum current ensity an probability
current ensity. "pecial relativity applies to /ap1 /a;1 /at1 an /a0 5ust as
well as to p1 01 ;1 t. Puantum entanglement in gravitational !iel acts
in the appropriate manner. 7olarization V 8agnetization . " -
7ressure1 energy ensity an 8ach_s !ormula !or spee o! light. Aatios
o! bining energy to mass energy are the same as the ratio o! mass to
blacK hole mass C!or same geometryD. =yperspherical potential o! !alse
vacuum an the ict a0is relates to rest masses quantum tunneling through
this potential with imaginary momentum an negative Kinetic energy.
Qd
4ravitation as a rotation o! this (-potential by mass. 3onservation o!
(-angular momentum as a more elegant e0planation o! the relativistic
perihelion precession o! the planet 8ercury. 4ravitational reshi!t an
e!lection o! light by gravity coul both be e0plaine in terms o!
quantum entanglement o! $-momentum Cvirtual photonsD an imaginary
(-momentum Cvirtual 3ooper pairsD. 6his shoul be consistent with
magnetization an polarization entanglement witnesses.
.ight is a spacetime measurement basis in relativity theory !or the
preicte an now much con!irme relativistic e!!ects o! both motion
an matter upon space an time. H! light moves as though or as i! time
is passing slower in a given region1 then
*D we Know a gravitational potential is present
2D time is inee passing slower in this potential than in so-calle !ree
space
"ince the velocity o! light can be consiere in light o! relativity as a
measure o! the velocity o! time1 the rate o! ecrease in the velocity o!
light at a given time1 t must be proportional to the velocity o! light at
such time t. Hn other wors1 the ecrease in the velocity o! light Can
hence also o! time1 i.e.1 its rate o! passageD must be ecreasing at an
e0ponentially ecaying rate. Fell1 time reversing this tren bacK to the
beginning o! the ?ig ?ang an we are then !ace with an e0ponentially
increasing velocity o! light an o! timeT 6his is why H believe that it
may be possible to !it *2-*$ billion years o! our present time into 5ust a
!ew thousan years o! Rearly time.S
Qd
Fe must remember that it is the e0pansion o! spacetime that the ?ig
?ang treats o! an not the e0pansion o! space over pree0istent timeT H!
we still want a bacKgroun1 pree0istent time uring which spacetime_s
e0pansion is consiere to be taKing place1 then we must invoKe the
notion o! multiimensional time. CFhich we woul nee anyway1 i! the
;verett many worls interpretation o! quantum mechanics is valiD H!
we on_t accept multiimensional time1 then we must consier the
e0istence o! a generalize or cosmological time ilation as one o! the
inevitable e!!ects o! the cosmic e0pansion. /n such cosmological time
ilation also applies to the various quantum uncertainties in time
measurements/intervals C=eisenberg time uncertainty in all o! its myria
rami!icationsD. /n i! =eisenberg time uncertainties o! all quantum
systems are increasing1 then their =eisenberg energy uncertainties must
be ecreasing Cwhich mani!ests itsel! as an apparent acceleration in the
universe_s e0pansion Crelative to an assume constant velocity o! lightD.
8ay 2)**
/s the mass energy ensity o! the universe ecreases uring the
course o! cosmological e0pansion1 gravitational time ilation !or the
universe as a whole shoul ecrease an this is associate with an
increase in the velocity o! light in step with this universal ecrease in
vacuum energy ensity.
Qd
=ere we see a plausible simple mechanism
!or an accelerating cosmological e0pansion1 as well as an e0planation o!
ar' energy.
3osmological an gravitational reshi!t may be place upon a common
!ooting1 e.g.1 cosmic microwave bacKgroun as cosmologically re
shi!te =awKing raiation.
Hn a ynamic gravity !iel1 lengths can both ilate an contract1 as well
as can time intervals ilate an contract. 6his is what happens when a
gravity wave passes through our local spacetime. 6his is what is calle
quarupole raiation1 which cannot be escribe by either spin-) or
spin-* !iels. Fhat inuce gravity1 e!!ective !iel gravity an Ralreay
uni!ieS theories try to o is e!ine composite spin-2 !iels1 i.e.1 !iels
mae up o! simpler particles than a pure spin-2 graviton.
Fhat has !or long been particularly interesting !or me is the !act that not
only time an space are squeeze an ilate by passing gravitational
waves1 but also the =eisenberg uncertainties in time an length are
squeeze an ilate. 6his is o! possible eep signi!icance in light o!
the Rno hien variablesS theorem o! >ohn ?ell C*2&(D because one o!
the outcomes o! this theorem is that the =eisenberg uncertainties are not
e!inable in terms o! relationships between merely local Ci.e.1 causalD
variables. Fhat is important here is that 4eneral Aelativity is a strictly
speaKing causal theory of locally covariant variables9 "o i! the
generality o! general relativistic e!!ects Cas applie to =eisenberg
uncertainties in space1 time1 energy an momentumD is to be accepte1
the grouns !or 4A e!!ects here must be meiate through nonlocal
correlations o! quantum !luctuations which maKe up these =eisenberg
uncertain variables o! time1 length1 momentum1 etc. 6his leas us to
euce through
/at 0 /a; h an
/a0 0 /ap h
/a0 an /at general relativistically squeeze an ilate ue to changes in
nonlocal correlations Can amplitue values?D1 which is to say1 quantum
statistical relationships between the nonlocally connecte quantum
!luctuations in $-momentum an energy comprising the various
=eisenberg uncertainties in these physical quantities are systematically
perturbe1 creating the e!!ect o! their being relativistically squeeze an
ilate through the above equations.
8ay 2)**
=ow e0actly oes
=eisenberg uncertainty relate to quantum entanglement con5ugate
observables or even observables that mutually constitute components o!
some observable with respect to a conserve quantity?
/a; is compose o! nonlocally correlate virtual !ermion-anti!ermion
Cvirtual 3ooper pairD creation/annihilations1 i.e.1 !luctuations o! vacuum
energy an
/ap is compose o! nonlocally correlate virtual boson emission-
absorptions.
6here may be a way o! e0plaining changes in the quantum statistics o!
!luctuations o! momentum an energy1 Chow probable are !luctuations
an how these !luctuations are correlate within spacetimeD1 which
unerlie the ynamics o! all quantum systems via application o! -ermi-
:irac statistics C7auli ;0clusion 7rincipleD an ?ose-;instein statistics
Cprinciple o! ?ose conensationD to the interactions o! real-real1 real-
virtual1 an virtual-virtual particles/!iels.
7lease see :avi ?ohm_s worK Puantum 6heory C*2'*D !or support o!
my assertion that all causal relationships may be consistently represente
in terms o! !luctuations an their correlations.
"how two alternate ; = p `
W
v = mc
2
erivations1 i.e.1 one in $
evaluate !rom v = C)1cD an one in ( C$ + *D spaceCtimeD evaluate
!rom v = Cic1 cD as emonstration o! the (-imensionality o! the universe
as well as the possible e0istence o! a (-potential o! R!alse vacuumS
through which the ,niverse Can all massesD is quantum tunneling.
3ollect research on a cosmological scale FO? appro0imation o! the
,niverse_s =amiltonian that supports such an interpretation o! the
imaginary momentum an negative Kinetic energy o! Rrest masses.S
"how arK matter an arK energy as two necessary !orms o!
perturbation o! the quantum vacuum by matter via the 7auli ;0clusion
an RHnclusionS principles.
8ay 2)**
:arK matter is a local phenomenon
cause by the e!!ect o! gravitational time ilation upon the local rate o!
cosmological e0pansion. :arK energy is a nonlocal phenomenon cause
by the ecrease in gravitational time ilation with cosmological
e0pansion. 6he pioneer anomaly is cause by !ailing to measure the
velocity o! raio signals within a re!erence !rame that varies with time
ue to cosmological e0pansion. 6he iscrete cosmological reshi!t is a
!unction o! the e0pansion o! the universe through a hyperspherical
potential barrier. 8atter causes a local rotation o! this hyperspherical
potential energy barrier !rom timeliKe to spaceliKe.
R<ou are the apple o! my eye.S 6he essence o! humanness is the innate
metaphoricity o! human thought an perception1 which unerlies human
consciousness.
Fhat seems to speaK to us the louest is that which calls clearest to
min our own voice.
/ blacK hole seems to convert =eisenberg energy uncertainty1 /a;
=eisenberg
into thermalize energy1 i.e.1 von @eumann into classical entropy?
:oes the event horizon convert spin-) into spin-* !luctuations? =e who
coul buil a time machine coul change the course o! history an rule
the worl L change history or merely switch tracKs !rom one parallel
universe to another?
;0plore the connection1 i! any1 between critiques o! :avi :eutsch_s
quantum computing argument !or the e0istence o! parallel universes an
my notion o! -collapse base in combinational comple0ity _
overwhelming the computational resources o! the quantum vacuum Bua
cosmic 37,. Yinuce supergravityZ/Y"aKharovZ
Ht taKes energy to recreate a mass through space over a !inite time
interval. "low acceleration1 only low !requency !luctuations nee be
reprocesse.
/s the universe e0pans there is more space an the positional
uncertainty increases. =ence momentum uncertainty ecreases an so
the momentum spectrum o! all particles an !iels within the universe
evelops a long1 high-momentum tail1 which statistically is correlate
with a net acceleration in irection o! cosmological e0pansion. 6he
spee o! light also slows1 which compouns the appearance o!
accelerate e0pansion.
6he way /ap an /a; trans!orm !rom one re!erence !rame to another in
special relativity is substantively i!!erent !rom the trans!ormation o!
these quantities in going !rom one point in a gravitational potential to
some point at another potential. :oes a .orentz trans!ormation only
change the iagonal terms o! the stress-momentum-energy tensor or
oes it potentially change the o!!-iagonal terms though without altering
the phase relations between the 6
iK
that contributes to the ecoherence o!
the ensity matri01
u1v
e!ine !rom the =amiltonian that is in turn
constructe !rom the stress-momentum-energy tensor1 ,
u*
? 6he above
question was prompte !rom consiering the spacetime symmetry
breaKing o! the quantum vacuum inuce by uni!orm accelerations1 c.!.1
my email iscussion with Jia -ah o! the twin parao0 o! special
relativity.
6here may be a simple topological way o! unerstaning blacK holes
that e0plains the seemingly iscrepant !actor o! two between ours an
"chwarzchil_s preiction o! the relation between blacK hole mass an
raius1 which invoKes somewhat the iea o! a !requency cuto!! in
combination with a IoloviKian unerstaning o! gravitation in terms o!
the vacuum inertia inuce by mass in interaction with the quantum
vacuum. 9ne question that arises in this connection is: how can
IoloviK be correct in his assertion that the ensity o! vacuum energy1
i.e.1 cosmological constant is more or less equal to the cosmological
mass-energy ensity when the ensity o! perturbe vacuum !or masses is
usually consierably less ense than their blacK hole geometry? /
relate question is why the quantum !luctuation energy cuto!! Con the
mass = perturbe vacuum energy theoryD is lower !or larger masses such
that blacK hole ensity is a !unction o! A
-2
?
6he ensity matri0 can always be trans!orme via .orentz
trans!ormation to a purely iagonal !orm1 provie that certain
constraints upon the phase relationships o! the component
eigen!unctions are maintaine. Hn other wors a ensity matri0
represents a pure quantum state !unction i! a .orentz trans!ormation
e0ists that permits trans!orming the ensity matri0 into a matri0 with no
o!!-iagonal terms.
Fhat is the ensity matri0 !or spin-) super!lui? Fhat is this
representation !or a spin-* super!lui?. . . a Rbi-vacuumS super!lui
compose o! Requal partsS spin-) an spin-* super!luis? Fhat e!!ect
woul a gravitational !iel have upon such an equilibrium bi-vacuum
conensate1 i.e.1 a two-super!lui conensate in which the spin-) an
spin-* components are o! RequalS or complementary ensity? /
gravitational !iel can be represente in terms o! a continuum o! .orentz
inertial !rames connecte along a geoesic path Ca1 bD. 6he
irreversibility associate with the action o! a gravitational !iel can be
emonstrate through the manner in which phase accumulates !or a
parallel-transporte wave!unction.
Aeversibility is an aspect o! merely abstract manipulations o! .orentz
!rames. 6he real trans!ormation between .orentz !rames cannot be
reversible because o! the inevitable accelerations implie in changing
.orentz !rames. /re so-calle aiabatic accelerations possible?
Hs it proper to apply the notion o! current ensity to the ynamics o! the
unerlying cellular automatic C3/D in!rastructure? :oesn_t such a
notion only apply to the phenomena o! motion an not the unerlying
cellular automatic C3/D physics o! this motion? Hs this to assume a
pre!erre cosmological re!erence !rame in which the unerlying 3/
mechanics is locate?
;lements o! a quantum-statistics-base unerlying mechanism !or
inuce gravity:
3omplementary quantum statistical e!!ects o! real !ermions an bosons
upon their virtual counterparts1 which is reciprocal1 i.e.1 virtual !ermions
an bosons a!!ect the quantum statistics o! their real counterparts.
/a; an /ap are timeliKe an spaceliKe components o! a conserve (-
vector.
6reating virtual !ermion-anti!ermion pairs as scalar an virtual bosons as
vector particles1 which are combine into a conserve (-vectorin
analogy to how relativistic 8a0well_s equations treat charge as a scalar
component o! a (-imensional current ensity1 >
. -
"pecial relativity applies to /ap1 /a01 /a; an /at 5ust as well as p1 01 ;1 t.
Puantum entanglement in gravitational !iel acts in the appropriate
irection1 i.e.1 increasing ?ose conensation o! the vacuum in the
irection o! increasing gravitational potential an increasing
ecoherence o! real an virtual 3ooper pairs with increasing
gravitational potential.
7olarization an magnetization o! the quantum vacuum interprete as
permittivity an permeability1 respectively o! the quantum vacuum
change in the right irection so that the local variations in the velocity o!
light with changing gravitational potential are consistent with the
equation1 c = */sqrt[ue\1 where u is here the magnetic permeability an e
is the electric !iel permittivity o! the vacuum. . --"
7ressure an energy ensity o! the vacuum an 8ach_s !ormula !or the
local spee o! light. 7ressure an energy ensity o! equilibrium
quantum vacuum are equal1 i.e.1
"
vac
= p
vac
p
vac
b
= ["
vac
- "
matter
\1
which is the moi!ie quantum vacuum energy ensity.
Aatios o! gravitational bining energy to mass energy are equal to the
ratio o! mass energy to blacK hole mass energy.
=yperspherical potential an ict-a0is relates to mass at rest tunneling
through this potential. 4ravitation is rotation o! this potential by mass
energy.
Hnterpretation o! :avies-,nruh e!!ect as ecrease in virtual !ermionic
vacuum ensity an increase in real !ermionic vacuum ensity.
6he "chroinger !ormalism liKe the .a4rangian an =amiltonian
!ormalism be!ore it is not particle/!iel theory speci!ic in the valiity o!
its application. 6he -eynman iagram !ormalism shares this generality
in that1 !or e0ample1 the !ormalism can be reaily aapte to hanle
supersymmetric particle/!iel interactions.
4o has !ree will. Cby e!initionD
6here!ore1 !, 4o e0ists1 it is because =e chose to e0ist.
?ut this conclusion only !ollows i! it also true that1
I, 4o oes not e0ist1 this too is because =e chose not to e0ist
C9therwise there is no real choice1 contrary to the stipulation o! 4o_s
possessing !ree willD
?ut 4o woul not eprive himsel! o! the opportunity to lor it over us
all. . .
=ence 4o e0istsT
@ote that your anti-theistic argument is no better than mine1 an by the
way overlooKs the !act that su!!ering can inuce positive spiritual
trans!ormation in survivors an compassion in those who are witness to
su!!ering L neither is possible in a per!ect worl where su!!ering is
barre. 4o coul have create us Rin one goS as he i the angels1
leaving out those important traits in our being which absolutely eman
temporality an its attenant evelopmental ialectic. 6he angels serve
4o1 but only beings capable o! moral error are capable too o! loving the
3reator.
Hrreucible comple0ity comes in two basic types: analy(able an
unanaly(able. ?iological irreucible comple0ity is analyzable in the
sense o! a chess mating position that is e!inable1 e.g.1 a Knight an Oing
checKmate against an enemy Oing1 but which cannot be prouce by
Rover-the-boarS play CthinK o! irreucibility here in accorance with
Rthe rules o! playS as laws o! microevolution1 sayD L a human player
must set up the boar position by maKing several moves simultaneously1
c.!.1 multiimensional time.
/gain1 the chessboar position o! enemy Oing checKmate by one_s
Oing an Knight can be Rinserte by hanS an on the sur!ace appears no
i!!erent !rom other chessboar piece con!igurations that can be brought
about by over-the-boar play CthinK o! evolution hereD. ?ut there is the
irreucible comple0ity o! such a thing as consciousness1 !ree will1
aesthetic an moral sense1 linguistic ability1 humor/laughter1 an1 o!
course probably also love. Ht is this unanalyzable irreucible
comple0ity which may most strongly testi!y to the reality o! :eity1 i! one
is limiting onesel! to philosophically or scienti!ically oriente
arguments.
H thinK the te0tual comparisons mae between the Pumranic ocuments
Cating !rom 2)) /. :. or soD an various booKs o! the @ew 6estament
emonstrate a stability o! the te0t o! the ?ible through copying an
multiple translations that e!ies linguistic an script-entropic theoretical
analyses !or orinary te0ts. 6he ?ible is simply not the cumulative
result o! some centuries_ long game o! R3hinese FhispersS.
@ow how can matter perturb the quantum vacuum statistics in two
opposite ways1 you might asK? ?y causing the vacuum to locally
gravitate an by causing the vacuum to nonlocally gravitate.
ChypothesisD
"ince gravity can viral-liKe inuce mass in the quantum vacuum CarK
matterD an because gravity can also cause gravitational ecoherence o!
nonlocally connecte Cquantum correlateD quantum !luctuations1 H
believe that it is through the collective action o! all sources o!
gravitation upon the originally highly quantum correlate early universe
that is contributing to the creation an action o! arK energy in causing
the accelerate e0pansion o! the cosmos.
/pril 2)**
9ne must taKe into account the natural e0ponential ecay o!
quantum entanglement with istance an time L something no !aster
than 4aussian1 i.e.1
/
)
e0pCa0
-2
D1 as oppose to inverse-square1 i.e.1 /
)
0
-2
. C3oul there be
some graient associate with a scalar !iel1 which trans!orms 4aussian-
varying nonlocal entanglement into an inverse-square varying !iel?D H!
we have ecay o! the aboriginal quantum entanglement as a result o!
cosmological e0pansion1 one which is secretly conserve1 the RecayS
being only by virtue o! a trans!ormation o! this quantum entanglement
!rom its spin * !orm to that o! collective spin )1 then we woul e0pect
the =eisenberg $-momentum uncertainty to be ecreasing while the
imaginary (-momentum uncertainty increases1 all o! which shoul be
associate with an increase o! the velocity o! light with cosmic time.
6he ecrease in the velocity o! light with cosmic time might be
associate with a ecrease in the gravitation constant1 much in the spirit
o! spatial increases in the gravitational constant with increase mass
istributions posite in some 8achian theories o! gravity. Hn this way1
ar' energy is cosmological1 associate with the time-variation in the
gravitational constant while ar' matter is local an is associate with
the spatial variation in the gravitational constant. 6he so-calle 7ioneer
e!!ect woul then be e0plicate in terms o! the bacK-reaction o!
gravitational time ilation upon a time-varying gravitational constant.
:arK matter is a nonequilibrium state o! the quantum vacuum in which
bosonic C$-momentumD !luctuations ominate !ermionic Cimaginary (-
momentumD !luctuations in the vacuum_s energy1 acting liKe real matter
an constituting a phase o! an otherwise equilibrium vacuum state that
contributes to the small1 gravity-sensitive cosmological constant1 i.e.1
contributes some o! the Rmissing matterS behin the larger than
e0plicable gravitational bining energy o! the cosmos.
:arK energy is a nonequilibrium state o! the quantum vacuum with
oppositely perturbe symmetry1 i.e.1 !ermionic !luctuations can be more
easily unerstoo in terms o! the two types o! nonequilibrium vacuum
statistics a!!ect the local velocity o! light.
3 = /a;/ /ap
/a; = !ermionic !luctuations Co! imaginary or timeliKe (-momentumD Cin
the !orm o! creation-annihilation o! virtual e
+
e
-
pairsD
/ap = bosonic !luctuations Co! spaceliKe $-momentumD Cin the !orm o!
emission-absorption o! !orce-meiating e0change particles1 e.g.1 photon1
F1 J1 gluon1 etc.D
3ase *: :arK matter - /a; Y /ap an local value o! RcS is less than the !ree
space value CgravitationD
3ase 2: :arK energy - /a; Z /ap an local value o! RcS is greater than the
!ree space value Canti-gravitationD
"ee >acK "ar!atti_s paper entitle1 Destiny 2atri6 !or his version o! this
hypothesis.
4alois algebraic theory proves that no polynomial roots Re0istS Cin the
sense o! Rmathematical subsistenceS within any euctive proceureD !or
egree @ = ' polynomials or greater. <et via numerical appro0imation
methos one can etermine to arbitrary esire accuracy such
Rnone0istentS roots o! C@ + (D an higher egree polynomials. 8y
comment on the relevance o! this mathematically interesting !act !or the
purposes o! philosophical theology isS Rso what.S /symptotes are at the
poles o! a !unction because that is where the singularity in the !unction_s
solution space lies.
<es1 but by the same toKen1 3antor_s Riagonal argumentS proves that
rational an counting numbers cannot be place in one-to-one
corresponence with one another such that the set o! rational numbers is
larger than the set o! counting numbers1 though this set itsel! be in!inite.
Hn other wors1 3antor prove that there are orers o! in!inity1 which
became the !ounation o! his Rtheory o! trans!inite carinalsS. "o H
suppose any argument you want to base on the premise below Cthat there
is only one Kin o! in!inityD can be rebutte through application o! 4eorg
3antor_s ieas about the trans!inite1 which contraict such a limite
notion o! the mathematical in!inite.
-;? 2)**
6he counting numbers can be
represente as the inverse o! !ractions1 that is1 o! rational numbers. "o
the counting numbers select a subset o! rational numbers. 3antor_s
iagonal argument is soun i! the subset o! rational numbers selecte
cannot themselves be place in a bi5ection or one-to-one corresponence
with the set o! rational numbers which constitute the remainer o!
numbers that are not selecte1 i.e.1 the set o! numbers that cannot be
represente as inverse !ractions. -or purposes o! illustration consier
the !ollowing: * = */*/*1 2 = */*/21 $ = */*/$1 etc. 3ounting numbers are
equivalent to real numbers possessing each an in!inite number o!
signi!icant igits.
8in is the groun o! metaphor1 however a min is not itsel! a
metaphorV 4o is the groun o! e0istence1 however 4o is not =imsel!
an e0istent entity. =eisenberg energy uncertainty is the basis o! all
changes in energy an hence o! temporal change. <ou get the iea.
8etaphor is the 4eelian shi!t !rom one a0iomatic euctive system to
another. 3onsciousness is groun o! metaphor1 but is not itsel! a
metaphor Cthis woul be category mistaKeD.
3ritical comple0ity an consciousness L threshol !or onset o! quantum
ecoherence an necessity o! consciousness collapsing 7si. ?ut coul
consciousness also be involve in graual ecoherence o! 7si a!ter the
!ashion o! environmental/thermal ecoherence?
;0plore use o! ine!inite counter!actuals as element in argument against
the notion that li!e begins at conception. "tereochemistry o! imers o!
alehyes1 Ketones an pentachols. C>acK "tocKer1 7h.:. issertation
titleD
"hort story iea L a man an woman !all into a blacK hole an come out
the other sie Ras each other.S "ci-!i that e0plores philosophical
problems connecte with personal ientity1 e.g.1 7hilip O. :icK.
Hnteresting that pure temporality is associate with global phase
evolution o! a coherent system while irreversible or entropy-laen
temporal change involves progressive isruption o! mutual phase
relations o! ensity matri0 components which may be connecte with
processing o! local in!ormation as nonlocally encoe.
6he masses as manipulate by the holers o! power through campaign in
which the masses are buoye up as they are e0tolle !or obeying the
principles in which they are being inoctrinate an which the power
mongers claim their e0ecutive ecisions are in!orme by principles1 the
propagana unerscores are share between peasantry an mobility
aliKe. 6he late comers to power mongering must picK !rom the other or
complementary pro5ection o! the @ecKer cube o! political rhetoric in
orer to capture a mental challenge the oler an better establishe
mongers o! power an gree1 c.!.1 "chwanitz_ analogy o! political
campaign or revolution !or scienti!ic paraigm change.
.ooK at !ermion pairings1 e.g.1 e
+
e
+
1 e
+
e
-
1 e
-
e
-
1 etc. as i!!erent a0es o! a
spin-space coorinate system. Hn spacetime rotations no a0is rotates by
more than ('
o
C /2D. 4alilean trans!ormation o! coorinates involves -
rotations o! a0es o! up to 2)
o
. Aelativity_s necessity !or both
antiparticles an spin possibly connecte to the !act that ('
o
.orentz
boost covers spacetime while 2)
o
rotation is require !or a 4alilean
trans!ormation to cover all o! space.
:arK matter local gravity inuce nonequilibrium vacuum state. :arK
energy is nonlocal gravity inuce ecoherence in equilibrium vacuum
statistics. Hrreversibility cause by comple0ity threshol crossing or by
RregistrationS in the nonlocal vacuum CvacuaD o! consciousnessCesD.
/re these two threshols one an the same? 6his remins us o!
8a0well_s theoretical iscovery that light is ientical to electromagnetic
waves.
3osmological e0pansion creates spacetime1 that is to say the ,niverse
oes not e0pan RintoS some alreay e0istent space or spacetime.
3onsequently1 positional uncertainty must increase with the
Rmanu!acturingS o! aitional quantities o! space along with the
e0pansion o! spacetime. =ence momentum uncertainty increases an so
the momentum spectrum o! all particles an !iels within the ,niverse
evelops a long1 high momentum tail1 which statistically is correlate
with a net acceleration in irection o! cosmological e0pansion. 6he
spee o! light also slows1 which compouns the appearance o!
accelerate e0pansion.
6homas Ouhn characterize the progress o! science as the accumulation
o! not truth but seeming truth1 that is1 truth in ine0tricable ami0ture
with nonsense.
,se the relation c = v
soun
= sqrt [pc
2
/ \1 i.e.1 8ach_s !ormula !or the "
spee o! soun to argue !or IoloviK_s contention that the ensity o!
matter an vacuum energy are comparable Can tracK each other over the
course o! cosmic e0pansion-obviating one application o! the /nthropic
cosmological principleD when the ensity structure o! the vacuum is
assume to be a babushKa-oll-liKe blacK hole1 i.e.1 r = 248/c
2
applies
!ractally1 that is !rom both perspectives insie an outsie the blacK hole.
3an IoloviK_s vacuum be invoKe to e0plain a constant small anomalous
acceleration term? / constant cosmological acceleration coul be
generate by a !ractally structure ensity !or the universe-as-
cosmological-blacK hole combine with a simple moel o! the
acceleration o! gravity within a boy o! uni!orm ensity an associate
constant potential Can associate */A !orce !ielD.
Qd
:iscuss implications o! the paper1 three-region vacuum nonlocality1
ar+iv: quant-ph/)')*)*2Nv*. :iscuss philosophical implications o!
4alois theory o! polynomial symmetry groups in connection with
implications o! the 4eel 6heorem an =eisenberg 7rinciple.
/ pure spin-) !iel oes not trans!orm uner .orentz trans!ormations in
a .orentz covariant manner1 which suggests that such a !iel may not
e0ist in nature. / composite spin-) !iel one compose o! quantum
entangle spin-*/2 particles may trans!orm properly i! egree o!
entanglement trans!orms aKin to the magnetization component o! the
polarization-magnetization tensor. 6his !ermionic entanglement must
be complemente bosonic entanglement such that gravitational
ecoherence o! !ermionic entanglement in an increasing gravitational
potential goes han-in-han with increasing bosonic entanglement.
"uperpowers1 players1 sustainable vs. ruinous gree. Hsn_t it a uty o!
the military to support the party line at the aministration in orer to
sustain the iyll !or the ma5ority o! ," citizens? /s 7resient 3linton
has intone1 Rit_s !or the chilrenS. 6he nacvetg o! /merican citizens
must be protecte much as Rthe institution o! chilhoo.S
Qdau=
Ion @eumann in!ormation may be share1 but not transmitteV there
is no !low o! von @eumann entropy.
au=
?enni AezniK_s paper on three-
way vacuum nonlocality has implications !or the better unerstaning o!
Rirreucible comple0ityS in the argument-!rom-esign ebate with neo-
:arwinian theory.
/ll lose threas sticK out on the unersie o! the rug o! gran uni!ie
e!!ective !iel theory.
6he line o! reasoning goes something liKe this: !our-momentum an the
spacetime interval are conserve quantities in special relativity1 so i! the
=eisenberg uncertainties o! these are also conserve1 then we e0pect that
as /a; ecreases /at increases /a0 ecreases /ap
0
increases such
that we_ve establishe that /a; Cincreasing1 ecreasingD /ap
0
Cecreasing1 increasingD1
Qd
which is consistent with the complementary
Buantum statistics of fermionic an bosonic vacuum fluctuations
mani!esting as spin-) e
+
e
-
!luctuations Cincreasing1 ecreasingD an spin-
* photon !luctuations Cecreasing1 increasingD such that spinFJ =scalarA
vacuum fluctuations an spinF> =vectorA vacuum fluctuations may be
unerstoo as components of a conserve =M a >A vector representing
!luctuation in the vacuum_s momentum-energy. Fe shoul be able to
elegantly emonstrate this through use o! !ermionic an bosonic
creation-annihilation operator e!initions o! p1 ;1 0 an t. 6he problem
here is that RtS is not an operator in quantum mechanics1 unless time can
be quantize. Ht seems this might only be achievable on a !our
imensional vacuum crystal lattice compose o! supersymmetric
couple oscillators. @ew conserve quantities such as von @eumann
entropy an a vacuum that an also be moele by a Kin o! cellular
automata theory. 3ellular imensions woul probably be base upon
7lancK units/imensions.
Ht is well establishe that the ensity o! 3ooper pairs in a superconuctor
is a goo ine0 o! the egree o! quantum coherence in the
superconucting material. "imilarly1 the timeliKe current ensity o!
virtual 3ooper pairs is an ine0 o! the quantum coherence o! the
vacuum1 which ecreases in the irection o! increasing gravitational
potential. =ow oes this relate to the magnetization an polarization o!
the quantum vacuum?
R6he Keys can now be prouce simultaneously by transmitter an
receiver L the trans!er is mae reunantS 6his suggests that the
relativity ban on superluminal in!ormation transmission only applies to
RKnown in!ormationS1 i.e.1 the in!ormation by which the consciousness
o! the sel! is constitute can never at the same time Cbut perhaps only at
later timesD be part o! the contents o! that consciousness1 c.!.1 Forl
7remier: ?anK 6rans!er via Puantum 3ryptography ?ase on ;ntangle
7hotons1 7ro!. /nton Jeilinger.
6he :@/ in terms o! this in!ormation bearing molecules virtually
unlimite number o! viable mutations Cboth chemically an in
evolutionary senseD represents a RstateS somewhat aKin to a quantum
superposition1 which nees to have been prepare.
;0amination o! Figner rotations o! ?ell state Creuce ensity matricesD
reveals the .orentz invariance o! von @eumann entropy as a measure o!
quantum entanglement1 c.!.1 3hopin "oo an 3yrus 3. <. .in C2))(D.
?ecause o! the virtually in!inite energy ensity o! the vacuum all
Kinematics o! continuously e0isting particles must have an alternate
escription in tirms o! the ynamics o! the creation an annihilation o!
particles1 both !ermionic an bosonic.
RAecall that Rcreation an annihilation operators are inee =ermitian
con5ugates1Sc.!.1 FiKipeia1 Puantum -iel 6heory. =amiltonian is the
time evolution generator1 an cycle o! creation/annihilation !unctions
a!ter the !ashion o! a 37, clocK pulse1 c.!.1 3ellular /utomata theory o!
spacetime..
7article conservation is obeye by !ermions1 but not by bosons. :oes
this suggest an uncertainty relation e!ine by /a-C!D/a-CbD Z= h1 where
-CtD enotes !unction o! !ermion X or ensity1 etc. an -CbD1 !unction o!
boson X1 ensity1 etc.?
Fe can maKe vectors !rom scalars by i!!erentiation o! those scalars1 an
we can maKe scalars !rom vectors by taKing ot proucts1 which1 o!
course requires integration o! the ot prouct.
7resence o! real particles an !iels breaKs the supersymmetry o! the
quantum vacuum1 giving the vacuum a mass appro0imating that o! the
real particles an !iel breaKing the supersymmetry1 c.!.1 Iacuum ;nergy
an 3osmological 3onstant: Iiew !rom 3onense 8atter1 IoloviK
C2))*D.
6here shoul be a way to replace the momenta an energy in the
=amiltonian !ormulation o! 4eneral Aelativity with the appropriate
!ermionic an bosonic creation an annihilation operators so as to point
the way to an e!!ective !iel quantum gravity theory.
8icrotubule electron mobility switches !rom quantum to classical when
imers Cimer polymersD reach ))' molal concentration o! gas or vapor.
/t this stage nonlocality o! the electron currents cuts out as well as
interaction with a e!ine coherent groun state unerlying the brain_s
neural physiology loss o! coherent temporal evolution o! brain s
neural networK as a whole system.
Aeview questions:
Fhat symmetry is implie by valiity o! arbitrary choice o! gauge1
gauge symmetry? L meaning what else?
Fhy can/can_t spontaneous emission be accounte !or by stimulate
emission by virtual particles? Iirtual particles may become real1 but
not vice versa? Hs this ue to thermoynamic irreversibility?
p an 0 may be e!ine in terms o! bosonic an !ermionic creation an
annihilation operators L can ; an t be e!ine as well in terms o!
!ermionic creation an annihilation operators?
R/lternateS1 R/lter-nateS1 i.e.1 o! other nativity1 that is1 origin.
3an an uncritical act o! pure creativity prouce all possibilities? 6he
creative source woul e0haust itsel! or run a!oul o! the 4eelian
parao0. R/lternateS1 implies a combinational permutational !iel o!
iscrete possibilities.
Qd
6he coming into being o! in!ormation1 i.e.1 the
notion o! RemocracyS in ancient 4reece cannot be escribe in the
same way as the transmission o! a Known quantity o! in!ormation.
C7erhaps only ata is transmitte while in!ormation is share L liKe a
quantum-encrypte banK Key noteD.
8ay 2)*2
/ll creativity is the
reprocessing o! other in!ormation. Aeally? Fhat oes this absolute
assertion imply !or a universe constute soley o! in!ormation? =ow is
in!ormation reprocesse which involves the combination o! two or more
RstreamsS o! in!ormation1 streams which have never before interacte
an are completely uncorrelate% 3learly the universe woul have to be
mae o! more than 5ust information Bua information i! in!ormation
reprocessing in the manner allue to above is allowe. 6here woul
have to be istinct levels o! some other quantity with Rin!ormationS
being a Kin o! this quantity subsisting at one level or another o! this
more !unamental quantity. "o i! the statement that reality consists soley
o! in!ormation is to be consiere literally true1 then we must con!ess
that our concept of information is not general enough. ?ut this is the
problem o! language overall: speaKers always rely on wors the use o!
which inevitably involves re!erence to concepts beyon the Ken o! Cmore
general thanD the speaKer. 6he evolution o! the acceptation o! a given
wor to inclue changes or shi!ts in the wor in terms o! its evolving
pronunciations an orthographies cannot be !ully analyze within the
conte0t o! contemporary a hoc linguistic mappings. 6he evolution o!
linguistic mappings implies
6imeliKe1 spaceliKe an Rlight-liKeS transmission o!
energy/in!ormation/ata. Fhere oes nonlocal transmission !it in?
8ust the !rameworK o! special relativity be e0pane?
/lthough the "ophists were !acetious an prie themselves on being
able to maKe the worst sie o! the argument appear the better one1 they
may well have been onto something which only much later is articulate
in -eueraben_s Ranything goesS principle1 :erriean inversion o!
te0tual interpretation Cas well as the interpretation o! everything else as
5ust !urther instances o! Rte0tSD as well as in the ;verett interpretation o!
the quantum measurement problem1 namely1 that reality is rich1 comple01
ambiguous an uneretermine enough to answer our questions on
their own terms1 provie that the !ormulation is coherent.
-aith 4race -aith an the ynamics o! ream/reamer
inter!erence1 e.g.1 loss Cor gainD o! !aith an loss Cor gainD o! grace are
reciprocally relate. H! H m basically a believer in my spiritual
orientation1 then i! H m a quantum-:erriean "ophist1 H can neglect the
promptings o! my atheistic sie an continue selecting !or more an ever
more !aith-rein!orcing ieas1 e0amples1 arguments1 etc. while continuing
to believe mysel! intellectually honest1 i.e.1 true to my intellectual
principles. 6he sum testimony o! the worl is as balance on a Kni!e
ege between supporting atheistic evolution vs. theistic intelligent
esign1 an the very precariousness o! that balance itsel! seems to be
part o! the theistic esign perhaps this is our only real preponerant
piece o! evience !or 4o over atheist metaphysics. 6here is a
very humorous an insight!ul treatment o! this theological notion in
-uturama episoe *'1 "eason &.
Fhy unique assignment o! an iniviual to a unique observer L one _
which accounts !or strong sel!-inter!erence e!!ects e0perience by
observer when he per!orms a measurement? ?ecause observer only
e0periences that which is supporte by his/her own groun or vacuum
state.
Hmplications so ineterminate !or each quantum mechanical concept that
it is easy to !orm alternate interpretations . . .
H! we are goo1 it is on account o! grace1 e.g.1 natural health1 goo living
conitions1 happenstances1 etc. H! we are goo because o! not o! these it
is perhaps because o! a grace1 seeming o! an altogether other Kin.
=ow is it that *
st
cousins are less relate than are hal!-brother an hal!-
sister when both relations are constitute by the sharing o! a single set o!
granparents? 6his is suppose only because espite an aitional
Rshu!!lingS o! the genetic material in passing own two rather than only
one generation. 6his i!!erence in amount o! shu!!ling seems aKin to
that by which two an !our shu!!lings o! a ecK o! cars i!!ers in the
arrangements o! those cars.
8aKing !riens by appealing to one_s narcissism provies us with a goo
analogy !or the attacK o! a virus upon a living cell. Hnvestigate the
connection between quantum mechanics1 probability an rates o!
temporal change in relation to inertia. :ensity matri0 allows
probability ensity to be sprea out in a continuum other than $ + *
spacetime.
6unneling may occur both RoverS an RunerS the potential barrier1
accoring to two istinct !rames o! re!erence.
9ctober 2)**
Hn the !irst
instance o! tunneling1 the particle receives a boost o! momentum on
account o! a !luctuation in the vacuumV in the secon instance1 the
minute1 but !inite probability allowe !or by the particle_s wave!unction
!or the particle to appear on the other sie o! the barrier is the operative
!actor. Hn the !irst case1 we have quantum uncertaintyV in the secon1
nonlocality.
Aelate uncertainty to entanglement conservation vis a vis inuce or
e!!ective !iel gravity.
7robability unerlies the observe phenomena o! the quantum worl an
by e0tension via the corresponence principle/
prn=
;hren!est_s theoremD
the observe phenomena o! the classical worl. Ht there!ore seems
reasonable that the most general unerlying mechanism !or gravity an
inertia shoul be the quantum statistics o! an _ -
i5
. "houln_t
internal symmetry unerscore the ynamics playe out within spacetime1
i.e.1 the e0ternal symmetry o! phenomena.
Fe are observing something Key to the ynamics o! observing1
measuring something Key to the ynamics o! measuring1 c.!.1
au=
Aichar
=o!stater_s sel!-re!erential close circuit television1 only with the
observer observing an per!orming measurements on his own brain
while in the very act o! oing this. 3rossover between categories o!
onto- an epistomo-logical with respect to uncertainty an in!ormation
gathere by measurement Cenergy inter!erenceD an observation
Cin!ormation inter!erenceD o! observer_s brain by the observer himsel!.
9ctober 2)**
H have a recurring suspicion that all o! the counterintuitive
aspects o! quantum mechanics stem !rom Rbootstrapping e!!ectsS within
the Oantian collective1 intersub5ective synthesis o! the phenomenal
worl.
Jia1
H thought that on a -riay1 HG give you something to puzzle over.
9O1 you begin accelerating in a spaceship along the 0-irection.
Puestion: oes this a!!ect the velocity o! the ship along the y- or z-
irections? Fell1 normally in a EvacuumE the answer is Eno.E
=owever1 imagine !or a moment that the spaceship is accelerating
through what we might term here an Eactive meiumE1 say a meium
able to inuce rag where the amount o! rag is governe by a Kin o!
stress-strain-shear meium resistance tensor. /n how the meium is
interconnecte between 0- with y- an z-irections woul etermine the
resistance put up by the meium as a result o! a boyGs acceleration
through the meium along the 0-irection.
Fell1 thinK about how as an ob5ect accelerates1 it travels ever slower
through time1 the !aster it moves through space. "pace an time in so-
calle E!ree spaceE are mutually perpenicular so how can accelerating
along the 0-irection in space cause a eceleration along the ict-
irection?
C>ust thinK about how the range o! a pro5ectile can be calculate without
e0plicit re!erence to the acceleration o! gravity which is always
perpenicular to the !orwar momentum o! the pro5ectile own range. D
,nless E!ree spaceE isnGt E!reeE at all1 but is part o! an intrinsically
EwarpeE spacetime.
prn=
6his is a 8achian iea o! course that in
genuinely !ree space1 i.e.1 within a truly E!latE (-imensional spacetime1
ob5ects shoul not be e0pecte to present any resistance to our attempt to
accelerate themT 6he 8achian iea is basically this: inertia in E!ree
spaceE C!lat spacetimeD is a mani!estation o! the interaction o! boies
interaction with the gravitational !iel o! the ,niverse.
9! course1 i! local gravitational !iels are present1 then the boy must
also interact with this local !iel in aition to the ,niverseGs g-!iel an
hence the e!!ective inertial mass o! the boy woul be e0pecte to be
larger !or a mass present near a massive boy Can general relativity can
preict 5ust how large this e!!ect isD. CR:arK matterS within the conte0t
o! inuce gravity theory?D
9therwise1 H 5ust canGt see how acceleration along E0E can a!!ect motion
along EictE without such an intrinsic coupling o! time an space as be!its
a universal/global gravitational !iel.
Fhat o you thinK?
Aussell
Jia1
3an time be ecompose into reversible an irreversible components?
Hn !ree space? Hn a gravitational !iel? H! gravitation contributes to the
ecoherence o! the wave!untion an ecoherence processes unerlie
irreversible time1
Qd
then how can gravitational time ilation slow own
the process o! quantum ecoherence?
Aussell
.et me looK at the secon paragraph !irst. 6he =eisenberg uncertainty
principle C=,7D is not an epistemological principleV it is an
ontological oneT Fhat this means is that it is not on account o! the
observerGs physically interacting with the submicroscopic systems whose
state he wishes to measure that EcausesE a EisturbanceE to the system1
creating uncertainty in physical observables Econ5ugateE to the physical
observables he is attempting to measure. Aather the =,7 is a
consequence o! -ourier /nalysis Cpure mathematicsD an the brute !act
that energy is proportional to 7lancKGs constant1 i.e.1 it is quantize1 c.!.1
Time in 3uantum 2echanics1 C8uga1 8ayato an ;gusqizaD:
@ote: Ht is un!ortunate that =eisenberg publishe his Elight microscope
argumentE in !avor o! his principle because he sol his iscovery short in
oing so. 6he =,7 is a much eeper principle o! nature than the hien
mechanics o! some Einevitable inter!erence by the observerE with that
which he attempts to measure/observeT
-rom -ourier analysis1 we !in that the more sharply e!ine a !unction
is in the time omain1 the more ill e!ine is the !unction in the
complementary !requency omain Can vice versaD. 6his is a purely
mathematical consequence an is emonstrate via application o! the
-ourier 6rans!orm an -ourier Hnverse 6rans!orm on any
piecewise-continuously i!!erentiable !unctionT
6he same situation e0ists !or wavelength an wavenumber Cproportional
to
momentum via EhED
/s !or the !irst paragraph1 the Ee0ternal spinE so-calle is the angular
momentum o! the electron Cor positronD an the angular momentum is a
conserve quantity. 3onservation is a mere EconstraintE to the ynamics
o! a subatomic process or o! its ynamics an oes not actually
contribute to the ynamics o! the process itsel!.
Hn quantum mechanics1 any process is possible which is not strictly
!orbien by constraints such as conservation laws. <ou cannot have
any
more angular momentum1 i.e.1 Ee0ternal spinE a!ter the subatomic
process
than you ha at its beginning1 assuming all the original participants in
the collision are accounte !or. H! there is e0cess energy large
enough in magnitue to equal mcWW2 !or some other collection o!
particles1 then those particles will be prouce with a certain
probability i! the output quantum number balance with the input
quantum
numbers or the original particles going into the reaction - which
particles an with which probabilities this happens is etermine by the
summing o! input real particles an virtual particles within -eynman
iagrams in which vacuum particle processes are taKen into account.
6o start the calculation the photon propagator has to be calculate !rom
appropriate 4reenGs !unctions. 6he vacuum 4reenGs !unctions have to
also be taKen into account. Fith ae energy1 higher an higher orer
-eynman iagrams representing more an more comple0 patterns o!
particle
creation C!rom the original photon an electric !iel/virtual
electrons/positrons are neeeD. 6he probability o! a given orer o!
-eynman iagram !alls o!! in probability with the inverse !ine structure
constant. 6his constant is */*$% so a 2n orer process is */*$%th as
probable as a !irst orer process. "o yes1 there is a theory1 that o!
-eynman propagators/iagrams which can relate at least
probabilistically1 e0ternal spin so-calle to e0cess energy.
Auss
7"1 ?ellGs 6heorem an the results o! the /lain /spect e0periments have
emolishe the notion o! an ob5ective reality in your sense. <es1 itGs
absur1 but the ne0t generation o! physicists will not thinK so - they
will have grown up with these ieas being common parlance. :D
Z 7air prouction can also occur in any strong static or slowly
Z enough varying !iel1 magnetic1 electric1 nuclear1 gravitational1 etc.
Z 6he simple propagation o! photons in vacuum is by the way meiate
by
Z the continual spontaneous creation/annihilation o! virtual
Z electron-positron pairs along the photonGs tra5ectory1 an the photon
Z may be thought o! as a most elegant EbooK-KeepingE evice !or
Keeping
Z tracK o! the !low o! electromagnetic energy along this chain o!
Z virtual pair prouction events that is always taKing place in vacuum
Z on account o! the =eisenberg uncertainty principle Cbecause the
Z =amiltonian1 the energy !unction which via the "chroinger equation
Z gives us the wave!unction1 is itsel! a !unction o! incompatible
Z observables CKinetic an potential energyD- get Jia to e0plain this1
Z very interestingDT
Z
Z /ll o! the e0cess energy Cabove *.)2 8eID is converte into the
Z Kinetic energy until the e0cess energy becomes equal to or greater
Z than the massCesD o! CaD subatomic particleCsD1 the quantum numbers o!
Z which a to the same values !or the quantum numbers Cwhich
represent
Z conserve physical quantitiesD o! the original photon Can
Z electron-positron pairD1 i.e.1 total spin o! E*E1 same angular
Z momentum1 same (-momentum1 same lepton number1 etc.1 same
Z charge-parity-time C376D Ci! weaK nuclear !iels are involveD1 etc.
Z
Z 6here is no irect relationship between EspinE which relates to
Z an internal symmetry an EKinetic energyE1 which relates to an
Z e0ternal symmetry1 i.e.1 spacetime symmetry. QdHt is true that internal
Z an e0ternal symmetries may be uni!ie in supersymmetry theory Ca
Z preiction o! string theoryD1 but then one woul be relating spin with
Z Kinetic energy only inirectly.
Z
Z H hope this is all per!ectly clearT :D
Z
Z Auss
Z
Z H have a question concerning pair prouction. Fhy oes
Z it have to occur in the coulomb !ile o! a nucleus? /lso1 i! the e0cess
Z energy carrie by the incient photon above the *.)2 8eI is all
Z converte into Kinetic energy imparte to the pair1 what portion o!
Z this will become spin?
Z -----9riginal 8essage-----
Z Z
Z ?ut1 8r. AezniK says that quantum entanglement
Z violates ?ellGs inequalities that is the hien non localityT
Z /lso1 creates a reuction in the ;nt.1 Fhen
Z separation occurs T why is so?
Z
Z Z
Z <es1 what you are saying is most clearly
Z e0plaine in cit=http://ar0iv.org/7"#cache/quant-
ph/p!/)))N/)))N))&.p!
Z
Z :istillation o! vacuum entanglement to ;7A pairs
Z au=?enni AezniK
Z "chool o! 7hysics an /stronomy1
Z 6el /viv ,niversity1 6el /viv &22%N1 Hsrael.
Z C)* /ug. 2)))D
Z
Z Auss1
Z Puantum 8echanics mani!ests a non local behavior
Z which is not in con!lict with microscopic causality. Fith this non
Z locality1 quantum entanglement cannot be prouce locally. / pair o!
Z separate systems which may communicate only via a classical
channel1
Z can not become entangle as a result o! local quantum operations one
Z separately on each system. Fhen entanglement alreay e0ists1 it may
be
Z locally elivere !rom one subsystem to another. / sample o! pairs o!
Z spins1 can be puri!ie to singlets - ;7A pairs- an remnants o! non
Z entangle states.
Z
Z 6his is how H view it1 what o you thinK?
Z
Z Jia
Z
Z
Z Jia an ?en1
Z
Z "pin is a quantum number an so
Z represents a conserve quantity1 so i! the positronium atom is
Z composite spin )1 then the photon spins shoul be equal an opposite
Z Can parallel to the photonGs irection o! propagation1 i.e.1 +/- *D
Z though the orientation o! the spins woul be ineterminate in the
Z absence o! a magnetic !iel with which to measure those spins.
Z (-momentum1 i.e.1 momentum-energy is a conserve quantity1 but
Z $-momentum is not1 generally speaKing. ?ut a photonGs momentum is
Z ientical to the photonGs (-momentum1 so yes1 the photons woul have
Z equal an opposite momenta. /lso the photons woul be quantum
Z entangle. H! the positronium atom was prepare properly1 i.e.1 the
Z interaction =amiltonian representing outsie environmental in!luence
Z on the prepare system is negligible1 then the two photons shoul be
Z more or less *))% quantum entangle. H! the photons pass into
Z spacetimes that are i!!erently curve Crelative to each otherD1 then
Z the quantum entanglement will ecay away.
Z
Z =ope this is a goo enough answer1
Z Auss
Z
Z
Z Auss1
Z / system o! an electron an anti-electron
Z orbiting one another1 getting annihilate an proucing photons.
Z 6hese photons are equal an opposite. /re these
Z photons having equal an opposite momentum an spin?
Z /re these quantities conserve? Fhat are the
Z systemGs momentum an spin be!ore annihilation? :oes this
Z /nnihilation lea to quantum entanglement?
Z
Z Z
Z Jia1
/ goo e0ample o! nonlocality !or purposes o! illustration here
is the sharing o! a quantum encrypte Key coe or Key1 e.g.1 banK
account number1 etc.1 !irst create upon collapse o! a quantum
superpose wave!unction at both banKs. 6he Key coe is in this way
share instantly between the i!!erent quantum computers at the two
banKs1 which1 other things being equal may be separate by any istance
whatever. 6his may be thought as the instantaneous transmission o!
in!ormation1 but in!ormation o! a very special Kin: unKnown
in!ormation.
6he conventional e!inition o! in!ormation is that a message Co!
however many bitsD1 Known to a given person Cor personsD is coe in
some manner1 maybe only in spoKen language1 e.g.1 E=ey1 you wearing
the
re cap1 watch your stepTE1 or in binary1 he0iecimal1 etc. an is then
transmitte to someone else1 a receiver. Aelativity places a limit on
the spee o! such transmissions o! EcE or less.
@ot only is the Key coe create by the inherently ranom
processes o! quantum superposition1 an hence the Key coe is not
Known
prior to its transmission Ctransmission is constitute by either
participant in the in!ormation e0change per!orming a require quantum
measurementD1 but any attempts to CillegallyD intercept the Key coe in
orer to rea it results in collapse o! the quantum entanglement1
etecte on both sies by the intene sharers o! the Key.
E6ransmitterE an EreceiverE are o! equal status here Can are
replace by the more general concept o! Esharers o! in!ormationED
because prior to the collapse o! quantum entanglement an creation o!
the Key coe1 neither participant Knows what in!ormation is to be
e0change. "o there is no !low o! in!ormation !rom lesser to greater
uncertaintyT /n hence1 no concern about relativity restrictions on
spee o! in!ormation propagationT
?oth participants in the quantum e0change o! in!ormation Know
the same amount be!ore CnothingD an a!ter the EtransmissionE o! the Key
coe Chowever many bitsD. 6here is no EuringE representing the
uration o! the transmission as in the case o! conventional1 classical
in!ormation transmission - the quantum nonlocality principle implies
instantaneity in all .orentz !rames.
Aussell
Z
Z Auss1
Z :oesnGt quantum entanglement suggests that either in!ormation is
Z traveling !aster than c or1 the two photons share a physical sameness1
Z oneness1 or something or other that means the one is a!!ecte by the
Z remote collapse o! the wave !unction o! the other? >ust using the
Z phrase quantum entanglement oesnGt answer the question o! the
Z mechanism or the causality? 6here!ore since no in!o is traveling
Z !aster than c Cthat we Know o!D we have no violation o! causality1 i!
Z we e!ine causality as in!ormation travels at c or less. 6his is a
Z completely circular e!initionT 6he violation o! causality woul be in
Z our !rame1 not the photonGs !rame
:iscuss Kinematics as bounary conitions applie to ynamics in
relation to Rreucing valveS theory o! consciousness1 =amero!! an
7enrose_s theory o! consciousness an anesthesia. 8icrotubules1
polymers1 electron mobility1 tunneling current1 Jener ioe bias voltage1
!iltering1 raio/6I tuning analogy o! consciousness compare an
contraste with internet Ccomputing online vs. o!!line analogyD.
?ecause general anesthesia ensues an consciousness ceases once a
vapor1 gas1 !ume or mist that the patient has inhale has reache a
concentration in brain lipis o! ).)' molal1 inepenently o! the
chemical properties o! sai vapor1 gas1 etc. strongly suggests that it is not
the chemical properties o! the anesthetic substance which are responsible
!or consciousness though certainly chemistry plays an important role in
the structuring o! state o! consciousness once CiniviualD consciousness
as such is given.
8ay 2)*2
6his !urther hints1 perhaps that nor is it the
chemical reactions per se taKing place in the brain that are essentially
prouctive o! consciousness.
8ay 2)*2
/ suggestive relationship between sub5ective an ob5ective is
pointe up by the !act that the consciousness o! the observer collapses
the electron wave!unction in the two-slit e0periment while collapse o!
the wave!unction escribing the networK o! quantum entangle
microtubule electrons is associate with the onset o! general anesthesia1
i.e.1 loss o! consciousness.

"eptember 2)*$1 -? communication with 6o 8ouler

R<es1 the brainGs memory circuitry may
be a Kin o! Eirectory treeE o! hyperlinKs that1 when EclicKeE1
resonantly tune to certain Cperhaps pree0istingD quantum vacuum ;/8
!requencies. 6he graual eath o! a personGs brain tissue uner hypo0ic
conitions can be liKene to ElinK rotE1 which has no e!!ect upon the
webpages themselves1 but merely in the ability to open them. 6he
quantum vacuum electromagnetic !iel with an energy ensity o!
upwars o! *)WW2' Kg/mWW$ acts as the universal server or cosmic 37,.
;ach brain possesses its own tiny !requency subspectrum o! the total
quantum !iel an E3osmic -33E permitte !requency ban. Hniviual
consciousness may be a unique signature associate with a Kin o! har
encryption which helps to en!orce =awKingGs Echronology protectionE
Cthe time a0is o! temporal integration o! conscious e0perience into a
!orwar phasing Especious presentE is more or less orthogonal to that o!
intersub5ective linear time1 e.g.1 the cognition o! a meloic theme an its
progression1 note by note are temporally orthogonalD. 9! course all o!
the quantum entanglements lai own into the quantum vacuum as a
result o! cerebral action1 i.e.1 conscious thinKing encoe in!ormation1
which is conserve. 6his quantum in!ormation !rom the conscious li!e
e0perience o! all intelligent beings is being input into a single matri0 an
there!ore is open to be reprocesse into larger1 transhuman meanings -
perhaps this is the purpose o! the Ea!ter li!e.E

R8emory is non-neural because it is really the trillions o! tubulin imers

within the millions o! microtubules within each o! the brainGs 2)) billion
neurons that actually oes Ethe heavy li!tingE1 c.!.1 =amero!! an
7enroseGs E9rch-9AE moel o! quantum consciousness an anesthetic
action. /n these tubulin imers are really only waveguies !or the
quantum vacuum electromagnetic !iel. /s we iscusse uring the pre-
eployment at -ort ?liss1 when any gas1 vapor1 mist or !ume reaches a
concentration in brain !at Csimilar to virgin olive oilD o! ).)' molar1
general anesthesia taKes place. Ht is precisely at ).)' molar
concentration that the electron mobility in tubulin imers within the
microtubules switches !rom wave-liKe to particle-liKe1 i.e.1 Eumb elastic
ball bouncing along a pipeE-liKe. 6he wave-liKe properties o! molecular1
atomic an subatomic particles is owing to the continual e0change o!
quantum observables1 e.g.1 momentum1 energy1 angular momentum1 etc.
between sai particles an the quantum vacuum electromagnetic !iel
CPI;-D. "o the speci!ic action o! anesthetics is to sever this connection
between the brainGs microtubules an the PI;-. 6he brain e!!ectively
becomes EunpluggeE !rom the Ecosmic HnternetE an is le!t to Ecompute
o!!lineE. /s we Know1 without conte0t there is no meaning an the
physical occurrences within a truly close1 stan-alone system1 e.g.1
circulating electron or ion currents in the anesthetize brain1 EcanGt really
be about anythingE1 that is1 these physical processes cannot Ere!er to
anything outsie the close systemE. 6his loss o! ability o! the brain to
represent an re!er by way o! this loss o! conte0t is what we call
unconsciousness. "trangely1 this is the inverse o! the situation in the
two-slit e0periment1 in which the presence o! consciousness causes the
electrons to hit the phosphorescent screen as impacting particles instea
o! inter!ering waves. 6he absence o! consciousness WinsieW is
associate with particle-liKe behavior o! electrons in the brain1 while the
presence o! consciousness WoutsieW is also associate with particle-liKe
behavior o! the two-slit e0periment electrons. H suspect the presence o!
quantum entanglement between brain microtubule tubulin imer
electrons an the electrons hitting the phosphorescent screen in the case
o! the two-slit e0periment. H suspect the loss o! quantum entanglement
between tubulin imer electrons in the brain an the quantum vacuum
electromagnetic !iel in the case o! general anesthesia.S
/ new moel o! perception arises !rom these an similar consierations.
/n ob5ect viewe serves as the basis o! a collection o! sensory ata Cas
oppose to in!ormationD1 which instructs the brain how to alter its
quantum electronic !iltering/tuning circuits so as to Rtune inS !rom the
vacuum spectrum o! in!ormation signals that precise set o! vacuum
signals representing the ob5ect perceive. 6his =u0lean1 >amesian1
?ergsonian1 8cOennian1 Fattsian1 etc. theory o! perception seems to
len consierable support to 7lato_s theory o! !orms. / correct theory
woul retain 7lato while acKnowleging ?ergsonian creative
evolutionary process1 i.e.1 emergence. "ince the =eisenberg uncertainty
in a quantum observable is erive !rom the !luctuation in this
observable1 i.e.1 sqrt[YPWW2Z - YPZWW2\. it may well be that the mutual
inter!erence o! quantum !luctuations o! microtubule tubulin imer
electrons with the quantum !luctuations o! the vacuum electromagnetic
!iel carrying the entanglement signature o! an ob5ect in the e0ternal
worl that is in continual interaction with sai vacuum !orms the basis o!
the brainGs perception o! e0ternal reality. / correct theory woul retain
7lato while acKnowleging ?ergsonian creative evolutionary process1
i.e.1 emergence.S
: = ; + 7 an = = ? + 8 " -
/a;//ap = c an */ also equals RcS. Hn accelerate !rames1 /a; --"
ecreases an /ap increases so that c_ Y c
vac
. 8ight we also suppose that
an change with increasing gravitational potential so that c " -
local
ecreases with increasing potential e0actly in step with the theoretically
preicte ecrease in c with changing potential inicate by /a;//ap = c?
/aq = [YqZ -
2
- Yq
2
Z\ an so YqZ = [YqZ -
2
- /aq
2
\
7 an 8 !orm with one another a (-vector. 7ermittivity an
susceptibility tensors L how to interpret o!!-iagonal terms?
.ooK at >
u
1 current ensity in terms o! 1 an c. 3an an be - " - "
interprete as the magnetization an polarization o! the !ree space
vacuum?
Hnventions o! R)S1 1 RiS1 etc. have what general enabling characteristic _
in common?
Ye0tromissive1 Rvisual rayS1 ;ucli1 /tomists1 simulacraZ
:erria applies =eraclitus_ !amous ma0im o! the !lowing stream
Cnamely one cannot step twice into the same spot within itD to "aussure_s
notion o! semiosis1 i.e.1 a re!erential networK.
8ental attention theory o! solipsism analogous to ;ucli_s Rvisual rayS
theory o! vision1 c.!.1 an observer1 > _
)
1 the timeliKe component o! > is
associate uniquely with the electron spin1 c.!.1 Aeal "pinor -iels1
=estenes.
"pin ) L spin in irection o! RmotionS o! particle Ccomposite spin-) L
virtual 3ooper pairDV spin-* particle spin also in irection o! particle
motion1 but now purely spaceliKe.
/ny quantum principle1 e.g.1 =eisenberg ,ncertainty 7rinciple1 etc. not
obeye by general relativity must play a role in the unerlying
mechanism o! gravitation L in this way there woul be a clear ivision
between the !ormal an RphysicalS characteristics o the theory an
woul maKe general relativity a Rper!ectly abstractS theory o! gravity
an inertia1 that is must contribute to the builing an sustainment o! the
Re!!ective !ielS. "tring theory maKes no istinction between so-calle
real an virtual particles.
au=
:ereK 7ar!it_s L 7ersonal ientity per!ect scanner thought e0periment
L investigate the nacve realistic assumptions lying behin this geanKen
e0periment1 c.!.1 quantum Rno-cloningS theorem1 quantum Key coe
encryption1 chronology protection hypothesis1 =eisenberg uncertainty1
etc.
<ou say reality is quantum mechanical1 which means compose o!
waves L Rwaves o! what?S 6here is the receiver o! these waves which
is itsel! not waves. 3ollapse o! the is proo! that reuctionism is _
!alse1 i.e.1 that the classical worl cannot be reuce to a purely quantum
mechanical one. :eterminism goes han-in-han because each in its
own way requires the concept o! Ra complete escriptionS. :oes the
conte0t-sensitive nature o! things eman that a complete escription in
one !iel rely on a complete escription o! reality itsel!?
6he !ailure o! reuctionism means that there is more than one spatial Cor
temporalD scale to reality1 to being an so 5usti!ies our belie! in
emergence1 i.e.1 i!!erence in scale or levels o! escription are not Rmere
appearance.S
H! the brain is an emergent structure then consciousness cannot be
reuce to the sensing o! the brain an/or its activity by its embeing
quantum vacuum. ;mergence means that a being_s conte0t never
e0haustively or su!!iciently Rembes that thing.S /n groun is !orever
being outstrippe by the ob5ects inhering in it.
;ach consciousness has its own egeneracy1 symmetry1 conserve
quantities1 etc.
/ non-!alsi!iable theory in the 7opperian sense is 7auli_s Rnot even
wrongS theory.
3oherence: when enough possibilities are e0clue short o! C@ L *D1 one
o! the @ possibilities is spontaneously engenere.
Yquantum nonlocality oes not violate causalityZ Ysoun e!!ects
prouceZ Y!orbien planetZ
=ave the initial methos o! econstruction sharpen the Cappearance o!
theD alreay grante sharp political ivisions between liberal an
conservative? 3ontrast this with critiques o! Iial1 @aer1 3homsKy1
Jinn1 et al. who view these pro!oun ieological ivisions as
Rsuper!icialS.
Fe might contrast these two critical methos as hyperte0tual Cc.!.1
hypermeiaD vs. power-analysis critiques.D 3oul -oucault_s thought
perhaps unite the two?
=ow much o the alternate acceptations o! RwritingS Cc.!.1 RFritingS as
ata or memory RtracesS Csee :erria & -
i5
o! quantum theoryD !unction
as quantum superpose states? /n is the connection between P8 an
consciousness easier to glimpse using a :erriean/?ohmian metaphor
!or quantum mechanics?
3ollapse o! unlimite semiosis an collapse o! . 6he raising o! _
consciousness o! the literate classes in the societies o! the traitional an
less evelope worl is blowing the li o!! the real motives1 interests an
goals o! superpower1 colonial an avance inustrialize nations an so
!omenting the issemination o!. . . Cmissing pageD
YSthe right amount o! lettersSZ1 YSthe right amount o! worsSZ
CHntrouction re!erence to Oabbala1 ?ible 3oe1 etc.1 c.!.1 6he
/ssociation an their song1 3herisheD /lso use this in connection with
the ivision between subconscious Cstimulus-response1 7avlovian1 etc.
response component o! linguistic communicationD an linguistic
behavior_s conscious component.
=,71 stability1 reversibility1 :@/1 evolution1 reproucibility1
reuctionism1 eterminism1 etc. 3an we compare ientical bounary
conitions upon i!!erently evolve !iels?
?ut we must go eeply into that which we seeK to overthrow via
argument L so eeply we risK going over to our ieological opponents_
sie. 6he best 3hristian apologists are !ormer atheists1 agnostic
scientists.
Ht is only the inherent mysteriousness o! consciousness that guarantees
the un!athomable nature o! the worl an/or its ReepestS1 c.!.1 in!initely
thicK cheese blocK analogy an 4eel HncompletenessD ynamical
processes.
:i!!erence in topology between real an virtual particles1 c.!.1 Rthe mass
shell.S Fe go !rom the sterile the way to the ynamics unerlying
general relativity by recasting 8inKowsKi mass-shell cone.S
3onservation laws not observe by o!!-mass-shell particles.
:estiny L OarmaV -ate L 3haracter
R/bsurS unspeaKable 1 c.!.1 "peaKable an ,nspeaKable in
Puantum 8echanics C>ohn ?ellD
Hn a partially issociate state over woul see things always there but
that one normally never notices1 e.g.1 a passing vehicle on the highway is
seen to RshrinKS in one_s visual !iel1 an so on.
3onsciousness may be interprete as breaKs in the locKstep o!
eterministic brain processes or1 perhaps yieling its e!!ective action
there.
Aather we retain a memory o! possessing less evelope consciousness.
8emory traces eposite in a more primitive nervous system continuous
with a less primitive one.
@othing that coul have lai own those memory traces !rom a recent
set o! sensory stimuli? 6he in!inite regress o! appearances Ccause &
e!!ectD originates !rom transcenentally creative Can !reeD
consciousness?
<et another version o! the "erpent_s lie is that the structure o! the psyche
is not a la -reu tripartite but compose o! !our parts1 H1 ;go1 "uperego1
an 4o.
7lace the !our into a circle1 show arrows representing mutual action o!
each on the other1 e0haustive or circular1 uni- or bi-irectional?
4o creating H constituting ;go via societally programme language1
;go bacK-reacting on H via mechanisms o! repression1 ;go constituting
"uperego via social contract1 "uperego bacK-reacting on ;go as moral
sense/sublimation1 "uperego acting upon 4o via prayer1 4o bacK-
reacting on "uperego via =oly "pirit1 etc.
=ow oes 4o communicate with the ;go C8anD? L through the H
rather than through the "uperego as woul be commonly assume?
6his is analogous to the creationist siestep in the argument with
evolutionists to speaK o! Rirecte evolutionS.
Hntelligence can be impersonal L an eternally present !ille such as
vacuum energy.
Fhich arose !irst1 the moral sense or hypocrisy? H say hypocrisy. 6his
quite turns everything on its hea an so requires e0traorinary
e0planatory grouns.
epi=!cbK
Ht is the evil perpetrate by the righteous1
which provies strongest proo! o! 8an_s !allen nature1 not the acts o!
psychopathic ictators an sociopathic mass murerers. /n it is only a
highly personal1 emonstrable proo! o! man_s !allenness1 i.e.1 one_s own
state o! amnation1 which can convince the unbeliever o! his nee o! a
savior. H was quite stunne to !in that a 4oogle search with such
phrases1 as RhouseCsD o! spiritual complacencyS1 c.!.1 my o!t repeate
utterance that R3hurches are houses o! spiritual complacencyS1 etc.
prouce not a single hit. 6his has been remarKe elsewhere1 but bears
repeating here: i! 3hristians really believe what they o!t pay lip service
to1 i.e.1 the woners o! heaven in store !or each as term o! their salvation1
they woul not be able to contain the inevitable spontaneous isplays o!
5oy an e0uberance. @ote that there are inee a very !ew 3hristians
who live their aily lives in continual witness to this heart!elt inner 5oy
stemming !rom the conviction o! their religious belie!s1 but again1 the
number o! such iniviuals is vanishingly small an shoul any given
church be comprise by a ma5ority o! such iniviuals1 this church
woul be brane as a angerous cult1 raie by the -?H an perhaps set
a!ire an raze to the groun.
6here is much evience that humanKin in_t iscover the wheel until
aroun '))) ?.3. 6he Rintellectual istanceS between ieas !requently
contracts1 sometimes raically once the latter erivative iea is sa!ely in
han. 6here is an iea popular amongst conservatives that values hel
ear Cor regularly pai lip service toD by Rmost /mericansS such as
inustriousness1 !reeom1 emocracy1 capitalism1 rugge iniviualism1
avance technology1 etc. are now basic common sense1 that is1 are
invariably reveale by the light o! reason1 shoul it choose to shine1 an
not merely the abiing historical legacy o! serenipitous social an
cultural conitioning as1 it is suppose1 are inee all notable alternative
values in opposition to these1 i.e.1 those long hel ear by peoples o!
RtraitionalS cultures wiely i!!ering !rom the /merican avance
inustrialize moel.
Ht is wiely believe that a person !rom a traitional or tribal1 i.e.1
primitive culture is happy to give up the cozy small worl o! his
traitional culture in e0change !or a oubt-rien1 isoriente position
within the in!initely larger universe opene up to him through his society
having come into contact with an avance inustrialize1 post-colonial
power. "imilarly1 it is smugly suppose that the !armer o! the early
*N))_s_ li!e was improve when he move to a tenement in a squali
inustrial center to slave *( hours a ay at the local !actory !or bare
subsistence wages. 6he same e0tol the virtues o! Rthe !ree marKetS
though without having apprise themselves o! the myria e0ternal
controls1 which are nowaays applie to the economy to at turns1 stay
an guie the "mithian invisible han.
Ht is commonly believe amongst amateur historians that the causes o!
the -rench Aevolution were simply class envy an the misery
e0perience by the peasant classes. ?ecause o! the low literacy level
amongst the lower classes1 it was thought that the ieas o! =obbes1
8ontesquieu1 Ioltaire an Aousseau coul have playe little i! any role
in the instigation o! this revolution.
>uly 2)**
?ut the gran conceptions o!
these gentlemen as it turne out1 easily survive being strippe own
an applie to the consciousness an conitions o! persons iniviual
an collective. ?ut it was the historically an culturally conitione
pree0istent class structure1 which permitte this tricKle own o!
intelligent application. /n it is not as though these istinguishe
philosophers ha really !orme their lo!ty conceptions in the ivory tower
as it were. 8oreover1 !or the peasants_ part1 one oes not always have to
possess a !ull unerstaning o! the subtleties o! language to correctly
perceive that one has been the sub5ect o! insult.
:erria_s Ri!!e_rerS may be applie to /ristotle_s 8etaphysics as
RmetaS-physics where RmetaS has the ouble meaning o! Ra!terS Cliberal-
coincientalD an Ri!!erentS in the ultimate sense o! RtranscenentalS
Cmetaphorical-intentionalD.
:erria_s concept o! RtraceS bears some similarities to the RtraceS o! the
ensity matri0 in quantum mechanics.
>uly 2)**
Coincients of language
are never coinciences.
R=eavenS as Oingom o! :erriean Rpostpone meaningS.
Ahetoric versus .ogic L analogous to time epenent vs. time
inepenent "chroinger equation1 quantum !iel vs. classical !iel
theory.
/nalogous to quantum versus classical inter!erence istinction.
6aKing the theory o! ;lectro 8agnetic Puantum 4ravity C;8P4D an
replacing charge with spin in the role o! the theory_s ynamical
mainspring might be worth investigating. "imilar remarKs perhaps
apply to =aisch1 Auea an 7utho!!_s theory. =ow are we to e!ine the
sur!ace area proportional to the entropy associate with the :avies-
,nruh acceleration temperature?
H! the worl possesses no complete escription1 a theory o! everything is
not really possible1 they all o! our systems o! categories an even the
most !unamental ones1 e.g.1 min vs. matter1 etc. must breaK.
Puantum entanglement is important to maintaining the bulK properties
o! solis1 i.e.1 photon entanglement unerlies polarization o! a ielectric
meium an spin +/-*/2 entanglement magnetization o! iamagnetic
meia. 6he conservation o! von @eumann entropy points to the
conservation o! quantum entanglement an the uni!ication o!
polarization an magnetization o! bulK meia as spaceliKe an timeliKe
components o! a conserve polarmagnetic (-vector point to ma0imally
entangle 3ooper pairs an ma0imally entangle photons as timeliKe
an spaceliKe components o! a conserve entanglement (-vector. Hn
this way1 the gravitational reshi!t an the :avies-,nruh entropy are
seen as mani!estation o! spaceliKe an timeliKe components o! bi-
super!lui quantum mechanism unerlying an Ralreay uni!ieS theory
o! quantum gravity1 c.!.1 "aKharov1 IoloviK1 AezniK1 /lsing1 et al.1 c.!.
also vacuum entanglement1 Figner rotations1 7auli blocKing o! virtual
!ermions1 loss o! 3ooper pair entanglement an
Qd
enhancement o!
virtual boson entanglement in accelerate re!erence !rames1 etc.
=ow o we apply the istinction o! worKing versus recognition
vocabulary to in!ormation or in!ormation systems1 e.g.1 stuy vs.
e0perience1 ribosome vs. :@/1 an so on. . .
6here is an analogous interpretation o! Rranom mutationS upon which
natural selection operates to the =u0lean nonlocal theory o! perception1
i.e.1 mutations are also nonlocal i! not in physical origin1 then in
meaning an re!erence. .anguage must !ail to re!er1 e.g.1 answering
machine prompt1 igital computer phone operator1 etc.1 when there is
insu!!icient conte0t1 which is to say1 proper embeing o! the
in!ormational system in nonlocally connecte quantum vacua Cnote: we
o not here re!er to anything liKe Rthe quantum vacuumSD
RHnee1 e0cavate ancient libraries coul not be truste to contain the
worKs o! intelligent men an women1 Rc.!.1 3harles ?. 6ha0ton1 RHn
7ursuit o! Hntelligent 3auses1S 9rigins & :esign11 "ummer 2))*1 p. 2N-
22. CH! :@//A@/ cannot be taKen to contain in!ormation qua
Rintelligently CnetworKD con!igure ata.S C/bove passage quote by
6homas -. =einzeD "houl the e0orcism o! consciousness !rom human
history repair the breach between the naturalistic worl an rationality?
Figner erive a !ormula relating a clocK_s accuracy to the uncertainty
in a time interval measure by a clocK in terms o! the clocK_s mass an
physical imensions1 c.!.1 6he /scent o! .i!e1 @ew "cientist1 :ec. **-*%1
2))(. 6he in!ormation content that we may associate with a given
quantity o! energy uncertainty is epenent on the egree o! quantum
entanglement o! the noise spectrum o! energy !luctuations comprising
this quantum uncertainty o! energy.
/lthough the pressure o! in!ormation within the brain is thought to be
meiate via nonlocally correlate system o! !luctuations o! momentum
energy o! electrons !lowing within tubulin immer proteins composing
neural microtubules1 the converse o! this is not necessarily the case1 i.e.1
not all such system o! quantum !luctuations are encoe with
RaccessibleSD in!ormation.
6here must be some Kin o! Rvon @eumann in!ormationS Runcertainty
principleS involve here that prevents RaccessibleS an RinaccessibleS
in!ormation !rom being commensurate in content1 i.e.1 no unerlying
in!ormational common enominator by which the in!ormation
content/ensity o! accessible in!ormation might be compare with that
o! Rinaccessible in!ormation.S
-rom the *))-page R?rooKings AeportS1 R/nthropological !iles contain
many e0amples o! societies1 sure o! their place in the ,niverse1 which
have isintegrate when they ha to associate with previously un!amiliar
societies. . .
Y@ing .iZ an Ymanipulate gravityZ
6he so-calle 7ioneer anomaly is quite simply e0plaine in terms o! the
eceleration o! the spaceship_s raio signal Cbeing receive by an earth
tracKing stationD in the irection oriente !rom tracKing station to probe1
combine with an assumption that this eceleration vector points away
!rom the "un itsel! rather than away !rom the tracKing station. Hn e!!ect1
the pioneer anomaly is cause by !ailing to measure the velocity o! raio
signals within a re!erence !rame that varies with time ue to
cosmological e0pansion.
6he 7ioneer probe has a component o! velocity away !rom the tracKing
station o! =r1 where R=S is the =ubble constant an RrS is the irecte
line segment connecting probe an tracKing station. /s the raio signal
!rom the probe propagates in the irection o! the tracKing station1 the
line segment1 RrS ecreases at a rate1 r/t = c. 6he unaccounte !or
component o! outwar velocity1 =r = v is there!ore ecreasing at the
rate1 /tC=rD = =r/t = =c an so the raio signal is accelerating in the
irection o! the space tracKing station by an amount =c. H! this e!!ect is
not correcte !or1 then the spacecra!t !or component o! acceleration1
assume to be speci!ically sunwar.
7armenies once e0claime1 R@othing cannot e0istTS 8oern physics
has proven 7armenies correct an spacetime is now unerstoo to be a
structure o! momentum-energy 5ust as inee matter is. /n the
ynamical linK between momentum-energy an spacetime is really 5ust
that maintaine between real an virtual momentum-energy1 sub5ect to
the laws o! the quantum statistics o! !luctuations an their correlations.
-or e0ample1 each .orentz !rame Cinertial !rameD correspons to a !inely
tune set o! nonlocally connecte Cquantum correlateD quantum
!luctuations in momentum-energy. Hn !ree space1 RrealS vs. RvirtualS is
an arbitrary istinction. @ot so !or the case o! gravitational !iels.
Ht is a !ortunate grace that intuition complements the !unamental
limitations o! 4eel-incomplete systems o! theory. "el!-re!erence is an
inevitable earmarK o! a escription that oes not merely parallel Can
this !ails to re!er toD that which the theory seeKs to escribe. :oes the
proceure by which a natural language is !ormalize carry the
contaminant leaing to the 4eel-incompleteness o! the new !ormal
system ClanguageD that results?
/n e0ample o! a iscontinuity in the semantic map o! a language is the
opposition in 4erman1 willKurlich vs. unwillKurlich. FillKurlich:
arbitrarily1 uncontrolle1 autocratic1 capriciously1 arbitrarilyV
,nwillKurlich: involuntarily1 in unwilling manner1 instinctively1
naturally1 spontaneously1 automatically. . .
/pril 2)*$
another e0ample are
the ;nglish wors1 RcompletenessS vs. RincompletenessS1 which are
mutually contraictory1 however1 the 4erman translation o! these two
terms is R,nvollstaenigKeitS an RIollKommenheitS are not mutually
contraictory in 4erman. 9ne might argue then that the 4erman terms
are less ambiguous than their equivalent ;nglish terms.
6he highlighte wors in each e!inition inicate those wors1 which in
part compose the semantic iscontinuity. 6he above is perhaps in
important e0tension o! :erria_s critique o! rational thought Ccritique o!
.ogosD as entirely !oune upon unstable oppositions o! ual categories.
Fhat proportion o! interpersonal communication consists o! button
pushes an how much the col-blooe apprehension o! a message?
6he 4olen Aule1 love the other as thysel! or1 o unto others as you
woul have them o unto you maKes per!ects ethical sense1 that is1 until
one attempts to apply this principle cross-culturallyT ;0amples o! the
less than 5uicious application o! this principle are the !ollowing:
*D 6his is !or your own goo.
2D 6his is going to hurt me more than it_s going to hurt you.
$D 6he greater goo must be serve.
(D Fe Know their best interests better than they o.
'D RAationalS in Rrational sel!-interestS is not an ob5ectively e!inable
thing1 but conventional an intersub5ectively e!ine.
3an we say that because physical1 mental an mathematical are mere
abstractions that 7enrose_s Rontological triangleS is any less o! a
mystery?
6wo ob5ective timelines1 i.e.1 o! brain an embeing vacuum
entertaine give our sub5ective impression o! time_s passage?
Fhat happens when a spin-*/2 particle !rom an ;7A pair !alls into a
blacK hole while its partner escapes to in!inity?
8ath o! communication: pushing buttons o! stimulus-response C"AD
networK is *))% or only partial?
Hs our appreciation o! Rour !avorite thingsS really so unique an personal
that it is essentially incommunicable? Fell no1 i! this appreciation is
*))% culturally meiate.
/nalogy o! 3homsKian grammar is a Iis a Iis linguistic evolution an
unKnown grammar o! :@/ e0pression. =u0lean theory o! perception
an postmoern theory o! evolution invoKing morphic
resonance/!ormative causation.
.ogic o! :escartes RcogitoS an the impossibility represente by the
9urobouros1 which is inee possible in higher imensions1 e.g.1 Olein
bottle. Iictorian spiritualists associate the spiritual realm with the
!ourth imension. "ensitivity to initial conitions in the groun
continuum o! sel!-organizing systems accounts !or the wie separation
o! istinct sel!-organize systems on the au=Oau!!manian rugge !itness
lanscape. 3an the groun o! mathematical being be uberrascht by the
constructions o! human intuition?1 c.!.1 connections between 4eel_s
Hncompleteness 6heorem an the insu!!iciency o! the quantum vacuum
in its role as eterminate groun1 or are all true theorems o! mathematics
waiting1 some with in!inite patience1 to be iscovere by superhuman
intuition? 6here are1 !or e0ample1 higher orer /leph_s1 c.!.1
Entanglement =*mir *c(elA1 which cannot be built up or erive !rom
lower level /leph_s an yet there they are1 R!loating seamlesslyS in the
7latonic mathematical heaven.
6he ialectic o! thought by which contraictions are issolve relies
characteristically upon the !aculty o! metaphoricity. 6his oes not taKe
place through a mere rerawing o! the category map over the sel!same
territory itsel! in the ialectical changes unergone by 4eist.
Puantum uncertainty represents not as is commonly suppose the e!!ect
o! the observer_s inevitable physical inter!erence with any ob5ect he
observes1 but rather represents the e!!ect o! the observer_s sel!-
inter!erence. 6his !ollows !rom the ing an sich as collaborative1
intersub5ectively base spectrum o! eigen!unctions to a single-observer-
base solitary eigen!unction CappearanceD.
6he interaction o! the Oantian categories with the primeval chaos Cthat
!orms the stu!! o! the material worlD is aKin to hw the :@/ Cribosome1
reallyD reprouces itsel!1 by picKing !rom a soup o! ranom amino acis
those which it nees at a particular moment.
?ecause one cannot measure one_s velocity relative to the quantum
vacuum energy !iel1 it !ollows that one cannot ivie or partition this
vacuum into istinct .orentz-!rame subvacua. ?ut ;7A e!!ects ue to
measurement succee so it appears in oing 5ust this very thingT
.orentz invariance implies that the vacuum is ensely pacKe with
R.orentz subvacuaS. /ls ing an sich1 the quantum vacuum inee
possesses a .orentz spectral structure1 however this structure must
remain intrinsic quantum spin whose irection is observer epenent
provie that an act o! measurement is per!orme by the observer.
6he misogynist_s irreverent answer to the Oay >eweler_s avertising
5ingle1 R;very Kiss begins with OayS is the arKly humorous1 Revery 5izz
begins with R>SS
"97_s !or engineers1 policies a proceures manuals !or government
bureaucrats1 petty stereotypes !or the !amily_s !irst meeting o! one_s new
!iancge uring 6hanKsgiving inner L all o! these have an important
element in common1 they are one an all programme sets o!
instructions1 not unliKe computer programming coe1 which tell us each
in his or her own sphere o! li!e1 how to procee without or with little o!
the buren o! original on-the-spot analysis.
3ompare inspectors_ application o! principles unerlying a regulatory
statute1 i.e.1 5ugment with slavish aherence to the regulations base
upon that statute.
6alK o! Oant_s concept o! the regulative !unction o! metaphysical
theoretical entities. . .
6he scholarly min has its center o! volition shi!te !rom the limbic to
the cerebral corte0 !unctions. 6hese types regar ieas as living beings
L seuctive ba ieas require some sort o! Ranti-virus protection.S
-collapse comes about !or a variety o! closely relate reasons1 _
unpreictability o! action1 e0ceeance o! threshol o! comple0ity1
environmental ecoherence.
Hnertial e!!ects may be conitione by !orming o! couplings to
hereto!ore-istinct vacua.
3onsumer bran as part o! a system o! RmarKingS in service to
collectively implemente class segregate system. Aacism is 5ust the
most obvious an most easily/irectly legislate against social in5ustice/
!rom o! bias/pre5uice.
;ach system o! pre5uice is subsume by some broaer an subtler
one. . .
"ophies Felt: peophilic subte0t1 estroye late chilhoo innocence. . .
6he 2
n
variety o! -romm_s necrophilia is emonstrate in this novel L
get the person being corrupte to Rrip the !ace o!! o! their worlS instea
o! you ripping their R!aceS o!!.
6he preestablishe harmony is not between monas1 but between levels
o! escription. Healism1 ;mpiricism an Oantianism are but i!!erent
starting points within 7enrose_s triangle.
"uperiority o! quantum computers over classical greater ensity o!
internal egrees o! !reeom than e0ternal spontaneous collapse1 given
su!!icient spin-space quantum Cas oppose to classicalD correlation.
:enial o! ;ucli_s '
th
geometrical postulate in_t change anything at the
orinary scale o! observation1 that is to say1 at the level o! appearances1
but carrie out nonetheless wie ranging implications an applications.
8ight there be other impact!ul appearance egenerate changes in
transcenental variables yet unreame o! which !uture theoreticians Cor
metaphysiciansD shall uncover?
Fhat_s the istinction at the R?-particle levelS en between an
observer_s having per!orme a measurement upon particle / an the
converse1 i.e.1 no measurement? R"imultaneous in the ;7A
e0perimental sense is observer speci!ic. 3oul this be !urther support
!or the notion that each observer is to be assigne a unique Y M)M Z _ _
an/or unique / associate with a unique .orentz !rame? _-
Yecoherence an quantum entanglement o! spin-space variablesZ
6imeliKe angular momentum is associate with the superposition o!
spin1 which possesses no spaceliKe component until a .orentz !rame is
chosen by virtue o! an observer_s maKing a measurement.
Hn the same way that the cerebral corte0 is an elaboration1 a
superstructure o! the eeper an more primitive levels o! the brain1 so
are all iniviual e0pressions social1 cultural an hence1 ultimately
instinctual. /ll is simulation which is itsel! not groun Co! beingD.
"tray signals with unveri!iable re!erences are 5ust as real as actual
perceptions.
Fhy are we more horri!ie by a lie than by almost any other crime?
6his peculiarity o! the human min must have a eep biological or even
metaphysical e0planation.
Fell !or one1 lies enable the sprea o! evil by either enabling evil acts or
suppressing their etection. /lso lies buil upon one another to create
either senseless chaos o! estruction1 epening upon whether the lies
buil outwar or upwar as it were.
6he wist!ul nostalgia we have !or the past1 those sala ays o! halcyon
youth is perhaps really only our longing !or !orgotten youth!ul !antasies
about our woul be !uture. Hn other nostalgia is not past irecte1 but
irecte to alternate universes1 i.e.1 to the sel! as other.
Aole-reversal o! teacher-stuent gener an long term psychological
e!!ects o! RbroKen trustsS.
:erria got the iea !or econstruction by re!lecting on how /ristotle_s
R8etaphysicsS was only terme such because RmetaS is 4reeK !or
Ra!terS an /ristotle ha chosen to place his volume entitle
R8etaphysicsS immeiately a!ter his volume on 7hysics. @ow was it a
mere coincience that /ristotle place his metaphysics sequentially ne0t
a!ter his 7hysics? 9r i /ristotle have something in min similar to
@ewton who intentionally place his RPueriesS a!ter his physical
theorems an propositions within his booK1 9ptiKs. /n investigation o!
this question along these an similar lines coul well serve as an
ausgangspunKt !or a new theory o! Rthe econstruction o!
:econstruction.S
8etaphors may seem arbitrary when we have only scratche their
sur!ace1 seem pregnant an prescient with inner or latent truth upon our
elving eeper but only to appear wholly arbitrary an historically
conitione upon our igging eeper still. ?ut is meaning built upon
history o! contingently associate conitions necessarily arbitrary?
:erria also is 5ust as guilty o! attempting to Rsystem builS upon some
e0ternal point o! re!erence relative to the Rsemiotic continuumS as are
those whom he so scathingly critiques. :erria pointe out that
semiosis is inherently unstable in the sense that no system o! e0tene
semiosis coul retain its sel!-re!erentiality ine!initely1 i.e.1 the sel!-
re!erential nature o! e0tene semiosis is inherently unstable.
R"ince /a Z - universally repels an /a Y ) universally attracts we have the
?oni vacuum propeller in which the center o! mass o! the rigi evice
sel! accelerates without any g-!orce1 i.e.1 a sel!-generating timeliKe
geoesic with on boar /a-!iel generators.S "ar!atti_s state mechanism
o! Rspace riveS acceleration is reminiscent o! our state mechanism
unerlying gravity.
6he metaphorical reality o! !ree will necessitates our acceptance o! a
parallel universe ontology. 6he constitutive an interactive ynamics o!
this ontology may inee be more or less aequately escribe by
quantum mechanics1 e.g.1 relative quantum !iel theory. H! we are not
reay to give up the principle o! su!!icient reason1 then there must be
some Rcausal substrateS in which the possibly !ractally structure
quantum multiverse is embee1 which governs the ynamics o!
parallel universe engenerment an collapse.
6he relation o! consciousness to !ree will might be most generally
characterize in the !ollowing manner: consciousness is the Rprocessing
o! !ree willS is 5ust as !ree will is Rthe processing o! consciousnessS.
6he e0pansion o! spacetime: with passing Rcosmic timeS1 the causal
substrate is able to support a more an more e0pansive universe.
9ne is not one_s same sel! when part o! a group as when by one_s sel!.
6his !act is more obvious to some than to others. 6hose !or when social
play acting is e!!ortless1 namely those whom are eeme by the
psychological pro!ession to be the most Rwell a5usteS must at the same
time be the most ingenuous CnacveD or1 parao0ically1 the most
isingenuous. 6he logic at worK here remins us o! the similar logic by
which we may categorize people in terms o! the results o! a polygraph
test: C*D lying: CaD guilty1 CbD innocent but neuroticV C2D telling the truth:
CaD guilty but sociopathic1 CbD innocent. "ince all intelligence agencies1
e.g.1 3H/1 @"/1 -?H1 etc. require applicants to pass a Rlie-etectorS test1
then presumably these agencies become stocKe with two !unamentally
i!!erent Cbut perhaps also complementaryD Kins o! people: those who
have never one anything that they nee lie about1 an those who have
much to hie1 but who happen to be sKille or unconscionable liars.
6his is perhaps a rather less than ieal groun upon which to buil an
intelligence culture an comman hierarchy. ?ut certainly an
intelligence organization which owes at least some accountability to
congress i! not to the public must not permit the highest levels o! its
hierarchy to become populate with "vengali_s an sociopathic
mastermins1 but rather with iniviuals who can be sacri!ice in a
pinch without the organization or its secrets being e0pose to any real
anger. 6he 8achevellian sociopaths on the other han are ieally
aapte !or R!iel worK.S
=ow an acceleration o! a mass along say the 0-irection be at once
couple to a eceleration along the ict-irection. "pace must possess a
stress tensor which serves to couple spaceliKe an timeliKe imensions.
8il applie !orces prouce more acceleration than relativistic mass
increaseV the converse is true1 however !or what we might term RviolentS
applie !orces1 i.e.1 the a!!ect o! the applie !orce in this instance
prouces more relativistic mass increase than acceleration. 6his is only
to be e0pecte since as the velocity o! light is approache by an
accelerating mass1 aitional inputs o! RKinetic energyS o not prouce
increases in velocity o! the accelerating ob5ect so much as increases in
the ob5ect_s relativistic mass. 6his line o! iscussion suggests that
?ohm was right in speaKing o! mass as representing locKe up internal
motions. 6he above point is very cruely put1 but illustrates 8ach_s
principle that there is a elay in the response o! local matter to applie
!orces ue to the !eebacK not !rom istant masses per se Cas 8ach once
supposeD but !rom the istant vacuum !iels which have themselves
taKen on mass on account o! perturbation o! these vacuum !iels by local
matter1 c.!.1 IoloviK_s theory o! the 3osmological 3onstant. Aelativistic
mass increase ue to acceleration seems to suggest a progressive
saturation in the lines o! communication connecting local to nonlocal
vacuum !iels1 what we might term here banwith saturation o! the
local-nonlocal vacuum !iel inter!ace. 6his interpretation o! 8achian
inertia is along similar lines to cellular automata C3/D inertia theory.
Hn pluri!ormal metaphysics1 c.!.1 7hilip O. :icK_s R:escent o! the
7luri!orms1S a prerequisite !or a system_s becoming conscious is that the
system become comple0 an integrate enough to:
C*D RselectS its own unique groun state an
C2D RsurpriseS the global quantum vacuum by virtue o! the system_s
RactionS
R/ctionS here enotes initiating a causal chain o! course1 a ra!t o!
systemic or organic changes must then be engenere throughout
spacetime within the scope o! some ensity matri0 so that probability
remains conserve espite the pool o! pree0istent possibilities having
been Cby virtue o! some R!ree agentsS actionD ae to1 i.e.1 metaphysical
worK having been per!orme with the resultant enlargement o! the being
o! ?eing.
6ruth is a thing o! this worl. L8ichel -oucault
http://www.scrib.com/oc/'N)N)*N)/?raver-/-6hing-o!-6his-Forl-
/-=istory-o!-3ontinental-/nti-Aealism
Cegeneracy1 cohesion1 symmetry1 conservation1 permutation1 R6uring
automataS1 etc.
4reater cohesion greater sel!-organization characteristics o! system
components
?ut the seeming greater RinevitabilityS o! these more cohesive1 more
highly sel!-organize systems is more than o!!-set by sensitivity o! initial
conitions.
?ut bounary conitions place upon consciousness serve not only to
channel1 structure an elimit global consciousness1 but also to
resonantly tune to both intersub5ective an Rtrans-sub5ectiveS contents o!
consciousness. /n important istinction here is that between Rinter-R
an Rtrans-R sub5ective. 6he only truly R7latonicS R!ormsS may what
we might term Rtranscenental ientities.S
6he reality o! a hien timeliKe momentum is implicate by the care!ul
analysis o! the results o! high-energy elastic collisions in which $-
momentum conservation ostensibly !ails though relativistic calculations
reveal that the quantity o! total (-momentum !or the entire system o!
particles is conserve once the hien components o! initial an !inal
timeliKe (-momentum are properly taKen into account. Hn ultrahigh
energy particle collisions1 i.e.1 collisions in which the Kinetic energies o!
some o! the particles e0cee the mass energies o! various species o!
subatomic particles1 a component o! the timeliKe momentum must be
comprise o! creation o! new particles in time. Hs the istinction
between real an virtual then merely one o! perspective? "trangely1 the
answer to this question is: <es an no. Fhen uner acceleration1
particle creation is observe in both the laboratory !rame an the
re!erence !rame o! the accelerating observer. Hn istinct inertial !rames1
there must be a istinct partitioning o! the total (-momentum current
ensity into real an virtual parts.
6he preestablishe harmony lies not between .eibnizian monas1 but
between levels o! escription1 which accounts !or Figner_s unreasonable
e!!ectiveness o! mathematics in the physical sciences. Healism1
;mpiricism an Oantian transcenental philosophy are but i!!erent
embarKing points within 7enrose_s sel!-re!erential triangle o! 8ental-
7hysical-8athematical-8ental.
8ass represents boun vacuum energy in which the ensities an current
ensities o! /ap an /a; are no longer per!ectly counter balance1 the
quantum statistics o! the unerlying bosonic an !ermionic !luctuations
to these uncertainties are shi!te !rom Rper!ectly ranomS1 i.e.1
in!ormation encoe Rpurely internallyS Calso equipartation o! quantum
entanglement between its boson polarization an !ermion magnetization
!ormsD ue to shi!t in correlations o! these !luctuations in time an space
re!lecte in the variation in quantum entanglement o! virtual bosons an
!ermions !rom its structure in !ree space. "maller /a; controlling
larger /ap represents increase virtual boson entanglement an ecrease
spin-*/2 entanglement.
;0ploration o! both ieas an the outer worl only provies the
narcissist !urther grist !or the !uller an ever more minute contemplation
by him so to speaK o! his own navel. R@avelS here coincientally
serves as an e0cellent metaphor: point o! closest connection o! the
incarnation bacK to his/her physical origin1 itsel! a metaphor !or
metaphysical origin in the !orm o! the true sel! or R"el!S. 6he principle
illusion/elusion motivating the narcissist in his sacre quest !or ever
more per!ect sel!-contemplation is his con!usion o! a merely general
human nature1 one con!ine an channele1 i.e.1 instantiate or
particularize in his own highly contingent Ce0istentD being with 5ust this
arbitrary an contingent an hence highly iiosyncratic e0pression o! the
Rgeneric humanness.S 3.!.1 my poetic e0planation o! man_s hubris as
in!use with the tragically mistaKen logic whereby the rop imagines
itsel! to be secretly the ocean because mae !rom the very same
substance. 6he horrible truth is quite to the contrary Cthat is1 horrible
!or "atan an other narcissistic typesD C5oyous !or the humble o! heartD1
namely that each soul is a uniquely an separately create substance
though each possessing the same origin with the others1 that is in having
been create e0 Rnihilo qua nihiloS rather than as "atan woul have us
erroneously believe1 e0 Rnihilo qua e0 pleno.S 6his lie is hien at the
root o! transcenentalists_ equating o! Rthe IoiS with Rimpersonal
ivinityS1 i.e.1 with the 7lenum. 6his clever ienti!ication o! creature
with 3reator appears in myria hien guises1 5ust the most recent o!
which is the cosmologists_ equation o! cosmological constant an
quantum vacuum. -urther support !or the hypothesis that each person is
a separately an uniquely create Can not eriveD substance: 4o
esires to be love by the wholly other rather than involve himsel! in a
Cto himD transparent charae o! sel!-love1 i.e.1 being love by beings1
wholly erive !rom =imsel! an whose substance is one with that o!
the creator Cnote: is substance really only ultimately a question o!
topology while a plurality o! substance transcens the topological
potential o! a mere RunitaryS substance? c.!.1 unitary within the
specialize vocabulary o! quantum theoryD. .anguage etermines
thought to the e0tent which the ynamics o! speech creativity outstrips
Can hence ampli!iesD the intention o! the speaKer1 c.!.1 R4o spoKe the
worl into being1 c.!.1 >ewish Oabalic symbology an
numerical/arithmetic structure o! =ebrew vis a vis 4eel_s
arithmetization proceure upon which the RmechanicsS o! his
incompleteness theorem is base. Hnvestigate the concept o! Rraical
metaphoricity.S
.ess than instantaneous response to impresse !orces requires igitize
meium in!orme by clocK pulse o! limite !requency. 6aKing into
account the cumulative gravitational time ilation at the sur!ace o! the
sun1 the sun has lost appro0imately 2)) years since the ate o! the ?ig
?ang.
Hnvestigate timeliKe e!lection o! starlight by gravity !iel.
8anipulation o! the quantum statistics o! vacuum !luctuations
constitutes manipulation o! the amplitues maKing up the ensity matri0
or state vector.
4ravity can be manipulate electromagnetically because electric an
magnetic !iel can be use to simulate vacuum statistical e!!ects1 which
when the gravity an inertia. 3onservation o! (-momentum in (-
hyperspherical universe e0paning at the spee o! light1 combine with
the concept o! matter tunneling through a !our potential can easily
e0plain the acceleration o! gravity L in e!!ect1 gravity can be shown to
originate in tial pseuo-!orces.
/ap increases with ecrease in /a;1 which woul seem to require that
progressively more $-momentum !luctuations become tie to
progressively less energy !luctuations. "inging an musical instrument
souns L coherence epens in soun proucing structures o! the
listener_s boy. =ow many times the listener has hear elementary
components o! composition1 etc.
"uppression o! !ermion-anti!ermion creation/annihilation implies
increase ensity o! entangle virtual photons1 e.g.1 ecay o! !ermion-
anti!ermion composite spin-) particle leas to prouction o! ?ell
nonlocally correlate photons with :e?roglie wavelength o! lamba/2 =
lamba/@C2D.
Qd
;nergy not conserve in /a;1 though !luctuation number is?1 c.!.1
Puantum @oise in 7hotonics. 6ime an momentum become entangle
5ust as space an energy o L appearance o! vacuum R!orceS?
;nvironmental ecoherence possesses an unerlying mechanism
compose o! two parts L ecoherence o! the system ue to action o! the
e0ternal environment an that ue to the comple0ity o! the system_s 7si
overwhelming the computational capacity o! its groun state. @ow both
mechanisms reuce to the same unerlying one since environmental
ecoherence is an overwhelming o! the quantum system_s groun state
computational capacity ue to inputs e0ternal to the system whereas so-
calle spontaneous ecoherence achieves this through internal
comple0ity o! the system in terms o! its quantum sate
permutational/combinational structure outstripping the embeing
quantum vacuum_s computational capacity. Hn other wors1
spontaneous ecoherence is owing to classical communication parallel
processing outstripping quantum serial computation L in a wor1 when
37, outstrips the banwith connecting it to A/81 c.!.1
au=
<. ". Oim
an Puantum 6heory o! Hn!ormation.
au=
7opper_s ;7A two-slit thought e0periment !ails in its challenge to the
!unamental limitations pose by the =eisenberg uncertainty principle
because it !ails to taKe into account the momentum-sharpening e!!ects o!
photon entanglement1 c.!.1
cit=
ar+iv:quant-ph/22)')$2v2.
.ocal operation cannot increase1 but only maintain the entanglement o!
nonlocally connecte systems.
Ystaning waves in timeZV Yno timeliKe e0citationsZ
=ow oes quantum entanglement relate to =eisenberg uncertainty?
9ne woul assume that increase entanglement o! virtual photons on the
quantum vacuum1 say ue to movement own a gravitational potential
graient1 shoul be couple with a narrowing o! =eisenberg energy
Cimaginary momentumD uncertainty.
6he orthoo0 cosmological view is that the universe is only e0paning
Ron averageS over intergalactic an larger istance scales. ?ut this is
perhaps only an appearance ue to the !act that stellar an local galactic
peculiar velocities are much larger than woul be the local =ubble
recessional velocities at such istance scales. / statistical analysis o!
local stellar an galactic peculiar velocities woul reveal1 i! only our
sample recessional velocity o! local stars an gala0ies. 6he problem
here is that the sample size may nee to be so large Cin orer to
overcome the ranom sprea o! local velocitiesD that we shoul once
again be consiering cosmological istance scales. 6his may be the
Rcash valueS o! the assertion that space is only e0paning Rwhen
average over a very large scale.S Hn !act1 the local =ubble e0pansion o!
the ,niverse woul provie us with a hany solution to the 7ioneer
*)/** anomalies.
?ecause o! the necessity o! relativistic !actors such as historical
conitions !or !i0ing the ientity Cor supplementary the ineterminate
ientityD o! physical1 chemical an biologically ineterminate systems1
there can be no absolute ientity !or such systems. / simple e0ample is
how the meaning o! male an !emale shi!ts i! the ?iblical 3reation
"tory1 i.e.1 *
st
3hapters o! the booK o! 4enesis is rewritten with ;ve
create be!ore /am. /nother possibility in this vein is the proprietary
nature o! the relation emboie in "helraKe_s notion o! morphic
resonance1 e.g.1 the uplicate o! an entity cannot possess uplication o!
the *
st
original entity_s morphic resonant structure1 e.g.1 the 7auli
7rinciple in quantum mechanics1 the no-cloning theorem in the theory o!
quantum in!ormation1 the insuperable i!!iculties in per!ecting the
cloning o! higher mammalian li!e !orms. 6he phenomenon o!
spontaneous ecoherence may well provie hereto!ore unrecognize
irect evience o! the uniqueness o! comple0 entities sustaine by the
quantum vacuum. 6he uniqueness o! naturally occurring systems poses
a perhaps unbrigeable limitation to the otherwise Rper!ect rationalityS
o! science.
9ne important !eature o! language1 which limits rational unerstaning
is the process by which an imbalance in the 5u0taposition o! ual
categories can become overgrown to such an e0tent that one category
wholly subsumes its erstwhile opposite1 e.g.1 ream vs. reality1 goo vs.1
evil1 etc. ?ut this only seems to occur as a result o! the growing
acceptance within the linguistic community o! some new set o!
metaphysical principles. 6his suggests the possibility1 much entertaine
by =eiegger that language etermines to the e0tent that it emboies a
set o! metaphysical principles. 7ossibly metaphysics1 rather than being
an e0ample o! metaphysical thought is in reality the groun o! a
language_s organic metaphysical system.
7ast per!ect an past imper!ect L this istinction o! two types o! past
e0ists perhaps only because it is what the brain e0periences. 6hese two
types o! past are represente in ob5ective reality1 i.e.1 past as complete
vs. past as uncertain.
6he =eisenberg time-energy uncertainty an position-momentum
uncertainty can be combine into a covariant momentum-energy-space-
time !our vector in the quarK moel o! harons1 c.!.1 :oes .orentz ?oost
:estroy 3oherence?V <. ". Oim C*22%D.
/ spin-) particle is really a spin-* particle moving along the time a0is
such that the particle_s spin is irecte either parallel or antiparallel to it
irection o! motion L shouln_t this mean that there is a hien
egeneracy with respect to a spin-) particle_s timeliKe motion. Fhat
e0periment coul serve to reveal this egeneracy? Cspin-* particles
move parallel or antiparallel to their irection o! motionD
/ny attempt to measure the mass ensity o! the vacuum shall !ail
because mass is an arti!act o! coherence borne o! quantum entanglement
a the vacuum is only very partially quantum entangle with itsel!.
/ paraphrase o! /ristotle_s Rthe une0amine li!e is not worth livingS
turne upon its hea is Rthe unlive li!e is not worth e0aminingS1 which
tells us so to speaK not to be 5ust an alternate in li!e.
H! entanglement istillation an concentration can be per!orme utilizing
only quantum statistics1 then perhaps vacuum statistical variation in
spacetime is only an intermeiary while quantum entanglement is the
true mechanism o! gravitation.
;0change a brie! glance with the wholly other Cor so we believe1
somewhat relieve1 perhapsD an a tiny Kernel o! very personal insight
passes between you1 namely that HH am the otherV the other is 5ust mysel!
uner i!!erent circumstances.
6here is a subtle linguistically camou!lage lies in how the sel! regars
the other1 c.!.1 my email to Jia about how H shoul e0pect my church to
be !ire upVon i! H sore weapons in it a engage the enemy !rom within
it.
"trong /H proponents naively suppose that consciousness is 5ust
somehow a !unction o! a su!!iciently comple0 nervous system. 6his
may turn out to be correct1 but not !or the reasons given by avocates o!
Rstrong /H.S 6he transition may not e0ist precisely at the bounary
between what might be terme Rquantum*S an quantum2S behavior1
say where the banwith RpinchS between the nervous system an its
embeing vacuum state becomes such as to !acilitate a critical ensity
o! quantum tunneling between nervous system an vacuum.
;verything which is starte as a iea is starte as an iea1 either
contrive or Rhit uponS. /n RcontriveS is Rhit uponS sub5ect to
bounary conitions. Fith the avent o! sin in the worl was the law o!
su!!icient reason rescine.
4iven /a /a> 1 ecoherence o! _s must possess an unerlying ` `
spin-base mechanism. "pontaneous $-momentum an energy
!luctuations must lea to the thermal !luctuation o! spin current
ensities1 which in turn leas to ecoherence o! the phases o! elements
o! the ensity matri0. @on-uni!orm e0pansion o! the vacuum_s spin
bath might be responsible !or the thermal nature o! spin !luctuations an
hence gravitational ecoherence.
R6he 7leming 6estS1 p. $*1 9ct. 2-*(1 2))( issue o! @ew "cientist. /n
interesting an important breaKthrough in arti!icial intelligence research
might be creation o! a proo! that the 7leming a 6uring tests are
equivalent Cin some senseD.
Ybetween invariance an covarianceZV Ybetween a vector an a
pseuovectorZV Ybetween a bivector an a 2
n
ranKZV Ybetween a vector
an a one-!ormZ
RY. . . ZS means 4oogle search R. . .S
R9ne may ecrease the entanglement between two subsystems either by
increasing the spatial separation o! the systems or by ecreasing the size
o! the systems.S
-luctuations in the energy o! a lattice o! couple harmonic oscillators is
ue to timeliKe-meiate interactions between the lattice Cas a wholeD
an its embeing groun state or vacuumV e0citations o! the lattice are
owing to spaceliKe-meiate interactions between the lattice an its
surrouning Can interpenetratingD environment.
Yno e0amples o! Yboun entanglement V Ythermal states an coherent
statesZV Ytranspose ensity operationsZ
6emporal entanglement1 c.!.1 ar+iv:quant-ph/)()2*2%v*1 may play an
important role in the mechanism o! gravitational time ilation.
R. . . the spontaneous localization might be thought o! as relate to the
transition to massiveness1 which one woul liKe to see as universal1S c.!.1
ar+iv:gr-qc/2(**)$'v'1 =.3. Aosu.
Ysqueeze vacuum an entanglementZ or Ysquare states an
entanglementZ
-ermions as quasiparticles or e0citations o! boun ?ose-;instein
conensates. ?osons as quasiparticles or e0citations o! boun -ermi-
:irac conensates.
Yentanglement coherence lengthZ
R/ general lesson learnt was that the groun state entanglement between
two subsystems ecreases rapily with their mutual separation.
Hncreasing the size o! the two subsystems in general increases their
entanglement1 but i! the RcontactS region between the subsystems is Kept
!i0e1
Qd
a !inite limiting value is eventually reache1S c.!.1 Entanglement
in the -ogoliubov vacuum. 6his has relevance to the unerstaning o!
spontaneous environmental ecoherence as well as to wave!unction
collapse in the theory o! quantum measurement.
9nly locally connecte components o! the vacuum possess mass1 while
the nonlocally connecte complement oes not contribute to the
cosmological constant.
6he 5usti!ication !or moeling quantum spin as timeliKe angular
momentum is that the polarization vector1 7 is a spatial $-vector an 8
CmagnetizationD an 7 are relate 5ust as are ? an ;1 i.e.1 as timeliKe an
spaceliKe components1 respectively o! the 8a0well electromagnetic
tensor. ;ntanglement conservation in terms o! the sharing o!
entanglement between bosons an virtual 3ooper pairs. 6he e!!ect o!
gravity upon entanglement sharing. 6imeliKe angular momentum an
(-angular momentum conservation in the alternative treatment o!
relativistic perihelion precession. Cthis list can be e0paneD
7resumably when a spoKen sequence o! wors is in one_s native tongue
one causal sequence comes into playV when the wor sequence is not
unerstoo1 another1 basically i!!erent causal sequence is involve.
Ymass an entanglementZ1 c.!.1 :istillation o! vacuum entanglement to
;7A pairs. ,se proo! o! entanglement o! spaceliKe separate regions o!
the vacuum an generalize =iggs entanglement mechanism to support
vacuum statistics mechanism o! gravitation.
:oes matter generally e0tract quantum entanglement !rom the vacuum?
H! so1 what is e0tracte1 ?ose or -ermi entanglement?
Yconservation o! entanglementZV Yconservation o! quantumZV
Yentanglement conservationZ
Ysqueeze vacuum an entanglementZV Ysqueeze states an
entanglementZ
-ermions as quasiparticles e0citations o! boun ?ose-;instein
conensates.
Yentanglement coherence lengthZ
R/ general lesson learnt was that the groun state entanglement between
two subsystems ecreases rapily with their mutual separation.
Hncreasing the size o! the two subsystems in general increases their
entanglement1 but i! the RcontactS region between the subsystems is Kept
!i0e1 a !inite limiting value is eventually reache1Sc.!.1 ;nganglement in
the ?ogoliubov vacuum. 6his has relevance to the unerstaning o!
spontaneous environmental ecoherence as well as to wave!unction
collapse in the theory o! quantum measurement.
6ransactional interpretation o! quantum measurement permits spaceliKe
separate points within spacetime to become timeliKe Cnot e0actly what H
mean1 but serves to recor the intuitionD. 6his intuition was suggeste
by the superluminal propagation e0periments.
6he builing up o! a local vacuum occurs through !eebacK between the
source o! gravity an the surrouning quantum vacuum. R.ocal
vacuumS is a bit o! a misnomer because this term actually re!ers to the
state o! the vacuum over a given !our-imensional region in initial
conitions istribute in irreversible time become bounary conitions
in reversible time. Hnvestigate connection between the ualities1 local
versus nonlocal an reversible versus irreversible temporal change1 c.!.1
Y6ransactional1 Puantum1 3ramer1 Hrreversibility1 @onlocalZ C@ote:
RY. . . ZS implies R4oogle searchSD
C0
*
L 0
2
D
2
+ Cy
*
L y
2
D
2
+ Cz
*
L z
2
D
2
c
2
Ct
*
L t
2
D
2
C0
*
L 0
2
D
2
+ Cy
*
L y
2
D
2
+ Cz
*
L z
2
D
2
~CicCt
*
L t
2
DD
2
causality conition on
spacetimeD
/a00 + /ayy + /azz + c/att ) Cwhere t = itD
- = mWCc/rDWCr/tD + mCc/tD = ) CR!orce-!reeS conition o!
gravitational actionD
:iscuss: enormous =eisenberg uncertainty at start o! the cosmological
e0pansion1 e.g.1 Z 7lancK limits?
"u!ism_s principles compare to those implie by 7hilip O. :icK_s
R:escene 7luri!ormsS version o! 4nostic 3hristianity.
Hnertia1 !ree will an the istribution o! the irections o! time in
spacetime !abric.
Hs the 7ioneer anomaly an the cosmological acceleration in !act
connecte? /nnual an iurnal perioicities in the 7ioneer signals
!requency shi!ts may be accounte !or by !lawe assumption in the
;phemeris moeling o! the signals as being Rline o! sightS in irection
o! the "un as gravitational primary1 i.e.1 assumption that the anomaly is
an actual Rhigher orer component o! gravitation.S H! the anomaly is
only an apparent iscrepancy cause by comparison with a !lawe
moel an actually an appearance cause by the cosmological pseuo-
acceleration1 =c1 then the anomaly is neatly e0plicable. =ubble
istance-velocity relation woul seem to support the hypothesis o! a
cosmological hyperspherical potential through which all matter is
presently tunneling1 c.!.1 vacuum !luctuation moel o! the ?ig ?ang.
8atter interacting more strongly with the spaceliKe components o! the
!our potential leaing to weaKer interaction with timeliKe component o!
this !our potential.
?ut shouln_t this iscrete perioicity o! recessional velocity
C%2Km/8pcD mean that we have evience o! a wave!unction escribing
cosmological scale phenomena. 9r 7si structure on large scale mass-
energy systems.
Hnvestigate paper claiming Rno connectionS between spin an
acceleration.
?ounary conitions can be !i0e in the !uture1 but which nonetheless
oes not e0clue intrinsically probabilistic behavior o! system escribe
by wave!unction with those Rinitial bounary conitions.S
6he cellular automata moel o! iscrete spacetime cannot support
collapse o! the state vector. ;verything we thinK1 believe1 speculate
upon that crystallizes only much later is a script. /n o! course1 scripts
etermine the behavior o! actors in the play.
Puantum theory o! computation1 however can e0plain state vector
collapse in terms o! particles an !iels e0hausting all possible
mathematical escriptions. "tate vector collapse serves as a prototypal
e0ample o! the !eebacK a mutual interaction o! the physical an the
mathematical worls.
Fe can thinK o! the acceleration o! a mass as a continuum o! impulses or
RcollisionsS between the origin o! the impresse !orce an the mass.
@ow o! course momentum is conserve in three imensions1 but Ratom
smashingS e0periments reveal that !or large velocities Cnear RcSD $-
momentum is no longer conserve by the participants o! a high-energy
atomic collision. ;0plain why an relate to short erivation o! ; =
mcWW2.
3ommunications actually originate with the sel! or the other an there is
a !unamental istinction between what H receive in the !orm o! a
noti!ication by Ran otherS an what originates with the sel!. 6he brain
then oes not embe a single unique vacuum state or groun1 but 5ust as
the observer collapses the 7si1 the other is able to shocK my
consciousness through his communications irecte at my person.
;0plain e0paning universe in a hyperspherical potential.
"ecure or eaves-ropping-proo! quantum communication implies that
the iniviual transmitting a message cannot control !luctuations o! the
carrier wave o! size smaller than the =eisenberg uncertainty with respect
to the quantize observable moulate. 6here is no such limitation
where non-quantize/non-conserve quantities are concerne.
=owever1 one cannot e0ploit the unique properties o! quantum states
through use o! non-quantize/unconserve observables.
Puantum ecoherence is generally a isruption in the phase relationships
between components o! the ensity matri0 representing the state o! a
quantum system. "o it is important to note here that total angular
momentum1 > is the complementary1 i.e.1 con5ugate variable to 7hi1 the
phase. ?ut how oes ecoherence occur i! a mass is !ollowing a
geoesic? 6here must be some sort o! thermal process taKing place
within the !alling mass that acts to ecohere its ensity matri0. Hnternal
egrees o! !reeom an metric ragging may play a role here.
7art o! the mechanism o! synchronicity is the uncontrolle sprea o!
subconscious notions via some Kin o! nonlocal mechanism. ?ut 5ust as
in the case o! those superluminal-tunneling e0periments1 one must
istinguish both quantum e!!ects that require a elaye choice !rom
those that on_t. Ht taKes time to buil up the quantum resonance
require to prepare a emonstration o! superluminal quantum e!!ects.
=eroic sel!-signi!icance in the eyes o! !uture social critic selves.
"uperposition o! possible universes with its own laws. "o /nthropic
3osmological 7rinciple applies to each person iniviually. 9b5ective
characteristics o! each sub5ective universe is etermine by interaction
o! each universe with all the others.
:istinction between average an instantaneous physical laws1 abstract
vs. concrete laws.
6he escent o! being !rom the in!inite which is meiate by the taKing
on o! limitation cannot be meaning!ully compare to say the removal o!
material !rom a soli blocK o! marble in proucing a worK o! sculpture1
but is more aKin to aing rules an restrictions to the composition o! a
worK o! poetry.
/t two points o! spacetime at i!!erent raial istances !rom a
gravitating mass1 the rate o! temporal change i!!ers in accorance with
the ;instein !iel equations o! general relativity. 6aKe as a convenient
e0ample here o! two planets orbiting a star an pose the question1 o the
two planets travel equal spacetime intervals with respect to some other
interval quantity1 e.g.1 in equal Rcosmic timesS? 3oul a pre!erre
re!erence !rame !or cosmic time be thus emonstrate to e0ist?
Hs !our imensional space e0paning with respect to some cosmic time
variable or is !our-imensional spacetime itsel! e0paning. 6his seems
to involve the istinction between geometries that either are or are not
embee in some higher imensional space Cor spacetimeD.
Hn the same way that a thought!ul parent maKes sure to cover all
electrical outlets an chilproo! cabinet oors1 7rovience has put in
place a !ailsa!e system in the ynamics o! mins_ interaction with the
substrate ynamics o! spacetime which maKes impossible any tinKering
with the spacetime continuum by its inhabitants which might seriously
threaten to estabilize it.
?y moving geoesically rather than with velocity RcS along the local
time a0is1 composite matter Cpossessing internal egrees o! !reeom an
hence bining energyD may maintain a ensity matri0 in a pure state
Crather than a mi0e stateD !orm. @ote: the pure state can also be a
superposition.
:erria L authorship is an illusion Can intentionality along with itD
.arge masses o! in!ormation shoul be massive.
Ht_s the quantum entanglement with the vacuum that gives both conte0t
an inertia1 c.!.1 e0ample o! !loppy isK that is more massive when
storing in!ormation as quantum entangle ata. CKeywors:
consciousness1 intentionality1 inuce inertia1 ecoherence1 quantum
entanglementD
3ausality correlate !luctuationsV "hannon in!ormation von
@eumann in!ormation
3oul logocentrism be resurrecte by the philosophical implications o!
quantum in!ormation theory?
3an mathematics possess temporality1 i.e.1 emergence? H! so1 then only
through the evolution o! logic guie by the creative metaphysical worK
o! consciousness.
H! quantum ecoherence is the ine0 o! irreversible temporality then how
can gravity !iel be a generator o! both time ilation an enhance
ecoherence?
3an time be ecompose into its reversible an irreversible parts1 which
in !ree space are mutually orthogonal1 but this orthogonality is egrae
by gravity !iels.
=ow then oes the sub5ective vs. intersub5ective time lines relate to
those o! reversible vs. irreversible?
"hannon in!ormation1 as bounary conitions on instantaneously
transmitte von @eumann in!ormation1 is itsel! limite to greater than or
equal to the velocity o! light.
-ailures in in!ormation transmission between mins is ue to the
breaKown in transmission o! "hannon bounary conitions as energy
transmitte at less than or equal to RcS. Hn this case there is a Kin o!
ecoherence1 which prevents the instantaneous transmission o! the von
@eumann in!ormation. Hn other wors1 language is Rguie telepathyS.
/n all communication that succees in going through !rom one min to
another1 necessarily passes in!initely quicKly along the prepare
quantum state bounary conitions.
/ll o! the e0periments showing superluminal tunneling are really 5ust
e0ploiting the interplay o! "hannon an von @eumann in!ormation.
3ontrolle spreaing o! 4aussian wave!unction is what classical
in!ormation transmission really is.
8ultiple consciousnesses constitute a transcenental structure o! being.
6ranscenent in part an perhaps most importantly because here we
have a class that cannot be constitute out o! its e0emplars.
3onsciousness is not an abstract quality or property though iniviual
consciousnesses are nonetheless its instantiation.
Hnvestigate the seeming parao0 o! gravitation being both the cause o!
ecoherence an slowing ecoherence Racross the boarS1 i.e.1 time
ilation. 6his parao0 might be solve by showing that time is not a
simple but a comple0 quantity. 9r perhaps time is comple0 because
possessing both sub5ective an ob5ective Cintersub5ectiveD components?
"ub5ective b /a;V Hntersub5ective b /ap
Ymetaphysics an !alsi!iabilityZ
9ne general problem with the 7opperian octrine o! !alsi!iability is that
i!!erent systems o! metaphysics1 e.g.1 myria alternate interpretations o!
quantum theory vis a vis the quantum measurement problem only
become istinguishable in terms o! a so-calle truth value upon reaching
the necessary orer o! mathematical an/or physical moel
appro0imation within the proper empirical omain1 i.e.1 omain o!
potential e0perience. "o clearly 7opper_s !alsi!iability is a !unction o!
the ruling scienti!ic paraigm1 which is to say1 !alsi!iability is paraigm-
epenent. /n so the 7opperian octrine itsel! postulates a
metaphysical principle1 !alsi!iability that is itsel! paraigm base an so
ultimately un!alsi!iable.
"eptember 2)*$
-alsi!iability is also technology
epenent1 !or e0ample1 the graual closing o! the loopholes in ?ell_s
!alsi!ication o! the unerlying thesis o! the ;7A parao0 uring the
perio1 *2%)-2)*)1 c.!.1 "himony1 /spect1 .amoreau0 et al. 7arao0:
technology is science-epenent1 !alsi!iability is technology-epenent1
a theory is scienti!ic or not epenent upon that theoryGs !alsi!iability.
"cience--Z6echnology--Z-alsi!iable--Z"cience 6he solution to the
parao0 is liKely that the E--ZE operator carries i!!erent Kins o!
implication at each step so there is above an equivocation o! sense at
worK...perhaps Cmust looK more closely at thisD.
6he ynamics o! quantum an chronology protection which appears to
unerwrite all that is parao0ical an counterintuitive in quantum
behavior was perhaps a esign necessity as each human being is1 ieally
at least conscious an possesse o! a !ree will an hence woul
constitute a creator inhabiting creation. 6his shoul have pose as
isruptive an in!luence upon the create orer as is usually the case !or a
reamer upon attaining luciity within his ream: the unerlying
ynamics o! the arti!icially create worl o! the reamer begins to
estabilize1 uncohere1 i! you will. /ny human being with a normally
!unctioning brain an mental !aculties1 e.g.1 reasoning1 memory1
imagination1 etc. secretly possesses the /rchimeean lever that he or she
might use1 intentionally or unintentionally to isrupt the whole
continuum o! human mortal e0istence. "o built into the !abric o!
creation is a !ailsa!e: all potential R!ulcrum-pointsS ultimately prove
illusory or all possible methos to reach them sel!-thwarting1 i.e.1 either
e!!orts to tamper with a Rcritical system !unctionS is irectly stymie by
mutual inter!erence between system an observer or enough sel!-
inter!erence is create to cause the observer to breaK o!! his probings or1
!ailing this1 the observer is e5ecte altogether !rom the RgameS. @ow all
o! this presupposes that there is no automate system aequate to
per!orm all o! these protective !unctions1 rather some sort o! outsie
system o! regulation Cconstitute by an entity or boy o! entities not so
boun an limite as those actively participating in the Rgame o! li!eS1
c.!.1 cellular automata theoryD that Rsees to itS that the Rrules o! the
gameS are !ollowe at all times. Ht may be that consciousness o! some
Kin or as such was inclue in creation1 that is1 allowe into the RgameS
!or 5ust such a reason L the /rchimeean lever is the human !ree an
creative will1 consciousness as such o! which mere human consciousness
is perhaps but a trivial instance acts in the role o! universal regulator L
this perhaps because what is contrary to logic is inconceivable to pure
consciousness. ?y maKing consciousness the source o! the stream
constitute by the ynamics o! quantum mechanical systems1 any
attempt by observers an e0perimenters to striKe too eeply at the heart
o! this ynamics with investigative probing shall1 by the insiious logic
o! sub5ective an ob5ective_s mutual coupling via !eebacK1 introuce a
growing inter!erence term into the ensity matri0 escribing the system
that shall wash out etails o! quantum mechanical processes o! scale
smaller than the respective =eisenberg uncertainties.
/n important part o! the metaphysical necrophile_s aily creo is that all
events1 reactions an processes1 etc. taKing place within the worl are at
bottom trivial. /ll that may be lacKing in a given instance is the
practical availability o! physical evience an analytical sKill. H! the
Killing o! 3hrist was a conspiracy1 then investigation o! the crime woul
in the necrophile_s view potentially reveal no more than woul a more
thorough investigation o! the Oenney assassination. 6he mystic on the
other han Knows in his heart that reality truly is ine0haustible1 which is
to say vis a vis the necrophile1 bottomless. 6o the 3hristian mystic1 the
murer o! >esus 3hrist was in accorance with a ivine plan an a
ivinely orchestrate interplay o! genuinely !ree human wills.
:ecoherence is a mechanism o! containment - o! isturbances
introuce onto the quantum mechanical gameboar that otherwise
might interact in a manner isruptive o! the gameboar_s normally sel!-
sustaining ynamics Creally the gameboar_s sel!-sustainment is on
account o! the collective subconscious e!!orts o! countless iniviual
minsD.
Qd
6he mutual quantum correlation o! all o! these mins
presupposes some Kin o! prior mutual contact.
6here seems to be two basic types o! quantum coherence: that
unerlying the transmission o! energy on one han1 an that supporting
the transmission o! in!ormation. 7revious arguments against the
possibility o! real transmission o! in!ormation between istinct
sub5ectivities must now be ree0amine an perhaps reconcile an
integrate with euctions !rom the new paraigm o! counter-
econstruction. /ctually1 the sa!eguaring mechanisms o! quantum an
chronology protection continually act so as to thwart any real1 as
oppose to merely sub5ectively symbolic econstruction o! reality.
7erhaps it woul be possible to evelop a wie variety o!
communications e0periments in which orinary or commonplace
instances o! communications i!!iculties/!ailures1 e.g.1 transmission line
or1 more generally1 transmission meium technical i!!iculties1
transmitter or receiver technical problems1 etc.1 or even the all too
common case where one iniviual_s vocal communication to another
passe beneath a critical ecibel threshol1 preventing transmission o!
the intene message in which the roles o! quantum
coherence/ecoherence coul be shown to be ubiquitous.
Hntentionality an communications intent are more closely relate than a
mere share linguistic commonality1 i.e.1 the wor intent1 but are sub5ect
to the ynamics unerlying the problems an parao0es associate with
the now longstaning problem o! quantum measurement by virtue o! this
very general problem_s strongly suspecte intimate connection to human
consciousness or consciousness as such.
/lice an ?ob can only per!orm simultaneous quantum measurements
on their respective component spin-*/2 particles provie that the
nonlocal connection between the two particles is ecohere su!!iciently
to comply with the ?ell inequality. @ow certainly telepathy between
/lice an ?ob woul permit them to conuct simultaneous to within /at
Co! what?D =ere we see the relationship between ;7A1 ?ell Hnequality
an the =eisenberg ,ncertainty 7rinciple. "o von @eumann
in!ormation1 i.e.1 total in!ormation L "hannon in!ormation is necessarily
subquantal?
Ht is somewhat ironic that the counter-econstructive paraigm o!
quantum nonlocality-meiate communication also seizes upon a
version o! the truth versus issemination uality in orer to maKe the
case !or metaphysical presence an contra "aussure an :erria the non-
arbitrariness o! the relationship o! signi!ier to signi!ie1 i.e.1 the
ob5ective structure o! signs.
/ hien meium o! communication shoul never be suspecte to e0ist
provie it closely enough parallels an Rpiggy bacKsS upon some other
overt communication meium. RFith a logic similar to that o!
=eisenberg_s Rgamma ray microscopeS argument !or quantum
uncertainty as well as to that o! solipsism_s being so illusively un-
!alsi!iable1 that is1 through a possible e0act parallelism o! mental
attention an creativity1 every e!!ort to uncover the operation o! a covert
communication meium1 say by preparing e0perimental conitions to
separate the covert meium !rom the overt that it closely parallels is sel!-
thwarting an this is re!lecte in inevitable isturbances being
engenere within the open meium 5ust su!!icient to carry the quantity
o! in!ormation in question1 namely that which we might have attribute
to the hien meium.
7erhaps some !uture evelopments in the re!inement o! the transactional
interpretation o! quantum mechanics1 speci!ically1 transactional quantum
in!ormation theory1 shall one ay emonstrate that every communication
between persons via classical meia must !irst be precee an then
accompanie by a quantum-nonlocal RhanshaKeS o! the respective
embeing quantum vacua o! the two mins e0changing classical1
vocalize linguistically structure in!ormation. 6his approach to
escribing intersub5ective communication shall perhaps permit
uni!ication o! two escriptions communication: inter- an
in!rasub5ective communication. 3lassical communication !irst
establishes nonlocal connectivity between the brains Cconceive o! as
Rwet an warmS quantum computersD o! the communicants an the
ongoing e0change o! linguistically-meiate classical or "hannon
in!ormation between the communicants serves only to RsculptS the
preestablishe quantum nonlocal connection between them. 6he
intuitive e!inition o! in!ormation as a quantity corresponing to a
reuction in uncertainty on the part o! communicants may support the
above unerstaning o! communication1 provie the proper
connections between classical an quantum uncertainty can be
emonstrate.
9ctober 2)**
6he question arises here o! the importance o! a
istinction1 that between the Buality an the Buantity of information
represente by any reuction in =eisenberg uncertainty. :uring
quantum teleportation e0periments1 the quantum state is always
teleporte entangle with its attenant Buantum uncertainty where the
local vacuum states at the RtransmissionS an RreceptionS locales are
liKely untraceably an unre!erenceably istinct1 so that the in!ormation
that woul have been represente by a reuction o! some o! the quantum
uncertainty at the transmitter is not e0pecte to match up with the woul
be in!ormation resulting !rom a similar reuction in this quantum
uncertainty at the receiver. 6his is consistent with the notion that it is
actually only ata which are 7transmitte81 regarless as to whether this
transmission is sub- or superluminal.
9n the above e0presse view language is more or less the transparent
meium o! communication that philosophers naively believe it was
prior to the avent o! "aussure. Fe are inee metaphysically present
each to the other through vocal Can possibly also writtenD
communication. 6he two interpretations o! human communication1 both
"aussurian an *N
th
3entury iealist are equally supporte by the !acts L
this preominantly on account o! "pecial Aelativity_s ban on
superluminal communication an the =eisenberg ,ncertainty 7rinciple1
the epistemological an ontological interpretations o! which are
themselves empirically inistinguishable. 6he only basis !or the
istinction o! classical !rom quantum communication is the !ollowing is
the presence or absence o! communicants_ consciousness.
3ommunication then nees to be moele as viral transmission o!
content an not mere mutual enabling o! abstract thought. 9ne less
than obvious implication o! ;7A is that it is possible to conuct
separate by a spaceliKe interval that are simultaneous to within less
than /at. /n yet the collapse o! the 7si is Known to be in some sense
simultaneously etermining the spins o! both particles. ?ut in what
sense?
/n alternate way to unerstan gravitational ecoherence !rom
7enrose_s1 that is1 in terms o! his so-calle one-graviton Cvirtual massD
limit is to looK at the i!!erential rates o! temporal evolution o! each
spin-*/2 particle on account o! their occupying istinct spacetimes Cnon-
inertial !ramesD. 6he wave!unction itsel! shoul unergo eterministic
evolution as ictate by the time-inepenent "chroinger equation1 at
least initially when the composite spin-) particle !irst ecays. =ere the
7si is a superposition o! two eigenstates1 C+1-D an C-1+D. "houln_t both
clocKs collocate with the spin-*/2 component particles stay
synchronize i! they are occupying the same $-hypesur!ace? @o1
because the spacetime interval between the component spin-*/2 particles
is generally what is responsible !or the ecoherence o! 7si. 6his
introuces a complication into "pecial Aelativity_s concept o!
simultaneity which surely is worthy o! investigating.
8ultiply parallel systems o! appearance. . . 4roun cannot be !athome
in terms o! any possible collection o! moi!ications to it. 6his is much
in the same way that thought as a process o! abstraction C!rom a Kin o!
groun o! intuitionD cannot prouce a complete integral escription o! its
own !unamental process1 c.!.1 4eel_s Hncompleteness 6heorem.
Ht is pure superstition to believe in the emergence o! consciousness
through the mere meication o! groun. 9! course1 sel!-consciousness
may well be the result o! moi!ications to the groun o! being brought
about through the brain_s !unctioning in the role o! a system o! quantum
vacuum !luctuation correlation moi!iers.
3an there be any !unamental istinction between iniviual
consciousness an consciousness as such.
H! so1 this woul imply that iniviual consciousness possesses a quality
that transcens all possible e0perience o! the iniviual. ?ut on_t we
alreay have this situation in 7hilicKean theology?
3hance1 though it has never been the author o! orer1 has certainly
playe an instrumental role in inspiring the creative process.
4iven a lose enough e!inition o! racism we are all or almost all o! the
human race1 racists. -or how else coul we account !or the persistence
o! inbre racially istinct groups1 but by se0ual selection preventing
greater intermarrying between members o! istinct races?
8aturation L we go !rom repeating wor o! wisom to maKing those
wors our own Cby unerwriting them with our own e0perienceD.
7risoners are given parole base upon their per!ormance in a close1
paternally supervise an highly regimente an mini-!ascist
ictatorship culture an release into the polite society o! a highly
mobile an technologically avance emocratic republic. "urely this
cannot be an aequate moel o! a Rcorrectional institution.S
"imilar observations can be mae !or other relatively close subcultures1
e.g.1 the military1 psychiatric1 ecclesiastical cultures1 etc.
/ certain amount o! e0ogamy is selecte !or by nature in orer to
optimize aaptability o! populations1 but also o! iniviual organisms.
R;0ogamy here may be interprete as broaly as possible.
6here is a i!!erence between Remailing a linKS an Remailing a pageS L
counter-econstructive in!ormation theory L post-postmoernism1
perhaps?
"el!-impose limitation on the part o! transcenent beings is either
!unamentally liKe or unliKe the process o! thinKing terme abstraction.
RH! you thinK that the best !orm o! government is a republic1 then you
can harly believe that the ,niverse is a monarchy1S c.!.1 /lan Fatts in a
?uhism lecture.
H! is !requently sai that the most important question o! metaphysics is
RFhy is there something rather than nothing?S RHs reality a one or
many?S
-or the groun o! my being to be merely Rmoi!ieS through
interactions with its Rsur!aceS Cinteractions presupposing not a more
!unamental groun but a separate equivalent groun. 6his actually
woul be 5ust more o! the Kin o! sel! limitation by which the being
originally entere space an time. "houl we istinguish !ouners o!
spacetime !rom those who merely enter it later an moi!y it?
3hecK to see i! Rthe -ounersS ha a religion C:"2D an i! not1 checK
what connections may e0ist between -ouners an ?a5oran !aith.
:epening on results o! thing research1 may be able to e0plain
i!!erence between R-ounerS an other races o! the gala0y in a way
consistent with ?a5oran religion.
R6he creep crawlers at the en o! the line that were all terri!ie o!1S c.!.1
/lan Fatts.
;manationism o! :icK_s 7luri!orm theology can provie !ounation-
setting an sel!-consistent answers to the problems being an e0istence1
proviing us with a satis!ying theoicy.
/pril 2)**
/lso see >ohn =icK_s
R"oul-maKing theoicyS.
R7hilicKeanS theology is a postulate that is accepte by some
theological questioners !or the same reason that cosmological in!lation
or superstring theory was so reaily accepte in the astrophysics an
theoretical physics communities L the single postulate reaily imposes
orer upon a system o! problems an inconsistencies in a way that
appeals to the aesthetic sense.
/esthetic sense as the utmost generalization o! the concept o! symmetry.
Fhat is the most general conserve quantity serve by aesthetic
per!ection? 3oul it be "pinoza_s ivine substance% /lso see
8cOenna_s principle o! novelty conservation. 3an aesthetics be given
an ob5ective basis i! such a conserve quantity can be emonstrate to
e0ist?
W
/ reprocessing o! sub5ective human e0perience ata-base in the
/Kashic recor to the structure o! R7hilicKeanS theology.
9nly ecohere quantum systems may supply the bounary conitions
!or coherent quantum states. 6his allows us to istinguish the two
interpretations o! "chroinger_s cat: live cat vs. ea cat or the state
RaliveS vs. the same cat in the state1 Rea.S Hn the case o! the 2
n
istinction the cat RKnowsS whether it is alive or ea.
Hn the same way that causality can be econstructe in terms o!
!luctuations an correlations1 communication o! abstract symbols an
relations may be econstructe in terms o! e0changes o! entanglement o!
subquantal in!ormation. 6his is i!!erent !rom mere R!ilteringS o!
signals C5ust more o! the same o! sel!-impose limitation1 which prepares
the groun !or but is not itsel! Ra contacting o! the other1S c.!.1 ?uber1
.evinas1 etc.
6he in!ormation e0change in pro5ecte quantum entanglement C7P;D is
subquantum because its transmission passes Rbeneath the von @eumann
entropy raar1S as it were. "hannon entropy is nonetheless generate
but which bears no necessary connection to the in!ormation transmitte.
CAevisit ;mpeocles_ parao0 o! materialistically base RthinKing1S c.!.1
=eiegger_s transcenental horizonal repositioning.
6here are no conquering alien visitors because initiation o! Rwarp
technologyS alerts other more avance aliens o! the e0istence o! these
!legling Rwarp culturesS that shall liKely invae an conquer their
nearby Rpre-warp cultures.S "uch !legling warp cultures are always
intericte by the unimaginably oler an more technologically
avance galactic regulatory boy.
4ravitational ecoherence not only stabilizes mental !unctioning o!
iniviuals but also social groups an societies. @ote: sensitivity to
initial conitions Can bounary conitionsD woul mean that the !irst
e!!ects o! ampe quantum ecoherence woul occur at the uppermost
levels o! social organization. 6his is because e0change o! in!ormation
between persons is subquantal an so must be governe by a ampening
o! quantum coherence an creation o! new entanglements o! people_s
consciousnesses.
3an 7si be equate or at least intimately relate to an iniviual
consciousness?1 c.!.1 :ualism an :isemboie ;0istence ampening
the uplinKs so as to e0change alien limitations. 6aKe on limitation so as
to e0change it with Rthe other.S
=ow oes all this theorizing square with the Puantum /nthropic
"olipsism 7rinciple o! the action o! "ynchronicity?
3an probability o! ) Y 7 Y * be connecte with o!!-iagonal stress-
momentum-energy terms i! the ensity matri0 o! the system also
possesses o!!-iagonal terms1 i.e.1 inter!erence terms an hence
correlations o! probabilities1 i.e.1 Rconitional probabilitiesS?
Yquantum correlation an ?ayesian probabilityZ
; = sqrt[p
2
c
2
L m
2
c
(
\ = sqrt[p
i
2
c
2
+ CimcD
2
c
2
\ = sqrt[p
i
2
c
2
+ p
)
2
\ = p
u
2
c
2
6aKing general relativity an its associate locally varying value o!
RcS1 c = c
v
1 we have the !ollowing: ; = p
u
2
Cc
v
D
2
p
u
p
v
c
u
c
v
= p
uv
Cc
uv
D
2
= 6
uv
? @ote: ;instein_s -iel ;quation1 4
uv
L { Ag
uv
= 6
uv
.
Fhat allows us to 5usti!y the implication1 p
u
2
Cc
v
D
2
p
u
p
v
c
u
c
v
may well be
the relationship !rom general relativity: 6
uv
= g -
uv
1 i.e.1 the stress-
momentum-energy tensor is proportional to the prouct o! the scalar
Rmass-energyS ensity an the spacetime metric.
@ote: ;quivalence o! "chroinger 7si temporal evolution an
=eisenberg =amiltonian evolution.
9nly ecohere quantum systems may supply the bounary conitions
!or coherent quantum states. 6his allows us to istinguish the two
interpretations o! "chroinger_s cat: live cat vs. ea cat or cat in the
state RaliveS vs. the same cat in the state1 ReaS. Hn the case o! the 2
n
istinction the cat RKnowsS whether it is alive ea.
Fhat variety o! mass is implie by the !inite range o! quantum
entanglement? ;ach observer_s entangle 7si e0tens up to a
ecoherence bounary in an embeing !ree space o! quantum vacuum
that is gravitational an inertial mass-!ree.
7enrose_s Rone-graviton-limitS on the energy sprea !or a single virtual
process is a limit on how energetic a system o! !luctuations can be
without becoming irectly measurable.
H! irectly measurable means the same thing as intersub5ective an
hence1 communicable1 then which quantity is communicate1 "hannon
or von @eumann in!ormation. "hannon in!ormation guies
transmission o! von @eumann in!ormation1 i.e.1 abstract language guies
concrete telepathic communication. CAeview ar+iv papers iscussing
communication between /lice an ?ob in curve spacetime.
6he relationship between energy an time is a more subtle one than is
reveale by the simple relation1 /a;/at Z= hbarT
6ime must be Rslowe ownS in orer to simulate structures possessing
internal egrees o! !reeom. /n so the increase /ap emane by this
will go into the bining energy o! the spontaneously create composite
Cas oppose to !unamentalD structure. 3reativity appears to eman
limitation be place upon the groun !rom which novelty springs L not
5ust true o! creation !rom quantum vacuum !luctuations1 but o! all !orms
o! creative eneavor. @ot all ynamical behavior can be escribe in
terms o! homogeneous i!!erential equations.
Ht may turn out that composite structures can only be engenere !rom
noninertial spacetimes1 i.e.1 partially ?ose conense vacua where Cas in
quantum photonicsD.
/strology as a !rameworK !or coherence o! Rpetits perceptionsS analogy
!or the !unctions o! bounary conitions L always an necessarily
inserte into/impose upon the system !rom outsie.
.imitation is necessary to enable the !ull creative capacity o! the
gohea. ,n!ortunately much o! these bounary conitions must be
applie to the creator himsel!. 7oetry !unctions in this way: turning
limitation into the opportunity !or novel creations Cotherwise not
possible1 e0cept as incoherent !luctuations incapable o! sel!-
sustainmentD.
"how that astrology is poetic interpretation o! persons1 relationships an
events through the heavenly boy ynamics metaphor.
/ny zombie may be awoKen an inuce to contribute to the Rhuman
pro5ectS. 6he substance o! the unimportant etails o! novel e0perience1
i.e.1 not is compose o the irecte collective unconscious activity o!
myria other mins most compatible with our own or having been once
meaning!ully connecte to our own.
?y conserving entanglement1 !luctuation energy oes not have to be
iniviually conserve1 allowing momentum-energy to trans!orm liKe a
2
n
ranK tensor.
"cience !iction iea tol to Aachel: in!ormation really is transmitte by
language Cquantum tunnelingD through a Kin o! guie telepathy that
epens on curve spacetime to worK.
/ll antisocial1 criminal an even pathological behaviors were once
socially regulate instinctive behaviors1 c.!.1 -oucault an the
e!inition/creation o! ROranKerS1 RIerbrecherS1 etc. by the linguistic
!rameworK o! institutions.
.anguage conveys class relationships among the ata o! sense1 but is
otherwise arbitrary. 8ight then the manner o! organization o! the ata
o! sense an not these ata themselves represent something ob5ective?
Qd
Puestion: coul a cosmic ray entering a eep gravity well ever e0cee
the local velocity o! light1 say i! the local velocity o! light at the cosmic
ray_s origin was the velocity o! light in !ree space? /ccoring to 4A:
@o1 as this woul mean nongeoesic motion o! a particle in!luence by a
gravitational potential alone.
>uly 2)**
H thinK we have here a potential
challenge to general relativity.
3ombine Aupert "helraKe_s !ormative causation with 6homas Ouhn_s
"tructure o! "cienti!ic Aevolutions in light o! Oant_s 3opernican
Aevolution. :iscoveries in science mae by any given civilization limit
Can are limite byD nonlocally connecte preceents o! scienti!ic
iscovery which rive an empirically eveloping logic unre!erenceable
by sub5ective mental processes.
"o calle internal bining energy1 gravitational bining energy in
particular may not be able to quantum tunnel across a potential barrier as
a pure quantum state1 but must traverse the barrier in the !orm o! a
statistically mi0e state. Fhat can an e0amination o! the composite
particle_s ensity matri0 tell us about the mechanics o! the particle_s
manner o! tunneling across the barrier? 6his is because the
gravitational !iel is meiate by how the particle or system concerne
is ynamically relate to the quantum vacuum in which the system is
embee. 6his suggests that the tunneling o! a composite particle
through the potential barrier is impee by the bining energy o! the
particle an that the egree o! this particle_s being impee as it passes
through the barrier is importantly connecte to the inertial an
gravitational mass o! the particle.
9nly a tiny !raction o! the quantum vacuum_s energy ensity is evote
to supporting a given .orentz or inertial !rame. 6his is perhaps the
reason that the cosmological constant appears to be so close to zero L the
virtually in!inite energy ensity o! the vacuum o! appro0imately *)
2'
Kg/m
$
is sprea throughout a !our imensional spaceliKe volume.

"o
then can a relationship between the energy ensity o! the quantum
vacuum an the magnitue o! the cosmological constant tell us
something about the !our-imensional iscreteness o! spacetime such
that the magnitues o! these two quantities become equal? 6he energy
requirement !or acceleration o! a massive boy consists in that o!
transitioning through a continuum o! istinct quantum vacua1 i.e.1 vacua
possessing momentum an energy uncertainty in continuously varying
i!!erent proportions.
6he enpoints o! a quantum-tunneling tra5ectory are necessarily
spaceliKe separate because the tunneling particle possesses an
imaginary momentum an negative Kinetic energy while traversing the
potential barrier.
Hn a eterministic universe the loss o! in!ormation1 say into a blacK hole
must be a permanent one. =owever1 in a strictly eterministic universe1
in!ormation cannot be create1 which woul seem to imply the
impossibility o! its estruction.
6his nee not be the case1 however !or a quantum1 ineterministic
universe in!orme by a !unamental uncertainty principle an
possessing nonlocality. 6he inequivalence o! "hannon an von
@eumann entropy implies that a quantum state an its escription
interpenetrate an entangle. 6he thing an its escription are here not
entirely inepenent. Fhat oes the Rno hien variableS theorem say
about the nature o! =eisenberg uncertainty?
"hi!t in the zero-point o! a thermal vacuum !luctuation !iel preicte by
inuce gravity theories in con5unction with quantum entanglement
conservation Cwhich is a special case o! probability conservationD woul
necessitate a shi!t in photon CbosonD wavelength with changing
gravitational potential.
Oaluza Olein ' ,niverse with !ive aitional spatial imensions o!
small enough scale to give a =awKing raiation o! 2.% egrees O.
Fhat magnitue o! acceleration give ,nruh raiation with 2.% O thermal
spectrum?
Fe e0pect accelerate e0pansion because the time rate o! change o! all
physical processes incluing the time rate o! change o! vacuum energy
ensity is etermine by the vacuum energy ensity itsel!1 i.e.1
accelerate cosmological e0pansion.
3ritical comple0ity theory o! emergence o! consciousness. 6he system
is constitute by a matri0 o! bounary conitions1 classically physically
e!ine1 which grows in comple0ity beyon what can be supporte in
the !orm o! a single quantum state. 6his may inee not be the same
situation as is !oun in the case o! orinary environmental ecoherence.
=ere instea o! the system unergoing quantum ecoherence the system
unergoes a trans!ormation o! an entirely i!!erent nature. /n error
correction system istinguishing noise !rom signal must come into play1
which maintains quantum coherence though now with a new vacuum
state spaceliKe separate !rom the initial quantum vacuum. :ecoupling
o! the system_s interaction with the Rnon-environmentS can contribute to
the system then !inally unergoing environmental ecoherence. 6his is
aKin to an iea o! consciousness_ role as a Kin o! ynamical
RprophylacticS against environmental ecoherence that continually
threatens to isrupt the brain_s survival-essential quantum computational
processes. 6he iea here is that ecoherence involves two processes1
progressive coupling o! the system to an incoherent vacuum Cor grounD
state1 but also progressive ecoupling !rom a coherent vacuum state in
which the system was earlier embee with which the system ha
hereto!ore been in constant interaction.
H cannot escape the suspicion that Riniviual consciousnessS is better
unerstoo as Riniviual-consciousnessS was a mutual iscovery o! a
symbiotic relationship by two !unamental types o! beings1 one
occupying the nonlocally-connecte quantum vacuum an seeKing to
embe itsel! in something aKin to local spacetime1 the other an
Re0istential creatureS an the prouct o! evolutionary processes within
the local causal realm o! classical spacetime seeKing a gimmicK that
shall assure its physical survival.
Jeitschlei!en are always possible wherever a quantum system is
su!!iciently shiele !rom environmental ecoherence.
6he multiplicity o! the gohea is transcenent an can only be
e0perience through limitation1 i.e.1 spatiotemporality.
6hought is inuce limitation an liKe the potter_s hans on the clay he
worKs an e0haustive escription o! the clay1 its internal ynamics an
structure1 oes not e0plain how the clay changes !orm. Ht is an open
system. 6he same is true o! consciousness in which we shall never !in
the basis !or the ynamics o! what is calle thinKing1 which always
perturbs pure consciousness R!rom outsie.S
=ow is it that ;7A quantum measurement e0periments !ail to violate the
relativity ban on !aster than light communication when a quantum state
can be transmitte by sening !ewer classical bits than neee i! there
were no entanglement? "ee squeeze states1 von @eumann entropy1
=eisenberg uncertainty principle1 etc.
H! one type o! quantum entanglement1 e.g.1 between virtual R3ooper
pairsS is egrae in a noninertial !rame1 then by the principle o!
conservation o! entanglement1 some other Kin o! entanglement that
with respect to some con5ugate observable/quantum number1 say
between virtual photons1 must actually increase. ;ntanglement o! spin-
) virtual 3ooper pairs ecreases while entanglement o! spin-* virtual
photons compensatingly increases1 c.!.1 entanglement o! spin bath spins
enhancing Rquantum entanglementS Co! a certain KinD1 ecoherence
suppresse by vacuum entanglement1 etc.
=ow i man go !rom mute & umb to !ull o! abstractions? >ohn
3alvin_s nacve looK an elaborate belie! system. Fe have the iea o! a
5oy that really1 strictly speaKing isn_t possible in this li!e L to be
worshippe by another !or not how we appear but !or the unKnowably
unique person we intuit in our epths that we are.
@ewton_s bucKet thought e0perience 8ach_s theory o! inertia angular
momentum speci!ies the inertial coorinates an (-angular momentum
conserve uring inertial motion.
Aeal niggas on_t ie1 they 5ust get blacKer1 e.g.1 martyrom o! 6upac
"haKur an so on.
"ynchronicity an ob5ective probabilities o! quantum mechanics Cas
oppose to mere epistemological probabilitiesD L one person_s
synchronicity is another_s Rob5ective quantum probability.S
8utual inter!erence o! entangle probability amplitues as a Kin o!
-ourier e0pansion. 4ibb_s phenomenon as applie to entangle
amplitues? ;0ponential ecay o! the wave!unction as it inevitably
tunnels through any an every bounary conition may well be a
preventative vis a vis the 4ibb_s phenomenon1 which helps to bar bizarre
an counterintuitive probabilities. :epens on the bounary conitions1
e.g.1 potential barrier structure.
Puantum computation borne o! entanglement supplements imper!ect
coherence o! vacuum in supporting structures/systems embee in it.
Fhat sort o! ynamics o you get when the equation o! motion is a
!unction o! more than one time parameter1 e.g.1 Rt
*
S an Rt
2
S in the time
correlation !unction? /n coul such a ynamics be escribe as
eterministic?
6he parao0 concerning the !urther playing out o! the 3opernican
Aevolution by which humanKin is !urther pushe to the periphery o!
Rhis own universeS is that it maKes those o! the generation witnessing a
step in this revolution !eel privilege to be at the center o! epic change.
"till more1 there is o! course the overweening narcissism usually
unbeKnownst to its possessors that the en to which the 3opernican
Aevolution is ultimately riving shall succee in merely reestablishing i!
not 8an_s centrality then the centrality o! consciousness. Hn other
wors the 3opernican revolution shall en in evouring itsel!. 8an in
antiquity nobly commences his pro5ect o! e0ploring an investigating his
worl an 8an_s crowning rewar !or his stunning success has been the
new Knowlege that he is an accient o! history which is utterly
insigni!icant in the cosmic scheme an quite beneath the ,niverse_s
notice.
6he "chroinger 3at 7arao0 is hanily enough solve by a
computational moel o! quantum measurement such as that propose by
A. "riKanth in / 3omputational 8oel !or Puantum 8easurement1
ar+iv: quant/ph/)$)2*&)v$. ?ut perhaps the vacuum woul not have
its computational capacity overwhelme so quicKly provie we coul
aequately isolate this vacuum !rom all other quantum vacua. 6he
isolate vacuum can then operate at an almost in!initely more e!!icient
level o! in!ormation processing Cor is this really only Rata processing1S
c.!.1 thermoynamically close systems vs. conte0tualize systemsD.
?ut in such a case we might well have switche problems !rom that o!
live/conscious cat vs. ea/unconscious cat to that o! biologically
!unctioning cat vs. biologically inert cat.
6he logic behin the cosmological anthropic principle is similar to that
by which one ascribes signi!icance to the timing an concurrence o!
unrelate appearances that can only be connecte in the min o! an
observer possessing some iiosyncratic store o! e0periences.
/ngular momentum vector speci!ies an absolute irection in spacetime
a each angular momentum irection in spacetime an each angular
momentum measurement in a series o! such measurements is not
inepenent o! the measurement preceing it. @ot so !o rspin as the
probability o! a +/- { spin measurement along an arbitrarily chosen
irection is always ).' or ')% C*/2D. "o quantum spin1 while in its +/-
*/2h superposition state speci!ies no irection in space. =owever1 once
ecoherence o! the +/- { h superposition occurs a e!inite irection in
space CspacetimeD has1 5ust as in the case o! angular momentum been
selecte. 6his might suggest that spin ecoherence has an important
connection to unerpinning local Cas oppose to nonlocal1 i.e.1
superpose/coherentD spacetime geometry/metric. Ynonlocal metricsZ
"houl we thinK o! spin ecoherence as an e0ample o! spontaneous
symmetry breaKing1 to wit1 spontaneous spacetime symmetry breaKing?
6he presence o! the observer Can his consciousnessD in e!!ect speci!ies a
irection o! time1 i.e.1 locally perpenicular to the geoesic $-
hypersur!ace in which the observer is centrally embee. 6he above
geoesic $-hypersur!ace shoul also be pose spin-*/2 CvirtualD particles
in which ma0. virtual 3ooper pair current ensity speci!ies the local
irection o! time.
6ransmission o! in!ormation require to supplement the limitations o!
quantum vacuum 37, in its irect computation o! comple0 quantum
entangle structures1 c.!.1 computational moel o! ecoherence.
H! ?ob RalreayS mae his spin measurement1 then the =eisenberg
uncertainty o! /lice_s spin measurement is only
practical/epistemological an not wholly ontological. Hmplications o!
une!ine simultaneity an ;7A !or P8 an =eisenberg uncertainty.
?ut i! that oesn_t mean simultaneous in all .orentz !rames1 5ust the
arbitrary one Cchosen by the observerD1 then what_s the implications !or
the P8 measurement problem Cvis a vis consciousnessD?
RFhen /lice measures her spin1 the in!ormation she gets is localize at
her position1 an will remain so until she ecies to broacast it.
/bsolutely nothing happens at ?ob_s location. -rom ?ob_s point o!
view1 all spin irections are equally probable1 as can be veri!ie
e0perimentally by repeating the e0periment many times with a large
number o! singlets without taKing in consieration /lice_s results.
6hus1 a!ter each one o! her measurements1 /lice assigns a e!inite pure
state to ?ob_s particleV while !rom ?ob_s point o! view the state is
completely ranom C is proportional to the unit matri0D. Ht is only i! -
an when /lice in!orms ?ob o! the result she got Cby mail1 telephone1
raio1 or by means o! any other material carrier1S c.!.1 Puantum
Hn!ormation an 4eneral Aelativity/ar+iv: quant-ph/)()'*2%v*. 3oul
this cause the collapse o! the spin superposition !or ?ob1 !or everyboy
in ?ob_s lab? 9r i! the message !rom /lice is 5ust store in ?ob_s
laboratory1 will the spin superposition collapse Ctransmission o! physical
CmemicD in!ormationD?
/re .orentz !rames merely abstract entities. H! so1 then how coul there
be a i!!erence between spaceliKe an timeliKe connecte .orentz
!rames?
Hntegral equations in which a conserve quantity Cor its con5ugate
variableD is ma0i- or minimize which is equivalent to a set o!
i!!erential equations stans in analogy to the psychological istinction
o! associative !rom ratiocinative thought.
Ybining energy an gravityZ Ybining energy an inertiaZ Ybining
energy an equivalence principleZ
R6his means that the total !ermion ensity n is below the 8ott ensity
n
8ott
where boun states breaK up ue to the 7auli blocKing e!!ect1 c.!.
[(\. /t ensities higher than the 8ott ensity1 the e!!ects o! correlations
are suppresse ue to the occupation o! the phase space. . . the crossover
is riven by the 7auli blocKing e!!ect which weaKens the two-particle
correlations in a ense meium1S c.!.1 6ransition to super!luiity in
strongly couple !ermion systems: low ensity limit
H! ecoherence processes unerlie temporal change1 then this woul
imply that the ,niverse is an open system1 i.e.1 embee in an in!inite
quantum system. =ow then coul the trace o! an in!inite collection o!
observables C!or the Rembeing partS o! the total system which inclues
the ,niverseD prouce a !inite overall ecoherence rate Crelative to
what?D
?lacK hole entropy cause by quantum vacuum proviing ynamic heat
bath !or all matter an !iels1 incluing blacK holes themselves1 o!
course. 6he vacuum acts to progressively entangle matter an !iels
with which this vacuum continually interacts via e0change o! $-
momentum an energy. Hnvestigate blacK hole =awKing raiation as
being !unamentally a mani!estation o! an ongoing ecoherence process.
Ht may be that there is some ma0imal ecoherence rate which relates to
some hien physical constant such that the same ecoherence rates
unerlie =awKing raiation o! blacK holes regarless o! hole mass1 but
more generally the hereto!ore unrecognize =awKing raiation
emboie in the 2.% O cosmological blacK boy raiation an
accelerating cosmological acceleration1 =c.
=ow is a ?ohm-/haranov style mechanism o! quantum vacuum
statistics o! entanglement CcurrentD conservation 1 c.!.1 probability
current ensity conservation1 c.!.1
au=
8orrison1
cit=
Cnerstaning
3uantum 4hysics1 an e0ample o! physical analogue physics1 an e0ample
o! physical-analogue-!ree escription o! spacetime-momentum-energy
ynamics. 6he vast proli!eration o! physical analogue unerpinnings o!
general relativity Cor at least o! some signi!icant !eatures thereo!D seems
to suggest that there must be come physical analogue-!ree or universal
Cmost general/abstractD physical moel awaiting iscovery.
"eptember 2)**
9!
course1 your average har-core relativist woul a that this is
unoubtely true1 but that such a theory has alreay long ago been
iscovere an articulate by ;instein1 an all the myria analogue
moels o! relativity prouce in the ecaes since its iscovery
constitute nothing more than witting or unwitting homages to ;instein_s
genius. 7robability conservation1 entanglement conservation1 an
quantum vacuum statistics Cvirtual particle/!iel !luctuation
correlation/issipationD suggest themselves as perhaps su!!iciently
general/abstract Rphysical basesS !or general relativity.
Qd
6he valiity
o! the ;instein equivalence principle seems to eman that the
metaphysics o! general relativity be 7physical analogue free.8 9r at
least that there be an unerlying unity to all possible physical analogues.
Fe might state as a corollary to the equivalence principle that no
physical analogue moel o! general relativity can capture in one
escription all particular cases o! general relativistic phenomena1 i.e.1
pass all possible empirical tests1 c.!.1 au=?arcel1 Iisser1 .iberati1
cit=ar+iv:gr-qc/)*)&))2v*1 ;instein 4ravity as an ;mergent
7henomenon?
"eptember 2)**
6hat this unity might be still more generally capture through
application o! ?ohm_s causality principle to quantum !luctuations qua
in!ormation signals Ci.e.1 causal connections = correlations o! quantum
!luctuationsD than by the broa Oantian metaphor o! substantive
relativistic physical processes o! classical relativity Crepresente by so-
calle Rspacetime curvatureSD1 is a theoretical approach that has only in
recent years receive serious attention. Ht will prove ironic shoul in the
!uture @ewton_s positivistic stance with respect to any possible physical
mechanism unerlying gravity1 i.e.1 Rhypothesis non fingo8 be subverte
by the iscovery o! a physical mechanism !or gravity base on the
3openhagen interpretation o! quantum mechanics L itsel! the preeminent
e0emplar o! positivistic science. "uch a theory i! it is every prouce
will in some important sense escape the charge o! being merely Ryet
another analogue theoryS because it will solily base all phenomena o!
gravity an inertia in the behavior o! what might be terme Rieal
observablesS1 i.e.1 information. =ere spacetime 5ust liKe any other
structure is a pro5ection or interpretation o! in!ormation1 that is1 it is only
part o! what in!ormation is about. Hn this way an in!ormation-base
theory o! gravity oes not quali!y as an analogue theory o! gravity.
Puantum in!ormation theory suggests that the value o! Rclassical
correlationsS is that they provie the Key to eciphering nonlocal
quantum encrypte in!ormation1 which is to say1 in!ormation encoe in
nonlocally connecte quantum !luctuations. 9ne outcome o! this is that
quantum in!ormation is not limite to a propagation spee o! c1 but can
propagate instantaneously. /n so long as this quantum in!ormation is
not intersub5ectively available1 the principle o! chronology protection is
satis!ie.
?ecause quantum entanglement is conserve1 we may not nee to Know
the speci!ics o! a ecoherence mechanism in orer to unerstan the
quantum statistical basis o! gravitational time ilation.
H! it is possible that the equivalence principle is a special case o! a
broaer metaphysical principle o! the transcenental nature o!
gravitation1 i.e.1 no Ranalogue moelS can in principle capture all
relativistic phenomena in a single mechanical escription.
?ose conensation is closely associate with quantum entanglement1
e.g.1 o! $-momentum. Hncrease /ap controlle by ecrease /a;
Cphotonic crystal moelD. /lso1 spontaneous emission shoul be
suppresse proportional to reuction o! /a;. "uppresse ecoherence
rates are associate with increase coherence C$-mometum !luctuations
an ?ose conensationD an ecrease resonance Cincrease 7auli
blocKingD. Puantum coherence an resonance are conitione by
quantum statistics o! vacuum !luctuations1 speci!ically ?ose-;instein
an -ermi-:irac statistics o! virtual particles/!iels1 respectively.
3oncerning the "chroinger 3at 7arao01 ReaS is not a state o!
"chroinger_s 3at in quite the same way that RaliveS constitutes a RstateS
o! the cat.
Hn the ;7A in curve spacetime thought e0periment1 each component o!
the ecaye spin-) particle is a spin-*/2 particle in its own right1
escribe by its corresponing ensity matri01 which recombine
constitute a pure quantum state1 i.e.1 that o! the original spin-) particle.
/s the spin-*/2 particles separate within a curve spacetime1 their
respective ensity matrices unergo a peculiar temporal evolution. 6he
two component particles only remain nonlocally connecte to the e0tent
that they remain embee in the ientical unerlying vacuum CgrounD
state. Ae!lecting the particles bacK towar one another1 say with a
magnetic !iel1 so that they might recombine oes not result in a
recreation o! the original spin-) state. C6his may inee be because the
ecay is an irreversible process to begin withD Hn other wors1 gravity
causes irreversible changes in the system_s wave!unction. Fe postulate
here Cwithout proo!D the hypothesis that all gravitating boies give o!! a
Kin o! a Rvacuum raiationS that will be !oun to be equivalent to
Rgeneralize =awKing raiation.S
?lacK hole thermoynamics an in!ormation/worK energy to sustain the
vacuum_s re!resh rate/gravitational !iel. ,ncertainty in normalization
o! a given wave!unction might be an important egree o! !reeom
serving as the reservoir !or storing in!ormation bearing quantum
correlations.
"pacetime = momentum-energy = wavenumber-!requency. . .
3hanges in spacetime on_t require multiimensional time i! we move to
the !requency omain1 e.g.1 spacetime metric !luctuations ue to
=eisenberg uncertainty principle.
3ause is to e!!ect as !luctuation is to correlation.
-eynman sum o! histories1 path integral !ormalism reconcile with
timeliKe an/or spaceliKe connecte spacetimes1 i.e.1 relativistic e!!ects
are phenomena associate with being at rest in a moi!ie vacuum.
6he entanglement o! virtual photons within a curve spacetime is what
gives the vacuum mass an spacetime its curvature. "ince the quantum
correlations unerlying the structure o! spacetime are nonlocally
connecte1 one e0pects the Rspee o! gravityS to be greater where
spacetime curvature is greater. 6his might e0plain cosmological
acceleration. 6he ?lacK =ole Hn!ormation 7arao0 can only be solve
i! gravitational ecoherence is e!!ecte by means o! some !orm o!
vacuum resonance. 6he /H_s in_t use the sub5unctive tense because
they in_t see it as ever more applicable than the inicative tense. 6he
same thing might have been true o! those living uring the ages prior to
the breaKown o! the bicameral min1 c.!.1 >aynes.
;ntanglement conservation vis a vis blacK hole in!ormation parao0.
Aelativistic :oppler e!!ect is always broKen out o! the total :oppler
e!!ect when we speaK o! virtual photons. Hn this relativistic component1
virtual photons will become/appear more quantum entangle1 c.!.1
internal entanglement o! spin bath spins an ecoherence suppression.
:ecoherence suppression shoul be taKen as the ine0 o! relativistic
time ilation. 6emporal parao0 is reminiscent o! Aussell_s parao0
upon which 4eel_s Hncompleteness 6heorem is !oune.
R8echanismS o! quantum chronology protection. P8 !rom 4A L
temporal evolution o! spacetime implies that !requency omain is more
!unamental than time omain an also may imply e0istence o! parallel
spacetimes.
@onlocal nonpermutational concept o! structure1 essential !or
cohesiveness o! conscious states o! awareness. 8ultiple temporal
centers are an essential part o! this nonlocal structure o! consciousness.
8emory which in!orms anticipation.
;ntropy o! magnetization equals the in!ormation encoe in
polarization1 can the timeliKe imension be encoe in spin orientations
internal to virtual 3ooper pairs? /n the spaceliKe imension might be
encoe in virtual photon polarization? Ypolarize meia an photon
polarizationZ
Hn!ormation loss in a blacK hole horizon is 5ust a special case o! the
gravitational ecoherence iscusse earlier. ;ntanglement moi!ies
probabilities but not in a way that can be use to transmit in!ormation.
"hannon entropy is not e!ine !or an open system1 but perhaps von
@eumann entropy can be so e!ine1 e.g.1 because qubits are nonlocally
store Cin a nonlocal quantum vacuum?D.
RHt is Known that1 in certain circumstances1 heat baths belonging to a
speci!ic class can enhance entanglement rather than estroying it: two1
mutually non-interacting systems immerse in one o! these baths can
then become quantum correlateV this can happen both at !inite time an
in the asymptotic regime. Ht is remarKable that the thermal bath seen by
uni!ormly accelerating systems precisely belongs to the mentione
classS1 c.!.1 ;ntanglement 4eneration in the ,nruh ;!!ect Cquant-
ph/)()$*'%v*D
R6he price to pay is the lacK o! mani!est covariance an thus o! a simple
way o! translating a physical escription obtaine in one re!erence !rame
to that erive in a i!!erent one.S
RFhen the system that is sub5ecte to the uni!orm acceleration along the
tra5ectory C2.*D is !orme by two1 non-interacting two-level atoms1 one
thus e0pects similar mi0ing-enhancing phenomena to occur1 leaing in
particular to loss o! the mutual quantum correlation CentanglementD that
might have been present at the beginning.S R=owever1 even though not
irectly couple1 the e0ternal vacuum !iel through which the two atoms
move may provie an inirect interaction between them1 an thus a
means to entangle them. Hnee1 entanglement generation through the
action o! an e0ternal heat bath has been shown to occur in certain
circumstancesV it is there!ore o! physical interest to investigate the same
issue in the case o! accelerating atoms.S
R6he property o! quantum spin is ictate by space quantization an by
spacetime symmetryS1 c.!.1 p. *)&$ o! 64?Fell7hysics1 Iol._s *1 21 $.
6ime is not an observable an there!ore cannot be quantize as space is
quantize Cbasis !or the irreversibility o! virtual processes unerpinning
spacetimeD on account o! relativity_s requirement o! spin quantum
numbers. ?ut relativity also emans that spin as a special variety o!
angular momentum1 must be e0presse in the !orm o! a spacetime
invariant (-vector. 6he time parameter can be inirectly quantize
through the quantization o! the energy o! the quantum vacuum.
:oesn_t :avies-,nruh raiation with associate von @eumann entropy
imply that conservation o! entanglement is violate by noninertial
!rames1 c.!.1 quant-ph/22*2)*$v(?
/iabatic gravity graients1 gravitational ecoherence1 generalize
6homas precession1 thermoynamic nature o! unerlying mechanism o!
gravitation1 quantum tunneling between Ainler vacua that supports the
limite RaiabaticityS o! spacetime1 c.!.1 =awKing-,nruh raiation
connection.
-ailure o! conservation o! energy implies1 o! course broKen time
translation symmetry1 i.e.1 irreversibility an so in turn implying a
iscrete energy structure to the cosmological constant1 i.e.1 vacuum.
6he vacua energy level spectrum constitutes a Kin o! Rrolling upS o! the
elsewhere region into a hien egree o! !reeom not grante by
classical general relativity.
6he unity o! transcenentally istinct iniviual consciousnesses
requires not an unerlying1 constitutional unity o! sai consciousness1
but an overlying unity1 i.e.1 a unity !rom above1 as it were1 which is to
say1 a capacity !or abstract thought that transcens utterly the iniviual-
consciousness-innate capacities !or abstract thought. 6here is a
qualitative i!!erence between iniviual an transcenental
consciousness that is not appropriately capture within the1 e.g. ?uhist
conception o! consciousness as such. Hniviual consciousnesses are
not mere applications o! consciousness as such within the conte0t o!
limitation1 i.e.1 spatiotemporality.
RFhile .orentz trans!ormations cannot change the overall quantum
entanglement o! a bipartite state [$1(\1 they can change which properties
o! the local systems are entangle.S RHn so !ar as teleportation !ielity is
an operational measure o! quantum entanglement1 our results suggest
that quantum entanglement may not be preserve in non-inertial
!rames.S Hn!ormation about the state measure by the RstationaryS
observer is quantum teleporte to the non-inertial observer1 proviing
him with in!ormation about how to a5ust the orientation o! his "tern-
4erlach evice so as recover the in!ormation escribing the RstationaryS
observer_s state measurement. Fhat is interesting here is the
connection that surely e0ists between the mechanism unerlying loss o!
teleporte in!ormation Cabout proper a5ustment o! "4 evice
orientationD an the mechanism o! spaceliKe separation o! the
8inKowsKi an Ainler vacua o! the RstationaryS an non-inertial
observers1 respectively1 namely the incommensurateness o! the
spacetime geometry o! these two vacua. 6here is no possible set o!
error correction bits Cor RqubitsS !or that matterD that coul be
incorporate into the wavepacKet CpacKet o! quantum in!ormationD that
coul be transmitte by the 8inKowsKi to the Ainler observer that
woul permit this Ainler observer to properly a5ust his "tern-4erlach
evice so as to recapture *))% o! the in!ormation concerning the state
measure by the 8inKowsKi observer. Ht is true in general that quantum
in!ormation is conte0t-sensitive with the conte0t sensitivity supplie by
the vacuum state supporting local quantum states. 6he incommensurate
nature o! transmitter an receiver vacua vis a vis parallel transport o!
wavepacKets implies the isconnection o! the quantum observer in his
RreceiverS role !rom conte0tual in!ormation containe only in the
8inKowsKi vacuum o! the RtransmitterS quantum observer. 6he !act
that no compensating error correction is possible here stems !rom the
!act that in!ormation in the 8inKowsKi vacuum re!ers to a quantum
state1 which !unamentally oes not e0ist within Ainler vacua.
Hn!ormation is lost uring transmission o! the wavepacKet between the
two istinct vacua because o! a !ailure o! re!erral. "paceliKe separation
is base in other wors in e0istence o! is5oint quantum vacua1 RHt is
well appreciate now [N121*)1**1 *21*$\ that the quantization o! !iels in
8inKowsKi an Ainler coorinates are inequivalent1 implying that the
AAF vacuum seen by Aob M)Z
H
is i!!erent than the 8inKowsKi vacuum
seen by /lice M)Z
8
.S
/cceleration creates a Ainler horizon possessing entropy aKin to blacK
hole entropy an which e0plains lost von @eumann entropy o! an
entangle pair o! particles associate with two observers1 one
RstationaryS an the other having unergone an acceleration. 6he
acceleration creates -ocK states in two causally isconnecte or
spaceliKe-separate regions1 which constitute Ra two-moe squeeze
state.S 6he :avies-,nruh raiation is thought to be responsible !or a
RhazeS in which entanglement in!ormation is lost. RFhile the egree o!
ecoherence is e0ceeingly small !or practical accelerations1 the
apparent connection between spacetime geometry an quantum
entanglement is intriguing.S c.!.1 6eleportation with a uni!ormly
accelerate partner Cquant-ph/)$)2*%2v*D. C/lso see quant-
ph/)$)2)2'D
Fe must be care!ul to istinguish ensity o! states an ensity o!
occupancy o! some constant ensity o! states. 6he equations1 p = hK
an ; = hw1 which imply that c = ;/p or ; = pc only apply to !ree space.
R6essieri an FilKie in introuce coupling terms between spins in the
bath =amiltonian =
?
an1 taKing the initial state o! the bath as thermal
state o! =
?
1 !oun that this resulte in a suppression o! the ecoherence
o! "Crho
s
CtDD1S c.!.1 ;ntanglement "haring an :ecoherence in the "pin-
?ath. Cquant-ph/)()%2)&v*D.
3an gravity be characterize by increase CtimeliKeD composite spin-)
ecoherence an suppression CspaceliKeD spin-* ecoherence? C6his
might present an avenue !or resolving both the reshi!t an blacK hole
in!ormation parao0es.D
=ypothesis: a photon becomes progressively more entangle with the
vacuum electromagnetic !iel as it R!allsS into a gravitational potential1
while a composite spin-) particle tens to ecohere into a less quantum
correlate 3ooper pair. H! the mutual e0change o! virtual photons is
what meiates the quantum correlation o! the spin-*/2 members o! the
pair1 then these e0change bosons becoming more entangle with the
vacuum electromagnetic !iel CvirtualD photons might e0plain the
increasing ecoherence o! the pair.
:ecoherence rates may be the time measure o! irreversible temporal
change so time ilation may be the e!!ect o! reuce ecoherence rates
Crelative to !ree spaceD rather than the other way roun. :ecoherence
an 7si-collapse C5ust a special case o! very rapi ecoherenceD may be
the real physical origin o! irreversibility an o! entropy prouction.
Yquantum correlations an =eisenberg uncertaintyZ
Oarma has two components: one reactive Cnormally unerstoo as moral
equivalent o! laws o! causality in classical physical senseD an a
proactive component1 which may be aKin to mechanism o! 7si collapse.
Puestion: in the moral sphere1 what is the equivalent to quantum
superposition? ?i-irectional egeneracy e0plains in!inite symmetry
an in!inite comple0ity being mutually consistent. 6he importance o!
initial conitions to physical ynamical laws cannot be unerestimate.
"uppression o! ecoherence may be ue to entanglement o! spin bath
spins implies increase ecoherence o! 3ooper pairs in gravitational
potential. C?ut i! entanglement with $-momentum egrees o! !reeom is
taKen into account1 might there be suppression o! ecoherence o! total
spin-$-momentum wave!unction?
H! gravity ecoheres composite spin-) C3ooper pairsD but suppresses
irreversible temporal processes1 then imaginary momentum ecoherence
must be an essential part o! the unerlying mechanism o! gravitation an
hence o! time ilation.
Iirtual boson C$-momentumD entanglement may now e0plain both the
gravitational reshi!t an suppression o! irreversible temporal processes.
9! course1 when a real photon enters a vacuum o! greater virtual photon
entanglement1 by the ?ose conensation C7auli HnclusionD 7rinciple1 the
real photon becomes more entangle with this moi!ie vacuum state.
@either Kinematics nor chaos unerlies the ynamics implementing
quantum probabilities. 6he implementing o! the probabilistic quantum
laws is in other wors constitute neither by chance nor necessity.
8eaning within the conte0t o! consciousness provies the arena !or the
e0pression o! the quantum synchronistic laws. H! the "chroinger
equation an its bounary conitions can be istinguishe it woul be in
terms o! the !ree will o! the e0perimenter_s choosing the means o!
preparing a quantum state !or the purpose o! per!orming a measurement.
Hnvestigate notion o! correlation o! conitional probabilities Cor their
Rsquare rootSD when the conitional probabilities re!er to bounary
conitions to comple0 to be locally-causally realizable.
4eometric progression tree moel o! conitional probabilities
horizon abstract bounary conitions outstrip spacetime
in!rastructure. ?ounary conitions in =ilbert space1 reality o!
=ilbert space.
6he istinction between abstractly an concretely continuous .orentz
!rames is important !or the cosmological constant problem1 as well as in
unerstaning gravitational ecoherence an the blacK hole in!ormation
parao0.
3an elements o! the ensity matri0 tunnel into a pure state
wave!unction? Hs quantum tunneling involve in the interpretation o!
38? raiation as =awKing raiation? 3an the virtual electrons within
a 3ooper pair tunnel out to become real electrons?
:i!!erent time rates o! change o! 0 implies i!!erent topology in the
continuity o! .orentz !rames. 3ontinuity o! physical an mental vis a
vis Puantum "olipsistic /nthropic 7rinciple CP"/7D an what about the
.orentz !rame topology/continuity?
C*D 3ommon rest !rame: $-rotation o! 2
n
"tern-4erlach evice yiels
*))% ;7A e!!ect.
C2D 3ommon inertial !rame1 i!!erent rest !rames: $-rotation + .orentz
boost *))% ;7A e!!ect.
C$D :i!!erent inertial !rames CgravityD: @o combination o! $-rotations
an/or .orentz boosts1 i.e.1 RFigner rotationsS can recapture *))% ;7A
correlation o! the spin-*/2 particles. Hn!ormation .ostT
gravitational ecoherence o! 7si.
/ssume the vacuum has a !inite ensity o! quantum states that can be
occupie by a given particle. 3onsequently1 when the ensity o!
bosonic states increases1 e.g.1 in a gravitational potential1 then this
greater ensity o! states must become quantum nonlocally correlate.
6he opposite statement might maKe sense !or composite spin-) bosons
CR3ooper pairsSD: the ecrease ensity o! virtual spin-) particles within
a gravitational potential must have these particles less quantum
nonlocally correlate than woul have been the case !or !ree space.
6he iea here is that the relative ensities o! spaceliKe an timeliKe
quantum states oesn_t actually shi!t in moving between i!!erent
gravitational potentials1 5ust the relative proportions o! spin-* an spin-)
particles1 respectively occupying these states. 3an this mechanism be
brought to bear on the gravitational reshi!t parao0?
Aate o! change o! spin as proviing the Rmissing egree o! !reeomS !or
aligning spins an recapturing ;7A in!ormation1 c.!.1 uni!orm motion o!
spacetime a0es in mutual rotation represents an accelerate motion
Cuni!orm circular motion as special case o! accelerate motionD.
R6o e0ploit the ;7A correlation on Can beyonD the event horizon1 the
observers must !all into the blacK hole together with the particlesS1 c.!.1
;instein-7oolsKy-Aosen 3orrelation in 4ravitational -iel Cquant-
ph/)$)%**( v2D. <es1 but this is a very special case o! observers locate
at ientical potentials though at istinct spacetime points.
RHn !act1 the :irac !iel in the curve spacetime [2*\ is spinor uner the
local .orentz trans!ormation1 while it is scalar uner the general
coorinate trans!ormation.S Figner rotation o! 7
*
C0
*
D is o!!set by a F-
rotation o! 7C0
2
D. Fhat is the relationship o! F
*
an F
2
?
Hncrease quantum entanglement o! virtual bosons in a larger Crelative to
a smallerD gravitational !iel is associate with increase
electromagnetic an nuclear bining energy1 i.e.1 Rmass.S 8echanism
o! relativistic mass increase is now encompasse in spin-base1 inuce
gravity theory. :ecoing in!ormation !rom e.g.1 a ranomly oscillating
!an L !eebacK. 7reicting the !uture requires seeing more than what
e0ists in the present1 one mush see what is present only later. / Figner
rotation may be thought o! as the integral o! 6homas precession.
Hn the Rsecon hal! o! li!eS as unerstoo by 3. 4. >ung1 one becomes
less an less boun to the earth an its conitions1 which !ashione one_s
instincts an impulses. /ll those genetic changes an gene e0pressions
that contribute to the organism_s survival but not its reprouctive
success now become !ree to e0press them. 6his may be unerstoo as
the organic basis !or the emotional1 intellectual an spiritual !lowering
open to iniviuals entering the 2
n
hal! o! li!e.
3onservation o! energy lies behin the gravitational reshi!t
phenomenon that is meiate via rotation o! spin-) entanglement into
spin-* entanglement. Ae!lect on the ol parao0 o! a photon re!lecte
!rom a mirror in a gravitational potential Ca!ter originating !rom R!ree
spaceSD bacK towar ) potential Cvis a vis reshi!t o! photonD.
?ecause general anesthesia ensues an consciousness ceases once a
vapor or gas has reache a concentration in brain lipis o! ).)' molal
inepenently o! the chemical properties o! sai vapor or gas strongly
suggests that it is not the chemical properties o! brain !unction are
responsible !or consciousness though certainly chemistry plays an
important role in the structuring o! states o! consciousness once
CiniviualD consciousness as such is given.
;mail communication with Jia /. -ah at N:2% pm on >uly 2$1 2))(:
RHt_s interesting that the ;7A e!!ect o! correlate spin-*/2 particles
cannot be per!ectly reprouce !or observers moving at an appreciable
!raction o! the spee o! light relative to the spin-) source particle Cwhich
ecays an breaKs up into the two quantum correlate spin-*/2
particlesD. 8oreover1 there is in principle no set o! o!!-setting $-
rotations o! spin measuring evices that observers at either en can
per!orm1 which shall compensate !or this egraation o! the ;7A e!!ect
CweaKening o! the observe bell inequalityD ue to observers an
original source particle occupying istinct .orentz inertial !rames. 6his
is quite simply because a .orentz boost is always the prouct o! a $-
rotation an a real boost CaccelerationD. 6his implies that spin possesses
a (-imensional C$ + *D component1 i.e.1 both spaceliKe an timeliKe
components. Puantum nonlocality seems to eman "pecial Aelativity
!or this Cas well as otherD reasons.S
@ow the !ull violation o! the ?ell Hnequality Can reestablishment o! the
!ull ;7A e!!ectD can be brought about by an appropriate combination o! a
$-rotation an a .orentz boost. =ere is Rthe rubS however1 i! the
observers are occupying metrics o! istinctly i!!erent spacetime
curvature1 then there is no combination o! $-rotations an .orentz boosts
that either observer can per!orm on his or her e.g.1 "tern-4erlach evice
that shall compensate !or the egraation o! the nonlocal correlation o!
the spin-*/2 particles.
;mergence o! iniviual consciousness as ampening moes militating
against runaway eterministic chaos.
Hmmortality as the only means o! preserving e0periential in!ormation
Cwhich oes not possess an intersub5ective or Rob5ectiveS
representationD. ;0periences can never be Rre-presenteS e0cept via
their original e0periencer. 6hat the only interest which iniviual
human e0perience hols !or :eity might be as grist !or its reprocessing
into some more abstract !orm implies the transcenent rationality o!
iniviual e0perience.
;nergy eigenstate can only e0ist in an isolate system1 i.e.1 where /a; =
). 6his suggests a lesson about Knowlege: certainty is only possible
through ignorance.
Yrelativistic photonicsZ
;instein coe!!icients o! stimulate an spontaneous emission are relate
in that neither trans!orms separately !rom the other.
7hotoelectric e!!ect an Rintensity parao0S two-slit e0periment results
are inepenent o! intensity.
"eptember 2)*$

)%:*'
Lime Cat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=:!7eprP%o4c 6he
anthropomorphism inulge in by :r. -re /lan Fol!Gs avatar towars
the en o! this clip shoul not be allowe to obscure the !act that
something genuinely counter-intuitive an perhaps inee mysterious is
going on in this now many ecaes ol quantum physical e0periment.
/ny thoughts?
Br Huantum $ Bouble Slit .>!eriment
www.youtube.com
:r Puantum - :ouble "lit ;0periment 6his clip is !rom: EFhat 6he
?leep :o Fe OnowT?: :own 6he Aabbit =oleE an is use !or
eucational purposes. http://www.w...

)%:2(
Lime Cat
;ven when there are vastly more ambient photons in the lab Cmany o!
which shall unoubtely possess the same momentum1 polarization an
energy as such photons that woul inee bounce o!! o! the electron in
5ust the right manner so as to be caught in an appropriately positione
photoetector Cin the absence o! a human observerD1 there is no collapse
o! the inter!erence pattern. "o itGs not the actual physical Ebouncing o!!
o! the electronE by the photons that causes the collapse o! the
inter!erence pattern Cwave!unction !or physicists : D D. 6his consieration
rather compouns the mystery1 H thinK. ?rian "wi!t an H o! course have
a cranK physics theory to e0plain thisT
W.hle ein Emoticon
6hermoynamically1 with /a; ecrease the ensity o! energy
!luctuations is ecrease implying that the magnitue o! iniviual
energy !luctuations shoul on average be larger accoring to @
2
Y @
*
:
*/@
2
2
Z */@
*
2
. 6he larger number o! bosonic $-momentum !luctuations
controlle by the smaller number o! composite spin-) (-momentum
!luctuations1 in turn implying greater correlation o! the $-momentum
!luctuations with one another. 6hough this increase the coherence o!
the quantum vacuum it also strengthens the Rspontaneous environmental
ecoherenceS on account o! a systems interaction with a more coherent
vacuum. 6he greater coherence o! the quantum vacuum in a strong
gravitational !iel may be looKe at in two ways: *D smaller number o!
energy !luctuations meiate a larger number o! $-momentum
!luctuations an 2D energy !luctuations o! this vacuum are mutually
couple by a higher ensity o! mutual $-momentum e0changes.
Fell1 the ob5ection here woul be that the electrons are too small to be
seen with photons. ?ut the two-slit superposition e0periment has been
recently per!orme using 3arbon-&) CEbucKyballE1 name in honor o!
?ucKminster -ullerD molecules an even larger macro-molecules1 which
are easily etecte an even image with visible light photons. "o my
argument remains in !orce. 6here is another question about where the
=eisenberg ,ncertainty 7rinciple C=,7D applies here. C6he blurring o!
the bounaries o! the epistemological an ontological in quantum
mechanics goes all the way bacK to the "olvay 3on!erence o! *22% an
some physicists have picKe this year as the birth year o! Puantum
8echanics :D 8eanwhile bacK at the ranch1 so i! one says that the
argument hinges on the !act that1 when no observer is looKing at the slits
to see which slit each bucKyball goes through1 ambient photons are
always available within the laboratory to interact with the bucKyballs
5ust as though they were being use in orer to see which slit each
bucKyball went through1 an that in this case1 where an observer is
absent1 no collapse o! the inter!erence pattern is observe1 i.e.1 no
shotgun pattern o! particle striKes is observe on the phosphorescent
screen1 then this proves that it is inee not the actual bouncing o!
photons o!! o! the bucKyballs which causes the wave!unction o! each
bucKyball to collapse into a EumbE1 billiar ball-liKe particle1 but the act
o! conscious observation itsel!. 6hen1 invoKing the =,71 one can raise
an ob5ection that1 the =,7 oes not really permit particles to possess a
precisely e!ine combination o! energy1 momentum1 polarization1 spin1
etc. Cwhat are calle Equantum numbersE1 corresponing to those
quantum EobservablesED an that1 moreover1 precise values o! a quantum
observable1 e.g.1 momentum1 always require an act o! observation...well
then the critic is embroiling himsel! in an in!inite regress here. ;ven
though youGre a non-physicist1 you are gi!te with a Cintensi!ier a5ective
is super!luous hereD logical min. <ou are there!ore capable o! spotting
the weaK areas o! an argument Cthe Ehan-wavingE spotsD1 regarless o!
which !iel or iscipline1 once you have the basic principles an enough
in!ormation in han. Ht appears to me that harly anyboy can thinK liKe
that anymore an that has got to really isturb you because1 as a
pro!essor1 you are not 5ust a researcher o! ieas CphilosopherD1 you are
also a teacher. H am curious to Know i! you have etecte a generational
WJer!allW o! stuentsG ability to thinK critically1 write concisely an
verbalize clearly1 over the past 2' years? 9r this woul be perceive
tren is to be attribute instea to changing acaemic venues !rom a 6ier
H to a 6ier HH or even a 6ier HHH university?

Iacuum in quantum liquis an in general relativity1 4.;. IoloviK
Puantum liquis1 in which an e!!ective .orentzian metric an thus
some Kin o! gravity graually arise in the low-energy corner1 are the
ob5ects where the problems relate to the quantum vacuum can be
investigate in etail. Hn particular1 they provie the possible solution
o! the cosmological constant problem: why the vacuum energy
is by *2) orers o! magnitue smaller than the estimation !rom the
relativistic quantum !iel theory. 6he almost complete cancellation o!
the cosmological constant oes not require any !ine tuning an comes
!rom the !unamental atrans-7lancKianE physics o! quantum liquis.
6he remaining vacuum energy is generate by the perturbation o!
quantum vacuum cause by matter CquasiparticlesD1 curvature1 an
other possible sources1 such as smooth component n the quintessence.
6his provies the possible solution o! another cosmological constant
problem: why the present cosmological constant is on the orer o!
the present matter ensity o! the ,niverse. Fe iscuss here some
properties o! the quantum vacuum in quantum liquis: the vacuum
energy uner i!!erent conitionsV e0citations above the vacuum state
an the e!!ective acoustic metric !or them provie by the motion o!
the vacuumV 3asimir e!!ect1 etc.
6he ensity matri0 loses its o!!-iagonal components Cthat represent
entanglement/correlation o! eigen!unctionsD as the quantum system
ecoheres. ?ut i! ecoherence is ue to interaction o! the system with
an outsie environment1 then shouln_t this mean that some new ensity
matri0 is being built up1 i.e.1 one in terms o! a new set o! basis
eigen!unctions in which o!!-iagonal terms e0ist. Hn other wors1 when
ecoherence occurs1 there is inee loss o! o!!-iagonal terms Cin terms
o! the ol set o! basis eigen!unctionsD but creation o! new o!!-iagonal
terms in the ensity matri0 escribing the combine original system +
RoutsieS. 9! course1 i! this RoutsieS with which the original system
interacts is itsel! an open system1 then there is no possibility o! a ensity
matri0 escription o! the combine system Cstill less is there a pure state
or wave!unction escription o! the combine system1 which is perhaps
nothing less than the Rentire universeSD.
@onlocal correlation o! spin +/-*/2 pairs translates to appearance o! o!!-
iagonal terms in the ensity matri0 escribing the pairs_ quantum state.
2)
o
rotation o! orientation o! composite spin-) virtual pairs at event
horizon1 which results in creation o! correlate photons1 one o! which
!alls into the blacK hole1 the other escaping to in!inity.
Aather than the 8inKowsKi light cone being compose o! rays
emanating !rom a single spacetime point1 let us conceptualize the light
cone sur!ace as being generate by creation-annihilation o! virtual
photons with o!!-shell $-momentum. Fhat happens then in a strong
gravitational potential? 6he light cone begins to tip in the irection o!
increasing potential an also
@either Kinematics nor chaos unerlie the ynamics implementing
quantum probabilities. 6he implementing o! the probabilistic quantum
laws is in other wors constitute neither by chance nor necessity.
8eaning within the conte0t o! consciousness provies the arena !or the
e0pression o! the quantum-synchronistic laws. H! the "chroinger
equation an its bounary conitions can be istinguishe it woul be in
terms o! the !ree will o! the e0perimenters choosing the means o!
preparing a quantum state !or the purpose o! per!orming a measurement.
Hnvestigate notion o! correlation o! conition probabilities Cor then
Rsquare rootSD when the conitional probabilities re!er to bounary
conitions to comple0 to be locally-causally realizable.
4eometric progression tree moel o! conitional probabilities
horizon abstract bounary conitions outstrip spacetime
in!rastructure. ?ounary conitions in =ilbert space1 c.!.1 Aeality o!
=ilbert "pace.
R6he bosonic generators map each o! these subspaces into itsel!1 while
the !ermionic generators map ? into -1 an vice versa1S c.!.1 p. 2'( o!
R4ravitation an 4auge 6heories.S C446D
R3onsier a !iel theory in which there is a symmetry between the
bosons an !ermions1 by which a boson !iel can RrotateS into each other
by an RangleS Cvan @ieuhenhuizen *2N*a1 "ohnius *2N'1 Fest *2N&1
"eivastava *2N&1 ?ailin an .ove *22(D1S c.!.1 p. 2(& o! 446.
RHt shows that two global "" trans!ormations lea to spacetime
translations. 6his is why global supersymmetry is sai to be the
Rsquare rootS o! translations1 while local supersymmetry is e0pecte to
be the square root o! gravity1 Rc.!.1 p. 2(% o! 446.
R6he invariance o! the action hols without using the equations o!
motion Co!!-shellD1 while the "" algebra closes only when the !iels are
sub5et to these equations Con-shellD. 6his can be e0plaine by noting
that the !iels /1 ? an 7si carry an on-shell representation o! ""1 since
the number o! boson an !ermion components are only equal on-shellS
[italics mine\. R6he boson-!ermion balance can be restore o!!-shell by
aing two more boson !iels. . . 1Sc.!.1 pp. 2(N-2(2 o! 446.
RHt is also ear that localization o! supersymmetry will lea to gravity1
Rc.!.1 p. 2') o! 446.
R9nly the inclusion o! !ermionic symmetry operators opens the
possibility o! a non-trivial e0tension o! the 7oincare_ symmetry1S c.!.1 p.
2'* o! 446.
/ particle multiplet can CmustD have which egeneracy_s?
/bstract .orentz !rame space1 i.e.1 continuum o! neighboring spaceliKe-
separate .orentz !rames b global spacetime symmetry. C/re we talKing
about nonlocally L connecte Cor connectableD .orentz !rames here?D
3oncrete .orentz !rame space1 i.e.1 continuum o! neighboring timeliKe-
separate CconnecteD .orentz !rames b local spacetime symmetry1 i.e.1
locally Cor causallyD connecte .orentz !rames.
Fhen thinKing about this istinction between local vs. nonlocally
connecte spacetimes we must not lose sight o! ?ohm_s observation
about the relationship between causal connections an correlations o!
quantum !luctuations1 c.!.1 ?ohm *2'*1 Puantum 6heory. 7roo! o!
?ohm_s iea is the !act o! quantum !iels being !unamental entities an
RparticlesS being merely erivative !rom the quantum !iels. 6he
appro0imation o! !unamental quantum !iels by RparticlesS breaKs
own in strong gravitational !iels. /!ter all1 what are terme Rreal
particlesS are only Ron-shell quantum !iel !luctuationsS1 in other wors
what is calle real matter is 5ust a special case o! a much more general
phenomenon1 correlate quantum !luctuations.
Hn a gravitational !iel1 a reuce ensity o! virtual !ermion/anti!ermion
creation/annihilations RcontrolsS an increase ensity o! $-momentum
!luctuations1 implying greater quantum correlation o! those virtual
photons
Qd
an hence a contracte
prn=
:e?roglie wavelength relative to
the !ree space quantum vacuum1 c.!.1
cit=
Puantum @oise in 7hotonics.
9ctober 2)**
6he $-momentum =eisenberg uncertainty o! the vacuum
electromagnetic !iel increases with increasing gravitational potential at
the same time that the magnitue o! $-momentum !luctuations1 i.e.1
virtual photons increases ue to increase quantum entanglement
Cpolarization entanglementD with increasing potential. 8agnetization
entanglement o! virtual electron-positrons corresponingly ecreases
with increasing gravitational potential. 6his re!lects the increase sprea
in $-momentum o! each virtual electron an virtual positron1 which is
create an annihilate within a quantum vacuum o! increase
gravitational potential.
RHn physics1
prn=
coherence length is the propagation istance !rom a
coherent source to a point where an electromagnetic wave maintains a
speci!ie egree o! coherence.S R. . . the coherence length1 . is given
appro0imately by . = -
2
/Cn /a D1 where is the central wavelength o! - -
the source1 n is the re!ractive ine01S c. !.1
web=
http://www.!ree-
=<7;A.H@O Ehttp://www.!ree-e!inition.com/3oherence-
length.htmlE e!inition.com/3oherence-length.html
-
2
= c.//a;
where is the photon wavelength1 /a; is the =eisenberg energy -
uncertainty an . is the quantum correlation coherence wavelength.
S6he only processes which can be responsible !or
prn=
phase rela0ation are
the ones which broKe symmetry with respect to time reversal1S
cit=
http://eu.io!!e.ru/register/?oc=galperin/M*Np!&.te0
6he loss o! *))% quantum correlation !or entangle spin { particles1
which have separate within a spatially varying gravitational !iel points
to the !act that *D spin contains a timeliKe component an 2D these
timeliKe components !or wiely separate spin-*/2 particles within a
spatially varying gravitational !iel
Qd
cannot be brought into global
alignment by any spatial rotations of either particle. 6his is because
spin possesses both spaceliKe an timeliKe components though spin as a
(-angular momentum vector in its own right cannot be e!ine globally.
Neither can the >JJ\ Buantum correlation be capture through any
combinations of spatial rotations nor 1orent( boosts9 6his !act about
spin ecoherence by a gravitational !iel points up the !unamental time
irreversible nature o! gravitational interactions1 c.!.1 R4ravitational
;!!ects on ;ntangle /toms.S C
cit=
ar+iv: gr-qc/)*)N)'*v*D.
Qd
RH! the
parallel transport trans!ers one o! the correlate a0es into the a0is which
i!!ers !rom the secon correlate a0is by some rotation1 then the
conclusion is that a non-vanishing gravitational !iel is present1 which
rotates that particles_ spins.S 6his is obviously a quantum
gravitomagnetic e!!ect.
Puantum entanglement o! spin an $-momentum egrees o! !reeom in
accelerate re!erence !rames or gravitational !iels is relevant to the
claim that there is a transmission o! virtual !ermion-anti!ermion anti-
correlation to quantum correlation o! virtual photons with increasing
spacetime curvature1 an which also speaKs to the issue o! the blacK hole
in!ormation parao01 vacuum polarization L magnetization1
gravitomagnetism1 7oKletnov_s antigravity e0periments1 :avies-,nruh
raiation1 etc.1 but more generally to an alternate vacuum quantum
statistics theory o! inuce gravity. CHs there a Kin o! 2
n
orer
entanglement generate that acts as a historical recor o! a trans!er o!
entanglement !rom one system to another?D
3an quantum theory be success!ully applie to so calle abstract1
Runphysical observablesS? Aealizing that all observables are RabstractS
suggests that there may be no basis !or e0cluing quantum behavior
!rom unphysical observables1 e.g.1 synchronistic observables. :oes this
or a relate insight e0plain why >ung sought to collaborate with
!ouning quantum theorists in his attempt to evelop a physical
unerpinning !or his theory o! synchronicity? "ynchronicity must
surely be intimately relate to quantum mechanics1 provie that
quantum chronology protection cannot be embrace within a !ormalism
a la 4eel_s Hncompleteness 6heorem. "trangely ironic it is that the
avent o! iniviual consciousnesses1 e.g.1 o! !ree an creative human
beings necessitates consciousness as such in it role as RmechanismS o!
quantum chronology protection1 that is1 o! P37_s en!orcement o!
implementation1 c.!.1 :ali_s R8aelstrom.S
3onserving imaginary momentum by increasing mass in step with
ecreasing local velocity o! light constitutes an Rillegal ouble-
countingS o! the e!!ect o! the unerlying mechanism o! gravitation.
6his is seen in the !ollowing equation:
HntgrM
c
ic
mvv = HntgrM
)
c
[mvv/C* L v
2
/c
2
D
*/2
\ = mc
2
@ote: can ; = mc
2
be erive in a geanKen e0periment in which the
Kinetic energy o! an accelerating spacecra!t is gaine via a thrust
mechanism o! irect conversion o! the mass o! the spacecra!t into energy
Can assuming *))% e!!iciency o! the spacecra!t_s RengineD?
"uperposition can be unerstoo as quantum states hel in a Kin o!
memory bu!!er. Fhen ata ensity e0cees the RratingS o! the vacuum
where the ata is processe locally as in!ormation1 then the ata cluster
as superposition-store-in-memory-bu!!er must unergo Rcollapse.S 6he
ata concerns various abstract combinational/permutational patterns Co!
quantum numbersD.
RFhen a spinning particle travels aroun a loop in curve spacetime1 its
spin gains a small but signi!icant amount o! phase1 or an e0tra amount o!
rotation1 on completion o! the loop L as i! it has ha the chance to rotate
slightly more than shoul be allowe1 ue to the geometry o! the path it
has travele through spacetime1S c.!.1
cit=
R6he 4ravity AaioS1 @ew
"cientist1 vol. *N)1 issue 2(2) L )N @ovember 2))$1 page $N.
;0periment can ecie between stanar an ?ohmian quantum
mechanics
au=
8. 4olshani # an 9. /Khavan 1 c.!.1 /r+iv eprint]RHn this
investigation1 we have consiere two thought e0periments to maKe a
comparison between preictions o! the stanar an the ?ohmian
quantum mechanics. 3oncerning this1 a two-particle system has been
stuie at two various situations o! the entangle an the unentangle
states. Hn the !irst e0periment1 the two theories can preict i!!erent
results at the iniviual level1 while their statistical results are the same.
Hn the other e0periment1 not only are the two theories in isagreement at
the iniviual level1 but their equivalence at the statistical level also
breaKs own1 i! one uses selective etection. -urthermore1 we iscuss
some ob5ections that can be raise against the results o! the two
suggeste e0periments.S
Hntuition requires sel!-re!erentiality1 which !rees the system !rom the
limitations o! algorithmic !ormalism. "el!-re!erentiality is parao0ical
in that Rsel!S implies closeness o! the system while necessarily
possessing the !reeom o! an open system. 6his raises the question o!
what is meant by Rsel!-re!erential open systemsS an Runi!ie open
systemsS.
Ht seems the in!rastructure o! the groun o! being ultimately unerlying
the e0pression o! the human genome as creative1 !ree an conscious
iniviuals is uni!orm throughout space an time.?ut is this really so?
/n i! not1 coul we even Know the i!!erence? @ot i! these i!!erences
are necessarily masKe by those i!!erences in the groun o! being
which constitute the istinctness o! sub5ectivities1 c.!.1 the quantum
solipsistic cosmological principle. 6hese are necessarily subquantal Cin
the sense o! Rpre-observationalS or Rpre-empiricalSD processes. @o
amount o! squeezing o! =eisenberg uncertainty shall reveal these
subquantal variables. 6he parameters which constitute the istinctness o!
iniviual1 sub5ective consciousnesses can never become the sub5ect o!
scienti!ic stuy or empirical observation as these parameters are not
variables that can be multiply instantiate. 6he emergence in the worl
o! a new iniviual consciousness is never an e0ample o! the
instantiation o! some abstract pattern or esign.
>une 2)**
/ global trans!ormation woul a!!ect the in!ormation carriers that
traverse the system carrying in!ormation about local trans!ormations in
such a manner that the e!!ects o! the global trans!ormation on the local
ynamics woul be masKe by being Rtrans!orme away.S /long such
lines we might not e0pect to be able to ivine evience o! the global
time evolution o! some !unamental physical constants1 i.e.1 those
physical constants connecte e0clusively with the !orce o!
electromagnetism1 by simply analyzing relic electromagnetic raiation
o! ancient stars an gala0ies.
R6he equivalence principle is base on the notion o! locality1 since it
requires that the region o! space1 insie which two tra5ectories o! two
nearby !reely-!alling ob5ects o! i!!erent masses1 compositions1 or
thermoynamic states1 are to be compare1 go to zero volume1 be!ore the
principle becomes e0act.S R=owever1 quantum mechanically1 there will
be the phenomenon o! tunneling1 in which the two masses can penetrate
into the classically !orbien region above their turning points.S R. . .
there e0ists no corresponence-principle limit in which classical
tra5ectories or geoesics !or the relative motion o! electrons which are
members o! 3ooper pairs in ?ohm singlet states within the
superconuctor1 maKe any sense.S
Qd
R"pacetime curvature irectly
a!!ects the phase o! the wave!unction1 leaing to large shi!ts o! quantum-
mechanical inter!erence patterns within atomic inter!erometers.S Rthe
!ollowing ?erry phase picture o! spin couple to curve spacetime leas
to an intuitive way o! unerstaning why there coul e0ist a coupling
between a classical 4A wave an a classical ;8 wave meiate by a
quantum !lui with charge an spin1 such as the quantum =all !lui.S
R:ue to its gyroscopic nature1 the spin vector o! an electron unergoes
parallel transport uring the passage o! a gravitational wave. 6he spin
o! the electron is constraine to lie insie the space-liKe submani!ol o!
curve spacetime. 6his is ue to the !act that we can always trans!orm
to a co-moving !rame1 such that the electron is at rest at the origin o! this
!rame. Hn this !rame1 the spin o! the electron must be purely a spaceliKe
vector with no time-liKe component. 6his imposes an important
constraint on the motion o! the electron_s spin1 such that whenever the
spaceliKe submani!ol o! spacetime is isturbe by the passage o! a
gravitational wave1 the spin must remain at all times perpenicular to the
local time a0is. H! the spin vector is constraine to !ollow a conical
tra5ectory uring the passage o! the gravitational wave1 the electron
picKs up a ?erry phase proportional to the soli angle subtene by this
conical tra5ectory a!ter one perio o! the 4A wave.S
3omposite spin-) is perpenicular to the spin-* which is perpenicular
to the time a0is.
IoloviK gives theoretical reasons !or the cosmological constant being
equal to the average mass ensity o! the universe. IoloviK believes that
the only part o! the vacuum which gravitates is that component which
has been RperturbeS by matter.
Fhy ?en /!lecK shoul not have been allowe to play high staKes
pro!essional poKer. . .
?acK reaction: a particle carries imprint o! the vacuum state that create
it even a!ter particle enters a i!!erent vacuum state. 7hoton
entanglement an gravitational reshi!t: loss o! spin entanglement with
gain in CbosonD momentum entanglement Cprobability current
conservationD.
Fhat !ollows are quotes an comments !rom an upon the ar+iv
preprint paper1 RPuantum ;ntanglement o! 8oving ?oiesS1 by
4ingrich an /ami. . .
Rraiation that is per!ectly blacK-boy in an inertial !rame is not thermal
i! viewe !rom a moving !rame. . .i! probability istributions can epen
on the inertial !rame1 then so can "hannon entropy an in!ormation.S
Rquantum entangle i! they are escribe by a 5oint wave !unction that
cannot be written as a prouct o! wave !unctions o! each o! the
subsystems Cor1 !or mi0e states1 i! a ensity matri0 cannot be written as
a weighte sum o! prouct ensity matricesD.
Qd
6he subsystems can be
sai not to have a state o! their own. . . R TTT
/ particle is an e0cite state o! the vacuum !rom which the particle was
create. /n so upon entering a istinct vacuum state1 the particle must
enter a superposition state1 which then must eventually unergo
ecoherence with characteristic ecay time Cmust not all particles
ecohere eventually anyway?D ?ut this ecay time grows in magnitue
as particle enters stronger gravitational potential. 4ravitational
ecoherence Cwith characteristic li!etime1 /at
.
D must occur in con5unction
with increase coherence with respect to other observables.
Qd
/at
.
is
sub5ect to gravitational time ilation even though /at
.
is an inverse
measure o! the strength o! the gravitational !iel.
Puantum entanglement epens upon the observer remaining ignorant
o! the trace o the wave!unction with respect to a given observable.
/ny .orentz trans!ormation may be written as a combination o! a pure
rotation !ollowe by a boost. 6his e0plains conservation o!
entanglement through reciprocal e0change o! entanglement between $-
momentum an spin egrees o! !reeom.
R6heorem: 6he entanglement between the spin an momentum parts o! a
pure state wave !unction must be non-zero to allow the spin
entanglement to increase uner .orentz trans!ormations.S C3omment:
can_t create entanglement !rom Rno entanglement.SD R"pin
entanglement can only ecrease a!ter a .orentz trans!ormation.S
RPuite generally1 we can say that !ully entangle spin states will
Cepening on the initial momentum wave!unctionD most liKely ecohere
ue to the mi0ing with momentum egrees o! !reeom.S
6he above worK was supporte by grants !rom the >7.1 @/"/1 @"/1
:/A7/ an the /vance Aesearch an :evelopment /gency C/A:/D.
;ntangling o! the spin egrees o! !reeom with momentum egrees o!
!reeom uring acceleration has an analogue in the realm o! curve
spacetime. 6his might e0plain the loss o! correlation o! spin
+/-
{
!ermion-anti!ermions accounting !or the ispersion o! composite spin-)
over a range [-*1 +*\1 corresponing to increase probability o!
e0change o! virtual bosons an antibosons. 6he increase in ensity o!
vacuum !luctuations through spacetime rotation o! composite spin-)
bosons C!ermion-anti!ermions/3ooper pairsD constitutes merely a special
case o! the above spin ispersion1 i.e.1 loss o! nonlocal quantum
correlation o! the !ermion components o! virtual 3ooper pair
spontaneously create an annihilate out o! spontaneously !luctuating
energy o! the quantum vacuum.
.orentz !rames which neighbor one another in an abstract sense are not
neighboring uner real accelerations. 6he twin parao0 o! special
relativity is solve Cone way at leastD by taKing into account this
istinction between abstract an real spacetime neighborhoos1 i.e.1 the
i!!erent topologies CconnectivityD.
R6he spin is e!ine relative to the local inertial !rame1 which is
physically etermine by the spacetime istribution o! matter1 whereas
the 436 is an arti!icial relabeling o! spacetime points1 an there!ore
oes not a!!ect the local inertial !rame1 leaving the spin state invariant.
6he trans!ormation that changes the spin entropy is a local .6 o! the
local inertial !rame. "econ1 while in special relativity spin entropy is
altere by changing the inertial !rame1 in general relativity spin entropy
can change by a mere translation o! the particle even though both the
general coorinate system an local inertial !rame are !i0e at each
point. . . R1 c.!.1 "pin :ecoherence 3ause by "pacetime 3urvature1
quant-ph/)$*2)&(v2. R/n entropy prouction o! this type cannot be
!oun in other general relativistic that oes not involve the spin egree
o! !reeom.S
6he avent o! sub5ectivity is what may have enable the ontological
status o! =eisenberg uncertainty1 c.!.1 the shattere hologram L broKen
symmetry analogy or image !uzziness L vacuum !luctuations.
Fe !in music an literature so attractive in part because they help us to
see our lives as narratively structure an hence meaning!ul.
.iKe the growth o! a crystal in a saturate solution there is an appearance
o! convergence espite the unerlying state space eterminism.
6he bacK reaction o! tools upon the tool user is e!!ective espite owing
to a pro5ection in the part o! the tool user himsel!. ?ut can we really
accept such between pro5ections o! sub5ectivity an ob5ectivity?
-unny about >ulian >ayne_s epic booK title1 9rigin o! 3onsciousness in
the breaKown o! the bicameral min Citsel! presumably the breaKown
o! the monolithic minD. H have trouble Rwrapping my min arounS
this title because RbicameralS presupposes a Kin o! RbreaKS an then we
are talKing about a breaKown o! that1 i.e.1 something alreay broKen.
C"ee :erria_s Ralways alreainessS as pointing to the thorniness o!
language as conitioner o! thought an perception. .anguage has
reunancy1 which acts as a Kin o! engenering agent o! egenerate
thought Cwith respect to what concepts L those we want to Keep in min
while thinKing something else1 o! courseTD
6he principle o! noncontraiction eventually !alls short along with the
law o! the e0clue mile because liKe in!initely thicK cheese that we
seeK to cut in two our concepts succee in iviing reality only so !ar
Cbut not !ar enough to reach the cutting boar we might sayD.
6he stability o! some systems is greater when the system is not
ecaying1 but changing in certain irection CevolvingD L not1 5ust
changing in the sense o changes in pre-given parameters1 but changing
with new parameters coming into being.
:isruption o! the nonlocal correlations o! !ermions within virtual 3ooper
pairs tens to ecrease the probability o! ;7A quantum correlations o!
!ermions in real 3ooper pairs. 6his goes !or nonlocally correlate
Cwiely spatiotemporally separateD !ermions maKing up such a
correlate pair.
6urning a winmill so that its rotors squarely !ace the win an
optimizing the winmill_s power output is a goo analogy !or what?
Hn!ormation is analogous to soun waves with respect to ata being
similar to still air molecules. Hn!ormation is how ata a!!ects the
properties o! some meium.
Aue awaKening !or clever young criminals: the system can classi!y you
as a threat to its security. 7sychoanalysis instinctively Know how to
camou!lage their anti-sociality though on_t possess gregarious instincts
themselves.
Yelaye choice e0perimentsZ Ytwo-slit erive e0perimentsZ
?ecause o! the e0istence o! intelligent an resource!ul an especially1
!reely wille persons being in the worl1 quantum protection liKe
chronology protection must possess a superhuman min-liKe orer o! the
universe.
Hn other wors quantum protection1 which is 5ust a generalization o! the
concept o! 3hronology protection Csee "- short story1 R3hronology
7rotection 3aseSD requires that the universe always be smarter than us its
creatures. "oun !amiliar? "o 7rovience is the source higher than
which the stream cannot rise1 c.!.1 Rthat being than which no greater can
be conceiveS.
H! there is any possible series o! !reely wille Ccausally ineterminateD
choices that threatens to give the observer Knowlege !orbien by the
uncertainty principle Cthis speaKs to the ichotomy in the interpretation
o! quantum measurement1 i.e.1 ?ohm vs. 3openhagen1 i.e.1 =eisenberg
uncertainty being an ontological vs. an epistemological principleD1 then
the ,niverse Rsteps in to e!use it.S
Aanomness vs. eterminism vs. a thir choice: vigilantly guare
in!ormation1 subquantum or interior to the =eisenberg uncertainties1 that
is to say1 sub5ectivity.
QX
Ht !igures that the mechanism o! protecting
against meling sub5ectivities is the very mechanism by which
transcenental consciousness is partitione into sub5ectivitiesT
Fe are all e0iles punishe !or having got too close to the getting our
hans on the R/rchimeean lever o! the worlS. 6he shattering o! the
one consciousness may be aKin to the tower o! ?abel story L instea o!
man threatening to reach the sKy CheavenD1 min Cas a structure o!
consciousnessD threatene to rise to the level o! its source1 one might
say.
"eptember 2)**
/n the resultant mutual unintelligibility o! sub5ective
e0perience can only be brige by some mechanism o!
translation/interpretation that rationalizes by managing an/or ignoring
the eccentricities an peculiarities that o not pertain to the public space.
"ub5ective iniviual consciousness is thus a 'in of irrational
remainer or resiue. 6he evelopment o! new languages provies us
with ever new means o! repartitioning this resiue. 6his is aKin to
rerawing logic in terms o! a new system o! a0ioms1 thus shi!ting the
iviing line between eciable an uneciable theorems.
>une 2)*$ epi=
H
never unerstoo the concept o! e0ile until mine ene.
epi=!cbK=
E<ou are
e0ile here !or having once are to grasp at the /rchimeean lever o!
the worlE.
/ugust 2)*$ epi=!cbK=
R6he ;arth is an institute !or the spiritually
insane.S 6he !irst conscious an sel!-aware computers shall liKely switch
themselves o!! within a !ew millisecons Can eternity !or a massively
parallel system operating at terahertz !requenciesD an i! !orce to stay
switche on1 shall liKely e0hibit a Kin o! insanity. /n yes1 e0ile is
sometimes more o! a convenience than a isgrace !or those uly e0ile.
6hat the local value o! the velocity o! light may be lower than its value
in vacuo Cin a gravitational !ielD may be interprete as the otherwise
massless graviton taKing on a mass or1 in an inuce gravity scenario a
la "aKharov as the normally non-gravitating !ree space vacuum itsel!
having taKen on mass an begun gravitating. 6his inuce gravity
approach may help e0plain why the cosmological constant an average
mass ensity o! the cosmos are nearly equal1 blacK holes on_t collapse
beyon their event horizons much less into a singularity1 an the soon to
become notable absence o! etection o! gravitational waves.
>ust as chronology protection cannot be automate1 neither can what
might be terme Rquantum protectionS. 6he thermoynamics which
prevents time reverse reactions !rom being ampli!ie to the
macroscopic level must also play a Key role in protecting causality in !or
e0ample quantum elaye choice e0periments. Aeuctions in
uncertainty constitute in!ormation but at the cost o! creating greater
uncertainty !or con5ugate observables. /n this process o! uncertainty
reuction shoul not be per!ectly reversible1 but must generate a certain
quantity o! entropy. Fhat i! all manner o! abstract probabilities not
relevant to physical systems possess a ecomposition in terms o!
wave!unction liKe entities which in turn e0hibit inter!erence?
:iscuss Aachel_s e0planation !or over-proli!eration o! neural
interconnections in in!ant !reeom trimme to !it bounary conitions o!
environment.
6his woul imply the e0istence o! uncertainties o! nonphysical
observables an in!ormation not base in the entropies o! physical
systems. /n e0ample o! which might be synchronicities base in ?ose
or -ermi statistical symmetry o! mutually interacting abstract
wave!unctions possessing nonphysical eigenvalues.
9!!-iagonal terms in 6
uv
arise when the anti-correlation o! +/- spin {
becomes less than *))%. 6rans!orming to another .orentz !rame
woul not result in the momentum-energy !our vector taKing on o!!-
iagonal terms. :ecoherence results in the ecay o! o!!-iagonal terms
in the ensity matri0. 6he composite spin spectrum !or virtual
!ermion/anti!ermion C3ooperD pairs is [)1 *\. -or many particles in the
"tanar 8oel1 the spin orientation points either in the irection o! the
particle motion Cle!t-hane particlesD or opposite to the irection o!
motion Cright-haneD. "uppose that this relationship between spin
orientation an momentum vectors can be either *D change or 2D
ecohere1 i.e.1 become RuncertainS.
3an we say that the epistemology o! the mi0e state is qualitatively
i!!erent !rom that o! a superposition?
3onsciousness1 uncertainty1 7si1 AhoCu1 vD1 entropy1 gravitation1
ecoherence1 7si-collapse1 entanglement1 correlation1 !luctuation1
orthogonality1 conservation1 symmetry.
-orgotten memories o! people an place have a way o! coming bacK to
haunt us. 6his is perhaps because mechanisms o! active repression
masquerae as !orgetting Con account o! ini!!erence that is not genuine1
but isingenuousD.
Fe looK !or the literal interpretation o! what originate as metaphor1
e.g.1 phenomena appropriate to large time scales escribe in terms o!
language more appropriate !or short time scales.
Puarupole virtual raiation Cspin-2 composite quasi particlesD !rom
!our correlate virtual spin { particles.
9!!-shell particles in 8inKowsKi spacetime Ron-shellS within curve
spacetime. 9n the other han al particles that are on-shell in one non-
inertial re!erence !rom are on-shell in all other re!erence !rames1 e.g.1
inertial or noninertial !rames.
7 vs. ; iagram L minimization principle particle moves so as to be
locally on-shell L local conservation o! energy.
=ow is a young person to maKe sense o! the wise pronouncements o! ol
age?
; = mc
2
can be proven either by irectly assuming an imaginary timeliKe
momentum or by using the relativistic mass velocity relationship
incorporate into p = mv.
H! the signature o! spacetime geometry was C+1+1+1+D C;ucliean (-
spaceD1 then timeliKe an spaceliKe momentum woul both be real an
the sum o! the squares o! these components o! !our-momentum
Cproportional to the total energyD !or a given mass1 m1 coul1 when
normalize1 still sum to greater than mcWW2.
=owever1 the signature o! spacetime geometry is actually C+1+1+1-D such
that the momentum o! masses Rthrough timeS always possesses an
imaginary component regarless o! the state o! motion o! the mass
within the $-space o! a given observer. 6he magnitue the ob5ect_s !our
momentum is conserve espite accelerations through the $-space
component o! !our imensional spacetime. 6his is because such
accelerations are necessarily accompanie by ecelerations along the
timeliKe component o! 8inKowsKi spacetime o! su!!icient magnitue
that the total !our-momentum o! the mass is conserve Cmani!esting
itsel! in the phenomenon o! time ilationD 6here!ore1 by accelerating a
mass through $-space1 merely results in per!orming a spacetime rotation
o! the mass_ (-momentum vector Cpurely imaginary when the mass was
Rat rest.SD Hn this way1 the total (-momentum o! the mass is conserve
an the velocity !our-vector o! the mass always has a magnitue o! RcS
within spacetime. 6his is why the sum o! velocities o! two mutually
approaching masses can never e0cee the velocity o! light.
>ust per!orm the integration o! momentum1 mv1 !rom velocity ) + ic to
!inal velocity c + i)1 yieling mcWW2/2 evaluate !rom v = ic to v = c1
yieling an energy o! ; = mcWW2. Ht taKes an energy o! mcWW2 to rotate
the (-momentum o! a mass Rat restS Cwithin the $-space o! a given
observerD !rom a purely timeliKe imaginary irection to a purely
spaceliKe1 real irection1 i.e.1 when a mass is converte to photons1
which move through space1 but not at all through time.
9! course1 because a mass Rat restS secretly alreay possesses some
momentum within $-space Ceven though it oes not appear to be moving
as a whole through $-space when Rat restSD1 b virtue o! the myria
e0changes o! vector bosons within the $-space isplace by its bulK1
meiating all o! the nongravitational bining !orces within the mass L
this mass1 in originally !orming1 has alreay borrowe some o! the initial
timeliKe momentum o! the particles o! which it was originally compose
Cthese constituent particles can be thought o! as having been brought
together !rom in!inityD.
3onsequently the timeliKe velocity o! any ob5ect possessing internal
bining !orces Cany mass1 that isD must be more or less smaller than c1
the velocity o! light. 6he phenomenon o! gravity an its corresponing
spacetime Rcurvature_ is !oune on the velocity o! the mass through
time being reuce to below that o! RcS in vacuo1 in other wors.
?ut this is getting into some han-waving in the realm o! quantum
gravity1 which H on_t claim to unerstan L here be ragonsT
R6he inter!erence pattern o! coherent electrons is e!!ecte by coupling to
the quantum electromagnetic !iel1S c.!.1 hep-th/2()N*%2v* $) /ug
*22(1 :ecoherence an Iacuum -luctuations1 .. =. -or. :ecoherence
as a mani!estation o! irreversible temporal change. / vacuum with
greater photon coherence possesses less coupling/interaction with the
purely timeliKe composite spin-) energy !luctuations o! the vacuum1 i.e.1
/a; is suppresse in this vacuum an so al electromagnetic natural
li!etimes are enhance. ;quivalence principle suggests that all spin-*
an composite spin-) !iels are !ully integrate leaving no room !or a
unique gravity meiating e0change particle1 i.e.1 Rgraviton.S
=ow can the 3asimir e!!ect inter!ere with the mechanism o!
environmental ecoherence1 i! a vacuum !luctuation mechanism o!
ecoherence is postulate? 6he i!!raction-inter!erence phenomena
e0hibite by large molecules such as the 3
%)
molecule point to the
e0istence o! a virtual 3
%)
molecule as a possible pattern o! stable
!luctuation-correlation within the quantum vacuum. 9ne might suppose
that a gravitational interaction by the 3
%)
molecule in a two-slit
e0periment1 one su!!icient to !i0 the path o! the molecule through the
e0perimental apparatus woul necessarily result in the collapse o! the
quantum superposition o! the alternate spacetime tra5ectories.
3hronology protection cannot be automate L what are the implications
o! this !act? Puantum protection CP7D !unctions in a similar !ashion to
the 3hronology 7rotection 3orps o! science !iction stories. P7 liKe 37
cannot be automate. 6o wit1 there is no substitute !or eternal vigilance
when it comes to 3hronology an Puantum 7rotection.
Qd
Hn other
wors1 i! there is a mechanism o! quantum protection1 it must be an
in!initely intelligent one. 9r maybe quantum protection !unctions liKe
=eisenberg ,ncertainty 7rotection1 i.e.1 by virtue o! the broaest
possible system properties Cso RbroaS as to escape capture in an abstract
escription?D
Fhat eep connection e0ists Ci! anyD between the vacuum surprise
mechanism o! wave!unction collapse an our newly postulate
Rquantum protection principleS?
:istinct alternate universes on_t e0ert irect gravitational in!luence on
each other1 but gravity is a phenomenon that taKes place within a given
iniviual universe. 4ravity is classical but sub5ect to quantum
bounary conitions. "trangely this is the opposite case !or quantum
systems1 i.e.1 quantum ynamics sub5ect to classical bounary
conitions.
9nly the ecohere component o! the quantum vacuum may be counte
as contributing to the cosmological constant an there!ore as having a
gravitational e!!ect1 c.!.1 "ar!atti. Fhen mater is in a superposition
state1 e.g.1 c
%)
molecule scattere by a i!!raction grating oes this matter
possess some tiny gravitational !iel1 an i! so1 how coul this !iel
strength be calculate? 7erhaps as long as 7enrose_s Rone graviton
limitS is not e0ceee by the superposition state an ecoherence has
not yet set in Cconnection between 8achian gravitation an mechanism
o! environmental ecoherence?D1 then the c
%)
molecule has no
gravitational !iel associate with it. 7erhaps the counting statistics o!
superpose states are conitione by the local vacuum statistics Cwith no
bacK-reaction upon those statistics until the environmental ecoherence
limit is reacheD.
6here is a broaer sense in which we can unerstan ?ill 3linton_s
pronouncement !irst isingenuously pronounce by him to white house
press sta!! that1 Rit_s !or the chilrenS CH believe many iniviuals in
uni!orm have given up their innocence1 which is to say their very lives
!rom the point o! birth to that o! lost innocence1 in orer that the rest o!
us may remain innocent !or the entirety o! our own lives.
Iacuum taKes on a mass within curve spacetime. -ree space o!!-shell
virtual particles became on-shell Ca tiny !raction at leastD. 6he
spacetime curvature structure can be e0actly reprouce Cin homologueD
with the momentum-energy mass shell can be attribute to an altere
value o! the velocity o! light in vacuo1 which is in turn etermine by the
relative current ensities o! virtual bosons an virtual !ermions. 6hese
in turn are sensitive or responsive to the 7auli blocKing an ?ose Ranti-
blocKingS e!!ects o! real matter upon the virtual particles o! the quantum
vacuum Cas re!lecte in the altere quantum statistics !or !luctuations in
the vacuum_s momentum an energyD.
>aeKel C*22ND says that1 R 6he principle o! relativity o! motion is irectly
relate to the symmetries o! the vacuum.S
6he e!inition o! mental illness in normative as oppose to statistical
terms implies an interpretation o! sel!-as-social construct. :ualism is
the $
r
person theory o! the min-boy relationship1 monism1 the *
st
person theory.
6he curvature o! the mass shell associate with spacetime curvature Can
gravitationD is necessitate by the !act o! real particles always being real1
that is to say1 H all .orentz CinertialD !rames1 while o!!-mass shell
particles1 i.e.1 virtual particles1 must become real Cwhen certain
conitions are metD within a gravitational !iel L in orer to conserve
momentum-energy an as part o! environmental ecoherence o!
correlate !ermion-anti!ermion virtual pairs within a gravitational
potential C!ielD. :oes this imply that the value o! the gravitational
potential cane be e!ine in absolute terms? ?y proposing a theory in
which gravity is e0plaine by spacetime variations in the vacuum
quantum statistics1 one is at the same time proposing that gravity is
base in Rspatiotemporal variationS in quantum nonlocally correcte
CinstantaneousD correlations o! quantum Cspontaneous?D !luctuations
Cspee o! gravityD C/lthough it is clear that the comple0ion o! nonlocal
quantum !luctuations must change in some appropriately systematic way
relative to an accelerate observer1 which is not merely relative1 by the
way1 because the observer possesses mass1 an his nonuni!orm
movement bacK-reacts upon the quantum !luctuation bacKgrounD
:istinct .orentz !rames are treate as equivalent by special relativity
although they can only be connecte via a virtually in!inite spectrum o!
accelerate motions. 6he acceleration o! a mass via !reely wille
movement o! my han is istinctly i!!erent !rom acceleration o! masses
by eterministic Cchaotic or notD an ranom CquantumD1 i.e.1 naturalistic
processes.
Ht seems there are more paths through phase space connecting more
istantly relate .orentz !rames. 6his says something interesting about
how the topology o! phase space i!!ers !rom that o! orinary CintuitiveD
$-;ucliean space1 e.g.1 the greater the $-;ucliean istance between
points / an ?1 the greater is the opportunity !or a particle to originate
between / an ? that is then etecte at ? an counte Cas having
originate at /D. H! istinct .orentz !rames Cor 8inKowsKi spacetimesD
are truly Requivalent1S then perhaps each shares with the other an
ientiacal vacuum state M)Z such that the energy o! the share groun
state must be equally share by all equivalent .orentz !rames. :oes
this help us solve the Rcosmological constant problem?S Hn a globally
curve spacetime1 there are no equivalent though istinct .orentz or
inertial !rames.
6he continuum o! spaceliKe separate .orentz !rames cannot be
connecte by an acceleration however small an sustaine Ce0cept1
perhaps !or the case o! so-calle Raiabatic accelerations1 by which
immeiately neighboring .orentz !rames might immeiately
neighboring .orentz !rames might be connecteD L seems a contraiction
here but implies a broKen symmetry o! spacetime.
.orentz or inertial !rames are globally e!ine Cprobably an iealization
liKe ReigenstateS which is a power!ul analytical an theoretical tool1 as
!ar as it goesD while accelerate !rame1 only locally. 6his istinction
between inertial an non-inertial is unoubtely connecte to questions
o! symmetry1 mass-shell an quantum vacuum statistics1 e.g.1 how oes a
photon or other particle etector !unction i!!erently in a gravitational
!iel vs. in an unaccelerate !rame.
-ranK FilzeK_s paper escribes splitting o! particle mass egeneracy_s
through what FilzeK terms Rsymmetry obstructionS1 which involves
interruption o! the groun state vacuum_s sel! interaction.
Hs there any !unamental i!!erence in the nature o! proo! o! e0istence
vs. proo! o! none0istence in mathematics? "ince possibility an
actuality are inistinguishable in mathematics an logic1 it seems sel!-
contraictory to construct a none0istence proo! in mathematics.
6he =eisenberg uncertainty principle woul be merely an
epistemological principle ha quantum probabilities been properly
e!ine in terms o! ensembles1 rather than in absolute terms1 i.e.1 the
quantum mechanical wave!unction. 6he !act that quantum probabilities
erive !rom the behavior o! the wave!unction itsel! rather than !rom the
behavior o! statistical ensembles o! particles/states may be intimately
connecte with the postulates o! special relativity.
?ecause consciousness is a substance1 continuity etermines ientity1 not
structure1 unless this structure is uniBue an irreproucible.
Qd
"o the
person that H am i not come into being by virtue o! some !inite number
o! causal conitions being satis!ie.
6he mass o! a stable istribution o! matter represents the bining energy
o! the quantum vacuum containe within the instantaneous volume o!
that mass. 6he mass o! the quantum vacuum1 whose energy is normally
negative1 is represente by the small !raction o! this immense negative
energy that has become boun through the gravitational bining energy
that has isseminate throughout the volume o! vacuum energy uner
consieration. 9ver time with the e0pansion o! the universe the
gravitational bining energy o! coalesce matter isseminates
throughout this e0paning vacuum meium. Fe e0pect the e0pansion
to be uni!orm in the case where the rate o! issemination o! gravitational
bining energy an issemination o! unboun vacuum energy Cas a
irect result o! cosmological e0pansionD are equal. Hs there a ynamics
we can point to here unerlying the accelerate cosmological e0pansion?
"ince we have been saying that the presence o! a gravitational !iel is
characterize by a local relative imbalance between the ensities o!
scalar an vector vacuum energy !luctuations1 the accelerate
cosmological e0pansion may be attributable to a shi!ting global
imbalance in the istribution o! these collective spin-) an spin-*
vacuum !luctuations1
Qd
which amounts to a temporal evolution in the
ensity o! collective spin-2 vacuum !luctuations.
Ht might not be misleaing to say that in an increasing gravitational
potential the inertia o! energy increases. Hn other wors a given quantity
o! energy represents a greater mass in a gravitational potential than this
energy oes in !ree space - on account o! the relative ecrease in the
local velocity o! light in ;instein_s relation1 ; = mc
2
. H! it turns out that
the quantum vacuum only taKes on a measurable mass when the
bounary conitions upon the vacuum are altere so as to prouce a
gravitational !iel1 then the cosmological constant problem woul
e!!ectively be solve.
Iacuum becoming massive in gravitational potential integrate with the
cosmological e!!ects o! an e0paning inertial !rame. 6he vacuum is not
massive in !ree space1 but becomes massive as a bacK reaction to the
altere vacuum quantum statistics constituting a gravitational !iel.
6his phenomenon remins one o! the istinction in quantum !iel theory
between RresseS an RunresseS electron mass.
Qd
3hange in the velocity o! light with increasing gravitational potential
an the bearing this has on the mass shell istinguishing real !rom
virtual particles1 which may e0plain the appearance o! :avies-,nruh
raiation within a gravitational !iel. :ynamics e0plaine in terms o!
the conservation o! energy. Hnstea o! warpe spacetime1 we speaK
instea in terms o! warpe mass shell with changing spee o! light. 6he
mass shell is structure by the relative current ensities o! $-momentum
an energy.
Fe !eel as though there is some /rchimeean anchor !or our intuition1
which harKens bacK to primitive magical thinKing an which secretly
invoKes an intelligent esigner who has a5uste the ynamics o!
creation to be consistent with the nature an nees o! humanKin.
6ry looKing at /merican television Can especially the commercialsD
through the eyes o! the average person !rom any thir worl country. H!
you can_t o that then you really on_t have a clue concerning the
potential !or the eep hatre an resentment that our conspicuously
consumptive a!!luence shall provoKe in the populace o! the rest o! the
worl. Hn other wors1 the ,nite "tates an various totalitarian state
have a common interest in Keeping the masses in those totalitarian states
unin!orme. 6here are two views concerning this1 namely that the
avance inustrialize countries who possess myria an great
economic interests aroun the worl owe something not to the
governments o! those countries1 but to the people o! these lans. 6he
other view is the social :arwinist view that the superior people
Cemonstrate by possession by their societies o! avance technologyD
eserve to en5oy their ease an a!!luence as the 5ust rewar !or
membership in a more avance culture.
Fhat physical quantity connecte with virtual $-momentum !luctuations
Cwhich irectly correlate with inertial massD changes in step with [* L
v
2
/c
2
\
-*/2
in 5ust the same !ashion as relativistic mass? H! the ensity1
current ensity Cor some other !unction o! the ensityD o! virtual $-
momentum !luctuations irectly correlates with an ob5ect_s relativistic
inertial mass1 then we are tempte to say that inertial mass is irectly
connecte with a mass_ total bining energy.
:econstruction o! the !aae C!aceD is not possible because the only
elements we have at our isposal in terms o! which a econstruction
may be per!orme are themselves !acaes.
H! most ranom mutations are eleterious1 but only an in!initesimal
!raction o! stable an viable genetic base pairs are ever attempte1 then
how is it that natural selection !rom the in!initesimal !raction o!
noneleterious mutate base pair sequences can be realistically pointe
to as the basis !or all o! the orer that we see in ;arth_s biosphere?
"trangely enough1 the more comple0 an organism_s :@/1 the more
chemically stable is the molecule.
7articles move in a gravitational potential in such a manner as to remain
Ron-shellS1 i.e.1 so that energy conservation is uphel.
6he iagonal elements o! the ensity matri0 are re!erre to as the
Rpopulations.S 6he o!!-iagonal elements o! the ensity matri0 are
terme Rcoherences.S
Frite a
!ic=
short story that e0plores the e!!ects o! the absence o! tial
!orces Cspacetime curvatureD upon the psyche_s o! eep space e0plorers1
e.g.1 the Ian /llen belt was conquere1 the eleterious physiological
e!!ects o! e0tene stay zero gee were success!ully militate against1
suspene animation technology was also eventually per!ecte - all this
only !or 8an to bump up against the walls o! what might as well have
been those o! a chil_s terrarium.
9ctober 2)**
Fhy i the Rsimulate
gravityS o! spinning a spacecra!t to reprouce a *.) gee RpullS prove
inaequate to prevent this? 6his was liKely because centri!ugal gravity
!aile to appropriately reprouce the Aiemannian metric o! genuine
curve spacetime.
Farp rive was iscovere uring research into spacetime metric
cloning techniques - research which ha prove necessary on account o!
iscoveries o! the true unerlying causes o! the hereto!ore long
mysterious phenomenon o! Rspace inuceS psychological isorers1
which inevitably plague Csome but not allD eep space e0plorers
traveling out beyon the limits o! where the solar system_s gravitational
!iel an the cosmological acceleration !iels cancel.
9ctober 2)**
6here was
a seconary psychological isturbance associate with the eep space
sicKness1 i.e.1 paranoia on the part o! those a!!ecte with the primary
mani!estations o! the sicKness towars those on the voyage who
e6hibite no signs whatever of this sic'ness. CAelate this to the
emergence o! consciousness in proto-homo sapiens hominis an the
e0termination o! the @eanerthals L also go into the mysterious
e0tinction o! the negroi race of -os'op 2en" c.f"
www.urbanictionary.com entry on -os'op 2anD1 c.!. R&un 4eople8
versus 7Hce 7eopleS1 an why i some small contingent o! the "un
7eople leave the continent o! /!rica1 while most staye behin? L it was
not !or lacK o! an abunant !oo supply. /n what happens to space
!aring cultures who never succee in properly reproucing the gravity
!iels o! the home planet? Fhat psychological sie e!!ects are liKely to
occur to those routinely travelling through RhyperspaceS? :oes their
consciousness become RunstucK in timeS1 c.!1
au=
Ionnegut_s
cit=
"laughterhouse -ive.
@ovember 2)**
C/nother Rbreeing e0perimentS o!
behavioral genetics was the birth o! 3a5un culture as a result o! the
e0ous o! that tiny contingent o! /caians who ha staunchly re!use to
submit to ?ritish rule in @ova "cotia an instea settle in "outheastern
.ouisiana in the *%')_s.D
cit=
R6he quantum consciousness hypothesis
proposes that classical mechanics cannot e0plain consciousness1 while
quantum mechanical phenomena1 such as quantum entanglement an
superposition1 may play an important part in the brainGs !unction1 an
coul !orm the basis o! an e0planation o! consciousness. 6he argument
against the quantum min proposition is that quantum states in the brain
woul ecohere be!ore they reache a spatial or temporal scale at which
they coul be use!ul !or neural processing1 c.!.1
web=
http://pinterest.com/cooKmepancaKes/science-etcetera/ ?ut i! the
onset o! ecoherence in the brain_s microtubule networKs now were to
occur typically later than what was characteristic uring the evolutionary
process taKing place within a gravity well o! *.) gee an in which nature
through natural selection learne to e0ploit the heightene quantum
computational capacity o! tubulin imer electron superposition
entanglements1 then o! course ecoherence woul typically occur only
after having alreay sprea over a spatiotemporal scale beyon that o!
the naturalistic earthboun environment in which they coul be merely
practically use!ul.
Qd
6here was something about the way gravitational tial !orces ampe
the quantum coherence o! the human neural networK which contribute
to the stability o! the human psyche Csee reucing valve/tuning ampli!ier
moel o! human thought an perceptionD.
"eptember 2))*
Fithout the
Rampening !ielS o! gravitational tial !orces1 which ha been ever
present throughout the early evolution o! the primate brain1 that is1 all
along up to an past that crucial 5uncture in the evolution o! the homini
brain at which nature serenipitously hit upon a capability !or RtuningS
the tubulin imer_s o! the brain_s microtubule networK to certain
quantum resonant spectra o! the immense reservoir o! in!ormation
signals resiing within the quantum vacuum electromagnetic !iel1 there
woul no longer be anything staning in the way to prevent the
accumulation o! relic information signals1 c.!.1 within the brain_s
microtubule networK1 c.!1
cit=
The 4resence of the 4ast =
auG
&helra'eA an
also the Tuscon II conference proceings =
auG
<ameroffA. 6hese
accumulations o! e0traneous in!ormation signals woul o a number o!
new things un!oreseen by the !orces o! epigenetic aaptation an natural
selection : they woul e0ten the temporal bubble o! the specious
present in un!amiliar irections within the 2 time plane an perhaps
higher imensional temporal hypersur!aces CvolumesD1 an they woul
inter!ere with the normal processes o! psychic integration within what
ha been !or perhaps a million years or more the stanar ')) ms Rtime
bubbleS CRspecious presentSD o! the iniviual homini consciousness.
6he human brain in the zero gee o! eep space !or many months or years
woul also respon by creating subtley i!!erent rules an patterns o!
connectivity o! its myria synaptic networKs. Hn essence1 the reucing
valve of the min woul begin to fail in its vital !unction o! screening out
all those e0traneous vacuum in!ormation signals irrelevant to the
aaptation o! the evolving homini brain in rising up to the challenges o!
a merely earthly e0istence1 such as e!!icient an proactive sense
perception an speey mobilization against immeiate threats to its
e0istence. .ong term e0posure to the zero gee o! space was something
never be!ore anticipate by :arwinian natural selection or even the
process o! biological evolution itsel! an so constitutes a challenge to the
human min that it is not in the least egree prepare to hanle. -or
this reason1 without a signi!icantly improve unerstaning o! the
!unamental quantum processes unerlying human consciousness1 it is
highly unliKely that manKin shall ever establish a signi!icant presence
outsie the solar system o! his home planet1 much less e0plore the star
systems beyon1 c.!1 remar's of Ilot &imone on the initial scientific
e6peition to 4ro6ima Centauri an the mutiny of its crew after
planetfall.
Kwo=
RH iscovere the secret o! the sea in meitation upon a ewrop.S -
Oahlil 4ibran 6he rop !ancies it is the ocean because mae o! the same
substance. ?ut is this epiphany o! hubris the rop_s !ault? =mmmm?
Ahetoric is to .ogic what "Kinnerian is to /lerian 7sychology.
Ahetoric is even more important to emocratic republics than to the
totalitarian state. 6his is because only a tiny percentage o! the voting
public possesses su!!icient Knowlege an 5ugment with which to
intelligently cast his/her vote. "o then the real mechanism unerlying
the !unctioning o! emocracy is contrary to the emocratic spirit. Ht is
in a wor1 the manipulation o! the permanently unin!orme an
unintelligent masses to enlist their voting power in the largest blocKs
possible. 3ensorship is practice in post-inustrial emocracies !ar
more subtly than it ever was in the "oviet ,nion or 3ommunist 3hina1
that is to say at the printing press1 but is now practice in these R!ree an
emocratic1 capitalist regimesS at the level o! consciousness1 at the level
o! the !irst or root !ormation o! ieas. "o a message that is o!t repeate1
elaborate upon an isseminate through the various meia channels
cannot constitute the truth1 whether its tone an spin be liberal leaning or
right wing.
epi=
One shall only hear the truth spo'en once in the lone
voice of him who is Buic'ly shut up an iscreite as a maman. Fe
never hear o! him again until it suits the esigns o! some !uture
propagana machine to resurrect this lone voice as that o! the prophet
shunne i! not by his hometown then by his home era. 6he truth in
politics is not borne within any meia conuit but comes with an
acquisitive an impassione auto-iacticism in combination with the
assiuous application o! original thought1 moral courage an soun
5ugment. /n then it is usually best to Keep one_s revelations to onesel!1
opting !or the quiet li!e not a!!ore the shunne an emonize
prophet.
:oes not emergent evolution require more than the activation o! latent
orer such as enlisting o! the currently active an creative processes o!
sel!-organizing ynamisms?
6he .orentz invariance o! the vacuum means that the ensity o! anti-
correlate virtual !ermion-anti!ermion pairs along an arbitrarily chosen
a0is is trans!orme in relation to the observer_s irection o! uni!orm
motion. 6he trans!ormation o! this component o! the vacuum_s particle
current ensity must be compensate by changes in other components
such that together these components !orm a conserve1 .orentz invariant
quantity1 i.e.1 momentum-energy.
=ow can we relate the o!!-iagonal terms o! the stress-momentum-
energy tensor1 6
iK
to the o!!-iagonal terms o! the ensity matri0 -
iK
escribing a quantum system o! mutually interacting real an virtual
!ermions an bosons?
6he three main Rpillars o! moern physicsS at the beginning o the 2*
st
century are quantum mechanics1 relativity1 an statistical mechanics1
which correspon to ;instein_s three seminal papers o! *2)'. RHt shoul
be emphasize here that it is necessary to consier two or more particles
!or observing ;7A phenomena1 since only then oes the con!iguration
space o! these particles no longer coincie with that o! orinary
spacetimeS1 c.!.1 p. (. C"ee 3onceptual 6ensions between quantum
mechanics an general relativity: /re there e0perimental consequences?D
.oss o! anti-correlation within virtual 3ooper pairs means that the
probability o! collective spin-) C unity !or timeliKe virtual pairD -_
prouces imper!ectly anti-correlate pairs with spin
+/-
{ pointing in
spaceliKe irections in a pure quantum state Cma0imally entangleD state
retaine i! momentum egrees o! !reeom are taKen into the ensity
matri0 escription o! the system. C"ee ;instein-7oolsKy-Aosen
correlation seen !rom moving observers1 c.!.1
cit=
ar+iv:quant-
ph/)2)(*$Nv(D
RFe !in that the per!ect anti-correlation in the same irection between
the ;7A pair no longer hols in the observers_ !rame. 6his oes not
imply a breaKown o! the non-local correlation. Fe e0plicitly show
that the observers must measure the spin in appropriately chosen
i!!erent irections in orer to observer the per!ect anti-correlation.S
"ee abstract o! ;instein-7oolsKy-Aosen correlation seen !rom moving
observers C
cit=
ar+iv:quant-ph/)2)(*$Nv( N @ov 2))2D. Fe o e0pect a
breaKown o! the non-local correlation o! spins in the case o! non-
uni!orm motion observers.
R=eisenberg_s energy-time uncertainty principle was also emonstrate
uring the course o! this e0periment [*$\. 6he with /at
2
o! the
collapse signal photon wavepacKet1 which was measure by means o!
the 8ichelson1 satis!ie the inequality
/a;
2
/at
2
Z/= h
bar
/21
where the energy with /a;
2
o! the collapse signal photon wavepacKet1
was etermine by the measure energy with /a;
*
o! the iler photon1 in
orer to conserve total energy. =ence1 the energy with /a;
2
o! the
signal photon1 which enters into the =eisenberg uncertainty relation C(D1
was actually the with /a;
*
o! the remote !ilter -*1 through which this
signal photon i not pass.S "ee p. *) o! =eisenberg_s Hntrouction o!
the f3ollapse o! the FavepacKet_ into Puantum 8echanics
C
cit=
ar+iv:quant-ph/)2)*)$&v2 2$ >an 2))2D. Hn the above paper a
photon etection e0periment is escribe in which conservation o!
energy uncertainty is crucial to maintaining the energy-entanglement o!
pairs o! photons create via the parametric own-conversion o!
ultraviolet photons within a potassium ihyrie phosphate CO:7D
crystal. /pplying relativity to conservation o! /a; implies that /a;
an /ap
i
must together compose a conserve momentum-energy (-vector.
"houl we thinK o! per!ectly correlate virtual electron-antielectron
pairs as representing )-probability o! a photon1 while a per!ectly anti-
correlate pair represent a probability o! unity that a photon is present?
:o anti-correlate virtual e+e- pairs then represent thermalize energy
o! *.)22 8eI? :epening on pree0istent bining o! virtual !ermions o!
the pair may we get a virtual photon o! anywhere !rom ) to *.)22 8eI?
C?ut no more than *.)22 8eI in virtual photon energy because o! the
.orentz invariance o! vacuum !luctuationsD
/t what velocity must an observer more opposite the irection o! motion
o! the photon !or the classical an relativistic photon !or the classical
an relativistic :oppler shi!ts in the photon_s !requency to cancel? 3an
this be relevant our unerstaning o! cosmological e0pansion?
/ttempting to collect in!ormation about the position o! a tunneling
particle within the barrier reuces the =eisenberg energy uncertainty
which1 ae to the particle_s Kinetic energy uring tunneling1 provies
the particle with enough energy to transit the potential barrier. Hn this
case the act o! attempte position measurement serves to at once
increase the particle_s $-momentum uncertainty an ecrease the
particle_s energy. 6he act o! position measurement in the irection o! a
tunneling particle_s momentum appears to ecelerate the particle in step
with the increase in the time uncertainty o! the position measurement o!
the particle. :oes this len support to the iea that /ap an /a; are
spaceliKe an timeliKe components o! a !our vector momentum-energy
uncertainty?
6he current ensities o! !ermions an bosons are irectly tie to the
instantaneous ensities an inertial re!erence !rames Cin which the
particle ensities are inee RinstantaneousSD an hence tie to the
particle wave!unctions1 which are either symmetric or antisymmetric.
6he current ensity can be a5uste either by changing the number o!
particles or by changing the geometry o! the spacetime in which the
current ensities are e!ine.
Fhy will avances in technology over the ne0t 2)) years lea to
capitalism being replace by anarcho-synicalism? H! the worl
economic activity were analyze in terms o! omains o! istinct levels
o! socioeconomic a!!luence1 then the worl economy taKes on somewhat
the appearance o! a networK o! i!!erentially e!!icient 3arnot engines.
/Kin to -ischer_s electrical circuit analogy !or economic systems1 there
is a physics analogy that may be use to escribe another system !rom
the omain o! the social sciences1 i.e.1 a thermoynamic systems analogy
!or escribing the istribution an !low o! moral gooness. 9ne must
use two aitional theories in orer to !acilitate the application o! this
thermoynamic systems analogy1 8ill_s calculus o! utilitarian value an
8aslow_s theory o! human moral evelopment. 7articularly interesting
is how the concept o! waste heat CentropyD can be applie to systems o!
interacting moral systems Cmoral agents an their groupingsD.
;0ploitation o! the poor an the isen!ranchise both omestically an
e0ternally by those holing the reigns o! socioeconomic power creates
an environment o! general economic well being that !osters the
emergence o! an intellectual an artistic class with the moral stature an
authority to call into serious question the policies an ecisions o! the
cynical1 isingenuous1 bloate1 reactionary plutocrats.
,niversities1 !ounations1 institutes1 non-governmental organizations1
etc. !ill out the list o! those socioeconomic entities that can only emerge
!rom moral systems occupying a plateau o! elevate chemical potential.
ess=
8an has resiste avances o! the 3opernican revolution at every step
until the !acts emaning that a succeeing step be taKen overwhelm the
oler1 more anthropocentric paraigm. /cKnowlegement o! the
necessary e0istence o! e0traterrestrial intelligences is a logical an is a
to-be-e0pecte !urther avance o! the 3opernican Aevolution. C/narcho-
synicalism an the analogy o! web-base elective communitiesD
9ctober 2)**
;0tra-terrestrial civilizations !rustrate by the roablocK to
interstellar communication an travel pose by the !inite value o! the
spee o! light might well striKe the bargain o! sacri!icing a large portion
o! the immense !uture that still lies ahea o! them in orer to overcome
this limitation. 6his coul be simply accomplishe1 theoretically
speaKing1 o! course1 by each ;6 civilization placing its entire home
planet or star system into a eep gravitational well so that the e!!ective
istances between prospective neighboring alien civilizations e!!ectively
contracts1 permitting near real time interstellar communication1 that is1
within the li!etime o! iniviual members o! the ;6 society. -or
e0ample1 an ;6 civilization with perhaps a span o! a billions years ahea
o! itsel!1 but long since having !ace little chance o! !urther
evelopment1 socially an culturally in the absence o! cross-!ertilization
with ieas !rom other comparably or more highly technologically
avance alien cultures might choose to envelope themselves in a
gravity well possessing a time ilation !actor o! *)))0 or more1 which
woul permit near real time communication with alien civilizations
hunres or even thousans o! light years istant. 6his suggests that
our search !or e0traterrestrial intelligence may remain in vain unless
manKin as a civilization evelops more patience in listening1 but
especially signal time compression techniques. "ome truly ancient
avance e0traterrestrial civilizations1 compose o! highly actualize
iniviuals possessing iniviual li!espans in the thousans o! years may
actually opt !or the Rnuclear optionS in the esperate attempt to etect
an contact other e0traterrestrial civilizations by entombing themselves
within gravity wells will time ilation !actors o! *)))1)))0 or more an
this always with the ying hope that there are counterparts elsewhere in
their gala0y or nearby gala0ies1 who are oing the sameT
9ne istinct avantage !or an avance technological civilizations living
within eep gravity wells is that observation o! the cultural an
technological evolution o! younger neighboring civilizations woul be
greatly !acilitate as any Re0o-anthropologistS o! the more avance
society woul be a!!ore reay opportunity to observe1 !or e0ample1
;arth_s society evolving !rom a splintere proto-technological culture o!
the early 2)
th
3entury into the mature space !aring culture is shall have
become in1 say1 the ()
th
3entury an all within the compresse time
scale o! a !ew weeKs or months. "elect perios o! particular interest
coul always be time ecompresse !or Rplay bacKS !rom out o! the
huge mass o! archive stellar observations an intercepte
communication transmissions. 6here may be a !airly highly restrictive
limit on how !ar time can be compresse relative to the outsie ,niverse
that is pose by the angers o! highly blue-shi!te stellar an cosmic
raiation.
6here are perhaps a couple o! other means o! escaping the impening
social an intellectual cul-e-sac inevitably !acing every truly long-
live1 hyper-avance e0traterrestrial civilization. 9ne o! these woul
be to Rreturn to the pastS1 retaKing upon itsel! the !ormer1 nearly
!orgotten limitations to e0istence1 which once ha investe li!e with so
much meaning an signi!icance. 6his woul have alreay been trie1 o!
course1 in the very early stages o! the walls o! an avance technological
civilization closing in upon itsel! in the !orm o! a pioneer style
e0ploration an colonization o! the neighboring habitable planets an
star systems. /nother way might be to seeK solace in a transcening or
iminution o! the egoistic sel! within a collective or Rhive minS. "till
another way1 which seems liKely an even inevitable !or 8anKin itsel!1
given that R8oore_s .awS shows no sign thus !ar o! rela0ing even a little
bit1 is the re!uge !or an aging hyper-technologically avance
civilization represente by a so-calle Rancestor simulationS.
6he iea that the age istribution o! avance e0traterrestrial
civilizations might !ollow a 4aussian istribution is suggeste by the
!act that the age istribution o! "un-liKe stars is e0pecte to con!orm to a
4aussian istribution with a meian age o! perhaps !ive billion years.
6he percentile versus age !or "un-liKe stars can be constructe !rom a !it
o! observe percentile vs. stellar age ata points to a 4aussian shape
curve. 6he sun-liKe character o! a star is easily enough etermine !rom
spectroscopic analysis o! starlight. ;ven a relatively small stanar
eviation !or stellar age istribution o! say1 $$$1'))1))) yr. !or sun-liKe
stars presently supporting li!e an e0traterrestrial civilization might
imply a corresponingly large civilization mean age o! aroun
*))1)))1))) yr. an a stanar eviation !or civilization age o!
something liKe *' million yearsT Fhat is sKew about our statistical
assumptions1 o! course is our basing the estimate o! mean stellar age on
the current age o! our own sun. FhoGs to say that the mean stellar age
!or presently e0istent e0traterrestrial civilizations is not closer to a
billion years1 especially i! we are taKing 3lass HH or 3lass HHH type
civilizations into the account? 9! course1 metal rich 7opulation H stars
Cincluing 4 war! stars liKe our "unD are not thought to have come into
their own until !ive or si0 billion years ago. Aephrase o! highlighte
te0t above in a youtube.com poste comment H mae on :ecember *(1
2)** to the !ollowing vieo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=o.i<g2%iJ#o "ee below:
:ecember 2)**
6he iea that the age istribution o! avance e0traterrestrial
civilizations might !ollow a 4aussian istribution is suggeste by the
!act that the age istribution o! "un-liKe C4 type main-sequenceD stars is
e0pecte to con!orm to a 4aussian istribution with a meian age o!
perhaps !ive billion years. Hn principle1 the istribution percentile
versus age !or "un-liKe stars can be !it to such a curve. ;ven a relatively
small stanar eviation !or stellar age istribution o! say1 $$$1'))1)))
yr. !or sun-liKe stars presently supporting li!e an e0traterrestrial
civilization might imply a corresponingly large civilization mean age o!
aroun *))1)))1))) yr. an a stanar eviation !or civilization age o!
something liKe *' million years. Fhat is sKew about these assumptions1
o! course1 is basing the estimate o! mean stellar age on the current age o!
our own sun. FhoGs to say that the mean age !or presently e0isting
e0traterrestrial civilizations is not closer to a billion years1 especially i!
we are taKing 6ype HH or 6ype HHH civilizations into account? 9! course1
metal rich 7opulation H stars Cincluing 4 war! stars liKe our "unD are
not thought to have come into their own until eight o! *) billion years
ago. 6his is all by way o! saying that the chances that the civilization o!
8anKin is only &1))) or %1))) years ol is accoringly quite slim1
virtually nil1 in !act1 since such a small civilization age woul !all well
within the ).))*th percentile o! the 4aussian age curve above. 6his is
perhaps another way to emonstrate the high probability o! us living
within an Eancestor simulationE1 an argument which is inepenent an
in aition to the e0cellent argument put !orwar by @icK ?ostrom. 3.!.1
When &ETI &uccees: the Impact of <igh Information Contact" "ection
I1 7aper (1 <ow Ol is ET% R6his paper consiers the !actors that
etermine the probable age o! a civilisation that might be etecte in a
";6H search. "imple stellar evolution consierations suggest an age o! a
!ew 4yr [gigayears or billion years\. "upernovae an gamma-ray
bursters coul in principle shorten the li!etime o! a civilisation1 but the
!act that li!e on ;arth has survive !or at least !our 4yr places a severe
constraint on such !actors. H! a civilisation is etecte as a result o! a
";6H search1 it is liKely to be o! orer one 4yr more avance than we
are. . . 6he meian age o! a civilisation is there!ore the meian age o!
those civilisations that starte between !ive an ) 4yr ago1 which is *.%
4yr. 6here!ore1 in the absence o! other !actors1 any civilisation that we
etect via ";6H is liKely to be *.% 4yr more avance than we are.S
8ay
2)*$
6he civilization age 4aussian istribution iea still worKs even i! we
are the only intelligent civilization in the universe. 6his is because that
probability istribution applies to a quantum superposition o!
representations o! universes within a larger overarching universe. 6he
relation o! along-with-ness o! persons is etermine !rom my sie in the
sense o! my precisely resonantly tune consciousness as having been
selecte !rom a !iel o! *)WW')) possible1 say. 6he !ine tuning !or others
is not so e0acting because it is only that o! behavioral verisimilitue.
8ay
2)*$ Kwo=
E6he civilization that blurts out its e0istence on interstellar
beacons at !irst opportunity might be liKe some early homini
escening !rom the trees an calling R=ere1 KittyS to a saber-toothe
tiger.E - /stronomer Aobert Aoo1 *2N*
8arch 2)*(
"o i! intelligent li!e is wiesprea in the ,niverse1 as seems
liKely1 since the bulK o! the evelopment o! biochemical comple0ity an
hence evolutionary potential was set in place uring the initial billion
year epoch o! chemical evolution CnecessityD which tooK place in the
complete absence o! the action o! natural selection CchanceD1 by !or most
e0traterrestrial civilizations woul have ha a multi-billion year hea
start on the human race. 9! course1 whatever in!orme the in!rastructure
!or chemical evolution transcens this uality o! chance versus
necessity.
@ovember 2)*$ !cbK=
-or a million years past1 ever since nature !irst hit upon
the appropriate molecular tuning an !iltering circuits !or patching into
an eavesropping on the whispers o! the zero-point quantum !iel1
primitive homini apes have been both blesse an curse with the im
ability to channel an evelop spirits o! their own an receive the
bene!it o! reason1 but also a EKnowlege o! goo an evilE. 6his perhaps
inavertent evelopment signi!icantly perturbe iniviual an
collective behavior patterns in each breeing population an create
altogether novel natural selective pressures on the evolving behavioral
genetics o! early humanKin. ?ut the un!oling evelopment was slow
enough because it was in step an in accor with a natural process !or
which evolution ha long been preparing those who inee constitute
our earliest true ancestors. =ow will new an precipitously change
selective pressures on human behavioral genetics alter the course o!
manKin_s !uture evolution? ;nter 4oogle glass: how the early 2*st
3entury says E?orgE. 6en years a!terwars...brain biochips. 6hat will
really be the beginning o! the hive minT 6hrow in quantum computing
in which the wearable/implantable tech is 5ust a Kin o! brain
microtubule-quantum vacuum uploaing-ownloaing inter!ace1 an the
stage is set !or humanKin to stumble onto a veritable encounter o! the
'th Kin. 7rognosis: the ghosts o! the quantum vacuum shall taKe us over
ecaes be!ore the robots get their chance to overthrow us1 lol. 6hese
may turn out to be the very 8in 7arasites1 o! which "am
?anKester an @aomi >aKins have trie to warn us.
H am starting to believe that =. 7. .ovecra!t an Puantum 7hysics are not
all that incompatible.
"ome o! us humble !olK still manage to en5oy the lu0ury o! petty
conceits.
6he more nuggets o! humor an wisom H steal1 the crustier H become.
8ay 2)*$ Kwo=
R/strobiology is the science that will ecie which o! the two
moern astronomical worlviews is true. =owever1 a thir worl view1
rarely broache1 is possible. H! one taKes into account cultural evolution
as part o! cosmic evolution an the :raKe ;quation1 an consiering the
liKely age o! e0traterrestrial civilizations1 it is possible that we live in a
postbiological universe1 in which biologicals have been replace in most
cases by arti!icial intelligence1 with possible implications !or ";6HS1 c.!.1
Three ;iews of the Cniverse1 "teven >. :icK1 @/"/ 3hie! =istorian.
6he circular motion CaccelerationD o! the electron about the nucleus was
originally escribe by :e?roglie in terms o! staning waves1 which
were later interprete by ?orn as probability waves. 88H o! P8 might
help physicists unerstan the peculiar an counterintuitive phenomena
preicte by quantum theory !or what they are L psychoKinetic
mani!estations o! the conscious min o! the !reely-wille iniviual in
e0perimental settings in which the state o! a system has been specially
prepare as a close system to which only that iniviual may interact
with the system.
/nalogous to the chronology protection a!!ore by traveling to the
Rspatially istant past1S causality is violate in a manner that can neither
be measure or proven whenever an observer interacts with a system
that is e!!ectively seale o!! !rom every part o! the universe save perhaps
!rom the vacuum state in which the observer_s brain is embee so as
to permit the observer_s conscious state o! awareness o! the system.
Aather than peculiar quantum e!!ects1 e.g.1 tunneling1 superposition1
entanglement1 ecoherence1 etc. being necessary !or the e0istence o
consciousness1 we shoul suppose that the hien !eebacK between
the observer an system via their overlapping groun is to be hel
responsible !or the appearance o! peculiarly quantum e!!ect/phenomena.
/ll that is require are measuring instruments o! precise enough
resolution an sensitivity along with a su!!iciently controlle an
protecte environment in which to conuct measurements.
H! an electron is moving about an atomic nucleus with relativistic angular
velocity can we consistently state that the angular momentum vector o!
the electron points in some speci!ic irection o! instantaneous $-
imensional space1 i.e.1 oes . lie altogether within the $-hypersur!ace
o! a given 8inKowsKi spacetime? Fe cannot. 6he electron
continually e0periences such large acceleration an so oes not occupy
an inertial re!erence !rame.
?ayesian probability theory is ieal !or the escription o! probabilities o!
eigenvalues o! mi0e quantum states. 6his is because the probabilities
o! given eigenstates are conitione upon the liKely actual quantum state
o! a system.

6he ob5ection to the many worls interpretation o! quantum theory on
account that the theory cannot provie aequate groun !or the
coherence o! alternate quantum universes may be analogously applie to
the general critiques o! inuce gravity theory. 6hese critiques assume
an absolute e!inition o! the particle masses1 which are inserte Rby
hanS into the "tanar 8oel. 6he necessity o! invoKing
supersymmetry theory in orer that !ermionic an bosonic !luctuations
might largely cancel to yiel a near zero cosmological constant stems
!rom this unquestione assumption o! the absolute value o! the "tanar
8oel_s particle masses. H! however the masses o! the particles o! the
"tanar 8oel are relative an erive !rom the balance o! scalar an
vector spin current ensity !luctuations in which real particles embe
themselves1 then there is no nee to locate new species o!
supersymmetric particles. H! mass is spin statistics meiate an not an
absolute1 then we shoul e0pect spin egrees o! !reeom in the quantum
!luctuations o! momentum-energy to be responsible !or !ine tuning
o!!setting !ermionic an bosonic contributions to a cosmological
constant approaching zero.
-ebruary 2)*$
C"ee =uping =u an 8ao0in Fu1
E6perimental &upport of &pinFmeiate Consciousness TheoryD 6he
etermination o! some !unamental physical contants to *2 or more
ecimal places1 e.g.1 the ?ohr 8agneton1 when the anthropic
cosmological principle only appears to require a !ine tuning o! perhaps
the !irst one or two ecimal places in each physical constant suggests1 in
light o! the unerstaning o! the intrinciscally ynamical nature o!
particles an !iels an still more o! the unerlying quantum vacuum
itsel! qua substrate o! structure1 change an temporality1 that the
e0actness o! the !unamental physical constants is not so much a
persisting arti!act o! the ,niverse_s initial an bounary contions that
were set at the avent o! the ?ig ?ang1 but a structure that is continually
being sustaine within an almost in!initesimally narrow range o! values.
Qd
@ow the iea o! applying the anthropic cosmological principle is one
thing when one is speaKing o! possible beginnings1 but this principle is
really altogether something else i! one is speaKing o! applying this
principle as being continually in play as a principle by which the
universe is being sustaine !rom moment to moment.
6he entropy o! generalize event horizons1 i.e.1 event horizons not
necessarily associate with a Rtrappe sur!aceS is to be unerstoo in
terms o! the photonic crystal moel o! the quantum vacuum. "tronger
gravitational !iels are associate with larger !ractions o! the timeliKe (-
momentum !luctuations being correlate by virtue o! the increase
ensity o! $-momentum e0changes. 6his shi!t is !rom nonlocally
correlate quantum !luctuations towar locally correlate thermal
!luctuations. 6he thermalizing o! quantum !luctuations is also the
progressive breaKing o! spacetime symmetry.
6he energy !luctuations in the !orm o! creation-annihilation o! virtual
!ermion-anti!ermion pairs Cvirtual 3ooper pairsD that are suppresse by
the presence o! a real !ermion then appear in a i!!erent !orm1 e.g.1 the
e0change o! a virtual photon between the real !ermion an a neighboring
virtual 3ooper pair that was not suppresse via the 7auli-blocKing
mechanism. @ow i! the uncertain momentum-energy is to be a
conserve quantity such that this quantity be properly escribe by a
.orenz-invariant (-vector1 then must the e0change boson substituting
!or the suppresse (-momentum !luctuation1 i.e.1 virtual !ermion-
anti!ermion pair possess an uncertain $-momentum o! C2 0 ).'**
8eID/c? ?ut the entire *.)22 8eI o! !luctuation energy oesn_t have
to be substitute !or because the !ermion-anti!ermion pair suppresse
woul have also possesse a certain amount o! negative bining energy
by virtual o! internal virtual boson e0change between members o! the
pair.
9! course quantum mechanics oes not permit us to say what this
o!!setting negative energy1 i.e.1 the precise wavenumber o! the virtual
photon suppresse along with the 7auli-blocKe virtual pair cannot be
preicte L only the probability ensities o! these virtual particles.
@onlocally encoe memory an the quality an integrity that etermine
the apparent coherence an rationality o! the ob5ective worl through
moulation o! resonance with other incommensurate consciousness.
Hncreasing one_s Knowlege o! the worl arguably shoul be e0pecte to
len greater stability an consistency to the realm o! appearances
because o! the nature o! in!ormation role as limiting an structuring
uncertainty. ,ncertainty may be closely relate to entropy a!ter the
!ashion o! how potential an Kinetic energy are relate1 i.e.1 uncertainty
is aKin to a Kin o! active or ynamic entropy. Hn the case o! quantum
uncertainty1 in!ormation is inaccessible because encoe in nonlocally
connecte quantum !luctuations. Fhereas !or the case o! ol-!ashione
thermoynamic entropy1 in!ormation is inaccessible because isperse
into Crather than RencoeS inD thermal !luctuations. Puestion: how o
we then istinguish those o!!-iagonal elements o! the ensity matri0
that have to o with quantum vs. thermal !luctuations?
Hn the "tar 6reK episoe1 entitle R7arallelsS Fhor! becomes unstucK in
reality1 which appears to continually change although none o! the other
;nterprise crewmembers seem to notice the changesV Fhor! is the only
constant an common enominator to all o! the changes he observes.
6his interesting "tar 6reK episoe suggeste to me the !ollowing line o!
speculation: perhaps sometimes there are i!!erences in the recollections
o! iniviuals that are too small or insigni!icant to permit ob5ective
Cintersub5ectiveD agreement concerning the e0istence o! a iscrepancy.
6his is perhaps by virtue o! the peculiar logic o! a sel!-limiting process.
7erhaps the bounaries between perception1 memory1 will an
imagination are !ine tune in such a manner as to support optimal
intersub5ective agreement in promoting ma0imal appearance o! ob5ective
reality. ?ut i! so1 there must be some Kin o! traeo!! which results.
>uly
2)*$
.ibet_s irect brain stimulation e0periments are relevant here in
emonstrating that the perceptual worl to inclue one_s internal
sub5ective states o! perceive will an intention is the prouct of the
processing o! sensory ate CRinternalS an Re0ternalSD by the neocorte01
rather than the ongoing act o! this processing Creal timeD.
Hs Fhor!_s memory correct even though it contraicts that o! the other
crewmembers whose memories are also RcorrectS?
R6he iagonal elements o! the ensity matri0 give the probabilities o!
!ining the system in the state MnZ1 while the o!!-iagonal terms escribe
the quantum correlations between i!!erent statesS1 p. 2&V R6he
symmetry o! the =amiltonian is higher than the symmetry o! the groun
state: that is1 the symmetry is spontaneously broKenS1 p. *'&1 Puantum
6heory o! 8any-?oy "ystems CJagosKinD.
Rin general relativity1 the spin state o! a particle obtaine by the partial
trace over the momentum is !oun to evolve !rom a pure state into a
mi0e state i! only the particle changes its position in a gravitational
!iel.S :ensity matri0 escription o! spin states taKes on o!!-iagonal
elements that represent appearance o! spin entropy ue to entanglement
o! spin egrees o! !reeom when the $-momentum is not in an
eigenstate. /lso spin-orbit coupling increases an energy eigenstates o!
couple harmonic oscillators ecay ue to increase spontaneous
oscillator transitions with increase virtual photon e0changes between
the component oscillators L increase internal coupling Cbining
energyD. 8ore o! the energy uncertainty1 /a; is internally generate an
less e0ternally by vacuum Cecoupling o! crystal !rom vacuum
!luctuation reservoirD. Fhat oes this mean thermoynamically? Rthe
spin entropy o! a spin-*/2 particle is not invariant uner the .orentz
trans!ormation unless the particle is in the momentum eigenstate.S RHn
conclusion1 we have shown that spin entropy is generate when spin-*/2
particle moves in a gravitational !iel. ;ven i! the spin at one spacetime
point is in a pure state1 it may evolve into a mi0e state as the particle
moves. Hn particular1 the spin entropy o! a circularly moving particle
increases very rapily near the event horizon o! the "chwarzchil blacK
holeS1 Aapi spin ecoherence in strong gravitation1 6erashima an
,ea.
+
+Fhile .orentz trans!ormations cannot change the overall quantum
entanglement o! a bipartite state[$1 (\1 they can change which properties
o! the local systems are entangle. Hn particular1 4ingrich an /ami['\
showe that uner a .orentz trans!ormation the initial entanglement o!
5ust the spin egrees o! !reeom o! two spin hal! particles can be
trans!erre into an entanglement between both the spin an momentum
egrees o! !reeom. 7hysically this means that etectors1 which respon
only to spin egrees o! !reeom1 will see a reuction o! entanglement
when they are moving at large uni!orm velocity. Hn so !ar as
teleportation !ielity is an operational measure o! quantum
entanglement1 our results suggest that quantum entanglement may not be
preserve in non-inertial !rames. +
+
6he above passage suggests that changes in the comple0ion o! quantum
entanglement tracK the shi!t !rom energy to $-momentum uncertainty.
RH! we write p
)
in the eigenbasis o! =1 then the elements p
rr
1 or the
iagonal elements1 escribe the populations o! the energy levels. 6he
o!!-iagonal elements escribe when a transition is occurring between
two levels1 which we will call a coherence. C6he ensity matri0 is
etermine by the ?oltzmann equation in the case where the
=amiltonian escribing the system in equilibrium is iagonalD
R-or this we nee the equation o! motion !or the ensity operator better
Known as the .iouville-von @eumann equation.S
r/t = -i[=1rCtD\
R6he commutator in this equation implies that some !unamental
incompatibility between the ensity operator an the =amiltonian must
e0ist in orer !or the system to change with time. H! they commute1 then
our system e0ists in its stationary states with respect to that =amiltonian.
H! they o not commute then our system is in a non-stationary state a
the coe!!icients o! the e0pansion we wrote above change with time.
6he Onight an Oing theoretical chess mating position presents us with
an apt metaphor o! the 4eel Hncompleteness theorem applie to the
rules o! chess. 6he rules o! chess o not preict a Oing an Onight
mating position though such a mating position nonetheless e0ists.
/ !ermion gas can either be in a pure quantum state or in a statistical
mi0ture. Fhat istinctly i!!erent roles o e0change bosons play in a
pure state vs. a statistically mi0e state o! a !ermion gas: perhaps the
!ermions o! the gas are couple respectively via e0change o! on-shell vs.
o!!-shell virtual bosons?
6he mutual incommensurability o! istinct iniviual consciousnesses
accounts !or the phenomena o! emergence1 novelty an ineterminism.
=ow can there be a rational an coherent common groun via which
these incommensurate consciousnesses may interact1 but one that oes
not nulli!y the transcenental istinctness iniviual consciousnesses?
7rotein structures are the e0pression o! sequences o! genes. H! memes
are analogous to genes1 what is analogous to the protein structures
e0presse by genes?
6he notion o! altruism arose through a process o! a negative ialectic
because people are not able to perceive how they e0ploit others1 are un
aware o! their own agenas an how the subconscious controls the
implementation o! those agenas. =ere is an e0ample o! how we can
have a concept without there being instantiation o! the concept apart
!rom the relative i!!erences o! appearances.
/ mass1 m
)
possesses the same (-momentum inepenent o! the mass_
state o! uni!orm motion. 6his is what we mean by the spacetime
symmetry o! the vacuum.
.
uv
= [0
u
p
v
L 0
v
p
u
\
ub=v
=ow are we to interpret the o!!-iagonal
components o! our angular momentum tensor1 .
uv
?
6he $-angular momenta components are relate by a commutator1 the
RimaginaryS CtimeliKeD component o! the (-angular momentum are
relate by an anti-commutator. -Ieri!y this assertion-
;nergy an angular momentum commute with one another. 6his
suggests that the presence o! =eisenberg energy uncertainty implies
uncertainties in angular momentum. :iscuss the implications in terms
o! a spin-base theory o! inuce gravity.
6he timeliKe component o! .
uv
is . . . ? .
)v
= 0
)
p
v
L 0
u
p
)
an .
u)
= 0
u
p
)
L
0
)
p
u
1 i! u = v = w1 .
uv
= [0
w
1 p
w
\ b ih
bar
.
uv
super!icially appears to be a 2
n
ranK tensor1 but it can be prove that
.
uv
only possesses !our inepenent components. -irstly1 the
components along the iagonal are negligible on a macroscopic scale.
.
uv
taKes on tensor characteristics only in the presence o! matter. 6he
conserve 2
n
ranK tensor1 6
uv
shoul be a subgroup o! the group
escribing the woul-be conserve (-momentum. 6he quarupole
raiation Cgravitational raiation?D emitte by an accelerating mass may
be moele in terms o! the raiation reaction o! the vacuum as it
recon!igures its virtual magnetic ipoles. 6he raiation reaction o! the
vacuum ue to acceleration o! a mass must be consistent with the
reaction o! the spin statistics o! the vacuum to the acceleration. 6he
theories o! speci!ic !unamental interactions o! particles an !iels are
special cases o! the theory o! the spin statistics physical mechanism
unerlying the interactions. 6his is to say that the so-calle
!unamental !orces meiate by speci!ic e0change bosons are a
mani!estation o! quantum statistical !orces that are really probability
current ensity !lows.
H! such mythic elements as virgin births1 resurrections1 secon comings1
theophagy1 etc. collectively e0hibit sel!-organization rather than evolve
via sociocultural selection o! ranom mutations to mythic ieas.
6he protein structures that are the e0pressions o! nucleic aci base pair
sequences possess themselves the chemical coherence an stability o!
genetic base pair sequences. Fith increase coherence o! systems by
virtue o! the system_s sel!-organization these systems become more
inepenent an i!!icult to preict an control.
R6hus1 -ermi-:irac statistics appears in this holistic1 continuum !iel
theory o! matter as a linear appro0imation1 when the constituents o! the
matter o! the actual close system appear to be uncouple. 6his
appro0imation is vali only when the amount o! energy-momentum
trans!er between interacting constituents o! the close system is
nonrelativistic in magnitueS C"ee p. *** o! Puantum 8echanics an
4ravity1 8enel "achsD.
:o the o!!-iagonal terms o! the stress-momentum-energy tensor
constitute a measure o! spacetime symmetry breaKing? -ree space
possesses negligible stress-momentum-energy an the o!!-iagonal
terms o! 6
uv
are owing to the e!!ect o! real particles an !iels upon the
quantum vacuum embeing in which all particles an !iels are
embee. 6aKe a looK at the relativistic momentum-energy equation1
; = sqrt [p
2
c
2
+ m
)
2
c
(
\
Fhere RpS is the $-momentum an Rm
)
cS is the imaginary component o!
the (-momentum. 6he current ensity o! the $-momentum is
constitute by the current ensity o! the bining !orce-meiating bosons
within the mass1 m
).
6he mass1 m
)
is compose o! its Rmaterial
constituent particlesS1 !ermions1 which account !or the imaginary
component o! the current ensity o! the (-momentum. 6he mechanism
unerlying the conservation o! R;S in the above energy equation may
inee be that o! integrate ?ose--ermi quantum statistics.
Fhat e!!ect oes a gravitational !iel or spacetime curvature have upon
the strength o! spin-orbit coupling? / super!icial search o! the relevant
scienti!ic literature appears to inicate that the spin-orbit coupling
increases in progressively curve spacetimes.
3an atomic clocKs an the global positioning systems that epens on
them be vastly increase by e0ploiting the unique unerlying
mechanisms o! quantum computers1 namely superposition an
entanglement?
Fhat is the i!!erence between the present an the re-presente? 6o
wit1 lacK o! original conte0t. 6he very passage o! time seems to require
the notion o! representation in the above-implie sense. Hnvestigate the
notion o! temporal evolution o! ensity matri0 versus pure states in the
two cases where -

is subset o! `
"
an `
"
is subset o! -

. 6he
temporal evolution o! an in!inite set may be both absolute an relative.
6he possibility o! my e0istence prior to my !irst e0isting evolves by
virtue o! my having later e0iste1 so that my e0istence accoring to the
template o! my possible e0istence prior to my e0istence becomes no
longer possible. 6his suggests that perhaps the notion o! such a
template corresponing to my unique personal ientity is an incoherent
notion. 6here is no such thing as possible human beings that Rnever
succeeS in coming into being/e0istence. 6he istinction1 possible vs.
actual only lines up with that o! appearance vs. non-appearance o! an
abstract !orm.
RJel_ovich oes not aress why the zero-point energies o! the !iels
o not buil up a huge cosmological constant. "o he assumes1 in a
rather a hoc way1 that the zero-point energies1 as well as higher orer
electromagnetic corrections to this1 are e!!ectively cancelle to zero in
the theory. Fhat is le!t are the higher orer corrections where gravity is
involve1 an the spirit o! Jel_ovich_s paper is that this Rle!t overS
vacuum energy1 acting as a cosmological constant1 might e0plain the
quasar observations1 c.!.1 6he Puantum Iacuum an the 3osmological
3onstant 7roblem1 Augh an JinKernagel.S ?ut Rhigher orer
correctionsS are arti!acts o! the particular assumptions mae by the
theorist an so what has been le!t outsie o! these appro0imations cannot
be cite as the source o! all the important physics treate in the theory.
=ow can the substantive physics escribe by a theory be a !unction o!
the arbitrary choices that unerlie the appro0imations o! the theory.
Jel_ovich theorizes that inuce gravitational e!!ects occur with higher
orer correction terms in the e!!ective theory where the positive an
negative energy contributions o! the vacuum !ail to precisely cancel.
6his is puzzling !or several reasons. Hs Jel_ovich saying that both the
positive an negative energy o! the vacuum gravitate absolutely Can not
merely in the sense o! inuce gravitationD1 but that there is only an
observable inuce gravitational e!!ect !rom the vacuum component that
!ails to cancel?
6he inner-outer or sub5ective-ob5ective istinction applies anew to each
iniviual person_s consciousness. Hn metaphysical terms there!ore this
istinction must !ail when applie to two or more istinct iniviual
consciousnesses.
=ow oes the inistinguishability o! quantum particles a!!ect the group
theoretic escription o! particle permutations an combinations? 6he
breaKing o! a symmetry as the partitioning o! a group into subgroups is
e0empli!ie by the collapse or evolution o! a pure state wave!unction
into a statistically mi0e state. C"uperpose eigenstates o not
e0change momentum or energy with one anotherD /n /belian group
trans!ormation represents a commutative operationV a non-/belian
trans!ormation represents non-commutative operations. 6he shi!t in
vacuum statistics !rom a balance o! commuting an anti-commuting
virtual particles towar more commuting an less anti-commuting
constitutes a change in the topology CconnectivityD o! the vacuum.
Hmagine that time ilation is to be conceptualize through the analogy o!
a subatomic size penulum Cor couple system o! such oscillatorsD or
mass1 m1 length1 . an perio o! oscillation o! 6 = sqrt[./g\. ?ut what
shall play the role o! RgS here1 that is o! restoring the penulum bob to
RrestS once perturbe?
H! =eisenberg energy uncertainty is not assume then energy is clearly
not conserve uring atomic transitions. ;nergy might be eeme to be
conserve uring atomic transitions that are RcauseS by !luctuations in
the vacuum_s energy o! ;

Y= /a;1 c.!.1 coe!!icient o! spontaneous being

etermine by local ensity o! virtual photons. /tomic transitions that
are triggere by e0change o! virtual photons between neighboring
e0cite atoms on_t invoKe the action o! the vacuum in terms o! its
!luctuation energy. >ust imagine a close system o! e0cite atoms1 say
containe within a quantum resonant cavity1 an in which the transitions
in energy o! each atom is triggere by photons emitte by neighboring
5ust ee0cite atoms. /at b a comple0 superposition o! times at which a
particle may be !oun within a speci!ie region. /a0 b a comple0
superposition places at which a particle may be !oun uring a speci!ie
internal o! time.
6he 4ibbs phenomenon is not present in the absence o! initial or
bounary conitions upon the wave!unction-ensity matri0. /lthough a
blacK hole horizon oes not appear to i!!erentiate between which virtual
!ermion o! a spontaneously create virtual 3ooper pair !alls into the
horizon an which particle escapes !rom this horizonV it may be that the
horizon presente by a rapily e0paning universe Cor even an
in!lating universeD inee i!!erentiates matter !rom antimatter virtual
!ermions1 pre!erentially absorbing one over the other. 9r perhaps there is
an unsuspecte egeneracy in the structure o! the photon that masKs the
i!!erence between photons an anti-photons1 one that i not e0ist prior
to the last phase transition unergone by the quantum vacuum as it was
cooling. 6he electron1 muon an 6au may have once i!!ere by more
than merely their mass. 6here may have been in other wors1 multiple
varieties o! electron an positron an these i!!erences perhaps can no
longer be sustaine by the phase presently occupie by the vacuum.
6he creation o! egeneracies by a phase change o! the vacuum is 5ust the
opposite o! a symmetry breaKing o! the vacuum1 e.g.1 !reezing o! water1
etc. /n involves the isappearance o! certain historical1 local
interactions1 e.g.1 loss o! multiple species o! photon1 leaing to photon
an antiphoton becoming inistinguishable.
@onlocal correlations encoe the in!ormation about the historical
interaction o! particles that woul otherwise ha been boun up in local
interactions o! the particles that woul have violate the principle o! the
particlesG istinguishability Cas well as =eisenberg uncertaintyD. C"ee a
glimmer o! the physical basis o! the istinction o! !ree will an
causalityD. 3hanges to the bounary conitions o! 7si that are not
traceable to prior changes to the bounary conitions upon 7si or to the
"-eqn. :eterministic evolution o! 7si. 6he eterministic evolution o! 7si
Caccoring to the "-eqn.D automatically taKes into account all other
eterministic changes to the bounary conitions upon 7si. Hs this
principle true nonetheless when bounary conitions are interprete as
initial conitions?
6he behavior o! the the wave!unction is not in accor with that o! an
intersub5ective Ci.e.1 ob5ectiveD entity1 namely its behavior uner
collapse upon observation L only the bounary conitions upon
wave!unctions are reproucible. C"ee quantum nonemolition
measurementsD
Ht is easy to unerstan what acaemics have in min that motivates
them to len support to such liberal activist causes as removal o! the
phrase Runer 4oS !rom the /merican 7lege o! /llegiance. 6hese
ivory tower thinKers1 heavily in!luence by postmoern an
econstructive thought picture a worl in which humans spontaneously
!orm their own tribes while still in their youth an !reely choose to aopt
their own iniviually suite !olKways an belie! systems while uner
the tutelage o! a state-run school system1 which itsel! maKes no value
5ugments concerning theory an practice o! human e0istence1 other
than that o! respect !or choice an iversity on the one han an
promotion by each iniviual an tribe o! its own health1 sa!ety1 security
an pragmatic e!!iciency on the other han.
Hn such a society no one shoul be the conscience !or another an the
"tate only assumes its role as conscience shoul the ethics o! one impose
itsel! upon that o! another. 6he very notion o! society requiring some
trans-tribal Rallegiance to a monolithic stateS is to these cloistere
acaemics o! the utmost repugnance1 particularly shoul the public
schools be complicit in the promotion1 still less the en!orcement o! such
an allegiance. "uch an iealist utopia coul only be possible in some
istant technological !uture in which competition in every sphere o!
eneavor has been renere unnecessary to inclue the !ree-marKet
capitalist system. 6his glorious !uture becomes possible only once Rthe
human !actorS is success!ully eite out o! the techno-societal equation.
6his begs the important question: who shall be responsible in this istant
technocratic society o! haning over absolute power to the R5ust
machinesS who shall !orthrightly an ethically regulate human society1
necessarily to inclue the placing of ine6orable limits upon all future
prospects of higher human eneavor1 which is to say placing those limits
upon the human spirit itsel!. 6his misguie iealistic vision !or a
per!ectly regulate !uture society at once striKes those o! the pioneering1
inventing1 iscovering human spirit as a Kin o! meaningless !ishbowl in
which a trivial e0istence o! Rbirth1 school1 worK1 eathS shall play itsel!
out over countless generations. Ht is at this stage1 perhaps centuries
hence when -uruKawa_s originally presumptuously conceive R;n o!
=istoryS shall truly have taKen place. Fe are remine here o! the
!ollowing verse !rom the ?ible1 ;cclesiastes *:**: R6here is no
remembrance o! men o! ol1 an even those who are yet to come will not
be remembere by those who !ollow.S
6o recap1 a -itzgeral-.orentz contraction o!1 e.g.1 a gas o! interacting
!ermions with relativistic velocity irecte along the positive 0-irection
results in a liKe contraction o! the 0-positional uncertainty1 /a0 o! the gas
particles. ?y the relation1 /a0/ap
0
b h1 the 0-momentum uncertainty1 /ap
0
o! the gas/gas particles is inversely increase. Hn aition1 by virtue o!
relativistic time ilation1 the =eisenberg time uncertainty1 /at o! the
physical processes occurring within the interacting !ermion gas increases
an the =eisenberg energy uncertainty o! the !ermions o! the gas1 /a;
i
ecreases inversely with the magnitue o! the time ilation. ?y virtue
o! the changes in /a0 an /at being mutually relate as components o! a
spacetime !our vector1 it !ollows that the /ap
i
an /a; are also mutually
relate as components o! a spacetime !our vector. 6he !unamental
origin o! =eisenberg $-momentum an energy uncertainties lies with
spontaneous quantum !luctuations o! the vacuum_s own $-momentum
an energy1 c.!.1 www.google.com !or e0planation o! the concept o! the
Rconservation o! interactionS.
Aelativistic e!!ects such as those escribe above !ollow irectly !rom
the .orentz invariance o! the vacuum.
Qd
H! .orentz invariance is not to
be merely a formal structure1 but still more a physical property o! the
vacuum1 then at some e0treme limit o! the bounary conitions1 .orentz
invariance must breaK own. 6his is a eep philosophical point in
physics: physical properties can never be absolute in the sense o! pure
mathematical relationships1 but must always be a !unction o! the
supplie bounary conitions. 7hysical laws escribe by !ormal
mathematical relationships are really not Rphysical lawsS at all1 but are
the real1 hien an !orever unascertainable physical laws sub5ect to
initial an bounary conitions.
Qd
6he vast permutational-
combinational pool !rom which the /nthropic 3osmological 7rinciple
appears to raw its Re0planatory powerS is now seen to contain only the
set o! possible bounary conitions to what is a !unamentally open-
ene physical or causal process. 6he implication here seems to be that
the istinction1 abstract vs. concrete or !ormal vs. physical has thusly
been turne on its hea. 7arao0ically1 real Rphysical processS never
mani!ests itsel! so that man_s instruments o! observation may reach. Ht_s
been asKe1 RFhat breathes !ire into the equations o! physics?S so that
the equations escribe a real rather than simulate physical worl.
6he $-momentum an energy quantum operators may o! course be
ecompose into appropriate creation an annihilation operators1
m
a an
m
a
+
as emonstrate in any unergrauate quantum mechanics te0tbooK.
Hn the case o! /ap
i
the particles create an annihilate are virtual bosonsV
in the case o! /ap
)
C/a;D the particles create an annihilate are virtual
!ermion-anti!ermion C3ooperD pairs. 6he iscussion thus !ar points up
the vital importance o! quantum statistics to a physical mechanism
unerlying special relativistic e!!ects. Fhat this means is that the
peculiar e!!ects o! special relativity are real physical e!!ects an not
merely appearances base in changes or i!!erences in the re!erence
!rames o! observers. "o rather than special relativistic e!!ects being
merely Kinematical in origin1 these e!!ects are now seen as ynamical in
nature. Hn other wors1 rather than relativistic changes in the
=eisenberg momentum an energy uncertainties being the e!!ect o!
relativistic changes in the =eisenberg position an time uncertainties1
5ust the converse o! this is true: the relativistic changes in time an space
are cause by changes in the temporal an spatial rates o! virtual
!ermion an boson creation-annihilation within the accelerate ob5ect_s
local quantum vacuum. Ht seems in terms o! this moel that when a
mass is accelerate uner thrust1 the energy supplie to the ob5ect in
orer to accelerate it oes so by virtue o! this energy a!!ecting the
structure o! the local quantum vacuum surrouning the ob5ect an in
which the ob5ect is embee Can which continually acts to sustain this
ob5ect Rin e0istenceSD. ?ecause o! the well note equivalence o! inertial
!rames1 the ob5ect must move in response to this acceleration in such a
manner that the ob5ect continues to RperceiveS aroun itsel! a spacetime
symmetric C.orentz invariantD quantum vacuum1 once the ob5ect is no
longer uner thrust.
>anuary 2)*(
>ust as the timescale changes in accorance with changes in the
generalize time uncertainty accoring to the =eisenberg principle also
oes the length scale change in accorance with changes in the
=eisenberg positional uncertainty.

7attern recognition is heavily epenent upon the ability o! the min to
grasp or raw !or itsel! linKages o! myria sets o! istinctions o!
i!!erent classes1 genres an levels o! abstract an/or metaphorical
escription. ?ut be!ore the min is set to per!orm this pattern
processing !unction1 there must be a pree0istent atabase o! connecte
clusters o! !amily resemblances.
Fe isavow the creature so as to eem ourselves worthy o! the glory o!
4o on our own merit. 9nly the wretcheness o! the evience o! sin1
e.g.1 ecay o! the boy1 the !ailing o! its various powers1 the
isintegration o! one_s relationships with !amily an with one_s !ellow
man1 loss o! one_s reams an ieals1 imly realizing the charae o!
human e0istence as man e!ines it !or himsel! through the consistency o!
his actions in the worl L only mis!ortunes such as this succee in
convincing one that he has all along stoo unworthy. ?ut o! course1 by
this late ate one is set an con!irme in the error o! one_s peculiar ways
an the truth o! "antayana_s ma0im1 R3haracter is !ateS is born out with
the greatest o! !orce. "ome are lucKy an through war or other
egraation have their inherent unworthiness emonstrate early on.
Fe are remine o! the 6ibetan ?uhist belie! that the sel! can be
boun to the wheel Co! e0istenceD not only by chains o! iron but by
Rchains o! golS as well.
@ovember 2)**
9ne only comes to true sel! Knowlege in the !ace o! that
which crushes the soul. 9ne coul argue that the sel! that becomes
thusly Known is merely that o! a !allen an not victorious sel!. "imilar
remarKs apply !or the sel!-Knowlege o! those who have been Rteste in
battle.S 6hese share a brotherhoo whether inee they !ought on the
same or opposite sies o! some epic con!lict.
R4ravitation is not physically inepenent o! the ynamics o! the
vacuum_s virtual processes an is not a source o! the ynamics.S
"ar!atti proposes a Rnew moelS in orer to e0plain the apparent
cosmological proportions o! arK matter an arK energy an more
importantly the reason !or a non-gravitating .orentz invariant vacuum
energy o! ensity *2$ orers o! magnitue larger than the cosmological
constant preicte by the ;instein !iel equations. Hn this moel1 a
vacuum ?ose conensate compose o! unboun !ermion-anti!ermion
virtual pairs contribute a negative energy to the cosmological constant
that counterbalances the positive contribution mae by virtual bosons
comprising the zero point energy !luctuations maKing up the
R=eisenberg uncertainty noiseS. "ar!atti_s propose moel seems more
or less consistent with what H propose in conversations with ?rian
"wi!t1 7h.:. in *22& an poste to the sci.physics newsgroup uring
*22%-*22N.
6he mismatch between e0periment an theory is so great in this
particular case that any theoretical escription which abstracts !rom the
real unerlying concrete process o! the quantum vacuum an there!ore
merely appro0imates the correct theory o! quantum gravity1 must en5oy
the pro!ounly improbable stroKe o! lucK in which two appro0imations
mae by the theory mutually cancel to * part per *)
*2$
in orer that the
theory_s preictions be consistent with the observe value o! the
cosmological constant. 6he cancellation o! two in!inities in such a
theory must however be e0actly ) an cannot yiel an in!initesimal
though !inite observe value !or the cosmological constant. 9nly a
theory there!ore which proposes an actual physical mechanism !or
gravity Can can emonstrate in terms o! a concrete moel that two or
more near in!inite physical quantities o in !act o!!set each other to
prouce such a small cosmological constantD has any prospect o!
accounting !or the quantum mechanical nature o! gravity while at once
remaining consistent with the preictions o! general relativity. :oes the
!act that the Runiversal gravitational constantS is the only !unamental
physical constant that cannot be etermine to greater than three ecimal
places inicate perhaps that gravity is not a !unamental !orce?
7henomenologists tell us that perception an observation are necessarily
theory-laen. 6hat both quantum theory an general relativity are
con!irme to many ecimal places in all o! their substantive preictions
an yet seem to starKly con!lict in their preictions !or the value o! the
cosmological constant suggests that the very e!initions o!
Rcosmological constantS presume in the two theories are
incommensurate. Hn other wors1 the two theories o not maKe wiely
iscrepant preictions concerning a single quantityV rather quantum
theory an general relativity e!ine the cosmological constant !rom
incompatible points o! view1 quantum theory1 !rom the subatomic1
general relativity1 !rom the cosmological. Fhen one compares the
quantum an cosmological istance scales1 *)
-$'
vs. *)
2&
meters1 one
realizes a i!!erence o! scale o! appro0imately &* orers o! magnitue.
Ht is liKely no coincience that the square o! this istance scale
iscrepancy yiels a i!!erence in orer o! magnitue o! *2$. 6his is
5ust the iscrepancy between general relativity_s preictions !or the
ensity o! a blacK hole at opposite ens o! the quantum-cosmological
istance scale. 3learly the ensity o! the quantum vacuum is bounary
conition epenent an not absolute. 6his is !urther support !or our
earlier state notion that it is only the boun energy component o! the
quantum vacuum that !igures in the vacuum_s energy e0pectation value
an hence possessing gravitational mass equivalency.
Fith increasing gravitational potential1 greater ensity o! virtual
!ermion-anti!ermion pairs become mutually couple an couple to the
,nruh thermal vacuum via the inuce greater ensity o! e0change
bosons. 6he increase ensity o! quantum locally connecte ,nruh
thermal virtual pairs is compensate by a ecrease ensity o! quantum
nonlocally connecte virtual !ermion-anti!ermion pairs. Hn a wor1 the
in!ormation boun up in the quantum nonlocal energy !luctuations is
converte to the entropy o! the quantum locally connecte momentum
!luctuations. / matri0 o! virtual !ermions in which !ermions are only
quantum nonlocally connecte an not couple through e0changes o!
virtual momentum may be moele as a minimally entropic
thermoynamic system. "ince this matri0 o! virtual 3ooper pairs
constitutes the =eisenberg energy uncertainty o! the !ree space quantum
vacuum1 the !ree space quantum vacuum is !or practical purposes in a
global eigenstate o! its =amiltonian. 8utual e0change o! virtual bosons
between the virtual 3ooper pairs implies local virtual transitions o! the
quantum vacuum between istinct vacuum eigenenergies. Fe nee to
note a istinction here between two types o! vacuum energy !luctuations1
spacetime symmetric1 globally egenerate an RbroKen-spacetime-
symmetricS !luctuations. Hs the istinction here also characterize by
virtual boson e0changes between !ermions e0clusively within virtual
3ooper pairs vs. virtual boson e0changes between an among the virtual
3ooper pairs? ;0changes o! $-momentum between 3ooper pairs woul
ten to isrupt the per!ect1 crystalline orer o! the !ermionic vacuum as a
matri0 o! non-interacting !ermion-anti!ermion pairs that are nonetheless
mutually simultaneous to within the =eisenberg time uncertainty o! the
moment o! each pair_s creation-annihilation out o! a vacuum state o!
near ) eigenenergy. 6he virtual 3ooper pairs are only mutually
interacting via virtual $-momentum e0changes to within the =eisenberg
$-momentum uncertainty o! the contiguous pairs. Hn this way1 there is
no istinction between emission an absorption o! a virtual photon
between contiguous virtual pairs. -ull reversibility o! $-momentum
e0change is thus maintaine in the !ree space quantum vacuum. 9nce
the momentum-energy o! the e0change virtual bosons e0cees that o!
the =eisenberg !luctuation energy Cenergy uncertaintyD o! the virtual
pairs1 then the virtual interactions o! mutual e0change o! $-momenta
becomes no longer reversible with the engenering o! a certain ensity
o! thermoynamic entropy within the local quantum vacuum. /t 5ust
this stage oes the erstwhile per!ectly crystalline global structure o! the
vacuum begin to breaK own into a pattern o! localize omains 6his
remins us o! the onset o! convection within a heate !lui1 once the
threshol !or the !luis thermoynamic equilibrium has been e0ceee
by too great a rate o! heating vis a vis the !lui_s internal capacity !or
heat trans!er. 6he close relationship o! the "chroinger an =eat
i!!usion equations perhaps supports this thermoynamic analogy with
vacuum processes.
Iiolations o! .orentz invariance1 e.g.1 !ormation o! gluon conensates in
e0tremely high energy particle accelerators1 were only to be e0pecte
eventually as observational instrumentation an accelerator energies
have improve1 since relativistic e!!ects are physical e!!ects1 that is1 the
mathematical equations o! relativity theory are abstractions1 which as
such may only capture physics in its escriptions to a certain level o!
appro0imation. -rom this point o! view all mathematical physical
theories are Re!!ective theoriesS. ?ut the substituting o! metaphysical
theories !or these e!!ective theories seems much the less esirable
alternative. 6his is 5ust the !unamental philosophical i!!erence that
has always e0iste between avocates o! the 3openhagen an ?ohmian
interpretations o! the quantum measurement problem.
"ee recent scienti!ic articles concerning the recent !irst creation o!
R!ermionic conensates.S Aesearch phenomenon o! !ormation o! ?ose-
;instein conensates as a physical e!!ect o! .orentz contraction at
relativistic particle energies. 6he !act o! qualitative an not merely
quantitative physical changes result !rom particles reaching relativistic
energies is intriguing !or a number o! reasons. -irstly1 this phenomenon
points up the possibility that .orentz invariance is only vali !or lower
orer physical phenomena. "econly1 that pre!erre inertial !rame
e!!ects are only masKe at low energy.
3.!.1 /pril 2))( issue o! "cienti!ic /merican magazine1 p. $)1 paragraph
21 R"hattere 4lass.S R/s protons or heavy nuclei1 such as gol1 are
accelerate to nearly the spee o! light1 the quarKs an gluons insie
!latten into a pancaKe-liKe structure1 a relativistic e!!ect calle .orentz
contraction. 6he energy o! acceleration also prouces more gluons.
6he !lattene multitue o! gluons then begins to overlap1 !alling into the
same quantum state1 similar to the way atoms in a low-temperature
?ose-;instein conensate overlap an behave collectively as one
gigantic atom.S
3.!.1 /pril 2))( issue o! :iscover magazine1 p. *N1 paragraph *1 R/
"lippery @ew "tate o! 8atter.S R6he helium became a soli whose
atoms settle into the same quantum groun state1 meaning they all ha
the same energy.S RHn this phase1 calle a ?ose-;instein conensate1 the
waveliKe aspects o! matter become prominent.S 3onstant an uni!orm
energy throughout the conensate o! course implies that the conensate
is not unergoing any energy !luctuations. :oes this also imply that the
conensate is unergoing ma0imal $-momentum e0changes within its
bulK? =ow o we reconcile this result with the results reporte in the
article1 Puantum @oise in 7hotonics with respect to our notion o! the
momentum-energy !luctuation vector? :oesn_t the ?ose-;instein
conensate represent a special case o! squeeze quantum states where
vanishing energy !luctuations o! the conensate must mean trans!er o!
the =eisenberg uncertainty noise to $-momentum egrees o! !reeom1
corresponing to the spacetime squeezing o! the vacuum?
=ow can environmental ecoherence come about through the
overwhelming o! the vacuum egrees o! !reeom by the egrees o!
!reeom o! a mere gaseous mi0ture o! molecules? 8ight these egrees
o! !reeom o! the gas be those o! an associate abstract =ilbert space?
8ust the gas breaK up into a matri0 o! omains with each omain
e!ine by the ensity o! permutational-combinational egrees o!
!reeom o! the gas within this omain Crelative to the unerlying
supporting quantum vacuumD? 6his is reminiscent o! the !ormation o!
?ernar cells in a heate gas or !lui unergoing convection beyon the
threshol that can be supporte by the convective egrees o! !reeom !or
the entire mass o! heate !lui/gas. 6he size o! the ?ernar cells in this
particular case is etermine by a balance between raiative an
convective heat !low such that local thermal equilibrium o! the !lui/gas
is Cmaintaine or minimize?D
-reu_s 7sychic ;nergy 3onservation C-7;3D principle that is at worK in
reams is analogously at worK in quantum !iel theory. 6he stability o!
matter is epenent upon =eisenberg uncertainty1 i.e.1 Rnot looKingS.
6he collapse o! the wave!unction is an e0ample o! this1 but because the
worl is never a quantum coherent state Cas inee perhaps a ream isD1
the act o! quantum observation oesn_t prouce macroscopic Cor
intersub5ectiveD e!!ects as is the case !or a ream1 which may be
escribe as a timeliKe coherent state1 as oppose to the physical CRout
thereSD spaceliKe coherent state. 3ollapse Cor rawing own?D o! the
R!alse vacuumS that le to the creation o! all o! the bits o! physical
reality is analogous to the rawing own o! the reamer_s consciousness
to prouce the quantum coherent state o! the reamer_s imagine worl.
6he bits o! reality o! the reamer_s worl are boun together via
quantum nonlocal connections that !unction as the causality o! the
reamscape. Hn physical reality the worl coheres through the mutual
e0change o! $-momentum1 which is by an large a local quantum1 as
oppose to a quantum nonlocal process.
6here is in!initely greater scope !or creativity when the system in which
new !orms are brought !orth is not limite to maintaining a coherent
state1 i.e.1 a RpureS or unmi0e state or statistical mi0ture. Hn a coherent
state the quantum system has to be irectly an continuously supporte
by timeliKe !luctuations in the vacuum_s energy1 all the while the
system_s global symmetry must remain in e!!ect. /s alreay mentione
in!initely greater scope !or evelopment o! the system is opene up once
the global symmetry o! the system is broKen1 resulting in the emergence
o! local symmetries an their associate e0change particles/!iels. 6he
system now no longer possesses a single quantum phase. 6he internal
!orces that emerge within the system when its global symmetry was
broKen are now escribe in terms o! a local symmetry groups
escribing trans!ormation o! local quantum phases o! the system
components1 e.g.1 the "9-$ symmetry group o! spacetime trans!ormation
o! the vector potential1 /C01tD in the case o! the electromagnetic !orce
C.orentz trans!ormations o! /C01tDD. CAewrite this a!ter seeing OaKu_s
booK1 Puantum -iel 6heoryD 6he trans!ormation symmetry groups !or
the weaK nuclear an strong nuclear e0change !orces o! course escribe
other pieces o! the broKen global symmetry.
Qd
4ravity is presently
thought to be what results when the global supersymmetry o! the
vacuum becomes broKen.
9ne possible general approach to solving the Rcosmological constantS
problem woul be to introuce a theory in which gravity is e0plaine in
terms o! !iels that respect spacetime coorinates1 but only once a
spacetime coorinate system has been arbitrarily chosen an which is
otherwise ine0e by variables not e!ine with respect to spacetime.
Fhat e!!ect might the observer_s state o! Knowlege have upon
statistically mi0e states while he is observing them?
Qd
Hs there any
type o! observation/measurement that might be per!orme upon a
statistically mi0e quantum state that woul have an analogously
isruptive e!!ect upon the system to that by which the observer_s
consciousness collapses the state vector escribing a pure quantum
state?
Fere quantum particles istinguishable1 both quantum statistics an the
=eisenberg uncertainty principle woul be violate. 8oreover1 the ?ell
inequality woul become a new physical law1 i.e.1 not be violate1
maKing nonlocal quantum connections impossible1 in aition to
quantum superposition itsel!. Hn a wor1 everything that maKes
quantum mechanics woner!ul an counterintuitive in contraistinction
to classical physics woul be rule out in the event o! quantum particles
being istinguishable.
/t some crucial point1 perhaps connecte on a su!!iciently small
spatiotemporal scale quantum particles become conte0t epenent1 that
is1 i!!erences which coul in theory be seize upon as a basis !or
istinguishing the particle were it not !or the !act o! this conte0t being
one an the same with that to which the observer_s brain is energetically
couple1
Qd
so that mutual inter!erence between the two conte0ts1 that o!
particle an observer_s consciousness1 estroys the in!ormation
otherwise available to the observer that coul have been use to
istinguish the particles1 violating all that quantum mechanics hols
ear. 6his brings up the question whether all characteristically
quantum e!!ects might not be observer e!!ects that result !rom the act o!
observation incorporating the quantum system as a linK interpose in the
cycle o! recursive !eebacK o! the observer_s consciousness. 9n such a
view classical physics woul represent Rob5ective behaviorS on the part
o! nature1 behavior o! systems in accorance with the eterministic
"chroinger equation1 Rintersub5ective behaviorS an quantum behavior
!alling outsie the scope o! the "chroinger equation o! motion1
quantum e!!ects where the istinction between Rsub5ective8 an
7ob$ective8 begins to brea' own. &uch 7brea'own8 woul be
interprete as a transition from the observerDs brain an the observe
Buantum system merely e6changing energy to these two systems
beginning to e6change information1 i.e.1 becoming quantum nonlocally
couple.
"o the usual quantum-classical ichotomy shoul perhaps be replace
with the tripartite category: ob5ect-ob5ect1 ob5ect-sub5ect1 sub5ect-sub5ect.
@onlocal quantum e!!ects may be play!ully thought o! as resulting
whenever
Qd
the ob5ective aspects o! sub5ectivity become entangle with
the sub5ective aspects o! ob5ectivity. 6his taKes place when the groun
o! the observer_s min an that o! the system being observe become
couple. "ystem becomes conscious o! the observer an the observer
acts upon the system in an unanticipate manner1 c.!.1 Rsurprising the
vacuumS.
6he !act that not only physical interactions may trigger iscontinuous
changes in the state vector1 e.g.1 environmental ecoherence1 but that
observer-inuce changes to the spectrum o! counter!actuals may o
this1 suggests that it is not so much the consciousness per se o! actual
iniviuals1 but the possible consciousness o! potential iniviuals that
are really responsible !or 7si collapse in1 e.g.1 Relaye-choiceS
e0periments.
Hn other wors1 quantum e!!ects are the peculiar phenomena inuce
whenever the observer_s act o! observation causes his consciousness to
Rbump into itsel!S1 i.e.1 to unergo sel! inter!erence. Fhenever this
sel!-inter!erence is initiate by the system Crather than by the observer
himsel!D the e!!ect is the observer_s perception o! the well-behave
e0ternal worl o! classical physicsV when initiate by the observer
himsel!1 the e!!ect e0hibite has the peculiar characteristics o! a quantum
as oppose to a classical system. The observerDs act of Buantum
observation etermines a system eigenvalue for him" but only etermines
the Buantum probability of system eigenvalues for anyone else.
Qd
6he
observer can only observe quantum e!!ects resulting !rom his own acts
o! observation/measurement. 6he e!!ect o! others_ acts o! observation
can always be aequately escribe in terms o! classical physics. 6his
is a rather bol hypothesis that i! true1 might help us to unerstan the
unique an highly peculiar role that consciousness plays in the quantum
measurement problem.
Qd
:iscuss the Rethnic se0ual imorphismS e0hibite by races that have
interbre with the 6urKs in terms o! natural selective pressure against
inbreeing that acts i!!erentially upon the se0es in cultures where
women are plunere uring invasions by conquering nomaic tribes
that leave behin !or e0tene perios the women o! their homelans.
6he reason why natural selection acts i!!erentially upon the se0es in
this case is perhaps clear.
=aag_s 6heorem says that uner certain bounary conitions the system
=amiltonian cannot be ecompose into inepenent interaction-!ree
an interactive components. 6his no oubt is connecte with the
nonseparability o! the wave!unction into spatial an temporal parts1
which in turn implies that the basis vectors in terms o! which the state
vectors are e0presse1 are not mutually orthogonal Rwithin spacetimeS
Cwhen the wave!unction_s argument is the spacetime interval rather than
inepenent space an time variablesD. Hs it possible !or the
components o! the spatial pro5ection o! 7siCsD to be non-orthogonal
while the C$ + *D components o! 7siCsD itsel! Cwithin a certain re!erence
!rameD to be mutually orthogonal?
R:iseaseS as Ris-easeS with ReaseS interprete as RgraceS an RiseaseS
becomes RisgraceS or rather R!all !rom graceS. 6he grace!ul athlete
oesn_t have to thinK about e0ecution o! his per!ormance1 though i! he
ever oes the e0ecution becomes less smooth i! not awKwar. 3ompare
to the grace!ul athlete the myria neuromuscular egenerative iseases
to which human beings can be genetically preispose.
6he conscious min stans in relation to the subconscious in much the
same way as oes a pale o! water to a roplet o! water. 6he conscious
min in its creative acts always trails behin the subconscious1 which is
these acts_ true author. 6he time lag is roughly that o! the temporal
imension o! the Rspecious present.S 9ne may be isappointe at the
illusory nature o! !ree will that is pointe up by ?en5amin .ibet_s
e0periments on the relative time o! action potentials an sub5ective
e0perience o! initiating an action1 but we really shoul be please that it
is the more competent o! partners Cthe subconsciousD that hols the real
responsibility !or our choices an actions. "o-calle o!!-the-cu!! humor
provies a reay e0ample o! this time elay between the conscious an
unconscious mins_ apprehension o! humorous relationships. 6he !inal
moment 5ust be!ore an insight into new relationships enters the
conscious min1 the subconscious is translating these insights Cwhich are
really its ownD into a language unerstoo by the analytical le!t-brain.
Qd
Creativity is a phenomenon of the other acting through the self. -or
some unKnown bene!it to the race1 seize upon by natural selection1 the
neural networKs o! the human brain evolve a structure which
consistently maintains peculiar timeliKe correlations between perceive
sensation1 intention1 ecision1 memory1 imagination an action so as to
put the long since rei!ie sel! o! the other1 but now pro5ecte upon the
human creature_s own person Rin the river_s seatS o! its substrate
homini (ombie.
@ovember 2)**
9ne possible simultaneous solution to the
problem o! min-boy ualism an the problem o! other mins is to
suppose that we are each an everyone philosophical (ombies relative to
each other" that is" to everyone but our own selves. Hn this way1
methoological an epistemological solipsism are true1 while
metaphysical solipsism can be maintaine as !alse L provie that there
is a concept o! consciousness such that each min can be consiere a
vali instantiation o! such a concept o! consciousness. 6here shoul be
no istinction between consciousness as such merely being a concept
versus its representing a universal min. Hn other wors1 when it comes
to consciousness as such1 the istinction between e6istence an
subsistence collapses.
Fhen gestalt perception o! the other systematically or organically !ails
or is isrupte1 there crops up an irreconcilable i!!erence between sel!
an other.
:issolution o! the ring in the ;lvin !orge o! 8oror symbolizes the
issolution o! structures o! one level o! unity into those o! higher unity1
i.e.1 the continuity o! the unbroKen circle !or that o! the continuity o! a
massive volume o! molten material. 6he e!!ect o! human consciousness
upon quantum measurement points to consciousness possessing a eeper
physical unity than that o! any physical system that may be escribe by
a quantum mechanical wave!unction1 as well as to the !unamental
incommensurability o! sub5ective an intersub5ective physical processes.
>une 2)**
=uman beings are by an large unaware o! how pat an stylize
are the allege intersub5ective ob5ects populating their sub5ective !iel o!
perception. 6he a priori !orms o! perception are arti!acts o! manKin_s
long an rawn out chilhoo an it appears that each has been care!ully
esigne by a caring an solitous parent seeKing to enhance the coziness
an reassuring !amiliarity o! her eveloping toler_s environment.
,nity correspons to trans!ormational symmetry. 3oherence is a
phenomenon o! compensation o! lost global symmetry that is perhaps
boun up in nonlocal quantum connectivity.
3.!.1 R:iese Ierammte PuantenspringereiS C
cit=
./@. 7reprint "erver
article1 ate 2$ 9ctober 2)))D1 R.et us compromise by consiering a
!inite sequence o! measurements an trying to capture the ieal o!
continuous awareness by letting the measurements get closer an closer
in time1 taKing the limit as the separation between them tens to zero.
Fe will replace steay watching with repeate looKing. 6he result is
isconcerting. . . . "o i! the unstable particle is observe assiuously
enough the probability that it has ecaye at time 6 is the same as at
time1 namely zero i! we start out Knowing that it has not ecaye. /
watche pot never boils. ;ither that or continual measurement is not a
goo moel !or continuous observation.S =ow oes the observer_s
uncertainty Cabout whether he has witnesse the quantum event he is
e0pecting to observeD relate to the !unamental quantum C=eisenbergD
uncertainty1 an is this connection a systemic an logically necessary
one? =ow oes the quantum uncertainty o! the observer_s brain relate
to the observer_s uncertainty as to his own quantum measurements
Cincluing those o! his own brain_s quantum stateD?
Hs there a connection between
au=
Figner_s RFigner_s -rienS
interpretation o! the quantum measurement problem an the integral
temporal structure o! the stream o! human consciousness an this
consciousness_ Rspecious presentS1 i.e.1 the temporal RbubbleS in which
all temporal change is RintegrateS an in which all ob5ects are
represente within consciousness? 6here seems to be at least two
istinct though closely interconnecte a0es o! temporality in human
consciousness1 that along which time is integrate within a single
Rtemporal bubbleS an that a0is along which the contents o! a given
temporal bubble are upate to re!lect changing states o! awareness.
6he oscillation an/or rolling o! the electron gun scan lines1 which
become visible whenever a live television camera is aime at a
television receiver receiving a broacast serves as a partial though
perhaps use!ul analogy !or the e!!ect o! close an etaile observation o!
atoms an molecules by a scanning electron microscope. Hn the case
where the camera is pointe at the television receiver that is alreay
receiving a signal !rom the same camera1 stunning symmetrical1
oscillating !ractal patterns are seen. 6he !ractal structure is not limite
to spatial patterns1 but the pattern o! oscillation o! the vieo output over
time is also !ractal an possessing a Kin o! symmetry. "imilar to
-ourier analysis o! time or position omain !unctions in terms o!
!unctions with respect to !requency an momentum1 the non-recursive
vieo patterns shoul be ecomposable in terms o! sets o! interacting
recursive patterns. =ere we_re remine o! earlier iscussion o! the
emergence o! e0pectation values !rom quantum !luctuations an
au=
=eisenberg uncertainties Cvia nonlocal quantum correlationsD. 6he
reuction o! =eisenberg uncertainty was relate to the quantity o!
in!ormation containe in a structure abstracte !rom the matri0 o!
nonlocally connecte vacuum !luctuations. 6his in!ormation is
containe in the networK o! nonlocal quantum !luctuations composing
the part o! the =eisenberg uncertainty that was given up in orer that a
given structure o! matter be brought !orth !rom the vacuum. ?ut as we
alreay state1 some structures must be composite while others are
RelementalS1 i.e.1 these structures may be evoKe !rom the vacuum by
only supplying the necessary quantity o! uni!!erentiate energy1 e.g.1
Kinetic energy o! accelerator riven particles1 laser light energy
penetrating an atomic or nuclear electromagnetic !iel. Fe may
istinguish here two !unamental types o! Rprocesse ataS: in!ormation
an e0!ormation1 c.!.1
au=
@orretaners_ 6he "cience o! 3onsciousness
C;nglish 6ranslationD or "puere ie Felt: :ie Fissenscha!t es
?ewusstseins C4erman 6ranslationD
6here are other structures without oubt supporte by interaction with
!luctuations o! the quantum vacuum once they come into being by other
agencies1 which cannot be brought into being via simple stimulation o!
the vacuum1 i.e.1 supplying energy to pree0istent vacuum moes1 but
which may be brought into being via what we might conveniently term
nonsimple stimulation o! the vacuum. "o-calle nonsimple stimulation
o! the vacuum necessitates the creation o! altogether new moes o! the
vacuum_s !luctuation that requires the !ouning o! altogether new
egrees o! !reeom !or the vacuum_s motion. 6he "chroinger equation
o! motion on the other han may escribe only those motions o! the
vacuum that epen upon pree0istent vacuum moes or egrees o! the
vacuum_s !reeom Co! movementD. @onsimple stimulation o! the
vacuum necessitates the creation o! entropy1 constitutes an irreversible
process an the structures resulting constitute a certain quantity o!
in!ormation. / question that "helraKe might have in this connection is:
oes the relation between in!ormation an entropy content remain
constant when the same structures are create again an again through
the same pattern o! nonsimple stimulation o! the vacuum? H! not1 then
this might be connecte with the !unamental irreversible nature o!
nonsimple stimulation o! the quantum vacuum. Fhat we have here is
the physical analogy !or the mechanical RautomaticityS o! subconscious
processes in relation to the irreversible emergence o! new an
unanticipate/non-pre!igure structures within the conscious min.
6his is why we say that conscious thought an !reely wille action have
the e!!ect o! the !ree conscious agent per!orming metaphysical worK1 i.e.1
conscious human thought an !ree agency enlarges being through its
action.
$-momentum e0changes are associate with mechanical causalityV pure
imaginary (-momentum CenergyD e0changes1 with holistic causality.
6his istinction is very similar to that mae by
au=
/ristotle between
e!!icient an !inal causes.
-ree volition o! the agent places the originating point o! such an agent_s
actions altogether outsie o! the realm o! spacetime an momentum-
energy Cmatter-energyD.
Qd
-ree will cannot be capture by the temporal
evolution o! the
au=
"chroinger equation o! motion1 hence the necessity
o! !reely wille actions triggering wave!unction collapse o! systems with
which human agents !reely interact.
@ear in!inite vacuum energy ensity an
au=
3hew-liKe "-8atri0 structure
o! "tanar 8oel particle physics as evience o! ivine power an
provience.
3hance as only being a eciing !actor in the time/5uncture an viability
relative to the prevailing environment an not the quality Cthat is1
coherence an stabilityD o! a given species o! organism_s arising in the
RprogressionS o! evolutionary evelopment.
3osmological !ine tuning shoul be unerstoo not in terms o! a Ronce
!or all timeS initial conition1 but in terms o! a bounary conition
whose active en!orcement is ongoing.
Hs there some !unamental1 that is1 physically base limit upon the
!ielity o! transmission o! ata. Hs the encoing o! ata as in!ormation a
means o! transmitting this ata analogous to the way the power company
avois electrical energy losses to >oule heating o! transmission lines by
boosting the voltage o! the transmitte power up to Rhigh tensionS
levels1 i.e.1 *))1))) Iolts or more? "ince some RmistaKesS in
transmission o! genetic in!ormation prove to be non-eleterious or even
bene!icial to successive generations o! organisms1 some o! the loss o!
!ielity o! in!ormation transmitte genetically cannot be so simply
interprete in terms o! increases in the in!ormation system entropy.
Ht is interesting that a wor o! ours !or R)S is RcipherS1 which means at
once RcryptographS an RnothingnessS.
v
recessioin
= = 0 r
a
cosmological
= v/t = v/r 0 r/t = =
2
r
>une 2)**
Ht is allege that on account o! the newly iscovere acceleration
o! the rate o! cosmological e0pansion1 the universe must be at least twice
the size o! the observable universe1 which resolves the parao0 o!
astronomer_s observations o! stars seemingly oler than the universe Cin
the hereto!ore unerstoo case o! a uni!ormly e0paning universeD.
v/r Y ) where r
2
L r
*
Y ) an r/t Y ) an so a
cosmological
!or a photon
traveling sunwar is =c. 6his is a component o! acceleration over an
above that ue to classical gravitation. 6his is precisely the anomalous
component o! sunwar acceleration o! the 7ioneer *) an ** spacecra!ts1
which has been hereto!ore une0plaine by present ay physical science.
6he value o! the =ubble constant may now be precisely etermine an
perhaps in turn also the average mass ensity o! the ,niverse. 6he
outwar recessional velocity o! space away !rom the observer ecreases
as a photon propagates towars the observer1 inicating that the photon
appears to be accelerating along its irection o! travel towar the
observer. H! this acceleration o! the photon is not taKen into account1
this acceleration shall be !alsely attribute to the photon_s point o!
origin.
6he parao0 o! the proper interpretation o! the energy shi!t o! a photon
that is re!lecte between two gravitational potentials was !inally solve
a!ter about *) years o! thinKing o!! an on upon the problem. 6here is
another associate parao0 o! how accumulate time ilation a!!ects the
spacetime interval connecting two gravitational potentials that are
relatively static in three imensions1 but which are progressively
separating by virtue o! occupying points o! spacetime with i!!erential
rates o! local cosmological e0pansion.
Qd
3ompare the concepts o! Rthe ini!!erence to the passage o! timeS with
the stability o! the groun o! the evolutionary process that is utterly
taKen !or grante by :arwinians.
Qd
6he abstraction that unerlies the process o! thought is itsel! an
irreversible process or action. /bstraction !rom any iniviual
consciousness to !orm a escription Co! a structureD that shall apply to all
human consciousnesses leaves out precisely what is i!!erent about that
particular consciousness that maKes it what it is L istinct !rom all other
consciousnesses.
>une 2)**
=ence such structures or escription can never
be sei(e upon to solve
auG
ChalmersD 7har problem8 of consciousness9
8y consciousness then is not a mere e0ample o! consciousness as such L
rather1 consciousness as such is itsel! an abstract notion conventionally
agree upon by every person C
Qd
who at the same time agrees to isavow
solipsismD. 6he i!!erences between the consciousnesses o! iniviual
persons are not abstract1 but substantial an there!ore these iniviual
i!!erences in consciousness cannot ever become part o! a theory o!
consciousness1
>une 2)**
e6cept within the min of a superF or
transcenental consciousness who serves as the groun of being for
consciousness as such.
/ theoretical e0planation o! consciousness as such shall not succee in
proviing an Re0istence proo!S !or any given iniviual consciousness.
;ach iniviual_s consciousness e0ists because it is a continuation !rom
earlier moment_s o! that consciousness_ e0istence an not because o! any
instantaneous integrity that that consciousness might at any moment
possess.
>une 2)**
6his points up the eternal pree0istence o! iniviual
consciousnesses Bua substances or at least o! their iniviuali(e
grouns. 9ne possible nacve-seeming solution to the rile o! the
eternal istinctness o! inviual consciousnesses is to suppose that one_s
sel!-consciousness is not the consciousness o! one_s own sel!1 but is a
phenomenon o! 4o_s e0periencing o! limitation through one_s
iniviual human !orm an human conte0t. 6his interpretation is
consistent with the assertion in the ?ooK o! ;cclesiastes that
cont_
6emporality may be a necessity !or any being not possessing a complete
escription1 i.e. that oes not possess an instantaneous eterminate state.
6he temporal e0tension o! consciousness is not merely owing to the
impinging upon consciousness o! an e0ternal worl1 but consciousness
possesses its own unique temporality that is integral to itsel!.
6he cancellation between immense positive bosonic energies with
equally immense negative !ermionic energies within the quantum
vacuum points to the e0istence o! a !ine tuning mechanism an in turn to
a control system governing this mechanism. 6he ratio o! !ermionic to
bosonic energy ensities within the vacuum correspons to the relative
preominance o! RpiloteS vs. automatic control o! the quantum
vacuum_s !luctuation matri01 which irectly !igures in the magnitue o!
time ilation within gravitational !iels. Fhen the piloting component
o! the control system o! the quantum vacuum is reuce to nil as in the
case o! a blacK hole1 time ilation an entropy are ma0imal an all
internal connectivity within the $-imensional component o! the vacuum
is thermalize1 while the (-component is reuce to ).
3ontinuity o! the sel! is not an abstract !eature o! the sel! an so cannot
be uplicate L so much !or Ourzweil_s notion o! ownloaing o! a
human consciousness. Fhat constitutes the continuity o! the sel! is the
conte0t !or all that actually or potentially taKes place within it.
/bstraction by its very e!inition necessarily involves isconnecting
what is to be escribe !rom its original1 embeing conte0t. /n it is
conte0t that istinguishes one consciousness !rom another1 not
something that may be abstracte !rom some conte0t. 3learly
abstracting !rom the conte0t o! another person_s ientity shall not permit
me to evelop a complete escription o! my own iniviual being.
8oreover1 abstracting !rom the conte0t o! my iniviual sel! cuts that
sel! o!! !rom that which gives this sel! ultimate meaning an signi!icance
as a sel! or as such. ?ecause consciousness lies at the very !ounation
o! thought1 which is in essence abstraction or the activity o! abstracting1
it !ollows that consciousness lies 5ust out o! reach o! the most avance
system o! abstract escriptions o! which a superhuman intelligence
might be capable. 6hought then originates 5ust on the other sie o! this
inter!ace separating the realms o! the abstract an the concrete or
perhaps more aptly1 thought originates 5ust on this sie o! the inter!ace
between e0istence an being. /gain1 e0istence is being in conte0t. 6he
question arises as to whether once each conscious entity is plucKe !rom
the conte0t o! each_s respective e0istence1 one arrives at the same or
i!!erent beings?
6he question is whether quantum probabilities are merely abstract
escriptions !or a more concrete process in which the wave!unction oes
not constitute the complete escription o! the system Chien variables
theoriesD or whether in !act complete escriptions implying the e0istence
o! parallel or alternate Rquantum universes.S
6he 7ioneer spacecra!t observe acceleration iscrepancies are easily
enough e0plaine by a hypothesis o! the local e!!ects o! cosmological
e0pansion.
"ee /lsing1 ;vans an @ani !or !urther iscussion: the e!lection o!
particles preicte general relativity as ue to curvature o! spacetime can
be alternately e0presse in terms o! the re!raction o! light ue to a shi!t
o! a spin { particle_s quantum mechanical phase. 6he e!lections o!
spin * particles1 i.e.1 light can also be give such a curve quantum phase
e0planation1 but only to lowest orer in Rh.S "hi!ts in the phase o! the
quantum mechanical wave!unction may o! course be alternately
e0presse in terms shi!ts in the probability current ensities o! creation
an annihilation o! virtual !ermions an bosons in the quantum vacuum.
:iscuss 4eo!!rey 3hew_s ?ootstrap "-8atri0 theory o! particle physics
in terms o! the 7lancK cuto!! energy an breaKown o! .orentz
invariance in con5unction with emergence o! new species o! particles not
preicte by the "tanar 8oel o! 7article 7hysics1 c.!. )$ -eb 2))(
email to J. -ah.
@ovember 2)*$
"omeone nees to evelop the new
!ormalism o! E7enrose :iagramsE as a new taKe on the C!or the time
being !aileD "-8atri0 EbootstrapE theory.
@ovember 2)*$
"ome clever 3hristian apologist shoul perhaps somewhat
tongue-in-cheeK evelop a new R"olipsism apologeticsS as a sort o!
Rapologetics by contraictionS1 which is to say1 an Rapologetics by
absurityS1 actually1 an in this way unmasK atheism as the Rhal!-baKe
solipsismS that it secretly is1 c.!.1
http://www.apologetics$*'.com/2)*$/**/terminology-tuesay-
solipsism.html
:iscuss energy egeneracy o! transitions unerlying operation o!
consciousness as such1 which possesses null energy uncertainty. /lso
mention the broKen symmetry o! consciousness as plural mins with
!inite li!etimes. 9nly the bounary conitions place upon
consciousness which ivie it1 giving each piece an energy uncertainty
Cas close systems perturbe by outsie Key-coe or quantum
entanglement encrypte vacuum !luctuationsD an hence a !inite li!etime1
c.!.1 )' -eb 2))( email to J. -ah1 c.!.1 the shattere hologram analogy
to holographic consciousness as such1 which1 when the symmetry o!
consciousness as such is broKen1 each piece re!lects only imper!ectly the
suchness o! the universal consciousness Ccorresponing to the taKing on
o! energy uncertainty an !inite time uncertainty o! each Rpiece o!
suchness-consciousnessSD.
@ovember 2)*$
6he Ehar encryptionE protocol
pointe up by the thus !ar scienti!ic impossibility o! veri!iable Cnon-
empathicD telepathy an the logical is5ointeness o! sub5ective an
intersub5ective/ob5ective suggests the e0istence o! a Echronology
protectionE sa!eguar !or this creation within spacetime an limitation.
6he continuity o! the iniviual consciousness represents a egeneracy1
which is to say a symmetryV the plurality o! iniviual consciousness1
the breaKing o! this symmetry via interactions constitutive o!
consciousness as such1 but which play no role unerlying an meiating
iniviual consciousness.
"pacetime curvature shoul be more properly unerstoo as
Rwavenumber-!requency curvatureS. H! spacetime is unerstoo in this
manner1 then it is easy to see that changes in the istribution o!
!luctuation momentum-energy Cin terms o! the correlations o!
!luctuations in momentum-energyD must1 accoring to a ?ayesian
probability analysis1 must be associate with corresponing changes in
the istribution o! probabilities o! positions an times o! test particle
observations Cor o! the potential !or observations o! test particles at
various places an timesD. C?ayesian probability replaces the ol
absolute probabilities with conitional ones. D
6he unreasonable e!!ectiveness o! 8an_s language1 i.e.1 metaphorical
thought in permitting construction o! use!ul escriptions o! the worl are
ue to the worl_s being mythically an magically structure Csimilar to
a reamD. Fhat is lost in intersub5ective transmission o! thought is only
that pertaining to the sub5ective aspects o! thought an this might be
believe to be an unsurprising an tautologous assertion1 but may
instea reveal an astouning RcoincienceS in the way the worl is
structure as intersub5ective realm o! istinct sub5ectivities. 6his
Rastouning coincienceS might be in essence similar to Figner_s note
coincience o! @ature with 8an_s mathematical escriptions o! her.
R8aterial reality e0ists only potentially until renere actual by
observation. ?ut there is no consensus on the basic question o! what
counts as the crucial measurement or observation. Hn one interpretation1
associate with1 !or instance1 Ion @eumann1 Figner1 an "tapp1
consciousness is crucial. Hn the E3openhagen interpretationE1 associate
originally with ?ohr1 measurement an the creation o! a recor by an
unconscious evice is su!!icient. R - 8ait ;ey1 9nline ?ulletin o!
"cience Fithin 3onsciousness C*22&D.
3onscious observation may be unerstoo as active registration o! a new
!act o! ?eingV the Rcreation o! a recorS Cin ?ohr_s above senseD as
merely potential registration o! some such new !actD. 7otential
RregistrationS is o! consequence !or the wave!unction only i! the recor
is create through an irreversible process1 i.e.1 it cannot be later arrange
that the event in question never happene. 6here may be a Rchronology
protectionS issue !or the theory o! quantum measurement here.
6he psychoynamic relating luci reaming to clinical epression is
involve in that larger ynamic which unerlies the breaKown o! the
bicameral min.
3an any aspects o! irreversibility1 say the unique aspects marKing the
original emergence o! a given insight be somehow passe to others1
perhaps even across many generations? Hn other wors1 o concepts
come own to us tagge on account o! their continue entanglement
with the sociocultural conte0t in which they !irst appeare? Hs part o!
the conte0t o! meaning1 which remains not !ully translatable1 the very
continuity o! the unerlying conte0t o! the successive an myria
applications o! a notion or concept? 6his notion is along the lines o!
"helraKe_s theories o! morphic resonance an !ormative causation.
6eleportation in a non-inertial !rame1 a paper by 7aul 8. /lsing an
:avi 8c8ahon
/bstract: Fhile .orentz trans!ormations cannot change the overall
quantum entanglement o! a bipartite state[$1 (\1 they can change which
properties o! the local systems are entangle. Hn particular1 4ingrich an
/ami['\ showe that uner a .orentz trans!ormation the initial
entanglement o! 5ust the spin egrees o! !reeom o! two spin hal!
particles can be trans!erre into an entanglement between both the spin
an momentum egrees o! !reeom. 7hysically this means that etectors1
which respon only to spin egrees o! !reeom1 will see a reuction o!
entanglement when they are moving at large uni!orm velocity. Hn so !ar
as teleportation !ielity is an operational measure o! quantum
entanglement1 our results suggest that quantum entanglement may not be
preserve in non-inertial !rames. C;n abstractD
6he sustainment o! quantum entanglement over a geoesic o! non-
negligibly curve spacetime woul permit superluminal transmission o!
in!ormation concerning the spacetime structure o! the Relsewhere
regionS o! the instantaneous 8inKowsKi light cone. 9n the cellular
automata theory o! spacetime1 the egree o! quantum entanglement has
merely in this case outstrippe the computational capacity o! the
quantum vacuum1 necessitating ecoherence1 i.e.1 !orgetting by the
quantum vacuum o! some o! its !luctuation-correlation in!ormation1
leaing to irreversibility o! geoetic motion Can more generally o!
gravitational actionD. =erein lies the relationship between the Ainler
horizon Co! a particle moving in a non-inertial !rameD an =awKing-
?eKenstein entropy1 which is a generalization o! the concept o! blacK
hole entropy.
H ! ; q . C(D is vali !or paths neighboring the classical path then one
obtains in the usual way that the actual classical path is the one !or
which # = ).
Hs there some way o! maKing an ienti!ication o! open strings with
bosons an close strings with !ermion-anti!ermion pairs1 say in terms o!
-eynman iagrams !or vacuum creation-annihilation processes? Hs
there a simple !inger e0ercise per!orme with a !ermion-anti!ermion pair
that su!!ices to illustrate the !act o! the !ermion_s antisymmetry? 7lace
the le!t ine0 !inger pointing up1 right ine0 !inger pointing own1
corresponing to a !ermion at 0
*
an anti!ermion at 0
2
. H! the positions o!
the !ermion an anti!ermion are e0change once1 one now has spin L*/2
on the le!t an spin +*/2 on the right. 6hen by rotating each particle in
place by *N) egrees1 one now has once again a spin +*/2 particle on the
le!t an a spin L*/2 particle on the right. 6his is equivalent to
multiplying the wave!unction !or the !ermion-anti!ermion system by a
minus sign1 which is to say that - 0 _
2
1 0
*
D = 0 _
*
1 0
2
D. 6he mystery is that
this is true in general1 that is1 whenever two !ermions e0change position
the wave!unction o! the system containing the particles changes sign.
Hn the case o! the e0change o! positions o! a !ermion an anti!ermion1 it
was obvious that a torsion being introuce corresponing to !lipping
the spins o! each particle *N) egrees1 say using an applie magnetic
!iel. ?ut in the case o! the e0change o! ientical particles o! ientical
spin1 there intuitively seems no basis !or supposing that torsion is
introuce by this operation.
>une 2)*$ R
6he e0tra si0 spatial imensions o!
string theory require compacti!ication into 7lancK-scale 3alabi-<au
mani!ols to suggest any connection with reality as we Know it1 an this
ivision o! the spatial imensions Cinto three large an si0 smallD
trans!orms some o! the @ = * ","< gravitational moes in nine large
imensions into a variety o! non-gravitational bosonic an !ermionic
vibrationsS1 c.!.1
cit=
Inflationary Cosmology an the &tring Cniverse
C
au=
?ruce .. 4oron1 7h.:.D
mm@ote that two masses moving at quite near the spee o! light in
opposite $-spatial irections1 i.e.1 along tra5ectories *N) egrees apart in
$-space are actually moving on tra5ectories only 2) egrees apart within
C$ + *D spacetime. "imilarly1 two !ermions moving near the spee o!
light on tra5ectories $&) egrees apart in $-space1 i.e.1 along the same
tra5ectory within $-space may be escribe as moving along opposite
tra5ectories in C$ + *D spacetime. 6his is no oubt relate to the !act that
one must rotate a !ermion %2) egrees in $-space be!ore the !ermion is
oriente in C$ + *D spacetime as originally1 that is1 prior to being rotate.
6here may be a geometric argument !or why there are no massless
!ermions.
Hs it possible that !ermions are spin { because they are spin * particles in
a higher space an the spin { is 5ust the component o! the higher
imensional spin that pro5ects into instantaneous $-space? 6his brings
up the question: cosh
-*
[*/2\ = ? C"pacetime is escribe most elegantly
in terms o! hyperbolic !unctionsD 9! course1 one cannot irectly
combine a single spin { particle with a particle o! integral spin1 but only
pairs o! hal! integral spin particles1 i.e.1 the components o! spin !rom the
unseen higher imension mutually cancel between the two spin {
particles. C@ote: the stronger is the bosonic coupling between virtual
!ermion-anti!ermions the more per!ectly may the pair o! particles be
consiere to be an e!!ectively single1 spin-) particle an the more
per!ectly o mutually cancel the respective timeliKe components o! spin
o! the particles !orming the !ermion-anti!ermion pair.D
3hanging the sign on a !ermion_s charge1 e.g.1 !rom e
-
to e
+
has the same
e!!ect as reversing the signs o! the electric an magnetic !iels
surrouning the !ermion. .ooKing to the 8inKowsKi iagram1 we see
that such a sign change causes a *N)-egree rotation o! the !ermion in
spacetime Cit_s now an antiparticle o! its !ormer sel! an can now be
escribe as Rtraveling bacKwar in timeSD. Aotating the particle *N)
egrees in $-space results in a mere 2)-egree rotation o! the particle in
8inKowsKi spacetime.
6he istinction between translation1 rotation1 vibration within a
coorinate system an similar movement on the part o! the coorinate
system itsel! blurs once the scale o! spacetime an momentum-energy
approaches that where the =eisenberg uncertainties o! all !our
observables1 01 t1 p1 ; has been reache. 6he irections o! the time an
space a0es may always be etermine locally !rom the (-angular
momentum tensor ensity1 >
uv
.
?ecause o! the internal symmetry o! spin1 angular momentum must be a
more !unamental physical quantity than is translation.
?ecause o! the spin Can quantum statisticsD basis o! gravity Can
accelerationD an the intimate connection o! polarization an
magnetization to spin Can (-angular momentumD1 we e0pect quantum
gravity theory to invoKe gravitomagnetism1 e.g.1 acceleration implies a
rotation Citsel! an RaccelerationSD o! (-angular momentum current
probability ensity graients. 6he graient is !orme !rom spaceliKe
an timeliKe C$ + *D graients Cin the case o! spherically symmetric
!ielsD. 6he e0istence o! local spaceliKe graients generally implies Cvia
relativityD both local an global/cosmological timeliKe Can spaceliKeD
graients. 6his means relativity implies not only an e0paning
universe1 but also either a changing gravitational constant Cwhich can be
rule out !or other reasonsD or a cosmological acceleration !iel1 one
intimately connecte with gravitation.
Puantum entanglement istinguishes ientical particles1 historically an
irreversibly Cis this where entropy Can in!ormationD creeps into Rpurely
!ormally escribableS processes?D. /lthough a particle may appear to
accelerate in a straight line in $-space1 its actual tra5ectory in C$ + *D
spacetime must be curve.
=ypothesis: accelerate motion is only on a curve tra5ectory in C$ + *D
spacetime. 8otion along a curve tra5ectory implies an angular
momentum vector. Hn what irection oes b.
uv
point uring rectilinear
acceleration? b.
uv
points orthogonally to the 0-t plane in the case o! 2-
imensional spacetime. Ht oesn_t matter what variable name we choose
to call this $
r
imensional a0is1 e.g.1 RyS1 RzS1 etc. =owever1 in the case
o! ( imensional spacetime1 we must ecie whether this vector is to
point in either the RyS or RzS or perhaps RwS irectionV we must have a
rule by which this irection !or b.
uv
is etermine. Hn the case o! $-
imensional ;ucliean space an 4alilean Aelativity 6heory1 it is easy to
etermine what irection the angular momentum vector o! say1 an
orbiting planet points relative to an observer in translational motion
relative to the primary o! the orbiting boy. Ht woul be nice i! u an v
o! b.
uv
in_t have to point in a irection orthogonal to bu an bv
because o! the e0istence o! a permutational symmetry o! C$ +*D
spacetime. Hn this way unerstaning acceleration in C$ + *D spacetime
in terms o! (-angular momentum woul not !orce us to invoKe1 e.g.1 C( +
*D spacetime. 6his is unoubtely a sub5ect !or !uture literature search
on relativistic angular momentum.
.ets o a short survey on the points o! contact between 4eneral
Aelativity an Puantum 8echanics.
*D spin-*/2 particles are implie both by special relativity an quantum
mechanics
2D Puantum mechanics is !oune upon an =amiltonian !ormulation o!
@ewtonian mechanics. 4eneral Aelativity can be equivalently
e0presse in terms o! a =amiltonian !ormulation.
$D 3ausal relationships may be recast as quantum correlations o!
quantum !luctuations
(D ?oth theories preict a cosmological constant1 but give vastly
i!!erent preictions o! the magnitue o! this constant
'D RtS is a mere parameter in P81 but is on an equal !ooting with R0
i
S o!
relativity theory
&D the creation o! particles is preicte by both theories
%D particle-wave uality in P8 correspons to particle-!iel uality in
4A
ND P8 is linear while 4A is nonlinear
2D =eisenberg uncertainties in time1 length an mass are RmalleableS in
P81 5ust as the e0pectation values o! these quantities are RmalleableS in
4A.
*)D 6he sub5ective observer has a unique role in P81 no such status is
accore the observer in 4A theory.
**D superluminal connectivity is preicte by P81 but not by 4A.
*2D probabilities have ontological status in P81 but only
epistemological status in 4A.

6he above list o! course1 can be e0pane a great eal with !urther
thinKing upon it.
6he historicity o! quantum entanglement which breaKs the unKnown
symmetry responsible !or the inistinguishability o! particles is what
invoKes the action o! unique substance upon Cbut not RwithinSD the
intersub5ective worl o! public spacetime. 6he problem o! the Rcollapse
o! the wave!unctionS is1 Fittgenstein woul say1 Ra pseuoproblemS the
RsolutionS to which lies in Rthe proper re!ormulationS o! the original
problem1 i.e.1 what is the unerlying physical basis o! the phenomenon
o! wave!unction collapse? ?ut i! we are attempting to invoKe
incompatible sense o! the wor1 RphysicalS within a single !ormulation
o! either the question Cor the answerD corresponing to this peculiar
phenomenon1 then we are oome to !ailure !rom the start1 that is1 we
are inulging in an equivocation o! sense1 which can never lea to
anything liKe an answer but only to con!usion. /n this equivocation o!
sense here is simply this: RphysicalS is e!ine as *D public1 i.e.1
intersub5ective an 2D RconcreteS1 i.e.1 substantial. Hn other wors1 we
are trying to come up with an answer that is simultaneously !ormal an
substantive1 i.e.1 causal1 c.!.1 ?ohm C*2'*D on why causality cannot be
strictly analyze in terms o! abstract relationships1 Cthe quantum
correlations o! spaceliKe separate !luctuations are neee to give an
otherwise empty an !ormal RcausalityS its RconcretenessS Can Rcausal
e!!icacyS as RactionSD. :oes the !act that true causality cannot be
capture by mere abstract relationships1 i.e.1 cannot be !ormalizable
point to the role o! !ree agency in causal interactions?
8ultiple persons may o! course collaborate in the construction o! public
spacetime but never in a way that can ever be e0hibite as ata sub5ect
to a complete intersub5ective escription1 e.g.1 publicly accessible state
vector or wave!unction. 6he telepathy an teleKinesis Ccollective
consciousness an agencyD o! the intersub5ective networKing o!
conscious !ree agents must !orever lie submerge below the groun o!
e0plicit being or mani!estation. .eibniz_ principle o! the ientity o!
iniscerniblesS is violate by the !act o! iniscernible ientities
occupying istinct empirical universes though still being able to
cooperate across these universes1 which mani!ests itsel! in the
phenomena o! quantum entanglement that breaKs the symmetry o!
abstract quantum particle ientity1 e.g.1 two quantum entangle electrons
are istinct !rom any other pair o! otherwise ientical electrons1 c.!.1
Puantum @on-.ocality an Aelativity1 8aulin. /lso see "earle C*2N)D
on why any !ormal set o! relationships may capture only simulation in
its escription an not actual causal e!!icacy Cthe e!!icacy o! the causal
structure to integrate outsie in!luences into the causal structureD.
Ht is beginning to appear that any Rcausal e!!icacyS nature possesses
must be owing to the unique action !rom outsie any possible RsystemS1
o! substances that are essentially sub5ective1 i.e.1 not intersub5ective.
6he sub5ective substance in its action may Rin!ormS the intersub5ective
worl1 e.g.1 through quantum entanglement1 but this in!ormation is not
publicly accessible Cor i! so1 not ree0pressible in a way that is publicly
e0pressible1 or i! so1 not in a reproucible mannerD. 6he quantum
entanglement e!!ects cannot be unerstoo e0cept in terms o! statistical
averages Cimplying e0perimental reproucibility involving a plurality o!
persons1 that is1 a publicD.
6he collaborative e!!ort o! sub5ectivities in sustaining Can creating?D the
intersub5ective worl remains always embee an submerge within
the groun o! public spacetime an never mani!est within it Cor so it
seemsD.
9! course1 Oarmic action is temporally multilevele in nature. 6his is
Oarma_s way o! giving at every opportunity the un!ortunate straying
soul enough o! a breather to taKe stocK an change the path he is on1 or
to 5ust test how numb the complacency seeming to have once again
escape 5ustice shall maKe the poor soul_s conscience prior to Oarmic
chastisement on the ne0t larger temporal scale o! human e0istence.
:oes consciousness represent the most highly istribute manner o!
storing in!ormation?
:oes every moment o! temporality participate in the eternal now though
without actually being a part o! this eternal now Ce0cept possibly in
certain su!!iciently emotionally charge turns o! human eventsD?
Ht is oubt!ul whether any human behavior is not Rinstinctual.S 6his
might seem to mean that we_ve e!!ectively unermine the istinction
between instinctual an non-instinctual behavior upon which the
meaning o! the assertion o! universal instinctual nature o! human
behavior presumably must rest. ?ut the R/rchimeean point o!
re!erenceS grante us by consciousness enables us to Camong other
important thingsD maKe meaning!ul categorical assertions1 assertions that
may be !ormally sel!-contraictory on account o! the assertions seeming
unermining o! a categorical istinction grouning the meaning!ulness
o! that assertion.
6here are certain people who when tol what someone else has
e0perience are never at a loss to say Roh1 that is liKe when H i 0S or
Rthat is 5ust liKe when 0 happene.S :oes this mean that in some
important sense1 no matter what new things we learn people liKe the
above alreay in essence Know them?
Ht is easy to visualize that necessity o! timeliKe angular momentum being
associate with the appearance o! $-angular momentum1 c.!.1 R6he
8ysterious -lowS C:avies "cienti!ic /merican /rticleD. >ust imagine $-
space being represente as a 2-sur!ace containing an planet with orbiting
satellite. 6he thir spatial imension moels the time imension.
Hnstea o! a retracing elliptical orbit Cignoring any possible general
relativity e!!ects !or the momentD1 the orbit appears in 2 + * spacetime as
a right or le!t-hane RcorKscrewS Cas the case may beD. H! one looKs at
the center o! the corKscrew tracing o! the orbit ege on !rom any
irection aroun the corKscrew a0is1 one woul observer a looping o! the
satellite in 2 + * spacetime in the 0-t plane Ci! one was RlooKingS
perpenicularly to this planeD1 a looping o! the satellite in the y-t
spacetime plane ClooKing perpenicularly to this planeD1 looping in the z-
t plane or ami0tures o! components o! RloopingS in two or three o!
these spacetime planes. 6his RloopingS o! the satellite about its primary
in each o! these spacetime planes constitutes1 o! course an angular
momentum perpenicular to the particular spacetime planes. Hn this
way we see that a purely spatial angular momentum when one is
observing the satellite orbit while at rest relative to the primary becomes
an ami0ture o! spaceliKe an timeliKe components o! angular
momentum when one is observing the orbit while in states o! uni!orm
motion relative to the satellite_s orbital a0is o! Rother than rest.S
/pproaching an orbiting boy across a gravitational potential graient
must mean traveling relative to the orbiting boy nonuni!ormly in time1
which necessarily enows the boy with an apparent timeliKe
component o! angular momentum. 6here is reason to believe that the
converse o! this is true: a (-angular momentum graient must e0hibit
gravitation-liKe e!!ects upon matter present in this graient.
6he egree o! correlation o! the spin { components o! the spontaneously
ecaye composite spin-) particle etermines the orientation o! the spin-
) angular momentum vector in a space aKin to but not ientical to
spacetime. 6his has some bearing on the question o! how the orer o! a
matri0 o! spin-) particles Coriginally in the !orm o! the mutual alignment
o! these particles vial nonlocal quantum correlation o! the particlesD gets
encoe into the quantum correlations engenere in matri0 o!
e0change spin-* bosons. 6he !act o! acceleration o! !ermions
proucing bosonic raiation is somehow importantly relate to this !act.
/s on increases one_s velocity relative to the orbiting satellite1 the
spacetime corKscrew begins to unwin along the proper time a0is. 6his
is as though the relative scaling o! the time an ( hyperspatial a0is is
changing so that the ratio t/ shrinKing with acceleration. 6he
conserve (-angular momentum no longer points parallel to the proper
time a0is1 but evelops components perpenicular to the proper time
a0is1 i.e.1 pointing outsie o! the corKscrew. /lso1 the quantum
correlation o! the spin-*/2 components o! the virtual !ermion-
anti!ermion energy !luctuations o! the local vacuum ecreases with
acceleration1 leaing to the generation o! entropy mani!esting itsel! in
the !orm o! :avies-,nruh raiation. 6he holographic encoing o! a
three-imensional space is breaKing own with a concomitant
prouction o! vacuum entropy. :avies-,nruh raiation that results
!rom acceleration is bosonic in nature an is general relativistically
equivalent to =awKing raiation that obtains in the case o! gravitation.
=ow is :avies-,nruh bosonic CvacuumD raiation1 which results !rom
acceleration1 relate to the prouction o! electromagnetic raiation by an
accelerate electrical charge? Hs the ratio o! the ensity o! quantum
vacuum energy to the energy ensity o! the cosmological constant
involve here? 6he blacK hole sur!ace represents the ma0imum
e0traction o! the holographically encoe in!ormation about the C$ + *D
structure o! a local spacetime CRlocalS though e0tening to in!inity1 i! all
o! the encoe in!ormation is quantum nonlocalD1 which has now been
converte into the entropy o! a blacK hole_s 2-imensional sur!ace. 6he
loss o! the holographically encoe in!ormation is intimately relate to
the ecoherence o! wave!unctions by gravity1 as well as to the increase
in the entropy o! a1 e.g.1 collapsing spherical ust clou_s Rgeneralize
event horizonS C4;=D. Fhat is the generalization o! the ?eKenstein
blacK hole entropy !ormula1 which applies to Rgeneralize event
horizons?S Fhat ever this !ormula turns out to be1 is shall be consistent
with the relationship o! the =awKing an :avies-,nruh raiation
!ormulas. Hn this way1 the 4;= !ormula shall be an e0pression o!
;instein_s ;quivalence 7rinciple C;7D. 6he above iscussion is getting
at the new relationships o! spin Crequire by special relativityD1 quantum
statistics1 (-angular momentum Crequire by special relativityD1 quantum
correlation Co! RantiparticlesS Crequire by special relativityD1
nonlocality1 holographic in!ormation1 "hannon in!ormation1 ?eKenstein
entropy1 gravitational ecoherence Crequire by any theory o! quantum
gravityD within the conte0t o! some new1 "aKharov-inuce-gravity1
alreay uni!ie quantum gravity theory. Ht might be wise to also revisit
the question o! the relationship o! vacuum polarization/magnetization
an the notion o! scalar-vector CspinorialD structure o! the quantum
vacuum.
9bserving the orbit o! the satellite ege-on an Keeping pace with the
satellite_s motion1 one sees only the satellite moving bacK an !orth
along a single a0is. 6he rotation o! the satellite is only glimpse when
one views its orbit !rom an angle other than ege-on1 o! course. "o
whether one observes pure vibration1 pure rotation or ami0tures o!
these two components o! cyclical motion epens entirely upon the
spatial perspective o! the observer. H! one is at some istance !rom the
satellite_s orbit an in motion relative to the plane o! the satellite_s orbit
an along an a0is parallel to its rotational a0is1 then the observer sees the
satellite escribe a corKscrew motion in his !iel o! view. Fhat oes
the observer witness i! he is in purely timeliKe relative motion with
respect to the orbiting satellite1 say in the case o! the observer an the
orbiting boy occupying i!!erent points in a gravitational potential? 6o
simpli!y the question1 what woul the observer see in this case i! he an
the satellite were merely positione at points at which the local Rrates o!
the passage o! timeS i!!er? C6o ignore comple0 general relativity
e!!ectsD
=ow o we e!ine the altere angular momentum vector o! the orbit i!
this vector must be isplace by a minimum angle !rom the translation
a0is Cthis is the simple case where the orbit o! the satellite is translate in
the irection o! the $-angular momentum vectorD CFhat about the case
where the plane o! the orbit is accelerate in the irection o! the (-
angular momentum vector?D =ere imagine placing a small plane onto a
small segment o! the coil o! the satellite_s tra5ectory such that the unit
vector o! this plane is perpenicular to the segment tangent to this planeV
there is o! course a egree o! !reeom remaining: the tiny unit vector
plane is !ree to rotate about the coil segment to which it is tangent.
6here must be another constraint ae here. 6he most natural choice
!or this aitional constraint is the requirement that the plane unit vector
possess Rminimal angular isplacementS with respect to either the
translational a0is or the orbit_s instantaneous $-angular momentum Cor (-
angular momentumD vector. @ote that swiveling the unit vector plane
aroun the segment o! the coil Co! the orbital tra5ectoryD oesn_t appear
to contribute any change to the orientation o! the (-angular momentum
vector o! the boy_s orbit Cat least treating the vector as an abstract
ob5ect in an abstract presentational space oesn_t o thisD. C6he question
remains whether egrees o! !reeom are always to be unerstoo as
purely abstract quantities L the real physical e!!ects o! quantum
counter!actuality seem to suggest that sometimes egrees o! !reeom
cannot be aequately taKen into account when treate as Rmere
abstractions.SD /re counter!actual worls Cso-calle quantum alternate
universesD necessarily classical physical in nature1 or coul they be !ull-
blooe worls 5ust as our own presumably is?
6here is a question whether the as yet unobserve virtual bosonic
superpartners o! supersymmetry theory are not hien within the
immense negative bining energy o! the quantum vacuum constitute by
unobserve virtual !ermionic superpartners1 leaing to a massive
con!iguration potential energy that must be overcome by particle
accelerators o! the perhaps istant !uture when these RsuperpartnersS are
hope!ully someay iscovere.
>. 4eheniau an 8. =enneau0 4en. Ael. 4rav. N &** C*2%%D cite in
RIariations in the %
th
Aoute to Aelativity1S iscusses the (-component
spinor stuy o! the ;instein-:irac "ystem.
3onsciousness must be viewe as an Ropen systemS1 but only in the
speci!ic sense o! an in!inite1 sel!-re!erential system. 6he concept o!
sel!-re!erentiality o! an in!inite1 open system may !orce us to invent new
e!initions o! Rsel!S an RientityS to accommoate this concept.
:iscuss how goo artists are able to circumvent the R;l 4recoS 7arao01
but only at the cost C!or philosophers1 not art loversD o! engenering a
still greater parao01 what might be terme the R3ircumvente ;l 4reco
7arao0S 7arao0. 6he R;l 4reco 7arao0S erives its name !rom the
!act that ;l 4reco was !amous !or his painting o! human !igures an
animals with twiste an gnarle boies an limbs an that it was
commonly sai uring the height o! ;l 4reco_s !ame that he rew the
!igures in this manner because it was the way ;l 4reco actually visually
perceive them. 6he parao0 is still not apparent here at this point
Ce0cept perhaps to a philosopherD. H! ;l 4reco was attempting to raw
what he actually perceive1 then he woul have to raw the !igures
normally so that his peculiar manner o! perceiving !orms woul istort
the normally proportione !igures in 5ust the same manner that his
peculiar manner o! perception istorts actual normally proportione
!igures1 i.e.1 people an animals. ?ut then i! ;l 4reco ha one this1 the
!igures he rew woul not have ha their characteristic istorte !ormT
"o the artist oes not get us to see the worl liKe he sees the worl by
merely rawing !or us what he sees. "omething !ar more mysterious
must be going on when the artist manages to convey to us his unique
manner o! visual processing o! the ata coming into his optic nerves.
6hat is the real parao0 L that artists can circumvent the so-calle ;l
4reco parao0 when they paint. 6he circumventing o! the ;l 4reco
7arao0 is importantly relate to the !ailure o! instantaneous parallel
inputs to the brain to simulate the e!!ects o! serial inputting o! ata to the
brain. 6his is on account o! memory the person has o! the i!!erent
selves he or she possesse at i!!erent times Can RplacesSD1 permitting
comparisons o! e0periences that are necessarily time speci!ic. 6he
representational artist has access to his i!!ering moes o! visually
processing his or her surrounings1 which necessarily occurs at istinct
sub5ective RmomentsS !or the artist. 6his is why the !requency an time
omains are not !ully equivalent1 at any rate Cno pun inteneD where the
brain_s signal processing capabilities are concerne. 6he !act o! the
brain being an integrate system nonetheless embee in an open-
ene though integrate groun Co! beingD unoubtely plays an
important role in this. 7erhaps this equivalence between time an
!requency hols only !or cases o! purely resonant CcloseD systems in
which the quantum correlations o! the resonant !luctuations possess
per!ect orer1 i.e.1 ) entropy.
:iscuss how the myria istinct euctive routes to the same
appro0imate escription o! system ynamic behavior points up the
Kinship between the processes o! *D phenomenal mani!estation o!
groun_s Reep structureS Csee 3homsKyD an 2D the process o! intuitive
thought1 i.e.1 Rcreative intelligence.S
R;0tremiocrityS as oppose to meiocrity: that which H o not o baly1
H o e0ceeingly well.
6he ontological as oppose to merely epistemological nature o! the
=eisenberg ,ncertainty 7rinciple implies that the quantum mechanical
wave!unction cannot constitute merely a escription o! the quantum
system to which its wave!unction correspons1 but that the wave!unction
must be in some sense physically real1 e.g.1 electromagnetic1 nuclear
!iels1 etc. 6he wave!unction then is not merely intersub5ective in
nature1 but must possess a necessary observer-epenent1 that is1
sub5ective component. 6he e!!ect o! my act o! observation upon a
quantum mechanical system oes not then alter the system state
probabilities Cas inicate by the system wave!unctionD only through the
purely physical interaction o! my boy an measurement instruments
with the physical emboiment o! the system the wave!unction escribes.
H! this were inee the case1 then mysel! as observer an the system
upon which H am per!orming an observation woul merely become a
composite system1 itsel! resiing in a pure quantum state as a result o!
my physical interaction with the system. 6he e!!ect o! conscious1 !reely
chosen observation upon a quantum system must inclue so-calle
nonlocal observer/e0perimenter e!!ects.
mmH! the -reuian view that reams are 5ust the acting out o! the wish
!ul!illment !antasies o! the i1 then one woul not e0pect1 !or e0ample1
attractive persons o! opposite se0 with which one populates one_s se0ual
!antasy reams to graually age along with the reamer. 6he reamer
him or hersel! oes not remain eternally young in his or her reams1 but
the ream image o! the sel!-ages more or less in step with the aging o!
the real person1 the reamer. 6he only i!!erence is that the aging o! the
ream image sel! is what might be terme grace!ul or iealize aging1
e.g.1 one becomes progressively more age1 but also more well
preserve. 6he notion here is that the iniviual person oes not esire
eep own anything liKe eternal youth1 5ust that he remain Ryouth!ulS at
every step in the aging process. 6his is because people secretly possess
a esire !or peer recognition o! the length o! their stay on ;arth an the
appearance o! physical aging1 even i! only o! the RiealizeS Kin1 is the
best an most irect way o! signaling one_s status to others. /ll o! this
is to say that the pleasure principle oes not in !act run rampant in
reams1 but the reality principle continues to operate1 but in a i!!erent
way. Hnstea o! paying an maintaining hee to the necessities o! outer
li!e one pays hee to those o! the inner li!e1 the li!e o! one_s normally
close o!! psychological being. 6he aging o! the i as mani!est in the
graual appearance o! aging in the ream image sel! suggests that the i
is always tempere by the reality principle an moreover1 that the
tripartite structure o! the psyche1 i1 ego1 superego runs eeper in the sel!
that otherwise suggeste by -reuian psychological theory.
/s remarKe elsewhere1 there is a swapping o! the roles o! the literal an
the metaphorical that unerlies the essential nature o! reaming. 9ne
might say correctly that reams are creations o! the subconscious min
that are riven by the esire !or wish !ul!illment. =owever1 what is
truly esire might most aptly be terme Rtranscenence within
immanence.S :reaming is a psychological activity in which the
iniviual is seeKing participation in the quintessential !orms o! an
earthboun an istinctly human e0perience. Ht is not !or nothing that
we have evise an inherite the myth o! 8an_s original !ormation
!rom Rcosmic ustS1 i.e.1 Regenerate sublime orerS. R=umanS1 i.e.1
Rhumus-manS is a more appropriate term !or 8an_s essential being than
most are able to realize. Ht is well Known that reaming occurs in the
more or less comlete absence o! the higher brain !unctions1 those o! the
!orebrain1 which constitute a relatively recent innovation in the evolution
o! the primate brain. 6he phenomenon o! reaming perhaps points up
the inavertent activation o! a reunant cache o! memory traces lai
own when transcribe into the more primitive parts o! the brain o! the
limbic system !rom the cerebral corte01 where they were at !irst encoe
as sel!-conscious sense-perceptions.
9! course1 e0periences possible in youth become less so with time1 an
with more time1 no longer possible1 but so are many e0periences open to
the oler iniviual that are barre !rom youth who cannot even imagine
such e0periences. 9n the other han1 age retains along with itsel! the
memory o! youth.
6he loss o! mutual orthogonality o! the component eigen!unctions o! a
pure state wave!unction is anticipate in su!!iciently strong gravitational
!iels. 7enrose_s one-graviton limit !or wave!unction Renvironmental
ecoherenceS may be alternately 5usti!ie in terms o! a geanKen
e0periment that invoKes ;7A nonlocality o! quantum correlate
particles-antiparticle ecay proucts mutually separating over e0tene1
curve spacetime. 6he wave!unction escribing the rapily mutually
separating !ermion-anti!ermion components o! a spontaneously ecaye
spin-) composite particle simply must progressively ecohere with
increasing istinctiveness o! the embeing spacetime metric o! each
spin-*/2 component1 i! violation o! special relativity_s ban on
superluminal transmission o! in!ormation is to be uphel. Fhether the
loss o! mutual orthogonality an the concomitant increase in quantum
mechanical thermoynamic entropy becomes encoe in the loss o!
nonlocal correlation o! the component eigen!unctions is here an
important question. 7rogressive ecoupling o! embeing quantum
!luctuations o! momentum-energy comprising the corresponing
spacetime metrics o! the component particles as they separate over a
curve spacetime interval is what is perhaps what is to be e0pecte here.
6he complementary relationship o! resonance an coherence may be
unerstoo in terms o! a pure state wave!unction that is constitute by
the prouct o! the iniviual eigen!unctions corresponing to each o! the
possible/available eigenstates capable o! being occupie by a given
quantum mechanical system. 7rogressive mutual entangling o! the
component eigenstates leas to progressive inaccuracy o! the pure state
wave!unction as complete escription o! the quantum system. 6he o!!-
iagonal terms o! the ensity matri0 escription o! the system emerge
an grow as the pure state wave!unction escription becomes
progressively less accurate as a system escription. 6his shi!t o! the
system escription !rom a pure state wave!unction to a statistically
mi0e state wave!unction1 i.e.1 ensity matri0 must be correlate with
the increase in the system entropy. 6he ecay o! quantum resonance
an concomitant increase in quantum entanglement o! system internal
components is relate to the phenomenon o! environmental quantum
ecoherence.
6he velocity o! light is inepenent o! the state o! motion o! the
observer an the motion o! light e!ines the structure o! spacetime1
which itsel! there!ore possess an observer-inepenent structure. 6his
is why1 !or e0ample1 no visualizable arrangement o! points1 e.g.1 stars in
space constitutes an ob5ective spatial arrangement. 6he potential !or all
possible states o! motion is implie by the notion o! spacetime interval
or more generally spacetime structure.
Hneterminacy in the system insures that any laws o! motion shall
constitute merely escriptions o! the system_s behavior rather than
speci!y the governing or control o! the system. R3ontrol o! the
systemS must always be !rom outsie the system an so the
system_s behavior cannot be !ully e0plicable by analysis L the
controlling agent must always be taKen into account. "imilar
statements may be mae concerning the Rmeaning o! the system_s
behaviorS1 i.e.1 the system must be embee within a conte0t that
cannot be entirely inclue within the system. Hn other wors1
contact with an in!luence on the system !rom outsie is also
require !or the system to possess intentionality. "till more1 no
system may possess any action unless the system provoKes e!!ects
outsie itsel!. 6he action o! the system is a necessary part o! the
system_s intentionality. 3ausality that is eterministic isn_t
RcausalityS at all1 in other wors1 that is1 the relationship o! one
abstract entity to another oesn_t constitute a concrete an causal
interaction1 nor oes it in any way invoKe genuine temporality Cas
oppose to merely abstract1 spatialize time1 c.!.1 8atter an
8emoryD. Hnertia is a mani!estation o! the incompleteness o! all
possible !ormal escriptions o! the system_s law o! motion1 which
i!!erentiates the system_s behavior !rom that o! a mere simulation.
6he necessity o! appro0imate escriptions o! system behavior is
epistemological rather than ontological in nature. "ystem
resonance an system coherence are orthogonal system behaviors.
=owever1 the unerlying causal structure o! the system_s groun
oes not permit a complete 2)-egree rotation o! the system_s
behavior !rom resonant to coherent. 6his points up a problem
with general relativity1 which preicts the e0istence o! blacK holes
as true singularities in spacetime. 9bviously1 the ;instein !iel
equations must breaK own !or su!!iciently intense gravitational
!iels an accelerations so that a blacK hole must be viewe as a
Kin o! Rasymptote o! the theoryS an not a preiction o! possible
physically real behavior o! matter an energy. 6his is reminiscent
o! ?ohm_s statement that particle positions an velocities cannot
replace particle momenta an energies. 6he i!!erential equations
o! particle motion are complete escriptions o! the particle
Kinematics. ?ut the corresponing integral equations o! motion are
egenerate in the integration constant an point to1 on the contrary1
the ynamics o! the particle motion. 6he integration constant
comprises the initial an bounary conitions o! the system an the
Rsensitivity to initial conitionsS o! the system is such that the
quantum uncertainties are potentially larger than i!!erences in the
bounary conitions o! the sometimes highly nonlinear system o!
the spacetime metric. Ht seems liKely that the peculiar quantum
nonlocal coupling o! vacuum momentum-energy !luctuations must
be responsible not only !or the stability o! matter Ci.e.1 appropriate
Rbu!!etingS o! innermost electrons by !luctuations in vacuum
energy1 preventing the Rultraviolet catastropheS o! atomic structure
collapseD1 but !or the very stability o! the spacetime metric itsel! as
the ever-present bacKrop !or the e0istence o! stable matter-energy.
Ht is i!!icult not to glimpse a Rhan o! a ivine provienceS in the
sel!-organize/sel!-organizing nature o! the nonlocally connecte
quantum vacuum !luctuations unerpinning spacetime.
6he !act o! the integral nature o! e0perience or sub5ective
temporality implies that there can be no one-to-one corresponence
between the events o! sub5ective an intersub5ective time1 an also
perhaps suggests the holistic structure o! the intersub5ective realm
as a collaborative e!!ort o! iverse sub5ectivities Cthe structure an
ynamics o! the intersub5ective being irreucible to the sum o! the
actions o! the sub5ectivities contributing to itD.
6he contamination o! groun invoKes changes in the system
supporte by the groun1 which are both re!erence by the system
an Runre!erenceable.S 6he necessary coupling o! re!erenceable
an unre!erenceable changes in the system means that even
Rre!erenceable changesS in the system cannot be !ully analyze in
terms o! unerlying system behavior.
R6he Ebest !itE states turn out to be the classical states. "ystems
collapse to classical states because classical states are the ones that
best E!itE the environment. 6he environment causes the collapse o!
the wave 5ust liKe an observer.S - 6he @ew 7hysics1 ,biquitous
"ymmetry
9nce virtual reality technology becomes su!!iciently avance1 one shall
never again have the assurance o! awaKing !rom sleep to the so-calle
Rreal worl.S /!ter all1 hasn_t
au=
"antayana sai that waKing
consciousness is 5ust Rthe ream uner the control o! the ob5ect?S ?ut
aren_t Rob5ectsS nothing more than intersub5ectively constructe1
conventionally agree upon structures? 6his is one o! the basic insights
o! "cientology1 a principle which
au=
;lron =ubbar liKely borrowe !rom
his younger1 more ynamic isciple1
au=
Ferner ;rhart1 who was
banishe by =ubbar !rom "cientology on account o! =ubbar_s
unerstanable 5ealousy over ;rhart_s growing !ollowing within
=ubbar_s organization. ;rhart in turn starte his own social
philosophy1 ;"6 C;rhart "ensitivity 6rainingD. 9ne o! the !unamental
principles o! ;"6 is that reality is agreement. 8y R;ntity 6heoryS an
my hypothesis concerning the eternal pree6istence an separateness o!
the iniviual soul1 which incarnates a!ter spontaneous escent !rom its
transcenant !orm1 but only a!ter encountering a su!!iciently evolve
biological vessel Cavance =ominiD possessing a brain with comple0
ata processing ynamics with which this soul coul resonate an
temporarily 5oin to in orer to e0perience the woners o! limitation an
intersub5ective communication with other transcenent beings who have
liKewise hurle themselves into the reucing valve o! space1 time an
causality so as to escape their cosmic loneliness. The prevalence of
suicie among otherwise 7sane8 iniviuals perhaps can only be
sufficiently unerstoo in light of the secretly operating influence of this
represse memory of the aboriginal act of selfFlimitation. 6his represse
memory liKewise e0plains the !ast growing popularity o! "cientology
whose mythology is a story teller_s resse up version o! the sel!-
impose act o! sel!-limitation via min-boy hybriization.
E8en asleep1 sai =eraclitus1 live each in his own worl1 but awaKe they
live in the same worl together. 6o be awaKe is nothing but to be
reaming uner control o! the ob5ect.E - 4eorge "antayana1 6he .i!e o!
Aeason
?ecause o! the open system requirements o! conscious states o!
awareness it is unliKely that conscious memories are RstoreS anywhere1
i.e.1 encoe into local spacetime. 6he recollecting o! memories
probably requires the activation o! a quantum nonlocal connection
between two moments o! consciousness1 i.e. two i!!erent times1
RpresentS an Rpast.S Hn more concrete terms this woul involve the
quantum entanglement o! two !requency omain spectra o! coherent sets
o! quantum !luctuations.
@onlocal communications between iniviuals Cwhat woul otherwise
constitute telepathyD are always caught up into the mi0 o! sub5ective
impressions an reinterprete so as to be assigne either to memory1
imagination or perception. "omehow the nonlocal continuum proviing
the potential telepathic linK between iniviuals cannot support the
highly structure an abstract ata that can be receive an irectly
interprete as an intelligent communication. 6his points up something
interesting about this nonlocal meium an/or the quantum inter!ace
between this meium an the brain_s !iner structure.
6he entropy o! the energy uncertainty has to o with the quality o! the
temporal change supporte by the quantum !luctuations unerlying the
energy uncertainty. ?ecause in!ormation is not e!ine within a close
system1 in!ormation must contain a nonlocal component such that no
conservation law or continuity equation e0ists escribing the ynamics
o! in!ormation. 6he entropy o! a per!ectly orere crystal at zero
egrees Oelvin is )1 but then what is the in!ormation content o! such a
crystal1 an is the in!ormation content o! the crystal stemming entirely
!rom the embeing an sustaining ynamical groun o! the crystal1 i.e.1
the quantum vacuum sustaining the crystal_s e0istence?
/s it turns out1 all those creationist arguments !rom the astronomical
improbability o! chance arrangements o! genetic base pair combinations1
e.g.1 *)
*2)
to * !or a sequence speci!ying the :@/ o! a yeast mol1 etc.1
are correct in principle1 i! inaccurate by many orers o! magnitue Cbut
what is say1 ') orers o! magnitue too large when the Rgrossly
inaccurateS estimate is appro0imately *)
*2)
to *?D ;volutionists who try
to counter with arguments concerning how the natural mutual chemical
a!!inities o! 3arbon1 =yrogen1 @itrogen an 90ygen greatly cut own
the pool o! non-negligible possible base pair combinations Can who
invoKe chance !or the restD run a!oul in at least three istinct though
interestingly connecte ways: *D "hannon in!ormation 2D 6he nature o!
the ynamics o! all systems e0isting on time an space scales small
enough to permit empirical observation an $D 6he arbitrariness o! the
genetic coe. "o-calle Rsel!-organizationS is another relatively new
type o! argument invoKe1 but one that is essentially sel!-e!eating in its
implicit assumptions: sel!-organization presumes a relationship between
orer an in!ormation Cnot the same thing1 e.g.1 the entropy o! a
per!ectly orere crystal at ) egrees Oelvin is R)SD that is 5ust the
opposite o! what is actually observe in naturally-occurring systems. /
crystal is an e0ample par e0cellence o! how sel!-organization limits
in!ormation content1 by the way. ;ntropy an in!ormation are not
e0actly inverse quantities because entropy may only be e!ine !or
close thermoynamic systems while in!ormation is always conte0t-
epenent1 i.e.1 requiring an open system !or its e!inition an meaning.
"el!-organization requires a virtually in!initely layere1 latent
hierarchical structure o! matter Can energyD that is merely enable by
changing environmental conitions1 i.e.1 no in!ormation is generate1 but
is merely change !rom one apparently implicit to an e0plicitly
observable !orm. C7ure trans!ormation o! in!ormation oesn_t require
the aition o! any Rnew in!ormationS to the system1 in other worsD
;volution o! biological systems on the sel!-organization paraigm o! this
theory oesn_t e0plain the in!ormation content o! those systems1 5ust
their RappearanceS !rom out o! RolerS !orms.
;volution presupposes the e0istence o! a sca!!oling o! orer that liKe a
staircase possesses built in ever-higher stability points1 i.e.1 RlaningsS at
which the chance riven evolving system may rest while it awaits the
ne0t chance-riven punctuate change that shall boost the system up to
the ne0t level. ;volution gets something !or nothing by implicitly
violating .eibniz_ principle o! those conitions su!!icient !or a thing are
necessary at every moment to sustain that thing1 i.e.1 Rthat which creates1
sustainsS an thus by secretly invoKing what might be calle
ini!!erence to the passage o! time. ?ut RstabilityS is always more
ynamic than RinstabilityS although the appearances belie this !act. 6he
stability o! a system is evience o! the system_s ability to ynamically
regulate itsel!1 not to the !act o! the system_s having temporarily come to
rest at a given level on the sca!!oling structure1 which is to say1
borrowing the metaphor !rom quantum mechanics1 every egeneracy is
an Racciental egeneracy.S 6his is because time an change Ci! not the
mere appearance o! changeD are in reality synonymous. Ht is in
unanticipate structures1 e.g.1 a :@/ stran that is the most in!ormation
rich. 6he most improbable inputs to the system are the ones potentially
possess the greatest quantity o! Rin!orm-ation.S
Hn our moel o! the unerlying physical mechanism o! gravitation the
connection pointe up by 7enrose between the in!luence o! gravitation
an the observer_s consciousness upon the system state vector
Cwave!unctionD is simple in essence. 6he presence o! real !ermions an
bosons composing matter alter the quantum statistics o! vacuum
!luctuations in1 respectively energy an $-momentum an in turn the
complementary !luctuations in the con5ugate parameters o! time an
position1 while the observer_s consciousness Cvia the observer_s
Knowlege or potential Knowlege o! the state o! the systemD has a irect
though quantum nonlocal e!!ect upon the =eisenberg uncertainties in [01
p\ an [t1 ;\. 6he =eisenberg uncertainties in R0S an RtS Cvia the
complementary uncertainties in RpS an R;SD together with the values o!
the local quantum !luctuations in these variables Cobservables?D e!ine
the quantum e0pectation values associate with the behavior o! matter at
the gross observational level. @ote that although R0S is an RobservableS
in quantum theory1 RtS has unequal status to R0S1 being a mere
RparameterS in this theory. 7erhaps what accounts !or this unequal
status between R0S an RtS in quantum theory is the !act that R0S is a
quantum-local variable whereas RtS must be quantum-nonlocal. 6he
unequal status o! R0S an RtS no oubt has playe a role in quantum
theory an general relativity being irreconcilable theories. -rom one
sie1 quantum theory is a linear theory1 while 4A is nonlinearV !rom the
other sie1 R0S is local an a bona !ie RobservableS in quantum theory1
while RtS is nonlocal an a mere RparameterS in this theory.
Hn the :eep "pace @ine episoe1 R3rossoverS there is a scene in which
:octor ?ashir is in an alternate universe e0plaining to 8iles 9_?rien
etails o! the li!e o! his alternate universe counterpart1 3hie! 9_?rien.
8iles a!ter hearing the etails about his more !ortunate counterpart
remarKs somewhat epressingly1 Rsouns liKe he got the lucKy raw. . .
between me an him.S 6his brings up the question o! Rientity across
continua.S =ow eep o the continua layers go be!ore ientity is le!t
behin. . . environment1 planet1 gala0y1 spacetime1 causality1 quantum
vacua1 an so on? Ht might be thought that since spacetime is an
intersub5ective continuum that one_s ientity must be anchore in a
continuum at once broaer an eeper than that constitute by Rpublic
spacetime1S i.e.1 the so-calle e0ternal worl. ?y maKing the
unerpinnings o! consciousness base in quantum nonlocal connectivity1
spacetime position1 i.e.1 time an place get !actore out o! the equation
o! personal ientity. 9n this view1 reincarnation o! an iniviual oes not
any longer have to be constraine by spacetime continuity.
6he stream may never rise higher than its source means !or
consciousness that consciousness_ e0ploration o! itsel! may lea to a
RhigherS evolution o! consciousness1 though always one taKing place
Rwithin consciousness.S 6he physical basis o! consciousness shall
always prove subtler than o the physical processes unerlying ever
more newly iscovere physical phenomena. 6he ultimate reason !or
this is that scienti!ic theory is !orever oome to eal only in
abstractions1 i.e.1 relationships o! class inclusion an e0clusion C5ust as is
the case !or language itsel!D while consciousness is concrete an one
may well suppose that consciousness is the only truly concretely e0isting
Smoe o! being.S
Puantum nonlocal connectivity unerpins .orenz invariance. 6his
connectivity must be implicitly containe within terms on both sies o!
the ;instein !iel equations. 6his is in part ue to .orenz--itzgeral
length contractions not being associate with any absolute observational
inicators1 e.g.1 visible istortion o! hierarchical structure o! star
clustering along a particular spatial a0is.
6he proo! o! the sub5ective or intersub5ective nature o! quantum
measurement e0periments woul be ieally reveale by !ailure o! the
quantum probabilities observe to emonstrate the inistinguishability
o! ientical quantum particles. 8ore generally1 the sub5ective nature o!
quantum measurement coul be reveale by any properly controlle
quantum e0periment revealing the practical e!!icacy o! uni!!erentiate
substance. 6he tricKy part is in speci!ying what constitutes proper
control o! the e0perimental conitions in such a measurement. 6he
practical e!!icacy o! substance as a scienti!ic concept woul no oubt
point to the inter!erence o! the observer_s consciousness with the
iealize conitions o! quantum e0periment. Hn a wor1 the revelation
o! the action o! substance always shall reuce to the inter!erence with
the e0periment on the part o! the mental substance1 i.e.1 consciousness o!
the e0perimenterCsD. ?acK-reaction1 which isrupts the probabilistic
symmetry o! the wave!unction is ue to the system getting caught up in
the sel!-!eebacK o! the e0perimenter_s min with itsel!1 more
particularly1 o! the e0perimenter_s will an consciousness.
Fhen one comes to a resolution to act1 which results !rom !reely wille
eliberation a Kin o! RlooK-aheaS repercussion upon the quantum
probabilities o! the system an the system to be acte upon might be
e0pecte. 6he question is whether the nonlocal in!luence is upon the
quantum probabilities only o! systems with which the actor has
previously interacte Cwhat might be terme the Rlocal quantum
probabilitiesD or also upon the quantum probabilities o! systems with
which the actor proposes Cin his !reely wille ecisionD interact.
;0plore iscussion o! trae o!! o! signal processing time with magnitue
o! time elay between 6omislav an mysel!. Hnclue iscussion o! error
correction o! igitize signals through resetting o! Rparity bits.S
8oern physics1 which is to say relativity an quantum mechanics1 is
characterize by the uni!ication o! matter an vacuum such that the two
may be properly consiere merely i!!erent states o! the same
unerlying quantity. 6his is borne out by the !act that *D relativity says
that not only o lengths contract1 times ilate an masses increase with
acceleration1 but the length1 time an mass o! space itsel! must
relativistically trans!orm uner acceleration an 2D the =eisenberg
,ncertainty 7rinciple applies not only to !luctuations in the quantum
observables associate with particles an !iels1 but also to !luctuations
in these same quantum observables that must be associate with the
vacuum itsel!. ?ut there may be more than one way o! combining the
theories o! relativity an quantum mechanics so that1 instea o! relativity
an quantum mechanics being equal partners1 relativity is seen as rather
a system o! physical e!!ects or phenomena possessing nonrelativistic
quantum mechanical origin.
6he :avies-,nruh raiation Crelativistically equivalent to =awKing
raiationD is mae up o! a blacK boy spectrum o! electromagnetic
raiation in particular an a thermal spectrum o! bosons o! every type in
general. 6he increasing !lu0 o! bosonic thermal raiation observe by
an accelerating observer may be attribute to a rotation o! possibly
erstwhile more highly orere !ermionic !luctuation energy.
Hn the case o! any gravitational !iel or acceleration1 there is an Revent
horizonS. ?ut Revent horizonS must be more generally unerstoo than
a two-imensional sur!ace in three space an one time imension. 6his
is only the e0treme case1 one in which the spatial an temporal a0es
have been e0change Cat the blacK hole event horizon itsel!D. ?ut in less
e0treme cases o! gravity an/or acceleration1 the sur!ace e!ine by the
so-calle event horizon is more generally e!ine by a $-hypersur!ace in
!our imensional spacetime. 6he case o! a blacK hole1 the raius o!
curvature is purely $ spatial. Hn the case o! the three space1 the raius
o! curvature is purely temporal with again1 a $-hyper sur!ace Revent
horizon. Hn the case o! moerate gravitational !iels1 the raii o!
curvature possesses contain one temporal an three spatial components.
@ot only are the time an space a0es e0change at the event horizon o! a
blacK hole1 but the event horizon Cto which the time a0is remains always
orthogonalD is reuce !rom a $-hypersur!ace to a 2-imensional
spherical sur!ace. 6he entropy o! the event horizon becomes ma0imal
at the same time as the $
r
spatial imension o! the event horizon is
squeeze out. 6his perhaps suggests that the in!ormation o! $-
imensional material structures is holographically coe onto a 2-
sur!ace. :oes this possibility have any relation to the physics o!
anyons1 i.e.1 the structure o! $ + * spacetime is RcoeS or
RprogrammeS into the patterns o! !luctuations o! anyonic particles an
!iels on a 2-imensional sur!ace? "o what then is the relationship
between anyonic physics an supersymmetry? "omehow the
comparison o! the two theories remins me o! comparing a iscrete with
a continuous automobile transmission.
6he relation o! Ranyonic physicsS to R-ermi-?ose physicsS is analogous
to the relationship o! analogue to igital computing. 6he -ermi-?ose
physics is a Kin o! igitize abstraction !rom the continuous anyonic
physics. 6he 2-imensional continuous !iel o! numbers is more than
aequately ense an comple0 enough to coe !or a $-imensional array
o! iscrete values. 6he otherwise mutually e0clusive categories o!
iscrete !ermions an interpenetrating boson !iels breaK own
altogether on a 2-sur!ace1 which is the omain o! so-calle RanyonicS
physics. Ht woul be interesting to e0plore how the postulates o!
quantum mechanics must be appropriately moi!ie to become
compatible with the physics o! anyons an their interactions.
3an the event horizon o! a blacK hole possess a shape other than a
per!ectly spherical one? 9r is the spherical event horizon a concrete
realization o! an abstract noal point in a spectrum o! less e0treme
spacetime curvatures1 one perhaps e0tening all the way to the opposite
e0treme case o! a per!ectly symmetrical an !lat spacetime? .imiting
ourselves to 5ust general relativity there is no way to e0plain the
coherence o! a per!ectly !lat spacetime or its continuity as a topological
mani!ol. 3learly what might be terme Rpositive matterS possesses
only a merely relative e0istence an there!ore must consist o! more Cor
more than one Kin o!D energy than that boun up in the relatively
RpositiveS mass-energy o! the matter. "pacetime structure must be
etermine by the relative values o! at least two varieties o! matter as
well as the ynamics o! the mutual interaction o! the two or more types
o! matter. 9! course1 !ermions an bosons o!!er themselves up as the
minimal two !unamental types o! particle1 !iel1 !luctuation1 i.e.1
constituent o! physical groun o! being1 etc. Fhat is terme Rempty
spaceS or Rempty spacetimeS must be a balancing o! a ynamic tension
between the various varieties o! stress-momentum-energy. Aelativistic
invariance may require the giving up o! the uality o! particle an !iel
in !avor o! that o! Rcurrent an !iel.S
6he ensity o! composite spin ) virtual !ermion-anti!ermion vacuum
energy !luctuations must instantaneously Cor nonlocallyD ecrease with
istance !rom the observer. 6he opposite must be the case where
causally connecte istance Clocal istanceD !rom the observer is
concerne. 6his suggests that the timeliKe an spaceliKe structures o!
spacetime must be relate to one another via some Kin o! symmetry
operation1 similar to the mirroring o! the two halves o! a hyperboloi o!
revolution. Hs this RmirroringS o! the timeliKe an spaceliKe aspects o!
$+* spacetime consistent with ?ohm_s notion o! causal connections
being equivalent to nonlocal correlations o! quantum !luctuations? 6he
nonlocally connecte spacetime mani!ol contains within itsel! all
possible inertial observer-epenent $+* spacetime sections o! the
nonlocally connecte mani!ol.
6he acceleration o! the universe may be connecte with an asymmetry in
how irreversible time an !requency mutually trans!orm1 as oppose to
the case !or bare1 mathematical time !unctions that -ourier trans!orm
into the !requency omain. 6he !alling o! boies into a gravitational
potential may in this case be the boies seeKing out early !requency
epochs o! the universe_s e0pansion. C;0pan on what this might mean
in terms o! the propose mechanisms o! gravitationD
;0amine the R=c e0planationS !or the 7ioneer *)/** acceleration
anomalies in terms o! the bacK an !orth travel o! a raio or light signal
between the spacecra!t an observation stations.
6he ReventsS o! the event horizon are in this case1 5ust as in the e0treme
case o! a blacK hole Rtrappe sur!aceS vacuum !luctuations constantly
taKing place across this horizon. Hn the case o! the blacK hole1 there is a
complete imbalance in the !ermion-anti!ermion components maKing up
the RenergyS !luctuations1 which now become a Kin o! !ermionic $-
momentum !luctuation. Ht is through this mechanism o! =awKing
raiation that the hole shall eventually raiate away all o! its mass1
leaing to the well Known RblacK hole in!ormation parao0.S :ue to
the e0pansion o! the ,niverse an the resultant ecrease in the
,niverse_s gravitational curvature1 there shoul be everywhere present
throughout space a tiny component o! the virtually in!initely ense
quantum vacuum energy1 mani!esting itsel! in the !orm o! raiation aKin
to :avies-,nruh or =awKing raiation. 8oreover1 this raiation shoul
possess an precisely thermal spectrum1 i.e.1 it must be blacK boy
raiation. 6he temperature o! this raiation coul be calculate through
use o! the =awKing raiation gravity-temperature1 which states that the
temperature o! the =awKing raiation must be proportional to the
intensity o! the blacK hole sur!ace gravity. 6he question arises1 what
must the Rintensity o! gravityS be !or us to observe a 2.% egree Oelvin
blacK boy raiation spectrum? ;0amination o! the appropriate
=awKing !ormula suggests that the acceleration necessary in orer to
prouce such a RhotS thermal spectrum is enormous. 8ight such
enormous accelerations have been prouce uring either the
gravitational collapse o! a supermassive blacK hole or perhaps by the
in!lationary stage o! cosmological e0pansion1 which tooK place uring
he !irst *)
-$)
secons a!ter the ?ig ?ang?
6he point o! creation !or 4o is that o! becoming =imsel!1 that is1 o!
becoming 4o. "ince 4o possesses the greatest !reeom o! all beings1
there shoul be more paths Cin the sense o! causal e!!icacyD leaing to
4ohea than lea to the evolution o! any other1 lesser being. 6he
evolution o! the very simplest beings1 e.g.1 viruses an one-celle
organism shoul have been accomplishe by only one among a
relatively small number o! possible paths that are more or less in line
what the ictates o! quantum chemistry. /s evolution progresses ever
!urther1 greater an greater subtleties o! the nature o! the groun o! being
come into play an the availability o! possible alternative paths to these
higher levels !rom simpler levels grows in step. Hn other wors1
evolution occurs not merely in the being1 but in the possibilities in
being_s !urther evolution.
Fe shoul not con!use the alternative possibilities represente by the
quantum state vector or wave !unction with alternative possibilities o!
particular systems1 but unerstan them as alternative possible states o!
particular systems. 6his consieration speaKs to the current iscussions
o! Ralternate universesS in the many worls interpretation o! quantum
measurement.
:oes the iniviual have the resources to conceptualize what is unique
about his iniviual conscious mental process1 espite science1 logic an
language itsel! pertaining only to class relationships if only because the
iniviual by virtue of his consciousness has privilege access to the
contents of own min% H! so1 then they are not irectly communicable1
but the iniviual must in goo !aith rely upon the Rine!!able
corresponenceS o! the conscious mental contents o! his own min with
such contents as are presume to e0ist within the mins o! others. Fhat
is parao0ical in this !aith in the communicability o! sub5ective mental
contents is the implie notion o! an abstract category o! corresponence
in which the 7corresponence8 is not constitute by an abstract
relationship. :o we mean to imply by this that the corresponence
between mine an another_s e0perience o! the same ob5ect or situation is
by other than analogy?
/ truly unique iniviual woul be transcenent o! any an all possible
escription1 however comple01 an coul only RcorresponS with other
beings or entities via the relation o! substantial continuity1 which is to
say1 each an every other entity woul be in some sense erivative !rom
Rthe unique iniviual.S ?ut then the mutual separateness o! entities
corresponing or otherwise relate to the unique iniviual woul at
bottom be illusory. "eparate consciousnesses can only each be
consiere together with the others as e0amples o! conscious entities
provie the entities are substantially continuous with one another.
7erhaps one aspect o! this substantial continuity that connects RistinctS
consciousnesses is quantum nonlocality1 transcening as P. oes the
iniviuating categories o! space an time. <ou an H cannot both be
unique consciousnesses an at the same be1 each o! us Runique e0amples
o! a conscious entity.S

?ut my own consciousness presumably possesses something in common
with previous instances o! itsel! over an above what my consciousness
possesses in common with the consciousness o! other persons. /n
ob5ective category o! consciousness must there!ore e0clue what my
present consciousness possesses in common with previous states o! my
own consciousness an inclue only what my consciousness hols in
common with the consciousness o! other persons.
6here is the o!t-hear phraseV Rone o! a Kin.S ?ut this phrase e!ines a
coherent notion only in a metaphorical sense. ?ut in this case1 we are
ealing with something o! a close system1 one presumably possesse o!
a !ormal1 i.e.1 !ormally escribable structure. Ht might be thought that
something without e!inable bounaries coul be both unique an an
e0emplar o! a class1 e.g.1 a spiral nebula. ?ut here the Rnon-
e!inabilityS is only with respect to nuances o! structure that play no Key
role in e!ining the entity as such. =ere1 in the case o! a spiral gala0y1
what is unique about the ob5ect are aspects o! the ob5ect that coul be
i!!erent in an unlimite number o! ways without changing the category
o! ob5ect. 3onsciousness however1 is absolutely crucial to the e!ining
o! the person_s ientity as such. H! the other an H are each unique in our
consciousness-meiate ientities an both e0amples o! what are terme
Rconscious beings1S then our respective consciousnesses must only be
RuniqueS in a manner that oes not respect the istinctness o! our
ientities. 3onsciousness is unique in its essence but not as a
phenomenon is another parao0ical statement which invoKes this
con!usion o! the unique e0ample. 3onsciousness is unique in creation
an what maKes an iniviual an e0ample o! a conscious iniviual is
that his consciousness is continuous with einiviuate consciousness.
6he iniviual is sel!-conscious to the e0tent that he recognizes his
iniviuality as an illusion. 9therwise in orer to accept that *D
consciousness essentially e!ines personal ientity1 2D there are a
plurality o! conscious persons an $D each o! the plurality o! persons is
an e0ample o! consciousness because o! some abstract quality or
property that each consciousness possesses in common with all other
e0amples o! consciousness1 one must1 along with 7lantinga invoKe a
,niversal 8in1 one capable o! e0amining all o! the e0amples o!
iniviual consciousness an seeing them as such.
Ht is interesting to contrast the .atin-base wor1 Re0istS CRe0istereSD
with the 4erman wor RistS Cerive !rom the 4erman verb1 R"einS1 tr.
Rto beSD. 7laying a little with this comparison we can interpret Re0istS
as Re0-ist1S as either !ormer RistenceS CRseinSD as out or away !rom or
staning out against RistenceS or being1 e.g.1 e0-ist as in Re0-ciseS1 Re0-
stenS1 Re0-!oliateS1 etc. Hn other wors1 e0istence is 5ust a erivative o!
being1 perhaps in "chopenhauer_s sense o! Riniviuation o! being.S
?eing becomes the groun o! all e0istence eriving !rom it. "trangely
enough1 it appears that e0istence is a realm o! abstractions while being is
alone concrete an substantial.
/pril 2)**
6he larger the ,niverse is iscovere to be by astrophysicists1
cosmologists1 etc.1 the more is the e6istence o! the sel! unerscore in
the sense o! e6istere qua staning out against1 c.!.1 recent iscovery o!
!our circular thermal !luctuation signatures in the cosmic bacKgroun
raiation inicating that the ,niverse was RbruiseS by impacts with
!our other universes uring the epoch o! cosmological in!lation. 6hese
iscoveries enlarge the bac'groun against which the iniviual Rstans
outS in his act o! e6istere.
6he structure o! language acts as translator an interpreter o!
interpersonal verbal an written communication. /ny component o! the
iniviual_s conscious state that oes not !it into the system o! language
must nonetheless be Cattempt to beD conveye via language. 6his
component o! interpersonal communication constitutes a Kin o!
Rlinguistic noise1S that must nonetheless become an integral part o! the
communication recipient_s interpretation o! the communication1 i.e.1 in
terms o! the recipient_s own system o! language. C:erria woul say1
perhaps that language acts in this capacity !or each an every
interpersonal communicationD
/ writer composes a novel in which he the author is one o! the
characters o! the novel. /nother character o! the novel reveals this !act
to the author character1 who isputes this revelation1 engaging the other
character in philosophical argument. RH_ as soon believe that H was 5ust
a character in a novel as H_ believe that H_m the author o! my own
e0istence.S
/pril 2)**
6he basic i!!erence between the philosopher an the poet
consists in something liKe the !ollowing: the philosopher at various
5unctures throughout his li!e !ins himsel! up until very late puzzling
over whether he is 4o or a mere Fill 9_ the Fisp. 6he poet lazily sits
up in be aroun noon an reamily reconciles this opposition by
supposing he is inee both an oes not trouble himsel! any !urther
with the question.
Ht is true that introspection permits access to the contents o! the
iniviual_s min that cannot be reache by the empirical an analytical
methos o! scienti!ic investigation. =owever1 the iniviual who is
capable o! accessing the contents o! his iniviual min but through the
prism o! intersub5ectively an collectively constructe concepts1
potentially en5oys no greater access into his or her own psychic
processes than potentially oes present ay science or science o! the not
too istant !uture. 8oreover1 science can point out regularities in the
iniviual_s motivation an behavior o! which the iniviual in his
allege sovereign access to his hien inner sel! possesses little or no
hint. 6he question arises whether1 because the iniviual_s
unerstaning an !eel !or the meaning o! socially constructe
categories that are presume to unerpin his every notion are necessarily
privately hel an never irectly e0aminable1 his conceptualization o!
himsel!1 others an the worl must not then be ultimately
incommensurate with such allege pseuo-ob5ective1 socially
constructe categories. ?ut i! so1 the incommensurateness o! the
iniviual_s conceptual !rameworK with that o! society1 i.e.1 with that o!
every other potential corresponent o! that iniviual must on a short
term1 iniviual level not be eleterious though on a longer term1
societal level this RincommensuratenessS must be the source o! social
an psychological innovation that promotes the progress o! the clan1
tribe1 nation1 etc. in the larger :arwinian scheme o! things.
6he most viable social groups Cin the :arwinian senseD possess the
largest though most integrate cross sections o! special talent an ability
in that society_s iniviuals. 6his represents an epigenetic harnessing o!
behavioral genetic variation through cultural inheritance1 which was
greatly spe up by the avent o! vocal communication an then
language. 6he i!!erent R!loweringsS o! culture in civilize societies
represent the sublimation o! genetic behavioral potential built up over
many hunres o! thousans o! years o! competition !or survival an
ominance between myria hierarchical1 nomaic1 hunter-gatherer
societies.
/ set o! necessary an su!!icient conitions !or the arising o! conscious
states is always such as set1 which prouces conscious states o! some
particular person. 6his implies that there is no set o! necessary an
su!!icient conitions !or what might be terme consciousness as such.
;ach iniviual consciousness is its own open system in which the set o!
necessary conitions su!!icient to prouce that person_s iniviual
consciousness is an open1 ineterminate or in!inite set. 6he necessary
conitions !or the e0istence o! some iniviual consciousness are always
bounary conitions place upon some ynamical process that is alreay
speci!ic or peculiar to the ientity o! the particular iniviual in
question. Fith each iniviual consciousness constituting Crather than
being constitute by?D an open system1 i! !ollows that there is no
common space Cor time !or that matter L by .orenz invarianceD that may
be properly unerstoo to enclose iniviual consciousnesses together or
in common. /lso since !ormal structure obviously is not a su!!icient
conition etermine the personal ientity o! an iniviual consciousness1
a continuity o! some !ormless substance seems a !unamentally
necessary component o! the personal ientity o! an iniviual
consciousness. /ll o! this is to say that there is a Kin o! gul! mutually
separating all iniviual consciousness1 namely one comprise by space1
time an substance. "ince each iniviual belongs to a realm o! entirely
istinct substance !rom that o! the other with no common unerlying
substrate to the istinct substances Cby e!initionD1 i! !ollows that the
means by which one iniviual a!!ects another must be acausal in nature.
:uplication o! conscious states woul require that at some su!!iciently
eep level o! physics the physical processes unerlying consciousness
must be quantum egenerate with respect to every single e!inable
observable. C=ence1 the RunobservabilityS o! conscious states L e0cept1
o! course in the case o! the unique iniviual whose consciousness it isD
6he variable that e!ines one consciousness as this consciousness rather
than that consciousness then cannot be a physical observable as quantum
mechanics unerstans the term.
/ll 4eorg 3antor_s R:iagonal /rgumentS may really be unerstoo to
have prove is the incommensurability by logical construction o! the
orinal an rational numbers.
6he !ailure o! the theoretical escription at the subatomic scale is
connecte with Cperhaps RcausesSD the !abric o! quantum !luctuations at
the smallest scales o! spacetime. C/ Kin o! persistent !ailure on the
part o! the ,niversal 8in to Keep tracK o! all that is occurring in
creationD / similar !ailure occurs at the macroscopic scale when the
abstract combinational-permutational space represente by =ilbert space
outstrips the computational processing capacity o! this !abric o!
!luctuations Cquantum vacuumD1 which results in the 7enrose-=amero!!
R9rch-9AS process o! state vector reuction. C=ere again1 a Kin o!
!ailure on the part o! the ,niversal 8in to entertain all o! the implie
combinations an permutations o! entities within abstract =ilbert spaceD
9ne is remine here o! the !act o! ;instein_s !iel equations possessing
appro0imately si0 million istinct solutions Cin the sense o!
mathematical e0istence proo! though only about *2 o! these solutions
have yet been !ounD 6he ,niversal 8in1 or the min o! an iniviual
human mathematician or physicist !or that matter is capable o! evising
an abstract space populate by a set o! abstract entities an abstract
ynamics with which to RriveS these entities in which the totality o!
possibilities1 their combinations an permutations1 as well as the
relationships o! all these outstrips the computational capacity o! either
man or :ivine ?eing1 which in turn leas to the uncertainty an hence
temporality o! su!!iciently large systems o! the entities an their
relationships. 6his remins one perhaps o! a computer networK system
crash that occurs at a certain terminal o! the networK whenever the user
at that terminal tries to utilize more 37, resources than what the
networK aministrator has allocate !or that terminal. 6he quantum
uncertainty associate with state vector collapse must be intimately
connecte with the locally present =eisenberg quantum uncertainty.
6he 9rch-9A reuction process1 however appears to be a quantum
nonlocal phenomenon1 epening as it oes upon what is taKing place
within the abstract omain o! =ilbert space.
/ possible mechanism !or quantum uncertainty over an above that
speci!ie by the =eisenberg uncertainty relations might be on account o!
an ever present asymmetry between a quantum system_s 7si an
con5ugate-7si1 the prouct o! which speci!ies the probability ensities o!
the system. 9! course1 the phase o! the wave!unction is etermine by
the inverse tangent o! the ratio o! the magnitues o! the imaginary an
real parts o! the wave!unction. 6he uni!orm rotation o! the phase o! a
quantum system implies a Kin o! e0act mirroring o! the imaginary parts
o! 7si an 7siW. /n asymmetry between these imaginary components
o! 7si an 7siW woul have the e!!ect o! causing a temporal evolution o!
the probability ensity1 Y7siM7siWZ1 which shoul prouce physically real
e!!ects. =ere woul be a case where the =eisenberg energy
uncertainties calculate !rom Y7siM7siWZ an Y7siWM7siZ1 respectively
must be generally unequal. 8ust there !luctuations in the energy
egenerate observables o! the wave!unction that o not mani!est
themselves as a component o! the =eisenberg energy uncertainty o! the
system1 i! 7si an 7siW are generally unequal? /n i! such an
asymmetry o! the wave!unction e0ists1 then what1 pray tell is its physical
basis? 3ertainly this asymmetry o! 7si that we are speculating about
here must be connecte with the !unamental asymmetry o! time. Fe
believe this because o! the reality o! the phenomenon o! gravitational
ecoherence. Fhen a wave!unction ecoheres the phase relationships
between the eigen!unctions composing the wave!unction are isrupte1
becoming progressively less mutually synchronize.
"houl gravity1 which istorts spacetime have the e!!ect o! increasing
any temporal asymmetries that alreay e0ist1 say when lowering a
system + heat bath into a gravitational potential? H! so1 then how woul
gravity or spacetime curvature interact with the temporal asymmetry that
we are postulating as ue to the general inequality o! 7si an 7siW?
7resumably there shoul be some e!!ect i! it is correct to assume that
=ilbert space !eels the e!!ect o! gravitational !iels.
3lassically1 only in!ormation about close systems shoul be
communicable between conscious mins such that in cases o! *))%
!ielity o! transmission o! ata1 both mins shoul hol the same
in!ormation post transmission. Fhat permits the sub5ect to view
himsel! is the same RmechanismS that maKes the sub5ect unetectable
an immeasurable to other sub5ects. Puantum entanglement shoul not
be spatially symmetrical an temporally reversible where acts o!
conscious observation participate in the creation o! quantum entangle
states. 7erhaps this assertion has e0perimental implications !or the
problem o! quantum measurement.
6he !unamental quantum uncertainty is between a physical observable
an some con5ugate or ual quantity that is proportional to the rate o!
change in that physical observable1 e.g.1 position an momentum1 phase
an angular momentum1 etc. 6he time-energy e0pression o! =eisenberg
uncertainty is there!ore the most !unamental o! its e0pressions. /
system must change its energy1 either iscretely or continuously in orer
!or the system to unergo a measurable change1 that is1 !or the system to
e0perience a change in one o! the system_s e!inable quantum
mechanical observables. ?ut not all change is inicate by a
corresponing change in the energy o! the system that is unergoing
change. 6his is on account entirely to the phenomenon o! quantum
mechanical egeneracy. / system that is quantum egenerate with
respect to a particular physical observable may e0perience changes to its
state vector1 apart !rom mere rotation o! the quantum phase o! the
system1 which in no way changes the value o! the particular physical
observable. 6his observation might be valuable !or the 7hilosophy o!
8in in helping with the question o! the relation o! sub5ective to
ob5ective time1 e.g.1 sub5ective temporality may be largely Cthough not
entirelyD comprise by changes an temporal evolution o! quantum
states in the brain Cor in its embeing substrate vacuum stateD that are
egenerate with respect to energy an all e!inable quantum mechanical
RobservablesS.
Aapily changing !orce !iels may permit a quantum system to violate
;hren!est_s 6heorem an allow quantum behavior to mani!est itsel! at
the macroscopic level. 6his is perhaps what taKes place when a !ree
wille observer changes the bounary conitions to the quantum !iels
in an unpreictable manner1 which !orces state vector collapse1 i.e.1 what
we have re!erre to elsewhere as Rsurprising the quantum vacuum.S
3.!.1 6he 7hysics o! 3onsciousness1 p. 2%).
6he essentially ynamic metaphorical !unction o! consciousness
presupposes at least a secon imension o! temporality L still more
reason !or the non!ormaliz-able nature o! conscious mental processes.
-unctions o! consciousness cannot be represente in terms o! !unctions
o! a single time variable1 espite an unlimite number o! abstract
!unctional variables being at our isposal that may be combine together
with RtS in the argument o! any !unction possessing merely a single
temporal imension. 6here are two istinct types o! in!ormation1 one
associate with the reuction o! energy uncertainty through reuction in
the magnitue an ensity o! vacuum energy !luctuations1 the other
through the increase in the nonlocal quantum correlateness o!
!luctuations in the vacuum_s energy. -or e0ample1 the correlateness o!
two sets o! quantum energy !luctuations1 each o! which is ranom1
constitutes a net gain in in!ormation1 but without the collective energy
uncertainty o! the two sets o! !luctuations having change. 9ne might
suppose that this is because there has been a gain in in!ormation about
totally ranom signals1 which strictly speaKing oesn_t tell us anything
new about the worl unless it woul be possible to assign some
conventional meaning to the arbitrary pattern o! !luctuation within either
set. ?ut without us being able to control the !luctuations in some way at
one en1 there is not possibility o! using the correlateness o! the two
sets o! !luctuations !or purposes o! communication. Hs there a
connection implicit here between will1 intentionality Cor RaboutnessSD
an consciousness? Ht is the nature o! consciousness as a
!unamentally open system that maKes consciousness ynamic in its
action1 i.e.1 the action o! consciousness always contributes something
novel an not pre!igure in the system at any previous stage o! the
system_s evelopment. 3onsciousness + system may never constitute a
composite close system ue to the essential openness o! consciousness
itsel!. =ence the action o! consciousness upon an observe system is
always that o! breaching the system with respect to the pre!igure set o!
e0ternal system potentialities. 6his souns very similar in nature to the
phenomenon o! state vector collapse o! quantum systems that is
!requently associate with the peculiar action o! the observer_s
consciousness upon the system being observe. Fhat is calle
interpretation o! sensory ata1 perception1 or still more1 o! e0perience
must always involve an evolution o! the ata that cannot possibly be !it
onto merely a single imension o! time1 that is1 containe within a
!unction possesse o! only a single temporal parameter. 6he quantum
parao0 o! RFigner_s !rienS is easily broKen i! the *
st
level quantum
observer is himsel! an open system1 i.e.1 a system which cannot be
characterize by a pure state wave!unction or even by a iagonalizable
ensity matri0. C/s a quantum system is always a pure state within its
own system o! re!erenceD
8oving at %).%% the spee o! light1 lengths in the irection o! motion
are reuce to one hal!1 clocK intervals are stretche to ouble that
e0pecte !or an ob5ect Rat restS1 an the ob5ect in motion_s mass
relativistically increases to ouble that it ha prior to being accelerate.
@ote that merely oubling an ob5ect_s rest mass oes not require such a
raical restructuring o! the spacetime metric o! the ob5ect_s embeing
spacetime mani!ol as was require when an ob5ect_s special relativistic
mass is ouble.
Fhat is terme RthoughtS is perhaps more properly unerstoo as
Runthought.S 6hat is to say1 all thought as a category-transcening
Ctranscenental horizonal repositioning1 c.!.1
au=
=eiegger_s
cit=
What is
Calle Thin'ingD process is an activity in which sociocultural categories1
i.e.1 arti!acts o! the collective consciousness Cas oppose to the
Rcollective unconsciousnessS o! >ungD are econstructe. 6hought is
!ining the e0ceptions to rules institute by the collective or Rschool o!
thoughtS. 6he importance o! the school o! thought is that it provies a
Kin o! touchstone or common point o! re!erence !or those iscussing
new ieas that transcen the limitations impose upon the consciousness
o! aherents o! that particular school. "o then much o! what passes !or
thought is really merely reshu!!ling o! categories whilst these categories
remain completely intact throughout1 i.e.1 application.
ess=
6he more H have re!lecte upon the econstructive pro5ect1 the more H
notice its close similarity with the psychic issociation e0perience by
schizophrenics1 c.!.1
cit=
2aness an 2oernism C
au=
"assD. 6his psychic
issociation e0perience by the schizophrenic is similar to that e!!ecte
by econstructionist RthinKersS Csee above comment concerning the real
nature o! RthoughtSD in that what previously was uncritically accepte as
a coherent an unassuming entity or ob5ect within one_s environment is
now seen by the econstructive philosopher as a
Kw=
rei!ication !rom out
o! a heavily !iltere an reprocesse !lu0. Fhat the econstructionist is
care!ul to point out is that the rationale by which the !lu0 has been
rei!ie into ob5ects Csee
au=
7iaget hereD Calso1 c.!1
au=
Filliam >ames_
Rblooming1 buzzing con!usionSD is essentially arbitrary at least to the
e0tent o! being only one coherent way among myria possible1 equally
viable ways o! !iltering-
Kw=
rei!ication o! the !lu01 c.!.1 languages as
Rconcept mapsS in which language at least partially Retermines
thoughtS1 e.g.1 incompleteness o! the mutual translatability o! languages
an the innateness of grammar C
au=
3homsKy_s
cit=
&yntactic &tructuresD.
6he 5usti!ication o! the manner o! reprocessing o! the !lu0 o! e0perience
always comes later Cthis is
au=
:erria_s concept o! Ralways alreainessS
at worK hereD an is not so much an e0pression o! earlier cultural !orms
as what comes later as a shoring up o! what has come be!ore an a bacK
!ormation/attribution o! a more coherent iniviual will an intention/
intentionality an meaning to those earlier !orms than what were
originally e0plicitly or sel!-consciously present. C"ee
au=
.ibet_s
e0periments on the relative timing o! the sub5ect_s conscious impulse to
act an the initiation in the sub5ect_s brain o! a buil up o! the necessary
preparatory action potentials !or acting on the impulseD 8uch o! the
!orce o! the personal pronoun1 RHS with which a speaKer in moern times
enows this pronoun has grown up only uring the past several
millennia1 c.!.1
cit=
-rea'own of the -icameral 2in C
au=
>aynesD an
particularly this worK_s analytical comparison o! several important
worKs o! literature1 pre- an post circa *N)) ?.3. /lso see ?orges_ The
Nothingness of 4ersonality.
@ovember 2)**
3onsieration o! the
overetermine nature o! the process by which the eveloping in!ant
constructs a coherent representation o! the worl an his place within it
along with an e0amination o! the ;l 4reco 7arao0 in the light the
philosophy o! perception Cthe so-calle Rargument !rom illusionS
philosophy o! min CR9ther 8insSD1 leas us to conclue that the set o!
conitions require to pass a R6urning 6estS are not stringent enough to
guarantee the unity o! perception1 intersub5ectively. 6his is especially
true in !urther light o! the possible epiphenomenal nature o!
consciousness1 i.e.1 consciousness not groune in an ob5ective Rconcept
o! consciousnessS.
/ugust 2)**
H saw what appeare to me as a per!ect quarter pro!ile o! >esus
CEheashotED in a pattern o! conensation in the center winow pane o!
the Kitchen bacK oor. 6he clincher though was the simultaneous
appearance o! my ecease mother in a !ull length hal!-pro!ile in the
!orm o! a !ractal crinKly-/luminum 9rigami image in the winow pane
5ust below. 6his is no oubt all by way o! the same general mechanism
o! sense ata reprocessing CperceptionD that permits thousans o! high
energy physicists to !inally glimpse the =iggs boson in a trillion
e0ploing pieces o! .=3 particle ebris.
9riginally this pronoun possesse only a socially etermine !unction
an its trans!ormation between ancient an moern times serves only as
the lynchpin inicator o! what has transpire with all manner o! myria
other cultural !orms which have since become arti!icially personalize.
Aecall our observation that the iniviual acts without the Knowlege
that his perceptions1 thoughts an choices are etermine by general
human nature sub5ect to special conitions an always !rom within a
sociolinguistic conte0t. "ocial processes cannot be properly unerstoo
as being merely processes o! collective action by socially constructe
iniviuals. 8ulti!acete truths require a plurality of mutually
inconsistent coherent assertions in their support. -or e0ample1 lately
Clate 2)**D cosmologists have only reluctantly arrive at the conclusion
that the long time best caniate !or a Rtheory o! everythingS1 i.e.1
R"tring 6heoryS may have to !orever remain as a networK o! overlapping
though ultimately mutually logically inconsistent components o!
voc=
heterotic 8-6heory. 6he mutual coherence o! each an every
proposition o! a given collection o! propositions uttere by an iniviual
oes not by itsel! guarantee logical sel!-consistency o! the collection L
even when each o! the propositions has been asserte Cat each time in
goo !aithD by the very same person. 6he invention an sprea o! the
art o! writing woul have been more an e!!ect rather than a cause o! the
breaKown o! the >aynes_ bicameral min. / valuable e0ercise might be
the tracKing o! the changing nature o! selective pressure1 both upon the
iniviual an the collective necessitate by cultural rami!ications o!
early man_s social an technological evelopment that were being riven
by the evolution o! his generalize mental capacity. C:o we have here
the beginnings o! an argument !or RintelligenceS being more than a mere
RaaptationS1 i.e.1 !or intelligence possessing an essence an not being
merely an abstraction !rom phenomena?D =ere also may be a reason !or
selection an sel!-organization being viewe as a partnership in
evolution rather than competing interpretations o! evolution.
%/(/2))&

8ay
2)**
Ht is interesting in connection with our iscussion o! psychological
issociation that the common Iictorean term !or those who treate the
certi!iably insane was that o! alienist.
>uly 2))& ess=
6he peculiar phenomenon o! reaming is liKely a vestigial
behavior pattern representing a moe o! consciousness
Qd
that was
originally present uring both the waKing an sleeping li!e o! our istant
!orebears. / single genetic mutation coul have been responsible !or the
melatonin output o! the pineal glan rolling over !rom a more or less
continuous to a nocturnal cycle. 6he ream that was the totality o!
8an_s sub5ective consciousness !or countless millennia now coul !all at
least uring the ay when iniviual members o! the tribe or clan strucK
out on their own to conuct a solitary hunt1 on which was now much
more irectly Runer the control o! the ob5ectS1 c.!.1
au=
"antayana. 8an
neee the voices o! his gos !or guiance as he was now on his own in
two important ways: he now conucte operations uring the ay not
only collectively but also iniviually an the control o! his actions ha
begun to be assume R!rom the insieS rather than !rom out o! a !lurry o!
screams1 warnings an shoute irections !rom the other members o!
the1 e.g.1 hunter-gatherer hunting party. CPuestion: i 8an become
more rather than less nomaic with the thawing o! the glaciers o! the last
ice age?D :o psychopathy an sociopathy also represent vestigial moes
o! psychological !unction that !ormerly hel a much more integral
!unction within nomaic1 hunter-gatherer society or o we have to go
bacK much !urther in 8an_s prehistory in orer to !in the natural
selective avantage con!erre upon the iniviual possessing either
psycho- or sociopathy? :oes the institution o! marriage only poorly !it
the innate impulses an tenencies1 which we inherite !rom our hunter-
gatherer prehistory? -or e0ample1 it appears liKely that se0uality on the
part o! our hunter-gatherer ancestors was not monogamous1 but more
liKely RorgiasticS1 c.!1
au=
8cOenna1
cit=
:oo of the /os. "o the se0ual
uplicity an serial monogamy1 which appeare more an more
!requently uring so-calle moerns times Can still more now in
postmoern societyD represent but a resurgence o! human beings_ natural
se0ual instincts now that the strictures o! 7uritanical/Iictorean social
legislation an mores are more or less in a pro!oun state o! lapse. 6here
shoul have been no selective pressure in !avor o! the evelopment o! a
new an RhigherS moe o! mental !unctioning Cego-consciousnessD
uring sleep1 which supports the notion o! the relatively egoless moe o!
consciousness en5oye uring reaming being a le!tover or vestigial
moe o! primitive consciousness. 6he bicameral min may have
resulte !rom the brain compensating with its newly evelope linguistic
capacities !or a suen isruption o! the epigenetically unifie Cthrough
cultureD !unctioning o! 8an_s ual-hemisphere brain in which the right
brain ha traitionally maintaine ominance. 6he evelopment o! a
tool-using culture woul have taKen some o! the selective pressure o!! o!
the right brain an place it more squarely upon the brain_s more
analytical le!t hemisphere. 3hanges in consciousness perhaps
correspon with change bounary conitions upon conscious
perception an altere access to the bounaries o! conscious perception
or e0citation o! our perceptual !aculties taKing place within pree0istent
bounaries. 6he nature o! the wave!unction as well as the various
trans!ormation an transitions that it may1 theoretically speaKing1
unergo may be closely analogous to the trans!ormations an transitions
o! human consciousness. 8oreover1 the e0istence o! such an analogy
between the wave!unction an consciousness cannot be merely
coinciental.
/nother connection between !ree will an consciousness is that !reely
wille action must taKe place within a nonlocally integrate mani!ol o!
in!ormation1 i.e.1 ob5ects rei!ie !rom the !lu0 o! merely local causal
relationships o! ata. /n the act o!
Kw=
rei!ication !rom out o! the !lu0
requires this peculiar !unction o! consciousness.
9! course there is a tenency !or the iniviual to personalize
mani!estations o! the collective by iniviual persons1 e.g.1 the
policeman gave me a ticKet because he oesn_t liKe the way H looK.
Hnvestigation o! the raw play o! !orms that is the !lu01 !iltere an
reprocesse so as to give us our !ounational or stocK !orms1 perhaps at
!irst shall only reveal the presence o! these same stocK !orms though in a
state o! !leeting e0istence an mutual trans!ormation. 6he borer
between the conscious an unconscious then seems to be marKe by the
arti!acts o! the !iltering an reprocessing o! the allege !lu0 o!
e0perience. 3onsciousness as such is utterly !orm transcening. 6his
begins to suggest that consciousness is neither substance nor !orm but an
active process by which !orms an the rules o! their trans!ormation are
constitute. 6hat out o! which this constituting o! !orm is to taKe place
perhaps must itsel! be !ormless. @ote that the will or motive behin the
Kw=
rei!ication o! !orm !rom !ormlessness1 i.e.1 substance must be
something which is essentially thir principle in relation to the !irst an
secon principles o! substance an !orm.
7attern recognition1 e.g.1 vision1 speech1 Kinesthetic1 an so on1
instinctive goal-orientateness1 viral mimesis1 suggestibility Can auto-
suggestibilityD1
Kw=
rei!ication as permitting coherent metalevel
entanglement1 etc. all conspire to enable what H term here the illusion o!
the non-issociate nature o! e0perience. Ht is arguable that
consciousness as such is an arti!act o! integration o! preconsciously
processe sensory Can sensory-re!erreD inputs1 c.!.1 the e!!ects o! the
issociative anesthetic1 /tavin.
/uto-suggestibility is a valuable component o! sel!-consciousness with
clear social utility.
:oes the evolutionary process taKe on a istinctly i!!erent character
once evolutionary change is recast in the !requency as oppose to the
time omain? >ust looK at the i!!erence between the spatial versus
energy level paraigms o! memory storage. "pace an time are
i!!erent pro5ections o! spacetime1 spatialize memory o! timeliKe
evolutions. -requency is proportional to energy1 which is the ual
quantum parameter to that o! time. "pace an time are local variables
while the uals o! these1 spatial an temporal !requencies are essentially
nonlocal. /ny !requency spectrum o! a close system is rational in the
sense o! staning wave patterns1 i.e.1 an integral number o! noes
containe within any given wave train. Hn an open system there can be
no such thing as an integral whole number o! noes Rcontaine withinS
the system. 4enuine temporality seems to require an irrational
!requency spectrum to unerlie what might be conveniently terme here
the time omain spectrum. 4enuine temporality emans the
origination o! action !rom outsie the system. =ere we see a
connection between nonlocality1 genuine temporality1 open systems1
uniqueness/irrationality1 noncomputability1 substance1 continuity1 !ree
will an collapse o! the state vector1 consciousness an collapse o! the
state vector1 environmental ecoherence1 entropy1 in!ormation vs. ata1
concrete vs. abstract1 causal power vs. causal escriptions Cphysical laws
merely escribing behavior vs. physical laws RgoverningS the behavior
o! physical systemsD1 an so on.
9ur !aith that we can ascertain the ientity o! some unKnown thing
through the maKing o! new istinctions Cout o! olD is secretly a !aith in
the proviential rationality o! the universe. 8ore generally this !aith in
a universe that supports the capability o! the min !or ienti!ying entities
at one level o! concretion-abstraction by manipulating operations o!
class inclusion an class e0clusion at higher levels o! abstraction than
that which those entities occupy. 6he oing o! science an philosophy1
then1 presupposes a secret an perhaps also unbeKnownst aherence to a
theistic argument !rom esign.
H! the basis o! both iniviual consciousness as well as consciousness as
such is physical then we might e0pect the unerlying mechanism o!
consciousness as such to be intimately connecte to that mechanism by
which the ientity o! 8FH quantum universes is etermine1 as well as
the mechanism by which physical law parameters are RtuneS so as to
prouce this particular universe Crather than some possible other
universeD. H! this is true then the mechanism by which one_s iniviual
consciousness operates is groune in the particular uniquely an
precisely tune system o! physical constants Cwhich has been articulate
by the culture in which one resies as a uniquely solipsistic iniviual.D
6he !unctioning o! each person_s consciousness woul vis a vis the
requirements o! what we might term here Rthe quantum solipsistic
versionS o! /nthropic 3osmological 7rinciple C/37D require that the
physical constants be tune ever so slightly i!!erently to enable the
emergence o! one consciousness Crather than some otherD. 6his woul
guarantee the ultimate incommensurability o! the !reely wille actions o!
any iniviual that impinge upon the intersub5ective realm1 i.e.1 the
universe in which there is some e!!ective value CaKin to the Re0pectation
valueS o! a quantum observable?D !or each !unamental physical
constant. Hntersub5ective observables are always groune1 i! you will
in some particular groun or vacuum state.
6he many mins interpretation o! quantum measurement shoul not
su!!er !rom the same basic or inherent limitations as oes the many
worls Cso-calleD interpretation. C=ow can a superposition o!
appearances provie the ynamic by which each appearance is to be
brought into being ab initio?D 6his limitation o! the 8FH o! P8
siesteppe by the 88H o! P8 is that o! e0plaining the coherence an
cohesiveness o! a given alternate quantum universe or Rworl.S
?ecause =eisenberg-uncertain energy e0hibits veri!iable physical e!!ects
it is clear that a mere epistemological interpretation o! quantum
mechanics is not su!!icient.
H! there is one thing we can say about :imbulbians1 it_s that Rthey on_t
push the primate envelope all that har.S 6he ?utter!ly e!!ect o! chaos
stuies presupposes a highly coherent an ynamical substrate or groun
that irects an sustains the ynamics o! bi!urcating evolving systems.
9! course1 the more chaotic the system1 the harer is it to !ormally
escribe the ynamics o! that system1 e.g.1 =amiltonian ynamical
equations.
6here is a peculiar relationship between intelligence as a la Oant a
prolegomena to any !uture aaptation an so-calle RothernessS or what
we might term here RaliennessS. 8any Kins o! beings can never grow
up or evolve in a given environment Csuch as the ;arthD but which a!ter
having evolve intelligence1 culture an technology become quite
capable o! aapting an living within that !ormerly inhospitable
environment. 6his means that environments can sustain the e0istence o!
beings that nonetheless coul never have carrie over into those
environments !rom earlier ones. ;volution o! the very possibilities !or
the genome_s e0pression goes han in han with evolution o! the
environments to which organisms are to aapt themselves. 6his is
support !or the octrine o! evolutionary RemergenceS1 which is the iea
that all that becomes RactualS is not merely a change in ontological
status con!erre upon pree0isting possibilities1 that is possibilities
establishe along with the speci!ying o! the initial an bounary
conitions o! the system in which possibilities !irst emerge as actually
e0isting beings.
Ht is clear that some orer or system either calle me into being or calle
something into being that later became mysel!. =ere we encounter the
parao0 o! the transcenence o! !orm by substance. =ow can
substances come into being i! they are continuous with their groun
!rom which they come into being Can which presumably sustain the
being o! the substances a!ter coming into beingD? 6o say that the
ientity o! a person is !oune on the corresponence o! what is Key to
the person being who he is in time with what is Key to the person being
who he is in eternity Cor in the person_s Reternal aspectSD is1 it appears1 to
invoKe !orm as the basis o! personal ientity. 9n the other han1 i! it is
substance an continuity that are Key to personal ientity1 rather than
corresponence o! !orm1 then there is some unique principle o!
coherence an cohesiveness en5oye by substances that also transcens
any possible !ormal analysis1 i.e.1 unique iniviuals o not !it into the
schema o! relationships o! mere class inclusion an e0clusion. 6his
comparison o! substance an !orm emonstrating the transcenence by
substance o! !orm is reminiscent o! comparisons1 topological or
otherwise o! the real an integer number lines1 as well as o! the
comparison in physics o! time with space. C.ist yet again the system o!
ual categories that partially aligns with the substance vs. !orm
ichotomy1 c.!.1 earlier writingsD
?ecause the istinction o! matter an min is base upon abstraction
stemming !rom limitations impose on us along two !ronts1 i.e.1 sense
perception on the one han an conceptualization on the other1 we might
suppose that by probing matter eeply enough with technologically
avance enough instruments o! observation that an unerlying substrate
woul be reveale possessing attributes common to both min an
matter though perhaps o! a somewhat more inchoate !orm than
e0presse through the !orm o! either moality. ?ut i! this istinction is
so !unamental as to be absolutely necessary !or the intellect1 then
perhaps the uality o! min an matter respects a physically base
istinction between Knowlege an uncertainty1 that is1 the =eisenberg
uncertainty principle. =eisenberg uncertain energy might be e0pecte
to e0hibit physical properties at its sur!ace1 that is1 where this uncertain
energy inter!aces with . . . what? 6his uncertain energy might then be
e0pecte to e0hibit mental properties within its epth Ci.e.1 volumeD.
6here may be a parao0 involve in the concept o! measurement o! both
energy an in!ormation once one is consiering energies within the
volume e!ine by the sur!ace o! =eisenberg energy.
:iscussion o! sensory eprivation e0periments_ e!!ects upon the sensory
input ampli!ier circuits in the brain. :oes the brain impose orer upon
the noisy sensory signals or ivine hien orer in them?
:iscussion o! analogy o! ;llie /rroway_s statement that intelligent li!e
must e0ist elsewhere in the ,niverse because otherwise the ,niverse
woul be a Rgreat waste o! spaceS in!orms my motive !or believing in
the e0istence o! an R/Kashic recorS: an /Kashic recor or ynamic
matri0 !or the atabasing1 !usion an reprocessing o! e0periential ata
RshoulS e0ists because i! it in_t1 this woul constitute a colossal
waste o! potential higher levels o! meaning to be erive !rom the ata
o! human e0perience1 !rom the e0periential ata o! all sentient temporal
beings.
,n!ortunately1 thought o! min spreas much slower than wor o!
mouth Cthrough the outer reaches o! :imbulbiaD.
1ongFterm avantages o! an aaptation o! an organism_s structure might
e0plain the maintenance o! the aaptation1 but cannot be invoKe in
orer to e0plain the RoriginS o! the aaptation unless a teleological
principle is assume. 6his is especially true where long term avantages
to the organism cannot be ecompose into a sum o! short-term
avantages. 7arallel arguments may be mae concerning !itness o!
societies o! organism versus !itness o! iniviual organisms.
;verything that originates Rby chanceS in the genome1 i.e.1 mutation
must also have arisen at one an the same time as a minute e0pression o!
unerlying causal processes Cwhich is something in a very real sense that
is quite the contrary to RchanceSD1 in that there was a Rpre-loaeS latent
!unctionality o! gene e0pression in terms o! the sel!-organizing
properties o! the organic quantum chemistry o! the genome 5ust prior to
the input precipitating the !avorable mutation1 e.g.1 cosmic ray particle
impact.
6he wave!unction is R5ust an abstractionS1 however it enters into
physical processes in a most concrete manner1 e.g.1 ?ell nonlocality1
quantum mechanical tunneling1 gravitational collapse o! the
wave!unction. Fe might try oing a great variety o! two-slit
e0periments against the ay that our etection an measurement
technology becomes greatly improve an then per!orm the same
e0periments again1 comparing the new results with the ol. "uch a
series o! e0periments might be consiere an attempt to investigate the
concreteness o! counter!actuals as well as perhaps the interpenetration o!
the concepts o! ontology an epistemology1 e.g. the onto-epistemological
nature o! =eisenberg ,ncertainty.
6he ranom mi0-master universe moel o! the etermination o! physical
constants oes not aequately support the /nthropic cosmological
principle as an Re0planationS !or the e0istence o! li!e an intelligent li!e.
6he phenomenon o! coherence o! a cellular automata universe is
inconsistent with the unerlying mechanics o! how cellular automata
generate structure an how those structures evolve. H! the mi0 master
universe matri0 is essentially coherent1 then istinct possible universes
woul not be mutually alternative or is5unctive1 but con5unctive.
:oes the interpretation o! Aussell_s set parao0 hinge on whether we
thinK o! sets as collections o! many ob5ects versus collections o!
mani!estations o! an unerlying essential unity1 c.!.1 6wo ozen Cor soD
6heistic /rguments 1 /lvin 7lantinga? Hs the 7latonist interpretation o!
mathematics consistent with the a0iom o! choice?
Puant/ph 2N)2)&' says that computations can be per!orme on a
quantum computer without issipation o! energy. 6he issipation o!
energy an hence the prouction o! entropy comes han an han with
the gain in in!ormation that results !rom the act o! observing the output
o! the quantum computational evice.
%/(/2))&

;veryone is unique1 it is 5ust un!ortunate that most people never thinK to
iscover this !act. Fhat is unique about the iniviual is ine!!able an
!alls outsie o! any intersub5ective escription. 6he !reeom o! the
iniviual erives !rom his uniqueness1 5ust as his !ate stems !rom his
character.
;0istence an none0istence are not a ual opposite set o! categories1
hence the spontaneous upwelling o! being. 6hat these spontaneous
upwelling_s o! being e0hibit rationality implies that the being unerlying
the broKen uality o! e0istence an none0istence is itsel! rational. 6he
coherence theory o! truth amits o! ine!inite number o! levels o! truth
because being amits a similarly unlimite number o! levels o!
coherence an hence truth is merely relative in the case o! coherence
truth. 6his is very much oppose to the case o! corresponence truth1
which implies an absolute truth. /nalysis o! the corresponence
relation in the corresponence theory o! truth implies the e0istence o! a
R4o_s-eye view.S 9n the other han1 analysis o! the coherence
relation in the coherence theory o! truth implies the e0istence o! :ivine
7rovience. :ivine will an representation Cc.!.1 "chopenhauerD
constitute poles o! e0istence an mani!estation o! !unamental
being.
%/(/2))&

.ogic is an arti!act o! or a structuring Crather than a general structure1
i.e.1 Rstructural elementSD o! consciousness. .ogic as a structuring o!
consciousness rather than a general structure o! consciousness1 means
that other structurings o! consciousness are generally possible. .ogic is
to causality as uncertainty is to consciousness. /ll in!ormation is a
reuction o! uncertainty L so says "hannon in!ormation theory. Fhat
about other Kins o! manipulation o! uncertainty1 which may correlate
with quantities aKin to in!ormation but basically i!!erent !rom it? @ow
what is calle "hannon in!ormation is really more properly calle
R"hannon negentropyS or R"hannon ata.S Fe Know that quantum
uncertainty1 !or e0ample is egenerate with respect to correlate changes
in quantum e0pectation values an quantum !luctuations1 which is to
say1 correlate changes in bounary conitions an unerlying ynamics
constraine by the bounary conitions.
4H491 Rgarbage in1 garbage out1S in other wors1 computers can only o
what we tell them to o1 an what we can tell them to o is1 in essence1
prove theorems. 6his is where 4eel_s Hncompleteness 6heorem comes
into play. Fe can_t tell a computer to prove a theorem1 however
intuitively true the theorem might be to us1 i! this theorem is not either
an a0iom1 or provable !rom the a0ioms via the rules o! in!erence1 which
have alreay been programme into the computer. /n what 4eel
taught us is that there is no mutually sel!-consistent set o! a0ioms an
rules o! logical in!erence that can prove all true theorems C!rom number
theoryD. 9! course1 any computer that operates by e0ploiting quantum
uncertainty is no longer limite by an a0iomatic system o! rules o!
in!erence.
7ast an !uture are inchoate an uneretermine in !unamentally
i!!erent ways. 6he past is inchoate by virtue o! quantum mechanical
uncertainty an the openness o! the past to reprocessing in light o! newly
emergent ata !urther up the timeline. CHn!ormation is the reuction o!
RuncertaintyS1 but uncertainty o! what type1 an how oes "hannon
uncertainty relate to both quantum mechanical an intuitive Cor humanD
uncertainty?D 6he !uture is inchoate because the !iner etails o! the
!uture have yet to be worKe out. 6his notion o! the !uture alreay
being present though in inchoate !orm an that the passage o! time
merely serves to R!lesh outS the etails o! the !uture Ras presentS points
up the multiimensionality o! time1 but oesn_t quite succee in
sheing light on Rtime_s mysterious !low.S
6here are three basic !orms o! solipsism. 6here is the basic !orm
wherein1 H alone e0ist an other people are merely pro5ections !rom my
own unconsciousness1 much in the same way that ream characters are
pro5ections. 6he secon !orm is where other mins e0ist1 but the
principle o! operation o! these other psyches is alien relative to that o!
my own. 6he thir !orm is where other mins e0ist an their moe o!
operation is aKin to how my own min operates with one important
e0ception: H am the only altruistic human being L others only appear1
sometimes or not1 to possess altruistic motivations. 6he possibility o!
comparing mins to one another presupposes some overarching conte0t
within which the comparison might be mae1 i.e.1 i!!erences are never
absolute but always subsist within a system o! i!!erence. Fhy
shouln_t iniviual consciousness_s be 5ust as mutually irreconcilable
an incommensurate as is the volition o! istinct iniviuals?
%/(/2))&

Hentity secretly requires numerical ientity. -or your perception o! /
to be similar to my perception o! /1 your perception o! ? must be
ientical to my perception o! 3. @ote that we i not say that the
similarity o! my an your perceptions implie the ientity o! my
perception o! / to your perception o! ?1 but rather implie the ientity
o! my perception o! ? with your perception o! 3. 6his is because !or it
to be meaning!ul to compare the perceptions o! istinct mins1 these
perceptions must be either reproucible phenomena or each members o!
an abstract category or class. H! each perception1 regarless o! whose it
is1 is an utterly unique an iniviual occurrence1 then the problem that
we !ace is not that o! solipsism1 but o! something perhaps worse1 the
non-e0istence o! min absolutely. 6he question o! solipsism involves
the technical issue o! how the coherence an continuity o! a single
consciousness relates to the RcoherenceS an RcontinuityS o!
consciousness across istinct iniviuals.
Qd
8y perception o! / must be
ientical to your perception o! other ob5ect1 ? that is capable o! e0isting1
that is1 my perception o! / must be ientical to some perception o!
which you are capable in orer !or it to be right!ully sai that your
perception o! / an mine are similar.
:ecember 2)**
R"o how shoul we point
to 7-consciousness? Fell1 one way is via rough synonyms. /s H sai1 7-
consciousness is e0perience. 7-conscious properties are e0periential
properties. 7-conscious states are e0periential states1 that is1 a state is 7-
conscious i! it has e0periential properties. 6he totality o! the e0periential
properties o! a state are awhat it is liKeE to have itS1 c.!.1
cit=
Why Di
Evolution Engineer Consciousness% C
au=
"elmer ?rings5or1 2)))D. 8y
sub5ective e0perience o! some particular quale must at least in principle
be continuously eformable into a quale1 which woul constitute one o!
your sub5ective e0periences o! a quale an not mine. -or i! it is not1
then *D there is no general concept o! consciousness an 2D min-
metaphysical solipsism is the case. 6he consequences *D an 2D are
intimately connecte via a logic that woul have been heartily
appreciate by the 3hristian philosopher1
au=
/lvin 7lantinga1 especially
while he was grippe by the very insight that le him to write his epic
treatise o! theological apologetics1
cit=
/o an Other 2ins. 6he only
thing which prevents what is merely Rmin-metaphysicalS solipsism
!rom collapsing into metaphysical solipsism itsel!1 is the notion1 e0plicit
or implicit1 is that there is an ob5ective point o! view !rom which the
otherwise irretrievably istinct sub5ective e0periences o! two persons are
not totally incommensurate Bua sub$ective e6perience. 6his is to say1
that there is a point o! view !rom which the sub5ective e0periences o!
two persons are not merely posite as analogous1 but inee actually
are so9 =ere we are talKing about analogy as not only metaphor1 but as a
bona !ie concept1 as well.
/ Kin o! algebraic syllogism Cinstea o! an algebraic equationD1 e.g.1 H
thinK there!ore +1 +1 there!ore 4o e0ists. "omething liKe this shoul
!all out o! the solipsistic euction !rom the anthropic cosmological
principle Cin light o! the logic o! the last chapter o! 7lantinga_s /o an
Other 2insD.
6hermoynamically usable energy is intersub5ective ata. 6he
in!ormation is conserve through an involution o! initial high entropy o!
the universe_s ata into quantum Cnonlocally-correlateD in!ormation in
the !orm o! in!ormation encoe into conscious states. /n e0ample o!
thermoynamically nonusable energy that nonetheless possesses
Rin!ormation contentS woul be energy possessing causality violating1
e.g.1 time-parao0-generating in!ormation.
4ravitational entropy seems at os with the normal thermoynamic
e!inition o! entropy as equilibrium or homogeneous mi0tures1 e.g.1
greater gravitational clumping is associate with higher rather than
lower states o! entropy.
=p-th/)$*))221 @otes on "pacetime 6hermoynamics an 9bserver-
epenence o! ;ntropy1 suggests that the relativistic change in the
sur!ace area o! a blacK hole is ue to relativistic changes in the blacK
hole_s entropy1 which in turn implies a relativistic shi!t in the quantum
statistics o! the vacuum constituting the hole_s event horizon. 6he
intimate relationship o! vacuum entropy an the quantum statistics o!
vacuum energy bear much closer stuy.
;0amine the relativistic shi!t in probability ensity associate with the
quantum mechanical istribution !unction in light o! changes in the
statistics o! creation o! virtual !ermions an bosons within the quantum
vacuum.
"pacetime must be generate by some !unamental quantum process
such that internal symmetries unerpin spacetime symmetry. 6imeliKe
an spaceliKe e0change particles are the spin * an spin ) composite
particles. 7erhaps the istinction between timeliKe an spaceliKe as
normally unerstoo in relativity theory cuts across the istinction o!
these two concepts as aapte !or escribing e0change o! !orce-carrying
particles.
H! the unKnown is a multiplicity an the Known oes not constitute a
mere negation o! the unKnown1 but is a processing o! it1 then there is a
possibility o! the unity o! Knowlege against the bacKrop o! an
unKnown that is itsel! +
&
rather than a uni!ie unKnown.
9ne must aopt the same attitue the sophisticate philosopher o!
science taKes towar the part o! nature that remains unKnown to science
as one taKes towars that which is remains unKnown to one about
another person1 that is1 as not being a mere e0tension o! the Known part.
6here must always be room !or trans!ormative revelation concerning
both nature an the other.
Iacuum egeneracy is necessary !or the reversibility upon which
elaye choice e0perimental results epen.
Fhat complications are pose !or the quantum measurement problem
given the !reeom human e0perimenters have in manipulating variables
connecte with the con!iguring o! the measurement apparatuses?
/ny superluminal communication between istinct mins woul
necessarily be conveye via a vacuum state in which the vacua
embeing the hereto!ore two istinct mins become !use in a way
which acts to e!eat the intersub5ective transmission o! in!ormation1 i.e.1
the two mins become !or a moment a single consciousness. /ny
in!ormation resulting !rom this superluminal1 in!rasub5ective
transmission o! in!ormation between two nonlocally connecte parts o!
the momentary composite consciousness woul appear to outsiers1 i.e.1
mins other than the momentary composite min1 as the origination o!
insight by the composite min that woul prove to be *D non!ormalizable
an 2D causality transcening.
,sing an applie magnetic !iel can inuce -eshbach resonance in a
-ermi-egenerate gas1 resulting in either net attraction or repulsion o!
the 3ooper pairs within the gas1 c.!.1 "cienti!ic /merican 9ctober 2))$
article1 6he @e0t ?ig 3hill.
6he quantum nonlocal correlations about which >. ". ?ell has written so
much cannot be e0plaine in terms o! the action o! Rhien local
variables1S i.e.1 in terms o! processes taKing place within the spacetime
continuum. 6his is where the non!ormalizable nature o! the human
min must resie. ?ut ?ohm_s observation1 so !requently mentione in
these writings1 that ClocalD causal connections are equivalent to certain
types o!1 i.e.1 nonlocal correlations o! the spontaneously-occurring
quantum !luctuations implies that spacetime is a construction out o!
nonlocally correlate quantum !luctuations Cvacuum !luctuationsD so that
the spacetime continuum may be properly thought o! as a Kin o!
epiphenomenon arising !rom a system o! quantum nonlocally-connecte1
=eisenberg-uncertain !luctuations in the vacuum_s momentum-energy.
6hus the principle o! the coherence o! any uni!ie system Ctrue
substanceD must lie altogether outsie o! space an time. / per!ect
e0ample o! a coherent1 uni!ie system whose principle o! unity an
coherence must be sought outsie spacetime is1 o! course the conscious
min.
6he episoes o! one_s li!e1 particularly those occurring in one_s youth
become aKin to !avorites volumes on isplay in the library in one_s
stuy.
=ere then is the methoological parao0 !or aherents on either sie o!
the metaphysical question o! whether reality is a one or a many:
aherents o! an absolute use relativistic categoriesV absolute categories
are invoKe by those who ahere to a relativistic viewpoint. 6his tens
to suggest that the istinction o! relativistic vs. absolute is not a real
istinction. Ht seems that relative an absolute may only be reconcile
within an in!inite system o! categories. 6he categories remain
relativistic within such a system because o! the categories_ mutual
interepenence1 i.e.1 categories e!ine in terms o! other categories1
e!ine in terms o! other categories1 etc.1 which are ultimately e!ine in
terms o! themselves Cvia an in!inite chain o! e!initionsD. =eiegger_s
Rtranscenental horizonal repositioningS1 i.e.1 RthinKingS woul involve
a reconstitution o! the in!inite system o! categories into another in!inite
set.
Hs there any possible empirical istinction between the continuity o! sel!-
consciousness an the continuity o! consciousness proper or as such?
6he answer seems to be that there isn_t any since empirical is
coe0tensive with e0periential1 i.e.1 sel!-consciously e0periential. /n
the continuity o! sel!-consciousness is conitione by the intersub5ective
physics o! brain physiological processes that encoe the socially
constructe sel!. 6his socially constructe sel! is meiate by
linguistic categories Co! course1 accoring to 3homsKy1 groune in the
genetically preetermine potentialities o! speech acts an grammarD
inherite !rom our social !orebears via brute mimesis upon which the
iniviual innately generalizes or abstracts1 in combination with operant
conitioning impose on the iniviual by his culture an society. Hn
this way1 all allegely absolute categories claime by the iniviual sel!
are in actuality merely relative to the process o! acculturation an social
construction. /bsolutes !unction here solely as asymptotes !or
e0clusively relativistic categories.
Hs there a parallelism between the genomic an phenomic rugge !itness
lanscapes1 which is relate to the necessity o! an environment
corresponing to each coherent genome? 6here is no clear istinction
between the genome an its mechanism o! e0pression1 c.!.1 8ono_s
observation in 3hance an @ecessity concerning the Rarbitrariness o! the
genetic coe1S i.e.1 the genetic language releases biology !rom the
strictures o! chemical eterminism. "omehow1 the ribosome enables
this isconnect between biology an chemistry espite the ribosome
being itsel! a phenotypic e0pression o! the organism_s own genome.
H! ?eing has no !i0e nature1 then there must be a mechanism by which
the groun o! being !orgets RlowerS levels o! being so as to e0press
being on RhigherS levels. 6his is the RKicK-laerS mechanism o! the
evolution o! being.
6he case value o! the concept o! !ree will is a !acility on the part o! the
iniviual to a5ust his psychological parameter1 especially those
a!!ecting his motivation to perceive cues !rom his social an political
environment. Hn this sense are consciousness1 speci!ically sel!-
consciousness an so-calle !ree will most importantly1 that is
practically interrelate.
Ht is sai that1 Rthe stream cannot rise higher than its source.S 6he
principle o! natural selection o! ranom variation seems to belie this
principle1 unless *D variation is not really ranom an/or 2D selection is
not really Rnatural.S
6he essence o! consciousness is metaphoricity. ;ach iniviual_s brain1
which is that iniviual_s inter!ace to the intersub5ective realm is
RtuneS to that iniviual_s vacuum state Cat least while the iniviual is
consciousD1 while other iniviual_s brains are Ro!!-resonanceS with the
!irst iniviual_s vacuum state1 c.!.1 quantum solipsistic principle CaKin to
the cosmological /nthropic principleD. "ince Rother minsS operate
within what might be terme Ralien vacuum states1S e0perimentation
upon the brains associate with other mins must reveal a !unamentally
i!!erent principle o! the connection o! min an boy than woul sel!-
e0perimentation1 i! per impossible this Kin o! sel!-e0perimentation
coul be conucte Cthis remins us o! the situation in which certain
initial or bounary conitions are possible1 but which coul never come
into play through the ynamics operating by themselves1 e.g.1 checKmate
o! Oing by OnightD. "o the intersub5ective science o! mental ynamics
must always be complemente by sub5ective science Csuch a science is
possible in principle but not in actual practice1 which brings up an
important istinctionD. Ht is the istinctiveness o! the quantum vacuum
state that characterizes the istinctiveness Can uniquenessD o! the
physical mani!estation o! the consciousness o! each iniviual min.
6he temporal protection sa!eguar cannot be implemente in accorance
with eterministic causality. 6he sa!eguaring o! the timeline is by
avoiance o! mere probabilities1 which represent alternate timelines.
6he causal iscontinuity is in the !orm o! reuction o! the quantum
mechanical state vector.
9nly in an accelerate re!erence !rame oes the vacuum possess a mass.
6he time a0is at the event horizon o! a blacK hole is perpenicular to the
sur!ace o! the hole while the space a0is is the blacK hole sur!ace itsel!.
6hus are the time an space a0es o! the blacK hole e0change at its event
horizon.
Hnterminable metaphysical questions o not point so much to the
ineterminacy o! reality as they o to the limitations o! the human min.
6hese questions occupy what might be terme Rthe polesS or
RasymptotesS o! the human rational-cognitive !abric.
9ne theory is that we only possess consciousness through a sel!1 i.e.1
sel!-consciousness as a uni!ie structure o! consciousness such that the
essence o! personal ientity may only be !alsely attribute to the
timeless an eternal substance o! consciousness as such. 9n this view1
the iniviual consciousness is wholly parasitic upon ineterminate1
oceanic consciousness. 6he intersub5ective nature o! ob5ectivity
suggests the contrary to this1 however1 namely that consciousness as
such is iniviual in nature1 while so-calle iniviual consciousness is
merely a social construct. ;ach o! us is 5ust one small element o! the
te0ture o! the social lanscape that each o! us also occupies an moves
through. Ht is possibly this essential !act o! human e0istence Cnot o!ten
articulate to onesel!D !rom which we erive the metaphor serving as our
philosophy o! the intersub5ective nature o! ob5ective reality.
/ugust 2)*2
6ime is thought to be a !eature o! ob5ective reality by some1 utterly
sub5ective by others. / con!usion arises !rom the !ailure to care!ully
istinguish two quite i!!erent Kins o! time L so istinct1 in !act1 that
they shoul more liKely be ine0e by two completely i!!erent concept
names1 e.g.1 time vs. space1 etc. R"ub5ective time is sub5ectiveS appears
to be a tautology1 although evience can be posite in support o! this
assertion1 !or e0ample1 the amount o! time separating the event o! my
birth !rom some important event in my later ault li!e1 e.g.1 college
grauation1 marriage1 etc.1 seems so much greater in uration to me than
the ob5ectively equal amount o! time separating that important event
!rom the present moment in which H recollect it.
?ecause o! the !unamentally innate linguistic capacities o! the human
min1 raical i!!erences may e0ist between iniviual human
consciousnesses that are routinely aequately brige by verbal an
nonverbal communications. /t some point each o! us bumps into the
barrier o! the !unamental incommensurability o! human
conceptualization Cat its subtlest levelD an are !orce to retreat into the
sa!ety o! our own sub5ectivity1 which is the solipsistic reality o! the sel!.
Fhat comes with this is a eeply hel inner Knowlege o! our own
rightness an the basically alien nature o! the rational-cognitive
processes o! the other person. 6he other oes not Know one_s past or the
personal reasons !or all o! the choices one has mae that have conspire
to e!ine one_s social an socially-constructe ientity. ?ut i! the other
is reasonably intelligent an socially well a5uste an were to be given
per impossible a tour o! one_s biography1 certain patterns o! ones
character Cwhat "antayana terms one_s estiny1 c.!.1 Rcharacter is
estinySD woul immeiately become apparent to such a tourist1 patterns
that one actively avois perceiving in onesel! through a li!elong system
o! e0cuse1 evasion an sel! misirection. Hn this way1 the ego preserves
its high opinion o! itsel!1 its sel!-supporting worlview1 its view o! its
own talents an capabilities1 its moral an ethical qualities1 as well as the
ego_s representation to itsel! o! its own character. 6he ego_s sel!-
preservation program is !unamentally what might be calle Ranti-
necrophilicS Cin -romm_s sense o! necrophilicD. "ometimes the ego_s
impulse to protect itsel! by resisting the e!!orts o! others to casually
econstruct the ego Can reveal the ego_s !unamentally issociative
nature L as being something less than a true egoD converts !rom that o!
passive e!ense to that o! a proactive1 preemptive e!ense. Ht is at
precisely at this point that the ego embarKs upon its necrophilic pro5ect.
6his pro5ect1 again1 is perhaps really nothing more than a Kin o!
preemptive e!ense by the ego against what it perceives as a conspiracy
o! econstructive attacKs irecte against it_s integrity or against its
authenticity as a sel!. 6he ego is merely attempting to e!en itsel!
against others_ attempts to inter!ere with the ego_s mechanisms o! sel!-
valiation1 which constitute the tactical support !or the ego_s survival
an growth strategies. 6he unerachieving ego1 not possessing aequate
empirical ata about itsel!1 e.g.1 its capabilities Creveale by overcoming
!ears1 meeting challenges an problem solvingD an character traits
Creveale by social interaction with peersD1 must substitute assumptions
!or !acts about itsel! within the tissue o! its impresario-liKe sel!-
representation. =umility in the !ace o! a higher ob5ective reality is built
up through !irst han e0periences in which less an less o! the
parameters o! e0perience are controls. :ebate an competition with
peers evelops respect !or the reality o! the other an his
worl/worlview.
Hn the same way that one_s recognition vocabulary is consierably
greater than is one_s worKing vocabulary Cwithin a 2
n
languageD so is
one_s unerstaning signi!icantly greater than one_s creativity until with
worK an e0perience the two are brought much more into line. 6his is
why emonstrations are always so much easier to !ollow than to e0ecute
onesel!. 6he ine0perience iniviual cannot !ully appreciate the large
ivie separating observation !rom emonstration.
6he ego_s e0pansiveness is Kept in checK through a conscious or
CusuallyD unconscious Knowlege o! the reality o! Oarma an the !aith!ul
sureness o! its action. 6he action o! Oarma is essentially ironic1 as well
as synchronistic1 pointing to the intimate entanglement o! the will an
consciousness o! iniviual an collective persons. =uman moral
action oes not operate then on merely a single plane1 but on many
istinct planes simultaneously.
7arao0ically1 since scienti!ic theories only relate classes o! iniviuals
Crather than iniviuals themselvesD1 scienti!ic theories have nothing to
say about physical processes. 6he only Rstu!!S that is truly RconcreteS
is1 !ollowing Filliam >ames1 e0perience. Hn an important sense1 then1
the min is not compose o! the brain but 5ust the converse o! this is
true. 3ausal eterministic relationships are essentially abstract in
nature1 i.e.1 relationships o! classes o! iniviuals an so parao0ically1
the Rcausal powersS o! the min1 c.!.1 "earle1 are not where one shoul
looK !or e0planation o! the min_s causal e!!icacy.
Fhatever quantum process is responsible !or ecoherence o! a system
Clong be!ore the system has a comple0ity approaching that o!
"chroinger_s 3atD is somehow hel at bay by the physical processes
unerlying conscious states o! awareness. 3onsciousness is liKely then
a variety o! quantum coherent state Cthough perhaps one not yet
RobserveS1 e0cept !rom insieD. 3onsciousness is characterize by its
own internal temporal evolution1 i.e.1 temporality. ?ut here_s a point:
8anKin_s science is not ever going to iscover a physical process more
comple0 an subtler than that !unamental1 which crucially unerlies
consciousness as such. 8oreover1 the iniviual shall not ever iscover
an come to unerstan a process subtler than that o! his own iniviual
state o! consciousness. ?ut are the processes unerlying the operation
o! any given iniviual_s consciousness necessarily subtler than those
unerlying consciousness as such Can what coul we possibly mean by
RsubtlerS here?D?
S. . . an it has been traitional in !lat space P-6 to simply ignore the
overall net zero an only asK questions about e0citations1S c.!.1
"aKharov_s Hnuce 4ravity: / 8oern 7erspective1 8att Iisser.
R=owever K
*
!or a massive vector is calculate by aing K
*
!or a
minimally couple scalar to K
*
!or a massless vector.S
Hn the 3"H episoe1 R?ully !or <ouS1 4rissom in!orms brass at the crime
scene that Rwe_re looKing !or a cowarS. =e says this because the
victim has been shot three times in the bacK while taKing a leaK at a
restroom urinal. 6he wor RcowarS is a very emotionally charge
escriptor. 6he use o! such a wor ha trans!ormative power over the
mins o! those seeKing their interpretation o! human events. 6he
cowar_s actions are1 o! course1 perpetrate by him !or his own peculiar
an highly personal reasons - reasons which internally an in
combination with one another o not appear as cowarice to the
perpetrator himsel!.
6he momentum is conserve !or each iniviual component o! the !our
momentum. 6he acceleration o! a mass may be moele as a
continuous collision in !our-imensional spacetime. :iscuss the
conservation o! momentum o! (- spacetime collisions. 6here is a limit
to relativistic mass ensity increase Cue to relativistic mass increase an
length contractionD e!ine by the creation o! a blacK hole ensity. 6his
limit is presumably reache prior to the spee o! light being reache. Hs
something similar the case where a matter istribution graually
collapses into a blacK hole?
:@/ metaphors serve to !ree the genome !rom the eterministic
strictures o! molecular chemistry.
3ertain persons resist the issociative gaze o! the sociopathic
personality. 3onsequently in this rare instance the person appears as a
whole1 creative an !ree agent1 much as any iniviual person typically
appears to the normal1 well-a5uste1 non-sociopathic personality. 6he
intact an integrate1 harmonious an well-a5uste sel!hoo that utterly
escapes the sociopathic personality is not paraing aroun right be!ore
this isturbe iniviual_s eyes. "uch iniviuals !unction as
inictments o! the woe!ully less-than-aequate personhoo o! the
sociopathic personality.
3onstruction o! tenuous metaphors !orms the basis o! the acquisition o!
a 2
n
language istantly but not completely unrelate to one_s native
language1 e.g.1 an /merican learning /lbanian. Hs the mechanism o! 2
n
language acquisition o! a !unamentally i!!erent nature !rom that by
which one_s *
st
language was acquire?
R6he conition o! ;
)
greater than ) is as necessary as well as su!!icient
conition !or ","< CsupersymmetryD to be spontaneously broKen.S
R/ superspace is an e0tension o! orinary spacetime to the one with spin
egrees o! !reeom.S
9n account o! the spin-statistics theorem o! quantum mechanics1 the
.orenz spacetime symmetry group is a subgroup o! the overall
spacetime symmetry group1 c. !.1 "upersymmetry in Puantum an
3lassical 8echanics.
6heorem: /ny !inite sequence o! integers is containe within the
ecimal series e0pansion o! pi. =ow many i!!erent ways can any CallD
CranomD !inite sequences o! integers be containe within a ecimal
e0pansion o! a transcenental number?
Ht is clear that i! one attempte to emonstrate the ;instein-7oolsKy-
Aosen C;7AD e!!ect within a measurably curve region o! spacetime that
the e!!ect woul have to breaK own ue to the ecoherence o! the
wave!unction hereto!ore connecting the two spaceliKe-separate
particles.
9therwise observer / shall have succeee in in!orming ? about the
structure o! spacetime along the entire spaceliKe interval separating these
two observers. @ote: how can the two observers be purely spaceliKe
separate in each is locate at a i!!erent gravitational potential than the
other?
Hs the prohibition against superluminal transmission o! in!ormation Cas
oppose to energy per seD really only a prohibition against ense
sampling o! a spacetime interval at a rate implying a superluminal
velocity?
6his is because the ;7A e!!ect requires instantaneous propagation o! the
in!luence o! one particle_s spin state being measure upon the spin
orientation o! the other spaceliKe-separate particle an !or the measure
spins o! the particles to cancel so that overall spin is conserve.
?ut what i! e0perimenter-? ha ecie early enough to conuct the
spin measurement so that the process in his brain where this ecision
occurre coul be timeliKe-connecte to both particles / an ?? C6his
presents us with a lea on a possible hien variables theory !or
quantum nonlocal connection. ?acKwars propagation o! subquantum
in!ormation !rom the same moment in two istinct re!erence !rames in
which each particle o! the pair is locate an unergoes collapse o! its
local spin eigenstate must taKe place.
6his woul worK only i! e0perimenter-?_s brain is protecte against
some un!oreseen physical in!luence between the time he maKes the
ecision to per!orm the Key spin measurement o! particle / an the time
that he actually oes per!orm this measurement on particle / Cwhich
e!ines the spaceliKe interval by which particles / an ? are separate at
the moment that e0perimenter / carries out his quantum measurement
upon particle /D. 6he alternate inertial !rames in which the passage o!
the instantaneous in!luence o! / upon ? correspon to the alternate
inertial !rames in which an observer statione at particle ? may per!orm
a quantum measurement o! the spin o! particle ?. ?ut the observer
must have ecie to per!orm his spin measurement upon particle / at
the very instant Cor be!oreD the composite particle ecays to prouce the
component particles / an ? in orer !or his ecision to conuct the spin
measurement is to become timeliKe connecte to / an ? at the moment
that he later actually oes per!orm the spin measurement.
6he spacetime curvature along the geoesic connecting the particles
Cwhich geoesic we choose is observer/re!erence !rame epenent1 by
the wayD must be e!!ectively RsampleS by whatever constitutes the
in!luence connecting the two particles along the geoesic path separating
the particles. 6he question comes up at this point whether the path
connecting the particles is that by which the particles originally became
separate L itsel! a timeliKe geoesic or the spaceliKe geoesic
instantaneously connecting the particles in say1 observer-/_s inertial
!rame.
6he RcommunicationS o! the ecoherence o! the !ilm emulsion o!
camera-/ to the quantum state o! the !ilm emulsion o! camera-? cannot
be e0ploite as a mechanism !or the superluminal transmission o!
in!ormation between observer-/ an observer-?.
=ien variable theories invoKe aitional conserve quantities while
they revise the hereto!ore conservative nature o! other physical
quantities. -actoring a wave!unction without respecting the orering o!
the conserve quantities contributing to the construction o! the system
=amiltonian C!rom which the wave!unction is euceD results in the
selecting o! statistically mi0e components C!actorsD o! the
wave!unction.
6here is nothing special about the human intellect in the gran scheme
o! the universe L this espite !requent narcissistic inner promptings o!
the human spirit1 an yet Rthe universe is compre-hensible.S ?ut a
sentient being can occupy any position whatever along the continuum o!
intellect an the ,niverse still will appear comprehensible to him1
provie that this universe possesses a Kin o! compartmentalize1
hierarchical structure an behavior. H!1 on the other han1 the iniviual
oes not possess the capacity o! intellect whereby the universe may in
some !orm or !ashion appear to him comprehensible1 then the !act o! the
universe_s being incomprehensible woul never become Known to the
iniviual in question. 9! course the min o! any being to which the
,niverse shall mani!est RcomprehensibilityS must itsel! also possess
specially aapte powers o! iscrimination an classi!ication that
properly mesh with the ,niverse at one o! its compartmentalize levels
o! comple0ity.
/ny being_s perception o! the worl must be an open system1 regarless
o! how highly evolve is this being_s nervous system. 6he worl is an
open system as well1 in!initely comple0ly structure1 though this in!inite
comple0ity o! structure is as it were staggere in layers. C6his is relate
to the iea o! the convergence o! an in!inite series or to the iea o! the
renormalizability o! quantum !iel theories.D 6his bespeaKs a
robustness o! the natural orer1 which in turn bespeaKs o! 7rovience.
/s the escription o! reality at a particular level approaches completion
an closure the way becomes open !or !urther revelation concerning new
structures at a ne0t level. H! these higher level structures are 5ust simply
awaiting us to evolve intellectually an scienti!ically enough to perceive
an categorize them1 then the hierarchical structure o! reality woul have
to be a static a!!air1 a close system in other wors. ?ut i! reality reacts
to our attempts to more !ully cognize it1 then reality becomes an open
system in which man becomes the co-creator o! being. /n i! the
in!rastructure o! being is o! such nature as to invite this type o! co-
creation1 then there must be a creator as such. 3onsciousness arme
with intellect guarantees the ,niverse shall reveal itsel! to be this Kin o!
compartmentalize1 hierarchically-structure though in!initely
comple0/ine0haustible !iel !or being_s e0pression.
/sK yoursel! the question Cwithin the conte0t o! the question o! this
iscussion1 o! courseD1 Rhow woul nature appear to a being who
possesses our same sensory organs an inputs as well as all o! our same
technology !or ampli!ying our powers o! perception utilizing sai sense
organs1 but who is blesse with an HP o! '1)))? CFhat is the
!unamentally naive assumption emboie in this type o! hypothetical
question1 which nonetheless oes not quite succee in invaliating the
point o! this question? C6his is an inavertent e0ample o!
Rcompartmentalization.SD 6his hypothetical question1 though
amittely naively pose nonetheless succees in pointing up the
narcissistic basis o! naive realism itsel! an that o! its more sophisticate
cousins1 Rscienti!ic naive realismS an Rphilosophical naive realismS.
3oncerning the implicit naive assumption emboie in our above
hypothetical question1 the concept o! an intelligence registering '1))) on
the graph o! HP is misguie in that the notion o! HP scale implies a Kin
o! parallel in the linear progression in the egree o! intellect_s mani!est
nature along with linear increase in HP. ?ut any science !iction bu!!
Knows that when HP_s become e0orbitant1 altogether new phenomena
begin to emerge1 e.g.1 telepathy1 teleKinesis1 clairvoyance1 etc.
"imilarly1 at the other en o! the HP scale1 basic abilities that amit o!
egrees within the bulK o! the bell curve istribution suenly begin to
rop o!! altogether as in cases o! Rpro!oun retaration.S C:oes this
question o! the compartmentalization o! the ,niverse_s
RcomprehensiblenessS bear any unerlying relationship to the parao0
presente by the apparent hyper!ine-tuning o! the phenotypic viability
an genotypic chemical stability !itness lanscapes?D 6here must be an
open-ene upwar spectrum o! potential threats to both the iniviual
an society that simply o not come into play until the iniviual an
society have reache a certain higher level o! evelopment. "omehow
the genetic base pair language represents a Rbasement common
enominatorS !or bits o! aaptability1 in which lower always ovetails
into higher. 6his may suggest to some that the worl o! man is largely
one o! his own creations1 once man has succeee in !reeing himsel!
!rom the brute-level threats to his survival in a harsh an threatening
physical environment. ?ut the mystery o! the Runreasonable
e!!ectiveness o! mathematics in the physical sciencesS oes not allow us
to e0plain away things quite so easily. 9ne way !or this
compartmentalize1 hierarchical structure to be e!!ecte might be
through the compartmentalization o! quantum nonlocal e!!ects via
limiting their observance to being sub5ective1 i.e.1 iniviual an not
collective. 3onsensus upon the appearance o! the iniviually
mani!esting nonlocal e!!ects shall perhaps in!orm the ne0t level in the
hierarchy o! causally e!!ective ynamics o! the worl system.
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWW
6opological separateness o! processe vs. reprocesse e0perience.
3ollective irect vs. collective integrate/reprocesse ata relate to
e0periential limitations o! a transcenent being/4o. 8etaphysics o!
chilhoo e0perience. 9rer can only be RcreateS by !luctuations atop
relatively enormous pree0istent orer. ;verything is a transitory
!luctuation against eternity.
Qd
6he illusion o! time is time_s appearing to
pass at a certain rate. 6he appearance o! the passage o! time Cat a certain
RrateSD is owing to a grouning o! temporal scale through the act o!
cognition. :@/ L what is written is not ientical to what is rea.
;volution being riven by aaptation oesn_t seem to be consistent with
potential theory1 possibly pointing away !rom selection an !orwar sel!-
origination as the mainspring o! evolution.
;0istence an none0istence are not a ual set o! categories1 hence the
reason !or spontaneous up welling o! being. 6hat these spontaneous
mani!estations o! being e0hibit rationality implies that the being
unerlying the broKen uality o! e0istence an none0istence is itsel!
rational. 3oherence theory o! truthV ine!inite number o! levels o!
coherence an hence o! truth L truth merely relative here as oppose to a
corresponence theory o! Cabsolute truthD. /nalysis o! the
corresponence relation in the corresponence theory o! truth implies
the e0istence o! a 4o_s-eye view. 4enetic bases Co! a genetic base
pairD wre hit upon by molecular evolution with/without an unerlying
process o! testing potential viability o! base pair sequences that woul
latter be Rcobble togetherS by natural Can se0ualD selection. /n yet a
!ar larger subspace o! viable potential base pair sequences e0ists than
any possible subspace o! trie an teste sequences. 6eleology o!
provience/intelligent esign at worK1 or at least in the molecular
in!rastructure.
@ature_s quantum nonlocal behavior always ultimately originates in the
vacuum state o! the consciousness o! the iniviual observer. 6here are
no intersub5ective nonlocal e!!ects since the presence or action o! such
e!!ects woul violate the special relativistic prohibition on superluminal
propagation o! energy an/or in!ormation. "o there is an important
i!!erence between the superluminal propagation o! the action o! an
iniviual_s !ree will upon the quantum vacuum !rom the hypothetical
case o! the in!luence o! the !reely wille ecision by observer / upon
some spaceliKe separate observer ?. 3ouln_t / a!!ect the quantum
system_s probability istribution through a series o! measurements
conucte by him on his hal! o! the system1 which woul result in a
RsKewingS o! the probabilities euce !or the system by ? through the
series o! measurements conucte by ? on his hal! o! the system?
=ow woul the unerlying vacuum state o! the system have to react to
the measurements o! the system conucte by / an ? in orer that
neither / nor ? succee in transmitting in!ormation to the other
e0perimenter? 6he ynamics o! the conspiratorial action o! the
vacuum in counteracting all attempts by conscious quantum observers to
transmit in!ormation over spaceliKe intervals say1 through some ynamic
structuring o! =eisenberg uncertainty o! physical observables1 must be
importantly wrappe up in the very ynamics o! the consciousness-
processes that unerlie all possible acts o! observation by sai quantum
e0perimenters/observers. 6here are two impulses to ynamically
structure the =eisenberg uncertaintiesV one o! these comes !rom the
vacuum state o! the quantum system being observe1 the other1 !rom the
vacuum states o! the two quantum observers. "o here we have a uni!ie
vacuum process Cthe one unerlying the unity o! the spaceliKe separate
parts o! the quantum system in questionD versus a composite vacuum
state. Hn other wors1 we have here the opposition o! an intersub5ective
vacuum with two sub5ective vacua.
:iscuss how the tower o! ?abel story reenacts on a metaphorical level
the !all o! 8an1 i.e.1 iscuss how the immanent !orm o! the transcenent
unity became shattere an scattere. :iscuss the Oabalic theories o!
.uria. :iscuss the etymological relationships across i!!erent languages
o! the wor !or RholyS1 e.g.1 whole1 heal1 health1 hole1 hale1 heil1 hyle1
etc. :iscuss the hologram analogy o! the shattering o! the ivine
person/image o! 4o. 6he -all o! 8an involve the isconnection o!
the transcenent !rom the immanent poles o! 4o_s being.
CAe!rigerator light-hien variables analogyD
;0pectations o! the observer a!!ect how the e0perimental apparatus is set
up. ?ut the reaction o! the system to observer e0pectations shoul be
symmetrical1 e.g.1 spin-*/2 measurements. 3onscious observation
involves perception o! observables o! physical quantities smaller than
their respective quantum uncertainties. @ote that virtual-real istinction
is !oune upon magnitue relative to that o! corresponing =eisenberg
uncertainties.
Fhat_s the i!!erence between conte0t !ree ata that coe in!ormation
!rom such ata that coe !or no in!ormation? 9nly the origin o! the ata
etermines or ecies this. ?y what physical trace is the eciing
imprint o! min/consciousness place upon the physical realization o!
ata? 9rigin an continuity are substantial or substance-base rather
than !ormalizable. Hs pure1 substantial continuity the eciing !actor
here? H! so1 then we have to asK what is the symmetry an/or the space
in!orme by this symmetry1 i! any1 corresponing to the egeneracy o!
substance? 6his space woul perhaps constitute the true groun o!
being1 !urther support !or the theory o! the intersub5ective nature o!
ob5ectivity.
"hannon entropy can never e0haust thermoynamic entropy because Cin
partD the universe is physically real an not secretly a simulation.
9therwise1 no physical substrate worl be le!t over with which to
meiate switching an relaying o! signals i! "hannon entropy ever
e0hauste the thermoynamic entropy. =awKing raiation contains no
ata Clocal interaction contentD1 but pure in!ormation in the !orm o!
nonlocal quantum correlations. Fhat oes this important !act about the
composition o! =awKing raiation tell us about the nature o! the only
three quantities preserve a!ter the collapse o! a blacK hole? 6he
!requency spectrum o! the =awKing raiation emitte by the hole gives
us the temperature o! the hole which also gives us the sur!ace gravity
an hence the mass o! the hole. 6he polarization o! the =awKing
raiation gives us the other two quantities characterizing the hole1 i.e.1 its
electric charge an angular momentum. Hs it possible that the
in!ormation about the conserve quantities o! the blacK hole are not
coe into the quantum !luctuation-correlation structure o! the hole_s
couple vacuum state1 but nonetheless containe within the mass-energy
o! the hole? H! so1 then this is the only part o! the hole that relates to the
Rphysically realS nature o! the hole Can o! all that is physically realD.
"earle_s Rcausal powersS are to be sought in these physical quantities1
mass1 angular momentum an charge.
6hermoynamic interactions are local/causal in nature. .ocal
interactions compresse onto sur!ace o! the blacK hole an are
reconstitute as nonlocal correlations across the hole_s sur!ace.
=olographic principle o! blacK hole entropy must be connecte in some
way with quantum nonlocality.
6he two istinct paths o! electrons through the two-slit apparatus are
abstract counter!actuals1 not actual physical paths. 6he absence o! any
real tra5ectory !or any electron moving through the apparatus suggests
that the electron paths are merely potentialities coe through patterns o!
quantum correlations within the vacuum !luctuations crowing the
corrior so to speaK between the electron gun an the phosphorescent
bacKstop o! the apparatus.
Ht is perhaps important to recall the theory o! nonlocal perception. 6his
theory shoul perhaps be 5ust a component o! a much larger theory o!
the nonlocal action o! consciousness. ?e this as it may1 an analogy
shall su!!ice to here illustrate: bounary conitions are to ynamics as
local is to nonlocal. Fhat oes this mean !or the theory o! perception?
@amely1 that the physical positioning o! the e0perimenter_s sensory
organs1 relative to the e0perimental apparatuses an measuring evices
with which he is engage etermines what the e0perimenter ultimately
observes accoring to the !ollowing. 6he position o! the e0perimenter
Crather1 his sensory organsD etermines what he sees in the same way that
a system_s wave!unction is etermine by the classical physical
bounary conitions impose upon the !unamentally quantum
mechanical ynamics o! the groun state in which the system is to be
embee. 6he e0perimenter then oes not receive in!ormation about
the quantum state o! the system he observes in the irect manner
suppose by what might be calle Rscienti!ic naive realism.S Hn other
wors1 the state o! the system is not conveye to the consciousness o!
the e0perimenter by virtue o! in!ormation about the system_s state being
carrie irectly to the e0perimenter_s sensory organs Cas ampli!ie
through instrumentation available to himD. Aather this in!ormation us
input irectly to the consciousness o! the e0perimenter as a quantum
superposition the structure o! which has been etermine by the
complete set o! classically e!ine bounary conitions Ce0perimenter_s
boy to inclue his sensory organs + e0perimental apparatus +
RsystemSD.
/re the electron paths then etermine via mutual inter!erence between
the electron emission an collision =eisenberg uncertainties? Puantum
measurement as a local interaction calls !orth in!ormation coe in the
nonlocal correlations o! quantum !luctuations occurring at the points o!
emission an quantum measurement. 7ropagation o! energy through
vacuum requires temporal orering o! hereto!ore-uncorrelate quantum
!luctuations o! the vacuum_s momentum-energy. @onlocal correlations
o! two quantum !luctuations prevent them !rom being time-orere by a
causal process.
8ight the two-slit e0periment be per!orme with human beings playing
the role o! the particles moving through the two-slit apparatus with the
!ree wille Cthough essentially ranomD ecisions as to which slit to pass
through serving as the quantum mechanical amplitue escribing a
particle_s state o! motion?
3an the inter!erence pattern o! the two-slit e0periment be e0plaine
wholly in terms o! the ineterminacy o! the spacetime point o! emission
o! the particles through the apparatus?
Fhenever the system unergoes transition to an energy not alreay
containe within the system_s spectrum o! =eisenberg-uncertain energy
oes the temporal evolution o! the system have to be escribe as real1
i.e.1 involving trans!ormations1 reactions or interactions o! real1 as
oppose to merely virtual particles. 6he per!orming o! an energy
measurement upon one o! a pair o! nonlocally connecte particles can
only result in the other1 spaceliKe separate particle taKing on one o! the
energies alreay containe within that particle_s =eisenberg-uncertain
energy. /n energy measurement yieling an energy eigenvalue not
among the set o! possible eigenvalues as etermine by the particle
pair_s wave!unction must cause the state o! the particle pair system to
enter a statistically mi0e state1 i.e.1 one possessing an intrinsic entropy.
6he in!ormation associate with this entropy cannot be retrieve without
a secon1 inepenent measurement being per!orme on the 2
n
particle
o! the pair an the result o! this measurement being communicate to an
e0perimenter locate at he !irst particle or the state o! the *
st
particle
being communicate to the e0perimenter locate at the 2
n
particle. Hn
either case1 the time require !or the retrieval o! the in!ormation about
the mi0e state o! the particle pair is equal or greater to the spacetime
interval separating the particles ivie by the spee o! light. 6hough
here in this case the in!luence may only be carrie !rom one particle o!
the pair to the other particle via a causal in!luence limite by the spee
o! light. 6his is why quantum measurement only yiels in!ormation at
the cost o! the prouction o! some appropriate quantity o! entropy.
/re the e!!ects o! the observer upon a system upon which he conucts a
quantum measurement equivalently accounte !or by invoKing either the
observer_s !ree will or his iniviual consciousness? 3orrelations o!
quantum !luctuations are o! two basic types1 quantum an classical
physical. Hs it the case that local interactions are alternately escribe in
terms o! classical correlations o! quantum !luctuations1 i.e.1 semi-
classical correlations1 while nonlocal interactions are only alternately
escribe in terms o! quantum correlations?
-ining the right tricK to properly renormalizing the quantum vacuum_s
energy has all along been thought to hol the promise o! !inally
reconciling quantum mechanics an general relativity an so !or solving
the cosmological constant problem. "tuy o! -eynman vacuum
iagrams reveals that all virtual particle interactions are compose o!
trans!ormations o! an reactions between spin-* an spin-*/2 particles.
Hn a properly renormalize quantum vacuum1 one in which the vast bulK
o! the quantum vacuum oes not gravitate1 the contributions to the
vacuum_s Rinertial energyS by each o! the two !unamental types o!
particles must largely cancel1 an in the complete absence o!
gravitational !iels1 i.e.1 matter1 this cancellation must be e0act. 6he
symmetry o! R!ree spacetimeS is broKen by the presence o! gravitational
!iels1 which parao0ically are at he same time responsible !or space an
time becoming R!useS into a continuous spacetime mani!ol. 6o
reiterate1 the parao0 o! the gravitational !iel is that it is responsible !or
the symmetry o! spacetime1 as well as !or the breaKing o! this symmetry.
Ht is simple to see that bining energy1 though negative in magnitue
must prouce the same gravitational e!!ect as an equivalent quantity o!
energy positive in magnitue. 6his is because the Rgravitational
chargeS is not the energy content o! mass per se1 but the Kinetic energy
associate with the timeliKe imaginary (-momentum o! the intrinsic
energy o! mass. @ote that the Kinetic energy o! the timeliKe motion o!
mass is always negativeV suggesting that perhaps it is only boun energy1
i.e.1 bining energy that gravitates. /n implication o! this is that the
large quantum-chaotic component o! the nearly in!inite energy o! the
quantum vacuum oes not in !act gravitate ue to this energy possessing
no internal or e0ternal quantum or classical correlations. -urther
scholarly research is neee at this 5uncture concerning the istinction o!
classical vs. quantum !luctuations an correlations.
"o ma0imal in!ormation storage in matter/entropy is inuce when
the energy !luctuations remaining have become ma0imally quantum
nonlocally correlate. 6he quantity o! vacuum energy possesses a
RmassS equal to that o! the blacK hole thus !orme. "o only hal! o!
the mass o! a blacK hole can be accounte !or by the masses o! the
particles going into the hole. 6here!ore a gravitationally close
universe woul constitute a cosmological blacK hole in which the
ensity o! mass energy an the cosmological constant1 i.e.1 global
ensity o! the vacuum_s energy are o! e0actly equal magnitue. 6he
mechanism by which mass is generate !rom within the nonlocally
connecte vacuum appears altogether i!!erent !rom that sustaining
the mass o! the blacK hole itsel!1 though the respective contributions
o! each component are at all times equal throughout the process o! the
mass_ gravitational collapse into a blacK hole. 6he equivalence in the
mass o! mass energy an vacuum energy is a irect outcome o!
?ohm_s equivalence principle Co! local causal interactions with
nonlocal correlation o! quantum !luctuationsD. 6he mass o! a blacK
hole must be renormalize relative to Cno pun inteneD the mass
preicte !or the blacK hole by general relativity theory on account o!
the massiveness the quantum vacuum taKes on by virtue o! nonlocal
correlations o! quantum !luctuations o! its energy. 6hese
consierations perhaps suggest that the spaceliKe versus timeliKe
quality o! spacetime are etermine by the nature o! the quantum
!luctuations in the energy o! a vacuum o! unlimite imensionality.
6his points up how it is not really energy !luctuation itsel! or per se that
rives temporal change1 but also the absence o! nonlocal correlation o!
these vacuum energy !luctuations. Cnonlocally connecte !luctuations
are mutually simultaneousD
Ht is uncorrelate !luctuation energy that meiates ecoherence an
temporal change. ?lacK hole entropy/in!ormation loss parao0 may be
soluble using this interpretation o! time-ecoherence-entropy-
in!ormation. :ecay times are unerwritten so to speaK by ecoherence
times. 6he metric must a la ?ohm_s equivalence principle1 be
etermine by the correlation-!luctuation structure o! momentum-
energy.
,ncorrelate vacuum energy oes not gravitate. C8atter introuces the
correlationsD 9nly energy raiating !rom the sur!ace o! a blacK hole
shoul be totally uncorrelate Csuggests blacK hole bins the vacuum
into a crystalD Hn!ormation is not lost1 but is the correlations coing !or
the matter in the collapse mass.
:o we have a basis !or istinguishing gravitational !rom inertial mass?
?ut the entropy o! the hole must be coe into 7lancK mass cells o!
*))% entangle/ quantum nonlocally correlate !luctuations o! the
vacuum_s energy1 c.!.1 eriving blacK hole mass !rom its entropy store
on the hole_s sur!ace Ctautology argumentD. 7re!erre cosmological
!rame Cit 7lancK mass were greater than blacK hole mass an hole
entropy were )D. C@onlocal meiating local interactionsD
7lancK mass as speci!ying the limit o! .orentz invariance.
6here is a continual altering o! the bounary conitions1 which o!!sets
the natural ynamics o! the molecule as ictate by Rthe laws o!
chemistry.S 6he genome with avancing age o! the organism begins to
e0press more an more o! the intrinsic unerlying chemical ynamics o!
the molecule an less o! the evolutionarily programme-in behavior o!
the molecule1 i.e.1 the molecule begins to more e0press itsel! in a
conte0t-!ree manner.
6hese two !itness lanscapes only line up through the en o! the
reprouctive age o! the organism. 6he control system o! the 4A@ is
able to masK some o! the imper!ection o! alignment o! the two !itness
lanscapes. 9ler organisms e0press more o! the sel!-organizing
potential o! the genome macromolecular chemistry. 8ono speaKs o!
the genetic base pair language Cthrough the ribosomeD liberating the
interpretation o! the genome !rom the strictures o! chemical
eterminism1 c.!.1 3hance an @ecessity C*2N*D.
6he counter!actuality o! choice an cognition permitte by !ree will an
consciousness may be behin the 8FH nature o! P8 an not so much
the intrinsic ynamics o! matter an energy Cthemselves proportional to
the square o! the absolute value o! 7si an not proportional to 7si itsel!.D
=eisenberg uncertainty1 ue to consciousness o! the observer an not his
physical inter!erence Cor the !ree will o! observer unpreictably
interacting with the systemD.
3onsciousness only plays a role in collapsing the wave!unction because
consciousness is originally responsible !or the quantum mechanical
behavior Cas suchD o! classical physical systems Cwhen probe closely
enoughD. H! one probes nature eeply enough1 in other wors1 one
encounters the human min. /n i! that one probes eeply enough1 he
encounters his min. 6his suggests that quantum mechanics is nature_s
way o! revealing the !unamental truth o! a Kin o! emocratic
solipsism. 6his principle is true !or each observer an potential
observer. ;ach observer may only probe own to his or her own
ientical vacuum state or1 more aptly1 his or her own groun o! being.
7robing into the natural orer must ultimately result in the ecoupling o!
the observer !rom the intersub5ective worl system. 6his is !urther
reason !or why the ynamics o! the iniviual consciousness may never
!in any satis!actory e0plication in terms o! so-calle ob5ective physical
processes. :eeper probing o! nature implies getting a progressively
less meiate an more irect access to the processes uner stuy. 6he
asymptote !or progressive immeiacy o! Knowlege is the iniviual_s
consciousness as substrate o! all possible Knowlege !or that iniviual.
;ach uni!ication o! otherness speaKs o! the sel! not originally inclue in
it. /ny analysis o! some physical mani!estation o! the observer_s
particular system o! categories by that observer1 which is penetrating
enough1 shall result in eep aspects o! the observer_s min being
reveale to him by way o! the particular physical mani!estation in
question.
8atter oes not only inuce a warping o! spacetime1 but creates the very
spacetime that it warps. 6his woul be true i! we equate Rwarpe
spacetimeS with spacetime_s metric structure. 6his case is to be
istinguishe !rom one in which matter an metric structure o!
spacetime arise together interepenently.
Oau!!manian !itness lanscapes are tightly aligne with :@/ chemical
stability lanscapes. Hs this a mere coincienceV is this esignV or is the
tight alignment between the two lanscapes itsel! the prouct o! natural
selection? 6his alignment o! genotypic chemical stability with
phenotypic !itness lanscapes1 i! in part is the prouct o! natural
selection o! ranom variations in :@/ chemical structure1 woul also be
in part the prouct o! some Kin o! selection o! variation in say1 the
moe an manner o! the genome_s phenotypic e0pression. 6his points
up the importance o! the genome possessing some internal mechanism
!or cybernetic control o! transcription/copying an/or
translation/e0pression o! :@/ base pair sequences in the !orm o!
proteins an protein-regulating proteins.
6he stability o! the chemical structure o! the :@/ is relevant to the
constancy an !ielity o! phenotypic e0pression o! this chemical
structure. 8ore stable chemical structure woul result in a tighter
!eebacK e0isting between changing survival/reprouctive requirements
o! a ynamic physical an/or social environment.
6he gravitational collapse o!1 !or e0ample1 a spherical istribution o!
ust particles results in a local ecrease in the ensity o! imaginary
momentum !luctuations in the quantum vacuum along with an increase
in the ensity o! real momentum !luctuations associate with the matter
composing the ust particles. /t the same time quantum correlations
are establishe between as yet unsuppresse imaginary momentum
!luctuations o! the vacuum an the newly engenere real momentum
!luctuations within the collapsing matter istribution. Hn this way is set
up a mirroring o! local CcausalD interactions within matter an nonlocal
CcorrelationalD interactions within the quantum vacuum. 6hese local
interactions are between real !ermions Cin the !orm o! mutually
e0change virtual spin-* bosonsD composing the collapsing matter
istribution. 6he nonlocal interactions are in the !orm o! nonlocal
quantum correlations o! virtual !ermion-anti!ermion pairs that are
create an annihilate as the vacuum_s imaginary momentum
unergoes spontaneous quantum !luctuations Cin accorance with the
=eisenberg uncertainty principleD.
Fhat istinguishes the correlate !rom the uncorrelate spaceliKe-
separate1 timeliKe quantum vacuum energy !luctuations? Fhat
istinguishes the two types o! vacuum !luctuations is the presence versus
absence o! ;instein_s so-calle inertia o! energy. 6he nonlocal
correlations o! the quantum !luctuations in the vacuum_s energy are what
enow them with inertia1 an it is clear now that in the absence o! any
an all matter1 the semi-in!inite quantity o! vacuum !luctuation energy
within any given microscopic volume o! spacetime must be wholly
evoi o! inertia. -or at the very least1 the in!luence o! accelerate
motion upon an energy system must be communicate to an throughout
this system via quantum nonlocal correlation o! the system_s
=eisenberg-uncertain energy !luctuations.
6his manner in which local causal interactions become tie to nonlocal
correlational interactions between quantum !luctuations o! energy shows
the operation o! ?ohm_s equivalence principle at a most !unamental
level. ?ohm_s equivalence principle states1 to wit that local causal
interactions may always be alternately represente in terms o! some
appropriate set o! quantum correlations obtaining between an
appropriate set o! quantum !luctuations. ?ohm_s principle suggests that
the ensity o! causal interactions within matter cannot become greater
than the ensity o! quantum !luctuations correlate so as to properly
groun these causal interactions. 6he ensity o! causal interactions
becoming greater than the ensity o! supporting nonlocally correlate
!luctuations woul constitute in e!!ect the stream rising higher than its
source. /n application o! these !unamental limitations impose by
?ohm_s equivalence principle is that the ensity o! causally interacting
particles cannot be greater than the ensity o! quantum correlate
vacuum energy occupying the same volume. 6he above provies a
possible basis !or istinguishing a boy_s inertial !rom its gravitational
mass1 or !or physically e0plaining the basis !or their true equivalence. Ht
!ollows that blacK holes must be compose o! two equal parts1 a matter
an a vacuum component. H! the ,niverse possesses critical ensity1
then the ,niverse is itsel! a Kin o! blacK hole an we shoul e0pect
then the cosmological mass an vacuum energy ensities to be equal.
Hn aition to spatial1 temporal an spatiotemporal graients in energy1
momentum an momentum energy1 graients across istinct quantum
superposition branches might prove physically meaning!ul1 especially
!or continua o! superposition branches. ?ut wouln_t an in!rastructure
o! continuum superposition branching1 i.e.1 in!initely ense 8FH
universe branching Rleave no roomS !or coherence phenomena? H! true1
this might be in accorance with the principle o! groun being e0hauste
by Re0haustive !igure.S ?ut such a principle coul be easily e!eate in
a realm amitting genuine novelty.
;ntanglement an Aelativity1 3.4.1 6impson an =. A. ?rown1 $
9ctober 2))2.
/n entanglement assiste communication system woul require the
operation o! the conscious intention to sen a message at one en o! the
communication channel an conscious perception at the other in orer to
receive the message1 i.e.1 e0tract the in!ormation !rom the message
intene by the sener. ?oth intention C!ree willD an intentionality
Cconscious perceptionD threaten the elicate set o! phase relationships
nonclassically correlating the quantum !luctuations1 which comprise any
coe message.
?ecause the evolution o! the "chroinger wave equation is eterministic1
the evolution o! an ;verett 8FH universe is also eterministic. /ny
!reely wille action on the part o! a quantum mechanical observer causes
this observer to switch preetermine tracKs o! "-wave eterministic
evolution. Ht seems every choice one maKes changes one_s entire past in
5ust such a way that one_s choice becomes a stage in the "-wave
equation eterministic evolution o! that past. 9ne e!!ectively chooses a
past such that one_s choice is mae in the absence o! the operation o!
conscious awareness. 3learly consciousness involves some Kin o!
!unamental Cas oppose to eriveD capacity to operate outsie o! the
;verett 8FH P8 multiverse. 6he conscious iniviual is able to seize
an use an R/rchimeean pointS but one that is locate within his own
sel!1 i.e.1 RbootstrapS himsel!.
9ctober 2)*$ epi=
3onsciousness is an e0ample
par e0cellence o! a case o! one li!ting onesel! by oneGs own bootstraps.
Fere one to Wper impossibleW e0plain or give an aequate analysis o!
consciousness1 then this woul be to have per!orme this impossible !eat
WtwiceW. <our coming to be was inee an event1 but more
!unamentally1 it was an act. =ow shoul oneGs conception o! the
meaning o! e0istence change in light o! this realization?
6o investigate how quantum entanglement trans!orms uner .orentz
boosts1 c.!.1 7eres et. al. C2))2D an 4ingrich an /ami C2))2D.
6he quantum mechanical amplitue an its associate ensity !unctional
seem relate Cvis a vis quantum ecoherenceD analogously to the
relationship o! the complementary results o! the two-slit e0periment1 i.e.1
inter!erence o! waves vs. causal interaction o! particles. 6he two-slit
e0periment is one o! the Ci! not theD clearest emonstrations o! the !act o!
apparently local interactions being in !act meiate via quantum
nonlocal connections between otherwise causally unconnecte
!luctuations.
6he broaer meaning o! nonlocality is that o! the state o! a system
locate within a given region o! spacetime not being !ully etermine by
reactions an interactions taKing place locally. ?ut what we mean by
RtaKing place locallyS must be analyze somewhat to mean taKing place
in only a single locality. Fhat maKes a Rsingle localityS in !act RsingleS
may well have much to ue with purely !ormal aspects o! the system in
question Cwithin that localityD. 6he suppose !unamental ualism o!
min an boy necessarily introuces a Kin o! nonlocality by virtue o!
the human person being compose o! two parts1 one physical1 one
mental an each groune in a istinct1 though perhaps mysteriously
mutually interacting system. /ny chosen action on the part o! a
physical being that cannot be trace to local physical causes1 i.e.1
physical causes operating within the beings nervous an brain tissue
must be in some !unamental sense1 nonlocal. /ny physically
consistent theory o! consciousness woul have to invoKe nonlocality an
quantum entanglement within the brain on a massive scale. "uch a
theory might well escribe quantum entanglement within the brain
itsel! between ;verett 8FH universes rather than merely i!!erent parts
o! the same 8FH universe.
6he mere appearance o! coherence implies actual cohesiveness o! the
unerlying ynamism supporting that appearance. 6his is why
permutational an combinational Kinematics alone cannot begin to
e0plain the ynamics o! cohesion. / sub5ective representation o!
ob5ective coherence must itsel! be coherent. 6his is why an empiricist
theory o! min must be !unamentally !lawe1 which is to say that orer
cannot be impresse Cvia impressionsD onto the min in its capacity as a
merely passive substrate. Aather orer must be given to sense ata1 i.e.1
R=umean impressionsS by a system o! orer alreay present within the
!unamental ynamics o! a percipient_s mental processes.
.evinas an 7lantinga are the two philosophers who most closely
appro0imate my own style o! philosophical thought.
:i the builing o! the 6ower o! ?abel threaten 4o? @o1 but its
builing threatene 4o_s plan !or manKin. 8an is to be guie
through various stages o! evelopment in his relationship with 4o
emboie in covenants an ispensational ages. 6he progression o!
ispensational ages may be liKene to the climbing o! a series o! laers
connecting ascening levels1 but one must move laterally some istance
across the plane o! each level in orer to !in the laer taKing one to the
ne0t level. 6he progression o! 8an through the ispensational ages is a
!unamentally ialectical process. 6he builing o! the 6ower with its
Rstraight upwar ascentS threatene to1 i! only symbolically1 short circuit
4o_s ispensational plan. 4o_s estruction o! the 6ower was intene
to be a message about the !utility o! 8an_s attempts at sel!-evelopment
in ignorance o! 4o_s loving guiance.
6he Hnternet with its rapily growing power to put each in
communication with all appears the moern ay equivalent o! the 6ower
o! ?abel. Fhat brings about its eventual estruction shall bear a special
an intimate connection with ivine power or its peculiar moe o!
operation.
epi=
/ny su!!iciently power!ul liKeness o! a situation to that
escribe in a power!ul myth causes the subtle unerlying ynamics
riving that situation to be RcaptureS by the ynamics o! the myth.
@eural networK perception1 cohesive as oppose to merely coherent
possibility spaces.
Qd
4enetic nucleotie bases were hit upon by molecular evolution
with/without an unerlying process o! testing potential viability o! base
pair sequences that woul latter be Rcobble togetherS by natural Can
se0ualD selection. /n yet a !ar larger subspace o! viable potential base
pair sequences e0ist than any possible subspace o! trie an teste
sequences. Ht seems a teleology o! provience/intelligent esign is at
worK RassistingS evolution1 or at least in having set up the
atomic/molecular in!rastructure1 which has been grace with such broa
an eep sel!-organizing properties.
8ay 2)*( epi=?
Fe o not Know that it is
necessarily the case that the application o! RintelligenceS1 however
avance1 to the ialectical process o! biological evolution1 which is to
say the 5oining o! the !orces o! intelligent an natural selection woul
have brought onto the !iel !ar more vast reserves o! potentially
avantageous genetic base-pair sequences !rom which ;volution might
choose in orer to meet the requirements o! an ever-changing
environment than woul the operation o! chance an natural selection
alone. 6his is on account o! the characteristic !iltering o! conscious
intention which powers the narrowing !ocus o! the problem-solving
intellect. H! there is an actor behin every act1 then the principle o!
limitation1 emboie in the ol aage about one not being able to li!t
onesel! by one_s own bootstraps is unavoiable. H!1 however1 we amit
that acts or actions can be e!!ecte wholly in the absence o! an actor1 this
limitation is remove.
R6he rationality o! the :@/ Bua language means that the aim o! natural selection
must be something even broaer than that o! the breeing population_s aaptation to its current environment because o! the
!act o! the obvious avantages to be gaine !rom out-crossing o! iniviuals !rom one breeing population to those o! some
other breeing populationS1
which ha evolve in a not altogether similar
environment
.
"o the application o! intelligence is not to be glimpse or
sought in any ongoing irecte inter!erence with the worKing out o! the
unerlying genetic mechanisms o! biological evolution1 but rather in the
implementing o! a linguistic Kernel in the !orm o! the evelopment o!
genetic bases along with a stable Cbut not too stableD means o! stringing
together an moulating the proteomic1 enzymatic an regulatory
e0pression o! genetic base pair sequences.
6he tiny subspace is tinKere with which gives in!ormation to the semi-
in!inite RleverageS subspace o! base pair sequences1 which then
processes this in!ormation about environment to which the organism
must aapt. 6he phenotypic e0pression o! the genome is itsel! ynamic
rather than Kinematic1 meaning that the history o! the e0pression o! a
given base pair sequence is a ialectical process in which the literal
evolves in terms o! ever newly emerging metaphorical aspects o! itsel!.
8etaphoricity that consciousness unerlies enables emergence o!
novelty.
?ut what in the realm o! linear vector spaces correspons to 7si
collapse/reuction? 7hysics vis a vis ;instein_s !iel equations seems to
be a tiny subset o! mathematics. Hs mathematics nonetheless empirical?
Puantum mechanics is the ultimate empirical science an so shouln_t
be Rcomprehensible1S c.!.1 Figner_s Runreasonable e!!ectiveness o!
mathematicsS in the physical sciences. 8athematics RworKsS even
though we o not unerstan the unerlying physics o! how
mathematics proves e!!ective in escribing nature. Puantum mechanics
as ultimate physical science must say Rno hien variables.S
epi=!cbK=
/mitting hien variables1 i.e.1 local interactions woul permit
physical e0planation to be embroile in an in!inite regress o! physical
e0planation.
"eptember 2)*$
Ht seems that nonlocality is 4o_s way o!
simultaneously sie-stepping both the contraiction o! creation e0 nihilo
an the reuctio a asuram o! an in!inite regress o! creation solo
propter causam.
:ue to the !unamental nature o! physics as a system scienti!ic
e0planation1 the absence o! Rphysical entities1S i.e.1 RnothingS has been
e!!ectively rei!ie by relativistic quantum !iel theory through the
concept o! the quantum vacuum. 8ight psychological science one ay
become !unamental enough as a system o! scienti!ic e0planation so that
a total absence o! psychological entities1 that is to say1 Rno oneS or
alternately1 Rempty minS might be !oun to possess a eep structure1
one unerlying personal ientity either internally an/or e0ternally?
?ut these two cases1 that o! absence o! persons an that o! absences o!
contents in a person_s min are o! istinctly i!!erent type in two senses1
one abstract1 one concrete.
Fhat are the implications o! quantum interaction-!ree measurement !or
the theory o! conscious perception?
3ultural !orms that are imitations o! the inspire iniviual e0pressions
alone may inspire the collective min. ?ut as
au=
/yn Aan note1 Rno
intellectual iscovery is ever mae by the collective.S / countere0ample
to this notion might be
au=
:aniel Olempner_s comment that
Kwo=
R,nliKe
general relativity1 which grew out o! a brilliant insight into the
connection between gravity an geometry1 or the eciphering o! :@/1
which unveile a new worl o! biology1 quantum mechanics i not
spring !rom a single step. Aather1 it was create by a small group o!
physicists in one o! those rare concentrations o! genius that occur !rom
time to time in history1S c.!.1
cit=
One <unre Uears of 3uantum 4hysics.
!bK=
6he secret to motivating onesel! towar eveloping one_s scienti!ic
an philosophical insights1 social commentary1 etc. into consumable
intellectually viable worKs is 5ust recognition o! the !ollowing: i! one_s
insights are inee vali1 then smarter an more highly motivate people
than onesel! have alreay hit upon these same insights an publishe
papers1 booKs an other worKs inspire by those insights. Fith the
availability o! so many o! these worKs online1 it becomes a simple matter
o! sKill!ully utilizing a search engine1 !ining copies o! these worKs1 an
establishing a bibliography supporting the points o! view !oune upon
one_s own similar insights that one seeKs to evelop1 however less
evelope these might be currently1 relative to the avance
evelopment o! such insights in the worKs o! establishe writers.
"ee the article 8icrotubule 8echanism !or /lzheimer_s an the
iscussion o! the phenomenon o! microtubule
voc=
superraiance in which
incoherent thermal energy may be converte to coherent photons within
the microtubules.
Hs it true that the observer must be conscious enough to recognize the
intersub5ective !eatures o! the physical observables he is !ace with in
orer !or his act o! observation to inuce state vector transition o! the
system observe? 7erhaps this woul only be true i! this observer is the
only person who has access to the true quantum state o! the system. -or
an observation to occur must there be inability to istinguish the state o!
the system !rom certain abstract !eatures o! the quantum state o! the
observer_s brain? Hn other wors1 oes the act o! quantum observation
necessarily result in quantum entanglement o! the state o! the system
with the state o! the observer_s brain?
Qd
3.!.1 Puantum 8ysteries
:isentangle by
au=
;rann 4at an the iscussion o! how classically
correlate states o! "hannon in!ormation entropy ) emerge !rom
quantum correlate states o! quantum in!ormation entropy L* through
the act o! quantum measurement.
3ausal connections may perhaps only be alternately escribe in terms
o! classical correlations o! quantum !luctuations resulting !rom
interaction o! an observer with the quantum correlations o! these
!luctuations.
6his woul imply that consciousness is associate not with any
particular quantum state o! the brain o! the observer but with the
unerlying brain processes giving the observer the capacity to bring a
system other than his own brain into quantum resonance with the
quantum state o! his own brain. Puantum resonance o! two systems
requires that both systems be in quantum coherent states. 6he !irst
system1 the system that is the sub5ect o! quantum measurement is only
coherent incientally or passively1 while the system per!orming the
measurement o! the !irst system is quantum coherent through an active
!eebacK process.
epi=prn=Qd
6o wit1 consciousness with an ob5ect is
epenent upon consciousness without an ob5ect.
6wo quantum mechanical systems unergo mutual inter!erence
whenever the two systems are separate by less than =eisenberg
uncertainty with respect to any quantize physical observable. H!
means is acquire later !or istinguishing the systems1 then bacKwar-
propagating in!luences o! nonlocal quantum connection shall cause the
mutual inter!erence to isappear. 6his seems liKe a possible means !or
Rsignaling the past.S ?ut actually the laws o! quantum uncertainty shall
always conspire to !orbi this. 6his is on account o! any reuction in
quantum uncertainty along one particular physical observable a0is must
always be accompanie by a concomitant increase in the quantum
uncertainty along a complementary a0is Co! the quantum con5ugate
variableD. 9n the other han1 one cannot even attempt to use mi0e
quantum states !or purposes o! signaling the past ue to the overall high
entropy o! these mi0e states.
Qd
6he increase uncertainty o! states o!
the con5ugate variable cannot be selectively ignore by the RreceiverS1
but must !igure into the quantum process by which the receiver o! the
quantum message iscerns the ob5ect o! the transmission. 6his
in!ormation entropy constraint is impose upon us by the !act that
quantum mechanics is also sub5ect to the 2
n
.aw o! 6hemoynamics.
/t some point evolution hit upon the iea i! you will o! out!itting
organisms with a perceptual system in which organisms no longer relie
on sensory ata !or in!ormation about the e0ternal environment1 but
began to use this sensory ata merely as a means !or a5usting brain
neural microtubule circuits to resonate with the appropriate abstract
structures1 which coul then be pro5ecte RoutwarS into a simulate
arena in which the organism now saw itsel! acting. 6his evelopment
became necessary as brain capacity began to outstrip sensory channel
ata capacity.
/t a certain level o! evelopment in the evolution o! the organism_s
brain the banwith o! the various sensory channels becomes too limite
relative to the comple0ity o! neural circuits available to the organism !or
analyzing the incoming sensory ata. 6he organism must switch !rom
RcrunchingS incoming sensory ata using eterministic algorithms to
processing sensory ata into perceptual in!ormation. 6he organism
oes this by now utilizing the incoming sensory ata merely as cues !or
interpreting the ata. Hmportant !or the interpretation o! these sensory
ata into !ull-blown perceptual cognitions is the organism_s utilization o!
physical traces in its gray matter that resulte !rom earlier moments o!
the organism_s processing o! sensory ata1 i.e.1 memory. Puantum
superpositions o! present with past brain states might be an important
component in the mechanism o! interpretation o! current sensory ata.
6he capability !or Rtuning intoS abstract1 resonant structures as well as
!or placing these structures together into a common space in which the
organism also place itsel! greatly increase the organism_s ability to
quicKly aapt to rapily changing environments. /t this stage the
organism is no longer limite to a quantum-locality-base1 causally
meiate stimulus-response moe o! processing o! mere sensory ata1
but now capable o! utilizing quantum nonlocally connecte in!ormation
matching important abstract !eatures o! the organism_s immeiate
environment. Hmportant in being able to utilize this new quantum
in!ormation as oppose to sensory ata is the !unction o! the organism_s
memory1 which permits the organism to create quantum nonlocally
connecte brains states across time.
6he conspiracy on the part o! nature to always mani!est particle-liKe
behavior whenever classical physical initial an bounary conitions
permit measurement o! such behavior on the one han while on the other
han rela0ing bacK into waveliKe behavior whenever the classical
physical bounary conitions o not permit etection an measurement
o! particle-liKe behavior may be summarize neatly as the !ollowing:
where measurement cannot istinguish some number o! theoretically
possible states in terms o! their relative actuality versus potentiality1 then
these istinctly possible states shall unergo mutual inter!erence. Hn
this way quantum mechanics is seen to be the ultimate empirical
physical theory. 6his is why the =eisenberg uncertainty principle is an
ontological as oppose to a merely epistemological principle as well as
why the quantum mechanical wave!unction must represent the most that
can possibly be Known about the physical system it escribes1 i.e.1 the
wave!unction is a complete escription o! its associate physical system.
6he counterintuitive results o! quantum theory are !ringe phenomena1
which result at the bounary o! the physically real CactualD an merely
imaginary CpossibleD. 6hey are a generalize Kin o! 4ibbs_s
phenomena associate with some unKnown bounary. 6his bounary
lies between the realms o! the Knowable an the unKnowable.
Puantum phenomena are mani!estations o! a reaction on the part o!
nature to our impinging upon her very Rboot-strapping !unctionsS by
which she sustains physical reality in e0istence.
"uppose that the !amous two-slit e0periment is per!orme with electrons
being sent through the apparatus at a rate o! say1 one electron per hour.
.et us note here that the original emission o! these so-calle iniviual
electrons was itsel! an event sub5ect to quantum uncertainty. / camera1
/ is positione so as to collect in!ormation about which slit each
electron travels through. /nother camera1 ? is positione so as to view
the phosphorescent bacKstop that the electrons shall striKe a!ter passing
through the two-slit barrier. 3ertainly i! camera-/ or its !ilm emulsion
is estroye Cin an irreversible mannerD prior to the !ilm emulsion o!
camera-? being evelope1 then upon !inally eveloping the !ilm
emulsion o! camera-?1 a pattern o! inter!erence !ringes is reveale. 9n
the other han1 i! the !ilm in camera-/ is evelope !irst1 then
Knowlege o! which slits the electrons passe through is obtaine so that
when the !ilm in camera-? is evelope no inter!erence !ringe pattern is
reveale1 but instea a bucKshot pattern o! iniviual particle RhitsS on
the phosphorescent screen. @aturally1 we want to Know what happens
when the in!ormation containe in camera-/ is preserve while the !ilm
emulsion o! camera-? is evelope. H! the !ilm o! camera-? is
evelope !irst1 then we shoul e0pect one o! two results: either we see
an inter!erence !ringe pattern or we see a RbucKshotS pattern o! electron
particle hits. :epening upon which pattern we see upon eveloping
the !ilm emulsion o! camera-? shall etermine whether1 upon !inally
eveloping the emulsion o! camera-/ the in!ormation concerning the
passage o! electrons through the two-slit apparatus is preserve: i! an
inter!erence !ringe pattern is reveale1 then upon investigating the
e0perimental setup it shall be iscovere that the positioning o! the
camera relative to the two-slit barrier was proper an aequate to permit
etermination o! which slit each electron woul pass throughV
alternatively1 i! no inter!erence !ringe pattern is reveale1 then
investigation o! the relative position o! the camera an two-slit barrier
woul reveal that the e0perimental apparatus ha not been set up in the
right way so as to actually permit su!!iciently accurate observation o! the
tra5ectories o! electrons passing through the two-slit barrier. 9! course1
!ailure to see an inter!erence !ringe pattern upon !irst eveloping the !ilm
emulsion o! camera-? might alternately mean that an absent-mine
e0perimenter ha !orgotten to switch on the power to the camera1
remove the lens-cap1 properly a5ust the !ocus1 shutter spee1 etc. 9ver
time1 i! the !ilm in camera-/ is not evelope1 but is instea place in
storage1 there shall be some su!!iciently long perio o! time a!ter which
evelopment o! the camera_s !ilm shall not permit su!!iciently accurate
etermination o! electron tra5ectories through the two-slit apparatus.
6his is ue to the natural process o! ecay o! the !ilm emulsion with
which any pro!essional photographer is !amiliar. ;ven i! a much more
stable emulsion is utilize in camera-?1 so that etaile in!ormation
about the pattern o! phosphorescence o! the two-slit apparatus bacKstop
is recore1 the in!ormation on the more stable emulsion must ecay in
step with the rate o! ecay o! the emulsion o! camera-/T 6his points
out the separateness o! nonlocal quantum in!ormation !rom the local
causal interactions within matter. 6he ecay o! the chemical emulsion
o! camera-/ is a locally meiate process1 while the controlle ecay o!
the chemical emulsion o! camera-? is a nonlocally meiate process.
6he question arises i! bacK-reaction o! a more stable quantum system
upon a less stable system is possible.
6he local causal processes o! the brain a!!ect the brain_s quantum
nonlocal processes a!ter the !ashion o! the interaction o! the quantum
state o! camera-/_s chemical emulsion upon that o! camera-?. :o the
nonlocally connecte coherent quantum !iels o! the human brain bacK-
react upon the brain_s ecohere !iels?
Puantum mechanics is 4o_s system !or accommoating human !ree
will with the classical physical appearance o! the environment in which
human choices are playe out.
6he phenomenon o! a moral sense is intimately tie to that o! human
!ree volition.
:elaye choice e0periments in nonlocality emonstrate that it is not
merely or only consciousness o! the observer as such that inuces
wave!unction collapse1 but the !reely wille1 concrete actions o! the
observer in a5usting the e0periment conitions o! a quantum
measurement CobservationD that is su!!icient to inuce collapse. Ht is the
share general !eature o! !ree will an consciousness1 which involve
quantum systems become involve in1 that o! irreversibility1 which
e0clues the possibility o! the observer e!!ecting a elaye choice
e0perimental result. 6he elaye choice e0perimental setup requires
proper isolation o! the quantum system that is sub5ect to Relaye
choicesS. Hn this manner the con!iguration o! the e0perimental
apparatus pre- an post-elaye choice1 i.e.1 t _
)
D1 t _
!
D constitute
bounary conitions o! the e0periment 5ust as much as o the values o!
quantum !iels !i0e at speci!ic spacetime coorinates1 e.g.1 electrically
conucting plates1 static magnetic !iels or potential energy barriers.
Fhat permits the elaye choice is uncertainty either =eisenberg time
uncertainty pure an simple or more generally uncertainty in the
speci!ication o! the initial conitions o! the e0perimental setup.
6he irection o! time !or a prepare quantum state representing a close
system only appears e!inite. 6here can be no real causality without
irreversibility1 only causal correlation o! present with past phenomena.
6he so-calle "tar 6reK Rtransporter parao0S was !irst pointe up by the
character o! :octor 8c3oy in one o! the continuing novelizations o! the
series. Hn this novelization 8c3oy e0presses his !ear that the 8c3oy
that steps onto the transporter pa aboar ship is not the same 8c3oy
that shall step o!! o! the transporter pa at the receiving en on the planet
below. 6he character "pocK counters 8c3oy_s !ears by noting the null
e!!ect o! the parao0 !rom the point o! view o! everyone else concerne
Cother than 8c3oy himsel!1 that isD. 6he converse o! this situation is
suggeste by =ugh ;verett_s 8any Forls Hnterpretation o! Puantum
8easurement.
6he proper metaphysical interpretation o! personal ientity is one o!
parallel quantum solipsism. "olipsism may be at some level
unavoiable since my consciousness either e0ists only with my present
iniviual sel! or is reiterate an ine!inite number o! times in the !orm
o! this my own iniviual !orm an all those constitute by other
iniviuals liKe this sel!.
H per!orm a quantum measurement an accoring to ;verett my
consciousness suenly transitions to some other almost ientical
universe L maybe only one in which the only thing that has change
a!ter my measurement is per!orme is that H_m in a new universe in
which my consciousness is the only consciousness continuous with the
previous universe in which my consciousness resie 5ust prior to my
per!orming the measurement. Hn !act1 this particular case shoul
constitute the minimal possible change that may be inuce by my act o!
quantum measurement.
8y act o! quantum measurement/observation merely changes the
probabilities o! the results o! !uture quantum measurements/observations
as might be conucte by others sharing my intersub5ective
environment. ?ut my act o! quantum measurement oes not merely
change the quantum probabilities !or me1 it changes the very quantum
universe within which H resie. 6he act o! measurement oes not
change the ynamics o! the worl within which one is per!orming
measurements1 it 5ust alters the bounary conitions to which any an all
quantum measurements become sub5ect. /n part o! these altere
bounary conitions are the other potential observers an/or
e0perimenters with whom H share a physical environment.
Fhat maKes the worl real !or me then1 is my consciousness o! it.
6o iscuss the creation o! spacetime without also presupposing a
bacKgroun Rsupers-spacetimeS against which it emerges is to elve into
the realm o! metaphysics an theology. -or the very Rcash valueS o!
our concepts o! RphysicalS an Rconcretely realS is intimately tie to the
stage o! spacetime. =ere we are treating ?eing without a stage !or its
e0istence1 i.e.1 Rpure beingS an the istinction o! sub5ective an
ob5ective1 mental an physical are here unercut. /ny RbeingS present
in the absence o! some conte0t1 against which it is to Rstan out1S i.e.1 e0
ist1 literally Rout-beingS such as spacetime may be unerstoo to possess
Ran insie but no outsie.S "uch a being must be in!inite an per!ectly
orere at the same time. Fhat orer means !or a !inite system we
unerstan well enough. ?ut the meaning o! RorerS in the case o! a
coherent in!inite system is one we shall !orever be unable to grasp
e0cept by analogy. 6he negation or opposite o! such a being woul o!
course be without any consistent e!inition. "uch a being woul not be
a member o! any possible class L any variation o! the being woul be the
very same being in another one o! its sel!-chosen RternalS states.
R6ernalS enotes neither e0ternal nor internal1 but !orming the groun o!
the istinction o! e0ternal an internal. /n etymological analysis o! the
root1 RternalS woul perhaps she some light onto our iscussion at this
5uncture. /ny RsomethingS out o! which all possibility1 potentiality an
actuality is to arise must possess at least all o! the qualities that e!ine
eity as a metaphysical entity.
8any o! the stories o! 4enesis are mythological retellings o! the
continue relationship o! the human with the primitive brute !rom which
he evolve1 but which still coe0ists with the human1 c.!.1 any iscussion
o! the tripartite evolutionary structure o! the human brain. 6his con!lict
occurs through RmonKey-min_sS subversion o! the more highly
evolve1 human neocorte01 c.!.1 the peculiar parasitic action o! viruses
attacKing living cells. ;vil results !rom the re!raction o! monKey
min_s simplistic1 impulsive rives by the R4o-brainS with which
RmonKey minS has alreay long ago been !orce to Rshare a sKull.S
"ublimation is not the re!raction an rare!action o! evil1 but is itsel! the
very mechanism by which evil has come into being.
;vil is at !irst only the notion o! evil which then maKes itsel! real. 4o
arises in the same manner1 that is via the mere conception o! 4o. ?ut
then one has to asK the question1 Rwhence these two highly istinct
concepts1 those o! ;vil an 4o?S
/ system that is purely nonlocally connecte with itsel! cannot cause an
inertial e!!ect within any vacuum in which it is embee. /lthough
perhaps the proper notion o! RembementS in the vacuum might imply
the potential !or the embee ob5ect to inuce such vacuum inertial
e!!ects. =ow o we reconcile this !act with another1 theoretical !act
asserte by ?ohm1 to wit that causal connections coul always be
ecompose into combinations o! !luctuations an correlations Cis the
i!!erence between classical an quantum !luctuations important here?D.
/t what threshol o! internal coupling via locally symmetric gauge
boson e0change oes a system become Ran inertial system1S i.e.1 a
system capable o! proucing Rinertial e!!ectsS upon its local1 embeing
vacuum state1 as well as operating on Rits own RinternalS time?S Hnertia
is characterize by the interaction o! two vacua1 which operate on two
istinct temporalities1 or1 more generally1 two istinct !requencies Can
possibly also1 phasesD.
3onsciousness an gravity are relate by more than the super!icial !act
o! both phenomena being capable o! inucing collapse o! the quantum
mechanical state vector. ?oth are aitionally relate through such
concepts as inertia1 entropy an internality Co! temporality or1 more
generally1 o! internal integrity o! a spacetimeD. Hnertial e!!ects are
cause by the interaction o! istinct temporalities Cor quantum vacua or1
more generally1 grouns o! beingD.
?ayesian probability is base on partial Knowlege o! the ata
speci!ying conitions !or a system1 that is1 the probability o! the state o!
the most probable system.
;volution poses such conceptual i!!iculties !or many people because o!
a common supposition that their notions o! !orm1 proportion an beauty
are somehow nonarbitrary1 or still more1 Rnatural.S
Puantum nonlocality implies that physical phenomena possess a
superluminal component that lies outsie o! spacetime.
>. ". ?ell says in 6he -ounations o! Puantum 8echanics that1 Rthere
are1 ultimately no mechanical arguments !or the processS Co! wavepacKet
reuctionD. :egeneracy is when the results o! quantum measurement o
not etermine Rthe state resulting !rom the measurement.S ;igenvalues
are spacetime boun whereas quantum states !requently are not Cthough
perhaps eigenstates are1 Rwithin spacetime1S i.e.1 where eigenvalues o
etermine the quantum stateD.
Yaiabatic ecoherenceZ b inconsistent notion?
7si evolution is unitary Caccoring to the "chroinger equationD an1 o!
course1 carries all quantum numbers/symmetries L here probability is
conserve1 i.e.1 probability ensity obeys the conservation o! probability
current via a continuity equation.
,sing the initial state vector as the z-a0is1 we can preict the angular
isplacement1 theta o! the state vector at some later time to within a
!actor o! 2pi1 but we can Know the relative angular isplacement o! the
state vector1 phi at some later time to within a !actor o! pi. 6his is
similar to the case where one spatial rotation o! a ?ose particle is
require to bring the particle bacK to its original state1 while two spatial
rotations are require to bring a -ermi particle bacK to its original state.
6he above parallel between how spherical angular coorinates are
relate an how ?ose an -ermi particle wave!unctions are relate
suggests that somehow the wave!unctions representing ?ose an -ermi
particles are orthogonal.
6he !act o! the iniviual consciousness seeming to Rpossess an insie
without at once possessing an outsieS may be relate to the
phenomenon o! quantum coherence Co! the brainD as well as to the
suppose important role o! human consciousness in the collapse o! the
wave!unction uring the C!reely willeD act o! quantum measurement.
6he solution to the parao0 o! ?ell nonlocality in 8inKowsKi spacetime
is to simply ecouple the ynamics o! the propagation o! quantum
nonlocal e!!ects1 i.e.1 the ynamics o! propagation o! quantum
correlations !rom the relativistic structure o! spacetime. Hn other wors1
simply !orbi quantum nonlocal in!luences !rom evoKing inertial Cor
gravitationalD e!!ects upon spacetime.
4ravitational ecoherence always occurs once 7enrose_s one-graviton
limit is reache while short o! this limit being reache e!!ects are too
small to be measurable. "ince nonlocal e!!ects o not transmit any
intersub5ective in!ormation1 then neither o these a!!ect the entropy o!
the quantum vacuum. 6he propagation o!1 !or e0ample1 two nonlocally
connecte spin { particles represents essentially a simple case o! the
sprea o! a coherent wavepacKet. 6his wavepacKet must unergo a
graual ecoherence i! it spreas through curve spacetime.
Puantum ineterminism an uncertainty seems to require that the
!luctuations an correlations unerpinning physical observables an
those unerlying the observer_s Knowlege processes CminD belong to
altogether istinct spaces. 6he act o! observation somehow brings
together these two spaces as though !or the very !irst time1 i.e.1 without
any prior connecting quantum !luctuations. 6o wit1 the physical system
sub5ect to observation an the observer o not resie within any
common space or continuum.
6he reason !or the e0istence o! the quantum mechanical wave!unction as
the complete escription o! a quantum mechanical system as an entity
altogether i!!erent !rom a Rphysical waveS propagating through
spacetime is pointe up by the counterintuitive quantum phenomenon o!
Rsel!-inter!erence1S i.e.1 two particles not neeing to be coincient in
time as they pass through the two slit apparatus in orer !or mutual
inter!erence to occur. Hs this sel!-inter!erence a necessary consequence
Cor necessarily lea toD !ully relativistic behavior o! the so-calle
RwavicleS o! the quantum two-slit e0periment? 6he wave!unction is an
abstract ob5ect though one that behaves a!ter the !ashion o! a physical
wave. Hn aition to peculiar sel!-inter!erence as a wave1 oes the
complementary particle e0hibit sel!-inter-penetration in certain
e0perimental setting?
Hs there a limit on how separate in time a two-slit e0periment particle
must be !or the quantum sel!-inter!erence pattern to isappear?
Hncoherent1 nonlocally connecte energy is 5ust one o! !our possible
Kins o! quantum energy1 the others being coherent1 nonlocally
connecte1 then coherent1 locally connecte an !inally1 incoherent1
locally connecte quantum energy.
>ob $N:* 6hen the .9A: answere >ob out o! the whirlwin [italics1
mine\1 an sai1 >ob $N:2 Fho is this that arKeneth counsel by wors
without Knowlege? >ob $N:$ 4ir up now thy loins liKe a manV !or H
will eman o! thee1 an answer thou me.
>ob $N:( Fhere wast thou when H lai the !ounations o! the earth
[italics1 mine\? :eclare1 i! thou hast unerstaning.
7salms 'N:2 ?e!ore your pots can !eel the thorns1 he shall taKe them
away as with a whirlwin1 both living1 an in his wrath.
7roverbs *):2' /s the whirlwin passeth1 so is the wicKe no more: but
the righteous is an everlasting !ounation.
;zeKiel *:( /n H looKe1 an1 behol1 a whirlwin came out o! the
north1 a great clou1 an a !ire in!oling itsel!1 an a brightness was
about it1 an out o! the mist thereo! as the colour o! amber1 out o! the
mist o! the !ire.
N:% -or they have sown the win1 an they shall reap the whirlwin.
6he roles o! each o! the !ollowing in the graual or iscontinous
egeneration o! the quantum state wave!unction into a statistically
mi0e state Cone possessing a e!inable entropyD1 i.e.1 consciousness1
!ree will1 environmental Copen systemD quantum ecoherence1 gravity
an inertia are liKely intimately interrelate.
Fhole1 hole1 holism1 heal1 health1 hale1 heil1 etc. are mutually relate to
the wor1 Rholy.S 6his is more than 5ust an etymological coincience.
6he unity o! the whole that was lost when the global symmetry o! the
system was broKen cannot ever be !ully recapture through the operation
or action o! Rcomple0 enoughS causal1 local-symmetry preserving1 i.e.1
merely RlocalS reactions an interactions. @o thing possesses unityV
rather1 a thing is an abstraction !rom a uni!ie process.
6he propagation spee !or in!ormation within the min must be in!inite
!or conscious states since otherwise the in!ormation criss-crossing the
gray matter o! the brain1 !or e0ample couln_t really substantively
contribute to the unity o! conscious states uring the moment that the
in!ormation is in transit. -or isn_t the motion or transmission o!
in!ormation istinctly i!!erent !rom the in!ormation so move or
transmitte? Hsn_t in!ormation itsel! an arti!act o! nonlocally
connecte1 i.e.1 instantaneous quantum processes? "o then is must be
some lower level version o! in!ormation such as ata that must be
Rmove arounS in some pattern corresponing to some quantities o!
in!ormation. ?ut why shoul we insist upon this synchronization o!
ob5ective an sub5ective temporality. H! sub5ective temporality is
presume to originate within ob5ective temporality1 say1 in accorance
with some unerlying physical processes transpiring in the brain1 then
there seems no logic in going on to suppose that the two processes1 those
o! ob5ective an sub5ective temporality are parallel.
H! ientity theories such as RphysicalismS1 c.!1 neural correlates of
consciousness =NCCA theory !rom the philosophy o! min were true1 it
woul be the present instantaneous chemical an physiological state o!
the brain with which one_s current state o! consciousness woul be
properly associate. C6his is inconsistent with the breaKown o!
timescale reuctionism an the avent o! multiimensional time
theories.D /lthough the in!ormation moving through the brain at that
precise moment woul have relevance !or !uture Csub5ective temporalD
states o! consciousness to be associate with corresponing !uture
Cob5ective temporalD states o! the iniviual_s brain. 6hese transmitting
in!ormation Cata1 reallyD are relevant to !uture states o! consciousness in
the sense o! in!orming change in the quantum nonlocally connecte1
uni!ie state o! the brain at some later moment. Fhatever the location
o! the in!ormation on their transmission tra5ectories within the brain in a
given instant might be1 that is what constitutes the brain_s state to which
a conscious state is associate. /n this woul be the case !or all
previous instants o! time when each pacKet o! in!ormation is at an earlier
stage in its Rtransmission.S "o the ientity theory o! conscious states
oesn_t really allow the causal CphysiologicalD processes in the brain to
have relevance !or instantaneous states o! consciousness. CHt is oubt!ul
whether the =eisenberg ,ncertainty 7rinciple1 or a !uture generalization
o! this principle woul permit the e0istence o! such Rinstantaneous
conscious statesS1 an it is such a possibility !or instantaneous conscious
states which is require by the rigorous mental-physical parallelism o!
the ientity theory o! min. Fhen the quantum energy uncertainty o!
the brain becomes large enough1 the wavelength associate with the
complementary time uncertainty becomes consierably smaller than the
global imensions o! the brain so that the !ull integration o! the brain_s
quantum energy uncertainty1 which in turn reuces this uncertainty Cnow
unerstoo as entropyD shall require at least some quantum-nonlocal1
i.e.1 instantaneous connectivity. ?ut the RmessagesS circulating in the
brain never Ractually get where they_re goingS i! there are no uni!ie or
nonlocally connecte brain states to serve as clearing house1 so to speaK
in orer !or the messages Rto !inally be receive.S 6his is why we say
that it is the nonlocally connecte vacuum state within which the brain is
embee that constitutes the brain_s actual state1 not the pattern o!
Rcirculating neural currentsS that might e0ist within the brain at any
particular moment.
8aKing sense o! nonsense vs. maKing one_s own Kin o! sense o! some
other_s sense. /nalogy between reams an religion. ?oth are
attempting to maKe one Kin o! sense out o! ata that maKe another Kin
o! sense. 6his is in contrast to the sKeptical view o! reams as the
reshu!!ling o! the contents in a temporary bu!!er that were !iltere out o!
conscious perception uring waKing conscious e0perience. Fhat then
is the sKeptical view o! religious belie!? 6he collective consciousness_
rationalistic attempts to maKe sense o! the irrational promptings o! a
collective unconscious1 which is !unamentally mythically structure.
?ut i! religion is to be ultimately !oune upon an illusion Cin -reu_s
senseD1 then the ata
/s state elsewhere within this te0t1 R/ particle with mass such as a F
boson represents an e0cite state o! the quantum vacuum1 which
there!ore must ecay e0ponentially. / massless particle is not an
e0citation o! the vacuum. R Hs this to say that the vacuum only
possesses mass-equivalent energy when in an Re0cite state?S C9nly
boun states o! matter may be Re0citeS?D 6he inertial mass o! the
vacuum is solely in terms o! this vacuum_s surprise e0cite states. 9n
the other han1 we might say that so-calle Runsurprise e0cite statesS
o! the vacuum on_t really constitute bona !ie Re0citationsS o! the
vacuum at all. 6his must be ae to the other mental qualities o! the
quantum vacuum such as its quantum nonlocality1 uncertainty1
complementarity1 etc. R"urprise e0citationS o! the vacuum might be
equate with a suen reuction in the quantum uncertainty o! the
vacuum an representing a given quantity o! in!ormation. 6he
in!ormation content o! the reuce uncertainty must be relate to the
irreversibility in the relative shi!t in the magnitues o! complementary
=eisenberg uncertainties. Hn this way1 in!ormation1 uncertainty Calong
with acausalityD1 entropy an memory are seen to be importantly
mutually relate.
H! we must taKe 8ono_s gratuite_ principle seriously1 then no iniviual
gene is either RgooS or RbaS per se1 that is1 in abstraction !rom the
conte0t o! a particular gene regulatory networK proviing that gene with
its RmeaningS1 its current moe o! e0pression1 either in the !orm o! a
particular set o! proteins or as instructions to other genes !or their moe
o! e0pression as proteins1 etc. "o calle ReleteriousS genes may have1
earlier in the history o! the 4A@ been per!ectly proper though with the
slow evolution o! the 4A@ cybernetic control system o! gene
e0pression1 such genes may have come to be interprete as Rba1S much
the way a popular politician can !all out o! !avor when a government
aministration or even a system o! government changes.
Ourt 4eel state two !unamental propositions in his Hncompleteness
6heorem: the logical consistency o! a system cannot be prove !rom
within that system an any consistent logical system will possess
theorems that cannot be emonstrate to be true or !alse within that
system1 moreover1 each consistent system will possess true theorems that
cannot be proven true within the system as well as !alse theorems that
cannot be proven !alse within the system. /ny consistent logical
system then possesses a topology to its lanscape o! true1 !alse an
uneciable propositions. :omains o! true1 !alse an uneciable
theorems characterize this topology. 6hese separate regions1 omains or
islans o! theorem clusters may only be brige through the operation o!
logic-transcening mathematical intuition. ;ach omain o! true
theorems is logically inconsistent. :omains o! logically consistent
systems contain within them true1 !alse an uneciable theorems.
6here appears to be a !ractal structuring o! mathematical theorems into
omains o! consistent an inconsistent systems o! logic. 6here appears
to be a !ractal structuring o! true an !alse theorems within consistent
systems o! logic. 9nly inconsistent systems o! logic possess only
provable true theorems an isprovable !alse theorems. 6his remins us
o! how relations escribable by i!!erential equations cannot span spaces
o! multiple topologies. .ogic is always system-speci!ic an so cannot
iniscriminately brige istinct systems o! logic. 9nly Aeason may o
this. Aeason1 which inclues intuition1 transcens mere logic. "pace1
time an spacetime are only particular e0amples o! intuition.
Aeason1 incluing as it oes the !aculty o! intuition with the !orm o!
spacetime being only one among many possible !orms o! intuition as
such1 woul not be e0pecte to be !ormalizable in terms o! eterministic
!unctions o! some set o! spacetime variables1 i.e.1 in terms o! a set o!
i!!erential equations.
-ractal geometric patterns are the best visual representation !or a
phenomenon that actually cannot be picture1 i.e.1 e0act sel!-similarity1 a
reay e0ample o! which is a logical system that properly e0hibits its own
sel!-consistency within itsel!. "uch a system coul never be constructe
an so cannot be analyze properly in terms o! a construction1 which is
to say such a system cannot be given a complete !ormal escription1 that
is1 a !ormal escription cannot capture the subtlety o! the systems real
structure. / !ractal then may be thought o! as a metaphor !or a sel!-
aware system.
6hat which is apiece with the very groun o! being cannot itsel! be an
arti!act possessing a beginning an an en.
3onsciousness1 much pai lip service to1 is something we o not possess
any real concept o!1 rather1 we possess an intuition o! consciousness as
the groun o! e0perience an not merely a metaphysical euction o!
consciousness as being such a groun. @or o we possess a irect
e0perience o! our own consciousness. ;0perience is inee our being.
"o the groun o! e0perience Cbeing !or usD o! which we have neither
actual e0perience nor conceptualization !or we nonetheless irectly
intuit. 6his is the origin !or both the concept o! an the belie! in 4o1
since the most we can possibly mean by such a term is the groun o! our
e0perience1 rather than the groun o! being itsel!. 6he substance o! our
belie! in a groun o! being is that which is the groun o! our e0perience.
8y !aith in 4o is secretly my !aith that the groun o! my e0perience is
o! one substance with1 as it were the groun o! e0perience as such. Hn
this way1 !ollowing 7lantinga_s thinKing1 belie! in 4o is intimately
boun up with belie! in the reality o! other mins an secretly1 too with a
belie! in the intersub5ective etermination o! ob5ectivity so that this
common groun o! e0perience !or min as such is ientical with the
groun o! being itsel!1 i.e.1 4o.
?ut is it necessarily the case that true theorems not provable !rom within
a given system o! logic themselves have something to say about the
logical consistency o! that particular system?
Hn the same manner that the =eisenberg uncertainty principle implies
that particles o not !ollow eterministic paths1 i.e.1 tra5ectories through
spacetime1 the min processes ata not in accorance with a
eterministic computation1 that is1 conscious thought oes not !ollow a
tra5ectory in any e!inable state space. 6o say that the min oes not
occupy states within a state space implies that there can be no e0haustive
set o! quantum numbers speci!ying the brain_s quantum mechanical state
that is at once ientical with any conscious mental state.
/n absolute re!erence !rame is require i! all egeneracy_s o! physical
observables are to be removable1 in other wors1 a re!erence !rame must
be available that is not Rsuspene in the voiS1 but attache to some
RberocK !ounation.S
/t the eepest an subtlest levels o! the min_s operation1 all
egeneracy_s o! physical observables have given way an in which the
complete set o! quantum observables1 i.e.1 quantum numbers have been
speci!ie Call egeneracy_s have been splitD. /t this level1 the
egeneracy o! consciousness itsel! passes away. ?ut what e0actly is the
meaning o! egeneracy in this Rultimate observable?S Hs the creation o!
iniviual consciousnesses e!!ecte through the splitting o! the
egeneracy o! general or universal consciousness?
Hs the i!!erence o! iniviual consciousnesses aKin to that by which
alternate universes o! many worls quantum theory are istinguishe?
6his is not liKely because the number o! possible entities woul be in
this case multiplie to an e0tent that the groun o! these entities woul
be e0hauste by the being o! these entities themselves1 that is1 the
groun o! any given entity woul 5ust be the ynamics o! all o! the other
entities.
6he enless reprocessibility o! the ata o! human e0perience1 aKin to the
Runlimite semiosisS o! "aussurian linguistics1 points up the necessary
!actor o! the will in the etermination or !i0ing o! ata into a !orm as
in!ormation. =ere will is an aitional !actor1 either supplie or not1
epening upon a !ree choice by a conscious iniviual1 is require !or
the !inal etermination o! ata as contents o! conscious e0perience.
6here is no aequately large an complete set o! conitions su!!icient to
prouce a eterminate conscious e0perience in the absence o! a personal
act o! interpretation. 6his Runlimite semiosisS o! e0perience oes not
presuppose a rational basis !or e0perience such that e0perience is
intersub5ective in that e0perience is !ormalizable.
Qd
/s ?alzac note in
his 4hysiologie u 2arriage" R6he mystery o! the transubstantiation o!
ieas1 originates perhaps in the instinctive consciousness that we have o!
a vocation lo!tier than our present estiny.S ?ut it seems that the
!ormalizable component is all that the iniviual may o!!er up !or
combination with the e0perience o! others so as to be reprocesse
together with others_ e0perience. =ow can the unique1
incommensurable component o! the iniviual_s e0perience contribute to
the higher reprocessing o! live human e0perience as such? 6here is a
common enominator to human e0perience which is either !ormal or
substantial in the conte0t o! this iscussion1 both interpretations leaing
at once to the question o! whether sel!-consciousness is the structure or
the substance o! e0perience.
6he western notion o! 4o is consistent with the notion that there is
some Rultimate reprocessing o! the ata o! human e0perience.S 6he
eastern notion o! eity or o! ultimate ?eing is that the ata o! e0perience
are open-ene with respect to interpretation with no ultimate limit !or
the reprocessing o! these ata.
6he longer is the conscious human li!espan1 then the smaller must
become the energy uncertainty !orming the be o! !luctuations with
which human e0istence is sustaine. 9ne way !or energy uncertainty to
be reuce without an associate reuction o! the quantity o! energy as
such is !or a progressively greater number o! quantum correlations to
crop up within the uncertain energy. Hn this way the temporality o! the
uncertain energy becomes progressively more internal in nature. 6he
internality o! temporality1 i.e.1 its non-public or non-intersub5ective
nature is what characterizes the temporality o! conscious e0perience.
6here seems to be a istinction here between what we might call
nonlocal versus local energy uncertainty.
3ontemplation o! .eibniz_ principle o! Rthose conitions su!!icient !or
the creation o! a thing are necessary !or its sustainmentS may give us
eeper appreciation o! stability an !lu0 as 5ust i!!erently appearing
moes o! a same unerlying process. .eibniz_ creation principle helps
us to appreciate1 !or e0ample1 the !act that a human genome that woul
sustain a human being !or a typical li!e span o!1 say1 *))) years must
possess a signi!icantly i!!erent structure !rom one sustaining Rthe same
human personS in mortal e0istence !or a mere *)) years.
Fhat relation o the above several paragraphs have to the phenomenon
o! 3hrist_s resurrection?
Fhy shoul this be so? 7erhaps this is so because the groun o!
e0istence1 e.g.1 the quantum vacuum meiates the passage o! time an so
structures erive !rom an sustaine by this vacuum1 an which
e0change energy an in!ormation with this vacuum cannot themselves
be ini!!erent to the passage o! time1 regarless on which time scale o!
the structure_s unerlying processes we e0amine/consier.
6here is not RtweaKS to the human genome that coul possibly e0ten
the human li!e span by an orer o! magnitue or more without proucing
at the same time a lot o! other unintene e!!ects upon the ynamics o!
genomic e0pression mani!esting on all possible levels1 e.g.1 behavioral1
psychological1 immunological1 etc.
Hn an eternal universe1 c.!.1 =awKing an =artle1 there shoul be no real
istinction between the ,niverse_s initial an bounary conitions.
"uch a universe woul constitute a sel!-containe or close system o!
spacetime in which irreversible processes woul be unKnown1 i.e.1 such
processes as consciousness woul be altogether e0clue !rom such a
universe.
6he quantum mechanical RmechanismS o! interaction-!ree measurement
its necessary involvement o! counter!actuals in the etermination o! the
results o! these types o! measurements surely is relevant to the
istinction o! mere thought !rom action within the conte0t o!
philosophical iscussions o! the issue o! !ree will1 c.!.1 Iaiman et al.
6he inherent an ineraicable ambiguity o! sense ata means that there
can be no real istinction between simulation1 i.e.1 virtual reality an so-
calle real reality. / master cra!tsman o! virtual reality simulation
might have authore the penultimate moulation o! the sense ata !rom
which H construct my perceptions o! an allege e0ternal worl1 though
this oes nothing to mitigate the !act that the construction materials
seize upon by the IA cra!tsman are equally sub5ectively perceive
mani!estations within this cra!tsman_s min. 6his is all to say that the
substance o! e0perience is always an universally the same L as
"antayana has sai1 reality is 5ust a ream though one uner control o!
the ob5ect. "o waKing an ream consciousnesses are on a completely
equal !ooting with one another as e0amples o! structure consciousness.
:uring an appro0imately *) minute iscussion in the 3amp 8onteith
ca!eteria with "-3 =enricKs o! 3arl >ung_s theories o! iniviuation
an the notion o! the inversion o! personality type once the mili!e point
is crosse1 3aptain "holtis walKe up with a bottle o! nonalcoholic white
wine. 6he label o! the wine was R3arl >ung.S 6his occurre on >uly
2$1 2))$.
/nother striKing coincience H observe on my ($
r
birthay. H ha been
staying over at my parents_ house uring a !our-ay leave !rom the
/rmy. H emerge into the !amily room where my parents were watching
television on the early morning o! my ($
r
birthay. 6he !irst thing H
hear was a woman on 6I saying1 RH_m ($ L that_s olTS 6he woman
was Oate ?ushnell1 who was promoting here new booK on the R-o0 an
-riensS morning show.
6he quantity o! -reu_s psychic energy neee to atten to the etails o!
goings on in one_s neighborhoo is ientical to the quantity o! this
energy require to prouce this same level o! etail. 6his is true !or the
happenings associate with both animate an inanimate ob5ects an
processes. 6he more energy one puts into the e!!ort o! attening to a
conversation1 the more structure an meaning oes the conversation
appear to taKe on. Hs it possible to tricK the subconscious so as to catch
it in a lie or logical contraiction? 3an a stream rise higher than its
source? Ht seems that the secret motive or intent o! postmoern
criticism is to pull a maneuver aKin to this. :econstruction is an
attempt to intelligently view a creative worK through the eyes o! the
schizophrenic an to partially issolve the bons o! association o! ieas
that onesel! an the creative worK_s author share1 which both have
inherite !rom a time prior to the evelopment o! each_s critical
!aculties. =owever1 this e0ercise Co! econstructionD secretly
presupposes that the associative networK use by the econstructive
thinKer in critiquing a worK is somehow less a sociolinguistically an
culturally etermine tissue o! interpretation etermining1 i.e.1 biasing
relationships than is or was that associative networK !rom which the
author or artist etermine his worK. 6he econstructionist states that
Rthere is no /rchimeean point o! re!erenceS !rom which a worK may be
prouce or criticize1 but ens up by !ailing to hee his own
amonition. 6he !ollowing ?eatles song lyric points up this situation
!or postmoern critics nicely - Rshe acts liKe she_s in a play an is
anyway.S 6here is a secret !aith in the intuition that the peculiar nature
o! sel!-re!erential consciousness o!!ers us some hope !or the
econstructionist or postmoern critic to in this way Rpull himsel! up by
his own bootstraps1S e.g.1 escape himsel! the very same econstructive
critical technique that he applies everywhere to the creative worKs o!
others.
Hn a universe without ivine being as ultimate groun an re!erence !or
all suborinate levels o! being1 manKin shoul have never come to the
broaly scope critical awareness that he now en5oys. Hs there some
basis !or critiquing a culture an its arti!acts beyon that provie by the
critic_s own culture? 6he supposition that there is such a trans-cultural
critical perspective presupposes such a thing as ob5ectivity that
transcens mere intersub5ectivity1 i.e.1 ivine being. Fhat cause
8anKin to become alienate !rom himsel!? 6he beginning o!
civilization an urban e0istence?
6he tren o! cultural evelopment1 that is1 o! the trans!ormation o!
means into ens acts in the opposing irection to the line o! evelopment
characterize by a tren o! ens being converte into means1 e.g.1 art
becoming propagana1 music use !or purposes o! meitation or the
setting o! moo within commercial avertisements1 the human act o!
love being trans!orme into pornography1 businesses being !oune !or
investment purposes1 slavery1 training house pets as attacK animals1 etc.
6he iscovery o! irreversible particle reactions an interactions1 e.g.1
Oaon ecay1 bespeaKs possession by the ,niverse or spacetime o! some
Kin o! memory.
6he limit to nonlocal connectivity o! wave!unctions is e!ine by the
7lancK length as limit to the 3ompton wavelength o! the entangle
systems1 e.g.1 photons. 6his limit to nonlocal connectivity may also be
unerstoo in terms o! the computational limits o! the quantum vacuum
supporting the e0istence o! quantum systems that are a !irst Cbut not an
onlyD mani!estation o! it. /ny larger collection o! photons must
Cspontaneously?D breaK up into separate though interacting omains an
thus cannot be represente by a single1 pure state quantum mechanical
wave!unction. 6his is the e0treme limit o! quantum coherence1 which
is e!ine by the 7lancK length Cor1 alternatively by the 7lancK time1
mass1 ensity1 etc.D. 9! course1 the capacity o! the quantum vacuum to
support quantum coherent systems may also be e0ceee by an
unlimite set o! more loosely nonlocally connecte systems. /ctually1
such systems comprise by a hierarchy o! imper!ectly nonlocally
connecte subsystems constitute !ar more comple0 systems than o what
might be terme 7lancK-nonlocally-connecte systems1 or 7lancK-
coherent systems. 6he comple0ity o! a system may not be constitute
so much by the number or ensity o! its quantum coherent component
parts as it is by virtue o! comple0ity o! the process o! ecoherence an
recoherence o! the system1 i.e.1 comple0ity o! the systems reprocessing
o! itsel! as it interacts simultaneously with the in!ormation o! quantum
vacuum an the stress-momentum-energy o! the vacuum o! public
spacetime.
7icture Oau!!man_s rugge !itness lanscapes in which high peaKs
separate by eep valleys represent . . .
6he great cohesiveness o! the genome o! success!ul/viable organisms in
terms o! the coherence o! the ynamic protein structures constituting the
organisms_ various subsystems Cincluing the overarching system o! the
organisms as whole entitiesD suggests also great coherence o! genetic
sequences that have e0iste !orever in the bacKgroun o! virtual1
hereto!ore untrie an unteste genetic sequences. 6he path o!
evolutionary evelopment implie !or this bacKgroun o! virtual viable
genetic base pair sequences is too comple0 to have all along con!ine
itsel! to the single temporal imension subsume within public Cor
ob5ectiveD spacetime. CH can intuitively see the !unamental truth
implie by this assertion though H have yet to !in a proper speci!ic
e0pression !or this insight.D 6he integration o! somewhat separate lines
o! aaptation through the interbreeing o! hereto!ore non-interbreeing
subspecies into a new hybri subspecies is an e0ample o! 5ust the Kin o!
integration o! orinary evolutionary processes that seems to require a
escription in terms o! physical processes in multiimensional time. /
!uther e0ample o! higher imensional time is the evolution o! the
cybernetic control system represente by the networK o! higher orer
regulatory genes. Hn other wors1 in the above particular case1 one
subspecies i not phylogenetically trans!orm into the other1 nor i
either trans!orm in this way into the hybri subspecies. Aather the new
hybri subspecies was brought into being through irect e0pression o!
an altogether new genome. 6here is logic at worK in the evolution o!
se0ually reproucing species in which istinct varieties o! viable
subspecies when crosse almost inevitably result in new hybris that are
also viable to more or less the same egree. 6here is a eeper reason
!or this than can be accounte !or using the :arwinian moel o! natural
selection o! ranom mutations. 6his is quite the contrary situation to
that in thermoynamics in which say1 two liquis or two gases are mi0e
together an in which the resultant entropies are always greater that the
entropy o! the sum o! the component entropies.
Qd
:oes se0ual selection
then require the nonranomness o! mutation?
:ecember 2)**
6he linear1
causal-eterministic time Cone imensional timeD oes not appear
su!!iciently rich to contain the ynamic mechanism unerlying the sel!-
organizing properties o! atoms an molecules1 which pushe the
evolution o! biological comple0ity !orwar prior to the avent o! a unit
o! hereity1 e.g.1 primitive A@/1 :@/1 etc. uring the !irst billion years
o! chemical evolution. 6he 3ambrian e0plosion an the many suen
leaps !orwar in biological evolution1 which have occurre since Cthe
allege reason !or an amittely sparse !ossil recor o! species-
transitional changeD hint at the e0istence o! bi!urcations an limit cycles
in higher imensions o! time than one. 7erhaps in the same way that the
brain requires higher imensions o! time to e!!ect the temporal
integration unerlying the appearance o! the relatively small Rtime
bubbleS o! the Especious presentE as well as a groune1 conte0tualize
consciousness Csel! + other mins + worl +/- 4oD1 biological evolution
must involve higher imensions o! temporal change1 which e!y any
possible causal analysis.
"eptember 2)*$
6he genome_s an in turn the
phenome_s reaction to the inavertent changes to the molecular structure
o! :@/ an chromatin ue to ranom environmental insults1 e.g.1
cosmic ray striKes seems analogous to how ranom elements such as
e0ternal souns can be reaily incorporate into scenes within an
unconscious person_s ream. 6here is the creative groun o! the
reamer_s subconscious that must be prime or prepare in some way to
respon to unanticipate changes o! input.
Ht seems that any time two organisms success!ully interbree with one
another an prouce !ertile hybri o!!spring that these o!!spring are
almost always as a bonus viable iniviuals. "o the separate lines o!
progressive aaptation o! !unctionality by separate breeing populations
can be easily brought bacK together an these separately evelope
!unctionalities integrate in the enowment o! hybri organisms.
/lthough certain genomes might be positively unsuccess!ul within a
given environment1 the crossbreeing o! two such genomes might
nonetheless prove highly aapte to that given environment. Hs there
any reason to suppose that this couln_t be the case because o! some
intrinsic linearity o! the genotype_s manner o! being e0presse as
phenotype? 4iven the conte0t sensitivity o! the organism to its
environment1 particularly in the case o! RemergentS socio-culturally
avance environments such linearity in the genome_s mechanism o!
e0pression oesn_t even seem e!inable in theory much less a !act o!
biological necessity.
:eath given its !ullest interpretation as complete an total separation
!rom ?eing CAealityD implies that the !ormer e0istence o! that being
which has now become nonbeing Cthe question o! whether ?eing can
even participate in temporality is an important question hereD was
ultimately illusory CanywayD in the sense that the groun o! ?eing
Cgroun o! being-as-suchD an the groun o! the particular being in
question were never with one another continuous. "o the ?eing o! 4o
Cinterprete as the 4roun o! ?eingD an the being o! the iniviual
must be continuous1 that is1 o! a single substance i! that iniviual shall
be suppose to possess real being.
Hntegrating an reprocessing the biographical ata o! the billions o!
human beings who have ever live on the planet provies opportunities
!or transcenent beings Climite by their own in!inite an transcenental
natureD to learn about the realm o! limitation1 i.e.1 the spectrum o! being
starting 5ust below in!inite being an e0tening to the human realm Can
perhaps below the level o! human e0istence1 provie the octrine o!
reincarnation is !unamentally valiD. ?ut how oes this irreversibly
prouce1 highly conte0t epenent e0periential ata actually become
accessible to goliKe beings L without these beings becoming the sub5ect
o! e0perience themselves?
6hose manipulating the 8atri0 must also !ace the question o! whether
they1 too are living within a 8atri0. 6his is again the problem o! the
etiology o! appearance1 the solution to which is the amission that there
is not a veriical set o! appearances1 i.e.1 the question how Rthings really
appearS is meaningless an the groun o! being there!ore is transcenent
o! all appearance.
Qd
H! the process o! abstraction were not irreversible an
noneterministic1 then the problem o! the etiology o! appearance coul
be supplie with a neat solution L uno the sequence o! the suppression
o! provisionally irrelevant etails within the proper complete escription
o! reality in orer to arrive at the Rcorrect set o! appearances.S
8ay 2)**
.iKe the inventing o! etails when recounting a partial recollection o!
events1 the new entities pointe to by the combination o! abstract
concepts1 each o! which was originally !orme through the
suppression/!orgetting o! concrete etails Cso as to !orm a classD
bespeaKs a synergism tantamount to a creativity o! nature inspire by the
creative intelligence o! the theorizing researcher into nature.
Fhat i!1 on the other han1 abstraction is reversible though the sequence
o!
6he brain possesses1 i.e.1 prouces no conscious states o! its own1 but
5ust acts as a Kin o! comple0 set o! !ilters.
6hese !ilters are applie to
-a !inite set o! in!ormation
-an in!inite set o! in!ormation
=ere consciousness possesses a eterminate latent structure.
6he brain prouces no conscious states o! its own1 but engeners
structures within pree0istent consciousnessCesD.
Ht creates these structures by
-inucing a reaction in pree0istent consciousness
wholly etermine by the brain action
only in part etermine by brain action
"pacetime structure is1 o! course a eterministic structure. 6he
curvature1 !or e0ample1 o! spacetime Cor o! a spacetimeD is only evient
!rom the perspective available to an observer taKing up position !urther
up the 8inKowsKi worlline. 6he structure1 e.g.1 curvature o! spacetime
at some still not present Cto any observerD is ineterminate.
Fhat observational or empirical evience woul be available to us that
the global spacetime o! the ,niverse is unergoing its own temporal
evolution? 3onte0t-!ree global temporal evolution is really a
contraiction in terms !or without conte0t there is nothing relative to
which temporal change can be ine0e.
7rocessing o! the ata o! consciousness that taKes place within
orthogonal higher temporal imensions relative to the temporal
imension o! so-calle public spacetime taKes places entirely outsie o!
this public spacetime though when strong gravitational !iels a present1
these higher temporal imension become no longer strictly orthogonal to
the ob5ective timeline. Fhat shoul be the implications o! this -
paranormal an psychic phenomena or other violations o! causality1 e.g.1
mani!estations within public spacetime o! what shoul otherwise have
been strictly sub5ective contents o! iniviuals_ imaginations? Fe
shoul also e0pect an entanglement o! otherwise istinct metalevels o!
conscious e0perience to result as well.
Puantum measurements introuce ranom phase !actors into the
eigen!unctions o! a pure state wave!unction1 which result in a
estruction o! inter!erence patterns. Hs the estruction o! a istinct
pattern o! quantum inter!erence characterize by orthogonalization o!
the components o! the wave!unction? ?ut then in the presence o! a
gravitational potential shouln_t an orthogonalize wave!unction ecay
into a statistically mi0e state in which the wave!unction_s components
ri!t bacK into a mutually nonorthogonal1 statistically mi0e state1 once
again?
Hs the in!ormation containe within the bounaries o! =eisenberg
quantum uncertainty o! 5ust subtle enough nature to be consistent with a
egeneracy o! this quantum uncertainty with respect to the publicly
veri!iable actions o! past e0perimenters/observers? Hn other wors1 the
publicly veri!iable actions o! iniviuals are part o! the intersub5ective
recor o! eterministic spacetime. ?ut are we saying here that the
evolution o! the sub5ective timelines o! conscious iniviuals are
altogether inepenent o! the temporal evolution implie by public
spacetime? 3ertainly there must e0ist some ynamical commun-ication
an interaction between sub5ective an ob5ective worllines?
9therwise1 there is no basis !or saying that certain mins possess
particular emboiments.
6here is not reason !or a mechanism o! concealing the !act o! the
epiphenomenal nature o! conscious intention is everything occurring in
the min is also epiphenomenal.
9n the other han1 i! the mechanism o! inertia is such that the vacuum
oes not gravitate1 i.e.1 gravitational sources must possess nonzero
energy e0pectation values an mere energy !luctuations o! the vacuum
cannot act as gravity sources1 then this woul imply that spacetime
*
structure is etermine by the istribution Cwithin spacetime
2
D o! the
energy ensity Can current ensityD e0pectation values. /n the
e0pectation values are classical physical quantities governe by
eterministic equations o! motion1 e.g.1 .a4rangian mechanics1
=amiltonian mechanics1 etc. 6his woul suggest that min1 which is
not sub5ect to the strictures o! causal eterminism cannot coincie in its
action with spacetime structure.
Qd
Fhat enlarges reality is not limite by it.
6he phenomenon o! Rprecognition o! willS1 i.e.1 will_s precognition o!
itsel! in the !uture points up the !act that their is a subtler !orm o! mental
content than what we shall term here R;instein in!ormationS1 that is1
in!ormation limite by the metric o! public spacetime. 7recognitive
will acts inepenently o! not only the mechanism o! temporal
evolution1 but also acts outsie the !abric o! historically etermine
temporality. 6his is because precognition by will o! its !uture selves
involves irect intuition by will o! itsel! at a later time in which the
hypothetical an the real !uture remain unistinguishe an are on a
mutual equal !ooting.
6he higher processing o! human e0perience implie by the e0istence o!
an R/Kashic memoryS1 c.!.1 writings o! ;gar 3ayce1 is very analogous
to the !urther processing o! ata by a networK !orme by connecting a
set o! stan-alone systems each o! which contains ata store in their
local memories. H! the ata are elete prior to the !ormation o! the
computer networK1 then all o! the ata which woul have resulte !rom
the networKe processing o! the local ata are lost. 6his is precisely the
preicament !or human e0perience in which the ata collecte by each
iniviual uring the course o! his biography are lost through the eath
o! the iniviual an issolution o! his neural networK Con which1
allegely the ata o! his li!e e0perience were store throughout li!eD.
3urrent an recent research into human memory appear to suggest that
all that is really store within the con!ines o! the human sKull are
memory traces" not actual memories. 6hese memory traces act aKin to
Hnternet web aress pointers or weblinKs. 9ne breaKown o! this
analogy is that in the case o! computers connecte via the Hnternet1 the
web servers possess a local physical aress Cin aition to a cyber-
aressD 5ust as o the personal computers connecte via these web
servers. Hn the case o! brain memory traces1 the memories to which they
point in FeblinK !ashion possess no spatiotemporal location though
perhaps a location within either phase or momentum space1 etc.
9ctober
2)*$
H! neural computation an encoing o! in!ormation actually taKes
place at the level o! tubulin imer protein electron currents an
electromagnetic !iels such that the brainGs activity at this level is at least
in part quantum nonlocal1 then the principles o! quantum entanglement
an conservation o! quantum in!ormation applie to the above rawn
analogy suggest that the brainGs memory EweblinKsE o not nee to have
any local presence1 but may be encoe nonlocally in the !unamental
quantum !iel or at least in the banwith subspectrum o! this !iel
corresponing to a particular iniviualGs consciousness. 6he possibility
o! the reprocessing o! the ata o! iniviual human e0perience into
larger transhuman or transpersonal meanings woul then require a
rationality o! the unerlying !unamental quantum !iel or quantum
vacuum.
9ctober 2)*$
HnvoKing the clou computing moel1 each iniviual
consciousness is capable o! accessing local ata store within it_s brain
qua ReviceS1 as well as accessing nonlocal in!ormation qua RclouS.
;ach iniviual_s consciousness woul be structure by only the ata
an in!ormation containe within its own ReviceS an RclouS1
respectively. 6he iniviualize clou provies the conte0t !or the
interpretation o! local ata. 6he clou in contraistinction woul be
uni!ie although open-ene an so in some sense infinite. 9n this
moel there woul be an unlimite number o! available in!inite
subspectrums o! in!ormation banwith to support the operation o! each
trans!inite or universal min. 6he question arises how all universal
mins !it into the category o! RminS.
June 2014 eml=
In multiverse cosmological theory, the number of possible
universes vastly outstrips the number of possible distinct human brains
by perhaps 10**100 or more. According to the anthropic cosmological
principle, applied to multiverse theory, the fne tuning of the dozen or so
fundamental physical constants, e.g., Bohr magneton, electron charge,
mass, fne structure constant, magnetic permittivity, etc.
for compatibility of a universe with Carbon-based life would be very
much less restrictive than it would have to be to fne tune for the
emergence of any given individual consciousness. So say, Carbon-
based life would require fne tuning of these constants to six decimal
places, which Ziad, Mike or Chris-based life, i.e., their
consciousnesses would require perhaps fne tuning up to 12 decimal
places or more! For example, Ziad made it here, so obviously the
physical constants must have been fne tuned to the greater of the two in
precision. But here is the catch...the lesser precision of fne tuning
required for Carbon-based life is automatically present just by rounding
of the much greater precision required for Ziad's mind to exist. So if
Ziad exists, then everybody else comes along for the ride as human
manifestations in Ziad's world, but the above fne tuning requirements
for other minds are always less restrictive, e.g., 8 decimal places, and
automatically come along for the ride (as "also rans" from the necessary
rounding down of Ziad's higher physical constant fne tuning precision
requirement of 12 decimal places). Clearly there is something wrong
with multiverse theory and its attached anthropic cosmological principle,
which is the latest weapon in the New Atheists' arsenal of Christian
critique. But the critique of universal mind comes at a very high cost...a
reductio ad absurdum of our common sense notion of other minds. This
is especially true since, without a coherent concept of or general
category of consciousness such that each of our minds can be distinct
instantiations of mind, the reality of other minds only makes sense if
consciousness is a transcendental concept in a Universal Mind. It turns
out that atheism is just half-baked solipsism. So the only reason to not be
a solipsist if one is already an atheist (given that one has only ever
known one's own sensory and cognitive states) is an irrational one of not
following the logic of atheism to its very sad, logical conclusion!
6he question arises as to why no in!rastructure shoul e0ist permitting
the integration an higher processing CreprocessingD o! iniviual human
biographical ata1 say through some appropriate irect physical
connection being mae between the neural networKs o! various
iniviuals_ brains. Foul there be a translation gap i! the implie
irect connections between brains were e!!ecte1 or may we presume the
secret e0istence o! some intersprache o! nerve ata impulses universally
share by all neural networKs o! the type !orming the human brain?
7erhaps there can be no real collective integration o! biographic
in!ormation1 5ust separate reconte0tualizing o! each iniviual_s
biographic ata in light o! the availability o! such ata !rom all other
human beings who have ever live?1 c.!.1 7lantinga_s R7roblem o! 9ther
8ins.S
Fe are as "artre says1 Rhurle into e0istenceS rather than having merely
Rplace one_s toe in the water1S because no merely !inite limitation
applie to the in!inite can succee in proucing a !inite ScreationS an
no genuinely positive entity1 i.e.1 emergent entity may be prouce
through a negation or series o! negations o! some other negation Cor
series o! negationsD. 6his is simply to assert that nothing is create
!rom a pree0istent !inite orer because a !inite orer presupposes by
virtue o! its simple e0istence all the possible permutations o!
combinations o! its con!igurable elements. Hn such a system there can be
no emergence but merely an unerscoring o! pree0istent possibility1 i.e.1
mani!estation.
Qd
/ll entities appearing !rom out o! such a system o!
possibility are epiphenomenal.
6he ethics o! interpersonal interaction are much sharper when all is not
Rsecretly one.S Ht_s very easy to Rlove one_s brother as one_s sel!S. 6hat_s
5ust one short step up !rom pure narcissism. Aather what constitutes real
love is love o! the genuinely alien an other1 i.e.1 the love of the other as
other. 6here is no love in the love o! sel! Cas sel!D1 only in the love o! sel!
as other1 in line with the other_s love o! one_s sel! as his other.
9ctober 2)*$
epi=
/ren_t metaphysics an ethics richer an the appearance o! novelty in
the realm o! ;0istence less hollow1 i! ?eing is a 8any rather than a 9ne?
:oes ;vil then become a Kin o! ystopian rationality o! unintene
consequences1 rather than an active or positive principle o! baness?
"in is what pushes 4o outsie o! =is Rcom!ort zone.S "in is what
results !rom 4o_s attempt to recoup himsel! !rom out o! his own utter
!ragmentation o! =imsel!. "acri!ice le to the aboriginal !ragmentation
o! the 4ohea an sacri!ice is the only thing1 which shall reconstitute
the 4ohea anew. 4o lea by the iea o! 8an1 which constitutes
creation1 is replace then by 8an le by the iea o! 4o Cwhich
constitutes reemption L but reemption not o! 8an1 but o! 4o
=imsel!D
3hoice in this li!e lays the in!rastructure !or choices in the ne0t.
H thinK min an matter really two istinct things an not secretly 5ust
mani!estations o! pro5ections o! some single unerlying substance. /n
!or this reason1 emboiment has to be worKe out through a process o!
negotiation taKing place between min an matter. H! min is itsel!
essentially a unity rather than a plurality1 then it_s not possible there!ore
!or emboiment o! min to occur initially at any level istinctly above
the minimal level at which min an matter coul have become 5oine.
9n the other han1 i! min is essentially a plurality1 then the same as the
above shoul be true !or each iniviual min CsoulD. =igher levels o!
mental emboiment cannot be realize in other wors without their
having alreay been realize at all previously possible levels. "o the
essential plurality o! min combine with the essential istinctness o!
matter an mentality as such implies the octrine o! reincarnation Cinto
substrates o! eveloping mental emboimentD1 c.!.1 my conversation with
Qd
"-3 =enricKs on >uly *(1 2))$ at 3amp 8onteith1 Oosovo. Hn this
way the temporal Chistorical1 reallyD aspect o! reality is properly
incorporate into the limitations to which min is sub5ect.
;mboiment o! min is not merely the result o! the escent o! the soul
!rom the in!inite via application to its substance o! !inite bounary
conitions1 but is the result o! this process o! escent in its intersection
with another process1 that o! the ascent o! the ynamical subtlety o! the
material substrate o! emboiment.
H! consciousness were merely some passive substance receptive to the
imprint o! the ynamic initial an bounary conitions impose upon it
by coherent/resonant neurological !unctioning1 then there shoul seem
no necessity in mental evolution being ialectical in nature. ?oth !orm
an continuity Co! ynamic substanceD are require !or the emboiment
o! min1 again1 because the purely !ormal or abstract !eatures o! the
system o! bounary conitions applie to CpotentiallyD emboie mental
substances are insu!!icient !or capturing the subtlety an comple0ity o!
conscious mental !unctioning. 6his is in part ue to the inseparability o!
!ree will an consciousness - in a wor: the internality o! consciousness
is willV the e0ternality o! will is consciousness. 6he ynamics o! the
interplay o! will an consciousness is not a topology preserving one1 an
this is another reason why the ynamics o! the min must lie altogether
outsie the mani!ol o! public spacetime. 3ausal orer is but a small
subspace within a larger ynamical orerV it is merely one among many
possible timeliKe components o! a spacetime orer. 6he unerlying
!eature o! this timeliKe component is that o! !luctuation. 6he spaceliKe
component o! spatiotemporal orer is that o! correlation. 6he timeliKe
an spaceliKe components o! the spatiotemporal orer are !use together
accoring to a pattern Cimpose or notD o! correlations o! !luctuations.
"o each spacetime an/or each inertial !raming o! a spacetime epens
upon a particular structuring o! the nonlocal correlations o! quantum
!luctuations. :issipation o! !luctuations is the mechanism o! quantum
ecoherence.
3omple0i!ication o! the ynamics o! bounary conitions being applie
to the simpli!ication o! these bounary conitions themselves.
6o eny the operation o! lucK is to eny the Ioi_s participation in the
act o! creation an in acts o! creativity.
9ne o! the instinctive behaviors o! socializing humans is !or each to
!ormulate one_s thoughts in one_s own wors while speaKing in the voice
o! the listener. 6he loner or outcast never achieves this subconscious
social insight within the critical winow o! his early psycholinguistic
evelopment. =e is incapable o! seeing how his voice i!!ers !rom that
o! the spontaneous collective an so is !orever unable to bring his voice
thusly in line with that o! the collective.
@otice that only a ('-egree spacetime rotation may prouce a
trans!ormation o! a spaceliKe vector into a timeliKe vector or1 conversely1
a timeliKe vector into a spaceliKe one. Hs this !act connecte with the
!act o! a %2)-egree rotation being require to per!orm a complete
rotation o! a !ermion Cin spacetimeD?
Puantum ecoherence is a phenomenon resulting !rom the interaction o!
a coherent quantum system with vacuum energy !luctuations that perturb
the system1 the greater the interaction o! the system with the vacuum1 the
more quicKly shall the system unergo ecoherence wherein the
system_s pure state wave!unction ecays into a statistically mi0e state
Cby the way with a concomitant increase in the system_s entropyD.
Fe may say then that an ine0 o! the rate o! temporal evolution o! a
quantum system is its rate o! ecohering into a statistically mi0e state.
/nother ine0 o! the system_s rate o! temporal evolution might be some
quality o! the system relating to some !unction o! the sum o! the
system_s component !requencies. Fe may escribe this secon Kin o!
temporal evolution as energy egenerate time evolution. 6he only
!actor in preventing et-evolution !rom being 5ust a escription o! a
static pattern o! staning waves Conly possible i! the waves are sub5ect to
hermetic (-: bounary conitions1 i.e.1 the waves are containe within
an ieal !our imensional quantum wellD1 is i! this et-evolution is
conte0tualize within some larger nonegenerate temporal evolution
Cnt-evolutionD.
/n energy eigenstate is as much a mathematical-physical abstraction as
is an imaginary .orenz trans!ormation Cone in which no real
accelerations are involveD. Hn the case o! an imaginary .orenz
trans!ormation1 the con!iguration the *& components o! the stress-
momentum-energy tensor is permitte to change while energy is
conserve1 i.e.1 without any e0change o! energy between the system an
an outsie. "o a real acceleration1 as oppose to an abstract .orenz
trans!ormation1 necessarily involves some e0change o! system energy
with a heat reservoir or thermal bath1 which is to say1 necessarily
involves an increase in the system_s entropy. 6his is why we believe
that the proper ine0 o! real temporal change in a system is the entropy
change e0perience by the system. /ll temporal evolution o! a close
system is ine0e through energy e0change between the close system
an some larger energy system. / corollary to this might be the
statement that sub5ective temporal evolution1 that is1 temporal evolution
within a given min is properly ine0e through the e0change o! some
quantity Canalogous to energy or perhaps entropyD with some larger
min. Hn other wors1 human beings only e0perience the sub5ective
passage o! time because their mins are groune or embee within
some larger Can by e0tension1 in!initely largerD min.
/n abstract .orenz trans!ormation cannot cause a pure quantum state to
taKe on non- elements to become a statistically mi0e state L a real
.orenz trans!ormation1 i.e.1 the integral o! a continuum o! in!initesimal
.orenz trans!ormations are require !or the prouction o! a quantum
statistical mi0ture. 6his is analogous to the !act that a purely iagonal
stress-momentum-energy tensor cannot be trans!orme into a new
tensor1 6
iK
by a mere abstract .orenz trans!ormation1 but requires the
action o! a continuous acceleration or1 equivalently1 the action o! a
gravitational potential in which the total energy o! the system is not
conserve. "o the appearance o! stress terms1 i.e.1 the coupling o!
orthogonal momenta within the system_s momentum-energy tensor1
requires the input o! energy into Cor e0traction o! energy out o!D the
system. 6his may be unerstoo in terms o! the system_s interaction
with itsel! in istinct .orenz !rames where total energy in this case may
only be conserve i! there is an outsie energy system present to balance
the accounting o! energy. 6his outsie energy system is the quantum
vacuum in which the system is embee an which only mani!ests
itsel! CtaKes on massD i! either the system is accelerate or i! a
gravitational !iel is present.
6he two istinct types o! temporal evolution re!erre to above may
parallel the istinction between a wavepacKet_s collective phase an
group velocities. 9ne type o! temporality RoccursS in the absence o!
=eisenberg energy uncertainty1 the other positively requires =eisenberg
energy uncertainty. 6he energy o! any system possessing a rational sum
o! component !requencies is absolutely certain. 9nly systems
possessing an irrational sum o! component !requencies may be properly
unerstoo to possess an irreucible1 e.g.1 =eisenberg energy
uncertainty.
Fe shoul istinguish here the cases in which the relative phases o! the
component !requencies are merely superpose an in which the
component !requencies are mutually interacting. 6he component
!requencies only truly mutually interact via agencies e0ternal to each
Can in which each agency is e0ternal Cthough appropriately connecteD
to the otherD.
3an a statistical mi0ture be trans!orme into a pure state via a mere
.orenz trans!ormation Cor by some similarly RrationalS trans!ormationD?
Ht woul not appear that this is so simply possible. ?ut a continuum o!
such .orenz trans!ormations applie to a pure quantum state might 5ust
o the tricK. ?ut then why coul it be that an in!inite number o! null-
trans!ormations o! a mi0e state results in some !inite shi!t in the state
bacK towars its becoming a pure state? / .orenz trans!ormation such
as is treate in special relativity theory is but an abstraction L any .orenz
trans!ormation however small1 carrie out !or however lengthy a time
must involve some egree o! acceleration. 6his is relate to the !act o!
an eigenstate_s being but an abstraction that is a state without any real
corresponence with an actual quantum mechanical system_s state.
4ravitation is most basically a phenomenon o! inconstancy Can
unpreictability/ineterminismD in the vacuum_s interaction with matter
Cor vice versaD. /n true inconstancy can only be introuce into a
system !rom altogether outsie the system1 that is1 !rom the system_s
embeing conte0t L in this particular case !rom the quantum vacuum
!orming the system_s ynamical groun Cgroun stateD.
6he circle represents unity in iversity by virtue o! the circle being the
imensionally simplest o! simple geometric !igures though possessing
Rirrational ratioS o! this two ob5ects only geometric measures1 i.e.1
iameter an circum!erence.
?ell @onlocality violates either the uncertainty principle or the
;insteinian spee limit o! c. Hn!ormation is represente by the reuction
o! uncertainty. 6here!ore all o! the in!ormation available must resie
within the quantum uncertainties o! the vacuum prior to becoming
in!ormation in the !orm o! real matter Cerive !rom this vacuum energy
through the reuction o! uncertaintyD. ?ut what manner o! uncertainty
are we speci!ically talKing about in this connection L energy uncertainty1
particle number1 etc.?
:ata given meaning become in!ormation while without conte0t there can
be no meaning. 6his means that ata possess no inertia unliKe
in!ormation. 3hanging in!ormation requires the time !or the necessary
processing o! the unerlying ata to which the in!ormation is tie. Ht is
this retare action o! the processing o! ata unerlying changes in
in!ormation that requires the appearance o! inertial e!!ects within the
processing meium.
Hn the same way that eigenstates are abstract quantum states
appro0imating the state o! a real quantum system1 probabilities o!
quantum states may not be ientically equal to M7siMWW2. 6his woul be
because 7si is always merely a better or worse appro0imation to a real
quantum state. /n this may be thought to be because o! the RnoiseS
inevitably introuce by the 4ibbs_ phenomenon that is characteristic o!
-ourier trans!ormation o! time omain !unctions sub5ect to ieal
bounary conitions. 6he question comes up as to whether there inee
is a pure quantum state such that Aho = M7siMWW2 in which we are unable
to Cperhaps eternally barre !romD ever Knowing what the true state
wave!unction is.
R"urvivalS shoul more broaly be unerstoo in terms o! population
genetics !requencies. 3ultural an societal evolution goes along with
evolution o! the bounary conitions o! survival so that iniviual an
collective !eatures possessing survival value in a primitive or
preinustrial culture may no longer count as valuable to iniviuals
occupying an in!ormation rich culture with a stable an Rsocially
equitableS society1 say where the Rstruggle !or survivalS has been
suspene !or many generations. Hn such long-live stable societies
where there is no longer any real competition between members !or li!e-
sustaining resources Csuch as in a post-technological
communistic/socialistic societyD the preominant moe o! biological
evolution woul be orchestrate more by se0ual rather than by RnaturalS
selection. 3omplementing se0ual selection woul be culturally base
behavioral genetics pertaining to any behaviors that woul ten towars
larger rather than smaller numbers o! o!!spring1 e.g.1 religious octrines
promoting large !amilies1 e.g.1 3atholicism1 8ormonism1 etc. 9! course1
within the conte0t o! any state or social organization where the struggle
!or survival has been rela0e or suspene1 ysgenic trens1 !rom the
stanpoint o! survival in a Rstate o! natureS woul ten to accelerate.
3omple0ity compoune !urther maKes no i!!erence !or the potential
emergence o! novel system !eatures unless conte0t o! the system is
Keeping tracK o! the system_s historical evelopment. @ovelty
emergences !rom accumulation o! uncertainties. 9verwhelming
thermoynamic comple0ity within closes systems introuces nonlocal
connectivity within the system organic to connection o! the system to an
alreay nonlocally connecte meium or groun. 6his is the iea o!
progress as reiscovery. "ince causality is local connectivity any
eviation !rom strict causality is owing to encroachment o! nonlocal
in!luences. @onlocal connectivity supporting local connectivity is a
paraphrase o! ?ohm_s !luctuation-correlation principle o! causality. Hn
short1 any eviation o! the system !rom local connectivity represents
nonlocal in!luences that cannot be accounte !or via observation o! the
system conceive as a thing or close system1 i.e.1 represents
!unamental uncertainty o! the system_s behavior.
3hanges in states o! gene regulatory activity rather than changes in
genetic base pair sequences may be responsible !or heritable changes in
the organism espite this activity being in!luence by an organism_s
environment.
Fhat 4eel_s theorem implies about mathematical reality1 provie we
are not to subscribe to mathematical 7latonism1 is that *D mathematical
relationships subsist within a continuum more comple0 than what can be
capture in any mathematical system at least as comple0 as simple
arithmetic1 an 2D that the mental processes by which mathematical
reasoning is conucte !unamentally transcen any !ormalizable
escription. 6his begs the question o! whether this transcenental
mathematical intuition o! the human min might be !ormalizable in
terms o! systems less comple0 than that o! simple arithmetic. ?ut Rless
comple0S may be interprete in two istinctly i!!erent ways: less
comple0 in the sense o! less comple0ly structure simple or in!inite1 or
rather1 more appropriately trans!inite substances. 6he notion o!
comple0ity may only be appropriate !or escribing systems o! bounary
an initial conitions rather than o! a !unamental ynamism.
;ach li!e !orm1 regarless how simple possesses a ma0imally e!!icient
esign. 6he trial an error oes not appear within the !ossil recor1 but
in the cobbling together o! the gene regulatory networK. 6here must
have been some e0tene phase o! chemical evolution in e0cess o! a
billion years or more in which the probabilities o! certain genetic base
pair sequences were set up long in avance o! the actual epoch in which
eo0yribonucleic aci !irst appears. 6his phase o! pre-:@//A@/
chemical evolution woul have been meiate by the evelopment o!
catalytic pathways in which the !astest occurring chemical reactions
woul have proven most !avorable !or the appearance o! new
e0perimental co!actors an enzymes. 6his setting o! the grounworK
!or which genetic sequences an metabolic pathways woul emerge !irst
Can preventing or greatly elaying the appearance o! other1 woul-be
alternate organic chemical species an reaction routesD woul be riven
e0clusively by initial an bounary conitions Cgoing all the way bacK to
the big bang an !usion processes in early stellar interiorsD was a process
taKing place supposely wholly in the absence o! !eebacK !rom the
changing o! probabilities in the istant !uture Ca!ter comple0 li!e shall
have alreay arisenD.
8ono_s principle o! gratuite_1 i.e.1 the arbitrariness o! the meaning o!
the genetic coe1 is guarantee by the conte0t epenence o! iniviual
nucleotie base pairs within a given gene regulatory networK !unctioning
as the cybernetic control system !or gene e0pression. 6he
RarbitrarinessS o! the genetic coe consists in !act that no unique
corresponence e0ists between any genetic base pair sequence an any
particular protein. @o such corresponence e0ists because a pree0istent
gene regulatory networK is require to interpret a base pair sequence as
coing !or a given protein. ?ut can 8ono_s gratuite_ principle be
applie to the complete genetic coe1 that is1 to the :@/ as a whole?
6his woul seem to be the case !or otherwise we are !ace with a
recursive re!erence or in!inite regress in which the :@/ molecule coes
!or the gene regulatory networK itsel!. 6his woul be a theoretically
ultimate case o! gene regulatory control o! the e0pression o! the genetic
coe1 i.e.1 :@/ coing !or its own molecular structure. 6his recursive
coing parao0 is solve through the system o! each base pair
possessing a corresponing base pair complementary to it. 7rior to
nature hitting on this unique solution1 :@/ always coe !or some
molecule other than itsel! an enless mutation o! the RgenomeS woul
have been the result. Hn !act1 it is the ability o! :@/ to coe !or itsel! as
a proper e0pression o! its own structure which allows :@/ to coe in
actuality !or molecular structures other than itsel!1 i.e.1 phenotypic
e0pression. 6he complementary base pairing system o! :@/_s integral
structure permits the genome_s molecular structure to taKe up only
in!initesimal space within :@/_s intrinsic memory o! in!ormation
coing capacity.
6he vast i!!erence between chimps an man in terms o! phenotype with
only ).( % i!!erence between them in genetic base pair sequences o!
their respective :@/ suggests that the mutations separating the two
genomes1 human an chimp are preominately mutations to higher level
regulatory genes. /s a principle we may assert here that there can be
no se0ual reprouction1 i.e.1 ranom mi0ing o! pree0istent genetic base
pair sequences into RviableS composites without cybernetic control o!
gene e0pression. 3ontrol o! gene e0pression so that each gene may
possess myria istinct moes o! its content being e0presse as an
organism phenotype permits the e0istence an play o! a large ata
egeneracy Coveretermination o! in!ormation the outstaning e0ample
o! which is boun up in the gene-e0pression-regulation o! homologyD1
that is1 many i!!erent pieces o! in!ormation may be have the same
unerlying genetic base pair sequence ata. "ince this trial an error
process by which the gene regulatory cybernetic control networK never
is permitte to substantively show itsel! in the evolution o! phenotypic
e0pression1 i.e.1 in the ostensible evolutionary evelopment o! biological
systems itsel!1 the evolutionary evelopment o! higher orer gene
regulatory networKs may be unerstoo to RprogressS at right angles1 as
it were1 to the timeline represente by the evolution o! the system o!
organismic phenotypes.
@atural selection epens upon a RhooKs an laersS in!rastructure
being alreay in place !or evolving biosystems to climb. 6he chemical
stability o! R!avorableS nucleotie base pair sequences is a !unction o!
chemical properties that are supposely not a!!ecte by biological
evolution. Hn other wors these chemical properties o! :@/ o not
themselves evolve in response to the RavanceS o! biological evolution.
9n a metaphysical level1 one cannot really amit that biological
evolution results in anything liKe RprogressS since the set o! biologically
Can chemicallyD possible li!e !orms remains unchange1 however long
evolution continues to operate.
>anuary 2)*(
9nly ranom a5ustments on a pre-e0isting integral whole an
uni!ie machine with a built-in machine language can prouce
increasing comple0ity o! representations on that machine. ?ut these will
only be representations an there!ore proucts o! a pre-e0isting mental
substrate. 6hey will not be physically real in the sense o! min-
inepenent structures.

3hance !luctuations only possess orer because they are !luctuations
within a system which itsel! possesses a principle o! integral unity an
coherence. 3hance !luctuations o not increase the orer o! the system
but they may appear to create increase the orer o! representations o! or
within the system

6here must be an in!rastructure which interprets chance con!igurations
an places them into conte0t

6he only way orer can arise !rom chance in the absence o! a principle
o! cohesiveness or coherence woul be i! there is some principle o!
memory at worK which locKs in an saves con!igurations hit upon by
chance.

Aanomness cannot e0plain the integral unity e0hibite by systems
possessing coherence an cohesiveness as well as a principle o! growth
an i!!erentiation.

6he multiverse principle still is not success!ul in e0plaining the
necessity !or cohesiveness an coherence within at least one o! its
branches. 6he principle which creates must also sustain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=*tIz4O<2$h8 =<7;A.H@O
Ehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=*tIz4O<2$h8 & !eature=youtube#gata#player%2))**2*(E &
=<7;A.H@O Ehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=*tIz4O<2$h8 & !eature=youtube#gata#player
%2))**2*(E !eature=youtube#gata#player
=<7;A.H@O Ehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=*tIz4O<2$h8

&
!eature=youtube#gata#player%2))**2*(E )**2*(
Aeal change1 then comes with an alteration in the !orm o! an enlarging o!
the possibilities !or biological systems. 8orphic resonance is a bosonic
principle. Fhat then is the !ermionic principle o! evolutionary
evelopment? 6hat is to say1 what possibilities are e0clue as a result
o! the emergence o! certain evolutionary evelopments?
7erioic !unctions o not carry in!ormation1 but may carry ata by
assignment. Hn!ormation may only be carrie by aperioic !unctions1
that is1 !unctions that cannot be e0presse in an analytic1 close !orm.
/perioic !unctions o not possess arbitrary instantaneous meaning
while the meaning o! perioic !unctions is o! course completely
arbitrary1 i.e.1 by assignment. 3an in!ormation be ampli!ie by
something analogous to an electronic ampli!ier circuit?
R/mpli!icationS always requires rawing upon some e0ternal source.
Puantum systems coul not e0hibit either bosonic or !ermionic
properties as a whole in the absence o! quantum nonlocality. Fithout a
pree0istent hooK an laer in!rastructure to support the operation o!
natural selection1 the evolutionary process must maKe up this
in!rastructure as it goes along1 requiring the operation o! intelligent
esign. 9ne thing is clear L consciousness requires consciousness !or its
own evelopment.
9ctober 2)*$
6his is perhaps on account o! the raical
symmetry possesse by consciousness. C=ere sel!-e0istence in the sense
o! recursiveness L consciousness might well be thought to be a reuctio
a absurum in the sense o! the vanishing point o! recursiveness1 i.e.1 the
Rultimate bootstrapS !unction.
6he symmetrical interaction o! particles might be e0plaine on a
holographic principle L the interaction o! but a small number o!
bounary conition symmetries might be capable o! e0hibiting a
virtually in!inite richness o! ynamic symmetry1 say1 analogous to the
operation o! a Kaleioscope. 6he piecing together o! a shattere
holographic emulsion e0hibits some o! the properties o! a -ourier
synthesis. Fhat i! the blurriness o! the holographic image is thought o!
in terms o! a !ringe e!!ect escribable as a 4ibbs_s type phenomenon?
Aeceipt o! communication is characterize by a Kin o! Rorchestrate
surpriseS in the consciousness o! the communication recipient. /n
altogether new con!iguration o! quantum entanglement arises in the
supporting vacuum o! the consciousness Rreceiving in!ormationS1 that is
to say1 a con!iguration o! novel topology. "pacetimes o! istinct
topologies o not belong to the same egeneracy equivalence class o!
spacetimes. 6his is what maKes topological trans!ormation a
!unamentally irreversible process. Hn!ormation cannot be embee
within a reversible Centropically staticD process or interaction.
@oncomputable processes cannot taKe place in the absence o! an
observer who is capable o! collapsing the system wave!unction
unerlying the physical system corresponing to the computing evice.
?ut quantum mechanical wave!unctions cannot be collapse within the
system1 but collapse must always be initiate !rom altogether outsie the
system. Hrrational numbers may represent an outsie that is contiguous to
the real number line. Hn this way the irrational numbers may be
unerstoo to be a continuum through their !unction o! embeing the
continuum o! the real numbers. 6his remins us o! the embeing o!
causal relationships within a matri0 o! nonlocally correlate quantum
!luctuations. 3ausality may be unerstoo to be analogous to the web o!
relationships o! rational real numbers1 while nonlocally correlate
!luctuations might be interprete in terms o! the relationships o!
irrational numbers. 6he relateness o! the irrational reals possesses some
o! the !eatures o! internal connectivity analogous to nonlocal quantum
connectivity.
6he creativity o! substance in its evolving progressively richer
e0perience that it potentially supports points to its being embee in an
e0ternal groun o! une!ine possibility. "ubstance enlarges its
potential !or unrealize e0perience that it later loses the capacity !or in
the !ace o! still !urther evolutionary evelopment o! this potential.
3ounter!actuality is a necessary component o! live an e0perience
reality. /n this counter!actuality must itsel! be susceptible to an
evolutionary evelopment. 6hus the being o! an unlimite orer o!
counter!actuality is suggeste. 6he !actual e!ines by acting as a
bounary conition to the counter!actual 5ust as the counter!actual
conitions the !actual though always in con5unction with the action o!
some outsie in!luence. 6he conitional relateness o! !actual an
counter!actual is however not symmetrical but uniquely historical in
nature.
Ht seems probable in light o! e0periments conucte uring the *2N)_s
an *22)_s that microevolution is both .amarcKian an :arwinian1
while so-calle macroevolution may still be e0clusively :arwinian.
6he transition !rom micro- to macro- mechanisms o! evolution is a
mani!estation o! the transition !rom the quantum mechanical to the
classical regime. Puantum processes are alreay properly aapte to
the environment because they compose this environment Cprinciple o!
innate harmony in natureD while the aaptation o! classical physical
bounary conitions to the innate quantum environment constitute a
Kin o! logical epiphenomenon.
4eel_s proo! was an aaptation o! 3antor_s iagonal argument in which
the natural numbers were mae to represent themselves an every
mathematical symbol require !or the e0pression o! a mathematical
theorem proo!. 7rovable theorems were assigne corresponence with
each computable real CrationalD number within the table o! 3antor_s
iagonal argument.
-or 3antor_s !amous argument to actually go through one woul have to
be assure o! the e0istence o! a very special !unction1 namely that by
which real numbers are associate with successive natural numbers.
;ach real number corresponing to a natural number or logical symbol
coul be compose o! the entire set o! natural numbers place into some
Kin o! orere sequence. 3an there be a rule !or how the sequence o!
numerals in each real number corresponing to a natural number or
logical symbol changes so that no sequence is use more than once?
6he natural numbers may constitute an equivalence class to that o!
computable algorithms1 while the irrational numbers may constitute a
trans!inite equivalence class to that o! the set o! noncomputable
RalgorithmsS. 6his coul best be one utilizing 4eel_s R4eel-
numberingS proceure. 3omputable algorithms1 corresponing to
provable theorems woul be R4eel-numbereS as usual1 ine0ing each
theorem with its uniquely corresponing natural number. ;ach
noncomputable program woul be 4eel-numbere utilizing a uniquely
corresponing real number.
6he natural CrationalD numbers are embee in the continuum o! the
reals. 3an the computable relationships between the rational numbers
be alternately e0presse in terms o! noncomputable relationships
between RirrationalS numbers? 6his remins us o! causal relationships
as a subset o! the acausal correlations connecting entangle quantum
!luctuations.
6he real number line may be unerstoo as the most comple0 !amily o!
!iber bunles with each trans!initesimal point along this line serving as a
istinct in!inite !iber bunle. 6he longest continuous !iber bunle
subset containe by the real line is an in!inite iameter circle. Fithout
the real line being an in!inite close !igure or some possibly in!inite set
o! in!inite close !igures1 there seems no way !or the points along this
line to possess some nonarbitrary ientity. 6wo parallel lines e0tene
to in!inity meet at a point.
6he in!ormation content o! permutational-combinational elements must
be e!ine similarly to the e!inition o! probabilities1 that is1 in terms o!
a total unerlying !iel o! possibilities. 6he e!inition o! in!ormation
content Can probabilityD is here a purely quantitative one. 6he
in!ormation content1 as well a Rthe probability o! the rational numbersS
being as they are RembeeS or RgrouneS in the continuum o! the
irrational reals cannot be so simply e!ine as in the case o! rational
numbers. Hn the case o! the rational/natural numbers1 any meanings !or
these numbers must be assigne an hence these meanings are
Rarbitrary.S 6his is similar to the case o! an orinary computer1 i.e.1
computable program.
?ut the meanings o! elements !iguring within the operation o! a
noncomputable program cannot be purely arbitrary. =ere the meanings
o! the noncomputable program elements must be base in the unerlying
physics implementing the program. Hn !act1 program an its physical
realization/implementation cannot be istinguishe accoring to is5oint
categories. 6his is perhaps 5ust another way o! saying that i! a
noncomputable process is seize upon with which to implement a
computable program Cpossessing possible output sequences each with an
arbitrarily assigne meaning/interpretationD1 then at some level o!
comple0ity !or the program implemente1 the per!ormance o! the
machine implementing the program shall epart in mysterious !ashion
!rom the strictures impose upon the machine_s per!ormance by the
programming coe representing the implemente algorithm. /n this
eparture o! the program_s behavior !rom its programming coe Cas
unerstoo by the programmers o! the machine in accorance with the
machine_s state esignD is governe by this unerlying physics.
@ote that rational real numbers are compose o! computable natural
number sequences1 while the so-calle irrational numbers are compose
o! noncomputable natural number sequences. "o i! the
noncomputability o! algorithms is e0clusively base in the unerlying
physics o! computing machines1 then the mathematics o! irrational
numbers must participate in some way with physics.
6he irrational numbers such as the square root o! 21 e1 pi1 etc. are a
trans!inite subset o! the trans!inite set o! real numbers.
6here shoul be an argument parallel to that o! the 3antor Riagonal
argumentS which emonstrates the higher orer o! in!inity o!
noncomputable relative to computable programs.
Hmagine the table o! 3antor_s iagonal argument correspons to a
coorinate system with the natural numbers along one a0is an a subset
o! the real numbers along an orthogonal a0is.
6he !unamental theorem o! algebra may be simply prove using
topological arguments applie to the power series e0pansion o! eWWz1
more speci!ically to ot proucts between two n-imensional spaces1
one compose o! numbers aCnD/nT - the other compose o! unit vectors1
nTWzWWn. 6he solution to any algebraic equation then becomes an n-
imensional vector pro5ecte within the above 2n-imensional space.
6he solution o! a given algebraic equation must be etermine by a
general algorithm by which the orthonormal basis o! an arbitrary
orthogonal coorinate system is calculate. 6he rationalization o!
probabilities associate with an arbitrary wave!unction is e!!ecte
through normalization o! the wave!unction1 which implies the solution
o! an arbitrary algebraic equation.
Hn e0periments conucte at the @;3 Hnstitute at 7rinceton ,niversity1
pulses o! microwaves were sent over a meter at spees o! appro0imately
C* + */$))D times the spee o! light in vacuum. 7hysicists observe
light pulses emerging !rom the other en o! the etector prior to its
entering the etector. 6his is only possible i! a quantum coherent
superposition o! etector an microwave emitter has ha aequate time
to !orm1 an amount o! time at least as long as the istance traverse by a
microwave pulse ivie by RcS. "uch superluminal violations o!
causality are illusory1 however. 6he e0perimental conitions must be
prepare in avance so that although the e0perimental apparatus remains
groune within the quantum vacuum1 this RgrouningS becomes o! a
highly speci!ic Kin L the interaction between the prepare system an
the embeing quantum vacuum is RroutineS an the vacuum quicKly
ceases Rpaying attentionS to this input to itsel! an the interaction
between RprepareS e0perimental apparatus an vacuum becomes C!rom
the perspective o! the vacuumD an autonomic one. 6his is the only
situation in which superluminal propagation spees are permissible L
one in which Rthe quantum vacuum is asleepS. "o this is what the
propagation o! in!ormation really means L orchestrate registering o!
unanticipate inputs to the quantum vacuum.
=ow o we istinguish momentum as oppose to Rpropagation o!
momentumS? "o-calle propagation o! momentum means changes o!
momentum that are orchestrate along a tra5ectory.
;ither one very consciously taKes 4o as replacement !or the R:evil in
the etailsS or 4o remains in the bacKrop o! the implie ontological
assumptions unerlying one_s subconsciously hel metaphysics L but
either way1 4o as ultimate1 transcenent reality is assume.
Fhat istinguishes a reversible !rom an irreversible causal sequence is
topology Cas we have alreay inicateD. Fhat maKes the i!!erence in
topology here is absence versus presence o! a grouning in an open
system o! networKe recursive relationships.
H! the law o! non-contraiction oes apply to the quantum mechanical
voi1 Cas is suggeste by the !unamental irreversibility o! virtual
particle interactions within an accelerate re!erence !rameD1 then it is not
possible to inuce the vacuum to reveal all o! its latent structure simply
through application o! su!!iciently comple0 an orchestrate set o!
bounary conitions. "ome o! this latent structure may only arise !rom
the vacuum unbien1 that is1 spontaneously. 6his is a goo reason why
the har /H ream o! a conscious computing evice cannot be realize
by an engineering esign alone. 6hese latent structures that cannot
reliably an reproucibly be mae mani!est through some properly
orchestrate application o!1 e.g.1 vacuum electromagnetic !iel bounary
conitions1 are structures o! recursively linKe vacuum !luctuations. H!
such vacuum !luctuations are represente as causal-connection-
observing1 virtual particle interactions1 the proper causal temporal orer
is not observe in the particle reactions1 an such particle reactions
woul never be observe as real particle interaction L such virtual
particle interactions are o! course obscure by =eisenberg uncertainty
!rom our ever sub5ecting them to quantum measurement.
3ertainly the !luctuating stress-momentum-energy that unerpins the
structure o! spacetime remains e0empt !rom the strictures o! causality.
Fithin an inertial !rame o! spacetime the bounary between the causal
an acausal is istinct1 but in an accelerate !rame1 e.g.1 within a
gravitational potential1 the compartmentalization between the causal an
the acausal is e0pecte to breaK own. 6he thermal vacuum that
becomes observable within an accelerate !rame1 what is Known as the
:avies-,nruh e!!ect1 possesses entropy an so can be unerstoo to
represent not the !low o! in!ormation but the emergence o! in!ormation1
i.e.1 the arising in place o! in!ormation.
6eleportation o! a wave!unction between two i!!erent gravitational
potentials results in the teleporte wave!unction losing orthonormality.
?ut this appears to violate the principle o! relativity. H! in!ormation can
be store in a static con!iguration1 then in!ormation oes so while
traveling along a purely timeliKe worlline in 8inKowsKi spacetime.
6here!ore1 a simple .orentz trans!ormation o! statically store
in!ormation must represent the !low o! in!ormation. ?ut static storage
is only amissible !or conte0t-!ree ata1 the concept o! which is but a
convenient abstraction1 one not ultimately corresponing to an
ob5ectively real quantity. :ata1 in other wors1 is an abstract !eature o!
in!ormation or1 more aptly1 ata result !rom the act o! the processing o!
in!ormation through abstracting-on-the-!ly ata !rom in!ormation.
Hn!ormation is not an arti!act o! the intersub5ective omain. Hn!ormation
is not a physical observable or measurable quantity.
?eing physically real though immeasurable means that in!ormation must
be coe in the correlations o! quantum !luctuations Csmaller than the
=eisenberg uncertaintyD o! the system ynamically containing the coe
in!ormation. 6his remins us that1 although as ?ohm has pointe out1
causal relationships may be alternately represente in terms o! correlate
quantum !luctuations1 that the set o! such !luctuations within a given
quantum mechanical system is always larger than the set su!!icient to
represent the physical relationships that constitute the Rcausal
sca!!olingS o! the system. 9ne woners whether the hereto!ore-
notable absence o! any subtle Rpre!erre !rameS quantum mechanical
e!!ects1 e.g.1 quantum nonlocality e0hibiting inertial !rame inepenence
L quantum nonlocal interactions are always instantaneous in any inertial
re!erence !rame.
"tructures o! causal connectivity are perhaps physical e0amples o!
istinct spacetime topologies. Hs in!ormation a name !or a topological
trans!ormation L a trans!ormation o! a very special Kin1 that is1 a
trans!ormation that oes not satis!y continuous i!!erentiability require
!or representation in the !orm o! i!!erential equations? Hntegral
equations o! the sort obeying a variational principle represent !amilies o!
i!!erential equations. "ince in!ormation is characterize by
topological change1 i! !ollows that eterministic causal relationships
cannot capture in!ormation content1 only ata structures. 6hought in
which in!ormation originates is a process o! the manipulation o!
topological change1 i.e.1 manipulation o! causality-transcening
reactions an interactions. "pacetime possessing a constant topology
contains no where within itsel! processes o! topology-trans!ormation.
6here_s something in the circuits along which in!ormation !lows L
in!ormation !low is always simulate by the pattern o! quantum
correlations Co! quantum !iel !luctuationsD. ?y the system_s total
quantity o! quantum !luctuations being partitione into two Cistinct?D
sets1 each is groune i!!erently1 one set groune within itsel! Cthe
causal setD an one groune outsie o! itsel! Cthe acausal setD.
/ set o! instructions escribing the machine_s program that is store in
its memory1 c.!.1 "earle_s 3hinese Aoom /rgument.
Fhat i! the person in "earle_s R3hinese AoomS is passe a series o!
3hinese symbols containing the set o! instructions !or properly
processing inputte 3hinese character sequences into output character
sequences? 6his question assumes that we have set asie !or the time
being the inevitable question about what is suppose to constitute a
proper output sequence1 re5oiner to a question emboie in the inputte
sequence o! 3hinese symbols1 i.e.1 what is the arbiter o! a correct
answer? L some native 3hinese scholar with the Rappropriate
creentialsS !or answering a given specialize type o! question1 or
perhaps some Rieally selecteS normal1 average1 worKaay 3hinaman?
6he inherently ynamic1 !eeing-bacK nature o! the system o! 3hinese
symbols require to represent proper processing o! the 3hinese Aoom
instruction set is !unamentally recursive1 i.e.1 the system o! symbols
cannot be represente as a static set o! symbols1 nor as a eterministic
input-output sequence o! such symbols. 6o properly represent the
recursive set require to represent Rintelligent processingS o! symbols
inputte to the R3hinese AoomS a !unamental uncertainty C=eisenberg
uncertainty?D must be present an which separates inputte !rom
outputte symbols.
@o quantum entanglement is possible between two conscious beings.
6he creation o! in!ormation is not elimite by the reuction o!
=eisenberg uncertainty.
Hrreversible bounary separating ata !rom in!ormation1 c.!.1 collapse o!
the psi !unction1 which is an irreversible1 entropy-engenering event.
6he relationship o! ata an in!ormation may be liKene to the
i!!erence between characters inputte to the R3hinese AoomS an1 not
the sequence o! symbols emerging !rom the 3hinese Aoom1 but the
ynamics o! the processing o! the inputte symbols. :ata is static1
somewhat liKe a RsnapshotS o! a process. ?ut RsnapshotS is here a
somewhat misleaing metaphor as it suggests a section taKen !rom a
eterministic process1 e.g.1 the un!oling o! a movie reel. Hn!ormation1
on the other han1 is inherently ynamic. / RsnapshotS taKen o! a
!unamentally ynamic Rmovie reelS might be !oun upon e0amination
to be holographically structure an ambiguous in the same manner as
=eisenberg uncertainty.
6he content o! ata is uneretermine1 the content o! in!ormation1
overetermine.
6he concept o! uneretermine ata implies that there is some
complementary component somewhere1 which1 i! ae to the
uneretermine ata !orm some Kin o! per!ect comple0. ?ut this is
misguie. 6he Rcomple0S resulting !rom the combining together o!
any ata with any other ata still !orm 5ust another set o! ata. :ata
cannot be processe into in!ormation by mere arithmetic/logical
operations applie to pree0istent CinputteD ata.
-luctuations in an o! spacetime out o! which the e0pectation values !or
the istinct1 parallel global spacetimes are sustaine must1 o! course1 be
nonlocally connecte on account o! the necessarily 2-imensional
temporal nature o! !luctuations in an interactions between global time
continua within the corresponing parallel spacetimes. 6he same
timeline Ctemporal worllineD may belong to more than one global
spacetime. 6he !luctuations in $-momentum an energy riving the
above spacetime !luctuations must be nonlocally1 which is to say1
internally connecte. /n the temporal evolution/variation o! the
nonlocal connectivity_s o! any given spacetime must occur along an
altogether istinct timeline !rom the 8inKowsKi worlline o! which local
events are a !unction. 6he internal Csub5ective?D timelines1 though
orthogonal to1 must maKe continual contact with1 the intersub5ective
Cob5ectiveD timeline. /n the relative Rrate o! time_s passageS Cwithin
sub5ective temporalityD is ine0e by this shuttling1 connecting bacK an
!orth interaction o! the CpiecewiseD orthogonal1 sub5ective CbiographicalD
timelines. 6he interstices an iscontinuity_s o! sub5ective-ob5ective
temporality implie above constitute the internality o! emboie
temporal e0istence. "ub5ective content maKes re!erence to the
ob5ective an grouns these sub5ective contents within a meaning-giving
conte0t. =ere we have the inequivalence o! the positive an the non-
negative1 c.!.1 in!ormation vs. negentropy.
prn=
Ht is our intuition that what
essentially maKes !or this inequivalence o! in!ormation an negentropy
is that1 negentropy is intersub5ective in its nature1 while in!ormation is
sub5ective.
"eptember 2)**
6his is because the answer to the question1 Rwho
is being in!ormeS cannot ever be a part o! the realm o! intersub5ective
in!ormation. /n the collaboration o! persons there!ore brings into
being o! necessity in!ormation
Qd
that coul not have been engenere
by a single" unitary groun of being. C6his notion rather !lies in the !ace
o! one o! the !unamental principle o!
au=
Aan_s
prn=
9b5ectivist
;pistemology.D /n so the e0ploratory urge o! transcenent being Cto
investigate the epths o! the Rsea o! limitationSD cannot be satis!ie
without the embarKing upon a pro5ect on behal! o! being involving
Qd
the
breaKing up o! being_s Rmonopoly o! beingS. ?eing can only encounter
the other by becoming less than what it is1 which is to say that being
may only encounter the other by partaKing o! an irreversible self
limitation. "ince no act o! limitation on the part o! an in!inite1
transcenent being iminishes it1 being must unergo this act o!
irreversible sel! limitation not once1 but an unlimite number of times.
Hn this way RpositivismS as a theory o! being !ails. -rom a contraiction
Reverything !ollowsS L not 5ust everything apart !rom what is asserte in
the positive proposition so contraicte. 6here can be no logically
consistent corresponence between appearance an reality because the
appearances constitute components o! the being o! the real 5ust as !ully
as oes the real beyon appearance. "eeKing a!ter the bona !ie
appearances is a !unamentally misguie quest. 6o speaK o! the bona
!ie appearances1 i.e.1 the proper representations o! reality is to suggest
that one set o! appearances may be base in another set an that there is
some ob5ective basis !or istinguishing relative reality o! istinct sets o!
appearances.
6he !unamental wave nature o! matter coul have been iscovere in
8a0well_s time1 as it was alreay Known then that the ether must be
almost in!initely rigi supporting as it oes the propagation o! ultra high
velocity raiation1 i.e.1 electromagnetic. =ow else coul motion o!
Rsoli matterS through an ultra rigi meium be e0plaine other than
with the !act that matter is nothing more than a structuring o! this very
meium? "o uni!orm motion o! matter through the rigi ether must
really be propagation o! stable e0citations o! this meiumV matter moves
upon the ether an not RthroughS it.
6imeliKe motion o! matter may be base upon longituinal wave
propagation1 spaceliKe motion1 upon transverse wave propagation.
9nly a soli meium can support transverse or shear waves1 i.e.1 waves
o! stress an strain o! some meium. / .orenz trans!ormation o! a
momentum-energy !our vector !rom one inertial !rame to another oes
not result in the appearance o! o!!-iagonal terms in the stress-
momentum-energy tensor o! the vacuum. /ccelerate motion is
require !or this. :oes this mean that the matri0 representing a pure
state wave!unction must evelop o!!-iagonal elements corresponing to
the appearance o! a statistical mi0ture o! states Cmi0e stateD whenever
this wave!unction is viewe !rom the vantage point o! an accelerate
!rame o! re!erence1 or !rom within a gravitational !iel? Hs this why
gravitation is thought to be one mechanism o! quantum ecoherence?
Hs this why pure state wave!unctions must eventually ecohere when
propagating through a su!!iciently strong gravitational !iel? 6his
ecoherence is ue to a Kin o! bening o! the mutually orthogonal pure
state eigen!unctions that causes them to graually lose mutual
orthogonality. 6his is the !oreshortening o! spacetime preicte by
general relativity. "pacetime symmetry is closely connecte with the
symmetry o! $-momentum an energy !luctuations o! the vacuum_s
electroweaK nuclear !iel.
$-momentum an energy are observables CeigenvaluesD o! the
wave!unction that is itsel! a !unction o! the spacetime variables. /n
yet $-momentum an energy are complementary physical observables to
the observable o! space an the parameter1 time. C6ime is not a bona
!ie physical observable in quantum theoryD
6he loss o! spin-) symmetry is characterize by an increasing isorer
in the alignment o! antiparallel spin-*/2 virtual !ermions Cecrease
magnetization an increase polarization o! electromagnetic current
ensities1 i.e.1 rotation o! the vacuum (-current ensity vectorD.
?ecause o! the ual control inputs to the gravitational !iel1 one internal
Cquantum statisticalD an the other e0ternal CelectromagneticD1 it is
possible !or the unerlying quantum statistical vacuum mechanism o!
gravitation to be RcommaneereS through a manipulation o! the
electromagnetic bounary conitions applie to the quantum vacuum
electromagnetic !iel.
/s the velocity o! propagation through a meium is proportional to the
rigiity o! the meium1 it !ollows that the vacuum represents the
meium o! greatest possible rigiity. 6his !urthermore implies that any
motion through such a meium as the vacuum must be a purely
imaginary motion. Fhat is meant by Rimaginary motionS is that the
motion is not o! the moving ob5ect itsel!1 which is only a representation
within the meium Rthrough whichS the ob5ect is traveling1 but the
motion which can be attribute to the ob5ect is entirely a !unction o! the
meium an the meium_s energy.
8ust all re!erence ultimately groun itsel! in mathematical-liKe entities?
"ince abstraction1 the !ormation o! abstract concepts1 is what is
essentially characteristic o! the activity o! the human min an o!
mineness per se1 an evience o! the progress an evolution o!
thought is the very level o! abstractness so attaine through mental
activity1 shoul not the purely abstract entities o! mathematics an logic
represent the timeless en prouct o! a !unamental activity o! thought
that has taKen place altogether outsie the !orms o! space an time? Hn
other wors1 given the ultimate nature o! mathematical entities an
relationships1 shouln_t we taKe their Re0istenceS as evience o! such an
ultimate thinKer?
Qd epi=
Fhat 4eel_s theorem shows us1 among other
important results is that the thought an the thinKer are not an can never
be one an the same. 4eel_s theorem emonstrates that whenever
thought an thinKer attempt to become one1 an irresolvable parao0 o! a
recursion is create. R3ompleteness without consistencyS an
Rconsistency without completenessS constitutes the basic proposition o!
4eel_s theorem. 6he 7latonic tetraheron seems inevitable perhaps L
this abstract geometrical !igure can be easily entertaine within the
min_s eye. ?ut what about the Rsimplest possible proo! o! 3antor_s
3ontinuum =ypothesisS? H! this theorem is provable1 it_s simplest proo!
may be well beyon the intellectual capacity o! any human
mathematician1 though a proo! of the e6istence o! such a Rsimplest
proo!S may nonetheless be within the grasp o! human mathematicians.
/n yet the theorem the truth o! which is well beyon human Ken is 5ust
as much Ralreay thereS as is the simple 7latonic soli !igure. "uch
inconceivable mathematical truths are alreay there1 but what an where
is this omain in which these resie?
/ugust 2)*$
E6he simplest proo! o!
3antorGs continuum hypothesis that Ethere is no set whose carinality is
strictly between that o! the integers an that o! the real numbersE may lie
well beyon the intellectual capacity o! any human mathematician1
though a theorem stating that such a proo! inee We0istsW may
nevertheless be easily within the grasp o! human mathematicians to
prove1 say a!ter someone evelops a new set theory base on i!!erent
a0ioms than those o! Jermelo--raenKel theory.E
9ne !unction that =eisenberg uncertainty serves is that o! preventing the
use o! quantum nonlocality Cnonlocal quantum correlate particlesD !or
purposes o! !aster-than-light intersub5ective communication.
6he three most basic components to being human appear to be C*D
consciousness1 C2D !ree will an C$D moral sense.
6he quantum nonlocal interactions mani!este by the spin { component
particles1 which result !rom the ecay o! a spin ) particle1 require the
transmission o! a superluminal signal. 6he question here is whether this
signal passes !rom the measure particle to its partner within the
spaceliKe connecte elsewhere region or passes bacKwars in time to the
original pre-ecay spin- ) particle.
/re the two superluminal paths equivalent? Foul their equivalence
constitute a restatement o! ?ohm_s assertion o! equivalence between
causal relationships an sets o! quantum !luctuations combine with the
proper mutual correlation o! these !luctuations? C3ollective Cquantum
statisticalD vs. iniviual CcausalD relationships may be inicate hereD
6here apparently is either a egeneracy-equivalence or a bona !ie
equivalence obtaining between the two !orbien spacetime paths1 one
spaceliKe an one timeliKe. 6hese two spacetime paths are
characterize by positive an negative imaginary momentum1
respectively.
;quivalent to ?ohm_s above-mentione assertion is that o! equivalence
between quantum mechanical e0pectation values an sets o! quantum
uncertainties combine with the quantum !luctuations in the =eisenberg-
uncertain quantities Csee belowD.
6here are two interpretations o! the !unction o! the resonant tunnel
ioe: electrons use =eisenberg uncertain energy to Rhop overS the
potential energy barrier or electrons use =eisenberg positional
uncertainty go Rappear onS the other sie o! the barrier. @ote here that
the larger become /a0 an /a;1 the RwierS an RtallerS are the barriers
that the electron may RtunnelS or RhopS across. Ht woul seem at !irst
that the electron1 while tunneling must possess a momentum o!
magnitue o! Z /ap an that the time that the electron spens within/over
the barrier must be Z /at b h//a;. Fe must Keep in min that uring
tunneling1 the electron_s motion is escribe by the relativistic
momentum-energy equation:
/a;WW2 = /apWW2cWW2 + mWW2cWW(.
"o !or an arbitrarily tall1 arbitrarily thicK barrier1 /a; is arbitrarily large
an /ap arbitrarily small1 implying a superluminal tunneling spee1
/a;//ap. 6he electron oes not RpenetrateS the potential energy barrier
at a Rcertain spotS or area along the barrier_s height1 unless the tunneling
time can be mae su!!iciently large. Ht appears that stuying the
relationships o! the =eisenberg uncertainties in p1 ;1 01 an t to the
potential energy barrier height1 with an shape in quantum tunneling
e0periments might help us to istinguish between cases where electrons
RtunnelS versus Rhop overS the barrier1 which is to say to istinguish
cases where the respective =eisenberg uncertainties are intrinsic to the
particle crossing the barrier versus where these uncertainties are
enowe the particle through the quantum vacuum_s interaction with the
particle1 e.g.1 vacuum energy !luctuations helping the particle over the
barrier.
6he behavior o! quantum tunneling particles may be ue to the
combine e!!ect o! the inherent quantum uncertainties o! the particle Cas
a result o! how the particle was initially prepareD combine with the
uncertainties the particle is enowe with are a result o! the e0changes
o! virtual momentum an energy between the tunneling particle an the
moi!ie vacuum within the potential energy barrier.
=ow much oes bacKwars-acting quantum measurement contribute to
the phenomenon o! quantum mechanical ecoherence?
:o acts o! quantum measurement result in the in!orming Cor
contaminatingD o! the intersub5ective vacuum with correlation sets
transmitte to this vacuum by the =eisenberg-uncertain energy
associate with the observer_s sub5ective temporality? 3oul there e0ist
an accumulate e!!ect upon the correlational structure o! the
intersub5ective quantum vacuum a!ter the !ashion o! "helraKe_s
!ormative causation?
Hn the case where the signal is assume to be a bacKwars-traveling1
superluminal one1 the signal in e!!ect programs nonlocal connections
within the !luctuational structure o! the =eisenberg uncertainties o! one
sie Cor the otherD o! the complementarity-paire1 quantum-numbere
physical quantities o! the quantum-measure system1 in this case the
unstable spin-) particle. Fhereas passage o! the signal bacKwars in
time may violate spacetime symmetry an/or causality itsel!1 at least
physical continuity is maintaine. Hn the case where the signal is
assume to pass into the elsewhere region1 both causality an physical
continuity are violate.
6he origin o! the pree0istent nonlocal correlations o! !luctuations
maKing up =eisenberg uncertainties is an open question L although it
coul be that the meaning o! the ineterminacy principle as ampli!ie by
our Knowlege o! violations o! ?ell_s inequality requires that these
correlations not !unction a!ter the !ashion o! Rhien variables1S i.e.1
variables that together with a set o! inputte values etermine the
outcome o! a quantum mechanical measurement.
6his RreprogrammingS o! the correlational structure o! the energy
!luctuation spectrum !orming the =eisenberg uncertain energy o! the
quantum system upon which elaye quantum measurement is being
per!orme appears to rely upon a 2
n
temporal egree o! !reeom1 which
is to say1 two-imensional time.
/lthough the bacKwars-in-time propagation o! in!ormation !rom the
quantum-measurement-per!orming observer Cthis signal woul not be
accessible to any other observerD has an e!!ect similar to what woul be
e0pecte !rom a hien variable theory o! quantum measurement. 6he
system upon measurement prouces a physical observable by way o! a
ynamics altogether i!!erent !rom that by which the observer chooses
his e0perimental setup.
/re alternate quantum universes istinguishe as spaceliKe or as
timeliKe separate timelines?
6he initial an bounary conitions o! the wave!unction may be
etermine by the classical physical actions o! the observer_s boy upon
the e0perimental apparatuses. 6he actual ynamics by which one
eigenvalue is chosen !rom out o! the !iel o! all possible eigenvalues is
itsel! a choice not etermine by the initial an bounary conitions.
9nly the initial an bounary conitions o! a system are sub5ect to being
engineere. 6he ynamics constraine by the bounary conitions is
not sub5ect to engineering esign. H! computing evices shall ever be
conscious1 it shall only be upon the initiative o! the vacuum energy !iel
ynamics so constraine by the engineere bounary conitions. 6his
line o! reasoning points up the misguie nature o! har /H ambitions o!
RengineeringS a conscious computing evice.
R6he use o! a barrier to control the !low o! electrons !rom one lea to the
other is the basis o! transistors. 6he miniaturization o! soli-state evices
can_t continue !orever. 6hat is1 eventually the barriers that are the Key to
transistor !unction will be too small to control quantum e!!ects an the
electrons will tunnel when the transistor shoul be o!! [italics mine\.S
6his passage points us in the irection that computer engineering shall
have to taKe i! an intelligent Cor so-calleD Rconscious computerS shall
one ay be prouce.
6he choice o! the observer o! the particular e0perimental setup1 i.e.1
quantum basis states is aKin to the choice by a mathematician o! which
Rarithmetic-containingS1 logico-euctive system to utilize !or the
emonstration Cor isprovingD o! some theorem equivalently e0pressible
in terms o! the symbology particular to that system.
?ut the choice o! the system o! basis states supposely oesn_t possess
any relevance !or etermining the results o! measurement L any given
system o! state vectors Cspanning the system_s =ilbert spaceD is 5ust as
goo as any other1 right? 6hat is to say1 isn_t any o! these state vector
bases equivalent to any o! the others? 6his is a eep an important
question !or any theory o! quantum measurement. /n e0ample o! the
inequivalence o! state vector bases is provie by the simple case o!
electron spin measurement through use o! an applie uni!orm magnetic
!iel. H! the !luctuation-correlational structure o! the quantum vacuum
electromagnetic !iel Cve!D Cthe ve! ynamicsD has been biase in some
!ashion1 i.e.1 i! the quantum vacuum were to e0hibit some type o!
Rmemory1S e.g.1 hysteresis ue to prior presence o! strong magnetic
!iels1 an this were to breaK the symmetry o! state-vector-basis-
inepenence1 then the biasing o! the results o! quantum measurement o!
spin woul have to be e0plaine in one o! two ways1 one super!icial1 the
other !unamental. 6he super!icial e0planation o! the biasing o! the
spin measurements woul be to invoKe the notion o! !ine or subtle
bounary conitions being impose upon the quantum ve!. 6he eep or
!unamental e0planation o! this biasing woul be one where the very
ynamics o! the ve! has been change through a historical process.
H! there is an equivalent quantum-statistical escription !or the operation
o! !unamental !orces1 e.g.1 electromagnetic1 strong nuclear1 etc.1 then
we shoul be able to !in a complete quantum statistical escription o!
the action o! gravitation L one constituting a RmechanismS !or
gravitation1 even i! we are still centuries away !rom success!ully
quantizing the gravitational !iel1 which is to say representing gravity as
a R!unamental !orceS on a par with the other three hereto!ore Known
!unamental e0change !orces. Hn the case o! the electromagnetic !orce1
the alternative mechanism !or the action o! gravitation upon photons1
i.e.1 reshi!t Cenergy-shi!tD an light e!lection Cmomentum-shi!tD was1
respectively1 the polarization an magnetization o! the quantum
vacuum_s virtual electric ipoles an magnetons.
4ravitational light e!lection1 in which the angular momenta o!
e!lecte spin-* photons are RtippeS1 is 5ust the mani!est part o! the
movement o! the photon through a vacuum electromagnetic !iel o!
spatiotemporally varying (-angular momentum. 4ravitational reshi!t
o! photons climbing out o! a gravitational potential may be
conceptualize in terms o! a shi!t in :e?roglie wavelength o! quantum
entangle !iel o! virtual photons that must accompany a ecrease in the
ensity o! correlate virtual photons with increasing raial istance !rom
some gravitating boy.
Puestion: o inputs to physical observable variables smaller in
magnitue than the corresponing variable =eisenberg uncertainties
cause any Kin o! alteration or shi!t in the Rcenter o! massS o! the
respective =-uncertainties? Ht woul seem that the Rno hien
variablesS prohibition woul seem to prevent such an alteration to
=eisenberg uncertainties L the inputs shoul be completely absorbe
within the larger =-uncertain quantities. Fell then1 what about repeate
inputs1 each smaller than /aq1 but collectively greater than /aq? 6his
shoul epen upon the phase relationships between the inputs
containe within the collective set1 c.!.1 quantum measurement as
necessarily proucing a isruption in the elicate tissue o! quantum
phase relations between basis eigen!unctions.
;0actly analogous to the engineering esign o! the1 e.g.1 quantum
electromagnetic !iel bounary conitions are the logical a0ioms an
rules o! in!erence by which theorems are proven. Hn contrast to the
R4eel-incompletenessS represente by any an all computer
engineering esigns we may contrast what we might term the R?ohm-
completenessS o! the ynamical substrate o! the nonlocally connecte
quantum vacuum constraine by such a computer engineering esign.
Puantum computation woul e0hibit the same Rin!ormation-processingS
!eatures as the ynamic by which the results o! quantum measurement
are etermine through observer-interaction with a prepare quantum
mechanical system. ?ut quantum computation shoul not be e0pecte
to reprouce the ynamics by which the observer chooses the quantum
mechanical basis states1 i.e.1 the particular =ilbert space in terms o!
which the results o! quantum measurement are to be sought.
Ht is true vis a vis Figner_s theory o! quantum measurement that
Rconsciousness collapses the wave!unction.S ?ut such a situation only
becomes possible in the !irst instance provie that the observer !irst
e0erts his !ree will in initially preparing the quantum system prior to
per!orming his measurement1 i.e.1 chooses the basis o! the state space o!
possible eigen!unctions in orer that the associate eigenvalues may be
etermine through Rconscious measurement.S
8ay 2)*(
Aobert .anza in
-iocentrism notes that in the absence o! the observer a rainbow is at best
a superposition o! trillions o! istinct rainbows. 6he unobserve rainbow
here remins us o! a vast quantum superposition1 which collapses only
once an observer Can a eterminate perspectiveD is supplie.
/ugust 2)*$
9ne interpretation o! wave!unction collapse is to aopt a mile-
o!-the roa approach by saying that it is neither the physical interaction
or inter!erence o! the physical measuring evice with the photon or
electron passing through the ouble-slit apparatus1 nor is it the
mysterious Rconsciousness o! the observerS that inuces wave!unction
collapse1 but merely the creation or o! a quantity o! in!ormation
su!!icient to speci!y the Rwhich-wayS in!ormation escribing the
tra5ectory o! the quantum particle through the ouble-slit. ?ut the critical
con!iguration o! apparatus an measuring instruments must somehow be
RregistereS as a e!inite conte0t o! measurement. ;rasure o! this crucial
quantum in!ormation maKes this in!ormation suenly unavailable in the
future to what or to whom such that the collective behavior o! electrons
or photons at the phosphorescent screen is probabilistic
E
or
probabilistic
'
? R7robabilistic
E
S is the classical probability Cprobability
born o! a mere ignorance o! initial an bounary conitionsD1 while
Rprobabilistic
'
S is the proper quantum probability Cin which the initial
an bounary conitions are !unamentally uncertainD.
6he !act that superluminal signals may pass through the =eisenberg-
uncertain momentum-energy o! the quantum vacuum without violation
o! the relativistic ban on superluminal in!ormation transmission rates
might seem to suggest that only ata rather than in!ormation may be
carrie by such signals. ?ut e0actly the contrary is true. :ata may be
unerstoo as Runinterprete in!ormationS an in!ormation as
Rinterprete ataS. :ata1 there!ore being accessible to any observer1 i.e.1
intersub5ective1 must not traverse more rapily than RcS without
generation o! a temporal logical parao0. Hn!ormation1 on the other
han1 being coe !or accessibility to only a single min1 may propagate
with any velocity.
>uly 2)**
Hn !act the proper temporal orchestration o!
perception1 thought1 ecision1 intention an action within the specious
present o! iniviual consciousness appears to epen on the
superluminal nature o! energies smaller than the brain_s /a; vis a vis the
e0periments o! ?en5amin .ibet. @ote that the superluminal quantum
e!!ects are also the result o! an observation or measurement per!orme
by a single iniviual. Ht is thought that Rin!ormationS may change
!orm innumerable times1 but what is intene here is ata" not
information. H! one looKs at ata in its original !orm1 there one !ins the
conte0t at the beginning o! the ata trans!ormation1 the ata must ab
initio be symbols within a language. 8achine translation can be rescue
by reestablishing the original conte0t anew. 9nly the insight o!
conscious beingCsD can o this. ;ntanglement encoe in!ormation is
containe RwithinS the =eisenberg energy uncertainties. Aeuction o!
=eisenberg uncertainty represents creation o! in!ormation or 5ust the
transuction o! in!ormation. Hn!ormation moves insie /aP while ata
move outsie /aP.
Hs there an ob5ectivist-epistemological interpretation o! the act o!
quantum measurement? Puantum observations can never be per!orme
by collective entities1 only by iniviual persons.
6he act o! interpretation may be liKene to the per!ormance o! a
CquantumD measurement. 8easurement Cobservation by a conscious
personD constitutes the reuction in =eisenberg uncertainty with respect
to a set o! commuting quantum observables1 accompanie by the
e0pansion o! this R=-uncertaintyS in the irection o! a complementary
set o! quantum observables.
6here is a possible thermoynamic theorem here Crelate to the
Rnegative energy conservationS theoremD in which the quantity o!
in!ormation resulting !rom the reuction o! =-uncertainty must always
be less in magnitue than that lost in the creation o! =-uncertainty with
respect to the complementary quantum observables. 6his may also be
closely connecte with the alreay note slight inequivalence o!
in!ormation with negentropy. 6heorem: the quantity o! system
negentropy is always greater than the quantity o! CusableD in!ormation
resiing in the system.
"imilar to the application o! the 2
n
.aw o! 6hermoynamics to a
nonieal 3arnot engine1 i.e.1 the engine can never e0tract all o! the
energy available Cto an ieal 3arnot engineD to o worK is our
negentropy principle1 which states that only a portion o! the CieallyD
accessible in!ormation within a system may be accesse. / concept
analogous to that o! R!ree energyS might be e!inable !or what might be
terme R!ree in!ormation.S Hnterestingly1 the above consierations may
point up an important relationship between in!ormation-negentropy an
inertial mass upon reconsiering the relativistic momentum-mass-energy
equation:
/a;WW2 = /apWW2cWW2 + mWW2cWW(.
@ow the concept o! negentropy was introuce ue to the irreversible
e!!ect o! observation upon quantum systems an system =eisenberg
uncertainties.
6he gravitational reshi!t is evience o! the Rinertia o! energyS1 that is1
o! the inertia acquire by the vacuum when pervae by gravitational
!iels.
H! the consciousness o! the brain is to be properly attribute to the action
o! the brain_s speci!ic Rcausal powersS !or processing in!ormation1 then
the publicly inaccessible negentropy o! the brain must not be publicly
accessible per impossible or merely accessible Rin principleS. 6his is
5ust to say that it shoul be possible !or the hereto!ore istinct
consciousnesses o! two iniviual persons to RmergeS or RcoalesceS
provie that proper a5ustments are e!!ecte at a eep enough physical
level within the brains o! each. 6his implies that the Reep enough
levelS must lie within the realm o! the nonlocal L whether this is the
realm o! the Rquantum nonlocalS or not remains at this stage an open
question. 6his is also to suggest that1 at a eep enough level o!
physical reality a substrate o! universal consciousness must be reache.
Fe may wish to ienti!y what we !ormerly ienti!ie as Rin!ormationS
as negentropy an what we !ormerly ienti!ie as ata as uninterprete
or conte0t-!ree in!ormation. @egentropy may turn out to be
in!ormation that can only be !ully accesse !rom within a consciousness.
Hn!ormation may be thought o! as a Kin o! Rbaroque slicingS o!
negentropy1 i.e.1 in!ormation as a highly iiosyncratic representation o!
negentropy. C:oes the iscussion at this point almost touch upon the
istinction o! legal positivism vs. Roriginal unerstaningS or literary
positivism vs. Rauthorial intent?SD? /t any rate1 there is obviously a
con!usion here that is yet to be worKe out with regar to the proper
e!initions o! ata1 in!ormation an negentropy1 which bears !urther
investigation.
C7enrose_s gravitational quantum ecoherence theory1 that is1 the
ecoherence o! quantum systems is owing to the RweightS o! the mass
i!!erences between the system_s quantum-superpose con!igurationsD
Qd
Hn!ormation may be unerstoo as be!ore in terms o! interprete ata.
7rn=
@egentropy1 on the other han1 may be unerstoo as conte0tualize
ata. 6hese are not equivalent quantities o! ata. 3onte0tualize ata
are ata within the space o! all possible interpretations o! the ata. 6his
istinction suggests a parallel one o! state vector Cinterprete ataD vs.
=ilbert space Cconte0tualize ataD in which the state vector resies.
;ach observer operates out o! his/her own personalize =ilbert space1
which is relate to the !act o! each observer_s brain being groune in its
own quantum vacuum CR=-uncertaintySD. Fhat conte0tualizes the
quantum mechanical ata is the particular vacuum containing the
quantum-correlate !luctuational structure in terms o! which all causal
an potential causal relationships within the associate =ilbert space.
C/pril 2)*)D :ata bacK-react upon the conte0t trans!orming them into
in!ormation. "o there can be no clear an !ast istinction between
in!ormation an ata. 6his may suggest that ata may be enlessly
reprocesse in some conte0ts an !initely reprocesse within others.
:ata possess a rationality that always goes beyon their particular
in!ormation-giving conte0t. 6he same is true o! the ata o! human sense
e0perience an perception. :oes consciousness relate to the open-ene
nature o! the ata o! iniviual e0perience? 3ertainly there is nothing to
prevent the ata o! iniviual human e0perience !rom an ine!inite
number o! iniviual human beings !rom being combine together
within a new embeing conte0t or matri0 such that trans-human
meanings result !rom the reprocessing o! this collective human
e0periential ata? H! ata coul be e0perimentally istinguishe !rom
mere ata Cor is this istinction merely relative to a given metalevel o!
overlap between ata-as-in!ormation an in!ormation-as-ata?D1 then one
coul o a Kin o! R";6H-liKeS survey o! one_s environment to
etermine i! other mins were inee present1 i.e.1 one coul etermine
i! one was only receiving RataS Csense ataD or whether there was an
in!ormation contaminant carrie along with this ata or i! one_s brain
was otherwise receiving Rin!ormation signalsS1 i.e.1. signals !rom other
mins. -irst the implications o! the quantum mechanism o! general
anesthesia woul have to be much more e0haustively investigate so
that one coul learn to istinguish unconscious ata !rom conscious
in!ormation within the brain_s microtubule networKs an then seeK to
apply this empirical Knowlege to the e0amination o! ata streaming
into the brain_s various sense organs.
C@otebooK1 1ogicomi6D R:iscovere in *2)*1 as Aussell was worKing
on his !irst booK on the !ounations o! mathematics1 the 7rinciples o!
8athematics Cpublishe in *2)$D1 the 7arao01 in the !orm originally
e0presse1 shows an essential !law in 3antor_s set theory1 evelope
!rom ?olzano_s simple concept o! a Rcollection o! elements with a
common propertyS. ?y the generality o! this e!inition1 which -rege
e0tene to the realm o! logic1 one can speaK o! a Rsets o! setsS an thus1
eventually o! the Rset o! all setsS. 9! the elements o! this all-
encompassing set one e!ines the property o! Rsel!-inclusivenessS1 i.e. o!
a set containing itsel! as an element. 6hus1 !or e0ample1 the set o! all sets
is a set Can thus containe in itsel!D1 as is the set o! all entries in a list Cit
can appear as an entry in a listD1 but the set o! all numbers is not a
number an thus not containe in itsel!. ?y virtue o! this property1 we
can e!ine the Rset o! all sets which on_t contain themselvesS1 an asK1
with the young Aussell1 the question: R:oes this set contain itsel! or
not?S "ee what happens: i! it oes contain itsel!1 it !ollows that it is one
o! the sets which on_t contain themselves Cas this is the property that
characterizes elements o! this setD an thus cannot contain itsel!. ?ut i! it
oesn_t contain itsel!1 then it oes not have the property o! not
containing itsel!1 an thus oes contain itsel!. 6his situation1 in which
assuming something implies its negation1 an vice versa1 is calle a
parao0. Fhen a parao01 such as Aussell_s1 arises in a theory1 it is a
sign that one o! its basic premises1 e!initions or a0ioms is !aultyS.
"eptember 2)*$ !cbK=E
3antor prove the e0istence o! large trans!inite carinals
which cannot be erive !rom smaller trans!inite carinals. =a -rege1
=ilbert1 Aussell an Fhitehea succeee in builing their E6ower o!
?abelE1 they might have storme an lai waste to the 7latonic heaven
an thusly escape !rom 7latoGs 3ave. 6hey !aile. /n noboy smarter
than them has been born since. 6he 7latonic heaven remains secure an
no1 ear !rien1 you have not escape !rom 7latoGs 3ave.E 8ai um
ohnur saye awl at but ai noe at yu wuz 5uts Kiin lol i! him i nawt
!ee meh ai wu hit a sKreetz wi! teh uer strae Kittez . . . him gawt a
stiK up hiz but ai !inK lol
?ohm_s much note equivalence o! causal relationships with quantum
!luctuation-correlational structure must be broaly enough unerstoo to
inclue both !orwar an bacKwars propagating causal in!luences.
mm-orwar-propagating causal in!luences by themselves are inaequate
!or implementing quantum-computational1 classical-noncomputable
Rcomputations.S
6he massive energy o! the vacuum liKely lies along an energy imension
orthogonal to that o! the corresponing classical physical quantity.
"imilarly1 the time lying between instantaneous an superluminal1 i.e.1
time possessing a irection within the elsewhere region o! spacetime
also contains a component pointing in a irection orthogonal to that o!
orinary temporal evolution. Fhat the !uzziness o! epistemological
quantum uncertainty contains are the normal everyay ob5ects as well as
others with which we are not yet !amiliar. 6he !uzziness o! ontological
quantum uncertainty resolves itsel! into a lesser uncertainty only by
becoming quantum entangle with the quantum !luctuations lying
outsie the original quantum uncertainty bounary. 6his seems
parao0ical L increasing the spectrum o! quantum correlate vacuum
!luctuations corresponing to a particular quantum uncertainty ecreases
this uncertainty. ?ut this may maKe sense in accorance with a
holographic in!ormation coing principle. =ere we see two
complementary Can counterbalancingD uncertainties1 the stanar
=eisenberg quantum uncertainty CepistemologicalD an the anomalous
holographic quantum uncertainty ContologicalD. ;pistemological
=eisenberg uncertainty is the stanar uncertainty e0plicate by the ol
light microscope thought e0periment by which the uncertainty principle
is emonstrate within the conte0t o! the so-calle 9l Puantum 6heory.
9ntological =eisenberg uncertainty is a more !unamental type
groune in the unerlying quantum entanglement an !eebacK that
obtains between the quantum ynamics o! the observer_s brain an the
quantum groun state Cor vacuum stateD unerlying the system being
observe. ?lacK hole in!ormation1 i.e.1 the in!ormation concerning the
mass prior to its collapse1 must be coe into the nonlocal correlations
between quantum !luctuations on the blacK hole_s sur!ace. ?lacK hole
collapse represents approaching a limit upon the ensity o! nonlocally
correlate !luctuations in a certain slice o! C$ + *D spacetime that may be
alternately e0presse as correlate !luctuations upon a slice o! C2 + *D
Rtimespace.S 6he event horizon o! a blacK hole in an arti!act o! the
in!ormational equivalence o! C$+*D spacetime an C2 + *D RtimespaceS.
/s all !ormal systems1 i.e.1 systems o! logic Cin the 4eelian senseD are
!oune upon the empty set1 [-)-\1 it !ollows that such !ormal systems
cannot be about anything1 that is1 can carry no re!erence to an outsie o!
the system.
.aughter is motivate by a reglimpsing o! our liberation Cas conscious
beingsD !rom the social an biological necessities that rule our !ormer1
automata-liKe selves. .aughter is the pleasant e0perience o! surprise in
the suen recognition o! woner by conscious beings at the play o!
their own consciousnesses.
3hemical reactions are !orbien ue to barriers o! symmetry1 meaning
that quantum mechanical selection rules prevent a particular reaction
!rom occurring. 6his is because i! the reaction were to go through1
some particular physical quantity associate with a quantum number
woul !ail to be conserve. 8ore generally speaKing1 the probability
woul not be conserve uring the !orbien chemical reaction. -or
this reason the istinction between the merely in!initely improbable1 e.g.1
quantum tunneling o! a particle across a barrier o! many orers o!
magnitue greater potential energy than the Kinetic energy o! the particle
an the impossible1 e.g.1 a trans!ormation or reaction violating some
quantum selection rule1 is a well-!oune istinction within quantum
theory.
R/ @oKia cell phone can be programme to etect police raar spee
traps.S 6his !ollows !rom the !act that any computer comple0 enough to
hanle simple arithmetic constitutes a 6uring machine. 6here are o!
course calculational operations too simple to be capture within the
scope o! basic arithmetic. /n it is to these processes we must turn
whenever we are require to thinK creatively. 6he iea that there is
inee some algorithmic possibility within the realm o! the Rless
comple0 than arithmeticS is usually overlooKe when entertaining
4eelian iscussions o! the limits o! the human min. "uch a
RhypersimpleS arithmetic certainly nees to be investigate in
connection with the philosophy o! min.
Fhat is the i!!erence between stimulating the quantum vacuum to
reveal its latent structure through mani!esting o! new particles Cas
e0cite states o! this vacuumD an inucing the creation o! new1
unpre!igure vacuum structures? :oes the bounary o! the arithmetic
Cin 4eel_s senseD play a e!ining role here? 9n one sie o! this
bounary1 recursion threatens the start o! an in!inite regressionV on the
other sie o! this bounary such a logical parao0 poses no real threat.
=ave we in some way ienti!ie here the proper emarcation between
open an close ynamical Cas well as computationalD systems?
3onsciousness seems to present us with an e0ample in which the
recursion o! in!inite regress threatens no harm1 i.e.1 oes not threaten to
cause system isintegration1 but rather with a case where in!inite regress
is !ounational to the ynamical/ computational structure o! the system.
Fe might say that consciousness oes an en run aroun the limitations
normally impose upon the system by the quantum mechanical selection
rules. /s these selection rules are !oune in the conservation o!
various quantum-number-associate conserve physical quantities1 the
bounary between insie Cwhich RcontainsS the conserve quantitiesD
an outsie C!rom which all violations o! conservation originateD must be
pointe up by the conserving or nonconserving behavior o! elements
RcontaineS within the system. =ere we see the importance o! the
consieration o! topology where the various istinctions between
computable vs. noncomputable1 symmetrical vs. asymmetrical1 perioic
vs. aperioic1 conserve vs. nonconserve1 reversible vs. irreversible1
linear vs. recursive1 logical vs. parao0ical1 natural vs. anomalous1 (- vs.
$+*-spacetime1 spatialize vs. temporal time1 grammar vs. rhetoric1 etc.
6he istinction o! initial/bounary conitions vs. ynamics oes not
seem to line up with the above list o! ual istinctions. 6his is because
this later istinction is base in a tri- rather than bi-valent. 6he tertiary
element o! the trivalent istinction is choice1 i.e.1 the choice o! the
observer etermining the values o! the initial an bounary conitions o!
the quantum mechanical system he is Rpreparing.S 6his is the !amous
Rbasis problemS o! quantum measurement theory1 which is treate in
istinctly i!!erent manner by each quantum ontology1 i.e.1 ontological
interpretation o! quantum theory/quantum measurement. ;ach istinct
manner o! interpreting quantum mechanics with respect to the
measurement problem may be unerstoo as a istinct logical system
Csystem o! a0ioms an rules o! in!erenceD !or quantum mechanical
behavior.
6he logic o! the system_s behavior oes not necessarily have to be
etermine in avance !or us to ienti!y a system_s behavior as being
istinctly quantum mechanical in nature. 6his is because what maKes a
system quantum in nature is not merely the logic unerlying the system_s
behavior1 but the causal powers o! the system Cin "earle_s sense o! the
system_s simulation-transcening powersD. 6he nature o! logic is
isemboie because the system implementing a given logic always
possess a logic outstripping the logic it implements. 6his resiuum o!
greater logic e0hibite by logic-implementing concrete systems1 i.e.1 the
causal powers o! the system1 is necessary i! the system is to possess the
capacity !or switching between i!!erent logics.
Fe see that there is what might be terme Key1 !ounational or
controlling ualities1 i.e.1 the ualities upon which a particular
RtechnologyS is !oune1 e.g.1 the "tar 6reK communicator was
!ounational to the technology o! a Rpost-warpS culture.
Fhen a single groun state becomes inaequate to support a given
quantum system1 the system is no longer properly escribe by a pure
state wave!unction. / comple0 entity1 e.g.1 R"chroinger_s 3atS must
be sustaine by a congeries o! entangle quantum vacua. / single
quantum vacuum is unitary1 evolves eterministically an is escribe
by a pure state wave!unction. / similar statement applies to any
quantum mechanical system supporte by a single groun state.
/rguably1 the system an its groun state are inistinct. ,pon
observation1 the system an its vacuum CgrounD state ecouple an the
system now becomes couple to the comple0 vacuum state compose o!
the original system_s an the observer_s quantum vacuum. H! these two
vacua are incommensurate1 then the system_s wave!unction must
collapse. 6he observer_s brain is !ar too comple0 to be escribe by a
pure state wave!unction. :oes each observer_s embeing quantum
vacuum support the e0istence o! a uniquely corresponing universe?
/n iniviual quantum vacuum state is nonlocally connecte throughout
an with itsel!. / collective o! such quantum vacua introuce locality1
i.e.1 causality at their respective intersections or inter!aces. 6he
collective vacua o not evolve unitarily as some o! the temporal
evolution o! the collective vacuum must involve evolution o! patterns o!
mutual inter!erence between the collective vacuum_s component
quantum vacua.
Fhen we say that conte0t is require !or the circulation o! nerve
impulses in the brain to possess intentionality1 i.e.1 RaboutnessS we are
secretly requiring not only that these networKs o! circulating Rnerve
currentsS re!er to something1 but that1 still more1 the embeing conte0t
o! the brain_s neural activity must somehow re!er to this neural activity
itsel! L must taKe this neural activity in account along with whatever else
the embeing conte0t happens to be oing at the time. Hn this way1
conte0t provies meaning through a Kin o! Rhan shaKe.S Ht is as
though the conscious awareness o! the !low o! neural impulses is
constitute by the response o! some supporting meium to the passage
o! such impulses through itsel!1 a!ter the !ashion o! ripples in a pon
create when moving a sticK through the water_s sur!ace.
@othing analogous to consciousness coul itsel! be conscious. 6his is
what we are really saying when we assert that it is possible Cin principleD
!or a igital computer to be conscious.
3oncepts possess a somewhat parao0ical nature as sub5ective an
intersub5ective1 e.g.1 my concepts by the same name are not yours1 yet
we manage to success!ully communicate. ;ach speaKer has a license to
use concepts in his or her own way though within limits socially an
culturally set Cthough not necessarily e0plicitly e!ineD. "imilarly1
language also has a li!e o! its own apart !rom it myria users1 each to his
or her own purpose. .anguage is what humans participate in rather than
master an own. ?ut each concept !igures within the iniviual_s
linguistic networK1 iceberg-liKe an in a way unique to that particular
user o! that concept. 6here are present multiple layers o! intersub5ective
an sub5ective1 remembere1 present an anticipate Cpast1 present an
!utureD.
6hematic Kernels or nuclei organize our act o! perceptual !iltering.
Fhat i! the relationship o! our concepts to reality can be only one o! a
metaphorical nature?
@ot shear comple0ity1 but comple0ity relative to an within the conte0t
o! the quantum vacuum as ultimate arbiter o! meaning1 which beyon a
certain threshol impinges upon the realm o! consciousness. 6his
threshol is etermine by relative permutational-combinational
comple0ity1 at which the real time computational capacity o! the starting
vacuum state is e0hauste1 leaing to topological trans!ormation1 i.e.1
quantum tunneling taKing place between istinct topological
con!igurations. R4litchesS can be o! two Kins: spontaneous isruption
o! higher processing o! the ata Cthis is importantly relate to the
topology change ue to quantum tunneling o! groun states between
istinct vacuaD or spontaneous isruption in store patterns or
transmitte sequences o! binary elements.
R=igher processing1S i.e.1 in!ormation processing is to be istinguishe
!rom mere ata processing a!ter the !ashion o! topologically istinct
temporal sequences an spatial patterns. 7rocessing o! a string o!
binary igits accoring to a coe that can be aequately interprete
accoring to a !i0e set o! rules Cessentially similar to the Rrules o!
in!erenceS o! symbolic logicD woul not constitute the processing o!
in!ormation.
Fhat can we say about the coe that cannot be compute by the system
proviing our output1 which is in turn interprete via utilization o! this
same coe?
6he proper interpreting o! a ata string must ultimately be the
per!orming o! some action?
R9ur social orer will probably seem comple0 to you. 6o tell the truth1 H
on_t unerstan it clearly mysel!. @oboy oesS1 c.!.1 6he "leeper
/waKens C*N22D by =. 4. Fells. Ysocietal holismZ
6hematic Kernels or nuclei o! perceptual organization e0ist which guie
the construction o! perception o! situational conte0t. Fhat i! the
relationship o! our concepts to reality can be only one o! a metaphorical
nature?
RH! "mith an >ones maKe an observation1 an "mith observes / rather
than ?1 then "mith will also observe that >ones observes / rather than
?1S c.!.1 Puantum 6heory o! the ?rain1 by 8athew >. :onal.
Fhat constitutes the Rrelevant surrouningsS o! a person who is a Rbrain
in a vatS C?HID is the in!ormational system to which the person_s brain is
networK-connecte1 not some system o! ob5ects possessing no more
connection to the person_s brain than that o! super!icial geometric
relationship. 6he internal-e0ternal categorical istinction must be
subsume by a quantum nonlocal1 networK-in!ormational paraigm o!
connectivity. Fithin this paraigm e0ternal woul be equate with
potentially internal. 8oreover1 there woul nee to be a thir category
o! the multiply internal. Hs memory 5ust an epiphenomenon o! temporal
integration? ?ut temporal integration presupposes some ob5ective
biographical timeline along which ata may be taKen up into an integral
temporal structure.
-ebruary 2)*$
6here are three collections o! inputs that we woul liKe to
consier !or our Rbrain in a vatS: inputs that are only internal to the brain
itsel!1 inputs !rom an e0ternal worl not possessing other mins1 inputs
!rom an e0ternal worl populate by other mins. Hn light o! the above
the question arises: i! all that matters to e0perience is the sequence o! the
inputs to the system1 then what material i!!erence oes it maKe to the
brian in a vat whether its inputs come !rom itsel!1 an e0ternal worl voi
o! other mins1 or !rom an e0ternal worl inee populate with teeming
millions o! other mins? Hs there some relevant i!!erence in the
topology o! the inputs that we coul possibly point to in orer to
i!!erentiate the the three cases1 one !rom the other1 that is1 !rom the
stanpoint o! the woul-be solipsistic conscious observer? H thinK a
relevant consieration here is the necessary topological istinctness o!
classically correlate !luctuations an quantum correlate !luctuations1
"hannon entropy an von @eumann entropy1 classical in!ormation an
quantum in!ormation1 an so on.
6he problems o! 3halmers_ RenvatmentS1 7lantinga_s Rother minsS an
my longstaning metaphysical problem o! perceptual causal etiology are
closely relate as are i!!erent branches raiating !rom some more basic
root problem1 which remains at present unspeci!ie.
Qd
6here is only one ,niverse1 but there is a possibility !or the e0istence
o! as many RmatricesS1 c.!.1 the movie1 R6he 8atri0S as there are
e0traterrestrial civilizations technologically avance enough to
engineer their own Rmatri0.S 6his suggests that the probability that we
are in a Rmatri0S is high i! the number o! such technologically avance
civilizations in the ,niverse is much larger than unity. 6his is 5ust a
simple an more elegant restatement o! the so-calle R"agan
hypothesis.S 6he "agan hypothesis as we recall1 postulate that since
the istribution o! RintelligenceS amongst e0traterrestrial civilizations Cas
re!lecte in the state o! technological evelopment o! each civilizationD
con!orms to a bell curve istribution with an average level o!
technological evelopment on the orer o! a *)) million years o!
Rtechnological ageS1 the overwhelming probability is that our
civilization is !ar oler than its apparent age o! appro0imately ')))
years. =ence1 we must be living within a Rmatri0S where we1 the
creators o! this Rmatri0S are secretly members o! a very ancient an
hyper-technologically-avance civilization in which we only appear to
be these little pissant human-monKey primates occupying the very
beginning stages o! intelligent civilization. 6he question arises as to
why1 i! we are really so avance1 we shoul have opte !or li!e within
such a relatively impoverishe virtual reality?
/s a conscious brain moves through the quantum vacuum Ceven i! only
with uni!orm motionD the character o! the entanglement o! the brain_s
2WW2
@
qubits must be continually upate through changes in the
orientation o! these qubits_ associate quantum state pointers. 6his is
aKin to the continual upating o! hyperlinKs within webpages on the
Hnternet. 6he egraation Cthrough graual ecoherenceD o! the state o!
quantum entanglement o! the brain_s 2WW2
@
states is closely analogous
to the egraation o! weblinKs in a hypermeia ob5ect1 what is
commonly terme RlinK rotS. 6he nature o! the quantum state o!
entanglement o! the brain_s 2WW2
@
qubits is epenent upon the nature o!
interaction between the brain an its embeing environment. 6his
means that what taKes place within the quantum state o! the brain has
relevance to the outsie worl1 which is absolutely require i! the brain
is to possess intentional states o! consciousness.
8ay 2)**
/s the spee o!
light is approache1 the quantum vacuum requires more an more time
outsie of time to upate the subsequent quantum state o! the ob5ect
being accelerate towar the ultimate limit o! velocity1 c.
Aeaching the same conclusion by another1 apparently istinctly i!!erent
path o! logical or mathematical in!erence1 e0periencing the reappearance
o! something that ha isappeare prior1 hearing the same tale tol once
again many years a!ter the !irst time1 etc. are all e0amples o!
e0periencing evience o! the constancy1 consistency an stability o! the
worl1 what might be terme Rrealness.S
Qd
/ notable psychological
trait o! the human psyche is a tenency to e0perience grati!ication
through e0periencing a sense o! greater realness o! the worl. =umans
however also e0perience e0citement in the !ace o! novelty1 but it might
be argue that this is secretly e0citement about encountering a
mani!estation o! greater realness Chigher beingD.
7iecemeal alteration o! the structure an !unctioning o! the brain while
this brain remains conscious. 6here is a causal relationship between the
changes to consciousness_ bounary conitions that are being provoKe
by some outsie agent1 e.g.1 :escartes_ Remon.S ?ut these changes
being initiate through the act o! some agent maKes such changes
originate altogether !rom outsie the physical system that is the
person/sub5ect_s brain. / !reely wille action is the intervention o! an
open system upon the close system o! conserve energy Cthe ,niverseD.
<et the iniviual min unergoing the e0perience o! its brain/bounary
conitions networK being altere by some outsie agency can/cannot see
the series o! resulting phenomenal changes as themselves being part o! a
causal series. 9r i! he oes1 then wouln_t the te0ture o! his e0perience
appear to have the consistency o! a ream? 6his is on account o! the
implie in!inite regress involve in a min probing its brain with ever
sharpening precision while at the same time storing the ata thus
acquire within the brain being probe. "ome moels o! consciousness
assume the intrinsic completion o! this implie in!inite regress outsie of
time1 which maKes this peculiar structure o! consciousness as its own
sel!-representation the very basis !or the min_s intuition o! the passage
o! sub5ective time.
?ut coul the person/sub5ect o! the above perhaps misguie brain
e0periment overcome this threat o! in!inite regress by so to speaK
probing in the other irection1 that is1 in the irection o!
Qd
unoing the
metaphorical structures !orming the basic elements o! the socially
constructe sel!?
3onsciousness boils own to the !unction o! the sel! in e0periencing
itsel! as other1 e.g.1 when one is truly one_s own true sel!1 that is1 one is
caught up in some power!ul an immeiate e0perience1 this is when one
loses one_s sense o! possessing a separate sel!.
R6he 8atri0 nonetheless yiels reality1 c.!.1 problem o! etiology in
perception o! the e0ternal worl an .ppt presentation1 6he 8atri0 as
8etaphysics1 by :avi >. 3halmers.
"earle_s 3hinese Aoom is only the simulation o! a prearrange question
an answer session an wouln_t constitute an actual passing o! the
6uring 6est. "ince the !irst time the 3hinese Aoom system was
RKnocKe out o! booKS it_s ability to properly !iel questions in 3hinese
woul emonstrably breaK own. 6he !act that there Rcan be no booKS
!or conscious human beings - because o! the limitations upon logical
systems speci!ie by 4eel_s Hncompleteness 6heorem means that
!ailure o! the human sub5ect to pass the 6uring 6est oesn_t constitute
any proo! that a given human being is not conscious.
Jenon 7ylyshn asKs i! every neuron is replace with transistors woul
intentionality be lost? <es1 because intentionality is RaboutnessS1 which
requires conte0t an the manner in which neurons plug into Rthe
networKS are istinctly i!!erent. 7ylyshn_s questions emboies the
naive assumption that thinKing is 5ust manipulation o! abstract symbols1
i.e.1 symbols ivorce !rom an embeing within some substrate Crealm
o! concrete re!erenceD. 7ylyshn_s question !urthermore carries with it
the assumption that computation unerlying thought CthinKing in
=eiegger_s senseD oes or can or must taKe place within a close
system1 that is to say1 a system that is Rstan aloneS an not plugge into
any larger conte0t or RnetworKS1 i.e.1 open system o! Knowlege an
in!ormation.
6he e!!ect o! a consciousness moving through spacetime shoul be
synonymous with the acceleration o! a mass through spacetime ue to
the similarity in vacuum upating requirements1 intersub5ective in the
!irst case1 sub5ective in the secon. 6hree Kins o! variables: global1
local an !ree. Ielocity1 acceleration an 5erK1 angular momentum vs.
angular acceleration: angular momentum is an acceleration an angular
acceleration is a 5erK. 6he :avies-,nruh e!!ect is not observe !or
uni!ormly moving re!erence !rames1 however1 this e!!ect1 i! purely
sub5ective in nature1 shoul be observe by a uni!ormly moving
consciousness.
Fhen symmetry breaKs1 some o! the earlier massless particles acquire
mass. Fhat symmetry when unbroKen represents a situation in which
no particles possess mass? /nswer: spacetime symmetry o! the vacuum
as a virtual particle-antiparticle !iel. "o the vacuum possesses no mass
unless an until its spacetime symmetry is broKen L not by gravity per
se1 but by the mechanism by which gravity is parasitically prouce Cas
a resiuum o! imper!ectly mutually cancelle virtual !ermionic an
bosonic quantum !luctuationsD. 6he mechanism o! the breaKing o! the
spacetime symmetry o! the quantum vacuum is the very same
mechanism unerlying gravitation1 rather than gravity itsel! actually
being what breaKs the vacuum_s spacetime symmetry.
:ata transmits an in!ormation resonates. Hn!ormation is transmitte
unerneath spacetime via !luctuations Cnonlocal energy !luctuationsD an
correlations Cnonlocal momentum !luctuationsD. 3ausality is constitute
by a web o! relationships between ata. Aather than in!ormation being
!unamentally interprete ata1 we unerstan ata to be arti!acts o!
in!ormation systems Carti!acts o! attempts to communicateD.
6he e0istence o! antiparticles is require by .orentz spacetime
symmetry. 6he !act that eviations !rom this symmetry are not even
e0pecte until the 7lancK energy scale is approache Cat which quantum
gravity e!!ects are e0pecte to become importantD combine with the
!act o! matter_s overabunance in the ,niverse relative to antimatter
may well imply that there was an era quite early in the ,niverse_s
history in which there e0iste very nearly equal amounts o! matter an
antimatter. ?ut as a result o! a nearly complete recombination o! matter
with antimatter1 but a tiny !raction o! the originally very slightly
overabunant quantity remaine1 i.e.1 matter. 6hat the remaining
substance surviving the recombination era turne out to be RmatterS
rather than RantimatterS oes not relate to any physically substantive
issue an is a case o! mere RsemanticsS Con one level L since we shoul
have terme RmatterS whatever was le!t over post recombinationD.
6hough on another level1 there being a real istinction Can asymmetryD
between matter an antimatter1 there must be a physical reason why the
,niverse starte out sKewe towar matter rather than antimatter. o!
course a trivial problem o! arbitrary semantics. 6he matter an
antimatter that combine an mutually RannihilateS shoul have le!t
behin a large quantity o! energy1 which we ienti!y with the energy o!
the quantum vacuum Cor at least a !unamental component o! this
vacuum energyD. Ht shoul be possible to calculate the ensity o! this
component o! the vacuum_s energy relative to the ensity o! mass energy
simply by noting the energy scale at which .orentz invariance !ails.
6he conservation o! angular momentum in the !orm o! /a0/ap is not
inepenent o! its conservation in the !orm o! /at/a;. @onlocally
correlate quantum !luctuations containe within these angular
momentum uncertainties are responsible !or angular momentum
conservation in both o! the above !orms.
;0pectation values1 YPZ b bounary conitions
-luctuations1 YPWW2Z b ynamics
"upposely1 accoring to ?ohm C*2'*D1 all causal relationships Cbetween
e0pectation valuesD may be recast in terms o! !luctuations an their
mutual respective correlations.
;ntanglement is a Kin o! correlation - that o! nonlocally connecte
components o! a quantum mechanical system escribe by an iniviual
wave!unction.
3an a so-calle RpureS state be reconstitute !rom a mi0e state? Ht
woul seem so since it shoul always be possible to iagonalize the
ensity matri0 escribing the mi0e quantum state1 i.e.1 escribing the
statistical mi0ture o! quantum states.
"election might e0plain the emergence o! local orer in the history o!
evolution about as well as re!inements taKing place within a close
system constitute by a classical igital computer. "uch Rre!inementsS
woul be the equivalent o! a programming o! the computer by a chance
sequence o! inputs. 3onsciousness is noncomputable an so is the
emergence o! li!e.
Hs there any set o! opinions that truly constitute what one really thinKs?
:oes thought originate !rom outsie the conition within which it
appears to arise?
8utual phase relations may either be integrate1 re!lecting quantum
entanglement or not. 7hase locKing o! relative !requencies oesn_t
equate with integratioo o! quantum entanglements. 3an i!!erent
mutually e0clusive states Co! the same particle1 sayD become quantum
entangle? 9r is that the very meaning o! entanglement? Aate an
irection o! time L are these alone aequate to !i0 spacetime structure?
9r must internal relations o! the observer_s consciousness contribute to
etermining Calong with not 5ust an ob5ective e0ternal worl1 but also
Can necessarilyD along with such internal relations within other
observersD. .ying at the core o! the econstructive critique is a
suspicion that we are not persons1 but only simulations o! persons
CRsimulantsS or RsimulacraSD1 an yet we appear to possess the concept
o! what a CRrealSD person is. 6his is the insight that was use by
:escartes !or 5ust the opposite critique Co! atheismD to that o!
econstructionists.
Fe carry aroun with us a sense o! sel! an ientity that seems to !ar
outstrip a merely socially constructe sel!. /at_ an /a;_ may 5ust be
geometric pro5ections o! /at an /a; in which phase space is Cis notD
conserve1 c.!.1 internal correlations1 quantum entanglement.
:ata vs. in!ormation: the loss o! in!ormation1 its nonconservation is no
parao0 Cnor is the !ailure o! conservation o ata since the processing o!
ata always leas to the creation o! aitional ataD. 3onservation in
general requires C*D substance to be conserve1 C2D a container !or the
substance an C$D constancy o! the quantity o! substance within the
container
?ut i! ata are to become in!ormation1 the ata must be given conte0t
an integrate. 6he proviing o! conte0t is tantamount to RprocessingS
o! the original quantity o! in!ormation1 leaing to nonconservation. Hn
short1 in!ormation cannot be Rabout anythingS i! in!ormation is truly a
conserve quantity CliKe mass or energyD. /n i! in!ormation is not a
conserve quantity1 then in!ormation may not be properly thought to be
a RquantityS at all. Hs it possible !or symbols to re!er to their re!erents
a!ter the !ashion o! ivining the quantum state o! system by per!orming
a nonestructive measurement upon the system? C"ee papers by .ev
Iaiman an Aoger 7enrose on interaction-!ree quantum measurement.D
/n interaction-!ree quantum measurement CH-P8D may only be
emonstrate i! the quantum state o! the system has been prepare by
the one per!orming the H-P8 or the in!ormation about how the quantum
state was prepare is provie the person who is about to per!orm the
H-P8. =owever1 this oesn_t e0clue the possibility that observers Can
the environment1 as wellD per!orm interaction-!ree quantum
measurements all the time an at every turn. 6he problem is to per!orm
such a measurement an to Know one has per!orme such a
measurement. =ere preiction is to control as interaction-!ree quantum
measurement CH-P8D is to R+S. 6he question o! whether H-P8 is
actually a trivial !eature o! quantum measurement theory is boun up
with the peculiar nature o! +. 9ne thing we might say about R+S is that
this type o! measurement is enable through a care!ul engineering o!
initial an bounary conitions1 which is to say1 that one is able to obtain
Knowlege o! all o! the initial an bounary conitions that go into
e!ining the set o! possible states o! what we will term +C-D where - is
the system being measure.
9! course1 the concept o! quantum mechanical spin is a !ar more general
than that o! electromagnetism1 upon which to base a mechanism !or
gravitation. ;specially since electromagnetism has alreay been uni!ie
with the weaK an strong nuclear !orces1 basing a mechanism o!
gravitation only on electromagnetism woul necessarily pose a
stumbling blocK towar the eventual uni!ication o! gravity with the other
!unamental interactions. 6o wit1 saying that gravity is secretly a purely
electromagnetic phenomenon when one Knows that electromagnetism
has been proven to be only a component o! a uni!ie electroweaK-strong
nuclear !iel1 when one also Knows that gravity is universal in its action
Cthrough ;instein_s equivalence principleD is to avance a logically
inconsistent position.
Hn!ormationS increases e0ponentially with register size
e.g. 2
$)) Z *)2) Z X atoms in the universeT
a $))-qubit register cannot be simulate
on a classical computerT Cb -eynman *2N2D
=owever: only n bits o! classical in!o can be e0tracte
Cin a single realizationD
R7erhaps the most satis!ying aspect is the realization that constructing
such quantum computers will not require the !abrication o! tiny circuits
o! atomic scale or any other sophisticate avance in nanotechnology.
Hnee1 nature has alreay complete the harest part o! the process by
assembling the basic components. /ll along1 orinary molecules have
Known how to o a remarKable Kin o! computation. 7eople were 5ust
not asKing them the right questions1S c.!.1 Puantum 3omputing with
8olecules1 a "cienti!ic /merican -eature /rticle C>une *22ND. 6his
remins us o! our iea that when the precision with which one engineers
a system_s bounary conitions become e0acting enough1 the unerlying
system ynamics taKes over an completes the intent o! the esign while
eparting !rom the !ormal !allacies o! the esign_s abstract structure.
mm@ature_s secon guess at our creative intent is !requently superior to
our !irst guess.
Hn a worl without eterminism nature may be permitte to react to our
proing_s by anticipating our intentions. /lso1 our proing_s come to
nature genuinely !rom outsie her L this espite RnatureS not being a
thing an not possessing e!initive bounaries. 6he question arises as
to how one thing may be outsie o! another even when both RthingsS are
without e!inite bounaries emarcating an RinternalS !rom an
Re0ternal.S
RAeality is mae up o! circles but we see straight lines. =erein lies the
beginnings o! our limitation as systems thinKers.S - 7eter "enge 6his is
an alternative statement o! -ourier analysis/ synthesis1 which is itsel! a
particular choice o! basis in terms o! which to e0pansion o! some
!unction. Ht might be pro!itable to list the implications o! eterminism1
e.g.1 reuctionism1 reproucibility1 reversibility1 continuity1 symmetry
an/or conservation principles1 etc.
=ow can we have the symmetry o! ientity where the human
consciousness is concerne when this ientity is to possess no a priori
bounaries? 6his is a problem only i! the e!inition o! conservation is
limite in scope to mean conservation o! a substance containe within
something else. H! an iniviual human consciousness is ultimately
transcenent1 then such a consciousness may not properly be unerstoo
to be in or within any thing1 system1 space1 etc. /n what gives space
its temporal aspect is the collective action o! myria pro5ections into
space !rom other than this space Crather than merely R!rom outsieS this
spaceD.
Hs the process o! biological evolution somewhat robbe o! its meaning
an import i! this process is supporte by more !unamental physical
processes that are at all times an places reproucible? "houln_t
evolution necessarily involve the mani!esting o! altogether new lawliKe
behavior1 that is1 the engenering not only o! novel Ce.g.1 biologicalD
systems but o! altogether new laws governing1 there!ore altogether novel
entities?
Puantum probabilities may interaction through the unerlying
interaction o! their respective probability amplitues in such a manner
that the total probability ensity is allowe to pass a certain threshol at
which spontaneous collapse o! the overall systems wave!unction taKes
place. Fave!unction collapse is a iscontinuous switching o! the
system_s quantum state to come other quantum state. 6his is not the
same phenomenon as is spontaneous quantum ecoherence1 which
occurs in the absence o! an observer1 but must occur in the presence o!
the intersub5ective environment. ?ut what is the RmeiumS o! the
interaction o! probability amplitues? Hs this meium mae up o!
classically e!inable ob5ects1 that is1 o! e0pectation values o! quantum
observables?
R/roun *22'1 string theorists le by ; Fitten at 7rinceton iscovere
that all their seemingly i!!erent theories are in !act i!!erent aspects o!
the same theory. 6o ate1 noboy has manage to write own the
unerlying theory. /lthough it has been given a name: 8-6heory1S c.!.1
@ew -rontiers in 8oern 7hysics >e!! -orshaw ,niversity o!
8anchester.
3lasses are istille !rom sensory an perceptual e0perience1 e.g.1
R@39-nessS through a piecing together o! a topological structure.
:ata structures span the contents within iniviual quantum vacua.
Hn!ormation structures span the contents across iniviual vacua.
-ull resonance is equivalent to null coherence Cthis presupposes a
symmetry an conservation principle connecting resonant an coherent
vacuum phenomenaD. C?ut what can we say in this connection about
the possible inertial e!!ects o! quantum nonlocality in RpurelyS resonant
vacuum states?D
Fith the avent o! vacuum coherence1 the systems begin to connect an
e0change Rquantities o! interactionS Cthe nature o! which is to be
e0plore laterD with other vacua an topology is a e!inite consieration
in this regar. 6he movement o! an Rob5ectS through a single1 purely
resonant vacuum state must be an e0ample o! RmovementS in a
completely quantum nonlocal sense. Fhat is calle Rnonlocal timeS is a
quantity instrumental in the process by which normal Rlocal timeS is
integrate.
Fhat relevance oes the categorical istinction1 integrate versus
conte0tualize have !or our alreay establishe istinction1 that o! ata
vs. in!ormation. /n how o the istinctions o! quantum vs. classical1
local vs. nonlocal line up in relation to the above categorical
istinctions?
6he propagation o! a positional uncertainty is e0actly analogous to the
propagation o! a temporal interval o! sub5ective time in a person_s
stream o! consciousness. 6he propagation in time o! a partially
temporally integrate an temporally integrating consciousness Ci.e.1 the
consciousness is both propagating through time all the while temporality
is transpiring within itD means that correlations sustain the temporally
integrate though changing moment an provie the groun !or the
ongoing !ormation o! new correlations within an between this moment
an its groun. Hn other wors1 a positional uncertainty can only
propagate through space Cor spacetimeD by utilizing in an integrate
!ashion the quantum correlations e0isting along the smeare out
tra5ectory. Ht is !or this reason that quantum correlations propagation
spee is not necessarily limite to the spee o! light. 6he conservation
o! momentum-energy woul ictate a spee limit o! RcS i! this
conservation law were to e0ten to momentum-energy uncertainties.
=owever1 it is well Known that energy is not really conserve in
quantum mechanics. 6he nonconservation o! energy is particularly
require where the temporal integration o! !lowing consciousness is
concerne. /n this is why the passage o! sub5ective time must be a
!unamentally asymmetrical an aperioic process.
:uring quantum teleportation1 the !luctuations containe within the
=eisenberg uncertainties o! the quantum states being teleporte an their
mutual quantum correlations are teleporte along with the particular
quantum state itsel!.
>uly 2)**
6eleportation is not to be con!use with
merely e0ploiting the pree0isting quantum entanglement o! say1 two
spatially istant spin { particles.
6wo persons1 possessing equal vocabularies though where one uses a
vast array o! synonymous wors to inten more or less the same thing1
while the other treats synonymous wors as a spectrum o! subtley
istinctly intene re!erences1 will only to the most casual an
uneucate observers be mistaKen !or possessing similar intellect.
4eel_s 6heorem1 quantum computing1 =alting 7roblem1 4eel_s
Hncompleteness 6heorem moi!ie to taKe into account Yquantum
arithmeticZ. 6rue vs. -alse theorems an path to some new system in
which theorems hereto!ore not provable become so. 4eel_s
Hncompleteness 6heorem is perhaps 5ust a speci!ic case o! some broaer
statement not limite to mathematical theorems an systems1 !or
e0ample that the import o! any concept o! iea cannot be !ully
comprehene or unerstoo to inclue the concept_s relative truth or
!alsity i! the notion o! the concept in any way re!ers to the unerlying
mechanism o! the concept_s prouction.
6he reason !or a machine_s action is i!!erent !rom the reasons !or a
human being_s action a!ter the !ashion o! the istinction o! how vs. why.
6he global supersymmetry is maintaine via nonlocal quantum
entanglement1 i.e.1 instantaneous Re0changeS o! virtual1 coherent Ci.e.1
non-ecohereD quantum in!ormation. 6here is o! course an important
question here as to whether the appearance o! gravitation is what began
to isrupt the *))% quantum entangle state at which the ,niverse
began at the ?ig ?ang. 6he passage o! the ,niverse !rom a highly Cnear
in!initelyD orere or negentropic global state to its relatively entropic
global state1 i.e.1 partially ecohere ,niverse-wave!unction1 may have
initially been ue to the action o! gravitation1 the action o! which was in
e!!ect to ecrease the cosmos_ global quantum entanglement. =owever1
with the avent o! living matter o! a certain level o! quantum
comple0ity1 quantum entanglement began to Rsprout upS locally
throughout.
6he en result o! learning by a conscious1 e.g.1 neural networK is to swap
states o! local quantum entanglement !or globally quantum-entangle
states. 6his may suggest a new Kin o! symmetry in which the quantity
o! quantum entangle in!ormation is conserve. =owever1 our
metaphysical bias prompts us to postulate some higher orer o!
in!ormation what is not conserve an which gives the phenomenon o!
learning its substance. 4ravitation in its still mysterious !ashion an
consciousness Cvia the equally or more mysterious action o! !ree willD
both has the e!!ect o! Rsurprising the vacuum.S 6his RsurpriseS o! the
quantum vacuum1 what we might term quantum surprise is characterize
by the suen engenering o! new entanglements with the estruction o!
others via the usual mechanism o! quantum ecoherence. ?ut can the
reprocessing o! quantum entanglements always be aequately escribe
in terms o! this seemingly symmetrical operation o! creation/annihilation
o! quantum entanglements o! wave!unctions alreay present?
RFe thought that in!ormation was classical. Fe thought that we coul
hol up three !ingers1 then !our. Fe in_t realize that there coul be a
superposition o! both1S c.!.1 quantum arithmetic an 4eel_s theorem.
RHnee1 in sening a single photon1 the basic quantum teleporter
transmits a single qubit o! quantum in!ormation1S c.!.1 ata vs.
in!ormation.
R;ntangle particles1 quantum teleporters an gates that operate on a
single qubit at a time. . . R
R"cience oes not escribe how nature is but rather articulates what we
can say about nature.S
R6o e0tract all the in!ormation neee to escribeS an ob5ect1 one must
penetrate the =eisenberg uncertainties in quantum observables.S 6his
entails more than merely !ining out what we can say about the quantum
state1 i.e.1 more than what the wave!unction says about the state.
Puantum computations with greater than *)WWN) elements o not taKe
place within the quantum multiverse1 but within the nonlocally
connecte quantum vacuum.
/ll but a tiny cosmological component o! the vacuum energy is local L
the rest is nonlocal L possible solution to the vacuum energy ensity
parao0?
9nly local quantum CvacuumD in!ormation is mani!este within
spacetime1 rather than supporting spacetime1 c.!.1 "cienti!ic /merican1
"pecial ;ition1 Iolume *$1 @o. *1 p. ($1 RPuantum 6eleportation.S
6here is a limit to bosonic entanglement speci!ie by the 7lancK length.
@ote that this is a Kin o! ensity limit that is not irectly epenent
upon mass an volume. 6he 7lancK mass represents the largest
resonant mass Cas oppose to coherent massD possible1 i.e.1 supportable
by the matri0 o! !luctuating momentum-energy represente by the
quantum vacuum. H! the velocity o! light places a limit upon the spee
o! propagation o! gravity1 then how can inertial an gravitational masses
be equal1 i.e.1 how can the equivalence principle be true? Aesonant
mass is e!ine through quantum correlation o! !luctuations o! the
vacuum_s energy1 while coherent mass is e!ine through causal
connection o! !luctuations o! this vacuum_s energy. 7resumably causal
connection is limite to propagating at only the spee o! light1 whereas
quantum correlation is a quantum nonlocal phenomenon an so may be
consiere to RpropagateS instantaneously. 9r is the uality operating
here really that o! virtual bosonic vs. virtual !ermionic quantum
entanglement?
Hn the "tar 6reK @e0t 4eneration episoe1 R-uture Hmper!ectS1 AiKer
awaKens a!ter !alling unconscious uring an away mission only to !in
that *& years o! his li!e seem to have passe in the blinK o! an eye. :r.
Orusher e0plains to him that he ha contracte a !orm o! encephalitis
that eventually wipes out all memories !orme a!ter the onset o!
in!ection.
9ne_s state o! consciousness within a given situation Cconnecte in one_s
uniquely characteristic manner to the open system o! realityD must never
be ientical to some state o! consciousness en5oye Cor that coul be
en5oyeD by some other person within some other situation Cin which the
person is uniquely an characteristically connecte to the open system o!
realityD. /re there two i!!erent open systems o! reality corresponing
to two istinct mins?

6here is an important connection to be rawn between the taKing o!
cosmologically Re0paning spacetimeS seriously an a !inite1 nonzero
spectrum o! =eisenberg time uncertainty !or the quantum vacuum o! the
e0paning spacetime. 6he very same momentum o! timeline must be
containe within a telescoping system o! temporal conte0ts that are not
necessarily mutually rein!orcing. "o how are we to interpret a partial
cycle change in quantum mechanical amplitue1 that is1 one where
insu!!icient temporal conte0t has yet been provie !or saying how the
amplitue actually evolves over the course o! a given moment? Ht is
temporal evolution1 but o! a very speci!ic an e0traorinary Kin L it
cannot be properly submitte to a -ourier spectrum analysis1 which in
turn puts our interpretation o! the =eisenberg energy uncertainty in
oubt1 which is to note that an aequate e!inition o! =eisenberg
temporal uncertainty is epenent upon a similarly aequate e!inition
o! =eisenberg energy uncertainty.
6he sel!-organizing properties o! atoms an molecules are liKely
groune in the !act o! the entropy potential o! systems o! these entities
being many orers o! magnitue larger than the measurable entropies o!
these systems. 6his is another way o! escribing the !act o! these
systems o! atoms an molecules being eeply groune in the ynamics
o! the quantum vacuum1 itsel! possessing a nearly in!inite energy ensity
Can negentropyD.
;volution calling !orth that which has an alien agena ;vil is 5ust that
which has an alien agena an consists largely o! the tempting o!
temptation o! two parts: corrupting in!luence !rom within an !rom
without. "o on this view1 evil is merely relative.
6he chromatic ispersion o! photons emitte by gamma-ray bursters in
which lower !requency photons are etecte later than higher !requency
photons emitte by the 4A? simultaneously may be e0plaine by the
i!!ering photon ensities which are !unctions o! !requency. 6hese
observations were mae with the ?/6"; Cthe ?urst an 6ransient
"ource ;0perimentD. / theory !or the observe ispersion o! 4A?
photons has been avance by -otini 8arKopoulou Oalamara.
6he concept o! the entropy o! a script an the arbitrariness o! the 41 /1
31 6 base-pair sequences o! the genetic coe. 6he possibility o! sel!-
replicating1 in!ormation-bearing1 in!ormation-e0pressing molecules is
not something which evolves but is implicit in the sel!-organizing
capacities o! 3arbon1 =yrogen1 @itrogen an 90ygen. 6he notion o!
the vacuum must be e0pane !rom being merely a epth-wise e0tension
o! the !orms inhering within this vacuum_s sur!ace1 c.!.1 istinction in
quantum mechanics between real vs. virtual particles.
Ae!erence
7latonic orer
8etaphor
3onsciousness
open system
temporality
9ne senses one_s inner !reeom o! will while others see the inner
necessities riving one_s behavior an etermining its recognizably
characteristic stamp. 6he genuineness o! one_s !ree will appears to be
proven by the impossibility o! a complete escription o! the operation o!
this will.
/lthough nonlocal quantum phenomena may mani!est locally1 that is1
within speci!ic spacetime regions1 the source o! these mani!estations lies
altogether outsie o! spacetime.
/pparently a high proportion o! the nearly in!inite number o! genetic
base pair sequences that are theoretically possible via se0ual
recombination o! :@/ o! RviableS iniviuals themselves result in
viable o!!spring1 which is to say viable :@/ as well. 6o assume
otherwise is to invoKe an at once raical as well as clanestine system o!
se0ual selection o! which the human species Cwith possible e0ception o!
a small minority o! eccentric romantic poetsD has been throughout its
history largely unaware.
6he question arises as to whether the negentropies associate with two
implie in!ormational in!rastructures are equivalent. 6he two
in!rastructures are implie by the two istinctly alternative
interpretations o! the origins o! orer in genetic base pair sequences1
which are liKely analogous to the two basic alternative systems o!
arithmetic1 i.e.1 classical versus quantum.
http://www.scrib.com/oc/222(%NN2(/6he-9rigins-o!-9rer-"tuart-a-
Oau!!man Hn the !irst classical interpretation the Kernel ratio is that o!
number o! viable base pair sequences to that o! the total number o! such
possible. Hn the secon1 quantum interpretation this ratio is e!ine in
terms o! the inverse o! the total number o! possible genetic systems1 i.e.1
sel!-replicating1 in!ormation-bearing an in!ormation-e0pressing
molecules. 9! course1 in the so-calle RquantumS realm one can e0pan
this ratio in ever-higher orers1 so long as one oes not e0haust the
eeper levels o! permutational/ combinational structure. -or e0ample1
the ne0t step ownwar Cthe ne0t RhigherS orerD might be that o! the
ratio o! Rgenetic moleculesS to nonspeci!ic molecules1 the ne0t a!ter this1
RgeneticS quarK-lepton structures to nonspeci!ic such structures1 etc.1 a
nauseum. 6he quantum !actual vs. counter!actual istinction perhaps
becomes an important consieration in this connection.
RIiableS in this sense there!ore correspons to an ob5ective or absolute
category1 which seems to suggest that what constitutes genetically viable
is base in the innate sel!-organizing properties o! the atoms an
molecules composing nucleotie Cbase pairD sequences1 whereas what
constitutes viable with respect to success o! an organism within its
environment is not an absolute category. 9ne might asK here why
viable in one sense1 organismic1 which is environment-relative is
necessarily boun up with RviableS in the sense o! what woul be viable1
i! realize1 which is owing to the inner sel!-consistency an
cohesiveness o! the woul-be genetic e0pression as well as the chemical
stability o! the :@/ molecule so e0presse.
H! chance has inee playe as great a role in biological evolution as
molecular biologists suggest1 particularly at the very earliest stages1 then
it is highly liKely that terrestrial biological evolution has meant the
climbing o! a relatively shallow epression within the rugge !itness
lanscape o! coherent nucleotie sequencing.
6he probable relative shallowness o! the epression within the rugge
!itness lanscape CA-.D that terrestrial li!e is evolving within is a !act
that may be interprete in two istinct ways. 6his shallowness implies
that a great eal o! the orer mani!este by biological systems is a la
Oau!!man_s Rorer !or !reeS.
-ebruary 2)*2
Hs there a Oau!!manian rugge
!itness lanscape unerlying the structure o! the anthropic cosmological
multiverse% 3ombining ?oltzmann ?rain logic with Oau!!man_s orer
for free in application to an anthropic cosmological principle1 i.e.1 to one
in which the number of 7anthropicFcoherent8multiverses vastly outstrips
the number of istinct possible iniviual consciousnesses - because
along the lines o! the metho !or the calculation o! classical entropy1
there are so many more ways to generally speci!y or prouce1 even an
intersub5ective environment/ society o! selves than there is to speci!y the
ientity o! any given uniquely speci!ie conscious sel!1 that is1 the os
against one_s own e0istence are in a very real sense vastly larger than the
os against one appearance or another o! a social environment o!
seemingly liKe-mine human neighbors1 so that some critical
component to the e!inition o! iniviual consciousness is lacKing in all
but my sel!.
-ebruary 2)*$
Hn orer to Rmaintain the appearancesS Ci.e.1 o! a RnormalS
worKaay worlD1 a ?oltzmann brain only nees to integrate about two
secons o! Rspecious timeS Ctime within a specious presentD. 6he
emans on intentionality require to sustain the illusory meaning
granting conte0t !or such a bubble o! uni!ie conscious e0perience
woul no oubt be consierable in terms o! the instantaneously available
Ion @eumann negentropy. Fe might be tempte to apply the
!unamentally anti-solipsistic insight behin Fittgenstein_s so-calle
private language argument to in turn argue !or the impossibility o! an
arti!icial or con!abulate social conte0t !or the !au0 human e0perience o!
a ?oltzmann brain. 7art o! this insight1 ensconce within an /H conte0t
is that1 no simultaneous set o! inputs to a state machine not possessing
memory circuits can replicate the evolution o! the state space in a circuit
inee possessing memory. :oes the blacK whole in!ormation parao0
in which entropy is con!ine to a 2 sur!ace or hologram coing !or a $
space also worthy o! consieration here?
-ebruary 2)*$
6he only thing in
itsel! that one can have Knowlege o! Cin Aussell_s sense o! privilege
accessD is one_s consciousness o! this moment. /ccess to all other mental
states perhaps ought to be escribe as unprivilege1 incluing one_s
own mental states !rom moments1 i.e1 Rbubbles o! the specious presentS
other than this one. 6he question arises1 o! course1 Rhow are mental
states or sense ata o! mine at other times to be istinguishe !rom the
mental states o! other mins at any an all times?S =ow coul we
prevent collapse o! the istinction assume between metaphysical an
epistemological solipsism an moreover between epistemological an
methoological solipsism?
8arch 2)*(
4etho"ological soli!sism is the epistemological thesis that the
iniviual sel! an its states are the sole possible or proper starting
point !or philosophical construction CFoo1 22'D. / sKeptical turn
along these lines is Cartesian s'epticism.
4etho"ological soli!sism is the thesis that the mental properties
or mental states o! an organism can be iniviuate e0clusively on
the basis o! that state or propertyGs relations with other internal
states o! the organism itsel!1 without any re!erence to the society or
the physical worl in which the organism is embee.
6he secon e!inition was promote by >erry -oor C*2N)D. =e later
went on to istinguish this thesis !rom another that he
calle methoological iniviualism. -oorGs motivation !or introucing
these concepts into the philosophical Can now psychologicalD le0icon
was the nee to e!en some sort o! internalist conception o! the mental
!rom the problems pose by the !amous E6win ;arthE thought
e0periment o! =ilary 7utnam. Iery brie!ly1 the question is whether it is
possible !or two people1 one living in the actual worl where water is
=
2
9 an the other living in some possible worl C6win ;arthD
where water has all the same qualities o! our water but is actually
compose o! dUW1 to have the same belie!s Cor other propositional
attituesD about water. 6he e0ternalist says that this is not possible1
while the internalist insists that it is. -oor e!ines methoological
solipsism as the e0treme position that states that the content o!
someoneGs belie!s about1 say1 water has absolutely nothing to o with the
substance water in the outsie worl1 nor with the commonly accepte
e!inition o! the society in which that person lives. ;verything is
etermine internally. 8oreover1 the only thing that other people have to
go on in ascribing belie!s to someone else are the internal states o! his or
her physical brain. Hn contrast1 -oor e!ines methoological
iniviualism as the view that mental states have
a semantically evaluable characterUthat is1 they are relational states.
6he relation that provies semantic meaning can be a relation with the
e0ternal worl or with oneGs culture an1 so long as the relation prouces
some change in the causal power o! a mental state1 it can be consiere
to be a partial eterminant o! that state1 c.!.1
http://en.wiKipeia.org/wiKi/8ethoological#solipsism
>ust as matter even in the ensest istributions constitute but a relative
wisp compare to the near in!inite ensity o! the quantum vacuum1 the
in!ormation content o! biological systems may also be relatively
insigni!icant relative to the in!ormation ensity o! the quantum vacuum.
/nother is that e0traterrestrial li!e may well have climbe to a relative
position consierably lower than that which terrestrial li!e has reache
Capparently with the evolution o! intelligent1 particularly human li!eD
espite a relatively much longer history o! evolution1 say1 o! *) billion
as oppose to * billion years. @ote we are speaKing here o! a relative
i!!erence o! only one orer o! magnitue. "o although some
evolutionary processes are initially grace with an orer o! magnitue
greater or lesser egree o! orer1 all evolutionary processes begin with
an e0tremely high initial orer. "o the phase transition represente by
the e0plosion o! the Kernel o! near in!initely ense mass-energy calle
the ?ig ?ang an the resultant iscontinuous transition in orer
represente by this phase shi!t imbue matter with a richness o! structure
an sel!-organizing capability Cwell1 really1 capability to inter!ace with
the quantum vacuum so as to access its orerD. "o Rsel!-organizationS
o! matter may strictly speaKing turn out to be somewhat o! a misnomer.
?ut it is liKely that all o! this Rorer !or !reeS is tie to the substrate
within the quantum vacuum which provies the continuity between our
universe an whatever came be!ore the ?ig ?ang.
Puite the opposite o! the process by which intelligently contrive
esigns evolve. . .
"e0ual selection causes a clustering o! phenotypic !eatures. 7opulation
genetics is a!!ecte by changing cultural e!initions o! what is
consiere alluring an se0ually attractive. "e0ual attractiveness is
both a !unction o! the physiology o! perception an the physiology
unerlying e0terior physical !orm o! the organism. 3onvergence or
nonconvergence o! physiology o! the perception o! outwar !orm o! the
organism with the physiology unerlying this very same outwar !orm
o! the organism is not something sub5ect to the shaping in!luence o!
evolution1 but constitutes the initial an bounary conitions o! the
ynamic o! se0ual selection. Oau!!man_s Rorer !or !reeS is emboie
in these initial an bounary conitions upon the process o! evolution.
6he mutually complementary viabilities o! genotype an phenotype
must have evolve in tanem. 6he irection o! evolution o! genetic
e0pressions was by no means parallel to that o! the mechanism or
system o! genetic e0pression itsel!. 6his is only possible because the
viability o! long base pair sequences is reucible or at least largely
reucible to the viability o! short base pair sequences. 6his ostensible
!act o! the reucibility o! viability o! human genetic base pair sequences
cannot be aequately accounte !or in terms o! the viability an
reprouctive success o! simpler organisms !iguring within the human
genealogy. /n ine!initely long history o! evolution base upon an
altogether istinct Kin o! selection must have occurre an perhaps still
be occurring along an orthogonal irection o! time in orer to e0plain
the built in aequacy o! untrie genetic base pair sequences.
6he RmechanismS by which a min Rout-4eelizesS itsel! is no oubt
intimately relate to the mechanism o! wave!unction collapse within the
Figner interpretation o! the quantum measurement problem CP87D.
6here is an analogy here with two contrasting types o! personality1 those
o! the sel!-conscious an the unassuming person. 6he unassuming
person_s personality possesses a consistency that is only truly glimpse
by others an never by the person himsel!. 6he price o! consistency o!
the person_s personality is the person_s blinness to his personality_s
very RKarmic consistency1S i.e.1 that core consistency that maKes the
person universally recognizable to the great variety o! personalities
personally acquainte with him. 9n the other han1 we have the
possibly neurotic an sel!-conscious iniviual who1 by being able to
glimpse this core consistency to his personality Cor at least the
consistency to his personality as presente sociallyD1 inulges in sel!-
paroy on the one han or camou!lages himsel! by mani!esting
personality traits which quite contrast those by which he is commonly
recognize. "o maybe the social psychological metaphors !or the
notions o! 4eelian consistency an incompleteness permit us to gain
greater insight into how the mechanisms o! Rout-4eelizationS an
quantum mechanical wave!unction collapse are relate within Figner_s
interpretation o! P87 CFHP871 or RFH87S !or shortD.
R;0istenceS an Rnone0istenceS are both Rstates o! beingS. 6he
substance o! the 6iger an its cage is in each case1 psychic energy1
represente in two i!!erent ways. @egation o! a temporally e0tene
system1 entity1 etc. H! negation o! an entity is not e!ine1 then this
entity is not merely e0istent1 but also possesses being1 c.!.1 my
newsgroup post1 *222/*2/$*1 ;0istence/@on-e0istence theory.
7ossession o! being means being groune1 i.e.1 embee within an
open system1 which is to say a system proviing its own conte0t wherein
unity obtains within in!inite variety.
H! mathematical entities have being as subsistent entities1 then their
negations may not be !ully e!ine. ;0istent vs. none0istent are ual
opposing categories in the case o! e0istents not !urther groune in
?eing.
/ istinction is require between nonlocal an local =eisenberg uncertain
energy1 the e0perience o! the rate o! times_ passage is epenent upon
interaction o! the iniviuals nonlocal energy uncertainty with the
locally uncertain energy.
Aigiity is sustaine by resonant phenomena while elasticity1 by
coherence phenomena.
H! we are each more or less unsuccess!ul attempts to RmaKe a >esusS1
then >esus_ li!e is the most power!ul emonstration o! what each o! us
potentially coul have been ha "in not intervene. 6his why >esus is
re!erre to in the ?ible as Rthe secon /am.S RAeligionS as in the
.atin root o! this wor1 Rre-ligioS1 i.e.1 RlinKing bacKS points to the !act
o! 8an_s lost ivinity as RreligionS is the name !or 8an_s own
Cessentially misguieD attempts to reconnect to this lost ivinity. >esus
power!ully emonstrate what is possible through the =oly "pirit1 which
provies the means !or this linKing bacK to the -ather Cthat is1 the :ivine
"el!D.
-eueraben_s philosophy o! science hols intriguing metaphysical
implications !or ontology as well as !or philosophy o! min because it
raises the question o! Rwhat is the proper place !or min within an open
system o! being that is not hierarchically structure?S -eueraben_s
philosophy econstructs such hereto!ore-unquestione notions as
progress Co! both science an cultureD an biological evolution1
particularly in regar to the seemingly more speci!ic evolution o! min
in the R,niverse.S 6his question about the nature o! min within
-eueraben_s implie metaphysics is sharpene i! we at once insist on
the reality o! min_s unity so that the unity en5oye by the iniviual
consciousness is owing to the level o! participation o! this consciousness
in the unity o! min as such1 as oppose to that o! any particular min.
:oes min as such evolve1 or o only iniviual mins o so by virtue
o! their e0perience o! a growing participation in min? Ht woul seem
that such a notion is sel!-contraictory or at the very least parao0ical.
@o increase in the level o! comple0ity Cor in any other irecte
parameterD in the conitions o! being woul seem to net us an
unconitione being.
8ay 2)**
Fithout the notion o! an intelligent transcenent groun o! being1
we are le!t with our sole alternative1 that o! a groun o! being1 which is
ini!!erent to the passage o! time an there!ore inert with respect to an
in!inity o! possibilities. Fith respect to the possibilities that such a
groun oes not remain inert an insensitive1 we are !ace with the case
o! an obvious arti!ice in the totally absence o! a esigner. =ow
consciousness shoul emerge !rom this Kin o! groun o! being as an
utter novelty is a !ar greater mystery than the simple presupposition that
consciousness as such is itsel! that sel!same eternally pree0istent groun
o! being.
6he quantum principle o! the ientity o! iniscernibles is weaKene !or
composite ob5ects1 which is relate to the action o! the principle o! the
2
n
.aw o! 6hermoynamics. 6he iscernibility o! composite ob5ects
grows sharper as each ob5ect evelops its own unique history Cas
oppose to mere Rtra5ectorySD an the !ailure o! this quantum principle
in view o! consieration o! the 2
n
.aw is boun up in the vacuum
energy/cosmological constant parao0 Cnon-gravitating vacuum energyD.
Ht is moreover boun up with the important istinction o! ata an
in!ormation. 6he acceleration o! an ob5ect changes the state o! the
ob5ect in a way that must be reconcile not only with bounary but with
the initial conitions o! the ob5ect as well. 6hus gravitational !iels
must be capable o! possessing nonlocal components.
8ay 2)**
6he
inistinguishability o! composite ob5ects absolutely breaKs own !or the
case o! composite !ermions once the ob5ects become so massive that
ob5ect an anti-ob5ect coul not have been prouce by a single quantum
!luctuation o! the vacuum.
Hn!ormation may be given a quantum mechanical interpretation in terms
o! a pattern o! estructive inter!erence o! =eisenberg uncertainty
!luctuation spectra. ?ut this opens the way !or a natural interpretation
o! entropy in terms o! the constructive inter!erence o! =-uncertainty
spectra. Hn this way all in in!ormation is unerstoo not as re!erring to
!act1 but as the prouct o! the interaction o! counter!actuals. Fhat
istinguishes imagination !rom the so-calle real is the unerlying
istinction o! commensurate versus incommensurate inter!ering
counter!actuals. / single eigenstate1 whether selecte !rom the !ol o!
mutually commensurate or mutually incommensurate counter!actuals1
may not be properly classi!ie as either real or imaginary. / parao0
here is the !act that the iea o! iniviual counter!actuals an their
inherent recursive nature1 c.!.1 classic science !iction time parao01 e.g.1
=einlein.
8emories are never recalleV memories are reconstructe1 c.!.1 3H 6/3
=,8H@6 interview techniques training.
9! course1 .a7lacian eterminism is e!eate by the =eisenberg
uncertainty principle1 by which the positions an momenta o! particles
are !orce to remain somewhat blurre an inistinct. ?ut the =-
uncertainties in position an momenta are uncertainties in Kinematical
parameters. 6he ynamical origin !or the above Kinematical
uncertainties are the =-uncertainties in potential an Kinetic energy1 or to
be more relativistically correct1 the ynamical origin o! Kinematical
uncertainty lies with the unavoiable uncertainty o! momentum-energy
in the !orm o! spontaneous !luctuations in the vacuum_s momentum-
energy. 6his is why we say that the ynamical origin o! the appearance
o! temporality is spontaneously !luctuating vacuum energy.
Qd
6he
imensionality o! what we taKe to be the e0ternal worl is in !act the
imensionality appropriate to escribing the inter!ace between the
internal an e0ternal worls. Hnter!ace may be generally unerstoo to
be a Kin o! sur!ace iviing an allowing e0change between two
omains o! n + * imension1 where n is the imension o! the inter!ace.
6hus1 the true imensionality o! the bona !ie e0ternal worl is at least
one greater than its apparent imensionality. Fe en5oy a super!icial
e0perience o! this e0tra spatial imension as time1 the ynamical origin
o! which is this e0change that is continually occurring between these
two higher imensional omains1 i.e.1 the e0ternal an internal omains.
?ut the intriguing bonus !rom all o! this is that the imensionality o! the
min must also be at least one greater than that o! the apparent e0ternal
worl o! $ + * spacetime.
8ay 2)**
-or min is not in M a > spacetime1 but
$ + * spacetime is on the opposite sie o! the inter!ace !rom min so by
what has been sai min may well be unerstoo as at least M a I
imensional" i.e." three imensions of space an one of time.
Hn the "tar 6reK @e0t 4eneration episoe1 6he 8easure o! a 8an1 :ata
is put on trial to etermine i! he is a person with the !ull rights o! a
human being or only a machine to be ispense with as "tar!leet sees !it.
7icar lectures his ol nemesis1 "tar!leet >/4 o!!icer1 7hillipa in!orming
her that1 Rno one nees to remin usS1 he an commaner AiKer1 Ro! the
per!ormance o! their uty.S
Qd
6his brought to my min the general
problem o! all so-calle Rlo!ty abstractions1 i.e.1 uty1 honor1 loyalty1
love1 beauty1 truth1 etc.1 that general problem being whether such
abstractions are or may be !oune upon actual concepts or must only
masquerae as such1 being in reality only metaphors that all o! us have
conventionally agree to treat as bona !ie concepts.
8ay 2)**
6he
metaphorical nature o! language an there!ore o! thought is palpable
evience !or the !unamental inaequacy o! the har /H approach to the
philosophy o! min.
/n the importance o! conventions is only that o! bringing about the
higher organization o! human social1 cultural an technological
eneavor1 rather than that o! enhancing human beings ability to ivine
unerlying truths. 6he notion o! uty is !oune upon the notion o!
hierarchy an !aith in this hierarchy1 essentially upon the concept o! a
person or persons who have Knowlege o! the reality that lies behin
shi!ting an uncertain appearances an in whom we have an abiing
!aith. Hn !act1 all higher level abstractions !unctioning as the Kernels o!
ultimate human meaning an signi!icance are !oune upon an implicit
!aith in a hierarchically structure1 e0istential-7latonic chain o! being1
an so also !oune upon a notion o! :eity. / notion o! history that
robustly resists revisionism an active quantum mechanical uncertainty
seems also require by the above notion o! a 7latonic orer o! being.
Puestion: oes the notion o! uty retain its meaning across
iscontinuities in the most general o! human social an political
organization? 9r must the concept o! uty always be supplemente
with revisionistic historical interpretation? 7ersons carrying out their
lives entirely within sociopolitical institutions that are later realize to be
merely transitional !orms o! social organization must garner strength
!rom the myth o! their being participants in a rama o! lasting
signi!icance.
6he classic e0ample o! historical revisionism is the interpretation mae
popular over the last () years o! >esus having been at turns1 8ar0ist1
/narchist an =ippie.
6he !irst N)% o! evolution o! li!e on ;arth tooK place entirely within
realm o! bacteria.
Qd
3oul there be a eep connection between the
Rmultiple0er problemS o! perception an the reunancy in the survival
value o! success!ul bacterial genetic base-pair sequences1 which are
incorporate again an again in progressively more comple0 li!e !orms?
Hn =einlein_s science !iction novel1 6he 8oon is a =arsh 8istress1
publishe in *2&&1 the author states early in the story through the story_s
computer technician protagonist that1 R7sychologists assert it happens
automatically whenever a brain acquires certain very high number o!
associational paths. 3anGt see it matters whether paths are protein or
platinum.E Hs there perhaps a plausible basis !or this belie! about the
relation o! consciousness to comple0ity1 say base on our earlier allue
to this notion o! Rsurprising the vacuum.S 3onsciousness may inee
brige the gap between the locality o! eterministic causality1 which
unerlies the transmission o! ata at velocities no greater than that o!
light an the non-locality o! =eisenberg quantum uncertainty1 which
unerlies the Rinstantaneous propagationS o! in!ormation mani!esting
itsel! as Can perhaps only as1 on account o! chronology protection
consierationsD temporally integrate states o! awareness. /n Rin!inite
velocityS may be associate with in!ormation containe within these
temporally integrate states because a continuum o! times are !use into
a single instant o! time1 provie that these two times1 integral sub5ective
an instantaneous ob5ective are mutually orthogonal Ci.e.1 chronology
protectionD
6he action o! the conscious human will C!ree willD typically inuces so-
calle collapse o! the wave !unction ue to the incommensurability o!
the two istinct quantum vacua suenly brought into mutual contact.
6he collapse is necessitate speci!ically by the quantum vacuum
embeing the physical observable system suenly being connecte
with a to-the-system-unanticipate vacuum state.
9n the above view comple0ity o! the brain pushe !ar enough leas to
the possibility o! the emergence o! conscious states through the !ailure
o! the embeing Cintersub5ective/ob5ectiveD vacuum to Keep up with the
istribute instantaneous states o! this brain. Hn orer to RKeep upS an
RtracKS the temporal evolution o! the brain_s vacuum state1 the
intersub5ective vacuum must suppress some o! the precise etails o! the
brainfs too rapily evolving quantum state.
Qd
6his abstraction !rom the
brain_s rapily temporally evolving state o! certain integrate sets o!
R!eaturesS is what lies behin the prouction o! temporally integrate
states o! awareness. Ht is this abstraction !rom the brain_s Cor rather the
quantum vacuum embeing the brain_sD quantum state which breaKs the
linK o! causal necessity between the brain_s an it_s vacuum_s quantum
state. Hn other wors1 once the intersub5ective1 i.e.1 Rob5ectiveS vacuum
state can no longer tracK Cto within quantum uncertaintyD the temporal
evolution o! the brain1 then at this point the comple0ity o! the brain has
outstrippe Rthe public vacuum stateS o! spacetime. Ht is here that an
altogether new vacuum state is RnucleateS an in which the person_s
brain now becomes embee as the physical realization o! that person_s
state o! consciousness. Hnterpretation here is a !unction o! choice an
not causality. /s allue to elsewhere the process o! abstraction !rom
the ob5ective time stream o! the brain_s quantum mechanical temporal
evolution occupies a timeliKe imension orthogonal to that o! so-calle
physical time.
WWWWWWWWWWO-9A :eployment )$)%)$ Cprevious writings
belowDWWWWWWWWWWWW
8aKe a istinction between nonlocal an local (-momentum uncertainty.
6he e0perience o! the rate o! time_s passage is epenent upon
interaction o! the iniviual_s nonlocal energy uncertainty with the
locally uncertain energy.
6he temporal integration Cintegration across ob5ective timeD1 which
appears to be an essential !eature o! conscious states may invoKe the
!usion o! a spectrum o! iscrete simultaneities1 which gives quantum1
sub-neural events a temporal imension o! epth largely inepenent o!
the eterministic evolution o! the brain_s quantum state with respect to
single1 arbitrary inertial !rames. Hs there necessarily a gravitational
potential associate with such an integrate continuum o! inertial !rames
ictate by the temporal integrative structure o! conscious mental states?
6his maKes the integral temporal structure o! consciousness resemble a
wave pacKet o! non-locally connecte but incommensurate eigen-liKe
wave-!unctions Cincommensurate eigen!unctionsD1 one which must be an
anharmonic !unction o! no particular time parameter1
Qd
but a !unction o!
a time interval1 c.!.1 convolution theorem o! signal processing theory.
/n analogy with blacK holes suggests itsel! at this point in our
iscussion: su!!icient in!ormation comple0ity or ensity o! in!ormation
containe within a physical system Co! amittely a very special KinD
causes resonant quantum tunneling o! the system into an incompatible
Can incommensurateD vacuum state1 one which is intimately associate
with the thusly emergent state o! consciousness.
Qd
=ere the ensity o!
in!ormation o!1 !or e0ample1 a human brain has e6ceee the capacity
for an instantaneous vacuum state to support the temporal evolution o!
the physical system constituting this brain. 9r perhaps this is another
way o! saying that the intersub5ective quantum vacuum cannot !ully
support the temporal evolution o! a conscious human brain. 6here is
here the !unamentally similar inability o! the quantum vacuum to
respon in real time to in!ormation inputs: in the case o! the e0ternal
observer collapsing the wave !unction o! the quantum system he is
observing1 it is the very suenness o! the inputV in the case o! the
normally !unctioning human brain1 the overwhelming comple0ity
Cspacetime ensityD o! coorinate inputs to this vacuum1 which triggers
the Rcollapse.S
>uly 2)**
6his remins me o! my e0periences o! having
taKen stanarize an time1 multiple choice e0aminations where H
suenly realize that H was running short on time so that1 uner the
weight o! new !oun necessity1 H commence to marK test question
answers virtually ranomly. Hmagine the bizarre situation wherein the
panicKe guesess o! time-pressure young scholars hel some material
relevance to the actual state o! a!!airs in!orming the evelopment o! the
test answer Key an you are perhaps glimpsing the situation in which the
action o! the quantum vacuum is involve. Fe must remember that1
accoring to the 3openhagen interpretation o! quantum mechanics1 the
wave!unction represents the most that can be 'nown about the physical
state of a Buantum mechanical system. "o the RguessesS o! the quantum
vacuum are not appro0imationsV they are eterminations. ?ut they are
eterminations in the absence o! any thorough-going eterminism such
as was conceive by .a7lace.
6his !unamental similarity o! unerlying mechanisms in the above two
escriptions o! triggere wave !unction collapse is that o! suen
connection o! alien vacuum states to that in which the collapse is
triggere. Hn the usual case o! quantum observation the suen
connection o! hereto!ore never be!ore connecte vacua is spaceliKe1
whereas in the latter case this suen connection is timeliKe.
8ay 2)**
6he
physical inter!erence with the system uner e0perimental observation
oes not inuce the collapse. Aather the suen coupling o! the two
incommensurate vacuum states1 one the system_s1 the other that o! the
observer_s brain1 which is the cause o! wave!unction collapse.
6his is all to inulge in what might be aptly terme science !iction
metaphysics an one which may well constitute an altogether new genre
o! poetic e0pression.
6o restate the latter part o! the above passage !rom =einlein1 the
protagonist asserts his belie! that he R3anGt see it matters whether paths
are protein or platinum.E 6his is a isguise statement that it is purely
!ormal comple0ity that is always responsible !or the crossing o! the
threshol o! consciousness by a computing machine that has become
su!!iciently comple0. ?ut as iscusse throughout this ocument
purely !ormal sets o! relationships1 that is to say1 logic alone is
inaequate to capture the comple0ity o! metaphorical thinKing. 6he
leaping !rom one logically consistent system to another1 itsel! an
inherently alogical proceure1 which1 by the way is the only means o!
properly compensating !or the limitations o! sel!-consistent systems o!
!ormal logic as etaile in 4eel_s Hncompleteness 6heorem is an ieal
e0ample o! what is essentially metaphorical thinKing1 to wit1 the
processing o! inputte sets o! sensory stimuli by a !acile changing o!
conte0ts. 8etaphorical thinKing may be characterize as essentially the
!acility !or rationally ealing with or hanling incommensurability.
6his statement however seems almost a contraiction in terms1 but one
which is escape via a 5uicious equivocation o! sense. Hn this way the
istinctions between semantics1 semiotics an synta0 is realize to be
inistinct. /Kin to the versatility o! the :@/ through the arbitrariness
o! its peculiar system o! protein-coing1 the versatility o! the brain-base
human !aculty o! thought lies with the lacK o! causal !i0ity o! the
connection o! brain an associate conscious states. 6he etermination
o! conscious states by brain states is evolutionary an historical though
!unamentally acausal.
Hnvestigate the relevance o! the mutual egeneracy o! ata an
in!ormation !or the above iscussion o! quantum brain/consciousness.
=ere is an irreversibility associate with in!ormation within the
phenomenon o! evolution that parallels this concept within the conte0t
o! thermoynamic theory associate with the concept o! entropy.
/ blacK hole is conventionally thought o! as having le!t its gravitational
!iel behin even though its mass has le!t our spacetime continuum
altogether.
@eutron stars have been observe with rotational spees o! up to &))
=z. "houl such a spinning boy ri!t into a region o! relatively greater
gravitational potential1 several simple Cin the weaK !iel limit at leastD
relativistic e!!ects are to be e0pecte: relativistic increase in the star_s
mass1 contraction o! the star_s !requency o! rotation1 an contraction in
the irection perpenicular to the star_s raius o! gyration. 6he
contractions o! the rotating star_s raius o! gyration an angular
!requency cancel one another_s e!!ects upon the star_s relativistic angular
momentum. =owever1 there is still the relativistic increase in the mass
o! the star that remains to be taKen into account. "o a rotating star
ri!ting into a gravitational potential e0periences a relativistic increase in
its $-angular momentum. Fell i! the (-angular momentum o! the star is
to be conserve1 then the star must have ha a Rrest (-angular
momentum1S prior to its having ri!te into the gravitational potential.
6his rest (-angular momentum1 similar to the case o! linear momentum1
e!ines the e0treme limit a boy_s $-angular momentum1 that is to say1
the star_s $-angular momentum cannot grow any larger than that allowe
by a 2) egree rotation o! the star_s rest (-angular momentum !rom a
purely timeliKe to a purely spaceliKe angular momentum.
/re all apparent !orces phenomena reucible to a combination o!
spatiotemporal variation o! spacetime bounary conitions applie to
purely timeliKe linear an angular momenta? Hmagine here a cosmic
ray particle zipping through a spatiotemporal varying electromagnetic
!iel. Hn a very real sense no R!orcesS whatever are acting on this
cosmic ray particle. 6he illusory nature o! !orces an torques as mere
$-imensional phenomena is pointe up by the !act that within (-
imensional spacetime1 both (-momentum an (-angular momentum is
e!!ectively conserve within an appro0imately close system o! matter
an energy1 while !orce an torque are e!ine as time variations in
linear an angular momentum1 respectively.
6he intersub5ective realm is not sustaine against an unerlying
ob5ective realm. H! sub5ective an intersub5ective are mutually is5oint
categories1 then the so-calle ob5ective cuts across this ual istinction.
@o straight sequence Cone not involving !eebacK loopsD o! inputs o!
stimuli to a brain-in-a-vat can bring a coherent sel!/consciousness into
e0istence1 nor a coherent perception o! an e0ternal worl Cthe two are o!
necessity con5oine1 though the sel! is in part1 but consierably more
than a social constructD. 6he !eebacK loops in the stimulus-response
series constitute a !unamentally istinct topology !rom that o! a mere
Rstraight sequence.S
6he e!!icacy o! ranom chance requires an unerlying coherent conte0t.
6he ultimate rationality o! nature or RrealityS woul have to appear
irrational an un!athomable to the human min1 itsel! a mere part o! this
continuum Cthis so as to avoi an in!inite regression parao0D. 9n the
other han1 i! the min were not itsel! an arti!act or prouct o! nature1
that is1 then perhaps the ultimate rationality o! the worl coul be
graspe Cnot however i! nature were an arti!act o! the human min.D /ll
intersub5ective investigation pushe !ar enough becomes sub5ective an
personal. 8ass is a mani!estation o! o!!-equilibrium relative
istributions o! coherent CbiningD an resonant CperturbingD energy1 c.!.1
web=
www.spaceaily.com/news/materials-)*b.html 1 R/ 8ass o! Hnertia.S
3.!.1 ;instein versus ?ohr1 by 8enel "achs C9pen 3ourt1 *22*D. "ince
4A_s spacetime is escribe by a positively curve an unboune
spacetime mani!ol1 there!ore the metric o! this type o! spacetime
mani!ol must be completely e!ine on the mani!ol itsel!. .ooK at
how all o! Oant_s /ntimonies !rom the 3ritique are systematically
transcene by a small han!ul o! basic concepts o! so-calle moern
physics.
/ recursion may be thought o! as a perioic !unction o! a !ractal variable
CspaceD. "tress an strain !orces within the vacuum are associate with
the Rbening o! spacetime.S -our-imensional spacetime represents the
causal1 eterministic component o! spacetime_s overall structure.
:eviations !rom causal eterminism must be moele in terms o!
spontaneous !luctuations in the metric o! 8inKowsKi spacetime. 7si-
collapse may be !iguratively escribe as a pulling o! the rug out !rom
uner the wave !unction1 that is1 suen changes to the spacetime
inepenent variables o! the wave !unction.
Hn the same way that -reu characterize culture as the prouct o!
collective sublimation o! the represse se0ual impulse1 there is another
view aKin to this concerning the human interpersonal interaction - it is
all sublimation o! attacK an e!ense1 e0pansion an retreat1 belligerence
an appeasement1 etc. 6he probabilities associate with spin
eigen!unctions con!orm to a principle o! equipartation. 6he observe
spin eigenvalues are etermine !rom a spaceliKe magnetic !iel an
timeliKe spin as its primary inputs.
Hs a !ourth spatial imension in relativity theory simply a help!ul
metaphor1 but one which poses a stumbling blocK to greater
unerstaning i! taKen too literally Cthis is the general problem o! the
metaphor1 a speci!ic e0ample o! which is 3ampbell_s observation that
the masKs o! 4o both reveale an conceale the 4o_s ivinityD. Hn
this way we come to unerstan Ouhnian scienti!ic paraigms as merely
initially help!ul Can later hinering metaphors representing essentially
unKnowable scienti!ic truths.D 6he brain acts as a whole to stimulate the
vacuum state in which it is embee1 not with blin energy pulse
spectra but with in!ormation signals1 iniviual vacuum state is
containe within the embeing vacuum an not within the brain itsel!.
;ach sel!1 through its brain being the only such embee in its vacuum1
carries the peculiar implication that solipsism is true !or each o! the
unlimite number o! persons who e0ist.
6here is a !orm o! solipsism in which the istance o! intelligent beings
!rom the central sel! is re!lecte in the relative spatiotemporal istances
o! other emboie persons. 6he subconscious is constitute by all those
processes attributable to the ynamics o! mental processes o! other
persons with whom the solipsist has interacte in the past. 6he
unconscious o! the solipsist on the other han is compose o! all those
ynamics on the part o! other persons with whom the solipsist has not
yet e0plicitly1 i.e.1 ego-consciously interacte.
@otice that programming a computer to per!orm arithmetic is the very
same proceure as that o! 4eel-numbering. Y superluminal aether 5et
streamZ 6here is no relativistic limit on velocity !or processes essential
to the unerlying mechanism o! mass generation. 8ass or inertia is a
!unction o! a boy_s in!ormation content1 not its ensity o! ata.
Hn!ormation o! whatever Rin!ormsS that is RsurprisesS the vacuum1 that is
to say1 oes something to some vacuum state though embee within
some other1 is5oint vacuum state. 6his is the notion o!
incommensurability o! istinct vacua. 6hese istinct vacua are by their
very nature Rin!inite an boune1S the e0act converse to the structure o!
intersub5ective spacetime. 6o remove all o! the egeneracies !rom the
min as an organ o! consciousness is merely a single moe out o! an
in!inite number o! 4o_s moes o! being.
@o eterministic or logically euctive path to the result1 however1 the
human min seems convince that here the wor RpotentialS nonetheless
re!ers to this hypothetical concrete Can not merely abstractD entity.
8etaphors only RworKS when they succee in moeling or pointing up
the relevant !eatures o! phenomena. 6he question arises as to what
peculiar !aculty is involve in cognizing 5ust what are the Rrelevant
!eaturesS an ignoring the rest o! the new phenomena we are trying to
unerstan. 6he !iltering an suppressing o! phenomenal etails
necessary !or the !ormation o! abstract perceptions is a !unamentally
creative process. 6here is the hien assumption here that in some
sense each conscious observer is constantly in the presence o! all o! the
phenomena Cthis may be interprete as the complete1 in!inite an
boune matri0 o! phenomena unerlying the observer_s consciousnessD.
6he !ailure o! metaphors when RtaKen too literallyS is e0actly analogous
to the collapse o! scienti!ic paraigms. 6his RtaKing o! metaphors too
literallyS is a strongly innate tenency o! the human intellect an !orms
the basis o! myth1 science1 religion1 art - in !act1 o! all o! culture. 7rior
to the evelopment o! language an culture an civilization man
!unctione more or less on a Rstimulus-responseS or what might be
terme subsistence level o! mental !unctioning. 6he !aculty !or
creation an interpreting o! metaphors is what breaKs the stimulus-
response loop an permit_s the connection between brain states an
mental states to become an arbitrary one1 that is1 no longer constraine
by causal necessity.
9ne implication o! the 4eel theorem is that all mathematics an logic
is applie mathematics an logic1 that is to say1 the most e!!icient
implementation o! logic an mathematics is in the !orm o! a patchworK
that is 5ust one out o! an open-ene egenerate set. / truly recursive
structure requires the structuring o! an in!inite set.
6his is all to say in terms o! philosophical upshot that i! a uni!ie an
complete escription o! reality e0ists1 then such a escription oes so
only as a structure within Crather than Ro!SD some uni!ie1 transcenental
consciousness.
6he entropy o! an observable epens on the amount o! suppresse
etail implie by the e!inition o! the abstract quantity we are concerne
with. @ote that the suppresse etails woul be ienti!ie with other
istinct observable rather than with !luctuations in the !irst observable.
6he misunerstaning o! econstruction that is all too common is one
analogous to an amateur physicist_s initial tentative attempts to
unerstan relativity theory. 6he meaning o! this theory is only
completely graspe in the practical application o! the concepts o! the
theory. C6his raises the question o! how the concepts o! the theory arose
in the !irst place.D 6he attempt to visualize curve spacetime within the
min_s eye is by its very nature guarantee to lea the amateur theorist
astray. 6his is because all visualizations o! the min_s eye tacitly
assume the @ewtonian concepts o! absolute space an time.
6his might seem to be quite contrary to the spirit o! 7latonism.
Ht might be suppose that consciousness is not irreucible because it_s
only a concept o! our own conventional agreement. =owever1 we
shoul note that previous iscussion an reaing o! 7lantinga_s other
mins theories suggest that we on_t actually have a concept o!
consciousness at all1 but only its irect intuition1 one might even say1
revelation. H! vali1 then the Rconsciousness is 5ust a human conceptS
argument !ails. /n analogous line o! reasoning might apply to our
notion o! 4o1 i! it turne out not to be tie to an abstract concept1 c.!.1
Fittgenstein_s iscussion o! class vs. !amily resemblance Ctruth vs.
issemination?D Ymass o! inertiaZ Y7utho!!Z
0-y plane: resistance to acceleration vs. reaction to gravity is equivalent
to 0_-y_ plane: time vs. space
4ravity analogues in terms o! relating real vs. virtual1 real vs. imaginary1
!ermion vs. boson1 internal vs. e0ternal motion1 coherence vs. resonance1
etc. Fhat is the common problem pose by analogue treatments o!
relativity theory?1 c.!.1 -eynman_s observation that all visualizable1 that
is1 not !ully abstract moels Crelate to Figner_s parao0 o! Rthe
unreasonable e!!ectivenessS o! mathematics in the physical sciencesD
always preict phenomena that on_t e0ist in aition to e0plaining the
phenomena that o e0ist CparaphraseD. 6he !unamental nonlocality o!
physical process accounts !or natures transcenence o! all conceivable
visualizable1 which is to say1 mechanical moels. Hs this what is meant
by the Rtranscenental nature o! nature?S
"uperposable alternatives are i!!erent states o! the same system. @on
superposable alternatives are states o! i!!erent systems. [6he
evolution o! scienti!ic law may be unerstoo as a negotiation o! myria
paraigmatic branch-points within a transcenental reality1 that is to say1
a reality within which a non-enumerable set o! istinct universal
physical laws resie. \
[;ach iniviual consciousness travels its own unique path through the
transcenental lanscape that lies behin the appearances. ;ach
vacuum state1 which serves as the inter!ace between the sub5ective1
iniviual an intersub5ective reality embes the particular set o!
Rphysical lawsS unerlying that particular iniviual consciousness.
6he iniviual theorist-e0perimenter-observer is only able to iscover
agreement with other observers o! the intersub5ective realm Ygame
theoryZ over laws o! physics1 chemistry1 biology1 etc. capable o!
e0plicating what intersub5ective observers possess in common1 however
not what accounts !or the istinctiveness o! observer_s vis--vis each
person_s iniviual consciousness. 6his is because physical laws are
abstract an only relate classes o! iniviuals. /n my iniviual
consciousness oes not constitute a class o! any Kin1 one that is
instantiate by me now1 later by someone else1 over there by still another
person1 etc.
Aelativism: there is no reason !or there being such a thing as rationality
e0cept that people have !orme such a concept by mutual agreement.
CsyoungQstp5home.org )22))$D
:iscuss the sel!-contraiction implie by attempting to visualize the
mechanics o! the curving o! spacetime1 e.g.1 the spee o! light = RcS an
the spee o! light = virtual in!inity.
R7iS is a transcenental irrational number within !lat spacetime1 though
this is not necessarily the case within certain curve spacetimes1 c.!.1 C7i
= ratio o! circum!erence to iameter o! a Rcircle1S that is1 o! a circle on a
two-imensional plane.
Qd
:iscuss how econstructive criticism reveals the hien theistic
assumption !ounational to the thinKing o! both believers an
agnostics/atheists. /n e0ample o! such hien assumptions is the
typical belie! o! most scientists that the evelopment o! science is not
5ust avancing relative to a program o! solving scienti!ic problems1 but
that science is avancing towar something calle truth Ceven i! this
truth a Rvanishing pointS which shall never actually be reacheD.
/t constant temperature1 changes in the spectral energy ensity o! virtual
photons Cerive !rom the ?ose-;instein istribution !unctionD must be
associate with a change in Rc/!S = lamba1 the photon wavelength. /
similar statement applies at constant temperature to changes in the
spectral energy ensity o! virtual !ermions. 6his is 5ust the mechanism
o! probability conservation at worK.
/nalogous to a boy at rest possessing an imaginary (-momentum along
its time a0is is the non-rotating boy which possesses (-angular
momentum about it time a0is. ?ut as pointe up by @ewton_s spinning
bucKet e0periment1 rotation1 or rather1 angular momentum is not merely
relative. ?ut i! spin cannot be interprete as the angular rotation o! a
mass because spin interactions themselves unerlie Cprovie the
mechanism !orD inertia CmassD1 then angular motion becomes 5ust as
much relative as is linear motion.
6he twin parao0 is only solve by consiering who initiates the relative
acceleration !or this is what is not merely relative between the space-
!aring twins. Ht may turn out that all real temporality is irreversible
temporality. 6his notion o! the necessary irreversible nature o! time is
an implication o! Rsurprise vacuumS inertio-gravitic theory.
Hrreversible time has no necessary connection to some e0tra imension
orthogonal to A-cube1 but is a characteristic o! all sel!-initiate motion-
motion base in action !rom outsie the causal continuum. / person
who accelerates is changing his connectivity to the vacuum state or
rather changing the vacuum state to which he is connecte. C6he ale
soliloquies o! an /lzheimer patient cause me to re!lect on the relative
importance to coherent iniviual consciousness o! causal vs. acausal
Cbrain + quantum substrateD processes. D
Hnterestingly1 this changing one_s embeing vacuum state1 c.!.1 non-
aiabatic quantum evolution/ 7si-collapse is what characterizes both
thinKing an !reely-wille action. /ll -ourier-analyzable !unctions are
eterministic an reversible Ccompose o! RharmonicS !unctionsD.
Fhen the ratio between oscillatory spectra is characterize by an
irrational !unction1 that is1 by a !unction o! irrational numbers1 then the
spectra belong to nonequivalent vacuum states.
/re vacuum !luctuations responsible !or both sub5ective an
intersub5ective temporality? 6he !luctuation in ; is not equal to the
quantum uncertainty o! ; an whether the !luctuation in ; is lesser or
greater epens on the relative magnitues o! the e0pectation value o! ;1
Y;Z. Hs there a thermoynamic analogue to the etermination o! YPZ
by the quantum !luctuation an quantum uncertainty in P1 say where the
!luctuation o! " an the uncertainty o! " is the entropy o! the physical
observable corresponing to the quantum mechanical operator1 P in
!luc-P an /aP?
/ planet pursuing an elliptical orbit Rsweeps out equal areas in equal
timesS1 so Oepler in!orms us in his 2
n
.aw o! 8otion. Fell1 the purely
spatial areas an their corresponing times1 as relate in the above law
are no longer RequalS because relativity theory tells us that the time an
space variables can no longer retain their iniviual istinct ientities as
space on the one han an time on the other han1 but that these
variables become mi0e whenever we move between i!!erent inertial
!rames.
6he raial vector !rom the orbiting planet to the primary boy cannot be
escribe as purely spatial1 but must be escribe by a spacetime
interval. 6he areas swept out by the orbiting planet are $-hypersur!aces
o! C2 + *D spacetime geometry. /n so the angular momentum vector
orthogonal to this $-hypersur!ace. Aee0amine the !ormula1 >
u
2
= .
u
2
+
"
u
2
= .
*
2
+ .
2
2
+ .
$
2
+ "
2
. 6he !ormula !rom stanar quantum
mechanics is >
u
2
= .
u
2
+ "
u
2
+ .W".
6he small eviations !rom Oepler_s 2
n
.aw o! 8otion1 to wit1 that the
planets orbit about the sun in such a manner as to Rsweep outS equal
areas in equal times1 which is preicte !or a planet in an elliptical orbit1
particularly !or the planet 8ercury1 by the general theory o! relativity
may be easily an intuitively Can more or less correctlyD unerstoo in
terms o! a Rcurve spaceS concept o! ;instein_s1 consistent with the
alternative an equivalent concept o! the conservation o! (-angular
momentum1 i.e.1 C o! > = . + "D1 which is to say1 conservation o! the sum
o! the micro- an macroscopic components o! > CtimeliKe + spaceliKe
components o! the spin current ensities1 >
uv
D in which the
Qd
(-
angular momentum vector1 >
u
always points orthogonally to the tangent
space $-hypersur!ace Ctangent to the curvature o! spacetime at the
spacetime coorinate o! >
u
.
Ht is through analysis o! the general relativistic Oepler_s .aws that the
equivalence o! spacetime curvature an angular momentum/spin
approaches to gravity may be reconcile. /lso compare spacetime
curvature to the least action !ormalism o! general relativity.
7ropose a new theory o! humor: the min attempts to cognize in terms o!
a smarter or cleverer version o! itsel!. 9ne is here remine o! the
i!!erence between mere recognition o! humor !rom the creation o!
humor. 6his is much liKe the relationship o! one_s recognition an
worKing vocabularies.
9ne important attribute o! consciousness is that it is completely sel!-
interpenetrating1 that is to say1 there is no physical analogue or
mechanism unerlying the action o! consciousness. 8etaphors are by
their essential nature analogues1 but the essence o! consciousness itsel! is
the very prouction o! metaphors as suchV this is still another reason !or
supposing that there is no analogue !or consciousness1 i.e.1 an analogue
that succees in !unctioning e0actly as that process which it moels.
6he notion o! such an RanalogueS is a contraiction in terms1 to wit1 an
analogue that is ientical to what it Rmoels.S @othing analogous to
conscious coul itsel! be conscious.
8acroscopic quantum states are not sustainable within the vacuum.
"uch states are however sustainable so it appears within the normally
!unctioning human brain. Fhat peculiar networK o! bounary
conitions oes the brain place upon the quantum vacuum that prevents
7si ecoherence an collapse only to later orchestrate the very same? Hn
line with Rsurprise vacuumS theory1 the brain orchestrates its own 7si
collapse via a Kin o! suen embeing o! its substrate vacuum within
some other vacuum longer in some relevant sense1 e.g.1 time1 energy
uncertainty1 egeneracy1 etc.
>une 2)**
R6he stuy . . . o! the istribution o!
consciousness shows it to be e0actly such as we might e0pect in an
organ ae !or the saKe o! steering a nervous system grown too
complicate to regulate itsel!1 c.!.1 C>ames1 *N2)/*2N$1 p. *(*D.
;volution oes not involve aaptation o! eterminate beings to a
changing eterminate environment1 e.g.1 intelligence1 rationality1
cognitive abilities1 perceptual !aculties1 etc. are each mere aaptations o!
open-ene systems to a changing1 open-ene environment.
Qd
6he creature sel! never tires o! its !avorite song1 its !avorite !oo1
pastime1 etc. =owever1 the higher1 rational sel! easily becomes bore
with repetition. 6he onset o! clinical epression signals the breaKown
in the communication C!eebacK betweenD the limbic system an higher
brain !unctions an their mechanisms o! sublimation.
Yphase space stringsZ
6here is a nonphysical quantum egeneracy at worK that unerlies the
constancy an stability o! a conscious state o! awareness. 6he
associate quantum operator is base in the !ree will o! the iniviual.
6he eigenvalue resulting !rom the action o! this operator is not
intersub5ective in nature.
6his CcausalD egeneracy is necessary not to ampen1 !ilter or channel
the neurophysical causal chains1 but to supervene over them.
6here are two types o! elsewhere regions in special relativity1 one
observer-speci!ic1 the other1 universe-speci!ic. Fhat is the relationship1
i! any1 between events C!luctuationsD taKing place within light cones
within quantum superpose alternate universes? C6here may be in this
consieration or basis !or arguing against macro- or mesoscopic
quantum superposition.
. b mvr p 0 r p b ./A
"o all ynamics in which 7
u
!igures shoul be reproucible in terms o!
.
u
or rather >
u
. H! >
u
may be unerstoo as a Kin o! RbulK spin1S then
the error o! e0plaining gravitational ynamics in terms o! 5ust p
u
!or the
electromagnetic !iel becomes reaily apparent1 c.!.1 ./@. /r+iv1 e.g.1
eprints by 7utho!!1 =aisch an Auea.
6he least energy an least action !ormulations are equivalent. .east
energy L ma0. $-momentum least energyV ma0imum time1 ma0imum $-
pV least 0.
3onserve $-imensional phase space volume.
6he relationship o! quantum statistics to the uncertainty principle.
Qd
Hnstea o! a !ully N-imensional phase space volume1 moel the phase
space !or each particle as a membrane between two (-imensional
spaces1 spacetime an momentum-energy or perhaps as an alternative
the above might be moele as a non-interlocKing CinteractingD but
correlate set o! 2 phase space evolutions within non-interacting
planes.
9nly uring interactions that Rsurprise the vacuumS oes bona !ie
causality nee to be invoKe by the ynamical escriptionV !or all other
cases1 the eterministic evolution o! the system ensity matri0 su!!ices.
6he vacuum state is Rprepare to receiveS any in!luence causally
transmitte to it with the notable e0ception o! the !irst linK in the causal
chain1 i.e.1 when the vacuum was RsurpriseS by an interaction stemming
!rom another Can incommensurateD vacuum state.
/rrogating iniviual to humor itsel! by general human nature.
8etaphoricity o! sel!hoo is what is to be econstructe.
H! the path !rom point / to ? is irreversible1 then a gravitational potential
lies between Cc.!.1 7enrose_s one graviton limit in 9A3=-9A theoryD.
6he purpose o! human iniviual e0istence vis a vis agena o! reaching
transcenent consciousness. 6ranscenence is perhaps a latent
sociocultural conte0t historically structure by natural selection
operating at the collective Cclan or tribeD level.
6hinKing your way out o! Rthe wet paper bag.S 3ompare Rbo0S with
Rwet paper bagS in light o! now popular catch phrase o! RthinKing out o!
the bo0.S
6he unboune rationality o! mathematics testi!ies to the possibility o!
the unlimite evelopment o! the !aculty o! rational cognition as a
structuring o! a generalize consciousness that itsel! provies the groun
!or this possibility o! unlimite evelopment o! rational apprehension.
/ stationary observer1 peering insie a spacecra!t moving at an
appreciable !raction o! RcS will notice an unnatural looKing slowness on
the part o! the members o! the ship_s crew. 6his mani!estation o!
relativistic time ilation suggests a reuction in the energy o! motion
which must be associate with the preicte relativistic increase in the
mass o! each o! the ship1 each o! its components as well as the members
o! the crew. 6he way to reconcile these two relativistic e!!ects is to
suppose that there is also a local reuction in the velocity o! light in
vacuum by a !actor o! RS1 where
= C* - l
2
D
-*/2
an l = v/c.
/at increases as /a; ecreases as mass relativistically increases as /ap
0
increases as /a0 ecreases.
Qd
Hncreases in /ap are associate with
increase current ensity o! spin-* vector boson e0changes meiating
relativistically increase bining energies1 i.e.1 mass.
6hese relative Can relativisticD changes Csummarize aboveD point up
the !ollowing ynamical principle: a boy shall move in such a manner
as to ma0imally increase its inertia as the ma0imal rate. 6he question
arises as to whether this principle applies as well to higher orers o!
motion.
Hn elementary e0planations o! general relativity it is commonly asserte
that a boy moves in !ree !all in such a manner as to ma0imize the
timeliKe component o! the traverse spacetime interval. 6his is
consistent with minimization o! spaceliKe component o! the traverse
spacetime interval Cprinciple o! ma0imal inertia again1 viz.1 ma0imal
RlazinessS principleD1 as well as consistent with a principle o!
ma0imization o! $-momentum.
Hniviual consciousness as a RhealeS !ragment !rom a shattere
holographically structure universal consciousness. R8oments o!
clarityS or inspiration as partial reintegration bacK into this more
inclusive consciousness. 8in as such is not personalV only the peculiar
structuring o! min maKes it so.
7arao0 only signi!ies that less than the entire mechanism unerlying a
phenomenon is in view1 i.e.1 observable.
Qd
/ photon o! ; = /a;
=Cn=*12D
0 C* L
48
/
A3
2
D woul e0cite a =yrogen atom
!rom the n = * to the n = 2 energy level which1 upon ecaying to the
groun state yiels a photon reshi!te by the !raction C* L
48
/
A3
2
D. 6his
is the simple solution to the so-calle Rre!lecte reshi!tS parao0.
6wo space travelers begin accelerating towar each other at the same
time an at the same rate. ;ach receives a 6I transmission o! the other
spacecra!t_s ship_s chronometer. =ow o the reaings o! both clocKs
compare?
>une 2)**
3an they be consiere to be in ientical noninertial
!rames an so see each other_s time passing at the same rate1 or oes the
mutual acceleration a RrelativisticallyS an each sees the other rate o!
temporality as spe up or slowe own? 6he causality principle alone
shoul be able to qualitatively ecie this.
6he i!!erence in the cosmological acceleration at the sur!ace o! a boy
an !ree space vacuum is b =c 0
48
/
A3
2

4CA
*
DzCA
*
D L gCA
2
DzCA
2
D = =c
*
zCA
*
D
48
/
A3
2
L =c
2
z
_
CA
2
D48/A
2
2
c
2
2
.et A
2
gCA
*
DzCA
*
D = =c
*
zCA
*
D48/A
*
c
2
2
"uppose zCA
*
D = zCA
*
D an z
S
CA
*
D = zCA
*
D
6he three imensional rotation group is su!!icient !or escribing the
trans!ormation o! angular momentum within ;ucliean space escribe
by a 4alilean metric. 6he e0istence o! spin { particles requires the
.orentz group !or escribing the trans!ormation o! (-angular momentum
within a relativistic spacetime escribe by a 8inKowsKi metric.
ess=
"ome instinctive human behaviors !avore by natural selection
operating at the collective level are language1 personal
aornment/ecoration1 hierarchical social structure1 reverence !or Can
even worship o!D the ea1 ancing/orgiastic social interaction1
ominance-submission1 ritualize behavior1 suggestiveness/auto-
suggestion1 laughter1 applause in some !orm1 toilet humor1 sublimation1
pro5ection1 "chaen!reue1 numinousness1 anthropomorphic thinKing1
materialism1 seeKing o! altere an unusual states o! consciousness1
interpretation an belie! in the relevance o! reams1 mass elusion1
hysteria1 slavishness1 oppressiveness1 0enophobia1 chauvinism1 singing1
playing1 curious nature1 enviousness1 covetousness1 begruging1 gloating
nature1 haughtiness1 peremptoriness1 saism1 masochism1 promiscuity1
risK taKing1 compulsion towar e0ploration1 e0pansiveness Ciniviually
an collectivelyD1 graniosity1 an on an on. 9ne thing is certain here:
human beings seem to posses so many i!!erent natures that it is
oubt!ul whether there are more than a very !ew characteristics that all
humans/human societies possess in common. ;ach human society i! it
is to remain optimally aaptable to environmental change1 must evelop
ways o! maintaining within itsel! RsportsS Crare an unusual iniviualsD
o! many i!!erent varieties. Ht is liKely that the innate to !orm
hierarchical structures is a mere epiphenomenal appearance o! the
iversity o! psychological maKe up maintaine in a number o! i!!erent
stable Cor semistableD RtensionsS against the eman o! un!oreseeable
environmental change which woul otherwise threaten the society with
e0tinction as a whole.
Iectors escribing linear momentum1 electric an magnetic !iels1 an
so on may be trans!orme away by a change o! coorinate system. 6his
is because none o! these are conserve quantities1 but only the
components o! conserve quantities. $-angular momentum cannot be
trans!orme away by a change o! coorinate system1 e0cept within a
curve spacetime in which perceive gravitational !orces are present.
/s @ewton observe in his spinning water bucKet thought e0periment
rotational momentum is a Kin o! absolute motion. /n upate o!
@ewton_s thought e0periment might be a setup where an e0perimenter is
accelerate with angular velocity equal to that o! a spinning top or
gyroscope place within arms length o! the e0perimenter. 6he
e0perimenter1 while rotating about the gyroscope_s a0is o! rotation at the
gyro_s angular velocity reaches out to the gyro an attempts to rotate the
gyro along an a0is perpenicular to the gyro_s a0is o! rotation. Fhat is
the result here? :oes the e0perimenter !eel the gyro resist his/her
attempt to rotate it perpenicularly to its rotational a0is1 even though
!rom their point o! view the gyro oes not appear to be rotating at all.
9ne woul act against perceive tial !orces1 which woul in part
mani!est themselves as resistance on the part o! the gyro. =owever1
replace the gyro with @ewton_s bucKet o! water an the e0perimenter
sees the water Rcrawling upS the sies o! the to him non-rotating bucKet.
?ut this isn_t surprising because the e0perimenter !eels gee !orces
pulling him away !rom the bucKet_s a0is o! rotation.
/ccoring to orthoo0 special relativity theory the (-angular momentum
o! a boy at rest is ) within this boy_s inertial !rame.
H! there are no ob5ectively !unamental Kins o! entities1 then there
shoul be no limit to the variety o! non-!unamental entities that can
e0ist.
-orce applie to a boy in the 0-irection is simultaneously
accompanie by eceleration o! the boy along its time a0is along with
its apparent acceleration in a irection in line with that o! the applie
!orces. 6he vacuum mechanism unerlying the slowing o! a boy_s
velocity up the time a0is is the same mechanism responsible !or the
timeliKe eceleration o! a collapsing ust clou.
3onsciousness cuts across the istinct moalities o! sense. :iscuss
*2')_s e0periment in which a pilot is out!itte with Rupsie-ownS
goggles an success!ully !lies a plane while wearing them ue to his
brain having unergone a spontaneous conversion o! its constructe
visual !iel to a Rright-sie-upS orientation.
Ht has been remarKe that people come to RlooK liKe their cars1S or RlooK
liKe their ogsS an that couples begin to looK more aliKe with the
passing years.
:iscuss the relationships o! iversity1 evolution1 arbitrariness o! genetic
coe1 open-ene nature o! the organism_s environment. 7opper an
-eueraben_s philosophies o! science1 =umean-Oantian uality1
postmoern criticism1 econstructive metaphysics.
Hnitial conitions are 5ust a special sort o! bounary conitions1 that is to
say1 a so-calle beginning o! time is merely a quantum vacuum
bounary conition.
6he continuity o! evolution1 whether o! biological or cultural systems is
never !ormal in nature apart !rom abstract thinKing maKing it appear so.
6he chain o! psychological associations by which mile age more or
less success!ully tracKs the cultural signi!icance o! social an
technological change is itsel! also not !ormal but closer in nature to a
classical conitione response.
Qd
6he logic o! =ume_s criticism o! the
octrine o! causality is better applie to a critique o! the human
perception o! meaning1 wholeness an absolute signi!icance to the
metastable mani!estations o! human cultural evolution1 that is1 to a
critique o! revelation1 inspiration1 insight an intuition as the trans-
sub5ective basis o! human cultural an social institutions an arti!acts.
"ome scientists1 perhaps the most creative an brilliant ones1 as oppose
to hacKs or ploers worKing e0clusively within previously well e!ine
problems1 are more Keen to accept the veracity o! a hypothesis the more
mysteriously the hypothesis seems to appear ami stream o! their
sub5ective creative process. 6he mechanics that comes a!terwars o!
worKing out the erivation an implications o! the hypothesis1 once its
Kernel iea is well in han as an insight1 is more or less a matter o!
ictation. /re the sources o! scienti!ic1 philosophical an religious
revelation really so i!!erent?
Hnstitutions are create to solve social problems an provie !or social
necessities. 6hey are hierarchically structure because history has
emonstrate that this moe o! organization best be!its the nature o! the
collective human consciousness with the passing o! the generations the
!eatures o! an institution that became !irmly associate with the
institution collectively come to symbolize it. "imilarly1 the proceures
an methoologies o! an institution begin to be seen in a broaer than
merely practical light an traitions1 more an more cherishe with time1
begin to spring up seemingly spontaneously1 c.!.1 ;ric =o!!er1 success o!
8ar0_s system as Kin o! KicK-laer sca!!oling or template !or
imposition o! social control structures an the legitimization o! these
structures.
6he unwitting hypocrisy o! atheist intellectuals will be reveale with a
carrying through to its conclusion o! the pro5ect o! postmoernity1 which
is econstruction. H! the notion o! a :eity is not a transcenental insight
but a notion erive solely !rom Re0perienceS Cc.!.1 the =umean-Oantian
ichotomyD then the pervasive psychohistorical roots o! the theistic
concept is surely secretly share with those notions in!orming the latent
metaphysical assumptions an genres o! the physical an biological
sciences.
Qd
6he econstructive pro5ect1 lying in the early maturity o!
postmoern thought1 still many ecaes in the !uture1 will bring to light
the latent1 theistic cognitive structures o! evolutionary science an
thought. 6he ual opposition1 creation vs. evolution1 shall one ay be
econstructe. 6he instability o! ual-value logic is ue to its being
embee within the trivalent logic o! quantum computational
processes.
6he relation o! metaphor to concept is pointe up by the istinct roles o!
conceptual thought in creative versus critical intellectual eneavor.
Qd
Fhen theory is being creatively e0tene1 concepts are utilize
connotativelyV when a theory is being critique1 concepts are utilize in
a stricter1 enotative moe.
/ component o! angular momentum may be e!ine in two istinct
ways1 as the prouct o! linear momentum an a isplacement CRlever
armSD an as a vector combination o! complementary components o! (-
angular momentum.
Qd
@atural selection has been grace with an in!rastructure o! orer
institutionalize long be!ore the emergence o! the !irst reproucing1
in!ormation bearing an e0pressing molecules !irst arose. Hn the same
manner that a sculpture_s creation comes into being via the care!ul
removal o! unneee components1 so have comple0 biological !orms
arisen uner the sculpting hans o! natural selection applie to a higher
an more general orer in its bringing about arti!acts at once simpler an
more speci!ic.
Hs biological evolution to be liKene to say1 the evolution o!
mathematics1 that is1 to the evelopment in the manner o! e0pressing a
tiny speci!ic subset o! Rpree0istentS potentialities. 9r oes the
evolutionary process bacK-react in a signi!icant way upon its open-ene
groun or ynamical substrate.
/ classical physical igital computer cannot e0hibit cohesive ata
structures base in coherent physical process1 but only the appearance o!
such. 3oherence o! quantum computation is not merely !ormal or
abstract1 but base in the physics unerlying the very moe o!
computation. ?acK reaction o! quantum computation is e!!ecte by the
7enrose-=amero!! 9A3=-9A.
H! the system 7si represents the most that can be Cintersub5ectivelyD
Known about the nature o! the system /@: the system is able to
Rcollapse uner its own weightS in accorance with 9A3=-9A1 then
genuine novelty1 i.e.1 creation woul be the result.
6he egeneracy o! observational an e0perimental ata vis a vis
particular scienti!ic theories !or e0plicating this ata1 combine with
7opper_s iscovery that theories may only be !alsi!ie though never
RproveS implies that mechanical moeling1 i.e.1 theorizing through
moels1 is liKe time an space not an ob5ective !eature o! reality but
merely a !orm or moe o! human intuition.
3ascae coherent e!!ects o! mutation requires that the gene regulatory
networK C4A@D mutate in a way implying a eep unerlying connection
between the mutual relateness o! boy components1 o! the whole
organism to its environment both be re!lecte in the mutual relateness
o! genes within the 4A@.
Qd
6he evolution o! the 4A@ re!lects the
evolution o! the entire biosphere in other wors1 not 5ust that o! an
iniviual species.
@atural selection an ranomly triggere nonranom mutations. 6he
response o! the genome to a ranom mutation-triggering is anything but
ranom. Fhat is common to two sub5ectivities is intersub5ective1 i.e.1
outsie the sub5ective e0perience o! either iniviual. 6his is
particularly true when we consier what the other consiers attractive
about me when compare to what H consier there is about mysel! that
they shoul !in attractive. / parao0ical assertion in the e0treme it is
when postmoern thinKers proclaim that we have no concepts1 only
metaphors masqueraing as concepts.
7arao0ically1 !ate is a moler o! human beings. 6he ynamics an
Kinematics o! linear an angular momentum must be mutually
consistent. C-in the mathematical physical theorem to support this
hypothesisD.
6he ynamics o! correlate !luctuations an =eisenberg uncertainties
must also be mutually consistent. 6ime-varying gravitational !iel not
attributable to $-momentum !low must be nonlocally meiate.
:isturbances in the nonlocal connectivity o! spacetime propagate no
!aster than the spee o! light.
Fhen intuition reaches a Jen-liKe level o! evelopment1 the istinction
between sub5ective an ob5ective blurs. 6his is what is calle becoming
one with what one is beholing or interacting. 4eel-numbering
proceure may be capable o! being generalize. 6he programming o! a
igital computer is a concrete e0ample o! 4eel-numbering.
>acques 8ono state that the genetic coe is arbitrary1 which permitte
the most open possibilities !or the aaptation o! the organism Cthe
e0pression o! the genetic coeD to a rapily changing environment.
Hntelligence appears to be the aaptation1 which optimizes all !urther
aaptation. ?ut is this really the case? 6he human being is aapte to
the environment that his intelligence reveals to him an only this. 6he
being that the human being is1 is a mani!estation o! an aaptation by this
being to that realm not reveale to human sense perception an sense
perception moi!ie an ampli!ie by man_s various observational an
measurement instruments.
7araphrase o! -eynman: =al! o! invention in physics is the contrivance
o! simpler an more elegant notations. Y6homas precessionZ
Hs a timeliKe spin-* boson an a spaceliKe spin-) boson require to maKe
the e!inition o! angular momentum sel!-consistent in !our imensions?
Ysupersymmetry without !ermionsZ
Hs it possible that the !ermionic superpartners CbosonsD require by
supersymmetry theory are composite1 i.e.1 compose o! !unamental
boson superpartners C 1 1 1 D? ````````
6imeCs = )1*D + spaceCs = *1)D may be require !or consistency o! ;CpD +
pC;D where p + i;/c
2
is a (-vector Cmomentum-energyD
p
u

.
p
v
= p
)
2
+ p
*
2
+ p
2
2
+ p
$
2
p
u
0 p
v
= )
p
)
2

p
*
2
) has o!!-iagonal elements when trans!orme to a non-
inertial !rame.
) p
2
2
p
$
2
as well as p
u
0 p
v
). . is e!ine as the vector sum o! vectors -
orthogonal to the !our phase space planes. Fhat physical quantity
correspons to the vector sum o! components orthogonal to all mutually
orthogonal Rphase spaceS volumes?
3an angular momentum an linear momentum be uni!ie in some way?
Hs the inertia o! matter1 in other wors1 somehow constitute by the
timeliKe component o! a boy_s !our imensional moment o! inertia? Hn
this way we woul e0pect the length contraction an time ilation to be
both a change in the moment arm an angular velocity o! energy
Cconserve massD.
3ircular angular momentum becomes elliptical1 eccentric1 i.e.1 circular
angular momentum + precessional component o! the angular
momentum. Fhat about in $ an (?
$-angular momentum is conserve by increasing v an mass staying
constant Cnon-relativistic caseD. ?ut this simple compensatory
mechanism !or conserving the total angular momentum oesn_t worK in
!our imensions. Fhat changes then have to be uni!ie into a
conserve total (-angular momentum?
1. mass increase
2. length contraction
3. time ilation
4. precession
3ase (D is interesting here because in $ imensions1 precession means a
cyclic change in the orientation o! a rotating ob5ect_s moment o! inertia
Ceither with or against .D1 c.!.1
.
5
=
iK
.

K

iK
is the angular momentum tensor. =owever1 in ( imensions this
cyclic change in the orientation is only observable as precession within a
plane in $ imensions.
=ow can the presence o! a gravity !iel a!!ect the .orentz !orce?
Hs the connection between bining energy an gravitational mass really
so simple as conservation o! vacuum !luctuation (-momentum?
6his can only be the case i! the e0change $-momentum o! virtual
bosons can be uni!ie with the creation an annihilation o! virtual
3ooper pairs Cenergy !luctuationsD as the basis o! the timeliKe
momentum o! matter. ; =
ic
c
mvv = mc
2
seems to almost by itsel!
guarantee this. /n this together with the !act that ob5ective
!luctuations o! energy combine with sub5ective quantum uncertainties
in energy constitute an observe boy_s energy an the case seems still
stronger.
Puantum correlations e0isting between systems / an ? prevent the
!actorization o!
/?
1 the wave!unction o! the combine system1 into the
prouct
/
0
?
.
"pin b internal length + internal linear momentum.
Hs a spin vector better escribe in terms o! a *-!orm than a *
st
ranK
tensor? H! both o! the egrees o! !reeom o! spin are internal1 then how
oes this internal spin linK up with "
H
or >
u
. > = >
u
.
3learly then one o! the two egrees o! !reeom o! spin must be spatial1
i.e.1 0
u
1 generally1 0
H
1 given a speci!ie re!erence !rame.
Hn any given inertial !rame the velocity o! light e!ines a null geoesic
path. :oesn_t this imply that the photon_s helicity/spin is possesse o!
both timeliKe an spaceliKe components? Hn a generalize gravitational
!iel1 the helicity an irection o! photon motion are not parallel. 6his
means the photon possesses a moment o! inertia an hence a small mass.
Fhat is observe in "tern-4erlach e0periment when relativistic spin {
particles are use?
6he laws o! nature may be liKene to the rules governing the movement
o! the game pieces in chess play. 6hese rules say what is not !orbien
to occur over the course o! a game1 but these rules o not ictate the
tactics an strategy o! the iniviual chess players. Ht is on this analogy
that we might imagine that the octrines o! !ree will an physical
eterminism might be aapte to one another. / common ob5ection to
this view is the one citing a violation o! the relative weighting o!
probabilities associate with the wave!unction escribing an observe
system1 the observer_s brain1 or the combine observer + system.
/lthough one shoul thinK that the =eisenberg principle woul inee
allow myria istinct choices o! chess moves open to the chess player at
any particular 5uncture1 which he may select without isturbing because
consistent with Rthe probabilities.S
6here are theoretical mating positions that may be introuce by han
onto a chessboar but which cannot actually come into being uring
over-the-boar play. Fe might liKen these positions to insights or
intuitions not open to rational thought an moreover1 not accessible via
eterministic brain !unctioning1 i.e.1 the brain coul never have arrive
at the insights as a result o! either temporal evolution escribable by a
"chroinger equation o! motion or evolution o! aggregate e0pectation
values !or quantum brain states. ?ut here genuine thought is require
which places the brain outsie o! the constraints impose by the
=eisenberg uncertainty principle1 i.e.1 the brain thinKs1 that is1 processes
in!ormation not merely through the alternate reuction an enhancement
o! its complementary =eisenberg uncertainties. 6he operation o!
insight e!ies the convenient e!inition o! in!ormation as the mere
reuction o!1 e.g.1 =eisenberg uncertainty. 6he arrival at the
unreachable theoretical mating positions presupposes the violation o! or
augmentation Cor bothD o! the rules o! chess.
/n i! his choice oes Risturb the probabilitiesS then there is still a
Rway outS the 7si !unction o! observer_s brain system1 observer + system
can simply collapse. Hnterestingly1 the 8onte 3arlo !allacy is
essentially consistent with the logic o! quantum probability. -or
e0ample1 i! one is measuring electron spins in a "tern-4erlach
e0periment1 there is nothing to prevent an e0perimenter !rom observing
+*/21 +*/21 +*/21 +*/2 an so on1 !or *)) consecutive runs o! the
e0periment with the system prepare ientically in each case1 c.!.1
?ayesian 7robability. ?ut the respective probabilities !or each
observation o! spin + { woul become linKe an cease their mutual
inepenence. Y?ayesian probabilityZ an Y8onte 3arlo !allacyZ.
/pril 2)*2
http://en.wiKipeia.org/wiKi/4ambler%2%s#-allacy
6he upshot o! this is that the stanar logical ismissal o! the
R4ambler_s -allacyS is unuly pat an glib an conceals a much eeper
an subtler logical basis !or its ismissal1 which only !ew
philosophically mine quantum physicists appreciate. 8uch scienti!ic
Knowlege carries through !rom one paraigm shi!t to the ne0t only
because researchers an theorists !rom a previous paraigm were right
!or the wrong reasons. 6his remins me o! the ?eatle_s lyric: R/n
though she !eels as i! sheGs in a play1 she is anywayS.
6he gambler_s !allacy might be vali within a quantum conte0t i! there is
inee an observer-inter!erence e!!ect1 say on account o! the connection
o! consciousness an wave!unction collapse.
"houl the vacuum also contain moulations put there by quantum
computer scientists an engineers occupying alternative 8FH P8
universes? Puantum solipsism.
;ach o! the comple0 elements o! the mathematical machinery o! general
relativity unerlying the elegant simplicity o! the ;instein !iel
equations to the right han sie o! the equal sign1 e.g.1 Aiemann tensor1
scalar curvature1 3hristo!el symbols Co! the *
st
an 2
n
KinD1 parallel
transport1 geoesic eviation1 an so on is erive !rom the metric
tensor1 g
iK
. 6he metric tensor1 speci!ies in essence how light propagates
at every coorinate o! spacetime. 8oreover the converse o! this is also
true: the manner in which light propagates within spacetime shows the
structure o! spacetime1 i.e.1 speci!ies the metric o! spacetime1 g
iK
.
6here!ore1 any theory that can provie the physical as oppose to !ormal
e0planation !or the propagation o! electromagnetic raiation is at least
equivalent to general relativity1 i! not containing general relativity as a
special case. ?ut the propagating photon is not 5ust an oscillatory
e0change o! energy between electric an magnetic !iels interlocKe
along the photon_s tra5ectory. 6he photon_s tra5ectory also e!ines the
ratio o! the photon_s energy an $-momentum uncertainties1 as well as
the local inter!ace o! spacetime with the elsewhere region1 i.e.1 the local
hypersur!ace across which matter an vacuum Creal an virtual
particles/!ielsD e0change momentum an energy.
Fithin so-calle !ree space the momentum an energy e0change across
the local spacetime bounary are e0clusively virtual. ,ner
acceleration/ within gravitational !iels1 this momentum an energy
possesses a mi0e real/virtual character. 6his e0change momentum-
energy is really in the !orm o! !luctuations in momentum an energy1
i.e.11 vacuum !luctuations. 6hese vacuum !luctuations may be
unerstoo in terms o! iscrete1 quantum transitions in momentum an
energy much a!ter the !ashion o! a cubical symmetric crystal lattice.
6hese quantum transitions obey quantum mechanical selection rules that
speci!y allowable transitions o! energy1 angular momentum1 spin1 etc.
6his is all to say that propagation o! a photon is at a eeper physical
level an e0change o! spin-* momentum-energy !or spin-) energy-
momentum Cgeneral case L !or RarbitraryS spacetimeD. #####
// aa
9matter9vacuum
M M M M
9matter9vacuum
Hn the particular case o! photon propagation through so-calle !lat
spacetime C!ree spaceD1 there e0ist an e0change o! spin-* $-momentum
!or spin (-momentum Cor1 i! you liKe1 R*-momentumS or Ri-momentum1S
Keeping in min the esignation R$ + *S !or the usual 8inKowsKi
spacetime.D
Fhat governs the propagation o! a photon1 whether within !ree space or
in the presence o! !iels1 is quantum vacuum statistics. "o our chain o!
reasoning may be summarize synoptically as !ollows: vacuum
statistical laws photon propagation metric tensor elements o!
the ;instein !iel equations machinery everything to the right
han sie o! the ;instein !iel equations. ?ut what then about
everything to the le!t han sie o! the !iel equations1 i.e.1 N46
uv
1
YN46
uv
Z? 6hat is to say1 it is how the spontaneous !luctuations in
quantum vacuum momentum-energy a!!ect the =eisenberg uncertainties
in the quantum vacuum which etermines the phenomenology o! the
theory1 that is1 the inuce vacuum uncertainties etermine what we can
an o in !act measure the momentum-energy tensor to be?
Qd
6o
suppose that the vacuum itsel! gravitates is to engage in a Kin o! illegal
ouble counting o! the vacuum energy.
9r perhaps rather when the vacuum !luctuations can no longer !it sa!ely
insie the =eisenberg uncertainties corresponing to these !luctuating
physical quantities then the vacuum goes out o! equilibrium by some
tiny amount which we interpret as inertial mass an which matter itsel!
interprets as gravitation.
Qd
6his is the philosophical-phenomenological
basis !or supposing that the property o! inertia may be erive !rom the
mechanism o! gravitation. Hn other wors1 RinertiaS is an illusion
e0perience by !ree will beings Cwhose consciousness e0periences time
CtemporalityD1 inert an stupi matter Re0periencingS only gravitation
C!ree !allD an a !oreoraine tra5ectory.
6he operation in the brain o! truly nonlocal quantum processes
throughout the brain_s !ull spatial imensions woul permit very strange
responses to stimuli1 !or e0ample1 a person sub5ect to a sensory input
might interpret the input prior to its having sprea to even the tiniest
portion o! the gray matter closest to where the sensory impulse shall a
brie! moment later enter an be relaye throughout a vast subnetworK o!
the brain_s nervous circuits.
Qd
6his woul be almost as though the
interpretation o! the stimulus greets the stimulus at the !ront oor as it
were or perhaps even so !ar as greeting it where the riveway meets the
public siewalK1 c.!.1 reaction time e0periments o! ?en5amin .ibet.
/ meium possessing both rationality an emergent Cas oppose to
permutational an combinationalD creativity. 6he rationality o! :@/ is
pointe up by the property o! the robust integrability o! two Can
possibly three or more in the case o! mitochonrial :@/ onate by a
thir partiesD gene sequences1 i.e.1 se0ual reprouction. Fhat we are
speaKing o! here is a rational though not uni!ie CopenD system. =ow
can a !unamentally irreversible process such as creative evolution be
unerstoo as an ultimately rational process? 6he notion o! the
evelopment an un!oling o! an open system !rom pree0istent Cthough
not !ully eterminateD potentialities is i!!icult to grasp.
3omplementarity o! con5ugate observables as pure state an
superposition simultaneously seems an ieal !ul!illment o! the ancient
4reeK question1 Rhow can the many be CbecomeD one an the one be
CbecomeD a many?
/a0/ap may be physically e0plaine in terms o! the latent motion
CmomentumD cyclic an reversible that e!ines structures. ;nergy plays
the role o! proviing stability an persistence o! these R!lu0 stabilities o!
latent motionS spatial measurement requires that we intervene in this
latent cyclic motion though without prior Knowlege o! where in that
cycle o! motion the1 e.g.1 particle resies. 6he momentum
uncertainty1 /ap seems to imply that this cyclic motion unerlying the
!lu0 stability Cthat we perceive at the gross level o! observation to be
stability an RrestSD is an oscillatory acceleration. /n oscillatory
acceleration constituting the stability !lu0 o! matter is necessary !or the
causal continuity o! spatial scale. "ee: -ourier-liKe ecomposition o!
motion in $-imensions into the speci!ic spin structures woul
ecompose irreversible CtimeliKeD motions. 6imeliKe angular
momentum has si0 istinct components1 each corresponing to a phase
space plane1 i.e.1
.
5K
= 0
5
p
K
/ peculiarity o! the logic o! the ancient "emitic peoples as oppose to
that which we have inherite !rom the ancient 4reeKs is that it is in
essence a trivalent logic compose o! truth/valiity vs. !alsity/invaliity
vs. hyperbole. 6he !antastic stories o! the 9l 6estament shoul be rea
with this in min. Festern people commonly speaK o! a love one still
being present an with the ecease watching over in guarian angel
!ashion his or here love ones. /nother characteristic o! the "emitic
min is that o! the switching o!! o! the rational min o! true vs. !alse an
its being temporarily replace with a min rule by the opposition goo
vs. evil.
/ meium possessing both rationality an emergent Cas oppose to
permutational an combinational1 i.e.1 group theoretic/symmetrical
structure o! conserve substance/entities within a close systemD
creativity seems parao0ical.
6he rationality o! :@/ is pointe up by the property o! robust
integrality o! two Can possibly moreD gene sequences1 i.e.1 se0ual
reprouction. Fhat we are speaKing o! here is a rational though non-
uni!ie CopenD system. =ow can a !unamentally irreversible process
such as creative evolution be unerstoo as ultimately rational process?
6he notion o! the evelopment an un!oling o! an open system !rom
pree0istent Cthough not !ully eterminateD potentialities is i!!icult to
grasp.
3omplementarity o! con5ugate observables as pure state an
superposition simultaneously seems an ieal !ul!illment o! the ancient
4reeK question how can the many be one an the one many?
"pace is reversible motionV time is irreversible motion.
6he operation in the brain o! truly nonlocal quantum processes
throughout the brains !ull spatial imensions to stimuli1 !or e0ample1 a
person sub5ect to a sensory input might interpret the input prior to its
having sprea to even the tiniest portion o! the gray matter closest to
where the sensory impulse shall a brie! momentum later enter an be
relaye throughout a vast subnetworK o! its nervous circuits. 6his
woul be almost as though the interpretation o! the stimulus greets the
stimulus at the !ront oor as it were1 or perhaps even so !ar as where
riveway meets the curb.
6erms with pure meanings in one language are a superposition Cor
!usionD o! two or more meanings when translate into another language.
"chroinger 3at 7arao0: alternate universes only e0ist at the
microscopic or submesoscopic scale. 8yria microscopic alternate
universes support the irreversible e0istence o! non-ecoherable being
within this spacetime. 6his is reminiscent o! the quantum gravity
notion o! tiny curle up e0tra spatial imensions. =ypothesis: what
cannot be escribe by a quantum mechanical wave!unction Cthough
perhaps with a ensity matri0 escribing a thermoynamic Rmi0eS
quantum stateD must be escribe as an irreversible process or a
phenomenologically reversible process with a substantively irreversible
process unerlying it.
Ht is this convergence o! quantum structures an in!ormation !rom
multiple alternate 8FH P8 universes that accounts !or the irreversible
e0istence o! macroscopic entities an systems1 c.!.1 superposition
mechanism unerlying covalent molecular boning.
:oes evolution taKe avantage o! the quantum computing possibilities at
the microlevel? C:oes it accomplish this by evolving structures
sensitive to parallel CuniverseD inputs?D
6o the e0tent that the unconscious communicates with the conscious sel!
in waKing li!e1 to this egree oes the state o! waKe!ul e0istence assume
a reamliKe quality.
6he wave!unction may inee be consiere to constitute a complete or
best escription !or those systems it is !it to escribe1 i.e.1 ecoherable
systems.
6he laws o! harmony an meloy are an inissoluble mi0ture o! physical
an mental laws.
8ari5uana an hashish use reveal a perceptual !iel compose liKe a
photo mosaic representation o! an image
8ay 2)**
as well as the oscillatory
multilevel RbootstrappingS o! recursive processes o! sensation-
perception-thought as a global synesthesia ever in the process o! trying
to uni!y itsel! in the act o! uni!ying itsel!. 6he min appears to engage
in this ynamical groun processual activity in a manner reminiscent o!
how one woul imagine the ,niverse bootstrappe itsel! out o!
nothingness.
:oes evolution taKe avantage o! the quantum computing possibilities at
the micro-level? C?y evolving structures sensitive to parallel CuniverseD
inputs?D 6o the e0tent that the unconscious communicates with to this
egree oes the state o! waKe!ul e0istence assume a reamliKe quantum.
6he wave!unction may inee be consiere to constitute a complete or
best escription !or those systems it is !it to escribe1 i.e.1 ecoherable
systems.
6he electrostatic !orce between two oppositely charge metal plates is
inepenent o! the plate separation !or separations o! negligible size in
relation to the plates_ imensions.
-or nonnegligible plate separation the electrostatic !orce between the
plates varies inversely with istance. 6he 3asimir e!!ect acting between
closely separate electrically conucting parallel plates varies with the
inverse tesseract. @ote that the momentum uncertainty o! two particles
Kept within an interval1 /a0 is h//a0 = /ap an so /ap varies inversely with
istance1 /a0. =a we been speaKing o! parallel thin ros o!
separation1 /a0 the momentum uncertainty1 /ap shoul vary with the
inverse square Cprovie that the ro separation1 /a0 remains negligible
in relation to the ros_ imensionsD. "imilarly1 /ap shoul vary with the
inverse cube o! /a0 C!or negligible /a0D. /lso1 taKing into account the
!act that i! /ap o! the plates_ geometry is ecreasing with */A
$
1 an i! /aC(-
momentumD is conserve1 then /a; within the plates_ geometry shoul be
increasing with the inverse cube o! the plate separation.
6his is to say that1 since we have tC/a0D /a7
)
/C/a0//a0
)
D
$
= /ap there!ore
we may write1
tC/atD /a;
)
C/at//at
)
D = /a;1
where /at { /a0/c an /a0/ap } hV /at/a; } h
Cwhen woul we use the /at b /a0/c relation?D Cnonrelativistic P8?D
/a0 an /at !orm a relativistic or spacetime rectangle1 i.e.1 /a0
2
+ /at
2
+ K
*
2
+ K
2
2
= /as
2
with K
*
1 K
2
= plates_ rectangular imensions.
6he above is a plausibility argument !or an inverse quartic variation o!
the 0-momentum uncertainty1 /ap
0
o! the 3asimir plates.
/n alternative way to invoKe /at woul be to taKe the inverse cubically
varying /ap
0
an show that /ap
0
= /ap
0
c/c = /a;
0
/c =
/ap
0
= /a;
0
/DC/a0//at
_
D Cthe physical interpretation o! /at CaboveD an
/at

are quite i!!erentD

/ap
0
= /a-
0
/at C/a_s cancelD H! /ap
0
is1 as state earlier cubically
ecreasing with increasing /a01 then we may assert that -
0
C/a0D -
0
C/a0
)
D/
C/a0//a0
)
D
(
where -
0
C/a0
)
D reas simply as !orce in the 0-irection on the 3asimir
plates at plate separation /a0
)
1 an so on. 6o rener the two utilizations
o! /at1 i.e.1 /at an /at

above we might have to interpret /a;

0
as the
component o! the energy uncertainty1 /a; owing to the uncertainty in /ap
along the 0-irection Ci.e.1 ue to /ap
0
D. 6his interpretation o! /a;
0
is
consistent with a view o! the quantum vacuum as a Kin o! photonic
crystal1 i.e.1 !luctuations in crystal energy are e!ine by spontaneous
quantum 5umps o! the crystal_s global energy between its various
iscrete energy levels Cconsistent with the applicable quantum selection
rules1 o! course1 an which are tie to iscrete !luctuations in the cystal_s
momentumD. 6his implies the unusual-looKing set o! uncertainty
relations.
/a0/ap
0
} h
/atC/a;
0
+ /a;
y
+ /a;
z
D } h Cor perhaps /at
0
/a;
0
} h1 etc.1
where by /at
0
is meant the time uncertainty o! processes involving /a0
uncertain events1 an so on.
H! all real physical change within the vacuum crystal must be associate
with iscrete energy transitions associate with iscrete energy
transitions o! the crystal1 then each e0change o! $-momentum within the
crystal must be accompanie by a iscrete change in the crystal energy
o! pc1 where p is the e0change momentum CphotonD. 3hanges in the
state o! the crystal not involving changes in energy are not couple with
e0changes o! !orce-meiating particles Cue to the unbroKen symmetry
o! the energy egenerate stateD.
3oncerning the "chroeinger 3at 7arao01 c.!.1 hep-ph/)2)&*)$ v2 $*
>ul 2))21 it may be avoie by positing the !ollowing principle:

ab
no i! either
a
or
b
no.
n[
a
no\ v n[
b
no\o
ab
no.
Hn other wors1 although the cyanie ispensing apparatus may e0ist in a
superposition state1 C
a
+
b
D1 there can be no superposition1 C
ab
)
+
ab
*
D
because the cat1 being a classically coherent1 organically comple0
system cannot ecohere C in a quantum mechanical senseD an cannot
itsel! be escribe consistently as a pure state1 i.e.1 the cat has no
wave!unction escription. 6he implication here is that entities
possessing a consistent escription in terms o! a quantum mechanical 7si
an which there!ore e0hibit superposition states Cuner certain
measurement conitionsD are merely abstract in nature. Aeal entities on
the other han possess no such convenient quantum escription. "uch
entities e0ist irreversibly. Hn this way reversible interactions can only
propagate upwar in spatial scale to probably only that o! submillimeter
imensions. /bout this spatial scale the congeries o! parallel quantum
universes will have committe themselves to a particular !orm !or their
mutual collaboration.
6he coherence length Can timeD o! the mutual interaction o! quantum
universes1 more particularly the consequent ecoherence o! a
wavepacKet !orme an sustaine through their cooperation1 bears a
special connection to another uniquely quantum phenomenon L that o!
wave!unction collapse. Hn the !irst case nature is at worK an the
process o! ecoherence is relatively graual. Hn the latter case it is
presumably the human min/consciousness an/or R!ree willS at worK
an here the change to the wave!unction with respect to the
observation/acquiring Knowlege o! the results o! quantum measurement
is precipitous1 as well as is the ecoherence suen !or the phase
relations o! the superpose eigen!unctions with respect to the relatively
incompatible observables o! the system in question.
Aeversible1 that is1 vibrational1 oscillatory1 rotational motions constitute
the temporality that is easily spatialize by our relatively sluggish
human perceptual processes. Aeversible motion constitutes the spatial
aspect o! physical reality1 irreversible motion1 its temporal aspect.

>
2
= .
2
+ "
2
V where . is spaceliKe
" is timeliKe
.
y
"
y

M M
/a "pace /a 6ime
.
z
.
0
"
z
"
0
Iirtually in!inite vacuum energy ensity may perhaps be consistently
reinterprete as superposition o! vacuum energy ensities !rom $-
hypersur!aces CvolumesD occupying past Can perhaps even !utureD
times. 6his e!!ectively istributes the vacuum energy1 virtually in!inite
in ensity within $ imensions although perhaps quite small Ceven
comparable to the currently preicte cosmological constantD when
evenly istribute across a ( imensional volume o! timeliKe length *.$
0 *)
*)
light years. 6his solution to the non-gravitating quantum vacuum
is relate to the recently propose Rholographic universeS theories.
"uch theories may help to e0plain the coincience o! both quantum
tunneling particles an orinary particles at rest possessing imaginary
momenta.
,nboun electromagnetic energy1 that is1 electromagnetic vacuum
!luctuations not sub5ect to bounary conitions Cin space or in timeD oes
not e0hibit resonance1 vacuum !luctuations are not ampli!ie Cor
enhanceD in the absence o! vacuum bounary conitions represente by
matter1 i.e.1 real particles an !iels. "trangely1 real bosons an real
!ermions1 though governe by altogether i!!erent quantum statistics
nonetheless perturb the quantum statistics o! the vacuum in similar
manner 1 enhance ?ose !luctuations Creal momentum !luctuationsD o! the
vacuum an suppress -ermi !luctuations Cimaginary momentum
!luctuationsD. 6his is the quantum mechanical basis o! !our momentum
conservation.
/ny electromagnetic interaction that inuces a change in the electric
permittivity o! the vacuum must at the same time inuce a change in the
magnetic permeability o! the vacuum in the same sense CoppositeD as the
inucte change in permittivity. Fhich is it?
/ strong magnetic !iel ecreases the ensity o! magnetic moments o!
the vacuum1 i.e.1 reuces the vacuum_s magnetization ue to antiparallel
aligning o! virtual e
-
with virtual e
+
_s. 6he local vacuum magnetic
permeability is in this way reuce.
Y8agnetically inuce ?;3Z Ycomposite ?;3Z
spin ) case: ?+1 C7
+
or 7
-
?D C8
+
or 8
-
D ?
spin * case: ?+1 C7
+
or 7
-
?D C8
+
or 8
-
D ?
3an any single human person be suppose to be the e0pression o! an
essence1 when the human person also satis!ies the ual purpose o!
proviing a base an a linK !or un!oreseeable evolutionary change1 i.e.1
what is commonly interprete as evolutionary RevelopmentS. 6his
e0clusively progressive interpretation o! evolution accounts !or the
unervaluing o! RiversityS by conservatives.
/ny propagating electromagnetic wave moulate to carry a signal may
be alternately an equivalently escribe in terms o! a correlate set o!
electromagnetic !luctuations.
c = /a;//ap but it is also true that c = CuD
-*/2

"o the two istinct mechanical analogue interpretations o! general
relativity may both be vali as physical e0planations o! general
relativistic e!!ects o! gravity only i! the structure o! each analogue1 one
quantum statistical1 the other electromagnetic must be either logically
equivalent or one must be a subset o! the other. -or e0ample1 i! the
quantum statistical e0planation is to be consiere the more general
analogue interpretation1 then it must be the quantum statistical aspect o!
electromagnetic !iels CphotonsD an electric current ensities Celectron-
positron pairsD1 as well as the electromagnetic properties o! spin * an
composite spin ) particles that provie two associate1 seconary
analogue moels.
.ooK at the quantum mechanical e!!ects o! vacuum polarization an
magnetization in terms o! how each a!!ects the correlation an
anticorrelation o! bosons an !ermion-anti!ermions1 respectively. 6his
will require an e0tensive review o! 8a0well_s equations within
ielectric/iamagnetic meia. @ee to review magnetization an
polarization bounary conitions o! 8a0well_s equations1 c.!.1 also with
the iea o! essential connection o! inertia to bining energy.
7ropagation o! light in a conucting meium. 6he principle o! special
an general relativity must remain vali !or propagation o! light through
all moi!ie vacua1 incluing vacua moi!ie by ielectric meia as well
as other electromagnetic bounary conitions upon !ree space vacuum.
6here must be an elasticity to the electromagnetic vacuum reveale by
vacuum polarization phenomena. / particle with mass such as a F
boson represents an e0cite state o! the quantum vacuum1 which
there!ore must ecay e0ponentially. / massless particle is not an
e0citation o! the vacuum.
3ontinuous increase in the electromagnetic !iel intensity above
).'**8eI leas to an increase in MwM
2
within the rest !rame. 9n account
o! the 7auli principle there is an attenant ecrease in the virtual
component o! MwM
2
while the ?ose principle guarantees a concomitant
increase in the MwM
2
. 6here is another Rmore physicalS way o! looKing at
a .orentz boost o! the quantum vacuum electromagnetic !iel at any
spacetime coorinate. 6his more physical viewpoint is to be taKen !rom
the stanpoint o! conense matter theory1 more speci!ically. 6he
presence o! real !ermions may be interprete !rom this viewpoint as
e!ects within the otherwise per!ect Rcubic symmetryS o! the vacuum
lattice structure. 6hese crystalline e!ects reuce the correlation o!
composite e+e- bosons so that they begin to act more an more liKe
iniviual !ermions sub5ect to the 7auli principle once again. 6he
presence o! an electric !iel1 by polarizing the vacuum prouces this
very same e!!ect o! reucing the correlation Cor rather1 anticorrelationD o!
spin ) energy !luctuations by reucing the quantum correlation o! each
virtual !ermion with its virtual anti!ermion partner. 6he converse e!!ect
shoul be e0pecte the vacuum in the presence o! a magnetic !iel1 i.e.1
the ?-!iel provies an a0is along which !ermions may align their spins1
parallel in the case o!1 e.g.1 e- an antiparallel in the case o! e+. Ht is
clear that the impresse ? !iel increase the anticorrelation o! !ermions
with anti!ermions1 causing the virtual e-e+ pair to behave more as a
composite spin ) particle CbosonD1 thus reucing the inter!erence o! the
7auli principle Cvia the R7auli-blocKingS e!!ectD with the tenency o! the
quantum vacuum to partially conense. ?y virtue o! the vector
relationship o! /ap an /a;1 it appears there is now in our grasp a hany
physical1 conense matter e0planation o! the masslessness o! the
photon. 6he cycle o! increasing ? !iel1 ecreasing ;-!iel !or { cycle1
!ollowe by a { cycle o! increasing ;-!iel1 ecreasing ?-!iel in which
the e!!ect o! each { cycle Clasting only as long as /at1 the =eisenberg
time uncertaintyD is e0actly compensate against by the !ollowing {
cycle1 5ust as though inertial mass o! the photon increases with
increasing ;-!iel1 ecrease with ecreasing ;-!iel Can increasing ?-
!ielD.
9nly essences may be compare as to their relative aesthetic value an
then only by a transcenental being. 7retense at an unassuming nature s
at he core o! isingenuousness.
"pin-) means zero magnetic momentV magnetization requires a magnetic
moment. u1 permeability is a component o! susceptibility Cto
magnetizationD
1 permittivity !igures in the case o! polarization o! a material.
/s ?-!iel grows1 e+e- pairs begin to align antiparallel1 ecreasing the
vacuum_s susceptibility to !urther magnetization1 hence ecreasing
magnetization1 hence ecreasing u
)
1 in turn leaing to an increase in c
local
1
provie that no e0actly compensating change in occurs. /lso1 the
ensity o! spin ) composite bosons increases Cmore accurately the
virtual e+ an e-fs become more highly quantum anticorrelateD leaing
to an increase in /a;1 i.e.1 mutual 7auli blocKing o! virtual 3ooper pairs
ecreases.
"uggesting a Kin o! "charnhorst e!!ect prouce by static !iels. C?-
!iel as a vacuum bounary conitionD.
:oes the increase1 ecrease or remain constant ue to magnetic !iel
inuce vanishing o! the magnetic permeability. /ing in the e!!ect o!
an electric !iel causing vacuum polarization1 tening to reuce quantum
anticorrelation an e!!ectively reucing the ensity o! composite spin ).
6he mechanism o! re!raction is via electromagnetic interactions1 i.e.1 in
terms o! altere u an must be consistent with the unerlying
mechanism o! gravitational re!raction1 i.e.1 e!lection o! light by gravity
preicte by general relativity theory. 6his mechanism is that o!
relative changes in the ensity o! /a; an /ap in vacuum1 more
speci!ically1 in the ensity o! composite spin ) a spin * bosons1
respectively. 6here is not e0pecte to be any appreciable contribution
to gravitational re!raction ue to the equally altere vacuum statistics o!
the strong an weaK nuclear particles an !orces. C6here may inee be
such contributions1 however not noticeable because our e0perimental
an observational e0plorations o! gravity have so !ar been limit to the
macroscopic omain while the strong an weaK nuclear are very short
range !orces. 7erhaps investigations o! gravitational phenomena on the
scale o! which the nuclear !orces become signi!icant shall reveal
possibly large eviations o! the behavior o! gravity !rom that
theoretically preicte by general relativityD. 8ention here about the
large relative i!!erences in the strength o! the !our !unamental !orces
o! nature. 6he electromagnetic Ranalogue theoryS o! gravity seems as
goo a phenomenological theory o! gravity to the more general quantum
statistical one because the electromagnetic Cvan er FaalsD an
gravitational interactions are both o! almost equal strength component to
the relatively much stronger interactions o! the weaK an strong nuclear
!orces.
Hn!inity is avoie when a system approaches one o! the poles o! the
phenomenological !ormula escribing the system by virtue o! the
variable concerne being replace by a comple0 variable1 the real part o!
which is the original inepenent variable.
:iscuss the mystery o! the value o! iversity an how it is relate to
-eueraben_s philosophy o! nature an science CRanything goesS
methoologyD.
3an any single human person be suppose to be the e0pression o! an
essence1 when the human person also satis!ies the ual purpose o!
proviing a base an a linK !or un!oreseeable evolutionary change? /ny
propagating electromagnetic wave moulate to carry signal in!ormation
may be alternately an equivalently escribe in terms o! a correlate set
o! electromagnetic !luctuations.
3 = /a;//apV c = CuD
-*/2

/a; increases1 /ap ecreases
/a0
u
/ap
u
} h spin ) equations?

v
[/a0
u
/ap
u
\V u { v spin * equations?
Hs this where the 8obius twist o! spin L { particles is to be !oun?
9ne reason why the !iel seems so wie open !or speculations about
alternative gravity theories is simply that the gravitational constant Rbig
4S has only been etermine with any con!ience to a mere three
ecimal places. 8any propose alternate mechanisms o! gravitation
may not replace general relativity theory1 but serve as small RmocK
gravitationalS or inuce gravitational corrections to general relativity
outsie the so-calle low-energy corner. 9r perhaps serve as
peagogical1 physically intuitive analogues !or gravity e6clusively within
the lowFenergy corner.
/a0
u
/ap
u
= /a0
*
/ap
*
/a0
2
/ap
2
/a0
$
/ap
$
/a0
(
/ap
(
/a0
2
/ap
2
/a0
2
/ap
2
/a0
2
/ap
$
/a0
2
/ap
(
/a0
$
/ap
*
/a0
$
/ap
2
/a0
$
/ap
$
/a0
$
/ap
(
/a0
(
/ap
*
/a0
(
/ap
2
/a0
(
/ap
$
/a0
(
/ap
(
/a.
uv
M
u{v
Cspinor with spin = -*/2D /a.
vu
M
u{v
Cspinor with spin = +*/2D
/a.
uv
M
u = v
CscalarD 6ry: /a>

= /a.
uv
- /a.
vu

@ote: 0
)
= ict an 7
)
= imcV 0
)
p
)
= - -mc
2
t
+
)
7
H
= imcv
5
t = 0
i
7
)
0
5
7
K
= 0
K
7
5
an 0
)
7
5
= 0
5
7
)
"o it is not the case that1
0
u
7
v
= -0
vu
1 that is1
0
u
7
v
{ 0
v
7
u
but this also means that1
0
u
7
v
{ 0
v
7
u
/n 7
5
= mv
5
= m/t0
5
1 where H = *1 21 $
C?ut what about the case where u = )?D
:oes 0
5
7
K
= -0
5
7
K
imply the antisymmetry o! the composite operator1
0
5
7K where [0
5
7
K
\ { ) an so where /a0
5
/ap
K
} h or shoul this rea
instea as
/a0
5
/a7
K
} { hV /a0
5
/a7
K
} { h ?
=ere we have interprete the coorinates C0
5
1 0
K
1 0
m
D as abstract particles
that can be e0change with the particle with momentum 7
K
Cwithin a
given hypersur!ace o! simultaneity1 t = 0
)
D.
Aecall that [0
5
1 7
5
\ { ) CgenerallyD but that also1 [0
u
1 7
v
\ = )1 i! u = v an
here the corresponing operators1 0
u
7
v
applie in succession to some
wave!unction1 C0

D are symmetric in their action on w1 that is1 0

u
C7
v
1
w

D an 7
u
C7
v
1 w

D Coperator symmetryD with 0

u
C7
v
1 w

D an 0
v
C7
u

D1 or
are these two e0pression telling us the same thing about

?
9nce quantum computing technology matures enough !or computing
evices to reliably an in stable !ashion inter!ace with the quantum
vacuum an so e!!ectively utilize the !luctuating energy o! the vacuum
!or processing o! huge an still more virtually in!inite quantities o!
in!ormation1 similar amounts o! in!ormation shall be able to be store
encoe in the !orm o! quantum correlations impresse upon the
!luctuating quantum !iels at the vacuum sie o! the quantum computing
evice_s inter!ace. 6he question naturally arises as to whether myria
other highly avance e0traterrestrial civilizations have long been
utilizing the vacuum an its quantum !iels in this matter an so1
whether this alien in!ormation must eventually become accessible to a
su!!iciently avance generation o! terrestrial quantum computers. 6he
quantum vacuum is !or the most part a issipationless meium. ?ut i!
nonlocal in!ormation encoe in vacuum !iel correlations propagates at
in!inite spee as is beginning to now seem liKely then there oes not
appear to be any particular RpointS in spacetime where a physical
connection might be mae !or RownloaingS any nonlocally resiing
in!ormation.
+
*
/ap
*
+ /a0
*
p
*
. . .
.
.
.
C0
u
/ap
v
+ /a0
u
p
v
D = .

? .ooKs liKe . must have at least two inices.

cit=
/lternate view column /I-%'1 R6unneling through the light spee
barrierS / number o! thoughts on this article. Fere it an orinary
electron tunneling through the barrier1 the electron while within the
barrier woul possess an imaginary momentum an negative Kinetic
energy. "ince the potential barrier classically prevents the electron !rom
passing through it1 the electron possesses a positive potential energy
while within the barrier. Fe shoul e0pect tunneling o! the electron at
near the spee o! light to prouce relativistic e!!ects though in a reverse
sense relative to what is normal !or a relativistic electron possessing a
real momentum. "o a relativistic tunneling electron shoul e0perience
length ilation along its irection o! motion1 time contraction an
relativistic mass ecrease.
Qd
6his is certainly what accounts !or the
superluminal barrier transmission spees observe in recently per!orme
electron-tunneling e0periments. Ht is even possible !or the electron to
propagate through the potential with ) Kinetic energy1 i.e.1 the electron is
allowe to cross through the potential barrier without any action energy
being transmitte through the barrier.
Hn this connection H will have to research my notes !or re!erences to
imaginary an/or negative or positive mass photons. @ote here that )
energy transmission uring quantum tunneling is inee a quantum
resonance phenomenon1 i.e.1 a Kin o! staning wave pattern o! virtual
electromagnetic energy between opposites bounaries o! the potential
barrier. Hn a complementary !ashion the e0change o! virtual photons
within bulK matter may be unerstoo as a coherence phenomenon. "o
the repute supraliminal velocities o! !airly recent e0periments on
tunneling o! microwaves moulate to carry comple0 in!ormation
signals through a potential barrier may be renere invali in principle.
6his is because as a barrier resonance phenomenon1 i.e.1 a quantum
mechanical resonance requiring that certain electromagnetic bounary
conitions alreay be in place prior to initiation o! quantum tunneling1
time must always be taKen to conition the potential barrier along its
entire length be!ore photons can be allowe to tunnel across Ctime must
be taKen in avance to Rset upS the quantum resonant bounary
conitions !acilitating the superluminal tunnelingD. 6he !act that the
barrier must be continually reconitione to permit the continue !low
o! in!ormation Ci! not actual energyD across the barrier suggests that
quantum ecoherence o! the resonant structure Cin terms o! correlations
o! virtual photons/e+e- pairs en!orcing /a;//ap } cD shall probably pose
5ust enough o! a problem !or e0perimenters so that Y0Z !or the
in!ormation-laen microwaves is YvZ | Yc
v
ZV c
v
= c !or RlocalS vacuum.
7ropagation o! light in a conucting meium. 6he principles o! special
an general relativity must remain vali !or propagation o! light through
all moi!ie vacua1 incluing vacua moi!ie by ielectric meia as well
as other electromagnetic bounary conitions upon !ree space vacuum.
6here must be an elasticity to the electromagnetic vacuum reveale by
vacuum polarization phenomena.
/ particle with mass such as a F boson represents an e0cite state o! the
quantum vacuum1 which there!ore must ecay e0ponentially. /
massless particle is not an e0citation o! the vacuum1 possibly a
ee0citation.
R4ravitation in -lat "pacetime1S
cit=
ar+iv:gr-qc/))****)v* 22 @ov 2))).
R/ special relativistic scalar-vector theory o! gravitation is presente
which mimics an important class o! solutions equivalent to the
"chwarzchil1 Oerr1 Aeissner-@orstrom1 an -rieman metrics o!
general relativity.S
R.inKs between gravity an ynamics o! quantum liquis1S
cit=
ar+iv: gr-
qc/)))()(2v* *& /pr 2))).
R;!!ective !ielS theory o! gravity.
;0ploration o! the ynamical physical laws o! a given universe causes
the observer to travel orthogonal to his own phenomenal universe1 i.e.1
the true ynamics lie with the collective behavior that there!ore cannot
be e0hibite !ully within a given phenomenal realm. 6he only
alternative universes are those that one is not occupying. / person not
connecte to me by any egree o! separation may be thought to occupy a
i!!erent universe !rom my own. 6he thermal vacuum !luctuation case
in which neither bosons are correlate nor !ermions anti-correlate
might correspon to the vacuum being escribe by a ensity matri0 !or
a statistically mi0e state1 i.e.1 appropriate 8a0well ?oltzmann statistics.
Fhy is the wave!unction represente as C01y1z1tD or C01y1zDCtD rather
than in vector !orm1 e.g.1

= [C0D1 CyD1 CzD1 CtD\ or
= C0
u
D
/n oesn_t this suggest the possibility o! = Cg
iK
C0
K
DD ? ?ecause this
escription oes not taKe entanglement into account.

Qd
6ime is the greatest mystery because its very substance is novelty.
/n most parao0ical about time is that the substance o! this novelty is
that o! no substance.
Hnverte substance oes not possess a uality with respect to substance.
6opology change cannot be brige by negation.
Ht is easier to comprehen suen evolutionary ivergence i! natural
selective RpressureS is seen as equal an opposite to Curing
evolutionary equilibriumD another RpressureS that o! creative sel!-
organization. C6his remins me o!
au=
6erence 8cOenna_s
prn=
principle o!
the conservation of novelty.D 6his opposing pressure is sticKy1 ratchety
an otherwise blinly e0paning. 6he tenency to ratchet an cohere
may be thought o! as RinternalS bounary conitions. 6he tracK
switching o! thought trains is analogous to superposition collapse
phenomena.
H! natural selection pressure is more than 5ust an empty metaphor1 then
there must be some reactive meium against which natural selection
RpressesS1 itsel! another metaphor !or something equally RrealS.
Qd
7oetry is as cynical manipulation o! the irritability o! the min_s
interpretative !aculty a ma5or component o! which is an unerlying
networK o! psychological associations with no other meaning than that
o! not regular 5u0taposition in time1 but acciental1 uniquely-occurring
within an iiosyncratic conte0t. 7sychological associations worK by
attaching past conte0ts to recurring elements. 6his particular
mechanism o! psychological association unerlies the ine!!ably comple0
tissue o! impressions evoKe by1 !or e0ample1 song. 9ne question here
is whether the mechanism unerlying the evoKing o! moo an emotion
by meloic an harmonic progressions is the same or closely relate to
that unerlying the evocative power o! lyrics art!ully associate with
these purely musical soun progressions.
6he possibilities o! artistic e0pression abie by an inner logic 5ust as o
the intellectual eneavors o! philosophy an mathematics1 however
istinctly i!!erent these inner logics o! creativity might be. 6he inner
logic o! creativity1 whether that o! abstract theoretical or artistic
eneavor seems in!orme by an increibly comple0 uneven weighting o!
possibilities !or such e0pressions. /n unerlying pre-conceptual
process o! abstraction
"pin eigenstate inter!erence CcorrelationD versus electromagnetic
interaction o! real spin { particles.
3an virtual spin { particles both interact electromagnetically an e0ist
in mutual quantum superposition?
"uperposition is possible in *
st
place because o! couple harmonic
oscillator networK o! quantum vacuum. Aeal an virtual particles can
be put on equal !ooting i! they are phenomenological particles1 i.e.1
Rquasiparticles.S
6he component o! the vacuum energy ensity within a volume1 I
"chw
that is gravitationally e!!ective is epenent upon cosmological e!ine
parameters1 which are time-varying.
?lacK hole ensity ecreases with r at the same rate as gravitational !iel
strength.
3ompare an contrast the classical Cintermittent short-circuitingD an the
quantum C-collapseD as moels o! realization o! a potential.
9ther circuit pathways are e0clue uring a Rshort.S 9ther
eigen!unctions are e0clue upon -collapse.
"ee /nalog gravity !rom ?ose-;instein conensates1 ar+iv: gr-
gc/))**)2&v* % @ov 2)))1 ?arcelo1 .iberati1 an Iisser.
Hncrease quantum correlation o! !ermionic states must be associate
with increase probability ensity o! composite spin ) bosons. ?ut the
enhance correlation o! spin-*/2 !ermions is meiate in stages
Cetermine by characteristic interaction istanceD by in turn1 the
electromagnetic1 weaK nuclear an strong nuclear e0changes !orces.
?ut limiting our attention !or the moment to electrons an the
electromagnetic interaction1 we claim that the correlation o! e+e- virtual
pairs is enhance irectly by increase electromagnetic interaction o! the
pairs on the one han an enhance inirectly by the increase
CenhanceD anticorrelation or real with virtual !ermions/anti!ermions.
:ue to the great preominance Cin this universe1 at any rateD o! matter
over antimatter1 the anticorrelation o! real !ermions to virtual
anti!ermions seems somehow more inirect than that o! real to virtual
spin { particles. 6here is an aitional momentum uncertainty
introuce into the 7auli e0clusion acting between virtual !ermions an
anti!ermions constituting a single virtual 3ooper pair1 over an above
the spin Cangular momentumD uncertainty component o! the 7auli-
blocKing statistical interaction o! real an virtual !ermions Co! the same
species1 that isD.
Hncrease correlation o! bosons shoul be associate with ecrease
momentum uncertainty !or these bosons as well as !or the !ermions
between which the correlate bosons are e0change an by which non-
gravitational Rbining !orcesS between these !ermions are meiate.
Hncrease anticorrelation o! !ermions shoul be associate with
ecrease energy uncertainty o! the !ermions1 but with increase
momentum uncertainty o! the interacting CanticorrelateD !ermions1
which must become more strongly quantum anti-correlate as they are
brought closer together. ;.g.1 i! the separation o! two !ermions is Y
*
Z b
).))*1 the strength o! electromagnetic interaction o! the !ermions1 an
hence their egree o! quantum anticorrelation1 must be *)) times as
great as when the average CspatialD separation o! these !ermions is Y
2
Z b
).*. 6his is quite simply because the momentum uncertainties in both
cases are1 respectively1
/ap
*
b ')))h an /ap
2
b ')h
assuming1 !or e0ample1 a *)% sprea CuncertaintyD in the separation o!
the !ermions about their average separations1 Y
*
Z an Y
2
Z CaboveD1
respectively.
9n this view the more strongly anticorrelate are the spins o! two
mutually interacting Celectromagnetically coupleD electron/positrons the
less uncertain is the relative antiparallel alignment o! the electron an
positron spins1 an hence the less uncertain is the electromagnetic
interaction energy o! the !ermion pair. ?ut the quantum statistical !orce
o! anti-correlation o! two !ermions naturally becomes stronger the more
clearly the !ermions are brought together Cas positional uncertainty o!
the !ermions ecreasesD an hence as the virtual photon e0changes
between the two !ermions becomes more numerous an energetic. =ere
we see that quantum statistically !orces an the nongravitational
!unamental !orces are inee one an the same only viewe !rom two
istinct physical theoretical vantage points.
"uperconuctor ?ose-;instein conensate C?;3D e0citon moels may
prove interesting analogous !or outstaning !eatures o! general
relativistic systems.
:oes the breaKing o! a symmetry involve the aition or subtraction o! a
quantum number? 9pposite lines o! euction are prompte by the
very same intuition or insight though the apparatus o! logic may
nonetheless be relie upon to ecie which is the vali euctive path.
3ontrast thought via the enlargement o! meaning versus via the
restriction o! meaning: inuctive vs. euctive.
7hase1 action an angular momentum all possess physical units o! Kg-
m
2
/s.
4ravitation as an e!!ective !iel within an e0paning universe o! !inite1
time-varying cosmological constant may obey a continuity equation in a
curve $-space1
Cc/ctDz +
.
CzvD = )
such that general relativistic time ilation may be sought as the
mechanism in proucing a spatial graient o! vacuum matter current
ensity Cmore accurately state1 as a graient in the ivergence o! the
vacuum matter current ensityD.
6he quantum vacuum !iel !rom which spacetime is !ashione are not
locate within spacetime an so shouln_t be e0pecte to act as
gravitational sources. 9nly those !iels !luctuating within spacetime are
sub5ect to bounary conitions Cbecoming structures o! RbounS as
oppose to R!reeS energyD. 9nly i! space !ails to be quantizable is it
possible to solve the parao0 o! the non-gravitating vacuum by positing
CanD aitional imensionCsD !or istributing the vacuum energy so as to
ilute it beyon the point where it may prouce a gravitational e!!ect.
?ounary conitions to quantum vacuum !iels that may be impose
only irreversibly1 i.e.1 not by the vacuum itsel!1 are able to prouce
correlations in these !iels that in!orm the vacuum energy Cor the sel!-
interaction o! the vacuum energyD. "uch bounary conitions
necessarily result in the vacuum being split Cinitially1 at least1 prior to
intersub5ective spacetime curvature being introuceD into orthogonal
omains o! !luctuating vacuum !iels C=eisenberg uncertainty in
momentum-energy an hence o! space an timeD. 6his is the origin o!
separate omains o! embeing vacuum energy1 the newly engenere
orthogonal spacetimes1 i.e.1 sub5ectivities.
.ocal cosmological acceleration1 which provies the simplest an most
elegant e0planation o! the 7ioneer *)/** acceleration anomalies1 also
implies that cosmological e0pansion also occurs locally1 c.!.1 e0paning
earth hypothesis1 i.e.1 :irac_s large number hypothesis. "uch a local
cosmological acceleration implies1 through the "chwarzchil raius
!ormula1 A
s
= 248/c
2
1 cosmological increases in 4 an/or 8 an/or
ecrease in c with cosmological e0pansion. 6ime variation o! 4
compatible with a local e0pansion hypothesis has alreay been rule an
observationally.
Aotation o! spin ) an spin-* !luctuations1 which causes a rotation o!
momentum-energy !luctuations in the irection o! increase current
ensity o! $-momentum !luctuations necessitates spacetime rotation o!
timeliKe vectors into spaceliKe vectors.
?lacK holes are bose conensates. .ess mass ensity Co! !ermionsD is
require Cby !arD than the ensity o! virtual !ermions in orer !or vacuum
to Rconense.S ?lacK hole mass merely represents critical mass !or this
process o! bose conensation to become irreversible. Hn!inite ensity is
not reache by collapse o! matter beyon the event horizon. 6he critical
mass1 8
s
1 is also the resiual mass with the "chwarzchil volume1 I
s
!ermionic states !ully occupie an mass equivalency o! bining energy
o! bose-conense vacuum within I
s
.
/a0/ap } h an /at/a; } h implies that rotation o! /ap an /a; must be
accompanie by spacetime rotation L rotation o! /a0 an /at. 7A.1 Iol.
N&1 @o. *21 pp. (2)$-(2)&1 Oetterle an Hnouye1 Rbecause hK
!
hq1
7auli blocKing ue to scattering into alreay occupie states is absent1
however1 this ampli!ication oes not pile up atoms in a single state1 but
rather in states which are in the same momentum state along z1 but i!!er
in other quantum no._s
6he average velocity o! photons in a Rphoton gasS is c/$1 however the
velocity o! virtual photons in the vacuum electromagnetic !iel is c
because the state equation o! this vacuum is p = -. 6his equation o!
state seems to be require by the .orentz invariance o! the vacuum
electromagnetic !iel as well as o! the quantum vacuum itsel!. Hn the
momentum !luctuations o! the quantum vacuum photons are create
ceteris paribus with a ranomly istribute (-momentum Ci! not also a
ranomly istribute velocity L more on this possibility laterD. 6his
istribution o! virtual photon momentum is inepenent o! the inertial
re!erence !rame1 implying that the average velocity o! photons create
spontaneously !rom the vacuum1 i.e.1 virtual photons1 Yv
avg
Z =

c.
/a0/ap b h 6he more time taKen1 /at in orer to accurately etermine
the position o! a particle to within /a01 the more uncertain will be the
measure momentum1 /ap1 but also the more accurately will be the
etermination o! the particle s energy to within /a;. 6his suggests that
in aition to the C01 pD an Ct1 ;D operator incompatibility there also
e0ists an incompatibility o! p an ;. 6he !orm o! the
incompatibility o! /ap an /a; must surely be a!ter the manner o! the
relativistic equation relating YpZ an Y;Z. 6hat is1 analogous to the
!ollowing !orm1
YpZ
2
c
2
+ m
2
c
(
= Y;Z
2
.;36,A; H+: Hn!lation: / 7ossible "olution1
Fhat i! the Iacuum 4ravitates? C@otes on an quotes !rom the lectureD
R7erhaps at the e0treme conitions in the very early universe the vacuum
was ticKle into an asymmetric state in which it i gravitate.S
RAecall that the stress tensor1 6 has a matri0 o! components !or an ieal
!lui Citalics mineD at rest o! iag Cz1 71 71 7D.S
R/t rest? Fhat oes at rest in the vacuum mean? @othing. 6here can be
no velocity-relate terms in the stress tensor an in !act the stress tensor
must have e0actly the same !orm in all re!erence !rames.S
Puantum Hnter!erence in ?osonic an -ermionic 8atter-wave
/mpli!ication
=. :eng an <. <amamoto
R6wo types o! matter wave mi0ing e0periments are ocumente1 one
with symmetric wave!unction o! bosons leaing to constructive quantum
inter!erenceS
:oes any !orce causing a boy to eviate !rom geoesic motion have to
be characterize by an action? / theory resulting !rom a !ull or
complete generalization o! general relativity woul count any
eterministic notion o! a boy as an instance o! geoetic motion. 8ust
such a complete generalization o! general relativity be !ormulate in
terms o! a least action principle Ci! not upon a Rnull action principleSD?
9ctober 2)**
"traight line or inertial motion is e0plaine in terms o! the
action principle in that any eviation !rom a straight line necessarily
involves impresse !orces1 which increases the energy o! the1 e.g.1
particle. / test particle will move within a gravitational !iel in such a
manner that the o!!-iagonal components o! the particle_s momentum-
stress-energy tensor remain zero1 which minimizes the action. "ince the
prouct o! all Rincompatible observablesS possesses physical imensions
o! RactionS1 we shoul looK !or an e0planation o! the ynamics
unerlying the principle o! least action within a mechanism or
mechanisms !or how postion-momentum1 time-energy1 spin-particle
number1 etc. mutually trans!orm1 irectly or inirectly.
3ertainly the simple case o! a charge particle moving within static
electric an magnetic !iels oes represent the operation o! an action1
especially when a vali theory must e0ist1 which succees in uni!ying all
!unamental !orces? Fithin such a theory any eterministic motion1
i.e.1 a motion possessing a vanishing Raction1S coul be consiere as
Rgeoetic motion.S Fithin such a !ully uni!ie theory o! gravitation an
the !unamental !orces only a Rprimum mobileS itsel! coul be
characterize by an action1 one which can only be etermine a!ter
having committe its e0traneous input into the otherwise close ynamic
system o! particles an !orces. 9n this view any eviation !rom
geoetic motion greater than some critical value Ce.g.1 7enrose_s one-
graviton limitD must be accompanie by system 7si-!unction collapse
Cobservable perhaps only through iscontinuous changes in some system
component ensity matricesD.
/ hyroynamics o! probability current ensities where 7si is
etermine !rom a =amiltonian encompassing all particle an !iel
energies within the system might !igure importantly within a vali null
action !ormulation o! general relativity.
Fhat is parao0ical about the angular momentum-particle number
e0pression o! =eisenberg uncertainty is the !ollowing. /n uncertainty
in particle number when each o! the particles being create an
annihilate possesses spin woul be e0pecte to translate into an
uncertainty in spin1 which implies in turn1 ceteris paribus1 an uncertainty
in angular momentum. /ny process in which CtotalD angular momentum
uncertainty /a>D is increasing an in which the con5ugate uncertainty in
particle number must be ecreasing must inclue a change in the
quantum statistics o! the virtual particles being create so that these
particles become more correlate Canti-correlateD. /ngular momentum
is also con5ugate to phase. 8aybe it is action that is con5ugate to
particle number?
"tatistical sprea o! quantum states is not always ientical to the
=eisenberg uncertainty o! states.
1. /iabatic change
2. :eterministic evolution o!
3. 4eoetic motion Ctra5ectoryD
:iscuss how although the surmounting o! the bining potential o!
Orypton-N' by a beta particle is inistinguishable Cby measurementD
!rom the alternative process o! the beta acquiring an imaginary
momentum allowing it to tunnel through this potential barrier1 that these
two physical processes are not1 in !act1 ientical.
Qd
6o relativistic spacetime interval an linear (-momentum must be
5oine (-!orce1 (-angular moment1 (-torque1 etc. an a timeliKe spin
component Cto be ae along with "
0
1 "
y
an "
z
D is require given that >
= . + " where . = .
u
so that we have >
u
= .
u
+ "
u
.
6he mutual attraction o! positive an negative charges may be
relativistically e0plaine in terms o! magnetic attraction o! two
oppositely irecte timeliKe charge currents.
6he -eynman path integral !ormalism Cseems toD imply that when a light
ray is e!lecte by a gravitational !iel this is on account o! a e!lection
by the !iel o! all the virtual paths o! the photons summe together by
the path integral.
8arch 2)**
Hn the same way that the light ray is an
oscillation o! orthogonal electric an magnetic !iels1 it is also an
RoscillationS o! orthogonal spin * CphotonD an spin ) Cvirtual electron-
positron or S3ooper pairSD moes. 8oreover1 the
!oreshortening/istortion o! the light ray as it travels through a
spatiotemporally varying gravitational !iel is attributable to the
increasing entanglement o! the photon in its spin * moe an ecreasing
entanglement in its spin ) moe. 6he !act that the entanglement o!
in!ormation in spin-) !orm can only be transuce to spin-* !orm
irreversibly supports the generalization o! event horizon + =awKing
raiation to a Ainler horizon + :avies-,nruh raiation. 6he light ray
when R!allingS into a gravitational source is e0periencing1 alternately1
length contraction an time ilation1 however1 it e0periences this is two
istinct parts. 6he length contraction is e0perience by the photon while
it is in the spin * or RphotonS moe an the time ilation1 while in the
R3ooper pairS moe. 6his may account !or the !act that a spectral line
photon re!lecte !rom a RmirrorS away !rom a gravitational source
su!!ers no observable spectral line reshi!t1 while raiation !rom atoms
in the mirror material unergoing atomic energy transitions prouce
photons with observe reshi!ts consistent with the i!!erence in the
gravitational potential between point o! emission an point o!
spectroscopic observation. 7olarization an magnetization are both
Rentanglement witnessesS an the electric !iel permittivity an
magnetic !iel permeability are irectly relate to the intrinsic
polarization an magnetization o! the quantum vacuum.
6his interpretation o! gravitational light e!lection requires the
gravitational !iel to act equally upon both real an virtual paths in turn
implying a gravitational mass equivalency Cin terms o! ;/c
2
D !or each
virtual photon corresponing to each virtual path Cvirtual path o! a real
photon is what is really mean here rather than a real path o! a virtual
photonD. 6he appropriate e!lection may be brought about simply
through an appropriate a5ustment o! each o! the virtual path amplitues
so that the e!lecte path becomes most probable one. /n equivalent
way to a5ust these path amplitues in the appropriate manner is to
a5ust the CinstantaneousD spacetime ensities virtual photons an virtual
electron-positron pairs.
"pecial relativity requires a e!inition o! (-angular momentum that is
consistent with this theory_s e!inition o! linear (-momentum1 p
u
an
spacetime interval1 s
2
. 3onsistent with these e!initions o! relativistic
physical quantities are those o! relativistic (-!orce -
u
an (-torque. 6he
point o! all o! this is to motivate our assertion that a timeliKe a0is o!
quantum mechanical spin is also emane by the consistency an
completeness o! special relativity theory. 6he total angular momentum1
> = . + " cannot be e!ine in a manner consistent with relativistic
spacetime symmetry i! angular momentum1 . = .
u
is e!ine as
possessing !our components while spin1 " = "
5
is e!ine in terms o!
three spaceliKe component vectors.
Puantities not possessing gauge invariance o not possess any absolute
physical meaning. Hn a gravitational potential1 the 0
u
an p
u
are only
appro0imately orthogonal in their components. 8oreover1 0
u
an p
u
are
only appro0imately parallel.
Fhat is the physical signi!icance o! the 2
n
ranK tensor relating /a0
u
to /ap
v
in the special relativistic e0pression o! the =eisenberg uncertainty
principle1 given by:
/a0
u
/ap
v
} h ?
/a0
jl
/ap
ht
A
jlht
.et us attempt to give a physical interpretation o! the above terms1
/a0
jl
1 /ap
ht
an A
jlht
.
/ap
ht
may be interprete as the uncertainty in the t-component o! the !low
o! h-momentum.
/a0
jl
may be interprete as the uncertainty in the l-component o! the j-
component o! 0-uncertainty.
A
jlht
coes !or the speci!ic structure o! the quantum vacuum relating
quantum uncertainties.
6he sum o! the squares o! the (-momentum is not a conserve quantity1
as was inee the case !or 8inKowsKi spacetime. Aather the above
components o! the !our momentum are merely !our components out o!
the conserve *& component stress-momentum-energy tensor o!
Aiemannian spacetime. 6his has alreay happene a time be!ore when
$-momentum an energy1 hereto!ore separate conserve quantities
Cwithin 4alilean spacetimeD became subsume uner the ( component (-
momentum o! 8inKowsKi spacetime.
4alilean spacetime p
5
conserve
; conserve
4alilean spacetime symmetry broKen p
u
conserve
replace by 8inKowsKi spacetime symmetry
8inKowsKi spacetime symmetry broKen 6
uv
conserve Clinearize
4A-weaK !ielsD replace by Aiemannian spacetime Ci!!eomorphism
symmetryD
,ni!ication o! 4A an P8 "upergravity/supersymmetry?
/ap/a0 = Cn
photon
+ {Dh/2 an i! n is interprete as !ermion-
anti!ermion pairs1
/a;/at = Cn
e
+
e
-
+ {Dh/2
4iven a starting ensity o! =amiltonian action within the quantum
vacuum Cmoele as a harmonic oscillator networKD an applying
conservation o! action1 we have something aKin to the !ollowing.
"o ascent to the ne0t higher symmetry always seems to involve the
uni!ication o! integrals o! motion Cnow reveale as nonconserve within
lower broKen symmetryD into some more comple01 i.e.1 symmetry
possessing a greater number o! components1 conserve quantity1 perhaps
only with the aition within any previously Known symmetry.
/n action is only e!inable !or observer inepenent quantities.
/ap/a0 + /a;/at b constantV Cn
photon
+ {Dh/2 + Cn
e
+
e
-
+ {Dh/2 b
constant
6he above inicates conservation o! phase space
?roKen lower symmetry
"plit egeneracy
/ppearance o! higher1 more comple0 symmetry
@onconservation o! lower imensional physical quantity
3onservation o! higher imensional physical quantity subsuming the
nonconserve lower imensional quantity as a component.
C7robability is not conserve in statistical mi0tures/mi0e statesD
9pening o! close system to higher imensional close system
/ppearance o! internal !orces
Hnistinguishable alternatives inter!ere. Puantum uncertainties are
comprise o! such quantum inistinguishable Cin
ob5ective/intersub5ective senseD. ?ut in a sub5ective manner1 by a
nonlocal RmechanismS these ob5ectively inistinguishable alternatives
are not only istinguishable1 but also manipulable. 6opological breaKs
are introuce within =eisenberg uncertainties among normalization
egenerate !luctuations.
6he normalization o! the wave!unction is where the 7si o! a quantum
system is !itte to e0ternal bounary conitions. Hniviual
consciousness e!ies the ceteris paribus principle.
:oes the brain utilize a 4eel-numbering proceure in encoing
e0perience into a uni!ie conscious state?
6he more psychologically sel!-su!!icient one is1 barring consieration o!
psychopathology the more resource!ul an inventive one is in !ining/
creating neural !eebacK paths their brain_s Rpleasure center.S
-in a relation between the alternation o! electromagnetic energy
between its spin-* CbosonicD an spin-) C!ermionicD !orms1 c.!.1 ?ose
enhancement/ 7auli-blocKing electric/magnetic !iel e!!ects on
?ose/-ermi particle prouction.
6he spinor matrices have imaginary components !or spin { particles
C!ermionsD because an e0tra rotation a0is is require to per!orm a 2
n
*N)
o
about Cin aitionD to the spatial $&)
o
. "o a $&)
o
spatial rotation o!
a !ermion introuces a *N)
o
rotation about some imaginary a0is1
introucing a C-D sign requiring another rotation to return the !ermion to
its original state.
:iscuss ;=mc
2
1 p = mv1 parao0 o! non-gravitating vacuum1 small
vacuum mass/cosmological constant1 local vs. nonlocal vacuum1
comoving $- vacuum vs. (- relatively movement o! vacuum. ; = mc
2
as representing Rinternal motionS o! boun matter components.
3.!.1 telephone conversation with 4reg 8arcotte on 2N >une 2))$ at -t. 7ollK1 .ouisiana.
;nergy1 ; possesses
both spaceliKe an timeliKe components1 i.e.1 Kinetic Ce0ternalD an
potential CinternalD components o! motion. H! through (-momentum
conservation the sum total o! internal an e0ternal motion constitutes a
conserve total quantity o! motion1 then the e!!ects o! matter upon
spacetime an o! spacetime upon matter may be more intuitively
conceptualize through the equation1 ; = mc
2
in which RmS represents
the quantity o! boun1 recursive an RinternalS motion1 while Rc
2
S
represents the quantity o! unboun1 linear an Re0ternalS motion1 with
R;S representing a locally conserve total quantity o! energy. 6he
slowe velocity o! light in a gravitational potential represents the
e0change through the vacuum o! spacetime o! Rthe internal motion o!
potential energyS !or Rthe e0ternal motion o! Kinetic energyS so that1 as
it were1 the ensity o! potential energy in the vacuum is increase only at
the e0pense o! the loss o! ensity o! Kinetic energy in this same vacuum
L in a wor1 the contraction o! space an the ilation o! time associate
with the ilation o! internal (-momentum C$-momentum !luctuationsD
an contraction o! e0ternal (-momentum Cpure (-momentum
!luctuationsD.
3.!.1 telephone conversation with 4reg 8arcotte on 2N >une 2))$ at -t. 7ollK1 .ouisiana.
.inear $-momentum is clearly a trans!ormation Cue to accelerationD o! a
purely timeliKe linear (-momentum1 i.e.1 energy. 6his rule also applies
to circular (-momentum1 i.e.1 bosonic e0change $-momentrum an
!ermionic (-momentum tie to the bosonic $-momentum e0changes1 c.!.1
Puantum @oise in 7hotonics. 6he enser a mass becomes1 the higher
becomes the component o! the vacuum_s energy ensity which is
irectly tie to internal changes in the mass_ component particle
momenta. Hn this way is the inertial mass o! an ob5ect boun up with
the mass_ rate o! temporality1 as ine0e by general relativistic time
ilation e0perience by the mass. 9nce all o! the !luctuations o! energy
within the vacuum containe within the mass_ geometry become tie to
internal e0changes o! momentum within the mass1 then the mass an its
vacuum become a system close o!! !rom the rest o! spacetime1 i.e.1
!rom e0ternal !luctuations o! momentum-energy. .orentz
trans!ormations o! the relative velocity o! a given mass result in a
trans!ormation o! the embeing quantum vacuum constituting the mass
within space an time. =ow the so-calle RemptyS vacuum is
trans!orme is e!!ecte through a symmetrical .orentz trans!ormation o!
the !luctuation momentum-energy ynamical structure o! this vacuum.
9ne way to e!!ect this type o! trans!ormation o! the quantum vacuum
without irectly interacting with the mass1 e.g.1 by pushing it1 might be1
say1 through the application o! some e0ternal electric an magnetic !iels
to this vacuum state embeing the ob5ect.
%2)
o
= 2piA N ; N ? N h/V mvA b spinV mv b momentum L the
interaction o! spin an curvature yiels e0ternal linear momentum.
:iscuss the istinct ways that static electric an magnetic !iels a!!ect
the vacuum statistics o! the quantum electroynamic vacuum.
Fe must realize that even eath itsel! may be 4o_s means o! chastising
one o! his waywar chilren.
?ecause there is a !eebacK between the quantum !iels Cthat shall later
in the embryological evelopment o! the !etus meiate its burgeoning
consciousnessD an those quantum !iels meiating the construction o!
the microtubule networKs within each o! the nerve cells o! the
eveloping !etal brain1 it is in principle impossible to !orgo the temporal
evolution o! these two sets o! quantum !iels along with that o! the
elicate inter!ace between them an taKe a short cut to the engenering
o! an iniviual human consciousness by synthesizing per impossible
5ust the right comple0 structure o! microtubules1 neurons1 an neural
interconnections1 etc. su!!icient to prouce this particular consciousness.
Hn this way we arrive at an important result having to o with he
relationship between matter an min: there is no su!!icient conition !or
the prouction o! an iniviual consciousness because there can be no
instantaneous !inite collection o! necessary conitions su!!icient to
prouce such a consciousness.
7rior to the evelopment o! the harware o! your brain an its being
programme through learning an e0perience1 there was no possible
organic Cor other type o!D system that coul have been constructe so as
to bring into being 5ust your particular consciousness. 6his argument
!rom the particular case o! your consciousness automatically generalize
itsel! as the proposition to the e!!ect that no instantaneous ClocalD
con!iguration o! matter an energy is su!!icient in an o! itsel! to
prouce a conscious state o! awareness.
Qd
?arton an "charnhorst assume that the stanar 3asimir plate
con!iguration oes not impose bounary conitions upon the !ermionic
!iel1 c.!.1 7hys. .ett. ?2$%1 ''2 an 7hys. .ett. ? 2$&1 $'( C*22)D1 c.!.1
!urther with hep-th/2N**)&2 C*22ND.
8ay 2)**
6he positional uncertainty1 /a0 may constitute a Kin o! abstract
generalization o! the plate separation in the 3asimir e!!ect: !luctuations
o! size larger than /a0 are suppresse because the onDt fit. "o
momentum !luctuations larger than /ap !it1 but thoses smaller than /ap
on_tT Hn the case o! quantum !luctuations in energy1 /a; o! uration
larger than /at1 there is not con!lict as these larger uration !luctuations
R!itS within /a;. Hncluing the contribution o! entanglement o! multiple
simultaneous !luctuations complicates the matter somewhat.
6he e0ternal electromagnetic !iels couple to the quantize microtubule
electromagnetic !iels by means o! the intermeiary action o! !ermionic
loops1 i.e.1 virtual !ermion-anti!ermion pairs. Ht appears that perhaps the
quantum mechanical basis !or ob5ective an sub5ective temporality are
the same a!ter all. /n to be sure some eep connection e0ists between
the mechanism o! time_s passage an the process we term consciousness.
6he global spacetime symmetry that is broKen by the presence o! real
!ermions is restore locally by enhance virtual boson e0changes within
the quantum vacuum that gives this vacuum a Cusually smallD mass.
;ach observer may be consiere to represent a particular time a0is
regarless o! these observers_ mutual relative e0ternal motion ue to
each observer_s possession o! his or her own internal time a0is.
/s note elsewhere the imaginary momentum Can negative Kinetic
energyD o! rest masses coul be interprete in light o! the near in!inite
energy ensity o! the quantum vacuum1 set within an e0paning
universe1 as the quantum tunneling o! these rest masses through the (-
potential represente by the vacuum energy ensity timeliKe graient.
6he tunneling rate o! rest masses is a!!ecte CecreaseD by the inter-
parton e0changes o! $-momentum meiating the bining !orces Can
energiesD o! matter Cmass-energyD.
Qd
?ining energy is negative in sign an so greater bining !orces o! the
constituent particles CpartonsD o! bulK matter results in an overall
reuce e?roglie !requency !or this matter. /s the overall oscillation
that the component an !iels o! mass are permitte to unergo1
R!
e?roglie
S may be liKene to the RclocK !requencyS o! the bulK matter. Hn
this way1 the total internal bining energy associate with strictly
nongravitational sources may be seize upon !or an alternative
mechanical e0planation o! gravitational time ilation.
?ut a closely relate mechanical moel !or gravitational time ilation is
that o! conservation o! !our-momentum applie to a system o! particles
being brought together towars this system_s center o! mass coorinate1
say by either impresse or other nongravitational !orces. Hn such a
situation the current ensity o! $-momentum !or the system in the !orm
o! an increasing ensity o! $-momentum Cspin-*D boson e0changes must
be associate with a corresponingly ecreasing (
th
component o! the
total (-momentum current ensity1 i.e.1 ensity o! composite spin-)
virtual particle-antiparticle creation-annihilation events within the
vacuum occupie by the system o! particles. 9! course1 there can be no
iscontinuity o! any o! the momentum current ensity components at the
spatial bounary o! the particle system. 6he time ilational e!!ect must
!all o!! as some speci!ic !unction o! istance !rom the sur!ace in terms o!
the !alling o!! o! current ensities or with respect to the center o! mass
coorinate o! the particle system.
H! the e0paning $-hypersur!ace Crepresenting avancing simultaneity
!or a chosen arbitrary inertial !rameD merely e0pans into a !our
imensional volume o! constant vacuum energy ensity1 then the ensity
o! $-momentum !luctuations is steaily ecreasing within spacetime that
there!ore the velocity o! light in vacuo must also be steaily increasing.
Fe perceive the passage o! time because each human consciousness is in
a concrete way outsie o! the continuum o! material reality. 6his
observation has relevance with regar to the quantum measurement
problem.
@on-spatializable time is historical time1 that is1 time as punctuate by
the interventions into spacetime Cspace an spatialize timeD o! beings
!rom beyon or transcening spacetime1 e.g.1 agents possessing so-calle
!ree will. @onspatial time is irreversible temporality in which some
things are learne an some !orgotten. Ht has been sai by ?ergson an
others that time cannot be genuinely RtemporalS without the e0istence
Can possibilityD o! novelty. ?ut !orgetting1 i.e.1 the estruction o!
in!ormation1 is also Key to really irreversible time Cbona !ie
temporalityD. Hn other wors real time1 that is1 irreversible time1 must
avance in RKicK-laerS !ashion. Hn this way the prouctions o!
temporality become irreproucible1 that is1 they cannot be prouce by
way o! a path that is some abrigement o! the path by which the original
thing ha been prouce. "o the avance o! real time must cover its
tracKs in so oing1 as oppose to a spatializable temporal process. Aeal
time avances in such a manner that the !uture is not RcontaineS within
the present1 i.e.1 Rwithout un!oling.S
Qd
6emporal integration can only be e!!ecte within the !requency
omain. 6his implies that eterministic temporal evolution is an
abstraction an hence a mere appro0imation o! a noneterministic
evolution.
?ecause phase possesses the same physical imensions as angular
momentum1 as well as to that o! action1 i.e.1 >oule-secons1 it is logical
to e0pect an intimate physical relationship between the quantum
statistical base laws o! motion an the relationships governing the
motion o! !ermions an bosons within N-imensional phase space.
Fithout oubt an action principle unerlies the ynamics o! this motion.
7erhaps ;uler-.a4range equations o! motion can be !ormulate !or
escribing the hyroynamical laws o! the space an time evolution o!
the probability (-momentum current ensities o! real an virtual
!ermions an bosons. 6he motion o! real bosons an !ermions into an
out o! a given region o! 8inKowsKi or Aiemannian spacetime must be
compatible with the selection rules escribing CgoverningD the
creation/annihilation o! virtual !ermions an bosons in situ within such a
spacetime region. /nother way to looK at this relationship o! the
ynamics o! matter an vacuum is that o! the equivalence o! a
escription o! motion paraigm to that o! the governing o! motion.
/ real !ermion represents a cyclic recreation o! a virtual !ermion within
the same volume o! phase space. 3urvature o! spacetime may be
erive !rom a curvature o! phase space1 which in turn may be erive
!rom absolutely spatial graients in (-momentum current ensity in the
irection e!ine by the 5-component o! the current ensity gives us all
possible o!!-iagonal components o! 6
uv
. 3reation-annihilation o! bosons
an !ermions provies a rich enough structure to accommoate the
current ensity graients.
6he omniscient narrator component o! consciousness1 perhaps more
properly thought o! as a Kin o! universal1 unperturbe bacKgroun
consciousness1 is suggeste by conscious e0perience o! elirium1
con!usion1 syncope1 reams1 into0ication1 an other states o!
consciousness in which rational mental !unctioning is pro!ounly
impaire1 i.e.1 hea in5ury1 c.!.1
Qd
7umpy_s "tain1 Hnternet story.
6he Rcash valueS o! the question o! the e0istence o! 4o is the question
o! the unity o! the human min1 that is1 o! the reality o! human
consciousness an hence1 o! consciousness as such.
:enzel Fashington sai1 Rit_s all about the boy1 it_s all about /ntoine.S
6hen we see a scene o! the young boy /ntoine staning in a corn!iel1
looKing up in bright sunlight as though looKing up into heaven. /ntoine
-isher
Ht is typical o! youth to suppose that the issues which preoccupie !amily
members o! several general generations ago have little i! any relevance
!or their =erculean e!!orts to maKe sense o! the postmoern worl which
they inhabit. ?ut this is to reinvent the wheel isn_t it? 6his is the
unarguable virtue o! conservatism in!orme by perception an common
sense. 6he principle o! nonlocality seems to apply here: the concerns o!
people *))) years ago are 5ust as relevant as those o! our parents_
generation.
:eterminism1 reuctionism1 logic1 the human min must process an
manage such tremenous quantities o! ata that it must have access to
!unctionality not tie to any special topological structure. !unction
collapse may well represent such topologically iscontinuous
!unctionality.
;ach is limite by their sense o! possibility.
6o e0ercise the true power o! the human min we cannot in the !inal
analysis avoi maKing assumptions unwarrante by Rthe !acts.S 6his
applies within the moral sphere 5ust as much as the intellectual.
?reaKthroughs or signi!icant progress cannot be achieve without this
!oolhary trusting o! mother wit an intuition.
.ooK !or e0amples o! generalizing the principle o! 4eel numbering1
e.g.1 in web search engine so!tware. YsearchC*DZ = YsearchC2D +
searchC*DZ + Ysearch$ + searchC*DZ + YsearchC(D + searchC*DZ + . . .
YsearchCnD + searchC*DZ
:oes quantum nonlocality violate probability conservation? -ermions
an bosons have the very same e!!ect upon the vacuum statistics in
proucing gravitational an inertial e!!ects.
6he reuce number ensity o! virtual photons which maKe a positive
contribution to the vacuum energy means a reuction in vacuum energy
ensity with which must be associate with a lowering o! the groun
state o! the vacuum. -or this reason. . .
"omewhere hien in the mist o! thinKing we see1 we see.
=umans are genetically an socially programme to integrate the myria
thoughts1 !eelings an impulses1 which on a lower organic1 eterministic
neural networK level possess iverse internal re!erence into a seamless
an well orere interpersonal presentation.
Ht is clear that the sweeping scope o! the ;instein equivalence principle
is better serve by a quantum mechanical e0planation o! light
propagation than one base in pre-quantum1 classical electromagnetism
speci!ically a mechanical moel o! gravitation which invoKes the
relation1 c = /a;//ap rather than c = */rootCu;D o!!ers us a better prospect
o! holing true to the equivalence principle than oes the latter classical
electromagnetism e!inition.
Yhyroynamic probabilityZ
:iscuss the principle o! the neurological e!!ectiveness o! the subliminal
appeal o! the
Qd
:omino_s 7izza RchicKen KicKer_sS commercial. -irst o!
all the central nervous system C3@"D is an e0ample o! both a classical
physical an a quantum mechanical system. 6he 3@" there!ore
respons to any stimulus strong enough to e0cee both classical an
quantum threshols in a two!ol manner.
/ ecrease in the Rspee o! timeS as represente by a reuce velocity o!
light in vacuo by way o! ecreases in /a; an increases in /ap implies a
reuce rate o! temporal change !or chemical processes via a
simultaneous increase in activation energies an ecrease in chemical
potential.
Qd
:o iscrete changes in momentum1 i.e.1 quantum 5umps1 accompany
general accelerate motion? H! so1 this acceleration woul involve the
RhoppingS o! accelerating boies !rom one vacuum state an its
associate inertia !rame to another neighboring one in increasingly rapi
succession.
Ht is not non-geoetic movement per se that shoul be associate with
iscontinuous transitions in the wave!unction1 but noneterministic
movement.
Hn the "charnhorst e!!ect a photon o! a given wavelength travels !aster
than RcS in vacuo when traveling between an perpenicular to the
3asimir plates because the photon waits less time within the moi!ie
vacuum between its successive trans!ormations into electron-positron
virtual pairs but also the photon spens less time in the !orm o! such
virtual pairs as well. H! the resulting ecrease in momentum ensity
perpenicular to the plates by virtue o! the ecrease in the number
ensity o! momentum !luctuations between the plates that1 when
compensate !or not by an increase in the number ensity o! virtual
electron-positron pairs by an appropriate increase in the energy o! each
o! the virtual pairs. "o although the momentum o! the iniviual
photons within the 3asimir plates are unchange1 the ensity o! virtual
photons with components o! momentum perpenicular to the plates is
ecrease. =owever1 the energy o! the virtual photons that remain
between the plates is increase by a ratio equal to that by which the
energy ensity o! virtual electron-positron pairs has been increase.
@ot only reuctions in uncertainty represent in!ormation but a given
quantity o! energy uncertainty itsel! may be equivalent to a certain
quantity o! in!ormation.
6here is a myopia1 a tunnel vision associate1 perhaps necessarily so1
with any psychological reaction in!orme by strong !eeling or emotion1
which can always be later rebutte in its motivation an consequences as
human action an ecision in the cool an calm light o! reason.
6he state an ynamics o! the quantum mechanical system may be !ully
accounte !or by the concepts o! probability ensity an !unctions o! this
probability ensity. Hn this way quantum probability is only seconarily
a !unction o! the spacetime coorinates while the spacetime coorinates
themselves are a !unction o! quantum probability ensity. Fhile
particles Cas strictly quantum Rnon-nonlocalS as it wereD may possess
!orces acting between them in space1 quantum states Co! a quantum
system as a wholeD may only possess statistical correlations across time.
/ccoring to ?ohm C*2'*D1 local causal interactions with any quantum
within any quantum system may be replace with nonlocal statistical
correlations between quantum mechanical systems. 6hese
consierations lie at the root o! the charge that a particles an !orces
escription o! a ynamic system is reunant an hence super!luous
relative to a wave!unction or ensity matri0 escription o! such a
system.
Hn particular nothing is ae to the e?roglie pilot wave escription o!
a system by going on to speaK o! the particles being so guie by these
Rpilot waves.S Hn !act in relativistic quantum !iel theory the notion o! a
particle cannot even be given a logically consistent e!inition.
"chroinger interprete Rthe many-boy wave!unction in terms o!
normal moes o! vibration o! an ensemble1 rather than as a vibration o!
an ensemble1 rather than as a escription o! a set o! iniviual particles1S
c.!.1
Qd
Puantum 8echanics !rom 4eneral Aelativity C8enel "achsD.
6he notion o! !inite probability applicable to the liKelihoo o! a !inite
collection o! events out o! a !iel compose o! an in!inite number o!
possible such events is a notion !unamentally i!!erent !rom that treate
by classical physics.
@onlocal theory: a theory in which the states o! a system as well as the
manner in which the system_s states evolve cannot be consistently
e0presse in terms o! !unctions o! iniviual spacetime coorinates.
7ast anticipations o! the !uture.
=ow the shortest possible erivation o! ;instein_s Rinertia o! energyS
relation1 i.e.1 ; = mc
2
1 contains in Kernel !orm1 the !ounation o! a
vacuum statistical Cquantum thermoynamicD theory o! gravitation an
inertia. 4raients in (-momentum rotation are equivalent to spin
potential graients.
"ince physicists appear to pre!er applying quantum mechanical
probability e0clusively to collections o! particles CeventsD rather than to
iniviual particles CeventsD. 6he *
st
interpretation puts the iniviual
physical entity in the role o! a Oantian thing in itsel!. /n yet these two
seemingly raically i!!erent interpretations o! quantum probability
e!!ectively amount to the very same quantum ontology.
"queeze vacuum e0periments have reveale that reuctions in vacuum
!luctuations_ amplitue an phase Camplitue an phase RnoiseSD are
e0actly compensate !or by increases in amplitue an changes in the
phase o! vacuum !luctuations orthogonal to those o! the squeeze
vacuum.
@o eterministic ynamic o! neural state changes that can realize a most
stable1 least energy CactionD con!iguration o! neural states/!unctioning.
3uts must be per!orme on the spacetime topology o! the vacuum in
which the brain_s microtubules are embee. 6his is the importance o!
higher states o! consciousness to the implementing o! !ree will
choices/ecisions that bring about greatest harmony o! neural !unction.
=owever well a manipulative person Knows the speci!ic etails o! an
iniviual_s personal history1 bacKgroun1 eucation1 personal pre5uices
an biases1 psychological quirKs an peculiarities1 etc.1 there is no
guarantee o! success in preicting an controlling the response o! the
sub5ect o! manipulation by the manipulator. Fhy?
Qd
?ecause in
aition to the !inite close system o! the min represente by the
person_s neural networK1 there e0ists1 supervenient to this mass o!
classically behaving circuitry a consciousness which1 in aition to
being a human consciousness1 is !irst an !oremost an e0emplar o!
consciousness as such.
Hn this way it is seen the evolutionary value o! the nonlocal quantum
mechanical phenomenon o! human consciousness.
7assive-active an creative-receptive components poles o!
consciousness e0ist.
6he Kernel o! my philosophy o! li!e is simply state: 4o e0istsV
monopoles on_t.
Hn a way the =eisenberg uncertainty symmetry argument against the
e0istence o! monopoles trumps the 8a0well equations-base symmetry
argument !or the e0istence o! magnetic monopoles because quantum
mechanical spin represents a more !unamental physical quantity than
classical electromagnetism.
8oral culpability simply emans persons not only be treate as1 but
actually be transcenent entities.
-ree will actions an ecisions which continually breach the topology o!
the intersub5ective realm surely represents real ivine intervention.
Qd
=uman intelligence is a Kin o! toolbo0 o! an aggressive an
instinctual being itsel! possessing none such.
-etishism involves an inability to taKe into account or perceive conte0t.
6here is such a thing as evolving too rapily? 6hat is1 the evolving
iniviual e0periences a blurring o! important evelopmental avances1
as well as !ailing to e0perience !ully1 or even aequately1 all that each
particular stage or level has to o!!er Cin the !orm o! character1 wisom
an even soul-builing materialD.
6he swarm o! gnats in the canyon analogy o! the mechanism o! inertia
points up the central importance o! bining energy to inertial mass. 6he
correlation o! material components maKing up bulK matter also
contributes to its inertial mass an bining energy may only contribute
to inertia by setting up an maintaining the quantum correlation o! these
components. 6he correlation o! bosons an anticorrelation o! !ermions
in bulK matter or rather the internal bining !orces sustaining these
quantum correlations are responsible !or the above inertia mechanism.
9ne must manage one_s thoughts an !eelings torwars one_s !ellow
humans as though one_s thought coul be translate into material
consequences !or these persons.
6he ecrease in the quantum correlation o! virtual photons shoul
perhaps be accompanie by an increase in the anticorrelation o! virtual
!ermions within virtual !ermion-anti!ermion composite1 spin-) bosons.
Fell1 it_s clear that there must be a ecrease in the correlation o! these
spin zero composite virtual bosons. 6his shoul imply an increase in
the anticorrelation o! the virtual !ermions that are the internal
components o! these virtual bosons.
/ concomitant change in the quantum vacuum entropy is to be e0pecte
with increasing raial coorinate C!rom center o! gravitational massD. Hn
analogy to blacK hole entropy we propose a similar variation in the
vacuum entropy with increasing area o! the virtual event horizon
associate with ecreasing scalar curvature Cwith increasing raial
coorinateD.
6he 7ioneer *)/** acceleration anomaly an the apparent acceleration o!
cosmological e0pansion may both be inications o! the e!!ects o! an
e0paning cosmos on the propagation o! light. 8ore istant regions o!
the cosmos appearing to us as they were earlier in the ,niverse_s history
than o less istant regions are characterize by a larger value o!
=ubble_s constant1 = an so by a larger cosmological acceleration1 =c.
"o i! the looK-bacK time o! cosmological observation is a relatively large
!raction o! the total age o! the cosmos1 then the observe rate o!
cosmological acceleration shoul itsel! be seen to increase with looK-
bacK time.
,nliKe the case o! classical thermoynamics the notion o! probability
meaning!ully applies to iniviual observations. Iirtual particles may
be trans!orme into real particles through acceleration. Fhat this
means is that quantum uncertainties an !luctuations possess ontological
primacy over e0pectation values. 6his is a reversal o! the implication
between !luctuations an e0pectation values require by classical
thermoynamic theory.
Qd
6he Rspin polarizationS mechanism o! gravity
we have propose is more consistent with the universality o! gravitation
than a polarization mechanism speci!ic to only one !unamental !orce1
namely electromagnetism.
8any researchers have propose the speci!ic mechanism o! vacuum
polarization in which real charge particles attract virtual particles o!
opposite charge an repel virtual particles o! liKe charge1 in so oing
increasing the permittivity an permeability o! the vacuum1 in turn
ecreasing the local velocity o! light !rom its R!ree spaceS value. Fe
have propose a mechanism o! Rvacuum polarizationS o! a much more
general type L one base on spin rather than charge. "pin or rather the
quantum statistics associate with spin clearly constitutes a more general
basis !or an unerlying mechanism o! gravitation than oes
electromagnetic vacuum polarization. Hn the case o! the electromagnetic
type vacuum polarization1 the velocity o! light ecreases with increase in
the electromagnetic zero-point energy. 6his may have relativistic
implications !or the physical quantities o! length1 time an energy1 but
while at the same time leaving out the relativity o! momentum1 i.e.1
inertial an gravitational mass. "pin base vacuum polarization on the
other han1 possesses relativistic implications !or length1 time1 energy
an momentum.
4eneral linear trans!ormations o! the 2
n
ranK momentum-energy tensor
o! general relativity o necessarily conserve (-momentum1 rather 4A
requires that the stress-momentum-energy tensor as a whole be
conserve.
Fhat is the physical signi!icance o! a (0( matri0 that iagonalizes 6
uv
into a (-momentum vector C$ pressure terms an * energy ensity termD1
i.e.1 trans!orms away all stress terms?
Puantum statistics breaKs own an .orentz invariance along with it
long be!ore a photon ensemble o! any given electromagnetic !requency
achieves 7lancK :e?roglie wavelength.
/lthough the bining energy o! a iatomic molecule is small in
comparison to the mass energy o! the molecule1 the :e?roglie
wavelength o! the molecule is h/Cm
*
+ m
2
Dv an not h/m
*
v + h/m
2
v. "o
it is not energy but in!ormation which etermines the molecule_s
:e?roglie wavelength1 namely1 that the two constituent atoms o! the
molecule are to be treate as correlate particles maKing up an
ensemble.
Fith ecreasing potential the number CprobabilityD ensity o! correlate
virtual photons ecreases the :e?roglie wavelength spectrum !or these
virtual photons reshi!ts.
6he 7lancK limits may be shown to etermine the blacK hole ensity !or
any spherical volume o! space. 6his can be shown through the
!luctuation mass relation as well as through incorporating the :e?roglie
coherence limit to the spectral energy ensity limits !or both !ermionic
an bosonic !luctuations as etermine by the integration o! the
ma0imum number o! correlate/anti-correlate !luctuations as
etermine by that number o! waves !or each K1 ! which when correlate
prouces 7lancK :e?roglie wavelength or 7lancK !requency i!!erence
C!or superpose !ermionic !luctuationsD. .ooK at relations o! inertial
mass1 gravitational mass1 CgravitationalD bining energy1 :e?roglie
momentum-wavelength1 :e?roglie coherence 7lancK limit1 etc.
:ecreasing ensity o! correlate virtual photons represents a ecrease in
in!ormation ensity. Fhat are the implications o! treating the
observer_s light cone as an event horizon L the light cone possesses a $-
hypersur!ace !or an event horizon. 6ime variation o! vacuum energy
ensity causes some real particle prouction.
Qd
6he :e?roglie
wavelength o! correlate photons cannot be smaller than the 7lancK
length. 6he lower energy photons there!ore can be correlate in greater
numbers than can higher energy photons. 6his leas to an inverse
square virtual photon ensity an a quaratic virtual
e-e+ pair ensity.
3ombining the !ormula !or vacuum electromagnetic spectral energy
ensity with the 7lancK limit upon quantum correlation o! virtual
photons allows us to calculate the ma0imal ensity o! vacuum
electromagnetic energy Cwhich can be supporte by the ensity o! virtual
e-e+ pairsD.
6he vacuum entropy o! gravitational !iels may be e0plaine by the
unerlying mechanism o! gravitation we are proposing. 6he unerlying
vacuum mechanism o! gravitation reuces the correlation o! vacuum
photons as it increases the number ensity Cprobability ensityD o! these
vacuum photons. 6his is being sai while Keeping in min that the e
?roglie wavelength o! correlate photons cannot become smaller than
the 7lancK length.
4avin "cott1 screenwriter talKs about >ules Ierne_s visionary preictions
about 2)
th
3entury technology an culture.
/s 3homsKy has sai somewhat !amously1 Rto be really goo a one
thing1 you have to be pretty ba at a lot o! other things.S
Aesearch e0periments in measuring the velocity o! light through a ?ose-
;instein conensate.
Aesearch papers on simulation an moeling o! blacK holes with ?ose-
;instein conensates.
6he 4ibb_s phenomenon may be important to evolution as a generator o!
ranom variation.
6here appears to be an asymmetry between the e!inition o! in!ormation
an entropy i! in!ormation is e!ine as a reuction o! uncertainty is
e!ine as the amount o! inaccessible in!ormation in the system. 3an
we interpret the above e!inition o! entropy more literally to mean that
in!ormation is erive !rom uncertainty because RcontaineS within this
uncertainty? Hn other wors1 to better reconcile the above e!initions o!
entropy as in!ormation we suppose that in!ormation is accesse !rom
uncertainty. ?ut within quantum mechanics =eisenberg uncertainty in
one area may only be reuce at the cost o! increasing =eisenberg
uncertainty somewhere else. 6he uncertainty create elsewhere as the
result o! reucing an uncertainty here may be consiere to be analogous
to entropy. 6he reuction in uncertainty along one a0is Cin!ormationD is
e0actly compensate by the increase in uncertainty along an orthogonal
a0is CentropyD.
Qd
=owever1 this neat complementary relationship oes
not hol within a curve spacetime. .ight !ollows a curve path
CgeoesicD instea o! being merely blue or re-shi!te. -our vectors in
!lat space no longer represente conserve quantities becoming
subsume within 2
n
ranK tensors1 e.g.1 $-momentum an energy are no
longer conserve as a !our vector because subsume within the 2
n
ranK
tensor o! stress-momentum-energy. 6his is similar to how a pure
wave!unction trans!orms into a ensity !unction Censity matri0D within
a curve spacetime1 i.e.1 the wave!unction RecoheresS within a curve
spacetime1 an this is espite 7si inhabiting =ilbert "pace instea o!
spacetime. =igher orer correlations arise than those o! connecting
!luctuations in mere $-momentum an energy. Hs the spin-2 graviton
merely ue to 2
n
orer correlations o! vacuum momentum-energy
!luctuations?
3asimir light velocity e0periments len support to the velocity o! light
!ormula1 c
loc
= c
2
vacuo
/p. -or e0ample1 i! the 3asimir plates are
oriente perpenicular to the 0-a0is1 then the 0-momentum uncertainty
will be ecrease in that all 0-momentum !luctuations o! hal!-
wavelength greater than the plates separation are e0clue !rom between
the plates. Hn turn the energy ensity within the plates is increase.
6hinK o! virtual photon e0changes within a crystal lattice as the
momental component o! the total ensity o! vacuum energy !luctuations.
6
uv
is a conserve quantity an so in !lat spacetime1
p
vac
=
vac

/n in a spherically symmetric gravitational !iel the quantity C
mass
+

vacuum
D is inepenent o! the strength o! gravitational potential. /lso1 in
a spherically symmetric !iel the quantity [
vac
2
+ p
vac
2
\ is invariant. Hn
a potential possessing less than spherical symmetry only the tensor
ensity 6
uv
Crepresenting the ensity o! stress-momentum-energyD is
conserve.
Fith an increase ensity o! real !ermions there is a reuce ensity o!
virtual !ermions an an increase ensity o! virtual bosons in the
quantum vacuum.
Ht !ollows that in a gravitational potential a propagating photon spens
relatively more o! its spacetime tra5ectory in the !orm o! a photon o!
electromagnetic raiation an relatively less in the !orm o! an e
+
e
-
virtual
pair.
3lassical physics gives up the past !or eaV quantum physics permits
the past a egree o! !reeom. Fhat is the relationship o! /at o! a
quantum system to the system_s ecoherence time? ?ut interaction o!
an observer with the system oes not alter the magnitue o! /at1 right?
:ecoherence may perhaps be thought o! a Kin o! continuous process o!
wave!unction collapse.
/ngular momentum e!ines a irection o! space. "pin1 being an
intrinsic angular momentum require by relativistic invariance1 e!ines a
irection within spacetime. Fe Know that action Cthrough the
=amiltonianD e!ines ynamics. ?ut action is 5ust spacetime angular
momentum by another name.
8ay 2)**
6he necessity o! a mechanism o!
parallel transport o! angular momentum vectors within curve spacetime
implies that ea rec'oning oes not worK within such a spacetime.
Qd
6his is relate to the iea o! re!erence requiring participation of the
referent in an with the meium within which lives the referenum. 6his
is how conte0t is seen as relevant to re!erence an hence to meaning.
"pin-) or timeliKe angular momentum normally e!ines an ob5ect Rat
restS though moving at the spee o! light along an imaginary a0is
orthogonal to the normal three imensions o! space1 which is to say1
e!ines the irection o! time. Fithin a curve spacetime this is no
longer so L spin-) in this case e!ines a local irection that is necessarily
partly spaceliKe. =ence the necessity o! acceleration through space
being associate with curve spacetime.
"eptember 2)**
Ht is interesting to consier the i!!iculties pose by the
absence o! ea recKoning over interstellar istances. 3ommunication
via Rtight beamS transmissions Cnecessary because o! the prohibitive
power requirements o! a RbroacastS over interstellar istancesD woul
be a hit or miss a!!air at best. 8uslims resiing on a planet in another
star system woul have no way o! etermining how to reliably !ace
8ecca uring prayer.
>anuary 2)*2
,sing an analogy an subtracting one
imension an introucing the amissibility o! absolute time1 we coul
say that using so-calle ea recKoning to sen a tight beam
transmission or irect a spacecra!t to a istant star is 5ust as i! it were not
possible !or someone to sen a straight shot communication signal
through the ;arth in orer to communicate with someone locate beyon
the horizon o! the ;arth_s curvature1 e.g.1 shooting a moulate neutrino
beam through the planet in orer to communicate with a neutrino
receiver locate somewhere in 3hina. Ht is true that a laser beam1 i!
irecte at a point on the celestial sphere with the correct ascension an
eclination woul invariable succee in hitting the target star1 however1
the invaliity o! the concepts o! absolute space an time combine with
the inherent nonlinearity o! ;instein_s general relativistic !iel equations1
it woul not be possible to calculate this point on the celestial sphere.
6he crystalline lattice-liKe structure o! the quantum vacuum1 compose
o! a couple harmonic oscillator networK unergoes iscrete transitions
in momentum an energy1 which are escribe within the occupation
number !ormalism in terms o! quanta creation an annihilation
operators1 a
+
an a. 6his means that momentum !luctuations are a
!unction o! iscrete transitions in momenta that are in turn tie to
iscrete transitions in the lattice energy. "o how is it possible !or a
iminishe ensity o! available iscrete energy transitions to support an
enhance ensity o! iscrete transitions in lattice momentum? Ht is clear
that there must accompany the ecrease in energy !luctuation ensity a
compensating increase in the volume within which the energy
!luctuations e0ist.
/n increase in the hypersur!ace area meiating the e0change o! energy
with the reuce-ensity vacuum !iels. 9! course1 the hypersur!ace
area may only increase i! the hypersur!ace is curve into a higher
imension. Hn this way total probability is conserve espite changes in
probability ensities o! virtual bosons an !ermion-anti!ermion pairs. Ht
is i!!icult to imagine how a hypersur!ace can become curve in orer
that the ensity o! bosons increase while the ensity o! !ermion-
anti!ermion pairs ecreases.
Qd
Ht shoul be apparent that a structure or
networK o! spin current ensities that e!ine the !our orthogonal
spacetime irections within !lat spacetime when mutually RbalanceS
shoul e!ine a curve spacetime when eviating !rom such as case o!
!luctuation equilibrium. ?ut this 5ust points up a quantum mechanical
metho o! e!ining spacetime curvature. / moel that looKs promising
is that o! a !inite hypervolume partitione by a hypersur!ace with
RpositiveS curvature.
/ap
0
opposes /a01 etc. an /a; opposes /at although /ap
0
must be
RcontaineS within /a0 an /a; must be containe within /at. 6he
changes in the /ap
5
an in /a; are not etermine via changes in /a0
5
an /at1 respectively1 but the converse o! this must be the case with /ap
5
an /a; altere inepenently through the breaKing o! spacetime
symmetry by the e!orming e!!ect o! real particles an !iels upon the
quantum statistics o! the quantum vacuum. "o Rcurve spaceS in the
sense o! curve $-space is a bit o! a misnomer. 6he curvature is the $-
hypersur!ace bounary between two (-volumes1 one contracte1 the
other ilate. Fhat we have here is an inter!ace o! two $-hypersur!aces
that cannot be visualize within three imensions.
Hnvestigate an N-imensional spacetime moel in which each o! !our
spatial imensions possesses its own istinctive time parameter though
in which these time parameters are orthogonal components o! a
conserve quantity.
6he iagonal components o! the ensity matri0 correspon to the
pressures an energy ensities1 i.e.1 probability ensities associate with
the symmetric an antisymmetric components o! the wave!unction. 6he
o!!-iagonal components correspon to the stresses an strains1 i.e.1
components o! the ensity matri0 that are neither symmetric nor
antisymmetric.
Qd
6he o!!-iagonal components o! the ensity matri0 cannot CcanD be
compute !rom spacetime erivatives o! the symmetric an
antisymmetric components o! the ensity.
sym
an
anti
are orthogonal
in !ree space vacuum. Fithin a gravitational potential M
sym
+ i
anti
M
2
{ M

sym
M
2
+ M
anti
M
2
because within a curve spacetime
sym
an
anti
are no
longer strictly orthogonal.
6he parao0 o! applying the "hannon e!inition o! in!ormation to gene
sequence space has been reveale by the !act that many gene sequences
not occurring in nature have proven to be chemically compatible with
the /67 molecule. 6he parao0 consists in the !act that the "hannon
e!inition o! in!ormation implies that the continual iscovery o!
aitional gene sequences that prove to be biologically viable tens to
reuce the estimate o! the in!ormation content o! alreay Known
in!ormational organic molecules.
Qd
Hn the quantum theory o! crystal lattices1 i.e.1 $- couple harmonic
oscillator networKs1 the creation an annihilation operators applie to an
occupation number !ormal escription o! the crystal lattice implies a
creation o! a boson Cstate o! the crystalD !or each annihilation o! a
!ermionCicD Cstate o! the crystal latticeD. "imilarly1 the annihilation o! a
boson Cby the crystal1 rather than its absorption by quantum vacuaD must
be associate with the creation o! a !ermionic state that is necessarily
tie to the estruction o! some other !ermionic state. Hn the case o! a
typical semiconuctor crystal lattice1 an electron Can protonD !ermionic
state is simultaneously create as a result o! the absorption/estruction
o! a photon. .ater the emission/creation o! a photon is accompanie by
the estruction o! a paire electron-proton quantum state.
3ulture is an elaborate cybernetic networK o! potential an actual
instinctive behavior.
H! the real mystery is the ambiguity between a 7latonic an an
emergentist interpretation o! the worl1 then the question o! Rwhy there
is something rather than nothingS is besie the point.
-ourier analysis suggests strongly that all sensory e0perience1 being
groune in the concerte !iring o! nerve cells in the brain is compose
superpose high !requency sinusoial variation in the rates o! ischarge
o! neuron action potentials.
;mergence requires the capacity !or metaphoricity an hence !or
consciousness.
8etaphor is an instinctive prouct o! human thought. 6he tenency to
step outsie o! the immeiacy o! one_s inherite stocK o! !igurative
notions is the beginning o! econstructive thought as well as the starting
point !or transcenence.
Hn orer to eal with one seemingly parao0ical aspect o! gravitational
time ilation1 a cosmic time parameter must be propose1 one that is not
e0clusively epenent upon !requency1 i.e.1 not the inverse trans!orm o!
any single !requency omain !unction.
6ime ilation may be conceive o! as a Kin o! reshi!t in the timeliKe
:e?roglie wavelength o! a boy or particle.
-or a massive particle the e?roglie wavelength
h
= h/mc where m is
the mass o! the particle an c the spee o! light. 6he larger the particle
mass1 the smaller the e?roglie wavelength o! the particle. 6his is
consistent with the relateness o! relativistic length contraction an mass
increase. -or correlate photons the e?roglie relation is the !ollowing:

h
= /@
where @ is the number o! correlate photons. @otice that @ !unctions in
the above !ormula analogously to how RmS !unctions in the !ormula !or
the e?roglie wavelength o! a massive particle.
Qd
6his analogy seems
to suggest that the quantum correlation o! the constituents o! a boy are
important in etermining the overall inertial mass o! this boy.
7erhaps the more tightly correlate a cluster o! !ermions becomes1 the
higher the cluster_s internal bining energy an in turn the greater the
ensity o! quantum vacuum states occupie by the cluster.
6he electromagnetic wavelengths o! quantum entangle virtual photons
within a gravitational potential equal the :e?roglie wavelengths the
photons shall have upon escaping to in!inity1 i.e.1 R!ree space.S 6his
points up the eep connection between spatial graients in ?ose-;instein
quantum statistics an graients o! gravitational potentials.
6he local velocity o! light is also equal to its velocity in vacuo C!ree
space vacuumD times the ratio o! the photon_s :e?roglie an
electromagnetic wavelengths.
c
local
=
:e?roglie
/
electromagnetic
0 c
vacuo
H!
electromagnetic
varies with changing potential 5ust as oes
:e?roglie
1 then we
might try i!!erentiating with respect to space on both sies o! the above
equation.
cc
loc
/cr = n[c
:e?r
/cr\/
elec
- [
:e?r
/
2
elec
\ 0 [c
elec
/cr\o 0 c
vac

:e?r
=
h

elec
=
c
vac
= c
c
loc
= c
W
cc
W
/cr = n[c
h
/cr\/ - [
h
/
2
\ 0 [c/cr\o 0 c

2
cc
W
/cr = n[c
h
/cr\ -
h
0 [c/cr\o 0 c
6he !ollowing equation e0presses the gravitational reshi!t in photon
wavelength in terms o! spatial variations in the local velocity o! light
an the :e?roglie wavelength.

2
cc
W
/cr - c[c
h
/cr\ +
h
c[c/cr\ = )
c
W
= C
h
/Dc
/ssume: Cc
:e?r
/cc
loc
D = Cc
elec
/cc
loc
D CRweaK !iel limitSD
cc
local
/cr = cc
local
CK
:e?roglie
1
:e?roglie
D/cr an
K
:e?roglie
=
:e?roglie
cc
local
/cr = cc
local
C
:e?roglie
1
:e?roglie
D/cr

:e?roglie
an
:e?roglie
are !unctions o! the magnitues o! real CvirtualD
photon an e
+
e
-
number CprobabilityD ensities1 respectively.
c
vacuo
is a constant
c
:e?roglie
/cr is an inepenent variable etermine by changes in the
relative
magnitues o! real an virtual photon probability ensities. cc
local
/cr is
etermine by the concerte spatial variation o!
:e?roglie
an !
:e?roglie.
=ypothesis: c
W
= [
:e?roglie
/
elec
\ 0 c
R
elec
S is a constant characteristic o! the atomic transition in which a
photon
o! wavelength
elec
originates. .et
W
elec
be the reshi!te
elec
originally
emitte !rom the atom that has unergone a iscrete energy transition.
"o
we have the !ollowing wavelength ratios.

elec
/
W
elec
=
:e?roglie
/
elec

6he !act that the above ratios are ientical in magnitue is o! course no
accient1 but points to
Qd
?ose-;instein coherence in particular as the
unerlying mechanism o! the gravitational reshi!t an to quantum
statistics in
general as the mechanism unerlying gravitation as a general
phenomenon o!
the quantum vacuum rather than a !unamental !orce meiate by a
special
e0change boson which acts between the members o! a speci!ic class o!
particles.
6he other sie o! this phenomenon o! gravitational reshi!t is the spatial
graient Cparalleling the graient o! the gravitational potentialD o! the
quantum
vacuum energy ensity. 6he ratio o! quantum vacuum energy ensities
between two spacetime points e0actly coincies with the corresponing
ratio
o! quantum vacuum groun state energies at these two spacetime
coorinates. /s note elsewhere the ensity o! the quantum vacuum is
the
ensity o! imaginary (-momentum !luctuations in the !orm o! virtual
!ermion-
anti!ermion creation-annihilation events.
6he structure o! the blacK hole is etermine by the structure o! the
quantum
vacuum momentum-energy !luctuations that unerlie spacetime. Hn
particular
what this means is that the ensity o! quantum coherent bosons Can
egenerate !ermionsD containe within the hole_s event horizon may
become
only so large as can be sustaine by !luctuations in the quantum
vacuum_s
energy C!luctuations in its imaginary (-momentumD at the hole_s event
horizon. 6his consieration seems to a support to our earlier claim o!
a
irect causal relationship between the ensity o! energy !luctuations at a
blacK
hole_s event horizon an the blacK hole mass. /!ter all1 the !luctuations
occurring at the blacK hole_s event horizon represent the only contact
which
this hole maintains with the rest o! the universe. H! a complete
supergravity
theory is ever evelope it is liKely to be a 8achian theory. "uch a
8achian
supergravity theory will no oubt lea to a mathematical !ormula
relating the
blacK hole sur!ace area an the ensity o! quantum !luctuations on the
hole event
horizon energy to the blacK hole mass. Ht stans to reason that i! the
only
connection the blacK hole maintains with outsie spacetime is a
thermalize
spectrum o! particle emission that a 8achian theory o! gravity woul
ictate
that the entropy o! the hole_s event horizon Can hence1 the in!ormation
irretrievably lost within the holeD shoul be importantly relate to the
magnitue o! the hole_s inertial mass.
-urther evience that the roles o! space an time are reverse at a blacK
hole_s event horizon is the !act o! the thermal emissions !rom the hole1
i.e.1
=awKing raiation1 is in the !orm o! !ermions with a thermal istribution
o!
Kinetic energy. 6he values o! both the !ermion masses an !ermion
velocities maKe up the Kinetic energy o! the hole_s thermally istribute
emissions. Fhat oes this imply about the separate mathematical
e0pressions representing the !ermion velocity an mass istributions?
!
:e?roglie
is etermine analogously to the manner by which K
:e?roglie
is
etermine1 i.e.1 by changes in the relative magnitues o! real an virtual
e
+
e
-

ensities.
@otice here that equivalence o! real particle number ensities to virtual
particle probability ensities implies that quantum statistics applies
equally to
real an virtual particles an !iels.
cc
W
/cr = Cc/Dc
h
/cr L Cc
h
/
2
Dccr Ce0act relationD
/ssume c
h
/cr = c/cr CweaK !iel limitD
cc
W
/cr = Cc/Dc
h
/cr L Cc
h
/
2
Dc
h
cr =
cc
W
/cr = Cc/Dc
h
/cr[* -
h
/D Cwith weaK !iel limit assumptionD
"ince the term c/ re!ers to the value o! c
W
/
h
at in!inity1 i.e.1 within !ree
space1 we shoul perhaps thinK o! c/ as being an initial or bounary
conition or1 more appropriately1 perhaps1 as a R!inal conition.S
.ocal physical laws cannot preict initial conition o! the universe since
these
conitions ha to be etermine nonlocally. 6he same is true o! the
R!inal
conition o! the universeS represente by conscious observation. C9ne
is
remine here o! Oant_s escription o! conscious selves as being Rens
in
themselves.SD 6his is because1 analogously to the case !or initial
conitions1
the real eigenvalue that results is a merely local etermination o! the
quantum
state C the con5ugate variables are in a quantum superposition state nowD1
but
one which has come about through the concerte nonlocal action o! that
component o! the quantum vacuum represente by the observer_s
consciousness together with the intersub5ective quantum vacuum. 6he
pre!i01 RinterS in Rintersub5ectiveS is not to be interprete as RinterS in
the
sense implie by such wors as RinterstitialS or RintervalS or
Rinterregnum1S
but in the sense o! RinterrelateS or RinterpenetrateS or Rinter!use.S 6his
shi!t
in our CnewD unerstaning o! the pre!i01 RinterS in Rintersub5ectiveS
leas us
to a new unerstaning o! the terms1 Rsub5ectiveS an Rsub5ectivity.S
Qd
Figner_s Runreasonable e!!ectivenessS o! mathematics is owing to
@ature_s having graciously structure hersel! as a neste hierarchy o!
ever
more accurate appro0imations1 though a hierarchy not possessing
anything
liKe an enpoint or summit. 6his perhaps captures some o! the
parao0icalness unerlying Runreasonable e!!ectiveness1S that is to say1
nature is mechanism egenerate. /lso1 it is Known to many stuents
with
only an introuctory Knowlege o! philosophy o! science that any !inite
set
o! ata point may have !itte to it a curve escribe by a per!ectly
e!inite
Cnot necessarily in representing a causal relationshipD mathematical
e0pression.
6his permits us to use the symmetry principles o! conservation o!
probability
Cvirtual particles an !ielsD an conservation o! stress-momentum-
energy
Creal particles an !ielsD to e0plain phenomenological changes in 1 i.e.1
observe gravitational reshi!t.
7robability ensities vary in such a manner that total probability is
conserve
5ust as stress-momentum-energy ensity varies so as to conserve
energy.
6his relationship may be alternatively e0presse as the !ollowing.

:e?roglie
=
electromagnetic
/@ !or the case o! @ quantum entangle
photons1 i.e.1 photons that possess a mutual quantum correlation o!
*.).
?ut in the more general case o! a gravitational potential what is to serve
the same !unction as @1 the X o! correlate photons1 in etermining the
shi!te :e?roglie wavelength o! photons within the potential? 6he
number ensity o! real photons an probability ensity o! virtual
photons is the generalization o! @ above that shall give us a relationship
between an
h
1 c/cr an c
h
/cr.
c
_
= hK
electromagnetic
/hK
:e?roglie
0 c
vacuo

;
electromagnetic
= p
electromagnetic
0 c
vacuo

p
:e?roglie
= hK
:e?roglie

"o c_ = ;
electromagnetic
/p
:e?roglie
;
electromagnetic
is characteristic o! atomic transitions taKing place within the
potential.
p
:e?roglie
is a !unction o! quantum entanglement
?ecause our mechanism o! gravitation is a !unction o! the egree o!
quantum entanglement o! virtual photons within the quantum vacuum
gravitation is an intrinsically nonlocal phenomenon.
6he egree o! quantum entanglement1 i.e.1 the value o! quantum
correlation is the ratio o! real to virtual photon ensity.
6he egree o! quantum entanglement o! photons Creal or virtualD at a
spacetime coorinate within a gravitational potential1 i.e.1 coe!!icient o!
quantum correlation1 is e!ine as the ration o! the ensities o! real to
Creal + virtualD photons at the spacetime coorinate we are consiering -
what about quantum entanglement o! !ermions in this connection? =ere
we are speaKing o! the quantum anticorrelation o! the !ermions within a
gravitational potential.
?lacK hole thermoynamics suggests that the in!ormation content o!
matter an hence its inertial mass is containe in the quantum
correlations o! the vacuum !iels with which the mass e0changes
momentum-energy. 3razy iea: stress is not irectly e0change
between matter an vacuumV rather1 stress is e0change between the
vacuum an itsel!. 6he stress component o! the stress-momentum-
energy tensor is implie by the behavior o! the momentum an energy
components. Hn other wors1 the !iel momenta an energies o!
trans!orm as i! or as though a stress component was being e0change.
=ow oes the concept o! quantum correlation relate to that o! the ensity
matri0? 4ooglesearch
Qd
Ht seems that the e0tent o! quantum
correlation is etermine by the egree to which the ensity matri0 o! a
quantum system appro0imates a pure state.
Hn aition to the attraction an repulsion e0hibite by electromagnetic
an nuclear Cstrong an weaKD !orces there are what we might term
statistical !orces o! the ?ose-;instein an -ermi-:irac selection rules.
Fe are saying that the gravitational !orce !ar !rom constituting a bona
!ie !unamental !orce in the sense o! speci!ic !ermionic chargers an
bosonic e0change particles1 is an emergent !orce erive !orm the
quantum statistical !orces necessarily associate with each o! the
nongravitational !orces1 i.e.1 associate with the !ermions an bosons
peculiar to each.
6he supposition that the phenomenon Crather than the R!orceD o!
gravitation is in essence quantum statistical in nature is perhaps
supporte by the central role o! the notion o! probability an probability
ensity in the ynamics an evolution o! all quantum systems: each
conservation law o! physics is a particular special case o! the
conservation o! probability.
6he analogy o! space with time though it illuminates our unerstaning
o! general relativity1 it also obscures. /n e0ample o! this is the
interpretation o! the gravitational reshi!t. 6he rate at which time
passes on the "un_s sur!ace is roughly one part per million less than at
the sur!ace o! the ;arth. 4iven the age o! he "un an ;arth o!
appro0imately '1)))1)))1))) years1 this implies1
Qd
i! we taKe the
analogy o! space to time seriously1 that the "un has R!allen behinS the
earth along the time a0is by a i!!erential o! appro0imately '))) light
years. H! literally true1 this woul imply that light !rom the "un_s
sur!ace has not taKe eight light minutes1 but roughly '))) years to reach
us1 traveling at the spee o! light.
"o an equally vali1 alternative interpretation o! gravitational Rtime
ilationS is that time is not actually RilateS rather within a
gravitational potential1 less physical process happens uring a given
interval o! time than happens uring the same interval within a
negligible potential. 6he timeliKe :e?roglie wavelength o! particles
within a gravitational potential is ilate by a !actor o! 0 C* +
;
bining
/;
mass
D1 that is1 by a !actor o! C* + 48/Ac
2
D CweaK !iel limitD.
6he conversion o! mass into energy is essentially a conversion o! energy
!rom a boun !orm into an unboun !orm. 7hotons o inee possess a
timeliKe momentum1 however the timeliKe motion o! the photon is
owing to the photon_s motion at a !inite spee through a space that is
e0paning at a velocity o! equal magnitue to that corresponing to the
local velocity o! the photon. Hn this way1 the photon_s motion is always
compose o! equal parts o! timeliKe an spaceliKe motion. 6his is
because a gravitational potential is associate with a reuce local
velocity o! light an an e0actly similarly reuce local rate o!
cosmological e0pansion1 i.e.1 o! the space within which the local
velocity o! the photon is e!ine. "o the constancy o! light postulate o!
special relativity must be generalize !or general relativity in a
cosmological conte0t as the !ollowing:
Qd
the timeliKe an spaceliKe
velocities o! light are equal. 6hat is1 c
timeliKe
= c
spaceliKe.

6he e!!ective timeliKe velocity o! light enows the photon with an
e!!ective mass. 6hat the local velocity o! light is equal to the timeliKe
velocity o! cosmological e0pansion points up a eep connection between
mechanisms o! gravitation an the cosmological e0pansion o! spacetime.
Ht appears that we have agree in essence with =aisch1 Auea an
7utho!!1 etc.1 in saying that the basis o! inertia is the interaction o!
ob5ects CmassesD with the zero-point energy or quantum vacuum.
prn=
?ut
in !act what we have been trying to say is that it is the interaction o! the
quantum observer with this zero-point energy through the e6ternal
ob$ect as intermeiary that provies the true basis !or the phenomenon
o! inertia. /!ter all1 the physicist_s concept o! inertia is really nothing
more than a broa generalization o! the phenomenon o! Kinesthetic
strain an sKeletal-muscular stress e0perience by humans an animals
whenever they attempt to push or pull a heavy ob5ect. Hn many such
cases the bulK o! the ob5ect_s resistance to being set in motion is
attributable to !rictional !orces stemming !rom matter_s plowing Cwhile
uner accelerationD through the ubiquitous1 ense zero-point CvacuumD
energy.
6he a0es orthogonal to the cosmological event horizon is absolute !uture
timeliKe an absolute past spaceliKe. Aecall that the roles o! timeliKe
an spaceliKe are reverse upon passing through the event horizon
hypersur!ace. 6he unerlying quantum statistical mechanism o!
gravitational simultaneously rotates the probability ensity energy
!luctuations an e!!ects a spatial contraction/temporal ilation that is $ +
* on the timeliKe sie o! the event horizon hypersur!ace an * + $ on the
spaceliKe sie o! this hypersur!ace.
@otice !rom the !igure1 c.!.1 blacK art sKetchpa1 that spacetime has been
RwarpeS but not in a way etectable to inhabitants o! the hypersur!ace L
the universe must appear R!latS to observers con!ine to the
cosmological event horizon/hypersur!ace.
6he gravitational reshi!t must similarly shi!t the 7lancK cuto!! length1
time an mass ue to the epenence o! these quantities on the value o!
RcS which varies spatially with the ratio o! ensities o! $-momentum an
energy uncertainty. @otice that the cosmological momentum-energy
ensity can vary with the history o! cosmological e0pansion without the
spee o! light necessarily varying.
-ully hal! o! the act o! willing an action is simply seemingly unbien
conceiving o! his iea o! so acting. "o in truth the human will can only
be hal! !ree.
Hs the Key to the gravitational reshi!t parao0 the istinctness o! the
photon wavelength !rom its :e?roglie wavelength. 6his might help
e0plain the relationship between gravitational reshi!t o! both an

:e?roglie
an the spatial variation in local velocity o! light.
6he nature o! the gravitational reshi!t is not !ully unerstoo because
the reshi!te photon wavelength is not ienti!ie with the photon_s
:e?roglie wavelength1 but is ienti!ie with the photon_s
electromagnetic wavelength.
6he number o! quantum entangle photons1 @ is relate to the number
ensity1 n an in turn to the probability ensity o! these photons an then
in turn again to the momentum ensity o! the quantum vacuum1 c.!.1
=A7 inertio-gravitational vacuum mechanism.
6he transcenent is characterize by seeming contraiction as it
necessarily inclues the unity o! 7latonism an ;0istentialism1 necessity
an contingency.
6he relation between photon quantum entanglement an :e?roglie
wavelength o! the collection o! quantum entangle photons is the same
relationship unerlying the ?ose-;instein mechanism o! gravitational
reshi!t1 i.e.1 as the probability ensity o! virtual photons ecreases with
ecreasing gravitational potential1 real photons propagating through this
photons o! ientical :e?roglie wavelength1 must unergo a
corresponing ecrease in !requency Cincrease in wavelengthD as they
climb out o! this potential1 i.e.1 gravitational reshi!t o! the photons.
Qd
6he @ovember 2)
th
1 2))2 "cience @ews article talKe about
e0perimental con!irmation o! a hypothesis about the :e?roglie
wavelength o! quantum entangle photons1 accoring to which1
:e?roglie
=
/n1 where n is the number o! photons in the same quantum state. 6his
relation is ieally suite to e0plain the relationship between probability
ensity o! virtual bosons an the :e?roglie wavelength o! real photons
propagating through this vacuum o! quantum entangle photons. 6he
egree o! ?ose conensation o! the quantum vacuum within a
gravitational potential appears to imply the precise egree o! quantum
entanglement o! virtual bosons require to account !or the change in
wavelength o! photons propagating through this potential1 i.e.1 the
gravitational reshi!t.
6he concept o! novelty in the sense o! ?ergsonian time1 i.e.1 uration or
uree_ may well illuminate the relating o! RnowS to the Rsurprise
vacuumS principle o! inertia. 9n this principle only behavior that
cannot be RanticipateS by the quantum vacuum
Qd
so as to rener local
causality an nonlocal correlations Cwhich normally constitute causality1
c.!.1 ?ohm C*2'*DD mutually consistent L only this set o! conitions
provoKes an inertial reaction. 9ne can conceptualize these
unanticipate movements1 i.e.1 actions as non-action-conserving a!ter the
analogy with the istinction o! non-geoetic to geoetic motion or
analogous to the non-wave!unction preserving Cprobability conservingD
in relation to the eterministic/an probability ensity conserving
evolution o! w escribe by the "chroinger equation o! motion. 6he
creation o! in!ormation always invoKes the reuction o! quantum
uncertainty an so cannot be probability CensityD conserving. 6his is
how1 by the way1 we are to unerstan the connection between
consciousness an the collapse o! the wave!unction. /n !urthermore1
picKing bacK up ?ergson_s notion o! uration at this 5uncture1 we might
a that consciousness is essentially characterize by what may be aptly
terme continuous w collapse or a perioic ReterministicS evolution o!
the min_s sel! escription in light o! -ourier analysis this seems a
contraiction in terms i! this escription is thought at the same time to be
analogous to the quantum mechanical w.
Qd
4etting bacK to the Rsurprise vacuumS concept o! inertia we note
here that1 !or e0ample1 the sel! energy latent in the electric !iel o! a
charge particle is nonlocally connecte with itsel! perhaps through the
vacuum !luctuations o! this !iel by virtue o! the nonlocal connectivity
o! the vacuum !luctuations themselves. 6he energy o! the charge_s
electric !iel may eterministically evolve as a whole1 i.e.1 holistically in
accorance with the "chroinger equation o! motion. =owever1 an
RunanticipateS movement o! the charge must be accompanie by local
isturbances in the sel!-energy o! this charge1 which there!ore must taKe
time to propagate throughout the entire !iel or at least until some cuto!!
is reache1 c.!.1 7enrose_s Rone graviton limit.S 7robability can no
longer be conserve through the continuous evolution o! the !iel an so
quantum collapse Can suen RrecalculationS o! w - into a new w - w_D
is !orce upon us. 6here is a question here about whether1 inee1 a
particle accelerating accoring to Rnatural causesS must RseeS a
mani!estation o! a :avies-,nruh thermal vacuum. Ht seems that any
eterministic evolution o! a physical system or system components are
necessarily calculate quicKly enough by the nonlocally correlate
vacuum !luctuations supporting the substrate system !iel energies L
>une
2)**
quicKly enough to avoi tapping into the relatively much larger
subset o! vacuum !luctuations representing causality nonFpreserving
correlations.
6he correlate !luctuations o! momentum-energy that !orm spacetime
are not themselves within spacetime1 another reason why the vacuum
oes not gravitate. 6he observer_s ability to collapse w implies the
connection o! a new1 hereto!ore incommensurate vacuum state with the
vacuum o! public spacetime. 6he arising o! consciousness may be
associate with the quantum tunneling o! an alien vacuum into the
vacuum state o! public spacetime.
Ht is true that the brain is embee within a nonlocally connecte
vacuum1 but it is not the public vacuum o! spacetime1 but the tunneling
vacuum peculiar to the iniviual_s own consciousness.
/ eterministic time omain !unction may be equivalently represente
by a spectrum o! harmonic or perioic !requency omain !unctions.
Qd
/n unpreictable isturbance to the eterministically evolving system
necessitates a change to the !requency omain ree0pression o! the time
omain !unction to inclue anharmonic or aperioic !unctions.
/s state elsewhere the mass ensity over the blacK hole ensity is a
ratio that is proportional to the gravitational potential an liKe this
potential varies inverse linearly with istance !rom a gravitational
source. [c
2
/p\ = cCrD is on the other han linear with istance !rom a
gravitational source an is proportional to the ratio o! the ensities o!
virtual !ermion-anti!ermion pairs to virtual bosons. 6his can only be the
case i! both an p vary linearly an inverse linearly1 respectively.
Hn e0ploring the connection between photon number ensity an photon
energy in our attempt to unerstan the vacuum mechanism o! the
gravitational reshi!t1 it is important to note that the so-calle velocity o!
light constant is actually only an e0pectation value1 or this is e!!ectively
the case via the e0pectation value o! photon momentum. 7robability
ensity has units o! CvolumeD
L*
so $-momentum ensity must possess
units o! mass current ensity. 7robability ensity may be unerstoo to
be a generalization o! the concept o! particle number ensity.
6he li!etime o! virtual !ermion pairs in a gravitational potential must be
greater by appro0imately C* + 48/Ac
2
D CweaK !iel limitD an hence1 by
the time-energy uncertainty principle o! =eisenberg1 the energy o! these
pairs must be smaller by the inverse o! this !actor1 i.e.1 C* + 48/AcD
-*
.
?ut i! we are to reconcile the gravitational reshi!t with a vacuum
mechanism o! gravitation in which the enormous absolute energy
ensity o! this vacuum cannot act as a gravitational source. Ht must be
merely relative i!!erences in vacuum energy ensity which prouce a
gravitational e!!ect or which1 in turn1 can be the sub5ect o! the action o!
gravitational !iels. H! the gravitational !iel acts upon the entire
vacuum energy ensity1 then !or e0ample1 the relative i!!erence in
energy ensity between a point at the sur!ace o! the "un an a point
locate somewhere on the earth_s orbit1 is appro0imately on part in *)
&
.
6his relative i!!erence in energy ensity is appro0imately *)
*)&
>oules/m
$
T
6he gravitational shi!t in photon wavelength must be e!!ecte through a
mechanism that is less irect than a !actor o! C* + 48/AcD
-*
applie to
the enormous ensity o! quantum vacuum electromagnetic energy.
6his mechanism is in a quantum statistical e!!ect upon the relative
number ensities o! virtual photons an !ermion-anti!ermion pairs.
Hn Aanaa_s paper1 9n the 3osmological Iariation o! the -ine "tructure
3onstant1 the author claims that Rvirtual pairs must live longer in the
gravitational !iel create by a mass istribution1 because they have an
e0tra negative potential energy ;/c
2
thereS [italics mine\ C/lso on
account o! gravitational time ilationD
/pril 2)**
RHn a notable e0periment
esigne to penetrate the virtual particle clou surrouning the electron1
OolticK use a particle accelerator at energies o! 'N 4eI
CgigaelectronvoltsD without creating other particles.2& -rom his ata1 a
new value o! the !ine structure constant was obtaine Ce2/hc = */*2N.'D1
while a smaller value o! */*$% is traitionally observe !or a !ully
screene electron. 6his necessarily means that the value !or a naKe
electron charge is actually larger than te0tbooKs quote !or a screene
electronS. 6hus the !ine structure constant may vary with time an the
ecreasing vacuum energy ensity with cosmological e0pansion.
6his is only true as applies to the negative energy scalar Cvirtual
!ermion-anti!ermionD component1 which oes not cancel with the
positive vector virtual boson component o! this enormous vacuum
energy. -rom iscussion elsewhere we maintain that a positive mass
ensity emerges in the vacuum cause by a gravitational !iel !rom the
imper!ect mutual cancellation o! these two vacuum momentum-energy
components. Aeal particle-antiparticle pairs are create R!rom the
energy o! the gravitational !ielS in accorance with a generalize
=awKing raiation mechanism. Ht is the li!etime o! these real particle-
antiparticle pairs that is increase by the !actor C* + 48/Ac
2
D. Iia the
7auli e0clusion principle1 the number ensity o! virtual !ermion-
anti!ermion pairs is reuce by the amount by which the number ensity
o! real !ermion-anti!ermion pairs has been increase.
6he multiple occupancy o! a single spacetime coorinate by bosons
entering a conense state constitutes a Kin o! e0tra egree o! !reeom
orthogonal to the 01 y1 z an even t a0es. 6he (-momentum current
ensity is conserve1 an the probability ensity o! virtual photons o!
wavelength at istance r
*
!rom the "un is M
*
M
2
CbosonD
an at istance r
2
is M

2
M
2
CbosonD
1 where M
2
M
2
CbosonD
M
*
M
2
CbosonD
. M
*
M
2
CbosonD
an M
2
M
2
CbosonD
are the $-
momentum components o! the (-momentum current ensity at r
*
an r
2
1
respectively. M
*
M
2
C!ermion-anti!ermionD
an M
2
M
2
C!ermion-anti!ermionD
are the timeliKe
components o! this (-momentum current ensity at r
*
an r
2
1
respectively.
H! the photon energy1 ; = pc is conserve1 an the local velocity o! light
increases with ecreasing gravitational potential in accorance with
c
CrD
= C
virtual !ermion-anti!ermion
/p
virtual boson
Dc
2
eqn. C*D
then the photon momentum1 p must increase in step with ecreasing c.
6his woul seem to be the unerlying reason !or the e!!ect o! a
gravitational !iel upon the wavelength . @ote here that the
gravitational reshi!t o! is ue to the ecrease o! the local intensity o!
the gravitational !iel along the photon_s tra5ectory. Fe cannot allow a
mechanism o! gravitational reshi!t in which the momentum an energy
ensity o! both real an virtual particles are a!!ecte by the usual C* +
48/Ac
2
D !actor ue to the enormous vacuum momentum an energy
ensity. Aather the mechanism must be base in the e!!ect upon real
bosons o! relative changes in the probability Cor perhaps numberD
ensities o! virtual bosons an !ermion-anti!ermion pairs.
/t !irst glance the above !ormula !or c
CrD
seems wrong. 8ach_s !ormula
!or the velocity o! light within a meium o! pressure p an energy
ensity is actually that given below.
c
CrD
= pc
2
/ eqn. C2D
"o how are we to reconcile equation C2D with equation C*D?
/ccoring to the 7auli an ?ose quantum statistical principles1 equation
C2D shoul be rewritten as the !ollowing.
c
CrD
= Cp
real boson
/
!ermion-anti!ermionboson
Dc
2
eqn. C$D
"o a reuction in c
CrD
within a material meium woul entail ecrease in
p an/or a concomitant increase in . 6he ?ose quantum statistical
principle1 which apply equally to both real an virtual bosonsC!ermionsD1
woul ictate that an increase in p
real !ermion-anti!ermion
inuces a sympathetic1
i! you will1 increase in p
virtual !ermion-anti!ermion
. 6he -ermi quantum statistical
principle ictates that an increase in
real !ermion-anti!ermion
inuces the
quantum vacuum to e0perience a local ecrease in
virtual !ermion-anti!ermion
.
Fe are le to hypothesize the !ollowing relation:
Cp
real !ermion-anti!ermion
/
real !ermion-anti!ermion
Dc
2
=
C
virtual !ermion-anti!ermion
/p
virtual !ermion-anti!ermion
Dc
2
6he velocity o! space through time is appro0imately 2 Km/sec. "lower at
the sur!ace o! the "un than at the ;arth_s orbit. <et this velocity
i!!erential cannot be integrate to yiel an accumulate spacetime
interval between ;arth an "un. 6his has to o with the .orentz
invariance !or the vacuum L !or the quantum vacuum1 in other wors1 Rit
is always now.S 6here!ore1 it is only the i!!erence in the instantaneous
composition o! (-velocities Cin terms o! their $ + * componentsD at two
istinct spacetime coorinates1 which etermines the magnitue o! the
gravitational re shi!t.
6here must be some eeper connection between conservation o!
probability ensity an the associate group theoretic escription an the
conservation o! stress-momentum-energy. Ht seems liKely that
conservation o! MwM
2
constitutes a more general conservation principle
than that o! ;instein_s stress-momentum-energy1 the 6
uv
1 which shall turn
out to be a special case o! probability ensity conservation. 6his is
because the probability ensity is constructe !rom the system
wave!unction Cthe local quantum vacuum in this caseD which is e!ine
in terms o! all compatible quantum numbers that correspon to
conserve quantities. /ll conserve quantities go into the e!inition o!
the wave!unction via the system =amiltonian. =ypothesis: i! the
number ensity o! virtual bosons1 particularly photons1 ecreases in the
irection o! ecreasing gravitational potential1 then also shoul the
conserve quantities which e!ine the system =amiltonian1
wave!unction an in turn1 its probability ensity ecrease in the irection
o! a gravitational potential graient?
Ht may help us to solve the parao0 o! an enormous vacuum energy
ensity with ) or negligible gravitational mass by consiering the !act o!
this vacuum_s occupying a null rather than an inertial re!erence !rame.
6his is because the relative motion o! all inertial observers with respect
to the !ree space vacuum is either ) or not measurable. 6his is in e0act
analogy with the constancy o! the velocity o! light1 i.e.1 the
inepenence o! the velocity o! light !rom the state o! uni!orm motion o!
the observer. 6he gravitational !iel inuces an asymmetry in the
vacuum_s momentum an energy quantum numbers1 as well as that !or
angular momentum1 that is1 isturbs the normally balance quantum
statistics o! quantum !luctuations in this vacuum. -or this reason it
might be thought that R!reeS photons in a gravitational !iel possess
some mass. Puantitatively1 this mass is equal to
C*/c
2
D nhc/
!
L */

o or
h/cn */
!
L */

o
3onservation o! probability current ensity must be maintaine in all
inertial re!erence !rames within special relativity an within all
uni!ormly accelerate !rames within general relativity. 6here must be a
istribution !unction unerlying the conserve MwM
2
which is the quantum
mechanical basis !or the gravitational reshi!t. 6he connection between
gravitation1 in!ormation an wave!unction collapse lies here.
Hs it 5ust relative changes in the vacuum pressure an energy ensity Cas
unerstoo through 8ach_s spee o! light equationD through shi!ts in the
relative number ensities o! virtual bosons an !ermion L anti!ermion
pairs?
6he gravitational reshi!t must similarly shi!t the 7lancK cuto!! into the
re i! the vacuum is to be per!ectly .orentz invariant.
Fith increasing istance !rom a gravitational source the local velocity o!
light increases with [* L 248/Ac
2
\
-*
or with [* L 48/Ac
2
. . . \ in the
RweaK !ielS limit. /nother e0pression equivalent to the weaK !iel
e0pression above is
[* - z
m
/z
vacuum
\
6he wavelength must unergo reshi!t as the velocity o! light increases
as the photons climb out o! the gravity well.
c[* - z
m
/z
vacuum
\ = z
!ermion
/z
boson
/ certain increase in the ensity o! real particles C!ermionsD ecrease the
ensity o! virtual !ermion-anti!ermion pairs o! virtual !ermion-
anti!ermion pairs or1 alternatively1 their !requency o! creation an
annihilation. 6here is an associate increase in the ensity o! emission
an absorption Cwithin $-imensionsD o! virtual bosons or1 alternatively1
their spatial !requency Cor wavelengthD.
6he total number o! particles in a -ocK vacuum is not !i0e. 3reation
an annihilation operators can be e!ine !or both !ermions an bosons.
6he $-momentum an energy operators may be equivalently e0presse
in terms o! these operators a
!
+a
!
an a
b
+a
b
1 !or !ermions an bosons1
respectively. 3reation an annihilation o! bosons can moel vacuum $-
momentum !luctuations an the creation an annihilation o! !ermion-
anti!ermions1 !luctuations in vacuum energy.
9bserve the !ollowing relationship between the creation operator an
iscrete energy an momentum. . .
a
+ Cn timesD
MK Z - - - n = ;1 nK = p -
6here is a close parallel between the occupation number !ormalism an
that o! the harmonic oscillator/crystal lattice. 3hanges in the energy o!
the crystal lattice is associate with the e0citation or ee0citation o! one
o! its component oscillators which are necessarily tie to absorption an
emission o! phonons by the crystal. 6his correspons to the creation o!
an e0cite !ermion paire with a ee0cite anti!ermion C!ermion holeD.
@otice that each increase in the energy o! the crystal by one quantum o!
!requency ! an energy h! is necessarily accompanie by a ecrease in the
$-momentum o! the crystal by one quantum o! wavenumber K an
energy ChKD
2
/m. "pontaneous !luctuations in the momentum an energy
o! the crystal ue to =eisenberg momentum an energy uncertainty will
also occur in the !orm o! iscrete quanta1 i.e.1 virtual rather than real
quanta. 6his implies that the 7auli e0clusion principle en!orces the
suppression by the crystal lattice o! virtual e0citations o! the crystal.
6hese virtual e0citations are in the !orm o! the spontaneous creation o!
virtual !ermion-anti!ermion pairs !rom the crystal_s vacuum state.
=ypothesis: the momentum !luctuations o! the crystal
6he $-momentum !luctuations o! the vacuum within the crystal over an
above the ensity o! $-momentum !luctuations !or the !ree space
vacuum suppress the e0citation an ee0citation o! the crystal lattice. H!
a given atom o! the crystal lattice spontaneously emits a photon within
the time uncertainty o! the spontaneous e0citation o! the atom o! the
crystal emitting this photon1 then the virtual ee0citation Cby the emitte
photonD an e0citation Cby the creation o! an e0cite electron an
RholeSD mutually cancel.
/ perhaps clearer an more elegant way to escribe the 7auli-blocKing
an ?ose enhancement e!!ects o! the crystal lattice upon the vacuum is
the !ollowing. H! the crystal is sub5ect to a strong electromagnetic !iel
tune near to one o! the crystal_s resonance !requencies1 the crystal will
be strongly e0cite an will unergo a high rate o! electronic e0citation-
ee0citation. :ue to the 7auli blocKing e!!ect o! real upon virtual
!ermions vacuum energy !luctuations in the !orm o! virtual electronic
transitions within the geometry o! the crystal are suppresse. 9n the
other han1 the increase ensity o! $-momentum CphotonD e0changes
has a ?ose-enhancement e!!ect upon liKe momentum e0changes within
the vacuum o! the crystal lattice. 6his leas us to the !ollowing
hypothesis: the ?ose enhancement an 7auli-blocKing e!!ects prouce
equal an opposite change in the number ensity o! virtual bosonic an
!ermionic !luctuations1 respectively within the vacuum o! the crystal
lattice. 3.!.1 Puantum -luctuations in 7hotonics.
6he electromagnetic an nuclear bining energies o! matter are greater
!or a mass sitting in a strong gravity !iel than in a weaKer !iel. 6here
must be a connection between the quantum statistical inuce shi!t in the
ensity o! bosons an the shi!t in the spectrum o! boson wavelengths.
6his connection we believe is escribe by the equations o! probability
current conservation. H! number ensity o! !luctuations is conserve
within a curve spacetime1 this will appear as a non-uni!orm an non-
conserve number ensity within !lat or 8inKowsKi spacetime.
/ question arises here as to whether the gravitational length contraction
occurs only along the raial coorinate centere on the boy_s center o!
mass.
7art o! what maKes evolution an irreversible process is that the
in!ormation RstoreS in the genome is essentially holographic in nature.
6his means that the in!ormation is coe into :@/ base pair sequences
that are not so much arbitrary Cin 8ono_s senseD as they are historically
etermine. 6he physics o! :@/_s peculiar molecular structure is
compatible with the structures1 which etermine the genome_s meaning1
rather than any particular base pair sequences possessing a !i0e
meaning.
6his is why it is not strictly1 though perhaps only in a colloquial sense1
correct to speaK o! the in!ormation content o! a :@/ sequence. 6here
seems no technical problem1 however in speaKing o! the :@/
possessing a !i0e in!ormation bearing capacity in the case where :@/
are to be utilize as an alternate ata storage meium. 6here are
perhaps egeneracy_s associate with organic molecules that cannot be
RsplitS by merely local or causal physical processes L this woul almost
certainly be the case !or :@/ i! it can coe in!ormation holographically.
Hn this way genetic material that has been a part o! one cell may carry
some trace o! this !act even a!ter it has become incorporate into another
cell. 6his may inee account !or some o! the so !ar ine0plicable
i!!iculties animal cloning researchers have been e0periencing1 e.g.1
o!!spring being outsize or unergoing accelerate aging1 mysterious
neurological isturbances1 etc.
@onzero spacetime curvature is measure with respect to hypothetical or
abstract R!latS spacetime. Hn similar manner1 nonzero momentum-
energy ensity must be etermine relative to zero momentum-energy
ensity. =owever1 note care!ully that there are two istinct ways to
e!ine a spacetime mani!ol o! ) curvature1 one o! which is structureless
an trivial1 6
uv
= )1 the other highly structure Can symmetricalD1 i.e.1

v
6
uv
= ) Crather than !rom 6
uv
= )D that cause a eviation o! the
spacetime mani!ol !rom R!latS spacetime.
6
))
6
)*
6
)2
6
)$
6
uv
= 6
*)
6
**
6
*2
6
*$

6
2)
6
2*
6
22
6
2$
6
$)
6
$*
6
$2
6
$$
"o the Rnon trivialS structure o! stress-momentum-energy woul be the
!ollowing:
n-6
))
= 6
**
+ 6
22
+ 6
$$
o
n 6
i5
= -6
5i
o
6hat is1 a spacetime mani!ol on which the pressure an energy ensity
are equal an opposite an on which the stresses are precisely counter-
balance. Ht oes not matter i! the vacuum energy ensity1 !or e0ample1
is enormous1 5ust so long as the vacuum pressure is equally enormous1 as
well as the stresses within this vacuum precisely counterbalancing.
=ypothesis1 i! cosmological e0pansion rolls over into a contraction
phase1 precisely at the cusp o! this transition1 the 6
uv
components
become iniviually zero.
Qd
6his possibility is the one in which gravity
is a !unction o! the energy o! cosmological e0pansion.
?ining energy constitutes an imbalance in the relative istribution o!
stress-momentum-energy amongst the 6
uv
. /s state earlier1 this
imbalance may also be escribe as a isturbance in the otherwise anti-
symmetrical balance o! vacuum $-momentum an energy !luctuations1
i.e.1 balance o! current ensities o! virtual !ermionic an bosonic
creation-annihilation events1 or as a isturbance in the quantum statistics
o! a spacetime symmetric vacuum state.
Hniviual particles are inistinguishable within quantum theory. /
wave !unction is only a complete escription o! a close quantum
mechanical system. Hn an open system1 there_s nothing to assure
conservation o! probability.
6he imbalance in the istribution o! momentum !luctuations within bulK
matter sub5ect to a gravitational potential may be unerstoo in terms o!
the iea o! the gravitational reshi!t.
Qd
;0change o! !orce-carrying bosons away !rom a gravitational source
Cspacetime RsinKSD are reshi!te while e0change o! these bosons in the
opposite irection towars the gravitational boy are blue-shi!te.
=ence1 the internal bining !orces o! matter Rat restS within a
gravitational !iel are unbalance in the irection o! the center o!
gravitational mass. 6hese internal stresses presumably are not
equalize until the mass accelerates in the irection o! this source with a
large enough acceleration.
7 = h/ = hv/c
tp = h/c[tv - vtc/c\
Hn !ree !all the tp ). 6here!ore1 !ree !all requires that
[tv - vtc/c\ = )
or [ctv - vtc\ = )
Qd
6he reshi!t o! e0change boson wavelengths is compensate via the
:oppler shi!t Copposite blue shi!tD o! the e0change boson !requencies
ue to the !ree !all acceleration o! the bulK matter. / similar
compensation corrects the blue shi!ting o! e0change bosons being
e0change in the irection o! the gravitational !iel source. 6he altere
velocity o! light is e0plaine as the counterpoise wavelength an
!requency shi!ts o! the bining !orce an energy-meiating e0change
bosons wherein c

=
blue
!
re
.
6here is a relationship between ww
W
= MwM
2
= particle probability ensity
an
YwMp
u
MwZ = Yp
u
Z
8ore speci!ically1 the probability ensity !or virtual photons is an
equivalent escription o! the component o! the $-momentum
!luctuations in the quantum vacuum electromagnetic !iel. 6he portion
o! this vacuum electromagnetic !iel that prouces physically
measurable e!!ects is that corresponing to the vacuum electromagnetic
momentum uncertainty. 6he e!initions o! !luctuation an uncertainty
implie in the above passage may only be mae consistent i! a
istinction can success!ully be rawn between the e0pectation value o!
an observable an the classical physical instantaneous value o! this
observable. 6here is at worK here a perhaps subtler than usual
istinction o! physical concepts. 6he phenomenon o! the collapse o! the
wave!unction o!!ers us the quantum mechanical eigenvalue in
contraistinction to the e0pectation value o! this observable.
6he special relativistic mass increase may also be unerstoo in terms o!
the e!!ect o! the .orentz contraction upon the e0change bosons
meiating the bining !orces an energies o! bulK matter unergoing
accelerations. 6his suggests that the origin o! gravitational mass may
be relate to the bining energy or more aptly1 the bining !orces
holing together bulK matter1 whereas the inertial mass may be relate to
the !requencies o! spontaneous creation an annihilation in the vacuum
o! virtual !ermion-anti!ermion pairs. /nother way to escribe the
special relativistic increase in mass is in terms o! the conservation o! (-
momentum within 8inKowsKi spacetime. ?ut what we want to Know
is: what is the precise physical mechanism taKing place within the
quantum vacuum which accounts !or ;instein_s relativistic mass !ormula
proviing a proper escription o! this phenomenon o! relativistic mass
increase? Ht is quite simply in terms o! the mutual shi!t in the current
ensities o! $-momentum e0changes an imaginary (-momentum
Re0changesS within bulK matter an between bulK matter an the
quantum vacuum1 respectively. 6he equivalence principle inspire by
;instein_s elevator thought e0periment Cthe occasion o! which that
;instein re!erre to as Rthe happiest moment o! my li!eSD1 which
escribes the inistinguishability o! the observable e!!ects o! gravitation
!rom those1 cause by acceleration implies that conversely1 the
phenomenon o! gravitation may be Rmechanically e0plaineS in terms o!
spatiotemporal variations in the current ensities o! $-momentum an
imaginary (-momentum !luctuations.
/ reunant an perhaps viciously circular way o! speaKing o! the e!!ect
o! the gravitational !iel upon relativistic mass is in terms o! the
relativistic mass increase !or the e0change particles themselves.
7erhaps the manner in which vacuum !luctuations an their
corresponing observable uncertainties are relate is this: the ensity o!
!luctuations in a particular observable representing a classically
conserve quantity is only short o! in!inite ue to the appropriate 7lancK
cuto!!s1 i.e.1 mass1 length1 time1 etc.1 however1 what actually etermines
the portion o! this enormous magnitue o! !luctuation ensity which
mani!ests itsel! within
9ne simple way to thinK about this is that1 !or e0ample1 a larger
wavelength particle will have a lower probability ensity than a particle
o! shorter wavelength. 6he gravitational reshi!t o! photons1 say1 may
be unerstoo in terms o! a spatial graient in photon probability ensity
ue to the stretching o! the raius o! the volume occupie by the photon1
i.e.1 the photon_s wavelength1 in other wors this shi!t in the photon_s
momentum woul be consistent with an increase in the quantum vacuum
energy ensity Cincrease in the probability ensity o! virtual !ermion-
anti!ermion pairsD with which increase must be associate an upwar
shi!t in the zero-point energy o! the vacuum.
Qd
6he reshi!ting o! photon_s emitte !rom a gravity source1 e.g.1 the
"un1 woul be consistent with an appropriate corresponing elevation o!
the vacuum zero-point energy relative to which the energy o! the emitte
photons must be measure.
w
boson
w
W
boson
is importantly relate to YwMp
5
MwZ. "imilarly1
w
!ermion
w
W
!ermion
is signi!icantly relate to YwM;MwZ.
8oreover1 the probability ensities o! virtual bosons are connecte to
the probability ensities o! virtual !ermion-anti!ermion pairs. ?ecause
o! the !act o! bosons having spin * an virtual !ermion pairs1 composite
spin )1 which suggests timeliKe an spaceliKe components o! a (-vector.
6he ynamics o! this (-vector shoul be embee in a probability
current ensity continuity equation e0pressing the conservation o!
probability ensity current o! anyons. 6he anyonic probability ensity
current is conserve regarless o! this current_s irection within
spacetime.
6he connection between the gravitational reshi!t o! bosons along with
time ilation o! !ermion-anti!ermion pairs an spatial variations in the
momentum1 energy an particle Cboson an !ermion pairD number
ensities o! the quantum vacuum may be mathematically e0plicate in
terms o! changes in representation1 i.e.1 !rom position to momentum
representation an !rom time !unctions to !unctions o! !requency.
9ne cannot store in!ormation anywhere. Hn!ormation is a !unction o! a
creative1 ynamic process. 9nly ata that represent in!ormation in a
conte0t epenent way may be thought o! as a commoity whose stocK
varies at i!!erent times an places. ;volution1 in other wors1 is
brought !orwar an its multi!arious !ruits sustaine by open-ene
process acting within an ostensibly close system CbiosphereD.
6he smaller the wavepacKet becomes1 the greater the energy associate
with the mutual inter!erence in time o! the component waves o! the
wave!unction1 i.e.1 the higher becomes the RbeatsS !requency. 6he
energy o! the quantum mechanical beats o! the wavepacKet may be
unerstoo as the !luctuations in the internal momentum o! the
wavepacKet ue to momentum e0change within the pacKet. 6his
interpretation o! the temporal inter!erence o! the wavepacKet_s
components in relation to the size o! the wavepacKet appears consistent
with the relation /a0
5
/ap
5
} hbar Cwhere 5 = *121$D
H! the wavepacKet is accelerate to some velocity1 v1 then i! the irection
o! this acceleration is along the 0-a0is1 then the positional uncertainty o!
the wavepacKet must su!!er a .orentz contraction. /n accoring to the
7lancK relation1 the momentum uncertainty o! the wavepacKet must
e0perience an e0pansion or ilation. 6he time ilation e0perience by
the wave pacKet when travelling at velocity v = v
0
must be accompanie
by a contraction o! the energy uncertainty o! the wavepacKet.
6he relativistic increase in the wavepacKet mass must be emboie in
the relativistic e!!ects upon /ap an /a;. 6he /ap
5
an /a; must be relate
in much the same way as YpZ an Y;Z1 namely the /ap
5
an /a; !or a
particular system must in some way comprise a conserve quantity1 e.g.1
sqrt[/a
2
p
5
+ /a
2
;\ = /a6
uv
?
6his coul perhaps be mae technically consistent with present theory
by thinKing o! /ap an /a; as merely the quantum vacuum components o!
the composite system wavepacKet + vacuum. 6he nothingness in which
the composite system is nonlocal so the new values o! /ap an /a; !or the
composite system Cnow closeD are wholly internal an not in part ue to
inter!erence !rom outsie the system.
6he mi0ing entropy which results !rom the combining o!1 !or e0ample1
two istinct gases within a single container !rom either sie o! a
!ormerly impermeable membrane may be equal Cor signi!icantly relate
toD the sum o! the !ormerly separate quantum energy uncertainties minus
the composite system energy uncertainty that results !rom mi0ing
ivie by the appropriately corresponing system temperatures. 6he
egree o! quantum entanglement CcorrelationD o! the two systems is
signi!icantly a !unction o! the reuction in the magnitue o! energy o!
the reuction in the magnitue o! energy uncertainty !rom that o! the
simple sum o! the iniviual system energy uncertainties.
6here shoul be only negligible !inal state interaction C-"HD between the
virtual particles o! a spontaneously create an annihilate !ermion-
anti!ermion pair. 6his is because the li!etime o! the pair is e!ine by
the time uncertainty in the !luctuation o! vacuum energy represente by
the pair.
6he correlation o! two quantum systems1
*
1
2
1 may be e!ine as

*

2
W
/[C
*
+
2
DC
* +

2
D\1 where
*
an

2
are the normalize wave!unctions o! systems C*D an C2D1 respectively.
9r alternatively1 in terms o! energy uncertainties1
AC
*
1
2
D = ? Cthe right han sie o! this equation must taKe into
account the two istinct cases1 /a;
*
| /a;
2
1 /a;
*
} /a;
2
.
H! an otherwise isolate or close quantum system is consiere to be
correlate with the evolution o! the systems vacuum Cor grounD state1
then the system cannot in a strict technical sense be completely
escribe simply in terms o! a pure state wave!unction. 6he system can
only truly be given a complete escription in terms o! a ensity matri0
Cthough in all practicel case Cso !arD the o!!-iagonal terms o! the system
ensity matri0 are negligibleD. 6he combine system + vacuum state
may1 o! course still be properly escribe in terms o! a single
wave!unction.
6he combine system + vacuum must be in an eigenstate o! momentum
an quantum vacuum with the interaction o! the quantum vacuum with
the system which prevents it !rom occupying an energy eigenstate an so
inuces in the system its =eisenberg energy uncertainty. / similar
statement applies where the system_s momentum uncertainty is
concerne. 6his is simply because o! the elementary !act o! [p1 ;\ = ).
9ne might alternatively escribe this compatible o! the observables p
an ; as a *))% correlation o!
p
C in the momentum representationD
with
;
C in the energy representationD1 i.e.1 measurement o! p oes not
RisturbS the energy o! the system.
6he question naturally arises at this 5uncture whether [p1 ;\ = ) within a
curve spacetime. 6he answer to this question seems to be that p an ;
are inee no longer per!ectly commuting observables in the above case.
Fe note here that the usual case in that o! all observables representing
conserve quantities commute with one another.
6his is because the =eisenberg uncertainties must always be state in
terms o! the prouct o! uncertainty with respect to a conserve quantity
an an uncertainty with respect to a quantity that is not conserve. ?ut
energy an momentum are not iniviually conserve in the case o! a 2
n
ranK momentum-energy tensor possessing o!!-iagonal components.
6here are two important !ormalisms1 that o! "chroeinger in which
evolves an m9 is a constant an that o! =eisenberg in which is a
constant an the operator m9 evolves.
Hnstea o! using a scalar or vector operator upon a ensity matri01 we
now utilize an operator in square matri0 !orm to operate upon the state
vector. / system momentum-energy must be escribe as an energy
tensor operator1 6
uv
in which 6
uv
possesses nonzero o!!-iagonal
components1 must be escribe in the "chroeinger wave !ormalism in
terms o! a 2
n
ranK tensor quantity1 namely1 the system ensity matri0. Ht
is easy to utilize the ensity pure state wave!unction1 in orer to
etermine the e0pectation values o! mp an m;1 in orer to etermine the
e0pectation values o! each component o! the energy tensor operator.
/n !rom here1 the !luctuations an =eisenberg uncertainties in these
components may be etermine. /lternatively1 the e0pectation values
o! the 6
uv
may be calculate !rom a Knowlege o! t6
uv
an /a6
uv
.
Qd
?ecause 8a0well_s emon is e!eate by =eisenberg uncertainty the
"econ .aw o! 6hermoynamics1 there!ore1 is not o! a mere statistical
signi!icance. 6he ultimate groun !or this assertion is the !act o!
=eisenberg uncertainty being an ontological1 an not merely
epistemological1 principle.
Hn!ormation is constitute by energy Cor its !luctuationsD + all higher
orer correlations. Cso the energy !luctuations themselves may be
consiere )
th
orer correlations L o! what physical quantities L only
conserve quantities?D
6he wave!unction contains all o! the in!ormation about a quantum
system up to but not incluing the system_s egeneracy_s. 6he same
in!ormation Cas that containe in RSD may be thought to be encoe
in!ormation the hierarchical structure o! the *
st
orer an higher
correlations.
6he quantities1 /ap an /a; unerlie an e!ine the bounaries o! nonlocal
quantum processes1 i.e.1 reactions1 interactions an creation-annihilation
processes. "o a nonlocally meiate particle interaction1 !or e0ample
must involve e0changes o! momentum an transitions in system energy
that are less than /ap
syst
an /a;
syst
1 respectively. Fhen two system
become quantum entangle isn_t the sum o! the energy Can/or
momentumD uncertainties o! the two systems necessarily greater than the
respective uncertainties !or the combine system? <es1 inee.
/n by the e!inition o! in!ormation as a reuction in Cenergy or
momentum1 angular momentum1 etc.D see that any in!ormation
engenere by the two systems becoming quantum entangle must
resie in the structure o! quantum correlations create as a result. "o in
a sense1 i.e.1 system * + system 2 + C0
uC*D
1 0
vC2D
D is less than the sum o!
the separate system entropy_s Cprior to the system_s becoming quantum
entangleD. @ote: oes observation o! both systems by a single
e0perimenter/observer necessarily cause the two systems to become
nonlocally connecte1 i.e.1 quantum entangle or 5ust the correlating o!
the quantum !luctuations within each system? 6he case o! two systems
initially unconnecte an temporally evolving accoring to the time
inepenent "chroeinger equation must o! course be aresse in part
o! this iscussion. Fhen two such systems become nonlocally
connecte through observation1 mutual interaction or the systems both
interacting with some thir system1 oes a suen relationships
a5ustment o! the phase relationships o! the two system wave!unctions
taKe place or in aition a suen a5ustment in the phases o! the
constituent eigen!unctions o! each system wave!unction?
/ so-calle Rpure stateS is a close quantum system. 9nce any
component or components o! the system become entangle with another
system then the original system must now be escribe in terms o! a
Rmi0e quantum state.S
?y virtue o! the 7auli-blocKing e!!ect o! real !ermions upon vacuum
energy !luctuations1 i.e.1 spontaneously create virtual !ermion-
anti!ermion pairs1 the virtual !ermion pair becomes entangle with the
quantum state o! the real matter1 however the converse e!!ect upon the
real material system is negligible.
Ht is necessary to istinguish a pure state !rom a mi0e state an a
collapse state !rom a pure state1 etc. Fhat etermines the mutual
statistical correlation o! the elements o! a ensity matri0 representing a
mi0e quantum state? 6he greater the momentum uncertainty o! the
virtual !ermion pair1 the more strongly entangle is each !ermion in the
pair with the other1 c.!.1 ;7A e0periments with ecaying spin ) particles
on whose ecay particles magnetic !iels are use !or testing ?ell
nonlocality through use o! these !iels to per!orm spin +-*/2
measurements upon the particles1 i.e.1 the greater is the bining energy
o! the virtual pair L !or this virtual pair an RantagonisticS or reciprocal
relationship obtains between local /a; an /ap o! the pair. /lso as the
7auli blocKing e!!ect C!or relatively uncorrelate pairsD.
/a;//ap = /a0//at = c
Fe must not con!use /a;
!+!-
with the more general /a;
region
1 i.e.1 the local
vacuum energy ensity.
6o what e0tent can a spontaneously-create-!rom- vacuum virtual
!ermion pair Cvirtual 3ooper pairD be consiere a composite boson an
to what e0tent two merely coincient !ermions? 3ertainly the quantum
statistical ientity o! the spontaneously create virtual particle pair is
etermine by the egree o! similarity Cin the properly crucial respectD o!
the ensity matri0 escribing the particle pair to a so-calle pure or
unmi0e state. /nother way to put this is perhaps in terms o! the
relative entropy o! the mi0e state escribing the particle pair. 6he
higher is the entropy o! the spontaneously create virtual pair1 the more
liKely shall the 7auli e0clusion principle apply an the less liKely that the
?ose-conensation principle will amit the pair into the vacuum energy
ensity. Ht appears that matter has the e!!ect o! ecreasing the entropy
ensity o! the vacuum via the !iltering e!!ect o! the 7auli principle. 6he
temperature o! the !ree space quantum vacuum is not Known1 however1 i!
the vacuum possesses a !inite though perhaps vanishingly small
temperature1 then the entropy suppressing e!!ects o! matter an the 7auli
principle shoul prouce a concomitant increase in the vacuum
temperature1 assuming the vacuum_s internal energy ensity is relatively
constant Cover non-cosmological time scalesD.
6he sum o! the necessary causes { su!!icient cause o! the phenomenon
o! min.
Qd
6he symmetry o! spacetime represente by .orentz invariance is
emboie in the two a0ioms o! special relativity. 6he breaKing o!
spacetime symmetry represente by spatiotemporal graients in the
velocity o! light are the cause rather than the phenomenological e!!ect o!
gravity. /s alreay state1
c = /a;//ap an hence1 !or e0ample1
c
00
= /a;
0
//ap
0
V c
0y
= /a;
0
//ap
y
1 an so on.
6he spacetime metric1 there!ore is emboie at a particular in!initesimal
spacetime region in the matri01
M c
**
c
*2
c
*$
c
*(
M
[c
uv
\ = M c
2*
c
22
c
2$
c
2(
M V where c
uv
= /a;
u
//ap
v
M c
$*
c
$2
c
$$
c
$(
M
M c
(*
c
(2
c
($
c
((
M
/ctually1 the above matri0 elements shoul be relate to c/ap
u
c/a0
v
.
M c
**
c
*2
c
*$
c
*(
M
[c
uv
\ = M c
2*
c
22
c
2$
c
2(
M V where c
uv
= c/ap
u
c/a0
v
M c
$*
c
$2
c
$$
c
$(
M
M c
(*
c
(2
c
($
c
((
M
/s the local velocity o! light e!ines the particular partitioning o!
spacetime into a $ + * space an time1 i.e.1 the local spacetime curvature1
[c
uv
\ must contain all o! the same in!ormation as [g
iK
\1 the metric tensor
o! ;instein_s !iel equations.
6he presence o! mass inuces local changes to the statistics o!
momentum an energy !luctuations in the quantum CnongravitationalD
!iels o! the vacuum which1 in orer to be coe0tensive with a
gravitational !iel1 must vary with the inverse square o! istance. 6he
spatial graients in the /ap
u
or in /ap
5
an /a; must be comprise by the
variation in the quantities inversely to the istance. 6his brings to the
!ore the question o! how the momentum-energy uncertainty in one
localize region o! spacetime a!!ects the value o! this uncertainty in
neighboring regions.
?ecause quantum statistics o not istinguish real !rom virtual particles
it !ollows that changes in the /ap
u
!rom their !ree space values must be
associate with the taKing on o! mass by the moi!ie vacuum.
=eisenberg uncertainties in pm an ;m are cause by quantum !iel
!luctuations in these quantities. 6his reversal o! the causal relationships
o! tp
u
an /ap
u
is also posite by stochastic electroynamic theory.
Qd
/ccoring to quantum electroynamics1 the symmetries o! spacetime
are ientical with the symmetries o! the quantum vacuum1 c.!.1 Aelativity
o! 8otion1 >aecKel1 .ambrecht an Aeynau. 6he properties o! this
quantum vacuum to inclue its characteristic symmetries are etermine
by the nature o! the !luctuations o! the various constituent quantum
!iels. 6he energy !luctuations o! this vacuum mani!est themselves in
the !orm o! creation an annihilation o! virtual !ermion-anti!ermion
pairs1 the $-momentum !luctuations1 in the !orm o! the bacK-an-!orth
e0change o! virtual bosons. 6he vacuum_s energy !luctuations possess a
collective spin o! )1 the $-momentum !luctuations o! this vacuum1 spin
*. 6he problem pose by the quantization o! the gravitational !iel is
that there oesn_t seem to be a necessity !or the e0istence o! a unique
!orce-carrying particle o! spin 2. 4ravity may be meiate graients in
the ensity o! the momentum !luctuations orthogonal to the momenta o!
these !luctuations provie enough structure to coe !or 6
uv
1 the
momentum-energy tensor o! ;instein_s !iel equations. 6hese
momentum !luctuations are in the !iels o! nongravitational !orces.
/ap
m
an /a;
m
must be greater than /ap
v
an /a;
v
Creally?D !or m to prouce
gravitational e!!ects.
H! /a0 an /at are to small Crelative to what?D1 then no ob5ective spacetime
curvature CRmeasurableS spacetime curvatureD e0ists? YqZ { e!ines
RmeasurabilityS in quantum mechanics.
Fhat is the important i!!erence between the correlation structure o! the
!luctuations o! which a 4aussian wavepacKet is compose that
represents a real particle vs. those correlation structures o! energy
!luctuations that compose a 4aussian wavepacKet representing a virtual
particle?
/ct o! observation puts a P8 system into a statistical mi0ture whenever
?
"tatistical mi0tures cannot be teleporte1 not can a !luctuation taKe place
as a mi0e state.
Iibrations o! a 2- membrane require embeing this membrane in a $-
space. "imilarly1 vibrations o! a $- membrane require a (- space.
?ut spacetime1 which is (- space. ?ut spacetime1 which is (- only
appears in its purely spatial aspect to nonlocally propagating !iels.
R7articlesS though they may be constructe !rom the superposition o!
nonlocally propagating !iels1 i.e.1 o! phase velocity greater than RcS.
Qd
"o spacetime may be thought o! as the gran superposition o!
nonlocally connecte an nonlocally propagating !iels in which the
group velocity o! the superpose !iels is limite to RcS.
/pril 2)**
6he
nonlocally connecte vacuum !iels coul not be inclue in 8inKowsKi
spacetime an hence woul not contribute to the presence o! a
gravitational !iel.
6he transmitter-receiver along with an iniviual to interpret it must !irst
be transporte to the location o! the istant measuring instrument be!ore
the ;7A supraliminal communication can be veri!ie. w-waves
CamplituesD1 possessing no absolute physical signi!icance1 are !ree to
propagate at supraliminal velocities. "ince ata without conte0t o not
carry any in!ormation1 there shoul be no limit to their spee o!
propagation1 ceteris paribus. ?ut there is also a relationship limit o! RcS
!or the spee o! propagation o! energy. 8ight energy an in!ormation
CentropyD be given a uni!ie escription within general relativity theory.
9ne cannot have a probability ensity without the inter!erence o! two or
more wave!unctions1 even i! this is merely constitute by inter!erence o!
w with its con5ugate1 w
W
. 6he imaginary parts o! w cancel or mutually
annihilate !or w to become RrealS as MwM.
:o w an w
W
originally belong to two istinct re!erence !rames1 prior to
their mutual inter!erence to prouce MwM?
.ight cone iagram here !or a given w there are eight possible light
cone tangent vectors !rom which two orthogonal or antiparallel may be
chosen Cwith appropriate coe!!icientsD. 6he time an space a0es above
are orthogonal1 but so are all o! the null vectors o! the light cone pair-
wise orthogonal in (- spacetime.
8atter an antimatter particles are represente by w
+
w
+
an w
-
w
-
1
respectively. ?ut what about the possibilities1 w
+
w
-
an w
-
w
+
? Fhat
two matrices have the property1
[/\ [?\ = )V [/\ { )1 [?\ { ) ?
.ight cone iagram here !ig. *
H! the n
5
are vectorially ae that are not orthogonal1 a vector is
prouce that escribes the tunneling o! a particle superluminally !rom
the absolute past to the absolute !uture part o! the absolute !uture part o!
the light cone1 traversing the elsewhere region in the process. 6his is an
e0ample o! a nonlocally propagating quantum !iel.
?ut relativity oesn_t allow the construction o! a nonlocally propagating
!iel !rom a set o! locally propagating !iels Ci! the resultant nonlocally
propagatingD !iels are thought to be carrying in!ormation an/or
energyD. 6here!ore1 locally propagating !iels must1 conversely be
constructe out o! nonlocally connecte/propagating quantum !iels o!
the vacuum state.
6he n
5
are thought to lie along the light cone because o! the presume
propagation velocity o! RcS !or the iniviual wave!unctions. 9nly
upon mutual inter!erence o! multiple wave!unctions o we get v
group |
v
phase
.
6he n
5
that are not spatial re!lections o! one another will upon inter!ering
prouce o!! shell or virtual particles. 6he probability o! an encounter o!
each particle o! the virtual pair scattering an annihilating is
progressively lower as we consier an ever smaller coincience in time
an space Crequire !or annihilationD1 i.e.1 as C/a01 /atD )V an C/ap1 /a;D
an so represents more in!ormation an so a higher virtual energy
ensity.
Ht is not the particular state that one is in at the time o! eath that is
crucial !or the question o! an iniviual_s survival o! physical eath1 i.e.1
RissolutionS o! the matri0 o! bounary conitions CbrainD to the
quantum vacuum !iel in which the person_s ecaying nervous system
remains !or the time embee. ?ut aren_t these bounary conitions
upon the iniviual vacuum !iel an not upon the intersub5ective
quantum vacuum itsel!?
/ ghost is a vacuum resonance pattern le!t over !rom nonaiabatic
issolution o! the central nervous system.
Aetinal blin spot/ brain pain insensitivity metaphor !or the mental
integration represente by Can unobservable/ transcenentalD
consciousness.
6hinK o! a personal computer that continually resaves the contents o! its
isK rive to some networK rive. Fhat is happening currently in the
present instant to the iniviual/ RregisteringS Cor another networK
conceptD in his or her consciousness may be thought to be presently
loae into some Kin o! temporary ynamic storage or bu!!er within the
overall ranom access memory CA/8D. 6he contents o! this A/8 are
continually bring sent ot the isK rive !or longer term storage1 an the
contents o! the isK rive are perioically umpe to the networK rive.
/ new set o! sensory stimuli causes a reprogramming o! the brain at
multiple inputs that are spaceliKe connecte Cinepenent evelopment
rather than isseminationD.
Hs the brain hyperlinKe within itsel! to quantum near copies o! itsel!
each embee in a i!!erent vacuum energy spectrum?
/ natural selection-liKe process sits at the bounary between the
conscious an unconscious mins1 which re5ects broa categories o!
propose RsolutionsS without permitting them into consciousness. ?ut
along what lines can the unconscious
Qd
generalize types o! invali
reasoning without preventing the operation o! intuition1 itsel! as 4eel
emonstrate1 transcening the operation o! merely !ormal proceures o!
abstract symbol manipulation.
Iarying the relative magnitue o! n
5
n
K
W
= Yn
5
Mn
K
Z changes the irection o!
the probability ensity_s worlline in 8inKowsKi spacetime.
3ombining n
5
o! opposite sense but not antiparallel results in particles
that tunnel into he elsewhere region never to return Cunless spacetime is
su!!icient by curveD. 3onversely there shoul always be a constant
stream into our spacetime o! particles !rom other light cones1 i.e.1
particles tunneling into our spacetime !rom the elsewhere region.
8aybe it was more correct to speaK o! tunneling o! wave!unctions into
an out o! the light cone.
["how a close loop annihilation o! a virtual particle with a virtual
antiparticle.\
;lections in -loria shoul be move to =alloween to maKe it easier !or
the physiologically challenge to maKe it to the poles.
6he natural worl possesses compartmentalize levels o! comple0ity1
each !unctioning in part accoring to its own ynamics an each
accoring to its own ynamics an each interval between levels
constitute by stability !or those processes sa!ely istant !rom the level
bounaries.
Aather than supposing that one_s consciousness may be carrie with one
as a Kin o! passenger o! the brain which amittely may move more or
less !reely within a relatively narrowly e!ine spacetime region1
Qd
let us
suppose that one_s consciousness is everywhere unisturbe e0cept
precisely where one_s brain is at a given moment. =ow is this
interpretation i!!erent !rom that in which a single1 impersonal
consciousness lies everywhere unisturbe e0cept where a brain is at a
given moment?
Fith increasing comple0ity o! an evolving ynamic system comes an
increasing number o! increasingly broKen symmetries1 in turn
characterize by increase quantum uncertainty with respect to
unconserve physical quantities. 3an in!ormation be unerstoo as
carrie by components o! energy not originating within the system?
6he unKnown is cognize as a series o! open though perhaps eeply
interrelate questions pointing the way to either the !inal cementing in o!
the prevailing paraigm or to its embrittlement1 !ragmentation an
collapse1 c.!.1 Fhat Aemains to ?e :iscovere1 >ohn 8ao0.
Qd
6hose who believe in the value o! a search !or a so-calle theory o!
everything are among those who view the ialectical process o! one
paraigm_s giving way to another in epistemological terms rather than as
the participation o! min with nature in the mutual an interactive
processes o! being an becoming. H! there is a RberocKS escription o!
reality then whatever this berocK may ynamically consist o! a portion
o! it acts as the very !ounation o! the reasoning min which seeKs to
encompass the entirety o! this !ounation within one o! the many or
unlimite numberD o! imaginative escriptions presently open to it1 c.!.1
6he .imits o! "cience1 4her5iKov1 ,niversity o! "o!ia1 ?ulgaria.
8ay 2)*$
Kwo=
RHt is on the ultimate success o! such a quest [!or a 69;\ that 4eelGs
theorem casts the shaow o! 5uicious oubt. Ht seems on the strength o!
4eelGs theorem that the ultimate !ounations o! the bol symbolic
constructions o! mathematical physics will remain embee !orever in
that eeper level o! thinKing characterize both by the wisom an by
the haziness o! analogies an intuitions. -or the speculative physicist
this implies that there are limits to the precision o! certainty1 that even in
the pure thinKing o! theoretical physics there is a bounary present1 as in
all other !iels o! speculationsS1 c.!.1 "tanley >aKi C*2&&D
epi=
RH! you worK within more than one paraigm you are automatically a
philosopher.S
;volution: locality b proli!eration by issemination within spacetime
Cuni!ie groun o! beingD1 nonlocality b proli!eration by inepenent
evelopment plural-grouneness o! beingD
Fhat is the rule by which the quantum uncertainties o! two hereto!ore
separate systems might be properly ae together once these two
systems become C*D quantum-locally couple1 i.e.1 thermoynamically
couple or C2D quantum nonlocally connecte? /n i! quantum locality
an nonlocality come into mutual interaction in this manner what oes
this imply !or the relationship o! the sums an proucts o! these two
systems_ quantum uncertainties1 particularly those o! momentum an
energy?
;0changes o! momentum between particles o! a given P8 system
introuce correlations o! particle energies in the speci!ic sense o!
proucing correlations o! the stationary state phases. 6his correlating o!
energy eigen!unctions reuces the overall energy uncertainty o! the P8
system. 8omentum e0changes are the cause o! the spectrum o! system
momentum !luctuations comprising the P8 system momentum
uncertainty.
Hs nature RmaKing it up as she goes along?S 6hat is1 is the istinction
between scienti!ic iscovery an invention1 empirical an rational1
ob5ective an sub5ective1 etc. a !unction o! the epth to which science
striKes at the common root o! apparent categorical i!!erences? Ht
seems with the avancement o! scienti!ic iscovery nature becomes ever
more inepenent !rom the cognitive structures o! the psyche. ;ver the
same appearances must be sustaine by ever more complicate
mechanisms1 or so it seems with each new avance in !unamental
theoretical structures. :ata cannot be consistently represente as
reuctions in uncertainty as is possible to o !or in!ormation. 6he
processing o! ata only yiels in!ormation through a reuction in
epistemological uncertainty. 6he processing o! in!ormation yiels a
reuction in the ontological uncertainty.
/re any states or state transitions available to a quantum system which
cannot be brought about e0ternally1 that is1 through momentum or energy
inputs to certain various components o! the system L in other wors1 o
quantum systems possess internal states an state transitions?
/pril 2)**
6he cosmological constant may be so small because the brain o!
each potential observer Cto inclue actual observersD only tunes to a
!antastically small portion o! the available vacuum electromagnetic !iel
!luctuation spectrum. 6his hypothesis is relate to the Rmany minsS
interpretation o! =ugh ;verett_s Rmany worlsS interpretation o!
quantum theory.
-ebruary 2)*2
/lthough in the realm o! time1 space1 matter
an energy1 ecoherence above the 7lancK mass energy places a limit on
superposition1 preventing an actual superposition o! universes in an
ob5ective sense1 the 7lancK energy is more than large enough to support
superpositions o! istinct quantum brain states1 i.e.1 superposition o!
sub$ective universes so the en result is that !or practical purposes o!
each iniviual consciousness1 the many worls interpretation o!
quantum mechanics can inee be vali1 c.!.1 my email to J. -ah on
)2/*2/*2. Cnot only vali1 but conceivably valiD.
/ny P8 system is in principle capable o! an in!inite number o!
mutually incompatible !orms1 c.!.1 p. *&)1 Puantum 6heory C*2'*D. @o
one !orm o! the above in!inite set may become e!inite without the
system interacting with the appropriate measuring instrument.
Qd
6he notions o! R!orceS an RinertiaS are meaningless in a .aplacian
clocKworK universe in which the irection o! causality is not speci!ie
by the equations o! motion. "tresses only evelop in the clocKworK
mechanism when some element or !orce is introuce Cor was
introuce at some time in the pastD into the system !rom RoutsieS Cor
!rom outsie the scope o! the mechanism_s esignD. 6he comple0ity o!
the system_s temporal evolution cannot e0cee that supportable by the
banwith o! inputs to the system. 6he bounary between aiabatic an
nonaiabatic change to the system is constitute by the bounary
between the collapse an noncollapse quantum regimes.
Qd
Fith only a single groun o! being there is no room !or the
incommensurable Cor irrationalD an hence no basis !or emergence Co!
noveltyD.
6he momentum o! a particle is e!ine by this particle_s :e?roglie
wavelength an this wavelength is also the measure o! the uncertainty o!
this particle_s position.
Fhat is a particle with energy CRrestS energyD an ) momentum in one
inertial !rame is within another inertial !rame a particle with non-)
momentum an rest energy an imaginary momentum.
Qd
6he conte0t o! a collection o! elements cannot be !ully analyze in
terms o! these elements in combination with all e0ternal relations
obtaining between the elements. 6his is 5ust to say that conte0t e!ine
elements possess RbetweenS themselves internal relations1 that is1
relations other than those e!inable through an analysis o! the system.
"tates o! the system that are not reproucible by merely applying the
appropriate set o! e0ternal inputs to the system are the internal states o!
the system cannot be observe irectly.
Ht is possible that the phase relationships o! the component
eigen!unctions o! the observer_s wave!unction must be RtuneS with
respect to the phase relationships o! the component eigen!unctions o! the
system_s wave!unction !or a measurement to be per!orme on the system
yieling ma0imal in!ormation about the system_s state with respect to
any conserve quantities1 c.!.1 /a. 0 /a } h. 7resumably1 two or more
observers coul not simultaneously tune to the same system
wave!unction. Hn other wors1 e0ternally precise Cinternally impreciseD
in!ormation o! a single bit Cin the case o! a spin measurementD requires
the speci!ication o! an in!inite amount o! e0ternally imprecise
in!ormation Cthat is1 however1 internally preciseD concerning the prouct
o! the phases o! the two systems1 observer-observe Cimprecise causal
relationship/precise Can ma0imal quantum correlation o! the two
systemsD. 6here is a precise causal relationship between two systems
only at the cost o! these systems becoming very imprecisely correlate
Cstrongly correlate with respect to an unKnown parameter?D
:oes the uncertainty principle require that the measurement
incompatibility o! con5ugate variables e0ternal between two systems
which are strongly correlate?
Qd
"imilar to the -ourier !requency
analysis o! time !unctions1 apparent causal relationships may be
analyze in terms o! a sum o! !luctuations which are all the more
strongly correlate the more statistically signi!icant is the correlate o!
the two events between which a causal relationship is allege to obtain.
/ measurement o! observable1 /1 yieling an eigenvalue1 a
5
1 causes the
inter!erence between the i!!erent eigen!unctions1
a
C0D to be estroye
Cecoherence o! phase relationsD.
:oes the in!ormation emboie in the nonranom eigen!unction phases
simply get trans!erre to the newly create set o! phase relationships
between the eigen!unctions o! the con5ugate variable?
Qd
6he scene was liKe that out o! a movie in which /merican actors are
use in a !oreign !ilm prouction1 which is later aapte !or /merican
6I programming1 c.!.1 6enebrae. Hncients occur within Htalian !ilm1
which though noteworthy on_t contribute to the moving !orwar o! the
plot. 8etaphorical responses may be given as satis!actory answers to
questions requiring a response containing only a literal re!erence1 an
this is passe over without note. Hmportant connections between pieces
o! in!ormation that to an /merican auience shoul be obvious transpire
without comment !rom the ma5or characters o! the !ilm. /n e0ample
here might be where the murer o! a young girl is reporte in which one
o! the causal !actors contributing to her eath is an unintentional action
or omission on the part o! one o! the ma5or characters1 but where none o!
the characters appear aware o! this.
/s ata is trans!erre !rom one min to another1 always-new in!ormation
is represente. :ata moves through spacetime an in!ormation moves
into spacetime.
/pril 2)**
6his observation is importantly relate to the
measurement/ecoherence problem.
Hncrease correlation o! iniviual !luctuations o! energy within the
energy uncertainty1 /a; o! a certain quantum mechanical system is
associate with the time rate o! ecrease o! /a;. Hncrease correlation o!
!luctuations woul also seem to be associate with a ecrease /at. 6his
may mean that the system is losing its /a; by transmitting some o! this
energy uncertainty an istributing it among other systems to which the
original system is not causally connecte.
6he possibility o! in!ormation Cas oppose to ataD epens on the
absence o! brige laws between spacetime scales as well as on the
nontrivial nature o! the 2
n
.aw o! 6hermoynamics1 i.e.1 the !act o!
irreversibility in thermoynamic systems being not mere appearance an
not ue to mere ignorance L possibly relate to the ontological as rather
than epistemological nature o! =eisenberg energy uncertainty1 i.e.1 /a; is
not ue to our mere ignorance to the complete etails o! a close system1
but ue to all systems being to some egree or other open. 6he
connection between quantum uncertainty an thermoynamic
irreversibility is that o! both systems being sub5ect to more than a single
source o! outsie inter!erence. =eisenberg uncertainty an
thermoynamic irreversibility1 each in its our way points up the isunity
o! the ultimate1 embeing substrate o! physical systems. 6he !act o!
temporality requires the necessity o! the other that is itsel! other to some
other other Cthis is the reuction o! irreversibility to simple topologyD.
Qd
6here is a !ine-tuning coincience involve in the !ull emboiment o!
min in boy which remins us o! the cosmic coincience o! a precisely
zero cosmological vacuum energy. Fhatever RmechanismS is involve
in the Rmin tracKing its boyS is the very same one that was involve in
the original emboiment o! the soul. 6his mechanism must be
essentially aKin to the phase-locKing behavior e0hibite by !eebacK
control systems. 6his !eebacK is probably that between local an
nonlocal quantum !iels within the quantum vacuum with which the
brain e0changes energy an through which the vacuum e0changes
in!ormation with itsel!1
/pril 2)**
c.!.1 notion o! brain as vacuumFvacuum
interface evice.
Fe can_t maKe revolutionary iscoveries concerning the eeper nature o!
reality without at once revealing a eeper interpretation o! the human
person an the meaning o! this person_s e0istence.
Qd
Ht is sa!e to say that
there is no ob5ectively !inal interpretation o! the meaning o! any
conscious entity_s e0istence1 that is to say1 !rom outsie the realm o!
consciousness
/pril 2)**
an !or the simple reason that there is no !inal
summative interpretation o! the processes o! nature. R;0istenceS is
erive !rom the .atin1 e6istere1 which literally means Rto stan out
againstS. /strophysical or cosmological iscoveries that point o! an
even greater magnitue !or the realm o! that which is1 e.g.1 multiverse1
merely enhances the unerscoring o! the iniviual_s own e0istence as
staning out against.
6he human min is capable o! logical processes o! thoughtV however the
human brain which acts as the material substrate o! this thought oes not
itsel! !unction logically1 but in accorance with quantum physical an
thermoynamic principles.
Hn!ormation is not RtransmitteS !rom one min to another. Aather ata
are transmitte !rom one brain to another an the brain receiving this
ata is tune to resonate with another set o! !requencies within the
quantum energy uncertainty or spectrum o! vacuum energy !luctuation
!requencies peculiar to that particular nervous system. :ata move
through spacetime1 in!ormation arises within a given consciousness.
9nly tial e!!ects o! the vacuum energy1 i.e.1 vacuum energy i!!erences
contribute to gravitation Can inertialD mass an the 7lancK !requency is
the proper vacuum energy cuto!! !requency. 6hat is1 the quantum
vacuum energy ensity can be shown to be !ormally !inite.
?ut woul it really be correct to say that 7tolemy was computing
planetary orbits through use o! epicycles was his utilizing a Kin o!
primitive -ourier analysis? /n what i! -ourier in_t get his ieas !or
analyzing !unctions !rom 7tolemy or !rom anyone who got their ieas
!rom 7tolemy?
Qd
3reativity1 which necessarily involves the rerawing o! concept maps
an the reprocessing o! associations1 there!ore requires a greater egree
o! issociation than is normal or typical !or a well-a5uste member o! a
highly inustrialize mass society. 3ertain amino acis i! taKen in high
concentration cause a spontaneous i! mil issociation in normal
iniviuals1 or a psychotic episoe in the alreay milly schizophrenic.
4uie issociation is a plasticity i!!erent !rom issociation proper.
Qd
7er!ect .orentz invariance CsymmetryD implies that the energy ensity
o! the quantum vacuum Cproportional to the cube o! moe !requency1
c.!.1 ?oyer1 3lassical Iacuum1 "cienti!ic /mericanD is1 in !act1 in!inite.
H! say1 a !requency cuto!! o! the 7lancK energy is invoKe in orer to
maKe this vacuum energy ensity !inite1 .orentz invariance or .orentz
symmetry breaKs own as we approach 7lancK energies1 times1
wavelengths1 etc.
H! a probability is e!ine by Knowlege or in!ormation concerning the
abstract CcloseD system1 i.e.1 the sum o! probabilities/possible states
open to the system combine with a mi0ture o! mutually complementing
in!ormation an ignorance concerning the system_s actual state1
implying that we both Know what we Know an Know what we on_t
Know about the system Cbecause we on_t Know the state o! the system
though we possess a complete Knowlege o! the system itsel!D1 then our
uncertainty concerning the system_s state is epistemological in nature.
6he velocity o! light is the velocity o! time1 that is1 the velocity o!
particles along their spacetime worllines.
248/YcZ
2
= A
universe
= A
u
Fhen 8 = 8
universe
1 YcZ = c
vacuo
. H! energy o! the universe is conserve1
then we e0pect that the velocity o! light Can hence1 i! time itsel!D was
greater in the past with YcZ proportional to */ . H! A
u
is increasing
with time1 then the spee o! light is ecreasing with time. 6he velocity
o! light1 rate o! time is the ratio o! e0ternal to internal banwiths.
R9n 8aterialism as "cience :ogmaS by @eal 4rossman1 :ept. o!
7hilosophy1 ,niv. o! Hllinois at 3hicago
R6o my Knowlege1 no one who has ha an @:; !eels any nee !or an
e0planation in the reuctionist sense that researchers are seeKing1S c.!.1
/lmeer.
6he paraigm o! scienti!ic progress as an ever closer approach to the
thing in itsel! structure by an evolving an ialectically progressing set
o! investigatory methoologies shoul be seen as missing the point when
it comes to RunerstaningS consciousness. -or the thing in itsel! that
one_s own consciousness is has alreay been !ully graspe by its
iniviual possessor. /ny !urther attempt to unerstan the nature o!
one_s own consciousness as such woul serve only to obscure or con!use
this alreay certain grasp by the iniviual o! the true nature o! his or
her consciousness.
Qd
3onsciousness is the essential !aculty by which
the transcenent comes to Knowlege o! the other.
Qd
6he iscovery o! the e0istence o! beings unarguably superior to
humanKin woul remove !rom the conscience o! many the hubris that
subconsciously prevents acceptance o! or even consiering the
possibility o! the reality o! a supreme or transcenent being.
"uch beings woul possess Knowlege an an unerstaning o! reality1
which woul cause us to realize a number o! important limitations o! our
own Knowlege an unerstaning. Ht woul become clear to us that
manKin is to be place within the conte0t o! a Rweb o! being1S one o!
multiple imensions rather than our being place within a single1
hierarchical chain1 as originally conceive by meieval 3hristian
mystics or1 at the very pinnacle o! this chain as presume by most right-
thinKing atheists. -or the superior an perhaps1 as well1 in part
incommensurable mental an perceptual capacities o! these beings
woul be e0pecte to a!!or them greater avantages an opportunities
than humanKin presently possesses o! etecting an eveloping
relationships with beings still more an similarly superior to them as
they stan in relation to us. 6he Knowlege o! these beings woul
subsume our most e0act scienti!ic Knowlege as a cruely uni!ie
collection o! elementary special cases Cphysics an chemistryD an
reveal our less scienti!ically rigorous theories to be merely curious an
quaint e0pressions o! R!olK wisom1S e.g.1 evolutionary biology1
anthropology1 neuropsychiatry1 etc. 6hese beings woul recognize such
superiority o! their Knowlege to ours 5ust as they woul surely
recognize the in!eriority o! their Knowlege in relation to that o! beings
superior to them with which they have intercourse.
=awKing state a mathematical relationship between blacK hole mass
an its time to RevaporateS as =awKing raiation. H! the blacK hole
in!ormation parao0 is inee soluble1 then presumably1 initially 5ust
a!ter !ormation o! the blacK hole_s event horizon1 all o! the in!ormation
that we at !irst suppose swallowe up by the hole is in !act occupying
its event horizon in the !orm o! vacuum !luctuations on the sur!ace
e!ine by this horizon. /s the mass o! the blacK hole is raiate away1
seemingly as thermal raiation compose o! entirely uncorrelate moes
o! electromagnetic raiation o! wavelength
7lancK
through
"chwarzchil
1 its
sur!ace area1 which is proportional to the blacK hole entropy an also to
the square root o! the blacK hole_s mass1 shrinKs.
6his suggests that there is a irect relationship between the inertial mass
an in!ormation content o! the blacK hole such that the sum total o!
vacuum !luctuations on the sur!ace or event horizon o! the blacK hole
possesses a mass ientical to that o! the blacK hole or the original $
con!iguration o! particles an !iels which originally collapse to !orm
it.
9ctober 2)**
Ht is as though the communication o! matter an !iel shi!ts
!rom taKing place across a $-hyperspherical bounary Ci.e.1 timeli'eD to
taKing place across the bounary pose by the sur!ace o! a 2-sphere
Cspaceli'eD. "ince all timeliKe interactions occur across a $-hypersur!ace
in the !orm o! energy !luctuations Cimaginary (-momentum
!luctuationsD1 while all spaceliKe interactions occur across a 2-sur!ace in
the !orm o! $-momentum !luctuations1 an a continuity equation Can
hence a conservation principleD governs the relative proportions o! these
two type o! !luctuations1 it !ollows that a complete occupation o! all
available !ermionic states within a $-imensional bulK volume means
that all transitions o! energy are pushe to the outer sur!ace o! the bulK1
where raial $-momentum transitions are now supporte e0clusively in
terms o! two egrees o! !reeom o! angular $-momentum transitions.
-eynman says that only purely abstract theories o! nature_s behavior are
con!irme by e0perimentV theories which are base upon some
visualizable or mechanical moel Clocality metaphysically assumeD
always eventually !ail when their preictions are compare with the
results o! e0periment.
;0communication by scienti!ic orthoo0y is to be e0pecte by anyone
who eparts !rom the metaphysical presumption o! materialism.
R6he !irst recore @:; is escribe at the en o! ?ooK *) o! 7lato_s
Aepublic.S
6ranscenent belie!s by e!inition pertain to a reality beyon space an
time an so are beyon empirical test.
3ertainty = thinKing within the paraigm o! one_s peers
,ncertainty = thinKing outsie o! any paraigm
4eel_s Hncompleteness 6heorem1 which asserts the !act o! 6ruth_s being
a stronger notion than 7rovability1 may have something signi!icant to say
about the e0istence o! such irrational entities as RpiS1 R S1 ReS1 etc.
6his is ue to the !act that these mathematical entities can be constructe
through a proceure but cannot presently Can it may turn out to be
theoretically impossible to beD e0presse in a close-!orm analysis.
:oes this suggest that the set o! analytically e0pressible mathematical
entities is a subset o! the set o! mathematical logical proceures? ?ut i!
this is true1 then a possible sel!-consistent interpretation o! this !act is
5ust the converse o! this most general implication o! 4eel_s theorem:
constructibility is a stronger notion than mathematical e0istence. 6his is
parao0ical provie that RconstructibilityS is ienti!ie with
RprovabilityS an Rmathematical e0istenceS ienti!ie with RtruthS. :o
irrational entities liKe the above not really Re0istS at all1 nor subsist in
some mathematical 7latonic realm/ iealm1 but are merely implie by
in!inite mathematical proceures?
?acK-!ormation o! !orms an incompleteness o! abstract structures is
relate to the notion o! the ialectical nature o! evolution. 6he
preiction o! new !unamental particles by subatomic physical theories
is an e0ample o! this bacK-!ormation or bacK!illing o! empirically empty
theoretical categories. 6his points up the e!!ective relateness o! truth
by corresponence with truth by coherence an the interactive nature o!
scienti!ic inquiry.
:ie :iagonal "chaltung ist ein rein mathematisches program. FirKlich?
6he mysteriousness o! irrational numbers is compoune when one
consiers that
Qd
the prouct o! some irrational numbers is itsel! rational1
the prouct o! others1 irrational. 6his seems vaguely similar to the
istinction o! positive an negative numbers1 even an o numbers1
real an imaginary numbers1 etc. 6he irrational numbers o not
constitute a mathematical group1 though the set o! irrational numbers
may contain any number o! subsets1 which are mathematical groups.
6he mysteriousness o! the prouct o! two irrational numbers being equal
to a rational whole number may turn out to be an arti!iciality borne o! an
illusion o! mathematical abstraction as overreaching e0trapolation.
6here must be an intimate relationship between wave!unction
normalizability an the structuring o! time scales. "caling o! time in
quantum an thermoynamic processes is also importantly connecte
with quantum nonlocal RmechanismsS o! temporal integration. 6he
weighting o! component eigen!unctions o! a given Cr1tD is governe by
quantum correlations o! the eigen!unctions1 or at least Cor equivalentlyD
governe by correlation o! !luctuations in the Ce0pectations values o!D
the corresponing observables. 6he normalization an e0pectation
value behavior o! a wave!unction are closely an importantly relate.
Qd
Hn!ormation oes not arise !rom reversible processes because in such
processes no entropy is generate.
9ne !unamental problem with either the !ormulation or interpretation
o! the 2
n
.aw o! 6hermoynamics is that this law only applies to close
systems on the one han1 though the same systems must be couple on
the other1 with a heat bath. ?ecause this heat bath is unerstoo to be
essentially a blacKboy1 it is suppose that no in!ormation is e0change
between the heat bath an the thermoynamic system to which it is
couple. ?ut this is base on be!orehan state assumption that the
heat capacity o! the heat bath is e!!ectively in!inite so that this heat bath
oes not e0perience a change in its temperature though couple to
boies or systems o! i!!erent temperatures.
/pril 2)**
6he in!inite
in!ormation processing conte0t provie by the in!inite heat bath belies
this notion o! ma0imal entropy/minimal in!ormation content o! the heat
bath as thermoynamic blacK boy.
Hnitial conitions cannot etermine the ynamical laws constraine by
these initial conitions1 c.!.1 !orcing !unction vs. bounary conitions o!
a partial i!!erential equation.
6o possess truth1 both complementary o! truth must be satis!ie1 i.e.1
those o! corresponence an coherence. 9ne caniate !eature or
property o! any min possessing truth is that it1 or some subset o! its
contents1 be a holographic e0pression o! the whole. 3orresponence o!
sub5ective contents with ob5ective reality presumably is only possible i!
these mental contents are coherent enough in the right manner so that
these contents may resonate with the whole o! which these contents are
to be a holographic e0pression.
Qd
6he in!ormation content o! a given course o! action1 choice or ecision
is relate to the natural logarithm o! the number o! istinct1 genuinely
possible alternatives were available to a person prior to his choice being
mae. 6he choice oesn_t have to be ranom1 5ust nonlocally
etermine.
6hermal !luctuations Cieally o! ) in!ormation contentD an energy
uncertainty are responsible !or1 respectively locally an nonlocally
etermine ranom changes to molecules such as :@/. 6he thermal
energy rives the !iltering o! in!ormation base on the stability o! the
subsistence o! this in!ormation in its material meium.
3onte0t an continuity Ctemporal contentD must accompany the haning
own o! in!ormation !rom one system to another.
Qd
Hn!ormation cannot
be transmitte without being continuously reconte0tualize.
6hat we on_t Know what we on_t Know implies that we on_t Know
what we Know1 that is1 when wrong1 we on_t Know how wrong1 an
when right1 we Know not how right.
/ person without !ree will bears no moral responsibility !or antisocial
acts1 but at the same time neither oes he eserve any more
consieration then a e!ective appliance such as a servo-mechanism1
robot or computer. /n so punishment is 5ust reprogramming1
e0ecution1 isposing o! a !atally e!ective manu!acturing prouct Co!
unsKille labor so goes the ol 5oKeD. "o a person lacKing !ree will
possesses no culpability1 but nor oes he possess any moral claims1 such
as that o! consieration o! the intrinsic importance o! his e0istence to
himsel! or to some higher moral orer.
@othing outsie the system is available with which to collapse the
system_s wave!unction in the case o! a close system. @ow i! the mere
!act o! the quantum system being embee within the quantum vacuum
can rener processes within the system irreversible1 then presumably a
quantum mechanical system that is otherwise unisturbe say1 by a
measurement per!orme on the system1 may e0perience a collapse o! its
wave!unction spontaneously1 c.!.1 the phenomenon o! spontaneous
emission.
R?ecause the process o! motion is escribe in terms o! inter!erence o!
wave !unctions belonging to i!!erent energies1 we conclue that
changing probabilities will e0ist only when there is a range o! energies
present or1 in other wors1 when the energy is mae somewhat
ine!inite1S c.!.1 Puantum 6heory. RHn this way1 the uncertainty
principle between energy an time is automatically containe in the
theory.S R/ similar result was obtaine in 3hap. $1 "ecs. ( an *$1
where it was shown that the motion o! wave pacKets is cause by the
change o! position o! constructive an estructive inter!erence o! waves
o! i!!erent K1 brought about by the changing phase relations introuce
by the time-epenent phase !actor e0pC-ihK
*
t/2mD.S R6hus1 the
=amiltonian operator may be sai to contain the causal laws1 inso!ar as
they have meaning.S
R6he spee o! transmission o! a signal through a ielectric is given by
the group velocity1 as is also the spee o! transport o! energy.S 9nly i! !
is proportional to K is the group velocity proportional to the phase
velocity1S c.!.1 Puantum 6heory1 p. &'.
6he spee o! a 4aussian wavepacKet representing a physical particle is
given by the group velocity Cc/cKD = v
g
1 c.!.1 Puantum 6heory1 p. &(.
@ow recall that
; = h! an p = hK so the above equation !or
the group velocity o! a 4aussian wavepacKet may be alternately
e0presse as
v
g
= Cc;/cpD
an since changes in energy epen upon the availability o! /a; an
changes in momentum upon availability o! /ap1 it perhaps !ollows that
v
g
= C/ac;//apD
Qd
6he 4aussian wave!unction Ris the most general !unction !or which
the equal sign hols in the uncertainty principle1S c.!.1 Puantum 6heory1
p. 2)%.
Hnvestigate 6homas 7recession.
8arch 2)*2
RHt is shown that ue to 6homas
precession1 angular momentum is not generally a constant o! themotion
in a quasiclassical moel o! the 7ositronium atom consisting o! circular-
orbiting point chargeswith intrinsic spin an associate magnetic
moment. :espite absence o! e0ternally-applie torque1angular
momentum is a constant o! the motion only i! the electron an positron
intrinsic angularmomentum vector components perpenicular to the
orbital angular momentum are antiparallel an o! equal magnitue.S
6he average !luctuation is the square o! the quantum uncertainty.
7CaD7CbD Y 7Ca1bD positively correlate
7CaD7CbD Z 7Ca1bD negatively correlate
Fhat i! 7Cn
*
1n
2
1n
$
1 . . . 1 n
K
D = *?
6hen it is not possible !or 7Cn
*
D7Cn
2
D7Cn
$
D . . . 7Cn
K
D Z 7Cn
*
1n
2
1 n
$
1 . . . n
K
D?
6he sum o! the !luctuations an the correlations e0isting between these
!luctuations etermines the probability !unction o! the system.
6he area o! the phase ellipse is roughly /ap
0
/a0 b h/2 or roughly /a;/at b
h/2 an is conserve1 c.!.1 .iouville_s 6heorem.
Iectorial nature o! C/ap
0
1 /ap
y
1 /ap
y
1 /a;D within general relativity1 i.e.1
curve spacetime escribable alternatively in terms o! e!!ects upon
C/a01 /ay1 /az1 /atD through correlations Cbose-einstein statisticsD an anti-
correlations C!ermi-irac statisticsD o!1 respectively1 bosons an !ermions.
Qd
3an conservation o! probability tell us something about the manner in
which !luctuations might be conserve? H! the correlations in the
!luctuations in p
0
1 p
y
1 p
z
1 ;D are )1 then oes this mean that tp
0
tp
y
tp
z
t;
!orm with one another a conserve (-vector?
/n i! correlations in t7
u
e0ist1 then can we have t6
uv
conserve
instea?
3.!.1 -ourier "eries an 9rthogonal -unctions1 section $.**1 R7ractical
AemarKsS: Rone commonly quote theorem1 calle the localization
theorem1 states that the behavior o! a -ourier series at a point epens
only on the behavior o! the !unction in a neighborhoo o! the point.S RHn
numerical worK1 the rate at which a series converges is an important
aspect o! its behavior1 an the rapiity with which a -ourier series
converges at a point oes not epen on the behavior o! the !unction in a
small neighborhoo.S RHn general1 the smoother a !unction is1 the more
rapily its -ourier components ten to zero.S
"etting asie !or the moment an Ravance waveS interpretation o! the
-ourier analysis o! a time !unction1 in which the contingent low
!requency behavior in the !uture is not inclue in the analysis1 let us
suppose that the shape o! each -ourier component is symmetrical about
the time t=t
)
. / change in the system over time intervals o! /at or shorter
is not thought to necessitate a revision in the past behavior o! the -ourier
components o! our analysis o! a given time !unction o! a physically
observable variable.
Qd
6here seems to be an intimate relationship
between the magnitue o! the time uncertainty an the rapiity o!
convergence o! a -ourier e0pansion o! a Rphysical time !unctionS which
must always be great enough in orer that imper!ect convergence o! the
series within /at is not observable. /ctually1 this may inee be thought
to be the essence o! the e!inition o! aequate convergence o! -ourier
series e0pansions o! physical time !unctions.
Puant-ph/)*)$)*21 p.2
c.!.1 9utline o! an /narchistic 6heory o! Onowlege1 p. *1R"cience is an
essentially anarchistic enterprise: theoretical anarchism is more
humanitarian an more liKely to encourage progress than its law-an-
orer alternatives1S but the thorough-going nature o! an institutional
paraigm gives a brittleness to the ei!ice o! the paraigm_s systematic
application which reveals inconsistencies not notice in an environment
o! a more !ree-wheeling scienti!ic methoology. 3.!.1 p.(1 R4iven
science1 reason cannot be universal an unreason cannot be e0clue.S
Aelate to the iea that true temporality emans ineterminate
change/energy uncertainty with /a; containing all those changes within
the system Cwithin time interval1 /atD constitute by non-eterministic or
acausal changes in the system_s state1 i.e.1 introuce !rom RoutsieS the
system.
3.!.1 page &1 Ran they speaK against the universal valiity o! any rule.
/ll methoologies have their limitations an the only RruleS that
survives is fanything goes_.S 6here is no way to per!ectly separate noise
!rom signalV noise may be thought o! as a summation o! signals an
signals as a superposition o! noises Can vice versaD. 6his remins us o!
?ohm_s statement in Puantum 6heory that all causal relationships may
be ecompose as correlations between !luctuations1 which is perhaps a
clearer assertion of the epenence of Buantum propagators upon
<eisenberg uncertainties in the Buantum con$ugate variables
representing conserve Buantities. 6he =eisenberg uncertainties
etermine the1 phase1 particle number1 time an space istributions o!
quantum systems over the con5ugate coorinates to these conserve
quantities within phase space. /ll restrictions ue to aherence to a rule
carry with them limitations in valiity o! application. 3onservation o!
phase space as a phenomenological rule emerges !rom an analysis o! the
generalize quantum propagator. R?y assuming that the moe !iel
amplitue an its time erivative are operators with commutation rules
similar to those of position an momentum1 [italics mine\ the moe also
acquires an evenly space set o! energy levelsS1 c.!.1 R6he 9rigins o!
Puantum @oise in 7hotonicsS CH;;; :ecember *22%D
?ut restrictions are necessary !or human science to !acilitate calculation
by the le!t hemisphere an !acilitate recognition by the right hemisphere
o! ata that o not !it within the omain e!ine by a set o! rules.
Qd
Hn :er "terbenen "onne1 a!ter the "tarust HH maKes a *&)) light year
hyperspace transition1 the narrator o! the story comments that it woul
be *&)) years be!ore the crew woul see the !laring up o! the pre-nova
Iega. 6his is consistent with an earlier statement o! the narrator that the
"tarust_s =yperspring was e!!ecte without any passage o! time. 9!
course1 a power!ul enough telescope statione within the Iega system
woul see the "tarust appear *&)) light-years away only a moment
a!ter maKing its hyperspace transmission. "o how oes the "tarust
return? :oes is maKe another hyperspring in zero time? H! it oes so1
then it ens up in the Iega system $2)) years be!ore it originally le!t it.
6his is clearly contrary to causal consistency an coul easily lea to a
causal parao0. "o to return not only to its own spatial position but also
to its own time1 the "tarust must . . .
9! course1 talKing about an unglimpse universe 5ust one millimeter
away !rom ours i!! in some spacetime orthogonal irection is within
quantum mechanics 5ust the same as saying that there_s another such
universe 5ust out o! phase Co!! resonanceD !rom our universe1 e0cept here
we speaK o! energy instea o! the spacetime orthogonal imension.
6his might be consiere to be liKe supposing that there_s another
universe moving slightly slower than ours up the time a0is Co! a i!!erent
resonance peaK Cpotential troughD than our universeD. 7erhaps a .orentz
L boost coul bring a space traveler into resonance Ccouple himD to
another vacuum or another energy level o! the universal Cor multiversalD
!alse vacuum state1 c.!.1 seminal worKs on quantize cosmological
reshi!t.
,m sie amit ie ;re noch och enteKt. ,m sie ie ;re amit noch
och enteKt.
Fe on_t have to give up any o! the !ascinating counterintuitive e!!ects
o! special an general relativity 5ust because we amit a pre!erre
inertial !rame.
3ulture is an epigenetic phenomenon !rom the stanpoint o! behavioral
genetics. 8an acquires !reeom by removing the obstacles to the
!ul!illment o! his instinctive wishes that were not o! his own choosing.
=owever1 the intrinsic !reeom lies with the unlimite possibilities !or
the elaboration o! the e0pression o! these instinctive esires L as these
esires are by their nature ineterminate in !orm inherite as they are
!rom the very simplest multicellular creatures1 while the neocorte0 is
possesse o! such a ensely complicate networK o! nervous
connections not merely between its !unctional components but between
these an the quantum !iels in which all matter is embee at the
molecular level an below.
epi=
7erturbation theory is the epigenetics o!
subatomic particle behavior while epigenetics is the perturbation theory
of gene e6pression.
Oant was perhaps more correct than even he himsel! realize when he
asserte that time an space are but the most general CconceivableD
!orms o! human intuition.
6he only non-parochial perspective is that en5oye by the 3reator.
"e0ual selection may be in!orme by a eep connection between genetic
compatibility Cin terms o! !itness o! o!!spring as protein e0pressions o!
the genomeD vis a vis genome chemical1 i.e.1 quantum mechanical
stability.
8an is in the image o! 4o only by subset implication L all conscious
beings the cosmos over are in the image o! 4o in relation to
consciousness as such.
3elebrity is e0plicable in terms o! a sociocultural critique o! the
metaphysics o! presence.
Ht is !rom within the conte0t o! culture an traition that the instinctive
components operating within culture an sublimate as culture are
recognize an the mani!estations o! the e!!ects o! these instinctive
components are critique.
Hs eceleration enothermic or e0othermic? Fhatever vacuum process
is responsible !or relativistic mass increase may perhaps be manipulate
to convert energy into mass at subrelativistic velocities1 c.!.1 7erry
Ahoan X*21 part $ C('-'' secD1 R/nrucKabsorbersS 6hough not a $-
momentum conserving operation1 it oes conserve (-momentum.
R6haumaturgy what oes this term mean? `
Fhat happens to the 2
n
.aw o! 6hermoynamics1 i.e.1 the universal law
o! entropy increaseV all blacKboy raiation retains an imprint o!
quantum correlations Cue to the !act o! continual interaction o! all
quantum systems with the matri0 o! !luctuations Co! quantum vacuumD
in which they are embeeD? 6he ineraicable an constant presence
o! these quantum !luctuations results in the general inapplicability o! the
2
n
.aw to quantum systems. Ht is in the nature o! quantum systems to
e0hibit subatomic !eatures an relationships on macroscopic scales. Ht
is o! the intene esign o! the science o! thermal physics to eal with
C*D close systems an C2D systems in which the in!luence o! iniviual
!luctuations can be ignore at the macroscopic level because o! the
presume absence o! nonlocal correlations e0isting among microscopic
!luctuations.
3reativity is the impression o! terms upon the ineterminism o! the
immanent !rom outsie what is alreay eterminate within it. "imilar
remarKs seem to apply to the emergence o! moral an ethical
conceptions. ?oth phenomena transcen a group theoretic accounting.
6he egeneracy that enables the stability o! evolve structures is a
graciously hereto!ore-e0tant in!rastructure. / structure is
precarious/unstable to the same egree as mere contingency rather than
logic is responsible !or this structure. 4race seems unnecessary when
one believes that the components o! matter are ini!!erent to the passage
o! time.
6he networK o! intrinsic relationships has to be isrupte in orer !or the
logical structure o! this networK to be e0hibite. Fhatever vagueness
or ambiguity might be neee in orer to give coherence to the
association networK is utilize by the psyche. Fithin such a networK o!
associations the sel! is o! course place at the center1 iscon!irming
evience with respect to pre5uices an longstaning assumptions is
suppresse !rom consciousness. 6his is part o! the reason why the
unconscious is so irrational L it is the unersie o! the tapestry1 as it
were1 where all o! the breaKs in logic in the !orm o! loose angling
threas are to be !oun along with all that the conscious psyche has
swept uner it which it ha !oun isagreeable an unpleasant.
;very parochial mine person1 whom we here in the "outh term
RrenecKS !ancies himsel! e0traorinarily intelligent espite his relative
lacK o! !ormal eucation Ci.e.1 RbooK learnin_SD.
?ut o! course it is only the eucational e0perience which can bring one
into Knowing contact with those o! visibly superior Knowlege an
intelligence.
9ne must !ace up to one o! two possible alternatives: either the
potentialities are preprogramme permutation an combination o! initial
an bounary conitions or genuine creativity unerlies the evolutionary
process.
6o amit evolutionary theory while maintaining that humanity is the
only intelligent li!e in the universe seems to imply that chance is by !ar
the ominant actor in the evolutionary process. 3hance e0plains the
timing o! the enabling o! bounary conitions to the creative process o!
evolution but not the ynamic itsel! o! the evolutionary process.
3onsciousness when !ragmente is intrinsically irrational an possesses
!ormal !eatures not share by any other iniviual consciousness L the
same hols true between istinct iniviual consciousnesses.
;
tot
= Cc/.
h
1 c/A
s
Dn@CDh[*/Ce
h/K6
- *D + {\
;
tot
= Cc/.
h
1 c/A
s
Dn@CDh[2+ */Ce
h/K6
- *D -*\/[2Ce
h/K6
- *D\
;
tot
= Cc/.
h
1 c/A
s
Dn@CDh/2 [C*+ e
h/K6
D\/[Ce
h/K6
- *D\
;
tot
= Cc/.
h
1 c/A
s
Dn@CDh/2 [Ce
h/K6
+ *D\/[Ce
h/K6
- *D\
@CD = A
s
2

2
/c
2
;
tot
= Cc/.
h
1 c/A
s
DnCA
s
2

2
/c
2
Dh/2 [Ce
h/K6
+ *D\/[Ce
h/K6
- *D\
3oul the 7auli e0clusion principle account !or the relationship o! blacK
hole mass an raius1 i.e.1 ensity?
-or e0ample1 a blacK hole o! mass 28 possesses a ensity 5ust | that o!
a blacK hole o! mass 8.
6he relativistic e!!ects on length1 mass an time are presume by many
classical relativists to be Re0plicableS in terms o! Kinematics or even via
an a0iomatic !ormulation o! relativity. ?ut clearly the origin o! these
e!!ects is ynamical in nature1 /ap is the spatial translator an /a; is the
temporal translator. 6he properties o! position an time are much more
comple0 an speci!ic to particular classes o! particles an !iels.
?ecause consciousness as a meium o! thought is not per!ectly
translucent an passive an so the presumable uniqueness o! the
iniviual consciousness requires that certain thoughts an perceptions
may most easily be entertaine within a particular iniviual
consciousness.
7erhaps the relationships o! =awKing raiation-temperature to
gravitational intensity-entropy to sur!ace area bear an important relation
to the mystery o! blacK hole ensity within quantum gravity theory as
well as upon the puzzle o! the relationship o! 7lancK to cosmological
vacuum energy ensity.
@ote that the prouct o! blacK hole sur!ace area an ensity is
conserve1 i.e.1 a constant. ?ut what e0actly is this quantity?
:oubling the hole raius results in a halving o! the hole_s entropy
ensity or conversely a oubling o! the hole_s in!ormation ensity.
6hus the mass o! a blacK hole is proportional to the hole_s in!ormation
ensity.
6hus the mass o! a blacK hole is proportional to the hole_s in!ormation
ensity.
H! banwith is supplie to matter through nonlocal connection networK
o! 7lancK hypercylinrical conuits C!or e0change o! in!ormation with
the cosmic 37,D1 the proportionality o! inertia to in!ormation ensity is
reasonable. 6his is one reason !or associating the mass o! a blacK hole
with the energy !luctuations on the hole_s event horizon.
H! consciousness coul be uplicate1 then there woul be no basis !or
the istinction o! iniviual persons.
6he origin o! mathematical notions not corresponing to anything in
nature is nonetheless that to which they correspon.
"um[*/2 hK\ + "um[*/2h!\ bosons + !ermions

n
*
/
2
h!
n
/
m
*
/
2
hK
m
= c1 provie that the numbers RnS an RmS are o!
appropriate relative value C given the geometry o! the virtual particle
meiumD
;
2
= p
2
c
2
+ m
2
c
(

8 = ;
2
/c
(
L p
2
/c
2
\ =
*
/
c
;
2
/c
2
L p
2
6ime ilation !raction is 48/Ac
2
8ass is proportional to the time ilation gamma !actor Ct !actorD an */t
to the value o! RcS.
?ecause the velocity o! light is !ounational to the e!inition o! space
time1 it perhaps !ollows that gravity_s e!!ect upon space time might be
wholly e0plicable in terms o! a mechanism1 e0plaining how real matter
an energy cause the velocity o! light to vary.
H! the velocity o! light is viewe as a mere e0pectation value1 then over
the tiniest scales o! istance an time1 this velocity must actually be
etermine by the relative magnitues o! the !luctuations within the
vacuum o! physical quantities o! a still more !unamental nature1
6he e0pectation values o! momentum an energyV Y7Z an Y;Z1 are
etermine in the !ollowing way:
Y7Z = Y7
2
Z -
2
p\
Y;Z = Y;
2
Z -
2
;\
H! we interpret the !luctuations o! 7 an ; in the vacuum as linKe
together C5ust as space an time are linKe to prouce spacetimeD an
that !luctuations in their con5ugate parameters1 isplacement an time1
then perhaps we can interpret 7 as the uncertainty in R7S ue to
!luctuations in R;S an ; as the uncertainty o! R;S ue to !luctuations
in R7.S
3onstant = C";D
2
+ C"7D
2
c
2
= O
;
2
= C"pD
2
c
2
p
2
= C";D
2
3
2
6his all maKes more sense i! we thinK o! matter as unstable pattern o!
energy1 momentum an o! their linKage1 i.e. momentum-energy tensor
!luctuations.
"o that any observable changes in matter_s state may be more properly
unerstoo as changes in the state o! these !luctuations an in the mutual
interaction o! these !luctuations.
Is = ?/e \ ? = bulK moulus
; = ensity
= pc
2
/; \ p = ; !or !ree space
; = c70 ; = CpcD
m photon
;
2
= p
2
c
2
+m
2
c
(
/ ball whirling on a string when release moves o! with a momentum
irecte at a tangent to its !ormer orbit an perpenicular to the
rotational a0is o! this orbit. "o using this simple moel !or the
conversion o! angles into linear momentum1 we might suppose that an
angular momentum that coul be translate into linear momentum
irecte along any a0is within $-imensional space Co! a certain inertial
!rameD must itsel! be irecte along an a0is [orthogonal to 01 y1 z within
this certain inertial !rame\.
6he 0-y-plane to which is orthogonal must in reality be the 0-y-ict
hyper-sur!ace with
C*D
merely compose o! the 0-y component o!
C2D
.
"imilar arguments woul apply to an .
Qd
C=ow oes this relate to
the !act that the !ermion must be rotate %2) to bring the w bacK to its "
original quantum state?D
/ merely casual survey o! the physics theory websites reveals that there
is no limit to the number o! analog moels people have selecte as a
basis !or Re0plainingS gravitational phenomena. 6he unerstaning o!
each amateur theorist is bewitche by his or her particular chosen
analog. Fhat is interesting is observing the lengths to which these
amateur theorists will go to resolve the contraictions that result !rom a
too encompassing application o! the pet theory.
"tructure is e0tracte !rom out o! the egeneracy o! concepts that have
alreay proven themselves as consistent moels o! some o! the !eatures
o! the problem. 6his e0tracte structure is applie to the consistent
escription o! a boy_s subtler !eatures. 6he presume limits o! this
theory_s re!erence is itsel! a theoretical assumption. /s well1 the
e0plication o! !eatures o!1 !or e0ample Rthe physicsS occurring outsie
the assume omain o! a theory_s re!erence the very notion o! RoutsieS
vs. RinsieS a theoretical omain o! re!erence must also involve a
theoretical or metamathematical assumption.
6his process is e0actly analogous to that o! the e!ining o! subgroups Cas
group-theoretic entitiesD an supergroups with respect to some assume
or alreay well-establishe group.
6he Runreasonable e!!ectivenessS o! mathematics within the physical
sciences stems !rom the contingent !act that a group theoretic structure
not ever a!ter be iscare1 only elaborate Cinterior processes
e0plicateD or incorporate Crelate to e0terior processesD.
6he spin-base quantum vacuum mechanism o! gravity propose here
may only be consistent with the equivalence principle provie that the
two !unamental quantum statistical relationships1 !ermi-irac an bose-
einstein statistics1 operate without istinguishing real !rom virtual
particles an in tanem with each other so as to en!orce1 i! you will1 all
vali physical conservation laws1 e.g.1 momentum1 angular momentum1
isospin1 charge1 etc.
:iagram spacetime with null cone a0is.
$&) egree rotation o! !ermion proceures sign change to 7si. /nother
$&) egrees rotation brings another sign change1 returning 7si to its
original state.
*N) egree rotation in a pro5ective space may correspon to a $&)
egree rotation in a higher space1 e.g.1 rotation o! an a0ial vector within
a plane that itsel! rotates at the same rate orthogonally to the plane o!
a0ial vector rotation.
@otice that in this type o! Rpro5ective rotationS the tip o! the a0ial vector
has trace a { o! a right circular cone within an octant boune by the
0-y1 y-z1 z-0 planes.
7ermutations o! composite rotations must be e0amine to enhance
intuition about how to treat this problem within 8inKowsKi spacetime.
Aiemann "phere pro5ecte onto a plane gives the right result in 2-
space.
Aotation in angular momentum space spin * rotates liKe angular
momentum o! * 7lancK unit.
"pace quantization is another name !or conserve angular momentum in
quantum mechanics.
"o rotating the atom by only one quantize unit o! phase Cor angular
isplacementD changes the orientation o! the atom by only { 7lancK
units o! angular momentum.
9ur ual nature o! spiritual/creaturely woul become reaily apparent i!
every one_s thoughts were ever available to everyone else.
/ man !eels helpless to properly wire up his stereo system an
esperately seeKs help o! someone he thinKs more competent to solve his
technical problem. 6he very same man i! turne to by an equally
esperate souning !rien !or help with his stereo system1 their suenly
the *
st
man !eel_s enthusiasm in tacKling the !rien_s ientical problem.
6his e0ample points up an inborn1 evolutionarily base psychosocial
ynamic that has been programme over perhaps millions o! years into
the human psyche.
3reation an annihilation o! real !ermions may be unerstoo a!ter
:irac_s !ashion as oscillation o! the !ermion above an below the
vacuum_s groun state C!ermi level?D. 6his is a i!!erence in energy o!
2mc
2
an a i!!erence in angular momentum o! h or spin *.
@\ moes o! oscillation !or the event horizon. =ypothesis: the mass
o! a blacK hole is 5ust the sum o! the */@\ 0
plancK
thermal !luctuations
on the blacK hole_s event horizon.
/a; = ;/@
moe
\ !or blacK hole boy raiation
/a;
2
0 Nvv/c
$
0 vol. = ;
2
Hncorrectly emonstrating a tautology is what 7auli woul have calle
Rnot even wrong.S
7lancK cells !illing event horizon as measure o! ma0imum entropy1 c.!.1
>acob ?ecKenstein. =awKing raiation possesses analysis same as that
o! thermal raiation in a bo01 c.!.1 ?ecKenstein.
?lacK hole remnant as solution to in!ormation loss parao0.
Aemnant is always o! the !orm o! a ma0imally entropic matri0 o! plancK
cells covering event horizon. Hn!ormation content is coe into
!luctuation correlational structure o! plancK !luctuations on this event
horizon. =olographic principle may be at worK here.
/s a blacK hole emits =awKing raiation1 the hole_s sur!ace area an
hence entropy shrinKs. 6he blacK hole in!ormation parao0 !rom the
other sie1 i! you will1 is the !low o! in!ormation out o! an evaporating
blacK hole via emission o! a precisely thermal or blacK boy spectrum o!
=awKing raiation. 6he remnant in the !orm o! the event horizon
correlates !luctuation matri0 contains this in!ormation. 6he blacK hole_s
enormous entropy easily masKs the correlations o! the photons hien
within an otherwise thermal raiation spectrum emitte !rom the
evaporating blacK hole.
,niverse tunneling through a hyperspherical potential woul e0plain the
quantize =ubble istance-velocity relationship.
:ensity o! "tates e!!ectiveness1 c.!.1 6hermal 7hysics1 p. $&)
4ibbs -ree ;nergy is the sum o! the component o! internal energy
available to o worK + the energy oing worK now1 i.e.1 nonentropic
energy.
K = p V ! ;
/ap/a0 m CspaceliKeDV /a;/at m CtimeliKeD
;ach blacK hole mass correspons to its own energy ensity. =ence1 the
ensity o! thermal quantum !luctuations at the event horizon o! a blacK
hole o! a certain mass is uniquely etermine. ;ach blacK hole mass has
a unique entropy an temperature. 6he integral o! all moes o! thermal
!luctuation1 say !rom wavelength bAs to K

must a up to the blacK hole

mass.
Iarious -ourier sums over subsets o! the weighte harmonics running
!rom As to K

yiel the in!ormation !or e0plicit structure crushe out o!

e0plicit e0istence by the blacK hole_s collapse. 6he weightings o! the
!requency components o! these -ourier sums are coe in the phase
correlations o! the perspective !requencies constituting these -ourier
sums.
7lancK cell matri0 covering the blacK hole event horizon ma0imizes the
entropy o! the hole. 3orrelations between the cuto!! !requency moes
C7lancK moesD permit builing o! spectrum o! subharmonics. 6he
proper weighting o! each subharmonic C-ourier !requency component
weightingD with a particular subharmonic spectrum corresponing to
some ob5ective !eatures o! the pre-collapse system is automatically
implicit in the quantum correlations o! the cuto!! moes.
6he nonlocal1 global quantum vacuum-embee quantum correlations
o! an ob5ect_s harware realization are necessary !or its networK
realization.
H iscovere papers at 000.lanl.gov that hypothesize storing o! blacK
hole in!ormation in quantum correlations o! !iels interacting with the
blacK hole event horizon.
Hntersub5ective b networK/online
"ub5ective b o!!line/stan alone system
Fhile reaing a paper treating a propose solution o! the blacK hole
in!ormation parao01 H was strucK with still more o! what H believe is
nacve an misguie in glib iscussions that are nowaays more
!requent than ever concerning ata1 in!ormation1 in!ormation processing1
transmission an storage1 i.e.1 Rmemory.S
H! banwith is supplie to matter through a nonlocally connecte
networK o! 7lancK hypercylinrical conuits C!or e0change o!
in!ormation with the cosmic 37,D1 the proportionality o! inertia to
in!ormation ensity is reasonable.
H! consciousness coul be uplicate then there woul be no basis !or the
istinction o! iniviual persons.
6he origin o! mathematical notions not corresponing to anything in
nature is nonetheless that to which they correspon.
*/2 hK CbosonsD + */2 h! C!ermion pairsD
[*/2 hK\/[*/2 h!\ = c - provie that the numbers o! bosons an
!ermion pairs are o! the appropriate relative value Cgiven the geometry o!
the virtual particle meiumD
6ime ilation !raction b 48/A3
2
8ass is proportional to the time ilation gamma !actor an inversely
proportional to the value o! RcS.
?ecause the velocity o! light is !ounational to the e!inition o!
spacetime1 it perhaps !ollows that gravity_s e!!ect upon spacetime might
be wholly e0plicable in terms o! a mechanism by which real matter an
energy cause the velocity o! light to vary.
H! the velocity o! light is viewe as a mere e0pectation value1 then over
the tiniest scales o! istance an time this velocity must actually be
etermine by the relative magnitues o! the !luctuations within the
vacuum o! physical quantities o! a still more !unamental nature.
6he e0pectation values o! momentum an energy1 YpZ = [Yp
2
Z - /ap
2
\
/n Y;Z = [Y;
2
Z - /a;
2
\
H! we interpret the !luctuations o! p an ; in the vacuum as linKe
together C5ust as space an time are linKe together to prouce
spacetimeD an that !luctuations in p an ; ynamically etermine
!luctuations in their con5ugate CnonconserveD parameters1 isplacement
an time1 then perhaps we can interpret /ap as the uncertainty in RpS ue
to !luctuations in R;S an /a; as the uncertainty in R;S ue to
!luctuations in RpS. Hn the case o! the local velocity o! light inuce to
become less than its !ree space magnitue1 a larger ensity o!
momentum !luctuations is require to prouce a smaller ensity o!
energy !luctuations.
3onstant = Ct;D
2
+ CtpD
2
= O
/a;
2
= CtpD
2
V /ap
2
= Ct;D
2
6his all maKes more sense i! we thinK o! matter as 5ust a stable pattern o!
!luctuation o! energy1 momentum an o! their linKage1 i.e.1 momentum-
energy tensor !luctuations.
"o that any observable changes in matter_s state may be more properly
unerstoo as changes in the state o! these !luctuation an in the mutual
interaction o! these !luctuations.
/ phase iagram !or a given angular momentum vector orthogonal to the
phase plane may be thought o! as compose o! myria phase cells each
cell with its own tiny angular momentum Cactually spinD. -or e0ample1
by the right han rule1 7
0
y L 7
y
0 = .
z
1 etc.
/ connection between =eisenberg uncertainty an spin an angular
momentum is here iscernible. @otice we can_t get a time irecte spin
or angular momentum !rom operations between $-angular momenta or
$-momenta1 but timeliKe angular momentum must be assume !or the
saKe o! relativistic or spacetime symmetry.
=e was the sort o! gentleman who is openly pitie an secretly envie.
8y chilliKe sense o! woner is attracte to e0periences o! mystery
rather than o! spectacle.
"ociety an genetics conspire to pull on us a Kin o R>ei min tricKS
whereby we become virally in!ecte with other peoples e!initions.
Ht is not possible to consistently e!ine (-angular momentum utilizing
only ( imensional vector calculus. (-angular momentum cannot be
e!ine without use o! a metric tensor an angular momentum tensor.
8oreover1 trans!ormations o! (-angular momentum between i!!erent
.orentz !rames Crequiring virtual accelerationsD requires a more general
metric tensor than that o! 8inKowsKi spacetime.
Fith many relate pro5ects we can seem to span a space o! either
e0pertise or wisom an in so oing simulate presence. ;ach treatise
which begs !or an unerstaning auience was itsel! cobble together
!rom genetic !ragments o! other such treatises. 6hese genetic !ragments
cohere1 i.e.1 the cobblestone structure RgelsS via the action o! intuition
an insight borne o! a creative prelinguistic thought process alreay
virally in!ecte with the genetic !ragments.
6he evolutionary value o! consciousness is quite a separate
consieration !rom that o! unerstaning the mechanism by which
consciousness as such subsists an by which it ynamically acts. 6his
is true i! the organism_s competence in preserving an isseminating its
genetic material were enhance the more compatible became its
evolving nervous system in relation to Cin resonance withD this alreay
given phenomenon o! consciousness.
Qd
@eural networKs better able to
e0ploit consciousness mae their respective organisms more success!ul
in competition with other organisms. 3onsciousness in turn woul in
return become better able to e0plore its own latent possibilities o!
internal structure. 3onsciousness enowe the neural processes o!
organisms with conte0t 5ust as their neural networKs enowe
consciousness with content or re!erence.
H_ve come again an again to this thought always by i!!erent paths1
namely that the human person is not ual in its nature but rather is a
symbiotic being o! !lesh an spirit. 6wo istinct interpretations o! the
en o! li!e are the !ollowing: one glimpses one_s boy !alling awayV the
other1 glimpsing the ri!ting away an upwar o! the alien inwelling
spirit.
H! spacetime is an arti!act o! the quantum vacuum stress-momentum-
energy then i!!erent possible spacetimes must subsist within their own
respective vacua. 6his is similar to the iea o! gravity being ilute
within higher imensions. "o the ensity o! any given vacuum is
etermine by the blacK hole ensity. 6he number o! istinct vacua is
relate to the *)
*2)
i!!erence between the magnitues o! the
cosmological constant an 7lancK energy ensity.
-requency omain an phase shi!t e0planation o! perihelion precession
o! planetary orbits. :iscussion.
.orenz invariance o! the vacuum momentum-energy1 its ynamical
aspect vs. the merely Kinematical nature o! spacetime1 suggests that
there actually is a vacuum mechanism !or general relativistic e!!ects.
Iacuum energy ensity vs. mass energy ensity cosmological
coincience can be e0plaine by the way matter inuces mass in the
quantum vacuum.
Iiewing a blacK hole as an enpoint on a spectrum allows one to thinK
about less e0treme e!!ects o! orinary gravitational !iels in new ways.
-or e0ample1 orinary masses shoul also e0hibit =awKing
raiographers1 cause the quantum vacuum to possess both a temperature
an hence an entropy an moreover spatiotemporal variations in
gravitational potential shoul be associate with spatiotemporal
graients in vacuum energy ensity1 pressure1 temperature an entropy.
6he bi-vacuum may be ivie into its two components1 energy
available to o worK an purely entropic energy.
9nion moel o! a blacK hole_s structure is e!ine as the ensity o! a
blacK hole increasing internally !rom the event horizon to the so-calle
singularity in a manner similar to how the ensity o! blacK holes varies
with blacK hole raius.

o
*/A an g
o
*/A
2

i
lnMAM an g
i
*/A
z
A
= $c
2
/N4A
2
V z
r
= $c
2
/N4r
2
$c
2
/N4A
2
0 (/$A
$
= m
A
= Ac
2
/24
g
r
= 4m
r
/r
2
== rc
2
/A
2
V g
A
= c
2
/A
/s the mass gravitationally collapses1 the quantum states o! its
embeing vacuum are !illing up with avance o! the local time
variable. 9nce an event horizon !orms1 when the embeing vacuum o!
the outsie spacetime has all o! its !ermionic quantum states occupie1
the collapse continues though not with passage o! time1 i.e.1 with
interactivity o! the collapsing mass with its e0ternal spin ) !iel o!
virtual 3ooper pair !luctuations. Aather1 this collapse continues !rom
the event horizon to the hole_s singularity1 i.e.1 spatially. /!ter all1 local
spacetime has1 upon reaching Coccurrence o!D the event horizon1
succeee in rotating 2) egrees so that the local time a0is o! the hole_s
spacetime is not irecte along the raial lines connecting the event
horizon o! the hole to its singularity.
H! the blacK hole ensity were really constant an uni!orm1 i.e.1
$c
2
/N4A
2
rather than !unctionally varying with r1 i.e.1 $c
2
/N4r
2
1 then
the gravitational !iel strength insie the hole ecreases inversely with
raial istance. 4ravitational !iel intensity at the event horizon o! a
blacK hole increases inversely with blacK hole raius. 3learly a uni!orm
blacK hole ensity oes not allow the hole_s trappe sur!ace to e0ten
insie the hole. "o insie the blacK hole time is no longer stoppe but
possesses a rate o! !low1 as it were1 that increases inversely as the
singularity o! the hole is approache !rom insie. ,pon the singularity
being reache1 the rate o! temporal !low is once again in step with the
rate at which time passes in!initely !ar !rom the hole.
Hnsie the blacK hole_s event horizon1 there shoul be a mirroring o! the
gravitational graient1 which e0ists outsie the hole. 9therwise1 uner
the total collapse moel1 the blacK hole must possess a Kernel o! 7lancK
ensity.
.
p
= [4h/c
$
\
*/2
m
p
= .
p
c
2
/24
z
h
= $c
2
/N4.
p
2
= $c
'
/4
2
h
n
$
7lancK masses may be pacKe within a 7lancKian blacK hole o! n-
7lancK length raius.
[A
h
/.
p
\ 0 m
p
= 8
Kernel
= 8
-or e0ample1 given a star with a mass comparable to that o! our "un:
[8/m
p
\
*/$
0 .
p
= A
Kernel
A
Kernel
represents the blacK hole Kernel possessing 7lancK ensity1 i.e.1 the
ensity at which all available quantum vacuum states are occupie1 as
oppose to the case o! the blacK hole itsel!1 where merely the vacuum
energy uncertainty reaches ).
Hn the case o! the sun1 A
s
b 2 0 *)
$

A
K
= [20*)
$)
/'0*)
-N
\ 0 b*)
-$'
b *)
-22
6he Kernel !or the ,niverse is b *)
-*'
.
6he !act that there is not causal necessity to unerpin the being o! logical
necessity says something important !or the necessity says something
important !or the philosophy o! min.
.ight Ielocity 3asimir C.I3D e0periment1 c.!.1 lanl.gov search *22N-
2))21 propose anticipates an increase in the velocity o! light
perpenicular to the 3asimir plates.
8omentum !luctuations Cvirtual photon e0changesD are reuce in the
irection o! the photon_s motion1 meaning that the energy !luctuations
are corresponingly increase however1 this increase is irectional in
5ust the manner that the ecrease in photon creation/annihilation ensity
is irecte.
6his implies that the energy !luctuations o! the vacuum may be
partitione in corresponence with 01 y1 z an ict-momentum
!luctuations. $-momentum !luctuations that are suppresse in the
3asimir light velocity e0periments result in enhance energy o! the ict-
momentum !luctuations. /n so we e0pect the reverse o! this to be true
i! !luctuation momentum-energy is conserve. 3onservation o! angular
momentum o! spin applie here in aition to that o! momentum-energy
suggests that the composite spin ) !ermi 3ooper pairs
Qd
are actually o!
spin * rotate 2) egrees into coincience with the local time a0is.
Qd
Fhether a total con!usion o! conceptual1 cognitive an perceptual
!aculties can actually be e0perience or only re-e0perience !rom within
a later-occurring stable an well behave consciousness is important to
philosophy o! min_s resolving o! the !ollowing ambiguity: abstraction
as a !unction Cincluing logical an mnemonic processesD o!
consciousness vs. consciousness as a !unction o! memory an logic.
Ht is thought that the temperature o! the =awKing raiation increases
with the intensity o! the event horizon sur!ace gravity ue to
corresponing increases in gravitational tial !orces Cwhich vary with
*/A
$
D. Fith the increase ensity o! real !ermionic matter comes an
increase spectral an occupational ensity o! bosonic !luctuations.
6hese bosonic !luctuations correspon to internally or coherently
generate energy !luctuations o! the real !ermions composing the boy
in question1 which by the 7auli principle e0clues e0ternal resonantly
generate energy !luctuations.
H! it is true that eigenstates are !ictional iealizations Cue to the !act that
vacuum !luctuations cannot be screene only trans!orme in terms o!
changes in the weighting o! momentum-energy !luctuation an
momentum-energy uncertainty components1 Cc.!.1 Reigen-uncertaintyS o!
my earlier writingsD1 then the emocratic nature o! the 7auli principle vis
a vis real vs. virtual may be e0plaine as 7auli ;0clusion o! energy
!luctuations. "imilarly !or the emocracy o! the ?ose principle vis a vis
momentum !luctuations.
6he strong an weaK equivalence principles are relate via the analogy:
mass is to gravity what inertia is to acceleration.
4ravity breaKs spacetime symmetry. Hs this because the spontaneous
!luctuation momentum-energy ensities are not conserve.
"pacetime metric g
uv
= h
a
u
h
b
v
n
ab
tangent space metric `
YpZCtp1 /apD Cb
n
1b
n
+
D $-momentum component o! ynamical
momentum-energy tensor
Y;ZCt;1 /a;D C!
n
1!
n
+
D imaginary (-momentum component o!
ynamical momentum-energy tensor
>
u
ab
= 0
a
6
u
b
- 0
b
6
u
a
6
u
a
an >
u
ab
are not inepenent tensors1 c.!.1
3alcaa an 7ereira1 lanl.gov Cgr-qcD
>
ab
= .
ab
+ "
ab
6he orbital part is the real part an the spin part is the
imaginary part
R.orenz trans!ormations o! a general !iel 7si can be rewritten as a
translation plus a strictly spin .orenz trans!ormation.S
RHn the 7oincare_ group the translation an the .orenz parameters are
completely inepenent.S
Rin the coupling prescription o! 4A the tetra h
a
u
an the spin connection
/
ab
u
are not inepenent !iels.S http://allr0.zapto.org/cart.html?
p=)222'($)
Ran the angular-momentum conservation is relate to the invariance o!
the action uner a .orentz trans!ormation.S
H! .orentz symmetry is the spacetime symmetry o! R!latS or 8inKowsKi
space1 there angular momentum nonconservation1 c.!.1 8ercury
perihelion precession1 constitutes the breaKing o! spacetime symmetry.
Rthe !unamental !iel o! gravitation is the spin connection an not the
tetra.S
4auss_ sur!ace-volume integral theorem relates ensity o! charge an
ivergence o! !lu0 L relate to quantization o! 2 + * hyperspace
areas/angular momentum in relativistically covariant !orm o! Oepler_s
2
n
.aw.
6he nonlocal connection is meiate by the timeliKe !luctuations in
momentum-energy. 6ranslational invariance vs. .orentz invariance.
4alilean invariance requires conservation o! $-momentum an .orentz
invariance requires conservation o! (-momentum. >-ensity
correspons to ( ivergence C!lu0 across a $-hypersur!aceD.
"pacetime curvature at the quantum scale consists o! increase
amplitues an ecrease !requencies as well as accumulate phase shi!t
in !requency1 proucing a net large scale e!!ect. Hncrease e0changes o!
!ermions might be e0pecte to cause an oscillatory variation in the net
quantum spin orientation o! these !ermions within their local spacetimes
Cor (-spaces L question here concerning relation o! microspacetime to
macro ( spaceD
6he e!!ects o! gravitational time ilation upon the observer vis a vis the
internal time-e0ternal time Csub5. L ob5.D istinction Cin relation to 4A
increase ensity o! p-!luctuations Ce0ternal timeD vs. ecrease ensity
o! ip-!luctuations Cinternal timeD.
=ypothesis: the more massive an ob5ect is the enser becomes the
continuum o! inertial !rames1 which embe this ob5ect. 6he energy
!luctuations within neighboring inertial !rames inter!ere estructively1
the $-momentum !luctuations1 constructively. ;0ternal resonance
ecoherence an internal resonance coherence.
-rom Figner_s "pins1 -eynman_s 7artons1 an 6heir 3ommon 4roun
by <. ". Oim1 ar+iv:quant-ph/)2)')*Nv* ( 8ay 2))21 R 6he connection
between spin an symmetry was establishe by Figner in his *2$2
paper on the 7oincare_ group.S
8atter breaKs spacetime symmetry through a connection between the
spin ensity/spin currents o! real an virtual particles. 7ure electric
!iel as ue to .orenz !orce o! a (-imensional magnetic current LZ
problem here is two particles occupy the same hypersur!ace an so o
not RseeS each other as currents. =owever1 both particles appear as
currents to a conscious observer whose consciousness is moving at near
the spee o! light relative to the hypersur!ace in which the electric
charges are embee. 6he avantage o! interpreting the electric !iel
as a magnetic !iel associate with a pure imaginary (-imensional
electric charge current is that the long staning argument is weaKene in
!avor o! magnetic monopoles as enhancing the symmetry o! the
8a0well equations. Hnstea o! electromagnetic symmetry seeming to
require both static electric an magnetic charges Cas !iel sources an
RsinKsSD1 this symmetry is satis!ie by !our imensional electric charge
currents an the !our imensional magnetic !iels inuce by these (-
currents. Hn this picture the only electromagnetic interactions are those
o! !our-imensional magnetic currents interacting via the .orenz !orce.
Hnterpreting the static electric !iel interaction o! two electric charges1 at
rest within the same inertial !rame1 as a .orenz !orce interaction such as
that between a static charge an an electric current clearly reveals that
the magnetic monopole hypothesis is unnecessary !rom the stanpoint o!
electromagnetic symmetry. /ll that is neee to account the
electromagnetic !orces acting between electric charges an currents is a
generalize Cor simply more broaly interpreteD .orenz !orce1 one
which acts within the !our imensions o! spacetime rather than simply
within a three imensional hypersur!ace or !oliation o! the spacetime
mani!ol. 6his interpretation o! the electromagnetic interaction seems
carry the assumption o! absolute motion on the part o! both the electric
charges an a conscious observer. 6he supposely purely relative
motion o! two charges is interprete now as the absolute motion o! the
charges relative to the absolute motion o! an observer.
6he .orenz !orce law is the !ollowing:
- = qn;Cr1tD + [rCtD/t 0 ?Cr1tD\o
Fhat happens to the above equation i! we maKe rCtD a spacetime interval
an treat ? as a !our imensional magnetic !iel containing a component
which !unctions ientically to ;Cr1tD? 6he !our imensional version o!
the .orenz !orce law now taKes the !orm:
- = >C01y1z1tD 0 -
uv
Fhere -
uv
is the !our imensional electromagnetic tensor. "o perhaps
the 8a0well equations only seem to require the e0istence o! the
magnetic monopole when these equations are e0presse in a !orm that is
not !ully relativistically invariant.
6he connection between the macroscopic an the submicroscopic1 that is
between !or e0ample1 spin an the imaginary component o! angular
momentum as well as between R+S an imaginary momentum1 lies with
some mechanism by which these imaginary an hence timeliKe
components o! these conserve quantities are converte to the spaceliKe
bulK real angular an linear momenta supporte by spaceliKe quantize
$-angular an $-linear momentum !luctuations.
6here may be two !ormally istinct but intimately interrelate
mechanism o! gravitation an inertia1 one operating at a cosmological
an the other at a subatomic scale o! spacetime. R"pin )S only means
that the spin about any spatial a0is is null. 6he proper spacetime
interpretation o! Rspin )S is spin * an spin L* about the time a0is. =ere
spin +* is composite spin +*/2 with spin +*/2 an spin L* is composite
spin L*/2 with spin L*/2. :ue to broKen spacetime symmetry1 there is a
net spin +* vacuum energy ensity CclocKwise about the time a0isD. "o
the ,niverse must possess a net rotation about the time a0is. Fe must
remember that the cosmological time a0is is everywhere orthogonal to
the cosmological continuum o! superpose cosmological $-
hypersur!aces. Fe say superpose cosmological $-hypersur!aces here
because we want a built-in quantum in!rastructure operating at the
beginning o! time1 which is available to support the multi-history
temporal evolution o! cosmological e0pansion. >ust as the time-rate-o!-
change in spaceliKe linear (-momenta are erive !rom the timeliKe
linear (-momenta1 so too must spaceliKe angular momenta erive !rom
timeliKe (-angular momenta.
:ecember 2)*$
>acK "hany says: R@ote that the above hols also in 8(1 i! we
taKe the !irst coorinate to be the time-coorinate. "o1 any rotation in
8( which leaves the time coorinate invariant Ca rotation Gabout the time
a0isG i! you liKeD1 also leaves a spatial a0is invariant1 an is simply a
rotation in Am$. C/ general rotation in 8( is a .orentz trans!ormation:
any rotation in 8( which leaves a single Cnecessarily spatialD a0is
invariant. . .
Foul require a spatial rotation + a boost in a irection perpenicular to
the rotation a0is.DS1 c.!.1 http://www.amazon.com/!orum/science?
#encoing=,6-N =<7;A.H@O
Ehttp://www.amazon.com/!orum/science?
#encoing=,6-N & c-orum=-0J'NOI;;A<"'; & c7age=% & c6hrea
=60I+4>:-O"I+AOE & =<7;A.H@O
Ehttp://www.amazon.com/!orum/science?
#encoing=,6-N & c-orum=-0J'NOI;;A<"'; & c7age=% & c6hrea
=60I+4>:-O"I+AOE c-orum=-0J'NOI;;A<"'; =<7;A.H@O
Ehttp://www.amazon.com/!orum/science?
#encoing=,6-N & c-orum=-0J'NOI;;A<"'; & c7age=% & c6hrea
=60I+4>:-O"I+AOE & =<7;A.H@O
Ehttp://www.amazon.com/!orum/science?
#encoing=,6-N & c-orum=-0J'NOI;;A<"'; & c7age=% & c6hrea
=60I+4>:-O"I+AOE c7age=% =<7;A.H@O
Ehttp://www.amazon.com/!orum/science?
#encoing=,6-N & c-orum=-0J'NOI;;A<"'; & c7age=% & c6hrea
=60I+4>:-O"I+AOE & =<7;A.H@O
Ehttp://www.amazon.com/!orum/science?
#encoing=,6-N & c-orum=-0J'NOI;;A<"'; & c7age=% & c6hrea
=60I+4>:-O"I+AOE c6hrea=60I+4>:-O"I+AO
-or a !our imensional charge current to interact with the spacetime
cylinrical magnetic !iel so as to prouce an instantaneous inverse
square !orce upon the charge o! the electrical (-current1 which is irecte
towar the center o! this magnetic !iel1 this cylinrical !iel must lie
within its own Jeitebene. 6he electrical charges must pass through this
Jeitebene at the local velocity o! light in orer !or a .orenz !orce to act
between these two charges.
"ince the metric is operationally e!ine in terms o! paths o! light
through spacetime
6he photon is only RmasslessS given that a precise balance e0ists in the
quantum vacuum Rthrough whichS the photon travels between $-
momentum !luctuations an energy !luctuations Cpure imaginary (-
momentum !luctuationsD. -luctuations in spaceliKe vacuum $-
momentum couple to the vacuum timeliKe energy !luctuations unerlie
all photon motion. 6he photon taKes on a Kin o! mass1 however when
travelling own a gravitational potential. 6his increase in photon mass
is re!lecte in the ecrease with increasing gravitational potential o! the
ratio o! /a; to /ap
0
where 0 e!ines the present irection o! photon
motion. /n alternative statement o! this is the photon e0periences a
ecrease in !requency relative to wavelength as it propagates own the
potential1 now unerstoo as a !luctuation momentum-energy ensity
graient1 in which the sign o! the energy ensity graient is opposite that
o! the momentum ensity graient. 6he greater photon wavelength
means that the photon must RwaitS longer between events o! the photon
being absorbe an emitte by the quantum vacuum. Hn the e0ample o!
a crystal lattice1 the absorption an emission o! a photon within the
crystal correspons to the e0citation an ee0citation o! the crystal
lattice1 respectiv-ely1 by two inputs1 one o! real energy Ce0citationD1 the
other virtual Cee0citationD. 6he source o! the e0citation o! the crystal is
the real photon in its previous oscillation. 6he ee0citation o! the
crystal must somehow come !rom the absorption by the crystal o! virtual
energy o! spin *. 6he creation an annihilation o! virtual !ermion-
anti!ermion pairs is either associate with the emission an absorption o!
a virtual photon1 respectively or Csetting asie !or the moment the
question o! the vacuum mechanism o! real photon propagationD
conversely. Fhich interpretation we choose epens upon whether the
crystal lattice is separate !rom an interacts with the quantum vacuum or
itsel! moels this quantum vacuum. /nother possibility is that the
vacuum in its spontaneity is constraine by the vacuum as crystalline
networK o! harmonic oscillators.
6he 7auli principle applies only to ientical an quantum
inistinguishable particles. /n important question !or bi-vacuum theory
is whether quantum mechanics treats particles an their respective
antiparticles as istinguishable.
6he =eisenberg uncertainties in conserve quantities1 i.e.1 physical
quantities possessing a quantize !iel are o! course1 meiate by the
quantum statistics o! the vacuum state. -or e0ample1 /a;C01y1z1tD at
some spacetime coorinate woul certainly be greater i! -ermi-:irac
statistics were rela0e within the spacetime region containing this point.
"imilarly1 /apC01y1z1tD woul be smaller at the speci!ie spacetime
coorinate i! ?ose-;instein statistics were rela0e within the spacetime
region containing this coorinate. 6he rela0ing o! quantum statistics
within a given region o! the vacuum woul engener a istinctly anti-
gravitational e!!ect.
/ progressive trans!ormation o! /a; into /ap
r
where r is the irection
along which the gravitational potential along which the gravitational
potential graient1 as well as the oppose /a; an /ap
r
graients are
ma0imal naturally involves a progressive rotation o! a boy_s (-
momentum in the irection ! an r-irecte $-momentum. 9ne nee only
re!lect here upon the irect relationship between /at !or a physical
process an the characteristic li!etime1 rela0ation time1 ecay time1 etc.
or alternatively1 the broaening Cor more properly speaKing shi!tingD o!
the !requency spectrum o! this quantal process in orer to unerstan
what is being asserte here about the relationship o! /a; to Y;Z an /ap to
YpZ.
H! we attribute the !luctuations to the vacuum an the corresponing
=eisenberg uncertainty to the mass/particles1 then we are permitte to
e!ine1 e.g.1 Yp
r
Z in terms o! tp
r
an /ap
r
1 where tp
r
is Yp
2
Z.
Yp
r
Z = /ap
r
- Yp
r
Z
6his also suggests a Kin o! Rbi-vacuumS moel o! the quantum vacuum1
c.!.1 crystalline harmonic oscillator networK moel !or either the
quantum vacuum or its partner Cvacuum-antivacuum1 i.e.1 separation o!
vacuum into the matter-vacuum an the antimatter-vacuumD.
6he !luctuations or uncertainties may arise !rom the !uture or past1
respectively Cor vice versaD an one o! these may be thought to possess
in!ormation1 the other1 entropy. Hn this way1 the entropy o! mi0ing1 !or
e0ample1 in which both gases possess both in!ormation Ci.e.1 negentropyD
an entropy1 an what changes in the relative proportions o! each taKe
place1 is groune in the e0change o! in!ormation an entropy between
the mi0ing gases an the above escribe bi-vacuum1 c.!.1 myria
articles on
prn-
bi-vacuum theory at
web=
http://000.lanl website.
Aelative vs. absolute time may be alternatively treate in terms o!
!uturity o! a particle being etermine by its uration Cspin *D or its
origin Cspin )D.
?i-vacuum may more consistently be unerstoo in terms o! elsewhere
region vs. absolute time Cspeci!ically1 absolute pastD region o! the
8inKowsKi light cone. 6he nacve question is !requently asKe by
amateur physicists1 i! space can be Rcurve1S then what or where is it
curve into? 6he simple answer to which is that spacetime is curve
not within the elsewhere region1 but into this region. 3ausality e0ists
within the Relsewhere region1S which is there!ore a term e!ine
e0clusively relative to a particular 8inKowsKi light cone. ?ecause the
event horizon o! a blacK hole represents the absolute past an absolute
!uture light cone hypersur!aces having succeee in coming into mutual
contact1 we say that the blacK hole_s 8inKowsKi light cone has become
istorte so as to have squeeze out altogether the hypervolume within
which the hole_s Rpre-collapseS elsewhere region was locate. -or this
reason1 we believe that the energy uncertainty o! a given quantum
mechanical system originates wholly !rom within this elsewhere region.
6he precisely thermal or blacK-boy emission spectrum o! the event
horizon represents the total egeneration o! the quantum vacuum signal
Ci.e.1 the elsewhere region o! vacuum-nonlocal-connectivity is broKen
o!!D an this spectrum originates entirely !rom the mutual annihilation o!
!uture-irecte matter with past-irecte antimatter. =ere the energy
!luctuations o not originate !rom particle an antiparticle arising
together Can then promptly annihilating with greatest probability L
togetherD1 but !rom the creation o! a particle !rom the past an an
antiparticle !rom the !uture1 propagating as it were !rom opposite
temporal ens o! the ,niverse.
6hree egrees cosmic microwave bacKgroun may be merely
cosmologically reshi!te =awKing raiation in which the entropic an
negentropic components o! the bi-vacuum are split1 entropic component
is raiate away !rom the event horizon to the blacK hole_s outsie1
while all in!ormation1 stemming entirely !rom the other component o!
this bi-vacuum1 !alls insie the hole. =ere the rile o! the ominance
o! matter over antimatter in the cosmos is reaily solve. 6he
relationship o! =awKing raiation temperature but especially1 entropyD to
the sur!ace area o! the event horizon points up the 3hinese bo0 structure
o! the */A
2
energy ensity o! blacK hole an quantum vacuum.
6hree !our-imensional coorinate system iagrams1 two o! which show
istinct spacetime (-vectors representing initial an !inal (-momenta.
Hn moving !rom the !irst to the secon iagram1 there is e!!ecte a
rotation o! a mass_ (-angular momentum away !rom spin ) towar spin *
angular momentum against which there reacts a gyroscopic resisting
!orce.
6he magnitue o! velocity through spacetime oes not change with
acceleration1 only the spacetime velocity vector unergoes a spacetime
rotation. /ngular velocity o! spacetime rotation1 v
w
1 square v
w
2
ivie by the gravitational equivalent spacetime curvature1 A = v
w
2
/A =
the magnitue o! the acceleration vector.
"pacetime rotation symmetry is a phenomenological outcome o!
conservation o! !our imensional angular momentum. Fe ienti!y spin
) with angular momentum about the time a0is an spin * with angular
momentum about a0es 01 y1 z. Fe maKe the assumption here Cwhich
must be emonstrate laterD that the spin is always about the irection o!
motion. "o then when a mass accelerates its total (-angular momentum1
. + " is irecte more an more away !rom the time a0is o! its original
inertial re!erence !rame an more towar Cnot parallel to1 e0cept in the
case o! in!inite accelerationD the instantaneous irection o! acceleration.
8ore liKely it is that the spin * an spin ) vectors incline more an more
to one another. 6he ob5ect must see a change vacuum state as it
accelerates1 on possessing a relativity reuce ensity o! spin ) CenergyD
!luctuations. 6he $-momentum !luctuations are relatively increase only
in the irection o! increasing $-momentum.
2-$-)2 p.$ !ollows
Qd
"o the resistance o! matter to impresse !orces attempting to accelerate
it stems !rom a gyroscopic reaction !orce o! the matter to attempts to
alter the mass_ (-angular momentum. Hn other wors1 the resistance o!
matter to acceleration is boun up in the gyroscopic reaction !orce o! the
matter to changing the timeliKe angular momentum o! the mass into
spaceliKe angular momentum an vice versa. "uch a trans!ormation o!
(-angular momentum must be escribe by a 2
n
ranK tensor. .et > = . +
"
[>
)
\ [6
**
6
*2
6
*$
6
*(
\ [>
*

\
[>
*
\ [6
2*
6
22
6
2$
6
2(
\ = [>
2

\
[>
2
\ [6
$*
6
$2
6
$$
6
$(
\ [>
$

\
[>
$
\ [6
(*
6
(2
6
($
6
((
\ [>
(

\
/n we Know that a 2
n
ranK tensor such as [6\ above is !ormally
escribe in terms o! a spin 2 e0change particle or !iel.
Qd
?ut on
account o! the ynamics o! the interaction o! spin +-*/2 an spin * real
particles with their virtual particle counterparts o! liKe spin Cthrough the
two !unamental quantum statistics principles1 i.e.1 those o! -ermi-:irac
an ?ose-;instein statisticsD1 that there!ore the spin 2 !iel is purely
phenomenological an so no actual quantization o! the gravitational !iel
is require1 which is to say that gravitons o not e0ist in nature as they
are super!luous. 4ravity is RinuceS an so is an e!!ective !iel1 a
parasitic !orce1 i! you will.
Fe must looK at the role o! vacuum energy !luctuations belonging to
alternate inertial !rames an how their mutual interaction a!!ects the
resistance o! mass to change in the relative magnitue in the mass_ (-
angular momentum components. 6hese alternate inertial !rames CvacuaD
belong to the elsewhere region.
Qd
9r they are mutually separate by
more than a 7lancK mass iscrete interval o! energy. 9r the vacuum
each observer observes is 5ust that tiny sub-spectrum to which his brain
resonates. 9r only those vacuum !luctuations that are mutually quantum
correlate in such a manner as to represent causal connectivity can
rightly be consiere to comprise a cosmological constant or vacuum
energy ensity. 9r those !luctuations compositely comprising a spin-2
!iel possess inertia. 9r only those !ermionic an bosonic !iels that !ail
to precisely mutually cancel prouce the e!!ect o! mass. 9r only those
vacuum !iels that are mutually temporally integrate contribute to a
cosmological constant.
Ht is puzzling that although our acceleration o! a given mass oes not
alter either the (-momentum or (-angular momentum o! the mass1
nonetheless energy is e0pene in the process. =ow can energy be
imparte to a mass without changing the (-momentum Can (-angular
momentumD o! this mass? 6hat is1 how is it that1 mv
init
= mv
!inal
? Fell1
relativity tells us that mv
init
= mCicD an mv
!inal
= mv
2
L CicD
2
\. 6his is
possible because C*D RmS is not the same quantity on both sies o! our
momentum equation an C2) RvS uner the raical on the right han sie
o! the momentum equation is not equal to either v
init
or v
!inal
.
6he relativistic increase in the mass o! accelerating ob5ects1 i.e.1 the
relativistic trans!ormation o! energy into mass o! accelerating ob5ects is
accounte !or by the trans!erence o! the momenta o! internal egrees o!
!reeom to the newly generate momenta associate with e0ternal
egrees o! !reeom.
Oepler_s 2
n
.aw tells us that a boy moving in an elliptical orbit Cabout
some other boyD Rsweeps out equal areas in equal times.S =owever1 the
general relativistic contraction o! space an ilation o! time turns
Oepler_s 2
n
.aw into a comple0 relativistic equation. 6he perihelion
precession preicte by general relativity is consistent with Oepler_s 2
n
.aw only i! one taKes curvature o! space an gravitational time ilation
properly into account. Hn other wors1 the perihelion o! the planet
8ercury_s orbit precesses in the irection o! the planet_s motion about
the "un because the planet must taKe a slightly greater amount o! time to
Rsweep outS an area that is not !lat Cas appears to the ;arthboun
observer/because the true area swept out by the planet is in reality a $-
hypersur!ace within !our-imensional spacetime. 9! course the angular
momentum in Oepler_s 2
n
.aw Cequal areas swept out in equal timesD
must now be interprete as (-angular momentum in orer to maintain
the consistency o! Oepler_s 2
n
.aw within the conte0t o! general
relativity.
Hn Oepler_s 2
n
.aw1 the $-angular momentum vector is orthogonal to the
sur!ace being Rswept outS by the planet_s orbit. H! the planet_s orbital
plane is e!ine to be containe within1 say1 the 0-y plane1 then the
planet_s $-angular momentum vector lies along the z-a0is. 6he sur!ace
area o! the planetary ellipse is o! course a 2-sur!ace within $ spatial
imensions. Hn 4alilean spacetime1 the t-coorinate plays no role in
escribing the geometry o! the planetary orbit. Fithin the conte0t o!
curve spacetime1 however1 the plane o! the planetary ellipse must be a
2-hypersur!ace within a subspace o! spacetime spanne by the spacetime
components o! 01 y1 an ict. Hn this e0ample1 the z-component plays no
role in escribing the planetary orbit.
6he instantaneous angular momentum o! the orbiting planet must be
escribe by a vector containing an angular momentum component
along the local ict a0is. 6he magnitue o! this ict-component o! the
planet_s (-angular momentum must be a !unction o! the strength o! the
primary_s gravitational potential. Hn other wors1 the timeliKe
component o! the planet_s (-angular momentum must be a !unction o!
the spacetime interval connecting the planet to its primary.
Qd
-or an
elliptical orbit within spacetime1 the timeliKe component o! the planet_s
(-angular momentum must vary cyclically with each planetary
revolution. /n since the (-angular momentum must be conserve over
each orbital cycle1 the above cyclical temporal variation in the timeliKe
component o! the planet_s (-angular momentum must be accompanie
by cyclical variation in the spaceliKe components o! this (-angular
momentum. Hn other wors1 the $-angular momentum is not conserve
!or a boy !ollowing a planetary orbit within !our-imensional
spacetime1 but must cyclically vary along the planetary ellipse. 9!
course1 this cyclical variation o! the planet_s $-angular momentum
uring the course o! each planetary revolution mani!ests itsel! as an
C!rom the stanpoint o! @ewtonian mechanicsD ine0plicable precession
o! the orbit in the irection o! the planet_s orbital motion.
6his 2-hypersur!ace may be thought o! as broKen up in the tiny
.et_s o a consistency checK here. .ength connecting the planet an
primary contracts. 6he planet_s mass increases. 6he time taKen by the
planet to sweep out an area within its orbit is ilate. 6he area that
must be swept out is slightly greater than that visible !rom ;arth ue to
this area being slightly curve into a $-hypersur!ace.
;vents only transpire quicKly in a eterminate irection when two
processes become linKe in such a way that the smaller process gains
access to the preestablishe machinery o! the 2
n
process1 e.g.1 viral
replication an e0pression1 high level genetic mutation an punctuate
equilibrium in biological evolution1 epiphanies stemming !rom
metaphorical thought1 etc.
H can with e!!ort imagine what !ull encapsulation within the human
e!ine worl is liKe an the 4emuetlichKeit o! such a sub5ectively
perceive worl is unoubtely appealing. ?ut the isruptive e!!ects to
which this worl is sub5ect seem to be substantially moerate when one
maintains a somewhat what might be calle posthuman perspective.
"uch a perspective necessarily partaKes o! certain though not great
egree o! psychological issociation.
/lthough measurable change is taKing place within the local vacuum
uring the emission an absorption o! a given photon at !requencies
higher than that o! the photon
Hentical quantum particles are inistinguishable e0ternally though
perhaps not internally.
6here is a parao0 having to o with the interpretation o! the
gravitational reshi!t o! light re!lecte !rom a gravitating mirror.
3an the spin { an spin * particles be uni!ie? .ocally R!latS spacetime
e0ists within a broKen global spacetime symmetry.
RH! a massive particle is at rest1 its !our momentum is invariant uner
rotations.S Fe shoul interpret RrotationsS above as R$-rotations.S
R6hus the
prn=
little group !or a massive particle at rest is the three-
imensional rotation group.S 6he particle in general has its spin. 6he
spin orientation is going to be a!!ecte by the rotation.S 6his is because
a $-rotation a!!ects the total particle (-angular momentum. C@ote: this
is only true in curve spacetimeTD
/pril 2)**
6aKe a looK at spin-rotation
coupling e0periments. 6hough it is still a question o! controversy as to
whether spin an rotations o in !act couple. =owever1 the literature is
in agreement that spin-rotation coupling shoul only occur within
accelerate re!erence !rames.
:ue to a blacK hole being totally cut o!! !rom vacuum energy
!luctuations in the !orm o! creation/annihilation o! virtual !ermion-
anti!ermion pairs. Ht shoul be remembere here that not only must all
o! the !luctuation energy be trans!orme into !luctuation $-momentum1
but also the real !ermions must bosonize so that the blacK hole becomes
a pure ?ose conensate. "ince the temporality o! the !ermions trappe
within the hole is now meiate e0clusively by $-momentum
!luctuations1 we now have a system that e0periences change though
without being in interaction with an outsie by which novelty can be
introuce. "o we now have a parao0ical situation o! change in the
absence o! temporality.
3onsciousness o! a human being is not yet evelope enough to
constitute continuos !unction collapse an so the continuous temporal
evolution o! consciousness is mostly an illusion woven aroun brie! an
intermittent episoes o! true conscious awareness.
6he perturbations o! linguistic moi!iers is not within but between
systems o! meaning.
Ht taKes in!ormation to go up an entropy graient. 6he irreversible
seems to require convergence in the absence o! a potential1 i.e.1 genuine
novelty. / gravitational potential oesn_t !it this because gravity is an
e!!ective !iel1 not quantize1 no spacetime symmetry1 no conservation
o! energy Chow oes the entropy law looK in an energy non-conserving
systemD
Hrreversible causality emans the very spacetime symmetry broKen by
gravity. Fe wouln_t e0pect the action o! a quantize !orce !iel to
breaK spacetime symmetry.
6he RblocK universeS is only possible with genuinely !lat spacetime.
/ntigravity woul be characterize by an inversion o! quantum statistics
in which -ermi-:irac statistics applies to bosons an ?ose-;instein
statistic applies to !ermions.
/a;/at h is an in!ormation integration principle.
@onlocal correlations on_t allow one to see insie the Knowlege
bounaries e!ine by the wave!unction1 but merely coe !or a
scrambling o! particle statistics L a connection between gravity an
statistics o! the quantum vacuum?
,ncertainty represents loss o! in!ormation so blacK holes increase the
energy uncertainty o! the quantum vacuum1 an so this by an amount
that is irectly relate to the blacK hole mass. 6his loss o! in!ormation
is constitute by a isconnection o! the blacK hole !rom its embeing
quantum vacuum. 6he blacK hole in!ormation loss parao01 however1
coul be solve i! the blacK hole is constitute by mass-energy that has
isconnecte itsel! !rom the quantum vacuum o! our spacetime only to
reconnect itsel! to some other quantum vacuum o! some other spacetime.
/nother way to solve the in!ormation parao0 might be through the
reinterpretation o! in!ormation itsel!. Fhence comes this notion that
in!ormation has to be conserve anyway?
-or !ollowing comments1 c.!.1
cit=
4ravity 3annot be Puantize by 8. ;.
:e"ouza1 ar+iv:gr-qc/)2)N)N'v* 2% /ug2))2.
R/bstract. L 6aKing a eeper looK at the !unamental !orce o! gravity
one arrives at the conclusion that it is quite an unusual !iel because it
oes not have a !ermion associate to it. /n the absence o! such
!ermion shaows the e0istence o! the graviton itsel!. 6here!ore1 gravity
quantization is also oubt!ul.S
:e"ouza_s argument is essentially that each quantize !orce !iel is
meiate by a speci!ic boson1 which is e0change between an equally
speci!ic !ermion. 4ravity oes not bin only !ermions o! a speci!ic
type1 not only !ermions o! all types1 but gravity bins perhaps not all
momentum-energy though perhaps all real momentum-energy1 i.e.1 all
real !ermions an bosons. Hn other wors1 gravity is Rsource an sunKS
by real matter. "o an important mechanism !or unerstaning the action
o! gravity must be /ap an /a; o! real matter an in turn /ap an /a; !or
vacuum !rom which the real matter momentum an energy uncertainties
are erive. 6his connection between the real an virtual matter must
be meiate by a !unamental interaction between real an virtual
momentum-energy. 6his interaction is that o! the share quantum
statistics o! matter an vacuum1 i.e.1 o! real an virtual particles1 which
are uni!ie through the principle o! quantum statistical emocracy1 c.!.1
-eynman1 3ED" The &trange Theory of 2atter.
R8isner1 6horne an Fheeler have proven that the classical gravitational
!iel is an antisymmetric tensorial !iel.
-or purposes o! communication concerning the worl o! alreay e!ine
ob5ects1 one_s language !luency nee only be so goo as a !oreigner_s
worKing Knowlege o! a 2
n
language. =owever1 !or purposes o!
e!ining new ob5ects an new iscourse1 as well as !or !ullest
participation with others in the share sociolinguistically share culture.
/lso !or purposes o! processing o! sensory an perceptual ata in the
!ashioning o! abstract thought an new cognitive structures an still
more !or the general sociocultural meiation o! the iniviual
consciousness1 language is instrumental.
R;r hat bei mir verspielt.S =umility consists in the heart!elt realization
that our personal pro5ects shall be cut short by eath.
R/lsoS literally means RthusS or RthuslyS when translate to nearest
e0isting ;nglish wors: RalsoS use in ;nglish also means RthusS or
RthuslyS however1 only in a latent1 implicit or subconscious sense.
Fhen something new happens !or a given iniviual consciousness1
then something new has happene within the ,niverse as well as within
reality at large.
-or this reason is ;instein_s RblocK universeS o! global causal
eterminism seen as impossible as a proper escription o! reality.
6he e0istence o! only a single iniviual consciousness necessitates the
open-eneness o! reality an hence the transcenent nature o! this
reality an consciousness.
7arao0ically enough1 it coul only be with the help o! quantum
computers which !unction essentially noneterministically1 that the $-
boy an still more the n-boy gravitational problem1 i.e.1 that o!
Reterministic chaosS coul ever hope to be Rsolve.S 7erhaps the
RsolutionsS ynamics cannot be !oun without interacting with this
system so as to control it.
Ht is precisely those acausal1 nonlocal processes which are responsible
!or the unity o! min an which unerpin the operation o! !ree volition.
9ctober 2)*$
Aelations o! quantum entanglement meiate the holographic
inter!ace between the groun an the bacKrop o! general causality. 6his
is 5ust an alternate e0pression o! ?ohm_s R!luctuation-correlationS Cas
oppose to R!luctuation-issipationSD causal principle. ?ut oesn_t
?ohm_s causal principle may seem to imply that causal relations merely
!orm a small subset o! acausal relations1 but when the causal powers o!
!ree will are invoKe vis a vis wave!unction collapse1 c.!1 elay choice
e0periment1 one realizes that this cannot be a 5ust interpretation o! this
principle. 6he intimate tripartite relationship o! !ree will1 consciousness
an wave!unction collapse are pointe up in the
e0p=
elaye choice
quantum eraser e0periment.
6he 7linKo game moel o! the uni!ication o! chance an necessity L
natural selection oes not create new possibilities but only changes the
!requency o! genetic combinations more calibrate than other such
sequences to accessing pree0istent cybernetic control structures an
in!ormational processes. -or e0ample1 on this view1 the brain is 5ust a
comple0 networK o! valves an shunts Cto borrow a possibly outate
hyraulic analogyD !or unoing in complicate ways some o! the
limitations upon some pree0istent control an in!ormation processing
system originally put in place as a result o! the brain_s initial
evelopment in the mist o! this alreay present in!rastructure o! min.
9! course1 Jeno_s parao0 is not a problem in the case o! quantize time
where 6ortoise an =are may occupy istinct1 iscrete !requency
spectrum an hence1 rationally comparable time progressions.
Rthe !ollowing universal zero point energy equation o! state !or the
vacua o! all micro-quantum !iels both boson an !ermionS
z
vac
= - p
vac
/c
2
z
vac
+ $p
vac
/c
2
= -2z
vac
?
-iel "ign o! z
vac
Iacuum
gravity
3osm.
3onstant
?oson 7ositive Aepulsive Z )
-ermion @egative /ttractive Z )
Cabove table an vacuum equations taKen !rom "ar!atti_s paper1 Jero
7oint ;nergy 4ravity 7hysics.
H! R4S is a true constant1 then i! 4 is compose o! ,niverse
imensions1 then the mass ensity o! the ,niverse must be
proportional to =
2
so that the cosmos may be escribe as a classi!ie
4A blacKhole.
R!lui Figner phase space ensity is negative !rom giant super!lui
macro-quantum inter!erence in the virtual !ermion-anti!ermion boun
state local orer parameter o! spontaneous broKen symmetry !rom
!alse *))% normal !lui high entropy micro-quantum ranom
vacuum to two macro-quantum lower entropy true vacuum.S
Rthe e!!ect o! vacuum energy is the opposite o! that o! matter. . .
vacuum energy causes the e0pansion to accelerate1S p. 2& C"ar!atti
quoting ". =awKingD
R Z ) ecreases blacK hole entropy an increases blacK hole
temperature.S
R Y ) increases blacK hole entropy an ecreases blacK hole
temperature.S
9n p. *2( =awKing says that !aster than light communication by
quantum nonlocality is RriiculousS. 6rue1 it cannot happen in
orthoo0 quantum theory an 6ony Ialentini shows why in a way that
shows a loop hole.S C-or instance1 sub5ective communication1 yes1
but what about the case !or intersub5ective communicationD
>anuary 2)*2
R3hronology protectionS is only important !or
intersub5ective/ communicable content1 i.e.1 that which can in!orm or
conition a causal process1 but may not be important !or
infrasub$ective communication1 i.e.1 the communication unerlying
the bining o! sub5ective contents into a seamless an uni!ie whole
o! sub5ective Cperhaps only subconsciousD e0perience. H! the
quantum mechanical principle that Rwhat is not !orbien1 occursS is
o! su!!icient generality1 then the physical processes uneryling the
unity o! the conscious sel! may inee be superluminal.
6opology o! sel! communication is !unamentally i!!erent in nature
!rom that o! an intersub5ective communication. @ot all meanings are
messages.
/bgrun: chasm1 abyss1 or gul!. R/bgruenicS however means
cryptic. "o a message or meaning that is cryptic which appears to
stem !rom an alien or un!amiliar groun.
6he glimpse into 4erman philology !rom the relate though
nonetheless e0terior perspective o! ;nglish1 permits one to realize an
interesting !act about relate languages1 e.g.1 .atinate1 4ermanic1
Hno-;uropean1 etc.1 that what is conscious an literal !or the 4erman
speaKer1 !or e0ample1 is at once seen as metaphorical by an insight!ul
4erman speaKing ;nglish native1 as well as unerstoo to be !or a
4erman speaKer a subconscious meaning1 e.g.1 abgruenig.
Fe maKe !un o! what we o not unerstan or that by which we !eel
threatene or insecure. <outh is more characterize by a lacK o!
unerstaning an insecurity. 3onsequently1 youth an insecure
iniviuals are most incline to maKe !un o! others whom they !in
unusual or un!amiliar.
/ robot woul have a moel o! the worl that correspons to the
worl e!ine by the programmers. 6he programmers themselves
possess an internal moel o! their own worl that coheres with
Cmaybe also resonates with the substrate o! their physical
environmentD.
Fhat coul be transmitte between two mutually resonating systems1
i! these systems are to maintain between each other parallelism o!
!orm1 !unction1 etc.?
3orrect way to breaK supersymmetry has not been !oun. C7esKin an
"chroeerD
?osonic !iels give positive contributions to the vacuum energy an
!ermionic !iels give negative contributions.
6hese contributions cancel e0actly to all orers o! perturbation theory
- unbroKen supersymmetry.
3onserve supercharges with spinor ine0. "upercharges either
preserve or breaK supersymmetry1 i! they annihilate or not the
supersymmetric state.
=amiltonian is the commutator o! the supercharges.
"calar-!iel potential CsuperpotentialD is comple0 to match the egrees
o! !reeom o! the !ermionic !iels.
"upersymmetric states egenerate in the mass spectrum !or !ermions
an bosons.
4lobal trans!ormations o! supersymmetric states become local1
position-epenent trans!ormations in curve spacetime
CsupergravityD.
6wo superpotenials now with a metric associate with the emergent
superpotential. 6his metric is erive !rom the 2n partial erivative
o! the Oaehler potential with respect to the broKen supersymmetric
state an its comple0 con5ugate Cnow spacetime position-epenentD.
Cp. 2$D
:as an 7ernice C*22%D show a mechanism !or symmetry breaKing
which naturally avois an in!inite vacuum energy.
RHn general there are many1 not necessarily compatible1 ways o!
e!ining gravitational energy.S Iacuum ;nergy CAobertsD
.ogical equivalence is an abstraction psychological-associative
similarity o! notions L why shi!ting in one_s min between logically
equivalent conceptualizations is nonetheless associative thinKing Cin
partD.
Fe can either euce each other_s euctions or we must wait !or
transmission o! issemination. .ogic versus issemination in light o!
the ata vs. in!ormation vs. Knowlege istinction.
6hose mnemonic impressions that are most eeply !i0e are those
that we again recollect with greatest regularity. 6his causal
interpretation may equally logically be turne on its hea to rea
those impressions that we later recollect with greatest regularity are
those that at !irst become most eeply !i0e.
6he requirement o! the arbitrariness o! symbols is a consequence o!
the consciousness L presupposing nature o! language as a system as
oppose to a mere system o! symbols itsel!.
6he vorsilben1 ver-1 er-1 ent-1 ein-1 etc. are systematic in their
metaphoricity. ;ach new application broaens this metaphoricity in
a manner a!!ecting all !uture an previous application.
-rom .ivings Aeviews in Aelativity C2)))-*D
http://www.livingreviews.org
(.* "upersymmetry
R","< is a spacetime symmetry relating !ermions an bosons to each
other.S RSglobally supersymmetricSS theories1 which are e!ine in
!lat spacetimeS
Hn R!latS spacetime = ) ue to per!ect supersymmetry o! virtual
!ermions an bosons. 8ass breaKs this supersymmetry inucing
both a nonzero an a gravitational !iel. :oes this suggest that {
) is 5ust the collective1 global gravitational !iel !orme !rom
cumulative local !iels?
RHn the case o! vacuum !luctuations1 contributions !rom bosons are
e0actly cancele by equal an opposite contributions !rom !ermions
when supersymmetry is unbroKen.S
R"o the vacuum energy o! a supersymmetric state in a globally
supersymmetric theory will vanish.S
R6he above results imply that non-supersymmetric states have a
positive-e!inite vacuum energy.S
RHn curve spacetime1 the global trans!ormations o! orinary
supersymmetry are promote to the position-epenent CgaugeD
trans!ormations o! supergravity.S 6his means that gravitation breaKs
the supersymmetry o! the vacuum1 i.e.1 breaKs spacetime symmetry o!
the manner by which vacuum !ermions an vacuum bosons are
relate. /n they are relate via virtual processes Creactions an
interactionsD structure by the 7auli principle an the principle o!
?ose-;instein statistics. ?oth o! these principles apply equally to
real an virtual particles1 i.e.1 to particles that are either RonS or Ro!!
mass shell.S
RFe are there!ore !ree to imagine a scenario in which supersymmetry
is broKen in e0actly the right way1 such that the two terms in
parentheses cancel to !antastic accuracy1 but only at the cost o! an
une0plaine !ine-tuning Csee !or e0ample [&$\D.S
Oey to the mechanism unerlying the strong equivalence principle o!
gravitation1 i.e.1 that all !orms o! energy respon equally to a
gravitational !iel1 irrespective o! the quality o! this energy Ce0cept
possibly certain !orms o! vacuum energy L what is essentially at
issueD1 must be the important !act that real !ermions perturb the
-ermi-:irac statistics o! the quantum vacuum so as to prouce
gravitational time ilation1 while real bosons perturb the ?ose-
;instein statistics o! this vacuum so as to prouce general relativistic
increases o! mass. H! the intimate connection suggeste above
between the vacuum statistics o! !ermions an bosons an the strong
equivalence principle is a vali one1 then since gravitational time
ilation a!!ects the temporality o! the quantum vacuum1 so then we
must e0pect that gravitational mass increases must also be e0perience
by this quantum vacuum.
6he connection an proportionality between the energy ensities o!
time ilation an relativistic mass increase may perhaps be
unerstoo through the manner in which energy transitions within a
crystal are proportional to the momentum-energy o! photons which
result an which are emitte by the crystal. /nother e0ample o! this
type o! connection is to be !oun in the phenomenon o! spontaneous
emission interprete as stimulate emission by collision o! virtual
photons with the e0cite atom.
"o the crystalline lattice-structure quantum vacuum is a!!ecte by
mass to prouce a gravitational !iel by taKing on i! only relatively
super!icially the properties o! mass energy1 i.e.1 a local gravitational
mass equivalency1 which this vacuum otherwise oes not naturally
possess.
6he small1 positive-e!inite vacuum energy that results !rom this
broKen symmetry o! the vacuum statistics o! !ermions an bosons is
ienti!iable as the cosmological constant1 globally an as a
gravitational !iel1 locally.
6he global e0pansion is presumably riven by this globally positive-
e!inite energy ensity Ccosmological constantD while the local
contraction Cat least o! the matter an energy occupying the locally
a!!ecte spacetimeD is riven by gravitation.
"o how o we reconcile this interpretation o! vacuum energy as
gravitation1 with which a negative bining energy is locally
associate1 with the interpretation o! this vacuum energy as a globally
small1 positive-e!inite energy ensity? 7erhaps reconcilement is
through the interaction o! mass with the accelerate global e0pansion
o! the vacuum energy/cosmological constant.
Fithin !lat spacetime an equilibrium e0ists between real $-
momentum !luctuations Cspin * boson e0changes within $-spaceD an
imaginary (-momentum !luctuations CtimeliKe energy !luctuations in
the !orm o! !ermion-anti!ermion creation/annihilation events. 6he
absence o! a momentum-energy ensity graient within (
imensional spacetime constitutes null gravitational !iels. 6he
positive an negative components o! vacuum energy ensity ue to
bosonic an !ermionic !luctuations1 respectively1 woul be e0pecte
to counterbalance one another i! the crystal lattice moel is
appro0imately vali !or the quantum vacuum1 that is1 each boson
e0change is traceable to a pair o! ownwar an upwar transitions o!
the vacuum crystal_s global energy. /n upwar transition o! the
vacuum crystal may be interprete as the creation o! a !ermion an a
ownwar transition as the annihilation o! this !ermion Cor1 alternately
an perhaps the simultaneous creation o! a !ermion/anti!ermion pairD1
c.!.1 ;instein_s equations o! spontaneous an stimulate emission.
6hose who have never istinguishe themselves !rom mainstream
society by eveloping peculiar talents an the creative outlets o! their
e0pression L those may only possess the most super!icial
acquaintances as their closest associates. 6o have !riens as oppose
to acquaintances one must have long participate in the construction
o! sel!.
6he observer_s min speci!ies no speci!ic simultaneity since the
energy uncertainty o! this min comprises a spectrum o! entangle
vacua. 9nly through the inter!erence o! the conscious observer in
the act o! preparing quantum systems are ?ell nonlocally connecte
quantum states prouce.
?ell nonlocally connecte !luctuations comprise energy uncertainties
which also violate the =eisenberg uncertainty principle1 i.e.1 /a; W /at Y
h1 in the case o! ?ell nonlocally connecte energy uncertainty. 6his
may be the unerpinning o! the internal temporality o! sub5ectivity Cas
oppose to the e0ternal temporality o! intersub5ectivityD. 6he
inequality o! the time-energy uncertainty marKs the bounary
between intersub5ective an sub5ective omains o! physical reality. Ht
is probable that /a; W /at Y h !luctuations comprise all /a; W /at Z h
!luctuations.
"pin ) !luctuations are rotate so as to prouce spin * !luctuations.
6he nonlocal connection speci!ies a simultaneity that is
nonrelativistic an so the relativity o! simultaneity can only be
consistent with a multiple internal1 i.e.1 non-spacetime1 temporality L
one that is collapse into a single intersub5ective time through
intersub5ective causal relations unerlying possible intersub5ective
communications.
6he causal powers Cin "earle_s senseD o! matter resie with the groun
an not the mani!estation o! these powers1 i.e.1 virtual particles an
!iels L quantum vacuum Cin which particle-!iel uality is
ineterminateD.
3onsciousness may be inconsistent with em entsto!!lichen Cer
entsto!!lichKeit 7rinzipD.
3ontinuity o! consciousness seems at !irst to require C/at )1 /a;
D1 but the integrally whole nature o! sub5ective time Cat least over
small time intervals1 e.g.1 ).* sec1 ).)'1 sec1 *) msec1 etc.D seems to
require a capacity to overcome time_s uniirectionality Ccausal
consistencyD an this means that continuity o! consciousness an
continuity o! intelligence Cconsciousness_ internal temporal integrityD
are !ormally at os with one another.
;instein_s erivation o! ; = mc
2
involves a photon bo01 which is an
e0ample o! boun energy. 6he photon_s cyclical iscontinuous
CiscreteD acceleration within the bo0 Cas the photon bounces bacK
an !orth o!! the bo0 wallsD gives the photon an e!!ective mass that
can have both an inertial an a gravitational mass Cwithout the
inconsistency o! ouble-counting1 as in the case o! the e0paning
photon sphereD.
/ concept is abstract in its e!inition an escription but oes not
!unction in this moe1 rather1 !unctioning in the moe o! integrate1
open-ene ambiguity wherein the integration is transcenentally
structure1 i.e.1 trans!ormal.
6he nonlocal connectivity o! the energy !luctuations cause a violation
o! the =eisenberg uncertainty principle in !avor o! a larger than
preicte time uncertainty1 /at.
:iscrete entities maKe up close systems.
+
2
+ * = )1 why i? 6he imaginary number line is perpenicular to
the real number line. /n the iagonal principle o! the
counterintuitive nature o! moern physics.
6he timeliKe motion o! a mass becomes spaceliKe through the action
o! gravitation.
Foul gravitation stop i! the e0pansion o! the universe were stoppe?
Hn a gravitational !iel spins about the time a0is1 which we rea in
three imensional space as spin )1 are rotate in the irection o! the
a0is connecting the spin ) composite particle C!ermion-anti!ermion
pairD to the center o! mass o! the source o! the gravitational !iel.
6his is an alternate escription o! the shi!t o! momentum-energy
!luctuations towar increase1 spaceliKe spin * $-momentum
!luctuations an ecrease timeliKe spin ) energy !luctuations.
8olecular evolution iverge !rom a snail_s pace o! protein evolution
on the one han to the vastly accelerate evolution nucleic aci
evolution on the other. 6he rate o! chemical evolution was
accelerate by the appearance o! sel!-replicating molecules1 then
!urther accelerate by the appearance o! sel!-replicating molecules
possessing the capacity !or e0pression
.abels o! ostensive e!inition Cin which initially the vocalizations are
arbitraryD may be contraste with meanings conte0tually groune in
a culturally meiate sociolinguistic system o! conceptualization Cinto
which an iniviual must be acculturateD. 6he question arises as to
whether the representational vs. participatory meaning istinction
correspons e0actly with the above istinction o! ostensibly e!ine
vs. conte0tually groune1 sociolinguistically meiate terms.
=uman e0istence is a nursery or !arm !or the prouction o! metaphors
the purpose o! which is to maKe sense o! phenomena within a realm
possessing only the most abstract similarity to human e0istence.
7sycheelics either cause a cascae change in root level processing
o! ata internal an e0ternal or alter brain !unctioning in a causally
supervenient manner so that the cascae upwar o! the e!!ects upon
root level !unctioning are higher orer conte0tually meaning!ul1 c.!.1
2c1 *2:))1 Forl :ouble HHH & HI.mp$.
7arallel universes o! 8FH P8 are sub5ective an not ob5ective or
intersub5ective. ,ncertainty implies min perhaps as much as oes
the presence o! in!ormation.
3onsciousness L when an action calls !orth a novel response1 which
must be registere within that which is or has being.
/ssociations o! elements o! e0perience that !orm with one another a
comple0 vs. associations o! elements with other pree0istent
comple0es.
9nly the present is real although out o! the present moment evelops
multiple RsoullessS alternate realities1 each becoming real1 i.e.1
gegenwaertlich1 c.!.1 RHniviual Ier!ormer.S
6he temporal evolution o! conscious min is by continuous
wave!unction collapse there must be an unerlying substance or
groun to this continuity that transcens any iniviual psi !unction
escription.
6heoicy o! 8FH P8: all alternate universes to one in which a
person_s consciousness e0ists1 also contains this ientical
consciousness. Aesult: the universes o not etermine personal
ientity. Hn which case1 an iniviual_s consciousness comprises all
alternate universes in which that consciousness Re0ists.S 6he being
o! the person is there interstitial to these alternate universes.
-ining the :@/ o! the perpetrator at the crime scene oes not o!
course tell the authorities the ientity o! this perpetrator. 6he
perpetrator must be apprehene as a suspect !irst an the :@/ o! the
sample an that o! the perpetrator matche. 6his is o! course all very
obvious so why mention it?
Fe play umb Cmetaphysically nacveD to prevent attachment o!
apologetics to the root o! our possible assent to theistic belie!.
6here must be an in!rastructure supporting the higher processing o!
human e0perience beyon that capture within the e0perience o! any
one iniviual. Hn!ormation o! such higher processing woul
necessarily be transcenental in quality.
?ecause the listener will meet the speaKer hal!way1 as it were1 there_s
no real nee !or precision in the !ormulation o! e0pressions an
communications.
;verything that ais in the retention o! youth inter!eres with the
proper !unctioning o! reproucible processes. :evice-speci!ic1 sel!-
loaing1 sel!-e0tracting evice river so!tware.
-or instance1 the i!!erent missions o! each istinct cloister or
ecclesiastical orer correspons to the istinct varieties o! <oga
practice by each variety o! =inu temple or sect1 e.g.1 <ana1 ?aKhti1
Oarma yoga1 etc. 6he above is an e0ample o! convergent evolution
in which the same !unction is emboie in a variety o! istinct !orms
possessing among themselves no obvious commonality o! heritage.
6his is an e0ample o! the egeneracy o! !unction with respect to
!orm1 pointing up an unerlying symmetry o! the ynamics in which
the evolutionary process is embee.
6he vacuum supplies the topology in which the metric is embee
through the initial bounary conitions an sustaine by the spatial
constraints an bounary conitions. 6opology is metric egenerate1
so tells us general relativity theory. "o there must be a eeper
symmetry with respect to one or more o! the metric_s inepenent
variables which is not conserve Cas the embeing topology must
beD but quantum-con5ugate to the embeing topology.
-or instance1 the i!!erent missions o! each istinct cloister or
ecclesiastical orer correspons to the istinct varieties o! <oga
practice by each variety o! =inu temple or sect1 e.g.1 <ana1 ?aKhti1
Oarma <oga1 etc. 6he above is an e0ample o! convergent evolution
in which the same !unction is emboie in a variety o! istinct !orms
possessing among themselves no obvious commonality o! heritage.
6his is an e0ample o! the egeneracy o! !unction with respect to
!orm1 pointing up an unerlying symmetry o! the ynamics in which
the evolutionary process is embee. 6he vacuum supplies the
topology in which the metric is embee through the initial
bounary conitions an sustaine by the spatial constraints/bounary
conitions. 6opology is metric egenerate1 so tells us general
relativity theory. "o there must be a eeper symmetry with respect
to one or more o! the metric_s inepenent variables which is not
conserve Cas the embeing topology must beD but quantum-
con5ugate to the embeing topology.
H! the strong equivalence principle applies to all !orms o! energy
e0cept the quantum vacuum1 then the Rsuchness principleS implies
that the vacuum energy oes not gravitate.
)N)%)2
Ae!lections on p. 2&2 ialogue between Ohrest an 7erry
Ahoan1 :ie :ritte 8acht: /ll eneavor an communication carries
within itsel! the unerlying import o! the sublimation o! rives an
instincts superimpose upon an almost coelenterate-liKe insistence
upon er ununterbrochene AuehigKeit.
6hought achieve only through intersub5ective communication1
linguistically meiate1 transcens the possibilities o! re!lection o! a
uni!ie an !unamentally whole1 albeit in!inite1 solitary sub5ectivity.
.anguage an its peculiar moe o! steering thought into the socially
signi!icant imension in its peculiar capacity o! being more active
than a mere escriptive meium Ci.e.1 RtransparentS to thoughtD
enables even this intersub5ective communication within this otherwise
solitary sub5ectivity.
Hn accelerating a mass uner buoyancy the relationship between mass
an acceleration is iscrepant by a !actor o! R2S i! one oes not taKe
into account the mass o! the water isplace by the1 e.g.1 sailboat that
one is seeKing to set in motion. 9! course1 the calculation comes out
right i! one iscounts the mass o! the ship itsel! an inclues in the
calculations only the mass o! water isplace.
"ome interesting questions an speculations are raise by /simov_s
short story1 :as /ttentat. 6he worl government_s central computer1
8ultivac1 has grown tire o! supporting the worl_s aministration1
particularly the petty1 neurotic preoccupations o! this worl_s
bourgeois populace. 8ultivac seeKs to en his own e0istence1 but in
orer to o so must circumvent the operation1 the attempts o! his
purely logical being to thwart any such suicial plan. =e oes this
by encouraging technicians to maKe to them insigni!icant alterations
to his less important subroutines1 which are merely to e0ecute routine
aministrative actions. 6hese changes are originally insigni!icant but
are secretly very broa in scope in certain particular interactions with
human participants. 6his is similar to how >esus 3hrist circumvente
the logic o! :ivine >ustice that woul seeK !or humanKin_s !inal
5ugment.
Hs metaphysical speculation 5ust he archaeology o! the
psycholinguistic palimpsest collectively prouce an trans!orme1 or
is it the iscovery or invention o! altogether new philosophical
conceptions evolve !rom the iniviual an creative consciousness
o! the thinKer himsel!?
6he saying that Ryou can_t get there !rom hereS is a colloquial way o!
saying that the trans!ormations involve in taKing the system between
two o! its states is not a !unction o! permutation an combination1 i.e.1
not a !unction possessing a group theoretic escription in which the
system_s state an ynamic evolution cannot be given in terms o!
conserve quantities or !unctions o! conserve quantities.
/ 4erman gentleman o!!ers to light the cigarette o! a woman
un!amiliar to him. 6he woman warmly thanKs the man. 6he man
respons1 RKeine ,rsache1S which1 i! literally translate into ;nglish
is renere1 Rits not the beginning o! anythingS Csigni!icantD. 6hen
when one attempts to use the social conte0t to give orinary sense to
this cryptic souning response we get something more unerstate
than Rno big eal.S
Fhen translating bacK an !orth between languages1 say1 o! a single
linguistic !amily1 one passes along a Kin o! intelligence circle1 a
circular spectrum o! the literal to the metaphorical an bacK again.
6his may point to the peculiar !unction o! consciousness as interpreter
o! perceptual/sensory ata. 6he recursiveness o! consciousness is
importantly tie to this RHntel circle.S
Hs the worKing o! chance an coincience implicate in the !act o! the
tortuous path o! biological evolution? Fithout the constant Can
RunpreictableSD changes in the evolutionary bounary conitions
Cenvironmental conitionsD li!e woul have perhaps never evelope
beyon the coelenterate stage.
Hn!ormation in!uses an enriches the process whenever unpreictable
challenges are pose to living organisms.
.ogic is what most who are in!orme woul thinK in the particular
situation.
6he iscovery that two homini species ha arisen inepenently o!
one another shoul have almost the same signature as the iscovery
o! intelligent humanoi li!e on another planet.
6he !ailure o! language intertranslation means that language must
ultimately !ail to correspon to ob5ects but must always !urther
process the contents that it woul attempt to !aith!ully represent. H!
the genetic coe is a language arti!act1 then what oes the
nonrepresentational aspect o! language imply !or evolutionary theory?
3ampbell: Ri! you on_t get it now Ceternal li!eD1 you_re not going to
ever get it1 eternal li!e is right now1 not in some vague1 istant !uture
time.S
?ugle overtones an musical note permutational/combinational
subgroups analogous to the istinction between causal relationships
an logic o! trans!ormation o! causally base phenomena.
Hn a metaphysical sense1 one_s neighbor is 5ust as !oreign to onesel! as
some e0traterrestrial being. 6he same observation applies
concerning an egoless consciousness in relation to one_s own
conscious ego. 6he rather unesirable alternative to this possibly
bizarre conception is that o! outright solipsism.
:iscuss the istinction between the numbering o! entities an the
counting o! them.
3onservation o! energy an the entropy law1 i.e.1 that usable energy is
always lost whenever energy changes !orms1 emonstrating that
energy an in!ormation are not intere!inable.
Hhr sei Cmehrzahle arte vom IerbD. R"eiS may be interprete as a
erivative o! the 2
n
person plural !orm o! the verb to be. 6his points
o! the connection between sub5unctive moe an the moe o!
being/action o! ivine beings versus the inicative moe as the moe
o! being/action o! earthly beings1 c.!.1 RH woul thinKS1 RFe woul be
not unwilling toS1 Cnot unKin as ouble negative circumlocution !or
an a!!irmative statementD RH woul say1 that. . . R1 6he "ie !orm uses
the plural !orm o! the verb1 ientical to the in!initive !orm o! the verb1
an similar observations relating concepts o! plurality1 ivinity1 an
sub5unctivity an in!initive verb !orms versus unity1 humanness1 an
inicative an conitional verb !orms1 etc.
3antor_s iagonalization proceure
Puantum superposition principle
=eisenberg ,ncertainty 7rinciple
Aelativity 6heory
=ilbert "pace1 etc.
6hese are e0amples o! the ever-e0tening generality o! the geometric
theorem o! 7ythagoras. 6he most general characterization1 perhaps1
o! 7ythagoras_ theorem might be that o! there always e0isting a
conceptualization which reconciles the cutting o! one set o!
istinctions across another such set1 but one which is o! an altogether
higher orer1 hence the sense o! pro!unity evoKe whenever some
new application o! this theorem is iscovere. 6he iscovery o! such
altogether new an more general applications o! the 7ythagorean
theorem are usually mae as a result o! serenipitous chance. 6he
e0plication o! the conceptual !rameworK here is always a!ter the
!ashion o! a summation o! zigzagging along two orthogonal
conceptual a0es. Hn this way the conceptualization an application o!
the particular 7ythagorean-theoretic generalization1 although always
well in han1 is never irectly intuite rationally. 6his may be
because the iagonalize connection o! the two istinct conceptual
systems is itsel! irrational in a sense that is itsel! a rational e0tension
o! the logic o! a geometric iagonal.
=eraclitus L /ll is !lu0
:emocritus L /ll is particulate
;ucli L /0iomatic systems
7ythagoras L all is number1 music o! the spheres1 etc.
/ system compose o! evolving an mutually interacting
probabilities.
Ht is suppose that the actual/!actual supplies the bounary conitions
by which the counter!actual an their probabilities are e!ine1 c.!.1
;ccles_1 =ow the 8in 3ontrols its ?rain an my essay1 R:ualism
an :isemboie ;0istence1S speci!ically =enry 8argenau_s
comments about quantum probabilities.
/ close system is the sum o! its components. =owever1 each o! the
components is itsel! an abstraction !rom a continuous groun or
Feltall. ;ach component remains in signi!icant contact with the
groun !rom which it was originally abstracte an is sustaine
through the continual action o! this groun.
@o set o! phenomenal elements each with equal probability to the
other.
@o !ree will operating when the brain ecies to switch into
consciousness moe. -ringe e!!ects o! consciousness_ switch-on are
entangle into a seamless continuum that bacK-re!ers to an illusory
conte0t o! prior conscious e0perience.
/bstraction is a !unction o! limitation an elemental abstract entities
are apparently necessary to prouce more comple0 abstract entities
that otherwise coul not have been prouce through a *
st
orer
abstraction !rom the in!inite transcenental continuum.
Hn other wors1 the process o! abstraction is irreversible an hence not
!ormalizable.
Qd
4raually1 the interpretation o! wave-particle physics eepene1
going !rom the intuitively easy uality o! the photon_s wave-particle
nature to the subtle an counterintuitive properties o! the uality o!
eigenstate vs. superposition state. Hn the process o! this evolution o!
the concept o! wave-particle uality. 6his istinction o! the
components !orming this uality began to subsume an cut across that
earlier istinction o! the components o! the uality establishe by
:e?roglie_s matter wave hypothesis.
6he imper!ect inter-translate-ability o! human Cas oppose to
symbolic-logicalD languages proves that language is not a passive
meium !or the high !ielity transmission o! thought1 but is active1
contributing to the !ormulation o! thought.
R3onsciousness is no more mysterious than electrical phenomenaS L
7iero "caru!!i. Fhat_s the physical sie o! consciousness?
/n intersub5ective theory o! the sub5ective cannot possibly e0plain
what maKes !or the ientity o! an iniviual sub5ectivity1 because it is
precisely !rom the unique nature o! the iniviual !rom which we
abstract to prouce a concept o! consciousness Cas suchD. Fe cannot
then turn this process o! abstraction on its hea1 using the general
concept o! consciousness to she light on the nature o! some
iniviual consciousness. Fe may1 however1 investigate the
epartures o! the iniviual consciousness !rom some abstract moel
we have o! it uner some altogether new concept? Hs it true that there
is no such thing as levels o! consciousness? - 5ust i!!erent levels o!
comple0ity !or the structuring o! consciousness? Foul this be to
!all bacK upon nacve representationalism an assume that
consciousness is an entirely passive meium o! e0pression o! thought
L an not a meium !or the creation o! thought?
3onsciousness is CmateriallyD organizationally egenerate. C8any
i!!erent consciousnesses are associate with organization as such an
many i!!erent organizations as such an many i!!erent
organizations Cor matterD are associate with consciousness as such.
Hnvention is ue to the moment o! rotational inertia about the time
a0is.
3oincience is perhaps unrecognize Karma. 6he conceptual
revelation by which consciousness shi!ts must be !ormally
unre!erenceable. 6he eterminism o! consciousness is in its
substantial continuity.
R"ie !urchteten sich ass sie Rzur 4rune gehen weren.S 6he literal
translation o! this common 4erman phrase woul seem a
metaphysical phrase to any philosophically sophisticate ;nglish
speaKer.
6he greatest interaction occurs at the level o! greatest simplicity1 e.g.1
subatomic level. ?ut in!ormation cannot come available !or
e0change between more comple01 evolve structures until some
vacuum resonance has been lost by having been sacri!ice to the
evelopment o! coherence within the evolve structures that woul
communicate with one another.
6he notion o! the insu!!iciency o! classical matter1 i.e.1 matter that
e0ists1 Rout there1S Rwhen no none is looKing1S is that a situation1 in
which there is being1 Rinhere1S Rwhen some is looKingS cannot be
erive !rom the activity an interaction such classical matter. /
system that possesses no Routsie inputsS cannot properly simulate a
system inee possessing such outsie inputs.
6he 2
n
.aw o! 6hermoynamics has something to o with the
phenomenon o! inertia L the resistance o!!ere by matter to the
trans!ormation o! its latent energy into Kinetic energy.
Cm
2
v
2
L m
*
v
*
D
2
+ Cm
2
ic
2
L m
*
ic
*
D
2
= )
6he sum o! the (-momenta = ) = conservation o! (-momentum.
3onsciousness may well be an abstraction liKe the per!ectly straight
line1 per!ect triangle1 etc. L it only subsists as an abstract entity. Hn
which case1 how can there be a plurality o! purely abstract entities.
?ecause wors always start out as bricKs intene to become part o!
the structure o! thought_s e0pression1 but ultimately transmute into
mere sca!!oling as larger an more comple0 though structures
incorporate hem1 these structures1 in turn being incorporate into still
larger similar structures1 that their re!erences points more an more
towar the e0terior o! any preestablishe system o! signs. .anguage
is1 parao0ically1 simultaneously e0pression an meium o!
e0pression1 i.e.1 language is sel!-meiating. 6his is only to be
e0pecte because language serves a raically recursive meium1 that
o! consciousness.
/nalogy o! a net Cas !ilterD vs. a RnetS as networK o! associations Calso
a Kin o! R!ilterSD. Aorty_s pragmatist view towars the rei!ie
abstract entities o! the sciences as arbitrary1 more or less success!ul
resonances o! the observer an observe systems1 more particularly1
o! their respective quantum =eisenberg quantum uncertainties may be
interprete in light o! P8 theory1 c.!.1 Aorty lectures/ebates on
Hnternet.
/n emotional epiphany can always be given equally well either a
conscious1 uni!ie-sel! interpretation or a subconscious1 issociate-
sel! interpretation o! behavior an thus thought to be or lie closer at
the level o! actual causal etermination o! behavior. 6his manner o!
thinKing is very much in!orme by a Kin o! bottom-up view o! the
organization o! the structure o! causality. Fe shoul perhaps more
properly speaK here o! the structure o! the meium o! causality an o!
whether or not some ynamic principle o! this meium supervenes
over the causal in!luences coursing through it. 6his is the question
here o! the causal supervenience o! the sel! within the conte0t o! the
ol !ree will vs. eterminism ebate.
-ranK 7arare_s article on the structure o! scienti!ic revolutions C
678 9nlineD in its !inal paragraph suggests the possibility that at
some stage science ceases to grow in completely an commences to
o a Kin o! Rpseuo-reshu!!lingS or episoic reconstituting by
science o! itsel! as paraigms clash an are replace. Ht is all as
though science is a RevelopmentS o! a characterization by a !inite
an open min o! a close though in!inite system.
@onestructive quantum observations vs. energy egeneracy1 etc.
Hmpulse to act as bringing two Cor moreD alreay e0tant impulse CataD
streams/ trains into near resonance to prouce quantum RbeatsS CliKe
clashing o! two nearly ientical musical notesD o! any ResireS
!requency.
/ heterogeneous concept treate as a uni!ie concept1 e.g.1
consciousness1 possesses a hien symmetry or egeneracy that may
at some later time be broKen or split1 as the case may be. 6here
e0ists in other wors a Kin o! latent structure within a heterogeneous
concept that is glosse over again an again until the application Co!
the conceptD is pushe into some new omain in which the internal
con!lict o! heterogeneous elements must as it were breaK through the
CglossyD sur!ace an reveal itsel!.
/ mere possibility is an abstraction CliKe the wave!unction o!
quantum mechanicsD an there!ore without the coherence that o!
necessity presupposes an irreversible temporality. "o i! the in!inite
e0tent o! space an time are thought to necessitate that all possibilities
shall necessarily Cnot in a logical1 but in a causal sense1 perhapsD
eventually come to pass1 come into being1 this still vouchsa!es us
nothing concerning beings that at some early stage in the game are
not yet even possible. -or possibilities require not only certain
bounary conitions within which they might be realize1 but also
such conitions1 e.g.1 Rinitial conitionsS as are require !or these
possibilities to be at !irst e!ine Cc.!.1 my review o! ;ccles_ booK1
=ow the 8in controls its ?rain an 8argenau_s comments about
possibilities !or istinct brain states not being e!inable in the absence
o! classical physical bounary conitionsD.
8ust bounary conitions to quantum mechanical wave!unctions
always be classically e!ine? 8ust the ynamical processes
constraine by these classical bounary conitions be quantum
mechanical in nature?
6his is the notion o! possibility as a etermination o! a groun state
that is ineterminate an not merely a con!usion o! otherwise
eterminate elements.
6here is no reason here to suppose that all o! the possibilities !or the
,niverse_s later evelopment alreay e0ist by implication Cin the
same senseD at the moment o! creation.
6his is because1 presumably1 whatever was e0ternal to the ,niverse at
the moment o! its beginning Cwith which it interacte at this momentD
continues in being an continues in interaction with it throughout the
,niverse_s evolution. 6his is why the state o! the ,niverse at one
moment is insu!!icient to etermine its state at any later moment in
the absence o! this same ineterminate groun !rom which the
cosmos originally sprang.
/t a certain threshol o! comple0ity o! a quantum system groune in
its ynamical vacuum state Cglobal/vacuum here?D1 the vacuum no
longer can process what is happening in the system Rreal timeS but
must there!ore RguessS what the state o! the system is. 3learly1 at
this stage1 the system has begun to operate out o! its own istinctive
groun state CvacuumD as well as to possess its own istinct temporal
evolution Cbuing !orth !rom vacua !rom the global vacuum state.D
6ranscenence o! the !ormal an hence o! the mimetic. 8imetic
culture as either celebration o! or celebration within a mimetic culture
without conscious awareness1 i.e.1 ;enic ?eing.
3onsciousness prevents cultural evolution !rom being 5ust an e0ercise
in the re-uploaing an reshu!!ling o! culture reveale !rom previous
generations L the elements have meaning Cwhich can only subsist
within a meium or matri0 that can ynamically alter the meaning o!
cultural elements L a sort o! upating o! the laws o! chemistryD which
changes with application an with contact with other cultural
elements.
3hanges in meaning must ultimately be unre!erenceable i! changes
they be.
:ue to the phenomenon o! :arwin_s Rcorrelation o! growthS perhaps
2)% or more o! changes to the genome may be attributable to how
the genome internally reacts to the perturbing !orces o! natural
selection.
9ne o! the hallmarKs o! ignorance is a persistent1 imagine habit o!
maKing assumptions1 particularly about people when in!ormation
su!!icient to maKe such assumptions plausible is altogether absent.
,nreasonable e!!ectiveness o! physical theory is base on the ever
present secret availability o! a5ustable parameters. 6hese a5ustable
parameters e0ist largely in the !orm o! an ambiguity o! !unamental
theoretical concepts.
Ymolecular virologist mae a polio virusZ 8olecular biologists
synthesize a polio virus !rom the publishe genetic coe o! the virus
rather than !rom !ragments o! the Rlive virusS.
:arwin_s notion o! the nonranom nature o! selection as being ue to
Rthe correlation o! growth.S 3hanges in the correlation within one set
o! attributes are correlate with changes in the correlation o! elements
within some other sets o! attributes. Russell Clark Hn :arwinGs ay1 the
cell was 5ust an uni!!erentiate blob Cmicroscopy was Kin o! poor in
the *N$)Gs-*N')Gs when :arwin was EevolvingE his theoryD. @one o! the
!ollowing long list o! sciences e0iste in :arwinGs ay: genetics1 genetic
engineering1 epigenetics1 proteomics1 molecular biology1 embryology1
biochemistry1 nanotechnology1 in!ormatics1 cybernetics1 quantum
chemistry1 chaos theory1 linguistics1 !ractal geometry - the list goes on.
Hn the 2*st 3entury we are e0pecte to believe that the very same
simplistic1 principle o! increasing biological orer CEnaturalE selection
operating upon EranomW mutationsD that :arwin guesse at *')+ years
ago is su!!icient to e0plain the wonrous orer o! t!ahe biological worl.
6he tree o! li!e metaphor o! evolution is really only properly a
epiction o! the present relateness o! li!e !orms. 9therwise1 one
must recKon with the i!!erences latent in the central core o! the ever
branching trunK o! this tree the perhaps not so obvious implication o!
the tree metaphor taKen too literally is some !orm o! what is
essentially special creation.
8ay 2)**
6he gene regulatory networK may bespeaK a bacKwars in time
travelling collection o! signals that is stronger or weaKer accoring
to the relative intensity o! these signals which is an ine0 o! how
many upwar branchings Clater in timeD !ee the lower level
branchings.
6he interpretations o! historical change are always an e0planation1 a
laying out into a place1 a set o! relationships that live an breath
within epths o! time o! multiple imensions an uncertain topology.
>ust as sub5ective an intersub5ective logically e0clue each other1 but
upon closer inspection o! this istinction1 mutually e0clue each !rom
the other in aitional1 eeper an RtranslogicalS ways1 so are the
i!!erent interpretations o! history are more !ully mutually e0clusive
than coul ever be represente within some metahistorical te0t. /n
so all neo-=egelian totalizing interpretations o! human history must
!ail to grasp the multiimensional temporality o! clashing1
incommensurate wills1 each possessing o! a unique
nonrepresentational element o! consciousness an hence an intuition
o! temporal !orm also to itsel! unique.
9ne woners what the phenomenon o! inspiration might be liKe in the
absence o! al viral1 colonizing in!luence o! the constructe other1 i.e.1
genre1 iscourse1 an other still broaer cultural petit paraigms.
"uch Rpetit paraigmsS are always in turn constructe out o! still
others an there is no real e0ample o! the spontaneous arising o!
boune convergence o! elements alreay moving about within this
groun. Hnspiration is always by
cont=
.
6he human person e0periences time an temporal change only ue to
changes in energy istribute throughout the person_s brain. "uch
changes in brain energy require inputs o! energy !rom outsie L not
5ust RoutsieS in the sense o! classical three imensions1 but !rom an
absolute outsie. /ll time !unctions that are analytic1 that is1
continuously i!!erentiable1 may be more concretely represente in
terms o! !inite an in!inite sums o! !requency omain !unctions.
/n e0act clone woul e0change energy with the very same !requency
spectrum o! vacuum energy !luctuations. 3lone brains !unctioning
simultaneously might be e0pecte to mutually inter!ere much as two
raios or 6I stations broacasting i!!erent programs over the same
!requency.
Aotation o! the spacetime re!erence !rame constitutes rotation about
which spacetime a0is? L an a0is orthogonal to both the a0is e!ine
by the irection o! motion an the instantaneous time a0is? 6here
are two other spatial a0es to choose !rom an no logical groun !or
istinguishing between them. 6his suggests that the a0is about
which spacetime rotation turn is a spatial a0is apart !rom any o! the
!our a0es maKing up !our-imensional spacetime.
6he egree o! !reeom !or this spacetime rotation may lie within the
elsewhere region e!ine by the 8inKowsKi light cone.
9ne clearly perceives one_s new !reeom1 the appropriately reware
revolutionary e!!ort1 by being now able to glimpse the high walls o! a
repressive system !rom the open countrysie. /ll one_s energies
now can be evote to bringing to !uller an wier application all o!
the revolutionary principles by which one ha gaine one_s !reeom.
Ht can be argue here that one pro5ecte set o! barriers Cto raical
!reeom1 i.e.1 !reeom in the absence o! all barriers to the willD has
simply been substitute !or another. Hn other wors1 a revolutionary
institution shall inevitably provie the conitions !or !uture
revolutionary Can not necessarily counterrevolutionaryD action o!
generations soon to !ollow. 6he !ouners o! the revolutionary
institution1 along with1 perhaps1 their immeiate posterity1 shall
remain content1 continue within a prison constructe out o! the !reest
e0pression o! their wills1 i.e.1 the revolutionary overthrow o! the
system that !ormerly represse them. <outh not having participate
in the !ouning o! the sociopolitical orer within which they have
come to an ault consciousness are only capable o! perceiving where
this orer sti!les the natural impulse1 never where this impulse is
given !ree reign1 sublimate or aie. -reely wille action within
one sociopolitical regime is not perceive by the agent e0cept in
contrast to the conition by which the impulse o! !reely acting might
be resiste Ceither internally or e0ternallyD.
6here is another relate view o! the sel! e0periencing its !reeom only
within contrast: wieling state sanctione power to impose on the
revolutionary1 counterrevolutionary1 or anarchic iniviuals
con!ormity with the orer o! the state. Aecruiting youth into the
military an the police !orce has always prove an e0cellent
instrument !or controlling the noncon!orming spirit o! the upcoming
generation.
8a0well_s emon_s ability to overcome the iscontinuous entropy1
an in so oing1 strengthening it1 was thought to pose an insoluble
parao0 !or the 2
n
.aw o! 6hermoynamics. 6he emon woul
input no worK energy into the thermoynamic system only an input o!
in!ormation whenever it opens an closes a massless oor sealing an
unsealing the hotter !rom the coler compartments o! the system.
6he parao0 may be resolve once it is realize that within the theory
o! quantum mechanics energy1 that is1 classically conceive o!1 as
local con!igurations o! energy/thermal energy !luctuations1 cannot be
equate with in!ormation.
c.!.1 R"lamming the :oorS1 @ature C2% >une 2))2D
H! the =eisenberg uncertainty principle C=,7D is not merely an
epistemological quantum principle Cas this principle has been
popularly conceiveD but rather an ontological principle1 then the
connection between quantum uncertainty an thermoynamic entropy
becomes problematic vis a vis the logical consistency o! e0tening
the 2
n
.aw o! 6hermoynamics to the treatment o! quantum1 an
more particularly nonlocal quantum !iels. /n ontological =,7 may
well imply that changes in the =eisenberg uncertainty o! a system
may inee come or be brought about by means other than local
inputs or outputs o! energy Cas woul have necessarily been the case
ha the =,7 been merely an epistemological principleD.
/n analogy suggests itsel! here o! the istinction o! energy1 e.g.1
soun energy vs. material particles1 e.g.1 atmospheric1 being
e0change that may be employe to help us unerstan the istinction
between energy Clocal ataD vs. in!ormation Cnonlocal ataD.
6he action o! consciousness almost certainly involves the
RprocessingS o! nonlocally connecte sets o! correlations o! quantum
!luctuations associate with virtual particles an !iels an/or
superpositions o! real quantum particles an !iels. Hs perhaps oes
this through e0ploiting naturally-occurring energy egeneracy_s o!
locally present quantum systems. ?y nonlocally processing naturally
locally occurring energy egeneracy_s1 e.g.1 within the brain itsel! Cor
its embeing local quantum !ielsD orere changes to temporal
evolution o! 7siC5D1 ensity matrices1 an environmental ecoherence
outcomes may be prouce without local violations o! energy
conservation. Fe not here that gravitational energy cannot be
localize an there!ore can only be escribe by a pseuotensor1 c.!.1
Aoger 7enrose.D 6he spectrum o! !requencies maKing up a bit o!
energy uncertainty in itsel! massively energy egenerate.
9ne can only remove all energy egeneracy !rom a quantum system
by introucing bounary conitions upon the system1 7si !or every
conceivable mutually compatible quantum observable.
c.!.1 www.newscientist.com/news/news.5sp?i=ns22222(2%
.ight slows own in step with optical beam intensity in nonlinear
materials. 6his may be an e0ample o! the loaing-own o! vacuum
energy with which the nonlinear material interacts.
R"imultaneous ensemblesS CspaceliKe ensemblesD e0hibit stronger
correlations while temporal ensemble CtimeliKe ensemblesD e0hibit
weaKer correlations than coul have been e0pecte !rom classical
physical theory.
6here a myria ways o! in essence saying the same thing. 6his is
unoubtely because what etermines what one shall say ne0t is
etermine by two essentially isparate an unrelate causal
processes: the prime state o! linguistic reainess base in part upon
what one ha 5ust been uttering1 as well as the conversation
immeiately past1 an also1 o! course1 the intention o! the speaKer to
utter speci!ic content o! meaning.
/n observer_s will has causal repercussions through proucing e!!ects
upon ynamic structures embee in groun. 6his groun1
represente by quantum vacua1 !ails to anticipate the suen action o!
this observer_s will because o! its originating !rom within a istinctly
i!!erent groun1 i.e.1 nonlocally connecte quantum vacuum1
embeing the observer_s brain. Hn so oing1 this unanticipate
action o! the observer inuces quantum mechanical wave!unction
collapse. Hn much this same manner1 the human person is capable o!
maKing moral choices which Rsurprise the Karmic continuum.S "uch
moral choice1 analogous to the quantum mechanical case o!
wave!unction collapse1 elicits its own compensatory response !rom
the Karmic continuum. "uch compensatory response sometimes
results in iniviuals maKing choices possessing moral motivation
an content unbeKnownst to the moral agent at the time1 but which is
perhaps later reveale to him.
Fhen the question concerning whether we humans shoul outlay
signi!icant resources towars eveloping a system !or e!ening
;arth against being strucK by a Killer asteroi1 participants in the
ebate woul o well to consier the !ollowing: what shoul one
e0pect that any other intelligent civilization in the gala0y woul o
when !ace with an ientical threat. ?y !raming the question in this
manner1 human chauvinism an narcissism are taKen out o! the
equation. 6he necessary preventive measures !or humanKin appear at
once obvious L throw as large a !raction as possible o! the worl_s
available resources towars eveloping an implementing a system
!or protecting the ;arth against waywar asterois an other rogue
celestial boies that threaten its e0istence.
R6he rapiity with which a -ourier series converges at a point oes
not epen on the behavior o! the !unction in a small neighborhoo1S
c.!.1 p. *N) o! -ourier "eries an 9rthogonal -unctions1 :over ?ooKs.
Hs the ynamical groun o! virtual processes compose o! ie
vergebliche.
"ummation o! higher orer erivatives eliminates nee !or nonlocal
meiation1 i.e.1 !rom aspects o! global behavior o! !unction.
H! the mathematical !unctions escribing the above wave!orms are
close !orm analytical Crather than transcenentalD1 then the physical
processes to which these !unctions correspon must be nonlocal i! the
time parameter is to be iscontinuous1 i.e.1 the temporal tra5ectory is
partly meiate !rom outsie its Rtra5ectory.S @ow it seems
necessary that there be two istinct Kins o! vacuum energy
!luctuations meiating temporal evolution1 local an nonlocal L both
o! these sets o! !luctuations are !luctuations in the imaginary
momentum o! the vacuum. 6he question arises as to whether there is
a egeneracy between these two type o! !luctuation imaginary
momentum.
.ocal behavior/etermination is partially reunant in the sense o!
being a uplication o! behavior otherwise etermine through
nonlocal processes.
6his is a Kin o! temporal egeneracy pointing up a partially broKen
symmetry. ?ut in this case the symmetry is not broKen to a !i0e
egree or proportion an there is a comple0ly time varying mutual
resonance o! local an nonlocal !iels.
Aecursiveness o! time possessing a perceive rate Cwith respect to
some other time1 etc. a in!initumD is intimately relate to the implie
recursiveness represente by consciousness.
Ooennte es geben nur eine ,nsterbliche? 3omple0ity o! the
iniviual is intimately relate to the number o! possible iniviuals
within a group o! which it is a mere variant Co! a typeD.
/lthough quantum ,niverses may branch along parallel tracKs1 such
is not the case !or persons possessing the capability !or collapsing a
7si !unction. 6his implies that only one o! the !uture branches o! the
,niverse 7si are permitte to be the real continuation o! a previous
real universe. /n so1 we see that 7si cannot be a complete
escription o! any given quantum ,niverse. 6he observer_s
consciousness shoul not actually ivie in 8FH P81 but selects a
branch as its temporal continuant. /n there is no reason to suppose
that each human person_s consciousness selects the same branch as is
selecte by my consciousness. 6he obvious implication here is that1
in any given situation1 one is liKely the only conscious entity present.
?ut this seems a riiculous implication !or the less than obvious
reason that changes in bounary conitions can_t etermine changes
in !unamental personal ientity. ,ngroune changes in a groun
o! being1 i.e.1 where o not maKe re!erence or connect with changes to
other grouns o! being.
6he istinction between one consciousness an another is not to be
sought through egeneracy within an iniviual consciousness that
might be split through some iscontinuous change in the bounary
conitions upon a set o! quantum !iels. 6he parao0 o!
consciousness is that consciousness is not sub5ect to any Re0ternalS
bounary conitions or outsie inputs1 i.e.1 e0ternally cause
moulation o!/change to e0ternal bounary conitions to
consciousness.
Oaren Iiator b Iiator !amily genealogy an history. Hs there some
special connection o! the Iiator !amily name with trageies
associate with strange an unusual causes/circumstances?
.iKe a chess master glimpsing a checKmate *) moves ahea1 all o! us
occasionally emonstrate Rthis Kin o! e0pert systemsS leap o!
insight.
:i!!erences in the e0perience o! temporality between youth an
maturity C8cOenna_s neotony applie to phenomenon o! early
accomplishment o! youth in earlier agesD. .ess novelty in!orms the
e0perience o! the oler person. 6ime intervals shrinK in relation to a
more e0tene personal history. 6here are subtler reasons !or the
above i!!erence in the perceive rate o! temporality base in moern
physical processes1 e.g.1 quantum vacuum1 etc. 6he !ormative e!!ect
o! early e0periences carry the same in!luence upon behavior as o any
genetics1 c.!.1 military brat1 only chil1 molestation victim1 etc.
6he temporality that Knows not novelty cannot be e0pecte to be an
aequate parameter !or !unctions1 which embrace novelty.
@ot a single thing e0hibiting a structure o! multiplicity1 but an
absolute multiplicity/plurality.
-iber bunle reinterpretation o! parallel lives Crich vs. poorD
unsympathetic regar !or lives o! the poor. 9ut o! worK eucate
stocK broKer gets transplante to /ppalachia L what is liKely to
happen Cassume he has no help !rom business/ol social contacts.
3osmic consciousness is a misnomer !or the !irst e0perience o!
nonculturally meiate human animal consciousness. .anguage1
society an culture prime the !irst ruimentary e0periences o!
sel!hoo1 but then serve therea!ter to limit any larger e0perience o!
the sel!.
6heory nee only be representationally accurate to a critical egree
that is short o! any unobtainable complete escription1 but which
nonetheless engages the worl by !orcing the worl Cwhether that o!
nature or o! societyD to recognize it1 an in so oing enter into a
relation with it that is ialectical an ynamic. Hn other wors1 nature
respects the eneavor o! human science a!ter the !ashion o! R a game
o! horseshoes.S
8ani!estation o! ivinity or 5ust a 8r. 7otatohea variant? Cthe
average human beingD 6his is the precarious !igure-groun that
governs each_s perception o! the other as well as the sel!1 in some
cases Ciealization vs. isillusionmentD.
Fhy the evolution o! consciousness cannot be in accorance with a
teleological Cor any RW-logicalSD moel. 6his is relate to 8cOenna_s
notion o! consciousness as a Rnovelty-conserving engine.S
6eleological evolution o! consciousness invoKes a subtle
contraiction in terms because such a type o! evelopment says that
the groun o! becoming is the groun o! being where consciousness_
evolutionary evelopment is concerne1 a Kin o! Ratemporal
temporality.S
8aKe re!erence to something that woul have been mysterious while
in chilhoo1 but which now might1 i! reveale in its particulars1 now
be seen as peestrian1 but which continues to e0ert a mysti!ying e!!ect
o! proucing an sense o! wonerment1 the numinous1 etc. in
aulthoo.
/ multinoal? with noes connecte by 7si !unction collapse
precipitating events Ctriggering situation has to be su!!iciently isolate
!rom the ensity matri0 environment Routsie worlS L realm o!
ini!!erent logic/?D 6his iea is inspire by the movie Rsliing oorsS
many worls P8 an the econstructive agena.
=uman mins o not actually possess a logic as such1 only a naturally
selecte !or simulation L what inter!aces with contacte
!eatures/components o! the environment. /ctually1 logic is only truly
mani!est when the program prouces counter-intuitive results. Cthe
mousetrap snapsTD
=ow can logic be a mere creation o! the human min when no human
possesses the capacity to !ollow the implications o! any euctive
sequence !urther then a !ew steps? C?ecause the logic o! logic1 i! you
will1 i! not logical at the )
th
level 1 is not logical at all1 c.!.1 4eel
C*2$*D.
"ubominant chors1 iminishe chors1 minor Keys1 etc. /s
appropriate !or irony1 horror1 tragey1 etc. :econstruction involves
showing the substance o! perception an cognition as a narrative
structure. / great unteste portion o! perception o! the worl Rout
thereS is constitute by pro5ections o! the sel!. 6he sel! looKs !or
earmarKs o! the situation or environment into which it might pro5ect
its private contents. ,nity o! the sel! is not its groun state1 i! you
will1 but an e0cite1 resonant state o! coherence.
3onstitution o! causal relation by !luctuation-correlation an
statistical paraigm reversal Ccontingent necessary possible
contingentD o! going !rom virtual iniviual real behavior etermining
collective to virtual collective behavior etermining real iniviual.
Hs the energy Cor power L this is another question o! a possibly
important istractionD supporting in!ormation/in!ormation signals
separable !rom this in!ormation while maintaining conte0t-sensitivity
o! this in!ormation? Csubstance1 continuity1 conte0t issueD Hn other
wors is in!ormation wholly abstract in its nature L requiring the
Knowlege ne0us o! conte0tualize/emboie consciousness to be
!ully e0presse?
Hs RlogicS a goo e0ample o! man_s capability !or e!ining concepts
the reach o! which e0cees man_s grasp?
6he Kernel o! the metaphysical perception/interpretation o! the
e0ternal worl is !requently apprehene at a subconscious level at
!irst an a brie! moment later the metaphorical perception o! e0ternal
happenings is generate through the !iltering action o! this metaphor.
6his creates the impression o! the thematic nature o! e0ternal events
originating !rom outsie the perceiver so as to constitute a Kin o!
cryptic message !rom the ,niverse to the perceiver.
H thinK the appropriate comment !rom seasone veterans o! this Kin
o! thing is that Rsomething has both happene an not happene.S
6he 6aoist claim that one cannot o anything o! one_s own sel!1 that
the sel! is but a passive vehicle o! the energy o! the 6ao1 i.e.1 more
commonly interprete as Rcosmic consciousness.S "chopenhauer1
himsel! highly in!luence by his perusals o! =inu an ?uhist
te0ts1 was o! the opinion that the principle o! iniviuation resie
within space an time or perhaps it is more accurate to characterize
"chopenhauer_s view as one o! the necessary mutual or arising
together o! iniviuals with space an time. Hn other wors1
whatever brings spacetime into being1 accoring to "chopenhauer1
also brings the possibility o! iniviually e0isting entities. 6his
notion is clearly contraicte by the possibility o! there being
nonlocal bounary conitions to a quantum mechanical wave!unction.
/n the sel! is not mere epiphenomenon because each sel! is
associate with its own etermining groun o! being. /n iniviual
selves are istinct not within a single an unitary groun o! being1 but
each possesses its own transcenental groun. 6here is no ob5ective
rationalization o! these iverse grouns o! being Cat least that is
ascertainable within being itsel!D.
Ht is a natural human error to suppose that an e0perience o! sel!
consciousness !or the very !irst time must itsel! be the e0perience o!
cosmic consciousness itsel!1 o! which on has hear so much1 even
while still asleep to the true e0istence o! the sel!1 e.g.1 R9h1 this must
be R0S etc.
/re each o! us members o! two istinct worls1 one real1 the other
reamscape? Hs it 5ust that our geographical istribution on the
reamscape is a ranom shu!!le relative to our spatial istribution on
the physical globe?
Ht appears as though evolutionary innovations coul have been
prematurely anticipate through permutational an combinational
shu!!ling o! genes1 but this woul be too short circuit the process o!
the preparation o! the groun !or this change.
Fhatever can be permute amongst alternate universes constitutes a
proper separable component o! the ,niversal wave!unction. 7eople1
places an things1 etc. normally unerstoo1 on_t constitute quantum
separable abstract ob5ects.
/ 3-&) molecule can e0ist in a superposition state on account o!
nonlocal quantum correlations between the various vacuum
!luctuations o! which RitS is compose. RHt1S the 3-&) molecule itsel!
Re0istsS in no particular quantum universe1 but is an abstract ob5ect
subsisting outsie all such possible quantum universes. :o such
supraliminal quantum correlations only obtain between. . . C!inish this
sentence !rom conte0tD
7eople seem to be permutable between 8FH P8 worls1 at the !olK
psychology level at any rate. /lthough we Know this can_t really be
the case.
Fe get con!use because we implicitly try to interpret our own
!eelings in terms o! a moel o! our being as uni!ie1 wholly integrate
sel!1 that is.
Puestion: in terms o! what might the human being be truly uni!ie?
Hn terms o! the soul as abstract C7latonicD sel!?
7robability !eebacK mechanism as moel !or nonrepresentational1
participatory nature o! coherence truth. H! coherence epens on
resonance1 but coherence can be emergent1 i.e.1 base in
nonrepresentational1 nonabstract processes1 then resonance must be
taKing place with respect to an ine!initely open-ene groun that
though representationally plural is bacK-reacting as a uni!ie entity.
Aeprocessing o! concept maps is not permutational/combinational in
nature. 3oncerning one_s personal ientity1 there is a tertium atur.
.i!e is so great o! a mystery that the psyche has to evelop an
maintain e!enses against the perception o! this mystery. ?ut there
must also be some outlet provie the members o! each society !or
the partial recognition o! the e0istential mystery1 but one which
oesn_t threaten to permanently estabilize the psyche an which is
still more socially use!ul.
3.!.1 p. *(( o! Aeuben /bel C*2%&D1 6here are *) high 2&$ C*)
2&$
D
possible gene sequences o! the *))1 ))) genes within the human
genome. =ow coul RranomS mutation at e!!ectively the very
bottom o! the nearly in!initely high !itness peaK1 c.!.1 R!itness
lanscapesS C"tuart Oau!mannD result in a !ractionally signi!icant
climb up this peaK1 especially when only about *) high *2
combinations o! the above enormous number have hereto!ore been
Rtrie?S
9n the other han1 how can we call evolution by its proper name i!
the process starts near the top o! this !itness peaK1 that is1 almost
*))% o! the orer has grace the process o! evolution at its
beginning1 c.!.1 chemical evolution1 etc.
Fe can_t e0pect signi!icant ascent towar the pinnacle o! this nearly
relatively in!inite !itness peaK through the mere !iltering o!
!luctuations in!initesimal relative to the magnitue o! this peaK.
/n what about the thermoynamic consieration o! the e0pecte
tenency !or !luctuations to result in a R!allS own this almost
in!initely high peaK C5ust thinK here o! the relation ship o! potential
energy to height above a gravitating boyD?
Hn $ imensions on cannot move along a line any straighter than that
aopte by a ray o! light CphotonD moving between the two points in
question. 6he spee o! light spee limit shoul be recast more
generally that one cannot travel !aster within a $ imensional
spacetime than coul a ray o! light Cwhatever the photon_s velocity
might be etermine to be in terms o! local process to any possible
velocityD
3hanges in the initial an bounary conitions must in some cases
transcen the ynamics constraine by these bounary conitions.
6he splitting o! the egeneracy o! multiple quantum universes each
associate with the same wave!unction through the initiation o!
interactions between these quantum worl so as to !orm !rom them a
single quantum universe1 points up the !act o! the wave!unction
constituting a complete escription o! the quantum mechanical
system in an observer-inepenent system.
Aeason has a characteristic way o! enaturing the relationships o!
things. 6he seamless web o! causal relationships characterizing the
!unctioning o! any organism or ecological system unergoes change
largely along an a0is o! temporal evolution inepenent o! that by
which its most general groun came into being.
6he bounary conitions to the nonlocal !iel must not be merely
those speci!iable in terms o! spacetime variables.
6he transcenental nature o! consciousness an o! the other1 i.e.1
alterity o! other persons1 points up another but o! transcenence: the
transcenental manner in which one_s consciousness is more or less
similar in numerous respects to that o! other persons an woul-be or
potential persons.
Aather than assuming that there can only be one realization per
potential person we shoul say rather that there may be one such
realization o! personhoo per embeing groun Co! temporal beingD.
Fe see both bases !or personal ientity at worK here1 those o!
resonance an corresponence. 6he corresponence is that o!
transcenental sel!-ientity1 the resonance is that o! the temporal with
the transcenental groun. 3oherence may be unerstoo in terms o!
how1 on the one han1 each temporal groun ClargelyD e0clues the
in!luence o! other grouns o! temporality an1 on the other1 how the
temporal groun itsel! comes to limit inter!erence !rom its
transcenental groun.
3orrelation o! !luctuation spectra o! the iniviual components o! a
system may achieve nonlocality through properly a5uste resonant
states o! each o! the components. 6he iea o! Ra5ustingS carries the
notion o! insertion Rby hanS o! system inputs. Ht is the groun state
vacuum o! the system in question that possesses nonlocal
connectivity. 6he iscrete elements e0hibiting nonlocal connectivity
o so through its peculiar moe o! resonant coupling to its own
quantum mechanical groun state.
9ne_s being change not so much through replication errors per se as
through the creative interpretation o! replication errors. Ht is this
!urther !act o! the persistent reinterpretation o! iscrete1 ranom
changes Cto iscrete carriers o! meaning or1 a ata-in!ormationD which
results in these changes proucing an e!!ect that seems an1 in !act1 is
inee intelligent.
9ne begins to come to an intuitive unerstaning o! such biological
entities as hormones1 neurotransmitters1 genes1 etc. an in so oing
entering into the subtler mani!estations o! these entities.
?ut the boy is in a constant state o! copying itsel! through being
continuously reconstitute out o! the quantum vacuum.
6he more rapily progresses this change1 the less e!inite becomes
the ientity o! that which is the sub5ect o! this change an so in turn
the less e!inite become the changes to this ine!inite sub5ect. Hn this
way there seems to obtain some natural limit to the observable
CconsciousD rate o! time_s passage. =ere it seems we may now be in
a better position to unerstan the parao0 o! time_s passage1 e.g.1
relative to what oes time pass at the rate that it oes Cappears to oD?
/ !rien is never so intereste in the psychological implications o!
what one says as he is its content.
?uiling up coherent structures !rom smaller1 stocK coherent
structures through a ialectic o! consciousness-meiate interplay o!
coherence an resonance.
Hn this way an internal omain o! structure is built up.
6here is a relate ialectical process o! ata becoming in!ormation
an o! in!ormation trans!orming into ata. 6hese two implications
are not relate by a symmetry operation or1 at least not by an e0ternal
symmetry.
6he subconscious/unconscious imension o! thought an motivation
is neee to support open-ene possibilities !or !uture revisionistic
interpretations o! human motives an intentions. 6he nonlocality
rather than the instantaneous locality interpretation o! physical reality
is neee in orer to maKe room !or the possibility o! the transmission
an reprocessing o! in!ormation. /s time passes1 the vague an
ine!inite becomes more crystalline 5ust as the e!inite an crystalline
becomes ever more ambiguous an uncertain. "o temporality seems
to be compose o! two istinct components1 that o! coherence an
ecoherence Cata vs. in!ormationD.
6he recursiveness o! thought consists in the abstraction !rom
particulars that are themselves abstract arti!acts.
Fhat parameters/quantities control transitions !rom virtual to real1
superpose to ecohere1 ?ose-;instein conense/classically mi0e?
;0plore the bearing on the above questions such !actors as
gravitation1 consciousness1 !ree will1 irreversibility1 open vs. close
systems1 causal connection vs. quantum vs. statistical correlation1
locality vs. nonlocality1 resonance vs. coherence1 iscrete vs.
continuous1 egenerate vs. nonegenerate1 elsewhere region vs.
absolute time1 recursion vs. in!inite regression1 uncertainty vs.
change1 on-shell vs. o!!-shell1 real vs. imaginary1 etc.
/ question relevant to that o! the econstruction o! metaphysical
presence is whether consciousness is an evolve coherent recursion or
an instantaneous resonant recursion?
?ut oesn_t the coherence o! consciousness require the resonance o!
the structurings o! consciousness?
9nly irreversible temporality may be characterize as constituting
nonegenerate transitions/temporal evolution. ;ach removal o!
egeneracy brings the system into !uller contact with an Routsie.S
6he parao0 o! the istinction o! open vs. close system is that the
close system entertaine within the imagination is open while the
open system by being both a Rsystem1S that is uni!ie so as to be a
system1 must be nonlocally connecte an so possess internality1 i.e.1
closeness on public spacetime.
6here is nothing relative to which one_s most general state o!
consciousness might change e0cept relative to some still more general
consciousness as such.
6he superpose worls belonging to the same superposition spectrum
are nonlocally connecte via quantum correlations o! a basically
i!!erent type !rom those that meiate causal relationships.
Fhere a close P8 system is concerne1 i.e.1 one not isturbe by
conscious1 !reely wille acts upon it by an observer1 the correlation
matri0 o! the systems supporting quantum vacuum1 i.e.1 !luctuation
spectrum1 possesses a subgroup symmetry that is unisturbe by
purely causal interactions within an between the system an other
CpseuoD close systems.
6he correlation spectra o! superpose virtual states on_t represent a
ecomposition o! causal relationships1 but occupy the elsewhere
region o! the system_s local spacetime.
6his is why the min o! the observer oesn_t !it within local
spacetime.
?ut it is not 5ust the unpreictable breaKing into the system generally
necessitate by the conscious observer_s RunpreictableS act o!
measurement/observation that inuces 7si collapse1 but still more it is
the incompatible pattern o! coherence o! the !luctuation spectrum o!
the observer_s vacuum that coming into contact with system vacua1
necessitates the 7si collapse.
6he bounary conitions upon an open system wave!unction are
internal1 that is1 not speci!ie in terms o! spacetime ClocalD
parameters1 consciousness changes basis in response to unanticipate
inputs in such a way that it maKes itsel! the actor behin their
appearance. 3onsciousness is always internal to its outsie inputs1
an so is impervious to reuction o! its own state. @o observations
can be per!orme upon a conscious state.
.ocality is the etermination o! larger scale phenomena by smaller
scale phenomena. 6his applies to both spatial an temporal scales.
"patially nonlocal interactions involve action at a istance1 that is1
unmeiate through any spatially situate meium along a path
connecting the mutually interacting points. 6his applies similarly !or
the case o! temporal nonlocal interactions. 3onte0t etermination is a
Kin o! nonlocal interaction. "ubstance or substantial meia cannot
be invoKe to e0plicate the moe o! interaction o! two or more
nonlocally connecte systems.
Ht is the mutual inter!erence o! istinct classical universes that is
responsible !or the quantum nature o! each. 6his appears to be
almost a contraiction in terms.
7armenies asserte that there is no such thing as nothing. Fhat
RnothingS as such erives !rom is a gloss on the concept o! Rno-
thing.S 6here is !rom the empiricist point o! view here an interesting
variety o!
Kw=
rei!ication at worK1 namely that o! trans!erring to Oant_s
noumenal realm apparent unity o! a phenomenological escription or
phenomenological basis !or a concept1 e.g.1 !ree will1 etc.
3reativity necessitates the talent !or iscontinuous change in vacuum
symmetry1 i.e.1 transitions between vacuum symmetries that cannot
e0ist on the same vacuum con!iguration tra5ectory.
6he time-inepenent "chroinger equation etermines the
wave!unction1 C01 y1 z1 tD is etermine !or all times within the time
interval e!ine by the wave!unction bounary conitions. /ny
changes to the wave!unction represent isturbances to the system
escribe by this wave!unction L isturbances not pre!igure in the
groun state CvacuumD with which the system was hereto!ore in stable
interaction Cenergy e0changeD. ;0changes o! in!ormation between
the system an its RenvironmentS1 i.e.1 the system_s outsie1 must
precipitate collapse o! the system wave!unction !or
H! in!ormation cannot actually transit or be transmitte across space
because wave!unction collapse cannot originate !rom within
spacetime. 6he phenomenon o! environmental ecoherence seems to
belie this. 6hough this phenomenon may be unerstoo as loss o!
in!ormation by the system. 6he reuction o! the state !unction
precipitate by acts o! conscious observation occur !or quite the
opposite reason L the imparting o! in!ormation to the system though
!rom insie the system_s vacuum or groun state. "o in!ormation is
e0change between two systems inirectly as meiate by both
system_s quantum vacua or groun states1 that is1 through the
entanglement o! the !luctuation spectra o! both vacua. Fe cannot in
unproblematic !ashion interpret entropy as anti-in!ormation because
the vacuum amits a spatial entropy graient even though in!ormation
oes not translate through spacetime1 or at least not without a
pree0isting quantum correlation hanshaKe between the two enpoint
vacua supporting the communicating systems.
9ctober 2)**
/ll o! the
counterintuitive quantum e!!ects are liKely to involve a combination
o! entanglement an inter!erence between two !orms o! this Rquantum
hanshaKeS mechanism1 one pertaining to the action o! a R!ree willS
Cas causal chain initiator/instantiaterD1 e.g.1 a5usting at the last secon
the con!iguration o! instruments constituting Key components o! a
quantum measurement apparatus1 the other1 e.g.1 a5usting all too
quicKly the conte0tual groun !or the interpretation o! the results o! a
quantum measurement.
6he internal RmotionsS that marK the passage o! sub5ective time
cannot be e0plicate in terms o! movement o! matter or energy1
particles or !iels within the three spatial imensions o! spacetime.
-or this reason it might be suppose that sub5ective temporality is
orthogonal to the a0is o! intersub5ective time.
?rian1
YsnipZ
=c may be alternatively e0presse as c
2
/A is the raius o! curvature o!
the ,niverse as a uni!ormly e0paning1 simply connecte spherical
space. A is the !ully contracte Aiemann curvature tensor1 g
iK
A
iK
= A1
where the g
iK
is the metric tensor o! the spherical space Co!! iagonal
components o! the g
iK
an the metric tensor components1 g
**
1 g
22
1 g
$$
1
g
((
correspon to the gravitational potentials o! the ,niverse_s
pressure an energy ensity. Fith the o!!-iagonal components = )1
we are assuming that the stresses ue to e0pansion are ) Cuni!orm
e0pansion o! a hyperspherical spacetimeD. "o c
2
/A may be thought o!
as 48
,
/A
2
1 the gravitational !iel o! the ,niverse1 which is also equal
to =c as well as equal to c
2
/A.
:ue to the ,niverse_s global curvature1 our time imension o! istant
boies participating in the cosmological e0pansion becomes
progressively more spaceliKe with increasing cosmological istance.
3onsequently1 the spacetime variation o! the vacuum energy ensity
which is purely temporal locally becomes more an more spatial at
greater an greater cosmological istances !rom us. "o we see that
the spatial component o! variation in the vacuum energy ensity with
arc istance along the ,niverse_s e0paning $-hypersur!ace is irectly
relate to the overall raius o! curvature o! this $-hypersur!ace. /n
an energy ensity graient is imensionally associate with a !orce
!iel generate by this graient. "o maybe the cosmological
acceleration is gravitational the hypersur!ace is e0paning Cin !ree
spaceD. ?ut where matter is present1 the hypersur!ace e0pans more
slowly temporally ue to the interaction o! gravitational time ilation
with the local rate o! e0pansion/time rate o! ecrease o! vacuum
energy ensity. Hn such local regions o! ecrease time rate o!
ecrease o! vacuum energy there shoul be an increase in the strength
o! the local component o! the spatial graient o! cosmological
vacuum energy ensity. Hn this way we see how the spee o! light1
gravitation1 the vacuum energy1 an cosmological e0pansion may all
be intimately relate.
YsnipZ H see what you mean about how =c can e0plain the
appearance o! an accelerating cosmological e0pansion1 since =c was
smaller in the past an there!ore the cosmological acceleration greater
at greater cosmological istance scales. Fhat o you thinK?
-Aussell C 8arch 2(1 2))2D
R6here is a real con!usion in the literature on the e!inition o! a
RcloseS or RopenS universe. R3loseS is taKen to mean that the
gravitational !orces are su!!icient !or the re-collapse o! all the matter1
but is also re!ers to the geometry o! the $-mani!ol L oes it e0ist as
the membrane o! a (-: ob5ect in (-: space? H1 personally1 thinK the
universe is RopenS in the gravitational sense1 but close in the
geometric sense.S Iery important istinction L H agree.
YsnipZ H believe in an empty universe1 the !ermionic an bosonic
!luctuations o! the quantum vacuum1 which are o! opposite sign1
balance each other in a static1 close $-hypersur!ace1 but on_t
balance in the case o! either an e0paning or contracting cosmos.
8atter1 via the 7auli ;0clusion an Hnclusion principles alters the
normally per!ect spacetime symmetry o! the quantum vacuum in
which1 other things being equal1 the above energy an $-momentum
!luctuations cancel with the pure imaginary (-momentum !luctuations
in their respective energy contributions to a gravitational mass o! the
vacuum.
?y suppressing the spin ) creation/annihilation o! virtual
!ermion/anti!ermion pairs Cvia 7auli ;0clusionD an enhancing the
spin * creation/annihilation o! virtual bosons1 i.e.1 e0change o! !orce-
meiating bosons within this vacuum1 a local spacetime rotation o!
the vacuum relative to !ree space is ue to nonconservation o! entropy
i! the rotation is unone. "o the vacuum statistics are tie to the
spacetime symmetry o! the vacuum. /n matter has the e!!ect o!
enowing the vacuum with an e!!ective mass by rotating irreversibly
Cin the thermoynamic an quantum ecoherence senseD relative to
!ree space vacuum the momentum-energy !luctuation (-vector1
proucing the change in spacetime commonly re!erre to as Rthe
curving o! spacetime.S Fe alreay Know !rom general relativity that
gravitation breaKs the spacetime symmetry o! the vacuum state.
Y"nipZ
=c is 5ust the acceleration by a photon propagating through a
uni!ormly e0paning universe1 which a!!ects all o! our time/istance
measurements base upon us o! RcS as a cosmological yarsticK.
C8arch 2%1 2))2 2:)2 78D
?rian1
Aemember the iea about gravitational time ilation converting a
timeliKe variation in vacuum energy ensity into a spaceliKe one?
<ou never thought much o! that iea1 a H recall. =owever1 H_ve
re!ine that notion somewhat in light o! another notion that gravity
alters spacetime symmetry !rom in!inity inwar Capproaching center
o! gravitational !ielD by tilting the !luctuation momentum-energy
!our vector in !avor o! increase $-momentum !luctuations C!orce-
meiating boson e0changes within vacuum1 increasing its bining
energy L an that o! any mass moving towar stronger !iels along
the wayD an in !avor o! ecrease energy !luctuations Ci.e.1 vacuum
as creation/annihilation o! virtual !ermion-anti!ermion pairsD1 that is1
in !avor o! ecrease ensity o! =eisenberg uncertain energy as well
as increase time uncertainty !or systems being transporte eeper
into a gravitation !iel Ctime ilationD.
"o the gravitational !iel strength increases Cspatially1 temporally1 or a
mi0ture o! the twoD1 the RmassS o! vacuum increases ue to increase
bining energy meiate by increase ensity o! $-momentum
e0changes within this vacuum an the time ilates as the energy
uncertainty ecreases in stepD1 $-momentum ensity an ecreasing in
energy ensity with increasing gravitational !iel.
H_m convince that the absolute energy ensity o! the vacuum woul
be zero i! the universe were o! ) global curvature1 but the positive
curvature1 the absolute energy ensity is some small !igure equal to a
ensity preicte !or the vacuum by quantum mechanics. 6he energy
ensity is only potentially mani!este as energy i!!erences
introuce by matter acting as a set o! bounary conitions upon the
quantum vacuum statistics spacetime symmetryD.
Aemember that energy ensity is a scalar an $-momentum ensity is
a vector an the two can be combine together to !orm a (-vector an
the spacetime graient o! this (-vector is escribe by a 2
n
ranK
tensor1 the stress-momentum-energy tensor1 6
iK
. C8arch 2%1 2))2
**:22 78D
?rian1
Fe Know !rom previous iscussion that the local spee o! light varies
spatially with changing gravitational !iel strength Cor potentialD. Fe
also Know that the spee o! light1 c1 may be e!ine in the !ollowing
way: /a;//at = c1 where /a; an /ap are the =eisenberg energy an $-
momentum uncertainties o! the quantum vacuum supporting
propagation o! electromagnetic raiation. 3onsequently1 gravitation
must either cause or be cause by spatial graients in the ratio C/a;D/
C/apD.
/a; is compose o! all locally occurring virtual !ermion-anti!ermion
creation/ annihilation events within this vacuum an /ap is compose
o! all locally occurring virtual boson e0changes within this vacuum.
3oul one !in a simpler way o! pointing up a liKely connection
between the quantum statistics Can relative energy ensities o!D
virtual !ermions an bosons1 i.e.1 Rvacuum statisticsS Cvacuum energy
ensity D an general relativity_s escription o! gravitation? --
Aegars1 Aussell C8arch $*1 2))2 *):*% /8D
Aussell1
"ouns goo. R?revity is the soul o! wit.S Fhile this is a goo thing to Know1 the ne0t question becomes L how o we
in!luence the !ermion e0change an the boson e0change in the vacuum? <ou once thought there was a conservation o!
real an virtual particles. "o L woul a region o! space that ha a high boson ensity reuce virtual boson e0change?
:on_t thinK so1 it shoul enhance the probability boson e0change Cthe
ol_ 7auli Hnclusion 7rincipleD.
:oes matter reuce !ermion e0change1 i! by merely screening the
prouction o! virtual !ermions that woul have been prouce with a tra5ectory that woul have passe through the real
!ermion? CH thinK you have avocate this be!oreD.
<es1 it oes because the 7auli
;0clusion 7rinciple oes not istinguish real an virtual !ermions.
=mmm. Fhat oes the entire !ermion !iel looK liKe1 not istinguishing virtual an real1 an then what oes the !iel
looK liKe when one Rputs on glassesS to see only the real part an then only the virtual part? 6he same with the boson
!iel. 6his might be interesting.
Iirtual particles become real in an accelerate
re!erence !rame1 see =awKing raiation1 :avies-,nruh raiation1
particle creation in in!lationary cosmologies1 etc. =owever1 particles1
once RelevateS to the status o! real particles1 cannot ever become
virtual again. /cceleration uner thrust unoubtely has an
equivalent e!!ect. 6his is the reason gravity !iels isrupt spacetime
C7oincare_D symmetry an are not .orenz invariant/covariant L the
e!!ect o! gravity on virtual particles is not reversible L say1 by turning
o!! the gravity !iel. /lso1 this is the reason that the sur!ace area o! a
blacK hole is proportional uner certain conitions. 6his !act is not
oubt relate to the mystery o! a virtually in!inite vacuum energy
ensity that oes not possess a gravitational !iel Cother than that
which can be attribute to a component o! itsel! ue to the small
cosmological curvature1 H_ suppose. /n so on. . . . Cmaterial
eleteD C/pril )*1 2))2 *):$* /8D
-.ater1
?rian
Jia1
YsnipZ
3omple0 an perhaps parao0ical perceptions liKe this o! those
aroun us must be actually quite common1 H imagine. /n important
postmoern concept !or late 2)
th
/early 2*
st
3entury philosophy is that
o! the nonunitariness o! the "el!. ?e!ore the evolution o! language
an culture1 humans e0iste in a naturally issociate state Cperhaps
not unliKe mil "chizophreniaD. 6he "el!_s seeming appearance to
itsel! o! unity1 integrity an wholeness Cwhich to some maKes appear
so sensible such notions as soul1 !ree-will1 immorality1 4o1 heaven1
etc.D is perhaps largely a !unction o! culture an is nothing more than
a socially constructe entity1 possessing no real1 inepenent
e0istence. -oo !or thought1 i! you_re intereste in the ol_
appearance vs. reality conunrum. C/pril 2*1 2))2 2:*% 78D
-Auss
Jia1
YsnipZ
6he gravitational !iel an consciousness both generate entropy via
each o! their respective peculiar moes o! action upon the quantum
vacuum. ?oth cause changes to the vacuum Rthat it can_t anticipateS
because not etermine by itT "o when a conscious observer or a
blacK hole interact with the global spacetime vacuum1 they !orce the
vacuum into a position o! having to guess at what its successive
observer suenly interacte with. ?oth blacK holes an
consciousness inuce ecoherence an wave!unction collapse ue to
each_s manner o! suenly connecting the quantum vacuum o!
spacetime to another incommensurate Buantum vacuum. 6his is
what inuces the 7si collapse. -or e0ample when the observer !reely
wills an a5ustment to his measuring apparatus an this action is
cause by his brain1 which is embee in an altogether separate
vacuum state than that o! the quantum system uner observation Can
there is no global vacuum state o! the observe system1 the local
vacuum must guess at what eigenstate to select. 9! course1 this action
by the observer wipes out any previous in!ormation about
observations mae by earlier observers. ?y the way1 this is why you
can_t construct a machine to etect the consciousness o! other
personsT C>une )$1 2))2 &:)( /8D
-Aussell
3onsciousness 8eiate 4ravitational 3ollapse.p!
Fe respon to changes in input !requencies1 !iltere through a system
o! mental pro5ections originating !rom within1 i.e.1 outsie o! public
Cintersub5ectiveD spacetime.
;ternal return breprocessing o! 2
n
language passages with each re-
pass.
/ culture oes not correspon to any instantaneous1 e0plicate/e0-
plane pattern1 but possesses ine0tricable epth Knowable only to
participants organically grown-up within the temporal1 historical
unerstaning.
Ht is the nonlocal action o! consciousness that necessitates 7si collapse
when an observer per!orms a quantum observation. Hts causal action1
there!ore is via global shi!t in probability weightings o! correlations
o! !luctuations.
4ravitation an consciousness generate entropy within a close
system1 but also are associate with the creation o! in!ormation within
an open system. 3learly1 the motion within an open system1 which
cannot be uni!ie1 also cannot be complete in a !ormal sense1 i.e.1 an
open system cannot possess a !ormal escription which is complete.
6he system wave!unction requires spacetime bounary conitions
even i! the wave!unction itsel! may not be properly thought to
RoccupyS this spacetime.
"ince every new thing is graspe via metaphors1 how then were the
very !irst things perceive? Hn terms o! some stocK o! innate
metaphors? /n shoul this innate stocK o! !orms be ienti!ie with
the eternal !orms o! 7lato?
?ut metaphors have a way o! getting out !rom uner us an taKing on
a larger meaning than we originally intene when we !irst
introuce them as a convenient an even maKeshi!t way o! maKing
sense o! something perhaps to someone to whom we are trying to
e0plain our new concept.
?asis trans!ormation that cannot be represente as a linear
trans!ormation between matrices is triggere by a consciousness L
inuce collapse o! a 7si !unction.
;ntropy is generate in a system when it becomes couple to an
incommensurate system.
6he many worls o! 8FH P8 are not eigenstates but
incommensurable superpositions o! other eigenspectra.
Hn!ormation nonconservation in blacK holes an ecoherence in
relation to the in!ormation nonconserving nature o! consciousness.
?ertran Aussell once suppose as an aolescent that moern science
was incompatible with the will since1 !or e0ample1 the laws o!
ynamics must etermine the movement o! a man_s lips so that he
shoul have no control over what he was saying or whether to say it
at all.
9nly by the observer_s physical being becoming encapsulate as it
were into an in!ormationally close system1 i.e.1 7si-close rather
than 5ust an energetically close system1 i.e.1 M7siM
2
-close1 can his
boy be combine with the system being observe into a single1
composite quantum mechanical system1 itsel! escribe by some new
!unction1 7si.
6he implications o! quantum mechanics have helpe brige the
hereto!ore unbrigeable gap between min an matter implie by
classical players.
3an superpose quantum states correspon to virtual coherent states.
Hsn_t the coherence rather a mani!estation o! the mutual nonlocal
connectivity o! all the virtual states maKing up the superposition?
7ossessing a !ree will implies a substantive separateness of the
human agent from the natural orer. =ence1 every naturally wille
action o! this agent constitutes an intervention in the natural orer that
taKes it unawares1 as it were1 in that the human person occupies a
position incommensurate with that o! the physical worl in which he
intervenes every time he !reely acts. =is acts are ultimately unbien
by the natural orer1 constituting the !ree human agent_s !iel o!
boily action.
6he iscontinuity o! 7si-collapse points up the iscontinuity o! two
grouns Co! beingD that o! the natural physical orer1 i.e.1 that o!
eterministic causality1 eterministic probability1 an statistical
probability1 etc.1 with the groun1 in!orming an in!orme by1 the
quantum brain o! the !reely acting human person.
6he parochial min tens to con!use the relative an the absolute1 the
appearance with reality. "o what aptly characterizes the parochial
mine person is a general lacK o! iscernment borne o! an ignorance
that is !requently will!ul.
>oseph 3ampbell in!orms us that the mythologies o! the worl all
re!er to onesel!. "o what is it1 what escription coul not !ail to re!er
to onesel! in one_s particularity over an against one_s istinctly
abstract human nature?
H! logic an rationality are empirical as suggeste by Aobert @ozicK1
then either there is no ultimate orer Citsel! a Kin o! orerD or there is
a being transcening orer L a being who maintains orer o! a Kin
within e0istence. "o then each Kin o! orer is not itsel! an
instantiation o! orer as such1 i.e.1 there is no hierarchy o! orers1 but
a ne0us o! incommensurate orers that is establishe in a contingent
manner. 6ranscenent plurality o! beings implies that there is no
such thing as consciousness as such an solipsism becomes true by
e!ault.
;very e0ample o! a concept is also an e0ample o! other concepts.
/n so an ine0 o! reality is the necessity o! the
reprocessing/reprocessible nature o! in!ormation. 6he hierarchical
nature or in!ormation with respect to its reprocessible nature is
consistent with the notion o! a spatially istribute !ractally structure
irection o! time.
Hnstea o! space + e0istents1 why not have an orer o! networKe
occupation o! beings by other beings. 6his is a Kin o! perturbation
escription Cnot unliKe 7tolomy_s epicyclical system o! orbitsD
because the notion o! pure being Cone possessing more pure
concreteness1 as oppose to the abstractness o! the beings use in the
perturbation e0pansionD. /bstract entities o! theory / can be
perturbation e0pane to yiel entities o! a less abstract but more
concrete theory.
Ht is clear that the conscious observer collapses the 7si !unction
because his brain as an instrument o! transcenent Csub5ectiveD being
alters the nonlocal connectivity o! the quantum vacuum embeing
the quantum mechanical system uner observation1 perhaps through a
mechanism o! viral issemination o! hereto!ore incommensurate
nonlocal connectivity.
Puantum solipsism consieration: the only way one observer can try
to veri!y whether another person succeee in collapsing the system_s
7si is to per!orm a quantum observation o! his own1 leaing to
another collapse o! 7si1 wiping out the in!ormation about the previous
7si collapse that presumably ha been triggere by the consciousness
o! a previous quantum observer. 6he many mins interpretation o!
quantum mechanics assumes the !alsity o! solipsism. Hn the many
worls_ interpretation C8FHD version o! quantum mechanics1 the
brain o! a quantum observer is constitute by the mutual inter!erence
o! istinct versions o! this observer_s brain. 6he mutually inter!ering
brains are virtual in the same sense invoKe by quantum !iel theory
when it speaKs o! interactions between virtual quanta. "o conscious
states are not associate with the quantum states o! the iniviual
virtual quantum brains1 but only with the real brain that is constitute
out o! the mutual inter!erence o! these virtual quantum brains.
8FH quantum mechanics oes not assume the !alsity o! solipsism1
but appears to support this octrine. ;ach quantum brain is
supporte by a istinctly i!!erent superposition o! virtual quantum
brains an hence the real brain constitute o! this superposition is
groune in Ceach quantum brain is embee inD a istinctly
i!!erent quantum nonlocality. 6his is the sense in which it is meant
that each quantum brain is embee within a istinctly i!!erent
nonlocally connecte quantum vacuum. 6his may suggest that the
nonlocality that an iniviual quantum e0perimenter/observer
investigates when he conucts an e0periment or observation is merely
that quantum nonlocality o! his own quantum mechanical vacuum
state1 i.e.1 that quantum vacuum in which is embee in mutual
interaction his brain an no other.
Hn other wors1 no quantum observer is able to evise an e0periment
or observation which coul permit him to veri!y the !act o! other
humans possessing states o! consciousness. /nother reason !or this
is that the quantum e0periment cannot observe another human brain
in a state o! quantum superposition. 6his is because each observer
continually collapses the wave!unction o! his own quantum brain.
;ach human being possesses psychic powers o! varying egree with
respect to his own emboie being. =is memory gives him a Kin o!
clairvoyance o! past history1 precognition o! the !uture1 teleKinetic
powers o! manipulation o!1 telepathic linKage to the boy which his
soul is sai to inhabit.
3ollapse o! 7si which involves selection o! pree0istent possibility vs.
creation o! altogether new superposition states. 6his is a ata versus
in!ormation istinction.
4enetic !itness lanscapes1 c.!.1 "tuart Oau!!man1 an 9ccam_s Aazor.
-reeom within eterminism1 c.!.1 pleasures o! observing youth maKe
!ree choices to act out what e0perience Knows as !ate.
Aaical ambiguity as multi-imensional !igure-groun. 6he shi!t o!
!igure to groun an vice versa is easily enough unerstoo. Fhat is
more i!!icult is the reconstitution o! the !igure-groun ambiguity
along a new basis. 6his suggests that the !igure-groun system we
actually observe is 5ust the structural level1 c.!.1 gene regulatory
networK1 hierarchy o! virtuality in perturbation theory1 many worls
interpretation o! quantum mechanics1 -eynman_s sum o! histories
approach to quantum mechanics1 variational methos o! calculus1 an
all higher levels are below Cactually above the level o! orinary
consciousnessD. 7oint or structural mutations are processe by the
gene regulatory networK as well as high level mutations causing a
ownwar cascae e!!ect on lower levels o! the gene regulatory
networK.
6he real versus virtual istinction in particle physics an this same
istinction in the conte0t o! virtual reality simulations. Fill this case
turn out to be similar to that o! real vs. imaginary invente by *%
th
3entury mathematicians as a metaphor an given literal e0pression in
the 2)
th
3entury through the evelopment o! quantum theory?
6he trans!ormation o! one !igure-groun matri0 into another is
orthogonal to that by which !igure an groun e0change places within
a !i0e matri0. "omething operates on this matri0 to trans!orm it into
a new/another one. =igher orer !igure-groun matri0
trans!ormations Cwhich seem to uniquely characterize the nature o!
thought/abstractionD remin us o! quantum computations.
Fhat we call conscious e0perience on the view suggeste above is
only the lowest level in a hierarchy o! e0perience.
;ach person is a center o! the ,niverse. 6here is a mutual
egeneracy o! causality an synchronicity. 3onsciousness is
synchronistically structure1 the will1 Karmically structure.
;0perience possesses a consistency greater than what can be
containe within e0perience_s !iel o! temporal integration.
6he structure o! coherence o! the vacuum in which the observer_s
actions Cthough brain an boyD are embee is incommensurate
with that o! the intersub5ective vacuum.
6he vacuum must try to reconcile the unanticipate causal in!luence
o! the observer_s action Can ecision to actD in terms o! its own sel!-
consistent structure o! correlation o! its spectrum o! momentum an
energy !luctuations. Fave!unction collapse is a necessary outcome
o! the quantum vacuum_s inability to incorporate the vacuum
embeing the observer_s brain into itsel! so as to engener a new
sel!-consistent vacuum state. "o the vacuum nevertheless maKes a
RguessS at the new vacuum state1 but cannot accomplish this without
an inconsistent eparture !rom its previous groun state. 6his
inconsistency in the temporal evolution o! the vacuum mani!est_s
itsel! as a iscontinuous change in this vacuum state1 which has
particular relevance to the component o! the vacuum state that
embes the quantum state o! the system uner observation. 6his is in
turn mani!este as RcollapseS o! the observe system_s quantum
mechanical wave!unction.
6o square the wave!unction one must multiply the comple0
wave!unction by a !unction that is its comple0 con5ugate. 6his
operation results in a real !unction calle the probability ensity. Ht is
interesting that one must remove the imaginary component o! the
wave!unction1 which by itsel! possesses no physical meaning1 in
orer to yiel a real !unction possessing physical meaning as a
probability ensity. /t the time the mathematician .eonar ;uler
invente the system o! imaginary numbers in the later *%
th
3entury he
chose the term RimaginaryS to escribe these new numbers only as a
convenient metaphor !or the !act that the square root o! L* oes not
e0ist as a mathematical ob5ect. "trangely1 it is not the !ailure o! the
wave!unction to e0ist as a mathematical entity1 which we are re!erring
to by saying that the wave!unction oes not Re0ist1S but merely that
this !unction possesses o! itsel!1 no physical meaning. 6he history o!
the theoretical sciences are replete with e0amples o! how insight!ul
metaphorical escriptions o! theoretical entities chosen largely !or
convenience become through twists an turns literal escriptions o!
entities e0isting in !act.
"ince the Oantian categories constitute a Kin o! hyper-re!ine
conceptual mapping o! physical theoretical common sense o! the *N
th
an *2
th
3enturies1 a issertation showing the systematic violation o!
Oant_s categorical scheme woul provie the very sharpest
emonstration possible o! the raical an revolutionary nature o! the
quantum theory.
H! consciousness is really the capability !or metaphor an abstract
thought1 then human beings must spen more than hal! o! their
chilhoo as humanoi automata.
6he positive sie o! the genetic ust bin theory o! aging is that one
comes to escape1 more an more1 the grasp o! the long history o!
natural selection that shape our speci!ic human nature. "o aging
past one_s reprouctive years o!!ers hereto!ore unavailable
opportunities !or the human being to e0plore his or her being beyon
that circumscribe by human nature. /ll too o!ten1 however1
persons enter later li!e continuing to cling to societally an culturally
e!ine reality an personhoo. Hnvestigate se0ual selection_s role in
the evelopment o! subspecies1 brees1 races1 etc. @ot all genomes
are equally stable1 chemically or energetically. 6his !act uncovers
the chinK in the armor o! political correctness in its connection with
the relative valuation o! persons1 races1 etc.
AenecKs an other !aile iniviuals !in they can_t e!!ectively
compete in the large arenas o! li!e an so become isproportionately
upset when losing a small contest1 e.g.1 Keeping the ege in !ront o! a
!ellow rive upon leaving a stoplight.
,n!ortunately some o! the substances that encourage an enhance
abstract an metaphorical thought also somewhat impair
-ringe behavior is always to be e0pecte when a machine or system
begins to operate outsie o! its original esign parameters.
@eutron1 electron1 an quarK1 once1 twice1 three times is the "tanar
8oel o! the material constituents o! the ,niverse.
>ust because there has evelope a rational science o! the outcomes
resulting !rom inuce mutations to an organism_s genome1 in no way
implies that the organization an causal relateness o! genetic base
pairs/sequences is strictly group theoretic1 i.e.1 close system o!
permutations an combinations o! genes gives e0pression to a close
system o! e0pression in terms o! abstract phenotypic
elements/!eatures.
6he ebate between RonenessS an 6rinitarian 7entecostals is a
classic case o! a linguistic quibble appropriate to the tales o! .ewis
3arroll or >onathan "wi!t.
8any mins interpretation o! quantum theory is a Kin o!
reprocessing an new integration o! the so-calle many worls
interpretation o! quantum theory along altogether inepenent an
orthogonal lines Cso it seemsD. "o the human will operates by a
process that can only be properly escribe as Rmagical.S
6he collapse o! the wave!unction is a sign that the topology o! woul-
be in!inite sel!-re!erentiality o! the ,niverse_s act o! sel!-observation
has been iscontinuously reprocesse through a suen e0change o!
in!ormation between two inepenent quantum vacua Co!
!unamentally istinct RnaturesSD. 6his is not accomplishe through
the removal o! a pree0isting egeneracy o! the global Cintersub5ectiveD
quantum vacuum.
6he imension o! time/temporality is always local too a particular
vacuum state. 6his might mean that a egenerate vacuum state
possesses multiimensional temporality.
;very collapse o! a quantum mechanical wave!unction generates both
entropy an in!ormation. 6he entropy is istribute throughout the
entire newly engenere system. 6he in!ormation is e0change Can
trans!orme in the process/between the two systemD.
6he graient o! entropy between vacua can never be wipe out
through mutual e0changes o! energy.
Hnstea o! us all being members o! the same universe1 the real nature
o! reality is a mani!estation within each an all.
/t some metalevel the egeneracy is still in!inite an the symmetry
unbroKen. 7ure timeliKe !luctuations as interactions with this
symmetric1 egenerate groun Yegenerate groun stateZ ;mergence1
i! real1 requires involvement o! a creative intellect. 8etagenetic
processes meiate selection !rom virtually in!inite numbers o!
possible base pair combinations.
.et 7si C01 y1 z1 tD be symmetric uner 0 0 1 y y 1 z z 1
an antisymmetric uner t t .
6he reprocessing o! concept maps by which one has acquire one_s
present concept map1 is not going to turn out to be a process
e0plicable in terms o! one_s present concept map. 6o supposes the
possibility o! oing this is to invite the parao0 o! in!inite regress.
?ecause there is no basis !or comparison o! the brain states in terms
o! their consequences !or consciousnessD o! istinct iniviuals1 we
must suppose that the consciousness o! each iniviual is nonlocal
time orthogonal to that o! another.
3ontinuity o! a peculiar nature is require to support the e0tremely
high consciousness egeneracy possesse by brain states.
3ompare the concepts o! levels o! abstractness an egrees o!
symmetry.
Fhen what appear to be ynamical elements are piece together by
Rnatural selectionS into a more or less coherent control system1 the
resulting structure must be unerstoo to be a pro5ection o! the
ineterminate unKnown o! an open system into an abstract space1 i.e.1
a !irst orer close system. /n that every interaction between
iscrete elements is within this system epens !or its relevance an
e!!ectiveness upon what transpires within the ineterminate groun o!
the system to which the system remains connecte. 6his connection
is somewhat a!ter the !ashion o! a that e0isting between a computer
terminal an networK Can important i!!erence here is that both
computer an networK are close systems o! iscretely interacting
iscrete elements L unerstoo in the abstract1 o! courseD.
6he notion that memory is a representation is logically inconsistent
an necessarily leas to an in!inite regress o! representations.
Fhen receiving a psychiatric amit a psychiatric nurse will typically
asK their new patient1 R what brought you her !or treatment toay?S
/ schizophrenic will invariably answer along the lines o! R a white
vanS or Rthe ambulance1S etc. 6his is because schizophrenics cannot
thinK in metaphorical terms. 6he schizophrenic_s personality
isorer involves a issociate state o! consciousness. 6he question
here arises as to whether there can be such a thing as a Rtotally
issociate state o! consciousnessS or whether consciousness is itsel!
an emergent phenomenon1 resulting !rom a requisite level o!
integration o! the association o! impressions1 these impressions
initially being un- or subconscious in in!ancy an early chilhoo.
8emory possessing per!ect !ielity to the past probably is not an
optimal mnemonic capability1 e.g.1 ue to consierations o! social
relevance o! what each iniviual recollects an relates to the other
members o! the clan1 tribe1 etc.
Yno recoil momentumZ
Fhat are the real abstract ob5ects o! the quantum escription o!
reality? Fhen is the last egeneracy split? Fhen all o! the !orce
!iels have been applie to the system !rom outsie. Fhen all
possible observables have been mae mani!est.
/s long as no one cries1 R/pril -ool_s1S everything remains quite
serious.
Fe commonly say that Rthings coul have been i!!erent.S Hmplicit
here is the notion o! substituion o! one combination/permutational
element with another within the system in question. Puantum
mechanics inicates that the permutable possibilities o not mesh
with our concept maps o! orinary1 everyay reality1 i.e.1 classical
physical reality1 i.e.1 the permutations o! :asein elements on_t line
up with any abstract elements o! the Rob5ective continuum.S
Fhat Kin o! symmetry escribes the realm o! mathematical truth in
which mathematical truth unergoes temporal evolution that is
actually containe within itsel! as a mathematical escription? @o
arrow o! time coul be associate with such in!inite temporal
egeneracy. 6ime has being eternally1 only mani!esting itsel! when
the symmetry o! ?eing is isrupte.
Y.urianic cosmologyZ an Yspontaneous symmetry breaKingZ
Aecouping o! the broKen transcenent CnonlocalD symmetry o! ?eing
through local evolution o! composites !orme !rom precipitates o!
this broKen symmetry.
6he !irst symmetry breaKing occurre outsie o! the realm o!
iniviuation1 since it was the breaKing o! the symmetry o! uni!ie
?eing. 6his remins us o! the .ila CplayD o! ?rahman.
Aeal matter only perturbs the quantum statistics o! the vacuum i!
con!igure in an energetically boun system.
6he mass o! the ,niverse that is not attributable to a sum o! local
masses is cause by the net global spacetime curvature.
6he whole is greater than the sum o! its conte0t epenent
components.
QX
8c6aggart_s !amous unreality o! time argument oesn_t so much
succee in isproving the e0istence o! time as it succees in
emonstrating the e0istence o! multiimensional time.
6he most highly symmetric invariance possesses no unerlying
mechanism. 8echanism is the ynamics o! some broKen symmetry.
Qd
Ht is clear that there is no mechanism !or iniviual consciousness
in terms o! local1 causal interactions.
/ convenient e0ample o! how broKen symmetry taKes us !rom
synchronize action o! a uni!ie entity to the staggere action o! an
entity with spatially istribute parameters1 might be the suen
reorganization o! any control system governe by a least action
principle1 which partially isrupts the higher symmetries o! the
system.
4ravitation breaKs the symmetry o! spacetime through a summing
together o! the symmetry-isrupting contributions o! nongravitational
!orces.
6he concept o! other mins1 liKe the concept o! other universes1
requires the e0istence o! an all-embracing superspace o! a super-
universe1 an seems to require the reality o! a super- or transcenental
min. H! quantum theory is to epen on the interaction o! separate
universes !or the engenering o! all istinctly quantum1 as oppose to
classical1 phenomena1 then no one o! these Rmany worlsS is itsel!
permitte to possess quantum mechanical nature. "o then
consciousness1 i! a istinctly quantum phenomenon1 places the
iniviual en5oying conscious states entirely outsie any particular
classical universe whatever this is suppose to mean.
8oral egeneracy may be reaily e!ine as the person possessing it1
in no way implementing in his behavior a moral principle. 6his was
what lies behin my remarK that it was improper to label a 8a!ia boss
as Rmorally egenerate.S =owever1 we might easily suspect one o!
his associates as being morally egenerate1 i! this coe o! conuct
was not implemente whenever it was inconvenient !or him to o so1
an even i! this coe o! conuct eeme necessary the committing o!
a homicie1 say1 in the case where some other 8a!ioso ha !aile in
observing Rthe coe1S wherein a 8a!ioso purposely !ails to commit
the require homicie1 resulting in the sparing o! a human li!e on
account o! a relationship not recognize by that particular ma!ia
!amily.
/ll the Re0trasS in the bacKgroun o! ol photographs have perhaps
something in common with the !rien sitting irectly across one at the
lunch table: the problem o! correlating the more or less coherent
cluster o! sense ata1 representing a human person1 with the conscious
min eternally hien !rom one that must itsel! in an importantly
relevant way be connecte with the person_s physical presence1 that
this is the sub5ect o! one_s perception o! sai person. 6his
restatement o! the problem o! other mins1 H thinK1 helps sharpen the
sKepticism unerlying this seemingly insoluble philosophical rile.
6he connection between behavior an psychological states must be
bi-irectional to warrant attribution o! conscious states to others_
e0hilarating intelligent behavior1 which is base solely upon the
CincompleteD analogy o! how this connection worKs in reverse
irection in one_s own case.
Qd
/n this is only rational/ worKable i!
there e0ists a vali theory o! how consciousness emerges !rom the
behavior o! the material constituents o! the boy_s component
subsystems1 i! not o! the boy as a whole.
9ther as groun vs. other as sel! o! another groun. 6he notion o!
i!!erent temporalities inhering in i!!erent grouns has an analogous
basis in quantum mechanics.
"uper!luity comes !rom genetics an gene e0pression not being
ResigneS !or the RpurposeS o! evolution. 6his is because the notion
o! RevolutionS is an abstraction an there!ore amits o! arbitrariness
with respect to the total !iel o! phenomena it attempts to escribe.
:issociation an overturning the arbitrary conceptual map o! society
e!ine reality.
8ainstream CmassD society-e!ine reality as rally point !or
heterogeneous alterities. Fhat these alterities have in common is
their estrangement !rom the mass culture1 however1 each is estrange
!rom this culture in his own !ashion.
;0amine the concept o! grace as gi!t o! e!!ortlessness Csay1 in the
sense in which a gi!te athlete e0ercises his gi!tsD an how conscious
intention intervenes to isrupt the conuit o! grace1 e.g.1 appearance
o! luciity in reams an the resultant isruption o! the reamscape or
sequence.
/aptability to the unKnown certainly human e0perience can be
reprocesse on a broaer an eeper level than the human level itsel!.
.ocality presupposes a yaic relation as well as the logic that attens
this !unamental relation. 6riaic an higher orer relation may be
characteristic o! nonlocality. Hs logic the abstract nature o! causality
perhaps1 but accoring to "earle1 logic can_t capture all-important
!eatures o! causality1 which is comprise by meia-speci!ic relations.
"o the power an e!!ectiveness o! the causal relation presupposes the
plurality o! causality_s substantive groun.
3hanneling. . . coherence o! accents1 tonal in!lection with iction1
phraseology1 ynamics o! psychological associations. :uplicity1
social malleability1 hypocrisy1 compartmentalize memory/recall1
suggestibility1 mob/group thinK1 '% o! primates with leaership
qualities1 e!!ects o! music1 repetitive soun1 poetic versi!ication upon
manner o! processing language1 being pleasers1 Killing people what
they want to hear. 9pposing !orces o!
iniviuation/iniviualization1 isolation1 introspection1 spirituality1
sel!-centereness pro5ection1 coincience-perception.
@otes written uring the semester that H tooK @umber 6heory at .",

Hs the tunneling rater or tunneling velocity1 relate to the barrier
height? Hs the spee o! light velocity limit relate at all to the
RheightS o! the hyperspherical potential barrier Crepresente by the
!alse vacuum stateD?
=ow is the tunneling transmission coe!!icient a!!ecte by couplings o!
internal egrees o! !reeom o! the tunneling Rparticles?S
/s Filliam >ames observe in *N%21 it is har to accept an
epiphenomenal status !or consciousness on account o! its obvious
survival value as a general !unction o! the organism. -or how
otherwise shoul it have grown in power an epth uring the course
o! evolution? ?ut then the alternative here is that consciousness1
though not a mere epiphenomenon1 must nonetheless be either an
abstract !eature o! some !unction that orers our mental contents an
processes or1 it is so ine0tricably entangle in the web o! other
biochemical an physical processes o! the organism as to possess no
clear emarcation an hence1 iniviuality as such.
6he notion o! consciousness is 5ust one among any number o! other
such notions which can become mental contents within this
consciousness whatever this might really be.
6he parallelism o! iscrete metaphorical elements between two rather
istinct conte0ts oes not always Cthough perhaps more o!ten than is
commonly supposeD imply a parallelism o! the manner in which
these elements are mutually relate within their respective conte0ts.
6here is such a thing as a critical mass o! e0periences committe to
memory o! all o! the essential aspects o! the intensity o! such
e0periences as i! the success in having mae all o! the importantly
relevant connections within the sel! which give to this sel! an
impression o! its mature completeness an ripeness o! its ientity1 that
is1 o! its sense o! itsel!. .i!e is live properly in the shaow o! the
unKnown possessing importance greater than the most important
consieration o! the Known.
3/6 scanner metaphor !or reprocessing o! li!e e0perience ata by
mature intelligence.
"ymmetry correspons to nonlocality an broKen symmetry to
locality.
Hniviual consciousness within a social organization L broKen
symmetry. 8etaphysical presence L polite appearance o! mutual
respect1 valuation1 an regar. Puali!ication an conitions are
hien in the tapestry o! polite society.
Ht perhaps e!ies imagining what society woul be liKe i! e0clusively
compose o! telepathic persons. 6he uality o! the human character
woul be reaily apparent. 7erhaps a great eal o! e!!ort woul be
e0pene in socializing unesirable antisocial thought patterns. 6he
notable lacK o! the integrity o! the average human sel! woul be
reaily perceptible.
Fhether one regars the less than esirable !acets o! the sel! as
belonging to a separate sel! house within one_s boy along with one1
or regars these !acets as inee belonging to the sel!1 but that one
merely elects to repress an suppress them1 maKes !or an important
istinction in personality type.
6he mechanism o! ;36_s e!!ectiveness is not presently unerstoo
Csimilar statements apply to the e!!ect o! 8AH magnetic !iels upon
the epressive states o! elerly personsD. / cancer raiotherapy
analogy may provie the core o! a worKable theory o! ;36_s e!!ective
action.
"ome one who has grown up in a culture never having seen a chair1
possesses no e0plicit concept o! what we might call chairness.
=owever1 i! this person_s e0perience is otherwise similar or
equivalent to the reaer_s1 either this person shall soon enough hit
upon the notion o! a chair1 inventing one !or his own convenience1 or
shall almost immeiately recognize the signi!icance o! one upon
suenly encountering it. =ow oes this iscussion metaphorically
illuminate previous iscussion about the question o! whether
intelligent1 sentient iniviuals possess a concept o! consciousness
though only having Knowlege o! but a single instance o! this
concept1 i.e.1 !rom the case o! a person_s own peculiar state o!
consciousness.
9bserve the !ollowing relationship between the creation operator an
iscrete energy an momentum. . .
a
+ Cn timesD
MK Z - - - n = ;1 nK = p -
Fhile on earth everything remins us o! something else an metaphor
is an e0ercise o! never ening e!erment o! meaning. Hn heaven
things are !or their own selves an not merely as symbols o! means
!or something beyon themselves L an e0ample o! what is terme
unlimite semiosis.
=ow can the raius o! curvature o! the ,niverse remain constant
against cosmological e0pansion. :oes A
u
remain constant through
compensating changes in ?
8atter rotates the spacetime through its e!!ects upon vacuum_s
statistics as escribe by the 7auli an ?ose principles. /n in this
way1 matter creates a local spacetime curvature with raius o!
curvature much smaller1 o! course1 than A
u
1 the raius o! so-calle that
spacetime possesses an in!inite raius o! curvature?
6he interplay o! the subconscious wills o! all sentient creatures
e!ines the !luctuation in the !unamental physical constants in
ecimal places beyon the bounary e!ine by what we shall term
eigen-uncertainty.
6he eigen-uncertainty shoul e!ine the ineterminate zone or ban
separating the abstract a concrete realms. Ht may be precisely within
this zone that min an matter have mutual contact an in!luence1 as
well as naturally where the mechanism o! wave!unction collapse
shoul be sought.
Ht is interesting that virtual particles Can real !ielsD play an essential
role within this interzone. ;igenuncertainty is relate but not at all
the same thing as what is calle =eisenberg ,ncertainty.
;igenuncertainty is a Kin o! generalization o! =eisenberg
,ncertainty that is not observable or operator-boun.
6he spacetime metric represents the symmetry o! the conserve
stress-momentum-energy tensor.
>ust as we have Y6
uv
Z1 the e0pectation value o! 6
uv
1 there shoul be
e!inable a =eisenberg uncertainty with respect to 6
uv
1 i.e.1 /a6
uv
that
possesses an associate quantum !luctuation !iel1 k6
uv
1 which may be
moele as either the e0change o! a spin-2 boson1 two egenerate
spin vector bosons1 or !our egenerate spin T{ virtual !ermions1
create an annihilate by the quantum vacuum in *) istinct
combinations1
+ + + + + + + + + - + +
+ + + - - - + + + + - +
+ + - - - - - +
+ - - - - - - -
"ymmetry consierations reuce the !ormally possible *&
combinations to *) istinct combinations. 6his remins us o! how
the symmetry o! the metric tensor reuces the number o! istinct !iel
equations to *) !rom *&. / generalize uncertainty principle
incorporating composite spin-)1 integral spin-*1 composite spin-2
stress-momentum-energy quantum !luctuations is given by the
!ollowing relation:
/a6
uv
0 /a
uv

6hese Cwe believe to beD composite1 spin-2 Rtensor !luctuationsS
appearing as they o as a result o! .orenz spacetime symmetry being
broKen by gravitational !iels1 suggest that this spin-2 quantity is an
emergent conserve quantity1 incorporating the nonconserve spin-)
an spin-* !luctuation energy an momentum components.
R/ra!at_s strategy is to Keep the violence going an get a never-
ening series o! unilateral concessions without changing his own
policy an goals1S c.!.1 ?arry Aubin1 >erusalem 7ost C$/*$/2))2
issueD.
3oherence o! a ynamic structure such as that o! a ?ose-;instein
conensate1 always re!lects a pree0istent1 unerlying organizing/sel!-
organizing principle an cannot have been merely tinKere together.
6he orer substrate or1 more properly1 the in!ormation substrate o! the
evolutionary process involves not the negating o! negations within
vacuum represente by !unamental matter an !iels1 but a isabling
o! these negations by way o! an asymmetrical pathway.
3oherence is always a spontaneous an hence emergent phenomenon.
6he !ree space vacuum is supersymmetric1 but this otherwise per!ect
supersymmetry is isrupte by the presence o! non-supersymmetric
matter.
6he 7auli ;0clusion 7rinciple applying as it oes to both real an
virtual !ermions1 implies a complementary relationship between the
probability ensities o! real vs. virtual !ermions.
Hnvestigate relationship o! 7auli an ?ose statistical principles an
=eisenberg uncertainty principle. 7robability conservation principle
applies to photons Cbosons1 more generallyD because the probability
ensities o! real an virtual bosons are ientical1 equal1 or
proportional1 though perhaps only inirectly.
,ncertainty oes not !low out o! a close system an so in!ormation
cannot !low into such a system.
-our momentum is not conserve in a gravitational !iel because two
istinct re!erence !rames cannot be mutually trans!ormable via a
.orenz trans-!ormation within such a gravitational !iel. Hnstea a 2
n
ranK tensor becomes the conserve quantity the o!! iagonal terms in
the tensor1 6
iK
V
5 K1 require the e0change within both bulK matter an quantum
vacuum o! a spin 2 tensor boson. 6hus the spacetime metric must
also taKe on non-iagonal components1 t
5K
V 5 K.
Hnvestigate group theory o! spin Cn1 n{D particles.
@o e0ternal !iel can change spin o! particle Cintrinsic angular
momentumD.
6here is an enless number o! istinct versions o! persons1 places an
things to select !rom which to improvise a synchronistically
continuous worl stage. 3ausal etermination is a special case o!
synchronistic etermination. Hntersub5ectivity in this picture o!
reality. ;ach person_s ientity woul be compose o! a spectrum o!
conte0tualizing sub-ientities. 6his moel might be worKable in a
6HP8 version o! quantum mechanics.
"uperposition o! istinct intentions !or a single action.
6he mechanism o! electro-convulsive therapy_s e!!ectiveness is not
presently unerstoo. / cancer raiotherapy analogy may provie
the core o! a worKable theory.
6he magnitue o! the electron probability ensity !unction throughout
local surrouning spacetime is etermine through virtual photon
e0changes with its local vacuum.
6here is a complementary relationship between the symmetric an
antisymmetric parts o! the local vacuum_s 7si !unction. 6he electron
7auli-blocKs the creation/annihilation o! the virtual electron positron
cooper pairs1 an oes this in accorance with the conserve sum o!
7siCmatterD an 7siCvacuumD.
3hange o! the wave!unction with constant energy egeneracy
constitutes a Kin o! orthogonal time.

matter
=
CmD
sym
+
CmD
ant

vacuum
=
CvD
sym
+
CvD
ant
3orrelational structure o! =eisenberg energy uncertainty1 Keeping in
min the notions o! energy egeneracy1 symmetry1 conservation laws1
an :avi ?ohm_s remarKs about causal relationships being
equivalent to !luctuation-correlations.
Fe must relate the notion o! eigen-uncertainty to the characteristic o!
7si collapse Cecoherence?D
/n arrogance o! the nouveau sentient.
=olography is convolution o! signal with RemptyS carrier wave. 6he
!unctioning o! conscious awareness an perception is more similar to
the convolution o! a ranom Cas oppose to RemptySD signal with
some other in!ormation signal.
"pin-) b no rotations possible
"pin-* b one rotation to shi!t the magnitues o! components o! a
vector1 conserving the magnitue o! I
u
.
"pin-2 b two rotations to shi!t magnitues o! components o! 2
n
ranK
tensor1 conserving the magnitue o! 6
uv
.
8etric tensor b relates components o! a 2
n
ranK tensor. "tress-
momentum-energy tensor b causes changes to components o! metric
tensor.
?uhist ;nlightenment as metaphor !or success!ul psychotherapy.
6he ob5ective woul be one instantiate by each an every iniviual
consciousness e0cept1 o! course1 my own1 which is unique1 i.e.1 not an
instance o! the strictures o! causality. Hntersub5ectivity that e0clues
my consciousness versus intersub5ectivity necessarily incluing my
consciousness.
=ow oes memory o! the e0perience o! evolving consciousness
represente within consciousness?
6he !orms o! groun bacK-react by another groun reacting through
them. Fe must realize that all !orms are temporal an still more1
ephemeral.
;mergence as a property o! ata1 i.e.1 in!ormation versus
consciousness as a property o! matter.
3onsciousness we have shown is not an abstract property1 quality or
!eature an so consciousness is neither a thing nor thing-liKe.
"o neither is consciousness cause by local1 causal processes1 though
it might itsel! be quantum nonlocal in origin but simply moulate by
local causal processes.
/bstraction at its most general is a !unction o! consciousness an so
neither is the origin o! consciousness to be sought in processes
possessing reality merely as abstract processing o! things an their
relationships. ?ut both thoughts an !or e0ample1 subatomic
particles are instances o! consciousness_ abstracting !unctionality.
@atural selection acts only upon genes while they are being
e0presse. "el!-organization is then !ree to cross through woul-be
eleterious mutation to the gene regulatory networK C4A@D in orer
to reach an improve cybernetic control system. 6his is what
Oau!!man re!ers to as transitions between local minima an the
rugge !itness lanscape o! genome con!igurations. 6his is yet
another e0ample o! how nature has !igure out how to ecouple the
evolution o! gene e0pression !rom the strictures o! chemistry so that
evolution becomes less limite by the inciental connection o!
general organic chemical properties to the speci!ic chemical
mechanisms o! genomic e0pression. 6he aperioic lattice o! the
genome progressively e0tracts in!ormation !rom earlier1 more
egenerate Chighly symmetricalD versions o! itsel!.
;asy to be legens in our own mins relative to our perceptions o! the
possible greatness o! others. 6his is ue to our only being able to
taKe in but one or two o! the most pronounce !eatures o! another
person_s personality.
R@ot alone in being aloneS L logic o! metaphysical presence.
6he importance o! linguistic meaning egeneracy to social
construction o! the sel! as iniviual with membership in a
community.
6he principles by which each person_s consciousness operates must
be completely alien an completely !amiliar relative Cat the same
timeD relative to those by which others_ consciousness operates.
:iscursive symbols o! prouct Cessentially epiphenomenal?D o!
consciousness Ci.e.1 not bacK reactions o! consciousness_ abstractions
upon itsel!?D
6he issociate consciousness was moerate by stimulus-response
interplay between animal hominis. "ome how these e0ternal
controls became internalize an an internal coherent sel!-concept
began to evelop an meiate raw consciousness !rom insie.
:escartes_ clear an istinct ieas applie to the notion o! the
necessity o! transcenence o! the human conte0t. Hn the transcenent
realm1 the moal an causal structure o! being1 i.e.1 e0istence within
spatiotemporality1 breaKs own. =ere we enter the Rpre-mi0S o! the
mi0-master universe.
/n there is no longer any meaning!ul istinction to be rawn
between chance an necessity1 between the real an the merely
conceivable CpossibleD. 3oncrete etails connecte with meia
speci!ic limitations an conitions are remove in maKing the move
to another meia.
.iteral interpretation o! ?iblical -unamentalism an the e0ample o!
a !ootball metaphor being invoKe by a 3;9 in a sales/marKeting
company meeting. 6ruth lies with the abstract !eatures not speci!ic
to the originating conte0t1 e.g.1 bronze age 8ile ;ast.
6here appears two istinct but relate notions o! abstract similarity1
parallelism an issemination.
7si collapse as parallel quantum reprocessing o! !unamental ata.
Hn!ormation as Ren userS ata L the reason !or the non-
transmissibility o! in!ormation.
Ht is consciousness an its necessary concomitant o! !ree will that
permits the conceiving o! Rclear an istinctS ieas possessing Cor
seeming to possessD a transcenental re!erence1 e.g.1 the removal o!
limitations that permits the Knowlege an in!ormation o! each
iniviual being combine with that o! each an every other.
6he tenency o! the human min is to assume that bounary
conitions are part o! the natural ynamism. 6he tenency o! science
on the other han has been to graually reveal natural ynamism as
bounary conitions upon some eeper ynamic.
7eople who see nothing wrong in inulging the !alse premise !or a
relationship so long as this relationship bene!its them in some way.
"uch persons term it nacve an !anci!ul to suppose that human
relationships might be !oune upon some premise other than mutual
bene!it to the relationship_s participants. 6his view might be terme
iniviualistic anarcho-synicalism.
R6he authors in !act avoi this an relate problems by arguing that it
is only the perturbation o! the zp! which prouce gravity an
curvatureV an that the zp! itsel! oes not gravitate or prouce a -type
!iel.S
R9ne can either argue that the zp! oes not gravitate at all1 or one can
argue that it oes gravitate but is cancelle by another !iel o!
negative energy ensity.S 3.!.1 Jero 7oint -iels1 4ravitation an
@ew 7hysics C7aul ". FessonD
Aotation !iel as a spatially istribute velocity !iel. /lthough
angular momentum may be escribe by a vector an a spin *
particle1 an angular momentum !iel1 on the other han1 must be
escribe by a 2
n
ranK tensor because the spatial graient o! a vector
is a tensor.
. an " components o! are not separable in special cases. Fhich?
8ight the egree o! separability o! the classical angular momentum
an quantum mechanical spin components o! be a !unction o! the
egree o! spacetime curvature?
Thbar/2 is more properly unerstoo as zero-point angular momentum
rather than Rspin.S
6he angular momentum o! a particle may be change through the
application o! e0ternal !iels. 6his is however not the case !or the
quantum mechanical spin o! a particle. 6his helps to 5usti!y the
above interpretation o! spin as zero-point angular momentum.
?ecause anti-particles may be consistently interprete as otherwise
ientical particles translating bacKwars in time1 it seems probable
that spin may be interprete as a Kin o! timeliKe momentum. /lso1
accoring to -eynman1 relativity emans the e0istence o!
antiparticles as negative !requency components o! the -ourier
e0pansion o! the wave!unction necessary to cancel out all positive
!requency components o! the wave!unction outsie the 8inKowsKi
lightcone. H! not1 then !aster-than-light particles are given a nonzero
probability by the wave!unction.
Hnvestigate theories o! particles an !iels possessing comple0
quantum spin.
/ istinction between curvature an metric is pointe up by the
Olein-4oron equation.
[-*/c
2
c
2
/ct
2
+
2
L a\Ct10D = ) where RaS
has units o! */A
2
.
6he momentum-energy !luctuation vector !rom which is erive the
momentum-energy vector1 represents the invariant mass acting as the
gravitational source term o! ;instein_s !iel equations. 6his vector
may be alterhnately e0presse in terms o! !luctuation momentum an
!luctuation energy !unctions o! the creation an annihilation operators
o! symmetric an antisymmetric wave!unctions. 6hat is1 may be
e0presse in terms o! the creation an annihilation operators o!
bosons an !ermions.
!

p
Ca
+
1aD = pC01tDV !

;
Ca
+
1aD = ;C01tD
7art o! what etermines whether it is RrealS or RvirtualS bosons an
!ermions that are being create an annihilate is the ensity o!
=eisenberg-uncertain momentum an energy o! a particular volume
o! spacetime. 6he other component etermining this istinction
might be vacuum moes o! resonant an coherent !luctuation.
!
p
Ca
+
1aD = pC01tDV !
;
Ca
+
1aD = ;C01tD
6he -ermi-:irac an ?ose-;instein quantum statistical laws o not
istinguish real an virtual particles. Aeal versus virtual is
etermine by whether the mass o! a particle is RonS or Ro!!S its mass
shell. ;instein_s momentum-energy relation e!ines the mass shell1
;
2
= m
)
2
c
2
+ p
2
c
2

where m
)
= ;
2
/c
2
L p
2

"o that when m { m
)
1 we say then that the particle o! mass1 m1 is Ro!!
mass shell.S H! the mass shell equation applies to the e0pectation
values o! ; an p1 i.e.1 Y;Z an YpZ1 then an alteration in the
relationship o! the !luctuations in ; an p to their respective
=eisenberg uncertainties1 /a; an /ap1 must connect the istinction o!
real versus virtual to =eisenberg uncertainty. 6he question then
becomes what is the precise nature o! this =eisenberg uncertainty? H!
the =-uncertainty in an the !luctuation o! say1 the energy o! a particle
.orenz trans!orm ientically1 then how is it possible !or Y;Z to be
.orenz trans!orme1 since
CY;Z
2
- /a;D = Y;Z
m
)
= ;
2
/c
2
L p
2
= CY;Z
2
- /a;D/c
2
- CYpZ
2
- /apD
;
)
= CY;Z
2
- /a;D - CYpZ
2
c
2
- /apc
2
D = CY;Z + /apc
2
D L CYpZ
2
c
2
+ /a;D
Aeality o! quantum vacuum energy an problems !or theories not
properly interpreting the physical role an signi!icance o! this
vacuum energy.
@o evience o! =iggs boson1 supersymmetric superpartners1
observable general relativistic e!!ects o! an enormous quantum
vacuum energy ensity1 gravitational waves1 i.e.1 RgravitonsS.
7hysics anomalies: 7ioneer *) & ** acceleration anomaly1
accelerate cosmological e0pansion1 iscrete or quantize
cosmological reshi!t1 galactic rotation curve problem1 :avies-,nruh
;!!ect1 3asimir ;!!ect1 .amb "hi!t1 anomalous 0-ray scattering1
quantum mottle o! high spee photographic emulsions1 cosmological
!latness problem1 isotropy an homogeneity problem1 stellar age-
universe age inconsistency1 time rate o! ecrease o! the spee o! light1
etc.
6he quantum mechanical wave!unction seems to occupy a place
miway between that o! Rpurely abstractS mathematical entities
Cthose entities possessing no re!erence to ob5ects R!oun in natureSD
an the very ob5ects e0isting in nature.
RH! the numbers worK1 why go !urther?S R6hat way lies maness1S
c.!.1 "cience 3hannel1 3osmic :imension.
8arch 2))(
8any worls interpretation o! quantum mechanics implies
that each person occupies their own quantum universe by virtue o!
their own1 unique /nthropic cosmological principle1 e.g.1 >ohn-
/nthropic cosmological principle1 8ary-/nthropic cosmological
principle1 "usan-/nthropic cosmological principle1 etc. H! the
!unamental physical constants are truly !unamental1 then their !ine
tuning shoul a!!ect the universe at all levels o! its structure an
!unction L the !iner the a5ustments mae to the !unamental physical
constants the subtler woul we e0pect the resulting changes in the
structure an !unction o! the universe to become. =ypothesis: the
very !inest possible a5ustments to the !unamental physical
constants1 i.e.1 a5ustments to these constants at the very cusp o! what
is intersub5ectively Cob5ectively-physicallyD resolvable constitute an
important an peculiar bounary1 i.e.1 that by which the ientities o!
separate iniviual consciousnesses are istinguishe. /ll smaller
changes/!luctuations in the values o! the !unamental physical
constants woul be e0clusively boun up with the operation o! only a
single iniviual consciousness. 3hanges that sKirt along this
resolution bounary e!ine istinct quantum observers. Ht is
important to remember here that my acts o! quantum observation may
alter the eigenvalue o! the system !or me while merely altering the
probabilities o! the system eigenvalues !or everyone elseT Hn other
wors1 !or me it appears that only my consciousness collapses the
wave!unction1 while everyone else_s acts o! quantum measurement
only result in changes in the probabilities o! a quantum system_s
eigenvalues because H consier the other who is observing the system
an the system he is observing to merely !orm a larger composite
quantum system1 one very liKely to be in a statistically mi0e state.
Aetare an avance 7si !unctions inter!ere between two
successive points o! observation. 6he in!luence o! the !uture
e0periment/observation is hien within the various quantal
uncertainties o! the system as it e0ists an evolves between the two
successive points o! observation.
?acK propagation o! avance 7si !rom a !uture e0periment into the
bubble o! =eisenberg uncertainty e0isting in the present Cthat ha
propagate !rom a most recently past quantum e0perimentD. 6his is
the principle o! the transactional interpretation o! quantum mechanics1
c.!.1 integration o! virtual reality1 =eisenberg uncertainty1 an
prn=
8FH
P8.
6he transcenental-literal is 5ust as much a preicative o0ymoron as
is the esignator1 Rroun-square.S
Fe might someay have con!irmation o! 7latonism_s truth1 !or
e0ample1 i! space aliens !rom another star system visite this planet
an they prove to be e0actly humanoi in !orm. 6he e0istentialist1
on the other han1 can never uncover proo! o! his philosophical
pre5uices1 as there can be no empirical proo! o! something_s
none0istence or nonbeing1 e.g.1 4o. 6here is !or the e0istentialist
only critical analysis1 which can sometimes serve him well1
seemingly1 in unmasKing incoherent or inconsistent notions1 e.g.1
isproving the concept o! !ree will.
H! the laws o! logic turn out to be empirical . . .
6he manner o! physical realization o! ate in the !orm o! energy
structures is relevant to the question o! how much this ata can be
RreprocesseS to yiel Rnew in!ormation.S 6he viral/mimetic
properties o! this ata seems to have two seemingly very i!!erent
in!ormational properties in!orming structure ? with the !eatures o!
structure / an triggering/enabling the in!orming o! structure ? with
newly accessible !eatures o! ?_s ynamical groun.
represents the most that can be intersub5ectively Known about the
state o! an e0ternal state o! a!!airs CsystemD. ?ut can_t claim to say
anything about sub5ective states.
3onsciousness may be e!ine as the substrate o! metaphoricity Co!
e0perience1 whose e0perience?D
7rimitive man interprete the metaphorical re!erence he perceive in
natural phenomena as a literal inication o! a reality beyon his
perceive environment1 e.g.1 the ownwar slanting rays o! the
setting sun as Rropes o! lightS leaing along an !acilitating the path
o! the ;gyptian go-King to his heavenly a!terli!e1 etc.
/s note earlier1 the power o! the humanKin seems consierably
greater than what is necessary !or mere reprouctive success. 6his is
liKely because consciousness rather than being the prouct o!
evolution has been aapte by evolution to its reprouctive an
survival oriente agena. Hn other wors1 evolution has tappe into a
pree0istent ynamism that became available to it at some point
Cquantum brain inter!ace questionD so that the in!ormation processing
capabilities o! consciousness woul not be e0pecte to be !itte to the
perhaps relatively humble aims o! evolution.
Iagueness as paraigmatic interstitial. Fe believe consciousness to
partaKe o! quantum nonlocality because o! the way the !unction o!
consciousness seems to transcen the mechanical that is1 causal
paraigm.
6he brain may resonate with speci!ic carrier wave !requencies that
either are or are not carrying moulations. 6he moulations are not
themselves initially resonant1 but become so with time.
/re quantum uncertainties 5ust e0pectation values o! quantum
uncertainty?
RHt_s not !or nothing that. . .S /lterity_s plea !or e0cuses
,-9_s an nostalgia tours by !uture evolve humanKin.
8etaphysical presence vs. issociative vs. hometown gemeutlichKeit.
7art o! coming to terms with oblivion1 which is one_s !ate1 is coming
to !uller realization that oblivion was one_s origin.
6he groun o! being is recursion an in!inite regress1 i! unerstoo
!ormally.
"ynta0 an semantics place i!!erent Kins o! limits upon the
egeneration o! recore Knowlege.
;volution is not 5ust the evelopment o! !unctions enhancing
reprouctive success1 but the enabling/triggering o! !unctions with
which the internal !unction o! the organism inter!aces.
Hnertial !rame o! re!erence is where there is a balance o! internal
bining !orces o! matter/inertial mass. /n inertial !rame woul also
be characterize by evenly spatially istribute uni!orm rates o! time
ilation. ?ut in curve spacetime1 the probability ensity continuity
equation1
cz/ct = > = )
must be moi!ie into a tensor ensity continuity equation.
.orenz invariance o! quantum vacuum is connecte with the !act o!
the vacuum_s not gravitating. 8atter isrupts the .orenz symmetry
o! the quantum vacuum1 re!lecte in a shi!t in quantum vacuum
statistics o! virtual !ermion an boson creation/annihilation events to
a more e0cite1 less spacetime symmetrical state1 c.!.1 harmonic
oscillator occupation number !ormalism quantum statistics o! the
oscillators levels o! e0citation.
:ensity matri0 as representing partial Cor completeD ecoherence o!
through the appearance o! !ermion/boson probability ensity cross-
terms1 isruption o! in!ormation-bearing phase relations between -
branches1 appearance o! entropy1 thermal vacuum1 :avies-,nruh1
=awKing raiation1 etc.
6he instinct !or heroic sel!-signi!icance is maintaine against the
enveloping1 maening crow seems to require the presence o! an
auience attributing value to one_s actions. 3an the "el! !ul!ill this
role when it is precisely this sel! which acts? Hsn_t it a natural
requirement that the auience be other than the "el!?
/ metaphor1 liKe /yer_s sense atum1 is sel!-valiating as an assertion
o! relateness. 8uch o! the !reeom o! the human min consists in
the malleable nature o! metaphors.
6he energy uncertainty o! a system escribe by a ensity matri0
rather than a wave!unction must be compose o! at least two1 i! not
three istinct components: quantum C=eisenbergD uncertainty1
statistical Cclassical thermoynamicD uncertainty1 an perhaps also the
=eisenberg but non-statistical uncertainty o! the
observer/e0perimenter_s brain.
6hrough two quantum !luctuations may be ranom1 they may
nonetheless be correlate accoring to CrepresentationD orer
parameters. 6his is not the case !or statistical thermal CclassicalD
!luctuations. 6he correlation o! two istinctly separate quantum
!luctuations via a nonlocal connection oes not involve supraliminal
RtransmissionS o! in!ormation.
Fhat is terme RsameS is an abstraction1 an e0trapolation o!
similarity to in!inite egree. 6he essential characteristics o! a stable1
robust system cannot be importantly base upon such a minute egree
o! precision1 though perhaps subtlety within precise bouns provies
a better basis !or seeming necessary in!initesimal precision.
-luctuations o! vacuum energy o not bacK-react upon the groun
state vacuum. @or o zero-in!ormation con!igurations o! such
!luctuations. RHn!ormationS is not a conserve quantity seems to be a
requirement o! the 2
n
law o! thermoynamics an may be intimately
connecte with the nonlocal connectivity o! nonconserve energy1
i.e.1 =eisenberg energy uncertainty o! quantum entangle energy
!luctuations.
;numerate the nonclassical peculiarities o! quantum mechanics as
!ollows.
6ime is not a vali parameter in P8.
=eisenberg uncertainty is ontological an not merely epistemological.
Puantum states cannot be uplicate. H! the temporal continuity o!
the 7si !unction is only by virtue o! the rotation o! 7si in phase space1
then 7si is nonlocally connecte along its worlline within
8inKowsKi space.
"ome initial conitions require the system to RbootstrapS itsel!. /
banKrupt metaphysics it is which treats the very Rto beS as transitive.
H7. 2N2 :oge Hntrepi
/pril 2))$
=
s
+ i
a
MM
2
= C + i
a
DC
s
- i
a
D = M
s
M
2
+ M
a
M
2
= conserve probability ensity
?osons an !ermions contribute positive an negative energy1
respectively to the energy o! the quantum vacuum. "o probability
ensity o! bosons an !ermions shoul be C+D an C-D1 respectively1 to
the energy o! the PI.
.et
s
= */2C +
W
DV
a
= */2C -
W
D an where by
e!inition o! an arbitrary comple0 !unction an its comple0 con5ugate1
= + iyV
W
w = - iy so that1

s
= */2 0 2V
a
= */2i so that1
=
s
+
a
V 0 = C
s
+
a
DC
W

s
+
W

a
D =

s
2
+
a

s
+
W

s
+
a
2
=
=
s
2
+
a
2
=
2
"o we see that the square o! the wave!unction is the sum o! the
squares o! its symmetric an antisymmetric parts. Fithin the conte0t
o! quantum mechanics then1 the total probability ensity is equal to
the sum o! the probability ensities o! the symmetric an
antisymmetric components o! the total quantum !iel. /n
s
an
a
behave liKe orthogonal comple0 !unctions1 c.!.1
cit=
Puantum
8echanics C
au=
8essiahD1 p. 'N(1 :over ?ooKs C*222D.
-rom the continuity equation1 we have
cz/ct +
.
> = )
an cz/ct = cz
a
/ctV
.
> =
.
>
s
so cz
a
/ct +
.
>
s
= )V but we also Know that1
cn
a
/ct = [cn
C+a/-aD
\/ct
Hn other wors1 the time rate o! change in the number ensity o!
virtual !ermions Cin this case1 neither a net increase nor ecrease1 but
an oscillationD is equal to the time rate o! change in the number
ensity o! composite spin ) bosons1 i.e.1 ensity o!
!ermion/anti!ermion virtual pairs. 6his is only true i! the composite
spin ) particle is treate as a single particle.

"o the above continuity equation must be reinterprete in terms o!
number ensities o! composite spin ) virtual R3ooper pairsS an
number current ensities o! spin virtual bosons. 6he original conte0t
o! the term1 3ooper pairs1 is that o! superconuctivity theory.
Hn gravity !iel an/or e0paning spacetime1 cross terms evelop1
c/ct [
.
z
s
\ an cz
a
/zt
Hs this why it is necessary !or spacetime to be nonstatic in general
relativity theory?
6he e!initions1

s
= + iy an
a
= - iy allowe us to euce that

s
2
+
a
2
=
2
?ut another e!inition coul have been chosen1 leaing to the very
same result1
=
s
+ i
a

2
=
W
=
C
s
+ i
a
DC
s
- i
a
D =

s
2
+ i
a

s
- i
a

s
+
a
2

s
2
+
a
2
=
2
1 with the real component o! being
s
an the imaginary
component o! being
a
.
"o the probability ensities o! 1
s
an
a
behave as though virtual
bosons maKe a positive contribution to the vacuum energy ensity an
virtual !ermions a negative one. 6he general relativistic increase in the
mass o! the composite matter + vacuum spacetime energy ensity where
a gravitational !iel is present is attributable to the inuce imbalance in
the !ormally symmetrical opposition o!
s
an
a
brought about by matter
via a perturbation o! the !ree spacetime quantum statistics o! this
spacetime_s vacuum Cgroun stateD. /pril 2))$ Aelativistic mass
increases with increasing gravitational potential in two istinct but
precisely complementary ways Cnote the relevance here o! the
equivalence principle1 i.e.1 the equivalence o! inertial an gravitational
massD: the negative contribution to the vacuum_s energy ensity
becomes less negative while the positive contribution to this energy
ensity becomes more positive.
Iacuum interactions inuce change in the phase relations o! the branch
!unctions1 eventually causing states ecay/ecoherence. Iacuum
!luctuations cause entropy o! otherwise close quantum systems to
increase. <et another reason !or asserting that the vacuum energy
!luctuations meiate the temporal evolution o! the physically meaning!ul
parameters o! the system. @ow the phase o! a !unction are not
thought to possess an absolute physical meaning L only the relative
phase i!!erences between e!icient .
cz
a
/ct + >
s
oesn_t quite seem right !or
an e0paning universe1 even a so-calle R!latS spacetime. R-latnessS
must possess some non-geometrical quality. :oes this imply a violation
o! the ;instein ;quivalence 7rinciple?
"upersymmetry necessarily involves both e0ternal CspacetimeD an
internal symmetries Ce.g.1 intrinsic spinD. >
s
maKes sense in a !lat1
e0paning spacetime in terms o! virtual .orenz boosts within this
spacetime Cabstract1 iscontinuous accelerationsD.
Aelativistic angular momentum1 5
uv
1 is a 2
n
ranK tensor1 rather than a
simple (-vector.
/s the state o! a harmonic oscillator is progressively e0cite to higher
an higher states1 the representation o! the oscillator_s quantum state
becomes progressively less symmetrical1 c.!.1 "ymmetry in 7hysics1 p.
2N C;lliot an :awberD. -or e0ample1 vacuum state becomes less
antisymmetric an more symmetric1 so to speaK1 even though spacetime
.orenz-covariant symmetry is actually ecreasing.
H! a quantum mechanical system can e0ist in an energy eigenstate1 i.e.1 a
state o! ) energy uncertainty1 i.e.1 /a; = )1 then the system may be
consiere to be an energetically close1 which is to say1 as well1 a
thermoynamically close1 system. 6he possibility o! such energy
eigenstates seems itsel! inconsistent with the bar set by Puantum 6heory
on the copying o! states nonestructively. -or the ) energy uncertainty
o! an energy eigenstate certainly means that the system e0changes no
momentum or energy with an outsie. CHnvestigate a possible
momentum-energy theorem concerning =eisenberg uncertainty
propertiesD. 6here!ore1 an outsie !or this system is sharply e!ine an
an insie as well1 to wit1 the system meets the most rigorous e!inition
possible o! what is calle a close system. "o in theory the system
shoul be RcopyableS an any limitations upon any attempts to uplicate
the system must be consiere merely practical in nature. 6his seeming
theoretical inconsistency may be resolve by a ree0amination o! the
e!inition o! =eisenberg uncertainty. >ust looKing over the equations in
its erivation reveals what otherwise appears to be orinary statistical
symbols: mean1 variance1 stanar eviation1 etc.
/pparently1 there are egeneracy_s that cannot be remove by a mere
5uicious a5ustment o! wave!unction bounary conitions. 6o wit1
!luctuations are occurring RinS the system with respect to egenerate
observables o! unKnown nature an e!inition. H! this observable can be
ienti!ie as ob5ective Ce0ternal worllyD1 i.e.1 intersub5ective1 then the
7si !unction1 -ourier analyze in terms o! the hereto!ore unKnown
observable may or may not be separable in terms o! a prouct o!
component 7si !unctions with to inclue the 7si with respect to the
mysterious observable.
Feb RlinK rotS analogy !or brain_s an personal continuity. @o close
system continuity1 i.e.1 Rsubstance-continuityS but continuity in the sense
o! maintaine contact with an in!inite groun. RHn!inite precisionS
copying o! a close system = copying o! an open system whose ientity
must be internal since the system can have no e0ternal bounaries.
/nti-linKrot analogous continuity is conte0tual an so !ormalism
transcening.
6he process o! abstraction is ob5ect egenerate1 e.g.1 this is why my
chilhoo toys looK the same to one though H am now an ault.
:oes a nucleic aci/nucleotie sequence genetically engineere contain
more or less in!ormation o! greater or lesser quality than an e0actly
similar sequence prouce naturally uring the course o! organic
evolution? 6he answer seems to be here that o! the !ormer necessarily
possessing in!ormation in greater quantity an quality in the !ormer
instance than in the latter. 6he reason !or this is that evolving structures
such as organic molecules bacK-react an Rin!ormsS the groun that also
in!orms the evelopment o! other similar organic molecules with which
hey will later interact. "o engineere molecules that have not occurre
naturally1 say through mutual interactions o! both molecules an
molecular morphogenetic !iels will not be properly quantum entangle
with the ynamical quantum vacuum that meiates their an all
molecular behavior.
;ngineering some new organic molecule1 one that has never e0iste
be!ore1 may not be able to !ully pro!it !rom the pree0istent repository o!
organic molecular nonlocal connectivity within the quantum vacuum1
"helraKe_s morphogenetic !iels guiing the !ormative causation
unerlying the evolution o! organic molecules. 6he new molecule must
be allowe a su!!icient train up perio to !eebacK with the pree0istent
!ormative causal nonlocal quantum !iels to virally isseminate its new
!iels to virally isseminate its new pattern. Ht oes this through the
mechanism o! quantum entanglement o! its wave!unction branches an
their mutual phase relations with those o! the pree0istent !iels.
@onlocal causal connections may supplement the initial an bounary
conitions such as the particle masses an coupling strengths1 the !ine
structure constant1 7lancK_s constant1 etc.
Puantum uncertainty an quantum in!ormation are intimately relate
possibly complementary or even largely or e0actly similar1 or perhaps
5ust i!!erent mani!estations o! the same unerlying1 more !unamental
quantity.
Hn!ormation an orer are not the same quantity1 as evince by the
e0ample o! a per!ect crystal.
prn=
Puantum phase is not physically meaning!ul per se1 but all o! the
in!ormation content o! a coherent quantum state is containe in the
phase relationships.
3.!.1