It was another Horizon programme on BBC that recently set me thinking.
It was on the new field of "Synthetic Biology" where very dramatic changes are likely to take place in a short period of time.
We are already well used to the notion of computer programming. However this is going a big step further in that direct intervention with life forms can now take place through genetic engineering.
So already one can through the Internet purchase bio bricks and then seek to assemble the in a manner that never existed before in the natural world. So genetic advances that took many millions of years to evolve can now - apparently - be reprogrammed in an instant with potentially devastating consequences.
Now the initial phase of this engineering seems admirable enough!
For example we are introduced to three revolutionary new goats which are genetically part spider. Apparently a particular type of spider naturally produces a very strong type of silk thread which has all sorts of possible commercial applications. However with reliance on natural production the amount of thread produced would be minimal. However by now genetically combining the spider with the goats, such silk can now be produced in much greater quantities (when extracted as an additional protein from the goats' milk).
We also saw another example whereby brewers' yeast, instead of producing alcohol can be now genetically modified so as to produce diesel oil. So with the likely prospect of growing shortages in natural oil in the future one can readily appreciate the commercial possibilities of this new development.
Other potential uses again seemed in principle of admirable intent. For example the prospect of using genetic engineering to modify pathological body cells such as cancer would seem very welcome.
However what would worry me greatly here is the issue of control. When people are free to buy DNA parts from the Internet and experiment in creating life forms (that may never have existed before) it is potentially very worrying. Also when amateur clubs have already been set up in parts of the US with the intention of doing likewise one wonders where this will go.
Also while at present the main emphasis is on "lower" life forms, can this situation last? Given the pace of these new developments it may not be long till science fiction truly becomes a reality and all sorts of new creatures can be created in the lab. And then what happens if these then escape or are let loose with the capacity to multiply (perhaps at dramatically fast rates).
I even raised myself in "Brave New World" that it may be eventually possible to create intelligent life forms with the capacity to evolve much more rapidly than humans. This would indeed raise startling new practical and ethical problems.
In a best case scenario the possibilities opened up by this new life technology could be used greatly to benefit rather than hinder mankind.
However evil will always remain so it is only probable that the same technology could be carelessly used without adequate knowledge of the consequences or even deliberately designed as a of form of terror against one's enemies.
At present we seem to be still largely in control of this new life technology. However sooner than we realise the fruits of such technology could threaten to control mankind in an altogether unexpected manner.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Friday, January 13, 2012
A New Big Bang
I will briefly attempt here to provide an alternative Big Bang scenario that properly caters for both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of phenomena.
In this scenario we always start from a present moment (which continually exists). Phenomenal notions in space time then obtain a merely relative meaning with respect to this absolute ineffable source (and end) of existence.
So before created phenomena come into being we have mere potential for existence. This can be represented in holistic mathematical terms as the total confusion of union (1) relating to quantitative notions of form with nothingness
(0) relating to corresponding qualitative notions of emptiness.
Earliest physical creations begins with duality (2) in both quantitative and qualitative terms. This quickly through a dynamic iteration process generates almost immediately all prime (and natural numbers).
If we could conceive of a world of merely of prime numbers then quantitative and qualitative aspects would remain identical. Put another way in a universe of merely prime numbers (as the most fundamental physical "objects") we would by definition have as many qualitative dimensions (as quantitative objects) in an ineffable manner. However the rapid combination of prime "objects" and "dimensions" quickly generates natural objects (which implicitly do have a phenomenal physical identity).
However this rapid generation of natural objects quickly leads to a collapse in corresponding dimensions (as matter achieves a more stable phenomenal form).
So the real issue in earliest creation is how the increasing identification of phenomenal objects necessarily leads to a dramatic loss in the unique dimensional qualities of these objects, thereby enabling them to attain an ever more common collective identity (i.e. with characteristics shared in common).
In the holistic mathematical sense in which I use dimension, remarkably what we term "science" as a rational means to investigate such evolution is by definition 1-dimensional.
Thus in the extreme desire to understand the nature of phenomenal objects we have reduced the dimensional qualitative aspect - literally - to an absolute minimum of 1. Therefore though conventionally we speak of a 4-dimensional physical world, we actually create significant asymmetry by treating the 3 spatial dimensions in a reduced quantitative manner.
What is remarkable is that if we now wish therefore to properly understand the nature of earliest creation (which existed in an unreduced multiple-dimensional framework) then we must psychologically experience reality in such higher dimensions.
Again using my holistic mathematical approach, I have demonstrated how nature through an advanced contemplative type intuitive vision actually corresponds to this higher dimensional perspective.
The clear implication is that to experience the beginning of creation we must experience from the end of creation i.e. through the psycho-spiritual attainment of pure spiritual union (which equally of course is an emptiness).
Thus in properly understanding the refined psychological dynamics prior to total union we would recreate in reverse complementary fashion the phenomenal structures of earliest creation.
What this demonstrates is that what we can know about physical reality ultimately is entirely mirrored by the psychological means by which we interpret this reality. Truly this reality and its appropriate interpretation are as mirrors to each other. So when they completely mirror each other there is no longer any separation but a union (that is also nothingness).
Finally, though I have been very critical of string theory there are marked similarities evident in the two approaches.
For example in both cases ultimately reality is seen in a mathematical fashion (though I would lay much greater emphasis in holistic mathematical interpretation in this regard).
Also both approaches see early creation as entailing a much higher number of dimensions (which become subsequently reduced with the existence of stable phenomena).
However again - unlike conventional string theory, I would draw a strong distinction as between both quantitative and qualitative interpretation. Indeed as I have written elsewhere the key notions of string theory can be given an alternative "imaginary" interpretation (in qualitative terms).
In this scenario we always start from a present moment (which continually exists). Phenomenal notions in space time then obtain a merely relative meaning with respect to this absolute ineffable source (and end) of existence.
So before created phenomena come into being we have mere potential for existence. This can be represented in holistic mathematical terms as the total confusion of union (1) relating to quantitative notions of form with nothingness
(0) relating to corresponding qualitative notions of emptiness.
Earliest physical creations begins with duality (2) in both quantitative and qualitative terms. This quickly through a dynamic iteration process generates almost immediately all prime (and natural numbers).
If we could conceive of a world of merely of prime numbers then quantitative and qualitative aspects would remain identical. Put another way in a universe of merely prime numbers (as the most fundamental physical "objects") we would by definition have as many qualitative dimensions (as quantitative objects) in an ineffable manner. However the rapid combination of prime "objects" and "dimensions" quickly generates natural objects (which implicitly do have a phenomenal physical identity).
However this rapid generation of natural objects quickly leads to a collapse in corresponding dimensions (as matter achieves a more stable phenomenal form).
So the real issue in earliest creation is how the increasing identification of phenomenal objects necessarily leads to a dramatic loss in the unique dimensional qualities of these objects, thereby enabling them to attain an ever more common collective identity (i.e. with characteristics shared in common).
In the holistic mathematical sense in which I use dimension, remarkably what we term "science" as a rational means to investigate such evolution is by definition 1-dimensional.
Thus in the extreme desire to understand the nature of phenomenal objects we have reduced the dimensional qualitative aspect - literally - to an absolute minimum of 1. Therefore though conventionally we speak of a 4-dimensional physical world, we actually create significant asymmetry by treating the 3 spatial dimensions in a reduced quantitative manner.
What is remarkable is that if we now wish therefore to properly understand the nature of earliest creation (which existed in an unreduced multiple-dimensional framework) then we must psychologically experience reality in such higher dimensions.
Again using my holistic mathematical approach, I have demonstrated how nature through an advanced contemplative type intuitive vision actually corresponds to this higher dimensional perspective.
The clear implication is that to experience the beginning of creation we must experience from the end of creation i.e. through the psycho-spiritual attainment of pure spiritual union (which equally of course is an emptiness).
Thus in properly understanding the refined psychological dynamics prior to total union we would recreate in reverse complementary fashion the phenomenal structures of earliest creation.
What this demonstrates is that what we can know about physical reality ultimately is entirely mirrored by the psychological means by which we interpret this reality. Truly this reality and its appropriate interpretation are as mirrors to each other. So when they completely mirror each other there is no longer any separation but a union (that is also nothingness).
Finally, though I have been very critical of string theory there are marked similarities evident in the two approaches.
For example in both cases ultimately reality is seen in a mathematical fashion (though I would lay much greater emphasis in holistic mathematical interpretation in this regard).
Also both approaches see early creation as entailing a much higher number of dimensions (which become subsequently reduced with the existence of stable phenomena).
However again - unlike conventional string theory, I would draw a strong distinction as between both quantitative and qualitative interpretation. Indeed as I have written elsewhere the key notions of string theory can be given an alternative "imaginary" interpretation (in qualitative terms).
Thursday, January 12, 2012
More on Higgs Boson
I am returning to the topic of the last entry (i.e. the Horizon Programme on the hunting of the Higgs Boson).
There are many reasons why I have strong reservations regarding the interpretation of recent findings.
The finding of the Higgs Boson is required to bring a greater degree of completion to what is called the Standard Model which deals with the interactions between known particles and forces. Now admittedly this has proved remarkably successful in predicting an enormous range of physical events with astonishing accuracy!
However a major limitation is that it excludes gravity.
So to give an analogy; the search for the Higgs Boson represents the equivalent of finding a crucial weapon in a crime investigation. However in this investigation, the key potential suspect has been eliminated from investigation (due to the difficulty of searching for evidence). So in the absence of this key suspect, police are now attempting to pin the crime on someone else. Then to build a case against another suspect some key incriminating evidence is required. So if a weapon - deemed to belong to the suspect - can be found at the scene of the crime, police will be ready to press charges!
However one could validly question this whole exercise as a somewhat artificial attempt to solve a crime (in the absence of the chief suspect).
So even if an incriminating weapon is found at the scene, a variety of possible explanations could be given. Indeed the chief suspect way even have planted this evidence so as to falsely incriminate another person.
In the same way, even if the Higgs Boson is eventually deemed to exist it still begs a lot of questions in the absence of the inclusion of the gravitational force in the Standard Model. Indeed one obvious suggestion is that the very existence of this boson intimately depends on the gravitational force!
So again even if the Higgs Boson is confirmed to exist, it represents important information, which however in all probability requires a much deeper explanation (than can be provided within the Standard Model).
Also it must be stressed again that the very rationale of the Standard Model is of an extremely reduced - and ultimately untenable - nature.
The idea here is that the Universe - as we know it - is ultimately comprised of basic "building blocks" of matter (which hopefully can be experimentally discovered through ever more powerful particle accelerators).
However in order to give fundamental particles a meaning, they must be placed within a preconceived environment of space and time.
This in turn reflects the reduced orientation of Conventional Science (where qualitative considerations are reduced to the quantitative).
So we cannot conceive of the specific (quantitative) aspects of matter in the absence of the holistic (qualitative) dimensions they inhabit.
Therefore the true task of science is not to just to explain the basic "building blocks" of existence but rather the manner in which both particles and dimensions - which have no strict meaning in the absence of each other - come into existence.
So it is strictly futile attempting to construct reality from its basic "building blocks" when these phenomena cannot be understood in the absence of corresponding physical dimensions!
The real task therefore is to explain how matter and dimensions mutually arise through dynamic interaction with each other. And this requires recognition of both the standard and - as yet unrecognised - holistic aspects of science.
And the ultimate implication of this approach is that what we call "reality" in fact strictly represents appearances of a merely relative nature arising from the interaction os twin aspects that are quantitative and qualitative with respect to each other. So true "reality" would be then understood as that absolute ever present source (and goal) of all that phenomenally exists in relative spacetime.
Indeed there is already a clue in existing thinking to this new way of looking at reality.
Moderns physics is strongly based on the notion of symmetry. However the paradox then remains that the perfect physical theory (based on total symmetry) would mean that reality as we know it - which requires a degree of asymmetry - could not exist!.
However we can now perhaps see that the perfect versions of physical theories are pointing directly at true "reality" as the ever present source (and goal) of what phenomenally exists.
There was also an interesting indication of this in the programme when Michio Kaku referred to the beautiful objects all around us in nature e.g. snowflakes as fragments of an original perfect world (before phenomenal existence) where perfect physical symmetry reigns.
What is fascinating about this that we can give a direct psycho spiritual counterpart to this observation in that all beautiful objects in nature represent reflections (or archetypes) of an ultimate perfect reality (that is spiritual in nature).
This would then immediately suggest that the physical and religious quests to know reality are themselves truly complementary. So perfection (in physical or spiritual terms) is in the realisation that both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of reality are ultimately fully symmetrical!
The truly great limitation of Conventional Science is the manner in which it attempts to abstract physical reality in a reduced quantitative manner from what is spiritual.
In the end one cannot attempt to properly understand the physical world without equal recognition of its spiritual aspect. So for every quantitative type relationship a qualitative counterpart exists.
However whereas (linear) reason is the appropriate vehicle of the quantitative aspect, intuition recognition (which indirectly can be given be a precise circular logical interpretation) is the appropriate scientific vehicle of the qualitative.
There are many reasons why I have strong reservations regarding the interpretation of recent findings.
The finding of the Higgs Boson is required to bring a greater degree of completion to what is called the Standard Model which deals with the interactions between known particles and forces. Now admittedly this has proved remarkably successful in predicting an enormous range of physical events with astonishing accuracy!
However a major limitation is that it excludes gravity.
So to give an analogy; the search for the Higgs Boson represents the equivalent of finding a crucial weapon in a crime investigation. However in this investigation, the key potential suspect has been eliminated from investigation (due to the difficulty of searching for evidence). So in the absence of this key suspect, police are now attempting to pin the crime on someone else. Then to build a case against another suspect some key incriminating evidence is required. So if a weapon - deemed to belong to the suspect - can be found at the scene of the crime, police will be ready to press charges!
However one could validly question this whole exercise as a somewhat artificial attempt to solve a crime (in the absence of the chief suspect).
So even if an incriminating weapon is found at the scene, a variety of possible explanations could be given. Indeed the chief suspect way even have planted this evidence so as to falsely incriminate another person.
In the same way, even if the Higgs Boson is eventually deemed to exist it still begs a lot of questions in the absence of the inclusion of the gravitational force in the Standard Model. Indeed one obvious suggestion is that the very existence of this boson intimately depends on the gravitational force!
So again even if the Higgs Boson is confirmed to exist, it represents important information, which however in all probability requires a much deeper explanation (than can be provided within the Standard Model).
Also it must be stressed again that the very rationale of the Standard Model is of an extremely reduced - and ultimately untenable - nature.
The idea here is that the Universe - as we know it - is ultimately comprised of basic "building blocks" of matter (which hopefully can be experimentally discovered through ever more powerful particle accelerators).
However in order to give fundamental particles a meaning, they must be placed within a preconceived environment of space and time.
This in turn reflects the reduced orientation of Conventional Science (where qualitative considerations are reduced to the quantitative).
So we cannot conceive of the specific (quantitative) aspects of matter in the absence of the holistic (qualitative) dimensions they inhabit.
Therefore the true task of science is not to just to explain the basic "building blocks" of existence but rather the manner in which both particles and dimensions - which have no strict meaning in the absence of each other - come into existence.
So it is strictly futile attempting to construct reality from its basic "building blocks" when these phenomena cannot be understood in the absence of corresponding physical dimensions!
The real task therefore is to explain how matter and dimensions mutually arise through dynamic interaction with each other. And this requires recognition of both the standard and - as yet unrecognised - holistic aspects of science.
And the ultimate implication of this approach is that what we call "reality" in fact strictly represents appearances of a merely relative nature arising from the interaction os twin aspects that are quantitative and qualitative with respect to each other. So true "reality" would be then understood as that absolute ever present source (and goal) of all that phenomenally exists in relative spacetime.
Indeed there is already a clue in existing thinking to this new way of looking at reality.
Moderns physics is strongly based on the notion of symmetry. However the paradox then remains that the perfect physical theory (based on total symmetry) would mean that reality as we know it - which requires a degree of asymmetry - could not exist!.
However we can now perhaps see that the perfect versions of physical theories are pointing directly at true "reality" as the ever present source (and goal) of what phenomenally exists.
There was also an interesting indication of this in the programme when Michio Kaku referred to the beautiful objects all around us in nature e.g. snowflakes as fragments of an original perfect world (before phenomenal existence) where perfect physical symmetry reigns.
What is fascinating about this that we can give a direct psycho spiritual counterpart to this observation in that all beautiful objects in nature represent reflections (or archetypes) of an ultimate perfect reality (that is spiritual in nature).
This would then immediately suggest that the physical and religious quests to know reality are themselves truly complementary. So perfection (in physical or spiritual terms) is in the realisation that both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of reality are ultimately fully symmetrical!
The truly great limitation of Conventional Science is the manner in which it attempts to abstract physical reality in a reduced quantitative manner from what is spiritual.
In the end one cannot attempt to properly understand the physical world without equal recognition of its spiritual aspect. So for every quantitative type relationship a qualitative counterpart exists.
However whereas (linear) reason is the appropriate vehicle of the quantitative aspect, intuition recognition (which indirectly can be given be a precise circular logical interpretation) is the appropriate scientific vehicle of the qualitative.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Higgs Boson or Higgs Illusion
I was looking at the BBC Horizon programme last night on the Higgs Boson which proved quite interesting.
As was widely reported in the media late last year, a determined attempt has been made to find convincing experimental evidence for the existence of the Higgs Boson which if verified would help to complete the standard particle model of physics.
One outstanding problem with this model is that it had yet to provide a convincing explanation as to how particles acquire mass. And as this requirement is crucial for explaining the existence of all phenomena, the issue was of great importance.
It had been proposed in the late 60's by Peter Higgs that what gives mass to particles is related to a seemingly invisible field viz. the Higgs Field. And as all fields are associated with corresponding particles, it was postulated that if this supposition of the existence of a new field was correct that it should in principle be possible to detect its associated particle.
However the technology to conduct the kind of experiments capable of uncovering such a high energy particle remained insufficient for the task until recently.
So now using the 17 ml. long Large Hadron Collider built underground at Geneva, researchers now feel confident that they can settle this issue once and for all.
Great excitement was raised by earlier tests carried out before Christmas which seemed to suggest that perhaps the elusive Higgs Boson had been at last detected (though further testing will be required to reach a conclusive verdict).
However as I listened to so much scientific hype regarding this as the most significant development since Einstein's discovery of Relativity and that scientists could now concentrate on closing in further on the initial instant of creation, I experienced a great let-down and an inability to share the excitement in news that I do not consider as truly fundamental.
The great weakness - which seems largely unrecognised by scientists - is that we cannot hope to come to knowledge of the fundamental nature of the Universe while attempting to remain as passive observers of its assumed objective existence.
When one reflects on it we are obviously dealing with a self-referential system (where what is known about reality inevitably reflects the nature of our psychological manner of interpreting such reality).
So we cannot possibly know the nature of objective particles or discover what transpired during the initial moment of creation when our very means of interpretation is itself dependent on the considerable evolution of creation that has since unfolded.
Thus in a very real sense, the initial beginning of creation has no meaning in the absence of the subsequent evolution required to then enable intelligent minds to reflect on the nature of this existence.
The Universe therefore has so evolved, that we can now, as an inseparable part of this creation, attempt to look back and discover its meaning in both objective and subjective terms.
And once we accept the inevitable fact that human nature entails both physical and psychological aspects that are interrelated, then we cannot meaningfully attempt to portray the unfolding of one aspect of evolution i.e physical while ignoring the other aspect i.e. psychological. The very irony in this situation is that any attempted physical explanation of reality - even through conventional scientific means - is in fact impossible in the absence of corresponding psychological constructs (that must necessarily be used to interpret this reality). So we can never describe (objective) reality as such but rather a more subtle relationship entailing the dynamic interaction of both physical and psychological aspects.
This is not to suggest that there is no valid role for the present model of science (based on mere objective interpretation). However such science is best at the everyday level of macro reality where stable objects and relationships exist.
However as we approach the ultimate nature of reality, it becomes increasingly unsuited to discovery of its moment of origin in spacetime (where both the actual and potential capacities of existence remain considerably confused with each other).
The strange paradox is that in the most fundamental sense, the earliest moment of creation is in fact inseparable from the present most advanced moment (with all secondary measurements of space and time of merely a relative nature).
So the only meaningful manner to realise ultimate physical symmetry (before finite creation occurs) is in experiencing that ultimate psychological symmetry (representing pure spiritual union).
Ultimately the only way therefore to truly discover the full nature of physical creation is through equally experiencing the full realisation of this reality (where physical and psychological aspects are inseparable).
And in this moment of pure spiritual union continually existing in the present moment, creation comes to realisation of its eternal mystery.
What we are in fact approaching now are the limits of one particular model of science. In precise holistic mathematical terms, I refer to this as 1-dimensional science. The very nature of this model is that it inevitably reduces in any context qualitative to quantitative meaning. However, associated every other number as dimension are ever more subtle scientific systems (where quantitative and qualitative aspects while remaining to a degree distinct can yet dynamically interact).
What we need to clearly realise is the fact that what we recognise as fundamental particles are in fact just appearances of reality (with no ultimate substance). They only appear to have substance when we attempt to give them an independent (objective) existence.
So the Higgs Boson - even if verified satisfactorily according to present scientific understanding - properly represents a physical apparition (corresponding to a particular means of - arbitrary - mental interpretation).
In fact the "finding" of the Higgs Boson will not depend on locating its direct physical existence but rather in achieving a consensus with respect to an interpretation that the indirect effects of the physical experiments conducted are consistent with its postulated existence!
As was widely reported in the media late last year, a determined attempt has been made to find convincing experimental evidence for the existence of the Higgs Boson which if verified would help to complete the standard particle model of physics.
One outstanding problem with this model is that it had yet to provide a convincing explanation as to how particles acquire mass. And as this requirement is crucial for explaining the existence of all phenomena, the issue was of great importance.
It had been proposed in the late 60's by Peter Higgs that what gives mass to particles is related to a seemingly invisible field viz. the Higgs Field. And as all fields are associated with corresponding particles, it was postulated that if this supposition of the existence of a new field was correct that it should in principle be possible to detect its associated particle.
However the technology to conduct the kind of experiments capable of uncovering such a high energy particle remained insufficient for the task until recently.
So now using the 17 ml. long Large Hadron Collider built underground at Geneva, researchers now feel confident that they can settle this issue once and for all.
Great excitement was raised by earlier tests carried out before Christmas which seemed to suggest that perhaps the elusive Higgs Boson had been at last detected (though further testing will be required to reach a conclusive verdict).
However as I listened to so much scientific hype regarding this as the most significant development since Einstein's discovery of Relativity and that scientists could now concentrate on closing in further on the initial instant of creation, I experienced a great let-down and an inability to share the excitement in news that I do not consider as truly fundamental.
The great weakness - which seems largely unrecognised by scientists - is that we cannot hope to come to knowledge of the fundamental nature of the Universe while attempting to remain as passive observers of its assumed objective existence.
When one reflects on it we are obviously dealing with a self-referential system (where what is known about reality inevitably reflects the nature of our psychological manner of interpreting such reality).
So we cannot possibly know the nature of objective particles or discover what transpired during the initial moment of creation when our very means of interpretation is itself dependent on the considerable evolution of creation that has since unfolded.
Thus in a very real sense, the initial beginning of creation has no meaning in the absence of the subsequent evolution required to then enable intelligent minds to reflect on the nature of this existence.
The Universe therefore has so evolved, that we can now, as an inseparable part of this creation, attempt to look back and discover its meaning in both objective and subjective terms.
And once we accept the inevitable fact that human nature entails both physical and psychological aspects that are interrelated, then we cannot meaningfully attempt to portray the unfolding of one aspect of evolution i.e physical while ignoring the other aspect i.e. psychological. The very irony in this situation is that any attempted physical explanation of reality - even through conventional scientific means - is in fact impossible in the absence of corresponding psychological constructs (that must necessarily be used to interpret this reality). So we can never describe (objective) reality as such but rather a more subtle relationship entailing the dynamic interaction of both physical and psychological aspects.
This is not to suggest that there is no valid role for the present model of science (based on mere objective interpretation). However such science is best at the everyday level of macro reality where stable objects and relationships exist.
However as we approach the ultimate nature of reality, it becomes increasingly unsuited to discovery of its moment of origin in spacetime (where both the actual and potential capacities of existence remain considerably confused with each other).
The strange paradox is that in the most fundamental sense, the earliest moment of creation is in fact inseparable from the present most advanced moment (with all secondary measurements of space and time of merely a relative nature).
So the only meaningful manner to realise ultimate physical symmetry (before finite creation occurs) is in experiencing that ultimate psychological symmetry (representing pure spiritual union).
Ultimately the only way therefore to truly discover the full nature of physical creation is through equally experiencing the full realisation of this reality (where physical and psychological aspects are inseparable).
And in this moment of pure spiritual union continually existing in the present moment, creation comes to realisation of its eternal mystery.
What we are in fact approaching now are the limits of one particular model of science. In precise holistic mathematical terms, I refer to this as 1-dimensional science. The very nature of this model is that it inevitably reduces in any context qualitative to quantitative meaning. However, associated every other number as dimension are ever more subtle scientific systems (where quantitative and qualitative aspects while remaining to a degree distinct can yet dynamically interact).
What we need to clearly realise is the fact that what we recognise as fundamental particles are in fact just appearances of reality (with no ultimate substance). They only appear to have substance when we attempt to give them an independent (objective) existence.
So the Higgs Boson - even if verified satisfactorily according to present scientific understanding - properly represents a physical apparition (corresponding to a particular means of - arbitrary - mental interpretation).
In fact the "finding" of the Higgs Boson will not depend on locating its direct physical existence but rather in achieving a consensus with respect to an interpretation that the indirect effects of the physical experiments conducted are consistent with its postulated existence!
Friday, August 5, 2011
New Perspective on Harmonic Series
The very important and well-known harmonic series i.e. 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + 1/5 +... is especially associated with Pythagoras who reputedly found in these simple fractions definite links with the manner in which musical notes sound. This pattern of the simple natural fractions, in particular, seemed to correspond perfectly with - what we would recognise as - a harmonious sequence of notes and thereafter it has become known as the harmonic series.
So we have here a very clear link as between simple mathematics and musical harmonics. Subsequently it was shown that this series (and its associated series where the dimensional power of each fraction itself can vary from 1 and ultimately alter over the entire range of complex numbers) has intimate connections with the prime numbers!
So in a certain valid sense there is music in the primes. So just as we are accustomed to give a wave form to musical sounds likewise there is a wave pattern associated with each prime number.
Indeed we could go further and suggest that there are intimate links as between the prime numbers and quantum mechanics with each possessing particle (discrete) and wave (continuous) aspects. The real implication is that just as music itself has quantitative and qualitative aspects which interact to produce the experience that we recognise, likewise - when appropriately understood - prime numbers and quantum mechanics likewise arise from the interaction of quantitative and qualitative elements.
As we have seen the harmonic series is made up of the reciprocals of the natural numbers.
Now each of these numbers has a dimensional aspect as the corresponding fractional powers, which results in a circular - rather than linear - quantitative structure. The corresponding qualitative numbers are then simply the natural numbers, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.. etc now interpreted in a holistic manner.
Recently I have come to the conclusion that quality in all its aspects ultimately relates to this dimensional appreciation of number (interpreted in a holistic manner). In this context each dimensional number represents a unique way of configuring the fundamental polarities of experience (internal/external and whole/part).
So quality in the most basic sense always arises from a certain manner of configuring these basic polarities (which is given by the qualitative interpretation of dimensional numbers).
Seen in this light the qualitative correspondent of the harmonic series is simply the natural number dimensions. So it is not surprising that our fundamental appreciation of harmony (relating to the manner of configuring polarities) corresponds directly with the simplest dimensional numbers. These are the very ones with which we are implicitly programmed in out attempts to discern qualitative meaning!
So we have here a very clear link as between simple mathematics and musical harmonics. Subsequently it was shown that this series (and its associated series where the dimensional power of each fraction itself can vary from 1 and ultimately alter over the entire range of complex numbers) has intimate connections with the prime numbers!
So in a certain valid sense there is music in the primes. So just as we are accustomed to give a wave form to musical sounds likewise there is a wave pattern associated with each prime number.
Indeed we could go further and suggest that there are intimate links as between the prime numbers and quantum mechanics with each possessing particle (discrete) and wave (continuous) aspects. The real implication is that just as music itself has quantitative and qualitative aspects which interact to produce the experience that we recognise, likewise - when appropriately understood - prime numbers and quantum mechanics likewise arise from the interaction of quantitative and qualitative elements.
As we have seen the harmonic series is made up of the reciprocals of the natural numbers.
Now each of these numbers has a dimensional aspect as the corresponding fractional powers, which results in a circular - rather than linear - quantitative structure. The corresponding qualitative numbers are then simply the natural numbers, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.. etc now interpreted in a holistic manner.
Recently I have come to the conclusion that quality in all its aspects ultimately relates to this dimensional appreciation of number (interpreted in a holistic manner). In this context each dimensional number represents a unique way of configuring the fundamental polarities of experience (internal/external and whole/part).
So quality in the most basic sense always arises from a certain manner of configuring these basic polarities (which is given by the qualitative interpretation of dimensional numbers).
Seen in this light the qualitative correspondent of the harmonic series is simply the natural number dimensions. So it is not surprising that our fundamental appreciation of harmony (relating to the manner of configuring polarities) corresponds directly with the simplest dimensional numbers. These are the very ones with which we are implicitly programmed in out attempts to discern qualitative meaning!
Monday, August 1, 2011
A Double Code
In a post on my blog on the Riemann Hypothesis, I referred to a new Mathematical series on the BBC hosted by Marcus du Sautoy called "The Code". I have already seen several such programmes with du Sautoy who I enjoy watching for his enthusiasm and obvious love of the subject. I also enjoyed greatly reading his books "The Music of the Primes" which played a large role in pushing me on to develop my own own insights on the primes. More recently I read his later book on Symmetry - an area in which he specialises - "Finding Moonshine".
Now the code that du Sautoy is referring to to relates to the quantitative use of numbers that is so wonderfully successful in helping to clarify so many of nature's secrets.
However Mathematics equally contains another marvellous code in the qualitative interpretation of these same numbers. However, seemingly there is as yet little or no recognition of the potential significance of this latter code.
I have frequently explained how the qualitative meaning of numbers is intimately tied up with mathematical dimensions. Unfortunately from a conventional perspective, only a reduced linear rational interpretation - that is literally 1-dimensional in qualitative terms - can be given.
In the most fundamental sense this true qualitative nature of dimensions relates to the dynamic manner in which the polarities of experience interact. In the most basic terms these polarities come in two pairings. The first relates to external and internal whereas the second relates to whole and part distinctions.
Now the conventional scientific (and mathematical) perspective is thereby linear as it seeks to define one unambiguous direction with respect to these polarities. In other words reality is here identified in a non-interactive fashion with what is understood as external to the observer. It then deals with wholes and parts in a reduced quantitative manner (whereby parts are simply viewed as fragmented constituents of the whole).
However though explicitly such scientific interpretation is indeed linear, implicitly in experience dynamic interaction in varying ways still takes place allowing for a much more varied dimensional appreciation (where many dimensions can interact to a degree with each other).
What I have recently come to realise is that our qualitative experience of reality in fact relates to the manner in which these various dimensions (representing the interaction of the fundamental polarities) takes place. And as each unique dimensional configuration is represented by a number, this thereby entails that all experience can be represented as the dynamic interplay of numbers (with respect to both their quantitative and qualitative aspects).
In a direct sense this qualitative dimensional aspect relates to the affective function in experience (which can then indirectly be translated mathematically in a cognitive rational manner).
So understood from this perspective our emotional experience with respect to sense and feelings represents the manner in which we configure various number dimensions (from a qualitative perspective).
One especially fruitful area of investigation would relate to musical appreciation. It has been demonstrated - at least since the time of Pythagoras - that there is a marked quantitative aspect to the manner in which we experience sound. So sounds that appear to us especially harmonious relate to the simplest ratios involving the natural numbers.
However an even deeper explanation of why this appears to be the case would relate to appreciation of the qualitative - as opposed to the quantitative - interpretation of number.
What I am suggesting therefore is that because our qualitative experience of dimensions remains somewhat undeveloped in present human evolution, we find it difficult to appreciate all but the relationship as between the simplest natural number dimensions. So the harmony in sound that we thus experience relates to the greater familiarity we have with the easiest dimensional configurations.
Put another way, for someone who in this affective context has implicitly achieved a more developed dimensional understanding, then a much more refined appreciation of sound would then be possible. Then what might appear dissonant at a customary level of experience, might now appear quite harmonious!
This also provides an interesting explanation as to the difference as between artistic and scientific type truth.
The very basis of current scientific truth is the universal acceptance (explicitly in formal terms) of its qualitative 1-dimensional manner of interpretation. However the basis of artistic appreciation is that people implicitly, as we have seen, use varying dimensional number configurations in attaining their qualitative understanding. And as such configurations can vary widely from person to person this implies that universal agreement as to what constitutes artistic merit is not therefore possible.
Of course in some respects a conventional consensus (at least in certain sections of society) may exist as to what constitutes artistic value but this simply reflects a shared qualitative perspective among those with influence, who thereby configure the qualitative dimensions in a largely similar manner.
Also it must be said that even where the same qualitative dimensions are involved, marked variations in subsequent experience (relating in turn to considerable differences as to the degree of spiritual refinement with which they are experienced) can exist.
Now the code that du Sautoy is referring to to relates to the quantitative use of numbers that is so wonderfully successful in helping to clarify so many of nature's secrets.
However Mathematics equally contains another marvellous code in the qualitative interpretation of these same numbers. However, seemingly there is as yet little or no recognition of the potential significance of this latter code.
I have frequently explained how the qualitative meaning of numbers is intimately tied up with mathematical dimensions. Unfortunately from a conventional perspective, only a reduced linear rational interpretation - that is literally 1-dimensional in qualitative terms - can be given.
In the most fundamental sense this true qualitative nature of dimensions relates to the dynamic manner in which the polarities of experience interact. In the most basic terms these polarities come in two pairings. The first relates to external and internal whereas the second relates to whole and part distinctions.
Now the conventional scientific (and mathematical) perspective is thereby linear as it seeks to define one unambiguous direction with respect to these polarities. In other words reality is here identified in a non-interactive fashion with what is understood as external to the observer. It then deals with wholes and parts in a reduced quantitative manner (whereby parts are simply viewed as fragmented constituents of the whole).
However though explicitly such scientific interpretation is indeed linear, implicitly in experience dynamic interaction in varying ways still takes place allowing for a much more varied dimensional appreciation (where many dimensions can interact to a degree with each other).
What I have recently come to realise is that our qualitative experience of reality in fact relates to the manner in which these various dimensions (representing the interaction of the fundamental polarities) takes place. And as each unique dimensional configuration is represented by a number, this thereby entails that all experience can be represented as the dynamic interplay of numbers (with respect to both their quantitative and qualitative aspects).
In a direct sense this qualitative dimensional aspect relates to the affective function in experience (which can then indirectly be translated mathematically in a cognitive rational manner).
So understood from this perspective our emotional experience with respect to sense and feelings represents the manner in which we configure various number dimensions (from a qualitative perspective).
One especially fruitful area of investigation would relate to musical appreciation. It has been demonstrated - at least since the time of Pythagoras - that there is a marked quantitative aspect to the manner in which we experience sound. So sounds that appear to us especially harmonious relate to the simplest ratios involving the natural numbers.
However an even deeper explanation of why this appears to be the case would relate to appreciation of the qualitative - as opposed to the quantitative - interpretation of number.
What I am suggesting therefore is that because our qualitative experience of dimensions remains somewhat undeveloped in present human evolution, we find it difficult to appreciate all but the relationship as between the simplest natural number dimensions. So the harmony in sound that we thus experience relates to the greater familiarity we have with the easiest dimensional configurations.
Put another way, for someone who in this affective context has implicitly achieved a more developed dimensional understanding, then a much more refined appreciation of sound would then be possible. Then what might appear dissonant at a customary level of experience, might now appear quite harmonious!
This also provides an interesting explanation as to the difference as between artistic and scientific type truth.
The very basis of current scientific truth is the universal acceptance (explicitly in formal terms) of its qualitative 1-dimensional manner of interpretation. However the basis of artistic appreciation is that people implicitly, as we have seen, use varying dimensional number configurations in attaining their qualitative understanding. And as such configurations can vary widely from person to person this implies that universal agreement as to what constitutes artistic merit is not therefore possible.
Of course in some respects a conventional consensus (at least in certain sections of society) may exist as to what constitutes artistic value but this simply reflects a shared qualitative perspective among those with influence, who thereby configure the qualitative dimensions in a largely similar manner.
Also it must be said that even where the same qualitative dimensions are involved, marked variations in subsequent experience (relating in turn to considerable differences as to the degree of spiritual refinement with which they are experienced) can exist.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Brave New World
I was reading Paul Allen’s “The Idea Man” recently which I found fascinating on several levels (especially with respect to his relationship with Bill Gates and the founding of Microsoft).
Clearly both Allen and Gates were extremely talented individuals with a special gift for programming. What I did not realise however was the extraordinary amount of work that they put in eventually leading to the founding of Microsoft.
In Jungian personality terms, whereas Gates would have been an S, Allen clearly was more of an N type. Though the relationship between them was never easy, the combination of Gates’ pragmatism and ruthless realism allied to Allen’s creative vision and shrewd reading of technical developments effectively led to the founding of Microsoft.
However as regards the survival of the fittest with respect to Microsoft ultimately only one person would assume control which inevitably meant Bill Gates.
In the end whereas Gates was intent on making Microsoft his life, Allen wanted the freedom to devote his energies to a hotch potch of differing interests (which his immense wealth has facilitated).
Reading this book got me thinking again with respect to my own “visionary perspective” for the future of computers.
Once again the present IT revolution depends heavily on the quantitative use of the binary system i.e. in the ability of using a series of 1’s and 0’s to encode information.
However I have long advocated a second qualitative binary system that would make use of the holistic interpretation of 1 and 0 with the potential power to encode all transformation processes. 1 in this context relates to linear logic as the actual basic for encoding (unitary) form whereas 0 relates to circular logic as the corresponding indirect basis for encoding emptiness i.e. nothingness (as the potential source of all form).
And it is in the interaction of form and emptiness at all levels of reality that we have continual transformation.
Now up to this I have always tended to associate this second type in its most developed state with the human species especially with respect to the potential for considerable spiritual transformation.
And as evolution of such spiritual potential in general is of a very slow nature, this would place considerable limits on the possibilities of radical “computer” developments in the near future with respect to the use of this qualitative binary system. Indeed - as I have so often stated - it is not even formally recognised in current scientific thinking where the basis paradigm is almost exclusively built on the recognition of - merely - one qualitative digit (i.e. 1 corresponding to the linear logic of form).
Now the human species represents an organic biological life process (which is distinct from the mechanistic type of systems associated with quantitative IT type developments).
However it struck me recently that perhaps it is mistaken to confine possible developments with respect to the alternative qualitative system to advances in human spiritual evolutionary development (which could take a long time).
In other words other biological life processes could perhaps be created through laboratory means with far greater potential for rapid spiritual development. If this is true then this would entail that an alternative qualitative IT revolution could then be directly associated with the use of these biological life forms that would be capable of acting in a highly creative manner.
Indeed from one perspective, just as current IT devices can be seen as an extension of the human personality with respect to facilitating information of all kinds, in time these alternative qualitative IT devices - relating directly to “creative” intelligent biological life forms - would then be seen as an extension of the human personality with respect to facilitating transformation, leading to the potential for very rapid spiritual evolution in humanity.
However this brave new world would raise very grave issues regarding democracy and control with perhaps the human species having to recognise that it no longer can dominate in this regard but rather would have to concede considerable rights to new intelligent life forms that have been initially biologically created through artificial means.
Of course the ultimate IT revolution would then combine both the quantitative possibilities for encoding information with the qualitative possibilities for encoding transformation.
In fact I am slowly coming to the realisation that - when appropriately appreciated - what we know as reality is in fact but the operation of this ultimate IT system (most of whose secrets have yet to be revealed).
One obvious realisation that will flow from the mastery of this final comprehensive IT system is that phenomenal reality itself - on all levels - is capable of direct transformation.
Put another way phenomenal reality - when properly understood - can be seen to represent but the dynamic configuration of the binary digits (with respect to both their quantitative and qualitative aspects).
Therefore the changing of phenomenal reality in any context ultimately relates to the ability to appropriately reconfigure this digital system (with respect to both its quantitative and qualitative aspects).
We are very far from proper realisation of this at the moment. However the very fact that I am even writing about such possibilities would suggest that the starting recognition of such an ultimate IT system has already commenced.
And in the deepest sense this equally implies recognition of the true nature of our essential personalities as God incarnated in phenomenal form.
Clearly both Allen and Gates were extremely talented individuals with a special gift for programming. What I did not realise however was the extraordinary amount of work that they put in eventually leading to the founding of Microsoft.
In Jungian personality terms, whereas Gates would have been an S, Allen clearly was more of an N type. Though the relationship between them was never easy, the combination of Gates’ pragmatism and ruthless realism allied to Allen’s creative vision and shrewd reading of technical developments effectively led to the founding of Microsoft.
However as regards the survival of the fittest with respect to Microsoft ultimately only one person would assume control which inevitably meant Bill Gates.
In the end whereas Gates was intent on making Microsoft his life, Allen wanted the freedom to devote his energies to a hotch potch of differing interests (which his immense wealth has facilitated).
Reading this book got me thinking again with respect to my own “visionary perspective” for the future of computers.
Once again the present IT revolution depends heavily on the quantitative use of the binary system i.e. in the ability of using a series of 1’s and 0’s to encode information.
However I have long advocated a second qualitative binary system that would make use of the holistic interpretation of 1 and 0 with the potential power to encode all transformation processes. 1 in this context relates to linear logic as the actual basic for encoding (unitary) form whereas 0 relates to circular logic as the corresponding indirect basis for encoding emptiness i.e. nothingness (as the potential source of all form).
And it is in the interaction of form and emptiness at all levels of reality that we have continual transformation.
Now up to this I have always tended to associate this second type in its most developed state with the human species especially with respect to the potential for considerable spiritual transformation.
And as evolution of such spiritual potential in general is of a very slow nature, this would place considerable limits on the possibilities of radical “computer” developments in the near future with respect to the use of this qualitative binary system. Indeed - as I have so often stated - it is not even formally recognised in current scientific thinking where the basis paradigm is almost exclusively built on the recognition of - merely - one qualitative digit (i.e. 1 corresponding to the linear logic of form).
Now the human species represents an organic biological life process (which is distinct from the mechanistic type of systems associated with quantitative IT type developments).
However it struck me recently that perhaps it is mistaken to confine possible developments with respect to the alternative qualitative system to advances in human spiritual evolutionary development (which could take a long time).
In other words other biological life processes could perhaps be created through laboratory means with far greater potential for rapid spiritual development. If this is true then this would entail that an alternative qualitative IT revolution could then be directly associated with the use of these biological life forms that would be capable of acting in a highly creative manner.
Indeed from one perspective, just as current IT devices can be seen as an extension of the human personality with respect to facilitating information of all kinds, in time these alternative qualitative IT devices - relating directly to “creative” intelligent biological life forms - would then be seen as an extension of the human personality with respect to facilitating transformation, leading to the potential for very rapid spiritual evolution in humanity.
However this brave new world would raise very grave issues regarding democracy and control with perhaps the human species having to recognise that it no longer can dominate in this regard but rather would have to concede considerable rights to new intelligent life forms that have been initially biologically created through artificial means.
Of course the ultimate IT revolution would then combine both the quantitative possibilities for encoding information with the qualitative possibilities for encoding transformation.
In fact I am slowly coming to the realisation that - when appropriately appreciated - what we know as reality is in fact but the operation of this ultimate IT system (most of whose secrets have yet to be revealed).
One obvious realisation that will flow from the mastery of this final comprehensive IT system is that phenomenal reality itself - on all levels - is capable of direct transformation.
Put another way phenomenal reality - when properly understood - can be seen to represent but the dynamic configuration of the binary digits (with respect to both their quantitative and qualitative aspects).
Therefore the changing of phenomenal reality in any context ultimately relates to the ability to appropriately reconfigure this digital system (with respect to both its quantitative and qualitative aspects).
We are very far from proper realisation of this at the moment. However the very fact that I am even writing about such possibilities would suggest that the starting recognition of such an ultimate IT system has already commenced.
And in the deepest sense this equally implies recognition of the true nature of our essential personalities as God incarnated in phenomenal form.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)