I mentioned in the last blog entry how there are in fact two interacting aspects (physical and psychological) to the relative experience of the nature of time and space.
Thus from the physical perspective, if a car is travelling at 120 mph then with respect to measurement by a stationary observer it will take just 30 seconds to travel 1 mile.
However, when measured from the perspective of a person travelling in the car, the measured time to travel the mile would be slightly less i.e. 29.99999999999952 seconds.
Now of course this slight difference would not be detectable with present time measurement devices. However if it were possible to imagine the car travelling at say 87% of light speed, then the measured time to travel the mile (from an occupant within the car) would be just half of that as registered by a stationary observer.
So in this sense, measurements are relative to the speed of the observer estimating both the time and distance involved.
However there is equally a important sense - not yet properly recognised - in which both time and space measurements are likewise relative with respect to the dimensional manner in which psychological interpretation take place.
Conventional interpretation from this qualitative perspective is strictly linear (i.e. 1-dimensional). This is enshrined in the very notion that the Big Bang had a definite beginning in time and space some 13.8 bl. years ago!
Now the very nature of 1 as a dimension is that it is unambiguous with respect to its corresponding inverse meaning i.e. as reciprocal.
However associated with the "higher" stages of refined contemplative type understanding, are corresponding "higher" dimensions of which the most accessible relates to 2-dimensional appreciation.
But the very nature of such understanding is that phenomenal reality is no longer interpreted in terms of just one absolute external direction of movement, but rather in terms of the dynamic interaction of two directions (external and internal) that are - relatively - opposite with respect to each other.
2-dimensional interpretation is given by the two roots of 1 that are + 1 and – 1 with respect to each other. So the two polar directions, that dynamically conditions all phenomenal experience are thereby - relatively - positive and negative with respect to each other.
The two roots (representing these two directions) are expressed by the simple equation x2 = 1, which equally can be denoted as x = 1/x.
Thus when we view time and space from this new 2-dimensional perspective (where reality is dynamically understood in terms of the interaction of twin opposite poles), we move from a linear (unambiguous) to a circular (paradoxical) appreciation of their direction.
So from this perspective, as we approach ever closer to the supposed starting point of reality, its very meaning is rendered ever more paradoxical with each smaller duration (from one valid perspective) equally representing an ever longer duration (from an equally valid perspective). Thus in the limit, as we approach a zero point in time, this becomes inseparable from the corresponding notion of an infinite duration.
Therefore, when we attempt to understand the beginning of our Universe from this 2-dimensional (or indeed any other "higher" dimensional perspective) it is thereby clearly meaningless to attempt to give it a definite starting point in time (and space).
Again the key problem with the conventional linear perspective is the attempt to keep the (internal) observer as somehow outside - and thereby detached - from what is observed (i.e. the beginning of the universe). However this is clearly untenable in terms of the original process itself, where the "parts" of the system are inseparable from the "whole".
Indeed if one thinks about it for a moment, the very notion of a "Big Bang" represents a poor analogy with respect to any adequate attempt to grasp the beginnings of the the Universe.
The "Big Bang" suggests some kind of massive initial explosion. However any conventional notion of an explosion presupposes an already existing environment of space and time in which such an event takes place. Therefore by its very nature, the "Big Bang" would represent an "explosion" of a very different kind, which strictly would remain unobservable!
Now again, this represents the epistimological approach to understanding the "Big Bang" which is associated with the unrecognised aspect with respect to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.
So from this psychological perspective, the very way one seeks to interpret the nature of space and time, varies with respect to the light "speed" (i.e. interaction of opposite polarities) of the personality.
Thus the standard rational scientific view (where no explicit interaction between opposite polarities is considered) is 1-dimensional in psychological terms is tantamount to measurement by an observer at rest.
However the highly refined intuitive view corresponding to an advanced contemplative state, is now tantamount in psychological terms to an observer moving at a considerable fraction of light speed (with substantial two-way dynamic interaction between polarities taking place).
And as we have seen this leads to a substantially different interpretation of the very nature of space and time as inherently circular and paradoxical in nature.
However because both physical and psychological aspects are intimately related, this would strongly suggest that this impossibility of a definite starting point in space and time for the Universe can also be approached from a physical perspective.
Indeed I have long viewed the psychological aspect of development in terms of a spectrum moving from "low" to "high" energy levels. So the scientific worldview arising from an advanced contemplative stance would thereby represent a "high" energy state. However the conventional rational perspective would be more akin to the "lower" energy state associated with natural light.
In corresponding physical terms, we have the electromagnetic spectrum where the energy levels vary considerably depending on the location of the spectrum.
Now rainbow gravity would concentrate just on the band of natural light where different frequencies are associated with the various manifestations of light (as distinct colours).
If one were then to accept that these different energies influence the manner in which gravity interacts with light, then this would entail that all travel - ultimately - at different speeds.
So the constancy of the speed of light would thereby be an illusion arising from the fact that our measuring instruments are not yet sufficiently refined to detect the actual differences involved.
However if these differences in speed were indeed demonstrated to exist, then it would open the way for a direct physical explanation as to why our Universe could not have a definite starting moment (in time and space).
Indeed it would seem reasonable to me to additionally assume that the speed of all the various forms of electromagnetic energy (and not just the natural light bands) would ultimately vary due to their interaction with gravity.
Therefore the deeper physical implications of this would be to suggest that the very notion of objects (even at the macro level) possessing a definite location in space and time is quite untenable.
So the uncertainty principle necessarily applies to all such measurements.
Therefore we can attempt to definitely fix the notion of an object's location; however then the corresponding qualitative notion of space and time becomes increasingly fuzzy (as I demonstrated with my epistimological approach to the "Big Bang).
Alternatively we can attempt to fix the notion of space and time (as in conventional scientific interpretation); however then the corresponding quantitative notion of an object's location becomes increasingly fuzzy.
Thus the realisation that the Uncertainty Principle equally applies at both the (micro) quantum level and the (macro) relativistic level can thereby pave the way for the successful integration of both elements.
However as this entails explicit recognition of both quantitative (analytic) and qualitative (holistic) aspects to reality, it cannot be achieved within the conventional scientific approach.
Thus from the physical perspective, if a car is travelling at 120 mph then with respect to measurement by a stationary observer it will take just 30 seconds to travel 1 mile.
However, when measured from the perspective of a person travelling in the car, the measured time to travel the mile would be slightly less i.e. 29.99999999999952 seconds.
Now of course this slight difference would not be detectable with present time measurement devices. However if it were possible to imagine the car travelling at say 87% of light speed, then the measured time to travel the mile (from an occupant within the car) would be just half of that as registered by a stationary observer.
So in this sense, measurements are relative to the speed of the observer estimating both the time and distance involved.
However there is equally a important sense - not yet properly recognised - in which both time and space measurements are likewise relative with respect to the dimensional manner in which psychological interpretation take place.
Conventional interpretation from this qualitative perspective is strictly linear (i.e. 1-dimensional). This is enshrined in the very notion that the Big Bang had a definite beginning in time and space some 13.8 bl. years ago!
Now the very nature of 1 as a dimension is that it is unambiguous with respect to its corresponding inverse meaning i.e. as reciprocal.
However associated with the "higher" stages of refined contemplative type understanding, are corresponding "higher" dimensions of which the most accessible relates to 2-dimensional appreciation.
But the very nature of such understanding is that phenomenal reality is no longer interpreted in terms of just one absolute external direction of movement, but rather in terms of the dynamic interaction of two directions (external and internal) that are - relatively - opposite with respect to each other.
2-dimensional interpretation is given by the two roots of 1 that are + 1 and – 1 with respect to each other. So the two polar directions, that dynamically conditions all phenomenal experience are thereby - relatively - positive and negative with respect to each other.
The two roots (representing these two directions) are expressed by the simple equation x2 = 1, which equally can be denoted as x = 1/x.
Thus when we view time and space from this new 2-dimensional perspective (where reality is dynamically understood in terms of the interaction of twin opposite poles), we move from a linear (unambiguous) to a circular (paradoxical) appreciation of their direction.
So from this perspective, as we approach ever closer to the supposed starting point of reality, its very meaning is rendered ever more paradoxical with each smaller duration (from one valid perspective) equally representing an ever longer duration (from an equally valid perspective). Thus in the limit, as we approach a zero point in time, this becomes inseparable from the corresponding notion of an infinite duration.
Therefore, when we attempt to understand the beginning of our Universe from this 2-dimensional (or indeed any other "higher" dimensional perspective) it is thereby clearly meaningless to attempt to give it a definite starting point in time (and space).
Again the key problem with the conventional linear perspective is the attempt to keep the (internal) observer as somehow outside - and thereby detached - from what is observed (i.e. the beginning of the universe). However this is clearly untenable in terms of the original process itself, where the "parts" of the system are inseparable from the "whole".
Indeed if one thinks about it for a moment, the very notion of a "Big Bang" represents a poor analogy with respect to any adequate attempt to grasp the beginnings of the the Universe.
The "Big Bang" suggests some kind of massive initial explosion. However any conventional notion of an explosion presupposes an already existing environment of space and time in which such an event takes place. Therefore by its very nature, the "Big Bang" would represent an "explosion" of a very different kind, which strictly would remain unobservable!
Now again, this represents the epistimological approach to understanding the "Big Bang" which is associated with the unrecognised aspect with respect to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.
So from this psychological perspective, the very way one seeks to interpret the nature of space and time, varies with respect to the light "speed" (i.e. interaction of opposite polarities) of the personality.
Thus the standard rational scientific view (where no explicit interaction between opposite polarities is considered) is 1-dimensional in psychological terms is tantamount to measurement by an observer at rest.
However the highly refined intuitive view corresponding to an advanced contemplative state, is now tantamount in psychological terms to an observer moving at a considerable fraction of light speed (with substantial two-way dynamic interaction between polarities taking place).
And as we have seen this leads to a substantially different interpretation of the very nature of space and time as inherently circular and paradoxical in nature.
However because both physical and psychological aspects are intimately related, this would strongly suggest that this impossibility of a definite starting point in space and time for the Universe can also be approached from a physical perspective.
Indeed I have long viewed the psychological aspect of development in terms of a spectrum moving from "low" to "high" energy levels. So the scientific worldview arising from an advanced contemplative stance would thereby represent a "high" energy state. However the conventional rational perspective would be more akin to the "lower" energy state associated with natural light.
In corresponding physical terms, we have the electromagnetic spectrum where the energy levels vary considerably depending on the location of the spectrum.
Now rainbow gravity would concentrate just on the band of natural light where different frequencies are associated with the various manifestations of light (as distinct colours).
If one were then to accept that these different energies influence the manner in which gravity interacts with light, then this would entail that all travel - ultimately - at different speeds.
So the constancy of the speed of light would thereby be an illusion arising from the fact that our measuring instruments are not yet sufficiently refined to detect the actual differences involved.
However if these differences in speed were indeed demonstrated to exist, then it would open the way for a direct physical explanation as to why our Universe could not have a definite starting moment (in time and space).
Indeed it would seem reasonable to me to additionally assume that the speed of all the various forms of electromagnetic energy (and not just the natural light bands) would ultimately vary due to their interaction with gravity.
Therefore the deeper physical implications of this would be to suggest that the very notion of objects (even at the macro level) possessing a definite location in space and time is quite untenable.
So the uncertainty principle necessarily applies to all such measurements.
Therefore we can attempt to definitely fix the notion of an object's location; however then the corresponding qualitative notion of space and time becomes increasingly fuzzy (as I demonstrated with my epistimological approach to the "Big Bang).
Alternatively we can attempt to fix the notion of space and time (as in conventional scientific interpretation); however then the corresponding quantitative notion of an object's location becomes increasingly fuzzy.
Thus the realisation that the Uncertainty Principle equally applies at both the (micro) quantum level and the (macro) relativistic level can thereby pave the way for the successful integration of both elements.
However as this entails explicit recognition of both quantitative (analytic) and qualitative (holistic) aspects to reality, it cannot be achieved within the conventional scientific approach.
Comments
Post a Comment