Saturday, June 29, 2013

Polarity and Spooky Action

Conservation requires pairs of significations that obey equal and opposite equational functions.  When the equational aspect is expressed without allowing the pair to come into being with any measurably significant difference in distance in space or time, then each member of the pair may be said to be a polarized expression of the other.  So long as the encompassing field supports access by a common recorder or observer, the field will support the coordinated synchronicity among polarity-paired members, so that each may appear to be acting on the other.  In reality, common aspects of the field are functioning to coordinate the expressions of the members.

The forms our senses detect are physically "real" and digitally measurable to us because the fields that project our interfunctioning happen to be so tuned to our senses, having evolved together in respect of their foundations.

Conservation requires that no form can appear without its being compatible, and therefore detectable (at least to a record of accumulating Information), in respect of an equation con-forming offset. In-form-ation must con-form.
In itself, no form takes up space, occupies time, causes mass, or exerts energy. All such processes are subject to some Field, which happens to be compatible with some projection of part-icles, in order to trick out accumulating recordations of potentially-perceivable, digitally-regressive measurements. In effect, measurable fields and particles are correlative representations of one another.

It is impossible to measure anything without simultaneously, in effect, measuring some aspect of that with which it is paired and offset. All measures come represented in conserved pairs, like mirrored images. Information abides as organized hierarchies of paired representations. Light delivers field-stored images to attuned, compatible, receivers.

One member of the pair is not the "cause" of the other. Rather, both unfold, in some higher simultaneity or synchronicity , in correlative respect of something, or an overlap of something, of a different level or quality or Source.

I suspect that measurable "particles" (Substance) do not really collapse or exist, in themselves, but only insofar as they are potentially, digitally, and/or actually interpreted and measured in respect of math-structured fields. I suspect such math-representing fields have inherent and precoded capacity to interfunction with one another, thereby to produce or cause to emerge mirror, hierarchical, complex, synchronized, and feedback representations of representations of one another.

Every measurable event seems to occur such that it can be explicated in respect of a process-algorithm. At the same time the Source "chooses" to make an event manifest, its choice entails assigning a mathematically derivable algorithm.



Except in representative sense (as for words) and formulaic sense (as in words in the form of measurements and math), the Information our senses receive is not quite the same Information that was transmitted. It cannot be, for at least three reasons. First, Information about a thing does not exist as a precise thing in itself. Second, the process of storing, conveying, communicating, receiving, interpreting, and confirming interpretation of Information entails transitions of representations of representations upon representations. Even as descriptions and measurements, Information conveys to us what a thing is considered to be like (metaphorically), or how a thing measures in respect of an idea of a model for standard measures (modality). Third, the very process of measuring, observing, and communicating a thing tends often to change the thing, even as it changes while it is being communicated.

Light does not itself take little pictures of things, radiate the pictures to our eyes, there to be received by a little homunculus in the cells of our eyes or brains. A way to model (or metaphorically conceptualize) what is happening is to consider that a field is storing and processing math-based values and expressing such values in a way that is compatible to a way of interpreting such expression to second field, with which the first is interfunctioning. The part-icles are appearances that exist only in relation to such process; the part-icles are not, in themselves, otherwise existent. The role of the ultimate Source which expresses the fields, however, is not itself modeled or measured, but intuited.

The Source, in availing fields that have capacity to interfunction in order to communicate part-icular perspectives of such interfunctioning, expresses its math-based part-icles in terms of paired correlates --- which may be stretched, compressed, and arranged in various overlapping, encompassing, and fluxing organizations of hierarchy and sequence. No individual part-icle is actually communicated to any consciousness, because no individual part-icle can function independent of its membership that is equationally conserved to a pair. Rather, what is communicated consists of such appearances, relationships, representations, and interpretations (i.e., METAPHORS) as are facilitated via the correlative dance of fields, as caused and guided by the Source.

Apparently, at least some atomic and subatomic particles are necessary to be conceptualized, to represent particles that can be massless, chargeless, and sizeless, constituting only a single dimension point on a vectored trajectory of spin, rotation, and orbit. Each such a particle would seem to be representable in nothing more than pure math. Hypothetically, if every particle can similarly be potentially stripped of mass, charge, and size, or constituted out of nothing but particles that can be stripped of mass, charge, and size, then it would seem that all of measurable substance is potentially representable in, and reducible to, pure math. This seems not surprising, because imagination does not conduce to any particle that could exist in itself and still be made to function in respect of a system of such particles. This is because the instant the particle's existentiality depends on its relation to a system, it becomes no longer a particle in itself. Thus, for particles to function in measurable respect of a system, it would seem that the system must, at bottom, reduce to an immaterial system, i.e., a system of pure math. Thus, it would seem that the notion that every action is entirely caused and explicated in terms of atoms must yield to a concept that every atom is entirely caused and explicated in terms of math. If so, then an explanatory system based purely on atoms or material particles, as in Lucretius' "The Nature of Things," cannot complete a system of explanation.
If atoms-in-themselves cannot exist as atoms-in-themselves, then they cannot in themselves be existential placeholders. Rather, some field-based significations of math values seems to abide --- for the setting, appreciating, and adjusting of a synchronizing dance of forms, which feedback to dance in respect of localized perspectives, contexts, and purposes. Some Immaterial Aspect that accounts for iterative representations of math seems to be implicated. In that case, Who or What is the power, potential, and character of the mathematician? How and why does it "cause" patterns of unfoldings?


1 comment:

Dlanor said...

A mortal has no way to know, to complete the ultimate reality about non-trivial aspects and purposes, if any, regarding the immortal Source. Yet, a self aware mortal has no choice but to form beliefs based on its sensory interpretations. Every self aware being formulates and rationalizes purposes and beliefs about purposes. Even if he knows his beliefs are necessarily incomplete, serving only as metaphors and models, digitally focused to levels of practical application. The thing that may be helpful regarding religious beliefs would seem to be to formulate them to be less empirically literalistic, less literalistically dogmatic about measurability of the hereafter, less nonsensical in trying to square a circle by trying to fit eternity into a linearity, less judgmental regarding the nature of God, more individually responsible to be receptive to intuitive experiences of the Holism, more receptive to contextual perspectives concerning God's purposes, etc.