heisenberg principle

February 8, 2013

The Wellspring of Quantum

Eclipse_by_Mario_in_arte_Akeu_flickrDepending upon the level of magnification, the scale or lens through which one perceives, society and its rules/laws change.

It does not stop there, in but a single dimension. Levels can overlap and can affect one another and send vibrations through the levels. What is being perceived, or conceived, or even social systems or social institutions within a society or within a framework of a corporation can change depending on the level. In other words, there are systems within systems, societies within societies, tangents within tangents, and all are approaching convergence without actually ever arriving definitively at a point of convergence, there is no real convergence coordinate, only a continuous—sometimes discrete—movement towards convergence.

Escher_3000_by_Roberto_Rizzato_flickrAlso, similar to the idea that there are small pockets of movements (social movements, civil rights movements, etc.) occurring simultaneously, often with none of the participants aware of the participation of the other participants [this idea is like the idea of cooperation, but like a prisoner’s dilemma inverted cooperation. The prisoner’s do not know each other, but in the act of operating selflessly—the movement itself, advocating civil rights or something like that—cooperate with one another to cause the same outcome, that of ending suffering and obtaining civil rights]). These are magnifications (magnifications also because each individual has an amalgamation of cells and genes and symbiosis with one’s environment through those cells, comprising a group, which operates like a cell, comprising a movement, which operates like an organ. All of this swinging from quantum to macro), protrusions into this “dimension” called Reality or The World.

But what we’re really talking about are cultures, or a culture, and there are cultures within cultures. To look at cultures is a big scale, I think (well, relatively.  Not relative to, like, the sun or something, but relative to say groups or departments or neighborhoods, which, incidentally can all be cultures. But I’m actually referring to volume in this line of thinking). So, at what level do we stop and say here is where we know what we are seeing? It’s like the Wave/Particle Problem. Why does a photon behave as a wave when unobserved and behave as a particle when observed? What is it about this observation that alters the potentialities of the atom? So, do we run into a problem (or did we run into a problem) when trying to ascertain from what level of magnification to begin? From where the problem can begin to be addressed? How to remove the self as the observer? Or, remain the observer while subjectively interacting with the environment that withdraws the elements that serve as catalyst for the movement?

We are the rudimentary manifestations of the quantum behavior of a photon.

 

*Image credit (used with permission through CC license)–
“Eclipse” by Mario in Arte Akeu
“Escher 3000” by Roberto Rizzato

 

Related articles
October 17, 2012

Uncertainty Principle, NonDuality and Reality

That we are not able to quantify accurately “reality” is a bit farther than the Heisenberg Principle. See, the reason an uncertainty exists (and that includes the uncertainty associated with the probability patterns of “particles”) is because we (that is a conscious consciousness, that is to say an aware awareness, one that is aware that it is awareness and one that is conscious that it is consciousness) is due to that conscious consciousness as part of the probability pattern. I mean, are we not (if there are atoms et al) an amalgamation of atoms? We are fractals, we are like the trees and their roots in the earth. We are like streams and their roots in the rivers. We are synthesis incarnate, so to speak. We cannot be certain because we are part of the problem, hence we are the problem. Although, we can be aware that we are aware we cannot always be sure that that is what we are doing, because we are that which awares. We do not think, we are thinking. That is we are not THE state of to think (as if “to think” were the wheel of a car and the mind/brain the driver), we ARE think (in other words, we are the car, the driver, the wheel, the motion, the revolutions per minute, the vibrations, the frequency, etc.).

Perhaps, this is probably heading off more into the Observer’s Effect, rather than the Uncertainty Principle, but what I am trying to convey is a merging of the two. . . philosophically. Bicameral thinking is archaic, nay, even prehistoric.  Non duality is the way to solving problems. That logic and creativity are not at odds, but synergistic. It’s like the mind brain problem of neuroscience (although, I don’t think this is so much a problem anymore as science has been entering some incredible areas, such as anomalous cognition, consciousness as outside of the brain, multi-dimensional cognition, etc.) whence once was thought mind and brain were divided, it has come to pass that mind and brain are like two sides of the same coin. That consciousness is not the brain, but the brain does have some integral part. The brain thinks, so to speak, the mind knows.

And what of beyond the mind? What is beyond the mind? What of a singularity? The idea that there is a one consciousness, fractalized?

 

*Fractal image, “Fairy Tree” by Nirolo

Related articles