Electron Dreams

Is one really All?

Allow me to explain: Reality (that is consensus reality) behaves like a canvas that shapes and transforms before the beholder.

BuzzzAn End to the Schrodinger Conundrum—the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle assumes that the observer also has powers to predict unconsciously the outcome. You see, the observer cannot inherently possess the qualities of a conductor, as the Uncertainty Principle implies. Because the electron appears as a wave and particle, the observer cannot have any bearing upon the outcome. The real question is the observer sees either wave or particle because both he and the electron are one and the same.

From the electron’s perspective (does this seem so outrageous? Are humans not also electrons; more complex certainly as there are amalgamations of many electrons to form layers of skin, organs, hair, etc. etc., but electrons all), is not the observer also particle and wave? Not metaphorically the same, mind you, but actually.

When you stare at your reflection before breakfast, do you marvel that you appear? Do you question whether you are there or not there? Do you wonder if you are both here and there? Do you try to walk through the looking glass? It is the same with the observer and electron, as the electron becomes reflection of the observer, and the observer reflection of the electron. As such, what measurable difference between observer and electron can there be?

Inside the Riemann SphereGolden Symmetrywhen the electron moves as does the observer. Think of the intimacy between observer and electron as analogous to the eye of the beholder, only observer and electron are more like eye and beholder. As if the observer were the eye and electron the beholder, and electron as the eye and observer as the beholder. If this relationship seems symbiotic, no actual host and parasite exist, as the existence of host and parasite assumes there is a distinction between them. With observer and electron, no such distinction exists.

Oneness as Reciprocal Union—the concept of oneness is the same mistake as the uncertainty principle assumes there is distinction between observer and electron. This thought is not in error, but incomplete. There is no distinction between any singular entities (the proverbial ‘We’ whatever that includes) from which to pinpoint an all-encompassing oneness, no origin. To say We Are All One is to observe the electron in wave state. I posit, mustn’t there first be a distinction to have elements that can connect into this action at a distance known as oneness?

Peering in again at the Uncertainty Principle: How is it possible for any one (any beholder or electron) to possess control (that is the ability to determine as observer the eventual appearance of the electron)? I mean, the idea that the observer can inherently possess the ability to control (conduct, as if the observer were separate) the universe to such an extent as to predict the electron and himself is kind of just like hugging yourself.

Homage to BoschLet us follow another thread further. To believe that because the boat has a motor and rudder whoever holds the wheel steers the boat across the ocean is like thinking the observer controls/conducts the appearance of the electron as wave or particle. No matter what the engine horsepower or nuclear powered propulsion used, one hiccup from the ocean depths renders any expense useless.  It is more like the ocean steers the boat. The conundrum of the Uncertainty Principle occurs because humans do not control the motion of electrons, they and the electron move simultaneously, neither conductor, neither observer or observed, neither at the wheel, both floating along in quantum foam.

Einstein spoke of relativity; I can see his point. In the guise of oneness, the only point of reference from which all things can be relative is the reflection, which means relativity may actually be an illusion.

...and so on to Infinity...Ones Within Ones (or A Way Out of the Heisenberg Absurdity) —  See, the beholder and the electron may be symmetrical (do not be so limited in imagination, symmetry does not have to be identical in appearance to be symmetrical. Two concepts can be symmetrical, as such two conceptual masses, an object, can be symmetrical of one another’s motion). This is no contest to thinking; however, let us move laterally to the left and see what we can see. Imagine a Cartesian coordinate system, x-, y-axis. Turn the axis sharply to the left and arrive at a z-axis, a 90-degree turn from the y-axis. If you turn your mind 90 degrees from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle . . . are we still beholder or electron, wave or particle? This idea of borders must first be unlearned.

“People say to me, “Are you looking for the ultimate laws of physics?” No, I’m not… If it turns out there is a simple ultimate law which explains everything, so be it — that would be very nice to discover. If it turns out it’s like an onion with millions of layers… then that’s the way it is. . . . [M]y interest in science is to simply find out about the world and the more I find out the better it is, I like to find out…” ~Richard Feynman

Limits to GrowthOneness and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle are incomplete as within the depths of their meaning sits the assumption that there is but one level of observation. That of the observer and electron as separate, so the conundrum is the observer can only see the electron as wave or particle and nothing else. Within the Uncertainty Principle and Oneness exists the real question that there is no distinction between observer and electron, like the electron the observer is both wave and particle as well. As Einstein’s theory of relativity posits, the observer and electron are relative to one another, in motion simultaneously, so observer cannot see beyond wave or particle. The illusion exists because the observer has only a single lens perspective; there are other ones. The flaw of oneness, which assumes We Are All One, rather than We Are All Ones Within Ones . . .  within ones, and so forth in all directions. It is more a matter of peeling away the layers, than a single perception.

Quantum_reflections_003Oneness does not stop at one, no prime mover exists (no which from which there is no whicher. Apologies to my fine fellow, Alan Watts), no origin, no nicely spelt out beginning to the story, motion does not require cause and effect or effect and cause. As the photon emitted from the electron, it simply moves as randomness disguised as cause and effect.

When oneness appears as social diversity (the continual perpetual mind-spinning circular categorization of intangibles, the tree-ing of an otherwise single concept, i.e., departmental hierarchy within a body corporate) bureaucracy abounds, actually epitomizes that there is no real origin. When it is used for the pleasure of finding things out then you have onion-ing. Where each one within one has all other ones, yet, out of nothing also appears as a new one (within one). Analogous to a field of probable action constantly flexing to accommodate new ones, without bias or judgment.

Like an elaborately woven tapestry with fractal designs, the tapestry as first layer oneness (or the observer’s perspective/perception), and all the threads are the ones within. One can look at the tapestry and say We Are All One, and then one can look at a thread and say We Are All One. It is not so much that we forego the trees for the forest or the forest for the trees, as looking closely at a thread. It works in the other direction, too; the tapestry does not end at its borders. Think of the tapestry as our known universe, and the threads as people-ing, earth-ing, sun-ing, solar system-ing, hell, it could even be universe-ing.

Let us not end here (wherever ‘here’ may be; our imaginary 90-degree turn), as further question beckons: What is I?

The Portal*Image Credits (all work used with permission through CC license)–
“Limits to Growth” by anua22a
“Homage to Bosch” by ellenm1
“The Portal” by Neil Carey
“Buzzz” by Gloria
“…and so on to Infinity…” by anua22a
“Inside the Riemann Sphere” by fdecomite
“Quantum_reflections_003” by Caitlin Tobias

This post originally appeared on EXPLORINGtheLATERAL here.

The Perception of Type

The Nuance of Innocent Until Proven Guilty

“[T]here is no more one Truth, general, applicable everywhere and at all times, but a multiplicity of values which relativize each other, complement each other, nuance each other, fight each other, and are worth less for themselves than for all situations, phenomena, experiences they are meant to express.” ~Michel Maffesoli, Eloge de la raison sensible, 1996

Elegant Background 0005I do not know, too much does not make sense. Too much just seems to be a game created as a practical joke but the joke has been going on so long that no one remembers anymore that it is a joke and no one bothered to call April Fool’s. So, what is the alternative? What has to be done? Live as an animal in a zoo, trying to hoard its sanity in a Skinner Box built by Schrodinger?

The Modern Goddess of Satirical Mutilations I should hate, but I do not. I should, though, because existence could be easier momentarily. Except I would have to be an asshole, and I cannot do that to myself. It is weird though because ‘Asshole’ is just a word, a label, a name, innocuous on its own. But a weapon in an insecure society. A society intent upon the annihilation of ‘I’ (as the seat of consciousness) and the abhorrence of the egoless.

Animals habituate in a zoo, captive and captivated by the sickness called Man. We. HA! How can there be a We among Man when he cannot walk down the sidewalk without bitterness toward his fellow man? “What’s he got that’s better than mine?”The maxima of their sordid, little lives.

Sometimes, I must laugh because Insecure Society tells me that I am cold, as if that defines me and not their perception. As if within the actions I make sits “coldness”. As if coldness were composed of the act itself. This is a misperception. The burden of the label is not upon the shoulders of action and actor, but upon the witness. Insecure Society has bestowed Name to the actor; the act is not a performance. Do you see how easily reality is undermined? How quickly the mind can turn innocuous into guilty?

The Perception of Type“Innocent until proven guilty.”—Some say the justice system has forsaken that mathematical moniker [mathematical because it is more of a logic problem than it is a truth, but I digress], I disagree. I say that is wholeheartedly upheld by the justice system and those workers within the justice system. The focus ought to be on the “thought words/symbols” Innocence, Guilt, and Proven. What is proof of guilt or innocence? Further, what is Proof? And how is it done? Proof does not require rigor in Zoo Civilization. Proof only requires perception (and more words and symbols). Innocence or guilt is not a matter of inherent flaw detection, but simply a matter of convincing one party of the factual events (that alone without words can be perceived infinitely by any who bear witness) and whatever version of interpretation necessary to win the case or win the argument. It is just a matter of winning and who wins. Not about how to the crux of a matter so that it can be improved upon or changed or evolved or eradicated, if necessary.

See, no one is interested. It is just a matter of convincing. It is even in the language of the court: Conviction, a Judge pronounces Sentence. See? It is weird. So, when people talk to me about environment, they never mention the subtleties, the true nuances.

Lights of Fractal Metropolis 0009I am often (daily) accused of not understanding social nuances by those whom are now called ‘neurotypicals‘. I used to believe this and it drove me into madness. I no longer believe this blatant conundrum. It is not I who does not understand nuances, but members of the outgoing insecure society who do not understand nuances. See, nuance has to do with divining and awareness of subtleties. But when Society says social nuance it posits Do Not Mean What You Say, Do Not Say What You Mean and Say One Thing To Do Another. That is not nuance that is manipulation. And only in Western Culture could awareness become manipulation.

I do understand nuance, I see nuance everywhere. I cannot possibly comprehend if someone does not say what they mean or mean what they say or say one thing to do another (which is actually rather close to deception). And for some reason disagreement means incomprehension in Society. I cannot fathom how twisted Western Culture can be. How twisted that every one act becomes another. Confidence becomes arrogance, Quiet becomes fighting, Help becomes Attack, Ask becomes Compulsion, Voluntary becomes Required, Agreement becomes Contract, and Tradition becomes Law

Tell me, what is the true perception?


*Image credits  (all work used through CC license)–
“Lights of Fractal Metropolis 0009” by Andrew Ostrovsky
“Elegant Background 0005” by Andrew Ostrovsky
[“Unknown”] by Joel, Evelyn, Francois
“The Perception of Type” by arnoKath
“The Modern Goddess of Satirical Mutilations” by Derrick Tyson