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.

Advertisements

Big Road Blues (A Look At Humanity’s Alienation through Industrialization)

With the advent of the automobile, civilization changed greatly and at great speed. Henry Ford, the first to use the assembly line technique to build his Model T cars, also created (unbeknownst to him at the time) the precursor to scientific management and the alienation of Man from his humanity. When skill and mastery were removed from work and delineated along an assembly to many people (who need not have the skill) performing the same task repetitively over many days, months, years, Man became divorced from his own sense of accomplishment, efficacy, and benefit from the fruits of his own labor. His being was reduced to numbers and algorithms, he became quantified and thus his trajectory towards a life of drudgery and misery. Rather than the life of leisure at first thought promised to civilized Man, his life became one of automation and robotification. Empty and emotionless.

This music video is an attempt to illustrate that story.

Credits (all clips are public domain or used with permission through CC license)–
Music:
“Big Road Blues” by Tommy Johnson from Internet Archive
Clips:
“American Road 2” from Prelinger Archives
“Wheels of Progress (circa 1927)” produced by U.S. Bureau of Public Roads, Department of Agriculture, Educational Film Service from Prelinger Archives
“Black Girl” by livedtap
Stock Footage filmed by NIKOtheOrb
Edited by NIKOtheOrb

Other music videos.

 

QOTD Eustace Conway

The ancient people understood that  our world is a circle, but we modern people have lost site of that. I don’t live inside buildings because buildings are dead places where nothing grows, where water doesn’t flow, and where life stops. I don’t want to live in a dead place. People say that I don’t live in a real world, but it’s modern Americans who live in a fake world, because they have stepped outside the natural circle of life.

Do people live in circles today? No. They live in boxes.  They wake up every morning in a box of their bedrooms because a box next to them started making beeping noises to tell them it was time to get up. They eat their breakfast out of a box and then they throw that box away into another box.  Then they leave the box where they live and get into another box with wheels and drive to work, which is just another big box broken into little cubicle boxes where a bunch of people spend their days sitting and staring at the computer boxes in front of them. When the day is over, everyone gets into the box with wheels again and goes home to the house boxes and spends the evening staring at the television boxes for entertainment. They get their music from a box, they get their food from a box, they keep their clothing in a box, they live their lives in a box.

Break out of the box! This not the way humanity lived for thousands of years. ~Eustace Conway from the book The Last American Man by Elizabeth Gilbert

Chicago suburbs from the air

*Image Credits  (all artwork used with permission through CC license)
“Tijuana Suburbs” by Nathan Gibbs
“Chicago suburbs from the air” by Scorpions and Centaurs

QOTD Leonard da Vinci

Realize that everything connects to everything else. ~Leonardo da Vinci

Fibonacci*Image credit (used with permission of CC license)–
“Fibonacci” by Cedward Brice

Related Article

Nature By Numbers

Film by Cristobal Vila

*Image credit (used with permission of CC license)–
“Fibonacci” by Cedward Brice

Related Article

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?

Unknown

*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

Complex States At Being

Emotions can be incredibly complex states of being/mind.

I just want to be happy by bravelittlebird on flickrPeople (particularly in this western culture) are afraid to experience emotion due to heavy amounts of socialization and conditioning, especially in school. You know, we’re taught to sit still, to be quiet, to “use our inside voices”, to line up, to avoid disorder and be orderly, to obey, to submit, to share. To share, but not to cooperate. There is a difference. Sharing does not necessarily imply or guarantee cooperation. In school, sharing is a behavioral technique; used as a means to control the behavior of a room full of pinging (that is, naturally rambunctious and curious-minded) short beings.

Let me tell you a story: a sad story about a little girl who cried.cry_baby_cry_by_Barbara_Pellizzon_flickr

To get to City Island one can walk across a 2,800 foot long truss bridge, which was exactly what I was doing when I spotted a brief exchange between a little girl and her father. The little girl’s father, pushing another child in a stroller, told the little girl to look around as well as look at all the fish visible in the River below. The little girl was throwing bread over the side of the bridge to the fish, and seemed very happy.

Later, having crossed the bridge, I was sat under a pavilion and saw the little girl and her family again as they were passing by. The little girl tripped over a rise in the structure of the sidewalk and fell very hard. So hard that I winced when I heard the sound. She immediately bawled, as I’m sure that hurt her terribly. Probably terrified at the pain, you know, she ran to her father for solace. . . and he admonished her. He yelled at her as he brushed the dirt from her clothes, “You gotta watch where you’re walking. You can’t be looking around while you’re walking!” He seemed actually angry with her that she tripped, an accident on her part, no intent to spoil his day whatsoever. She only cried harder asking then for her mommy. At this, her father really became angry and shouted, “That’s it! You’re going back to the car you can’t act right!”

Did you see the contradiction?

Just moments ago, on the bridge he was telling her to LOOK around, then minutes later punished her for doing exactly that. These are the kinds of happenings that disturb me in the world. What did that do to the mind of that little girl? How could she possible understand that kind of contradicting information from such a trusted and authoritative figure as her father? What was the impact upon her consciousness? What did she just unconsciously learn? How did that affect her ego? Her sense of self in the world she knows and how will that affect her sense of self in subsequent years?

Which brings me back to emotions and the horrors some humans have undergone. That suffering. What I think not many humans grok is that suffering can be soft, horror is not always large, it can be very subtle. . . like entropy, changing and developing small vibrations over time that then result in the current personality/identity of that child in the form of an adult.

The_Girl_Who_Cried_Wolf_by_GaelForcePhotography_flickrWhat happened to that little girl is a subtle terror, an event that will accompany who knows how many more and will shape her as a human being. It’s systematic, to get children all to sit still or to behave as one being so it could be easier (or more efficient) for the teacher to educate them. A good idea, sure, but in actuality what happens is that the children become standardized. The spark, the inspiration for creativity and innovation and imagination breaks down because the channels created have no room for them, no means to categorize something as unpredictable as a room full of children all having ideas simultaneously.

This is one way that fear of emotion is installed in the collective consciousness. That fear to really let go and be fully in the space. . .

“. . . and I’m free, free falling.” ~Tom Petty, ‘Free Falling’

*Image credits (used with permission through CC license)–
“I just want to be happy” by bravelittlebird
“cry, baby, cry” by Barbara Pellizzon
“The Girl Who Cried Wolf” by GaelForce Photography

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

 

Just Cause

premade_background__1095_by_ashensorrow-d38cig7

The Economic System takes what biology says are necessities to sustain life and then constructs a standard operating procedure through which those necessary elements of healthy sustained life are in jeopardy. You are put in a panic-like state out of fear scrambling to obtain those elements. They make up stories you have to believe to behave in such a panicky way. You know, we should say, ‘Wait a minute! What am I doing here? Running around like a crazy fool.’ You know? These are just elaborate imaginative stories spun by professional storytellers. The stories and the storytellers are not to be believed; reacted to probably, but certainly not to be believed. The stories like amusing little anecdotes, they’re faerie tales. And the storytellers are like precocious children with wild imaginations and we pat them on the head then send them outside to play. But that’s not what we’re doing. We’re still treating them like an obnoxious brat. And we’re placating them hoping they’ll sit down and be quiet. Except we’ve forgotten that. And now they’re grown up and still an obnoxious brat. . . only worse. And we pretend we don’t see it, so continue running around in a self-induced maze. Well, isn’t that crazy? To behave and live like that?

There are plenty of ways and means and solutions and differences, so why are we behaving as if they and their stories are a lifeline? We lock ourselves away, at first behind locked doors, but now locked selves. You know, we sit behind a screen staring into oblivion and call ourselves independent. As if we are absolutely certain what is going on, and then we fight about it. Well, isn’t that crazy?

You know, and we have this neat little trick  called money that we pay between ourselves and consider ourselves happy to oblige hooking ourselves to the pleasure of value (which is really war profiteering. We demand more of this ridiculous notion just to entertain ourselves that we care). We demand the spoils of conflict, so fight with each other so we can feel better about ourselves. Isn’t that crazy? Money: it’s a neat little trick.

 

*Image credit–
“Premade Background 1095” by AshenSorrow resources