Werner Heisenberg

October 17, 2013

Electron Dreams, The Psychosis Of Civilization and Ghosts In The Machine

But things are changing and have changed. So-called technological advances occur at incredibly rates in the race to discover a new explanation of a previous discovery or the race to prove that a centuries old discovery is true and verified by our perceived reality. Does that mean Heisenberg was wrong?

However, technology has allotted some conveniences. No longer are humans faced with the same worries of survival. We are well taken care of. You have only to type in a few words and at your fingertips is the information a data engine has gathered. But co-existence with this so-called leap of human evolution is the ancient practice of starvation, vulnerability to the elements, and covering up. Western Culture can have this pre-assembled and delivered to your door. That changes things. People become hooked into their environment in order to do anything. It is as if you have to know the way to work to get to work. But what happens when that environment is virtual and augmented? How does that affect neurons in the brain? What if you believe in that augmented universe, do you then believe that your life is dependent upon a screen?

Information comprises a culture, so when the information changes as does that culture. There is technology, so it is ridiculous to return to pre-microchip or something. Humans cannot return to the primitive era. It is somewhat difficult to believe that, is it not? What exactly would we do with everything? Would that not mean the industrial age was built to return to the primitive age? Recycling is already a problem and dumping garbage all over the earth already happens. Look at the streets in your town, litter everywhere!

The reality is the industrial era is over. It is the digital era now. And the digital age changes much rapidly than the industrial. From conception to execution in the digital age is mere seconds to months whereas the industrial age took years from concept to execution. But what is the cost? I do not know. I have not been around long enough on the planet.

The Sharing Economy. Why not share skills and expertise rather than create jobs for profit? Under the current economy, everyone becomes a corporate cabal, elsewise no one would have value (cost, price, money). If money is currency, is not the act of current (flow) more important than the object selected to represent that flow? See, symbols have replaced conscience. Therein lays the alienation and excommunication so many fear, so we fear what we have already become.

“Never underestimate the power of denial.” ~American Beauty

This is the psychosis of civilization. Self-denial. We deny that we dislike the current state of affairs, so we cast lots in hopes that our denial is unfounded. Yet, unhappiness and misery continue unabated. Now, we have reproduced ourselves into that which we wish to be: avatars, profile pictures, images on the screen, a permanent state of Hallowe’en, save midnight never arrives and we need never worry over the grand unmasking. Self-denial to an artificial intelligence downloading dreams forgetting that we are what is real. And the “line” between actuality and virtual actuality continues to fade. No longer do we pursue (or lament) the American Dream, it is the Electron Dream. We want to be ghosts in the machine.

 

Related articles
October 11, 2013

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 Symmetry—when 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.

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