We have been discussing the notion of rainbow gravity and how it challenges conventional notions of the Big Bang!

In fact the deeper implications of what is involved here require the recognition that scientific reality properly contains both analytic (quantitative) and qualitative (holistic) aspects, in dynamic relationship with each other.

Therefore conventional scientific understanding is continually limited by the attempt to reduce reality in a merely quantitative impersonal manner (as detached from the observing mind).

So when we allow for both scientific aspects, this allows for the local independence of events (in analytic terms) combined with the universal interdependence of all events (in a holistic manner).

When this is done it leads to a fundamental change in perspective, especially with relation to our understanding of space and time.

Following Newton, space and time were understood in neutral terms as simply constituting a pre-existing background where phenomenal activity takes place.

Then because of Einstein, it was realised that these dimensions have strictly no physical meaning independent of material phenomena.

However Einstein still believed that this relative nature of space and time could be precisely formulated in an objective fashion.

However once we incorporate both the analytic and holistic aspects of scientific understanding an inescapable Uncertainty Principle now attaches to the very nature of space and time.

Put another way, relativity is now seen - not alone physically as applying to the nature of space and time - but equally in psychological terms to the mental constructs we use to understand these very dimensions.

This ultimately entails that every event takes place in a unique framework with respect to both space and time.

Thus from the accepted analytic perspective, each phenomenal object (as scientifically investigated) has a unique location in space and time. And this location is only possible due to all objects sharing a common impersonal identity!

However from the corresponding holistic (qualitative) perspective, each object now assumes a unique qualitative identity, with no means therefore for establishing a local identity (in space and time).

So properly understood, the non local behaviour of quantum particles relates to their holistic rather than analytic aspect!

However this cannot be appreciated within a scientific paradigm that recognises solely the analytic aspect of interpretation!

Thus once again, the deeper conclusion that can be reached here is that, the qualitative aspects of phenomena (at both micro and macro levels) entail unique configurations with respect to space and time.

In other words, phenomenal objects now enjoy their unique qualities precisely because they relate to space and time configurations that are themselves unique.

Therefore once again, this truth cannot possibly be approached while we remain confined to the conventional scientific paradigm (based on mere analytic interpretation).

We have been speaking about the rainbow (i.e. in relation to rainbow gravity). In fact the rainbow serves as an excellent example of a phenomenon with both quantitative and qualitative attributes.

The conventional scientist can indeed give a convincing explanation for the rainbow phenomenon (relating to the reflection and refraction of sunlight with respect to water droplets). This explanation therefore appeals primarily to the cognitive function of reason.

However the artistic experience of the rainbow would be somewhat different. Who, for example has not at some stage found oneself rapt in wonder at the beautiful sight of a vibrantly coloured rainbow?

Such an aesthetic appreciation appeals now primarily to the affective function of emotion!

And indeed in the end it is somewhat artificial to attempt to neatly divide both types of experience for they necessarily intermingle with each other to a significant degree.

So the total experience of appreciating a rainbow thereby necessarily combines both reason and emotion in a quantitative and qualitative type manner.

However what we call science, then attempts to represent the experience, as if the quantitative aspect somehow can exist in absolute abstraction from the qualitative.

Thus the crucially important task, which has not yet been addressed, relates to how the qualitative aspect - which necessarily applies to all phenomena - can be successfully incorporated with the quantitative, in a new more comprehensive form of scientific understanding.

Now, I would still accept that this still needs to be achieved in a refined cognitive manner, where the translation of the qualitative aspect is understood in an indirect rational manner.

However I would firmly believe that the ultimate task of such understanding is to pave the way for the full reconciliation in experience of scientific (rational) and artistic (aesthetic) aspects.

If we go back to the time of the Renaissance, before the specialised development of Newtonian type science, we can witness a much greater integration with respect to both the scientific and artistic quests.

Perhaps this exemplified more than anyone by the life of Leonardo da Vinci who displayed supreme scientific and artistic gifts.

Now it can indeed be argued that science was - certainly in terms of modern developments - still in its infancy at the time. So the specialised development of analytic science was thereby necessary to differentiate it successfully from other activities, subsequently enabling unparalleled progress.

However the cracks in the modern scientific edifice have been long apparent and cannot be solved within the present restricted approach.

Thus we need to rediscover in a much more comprehensive fashion the notion of Holistic Science (relating to the global interdependence of all reality). Then, ultimately both the analytic and holistic aspects can be combined in an ever more creative and productive manner (i.e. Radial Science).

# Integral Science

An alternative qualitative appreciation of science based on the holistic interpretation of mathematical symbols

## Tuesday, March 31, 2015

## Monday, March 30, 2015

### The Big Bang and Rainbow Gravity (2)

I mentioned in the last blog entry how there are in fact two interacting aspects (physical and psychological) to the relative experience of the nature of time and space.

Thus from the physical perspective, if a car is travelling at 120 mph then with respect to measurement by a stationary observer it will take just 30 seconds to travel 1 mile.

However, when measured from the perspective of a person travelling in the car, the measured time to travel the mile would be slightly less i.e. 29.99999999999952 seconds.

Now of course this slight difference would not be detectable with present time measurement devices. However if it were possible to imagine the car travelling at say 87% of light speed, then the measured time to travel the mile (from an occupant within the car) would be just half of that as registered by a stationary observer.

So in this sense, measurements are relative to the speed of the observer estimating both the time and distance involved.

However there is equally a important sense - not yet properly recognised - in which both time and space measurements are likewise relative with respect to the dimensional manner in which psychological interpretation take place.

Conventional interpretation from this qualitative perspective is strictly linear (i.e. 1-dimensional). This is enshrined in the very notion that the Big Bang had a definite beginning in time and space some 13.8 bl. years ago!

Now the very nature of 1 as a dimension is that it is unambiguous with respect to its corresponding inverse meaning i.e. as reciprocal.

However associated with the "higher" stages of refined contemplative type understanding, are corresponding "higher" dimensions of which the most accessible relates to 2-dimensional appreciation.

But the very nature of such understanding is that phenomenal reality is no longer interpreted in terms of just one absolute external direction of movement, but rather in terms of the dynamic interaction of two directions (external and internal) that are - relatively - opposite with respect to each other.

2-dimensional interpretation is given by the two roots of 1 that are + 1 and – 1 with respect to each other. So the two polar directions, that dynamically conditions all phenomenal experience are thereby - relatively - positive and negative with respect to each other.

The two roots (representing these two directions) are expressed by the simple equation x

Thus when we view time and space from this new 2-dimensional perspective (where reality is dynamically understood in terms of the interaction of twin opposite poles), we move from a linear (unambiguous) to a circular (paradoxical) appreciation of their direction.

So from this perspective, as we approach ever closer to the supposed starting point of reality, its very meaning is rendered ever more paradoxical with each smaller duration (from one valid perspective) equally representing an ever longer duration (from an equally valid perspective). Thus in the limit, as we approach a zero point in time, this becomes inseparable from the corresponding notion of an infinite duration.

Therefore, when we attempt to understand the beginning of our Universe from this 2-dimensional (or indeed any other "higher" dimensional perspective) it is thereby clearly meaningless to attempt to give it a definite starting point in time (and space).

Again the key problem with the conventional linear perspective is the attempt to keep the (internal) observer as somehow outside - and thereby detached - from what is observed (i.e. the beginning of the universe). However this is clearly untenable in terms of the original process itself, where the "parts" of the system are inseparable from the "whole".

Indeed if one thinks about it for a moment, the very notion of a "Big Bang" represents a poor analogy with respect to any adequate attempt to grasp the beginnings of the the Universe.

The "Big Bang" suggests some kind of massive initial explosion. However any conventional notion of an explosion presupposes an already existing environment of space and time in which such an event takes place. Therefore by its very nature, the "Big Bang" would represent an "explosion" of a very different kind, which strictly would remain unobservable!

Now again, this represents the epistimological approach to understanding the "Big Bang" which is associated with the unrecognised aspect with respect to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.

So from this psychological perspective, the very way one seeks to interpret the nature of space and time, varies with respect to the light "speed" (i.e. interaction of opposite polarities) of the personality.

Thus the standard rational scientific view (where no explicit interaction between opposite polarities is considered) is 1-dimensional in psychological terms is tantamount to measurement by an observer at rest.

However the highly refined intuitive view corresponding to an advanced contemplative state, is now tantamount in psychological terms to an observer moving at a considerable fraction of light speed (with substantial two-way dynamic interaction between polarities taking place).

And as we have seen this leads to a substantially different interpretation of the very nature of space and time as inherently circular and paradoxical in nature.

However because both physical and psychological aspects are intimately related, this would strongly suggest that this impossibility of a definite starting point in space and time for the Universe can also be approached from a physical perspective.

Indeed I have long viewed the psychological aspect of development in terms of a spectrum moving from "low" to "high" energy levels. So the scientific worldview arising from an advanced contemplative stance would thereby represent a "high" energy state. However the conventional rational perspective would be more akin to the "lower" energy state associated with natural light.

In corresponding physical terms, we have the electromagnetic spectrum where the energy levels vary considerably depending on the location of the spectrum.

Now rainbow gravity would concentrate just on the band of natural light where different frequencies are associated with the various manifestations of light (as distinct colours).

If one were then to accept that these different energies influence the manner in which gravity interacts with light, then this would entail that all travel - ultimately - at different speeds.

So the constancy of the speed of light would thereby be an illusion arising from the fact that our measuring instruments are not yet sufficiently refined to detect the actual differences involved.

However if these differences in speed were indeed demonstrated to exist, then it would open the way for a direct physical explanation as to why our Universe could not have a definite starting moment (in time and space).

Indeed it would seem reasonable to me to additionally assume that the speed of all the various forms of electromagnetic energy (and not just the natural light bands) would ultimately vary due to their interaction with gravity.

Therefore the deeper physical implications of this would be to suggest that the very notion of objects (even at the macro level) possessing a definite location in space and time is quite untenable.

So the uncertainty principle necessarily applies to all such measurements.

Therefore we can attempt to definitely fix the notion of an object's location; however then the corresponding qualitative notion of space and time becomes increasingly fuzzy (as I demonstrated with my epistimological approach to the "Big Bang).

Alternatively we can attempt to fix the notion of space and time (as in conventional scientific interpretation); however then the corresponding quantitative notion of an object's location becomes increasingly fuzzy.

Thus the realisation that the Uncertainty Principle equally applies at both the (micro) quantum level and the (macro) relativistic level can thereby pave the way for the successful integration of both elements.

However as this entails explicit recognition of both quantitative (analytic) and qualitative (holistic) aspects to reality, it cannot be achieved within the conventional scientific approach.

Thus from the physical perspective, if a car is travelling at 120 mph then with respect to measurement by a stationary observer it will take just 30 seconds to travel 1 mile.

However, when measured from the perspective of a person travelling in the car, the measured time to travel the mile would be slightly less i.e. 29.99999999999952 seconds.

Now of course this slight difference would not be detectable with present time measurement devices. However if it were possible to imagine the car travelling at say 87% of light speed, then the measured time to travel the mile (from an occupant within the car) would be just half of that as registered by a stationary observer.

So in this sense, measurements are relative to the speed of the observer estimating both the time and distance involved.

However there is equally a important sense - not yet properly recognised - in which both time and space measurements are likewise relative with respect to the dimensional manner in which psychological interpretation take place.

Conventional interpretation from this qualitative perspective is strictly linear (i.e. 1-dimensional). This is enshrined in the very notion that the Big Bang had a definite beginning in time and space some 13.8 bl. years ago!

Now the very nature of 1 as a dimension is that it is unambiguous with respect to its corresponding inverse meaning i.e. as reciprocal.

However associated with the "higher" stages of refined contemplative type understanding, are corresponding "higher" dimensions of which the most accessible relates to 2-dimensional appreciation.

But the very nature of such understanding is that phenomenal reality is no longer interpreted in terms of just one absolute external direction of movement, but rather in terms of the dynamic interaction of two directions (external and internal) that are - relatively - opposite with respect to each other.

2-dimensional interpretation is given by the two roots of 1 that are + 1 and – 1 with respect to each other. So the two polar directions, that dynamically conditions all phenomenal experience are thereby - relatively - positive and negative with respect to each other.

The two roots (representing these two directions) are expressed by the simple equation x

^{2 }= 1, which equally can be denoted as x = 1/x.Thus when we view time and space from this new 2-dimensional perspective (where reality is dynamically understood in terms of the interaction of twin opposite poles), we move from a linear (unambiguous) to a circular (paradoxical) appreciation of their direction.

So from this perspective, as we approach ever closer to the supposed starting point of reality, its very meaning is rendered ever more paradoxical with each smaller duration (from one valid perspective) equally representing an ever longer duration (from an equally valid perspective). Thus in the limit, as we approach a zero point in time, this becomes inseparable from the corresponding notion of an infinite duration.

Therefore, when we attempt to understand the beginning of our Universe from this 2-dimensional (or indeed any other "higher" dimensional perspective) it is thereby clearly meaningless to attempt to give it a definite starting point in time (and space).

Again the key problem with the conventional linear perspective is the attempt to keep the (internal) observer as somehow outside - and thereby detached - from what is observed (i.e. the beginning of the universe). However this is clearly untenable in terms of the original process itself, where the "parts" of the system are inseparable from the "whole".

Indeed if one thinks about it for a moment, the very notion of a "Big Bang" represents a poor analogy with respect to any adequate attempt to grasp the beginnings of the the Universe.

The "Big Bang" suggests some kind of massive initial explosion. However any conventional notion of an explosion presupposes an already existing environment of space and time in which such an event takes place. Therefore by its very nature, the "Big Bang" would represent an "explosion" of a very different kind, which strictly would remain unobservable!

Now again, this represents the epistimological approach to understanding the "Big Bang" which is associated with the unrecognised aspect with respect to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.

So from this psychological perspective, the very way one seeks to interpret the nature of space and time, varies with respect to the light "speed" (i.e. interaction of opposite polarities) of the personality.

Thus the standard rational scientific view (where no explicit interaction between opposite polarities is considered) is 1-dimensional in psychological terms is tantamount to measurement by an observer at rest.

However the highly refined intuitive view corresponding to an advanced contemplative state, is now tantamount in psychological terms to an observer moving at a considerable fraction of light speed (with substantial two-way dynamic interaction between polarities taking place).

And as we have seen this leads to a substantially different interpretation of the very nature of space and time as inherently circular and paradoxical in nature.

However because both physical and psychological aspects are intimately related, this would strongly suggest that this impossibility of a definite starting point in space and time for the Universe can also be approached from a physical perspective.

Indeed I have long viewed the psychological aspect of development in terms of a spectrum moving from "low" to "high" energy levels. So the scientific worldview arising from an advanced contemplative stance would thereby represent a "high" energy state. However the conventional rational perspective would be more akin to the "lower" energy state associated with natural light.

In corresponding physical terms, we have the electromagnetic spectrum where the energy levels vary considerably depending on the location of the spectrum.

Now rainbow gravity would concentrate just on the band of natural light where different frequencies are associated with the various manifestations of light (as distinct colours).

If one were then to accept that these different energies influence the manner in which gravity interacts with light, then this would entail that all travel - ultimately - at different speeds.

So the constancy of the speed of light would thereby be an illusion arising from the fact that our measuring instruments are not yet sufficiently refined to detect the actual differences involved.

However if these differences in speed were indeed demonstrated to exist, then it would open the way for a direct physical explanation as to why our Universe could not have a definite starting moment (in time and space).

Indeed it would seem reasonable to me to additionally assume that the speed of all the various forms of electromagnetic energy (and not just the natural light bands) would ultimately vary due to their interaction with gravity.

Therefore the deeper physical implications of this would be to suggest that the very notion of objects (even at the macro level) possessing a definite location in space and time is quite untenable.

So the uncertainty principle necessarily applies to all such measurements.

Therefore we can attempt to definitely fix the notion of an object's location; however then the corresponding qualitative notion of space and time becomes increasingly fuzzy (as I demonstrated with my epistimological approach to the "Big Bang).

Alternatively we can attempt to fix the notion of space and time (as in conventional scientific interpretation); however then the corresponding quantitative notion of an object's location becomes increasingly fuzzy.

Thus the realisation that the Uncertainty Principle equally applies at both the (micro) quantum level and the (macro) relativistic level can thereby pave the way for the successful integration of both elements.

However as this entails explicit recognition of both quantitative (analytic) and qualitative (holistic) aspects to reality, it cannot be achieved within the conventional scientific approach.

## Thursday, March 26, 2015

### The Big Bang and Rainbow Gravity (1)

I have never been a big fan of the Big Bang Theory, which for me represents an - ultimately - untenable conclusion, arising from a reduced linear approach to scientific interpretation.

Initially, I formed my general reservations in philosophical terms. However, following recent speculation on rainbow gravity and its implications for the Big Bang, I would now be able to speculate better as to the deeper physical implications of this philosophical position.

What seems to be missing entirely with respect to conventional scientific interpretation is the enormous difference as between analytic and holistic type appreciation of reality!

Unfortunately as such scientific interpretation is synonymous with mere analytic appreciation (of a quantitative nature), the holistic aspect, which is of distinctive qualitative variety, is thereby inevitably reduced in mere quantitative terms.

The analytic approach admittedly however has its great merits, as the wonderful achievements of modern science testify. However it operates best for partial explanations, where a wider holistic background can already be assumed.

However when we attempt to formulate a Theory of Everything (which can explain the ultimate interaction of the parts with the whole system), the analytic approach begins to break down badly.

This is exemplified by the intractable problem in current physics of successfully wedding Quantum Mechanics (relating to short-lived particles at the sub-atomic scale) with the corresponding Theory of Relativity (relating to space time behaviour on a global scale).

And I certainly would not see the Theory of Strings as likely to provide the answer here, as the very postulation of these (partial) strings, already requires the assumption of the (holistic) dimensions of space and time for their meaningful definition!

The Newtonian worldview is based very much on the belief that physical objective phenomena can be successfully interpreted in an abstract impersonal manner (as strictly external to the observer).

Despite the severe problems posed especially by Quantum Mechanics with respect to this approach, modern physics is still strongly motivated by the untenable quest to find a coherent explanation, in a merely detached objective manner, for the ultimate physical secrets of reality.

However momentary reflection on the matter will show that one can never have objective knowledge of the world independent of the subjective mental constructs, that are necessarily used to interpret this reality.

So strictly we can never know reality as it objectively exists (i.e. independent of the inquiring observer).

Rather all such knowledge of reality necessarily reflects a dynamic interaction as between both physical and psychological aspects that are - relatively - external (objective) and internal (subjective) with respect to each other.

Put another way, physical reality cannot be understood in a mere quantitative manner, for attempted understanding of such reality necessarily reflects the dynamic interaction of twin aspects that are - relatively - physical (quantitative) and psychological (qualitative) with respect to each other.

So conventional science from this perspective, thereby represents the attempted reduction of a complex quantitative/qualitative relative interaction (comprising both analytic and holistic aspects) in an absolute quantitative (i.e. merely analytic) manner!

Thus when we attempt to give our Universe an absolute beginning (in space and time) we thereby reduce its operations in a merely quantitative manner.

However, by definition this very approach, is properly suited for relative interpretation of the respective parts with respect to an overall existing system. However it is quite unsuited to providing any adequate interpretation of the overall nature of this system (with respect to its component parts).

One cannot, as a human inquiring mind, form an independent interpretation of the Universe (in a physical sense) as the beginning of all evolution, for any attempt to interpret its nature already presumes the developed mental constructs, that intimately depend on the evolution of this Universe that has already taken place.

Therefore inevitably inquiry about the origins of the Universe must always implicitly embrace the present moment.

This inevitably implies that any meaningful notion of space and time is thereby of a strictly relative nature.

So if we take the movement of time from an earlier stage of evolution up to the present moment, then this can represent a positive direction. However, we can equally trace this time starting from the present moment back to that earliest stage, which is - relatively - represents a negative direction. So rather that just one absolute direction in space and time with respect to evolution (based on sole recognition of the physical aspect) we now have two relative paradoxical directions in space and time (expressing the two-way interaction of both physical and psychological aspects).

So therefore, as the great spiritual mystics of all traditions have recognised, the only permanent reality is the absolute present moment, with all experience of time and space necessarily of a relative nature.

When we look at reality from this enhanced perspective (which is more authentic in terms of the dynamics of experience), all inquiry starts from the present moment, with phenomenal expressions in space and time of an arbitrary contingent nature.

Therefore the Big Bang could not have started 13.8 bl. years ago (in an absolute linear sense), as properly understood all creation takes place now, in the present moment, with phenomenal interpretation with respect to space and time ultimately of a merely relative paradoxical nature.

Now of course I appreciate why there is such strong belief out there in the scientific community with respect to this starting point in time (i.e. some 13.8 bl. years ago). However this comes from attempting to extend an analytic type interpretation to an original overall context, where a distinctive holistic appreciation is properly required!

So far I have couched my argument in epistemological terms, which serves to properly highlight the reduced nature of conventional scientific interpretation.

However it is indeed possible to trace out further the implications of this philosophical position, so that we can eventually begin to appreciate in an enhanced physical manner, why the Big Bang can have had no absolute starting point in space and time.

I have mentioned on many occasions how I formed a great interest in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity in my late teens.

However, I quickly began to sense that there was indeed an important limitation evident with Einstein's approach.

In other words despite his revolutionary ideas as to the true nature of space and time, Einstein still attempted to understand space and time in a detached objective manner.

However on reflection, I began to realise that corresponding to all the major physical concepts in his Special Relativity were corresponding complementary notions of a qualitative psychological nature.

So not alone are space and time relative in a physical sense, but equally - and very importantly - the very mental concepts through which we attempt psychologically to understand the nature of space are themselves of a relative nature.

Put another way, though Einstein showed that space and time are relative to the observer in physical terms, he firmly believed that the psychological acceptance of this explanation (as scientific interpretation) would be absolute.

Therefore, he believed that universal agreement could be validly reached with respect to his interpretation.

However, implicitly this assumed that only one type of scientific inquiry could be valid (and universally accepted by all). And of course for Einstein this was his strongly held classical belief in an objective form of determinism operating with respect to the physical world.

However, following my initial insight as regards a complementary psychological aspect, I gradually began to realise that there are in fact other valid forms of scientific inquiry, of a relative - rather than absolute - nature, where both physical and psychological understanding explicitly interact.

So this led me to the notion of Holistic Science entailing the complementary interaction of quantitative and qualitative aspects.

This form of science however only properly unfolds at the "higher" stages of psychological development, which in former times has been heavily associated with the spiritual contemplative traditions.

Now, what is fascinating about these stages is that the psychological nature of space and time itself becomes of a strictly relative nature (in a multi-dimensional fashion).

This of course implies that not only is physical space and time relative for each observer but also that the very understanding of such space and time is now also increasingly relative in psychological terms.

This would therefore entail for example in relation to Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity that an important Uncertainty Principle would apply (mirroring that of Quantum Mechanics).

So we now recognise that there are two distinct aspects to the understanding of space and time that are quantitative (analytic) and qualitative (holistic) with respect to each other!

Therefore if we focus on the quantitative physical aspect (as Einstein did) this blots out recognition of the corresponding psychological aspect (in the manner that external and internal polarities increasingly interact at the "higher" stages).

Equally if we focus on the qualitative psychological aspect (as with undue attention to advanced contemplative states), this tends to blot out recognition of the corresponding physical aspect.

This perhaps explains why in the past meaningful dialogue as to the nature of space and time has rarely been possible as between scientists and mystics!

In particular, this would suggest that the phenomenal features of light are thereby relative, so that for example its speed can ultimately vary.

I will deal with this further in the next entry!

Initially, I formed my general reservations in philosophical terms. However, following recent speculation on rainbow gravity and its implications for the Big Bang, I would now be able to speculate better as to the deeper physical implications of this philosophical position.

What seems to be missing entirely with respect to conventional scientific interpretation is the enormous difference as between analytic and holistic type appreciation of reality!

Unfortunately as such scientific interpretation is synonymous with mere analytic appreciation (of a quantitative nature), the holistic aspect, which is of distinctive qualitative variety, is thereby inevitably reduced in mere quantitative terms.

The analytic approach admittedly however has its great merits, as the wonderful achievements of modern science testify. However it operates best for partial explanations, where a wider holistic background can already be assumed.

However when we attempt to formulate a Theory of Everything (which can explain the ultimate interaction of the parts with the whole system), the analytic approach begins to break down badly.

This is exemplified by the intractable problem in current physics of successfully wedding Quantum Mechanics (relating to short-lived particles at the sub-atomic scale) with the corresponding Theory of Relativity (relating to space time behaviour on a global scale).

And I certainly would not see the Theory of Strings as likely to provide the answer here, as the very postulation of these (partial) strings, already requires the assumption of the (holistic) dimensions of space and time for their meaningful definition!

The Newtonian worldview is based very much on the belief that physical objective phenomena can be successfully interpreted in an abstract impersonal manner (as strictly external to the observer).

Despite the severe problems posed especially by Quantum Mechanics with respect to this approach, modern physics is still strongly motivated by the untenable quest to find a coherent explanation, in a merely detached objective manner, for the ultimate physical secrets of reality.

However momentary reflection on the matter will show that one can never have objective knowledge of the world independent of the subjective mental constructs, that are necessarily used to interpret this reality.

So strictly we can never know reality as it objectively exists (i.e. independent of the inquiring observer).

Rather all such knowledge of reality necessarily reflects a dynamic interaction as between both physical and psychological aspects that are - relatively - external (objective) and internal (subjective) with respect to each other.

Put another way, physical reality cannot be understood in a mere quantitative manner, for attempted understanding of such reality necessarily reflects the dynamic interaction of twin aspects that are - relatively - physical (quantitative) and psychological (qualitative) with respect to each other.

So conventional science from this perspective, thereby represents the attempted reduction of a complex quantitative/qualitative relative interaction (comprising both analytic and holistic aspects) in an absolute quantitative (i.e. merely analytic) manner!

Thus when we attempt to give our Universe an absolute beginning (in space and time) we thereby reduce its operations in a merely quantitative manner.

However, by definition this very approach, is properly suited for relative interpretation of the respective parts with respect to an overall existing system. However it is quite unsuited to providing any adequate interpretation of the overall nature of this system (with respect to its component parts).

One cannot, as a human inquiring mind, form an independent interpretation of the Universe (in a physical sense) as the beginning of all evolution, for any attempt to interpret its nature already presumes the developed mental constructs, that intimately depend on the evolution of this Universe that has already taken place.

Therefore inevitably inquiry about the origins of the Universe must always implicitly embrace the present moment.

This inevitably implies that any meaningful notion of space and time is thereby of a strictly relative nature.

So if we take the movement of time from an earlier stage of evolution up to the present moment, then this can represent a positive direction. However, we can equally trace this time starting from the present moment back to that earliest stage, which is - relatively - represents a negative direction. So rather that just one absolute direction in space and time with respect to evolution (based on sole recognition of the physical aspect) we now have two relative paradoxical directions in space and time (expressing the two-way interaction of both physical and psychological aspects).

So therefore, as the great spiritual mystics of all traditions have recognised, the only permanent reality is the absolute present moment, with all experience of time and space necessarily of a relative nature.

When we look at reality from this enhanced perspective (which is more authentic in terms of the dynamics of experience), all inquiry starts from the present moment, with phenomenal expressions in space and time of an arbitrary contingent nature.

Therefore the Big Bang could not have started 13.8 bl. years ago (in an absolute linear sense), as properly understood all creation takes place now, in the present moment, with phenomenal interpretation with respect to space and time ultimately of a merely relative paradoxical nature.

Now of course I appreciate why there is such strong belief out there in the scientific community with respect to this starting point in time (i.e. some 13.8 bl. years ago). However this comes from attempting to extend an analytic type interpretation to an original overall context, where a distinctive holistic appreciation is properly required!

So far I have couched my argument in epistemological terms, which serves to properly highlight the reduced nature of conventional scientific interpretation.

However it is indeed possible to trace out further the implications of this philosophical position, so that we can eventually begin to appreciate in an enhanced physical manner, why the Big Bang can have had no absolute starting point in space and time.

I have mentioned on many occasions how I formed a great interest in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity in my late teens.

However, I quickly began to sense that there was indeed an important limitation evident with Einstein's approach.

In other words despite his revolutionary ideas as to the true nature of space and time, Einstein still attempted to understand space and time in a detached objective manner.

However on reflection, I began to realise that corresponding to all the major physical concepts in his Special Relativity were corresponding complementary notions of a qualitative psychological nature.

So not alone are space and time relative in a physical sense, but equally - and very importantly - the very mental concepts through which we attempt psychologically to understand the nature of space are themselves of a relative nature.

Put another way, though Einstein showed that space and time are relative to the observer in physical terms, he firmly believed that the psychological acceptance of this explanation (as scientific interpretation) would be absolute.

Therefore, he believed that universal agreement could be validly reached with respect to his interpretation.

However, implicitly this assumed that only one type of scientific inquiry could be valid (and universally accepted by all). And of course for Einstein this was his strongly held classical belief in an objective form of determinism operating with respect to the physical world.

However, following my initial insight as regards a complementary psychological aspect, I gradually began to realise that there are in fact other valid forms of scientific inquiry, of a relative - rather than absolute - nature, where both physical and psychological understanding explicitly interact.

So this led me to the notion of Holistic Science entailing the complementary interaction of quantitative and qualitative aspects.

This form of science however only properly unfolds at the "higher" stages of psychological development, which in former times has been heavily associated with the spiritual contemplative traditions.

Now, what is fascinating about these stages is that the psychological nature of space and time itself becomes of a strictly relative nature (in a multi-dimensional fashion).

This of course implies that not only is physical space and time relative for each observer but also that the very understanding of such space and time is now also increasingly relative in psychological terms.

This would therefore entail for example in relation to Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity that an important Uncertainty Principle would apply (mirroring that of Quantum Mechanics).

So we now recognise that there are two distinct aspects to the understanding of space and time that are quantitative (analytic) and qualitative (holistic) with respect to each other!

Therefore if we focus on the quantitative physical aspect (as Einstein did) this blots out recognition of the corresponding psychological aspect (in the manner that external and internal polarities increasingly interact at the "higher" stages).

Equally if we focus on the qualitative psychological aspect (as with undue attention to advanced contemplative states), this tends to blot out recognition of the corresponding physical aspect.

This perhaps explains why in the past meaningful dialogue as to the nature of space and time has rarely been possible as between scientists and mystics!

In particular, this would suggest that the phenomenal features of light are thereby relative, so that for example its speed can ultimately vary.

I will deal with this further in the next entry!

## Thursday, December 18, 2014

### Quantum Biology

In the second programme of his two-part series "The Secrets of Quantum Physics" on BBC 4, Jim Al-Khalili dealt with several interesting examples from biology, showing how modern interpretations have become intrinsically based on principles from quantum mechanics.

For example he explained how the navigation of the robin is seemingly based on the quantum entanglement, or what Einstein famously referred to as "spooky action at a distance". This enables the robin to detect minute changes with respect to the Earth's magnetic field associated with distinctive types of quantum entanglement associated with paired electrons.

He then went on to explain how the modern explanation of smell relates - in a manner akin to sound - to the vibrations of the chemical bonds holding molecules together. The previous explanation based on the structure of component molecules neatly locking into appropriate sense receptor molecules (associated with a characteristic scent) could not explain for example why the smell of marzipan and cyanide is so similar (despite marked variations in their molecular structures). However the vibrations of the molecular bonds in each case show much greater similarity!

He then went on to explain, with respect to the transformation of a tadpole into a frog, how the process of metamorphosis in nature is greatly assisted by the principle of quantum tunneling where enzymes can easily penetrate rigid barriers through assuming "ghostly" wave patterns.

With respect to the all-important principle of photosynthesis through sunlight in nature, he went on to show how the efficient transfer of energy within cells owes much to the "uncertainty principle".

He also speculated on how quantum effects may be directly relevant to the process of evolution, indicating more precisely how mutations with respect to genetic characteristics take place.

In one way none of this should really be so surprising.

If we accept that physical reality at its minute subatomic levels is governed by quantum mechanical interactions, then this should ultimately apply at a deeper level of investigation to all biological processes.

This strongly suggests to me that many of the current accepted explanations represent in the main "half truths" that inevitably will raise fundamental questions at a deeper level of investigation.

Indeed I have long felt this applies to the Darwinian theory of evolution, which always struck me as a somewhat tautological explanation, concealing many difficulties. It only appears convincing within the reduced limits of present scientific interpretation, as this formally excludes the holistic aspect of meaning. However a deeper philosophical understanding of the holistic implications of quantum interactions, which necessarily underlie all evolutionary processes, will I believe ultimately lead to a far more nuanced appreciation.

Looking at these issues in more general terms, what is currently deemed as scientifically acceptable itself reflects but a particular point in time with respect to its on-going evolution.

Before the rise of modern science, quantitative were not properly distinguished from qualitative type considerations (often expressed through mythological religious type beliefs).

One could therefore accept that just as in psychological terms, mature understanding requires overcoming the magical and mythical beliefs associated with infant development, that likewise this is true of science. Therefore the sharp differentiation of rational from spiritual type considerations, which typifies the last 300 year so of science has proved both a welcome and necessary development,

And this has led to unparalleled progress with respect to quantitative type understanding of our universe.

However I would very much see this as representing but a stage of scientific development which in many ways is now coming face to face with its inevitable limitations.

Despite the great success of quantum physics, the deeper philosophical implications of its rationale have not been adequately faced by the scientific community.

In fact I have long been convinced that quantum mechanics now directly requires the re-inclusion of the qualitative holistic aspect (that science has so vigilantly attempted to exclude from the fold).

In the last blog I mentioned for example that quantum entanglement entails the simultaneous interdependent communication of particles that inherently is of a qualitative rather than a quantitative nature.

So now as well as the accepted analytic aspect of science, we need once again to recognise the neglected holistic aspect - not through mythological religious symbols of the past - but rather through an extension of the very meaning of scientific symbols (with twin interacting aspects of interpretation).

Indeed at an even more fundamental level this is likewise through of Mathematics.

In my own investigations of the Riemann Hypothesis, I have come to realise that the number system, which underlines all science, is itself strictly meaningless in the absence of an explicit qualitative dimension. Indeed at its very core, the number system is of a dynamically interacting synchronistic nature (entailing the bi-directional complementarity of both the primes and natural numbers).

And this same synchronicity which is a central feature of the number system is likewise a central feature of physics and biology and indeed of all evolution.

However we will never be able to properly grasp this key point while remaining rigidly committed to the limited analytic confines of conventional science.

For example he explained how the navigation of the robin is seemingly based on the quantum entanglement, or what Einstein famously referred to as "spooky action at a distance". This enables the robin to detect minute changes with respect to the Earth's magnetic field associated with distinctive types of quantum entanglement associated with paired electrons.

He then went on to explain how the modern explanation of smell relates - in a manner akin to sound - to the vibrations of the chemical bonds holding molecules together. The previous explanation based on the structure of component molecules neatly locking into appropriate sense receptor molecules (associated with a characteristic scent) could not explain for example why the smell of marzipan and cyanide is so similar (despite marked variations in their molecular structures). However the vibrations of the molecular bonds in each case show much greater similarity!

He then went on to explain, with respect to the transformation of a tadpole into a frog, how the process of metamorphosis in nature is greatly assisted by the principle of quantum tunneling where enzymes can easily penetrate rigid barriers through assuming "ghostly" wave patterns.

With respect to the all-important principle of photosynthesis through sunlight in nature, he went on to show how the efficient transfer of energy within cells owes much to the "uncertainty principle".

He also speculated on how quantum effects may be directly relevant to the process of evolution, indicating more precisely how mutations with respect to genetic characteristics take place.

In one way none of this should really be so surprising.

If we accept that physical reality at its minute subatomic levels is governed by quantum mechanical interactions, then this should ultimately apply at a deeper level of investigation to all biological processes.

This strongly suggests to me that many of the current accepted explanations represent in the main "half truths" that inevitably will raise fundamental questions at a deeper level of investigation.

Indeed I have long felt this applies to the Darwinian theory of evolution, which always struck me as a somewhat tautological explanation, concealing many difficulties. It only appears convincing within the reduced limits of present scientific interpretation, as this formally excludes the holistic aspect of meaning. However a deeper philosophical understanding of the holistic implications of quantum interactions, which necessarily underlie all evolutionary processes, will I believe ultimately lead to a far more nuanced appreciation.

Looking at these issues in more general terms, what is currently deemed as scientifically acceptable itself reflects but a particular point in time with respect to its on-going evolution.

Before the rise of modern science, quantitative were not properly distinguished from qualitative type considerations (often expressed through mythological religious type beliefs).

One could therefore accept that just as in psychological terms, mature understanding requires overcoming the magical and mythical beliefs associated with infant development, that likewise this is true of science. Therefore the sharp differentiation of rational from spiritual type considerations, which typifies the last 300 year so of science has proved both a welcome and necessary development,

And this has led to unparalleled progress with respect to quantitative type understanding of our universe.

However I would very much see this as representing but a stage of scientific development which in many ways is now coming face to face with its inevitable limitations.

Despite the great success of quantum physics, the deeper philosophical implications of its rationale have not been adequately faced by the scientific community.

In fact I have long been convinced that quantum mechanics now directly requires the re-inclusion of the qualitative holistic aspect (that science has so vigilantly attempted to exclude from the fold).

In the last blog I mentioned for example that quantum entanglement entails the simultaneous interdependent communication of particles that inherently is of a qualitative rather than a quantitative nature.

So now as well as the accepted analytic aspect of science, we need once again to recognise the neglected holistic aspect - not through mythological religious symbols of the past - but rather through an extension of the very meaning of scientific symbols (with twin interacting aspects of interpretation).

Indeed at an even more fundamental level this is likewise through of Mathematics.

In my own investigations of the Riemann Hypothesis, I have come to realise that the number system, which underlines all science, is itself strictly meaningless in the absence of an explicit qualitative dimension. Indeed at its very core, the number system is of a dynamically interacting synchronistic nature (entailing the bi-directional complementarity of both the primes and natural numbers).

And this same synchronicity which is a central feature of the number system is likewise a central feature of physics and biology and indeed of all evolution.

However we will never be able to properly grasp this key point while remaining rigidly committed to the limited analytic confines of conventional science.

## Wednesday, December 10, 2014

### Einstein's Nightmare

I enjoyed watching Professor Jim Al-Khalili's account of the development of quantum physics "The Secrets of Quantum Physics"with the first episode "Einstein's Nightmare" shown last night on BBC 4.

Though I had both read about and listened to the discussion of these ideas many times before, I always welcome a new imaginative way of presentation, which can lead one to seeing the issues involved in a new light.

What was discussed last night culminated with the Einstein-Podolsky Paradox, which though formulated in 1935 could only be satisfactorily tested much later (largely due to the original theoretical contribution of John Bell).

As we know, Einstein was deeply unhappy with the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics, where sub-atomic events seemingly were based on chance and probability. He believed that acceptance of non-local causation would imply communication between particles faster than the speed of light, which thereby would violate a key principle of his widely accepted theory of relativity.

However the experiments used to test this paradox according to Al-Khalili (many times since conducted) have convincingly proved that Einstein was wrong!

However as always it is never quite that simple with debate still raging as to to precise significance of the results that have arisen.

The true problem from my perspective is that the very mind-set of contemporary physicists is still based on the common-sense notion of a physical reality "out there" that can be successfully investigated in an objective impersonal manner.

And this is precisely why quantum mechanics seems so paradoxical as it does not conform to the intuitions that fit in with this objective viewpoint.

So the true problem with physics is fundamentally of a deeper level in that the scientific paradigm, which still informs the very way that physicists view reality, is quite inadequate in terms of understanding reality as it truly is!

In other words, only when the scientific perspective we adopt enables us to intuitively resonate with the findings of quantum mechanics (thereby becoming the new accepted common sense), can we then say that we understand such issues in the appropriate manner.

The findings of quantum mechanics lead to the break-down in the very notion of an independent physical reality. Indeed this is equally true with respect to everyday macro reality (though admittedly at this level physical findings approximate well with independent assumptions).

To properly understood reality from the scientific perspective, we need to replace physical with psycho physical reality (where both physical and psychological aspects necessarily interact in dynamic fashion).

At the quantum level, the (psychological) observer is intimately involved with what is (physically) observed so that the physical event resulting has no strict meaning in the absence of this complementary psychological contribution.

However once we accept the necessary two-way interaction as between observer and what is observed, we move outside the realm of mere analytic interpretation.

Such analytic interpretation is always based the independence of polar reference frames (e.g. objective and subjective).

However once we accept a degree of interdependence with respect to both poles, we inevitably move from analytic to holistic type meaning.

So when Einstein protested against faster than light communication, he adopted a strictly analytic perspective (which is especially inadequate at the quantum level).

In fact Einstein himself had already profoundly reflected on this issue in wondering what it would be like to travel on a beam of light! And he acutely realised that time would have no meaning in this context! So within its own frame of reference time does not pass for light.

The notion of the speed of light therefore only has reference with respect to a partial phenomenal reference point (where movement is taken in just one direction).

Therefore for example when we say that it takes about 8 minutes for the light of the sun to reach Earth, we are measuring time from the Sun as origin in relation to a phenomenal object (Earth) with only one direction of movement considered.

However if we now attempt to measure time with respect to the two-way movement of light as between Sun and Earth, it is rendered paradoxical. For what moves forward in time from one vantage point moves - relatively - backward with respect to the other and vice versa.

Thus in terms of two-way simultaneous "movement" time - relatively - has both forward and backward directions (which cancel out).

We could then accurately express this as representing an (absolute) present moment, of which paradoxical notions of time (and indeed space) represent but arbitrary relative expressions.

Therefore strictly speaking, any notion of speed with respect to holistic communication between particles (i.e. entailing two-way interaction) has no meaning.

So we can maintain - as I ardently believe is indeed the case - that holistic communication takes place with respect to quantum particles (and indeed physical reality at every level).

However this strictly occurs outside space and time in the present moment. Therefore it does not contradict Einsteins's prohibition on nothing travelling faster than light, which only applies with respect to relatively independent frames of reference. However the communication dealt with here. clearly applies to frames that are relatively interdependent with each other (as for example in human exchanges).

Thus the truly real massive problem which remains yet to be addressed by physicists (and indeed science and mathematics generally) is that the prevailing paradigm is built on mere analytic type interpretation (directly accessible to consciousness through linear reason).

This remains even true with respect to quantum physics, where findings create considerable paradox with respect to this approach!

However holistic understanding by its very nature entails an utterly distinctive form of appreciation that is directly based on intuition (entailing the unconscious). Thus genuine communication of a synchronistic nature cannot be meaningfully interpreted in a rational analytic manner. However it can indeed be embraced in a directly intuitive manner (that lends itself indirectly to circular type rational explanations of a paradoxical nature).

So what we are witnessing at present - especially at the quantum level - are the severe limitations of mere analytic type understanding.

However the need for of an equally important holistic aspect (of an utterly distinctive nature) has not yet been recognised by the scientific community. In psychological terms this will require recognition of the potential scientific importance of the unconscious aspect of understanding leading to a direct qualitative - rather than quantitative - type emphasis.

Even more, the ultimate need for a comprehensive paradigm that will properly integrate specialised analytic and holistic type understanding (in both quantitative and qualitative terms) is not yet remotely recognised.

Though I had both read about and listened to the discussion of these ideas many times before, I always welcome a new imaginative way of presentation, which can lead one to seeing the issues involved in a new light.

What was discussed last night culminated with the Einstein-Podolsky Paradox, which though formulated in 1935 could only be satisfactorily tested much later (largely due to the original theoretical contribution of John Bell).

As we know, Einstein was deeply unhappy with the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics, where sub-atomic events seemingly were based on chance and probability. He believed that acceptance of non-local causation would imply communication between particles faster than the speed of light, which thereby would violate a key principle of his widely accepted theory of relativity.

However the experiments used to test this paradox according to Al-Khalili (many times since conducted) have convincingly proved that Einstein was wrong!

However as always it is never quite that simple with debate still raging as to to precise significance of the results that have arisen.

The true problem from my perspective is that the very mind-set of contemporary physicists is still based on the common-sense notion of a physical reality "out there" that can be successfully investigated in an objective impersonal manner.

And this is precisely why quantum mechanics seems so paradoxical as it does not conform to the intuitions that fit in with this objective viewpoint.

So the true problem with physics is fundamentally of a deeper level in that the scientific paradigm, which still informs the very way that physicists view reality, is quite inadequate in terms of understanding reality as it truly is!

In other words, only when the scientific perspective we adopt enables us to intuitively resonate with the findings of quantum mechanics (thereby becoming the new accepted common sense), can we then say that we understand such issues in the appropriate manner.

The findings of quantum mechanics lead to the break-down in the very notion of an independent physical reality. Indeed this is equally true with respect to everyday macro reality (though admittedly at this level physical findings approximate well with independent assumptions).

To properly understood reality from the scientific perspective, we need to replace physical with psycho physical reality (where both physical and psychological aspects necessarily interact in dynamic fashion).

At the quantum level, the (psychological) observer is intimately involved with what is (physically) observed so that the physical event resulting has no strict meaning in the absence of this complementary psychological contribution.

However once we accept the necessary two-way interaction as between observer and what is observed, we move outside the realm of mere analytic interpretation.

Such analytic interpretation is always based the independence of polar reference frames (e.g. objective and subjective).

However once we accept a degree of interdependence with respect to both poles, we inevitably move from analytic to holistic type meaning.

So when Einstein protested against faster than light communication, he adopted a strictly analytic perspective (which is especially inadequate at the quantum level).

In fact Einstein himself had already profoundly reflected on this issue in wondering what it would be like to travel on a beam of light! And he acutely realised that time would have no meaning in this context! So within its own frame of reference time does not pass for light.

The notion of the speed of light therefore only has reference with respect to a partial phenomenal reference point (where movement is taken in just one direction).

Therefore for example when we say that it takes about 8 minutes for the light of the sun to reach Earth, we are measuring time from the Sun as origin in relation to a phenomenal object (Earth) with only one direction of movement considered.

However if we now attempt to measure time with respect to the two-way movement of light as between Sun and Earth, it is rendered paradoxical. For what moves forward in time from one vantage point moves - relatively - backward with respect to the other and vice versa.

Thus in terms of two-way simultaneous "movement" time - relatively - has both forward and backward directions (which cancel out).

We could then accurately express this as representing an (absolute) present moment, of which paradoxical notions of time (and indeed space) represent but arbitrary relative expressions.

Therefore strictly speaking, any notion of speed with respect to holistic communication between particles (i.e. entailing two-way interaction) has no meaning.

So we can maintain - as I ardently believe is indeed the case - that holistic communication takes place with respect to quantum particles (and indeed physical reality at every level).

However this strictly occurs outside space and time in the present moment. Therefore it does not contradict Einsteins's prohibition on nothing travelling faster than light, which only applies with respect to relatively independent frames of reference. However the communication dealt with here. clearly applies to frames that are relatively interdependent with each other (as for example in human exchanges).

Thus the truly real massive problem which remains yet to be addressed by physicists (and indeed science and mathematics generally) is that the prevailing paradigm is built on mere analytic type interpretation (directly accessible to consciousness through linear reason).

This remains even true with respect to quantum physics, where findings create considerable paradox with respect to this approach!

However holistic understanding by its very nature entails an utterly distinctive form of appreciation that is directly based on intuition (entailing the unconscious). Thus genuine communication of a synchronistic nature cannot be meaningfully interpreted in a rational analytic manner. However it can indeed be embraced in a directly intuitive manner (that lends itself indirectly to circular type rational explanations of a paradoxical nature).

So what we are witnessing at present - especially at the quantum level - are the severe limitations of mere analytic type understanding.

However the need for of an equally important holistic aspect (of an utterly distinctive nature) has not yet been recognised by the scientific community. In psychological terms this will require recognition of the potential scientific importance of the unconscious aspect of understanding leading to a direct qualitative - rather than quantitative - type emphasis.

Even more, the ultimate need for a comprehensive paradigm that will properly integrate specialised analytic and holistic type understanding (in both quantitative and qualitative terms) is not yet remotely recognised.

## Monday, April 28, 2014

### Interesting Quotation

I was struck by this following quotation when looking through once more Marcus du Sautoy's very readable "Music of the Primes".

"When we observe an event in the quantum world, it is though we are not seeing the event itself in its natural domain, but a shadow of the event projected into our 'real world' of ordinary numbers."

From a Jungian perspective this lends itself to a direct complementary comparison with the nature of unconscious experience from a psychological perspective.

In other words we cannot observe what pertains to the unconscious mind directly. Rather when we observe an event in the unconscious world, it is as though we are not seeing the event in its natural (i.e. unconscious domain) but a shadow of the event projected into our 'real world' of conscious experience.

The implications here are highly important as it entails that we cannot hope to understand the sub-atomic quantum nature of reality within the current scientific paradigm (that is based on mere conscious notions of interpretation).

In psychological terms we are now well accustomed to accepting the inevitable interaction in experience as between both conscious (analytic) and unconscious (holistic) aspects of experience.

However when it comes to scientific understanding we still misleadingly attempt to view reality from a mere conscious perspective.

However in truth physical reality itself has its own equivalent of the "unconscious" in what we could refer to as the holistic ground of reality.

Therefore when we attempt to observe particles at a quantum level we are dealing with a highly dynamic interaction of objects with both analytic aspects (as independent) and holistic aspects (as interdependent with the rest of reality).

Therefore if we are to successfully understand physical reality at this level (indeed ultimately at any level) we must adopt a new paradigm of understanding that explicitly incorporates both analytic and holistic dimensions of understanding.

Such understanding of physical reality would then be directly complementary with corresponding psychological experience of this reality (incorporating both conscious and unconscious aspects).

And ultimately of course this extends also to the fundamental nature of Mathematics.

The very reason why increasing links have been discovered as between the primes and quantum reality in recent years is because the very nature of the primes likewise incorporates both analytic and holistic aspects in dynamic interaction with each other.

However mathematicians still seem intent on attempting to understand the primes from an absolute interpretative framework based on mere analytic notions.

Though informally, harmonic musical metaphors are used in explaining the nature of the primes the obvious implication has not been taken on board i.e. that mathematical reality itself has a distinctive holistic aspect (that cannot be properly addressed within its present limited paradigm).

This paradigm is based firmly on the notion of absolute independently existing objects such as numbers.

However if such objects were indeed truly independent (then it would be impossible to study the relationship between different numbers (which reveals their interdependence).

So in truth, from a dynamic interactive perspective, all mathematical objects have a merely relative existence combining both notions of (analytic) independence with (holistic) interdependence.

Thus the nature of the prime numbers is inherently dynamic. However this cannot be appreciated from within the conventional mathematical paradigm (based on an abstract absolute manner of interpretation).

"When we observe an event in the quantum world, it is though we are not seeing the event itself in its natural domain, but a shadow of the event projected into our 'real world' of ordinary numbers."

From a Jungian perspective this lends itself to a direct complementary comparison with the nature of unconscious experience from a psychological perspective.

In other words we cannot observe what pertains to the unconscious mind directly. Rather when we observe an event in the unconscious world, it is as though we are not seeing the event in its natural (i.e. unconscious domain) but a shadow of the event projected into our 'real world' of conscious experience.

The implications here are highly important as it entails that we cannot hope to understand the sub-atomic quantum nature of reality within the current scientific paradigm (that is based on mere conscious notions of interpretation).

In psychological terms we are now well accustomed to accepting the inevitable interaction in experience as between both conscious (analytic) and unconscious (holistic) aspects of experience.

However when it comes to scientific understanding we still misleadingly attempt to view reality from a mere conscious perspective.

However in truth physical reality itself has its own equivalent of the "unconscious" in what we could refer to as the holistic ground of reality.

Therefore when we attempt to observe particles at a quantum level we are dealing with a highly dynamic interaction of objects with both analytic aspects (as independent) and holistic aspects (as interdependent with the rest of reality).

Therefore if we are to successfully understand physical reality at this level (indeed ultimately at any level) we must adopt a new paradigm of understanding that explicitly incorporates both analytic and holistic dimensions of understanding.

Such understanding of physical reality would then be directly complementary with corresponding psychological experience of this reality (incorporating both conscious and unconscious aspects).

And ultimately of course this extends also to the fundamental nature of Mathematics.

The very reason why increasing links have been discovered as between the primes and quantum reality in recent years is because the very nature of the primes likewise incorporates both analytic and holistic aspects in dynamic interaction with each other.

However mathematicians still seem intent on attempting to understand the primes from an absolute interpretative framework based on mere analytic notions.

Though informally, harmonic musical metaphors are used in explaining the nature of the primes the obvious implication has not been taken on board i.e. that mathematical reality itself has a distinctive holistic aspect (that cannot be properly addressed within its present limited paradigm).

This paradigm is based firmly on the notion of absolute independently existing objects such as numbers.

However if such objects were indeed truly independent (then it would be impossible to study the relationship between different numbers (which reveals their interdependence).

So in truth, from a dynamic interactive perspective, all mathematical objects have a merely relative existence combining both notions of (analytic) independence with (holistic) interdependence.

Thus the nature of the prime numbers is inherently dynamic. However this cannot be appreciated from within the conventional mathematical paradigm (based on an abstract absolute manner of interpretation).

## Saturday, September 22, 2012

### Number and Transformation

This latest contribution in many ways entails a summary of the points that I have made in recent blog entries and in discussion with Anthony Judge in relation to “Transforming the Art of Conversation - conversing as the transformative science of development” at his hugely impressive “Laetus in Praesens” site.

I have been long fascinated by the fact that the two binary digits (1 and 0)

when used in a quantitative manner can potentially encode all

information processes.

I am therefore of the opinion that the same two digits when used in an

appropriate qualitative manner can likewise potentially encode all transformation processes.

So transformation itself (in all its manifestations) is basically encoded in number when appreciated in a qualitative manner.

Now as geometrical symbols, 1 can be identified with the straight line and 0 with a circular circumference. So the relationship of 1 and 0 in qualitative terms implies the relationship between (rational) linear and (intuitive) circular understanding. (In this context circular refers to the indirect rational attempt through paradox to portray the nature of intuitive understanding).

From a physical perspective this would imply that all transformation processes entail the interaction of a visible phenomenal aspect together with an equally important invisible holistic dimension.

At a deeper level this circular aspect relates to the manner in which the

fundamental polarities - which necessarily underlie all phenomenal

relationships - are configured.

For convenience, I would see that two key sets here are essential to all dynamic relationships i.e. external and internal and whole and part. In dynamic terms, external always implies internal (and internal external). Likewise wholes imply parts (and parts wholes). All phenomenal creation necessarily entails the two-way interaction of both sets of polarities.

Conventional Science and Mathematics are decidedly linear (i.e. 1-dimensional) in the manner that these polarities are treated with isolated independent reference frames employed. So the external (objective) is abstracted from the internal (subjective) aspect; likewise wholes are typically viewed as composed of parts in a mere quantitative manner. Not surprisingly this leads to a highly reduced interpretation of truth!

However an unlimited number of higher dimensional perspectives are possible which all entail an authentic dynamic interaction as between polarities.

The nature of each number, as qualitative dimension, is structurally related to the corresponding notion of quantitative roots of unity.

So the nature of 2-dimensional understanding bears a close relationship

therefore with the two roots of 1, i.e. + 1 and - 1. However whereas with

standard quantitative appreciation, these two values are separated, in

holistic qualitative terms they are interdependent. Thus 2-dimensional

understanding can be therefore expressed as the complementarity of (real)

opposites in the dynamic interaction of poles which are positive and

negative with respect to each other.

These dimensions can be given a geometrical representation (though we must remember that the interpretation is now of a holistic nature).

For example 3-dimensional understanding can be geometrically represented in terms of the well-known Mercedes-Benz logo (which equally is a geometrical representation of the 3 roots of 1).

So in short, each number as dimension, relates to a unique manner of

configuring the dynamic interaction of the two fundamental sets of

polarities. So rather like with a compass with four starting coordinates, we

can obtain ever more detailed notions of direction, likewise starting with

the two fundamental polarity sets we can give ever more refined expression

to the dynamic interaction between opposite coordinates through moving to

higher dimensional numbers! So once again each number in this qualitative

sense represents a unique manner of configuring the dynamic interaction as

between the essential polarities that necessarily underlie phenomenal experience.

This key issue is avoided completely in conventional scientific (and

mathematical) terms through sole concentration on the special limiting case

where understanding in formal terms is 1-dimensional.

Now, I believe that this qualitative holistic notion of dimension intimately

applies to the true nature of space and time. So if we were to map

space-time reality, we could validly say that it is truly multi-dimensional

where the ceaseless interweaving of these qualitative numbers are involved. Going even further, the distinctive qualitative features that phenomena possess, thereby represent multi-dimensional configurations with respect to space and time that are ultimately rooted in the qualitative notion of number.

I would go even further. In dynamic relative terms, phenomena represent but appearances (in continual transformation) of an ultimate reality that is ineffable.

In fact, from this perspective, we can say that such phenomena (which

possess no ultimate substance) fundamentally represent but the dynamic

configurations of number (with respect to both their quantitative and

qualitative aspects).

From a geometrical perspective the quantitative shape of all phenomena can

be understood in terms of the interplay of both linear and circular

properties in varying dimensions.

The corresponding qualitative "shape" of these phenomena in their uniquely

distinctive features can likewise be understood in terms of both specific

and holistic features again with respect to the combined interplay of

multiple dimensional numbers (which again represent a distinctive manner in which the fundamental polarities are dynamically configured).

In a direct sense I would see the quantitative aspect of understanding as

relating to form, with the qualitative relating to the mysterious

transformation of this form.

So if we are to isolate what is common to all patterns of transformation, it

is the intersection of this holistic qualitative aspect with established

quantitative notions of form.

However when one accepts that the very nature of the standard paradigm of

science and mathematics is to attempt to reduce this interaction in a merely quantitative manner, then one can perhaps appreciate why it is inimical to transformation.

It is not that science as such is opposed to such transformation, but rather the present limited version that is wrongly accepted as solely synonymous with valid scientific interpretation!

Now there is much greater freedom for both the development and expression of the qualitative aspect within the arts.

So in the quest to transform present conversation - even scientific conversation - it would be helpful to informally dialogue with artistic metaphors.

Of course acceptance of the (neglected) qualitative aspect of science (and mathematics) would eventually pave the way towards better integration with the arts (with both seen as complementary expressions of the same truth).

My key point again is this!

There is not just one Mathematics (that is qualitatively 1-dimensional in nature) but potentially an infinite set, with each interpretation as the complex expression of a number dimension possessing a partial relative validity. And as phenomenal reality can be expressed as the dynamic interplay of all these dimensional systems in complex space and time (with quantitative and qualitative aspects), ultimately it is vital that we abandon the present total adherence to just one! Even with the best intentions, it therefore continually leads to a reduced form of understanding that eventually can serve as the enemy of true transformation.

I have been long fascinated by the fact that the two binary digits (1 and 0)

when used in a quantitative manner can potentially encode all

information processes.

I am therefore of the opinion that the same two digits when used in an

appropriate qualitative manner can likewise potentially encode all transformation processes.

So transformation itself (in all its manifestations) is basically encoded in number when appreciated in a qualitative manner.

Now as geometrical symbols, 1 can be identified with the straight line and 0 with a circular circumference. So the relationship of 1 and 0 in qualitative terms implies the relationship between (rational) linear and (intuitive) circular understanding. (In this context circular refers to the indirect rational attempt through paradox to portray the nature of intuitive understanding).

From a physical perspective this would imply that all transformation processes entail the interaction of a visible phenomenal aspect together with an equally important invisible holistic dimension.

At a deeper level this circular aspect relates to the manner in which the

fundamental polarities - which necessarily underlie all phenomenal

relationships - are configured.

For convenience, I would see that two key sets here are essential to all dynamic relationships i.e. external and internal and whole and part. In dynamic terms, external always implies internal (and internal external). Likewise wholes imply parts (and parts wholes). All phenomenal creation necessarily entails the two-way interaction of both sets of polarities.

Conventional Science and Mathematics are decidedly linear (i.e. 1-dimensional) in the manner that these polarities are treated with isolated independent reference frames employed. So the external (objective) is abstracted from the internal (subjective) aspect; likewise wholes are typically viewed as composed of parts in a mere quantitative manner. Not surprisingly this leads to a highly reduced interpretation of truth!

However an unlimited number of higher dimensional perspectives are possible which all entail an authentic dynamic interaction as between polarities.

The nature of each number, as qualitative dimension, is structurally related to the corresponding notion of quantitative roots of unity.

So the nature of 2-dimensional understanding bears a close relationship

therefore with the two roots of 1, i.e. + 1 and - 1. However whereas with

standard quantitative appreciation, these two values are separated, in

holistic qualitative terms they are interdependent. Thus 2-dimensional

understanding can be therefore expressed as the complementarity of (real)

opposites in the dynamic interaction of poles which are positive and

negative with respect to each other.

These dimensions can be given a geometrical representation (though we must remember that the interpretation is now of a holistic nature).

For example 3-dimensional understanding can be geometrically represented in terms of the well-known Mercedes-Benz logo (which equally is a geometrical representation of the 3 roots of 1).

So in short, each number as dimension, relates to a unique manner of

configuring the dynamic interaction of the two fundamental sets of

polarities. So rather like with a compass with four starting coordinates, we

can obtain ever more detailed notions of direction, likewise starting with

the two fundamental polarity sets we can give ever more refined expression

to the dynamic interaction between opposite coordinates through moving to

higher dimensional numbers! So once again each number in this qualitative

sense represents a unique manner of configuring the dynamic interaction as

between the essential polarities that necessarily underlie phenomenal experience.

This key issue is avoided completely in conventional scientific (and

mathematical) terms through sole concentration on the special limiting case

where understanding in formal terms is 1-dimensional.

Now, I believe that this qualitative holistic notion of dimension intimately

applies to the true nature of space and time. So if we were to map

space-time reality, we could validly say that it is truly multi-dimensional

where the ceaseless interweaving of these qualitative numbers are involved. Going even further, the distinctive qualitative features that phenomena possess, thereby represent multi-dimensional configurations with respect to space and time that are ultimately rooted in the qualitative notion of number.

I would go even further. In dynamic relative terms, phenomena represent but appearances (in continual transformation) of an ultimate reality that is ineffable.

In fact, from this perspective, we can say that such phenomena (which

possess no ultimate substance) fundamentally represent but the dynamic

configurations of number (with respect to both their quantitative and

qualitative aspects).

From a geometrical perspective the quantitative shape of all phenomena can

be understood in terms of the interplay of both linear and circular

properties in varying dimensions.

The corresponding qualitative "shape" of these phenomena in their uniquely

distinctive features can likewise be understood in terms of both specific

and holistic features again with respect to the combined interplay of

multiple dimensional numbers (which again represent a distinctive manner in which the fundamental polarities are dynamically configured).

In a direct sense I would see the quantitative aspect of understanding as

relating to form, with the qualitative relating to the mysterious

transformation of this form.

So if we are to isolate what is common to all patterns of transformation, it

is the intersection of this holistic qualitative aspect with established

quantitative notions of form.

However when one accepts that the very nature of the standard paradigm of

science and mathematics is to attempt to reduce this interaction in a merely quantitative manner, then one can perhaps appreciate why it is inimical to transformation.

It is not that science as such is opposed to such transformation, but rather the present limited version that is wrongly accepted as solely synonymous with valid scientific interpretation!

Now there is much greater freedom for both the development and expression of the qualitative aspect within the arts.

So in the quest to transform present conversation - even scientific conversation - it would be helpful to informally dialogue with artistic metaphors.

Of course acceptance of the (neglected) qualitative aspect of science (and mathematics) would eventually pave the way towards better integration with the arts (with both seen as complementary expressions of the same truth).

My key point again is this!

There is not just one Mathematics (that is qualitatively 1-dimensional in nature) but potentially an infinite set, with each interpretation as the complex expression of a number dimension possessing a partial relative validity. And as phenomenal reality can be expressed as the dynamic interplay of all these dimensional systems in complex space and time (with quantitative and qualitative aspects), ultimately it is vital that we abandon the present total adherence to just one! Even with the best intentions, it therefore continually leads to a reduced form of understanding that eventually can serve as the enemy of true transformation.

Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)