The very important and well-known harmonic series i.e. 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + 1/5 +... is especially associated with Pythagoras who reputedly found in these simple fractions definite links with the manner in which musical notes sound. This pattern of the simple natural fractions, in particular, seemed to correspond perfectly with - what we would recognise as - a harmonious sequence of notes and thereafter it has become known as the harmonic series.

So we have here a very clear link as between simple mathematics and musical harmonics. Subsequently it was shown that this series (and its associated series where the dimensional power of each fraction itself can vary from 1 and ultimately alter over the entire range of complex numbers) has intimate connections with the prime numbers!

So in a certain valid sense there is music in the primes. So just as we are accustomed to give a wave form to musical sounds likewise there is a wave pattern associated with each prime number.

Indeed we could go further and suggest that there are intimate links as between the prime numbers and quantum mechanics with each possessing particle (discrete) and wave (continuous) aspects. The real implication is that just as music itself has quantitative and qualitative aspects which interact to produce the experience that we recognise, likewise - when appropriately understood - prime numbers and quantum mechanics likewise arise from the interaction of quantitative and qualitative elements.

As we have seen the harmonic series is made up of the reciprocals of the natural numbers.

Now each of these numbers has a dimensional aspect as the corresponding fractional powers, which results in a circular - rather than linear - quantitative structure. The corresponding qualitative numbers are then simply the natural numbers, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.. etc now interpreted in a holistic manner.

Recently I have come to the conclusion that quality in all its aspects ultimately relates to this dimensional appreciation of number (interpreted in a holistic manner). In this context each dimensional number represents a unique way of configuring the fundamental polarities of experience (internal/external and whole/part).

So quality in the most basic sense always arises from a certain manner of configuring these basic polarities (which is given by the qualitative interpretation of dimensional numbers).

Seen in this light the qualitative correspondent of the harmonic series is simply the natural number dimensions. So it is not surprising that our fundamental appreciation of harmony (relating to the manner of configuring polarities) corresponds directly with the simplest dimensional numbers. These are the very ones with which we are implicitly programmed in out attempts to discern qualitative meaning!

## Friday, August 5, 2011

## Monday, August 1, 2011

### A Double Code

In a post on my blog on the Riemann Hypothesis, I referred to a new Mathematical series on the BBC hosted by Marcus du Sautoy called "The Code". I have already seen several such programmes with du Sautoy who I enjoy watching for his enthusiasm and obvious love of the subject. I also enjoyed greatly reading his books "The Music of the Primes" which played a large role in pushing me on to develop my own own insights on the primes. More recently I read his later book on Symmetry - an area in which he specialises - "Finding Moonshine".

Now the code that du Sautoy is referring to to relates to the quantitative use of numbers that is so wonderfully successful in helping to clarify so many of nature's secrets.

However Mathematics equally contains another marvellous code in the qualitative interpretation of these same numbers. However, seemingly there is as yet little or no recognition of the potential significance of this latter code.

I have frequently explained how the qualitative meaning of numbers is intimately tied up with mathematical dimensions. Unfortunately from a conventional perspective, only a reduced linear rational interpretation - that is literally 1-dimensional in qualitative terms - can be given.

In the most fundamental sense this true qualitative nature of dimensions relates to the dynamic manner in which the polarities of experience interact. In the most basic terms these polarities come in two pairings. The first relates to external and internal whereas the second relates to whole and part distinctions.

Now the conventional scientific (and mathematical) perspective is thereby linear as it seeks to define one unambiguous direction with respect to these polarities. In other words reality is here identified in a non-interactive fashion with what is understood as external to the observer. It then deals with wholes and parts in a reduced quantitative manner (whereby parts are simply viewed as fragmented constituents of the whole).

However though explicitly such scientific interpretation is indeed linear, implicitly in experience dynamic interaction in varying ways still takes place allowing for a much more varied dimensional appreciation (where many dimensions can interact to a degree with each other).

What I have recently come to realise is that our qualitative experience of reality in fact relates to the manner in which these various dimensions (representing the interaction of the fundamental polarities) takes place. And as each unique dimensional configuration is represented by a number, this thereby entails that all experience can be represented as the dynamic interplay of numbers (with respect to both their quantitative and qualitative aspects).

In a direct sense this qualitative dimensional aspect relates to the affective function in experience (which can then indirectly be translated mathematically in a cognitive rational manner).

So understood from this perspective our emotional experience with respect to sense and feelings represents the manner in which we configure various number dimensions (from a qualitative perspective).

One especially fruitful area of investigation would relate to musical appreciation. It has been demonstrated - at least since the time of Pythagoras - that there is a marked quantitative aspect to the manner in which we experience sound. So sounds that appear to us especially harmonious relate to the simplest ratios involving the natural numbers.

However an even deeper explanation of why this appears to be the case would relate to appreciation of the qualitative - as opposed to the quantitative - interpretation of number.

What I am suggesting therefore is that because our qualitative experience of dimensions remains somewhat undeveloped in present human evolution, we find it difficult to appreciate all but the relationship as between the simplest natural number dimensions. So the harmony in sound that we thus experience relates to the greater familiarity we have with the easiest dimensional configurations.

Put another way, for someone who in this affective context has implicitly achieved a more developed dimensional understanding, then a much more refined appreciation of sound would then be possible. Then what might appear dissonant at a customary level of experience, might now appear quite harmonious!

This also provides an interesting explanation as to the difference as between artistic and scientific type truth.

The very basis of current scientific truth is the universal acceptance (explicitly in formal terms) of its qualitative 1-dimensional manner of interpretation. However the basis of artistic appreciation is that people implicitly, as we have seen, use varying dimensional number configurations in attaining their qualitative understanding. And as such configurations can vary widely from person to person this implies that universal agreement as to what constitutes artistic merit is not therefore possible.

Of course in some respects a conventional consensus (at least in certain sections of society) may exist as to what constitutes artistic value but this simply reflects a shared qualitative perspective among those with influence, who thereby configure the qualitative dimensions in a largely similar manner.

Also it must be said that even where the same qualitative dimensions are involved, marked variations in subsequent experience (relating in turn to considerable differences as to the degree of spiritual refinement with which they are experienced) can exist.

Now the code that du Sautoy is referring to to relates to the quantitative use of numbers that is so wonderfully successful in helping to clarify so many of nature's secrets.

However Mathematics equally contains another marvellous code in the qualitative interpretation of these same numbers. However, seemingly there is as yet little or no recognition of the potential significance of this latter code.

I have frequently explained how the qualitative meaning of numbers is intimately tied up with mathematical dimensions. Unfortunately from a conventional perspective, only a reduced linear rational interpretation - that is literally 1-dimensional in qualitative terms - can be given.

In the most fundamental sense this true qualitative nature of dimensions relates to the dynamic manner in which the polarities of experience interact. In the most basic terms these polarities come in two pairings. The first relates to external and internal whereas the second relates to whole and part distinctions.

Now the conventional scientific (and mathematical) perspective is thereby linear as it seeks to define one unambiguous direction with respect to these polarities. In other words reality is here identified in a non-interactive fashion with what is understood as external to the observer. It then deals with wholes and parts in a reduced quantitative manner (whereby parts are simply viewed as fragmented constituents of the whole).

However though explicitly such scientific interpretation is indeed linear, implicitly in experience dynamic interaction in varying ways still takes place allowing for a much more varied dimensional appreciation (where many dimensions can interact to a degree with each other).

What I have recently come to realise is that our qualitative experience of reality in fact relates to the manner in which these various dimensions (representing the interaction of the fundamental polarities) takes place. And as each unique dimensional configuration is represented by a number, this thereby entails that all experience can be represented as the dynamic interplay of numbers (with respect to both their quantitative and qualitative aspects).

In a direct sense this qualitative dimensional aspect relates to the affective function in experience (which can then indirectly be translated mathematically in a cognitive rational manner).

So understood from this perspective our emotional experience with respect to sense and feelings represents the manner in which we configure various number dimensions (from a qualitative perspective).

One especially fruitful area of investigation would relate to musical appreciation. It has been demonstrated - at least since the time of Pythagoras - that there is a marked quantitative aspect to the manner in which we experience sound. So sounds that appear to us especially harmonious relate to the simplest ratios involving the natural numbers.

However an even deeper explanation of why this appears to be the case would relate to appreciation of the qualitative - as opposed to the quantitative - interpretation of number.

What I am suggesting therefore is that because our qualitative experience of dimensions remains somewhat undeveloped in present human evolution, we find it difficult to appreciate all but the relationship as between the simplest natural number dimensions. So the harmony in sound that we thus experience relates to the greater familiarity we have with the easiest dimensional configurations.

Put another way, for someone who in this affective context has implicitly achieved a more developed dimensional understanding, then a much more refined appreciation of sound would then be possible. Then what might appear dissonant at a customary level of experience, might now appear quite harmonious!

This also provides an interesting explanation as to the difference as between artistic and scientific type truth.

The very basis of current scientific truth is the universal acceptance (explicitly in formal terms) of its qualitative 1-dimensional manner of interpretation. However the basis of artistic appreciation is that people implicitly, as we have seen, use varying dimensional number configurations in attaining their qualitative understanding. And as such configurations can vary widely from person to person this implies that universal agreement as to what constitutes artistic merit is not therefore possible.

Of course in some respects a conventional consensus (at least in certain sections of society) may exist as to what constitutes artistic value but this simply reflects a shared qualitative perspective among those with influence, who thereby configure the qualitative dimensions in a largely similar manner.

Also it must be said that even where the same qualitative dimensions are involved, marked variations in subsequent experience (relating in turn to considerable differences as to the degree of spiritual refinement with which they are experienced) can exist.

## Thursday, June 30, 2011

### Brave New World

I was reading Paul Allen’s “The Idea Man” recently which I found fascinating on several levels (especially with respect to his relationship with Bill Gates and the founding of Microsoft).

Clearly both Allen and Gates were extremely talented individuals with a special gift for programming. What I did not realise however was the extraordinary amount of work that they put in eventually leading to the founding of Microsoft.

In Jungian personality terms, whereas Gates would have been an S, Allen clearly was more of an N type. Though the relationship between them was never easy, the combination of Gates’ pragmatism and ruthless realism allied to Allen’s creative vision and shrewd reading of technical developments effectively led to the founding of Microsoft.

However as regards the survival of the fittest with respect to Microsoft ultimately only one person would assume control which inevitably meant Bill Gates.

In the end whereas Gates was intent on making Microsoft his life, Allen wanted the freedom to devote his energies to a hotch potch of differing interests (which his immense wealth has facilitated).

Reading this book got me thinking again with respect to my own “visionary perspective” for the future of computers.

Once again the present IT revolution depends heavily on the quantitative use of the binary system i.e. in the ability of using a series of 1’s and 0’s to encode information.

However I have long advocated a second qualitative binary system that would make use of the holistic interpretation of 1 and 0 with the potential power to encode all transformation processes. 1 in this context relates to linear logic as the actual basic for encoding (unitary) form whereas 0 relates to circular logic as the corresponding indirect basis for encoding emptiness i.e. nothingness (as the potential source of all form).

And it is in the interaction of form and emptiness at all levels of reality that we have continual transformation.

Now up to this I have always tended to associate this second type in its most developed state with the human species especially with respect to the potential for considerable spiritual transformation.

And as evolution of such spiritual potential in general is of a very slow nature, this would place considerable limits on the possibilities of radical “computer” developments in the near future with respect to the use of this qualitative binary system. Indeed - as I have so often stated - it is not even formally recognised in current scientific thinking where the basis paradigm is almost exclusively built on the recognition of - merely - one qualitative digit (i.e. 1 corresponding to the linear logic of form).

Now the human species represents an organic biological life process (which is distinct from the mechanistic type of systems associated with quantitative IT type developments).

However it struck me recently that perhaps it is mistaken to confine possible developments with respect to the alternative qualitative system to advances in human spiritual evolutionary development (which could take a long time).

In other words other biological life processes could perhaps be created through laboratory means with far greater potential for rapid spiritual development. If this is true then this would entail that an alternative qualitative IT revolution could then be directly associated with the use of these biological life forms that would be capable of acting in a highly creative manner.

Indeed from one perspective, just as current IT devices can be seen as an extension of the human personality with respect to facilitating information of all kinds, in time these alternative qualitative IT devices - relating directly to “creative” intelligent biological life forms - would then be seen as an extension of the human personality with respect to facilitating transformation, leading to the potential for very rapid spiritual evolution in humanity.

However this brave new world would raise very grave issues regarding democracy and control with perhaps the human species having to recognise that it no longer can dominate in this regard but rather would have to concede considerable rights to new intelligent life forms that have been initially biologically created through artificial means.

Of course the ultimate IT revolution would then combine both the quantitative possibilities for encoding information with the qualitative possibilities for encoding transformation.

In fact I am slowly coming to the realisation that - when appropriately appreciated - what we know as reality is in fact but the operation of this ultimate IT system (most of whose secrets have yet to be revealed).

One obvious realisation that will flow from the mastery of this final comprehensive IT system is that phenomenal reality itself - on all levels - is capable of direct transformation.

Put another way phenomenal reality - when properly understood - can be seen to represent but the dynamic configuration of the binary digits (with respect to both their quantitative and qualitative aspects).

Therefore the changing of phenomenal reality in any context ultimately relates to the ability to appropriately reconfigure this digital system (with respect to both its quantitative and qualitative aspects).

We are very far from proper realisation of this at the moment. However the very fact that I am even writing about such possibilities would suggest that the starting recognition of such an ultimate IT system has already commenced.

And in the deepest sense this equally implies recognition of the true nature of our essential personalities as God incarnated in phenomenal form.

Clearly both Allen and Gates were extremely talented individuals with a special gift for programming. What I did not realise however was the extraordinary amount of work that they put in eventually leading to the founding of Microsoft.

In Jungian personality terms, whereas Gates would have been an S, Allen clearly was more of an N type. Though the relationship between them was never easy, the combination of Gates’ pragmatism and ruthless realism allied to Allen’s creative vision and shrewd reading of technical developments effectively led to the founding of Microsoft.

However as regards the survival of the fittest with respect to Microsoft ultimately only one person would assume control which inevitably meant Bill Gates.

In the end whereas Gates was intent on making Microsoft his life, Allen wanted the freedom to devote his energies to a hotch potch of differing interests (which his immense wealth has facilitated).

Reading this book got me thinking again with respect to my own “visionary perspective” for the future of computers.

Once again the present IT revolution depends heavily on the quantitative use of the binary system i.e. in the ability of using a series of 1’s and 0’s to encode information.

However I have long advocated a second qualitative binary system that would make use of the holistic interpretation of 1 and 0 with the potential power to encode all transformation processes. 1 in this context relates to linear logic as the actual basic for encoding (unitary) form whereas 0 relates to circular logic as the corresponding indirect basis for encoding emptiness i.e. nothingness (as the potential source of all form).

And it is in the interaction of form and emptiness at all levels of reality that we have continual transformation.

Now up to this I have always tended to associate this second type in its most developed state with the human species especially with respect to the potential for considerable spiritual transformation.

And as evolution of such spiritual potential in general is of a very slow nature, this would place considerable limits on the possibilities of radical “computer” developments in the near future with respect to the use of this qualitative binary system. Indeed - as I have so often stated - it is not even formally recognised in current scientific thinking where the basis paradigm is almost exclusively built on the recognition of - merely - one qualitative digit (i.e. 1 corresponding to the linear logic of form).

Now the human species represents an organic biological life process (which is distinct from the mechanistic type of systems associated with quantitative IT type developments).

However it struck me recently that perhaps it is mistaken to confine possible developments with respect to the alternative qualitative system to advances in human spiritual evolutionary development (which could take a long time).

In other words other biological life processes could perhaps be created through laboratory means with far greater potential for rapid spiritual development. If this is true then this would entail that an alternative qualitative IT revolution could then be directly associated with the use of these biological life forms that would be capable of acting in a highly creative manner.

Indeed from one perspective, just as current IT devices can be seen as an extension of the human personality with respect to facilitating information of all kinds, in time these alternative qualitative IT devices - relating directly to “creative” intelligent biological life forms - would then be seen as an extension of the human personality with respect to facilitating transformation, leading to the potential for very rapid spiritual evolution in humanity.

However this brave new world would raise very grave issues regarding democracy and control with perhaps the human species having to recognise that it no longer can dominate in this regard but rather would have to concede considerable rights to new intelligent life forms that have been initially biologically created through artificial means.

Of course the ultimate IT revolution would then combine both the quantitative possibilities for encoding information with the qualitative possibilities for encoding transformation.

In fact I am slowly coming to the realisation that - when appropriately appreciated - what we know as reality is in fact but the operation of this ultimate IT system (most of whose secrets have yet to be revealed).

One obvious realisation that will flow from the mastery of this final comprehensive IT system is that phenomenal reality itself - on all levels - is capable of direct transformation.

Put another way phenomenal reality - when properly understood - can be seen to represent but the dynamic configuration of the binary digits (with respect to both their quantitative and qualitative aspects).

Therefore the changing of phenomenal reality in any context ultimately relates to the ability to appropriately reconfigure this digital system (with respect to both its quantitative and qualitative aspects).

We are very far from proper realisation of this at the moment. However the very fact that I am even writing about such possibilities would suggest that the starting recognition of such an ultimate IT system has already commenced.

And in the deepest sense this equally implies recognition of the true nature of our essential personalities as God incarnated in phenomenal form.

## Wednesday, June 15, 2011

### Prime Mystery

As always we can provide a complementary psychospiritual account of the phenomenal activity (corresponding to what in physical terms lies below the Planck length).

As we have discussed before with increasing contemplative activity, phenomena of form take on a more transparent elusive quality. This ultimately relates to the dynamic manner in which the basic polarities of experience increasingly interact.

So - quite literally - experience becomes of a higher dimensional nature. Ultimately therefore the relationship between polarities becomes so rapid that it is no longer possible - in explicit terms - to follow their movement. So at this stage it is thereby not possible to provide a coherent refined rational interpretation of the subtle inter-relationships implied by these dimensions. In other words as the very attempt to provide such an interpretation would itself interfere with the dynamic level of interaction already attained, one must abandon formal interpretation in any explicit manner.

Put another way as relationships are now of an increasingly (circular) paradoxical nature, any attempt to objectively explain their nature would introduce an undue linear influence that would thereby distort their intrinsic nature.

This corresponds well with the nature of physical relationships below the Planck length where relationships become so circular and paradoxical that they strongly conflict with the standard notions, such as independent existence and unambiguous movement in space and time that so characterise the linear approach.

So whereas present M-Theory is defined for a 11 dimensional framework for physical activity down to the Planck length (setting thereby a limit to explicit physical investigations of matter), we can safely say therefore that the implied physical reality lying below the Planck length would exist with respect to an increasingly large number of dimensions.

Once again interpretation here is shrouded in deep paradox. Ultimately we have maintained that what defines the prime constituents of reality is that each unique "object" is associated likewise with a unique "dimension". However as we approach closer to recognition of the unique dimensional (qualitative) nature of each "object", the inter-relationships with other "objects" becomes so dynamic that we are unable to preserve any independent identity to these objects.

It may be instructive to explain a little more what is meant by multi-dimensional in this context.

As stated before the dimensions relate to directions with respect to the fundamental dimensions polarities of experience (internal/external and whole/part).

With linear interpretation (which is 1-dimensional in this perspective) external is separated from internal and then identified with whole/parts as independently existing objects.

2-dimensional interpretation is more refined where one accepts that a continual interaction as between internal and external polarities takes place leading to a consequent continual transformation in what is observed.

Then with 4-dimensional interpretation increasing interaction as between holistic and analytic notions of whole and part also take place.

Basically with progressively higher dimensions, one obtains an increasing ability to precisely control in experience the degree of emphasis in any context that is given to (internal) psychological interpretation or external physical observance from one perspective and from the other the precise emphasis on analytic (part) or (holistic) whole notions.

Now with higher-dimensional appreciation one realises that in phenomenal terms that we are always relating to mere appearances with respect to reality (which constantly change). Therefore one thereby surrenders any belief in precisely fixing the nature of such appearances. And with this one likewise surrenders the use of any explicit linear aspect with respect to interpretation.

So in similar terms at the higher dimensions below the Planck length (in physical terms) manifestations with respect to phenomena likewise change so quickly that it becomes impossible to preserve any fixed element. So relationships become increasingly paradoxical and circular in nature confounding all accepted scientific notions (with respect to independent existence and conventional notions of space and time).

So independent objective reality as we know it is associated with the need to continually reduce the qualitative nature of objects by likewise reducing the number of dimensions used to interpret reality. Indeed one could argue that the very need to still use four collective dimensions for identifying all macro objects sets a limit on the independent nature of these objects (as they still all require this same collective spacetime background).

In corresponding psychospiritual terms as one grows in awareness of the truly unique nature of objects (in what spiritually is referred to as the immanent aspect), ultimately again such objects become so transparent that they ultimately lose any independent characteristics. And at this stage interpretation of experience becomes so highly multi-dimensional that one can no longer preserve any explicit rational interpretation of such experience.

So properly understood we can never divorce the ultimate nature of physical reality from the corresponding means by which it is psychologically interpreted for both aspects are in truth complementary (and ultimately identical).

There is another fascinating point that can be made in this context.

Just as the original nature of matter is prime (where quantitative objective and dimensional qualitative aspects start from a state of total confusion), ultimate psychospiritual realisation in experience entails the same prime relationship (where however quantitative and qualitative are now maturely integrated).

So - quite literally - the very process of achieving such ultimate psychospiritual realisation requires the rooting out of all unreformed primitive instincts at an unconscious level.

Thus in the truest possible sense the resolution of the mystery of the prime numbers cannot be divorced from the realisation of ultimate spiritual union (where one approximates to removal of any residual conflict as between the quantitative and qualitative aspect of experience).

As we have discussed before with increasing contemplative activity, phenomena of form take on a more transparent elusive quality. This ultimately relates to the dynamic manner in which the basic polarities of experience increasingly interact.

So - quite literally - experience becomes of a higher dimensional nature. Ultimately therefore the relationship between polarities becomes so rapid that it is no longer possible - in explicit terms - to follow their movement. So at this stage it is thereby not possible to provide a coherent refined rational interpretation of the subtle inter-relationships implied by these dimensions. In other words as the very attempt to provide such an interpretation would itself interfere with the dynamic level of interaction already attained, one must abandon formal interpretation in any explicit manner.

Put another way as relationships are now of an increasingly (circular) paradoxical nature, any attempt to objectively explain their nature would introduce an undue linear influence that would thereby distort their intrinsic nature.

This corresponds well with the nature of physical relationships below the Planck length where relationships become so circular and paradoxical that they strongly conflict with the standard notions, such as independent existence and unambiguous movement in space and time that so characterise the linear approach.

So whereas present M-Theory is defined for a 11 dimensional framework for physical activity down to the Planck length (setting thereby a limit to explicit physical investigations of matter), we can safely say therefore that the implied physical reality lying below the Planck length would exist with respect to an increasingly large number of dimensions.

Once again interpretation here is shrouded in deep paradox. Ultimately we have maintained that what defines the prime constituents of reality is that each unique "object" is associated likewise with a unique "dimension". However as we approach closer to recognition of the unique dimensional (qualitative) nature of each "object", the inter-relationships with other "objects" becomes so dynamic that we are unable to preserve any independent identity to these objects.

It may be instructive to explain a little more what is meant by multi-dimensional in this context.

As stated before the dimensions relate to directions with respect to the fundamental dimensions polarities of experience (internal/external and whole/part).

With linear interpretation (which is 1-dimensional in this perspective) external is separated from internal and then identified with whole/parts as independently existing objects.

2-dimensional interpretation is more refined where one accepts that a continual interaction as between internal and external polarities takes place leading to a consequent continual transformation in what is observed.

Then with 4-dimensional interpretation increasing interaction as between holistic and analytic notions of whole and part also take place.

Basically with progressively higher dimensions, one obtains an increasing ability to precisely control in experience the degree of emphasis in any context that is given to (internal) psychological interpretation or external physical observance from one perspective and from the other the precise emphasis on analytic (part) or (holistic) whole notions.

Now with higher-dimensional appreciation one realises that in phenomenal terms that we are always relating to mere appearances with respect to reality (which constantly change). Therefore one thereby surrenders any belief in precisely fixing the nature of such appearances. And with this one likewise surrenders the use of any explicit linear aspect with respect to interpretation.

So in similar terms at the higher dimensions below the Planck length (in physical terms) manifestations with respect to phenomena likewise change so quickly that it becomes impossible to preserve any fixed element. So relationships become increasingly paradoxical and circular in nature confounding all accepted scientific notions (with respect to independent existence and conventional notions of space and time).

So independent objective reality as we know it is associated with the need to continually reduce the qualitative nature of objects by likewise reducing the number of dimensions used to interpret reality. Indeed one could argue that the very need to still use four collective dimensions for identifying all macro objects sets a limit on the independent nature of these objects (as they still all require this same collective spacetime background).

In corresponding psychospiritual terms as one grows in awareness of the truly unique nature of objects (in what spiritually is referred to as the immanent aspect), ultimately again such objects become so transparent that they ultimately lose any independent characteristics. And at this stage interpretation of experience becomes so highly multi-dimensional that one can no longer preserve any explicit rational interpretation of such experience.

So properly understood we can never divorce the ultimate nature of physical reality from the corresponding means by which it is psychologically interpreted for both aspects are in truth complementary (and ultimately identical).

There is another fascinating point that can be made in this context.

Just as the original nature of matter is prime (where quantitative objective and dimensional qualitative aspects start from a state of total confusion), ultimate psychospiritual realisation in experience entails the same prime relationship (where however quantitative and qualitative are now maturely integrated).

So - quite literally - the very process of achieving such ultimate psychospiritual realisation requires the rooting out of all unreformed primitive instincts at an unconscious level.

Thus in the truest possible sense the resolution of the mystery of the prime numbers cannot be divorced from the realisation of ultimate spiritual union (where one approximates to removal of any residual conflict as between the quantitative and qualitative aspect of experience).

## Monday, June 13, 2011

### I Can Hear Music!

I have often marvelled at the enormous significance of the numbers 1 and 0. Not alone are these sufficent in quantitative terms to provide a means for potentially encoding all information, but likewise in qualitative forms they provide the basis for holistically encoding all transformation processes.

I have even suggested in previous blogs that there is a strong case for suggesting that all reality is number through the dynamic interaction of both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of these digits (that ultimately represent both form and emptiness).

It is therefore tempting to extend this perspective to both the prime and natural numbers to see clearly how they are involved at a more detailed level of investigation in creating the reality that we share.

This is also intimately related to the problem of explaining how original emptiness (which is likewise the potential for all phenomenal form) gives rise to the continually changing universe that we inhabit.

So emptiness (that holistically is represented by 0) is also the potential for all subsequent form. And as the basis of identifying such form is based on recognition of a separate unit of existence, then in holistic terms this is represented by 1.

Thus the recognition of these fundamental numbers 0 and 1 are already inherent in experience as eternal archetypes.

The question then arises as to how emptiness gives rise to form. Though ultimately this process remains utterly mysterious, we can however suggest the means by which it phenomenally occurs.

This is where the prime numbers come into play. The very essence of a prime number is its uniqueness. In conventional quantitative terms this would be expressed by saying that prime numbers are linear in nature (with no factors) and therefore represent the basic building blocks of the natural number system.

Likewise from a physical perspective prime "objects" would represent the basic building blocks of all physical matter.

However what is generally missed regarding the nature of prime numbers is that they are also unique in representing dimensional numbers. Now the dimensions relate directly to the qualitative nature of matter. So the natural i.e. in which conventional spacetime is experienced represent the varied multi-interactions of prime dimensions.

So if we are to enquire regarding the most fundamental "objects" of nature we would have to say that they are prime. Now this in fairness is what the concept of "strings" attempts to get at by defining them in linear terms. However the problem again with the conventional approach is that it gives these "objects" an actual existence in quantitative terms, whereas properly they have a merely potential identity. Secondly such prime "objects" are directly paradoxical in that they have a complementary dimensional (qualitative) aspect that is - relatively - of a circular nature.

So remarkably at the most fundamental level each prime "object", which still has a merely potential existence, is equally through its very nature a prime "dimension".

One way of understanding this is through recognition that inherent in such "objects" are both quantitative and qualitative characteristics that are utterly unique.

Now once again in a limited sense, string theory attempts to address this issue by admitting that in some way the dimensions of space and time are embodied in the strings. However because of the merely quantitative emphasis of Conventional Science, such dimensions are reduced to the "objects" concerned, leading in effect to the unsatisfactory requirement of giving these "objects" a pre-existing dimensional location in space and time.

So - properly understood - the very essence of a prime number is that it equally combines both quantitative and qualitative characteristics that are paradoxical in terms of each other. Indeed this is the lesson of the Riemann Hypothesis which is really a statement regarding the requirement for reconciling these two aspects.

So remarkably, potentially preceding phenomenal creation, unique prime "objects" serve equally as unique prime "dimensions". Put another way this implies that each unique "object" potentially possesses both a quantitative and qualitative aspect (as dimension).

However as soon as prime "objects" attain a fleeting phenomenal identity, the uniqueness with respect to qualitative characteristics gradually gives way to a shared dimensional context. In other words through interaction with other prime "objects", gradually a more stable natural existence is achieved. So by the time we reach the Planck length, sufficient stability will have been reached to enable starting identification of particles to take place.

What is remarkable is that by this stage the number of dimensions, which is potentially unlimited for prime "objects", will have been reduced to a small finite number. So String Theory - or rather M-theory - is now conceived in 11 dimensions. And indeed my own investigations from the psychological perspective, places considerable emphasis on 8-dimensional reality.

So one way of looking at physical reality below the Planck length is with respect to activity that takes place in a much higher number of dimensions. However because such activity still largely relates to prime notions (with little composite organisation of a natural kind yet achieved) phenomenal reactions are too short-lived with respect to space and time to enable detection. Therefore though some actual activity does necessarily take place, it remains too elusive to be phenomenally detected in explicit terms. So reality still remains far closer here to the emptiness (from which it emerged) than actual phenomena.

It is also tempting to conclude that these original prime "objects" with the mere potential to exist are in fact the prime numbers (with respect to both their quantitative and qualitative characteristics).

Once again these prime numbers therefore represent eternal archetypes which then become inherent in fundamental processes (with respect to both their quantitative and qualitative characteristics).

So therefore, seen in this light, in the deepest sense all natural phenomena of form actually represent the interaction of prime numbers with respect to both their quantitative (object) and qualitative (dimensional) characteristics.

In this sense the music of the spheres is but the phenomenal resonance of the prime numbers whose ultimate secrets remain hidden in eternal emptiness.

I have even suggested in previous blogs that there is a strong case for suggesting that all reality is number through the dynamic interaction of both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of these digits (that ultimately represent both form and emptiness).

It is therefore tempting to extend this perspective to both the prime and natural numbers to see clearly how they are involved at a more detailed level of investigation in creating the reality that we share.

This is also intimately related to the problem of explaining how original emptiness (which is likewise the potential for all phenomenal form) gives rise to the continually changing universe that we inhabit.

So emptiness (that holistically is represented by 0) is also the potential for all subsequent form. And as the basis of identifying such form is based on recognition of a separate unit of existence, then in holistic terms this is represented by 1.

Thus the recognition of these fundamental numbers 0 and 1 are already inherent in experience as eternal archetypes.

The question then arises as to how emptiness gives rise to form. Though ultimately this process remains utterly mysterious, we can however suggest the means by which it phenomenally occurs.

This is where the prime numbers come into play. The very essence of a prime number is its uniqueness. In conventional quantitative terms this would be expressed by saying that prime numbers are linear in nature (with no factors) and therefore represent the basic building blocks of the natural number system.

Likewise from a physical perspective prime "objects" would represent the basic building blocks of all physical matter.

However what is generally missed regarding the nature of prime numbers is that they are also unique in representing dimensional numbers. Now the dimensions relate directly to the qualitative nature of matter. So the natural i.e. in which conventional spacetime is experienced represent the varied multi-interactions of prime dimensions.

So if we are to enquire regarding the most fundamental "objects" of nature we would have to say that they are prime. Now this in fairness is what the concept of "strings" attempts to get at by defining them in linear terms. However the problem again with the conventional approach is that it gives these "objects" an actual existence in quantitative terms, whereas properly they have a merely potential identity. Secondly such prime "objects" are directly paradoxical in that they have a complementary dimensional (qualitative) aspect that is - relatively - of a circular nature.

So remarkably at the most fundamental level each prime "object", which still has a merely potential existence, is equally through its very nature a prime "dimension".

One way of understanding this is through recognition that inherent in such "objects" are both quantitative and qualitative characteristics that are utterly unique.

Now once again in a limited sense, string theory attempts to address this issue by admitting that in some way the dimensions of space and time are embodied in the strings. However because of the merely quantitative emphasis of Conventional Science, such dimensions are reduced to the "objects" concerned, leading in effect to the unsatisfactory requirement of giving these "objects" a pre-existing dimensional location in space and time.

So - properly understood - the very essence of a prime number is that it equally combines both quantitative and qualitative characteristics that are paradoxical in terms of each other. Indeed this is the lesson of the Riemann Hypothesis which is really a statement regarding the requirement for reconciling these two aspects.

So remarkably, potentially preceding phenomenal creation, unique prime "objects" serve equally as unique prime "dimensions". Put another way this implies that each unique "object" potentially possesses both a quantitative and qualitative aspect (as dimension).

However as soon as prime "objects" attain a fleeting phenomenal identity, the uniqueness with respect to qualitative characteristics gradually gives way to a shared dimensional context. In other words through interaction with other prime "objects", gradually a more stable natural existence is achieved. So by the time we reach the Planck length, sufficient stability will have been reached to enable starting identification of particles to take place.

What is remarkable is that by this stage the number of dimensions, which is potentially unlimited for prime "objects", will have been reduced to a small finite number. So String Theory - or rather M-theory - is now conceived in 11 dimensions. And indeed my own investigations from the psychological perspective, places considerable emphasis on 8-dimensional reality.

So one way of looking at physical reality below the Planck length is with respect to activity that takes place in a much higher number of dimensions. However because such activity still largely relates to prime notions (with little composite organisation of a natural kind yet achieved) phenomenal reactions are too short-lived with respect to space and time to enable detection. Therefore though some actual activity does necessarily take place, it remains too elusive to be phenomenally detected in explicit terms. So reality still remains far closer here to the emptiness (from which it emerged) than actual phenomena.

It is also tempting to conclude that these original prime "objects" with the mere potential to exist are in fact the prime numbers (with respect to both their quantitative and qualitative characteristics).

Once again these prime numbers therefore represent eternal archetypes which then become inherent in fundamental processes (with respect to both their quantitative and qualitative characteristics).

So therefore, seen in this light, in the deepest sense all natural phenomena of form actually represent the interaction of prime numbers with respect to both their quantitative (object) and qualitative (dimensional) characteristics.

In this sense the music of the spheres is but the phenomenal resonance of the prime numbers whose ultimate secrets remain hidden in eternal emptiness.

## Sunday, June 12, 2011

### Good Vibrations!

In physics the Planck length is the order of magnitude of the vibrating strings that form the physical particles.

It is then postulated that it is not meaningful to probe below the Planck length. However it seems to me that this masks a considerable degree of philosophical confusion with respect to the very notion of strings.

For if it is not in principle possible to give physical meaning to distances less than the Planck length which is incredibly small at about 10^(- 20) the size of a proton, then how can strings themselves be given a physical meaning?

As I have stated before there are inherent philosophical difficulties with the manner in which physicists attempt to define strings.

Indeed from one valid perspective, what they are attempting to do is to achieve the reductionist fallacy of defining the ultimate constituents of the universe in merely quantitative terms (devoid of any qualitative meaning).

So from this perspective physical particles (which necessarily have qualitative characteristics) come into existence through the vibration of strings.

However such vibration could only have meaning in the context of a pre-existing spacetime environment for the strings. However these same spacetime dimensions are supposed to be in some way derived from the strings!

So really this attempted explanation of the nature of strings lacks any proper coherence.

I have long maintained that the notion of a string has a merely potential - rather than actual - significance. Secondly this notion has two complementary aspects which through interaction are linear and circular with respect to each other.

For convenience we can identify the quantitative aspect of the potential string with the linear aspect. Now this is what the conventional approach likewise defines. However it then makes the untenable reductionist assumption whereby the qualitative is reduced to quantitative interpretation so that the string is misleadingly defined in actual terms.

We can then identify the qualitative aspect of the potential string with the circular aspect. In mathematics is we raise 1 to a fractional power (dimension) its result will lie on the circle of unit radius in the complex plane.

In corresponding fashion to properly relate the linear quantitative aspect of the potential string with its - relatively - corresponding qualitative dimensional aspect, we must employ circular logic with respect to this latter aspect.

It is only through the dynamic interaction of both aspects of the string that physical particles can achieve a manifest actual physical existence (that exhibit both quantitative and qualitative characteristics).

Physicists maintain that the existence of such particles can only occur at or above the Planck length.

Now the very measurement of physical attributes in standard scientific terms assumes that linear type notions can be applied to the physical world e.g. where particles assume a certain independence and distances in space and time have an unambiguous positive meaning. We can then detect - literally - natural particles.

Natural numbers are made up of the primes and other composite numbers (derived from the primes).

In like manner natural phenomena are made up of prime and other composite varieties. It is therefore highly likely that what seem the basic natural particles already involve a high level of composition of more fundamental elements (below the Planck length).

Because the prime and natural are in dynamic terms interrelated they necessarily always co-exist together. However as we approach closer to the emptiness from which all matter emerges, the prime aspect becomes more pronounced, with any natural element arising, of an extremely fleeting short-lived nature.

So it is certainly possible that below the Planck length that a dynamic reality does exist that however in practical terms remains unobservable.

Such a reality would then exist overwhelmingly - not in linear spacetime - but rather in a paradoxical prime spacetime.

I have stated before that the very essence of a prime number is that it combines unique quantitative and qualitative aspects (that are linear and circular with respect to each other). So in extremes, this leads to the direct confusion of linear with circular notions. For example in linear terms a particle exists at some definite location. In circular terms it is however in an undefined location existing holistically everywhere. So prime spacetime involves the attempt to reconcile both notions (which are paradoxical in terms of each other).

We can perhaps portray what is involved here best with reference to psychological notions.

What is most prime i.e. primitive at this level entails the direct confusion of conscious (linear) with unconscious (circular) meaning. Thus the more primitive an instinctive impulse, as in earliest infancy, the more short-lived and fleeting it necessarily is in experience. Thus the attempt to embody what is holistic and universal directly in a limited phenomenal manner leads to the collapse of any dimensional context for the impulse (with the corresponding disappearance of the associated phenomenon).

In like manner at the most prime level of physical reality, the attempt to directly identify a dimensional context of space and time (circular) with a physical phenomenon (linear) leads to the immediate erosion of both aspects (i.e. spacetime and phenomenon).

So at a very low level of composition, prime reality would remain undetectable in phenomenal terms. However as levels of organisation increase, phenomena would attain sufficient stability to become detectable. So they would then emerge into a natural physical environment dictated by increasingly linear notions of space and time.

In this context the inability as yet to detect the graviton (the supposed transmitter of the gravitational force) is revealing.

I have likened before (in physical terms) the gravitational force to the role of the unconscious (from a psychological perspective).

This would entail therefore that any transmission of this force would relate to an extremely early stage of prime spacetime. This insight is also replicated in string theory by the prediction that the graviton corresponds to the lowest possible energy level of the string!

This could therefore imply that the phenomenal element associated with gravity is so minuscule that it will remain impossible to detect (in any physically discernible manner).

Put another way, this is a phenomenon related largely to circular (holistic) rather than linear (analytic) notions.

Moreover a considerable amount of activity is likely to take place below the Planck length governed mainly by circular rather than linear notions. So what we term the fundamental particles may largely represent - simply - what can be phenomenally detected (in linear terms) while concealing many layers of further physical organisation that take place in prime spacetime (below the Planck length).

As to the nature of the emptiness from which prime and natural physical actvity ultimately emerge "God Only Knows".

It is then postulated that it is not meaningful to probe below the Planck length. However it seems to me that this masks a considerable degree of philosophical confusion with respect to the very notion of strings.

For if it is not in principle possible to give physical meaning to distances less than the Planck length which is incredibly small at about 10^(- 20) the size of a proton, then how can strings themselves be given a physical meaning?

As I have stated before there are inherent philosophical difficulties with the manner in which physicists attempt to define strings.

Indeed from one valid perspective, what they are attempting to do is to achieve the reductionist fallacy of defining the ultimate constituents of the universe in merely quantitative terms (devoid of any qualitative meaning).

So from this perspective physical particles (which necessarily have qualitative characteristics) come into existence through the vibration of strings.

However such vibration could only have meaning in the context of a pre-existing spacetime environment for the strings. However these same spacetime dimensions are supposed to be in some way derived from the strings!

So really this attempted explanation of the nature of strings lacks any proper coherence.

I have long maintained that the notion of a string has a merely potential - rather than actual - significance. Secondly this notion has two complementary aspects which through interaction are linear and circular with respect to each other.

For convenience we can identify the quantitative aspect of the potential string with the linear aspect. Now this is what the conventional approach likewise defines. However it then makes the untenable reductionist assumption whereby the qualitative is reduced to quantitative interpretation so that the string is misleadingly defined in actual terms.

We can then identify the qualitative aspect of the potential string with the circular aspect. In mathematics is we raise 1 to a fractional power (dimension) its result will lie on the circle of unit radius in the complex plane.

In corresponding fashion to properly relate the linear quantitative aspect of the potential string with its - relatively - corresponding qualitative dimensional aspect, we must employ circular logic with respect to this latter aspect.

It is only through the dynamic interaction of both aspects of the string that physical particles can achieve a manifest actual physical existence (that exhibit both quantitative and qualitative characteristics).

Physicists maintain that the existence of such particles can only occur at or above the Planck length.

Now the very measurement of physical attributes in standard scientific terms assumes that linear type notions can be applied to the physical world e.g. where particles assume a certain independence and distances in space and time have an unambiguous positive meaning. We can then detect - literally - natural particles.

Natural numbers are made up of the primes and other composite numbers (derived from the primes).

In like manner natural phenomena are made up of prime and other composite varieties. It is therefore highly likely that what seem the basic natural particles already involve a high level of composition of more fundamental elements (below the Planck length).

Because the prime and natural are in dynamic terms interrelated they necessarily always co-exist together. However as we approach closer to the emptiness from which all matter emerges, the prime aspect becomes more pronounced, with any natural element arising, of an extremely fleeting short-lived nature.

So it is certainly possible that below the Planck length that a dynamic reality does exist that however in practical terms remains unobservable.

Such a reality would then exist overwhelmingly - not in linear spacetime - but rather in a paradoxical prime spacetime.

I have stated before that the very essence of a prime number is that it combines unique quantitative and qualitative aspects (that are linear and circular with respect to each other). So in extremes, this leads to the direct confusion of linear with circular notions. For example in linear terms a particle exists at some definite location. In circular terms it is however in an undefined location existing holistically everywhere. So prime spacetime involves the attempt to reconcile both notions (which are paradoxical in terms of each other).

We can perhaps portray what is involved here best with reference to psychological notions.

What is most prime i.e. primitive at this level entails the direct confusion of conscious (linear) with unconscious (circular) meaning. Thus the more primitive an instinctive impulse, as in earliest infancy, the more short-lived and fleeting it necessarily is in experience. Thus the attempt to embody what is holistic and universal directly in a limited phenomenal manner leads to the collapse of any dimensional context for the impulse (with the corresponding disappearance of the associated phenomenon).

In like manner at the most prime level of physical reality, the attempt to directly identify a dimensional context of space and time (circular) with a physical phenomenon (linear) leads to the immediate erosion of both aspects (i.e. spacetime and phenomenon).

So at a very low level of composition, prime reality would remain undetectable in phenomenal terms. However as levels of organisation increase, phenomena would attain sufficient stability to become detectable. So they would then emerge into a natural physical environment dictated by increasingly linear notions of space and time.

In this context the inability as yet to detect the graviton (the supposed transmitter of the gravitational force) is revealing.

I have likened before (in physical terms) the gravitational force to the role of the unconscious (from a psychological perspective).

This would entail therefore that any transmission of this force would relate to an extremely early stage of prime spacetime. This insight is also replicated in string theory by the prediction that the graviton corresponds to the lowest possible energy level of the string!

This could therefore imply that the phenomenal element associated with gravity is so minuscule that it will remain impossible to detect (in any physically discernible manner).

Put another way, this is a phenomenon related largely to circular (holistic) rather than linear (analytic) notions.

Moreover a considerable amount of activity is likely to take place below the Planck length governed mainly by circular rather than linear notions. So what we term the fundamental particles may largely represent - simply - what can be phenomenally detected (in linear terms) while concealing many layers of further physical organisation that take place in prime spacetime (below the Planck length).

As to the nature of the emptiness from which prime and natural physical actvity ultimately emerge "God Only Knows".

## Wednesday, May 18, 2011

### Strings Again!

I have already written quite a lot regarding the conceptual difficulties surrounding String Theory.

As it stands I would say that from a qualitative perspective, it presently does not constitute a meaningful physical interpretation of the Universe.

However once some of its key ideas are properly decoded we can begin to appreciate what it really is all about.

Conventional Science is heavily based on the linear rational approach which is thereby 1-dimensional in qualitative terms. This attempts to give one unambiguous direction to understanding e.g. interpretation that is (merely) objective, space distances that are (merely) positive, propositions that are (merely) true etc.

Not surprisingly - in terms of this approach - the most fundamental constituent of matter i.e. the string is viewed likewise as 1-dimensional in quantitative terms.

Common sense notions of the nature of space and time likewise reflect the 1-dimensional qualitative approach. Here we view 3 dimensions as spatial (with direct quantitative characteristics) and the remaining dimension in qualitative terms separated as time.

Now from a quantitative perspective, String Theory has to admit the existence of extra dimensions. So with its later incarnation in M-theory, we now have the inclusion of 7 extra dimensions (giving 11 in all). However a direct correspondence with the 1-dimensional qualitative approach is maintained through treating all of these extra dimensions in spatial terms (maintaining just 1-dimension in time).

So the very interpretation of extra dimensions - which has no intuitive resonance with common-sense understanding of space and time - is itself a product of a reduced level of qualitative understanding (that remains 1-dimensional).

The clear corollary here is that once we concede the need for extra dimensions to physical reality (from a quantitative perspective) equally we need to concede the need for extra dimensions also in terms of qualitative interpretation of this reality.

So the real message of String Theory is that the present (1-dimensional) scientific paradigm is no longer adequate for interpretation of the fundamenntal nature of physical reality.

Bearing this in mind I have already proposed that the very notion of a string must be given two complementary interpretations (in quantitative and qualitative terms).

So from the quantitative perspective, the fundamental building block is the 1-dimensional string which then through various dynamic vibration patterns, produces the physical particles.

Equally from the qualitative perspective, the fundamental building block is the 1-dimensional (holistic) string, which likewise through dynamic vibration patterns produces various psychological interpretations of these particles. Properly understood as phenomena and dimensions are quantitative and qualitative with respect to each other, these implies that we cannot properly hope to interpret the dimensional aspect of strings without incorporating the qualitative element.

And for proper intuitive recognition of what in physical terms String Theory entails, higher dimensional qualitative interpretations of reality will be clearly required.

In my own work such higher dimensional interpretations are provided through Integral Science.

For some 20 years now I have maintained the key importance of 8-dimensional qualitative interpretation for a comprehensive holistic TOE. Now it is hardly a coincidence that this thereby implies 7 extra dimensions of interpretation (in terms of the conventional approach) while M-theory itself likewise postulates 7 extra space dimensions in quantitative terms.

However once again because - from a qualitative perspective - String Theory remains rigidly rooted in a 1-dimensional interpretation, its quantitative findings can establish little or no resonance with common sense intuitions regarding the world.

There is another extremely important (hidden) dimension to this new understanding that can ultimately make the (quantitative) findings of String Theory intelligible. This is, relative to the quantitative aspect (which is interpreted analytically in dualistic terms), the qualitative aspect is appreciated holistically in nondual terms (which indirectly can be given an imaginary rational basis).

Thus seen in this light, String Theory is actually pointing to the fact that at its most fundamental, physical - which is now inseparable from psychological - reality corresponds to the operation of a dynamic interactive binary system (combining both analytic and holistic elements). So incorporated in this system are the means of both encoding (and decoding) all information and transformation processes.

So coming back to the string it now is given a complex interpretation in qualitative terms (as both real and imaginary)

Thus in terms of this definition, if the real aspect is identified with the quantitative aspect, the imaginary - by contrast - is then identified with the qualitative. And of course both of these aspects keep switching through dynamic interaction with each other.

Apart from this interaction, physical reality in its most fundamental manifestations has no strict meaning.

Put another way at this level we cannot hope to separate physical data (in quantitative terms) from the qualitative means through which they are interpreted.

Thus the ultimate nature of reality, in the resolution of this interaction of both quantitative and qualitative, is utterly ineffable (both beyond and preceding phenomenal investigation).

String Theory then stands as an opening physical bridge in terms of connecting what is empty and ineffable with the world of phenomenal form.

As it stands I would say that from a qualitative perspective, it presently does not constitute a meaningful physical interpretation of the Universe.

However once some of its key ideas are properly decoded we can begin to appreciate what it really is all about.

Conventional Science is heavily based on the linear rational approach which is thereby 1-dimensional in qualitative terms. This attempts to give one unambiguous direction to understanding e.g. interpretation that is (merely) objective, space distances that are (merely) positive, propositions that are (merely) true etc.

Not surprisingly - in terms of this approach - the most fundamental constituent of matter i.e. the string is viewed likewise as 1-dimensional in quantitative terms.

Common sense notions of the nature of space and time likewise reflect the 1-dimensional qualitative approach. Here we view 3 dimensions as spatial (with direct quantitative characteristics) and the remaining dimension in qualitative terms separated as time.

Now from a quantitative perspective, String Theory has to admit the existence of extra dimensions. So with its later incarnation in M-theory, we now have the inclusion of 7 extra dimensions (giving 11 in all). However a direct correspondence with the 1-dimensional qualitative approach is maintained through treating all of these extra dimensions in spatial terms (maintaining just 1-dimension in time).

So the very interpretation of extra dimensions - which has no intuitive resonance with common-sense understanding of space and time - is itself a product of a reduced level of qualitative understanding (that remains 1-dimensional).

The clear corollary here is that once we concede the need for extra dimensions to physical reality (from a quantitative perspective) equally we need to concede the need for extra dimensions also in terms of qualitative interpretation of this reality.

So the real message of String Theory is that the present (1-dimensional) scientific paradigm is no longer adequate for interpretation of the fundamenntal nature of physical reality.

Bearing this in mind I have already proposed that the very notion of a string must be given two complementary interpretations (in quantitative and qualitative terms).

So from the quantitative perspective, the fundamental building block is the 1-dimensional string which then through various dynamic vibration patterns, produces the physical particles.

Equally from the qualitative perspective, the fundamental building block is the 1-dimensional (holistic) string, which likewise through dynamic vibration patterns produces various psychological interpretations of these particles. Properly understood as phenomena and dimensions are quantitative and qualitative with respect to each other, these implies that we cannot properly hope to interpret the dimensional aspect of strings without incorporating the qualitative element.

And for proper intuitive recognition of what in physical terms String Theory entails, higher dimensional qualitative interpretations of reality will be clearly required.

In my own work such higher dimensional interpretations are provided through Integral Science.

For some 20 years now I have maintained the key importance of 8-dimensional qualitative interpretation for a comprehensive holistic TOE. Now it is hardly a coincidence that this thereby implies 7 extra dimensions of interpretation (in terms of the conventional approach) while M-theory itself likewise postulates 7 extra space dimensions in quantitative terms.

However once again because - from a qualitative perspective - String Theory remains rigidly rooted in a 1-dimensional interpretation, its quantitative findings can establish little or no resonance with common sense intuitions regarding the world.

There is another extremely important (hidden) dimension to this new understanding that can ultimately make the (quantitative) findings of String Theory intelligible. This is, relative to the quantitative aspect (which is interpreted analytically in dualistic terms), the qualitative aspect is appreciated holistically in nondual terms (which indirectly can be given an imaginary rational basis).

Thus seen in this light, String Theory is actually pointing to the fact that at its most fundamental, physical - which is now inseparable from psychological - reality corresponds to the operation of a dynamic interactive binary system (combining both analytic and holistic elements). So incorporated in this system are the means of both encoding (and decoding) all information and transformation processes.

So coming back to the string it now is given a complex interpretation in qualitative terms (as both real and imaginary)

Thus in terms of this definition, if the real aspect is identified with the quantitative aspect, the imaginary - by contrast - is then identified with the qualitative. And of course both of these aspects keep switching through dynamic interaction with each other.

Apart from this interaction, physical reality in its most fundamental manifestations has no strict meaning.

Put another way at this level we cannot hope to separate physical data (in quantitative terms) from the qualitative means through which they are interpreted.

Thus the ultimate nature of reality, in the resolution of this interaction of both quantitative and qualitative, is utterly ineffable (both beyond and preceding phenomenal investigation).

String Theory then stands as an opening physical bridge in terms of connecting what is empty and ineffable with the world of phenomenal form.

## Thursday, March 31, 2011

### Is Reality Just Number? (3)

One issue that needs to be clarified here is the relationship as between number and other mathematical symbols. On the one hand it would be valid to maintain that the fundamental nature of reality (as phenomenally revealed) is mathematical. However I would also contend that it is more precisely related to number.

Basically I would maintain that number in fact implicitly requires other key mathematical symbols and relationships.

For example I have frequently identified 1 with the (straight) line and 0 with the circle. So there are intimate links here as between key numerical and geometrical notions.

Also the important operations of addition and subtraction are again implied by the most basic of numbers (1 and 0). The very recognition of form in any context implies 1. So for example if one distinctly recognises an object this implies the corresponding inherent recognition of 1. So without such recognition one would not be even able to differentiate objects in experience.

However equally implied by such recognition is the (conscious) positing of the object (which is the holistic meaning of +).

The awareness of emptiness - which in holistic terms is 0 - by contrast requires the ability to (unconsciously) negate recognition of distinct objects. So quite literally in both analytical and holistic terms 1 - 1 = 0.

Without this ability to dynamically negate - to a degree - distinct phenomena in experience, integration would not be possible.

So what we have here established is that from a holistic mathematical perspective, 1 and 0 are intimately related to both differentiation and integration respectively. And these two processes are fundamental with respect to all phenomena (in both physical and psychological terms).

The derivation of further numbers then arises from these basics.

If instead of the complementary relationship 1 - 1 we consider 1 + 1, we then generate 2 (as a new number) which in holistic terms defines all duality in experience. This also serves as the first prime number. Now we can generate all the natural numbers through considering 2 + 1, 3 + 1, etc.

However equally these natural numbers will serve as unique expressions of the product of prime numbers. So in this relationship as between prime numbers and natural numbers (and natural numbers and prime) the operations of multiplication and division are born.

Ultimately I would maintain that all the key mathematical operations, symbols relationships etc. are implied through the recognition of numbers (when considered in both analytic and holistic terms).

More correctly perhaps it should be said that they imply each other. So it is not strictly the case that the numbers come first in recognition but rather that they both simultanously arise (in implicit fashion).

So in this sense to say that all reality - at the phenomenal level - is number, is really a more emphatic way of maintaining that such reality is mathematical.

In a previous contribution I mentioned that the qualitative nature of phenomena arises through differing configurations of space and time (to which these are related).

Now once again these configurations are related directly to number (when interpreted in a holistic sense).

In this context 1 can be identified with linear type reason that serves as the basic for scientific understanding as conventionally understood (and by extension standard conceptions of space and time).

0 by contrast would be identified with pure intuition at the other extreme from reason. This would be especially relevant to a contemplative type vision of reality. Unfortunately it is not incorporated in current notions of science which therefore possess a strong - merely - quantitative bias.

However all other numbers (apart from 0 and 1) are associated with intermediate type interpretation where both reason and intuition are formally included. So when such numbers are holistically used as dimensions we generate an unending range of new configurations (real and imaginary) through which space and time are configured.

Once again, as I have repeatedly explained in these contributions, the appropriate holistic structure associated with a number (as dimension) is intimately related to its corresponding root form.

The two roots of 1 are + 1 and - 1. In corresponding complementary fashion 2 as holistic dimension combines both positive and negative polarities of form in a dynamically interactive manner (where linear and circular notions of understanding are involved). Applied to space and time this likewise implies that too must be conceived at this level of understanding in terms of complementary opposite polarities.

Ever more intricate configurations with both real and imaginary aspects are then associated with dimensions > 2.

The qualitative nature of phenomena then arises from the varied mixing of such dimensions giving unlimited complexity with respect to possible space and time configurations.

So we can see in this manner that the true nature of space and time has a profound holistic mathematical rationale (as befits its inherent qualitative nature).

Thus object phenomena that are initially conceived in a quantitative manner continually interact with space and time dimensions (that are qualitative in nature). So the uniqueness of the various phenomena we experience, coincides with the corresponding (holistic) uniqueness of the dimensions with which they interact.

Basically I would maintain that number in fact implicitly requires other key mathematical symbols and relationships.

For example I have frequently identified 1 with the (straight) line and 0 with the circle. So there are intimate links here as between key numerical and geometrical notions.

Also the important operations of addition and subtraction are again implied by the most basic of numbers (1 and 0). The very recognition of form in any context implies 1. So for example if one distinctly recognises an object this implies the corresponding inherent recognition of 1. So without such recognition one would not be even able to differentiate objects in experience.

However equally implied by such recognition is the (conscious) positing of the object (which is the holistic meaning of +).

The awareness of emptiness - which in holistic terms is 0 - by contrast requires the ability to (unconsciously) negate recognition of distinct objects. So quite literally in both analytical and holistic terms 1 - 1 = 0.

Without this ability to dynamically negate - to a degree - distinct phenomena in experience, integration would not be possible.

So what we have here established is that from a holistic mathematical perspective, 1 and 0 are intimately related to both differentiation and integration respectively. And these two processes are fundamental with respect to all phenomena (in both physical and psychological terms).

The derivation of further numbers then arises from these basics.

If instead of the complementary relationship 1 - 1 we consider 1 + 1, we then generate 2 (as a new number) which in holistic terms defines all duality in experience. This also serves as the first prime number. Now we can generate all the natural numbers through considering 2 + 1, 3 + 1, etc.

However equally these natural numbers will serve as unique expressions of the product of prime numbers. So in this relationship as between prime numbers and natural numbers (and natural numbers and prime) the operations of multiplication and division are born.

Ultimately I would maintain that all the key mathematical operations, symbols relationships etc. are implied through the recognition of numbers (when considered in both analytic and holistic terms).

More correctly perhaps it should be said that they imply each other. So it is not strictly the case that the numbers come first in recognition but rather that they both simultanously arise (in implicit fashion).

So in this sense to say that all reality - at the phenomenal level - is number, is really a more emphatic way of maintaining that such reality is mathematical.

In a previous contribution I mentioned that the qualitative nature of phenomena arises through differing configurations of space and time (to which these are related).

Now once again these configurations are related directly to number (when interpreted in a holistic sense).

In this context 1 can be identified with linear type reason that serves as the basic for scientific understanding as conventionally understood (and by extension standard conceptions of space and time).

0 by contrast would be identified with pure intuition at the other extreme from reason. This would be especially relevant to a contemplative type vision of reality. Unfortunately it is not incorporated in current notions of science which therefore possess a strong - merely - quantitative bias.

However all other numbers (apart from 0 and 1) are associated with intermediate type interpretation where both reason and intuition are formally included. So when such numbers are holistically used as dimensions we generate an unending range of new configurations (real and imaginary) through which space and time are configured.

Once again, as I have repeatedly explained in these contributions, the appropriate holistic structure associated with a number (as dimension) is intimately related to its corresponding root form.

The two roots of 1 are + 1 and - 1. In corresponding complementary fashion 2 as holistic dimension combines both positive and negative polarities of form in a dynamically interactive manner (where linear and circular notions of understanding are involved). Applied to space and time this likewise implies that too must be conceived at this level of understanding in terms of complementary opposite polarities.

Ever more intricate configurations with both real and imaginary aspects are then associated with dimensions > 2.

The qualitative nature of phenomena then arises from the varied mixing of such dimensions giving unlimited complexity with respect to possible space and time configurations.

So we can see in this manner that the true nature of space and time has a profound holistic mathematical rationale (as befits its inherent qualitative nature).

Thus object phenomena that are initially conceived in a quantitative manner continually interact with space and time dimensions (that are qualitative in nature). So the uniqueness of the various phenomena we experience, coincides with the corresponding (holistic) uniqueness of the dimensions with which they interact.

## Wednesday, March 30, 2011

### Is Reality Just Number? (2)

In the last contribution I suggested that - what we know as - reality at its most fundamental level represents a simple binary digital number system operating interactively in both an analytical (linear) and holistic (circular) manner.

The importance of this digital system in analytical terms is well recognised in IT technology where it has the capacity to successfully encode all information.

The corresponding importance of this same system in holistic terms - though not as yet recognised - is that it has the capacity to successfully decode all transformation systems i.e. as the dynamic interaction of both linear and circular logic.

However the most startling revelation comes from the incorporation of both systems whereby reality itself in all its diverse and complex intricacies (both physical and psychological) thereby represents both the encoding and decoding of the combined two systems.

So one way of looking at the nature of reality is as a dynamic computer programme that operates in a creative intelligent fashion.

However the implication of what is being expressed here is that at its most fundamental level reality has no discernible phenomenal basis.

This clearly has important implications for physics for the quest to unravel the secrets of nature (with reference to its phenomenal material characteristics) must ultimately be in vain.

As the great mystics of all ages clearly recognise, reality is utterly ineffable (in phenomenal terms). In other words it is of a pure spiritual nature (which is equally the ultimate nature of physical matter).

However at the next level which essentially acts as the bridge as between this underlying infinite (non-phenomenal) and the finite phenomenal realms, mathematical reality is born.

So ultimately mathematical meaning - when truly appreciated - is rooted in this great need to provide a connecting bridge - as it were - as between the finite and infinite realms.

Of course the value of mathematical symbols in understanding the finite side of this bridge has long been recognised.

Indeed in the quest to understand the ultimate nature of physical reality, string theory has now become so mathematical in nature that it has become increasingly difficult to give its findings a coherent physical explanation.

However the equal value of the same mathematical symbols - when understood in a qualitative holistic sense - for approaching close to infinite spiritual meaning has been all but lost in our culture.

So what we have with present science is a merely quantitative type approach (largely devoid of qualitative meaning).

One of the implications of this approach is that it has led to fundamentally distorted notions of space and time.

Properly understood the initial starting base for physical objects comes from the quantitative aspect of mathematical understanding.

However the correct starting base for the dimensions of space and time that they inhabit, should come from the qualitative (holistic) aspect of mathematical appreciation.

So our current notions of "default" common dimensions that are shared by all physical phenomena is the result of unbalanced thinking (i.e. where qualitative aspects are reduced to mere quantitative interpretation).

However correctly understood the great qualitative diversity of phenomena derives from the fact that they are defined with respect to relatively unique configurations of space and time (which yet also have shared common characteristics).

Without (qualitative) dimensions, phenomenal objects have no meaning. Likewise without (quantitative) phenomena, dimensions likewise have no meaning. So reality at all levels - physical and psychological - necessarily represents the interpenetration of merely potential quantitative and qualitative aspects (as considered separately) in the dynamic display of what represents actual phenomena.

One startling conclusion of all this is that in approaching ever closer to the quantitative origin of nature, we equally possess the power to give it differing qualitative configurations in space and time.

In other words as ultimately phenomena have no rigid tangible basis, we have potentially the power to literally create them as we wish.

At some future more advanced stage of evolution, far greater levels of spiritual realisation will provide the conditions for radical transformation of the qualitative dimensional nature of matter (thereby changing its phenomenal characteristics).

Our true identity is indeed God. So as we approach closer in realisation of this identity, the free creation of phenomena will thereby become possible.

And these new powers will have a corresponding scientific explanation in an enhanced paradigm that incorporates both quantitative and qualitative understanding (which at its deepest level is purely mathematical in nature).

The importance of this digital system in analytical terms is well recognised in IT technology where it has the capacity to successfully encode all information.

The corresponding importance of this same system in holistic terms - though not as yet recognised - is that it has the capacity to successfully decode all transformation systems i.e. as the dynamic interaction of both linear and circular logic.

However the most startling revelation comes from the incorporation of both systems whereby reality itself in all its diverse and complex intricacies (both physical and psychological) thereby represents both the encoding and decoding of the combined two systems.

So one way of looking at the nature of reality is as a dynamic computer programme that operates in a creative intelligent fashion.

However the implication of what is being expressed here is that at its most fundamental level reality has no discernible phenomenal basis.

This clearly has important implications for physics for the quest to unravel the secrets of nature (with reference to its phenomenal material characteristics) must ultimately be in vain.

As the great mystics of all ages clearly recognise, reality is utterly ineffable (in phenomenal terms). In other words it is of a pure spiritual nature (which is equally the ultimate nature of physical matter).

However at the next level which essentially acts as the bridge as between this underlying infinite (non-phenomenal) and the finite phenomenal realms, mathematical reality is born.

So ultimately mathematical meaning - when truly appreciated - is rooted in this great need to provide a connecting bridge - as it were - as between the finite and infinite realms.

Of course the value of mathematical symbols in understanding the finite side of this bridge has long been recognised.

Indeed in the quest to understand the ultimate nature of physical reality, string theory has now become so mathematical in nature that it has become increasingly difficult to give its findings a coherent physical explanation.

However the equal value of the same mathematical symbols - when understood in a qualitative holistic sense - for approaching close to infinite spiritual meaning has been all but lost in our culture.

So what we have with present science is a merely quantitative type approach (largely devoid of qualitative meaning).

One of the implications of this approach is that it has led to fundamentally distorted notions of space and time.

Properly understood the initial starting base for physical objects comes from the quantitative aspect of mathematical understanding.

However the correct starting base for the dimensions of space and time that they inhabit, should come from the qualitative (holistic) aspect of mathematical appreciation.

So our current notions of "default" common dimensions that are shared by all physical phenomena is the result of unbalanced thinking (i.e. where qualitative aspects are reduced to mere quantitative interpretation).

However correctly understood the great qualitative diversity of phenomena derives from the fact that they are defined with respect to relatively unique configurations of space and time (which yet also have shared common characteristics).

Without (qualitative) dimensions, phenomenal objects have no meaning. Likewise without (quantitative) phenomena, dimensions likewise have no meaning. So reality at all levels - physical and psychological - necessarily represents the interpenetration of merely potential quantitative and qualitative aspects (as considered separately) in the dynamic display of what represents actual phenomena.

One startling conclusion of all this is that in approaching ever closer to the quantitative origin of nature, we equally possess the power to give it differing qualitative configurations in space and time.

In other words as ultimately phenomena have no rigid tangible basis, we have potentially the power to literally create them as we wish.

At some future more advanced stage of evolution, far greater levels of spiritual realisation will provide the conditions for radical transformation of the qualitative dimensional nature of matter (thereby changing its phenomenal characteristics).

Our true identity is indeed God. So as we approach closer in realisation of this identity, the free creation of phenomena will thereby become possible.

And these new powers will have a corresponding scientific explanation in an enhanced paradigm that incorporates both quantitative and qualitative understanding (which at its deepest level is purely mathematical in nature).

## Monday, March 28, 2011

### Is Reality Just Number?

It should be apparent in the first instance that number is essential in quantitative terms.

The very notion of quantity implies some form of numerical ordering! What is not however so obvious is the realisation that number is equally essential from a qualitative perspective where it plays a holistic role complementary to what is accepted in conventional (quantitative) terms.

To appreciate this important point we can initially confine ourselves to the two most fundamental numbers 1 and 0. As we know these two digits can be used - as in modern computers - to successfully encode all information (in quantitative terms). However what is not commonly appreciated is that the same two digits can be potentially used to encode all transformation processes when used with respect to their holistic qualitative meaning.

So, as I have repeatedly stated, 1 in this context relates to the linear use of logic in the analysis of form and 0 to its corresponding circular use (as an indirect expression of the holistic awareness of emptiness).

Some appreciation of this latter holistic use of number can be obtained with reference to the mystical traditions.

In Western tradition the linear notion of form tends to dominate understanding. Not surprisingly, ultimate spiritual meaning is generally expressed as union with reality, which relates directly to the holistic appreciation of 1. In the more intuitively based Eastern spiritual traditions, by contrast ultimate reality is often referred to as "a void" or "emptiness" (i.e. nothingness) which represents the corresponding holistic appreciation of 0.

So all information and transformation processes can ultimately be encoded in terms of number. The next giant leap is then to appreciate that the phenomenal characteristics of reality that we observe are of a secondary nature representing dynamic number configurations (that combine both quantitative and qualitative characteristics).

Therefore at the most fundamental level of appreciation we cannot hope to interpret reality with respect to these mere phenomenal characteristics. This has important implications for physics as it implies that ultimate explanations cannot be obtained from the behaviour of phenomena but rather from the mathematical structure inherent in such phenomena. And this behaviour must combine both conventional analytic and the - as yet - (unrecognised) holistic aspects of interpretation.

Stating it again directly, reality as phenomenally observed represents the dynamic configuration of numbers with respect to both their quantitative and qualitative characteristics. And at the most general level this can be understood merely in terms of 1 and 0 (which is sufficient to provide a basic encoding for all information and transformation processes).

The very notion of quantity implies some form of numerical ordering! What is not however so obvious is the realisation that number is equally essential from a qualitative perspective where it plays a holistic role complementary to what is accepted in conventional (quantitative) terms.

To appreciate this important point we can initially confine ourselves to the two most fundamental numbers 1 and 0. As we know these two digits can be used - as in modern computers - to successfully encode all information (in quantitative terms). However what is not commonly appreciated is that the same two digits can be potentially used to encode all transformation processes when used with respect to their holistic qualitative meaning.

So, as I have repeatedly stated, 1 in this context relates to the linear use of logic in the analysis of form and 0 to its corresponding circular use (as an indirect expression of the holistic awareness of emptiness).

Some appreciation of this latter holistic use of number can be obtained with reference to the mystical traditions.

In Western tradition the linear notion of form tends to dominate understanding. Not surprisingly, ultimate spiritual meaning is generally expressed as union with reality, which relates directly to the holistic appreciation of 1. In the more intuitively based Eastern spiritual traditions, by contrast ultimate reality is often referred to as "a void" or "emptiness" (i.e. nothingness) which represents the corresponding holistic appreciation of 0.

So all information and transformation processes can ultimately be encoded in terms of number. The next giant leap is then to appreciate that the phenomenal characteristics of reality that we observe are of a secondary nature representing dynamic number configurations (that combine both quantitative and qualitative characteristics).

Therefore at the most fundamental level of appreciation we cannot hope to interpret reality with respect to these mere phenomenal characteristics. This has important implications for physics as it implies that ultimate explanations cannot be obtained from the behaviour of phenomena but rather from the mathematical structure inherent in such phenomena. And this behaviour must combine both conventional analytic and the - as yet - (unrecognised) holistic aspects of interpretation.

Stating it again directly, reality as phenomenally observed represents the dynamic configuration of numbers with respect to both their quantitative and qualitative characteristics. And at the most general level this can be understood merely in terms of 1 and 0 (which is sufficient to provide a basic encoding for all information and transformation processes).

## Friday, March 25, 2011

### Parallel Wonders

Following on my last contribution it would be instructive to demonstrate futher important points regarding the "true" nature of physical reality (through corresponding reference with the complementary psychological connection).

In physical terms we have (partial) physical objects that dynamically exist through interaction with a (holistic) dimensional framework of space and time. In corresponding psychological terms we have (specific) perceptions that dynamically interact with (universal) conceptual classes. So for example a specific electron perception necessarily interacts with the universal conceptual class of electron. In other words an electron as quantitatively perceived thereby must relate to the qualitative concept of "electron". The psychological dimensional framework of each electron in space and time is provided through its conceptual appreciation. However as we can have many different types of object perceptions, likewise we can have many corresponding dimensional concepts.

For example the concept of a proton or neutron is qualitatively distinct from that of an electron. The clear implication therefore is that in a very important sense every distinct object phenomenon relates to a unique dimensional form of space and time.

So with respect to physical reality, rather than one space and time reality (to which all objects collectively exist) we have in truth an unending series of uniquely distinctive dimensional realities in continual interaction with each other. The reason why we do not recognise this important fact is again directly due to the limited nature of the scientific paradigm we employ. The rational paradigm is solely geared to quantitative type appreciation.

Therefore it can only deal with the qualitative dimensional aspect through a process of reductionism where all distinct objects are assumed to belong to the same standard collective framework of space and time.

However once we explicitly allow for qualitative type consideration through indirect incorporation of circular (intuitive) type appreciation, then all objects have both quantitative and qualitative aspects.

In complementary fashion all dimensions have both quantitative and qualitative aspects. So correctly understood in qualitative terms corresponding to each unique object class is a unique dimensional configuration of space and time which continually interacts in quantitative fashion with one collective quantitative interpretation. As we have seen, correctly understood gravity has both physical and psychological aspects that are complementary.

In physical terms, gravity is increased through the erosion of the "empty" physical dimensions that inhabit the very structure of matter. In complementary psychological terms, gravity is increased through erosion of the material physical phenomena relating to dimensions. So for example a deepening conceptual understanding requires the consequent erosion of attachment to specific phenomena of a perceptual nature. Not surprisingly a person who is deeply rooted in holistic concepts is likely to develop a more "grave" or serious personality (as the surface light associated with superficial phenomena is eroded).

As I have commented on before, in physical terms the degree of gravity is associated with the corresponding extent of physical mass entailed. In complementary psychological terms the degree of gravity is associated with the corresponding loss of matter entailed. So for example with the death of a loved one a profound loss - of what in literal terms greatly matters - is involved leading to the customary experience of grief (directly representing psychologically gravity).

And such grief can lead to a curving of psychological space and time. Due to the unconscious development that such an experience entails, a marked transformation in one's customary (conscious) perceptions and concepts can take place thereby altering experience of space-time phenomena. Finally it is quite clear from the psychological perspective that matter and energy on the one hand and dimensions and gravity on the other bear a direct complementary relationship to each other.

Thus deepening psychological gravity at an unseen unconscious level is later the very source of expansive spiritual light (in visible conscious terms). So in complentary physical fashion this also necessarily applies. Therefore deepening gravity (as for example in black holes) is later the very source of the expansive physical light than extends the phenomenal universe.

In fact in holistic mathematical terms, we have the beautiful relationship that gravity and (electromagnetic) energy are real and imaginary with respect to each other. So "real" gravity is "imaginary" energy; likewise "real" energy is "imaginary" gravity. And this relationship applies equally in both physical and psychological terms. Indeed its very recognition requires that both physical and psychological aspects of reality be viewed in a complementary manner.

In physical terms we have (partial) physical objects that dynamically exist through interaction with a (holistic) dimensional framework of space and time. In corresponding psychological terms we have (specific) perceptions that dynamically interact with (universal) conceptual classes. So for example a specific electron perception necessarily interacts with the universal conceptual class of electron. In other words an electron as quantitatively perceived thereby must relate to the qualitative concept of "electron". The psychological dimensional framework of each electron in space and time is provided through its conceptual appreciation. However as we can have many different types of object perceptions, likewise we can have many corresponding dimensional concepts.

For example the concept of a proton or neutron is qualitatively distinct from that of an electron. The clear implication therefore is that in a very important sense every distinct object phenomenon relates to a unique dimensional form of space and time.

So with respect to physical reality, rather than one space and time reality (to which all objects collectively exist) we have in truth an unending series of uniquely distinctive dimensional realities in continual interaction with each other. The reason why we do not recognise this important fact is again directly due to the limited nature of the scientific paradigm we employ. The rational paradigm is solely geared to quantitative type appreciation.

Therefore it can only deal with the qualitative dimensional aspect through a process of reductionism where all distinct objects are assumed to belong to the same standard collective framework of space and time.

However once we explicitly allow for qualitative type consideration through indirect incorporation of circular (intuitive) type appreciation, then all objects have both quantitative and qualitative aspects.

In complementary fashion all dimensions have both quantitative and qualitative aspects. So correctly understood in qualitative terms corresponding to each unique object class is a unique dimensional configuration of space and time which continually interacts in quantitative fashion with one collective quantitative interpretation. As we have seen, correctly understood gravity has both physical and psychological aspects that are complementary.

In physical terms, gravity is increased through the erosion of the "empty" physical dimensions that inhabit the very structure of matter. In complementary psychological terms, gravity is increased through erosion of the material physical phenomena relating to dimensions. So for example a deepening conceptual understanding requires the consequent erosion of attachment to specific phenomena of a perceptual nature. Not surprisingly a person who is deeply rooted in holistic concepts is likely to develop a more "grave" or serious personality (as the surface light associated with superficial phenomena is eroded).

As I have commented on before, in physical terms the degree of gravity is associated with the corresponding extent of physical mass entailed. In complementary psychological terms the degree of gravity is associated with the corresponding loss of matter entailed. So for example with the death of a loved one a profound loss - of what in literal terms greatly matters - is involved leading to the customary experience of grief (directly representing psychologically gravity).

And such grief can lead to a curving of psychological space and time. Due to the unconscious development that such an experience entails, a marked transformation in one's customary (conscious) perceptions and concepts can take place thereby altering experience of space-time phenomena. Finally it is quite clear from the psychological perspective that matter and energy on the one hand and dimensions and gravity on the other bear a direct complementary relationship to each other.

Thus deepening psychological gravity at an unseen unconscious level is later the very source of expansive spiritual light (in visible conscious terms). So in complentary physical fashion this also necessarily applies. Therefore deepening gravity (as for example in black holes) is later the very source of the expansive physical light than extends the phenomenal universe.

In fact in holistic mathematical terms, we have the beautiful relationship that gravity and (electromagnetic) energy are real and imaginary with respect to each other. So "real" gravity is "imaginary" energy; likewise "real" energy is "imaginary" gravity. And this relationship applies equally in both physical and psychological terms. Indeed its very recognition requires that both physical and psychological aspects of reality be viewed in a complementary manner.

## Wednesday, March 23, 2011

### The Wonders of the Universe

It seems that the BBC has now found their answer to Stephen Hawking through their own series “The Wonders of the Universe” hosted by Professor Brian Cox. Now Brian Cox, a former member of the 90’s pop band D-ream is something of a wonder himself as he looks far too young to be a professor. However there is no doubting his communication skills and his undoubted knowledge and love for his subject.

Indeed I found his programme demonstrating how elements here on Earth have emerged from the high temperature processes within stars compelling viewing as it clearly showed how we are all truly children of the Universe (and indeed of the original Big Bang which is believed to have started it all)!

The following programme "Falling" on gravity proved of equal interest as he showed how this mysterious force is responsible for the structure of all phenomenal forms in the Universe.

Initially he confined himself - which accepting that it was not fully satisfactory - to Newton’s conception of gravity. However towards the end of the programme he showed how it failed to precisely predict the orbit of Mercury around the Sun and how Einstein’s new theory of Gravity in “The General Theory” perfectly corrected this problem.

However though Einstein’s Theory has been brilliantly successful in its own right he admitted at the end of the programme that even this was not a complete theory.

I would agree with this statement. However the true implications are much more profound than what most physicists would be willing to accept.

To properly understand the role of gravity we need to look on physical in a manner complementary to psychological reality.

In psychological terms it would be readily accepted that our experience is based on the inevitable interaction of both conscious and unconscious aspects. In direct terms the conscious aspect enables us to differentiate phenomena analytically as parts. In corresponding fashion the unconscious enables the integration of such phenomena in a holistic unseen fashion.

Now from a scientific perspective, rational understanding corresponds to this conscious aspect of experience whereas – in direct terms – the holistic aspect is provided through intuition.

However the big problem with present scientific understanding is that is formally based on mere rational modes of enquiry. Therefore it inevitably reduces - in any context - the holistic intuitive aspect to rational interpretation.

As I have stated, properly understood the physical view of the universe corresponds in complementary fashion to its psychological means of interpretation. Therefore when we allow for both conscious and unconscious modes of experience this entails that in physical terms we allow for a physical aspect (that is phenomenally visible) and a holistic unseen aspect (that is empty of form).

So then correctly understood in dynamic interactive terms what we term the physical universe represents (visible) phenomena of form in ceaseless interaction with an invisible holistic ground.

This then directly corresponds with a rational (conscious) mode of interpretation with respect to visible phenomena and an intuitive (unconscious) mode with respect to the underlying invisible ground of reality.

Now of course when we adopt a reduced mode of understanding as with Conventional Science we attempt to view physical reality as merely visible phenomena corresponding to a rational mode of interpretation.

The key reason I would suggest as to why the gravitational force has proven so elusive and mysterious is precisely because of the inadequate mode of present scientific enquiry.

In fact correctly understood, gravity plays a complementary role in the physical universe to the unconscious in psychological understanding. Therefore we cannot properly appreciate its nature through the standard paradigm of scientific understanding that altogether ignores in formal terms the role of the unconscious.

In physical terms we have material phenomena which are in some sense visible always exist in a dimensional context of space and time (that serves as an invisible background). Now of course space and time indirectly (though this dynamic relationship with matter) can have phenomenal aspects (such as distance).

However correctly understood, phenomenal objects in space time represent the continual interaction of what are specifically visible in the context of a holistic environment (that is invisible). In other words pure space and time (if we could conceive of their nature) would be fully empty of phenomena. And without matter, such dimensions could not therefore exist. So such emptiness relates to an underlying present moment that continually exists.

Now gravity arises from this interaction of (specific) phenomena of form with its (holistic) dimensional background of space and time.

In normal circumstances gravity is an extremely weak force. For example the gravitational pull of the entire Earth would not be enough to stop one easily lifting an object such as a stone from the ground!

This weakness of gravity reflects the fact that in practice what we consider as dense matter is almost entirely made up of “empty” space.

This weakness of gravity led Newton for example to consider the phenomena of the Universe as existing in flat space and time (as non-interacting containers of all objects that exist). This in turn is consistent with linear notions of space and time.

Now there is a complementary parallel to this view as given by the standard scientific paradigm (based on mere rational interpretation). Here unconscious interference is so weak that the physical universe can seemingly be understood in a merely conscious manner (based on the linear use of logic).

So Newton’s worldview in physical terms is properly consistent with linear rational interpretation (which despite many recent paradoxical findings remains in effect the undisputed paradigm for science).

I have always found Einstein’s work fascinating as its true implications have only been partially recognised. The great paradox with Einstein is that his contributions overthrew the Newtonian world view of absolute space and time. However Einstein still remained a steadfast believer in the classical scientific paradigm (that is properly consistent with Newton’s views).

In his General Relativity Einstein showed that gravity can exert a considerable force where extremely large mass is concerned. Then it would act to “bend” in some measure space-time. In particular with black holes where “empty” space would get squeezed out entirely from matter, space-time would then become completely curved.

However what is not at all properly realised is that this inevitable curvature of space and time (in the context of strong gravity) equally applies to the qualitative manner in which we seek to interpret physical reality.

Indeed a fascinating correspondent exists on the psychological side to the notion of a “black hole” as exemplified most starkly in the writings of the great Spanish mystic St. John of the Cross.

One can view authentic contemplative life as starting from the standard linear conscious worldview. However, as the influence of a developing spiritual intuition (based on the unconscious) becomes ever stronger, a dramatic change takes place in one’s customary understanding. So St. John dramatically portrays the most intense dark night where understanding becomes completely curved (i.e. purely intuitive). This happens through a process of detachment from all conscious understanding of phenomena (which literally happens through a squeezing out of space and time). Not surprisingly one feels at such time as if in a dark and narrow dungeon where one is scarcely able to breath (due to the suffocating congestion). And the reason why this experience is a “dark night” is precisely because conscious light - based on linear notions of understanding - is not able to escape during such a transformation.

So with pure contemplative spiritual awareness, space and time become completely curved representing an extreme in terms of unconscious type intuitive development. Likewise as we have seen linear assumptions with respect to "flat" space and time represent a corresponding extreme with respect to conscious rational understanding.

The clear implication of all this is that a comprehensive paradigm for science necessarily must combine both conscious and unconscious through the explicit integration of both (rational) linear and (intuitive) circular modes of interpretation.

Though the nature of gravity necessarily remains mysterious, its true nature in physical terms relates to an inevitable dynamic interaction as between (visible) phenomena of form and a holistic (invisible) dimensional background of space and time.

A true understanding of gravity therefore equally requires from a psychological perspective a complementary dynamic interaction as between rational (conscious) and intuitive (unconscious) aspects of understanding.

So gravity is a force which has complementary physical and psychological interpretations.

This is even evident in conventional understanding. Gravity of personality for example reflects an experience of the world that is rooted in a deeper holistic structure of meaning. By contrast a superficial or “light” personality operates at a very low level of psychological gravity through relationship with mere conscious appearances.

Indeed I found his programme demonstrating how elements here on Earth have emerged from the high temperature processes within stars compelling viewing as it clearly showed how we are all truly children of the Universe (and indeed of the original Big Bang which is believed to have started it all)!

The following programme "Falling" on gravity proved of equal interest as he showed how this mysterious force is responsible for the structure of all phenomenal forms in the Universe.

Initially he confined himself - which accepting that it was not fully satisfactory - to Newton’s conception of gravity. However towards the end of the programme he showed how it failed to precisely predict the orbit of Mercury around the Sun and how Einstein’s new theory of Gravity in “The General Theory” perfectly corrected this problem.

However though Einstein’s Theory has been brilliantly successful in its own right he admitted at the end of the programme that even this was not a complete theory.

I would agree with this statement. However the true implications are much more profound than what most physicists would be willing to accept.

To properly understand the role of gravity we need to look on physical in a manner complementary to psychological reality.

In psychological terms it would be readily accepted that our experience is based on the inevitable interaction of both conscious and unconscious aspects. In direct terms the conscious aspect enables us to differentiate phenomena analytically as parts. In corresponding fashion the unconscious enables the integration of such phenomena in a holistic unseen fashion.

Now from a scientific perspective, rational understanding corresponds to this conscious aspect of experience whereas – in direct terms – the holistic aspect is provided through intuition.

However the big problem with present scientific understanding is that is formally based on mere rational modes of enquiry. Therefore it inevitably reduces - in any context - the holistic intuitive aspect to rational interpretation.

As I have stated, properly understood the physical view of the universe corresponds in complementary fashion to its psychological means of interpretation. Therefore when we allow for both conscious and unconscious modes of experience this entails that in physical terms we allow for a physical aspect (that is phenomenally visible) and a holistic unseen aspect (that is empty of form).

So then correctly understood in dynamic interactive terms what we term the physical universe represents (visible) phenomena of form in ceaseless interaction with an invisible holistic ground.

This then directly corresponds with a rational (conscious) mode of interpretation with respect to visible phenomena and an intuitive (unconscious) mode with respect to the underlying invisible ground of reality.

Now of course when we adopt a reduced mode of understanding as with Conventional Science we attempt to view physical reality as merely visible phenomena corresponding to a rational mode of interpretation.

The key reason I would suggest as to why the gravitational force has proven so elusive and mysterious is precisely because of the inadequate mode of present scientific enquiry.

In fact correctly understood, gravity plays a complementary role in the physical universe to the unconscious in psychological understanding. Therefore we cannot properly appreciate its nature through the standard paradigm of scientific understanding that altogether ignores in formal terms the role of the unconscious.

In physical terms we have material phenomena which are in some sense visible always exist in a dimensional context of space and time (that serves as an invisible background). Now of course space and time indirectly (though this dynamic relationship with matter) can have phenomenal aspects (such as distance).

However correctly understood, phenomenal objects in space time represent the continual interaction of what are specifically visible in the context of a holistic environment (that is invisible). In other words pure space and time (if we could conceive of their nature) would be fully empty of phenomena. And without matter, such dimensions could not therefore exist. So such emptiness relates to an underlying present moment that continually exists.

Now gravity arises from this interaction of (specific) phenomena of form with its (holistic) dimensional background of space and time.

In normal circumstances gravity is an extremely weak force. For example the gravitational pull of the entire Earth would not be enough to stop one easily lifting an object such as a stone from the ground!

This weakness of gravity reflects the fact that in practice what we consider as dense matter is almost entirely made up of “empty” space.

This weakness of gravity led Newton for example to consider the phenomena of the Universe as existing in flat space and time (as non-interacting containers of all objects that exist). This in turn is consistent with linear notions of space and time.

Now there is a complementary parallel to this view as given by the standard scientific paradigm (based on mere rational interpretation). Here unconscious interference is so weak that the physical universe can seemingly be understood in a merely conscious manner (based on the linear use of logic).

So Newton’s worldview in physical terms is properly consistent with linear rational interpretation (which despite many recent paradoxical findings remains in effect the undisputed paradigm for science).

I have always found Einstein’s work fascinating as its true implications have only been partially recognised. The great paradox with Einstein is that his contributions overthrew the Newtonian world view of absolute space and time. However Einstein still remained a steadfast believer in the classical scientific paradigm (that is properly consistent with Newton’s views).

In his General Relativity Einstein showed that gravity can exert a considerable force where extremely large mass is concerned. Then it would act to “bend” in some measure space-time. In particular with black holes where “empty” space would get squeezed out entirely from matter, space-time would then become completely curved.

However what is not at all properly realised is that this inevitable curvature of space and time (in the context of strong gravity) equally applies to the qualitative manner in which we seek to interpret physical reality.

Indeed a fascinating correspondent exists on the psychological side to the notion of a “black hole” as exemplified most starkly in the writings of the great Spanish mystic St. John of the Cross.

One can view authentic contemplative life as starting from the standard linear conscious worldview. However, as the influence of a developing spiritual intuition (based on the unconscious) becomes ever stronger, a dramatic change takes place in one’s customary understanding. So St. John dramatically portrays the most intense dark night where understanding becomes completely curved (i.e. purely intuitive). This happens through a process of detachment from all conscious understanding of phenomena (which literally happens through a squeezing out of space and time). Not surprisingly one feels at such time as if in a dark and narrow dungeon where one is scarcely able to breath (due to the suffocating congestion). And the reason why this experience is a “dark night” is precisely because conscious light - based on linear notions of understanding - is not able to escape during such a transformation.

So with pure contemplative spiritual awareness, space and time become completely curved representing an extreme in terms of unconscious type intuitive development. Likewise as we have seen linear assumptions with respect to "flat" space and time represent a corresponding extreme with respect to conscious rational understanding.

The clear implication of all this is that a comprehensive paradigm for science necessarily must combine both conscious and unconscious through the explicit integration of both (rational) linear and (intuitive) circular modes of interpretation.

Though the nature of gravity necessarily remains mysterious, its true nature in physical terms relates to an inevitable dynamic interaction as between (visible) phenomena of form and a holistic (invisible) dimensional background of space and time.

A true understanding of gravity therefore equally requires from a psychological perspective a complementary dynamic interaction as between rational (conscious) and intuitive (unconscious) aspects of understanding.

So gravity is a force which has complementary physical and psychological interpretations.

This is even evident in conventional understanding. Gravity of personality for example reflects an experience of the world that is rooted in a deeper holistic structure of meaning. By contrast a superficial or “light” personality operates at a very low level of psychological gravity through relationship with mere conscious appearances.

## Wednesday, January 12, 2011

### New Vision of Physics

I have just been completing four articles that seek to outline a new vision of physics (which I believe is greatly needed at the present time).

For very good reasons, I do not share the present optimism regarding physics, which seemingly assumes that at last we are on the threshold of unveiling a Theory of Everything .

Rather than finding this illusionary TOE, we are about to painfully discover how limited in truth is the present scientific framework!

So as I would see it comprehensive scientific understanding will require at least three great phases.

What we are witnessing therefore at present is but the peaking of the first great phase that is geared merely to the specialised quantitative interpretation of physical reality.

However properly understood science possesses an equally important holistic qualitative aspect (which I refer to as Integral Science) . However this aspect has remained for all practical purposes entirely undeveloped. In fact most scientists would have great difficulty in accepting its potential relevance!

So it will be a very long time before this hidden qualitative aspect gradually gains acceptance among the scientific community. And this will only arise as scientists are gradually forced to face up to the limitations of the present quantitative approach.

When this qualitative aspect (i.e. Integral Science) achieves appropriate specialisation (which itself will require a considerable transformation in the manner we experience reality) can we then hope to emerge on the third comprehensive phase of scientific understanding (in what I term Radial Science).

So Radial Science entails the dynamic interaction of both specialised quantitative and qualitative type appreciation.

However, we are still a long way from attaining such comprehensive understanding.

In the first article I outline the key general features of this qualitative integral aspect of science (contrasting them with the corresponding features of the accepted quantitative approach).

This integral appreciation in no way represents merely an extension of present type conventional understanding. Rather it requires a fundamental transformation in the very nature of consciousness so that it becomes inspired with an authentic contemplative vision. This does not exclude the need for precise rational interpretation - indeed it increases such a need - but without this underlying holistic vision (based on genuine spiritual insight), the qualitative approach cannot prosper.

In the second article I apply this new integral type appreciation to some of the Einstein's key findings with respect to Relativity (both Special and General).

One key finding is that the present understanding of the relative nature of space and time (as promoted by Einstein) is somewhat limited and thereby incomplete. In other ways relativity - in this context - applies not merely to the quantitative measurement of space and time but equally to the qualitative manner by which such notions are interpreted.

So in qualitative terms there is not just one acceptable manner of interpreting reality (which for Einstein was the classical paradigm) but potentially an infinite number (of ever more refined interpretations).

Thus when we properly allow for this qualitative aspect we can see that an inevitable uncertainty principle likewise applies at the macro universal (as well as the quantum micro) level of reality.

Putting it more generally this thereby establishes that we cannot hope to distinguish the "objective" (quantitative) nature of physical reality from the psychological (qualitative) means through which it is interpreted.

And ultimately these two aspects can only be reconciled in the pure mystical experience of oneness whereby physical creation momentarily realises its own inherent empty nature (that both precedes and transcends all phenomenal attributes).

The third article then deals with with the qualitative interpretation of quantum reality indicating that such behaviour - when understood in the appropriate manner - is fully in correspondence with its corresponding manner of interpretation. This once again establishes that we cannot hope to divorce the manifest "objective" (quantitative) nature of reality from the "subjective" (qualitative) means by which it is interpreted.

Also by showing in parallel fashion how the Uncertainty Principle equally applies at both the quantum (micro) and relativistic (macro) levels of reality through incorporation of both quantitative and qualitative aspects of science, it indicates clearly the means through which both of these areas can be reconciled.

The final article - which is the most ambitious - indicates how present string theory concepts are hopelessly inadequate (from any acceptable qualitative philosophical perspective).

Unravelling this problem then requires a corresponding holistic qualitative counterpart for all existing string concepts.

So a properly formulated String Theory (where concepts are given an acceptable intuitive explanation conforming with actual experience of reality) requires that concepts be given be both parallel physical and psychological interpretations.

This clearly indicates that present hopes in a mere quantitative type TOE are unfounded.

Indeed the message of this reformulated String Theory once again points clearly to the fact that we cannot hope to ultimately divorce quantitative understanding of physical reality from the qualitative means through which it is interpreted.

Therefore from this more refined standpoint, the ultimate issue in understanding does not relate to the nature of what is known but more subtly to the relationship as between the (psychological) knower and what can be (physically) known.

And this relationship cannot be resolved in a phenomenal manner!

So the starting basis for Radial Physics is that all phenomenal explanations of reality have a merely provisional validity. However a high level of importance still attaches to the precise nature of such provisional explanations (that are deemed appropriate in any context).

Thus such scientific interpretation - viewed in a flexible interactive manner - can serve as a very important catalyst for an underlying contemplative vision (seen as both the initial source and ultimate goal of all such interpretation).

For very good reasons, I do not share the present optimism regarding physics, which seemingly assumes that at last we are on the threshold of unveiling a Theory of Everything .

Rather than finding this illusionary TOE, we are about to painfully discover how limited in truth is the present scientific framework!

So as I would see it comprehensive scientific understanding will require at least three great phases.

What we are witnessing therefore at present is but the peaking of the first great phase that is geared merely to the specialised quantitative interpretation of physical reality.

However properly understood science possesses an equally important holistic qualitative aspect (which I refer to as Integral Science) . However this aspect has remained for all practical purposes entirely undeveloped. In fact most scientists would have great difficulty in accepting its potential relevance!

So it will be a very long time before this hidden qualitative aspect gradually gains acceptance among the scientific community. And this will only arise as scientists are gradually forced to face up to the limitations of the present quantitative approach.

When this qualitative aspect (i.e. Integral Science) achieves appropriate specialisation (which itself will require a considerable transformation in the manner we experience reality) can we then hope to emerge on the third comprehensive phase of scientific understanding (in what I term Radial Science).

So Radial Science entails the dynamic interaction of both specialised quantitative and qualitative type appreciation.

However, we are still a long way from attaining such comprehensive understanding.

In the first article I outline the key general features of this qualitative integral aspect of science (contrasting them with the corresponding features of the accepted quantitative approach).

This integral appreciation in no way represents merely an extension of present type conventional understanding. Rather it requires a fundamental transformation in the very nature of consciousness so that it becomes inspired with an authentic contemplative vision. This does not exclude the need for precise rational interpretation - indeed it increases such a need - but without this underlying holistic vision (based on genuine spiritual insight), the qualitative approach cannot prosper.

In the second article I apply this new integral type appreciation to some of the Einstein's key findings with respect to Relativity (both Special and General).

One key finding is that the present understanding of the relative nature of space and time (as promoted by Einstein) is somewhat limited and thereby incomplete. In other ways relativity - in this context - applies not merely to the quantitative measurement of space and time but equally to the qualitative manner by which such notions are interpreted.

So in qualitative terms there is not just one acceptable manner of interpreting reality (which for Einstein was the classical paradigm) but potentially an infinite number (of ever more refined interpretations).

Thus when we properly allow for this qualitative aspect we can see that an inevitable uncertainty principle likewise applies at the macro universal (as well as the quantum micro) level of reality.

Putting it more generally this thereby establishes that we cannot hope to distinguish the "objective" (quantitative) nature of physical reality from the psychological (qualitative) means through which it is interpreted.

And ultimately these two aspects can only be reconciled in the pure mystical experience of oneness whereby physical creation momentarily realises its own inherent empty nature (that both precedes and transcends all phenomenal attributes).

The third article then deals with with the qualitative interpretation of quantum reality indicating that such behaviour - when understood in the appropriate manner - is fully in correspondence with its corresponding manner of interpretation. This once again establishes that we cannot hope to divorce the manifest "objective" (quantitative) nature of reality from the "subjective" (qualitative) means by which it is interpreted.

Also by showing in parallel fashion how the Uncertainty Principle equally applies at both the quantum (micro) and relativistic (macro) levels of reality through incorporation of both quantitative and qualitative aspects of science, it indicates clearly the means through which both of these areas can be reconciled.

The final article - which is the most ambitious - indicates how present string theory concepts are hopelessly inadequate (from any acceptable qualitative philosophical perspective).

Unravelling this problem then requires a corresponding holistic qualitative counterpart for all existing string concepts.

So a properly formulated String Theory (where concepts are given an acceptable intuitive explanation conforming with actual experience of reality) requires that concepts be given be both parallel physical and psychological interpretations.

This clearly indicates that present hopes in a mere quantitative type TOE are unfounded.

Indeed the message of this reformulated String Theory once again points clearly to the fact that we cannot hope to ultimately divorce quantitative understanding of physical reality from the qualitative means through which it is interpreted.

Therefore from this more refined standpoint, the ultimate issue in understanding does not relate to the nature of what is known but more subtly to the relationship as between the (psychological) knower and what can be (physically) known.

And this relationship cannot be resolved in a phenomenal manner!

So the starting basis for Radial Physics is that all phenomenal explanations of reality have a merely provisional validity. However a high level of importance still attaches to the precise nature of such provisional explanations (that are deemed appropriate in any context).

Thus such scientific interpretation - viewed in a flexible interactive manner - can serve as a very important catalyst for an underlying contemplative vision (seen as both the initial source and ultimate goal of all such interpretation).

Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)