Dancing on the edges of time

Question of Day June 15, 2012 ~ Dancing On The Edges Of Time

Opening to joy…dancing on the edges of time…where everything is possible…in awe of the wonder of the nature of being…in sync and open…compassionate wisdom filling the empty spaces of not~knowing with the knowingness of being…human…
[Edited in by OM as per OK from Star:] Please talk about whatever this means to you.

I can certainly align with much of it:
“Opening to joy…dancing on the edges of time…in awe of the wonder of the nature of being…in sync and open…human…”
certainly all of these parts.
Creating contexts which are open to possibility I am all for.
Dancing, most certainly. It seems that all any of us can do is make the choices we do, then join in the dance as the consequences of our choices mingle with the consequences of everyone else’s choices, often in entirely unpredictable ways.
Awe and wonder at being are constant companions for me, a way of being I actively cultivate.
Aligning the various components of my being into synchrony is another thing I cultivate (though the garden doesn’t produce as well as some of my other gardens ๐Ÿ˜‰ ).
Human I most certainly am, though perhaps a little toward the edge of the distribution on a number of characteristics.

Compassion is certainly something I cultivate.
I also cultivate trust in intuition, and when I have the time, I also cultivate the discipline of checking out intuitions. So while in most situations, if pressed, I will trust intuition over quick conscious reasoning; when I have the time to do the checking on the logic of intuitions, then I take that time, and do that work.
So it seems to me that the term “knowingness of being” is equivalent to the term “intuition” in my lexicon.
“compassionate wisdom filling the empty spaces of not~knowing with the knowingness of being…”

There is one part that simply does not “gel” for me – my intuition and my reason reject it, as being too dangerous.
“where everything is possible…”
To me, it seems abundantly clear that many things are not possible. It is not possible that all money on the planet would be in my control tomorrow. There are simply too many constraints on the systems to allow such a shift to happen.
Some things are not possible.
And if one is flexible with time and space, and one is familiar with as many techniques and technologies as possible, then most things can be achieved, over time; though not necessarily in the way or in the time frame that one first thinks.

It seems that while our consciousness is extremely free and creative, there is actually a reality of which we are part that has rules that must be obeyed.
As the old adage says – “Reality to be commanded, must first be obeyed”.

[followed by]

Hi Star.

That aspect of faith you speak of is what gets a great many people killed.
I see no evidence of infinite parallel universes. All of that stuff comes out of trying to hold onto the idea that light is waves.

If you give up that idea, then a lot of other stuff about QM makes much more sense – still very weird, and much more sensible.

Consider, if you had the intention of designing a more powerful micro-processor, would you rather work with someone who believed that computers work on magic smoke (as it is clearly evident that when the magic smoke escapes, the computer stops working – ie when there is a short-circuit on a board and it “burns out” the computer stops, smoke is produced), or would you rather work with an engineer familiar with all of the practical constraints that people designing and building the existing best microprocessor had encountered?

As one of my old stats profs used to say, correlation does not imply causation – and the example he gave was the production of potatoes in the UK and the rate of syphilis in Argentina – which showed perfect correlation for as long as statistic had been kept – at least up until that point in 1973.

Causation can only be established (at least in terms of probabilities) by finding and testing the actual mechanisms involved at each stage.

One of the mechanisms that can often be used with great power to test an idea is to try it at the logical boundaries of the idea.

Like the TSK idea that all knowledge we require is implicit in the selfโ€™s embodiment in space and time and that the highest values are immediately available to us.
Now there is a sort of sense in which that is sort of true, in the sense that we are part of the universe, and that evolution seems to have produced us from that universe, without any need to invoke any external god.

However, in the other sense, in which most interpret this, it is very clear that there are necessary processes that a human being must experience to gain certain knowledge.
No child, deprived of human contact, has ever, spontaneously, developed language in isolation. Language must be learned, initially through imitation.
Human children that have been raised without adequate human contact (as in a few of the very worst cases of children in Romanian orphanages a few decades ago) do not develop any sort of social abilities (they are kind of like computers that bootstrap into a closed loop, they just sit there, their machinery of brain going round in circles, nothing happening, no awareness).

Human development clearly requires interaction with others. We learn from each other far faster than we learn through our own trial and error, and both processes are important to us. Trial and error allows us to explore the unexplored “possibility space” that seems to extend infinitely around us; while learning allows us to benefit from the trials and errors of others.

As to consciousness. I am clear, beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, from my own personal experience combined with all of the science available to me about the various steps in the processes, that it is a result of the very complex systems within my brain. Each time those systems have been disrupted by drugs during operations, my awareness ceased, to restart some time later. To my awareness it seemed like no time, yet clearly, time had passed, the clocks had moved, the sun had moved, Ailsa reported on what happened to her while I was “out”.

Thus, it is clear beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt that our consciousness is resident within our brain, and it seems to be an open system, capable of potentially infinite extension and expansion though potentially infinite domain spaces.
And during that process, it does in fact seem to be the case that there are many laws, applicable to particular levels/domains, that must be obeyed within those levels/domains.

Unless or until we have strong evidence that we have established our awareness in some other matrix (which evidence has to be more than simply the experience of such, because what we experience seems to be the model that our brains generate for us, rather than reality itself, and as such, is not reliable – evidence of external tools of measurement is a must – and yes, those tools must necessarily be modulated through our brain’s model of reality, and if it gets so disconnected that it can model such tools without them actually existing in reality, then we are in serious strife).

[followed by]

Hi Torch

As I have said many times, I do not have any “100% confident knowledge”, with the possible exception of “cogito ergo sum”.

In respect of light, I went through many years of thinking of light as waves, then as thinking of it in terms of wave particle duality.
And if you look at all the experiments, there is not one single experiment, ever, where anyone has observed light as waves, as I observe waves in the ocean out my windows most mornings, there is about a 2m swell this morning, and the first day for a week without wind, clear and frosty on the flatland between us and the mountains.

Every experimental result, when you look at it, measures only photons, particles of light, nothing else, ever.
Waves of light were invented to explain diffraction, because of the analogy with waves rippling on a pond. Then most famously in the twin slit experiments.
Yet if one reinterprets those (and all similar experiments), in terms of particles only, it all works.
If one considers that the diffraction is not a result of waves, but of the shape of the slit, which acts like a filter on the spectrum of transverse momenta particles available in the slit, then it all works.

One of the follow-ons from this is that it then shows up that time is actually a function of light, and thus local to each particle. If one wants to hang onto the illusion of some sort of universal time, then one must go through all of the mathematical contortions that Einstein most famously does in his special and general theories.

No need for observers.
No need for collapsing wave functions.
Just particles.

Ohh sooooo much simpler and more elegant.

It’s not that I haven’t considered light as waves, the problem is that I have; and the results leads to complexity rather than simplicity.

Anyone can be wrong – that is the number 1 premise of science – question everything, always.

If science can be summed up in three words they would be “question” and “replicate results”.
Science is about questioning always, then testing those questions in well designed experiments.

What I offer here is not meant to be any sort of absolute answer to anything, simply the best answer that I am aware of at present from amongst the many competing possible explanatory frameworks.

I don’t have any beliefs in the classical sense.
All I have is operational hypotheses based on currently available evidence.

One may have found that a particular hypothesis works in 10,000 experiments, and then find that it fails in one case (and if that one case can be replicated, and one is confident it is not experimental error) then the hypothesis is disproven, and must be refined or replaced. That is the nature of the game called life.

Most people think about things as being true or false, right or wrong – I don’t do that when thinking about reality.
When it comes to most things real, I think about stuff in terms of probabilities.
Yet our language is not easy to covey this in.
Most of our terms get interpreted in right/wrong mode.

One exception to this is computer programming. Working with binary machines, things are either true or false. Sometimes when I come out of a session of programming, it takes a while for my subconscious to switch back to probability mode, so sometimes the words that come out are not particularly accurate in this respect. If my internal editor is on strike or asleep, words can get past me. I am a typically fallible human – as most are.

[followed by]

Hi Torch

I did not say I believed everything is some kind of matter – that is an inference you took.
I said two things:
1/ Light appears to be particulate – ie localised in space, and not spread out as a wave.
2/ Light appears to be responsible for time, and thus time is local, and not universal.

Other than those two statements, I made no further statements about the probable properties of light or matter or fields.

Every experiment that I am aware of, and all the mathematics describing black body radiation, show light being emitted as discrete quanta.
All experiments that I am aware of show light being received as discrete quanta.
Discrete quanta in this sense refers only to the property that something is more or less localised in space and time (within certain probabilistic boundaries), rather than being spread widely as a wave.
It seems that light carries information about the state of its emitting particle at the instant of emission, and being timeless (or rather the giver of time, and the two are the same from a certain perspective), that information does not change. Thus a stream of photons will appear wave like in respect of any property in the emitter that has a rotary aspect.

I am not at all certain what QM is, and I am reasonably confident what it is not.
I am quite confident that it is not wave particle duality, and there does seem to be a dualness associated with QM.

Exactly what that dualness is, I am not at all confident of, and it seems that it may be an interaction between two fundamentally different, yet related, sorts of fields.
More than that, I really don’t have sufficient information to say anything about.

[followed by]

Hi Torch,

I was using the term particle in a different sense, only in the sense of being within a certain probability distribution of a particular spot at a particular time as distinct from being spread out like a wave in water.

It is abundantly clear that light carries information about rotating properties of the emitter, and thus as it travels has properties that are wave like in a sense, in the sense that when measured over time give the impression of a sine wave (a moving circle).

To me, it is one of the great crimes against the human mind that school children are still taught that light is like a wave, and they are shown the example of a wave on a pond or on the ocean.

Actually, there is zero evidence that light is like a wave in the sense of a pond or ocean wave.

There is absolutely no way to create a pulse of LASER waves that goes over the ocean without spreading out. It is physically impossible. Light is not at all like waves in water in this sense.

The only sense in which light is like waves is the sense of carrying information about something rotating.

Anyone who is at all intuitive, would have to be prepared to lie to pass physics exams.
That is a very poor selection criteria – selecting out anyone interested in physics who also has integrity.
Makes me highly suspicious of anything that comes out of the physics establishment.

Anyway, back to light.

If we take Einstein at face value, and light always has the same speed, then it is not possible for photons emitted from a single source to ever catch up to the ones in front (those emitted earlier), and thus the explanation that you gave, cannot be how things work in reality.

It seems to me that the stuff of being has two different phases, which we might call matter like and time like (or energy like).

It seems that both phases of this stuff (whatever the stuff may be, and that is a question I do not have enough information to make any useful statements about) are localised in space (not spread out as the wave particle dualists would have us believe).

It seems that diffraction has little to do with the properties of light, and much more to do with the properties of the slit.

It seems that the slit actually acts as a filter to the transverse momenta available to interact with any photons passing through the slit, and thus there is a finite set of probabilities that any photon passing will pick up a packet of momentum perpendicular to its passage as a particular energy, and thus experience a specific deflection.

When you do the math, doing the fourier transform of the shape of the slit as a band pass filter, then the math all works.
No need to invoke any aspect of non-locality.

Same goes for all of the experiments that purport to prove non-locality.
They do not.

So in this sense, the sense of locality, both matter and energy seem to be particulate.
This is what actual measurements actually show.

There are other aspects to both matter an energy that are very different – most notably as demonstrated by Einstein’s famous E = m.c^2

It seems that when in the energy state, stuff does not experience time, it is frozen in time, it has speed, and it gives time.
Now you will probably have noticed that the term speed includes a time term.
That is an aspect that I have not yet resolved to my own satisfaction.
It remains an open question – a mystery if you will.
Call it a doorway in the lesser aspects of quantum weirdness if you will.

This is the boundary of the map of which I am reasonably confident.
In an earlier time I might have been tempted to write “here be dragons” in the territory beyond this line.

I am extremely suspect of most of the explanatory frameworks that abound around the experimental results that people have in this region, as most are built on the wave model – which is clearly and logically falsified.

Right now, I have more than enough to do above this level, to focus too much of my attention below it.
I am happy to accept that it allows sufficient freedom to support the notion of free will, without having to be too worried about how it does that. There does seem to be sufficient freedom (indeterminancy) in the probability functions to allow that.

I suspect that there may not be any bottom.
I suspect, that the more closely we look, the weirder things will get, and that such a process could conceivably be infinite (it may be finite, and I suspect it could be infinite).

Congratulations Torch – you are the first person in a very long time to take me to this boundary.

[followed by]

Hi Torch

I am very familiar with the Tarot, and the proximity of the magus and the fool.
I am not concerned if people mistake me for the fool ๐Ÿ˜‰

I wouldn’t necessarily say that the unknown is always more powerful than the known; that seems to have a touch of hubris about it, as in knowing the unknown; and it does seem to be the case the the unknown is, and will always remain, far vaster than the known – and in some circumstances, that unknown can have profound impact on our experiential reality.

Excuse me being a pedantic SOB, as I think I understand what you meant, and I think I align with it, and it seems to me that what you meant wasn’t exactly what you said (a very human condition – most unlike computers ๐Ÿ˜‰ ).

About Ted Howard NZ

Seems like I might be a cancer survivor. Thinking about the systemic incentives within the world we find ourselves in, and how we might adjust them to provide an environment that supports everyone (no exceptions) - see www.tedhowardnz.com/money
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Comment and critique welcome

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s