The benefit of fundamentally independent thinking is that once in a rare while it produces recognitions that don't negate, but leapfrog, much of what preceded it. I'm not sure of what else I have or will yet accomplish in life, but I do know that I've looked at many of the essentials of existence in a profoundly new way.
That fact isn't terribly apparent to a lot of
folks at the moment, since everywhere people are caught up in a great spasm of global
re-enlightenment -- where novelty and the spark of personal eureka is striking everyone
touched by the vast information streams and especially involving those with access to
various publishing media and their availability to the new electronic 'voice'.
My voice is simply one among many competing for recognition .. and for deep decent
scrutiny. That is the proof of the pudding, isn't it? When the
light of "A-ha!" illuminates successions of minds to some affective
singular idea.
I say right up front -- before rounding into the details of my topic here -- that I have no interest in competing with any of the most acceptably profound scientific and philosophical thinkers of today or the past. Whether their ideas are good or valid or novel or deep, incorrect or partial or myopic or biased, really is not important. Every one of them contains aspects I agree with and see merit in. And every one of them is but a small window on the vast panorama that sentient minds on this planet are in the process of discovering.
The key is: interpretation -- the ability to identify pertinence and meaning - context - when raw information is sparse, even isolated. Or, the ability to transcend what is known, habitual, trusted by default.
The accomplishment: unify what humanity currently regards as the ultimate in existential divergences and exclusion .. quantum and continuum.
The difficulty: to employ but supercede the inordinately contrived/illuminated language used to describe the behavioral relations of that which exists in the universe. To express in the most mundane ways that which till now has only been dealt with as esoterically understood and arcane, accessible only to the specially educated.
It would be awfully strange and definitely "un-elegant" if the universe required complicated equations, with all sorts of convex twists and turns, in order just to "exist'. Something simpler and more direct must be the source of existence. As far as I'm concerned .. being one lone voice in a sea of many .. excellent description is not equal to excellent explanation. Be it Einstein, or Planck or any number of brilliant explorers of correlating, following, designating how the universe and its constituent aspects behave .. none of what they've looked at explain why those behaviors exist; explain why - for example - fermions behave as they do, or electromagnetic charges act attractively and repulsively. To say "when these conditions or factors are present, these are the behaviors you will witness" is far different from saying "specific characteristics of these conditions and factors will cause these witnessable or inferable behaviors".
That's a crucial distinction. A distinction which I feel sets me apart from conventional studies of existence. I used to feel self conscious that I chose to pursue this logic of reasoning, of sentience .. it goes totally against the grain of the formal education processes and thinking of the civilizations I was borne into.
To explain why the strength of a force diminishes by the square of the distance requires a deeper understanding of relations than to just be able to measure and calculate the effect.
To explain why information and energy can transform is different than employing the fact that they can.
There is something more profound and more accessible about the architecture and abilities of the universe than we current recognize.
Conceive: In humanity's efforts to understand 'the infinite', notation was developed to stand for that something we (as a species) could appreciate even if not name-in-its-entirety. Within the language of mathematics and the relations it stands for, "..." coming at the end of a partial list informs us that the sequence is un-ending. And, it was discovered, that sometimes some lists close down and approach values and amounts that are not infinite, even though content is continually added to. Though many times the intuitive is true .. the list has no closure or boundary to the measure.
In wondering how these groups might exist vis a vis similar ones or opposites, mathematicians began to do manipulations that were tantamount to this: "Imagine all the cars in the world. Now, we know what would happen if we removed the wheels from one car. But lets see what would happen if we were able to instantaneously remove all the tires from all the cars in the world at the same moment. Then lets imagine something else. Leave the tires and make them all move at the same speed."
In a way, that's the type of thinking involved in mathematical explorations of relations, causes, and effects that involve numbers, geometry and notions of space and dimensions. They and physicist who use the same 'language'--math--try to match what they find with events and stuff in the physical world. And in many many cases they've done so, very successfully. So much so that the mathematics seems to be some sort of objective reality underscoring everything else, not just working as some 'language' to describe what we experience and hope to relate to.
There is a purity to it all, which only gets 'corrupted' or changed in some way as investigators carefully introduce differences or special conditions, and then, based upon what they've learned in the past and accumulated as a body of knowledge about all sorts of mathematical relationships and nuances, they test out all those previously tested/accepted 'truths' and see what else happens. It's a slow process, almost nitpicking, some might argue, but its achieved some extraordinary insights and knowledge about who and what we are. Real stuff, I might add. Things of practical importance.
And that's good. Not just because the rest of us reap practical benefits, but because it firms up the likelihood that the universe is a place that innately makes sense ... literally and implicatively. Sensation is a continuous product--and--meaning infuses everything.
Everything matches up and consistency is a guideline of consideration.
Except.
Except in a few instances where even the best
minds took one or two absurdly simple things for granted, and over looked some profoundly
important implications. Sort of a "didn't see the trees, for the forest"
kind of event (reversing the venerable epigram).
A stroll through the unfolding universe
This is going to be easy. Very easy. For every one. Non-scientists are as welcome as anyone.
Imagine for a moment that nothing exists. Then allow that a dot suddenly appears. By itself, not particularly interesting. Now imagine that a second appears .. along with a quality called 'distance' that separates/distinguishes the dots. Then a flood of companion dots join them and fill all the volume of 'place' imaginable.
One of the ideas that science thinkers wrestle with - and sometimes gloss over because its possible to deal with situations even if their basics aren't well understood (like being able to drive and control a vehicle and roam the world's highways and go shopping and accomplish things without knowing the first thing about engines and putting vehicles together) - is whether space and time are separate from 'stuff', or come into existence along with it, or are qualities of the 'stuff', or one of several possibilities. No one knows for sure.
But its still important to think about, because maybe we can get clues about our existence by doing it.
Like, thinking about how messages and information get from one place to another .. if there is no 'place' to travel through to get from a 'here' to a 'there' and vice versa. The queer thing is, mathematicians and physicists have skirted this issue without really questioning this situation even though helping to build a whole world based on assuming information is conveyable, sharable, no matter what. They use equations to match geometry developed thousands of years ago, before there was any system of numbers for people to use, but they could still understand placements and positions and how figures and forms related to one another. Geometry.
Euclid, Pythagoras and Apollonius and hundreds of thinkers in Greece and Egypt, and later in Arabia, China, Japan, Madagascar, India, Germany, France, England and Russia, were able to express the correspondences and relationships of 'place'. One of the earlier findings about geometry was called Trigonometry, based on triangles ... three lines all connected at their endpoints making a three-sided figure. Some interesting patterns of how the sides and angles related to one another became apparent, even as the lengths changed or angles opened and closed.
One of the concepts included notions about the figure, 'circle'. The simplest way to describe a circle - as well as being a way to draw or construct one - was: "a circle is the collection of all points on a flat surface that is equal distance away from a given point". (A sphere would be the same definition but in three dimensions instead of two.) If you map into a circle all sorts of right triangles, where that 'equal distance' is taken as the long leg (hypotenuse) of all possible right triangles that will fit there and the short legs can float in length, you have the basis for Trigonometry .. and how things move in smooth repeatable motions. In harmony, as you might travel around the perimeter of the circle again and again. Understandably, this quality of things in motion is called harmonics and it relates to spinning wheels and gears, even ramps and geography and electronic communication. As I said, a whole world of great accomplishments have been built on these understandings.
But 'relationship' .. even a point to a point .. requires information pertinence, connectivity. Suppose there is no 'space' or 'place' before the appearance of anything, of any 'point'. Then two of them - points - appear. What 'connects' them? Makes them relevant to each other? Or what could make/enable a 'collection of points' equal distance from a given point be connectable to such a separate given point at all?
I can see you jump to the conclusion that I'm about to argue in favor of the primacy of space (and/or spacetime) over the stuff that fills the universe. No, that's not where I'm going with this. I use the view that spacetime is the flesh of existence and is co-present only when matter/energy is present. (Eventually, its possible to come to the conclusion that energy and matter are special forms of spacetime floating within the extended realm of undifferentiated unprecise spacetime. But I just mention that in passing. Lets stay with the basics for now.)
Absent the presence of 'points' which fill in all the area between any point and any other point or collection of points, they might as well not have any relevance at all. "Relevance" is a communication process-event. It needs connection of some sort. No channels, no connection, no relevance.
That would indicate that some additional process or other is present that does bind locations, and events at locations, together. Somehow, starting with a point locus, you can get to that distanced 'collection of points' by considering them as a product of dimensional unfolding that originated with the point-singularity. The two groups .. single center point, circle collection of points .. still have conventionally correct trigonometric geometric relations, but other relations exist too, absent any 'center' point. That is, we can 'grow a circle' from a point .. where the point we start with is a member of the 'circle', not separate from it.
Fortunately, there is such an arrangement.
This is a polar-coordinate function, x = r sin(theta)
The circle initiates from the point-locus and builds
outward and back again. The point is a member of
the completed circle, not a separate reference dot.Note too that the equation is a simple, perfect,
recurring sine-wave function. One circuit of a sine
wave therefore defines 'circle'. It is important to
keep this association in mind.A circle is one unit of a wave cycle.
A "circle" is an alternative rendering of one "sine-wave" cycle. Any portion of the curvature of a wave~circle will give you complete information concerning the rest of the curve~circle. Under determinable circumstances ... an 'aspect' can provide insight about the 'whole'. Keep this in mind.
There are several threads of relevance from this. One is covered in my writings concerning the general topology~architecture of spacetime. "Understanding the Integral Universe". 1992. CI online chapters 11, 12, 13.
Another is this: If a circle is a wave-function in flat two dimensional representation, then a sphere is the representation of a wave function in three dimensions.
What I am about to explain~prove is the following:
There is a seminal relationship between two variable three-dimensional geometric figures in which their interaction interfaces in a invariant way, producing a fixed form ... specifically a volume which is constant and permanent irrespective of the size of the contributing figures.
The intersection of two synchronized variable functions is an invariant function .. the volume of a sphere .. even when that volume is transformed into a toroidal donut of potentially infinite size. The volume of the intersection zone remains constant at (4/3)(pi)r 3 ... no matter if the contributing figures are the size of the known universe or smaller than the Planck scale limit.
The 3D 'wave function' remains invariantly constant below the quantum level 'h ' Planck's constant, and above the relativistic limit of 'c', the Einstein constant of light velocity in a vacuum. The volume and therefore its 'information' content remain absolutely fixed and identical under all circumstances.
Residual volume of cored variable-sphere
Notice that the volume only depends on the height of the
region.
equation assistance by Lawrence Green. Information Topology interpretation:
|
Now take a moment to realize what this means. A wave function and the information which forms it is capable of conveying that information unrestricted by the Einstein constant.
The potential exists to harness this and its family of related 'interacting functions' in order to communicate in virtually faster-than-light ways. Exact and explicit information, not simply the implied residue of quantum states .. as is now the limited model for non-local communication, using quantum mechanical techniques alone. 100% ordered information, uncontaminated by extraneous 'noise'. A virtual 'communication via holography and densely coded dimensions'.
The currently disjointed fields of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity can be unified using this relationship. The unification of quantum and continuum is not far off. Plus, the existential meaning of this primitive relationship is that identity is retainable under even the most exotic transformations.
