Hex 25 - Without embroiling quantum physics

[waveCT]

...
Over to you quantum physicists out there for more clarification

"In the quantum-mechanical realm, physicists speak of a 'probability wave', and of its collapse.

Each particle is a bundle of possibilities—position, mass, momentum: it is the act of measurement, of recording—human intervention—which collapses the wave and actualises the potential of each particle. And when the wave collapses, we lose data: what we know about a particle will be always indeterminate, incomplete."

Not a bad analogy for casting a hexagram...

"Consider the hexagrams as a field, as yin. And think of your question as yang. As you generate each line, question and field interact, extinguishing possibilities and leaving a trace, incomplete, for you and your helpers to decipher."

But it may be much more than an analogy... A recent thread in quantum physics proposes that what holds at the quantum-mechanical level holds as well day-to-day: that our intention shapes events.

http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/UNTalk.pdf

The proposition subsumes technical questions, such as whether it is more effective to cast yarrow stalks or to press the enter key, or which method of hexagram-hopping to adopt. It provides grounds for a reinterpretation of Jung's "synchronicity"; and it gives some support to that stickypoint for the avant-garde in YiJing studies , "magical thinking".

There's also an ethical dimension to the proposition. It takes time to take it on board.

More readings from the foremost proponent, Henry Stapp
http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/stappfiles.html

A sample:

The very essence of the orthodox interpretation is that we MUST build our basic physical theory on the conscious human experiences, in order to have a rationally coherent theoretical framework. The founders of quantum theory, all famous and renowned physicists, were DRIVEN to this radical (for physicists) conclusion...
This framework permits our conscious experiences to influence the course of physical/mental events, and to emerge in a quantum mechanically governed universe.

:bows:

 

[meng]

While it's impossible to homogenize classical science with quantum science, that doesn't mean it's necessarily an either/or deal. The open yin field, where yang potential becomes actualized in a single point in time and space is as good of an explanation as any I've heard of how the Yi oracle (and everything else) works.

 

[Sparhawk]

Cool links there, Ctoz.

 

[fkegan]

Nice to see Stapp has almost managed to reach Kierkegaard's critique of Hegel's determinism though not quite to the level of Dan Brown's novel comment that quantum physics latest innovations are found in ancient Hindu texts.

To tie I Ching divination into this stew with the whole of the universe of hexagrams reduced to Yin matrix or field and each question asked taken as Yang focus eliminating ever more options to arrive at a final unique oracle is an long trip to arrive at the hidden secret of the fundamental probability equations with the factor of 1/sqrt(N-1) that go undefined for any single or unique event. Probability only approaches working in situations where a large number of equivalent events are considered.

The next step is to realize that what is involved is never what truly is or the nature of reality, only what is being recorded or measured in terms of the size of the perceived gap or error between predicted or expected result and observed results.

However, that requires another level of awareness and understanding of the limits of the whole process trying to work through the issues involved in the assumptions of the 13th, 18th and 19th century notions of science and how thing have spiraled out of control with the turn of the 20th century, Einstein's four great papers, and his inability to deal with the contradictions in his own beliefs and the experimental data available.

The real issue though is the inability of anyone to publish a new paradigm that resolves all questions and establishes a clean break with the determinist paradigm completely.

Frank

 

[elvis]

Henry has some issues in that he does not want to consider the nature of the filtering system through which we all experience/interpret reality and the extensions of that filter in the form of our instruments and experiment designs.

The differences he and I have are covered in his most recent book where he states:

"When Lofting says that we must "step out of the QM box and into the general box of how our neurology processes data" he seems to be assuming, unjustifiably, that the causal structure is describable in physical terms alone" p 127 Stapp, H., (2007) "MIndful Universe : quantum mechanics and the participating universe" Springer

The 'problem' with Henry is he has not, does not want to, consider our filtering system as being the cause of many patterns we appear to see in the universe. The IDM work clearly shows how wave/particle duality is a property of the filtering system and so the METHODOLOGY we use in interpreting reality.

Henry avoids the recognition of QM as a specialist LANGUAGE derived from our filtering system and so tied to the properties and methods of such - it is the METHOD used to derive meaning that determines all that is meaningful. Using the ONE method in different contexts means we have to use abstractions (labels) to re-define terms and so make QM appear 'different' to I Ching etc but close analysis will show the one method beneath these 'different' perspectives.

GIVEN the neurology and its senses as our filtering system, the dynamics of symmetry/anti-symmetry/asymmetry are shown to be hard-coded into our being where such reflects the filtering system adapting to the environment by mimicking/internalising traits of that environment.

The play of aspects/whole (anti-symmetry/symmetry) introduces pulse/wave dynamics where we apply recursion to dichotomies as part of the process of deriving meaning. If the recursion is done in an unstable environment then 'wave-ness' is guaranteed as an artifact of the method - see the diagrams in the IDM summary or see the particular I Ching example.

What Henry et al are NOT aware of is the phase transition identified in IDM and manifest in the I Ching in the form of the language element of the I Ching as covered in the EIC. This phase transition is a property of recursion where we move from a symmetric position to an anti-symmetric (XOR) position and see emerge asymmetry where the language element emerges. IOW we see a mechanistic, 'heading for an infinite regression' focus suddenly change into an organic format that acts as a brake to that regression. This is a property of recursion in general and as such covers a shift in perspectives from the hard core physical to the soft core biological - something Henry and all of his physics 'mates' have no idea about!

IOW as long as traditional Physics continues to follow its idealist path it will tie itself to a mechanistic perspective that will NEVER reveal properties of the organic such as consciousness - the phase transition is essential in development to understand this.

The whole 'entanglement' focus covers a context of SYMMETRY where 'all is connected'. The issues are in that we as conscious beings are ASYMMETRIC but as species members (and so genetically determined ) are symmetric! A total focus on symmetry therefore is misleading and one must be wary of such.

Note that the binary sequence of the I Ching, as used in the EIC, reflects the filtering system at work and as such allows for the I Ching to represent anything we like. The traditional sequence is a specialist sequence, one of many, and as such does NOT offer a general model of brain/mind and as such is misleading if interpreted as such.

 

[waveCT]

Just to clarify:

My first quotes, "In the quantum-mechanical realm... " and "Consider the hexagrams... " are not Stapp: they're from http://www.64.id.au, written after developing a new visual rendering of the process of hexagram formation. At that stage, I was thinking analogically, and only later came across Stapp.

[ Most web renderings of making a hexagram leave something to be desired as regards design, or they're perfunctory, or else they illustrate, usually crudely, what we do in the real world... toss the coins, cast the stalks: even when the illustration is beautifully done (Russell C), it's still a case of "ceci n'est pas une pipe". ]

I'm happy to settle for analogy, and to leave theories of everything to the physicists, et al. And Elvis' contribution has given me a way in to encountering the EIC, from which I've shied away.

http://www.64.id.au may be back online, some day, if I can get my fuzzy head back into javascript. I seem to be losing learning skills. Any writers of unobtrusive js out there?


cheers



called BlackRobe for his questions


:bows: called DanBrown for his physics

Probability only approaches working in situations where a large number of equivalent events are considered

What about the Michelson-Morley experiment? aren't there only two alternatives, and one photon ?

 

[elvis]

"What about the Michelson-Morley experiment? aren't there only two alternatives, and one photon ?

Maxwell's EMF equations only work if they are made symmetric. IOW light is symmetric. Being symmetric it falls within the bounds of a CLOSED system that, for point-fo-view considerations can be interpreted as circular.

Being on ANY point on that circle gives one the identical view as from any other point. ANY experiment design around this focus re POV MUST return a symmetric perspective.

All of the work of Einstein and relativity is grounded in symmetry and our sensory systems, our genetic determinism, is also grounded in such. Implicit in this is that all we can detect is symmetry - and so our inability to detect dark energy/matter.

But how can we come up with the concepts of dark energy/matter? we have to be 'above' symmetric thinking to do so - and we are in that our mediation skills are in the form of our consciousness and its creation of specialist languages and so ASYMMETRY - IOW the 'problem' has not been noticed until more recent times when our languages predicted something and we noticed an 'anomaly' in our gravitation models that implied 'there is something else and it is 94% of what is out there!'

If we zoom-in on the play of anti-symmetry (particulars, aspects, local context 'wholes', the concentrated) and symmetry (generals, non local wholes, the diffuse) we see a play that covers, for example, different forms of statistics. The statistics of symmetry are those of light and so bosons where all elements have equal probabilities (and so the equal POVs - this is a realm of metaphor where all metaphors are interchangeable and so basically describe the same POV - different labels, different local contexts, SAME overall form) - the statistics are called Bose-Einstein statistics (and cover the same realm responsible for the Bose-Einstein Condensate where 'all is one')

Our brains have developed to allow for real-time extension of the symmetric into the anti-symmetric and the differentiation of particulars. From a particle physics perspective this is the realm of fermions (A/NOT-A, XOR) and is the foundation of structural development (and so chemistry etc). Looking for a representation gives us a focus on the SQUARE as compared to the circle of bosons. The square covers the sharp angles that come with the exclusive OR operator as well as covering the rotation element of symmetry that reflects negation of the whole and so revelation of a part (N/1 becomes 1/N)

The issues with the particular is just that, it is tied to LOCAL CONTEXT processing, very fast, very precise, and a focus on difference within sameness, the anti-symmetric within the symmetric.

So to get the anti-symmetric manifestation of a symmetric form you need to use negation in the form of rotation (this covers the inability to BREAK the whole, only the ability to distort it). The statistics for fermions are called Fermi-Dirac statistics.

Combine the two forms of statistics and we have Boltzmann-Maxwell Statistical Mechanics. Note the use of negation here to cover possible/actual and the underlying mapping with the EIC focus on 0 as potential and 1 as actual:

"Boltzmann-Maxwell Statistical Mechanics informs us that entropy is a combinatorial property determined by the number of possible distinct microstates which a system may exhibit. We assume that all of these states are equally likely to manifest so that the probability of any particular one appearing is the inverse of the total number of states. Taking the logarithm of this probability (and multiplying by an appropriate constant) returns a quality of the same absolute value as the system entropy but the reverse sign. What does this mean? Entropy represents the capacity of a system to manifest a certain number of those particular states. The more physical states the system can manifest, the greater the entropy. Information is the distinguishing of one of those particular states. It is the selection of one unique member from the total set. In essence, entropy is the count of unresolved physical possibilities of a particular system, whole information is the resolution of this system to a particular state; it is the collapse of potentiality to actual selection.

... Memory is also central to the concept of distinguishability of consecutive temporal states of a system." p54-55 Muller, S.J., (2007) "Asymmetry : The Foundation of Information" Springer

The EIC focus covers all hexagrams being of equal probability (and so the symmetric aspect) and LOCAL CONTEXT introducing an ordering into best-fit/worst-fit actualisation (the anti-symmetric aspect).

Push the development of the anti-symmetric and out pops asymmetry where we can use the classes of meanings as 'letters' in a language but in the EIC this is in the form of feelings/images and so tied to emotions and mythic thinking.

The IDM point is that no matter what area is under consideration, be it QM or IC, we will find identical patterns in each due to our filtering system and its play of anti-symmetry/symmetry and the emergence of mediation as asymmetric.

These dynamics seed our experiment designs such that the symmetrisation of light guarantees the same POV regardless of from where you are looking other than when we introduce acceleration (and so Doppler effect on light colour magnitude)

 

[pantherpanther]

Photo of a board washed up on a beach.

"A human being is part of the whole, called by us 'Universe'; a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as someone separated from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

Albert Einstein

 

[waveCT]

That's a lay rendering of elvis' last post?

 

[pantherpanther]

No. Einstein's thinking was not totally "symmetrical," as claimed. ("All of the work of Einstein and relativity is grounded in symmetry and our sensory systems, our genetic determinism, is also grounded in such. Implicit in this is that all we can detect is symmetry - and so our inability to detect dark energy/matter.")
Einstein's objection to quantum theory came from its denial of physical reality before observation . Einstein created the theory of quantum entanglement to reveal a flaw in quantum theory, because he thought that quantum entanglement could determine physical reality before observation - at odds with the principles of quantum theory.He didn't believe in total randomness in quantum mechanics and reality.In 1935,with Poldosky and Rosen, he conceived the EPR Paradox . Through a thought-experiment on two tangled electrons, they suggested that information is able to travel much faster than the speed of light, which is impossible, hence the existing quantum theory is wrong. Experiments eventually Einstein proved partially wrong with his idea, although his theory has not been refuted. What was significant was Einstein introduced a new concept in quantum mechanics – tangled atoms separated by great distance. Einstein called it spooky-action-at-distance. Michio Kaku explains,
"This means, in some sense, that what happens to us automatically affects things instantaneously in distant corners of the universe, since our wave functions were probably entangled at the beginning of time. In some sense there is a web of entanglement that connects distant corners of the universe, including us." – Michio Kaku (Physics of the Impossible)

There is no reason to suggest Einstein might have thought our "sensory systems are genetically determined" or that dark energy/dark matter cannot be observed through further research. That would be uncharacteristic of his thought. And it is bad science, too, to state that our sensory systems are (totally) genetically determined as it contradicts accepted scientific knowledge.

 

[waveCT]

Thank you: clear, concise, and absorb-able...

 

[elvis]

Thank you: clear, concise, and absorb-able...

... and wrong.

ANY focus on a conservation principle automatically sets a ground of symmetry. I suggest you (and pantherpanther) read the original paper:

Einstein, A., Podolosky, B., & Rosen, N. (1935)"Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?" Physics Review, 47, 777-780

As for sensory systems, they are closed where they respond to a select set of frequencies where frequencies are what our emotions respond to and so cover the secondary harmonics of senses. That's how the EIC works in that it can take a holistic, immediate, sensory assessment of a situation, transformed into a primary emotional assessment, and convert such into an I Ching representation - all due to the isomorphism present in all dichotomy-grounded forms of meaning (fight/flight, yang/yin etc)

For an easy coverage of such see the 'lite' summary:

Brynie, F.H., (2009)"Brain Sense : The Science of the Senses and How We Process the World Around Us" AMACOM

then review anything on synaesthesia (e.g. my own comments in http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/synth.html )

Due to synaesthesia issues our senses cannot be trusted other than conforming to the template of our neurology - IOW no matter what the particular configurations our senses still process objects and their relationships and so map to the IDM/EIC template of meaning generation.

A FUNDAMENTAL property of symmetric perspectives is there is ONE whole and all is relationship within that whole. The whole cannot be broken so negation is in the form of rotations where such brings out aspect/whole relationships (N/1 becomes 1/N).

"...symmetrical relations do not seem at first sight to be as common as asymmetrical ones when perceiving the external world with its geometry and geography of things, which is replete with difference relations between places, points, lines surfaces, spaces and solid things. However, at the same time we must continuously use sameness relations when dealing with the world. Perhaps asymmetry comes to the fore because a prime use of consciousness is to *locate* the self within the world of objects. This is a central function of the focus of attention. Notice also that we are concerned with logically asymmetrical and symmetrical relations, which are defined by the identity or not of their converses; they apply to much more than spacial relations.
The word symmetry simply refers to *sameness* between at least two things and thus to matching and one-to-one correspondence." pp23-24 Rayner, E., (2003)"Unconscious Logic : an introduction to Matte Blanco's bi-logic and its uses" Brunner-Routledge

We see here the focus on location " ..which needs difference discrimination, and recognition which needs sensitivity to samenesses." pp 25 Rayner, E., (2003)"Unconscious Logic : an introduction to Matte Blanco's bi-logic and its uses" Brunner-Routledge

also from a physics perspective:

"The method of analogy presupposes the more fundamental concept of symmetry, and this would seem, as we have seen, to be the magic ingredient which makes physics work. Symmetry allows us to do what Newton and other analytic physicists have wished to do: to define an abstract, unknowable reality, combined with a process of observation or measurement of its parts. Symmetry is not really, as we might imagine, a measure of similarity, but a measure of difference, or, to be more specific, absolute oppositeness or negation. Symmetry between two concepts means absolute identity in most respects, combined with absolute opposition in one. So symmetry allows us to characterize a part of reality without characterizing the whole. Only through symmetry can unity result in diversity. And physics works in such a way that when you characterize a part of reality in a certain way, you are necessarily characterizing the rest as different (i.e. opposite)." p59 - Rowlands, Peter (2007)"Zero to infinity: the foundations of physics" World Scientific

and back to mental states in our model making:

"The consciousness level appears to be the one that is most sensitive in discriminating asymmetries and differences of converses. Simultaneously at a less conscious level the mind seems to be more interested in similarities and samenesses. Because it is a coordinator for dealing with the world, consciousness cannot manage too many samenesses. [brings out the serial nature]. The unconscious, on the other hand, can manage this [brings out the parallel nature]" p27 Rayner, E., (2003)"Unconscious Logic : an introduction to Matte Blanco's bi-logic and its uses" Brunner-Routledge - my brackets [].

pantherpanther needs to go wider in reading.

 

[pantherpanther]

elvis,
There is nothing new to me in what you cited and wrote. I have already exchanged with you at length on your theory or construct, pointed out its errors and suggested how to correct and deepen your thinking
and acquire a better knowledge of science (especially neuroscience) and consciousness.

 

[waveCT]

@ elvis,

You may have received comments like the following before: please accept them in good spirit.

pantherpanther may be "wrong", but his posts, by their tone, invite exploration in a way that your posts usually do not.

For an adherent / author? of a system called 'The Emotional I Ching', the level of emotional intelligence displayed in your posts could do with a review. I know that the net is a place of vigorous exchange, but if you are interested in attracting folk to a new and complex way of looking at the world, it might be better to be shorter, not so dogmatic, and to minimize where possible the use of jargon: not doing so tends to attract arguments /comments ad hominem, and neither side of this symmetry is all that attractive. I've fallen into it myself.

I'm happy to follow up on the suggested readings, in due course... I hadn't given quantum physics any concentrated attention since I first read Gary Zhukav's book when it came out. I see that I'll need to, just to tread water here.

cheers

 

[elvis]

elvis,
There is nothing new to me in what you cited and wrote. I have already exchanged with you at length on your theory or construct, pointed out its errors and suggested how to correct and deepen your thinking
and acquire a better knowledge of science (especially neuroscience) and consciousness.

your out of your depth - unfortunately your hubris in your self/perspective is hiding that fact from you so we have to see whether time will allow you to become 'enlightened' or not.

 

[elvis]

@ elvis,

You may have received comments like the following before: please accept them in good spirit.

pantherpanther may be "wrong", but his posts, by their tone, invite exploration in a way that your posts usually do not.

I am not trying to use rhetoric to sell you a used car.

For an adherent / author? of a system called 'The Emotional I Ching', the level of emotional intelligence displayed in your posts could do with a review.

You obviously haven't used the system in that your would realise I don't need to use 'emotional intelligence' - the material stands on its own, I don't need to promote it other then getting people to try it and find their own value, not mine. That is what objectivity is about - as little 'con' as possible.

The 'emotional intelligence' path is too symmetric for me, too riddled with the prose of such as pantherpanther that actually say nothing, it is all wind, innuendos etc overly social hierarchic and so CLASSIC symmetric thinking, focused on cooperativeness, sameness, instincts/habits combined with 'secret handshakes' (the stereotyping focus on 'you are not on of us!' etc etc) and overall lacking in the precision of asymmetric logic etc etc etc

 

[my_key]

Been away for a few days and I think it's going to take a few more days to digest some of the posts here. This has gone very high brow....
ctoz - thanks for post 31 - that's my sort of language.
Panther - Einstein quote equally makes good sense. (whatever happened to him?)
Elvis - I don't know about anyone else but I'm in information overload
I'm going to have to get Marvin round to give me a hand - it'll cheer him up doing something other than picking up pieces of paper or taking people to the bridge.

Mike

 

[meng]

Been away for a few days and I think it's going to take a few more days to digest some of the posts here. This has gone very high brow....

Just remember to lift your pinky when drinking tea.

And, welcome back.

 

[pantherpanther]

Been away for a few days and I think it's going to take a few more days to digest some of the posts here. ..
I'm going to have to get Marvin round to give me a hand - it'll cheer him up doing something other than picking up pieces of paper or taking people to the bridge.

Mike

Marvin has passed on.

 

[Sparhawk]

Marvin has passed on.

I think you meant Martin, right?

 

[my_key]

Just remember to lift your pinky when drinking tea.

And, welcome back.

Thanks Meng... Just checking in with what "pinky" means in USA. I know what it means in UK but with all that hot tea around I just want to do a health and safety check.

Sparhawk / Panther
My reference to Marvin - he's the depressed robot with a brain the size of the universe from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Sorry for any confusion caused here.

Mike

 

[fkegan]

Hi Mike,

'Pinky' is just a reference to the little finger which some folks raise while drinking a cup of tea and others don't.

Quantum mechanics developed in the early years of the 20th century when the opportunity to find new theory for the new century caused folks to reject 19th century physics. Einstein's 4 great papers were published in that heady first decade and he was granted his Ph.D. in physics for introducing an experiment to include atomic theory (accepted in chemistry since the turn of the 19th century) to physics. It was also a time when the magic of the Watt Steam engine got old and new internal combustion engines were all the rage. Newton's work jumped from abstract Latin to British pride with the English translation of the Principia early in the 18th century.

Unfortunately, there wasn't much working new theory available at the time so the result was too much like the use of epicycles to correct perfect spherical orbits in Ptolemy as more precise observation showed the orbits weren't perfectly round.

But lots of new theory abounds now and all of it can be viewed as expressing a hex 25 or naivete vibe with or without action at a distance forces or bringing back the ether to be disturbed by any action and causing reaction throughout the universe.

Frank

 

[gene]

If one really understands the meanings of the hexagrams, and the most recent in science, one realizes there is no time or space, except as an illusion created by the mind. But who's mind? The universe is alive, and aware, it is conscious, and its only true essence is love. By creating a vibration in the universal mind, the illusion of space and time is created. Everything is entangled, completely and totally, because it is all one substance. Or better yet, one nonsubstance. It is only consciousness. That consciousness is love, and nothing else truly exists.

Gene

 

[my_key]

'Pinky' is just a reference to the little finger which some folks raise while drinking a cup of tea and others don't.

Same in US as UK. Whew!!

 

[fkegan]

Hi Mike,

Yes, generally just the little finger, though other associations to pink body parts could be imagined, but you would need to check with Luis or other experts in such alternatives.

Hi Gene,

The ancient doctrine of Maya or illusion and other classical Hindu doctrine from millennia ago about vibrations as the ultimate micro nature of matter, energy, everything does also appear in much of 20th century based quantum mechanics as does the monist notion that everything is interconnected.

However, Buddhist cosmology notes that human understanding is limited and thus human ignorance is the resolution limit of all knowledge and from ignorance arises fear and from fear all the differing notion, expectations and theories. Thus even if all is love or consciousness humans only sometimes can be aware of that. Thus upon the human level things can't quite be that simple...

Frank

 

[gene]

Hi Frank

Yes, you are right, and that is where the concept of the ego comes in and tends to screw everything up. How the ego got there? I don't know. But I think part of the answer lies in the fact that higher level entities who understand the nature of DNA have purposely programmed into us a limit to understanding to keep us in darkness, and in a sense, slaves to them. It is breaking free of this ignorance that is the only true salvation.

Gene

 

[pantherpanther]

"When I visited the stupas of Sanchi, where Buddha delivered his fire sermon, I was overcome by a strong emotion of the kind that frequently develops in me when I encounter a thing, person, or idea, of whose significance I am still unconscious... The stupas are tombs or containers of relics, hemispherical in shape, like two gigantic rice bowls placed one on top of the other (concavity upon concavity), according to the prescripts of the Buddha himself in the Maha-Parinibbana-Sutta. ... The distant prospect over the plain, the stupas themselves, the temple ruins, and the solitary stillness of this holy site held me in a spell. A new side of Buddhism was revealed to me there. I grasped the life of Buddha as the reality of the self which had broken through and laid claim to a personal life... Buddha saw and grasped the cosmogonic dignity of human consciousnesss."
Carl Jung