Wave interpretations and the I Ching

[lightofdarkness]

On Hilary's 'blog' there is a brief exchange between 'rapier' and myself on quantum mechanics. To make my point about QM and the IC being metaphors sharing the same 'space' - here is a diagram of wave interference you get in QM - the thing is this is derived by me using pen, paper, and yin/yang dynamics - each asterisk represents a hexagram.

Dont take QM so literally people - it stems from individuals not understanding how 'in here' works but pressured at the time to come up with some model - and they did.

Now we are starting to realise the errors of their ways! ;-)

 

[hilary]

The blog entry that started this off is here.

I don't think I was quite clear there that the part of the experiment I was specifically asking Yi about was the moment when the wave pattern did not appear, and the photons behaved obstinately like particles, having apparently 'anticipated' that a measuring device would be turned on.

Well, I think it's a beautiful reading...

 

[lightofdarkness]

The wave pattern only appears with the build up of actuals within the scope of potentials - From an IC perspective it is all 64 hexagrams/4096 dodecagrams as POTENTIALS and one tossing coins each day for some question will actualise one or another. - IOW coin tossing simulates the firing of an electron or photon through one or the other slits.

One will not necessarily come up with all of the hexagrams actualised over 64/4096 trials, it can take thousands, millions of trials to fill in the dots through ad hoc methods - and as you know, there are probability differences depending on which method of derivation you use.

Thus OVER TIME a pattern will develop appearing to link all of one's results together and the whole of the IC appears - all potentials are actualised and the full spectrum comes into view of an integrated whole - reflecting the ICPlus perspective of any moment all hexagrams are valid but sorted into bestfit/worstfit order with the bestfit being considered the 'actualisation' for that moment.

The above wave inteference map comes out of 64 hexagrams reduced to 27 symbols (and so a link to powers of 3 ;-)) The SAME pattern endures when we compress 4096 into 64 etc etc. (dodecagrams into changing line hexagrams)

This all has to do with the METHODOLOGY - use of recursion. it is this 'entanglement' that allows for the XOR operator to work in extracting ALL of the 64 hexagrams being expressed through each. - and so such perspectives as the '27-ness' of hexagram etc etc etc.

There is no 'anticipation' etc by photons or electrons etc - it is all properties from the METHODOLOGY of recursion combined with the FAILURE of the interpretors to date understanding what is going on - and so anthropomorphism takes over and consciousness etc credited photons etc! Once you understand the methodology and its consequences, so things become clearer and the imaginative interpretations fade.

We see the discrete, not recognising that that is an illusion, a useful one, but can lead to misconceptions about what is going on 'inside' our brains as we process information - in your brain it is all frequencies, wavelengths, amplitudes - and so constructive/destructive inteference patterns that get perceived as discrete elements, 'things' etc.

Chris.

 

[lightofdarkness]

You can see this dance of XOR/AND in the way we experience sensory paradox - see images etc in:

http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html

Here the focus is on extracting XOR from AND - in QM or IC coin tossing we move from XOR to AND.

Reality as our species-nature experiences it is at the level of AND, reality as our consciousness-nature experiences it is at the level of XOR - and so we get 'confused' ;-)

Chris.

 

[martin]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something (and my QM is rusty, last course in it some 30+ years ago!) but Rapier says, I think, that the wave properties also manifest when we observe only 1 photon. And in every experiment, I suppose. That would imply that these properties cannot be explained by a statistical distribution or a 'build up' overtime.

Interesting, btw, that the IC comes up with 62 here, because I often think of the pair 62/61 as 'particle/wave'. The feel of 62 is like that of being a particle (small, restricted, narrow, closed, sharp boundaries, hard, isolated) while the feel of its opposite 61 is more like that of being a wave (wide, open, without sharp boundaries, fluid, one with the environment and others).
The particle/wave duality is not limited to physics, it manifests in our daily lives as two ways of being that are often difficult to reconcile. This wave, when it gets out of bed in the morning, feeling all wavy, goes to the bathroom, looks in the mirror and .. hello particle, you look awful today! How odd.

From the mystical perspective the particle ('ego') is an illusion and the wave is who we really are.
Nice solution! No need to shave anymore, no need to worry about how I look, it's all illusion, I'm a wave, perfect.
What is more, being a wave, when someone tries to shoot me the bullet will pass right through me, there is nothing to hit here. So, no need to try, it's impossible to shoot me. Nice, very nice.
The life of a mystic has many advantages.

 

[martin]

Nigel Richmond, who uses a method for analyzing hexagrams that is somewhat similar to Chris' method, says about 62.4:
"Any advantage he may now see risks externalizing his awareness; he would then lose sight of its source."

The word 'source' apparently refers to what is 'in here', so it seems that the Yi (at least according to the interpretation of NR) and Chris are in agreement here!

 

[martin]

And what is new, when it comes to the question "is it in here or out there?"

"Up to now it has been assumed that all our cognition must conform to the objects; but all attempts to find out something about them a priori through concepts that would extend our cognition have, on this pre-supposition, come to nothing. Hence let us once try whether we do not get further with the problem of metaphysics by assuming that the objects must conform to our cognition, which would agree better with the requested possibility of an a priori cognition of them, which is to establish something about objects before they are given to us. This would be just like the first thought of Copernicus, who, when he did not make good progress in the explanation of the celestial motions if he assumed that the entire celestial host revolves around the observer, tried to see if it might not have greater success if he made the observer revolve and left the stars at rest."

Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781 (!)

 

[luz]

Martin, I love everything you write, but the wave/particle experience as a human being is brilliant!

 

[martin]

Thank you, Lightangel.

 

[luz]

You're very Welcome! And I find I don't know how to add 'emoticons'! But I had a throbbing heart and a smooch for you.
And, in the spirit of being coy, I was also going to add a blush.

 

[martin]

The code for emoticons looks like this:
\ clipart{lol}

But without the space after \.
When you remove it you get:

There is a link on the left side of this page to the emoticon page (below Help).

\ clipart{smooch}

 

[luz]

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

 

[martin]

Great!

 

[luz]

You bounce like a wave!

Can I have the next bounce?

Emoticons are fun!

 

[martin]

Sorry, what did you say? I was testing my new car ..

 

[luz]

How could you have been testing your new car?
I was bouncing with you!
You have a great quintet of eyes!

 

[martin]

Oh

, well, it felt like riding in a new car ..
You know, I'm dancing with you since the dawn of humanity and it always feels different.

 

[martin]

 

[martin]

Oops, try again ..

 

[lightofdarkness]

Martin,

IMHO you need to update your understanding - as does Rapier for that matter! ;-)

The experimental DESIGN and so METHOD determines all RESULTS - their FORM etc. Be it double slits, single slit (airy pattern), laser interferometers (use of down converters etc), polarisers etc etc etc they ALL focus on recursion of a dichotomy to elicit the patterns. That process GUARANTEES detection of 'wave' patterns but as PROPERTIES OF THE METHOD and NOT NECESSARILY properties of what is being analysed.

The experimenters, in their innocence/ignorance, fail to consider the properties of their method - to them firing electrons/photons/atoms at the slits (that are, BTW separated by 1/2 the wavelength of the electron's matter wave) is the ground and all else is speculated from there in the context of *interpretation* about what is going on. Nowhere do they focus on what is POSSIBLE given the experimental design running over time; they don?t get the fact that each trial is done in the context of the previous trials and so the image on the detectors, photographic plate or other, reflect the summing of histories in the form of 'filling in the dots' of the set of POTENTIAL outcomes mapped onto the detector. - This process creates a complex pattern as we see in paradox processing but in reverse, we extract from the "AND" the "XOR" and see what appears to be 'discrete' - in QM we move from the discrete, "XOR", to "AND" and get surprised when we see a continuum! LOL!

The dots on the photographic plate as such reflect the compression into a 2 dimensional detector (the film encoding the image) 4 dimensions - 3 space, 1 time. If you could store the information in its time sequence and see it 'edge-on' you would see a sequence of dots with varying heights from the base - each dot with a unique time stamp and so discretising 'begin' to 'end'.

If you ignore considerations of time then you will 'see' constructive/destructive interference patterns as each moment is packed-in with all of the others. (When we look at constellations we see patterns; move out into space orthogonal to the line of sight and those patterns dissolve into stars many many light years apart and the pattern is lost)

An analogy is to the representation of a changing line hexagram where the change is reflected in constructive/destructive interference in the form of a line that is not yin nore yang, but something 'inbetween'. Move into a timeline analysis and you see hexagram A followed by hexagram B and so recognise the change from A to B in TIME. To REPRESENT this in 2 dimensions we introduce a change operator, the changing-line symbols and so a distortion.

The more time you spend on this, the more the hexagram observed develops changing lines until all lines are changing due to the limitations of the method of analysis; the inability to resolve the differences in time exposure. Thus the photographic plate is a plate of 'over-exposure' from a temporal sense and in that exposure out will pop constructive/destructive patterns indicative of 'wave' natures - but as a property of METHOD, not necessarily of NATURE.

The realm of high precision is a realm of focusing on NOW rather than PAST/FUTURE. That focus will distort considerations of time, marginalise time's thermodynamics to make time mechanistic or even considered 'meaningless'; IOW the PAST/FUTURE gets compressed into NOW but as a consequence of METHOD, not necessarily of REALITY AS IS.

Our brains work the same way, XOR vs AND such that the realm of AND, when mapped to a 'moment' will be wave-like due to it being a complex pattern focus, out of which our XOR extracts parts. (as covered in the IDM paradox page).

The originators of QM had no idea about HOW we process information, derive meaning. The *interpreters* of QM then got carried away with speculations that have led to a plethora of material that is 'extreme' in outlook due, IMHO, to ignorance and a need for 'immediate gratification' - that "NOW" focus ;-)

The USERS of QM don?t care about the interpretations, they just know that using a probabilities-oriented method works for them - as it does for our brains, as it does for the IC where ALL hexagrams are applicable to a moment and the local context will fit one over all of the others.

As the wave equation is a mapping of POTENTIALS given a particle and its POSSIBLE states in a field (and so local context), so the IC, in the binary ordering, is a mapping of POTENTIALS in order of possible state (energy conserving, 000000, to energy expending, 111111) and MEASUREMENT then collapses the 'wave' into a particular.

The wave equation is supposed to be a mathematical construct useful in represention of dynamics - BUT inherant in these models is wave patterns due to the METHOD.

Here we have the SAME METHOD being reflected in seemingly different disciplines - IC vs QM; the EXPRESSION may be different, but the core method of deriving meaning is constant - reflecting our brains at work ;-)

 

[luz]

Chris, do you mind? we are dancing here... Lighten up, pick a spot and twirl around some!

Just kidding of course.

Martin, I'm still thinking about that last phrase... we HAVE been dancing since the beginning of time... wow. And it still feels different... I like that idea.

 

[candid]

 

[luz]

And how do I post a picture????

Or a link??? or anything else!????

.....

...

Whatever! I'll just keep on dancing!

 

[martin]

Good morning! 4:53 am here.

Picture?
\ image{this is a mouse} will do it, without the space after\ .
You can change 'this is a mouse', if you like.

When you post the message you will be asked to upload an image.

For more, about links and so on, click Formatting (below Help) on the left side of this page.

Now first coffee and then .. ah, QM!

 

[martin]

Hi Chris,

You wrote: "they don?t get the fact that each trial is done in the context of the previous trials and so the image on the detectors, photographic plate or other, reflect the summing of histories in the form of 'filling in the dots' of the set of POTENTIAL outcomes mapped onto the detector."

If I remember correctly only a few trials were enough to convince me that something very odd was going on. And I didn't have much 'history' in QM at that time.
As to "summing up", I don't know exactly what you are trying to say, that it can all be explained by classical (!) probability distributions and that none of these QM people was smart enough to realize that?
Highly improbable, I would say.
But then, what DO you mean? Don't be fuzzy, please, you're not a photon, I hope.
Although, 'Lightofdarkness', hmmm ..

 

[lightofdarkness]

Hi Martin,

> If I remember correctly only a few trials were enough to convince me
> that something very odd was going on. And I didn't have much 'history'
> in QM at that time.

The entanglement starts very quickly but only becomes graphically 'obvious' when we get to the level 6 trials - there are 64 possibles; at level 2 there are only 4.

Thus we have, AS POTENTIALS:

T0 0 / 1 - the moment is 0 XOR 1. period.

The moment you introduce some form of memory (e..g. the photographic plate) you move into sharing of spaces, constructive/destructive interference etc etc etc ;-)

T1 00, 01 / 10, 11 - the MIXED positions of 01 and 10 are the source of the patterns that come out. With 'indeterminacy' causes a distortion where TWO are compacted into ONE space - a superposition emerges; a price for loss in precision.

T2 we have 8 qualities, two pure, the rest mixed.

By the time you get to T6 we have the above wave pattern of degrees of 'interference'.

Besides the above diagram, see the one in http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/bits.html

With basic recursion so all of one row become repeated and entangled with each other of that row later in the recursion - as the row of eight trigrams gets repeated in the form of eight octets of hexagrams (note that all we are in fact doing is fleshing-out a whole, each row is the whole but in finer and finer definition - we then STOP at 4096 qualities)

You get the same pattern if you consider the set of all syllogisms (256) and map out the 'correct' ones - 19 mappable into a 'wave interference' diagram.

The process of recursion brings out finer distinctions of a whole - the universe of discourse. The categories generated, the XOR states of 'hexagram B' totally independent of 'hexagram C', are in fact 'exaggerations' out of the WHOLE that IS a 'superposition' - and it is this that allows for the use of the XOR operator (and so 27-ness, 05-ness etc of each hexagram).

Just as the neuron works AM to FM, so does our consciousness. As such the "WHOLE" that is the I Ching, or Quantum Mechanics, is contained 'in here' as an integrated unit, a complex pattern of wave amplitudes, AND-ness, that gets broken-down into the discrete forms we work with - the 'pulse' data of the FM -XOR-ness.

There is nothing 'strange' going on other than confusion of XOR/AND perspectives where that confusion gets built-in to experiments in their design.

Chris.

 

[martin]

I see, repeated choices + unknown states ...
Chris, I think you are dreaming, do you really believe that generations of physicists could overlook such a simple explanation?

 

[luz]

 

[luz]

It's morning, the party is over...
Thank you Martin for teaching me so much.

The dancing goes on, though...

 

[lightofdarkness]

Yes.

The originators of the interpretations had no idea about 'in here' dynamics and the simplicity of XOR-AND processes that they were unwittingly introducing in their experimental design.

As long as we deal with discrete/continuous there is no issue in the 'big picture' - what you label things is arbitrary - but the *interpretations* started to get a bit 'extreme', and all not neccessary once you understand the simplicity of what is going on.

Schrodinger 'hated' his wave equation but it WORKED and that was all that mattered. You can in fact express the SAME concepts in FOUR ways:

Schrodinger's wave equation
Heisenberg's S-Matrix
Dirac's mechanics
Feynman's sum of histories

Schrodinger was 'easier' than the others - although Feynman's work did not appear until much later.

Read the literature - great stuff! but rooted in perspectives lacking knowledge about 'in here'
and how differentiating/integrating works, how we have recursion of two forms of dichotomies and so get guassian vs spectrum patterns etc etc etc!

Lets look at the ICPlus material and the traditional IC. The XOR material, line meaning material, works extremely well but is not covered in mainstream traditional IC. Why not? As I have said before, in the tranditional texts there is an inkling of vague awareness in the form of the association of qualities to each of the six lines but no more than that? How come? surely something so easily derived would have been discovered eons ago? No. Dogma can set in, people take the specialisation, be it QM or IC, "as is" and question nothing and so work from WITHIN the box and in doing so can be blind to innovative material.

A I commented in the original XOR material, Andreas and Steve touched on XOR-ing from a divination perspective and failed to discover what I did. Why? Because they were not asking the right questions - MY perspective being on meaning derivation and how the brain did it - and that ment coming across the XOR/AND dynamics 'in here' and applying that to hexagrams, where the XOR pulls out a PART etc.

Now I know for a fact that Andreas has been playing around with logic operators for a while (being trained in Mathematics etc) and that fine, lots of people have done it before him, but noone asked the right question about what was going on - I did, and got results. I got results due to my understanding of what is going on IN GENERAL about how we categorise etc etc - something the traditionalists have not done - nore been able to until recent times when neurosciences give us something to work with.

IOW here is something coming up 3000+ years after the orginial material came up (or more so, the formal assertion of the IC as a court document in the imperial court circa 1700s!)

In the ten wings that have come down to us, and in translations of 10th century BC, AD etc, there is nothing covering the XOR material due to the in-built bias to focusing on AND. I and my XOR perspective have come from OUTSIDE of the tradition, from a focus on how we as a species derive meaning and so 'free' of the dogma ;-)

IOW here is something that has not been clearly expressed, and should be a 'wing' at least!, 3000+ years after the original thoughts - and it IS simple stuff!

Same goes for QM and their interpretations; at the level of PRACTICAL physics etc, as long as you focus on XOR/AND - no problems. Try to interpret that without knowing the XOR/AND going on 'in here' and out come 'problems' ;-) - and all from working INSIDE the box - I come from outside, from a 'bigger' boc but vague, covering information proocessing in GENERAL.

Chris.