The word quantum is derived from the Latin "quantus", meaning quantity, or "how much". In physics it refers to a smallest unit of action or process associated with a discrete subatomic event.
Max Planck, an early influencer of quantum theory, used the term to describe the quantization of phenomenon occurring to particles such as electrons and photons. Contrary to the smooth continuous motion of classical physics, Planck observed that the orbit of an electron would "jump" when transitioning from one energy level to another without every falling in intermediate space. Hence the phrase "quantum leap".
Therefore, quanta are not divisible. Not enough energy means no transition, and all transitions occur abruptly in these discrete units. In the formulization of quantum theory, quantized physical properties are aptly derived from "Planck's constant".
This gives rise to my notion that the complementary "I" is not a concrete presence in space and time, but manifests abruptly as awareness resolves to presence.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
It sounds like you're saying that what's true of energy as manifested at this rudimentary level would also hold for more complex manifestations of energy.
True. Although I am somewhat inclined at this point not to draw a distinction between the rudimentary and the complex. I consider one's focal point in consciousness, the ego "I", to be a rudimentary quantum. The complex is a vast network of what I refer to as "like associated" quanta, symbiotic in nature.
But that leads into an interesting philosophical question that I haven't a firm opinion on... Is the whole greater than the sum of the parts?
That whole/parts is one question. My only answer is I'd like to think so but don't know.
Another question to me that makes me I suppose an agnostic on ideas linking physics findings to consciousness, is the way that new properties/qualities emerge with greater complexity. So going the other way, toward the less complex, I find it hard to feel convinced that properties at that level necessarily have analogues at greater levels of complexity. In other words, there may be properties that are unique to specific levels at which reality is organized that don't run across all the levels.
Phew, I'm tiring myself out with abstraction!
But last thing is that I find most of the stuff I read linking science and consciousness/spirituality interesting and intiguing. Nothing to be ruled out, imo.
I hear ya. At least you haven't abstracted yourself into a single quantum like I have.
I read a book on free will. Realizing that positing some mystical entity was a non-starter with determinists, the author attempted to navigate a path that stayed within the realm of science. I found that intriguing, so I tried to emulate that here.
I too am not convinced that the analogues will hold. But, going from rudimentary to complex, I haven’t found a plausible explanation on how a new property can magically appear without it being implicated somewhere in its foundation.
That said, it’s hard to even ponder how common salt can arise from volatile sodium and poisonous chlorine.
Before I forget, thanks for the visits. I appreciate it. I enjoy popping over to your blog to see what stimulating dialogue you have going on there.
Namaste.
n2, thanks. Your blog's thoughtful, well written, and unique. Have you thought about doing anything to get more traffic? Of course there are people who blog who don't want more traffic, it's more like journaling. But you could start a blog roll. Send me an email if you want me to put you on mine.
Also - you probably already know about this, I'm usually slow to catch on to new computer stuff - but I find that "search blogs" google button useful. If I type in "spirituality" for example, it will list blogs that have used that word recently and show how recently it was posted. So it's a good way to locate blogs that with a common interest --
Post a Comment