Interpenetrate...

Paradox...

2008-03-26T20:44:00.002-06:00

Without reducing matter to mind or mind to matter, consider that these are two sides of a single polarity. The dynamics generate a paradox, the very heart of dialectics.

When acting as awareness, this "energy gestalt" is at the receiving end of an information exchange. Tapping its rich environment, which at the moment is operating at the other end of the spectrum. The more complex the feedback mechanism the more advanced the life form it supports.

Identity morphs as its perceived form is reflected back. The genesis of in-form-ation.

Everything, of one nature, inseparable, though distinct.

Clinging to a consistent identity is fleeting. Attempts to apprehend this fluid reality leads only to contradiction. How often has history proven this, both individually and collectively?

Dialectic Suchness...

2008-03-19T19:48:00.004-06:00

Dialectics; the cyclic exchange of arguments and counter-arguments. Could this be ingrained in the fabric of the universe? Like the "anomaly" that was in "The Matrix" movies. Is this why various arguments for the nature of reality never seem to find an adequate toehold? Whether those arguments are for subjectivity or objectivity, free will or determinism, theism or atheism, and on, and on.

We subsequently are left with an eternal interaction flowing on no fixed frame of reference. Becomings, not things. Unity hidden in apparent duality. Not opposites, more a polarity, transitive.

What manifests is constantly being transformed by this very nature. Not matter nor mind. Neither this, nor that, nor neither, nor both. Just so. Suchness.

Subjective Universe...

2008-02-28T17:17:00.003-06:00

Since the early 20th century, the scientific view has been that we live in a subjective universe. Albert Einstein formulated his theory of relativity back then when experimental evidence showed that the speed of light remained constant as the Earth moved.

Einstein's theory posited that all observers will measure the speed of light at 186,000 miles per second, regardless of their speed or their direction. In order for this to hold, the measurement of time must not be objective in its own right; but subjective.

This point was proven later by two atomic clocks. The most accurate time devices available. When one is left stationary and the other speeding around the world, a discrepancy will arise. If time were objective, they would be the same. But time passes slower the faster one goes through Einstein's space-time...even though an observer of either clock would not have noticed it.

A subjective universe. No God's objective view. Perhaps. But this can be a very powerful enabler. You, along with everything else, are subjectively weaving the tapestry. It's a reflection of us all. The maxims "think globally, act locally" and "do unto others as you'd have done unto you" apply with added veracity.

Artificial...

2008-02-08T22:07:00.000-06:00

A team of US scientists has taken the next step in synthetically reproducing the blueprint of life, DNA. The effort has involved five years of research in perfecting new methods and techniques. The team at the J. Craig Venter Institute envisions potential remedies for illness and global warming. This is considered the second step in a three-step process to create a synthetic organism. The final stage will attempt to create a form of bacteria based purely on the synthetic genome. Initially, the nucleonic material will be placed in an established cell.

Whereas the human genome has some 30,000 genes, the scientists are targeting a synthetic sequence of just 580 genes. Yet if autopoietic processes can be established our notions on life may have to adapt. The tag will be "artificial life". But just what is artificial? Artificial vs. Spontaneous. Shaped vs. Created.

Helen Wallace, a spokesperson for GeneWatch UK, while acknowledging the technical feat, noted we are some way away from artificial life. Yet what remains is a type of genetic engineering that has the potential in the future to allow humans to make much bigger genetic changes.

Novelty...

2008-01-24T21:31:00.000-06:00

Wherein lies the source of novelty?

It is the source of novelty asking the question.

Oneself...

2008-01-14T00:55:00.000-06:00

The self has many senses,

and yet it is still considered oneself.

As It Is...

2007-10-06T12:16:00.000-06:00

All is as it is.

There is inherent wisdom as it is.

Reflection…

2007-08-25T19:17:00.001-06:00

An essence of you is expressing through everything.

And an essence of everything is novelly expressing through you.

Symbiosis...

2007-07-25T18:56:00.000-06:00

Life on Earth is said by science to have begun some 3.5 billion years ago. During those initial years, bacteria continually transformed the Earth's surface and atmosphere, its temperature and chemical composition. In the process, life's essential facilities of respiration, photosynthesis, motion, and fermentation became established.

Remarkably, in spite of an estimated 25% increase in the Sun's heat over the years, the Earth's surface temperature has remained hospitable for life. Through subtle cooperation, the various lines of bacterial life prevailed. The global trading of their genes (DNA recombination) is said to have arisen. This is one of the most astonishing discoveries of modern biology.

Moreover, it was discovered only recently that the mitochondria within cells carry their own genetic material. They replicate independent of the host cell. Lynn Margulis gradual came to realize that "unruly genes" such as these were, in fact, distinct living organisms that could be traced back to bacterial forefathers. Talk about recycling! The waste of one cell constituent became the food for another. The cell on the whole generally without waste.

So one can see the driving force in evolution shifting to co-evolution. The drama proceeds through a subtle interplay of competition and cooperation, creation and mutual adaptation.

Complexity…

2007-05-19T20:57:00.000-06:00

Complexity theory is rather young. But in the short time it has been around, it has yielded a number of interesting parallels in respect to living systems. Like possibly modeling how cells differentiate during development. Or modeling how the initial stages of life on Earth may have developed.

Regarding cell differentiation, its interesting that the genetic information in the cells of a fetus are roughly identical, and yet cells specialize in different ways to form muscles, organs, bones, nerves, etc. So genetic information alone does not provide an explanation on how cells differentiate. Biologists conclude from this that it is different genes in each that are active, but how. Stuart Kauffman, a biologist and notable complexity aficionado, observed that cell differentiation is akin to "state cycles" within dynamical models.

What is a state cycle? Think of a formula that derives its next position from the previous position. At some point a new position will fall on a point in its past "trajectory". From then on the formula will recursively cycle back to this spot. In complexity theory, this is referred to as an "attractor" and the loop as a state cycle. Kauffman is simply inferring that the developing cells may be nudged from one attractor to another by an internal perturbation (agitation or disturbance) or a perturbation from a neighboring cell.

Regarding the initial stages of life, here Kauffman theorizes that catalytic molecular reactions in the "primordial soup" grew at a natural rate. At some point they reached critical mass, known in complexity terms as a "phase transition", and closure suddenly produced autocatalytic sets. An autocatalytic set, as definition would have it, is a collection of molecular reactions that are able to catalyze the sets own production (sound vaguely familiar, recall Autopoiesis).

To illustrate the point, Kauffman's book, At Home in the Universe, uses an analogy with 400 buttons and some thread. Visualize randomly connecting two buttons with thread, then randomly two more, and so on. At first, you're likely to thread fresh buttons. In time you'll add connections to a button. As you approach the ratio of 0.5 threads to buttons, the size of the connected cluster will reach a phase transition where a giant conglomeration will emerge if you were to pick up one of the buttons. Viewed as a graph, the cluster rarely grows at first as it’s unlikely a button is already threaded. It suddenly spikes at the phase transition. Then it levels off once again as new connections only marginally add to the conglomeration.

Kauffman excitedly proclaims "we the expected". Now you will probably see holes in the analogy. Kauffman addresses a few in the book. I didn't care to belabor the point here.

Actually, in the two examples what I found was surface complexity traded in for deep simplicity. It briefly made me think of a seed, which I once considered waiting for a wafting animating force, now just an autocatalytic state cycle. Leaching water and minerals kick off the animation.

And yet, the complexity with which these images can be manipulated within my little pea brain astounds me. In the end, I just feel more connected to everything else. Common principles, added complexity, different expression. More beauty in the world.

Emergence...

2007-05-14T09:08:00.000-06:00

In comments a while back, I posed the question "Is the whole greater than the sum of the parts?" Reading about "emergent properties" and complexity theories was a little too abstract for me to get my mind around. Then a simple analogy popped into mind.

Consider two individuals, each with a key to a safety deposit box...as usual the two distinct keys are required to open the box. Individually, their ability to open the box is zero. Each only has one key and two are needed. The sum of the parts then, of their individual abilities, is zero. Yet, if the two can connect with one another, the ability to open the box "emerges".

Now, expand that to many individuals, many connections. So often, life is approached as a zero sum game...with winners and losers. Survival of the fittest. However, a fresh look, considering emergence, alludes to a non-zero sum game as well. Perhaps this is why I find the source of novelty fascinating and look upon emergence as a perspective on that.

Aside, I like to explore the ecology of living systems. I have always enjoyed leaving the city behind and exploring woods, streams, fields, and lakes. There is something to interacting with nature, to connecting, relating, belonging. Veins and rivers. A system within a system.

Stress on the environment, on society, on ourselves, brings me back to emergence. My own deep stirrings are for a world that will never be the same. These are not necessarily good or bad. A portion of the world is simply being enacted within. Senses, intuitions, and emotions ebb and flow. What can I say...a new moment emerges.

Backtrack...

2007-05-09T07:31:00.000-06:00

"I'm not hiccuping...it's hiccuping me". This was a child's response to a mother's command to stop hiccuping. I recalled this quip in reconsidering my position on free will.

Human beings are essentially storytellers. We observe an event and then consciousness comes up with a likely narrative to explain it. The illusion compels an aura of control, of truth.

Yet, I no longer doubt that consciousness is a stage, an adaptive feedback stage, upon which life is more or less played out. It is just part and parcel of a whole that features recursive dialogues with everything else such that it is impossible to determine ultimate causes of behavior.

I clearly have causal power, the typed characters of this blog entry can attest to that. However this may not come from some mysterious will, but from the complex and dynamic relationship that occurs between systems within systems, between my internal world and the external world. It is proximate cause. Sound enough to hang responsibility on, for ultimate cause extends back ad infinitum and possibly disappears all together.

So, things may be deterministic at the design level. But, we operate at the physical level. Minus a "departure" point, true oneness (if it exists) has a more solid footing. Compassion has a mirror. And, lest I become despondent, emergence sets up on the horizon.

Autonomy...

2007-05-04T08:43:00.000-06:00

My thoughts are scattered. So much to say and yet so little. So much in the sense that I enjoy dialogue. So little in the sense that I hold other's untarnished experiences dear.

Where will this baffling conscious experience of "energy" lead? Physicists like Eugene Wigner recognized consciousness as an essential aspect of future theories of matter. Yet to comply, physics will have to contend with its entrenchment in mathematical precision. So, I set physics aside.

Our appearance of independence is deceiving. There shouldn't be any doubt how interconnected we all are. We have the autonomy to exert cause, but not to determine effect. That right lies with each perspective. In this regard, others can be looked upon as coaches, even still mirrors. Hope would have it that they are a guiding rather than interfering influence. Yet, we are the true player on the field of our "inner world". The whole offers possibilities, causes. Each part chooses effect.

With the rapid spread of ideas, cultural evolution has greatly sped up the rate of change within the environment. As self-organizing systems we are bombarded with the stress. How true is the maxim that the ideas that got us here may not be the ones to keep us here?

For me, I see the need to take another look and make choices that contribute to the well being of the life system as a whole. To develop a natural sense of connectedness to the whole of life.

Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela while forming their thoughts around autopoietic systems recognized the role of structural coupling. Structural coupling is the term for the structure-determining engagement of a given system with either its environment or another system. Such a coupling fosters the unpredictable nature of living systems that I contend extends down to the level of quantum awareness and therefore reject simplified deterministic cause and effect.

So the question becomes sustainability. As Lester Brown observed "A sustainable society is one that satisfies its needs without diminishing the prospects of future generations." It is unfortunate how, over time, society as a whole has lost its roots in a diverse natural living world. Obviously, that's subjective of one who rejects the notion of a separate identity with the goal of dominating and subduing the environment.

We are not separate from our environment or anything else for that matter. We are simply a unique strand in the web of life. We are all embedded in, and ultimately dependent upon, the cyclical processes of our very nature. Multiple manifestations of an inherent unity.

Projected enough. Time to step back and listen again.

Pattern of Life...

2007-04-27T07:31:00.000-06:00

While I was away, Paul Martin of Original Faith noted that some blogs make us think. I think perception is the driving force behind life. We have senses, emotions, and intuitions for a reason. We interpret them to maintain our own stability, our continuity in fact. We also know what we like and try to manifest a world around us to our liking.

The very pattern of absorbing and assimilating changes, or more obtusely disturbances, is the essence of our very growth. What would life be without novelty? The fascinating emergence of new arrangements and new forms of behavior are integrally entwined with self-organizing systems in response mode.

There is great fluidity and flexibility in autopoietic systems comprised of many networked components. Their distributive makeup allows them to be resilient. Individual components selectively respond to disturbances and pattern their activity accordingly. The system as a whole develops its own ability for reaching homeostasis. Diversity in the components is viewed as a strength.

For instance, a diverse ecosystem will be resilient because it contains many species with overlapping ecological functions that can partially replace one another. Even when a particular species is destroyed by a catastrophe so that a link in the network is broken, a diverse community will be able to survive and reorganize itself, because other links in the network can at least partially fulfill the function of the destroyed species.

Yet the overall balance is key. Every species has a runaway tendency and therefore the potential of undergoing an exponential population growth when not kept in check by various balancing interactions within the system. Exponential runaways will appear only when the ecosystem is severely disturbed. What ensues we label "weeds" or "pests". In the human body we label it "cancer". The whole system becomes threatened.

On a planetary basis, there has been a striking pattern in the repeated occurrence of catastrophes followed by intense periods of growth and innovation. Plants may owe photosynthesis to atmospheric hydrogen depletion. Animals may owe breathing to to an oxygen crisis and resulting bacterial response.

The configuration of relationships within a system is also important.

As humans we know little about ecosystems. Anthropocentric, we have a great propensity to disrupt them. Scarily, we have little understanding towards restoring their balance. Our eyes may be cast on the growth and innovation that will follow. Yet lacking true foresight, the diversified niche that has our back may be on the casualty list.

I think Aldo Leopold put it well...

"A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it does otherwise."

So, I'll be the one you'll find planting trees this weekend.

Unplug...

2007-04-18T14:30:00.000-06:00

Friends don't let friends drive drunk. Or, in my case, friends don't let friends get wrapped in science. A birthday card said: “None of the scientific states of matter apply to love; and yet, nothing matters more.” I liked the play on the word matter. I like the wisdom better.

We don't need philosophy to tell us its important to be good. However you define that. We don't need science to tell us diversity is good, so is sustainability, recycling, and harmony. Science is not needed to make these credible. No, my friends can tell me that.

So, I’m gonna take the red pill (in Matrix parlance) and unplug.

Characteristics...

2007-04-17T09:38:00.000-06:00

There are three principle characteristics that sum up an autopoietic system. First, they exhibit self-organization in the spontaneous emergence of new structure and behavior. Next, they demonstrate adaptation via internal feedback loops. And finally, their affairs can only be described mathematically by non-linear equations.

A magnificent example of an autopoietic system is the biological cell. Given that, I highly recommend the illustrated guide The Way Life Works by Mahlon Hoagland and Bert Dodson. You will not walk away feeling insignificant as some science elicits.

A subtle but important point in the definition of autopoiesis is that an autopoietic network is not a set of fixed relations among static components, like the development of a crystal. Rather it is a set of relations among processes of production. This production continually regenerates its very self in maintaining a stable organization. If the processes stop, so does the organization.

Mathematically, autopoietic systems operate on the "edge of chaos" as envisioned in non-linear dynamics of Chaos Theory. This is far from the entropic equilibrium of linear thermodynamics. In fact, the autopoietic network is constantly drawing from the external environment to maintain its organizational stability. This distinction is fascinating in its own right, considering equilibrium and stability are commonly equated with one another.

The non-linear connections are checked by internal feedback loops across processes. Without this balancing effect, exponential runaways would ensue, threatening the whole.

I've been frustrated in the past with finding "purpose". I kinda chuckle now. Purpose to me appears to be its own adaptive feedback loop, defying a cast answer. “Being” is a more practical focus, while purpose divines its way.

Autopoiesis...

2007-04-13T20:20:00.000-06:00

This was said of autopoiesis. I can only smile, he said upon return...

"When the flow of energy and matter though them increases, they may go through new instabilities and transform themselves into new structures of increased complexity."

Fritof Capra, The Web of Life (New York: Anchor Books, 1996), p. 89

Autopoiesis ("self-making") refers to the characteristic of "living" systems to continuously renew themselves and to self-regulate this process in such a way that the integrity of their constitution is stable. All components of an autopoietic network are produced by other components in the network. In this, the entire system is organizationally closed, yet open with regard to the flow of energy and supplies. Whereas a mechanical device is geared to the output of a separate product, the product of a autopoietic system is simply itself.

The concept of autopoiesis views organisms as active agents within the framework of evolutionary change and not just passive effects of natural selection. Case in point...the metabolism of a living cell combines order and activity in a way that defies description by mechanistic science. It involves thousands of chemical reactions, all taking place simultaneously to transform the cell's nutrients, synthesize it basic structures, and eliminate its waste products. Metabolism is a continual, complex, and highly organized activity.

Of this, the clockwork world of the eighteenth century, and the linear world for the nineteenth and early 20th century is refreshingly opening to the non-linear and adaptive dynamics of natural systems.

Systems Theory...

2007-04-11T15:38:00.000-06:00

Within the many domains of science lies a theory that I am particularly drawn to. You see, I have a strong background in systems thinking; building upon connectedness, relationships, and context, albeit with technology. To that end, I work off a generalist's knowledge of building blocks, but focus more on integration and principles of organization.

In fact, the root of the word 'system' is derived from the Greek synhistanai, meaning "to place together".

Systems theory itself is a multi-disciplinary scientific study whose goal is to derive and formulate principles that may have different ancestry, but have some degree of commonality to many fields of scientific inquiry.

The basis of this rides heavily on the view that all phenomena manifest as a web of interrelated elements, forming systems. Also, that these systems, whether electrical, chemical, biological, technical, or social, demonstrate patterns, behaviors, or properties that offer insight into complex phenomena. Ultimately advancing on a unified perspective.

Whereas science's assertive nature is expansive, competitive, quantitative, and dominating, the systems side of the house is more integrative and tends towards conservation, cooperation, quality, and networking.

Systems theory is the genesis of Autopoiesis, which I had not heard of until recently, but found intriguing enough that I wanted to give it a bit of exposure here.

But then...reality set in.

Yes, what an interesting dynamic our lives would be if they physically do interpenetrate one another. Yes, fantasizing about this dynamic lifts my spirits and adds significance to experiencing and to reaching out to others. Yes, sometimes it is just to listen to them in quiet reflection. Always, to see a bit of oneself in others. Oftentimes something that could not be fully anticipated. Yes, but then there's reality.

I didn't anticipate needing a break, but I do.

Composition...

2007-04-08T19:07:00.000-06:00

I don't know if it happens to everyone, but there was a period of time when I inquired into the composition of God. Perhaps "spirit" is a better term, because in a round-about way this applies to we spiritual beings as well. Even still, a quantum aware whole.

Anyway, for God to exist in its own right, the minimal list of attributes that came to me were "self-reflecting", "self-referencing", "self-organizing", and "self-replicating".
Ahh the mind of a systems nut.

Self-reflecting, because being One, it had to be able to perceive itself.
Self-referencing, because it had to keep track of its focus within the history of its self-reflection.
Self-organizing, because it had to arrange these affairs to effect context and meaning.
Self-replicating, because, well, I exist, and though being a part of God, I wouldn't describe myself as being God. So, somehow, an expression of God produced me.

Continuing from that, I recognized myself as an open-system, dependent on the environment outside myself. Yet that is not true of God, so I found novelty fascinating. I imagined God as a closed-system, being One that is. So how did novelty ever arise? Wouldn't God get rather bored? So, in addition, I posited the attribute I label "self-perturbation". Something had to upset the apple cart. Undoubtedly, not a flattering label, but that is what I came up with. Googling it, I see it has been used elsewhere, so a patent isn't pending on my part. Damn.

Of this exercise, I came to realize the essence of life was experiencing. And so, from that point on, I've always admired my experiences, the good and the bad, because, to me, they were the spice of life.

There is a scientific theory called "Autopoiesis" that I am going to spend a little time with. Science is coming to understand one of these attributes, self-organization. To treat life as a science to some threatens its very essence. What informs the senses of one is lost on others. Such is the nature of life.

Parts and Wholes...

2007-03-29T11:09:00.000-06:00

Scientists note that some events in particle physics do not lend themselves to a definitive cause. Some physicists continue to strive for "local" determinants. Others accept that "non-local" connections exist throughout the whole. Here, it is the dynamics of the whole that influence the probabilities and the actions of the parts. I see this in my own life. Like it, cause I do, I am influenced by the breadth of the environment I find myself in.

The scientific method expounds upon approximate answers yielded by isolated entities. Each building off the next. Yet, given the true scope of what science is trying to grasp, could this be an endless cycle? Could Fritjof Capra be right...

"We believe that while the properties of the parts certainly contribute to our understanding of the whole, at the same time the properties of the parts can only be understood through the dynamics of the whole."

Ancient Chinese observed the cyclic nature of events. The dynamic interplay became a principle characteristic of the Taoist perspective. For them, change was not a consequence of some outside force, but was an innate tendency of the parts and the whole. Though it wouldn't be until a year ago that I could put my finger on it as such, it had always been present within, had been an unknown guide.

The resulting attraction to the Tao Te Ching led me to Fritjof Capra's book, which has been woven into several of the physics posts. Too, Capra has moved on to Deep Ecology, which has been a part of my journey as well, and which I intend to turn back to in the near future. For the curious however, at heart I am a systems nut, having successfully built a career on it. That is likely why you will gather an effort on my part to take disjointed pieces and arrive at some form of context and meaning. Though I am learning that this application at differing scales may be forced. Yet I do see parallels.

With all that, this blog is going to morph. The subtitle "Physics meets Philosophy" has already given way to "Of Parts and Wholes". I hope you stick with me. I enjoy your company.

"The Master views the parts with compassion, because he understands the whole."
- Tao Te Ching

Law and Order...

2007-03-27T08:25:00.000-06:00

Having met the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Conservation of Energy, we can address the Second Law, which deals with increasing Entropy. Here, physics reaches its limitations. For this law states that the path the universe is on is towards the disordered, towards the dispersal of energy.

However, something stands out in the dynamic web of inseparable energy patterns, and that is Life. Life orders and brings context and meaning to the interconnectedness of energy patterns. Life works in the opposite direction of entropy.

The universe as a whole requires self-consistency. The study of how the universe came to be ordered in the first place though is "beyond physics", and is aptly named Metaphysics. Since it is life that orders, it is the nature of life we can turn to next for insights.

The first insight...to be sensible, events in nature must harmoniously interrelate. And it is this consistency that constrains individual choice, our free will.

"For every force there is a counterforce. Violence, even well intentioned, always rebounds upon oneself."
- Tao Te Ching

Law of Energy Conservation...

2007-03-22T08:35:00.000-06:00

In his book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins artfully articulates an atheist perspective. I have traversed a number of his points along life's path. He drew a chuckle from me regarding his statement that pantheism is sexed up atheism, considering that I float between pantheism and panentheism.

Anyway, this caught my attention…

"David Mills, in Atheist Universe, transcribes a radio interview of himself by a religious spokesman, who invoked the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy in a weirdly ineffectual attempt to blind with science. 'Since we're all composed of matter and energy, doesn't that scientific principle lend credibility to the belief in eternal life?' Mills replied more patiently and politely than I would have, for what the interviewer was saying, translated to English, was no more than: 'When we die, none of the atoms of our body (and none of the energy) are lost. Therefore we are immortal.' Even I, with my long experience, have never encountered wishful thinking as silly as that."

Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006), pp. 84-85.

I was to close to the silly, for I had to read this a couple of times to understand the point. Is Dawkins amused in the case that if the body is energy, and energy is indestructible, then the body can never die, which is ridiculous in light of the fact that the body does die?

I have to admit to finding a degree of immortal comfort in this law of physics that states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. In regards to our quantum nature, I have tried to be careful in posts and refer to awareness rather than consciousness. The difference may be subtle. Awareness is the explicit understanding that one exists. It is this that persists. Consciousness is credited with the development of an identity. It is this that is transient. Extending this to the manifest world of energy, this too at its root is non-descript. Gasoline and water are both made of elementary particles, both forms of energy. Yet, the properties of gasoline have the ability to animate a car, the properties of water do not. Likewise, with the body, not all energy contained within has the property to animate, but some form of it obviously does. It is this that I embrace.

"Every being in the universe is an expression of the Tao. It springs into existence, unconscious, perfect, free, takes on a physical body, lets circumstances complete it. That is why every being spontaneously honors the Tao."
- Tao Te Ching

Message...

2007-03-19T17:38:00.000-06:00

Science does not need to be deterministic. And free will does not require magic. We've explored physics, and found structure in the form of interpenetration, interconnectedness, and complementarity. From this we can perceive a message of oneness, interdependence, and continuity.

There is no philosophy without an underlying world view. My chosen path is to learn from the breadth of nature. Nature which I find cannot be approached in its expansiveness, nor withdrawn from in its inclusiveness. My hope is to draw focus away from the individualistic, materialistic, the shallow, and towards a way that is holistic, organic, and ultimately authentic. The Tao Te Ching speaks of our treasures as being compassion, patience, and simplicity.
How fitting.

"Just realize where you come from: this is the essence of wisdom."
- Tao Te Ching

Connections...

2007-03-14T06:53:00.000-06:00

Our intellect, in order to make sense of what it perceives, functions by discriminating, dividing, comparing, measuring and categorizing. We see things, not as they are (connections), but as we've come to "know" them (objects).

"[In modern physics], one has now divided the world not into different groups of objects but into different groups of connections ... What can be distinguished is the kind of connection which is primarily important in a certain phenomenon ... The world thus appears as a complicated tissue of events, in which connections of different kinds alternate or overlap or combine and thereby determine the texture of the whole."

Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, p. 107

These concepts we've been exploring therefore have their limits. They are representations for our mind; parts of a map, not the territory.

Given the vastness of possible connections between events, can we expect to comprehend all that is? No. But we can open our perspective, see nature's ways, and adapt to them.

"You can't know it, but you can be it, at ease in your own life."
-Tao Te Ching

Inseverably Linked...

2007-03-11T12:07:00.000-06:00

This notion of interrelation extends beyond the microscopic world in physics. And we don't have to grapple with curved space-time resulting from massive objects either. We are influenced daily by something as simple as inertia, an object's ability to remain constant in velocity unless acted upon. No, I'm not talking about dragging your spouse out of bed. More like lifting a bag of groceries, pushing a car, or moving furniture.

Ernst Mach described the principle where "mass there influences inertia here". This broad statement has found its way into many theories. In essence, the difficulty in moving a object is not an innate property of the object itself, but a result of its interaction with the rest of the universe. Without other mass, there would be no inertia.

So, we see again that attributes associated with discrete entities are inseverably linked to their place within the environment as a whole.

"Approach it and there is no beginning; follow it and there is no end."
- Tao Te Ching

Interrelation...

2007-03-09T12:41:00.000-06:00

In dealing with experiments at the quantum level, preparation and measurement are key to obtaining coherent results. The effect of relativity on particles is greater than what we perceive in the observed world, given the "relative" implication when things near the speed of light. It's basically as if each object has its own clock and will perceive the occurrence of events differently. Also, restrictions resulting from the uncertainty principle will constrain the properties that can be measured.

Tolerances are so fine that the object of observation is viewed as an intermediate system connecting the processes of preparation and measurement. Between the two...

"the solid material objects of classical physics dissolve into wave-like patterns of probabilities, and these patterns, ultimately, do not represent probabilities of things, but rather probabilities of interconnections."

Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Physics (Boston: Shambhala, 2000), p. 68

Thus energy is non-descript, short of its interrelation with others.

"Form that includes all forms, image without an image, subtle, beyond all conception."
- Tao Te Ching

Force...

2007-03-07T12:05:00.000-06:00

Collision experiments have demonstrated how the energy contained in two colliding particles is redistributed in exchanges that form new patterns, even new particles. The whole classical concept of a force is now believed to be the visible effect of multiple energy exchanges mediated through particles, such as the photon for electromagnetic interactions and the theoretical graviton for gravity.

Field theory would advance further if individual gravitons were detectible. But the ability to verify their existence experimentally is beyond the horizon given the relative weakness of gravity at the quantum level.

Yet, even in the absence of this, field theory's ability to accurately model particle interactions is quite compelling. Consider this... if the kinetic energy associated with the "force" of a collision is high enough, new particles manifest from this pure energy.

So it appears force is an energy ripple that propagates through an energy continuum.

"Seamless, unnamable, it returns to the realm of nothing."
- Tao Te Ching

The Quantum Field...

2007-03-05T14:41:00.000-06:00

Matter's slip towards an amorphous state progressed significantly in the 1920's when Paul Dirac drew from relativity theory and quantum mechanics to formulate rules applicable to the quantization of energy. These rules theorized the existence of anti-particles, such as the positron, which were "observed" just a couple years later.

The quantum field theory that Dirac helped advance deals with situations where particles change in a dance of creation and annihilation. Radioactive decay is an example of the former. The redistribution occurring in particle collision experiments is an example of the later.

"According to the [field theory of matter] a material particle such as an electron is merely a small domain of the electrical field within which the field strength assumes enormously high values, indicating that a comparatively high field energy is concentrated in a very small space. Such an energy knot, which by no means is clearly delineated against the remaining field, propagates through empty space like a water wave across the surface of a lake; there is no such thing as one and the same substance of which the electron consists at all times."

Hermann Weyl, Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science, p.171

With the concept of the quantum field, mass is simply a distinguishable structure of energy in an otherwise normal continuum spread throughout space.

The Indivisible Atom...

2007-03-02T19:22:00.000-06:00

The word atom comes from the Greek "atomos", meaning "indivisible". It was once thought to be the indestructible building block of material things. Before that, it was "fire", "water", "earth", and "air". After it came the quantum, the "indivisible" unit of energy. Some day that too will likely fall.

The atom is roughly associated with where the micro world ends and the macro world begins. It's where the properties of the modern chemical elements, such as carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and iron take form.

In time, the atom was penetrated when it became apparent that it was comprised of a proton-neutron nucleus surrounded by an accompaniment of electrons. Its form revolves around electromagnetic attraction which draws the negatively charged electron to the positively charged nucleus. But the electron reacts to this confinement by whirling, the tighter, the faster. It is estimated to achieve speeds of 600 miles per second. The great centrifugal forces created tend to pull it away from the nucleus. The nuclear force, which is strongly attractive at a distance, becomes strongly repulsive with proximity.

The atom, once considered a solid structure, is mostly "empty" space. If an atom where the size of a stadium, the nucleus would be the size of a pea on pitcher's mound, with electrons the size of dust buzzing the outside edge. It's the propeller effect that gives it its rigid appearance.

Thus, the macro world of mass, of form, once had its beginning.

But things change.

A Matter of Probability...

2007-02-28T13:38:00.000-06:00

When we drill down into the subatomic world, where quantum theory has its most dramatic implications, uncertainty reigns. At that scale, it is difficult to describe particles as things, but more as probabilities. Science cannot say with certainty where a particle will be. What it can do is predict the odds the particle will exist in various places in what ends up being a probability pattern or wave.

We can look back to the words of noted atomic physicist, Robert Oppenheimer...

"If we ask, for instance, whether the position of the electron remains the same, we must say 'no'; if we ask whether the electron's position changes with time, we must say 'no'; if we ask whether the electron is at rest, we must say 'no'; if we ask whether it is in motion, we must say 'no'."

J.R.Oppenheimer, Science and the Common Understanding (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1954), pp. 42-43

This inability to predict exactly how a particle will behave gives rise to the common misconception that its nature is random. In physics, this unpredictableness is associated with the complementary nature of specific properties as spelled out in Werner Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

An extension of this may well be the polar nature of quantum awareness and quantum presence as I have laid out... with free will being implicated in the unpredictableness.

Quantum Speaking...

2007-02-24T10:25:00.000-06:00

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.

Living in a material world?...

2007-02-20T15:46:00.000-06:00

Since 1905, it became apparent to physicists that this may not be so. That is when Albert Einstein published his theory of special relativity. In it, underlying matter was energy; formulated as E=mc².

"Relativity theory has had a profound influence on our picture of matter by forcing us to modify our concept of a particle in an essential way. In classical physics, the mass of an object had always been associated with an indestructible material substance, with some 'stuff' of which all things were thought to be made. Relativity theory showed that mass has nothing to do with substance, but is a form of energy. Energy, however, is a dynamic quantity associated with activity, or with processes. The fact that the mass of a particle is equivalent to a certain amount of energy means that the particle can no longer be seen as a static object, but has to be conceived as a dynamic pattern, a process involving the energy which manifests itself as the particle's mass."

Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Physics (Boston: Shambhala, 2000), p. 77

It seems physics may agree that we live in a world of process.

Continuity...

2007-02-16T19:24:00.000-06:00

It may be that concerns over "emptiness of self" and "continuity" are linked. We seem to be missing an anchor.

I'm drawn to the former as I believe it dispels the notion that we are somehow already there and then have these experiences. Often expressed as the Cartesian duality. That the material self and the mind are something else.

I am attempting to probe the depths of the notion that awareness (consciousness) and presence (being) are poles of a complementarity. Think of the Chinese Yin/Yang. That perhaps the “I” we relate to is a single quantum within physics. That when this quantum is an awareness experiencing, it is not a concrete presence in space and time. It is not a being, simply because it is a becoming. Once it has experienced, once it has become, the pole swings the other way, and it is no longer conscious, it simply exists as an instance in space and time.

Taken another way...I am speculating upon a serial process in which when “I” am conscious, no one else is, for others exist in that moment as objects of my awareness. That when another is conscious, the rest of us are not, and so on, and so-forth. Until finally we come full circle and the cycle repeats, with fresh content for each succeeding awareness to contemplate.

So the "emptiness of self" to me relates to what I see as a lack of something concrete. Perhaps the only thing fixed is history. The process itself, of experiencing and being experienced, is the true anchor. "Continuity" lies within this enduring process.

"No Thinker Thinks Twice" - Alfred North Whitehead

Cognitive Science...

2007-02-14T15:30:00.000-06:00

This idea of self-supporting experience without a material self has even been embraced by some within the field of Cognitive Science. There, the formulation of the term "enaction" signifies "embodied action", or perceptually guided action. Thus, in dealing with the transitory phases of an experience...

"This arising and subsiding, emergence and decay, is just that emptiness of self in the aggregates of experience. In other words, the very fact that the aggregates are full of experience is the same as the fact that they are empty of self. If there were a solid, really existing self hidden in or behind the aggregates, its unchangeableness would prevent any experience from occurring; its static nature would make the constant arising and subsiding of experience come to a screeching halt. But the circle of arising and decay of experience turns continuously, and it can do so only because it is empty of a self."

Francisco J. Varela, Evan Thompson, Eleanor Rosch, The Embodied Mind (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1993), p. 80.

Process and Fallacy...

2007-02-13T09:14:00.000-06:00

Process Philosophy, as explained in Alfred North Whitehead's Process and Reality, theorizes that the fundamental elements of the universe are occasions of experience. The material world is merely a succession of occasions of experience. In fact, Whitehead coined the phrase "Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness" to denote thinking something is a concrete reality when in fact it is merely a concept about the way things are.

Within Process Philosophy, all experiences are influenced by backward facing poles of preceding experiences and have forward facing poles that will influence future experiences. An occasion of experience consists of a process of "prehending" (Whitehead's term) past experiences and then reacting to them. The reaction is in the form of a choice the occasion of experience makes, essentially Free Will.

The complementary "I" is remarkably similar in nature to Whitehead's "occasions of experience". Moreover, interpenetration lays a foundation for the "prehending”, which is grasping or taking hold of, the antecedent environment.

The Homunculus...

2007-02-12T10:37:00.000-06:00

Cooperation evolves to such a degree in this symbiotic relationship that we look for a homunculus in the brain. Yet none has been found. What has been found is a vast chaotic looking network of neurons firing.

"In chaotic systems, very minute changes in initial conditions grow exponentially into large differences in final outcome, a phenomenon called "sensitivity to initial conditions". The ubiquity of chaotic systems in nature is now widely recognized, and there is growing interest in the chaotic behavior of the brain at many levels, from the transmission of impulses along individual nerve fibers, to the functioning of neural networks, to general patterns of brain waves".

Robert Kane, The Significance of Free Will (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 129.

Hence, a single collapsing quantum probability can guide a network, you.

The Stream on Consciousness...

2007-02-11T09:58:00.000-06:00

How can the complementary "I" as I posit manifest as a stream of consciousness across probabilities? Are other potential I's within the network of like associated interpenetrations inferior and disregarded? Are they superior, but yielding?

I believe the answer lies in cooperation, as in mutualism of a symbiotic relationship. As experimentally established, quanta can "feel" each other and in essence coordinate their reaction. Consciousness tends to stay on a thread of reflective thought, but subconscious processes, through interpenetration, may intervene. Subconscious processes themselves tend to stay on a thread of sensual experience, but conscious may intervene.

Cooperation occurs over time (i.e. maturity). This isn't always the case (i.e. neurological disorders). But generally, there are times when subconscious yields so conscious can sense and consciousness yields so subconscious can reflect.

Interconnectedness...

2007-02-10T13:13:00.000-06:00

Still, David Bohm was able to elaborate much about the interconnectedness of reality. Bohm and a research student named Yakir Aharonov discovered yet another example within Quantum Mechanics. Under certain conditions, electrons appeared able to "feel" the presence of a nearby magnetic field even though they were traveling in a region of space where the field strength is zero. This phenomenon became known as the Aharonov-Bohm effect.

Another Departure...

2007-02-09T10:50:00.000-06:00

Bohm was never satisfied with the "spooky action at a distance" of the dominant Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory. Rather, he opted to extend Louis de Broglie's pilot-wave theory. To that end he focused on hidden variables which were experimentally inaccessible, such as the "quantum potential", to negate the Uncertainty Principle and render Quantum Mechanics into a deterministic theory.

Yet in my interpretation, the Uncertainty Principle might very well be a corollary of Free Will.

The Holographic Universe...

2007-02-08T09:43:00.000-06:00

Michael Talbot wrote The Holographic Universe based on one of Bohm's prominent theories. However, the hologram leaves us viewing reality as a projection. I prefer to view it rather as a matter of perspective.

Yet we share these viewpoints...

"...Bohm believes that our almost universal tendency to fragment the world and ignore the dynamic interconnectedness of all things is responsible for many of our problems, not only in science but in our lives and our society as well."

"...he feels it has no meaning to speak of consciousness and matter as interacting. In a sense, the observer is the observed."

Bohm’s Analogy...

2007-02-07T07:54:00.000-06:00

“Imagine a fish swimming in an aquarium. Imagine also that you have never seen a fish or an aquarium before and your only knowledge about them comes from two television cameras' one directed at the aquarium's front and the other at its side. When you look at the two television monitors you might mistakenly assume that the fish on the screens are separate entities. After all, because the cameras are set at different angles, each of the images will be slightly different. But as you continue to watch you will eventually realize there is a relationship between the two fish. When one turns, the other makes a slightly different but corresponding turn. When one faces the front, the other faces the side, and so on. If you are unaware of the full scope of the situation, you might wrongly conclude that the fish are instantaneously communicating with one another, but this is not the case. No communication is taking place because at a deeper level of reality, the reality of the aquarium, the two fish are actually one and the same”. - David Bohm (Quantum Physicist)

One. It's just a matter of perspective.

Thoughts...

2007-02-06T12:32:00.000-06:00

“…the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter...we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter.” - Sir James Jeans (Astrophysicist)

Thoughts intermingling with other thoughts.

No thought is complete or fully comprehended until it is expressed.

Free Will...

2007-02-05T19:55:00.000-06:00

Through the breadth of interpenetration we, the universe, all, are one entity, just different perspectives.

Our individual free will is experienced as a collapsing quantum indeterminacy within the whole.

"...I mentioned two unsolved cosmological enigmas deeply implicated in free will, the problem of consciousness and of indeterminacy in nature. I think that a full understanding of how actions outflow from agents would require a better understanding of these problems, and it may be that both the unity of conscious experience and the unity of the self-network are somehow related to the quantum character of reality, as various scientists and philosophers have suggested".

Robert Kane, The Significance of Free Will (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 195.

Merging...

2007-02-04T14:40:00.000-06:00

The wealth of this unnamable complementary "I" is a function of a vast network of like associated interpenetrations, say within the brain. The "I" manifests simply as the leading perspective of a greater whole. Aware of the whole through interpenetration at one end of the complementary spectrum. A specific guiding quantum within the whole at the other end.

"The unnamable is the eternally real". [01]

[01] Stephen Mitchell, Tao Te Ching (New York: HarperPerennial, 1992)

In other words...

2007-02-03T14:31:00.000-06:00

The "I" in ourselves emerges from the complementary nature of presence-awareness, being-nonbeing, space-time, and particle-wave. We are truly no particular thing. But rather the unnamable, vaguely graspable process of oscillating between complementary poles.

In essence, awareness experiences presence reacting to awareness.

Awareness is attracted to the experiential probabilities (quantum speaking) of presence, such as brain states, and responds in kind by collapsing a quantum indeterminacy within the brain.

Physics meets Philosophy.

Complementarity in Philosophy...

2007-02-02T12:24:00.000-06:00

In Hinduism, "Neti Neti" roughly translated means "neither this, nor that". No-thing. The nature of the divine.

In Taoism...
"Being and Non-Being create each other."[02]
"We work with being, but non-being is what we use."[11]

Could it be that presence-awareness are complementary?

Stephen Mitchell, Tao Te Ching (New York: HarperPerennial, 1992) [02] [11]

Complementarity in Physics...

2007-02-01T12:35:00.000-06:00

The most referenced example of complementarity involves the particle-wave aspects of a quantum of light as demonstrated by the two-slit experiment. Unless measured, the quantum will materialize in a wave pattern. But when measured, it reflects attributes of a particle. The simple act of measurement affects the results.

Both particle and wave aspects constitute valid views while only one applies in a given situation.

In a sense, the same is true with matter-energy under Einstein’s theory of special relativity, and space-time under Einstein’s theory of general relativity.

Continuing On…

2007-01-31T18:59:00.000-06:00

com.ple.men.tar.i.ty [kom-pluh-men-tar-i-tee]

The concept that the underlying properties of entities (especially subatomic particles) may manifest themselves in contradictory forms at different times, depending on the conditions of observation; thus, any physical model of an entity exclusively in terms of one form or the other will be necessarily incomplete. For example, although a unified quantum mechanical understanding of such phenomena as light has been developed, light sometimes exhibits properties of waves and sometimes properties of particles (an example of wave-particle duality). See also uncertainty principle.

"complementarity." The American Heritage® Science Dictionary. Houghton Mifflin Company. 31 Jan. 2007. Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/complementarity

Physicist's Reaction...

2007-01-30T18:14:00.000-06:00

The aforementioned experiments dealt with quantum-entangled particles.

“Since all quanta have interacted with one another in a single quantum state and since there is no limit to the number of particles that could interact in a single quantum state, the universe on a very basic level could be a “single” quantum system that responds together for further interactions.”

Robert Nadeau and Menas Kafatos, The Non-Local Universe: The New Physics and Matters of the Mind (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 178-179.

“Each atom turns out to be nothing but the potentialities in the behavior pattern of others. What we find, therefore, are not elementary space-time realities, but rather a web of relationships in which no part can stand alone; every part derives its meaning and existence only from its place within the whole.”

Henry P. Stapp, “Quantum Theory and the Physicist’s Conception of Nature: Philosophical Implications of Bell’s Theorem,” in ibid., p. 54.

Spooky Action at a Distance…

2007-01-29T12:49:00.000-06:00

In the early 20^th century, two notable physicists held opposing views. According to Albert Einstein’s theory of special relativity, the speed of light imposed a limit on information propagating within the universe. Yet it seemed under special conditions within quantum indeterminacy, as supported by Niels Bohr, that the limit didn’t hold. Einstein coined this special situation as “spooky action at a distance”.

Finally, late in the 20^th century, technology improved to the point where the issue could be put to the test. In a series of experiments, most notably the Aspect experiment, it was determined that two particles could “communicate”, though separated by space, in no time. Thus supporting Bohr and the indeterminacy principle of quantum mechanics.

What if...

2007-01-28T10:42:00.000-06:00

What if you were a city. And in that city were many buildings, some large, some small. Each building itself representing another’s similar city. Some more significant to you than others. But all are there. In fact, upon opening the door to one of the buildings in “your” city, you actually appear in that other city. Note, I didn’t say are “transported” to that other city… for you have traveled no distance. You are just there. Ok, not “you”, for remember you yourself are a city, but an aspect of you.

That is Interpenetration.

And I’m not talking Philosophy, but rather Physics.

Beginnings...

2007-01-27T16:08:00.000-06:00

in·ter·pen·e·trate [in-ter-pen-i-treyt]

–verb (used with object)
1.
to penetrate thoroughly; permeate.
2.
to penetrate with (something else) mutually or reciprocally.

–verb (used without object)
3.
to penetrate between things or parts.
4.
to penetrate each other.

"interpenetrate." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 27 Jan. 2007. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interpenetrate>