- #36
sascha
- 127
- 2
In fact, I had thought somebody might speak up already about the above, but it seems the weekend has its effect. Since the last point (e) is the most critical, here I will add some elements concerning that, in two posts (there is more relevant material, but let's first have a look at this).
You might notice that I am aiming at a physics that does not have the effect of eliminating the princple of life, by its conceptual / categoreal choices. My idea is not a new idea; Aritstotle would have liked to do that, and did not succeed... but that is nearly 2500 years ago.
Einstein believed in 'separable' systems, while his opponent Bohr did not presuppose that, but still was thinking in terms of 'things'; so did de Broglie thinking in terms of 'waves'. Even deep 'rethinkers' like Dirac, transposing the problems into projective geometry, or Feynman, opening up new areas like QED, did not not leave behind the idea of 'things' of some sort. It is interesting that they all wanted to grasp the gist of reality by means of measurements. Presently, even very advanced and integrative approaches such as relativistic quantum field theory (which at least seeks to catch some of the creation / annihilation reality), do not transcend the myth of measurement as the path to knowledge. In my terminology, they remain within the 'language of manipulability' and do not seek a really viable 'language of intelligibility'.
The idea of measuring is part of a larger idea, which can be summed up under the title of 'Cartesian split': distinguishing, observing, describing, measuring, etc.. This is the operative basis of mainstream science these days. But which version of the split is used is finally irrelevant: the gesture is always one of comparing the subject matter with something else, alien to it. This gesture inevitably creates its blind spot (as proved by many logicians, such as Francisco Varela, Gotthard Guenther, Heinz von Foerster, Rudolf Kaehr, etc.) which then can only be shifted around, but not solved within the system. Remaining within such a system (way of thinking) finally suggests an arbitrary move for 'outgrowing' its drawback at the edge, which usually makes the problem reappear in a 'new' area (this is what led physics to ever smaller bits and pieces). Translations into digital languages (Boolean structures) miss the ultimately decisive point, because their basic distinction (eg. yes/no, true/false, dark/light, etc.) does not cover the principle of distinguishing as such — while any arbitrarity is not up to strictly complete reality. Higher order logics shift the distinctions into further dimensions, but must remain non-universally applicable.
There is another limit which shows that the idea that anything real must be measurable in some way is fallacious: This procedure can reveal features of the 'thing' but never its gist, because nature offers no ultimate unit of any kind, no basis for any metric. Measuring is always comparing and requires a unit or act of reference, which Man must posit. Even foundational units like Planck's constant or 'light speed' are no absolutes, but relative to the approach (measuring). For the physical part both constants (Planck's and the velocity of light) are obviously relevant, for measuring. But this aspect covers only the side of appearances, not the side of the overall law which determines that there is appearance / birth, existence, dissolution / death, and renewed appearance — as complete reality willy nilly is. The widely shared belief in measuring does not remedy the method's limitation; for instance the quantum measurement problem still is unsolved (about a dozen theories attempt an interpretation).
So much for a brief critique of the current mental habits. Now to my attempt to think things in a less compromised way. This is part of the mentioned PDF file, in which I expose the query of processuality and apply it, among others, to the object of physics: the intrinsic nature of matter. Note that here the term 'force' does not mean one of the four known ones, but simply and generally 'that which entails agency', since laws can not act as such (the concept of law is often used in mixed-up ways).
What appears in everyday experience as 'material matter' can be understood at its origin as the law of being at disposal, manifest in a concrete way. In terms of the concretizing forces, the only stable configuration is a force and its exact counter-force, or in other words a complex of two forces structured in an equilibrium, counterbalancing each other dynamically. It is, in fact, the material version of polarity, which appears -- depending on the specific case -- as duality, symmetry, complementarity, etc.. As such this primal oppositional structure cannot be observable, because observation implies a third instance, an influencing force structure. In quantum theory this is known and said to "perturb" the configuration; the process therefore is called "decoherence" and makes decidable in the macroscopic realm (through the many implied interactions) whether "SchrÚdinger's cat" is alive or dead, which is not decidable on the non-disturbed quantum level.
By not being freely roaming forces any more, but impeded by the mutual opposition, the two primal forces acquire an additional vectorial quality, a concrete one that they can't have when no otherness is implied. Once forces are bound by being structured into a new equilibrium, their hindrance vector makes them into an energy structure and accounts for the arising aspect of 'resistance' that we can't avoid associating with material matter, since it is the palpable characteristic that it shows us even when we do not think in the least.
The reason for the seeming massiveness of material matter to senses is that the laws of the bodies, also of organisms ('desires'), are an 'otherness' for whatever force structure comes along. Transcending otherness is possible through overcoming consciously the difference, i.e. in a mental act, where 'form' and 'matter' can coincide [discussed in a previous section].
The fact that all material reactions imply and cause some other ones, and reveal a closedness of causalities in the realm of inert matter -- 'actio = reactio', and any cause has another one, as Kant already noted -- means that the inert domain as a whole constitutes one 'organism' ('interacting parts'). In the perspective of the tetrad, this specific type of organicity is rooted in the coherence of 'materia prima' as the 'substance' that entails the many-facetted energy flux of weaving and unweaving material matter.
Two forces can be united in mutual opposition in other ways than under the auspices of the idea (law) of something that is at disposal: two forces can be combined for example in the idea of annihilation, i.e. pure nothingness. The first view offers existentiality to structures of othernesses, while the latter does not. This explains why a universe based on anti-matter can exist for a short while, but can't subsist durably: matter, the structure of 'something-atdisposal', engenders continuity in the interactive process of othernesses, while anti-matter alone, offering no existentiality, can't avoid producing discontinuity. Structures that agglutinate under the law of discontinuity cannot last, they are self-annihilating. Today's physics has no criterion for this difference.
When viewed only instrumentally (not in its own essentiality), material matter looks like a 'something', a 'thing'. We have it already in the "energy quanta" which Max Planck discovered in black body radiation, and those of light that Einstein has postulated for the "photoelectric effect": where an 'otherness' is implied, the primal continuity is necessarily broken and must give rise to discontinuous 'entitites'. This is correct within the language of separability (manipulability), and it will be confirmed again in every situation or experiment that is interpreted in that language. Nevertheless it is not absolutely true, but only in a relativity to this language. Through the newly proposed basic categories we can see that in its core, i.e. its intrinsic nature, material matter is not a cause, but an effect — of forces. This view explains as much the energy density of the 'vacuum', which baffles cosmologists because their concepts can't reach there, as it clarifies the phenomena of coherence appearing in the double-slit experiment and those that Alain Aspect's experiments have demonstrated so clearly. On the level of biological theory, it clarifies the belief that material matter can be the ultimate cause of life: it is not, it is only a necessary condition for existing. Nobody doubts that forms of life can be manipulated by manipulating their necessary condition, for instance on the genetic level. But nothing is gained by believing that this knowledge of manipulability is already all the knowledge of what life is all about.
In the complexifications beyond "materia prima", with every additional 'otherness' introduced, with every new force interfering, material matter becomes more complex. At each one of those thresholds some further disequilibrium is introduced (by an additional force vector), leading to a new form of equilibrium and its respective disequilibriability. These processes induce the set of variations that lead in nucleosynthesis to the types of equilibria, called 'particles' and 'atoms', that are known in the Mendelejew table of the chemical elements, and their isotopes, etc. By their patterns of dis- and re-equilibriability these force structures entail the factual transmutational processuality that we know in chemistry. Material matter can be synthesized only in some sort of short-lived mimickry as long as the creation process does not arise out of its basic law: absolute equilibrium of two mutually counterbalancing forces.
You might notice that I am aiming at a physics that does not have the effect of eliminating the princple of life, by its conceptual / categoreal choices. My idea is not a new idea; Aritstotle would have liked to do that, and did not succeed... but that is nearly 2500 years ago.
Einstein believed in 'separable' systems, while his opponent Bohr did not presuppose that, but still was thinking in terms of 'things'; so did de Broglie thinking in terms of 'waves'. Even deep 'rethinkers' like Dirac, transposing the problems into projective geometry, or Feynman, opening up new areas like QED, did not not leave behind the idea of 'things' of some sort. It is interesting that they all wanted to grasp the gist of reality by means of measurements. Presently, even very advanced and integrative approaches such as relativistic quantum field theory (which at least seeks to catch some of the creation / annihilation reality), do not transcend the myth of measurement as the path to knowledge. In my terminology, they remain within the 'language of manipulability' and do not seek a really viable 'language of intelligibility'.
The idea of measuring is part of a larger idea, which can be summed up under the title of 'Cartesian split': distinguishing, observing, describing, measuring, etc.. This is the operative basis of mainstream science these days. But which version of the split is used is finally irrelevant: the gesture is always one of comparing the subject matter with something else, alien to it. This gesture inevitably creates its blind spot (as proved by many logicians, such as Francisco Varela, Gotthard Guenther, Heinz von Foerster, Rudolf Kaehr, etc.) which then can only be shifted around, but not solved within the system. Remaining within such a system (way of thinking) finally suggests an arbitrary move for 'outgrowing' its drawback at the edge, which usually makes the problem reappear in a 'new' area (this is what led physics to ever smaller bits and pieces). Translations into digital languages (Boolean structures) miss the ultimately decisive point, because their basic distinction (eg. yes/no, true/false, dark/light, etc.) does not cover the principle of distinguishing as such — while any arbitrarity is not up to strictly complete reality. Higher order logics shift the distinctions into further dimensions, but must remain non-universally applicable.
There is another limit which shows that the idea that anything real must be measurable in some way is fallacious: This procedure can reveal features of the 'thing' but never its gist, because nature offers no ultimate unit of any kind, no basis for any metric. Measuring is always comparing and requires a unit or act of reference, which Man must posit. Even foundational units like Planck's constant or 'light speed' are no absolutes, but relative to the approach (measuring). For the physical part both constants (Planck's and the velocity of light) are obviously relevant, for measuring. But this aspect covers only the side of appearances, not the side of the overall law which determines that there is appearance / birth, existence, dissolution / death, and renewed appearance — as complete reality willy nilly is. The widely shared belief in measuring does not remedy the method's limitation; for instance the quantum measurement problem still is unsolved (about a dozen theories attempt an interpretation).
So much for a brief critique of the current mental habits. Now to my attempt to think things in a less compromised way. This is part of the mentioned PDF file, in which I expose the query of processuality and apply it, among others, to the object of physics: the intrinsic nature of matter. Note that here the term 'force' does not mean one of the four known ones, but simply and generally 'that which entails agency', since laws can not act as such (the concept of law is often used in mixed-up ways).
What appears in everyday experience as 'material matter' can be understood at its origin as the law of being at disposal, manifest in a concrete way. In terms of the concretizing forces, the only stable configuration is a force and its exact counter-force, or in other words a complex of two forces structured in an equilibrium, counterbalancing each other dynamically. It is, in fact, the material version of polarity, which appears -- depending on the specific case -- as duality, symmetry, complementarity, etc.. As such this primal oppositional structure cannot be observable, because observation implies a third instance, an influencing force structure. In quantum theory this is known and said to "perturb" the configuration; the process therefore is called "decoherence" and makes decidable in the macroscopic realm (through the many implied interactions) whether "SchrÚdinger's cat" is alive or dead, which is not decidable on the non-disturbed quantum level.
By not being freely roaming forces any more, but impeded by the mutual opposition, the two primal forces acquire an additional vectorial quality, a concrete one that they can't have when no otherness is implied. Once forces are bound by being structured into a new equilibrium, their hindrance vector makes them into an energy structure and accounts for the arising aspect of 'resistance' that we can't avoid associating with material matter, since it is the palpable characteristic that it shows us even when we do not think in the least.
The reason for the seeming massiveness of material matter to senses is that the laws of the bodies, also of organisms ('desires'), are an 'otherness' for whatever force structure comes along. Transcending otherness is possible through overcoming consciously the difference, i.e. in a mental act, where 'form' and 'matter' can coincide [discussed in a previous section].
The fact that all material reactions imply and cause some other ones, and reveal a closedness of causalities in the realm of inert matter -- 'actio = reactio', and any cause has another one, as Kant already noted -- means that the inert domain as a whole constitutes one 'organism' ('interacting parts'). In the perspective of the tetrad, this specific type of organicity is rooted in the coherence of 'materia prima' as the 'substance' that entails the many-facetted energy flux of weaving and unweaving material matter.
Two forces can be united in mutual opposition in other ways than under the auspices of the idea (law) of something that is at disposal: two forces can be combined for example in the idea of annihilation, i.e. pure nothingness. The first view offers existentiality to structures of othernesses, while the latter does not. This explains why a universe based on anti-matter can exist for a short while, but can't subsist durably: matter, the structure of 'something-atdisposal', engenders continuity in the interactive process of othernesses, while anti-matter alone, offering no existentiality, can't avoid producing discontinuity. Structures that agglutinate under the law of discontinuity cannot last, they are self-annihilating. Today's physics has no criterion for this difference.
When viewed only instrumentally (not in its own essentiality), material matter looks like a 'something', a 'thing'. We have it already in the "energy quanta" which Max Planck discovered in black body radiation, and those of light that Einstein has postulated for the "photoelectric effect": where an 'otherness' is implied, the primal continuity is necessarily broken and must give rise to discontinuous 'entitites'. This is correct within the language of separability (manipulability), and it will be confirmed again in every situation or experiment that is interpreted in that language. Nevertheless it is not absolutely true, but only in a relativity to this language. Through the newly proposed basic categories we can see that in its core, i.e. its intrinsic nature, material matter is not a cause, but an effect — of forces. This view explains as much the energy density of the 'vacuum', which baffles cosmologists because their concepts can't reach there, as it clarifies the phenomena of coherence appearing in the double-slit experiment and those that Alain Aspect's experiments have demonstrated so clearly. On the level of biological theory, it clarifies the belief that material matter can be the ultimate cause of life: it is not, it is only a necessary condition for existing. Nobody doubts that forms of life can be manipulated by manipulating their necessary condition, for instance on the genetic level. But nothing is gained by believing that this knowledge of manipulability is already all the knowledge of what life is all about.
In the complexifications beyond "materia prima", with every additional 'otherness' introduced, with every new force interfering, material matter becomes more complex. At each one of those thresholds some further disequilibrium is introduced (by an additional force vector), leading to a new form of equilibrium and its respective disequilibriability. These processes induce the set of variations that lead in nucleosynthesis to the types of equilibria, called 'particles' and 'atoms', that are known in the Mendelejew table of the chemical elements, and their isotopes, etc. By their patterns of dis- and re-equilibriability these force structures entail the factual transmutational processuality that we know in chemistry. Material matter can be synthesized only in some sort of short-lived mimickry as long as the creation process does not arise out of its basic law: absolute equilibrium of two mutually counterbalancing forces.
Last edited: