Section 37 (last updated 2.04.2021)
The uncertainty principle provides a physical overview about the ontological notion of self-determination. The principle of uncertainty states that the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa. This means that when the final aim of some activity is conceived, this conception reaches the end limit of the activity (add whitehead here abstractive set above) The continuity of the end point bears no other duration but the possible determination of setting the aim. The reason why the more the positioned is determined the less likely the momentum is known, is because the momentum is the determining of the position. Whereas inversely if the momentum is determined the position is less known because it is being set. Simply put, “when I am here, now what?” The prediction of the motion of the object becomes itself an object, the abstractive set, for the determination of the activity to reach. Thought operates in this manner because when an ideal is conceived that is position the ideal of which becomes the activity of actualization, whereas during the process of actualizing the idea which is really the thinking of its logic, he ideal becomes the answer of that idea, that is, another idea. This process of thought is not merely as we think of abstract but is abstract insofar as enabling consciousness to derive the logical structures of physical relations.
The use of the term “consciousness”
The usage of the term “consciousness” here refers to the following meaning: consciousness is the alive, active, determining principle in nature. Our ontology presupposes that consciousness is not alive because of nature first, I.e., it is not the case that nature is first, then consciousness is a result consequence alive. But rather, nature is alive because of consciousness, or because of the element of consciousness in nature. So when the word “consciousness” is used in this context, it refers to this general and universal principle of self-determination and self-generation.
(Add here Pierce idea is compulsion into the mind) the way consciousness derives for mind the idea relates to its capacity for abstracting from the physical composition of the object its logical structure. The function of consciousness operates as a locus of focus. Consciousness can operate as a very concentrated focus point directly deriving a particular relation. Sensation for instance is this degree of consciousness that directly derives the idea from particular physical relations. Beyond sensations there are other degree of consciousness that what we say derive abstractly the more general and universal forms of foundational physical relations. Let not the word abstract mislead the reader because there is no such thing as non physical rational principles. This distinction is an abstraction proposed by the understanding and taken literally by the negative reason. The physical principle of consciousness is to be purely abstract absolutely void of quantities. This enables consciousness to go beyond sensation to derive universally fundamental principles. Consciousness is spherical entity capable of conforming exactly to the same physical compositions of phenomena. It does this to illuminate for thought the content of its logical activity.
It is stated that the form of the universe is spherical but so far as this is a quantitive measure, it reduces the form of the world to that of static object. The universe is not merely spherical, it is rather logically valid that the sphere is universal form. In the logic of the latter proposition there is dynamical nature to the sphere as universal form. The sphere so far as it is dynamical in process is related to the expansion outward and inwards while maintaining the same degree of focus on the centre locus point. Circle is able to vary in magnitude while remain the same. Consciousness exhibits the physical nature of spherical void and there is a precise function for this.
Consciousness is capable of expanding outwards disclosing the nature of certain physical interactions and communicating to the mind from which is instigated as that thinking activity. This is how quantum “leap” operates defined as “an abrupt transition of a system described by quantum mechanics from one of its discrete states to another, as the fall of an electron in an atom to an orbit of lower energy.” We say it is “abrupt” because we see this physical phenomena abstracted from the mind that is the final cause action, but we see this action happening in the nature of any external atomic structure. It is a leap of void, nothing, from the mind onto the object to grasp it when it is beyond sensation. This is why is it discontinuous– change of the state of an electron in an atom or molecule from one energy level to another. This describes Quantum entanglement which “is a physical phenomenon which occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated or interact in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently of the state of the other(s), even when the particles are separated by a large distance—instead, a quantum state must be described for the system as a whole.”
(See packet of energy )
When for example you have the idea of Paris when you are sitting at home in toronto, the idea of Paris so far it is beyond sensation, consciousness is capable to expand to that location and derive the form of idea, you get the form of Paris. This is why in the above diagram a concentrated laser beam becomes a cone out of a self reflected entity, crystal. The magnitude of the laser beam changes to represent the nature from the emeritus it was intimated from. In a sphere, like a crystal, the nature of the laser takes on the same form, cone to capture whatever parts it took as polarization of itself. It is a wholly self integrated system of contradicting elements enclosed as such.
Every time you think of an idea your consciousness breaches beyond any particular location and expands to the location of the place where form of the idea constitutes its physical compositional. The mind is able to do this because consciousness so far as being void bears no particular quantities that interfere with the quantitive structure of the physical interaction it derives as the idea for the mind. Consciousness is not determined to any particular place because it does not have any particular quantitive composition like the ideas it derives. This is not the same to say it is not determined anywhere from some location, because the mind obviously on some level determines consciousness from the location it takes to be the idea from which it derives the next or the previous, but the determination so far as it possess infinite magnitude is not limited to any specific place as the of the void circumference captures two entirely non local relations. Since the whole of the universe is the universal form of sphere, and so far as the sphere is principle of reason, any particular relation is disclosed here. And so far as consciousness possess the dynamical nature of spherical void to expand in and out with infinite magnitude to disclose any relation of rational principles, two entirely inconsistent parts of a coherent structure can be conceived together not in the order they exhibit in forming the necessary structure of some phenomena. You can have an idea of water as it relates to hydrogen even though in nature hydrogen is primary prior to the formation of water.
Consciousness is able to do this because it is not limited in magnitude like the idea is to its logical structure. This is how ideas are derived in the mind from the world due to the capacity of consciousness to maintain the continuity towards the ideal. When the mind reaches the point of uncertainty which is the aim of needing to make the aim, it derives certainty by accessing reason which it does by having infinite non local ability to “see” or abstract any relation. The contradictions that is the working of mind in nature is that mind exhibits its idea as objects which show some particular logical structure constituting physical composition. Yet mind so far as generates infinity of these ideas possess the capacity of consciousness having no particular quantity is equipped with infinite magnitude of contracting set of ideas not in the order they are originally determined by the operation of thought as capturing principles of reason.
The cone in the sphere is the magnitude of consciousness. It expands from a strictly infinitesimal focus point to the generality of the spheres circumference. In this way it is able to derive any degree of the sphere. “a” is the centre of the sphere which is where the ideas are conceived by consciousness.
(Add inverse square law)
Alan watts critique against causation is true but vague. He disputes the fact that one event causes another, like the present caused by the past. He argues that anything arises out of nothing which is now. In this way there is no difference between what is happening and what is being done, the happening and the doing are what constitute being itself. The fact that the happening and the doing constitute the same determination does not alone state what the content of the determination is because the concept of determination is not reducible to the narrow meaning of causation as one event causing another.
Determination is inherently self-activity describable as what Alan watts speaks of as the un-differentiation between the doing and the happening. The content of this self-activity is by nature contradicting because if I=I, then what I am I, the I becomes that which cannot be grasped. In Buddhism often called the Ottman is that which cannot be attained but it never goes away. This is the basis for the idea that in duality there is unity and in unity there is duality. This is what the Buddhist call relativity but they do not take seriously that there is an actual conflict because that conflict is also at the same time the resolution. There is an essential disagreement in the nature of self-activity: this is the basis for dialectic which possess as primary principle that self-determination is the process of constantly being contradicted by the unattainable and non-disposable identity of the duality. Since the self is nothing and is therefore being as such and not that at the same time, this compact into one thought means that there is always self-contradiction, and this is determination. It is impossible to run away from this fact by indulging in the principle of nothing because as it is logically proved, nothing by virtue of being the start of being is the root of the problem. It is also not so evident that one can be passive to the problem of self-contradiction by creating the mindset of an onlooker into his own conflicting situation. Whereas this is one resolution it never by its own accord advance to the active steps of actually determining true ethical actions.
But this answers the question by refraining it in more fundamental manner. The mere physical interactions of parts constitute change in what otherwise are parts different from the relation. The reason for this can be summed up with the following questions: who is observing the observer?
If the observation is self observed, In what sense than is the observer distinct principle from the observation? For example whether the observer is the conception of some other observer or mere aggregates of physical interactions, the result is that the observer is reducible to the content of the conception. The problem is in the observer as related to the conception because if the observer is limited to the contents of the conception, than there is an uncertainty principle, namely; If a measurement of an observable event is performed, then the system is in a particular eigenstate place of that observable. However, the particular place eigenstate of the observable A need not be in a place, an eigenstate of another observable B: If so, then it does not have a unique associated measurement for it, as the system is not in an eigenstate of that observable.
A consequence of Bell’s theorem is that measurement on one of two entangled particles can appear to have a nonlocal effect on the other particle. The observer is potentially any part on the circumference of the sphere. The observer is limited to the observation as some part where the observer is potentially the whole of the observation. This is difficult to understand but in some sense constitutes the logical nature of many scientific concepts. Take for example the digestive systems way of metabolizing
The observer is distinct from the observation on the ground that it is the principle of uncertainty, but observation so far is product from uncertainty, the observer is certain to contain uncertainty. Certainty being part the limit of uncertainty. The observer effect goes beyond sense awareness but if we take for example our sense awareness and we ask what is beyond our perception, the old question butchered by Berkeley goes, if you are not looking at something is it there? (Add some Berkeley, even if the objects are maintained by the perception of god,) The distinct principle of the observer as differentiated from the observation states that the observer is element possessing knowledge of uncertainty placed in the observation. The observation so far as it is determined by consciousness is picked out from the flow of uncertainty. When you are not perceiving something either by sense awareness or more so by consciousness beyond the awareness is uncertainty.
According to quantum mechanics this is literal that the uncertainty is not whether what is beyond sense awareness exists or not, but the nature of its existence is not certain so long as it is not determined by the measurement of some awareness. In other words a lion or a snake can pop up behind you when you are only paying attention to a fruit on some tree. These are quantum events that their lack of approximate knowledge brings them into being for the observer.
Let’s take for example the motion of matter wave. When the uncertainty principle states that the “more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known” this inversely means that the determination of the momentum or motion denotes it as that same position from which the moment is less known. When the observer is one with the observation, or the observation is one with the motion, their relation becomes akin to static objects, position. For example if we are looking at concentric circles, means circles sharing the same centre, it is difficult to distinguish whether there is a motion of circles falling in each other or coming out of each other.
If the circle were animated such that the circles are in motion of inside outside it makes no difference whether you are falling into them or you are stationary and they are coming to you, it all appears the same. The observer and the observation are identical in this sense. Whereas if the observer and the observation are contradictory, the observer bears for the observation element of uncertainty because the observer is in some other phenomena unknown for the observation.
The motion becomes measurable changing the position of it. But with this the observer becomes blind to the part of the phenomenon from which the observer initiates measurement on the rest of it. This is no dead end but rather a relapse back to the identical relation between the motion and the observation. If we shift the concentric to the side it becomes a wave, and if we look into a wave it becomes a particle. As particle it is observer as wave it is observation.
(Whitehead when you touch you don’t see when see you don’t touch) Sense awareness is multiplex system, therelation of all the senses maintain precisely the the fundamental experiences of the phenomenon, the part of each sense blind to the whole of the phenomenon is supplemented by the capacity of the other sense, together paint a picture general than would be otherwise if the senses are separated. what is behind you is maintained by all the other senses of feeling, hearing, sensing touching etc. Even if your not directly looking at something. And what is beyond you is maintained into certainty by reason itself. Which the principles of reason, Plato calls the forms, are the most certain foundations of existence itself. What can be more certain than circle, line etc. These abstract principles are most certain relations maintaining reality. And we say that there is no circle in nature, not as according to sensation because that is a less certain state than in the quantum realm, a circle is a literal entity.
The uncertainty principle has a law of irreversibility feature. The evolution of an initially very localized gaussian wave function of a free particle in two-dimensional space, with color and intensity indicating phase and amplitude. The spreading of the wave function in all directions shows that the initial momentum has a spread of values, unmodified in time; while the spread in position increases in time: as a result, the uncertainty Δx Δp increases in time.
The law of irreversibility in conjunction with the uncertainty principle is very interesting relation because irreversibility is the quantity of uncertainty and uncertainty is the quality of irreversibility. A process never returns exactly to a former state, even if it finds itself placed in conditions of existence identical to those in which it has previously exited. In pure physical terms this means energy will not be recoverable if the process is reversed. The uncertainty principle is really an application of the negation in philosophy. Logical principle is positive only after it is negatively proposed. In the good old Descartes sense, the denial of something reaffirms its necessary existence. Uncertainty is the mechanism by which principle is certain. This is irreversible because once a principle is certain it cannot go back to being uncertain otherwise it was never certain to began with.
The certainty of determined principle however does not negate the uncertainty of an indeterminate one because the uncertainty is certain as such this negates the certainty that is proven from the initial uncertainty. We have therefore a complexity because certainty is irreversible, that something known cannot be unknown, yet uncertainty by way of negation is means whereby things come to be certainly known. As more things are certain, more are negated and there is more potential for uncertainty, yet with more uncertainty more things are certainly known. This is the initial overview for the idea of self-conditioning, refinement and improvement. According to whitehead as progress becomes more complex the process becomes faster. Now you would think that the more complex variables come into existence the slower the process because it has to dispense with more variables, this was the rationale for the universe slowing down. Yet the opposite is proven true and it is speeding up, meaning that the more variables the universe develops, there is corresponding exponential skills and technique to dispense and deal with the variability. Like a skilled factory worker is able to do more faster than an unskilled worker who does less slower.
Berkeley asserts that god is the ultimate perceiver maintaining objects while your perception is distracted somewhere else. This proposal alone does not sufficiently answer the observer problem because it does not properly explain the function of god as the observer. God is taken to be the positive principle which any negative principle is negated by that positivity. So far as god is the ultimate positive principle, is likewise inversely negated every time the negative is negated by the positive. Positive and negative are not categories they are actions to reactions. When positive negate a negative it is ultimately functioning as the negative to the positive nature of the negative to be negated. The power of god lies in the capacity of uncertainty to be the negation that brings about certainty, the certainty only so far as it is certain. The ultimate nature of god is as Hegel proposes dialectical, meaning that the skill of positive truth is negation of negatives.
Islam offers a very interesting elucidation of god in respect to the nature of negation. There is a contradiction in Islam. God is often states as the essence of every possible object, however when ever god is stated as describing the nature of some physical element, god becomes “not that”. For example, one of the most remarkable inclinations made in Islam is to depict god as the essence of light. The word “noor” in Islam means “the light” which is not merely any variation of light, instead is white light. In truth this is the depiction of light as the plain (plate-form) of being. In physics light has reached the speed limit and by this account it is technically the first physical principle exhibiting solidity, density, mass, weight etc.
Light is the bare quality of matter. (The bubble of being, there is bounce in it, when I bash my head against wall it bounces off, it is the enclosed sphere, the quality that takes on quality without itself being any quality) ironically in Islam if we were to associate god with light, god becomes “not that” and escapes the most foundational limitation. God in Islam is the principle of negation, the “not that” to any proposition. Islam however fails to grasp the positive nature of the negation and they saw it simply the function maintaining nothing in the face of any being. This logic constitutes the structure of the “sunni” belief, which is derivative from the Buddhist concept Śūnyatā, which means emptiness, nothing and moreso is defined as “not-self”. Sunni can be characterized as the belief of “not-self”. The difference between Sunni and the Shia belief is not one merely of textual religious interpretations but it is deeply philosophical. Shia is more like Christianity because they associate the non-being nature of God with an ideal. Shia fill the void of “not-self” with an ideal just like Christ is the ideal of mankind, Ali being the decedent of Mohammad symbolizes the next generation, the potential of man, is the ideal of mankind. Sunni insist on maintaining the nature of God as the negation such that any ideal is negated as not ideal. There is no room for ideality, as they say “[39:65] to those before you that if you ever commit idol worship, all your works will be nullified“. The only ideal in Islam is nothing, hence the worshiping of Mecca, which is a symbol of nothingness “the home of god”, the prayer is the walking In circles around it. In this way Islam short circuited and never historically advanced like Christianity because one part of the religion insists on limiting its ideal part to nothing.