tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30790709126918248912024-03-08T09:58:25.292-08:00Black HoleArt, dance, music, physics, spirit, creativity, intuition and creating peace. Please leave your comments! Let's create Free Life Communication.Michael Mosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09945966054525702920noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3079070912691824891.post-57800838654018802102010-08-21T08:30:00.000-07:002010-08-21T08:34:52.135-07:00Haven't updated this for some time. Maybe it's time for a musical uptick, since I'm playing a lot more and am writing new compositions. <div><!--StartFragment--> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT">Well, it's like this. I play the blues, I paid my dues, you can't fit in my shoes, been around, got a big sound. Free--that's me. Standards--do them all--playing them since I was small. Jazz standards, ok. Write my own stuff all the way--from simple chordal vamps and blowin' tunes to complex through-composed choral piece based on poetry of Louisa Strous Boiman and the Third Book of Moses, Lamentations--What can I say? I play--bass clarinet, clarinet, soprano and tenor saxes, flute, non-western instruments and love Irish music.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>As well as world music. Give me complex meter--love the Balkan stuff. Klez? African? Western and Eastern European? All cool. Into Beethoven and Bartok. Produced records with my own groups playing my own original music on my own record label, 4th Stream Records. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Led Free Life Communication, a NYC musicians’ coop in NYC in the ‘70s where I met Richie, Lieb, Greg, Mike, and the best people in the city.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Hung out.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Different scenes—uptown and downtown.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT"> People I used to play with have moved to the west coast (Mike Mahaffay, d), or to Boston (Laurence Cook, d), or to New Jersey (Armen Halburian, p, Badal Roy, tabla, Perry Robinson, cl.) though I think Jackson Krall is still around. I've been playing w/ many violinists (Bob Stern (NY), Mikko Mikola (Finland), Louisa Strous Boiman (Berlin)), multiple keyboardists (Richie Beirach (Germany), Greg Kogan (NY), Mark Hennen(NY)).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>So, really, I don't know how to explain it. I have to say, I can play, come what may. </span></p> <!--EndFragment--> </div>Michael Mosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09945966054525702920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3079070912691824891.post-33246143519586373482009-07-06T14:11:00.000-07:002009-07-06T14:13:45.425-07:00Nuomenon Psychology: Quantum Mind<!--StartFragment--> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b>Nuomenon Psychology:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Quantum Mind<o:p></o:p></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal">In an earlier post, “Einstein’s Brain, Quantum Mind,” I explored a few ideas pertaining to ego and communication.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Ego resides in space-time, mind does not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>A few problems come to mind.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity establishes <b>frame</b><span style="font-weight:normal"> as relative.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Each of us occupies our own frame and every frame is relative to every other frame.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>My frame contains an ego as does yours.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This accounts for some phenomena—basically I’m attempting to establish a philosophical argument that an individual cannot help but be different from another individual, no matter how similar.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>“My” identical twin has a different frame so “we” are not identical at the 100% level.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Mind may be a horse of different color in that minds talk to each other irregardless of space-time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Intuitive apperception meets Einstein’s definition of “spooky action at a distance.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>To account for these phenomena, Jung in concert with Wolfgang Pauli devised experiments testing the external validity of what Jung named synchronicity.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Quantum physics accounts for such spookiness through mathematical equations ascribing to instantaneous communication.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Called entanglement, subatomic particles can become entangled and what effects one effects the other simultaneously at faster than light (FTL) or superluminous speed.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Now there can be a metaphor for synchronicity.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Entanglement, however, cannot yet be more than a rule-out mechanism for synchronous events.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>An hypothesis must be proved scientifically—or rather, a null hypothesis must be disproved.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Entanglement is the null hypothesis.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If an experiment cannot disprove the null hypothesis, in this case, Ho = entanglement <span style="font-family:Symbol;mso-char-type:symbol;mso-symbol-font-family:Symbol"><span style="mso-char-type:symbol;mso-symbol-font-family:Symbol">X</span></span> (is in identity with) synchronicity, then you cannot say that entanglement is not <span style="font-family:Symbol;mso-char-type:symbol;mso-symbol-font-family:Symbol"><span style="mso-char-type:symbol;mso-symbol-font-family:Symbol">X</span></span> synchronicity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Or, in English: entanglement <span style="font-family:Symbol;mso-char-type:symbol;mso-symbol-font-family:Symbol"><span style="mso-char-type:symbol;mso-symbol-font-family:Symbol">X</span></span> synchronicity</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>First I want to review some literature about this.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>I would refer the reader to an extensive body of material regarding ego.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Ego became part of psychological nomenclature at the beginning of the 20<sup>th</sup> c. as a result of Sigmund Freud’s epistemological and scientific expositions on “The Ego and the Id.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>His ideas have mushroomed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>They laid the foundation of modern psychology.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Psychoanalytic techniques are referred to as “analysis” and most of our present-day understanding of ego has been experimentally substantiated using ego as a substrate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Not of all of Freudian psychoanalytic concepts are in vogue.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>There is plenty of room for both concrete experimentation and abstraction of original concepts.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Alongside Freud’s work coexists paranormal events, some of which were addressed by Freud himself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>To include these requires a paradigm shift which some intuitive psychologists are exploring.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Difficult as it may be to absolve some of these prepsychological or parapsychological concepts based on Eastern Religions and precursors of chemistry of the guilt that shadows all such endeavors to expose unconscious contents to the light, much of the progress to which I address my remarks may emerge from this primitive, preconscious substrata.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In my doctoral dissertation (Intuition and Creativity) some mention of this occurs in the final discussion section.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Now is the time to follow up on my speculation.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>It occurs to me that for some of the following reasons, to borrow Kant’s suggestion that noumenon are the forms which cannot be perceived but which can be apprehended only through their effects upon phenomena that can be perceived, and in that sense are represented “intuitively in a non-sensible intuition <span style="font-family:Helvetica-Bold"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon#cite_ref-13"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#002ABA;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none"><b>^</b></span></a></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Helvetica-Bold"> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason"><span style="font-family:Helvetica-Oblique;color:#002ABA;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none"><i>Critique of Pure Reason</i></span></a> A256,B312,p273(NKS)</span>”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This contrasts with the Platonic and scholastic debates over the differences between nuomena and phenomena for which Schopenhauer accuses Kant of missing the point (Wikipedia: <span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Helvetica"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Kantian_Philosophy"><span style="color:#002ABA;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none">Criticism of the Kantian Philosophy</span></a></span><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:Helvetica">".<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span></span>Nuomena for Kant cannot be perceived, making it fit my definition of mind which corresponds with entanglement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Nuomenon psychology catches the essence of mind in identity with entanglement, a quantum principle, specifically for the lack of precision and denial of determinacy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Nuomena are acausal and thereby fall under the rubric of synchronicity.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Physics provides the metaphor of dark energy, an uncertain black hole of psychology in which unconsciousness rules.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Ideas flash out the space-time continuum into a black hole of dark energy.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Nuomena represent the next level, perhaps an archetypal level, which should properly contain unconscious mind.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The question is whether we can rule out such an hypothesis through the mathematical precision of quantum mechanics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Are nuomenal abstractions quantized mind, or do we resort to the use of nuomenal substrata as metaphor only?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>For the purposes of this discussion, I will leave it as metaphor for now, with the idea that there may be a mathematical, quantum proof of the identity in the future.<o:p></o:p></p> <!--EndFragment-->Michael Mosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09945966054525702920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3079070912691824891.post-25663073451919719282008-12-09T16:40:00.000-08:002008-12-09T16:41:48.069-08:00EINSTEIN’S BRAIN, QUANTUM MIND<!--StartFragment--> <p class="MsoNormal"><b>EINSTEIN’S BRAIN, <a href="#http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mi">QUANTUM MIND<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span></a></b><span style="font-weight:normal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> 12.9</span>.08</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Keywords:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Einstein, Quantum, Richard Feynman, Wolfgang Pauli, Pauli exclusion principle, Cognitive Behavior Therapy, CBT, Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy, REBT, Sigmund Freud, C.G. Jung, Bohr, Heisenberg, John Boccio, Swarthmore College, creativity, intuition, synchronicity, chromodynamic, supersymmetry, quantum loop gravity, string theory.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>For some time I have been querying myself:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>how can individual ego be of a different spacetime than other egos?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Conversely:<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>how can individual mind be connected to other minds?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Lately, these questions have been sharpened by my study of physics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It strikes me (Aha!) that ego exists in a macro universe ruled by Einstein’s general law of relativity but mind exists in a quantum universe of entanglement which allows us to speak with one another.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Why differentiate?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>A couple of days ago in a seminar the issue of Alzheimer’s Disease was discussed from a number of different perspectives, one of which was the brain and the other being the mind.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In a conversation I had with the presenter I broached the subject of how we each of us have a different spacetime frame from everyone else, that we carry this frame around with us, and that this accounts for our having such an individualized perspective.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>On the connectivity side, we each of us can speak with one another, share dreams, and even communicate across space and time at superluminous, faster than light (FTL) speeds that can be accounted for by invoking quantum entanglement as a connectivity principle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Why not call this <b>Einstein’s Brain, Quantum Mind</b><span style="font-weight:normal">?</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>True, the present-day order of physics continues to grapple with the discontinuity between the macro and the micro universe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Different hypotheses are salient and a few (million) more are receding.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Why review string theory and super symmetry here?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Or even lapse into quantum loop gravity for that matter?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Let’s keep it simple for the rest of us psychologists—we have a brain that exists in the macro universe which is receptive to quantum connectivity.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Many psychologists revere determinism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>That would be the causal universe of Freud.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>This trends toward CBT and REBT—Cognitive Behavior Therapy and Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy; note the emphasis on <b>behavior</b><span style="font-weight:normal">.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Behavior occurs in this world, not the next.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>The next world has always reminded me of heaven and hell, the afterlife, Buddhism and karma and reincarnation, the transmigration of souls.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Yet afterlife might be reframed to include the multiverse, multidimensional strata and substrata, and quantum foam.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>That which can be explained can be determined, and that which cannot—well the Feynmanian wave has not yet collapsed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Feynman utilized equations that ascribed to non-determinate infinite probability.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Well, not strictly <b>infinite</b><span style="font-weight:normal"> probability, merely the construct that a quantum particle follows every line of probability and every path it might take prior to popping into existence when the wave of probability collapses.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The collapsing wave is a good metaphor for decision-making.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Of all the decisions one might make, the one we make occurs when the wave collapses, or, when we collapse the wave.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If one wants to believe in the principle of free will, and desires to make free will one of the considerations of what it takes to be human, this also satisfies this condition.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>So quantum, Feynmanian probability makes us human and the seat of consciousness.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>That skews us to the quantum mind side of things, but it also brings us into “reality.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Reality might be a construct that we can refer to as “existence” while the quantum mind appears to inhabit “preexistence.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Potential, preexist, probability—all describe quantum mind.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>It is the opposite of rational, logical, causal, and determinist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Wait, could that be the sound of Jung’s<a href="synchronicity#http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronic"> synchronicity?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span></a></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Jung and quantum mind—well let’s think.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Synchronicity was developed by Jung in collaboration with Wolfgang Pauli.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Pauli suggested that, to quote Wikipedia: “The <b>Pauli exclusion principle</b><span style="font-weight:normal"> is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics">quantum mechanical</a> principle formulated by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Pauli">Wolfgang Pauli</a> in 1925. It states that no two <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_particles">identical</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermions">fermions</a> may occupy the same <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_state">quantum state</a> <i>simultaneously</i></span>. A more rigorous statement of this principle is that, for two identical fermions, the total wave function is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skew-symmetric_matrix">anti-symmetric</a>. For electrons in a single atom, it states that no two electrons can have the same four <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_number">quantum numbers</a>, that is, if <i>n</i><span style="font-style:normal">, </span><i>l</i><span style="font-style:normal">, and </span><i>m<sub>l</sub></i><span style="font-style:normal"> are the same, </span><i>m<sub>s</sub></i><span style="font-style:normal"> must be different such that the electrons have opposite spins.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This is a basic concept in quantum chromomechanics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Let us ask what this might have to do with Jung.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Pauli and Jung were in deep discussions for many years during one of the most fertile periods of Pauli’s and Jung’s theoretical development.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>That is, Pauli was developing the exclusion principle and Jung the principle of synchronicity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>They write to each other for many years and a convergence of physics and psychology emerges.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Jung had previously entered the world of physics in his article<a href="#http://coniunctio.org/psyenergy.html"> “On Psychic Energy”</a> so he was predisposed to consider psyche from the standpoint of physics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This attitude bore more fruit when he and Pauli synchronistically came into a relationship through the medium of another Jungian analyst.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Much of this relationship is well known and does not need further adumbration.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The point—<b>Jung and Pauli share the concept of quantum mind</b><span style="font-weight:normal">.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Synchronicity, an acausal connecting principle, falls into the category of arational, acausal, wholistic, and intuitive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Intuition, something I explored more fully in<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><a href="#http://www.philajung.com/">“Intuition and Creativity,”</a> bespeaks a high correlation with creativity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>What if creativity/intuition bespeaks a high correlation with the collapsing wave?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Reality is created by the willful collapsing of the wave by the creative psyche.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>The artist, to paraphrase, creates reality.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>There might be somewhat of a crossover between creation and procreation, especially if one views the works of Apolinaire, the cubist theoretician and poet from a slightly less than askance perspective, which throws a bit of light on the atmosphere in which Freud and Jung developed.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Nonetheless, the act of creation brings new life into the world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>What if that life exists <i>in potentia</i><span style="font-style:normal"> in another world?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>That might fit the definition I am proposing of creativity and the collapsing wave.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>We are skimming here, which might be taken as surreal or superficial, yet Apolinaire, Freud, Picasso, Jung, and Pauli all have something in common—the act of creation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>My approach is to add Einstein so as to throw a light on psyche which coexists in both “our” world and the netherworld.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Einstein places us in a causal universe of laws which ensconce the ego as a relative frame to other egos.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It is the ultimate act of individuality to have an ego.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>All reality is viewed from within the frame of the ego and all other reality, and other egos remain relative to that ego.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>“I” carry around with “me” a frame of reality.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Out of that frame comes a light cone of probable action.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Action occurs at or slower than the speed of light.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>“My” light cone differs from all others.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We don’t notice the difference between “our” and “other” lightcones because we humans share a virtually identical light cone; we live on the planet Earth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Yet this explanatory principle of physics also accounts for the individuality of the ego and how ego relates causally and rationally to other egos in a deterministic universe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>I would never deny the existence of a deterministic universe—I just don’t exclude the possibility of other acausal non-deterministic ones.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This is where I require a quantum universe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We don’t necessarily require a multiverse, which quantum physics cannot exclude logically.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We just don’t have to have such a messy concept which makes it possible to conceive of every possible wave collapsing to form a different pathway and thereby a different set of probability resulting in an infinite number of universes—the multiverse.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>To keep it simple, we only need potential action, not reified infinite action, to account for what I am referring to as the quantum mind.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>The quantum mind, as differentiated from the mind of Einstein, is a mind of relationship, rather than a mind of relativity.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Quantum mind relates everything.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Einstein relates everything relatively.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Quantum mind considers the alternatives while Einstein’s brain considers the macrouniverse that we all believe we live in.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>There are many who consider this world of Einstein to be limited.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>However, psychology has had difficulty bringing them into the fold.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>To consider these perspectives valid, I am invoking quantum mind.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Quantum mind does not require acceptance of every different perspective, no matter how we think it might be difficult to apprehend, prove, or suggest.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Quantum mind provides a perspective upon which to rest our perception of these hypothetical constructs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>They might exist in a quantum universe and if so would follow extremely explicit mathematical constructs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Quantum physics does not accept any deviance from its mathematical constructs.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>There is no discussion here.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>To include what many would consider far out in the big tent of quantum mind requires subservience to what many believe to be laws of physics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In other words, by extrapolating into questionable reality, different ideas can be put up against the hard facts of mathematical quantum mechanics or chromodynamic constructs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>I am not the one to do this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I am no quantum mathematician—just ask Dr. John Boccio who taught the class at the Lifelong Learning Center of Swarthmore College in Einstein and also a course in quantum physics to us amateurs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But I took away from Dr. Boccio the ideas generated in the magic era of Bohr, Pauli, and Heisenberg.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>They are mighty and clear.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>To bring into their purview psychological ideas, you have to work mighty hard.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>That is why I have been so possessed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>What-if questions bombard me.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Analytical psychology accepts the need for non-specific solutions.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Freudian psychology pins everything down.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Both have a place in psychology.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Their children propagate into the future.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It is time for some accounting for both sides now.<o:p></o:p></p> <!--EndFragment-->Michael Mosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09945966054525702920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3079070912691824891.post-88651404664978713052008-10-22T12:26:00.001-07:002008-12-09T15:57:22.045-08:00<!--StartFragment--> <p class="MsoNormal">THE UNCONSCIOUS AS A QUANTUM PROCESS</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The other night I had a disturbing dream:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I am sitting at one of 3-4 tables, four to a table.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The king sitting at one of the other tables proclaims:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>“and now we will celebrate the thrush” and everyone understands this to be a formal ceremony.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We remain seated as the hall is suddenly flooded with individuals wearing black stocking-cap masks who slit everyone’s throats as we sit there dispassionately awaiting our fate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I see my vision change as my falls over suddenly, apparently as my own throat is slit, but I feel no pain.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">A few days later the financial rescue plan of $700bn was proclaimed and the financial collapse of capitalism 2008 began.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I always connected the dream with the free-fall of the market—my dreams are often premonitory.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But now I am conversant with 21<sup>st</sup> century physics—early 21<sup>st</sup> century—and its roots so I made a different sort of connection of dream with reality.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Given that dreams reveal in symbol and narrative reality on very different plateaus; and given that these range from the petty to the profane, the sacred to the pagan, just how do dreams connect with everything?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The deeper question lies in the nature of intuition because dreams are one voice through which intuition expresses itself.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">It occurs to me that one elegant hypothesis might be to rule out whether or not intuition functions in a quantum multiverse in multidimensions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Take for instance my disturbing dream.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If dreams like these are synchronistic they will honor events but not according to the law of Humpty Dumpty—entropy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Time being relative indicates no dream is stuck in time.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Prescience can accompany intuitive leaps, precognition, or synchronicity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The simplest hypothesis in physics is that of Feynman—a subatomic particle may take any and ALL of the infinitely varied paths no matter the level of probability, until the probability wave collapses—then the probability of the particle becomes one:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>P = 1.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>A second theorem of quantum chromo dynamics establishes that of entanglement—particles may be entangled with one another and any change in one changes the other taking no time—it is not causal but occurs at FTL speed where FTL stands for Faster Than Light.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Known also as superluminousity, FTL entanglement might be the vehicle of intuition, synchronicity, and dreams of the fall of the king—in this case—King George W. Bush.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Very civilized, but lethal.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The big dream often affects many people and C.G. Jung advised us to tell others whenever we had one because many psyches contribute to this expression of the collective unconscious.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>So the collective unconscious might be a quantum phenomenon according to this line of reasoning.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The collective unconscious is an expression of the quantum-entangled Psyche.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Psyche with a capital “P” would encompass eternity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It is timeless.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Prophets speak in these terms.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Historians of any profession see events as interconnected and repetitive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Why should the sages of psychology think differently?</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">To summarize:</p> <p class="MsoNormal">1.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Big dreams are manifestations of a collective Psyche of entangled souls.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">2.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Intuition functions in a Fenynmanian manner—there are an infinite number of probabilities until the wave collapses.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">3.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The collapse represents our present-day reality.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">This has implications for creativity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>As my dissertation research suggests, there is a robust covariance between creativity and intuition.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>A creative act collapses the wave of potential and leads to further wave functions.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>I play a note and other notes suggest themselves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I play the next note, collapsing the wave and new potential notes present themselves.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Until I stop playing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Or writing, painting, choreographing, designing . . . .<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Creativity is also a quantum function, just like intuition.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Well, I’m ready to collapse.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>The dream—the king represents the monarchy of a system that will potentially fall.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>All dreams are potential—not real.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>My head falls over—I have a new angle on things.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Unfortunately I am too dead to take advantage of it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But—I’m not dead!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I’m dreaming.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Therefore—things are collapsing and we must have a new angle on things because if we don’t the Huns are gathering at the gates and civilization as we know it is DOOMED!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Or something like that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Add your own interpretation.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><!--StartFragment--> </p><p class="MsoNormal">Now if I could only figure out what Thrush means.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Maybe Thrush is short for my old advisor, Ranny Thrush.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>So is Ranny is behind this mess!?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span></p> <!--EndFragment--> <p></p> <!--EndFragment-->Michael Mosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09945966054525702920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3079070912691824891.post-88591125111334961462008-08-15T10:36:00.000-07:002008-10-22T12:56:47.227-07:00MCCAIN AND OBAMA—CAN THEY COLLAPSE THE WAVE?<!--StartFragment--> <p class="MsoNormal">Can John McCain or Barack Obama master their fate?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Can they collapse the wave?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Both presumptive presidential candidates are the product and the shaper of their times.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Each has a vision and a campaign to project that vision onto present-day socio-political-economic events.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>How much are they chosen to play these forces and how much can they shape them?</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p>Thinking about this, a “man of action” like John McCain will actually be a man of reaction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>So many of the threats he perceives result from his having been raised to think of war as service, a positive force for change, and yet a reaction to threats—real or perceived—to the security of the nation and all its special interests.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>McCain is reacting to what surrounds him.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>He is not a leader but a politician.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>He asks everyone for advice and changes tactics on the fly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Because of this, a negativity pervades his campaign that seeks to suppress difference, dialog, the vote, and to promote special interests.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We know what he is against far more than what he is for.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>He is focused and secure relative to challenges to US authority.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>He is unfocused and insecure about managing change and diversity, deferring instead to a laissez-faire market economy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This comes from an uncreative judgmental, opinionated, and reflexive mentality.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>How does this differ from the approach of Barack Obama?</o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>A broad world-view or <i>weltanschauung</i><span style="font-style:normal"> projects itself onto the cosmology of interactive forces in a dynamic flux of variants and force in the personality of Barack Obama.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>There is little emotion, divisive opinionating, or reflexive reaction in the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>A product of his time, Obama appears to enjoy being “plugged in.”<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>He is aware of and takes advantage of electronic media because it comprises his universe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Obama reflects upon the energies of these interactive variables, attempts to order them in unique ways, then strips the abstraction from the conceptual fabric to reveal a clear structure, simply and clearly explicated.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The ideas are complex—their expression is not.</span></o:p></p><!--StartFragment--> <p class="MsoNormal"> By showing the public how quickly he and his campaign staff reflect, reshape, and recreate the attacks made upon him the style as well as the substance of the leadership potential Obama possesses are revealed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The most refreshing thing to me as a political junky and a psychologist is the direct way Obama answers questions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I can see the thought processes, the logic, the options considered, the stress on understanding, out of which emerges a nuanced and subtle approach to the multi-leveled attempts by the opposition to shape his responses.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><!--StartFragment--> </p><p class="MsoNormal">It is more than reactivity because all of his responses come from a well thought out sub-structure alloyed with a penchant for clearly communicating what is on his mind.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This is the difficulty opponents have with him.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>By understanding the pokes and jabs he feints and thrusts with authority.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Like the Jedi Knights of Lucas-lore, Obama intuitively grasps the largest situations and can move fluidly within this cosmic array in an intelligent manner.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">In so doing, Barack belies his multi-cultural heritage and his life-experience in the Far East, Kansas, and Hawaii through his dual African-American eyes in the truest sense of the word. Obama is a first-generation African-American.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But, this sensibility is wedded to a Harvard Law education and a University of Chicago professorial focus on the American constitution.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">If anyone can perform on the highest level with the greatest depth it is Barack Obama.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>He thinks in the present with concepts birthed in the cauldron of the genesis of American democracy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If anything, Obama is a clear counterpart to the wisdom expressed in McCain’s candidacy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Both have merit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Both Obama and McCain can perceive the future.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>McCain represents a history of independence that has propelled the US into the 21<sup>st</sup> century with a focus on domination.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Obama reflects the diversity of his time and the control over electronic media that will be the future heritage of our maturing nation, making it again a leader by example.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Both men are collapsing the wave of probability proclaimed by the quantum theorists to be the mechanics of creation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It is up to the forces to redistribute themselves—but through whose eyes?<o:p></o:p></p> <!--EndFragment--> <p></p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p> <!--EndFragment--> <p></p><!--StartFragment--> <!--EndFragment--> <!--EndFragment-->Michael Mosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09945966054525702920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3079070912691824891.post-29323001351181927892008-08-15T10:35:00.000-07:002008-10-22T12:52:59.066-07:00MIND SHAPES PROBABILITYmind shapes probability<div><!--StartFragment--> <p class="MsoNormal">It’s been awhile since the last entry.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Life has intervened.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Time is ever-shifting, a metaphor and a fact.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We are all in a bubble. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Somewhere, sometime, different bubbles intersect and then we share a coherent spacetime with another.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Like the traveler in Einstein’s train, we are moving and not moving at the same time.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>When time stands still we may be moving faster than we ever have, or so slowly it seems the event horizon stretches to beyond the blue horizon.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p>The questions I have raised in this blog are speculative and limited.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Mathematics is the new language of science.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Rolled-up dimensions in a super-symmetric Calabi-Tau three-fold cannot be observed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>So I content myself with star gazing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Luckily there is no dearth of images downloaded from earth-bound and satellite observation platforms (<a href="http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/">http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/</a>).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I can almost make out in the rain bands of our hurricanes patterns similar to galaxies shaped by forces I can only imagine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>My mind wants to see correlations between rain bands and an ego sending energy out into multidimensional spacetime.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Will the force of mind coalesce into droplets of intense focused consciously created reality?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Will what I think collapse waves of quantum energy, creating a world because I can think it?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Was Descartes correct?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This puts a spin on creativity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Up till now I believed creativity took pre-existing elements and reshaped them into new patterns.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Why stop there? Living in a universe both macro and micro, should not even a whiff of suspicion be given to probability, a kind of Feynmanian exploration of the infinite mathematical chances a subatomic particle can enter/re-enter our universe?</o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>What if mind shapes probability?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Just see any kung fu movie, watch any basketball game, listen to any music, look at any painting, photograph, dance, and the It (Das Es—Freud’s concept of the id) is projected onto it. We see what we want to, and the patterns emerge.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Consciousness alerts us to potential intuitively.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Is this mathematical?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It is like saying action consists of organized macroparticles, that we can “play ball” indicates a playful balance between the ball and all the tricks the hitters, runners, fielders, pitchers and catchers can do with it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>How else do you spell “momentum?”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Control is only part of momentum.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Fielding a ball is too complex for simple models—the metaphor forces break-downs when too many variables come into play and analogies no longer describe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But mathematics may provide a way through if there is a computer fast enough to compute all the variables.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Why is it a great player must first learn to control the forces but must stop thinking to produce the best play?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>As if conscious behavior can only take us so far.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>To perform on the highest level an athlete or an artist may find themselves a small part of a larger energy that has the momentum to carry them along.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>At this point we cannot as shapers of destiny change more than our relation to the forces.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>By setting up energy, the actor shapes a continuum.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>By riding a wave, a surfboarder becomes the wave.</o:p></p><!--StartFragment--> <!--EndFragment--> <!--StartFragment--> <!--EndFragment--> <!--EndFragment--> </div>Michael Mosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09945966054525702920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3079070912691824891.post-58073878310405952302008-02-20T13:29:00.000-08:002008-02-20T13:30:59.418-08:00ISE, BRANE and M-THEORY: ISE: I CHING-SYNCHRONICITY-ENTANGLEMENTISE, BRANE and M-THEORY<br />ISE: I CHING-SYNCHRONICITY-ENTANGLEMENT<br />By Michael Moss, Ph.D.<br /><br />I have been searching for a proper metaphor. Psychology as a science; that’s one metaphor. Psychology as an art; that’s another. Or as a metaphysical spiritual quest. Or, or, or, . . . And on and on and on. I wrote a dissertation to break ground on this subject. Science got me to the point of realizing that my hypotheses are testable. Through hypothesis testing and statistics, I could state rather significantly (using stat) that creativity and intuition are pretty much the same thing. But now it is time for a further exploration that is more philosophical and ideational, and less scientific and correlational. Not to say I feel we should shy away from being scientific. Just that it is important to include science in a different metaphor that supersedes that of science. What kind of metaphor might that resemble?<br />Brane Theory: a sensibility built upon a structure suggested by physics. A what-if quest for truth independent of human intelligence. Mind as matter, energy, multiverse, relativity, spacetime, quantum mechanics, string theory, M-theory, brane theory. Putting together eastern mysticism, archaic methodology and Jungian synchronicity. Inclusive of ISE: I Ching-Synchronicity Entanglement.<br />Let’s define terms. Observe human behavior and we see a highly valid, both internally and externally, modus operandi, which is founded upon a century of psychoanalytic, behavioral, cognitive-behavioral, sociological, and anthropological verities. It is time to look beyond psyche and spirit. To balance all these disparate elements, forces, and values, a setting within something more substantial makes inherent sense to me. I ask, why not set a new way of thinking in a framework suggestive of present-day physics, just as Jung did when he was analyzing Wolfgang Pauli, a major quantum mechanics physicist? Many of Jung’s concepts come from physics, both quantum and relativity physics. Jung uses energy, action at a distance, functionality, and mysticism--ideas current in his generation--in holistic, intuitive patterns. This is why I was originally attracted to Jung’s way of thinking. It resonates with my own way of thinking. But Jung, limited as are we all by the time within which he lived, can only be just so relevant to today’s world. Einstein lived in a relativistic reality and subjected it to the most exquisite analysis to arrive at a mathematically constant symbiosis of where we are relative to where everything else is. Perhaps it is someone else’s turn to attempt to amalgamate current streams of consciousness relevant to ideas framed by current thinking in disparate realms.<br />Today one of the latest theories in physics has to do with multi-dimensions. String theory or M-Theory posits more than the usual number of dimensions, I.e., more than the 3+1 dimensions. We experience life in a universe that is 4-dimensional: 3-dimensional plus the dimension of time. String theory mathematically posits more than that. We live in a 10 dimensional or an 11 dimensional universe--9 or 10 spatial dimensions plus the dimension of time. The 10 dimensional universe has 4 normal dimensions plus 6 other tiny dimesnions we can’t see. Mtheory wants to say there are branes that are 11 dimensionsl. They are like mem-branes--branes for short. So we live in an 11 dimensional brane, but only see 4 of them--the rest are too tiny, or we don’t know how to see them so we just think of the usual 3+1 dimensions.<br />Upon reading into physics, I find the metaphor of branes to mean something applicable to psychology. Branes are mathematical examples of physics, but it seems they are similar to brains. A brane is a system of dimensions. There might be more than three dimensions plus the dimension of time in the brane within which we live. A brane can exist, sequestering a set number of dimensions, but influenced by other dimensions that are part of an overall bulk. In the bulk exist branes which follow rules of physics different from our own brane. Think of each person as a brane living in a bulk, influenced by other branes. Each of us lives in our own brane. <br />Einstein might see this in terms of frames. Each frame is personal and relative to every other frame. Within a frame is a spacetime that is relative to that of another frame. We each of us live in narcissistic, self-centered frames that at lower levels of consciousness relate only selfishly to other branes. But what if our brane is part of a bulk? Then we see other frames relativistically as different but equally valid. What if each frame is contained in a brane and there are different, other dimensional branes to relate to? Then each brane is influenced by forces that interact, connecting the branes, relating them one to another in a relativistic, causal manner. <br />The brain has segments that interact one with another. Through biochemistry, forces spread throughout the body, coordinated more or less by the central nervous system. Each of these segments relates as a frame to another frame. Complex theory (Jung) breaks down the segments into less conscious, but fully functional psychological points of view. When someone becomes less conscious, that is when a complex assumes control. Whether we call it acting out, passion, psychotic, or unconscious, different points of view/different relativistic universes collide, all within each of us, and something takes control. That center of control might be better conceived as a brane within the brain, following its own laws, in its own dimensions, communicating across the bulk to other branes, influenced by other branes. If a brane is similar to a complex, then the bulk contains all these branes and brains. <br />What if each brane acts not only relativistically but also through entanglement? Is the bulk somehow coordinated itself so that everything within the bulk is not only interacting relative to everything else in the bulk but is also acting at a distance? That is my surmise. Other ways of describing such “spooky action at a distance” as Einstein once described it include ancient psychological manners of thinking. Let’s include the eastern way of thinking in this mix, specifically the I Ching. According to the I Ching everything is related, not causally, but simultaneously. By using the three coins or the 50 yarrow-stalks to see what the current orientation of the universe happens to be, and by asking a question of the oracle to see how that relates to our particular orientation, people are relating across the bulk, seeing other branes, and relating to how other people relate to the bulk. This is the first principle.<br />A different principle, that of sychronicity, describes I Chingness in a 20th c. psychological way. Think of synchronicity as acausal and you can see how Jung was influenced by Pauli. Quantum theory describes action at a distance, i.e., entanglement, which I somehow correlates with synchronicity. Something over there is connected to something over here and somehow interacts simultaneously with that something over here. A mother wakes up with a dream of her dieing mother and finds out her mother passed away at the time of the dream. A brane over there acausally relates to a brane over here. Or if two or more coincidences appear to have a meaningful connection, Jung said that was a synchronistic event. The event puts more than one event together. One frame and another and another relate simultaneously “at a distance.” They come from different perspectives, but each, valid internally, is valid externally as well. Frames are part of a whole brane and interact across the bulk with other frames and branes. We, that is, the frame within our brane, have relatively different perspectives and time values from that of other frames in the brane. We are relatively heavy, full of energy, and affect other frames synchronistically.<br />The third prototype, entanglement, furthers discussion in the sense that what occurred simultaneously in one frame continues to connect, even if found across the bulk in different frames. There is an acausal, quantum connection. Entangled particles interact instantaneously as if they are the same particle. They might have started I the same place at the same time, but drifted apart until they cannot causally communicate because they are farther apart than the distance covered by the speed of light. A change to one particle changes the other faster than the speed of light. Sounds like the I Ching and synchronicity to me. All things relate to all other things are different reflections of the same thing, something described by myself as ISE--I Ching-Synchronicity-Entanglement--not just causally, acausally, and simultaneously.<br /> As a psychologist, I observe this every day. When I go to work, every person operates or functions within their own frame. Each frame relates to every other frame relativistically. I have a point of view which if I express it verbally or nonverbal can mysteriously form within the mind of another person so that they can relate to my point of view. Granted, most of this is one narcissistic person talking to another, but relatively, each person has a frame of mind, literally existing in spacetime relative to every other frame of mind, frame of reference, FRAME. My work consists of helping people talk to each other, helping different parts of each person to talk to each other, and to help all of these relate not just relativistically, but quantumly, and synchronistically. Call it meaning making, creative, or intuitive, if I am in tune with another person, I can tune them up. We can get on the same page, speak the same language, see through each other’s eyes, step into each others’ shoes. My spirit and their spirit have spiritual intercourse. My culture and their culture can either have a culture war or a culture peace. We can conflict, resolve conflicts, be stubborn and resist change, or be change agents. Call it what you will, this psychological action at a distance is similar to multidimensionality, branes, and the bulk. If I think about it mathematically, a simple equation emerges from the chaos of existence: M-theory.<br />As I understand M-theory, in its present manifestation, everything is vibrating. Overtones of vibrations form matter, energy, spirit, and mind. Physicists might shudder to see how distorted I am making M-theory’s clarity of mathematical reality, but M-theory does not seem to me less than all inclusive both of spacetime, quantum reality, and what we humans call religion. Leaving God out of the equation is both unpsychological and unrealistic. We can’t see God, but we can see God’s effects. Moving on, God is the ultimate spiritual principle that includes omniscience, omnipotence, and ultimate reality. Dead or alive, God speaks. It is not to diminish God that I bring up such essence. God is a perfectly ordinary way of perceiving our world from the perspective of the entirety of existence. We hang our hat on God. God is. Why avoid an externally and internally valid principle of action at a distance? Einstein pointed out that the old man, the ultimate principality of the soul, was the relative nature of existence. But God belongs to all of us, no matter the name of God, and the here and now, the afterlife, includes the multiverse. God is there for a reason but the meaning of God appears to have something more to do with the descriptive nature of the concept. No one can tell a scientist that God can be proved. No religious person can tell me anything more than it is a question of faith. No psychologist can state that behavior, insight, and dynamic forces interact according to laws we understand. In fact, the limitations of all of the above is driving me in my own search for meaning, a quest I have been on for some time, energized by exploration into mysteries of personality, art, and being a part of something bigger than myself. If that’s not Godlike, or natural, then what is it? <br />For me, it is natural to think big. Everything relates to everything else. Everything is realative. How it does so is an unending source of wonder. How I feel has more to do with the exceptional friends I have, the music that I play, the compositions that I write, and the beyond thought experience of being plugged in when I abandon my ego to relate artistically to another, and another, and a group of others. Then I can see the connection. Then I can do something that expresses the whole and the whole talks back. If we are a part of an entity, then the entity contains everything in it not just in a physical way but in a mental way. We are all mental. Not just crazy mental, but mindful mental. And that mind is best described by M-theory, ISE, and will be described better in the future after we distance ourselves a bit more from the caves, from primordial unconsciousness, from believing we should physically, emotionally, and demogogically control others. It might take more work, but we can do it. We can all plug in, entangle, synchronize.Michael Mosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09945966054525702920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3079070912691824891.post-19436796756429179842008-02-09T12:06:00.000-08:002008-02-09T12:10:15.821-08:00Are we living in a psychic universe?Recently, I have been looking at “Atom and Archetype, The Pauli/Jung Letters 1932—1958.” Revolving around archetype and physics, the two develop a way into the psyche that proceeds through what Pauli refers to as microphysics, the physics of subatomic particles, more generally known today as quantum physics or quantum mechanics. Pauli founded several significant principles of quantum physics, and he is well on his way to inscribing his signature into the book of archetypal, analytical psychology in this tome. The most interesting aspect is the concentration almost exclusively on the intuitive nature, rather than the physical nature, when they approach the subject of psyche. Pauli goes toward Jung and Jung develops wonderful ideas, the most radical of which being that of synchronicity. They deliberately eschew a focus on the microphysics which is Pauli’s area of expertise. This concentration on alchemy, psychopomp, constellation of the archetypes, figures in dreams representing the self—radioactivity (Pauli)—the light and the dark animus, and other dream figures, most significantly Pauli’s stranger does not elucidate the calculus of the quantum world. They elaborate more on the development of alchemy, astrology, and ignore 20th c. science. This is both a shame and an opening. It is a shame because a great opportunity is missed to ground the psyche in the known experimental world of quantum mechanics and all that follows, and it is an opening because others are given the roadmap to follow so as to explore this unknown territory.<br /> What is elevated is less experiment and more intuition. The logical nature of science is reduced to metaphor. Radioactivity becomes the 20th c. metaphor, just like the steam engine, the circulation of the alchemists, and the conjunctions of the planets were metaphorical expressions of projected psyche. What is left out is a hypothetical deductive approach to the confluence of psyche and physics, what Jung refers to as psychoid. Energy becomes psychic energy. But psychic energy does not have more than an allegorical relationship to energy equaling mass times the speed of light squared (Einstein), or quantum energy. This is what needs to be explored in the 21st c. The temptation is to make more metaphors. The goal ought to be to ground psychology—the study of psyche—in physics, and to relate physics to psychology.<br /> Thankfully, Jung and Pauli make amazing progress in the area of analytic psychology. Jung completes an experiment utilizing astrology to support the concept of synchronicity which still holds up, partially due to Pauli’s suggestions along the way for an experimental design and statistical analysis that remains internally and externally valid and reliable according to the rules of scientific investigation. As a cornerstone for further study, the synchronicity analysis is remarkable. My own work in creativity and intuition follows this model—statistically, intuition covaries with creativity to a very high degree of significance. If you’re interested, refer to my doctoral dissertation (Moss, 1991, University of Wisconsin-Madison). The movement now ought to be, from my perspective, toward further supporting synchronicity in the realm of science, specifically by following the rules of the mind as they relate to extremely clear rules of quantum mechanics. Number should become a portal to consciousness. Perhaps Einstein’s Old One is really a mathematician.Michael Mosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09945966054525702920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3079070912691824891.post-52701881867337582952008-01-22T16:46:00.000-08:002008-01-22T16:47:42.895-08:00Brain/Mind/Collapsing Waves-RBrain/Mind/Collapsing Waves-R<br />Where is my mind? Organs (heart, stomach), seat of consciousness (pineal gland), parts of or all of the brain, brain and central nervous system (CNS), embodied or disembodied in an aura—too may options. Too many philosophers. Not enough science. Too much religion—not enough spirit. Too black and white—no color, no emotion, too much emotion. So—everything is relative. Mind and the hologram. Memory is a hologram. . . really, REALLY loose.<br />A part of me craves order, a part disorder, a part chaos. Something about life and death. Where am I going with all of this?<br />Let’s change the subtext. I dismiss causality. Causality is a useful construct—no more. Causality produces pollution—we really ought to consider cleaning up our act before we destroy the only platform our life-form currently inhabits.<br />Life is not conscious, but some life forms appear to be more conscious than others. Until the Turing solution has been attained by a non-organic machine—read computer—we seem to be talking to ourselves. What if we can sense others at a distance, something described by Einstein when countering Bohr’s quantum theory of entanglement, calling it “spooky.” The Old One does not throw dice he believed. But quantum mechanics uses mathematical models that perfectly describe “spooky action at a distance.” Entanglement, the physical principle of spookiness, actually resolves one of psychologist C.G. Jung’s hypotheses, that of synchronicity.<br />Synchronicity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity) was born out of Jung’s interaction with a major player in the early gestation of quantum theory, the progenitor of the exclusion principle, Wolfgang Pauli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle). Pauli was analyzed by C.G. Jung. His dreams are a fundamental element in part of Jung’s Collected Works, “Psychology and Alchemy” as well as “The Analysis of Dreams.” Their commonality lay in the quizzical equivalence of quantum physics and depth psychology and gestated Jung’s & Pauli’s principle of synchronicity.<br />Jung analyzes Pauli’s dream of the cosmological clock in a metaphorical/symbolic rather than in acausal manner. This an appropriate response to the unconscious of causal quantum theorist Wolfgang Pauli to take. Jung develops an acausal theory of personality—psychological type—using the acausal principle of synchronicity that might be considered a direct extension of quantum theory to describe the intuitive function.<br />To sum up the theory of psychological type (http://www.xs4all.nl/~lange01/L-R/pdfs/uk-b-jungsynchronicity.pdf) (Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Volume 6: Psychological Types), there are two logical and judgmental orientations to reality—Thinking and Feeling, two acausal perceptual psychological orientations to reality that are not judgmental—Sensation and Intuition, along with external-extraverted or internal-introverted attitudes. Much research, measurement, and hypothesis testing examines scientific principles of psychological type. My doctoral dissertation (Intuition and Creativity, Moss, 1991) supports covariation of Intuition and creativity. Using the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory (MBTI), the Singer-Loomis Inventory of Personality (SLIP), and a test of creativity by Davis (Multidimensional Analysis of a Personality-Based Test of Creative Potential, Gary A. Davis, Michael J. Subkoviak, Journal of Educational Measurement, Vol. 12, No. 1 (Spring, 1975), pp. 37-43), on a large population, my research extends Jung’s theory—if you are intuitive you tend to be creative, and vice versa.<br />Taking it a step further, synchronicity describes phenomena revealed in the pre-psychological theory of astrology in Jung’s clearly significant study. Astrology—being utilized by intuitive people to ascribe personality variables and potential action to alignment of celestial objects—supports synchronicity. To define it, Jung states synchronicity is not causal, not deterministic—sound familiar? Quantum mechanics is not causal. It is not deterministic. If synchronicity is defined as “an acausal meaningful event,” it lifts pure chance to a level including meaning. Jung and Pauli—synchronicity and the exclusion principle—both emerge from principles of physics and are mathematically verifiable.<br />Let me take this reasoning a step farther. Spacetime is the universe our body and our brains occupy. Our individuality can be explained by the individual frame occupied by each brain. Your spacetime and mine coexist but are relative to one another. We communicate through the mind.<br />Mind and matter, mind and logic, mind and acausal meaningful “coincidence:” is mind a quantum apperception of a brain situated in spacetime? Following the hypothetical-deductive model, the null hypotheses would be:<br />mind does not function according to quantum states.<br />Mind does not collapse probability waves as described clearly by Feynman.<br />Brain is not an organ specifically organized to collapse probability waves, inducing mind.<br />We are not all connected by entanglement.<br />We cannot apperceive non-local events across superluminous and extreme distances as they occur.<br />We cannot apperceive events before they occur.<br />Time does not strictly follow the arrow of time as apperceived by the mind in the form of dreams, visions, psychotic states, paranoid delusions, schizophrenic experience of living dead, communication through teeth of messages from people on Mars, or seers and prophets cannot see into the future.<br />If the null hypotheses can be proved, none of the above hypotheses stand. It seems to me that it is time to take this project on.<br />To put it directly, I posit the following revolutionary principle: brain collapses waves inducing mind. Further, if the brain didn’t exist, the mind would have had to invent it.<br />I am building: there can be a substantive theory of quantum mind. What would it mean as a theory of psychology? Can a theory of quantum psychology make sense in practice? Could it make predictions? Could these predictions be verified? THAT is when things get interesting.Michael Mosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09945966054525702920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3079070912691824891.post-14444638798948394572008-01-15T08:23:00.001-08:002008-01-15T08:23:56.730-08:00“Black Hole/White Hole” and Continuous Creation<br /> You know what a black hole is if you’re aware of physics in the 20th/21st c. Think heavy; so heavy light bends because space-time distorts. At the intense power of gravity induced by a black hole, light gets sucked in--as does any matter--and even though photons continue to go in a straight line, the space-time continuum becomes more like a big, sucking sound that deforms the line so photons go around in a circle and can’t get out. No light=>blackness.<br /> For some time physicists Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose considered the option of what happens in the very center of the tearing vortex of a super massive black hole (BH). After some development, they developed the concept of the suspension of the laws of the universe as we know it—in the formation of a “singularity.” In July, 2004, the $5 bet Hawking and Kip Thorne of Caltech made w/ another prominent physicist, John Preskill, also of Caltech, had to be conceded when Hawking changed his position about Hawking radiation and the inability of a black hole to emit information, thus reinstating the laws of physics, even in what he once described as a singularity. Black holes are modeled after string theory, and a black hole has become a “giant tangle of strings (New Scientist, 14 July, 2004).” In fact, the Hawking radiation emitted by this “fuzzball” does contain information about the insides of a black hole (New Scientist print edition, 13 March, 2004).<br /> What does this mean? Einstein’s precious insights do not require abandonment in the infinity of a singularity. Consider the BH without a singularity. Matter/photons become stripped of their structure and thus entropy is increased, unlike like what must have occurred in the big bang. The miracle of extremely higher entropy makes possible the viability of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. So black holes increase entropy.<br /> But nothing escapes, so through Hawking radiation some energy is released, increasing entropy in the surround of the BH. However, something else is going on and it is not subtle. Mammoth charged particles spit out the poles of the rapidly revolving BH which smash into earth’s atmosphere—they have been traced to super massive black holes that drive the heart of our galaxy, as well as companion galaxies in Andromeda. Called gamma “rays,” only a large multiple of the gravitational fields wielded by millions of stars devoured by black holes in the center of a galaxy could generate such highly charged particles. Further, great jets of energy escape from the poles of galactic centers’ very cold black holes. Why can such energy of such high entropy charge space around them? And what is the effect of this output from what has been described as the most supremely efficient machine in the universe? Star formation. Energy so huge creates stars. High entropy reproduces new stars by the release of high entropic energy from a BH. What do I mean-high entropy?<br /> The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that organization of matter can be described mathematically. The higher the organization the higher the entropy. Life is disordered compared with the simplicity found when all matter becomes similar to all other matter. So when a highly organized, but from the standpoint of entropy chaotic, object falls into a BH, it gains entropy as not only its composition disorganizes when the molecules separate in the intense tidal forces which rip them apart, the molecules then lose their electrons as they ionize, the nucleus of the atom rips apart, breaking into subatomic particles—quarks, mesons, bosons, muons, antiparticles—down to quantum interactive subatomic particles of increasingly intense energy as they approach the planck length at the center of the BH. Entropy increases. (See link for more complete explanation of entropy: http://www.entropylaw.com/) But do they get out?<br /> Forgive me for being speculative, but here’s where the amateur physicist in me begins to stretch out. You may break out into a sweat as I destroy mathematical verity as we know it. But I’m having fun. In fact, how I arrived at these concepts was artistically driven. <br /> Last year (2006—2007) I composed “Black Hole,” a musical realization of what I thought happens when someone falls into a BH. An 8-movement piece, I start out with a ¾ waltz—think Richard Strauss in the approach to the Space station in “2001, A Space Odyssey.” In the 2nd movement we engage in 6/8 to double it up, then multiply meter in the Indian tabla tradition to a fast 4/4 as we accelerate in movement III into a free piece in movement IV within the event horizon beyond which nothing escapes—not even photons. Crazy energy liberated by the disintegration of matter increases the degree of involvement in multi-dimensional phenomena described by string theory. I surmise the following: stripped-down subatomic particles near what would be the singularity accelerate to the 11th dimension—the 11 dimensions are posited by a branch of superstring theory called M theory. My creative leap states in the hypothetical-deductive language (which aims to disprove what is posited and if it cannot be statistically disproved—the hypothesis stands—because the null hypothesis failed) the following null hypotheses:<br />I. there is no a white hole in the place a singularity once was said to occupy;<br />II. there is not enough energy to raise subatomic particles obeying laws of quantum physics to increase multidimensionality to the 11th dimension;<br />III. the laws governing spacetime are not relativized in the 11th dimension;<br />IV. in the 11th dimension spacetime does not disappear;<br />V. 11th dimensional strings are not bound by gravity: a) gravitons, b) loop quantum gravity;<br />VI. Strings occupying 11 dimensions are not transparent to gravity;<br />VII. Strings are not expelled at FTL superluminous speeds (i.e., FTL: faster than light) along polar lines of force of the spinning BH;<br />VIII. energy does not collapse quantum particles at increasing distances from the event horizon;<br />IX. matter is not converted from energy according to the laws of physics as promulgated by Einstein as quantum particles condense at the highest vibrational energies of superstrings;<br />X. Spacetime is not reversed;<br />XI. Low entropic strings do not reenter the galactic quadrant.<br /> Musically, this solves a problem I had--it was depressing to fall into a BH and get torn apart without a creative process restoring this energy to the universe. So I developed a theory—the 11 hypotheses above—and came up with a hopeful synthesis. In the final movement—after quantum foam—the themes are played backwards—IIIIII—and layered one on top of the other in an Ivesian counterpositional deconstruction ending in a final declarative chord. Instead of death and disintegration there is death and rebirth—on a cosmological scale. I call this continuous creation. <br /> Naturally, not being a mathematician or a physicist, data cannot be processed by myself to disprove any or all of the above null hypotheses, but as a composer I’ve achieve my purpose—I hope you like “Black Hole.”<br /> “Black Hole” is performed by Louisa Strous Boiman (violin), Ralph Denzer (trumpet, keyboard), Dan Scholnick (tabla), and myself, Michael Moss (tenor and soprano saxophones, Bb clarinet, bass clarinet, khean (from Thailand)—the group PRO VISO. It is to be available soon on 4th Stream Records.Michael Mosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09945966054525702920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3079070912691824891.post-24728372831965280862008-01-09T16:49:00.000-08:002008-01-09T16:50:22.030-08:00Free Life Communication: Web 2.0I’m naming my blog after the ‘70s NYC (New York City) musicians’ cooperative I became president of because the spirit of creative collaboration and the lowering of entropy through the creative use of minimal resources liberated/freed the maximum amount of positive energy. Through the music we communicated a message that you needed positive energy to create a new healing message so as to heal old wounds and make people whole. My objective with this blog is to throw out ideas and to invite comment that is positive and constructive to initiate debate over thoughts and reflections on a wide range of topics. We will communicate and liberate energy that will delimit life. Thus Free, Life, Communication: FLC, the coop, was founded by NYC musicians wanting to play “the music,” not to make money, but to explore new compositional and expressive concepts. It evolved as an organization, then suffered a decline; in its the time the loft jazz movement expanded until loft jazz in NYC produced several loft jazz festivals. Many “unknown” artists found a platform to explore areas that were non-commercial, and known artists were able to expand their concepts. I was able to produce a number of records as a part of a larger “indie” movement on my own record label—4th Stream Records, and founded my own publishing company—ERG Publishing Company. Now I want to reproduce the feeling of involvement but this time through the larger medium of public participation made possible by the net. So, if anything stimulates reflection and creative process overtakes mundane productivity as a result of anything I write—join the movement! And comment!Michael Mosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09945966054525702920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3079070912691824891.post-44016835754013684652007-12-07T11:32:00.000-08:002007-12-07T11:33:08.671-08:00Buddha b. 580 BC. A Hindu, he believed in reincarnation & taught detachment to end suffering. Believed in “Dhamma Pada” or Dharma Path, essentially the 10 paths of righteousness that include not harming animal life, eating well from grains & nuts & plants, etc. The buddha did not believe in God; was atheistic. We are all God & through meditation can leave the lower paths to attain nirvana & never be reborn into a life of suffering.<br /> The lights seen after death in the Tibetan Book of the Dead were gestated by Tibetans after Buddhism passed into Tibet in 700 AD. Buddha did not speak of many of the variations developed by Buddhists in Tibet, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Laos, China, or Japan. The Sri Lankan Buddhists have been examining the connections between science & religion. Each group has a variation on the basic Hindi concepts conceived of in a different light by buddha who was born on the Nepalese/Indian border. <br /> Transmigration of souls means the body of a person is temporarily inhabited by the soul of another being—animal or human. This soul takes over & makes the slave-body do things it would not naturally do, then leaves. Reminds me of MPD, unconscious complexes, schizophrenia. Some Buddhists believe that w/ the explosion of human population & the concommittant reduction of animal population, animal souls are transmigrating into humans & humans are being born w/ animal souls, thus maintaining the animal population, explaining why so many humans behave like animals.<br /> Many Buddhists have written about this religion & are building on the ideas of others. It is important to get the ideas out there so others can build upon them. My ideas are important & should be published in some form so others can relate to them in the future.<br /> There are contradictions among Buddhists. For example, China was ruled by Tibet for 300 years, so how could Buddhists who are not supposed to fight create an army of warriors? The fact that Tibet ruled China is now used as an excuse for China to rule Tibet; Chinese state that they are the same country by hx. Another contradiction lies in the fact that Tibet is 10-11K feet up, limiting the amount of agriculture, enforcing the need to eat animals, which runs contrary to the need to live a clean life & avoid eating flesh.<br />Future reading: Dhamma Pada.Michael Mosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09945966054525702920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3079070912691824891.post-63279824494151095132007-12-07T11:29:00.000-08:002007-12-07T11:31:01.960-08:00Buddha b. 580 BC. A Hindu, he believed in reincarnation & taught detachment to end suffering. Believed in “Dhamma Pada” or Dharma Path, essentially the 10 paths of righteousness that include not harming animal life, eating well from grains & nuts & plants, etc. The buddha did not believe in God; was atheistic. We are all God & through meditation can leave the lower paths to attain nirvana & never be reborn into a life of suffering.<br /> The lights seen after death in the Tibetan Book of the Dead were gestated by Tibetans after Buddhism passed into Tibet in 700 AD. Buddha did not speak of many of the variations developed by Buddhists in Tibet, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Laos, China, or Japan. The Sri Lankan Buddhists have been examining the connections between science & religion. Each group has a variation on the basic Hindi concepts conceived of in a different light by buddha who was born on the Nepalese/Indian border. <br /> Transmigration of souls means the body of a person is temporarily inhabited by the soul of another being—animal or human. This soul takes over & makes the slave-body do things it would not naturally do, then leaves. Reminds me of MPD, unconscious complexes, schizophrenia. Some Buddhists believe that w/ the explosion of human population & the concommittant reduction of animal population, animal souls are transmigrating into humans & humans are being born w/ animal souls, thus maintaining the animal population, explaining why so many humans behave like animals.<br /> Many Buddhists have written about this religion & are building on the ideas of others. It is important to get the ideas out there so others can build upon them. My ideas are important & should be published in some form so others can relate to them in the future.<br /> There are contradictions among Buddhists. For example, China was ruled by Tibet for 300 years, so how could Buddhists who are not supposed to fight create an army of warriors? The fact that Tibet ruled China is now used as an excuse for China to rule Tibet; Chinese state that they are the same country by hx. Another contradiction lies in the fact that Tibet is 10-11K feet up, limiting the amount of agriculture, enforcing the need to eat animals, which runs contrary to the need to live a clean life & avoid eating flesh.<br />Future reading: Dhamma Pada.Michael Mosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09945966054525702920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3079070912691824891.post-60005678834916177962007-11-28T16:39:00.000-08:002007-11-28T16:42:43.284-08:00Several cosmologists, including Hawking, have developed the idea that<br />this means that the Universe is a black hole -- we are living inside an<br />extremely large black hole, and will one day suffer the fate of any<br />matter inside a black hole, as spelled out by Penrose thirty odd years<br />ago. So cosmologists have recently puzzled over what happens at the<br />singularity at the end of time, the Omega Point. The obvious guess is<br />that the singularity that marks the death of our Universe marks the birth<br />of another universal cycle, and this is born out by the mathematics.<br /><br />But if one singularity can give birth to a Universe, why can't others?<br />Specifically, what happens at the singularities that form inside black<br />holes in our own Universe? According to some interpretations of the<br />equations (and here I have to admit that not everyone agrees on this),<br />the singularities could form their own baby universes. On this picture,<br />stuff that falls into a black hole singularity is shunted sideways into<br />another set of dimensions, its own spacetime. It sounds like science<br />fiction, but it isn't really--science fiction writers are never as imaginative<br />as mathematical physicists. Hawking's baby universes are rather like that,<br />little bubbles on the surface of the expanding balloon, each expanding in their<br />own right, still connected to the mother Universe by a "wormhole".<br /><br />And, of course, the baby universes can have babies of their own, while<br />our Universe may be the offspring of a black hole that formed in<br />another spacetime. Very quickly, the picture in your mind comes to<br />resemble a mass of expanding frogspawn, or the froth of a bubble bath<br />being whipped up ever higher.<br /><br />This sounds similar to Black Hole, the piece, in which stuff falls into the<br />singularity & then is spit out--but Hawking says it is spit out into another<br />set of dimensions.<br /><br />At least Hawking believes me.Michael Mosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09945966054525702920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3079070912691824891.post-15622727799931521022007-11-28T13:17:00.000-08:002007-11-28T13:22:25.416-08:00Music and the dixieland/quantum uncertainty:<br />Whatever you think about free jazz, it matches in energy and uncertainty the quantum mechanical universe. Think about how to play free music and it comes off more spacetime than subatomic, more Einstein & less Pauli, more Freud and less Jung. Dixie is like controlled chaos. Jazz varies between controlled chaos and uncontrolled Feynmania. Raise the energy until it all falls apart--free jazz.Michael Mosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09945966054525702920noreply@blogger.com1