Quantum

Quantum
The Quantum World

Thursday, August 17, 2017

Nikola Tesla and His Social Imagination!

It is largely not known that Nikola Tesla disagreed with the theory of atoms being composed of smaller subatomic particles, stating there was no such thing as an electron creating an electric charge (he believed that if electrons existed at all, they were some fourth state of matter or "sub-atom" that could exist only in an experimental vacuum and that they had nothing to do with electricity).

Tesla believed that atoms are immutable—they could not change state or be split in any way. He was a believer in the 19th century concept of an all-pervasive 'ether' that transmitted electrical energy. Tesla was generally antagonistic towards theories about the conversion of matter into energy. He was also critical of Einstein's theory of relativity, saying:

I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. 

Could Tesla have changed the way we live today? Not likely, since his social imagination was beyond most in the meaning that it did not 'jive' with the wider social imagination of his day. In that respect, he was a kind of Da Vinci. 

He did not receive or partake in the common among us agreement reality that was at large. He was in his own and on his own in every sense of the social imagination; limited by his own abilities and social inabilities to accept what he did and could not 'socially' imagine. 

In terms of the social quantum analysis, we can recognize his struggle, his vision a creativity of light that simply that flitted by as he was lost in his own argument for being in the social imagination. He insisted being an automaton; yet what is that but a thing that does not do something unless moved. It is in fact a kind of nothing and how could something act upon nothing. How could he be an automaton?

He was thus lost in the explanation of how even a social reality could exist let alone any kind of physical reality of electricity. You see, in the social imagination anything and everything exists and is fully real being fulfilled by and controlled by one and another will that which is the collective will and at the same time, that which is not but a single massive thing; describable as both no thing and yet something specific. 

Where did that no thing which is something come from ... not from nothing and so not even no thing could exist let alone nothing exist in the social imagination where everything is information where nothing can exist and does not exist. 

Hence, we cannot be automaton (nothing) responding to external stimuli (something) as that begs the question where did the external stimuli (external information) come from and what would make us respond to it anyway. 

In the social imagination, we respond to all information contained as it has meaning in the social quantum information bank which is both instantaneously dispersed in non locality and yet controlled within a boundary or field of local imagination; and yet in that non locality all information in its entirety necessarily escapes our bounded social imagination. Perhaps, that is where Tesla was...

Would free electrical power have made us more free or unbounded in our social imagination? No, because in our social imagination exists bounded meaning. The social quantum in its essence means nothing and everything at the same time!

Friday, August 11, 2017

Social Quantum Reality ~ In the Social Imagination!



Man is all information ... applied in imagination.   

The study of social imagination is the study of the collective mentality - the social imagination.
Essentially, there two functions of the social imagination. The first function has three main fundamental aspects: a definite original source (of information), components and limits. This first function directly enables the second which is the filtering process of the concept creative. This second function has no need of its own fundamental aspects as it is grounded by the first. The first function is ‘basic’ everyday routine whereby bodily movement in time and space are observed and serves an elementary plane of attention to life, paramount reality. 

The first function is for simple performance as in simple bodily movement that enables getting from here to there without, let us say, much thought. It could be seen as the default mode program; whereas, the second function is the concept/ creative is for the purpose of escaping that routine, beginning with bodily movement incorporating gesture that has meaning other than just getting from one point in space to another. 

The second function, the concept/ creative is enabled by the first function. It is where language and communication are occupied. The second function is relies on language in a specific way, it does not need to repeat generalities; it needs to articulate greater expectation, and creative performance, it is the place in human consciousness where social imagination exists and in saying that the two expressions are one and the same. 

There is an interconnected participatory feature of the first function and second function, experienced through bodily moments which cause tensions of consciousness between the first function and the second function.  The second function reacts to such tensions from the first function and is able to respond in a concept/ creative mode so that that relation with the first function acting as a background, a default program and the second function create social imagination. 

In some respect, the second function allows the collective conscious, the collective mentality, the group as having shared interest, to imagine and focus on the things that it creates out of its shared imagining. Through tensions between the first function and second function social imagination as having a concept / creative function transcends what is and is able to postulate what ought to be; thus, social consciousness moves onto another plane of accent to reality, another attention to life, a higher order of human consciousness.

In theory, social imagination can be conceived as the collective mentality of a group of people. For some social scientists this presents an observational and testable as sociology generally looks at human actions to explain society. Thus, they are measured and quantified and thus predictable.
However, what is left of an observation but an image or residue of what was real. The collective mentality of a group is the forerunner to an observable action. Those on the inside have inside information and or knowledge as to why they did this or that and for what reasons. Anyone on the outside of that group will only see the residues of that information... traces left over. 

The meaning of human action directly stems from or out of the collective mentality. The residues of that action has little meaning for outside observers and even for those inside all that is left is meaning and that alone is retained in the collective mentality - the social imagination. 

You see, action alone does not contain meaning but is the vehicle of it, only the drivers know the direction and what for.  Action is only a pattern of physical movement; this is the purpose of the first function of social imagination. 

As stated above, essentially the social imagination exists has three aspects and two functions. The three aspects (composing the first function) are: source of information (presuming that all social reality is information that has a source), components which are social actors as Durkheim might call them... all minds or 'singular' imaginations that compose a definable group 'collective mentality' and perimeters/boundaries as in limitations due to the source and combined components. 

The two functions are: action/ physical, and the second function also has aspects. The first aspect is  also physical 'mechanical' as we might think of a processor which processes of information shared through the first function - which is the only means as in way for 'human' processors to interact. The meaning that arises from that interaction which we can call social action is the direct activity or interaction of those functions. From the point of view of phenomenology, social imagination is that which gives meaning to action - shared information in a place over a period of time. 

The second aspect of the second function is the concept/ creative function of the collective mentality, of social imagination, uses imagining and imagery in its creative mode of function. And, it is there that the social imagination can expand but not necessarily for it is still linked in to its first function with its source of information which though enables also grounds. It keeps human beings 'human' and it keeps us intact, in place and fully functioning in the place where we are. In a nutshell, we are only what we imagine within the framework of a 'social' quantum program!



*Source - PhD dissertation on the Social Imagination - "Imagining Ideal Society: Exploring the concept/Creative Function in the Occident Social Imagination".... Dr. E.F. Gallion

Friday, May 19, 2017

Robbert Dijkgraaf's take on Albert Einstein's Imagination...



Robbert Dijkgraaf is a theoretical physicist and Leon Levy Professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. He is also the co-author of " The Usefulness of Useless Knowledge".
Dijkgraaf explains how Albert Einstein saw the world in a different way from how most scientists see it. Following is a transcript of the video.

Einstein was a true genius and it’s the example that we all aspire to be as a scientist. But already as a child he had a very original way of thinking.
So from the very beginning, for Einstein, his imagination was crucial. He was not such a good student because he was a very original thinker.
And I think that was, kind of, the magic touch that he had. He always had a completely original point of view. He somehow didn’t conform to the existing theories, and he was always thinking in his own particular way.
His favorite way to operate as a scientist was the thought experiment. And he describes for instance, the crucial moment, where he essentially discovered the theory of general relativity.
He was watching workers on the roof of a building and suddenly thought whoa what would happen if they fell down. And then he realized, if you fall down, you no longer experience gravity.
And that, in some sense, that’s the natural motion and that actual led him to derive the theory of general relativity and described that moment as the happiest moment in his life.
And later he said something that I actually find personally very comforting: Is that imagination is much more important than knowledge because knowledge describes what we know. Imagination is describing everything that we can potentially know in the future. ~ RD

It seems that Dijkgraaf does not know that all children have such an imagination. Are all as 'original' as Einstein? Maybe and maybe not. We know that we live in a social imagination. There is no other place. Charles H. Cooley pointed that years ago. I like to think that the social imagination is a kind of quantum computer with a programmed in default mode operation that sometimes get overridden by corrupted imaginations - corrupted 'data' information. Why? Well, this is a world where entropy exists and that might be the reason. Information just decays and though the speed of a quantum computer is incredibly fast, entropy has its effect.

So, what happens to most children is that there 'original' imagination gets overridden by a decaying or overriding program - lets call them parents and teachers. Einstein was not a good student and had a kind of dysfunction family life. So, maybe simply because those two social 'programs' information interactors were loosely associated with him Einstein was freer to go beyond his 'social imagination'. 

But, since we are all social actors/interactors living in a social imagination, how could being loosely associated be a benefit? Or even possible? In a state of entropy, information decays. Like in the game of telephone, the real information is often transformed. Not always for good and not always for bad and what is bad and good anyway in terms of information. That is determined by the users. And, we are all users.

As users of information, we all want to do well with it. So, we conform to the current usage in order to stay in the circle of information and social imagination we have to come know through usage. It is what is comfortable. Some may or may not be more comfortable outside of that circle and some may have a better means to circumnavigate it or find solutions to pitfalls in the usage. So, making the most of useless knowledge is right. 

There is also the risk of accepting corrupted information. Quantum computer programmers are aware of that. As I understand it, it is best to go or act on the premise that all information is useful and adjustments can be made. Like God who can make all things good because God is good all the time and all the time God is good. 

In the chain of information exchange in the social imagination, we can imagine that this is the same process. Entropy impacts the 'original' information imparted to the social imagination or let us say that it either gets distorted more and more as it moves on down the line and yet picks up the slack by filling the blanks. Now, the next one who receives can either continue that or inject even more utilizing a 'freer' aspect of the social imagination which is what I called the concept creative... which I wrote about in my doctoral dissertation. 

One might think that what really happens is that aspect of the social imagination gets contaminated by corrupted information circulated in the social imagination. But is it? As with the quantum computer, performance at a high level is only possible when all information is accepted as useful. 

One might consider this the act of free will in order to perform at a high level, being that all information is of the social imagination and was/is socially created by social creatures and programmed by social creatures, then somehow its all useful... right? Yes and No. Again, it simply returns to what is useful and what is not depending on the users. it too has that aspect. The real problem for this entire process is if the users themselves fall into doubt. If corruption creeps in that being doubt, it will no longer perform at the high level that it was originally able to. 

Yes, doubt by the user is in fact that which produces 'error'. It was introduced to mankind in the garden and we as users are no under its authority - we doubt the source. We continue to doubt and largely stems from being social creatures in as much as it does from being a created entity as an individual thinker who would or should know that one can make use of all information as all information is socially generated and all is usable in the social imagination. This should and it would make us better performers or more original performers so to speak as we would no longer doubt being able to make good on all information exchanged. But, that also means that in order to be such an individual in the social imagination, one would have to recognize the truer nature of the one in the many and never doubt that... = all information is usable. 

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

Facts in Social Imagination ... An Information Reality

Charles H. Cooley, was not an informationist in his times but could have been in ours. His work is key to understanding social reality and its source. For Cooley, as we read his work, all that social reality is ... is exchanged information. And, that exchange takes place in the human mind. For Cooley, the human mind was/is the locus of society. Why? Because, you can never know society or anything about it for that matter outside of creative social imagination - social collective thought which is constantly in the comparative elaborate process of mental organization or synthesis which for Cooley was rendered necessary by complexity in the elements of our thought.

In its social aspect for all, or nearly all, social reality is a series of information bits, selected, as in  choices made that relate in one way or another others in the social environment... it is an organization of comparatively complex social relations. It does not matter if we are talking about rich people, poor people, local people or those at the top of society in government i.e. The process is the same. Human beings as conduits of information exchange know only what they can agree upon 'arrive at/conclude' through social interaction; as I have written before social reality is agreement reality. We agree that this is this and that is that not because it, as in anything even people, exist in some absolute form known to all immediately, no...certainly not. It is what it is because we agree it is something. Its the same experience regarding science or any other man made subject of discussion in the social reality.

One should be asking more questions regarding the kind of information shared/exchanged. If it is productive for mankind's general welfare or not. Given that this world is in a state of entropy which can be experienced just by observing the environment around us and in our information exchanges we can recognize when information has weakened or been misunderstood. And, even in our social imagination there are mis-understandings. There is a either agreement about that or not which complicates and confuses the whole social reality.

Let it be said, when anything is agreed upon it is through the operation of social dynamics of subordination and domination. They are the underlying mechanism or modus operande for the comparative process. The decision to act 'choose' one bit over another when it comes to information is not made merely by the individual; no he/she will and cannot act alone. In the end, the choice is made by the group and all else follows.

Individuals in that group being parts of it feel as if they have made a choice. In this, group event 'process' of which individuals are part, they find the meaning of the group and their part in the group and this seemingly provides an advantage for them personally but only because it has become what is personal among us. If there were no agreement among the many about something there would be no meaning either and it would not 'feel' personal for the one if it had no meaning for the group.

You can say to me that the sun is a star and I will agree and then you will say... you see that is a fact. I will say its only a 'fact' because we agreed and we agreed with many who agreed before us. There was a time when the earth was the center of the universe and people agreed that was a fact until Copernicus came along. Now that begs the question how could one man be the catalyst for the dissemination of 'new' information? The source of all information appoints times and places and that source is the creator of all information.  Just read Kepler.

Facts are information bits. Those closer to the source have a better idea of what is real, what is true in the social imagination. All information is subject to that even in science. Facts are only that which we agree on as they are as received in a certain order; who agrees and why they agree is what makes them into a social fact. You cannot know facts outside of social agreement - social reality. Why? Because, only the creator could know 'facts' as absolutes in any measure.

For man, absolute facts cannot be known outside of the social imagination - the social reality of information exchange. You can never know a 'fact' about anything; evolution, the cosmos, math, language, history... etc. outside of social reality. ... as you can never be outside of the framework of social imagination; what Cooley called = an organization of comparatively complex social relations.

Man is not just any 'animal' exchanging information.  As a created being, he recognizes that there is a source of all information and in that source is contained the truth of everything.  That source is man's only reason for living, only means of being alive, and reason to be able to exchange information.  "In Him, we live, move and have our being" ~ Acts 17:28. Given that, in the social quantum of social reality, there is always potential for agreement among men...


Monday, May 1, 2017

Ezekiel saw the Wheel Continued...


In a willingness to continue the discussion on what Ezekiel...

It was posited in the previous blog post that Ezekiel possibly saw the atomic structure of life. It could also be he saw the solar system as described by Johannes Kepler whose work concerning planetary motion is renown.

As anyone can read online, Kepler's most incredible work is surely his 'Mysterium Cosmographicum' (lit. The Cosmographic Mystery, alternately translated Cosmic Mystery, The Secret of the World or some variation) is an astronomy book by the German astronomer Johannes Kepler, published at Tubingen in 1596 and in a second edition in 1621. The full title being Forerunner of the Cosmological Essays, Which Contains the Secret of the Universe; on the Marvelous Proportion of the Celestial Spheres, and on the True and Particular Causes of the Number, Magnitude, and Periodic Motions of the Heavens; Established by Means of the Five Regular Geometric Solids.

Kepler proposed that the distance relationships between the six planets known at that time could be understood in terms of the five Platonic solids, enclosed within a sphere that represented the orbit of Saturn. Kepler also found a formula relating the size of each planet's orb to the length of its orbital period: from inner to outer planets, the ratio of increase in orbital period is twice the difference in orb radius. However, Kepler later rejected this formula, because it was not precise enough.  

However, Kepler remained positive that his notion of most planetary orbits being nearly circular was accurate and true. Because, of careful observation and calculation that was required in order to establish that they are not perfectly circular. 

Calculations of the orbit of  Mars, whose published values are somewhat suspect, indicated an elliptical orbit. From this, Johannes Kepler inferred that other bodies in the Solar System, including those farther away from the Sun, also have elliptical orbits.


  1. His view of planetary motion, The orbit of a planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci.
  2. A line segment joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time.
  3. The square of the orbital period of a planet is proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit.
What most people don't know is that Kepler thought he had truly revealed God's geometrical plan for the universe. Much of Kepler's enthusiasm for the Copernican system stemmed from his theological convictions about the connection between the physical and the spiritual; the universe itself was an image of God, with the Sun corresponding to the Father, the stellar sphere to the Son, and the intervening space between to the Holy Spirit. Let us remind ourselves of what Ezekiel saw according to scripture.  
 
"And each went straight forward; wherever the spirit was about to go, they would go, without turning as they went. In the midst of the living beings there was something that looked like burning coals of fire, like torches darting back and forth among the living beings. The fire was bright, and lightning was flashing from the fire. And the living beings ran to and fro like bolts of lightning. Now as I looked at the living beings, behold, there was one wheel on the earth beside the living beings, for each of the four of them." ~ Ezekiel 1:12-15. Out of pure conjecture... there was one wheel on the earth - orbit! 

What is most fascinating, and confirming of Creation is that we can see and know that there are orbiting planets and orbiting 'trons' in the atomic structure... What else could be darting in and out... electrons -living beings ran to and fro like bolts of lightning?


Kepler's model of planetary motion... not so unlike the the structure of an ato




*Wiki-pedia online sources applied in this post

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

Ezekiel Saw the Wheel ~ Atomic Struture of Mankind!



Man 'essentially' in the flesh = 666 ... Man as in mankind is a carbon based life form. The atomic number of carbon is 6, within that there are 6 protons, 6 neutrons and 6 electrons.

Anyone having the tiniest bit of education knows that everything on earth is made up of combinations of different elements - all of which can be found on the periodic table. Considering that the periodic table contains 118 elements it seems a pity that organic life tends to feature only five or six of those elements in any vast quantities. The main one being carbon which is coal. A diamond before it was a shining brilliance was a lump of coal. And, coal is the most carbon intensive source of power as in energy generation.

That is why it would be impossible for life on earth to exist without carbon. Carbon is the main component of sugars, proteins, fats, DNA, muscle tissue, pretty much everything in your body. The reason carbon is so special is down to the electron configuration of the individual atoms. Electrons exist in concentric 'shells' around the central nucleus and carbon has four electrons in its outermost shell. As the most stable thing for an atom to have is eight electrons, this means that each carbon can form four bonds with surrounding atoms.

What did Ezekiel see in the sky? He might have seen the atomic structure of carbon which is let's say like this... pretty much the atomic structure of man. How could that be possible? It was just stated that carbon is the key to life on earth.  How did Ezekiel see or recognize that? Well, let's remind ourselves how man sees anything in this 'world', which was the topic of the previous blog on the site.

We think man sees with his eyes only... but it is the mind that sees. The eyes and brain are enablers as in processors but the true 'sight' happens in the mind. Could a man see his own atomic structure in his mind's eye? The most recent past blog discussed just that by looking at the function of the pineal gland. How would such a 'inner' vision help mankind in understanding what and who he is as a created being? That is a good question. The only possibility can be that by knowing what/who man is we understand what and who we are not - silicon based life.


So, one must ask...What's special about carbon and why is carbon so important when it comes to life-forms? Each bond in the above molecule is formed by the sharing of two electrons; one from the carbon and one from the hydrogen. The ability to form four bonds isn't restricted to carbon though, it's a property of every atom with four outer electrons, including silicon, tin and lead. What's special about carbon, and the reason that silicon-based lifeforms are restricted to science fiction (and lead-based lifeforms are hardly ever mentioned) is that carbon can form double-bonds which share more than one electron with another atom. 

So why can carbon and not silicon manage this double-bond trick? The answer lies in the size. You see, carbon is the smallest of all the atoms with four outermost electrons, which means that the electrons in the above-and-below orbitals are close enough to overlap and form that second bond. For silicon however, there are more electron orbitals in the way, the entire atom is bigger, and it is almost impossible for the outer orbitals to get close enough to form a double bond. This is why carbon dioxide is is a small gaseous molecule consisting of two oxygens both forming a double bond with a single carbon while silicon dioxide is a massive behemoth of a molecule made of huge numbers of alternating oxygen and silicon atoms and is more commonly known as sand.

You can just about get silicon-silicon double bonds if you try hard, but they are fairly unstable and will take any chance they can to lose that double-bond in favor of forming another single one. Carbon-carbon double bonds on the other hand form naturally and easily, and are crucial for every living organism on earth. If there were to be silicon-based lifeforms, the sheer chemistry of their atoms means that they would have to be built along very different lines to life on earth.

The above photo is of the sun during a solar eclipse.... one can imagine the darkness being coal and the light ring/stud being a diamond solitaire... man being a diamond in the rough!



 *Source of detailed information on carbon and its structure and abilities provided by S.E. Gould
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/lab-rat/shine-on-you-crazy-diamond-why-humans-are-carbon-based-lifeforms/