Cultural Interpretations of the Social Imagination ~ A Quantum Analysis

Christian man's ego is different than others. Christian man does not accept nature as it is something he cannot overcome. He was instructed to have dominion over it. Therefore, he does not live in a symbiotic relationship. Out of this has come modern science which seeks to overcome and to control it. In that way, fulfilling what man was designed to do.

No all cultures seek to overcome nature, they simply accept it. For many, anything discovered about nature that appears to go against nature was considered a curiosity. As one example, the Chinese made a lot of discoveries over the years but never applied them as they could have. For instance, when they discovered gun powder they did not do anything more with it... it was a curiosity. Whereas Europeans went the distance with it and still do. Why? Because, Western man was designed that way. The idea of questioning and investigating nature is a purely Christian/European phenomenon. Which has now spread all over the world, because the Europeans spread out another aspect of Christian social imagination. The science that is applied today is a 'Christian' science, a method by which scientists question and investigate and imagine what is beyond what they see. This kind of thinking and investigating has now become accepted and applied by the world but again, in many cultures this kind of thinking, imagining was not original to them. 

Ironic as it seems, given that many scientists today who work in applied sciences may say that they are atheists.  'Christian' man takes a dominate position over nature rather than a submissive role as we find in Pagan beliefs. We can read this in Genesis, as in the beginning, man was given dominion over all of nature, while he lives with it, he is master of it. God gave him the ability to name the animals. This was the means and authority of assigning them their nature which man was given control over. Pagan, animistic and pantheistic beliefs place man equal to or subservient to the natural world.  If one is subservient to nature, one does not question it nor bother to understand it.... it simply is.

Modern science and especially including quantum physics is a direct consequence of the Judeo-Christian world view. If it were not for that world view, appearing in Europe in the Judeo-Christian social imagination,, the world would be a different world, and we would not be living in the world of technology that we live in today.Yes, other cultures have adopted technology and some have come over to Western science 'social imagination' but that does not mean they apply it in the same way or seek to go farther distances with it as does Western man. We can notice that they have no problem jumping on board with Western science to complete a task or to partake in construction frameworks as in mathematical theories that can be applied. But it is what the application means to those other cultures that is different from Western cultures. The meaning they derive will be different from 'meaning' in Western man's social imagination.

The best visible application we can see in Western man regarding Christan social imagination comes in the activity of naming. Naming was and is important for Western man's social imagination. As naming is an action, and with it follows the giving of commands; revealing Western man's design. He was designed to  apply authority over things, not to live in acceptance of things. In computer programming naming is important. The Creator begins with the 'Word' as a first name and this first command runs other commands in the program. On the quantum level of computing, the Creator's programs give commands acting in authority.

God created man, and man was commanded by his Creator to run a program, to have dominion over all creation. Man established the nature of things by naming and commanding, which shows his authority and not submission... Western man is essentially a co-programmer of the world on a quantum level ~ speaking as a sociologist, this is what he was meant 'designed' to do in the Christian social imagination.

The Source of All Information ~ Its Not at CERN

It is interesting to me as a sociologist the social imagination that is imagining what is beyond this socially imagined reality. You see, as I have said before, there is no other reality than what is socially imagined. In saying that, I stress that its application or orchestration is through information like data shared and projected outwardly. This data has a source and it seems that we seek to know it. The beginning of that knowing (if possible) begins with imagining. What is problematic is that all imagining is social. There is no one who is an island of information; we are composite programs; one is not without other information that causes it to be the one it thinks it is and visa versa.

Particle physics are searching for the source of all information. At CERN, experiments are being conducted to learn what holds information together, also what is the source and where does it come from. What they have agreed upon, this is what substantiates our social imagination, is that there is particle decay occurring when elementary particles spontaneously transform into other elementary particles.

In the Large Hadron Collider experiments, protons collided at high energy to create 1 trillion particles known as neutral B mesons, some of which then decayed into pairs of oppositely charged muons — heavier "cousins" of electrons. The decay of one type of B mesons, known as "strange" mesons, occurred at the same frequency predicted by the Standard Model (about four in 1 billion), with a confidence level high enough to qualify as a discovery. The decay of non-strange B mesons also aligned with Standard Model predictions (about one in 10 billion), albeit at a lower confidence level (99.7 percent).

The Standard Model of particle physics explains how the universe's fundamental particles interact through strong, electromagnetic, and weak forces — but it doesn't explain everything. Although previous experiments have supported the model with increased precision, the Standard Model still fails to account for gravity, and cannot explain the dark matter that holds galaxies together. Physicists have proposed many theories to account for these shortcomings, including supersymmetry, which posits the existence of high-mass "superparticles" that could account for dark matter. Neutral B meson decays, which are rare, may help account for where superparticles and other unobserved "new physics" phenomena come into play. CERN's researchers hope their latest findings will provide more precise limitations to help refine non-Standard Model theories.

"It can help people doing these theories to better understand which parts are correct and which parts are not," says Marc-Olivier Bettler, a CERN research fellow and one of the paper's authors. "We are constraining these theories, we are not saying they are wrong. We are just telling them that they cannot cover all the space that they were covering before."

Sociologist Cornelius Castoriadis suggested that we are limited by the information of this world of socially imagined information. He supposed it took something radical to get new information; yet he also recognized that that might be impossible. 

We think that we are imagining something new but we are only reconfiguring it. Does that mean we live in a strange loop? It might. There is more proof that we are not actually imagining outside the box of given information? Is CERN trying to figure out a radical way out? Is that possible? We like others who came before us, we seeking to know what holds this universe of social information together and what for? Do we think that what we have imagined has never been imagined before? 

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers of rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things and in him all things hold together." COL 1: 15-18

What is CERN Doing? 

“Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. As men moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar, and settled there. They said to each other, “Come let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used bricks instead of stone, and tar for mortar. Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city with a tower that reaches to the heavens so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth.” But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.” Genesis 11: 1-7

We should socially imagine why opening up a blackhole/wormhole could be bad.  Well, we just might imagine finding that we are on the other side and just as locked in as ever, and worse... deeper in the corrupted information of this fallen 'decaying' world than we should go or want to go. 

What you See is What you Get at the Quantum Level

It is true, what you see is what you get at the quantum level. How? Firstly, before answering that question let me reiterate ~ isn't it fascinating that we human beings are such a fantastic creation having free will and such an imagination. It is my view that there is no possible way it could not be by design.

How then is it on the quantum level that what we see is what we get? Albert Einstein paved the way in 1905 by embracing wave-particle duality. Earlier, Einstein described light as a stream of particles = photons. Later, he added a twist to the story in a paper introducing what he called special relativity. In this paper, Einstein treated light as a continuous field of waves and this suddenly appeared as a contradiction to his description of light as a stream of particles.

Though, this certainly posited a duality of the nature of life it did not deny what Einstein claimed earlier. However, this duality of light asserted a possible condition of agency. What does that mean? It means that if light is both, how or when is it one or the other; determining when it is one or the other became a matter of agency. Thomas Young's double-slit experiment allowed for this determination which essentially caused an intercessory condition of agency = observation.

In Young's experiment - observation, light travels away from a source as an electromagnetic wave. When it encounters the slits, it passes through and divides into two wave fronts. These wave fronts overlap and approach the screen. At the moment of impact, however, the entire wave field disappears 'collapses' and a photon appears. Quantum physicists often describe this by saying the spread-out wave "collapses" into a small point. This is only determined to be what happened through human observation - looking to see what happened.

For some people this suggests that a conscious person can collapse a wave function.  However, for a physicist, an observer is anything that interacts with a system in a thermodynamically irreversible way. An observer is not a person, nor a conscious entity at all. It could even be considered light interacting with light. Now, for someone like myself, a sociologist, there still remains an interesting aspect that physicists seem to ignore. If they treat themselves as anything that interacts with a system ... what are they looking for or looking at all? There is no need to understand our interaction if we are just 'anything' interacting with a system in a thermodynamically irreversible way. And, even if it were reversible, the point being would be the same... which is that whatever we do consciously we do it in order to gain meaning... as a being of light, I seek to understand myself as a creation of light and my interaction with light, right?

What we see is what we get!

"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God... And God said, "Let there be light,: and there was light." ~ John 1, Genesis 1.

if this question is a bit difficult to comprehend. I understand that there is some debate about whether a conscious observer is necessary to collapse the wave function

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/can-a-conscious-observer-collapse-the-probability-wave.616452/

if this question is a bit difficult to comprehend. I understand that there is some debate about whether a conscious observer is necessary to collapse the wave function

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/can-a-conscious-observer-collapse-the-probability-wave.616452/

Action Oriented Universe ~ Does it Matter in the Social Imagination?

Is the universe action oriented? Let us first then consider what the basic properties are- light particles. 
Particles in physics are both elementary and subatomic and a body whose spatial extent and internal motion and structure, if any, are irrelevant in a specific problem. Why? Because light is a constant. Now, maybe it can move faster than we previously thought but it cannot be made extinct. Why? Because, we could not recognize such extinction. We  might propose a theory for it but essentially, a theory is just a theory. 

Scientists have yet to grasp the idea that we can suppose something to be true but it many times can never prove its truth. We cannot imagine non-existent light. We have no way of knowing what that means. You see, all reality though composed of what we think as particles of light is information in the mind/brain. We cannot know reality outside of that. We cannot imagine it either.  


Does the idea that the universe is action oriented matter? Speaking as a sociologist, I can say that it does matter but in respect of how we imagine that action. What purpose does it serve us to imagine action in the universe, the Big Bang, Spooky Action at  Distance or if the universe is expanding or not? That is the question.It does matter for the sociologist when light is understood as a constant, a blue screen for all action. In this way, we then can understand how action matters as a set of all possibilities as in having the potential imagine the universe as we have a flat screen a constant backdrop.

In this way, we can exercise our imagination and be creative; imagining all sorts of things even entanglement. Because, the screen is so large... when two "daughter" photons are entangled — if you look at the state of one photon, you know the state of the other, instantly. Without the understanding of a constant, this is impossible. Which is why we cannot imagine non-existent light and why the universe is action oriented. 

*the second image (above) I produced in my kitchen.