(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) French mathematician Henri Poincare first blew the whistle on the "closed system" thinking of Newtonian mechanics. According to classical physics, Newtonian physics, a closed system is perfectly orderly and predictable. A pendulum in a vacuum, free of friction and air resistance, will conserve its energy. The pendulum will swing back and forth for all eternity. It will not be subject to the dissipation of entropy, which eats its way into systems by causing them to give up their energy to the surrounding environment. Planets, like pendulums, cannot be disturbed unless by outside chance, and they must be unvarying in their perambulations around the sun.
But Poincare asked a question about the stability of the solar system. Why he asked this question, we do not know; but he did. And the reaction to his question was the standard linear/faith brush-off: "Of course they are stable! They've been stable for a long time. Heck, we can predict eclipses years in advance!" It was a tenet of the scientific faith that knowing the law of force and mass of the bodies, any good scientist could predict the interactions with Newton's equations. The law of force, the inverse square of the law of gravitation, was all wrapped up in a nice, neat package.
But Poincare had been doing some math on the side, and he knew that there was a small difficulty here: for a system containing only two bodies, Newton's equations work. For an ideal two-body system, the orbits are stable. The problem arises when going from two to three bodies, such as including the Sun in the equations, Newton's equations become unsolvable! For formal mathematical reasons, the three-body equation cannot be worked out closer than an "approximation:"
Well, one would think that an "approximation" might be okay. We can live with that. It's nothing to keep one awake at night, right? Well, Poincare knew that the approximation method appeared to work for the first few terms added, but when the number of terms increased, if you add more and more bodies to the system, even including a few spare asteroids and their very minute perturbations of the system, over long periods of time, at some point the orbits shift and the solar system begins to break apart under its own internal forces.
[Comment - What is unstable in the foregoing is the understanding and not necessarily the ontological status of the solar system. Approximations are part of a system of methodology for handling three-body and multi-body problems, and the fact such a system of approximations will lead to a complete breakdown of our ability to predict, with any certainty or even high probability, what will happen within, say, the solar system reflects on the mathematics we use and not on the ontological character of the solar system.
What will happen to the solar system over time? Will the forces at work within, and upon, the solar system eventually cause certain planets to shift and cause the system as a whole to break apart?
Possibly. On the other hand, there may be forces - both known and unknown - which despite perturbations in planetary movement may dampen or cancel out such anomalies.
Whichever may be the case, the fact of the matter is, we don't know what will happen. Our methods of approximation only take us so far before we begin to be fogged in by the way the increasing uncertainties which arise in conjunction with such methods cloud our understanding of how the solar system will play out over time as a function of its ontological character rather than our methodological limitations.
Someone is mistaking the analysis generated through a given mathematical method for ontology. Someone is assuming that ontology must unfold in accordance with the instabilities inherent in that methodology.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Do these forces run out when they become undetectable by our senses or by our instruments? Do the things we detect with the subtle mechanisms of our mind and organs of sensation not exist simply because we cannot see or measure them? And, as Ark dared to ask in his 1994 paper, published in a peer reviewed physics journal, Annalen der Physik, (the same journal in which Einstein published his famous 1905 paper), "Who are 'we', anyway?"
[Comment - This is a very good question? How 'deep' does Reality go? How subtle can Reality become? What exists beyond our capacity to know? What happens when the instrumentality of our sciences and the instrumentality of our senses and intellect reach their outer boundary markers? Who are we in essence? What is our essential potential? How does one realize the answer to such questions? How does methodology affect the way we approach, engage, and understand such questions?]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) In 1966, a man named John Stewart Bell, a theoretical physicist constructed a proof which has since become known as "Bell's Theorem." [Reprinted in Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics] This theorem tells us that, if quantum theory is correct, reality must be non-local. That is to say, anything happening anywhere whatsoever in the universe, can, instantaneously affect everything else everywhere else in the universe. He demonstrated that, if we take the lesson of the quantum theory seriously, an atom's measured attributes are determined not just by events happening at the actual site of being, but by all events occurring in the entire universe simultaneously and instantly!
[Comment - Actually, Bell didn't demonstrate that everything is connected to everything else. What he showed is the possibility that there could be changes in the measured attributes of a system which can be linked to the character of events in other systems in ways that transcend the properties of light-based communication, and, therefore, constitute non-local modes of dynamics.
Furthermore, Bell didn't prove that these non-local modes of interaction must be super-luminal or faster than the speed of light. Rather, the conclusion which he drew was that the only way he saw for physics to be able to account for such non-local dynamics is if one were to assume the possibility of something traveling faster than the speed of light which could permit a form of dynamics which is inexplicable if one were to assume that the speed of light is a constant that cannot be exceeded.
As far as I know, Bell never considered the possibility of whether the form of the non-local dynamics might be underwritten through dimensional contacts which are other than the usual one of a standard four dimensional space-time continuum. In other words, one way for a given non-local interaction to appear to exceed the speed of light is if the causal character of the interaction was transmitted via dimensions which eliminated the property of physical distance as the medium through which contact or interaction takes place.
The speed of light is tied to a particular methodological convention which measures speed as a function of distance traversed within a given unit of time. If there is no physical distance to be covered, but, rather, contact is established through other non-metric dimensions, then, the whole idea of the speed of light becomes irrelevant to the modality of such an on-going dynamic.
That dynamic is still non-local from the traditional perspective of relativistic physics. However, the actual ontological character of the dynamic is not necessarily non-local when considered from the perspective of how various dimensions might interact in some way which is not mediated by light signals or electromagnetic interaction or quantum exchanges - at least, not as understood from within perspective concerning the nature of the Universe in which relativity theory supposedly reigns supreme.
Finally, Bell did not show that the nature of the interaction was instantaneous. All he indicated is that the non-local dynamics took place in ways which could not be measured through relativistic means.
Whatever transpires beyond the capacity of a relativistic-based method to detect or measure will appear 'instantaneous', even if it is not, ontologically speaking, actually so. What is instantaneous may be more a matter of methodological limitations than ontological realities.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Notice the key word above - instantaneous. This means "superluminal" or faster than the speed of light. But, assuming that no signal can travel faster than the speed of light, this must mean that there is no actual distance separating events. Bell's theorem can be interpreted as demonstrating the idea that all that exists -- past, present, and future -- should be combined into a single entity whose farthest parts are joined in an immediate manner.
[Comment - One might interpret Bell's theorem in a lot of ways, but this possibility doesn't make those interpretations correct. One should be cautious about moving beyond the reach of what a theorem actually establishes, and Laura's conjecture exceeds the boundaries within which Bell's theorem actually operates.
This is not the say the universe may not be connected in such a way that every part is linked to every other part in an intimate, non-local manner. Rather, it is only to say that Bell's theorem doesn't necessarily demonstrate such a possibility - although one might argue that his theorem, when engaged from a perspective which defines the term 'non-local' in a way which is dimensionally independent of relativistic considerations, might be consistent with such a possibility.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Space, as we perceive it, has only three dimensions; length, width, and height. We define this condition as three independent directions - that is, each measurement lies at right angles to the others simultaneously. But, again, if we take quantum theory seriously, then "our" space is merely an aspect of another space, possibly of infinite number of dimensions.
If space is infinite, then it must possess an infinite number of lines perpendicular and not parallel to one another. Is infinity, then, a foolishness and does space necessarily have a limit? If it does have a limit, in what space does our space exist?
[Comments - How we perceive space and define it are often shaped, colored and oriented by our methodologies. Space as a function of Euclidean geometry has one set of properties; space as a function of Riemannian geometry in which, among other things, the internal structure of a point is said to give expression to varying degrees of curvature, and, thereby determine the character of space which can be generated through such points - this sort of space has another set of properties. Hilbert space has another, more generalized and inclusive, set of properties.
And, then, of course, there is hermeneutical space, and phenomenological space, and space which is an expression of string-dynamics that gives a lower limit to how small a length can be and out of which space is 'constructed'. There is Kaluza-Klein space in which the structural character of space is a function of eleven dimensions, not all of which are visible, and some of which are 'curled up' expressions of space.
One might also speak about other kinds of space which are a function of dimensions for which there are no metrics. After all, why should one suppose that all forms of space are reducible to a definable or measurable metric, or why should we suppose that whatever methodology one comes up with to explore a given species of space actually does justice to the structural character of such space even though the methodology may have this or that heuristic utility?
Moreover, if the foregoing is the case - that is, if space is an expression of some set of qualities (e.g., the Divine Names and Attributes) rather than quantity, then, why must one agree that any sort of space which exists is capable of being modeled according to a set of perpendicular lines which are infinite and parallel to those lines which lie in the same direction of perpendicularity to one another? Why must one suppose that space must consist of points at all, whatever the internal structure of such points may be?]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Now, if space does possess an infinite number of lines perpendicular to one another, then we must ask why we can only perceive three. If we exist in a condition of mind that perceives only three dimensions, this can mean that the properties of space are created - or differentiated - by certain attributes within us. For some reason or another, the Whole is inaccessible to us.
[Comment - No one has shown or proven than the Whole is inaccessible to us. What has been shown, however, time and time again, is that our perceptions tend to be colored by the methodologies which we use to map our experiential engagement of reality.
Is it the case that space has only three dimensions? Or, is possible that the 'space' within which we live has been reduced to appearing as if it consisted of only three metric dimensions due to the way we have been educated and acculturated?]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) For a very long time, materialist science has recognized the existence of two important concepts, matter and motion. Matter is that which moves and motion is changes in matter.
However, Bell's theorem seems to show us that "All" simply is. Therefore, the changes must originate within ourselves!
[Comment - Bell's theorem does not show what is being claimed. Bell's theorem does not say that "All simply is".
Bell's theorem indicates there is a certain interconnectedness to the dynamics of quantum physics which cannot be accounted for by theories which are immersed in the assumption of locality - in other words, theories which require that whatever goes on cannot take place in a way that violates the idea that light transmissions of some kind are the only way of linking such events. The principle of non-locality indicates that forces other than light causally connect events which, ostensibly, affect one another but do so in ways which suggest that light signals, of one kind or another, were not the medium or vehicle through which causal forces or effects were carried.
Moreover, the principle of non-locality does not specify what the medium of exchange is - only that it appears to violate the assumption of locality - that is, loci of manifestation which are linked by carriers of force that are limited by the speed of light. Therefore, Bell's theorem does not indicate that whatever changes take place in a non-local system must be a function of changes which take place in us.
How such changes happen is not known. All the theorem indicates is that such changes can occur.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) If the origin of the "light of consciousness" is at 7th density, and it projects through "consciousness units," or individual perception, we come to the idea that archetypal images may be extremely important. Archetypes are the patterns of human, societal, and national interactions as conceived, and created by beings of higher densities. And, it may be that these archetypal images are viewed or perceived by those who we have come to know as prophets.
[Comment - If one approaches the idea of archetypes from the perspective of Jung, he did not maintain that such forms were created by beings of higher density. Rather, he said they were created (by unknown means), over time, by human beings and accumulated (by unknown means) in the collective unconsciousness as thematic complexes which gave expression to the challenges, problems, questions, mysteries, and topical issues that arose during the course of engaging life, and into which people might tap, or which might tap into the lives of individuals (by unknown means) in order to work through various issues associated with such complexes as one struggled toward complete individuation of human potential.
What archetypes are is unknown to most, if not all, of us. Different people have different theories about the matter.
It is possible that archetypes may give expression to individual and cultural perceptions of particular Divine Names and Attributes. Conceivably, archetypes constitute so-many incidents in the ways in which human beings interact with the Divine Names and Attributes. Perhaps, the 'space' where hermeneutics and Divine Names come together creates a symbolic form that gives expression to the character of such engagements. Maybe, archetypes are but one set of possible forms which may arise when human beings - whether Prophet or non-Prophet - engage, and are engaged by, the realm of Divine Names.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) It must be noted that in Sufi terms, the "eyes of the heart" does not refer to emotion or "love" in any sense that Western minds have tended to interpret it. In fact, the term "heart" in Eastern mysticism refers more to the consciousness of the soul - awareness - than to the many corruptions of this term that pass in New Age teachings as "the way of the heart." Mansur al Hallaj has said:
"When Truth has overwhelmed a human heart, it empties it of all that is not Truth. When God loves a being, He kills everything that is not Him."
[Comment - The eyes of the heart or the spiritual eyes of the soul are varied, and each kind of eye is capable of seeing facets of Truth which complement what is seen through the other eyes of the heart or soul. These eyes are the lenses for witnessing the infinite dimensions or qualitative 'spaces' of the Names and Attributes of Divinity, according to the capacity of the eye in question. Just as there are means of seeing the universe through the eyes of: ultraviolet, infrared, gamma-rays, x-rays, coherent light, and so-called 'normal' visible light, so, too, there are means of seeing the universe through the eyes of different spiritual capacities within the human soul.
When these spiritual eyes have been purified and properly calibrated, they see by the light of God. Therefore, one sees the Truth by the light of the Truth according to one's capacity to do so.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) And here the question must be asked: why have we created a world in which material extinction is a real possibility?
[Comment - Perhaps, we have not created such a world, but rather the world as it actually is gives expression to degrees of freedom in which destruction is one of the choices we might make - both individually and collectively. However, whatever our choices may be, none of these will alter the character of the Himma or Divine aspiration which made such choices a possibility but did not make such choices the primary determining factor in how the Divine Himma unfolds. Our choices lend color to, but do not alter, the way in which Divine Purpose is manifested through the medium of Creation.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) What power separates us from knowledge of our inner creative selves and leaves us exposed to suffering and pain?
For, no matter how one defines reality - as a self-created manifestation, or as an accomplished fact thrust upon us - the reality of suffering must be seen as a consequence of this separation. And, if the world of matter is created and maintained by us, what are we doing about it that is new and different?
For millennia we have worked with the idea that pain and suffering is it a consequence of willful disobedience.
[Comment - There are 'two' things which are part and parcel of one and the same Reality that separate us from our essential selves and unique spiritual capacity. On the one hand, there is our ignorance about the truth of things - including our own nature. On the other hand, there is the dimension of Divine Grace which alone can lead to the pushing back the dark night of the soul.
We are being called to bear witness to the truth of Being at every turn. However, there are elements with us, and which act upon us, that are seeking to sway us from answering these calls.
To the extent we choose to remain in ignorance by aligning ourselves with the forces of darkness, then, to that extent will suffering enter our lives through the ways in which falsehood begins to entangle our lives at every juncture. The world of matter is neither created by us nor is it maintained by us - but, rather, it is the playing field which has been generated through the dynamics of the Divine Names and Attributes as a function of Divine Himma, and within which the game of choice is played in conjunction with vying for the prize of Truth.
Willful disobedience to the presence of truth, on whatever level, is the source of many of our problems. When we disregard the laws of physics, we run the risk of suffering, and when we disregard the principles of spirituality, we run the risk of suffering, and when we turn a blind eye to the presence of truth, in whatever form it may appear, we run the risk of suffering.
Divine law and commandments - to the extent that they constitute authentic expressions of Divine Himma rather than man-made impositions upon the fabric of reality - are often the means through which 'space' is created which is conducive to a search for truth. When the interpretation or application of such laws - again, to the extent they are authentic - leads to problems such as cruelty, abuse, and exploitation as a result of an insincere commitment - either individually or collectively - to the Truth, then, one can be sure that such difficulties are due to an improper understanding of the Truth on the part of human beings and not as a result of the arbitrary fiats of a capricious, unloving, indifferent Divinity.
If free will is to be truly free, then, there are likely to be problematic consequences - for ourselves and others - which ensue from the mis-use of such free will. When free-will is applied to the service of truth and others, then, one is doing all one can toward helping to create the 'space' which is conducive to others and oneself being able to pursue the Truth without one becoming an obstacle to that search.
Pain and suffering can be an indication that we have strayed from the Truth (and this is not meant to be construed in the hues of someone's theological musings). Pain and suffering can be an indication that struggling toward realizing the Truth within ourselves often has a price attached to it.
The presence of pain and suffering does not, in and of itself, necessarily tell one whether one is on the right or wrong tract with respect to the Truth. What pain and suffering do call for is some serious reflection on the nature of one's situation and whether the pain and suffering are a symptom of pathology or an indication that healing is taking place.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Physicist John Archibald Wheeler, who takes the lesson of quantum physics seriously, writes:
"The point is that the universe is a grand synthesis, putting itself together all the time as a whole. Its history is not a history as we usually conceive history. It is not one thing happening after another. It is a totality in which what happens "now" gives reality to what happened "then," perhaps even determines what happened then." [J.A. Wheeler, Geons, Black Holes and Quantum Foam]
[Comment - The idea that the universe is putting itself together all the time is a theory. This theory may, or may not, reflect the structural character of reality accurately - but this is a matter for investigation, not assumption.
Furthermore, if reality is a matter of a 'Whole' happening now, then, what happened 'then' is a mis-perception or mis-apprehension of what is transpiring. There is no 'then' in such a 'NOW' except as a function of illusion, error, falsehood, delusion, or the like - which are themselves, possible manifestations of the Whole as a Now.
The concept of an eternal Now is one thing. The experiential realization of such Nowness is quite another matter.
Truth is found in the realization, not in the concept. The concept is merely a sign-post pointing to such a possibility.
Perhaps, time is one of the lenses of perception permitted by the Whole through which the Now is engaged. Perhaps, time is a medium through which one's angle of engaging the Whole may change in that Now through the choices that are made - choices which are expressions of one's fixed-form essence.
Perhaps, the experience of change or transformation is merely the awareness of a different facet of that Now being manifested - a manifestation which is taking place simultaneously with the other choices one is making through one's essential capacity but which are 'remembered' in the Now as having occurred 'then' even as they are occurring now. Perhaps, memory is but the current perception of the Now as viewed through the lenses of 'then' which is also a manifestation of the Now. Perhaps, remembrance is the unveiling of Now as it is - according to one's capacity to experience that Truth, rather than experiencing the Truth through the veils of ignorance which also are manifested potentials of one essential nature.]
| Part One | Next | Food Menu |
|
