From: "chris lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Levels
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 00:24:05 +1000
Hi Chris..
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Lees <chrislees@easynet.co.uk>
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Date: Tuesday, 6 July 1999 9:40
Subject: Re: Levels
>Yes, I understand why you get those responses. But if the wave patterns are
>there ( out there ) on the wall....then there they are. How can they be a
>statistical artifact, or some kind of illusion due to our inner neurology ?
The particular patterns I detailed in my wave/particle email form are made
up of:
(a) a dot where a particular photon/electron has hit the photographic plate
and
(b) an emerging pattern in the way the dots appear on the plate in that OVER
TIME they form into a frequency distribution that takes on the form of a
wave pattern.
Aaron seems to be working on the hypothesis that there is an external
guiding mechanism at work, 'out there', my point is that the setup of the
experiment can act as the guide and so create the wave aspects of the
pattern, the experimental design emulates dichotomous processes that include
wave patterns as part of the process.
Note that the particular is expressed as a dot whereas the wave pattern
emerges over time (and each dot does not form the wave in a particular
order) emphasising a GENERAL process.
When you see a 'wave interference' pattern you are looking at a pattern made
from relational processes and if you zoom-in you will see the 'dots' of
individual photons (when projected onto a surface that does not absorb them
they will scatter and create patterns)
Here is another example of the property of dichotomous analysis but in the
form of polarisers where:
(1) we set-up a polariser that lets through photons with a 0 degree
polarity.
(2) the photons that pass through that are then passed through a polariser
with 90 degree polarity.
This process means that NO photons get through to the other side of the 90
degrees, all photons are blocked, that is until we introduce a polariser set
at 45 degrees INBETWEEN the 0 and 90 degree polarisers. When you do this,
'magically' some photons DO appear the other side of the 90 degree
polariser.
How?
Firstly note that the 0/90 degree polariser pair form a dichotomy of A/NOT
A.
Secondly note that the introduction of the 45 degree polariser is akin to
opening up the middle of the dichotomy such that you move from EITHER/OR
analysis (black/white) to 'middle' (BOTH/AND) analysis -- this is something
like shining white light through a prism and getting all of the harmonics of
the light; getting the harmonics means getting a continuum of 'states' such
that some WILL pass through the 90 degree polariser; the middle of the
dichotomy manifests as a probability wave such that some of the photons
created by the 45 degree polariser will have 90 degree polarity and so pass
through. Since light is 'pure' it does not matter how much you cut it it
still retains its purity; this is one of the dogmas of particle physics in
that photons, electrons etc are all identical, 'pure' forms and so uncutable
in that like fractals as you cut you see the same thing.
There IS one form of cutting that can change things and that is the use of
down converters. These are special crystals that, when a photon passes
through it is 'cut' in two producing two photons that have half the energy
of the original. This is the source for the laser interferometer
experiments. Note that the ONLY difference is energy level.
This process is dichotomous and creates the same implied wave interference
patterns.
In the polariser experiments we have polariserA, polariserB and the 'middle'
polariser. Introduce the middle and you get the 'emergence'.
The pattern is:
polariser 0 (can be interpreted as 'closed' OR 'open' when compared to 90
degree polariser)
polariser 45 (middle postion; has two interpretive biases i.e. 'half open'
or 'half closed')
polariser 90 (can be interpreted as 'open' OR 'closed' when compared to the
0 degree polariser)
In the Airy pattern we use electrons fired through a single slit that is
half opened and it is then that you get the interference patterns. The
dichotomy is fully open slit, full closed slit. When half we are in the
middle of the dichotomy -- 'wave' land again.
Pattern is:
Slit fully open
Slit half open
Slit half closed
Slit fully closed
The half positions, although two in number are equivalent and here you find
the source of the interference pattern.
In the Double Slit we use photons (or atoms) aimed at two slits that are
seperated by half the wavelength (!) of the photons. (photons move along
transverse wave formats (coming towards you they would seem to oscillate --
this is the manner in which polarisers 'catch' them or left them through)
The wave pattern on the photographic plate happens when BOTH slits are open
which is the MIDDLE position of the dichotomy one_open (A) /one_closed (NOT
A).
The pattern is:
One Open
BOTH open
BOTH closed
One Closed
The BOTH closed state is ignored but is in fact a part of the data in that
it is akin to saying "does not matter" and maps to the concept of
equivalence which I have pointed out before seems to share the same semantic
space as 'indeterminate' which happens to be the result from the BOTH open
choice.
The One Open/One closed is EITHER/OR, the BOTH patterns are entangements,
MIDDLE positions if you like and so BOTH/AND, probabilities bias, 50/50. The
experimental layout forces this regardless of 'fact'; the experimental
layout emulates dichotomous analysis and the emergence of 'wave' patterns
from the 'middle'. As I have emphasised before, in interpretation space,
equivalence (i.e. "Does not matter which") and indeterminance ("Cant tell
which and so does not matter") occupy the same space and this is an
important distinction; in all analysis what you leave out is in fact part of
the system you cannot ignore it when you wish to apply logic to it.
>I don't understand. And if that makes a hole in your case, doesn't the
whole
>'dichotomous system' you've proposed look a bit shakey ?
>
I do not think there is a 'hole' in the case. My arguement is regarding
interpretations of results of experiments created using dichotomy-emulating
formats. The emphasis is that you do not necessarily have 'wave-particle'
duality; you are not dealing with wavicles you are dealing with objects that
under certain conditions will appear as if 'waves' and others where you have
waves that under certain conditions will appear as if particles (The vortex
atom model got into this at the beginning of the century and attracted many
prominent scientists of the time until the atom was 'split' and so
demonstrated an apparent 'object' format)
The above mentioned conditions includes artificial ones where the experiment
set-up forces the emergence of patterns that are not necessarily 'real'.
<snip>
>I'm not convinced. I favour Aaron on that. But perhaps if you'd both
explain
>as if to a simpleton like me, in less frenzied tones, it might become a
little
>clearer ? I think that was the most interesting part so far. The 'dark
patches'
>when the waves recombine ( forgive me if I don't use the correct terms) is
>fascinating. I just cannot grasp how that can be fitted in to your scheme,
Chris.
>If I remember rightly, Aaron insists it cannot. How do you answer him on
that
>particular question ?
>
Look at the above data and consider one of the BOTH positions as
'dark'...?..:-)
<snip>
>> I am glad to see that my website 'warmed' you a bit as it suggests that
at
>> least some people can understand it :-)
>
>Well, I don't claim to understand it, in the way that you do. I nearly
dismissed
>it out of hand, the first time around, but then I began to have an inkling
into
>what you are getting at. The pattern seems to fit, in quite unlikely
places, which
>I find quite a surprise. But maybe it's a bit like Ley Lines. Just because
a lot of
>interesting sites can sit on a straight line on the map, it doesn't follow
that
>Ley Lines exist in reality. They are a natural consequence of a lot of
random dots,
>and joining dots with lines, which create an illusion which convinces the
naive
>spectator. Maybe your pattern is that kind of illusion ?
>
This is possible but the accumulated data to date suggests not, the
neurology/psychology data is pretty good re object/relationships dichotomies
being used to make maps. There is a lot of work to do but the foundations
seem to be more robust these days -- when I first came across the data and
put it all together I was a little stunned by it but coming across Charles
Peirce's work encouraged me that I was on the right track (Karl Popper felt
an affinity with Peirce and it is 'obvious' when you view Poppers world1-2-3
concepts.)
The original work was based on analysis of esoteric disciplines, in
particular Tarot, I Ching, Astrology etc I wanted to see how it was that
people experience 'true' meaning in these disciplines. To do this I had to
get 'behind' them and look at how we categorise and from that emerged the
understanding of the use of dichotomisations and how 'meaning' is part of
the method and as such ANY concept built on dichotomous processes could be
shown to have 'meaning' regardless of 'facts'; I can create whole universes
'in here' that are meaningful to others.. and dangerous to others as well
(fundamentalism etc)
Thanks for the comments,
best regards,
Chris.
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit