I need a simple run down on electricity. How is it that everything concerning humans and the afterlife seems to find its basics in mathematics and electricity?  Nanner

Hi,

Nanna

Alan McDougall wrote on Feb 1^st, 2008 at 7:05am:


Hi Alan

Not to pull the discussion down an off topic techie rabbit hole Dave, but is a charge an actual discrete entity? Or is the reality as is usually the case is a continuum or a flow - that's broken up into 'lumps' for the purposes of mathematical modelling?

Hi Vajra-
This wasn't intended to become a book length remak, but ...

I neglected to add that since Nanner wondered why logic and math and electriocity etc all are important, the reason is that everything that is not-logical is chaotic, or otherwise contains its own contradiction - like jumping upwards from a massive body contains the contradiction which pulls us back down again. Math is the easiest and most compact expression.

In the astral regions we can create worlds that have no such limitations, but they vanish when we stop creating them because they are innately self-contradictry. As a demonstration of this, meditate to the level at which you hallucinate, and then attempt to "save" a hallucination by somehow tying it in a knot, or putting it in a box, or whatever. Because they are innately self-contradictory, the hallucination vanishes.

There are several very fundamental properties of reality that we rarely consider in their own right. The first property that is important is extension. Extension is the ability to be localized in the physical world, to accept the additional of attributes, and to interact as an attributive locus (aka "thing"). Nominal existence requires extension, but nothing else. Attributive existence requires extension plus attributes. It is characteristic of extension that it is additive without replacement.

Mass is an attribute that consists of the level of extension, in the sense that the collection of attributes defines the manner of interaction, and the statistics of interactive products. Thus, we can consider gravitation to be the tendency to distribute attributes from a "massive" source to other "sinks" that gain in mass as they gain in attribution. It is characteristic of mass that it adds without replacement.

Electrical Charge is an attributive pair in which an initially polar dyadic system tends to fold into itself so as to neutralize the charge and annihilate the charge. The result is another fundamental attribute, energy. Other forms of charge occur, such as the triadic charge with quarks. Charge adds without replacement. 

Energy is the ability to cause attributive change. Taken over time or space we call this power, and recognize it as the rate of attributive changes. While energy, power and entropy (log of adds against state) add without replacement, the information content and meaning adds as a complexion (set of all subsets) with replacement.

There is no state that retains manifest static existence. At 0 Kelvins, matter ceases to be defined. Thus, extension, charge and mass are known only as dynamics. In the same way, sensation cannot occur in the absence of dynamic change (eg. the impact of a photon) so there is no static sensation of attribution. Thus, in the last analysis, everything is dynamic. Since everything is dynamic, and the nature of dynamism is expressed as changes of attribution, we can reduce reality to process plus relationships, and totally eliminate static structures. This implies that what we regard as static is actually in dynamic interaction at all times. Thus, there is a tendency for formation of aggregates, but also for their decomposition, so nothing lasts.

Now, going back to the beginning, the nature of charge is polar. We have a polar event at the "Beginning", which is the distinction between extension and vacuity, the two aspects of voidness. Extension in this case is like the Planck sized object that is so tiny it collapses into a micro-blackhole of zero interior dimension, but with an exterior to which we can point. Vacuity is like the infinite potentiality of the cosmos which is so empty that no matter what is stuffed into it, it can't be filled. It has an interior that we can point to, but no exterior. This gives a definition in which the two differ in additivity. Call the Planck sized point A. Then X + A = X.  Call the vacuous void W. Then W + X = W. And, because we are dealing with a dichotomy we can go forward and build an hierarchy of nominal relationships. We can also go back and observe that both aspects add to nothing, A + W = 0.

From that, let's consider what happens when we separate the Planck size entended point A and the vacuous cosmic voidness W. (I use theta-sub-alpha and theta-sub-omega that sum to theta-null if you look in my usual writings.) They arise as a pair such that they are mutuallyinterdefinitive. There is a tendency for the Planck sized term A to rejoin the vacuous term W. This tendency is statistical in nature, and expresses the probability of merger. We sense this probability as the "force" by which the two terms seek to merge.

Mutual repulsion is explicable as competition. When charge A is near other As, as opposed to elsewhere, then elsewhere looks more like the vacuous charge W, so we get repulsion as everything tries to go elsewhere. The same is true of charge W.

The carriers of charge depend upon the charge and the symmetry structure by which the charges are defined. Lgically, we expect that every meta-eigenstate (the eigenmatrices that arises as iterated complexions over basis two, the primal dyad) will conserve some kind of differential internal structure and thus will have some kind of differential charges and a dynamic.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0711.0770 This is Garrett Lisi's paper on Lie symmetry groups in the exceptional simple Lie group E8. This is more of the same thing, but quite well develped. (It's well past my level of playing with 7-spaces.) It will fill in the rest of the model.

I hope this is useful-
dave

HI,

In other words electricity is one form of that mysterious something energy , that cannot be created or destroyed just used to perform an action or create an reaction.

Come on Dave get a bottle full of the root stuff called energy and you will really really impress me.

Your explanation was comprehensive but I believe beyond the understanding on the forum members not familar to science and physics as you are.

alan

Gotcha devayan - will check it out  - Thank you kindly. ~Nanner~

Hi Vajra-
The reason that we have a pervasive charge, or any other attribute, is that we have pulled space apart into different kinds of puckers and twists. This is not a stable static system, but it retains itself as a dynamic resonance. Like the standing waves of a sound echoing in a hall, or the radiations bouncing about inside a black body, combining as they echo and bounce together. 

Alan is corerect that this is another of those inexplicable things - but it isn't inexplicable. It's just extremely subtle. And I agree that "something about it is extremely slippery".

An electron, for example, can readily be represented by two resonances, inward and outward directed spatial resonances with 510 KeV charge. http://members.tripod.com/mwolff/point.html  Milo Wolff has done a nice job of presenting the electron's resonance. However, my impression is that you're more interested in where it comes from and goes to, as opposed of what it does while we're playing with it.

The slippery part is that none of this is real, at least not in the sense of Buddhist "aggregates". It's  only an "arrangement".  Like Wolff's electron, there's not really anything there except circulating probabilities of locating the quality of charge at some point in its orbit, while it is the orbit's action by which the space in which it revolves is defined.

Phrased differently, the tail creates a dog to wag it, while the dog defines its tail into existence to be wagged. One level down and there's nobody home. Just a bark awaiting a place to occur. And that puts us back at the old conundrum, which came first, the fireplug of the dog? 

To ask about the material nature of the origins of reality turns out to be most often the wrong question, and it returns a nonsensical answer. It's "not even wrong", as they say.

The way to fit this to Buddhist thought is through the Prajnaparamita Sutra - which is why they call it the "diamond cutter sutra". Start with emptiness.

So we can build an hypothetical reality from emptiness, probability, and logical consistency. On a nice clean sheet of emptiness, using only an imaginary compass and protractor, draw two shapes. Obviously, this is going to be difficult, so instead, you can find any two potential shapes that might have existed if someone had been there two draw them. These shapes occur in potential state space, and they are not "real and enduring forever" as  would be matter. Potential states are any states that might be defined or might occur under some set of conditions, including the shapes formed in your forebrain by your imagination, and they have no more reality than that.

So we now have set apart two "potential instances" of emptiness. The clearly have a logical relationship, both with one another, and also with others of their kind. It is the expansion of this ability to relate to others of their kind that gives rise to universal structure. 

Let's add some more of these potential shapes. They occur contingently to the existence of the first potentialities you defined, since we're holding onto those. However, now we are buiding up a network of the ways in which these non-things relate. Further, once we start looking at the potentialities for such shapes, we see that some are more probable, and some of the relationships they manifest are more probable than others. That gives us an expanding set of potentialities, with subsets internally related, and from which we find patterns of possible relationships emerging.

This has taken us from utter voidness to possibilities for contingent manifestation in a probability space, hence phase space. That creates a universe. There are obviously an infinite number of such universes. Each is internally defined as a stable dynamic system that expands by iterated complexions. (Complexion is Henri Poincare's term for what others calla "power set".)

Given an infinite number of potential universes, let me direct your attention to one of them in which all the potential interactions have taken up the shapes and patterns that would be found in a crowd of sentient beings picking cosmic lint out of their non-existent navels.  With respect to the viewpoint of one of those sentiencies, the entire universal shmear looks like a regular extended reality, made of rocks and roots, bricks and bathtubs. These guys can't tell the difference.

We live in that kind of place. It has no reality. It has no matter. It is defined only by dynamic relations. By reducing reality to a dynamic relativism we enable ourselves to occupy any potential universe that we can logically reach. Of course, because these universes are in potential state space they are eternal, just as eternal as emptiness.

For example, my non-real-but-seems-real world a week ago included a small pilonidal cyst on my forehead. I adopted Rei's approach of silent prayer and it now has vanished. The mechanism seems to be that we can have any imaginary universe just as easily as the one we're in. All we need to do is to go there. Prayer (aka meditation with God) simply makes one option more probable that the other, and change occurs. That's why I'm so fascinated by CS - they do this routinely.

This is exactly identical to a dream, except that God is the Dreamer, and we are the characters of the dream. It all resolves to the internal mumblings of Buddha-Mind, if you prefer. However, because of the tail-vs-dog problem we are also the dreamers as well as the dream, the actors in space, and the means by which space is defined so that we can be actors there.

It's not that you've got it wrong. To the contrary, Buddhism is an excellent expression of the truth of this. What's happening is that there are literally millions of equivalent expressions that are all partly correct and partly verbal analogies, and we get tangled up in the details rather than understanding the collectivity.

Following the tail-vs-dog, God is innate, immanent, occurring by its own nature within emptiness. That does not mean that God is a person, nor a buddha etc. God turns out to look a lot more like the thermodynamics of a non-populated Riemannian void that has the capacity to have potential states. But that means that the sentiency of God is located in us, and not in the original emptiness. However, the roots of that sentiency must be in the innate nature of God, which can be described as a collection of contingencies in emptiness. So now we have our minds projecting God, and God projecting our minds, and both projecting a place in which we live. But in the end it's still empty.

Better this time?

dave