Four Phases from Metaphysical Potentiality to Physical Actuality

A coin is a symbol of duality.  A duality is a unity of two/duo.

A coin’s two faces are mutually exclusive, being opposite one another; and they are mutually dependent, as they cannot be separated from one another without destroying the coin that comprises them.

A coin sitting on a table or stuffed in one’s pocket is at Rest.  Within this Ground state (the state of minimum energy), there is potential for the coin to be activated.  When someone calls, “Heads you win, tails you lose!” the coin is employed in a game that punctuates the Ground state that exists before and after the activity.

spinning-coin (1)While a coin is actively spinning through the air, heads or tails are BOTH possibilities; however, we have NEITHER heads nor tails decisively.

Simply grasping a coin mid-air reduces the indeterminate potentiality of BOTH/NEITHER to EITHER heads OR tails, though we know not which until we sneak a peek.

The pre-determinate EITHER/OR potentiality is further reduced when we finally observe the result of the coin toss; at the Final Outcome a determinate actuality takes its place.

Thus, the four states of the coin shall be called:

Ground  >>  BOTH/NEITHER  >> EITHER/OR  >> Final Outcome

Below, the three activated states are represented hierarchically.  From top down on the inverted triangle we follow the trajectory from mingled-in potentialities to a singled-out actuality.  From a maximum potential in the top tier, the descent undergoes a vanishing potential, eventually reaching a limit/point where the potential becomes nil and the Final Outcome is realized.

GROUND
working keynote19.001

Whereas the Ground state that transcends the triangle (and is labeled above and outside it) has no significance to the game, the Final Outcome (at the triangle’s lowest point, but labeled beneath it for legibility) holds the game’s ultimate meaning.

Players register a reaction to the outcome.  If one wins the coin toss she is happy; her energy/frequency goes up and receptors open.  If one loses he is unhappy; his energy/frequency goes down and receptors recoil.

The final state is the point of the game (pun intended)!

Descent Through States of Consciousness

As human Observers we may reflect upon our descent through states of consciousness beginning with a pre-cognitive (or instinctual, deep-sleep) state, transitioning through the subconscious (impulsive, ideational, dreaming) state and arriving at the fully cognizant (intentional, intellectual, wakeful) state.

  1. Seeing is the pre-cognitive interaction between the INformable (LLQ) and the INformative (LRQ) while they are mingled-in together in the BOTH/NEITHER state.
  2. Looking For reduces potentiality, narrowing the field down to the EITHER/OR state.  Attention is on alert for content that is still mingled in with its companion context in a EITHER/OR state.  At some point while Looking For, the INformable state gets satisfied.  Something is found.  Content is counted and context is discounted.  Attention is paid to the content only.  Paying Attention to one thing involves the ignoring of other possibilities.  The EITHER/OR state collapses; the content is singled-out while its companion, the physio-spatial context, is overridden by the Observer, who re-presents the content and re-contextualizes it in accordance with the context of His own psycho-spatial backdrop.  The subconscious but causal act of Paying Attention reduces the EITHER/OR state to its Final Outcome.
  3. Looking At the Final Outcome is the reflexive act of the Observer Creator (LLQ).  The Final Outcome is the Observed Created (LRQ) that was singled out as a Particularity by the Observer/Creator.  (Quadernity calls a particular-entity a Particularity.)  In reviewing the perceived content within the context of an assumed reality (the Observer‘s unquestioned mindset) the Observed seems to be outside of and other than the Observer.  This is a projection, of course, a trick of the Observer’s mind, for without apparent differentiation, assessment and evaluation of the selected content is impossible.

Because Seeing and Looking For both occur in the precognitive intelligence of the INformable, but not in His conscious intellect, He is unaware of His role in the reduction of potentiality.  He recognizes the Patterned Matter after the fact, but He cannot recall His pre-conscious participation in its OUTformation.

The following quote is from the Upanishads, an ancient Indian text written thousands of years ago:

Whether we know it or not, all things take on their existence from that which perceives them.

What did our ancient ancestors know that we are just now remembering or re-learning?

The Informable Observer has little idea that what Mattered (psychologically) to Him Mattered (physically) for Him.  Regardless, He reacts to what He singled out.  This reaction produces altered wave expressions from the Observer.  These waves are reflected (not generated) by the Particularity, and the consequent interference Patterns are recorded in the outside Informative space of the Particularity.

The causal Creator seeds/Structures the raw Substance. The INformative Patterns in space contribute to the probability of whether Matter will recursively emerge according to that same Pattern, or a somewhat similar one, or an radically different one.

Coin Toss Game and the Double-Slit Experiments

Like the coin toss game, quantum physics involves a Ground state that is punctuated by:

  • a BOTH/NEITHER state (wave-particle is indeterminate; the maximum-potentiality, minimum-actuality state; Seeing);
  • an EITHER/OR state (wave-particle is a pre-cognized duality; midway between potentiality and actuality; Looking For);
  • and a singled-out Final Outcome (Particularity is the re-cognized minimum-potentiality, maximum-actuality state; Looking At).

Between the mingled-in BOTH/NEITHER state and the singled-out Final Outcome, there is a transitional zone wherein pairs of complements (EITHER/OR) coexist.  The complements can never be simultaneously ascertained, or singled-out.  The more you know of one, the less you can know of the other.

In physics, the more you know the position of a particle the less you can know about its momentum, and vice versa.  The same holds true for content and context (introduced in the previous section and exemplified in the final paragraph of this section).  The inverse relationship of pairs of characteristics is known as Complementarity.

Catching a coin mid-air reduces its indeterminate state of BOTH/NEITHER to a predetermined state of EITHER/OR.  For any and all coin tosses, only one side at a time pertains at the Final Outcome.

The famous double-slit experiment can be set up to make evident either the wave aspect or the particle aspect of quanta, such as electrons and photons.  Before setting up the double-slit experiment, a decision is made as to which aspect of the quanta we are Looking For; therefore, the quanta emitted in a double-slit experiment are already reduced to their EITHER/OR duality, which enjoys superposition (the combination of the wave aspect (think context) and particle aspect (think content)).  Again, only one of the dual aspects is evident in the Final Outcome for each run-through of the experiment.

What we actually Look At in the Final Outcome is merely a remnant of a four-phase reduction of potentiality.

 Double-Slit Experiments

Before we get into the mechanics of the double-slit experiment, it is important to know that all experiments in quantum physics assume the system being scrutinized is closed, meaning it is in isolation from outside influences.

The assumption that a quantum system is secured from all influences leads to inexplicable experimental outcomes.  In order to explain the bizarre implications of the double-slit experiments, it has been suggested that nonphysical human consciousness (somehow?) intrudes upon the physical system, or that particles themselves are psychic tricksters, or that our choices cause the universe to split off into countless parallel universes with their own realities, or divine intervention is perhaps at play.  A reasonable assumption is that hidden-variables are producing the provocative results.

Quadernity shows us that closed systems are impossibilities, as there is nowhere that space is not.  Space is not empty; it is full of energetic fields.  All physical systems endure (persist through some amount of time) within a spatial environment.  Even in a vacuum, a physical system being tested would be under the influences of quantum fluctuations.

The  Setups

As photons or electrons are emitted one-at-a-time in the double-slit experiment; they are already reduced from their indeterminate BOTH/NEITHER state to their EITHER/OR state as the experiment commences.

The EITHER/OR state includes the particle and wave as a duality of unknowns.  The question we have is about how a quantum is traveling when it hits the back screen and comes to its demise. Was it traveling all spread out, with its wave extended/non-localized, or did it travel more like a bullet, with its wave contracted/localized?

When only one slit is open:

Final Outcome reveals that the absorption of quanta by the screen happens directly behind the single open slit.

This distribution tells us nothing about whether the quanta traveled like waves or more like bullets.  Regardless of which way the quanta travel, there is no possibility of interference with only one slit open.

With two slits open, there is a possibility for interference, but it is not a sure thing.

A) When interference/observation occurs before the quantum reaches the back screen:

The Final Outcome reveals that nearly all absorption of quanta occurs directly behind the two slits, same as happened behind the one slit experiment.

This tells us that the EITHER/OR state was reduced to a particle/bullet before the quantum reached the back screen.

In Wheeler’s Delayed Choice experiment, the choice as to whether or not to attempt detection is delayed until after a quantum passes through the slit screen.  If detection is employed when the quantum is between the slit screen and the back screen, it still gets reduced from its EITHER/OR state to its Final Outcome Particularity before hitting the final screen.  As long as the collapse happens before absorption, the distribution will appear as if the quanta had traveled all along like a bullet.

B) When interference/observation DOES NOT occur before the quantum reaches the back screen:

The Final Outcome reveals multiple, vertical bands of absorption all across the back screen.

This distribution into multiple bands indicates that the EITHER/OR state persisted until the quanta hit the back screen.  Particles rode their waves until they happened upon the screen.  Upon impact, the waves collapsed, leaving a mark only where the particle was absorbed by the back screen.

Speculative Results from Double-Slit Experiments

Below are two wildly different videos that tell of double-slit experiment results.  The first suggests interpretations that the second will dispel.

Double Slit Explanation, Video #1:

This video leads its viewers to conclude that observation/detection alters the behavior of quanta.  This idea is not false; it is true that if quanta are observed before reaching the back screen the distribution array will suggest that the electrons traveled through the slits as particles or like little bullets.  Otherwise, the array looks as if the quanta traveled through the double-slits as waves.  Emerging from each slit are secondary waves that produce an interference pattern as they overlap while out-of-phase.

I disagree, however, with Dr. Al-Khalili’s suggestion that quanta, electrons in this case, somehow “know” whether or not they are being watched, and then mysteriously alter their behavior accordingly.

The difference between finding particle clumping in a single band per slit, or in multiple bands spread out across the screen, is determined by whether or not there was influence/interference or trajectory interruption at any point prior to the quantum hitting the back screen.  This hasn’t anything to do with who (or what) detects which opening the quanta passed through; and it doesn’t have anything to do with the quanta’s foreknowledge about the experiment’s setup.

Al-Khalili’s suggestion is also disputed in Video #2, wherein a couple other valid points are made:

In the second video, the comical presenter makes three points.

  • He assures us that the universe is not dependent on human-consciousness.
  • He disabuses us of the concept that quanta know or care if humans are watching them.  They do not choose circumstantially which laws of physics they will obey.
  • He differentiates between quanta and particular bits of matter.  Quanta, he says, are always only waves that shrink/collapse when interacted with; they are never particles.

The last point deserves some nit-picking, but before diving deep into that we should include one more opinion — this one from the late, highly esteemed John Archibald Wheeler:

The thing that causes people to argue about when and how the photon learns that the experimental apparatus is in a certain configuration and then changes from wave to particle to fit the demands of the experiment’s configuration is the assumption that a photon had some physical form before the astronomers observed it. Either it was a wave or a particle; either it went both ways around the galaxy or only one way. Actually, quantum phenomena are neither waves nor particles but are intrinsically undefined until the moment they are measured.

Three people, all of whom make a living studying and teaching in the field of quantum physics, have offered irreconcilable opinions.

Essentially, the first video suggests that quanta are BOTH waves and particles.  On the contrary, Dr. Wheeler says quantum phenomena are NEITHER waves nor particles.  Quadernity offers a BOTH/NEITHER option which reconciles these two opposing views.

The second video says that quanta are always waves and never particular objects.  The use of the word quanta makes all of this tricky; anything quantized is what Quadernity would call a Particularity, something with its particular nature predominant.  However ironic the semantics, the presenter means that the wave aspect, being non-localized, exists in the realm of probabilities (meta-physical, ULQ), while the particle nature, being very-nearly localized (though not perfectly so, due to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty), exists as an object (a Particularity, LRQ).  Quadernity maps out the differences of these two phases by showing them in different quadrants.  To move from one quadrant to another involves a transition, which is overlooked by quantum physicists who are not yet looking through the lens Quadernity.

The intermediate state (the EITHER/OR wave-particle duality) transitions between what Wheeler calls the “intrinsically undefined” (what I call the indeterminate, BOTH/NEITHER state) and the particle distribution eventually Looked At (Final Outcome).

The EITHER/OR state holds the potentiality for the particle aspect to be revealed at the Final Outcome.  The particle aspect bounces around randomly throughout the electron’s wave field.  They are together in the EITHER/OR state, a.k.a. superposition.

The only way a quantum can be seen/measured/observed is for something to interact with it.  Interaction = Observation.  Interaction does not require self-reflective consciousness; no humans are necessary.  Whether captured by ions in a gas or forced to pass through a filter, the disturbance/observation of quanta destroys the predetermined, non-localized EITHER/OR state, and sometimes even absorbs the particle.  If there is interference before the quantum hits the screen, the quantum is not immediately absorbed; however, if the wave-particle hits the back screen of the double-slit experiment, the wave collapses and simultaneously the particle is absorbed.

If the particle is not absorbed upon collapse of the EITHER/OR state, it remains as merely a carcass of the lost potentiality.  With potentiality reduced to the minimum, the actuality of the particle is raised to the maximum.  Thus, the particle appears as an emergent actuality.

We humans then consider the localized particle of inert matter from the outside-in.  Such matter particles are given ultimate importance by physicists who subscribe (officially or unofficially) to philosophies that categorize them as realists, positivists, materialists or physicalists.

What Counts as Observation?

Physicists do not use Quadernity’s coined phrases mingled-in and singled-out; instead, they use the more sophisticated terms superposition and decoherence to describe these states.  A pattern is decohered, or singled out, by an Observer via disturbance/interruption of the mingled-in state.  In terms of Quadernity, this process of INformation leads to OUTformation of some Particularity with measurable parameters.

To make the quote below more comprehensible, you may want to translate “superposition” to mingled-in and “path information” to singled-out.

Anton Zeilinger discusses superposition and interference patterns:

[T]he superposition of amplitudes … is only valid if there is no way to know, even in principle, which path the particle took. It is important to realize that this does not imply that an observer actually takes note of what happens. It is sufficient to destroy the interference pattern, if the path information is accessible in principle from the experiment or even if it is dispersed in the environment and beyond any technical possibility to be recovered, but in principle still ‘‘out there.’’ The absence of any such information is the essential criterion for quantum interference to appear.

Dr. Zeilinger states that having no path information about a particle is the “essential criterion for quantum interference to appear“.  His statement makes it sound like the interference pattern appears as a result of the lack of knowledge about the path.  Even though it is true that in the absence of path knowledge superposition remains, it is not a consequence of having no path knowledge.  Instead, the interference pattern that shows up on the back screen of the double-slit experiment is merely indicating that the mingled-in state (superposition), which exists by default prior to any Observer attempting to derive path knowledge from the system, was preserved up until absorption of the quantum by the screen.

Observing is the act of singling-out something (a behavior, property, trajectory, etc.) from a mish-mash of alternatives, and thereby, condensing the selected content (particle-aspect) from its natural context (wave aspect).  Upon disturbance by means of observation (deflection or absorption), the quantum is disturbed and its wave contracts.  It is the disturbance that destroys the coherence (mingled-in state) of the particle’s wave with its environment, not the lack of path knowledge.

Once the deBroglie wave aspect is collapsed/condensed into a particle, whether before or upon absorption, scientists see only evidence on the back screen that there was existence of a particleSingled-out particles are all we ever see recorded on the back screen, regardless of the pattern of cumulative distribution, in clumps or in bands.  The wave itself is never captured by, or recorded on, the back screen!  Because particles travel like bullets, scientists expect the particles to have arrived by traversing a straight path between the points of emission and absorption.

The wave aspect offers a multitude of potential positions for the particle.  Before disturbance, the particle and wave are conjoined as a quantum system that is coherent with its environment.  If particles, one by one, are absorbed by the back screen without prior disturbance, the interference pattern that gradually forms on the back screen, particle by particle, indicates that each arrived as if carried by a wave (Bohm’s pilot wave), or as if traveling itself as a wave (as its wave-aspect would naturally travel if undisturbed).  While traveling in/as a wave, direct path knowledge about any given particle is meaningless.  Countless possible positions endure until absorption or disruption.

Interruptions/disturbances happen all the time without any person knowing about it.  It is not that human Observers have path knowledge (a.k.a. which-way information), but the act of disturbance itself, that produces measurability.  Measurability implies only that something (not necessarily a person) can become aware of something else.

Since all things/Particularities emerge within an environment, it is reasonable to assume that the potentiality for that Particularity to emerge singled-out is present within the environment into which it presents itself.  The wave aspect is coherent with the environment.  Environments contain all sorts of particles and energetic fields that can disturb potentials or provide gradients; even the vacuum has an energy flux which produces virtual particle eruptions.  If something in the environment does disturb the coherence, or mingled-in potentiality, a Particularity gets singled-out.  More often than otherwise, the environment (a non-empty space) is the Observer that Observes the Observed.

Here linked is the abstract of a 2007 article* from ScienceMag.org.  It explains how a single electron can constitute an environment/Observer for a minimum particle system, and also explains how the conversion from EITHER/OR to Final Outcome can be a result of quanta coupling to their environment.

*To view the full article as a downloadable pdf, which I recommend, you must sign up with AAAS.  I did this without cost, complication or repercussions; just follow the link provided near the abstract.

Quoted from the full article:

[O]ne particle can be considered an observer that carries partial information about the other particle and its path through the double slit.  The amount of which-way information exchanged between the particles is limited by the observer particle’s deBroglie wavelength.

The smaller the particle, such as an electron, the bigger is its deBroglie wavelength.  Conversely, the deBroglie wavelengths shrink/recoil as the particle‘s mass/energy/size/complexity increases, which is why we do not encounter the matter-waves of macroscopic entities.

Complementarity tells us that greater the momentum of the measured wave field, the more evasive is the position of the particle aspect.  Conversely, zeroing out the momentum of the wave-field when it hits the back screen allows us to know the position of the particle.

The back screen of the double-slit experiment never captures the actual wave aspect of the electron!  Quanta are only ever observed as particles.  As the quanta is absorbed upon contact with the screen, the screen provides a record of the particle‘s position at the moment of impact.  The screen always only shows a distribution pattern of where individual particle positions were recorded by the photo-sensitive film.  We can never know anything decisive about a quantum prior to its detection/interaction/observation.

In the video below, electrons interact with photons.  Between them, they exchange packets of energy, either speeding up or slowing down accordingly.  The particle that ‘Paid’ Attention, or gave a packet of energy, has its frequency reduced (longer wavelengths), and the particle that receives Attention/energy has its frequency increased (shorter wavelengths).

As soon as the quantum system receives attention/energy, its frequency increases.  Video #2 from further above nicely described how an photon can be observed by a electron.  One of its animations showed how the interaction of the photon with an electron compresses the wavelength of the electron, making it more localized.  Shorter wavelengths have greater frequency and more energy.

Before the influence, the wave aspect was coherent with, or spread out through its environment (non-localized, low frequency).  After the influence, the wave aspect tightens (localized, high frequency).  The good folks at EPFL found a way to capture an image DURING the moment of influence, before the particle aspect is singled out from the wave.

A likely scenario: If the EITHER/OR wave-particle is influenced/interrupted/observed by anything (including other quanta) before it is absorbed by the back screen, its combined mass/energy would likely spike.  This jolt of energy would shrink the deBroglie wavelength, giving the particle aspect predominance, making the quanta travel as a bullet.

Further speculation: very tight waves closed around a particle could act as a protective sheath, like the atmosphere around earth, also like the so-called “personal space” we have around ourselves, which monitors influences from the environment at large.  Check out Zenneck Surface Waves from which a company in Bahrain is working to achieve transmission of wireless power, similar to what Nicola Tesla attempted to do in the early 1900s.

The video below demonstrates quantum behavior in non-quantum silicon spheres.  Listen for the statement about the separation of the droplets from the substrate, and how the waves in the substrate carries a memory of the paths taken by the droplets.  Each particle has its own guiding wave.

As planets move follow the sun they are surrounded by layers of protection.  The magnetosphere is shown below.

In addition to the magnetosphere, Earth has atmospheric layers of protection.And, what do ya know!  An “atmosphere” surrounding quanta has recently been detected.  The atmosphere, according to Nobel prize winner, Frank Wilczek, is a “thin layer of influence”.

The Rig Veda proclaims the three spaces are the Sky, the Atmosphere and the Earth.

And according to the Tao te Ching:

The space between heaven and earth is like a bellows.

Okay, then!  Let’s say the wave aspect expands and contracts to allow or prevent influences.  It acts like a cell wall, or like the magnetosphere surrounding our solar system.  It is like a boundary between the inside space of the particle and the outside space of the environment.  The wave, as a boundary, both connects and divides the particle and the environment.

The EPFL article’s abstract is quoted below, augmented with my bolded, underlined links to give convenient access to definitions for words not well known outside the field of quantum physics:

[P]articles couple to their environment (for example, by gravity, Couloumb interaction, or thermal radiation).  These couplings shift the wave phases, often in an uncontrolled way, and the resulting decoherence, or loss of phase integrity, is thought to be a main cause of the transition from quantum to classical behavior.  How much interaction is needed to induce this transition?  Here we show that a photoelectron and two protons form a minimum particle/slit system and that a single additional electron constitutes a minimum environment.

Restatement translates to jargon of Quadernity: “[D]ecoherence, or loss of phase integrity, is thought to be a main cause of the transition from quantum [EITHER/OR wave-particle] to classical behavior [Final Outcome Particularity]”.

Prior to disclosing the Final Outcome, the EITHER/OR state holds.  In the EITHER/OR state the content/particle remains with the context/wave until it is adopted into a new context.  The new context (coupling to the environment, or absorption at the back screen) replaces the previous context (carrier-wave) as the content (quanta’s particle aspect) is singled out in the Final Outcome.

The quote above refers to the quantum state; however, there is no discrimination between Wheeler’s idea that the quantum state is indeterminate (the BOTH/NEITHER state) and the EITHER/OR wave-particle duality.

Overlooking this subtle, but significant, transition is like overlooking the fleeting transition between inhalation and exhalation.  Inhalation draws oxygen in and down into lungs.  Exhalation pushes CO2 up and out of lungs.  Within the all-important transition is a change of direction and an exchange of gases!  Now that we know of it we pay close attention to our breaths; even so, this hardly helps us notice what is obviously there.

Connecting Consciousness and Corporeality

In the graphic below, the green-colored levels of the wave form represent Corporeality.  The blue-colored levels represent ConsciousnessSeeing Looking.jpg.001Just as an inhalation (Pull) and exhalation (Push) are joined by a Transition (explored thoroughly in Cylindrical Lattice Model), there is a Transition between Seeing the Possibilities and Looking At the Final Outcome.  In the center of the graphic above, where the green and blue levels meet, attention is ‘paid’ (as a toll or re-source) by the causal Subject, the Observer, to its effective Object, the Observed.

When detected, interfered with, or ‘paid’ attention, quanta are reduced from their non-local wave to the inevitability that a localized particularity will be present at Final Outcome.  The Final Outcome is only re-cognized (actually Looked At) after the experiment is concluded.

The graphic is reprinted below.  In the green troughs, locate the BOTH/NEITHER Possibilities (left side) and the singled-out Final Outcome (right side).  In the blue crests, locate Seeing the Possibilities (left side) and the Looking at the Final Outcome (right side).Seeing Looking.jpg.001Now find the following alignments in the graphic above.

  • Labels for BOTH/NEITHER Possibilities and pre-cognitive Seeing are vertically aligned.
  • The labels for Receiving Attention and Paying Attention are vertically aligned in the center of the X-shape.
  • Labels for Final Outcome and Looking At are also vertically aligned.

In the chalkboard model of Quadernity below follow the sequence of descent, the process of OUTformation: The Possibilities are Creatable (ULQ).  She Pulls a seed from the INformed Collective Consciousness (URQ) from which She Structures Her Substance/Matter (Transition of Creating/OUTforming, diagonally downward).  After Transition, She acquires the label, INformer (ULQ) of Patterned Matter, Her Created Object (LRQ), and the seed of the INformed (URQ) acquires the label, Creative (URQ).

In the chalkboard model of Quadernity above follow the sequence of ascent, the process of INformation:

The Seeing INformable (LLQ) is unconsciously receptive (Pull) to the (Pushed) INformative (LRQ) essence of the Substance being Structured

Thus re-minded, the INformable semi-consciously Looks For His Pattern to be revealed in some forthcoming Matter.  With attention piqued, the INformable narrows His receptors, thus specifying/determining the inevitability that something re-cognizable will appear at the Final Outcome (Created LRQ).  The INformable’s (LLQ) energetic reaction (the ‘paying’ of attention) INforms (Transitions diagonally upward) the Collective Consciousness, represented by the term INformed (URQ).

The outline of the process continues below the chart reprinted for easy access.

Because the INformable had singled out what will be Created (LRQ) and eventually (Looked At), He shall be known as the Object’s Subjective* Creator (LLQ).  Having given His attention to something (an expenditure of energy), the Creator is finally alerted/awakened (after the fact) into His conscious state, from which He Looks At the Patterned Matter (LRQ) to which He had previously given His attention and unknowingly designated/selected/singled-out to make an Objective** appearance.

*Subjective, as in At-the-Cause of…
**Objective, as in At-the-Effect of…

With the INformed (URQ) updated, a Creative (URQ) seed re-members the INformer (ULQ), who may then receive it (Pull what was Pushed) to instigate another round.

Feedback between Mother/Matter and Father/Pattern

An Observer is any functional agent (not necessarily a person) that interactively reduces the indeterminate BOTH/NEITHER potential to a pre-determined EITHER/OR potential, and then further, to its Final Outcome.

Hedda Hassel Mørch is a Norwegian philosopher and postdoctoral researcher hosted by the Center for Mind, Brain, and Consciousness at NYU.  Quoted from her article, Is Matter Conscious? published in Nautilus magazine.

Conscious experiences are just the kind of things that physical structure could be the structure of.

Observation is the process that temporarily singles out some specifically designated Patterned Matter (a Particularity, something made particular).  Observation involves the Structuring of Substance into Patterned Matter.  Observation is a process that includes more than one conscious experience: Seeing, Looking For and Looking At.

All Matter is PatternedFemale and Male are inseparable.

Matter – Mater – Mother 
Pattern – Pater – Father

Patterns make Matter meaningful to the INformableMatter makes Patterns re-cognizable to the Creator.

For anything to be recognized as real it must endure the ravages of spacetime.  Without the constant sustenance of feedback nothing (not even waves) can exist perpetually.

Mother and Father are inter-actors; without feedback between these cooperative agents there could be neither Corporeal Matter persisting in space nor Patterns of Consciousness recurring in time.  Active inter-Subjectivity (alternating of give and take between Subjects, the INformable/Creator and the Creatable/INformer) perpetuates the greater system in which they are enfolded.

Neither the Created/Observed nor the Creator/Observer is ever fixed; each is constantly becoming.  They are mutually dependent.  Each partner relinquishes some of His/Her potentiality for the sake of the other’s continuity.

Universal Mother says, “If you will re-member me, I will re-mind you.”  Re-membering, in this case, means the Father/Creator/Observer would return to the Mother a vibrational energy, reflecting that which has influenced Him from the physical realm.  In return, Mother re-minds Father by once again Substantiating the Pattern with Matter that vibrates in such a way as to resonate with His receptivity.  The reciprocity, if it holds, perpetuates the dynamic system of any Observed entity and its Observer.  This, of course, does not mandate a one-to-one relationship, but happens also at the collective level, accounting for consensual “reality”.  As will be demonstrated by the Manipulable Model, the Creator represents the omniscient Observer, the collective Consciousness, while the INformable is a local, limited Observer.

Resonance and Mathematics

What is finally realized, or Looked At, has been organized to attune with the available, receptive INformable.

Says Max Planck in 1944:

As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.

As everything vibrates, resonance is a means of communication between Consciousness and Corporeality, and between potentiality and actuality, as well.

Lynn McTaggart refers to a resonance between brains and perceived objects.

When we observe something in the world, certain portions of the brain resonate at certain specific frequencies.  At any point of attention, our brain only presses certain notes, which trigger strings of a certain length and frequency.  We perceive an object by “resonating’ with it, getting in ‘synch’ with it.  To know the world is literally to be on its wavelength.

Patterned Matter has a linear history between its origin and demise, the end points of its standing wave.  The active wave exists entirely within the stillness of the Ground state.

  1. The BOTH/NEITHER state consists of oscillating peaks and troughs (like the coin flipping in the air).
  2. The graphic above, and reprinted again below, includes two interacting waves, one above the other.  Either of the two waves can be thought of in terms of the standing wave currently in discussion.  Looking at only one of the two waves, notice where the green trough half of the wave cycle meets the blue crest half.  These nodes are situated upon the axis of the dashed lines. EITHER the green half of the wave cycle Pulls and the blue portion of the wave Pushes, OR vice versa, repeating in alternation.  In the complex of both waves, exchanges of energy/attention occur between peaks and troughs where the two waves touch.  EITHER the trough of one wave cycle Pulls and crest of the other Pushes, OR vice versa.
  3. In either case, the wave collapses as it is absorbed/resolved back into the Ground state.  Only at this Final Outcome is a trace of its particular existence ever found.

Seeing Looking.jpg.001Accounting for linearity involves adding one number to another.  We are taught to add on a one dimensional line with a move to the right.

0 + 2 = 2 = 2¹ (one dimensional: line)

All Patterned Matter is made of smaller Parts and Participates in the constitution of greater wholes.

For more on the hierarchy of Patterned Matter, see The Holarchy.

Accounting for the hierarchical relationships of Patterned Matter involves exponential dimensionality.  Beyond the one-dimensional line we achieve two-dimensional area by multiplying two numbers together and three-dimensional volume by multiplying three numbers together.

2 x 2 = 4 = 2² (two dimensional: area)
2 x 2 x 2 = 8 = 2³ (three dimensional: volume)

Rhythm involves recurring waves.  Counting peaks per second, or frequency (in time), of a standing wave involves arithmetic.

A wavelength is measured from peak to peak.  Measuring distance between peaks (in space) involves geometry.

The necessity of integrating Patterns and Matter involves two forms of mathematics!

For how these two aspects of Patterned Matter synchronize, see Quadernity’s Nature-Based Number Line.

Quadernity Acknowledges Four Phases Applicable to All Scales

The Ground state is a minimum energy state of Rest.  The Female‘s Ground state exists before She Pulls and after She has Pushed.  Both Female and Male Pull * Transition * Push * Rest in a 180 degree offset, which aligns Pulls with Pushes and Transitions with Rests.

Four Cyclic Phases from Instigation to Iteration

  1. Female Pulls.  INformer acquires Structure; movement/disturbance is the initial act (Male Push), that seeds the potential of the Ground state, thereby activating its indeterminate BOTH/NEITHER state (mingled-in).  Only the initial insemination/influence comes from beyond/above the nascent system.  Required is the taking in of “spirit” (inspiration); spirit translates in most languages to breath.  In other scriptures it is known as Vach, the Word, or mystic sound OM.  In any case, some disturbance of the otherwise still ‘waters’ (the raw Substance) provides the Female/INformer with the impetus to organize Her Matter.
  2. Female Transitions and Male Rests (pre-cognitive).  Matter/Substance is INformed/Structured by the seed‘s Creative Pattern.  How the INformer organizes Her output is esoteric.  Raw Substance is the super-saturated fluid, the plenum, or the full potentiality of energy/matter.  The aforementioned movement/disturbance/de-still-ation induces the solution to expel solutes (as crystals form within a seeded super-saturated solution*).  Is it no wonder that the Virgin Birth is said to deliver a Christ (crystallized light)!  The Mother had not yet been influenced by the reaction(s) of man (the local INformable(s)).
  3. Female Pushes and Male Pulls.  Patterned Matter is OUTformed and singled-out by Creator, whose reception occurs subconsciously to the local INformable, the adoptive Father (think Joseph in the manger).  The BOTH/NEITHER state is reduced to the EITHER/OR state.
  4. Female Rests and Male Transitions.  The INformable‘s waking consciousness finally re-cognizes the singled-out Patterned Matter.  EITHER/OR is reduced to its Final Outcome by the INformable Father (e.g., Joseph) who locally attends the birth/delivery/appearance and divides the light (crystal/Christ/son-sun-sol-soul) from the darkness (waters/Mary/Mother), by cutting the umbilical cord.  The Mother can now return to Her Ground state and Rest.  The INformable Father-Observer assigns exoteric meaning to the OUTformed He witnesses.

The meaning made causes a reaction that ripples upon the now Resting Female, who is thereby re-seeded.  The cycle begins again with Step One wherein the Female Pulls the seed of the Male Creator.  As opposed to Pulling the seed of a transcendent Spirit/Word, as was the case in the initial round, in all iterative cycles the Female Pulls a seed from Her Male counterpart and co-creator of all OUTformed impurities, each retaining at least a trace of the original Spirit/Word.

*Below is a video showing how crystals form in super-saturated fluid.

Macroscopic Examples of the Four-Phase Descent into Empirical Existence

Human Reproduction:

  1. Inception: egg receives/Pulls sperm, BOTH female and male gametes are mingled-in; fetus NEITHER a female nor a male.
  2. Gestation: EITHER male OR female fetus is developing/Transitioning, still mingled-in with mother.
  3. Birth/Push: usually one sex or the other is evident as baby is born (Final Outcome); singled-out from mother.
  4. Public is informed of baby’s sex, name, weight, height, time of birth, etc, while the mother Rests, returns gradually to Ground state.

Crystal Formation:

  1. Substance/super-saturated solution (BOTH/NEITHER solutes and solvent are indifferentiable, mingled-in) is Structured by contaminant/disturbance/influence.
  2. Solutes fall from solution and agglomerate within it (differentiable EITHER/OR remains mingled-in).
  3. Crystal is retrieved from solution (singled-out, Final Outcome).
  4. Observers admire the crystal and overlook the solution from which it came.  Solution returns to Rest in its Ground state.

Scriptures also Align

Tao te Ching reveals knowledge of these four phases in the two following quotes.

The ten thousand things come from being.  Being comes from not being.

According to Quadernity, the ten thousand things are the INformative Createds (LRQ) observed by the INformable/Creator (LLQ), who, in counting them, discounts the coupled potentials, the Creative/INformed/Structure (URQ) and Creatable/INformer/Substance (ULQ), who together are the ‘being’ from which every one of the ten thousand things emerges.

The Tao begets one; one begets two; two begets three; and three begets the ten thousand things.

The Tao is the Female‘s Ground state.  One is the indifferentiable BOTH/NEITHER state (She is infused/inspired by a spirit/breath).  Two is the EITHER/OR state.  Three is the revealed final state (counted content), the hidden alternative (discounted context), and the necessary Observer.

Seeing vs. Looking At as Applied to Our Human Experience

I have the habit of persistently and passionately asking questions (carefully setting my receptors to what I am looking for) especially before bedtime.  Responses are offered up to me from the transcendent realm, of which we are largely unconscious.  These responses come in the form of symbolic imagery that dances through my surreal dream-state.  Each morning I must keep my judgmental mind at bay — absolutely still and quiet — so I can linger longer at the portal between my focused attention and non-focused awareness and spy on the insights arising in my liquidly lucid dream-state.  Shuttling the impressions I “see” over into my long-term memory bank requires that I resist all temptations to interpret, reorganize, evaluate or associate the images with previous experiences.  It is only after these impressions are fixed into my active memory bank, that I am able to look at them, to evaluate them and contemplate their meaning.

When one falls asleep the individual’s point-of-view slips away without reluctance.  When one dies, the point-of-view is relinquished, perhaps with more reluctance.  When one meditates, his/her point-of-view must persistently be surrendered at the threshold of the realm of unconditional seeing.

My experiences of knowing without thinking or learning occur as I practice voyeurism at the cusp between dreaming and wakefulness.  As I just begin to awaken, I am of two minds: one is in a de-focused dream-like state, and the other is actively aware that I am dreaming.  If my self-conscious mind is allowed to judge, reason, or anticipate, my portal for seeing closes.  Once the ego arrives, it gains a momentum that is hard to harness.  The dream-state cannot abide the waking state, and the waking state cannot function within the dream-state.

Between the precognitive Seeing of sensory INput (as mingled-in potentiality) and the cognitive Looking At the Final OUTput (the singled-out actuality), there exists a subconscious receptivity/Pull, a Looking For.

From our points-of-view, we often Look For outcomes that most readily perpetuate our familiar patterns and routines.  This can be unfortunate because our freedom is in choosing how to Look For something; no freedom remains once we Look At something!

Perhaps you are wondering if there can be an even greater freedom in Seeing than there is in choosing what we Look For.

Seeing, or knowing, may be likened to the the active intuitive abilities of shaman, indigenous peoples, or genius savants like Daniel Tammett, a young man from the UK who sees and knows things without having to think.  Here is the link for Daniel Tammett’s TED talk.  (18 minutes long)  I’m sure you will find it intriguing and worthy of your attention.

Opening up the mind to the level where a choice can be made about seeing can challenge the usual ego-centric point-of-view.  De-focusing our sensory acuity could feel awkward, or even threatening.  While some might quickly abandon the endeavor and return to their more comfortable and automatic routine, others may seek out tools that aid the practice de-focusing superficial sensory input.  Floatation tanks are an increasingly popular means of reducing focus on sensory input.  For those who persistently practice the art of de-focusing, spiritual freedom is surely increased.

Breaking old habits is not easy; in the brain, overcoming undesirable habits is accomplished by consciously installing a better habit in its place.  Some habits are not even recognized as habits; for instance, we are so accustomed to having our eyes keenly focused that it takes some effort to de-focus them.  This may apply to listening and reading, as well.  Hearing words, or reading words on a page, and knowing the words’ common definitions, we instantly deduce meaning from the communication, hardly questioning the speaker’s or writer’s intention.  An alternate or less popular definition of a word could add a new twist to our understanding.  And it is often body language, intonation or what is intimated between the lines that offers us a fuller comprehension.  One who simply accepts something at face value may be discounting a broader range of values.

Expanding our minds is akin to de-focusing our eyes.  To practice de-focusing your eyesight, here is an exercise.  Notice the two pink squares above the jelly beans.  Simply cross your eyes slightly as you look at the two pink squares until it looks as though there are three squares rather than two.  Then gently direct your gaze down at the jelly beans. JellyBeansBy de-focusing your eyes, did you discover a deeper dimensionality and an overall richer impression of the jelly beans?

With our eyes focused narrowly as usual, we see jelly beans arrayed two-dimensionally before us.  By intentionally de-focusing our eyes, we see the jelly beans hovering before us as if suspended in three-dimensional space.  The narrow focus gave us less information than the de-focused view.

This jellybean image gives us an opportunity to discover that by habitually locking down our point-of-view we forfeit, by default, the very choice-making process that affects our realizations (what we bring into existence and/or what we make real unto ourselves).

It is empowering to learn that what becomes our reality is determined by how we consider the options before us. The trick is to open our minds and heighten our sensitivity so the intervals in which choices can be made do not flit by unnoticed.