Disobedient to Traditional Constructs
Handwritten 5-4-13 7:49AM 0.7 hrs
Disobedient Self-referential Equations & the Disobedient Subatomic World
Before leaving this monograph, let us clear up some ambiguities. Throughout these many articles, the Author employs the terms ‘obedient’ and ‘disobedient’ to differentiate many dualities: including equations, logic, and the subatomic world. He introduced the topic by pointing out that obedient equations are an ideal fit with the obedient world of matter. Conversely, disobedient, i.e. self-referential, equations are more appropriate to model disobedient, i.e. self-referential, Life. He went on to contrast our obedient atom-based world with the disobedient subatomic world nature of the electrons and photons.
‘Disobedient’ employed as a descriptor
He employed the word ‘disobedient’ for shock value. The ‘unruly’ connotation of the word is descriptive rather than definitional. The Author apologizes for any confusion that may have been generated. In general, the Author applies the word ‘disobedient’ to any construct that doesn’t adhere to traditional constructs.
Chosen in reaction to language of traditional set theory
Further, the Author only chose this word in reaction to the language of traditional set theory. According to the terminology of the mathematics, recursive functions, which include self-referential equations, are non-well-founded equations that don’t obey the law of regularity. In other words, self-referential equations, such as the Living Algorithm, are disobedient to the either-or logic of traditional set theory. This fact does not invalidate their use; it just means that they obey a different form of logic.
Self-referential systems are disobedient to traditional logic.
Because living systems are also self-referential, the Author speculates that the logic of self-referential equations is more appropriate to Life. He further suggests that examining the logic of sound, rather than sight, will reveal the working of this alternative, hence, disobedient, form of logic. In this case, the term 'disobedient' was applied to a particular type of logical and mathematical structure based upon self-referential equations, i.e. recursive functions.
Subatomic world disobedient to traditional constructs of our atom-based world
In contrast, he applied the word 'disobedient' to the subatomic world for an entirely different reason. In this case, the Author attempted to show how the subatomic world was disobedient to our atom–based world in terms of fundamental categories, such as matter, energy, waves and particle. The word ‘disobedient’ was applied to draw attention to the distinct differences between the two worlds. These major divergences indicate that subatomic entities are not the building blocks of atoms, hence our atom-based world. The subatomic world instead exists as an orthogonal plane to our atom-base world.
Equations for Subatomic & Atom-based world obedient to either/or logic
However, the equations used to characterize subatomics are obedient to either/or logic, just like the rest of the material plane. These equations are not disobedient in the slightest. The Author attempted to illustrate how subatomic entities are best characterized as info packets. He further links up the notion of info packets with disobedient sound, Life, and the Living Algorithm. However, this reasoning was not intended to suggest that the equations or logic behind the subatomics is disobedient in any way. Subatomic mathematics and logic still belongs to the either/or logic of traditional set theory.
Info Packets of Sound employed to understand the nature of Subatomic entities, not their logic.
The Author merely uses the sound/info packet metaphor as a way of understanding subatomic entities, not as way of understanding the actual mathematical logic. The mathematical logic for the entire material world is obedient to either/or logic. In contrast, due to Life’s self-referential nature, the Author suggests that the mathematics of living systems is inherently disobedient. In lines with the findings of cognitive science revealed by Lakoff and Nunez, the logic of sound is merely employed as a way of understanding the self-referential logic of living systems. Although the interferential structure may be similar the relationship is metaphorical, hence inexact at the edges.
Term ‘Particle’ hides true nature of Disobedient Subatomics
HW 5-12-13 Su 5:55AM 0.9 hr
What happens when a Photon cracks?
This article stream has focused the mental energy of our Attention upon the similarities between the subatomic world, info packets and sound. Now let’s look between the cracks of the subatomic world. Or more literally, let’s look at what happens when a proton cracks. To provide a context from which to appreciate this discussion, let us begin with a simple deconstruction.
4 Subatomic Particles: the Building Blocks of Atoms
The simplest story is that the subatomic world consists of 4 particles: protons, neutrons, electrons and photons. The nucleus of the atom consists of protons and neutrons. The proton has a positive charge, while the neutron has no charge. Electrons, particles with a negative charge, orbit around the nucleus of the atom, just like planets circle around the sun. When electrons jump from one orbit to the next, they give up or take in a photon – a particle of light. The interaction of these 4 particles supplies the foundation for our atom-based world. As such, they are the building blocks of atoms and molecules. At least, common thought embraces this notion.
Electrons & Photons don’t behave like Atom-based Particles
To deconstruct this simplistic notion of the subatomic world, the Author has devoted many of these articles to illustrating that the behavior of electrons and photons diverges significantly from atom-based particles. It is apparent that these 2 subatomic particles don’t behave like traditional particles at all. This is why they are deemed disobedient.
Term ‘Particle’ employed to minimize Mystery
Despite major differences, the scientific community persists in calling them particles – perhaps to legitimize their participation in the material world of atoms and molecules. Employing this familiar term makes it somehow seem to the greater intellectual community that they are actually particles. The word 'particles' implies that nothing mysterious is going on. We can pretend that we understand what is going on from the traditional framework of waves and particles. This incomplete understanding makes it seem as if our world fits into a neat little package – an info packet. Scientists have it down. With the ‘discovery’ of the God particle, our culture completely comprehends the material universe. Employing the term ‘particle’, especially with the God adjective, certainly evokes this impression.
Obedient Equations & Similar Rules apply to Atom-based and subatomic worlds.
There are a few reasonable justifications for this attitude. Obedient equations precisely describe both the subatomic world and our atom-based world. Further many of the same principles apply to both worlds.
Vast Differences suggest Intersection of Orthogonal Planes
Despite these remarkable congruencies, the differences between these 2 material planes are vast. To acknowledge these significant divergences, the Author provides evidence to suggest that subatomic entities are not the building blocks of atoms. Instead, the subatomic world and our atom-based world are 2 orthogonal universes, whose intersection creates the material plane.
Obedient & Disobedient Subatomic Particles
Let’s look a little closer at the differences between the 4 subatomic ‘particles’, or should we say ‘entities’. In an earlier article, Disobedient Subatomics, the Author provided evidence to suggest that protons and neutrons are obedient subatomic particles, while electrons and photons are disobedient to their nature as particles. Let’s review to understand why he employs this polarity.
Space not continuous for the Electron
The simplistic subatomic version states that electrons give off or take in photons as they jump from one shell to the next. As Feynman explains, the interactions are much more complicated than that. Instead, there is a continual exchange between electrons and photons going on even inside the atom. Further, the electrons can only inhabit certain shells around the nucleus. They are in one shell and jump to another without inhabiting the space between shells. At least, this is what the best model for the experimental evidence indicates. In other words, space is not continuous for the electron. In contrast, space seems to be continuous for protons and neutrons as well as atoms. This is but one reason that the electron is disobedient to the traditional ‘particle’ category.
Feynman summarizes bizarre behavior of Electrons & Photons.
Feynman summarizes some of the unusual features of electrons and photons that come with the scientific model: “Throughout these lectures I have delighted in showing you that the price of gaining such an accurate theory has been the erosion of our common sense. We must accept some very bizarre behavior: the amplification and suppression of probabilities, light reflecting from all parts of a mirror, light traveling in paths other than a straight line, photons going faster or slower than the conventional speed of light, electrons going backwards in time, photons suddenly disintegrating into a positron-electron pair, and so on. That we must do, in order to appreciate what Nature is really doing underneath nearly all the phenomena we see in the world.” (QED, p. 119)
Probability Amplitude Arrows resolve Wave/Particle Paradox
All this ‘bizarre behavior’ that ‘erodes our common sense’ is based upon a fairly straightforward framework. The initial evidence suggested that electrons and photons sometimes behave as waves and other times as particles. This paradoxical behavior perplexed the scientific community until they came up with event arrows, i.e. probability amplitudes. By employing these arrows, scientists are able to accurately predict the behavior of large groups of photons and electrons. This model certainly resolved the wave/particle ambiguity, but at a price.
Arrow-based Electrons & Photons are different than concrete waves or particles.
Due to the probabilistic nature of the solution, scientists cannot predict the behavior of individual electrons and photons. Nor can they see them. They can only observe the results. Further, we are forced to accept the ‘bizarre behavior’ of electrons and photons that ‘erodes our common sense’. Although they share some common rules, electrons and photons do not behave, even remotely, like any particle in our atom-based world. Concrete features like mass and acceleration determine the behavior of atom-based particles. Probability arrows best describe the behavior of these subatomic entities.
Electrons & Photons behave as Info Packets, not Particles.
It is evident that electrons and photons share only a few features in common with atom-based particles. As such, the Author suggests that they are better characterized and understood as packets of information. The interaction of these info packets determines the fundamental nature of our molecular, hence chemical, hence biochemical worlds.
Protons & Neutrons behave as Particles, not Info Packets
These subatomic info packets occupy the outer shells of the atom. Protons and neutrons constitute the nucleus of the atom. Even though electrons and photons behave like info packets, protons and neutrons behave like traditional atom-based particles. The 2 subatomic particles play only a supporting role to the 2 subatomic info packets in providing an understanding of our world. It seems that 2 divergent worlds exist side by side within the shells of an atom. However, appearances are frequently deceiving.
The Disobedient Structure of Protons & Neutrons
Proton smashing with high-speed accelerators
Scientists, as is their nature, investigated the inner workings of the atom’s nucleus. Atom smashing is the popular name for the technique is employed. Scientists utilize a billion dollar particle accelerators to fire a proton at the nucleus of an atom at high speeds. Scientists then observe the results of these high-speed collisions. Someone said this process is akin to analyzing a car by smashing it into wall and then examining what the parts do.
Probability Arrows characterize behavior of Subatomic entities that comprise Protons.
The findings indicate that the nucleus of the atom consists of a proliferating range of subatomic entities. Probabilistic event arrows describe the behavior of these subatomic entities in the same way that they describe the behavior of electrons and photons. Hence, these subatomic entities do not behave like traditional matter or waves, but instead could be better likened to info packets.
A Particle box within a Particle Box both consisting solely of Subatomic Info Packets
It is evident that our material world consists of a box within a box. Atoms consist of subatomic particles that are orbited by info packets. But these subatomic particles, the neutrons and protons, consist of info packets. Ultimately, it seems that the entire subatomic world consists of insubstantial info packets. These info packets only become substantial when they give up their information and manifest themselves.
Feynman: No experimental doubt that Probability Arrows determine all subatomic behavior
Let us summarize this section with a great Feynman quote. “The most shocking characteristic of the theory of quantum electrodynamics is the crazy framework of amplitudes [probabilistic event arrows]. … All the new particles and new phenomena that we are able observe fit perfectly with everything that can be deduced from such a framework of amplitudes, in which the probability of an event is the square of a final arrow whose length is determined by combining arrows in funny ways (with interferences, and so on). So this framework of amplitudes has no experimental doubt about it; you can have all the philosophical worries you want as to what the amplitudes mean (if, indeed, they mean anything at all), but because physics is an experimental science and the framework agrees with experiment, it’s good enough for us so far.” (QED, p.124)
The Subatomic World is a Uniform Plane of Existence
It is evident that physicists employ probabilistic event arrows to precisely describe all subatomic interactions, not just the behavior of electrons and photons. As such, the entire subatomic world consists of info packets, not just the outer shells of the atom. Although protons and neutrons behave like particles, the subatomic entities that they are comprised of force us to accept the same ‘bizarre behavior’ that ‘erodes our common sense’. This analysis lends credence to the notion that the subatomic world is a uniform orthogonal plane. The intersection of the subatomic plane with our atom-based plane generates material reality. The fact that scientists reached the end of the line when they uncovered the ‘God particle’ provides further confirmation for the theory that the material plane consists of only 2 orthogonal planes, not more.
Living Matter constitutes a 3rd orthogonal plane of existence, whose code is revealed by the Living Algorithm.
What does this discussion have to do with the Living Algorithm and Life? We hypothesize that living matter inhabits yet a 3rd orthogonal plane of existence. The Living Algorithm determines the rules to this plane – the code to the living matrix.
Link
We have spent 9 articles establishing a metaphorical relationship between the Subatomic world, Info Packets, and the logic of Sound. How close is this metaphorical relationship? Where does it coincide and where does the relationship fall apart? For some answers, check out the next article in the stream – The Limits of Metaphor.