Inverted Realities and Veering from the Course
We mentioned yesterday that Humans (= Person + Being) sometimes, many times, perhaps most times, find themselves in the Second Quadrant of Delusion - for some reason or another - probably a combination of cultural and genetic conditioning. Let us explore how this happens. But first - to lay the groundwork we need another theory.
Isomorphism between QED and this Theory of Behavior Probabilities
Lost in numbers - when ideas are being communicated.
We are suggesting an isomorphism between QED, quantum electrodynamics, and our behavioral theory. Just as every electron and photon has the possibility of going every direction in space and time - forward and backwards - we are going to suggest that we, Humans, mimic our Creators in this way. We are suggesting that there are a million directions we can go every moment, but we can only choose one. How we choose the one, no one knows. But the momentum of prior behavior plays a factor in determining the probabilities of choice.
We present the theory that all possibilities are firing at all times - past, present, and future possibilities as well. While an infinite number of possibilities exist in the Mind, only one will become Reality. According to this theory that we are developing, the Possibility that will become Reality is based upon the Probabilities.
In a suggested isomorphism with QED, we say that the probability of an event occurring is a function of the square of the amplitude of the behavior wave. The Amplitude of the Wave generates Interference patterns. When the Amplitude is squared it yields the Probability of the Event, P(E). Let us examine what this means algebraically. We will suggest that the amplitude of the behavior wave is determined by the percent of the Data Stream Momentum to the Whole, %DSM. Therefore the probability of an event occurring is related to the square of the Amplitude of the Momentum of the Data.
P(E) = (%DSM)2
(The theory of Data Stream Momentum has been developed in a separate paper of the same name. While a real computational value, it has little real importance to this paper, as we are merely dealing in metaphors here, not in scientific precision.)
Similarity between subatomic particles and thoughts
This is making quite a few logical leaps. However we only suggest these parallels because the subatomic order seems to behave similarly to our perception of the connection between thoughts and actions (i.e. the probabilities of behavior). This has nothing to do with any experimental data and has only to do with a perceived metaphorical connection.
Basically the QED theory posits that these wavicles, with both wave-like and particle-like behavior, have amplitudes that interfere with each other in predictable ways. The subatomic amplitudes are based on a sum of all the possible behaviors. This is based upon the assumption that each cycle is the same. This is why each possibility is given an equal strength.
With behavior having cycles based in years, months, weeks, days, and even hours, all interacting with each other - the chaos theory comes into effect. There are too many complex initial conditions to yield an consistently predictable result. But we are only speaking metaphorically here. We are merely suggesting this similarity to give this theory a connection with something indisputably real, while equally indisputably absurd. Thus while computational confirmation is virtually impossible, the ideas that we are attempting to communicate are mimicked by the subatomic.
Reader: “So each Human is bombarded by countless choices every moment. How is the choice made?”
No one knows.
Reader: “What are the Probabilities that they will occur?”
This is based on (%DSM)2 as a parallel to the subatomic theory. (But as mentioned this doesn’t really matter as we are merely attempting to use science to communicate verbally - not words to communicate scientifically.)
For simplification we will call these vector probabilities by letters - A - rather than P(A) or (%DSMA)2 - which are a bit cumbersome. Let us apply the QED arrow technique to Thoughts and the probability of Action. The Thoughts represent all the possibilities, while the Action is the direction the subatomic actually goes or at least registers. What does this mean practically speaking?
Opposite possibilities cancel each other out
A few illustrations are necessary. (We’ve already lost so many readers at this point that another complicated graph or two shouldn’t really matter.) The probability is based on all the possibilities between two points. While a straight line is generally quickest, all the other lines/arrows, curved or broken, must also be taken into account. The Diagram below illustrates just a few of the infinite number of possibilities of ways of getting from point X to Y.
The middle line, (that we suggest is represented by the DSM), is the most likely possibility because it is the shortest and has no opposing forces. However, all the rest are also possibilities.
The subatomic photons of Light seem to take a straight line between two points because the opposing directions cancel each other out - not because they don’t exist. Indeed the rainbow colors on CDs or an oil slick are due to the fact that irregularities cancels out some of these opposing forces allowing these colors to make it through. In terms of a behavioral example, most often the usual behavior is to go to work, however if the boss or circumstances of work are unusually unpleasant then the ‘don’t go to work’ arrow becomes the dominant force and the worker calls in sick. The ‘don’t go to work’ vector arrow was there all the time, but it was balanced by financial necessity. However when it was supported by the external ‘emotional abuse’ vector, it becomes the most probable vector, rather than the least. Under normal circumstances, the most likely chain of events will follow the ‘usual’ patterns. However, under exceptional circumstances exceptional behavior emerges. Under normal circumstances, theft might not be considered. However, if one has no money and no job, then theft might be considered. If there is something external limiting the effect of an opposing force, then the alternate force is much more likely to happen. The external ‘abusive circumstances’ limited the opposing force of ‘financial necessity’. This limiting factor allowed the alternate force, ‘don’t go to work’, to happen.
Accelerating Probability of Alternate behavior
Sometimes, in terms of behavior, the alternate force not only emerges - but with accelerating probability. This is the Diet Syndrome, the Abusive Syndrome and the Obsessive Syndrome (mechanism). It can be deadly or inspiring. It has a lot to do with the Threshold of Generation turning into the Brink of Destruction or vice versa. (The feedback cycle can take us either direction rapidly.) The Human Body that houses our many souls, which emerge regularly - periodically - from time to time - with Amplitude or Momentum as well as a Probability of Occurrence, has experienced this mechanism regularly. Let’s explore how this happens.
While time, like space, is normally conceived of as continuous, let us break this bit of time - this event - into 8 parts - for ease of understanding. While there are many human cycles - we will focus upon the dominant daily cycle.
Let’s say our Human takes the most probable step in our first time increment. (It doesn’t matter what the time increment is; minute, hour, or day.) This means that the most probable vector itself has been reinforced. A = P(t).
Introducing Decaying Averages
To understand what this means let us sink down a bit deeper into this problem.
We wrote our Pollution Equation in general form, t = T - iF. In actuality, each factor is based in an iterative equation - based upon points in time. This calls up our Decaying Average formulas, which are developed in another paper of the same name.
Hence we have the initial probability vector, P(t0), shown below.
P(t0) = t02 = (T0 - iF0) * (T0- iF0)
= P(T0)- P(iFT0) + P(TiF0) - P(F0)
For notational simplification we will rewrite the above equation as the equation below.
t0= T0 - F0 - iF0 + iT0
In general the Polluted, t, is a function of the True, T, and the False, F.
t = f(T,F)
Specifically the initial Polluted Probability of behavior, t0, is a function of the initial potential for True behavior, T0, and the initial potential for false behavior, F0.
t0= f(T0, F0)
The potential for polluted behavior at time 1, is a different function, g, of the initial potential and the actual behavior, A1, at time 1.
t1= g(t0, A1)
Let A1= the actual event or action at point 1
Each of these probabilities is based upon some type of decaying average. Thus we could easily convert to the Decaying Average notation for computational purposes. But we aren't seeking precise values right now. We are instead suggesting that there are patterns of correspondence between the subatomic world of matter and the world of thoughts and behavior. Our business is not numbers, but ideas and concepts.
Note: Our Data Stream Momentum work, which included the Decaying Average, remained in the real world of numbers. This analysis introduces the imaginary world of numbers, i, into the equation. This imaginary world is orthogonal (perpendicular) to our everyday universe. This means that the imaginary and real intersect at a line in the perpendicular planes. The intersection of the two lines is where choice and prior behavior interact to determine future behavior. The entirety of the real world plane excluding the line of intersection is the realm of automatic behavior (including matter). This area is infinitely large in comparison to the line of choice. This size differential accords with the dominant feature of habit pattern (including instinct) in the behavior of living systems. The entirety of the imaginary world plane excluding the line of intersection is unrealized thought. This area is infinitely large in comparison to the line of choice. These infinitely large universes excluding the line of choice epitomize Descartes Mind/Body dualism. He along with his scientific descendants claim that the two universes of Mind and Body don't intersect. They insist that the line of choice between Matter and Thought doesn't exist. This entire endeavor is an investigation into the nature of this Line of Choice. For the Line to exist, the Imaginary World of Thoughts must intersect (interact) with the Real World of Matter. Both realms employ the Decaying Average's computations to determine Probabilities of Behavior.
Living Vectors: dependent upon what went before, rather than independent
Our point is that each of our probability vectors is a decaying average vector based upon the decaying average of that which went before and the current event. They are self-referencing rather than independent events. The material vectors of traditional Newtonian physics or subatomic particle theory do not self-reference what went before, as there is no self-reflection in material systems. In contrast, the living vectors of our system are self-referential, as living systems self-reflect in order to make appropriate responses to environmental input. What comes next is based upon what went before. Further what went before has a residual Momentum, which is not completely transformed by the incoming events. In contrast transfers of energy are immediate and complete in material dynamics. This is the essence of Newton's famous law of motion: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This insight led to the marvelous equations that allowed us to transform our material world. With living vectors, the event is digested and transformed. There is no equal and opposite.
Hence in our original diagram event A1 went in exactly the same direction as t0, the average probability that we began with. Hence the behavior potential at the initial point 0 is the same as the behavior potential at point 1, t1 =t0. Thus while event A2 can go in any direction, the probability is that he will go in the same direction as A1.
Always something new because the past is always different
However t1 and t0 are both probability vectors that represent the potentials for true or false behavior. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that A2, the next behavior vector, will take the exact in-between behavior between true and false that would reinforce t1. In terms of polluted behavior, it most likely that A2 will not go in the same direction as A1. The behavior at point 2 will tend to be more true or more false because of the unpredictability of behavior.
As a matter of fact, in another paper we’ve proved for one dimension that it is impossible to recreate the same vector potentials because the residue from the past varies from point to point. A2 is unlikely to go in the exact same Direction as A1 because his past is different from A1 by virtue of A1 himself. Because each probability contains everything that went before, no probability can be the same on all levels. This is because the potentials from what went before are based upon what went before while the potentials for the present moment includes what has just happened, which the past potentials doesn’t include. If the Human participates in True behavior he reinforces the True potentials and de-emphasizes the false ones changing the context for the next behavior.
No one steps in the same stream twice.
Home The Firing Process V. Differentiation Previous Next Comments