#quantum

The traditional shopping rant:

“Why doesn’t dishwasher tab packaging have the word DISHWASHER on it?”

Milestone Evidence for Anyons, a Third Kingdom of Particles | Quanta Magazine

https://www.quantamagazine.org/milestone-evidence-for-anyons-a-third-kingdom-of-particles-20200512/

I’ve been trying to think of a way to structure this post for a while and well, there quite simply isn’t a good way of doing it. This post is quite personal, as it is a small part of my overreaching theory on magick and the physical realm. I’m going to try and explain this in the most detailed manner possible, but I’m bound to miss a lot of things. If I don’t explain something well enough, please feel free to shoot me an ask or reply and I’ll make every effort to explain it in more detail.

General Disclaimer:
This post is a reflection of my own experience and belief system, and may not reflect the views of others in the magickal community, including other chaotes. If you’d like a better explanation of this, you can see my post about chaos magick here.

To start us off, let’s talk about multidimensional theory. We all know about the first three dimensions. Length, width, and depth. There are quite a few theories on the dimensions beyond that point, but my current favorite is based on the ten dimensions.

This video does a pretty great job at describing the ten dimensions, but we’re really only going to focus on the first five. We exist in the 4th dimension - duration, however, we are traveling through the 5th dimension in our decisions. Every tiny little aspect of our choices, conscious or unconscious, ever so slightly alters our path through the 5th dimension. So where does magick come in? Magick, in its most basic form, is timeline manipulation. It is bringing those small, unconscious decisions into our minds and giving us greater control over our path.

Say, for example, I know that there are infinite timelines. One of which, I’m a billionaire. I perform a spell that tries to take me to that timeline “by the end of the week”, however, it is not possible to enter that timeline in the given tree, or even any of the neighboring trees. It’s theoretically possible over a lifetime (although probably not with my current finances), but there’s no way I could possibly achieve that end goal in the allotted time. 

In the same aspect, I could perform a spell that will help me find a new job within a week. I search for jobs, and through magick alert myself to my surroundings to possible openings. I hear a friend talking about an open position at their workplace, and it leads me to a new job. It was possible for me to enter that path in the allotted time, so the spell was successful.

But how does this all work? Well, there’s this cool theory within quantum physics called the observer effect in which you can change an outcome based on simply observing it happen. This video explains it pretty well.

So in all, by simply observing the outcome through ritualized magick, we are able to navigate the 5th dimension to achieve our desired results. Now, this theory doesn’t get into the spiritual plane/astral, or deity magick, but it does help draw a picture for “day-to-day” magick and practice.

I plan on expanding upon this in later posts, but I feel like this is a good starting point to explore and explain my overreaching theories on the universe, mostly in notes to myself.  So what are your thoughts?

Beyond the Enlightenment Rationalists:
From imaginary to probable numbers - I

Imaginary numbers arose in the history of mathematics as a result of misunderstanding the dimensional character of numbers.  There was a failure to acknowledge that numbers exist in a context of dimension. This has earlier been addressed at length.^[1]  Simply put, numbers exist always in a particular dimensional context.  Square numbers pertain to a context of two dimensions and therefore to a plane,  not a line.  Square roots then ought justly reference a two-dimensional geometrical context rather than the linear one mathematics has maintained ever since mathematicians of the Age of Enlightenment decreed it so.  Square roots contrary to the way mathematics would have it can neither exist in nor be found in any single line segment,  because they do not originate in the number line but in the two-dimensional square.

Algebra, not geometry, provided the breeding ground for imaginary numbers.  They were given a geometric interpretation as an afterthought only, long after the fact of their invention. Rationalist algebraists, feeling compelled to give meaning to equations of the form b² = -4 came up with the fantastic notion of imaginary numbers. Only indirectly did these grow out of nature, by way of minds of men obsessed with reason.^[2]

Descartes knew of the recently introduced square roots of negative numbers. He thought them preposterous and was first to refer to the new numbers by the mocking name imaginary, a label which stuck and which continues to inform posterity of the exact manner in which he viewed the oddities.  It is one of the ironies of history that when at last a geometrical interpretation of square root of negative numbers was offered it involved swallowing up Descartes’ own y-axis. Poetic justice? Or ultimate folly?

Had the essential dimensional nature of numbers been recognized there would have been no need to inquire what the square root of -1 was. It would have been clear that there was no square root of -1 nor any need for such as +1 also has no square root.  As linear numbers,  neither -1 nor +1 can legitimately be said to have a square root.  Both, though, have two-dimensional analogues and these do have square roots, not recognized as such unfortunately by the mathematics hegemony.^[3]

In the next post we will look at a comparison between imaginary numbers,  which were formulated in accordance with this misconstrual about how numbers relate to dimensions,  and probable numbers which grow organically out of a consideration of how numbers and dimensions actually relate to one another in nature.^[4]  The first of these approaches can be thought of as rational planning by a central authority; the second, as the holistic manner in which nature attends to everything, all at once, and without rational forethought.

(continuedhere)

Image: A drawing of the first four dimensions. On the left is zero dimensions (a point) and on the right is four dimensions  (A tesseract).  There is an axis and labels on the right and which level of dimensions it is on the bottom. The arrows alongside the shapes indicate the direction of extrusion. By NerdBoy1392 (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0orGFDL],via Wikimedia Commons

Notes

[1] See the series of about nine posts that begins here.

[2] The Rationalists missed here a golden opportunity to relate number and dimension by defining square root much too narrowly. They seem to have been so mesmerized by their algebraic equations that they failed to pursue the search into deeper significance pertaining to essential linkages between dimension and number that intuition and imagination might have bestowed.

[3] As Shakespeare correctly pointed out, a rose by any name would smell as sweet. Plus one times plus one certainly equals plus one but that has nothing to do with actual square root really, just with algebraic linear multiplication.  Note has often been made in these pages of the difference between mathematical truth and scientific truth. Whereas mathematics demands only adherence to its axioms and consistency,  science requires empirical proof.  Mathematics defined square root in a certain manner centuries ago, and has since been devoutly consistent in its adherence to that definition.  In so doing it has preserved a cherished doctrine of mathematical truth, as though in formaldehyde.  It has also for many centuries contrived to be consistently scientifically incorrect.  The problem lies in the fact it has converted physicists and near everyone else to its own insular worldview.

[4] For an early discussion of the probable plane, potential dimensions, and probable numbers see here.

Mandalic geometry, Cartesian coordinates and Boolean algebra: Relationships - I

(continued from here)

In attempting to understand the logic of the I Ching it is important to know the differences between ordinary algebra  and  Boolean algebra and how Boolean algebra is related to the binary number system.^[1]

In mathematics and mathematical logic, Boolean algebra is the branch of algebra in which the values of the variables are the truth values true and false, usually denoted
1 and 0 respectively. Instead of elementary algebra where the values of the variables are  numbers,  and the  main operations  are  addition and multiplication,  the main
operations of Boolean algebra are the conjunctionand, denoted ∧, the disjunctionor, denoted ∨, and the negationnot, denoted ¬. It is thus a formalism for describing logical relations in the same way that ordinary algebra describes
numeric relations. [Wikipedia]

Whereas in elementary algebra expressions denote mainly numbers, in Boolean algebra they denote the truth values false and true. These values are represented with the bits (or binary digits), namely 0 and 1.  They do not behave like the integers  0 and 1,  for which
1 + 1 = 2, but may be identified with the elements of the two-element field GF(2), that is, integer arithmetic modulo 2,  for which 1 + 1 = 0.  Addition and multiplication then play the  Boolean roles  of  XOR  (exclusive-or)  and  AND  (conjunction)  respectively, with disjunction  x∨y  (inclusive-or)  definable as  x + y + xy. [Wikipedia]^[2]

Mandalic logic already occurs fully in the structure and manner of divinatory practice of the I Ching,  if some of it only implicitly.  Although mandalic geometry does not originate from either Boolean algebra or the Cartesian coordinate system but from the primal I Ching which predates them by millennia, it does combine and augment aspects of both of these conceptual systems. It extends Boole’s system of symbolic logic to include an additional logic value represented by the number -1.  This necessitates modification of some of Boole’s postulates and rules,  and increases their total number through introduction of some new ones.  The hexagrams or native six-dimensional mandalic coordinates of the I Ching are related to Cartesian triads composed of the numbers -1, 0, and 1,  making these two geometric systems  commensurate  by means of composite dimension,  a 6D/3D hybridization or mandalic coordination of structure and function (or space and time).^[3]

The introduction of composite dimension produces four distinct dimensional amplitudes  and  is solely responsible for the mandalic form. For anyone reading this who might be down on sacred geometry,  itself a subject which I respect and admire, let it be known that I am talking here about genuine mathematics and symbolic logic,  and my suspicion is that there is some genuine physics involved as well.

Kalachakra Mandala

The mandalic number system, then, is a quasi-modular number system, different from Leibniz’s binary number system which is fully modular.  Boole’s rule  1 AND 1 = 1  still holds true in mandalic logic.  However we must add to this the new logic rule that  -1 AND -1 = -1.  Individually the two rules are modular,  based on a clock arithmetic using a modulo-3 number system rather than Leibniz’s modulo-2 or binary number system, but with yet another added twist.

Together the two rules prescribe a compound system, one which is not singly modular but doubly modular.  The two components, yinandyang, are complementary and are inversely related to one another in this unified system.  This  logic organization  appears based on the figure 8 or sine wave and its negative,  allowing for periodicity, for recursive periods of interminably repeating duration,  and,  perhaps most importantly,  for wave interference,  of  constructive  and  destructive  varieties. These two geometric figures also engender an unexpected decussation of dimension not recognized by Western mathematics.  This is so because 1 AND -1 = 0 and  -1 AND 1 = 0.  The surprise here  is that  there are two distinct zeros: 0_a and 0_b.^[4] In two- or three-dimensional Cartesian terms there exists no difference between these two zeros.  However,  in terms of 6-dimensional aspects of mandalic geometry  and  the hexagrams of the I Ching, the two are clearly distinct structurally and functionally.^[5]

This arithmetic system is the basis of the logic encoded in the hexagrams of the I Ching. Each hexagram uniquely references a single 6- dimensional discretized point, of which there are 64 total. These 64 6- dimensional points of the mandalic cube are distributed among the 27 discretized points  of the ordinary 3-dimensional cube  through the compositing of dimensions  in such manner  that a mandala is formed which positions  1,  2,  4  or  8 hexagrams at each 3-dimensional point according to the   dimensional amplitude  of the particular point.  This necessarily creates a concurrent probability distribution of hexagrams through each of the three Cartesian dimensions.

TheI Chinguses a dual or composite three-valued logic system.  In place of truth values,  the variables used are yin,  yang  and the two in conjunction.  These fundamentally represent vector directions.  Yin is represented by -1, yang by 1, and their conjunction, using Cartesian or Western number terminology, by zero (0). This symbol does not occur natively in the I Ching though where the representation used is simply a combination of yin and yang symbols, most often in form of a bigram containing both  and  regarded as representing a composite dimension, namely 0_[1]  or  0_[2].^[6]

The two bigrams that satisfy the requirement are

young yang

for 0_[1]

and

young yin

for 0_[2].

Although mandalic logic is in Cartesian terms a 3-valued system, in native terms it is 4-valued.  It is not a simple modulo-3  or  modulo-4 number system, but two interrelated modulo-3 systems combined.  The best way to think about this geometric arrangement is possibly to view it as a single composite dimension having four distinct vector directions: a negative direction represented by mandalic composite yin (Cartesian -1); positive direction represented by mandalic composite yang (Cartesian 1); and two decussating relatively undifferentiated directions in some sort of equilibrium, represented by mandalic 0_[1] (composite yin/yang) and 0_[2] (composite yang/yin).  both of which  devolve  to  Cartesian 0  (balanced vector direction of the origin or center).^[7]

So we’ve seen that the number system used in the I Ching is not binary as Leibniz believed but instead doubly trinary with the two halves, in simplest terms,  inversely related and intertwined.  Still, it was an easy mistake to make because the notation used is binary.  We’ve seen too that all trigrams and hexagrams in the system can be rendered commensurate with the Cartesian coordinate system:  trigrams by simple transliteration, hexagrams by dimensional compositing. What, then, of George Boole and his eponymous logic?  How do they fit in the logic scheme of the I Ching? I’m glad you asked. Stay tuned to find out.

(continuedhere)

Images: Upper: TRANSFORMATION OF THE SYMBOL OF YIN (LINE split in two) AND YANG (STRAIGHT-LINE). BLEND: 4 bigrams, THEN 8 trigrams. (MORAN, E. ET AL. 2002: 77). Found here. Lower: Modified from an animation showing how the taijitu (yin-yang diagram) may be drawn using circles, then erasing half of each of the smaller circles. O'Dea at WikiCommons [CC BY-SA 3.0orGFDL],via Wikimedia Commons

Notes

[1] Boole’s algebra predated the modern developmentsinabstract algebra and  mathematical logic  but is seen as connected to the origins of both fields. Similarly to elementary algebra, the pure equational part of the theory can be formulated without regard to explicit values for the variables.

[2] If you are new to Boolean algebra these definitions may be confusing because in some ways they seem to fly in the face of ordinary algebra.  I’ll admit, I find them somewhat daunting.  Let me see if I can clarify the three examples given in this quote. Those of you more familiar with the language of Boolean algebra might kindly correct me in the event I err.  I’m growing more comfortable with being wrong at times.  And this is after all a work in progress.

• Boolean XOR (exclusive-or) allows that a statement of the form (x XOR y) is TRUE
  if either x or y is TRUE but FALSE if both are TRUE or if both are FALSE.  Since Boolean algebra uses binary numbers and represents  TRUE by 1,  FALSE by 0,  then
            for  x = TRUE,   y = TRUE    x + y = 1 + 1 = 0 ,    so FALSE
            for  x = FALSE,  y = FALSE   x + y = 0 + 0 = 0 ,  so FALSE
            for  x = TRUE,    y = FALSE   x + y = 1 + 0 = 1 ,   so TRUE
            for  x = FALSE,   y = TRUE    x + y = 0 + 1 = 1 ,   so TRUE

• Boolean AND (conjunction) allows that a statement of the form (x AND y) is TRUE
  only if both x is TRUE and y is TRUE. If either x or y is FALSE or both are FALSE
  then x AND y is FALSE. Here algebraic multiplication of binary 1s and 0s plays the
  role of Boolean AND. (Incidentally, binary multiplication works exactly the same
  way as algebraic multiplication. There’s a gift!)
            for  x = TRUE,    y = TRUE      xy  =  1(1) = 1,    so TRUE
            for  x = FALSE,   y = FALSE     xy = 0(0) = 0,   so FALSE
            for  x = TRUE,    y = FALSE      xy = 1(0) = 0 ,  so FALSE
            for  x = FALSE,    y = TRUE      xy = 0(1) = 0 ,  so FALSE

• Boolean OR (inclusive-or) is the truth-functional operator of (inclusive) disjunction,
  also known as alternation. The OR of a set of operands is true if and only if one or
  more of its operands is true. The logical connective that represents this operator is
  generally written as ∨ or +. As stated in the Wikipedia article logical disjunction x∨y
  (inclusive-or) is definable as x + y + xy [(x OR y) OR (x AND y)] as shown below.
  [Note: x AND y is often written xy in Boolean algebra. So watch out whichalgebra
  is being referred to, ordinary or Boolean. Are we confused yet?]
            for  x = TRUE,    y = TRUE      x + y = 1 , xy = 1 ,    so TRUE
            for  x = FALSE,   y = FALSE     x + y = 0 , xy = 0 ,   so FALSE
            for  x = TRUE,     y = FALSE     x + y = 1 , xy = 0 ,   so TRUE
            for  x = FALSE,    y = TRUE      x + y = 1 , xy = 0 ,   so TRUE
  

[3] Fundamentally, though,  the  coordinates of mandalic geometry  refer to vector directions alone, rather than to both vectors and scalars (or direction and magnitude) as do Cartesian coordinates. Yin specifies actually the entire domain of negative numbers rather than just the scalar value -1. Yang similarly refers to the entire domain of positive numbers rather than the scalar value 1 alone. Their conjunction  through the compositing of dimensions,  though represented by the symbol zero (0)  in the format commensurate with Cartesian coordinates,  refers actually to a  state or condition  not found in Western thought  outside of certain forms of mysticism  and other outsider philosophies like alchemy;  equilibration of forces in physics; equilibrium reactions in chemistry; and the kindred concept of homeostasis mechanisms of living organisms found in biology.

[4] This is to Westerners counterintuitive. Our customary logic and arithmetic allows for but a single zero. That two different zeros might exist concurrently or consecutively is - to our minds - irrational and we wrestle mightily with the idea. To complicate matters still more,  neither of these zeros is  conveniently  like our familiar Western zero.  So which should win out here?  Rationality or reality?  In fact,  the decision is not ours.  In the end nature decides.  Nature always decides. It stuffs the ballot box  and  casts the deciding vote much to our chagrin,  leaving us powerless to contradict what we may interpret as a whim. Our votes count for bupkis.

[5] This calls to mind also the Möbius strip which involves a twist that looks very much like a decussation to me.  The decussation or  twist in space  we are talking about here though has a sort of wormhole at its center that connects two contiguous dimensional amplitudes. I can’t say more about this just now. I need to think on it still. It seems a promising subject for reflection. (1,2,3)

[6] It needs to be pointed out here that in mandalic geometry, and similarly in the primal I Ching as well,  a bigram can be formed from any two related Lines of  hexagrams,  trigrams,  and tetragrams. The two Lines need not be (and often are not) adjacent to one another. I would think such versatility might well prove useful for modeling and mapping quantum states and interactions.

[7] Note that yin and yang in composite dimension can each take the absolute values 0, 1, and 2  but when yin has absolute value 2, yang has absolute value 0; when yang has absolute value 2,  yin has absolute value 0.  This inverse relation in fact is what makes the arrangement here a superimposed, actually interwoven, dual modulo-3 number system. It also makes the center points of mandalic lines,squares,  and cubes  more protean and less differentiated  than their vertices and elicits the different amplitudes of dimension.

The composite dimension value at the origin points(centers) of all of these geometric figures is  always  zero  in  Cartesian  terms  since the values of the differing Lines  in  the  two entangled 6-dimensional hexagrams  located here add to zero. But neither of these 6-dimensional entities is in its ground state at the center.  Both  have absolute value 1  at Cartesian 0.  Let me say that again: composite dimension values at the center or origin are zero in Cartesian terms but the values of both individual constituents are non-zero.Yin is in its ground state when yang is at its maximum and vice versa. At the center, since the two are equal and opposite they interfere destructively. This results in a composite zero ground state.

So from the perspective of  Cartesian coordinate dynamics, which is after all the customary perspective in our subjective lives,  we encounter only emptiness. But it is this very emptiness that opens to a new dimension. In the hybrid 6D/3D mandalic cube  only line centers and the cube center  have direct access through change of one dimension to face centers and only the face centers have a similar direct access through a single dimension to the cube center and edge centers. All coexist in an ongoing harmony of tensegrity. There is method to all this madness then.

© 2016 Martin Hauser

Please note:  The content and/or format of this post may not be in finalized form.  Reblog as a TEXT post will contain this caveat alerting readers to refer to the current version in the source blog. A LINK post will itself do the same. :)

Scroll to bottom for links to Previous / Next pages (if existent).  This blog builds on what came before so the best way to follow it is chronologically. Tumblr doesn’t make that easy to do. Since the most recent page is reckoned as Page 1 the number of the actual Page 1 continually changes as new posts are added.  To determine the number currently needed to locate Page 1 go to the most recent post which is here. The current total number of pages in the blog will be found at the bottom. The true Page 1 can be reached by changing the web address mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com to mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/x, exchanging my current page number for x and entering.  To find a different true page(p) subtract p from x+1 to get the number(n) to use. Place n in the URL instead of x (mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/n) where
n = x + 1 - p. :)

-Page 302-

Beyond the Enlightenment Rationalists:
From imaginary to probable numbers - II

(continued from here)

When a geometric interpretation of imaginary numbers was at last proposed,  long after they were invented,  it was as though accomplished by central committee. The upshot was easily enough understood but also simplistic. In broad brushstroke here is what seems to have gone down.

The 3 dimensions of Descartes’ coordinate system-a number already deficient from the perspective of mandalic geometry-were reduced to just one.  Of the real number axes then  only the x-axis remained.  This meant from the get-go  that  any  geometric figure that ensued  could encompass only linearity in terms of real numbers and dimensions.  It was applicable only to a line segment,  so the complex plane that resulted  could describe just one real dimension and one imaginary dimension.  It consecrated the number line in a single dimension, to exclusion of its proper habitation in two others besides. Strike one for imaginary numbers.^[1]

With that as background let’s look now at the rotations described by this geometric interpretation of imaginary numbers in the context of the complex plane.

i in the complex or cartesian plane. Real numbers lie on the horizontal axis, and imaginary numbers lie on the vertical axis By Loadmaster (David R. Tribble) (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0orGFDL],via Wikimedia Commons

The number 1 is the multiplicative identity element for real numbers and the number -1  is the  reflection inversion element  for real numbers.  Put another way, the number one times any number equals that number;  the number -1 times any number is  a negative of that number  or  the inverse number through a reference point, usually taken as zero. Multiplying by 1 then leaves 1, -1, i and -i all unchanged. Multiplying by -1  changes  -1 to 1, 1 to -1, i to -i, and -i to i.  In terms of rotations in the complex plane, these changes  all involve a rotation through 180 degrees.  Multiplication of the number 1 by i changes it to i; i by i changes it to -1; -1 by i to -i; and -i by i to 1.  These changes all involve rotations through 90 degrees.  And finally, multiplication of 1 by -i changes it to -i; -i by -i changes it to -1; -1 by -i to i; and i by -i to 1: all changes involving rotations through -90 degrees.

The figure below shows another way to interpret these rotations that amounts to the same tbing: i¹ = i; i² =-1; i³ = -i; i⁴ = 1.  Click to enlarge.

Four numbers on the real line multiplied by integer powers of the imaginary unit, which corresponds to rotations by multiples of the right angle. By Keφr [CC0],via Wikimedia Commons

I think a committee of some sort must have come up with this resplendent plan. For certain it was an Academy of Mathematics and Sciences that endorsed and enthroned it. All bow to central authority.

I had planned to include a comparison of imaginary numbers and probable numbers in this post as well but because that is a long discussion itself, it will have to wait till the next post.  I might add it should prove well worth the wait.

(continuedhere)

Image: A drawing of the first four dimensions. On the left is zero dimensions (a point) and on the right is four dimensions  (A tesseract).  There is an axis and labels on the right and which level of dimensions it is on the bottom. The arrows alongside the shapes indicate the direction of extrusion. By NerdBoy1392 (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0orGFDL],via Wikimedia Commons

Notes

[1] Mathematician William Rowan Hamilton  subsequently addressed this deficiency in 1843 with his  quaternions,  a  number system  that  extends the complex numbers to three-dimensional space.  Hamilton defined a quaternion as the quotient of two directed lines in a three-dimensional space  or,  in other words, as the quotient of two vectors.  This complicated matters even more by introducing a non-commutative multiplication operation to the system, though to be fair the quaternion coordinate system has found some useful applications mainly for calculations involving 3-dimensional rotations,  as in 3-dimensional computer graphics,computer vision, and crystallographic texture analysis. Still it becomes problematic when theoretical physics attempts use of quaternions in calculations pertaining to  atomic and subatomic spaces  where rotations do not actually take place.  The conclusion to be drawn here is that quaternions can be usefully,  if somewhat clumsily,  applied to 3-dimensional macro-spaces but are inapproriate for accurate description of higher dimensional spaces. What is here unfortunate and misleading  is that quaternions apparently do describe outcomes of events in the quantum realm to some partial degree,  if not the mechanisms of the events themselves.  Physicists would not long tolerate them were that not so.

[ADDENDUM (24 APRIL, 2016)
Since writing this I’ve learned that quaternions are not currently used in quantum physics nor were they ever, to any great degree, in the past.]

In other words, sometimes  the right answer  can be reached by a wrong method. In the case under discussion here, we should note that it is possible for a rotation to mimic inversion (reflection through a point). A 90° rotation in two dimensions can mimic a single inversion in a single plane through an edge of a square, and a 180° rotation in two dimensions can mimic a single inversion through a diagonal of a square  or  two successive inversions  through  two perpendicular edges of a square.  A 180° rotation in three dimensions  can mimic three inversions through three mutually perpendicular edges of a square;  a combination of  one inversion through a diagonal of a square  and another through an edge perpendicular to the plane of the first inversion;  or a single inversion through a diagonal of the cube. Subatomic paricles exist as discrete or quantized entities and would follow such methods of transformation rather than rotations through a continuous space.  Of course, transformations involving a diagonal would require more transformative energy than one involving a single edge.

Such patterns of relationship and transformation could no doubt be described in terms of quantum states and quantum numbers without too much difficulty by a knowledgeable theoretical physicist.  Surely doing so could be no more difficult than using quaternions,  which may give a correct answer while also misleading and limiting knowledge of the the true workings of the quantum realm by using an incorrect mechanism, one non-commutative to boot. Nature doesn’t approve of hat tricks like that.

Beyond the Enlightenment Rationalists:
From imaginary to probable numbers - I

Imaginary numbers arose in the history of mathematics as a result of misunderstanding the dimensional character of numbers.  There was a failure to acknowledge that numbers exist in a context of dimension. This has earlier been addressed at length.^[1]  Simply put, numbers exist always in a particular dimensional context.  Square numbers pertain to a context of two dimensions and therefore to a plane,  not a line.  Square roots then ought justly reference a two-dimensional geometrical context rather than the linear one mathematics has maintained ever since mathematicians of the Age of Enlightenment decreed it so.  Square roots contrary to the way mathematics would have it can neither exist in nor be found in any single line segment,  because they do not originate in the number line but in the two-dimensional square.

Algebra, not geometry, provided the breeding ground for imaginary numbers.  They were given a geometric interpretation as an afterthought only, long after the fact of their invention. Rationalist algebraists, feeling compelled to give meaning to equations of the form b² = -4 came up with the fantastic notion of imaginary numbers. Only indirectly did these grow out of nature, by way of minds of men obsessed with reason.^[2]

Descartes knew of the recently introduced square roots of negative numbers. He thought them preposterous and was first to refer to the new numbers by the mocking name imaginary, a label which stuck and which continues to inform posterity of the exact manner in which he viewed the oddities.  It is one of the ironies of history that when at last a geometrical interpretation of square root of negative numbers was offered it involved swallowing up Descartes’ own y-axis. Poetic justice? Or ultimate folly?

Had the essential dimensional nature of numbers been recognized there would have been no need to inquire what the square root of -1 was. It would have been clear that there was no square root of -1 nor any need for such as +1 also has no square root.  As linear numbers,  neither -1 nor +1 can legitimately be said to have a square root.  Both, though, have two-dimensional analogues and these do have square roots, not recognized as such unfortunately by the mathematics hegemony.^[3]

In the next post we will look at a comparison between imaginary numbers,  which were formulated in accordance with this misconstrual about how numbers relate to dimensions,  and probable numbers which grow organically out of a consideration of how numbers and dimensions actually relate to one another in nature.^[4]  The first of these approaches can be thought of as rational planning by a central authority; the second, as the holistic manner in which nature attends to everything, all at once, and without rational forethought.

(continuedhere)

Image: A drawing of the first four dimensions. On the left is zero dimensions (a point) and on the right is four dimensions  (A tesseract).  There is an axis and labels on the right and which level of dimensions it is on the bottom. The arrows alongside the shapes indicate the direction of extrusion. By NerdBoy1392 (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0orGFDL],via Wikimedia Commons

Notes

[1] See the series of about nine posts that begins here.

[2] The Rationalists missed here a golden opportunity to relate number and dimension by defining square root much too narrowly. They seem to have been so mesmerized by their algebraic equations that they failed to pursue the search into deeper significance pertaining to essential linkages between dimension and number that intuition and imagination might have bestowed.

[3] As Shakespeare correctly pointed out, a rose by any name would smell as sweet. Plus one times plus one certainly equals plus one but that has nothing to do with actual square root really, just with algebraic linear multiplication.  Note has often been made in these pages of the difference between mathematical truth and scientific truth. Whereas mathematics demands only adherence to its axioms and consistency,  science requires empirical proof.  Mathematics defined square root in a certain manner centuries ago, and has since been devoutly consistent in its adherence to that definition.  In so doing it has preserved a cherished doctrine of mathematical truth, as though in formaldehyde.  It has also for many centuries contrived to be consistently scientifically incorrect.  The problem lies in the fact it has converted physicists and near everyone else to its own insular worldview.

[4] For an early discussion of the probable plane, potential dimensions, and probable numbers see here.

i’m taking my degree seriously, i promise

Stone

THINGS I KNOW NOW vs WHEN I STARTED SHIFTING ;

(( reminder that im a lot more active on tiktok than i am on here :,) if you want more shifting content, follow @/sqrrrtstark ))

— NOTHING’s EXACT.

guess what? you don’t HAVE to do the raven method or drink 5 gallons of water a day!! everyone is wired differently and everyone’s subconscious will react to different things more or less than you will – that’s okay! what’s important to remember is that shifting is a journey! it’s a journey to discover what works best for you and what doesn’t work at all. the best thing to do is to try everything and see what makes you feel safest and most comfortable :)

— WHAT SYMPTOMS ACTUALLY ARE.

this is a HUGE misconception that went around on ShiftTok. basically, symptoms are your current physical body falling asleep. this is why sleep paralysis COULD happen – what is important is to not focus on them. acknowledgement and focusing are two different things!! you see, when you focus on symptoms or get excited about symptoms, you’re just grounding yourself in your current reality. as exciting as it is that you’re getting one step closer, focus on your breathing instead! that’ll be more helpful! also, sleep paralysis is nOT guaranteed to happen, nor is it a bad thing! if you’re nervous about it, you can always research it to help eliminate that anxiety :) that’s what helps me!

— WATER ISN’T NECESSARY.

again, nothing is exact! i added this separately because the water misconception is actually useful – you need to take care of yourself currently in able to get to your desired reality. your current reality, whether you like it or not, is the one you were designed to be in (at least, for now). taking care of your mental and physical health while preparing to shift to your desired reality is great! water helps with the headaches that will follow after subs and methods :)

— SUBCONSCIOUS POWER.

a while ago on ShiftTok, people were spreading about how Bucky Barnes has a piss kink – did you know that’s probably false?? your subconscious has sO much power, hence why scripts are important. someone, while shifting to the mcu, was most likely thinking; “i wonder if any of them have a piss kink or something weird like that?” and then bOOM they shifted, and one of the characters actually did. the reason i bring this up is to remind people why scripts are important. as an mcu shifter, i’m going to use another shifting example: before loki came out, none of the other mcu shifters had an issue with the TVA, considering that they were not consciously aware of it. i could be wrong about this, but that’s an example. point is, it’s important to keep your thoughts collected UNLESS you want that random stuff to happen. tbh, it sounds fun, but i use scripting for structure just so i can reassure myself!

— SCRIPTING POWER.

speaking of scripts, this is important. there’s importance in numbers, just as there is in the contents you’re plotting about. scripting out that 1hr CR = 6mo DR is probably not the wisest. why? because it will take a toll on your current self. when you shift back, exhaustion and mental health issues could kick in. a common saying i like to remind myself is “sometimes, less is more.” also something, be cautious when scripting traumatic stuff. these things will follow you into other realities with your subconscious, no matter what tolerance you script about it. i just want to give that warning.

— INTENT vs DESIRE.

THIS ONE. this one is SO important and what i’m currently struggling with. there’s a line between desiring something and intending to do something about that desire. setting intention is what i’m currently struggling with but it helps me to keep this mindset – there’s always a 50/50 chance that i’ll shift successfully. would i rather be in the 50 percent that gets there? or the 50 percent that wakes up here again?

anyways, i hope this helped!!! mapping out where i was a year ago versus where i am now is INSANE!! next post to anticipate : the story of my successful shift

ily guys!! THANK YOU FOR ALL YHE SUPPORT!! <333

apoemaday:

by Terry Pratchett

I do have worlds enough and time
to spare an hour to find a rhyme
to take a week to pen an article
a day to find a rhyme for ‘particle.’
In many worlds my time is free
to spend ten minutes over tea
And steal the time from some far moon
so words can take all afternoon,
Away beyond the speed of light
I’ll write a novel in one night.
Aeons beckon, if I want ‘em…
…but I can’t have ‘em, ‘cos of Quantum.