Chapter: |
I | II | ||||||||||||||||||||
Bibliography | Author's Preface |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | ||||
Chapter: |
III | ||||||||||||||||||
18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | Conclusion | Index |
|
|
(Most quotes verbatim Henri Louis Bergson, some paraphrased.) |
(Relevant to Pirsig, William James Sidis, and Quantonics Thinking Modes.) |
||
"But we find it extraordinarily difficult to think of duration in its original purity; this is due, no doubt,
...Granted that inner duration, perceived by consciousness, is nothing else but the melting of states of consciousness into one another, and the gradual growth of the ego [see Doug's "quantum ego"], it will be said, notwithstanding, that the time which the astronomer introduces into his formulae, the time which our clocks divide into equal portions, this time, at least, is something different: it must be a measurable and therefore homogeneous magnitude.It is nothing of the sort, however, and a close examination will dispel this last illusion." |
(Our bold, color, and violet bold italic problematics.) Bergson restarts his footnote counts on each page. So to refer a footnote, one must state page number and footnote number. Our bold and color highlights follow a code:
Bergson asks another prescient question. A pendulum offers n¤ classical mechanical state. Why? It is in tentative flux. And that flux is qualitative, n¤t precisely quantitative. We cann¤t 'measure' its 'exact' end points of swing. We cann¤t 'measure' its 'exact' period. Why? It is quantum uncertain! A pendulum's swing is quantum chaotic! In said chaos is its own qualitative Value. However we can say that it behaves as a fermion: it wobbles! Its period flux ratioed to its direction flux is ½. Same applies to Earth's axial rotation and its Sun orbit: fermionic wobble! (Grab Sun and lift! Imagine Sun-Earth QVF-mediated gravitational pendulum arm. ) Another caveat which we must share here, and we should have shared it when we first did this review over two years ago, is how Bergson's use of thelogos acts as a Quantonics HotMeme Key SOM/CR Disabler in any attempts to grasp countless deeper, especially quantum, semantics of reality. We already know that Bergson shows us how mechanical thing-kers view spatial extensity (what we call quantum "actuality") as classically homogeneous. However, classicists/mechanics also claim that they can use analysis (analytic differential and integral techniques) to cut that spatial extensity up (using SOM's knife) any way they want. (Recall Pirsig's views of actuality (SQ) as heterogeneous. See our web page on Pirsig vis-à-vis Bergson on Perspectives of Monism vis-à-vis Pluralism.) Bergson in his query, "...what is it that is measured
by the oscillations of the pendulum?" is acting/speaking/writing
like a classicist. How? He says, "the oscillations"
and "the pendulum." His view of spatial
extensity (actuality) as a homogeneous monism apparently implored
him to use thelogos here. Strike his first the and replace
his second the with 'a.' Now it reads like this, "...what
is it that is measured by [any] oscillations of a pendulum?"
Now we can see, using our remediations of his grammar, that quantum
heterogeneity lurks in Bergson's monism. So too, quantum uncertainty.
All pendula oscillations are chaotic, and there are many
pendula. This issue is what motivated us to write that web page
linked just above. Now we can go right to crux of one of Quantonics'
HotMeme Key Enablers:
a quantum notion of many pendula begs quantum notions
of many heterogeneous qualitative
times (but still potentially quantum cohesive, compenetrating,
and especially coobsfective
times). Subsequently, Bergson declares heterogeneity of real
times. Our hopes are asymptotic. Are we about to arrive at crux after all these years since our first read of Mae-wan Ho's the Rainbow and the Worm? Is this it? Folk, you cann¤t imagine heights of our anticipation... |
|||
108 | "When I follow with my eyes
on the dial of a clock the movement of the hand which
corresponds to
|
(Our brackets, links, bold, color, and violet bold italic problematics.) Bergson is introducing multiple classical concepts here. We need to list his as-used classical concepts as they are apparent to us, now, ~100 years after he wrote this text:
Reader, you may note that we have now introduced new potentially culpable classical concepts which we must use to extend our list and which we must ponder philosophically:
Further, reader, ponder how we have yet to even delve into Bergson's more quantum meme of duration. Let us simplify this second list according our Quantonics beliefs. N¤ne of our extended list's classical concepts is statically viable, in general, in quantum reality! So, we can (should) expect Bergson to take another tack. Quick question: Are pendula ever classically state-ic? What do you think? We deny your right to use a typical classical phrase "For all practical purposes" in your response. Why? Quantum reality is n¤t classically "practical." Quantum reality is absolute pragma which means absolute Planck rate action. Dichon(ego, pure_space)! Dichon(mind, body)! This is pure classicism. For Millennium III we must replace this with quanton(mind,body) where as Pirsig told us, "Mind is in body and body is in mind...[quantum included-middle]...without classical contradiction." Slightly paraphrased and with our brackets. See Pirsig's Lila page 178 of a Bantam paperback or page 154 of a Bantam hardbound. Actual quote is:
|
||
109 | "Now, between this succession without externality and this externality without succession, a kind of [quantum included-middle] exchange takes place, very similar to what physicists call the phenomenon of endosmosis [Endosmosis is membrane (as a brain ~metaphor: corpus callosum) permeable flow from lower to higher concentrated fluid; for fun, think of this as akin a quantum molecular 'gravity,' with membrane as an artificial "surface of libration;" then consider libration as a Pirsigean classical 'knife;' and libration as a classical dichon; then rerun your thoughts to arrive at a quantum quanton.]. As the successive phases of our conscious life, although interpenetrating, correspond individually to an oscillation of the pendulum which occurs at the same time, and as, moreover, these oscillations are sharply distinguished from one another, we get into the habit of setting up the same distinction [cause] between the successive moments [sensations] of our conscious life: the oscillations of the pendulum [our CTMs classically, dichonically] break it up, so to speak, into [classically, infinitely divisible Aristotelian-] parts external to one another: hence the mistaken idea of a homogeneous inner duration, similar to space, the moments of which are identical and follow [via classical modular induction], without penetrating, one another. But, on the other hand, the oscillations of the pendulum, which are distinct only because one has [classically, apparently] disappeared when [yes, ask yourself reader, "exactly when?"] the other appears on the scene, profit, as it were, from the influence which they have thus exercised over our conscious life [To counter this classical view ask, "Which part or state of a pendulum's period 'predicts' a pendulum's next period?" See our QQA on cause-effect.]. Owing to the fact that our consciousness has organized them as a whole in memory, they are first preserved and afterwards disposed in a series: in a word, we [classically] create for them a fourth dimension of space, which we [classically] call homogeneous time, and which enables the movement of the pendulum, although taking place at one spot, to be continually set in [classically static] juxtaposition to itself." |
(Our brackets, links, bold, color, and violet bold italic problematics.)
Classical depiction: Quantum depiction:
A more quantum (w)holistic perspective is that each period of a pendulum emerges from most recent previous swings, and that emergence process involves included-middle everywhere associative interrelationships among said pendulum and potentially all other realities as its quantum c¤mplement. Students of Quantonics should note here, that no classical formal axiomatic template, e.g. y=f(t), can ever analytically, state-ically, homogeneously, etc., describe this natural emergent quantum included-middle chaos. This is another impetus for why we say that classical science deludes its practitioners. Doug - 7Aug2002. |
||
110 | "Now, if we try to determine the exact part played by the real and the imaginary in this very complex process, this is what we find. There is a real space, without duration, in which phenomena appear and disappear simultaneously with our states of consciousness. There is a real duration, the heterogeneous [sequential, parallel, et al.,] moments of which permeate one another; each moment, however, can be brought into relation with a state of the [classical apparently] external world which is contemporaneous with it, and can be separated from the other moments in consequence of this very process. The [classical] comparison of these two realities gives rise to a symbolical representation of duration, derived from space. Duration thus assumes the [classically] illusory form of a homogeneous medium, and the connecting link between these two terms, space and duration, is simultaneity, which might be defined as the [classically excluded-middle-] intersection of time and space." |
(Our bold, color, and violet bold italic problematics.) But to us, in Quantonics, space without duration is n¤t quantum real! Yes! Real duration (close memeotic kin of quantum~momentum) is quantized~heterogeneous and its quanta permeate apparently-homogeneous space. Red text updates and links 17Dec2009 - Doug. Careful thought about what Bergson is saying here discloses his own intuitions re: quantum uncertainty. Also one sees vividly here how his notions of simultaneity and space require analytic stoppability. Classical measurement requires "zero momentum, unchanging reference frames." That classical requirement is just nonsense in quantum reality which is always changing and changes all. Doug - 2Mar2005. See our MoQ I Reality Loop. We show a Bergsonian quanton as duration at reality's face of change twixt n¤nactuality (DQ) and actuality (SQ). We think of heterogeneous timings and spacings as quantum n¤mbæred actual artifacts of n¤nactuality's isocone. Bergson has yet to answer his own question, "Is duration
[classically] measurable?" This question is a near perfect
analogue of John von Neumann's question, "Where is the locus
of a quantum special event?" Von Neumann could n¤t
find any specific measurement location! Why? Bergsonian
duration is classically immeasurable due its intrinsic/physial
quantum uncertainty!
End aside. |