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.) |
||
"It is to this confusion
between motion and the space traversed that the paradoxes of the Eleatics are due;
for [classicism assumes] the interval which separates two points
is infinitely divisible,
and if motion consisted of parts like
|
(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:
Unfortunately classicism and its CTMs teach its adherents that classical analyticity means, "space can be divided and put together again according to any law whatever." Almost all folk of Western culture, today, early in Millennium III's infancy, believe such!!! They believe incorrectly that reality is analytic!!! Modern physics and mathematics and all hard sciences teach this bilge habitually as legacy paradigmatic, disciplinary matrix fact! They use it to 'solve' puzzles. UGH! Doug - 22May2002.
We cann¤t classically convert and map real quantum process(ings) onto state-ic numerable space! We cann¤t state-ically measure process using spatial concepts! Process(ings) are n¤t magnitudes! Processings are n¤nquantifiable. They are quantum animate, included-middle, c¤mplementary, everywhere associative Qualities! Space as state-ic, numerable, divisible, inanimate ESQ is quantum unreal! Classical space is a delusion! Remember, in quantum reality, classical science's indefinables mass, length/space, and time are definable in terms of quantum flux, but then they are n¤ longer classically state-ic, numerable, infinitely divisible, inanimate ESQ. Having said that, we must qualify how quantum reality offers a wide range of flux (and flux 'wavelengths:' notice our own inuring re-entrapment of flux in space via our use of classical 'wavelengths' we need n¤vel language remediation here imagine wavelengthings for now as an interim lingual substitute), from Planck's rate to almost unchanging. We call this range of flux/process changeability, "quantum variable/tentative persistence." Classicism, due greater quantum persistence of macroscopic 'objects,' Eleatically deludes itself that reality is inanimate, immutable, state-ic, etc. It is also worthwhile to note how quantum umcærtainty scales with quantum tentative persistence. Mean timings among quantum umcærtainty ævæntings grow with persistence; however, extentings/impactings of any umcærtainty ævæntings grow too. We choose to view this as Heisenberg's quantum umcærtainty interrelationships scaling all reality (Indeed, this appears to be Zeno's whole point, at least that is our heuristic hermeneutic of it, in Eleatic paradox 1.). We also choose to view Heisenberg's quantum umcærtainty interrelationships as quantum ensembles, n¤t bi-parametric dichons. Most classical physicists claim that Heisenberg's quantum umcærtainty only applies to a subatomic subset of quantum reality. See related comments in our Quantonics Immutability & Solipsism HotMeme |
|||
114 |
"Hence we do not think it necessary to admit, even after the acute and profound analysis of a contemporary thinker,(1) that the meeting of the two moving bodies implies a discrepancy between real and imaginary motion, between space in itself and indefinitely divisible space, between concrete time and abstract time. Why resort to a metaphysical hypothesis, however ingenious, about the nature of space, time, and motion, when immediate intuition shows us motion within duration, and duration outside space? There is no need to assume a limit to the divisibility of concrete space; we can admit that it is infinitely divisible, provided that we make a distinction between the simultaneous positions of the two moving bodies, which are in fact in space, and their movements, which cannot occupy space, being duration rather than extent, quality and not quantity. To [classically] measure the velocity of a movement, as we shall see, is simply to ascertain a simultaneity; to introduce this velocity into calculations is simply to use a convenient [classical] means of anticipating a simultaneity. Thus mathematics confines itself to its own province as long as it is occupied with determining the simultaneous positions of Achilles and the tortoise at a given moment, or when it admits a priori that the two moving bodies meet at a point Xa meeting which is itself a simultaneity. But it goes beyond its province when it claims to reconstruct what takes place in the interval between two simultaneities; or rather it is inevitably led, even then, to consider simultaneities once more, fresh simultaneities, the indefinitely increasing number of which ought to be a warning that we cannot make movement out of immobilities, nor time out of space. In short, just as nothing will be found homogeneous in duration except a symbolical medium with no duration at all, namely space, in which simultaneities are set out in line, in the same way no homogeneous element will be found in motion except that which least belongs to it, the traversed space, which is motionless." Note (1): Evellin, Infini et quantité. Paris, 1881. |
(Our brackets, bold, color, and violet bold italic problematics.)
Classical mathematics drives out and excludes real quantum duration!
True quantum prescience, Bergson! Bravo! And he wrote this ~100 years ago! Awesome! Brilliant!
Permit Doug to refine and simplify what Bergson is writing here: Classically mathematics can:
Classically mathematics cann¤t:
When you study further, and commence a better and quantum grasp of reality, you will find that quantum~reality permits n¤ memeos of classical simultaneity! Why? Quantum~reality is all quantized~pr¤cæssings n¤næ of which may be classically scalarbated as mathematics are wont to do. Allow Doug to push simplicity a tad further to its "...we cannot make movement out of immobilities..." boundary conditionings. Realize how Bergson omnistinguishes quantum~change (wave~based~thinkqing) vis-à-vis classical state (space-based thingking). Let's use bullets to omnistinguish them:
Again, if reality were stopped, playground swings wouldn't. See our QELR of duration. Doug - 23Jan2010, 5Mar2010. |