HomeUncategorizedConversation on the concept of Scalar with Bruce Peret

Conversation on the concept of Scalar with Bruce Peret

Full Conversation from the Reciprocal System Theory discussion forum:

Is “Scalar” Appropriate?

Post by bperet » Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:01 pm

The more I look at it, the use of the term “scalar” as applied to dimensions and the “scalar zone” in the RS, does not seem appropriate. Larson was unaware of projective geometry, so what he is actually talking about when he uses “scalar” is just the “projective stratum” of geometry–the one where there are only cross-ratios, and no concept of coordinates. Coordinates are the Euclidean stratum, created by placing a number of assumptions on the cross-ratios.

See my analysis on the Fundamental Postulates (RS2-102).

Using the term “scalar” when it is actually a ratio seems to lead to a lot of confusion. People with a math or computer background consider a scalar to be a single variable–and in the RS, it isn’t–it is a ratio of space to time, a “scalar dimension”–two variables. Those coming from a New Age/Conspiracy background have heard all sorts of things about “scalar waves” and “scalar weapons,” without understanding that these terms, in themselves, make no sense–they are actually talking about longitudinal pressures.

I was writing up some stuff on how to transform “scalar motion” to “coordinate motion” (and vice versa), and it does not make a lot of sense… what you are dealing with are just the two ends of projective geometry: Projective (scalar) — Euclidean (coordinate). Larson’s terms make it twice as confusing.

I was going to replace “scalar” with “projective,” but that does not seem to work well, as the process is “projective geometry” with the top layer being the projective stratum. Same kind of problem with “scalar motion” and “scalar zone” references.

So what should I call this top-level geometric stratum where there only exists cross-ratio? It would be nice to have a name that is indicative of the properties, so the mind can disassociate it from the coordinate realm. Any ideas?

Post by adam pogioli » Sat Jan 06, 2018 3:01 am

bperet wrote: 

Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:01 pm

Those coming from a New Age/Conspiracy background have heard all sorts of things about “scalar waves” and “scalar weapons,” without understanding that these terms, in themselves, make no sense–they are actually talking about longitudinal pressures.

But they are not just pressure waves in some physical ether, right? They are phase waves, torsion waves/ time waves, which can travel faster than light and backwards in time (I liked your recent discussion about causality and the quantum in this vein). There is other evidence of this with all of the remote viewing studies and Kozyrev of course. Bearden often talked of the scalar weapons and the waves working through the “vacuum”, but I thought the scalar term had more to do with the standing wave pattern that results and that is attached to a physical location which determines the forces expressing there. Isn’t this just a fringe version of the gauge theories, which Bill Tiller explicitly uses in his explanation of the phase waves produced through intention/life? Is it just longitudinal interference patterns which can disrupt or heal the the temporal structure?

I agree the term “scalar wave” doesn’t make sense, but isn’t what is meant: wave that produces a change in scalar quantities at the absorber? The Russian torsional theories seems more clear and explicit than Bearden’s confusing “scalar” theories. In Kozyrev/Shipov we have time absorbers/emitters, which seem like terminals in a entropic gradient whose medium is in the cosmic sector but which connects to points in our actualized reference frame. It seems like what is being described in any case is the spin aspect of any motion. So maybe instead of scalar wave it should be called time wave? Kozyrev basically equated time with spin, and its travel when decoupled from a location as a twisting spin wave that affects the flow of time wherever it is absorbed.

So is it correct that if you cancel out the polarized motions of oppositely polarized transverse waves, you get a longitudinal wave (just the movement with the progression remains? or is it that the rotations combine into a cosmic sector motion that no longer translates the sine wave aspect?). But through altering the phase of the pressure wave, for instance by two longitudinal pulses exactly 180 degrees out of phase, you can make the whole thing move through time and converge at another point in space and time in a nonlinear way? I don’t have a fleshed out understanding of all this, but it seems like if motion always has a rotational and linear component, and if all motion is a projection through an abstract ordinal continuum, then that motion can be distributed through different reference systems but at the topmost topological level is always a three dimensional transformation for reasons you have been exploring, correct? Then scalar could be the term for the effect any transformation has, since the the motion through coordinate space or time is a byproduct of the reference frame, but the effect, whether the motion was primarily observed as spatial, or just time’s effect on space, is independent of directional reference and cuts through all levels as “pure effect” (How Castaneda described his master term “the nagual”, the abstract motion that became tied to causes in the “tonal”).

bperet wrote: 

Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:01 pm

I was writing up some stuff on how to transform “scalar motion” to “coordinate motion” (and vice versa), and it does not make a lot of sense… what you are dealing with are just the two ends of projective geometry: Projective (scalar) — Euclidean (coordinate). Larson’s terms make it twice as confusing.

I was going to replace “scalar” with “projective,” but that does not seem to work well, as the process is “projective geometry” with the top layer being the projective stratum. Same kind of problem with “scalar motion” and “scalar zone” references.

So what should I call this top-level geometric stratum where there only exists cross-ratio? It would be nice to have a name that is indicative of the properties, so the mind can disassociate it from the coordinate realm. Any ideas?

I have suggested this before, but since you are asking so explicitly, I will try to make my case again. Your ideas converge very closely and nicely with the most cutting edge Theory in academic complexity theory. Much of academia sucks I know, especially the physics, but the systems and complexity theorists have spent a generation exploring the science of abstract change and how it manifests in specific actualized systems, which is what essentially you are doing. I think you would gain so much from Manuel Delanda’s “Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy”. You would also probably be really interested in his “Philosophy and Simulation”. In any case the terminology he uses has a rich tradition. For instance, he is very much interested, like you, in sketching out an ontology based on the hierarchies of geometry. But mathematical theorists following Klein put the topological layer proper as the topmost level, descending through differential geometry, and theninto projective, affine, metric, euclidean. Something that seems relevant is that each level is also a set of effective transformations so projective/projection, while being a particular layer also is a particular action, perhaps the the action of tapping a gradient, of fixing a reference point as to create independent motion, whereas topological is the master term for all this since all lower layers are progressively metric and differentiated distributions of the topological continuum. The symmetries of the topological layer are too dominant to allow any kind of independent motion, unless an outside dimension is introduced. (All figures are the same in this layer no matter how you stretch and bend or change perspective; differences only come from cutting, severing…or otherwise introducing a new point or fusing them together).

One could keep the more rigorous mathematical terms, but I suggest following Delanda’s use of Deleuzean terminology which extends these concepts into questions of modal logic beyond just the geometric, since you are always going to get pestered with modal questions you can’t explain without modelling more explicitly the abstract relationships of magnitude that persist and incarnate in all processes. In that case the master term is “virtual”, but also “intensive” which together determine the “actual”, though the actual can of course determine them as well; that is, lower speed motions can combine to form higher speed motions; they can find new gradients to exploit and ascend the path of “counter actualization” and reach an intensity that makes them part of the cosmic activity again.

I don’t mean to imply there is an exact correspondence to RS concepts, but the similarities and differences are enlightening. For instance, I am tempted to equate the intensive with scalar and virtual with the cosmic sector, but I think what is more important is understanding what is happening in any motion. All motion is driven by an intensive gradient of one sort or another. Differences in intensity are everywhere and the motion they create can become sufficiently intense enough that they cease being merely broken symmetries of the higher topological layers and become capable of acting on those higher levels, introducing a new point, and becoming truly “causal” as the the esotericists used to plainly call that domain.

So maybe to summarize:

Virtual is a good modern word for the abstract continuum as a whole which is an active growing structure with infinite possible dimensions and connections. Points within the structure have an absolute reality as pure intensity but really have no magnitudes proper until they are placed within a timing scheme that cuts off a portion of the ordinal continuum as a separate development. We talk cosmogenetically but there is no beginning since the origin is ever present (to quote Gebser). The perspective of differences in levels however, creates time and space (to paraphrase Steiner). The highest levels of the virtual that are differentiated as mind can be called causal, the realm of the gods, the projective strata which seeds all worlds, becoming more differentiated in astral/etheric/physical, a progression Larson labelled as sectors. But rather than following the old esoteric ontology, modern Theorylike Larson, affirms the importance of the source of difference in the actual world rather than some unexplained imposition onto unity. Difference is always generated within the world through combinations and gradients that create energy flow, which creates temporal structure which can become intense enough to escape the gravity well of specific actualizations and become causal, cosmic, virtual, etc. Those gradients are called intensive because they are in some sense scalar, they transcend their incarnations in specific coordinate motions, i.e. they don’t sacrifice time for space or visa versa, but rather they are real abstract intensities that through combination, through symbiosis, create a new point in the topological layer, a new being, a new soul.

The topological layer, which fits Aurobindo’s description of the Supermind, the Vedic plane of knowledge, the creative force within the Divine that links it with its creations, is unified and continuous, but unlike unity in a single dimension, it has ordinality to it, boundaries, but no set shapes, order but no set time; a possibility of infinite dimensions of connectivity which only become manifest as separate through the ignorance of mind which takes a single point of view in the projective layer (Aurobindo’s Overmind), which creates a cascade of broken symmetries through the levels of progressive differentiation (levels of involution, RA’s description of inner planes or time/space, which not only progressively differentiates space but also time and possibility). In Space/time we build back up the symmetry with new combinations that alter the modality of the whole structure, creating new possibilities, converging and merging them into higher densities only to allow further polarity with a new more vast gradient of intensive differences to explore.

All terms all have their baggage, but also their unique insights. I know I find it helpful when you share your rich understanding of Larson and his concepts but also how they can be further illuminated by exploring their limitations and possible reasons for a change in perspective.

 
User avatar

bperet

Postby bperet » Sat Jan 06, 2018 4:23 pm

adam pogioli wrote: 

Sat Jan 06, 2018 3:01 am

Virtual is a good modern word for the abstract continuum as a whole which is an active growing structure with infinite possible dimensions and connections.

“Virtual” would be appropriate, based on the original meaning of the term, but these days it has the connotation of being “fantasy” or “make-believe.”

adam pogioli wrote: 

Sat Jan 06, 2018 3:01 am

The topological layer, which fits Aurobindo’s description of the Supermind, the Vedic plane of knowledge, the creative force within the Divine that links it with its creations, is unified and continuous, but unlike unity in a single dimension, it has ordinality to it, boundaries, but no set shapes, order but no set time; a possibility of infinite dimensions of connectivity which only become manifest as separate through the ignorance of mind which takes a single point of view in the projective layer (Aurobindo’s Overmind), which creates a cascade of broken symmetries through the levels of progressive differentiation (levels of involution, RA’s description of inner planes or time/space, which not only progressively differentiates space but also time and possibility). In Space/time we build back up the symmetry with new combinations that alter the modality of the whole structure, creating new possibilities, converging and merging them into higher densities only to allow further polarity with a new more vast gradient of intensive differences to explore.

I do like “topological”… when I mentally conceive of the scalar zone, I basically use “topo maps” to visualize it. And when you look up the definition, it basically refers to the “projective invariant” condition:

the branch of pure mathematics that deals only with the properties of a figure X that hold for every figure into which X can be transformed with a one-to-one correspondence that is continuous in both directions

The scalar zone is basically a 3D topology (versus the conventional, 2D “figure”).

———————————————————————-

New Age Waves, Ether and Magick

Post by bperet » Sat Jan 06, 2018 4:14 pm

I am splitting this off to a separate topic…

adam pogioli wrote: 

Sat Jan 06, 2018 3:01 am
bperet wrote: 

Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:01 pm

Those coming from a New Age/Conspiracy background have heard all sorts of things about “scalar waves” and “scalar weapons,” without understanding that these terms, in themselves, make no sense–they are actually talking about longitudinal pressures.

But they are not just pressure waves in some physical ether, right? They are phase waves, torsion waves/ time waves, which can travel faster than light and backwards in time (I liked your recent discussion about causality and the quantum in this vein).

My issue with these terms is that there is no conceptual foundation behind them. I know most of these people and have been reading their work for 30+ years. And in that time, it really has not evolved any further than it was back then. You can just replace “ether” with “magick” and get the same result, as far as the science BEHIND it goes.

A “phase wave?” Come on now… phase is a property OF a wave, not a type of wave. Torsion waves (a favorite of David Wilcock when I was his roommate) are a property of bioenergy–not part of the inanimate realm, so you cannot use mechanical devices, such as spinning magnets, to produce them.

“Time waves” is a new one on me… a wave is an accelerated “change of space” related to clock time. So how can you have a “change of time” related to clock time?

This is what I really like about the Reciprocal System–there is a solid concept behind each of these things, based on the Fundamental Postulates. It can go back to being science, not magick.

There is already a lot of discussion on this forum regarding the nature of aether as being cosmic, 3D time. Aether is the reciprocal of space (I discussed this briefly in my intro video I did at the SLC library a while back). Once we know this, then we can determine the properties of aether as a natural consequence of the theory, since ONLY the Reciprocal System has the reciprocal of space (time) as an integrated part of the theory.

“Time waves” must therefore be related to clock space, not clock time, as for a wave to function, it must be in motion–time to time is NOT motion. The concept of “clock space” is unique to the RS. That means your “time wave” must be temporally displaced, and since time-to-time is not motion, they will be the set of waves that cannot travel through atoms–but instead, be absorbed BY them, namely hard uV, X-rays and gamma rays. Nothing special or magical about an X-ray.

You can do this with ALL these concepts, to find out what they are actually trying to relate, withoutthe benefit of the reciprocal relation between space and time.

adam pogioli wrote: 

Sat Jan 06, 2018 3:01 am

There is other evidence of this with all of the remote viewing studies and Kozyrev of course. Bearden often talked of the scalar weapons and the waves working through the “vacuum”, but I thought the scalar term had more to do with the standing wave pattern that results and that is attached to a physical location which determines the forces expressing there. Isn’t this just a fringe version of the gauge theories, which Bill Tiller explicitly uses in his explanation of the phase waves produced through intention/life? Is it just longitudinal interference patterns which can disrupt or heal the the temporal structure?

There are a lot of problems with Bearden’s work, particularly the older stuff, which can be easily corrected using RS concepts. For example, a vacuum is a LACK of something–you cannot have a “vacuum wave” because that makes no logical sense… nothing cannot be something (just like the old, Greek arguments regarding the number zero… how can “nothing” be “something?”) That means it is impossible to have “waves working through the ‘vacuum’.” The waves MUST be working through something–and the only other choice we have is the “solid” of 3D time, the “aether.” So we KNOW that the transmission of these weapons is through 3D time, not 3D space, which makes sense because atoms are also 3D time, and a pressure wave IN 3D time will clobber an atomic structure in 3D time, because time-to-time is not motion.

adam pogioli wrote: 

Sat Jan 06, 2018 3:01 am

In Kozyrev/Shipov we have time absorbers/emitters, which seem like terminals in a entropic gradient whose medium is in the cosmic sector but which connects to points in our actualized reference frame.

In RS terms, it is in equivalent space.

adam pogioli wrote: 

Sat Jan 06, 2018 3:01 am

It seems like what is being described in any case is the spin aspect of any motion. So maybe instead of scalar wave it should be called time wave? Kozyrev basically equated time with spin, and its travel when decoupled from a location as a twisting spin wave that affects the flow of time wherever it is absorbed.

Kozyrev missed the fact that time has both yin and yang components. Spin is yin… 3D, coordinate time is yang (linear), just like it is in 3D space. Since our science is 99.9% linear space, when we encounter a temporal structure, the natural tendency is to balance masculine with feminine–time is yin, time is spin. But just as science overlooks the yin aspect of space, they also overlook the yang aspect of time–something RS2 does not. (Larson did have a similar problem with his thinking.)

adam pogioli wrote: 

Sat Jan 06, 2018 3:01 am

But through altering the phase of the pressure wave, for instance by two longitudinal pulses exactly 180 degrees out of phase, you can make the whole thing move through time and converge at another point in space and time in a nonlinear way?

I do not think that would work, because two pulses of the same aspect would just merge to produce a larger/smaller pulse. You would have to have a pressure pulse with a “reciprocal” pressure pulse (note that it would appear as a phase shifted pulse, since space and time are 90° out-of-phase). That would form a shear wave that could be transmitted across the “solid” of 3D time.

adam pogioli wrote: 

Sat Jan 06, 2018 3:01 am

I don’t have a fleshed out understanding of all this, but it seems like if motion always has a rotational and linear component, and if all motion is a projection through an abstract ordinal continuum, then that motion can be distributed through different reference systems but at the topmost topological level is always a three dimensional transformation for reasons you have been exploring, correct?

Couple of bad assumptions there… it would be an ordinal progression (discrete, not a continuum). There is no “topmost” level, the projection and “deprojection” of motion between reference systems is more of an oscillation than a hierarchy. We are biased towards the coordinate system because that is where our physical senses function. We are not equipped to “sense” this topological state–most people cannot even conceive of it as a mental exercise.

My attempts to simulate the RS universe has indicated that the system is not limited to 3 dimensions… 3D is the point of “dimensional stability” for our experience, but that does not preclude fewer or more dimensions. It is just the most probable configuration.

Every dogma has its day…
 

adam pogioli:

Re: New Age Waves, Ether and Magick

  • on Jan 11, 2018 12:52 am
bperet wrote: 

Sat Jan 06, 2018 4:14 pm

I am splitting this off to a separate topic…

My issue with these terms is that there is no conceptual foundation behind them. I know most of these people and have been reading their work for 30+ years. And in that time, it really has not evolved any further than it was back then. You can just replace “ether” with “magick” and get the same result, as far as the science BEHIND it goes.

I agree that your explanations have a superior conceptual basis. My point was to emphasize that these things are attempts at describing not just a spatial wave through a vacuum or ether (which seemed to be implied by your comments about scalar waves just being longitudinal pressure waves through space or equivalent space) but a motion through time (3d time, the cosmic sector)as you mention above, and recently in your post on consciousness being a field in time. While a simple longitudinal wave might be one aspect of the phenomenon, it seems like the whole scalar/torsion aspect was about the resonances and interference patterns that can be created by interfering the pulses to create superluminal phase aspects which can alter the coherence and entropy of targets without any of the qualities of normal EM signals that are limited by distance and time.

bperet wrote: 

Sat Jan 06, 2018 4:14 pm

A “phase wave?” Come on now… phase is a property OF a wave, not a type of wave. Torsion waves (a favorite of David Wilcock when I was his roommate) are a property of bioenergy–not part of the inanimate realm, so you cannot use mechanical devices, such as spinning magnets, to produce them.

The phase aspect of a wave can travel independently of the group velocity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_vel … locity.gif
This phenomenon forms the basis of much alternative theory that does indeed have a conceptual basis, and one that mirrors the RS in many ways. The conceptual basis mostly comes from deBroglie’s matter wave concept and Fourier uncertainty, where the implication is something like: the reciprocal of the matter wave is the phase wave, which goes faster than unity as soon as light interacts with itself: its oscillations lose unity coherence and interfere to transform light into matter, dropping it below unity. The cosmic sector is like the higher harmonics of the sound of matter that form structures that converge towards a plenum as coherence is increased in the oscillations.

These resonance and phase aspects were of course ignored when the mainstream integrated matter waves into quantum theory, and Bohm’s pilot wave version seems to have missed the point. I think it makes sense to talk about phase as something fundamental, as the reference oscillation that we build our perceptual world out of, though maybe you have reason for keeping this word separate from other uses of the imaginary/temporal factor in the RS that I would be interested in hearing. The appeal to me is that this topological space we have been discussing is already referred to as “phase space” when used to refer to the modal/ temporal structure of systems. The alternative people do tend to reify consciousness as some master determining force, which does just mystify everything into magic, as in Tiller’s model(though in his defense he did get a lot of hard data proving that magic really works, that consciousness can alter the phase coherence of an object or space). This gentleman at least makes the idea more closely consistent with the RS:
https://dpedtech.com/VelocityEquation.pdf
Though I myself am more interested in mapping the structure of this reciprocal space, which is more the domain of complexity theorists and biophysics. Phase has become the popular jargon term in a lot of quantum field theory used in biophysics to explain the entanglement of macroscopic systems. But the whole use of “gauge” and Yang Mills theories widespread in physics are ways of discussing how the reference symmetries can change globally across systems depending on perspective.

Here is Emilio Del Giudice:

“Every object is characterized both by fluctuations induced from the outside through energy supply, and spontaneous fluctuations from within. We qualify the state of minimal energy of the object as the fundamental state of the object, or, in the jargon of physics, “vacuum”. Vacuum is then the set of spontaneous fluctuations of the object. These spontaneous fluctuations prevent the object from being “closed”, as it communicates with the environment through these fluctuations. A closer examination, which requires the use of the mathematical formalism of the Quantum Theory of Fields [13], shows that the fluctuations of the oscillation rhythm of the objects, which is called “phase” in the jargon of physics, spread in the environment in the form of potentials of particular fields, called “gauge fields” in the theory; the clearest example is the electromagnetic field, which governs the interactions between atoms and molecules. The phase, distinct from the energy, can travel faster than light. This produces a violation of causality in Einstein’s sense. As a result, the interactions based on energy transmission obey the causality principle (no effect occurs before the arrival of the cause), while interactions based on the transmission of the phase, as they are mediated by a messenger that can travel at an infinite speed or even go back in time, do not follow the causality principle and may connect different subjects in different spaces and times….

There are two possibilities: the first one is when the fluctuations of the bodies and the vacuum remain reciprocally unsynchronized, leading to a great indeterminacy of the whole oscillation rhythm, which cannot assume a definite value and averages to a negligible level. In this case, the bodies keep their individuality, so that it is still possible to determine accurately their atomic structure; the spontaneous oscillation does not play an essential role in this case and the whole dynamics – like in classical physics – is consigned to the dynamics of force and energy. Self-movement disappears and all that remains is the movement from the outside of bodies that are considered inert….

There is a second possibility. Under appropriate conditions, the fluctuations of matter and vacuum can be synchronized, thus starting a collective dance reminiscent of the orgasm intuited by Reich. This state of the matter is called “coherent” by physicists. In this state, the number of components remains undetermined, while the oscillation rhythm acquires a more precise definition. This result is the expression of a principle of uncertainty, valid in quantum physics, which states that the uncertainties of the number of oscillators in a physical system and of their phase are in an inverse relation. It is clear that, in order to reduce the uncertainty of the oscillation rhythm of a physical system and make it more coherent, we have to amplify the uncertainty of the number of the participants in the collective dance as much as possible. Therefore, we have to avoid closing the system, which would keep the number of components constant; on the contrary, we need to open it as much as possible on the outside by amplifying the number of the potential participants to the collective dance enormously”
from:http://www.i-sis.org.uk/principle_of_mi … imulus.php

So like in the RS, the cosmic sector comes to play a larger part when a system becomes more coherent by becoming alive. But to say that this nonlocal economy of ordered oscillations and negative entropy is merely a property of bioenergy is not true. Especially in relation to the torsion concept. Kozyrev was an astrophysicist. Almost all his experiments were with inanimate matter losing or gaining spin coherence as they lost or gained entropy/negentropy. This line of thinking leads out of the New Age/romantic/vitalist concept of “bioenergy” as just some spontaneous subtle energy and grounds it in the phase conjugation of material systems under the pressure of minimal energy constraints that guide its virtual lines towards the attractors of higher order systems.

bperet wrote: 

Sat Jan 06, 2018 4:14 pm

“Time waves” is a new one on me… a wave is an accelerated “change of space” related to clock time. So how can you have a “change of time” related to clock time?

I wasn’t giving my definition, just listing popular labels for these things. It is Wilcock himself that talks about torsion as “the energy of time”. I agree these can sound silly or nonsensical. All the more reason to derive better generalizations from the RS for people to understand this stuff. The New Age always falls back on “energy” because most people can’t think outside the container model of the universe. The container/object paradigm just obfuscates the true phenomenon, which just get reduced to someTHING…or at least some type of energy or wave, instead of tracking the “thing” from its roots in fundamental symmetry transformations, which the RS has the potential to do. But there is value in looking at other theories, especially when they cover something that is undertheorized in the RS and possibly fundamental. I think what he means is not wave of time in space, but wave through time, an impulse that changes the the amount of time in a certain part of space.

bperet wrote: 

Sat Jan 06, 2018 4:14 pm

ONLY the Reciprocal System has the reciprocal of space (time) as an integrated part of the theory.

Not true. Tiller’s whole model centers on two reciprocal spaces, Dspace, and Rspace (R for reciprocal)
which is the fourier transform of Dspace, which brings us back to the whole phase interference/ fourier uncertainty concept.

bperet wrote: 

Sat Jan 06, 2018 4:14 pm

“Time waves” must therefore be related to clock space, not clock time, as for a wave to function, it must be in motion–time to time is NOT motion. The concept of “clock space” is unique to the RS. That means your “time wave” must be temporally displaced, and since time-to-time is not motion, they will be the set of waves that cannot travel through atoms–but instead, be absorbed BY them, namely hard uV, X-rays and gamma rays. Nothing special or magical about an X-ray.

Not sure what you mean here. You talk about motion in 3d time all the time. I suppose it is often in the context of inverse matter motion, but what would you call an impulse that rearranges structure in time? It can’t be just a pressure wave if you say it necessarily clobbers the temporal structure of matter. Scalar and torsion are also about healing, so it isn’t just clobbering matter. The idea is always about phase coherence, either increasing it, “raising the gauge” as Tiller puts it, or disrupting it in the case of a weapon. Also any EM wavelength can be absorbed by matter; it depends on the matter.

bperet wrote: 

Sat Jan 06, 2018 4:14 pm

Couple of bad assumptions there… it would be an ordinal progression (discrete, not a continuum). There is no “topmost” level, the projection and “deprojection” of motion between reference systems is more of an oscillation than a hierarchy. We are biased towards the coordinate system because that is where our physical senses function. We are not equipped to “sense” this topological state–most people cannot even conceive of it as a mental exercise.

My attempts to simulate the RS universe has indicated that the system is not limited to 3 dimensions… 3D is the point of “dimensional stability” for our experience, but that does not preclude fewer or more dimensions. It is just the most probable configuration.

Isn’t progression already assuming a starting point within a particular series and thus within a particular point or line in time? This is why I was saying it is important to see the projective transformation as a lower order (more specific and concrete level) than the topological layer proper. Difference is inscribed into the heart of Being and it is a becoming, a progression in some infinite sense. That is the main idea of 20th century philosophy for good reason. But the progression of the natural reference frame already assumes a referent point(or phase), so it is a particular instantiation and projection at the affine level of particular cross ratios in the projective layer plucked out from the infinite heterogeneous continuum, the plenum of the infinite ordinal meshwork of series progressing and arising from everything in existence.

I agree that there is an economy between levels so that scale in the virtual (the nested hierarchy of geometries), like scale in actual space does not imply a top down determinism like so many New Age theories propose. Projection/”actualization” and counteractualization codetermine each other. The hierarchy of geometries is just a ranking from more nonlocal/ abstract and therefore greater in its scale of correlation to the most differentiated and localized in the “lower” strata. Deleuze sometimes calls the virtual “the plane of consistency” because it cuts across and through everything. Scale is undeniable in the universe, but too often confused with scales of importance, power, value. But it is only appearance. I like the saying that “scale is profane, ratio divine”. Deleuze and Delanda are at pains to critique any ontological hierarchy, and like most late 20th century philosophy are definitely critical of any model that renders the discrete as subordinate to the continuous or difference to the one. But we cannot make the opposite mistake and reify difference and make it supreme. That is the whole power of a reciprocal theory: it is not a world of discrete motions any more than discrete objects, but an infinite medium of reciprocal determination. It allows us to account for discrete objects with independence because every action is reciprocal in a much deeper sense than Newton could have dreamed.

The universe is a continuum in the sense that it is an intensive plenum. It is quantized in the sense that the topology of intensities that mesh the universe together in the plenum is not differentiated by some external agency or illusion because the connections are generated by beings and objects in the world (counter actualization). These connections aren’t morphological habits(with its linear time determinism and bottom up reduction ala sheldrake) or laws of physics(a top down paradigm leftover from Christianity) as much as models always in reciprocal revision. They are actualized divergently meaning they aren’t the expressions of a law. Which is why the word virtual started getting used way back by Bergson instead of the word possible: the virtual is just as real as the “actual”, and if actualization was merely the application of a law or the realization of a readymade possibility, it would be a redundant universe determined completely and reducible to an algorithm. Fans of continuity like Miles Mathis claim you can’t have a coherent theory without continuity, no causality without complete determination. What the RS suggests is that the continuity is completely abstract and heterogeneously distributed throughout time and possibility space so that everything is determined only in a completely abstract and infinite sense of all time and possibility (3d solid), or in every instance as the one determining itself from within as every one of us, since lines of causality can come from everywhere and everywhen.

Comments

comments