Duality.

The apparant duality of nature, as manifest by modern physics, seems to be a function of our consciousness. I suggest that having adapted a hybrid abstraction system, our study of reality has reached the stage where the hybridization interferes with the discovering of 'REALITY' - the world 'out there', both at the micro and macro levels.

In the hybrid system, wave detection has it's roots in audition, and particle detection ( a whole hierarchy of them) has it's roots in vision. All our instruments, although having degrees of bias, seem to be designed such that both biases are detected thus making things 'incomplete'. The only way that I can see (!) to get around the problem is the recognition of the seperateness of both systems and the adaption of measurement systems totally dedicated to one system or the other.

Reality appears twofold because our abstraction system is twofold, not necessarilly because reality is twofold. The methodologies used attempt to detect a 'one' but we are implicitly using two independant systems to do it. This has been extremely successful on this planet, but at the levels of quantum mechanics, we are dealing with resolutions that can be handled by one system but NOT two at the same time since one will interfere with the other. This interference is NOT necessarily out there, but a possible result of us attempting to use two systems at once. (It is important to note that QM is founded on probability waves not 'real' waves. Using this tool, observation suggests a duality, that, for example, light is made of 'wavicles'.)

At the macro level, the world of Relativity seems bias to geometry, whereas the world of Quantum Mechanics is bias to harmonics. In this context, The EPR paradox and Bell's theorem are more about the 'whole' and harmonics, than about 'particles', and Relativity is more about preserving the whole, where the wave equivalent of E = mc2 (E = nfm ) is more a limit on an object's matter wave. Visually this would protect the 'whole' - matter, manifest as a wave, cannot become 'infinite', and thus lose it's wholeness. Bell's theorem makes the same case, but for QM. It says that splitting an apparent whole into two parts mearly creates harmonics that remain linked; the whole is retained. The apparent problems with the QM model is the intrusion of spatial concepts, concepts that derive from vision:

Preservation (Conservation) of the whole:

          Relativity                        QM

          matter wave cannot be           correlations cannot
          infinite.                       be split.

          or                              or

          matter cannot exceed speed      'cutting' a wave only
          of light.                       creates it's harmonics.

The systems we use to analyize are hybrid systems and as such we detect manifestations of apparently two 'things' in the same place at the same time. The attempted unification of physics into one 'model' has a problem, and that problem is linking QM and Relativity via relativistic gravity. There is the suggestion that this will not work because they are different systems. QM has been able to model concepts that were originally derived from Relativity. To take QM beyond Relativity means we need to ignore the extremes of Relativity that cause interference. The continued incorporation of relativistic concepts only confirms our hybrid sensing of audition/vision.

The development of QM suggests that QM is to PROCESS what Relativity is to FORM, and as such the two can never be totally, explicitly, united. Furthermore, the observation of mental oscillations between FORM and PROCESS through time (Bateson) and the bias to new developments in PROCESS and their full manifestation in FORM, suggests that QM, often treated as a complement to Relativity, is infact it's FULL successor.

This suggests that over time Relativistic concepts will become explainable and thus replaced by QM concepts. However sensory hybridization may put a limit on this in that it is difficult to remove the 'whole' concept to be replaced by waves (harmonics) since we still have eyes that see 'wholes'. At the moment it is at the scientific interface with 'reality' that these soughts of extremely one sided biases are required. (harmonic wholes can be made into images (see Jenny (1966), inspired by Ernst Chladni) where, with the use of a resonating surface and sand, patterns appear in the sand. These images change as a function of tonal scale, and seem to oscillate between a static state (FORM) and a dynamic state. (PROCESS))

Lasers and Complementarity.

An example of the benefit of hybridization is the laser. From it's development we have been able to create holograms. Holograms were developed after pictures and required the development of lasers and an understanding of waves. This development is an example of the feedback found in development between the two sensory based biases.

A picture is a good example of FORM in that it stores a static whole measuring amplitude (energy - colour). A hologram is a good example of PROCESS as it is more strongly dependant on time, since it uses phase interference (waves harmonics) as it's method of storage and requires a reference beam to recall the image. The invention of the laser allows for the creation of visual holograms, the hybridization of audition and vision. However, these holograms are currently lacking in full spectrum colour.

By recognizing the hybrid nature of our sensing system, as suggested by neurology, and by adopting specific tools for a specific sense, as we do in astronomy with different types of telescopes, we can develop systems that, for example, go back to pure wave analysis (what ever that is) and incorporate the ignoring of particle concepts. The uncertainty principle as a universal law may be wrong, and this may be manifest in the dichotomies used to describe uncertainty.

The most common of these is that of position/momentum which can be classified as a 1:many type dichotomy of contexts. Here, position is of a FORM type and momentum of a PROCESS type and yet the PROCESS componant is 'many' (momentum implies changing movement over differing timeframes) whereas the FORM componant is 'one' (one position over differing timeframes).

The principle of complementarity FORCES these dichotomies and the thinking arising from their use, -

"In the microcosmos of quantum mechanics, phenomena abound that fly in the face of common sense. Many of these effects are a consequence of the principle of complementarity. It's most popular manifestation is the wave-particle duality. A microscopic object, such as a photon, an atom or an electron, can appear to behave as a water wave in one instance and as a discrete particle in another. Both features complement one another as a complete description of an object. Since the idea of complementarity was first enunciated more than 70 years ago, a belief common among many physicists has been that it is simply a consequence of the uncertainty relation. According to this rule, two complementary variables, such as position and momentum, cannot simultaneously be measured to less than a fundimental limit of accuracy. The uncertainty relation normally prevents one from learning everything about the behaviour of a quantum object. As a result we can never see the object acting both as a particle and as a wave." p56 (Englert, Scully, and Walther (1994))

"We devised and analyzed both real and thought experiments that bypass the uncertainty relation, in effect, to "trick" the quantum objects under study. Nevertheless, the results always reveal that..complementarity remains intact even when the uncertainty relation takes no role."p56 (Englert, Scully, and Walther (1994))

"The principle of complementarity implies that in the microcosmos, complete knowledge of the future in the sense of classical physics, is simply not available. If one of a pair of complementary properties of a quantum object is known for sure, then information about the second complementary property is lost." p57 (Englert, Scully, and Walther (1994))

"This complementarity is a fact of life and we have to live with it. The Danish physicist Niels Bohr, more than anyone else, insisted on just that, and he deserves the lion's share of the credit for making us accept complementarity as a fundamental truth. It did not come easily, and the resistance put up by devil's advocates as prominent as Albert Einstein himself was formidable. The thrust of their arguments centred on whether complementary properties could be measured simultaneously."p57 (Englert, Scully, and Walther (1994))

"The principle of complementarity is certainly more fundamental than is the uncertainty relation." p60 (Englert, Scully, and Walther (1994)).

This implies that the complementarity principle is more of a gross context from which the uncertainty principle is derived. What I am suggesting is that a slight modification needs to be made. The principle of complementarity accepts duality as something 'out there', whereas I suggest that it is a result of our hybrid nature.

QM is highly successful on this planet but to use it in it's dualistic mode as a tool for analysis of the universe beyond this planet may lead to problems. It would be to our benefit to develop 'pure' wave analysis tools and ignore relativistic ties, thus enable a deeper understanding of the whole universe. It would also be to our benefit to perform a closer analysis of the manner in which we generate ideas, since the CR concept introduces levels of predictability not previously thought available.

In summary, the tendancy for humans to use the particle/field model is found in descriptions. In physics, to maintain locality and the concept of invarience, a particle undergoing transformtation was said to be operating in a field. This method of description is infact used in esoteric areas as well, where the astral body is supposed to move in the astral plane, as is the spiritual body in the spiritual plane. It can also be used in microbiology where the field is the DNA (group of information) and the particle the mRNA (specific gene for replication).

The field/particle concept seems to be a natural and unconscious tool used for description. We can associate the field with wholeness ; prior to conscious distinction everything is balanced, a field of harmony including the future observer. A conscious observation is an act of putting a boarder around something in that to describe something we 'cut it out' of the background; bring it to the fore.

The wave equation.

Using the particle/field dichotomy, the wave equation is symbolized as:

                    Psi = (p) * (f)

The wave function is the particle and all it's possible states (single) and, the rest of the universe minus the particle, and all it's possible states(field/group). This manifests a 1:many type of dichotomy, and as I vary the states of the particle, and thus determine current state on previous contexts, so I will traverse a binary tree, since I am studying the relationship of one thing to everything else.

This allows for the so called wave/particle duality. When we observe explicitly, we detect a particle. When we observe implicitly we detect a wave. However, the creation of this may arise from sensory hybridization.

Since we seem to have adapted to the environment by internalizing it, then at the highest level, the level of mind, 'we are one' with it - Level 1 (L1). The moment we choose to analize we automatically drop to Level 2. Reality, therefore, is implied. We can not prove explicitly that we exist, we can only accumulate enough L2 data to imply L1's 'true' state; this is a bit like an Airy pattern when seemingly random bits of information (electrons randomly hitting a photographic plate) lead to the emergence of a wave interference pattern (and therefore another level of information but implicit in form).

L2 seems to be the point reached by many mystics. To experience oneness just stop the mind, stop 'bounding' and just 'blend'; make oneself boundary free. By doing this one returns to harmony and balance.

One of Von Neumann's Quantum Reality models suggests that the point where the probability wave of QM collapses to something 'classical', as in something we see (known as collapsing the wave function), is in the mind (NOT the brain - the mind; consciousness). Everett introduced the 'many worlds' model to get around the wave collapse. In his model, everything that could happen does; new universes appear originating from descision points. This means that the wave collapse never happens and therefore the measurement 'problem' does not exist. Richard Feynman introduced the sum of histories model as a tool of measurement. In this model everything that could happen tries to happen, and it is wave interference that causes reality. Everett's model seems to be an extension of Feynman. In measurements, Feynman's model works.

Considering the above, together with the acceptable argument that the brain deals primarily with wholes and aspects, our paradoxical perceptions can be possibly explained thus: Continues with Particle & Waves; Wholes & their Aspects (plus reference list)