Comprehension of wave reality as experientially otherwise

Encountering Otherness as a Waveform (Part #4)

There is a very extensive literature on waves and waveforms distinct from that explored here -- irrespective of how it may be mined for fruitful metaphors in the spirit of the argument of Susantha Goonatilake (Toward a Global Science: mining civilizational knowledge, 1999). Reference to such metaphoric potential was made in the preceding paper (Being a Waveform of Potential as an Experiential Choice: emergent dynamic qualities of identity and integrity, 2013).

Goonatilake (1999) argues the case for the exploration of metaphor cultivated by "non-western" civilizations, as discussed elsewhere (Enhancing the Quality of Knowing through Integration of East-West metaphors, 2000). The argument could be adapted to the exploration of science as a "non-experiential" source of metaphor, especially as suggested with respect to technomimicry (Technomimicry as Analogous to Biomimicry, 2011). This is partially justified by the extent to which science is itself inspired by metaphors of common experience, as extensively argued by Douglas Hofstadter and Emmanuel Sander (Surfaces and Essences: analogy as the fuel and fire of thinking, 2013).

It is however appropriate to indicate (below) what is not implied in this argument by the terminology so widely used by science for objective purposes. This offers a means of drawing attention to the potential experiential significance of the insights to be derived from their metaphoric exploitation (Knowledge Processes Neglected by Science: insights from the crisis of science and belief, 2012). It is the experience the scientific language may suggest that is of relevance here, not the manner in which the language is conventionally used.

Sine waves: A valuable introduction to "wave language" is provided by Nick Herbert (Quantum Reality: beyond the new physics, 1985), especially given his own interest as a physicist in its implication for human awareness (Elemental Mind: human consciousness and the new physics, 1995). In Quantum Reality, he notes:

Lord Kelvin, the dean of English physicists, described La Théorie analytique de la chaleur, [Joseph] Fourier's elegant study of the flow of heat, as a "great mathematical poem". Fourier's theorem states that any wave can be written as a unique sum of sine waves. The sine wave is a kind of undulatory archetype; its curvy profile is what most people have in mind when they visualize a wave. Vibrating strings and ripples in a pond are shaped each moment like sine waves.... Physicists like these waveforms because when they put a sine wave into any linear system, a similar sine wave always comes out. Linear systems change a sine wave's amplitude and phase but they never change its sinusoidal shape. Mathematicians like sine waves because no matter how many times they differentiate them, the result is always more sine wave....

The question is how such distinctions have meaning in personal experience. Are there implications in the experience of "heated exchanges" between individuals -- and the wave-like form these may be experienced as taking?

Herbert continues:

Imagine a wave w stretched out in space. Wave w is not necessarily oscillatory, it may take any shape whatsoever. Fourier's theorem says that wave w may be written as a sum of sine waves with various spatial frequencies k, amplitudes a, and phases p. Each word in Fourier's sine wave language is a sine wave with a different value for k, a, and p. Translating a wave into its sine wave words is called Fourier analysis.... The particular sine waves which describe wave w are called its Fourier spectrum, or sometimes its vibration recipe. Each vibration recipe is unique: there is only one way to translate a wave into its since wave language. The gist of Fourier's important discovery is that sine waves form a universal alphabet in terms of which any wave can be written. (pp. 79-80)

Clearly any personal familiarity with waves ensures an intuitive/instinctive take on such analysis.

Herbert uses an upright prism to symbolize wave analysis into any waveform alphabet, distinguishing between a "hard prism" (any kind of machine capable of physical analysis) and a "soft prism" (a computer program performing the analysis). Hard prisms output real waveforms; soft prisms give "vibration recipes". The art of breaking waves apart with soft waveforms is the heart of quantum theory (p. 83). The interval into which the prism splits a wave is the wave's spectral width, or its bandwidth.

The size of this bandwidth bears an inverse relation to how closely wave w "resembles" the prism waveform which is analyzing it. The smaller the bandwidth, the more wave w resembles the prism waveforms; the larger the bandwidth, the less the family resemblance... among all the waveform families of the world, there is one family... whose prism gives the largest possible bandwidth when it's used to analyze wave w. A wave's kin prism is that analysis prism which splits it the least; a wave's conjugate prism is that analysis which splits it the most. A wave belongs to its kin prism's waveform family and resembles least the members of its conjugate family (p. 86)

Wave function: As described by Wikipedia, the Copenhagen Interpretation is one of the earliest and most commonly taught interpretations of quantum mechanics. It holds that quantum mechanics does not yield a description of an objective reality but deals only with probabilities of observing, or measuring, various aspects of energy quanta, entities that fit neither the classical idea of particles nor the classical idea of waves. This clearly raises issues for the "experiencer" (as considered here) in contrast with the "experimenter" (of concern to conventional science). With regard to the meaning of the wave function:

The Copenhagen Interpretation denies that the wave function is anything more than a theoretical concept, or is at least non-committal about its being a discrete entity or a discernible component of some discrete entity.

The subjective view, that the wave function is merely a mathematical tool for calculating the probabilities in a specific experiment, has some similarities to the Ensemble interpretation in that it takes probabilities to be the essence of the quantum state, but unlike the ensemble interpretation, it takes these probabilities to be perfectly applicable to single experimental outcomes, as it interprets them in terms of subjective probability.

Incomprehensibility of quantum mechanics: The issue for the "experiencer" inspired by the potential of quantum mechanics, and the successful experimentation associated with it, is usefully highlighted by Philip Ball (Will we ever... understand quantum theory? BBC Future, 25 January 2013):

If the baffling behaviour of subatomic particles leaves you scratching your head with confusion, don't worry. Physicists don't really comprehend it either.... Quantum mechanics must be one of the most successful theories in science. Developed at the start of the twentieth century, it has been used to calculate with incredible precision how light and matter behave - how electrical currents pass through silicon transistors in computer circuits, say, or the shapes of molecules and how they absorb light. Much of today's information technology relies on quantum theory, as do some aspects of chemical processing, molecular biology, the discovery of new materials, and much more. Yet the weird thing is that no one actually understands quantum theory. The quote popularly attributed to physicist Richard Feynman is probably apocryphal, but still true: if you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don't. That point was proved by a poll among 33 leading thinkers at a conference in Austria in 2011. This group of physicists, mathematicians and philosophers was given 16 multiple-choice questions about the meaning of the theory, and their answers displayed little consensus.

Potentially relevant to any controversy over engagement with otherness is recognition of the continuing controversy amongst physicists regarding the nature of fundamental physics, as ably documented by Mara Beller (Quantum Dialogue: the making of a revolution, 1999). To what extent is the latter a rich metaphor for understanding the former?

Such unprocessed discord is reminiscent of the deprecated discourse regarding the medieval question: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? -- appropriately evoked by Alison MacLeod (The Wave Theory of Angels, 2005).

Beable through theory? Of notable relevance to the argument here is the potentially meaningful expression "beable" -- to the extent that it might have implied the capacity of a theory to be "donned" by an experiencer as a framing "cognitive cloak", namely as a means of being "through the theory", of "being informed" by the theory -- perhaps embodied as a "cognitive exoskeleton". This is not however how it is used by physics (Adrian Kent, Beable-Guided Quantum Theories: generalising quantum probability law, 2012; Guido Bacciagaluppi, Collapse Theories as Beable Theories, 2010; S.M. Roy and Virendra Singh, Generalized Beable Quantum Field Theory, ScienceDirect, 1990).

According to discussion in Wikipedia, the word "beable" was introduced by the physicist John Stewart Bell in his article entitled "The theory of local beables" (see Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, 1988, pp. 52). A beable of a physical theory is an object that, according to that theory, is supposed to correspond to an element of physical reality. The word "beable" (be-able) contrasts with the word "observable". While the value of an observable can be produced by a complex interaction of a physical system with a given experimental apparatus (and not be associated to any "intrinsic property" of the physical system), a beable exists objectively, independently of observation.

Bell remained interested in objective "observer-free" quantum mechanics. He felt that at the most fundamental level, physical theories ought not to be concerned with observables, but with "be-ables": The beables of the theory are those elements which might correspond to elements of reality, to things which exist. Their existence does not depend on "observation". He remained impressed with Bohm's hidden variables as an example of such a scheme and he attacked the more subjective alternatives such as the Copenhagen Interpretation.

There is indeed a need for "beable theory" through which individuals can engage meaningfully with experiential reality. However this is seemingly not a concern of physicists preoccupied solely with "observables", irrespective of however incomprehensible their explanations may be to those faced with the complex subtleties of their personal experience (Dynamics of Symmetry Group Theorizing: comprehension of psycho-social implication, 2008). Relevant to this point is the experiential argument, as a physicist, of Douglas Hofstadter (I Am a Strange Loop, 2007) -- and the collective challenge it implies (Sustaining a Community of Strange Loops: comprehension and engagement through aesthetic ring transformation, 2010).

Main menu

Directions

You are here

Comprehension of wave reality as experientially otherwise

Main menu

Search form

Directions

You are here

Comprehension of wave reality as experientially otherwise