Particles are nothing more than cognitive syntheses...

http://www.interactions.org/cms/

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/cosmic-uplink/heads-tails/articleshow/11287047.cms

Particles are nothing more than cognitive syntheses/structures of the fields’ sustainability rhythmic dynamics.

To speak of a measurement/quantification of particles is a gross nonsense, one can speak of perception/interpretation in the sense that the quanta express an enactive nature of the fields’ strategic dynamics of sustainability.

As to the particle and field proposed by Higgs, it may at most correspond to dynamics that may have taken place at a certain temporal rhythm of this reality we call cosmos, signalized at a beginning. To think that it is possible to reconstitute that beginning is a scientific nonsense, it is to ignore or overlook the role of the spontaneity dynamics in the sustainability of the systemic integrity as permanence, which depend upon the game occurred in a simultaneity dynamics of a temporal flux from the future to the present now, let us call it future now. The game of existence/life is, thus, strongly linked to the systemic spontaneity.

If it is true that there is a dependence from the past as memory, as experience, the present does not come from the past, the present comes from the future. Each moment now came from the future and never from the past.

That which is signalized as mass has to do with the gravitic dynamics that intervene in any cognitive synthesis: mass is enacted in that synthesis.

More mass or less mass depends upon the nature of the relations: links/connections, rhythms of the links/connections, autopoietic self-sustained strategies, dynamics in the retension/protension...

What can we know? What can we do? How can we know how to survive? How can we survive?

In the end, we are going around in circles, forgetting the fundamental, which are the questions: what is existence? What is life? In fundamental terms, what is the relation between existence and life? Can one reduce being to existence and existence to being? What is that thing that we call being (noun) and being (verb) and that is common to all things there (?): I am, you are, we are: the being (noun) is being (verb)...,

"chemical scum"...,

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2010-087

«The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among hundreds of billion of galaxies. We are so insignificant that I can't believe the whole cosmos exists for our benefit. That would be like saying that you would disappear if I closed my eyes.»

Hawking interviewed by Ken Campbell (1995).

One of the best dixit from Stephen Hawking! (Perhaps, however, the term "race" is not a good term, the term "species" is a better term.)

It is not only the human organisms that are self-sustained "chemical scum", it may be pertinent to state that: all life is "chemical scum".

Biochemics is enacted by a electrochemical gravitic mix, the "scum"/humus is the enacted substance.

Planck gap? Planck energy? Gappiness in Planck?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KleinBottle-02.png

Planck gap? Planck energy? Gappiness in Planck?

It is not the case that Planck’s energy is some thing that can be actualized. It does not have that dispositional nature, it cannot be approached as a dispositional nature.

Planck energy? Is energy a good term? Is it some thing like energy or is it a neutral thing which is towards energy, but not energy itself?

Is it a gift? A medium? A gap? A “Manna” for the thing that is being/making, as its fundamental possibility(?)...

...simultaneously a presence/absence, presence because it is computed by the cells, absence because it does not exist as a concrete thing.

Perhaps..., in the “Planck’s gap” is projectively compressed all the information of the originating dynamics present in the formation of our cosmic system and that accompanies us, because we depend upon it evolutionarily, it has to do with that which we were in the beginning and that which we are in the end as things that are born, die, and are.

The information, in this case, is not some thing that is measured, weighed, packaged and launched in the market of knowledge as object of consumption, by information, in this case, one must understand some thing like an "Apeiron", very close (but not the same) to the sense that Plotinus gave it: as an alterity-there (Aoristos).

Things, sometimes, are far more simple than they appear. Although, it may be a bit complicated to understand how our cells enact the reflexibility that makes emerge the projection of that gap that can be called “umbilical cord”/“umbilical string(?, perhaps...)”.

Our cells process-to-enact themselves and through the gap.

Through enactive reflexivity the gap provides for the “aion nexus” between the thing’s reflexivity and its reflexibility to itself: “to einai”.

Loops of Vibrating Strings,...and Systemic Sustainability

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calabi%E2%80%93Yau_manifold

“String theory is an attempt at a deeper description of nature by thinking of an elementary particle not as a little point but as a little loop of vibrating string.” By Edward Witten (on http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/view-witten.html)

Physics’ large theories are, all of them, built from conjectural assumptions/postulates, because of that, criteria of correction must accompany the growth of the theory in proportion to the empirical evidence that allows the growth of theory itself, in terms of rigor of approximation between the abstract “planes/territories” and that which is the concrete reality of the things in survival interface.

String theory is a theory in adaptive growth and development, we all know that. The statement of Edward Witten, quoted above, has, certainly, a mathematical/physical interpretation, but..., we do not know if Edward Witten has noticed..., it is also much more: what we call “localities” are sustained by: little loops of vibrating strings.

In systemic terms, the looping of vibrating strings is tremendously compatible with the dynamics of sustainability of the topoi, working from the original sense of the term topos: irreducible place of the body, of each body. Not a place for the body, but the place of the body.

Eternity: Life: Endless Devourers...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/08/12/exoplanet-reflects-practically-no-light-and-why-its-so-dark-is-a-mystery/

This is not a pipe, this is not a planet..., this is PerhapsPerhaps an autopoietic example of eternity. Of course, for some thing to be eternal it has to consume all available vital energy, like a “Wraith” (Stargate Atlantis).

Anyway, any gravitic structure that achieves a density such as the one that seems to be exhibited by the structure in question is potentially a “candidate” to eternity.

Such structures are not of God nor of the Devil, such structures even feed off the vital energy of God and the Devil, if there is such a thing as a God and a Devil. Endless devourers... this is why we urgently need another definition of life.

As for conventional Time, it only exists as a cognitive phenotype...

“Integral challenges physics beyond Einstein”

http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM5B34TBPG_index_0.html

“Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity describes the properties of gravity and assumes that space is a smooth, continuous fabric. Yet quantum theory suggests that space should be grainy at the smallest scales, like sand on a beach.”

To substantialize space as an existent to the things is a scientific error that cannot be hidden under the rug. Of course one cannot find what is not there. The space is enacted inter-relationally by the existents/structures/entities/res and gravity is not a matter of space and time, gravity is a matter of things/res and relations between the things/res.

As for conventional Time, it only exists as a cognitive phenotype. The time has come to work with rhythmic time(s), to work with the rhythms as the rhythms of the things and with the times as the times of the rhythms, and, why not, with the “passus” of the things?!

On Information

Sic transit mundi cum mundus...

...The becoming of each thing is in relation. Each thing (“res”) that is being, is being as thing in the world with the others (“mitsein”), and, as such, the becoming of each thing partakes of the thing’s living web in the game of life.

The act and the fact actualize the presence in the world in one of its modes of existence but that is not information to the others or to itself.

Information is a “towards-be(ing)” in the relations among the things, taking part in what is, in the systems, a “making” of the “come to existence” of that which is a (co)existence towards interfaces of (co)existing survival (“mitsein”).

In this sense, there is no information outside the existence, but there is also not information in the act and the fact. The fact that is/becomes, takes place in an actualization in the process of (inter)systemic becoming, linked to the systems’ arbitria.

In a game situation, there is the fact and there is the act of the existence and of the (co)existents, as players with their positions and dispositions in their topoi.

Each player/agent assumes, in the game, a “dispositional role” as a strategically intended position towards the others: one chooses one’s position in the game (arbitria towards position). The player’s chosen position assumes a strategic value enacting a certain disposition of the systemic situation itself. In ontological terms, from a position, the system makes emerge a disposition towards adaptivity in the game.

And it is the enacted disposition that carries information over to the players, about the potential figures/scenes that can be enacted in the game itself. One states “carries information” because information does not have a proper topos, information is always (co)enacted by a dispositional situational dynamics. The information is not a figure but a “towards the place”, thus, the information is between the action and the result of the action.

In a game, the information does not have as reference the players, but that which the players are capable of doing, may do, or will do. That is, the value of the information is not in those that enact it, but in the enacted result.

The information is not an act, it is not a potency, it is the result of a (co)judgment that enacts a connection between the strategically intended figure that is to be(come) and the figure that is now.

…,truth…,…truths…, presence/absence…, and existence.

It is pertinent to consider that the truth of an organism enactively participates from the truth of the cosmos, as the reflexivity of the structure’s proper (“proprius”) reflexibility.

This is not a matter of exemplification of a property but of an enacting of a “proprius” of the systemic individuation as cosmic entity, which explains the sense of “enactively participates”.

In this sense, the truth of the systemic structure is not what is shown by reflexibility in the systemic structure’s own light, it is what is or can be seen about that which is shown. What is shown is the structure’s “proprius”, the truth is the to-itself of that “proprius”, which means that the truth is not the “ontos”, but an expression of that “ontos”.

What is in-itself/“ontos” cannot be constituted as truth to the others, since it is about an absolute, in the sense of permanence and of being of the “proprius” of the system, hence not subject to change, therefore, it is not perspectivically approachable, because it is a non-formalizable completeness, since it is without measure and written logos (how does one “figure out” an “ontos” and places it into writing?), one is talking about an endless in terms of permanence and permanent that remains, subsists and persists in a strange loop as absence and presence.

Thus, in this way, the truth of a systemic structure is the truth of a permanent making of itself as positions of a same structure in a same topos. And here one can think in dynamics of alterity.

A being or entity can be a to-itself as father, son, worker etc…, still maintaining his own truth as being/“to be”, and the truth is what can be seen in that permanent making itself of an in itself to itself as alterity of itself.

Because of that we can speak of the becoming of ourselves, of the becoming of the things, without dissolution. Difference and alterity are not lies, they are just aspects or positions of a same structure in becoming.

In this sense, there is no quantum truth, or quantum degrees of truth. What fails in the logics (classical, quantum, etc.) is that the logical truth(s) presupposes a falsehood and an ontological structure towards an epistemological statement of truthness.

But any statement of truth and/or falsehood fails, in that sense, to be a statement about the ontology of the system’s truth, because, unlike the logical truths, the system’s truth is about the integrity and about what remains despite the change. In this way, it becomes ineffective to speak of neguentropy, since there is to entropy towards the truth of the system as an in-itself and to-itself, because a system’s truth as an ontological fact cannot be reduced to information.

Following this line of reasoning, there cannot be a bit in the it. The bit arises only in terms of relations with and to the others (“mitsein”), the bit is “mitseined” from the it. Following this line of reasoning, one is never a bit to oneself (which frees us from looking for a chicken and egg problem in the systems’ ontologies).

The truth of a system is in the accordance of the parts to the whole of the system. In this sense, the system’s to-in-itself is the according of the nature of truth as its relation to the essence.

It is a mistake to state that a system has an essence, in the sense of permanence, the system (re)enacts its own essence through the enactive process that is linked to the “noumenon” and the “noumenic”.

The “noumenic” is to the “noumenon” the necessity of the truth in the essence. The essence is, to the “noumenon”, the link between the noumenic and the noumenon in accordance with the living structure.

And, in the end, this is all about life and existence: to be born, to die, and to persist in the existence as being that is, as presence and as absence. Socrates, the Greek one, was a presence and now is an absence. But Socrates remains as being, that was PresencePresent and now is PresenceAbsent, and that is Socrates’ freedom and autonomy and, thus, Socrates remains being with the others and that is about Socrates’ dignity (“mitsein”).

..., existence (re)memoring and the things umbilical cords...,

Considering the systems, in their ontological existence, it is pertinent to address the process of “(re)memoring” (as a bring-to-presence of the before-to-after) of any systemic structure as a (re)projective process that computes the “noumenic” in the “noumenon”, from the initial conditions up to the present moment and that thus brings to presence the present moment in the initial conditions (in this sense it is (re)projective), in the retension towards the protension.

This allows one to address the configuration of a permanent “umbilical cord” as a systemic “no-presence”/“opening gap”, permanently enacted by the systemic structure from its root in its being (noun) that is being (verb), as existent-there among other existents (“mitsein”).

Taking the matter further, one is led to an “accord” between the things’ “umbilical cords”, such that this “in-according” is that they are part of the same past, they share a similar memory, which is the echo of the cosmos, as universe that began and begot.

In this sense, all that exists-there is a child of the same womb, and, thus, sibling among siblings, that equally share from a same sense of existence, from a same dignity, from a same responsibility.

...laws/rules of form and cosmic bricolage...

Event horizon? No, not at all! There is no such thing! All singularities have to be naked!

All happens in the intervals between things: the things emerge emerging, the forms make themselves forming themselves.

The rules emerge with the things that make themselves in the making of the things.

It is in the intervals between things that the things are born and that the things die.

Cosmic interplay/bricolage: the dance is made dancing. There is no dance without the dancing.

There is no form, there is no structure without the structuring. It is the structuring that makes the form emerge and the “laws/rules” of form come to be (enacted). There is no rule without a forming topos.

The game (of life) itself and its respective rules are enacted in the formative dancing of the living cosmic bricolage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt0RxTT37cc