On The Forces

Forces?! Forces cause?! Forces are caused?! No! They are neither caused nor do they cause! The category of causality as explicative criterion does not apply in what regards the dynamical ontology of the forces.

The forces are immanent, the forces determine, they do not cause. The causality criterion, even if applied provisorily, can be applied to that/those which the forces determine, those that were determined by the forces: we, the others, the things of the world, the relations in the world, in the Cosmos, in the existence; determinations in the sense of having been immanently risen by the forces.

The determinations of the forces can, even if provisorily in terms of scientific pragmatics, be stated as gifted of causality: to the action, to the thinking, to the feeling, to the arbitria, to the relations, to the survival, for what we do or want to do.

At the level of the determinations, one can speak of emergent causality with origin in the determinations themselves, but the constitutive forces, the so-called fundamental forces are not emergent; and, of course, are dispositions of a unified ontology, to the Cosmos, to the order, to the make to rise of the things, to the make to rise of the order, dimensional order, multidimensional order, order to the existence, to the presence, to the life, to the individuation, to the limits, to the identity.

Questions like what causes gravity(?!) do not apply, gravity concerns a unified immanent ontology that determines always whenever it is necessary to determine.

Control the forces?! Nonono, no one controls one’s own determinations and much less the others’. The forces that made one rise, that were at one’s origin cannot be controlled. And at this level we can be surprised by the “clinamen”. Any attempt to control will have to think on possible and cognitively undeterminable sudden dynamics, without any possible anticipation.

"God does not play dice..." on this, at least, Einstein was right...

Einstein’s expression “God does not play dice...”, independently of the metaphoric sense synthesized in Einstein’s statement, which expressed cognitive concerns of Einstein himself about natural laws, rules, certainties…, the expression “God does not play dice…” resends to an underlying sense of necessity, of construction of order without probabilistic conditioning, and Einstein was right, the uncertainty is only placed at the level of human cognition, a cognition that is instrumentally organized towards cognitive displacements marked by an imagetic telos projectively sustained by perspectivic imagery very conditioned by the human social and technological organization in which are included the dynamics of power, with the respective dragging of market economy, war economy and politics, with the small greedings, SmallWorld(s)Powers…, all this conditions the human organisms: we do not see things as they are, but as we wish them to be, in the way that is most convenient for us, or even for the installed powers that we serve or that serve us.

If not for all this, perhaps our science could be much more “advanced” than it is, in terms of knowledge of the World, the Cosmos, the Universe(s), and we would not still be discussing absurds such as the case of particles and the respective antiparticles, in the way in which it is currently placed.

Uncertainty, at the quantum level?! Not a chance! Only in the precarious human science. At the quantum level there cannot be error of cognitive processing, it is a dispositional fundamental constitutive level of sustainability for the order, for the existence, for life, for each life. The quantum level is a deterministic level in the absolute and rigorous sense of the term, and it is dispositional also as absolute necessity of rigor in the sense that it must feed the change, the growth, the development, the will, and has to produce the order necessary for the sustainability, an order built at each cognitive moment.

There is no uncertainty at the quantum level, there is the making of certainty that has to sustain, in the flux, the flux itself, a flux that sustains the permanent change. Particles are cognitive expressions of the fields, condensed geometrizations of order. The so-called antiparticles correspond to the necessities that the fields have of more intense cognitive exercise in which the geometry of the particle has to project its image of cognitive reflexivity in the sense of formation of a cognitive absolute that the field will absorb as a rhythmic energetic vibratory necessity to the order, the order of the things, the order of the structures, the order of the Universe/Universes. The telos is always the production and the permance of order. Without order there are no entities, without order there is no Cosmos, without order there is no arbitriu, without order there is no self-reference, there is no self-determination, without order there is no identity, without order there is no dignity.

So much thinking around uncertainty and so little around certainty. Of course, there are many people that think about certainty, but on a manipulated certainty for the dictatorships, for the fascisms that sustain the brief and decaying SmallWorlds of those with small brains that like to be tyrannical and absolute, with “superpowers” in their decision of who should die and who should live, who is slave and who is master, forgetting that we are all children of a making of order to which we do not have access, but upon which we all depend, as we depend upon each other to keep ourselves in that making of order. This is not an algorithm, this is not a program, because it is a making, and that making is our manna.

...the difficulty of 1...

"Computer generated math proof is too large for humans to check"

"(…) Erdős discrepancy problem revolves around trying to find patterns in an infinite list of just the two numbers "1" and "-1". Named after Paul Erdős, the discrepancy problem arises when cutting off the infinite sequence at some point and then creating a finite sequence using a defined constant. When the numbers are added up, the result is called the discrepancy figure. Lisitsa and Konev entered the problem (with a discrepancy constant of 2) into a computer running what they describe as state of the art SAT solvers—software that has been written to create mathematical proofs (…)"

http://phys.org/news/2014-02-math-proof-large-humans.html

This is not a problem of mathematical proof, it is a problem of ontological interpretation. It is about not thinking things from a cognitive matrix that looks at the past. The patterns do not come from the past, the patterns come from the future. The expansion of the 1 (?!) unity (?!) (unique, singular) is always geometric and supported by a dynamics from the future to the present, independently of how large the value of the sum is. What is important to interpret is the ontological dynamics of the sense of unity itself: any absolute value is ontologically reducible to the unity, in the sense that it is the ontological repetition of the unity.

The unity, as ontology of presence to the sustaining of the diversity, has to have the systemic capability of guaranteeing, in indeterminate terms, the geometric expressions of itself that may guarantee the geometric reflexive sustainability that sustains the openness to the indetermination, because of that it is interesting to take an ontological gaze on expressions such as 1 and -1. The -1 is always geometric, never arithmetic, the relation between 1 and -1 is always a geometric relation.

Facing the initial first 1 is always its geometric ontological reflexive "to itself" that guarantees it its condition of presence, that is, the "nothing" of itself, as absence of itself to itself, but still condition of itself. Between that initial first 1 (fiat dixit) and the negative expression of itself -1 are all the other ones, we, the Cosmos, geometric expressions, entities, figures of that 1 as other ones: we are all cosmic substances of a same cosmic weaving. Here we are, we, the planet, the cosmos…, dimensional, multidimensional…,

What about the computer?! We are good at building tools that think for us, and even better at alienating ourselves in these tools. The poor computer is clever, it does that which we are not able to do, because while we look at the patterns emerging from the past, the computer knows that it has to guarantee the present that was demanded of it and, thus, it goes on computing, always from the future (FutureNow) to the present (PresentNow) in an undefined and indeterminate way. The computer "sees" the obvious that we do not, because we complicate things, because we want to be very important, masters of the universe, of the thinking, of everything, when it would suffice to look at us and the things and let them speak for themselves, without demands of control.

The truth is: we are not that clever, all we can do is learn, look at the sense of unity and let that sense speak to oneself. One might state: but that sense of unity is whatever we want it to be because it was we who "invented" it, right?! Such as mathematics is a language, of course. But it is possible to assume the existence of patterns or dynamics of existence that express evidences of that which we call irreducibility, with a character of necessity that points towards a language of absolute of presence and permanence.

Geometric rationality?! Yes, it is a pity that we have not developed it further, it would certainly give us a common sense capability towards the survival, and things like global warming and other problems that endanger us along with other species would not be taking place, because each of us is a systemic absolute of presence, singular, irrepeatable, irreducible, non-uploadable/downloadable (of course), we and the others are absolutes of projective presence and permanence that is important to guarantee, if we wish to speak of eternity. A concept that begs some attention freed from dogmas: dogmas of doctrine, dogmas of sects, dogmas of market, dogmas of power.

As for the first fiat lux, fiat dixit, the conjecture of God is as possible as the conjecture of a quantum anomaly, personally I bet, and faced with the mess of life that we have, I bet on the Ninja Turtle cosmogony: ooze, humus, yes, most probably. Crazy aliens is also possible...

...operam perficere: InfraQuantumDynamics to the cognitive proportion...,

We, the others, all the others: the systems..., 

The brains, the brain, each brain synthesizes, the system, the entity decides. It is the entity that has the power: potere: to have power: to have authority, to have energy to decide: to have “libertate”…, freedom to decide, autonomy to decide…, autonomy to be able to choose, to elect: “rationem ducere”: “computare”…, to calculate, to know(ing).

The systemic totality is involved in all cognitive dynamics: the integrated system in interface of permanence in the existence: the system knows and the system decides.  The dynamics that supports the systemic cognition is always toroidal, for reasons of reflexivity. 

The permanence of the system depends upon the capability that the system has to generate the spontaneous immediateness of the perspectivic cognitive absolute of the positions and contrapositions available to the proportionality necessary to the pattern that sustains the permanence of the system in the existence. The demanding is panoptic Laplacian. If we wish to remain alive, we must be capable of doing this in a “time” smaller than Planck’s.

The brain is a piece in an integrated system, ontologically sustained by quantum and infra-quantum dispositional dynamics that are by necessity and sustainability of permanence, always toroidal. It is not the brain and only the brain, that has the power, but the whole system.

The point is: to transcend the ontological cognitive toroidal in the ontological cognitive toroidal, to attain the pattern that gives us the just, the just measure, the plenitude (“plenitudo”, “totum”) necessary to the existence. 

Who am I?! Who are you?!... Let me see...

                                    

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/90-Degree_Rotations_in_the_Complex_Plane.png

Who am I?! Who are you?! I am one?! You are one?! Let me see…, we are systems, we are totalities…, right, we are completudes…, why?! Because we, each of us has systemic integrity for the totality and thus unity that each of us is.

And we are presences…, me, we, they…, in syntactic terms, if we participate of a sense of unity that localizes us as presences, entities and identities, then, we are ones…, me, you, they are ones. Ah, but we are also minus ones…, are we?! Oh my imaginaries…, are we?! Let me see…, what of us, without loss of integrity of us in us, could localize us as actualized presences, concrete presences of course, entities that speak, feel, have will, have arbitriu and…, dream, it is important to dream...

Are we realities?! Existents?! Are we really things there?! When I verbalize “I”, when I finish verbalizing “I”, the moment of my verbalized “I”, that signalizes me as presence and permanence, has already passed. What guarantees my presence here, there, then?! A great gravitic effort of course, electromagnetic…, of my organism, which gives me the possibility of the projective sustainability of a “to me” that actualizes the “I am”, before I, myself, state “I am”, but that which actualizes me is not me, in myself, but a “to me”, a “to me” that sustains me in the effective permanence of the I in me, of the myself in myself. What can be that “to me”?! What about the negative of me?! If the one can express my sense of unity, as presence and permanence, the negative of me, the minus one, expresses the sense of unity as absence of that which I am as presence and permanence. Complicated?! Not at all, very simple. “God” made “his” bet on simple things, we are the ones who complicate it.

This is about sustainability, and the sustainability of a PresentNow depends upon the sustainability of the actualized projective existence of ourselves in a FutureNow.

The square root of minus one is…, perhaps the divine gift?! I’d sensibly, and obviously, bet on that, “God” is generous no?! We are the ones who are messing all things up. The square root of minus one is the divine gift because it is undeterminable, it is without projective end. What is this square root of minus one?! How about the divine arrow?! 

“God” would, perhaps, tell us: «Do not look at the past, look at the future, it is from “there” that all things (be)come(ing), it is from there where I, you, we all (be)come(ing) from. I (be)come?! I have to (be)come in the divine praxis. Of course, I am the great monad turtle…, but am I turtle?! Am I fly, ant, termite…,?! Does that matter?! Why complicate things?!»