...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?!»

...μήτρα, matrix...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UpsilonAndromedae_D_moons.jpg

"(...) terras sem ter lugar (...) Mas, se vamos despertando, 

Cala a voz, e há só o mar." ("As Ilhas Afortunadas", Mensagem, Fernando Pessoa)

"(...) lands without having place (...) But, if we are waking,

Shuts the voice, and there is only the sea." ("The Fortunate Islands", Message, Fernando Pessoa)

μήτρα, matrix, numen dispositio: not Big Bang: primeval atom: a dispositional atom. Errans (wandering), the wandering of the Being in the precognitive alterity of the “to can be” in the “to come to be” of the Being: Being and Nothing.

No, there was not, in the primeval atom, all the information of our cosmos condensed in a point, there was just a dispositional matrix. “God”, if we can speak of one, played dice with himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Clouds_over_the_Atlantic_Ocean.jpg

Fiat Unum…

 

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sea_otters_holding_hands.jpg?uselang=pt

Fiat Unum: Entanglement?! Particles?! What?! Why?!

1) Particles are brief cognitive syntheses of the fields.

2) Particles do not travel: particles propagate.

3) Particles have a geometric pattern, each particle has a geometric pattern, depending that pattern upon the relations in the fields.

4) Considering that each particle expresses a system of relations, then, each particle is an entity/res with a systemic nature, if each particle is an entity/res, then, we have to think of individuation, then, each particle has an individuated geometric pattern sustained by an entanglement of nonlocal quantum relations, without that entanglement there would be no particles, and certainly there would be no propagation of these particles.

5) The particles have to be sustained by a cognitive nonlocality in the sense that they are syntheses: syntheses of what?! Each particle is a synthesis linked to an ontology of brevity of a pattern in a NowTime flux.

6) Particles are syntheses of the fields' cognitive dynamics, they have the OntoTime of a thought in a thinking flux for the existence.

Entanglement is the dynamics that supports the existence, the existence of the particles, our existence, the existence of each and everything, unity and diversity.

...black holes are not entities...,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gcle.jpg

Black holes are not entities, the entities are the systems, in the case of Sagittarius A*, the GalaxySystem.

The black holes are, in the systems, the “pantry” (lacking a better term)…, the systems need to guarantee a permanent critical mass available for dynamics of sustainability, if the black holes are the main source of nutritive energy for the galaxies, the source that guarantees them their systemic permanence, therefore indispensable for the sustainability of the galaxies, the galaxies must also be capable of the dynamics that guarantee their BlackHoleness…, not forgetting, in these dynamics, the role of the electromagnetic fields, in the flux that comes from the FutureNow to the PresentNow, which signalizes to the system the respective constitutive vital needs.

Without the electromagnetic fields the systems would not know anything about the gravitic proportionality that must be kept in the black holes (the “pantries”).

Of course, if things go wrong, and they can always go wrong, it will be for reasons of reflexive “anomaly”: the error is always enacted by “anomaly” in the cognitive dynamics linked to systemic reflexivity/reflexibility.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Milkyway_pan1.jpg

...reflections...

...reflections…, (re)flectere: the ontology of existence, we fold upon ourselves in ourselves synthesizing the beginning and the end in a same dynamics of existence, and there we can transcend, we can enact dimensions of us in us, opening the possible tunnels of our existence. From the FutureNow to the present... (re)flectere, the key to other suns, the key to other places...,

Nature, Mundus, Cosmos...

In the genetic pool of the words, transmitters and vehicles of transmission play the game “of survival”, drawing projectively a sense of subsistent essence or eidos of web of rotative synchronic solidarity.

Considering the terms Nature, Mundus and Cosmos, these can be approached as an example of synchronized genetic compatibility, exemplifier of the same eidos of web.

Nature, from the Latin natura (gnatura, natus, gnatus, nasci) with the meaning of birthing, has its Greek equivalent in ousia, which means: to produce, to give birth to. The equivalence of the terms makes displace a semantics of condensated parallelism that connects them to the Greek term gignomai with the meaning: to come to be. In turn, natura and ousia are related with the term genesiz (birth). All that exists in the Mundus, exists as presence and existence (natura, ousia, dasein).

In turn, the concept of Mundus synthesizes a sense of “set” of all the physical realities considered as existent realities: entities, patterns, structures, relations, situations and processes. In the gravitic web of meanings, the term Mundus is connected to the Greek term Kosmos by a relation of neighborhood compatibilized in a gravitic rotativity of active order, rooted in the cognitive displacement that signalized the passage of the mythological thinking to the so-called rational thinking.

According to some tradition, it was Pythagoras who introduced in the Greek thinking a notion of Kosmos, as the order that presides and resides in all the things. However, the notion of Kosmos appears, before, in Anaximander (Diels, frg, 12A10) and Anaximenes (Diels, frg, 13B2).

Nature, Mundus and Cosmos are gravitically linked to a trajective displacement of an eidos of order. But to speak of order implies to speak of synchronicity, term formed from the Greek syn+kronos, which means, literally, a relation of simultaneity between different times, thus eliminating a tempting assumption of reductive uniformity evidenced by some discourses on order. An order depends upon differences and not upon equalities. Harmony depends upon differences compatibilized in a systemic point: pattern, structure, and thus: order.

In this sense, at the fundament of genetic compatibility between the terms Nature, Mundus and Cosmos is a sense of constitutive irreducible difference, sustained by a dynamics of synchronicity, approachable from a topology of web of rotative synchronic solidarity.