Editorial notes:
These reflections are about the quest to find underlying enduring meaning in the transitory experiences and events that make up our lives and constitute our world. It suggests that there is no such underlying enduring meaning, at least none accessible to us. But there can be crucial turning points in which we are surprised by experiences that transcend what we thought were the limits and basic meanings determining our lives. Instances are given from the Torah accounts of Sarah laughing in the tent’s entrance, etc. Surprise at these turning points suggest that we do not sum up the world in our experience; it exists outside our own usual limited frameworks [EZ*].
*Many thanks to Dr. Evan Zuesse for providing the commentary for this essay.
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle[I], Schrodinger’s cat[II], and the width of indetermination in the substrate of dreaming.
I have wondered at the relationship between worlds. Can everything be seen as lived from each world in its own right, with equal sufficiency and coherence? Do they map one to one – only one world of formation from the perspective of possibility and the emanating?
I wonder if, only by analogy, the formations I experience are a particular[1] solution to the variables of possibility. And that these are arranged in topologies of resistance and endorsement of Will’s efforts, thus seen in valleys and rises and local minima’s[2]. These act functionally like unities on the basis of mundane logic. And thus to cross them requires a higher logic than their own vectors. And thus to cross them means to change meanings at the level of metaphysics. And this is like when Sarah laughed in the tent’s entrance, or when Yitzchak made his wife laugh, or when David hid from Avshalom. And this is also which embarrassment is one of three key features of the nation (and other reasons).
The Copenhagen school[III] have interpreted quantum mechanics presuming that there is no real noumenon, except as a philosophical fiction. And thus make probability a real thing. Thus we say Mashiv ha’ruach. Because recent evidence gives support to the counter paradigm, which Einstein (I imagine would have) preferred, and which is unwanted by the post-modern phenomenologists who try and make their abilities also the limits of reality. The counter-evidence shows that patterns of potentiating possibilities can move separately to the material that composes the waves that reveal their figures. Not only does this reveal that the unmeasurable may not have been imaginary. It also suggests that quantum effects are not necessarily made possible according to the plank-tonic scales of classical quantum physics, but that they may be defined instead by the subtlety of interacting counter patterns, which thus allow the quantum effect to occur without being smothered in noise.
Heisenberg realized that they could control variabilities by controlling measurements. It is this aspect of their design that I take. Schrodinger realized that observation can determine the outcome, although the new theory explains that observation operates by restricting possibilities.
So too, there are many things that are right now possible within my dream. And if certain vectors are defined, then certain pathways within the curves of the topology may become blocked, and certain crossings between meanings thus no longer possible.
How can meaning change? Because ein sof l’tvunato, just as Reuven and Yehuda had good arguments for the redundancy of Yosef, and thus that his dreams that he could serve a capacity beyond their reach were not calculable. New meanings were born. Not just chains of events. But paradigms that cannot be comprehended without simulating them for oneself.
Can all the meanings of words be changed tomorrow without anyone realizing, though the changes benefit only me? This is an allegory.
All of this is not important. Just thoughts I’ve had. I’d guess that [cut] the science is wrong and that the metaphysics without any arguments that are not merely perspectives.
[1] I wonder at the worlds as both stemming from multiple solutions, but in another sense which is beyond comprehension, singularly threaded. I also wonder if they are a circle, because we in the lowest perspective, are the shape of what is possible to be conceived by the Echad, along with infinite others. And thus we are the vision of the Keter of the Keter that says “ani em’loch”.
[2] like the possibilities that conjoin a protein with a gain of function variant.
[I] “In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle (also known as Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle) is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known”. For further details see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle.
[II] “Schrödinger’s cat is a thought experiment, sometimes described as a paradox, devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects”. For further details see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger’s_cat.
[III] “The Copenhagen School is a term given to “schools” of theory originating in Copenhagen, Denmark. In at least four different scientific disciplines a theoretical approach originating in Copenhagen has been so influential that they have been dubbed “the Copenhagen School””. The reference here alludes to the Copenhagen interpretation of the meaning of quantum mechanics. For further details see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_School and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation.
