page 2
~ The Study of Threes ~
http://threesology.org
| Library Science | ||
| Links page 1 | Links page 2 | Links page 3 |
The following is another perspective on the phenomena of Threeness. While I would prefer it to include multiple examples from a diverse array of subjects, those which are covered are suitable for the author's apparent assertions for promoting a three-patterned orientation to the analysis of multiple dispositions presently held by different theories being expounded in an inquiry into perceived fundamentals of Nature noted by different investigators. The three-patterned phrase "Tripartite Relative Essentialism" is of my own making since the author uses a two-patterned "Tripartite Essentialism" in a reference to relativity, but does not explicitly say "Tripartite Relativity" nor come to present the reader with the three-patterned expression which may be culled as a deduction of the material being offered. Essentially, it is a theory of Threeness being promoted as a tool to provide greater insight into other domains of theoretical inquiry:
Thinking on the Theory of Threeness by Andrew Hennessey
Instead of thinking about "Threeness" as an encompassing tool, I have encountered those researchers who attempt to otherwise define their assumption(s) about some undiscovered fundamental representation of natural phenomena in terms of signs, symbols or other tell-tale indicators. The term "semiotics" is sometimes used as suffix such as in the word Bio-semiotics, of which this article may be of interest to some readers: Bio-semiotics: Searching for meanings in a meadow (New Scientist) by Liz Else, 23 August 2010. It describes in part, how the old metaphors of description are being replaced by new metaphors of description being talked about by groups of people who write books about their type(s) of metaphor and make money off of them due to their propensity for utilizing an ability to memorize a host of metaphorical expressions of others which they compile and thereby give the appearance of being more astute than others about a given topic because they have chosen to sit back and listen to others before presenting "their" take... which is a composite of others ideas represented by their impressions about others impressions; yet have not actually gone beyond the usage of detouring metaphors in addressing the issue of getting to the fundamental source of that which they are alluding to... or at least think they are.
Besides the two foregoing links, if you haven't already seen them: here are some others passed around by some friends and colleagues in our diveregent inquiries related to the threes phenomena: (Many thanks are extended to Simon Kelsey for providing the orientations.)
- Arnold's Trinities (Please note that mathematics is sometimes viewed both as an art form and metaphorical language... both of which develope their own types of cultures with an associated vernacular resulting in a cultic mindset, like so many subject areas do.)
- Roger Penrose's Three worlds and three deep mysteries (Various authors have written their own variations of Penrose's ideas.)
- Why do matter particles come in threes
- Finally We May Have a Path to the Fundamental Theory of Physics… and It’s Beautiful (One can not help but note the usage of multiple "threes" in this idea.)
By revealing that they and others who are considered to be experts in their respective fields are thinking along what appear to be similar lines of inquiry defined as something new and valuable... as if all of them are trail blazers... or at least mile markers pointing in the direction of a supposed path along a corridor leading to an assumed bountiful treasure; they convince those who are just beginning to enter into the domain of a similar realization, that they have some unique insight (that you must literally buy-into) that they reveal in a book. Very often one finds that both the author and publisher as well as those who are supposedly writing a review, are simply playing a game of intellectually oriented musical chairs... in an effort to solidify themselves in some position of valuation to assist them in their livelihood.
Since all language is metaphor and all subjects are like colonizations of a given island whose inhabitants thereof adapt a given style or vernacular of metaphor as the repository of a particular type of metaphor by which perceptions are inculcated, illustrated and discussed... and then subjected to various formulas of translation to other "islands" of colonization... be it physics, linguistics, mathematics, chemistry, biology, architecture, music, astronomy, game theory, political science, sociology, sports strategization, electronics, computer language, etc...; it is of some value to provide short references to the topic of metaphor and its relationship to the study of, the search for, and the ability to describe truth:
Related studies in pragmatics concern the nature of metaphor and other figurative language. Indeed, metaphor is of particular interest to philosophers, since its relation to literal meaning is quite problematic. Some philosophers and linguists have held that all speech is at bottom metaphorical. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900), for example, claimed that literal truths are simply metaphors that have become worn out and drained of sensuous force. Furthermore, according to this view, metaphor is not merely the classification of familiar things under novel concepts. It is a reflection of the way human beings directly engage their world, the result of a bare human propensity to see some things as naturally grouped with others or as usefully conceived in comparison with others. It is most importantly not a product of reason or calculation, conscious or otherwise. Evidently, this idea bears strong affinities to Wittgenstein's work on rule following.
Figurative language is crucial to the communication of states of mind other than straightforward belief, as well as to the performance of speech acts other than assertion. Poetry, for example, conveys moods and emotions, and moral language is used more often to cajole or prescribe, or to express esteem or disdain, than simply to state one's ethical beliefs.
In all these activities the representative power of words is subservient to their practical import. Since the mid-20th century these practical and expressive uses of language have received increasing attention in the philosophy of language and a host of other disciplines, reflecting a growing recognition of their important role in the cognitive, emotional, and social lives of human beings.
(Truth) in metaphysics and the philosophy of language, (refers to) the property of sentences, assertions, beliefs, thoughts, or propositions that are said, in ordinary discourse, to agree with the facts or to state what is the case.
Truth is the aim of belief; falsity is a fault. People need the truth about the world in order to thrive. Truth is important. Believing what is not true is apt to spoil a person's plans and may even cost him his life. Telling what is not true may result in legal and social penalties. Conversely, a dedicated pursuit of truth characterizes the good scientist, the good historian, and the good detective. So what is truth, that it should have such gravity and such a central place in people's lives?
Simon W. Blackburn: Professor of Philosophy, University of Cambridge. Author of Truth: A Guide and others.
Sources: Separate articles entitled "metaphor." [and] "truth." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.
If we say that truth exists but humanity is unable to describe it without resorting to the usage of crude symbolism, and one of these symbols is metaphor, though one might include the vernacular of all subjects as mere symbols striving for the position of portraying the far most accurate model of truth; how do we get past the use of symbols if it is the biological basis by which humanity is born which acts as a constraint, a buffer, a smudged perception of truth? This is particularly trouble-matic when we discover the usage of a dichotomy (and not a singularity, trichotomy, quadilineal, quintuplet, sextuplet, etc...), as a means of describing metaphor. Using a dichotomy implies that the person providing the definition of metaphor for the Britannica has an old mentality steeped in the usage of dichotomy since there is no reference to the presence of a dichotomy as opposed to some other formula of distinguishing the topic of metaphor. The topic of metaphor is thus being discussed by someone not versed in an appreciation of distinguishing their interpretation as a limited explanation that maintains the old standard for using and thinking about the usage of metaphor, whether or not a poet or other type of writer is even aware that they are engaging in the usage of language to be described by others as metaphor. The problem then is what happens when a writer uses a trichotomous frame of mine to construct their perceptions of reality termed as metaphors, but that the person reading their images in viewing them from a two-patterned frame of perception and not (more accurately) from a three-patterned frame of reference. They are thus poor translators of the person's usage of metaphor utilizing a trichotomic profile and instead perpetuate the old standards of perception with respect to an understanding of metaphor and truth.
Because words are symbols or signs of what is thought to be reality, this so-called reality is expressed via a host of metaphors. However, if metaphor is defined as a dichotomy, yet many a philosopher uses a trichotomy to express their interpretation of reality, then the old standard definition of metaphor is seen to be a lie... or at least a less valuable means of referencing the supposed truth of reality if that reality is better described in terms of a tripartite formula, such as a triplet code in genetics, three families of fundamental particles, Earth as the 3rd planet, 3 to 1 ratios, ensembles of threes, etc.... Whereas a trichotomist can recognize the presence of not-trichotomies and thus enlarge an approximation thereof with an attempted inclusion, those who practice some other orientation such as dualism, fourism, fiveism, sixism, sevenism, etc., are more apt to be dismissive of... if not antagonistic to someone advancing a tripartite formula-ism; perhaps indulging an inclination to belittle such a usage by referring to it in some antiquated sense by referencing it to some previous esotericism where the value of "3" was used in a mystical, magical, or otherwise crude and simplistic application... very often aligned with some silly religious notion... because authoritative theologians, like authoritative politicians are not typically progressive thinkers. They are merely keepers of the old flames... tending to them like a brain dead domestic worker whose is fearful of thinking outside the boxes of convention placed before them by those wanting to exploit their labor so as to provide them with some personalized advantage usually involving social position and power, greed, property, sex, and other variations of the old standards of existence adopted as survival mechanisms on this incrementally deteriorating planet.
(Metaphor is a) figure of speech that implies comparison between two unlike entities, as distinguished from simile, an explicit comparison signalled by the words "like" or "as."
The distinction is not simple. The metaphor makes a qualitative leap from a reasonable, perhaps prosaic comparison, to an identification or fusion of two objects, to make one new entity partaking of the characteristics of both. Many critics regard the making of metaphors as a system of thought antedating or bypassing logic.
Metaphor is the fundamental language of poetry, although it is common on all levels and in all kinds of language. Many words were originally vivid images, although they exist now as dead metaphors whose original aptness has been lost—for example, "daisy" (day's eye). Other words, such as "nightfall," are dormant images. In addition to single words, everyday language abounds in phrases and expressions that once were metaphors. "Time flies" is an ancient metaphorical expression. When a poet says "The Bird of Time has but a little way / To flutter—and the Bird is on the Wing" (The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyam), he is constructing a new metaphor on the foundations of an older, stock metaphor. When Tennessee Williams entitles his play Sweet Bird of Youth, he, too, is referring to that Bird of Time that flies. Thus, metaphorical language develops continuously in complexity just as ordinary language does.
In poetry a metaphor may perform varied functions from the mere noting of a likeness to the evocation of a swarm of associations; it may exist as a minor beauty or it may be the central concept and controlling image of the poem. The familiar metaphor "Iron Horse," for train, for example, becomes the elaborate central concept of one of Emily Dickinson's poems, which begins:
I like to see it lap the Miles,
And lick the Valleys up,
And stop to feed itself at Tanks;
And then prodigious step . . .
A mixed metaphor is the linking of two or more disparate elements, which often results in an unintentionally comic effect produced by the writer's insensitivity to the literal meaning of words or by the falseness of the comparison. A mixed metaphor may also be used with great effectiveness, however, as in Hamlet's:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles . . .
in which "sea" should be replaced by "host" for the strictly correct completion of the metaphor.
"metaphor." Encyclopædia Britannica.
In very many references to the study of semiotics we find mention of Charles Sanders Peirce. Here is a short refrain from the Britannica:
His "one contribution to philosophy," he thought, was his "new list of categories" analogous to Kant's a priori forms of the understanding, which he reduced from 12 to 3: Quality, Relation, and Representation.
In later writings he sometimes called them Quality, Reaction, and Mediation; and finally, Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness.
At first he called them concepts; later, irreducible elements of concepts—the univalent, bivalent, and trivalent elements.
They appear in that order, for example:
- In his division of the modalities into possibility, actuality, and necessity;
- In his division of signs into icons, indexes, and symbols;
- In the division of symbols into terms, propositions, and arguments;
- In his division of arguments into abductions, inductions, and deductions.
The primary function of the new list was to give systematic support to this last division.
Peirce is now recognized as the most original and the most versatile intellect that the Americas have so far produced. The recognition was slow in coming, however, and much of his work is still known only to specialists, each grasping a small part of it, severed from its connections with the rest. Even his Pragmatism is viewed in relation to that of other Pragmatists rather than to other parts of his own work. A philosopher will know him also for his evolutionary metaphysics (theory of basic reality) of chance and continuity. A mathematician may know him for his contributions to linear algebra. A logician will know him as one of the creators of the algebra of logic—including the logic of relations; quantification theory (on the usages of "every . . . ", "no . . . ", and "some . . . "); and three-valued logic, which admits a third truth value between true and false—and may know him also for his two systems of logical graphs, which he called entitative and existential. A psychologist may discover in him the first modern psychologist in the United States. A worker in semiotics will know him as co-founder of that science. A philologist may encounter him as an authority on the pronunciation of Elizabethan English. A computer scientist may find in one of his letters the first known sketch of the design and theory of an electric switching-circuit computer. But all of this, and much besides, lay beyond the scope of his professional career.
"Peirce, Charles Sanders." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.
The recurrency of "Threeness," "Twoness,", "Fourness," etc.., patterns— Because number symbols are made up— we can assume that they are metaphors for perceptions we may not other-wise have a different type of labeling reference for. We use numbers. Others use the topic of vibrations, music, art, chemistry, religion, economics, politics, policing, poetry, etc., as their preferred language in illustrating, describing and investigating perceptions. Whereas biologists may use the vernacular of atomic physics (such as the word energy), or some other discipline in an effort to be more precise and articulate in describing their interpretations as well as proposing to have some predictive power of insight, other disciplines may use other vernaculars... many of which no longer use the language of religion because it has been found to be too primitive and its leaders are not progressive in their conceptual frameworks. Whereas many subjects were once studied by theologians and would use the language of religion to both illustrate and justify their positions (particularly if it was contrary to the established religious view), many people today have no longer any fear nor respect for religion as it used to be favored... if only because it was the dominant topic of social conversation and everything was controlled by the dominant religious presence in all sectors of social intercourse. Religion has proved itself to be a foolish if not childish metaphor of language for describing and investigating various perceptions of what we refer to as reality.
Patterns-of-three, Patterns-of-two, Patterns-of this, that and another... are ball metaphors, though mathematicians may insist that their efforts using their symbols provides them with the penultimate means of deciphering all things... eventually. It is no wonder why several mathematicians have come to describe their mathematical efforts of uncoding perceptions as an art form. Since both are and math are different types of languages and all languages are mere metaphors.
For those of you who are not familiar with different philosophers beyond the oft' recited "Big Three" of Western Philosophy: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle (SPA):
- Socrates: Athens’ street-corner philosopher. Socrates was the big-city philosopher in ancient Athens. Socrates didn't write books; he just liked to ask probing and sometimes humiliating questions, which gave rise to the famous Socratic Method of Teaching. This street-corner philosopher made a career of deflating pompous windbags. Accused and convicted of corrupting the youth, his only real crime was embarrassing and irritating a number of important people. His punishment was death. A famous quote of his is: "The unexamined life is not worth living."
- Plato: The philosopher who would be king. An aristocratic man with plenty of money and a superb physique, Plato at one time won two prizes as a championship wrestler. Actually, the mans real (and little known) name was Aristocles; Plato was just a nickname given to him by his friends, whose original connotation made reference to his broad shoulders. Plato became an enthusiastic and talented student of Socrates and wrote famous dialogues featuring his teacher verbally grappling with opponents. Our wrestler believed in the pre-existence and immortality of the soul, holding that life is nothing more than the imprisonment of the soul in a body. In addition to the physical world, there is a heavenly realm of greater reality consisting in Forms, Ideals, or Ideas (such as Equality, Justice, Humanity, and so on). As his crowning achievement: He wrote a famous treatise (The Republic) on the ideal society, in which he expressed the thought that a philosopher, of all people, who should be king (big surprise!).
- Aristotle: A long walk to the Golden Mean. Aristotle was Plato's best student. He went on to become the very well-paid tutor of Alexander the Great
— probably the highest paid philosopher in history. Aristotle started his own philosophical school when he was 50 years old. Although he lived only ten more
years, he produced nearly a thousand books and pamphlets, only a few of which have survived. This great thinker was called a peripatetic philosopher (peripateo
= "to walk around") because he liked to lecture to his students while taking a walk. Another group of philosophers were called stoics because they preferred
sitting around on porches (stoa) when they shot the breeze. ("Shot" or "shooting" the breeze is a metaphor for talking, discussing, etc...)
A key theme in Aristotle's thought is that happiness is the goal of life. Aristotle was a good deal less other-worldly than Plato. He voluntarily went into exile from Athens when conditions became a bit politically dangerous for him, in his words, "lest Athens sin twice against philosophy."
The founder of logical theory, Aristotle believed that the greatest human endeavor is the use of reason in theoretical activity. One of his best known ideas was his conception of "The Golden Mean" — "avoid extremes," the counsel of moderation in all things. (In other words, adopt a tripartite approximation for modifying behavior as the best possible survival philosophy/mechanism.)
The reader should come to realize that several philosophers besides Charles Sanders Peirce, indulged in the usage of some three-patterned perspective. It should also be noted that a person does not have to be referred to or labeled as a philosopher to think philosophically. There are quite possibly millions of people who have devised some tripartite model which they use consciously or unconsciously as an organizing principle such as for example, someone who organizes towels on a rack in a small, medium, large compartmentalization. I have encountered numerous people who use one or another model of "three" and are not even aware of it. And yet, upon making them aware of it, they may try to avert being recognized for having any recognizable logic... as if in concealment they have some erudite knowledge that is superior to others and by having someone recognized and name that which they do, they are thus exposed to someone else's potential control over them... much in the manner that the Fairy tale Rumplestiltskin refers to this notion of control by knowing someone's name. This is why many mathematicians want to use mathematics as a type of "secret code" that identifies like-minded members of a shared cultic orientation. If you don't know their respective language, then you may well be looked upon as an outsider or novice thinker not worthy of their attention or of comparable value to their assumed competence of metaphorical thought exercises and exchanges.
Here is a short list of other philosophers utilizing some tripartite model:
| St. Augustine's Philosophy: | Memory ~ Understanding ~ Will |
| Comte's Philosophy: | Great Being ~ Great Medium ~ Great Fetish |
| Hegel's 3 Spirits: | Subjective Spirit ~ 0bjective Spirit ~ Absolute Spirit |
| Plotinu's Philosophy: | One ~ One Many ~ One and Many |
| Aristotle's 3 Unities: | Unity of Action ~ Unity of Time ~ Unity of Place |
| Sir F. Bacon's 3 Tables: | Presence ~ Absence ~ Degree |
| Thomas Hobbes's 3 Fields: | Physics ~ Moral Philosophy ~ Civil Philosophy |
| Immanuel Kant's 3 Critiques: | Pure Reason ~ Practical Reason ~ Judgment |
| Averroes's 3 Commentaries: | Little ~ Middle ~ Great |
| Karl Marx's 3 isms: | Communism ~ Socialism ~ Capitalism |
| Woodrow Wilson's 3 isms: | Colonialism ~ Racism ~ Anti-Communism |
| Hippocrates's Mind Disorders: | Mania ~ Melancholia ~ Phrenitis |
| Emile Durkeim's 3 Suicides: | Egoistic ~ Altruistic ~ Anomic |
| D. Liesman's 3 Social Characters: | Tradition-directed ~ Inner-directed ~ Other-directed |
| Erich Fromm's 3 Symbols: | The Conventional ~ The Accidental ~ The Universal |
| Pythagoras's "fusion" idea: | Monarchy ~ Oligarchy ~ Democracy (into harmonic whole) |
| M.L. King Jr.'s "Middle Road": | Acquiescence ~ Nonviolence ~ Violence |
| Kierkegaard's 3 Stages: | Aesthetic ~ Ethical ~ Religious |
| Husserl's 3 Reductions: | Phenomenological ~ Eidetic ~ Religious |
| St. Augustine's 3 Laws: | Divine Law ~ Natural Law ~ Temporal, or positive Law |
| Witness Stand "Laws": | Tell the Truth ~ The whole Truth ~ Nothing but the Truth |
| Titus Carus's 3 Ages: | Stone Age ~ Bronze Age ~ Iron Age |
| Feuerbach's 3 Thoughts: | God, 1st Thought ~ Reason, 2nd ~ Man, 3rd |
| Magnus's 3 Universals: | Ante Rem ~ In Rem ~ Post Rem |
| Max Weber's 3 Authorities: | Traditional ~ Charismatic ~ Legal-rational |
| F. de Sausure's 3 "Signs": | Sign ~ Signified ~ Signifier |
| Charles Pierces 3 "Signs": | Qualisign ~ Sinsign (token) ~ Legisign |
| John Keynes's 3 Eras: | Scarcity ~ Abundance ~ Stabilization |
| George Mead's 3 Distinctions: | Self ~ I ~ Me |
| Sun Yat-sen's 3 Great Principles: | Minzu zhuyi (Nationalism)- Minquan (rights of the people)- Minsheng (people's livelihood) |
| Thrasher's 3-group Gangs: | Inner Circle ~ Rank & File ~ Fringers |
| Theodore Parker's 3-for-All: | Of All the people - By All the people - For All the peopl |
| Abe Lincoln's 3-For-All: (He removed the "all" from Theodore Parker's sermon which influence his variation.) |
Of the People ~ By the People ~ For the People |
| Jesus Christ's 3 Praises: | In the name of the Father ~ Son ~ Holy Spirit |
| Samuel Clemmons' 3 lies: (Mark Twain) |
Lies ~ Damned Lies ~ Statistics |
| Descartes 3 Kinds of Ideas: | Innate- Adventitious- Factitious |
|
Thesis ~ Antithesis ~ Synthesis Indulgence ~ "Middle Way" ~ Ascetism Major Premise ~ Minor Premise ~ Conclusion Contradiction ~ Excluded Middle ~ Identity Principal | ||
| "God-ology": Omnipresent Omnipotent Omniscient |
"Metaphysics-ology": What is real How change comes What is mind |
Marxian "Dialectology": Unity of opposites Quantity & quality Negation of negation |
| Epistemology: How we know What is truth What is mind |
Axiology: Nature of good Nature of beautiful Nature of religious |
Ontology: Quality (1st-ness) Relation (2nd-ness) Representation (3rd-ness) |
- 3 times the fool: You can fool some people some of the time - Some people all the time - But not all people all the time.
- 3 traditional syllogism ("sillygism") forms: Categorical - Hypothetical - Disjunctive
- 3-patterned basic adult syllogism: All ravens are black - Jack is a raven - Therefore, Jack is black.
- 3-patterned basic child syllogism: Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear - Fuzzy Wuzzy had no hair - Fuzzy Wuzzy wasn't fuzzy was he?
Source: (Although several other pages has the same list such as: Buckland's Third Revolution Poster column #5 and someone at wikipedia took my list and added to it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichotomy_(philosophy) but failed to give me credit, though I was the first to place the list on the internet at wikipedia, but my authorship was usurped. However, it matters not since I went onto an excursion of the threes phenomena into multiple other areas of consideration.)
While my initial interest in generating the first links page was to provide brief references to references oriented towards a "three-patterned" configuration, the more examples I came to list created a situation of reflection which has turned me towards a perspective of examination that identifies what appears to be a rigged, or gamed system. The 1st links page became so long I decided to crop it into two sections. The list of links follows a bit of commentary related to contemplations involving the recurrence of certain patterns such as the three, two, seven, etc...
Let me assert that the Threes Phenomena, along with the rather small array of numerically annotated patterns being used by human cognitive processing— though the limitation exhibited by the atomic elements chart suggests the fundamentals of Nature are likewise conserved— presents us with the circumstance that we are engaged in what can be described as a series of psychologically manifested biological modifications (adjustments, adaptations, accommodations) to an incrementally deteriorating planet, solar system... if not the galaxy and entire Universe. Such modifications can be seen as rationalizations effected as an attempted survival mechanism, as one would do if they were on a deteriorating raft adrift on an ocean with others on board. Survival philosophies would change according to the state of affairs with respect to perceived resources and one's accommodating imaginative exercises to thwart a sober review of an inevitability whose prospects for a rejuvenation of a progressive life that continues to decrease with each passing moment.
How else are we to think of recurring Natural laws based on the criteria of predictability? There are constraints in place which guide results and situations along a path of conservation that we term a statistical probability. This is little more than established rules of thumb so that a given outcome will most likely occur, such as in the case of having found a repetition of three-patterned configurations in very many subjects. And those who argue that there are other patterns besides "threes", they should then list them in order to realize that the overall list of patterns is very small... when compared to the infinity of number patterns which humanity might use. Indeed, something is causing the conservation to persist. In developing what is called a (TOE) "Theory of Everything" (with respect to particle physics), or (GUT) Grand Unified Theory... though someone might well come up with some other anatomical abbreviation such as EYE, BUTT, ARM, LEG, NOSE, EAR, etc...; we must evaluate the ability and propensity of humanity ever reaching such a threshold as one which is developed by way of an established set of rules from our present vantage point on Earth, similar to rules-of-thumb used for baking a cake, putting together a disassembled piece of furniture, playing a card game, game of billiards, board game, sports game, getting a loan for a house, cutting one's lawn, fixing a leaking faucet, etc... Such a theory has to correspond with our idea of survival within the constraints of a mostly unacknowledged incrementally deteriorating environment.
If we include the notion of the Uncertainty Principle, this too is a predictability, and therefore part of what may be called a gaming process the human consciousness is involved with. Let us look at a Britannica reference to the principle for those who are unfamiliar with the notion and those who need a slight recall nudge:
Also called Heisenberg uncertainty principle, or indeterminacy principle, is a statement, articulated (1927) by the German physicist Werner Heisenberg, that the position and the velocity of an object cannot both be measured exactly, at the same time, even in theory. The very concepts of exact position and exact velocity together, in fact, have no meaning in nature.
Ordinary experience provides no clue of this principle. It is easy to measure both the position and the velocity of, say, an automobile, because the uncertainties implied by this principle for ordinary objects are too small to be observed. The complete rule stipulates that the product of the uncertainties in position and velocity is equal to or greater than a tiny physical quantity, or constant (h/(4π), where h is Planck's constant, or about 6.6 x 10-34 joule-second). Only for the exceedingly small masses of atoms and subatomic particles does the product of the uncertainties become significant.
Any attempt to measure precisely the velocity of a subatomic particle, such as an electron, will knock it about in an unpredictable way, so that a simultaneous measurement of its position has no validity. This result has nothing to do with:
- (rule of thumb #1): inadequacies in the measuring instruments
- (rule of thumb #2): the technique
- (rule of thumb #3): the observer
It arises out of the intimate connection in nature between particles and waves in the realm of subatomic dimensions.
H.O.B. note: "Intimate Connection" gives the impression of a relationship amongst animate beings, bringing to mind the subjects of Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, Biology...
Every particle has a wave associated with it; each particle actually exhibits wavelike behaviour. The particle is most likely to be found in those places where the undulations of the wave are greatest, or most intense. The more intense the undulations of the associated wave become, however, the more ill defined becomes the wavelength, which in turn determines the momentum of the particle. So a strictly localized wave has an indeterminate wavelength; its associated particle, while having a definite position, has no certain velocity. A particle wave having a well-defined wavelength, on the other hand, is spread out; the associated particle, while having a rather precise velocity, may be almost anywhere. A quite accurate measurement of one observable involves a relatively large uncertainty in the measurement of the other.
The uncertainty principle is alternatively expressed in terms of a particle's momentum and position. The momentum of a particle is equal to the product of its mass times its velocity. Thus, the product of the uncertainties in the momentum and the position of a particle equals h/(4π) or more. The principle applies to other related (conjugate) pairs of observables, such as energy and time: the product of the uncertainty in an energy measurement and the uncertainty in the time interval during which the measurement is made also equals h/(4π) or more. The same relation holds, for an unstable atom or nucleus, between the uncertainty in the quantity of energy radiated and the uncertainty in the lifetime of the unstable system as it makes a transition to a more stable state.
"uncertainty principle." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.
The fact that we have the certainty of an uncertainty principle, even if it is to be found true or false in some future age; means it is (ac)countable and therefore part of the conservation of variables we are dealing with in our personal and collective evaluations called a Theory of Everything, theory of life, belief, philosophy, etc... And even those things as yet not conceived of, are part of what appears to be a small set of variables which provide a probable outcome, even if no one does not predict something that occurs. By establishing a rule-of-thumb, a program, an operational guideline, a Modus Operandi, set into play by a whistle blow, bell ring, pistol shot, horn blast, dice throw, 1-2-3 go command, etc... all of which are based on a set of criteria for distinguishing a given situation like that which was what Heisenberg thought in his context of mental play; we are following the rules of an intellectual game we or someone else have established. Like any board game, card game, sport, menu, recipe, shopping list, etc., each of these are a type of game to be played out in a particular parameter with particular playing pieces in a given time frame. To break the rules gets you a warning or penalty asserting that you must "play the game the right way according to established laws over-seered by one or another authority"; or it may leads you to become excluded from the game ... at which time you may or may not then establish your own game or that of another (such as a gang, or other specialized group following a different set of rules). Sometimes, by not following the rules-of-thumb for a given intellectual exercise a person can come up with an innovative, creative or insightfulness that is useful.
Hence, this brings us to looking upon DNA as a game with a given set of rules that humanity and all life forms must follow or reap some consequence which may be debilitating in the present Earthly environment. The beliefs, such as the Standard Model of Physics, is part of the current rules of thumb for playing the game of physics and living within a social system where such a rule-of-thumb is observed... even if you do not personally believe in it or do not even know of its existence. You are part of the game play nonetheless. As a spectator perhaps, but you are still part of the game from this vantage point.
Take for example the "Belief in god" game. Even if you claim you don't believe in (a) god, this idea is now part of the overall belief-in-god game currently in vogue. Being an Atheist is just a variable in the game just as believing in (a) god is a variable of Atheism. That is the game being played out by human consciousness in this period of time. And it is reflective of yet another three-patterned ensemble involving Belief in a god, Disbelief in a god, or some assumed neutral variation. Human consciousness is involved in multiple embellishments and elaborations of two-patterned (dichotomous) ensembles represented by three labels, suggesting the human brain is in a transitional mode of development between a two and three-patterned orientation. When we find the following comment in the above article: "The principle applies to other related (conjugate) pairs of observables", it is a principle referencing the development of human consciousness in a transitional mode of perceiving reality. Heisenberg was using physics to address the perception of dichotomies he encountered in the language field of physics. Had he been interested in another subject, there too he may have developed a similar view corresponding to the dichotomies he referenced within his parameter of experiences. Although physics was his native tongue so-to-speak, his idea is applicable to the vernacular and symbolism of other subjects. In other words, the Uncertainty principle is a very simplistic illustration of a basic idea that is part of the overall conservation of variables humanity is being subjected to under the incrementally deteriorating environmental conditions of Earth, the solar system and the galaxy which force compliance in our genetics and thinking (which includes limiting imagination) as a survival mechanism; thus revealing a gamed system... or there wouldn't be a need for so much repetitive patterning within a constrained assortment of usage. The Heisenberg Principle represents a crude implement of thinking as one might perceive a flaked stone applied to the usage of a:
- TOOL (scraper, pounder, grinder)
- WEAPON (spear/arrow head, knife, club)
- CONVERSATION PIECE placed in some potential social gathering place such as a campfire, kitchen table, coffee table, knick knack shelf, museum rack, etc...
- on (centralized)
- near by (obliquely)
- or around a (circumferencing with a geometric figure that may not be consciously recognized for its structure as a circle, square, triangle, pentagon, octagon, hexagram, etc.. )
Initial Posting of 1st page: Thursday, 13th September 2018... 8:37 AM
Initial Posting of 2nd page: Monday, April 20th, 2020... 4:10 AM
Updated Posting: Friday, January 28th, 2022... 11:08 AM