AND THE RELATIVE ZERO
Noel Huntley, Ph.D.
Consciousness can be observed to operate in quantum states, meaning it manifests whole, holistic, gestalt perceptive frames, whether there is a sharp point-like focus or there is a uniform spread. Moreover, these states of consciousness rapidly switch from one focus to another, giving the impression of continuity, time and the presence of gradients. Nevertheless, consciousness can become fixated, or be specifically hypnotised. It then forms a closed, self-referencing system. This is what we are interested in: self-referencing systems. The parallel concept for this in technology, that is, machines, is 'closed systems'. We shall come back to this.
Where does the idea of zero come into all this? In effect, a self-referencing system has given itself a zero context at its boundaries---at its interface with any greater system within which it resides. In fact as far as the self-referencing system is concerned there is nothing outside itself---hence the use of the term zero.
When we design a meter to take measurements we put a zero on the scale which acts as the reference for the quantitative evaluation by means of numbers on the scale or dial---say, for example, 4 or 5 units of measurement. We always set the pointer to zero before measuring and we then assume this is an absolute zero. Clearly it is zero for our immediate reality but it will only be relative to the environmental set-up. How do we know it isn't a zero reference with respect to some greater context? For example, are the physical constants of science really constant? What about Einstein's General Relativity---doesn't this resolve any doubt here? Scientists will find that the existing Relativity is part of a larger one, but it is set up as is all physics and mathematics so that the self-referencing system appears to be the only one.
Let us give an analogy which just happens to be similar to ones that are given in describing Relativity but here we are revealing the larger relativity (one fractal level higher). Consider a train compartment. In this case we have a smooth running coach and the blinds are down. There is no evidence of not only motion of the carriage but no evidence that there is any existence beyond the interior of the compartment.
If we measure velocities of, say, simple hand motions from side to side we will think these results are absolute (remember, this is only an analogy and 'velocity' is a suitable metaphor). If we wish to take the velocity measurement a little more literally, it means we have measured the velocity relative to the boundaries of our system---the compartment---which we take as zero. (Note that in our real universe we normally measure velocities relative to our planet, which is taken as stationary, or measure our planet's motion relative to 'fixed' stars.)
In the train compartment we do not realise that the boundary of our system---the walls, floor, roof---are an interface to a larger system which we may peek at for a moment through a crack in the blinds. Clearly if we measure the velocity of the same hand motion from the larger perspective---outside the train---the result will be different. Thus the first result was relative and not absolute. Similarly, physical constants of science will be found to be relative values.
The reality within the train compartment is a lower fractal dimension and the greater 'outside' reality is a higher fractal. Are there more? Yes, it would not be logical to consider only two, but we are getting ahead. More examples must be given to enable the reader to grasp this subject. As a contrast so that the reader develops a broad view of this concept and assimilates the extensive, in fact, all pervasive scope of this concept, let us give a qualitative example.
We can all perceive when another person is prejudiced or biassed, since we are outside the 'system'. But the prejudiced person dramatising a self-referencing system can't see this. They generally can't step outside of themselves to reset the programme; that means, connect the data up to a new context---the greater perspective in which the irrational relationships become obvious. They are in a kind of hypnotic trance.
Consciousness, however, always has the potential to step outside itself (the lower level), since it is fractalised, as is everything natural---see articles on fractals. The self-referencing system in the above example of the prejudiced person will zero out the bias, meaning the person will be unconscious that their evaluation (behaviour) is based on unconscious irrational data. In the case of the train compartment example, the contribution in the measurement made by, or provided by, the larger context or outside (the train) view, will be zeroed out if the occupants of the compartment are only aware of the interior. The self-referencing system will judge all unknown contexts as zero. Let us give more analogies. The see-saw example is a good one.
Imagine a plank balanced on a fulcrum with a person seated on either end. The characteristic motions of the plank are governed by the fulcrum---this is the zero point. If we consider measuring the amount of rocking of the plank, that is, the amplitude, this measurement references the context of the still point of the fulcrum. We can imagine this is a complete and closed system: such as this third dimension or even an environmental set-up in which rigorous scientific methodology is being applied. The results will appear absolute. But if we now realise that this first fractal system, the plank, fulcrum and persons, is on the end of a larger plank and fulcrum, with persons on the other end, then our new zero reference is the second fulcrum. The first fulcrum is now moving up and down. We see that the result of the measurement made in the first system will now be different when we reference the context of the second system and the new zero (fulcrum). Thus the first zero was only relative. Similarly for the second fulcrum and so on to a complete system. The fractals do not continue indefinitely just as a twig on a tree is connected to a larger branch, which in turn is connected to a still larger branch and so on, but completes in the full integration at the tree trunk.
On the subject of trees, a further example could be a bough of a tree moving in the wind. The twig on the end traverses the longest arc. Let's call the twig the first fractal. Then the twig is connected to a branch---the second fractal---which in turn is connected to a larger branch---the third fractal. Each incrementing fractal moves less than the previous one. Thus we could say that the twig is not 'aware' beyond itself, that is, of the second fractal and higher, and it will regard its own motion relative to its connection to the second fractal, which it takes as zero (motion). Thus the twig in this analogy only experiences its own minimal movement but which in fact is being carried by the accumulation of the other motions of the branches.
The human arm is a similar system. The joints give us the fractal levels. If we imagine arm motions where all joints---shoulder, elbow, wrist and fingers---are active, we know from results achieved in experimental psychology that the fingers have their own learning patterns; the wrist has its own learning pattern, plus the fingers; the elbow has elbow, wrist and finger learning patterns, and the shoulder joint has them all. Thus the fingers, say, moving on a keyboard, have their own closed self-referencing fractal level. They can only move up and down and are not 'aware' of being dragged to one side by, say, the shoulder action. Learning can't pass up the hierarchy from fingers to shoulder; only down. See other fractal articles and instrumental technique.
The twig is also a good analogy for human consciousness, which is connected to the second fractal level, the 'soul', and so on. The human consciousness is only aware of its third dimensional activities, and not its greater fractal selves. Owing to excessive negativity on this planet the connection between human fractal and soul fractal is weak and thus the human consciousness is extremely vulnerable to the creation of a closed, self-referencing system.
We may now see how our meter may only be referencing a relative zero. Our objective scientific methodology creates a closed, self-referencing system. The observer/observed relationship is an interdependent one---it is context dependent. Only relative results can be achieved. Our so-called constants are merely values which reference the interface (boundary) between one system and the next, which because there is no awareness of the larger (next) system or dimensions, the reference is automatically zeroed out.
The formulation of scientific data reaches its limit in the very objective set-up it creates. The conditions of objectivity set up an experimental reality involving devices and experimental arrangement, designed on the basis of objective knowledge---all with emphasis on 'seeing is believing'. Such a set-up predetermines what nature will reveal to us. This system will self-reference, forming a closed environment. Compare the first see-saw, referencing the fulcrum as a zero or the twig only 'aware' of its own movement. The more objective we make the elements of the experimental environment the more consciousness denies its participation, but, nevertheless, it is connected like the dog chasing its own tail. It creates a closed system. To reveal perpetual motion one must create knowingly, or accidentally, a 'leak' out of the system. The first see-saw and its relative data is violated by finding a link out of the first system to the next (fulcrum).
This level of scientific methodology will give us the constant of the velocity of light, Planck's constant, the conservation of energy, etc. but will automatically fail to incorporate features outside the first system. The more positive and thorough the experimental set-up, the more it will be limited to its own context and not even a glimmer of the next fractal level will be present. However, in using the train analogy, if we get a glimpse of the passing environment through the gap in the blinds, our internal observations are changed since one has in effect stepped outside the system. Intuition and imaginative states of mind interacting with the first objective environment may cause a different selection of data to occur (a change in selection of probabilities), and the experimentalist may find he or she obtains a different result, which note, may to their great frustration not be reproducible. The 3D objective environment was, unknowingly, modified and the 'desirable' hidden influence (on the first fractal from the greater system) removed; that which is not part of the established formalism.
For example, the non-graduate scientific pioneer is more likely to design a set-up in which a normally closed Newtonian, non-perpetual motion device has a flaw in it in which certain unknown elements of the design are manifesting an open-system characteristic, with the subsequent anomaly of, say, the production of extra energy---and the potential for perpetual motion.
The basis of this is that the environment changes according to the spectrum of consciousness. The subjects of psychotronics and radionics are examples in which because of the above reasons, results may not be reproducible by all investigators---often the same person. In some circumstances, the conscious observation itself may cause the system not to work in that way. It is easy to see why strict objective conditions stifle ESP and paranormal energies. If the activity is allowed to operate without analysis it may work. Paranormal energies are outside the first (3D) system and our stringent, scientific, objective conditions determine the frequency range---the lower one. Similarly, understanding of art (and music) can only occur when analysis is not taking place---and in fact when the attention is out of focus. Such conscious and intellectual analysis will quantum reduce the holistic (unified) aesthetics of the art to the particle level---phase correlation to phase randomisation, to use a quantum physics expression.
When we set objective standards we create a 'zero' from which to judge anything or measure anything. Collective agreement and programming sets the 'zero' and we don't know there is already a bias in our judgement. We could take a negative situation---the state of the society, or supposing everyone was a thief---and use this as an objective standard to evaluate behaviour. This becomes programmed and embedded. As stated previously, when programmed there is a self-referenced system which zeros out the bias or prejudice, and everything seems normal.
Whenever we judge a standard we put a 'mark' on an imaginary gradient scale ranging from 'good' to 'bad', and use this as the context---the zero---by which to make the judgement. The point chosen (usually subconsciously) is a relative interface between 'good' and 'bad' and is a zero mark for judgement of how many degrees of 'bad' if it is on the 'bad' side of the mark, or how many degrees of 'good' if it is on the 'good' side of the mark.
Returning to the problem of the closed systems of scientific methodology, are we therefore saying that experimental conditions shouldn't be rigorous---that one should be sloppy with the design, etc? In our present condition, there is no satisfactory answer. We have strayed so far from a correct balance between subjectivity and objectivity, or the symbiosis between knowledge and consciousness. As knowledge expands, it should not have veered unduly towards the objective but retained an ideal ratio with subjectivity. By this, we mean there should have been an increasing recognition (in evolution) of the role of the mind, and its power and participation in the environment. Now we have the unsatisfactory situation in which a pioneer with lack of strict adherence to scientific and experimental protocol is more likely to make the really valuable discoveries. Note that when they are made they are suppressed.
Science hasn't established that there are (macro) dimensions within dimensions forming a hierarchy of frequency spectrums (scalar wave). It is a little like living in a box, the first fractal, which is within the next fractal, a larger box and so on. There must always be correct alignment between adjacent fractal levels, between contextual strata, otherwise chaos will result. Our sector of the universe appears to be designed on the basis of twelve main divisions or dimensions. The DNA is said to have the potential for 12 strands, and we have many existing 'twelves', such as the notes on the musical scale. However, note that we should have been using base-12 for mathematics, and not decimal, that is, base-10. This itself will cause results, significant numbers, physical 'constants', of science and mathematics to be out of alignment with our environmental dimensional structures. The '10' configuration will not fit into the '12' of nature for a natural resonance and synchronicity, and for a proper progression of discoveries towards a harmonic science. Similarly, distortions in the mind will cause chaos and insanity.
Let us finalise with another analogy, in particular, to show us a mechanistic interpretation of synchronous activities and which also shows how the interface between different levels or loops should zero out for correct alignment. We have the example of the production of the television image. The electron beam of the cathode ray tube is focussed into a sharp point. It strikes the screen at the top left corner, creating a fluorescing spot of coloured light, then moves across, horizontally. When it reaches the right side it jumps to the left just below the previous line and continues to do this 615 times until the whole screen has been traversed. Then at the bottom right corner it returns to the top left corner and begins again. One may notice that we have 615 smaller loops---the horizontal lines---inside a larger loop, which brings the spot back to the beginning. It may be seen that the points of return must be precise. At the end of the lines there is a synchronous pulse applied which returns the spot for each line, and then there is a second synchronous pulse which returns it for the whole picture. If these pulses were out of phase the picture would go into chaos. The loops must be zeroed, that is, aligned at the precise time.
Since everything is made up of flowing energy and under continuous creation, it must be precisely structured in the above manner, whether it is coordination of the fractal joints of the human arms, or the dimensional organisation of the universe, following a base-12 code.
Return to Home Page