 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
The OverFile
The Story of the Spherit
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
From: APPENDIX: EXCERPTS FROM THE CRELL : 2067 AD
Excerpts I : Contemplations of O
The Quantum Reality
Prior to the development of modern relativity theory, classical physics held that space and time were absolute objective phases in an infinite, integral reality, the ultimate nature of which lay beyond human understanding. Absolute space was given as the stilled frame within which matter and energy moved in accord with an absolute timeflow. Light moved at an infinite rate, and what was viewed in the heavens was believed to be what then existed remotely in fact.
With the arrival of certain physical evidence that the velocity of electromagnetic radiation is a constant finite rate, the concept of instantaneity, and thus of simultaneity, became insensible. Relativity theory revealed space and time to be operationally related to one another, and to the constant finite rate of electromagnetic transmissions. Quantum theory revealed the world to be reductionally composed of solitary bits of energy, each with a constant value of 6.62 x 10-46 erg/sec. The probabilistic quanta fabricated the superstructural world, and yet somehow determined the dictates of relativistic mechanics.
In the modern paradigm, spatiotemporal measures are dependent upon the observer’s relative position to an event, and all observers are required to realize themselves to be intermeshed within the same general, quantum-generated spatiotemporal continuum. In this paradigm, each observer is respectively related first to his own frame of reference, and then, through the transformation equations of relativity, to the aforementioned monistic nature of the continuum.
In all frames of reference then, the spacetime interval, or distance, time, and velocity relationships between all observer frames in the continuum remains constant. Relativity exists in principle as the assertion that in all possible frames of reference in the continuum, that the natural operative constants and laws will endure transformation between frames, and ultimately reflect the same singular, objective reality.
* * *
Let us consider then what the preceding ideas mean with respect to an ultimate understanding of objective reality. It appears to be true that the observable universe has a collective reductional cause for its overall appearance, being the innumerable interactions of finite units of energy, or action, in spacetime, the quantum units. Each of these constant-valued quantum units appears to operate as though it were a perpetual form of energy, that is, uncreated, indivisible, indestructible, and forever transforming from one interactive state to another, according to its own rules of interaction, as a quantum among quanta. It appears that it is the interaction of the quanta in just this way which defines the relativistic nature of the spacetime continuum, and that beyond this there is no explanation for observable reality.
Given that these observations are valid, we will ask these further questions: Given that the quanta are uncreated, is each respective quantum independent of a supportive means by which its existence is perpetuated? And, do the uncreated quanta themselves synthesize the rules of their mutual interaction wholly on their own, or are the respective quanta subsistent within some as yet unexplained supersensible frame that sustains them and affords them their initial interactionary rules?
Or asked in another way, is it possible to conjecture an operational theory of observable reality based on the premise that the quantum units obtain their apparent existential properties directly from the spatial void through which they appear to travel? Or again, do the uncreated, indivisible, indestructible, quantum units require a means by which they may be, respectively, continuously regenerated as they travel from point to point in space?
In this view, each quantum unit would become a finite, interactionary phenomenon within an ultimately objective, but nonetheless supersensible, spatial matrix. This leads us, of course, directly to the ultimate question: Is it legitimately possible to extend objective theorization into an ultimately transempirical context?
Be assured that these are very serious questions to be asking of quantum reality. Because the way in which you answer these questions changes the perspectual outcome of any further examination and interpretation of reality.
* * *
It is, of course, initially difficult to orientate oneself to understanding The Conceptual Reformation of Experiential Laws and Limits. The necessary assumptions of The CRELL can be highly psychoactive when initially considered. It requires a considerable amount of mental adjustment to begin to accept the ramifications and latent implications of a world which reduces to pure voidness, and of oneself reducing to the localized, outbound view phenomenon of that same Void.
Whereas the Eastern mind may resent the intrusion of allegedly objective quantifiers into the absolute nature of their religious doctrines, the Western mind naturally rebels against the introduction of supersensible objectivity. It may be that both sides shall eventually find some common grounds for compromise in the Omnism, or it may be that both sides shall, as in the past, go their respective ways.
It may very well be true that O is merely a delusion with respect to objective measures and logical extensions. It may be that O does not, after all, exist. And yet, despite the crude, complex, and seemingly contrived nature of our conjecture of O, you should be forewarned that The O Image can be a most potent delusion once intimately experienced. Certainly it is a stunning and near traumatic experience to believe but once that you have personally confronted, and intimately experienced Ultimate Reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||