Cleric K wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 8:04 pmI've wrote an essay some months ago but felt that it should be posted in the proper context.Eugene I. wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 3:54 pm That's why I used to keep asking you how is that the phenomena that we experience always follow the constraint of the Schrodinger equation? What is the nature of this constraint mechanism, how exactly does is work, where did it originate from? We can ask the same question about any other constraints, for example the one you mentioned about four hands.
The difficulty is that people expect to understand the Schrodinger equation in itself, they expect some intellectual knowledge that will fit everything and say "Aha, now I get it". But understanding the equation and all of science for that matter, demands that we lift our investigations a level higher.
What have scientist been doing from the time of Galileo onwards? They have been thinking about the canvas of perceptions. They were seeking the thoughts (mostly mathematical) whose thought out dynamics would correlate with the dynamics of perceptions. The Schrodinger equation was the result of seeking this quantification of perceptions further and further. It is similar to painter who tries to replicate the appearances of Nature through more and more precise paint strokes. Scientists art through math. They distill more and more refined math relations, whose dynamics mirror the perceptual content.
In the Schrodinger equation we're doing something akin to Fourier analysis of the perceptual world. Perceptions are thought of as matter waves and the equation basically filters out only that sum of elementary waves, which fit the energy constrains. We do something similar in Fourier analysis where from the infinite possible frequencies, we filter out only those whose sum yields the desired waveform.
So science practically develops a glorified math-painting algorithm. Does this mean that scientific equations have nothing to do with reality, just like a blob of paint has nothing to do with the real and living Mona Lisa? Now this is the tricky part because the question in itself secretly suggest a very specific mode of thinking about reality. Unless we recognize that we need to alter the way we see and think about reality, it will be very difficult to get intuition of what science is doing.
As said, scientists in the last few centuries have been sculpting thoughts about perceptions. Today we are at a very interesting threshold where we should recognize that this thought-sculpting activity is the actual process of reality. So far, the default intuition has been that we're enclosed soul spheres, which arrange puzzles of thoughts about reality-in-itself (that which is beyond the personal sphere). We imagine that the 'real' laws of the Universe work outside consciousness and our thoughts are only their symbolic replicas. The challenge today is to realize that our flow of states, which we can most easily be conscious of when we focus on how through our thinking we meaningfully transition from 'frame to frame' of existence, is the actual first-person perspective law of the Universe. Our first-person willed spiritual activity is in itself a limited aperture of the spiritual force which arts reality and not a side-effect which presents opaque intellectual pictures of reality-in-itself.
When we see things in this way, we begin to realize that through our scientific endeavors so far we've been unknowingly accumulating 'experimental data'. We've been blindly flowing with the activity of the Cosmos, which projected an opaque intellectual picture of itself. Now the Cosmos realizes that that which it has been modelling through intellectual puzzle pieces is the objectified and deadened precipitation of the actual first-person process of reality. So the Cosmos has been precipitating thoughts as nails and hair shed from a living body. Now the "I" of the Cosmos realizes that true reality is the activity which has been secretly weaving behind this shedding process. This process can no longer be modelled but must be lived.
For this reason, the Schrodinger equation and all other equations have so far been secretly informing us about the dynamics of the living spirit which has been thinking them. In certain sense all scientific thinking has been the build up of helping wheels, of a rigid scaffold, which has the potential to awaken us to our living spiritual activity. If we continue to ask questions like "How come the Schrodinger equation describes reality so well?" it simply means that we implicitly support the dualism between the mental picture of reality-in-itself and the first-person experience of that reality, which is its living law.
...
These are the real constraints of existence. It's not an artificial law created by some god, it's the self-evident impossibility to be in any other way. All conceivable states can be considered to be equally possible for our next state but the vast majority would never feel as proceeding from our current, thus the continuity of consciousness would be broken. This can be explored even further through the rhythmic time waves which is connected with the Schrodinger equation and why perceptions seems to be decomposable onto matter waves of different frequencies but that will be a topic for another time. For now it's enough to consider that from the relative perspective of a state, all other states seem to interfere within it either constructively or destructively. In this sense, our current state of being is one where those states which we call our past life, interfere constructively, while all other states (not only 'ours' but any conceivable state of any being) interfere destructively and thus seem non-existent. In this sense, the absolute state is one which sees the whole infinite potential as constructive interference.
I came across a short, seemingly well-reasoned article that argues Steiner actually proposed an equivalent of Schrodinger's equation 6 years in advance of the latter. It would be interesting to hear Cleric and/or Eugene's thoughts.
https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/ ... waldorfnet
Schrodinger's equation is nothing but a diffusion equation with an imaginary diffusion constant. The different paths along which diffusion with an imaginary constant occur do not necessarily lead to an additivity of observed effects (as would be the case with a real diffusion constant), but can instead result in destructive interference. This is symptomatic for a new phase in physics, intimately related to the mathematics of complex numbers. The characteristic features of imaginary diffusion have been viewed by many pioneers in the field as the very essence of quantum mechanics.
...
But back to 1920. It was well known that the heat equation can equally well be used to describe the diffusion processes, for example in gases. In fact, the heat equation is mathematically equivalent to the diffusion equation; the concentration of the diffusing substance there plays the role the temperature played in the heat equation. Steiner repeats in the 13th lecture what has been a major theme in the lecture series: “the gaseous realm manifests pictures of the realm of heat”. Indeed, the diffusion is generally pictured as if the gaseous substance were diffusing in space. Diffusion shows the signature of heat.
But then Steiner goes on to propose considering diffusion with an imaginary diffusion constant, saying that this shows the signature of the effects of light. At the time, that was a revolutionary idea of the first order, something totally new.
Thus the 3rd differential equation that Steiner writes down on 12 March in the year 1920 is not only formally equivalent to Schrodinger’s equation. Apart from the fact that the value of the constant is not specified as a number related to Planck's constant, it is Schrodinger’s equation. In particular, Steiner’s physical intuition - considering a diffusion process with an imaginary constant as something intimately related to light and matter - corresponds to the physical intuition of physicists like Feynman.