You have no items in your bag. get the Epoch

**£0.00**

Wednesday, 07 December 2011 13:33 ## Pusey 2

Thanks for your messages.

Herewith some further and rather more metaphysical thoughts on the previous paper.

Local Indefiniteness

*

*

*

Wave Real ************************* Omnality

*

*

*

Non-Locality

The ‘Bell Axis’ of Local Indefiniteness – Non-Locality formed the theoretical basis of basic Chaos magic theory which adopted a best of both worlds approach and assumed that local events had a degree of inherent randomness about them and that some form of what Einstein disparagingly referred to as ‘spooky action at a distance’ remained possible as well.

However it did contain a weakness, the spooky action at a distance should have remained restricted to phenomena previously entangled by physical contact, thus restricting it to what you might call the Principle of Contagion in classical magical terminology and rendering any magical link dependant on this mechanism subject to quantum decoherence. The adoption of Cramer’s transactional interpretation of entanglement did however permit some exciting developments in the technology of retroactive enchantment.

The adoption of this paradigm on the basis of circumstantial magical evidence, the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen paradox, and Bell’s resulting theorem even before its experimental confirmation in the Clauser and Aspect experiments now seems justified.

Pusey’s theorem awaits experimental confirmation, yet several lines of positive conjectural evidence seem to converge upon it. Some form of ‘Omnalistic’ communication between all quantum states, whether entangled or not, could supply the constraints necessary to eliminate the embarrassing hypotheses of Multiple Universes and the Multiverse. These arise because we have as yet discovered no mechanism to limit the wave functions of individual quanta and the wave functions of the universe to the single forms of manifestation that we observe. Thus some theorists have assumed that all possible manifestations must actually occur, despite that we cannot observe them. An Omnality mechanism could rid us of the nonsense of 10^500 or more unobservable universes existing in parallel to the one that we observe. It would also eliminate the horizon problem in the unlikely event that we inhabit an expanding universe, for it would impose a bias in favour of local physical laws applying everywhere, as seems apparent at the limits of observation.

The pragmatic magical Principle of Similitude (Like Affects Like) also lends support to the idea of Quantum Omnality, as does its more modern manifestation in Morphic Field theory. However an acceptance of a quantum-omnalistic interpretation of the principle of similitude by magicians would lead to a considerable tightening of the meaning of ‘similar’, LEADING PERHAPS, WHERE POSSIBLE, TO A PREFERENCE FOR MATERIAL MANIPULATIONS RATHER THAN SYMBOLIC OR MENTAL ONES, for simple results magic.

Now the Heisenberg style uncertainties/indeterminacies stem ultimately from the principle of Complementarity, in which the quanta can manifest as either particles or waves and it makes no sense to say that a quanta ‘is’ one or the other, rather the more a quanta manifests in one form the less it manifests in the other, dependent on context or experimental set up. Thus we can view the Pusey Axis of Wave Reality – Omnality as indicative of the effects of quanta in various circumstances.

Much of the excitement in the physics community about Pusey’s theorem currently centers on the idea that it could prove that quantum wave functions have some sort of reality in themselves rather than just some sort of epistemological reality which makes them merely strange mathematical tricks of description that just happen to give useful predictions. Many physicists have adopted this position simply because the apparent alternative of Omnality, non-local communication even between non-entangled states, seems an even more crazy idea.

However a Heisenbergian/Complementarist perspective of an inverse proportionality to the expression of these properties would seem to imply a universe where both forms of such apparent craziness can manifest.

From a magical perspective ‘real’ wave functions would correspond to something that we have given the name Aether (and various other names over the centuries). A realm of shadowy possibilities of what might and what might not occur, and what might have and might not have occurred.

From a physics perspective the ascription of some form of physical reality to wave functions would demand the reality of some sort of realm to accommodate them. Three-Dimensional Time would do nicely, and largely pass unobserved as a kind of pseudo-space of unobservable stochastic hidden variables which we can to some extent model with so called imaginary numbers.

It seems suggestive that the Pauli Spin Matrices (used to model quantum spins) resemble Hamilton’s quaternion algebra. This uses the imaginary numbers i, j, and k as variants on the basic imaginary number ‘i’ used sucessfully for the time dimension in the 4D Minkowski spacetime metric of 3D space and 1D time.

Thus if wave functions have a physical reality then 3 time dimensions of i, j, and k can perhaps accommodate them. These extra dimensions would not require the compactification required to explain the un-observervability of extra spatial dimensions. They would have exactly the same ‘size’ as ‘ordinary’ time. Indeed the phenomena we call ordinary time would merely consist of a remembered or expected line of particle events picked out and lined up by us in the solid matrix of 3D wavefunction time.

The apparent material (particle) universe then appears as an interference pattern that both subtends and coalesces out of a very much larger aetheric (wave) universe.

Thus, if you like mysticism, it constitutes a huge illusion, but the only one we can have.