Is "Scalar" Appropriate?

Discussion concerning the first major re-evaluation of Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of theory, updated to include counterspace (Etheric spaces), projective geometry, and the non-local aspects of time/space.
Post Reply
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1367
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Is "Scalar" Appropriate?

Post by bperet » Fri Jan 05, 2018 1:01 pm

The more I look at it, the use of the term "scalar" as applied to dimensions and the "scalar zone" in the RS, does not seem appropriate. Larson was unaware of projective geometry, so what he is actually talking about when he uses "scalar" is just the "projective stratum" of geometry--the one where there are only cross-ratios, and no concept of coordinates. Coordinates are the Euclidean stratum, created by placing a number of assumptions on the cross-ratios.

See my analysis on the Fundamental Postulates (RS2-102).

Using the term "scalar" when it is actually a ratio seems to lead to a lot of confusion. People with a math or computer background consider a scalar to be a single variable--and in the RS, it isn't--it is a ratio of space to time, a "scalar dimension"--two variables. Those coming from a New Age/Conspiracy background have heard all sorts of things about "scalar waves" and "scalar weapons," without understanding that these terms, in themselves, make no sense--they are actually talking about longitudinal pressures.

I was writing up some stuff on how to transform "scalar motion" to "coordinate motion" (and vice versa), and it does not make a lot of sense... what you are dealing with are just the two ends of projective geometry: Projective (scalar) -- Euclidean (coordinate). Larson's terms make it twice as confusing.

I was going to replace "scalar" with "projective," but that does not seem to work well, as the process is "projective geometry" with the top layer being the projective stratum. Same kind of problem with "scalar motion" and "scalar zone" references.

So what should I call this top-level geometric stratum where there only exists cross-ratio? It would be nice to have a name that is indicative of the properties, so the mind can disassociate it from the coordinate realm. Any ideas?
Every dogma has its day...

adam pogioli
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 12:57 am

Re: Is "Scalar" Appropriate?

Post by adam pogioli » Sat Jan 06, 2018 4:01 am

bperet wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 1:01 pm
Those coming from a New Age/Conspiracy background have heard all sorts of things about "scalar waves" and "scalar weapons," without understanding that these terms, in themselves, make no sense--they are actually talking about longitudinal pressures.
But they are not just pressure waves in some physical ether, right? They are phase waves, torsion waves/ time waves, which can travel faster than light and backwards in time (I liked your recent discussion about causality and the quantum in this vein). There is other evidence of this with all of the remote viewing studies and Kozyrev of course. Bearden often talked of the scalar weapons and the waves working through the "vacuum", but I thought the scalar term had more to do with the standing wave pattern that results and that is attached to a physical location which determines the forces expressing there. Isn't this just a fringe version of the gauge theories, which Bill Tiller explicitly uses in his explanation of the phase waves produced through intention/life? Is it just longitudinal interference patterns which can disrupt or heal the the temporal structure?

I agree the term "scalar wave" doesn't make sense, but isn't what is meant: wave that produces a change in scalar quantities at the absorber? The Russian torsional theories seems more clear and explicit than Bearden's confusing "scalar" theories. In Kozyrev/Shipov we have time absorbers/emitters, which seem like terminals in a entropic gradient whose medium is in the cosmic sector but which connects to points in our actualized reference frame. It seems like what is being described in any case is the spin aspect of any motion. So maybe instead of scalar wave it should be called time wave? Kozyrev basically equated time with spin, and its travel when decoupled from a location as a twisting spin wave that affects the flow of time wherever it is absorbed.

So is it correct that if you cancel out the polarized motions of oppositely polarized transverse waves, you get a longitudinal wave (just the movement with the progression remains? or is it that the rotations combine into a cosmic sector motion that no longer translates the sine wave aspect?). But through altering the phase of the pressure wave, for instance by two longitudinal pulses exactly 180 degrees out of phase, you can make the whole thing move through time and converge at another point in space and time in a nonlinear way? I don't have a fleshed out understanding of all this, but it seems like if motion always has a rotational and linear component, and if all motion is a projection through an abstract ordinal continuum, then that motion can be distributed through different reference systems but at the topmost topological level is always a three dimensional transformation for reasons you have been exploring, correct? Then scalar could be the term for the effect any transformation has, since the the motion through coordinate space or time is a byproduct of the reference frame, but the effect, whether the motion was primarily observed as spatial, or just time's effect on space, is independent of directional reference and cuts through all levels as "pure effect" (How Castaneda described his master term "the nagual", the abstract motion that became tied to causes in the "tonal").
bperet wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 1:01 pm
I was writing up some stuff on how to transform "scalar motion" to "coordinate motion" (and vice versa), and it does not make a lot of sense... what you are dealing with are just the two ends of projective geometry: Projective (scalar) -- Euclidean (coordinate). Larson's terms make it twice as confusing.

I was going to replace "scalar" with "projective," but that does not seem to work well, as the process is "projective geometry" with the top layer being the projective stratum. Same kind of problem with "scalar motion" and "scalar zone" references.

So what should I call this top-level geometric stratum where there only exists cross-ratio? It would be nice to have a name that is indicative of the properties, so the mind can disassociate it from the coordinate realm. Any ideas?
I have suggested this before, but since you are asking so explicitly, I will try to make my case again. Your ideas converge very closely and nicely with the most cutting edge Theory in academic complexity theory. Much of academia sucks I know, especially the physics, but the systems and complexity theorists have spent a generation exploring the science of abstract change and how it manifests in specific actualized systems, which is what essentially you are doing. I think you would gain so much from Manuel Delanda's "Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy". You would also probably be really interested in his "Philosophy and Simulation". In any case the terminology he uses has a rich tradition. For instance, he is very much interested, like you, in sketching out an ontology based on the hierarchies of geometry. But mathematical theorists following Klein put the topological layer proper as the topmost level, descending through differential geometry, and then into projective, affine, metric, euclidean. Something that seems relevant is that each level is also a set of effective transformations so projective/projection, while being a particular layer also is a particular action, perhaps the the action of tapping a gradient, of fixing a reference point as to create independent motion, whereas topological is the master term for all this since all lower layers are progressively metric and differentiated distributions of the topological continuum. The symmetries of the topological layer are too dominant to allow any kind of independent motion, unless an outside dimension is introduced. (All figures are the same in this layer no matter how you stretch and bend or change perspective; differences only come from cutting, severing...or otherwise introducing a new point or fusing them together).

One could keep the more rigorous mathematical terms, but I suggest following Delanda's use of Deleuzean terminology which extends these concepts into questions of modal logic beyond just the geometric, since you are always going to get pestered with modal questions you can't explain without modelling more explicitly the abstract relationships of magnitude that persist and incarnate in all processes. In that case the master term is "virtual", but also "intensive" which together determine the "actual", though the actual can of course determine them as well; that is, lower speed motions can combine to form higher speed motions; they can find new gradients to exploit and ascend the path of "counter actualization" and reach an intensity that makes them part of the cosmic activity again.

I don't mean to imply there is an exact correspondence to RS concepts, but the similarities and differences are enlightening. For instance, I am tempted to equate the intensive with scalar and virtual with the cosmic sector, but I think what is more important is understanding what is happening in any motion. All motion is driven by an intensive gradient of one sort or another. Differences in intensity are everywhere and the motion they create can become sufficiently intense enough that they cease being merely broken symmetries of the higher topological layers and become capable of acting on those higher levels, introducing a new point, and becoming truly "causal" as the the esotericists used to plainly call that domain.

So maybe to summarize:

Virtual is a good modern word for the abstract continuum as a whole which is an active growing structure with infinite possible dimensions and connections. Points within the structure have an absolute reality as pure intensity but really have no magnitudes proper until they are placed within a timing scheme that cuts off a portion of the ordinal continuum as a separate development. We talk cosmogenetically but there is no beginning since the origin is ever present (to quote Gebser). The perspective of differences in levels however, creates time and space (to paraphrase Steiner). The highest levels of the virtual that are differentiated as mind can be called causal, the realm of the gods, the projective strata which seeds all worlds, becoming more differentiated in astral/etheric/physical, a progression Larson labelled as sectors. But rather than following the old esoteric ontology, modern Theorylike Larson, affirms the importance of the source of difference in the actual world rather than some unexplained imposition onto unity. Difference is always generated within the world through combinations and gradients that create energy flow, which creates temporal structure which can become intense enough to escape the gravity well of specific actualizations and become causal, cosmic, virtual, etc. Those gradients are called intensive because they are in some sense scalar, they transcend their incarnations in specific coordinate motions, i.e. they don't sacrifice time for space or visa versa, but rather they are real abstract intensities that through combination, through symbiosis, create a new point in the topological layer, a new being, a new soul.

The topological layer, which fits Aurobindo's description of the Supermind, the Vedic plane of knowledge, the creative force within the Divine that links it with its creations, is unified and continuous, but unlike unity in a single dimension, it has ordinality to it, boundaries, but no set shapes, order but no set time; a possibility of infinite dimensions of connectivity which only become manifest as separate through the ignorance of mind which takes a single point of view in the projective layer (Aurobindo's Overmind), which creates a cascade of broken symmetries through the levels of progressive differentiation (levels of involution, RA's description of inner planes or time/space, which not only progressively differentiates space but also time and possibility). In Space/time we build back up the symmetry with new combinations that alter the modality of the whole structure, creating new possibilities, converging and merging them into higher densities only to allow further polarity with a new more vast gradient of intensive differences to explore.

All terms all have their baggage, but also their unique insights. I know I find it helpful when you share your rich understanding of Larson and his concepts but also how they can be further illuminated by exploring their limitations and possible reasons for a change in perspective.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1367
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Is "Scalar" Appropriate?

Post by bperet » Sat Jan 06, 2018 5:23 pm

adam pogioli wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 4:01 am
Virtual is a good modern word for the abstract continuum as a whole which is an active growing structure with infinite possible dimensions and connections.
"Virtual" would be appropriate, based on the original meaning of the term, but these days it has the connotation of being "fantasy" or "make-believe."
adam pogioli wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 4:01 am
The topological layer, which fits Aurobindo's description of the Supermind, the Vedic plane of knowledge, the creative force within the Divine that links it with its creations, is unified and continuous, but unlike unity in a single dimension, it has ordinality to it, boundaries, but no set shapes, order but no set time; a possibility of infinite dimensions of connectivity which only become manifest as separate through the ignorance of mind which takes a single point of view in the projective layer (Aurobindo's Overmind), which creates a cascade of broken symmetries through the levels of progressive differentiation (levels of involution, RA's description of inner planes or time/space, which not only progressively differentiates space but also time and possibility). In Space/time we build back up the symmetry with new combinations that alter the modality of the whole structure, creating new possibilities, converging and merging them into higher densities only to allow further polarity with a new more vast gradient of intensive differences to explore.
I do like "topological"... when I mentally conceive of the scalar zone, I basically use "topo maps" to visualize it. And when you look up the definition, it basically refers to the "projective invariant" condition:
the branch of pure mathematics that deals only with the properties of a figure X that hold for every figure into which X can be transformed with a one-to-one correspondence that is continuous in both directions
The scalar zone is basically a 3D topology (versus the conventional, 2D "figure").
Every dogma has its day...

bundler
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:56 am

Re: Is "Scalar" Appropriate?

Post by bundler » Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:41 am

i like scalar, but... some tries, in case any of them help you out :)


scalable reciprocity

holistic entanglement

projective superposition

redundant simmetry

layered unity

extendable topology

...

Post Reply