Summary Singularity identifies the trigger of the looming paradigm shift from the three-dimensionally conscioused Everyman to the four-dimensionally conscioused Superman as the 1935 Schrödinger’s Cat though problem—which proves that consciousness is real. A recent episode from the television show Enterprise entitled Singularity finds the crew of the starship approaching a star system containing a type of singularity. But as they get closer to the singularity all but one of the crewmembers starts becoming strangely obsessed with trivial matters. The captain is preoccupied with writing the preface to his father’s biography. The cook is fanatical about perfecting meals for the crew. The chief engineer fixates on adjusting the captain’s chair to perfection. The only one unaffected by the singularity is the Vulcan Sub-Commander T’Pol played by the stunning Jolene Blalock who saves the day by steering the ship out of harms way. The metaphor is perfectly presented here depicting the chief engineer madly adjusting and rearranging deck chairs in the presence of the incomprehensible singularity while the four-dimensionally conscioused T’Pol desperately tries to alert the others as to the impendingly disastrous iceberg collision. Normal Science. In normal physics a singularity is a breakdown in spacetime such that the laws of physics no longer apply. Typical examples of singularities include the big bang, black holes and one divided by zero. Unfortunately what physicists like Stephen Hawking who developed the concept of singularities failed to realize is that a breakdown in spacetime is just another way of saying a boundary of spacetime. Recognizing a singularity as a boundary between spacetime and nothingness reveals the mechanism that allows electrons and positrons to exit and re-enter the universe at any point in spacetime. As a result of his failure to recognize the obvious, Hawking developed the superfluous concept of wormholes to account for this nonlocal transit mechanism. Relativistic Science. Special relativity in 1905 revealed that spacetime dilates as a function of velocity relative to lightspeed in accordance with the Pythagorean theorem. For example, time for an astronaut traveling at 87 percent of lightspeed would elapse at half his original rate, while he would appear to a terrestrial observer to be half his original height—ie. h^2 + (v/c)^2 = 1, v/c = .87, (v/c)^2 = .75, h^2 + .75 = 1, h^2 = .25, h = .50. By taking the dilation of spacetime to the limit we see that bodies traveling at lightspeed exist at the boundary of spacetime—thus revealing lightspeed to be a singularity. Quantum Science. Quantum theory in 1925 is the natural law of matter and is based on Planck’s constant. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle in 1927 characterized the inherent quantum uncertainty by stating that causality breaks down at Planck’s constant. An examination of causality reveals it to be nothing more than a temporal ordering of things. An absence of temporal ordering, by definition, implies an absence of spacetime—therefore revealing Planck’s constant to be a boundary of spacetime and thusly a singularity. Conscious Science. In characterizing quantum science Schrödinger put forth his classic thought problem in 1935 involving a quantum-cat and two closed boxes. Schrödinger absurdly argued that the cat must be in both boxes until one is opened and its location is determined directly. The thought problem leads to the counterintuitive conclusion that the observer’s consciousness is what actually determines the location of the cat. Eugene Wigner (1902-95) has been one of the few physicists concerned with the role consciousness plays in determining quantum reality. David Lindley wrote that he could not be certain whether the collapse of the quantum wavefunction is a physical or a psychological event. Einstein once asked whether the Moon really exists when no one is looking at it? Lindley responded by saying that such a question could only be answered by a divine and not a physicist. How then is Schrödinger’s Cat different from Einstein’s Moon? There is no difference. In both cases consciousness determines physical reality. Gravity and Inertia. In 1915 Einstein revealed that gravity and inertia are equivalent by proving the surface of a sphere and a circle are isomorphic spaces—ie. a one-to-one mapping. Imagine a sphere sitting atop a flat surface. By drawing a line from the north pole through every point on the equator and below, a circle is created on the flat surface. Then by doubling the area of the circle we can see that the sphere and circle are mathematically isomorphic. Planck’s Constant and Lightspeed. The French scientist Blaise Pascal (1623-62) once described the universe as a sphere in which the center is everywhere and the boundary is nowhere. Einstein made a similar claim in saying the universe was closed, but unbounded. Consider a version of Pascal’s sphere in which Planck’s constant is everywhere and lightspeed is nowhere—and the inverted sphere in which lightspeed is everywhere and Planck’s constant is nowhere. Consider now a flat surface as characterizing the universe of all universes. If we select a point to represent our universe, we know the thing which defines our universe is that our dimensionality has no meaning outside our universe—indicating that our universe occupies no more than a point in the universe of all universes. And since every point in our universe is both at the centre and the boundary in the universe of all universes, we can say that Pascal’s sphere and the inverted Pascal’s sphere are isomorphic—and thus Planck’s constant and lightspeed are in fact the same boundary of the spacetime continuum. Is this what they mean by thinking outside the box? Singularistic Science. Thomas Kuhn (1922-96) was a physicist and historian concerned with the sociology of scientific change. In his 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions he defines the term paradigm shift as a transformation taking place beyond the grasp of normal cognitive abilities. Scientists apply normal scientific methods within a paradigm until the paradigm weakens and a shift occurs. Most people eat up normal science with a big spoon, but do everything possible to avoid the intense metaphysical pain of paradigm shifts. Hawking once said that a singularity is a disaster for science. But what he should have said is that a singularity is a disaster for normal science—but normal for singularistic science. Donald Palmer wrote that the true philosopher attempts to transcend the human perspective and view reality from the perspective of reality itself. Albert Einstein wrote that there is no more commonplace statement to make than the world in which we live is a four-dimensional spacetime continuum. The normal scientist views reality from a three-dimensional Newtonian perspective—while the singularistic scientist views reality from the four-dimensional perspective—ie. from outside spacetime. This is what Rudy Rucker meant when he wrote in his 1977 masterpiece Geometry, Relativity and the Fourth Dimension that our goal should be to develop a four-dimensional consciousness. Singularistic Philosophy. In philosophy a singularity is a point in time when commonsense breaks down and societal, scientific and economic changes occur so fast we cannot imagine what will happen from our present perspective. What is interesting is that most people believe philosophical singularities will arise technologically from smarter-than-human machines. In a sense, this belief is correct in that there will be smarter-than-human machines—but that they will be four-dimensionally conscioused humans. The core idea remains the same in that all evidence points towards a massive, massive discontinuity looming on the horizon—a singularity that will most assuredly end up being the most profoundly impactful moment for humanity—for the history of history. What is important to remember here is that four-dimensional reality is as incomprehensible to a three-dimensionally conscioused Everyman as is purely human three-dimensional reality incomprehensible to a four-dimensionally conscioused Superman. Conclusion. A episode from the television show Voyager entitled Bliss finds the crew of the starship approaching a seeming wormhole that will supposedly lead them back from exile to their terrestrial home on Earth. In fact the wormhole is not a wormhole but a massive bioplasmic organism that consumes biomatter by sensing thoughts and desires and giving its unwitting victims exactly what they want. The chief justice openly chooses bad faith as her method of operation and still feels good about herself. The prime minister makes bold claims like Knowledge Le Savior without being accountable, while still preserving his much sought-after legacy of an honest man. The premier is presented with the latest VLT technology that allows him to even more profitably prey on the weakest and most vulnerable members of society. The only one unaffected by the organism’s telepathy is the former Borg drone Seven of Nine played by the stunning Jeri Ryan who saves the day, once the others have taken the ship inside the organism, by making it taste so bad that the organism expels it. The metaphor is perfectly presented here depicting the bewitched crew in the presence of overwhelming bliss madly trying to drug the four-dimensionally conscioused Seven and thwart her from preventing the ship and crew being on the wrong end of lunchtime. As for me, I will stand in for as long as I can—making myself taste as bad as I can. |