Return to Review                                                                    Arches

If you're stuck in a browser frame - click here to view this same page in Quantonics!

 
A Review
of
Henri Louis Bergson's Book
Time and Free Will
Chapter II: The Multiplicity of Conscious States - The Idea of Duration
Topic 22: Is Motion Measurable?
by Doug Renselle
Doug's Pre-review Commentary
—
Start of Review

Chapter:

 I II

Translator's
Preface

 Bibliography Author's
Preface		 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Chapter:

 III
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Conclusion Index


Move to any Topic of Henri Louis Bergson's Time and Free Will,
or to beginning of its review via this set of links
( says, "You are here!")

 
Topic 22...............Is Motion Measurable?

PAGE

QUOTEs
(Most quotes verbatim Henri Louis Bergson, some paraphrased.)

COMMENTs
(Relevant to Pirsig, William James Sidis, and Quantonics Thinking Modes.)

111

 "If we analyse in the same way the concept of motion, the living symbol of this seemingly
Two elements in motion:
(1) the space traversed, which is homogeneous and divisible;
(2) the act of traversing, indivisible and real only for consciousness.		 homogeneous duration, we shall be led to make a distinction of the same kind. We generally say that a movement takes place in space, and when we assert that motion is homogeneous and divisible, it is of the space traversed that we are thinking, as if it were interchangeable with the motion itself. Now, if
we reflect further, we shall see that the successive positions of the moving body really do occupy space, but that the process by which it passes from one position to the other, a process which occupies duration and [motion] which has no [classical] reality except for a conscious spectator, eludes space. We have to do here not with an object but with a progress: motion, in so far as it is a passage from one point to another, is a mental synthesis, a psychic and therefore unextended process. Space contains only parts of space, and at whatever point of space we consider the moving body, we shall get only a position. If consciousness is aware of anything more than positions, the reason is that it keeps the successive positions in mind and synthesizes them. But how does it carry out a synthesis of this kind? It cannot be by a fresh setting out of these same positions in a homogeneous medium, for a fresh synthesis would be necessary to connect the positions with one another, and so on indefinitely. We are thus compelled to admit that we have here to do with a synthesis which is, so to speak, qualitative, a gradual organization of our successive sensations, a unity resembling that of a phrase in a melody. This is just the idea of motion which we form when we think of it by itself, when, so to speak, from motion we extract mobility. Think of what you experience on suddenly perceiving a shooting star: in this extremely rapid motion there is a natural and instinctive separation between the space traversed, which appears to you under the form of a line of fire, and the absolutely indivisible sensation of motion or mobility."

(Our bold and color, and violet bold italic problematics.)

Bergson restarts his footnote counts on each page. So to refer a footnote, one must state page number and footnote number.

Our bold and color highlights follow a code:

  • black-bold - important to read if you are just scanning our review
  • orange-bold - text ref'd by index pages
  • green-bold - we see Bergson suggesting axiomatic memes
  • violet-bold - an apparent classical problematic
  • blue-bold - we disagree with this text segment while disregarding context of Bergson's overall text
  • gray-bold - quotable text
  • red-bold - our direct commentary

CTMs teach SOMites to thingk of "space...as if it were interchangeable with the motion itself." This was Zeno's perspective when he challenged Parmenidean thing-king with his (Zeno's) paradice. When we thingk this way, our 'classical reason' evokes answers which misguide our interpretations of reality, as Zeno of Elea attempted to show. This manner of thing-king is so ingrained in Western culture today that few can yet grasp what Zeno was attempting to show us. Bergson's "process...eludes space" sums it up nicely!

Aside 10Mar2010:

It is easy for Bergson's intent here to also elude us as readers.

Doug's view of Bergson's intent here is simple: We must n¤t classically use Cartesian space and and Einsteinian uni-time (as a formal space rate proxy) to dialectically, formally, mechanically, canonically 'model' durable quantum~processings!

Why? DeCartes' and Einstein's naïve and local realities adhere mechanical clockwork axioms of independence, stoppability and restartability, but quantum~reality issi unstoppable in terms of stopping durational processings. See Zeno.

Doug.

End aside 10Mar2010.

Again, we see a classical analytical mandate for an impossible classical synthesis of quantum reality. Quantum reality's manys (e.g., times, motions, gravities, masses, spaces, etc.,) are n¤t classically analytic, and thus are n¤t classically synthetic or synthesizable! As Bergson tells us, SOM's classical monism, its grand apparition of homogeneity is what deludes it that it can objectively, radically mechanistically, synthesize reality. This delusion bore Aristotelian/Newtonian/Einsteinian classical objective science and its unfortunate and misguided dependency on classical objective mathematics. However, reality is quantum process, and as Bergson has told us prior, "process is not analyzable," from which we paraphrase "process is n¤t synthesizable." (We assume Bergson's 'not' is intuitively quantum subjective.) Doug's red bold makes it quite obvious why Doug claims Quantonics HotMeme™ "Digital is dead." Quantonics HotMeme™. In other words, we cann¤t classically, conveniently, conventionally stop quantum processes in an infinitely divisible homogeneous space and analyze and synthesize them. In Bergson's terms, and quite simply, Bergson HotMeme™ "Motion...eludes space!" Bergson HotMeme™. This is why we need quantum computers and why we must replace current von Neumann classical computer architectures with them. 'Modern' classical digital computers attempt to analyze and synthesize process. And what is an ultimate semantic for all this regarding time? Timings are heterogeneous quantum processings! Doug - red text HotMeme™ updates - 29Jan2008.

Sææ classical vis-à-vis quantum mæasuræmænt.

112 "A rapid gesture, made with one's eyes shut, will assume for consciousness the form of a purely qualitative sensation as long as there is no thought of the space traversed. In a word, there are two elements to be distinguished in motion, the space traversed and the act [process] by which we traverse it, the successive [classically spatial] positions and the [classical] synthesis of these positions. The first of these elements is a homogeneous quantity: the second has no reality except in a consciousness: it is a quality or an intensity, whichever you prefer. But here again we meet with a case of endosmosis, an intermingling [quanton] of the purely intensive sensation of mobility with the extensive representation of the space traversed. On the one hand we attribute to the motion the divisibility of the space which it traverses, forgetting that it is quite possible to divide an object, but not an act [process]: and on the other hand we [classically] accustom ourselves to projecting this act itself into space, to applying it to the whole of the line which the moving body traverses, in a word, to solidifying it: as if this localizing of a progress in space did not amount to asserting that, even outside consciousness, the past co-exists along with the present!"

(Our brackets, bold, color, and violet bold italic problematics.)

Bergson describes a dichon(act_process, space), which requires classical excluded-middle of either external space or internal process, with either durational included-middle animacy of internal process or excluded-middle inanimacy of absolute external space.

Using QTMs, we think it helps to view this as a quanton(act_process,space), which requires quantum included-middle animacy of both space and process. Our quantum view says both space is in process and process is in space, thus eliminating a classical dichotomy of either internal or external.

To answer Bergson's subtitle query, "Is Motion Measurable?" allow us to say both,

  • "Classically, no!" and
  • "Quantumly, yes!"

Quantum reality is unstoppable so we may n¤t classically, digitally stop it to 'measure' it. To attempt such is just another classical illusion/self-delusion, a deign to feign of all those who reside in classicism's paradigm. Quantum computers and other quantum animate 'devices' will permit us to, again paraphrasing Bergson, "think/measure/follow/commingle/be quantum reality directly."

Crux: quanton(past,present)!

But as Bergson offers, beware! Classicists view Bergsonian/Quantonic crux like this: dichon(past, present), i.e., a platypus of either past or present, and platypus of past excluded-middle separated from present. But when classicists draw past and present as a line on paper, thus projecting progress/act/process in space they appear to remove their dichon, their platypus apparently evaporates! Isn't this incredible?

What is this classical problematic? Well, their classical space (depicted as a line on paper) unifies past and present, but it assumes infinite excluded-middle divisibility (n¤nduration) of past and present in unifying space!!! Further, their classical space is stable and inanimate: it is stoppable and holds still — antithesis of quantum absolute flux.

Our quanton(past,present) unifies in quantum flux. It assumes absolute quantum animate included-middle indivisibility. Astute students of Quantonics will say, "Hey Doug, you should show that quanton as quanton(pastings,presentings)!" Yep!

Return to Chapter Index

To contact Quantonics write to or call:

Doug Renselle
Quantonics, Inc.
Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass
Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730
USA
1-317-THOUGHT

©Quantonics, Inc., 2001-2011 — Rev. 24Feb2009  PDR — Created: 23Feb2001  PDR
(3Jun2002 rev - Add anchor to page 111 Zeno comments.)
(23Jul2002 rev - Change QELR links to A-Z pages.)
(7Aug2002 rev - Assure all colons are emboldened.)
(4Sep2002 rev - Add p. 111 comment link to Bergson's prescient statement about "not analyze process.")
(9Jan2003 rev - Add Zenos_Paradice link under page 111 comments.)
(29Dec2003 rev - Add p. 111 comments 'thingk' link.)
(21Apr2004 rev - Change Wingding arrow fonts to GIFs. Add p. 111 comments red text box.)
(29Jan2008 rev - Reformat slightly. Add page 111 Quantonics and Bergson HotMeme™ comments updates.)
(24Feb2009 rev - Add link to recent QELR of 'aware.' Reset legacy markups.)

Return to Review                                                                    Arches