Notes - spookiness / definition work / real mischief / being or not being

         Mid-morning. By the time you arrived home yesterday the tree leaves had come up and the natural screen between you and the Pugh’s behind you had risen. This morning sitting in the living room and looking to the north out the front window you see a sea of green with white and redbud thereabouts. – Amorella

         0905 hours. Southwest Ohio had a lot of rain yesterday and we are supposed to have another inch or so today. The fresh bright green in new leafing is an annual sight. It is a cloudy day but the green makes up for it.

         You began to write my name after your comment above but stopped after the first letter. – Amorella

         0909 hours. I would say it was a Freudian slip, which oddly enough has a hidden thought or two twisted in, particularly in this case where you, Amorella, exist, perhaps in the same slip. I need a definition here before I get caught up into a confusion worthy of Alice, as she were once, of Oxford fame and still finds herself caught in stain glass at Christ’s College where her mathematics professor friend once taught.

** **

A Freudian slip, also called parapraxis, is an error in speech, memory, or physical action that is interpreted as occurring due to the interference of an unconscious ("dynamically repressed") subdued wish, conflict, or train of thought guided by the ego and the rules of correct behaviour. They reveal a "source outside the speech". The concept is thus part of classical psychoanalysis.

Slips of the tongue and of the pen are the classical parapraxes, but psychoanalytic theory also embraces misreadings, mishearings, temporary forgettings, and the mislaying and losing of objects.

Wikipedia

** **

Alice in the Great Hall

         0920 hours. “Spooky” comes up again. That’s three days in a row now. Now though, in this event, Amorella appears the spooky part; no, that’s not right – I appear the spookiness not Amorella. This has a delightfully humorous ring to it.

         Glad to see you so well nourished in self-entertainment. – Amorella

         0926 hours. I think the whole world is spooky, nothing new here, Amorella.

         As well you should, boy. Post. - Amorella

         After noon. You completed your forty minutes of exercises. You are thinking on words and “spooky” is too general and “mystical” is too specific. – Amorella

         1232 hours. “Haunted” sounds about right in my mind but it means something else to most people. The Oxford-American thesaurus suggests “possessed” but that sounds too weird and suggests these synonyms: mad, demented, insane, crazed, berserk, out of one’s mind; bewitched, enchanted, haunted, under a spell. And, the O-A dictionary says: “(of a person) completely controlled by an evil spirit.”

         You are waiting for Carol for the running of errands before or after lunch. You do have a problem with words here because “spooky” suggests “sinister or ghostly in a way that causes  fear and unease,” according you your dictionary and you are thinking something ‘beyond normal reality sometimes with a sense of ironic humor intended or not’.

         1331 hours. I like what you say, but how do you say that in a word? Actually, this is a good question for the day – what is a word that means: ‘beyond normal reality with a condition that sometimes includes a sense of ironic humor whether the humor is intended or not.’

         Make that your goal for the day. It is always good to define things first. Post. - Amorella    

        1555 hours. I am searching for some science-like attributes  -- of course I was thinking of Einstein and his spooky entanglement. I am looking to show “presence” even though it can’t be done. Amorella is an inferred presence as she has her own distinct writing habits. I think, like Singer:

** **

“[Singer’s] fiction, however, surpasses ethnic distinctions as it explores profound questions about truth and the nature of reality itself.

In his New York Times book review of A Crown of Feathers, critic Alfred Kazin observed . . . “The world to Isaac Bashevis Singer still represents the mind of God,” and his characters merely “pass through” as “part of a mysterious creation.” Their “notable temporariness,” Kazin asserts, “may express their flight through the mind of God.”

The ideas of a mystical world hidden beneath the appearance of reality, and the temporary nature of human lives as they pass through it lie at the heart of “Lost.”

Selected and edited from endnotes.com

** **

         1634 hours. Alfred Kazin the critic uses the words “mystical world hidden beneath the appearance of reality,” but that is not what a “presence” is to me. It is an unseen but realized reality. Surely this shows itself in my notes.

         Below is a science article showing an example of a picture that is not observed but it is there anyway built by “surprising interactions among subatomic particles that Einstein famously called ‘spooky’.

** **

"Spooky" Quantum Entanglement Reveals Invisible Objects

In a physics first, a quantum camera captures images with two-colored light that never "saw" the object.

By Dan Vergano, National Geographic

PUBLISHED AUGUST 27, 2014

Like twins separated at birth who are later reunited, two laser beams revealed invisible objects in a display of their weird quantum connection, researchers reported on Wednesday.

The images, of tiny cats and a trident, are an advance for quantum optics, an emerging physics discipline built on surprising interactions among subatomic particles that Einstein famously called "spooky."

A conventional camera captures light that bounces back from an object. But in the experiment reported in the journal Nature, light particles, or photons, that never strike an object are the ones that produce its picture.

"Even other physicists say 'you can't do that' at first, but that is quantum behavior for you, very strange," says Gabriela Barreto Lemos of the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information in Vienna, Austria, who led the study.

A 2009 University of Glasgow experiment with a divided laser beam first demonstrated such "ghost imaging." But experts say the new technique, which uses two laser beams of different colors, offers new visualization advantages.

The two laser beams are "entangled" in quantum physics terms, meaning their photons share characteristics even when far apart. So broadly speaking, altering one alters the other.

"What they've done is a very clever trick. In some ways it is magical," says quantum optics expert Paul Lett of the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Maryland, who was not part of the experiment team. "There is not new physics here, though, but a neat demonstration of physics."

Optics Goes Quantum

The new imaging technique may allow for improved medical imaging or silicon chip lithography in hard-to-see situations, the team suggests.

In medicine, for instance, doctors might probe tissues using invisible wavelengths of light that won't damage cells, while simultaneously using entangled visible light beams to create clear images of the tissues.

"The two-color advantage is a cool idea," Lett says. "It happens a lot in imaging that the best wavelength of light for a probe is not the one that makes for the best picture. You can imagine tuning light colors like this to get the best advantages of both."

In particular, the experiment's approach could create images in visible light of objects that normally can be seen only under infrared light, says quantum optics expert Miles Padgett of Scotland's University of Glasgow, who headed the 2009 "ghost imaging" experiment.

Ironically, the idea of entanglement owes something to Einstein, who in 1935 criticized it as an unlikely (in his view) mathematical shortcoming of quantum physics, which treats subatomic particles as both point-like and as waves.

Manipulating these wavy particles, quantum physics predicted, would alter other seemingly unconnected particles far away. Einstein called this interference (in translation), "spooky action at a distance," which he saw as unlikely. But it turns out to work.

 Undetected Photons

In the new experiment, the physicists entangled photons in two separate laser beams with different wavelengths, and hence color: one yellow and one red.

The team passed the red light beam through etched stencils and into cutouts of tiny cats and a trident, about 0.12 inches (3 millimeters) tall. The yellow beam traveled on a separate line, never hitting the objects. What's more, the etched shapes were designed to be invisible to yellow light.

The cat shape is a nod to physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who invented the famous "Schrödinger's cat" paradox, a thought experiment in which a notional cat is simultaneously dead and alive. Subatomic particles do seem to behave in this peculiar way sometimes, occupying many places at once.

After the red light passed by the objects, the physicists ran it together with the yellow laser beam at both parallel and right angles.

The red light was then discarded, and the yellow light headed for a camera. There, that yellow light revealed a picture of the object. And a negative of the picture emerged from the light that had interfered at a right angle.

"The phenomena really arises from the interference of the photons together," Lemos says. "It's not that the red photons have changed the yellow ones, it's that quantum mechanics says they have to share [wavelength] phases which we can detect to see a picture." Although the experiment team has applied for a patent, Lemos acknowledges that practical applications may take awhile.

"This is a long-standing, really neat experimental idea," says Lett. "Now we have to see whether or not it will lead to something practical, or will remain just a clever demonstration of quantum mechanics."

From --http://news.nationalgeographicDOTcom/news/2014/08/140827-quantum-imaging-cats-undetected-photon-science/

** **

         You are suggesting that though I, the Amorella, exist in your mind I also exist elsewhere, that I am the ‘spookiness’ not you. – Amorella

         1643 hours. Of course I am not spookiness. I exist physically and legally. You do not exist except in my head. I may have reasoned you into such an existence but you are not so real as a book or a blog. You have no physics Amorella. In fact without thoughts or words you would not exist even in a fiction. However, I exist as do everyone else living.

         Do I, the Amorella, haunt you, orndorff? – Amorella

         1650 hours. I ‘accept’ you as a Presence. You do not haunt me.

         For the sake of argument, if ‘machinery’ such as lasers could ‘see’ me then I would be real. – Amorella

         1653 hours. Then you would not be ‘spooky’ even though ‘spooky’ is still not the right word. This is a waste – I should delete and begin this again.

         No, this shows an example of the ‘problem’ you sometimes have with words with ambiguous definition. Post. – Amorella

         1656 hours. It is no wonder I focus on the human condition. We have to define ourselves first before we can define anything else. We human beings have this tendency to attempt to define everything else first and this can cause real mischief in our reasoning; well, in my reasoning.

         1720 hours. The real problem is that we try to define reality; yet we are a part of the reality. Obviously, we cannot get a true reading on reality in this situation. Surely in this sense, we are all partially fiction since we don't know what the non-fiction is. We make up and live at least some of our reality and just go one with our lives until we don't. Surely this leads to irony and at least the appearance of dark comedy. Well, in my mind it does. It brings a slight smile but not a smirk.

         Evening. You had leftovers from Olive Garden for supper and watched “Elementary”, “Broadchurch” and NBC News. You are still looking for a better word (in context with today’s posting) to take the place of “spooky”. How about an ‘Unattached reality’ rather than the usual ‘Alternate reality’? – Amorella

         2101 hours. Is this coming from your point of view?

         It is. This is because I am unattached to your view of reality because I am a Betweener. – Amorella

         2102 hours. Do you see yourself as ‘between’ the living and the dead or ‘between’ humans and angels?

         Have you forgot? – Amorella

         2104 hours. By the time I had the thought I realized this was a simple question. I remember the circumstantial setting and I felt you were between human (earthly environment) and angelic – a Being of consciousness concerned with the ‘environs’ of three or four universes. This would hardly be angelic in our usual sense of the word.

         A custodian of universes will do. – Amorella

         2111 hours. I am skeptical. I certainly wouldn’t want to be a custodian of universes. I can’t imagine any human being would want to have anything to do with such. Why would such consciousness spring up in the first place?

         Why do you have consciousness? – Amorella

         2115 hours. Consciousness is for survival first. You exist; you don’t need to survive the physical universe.

         But, from my perspective, without the physical universes I would not exist. – Amorella

         2117 hours. So, how many universes does it take for you to exist, Amorella – two, three, four, five?

         2121 hours. No response.

         You ask the wrong question. You are asking for knowledge and I am here to raise your sense of understanding. – Amorella

         2124 hours. I did not expect this. I was ready to say you were a fraud, that is, you are purely a part of my unconsciousness or subconsciousness – an imaginary friend to help me through my days of retirement. I can accept that, and I am sure I do on some levels. I am content to have you as an imaginary companion. You help me think things out and you help me write a blog and books.

         This is because you have no real wants, boy. The blog shows this. You like to learn things to understand your nature, that is the nature of being human to give yourself a better definition of what a human being is deep down in heartansoulanmind. This is because you are as a curious boy who knows next to nothing and realizes it. – Amorella

         2133 hours. Alas, Amorella, possibly it is because I don’t really give a damn one way or the other.

         This makes you a good choice. You don’t care that I am here; even if I were an Angel you wouldn’t care. – Amorella

         2136 hours. I know I would care if I thought you a demon like those Singer suggests in his stories, or Milton suggests in Paradise Lost. According to our culture’s values and definitions then I would be possessed. I would have to want something to allow myself to be possessed. I would have to want to sell my soul to the devil so I might gain something in life. Shoot, heartansoulanmind I am wont for nothing. If I were I would be stirred by it. My passions would rise up. I don’t feel them rising. If I were given the world on a string I would turn it down. – rho

         Yes, in such an existential moment, you would, and without regret. That’s how I register it. This is because you have an understanding the world would do you no good. – Amorella

         2145 hours. Another unexpected comment, but I imagine you are right. That sounds just like me – it would do neither me nor the world any good. Yep. You are right on, Amorella.

         You gained some more self-understanding tonight and don’t seem a bit upset with yourself. – Amorella

         2148 hours. That’s because I am a human being and I understand better what a human being is. I am no different than anyone else. I am no more than a breath away from the Creator of All Things and Beyond, if such a Being exists; otherwise, I am no more than a breath away from being nothing at all. 

         Post. - Amorella