Monday, May 25, 2015

Kovalenko-Stevens Uncertainty Corrolary

Posted: 26 May 2015
Updated:28 May 15

In a previous post on dream work, we discuss two key words: Experience and Explanation and the relationship between them in terms of uncertainty. We shamelessly borrow from the famous Heisenberg uncertainty principle, meant for considering the behavior of subatomic particles, but now imagine a poetic analogy applied to human behavior. Whereas, Heisenberg's equation states:
 ∆x∆p ≥  ħ
where ∆ = uncertainty; x = location of particle;  p = its momentum and ħ = Planck constant.
We imagine:
∆∑ • ∆E ≥ Ki, where ∆ = uncertainty, = experience, E = explanation and Ki = "Kairos" constant

Note 1. The subscript "i" to the Kairos constant was suggested by retired Los Alamos physicist Ralph R. Stevens, after reflecting on the "Kovalenko Corollary". It was a brilliant insight and accepted at once! So, we shall now refer to it as the 'Kovalenko-Stevens Corollary'. 

Note 2. Thus, the Kairos constant would be "Kenk" for Kovalenko and "Krrs" for Stevens, since the equation is unique for each individual.

We now begin to wonder if we can measure the Kairos constant and if so, in what units. That is, can this be practically applied in some way beyond its philosophical use? Also, how do we measure "uncertainty"? 

We began by considering anchor points or limits for uncertainty. For example, we know that in any case, whether rational (explanation) or non-rational (experience), the uncertainty can never be zero or "0", albeit it can be vanishingly small. Mathematically, if the uncertainty of one of those two parameters were to be 0 (meaning no uncertainty or certain), then the other would have to be infinite! (meaning infinitely uncertain). In other words to be completely certain about either one of those parameters, say experience, then ∆∑ = 0, which is to be completely uncertain about the other, or ∆E = . Bottom line: we can't know anything absolutely! There will always be something we cannot know! I like to call this 'the humility factor'.

Let's consider something practical...

Historical Notes

The original version of this uncertainty equation popped into my head in late October 1965 when I was the breakfast guest of actor Eddie Albert at his home in Pacific Palisades, California.  He had given me his card the year before at the parapsychology laboratory of Professor J.B. Rhine at Duke University and asked me to call him. This breakfast was the result of that call and we were reflecting on our Duke experience [See here for Duke experience and scroll to "Cold War Correspondence"], where he had appeared unannounced and unexpected at Rhine's lab accompanied by his singer/actor buddy Burl Ives.

Eddie showed me his garden where he had treated different parts of it in different ways every morning for months, if not years. On the left side he would sing to and praise all the plants. But to those on the right side he would shout and curse. The result was dramatic. On the left the plants were beautiful, healthy and full of color. On the right they were gnarled, grotesque and unhealthy. So, he asked: "Can you explain this?" I wrote down the equation that popped into my head immediately. When he saw it, he grinned and said, "Well I'll be damned! Thank you!"  

Then we talked about personal things. The singing career that he had envisioned for me the year before was obviously no longer an option. I was on my way north to a place in the forest near Santa Cruz, beginning what would become a 7-year "wilderness period". I had left my family in San Diego that very morning at my wife's request for divorce. Frightened and insecure, my Mormon spouse could no longer tolerate my increasingly strange behavior and could cope only if I were gone. I did not fight her fear and left, leaving everything behind. I needed to get away from civilization. Eddie's last word to me, as I walked to my car was to shout:  "LIVE!!!"
On Friday morning, September 4, 2009, I sent the following note to long-time friend, physicist/psychologist Arnold Mindell, author of his Nobel-prize-worthy (IMHO) magnum opus Quantum Mind: The Edge between physics and psychology (2000). Mindell lamented in the early chapters how difficult it was to explain 'non-consensus reality' (NCR) in psychological terms, whereas physics concentrates on explaining 'consensus reality' (CR) by measuring physical stuff.  [BTW, Mindell confesses in his book that it took 36 years to write it!--all because of a dream.]

         On 09/04/2009 I wrote:
BRIEF response to your first five chapters in Q-M: [Quantum Mind]

Whereas Heisenberg said: ∆x ● ∆p ≥ h-bar,
Kovalenko says ∆Σ ● ∆E ≈ K,
where Σ = experience, E = explanation and K = corollary constant.

Or, perhaps: ∆(CR) ● ∆(NCR) ≈ M, where M = Mindell's Kosmic corollary constant
         A few hours later Arny replied:
Kovalenko says ∆Σ ● ∆E ≈ K
And he is BRILLIANT!!!
Love arny

No comments: