About logic of resonance


How many notions, categories and concepts correspond to the concept of resonance! Much of what seems to be the vanguard of modern science or a difficult to explain phenomenon is explained through it. Moreover, a lot of things that are most exciting and affecting our life can be explained precisely as a specific resonant phenomenon - special potentiation and propagation of waves. These are virtualistics, which comes from the psychology of extreme states (virtus can be regarded as a phenomenon of cross-scale resonance) or the corpus of the so-called “post-nonclassical” (term by ac. V. Stepin) physics, erroneously called synergetics[1] with her chaos theory and dissipations. As well as non-classical physics with its quantum entanglements. Synergy and synergistic effects can be thought of as resonance effects, eliminating the destructive effect at the system level and converting the increase in energy into a new quality.

There is an argument (already expressed to me by experts on reading the first version of this article), which reduces to the fact that it would probably be better to go in explanation from the wave interaction of objects than from the logic of the phenomenon. But this is about what can be found in the school textbook, on the basis of which it makes no sense to write everything further. Here – about the fact that resonance is a condition for the appearance of the objects themselves. About the generation of a subject by a function in subjective-functional dualism, about the generation of existing by being, about the creation of something moving by the movement itself (one of the fundamental problems of philosophy). If the resonant nature of virtual states is proved, the conclusion from this will be that resonance is rather not something that exists "in reality" (although it is, of course, real), but that "from which reality" comes as such by its levels. The significance of the truth of this conclusion is difficult to assess.

Here, the question of cognition and the way of thinking of a specific fundamental phenomenon is considered, and not of what is "as a matter of fact" behind it, and it is argued that this "matter" is misunderstood. We are used to thinking reality from "res" as something resilient or unyielding, the pliability of which is questionable and problematic (as Ch.Piers brilliantly testifies in his example with a resisting table surface), but we do not think of reality as something corresponding or... complimentary. However, it is when our relationship with reality becomes complimentary that it immediately begins to become problematic and questioned. But we are not used to thinking like that.

Among physicists, it is believed that the perpetual motion machine is impossible due to the law of nature. But is it even necessary if there is resonance in nature? J. Cox hardly thought of the perpetual motion machine as a self-enclosed machine (known from later thermodynamic interpretations), but he was probably inclined to develop the ideas expressed by Galileo-son in 1602 regarding string vibrations, probably inspired by the works of Nikolai Krebs (already existing more than 150 years old), and his father, a music theorist. Tesla was right, seeing in resonance the fundamental principle of physical phenomena, in any case, historically, since strict quadrivial natural philosophy began precisely with music as a strict science.

What is social resonance? For example, in the media space: the distribution of a news occasion item with a series of interpretations and comments by the levels of involvement, as well as the marketing distribution of memes based on the COPE principle (Created Once, Published Everywhere) and user-generated content, or in the field of civic activity dynamics, when the critical level of massization of the impact on lifestyle reaches a certain limit beyond which the feedback begins.

And what is psychological resonance? How do sociopaths and narcissistic personalities use resonance in interpersonal communication? The ability to cause a condition called "emotional resonance" represents almost their main communicative tool and main weapon. Meanwhile, when talking about emotional resonance, usually some kind of correspondence is supposed to be with the system of norms and values, as well as with the complex of unconscious drives and fears that such a person subtly tracks in others and which he plays in his interests as a predator victim. In turn, sleep can be considered as a way to restore the resonance system in the presumption of the brain as a receiver in the sense of the Tesla hypothesis[2]. Can schizophrenia be considered autoresonance? What is autoresonance in fact? What is autocatalysis and autopoiesis as a phenomenon of autoresonance? Superstitions, neuroses, obsessive-compulsive disorders, and the specific worldview of a medieval person who sees symbols everywhere can also be interpreted through this concept.

Consciousness can be considered as a phenomenon of the ability of resonance to a given world. This means that the unconscious is also relative to a category of the same order. Death can be considered as minimization of the ability to resonant interactions in the process of communication, a way out of correspondences and interactions with this world up to nonexistence. After which there is a transition to "otherbeing". Therefore, they speak of a “different world,” for the universal principle of the universe is the interaction and generation of a system of correspondences. Correspondence implies duality as a numerical minimum. As Fuller said, "Unity is two." In this sense, the essence of life is the maximization of such correspondence in an algedonic homeostasis.

One and the same oscillator can emit different oscillations, while exciting different resonators located in the field of its action. But for this, the oscillator itself must have reconfigurative complexity, and be a resonator with a sufficiently controlled susceptibility. This is similar to how a smart, inventive and artful woman manipulates different men, alternately playing with their behavior as an orchestra (and, while enjoying, resonating in response). Yes, in fact, this can be considered as a complexly organized phenomenon of resonance (or correspondence) in the field of psychology and interpersonal communications. 

Also, when we stage our favorite music, we wish it to resonate in us with regard to our mood (the basic Heidegger existential) precisely because we are already “tuned” to it and wish to actualize certain images of our presence-in-the-world, that is a certain complex semantics of a lifestyle of one or another of type or complexity. And not just act through rhythm and melody on your own brain to “cheer up” or “relax”. Behind these “cheer up” or “relax” is often something else related to a complex reminiscence or a complex thematic trigger. And sometimes we are not interested no one musical composition and, no matter how hard we try to entertain ourselves with even our favorite music, we cannot do this, because we are unable to resonate with such actualization, since we are most likely tuned to something completely different than music - for example, in search of ways to attract the attention of that same manipulative woman, wanting to see her as a resonator of her own oscillations... but, alas, we do not know how to do this.

It is this physical phenomenon that is perhaps the most taboo for human corporeality. Sex (and the related procreation) and laughter (and the related frivolity) that generate and affirm life are precisely resonant psychosomatic phenomena, and therefore they most often in history turned out to be objects of imposed shame, unintelligible and dangerous phenomena, inaccessible to human explanation mind in its essence. The church and the state most actively suppressed precisely these manifestations of the human personality (here we can add the struggle with musical instruments in certain periods of the history of the Christian denomination). A person returning in his fantasy to himself, and thereby moving his own development, is perhaps the anthropic self-awareness of the Universe. Is it even possible to write an article about resonance, when inside you is not there, nothing buzzes and does not hesitate? Is it possible to write such an article with the mere “dry language of science” without creating it at least partially as poetry?

Resonance is the synchronization of frequency processes (creating the unity of these processes by synchronization), carried out through consonance. In order to destroy the resonance, it is necessary to disrupt the synchronization of these processes and eliminate the frequency unity - to create dissonance. Or to transfer the dominant of the frequency perception of the resonator from the current state to the potential one, eliminating the increase in the amplitude of this frequency directly by external oscillation. In simple cases, this is done by changing the shape of the resonator or by using frequency dampers. For complex resonant systems, this means the presence of certain key factors that block such extraction, representing reconfigurators or dampers of one degree or another of complexity. In the cybernetic aspect, the latter are nothing more than filters and amplifiers, respectively. Similarly, to get rid of a power (be it the power of a seductive woman or a charismatic leader) you need to create a desynchronization of the relationships created by the source of this power. As a rule, at the same time they break completely. Almost the main, and long-known, means to stop resonating with the government and a society in agreement with it are the vibrations of laughter.

What is the resonance in the economy? Is it possible to interpret in terms of resonance the interaction of rich and poor, developed and developing countries and contours? Is it possible to interpret the action of the financial sector and money as a phenomenon of resonance? Indeed, what triggers the process of economic movement and development is considered in neoconomic theory as a condition for destructive processes in the existing, but devoid of this source, oecumene. Actually, the concept of such an oecumene is nothing but the concept of an economic resonator in which cascades of administrative hierarchies and animations are formed. A rich contour can be regarded as an oscillator in which money exists actual. The poor – as a resonator and potential acceptor of monetary relations. It also finds the answer to the question about semantics of what is the singleton language of money. Within the framework of the considered, it turns out to be the language of the transmitted communicative frequency. Accordingly, multicurrency for one oecumene will mean the multifrequency of exchange-distribution communication. Exchange rates and procedures (including stock quotes) can be seen as switching keys and registers.

In turn, the macroeconomic problem of the source of demand, so urgent in the second decade of the 21st century, is largely due to a misunderstanding of the fact that demand is a process of resonance at one stage or level of social interaction, and oscillation at another. Many scholars are looking for sources of recovery in global demand, fading away over the 150-year "cotton" history, considering demand itself as "suddenly discovered" as the most competent source of economic growth. And that means – in the presumption of the oscillator, which launches cascades of trade and financial interaction, echoing on it and able to further strengthen demand itself through feedback channels. However, therein lies the problem that echo is a form of resonance that is not able to reverse its own source. And economists, not so much probably knowing this, as feeling, puzzle over not conceiving what to do. Meanwhile, even before being an oscillator and the further process of economic growth, demand itself should arise as a resonance in response to something that obviously has a non-economic (and therefore non-monetary) nature. What are economists doing, not using the concept of resonance, but assuming "something like that" and, in fact, walking in unarticulated circles around it?

Some remain in their own subject framework, defining them as professional, trying not to get into "not their own business" (which was facilitated by the "Austrians", neoclassics with economics, who reduced the political economy narrative). The arguments here are, firstly, the rejection of politicization of the economy (which is savagery in the conditions of recognition of the "policy" topic as the "most macroeconomic"), and for some reason politicization here always turns out to be equated with populism. It is quite understandable why: it is very difficult for such economists to go beyond the fundamental Marxist distinction of the basis and superstructure (even if in words they refuse this dogma). And secondly, the refusal to engage in a specific type of populism in the spirit of "for all good versus all bad". The reason is also understandable here: the Marxist paradigm dogma of the “fundamentality” of economics among other social sciences is complemented by the positivistic dogma of the value of extra-ethical science, which operates with truthful and probabilistic, rather than evaluative, or algedonic, meanings. The notion that trust (or credo) and the duty (or debt) that follows from it are categories of practical ethics (rigorous and even half-mathematical science) are not accepted by them... out of the same tendency to stay within their own objectivity and the scientific criteria they know. In fact, their search is hindered by the emphasis on the criterion standard of science (the standard of the "academy"), and not on the standard of insights and discoveries (the standard of "universities")[3].

Other economists are looking for a solution to the problem of falling demand within their subject areas, and the only thing they find there is William Easterly's thesis that “people respond to incentives”, as well as what concerns the Pigou-Coase dispute and the area of non-tradable boons. These opportunities seem promising in the light of what is being discussed here.

The sciences of man and society can become holistic and rigorous not only (and probably not so much) as they become more and more considered in the context of settlement forms of being-in-space. But when this consideration will begin from the point of view of precisely the resonant phenomena (phenomena of correspondence) specific to the subjects of each of these sciences, and when the idea of ​​the settlement will be examined through such correspondence. It is in this sense that the concept of space as a receptacle of things can be replaced by a concept of space as something formed by things themselves. The solution to many problems is not found in the field of individual objects or experiments and approbations, but in the field of epistemology and the history of science.

Logic of possible

Despite the general prevalence of the concept of resonance and even its fairly well-known scientific definition, there are some non-trivial circumstances that a mass inexperienced mind endowed with a school or commonly used intuitive idea of it is bypasses. This is highly not complitely clarified concept.

So, the general definition of resonance (almost of any type) says that the phenomenon is an increase in the amplitude of the oscillation of a physical object when it is exposed to it with a frequency that coincides with its own frequency values or parameters. The frequency itself, or oscillation, before it is initiated by the oscillator, is actually absent in the resonator, but is contained in potency as a resonator possibility; where exactly these values or parameters are contained in this physical object in the absence of the frequency oscillation in it until it is provoked or caused by the oscillator, the basic definition of resonance is not indicated. In other words, the vibration of the oscillator coincide with the dominant, but potential tonal frequency of some given resonator, due to the structure or configuration of the latter. Most things, while interconnected, have their own specific vibration potential, but do not vibrate.

Hence, a rigorous discussion of resonance must be a discussion in terms of... modal logic. Is it such in the case of modern physics? Most probably not. Rather, modalities in objects and topics where resonance phenomena are supposed, of course, represent an invariable part of the scientific narrative, but immediately fall into probability theory, and resonance itself is hardly considered through the categories of actual and potential: the initial definition obviously implies the presence of a “frequency of coincidence” for an object beginning to oscillate, and not the possibility of starting it from scratch, known as creating a wave or extracting sound. By the way, the processes of increasing entropy can also be logically interpreted as resonant, since randomness as a category of description of chaos is also a category of modal logic. 

That is why the aspect of modal logic is invisible within the framework of the seemingly purely physical topic of resonance, most likely due to two circumstances: relatively speaking, mathematical and scientific-methodological. On the one hand, N.Tesla, that perhaps most closely and fundamentally among other authors studied resonance and considered this phenomenon as the most universal natural principle, used a rather simple arithmetic apparatus, which is fully described by the Zermelo-Frenkel axiomatics proposed at the beginning of the 20th century (i.e., in the middle his creative path), represented by the language of first-order classical logic without modalities. It remains to this day the most widely known and recognized apparatus for describing mathematics. Despite the fact that the paradigmatic concept of resonance underlying Tesla’s naturalistic ideas could be described in Aristotelian logic with modalities (which means, at least, did not exclude the latter), the apparatus used by him was used regardless of these metamathematical axioms proposed to solve precisely mathematical problems associated with known paradoxes. What problems were simply not the subject (in any case, the key) of his scientific interests.

On the other hand, since the 1930s, scientific methodology has received serious flare through physicalism thanks to O.Neurat and R.Karnap, who centered the representation of ​​the language of science on physical narratives as criteria for scientific rigor, if not scientificity at all. This was a period when N.Tesla’s achievements already became a common place in the world, at that in interpretations of the applied mainstream of physical science of that time, which did not at all imply plunging into the “miracles” of Cartesian physics, in coordinates of which Tesla did worked, in the sum of this mainstream's predominantly economic tasks. Yes, his works yielded applied results that constituted the second industrial revolution and presented the world with the electric power industry itself. However, Cartesian physics was theoretically “forbidden” for the entire “progressive humanity” back in the Victorian era by J.Maxwell, and if the majority of Tesla's colleagues paid attention to this circumstance of the life history of a particular scientist, then found it useful only in the sense of general erudition. At the same time, the post-positivist reflection of scientific methodology with its radical question of “searching for criteria” has not yet entered into its post-war rights of the second half of the 20th century and has not fully implemented Popper’s “positivist assassination”, crushing logicalism along with physicalism by the “Structure of Scientific Revolutions” of T.Kuhn. Tesla himself did die in 1943, and could no longer take part in the unfolding scientific and methodological discussions. Thus, the “modal” aspect of the strict (and even formal) description of resonance as a universal natural phenomenon was relegated to the background.

It becomes evident that the most causal relationship can be considered as an abstract-logical or reduced category, explicating exactly the real-denotative phenomenon of resonance. If this is so, then the further development of this topic can greatly advance the understanding of causality from the time of Aristotle, Hume and the whole corpus of developments of intensional (and, in particular, relevant) logic.

Recursive thinking can be considered in resonance categories as extramodel thinking[4]. In turn, model thinking is both non-resonant and, therefore, non-dialogue. Which, by the way, just represented a certain speculative convenience – a wonderful tool of abstract thinking, invented by Descartes and Leibniz in a world where "everything can be seen in everything". Also, the model can be considered as a special reduction of the concept of resonance; as a way of specifying an invariant state, or phase, of the universe. That is, the model can be considered as fixing status quo of a certain resonant state. Therefore, the discussion of a good or bad model is, in fact, a discussion of whether it is a fixation of some cognitive resonance as a correspondence of the order of a strict language to the described subject, and how pure and unalloyed. It is in the latter sense that model thinking and logic require strict language and formalisms. In turn, the semantics of possible worlds of S.Kripke is that part of the corpus of modal logic, which in fact is a logical explicator of the physical and mathematical category of phase space. From what follows the possibility of interpreting phenomena of resonance discovered in various subject spheres also in temporal logics and in scenario forecasting.

The important news here is that the very objectivity of recursion (as a "non-model") and resonance as... an inter-subject matter are become "bluring". That is why the “multi-subject” logic of model structures of communicative (dialogue) relations and logic based on recursion, and not on a model, can also be considered as parts of the corpus of quantum logic.

Due to the noted epistemic, logical and scientific-historical circumstances, it can be argued that at least very many modern physicists do not understand or misunderstand the nature of resonance, even if they know its definition and use this phenomenon in an applied way. What is also not surprising in the Drucker period of commercial application of scientific discoveries, when all that remains of the period of fundamental discoveries and conjectures is a subtle trickle of the activity of “individual talents”. Indeed, what can be expected in the sense of the subtlety of understanding the "nature of things" from the majority of the mass of specialists stamped by universities in state and corporate interests? Is their subtlety of understanding this nature comparable to that of Nikola Tesla, lord Kelvin, Galileo Galilei or his almost forgotten father – music theorist Vincenzo, not to mention the embodiment of Duns Scott's “subtlety of mind”? This is precisely about the level of understanding, and not about what they gave out in the sum of the well-known things of their authorship.

I could have spoken in the same spirit about the correct understanding of de Broglie's ideas by a large number of experts in quantum physics, hiding behind a figure of Kenneth Snelson who did not dare to completely go into this clearing with his own "E pur si muove!", but I will not do this: firstly, I really think that in this cohort there is perhaps the greatest concentration of all those representatives of physical science who have sufficient breadth and philosophical inclusiveness of the mind (on a global scale); secondly, the topic of understanding what is still behind the ideas of the “Seventh Duke de Broglie” and what other things in the history of science they are connected with, represents a special subject of consideration: although it is related to the theme of resonance, but in this context it is redundant.


[1] Synergetics is, first of all, not about H.Haken in 1977 in his book of the same name, but about Fuller ... since 1927. The first volume of the academic edition of his treatise "Synergetics: Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking" in collaboration with E.J.Applewhite came out in 1975, and concerns universal mechano-geometric natural principles, including those that are manifested in living nature. The lion's share of this narrative belongs to the field of bearing systems. But everything related to "complexity management" is already being built on these things, and in itself does not only does not come down to synergetics as such, but often it is not even considered in its own empirical clarity, taking into account its own paradigmatic foundation.

[2] According to his five “basic facts” expressed in the Cartesian spirit in the “Man as a Machine” section of the article “How Cosmic Forces Decide Our Fates,” published in "New York American" in 1915. (In the Russian-language version of the 2008 edition of the publication "Nikola Tesla. Articles" published by "Agni" Publishing House (Samara) as part of a three-volume work of this scientist.) These theses present in a direct articulated form Tesla’s own views on the nature of thinking and cognition. Their peculiarity is the combination of Cartesian mechanism with rational providencialism, which began at the turn of the XVII and XVIII centuries and accompanied the formation of deism. It seems that Tesla was the "last of the Mohicans" – representatives of the providential direction of the "Age of Enlightenment", after which this topic began to be re-developed already in other scientific contexts (both mainstream and non-conformist): Tesla's article with theses on human controllability was published in 12 years before the start of Einstein's famous debate with Bohr, the formulation of the EPR paradox, the emergence of quantum entanglement and completeness of scientific theories, in their development yielding amazing results that led to a revision of the methodology basis of the New European Science.

[3] The distinction and connection between the "science of criteria" and the "science of discovery" was examined by me earlier in another work in the historical context of the 600-year-old history of capitalism.

[4] The distinction between model and recursion is also presented in some of my works concerning the curiosity of constructing a model structure in the logic of dialogue.

Добавить комментарий