52

“These little spheres all have inertia, because of which, and because of the little
springs, they resist displacement. If we displace the first of our spheres either
in the transverse or longitudinal direction, it acts upon the second sphere,
which in turn acts upon the third, etc.. We see that the disturbance of
equilibrium of the first little sphere is transmitted like a wave to the next
spere and so along the whole series. The most significant point in the analysis
of such a wave of excitation is that it is not transmitted with some ‘infinite
velocity’, or ‘infinitely quickly’ or in ‘no time’. The action of each sphere is
slightly delayed owing to its inertia, that is, it does not respond
‘instantaneously’ to an impulse. It must be noticed that the displacement is
not due to a velocity, but to an acceleration, which is a change of velocity and
requires a short interval of ‘time’. The change in velocity again requires an
interval of ‘time’ to overcome inertia and produce displacement. Similar
reasoning applies to a long train just being started by the engine. The cars
being coupled together by more or less elastic means, the engine may be
moving uniformly and some of the last cars still be stationary. The pull of the
engine is nottransmitted instantaneously but with a finite velocity, due
again to the inertia of the cars.

“We see then that the only structurally adequate means of describing changes
in continuous, deformable materials is to be found in differential equations
which express a method of dealing with action by contact.

“We have already seen that this action by contact involves also the finite
velocityof propagation, a fact of crucial structural and semantic importance.
In the history of science we can distinguish three periods. The first was
naturally the period of action at a distance, the best exemplified by the work of

⁵²Alfred Korzybski, Science and Sanity,1933-1948, ibid

What Do We Know?
Chapter 4

UnCommon Sense Library Volume II
TrustMark 2001 by Timothy Wilken

99

two great men, Euclid and Newton. In it we find of course, a superabundance
of ‘infinities’. With the advent of the differential calculus, and the introduction
of differential equations in the study of nature, the notion of action at a
distance became more and more untenable. We had a period of pseudo-
contiguous action, which indeed involved differential equations; but the
velocity of propagationwas not introduced explicitly, and so there
remained an implicit structural assumption of ‘infinite velocity’ of
propagation. As an example of such pseudo-contiguous action we can cite the
older theories of potential, which give differential equations for the change in
the intensity of the field from place to place, but which do not contain members
that express a change in ‘time’, and hence do not take into account the
transmission of electricity with finite velocity.

*Here, Korzybski¹⁹³³references Max Born⁵³and then continues. “The
modern theories, as for instance, the Maxwell theory of electromagnetism, and
the Einstein theory, are based on action by contact. these theories not only
use the differential method, but they also introduce explicitly the finite
velocityof propagation.”⁵⁴

Young on Action

Writing in 1984, Arthur Young explained:

“The discovery by Max Planck in 1900 of the quantum of action
revolutionized physics and revised the very basis of scientific thought. This
discovery provides the possibility of an entirely new view of the Universe. The
older concept of a Universe made up of physical particles interacting
according to fixed laws is no longer tenable. It is implicit in present findings
that actionrather than matter is basic, actionbeing understood as
something essentially undefinable and nonobjective, analogous, I would add,
to human decision. This is good news, for it is no longer appropriate to think
of the Universe as a gradually subsiding agitation of billiard balls. The
Universe, far from being a desert of inert particles, is a theatre of increasingly
complex organization, a stage for development in which man has a definite
place, and without any upper limit to his evolution.”⁵⁵

⁵³Max Born, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, London, New York, 1962
⁵⁴Alfred Korzybski, Science and Sanity, 1933-1948, ibid

What Do We Know?
Chapter 4

UnCommon Sense Library Volume II
TrustMark 2001 by Timothy Wilken

100

Writing six years later, Arthur Young¹⁹⁹⁰explained:

“Because it led to quantum physics, the discovery that light is radiated in
whole units, or quantaof action, is probably the the most important
discovery made by science since its inception about for hundred years ago.
Another reason for its importance, in my opinion, is that it provided scientific
sanction for the idea that what is most basic is not material particles but
activity. It is not hard to think of a particle having energy due to its motion.
It is hard to think of activity with no particle. Of course you can think of the
quantum of action as a particle, but shorn of its energy there is nothing there.
This is why if one person sees a photon, or “particle” of light, it is annihilated
and no one else can see it. We never do see objects; we see the light reflected
from them.

“What does this do to the objectivity of the photon? Is something objective
which can only be seen once? It’s no wonder that Planck had to wait nineteen
years for physicists to accept his thinking. This is the period given, but I don’t
think there was any general acceptance until 1926, when Werner Heisenberg
showed that our uncertainty about the position and momentum of a particle is
equal to Planck’s constant.Even Planck found it hard to believe his own
theory, and Einstein, despite his getting the Nobel Prize from using Planck’s
theory to explain the photoelectric effect, would not accept quantum theory:
“God does not play dice with the Universe.”

“As I have heard it, Newton thought the regularity of the planets’ motion was
evidence for God. Others say that Newton thought that it would sometimes be
necessary for God to readjust their motion. In any case LaPlace said he had
accounted for their motion and made God an unnecessary hypothesis.

“How could Einstein use God’s regularity to exclude uncertainty if LaPlace
could use regularity to make God unnecessary? The point is that there could
be no novelty, no creativity, in a Universe with no uncertainty.This merit of
uncertainty, novelty, contrasts sharply with the interpretation of the
quantum of action as an inevitable defect of observation, but it does not
conflict with the interpretation of the quantum as spontaneous creativity or
freedom.

⁵⁵Arthur Young, The Foundations of Science: The Missing Parameter, 1984, ibid

What Do We Know?
Chapter 4

UnCommon Sense Library Volume II
TrustMark 2001 by Timothy Wilken

101

“Science is the quest for certainty, but science can only find it in what is less
than ourselves. Uncertainty is what characterizes what is greater than
ourselves. Uncertainty and its interpretation are important for science.
Uncertainty is not only inevitable, it is the most basic ingredient—the photon,
or quantum of action. Science is slowly beginning to see this uncertainty in a
better light—as spontaneous creativity, as the source of life and the drive that
sustains evolution in its ten-billion-year quest to surpass itself.”⁵⁶

Writing in 1976, Arthur Youngexplained:

“Light is unique in that, unlike everything else that exists in actuality, it has
no mass (no rest mass). It has no charge and, as evidenced by the finding of
relativity that clocks stop at the speed of light, it has no time. While light in a
vacuum has a “velocity” of 186,000 miles per second, this velocity is not motion
in the ordinary sense since it can have no other value. Objects can be at rest
or move at a variety of speeds. Light, on the other hand , has but one speed (in
any given medium) and cannot be at rest. Even space is a meaningless concept
for light, since the passage of light through space is accomplished without any
loss of energy whatever.

“Light involves us in a special kind of difficulty, the difficulty of knowing about
that which provides our knowledge of other things. We might imagine a
painter who wanted to paint the paintbrush, a problem I encounter when I
want to repair my glasses: I cannot see without them; and light, by which we
see, cannot be seen.

“This sort of Zen paradox is not appreciated by the scientist, who likes to think
of light as “just another kind of particle.” This interpretation does not stand up
because that which is outside of space and time, and which has no rest mass,
by definition cannot be a particle.

“Light is not an objective thing that can be investigated as can an ordinary
object. Even a tiny snow crystal, before it melts, can be photographed or seen
by more than one person. But a photon, the ultimate unit of light, can be seen
only once; its detection is its annihilation. Light is not seen; it is seeing; Even

⁵⁶Arthur Young, Mathematics, Physics & Reality, Robert Briggs Associates, Portland, Oregon, 1990

What Do We Know?
Chapter 4

UnCommon Sense Library Volume II
TrustMark 2001 by Timothy Wilken

102

when a photon is partially annihilated, as in scattering of photons by
electrons, what remains is not part of the old photon, but a new photon of
lower frequency, going in a different direction.

“An ordinary object can be thought of as a carrier of momentum, or energy,
which it can impart to another object. A hammer striking a nail exerts a force
which drives the nail; a bowling ball conveys energy which knocks over the
pins. In both cases, the hammer and the bowling ball remain after the work is
done. With light, however , its transport of energy from one point to another
leaves no residue. Light is pure action, unattached to any object, like the
smile without the cat.”⁵⁷

Young on the Principle of Least Action

Writing in 1976, Arthur Young explained:

“The difficult question is: what is action? This will become increasingly
important as we proceed. Curiously, the notion of light as action was one to
emerge quite early. It was observed in the 17th century that sunset occurred a
little later than it would if light followed a straight line: light as it enters the
atmosphere follows a curved path. This phenomenon is explained as due to the
fact that the speed of light is reduced by the atmosphere.

“What is remarkable is that the path followed by the light through the layers of
atmosphere is precisely that which gets it to its destination in the shortest
possible time. In driving from a point in the city to a point in the country, we
can reduce the total timeif we shorten the time spent in the heavy traffic of
the city, even at the expense of going a longer distance in the country. Fermat,
the famous 17th-century mathematician, was the first to solve this problem of
the path for the minimum time. Yet light, going from a denser to a rarer
medium, follows just this path.

“As Planck himself said of phenomenon: “Thus, the photons which constitute a
ray of light behave like intelligent human beings: Out of all possible curves
they always select the one which will take them most quickly to their goal.”⁵⁸

⁵⁷Arthur Young, The Reflexive Universe, Delacorte Press/Seymour Lawrence, 1976

What Do We Know?
Chapter 4

UnCommon Sense Library Volume II
TrustMark 2001 by Timothy Wilken

103

“This law, that light always follows the path taking the shortest time, is known
as the principle of least action.

“According to Planck again: “It made its discover Leibniz and soon after him
also his follower Maupertuis, so boundlessly enthusiastic, for these scientist
believed themselves to have found in it a tangible evidence for an ubiquitous
higher reason ruling all nature.”⁵⁹”⁶⁰

Haskell on Co-Actions

Edward Haskell is the discoverer of co-Actions. The concept of co-actionswas
introduced in UCS•1—We Can All Win! and will be reviewed here.

It is great importance in understanding synergy. When participants—parts—
components—are in relationship with each other, they are considered scientifically as
a unity. The individual actions of the participants—parts—components of this unity
are considered together as a co-Action. And, this is regardless or whether the
participants—parts—components intend to act as a unity or not. In my earlier
discussion in volume one, I applied Haskell’s concept of Co-Actionsto human
relationships. This was only a small application taken from the much larger body of
work created by Haskell and his associates called the Unified Science⁶¹.

In the Unified Science, Universe is considered to be a system-hierarchymade up of
seven“kingdoms”. These “kingdoms” are designated as particles, atoms, molecules,
geoid systems (galaxies, stars, planets, moons, etc.), plants, animals, andhumans.
Haskell applied the concept of Co-Actionsto all seven kingdoms—particles, atoms,
molecules, geoid systems, plants, animals, and humans.

The concept of co-Action can be applied not only to ‘individuals’ within these
“kingdoms”, but also to groups, and communities of individuals as well. Taking
humans as the example it can be applied to the microcosm of the individual—the body

⁵⁸Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers, Philosophical Library, New York, 1949
⁵⁹Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers, 1949, ibid
⁶⁰Arthur Young, The Reflexive Universe, 1976, ibid
⁶¹Edward Haskell, FULL CIRCLE: The Moral Force of Unified Science, Gordon and Breach, New York,

1972

What Do We Know?
Chapter 4

UnCommon Sense Library Volume II
TrustMark 2001 by Timothy Wilken

104

is made up of organs, organs are made up of tissues, tissues are made up of cells, cells
are made up of organelles, organelles are made up of molecules, molecules are made
up of atoms, are made up of particlesand particles are made up of gravitationally
trappedlight. It can further be applied to the macrocosm—the individual is a member
of a family, the family is ‘part’ of acommunity, the community is ‘part’ of a city, the
city is ‘part’ of a county, the county is ‘part’ of a state, the state is ‘part’ of a nation,
and the nation is ‘part’ of the entirehuman culture which inhabits planet earth.
And then it can also be applied to the earthwhich is a ‘part’ of the solar system,
which is ‘part’ of a galaxy, which is a ‘part’ of a star cluster, which is a ‘part’ of a
supercluster, which is a ‘part’ of Universe. The following redundancy is repeated
from UCS•1.

Haskell’s Co-Actionsapply to all ‘wholes’ orunitieswithin Universe. If we imagine a
two ‘part’unitymade up of ‘part’ “X” and ‘part’ “Y”. We can then represent the
resultant of their interactions within the unityas follows: If the two ‘parts’ have a
neutral relationship, then “X” and “Y” are unchanged by their interaction.

The sum of the ‘whole’ (X+ Y) is equalto the sum of the ‘parts’ (X) + (Y).

If the two ‘parts’ have an adversary relationship, then “X” and “Y” are made less by
their interaction.

The sum of the whole (X + Y) is lessthan the sum of the ‘parts’ (X) + (Y).

What Do We Know?
Chapter 4

UnCommon Sense Library Volume II
TrustMark 2001 by Timothy Wilken

105