# The Magic of it all

The PPR entangled state triangle is formed in such a way that the remedy (Rx) ‘corner’ of each individual semiotic triangle comprises its corners. Also, each of the smaller triangles now shares two of its corners with its two neighbours (figure 4c). This means that the centre of each side of the larger PPR entangled-state triangle now represents (in clockwise order) correlation between symptoms (Sx) of the patient (Sx(Px)); the symptoms of the disease (Sx(Dx)); and the symptoms of the remedy substance (Sx(Rm)). In other words, the formation of the PPR entangled state identifies for the practitioner two categories of patient-centred symptoms (Sx(Px) and Sx(Dx)) which, by matching with those of a remedial substance (Sx(Rm)), are used to arrive at the curative remedy and potency (Rx). This may be usefully envisaged by ‘folding’ into the third dimension the larger entangled-state triangle along the edges of the internal inverted triangle, so that each semiotic triangle meets, producing a tetrahedron whose top vertex is the potentised remedy, Rx. The other tetrahedral corners are then Sx(Px), Sx(Dx), and Sx(Rm) (figure 4d). Thus, we have arrived at a 3-D semiotic representation of the PPR entangled state which is a tetrahedron with four identifiably ‘different’ corners, and is equivalent to the entangled-state wave function, > in equation 1. Now, according to the symmetry rules mentioned earlier, I in equation 1.Let us examine these entangled-state semiotic tetrahedra in a little more detail from the point of view of the practitioner. We may imagine the patient notionally at the tetrahedral epi-centres (the black squares in figures 4d and f), exhibiting symptoms Sx which may be interpreted by the practitioner as those of the patient (Sx(Px)) and the disease (Sx(Dx)), which are then matched with the repertorised remedial substance (Sx(Rm)); all of which lead the practitioner to the homeopathic remedy (Rx – hence the direction of the arrows in figures 4d and f)). Note how in this tetrahedral set-up, the practitioner is involved explicitly in two out of the four semiotic faces but is not at the epi-centre: this place is occupied by the patient. That there are two distinct ways of arranging these semiotic tetrahedra, reveals the essential mirroring activity of the practitioner
With the patient at the epi-centres of both semiotic chiral tetrahedra, the process of cure may be envisaged as their being brought together in such a way, one patient-centred ‘state’ is produced. This requires both tetrahedra to move towards each other and merge through the ‘looking glass’ of the therapeutic state space, ‘twisting’ relative to the other by a factor of 60 In geometrical terms, this represents equation 1, i.e., the combination of I and IΨ_{PPR}> via the homeopathic operator Πr, leading to a change in symptoms, ∆Sx (the product <Ψ_{PPR}IΨ_{PPR}> = IΨI_{PPR}^{2} presumably representing the probability of cure; a concept that will be dealt with at a later date). The ‘twisting’ effect of the therapeutic state space has been noted in previous papers of this series,^{11, 24, 33, 55} so it is compelling that, albeit in a slightly different context, it arises from the treatment provided here. This effect could also be inherent early in the entanglement process as folding the three semiotic triangles shown in figure 4c completely flat leads to the inverted entangled-state triangular representation, shown in figure 4e. Here, each corner of the entangled-state ‘flat pack’ now represents the individual ‘wave functions’ for the remedy, practitioner, or patient; the whole entangled state being turned, again, through 60 The merging of the two semiotic tetrahedra in figure 4g provides a 3-D object called a The five convex regular polyhedra called Platonic solids include the tetrahedron, cube, octahedron, icosohedron, and dodecahedron. Interestingly, in more than three dimensions, these polyhedra generalize to what are known as multi-dimensional polytopes, with higher-dimensional convex regular polytopes being the equivalents of the three-dimensional Platonic solids. In all dimensions higher than four, there are only three convex regular polytopes; the simplex, the hypercube, and the cross-polytope whose projections in three dimensions, correspond with the tetrahedron, the cube, and the octahedron, respectively. Since the time of their discovery by Pythagoras, there are those who have regarded the Platonic solids as imbued with mystical significance, four of them being used to represent the classical four elements. Thus the cube was associated with the earth; the octahedron with air; the icosahedron with water; and the tetrahedron with fire. The dodecahedron represented spirit or the universe. It is in this context that the stella octangula, has a long history in esoteric thought, especially in Jewish Hasidic philosophy where it is known as the Merkabah or ‘chariot’. Here, the Merkabah was considered a multi-layered analogy that offered insight into the nature of man and his relationship to God, the ecosystem, and the world. In current ‘New Age’ circles, the stella octangula is thought of as a ‘vehicle’ for transporting consciousness between different dimensions. The two superimposed tetrahedra are imagined as counter-rotating, which when combined with specific breathing techniques, certain eye movements and prayer, are supposed to generate a spine-anchored energy field around the human body. This, when activated, is supposedly the carrier of consciousness directly to higher dimensions. More in keeping with modern ideas of quantum entanglement and its use in quantum information theory, Given the already-mentioned multi-dimensional nature of the Vf discussed in this and other papers,
Quantum macro-entanglement between various combinations of Px, Pr, and Rx permits alternative descriptions (compared to the bio-molecular and biomedical sciences) of the therapeutic encounter in homeopathy.
IΠrIΨ_{PPR}> = <∆Sx>For this to occur successfully, however, the practitioner may notionally facilitate formation of the tetrahedral entangled PPR and curative stella octangula states but not, in semiotic terms, be at their epi-centres. These ‘places’ are reserved exclusively for the patient. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express his gratitude to fellow homeopath, Ms. Anne Vervacke, and to an old friend, Ms. Susan Norman, for providing the initial and final inspirations for this work. __________________________ †This is part 11 in a series of papers entitled Patient-Practitioner-Remedy (PPR) entanglement. ‡Address: Department of Chemistry, Imperial College London, South Kensington, SW7 2AZ, UK; e-mail: l.milgrom@ic.ac.uk Bibliography 1. Bornhöft G, Wolf U, von Ammon K, Righetti M, Maxion-Bergemann S, Baumgartner S, Thurneyson A, and Matthiessen PF. Effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of homeopathy in general practice – summarised health technology assessment. Forsch Komplementärmed 2006; 13(suppl 2): 19-29. 2. Shang A, Huwiler-Muntener K, Nartey L, Juni P, Dorig S, Sterne JA, Pewsner D, Egger M. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy and allopathy. Lancet 2005;366:726-32. See also, Editorial. The end of homeopathy. 3.Fisher P. Homeopathy and The Lancet. Evid Based Complement Alt Med 2006;3(1):145-7: 4. Frass M, Schuster E, Muchitsch I, et al. Bias in the trial and reporting of trials of homeopathy: A fundamental breakdown in peer review and standards? J Altern Complement Med 2005;11:780–782. 5. Holmes D, Murray SJ, Perron A, et al. Deconstructing the evidence-based discourse in health sciences: truth, power, and fascism. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2006;4:180-186. 6. Barry CA. The role of evidence in alternative medicine: contrasting biomedical and anthropological approaches. Soc Sci Med 2006;62:2646-2657. 7. Weatherley-Jones E, Thompson EA, Thomas KJ. The placebo-controlled trial as a test of complementary and alternative medicine: Observations from research experience of individualised homeopathic treatment. Homeopathy 2004;93:186– 189. 8. Milgrom LR. Are randomised controlled trials (RCTs) redundant for testing the efficacy of homeopathy? A critique of RCT methodology based on entanglement theory. J Altern Complement Med 2005;11: 831-38. 9. Popper K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Basic Books, New York, 1959. 10. Auyung SY. How is Quantum Field Theory Possible? Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press,1995. 11. See Milgrom LR. Conspicuous by its absence: the memory of water, macro-entanglement, and the possibility of homeopathy. Homeopathy 2007; 96: 209-219; and references therein. 12. Walach H. Homeopathy as semiotic. Semiotica 1991;83:81-85. 13. Walach H. Magic of Signs. Br Hom J 2000;89:127-140. 14. Gernert D. Towards a closed description of observation processes. BioSystems 2000;54:165-80. 15. Gernert D. Conditions for entanglement. Front Perspect 2005;14:8–13. 16. Milgrom LR. Patient-practitioner-remedy (PPR) entanglement: Part 1. A qualitative non-local metaphor for homeopathy based on quantum theory. Homeopathy 2002;91:239–248. 17. Nadeau R, Kafatos M. The Non-local Universe: The New Physics and Matters of the Mind. Oxford New York, Oxford University Press, 1999 18. Atmanspacher H, Römer H, Walach H. Weak quantum theory: complementarity and entanglement in physics and beyond. Found Phys 2002;32:379-406. 19. Walach H. Generalised entanglement: a new theoretical model for understanding the effects of complementary and alternative medicine. J Altern Complement Med 2005;11:549-59. 20. Weingärtner O. An approach to the scientific identification of a therapeutically active ingredient of high potencies [in German]. Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Natur 2002;9:229–233: Also, Weingärtner O. The nature of the active ingredient in ultra-molecular dilutions. Homeopathy 2007; 96: 220-226. 21. Walach H. Entanglement model of homeopathy as an example of generalised entanglement predicted by weak quantum theory. Forsch Komplementärmed Klass Naturheilkd 2003;10:192-200. 22. Hyland ME. Does a form of "entanglement" between people explain healing? An examination of hypotheses and methodology. Complement Ther Med 2004;12:198-208. 23. Milgrom LR. Patient-practitioner-remedy (PPR) entanglement: Part 3. Refining the quantum metaphor for homeopathy. Homeopathy 2003;92:152–160. 24. Milgrom LR. Patient-practitioner-remedy (PPR) entanglement Part 4. Towards classification and unification of the different entanglement models for homeopathy. Homeopathy 2004; 93: 34-42. 25. Greenberger DM, Horne MA, Shimony A, Zeilinger A. Bell’s theorem without inequalities. Am J Phys 1990;58:1131– 1143. 26. Milgrom LR. Towards a new model of the homeopathic process based on Quantum Field Theory. Forsch Komplementärmed. 2006;13:167-173. 27. Milgrom LR. Entanglement, knowledge, and their possible effects on the outcomes of blinded homeopathic provings. J Altern Complement Med 2006; 12: 271-9. 28. Milgrom LR. Journeys in the country of the blind: entanglement theory and the effects of blinding on trials of homeopathy and homeopathic provings. Evid Based Complement Alt Med 2006: doi:10.1093/ecam/nel062. 29. Möllinger H, Schneider R, Löffel M, et al. A double blind randomized homeopathic pathogenic trial with healthy persons: comparing two high potencies. Forsche Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd 2004; 11: 274–80. 30. Walach H, Sherr J, Schneider R, Shabi R, Bond A, Rieberer G. Homeopathic proving symptoms: result of a local, non- local, or placebo process? A blinded, placebo-controlled pilot study. Homeopathy 2004; 93: 179–85. 31. Dominici G, Bellavite P, di Stanislao C, Gulia P, Pitari G. Double-blind placebo-controlled homeopathic pathogenic trials: symptom collection and analysis. Homeopathy 2006; 95: 123–30. 32. Milgrom LR. Patient–practitioner-remedy (PPR) entanglement: Part 6. Miasms revisited: Non-linear quantum theory as a model for the homeopathic process. Homeopathy 2004;93:154–158. 33. Milgrom LR. ‘Torque-like’ action of remedies and diseases on the vital force, and their consequences for homeopathic treatment. J Altern Complement Med 2006;12:915-929. 34. Cromwell PR. Polyhedra. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1999. 35. Landau LJ. Experimental tests of general quantum mechanics. Lett Math Phys 1987;14:33-40. 36. Aspect A, Granger P, Roger R, et al. Experimental realisation of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm gedanken [thought] experiment: A new violation of Bell’s inequalities. Phys Rev Lett 1982;49:91–94. 37. Prigogine I, Stengers I. Order out of Chaos. London, UK: Fontana, 1985. 38. Kleinert H. Gauge Fields in Condensed Matter; Vol 1. Superflow and Vortex Lines. World Scientific, Singapore 1989, pp1-742. 39. Hankey A. Are we close to a theory of energy medicine? J Alt Complement Med 2004;10:83-86. 40. Schiff M. The Memory of Water: Homeopathy and the Battle of Ideas in the New Science. London: Thorsons (HarperCollins), 1995, and references therein. 41. Del Guidice E, Preparata G, Vitiello G. Water as a free-electron dipole laser. Phys Rev Lett 1988;61:1085-1088. 42. Chaplin M. Water structure and behaviour. http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ (accessed 9 43. Gribbin J. Q is for Quantum. Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1998. 44. Al-Khalil J. Quantum: a Guide for the Perplexed. Weidenfeld and Nicholson, London, 2003. 45. Chandler D. Semiotics: The Basics. Routledge, London, 2002. 46. Danesi M. Messages and Mea |