Thanks for your kind comments, Dr. Kyle.
Some brief comments: Yes, the "handshake" or "transaction" is but a more limited version of what I call "the MATCH" of patterns.
When I first started drawing "multi-interdimensional pattern-match diagrams"; I was increasingly dazzled at how every physics concept could be represented by these diagrams.
To test the idea; I dived deep into "The New Physics" by Paul Davies, and found the further I read, the more they were catching up to saying what I was thinking. So far, I have not found any physics or math concept that can not be translated into this simple system.
It definietly can be tested: in translating physics concepts into these diagrams; the explanatory-resolving power appears dazzling. Of course, I may be up the wrong creek without a paddle; but I found logical-philosophical arguments that show why it works and why it must work.
It should be capable of generating new information (like positrons were predicted by theory) and thus be able to be lab-tested that way. There's a lot of work to do though- I started once on the road to a phD in physics but got distracted by skiing early on!
I think that even if our brains were telling us more about our ability to 'impose' patterns; our relationship with the universe is itself a fact about the universe!
How did I come up with the theory? I wrote about some discoveries I made about what humans are at another website. I invited the sharpest criticism I could find (being an objective-scientist sort) and Luis Hamburgh delivered that criticism (thank you Luis).
It was in trying to defend my views, that I got to figuring out (thinking about how I used the wrong key to open a door, how the brain works, and a curious phenomenon known as 'a mechanical hologram') how the brain works.
That and other considerations lead to a spectacular discovery. I literally avoided physics texts for a time because it was all "going lucid" on me (easily explainable- felt like I'd become Mozart/Einstein rolled into one!) (Sure, I'm skeptical). Actually it all results from a commitment to unlimited honesty- this has a way of making things clearer- childlike innocence) (Plus its kind of playing philosophical jazz- impromptu!- who knows what the next melody will be).
O.K., so the only neural aspect of this is the extent to which I've dismantled unnatural 'blocks' in my brain (years ago I discovered howe to obtain total recall, but haven't done it yet).
Thanks for actually getting what I am saying; specially re: sq. rt. of -1. It is in understanding how and why this works as it does; that should make at least the 'conceptual analysis' aspect of the theory acceptable to physicists. I am an amateur; am more interested in learning and being proven wrong than tying myself to any empire-building; so that gives me the freedom to make mistakes and learn from them. Hopefully professionals also have a degree of boldness too, with necessary skepticism too.
This comment: "I’m not so sure that your idea is fully applicable to the quantitization boundary conditions that are required to satisfy ‘testable’ conditions? Have you developed any ideas regarding testability?"
-not sure exactly what you mean, I have a lot of reading to do since I never finished my degree.
The main test is to translate physics into this structure:
Draw what is effectively a game of musical chairs (symbols for kids and symbols for chairs). Draw another such collection (some kids are on chairs, some are not. Draw lines connecting these two fields to create a third such field of "musical chairs".
With something like a photon: represent it as a group of 'sub-games' moving about within a zone that is itself moving relative to a background of games. (the photon is thus orthodoxly represented as a collection of standing waves).
Actually I'm rushing this- sorry computer time running out-
yes vector is related to other vectors