|
Continuing:
CHOICES WITHIN NETWORKS AND BETWEEN NETWORKS
34. When someone looks at the world and thinks, they either contemplate Existence directly, or compare and match patterns. Objects are the logically consistent intersections of categories, or of the intersections of other categories.
The object "dog" forms the intersection of many categories; but within itself contains many ways of being a dog (e.g. being a dog in a spaceship). The same applies to the categories-intersection "cat".
These many alternatives seem to be R. Stafford's "unknown data" added to accommodate possible broadening, or narrowing, of "dog" (or "cat"). Lorentz "time dilation" (reference-length narrowing) and "length contraction" (narrowing) at speeds near 'c' (high frequency, broadening) seems to make more sense in this context.
35. When categories-intersection "cat" meets categories-intersection "dog"; this "event" is thus accompanied my R. Stafford's "cloud of property-less events". That is, there are lots of ways to be a dog, lots of ways to be a cat, and lots of ways event dog-meet-cat can happen.
The "wave functions" of possibilities open to "cat" and open to "dog" are "collapsed' by the one perspective on the mass of alternatives that the actual meeting gives. Predictions only involve predicting logical consistency perhaps: if "cat" by definition doesn't fly; "cat" is predicted to not fly on meeting "dog'! But nature can surprise, and thus categories, intersections, and definitions, might need to be re-juggled to accommodate what happens in the field.
36. The many possibilities of a network may be depicted as possible pattern matches, thus as layers of binary perspectives, thus as complex numbers; and as musical chairs. When two such networks interact, the range of interactions that can occur, that are logically consistent with the definitions of the networks, can be itself represented as a collection of layers of binary perspectives that can "join the dots" between the two networks.
The key is to know the difference between the connecting network, and the networks being connected. If you do not know the difference, you might muddle some of the "fly" network with "pig" network, and think pigs can fly.
37. However, "fly" can legitimately "quantum tunnel" to the "pig" network; via "in the less precise part of the "fly" definition "wave" where "fly" is "broad enough to include "float in a spacecraft in orbit". It is in those broad, less defined regions of "definition waves" that "quantum tunneling of definitions" can take place.
Apparently, one can go through physics and rewrite it as being all about the laws of definitions, categories, and intersections of categories, as in the "tunneling" example.
CATALOUGING. EXISTENCE. APPROXIMATIONS.
38. When you analyze the process of looking at the world, comparing and matching patterns, juggling categories to get intersections thus new categories; it appears that physics is about cataloguing nature as R.Stafford discovered. And the laws of such catalouging flow from the law of logical consistency.
Except for the law of freedom and Existence; each phenomenon can be regarded as a law in itself ; a unique item. The more general laws of physics may be the patterns in the cataloging process; flowing from the law of non-contradiction.
Similarly, mathematics involves patterns that flow from the law of logical consistency and freedom. "2" is a categorization of 1 + 1; it is a new perspective.
39. In the Stafford model; the imagined universe is regarded as being capable of being separated into irreducible unique elements. This thus invokes the law of Existence: to exist at all, "A" must be different in some way from "B". If it was the same in every way to "B", it would even be called "B" (same name); and there would just be B.
40. If you have definition networks "pig" and "fly"; you may calculate the "mass" of the overlap of networks as a ratio against the "pig' and "fly" networks sum. That will give you a probability of finding a flying pig when you bring "fly" and "pig" together. If your networks are not DETAILED enough in their description, you may find that you never see a flying pig, as there may be an ERROR in your network-exclusion rules.
That is, "flying pig" may occur in the intersection of "fly" and "pig"; but you cannot see enough detail in the intersection to perceive "flying pig" as it is within the ERROR margin. If an ERROR is in your observing system, you may find approximate flying pigs with a predicted probability but within the margin of error.
GRAVITY, RELATIVITY
41. Is gravity present by logical consistency?
Whenever "time" is referred to, one finds actually a reference length is being referred to (e.g. distance of Earth's rotation about axis, length of travel of clock hand, or of caesium vibration). So "time" involves "reference length (distance)".
If you take all the possible ways the lifetimes of particles in a universe can interact; once 90% of that universe's whole lifetime is gone; many of the original possible particle interactions will have overlapped; many possibilities will have happened.
Those remaining possibilities will have a high frequency of having their histories anchored, in those sequences that already took place earlier on in that universe's life.
42. So as a universe progresses, each network of particles gathers more common ground in its sharing of history with others. Maybe the way particles obtain common-space with least effort is by approaching each other on a straight line between them in accordance with their distance (common space) and their mass (common frequency)? Maybe gravity is a kind of inertial clock for the whole universe?
43. Gravity may be the action of density; and thus the inverse of quantum theory (density of action). The mirror that reflects quantum theory into gravity may be relativity.
Similarly, relativity may be reflected by gravity into quantum theory; and gravity may be reflected by quantum theory into relativity.
The only quantum of time is a constant ratio c, which may be a view of the gravity constant G, reflected in a mirror of Planck's constant h. Flow of absolute time (reference space) would be gravity itself. Gravity may be the universe flow clock?
44. Relativity
One may represent relative movement as a horizontal arrow going left to right; above a parallel arrow going right to left; with a diagonal arrow going from the left of the top arrow to the right of the lower arrow.
This diagonal arrow communicates information from one arrow to the other, but is diagonal because it has to slope to catch up with the point that was opposite it on the lower arrow when it began its journey to it.
Call the top arrow "A", communication arrow "C", lower arrow "B". "C" is effectively rotated by the relative movement into a diagonal slant. If you collapse "A" to a point, so it regards itself as stationary; it sees "C" go off at right angles to "A" straight over to moving "B". But the appearance of the communication-object (say: photon) traveling to "B" looks as if it rotated about the midpoint of the path to "B".
IDEAS ON THE EPR PARADOX
45. Ideas on EPR paradox.
The "other half" of the photon is "logically entangled" and subject to the margin of error that describes a photon. Of course if you measure one "half" the other "half" will be complementary as you are just measuring part of the same overlap.
The very concept of "photon" may already include the concept of entanglement at great distances. Maybe the concept "photon" already incorporates the concept "entanglement regardless of distance and time". Maybe by definition a photon IS that which can be split in two and have complementary direction measurements.
The EPR paradox may be already included in the definition margin of error, the freedom within the ways a photon can be a photon and still be in the categories-intersection "photon".
46. The EPR paradox involves an intersection of two intersections of categories; (1) "photon" categories-intersection, (2) "spin direction" categories-intersection.
So one might say that the scientist measures the photon of the spin direction? Why is there apparent instant communication between when you measure one spin-direction's photon and another spin-direction's photon? Well, the fact you even can tell there are two possible directions means this information is instantly already there at both locations, by the way you define those locations (defined relative each other via direction!)
So your very definitions may be, by matching patterns (which is done by the observer, so instantly in him) involved in the paradox. Maybe the complementary "photon of the spin direction" isn't the other photon they thought it was, but a statistical event that they decided was the other photon?
47. Maybe the definitions of "photon" and "spin" are what are entangled?
Spin is how you look at something; look at a small area in the room and in a way you rotate the rest of the room around it in all directions and on all axis just like the multi-direction nature of intrinsic photon spin. The photon spin maybe similarly originating in the observer and how they "spin" reference patterns around the photon to localise it.
You can pass a field of sheep in a bus, focus on any one animal and the others in the field seem to rotate around it. Apparently at the quantum level they cannot distinguish between this spin caused by moving past an object and seeing different perspectives, and the actual spin of the object.
48. Once you focus on something, fix a gauge, your gauge is invariant by logical consistency to all things connected to it. A logical consistency between sub-networks and bigger networks is required to talk about (communicate) information among sub-networks and bigger networks.
In the EPR experiment, one might say the half-silvered mirror is “photoned”, rather than the photon is divided. The split may be what is entangled, by having two photon views of it. Maybe if they insist it is the same photon on each path, the photons are statistically required to be the photon of complementary spin direction?
GOD, EXPLANATION, INTERSECTING LOGICALLY CONSISTENT CATEGORIES
49. There must be one law: logical consistency, Existence, letting be, Love, God,
50. Lorentz contraction: internal mass contraction at high energy; maybe this is kind of gravity! Take any two masses (blobs of frequency) and the frequency of them (their distance apart) and you may get internal contraction of the distancing frequency that compensates the otherwise increase in their mutual sum of their internal oscillations.
51. Explanations of things involve layers of relationships; layers of intersecting categories, layers of comparing and matching patterns. The structure may be reminiscent of a Mandelbrot set.
From a perspective of category-intersections within category-intersections within category-intersections; looking around an explanation-structure is like being on a mirror-surface-sphere and rotating about, looking at inside walls of a surrounding mirror surface sphere; getting a tunnel of reflections where ever that you look.
The "small probability that you are at Sirius" that physicists talk of must actually be a fuzziness of definition; a part of the region inside the intersection of categories that is free. But when you collide with something on Earth, you are localised on Earth it would seem for that interaction.
52. The mathematical paper of Richard Stafford seems to be all about intersecting logically consistent categories.
This may be regarded as involving comparing, and matching, patterns.
Suppose that one focuses on a particular group of pattern categories, and a region where these overlap. Then suppose that one focuses on new detail of pattern categories within the region that may extend outside the region, but focus only on the more focused region. Potentially one could imagine the focus "tunnel" could include ever-smaller regions of more and more marginal connections to other categories.
One's focus here might be likened to a density wave of comparison in a universe of patterns. This may even be like a piece of a broken hologram, giving a perspective on the whole scene.
53. Look around the room, your eyes wander from pace to place, taking in a variety of patterns. Sometimes a large area is taken in, sometimes a small area. It is as if other patterns can be regarded as 'rotating' round the patterns focused on. A pattern selection wave, one might say. To exist is to be different, so the boundary between any two objects is infinity. To exist is to be bounded by infinity.
54. The intersection of categories is like a particle; the many ways that intersection-category can be realised is like a wave.
The EPR puzzle may have one wondering how well defined is "here" and "there", and about the category intersection possibilities of these definitions and freedom within the overlap region of the definition.
The question is the logical consistency overlap between "spin" and "photon" and "measurement" and "direction" and "here" and "there" and "then" and "now". The quantum entanglement may be in the head of the observer; the possibilities-freedom zone in the intersection region of the defining categories.
“DEFINITION DYNAMICS”
55. “Definition Dynamics” may give rise to entangled definitions; tunneling definitions? Entropy of definitions? Gravity of definitions? Definition waves? Definition blackholes? Definition interference? Laser definitions? Definition reflections? Definition holograms?
Over time (interaction with ever increasing reference categories) definitions can leak out? Tunnel into other categories? If two definitions have an error margin between them that is more than their own approximation-aspect in some region, then in that region perhaps parts of one definition can pass to the other.
56. Entropy of definitions: tendency towards definition disorder- with time (that is, with juggling of categories) you may get such a re-alignment of the original intersection-region as to have it spread in pieces about many category-intersections.
Definition blackhole ; when you increase the mass of definitions you get more and more categories overlapping contents? If you had a lot- larger categories may swallow smaller categories increasing the mass and the possibility that a nearby category could be swallowed.
Multiple collapse opens up new interaction potential, a new universe of possibility, of new categories even.
Definition charge: Like definitions attract, unlike definitions repel.
57. Mass: possible alternative Chess moves. Energy: alternative possible Chess strategies. The game "Give Us A Clue" involves guessing from visual clues what word or phrase someone is defining. One might suppose that a sequence of sharply defined little definitions would diffract the sought-after definition, strongly reflecting it.
58. A "definition lens" would be like a glass lens: thick in the middle (many possibilities) so the definition passes straight through. Towards each edge of the lens there are fewer and fewer possibilities, and the definition is more sharply refracted so overall it focuses at a point at the other side of the "definition lens".
59. Physicist F.David Peat wrote that physics may have to turn to philosophy for answers. Paul Davies wrote of the need to discover information laws and information forces. Maybe it looks as though basic philosophy can show that the physics laws and forces ARE information laws and forces?
When physicists are reluctant to talk of something "happening" in a region, this probably means the region is a freedom zone due to the overlap-space in the way they have intersected categories to define something relatively partially.
-continues.... (-Alan)
|
