First: Here is an attempt to show circularity in quantum electrodynamics:
From Feynman's book one learns:
Regular physics: light focuses through a lens by refraction etc. etc.
Quantum view: light travels every path (even wiggly ones). For simplification: looking at the straight paths through a lens: if you take away the lens, the light still can be thought as travelling in the path patterns that occur in a ray diagram with lens included. But the different path lengths are not synchronized, the long ones are slower so less frequent.
With the lens in place:
Long bent path: only the thin top of the lens involved so only a short section of that path is where that light is slowed down by the glass. The light through the thick middle of the lens is slowed down for a longer distance. The amount of slowing of the light by greater lens thickness exactly compensates the slowing caused by the longer paths via thinner bits of the lens. So the light bunches up at the same time at the lens focus. As if the lens really focused time. Of course you know that.
Now: old physics says: light travels in straight lines.
Feynman has a diagram that shows light can travel all possible paths (even very wiggly ones). He says that paths near to straight paths are not much different from the straight paths; but he says that paths near to wiggly paths are a lot different to those wiggly paths. So I might say that the winning tickets in this lottery per lottery are the straight paths: there are more similar ones of those per occurrence of similar wiggly paths; against the background that defines "wiggly" and "straight". A lottery per a lottery giving a final lottery (by definition!) the physicist calls "probability"! Straight paths are shorter and turn up more often. Or you might say the "background" that defines "wiggly" and "straight" is matched with straight more often; it's denser for straight, than for wiggly.
But the very definition of "straight" is "more dense" in 3-D geometry?
Straight paths match/ appear against the background, more often than wiggly paths.
But this background: it defines "straight" as more dense doesn't it? Less spread out..... Higher frequency....More often...?
So by definition you get the result QED gives; and "time" becomes virtual? Time becomes something projected out of this scenario to explain it against a rigid geometry also projected out? That's amazing.........
"Lottery" is misleading; as "chance" is circular. 1 chance in 6 is just a way of saying
a ratio of frequencies 1 to 6.
What about the background to the diagram? What if the background, the geometry, could be relatively "straight" or relatively "wiggly" to the drawing of straight and wiggly paths? Now we seem to have thrown assumptions out the window?
A sufficiently "wiggly" geometry might make the previously drawn wiggly paths similar near each other, and "relatively straight"! And the previously drawn "straight paths" would now look quite different near each other in this wiggly background geometry! What you see is how you look for it? Seek and you shall find depending on how you seek? (but be non-contradictory (honest))
What happens to physics when the geometry against which it is drawn can vary too?
How about a "geometry" that is the source of variety itself? To be, to exist, is to be different. Consider the "geometry" that grants the freedom to choose, to vary; through eternal rest in Existence?
Imagine a dictionary where all the God-given words within are measured self-referentially to each other (in freedom of interaction, in the law of non-contradiction, so in God).
Imagine a dictionary containing just one word. The dictionary is the word.
Now try a 2 word dictionary; or a 3 word, or a 4, a 5, a 6, a 7, an 8.....
A self configuring self processing language?
A Dictionary containing one word; is a word containing a dictionary?
What if the word is God? And God is Conscious freedom of Existence.....
Using simple concepts, I think I can show the real nature of Dr. Stafford's discoveries which seem to relate to Chris Langan's ideas......
A car going along a road at 40 km/ hour. Driver puts their foot down on the accelerator and the car speeds up, soon going 50 then 60... 70...
Differentiation: how quickly is he speeding up? Separate the speed 40km/hr, 50, 60, 70 km/ hour; from how fast the change in speed is happening (does he go up 10km/hr every 5 seconds?
Integration: how far along the road did he go between when he was going 40km/hr and when he was going 70km/hr?
You know all this: my point is I like math to be that simple.
Suppose a little toy battery-powered car with nearly spent batteries was crawling along the back window shelf in the full-size accelerating car?
By imagining the full-sized car is stationary; you can partially differentiate say the rate at which the toy car is slowing down as its spent batteries weaken further.
Now: suppose the full sized car was changing its speed up and down so haphazardly that you couldn't predict where it would be on the highway from one moment to the next.
Suppose it just jumps (teleports) from one spot to another in both directions.
Suppose the toy car teleports here, there, haphazardly about a path on the rear-window sill.
So have two freedoms at right angles; each car could be anywhere within their respective reference frames (the frame of the highway for big car; the frame of the rear-window-sill for toy car)
Suppose the two reference frames can be at any angle:
suppose the two cars can each be hopping about anywhere in the Universe. What can one do? Suppose you take ANY arbitrary place that the big car is and MATCH it against any arbitrary place that the small car is.
Know the difference between the two cars constantly; and you have them in reference frames relative to each other: the reference frame that differentiates them is difference itself. So long as you keep knowing car A is car A; and car B is car B; you have their respective reference frames by definition.
To be is to be different: Existence (God) is the source of the two reference frames that result from tracking each car separately. One matches the two cars chosen from the two "menus" of car positions. Track the match pair through other jiggling car fields(keep it different)(let it be).
2 chosen cars 2 'menus' of positions, and a tracking of the matched pair. Note the menu of positions available to choose from, for one car, is a reference frame of freedom.
So a choice from one menu; a choice from another menu; a matching together of the choices. Now we have 3 connected patterns where each is freely chosen to form a 3-way deal. But two are cars and one is an superposition of them in one's mind; an chosen match.
So you have ingredients:
big car hopping about at varying intervals (so its "time" is jumpy)
toy car hopping about at varying intervals (so its "time" is jumpy)
A match you make between the cars.
Now track the match! From here on, you can look at how the relationship of the jumpiness of the big car compares with that of the toy car.
Now, if you draw a diagram of your results; you could represent the varied intervals of the big car as EQUAL intervals; and you could represent the varied intervals of the toy car as EQUAL intervals; and you could plot the jumpy DIFFERENCE between the two cars actual jumpiness as positions of varying gaps along a 4th axis (having already also drawn a 3rd axis where the CONSTANT MATCH of the two cars is represented by equal spaced positions on an axis.
Look what happened: 3 freedoms each of them self-referent (consistent spacings) have projected a varied structure onto a 4th axis!
This varied structure on the 4th axis can be regarded as a new defined jumpiness to be compared with a brand new jumpy-car pattern by a new MATCH.
Much of modern physics appears to be derivable from the above model.
Key question: what ingredients did I put in?
With a background of the Law of non-contradiction: I have: A series of differences; plus a series of differences; plus a MATCH that is tracked to show up a series of differences BETWEEN the first two series; make each of these 3 ingredients self-referent within themselves (so each series is depicted as an equally-spaced series); and you get (from 3 self-references that refer to each other) a projected created structure defined by your choice from two 'menus' of car-positions and your tracking of the match you made between them, as seen against a background 'geometry' of self-reference.
"Time" appears to be kind-of holographically projected with creation from freedom, from honesty (tracking the chosen match through new fields where new matches are made, building new structures); and consciousness (3 inter-related self-references).
Honesty, Freedom, Consciousness.
Know the difference, Musical Chairs, Join the dots.