If anyone thinks something funny is going on: here it is!
Earlier this year I was thinking about the idea of "A perfect framework" in a theory-of-everything forum post by someone at another forum.
Also someone mentioned the idea of "damped oscillation".
I ended out with a flood of insights. I also discovered a rather weird? way of exploring which is sort-of-like walking on water maybe- basically letting ideas come to me and not judge them just let them be and meet each other in freedom and the law of non-contradiction and consciousness.
My thinking process:
when experiencing many insights I seem to have a curious thinking process. Not wanting to constrain, or judge, or restrict that process, I can say what it can be like (but not wishing to double-define it, the process is preferably so free as to resist commentary?)(How you see this is optional it seems).
Example: an insight (say I+-)(Have to find out again what I meant by "I+-" by the way) comes to me in physics. Sometimes I might be tempted to think "that's workable" (actually as I write this I realise such a comment could be double-defining as the pattern-template (in freedom) asociated with "workable" may be already associated with the insight (I+-)).
Not wanting to interfere with I+- I prefer to keep it free. The next idea is allowed to be free, not even categorised by I+- as the two (I+- and the next idea) are allowed to be free to meet in pure freedom.
I do not wish to tie down my thinking process (by allowing it to be free to be, I am freed to have unconstrained new thoughts, that can apear from freedom).
As you measure, so you are measured. Let be and you measure in freedom and Existence. The idea is being and let it be, in freedom you are free to let it be free.
I tread a careful path as there is a delicate balance it seems in maintaining my integrity with the level of freedom I am allowing...............................................................?????
Referring to an account of the "double slit experiment":
Time: self-referent reference. (pendulum has fixed point, re-traces same path, atomic vibration retraces same path, clock-hand rotates with self-referent origin). Equal spacing.
Time: a set of boxes for sorting stuff.
Source of photon: S.
2 perspectives on the Source and Detector: call these perspectives:
Two ways of arranging (sorting) the S and D into the time array of boxes:
the A way;
the B way.
The two sorting methods may overlap so get interference (some of the A-sort method overlaps (share boxes) with the B-sort method.
Change distance of A and B and you change the time perspective on A and B (longer apart) so you change the time-boxes arrangement from under your A and B sortings.
Probability of getting reading D of photon (of comparison) is simply frequency of D's per time boxes (grouping of D in time)(D as time groups).
Put detector at A and detector at B:
now have time sorter at A and new time sorter at B.
The interference (overlap) of A's view of S+D and of B's view of S+D in your time boxes (S-D time)
is now cancelled out by the effect of your exactly compensating new time sorters in your time boxes. Time is now sorted (grouped) into groups of boxes that complement the A and B views of S, D.
Photon as a group of time, a comparison??(?)