Does anyone follow this?
I wrote this at another forum:
About hot coffee getting colder in a cold room:
Suppose that "hot" means "jiggling space" means "uncertainty in space"; and that "cold" means "relatively certain space";
Suppose that "counting" something certain means: making it more diffuse; and that counting something uncertain means "making it more specific".
This idea can be illustrated as follows:
potentially when a new category "bumps into" (that is: it "counts") another category (a "hot space") you get the possibility of a specified intersection of the categories (just as the word category "car" bumps into the word category "vehicle" and they partially specify each other).
Consider now the word intersection (or "cold space") of "carvehicle". "Cold" as we have a specific intersection of categories "car" and "vehicle" where each is "still" in mutual meeting in partial definition of each other.
Now this relatively cold definition "carvehicle" bumps into word category "red": now things can potentially be more diffuse as there may be many ways a "red" can be a car and a vehicle)
"Red" has been spread among "car" and "vehicle"; in minimum math it is divided. You get a "virtual fourth perspective on the three categories with the possibility there might be some red cars that are not red vehicles and some red vehicles that are not cars.
If you add extra categories; an overall variety of threefour groups can be seen to
interact emitting and absorbing comparisons (photons). The structure of quantum electrodynamics and so on seems to be implied.
A "photon" would be a "time group" that is a fourview (spacejuggled time view)(2,2 ; 3 view) of a three (a time). It may be emitted or absorbed by an electron (timejuggled space view)(3,3; 2 view) of a two ( a space); say.
Dirac strings seem to follow as easily as numberlines, say.
Considering minimal number accounting; "red" , "car" and "vehicle" can generate a variety of "spacetimes"; of twonessthreeness; of placing brackets around a pair and placing items in the roles of the ones in (1 meets 1) meet 1; when you count reappearances of this meeting (number itself multiplies the ways number can be constructed from a pair in a triple say).
So if "hot" coffee is "uncertain space"; and "cold" room is "relatively more certain space"; and if counting "certain" gives "potentially more uncertain"; and counting "uncertain" gives potentially more certain:
The hot coffee has potentially become colder (the uncertain space potentially more certain from bumping into a counting category)(as a uncertain space is a category; meet a counting category gives an intersection which can specify each category partially).
The cold room has potentially become more uncertain from bumping into a counting category (the RELATIVELY more certain space has become potentially more UNcertain from being potentially rejuggled by the counting category)(as a certain space is a twocategory intersection; meet a new category and the intersection becomes diffuse).
So we have POSSIBLY a hot coffee getting colder; and POSSIBLY a cold room getting hotter.
But they do not have to.
But if you SEE THIS AGAIN; then by definition of counting this again: by conserving your definition of coffee and room; by assuming rigid space by assuming equaltime intervals say:
If your second take on "hot coffee" is assumed to be same as "takeone": and if you are measuring effects only with minimal number:
By definition your coffee that could have got colder; is now a couldhavegotcoldercoffeethatcouldgetstillcolder.
Now in any sequence of comparing a pair in a triple; of comparing choice (space) with choice of choice (time):
In pure "hollow" number definition terms you are going to get a bias in favour of colder upon colder upon colder!
The very definition of "colder" is being built up like a castle with foundations of sand.
The coffee never had to get colder!
Never had to not get colder either!
Like "Zeno's Arrow": each layer of "colder" is selfreferentially strengthened: each time it is just "could have got colder"; but each layer gets MORE DENSE as the probability density of finding "colder" increases!
Because in "take three" you got:
take one: coffee COULD be colder
take two: coffee COULD be colder COULD be colder (so COULD be even colder still!)
take three: coffee COULD be colder COULD be colder (so COULD be colder still) COULD be colder (so could be EVEN COLDER still)!
Similar pattern applies to the "cold room" supposedly getting hotter.
It doesn't have to get hotter.
The probability density of finding "hotter" increases by virtue of "take one", "take two", "take three" etc.
So the conservation of a definition of "coffee" and of "room"; the assumption of rigid equalspaced spaces and of rigid equalspaced timedivisions: generated the second law of thermodynamics from COUNTING; as hot goes cold; cold goes hot; when side by side?
Note "hot" and "cold" were defined RELATIVE each other (Newtonian relativity); and that "counting" added another twist to this relativity (Einstein relativity? as uncertainty in definition of Newtonian relativity). Spinors and twistors!
Spinors and twistors interfere with each others' definition; the more you count them the more they interfere.
But the interference DENSITY increases as number is built up in "take one", "take two", "take three" etc.
So one might end out with the question "what is the probability of finding a spinor or a twistor" given the spinning of twistors and the twisting of spinors?
The answer to that seems to involve: how many ways can you make up the number you counted to?
The constants "c", "G", and "h":
A model?:
One might imagine an "impossible object":
the "Penrose Triangle" (which twists at each change of direction) as having sides of:
"c" (speed of light)(timeside)('Zeno negative curvature' of time?)(numbered selfreferent reference)(uncertainty in h and G);
"G" (Gravitational constant)(Zeno curvature of space)(self referent referent number)(uncertainty in G and h);
"h" (Planck's Constant)(Zeno plus/minus curvature of number)(uncertainty in c?)
Guessing there.
Alan
