Some more from my rough version incomplete initial draft paper:
ABOUT DR. STAFFORD'S PAPER
Consider this idea:
Draw a circle with 1, 2 roles meet inside; surround this with a bigger circle call this role 3; surround this with an even bigger circle called role 4.
switch 3 and 4:----------black hole
switch (1,2) and 4:------rotating black hole
switch (1,2) and (3,4):---galaxy
SWITCH 3 and 4:---function (math can make it look like a black hole)
(A function is a conserved variable; a holding constant of a variable when it meets changing surroundings. A rule or function keeps a variable constant against a variable background. A swapping is effectively descriptive of this; is the variable held constant against a background variation; or is the background constant against a variable. Which is the background and which is the function?
Which is which? This pattern is: swap places. This is reminiscent of Chris Langan's CTMU paper.
SWITCH (1,2) and 4:---add "unknown data" (diluting the function OR the background: you choose)(Your choice makes it unique)
SWITCH (1,2) and (3,4):---add more "unknown data" so you can take away any detail within and it is still unique (Confusing the issue as to whether your previous choice diluted the function or the background: separating out this confusion by taking away whatever blocks you from seeing what your previous choice was).
This effectively reverses "switch (1,2) and (3,4); just leaving you with the previous choice of what do you dilute, the function or the background?
However, since role "3" and role "4" are given internal detail by calling them "sets of numbers"; this complicates things somewhat.
By making at least one of "3" or "4" roles as a group of two members; and by not saying which one is the group; a new layer of confusion is added. Confusion is put in as to what is the role swap and what is the pair.
When you get to "switch (1,2) and 4; the confusion is doubled.
You are not sure what is a pair; an alternative pair; or what your choice of whether to dilute function or background is. There's a choice there somewhere, but where is it?
At "switch (1,2) and (3,4)"; you confuse the issue as to whether your previous choice diluted the function or the background. But since you were confused as to what the choice was actually between last time; you are now confusing which one you diluted not knowing what "one" looks like.
If you take away any internal detail so as your previous muddled choice is conserved; you are left back to not knowing where the choice is between function and background due to confusion over their definitions.
Not knowing where the choice is gives you something called "an equation"; as they seem equal. An equation has the look of forcing things together without you choosing; or simply leaving the choice open between them.
A solution to an equation is I guess a particular perspective on it.
A partial differential equation partly defines the confusion. Solutions to a partial differential equation give perspectives on partly defining the confusion. Complex numbers are 2-D numbers; numbers are themselves 2-D muddlement of sorts ("2" as a potential confusion between this 1 and that 1 say). A 2-D number is potentially doubly confused, so could be confused then partly or wholly unconfused.
A partial differential equation using complex numbers gives: confusion possibly further confused within scope to be further confused, further confused again within available limits; or these three layers could have included partial confusion or un-confusion or partial un-confusion after the initial potential confusion called "equation".
So you have confusion over what is function and what is background; looked at in a way that applies three more layers of potential further confusion,
or could involve un-confusion or partial confusion or partial un-confusion in these layers. A solution is a new perspective on the confusion; compared to the overall confusion the comparison may give apparent localized un-confusion. (Called "fixing a gauge").
Effectively a 4-D merry-go-round regarding what is "function" and what is "background". Partially differentiate this gives you two merry-go-rounds; where compared to each other one seems stationary.
If you bring in a third merry-go-round by doing experiments: you can get two merry-go-rounds seeming constant (S.W. Hawking calls this: "bolt"?); one merry go-round seeming constant ("nut") in "asymptotically flat anti de Sitter space (two merry-go-rounds merged); or might leave the question open and call the whole thing a "nut-shell" (potential for nut perspective) or a nut-bolt superposition (pea instanton)(assuming "instanton" means "localized bolt "uncertainty" (choice of what to call a bolt left open).
Isn't partially differentiating an object from its surroundings in 4-D (space-time) what physicists do? By looking at its relative velocity, position, momentum, etc.? So any "Law of Physics" which helps you relatively differentiate an object from its background in 4-D math may give a relative (so approximate) perspective on a 4-D merry-go-round?
It's a question of sorting out what is math (counting)(space or time?); what is object (space-time mixture) and what is background (time or space).
The object and observer meet and "count" each other by giving each other gifts of space-time. Internal awareness in each allows un-confused interaction. By living in full consciousness one can avoid tripping over numbers in ones surroundings.
SWITCH 3 and 4:----------arrow (complex number: square root -1)
SWITCH (1,2) and 4:------adding arrows to get final arrow
SWITCH (1,2) and (3,4):--squaring final arrow to get "probability".