Would appreciate it if someone looks carefully at this; posted before but seems it got overlooked.
Another big sample from very rough un-tidied version of paper not yet all typed:
EQUAL-SPACED NUMBER UNITS AS SHELLS ONLY PARTIALLY AND RELATIVELY DEFINED
QED seems to be about what is logically possible without contradicting oneself, seen from a 4-D oscillating math-counting shell approach. The math uses equal-spaced-numbers where numbers are seen as built of equal units. The basic pattern template about which the math, the rulers, and the clocks, seem to oscillate is: 1 + 1 = 2. The 2 is defined as relatively equally divided among the ones because 2 + 1 = 3 and "every way 3 can happen" is defined as superposed into the definition of 3. So "3" has the effect of defining 2 as either order of ones in 3: if 3 is a1 + b1 + c1; "2" can be a1 + b1; or a1 + c1; or b1 + c1.
Our math seems to involve four catelogues that sort each other:
"1a" sorts "1b" as " COULD be same difference"
"1b" sorts "1a" as "COULD be same difference"
"2" sorts "3" as the "1c" COULD be same difference as "1a" , "1b".
"3" sorts "2" as the "1a" , "1b" COULD be same difference as "1c".
Here we have comparisons (photons!?) "backwards and forwards" in "time", in "self-referent reference" in the number system we use to compare things with. The structure of physics seems to be implicit in the equal-spaced -number way we define our official mathematics. By replacing numbers with sets of numbers; Dr. Stafford appears to have allowed the gaps betwen numbers to be varied and not necessarily equal-spaced. Dr. Stafford's system seems to involve instead of "3", "2" and "1" as above; "a set of numbers", a "subset", and an "examined set".
Returning to "The New Physics", if QED is in one possible phase; which seems to be an oscillation about the pattern template: "2 patterns compared, meet a new comparison (so every way agreement can happen)"; what is the Higgs phase about?
Maybe the Higgs phase is about a re-juggling of original two patterns via their comparison meeting the new comparison. The weak force may be representing the path back to re-juggling in the original patterns. That is, a re-appearance of orignal pattern-structure lost in the first juggling (comparison?) of patterns, now re-appearing, looking apparently as it was in one of the original patterns.
The book "The New Physics" mentions integration of electromagnetic forces in the Glashow, Salam, Weinberg model", and mentions a spinless Higgs boson, and massive W and Z gauge bosons. Well it would seem that from a "time" point of view, that is a "self-referent reference" point of view; the boson (or I call: comparison) is spinless as it is undoing a "spin" (or juggling) the same amount as that particular bit of juggling was juggled?
With "mass" as "uncertainty", the very massive W would (as on page 140 of "QED. The Strange Theory Of Light And Matter" by Richard Feynman) take away the charge of a quark (take away the bias-away- from-old-pattern arrangement, seen in a new bit of pattern) and change its flavour (change it back to representing a different (and earlier) source-pattern from the source it had represented). This doesn't change the quark's colour, writes R. Feynman: may translate to: this may occur within the limits permitted by the uncertainty of what pattern the quark has, so its immediate bias to its three neighbours (its 'colour charge' polarization) may be unaffected. Of course this involves the very uncertain (massive) W, and maybe the very uncertain (massive) Zo (which is a rejuggled W, that is as if a W meets a W going in the opposite 'time' (pattern pattern comparison compared) direction.)
A 'W' and its anti-particle 'W' can couple to give a neutral 'W', the 'Zo'.
"Electro-magnetic" may be translated it seems as "generalization-specification"; "force" as "freedom surface" (a constant background for activity?); "weak force" as the freedom for rejuggling original patterns, which may look weak when described in terms of a cumulated pattern shells framework described by numbers (the weakness may be defined by the system of analysing).
As the "Higgs phase" seems to involve looking back in pattern pattern comparison comparison (looking back in time) to describe a current re-appearance of an earlier juggled-out pattern; it I guess involves a comparison (a boson) (meeting of meeting) that is spin-less (that occurs within the zone of uncertainty that gives a back-in-time linkage between a current 'uncertainty cell' and an earlier such cell. So by definition such a boson is not spun or biased towards either cell as it refers to groups that can be formed from both cells.
Also on pages 266-7 of "The New Physics" one learns that "the strong nuclear force is realised in yet another phase of a gauge theory (quantum chromo-dynamics), called the confining phase." Also one learns that in the confining phase quarks and gluons cannot be isolated, and that this is the most natural phase of the gauge theories, and that 4-D space-time is its lowest critical dimension. Well, if you go: pattern, pattern; make a comparison; meet a new comparison: you are confining your first comparison by the new comparison, as opposed to un-confining it by refering back to its two parent patterns? (Not necessarily need to be confining it, but from a math-shell number perspective confining it by repeatedly re-using the same comparison-comparison template and just counting the repeats or oscillations, so confining may be consequence of imposing an assumed equal-spaced numbering.)
The strong force is apparently to do with repeated oscillations of a division-template (this template: the going forwards from 2 patterns, to a comparison, to a new comparison). Why is the confining phase considered the most natural phase for a gauge theory? How about: because "time" is self-referent reference; is pattern pattern compared, meet new comparison; which is the process of gauging or measuring one comparison with another. Self-reference per reference: "how do I look before and after meeting something?". The repeating application of a 4D space-time math-numbers-assumed-equal template may give an illusion of confinement.
Of course the lower critical dimension of oscillating a 4-D space-time template ("a pattern, pattern, compared; meet new comparison", template) will be the template itself.
The weak force is apparantly to do with repeated oscillations of a multiplication-template (template: the going from a new comparison back to a previous comparison back to two patterns (so weak force is strong-force going back in time).
Electro-magnetic force involving QED is apparantly to do with allowing any grouping of assorted directions for time; about any way that: pattern, pattern, comparison; new comparison (that is: time) can happen.
Gravitational forces apparantly are about the apparent coming together of earlier patterns when they are seen from the perspective of a comparison of those original patterns meeting a new comparison. It looks extremely weak compared to the other forces when you look at it from a 4-space oscillating generalization point of view. This is because the only way you are going to see beyond the confinement of that 4-space generalization is to see the uncertainty oscillations within it.
MASS AS 'UNCERTAINTY-CELLS', CELLULAR AUTOMATA, E/c squared = m
When you repeatedly apply a 4-space look at a changing situation, you may find certain bounded undefined regions that are conserved and interact like cellular automata through your 4-space template oscillations. These "uncertainty-cells" might be called "masses". So gravity would be "electro-magnetism going backwards in electro-magnetism", that is un-juggling these alternatives (E) via comparison-comparison (c squared) to give matter (m).
Consider: two general categories: "car", "wheels". From a "car" perspective, "wheels" is a generalisation that specifies "car" as something with wheels, when you intersect the categories. From a "wheels" perspective, "car" is something that specifies "wheels" as part of car, when you intersect categories. Suppose further detail was involved: Suppose "roof" category was added, and you juggled this with both alternative orders of looking at "car" and "wheels".
The alternatives for grouping generalisation-specification (call alternatives: energy E) divided by comparisons of comparisons (c squared or re-grouping) gives an oscillation of the grouping possibilities (an internal self-referent view that grouping possibilities have of themselves) giving the uncertainty (mass) associated with "roof" seen in "cars, wheels". If "fermion" refers to "unit meets group" then this is characterised as fermions. ("c" regarded as "speed of light" regarded as "speed of speed" or "light of light" or "comparison of comparison"). Fermions here might be oscillations of "roof" as cells of uncertainty linking one "car, wheels" group with another "car, wheels" group. Fermions exchange bosons (boson as "comparison", as "group meets group") when you compare fermions.
Electro-magnetism involves "back and forth in every way time can happen, that is, time-groups (photons). I call "electro": "generalisation, and "magnetism": "specification. "Time" I call "self-referent reference", or "pattern, pattern; compared; meet new comparison" or "generalisation, specification" (which to the "hidden patterns" in the new comparison looks like (specification, generalisation). (Re: QED: See pages 27 and 28 of longer CTMU paper by Chris Langan under "Conspansive duality" where he talks of Venn diagrams as light-cone cross-sections; he seems to be talking about the same thing there).
WHY IS HIGGS BOSON SPINLESS?
Why is the Higgs boson spinless? The weak force seems to refer to the "force", or "freedom surface' associated with cells of: uncertainty of finding remnants of pattern A (or B) still present in a comparison "D" after it was met by comparison "C" where "C" was formed from pattern A and pattern B. Possibly it is only the minimal definition of it by an oscillating 4-space template that seems to define it as weak: it looks weak from that perspective. By counting each oscillaton as if they were equal-sized units, the weak force is defined as weak by that type of counting, it seems. If "spin" refers to bias towards initial or final conditions; as the weak force links initial (say pattern A) with final (possibility of A-remnant being found in an uncertainty-cell in D), then the Higgs boson (I call "boson": "comparison") has no such bias as it is defined as a common cell of uncertainty linking intial and final conditions. (Note: A and B were compared: C: then C met comparison D).
You might say that we are Higgs bosons in that a common uncertainty linking our science ideas is the ability we have to communicate to each other.
PHASES, FORCES, COUNTING AND ENTROPY
Consider two patterns A and B compared C; meet new comparison D.
Strong Force: pattern A then pattern B then comparison C then new comparison D. Repeat this template without accounting for expansion of possibilities in all directions; and you get a directional layering associated with an expanding number-shell description where only template-repeats are counted. This confines the force by definition into a strong division force, it seems. (As you are counting cycles of division).
Weak Force: new comparison D then comparison C then original pattern B then original pattern A (so: re-juggling that brings re-appearance of earlier parent pattern cells). Repeat this template without accounting for expansion of possibilities in all directions over repeat cycles; and you get a directional layering associated with an expanding number-shell description where only template repeats are counted. This keeps the phase spin-less as "first pattern - last comparison mixing is expanded through the layers by definition without spin towards first or last).You are counting cycles of multiplication.
Electro-magnetic force: plus , minus: give and take either way. Generalisation-specification: any way of grouping the 4 (pattern A, pattern B, comparison C, new comparison D) as 4. Any combination. Repeat this generalising-specifying template without accounting for CONTRACTION of possibilities in SPECIFIC directions due to new patterns coming on board; and you need the rules of QED to compensate for the possiblity of interference effects when counting cycles that as shells may interfere. You are counting commutative-law frames but need to allow for anti-commutating structures. (Seems this might explain anti-commute aspect in Heisenberg's matrix mechanics.)
Cellular Phase:"Convergence mode" (an idea) Gravitational force:
Looking at new-comparison D and comparison C together as a cell; the parents of C that is patterns A and B may appear to converge. Repeat this template without accounting for neutralising of this convergence by new weak forces making A and B re-appear apart; and you need perhaps a QED-like system to account for weak force-gravity interference effects?
Cellular Phase: Expansion mode: Negative-gravity force:
Looking at original pattern A and original pattern B together as a cell; from this cell the comparison C may appear to diverge from new comparison D in their C,D cell. Repeat this template without accounting for interference possibilities from earlier confining effect of strong force and may need a QED-like system for accounting for neutralising by the strong force of this expansion. Interference may occur between negative-gravity (universe expansion?) and the strong force.
From an oscillating of this template by counting the cycles with assumed-equal-spaced numbers, you get expanding number-shells giving expansion of the ways the template can happen within the template. This may give the impression of multiple divergence of past patterns in the future, that is "so-called tendency towards disorder" that is "entropy". Locally, entropy may be seen as apparent tendency to disorder, to stay diverged; on large distance scales this apparent divergence tendency might be seen as universe expansion?
Locally, interference with entropy by the strong force might be seen as atomic nucleus stability; globally interference with universe expansion might be seen as cells of strong force, as black holes, as galactic nucleus stability? Maybe there is an analogy between atomic beta-decay via weak force; and black hole decay via Hawking radiation? Weak force does seem to involve appearance of virtual particle/anti-particle pairs either side of the atomic "event horizon". The re-appearance of an earlier juggled-out bit of pattern A in the D comparison of C (C made from compare A and B) may look like a virtual bit of A (the memory of A) and its anti-particle (a bit of A going backwards in time). That is, in an uncertainty cell that links A with D, a virtual pair of unit meet group (fermion) arrangements might appear at high frequency of counting (so expansion of number-shells interferes with uncertainty-cell to make appear like two virtual fermions). I wonder if neutron-stars are multiple layers of neutron-type templates; and I wonder if black-holes are effectively virtual-proton-stars and if black-hole decay is virtual-proton decay?
INTEGRATING FORCES, DARK MATTER AND DARK ENERGY?
Gravity: holding together (converging) new comparison D and comparison C; patterns A and B may seem to converge (especially over cycles of counting with expanding number-shells).
Entropy: holding apart new comparison D and comparison C; the patterns A and B may seem to diverge (especially over cycles of counting with expanding number-shells).
Speculation: perhaps if you combine the left-to-right direction of pattern A, pattern B, comparison C, D from the strong force; with the right-to-left direction D,C,B,A from the weak force; you could through counting oscillations see virtual held-together cells of AB.
Similarly one might obtain virtual cells of CD from the left-to-right of CD in the strong force and the right-to-left direction of CD in the weak force. Then from the CD cell perspective you would have a strong-weak, weak-strong version of gravity. Looking at ways cell-template-groups could happen might give a QED-like version of gravity. Dark matter? (When seen from counting by expanding number-shells cycles of template oscillation)
Leaving out the cells, you could just look at interference possibilities between weak and strong forces to give a QED style look at them. Dark energy?(When seen from counting by expanding number-shells cycles of template oscillation).
REGARDING "QED. THE STRANGE THEORY OF LIGHT AND MATTER" BY RICHARD
Pattern A meets pattern B; from which comparison C emerges; which meets a new comparison D. I could look at an exchange of gifts idea as mapped in Leibnitz equation for pi/4 = 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 -1/7 + 1/9 -1/11 and so on.
Suppose A gives, B gives, C is born; then C gives to A, B, and to D; and A, B give to D: D is born; you get:
C gives cabd; A receives ca gives ad; B receives cb gives bd; D is born from the little d's.
A proton in D is formed from:
its re-juggling of gifts ad and bd (so have new groupings distibuted from gifts received from A and B, so have at least two types of ad, bd pairs giving two upquarks of +2/3 charge; and its gift from C of cd: one downquark of charge -1/3. Charges are seen as relative biases; so have -1/3 bias to C source and two sortings of +2/3 bias to A,B sources.
A neutron in D is formed from:
The a bias and b bias to A and B in gifts ad and bd: so two downquarks each -1/3 bias; and one upquark of +2/3 being a pair of versions of 'a' bias and 'b' bias given back to A and B in the ca and cb gifts A and B received while giving D ad and bd gifts. (Assumes that this model didn't differentiate detail in A and B receiving and giving).
Suppose a similar pattern gives birth to E. The way physics treats any further developments seems to be to re-apply the framework so far, as oscillations between two frameworks; one up to "D" stage, the other starting later and finishing at "E" stage so looking like a variation on first framework. In reality much elaborate structure can be created by adding F, G, H, etc. but modern physics seems to keep generalising its template to look like oscillations of just the type-of-framework that gave D. However Dr. Stafford appears to have demonstrated the idea of new structure in a 4th dimension.
The oscillating of an ever generalising yet broadly same-form template seems to be like how when you count "1, 2, 3, 4...." the assumption of unit-spacing of the numbers does't take into account the rapidly expanding variety of ways a unit can happen inside a bigger number. In Existence, in freedom within the law of non-contradiction, the past and future seem connected and the past-potential can be fulfilled in an increasing variety of detailed ways in the future it would seem.
The framework where I go from "D" to "E" allows the gluon interactions (pages 134 - 139 'QED' By R. Feynman) to apparently be mapped. D gives de to E, and da to A, and db to B, and dc to C; A receives, and gives ae to E; B receives, and gives be to E; C receives, and gives ce to E. E is born from gifts ce, ae, be, and de.
A proton in E is formed from:
Its re-juggling of the two upquarks (+2/3 charge each,) being a minimum of two new arrangements of gift pair ae, be; and a downquark (-1/3 charge) ed.
(perhaps a, b, c can take turns in forming different upquarks, and c, d take turns in forming different downquarks) (Uncertainty between upquark and downquark definition may be what is called "strangeness"; also: "bottom quark" would be identifying bias to 'a' or 'b'; the complementary bias to 'b' or 'a' may be "charm"; a bias identifying 'd' instead of 'c' would be "top". If "top" is the last quark in the order, it may be effectively in the lab technician himself !? -analogous to Higgs boson as "when scientists compare notes")
(Note: seems that upquark is analogous to "electric"; "downquark" to "magnetic"; "strangeness" to "electro-magnetic"; "bottom" and "charm" like uncertainty between "strong" and "weak"; "top" like "gravity".)
A neutron in E is formed from:
The 'a' bias and 'b' bias to A and B in gifts ea and eb: 2 downquarks of -1/3 bias; and one upquark of +2/3 being a pair of versions of 'a' bias and 'b' bias given back to A and B in the gifts A and B received while giving E the ae and be gifts.
The idea here is: a neutron represents a region of neutral bias where new pattern E retains original not-juggled A and B ingredients (downquarks) , and increases the amount of original A and B ingredients in pattern E by giving back some previously-juggled, but now unjuggled, A and B ingredients to A and B (juggled pattern as "upquark"). (Maybe like E expands its A and B options for discussion, using "free and open discussions" approach to understanding these patterns*)
(*Note John Cramer's "transactional" interpretation of quantum mechanics (like: opportunities to give gifts, reach free agreements), and Dr. Stafford's idea of "any communicable concept" obeying physics laws. Christianity: God is Love.)(Note: math-viewed physics laws seem to be over-restrictive due to oscillations of assumed same-template of its counting system. Reality seems much more free, math-physics laws not compulsory but reflect math viewpoint....?)
All "pathways" of giving of gifts are open, and free, in the law of non-contradiction. However a repeated application of a "math-numbers-as-equal-spaced" 4-D template, may give certain impressions of atomic structure that may cloud the seeing of how free this is.
A proton represents a region of fresh bias, of new perception; where E re-arranges previously juggled ingredients from A and B to create two new pairs of A,B ingredients (two upquarks); plus one downquark of previous new generation D pattern not-juggled.
GLUONS AND HOW PHYSICS MAYBE LOOKS AT THIS
It seems that what the traditional physics does is that it keeps re-applying the template over and over from the generations: A,B give birth to C; give birth to D; and: A,B,C,D give birth to E. Instead of looking at all the new generations, it seems to "box them in" to a generalised format that oscillates around the early generations.
On page 139 of "QED. The Strange Theory Of Light And Matter" by Richard Feynman, he writes about the predicament of the situation in physics and how they seem to be "boxed in". The source of that problem may be the assumption of equal-spacing between numbers when counting, the ignoring of the expansion of the ways the sub-groups of units can be arranged as you count bigger numbers, and the squashing of the concepts into an oscillation about a geometry that is a superposition of expanding number-shells.
Sorting 4 with 4: If you are uncertain as to which 4 you are dealing with: these four: A,B, give birth to C; give birth to D; or any four from the five: A,B,C,D give birth to E; you get an uncertain 9th shuttling back and forth among the 8: this presumably gives the impression of 8 gluons (8 superposition states of the 9th in the math-approach they seem to use). By assuming that quarks are the same, the notion of gluon interactions may allow physics to account for uncertainty between the quarks.
If a downquark is "original pattern retained from one source", and an upquark is "newly juggled arrangement from at least two sources of pattern"; uncertainty over whether juggling has a partial UN-juggling effect might be represented as gluon exchanges binding the quarks together in mutual uncertainty of definition. So gluons are about "plus, minus" in definition, so are like photons which also seem to involve "plus, minus" (electro-magnetism). Feynman mentions (QED,page 136) that quarks have a type of polarization called "color"; at a particular time a quark can be in either "red", "green", or "blue" condition (R, G, or B). If a proton in 'very new child' 'E' includes two upquarks and a downquark: consider that the downquark is a gift from 'new child' 'D' to 'E'; the upquarks are 'very new child' E's juggling of gifts from original parents A and B mediated by child/ new parent C and new child/ very new parent D.
This juggling might be represented as gluon exchange betwen the upquarks; a gluon-perspective on the three quarks seems to be a time-generalised perspective that sees the quarks as constant across two generations. This generalised view sees the potential juggling of pattern during potential gift-giving between generations, as gluon exchange.
ELECTRONS AS BRACKETS, PHOTONS AS UNITS; GLUONS AND COLOUR CHARGE
Proton: (1+1) + (1+1) + 1
upquark upquark downquark
Neutron: 1 + 1 + (1+1+1)
downquark downquark upquark
Musical chairs: Curious that (comparing upquarks with rest of nucleon's quark content):
In a proton upquark you have three possible orders from a shell generalisation perspective:
in a (1+1) you have: swap the lone '1' with the left place in (1+1); or with the right; or swap the whole (1+1) with the other (1+1).
In a neutron upquark you have three possible orders from a shell generalisation perspective:
in a (1+1+1) you have: swap the two lone '1's with any pair of the '1's in the brackets: have options: far left, far right; left and middle; right and middle.
The idea of the +2/3 charge in an upquark is: the contributions by the 'parents' A and B to 'child' pattern C are re-distributed by the child, that is you get a splitting of the A,B contributions as the child re-juggles them to give two pairs of: cA,cB ; cA,cB that might look like superpositions of the original A, B generalisations.
The underlying pattern of atomic structure and interactions appears to be a math number shell system superposed on a much freer reality where gifts may be given in any direction. Math-view apparent constraints of physics may reflect the activity and style of math and the constraints of its oscillating contracted expansion resulting from its treating expanding internal number configuration-space as if it were collapsing at the same rate as expanding. Ordinary math tends to (at least partially) disregard the many more ways e.g. '8' can happen in '100' than in '14'.
Electrons it appears may be regarded as:
brackets ( )
Spin left, spin right: ( )
Maybe?: Electron, as ( )s, emit or absorb photons, may regard photon as 'unit': '1'.
So QED may be like: a '1' moves from A to B; an ( ) moves from A to B; a ( ) emits or absorbs a '1'. (Refering to page 85 of QED). Protons, neutrons, and gluons also seem to be able to be depicted in terms of brackets and units.
Proton: (1+1) + (1+1) + 1
Neutron: 1 + 1 + (1+1+1)
Gluon exchanges between quarks in the protons and neutrons may bind them.
In Proton: (a+b) + (c+d) + e
(a+b) can swap places with (c+d) in two orders as 'a' can swap to 'c' or to 'd', the complimentary 'glue' in this is the 'b' swap to 'd' or to 'e'. That gives four gluons.
Also 'e' can swap to 'a' or to 'b' giving two more gluons; and can see have the complimentary previous 'glue' of 'a' swapping to 'c' or to 'd' and 'b' swapping to 'c' or to 'd'.
Two further gluons involve 'e' swapping to 'c' or to 'd' (releasing 'c' to go to 'a' or to 'b'; or 'd' can go to 'a' or to 'b'). These "gluon" exchange paths seem to "glue" the quarks (a+b); (c+d), and e together in the proton.
a + b + (c+d+e) 'a' can swap places with 'c' or 'd' or 'e' to give three gluons with complimentary 'glue' of 'b' swapping places with either of the choices 'a' didn't make.
'b' can swap places with 'c' or 'd' or 'e' to give three gluons with complimentary 'glue' of 'a' swapping places with either of the choices 'b' didn't make.
Eight gluons are reached by adding these two; (c+d+e) can swap with 'a', or with 'b'. These "gluon" exchange paths seem to "glue" the quarks a, b, and (c+d+e) together in the neutron.
Bracket arrangements and room within brackets may give the patterns of colour polarization:
green (..) anti-green (........)
red ((..)......) anti-red (..)(......)
blue (......(..)) anti-blue (...... )(..)
I'm not sure if Feynman would agree with the above interpretation.
(Note: the little-space brackets "green" can be inside (as in red or blue) or outside (as in anti-red or anti-blue) a pair of big brackets.
The big-space brackets "anti-green" can contain a pair of little-space brackets (as in red or blue) or be outside but together with a pair of little-space brackets (as in anti-red or anti-blue).)
Having considered upquarks and downquarks; what would "charm" and "top" quarks be, and "strange" and "bottom" quarks be? In the idea: 'parent' patterns A and B give birth to comparison 'child' C; all give to create new child 'D'; further giving brings birth to 'E": gift-giving paths are open back and forwards through the layers.
Downquarks involve retention of an earlier pattern in the new generation, upquarks involve a re-juggling or even un-juggling of two-source patterns thus splitting them into a superposition of pairs. Perhaps (given details in "The New Physics" edited by Paul Davies, pages 400 to 407); 'Strange' matter may be a generalised way of looking at an uncertainty-cell that could be either up or down; this intuitively looks like a possible interpretation of the "eightfold-way" diagram on page 401.
They list baryons with u, d, or s quark components giving: ddu; uud; dds; dus; dus; uus; dss; uss.
Maybe by replacing 's' (strangeness) with "up-or-down" say this list reads:
ddu; uud; dd; du; du; uu; d; u.
This seems to readily explain the next table they give of ten baryons as it includes ddd (which is implied above as a variation derivable from d, and uuu (implied by uu; as represents a choice of u or d for the third spot). Perhaps sss represents uncertainty between d and u. Seems possible that "charm" matter involves a generalised view of conserving a perspective, in the gift-giving approach (so may be an uncertainty between uu and d, or between dd and u. It seems that "bottom" matter may be a generalised conservation of earlier patterns; and "top" matter may be an appearance of new pattern. Speculating a bit here. "Charm" would be a quark analogy to weak interactions, and "bottom" would be a quark analogy to strong interactions.