An earlier comment you made about evolution got me thinking....
An item, and an environment.
If the item does not fit well into an environment (so strongly defined?) it perishes?
According to evolution "survival of the fittest" the item that fits well with its environment (blends in) survives? So weakly defined item survives?
School of fish: a fish can avoid being eaten by a shark by being in a huge school of fish that confuse the shark by sheer numbers and movement (shark cannot get a fix on a target).
A fish on its own (strongly defined) is easy prey.
Even a lion must blend in with its environment if it is to sneak up on an antelope and catch it for dinner.
So in the wilderness; constantly strongly defined items may not survive compared to relatively weakly defined ones?
Easy prey versus blending in?
This does not seem complete.
What happens when something dies? It becomes the environment, most weakly defined; so "survives" in a sense of becoming the environment? Sounds fishy...
If it could be some way one with the environment yet still alive...
What about if item doesn't fit at all in an environment (it has to negotiate with the environment as to who goes where)? Item is very strongly defined: the very definition of "environment" and of "item" is "on the negotiating table":
item perishes every instant only to be reborn;
so they become one, so strong plus weak in plus and minus of bargaining.
With "environment" not defined; and "item" not defined; the item "blends in" (weakly defined) as the relationship is not determined yet (in fact the sharing of definition space (common ground) between item and environment is what will define their first mutual moment in time; their "yet"...
The item is also strongly defined: it stands out so much from environment it is like a universe of its own? When negotiations start over how item and environment will get along; its like two universes colliding?
Now here's an idea:
This item, to start with doesn't fit at all (so has choice say to negotiate, weigh up plus and minuses say): call this strong force (strong definition) and call + or - : electro-magnetic force.
But? This item, also can be thought of to start with as blends in so much it and environment haven't allocated definitions to each other yet (or defined "yet")! So it is also weakly defined (weak force) and how weak is like how strong: it's a question of weighing up pluses and minuses (electro-magnetic force).
So at the beginning of item meets environment to decide what sort of universe they are going to agree on sharing; we have strong force, weak force, electro-magnetic force; all in suspended animation?
Once negotiations begin:
you have a partial definition of item, and a partial definition of environment.
You have a mutually shared space for further optional refinement in definition where mutual definition space can be expanded or reduced in various directions. Dividing of a particular shared direction: gives time.
One direction meets another: common ground: can call this uncertainty in defining a shared direction "mass"? with freedom to negotiate.
Item meets environment:
two become three as first deal is done. This gives "direction"; a common ground.
This deal meets some other deal they do: three-ness meets other three-ness; new three-ness is born, collapsing a three-ness.
This 3 meets 3 becomes: new 3 and (3 as 1):
so becomes 4 (space-time).
The unit of space-time (of 4-ness) derived from the old boundaries of the original 3's (so 6 hidden dimensions).
A second unit of space-time (a new 4): if you just assume its still just "4"; you project 10 dimensions (6 hidden, new 4, (+ say new 6 hidden concealed in old 6 hidden)(a new partial differentiation of what is 6 hidden dimensions say...).
Of course the two units of space-time, plus further units gives a number-line of units: a string. And this string can be thought of as in 10 dimensions; or rather in 11 (with 10 meets "new 10 as one" to give three units so a directional string (3 with 3-ness....).
Or even 12 dimensional string if allow for different strings combining, untangling, forming closed loops etc.? (ten-D meets ten-D as one): gives 11-D. 11-D meets (11-D as one) to give 12-D.
Of course the directional string (three units of space-time) meeting directional string (three units of space-time) gives what might be called "Lie groups" (which way do the groups lie to form an agreement on defining "string, that is 3-units of space-time; and in defining "space-time" as a deal between strings.
Those who postulate "strings in space-time" assume a fixed definition (one they can fix numbers to) of "space-time" and of "string".
(To allow for multiple strings interacting: they have to multiply the 12 dimensions by 3 (make the string symphony able to have an overall direction say; so looks like say why they postulate 36 dimensions for string theory)
If item and environment are somehow negotiating a deal on what is "where and when" say (?); there is a bit of "string" entangled in "space-time" and a bit of "space-time" entangled in string.
Of course: this looks like:
Dr. Richard Stafford's idea of "assignment of definitions"; Chris Langan's idea of "conspansive duality": John Cramer's idea of "a universe made of handshakes" (offer wave, confirmation wave); and reminds of Christianity: as you measure, so you are measured; as you bind on Earth consider it bound in Heaven, as you loose on Earth, consider it loosed in Heaven; its all up to agreeing on space-time; everything made out of Love.
3 meets "new 3": giving: 3 meets "3 as 1":
this involves: direction (2 meet give common ground) that is "3".
New direction (3) agrees with other direction (3) to a common ground (mutual direction) giving a unit of space-time (the deal) with direction.
The resulting directed 4-ness (a 3 that looks like a 4) reminds of DNA (four bases in triplets).
The 4-ness of the 3 (the space to make a future time) appears polarised when you count the 4 again while juggling "what is 3" (juggled 3 as: photon: or "time group: so time "stopped" in a photon as it is a freedom in spacing time.)
When you look at the 3-ness (direction) of 4 again; the direction of space seems stuck to itself in your conserved idea of 3 (of direction).
This stickiness of space: to "count it" (to make it seem conserved enough to self-refer it (to count it?): projects the "4 again" as an apparant 8 gluons mixed up in "3 again" (6 quarks; 3 colours, 3 anti-colours (back-in time colours).
Incidentally: "weak force" can be thought of as "pattern juggled out, juggled back in" so involves "generalising" which can be thought of as "electric force" and "specifying" (which can be thought of as "magnetic force".
Conservation of direction:
can think of "conservation" as "mass" and "direction" as "charge".
It involves a quarter turn: an old direction (a common ground between two: so a "3") meeting a new direction (a new 3) doing a deal (making a 1 unit of space-time with direction (so space-time and direction here will look entangled with scale if you try to count this scenario again: giving what might in subsequent repeats look like quantum multi-scalar multi-directional spin....)
Any conserved direction will come up as a 4-ness in the new 3 (a mass in the new charge).
(continued in "To Aurino on: Relative motion" )