At this stage I'll just comment briefly here.
I have limited computer time so am limiting the forums I am in.
Yes I do need to talk to a physicist about my map.
I hope Yanniru or Dr. Dick will look at it.
(I have worked out some things re: double slit experiment; pilot waves and so on before but do not have this material with me here so am responding impromptu here)(My map of physics does not particularly require knowledge of physics other than to check my representation of what I map is what the textbooks describe)
Quoting your post from the other forum:
"I still think about how my absolutely dynamic systems (ADS) may appear in physics. I don't know so very much about physics, but what else I supposed to do when you say that there is quantum consciousness and I have a possible mechanism."
The phrase "quantum consciousness" seems strange. "Quantum" refers to the idea that energy is transferred in discrete units, or quanta.
It is said that if one's eyesight was ten times more sensitive; a red monochrome light shining weakly would blink on and off (due to non-continuous, or quantisation, of its energy).
However, how do they know that? They use a photo-electric-effect detector which uses a cascading effect: one photon impact triggers electron jumps trigger additional impacts trigger even more till there is enough to get a detectable electric current. Something like that; need to check Feynman's book "QED": to get details right.
The thing about this process is that it looks mighty like the theory "Quantum electrodynamics" which was developed to describe the results they got from these detectors.
I read somewhere that the physicists were trying to get their equations sorted out but had problems with it; but Planck fixed it by regarding "energy" as "quanta"; the problem they were trying to solve involved a theoretical "perfect emitter and absorber of radiation" called a "blackbody".
(Incidentally one of the closest things they have to such an object is: snow. Snow is close to a perfect emitter and absorber of infra-red radiation).
Now it occured to me that "mathematics" might be regarded as a "blackbody" if you regard "1" s as "radiation" that "numbers" emit and absorb in arithmetic.
Now it occured to me that the assumption of equal-sized units in mathematics; this quantization in mathematics might have been a potentially biased assumption. Nature does not have to equally-space things; in fact to exist at all a thing has to be distinguishable from other things so there is no ultimate common base other than Existence.
In other words:
mathematics may say "one" orange and "one" apple; but oranges are not apples and only in the generalisation "fruit" might they APPEAR equal-sized units but one might argue say that this claim of "quantized fruit" projects a definition of the category "fruit" by going back and forth betwen apple and orange and treating each as "partial fruit".
Let us bring another item: banana. If our only knowledge of the defining characteristics of the category "fruit" is so far that it is "part orange; part apple" and we now hear that "banana is fruit too", then what?
Looks very like quantum superpositions.
Looks very like "Zeno's Arrow" where "moments" are defined by reference to "halving distances remaining between an arrow-fired-at-a-target and the target".
This scenario can be thought of as mapping physics.
The "juggling of apple, orange, and banana"; this triple juggling in understanding how "fruit" is defined, might be called "photon".
"Banana" is spun left (say to apple) or spun right (say to orange); if you can measure (if you can further spin) banana's share of "apple-ness" and of "orange-ness" in the category "fruit"; you can not measure spin up/ spin down (apple's share of banana-orange superposition or orange's share of banana-apple superposition).
This is very like Dr. Stafford's idea of "data transmission as part of explanation".
Neurologist Ramachandran, in a T.V. program; talks about stroke patients with visual neglect. Such a person may detect movement in say left-side of their visual-field but otherwise seem to ignore what is there.
A lady who would draw often just one side of a flower said something like "it's taking it away" re: the way it seemed like her focussing of attention on the flower right side seemed to mask the left-side information or something.
Ramachandran noted that when driving a car; his brain will do a lot of things on "auto-pilot".
I think that this idea of "auto-pilot" has a lot to do with "pilot waves".
If something unuaual happens to the "auto-pilot world" it grabs one's attention. Perhaps "pilot waves" are as you suggest, logical rather than spatial.
One might consider that "orange" and "apple" form two slits in the category "fruit". If the superposition "apple/orange/banana" is juggling away and goes through an assumed rigid surface of the category "fruit"; via two slits; which slit did it go through?
By definition if the surface is rigid with two slits then it must be a "banana" surface (as the slits are "orange" and "apple").
A banana split for desert?
To determine which slit requires splitting "orange" and "apple" into a bias one way or the other.
Such grouping looks like Bose-Einstein condensation.
......intenet time running out; have to sign off in mid-air for now