An Idea

[Max™]

Hi Max;

Isn't current understanding, a BELIEF held by the majority (collective subjectivity). NOTHING can be proved, not even your own existence. You BELIEVE, based upon your subjective interpretations, that you exist Max. Maybe you do, maybe you don't. Is the current understanding of the big bang model correct?

Current understanding is merely that which has not yet been shown to be false.

I have tried to disprove my existence, it is a logical impossibility, I must accept my existence as true to operate in a logical manner.

Best,

Pat

P.S. I didn't know you could observe gravity, rather you observe it's effects. Space/time the ether allows things to move, you can't observe space/time to small, rather you experience it's effects.

The effect of spacetime curvature is gravity, there is no need to say gravity is unobservable. Spacetime constrains the way things move, defines locations, structure, etc.

[Profpat]

Current understanding is merely that which has not yet been shown to be false.

I have tried to disprove my existence, it is a logical impossibility, I must accept my existence as true to operate in a logical manner.

Of course, but you don't have to take yourself so seriously you may not exist.



The effect of spacetime curvature is gravity, there is no need to say gravity is unobservable. Spacetime constrains the way things move, defines locations, structure, etc.

Again of course space/time constrains, but did you see space/time bend around the moon?

[SteveA]

LIGHT a 2 dimensional transverse wave that has 3D particle characteristics. (This is the perfect example as to how a 1 dimensional string can become "3 Dimensional")

Thank you, Pat, but consider that this is only true if we assume that the velocity of a single photon is the same as the velocity of light.

If we instead assumed that a/the photon is infinitely fast, then there is no phase shift of it in space and it is frozen/timeless and a straight line connecting two points. Events in time would then just occur as discrete "wave collapses" only, which would be updates to the current state of matter.

Now consider an atomic bond. We can already have unobserved electron states (we know this from quantum mechanics). Well if a photon is simply an impulse event that shows us the new/updated orbital state of a preexisting electron then we already have these spectral characteristics embedded in the atom as determined by the properties of the nucleus.

If we instead assume that a photon travels at some finite velocity, then it's easier to assume that it was oscillating during this non-zero period of time.

Notice that if we move an atom, we can change its phase shift relative to other atoms (for example, laser interferometry), but consider that if we know we're moving it, well we must be observing it and hence that photon must be updating its state and it would then be phase shifting relative to other properties not observed (at those would not be being updated).

Consider this - logic/structure/form in itself doesn't change. A program does run without energy/power/time but is a static potential waiting to be set in motion. If this was not the case, then a program would not be a specific thing because it could alter on its own without any synchronization with an observer.

In order that things in the universe remain synchronized in time (and i.e. a star does not blur across the sky as some superposition of all of its possible positions in time, but instead that it remains at a specific location relative to us) they should fundamentally not change unless in synchronization with an observer. Anything that did change in that matter arises from a previously unobserved space (so that's a growth of the system), though we can actually unify this with the creative aspect of attention.

The isolated concept of an observation is not inherently interactive. Where does an observation occur? Notice that if this is not specified then we don't even know what is being observed - that's a state we can associate with an origin.

As a quick example, imagine observing a random matrix of black and white dots entirely randomly altered without correlation to where you happened to be paying attention - in this case there is no specific context of space or position without you constructing it yourself, but if there was no such context then there would be no specific "place" within that space that "you" would be.

Similarly, if at the center of wherever you looked, there was a specific image embedded within that, then this would similarly not appear related to the background as it's detached in properties from the background. On the other hand, if we biased the probability of these being either white or black near an area of attention, then there would (at least initially) appear to be an interaction between the two and neither an entirely white or black area describe the observation, nor would the random background describe it precisely either and both components are necessary to describe it.

If we look at this example a little closer though, well we have all these random dots everywhere, but they are specifically black or white when observed and in this sense, they are not changing during the time it takes to observe them, even if they change later.

Now if we have an infinite field of them, and the complexity of that change is unbounded, then there would always be somewhere a group of dots that appeared to be biased in some area toward either shade.

If we go back to the example of seeing a bias in the area of our attention, then recognize that this can similarly arise from our attentional bias not altering any specific location of this but instead that our attention moves to an area matching the context in which that attention occurs. Within that space of dots, the influence of that is undetected because it has no influence in that space - i.e. what channel you happen to be watching on television does not change the programming on other channels.

A way to integrate this all together as a single system is to have a conscious selection of properties that attention is given, and this initiates a linear process scanning through space (in effectively no conscious time) until something matching that filter/those properties is found and then the result is returned as an experience.

If we take this in the context of a typical physics experiment, an experimenter may first want a source of light - *insert quick scan through space looking for a light source and the attention is placed on a light source*, after which a detector may be desired - once again, we have a quick scan of space (notice that short term memory can influence the complexity of these structures - also we should be able to determine that various orthogonal/dimensional properties should arise if we require that such a thing be unequal in some aspect relative to other things in an environment). We may similarly want to assure the emitter is "calibrated" (always fun to do that! It's never quite right, but it's close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades ...) so we similarly search for a source of calibration. We then search for manner to align these and that requires we rely on previously defined properties of space etc.

Now consider that all this would be going on from birth, developing greater and greater complexities of relationships and needing to search larger and larger spaces to find unique objects to be assigned to denote these. In a sense, it's like taking a strand of DNA and folding it back on itself to denote relationships between concepts.

Notice something though, if we had at a lower level a sequence of binary information, though an infinite space over which such matches could be made, then we begin with binary contrasts and everything initially appears simple, black and white, yes or no, do or do not etc. Though as we fold this back along its length, we can find recursions over time that have quantities of various lengths and then we learn of numbers and symmetries of larger orders and complexities of choices beyond that, and as we extrapolate beyond this toward more complex manners of folding over those spaces of folds we find even more complex, chaotic and fractal relationships constructed from those. (I'm describing it a bit overly simple and I think it goes the other way around really - there is initially complexity that is only consciously recognized on small scales, and the physical universe is of a finite complexity within this because the body that witnesses it is finite (we don't visually see an infinite spectrum, though potentially in terms of conscious memory the complexity could grow unbounded and there can exist a virtual spectrum that is infinite, though it could also be that in finite conscious terms this isn't detected/recognized).

What's the purpose? Of course I can't give anything beyond my personal perspective, but if we use the flat/unfolded/infinite version then I'm simply scanning along it looking for a match ... though from the other perspective it's trying to untangle the knots and figure out how things fit together best and the further out you go, the better the view is and in ways you hadn't previously seen possible. In some ways, I don't want to find a match yet ... on the other hand I've only got a limited/finite perspective and the twists and turns are hard to follow, so I have a feeling there's a match on the horizon ... in which case that's entirely fine as well, so either way, it's a win/win and that's the type of storyline I like best

*click* and there's another piece of it put together ... you can hit the print button and quote me on that.

Oh, as another correlation with my "molecular/DNA" space analogy and the wave function in quantum mechanics - imagine sliding two sections of DNA across each other - the binding sites can repel, be neutral or attract depending upon the position in space. There you go - a wave function (the surrounding context of the space determines whether or not enough of a correlation exists for a match/collapse of the wave function, in which case we could see this alteration via. a photon to occur as a conscious quality of experience displaying the properties of that site within the context of the entire network - that resolves the problem of mind/body duality and the Higgs field regarding "where" consciousness occurs - it occurs within the context of the entire system - there is only one photon and hence all the information is automatically correlated at a single point. The position of the photon in space describes the specific conscious qualities associated with that experience. DNA binding sites occur as 1 of 4 possible combinations. Transitions between these along a strand give 3 possible transitions over a "subjective"/non-fundamental time ... though we should have all this unfolding over space from transitions in a single very high dimensional object - though it would be similar to a giant atom describing the binding sites of the entire universe ... *click* there we go. That's the universe in an atom view ).

Wow, I better stop there and save something for later!

[SteveA]

Yes, I know Lloyd, I'm entirely off the scale and can hardly tell which direction that is myself, so I completely understand your feelings (I remember saying a lot of things you do and I don't regret having had those perspectives as well ... there are different types of strengths and one size does not fit all, and as they say, it's on the shoulders of giants that we see and learn - the breadth of those shoulders and the stability of a foundation arises from the diversity of unique and orthogonal directions that can be measured/supported/detected etc. relative to it). All I know is (part of) my own direction and that's a blessing. I don't know why it's like that or how that came to be, but I've come to recognize that there can never be enough logic to prove it ... you get to a certain point where the digits of PI are long enough that no finite extension is going to tell you more and then you jump to the next infinitesimal divergence and try to discover how a circle is much more than it had previously been interpreted as (and the superpositions split and you've got a new way of looking at things and many more possibilities to follow).

You could be ahead of me Lloyd and have one of the pieces I'm missing ... in fact, I'd likely be a hypocrit and ignorant to claim otherwise. Well, ok, in that case, when I catch up someday and figure out what it is you see as a problem, we can have a party (... and we can still argue until then also! Awesome! That's so cool it makes we want to party right now! ).

Cheers,
Steve

[Profpat]

If we instead assumed that a/the photon is infinitely fast,

Hi Steve;

The problem is that when you assume you make an ass out of you and me (ASS U ME). The reason I think why the frequency or electric and magnetic fields, is that light can't go faster than the speed limit so it "backs up" the greater the energy the greater the frequency. If it has huge energy than it becomes an alpha particle.

Just my thoughts.

Best Pat

[G_burnett]

does Pi lose or gain in asymmetry, anyone?... Steve?
kind regards graham

[G_burnett]

motion of light is relative to the experience ... imh kind regards graham

If we instead assumed that a/the photon is infinitely fast,

Hi Steve;

The problem is that when you assume you make an ass out of you and me (ASS U ME). The reason I think why the frequency or electric and magnetic fields, is that light can't go faster than the speed limit so it "backs up" the greater the energy the greater the frequency. If it has huge energy than it becomes an alpha particle.

Just my thoughts.

Best Pat

[Profpat]

does Pi lose or gain in asymmetry, anyone?... Steve?
kind regards graham

The more accurate Pi the more accurate the circle, which is symmetrical. Therefore Pi I believe would gain symmetry.

[G_burnett]

A circle in reality is not symmetrical but asymmetrical thus pi reflects the failure of math... by the time the circle is formed it is a vortex begin ... ? kind regards graham

[Profpat]

Is a circle a symmetrical?


Answer: yes, it is the most symmetrical shape.

Did you just fall down the rabbit hole Graham?