[perspective exchange]

An entirely perspective-based totality:

Consider there are three fundamental and interrelated relationships of reference for perspective. The three fundamental relationships of reference for perspective are the relationship of the dimensions of Cartesian coordinates with the dimensions of polar coordinates, the relationship of finite with the infinite, and the relationship of 'still' with motion (or constant motion with accelerated motion). Each of these three fundamental relationships are not, in-and-of themselves, a 'given' (that is, not an independent and necessary foundation of physics), but rather, the result of the ‘overlapping’, or exchange, of the designated parameters of the other two. And so, it is the relationships of fundamental references that define tiered perspective (that is, a perspective co-existing within an ‘Other’ overriding perspective) and perspective exchange (that is, consideration, or ‘thought’) as the foundation for all perception (physical observations and symbolic considerations). That is, there is no 'point' of origin, but instead, a relationship determines existence and experience through tiered interrelated combinations of fundamental references into perception ternaries. In other words, various tiers, or ternary combinations, of the constituent references of the three fundamental relationships represent all perspectives and perspective exchanges. The three fundamental relationships are not completely independent of each other, but rather, are interrelated and overlapping (like interacting ‘whirlpools’), in one or two of the three constituent references comprising the involved respective perception ternaries. So, every ‘object’, number, and experience, every physical and mathematical observation and consideration, is represented by overlapping ternary combinations of the constituent references within the three fundamental relationships of reference. And the relationship of tiered combinations forms the perception ternary—the perceived, the perceiver, and the reference of measurement. The model/metaphor is a self-proving totality that is entirely perspective-based, and the necessitated foundation for existence that results from the tiered-ternary relationships of fundamental references, providing its own inter-exchanging context and its own reciprocating cause.

This presents a physics/mathematics continuum, or overlapping exchange, that is based upon the binary relationship of ‘within’ and ‘without’, representing the one-or-two-of-three of the constituent references in a perception ternary. That is, the overlapping of one, or the overlapping of two of the constituent references in the various constituent tiers, or ternary combinations, determines the relationship as ‘without’ or ‘within’, respectively. Thus, in physics (or ‘without’—reference paired with perceived in perception ternary), the three fundamental relationships of reference form, by perspective, the three fundamental overlapping and interrelated concepts of distance, time/speed, and mass/acceleration; and in mathematics (or ‘within’—the symbolic pairs the reference with the perceiver in the perception ternary), the three fundamental relationships of reference form, by perspective, the three overlapping and interrelated fundamental ‘constants’ which divide, or provide the exchange for, the three fundamental concepts of physics—namely, epsilon, pi, and phi (the golden ratio). That is, epsilon represents mathematically the divide, or reference of exchange, between distance and speed, pi represents mathematically the divide, or reference of exchange, between linear distance and rotational distance, and phi represents mathematically the divide, or reference of exchange, between linear distance and area (dimensional shift). Further, every ‘physical’ observation is symbolic in one-of-three of the perception ternary; and conversely, every ‘mathematical’ consideration is physical (more truly, of other tiered consideration) in one-of-three of its analogous perception ternary. So, mathematics, whether as numerical values, operations, or their corresponding geometry, is the result of tiered co-perception (or, tiered perspective and perspective exchange), just as with physics, with overlapping and exchanging references ‘within’ and ‘without’, so that each completes the other.

In this way, all values can therefore be defined completely only through the multiple and interrelated contexts (references) of tiered perspectives, thereby representing a ‘number’ (or perception ternary) not as an exact, or ‘given’, absolute, but rather in relation to another perception ternary which is separated by one-or-two of their constituent fundamental references—for instance, relating, as a perceived proportion, a fundamental concept like that of time or dimensions to distance. So, ‘value’ and ‘path’ (or, act of calculation) ‘trade places’ (exchange) and are defined in the same way that ‘observer’ and ‘object’ do in their physical correlation. That is, the ‘constants’ (constant only by co-perspective), pi, phi, and epsilon, as well as the exchanges between them, represented by the polar and Cartesian forms of complex numbers (‘i’), frame the foundation for the mathematical correlate of perspective and perspective exchange. And, as with the three fundamental concepts of physics, these values are overlapping and interrelated.

So, the consideration and sharing of perspective is the only non-contextual truth, with no deeper foundation possible and no further reason needed. That is, beyond context and beneath assumptions, there is no-‘thing’ to learn but of the very act of learning itself; and the act of learning is specifically communication, which is the exchanging of perspective across tiers of infinite separation—the tiered communication of ‘self/want’ until, ultimately, communication is all of self, and all that is wanted.


P.S.
This is a summary of conclusions that resulted directly from working on a model. The model is that of a ‘whirlpool’, which I first began to use for a better way of describing and understanding the concept of wave/particle duality. I felt that it was a very helpful way to visualize this phenomenon, but as I thought about it further, I realized that it described many other aspects of physics. So for several years, I worked on a model of whirlpool interaction as a ToE to describe the fundamental particles and the unification of the forces. Later, I found that the ‘whirlpools’ and interacting (overlapping) ‘whirlpools’ represented, more fundamentally, the concepts of perspective and perspective exchange and that this applied to mathematics as well as physics. The model of the ‘whirlpool’, in various forms, is useful for its rather straightforward expression of the different forms of reference exchange. And I would encourage anyone trying to understand modern concepts of physics to use this model/metaphor to help in understanding mass/energy conversion and the relationship of gravity to e/m, as well as quantum effects.

Thank you, and I would appreciate any responses.

[mkirkpatrick]

Thanks PE,and welcome to the forum of toequest,greetings from the UK to you,I have briefly looked through your most interesting opening thread starter,liked the idea of a whirlpool,this to me is the "shape of absolute economy and energy exchange" the vortex!
Of which i have posted much about.

Keep up the posting,and best wishes to you.



regards michael.

[perspective exchange]

Thanks.

Though it is difficult to put into words and I am not a good writer, I will talk about the model that helped me to understand the fundamentals of physics and brought me to the conclusions of perspective exchange mentioned above. I began to use the model of a ‘whirlpool’ to visualize wave/particle duality. In other words, the particle nature of force and matter (or bosons and fermions, respectively) are modeled as the turning of waves (like a whirlpool), and the wave nature of force and matter are modeled as the ‘inward’ and ‘outward’ propagation of the waves. So, in this model, every-’thing’ is ‘seen’ as a ‘whirlpool’—the particles, energy, and even the ‘wave-medium’ itself are represented by the varying distributions of turning waves. For instance, you may picture interacting whirlpools such that the whirlpools represent the fundamental ‘particles’, and picture the interacting waves between these whirlpools as the ‘forces’ acting upon and influencing their motion. In this way, e/m radiation and mass are waves that are ‘turning’, and therefore not circular, as from a ‘point’ source, but rather exponential, as from a binary or ternary relational source. So, there would never be a complete distinction between the wave-like influence and the perpendicular rotational influence that could ‘scatter’ or ‘increase the entropy’ of a set of interacting whirlpools (atoms) that come into interaction with the former. And even further, there would be no complete distinction between these interacting whirlpools and a particular wave of the overriding whirlpool within which the interaction occurs—that is, instead of a static wave-medium, or ‘aether’, the reference (or context) for all interactions between ‘observers’ whirlpools and ‘objects’ whirlpools would itself be a whirlpool that is in interaction with the observer and the observed, thus forming the perception ternary. In this scenario, it is straightforward to assess how the perception of speed, distance, time, acceleration, and mass would all be in relation (“relative”) to each other since the reference for measurement is in interaction with the measurer and the measured. As well, this scenario directly demonstrates the features of “hidden” extra dimensions as the Cartesian and polar dimensions (for space and for motion (time)) of the interacting ‘subjective whirlpools’ overlap with the Cartesian and polar dimensions of their ‘contextual whirlpool’ thereby producing variables that are ‘unknown’, or unobservable, to any particular constituent whirlpool lying within this ternary coordination of fundamental references which provides for all perceptions.

I don’t so often mention ‘whirlpools’ because it is a model/metaphor for considering in various ways the exchanges of fundamental references. In other words, whirlpools are a very useful tool for understanding reference exchange because it represents the relationship between Cartesian and polar coordinates, the relationships of relative motion, and the relationship of the finite with the infinite. So, it is a ‘tool’ for understanding the more ‘mechanical’ aspects of reality rather than representing reality exactly and in total, because the ‘whirlpool model’ is not as applicable to the more abstract, or information/sequence, aspects of the purely communicational totality presented here. I apologize again that it is so difficult to explain; since this ‘ToE’ necessitates only inter-defined (and of reciprocating cause) axioms, all terms must be continuously further qualified and that is the core reason for why my description is usually worded so abstractly and for how it so quickly becomes tiered and complex and testing of the limits of one’s visualization skills. I have a more specific development of the model and associated terms as well as application to the proportions and constants given by modern physics research, but this would be very difficult to put into a short forum post. However, if you have any questions that you would like to ask me in regards to this model, I will try to answer them as best as I can. It is important to me to make clear that this model of tiered perspective exchange is not intended as a refute of string physics or any other theories and findings of modern physics. Instead, it is meant, by a ‘top-down’ approach, as a simplification of perspective on the observations of modern physics that encompasses and unifies the major paradigms of the physics community—to find a ‘What can’t not be?’ basis for reality that leaves us with no final “Why?” to ask relating to an interminable and inexplicable ‘point source’ or arbitrary axiom that must ultimately be left as an assumed context, like a wall, beyond which our understanding cannot pass.

Thanks. I hope this helps to communicate the basic principles mentioned.

[mkirkpatrick]

Thanks PE.interesting thoughts you have,as to the question "why" at the bottom of your last post,there cannot ever be a reasonable acceptable answer to that question,once it is
throughly thought through any answer basically fails to make sense.


warm regards michael

[Fluent Piffle]

To question whether 'existence exists' is a Cosmological insanity.

We may investigate 'How...?' - but 'why...?' always leads to either 'paradox', 'nothing' or another Human mind-construction of some 'mythical thing'.

Rather, the question of 'why' attends to our personal needs, and not those of larger existential necessity.




pif.

[MJA]

Originally Posted by perspective exchange P.S. This is a summary of conclusions that resulted directly from working on a model. The model is that of a ‘whirlpool’, which I first began to use for a better way of describing and understanding the concept of wave/particle duality. I felt that it was a very helpful way to visualize this phenomenon, but as I thought about it further, I realized that it described many other aspects of physics. So for several years, I worked on a model of whirlpool interaction as a ToE to describe the fundamental particles and the unification of the forces. Later, I found that the ‘whirlpools’ and interacting (overlapping) ‘whirlpools’ represented, more fundamentally, the concepts of perspective and perspective exchange and that this applied to mathematics as well as physics. The model of the ‘whirlpool’, in various forms, is useful for its rather straightforward expression of the different forms of reference exchange. And I would encourage anyone trying to understand modern concepts of physics to use this model/metaphor to help in understanding mass/energy conversion and the relationship of gravity to e/m, as well as quantum effects. Thank you, and I would appreciate any responses.

Dear PE,

To unify the dualities of yours and the sciences perceptions, one only needs to insert the symbol of = between anything, for equal is nature's most simple truth. An example is e=mc2, energy and mass are united by the equality of truth. A wave and a particle can be united the same way, w=p. If you percieve the universe as divided or different, the truest perception is that all things are equally one. Measuring difference is only probable or quantum mechanical at best. Remove the probability and only the certainty remains.

=
MJA