On Dec 18, 2:08 am, Sam Carana <[email protected]> wrote: > It's a fascinating topic, if one considers that communication > effectively takes place instantaneously in case of entangled objects. > > In this way, it defeats the speed limit of the speed of light. > > Cheers! > Sam Carana
Right. Think of c not as the speed of light but the minimum latency of space. If stillness is when something holds position relative to the changing position of an observer, and motion is when something's position changes relative to the observer, then c is like 'absolute motion', the opposite of stillness. Meaning within it's inertial frame, "light" is instantaneous. Different inertial frames have different latencies relative to each other (otherwise scale would not be honored in the ordering of the frames), so that a human conscious mind has a different sized 'instantaneous' than an electron gun or a solar system. Think about how a radio antenna receives a radio broadcast - we have a concept of 'tuning in to a frequency'. That is more accurate than the idea of radio waves passing through space. We just look to the antenna itself and amplify the activity it is detecting naturally. Someone talking on a microphone is vibrating the sensitive surface of a microphone and that sensitivity is passed to the tower, which is passed to the listeners eardrum, effectively collapsing the distance (which isn't 'real, it's just a very low level sensorimotive logic of matter) between the listener and the station, but honoring the distance and other materially relevant phenomena in between the two nodes as latency, static, interference, distortion, etc. Entanglement is just electromagnetism near the singularity level so zero latency, zero distortion. Although you may get a lot more crazy shit happening at that level. If you piggyback on the singularity - you may get semantic ambiguities eventually that you wouldn't get with fully formed electromagnetic sense. Matter level protocol doesn't care about the feelings of biological organisms, so quantum level protocol may not be able to care about matter and end up being hard to control. This may be: why we can see the light from stars so far away relatively free of distortion why things that are red hot look more transparent rather than more opaque and chaotic (as it seems like it would if there were a gazillion 'photons' blasting out of it). why microwave ovens cook the food without heating the oven. The water in the food is tuned into the microwave emitter's electronic activity and is compelled to participate in it. The food cooks itself. why light shines better through holes blocked with metal than open (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111122133326.htm) why we see in visual semantic experiences in our view of the world rather than streams of generic optical content. (http://s33light.org/ post/10775700452) why specular reflections are always flat to the observer regardless of the angle of the tilt of the reflective surface (http:// media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ltfzg9Wb2m1qe3q3v.jpg) (that is a shiny hard disk reflecting the parking lot outside my office) why light doesn't act like any substance - it never pools or leaves a residue, never collides with itself, etc. It can only be explained in nonsensical terms as massless, intangible, chargeless paradoxical wave/ particles. There is no such thing as a wave that is a particle. They are opposite physical forms. Superposition, the observer effect, uncertainty, emergence, incompleteness, etc are all better understood as aspects of subjective interiority and sense channel conversion across different inertial frames. At c, distance distance breaks down and matter becomes subjective as a distributed sensorimotive event. It becomes a moment in the story of the entire universe instead of part of the local scenery. Matter sort of turns inside out and becomes a function of the observer independently of position. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
