On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 2:24:45 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > Hi Craig > > But what you are saying here is true for each and every individual > observer; it is a 1p duality, along the lines of a figure/frame relation. > We have to consider multiple observers, each with this property and see how > components , in the entanglement frame, in one observer, A maps onto a > component in the spatial frame of observer B and vise versa. >
Hi Stephen, I am thinking that it's like this. As an outsider to the Chinese language, I can't recognize the significance of the difference between one character or word and another. As an outsider to the world of modern kids, I can't recognize the difference between one brand of toy and another or one style of shoe and another. The information entropy is high. It seems like I could substitute any new shoe and it should serve the same purpose - but of course, that's because I'm not young and cool so I don't know what is cool. I have to take the kids word for it. This same principle is what we are dealing with in our conception of matter and space. We have to rely on the reports of our body to us about its world. We are getting a consensus of organs, tissues, cells, molecules and coming up with an anthropologically-appropriate sense of scale and space. Now we have extended those body reports to include other instruments which give us a prosthetic enhancement to our sense of scale and space into the microcosm and macro-universe. This extension has given us a peek behind our direct range of space and scale and into realms of unexpected unities (quantum entanglement for example, particle/wave duality, vacuum flux, etc) so that we are getting more of an insider's view of the universe that we are not directly inside of. As for mapping components onto each other's frames, the frames are already the manifestation of all components separation from unity with each other. Like tickling yourself doesn't work because on some level you know exactly when you are going to try to tickle yourself. It isn't that you have a model of a tickler of people and a tickled person and they interfere with each other when you try to tickle yourself - there isn't any model at all. When someone tickles you it is precisely because you can't anticipate their action that the sensation of being tickled becomes possible. Space is like that. It is matter being tickled by matter that is not itself. It might experience it as some sound or feeling or something we can't understand, but whatever it is that atoms experience on that level, or bodies of atoms experience on another level, is what we see, feel, and understand on our level as space or place relations. It's like that example of the parking lot full of shiny cars. Each chrome edge and corner shining is not a separate simulation of the sun, it is a single presentation of the sense that arises out of your relation to the sun and the cars. It is a specular sharing of sense, not a mechanical instantiation. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/M1PQhJvQA0kJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
