On 8/29/2012 3:21 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 2:24:45 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
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.
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
You are on fire today! Nice! I like this real world example, but I
am a bit fuzzy on how you are seeing it. Let me do my
interpretation/reaction and see where it takes us. The "lack of
recognition" is something important as it can show us how bisimulations
are almost never a single step process. More often than not we have to
go through several steps to, for this instance, knowing what the cool
shoe is. This implies that more resources are required for strange
objects to be recognized as opposed to fewer resources to recognize the
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.
Umm, this is wandering off topic a little. The pointed question is
how does the duality on each individual maps between many such
individuals? This is how interaction, IMHO, is to be represented. The
point about QM is important because the mutual commutativity rule is
very important! For a given set of interacting/measuring/observing
entities, their set of incontrovertible facts is strictly limited to
observables in mutually commuting bases. For example, I cannot measure
position data of a set of electrons and you measure momentum data on the
"same set of electrons" if there is the possibility that we can share
data. Mutual commutativity acts as a filter on what is "the same" 3p
object. It is interesting to note that classical physics assumes that
all observable bases commute... Newton et al never considered saw the
need to consider the non-commutative case.
As for mapping components onto each other's frames, the frames are
already the manifestation of all components separation from unity with
Yes, that's true, but there is more detail to how the separation
goes. There is something like a path and a "distance" between them and
unity that can be exploited. My thought is that the path might be
defined on the graph of all of the components relative to each other.
From my research these graphs are ultrametric and non-archimedean in
the absolute sense, so the usual graph ideas don't quite apply. This
article explains the critical difference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Archimedean_time The trick is the
inclusion of event horizons that act to hide the infinitely distance
parts. This shows up as limited "forgetfulness" of residuation in
Pratt's dualism idea.
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.
Right, but consider the schizophrenic that is operating out of
synch between his hand movements and his perceptions of the sensations.
He would be able to convincingly "tickle himself" but not recognize that
those are his hands that are doing the tickling.
Space is like that. It is matter being tickled by matter that is not
No, its just a lag effect! The key is the definition of "itself"
and "not-itself". For matter the determining factor is the speed of
light. Things with in the light cone are "self" and outside the light
cone are "not self".
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.
I disagree. Each shiny fragment entails a simulation on its own (as
its photons have their own paths to traverse which get summed ala
Feynman integrals), that is how they are recognized as seperate, but
your point is right about your total relationship between the sun and
cars. But this is a 1p vs. 3p situation.
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.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at