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:

    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.

Hi Craig,

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 familiar ones.

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 each other.

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 itself.

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.


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.

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.




You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to