On Sunday, November 10, 2013 8:42:34 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Craig Weinberg
> > wrote:
>> Thanks for uploading it, great job!
>> Here's what I propose to re-interpret QM:
>> Beams exist only within the experience of the various participants, not
>> as literal beams across a vacuum. There are no literal waves or particles.
>> What is happening is that the stimulated physical components are arranged
>> to reflect their stimulation to each other, which occurs in a physical
>> frame of time that is essentially timeless.
> I believe in a four-dimensional existence (timeless physics).
>> The physical layer, I am saying is the most primitive layer of
>> experience, within which space and time divergence is generated. Light does
>> not happen in spacetime, spacetime happens in experience (which is light,
>> or any other sensation).
> Is this like describing a type of idealism then? (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_idealism )
No, I call it pansensitivity or primordial identity pansensitivity.
Idealism implies a subject and and intellect. Sensitivity is about
>> On the right hand side, the topological layers of sensitivity slow down
>> the instant and recapitulate larger and larger chunks of eternity into each
>> frame of awareness.
> How does some particle carry all that information of its entire history?
A particle is an appearance. If I am a large-now experience looking as a
relatively small-now experience, it looks like a particle to me, but
actually that appearance is just a sideways glance at a history of
small-now experiences. I was trying to use the topographic map to give a
sense of this - particles like islands but with roots going all the way
down. The particle doesn't carry information, its appearance embodies the
significance which relates itself to whatever other experience is
encountering it. The entire cosmos is history, which is masked and
alienated according to the significance of our own history. This kind of
modulation of sense among different experiences on different frames
(small-now vs large-now) is what I call eigenmorphism. It's not a smooth
hierarchy, as in, we see a sharp distinction between living organisms and
minerals, because of what we are and what our history has been. The same
distinction would not appear from the mineral's perceptual frame (whatever
> Aren't particles of the same kind practically (if not theoretically)
To us, yes, but aren't we ultimately using instruments made of particles to
> Perhaps in QM the multiple values a particle's property can take on
> represent an ever growing collection of information that can be associated
> with that particle?
Information access is a matter of sensitivity. The more perceptual frames
we can access, the more of the future and the past might be exposed (when
we tap into the larger nows externally).
>> I tried to show how the footprint of the inanimate objects extends all
>> the way down to the bottom, but remains indifferent to the spatiotemporal
>> strata on the right hand side. Not the best diagram, I admit, but maybe
>> gives some sense of the model I suggest.
> It took me a few times re-reading what you wrote but I think I can
> interpret some of what you are saying.
Cool. It really shouldn't be as opaque as I'm making it, it just comes out
that way because I'm handicapped as far as putting it into a clear and
simple explanation. Mainly it's that all of the 4-D physical histories meet
in a transdimensional/transmeaureable hub (which is ordinary sense), so it
is the histories themselves which are separated from each other by measure.
If it were a giant porcupine, QM is looking at the tips of the quills and
inferring a spacetime topology out there on the periphery. We see
entanglement as the special case, but it would be sort of like *breaking
the space off* between two quills so that they are automatically joined.
It's a figure-ground reversal. Spacetime is nothing but insensitivity. The
quills are experience, growing outward from the primordial identity.
Decoherence then is really Disentanglement, and Emergence is Divergence.
>> On Sunday, November 10, 2013 4:49:00 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>>> I've put together a primer on QM, as I think in the process of
>>> explaining something in simple terms can help improve one's understanding
>>> of a given subject. I thought I would share it with this list in case it
>>> might help anyone else. I also welcome any feedback anyone has to offer
>>> regarding it.
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.