narwhol - 02 September 2007 07:33 AM

Here are a few of the logic gaps in this idea:
the integer elements of primes having the least “entropy” thing, whilst interesting, bears no real parallel with actual entropy and partition functions are just a simplification rather than the full story.

I agree with you. It is only a starting point.
[quote author=“narwhol” ]
  Besides which, there is no reason in any real system to reduce the partition functions into integers rather than any other real numbers

Agree. The basics of the full model are defined in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/TOUM.pdf .
[quote author=“narwhol”]
quantum superposition only works if the quanta are in the same location, which not all of the quanta in the universe are, plainly.

At this part I generalize it to Information Theory, which is not limited by any particular scale.
[quote author=“narwhol”]
it bears no real similarity to an eratosthenes sleeve, since the probability densities that you obtain for multiple experiments to determine a property of a single quantum give wavelike plots that are asymmetric.

maximum entropies existing as gradient and area calculations are no evidence whatever of interelation in the first place, and in the second, given that I can see points at which the differential is zero and others at which it is in between maximum and minimum in your diagram this is fallacious anyway.  Thirdly, I can see regions where you can set limits that would give in-betweeny integrals.  So even if a real quantum system could be represented by an eratosthenes sleeve (which it can’t), your idea of non-local and local inrelation is flawed.

Notion #2 is not a QM model. It is a new point of view on set N.
[quote author=“narwhol”]
if we expand the wave particle duality to a whole universe? how?  and in what way?  wave particle duality really only works on the basis of a quantum being standing wave like and therefore having a region over which it operates, but also particle like in that it has a defined focus of maximum amplitude at which a property can be said to be acting.  this last point varies according to where the quantum itself phically moves to and how the energy is being transferred along it from one instant to the next.  as you increase the number of quanta that make up an object, the less wavy that objects behaviour is and even at the size of an atom, this borders on negligible.  so a whole universe is barely affected by the probabilistic wave-like properties of individual quanta.

Unless Space and Time are complementary states of the same realm, for example:

Connectivity or integration is the property that is recognized by us as time(timing) or correlation among different entities.

A time-line of some universe is the most connected state where no discrete phenomenon exists and all we have is a smooth connectivity without space (no measured place).

Non-connectivity or differentiation is the property that is recognized by us as space or non-correlation among different entities.

A space of some universe is the most disconnected state where no smooth phenomenon exists and all we have is discreteness without time (timing) or correlation (no measured flow).

Our universe is both time_AND_space and this complementary relation can be found in any researched level within and without us.

A cone and a sphere are two separated models of a universe, where a sphere is a closed universe (has “start”, “middle” and “end” along a time-line) and a cone is an open universe (has “start” but no “middle” and no “end” along a time-line).

A time-line in both models is like the “spine” of a universe, where any space/time phenomena are changed relatively to it.

Space/Time is a complementary fading transition between “pure” time (the time-line) and “pure” space (the surface).

In other words, time and space are the polarities of the same phenomena, called universe, that most of its history exists in its complementary space/time environment that has common “laws of nature” determined by the time-line, which is actually the attractor of a universe.

This time-line can be a single time-line, which is the attractor of a single universe (closed or open):

Also a time-line can be a one branch that belongs to a tree-like attractor that may have a fractal-like property:

This diagram was taken from Andri Linde’s work ( http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/cosfig1.htm )

and it is:

“A graphical representation of the multiple inflationary bubbles of Andrei Linde’s “self-reproducing inflationary universe”. Linde’s theory is one attempt to generate a “world ensemble,” or ensemble of varying universes—within a larger Universe—in which the physical laws and properties may differ from one universe to the next. Changes in shading represent “mutations” in basic physical properties from “parent” to “offspring” universes. (Figure after Andrei Linde, “The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe, ” Scientific American 271 [November 1994]; p.55.)”

A Cybernetic curve:

If we produce a cross-section end examine an arbitrary slice of a universe, which its space/time fabric is the result of integration/differentiation tendencies between “pure” time and “pure” space, then a natural equilibrium between these “purities” , has the shape of an Archimedean-like curve, for example:

This Archimedean-like curve is maybe the optimal zone where complex phenomena like life, for example, can find a stable and rich enough conditions in order to be developed to a self aware non-trivial system.

For more details please look at:

Organic Natural Numbers and Cybernetic Kernels:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/MonadCK.pdf

Organic Natural Numbers: (some old papers that need more work)

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ONN1.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ONN2.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ONN3.pdf

This topic expending the wave-particle duality to a whole universe, where a universe is a complementary phenomenon that exists between two opposite properties, which are integration and differentiation.

Integration is understood as gravity and differentiation is understood as expansion.

The most integrated state is understood as the 4D which is time or time-line.

The rest 3 dimensions are the observed space, which is ordered relatively to the time-line that is considered as its attractor.

So the history of a universe is the story of space/time complementary associations along the time-line.

Without this time-line, no fundamental conditions can appear as natural laws of a universe.

By this model we can examine the idea of rich enough conditions in the space/time fabric, that maybe explains the origin and development of life phenomena along the time-line.

The next part of this research is to use the insights coming from Quantum-Mechanics, in order to develop a new fundamental mathematical language where Redundancy and Uncertainty are first-order properties of its axiomatic system.

By doing this, we actually re-examine the whole scientific cosmological research in a new light, where the researcher himself is both observer_AND_participator.

From this point of view any result in any level (and not just in QM level) is influenced by the researcher, and the researcher has to include this influence as an inseparable part of his results.

By using the word ‘result’ we mean that by this model, ethical results must also be considered as an organic part of the scientific research and development, where ‘development’ has two legs which are our technical skills and our ethical skills, which are combined to a one comprehensive scientific method, that can help us to survive the power of our developed technology along the time-line.

For further information please look at:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/LPD.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/Eventors.pdf

As much as I know NXOR\XOR logic is a new point of view on Logic itself, and it is beyond the ability of a one man’s work
[quote author=“narwhol”]
the idea that an observer affects the outcome in quantum experiments is nothing more than a poetic notion that still persists in the minds of a very few serious scientists and the idea that ethics affect the outcome doesn’t actually follow from anything you have said and in purely spurious in its introduction here.

It is well known that in order to get accurate results about energy, the researcher first choose the experiment that will give the requested results out of some examined quantum system. The same holds in the case that the researcher wishes to get accurate results about the location of the same quantum system.

In both cases the researcher has to decide what property he wishes to research, before the experiment actually happens. In other words, it is not an objective observer of the results, but it has a direct influence on them.
[quote author=“narwhol”]
I don’t really see how your pretty little fractal models follow from any of the foregoing discussion.  there is no link given and I strongly expect no link is ascertainable.

In short, you seem to take the erroneous premise that primes having the lowest entropy if you only use integers despite their being no reason why one should, then ignore it for the rest of the discussion whilst going to the erroneous premise that the eratosthenes sleeve resembles any probabilistic quantity associated with quanta, use this to make a massive leap of faith to say that locality and non-locality are interrelated despite the fact that it would a) depend on which values you chose for your y-axis and b) their clearly not and one of which is a divergent quantity anyway, and then you spuriously add that ethics effects quanta and go onto add a whole section in which pretty little fractals are generated to no purpose.

Also in this case, please read http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/TOUM.pdf.

Thank you.

Firstly, never ever apply information theory to complex natural phenomena because the results never bear any correlation to observable reality and I am sure you know that by now.  I realise you are more of a mathematician than a physicist, but please check out the myriad of studies that have gone before you that have predicted absolute nonsense, unsurprisingly since the universe and other natural systems have physical causalities as opposed to simple data transfer properties.  Secondly, Gravity is not electrodynamic and neither is time so you haven’t a hope in hell of actually deriving a useful Kohn-Hohenberg Hamiltonian that could be even close to interconnecting every gravitational work density that mitigate the expansion of the universe and I suspect an even better reason is the fact that you cannot consider such a diversity of vectors over such a macroscopic system to act in the same way as a quantum system and nor could you process it if it did (this last being irrelevent since it almost certainly wouldn’t - the inverse square law makes gravitational attractive forces neglible over relatively small distances).  As to any superposition with time, that would just be weird; couldn’t happen.  I know people talk of tachyons, but when they do, check out all the “Possible"s, “maybe"s and “there is a finite probability that"s that go into that idea and look at any reasons to believe that there is any kind of likelihoood and you will find that they are thin on the ground.  Even if you could apply quantum theory to the non-electrodynamic gravity waves (still not satisfactorily proven to exist btw), there is almost no chance that time can be said to exhibit quantum mechanical behaviours.

Also, please define the set N of which you speak.

Part 1:

narwhol - 02 September 2007 06:35 PM

Firstly, never ever apply information theory to complex natural phenomena because the results never bear any correlation to observable reality and I am sure you know that by now.

If X has simultanuasly more than one alternative, than X is in a superposition. For example:

Before X explores quantum wavicle y in order to define its exact location, X is in a superposition of experiment A (that defines y’s exact energy) and exmeriment B (that defines y’s exact location).

Complex systems are complex because thay have more than one alternative at a time. So the principle of Superposition is not limited by scale.

narwhol - 02 September 2007 06:35 PM

Also, please define the set N of which you speak.

I use Organic Natural Numbers, as bulding-blocks that define the Symmetrical states within any given finite cardinal:

The consistent products of the traditional 2-valued logic are based on dichotomy (XOR connective) between opposite concepts, where inconsistency exist if some conclusion is both A and its negation.

From this excluded middle point of view , XOR and NXOR cannot be paired.

If we use an included-middle 2-valued logic, then the middle is the product of a NXOR connective between opposite concepts.

As a result, the mathematical universe between XOR and NXOR is the result of opposites that complement each other instead of contradict each other (as they do in excluded-middle 2-valued logic).

Furthermore, the excluded-middle 2-valued logic is a particular and extreme case of NXOR\XOR logic, where the products of the middle are ignored, and as a result both opposite and its negation cannot be but a contradiction.

Let 0 be the opposite of 1, and vice versa.

A NOR B is true if both A and B are 0.
A AND B is true if both A and B are 1.
A NXOR B is true if A has the same value of B.
A XOR B is true if A does not have the same value of B.

NXOR\XOR logic is the complementation between A,B and from this new point of view the concept of Membership is extended beyond XOR, and our consistent products are consistent logical “off springs” of both NXOR\XOR connectives.

If NXOR is dominant than the products are symmetrical.

If XOR is dominant than the products are non-symmetrical.

For example, in NXOR\XOR logic each finite cardinal has more than a one state of symmetry among members, and as a result a multiset (a superposition among non-distinct members) and regular set (each member is distinct) are nothing but two symmetrical states of the same finite cardinal.

By using Symmetry as a first-order property of the Natural numbers, we get a “X-ray” picture of each partition, which goes beyond the cardinal/ordinal and add distinction as a first-order property of the Natural numbers:

...

Some examples:

The minimal atomic representation of a local element is a point {.}, where an atomic element is known as a urelement ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urelement ) (which is a member of a set that has no sub-elements).

The minimal atomic representation of a non-local element is a segment {  } .

When combined into a one object, a non-local urelement is not defined by a collection of local urelements (they are mutually independent exactly like two axioms) and a consistent mathematical universe can be defined among them.

Let us research the Natural number concept as a product of this consistent mathematical universe.

By Peano axioms there exits the natural number 1, where any number which is not 1 is greater then the previous number by exactly 1 unit.

As a result, each natural number is both a cardinal (satisfies the question “How many?”) and an ordinal (satisfies the question “In what order?”).

By combined between a collection of local urelements and a non-local urelement, we discover that the natural numbers, based on Peano axioms, are a special case of this combination.

In other words, within any given cardinal > 1 there are several states which their exact order cannot be defined because the exact identity of each element is not known yet.

It means that there is a superposition of identities that have to be broken in order to get the broken state which defined by Peano axioms (where each element is both a cardinal and an ordinal).

Here is an illustration that (I hope) can help to understand this new idea (in this case non-locality is represented by an outer arc and locality is represented by a collection of internal arcs):

Peano products are marked by the orange rectangles. The other elements are not defined by Peano axioms, because no one of them is both a cardinal and an ordinal.

By combining between locality and non-locality we get an organic mathematical structure, which is not lass than complementary relations between the whole and the parts.

Here is the standard definition of the natural numbers:

The set of all natural numbers is the set N = {x | x є I for every inductive set I}.

  Thus, a set x is a natural number iff it belongs to every inductive set. Each member of an inductive set is both a cardinal and an ordinal, because it is based on a broken-symmetry bridging (bridging is an association between mutually independent states like local element(s) and a non-local urelement), represented by each blue pattern in the figure below. Armed with symmetry as a first-order property, we define a bridging that cannot be both a cardinal and an ordinal, represented by each magenta pattern in the figure below.  The products of the bridging between the local and the non-local are called organic natural numbers.

Each pattern in this figure is both local/global state of the organic natural numbers system (which is based on the associations between non-locality[represented by horizontal lines] and locality[represented by vertical lines]) as can be seen in the case of the blue broken-symmetry patterns.

When combined into a one system, locality and non-locality can be measured by parallel symmetry (where no element has a unique identity) and serial broken symmetry (where each element has a unique identity).

The transformation from parallel symmetry to serial symmetry can be used in order to research the evolution of Complexity as a product of self reference tendency.

Here is some illustration that demonstrates this idea by using the organic natural numbers:  http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/MonadCK.pdf

I think that the organic natural number can be used as a model that represents the process of cells differentiation, starting by no specifications (represented by superposition) and ended by a specific structure and function for each cell of some organism.

For further reading, please look at http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/TOUM.pdf

Part 2:

Please be aware that there is a complementary relationship between NXOR logic and XOR logic.

Without it the concept of “many …” does not exist, and there is nothing beyond One.

Here is some analogy:

On a table there is a finite unknown quantity of identical beads > 1
and we have:

A) To find their sum.

B) To be able to identify each bead.

Limitation: we are not allowed to use our memory after we count a bead.

By trying to find the total quantity of the beads (representing locality) without using our memory (representing nonlocality) we find ourselves stuck in 1, so we need an association between nonlocality and locality if we wish to be able to find the bead’s sum.

Let’s cancel our limitation, so now we know how many beads we have, for example, value 3.

Let us try to identify each bead, but they are identical, so we will identify each of them by its place on the table.

But this is an unstable solution, because if someone takes the beads, put them between his hands, shakes them and put them back on the table, we have lost track of the beads identity.

Each identical bead can be the bead that was identified by us before it was mixed with the other beads.

We shall represent this situation by:

((a XOR b XOR c),(a XOR b XOR c),(a XOR b XOR c))

By notating a bead as ‘c’ we get:

((a XOR b),(a XOR b),c)

and by notating a bead as ‘b’ we get:

(a,b,c)

We satisfy condition B but through this research we define a universe, which exists between nonlocality and locality and can be systematically explored and be used to make Math.

What I have found through this simple cognition’s_basic_ability_test is that ZF or Peano axioms “leap” straight to the “end of the story” where cardinal and ordinal properties are well-known, and because of this “leap” Infinitely many information forms that have infinitely many information clarity degrees (where each one of them is both global/local entity of this universe) are simply ignored and not used as first-order information forms of Math language.

In my opinion, any language (including Math) is first of all an information system, which means that fundamental properties like redundancy and uncertainty MUST be taken as first-order properties, but because our cognition’s abilities were not examined when ZF or Peano axioms were defined, both redundancy and uncertainty were not included as first-order properties in our logical reasoning or in our fundamental axiomatic systems.

Also in my opinion, through this simple test we get the insight that any mathematical concept is first of all the result of cognition/object (abstract or non-abstract) interactions, that are translated to NXOR\XOR logic.

Sets and Multisets (some dialog):

My system can be defined as the complementary relations between Sets and Multisets.

From this point of view, each Natural number has several symmtrical states, where a multiset is the highest symmetry (a superposition), a set is the lowest symmetry (a broken-symmetry), and the rest states are combinations of symmetry and broken-symmetry, for example:

0
{} (represented as x)

1
{x}

2
{{x}{x}} (superposition)
{{x}x} (broken symmetry)

3
{{x}{x}{x}} (superposition)
{{{x}{x}}x}
{{{x}x}x} (broken symmetry)

4
{{x}{x}{x}{x}} (superposition)
{{{x}{x}}{x}{x}}
{{{x}x}{x}{x}}
{{{x}{x}}{{x}{x}}}
{{{x}x}{{x}{x}}}
{{{x}x}{{x}x}}
{{{x}{x}{x}}x}
{{{x}{x}}x}x}
{{{x}x}x}x} (broken symmetry)

5
{{x}{x}{x}{x}{x}} (superposition)
{{{x}{x}}{x}{x}{x}}
{{{x}x}{x}{x}{x}}
{{{x}{x}}{{x}{x}}{x}}
{{{x}x}{{x}{x}}{x}}
{{{x}x}{{x}x}{x}}
{{{x}{x}{x}}{x}{x}}
{{{{x}{x}}x}{x}{x}}
{{{{x}x}x}{x}{x}}
{{{x}{x}{x}}{{x}{x}}}
{{{x}{x}{x}}{{x}x}}
{{{{x}{x}}x}{{x}{x}}}
{{{{x}{x}}x}{{x}x}}}
{{{{x}x}x}{{x}{x}}}
{{{{x}x}x}{{x}x}}
{{x}{x}{x}{x}}x}
{{{x}{x}}{x}{x}}x}
{{{x}x}{x}{x}}x}
{{{x}{x}}{{x}{x}}}x}
{{{x}x}{{x}{x}}}x}
{{{x}x}{{x}x}}x}
{{{x}{x}{x}}x}x}
{{{x}{x}}x}x}x}
{{{x}x}x}x}x} (broken symmetry)

...

 

[quote author =“69dodge”]
I don’t understand exactly how you’re thinking about this stuff.  However, I do know that if I count the number of different multisets of each “size” (with certain conditions, as I described in an earlier post), I get the same numbers as you get when you count whatever it is you’re counting.  So, in some sense at least, you are essentially talking about multisets of a certain kind.  And I showed how to define multisets in terms of ordinary sets.  That’s what I meant when I said “but I did!”.

If you use cardinality (of multisets or sets) as an order method, you are based only on a serial broken-symmetry.
[quote author =“69dodge”]
To take a specific example, suppose we want to represent the multiset which contains 0 once and 3 twice. We can’t represent it directly, as the set {0, 3, 3}, because this set is the same as {0, 3}. A set does not allow repetition of elements. Either it contains an element or it doesn’t; for each possible element, those are the only two choices. But we can represent the multiset as a function f, where f(0) = 1 and f(3) = 2:

{ (0,1), (3,2) } =
{ {{0},{0,1}}, {{3},{3,2}} } =
{ {{ {} }, { {}, {{}} }}, {{ {{},{{}},{{},{{}}}} }, { {{},{{}},{{},{{}}}}, {{},{{}}} }} }

Obviously, this is hard to read, and there’s no reason we can’t extend the usual set notation to multisets, and write it as the easier-to-read “{0, 3, 3}” if we want to. But there’s nothing fundamentally new in it. We don’t need anything not in ZF to deal with it.

Let us check again the above very carefully.

1. A function gets an input and returns an output.

2. In this case the input cannot be related to a multiset, otherwise
we define a multiset by using a multiset, which is a circular definition.

3. So, the input must be several and different sets (if they are not different, we actually have a multiset as an input, which is a circular definition).

4. Any information that we get in the input is not lost in the output. So there is no problem to know what was the source of each member of {0,3,3} and this knowledge is used in order to identify each 3 in {0,3,3}, and let us use your own example to show it:
[quote author =“69dodge”]
But we can represent the multiset as a function f, where f(0) = 1 and f(3) = 2:

{ (0,1), (3,2) } =
{ {{0},{0,1}}, {{3},{3,2}} } =
{ {{ {} }, { {}, {{}} }}, {{ {{},{{}},{{},{{}}}} }, { {{},{{}},{{},{{}}}}, {{},{{}}} }} } 

Your functions have to visit each subset of { {{0},{0,1}}, {{3},{3,2}} } in order to get the data that satisfies the content of {0,3,3}.

In that case
if
visit a=0 of {0} of { {{0},{0,1}}, {{3},{3,2}} }  ,
visit b=3 of {3} of {{3},{3,2}} of { {{0},{0,1}}, {{3},{3,2}} } ,
visit c=3 of {3,2} of {{3},{3,2}} of { {{0},{0,1}}, {{3},{3,2}} }
then
our output is not less than {0a,3b,3c} which is definitely not the multiset {0,3,3}.

5. If we say that knowledge that we have in the input does not fully exist in the output, then the input and the output are actually disjoint and we cannot conclude that the input is the building-block of the output.

6. If you say that your function is parallel and not a step-by-step, then you actually use a multiset in order to define a multiset (which is a circular definition).

7. Conclusion:

A set and a multiset cannot be defined by each other and they are mutually independent like two axioms.

8. There is a new mathematical universe that exists between sets and nultisets, that cannot be defined by using only ZF or ZFC.

The building-blocks of both of them are locality(XOR products) and non-locality(NXOR products).

Part 3:

I use Symmetry as the finest measurement tool of NXOR\XOR logic.

I showed in Part 2 ( http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/2893/P30/#20918 ) that a multiset (a symmetrical structure of superpositions) cannot be defined by a set (a non-symmetrical structure of distinct identities).

They are mutually independent like two axioms, and both of them are NXOR\XOR products.

An NXOR product is exactly a non-local ur-element. Given any domain, the NXOR product is true only if it is the same inside NXOR outside of the given domain.

An XOR product is exactly a local ur-element. Given any domain, the XOR product is true only if it is not the same inside XOR outside of the given domain.

As for ur-element, please look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urelement .

A consciousness is not less than a NXOR\XOR product, and it is the simultaneous bridging between non-locality(NXOR) and locality(XOR).

Bridging is relations between mutually independent ur-elements (a non-local ur-element(NXOR product) , a local ur-element(XOR product)).

Here is some illustration, based on a prism, which demonstrates the two extreme states of such a bridging:

As can be seen, Uncertainty and Redundancy are first-order properties of it.

Given any finite cardinal NXOR\XOR logic systematically enables to define all NXOR\XOR products under it.

Furthermore, it explains the connection between complexity and consciousness’s evolution in this NXOR\XOR illustration of what I call Cybernetic Kernels:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/MonadCK.pdf

Cybernetic Kernels are used in my cosmological model in:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/LPD.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/Eventors.pdf

You can also look at an old paper of mine in:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/TAP.pdf

Here is some part of it:

Penrose tiling and number 5

As can be seen in the diagram above, the most top-left pattern is based on 5 cubes that cannot fully distinguished from each other, because they are identical and also preventing/defining each other by having common parts.

This pattern is a good analogy of QM wave/particle duality that can be found in some quantum element, before we measure it.

This example can be generalized to any finite cardinal.

[quote author =“kStro”]
Are you willing to suggest then that superposition must be a feature of some structure within the brain?

Superposition is an inseparable part of NXOR\XOR logic, where Platonic and non-Platonic realms preventing\defining their middle domain, and our realm is exactly a NXOR\XOR logic realm where each one of us is both its observer and participator.

As I understand it, the existence of a “pure” observer is a wishful thinking, or in other words, we are responsible for our actions\reactions as participators of this realm.

Please read http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/GEProject.pdf in order to understand my motive.

I have tried reading this several times now and either I am hugely confused or you are, but I suspect it’s both.  I don’t see why X would ever be in a state determined by either experiment prior to them being performed (I think you’re either reading Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen’s result in terms of the human desire to personify things (as a few scientists did at the time - all ended up with egg on their faces), or you take Einstein’s idea of simultaneity to be true (even Einstein thought it was unlikely but not disproven). 

Secondly, none of the foregoing actually takes into account the fact that the interactions of these particles are physical in nature.  Yes, you can get numbers to do what you have said, but the interpretations you place on these numbers (both prior to operating them (the definitions you give to them) and after (the conclusions you place on the outcomes)) bear no sensible relation that I can infer to anything that these things actually physically do.  They only seem to bear a relation to things that numbers do.  You seem to arbitrarily define a symmetrical property to the wavicles themselves based on the shape of the graph you would obtain if you were to plot their probability densities with respect to one particular aspect of their behaviour.  Ten to one, quanta would not acually look like that (they are pretty assymetric) and would not individually display this behaviour.  Also, superposition as you say it means a very different thing from anything that affects quantum physics.  In this last, we have to have the quanta overlapping.  This difference is important, because the idea that they communicate over large distances is losing a hell of a lot of ground (I believe that it should because, to my mind it was always a speculative and ludicrous explanation when other more rational ones were available and more likely).

This piece did, however, take a lot of reading.  I had to read it several times despite feeling that it was wrong for the reasons mentioned above on first reading.  The reason for this was that I felt that I surely must be missing something.  I can’t see how, but it is always a possibility.

narwhol - 07 September 2007 01:31 PM

I can’t see how, but it is always a possibility.

If you choose to limit yourself (which OK, of course)  to the current physical interpretation of concepts like Symmetry, Asymmetry or Superposition, then you have missed my point of view about them.

In that case we do not have much to discuss about (which is also Ok).

My eyes!  These charts are hurting my eyes.  :(

Mriana - 07 September 2007 02:14 PM

My eyes!  These charts are hurting my eyes.  :(

Please explain.

As I scroll down to the last unread post, they actually make my eyes hurt as I see them go by quickly.  Eyestrain.  The last one is the wrost and I don’t have to be scrolling for that one.

Mriana - 07 September 2007 02:22 PM

As I scroll down to the last unread post, they actually make my eyes hurt as I see them go by quickly.  Eyestrain.  The last one is the wrost and I don’t have to be scrolling for that one.

Instead of scrolling, please try to understand them.

Yep, I think that we are irreconcilably at odds on this one.

narwhol - 07 September 2007 02:30 PM

Yep, I think that we are irreconcilably at odds on this one.

Please be aware that your ability to understand some physical phenomenon is based on both theoretical and experimental tools, which are like the two legs of the same framework.

Sometimes one of them is beyond the other, before they are resynchronized.

Yep.  And I have to say, I can’t see the theory or the relation to observable phenomena here.  However, I can always accept that this might just be my lack of understanding or you not explaining it in a way that a physicist can understand (you may have already worked out a link to the physics of it and that may be so obvious to you that you have skipped on a fair few frames), or it may be that your theory is not consistent with physical reality; who knows.

DoronShadmi - 07 September 2007 02:28 PM

Mriana - 07 September 2007 02:22 PM

As I scroll down to the last unread post, they actually make my eyes hurt as I see them go by quickly.  Eyestrain.  The last one is the wrost and I don’t have to be scrolling for that one.

Instead of scrolling, please try to understand them.

I was never a math person and if I have already read them, I don’t need to go over them again when I return to read the new post.