Beyond Entanglement (Distar Mathematics)

Beyond Entanglement (Distar Mathematics)
L. Edgar Otto October 12, 2011

Let us start with this link in Lubos which seems to me relevant as an example of the philosophic foundations I was prepared to discuss today.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/10/majorana-tamburini-laveder-superluminal.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LuboMotlsReferenceFrame+%28Lubos+Motl%27s+reference+frame%29

Let us also see the discussion on the X and Y, the structural question I asked Lubos and his kind reply, and the idea of mesons XY in Pitkanen's post today. Rio Frio has an interesting attribute to Einstein, but as with all these questions at the foundations I look for possibilities in my concepts of Quasic Abstract Motion. The wheel is still in spin for so many theoreticians- all I offer here is a pointing out of those stereonomic concepts that would explain or justify some of their assumptions as applied to physics. Other bloggers who go back to the drawing board of the foundations have been a catalyst for my shoring up of these applications of axioms where they can be thought intelligibly applied, in the deep language of physics or the metalanguage of our inner voices of thought and dialog.

1. An entity can be at a distance from itself. (quantum things may be in more than one place at once.)

2. In a background of raw and indefinite space an entity may be duplicated to many numbers, within the same abstract volume or in hierarchies, or linearly to the totality of that volume (so to may reduce back to one entity) but in an intelligible manner where it reflects the laws and physicality of the universe in general and quasic universe in particular.

2. Nothing can stay for long at rest relative to the next higher direction of dimension where it is in (diagonal) motion in that dimension. Nor where there is an abstract diagonal motion in a given dimension can things move without encountering resistance to said motion to the logical finite scope of the given dimension.

(Lubos metaphor applies here that the neutrinos feel the rock- of course I read this trend of thought and post after I thought about these foundational things again but these may in a sense describe what mass can be- in any case in viewing my early poems SphereBook, the idea of neutrinos contributing to earthquakes was in a poem that does not seem as speculative for someone in high school physics when the same form of these questions could actually have such consequences in obscure theory- maybe it is obvious when we actually try to apply the aspects of what happens with the elements (higher) in supernovas or as we learn more about our sun and climate.)

4. An abstract diagonal (orthogonal field) quasic motion is in a sense the idea of directionality to so interpret, that is a vector like concept that can be independent of the distance or one dimensional component so reduced. But across the hierarchy of dimensions, involving things like irrational numbers and even the powers as dimensions in an informational binary manner, in one direction we can have endless spirals of fractal like objects, but in the other direction there is a limit to the parts of the design that can continue the pattern.

5. A sequence (philosophy encoding) I represent as a series of all 1's or 0's or combination's taken far enough to express the concept as a working symbol for now and these are drawn through with a line. It is here that we see in a quasic grounding that there are degrees between locality and non-locality as well as these extremes to which we have to keep in mind the more abstract structural directionality. In a sense the generational (inherently quasic in the span or depth of such stereonomy as structures) as well as the dimensionality of entities is that which we can interpret as some form of mass or other intelligibly distinguished continuous or discrete creative entities.

6. From a psychological stance in the impartial presentation of a code, say that of random patterns of set symbols forming words, or the nature of human languages in origins and design as a tool for thought and communication- the question from a quasic view is what we feel we are and what we have internalized as our own and what is thus unique to the constellation of experience of the individual as unique or what is just the intelligible background of the universe resonating with the mechanisms and laws of the mind. Thus when we make a breakthrough it can just as well break us as redefine for awhile some disconnect with our sense of self or routine- this can be a decoherence, can be ignored, or can actually indicate rare moments of being changed by our insights before transcendence. The language someone can use, on drugs or not to control a sort of rest in routine or behavior or what is to be expected as the unfolding of time or events and states of health can get very complicated in its ignoring or evasion of what may socially seem sound when such people are lost in their own motions as if a fixed quantity of intellect. Sanity in the end is when one can distinguish the reality of such people as well as what in our evolved dialog within ourselves, and learned so as our ego time goes by.

8- Let us recall in quasic abstract motion notation a rest is a change of none of 2 to the nth coordinates while a diagonal motion is a change of all of them. Depending on our idea or dyslexia of the directionality involved we can interpret these as Clifford like or p-adic like concepts of numbers. So it should not be a surprise in this abstract concept of at a distance or continuous as contiguity of mass even as if at a distance (that is no distance or all seen in a total space to some logical extent as mass or mass by default of no defined motion or other dimensions- that the posters see the idea of superluminal neutrinos as in a sense linear (beyond the complex number concepts even) or that in such recursive or resonances of particle spaces we find the statistical mixing of said properties of the particles involved- and yes a sort of vibration possible to balance and make things in the main directional and intelligible again.




* * *

As we can find generational directional minimums for the density of matter that implies that influence of structural matter not seen (and this as with all extended ideas somewhere between the local and non-local proximity where we may conclude that there is an implied influence such as the sensing of such fields or maybe just the logic of it- for again distance even in one dimension is a deeper concept than just that between to points (or as the Greeks counted between two one dimensional zero points) we can find implied concrete or light matter as if creatively from the observation of it as if in the opaque background. Assumptions about what seems constant on one dimensional level may from some perspective be said to vary or change but not in the usual sense of cosmic acceleration which also depends on how we view the limits of this generalization of dimension and dimensionless ratios.

Thus, again, an intelligible quasic concept of the relation between distances, and those values in a given natural dimension such as the square root of two or phi for the best integral shadow or fit of a projection, is a useful relation between entities insofar as information goes where a distance is ambiguous as if it is a class concept. Recall, Cantor did not succeed in defining dimensions.

Now, there is an article on newscientist I cannot read without subscription that may relate to this- but it could be that we finally take a little more seriously some of the ways we might organize the observations with new theory. Note also the delightful article that we may be descended from a sixth sense- fish with the electric field- now consider to what extent there may be still another, that is as we sense in proximity or distance concrete material objects (thus distar) which may not be quite as occultist or mystical our intuitions of some claimed properties such as the containment of event memories imprinted on the rocks and the like. Now, if some object can so relate in this relational dialectics why not our ability to organize such perceptions- and why not in a general world where all such perceptions are possible there are natural intelligible limits where the expansions or accelerations of moving objects or fixed of intelligible ratios do form a more general hierarchy of quasi-step wise differences which may be an implied constant?

In this sense, what is possible if this is a ground of communications between people or cells or what have you in the kinds of vacua of creative spaces then we can know that what can be so viewed or not as to the unique privacy of mental states of others have solid ground for shielding and limitations from any remote viewing which makes for a mastery at least in an intelligible structure of thought and organism of the front line of defense against access and invasion, a uniqueness as survival in both the ideas of space and time- or what may in fact be analogous opaque equivalents.

* * *