This post is a continuation of
Wave Function Collapse (Part 1)
The comments on the above post have become so numerous that they are slow to come up on the computer.
This post is created to continue with the discussion on Wave Function Collapse.
.
-
Pages
-
Categories
-
Posts by Month
-
Recent Comments
- vinaire on Kant’s Subjective Framework
- Anonymous on Kant’s Subjective Framework
- vinaire on Tertium Organum, Chapter 12 (Phenomena)
- vinaire on Tertium Organum, Chapter 13 (Life)
- Anonymous on Tertium Organum, Chapter 13 (Life)
- Anonymous on Tertium Organum, Chapter 12 (Phenomena)
- Anonymous on Tertium Organum, Chapter 13 (Life)
- vinaire on Objectivity and Subjectivity
- Anonymous on Objectivity and Subjectivity
- vinaire on Awareness, a New Dimension
- Follow Vinaire's Blog on WordPress.com
-
Top Posts & Pages
-
Administration
Comments
What is a Higgs Field?
From Wikipedia:
The Higgs field is a quantum field with a non-zero value that fills all of space, and explains why fundamental particles such as quarks and electrons have mass. The Higgs boson is an excitation of the Higgs field above its ground state…
In particle physics, the Higgs mechanism is the process that gives mass to elementary particles. The particles gain mass by interacting with the Higgs field that permeates all space. More precisely, the Higgs mechanism endows gauge bosons in a gauge theory with mass through absorption of Nambu–Goldstone bosons arising in spontaneous symmetry breaking.
.
Vinay, How is this different than the hypothetical ether?
The only difference I can see is that it is supported by mathematical considerations, which i don’t understand very well.
The proof is in the pudding, I would say. So, I’ll wait and see.
.
I heard yesterday on the radio that they have made discovery of a new particle that might be the Higgs particle.
Now that would be a ground breaking discovery.
.
I heard the same thing. At least they are calling what they found at the hadron collider a “Higgs” and had a press large press conference with 82+ year old Higgs present to announce with fanfare their success. Nobel prizes on the way.
This is one more step in the quantization of the universe, so I wonder at your doubt about nuclear measurements. Measuring the energy state of an electron is child’s play compared to this most recent announcement regarding Higgs.
I guess we are covering “old” ground.
Do you understand all this?
.
No, I meant that we are not breaking new ground…not that I understand this.
I believe that new ground is broken after understanding existing fundamentals. Any attempt to understand fundamentals should never be discouraged.
.
I am trying to understand what “mass” is.
Do you understand it?
.
It was an off-hand remark. This material is difficult, counter-intuitive, and now to begin to realize how much has been worked out that I don’t understand is, is deflating. I doubt I can ever come completely up to speed on what is already known, nevermind understanding a new thing. Regardless, whatever I do understand will be new to me in my own little corner of the universe.
I believe that an overview of the materials through Wikipedia can help one zero in to the essential inconsistency. And then one can start digging into it. One does not have to know everything when follwing a specific trail. One only needs to know enough to spot inconsistencies.
.
Mass is an effect bending space-time somehow linked as well to inertia and the answer may be in that linkage.
INERTIA: Intensely interesting this “inertia.” Something is not occurring. Then a Potential Force in some form builds and this force has a vector. Some mass is blocking the path of this vector and this mass represents among other things a counter force in direct opposition to the force acting upon it. As the force builds the mass does not move. At a tipping point, the building potential overcomes the counter force and the mass is moved. Once this counter-force has been overcome, the mass is placed “in-motion” and shall remain so until it is again acted upon again by another countering force or supplemental force. What a very-very curious phenomena!
I have a model for INERTIA here:
https://vinaire.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/wave-function-collapse/#comment-2645
.
What is spontaneous symmetry breaking?
From Wikipedia:
Spontaneous symmetry breaking is a spontaneous process by which a system in a symmetrical state ends up in an asymmetrical state.
Consider the bottom of an empty wine bottle, a symmetrical upward dome with a gutter for sediment. If a ball is placed at the peak of the dome, the situation is symmetrical. But the ball may spontaneously break this symmetry and roll into the gutter, a point of lowest energy. The bottle and the ball retain their symmetry, but the system does not.
In particle physics the force carrier particles are defined by field equations with gauge symmetry.*** These equations predict that certain measurements will be the same at any point in the field. For instance, they may predict that the mass of two quarks is constant. Solving the equations to find the mass of each quark might give two solutions. In one solution, quark A is heavier than quark B. In the second solution, quark B is heavier than quark A by the same amount. The symmetry of the equations is not reflected by the individual solutions, but it is reflected by the range of solutions. An actual measurement reflects only one solution, representing a breakdown in the symmetry of the underlying theory. “Hidden” is perhaps a better term than “broken” because the symmetry is always there in the equations. This phenomenon is called spontaneous symmetry breaking because nothing (that we know) breaks the symmetry in the equations.
***Field theory usually refers to a construction of the dynamics of a field, i.e. a specification of how a field changes with time or with respect to other independent physical variables on which the field depends… Gauge Theory is a type of Field theory… The term gauge refers to redundant degrees of freedom in the Lagrangian.
.
[Note: I have added the definition of “quantum operartors” also. ~ Vinaire]
Vinaire, I think it is a very good idea to have a few of the fundamental definitions at the beginning, so I’m copying in one of the last you posted on the previous blog:
What is a field?
Here are some excerpts from Wikipedia:
In physics, a field is a physical quantity associated with each point of space-time… a field can be either a classical field or a quantum field, depending on whether it is characterized by numbers or quantum operators respectively… The field creates a “condition in space” so that when we put a particle in it, it feels a force… “The fact that the electromagnetic field can possess momentum and energy makes it very real… a particle makes a field, and a field acts on another particle, and the field has such familiar properties as energy content and momentum, just as particles can have”.
.
What are quantum operators?
To me [Vinaire], these operators allow one to look at a physical state from a different viewpoint.
From Wikipedia:
In physics, an operator is a function acting on the space of physical states. As a result of its application on a physical state, another physical state is obtained, very often along with some extra relevant information.
The simplest example of the utility of operators is the study of symmetry. Because of this, they are a very useful tool in classical mechanics. In quantum mechanics, on the other hand, they are an intrinsic part of the formulation of the theory… The mathematical description of quantum mechanics is built upon the concept of an operator.
.
If we want to talk about wave collapse, the importance of grasping the concept of fields cannot be underestimated.
Field lines are nearly the most magical thing in nature. Static electricity is a phenomenon everyone knows about and has probably played with, but at the physical level I find the phenomenon as or more profound than the concept of alternating fields – the fields we use for all forms of radio broadcasting.
For the static electric field to penetrate through air is one thing – one could suppose (incorrectly) that it had something to do with the atoms in the air. When we see the static field operate in a vacuum, then the head scratching begins. The first assumption may be that the charge radiates entirely from the charged body’s own electrons or protons – also innaccurate. How then?
This line from the wiki
“… a particle makes a field, and a field acts on another particle, and the field has such familiar properties as energy content and momentum, just as particles can have”.
is likely the most correct statement of the mechanism and what it says is that the phenomenon of field propagation is a particle to particle transfer of energy (or charge phenomena) or momentum.
This says “particle to particle”. Now we get back to a vacuum – an absence of atoms…
The answer is that a vacuum is not a vacuum but a continuous medium that can magically rearrange itself to be the carrier for the physical phenomena that needs to be carried. It’s the equivalent of – at one moment – being the air necessary to carry a bird, and the next moment being water to carry a fish.
The really, really magical thing is that it can be like air and water at the same time.
More later…
Well said.
I have added the definition of QUANTUM OPERATORS from the previous thread also, because that term appears in the definition of FIELD and these operators are intrinsic to Quantum Mechanics.
.
What is mass?
In modern physics, all fundamental particles are regarded as localized excitations of fields. The excitation of Higgs field interacting with the excitation of some other fields seems to produce mass terms. This simply means that the production of mass term is consistent with the very few fundamental postulates on which mathematics is based.
Thus, we can posit that the mass term can be derived mathematically from space, which is depicted as a mixture of fields.
In layman terms, we may posit that MASS, which essentially is resistance to motion, may be condensed from space.
.
In response to 2ndxmr
https://vinaire.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/wave-function-collapse/#comment-2650
(1) It seems that space is a mixture or harmonics of fields that has been there in its ground state even before the big bang.
(2) The big bang has simply served to precipitate energy and matter out of this space.
(3) The boundary of this precipitation of energy and matter is what we see as the expanding universe.
(4) Consciousness arises only upon this precipitation of energy and matter. We may say that Big Bang created consciousness.
.
This may be a very valuable thread in terms of coallescing relevant knowledge in QM into a form that is generally understandable. As much fun as it would be to also discuss consciousness, I’d suggest we try keep that topic out as much as possible as it will derail the hard science groundwork that you’re beginning to establish here. Another day, another gauntlet to throw. 🙂
As far as CONSCIOUSNESS is concerned, there is a separate thread for that discussion here:
KHTK 10A: CONSCIOUSNESS
But any post on this blog may be discussed. When that happens, I shall add it to Current Discussions
.
In response to 2ndxmr
https://vinaire.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/wave-function-collapse/#comment-2641
Black Holes seem to be later formations after energy and mass have already been created out of space. Black holes then interact back with space.
I see no reason to change what I stated before.
.
What is a wave function?
From Wikipedia:
A wave function is a probability amplitude describing the quantum state of a particle and how it behaves. Typically, its values are complex numbers and, for a single particle, it is a function of space and time. The laws of quantum mechanics (the Schrödinger equation) describe how the wave function evolves over time. The wave function behaves qualitatively like other waves, like water waves or waves on a string, because the Schrödinger equation is mathematically a type of wave equation. This explains the name “wave function”, and gives rise to wave-particle duality.
The wave function is absolutely central to quantum mechanics—it makes the subject what it is. It is also the source of the mysterious consequences and philosophical difficulties in what quantum mechanics means in nature, and even how nature itself behaves at the atomic scale and beyond—topics that continue to be debated today.
.
What is Schrödinger equation?
From Wikipedia:
Schrödinger equation is an equation that describes how the quantum state of a physical system changes with time.
In classical mechanics, the equation of motion is Newton’s 2nd law… they are used to solve for the motion of a mechanical system, and mathematically predict what the system will do at any time beyond the initial settings and configuration of the system.
In quantum mechanics, the analogue of Newton’s law is Schrödinger’s equation for a quantum system, usually atoms, molecules, and subatomic particles; free, bound, or localized. It… encases the wave function of the system…
In the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, the wave function is the most complete description that can be given to a physical system. Solutions to Schrödinger’s equation describe not only molecular, atomic, and subatomic systems, but also macroscopic systems, possibly even the whole universe.
.
In response to 2ndxmr
https://vinaire.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/wave-function-collapse/#comment-2639
Per Wikipedia, ”In modern physics, all fundamental particles are regarded as localized excitations of fields.”
It seems that electromagnetic wave is associated with one type of field. There may be other types of fields associated with Space. Any source of excitation may produce particle type properties in these fields. I don’t know if interaction of electromagnetic waves is sufficient to cause excitation locally in a field. This needs to be investigated further.
.
To many, higher math might appear to be a barrier in understanding Quantum Mechanics, but it is really not so. In fact, it could be quite advantageous not to know higher math. Basic math would suffice.
Mathematics is a subset of logic. It starts with a small number of basic axioms, or assumptions regarded as true. From there, it simply builds up a structure that is consistent with these basic axioms. Physicists then feed certain observations into this structure to see what conclusions may be drawn.
It is perfectly OK to look at higher mathematics as a Black Box. One may then simply examine the observations that are fed into that black box, and the conclusions that are drawn out of it. Just imagine that the function of the Math Black Box is to establish consistency of the output with the input according to the basic axioms of mathematics. Then you simply look at how consistent those inputs and outputs are with your own observations.
One simply has to trust the mathematicians and the scientists for their consistent aplication of mathematical principles. Just keep in mind that mathematics is an approximation of reality. It is not exact in making conclusions about reality. Exactness can be established only through direct looking.
So, don’t be shy because of unfamiliarity with higher math. Just know the fundamentals of mathematics and you’ll do fine. 🙂
MATH FUNDAMENTALS
.
I find that the more inconsistencies are leveled, the easier it becomes to understand mathematics.
.
Finally I finished reading the following book, and I finally understood Maxwell’s triumph, as well as the Maxwell’s equations.
Amazon.com: A Student’s Guide to Maxwell’s Equations …
These equations started the era from which Quantum Mechanics emerged. This is one of the greatest triumph of mathematics, which revealed the electromagnetic nature of light. This is what inspired Einstein. It has carried forward the bastion of theoretical physics.
A change in electric field produces the magnetic field. A change in magnetic field produces the electric field. If a wave is created out of electric field, the wave of magnetic field is produced naturally along with it. The “up and down” of a wave seems to be replaced by electric and magnetic fields.
Here we seem to be looking at the disturbance in space itself. Disturbance in one direction appears as an Electric Field. Disturbance in opposite direction appears as a magnetic field. When space is disturbed in one direction, conditions set in immediately to restore it back to equilibrium, but then it overshoots the point of equilibrium and then the disturbance occurs in the opposite direction. And so it continues. This disturbance propagates in space as the electromagnetic wave.
But what causes the disturbance to start with, because the energy of the initial disturbance seems to be conserved as this wave.
.
Does the observation have direction either toward the observed or toward the observer or both? or neither?
Good question. I have to meditate over that.
.
I got the idea to ask while watching my cat watch my mouse’s “cage.” I have him safe in a big aquarium. I get him out and he rides around with me indoors, outdoors, no matter. Rides in my pocket when he wants to take it easy.
Because of the intensity of the cat’s focus, I notices that the cat did not or would not notice me actually with the mouse on my shoulder in plain sight. I wondered about several mechanics while watching them.
It seems that focus provides the direction to the observation.
Per THE NATURE OF EXISTENCE:
“Thus, existence comes about with a manifestation. A manifestation basically means that “something is being.” This fact of being, or existing, may be referred to by a new word BEINGNESS.
“The fact of manifestation makes it immediately knowable. The fact that something can be known implies AWARENESS. Thus, beingness and awareness occur together. They are the essence of existence.”
Beingness and awareness are part of the same phenomenon. The observer and the observed are also part of the same phenomenon, it seems. They are in a dance with each other.
.
The wave-collapse is counterintuitive to me because I assume that the environment is “radiating” information in all directions and that I have in my possession only “receptors” to collect and analyze this radiation.
The notion that the observer is “doing something” to the wave-function and thereby affecting that which he observes is counterintuitive in the extreme. That concept changes the idea of perception more extremely than I could have thought up on my own.
Perhaps it is all in our mind and there really isn’t anything out there?
I freely admit this possibility. I also think that there may be something “out there” but that maybe the idea of “individual ego” is the biggest lie of all. It may be our “pinched-off little piece of consciousness — encrusted with considerations” which is what is truly contrived… What do you think Fred?
What seems to be radiated are:
(1) Thought waves
(2) Light waves
(3) Sound waves
(4) Matter waves (free particles)
(5) Objects (bound particles)
The various receptors are built in the body. Any wave collapse should apply to all these waves. Can wave collapse be defined as “coming into focus”? This happens when what is being radiated comes into contact with appropriate receptors. Nobody is doing anything. This seems to be a natural phenomenon. We call it perception.
.
Not sure what you mean by nobody is doing anything.
I don’t think there is free will. It may only appear to be so. Nor it is all pre-determined.
It is simply karma.
.
I was just visiting with my oldest son just now and discussing the differences between “will” (some say “free” will — I don’t so much) and “determinism.” We were discussing how an idea appears in our minds and then we go about taking steps if we wish to materialize that idea into the solid universe. There seems to be a rigidity to the laws in the physical universe. (duh, that’s why they are called laws.) But people tend to believe that these laws can be manipulated, altered, acted upon a way to affect their result; However, I do not or canot name an instance of these laws being successfully violated without unhappy consequences. Human myth describes volumes of tall tales describing successful violations of these laws but other than that and rumor lines, I cannot name any occurrence of a successful violation of one of these laws.
Can you?
To a person who has never seen an airplane before, it would seem to violate the law of gravity. But that is not the case.
Thus, apparent violations of the laws of nature, that we hear through myths, legends, and rumors seems to be due to some ignorance on part of the observer. The actual circumstances surrounding an event were, most probably, not understood fully and some conclusions were dubbed in.
I now look at mind as a receptor that perceives mental objects. What appears as ‘will’ seems to be a mental formation that has underlying conditions. What appears as ‘determinism’ seems to be the outcome of subtle combinations that also has underlying conditions. These conditions seem to point to some very fine and subtle programming. Call it upbringing, training, or education or genes.
.
Yes, there is misunderstanding of natural law and thus wrongly attributing reasons for results. Your example does not speak to my question.
Maybe if you use examples framed by your ideas, you writing may come across as less vague. Examples will help coalesce your ideas to me, the reader.
Question: I cannot name any occurrence of a successful violation of one of these laws. Can you?
Answer: I do not see anybody actually violating any of the natural laws either, even when it appears to be so in magic shows.
.
Doesn’t this “fact” seem very significant to you? It does to me. Human lore is completely framed in and couched in these tall tales of bigger than life and extraordinary phenomena. Where does all this exaggeration come from and where does it fit in? It too is a natural phenomena and an outcropping of what?
That is an interesting inconsistency for sure.
The first thought that comes to my mind is that Unknowable is like a “blank slate” on which any Knowable may be speculated and visualized (“written down”).
.
. . . speculated and visualized by what? You will now answer it does not need a what and I am thinking about that as the latest counterintuitive aspect of existence. But you know, I can almost get it. It wants to pop out but I cannot quite spit it out. The snake that I am is eating its tale and when I am finished, I will have swirled down into the infinitesimal and gone “poof.”
Well, it is like looking at the ground state and wondering how an excitation comes about.
.
round and round — me eating my tail . . . The knowledge like the solidity seems fractal to me . . . we “don’t get nowhere” which means we are making progress but the progress is infinitesimal. Still, I feel better, a little bit better about the questions that I ask.
The last two nights I had wild and dramatic dreaming which was a result of this most recent bout of go-arounds or else my wife’s lasagna sauce.
“Wondering how an excitation comes about” seems to be at the crux of the problem, but then again, how would I know?
I am taking a break and reading Isaac Asimov’s “Prelude to Foundation.” You may download it free as an e-book. Just google it.
.
I am thinking about Hubbard’s “be-do-have” and wondering if this is original to his work or if it is present in other’s earlier works? Do you know of any earlier reference? The reason that I am thinking about it is that it provides just what he promoted: Steps to bring about reality in the solid world. If not this, then something close to this is occurring which makes a difference between imagination and reality.
Matrix!
.
haha now you are messing with me but that’s ok as I deserve it.
Hubbard basically looked for patterns in existing data, and he did come up with many good ones, but he failed to explore the fundamentals.
His ego got the best of him. Without understanding Buddhism he declared Buddha to be a mere keyed out Clear. Hubbard was full of himself.
.
I wasn’t discussing Hubbard. I was making a reference only. What I wanted to discuss was the concept of “be do have” as a mechanism only; and compare that to the inconsistency of mind vs matter. Your own model has mind being thin matter but I am not seeing that yet unless there is something going on at the micro level which simply does not correlate to the macro level. We see this in QM but I don’t know yet what we are looking at, what it means.
Think of abstract to concrete dimension. That has nothing to do with BE-DO-HAVE.
Love is an abstract concept. It is manifested as an abstract concept in the mind. But when we see a mother nurturing her child, we observe a concrete manifestation of that abstract concept.
.
I am and that is why I am looking for an understandable mechanic. Is there no such thing as being? Is there no such thing as doing? and is there no such thing as having? These are ludicrous and inconsistent concepts? Ok then. Forget about Be Do Have.
Now why can’t a physical law be successfully broken?
In my mind, there are things that I cannot or at least haven’t yet thought of. I find new thoughts every day – abstract thoughts furnished by others. Some of these abstract thoughts have no meaning to me and it is hard for me to put a meaning to them as they are in the abstract. Which leads me to wonder if I can understand your abstract without transferring it first to concrete and back to my own abstract and vice versa.
In my opinion, one is agreeing with the whole natural system, which is consistent in itself. Disagreement with any part of that natural system would be an inconsistency. When a natural law is broken any time in one’s visualization an inconsistency arises, and one’s visualization no longer represents the natural system.
The natural system is a consistent system. You cannot have the natural system persist if you break the most trivial of its laws.
.
How is the universe incomplete?
You said it was consistent within itself, therefore incomplete? How do you suppose it is incomplete, I cannot quite wrap my wits around that… not enough time.
Yes, it is consistent within itself. It is not consistent with its surroundings. It is like a bubble floating in the void. If you understand it completely, it will become consistent with the void, and therefore, vanish completely.
Ah. Good. Now please define void.
“Void” is the static of Axiom #1… the unknowable… “neti, neti”… nirvana.
I plan to write a post on Axiom #1.
.
Cool. I get it.
Are you assuming that the universe is complete? In what way?
The definition of “complete” is missing here, isn’t it?”
It is like drawing a line in the sand.
.
You said it is consistent and so I just therefore assume it is incomplete…
Good post thank you.
We all have a model of the natural system in our mind to the degree we understand it. Both abstract and concrete are part of this model. Any meaning to that abstract or concrete part comes from consistency within that model.
If I put forth something abstract that you have trouble giving meaning to, then please look for the inconsistency which that datum produces. Then question me about it.
.
There is no definite ground state at the bottom of the rabbit hole. In fact, if you happen to turn around you may wonder if the bottom of the hole is in the direction that you are coming from. It is quite confusing.
The truth seems to be that the ground state itself is a wave… a wave of as-isness… the ‘ups’ and ‘downs’ of this wave seems to be ‘as-is create’ and ‘as-is uncreate’.
Now, I am going to have fun with this.
.
And “wave” evaporates as well. I am becoming more convinced that we are attempting to understand the outer-dimensions beyond a 4D space-time universe. This would explain the frustration and impossibility of doing it all from “within.” And if this has merit, then the solution is to pierce the veil of greater dimensions. How do I go about seeing from “with-out?”
The fundamental wave seems to be ‘appear’, ‘disappear’, ‘appear’, ‘disappear’, and so on. As complexity is attached to what appears, it seems to become harder to make it disappear.
There is no external power that is causing this appearance and disappearance. The power is within this phenomenon itself.
.
Give an example if you can at the macro level.
This is a conjecture about the fundamental that would apply to anything and everything.
Take a datum from Scientology that you believe in. Is there a datum that is quite solid for you; and another datum which is not that solid?
.
Are you perceiving a possible oscillation into and out of reality, thus more solid and then less solid?
Well, that is an interesting question that makes me look in a certain way. To answer that question I may have to reevaluate what reality is.
Reality seems to be the product of one’s considerations. Any oscillation into and out of reality would mean examining and reexamining one’s considerations.
I guess, any intelligent person would be doing that who is not fixed in his/her ideas.
.
Chris “Give an example if you can at the macro level”
Think of a steel plate about 1 ft. square. Put a small hole in the center of it. Glue a small piece of balloon rubber over the hole on each side of the plate. Now inflate the sealed space and you’ll see the rubber expand (balloon) out on one side or the other side, or a bit of both,
Now, looking at only one side of the plate, press the balloon on the other side flat so all the air is pushed into the side that is viewed. Next, release the hidden side and press flat the visible side.
What you’ll see is the “magical” appearance and disappearance of a “distortion of visible space” (the balloon) by an application or relaxation of forces.
If we call the visible side the “real” dimension because we can see it, we can still know there is a dimension on the non-visible (invisible) side – because we just created it.
If we set these balloons into a condition where they were repetitively expanding and collapsing on their own, we could use this model to show a behaviour that might be similar to the particle-wave duality. We would again call the visible side the “real”, particle dimension and the invisible side would be (in keeping with the mathematical construct) the “imaginary” dimension – the wave probability.
The interesting thing about this model is that a very slight difference in “pressure” on one side ot the other would cause the stable change in the state from wave to particle or particle to wave. I expect that this model also reflects something else about the quantum nature of “matter”: Just as the model is made up of two pieces of rubber – the SAME material, it may be that particle and wave are the SAME material, just in different dimensions i.e.
separated by a barrier that makes one side seem real (visible) and the other side seem invisible (imaginary).
Ohhh! I liked that Second Transformer! Like water through a garden hose, it really doesn’t explain electricity, but it gives a sense of how to feel about it at the macro level. Your example duplicates a model that I had thought of for what could be going on in a black hole. But using a black hole for an example, I need to add a dimension or two that I don’t currently know about…
Could there be a type of phasing occurring within the current universe which is just as much a part of the real universe as the real universe but it simply is a dimension we aren’t equipped to rationalize? It could be right here, all around us, very real and responding “quite responsibly” to usual physical laws, but we simply cannot collapse it through an inadequacy of our own?
“as complexity is attached”
What do you mean by this? Do you mean when “you” attach complexity? or what?
I was just looking at how something starts very simply and then becomes more and more complex as time passes. For example, a business.
.
Mental material is simply a harmonic of physical material.
There is physical time. There is also a mental appreciation of time. Mental time may proceed at a different rate than the physical time.
There is physical space. There is also a mental appreciation, or analogy, of space. Mental space is more than just a picture of physical space. It is actually the background against which the mental objects (ideas, thoughts, visualizations, computations, etc.) are displayed.
.
Yes, that makes sense.
Electromagnetic wave seems to be a ripple in the “fabric” of physical space. Similarly, a thought, or consideration, may be a ripple in the “fabric” of mental space.
The electric and magnetic fields are the “fluctuations” from the norm in case of the electromagnetic wave. Similarly, the dichotomy in any thought (such as, day-night, boy-girl, good-bad, etc.) seems to be the “fluctuations” from the norm in case of the “thought wave.”
.
I really like where you are taking this. There is a consistency to it.