50000 foot view of all this

It’s starting to occur to me that as much as I try to be original and all-inclusive in my thinking, I really am just as confined as everybody else. I’m having trouble because while the scale-less system thinking and the phase shift for construction of quantum entanglement make a lot of sense, they lead to an inescapable conclusion.

A good theoretician will construct theories that are deeply based on what he observes. I’ve tried very hard to make sure my conclusions follow readily from what I see–one of my principle tenets is, trust your eyes–if a theory doesn’t follow cleanly from what I see, it’s not likely to be a good theory. But with this latest work in the previous few postings, I have run into a very serious problem. Quantum entanglement inevitably leads to the conclusion that distance is not what it looks like. Distance clearly is a property of this existence’s collection of entities, such that some of the entities’ interactions with each other are not affected by this property (distance). This inevitably leads me to the understanding that I cannot trust my eyes anymore. I see these incredibly vast collections of electrons and protons making up our existence, and I see incomprehensible repeatability over incredibly vast scales–what is enforcing that repeatability (for instance, electron mass, charge, speed of light, etc). But entanglement says there must be a point of view that shows that this repeatability is an illusion.

A good explanation could be that all of the particles are in the same place oscillating using a common driver that does not know of the distance principle. Another is the Fourier shifting of unitary phases over the frequency spectrum such that delta functions emerge–so even though there’s no actual distance, the Fourier decomposition of these shifting phases creates a symmetry breaking effect, with distance becoming an emergent property of such a system. Such a system readily gives entanglement using the wave group velocity forming solitons yet can allow non-causal interactions (see previous few postings).

I look about me, though, and have a great deal of trouble thinking that the miraculousness of a collection of electrons and protons making up a Core 2 Duo processor, or a fusing star, or a 30″ LCD monitor that I’m viewing and editing this on, can all be explained by a massive set of oscillations all in the same place. My eyes, and my comprehension of the vastness of the quantity of pointlike entities present here, make me suspicious.

But then I had an insight. We are so utterly confined to our anthropomorphic boxes with our sensors (eyes, touch, ears, etc) that are built out of the very particles those senses try to sense and brains, made of the same particles, that are trying to draw out conclusions what the senses seem to see. It is very hard to see or to trust my eyes in this situation–I’m beginning to think that at this level of thought, we must depart–we cannot transcend our box until we do so.

As I began to realize this, it was with some astonishment that it suddenly occurred to me that the concept of quantity, especially that vast quantity of particles making up our existence, has no meaning apart from distance. If there is no distance property, there is no concept of unique entities that are countable. The quantities that we think must be present and are completely incomprehensible in scope only make sense when a property of distance is introduced–but quantum entanglement shows that there must be some point of view for which there is no distance, so I’m beginning to think that our concept of quantity is artificial to this existence and is not real. It is a symmetry breaking effect that simultaneously includes distance and time, and actually requires a complete system, including sensors and brains made of the same apparently unique particles, before the very concept of multiple entities make sense. Quantum entanglement indirectly shows (probably not conclusively, but I think likely) that this extreme level of complexity of the particle assemblies and interactions between assemblies is likely only an illusion. We can’t trust our eyes anymore–or can we? Did I take a wrong path to get to this conclusion? Possibly–but the logic appears to be fairly sound, and there’s no question, entanglement is an upending observation that shows that I am passing from the realm of conclusions that can be drawn from trusting my senses.

Something is wrong, or perhaps better would be to say, something does not connect theoretically–what I see cannot match what is verified to happen in quantum entanglement. Something has to give–and I think it has to be complexity. Complexity of physical structures can only arise when distance exists (permitting vast arrays of particles) for every possible observer–yet I believe I have shown that a type of observer (quantum entanglement) does not connect or interact with distance. This means there is a point of view, an observer, for which complexity of physical structure does not exist.

Now here is where it *really* gets interesting. My son, a math major, presumably will not like this at all. Math is a collection of concepts built on various classifications, postulates, and derivations based on the concept of quantities and sets of entities. If my thinking is on track, the very concept of the mathematical discipline is strictly dependent on the emergence of quantity, which can only have meaning in a system where there is distance. The discipline of Math itself is based on the existence of quantity, distance, and unique entities. Math has emerged, it is not intrinsic. Do I buy that rather outrageous conclusion? Wait for more postings…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: