The Inherent Complexities of the Universe and Mind

Hi Lloyd,

To respond to just a few of your points before I explain my reasoning further I’ll just add that I see the issues with communication once we’ve reached this conceptual level also and am open to any ideas you have of symbolic representation and such, but you’ll have to take the lead on that and I’ll just follow. Reverse engineering a universe with all its complexity down to the fundamental resolution and interactions ultimately requires a reduction of seemingly infinite amounts of information down to the concepts required to encompass such resolutions and the mechanics thereof most effectively and efficiently. As to the further differences between static computers vs. the much more complex dynamic brains, it brings to mind the distinction between the study of static systems as with algebra and the limits thereof and that of the much more complex dynamic systems by way of calculus with its infinities and such.

Now, as to the superfluid state of matter, Bose-Einstein condensates, etc, as you know and from my interpretations, Dave always saw such as having been closer to the fundamental state of matter or FS. I’ve always interpreted his concepts as a physical continuous substance which encompassed all states of matter from the vacuum aethereal state of unstructured field all the way to the many structured systems within the universe. He would sometimes mention an exterior void which contained the universal volume of substance but was totally isolated from the universal system whereby allowing it to be a completely closed system. My point being that if we see such a continuous state as being the fundamental resolution then all further states built upon such e.g. solid, liquid, gas, plasma, vacuum, etc, are further expressions of the same entity as we know. However, my concepts are merely suggesting that beneath/within all states of FS (even the seemingly continuous before mentioned fundamental resolution) is the actual fundamental absolute resolution which supplies the absolute reference frame upon which such superfluid states are structured. From my current perspective, just as the page is visibly unfamiliar to a blind person, whereby they interpret the written information thereon by way of the Braille system, so too is the most absolute fundamental resolution seemingly undetectable from our senses unless we learn to translate the meaning within the language by which it is written. The first major step in unification is to understand the continuity amongst all forms of the matter and vacuum space of modern physics by way of a fundamental substance in motion whereby allowing matter, energy, momentum, etc, to be conserved throughout the entire system by way of structured to unstructured conversions and vice versa. The next step is perhaps a realization that all states of such a FS are merely how we are interpreting a much more deeply fundamental resolution the same as a blind person reads a page written with Braille, so to are we experiencing the most fundamental interactions by way of the structured and unstructured systems within the universe.

This doesn’t disallow superfluidic states, super conductors, condensates, etc. It merely explains them as not being the fundamental reference frame, but rather a consequence of some pattern of uniform motion within a larger motion continuum, whereby such things as superfluidic states can be observed to act in motion unison to such a degree that even thermal energy is dispersed throughout at such a high rate that the entire volume is always found to be at exactly the same temperature. I know you may not like my interpretation of such things, but ultimately many of the aspects we discuss along with those of the more accepted Standard Model of modern physics suggests this to my way of mental processing. Dave had stated that the universe was a terrible mathematician or something to that effect. However, I always saw it differently. The exacting conservation of such things as momentum and kinetic energy within two interacting systems is to such a high degree that we see such interactions and the accuracies thereof as laws of physics, not to mention mass to energy conversions, angular deflection, discrete quantum interactions, etc, etc. I’m not sure that the conservation of the many dimensions by which we acknowledge the physical entity of the FS can be explained to such high degrees as they are if the most fundamental resolution is a continuous superfluid state. My ego is more inclined to consider that though a FS helps to unify the seemingly independent physical entity aspects of the universe, the dimensional aspect within our universe by which we know such an entity is best explained by way of discreteness throughout, even if such discrete interactions are so far removed from our more familiar resolutions that they even appear as continuous while interacting to allow for some states.

Many of the conservation aspects of the standard model are stated as laws and such, but have no underlying explanation of the mechanics to how they actually function to such high degrees of accuracy whereby we might consider them a law at all. Newton’s gravity went far to explain planetary orbits, falling bodies and such, but never had any underlying mechanical explanation itself until Einstein came along with his theory of Relativity and tried to explain the function of gravity itself. I guess I see other areas of physics as still supplying concepts to explain one resolution of problems, while still not going to the deeper more fundamental resolution whereby the concepts which just became the bandaid to fix the previous problem is mechanically explained concerning its functions. Two structured systems collide (e.g. a scattering interaction of subatomic particles) within a near perfect elastic collision whereby both momentum and kinetic energy are conserved and traceable throughout the interaction, thus we witness the conservation laws at work, but how do such interactions take place at the most fundamental resolution whereby the actual mechanism for such laws functions? How would such processes arise from a continuous field as we could even further consider an inelastic collision whereby a portion of the conserved kinetic energy was converted to some other form of energy such as heat? Admittingly, such a scenario would present problems with tracking all forms of energy conversions, but the laws imply such values to be accurate to a high degree.

I definitely see the part of our egos within our concepts at this level also, as I’ve stated before that our projection of such fundamental mechanics is perhaps more representative of how our individual brains are wired and internally function as though we are reaching deeper within our own individual thought processes rather than actually arriving at a more fundamental resolution of universal mechanics and the interactions thereof. Perhaps, my brain just better understands continuity being a product of discreteness as I have trouble with trying to explain to myself a high degree of discreteness from a continuous field. Even if the discrete nature of an otherwise continuous photon is established by the discreteness of the structured system which absorbs or emits it, as you’ve pointed out, the formation of the discrete structured system from the initial continuous field (which now houses photons) at some point in the past has to be fully explained as with the analog to digital analogies we’ve been passing back and forth. It just seems more intuitive to me that rather than trying to explain continuous to discrete conversions it is easier to explain discrete mechanics throughout whereby the complexity brought about by resolution separation allows for the illusion of continuity as we blindly read what the fundamental resolution is telling us. Even if we were to go the continuous route and shut the universal reductionism down at Dave’s FS resolution then discreteness should seemingly become an effect thereof whereby no true discreteness is found and any such observation thereof has errors involved whereby the infinite nature of continuity is simply reduced to an acceptable degree to suggest discreteness. I am working on the implications of a discrete field per the frequency mechanics discussed before in terms of a reduction of all interactions to mere energy transferences amongst absolute regions of the fundamental field. Frequencies and wavelengths are reducible to quantitative aspects of energy as with E=hv. I’m simply suggesting here that the further reduction of frequency and wavelength interactions which oversee nature at the FS resolution may find themselves further reduced to how PSF domains interact and impose motion transferences upon each other.

At this level of conversation, I can’t separate between whether such mental influences that suggest one such system over the other is an external aspect of how the universe operates, or an internal aspect of how I perhaps project it to operate, or perhaps even how my own thoughts operate. As we reduce the complexity of the universe down to its fundamental constituent concepts, so too do we perhaps inevitably reduce and or align our thought process down to its underlying constituent aspects whereby in the absence of experiment, measure or observation (which is frequently lacking at this level of discussion) we can’t distinguish between physical reality and mere mental projection due to both the universe and our thoughts operating within similar dynamic aspects and mechanics. But….isn’t this the very beauty of the abduction process as I now have the projection from the various scientific aspects which I’ve encountered having previously formed the pool of information within my mind and must now search for external physical confirmation or denial thereof by way of further use of the scientific methodology or further studies thereof, whereby I might distinguish the functions of my own mind from those of the universe at such fundamental levels?

Much of my pauses in conversation is coming from struggling to further my own thoughts, as such subjects as decay mechanics is the direction we must head as I’m not intentionally excluding them but rather avoiding them due to not having a well established direction of conversation or mechanics thereof. The flow of ideas also bottlenecks as we further refine and reduce our concepts to evermore fundamental aspects and interactions. I’m hoping that my before mentioned frequency reduction aspects stirs further thoughts in this area as well.