## Tuesday, March 9, 2010

### Philosophy Science and Religion

[[User:LoneRubberDragon/Archive1]]

[[User:LoneRubberDragon/Abiogenesis]]

[[User:LoneRubberDragon/Technology]]

[[User:LoneRubberDragon/Religion]]

SEE ALSO:
http://lonerubberdragon.blogspot.com/2008/05/philosophy-science-and-religion.html

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

== Will talk later. ==

[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 23:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'm very sorry, I have been busy on RichardDawkins.net, discussing quantum measurement this month, and I am also still learning how to talk with you here on this site. I hope you have this on your watch list. Sorry for not getting back sooner, as I just discovered this talk page. If you're watching this page, drop a little tag note while you read the rest, to let me know this is a working communication channel!

:I have a watch list about a mile long, and I try to pare it down. The way things work now, if I edit an article it goes on my list and then I have to "unwatch" it unless I want every change to come up. There doesn't seem to be a good solution for Wikipedia talk page communications. It seems better to keep a single discussion all on one party's talk page, and then just send a brief note to the other person. If I were to watch your talk page I might find that many other people send messages to you and checking out what was going on would probably waste lots of time. [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 02:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I will have to read *your post* here, later, in great and careful detail, so I can address your own specific inquiries on measurement and decoherence and entanglement, from my perspective, later on.

But for now, if you wish to see some of my posts on quantum physics and inorganic to organic chemistry, in VERY rough draft forms, you may see (wade thorugh) my more philosophical and some science writings in:

(1) http://lonerubberdragon.blogspot.com/

(may require account to view, or not, unsure)

(1) http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=50373

(2) http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=11101&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=200#p1107849

(3) http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=50265&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=25

(please don't mind the format, I hate learning HTML)

And the main post questions in their rough draft form, are reproduced here (one regarding quantum physics measurement as a part of self including the mundane matter emergent properties of consciousness (very theoretical, but based on quantum measurement events):

I promise, I will get back to your post here, from last month, in a later message.

[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 23:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
##############################################
##############################################
##############################################
QUANTUM PHYSICS MEASUREMENT SELF THEORY / CONCEPT

BACKGROUND:
This is my first post, as an unenviable Christian Engineer with science background. I have a degree in Computer and Electrical engineering. I have a healthy background in Physics, Mathematics, Biology, Biochemistry, Evolution, Science, Philosophy, and Religion, so any goodly general language is acceptable. Personal and other background [A.x] (at end of post).

PRIMARY QUESTION:
[0.0] What are the best scientific theories on why and how in Quantum Physics (QP), there is a real probabilistic wave function collapse, during the measurement event? [0.1] I would like to exclude many worlds theories, as they require too much faith in things unseen, when a singular continuum Quantum or String Theory can be presented. [0.2] Discussion of hidden variable theories is acceptable, though it undermines the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) of probability-wave-functions, with a hidden epicycle field that is unaccessable, though identical to QP CI. [0.3] Secondary questions in [6.x], below. [0.4] Reference material [1.x], [2.x], [3.x], [4.x], [5.x], [8.x]. [0.5] Some potential experiment to help clarify some aspects [7.x]. [0.6] Personal and other background [A.x] (at end of post).

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many_worlds

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theories

(4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation

(5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holomovement

BACKGROUND ENHANCEMENT:
[1.0] QP MEASUREMENT makes probabilistic-wave-functions COLLAPSE, at a velocity infinitely-faster than light-speed.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_measurement

(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

(4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox

(5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence

(6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quantum_entanglement#Faster_than_light_.2F_instantaneous_decoherence_aspect_enhancement.

[2.0] QP UNMEASUREMENT makes probabilistic-wave-functions UNCOLLAPSE, at a velocity infinitely-faster than light-speed. [2.1] This is seen in Quantum Eraser experiments, where such experiments show that [2.1.a] measuring a probabilistic-wave-function, can destroy an interference patterns later in the experimnet box, while [2.1.b] measuring and then erasing the bit on memory in mid flight, UNCOLLAPSES the wave function, fully restoring the interference pattern, just as if it were not measured at all in mid-flight. [2.2] Although probability wave function collapse / uncollapse occur, no information is communicated, but there is an alteration of collapse / uncollapse probabilities that is instantaneous.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_communication_theorem

[3.0] Measurement is not a material process. [3.1] It appears to be best described as a epiphenomenon defined by the configurations of macroscopic matter, creating a measurement-probability-field, that probabilistically defines when, where, and how a probability-wave-function COLLAPSES-or-UNCOLLAPSES. [3.2] If there were no measurement potential field, then the epiphenomenon would not exist, and all matter would slowle decohere into probability-wave-functions all taking every possible path at once, even around decision / bifurcation interactions. [3.3] But it does exist, and measurements from the macroscale keep the universe mostly focussed down to a small microscale for billions of years, with its macroscopic "inertia of configuration existence".

[4.0] John Wheeler, who worked with Einstein and Bohr, was a proponent of there being an epiphenomenal field to all macroscopic existence, known as the "it from bit" idea, that David Chalmers, among others, also teaches of currently. [4.1] It can make claims at its theoretical limits, of there being a soul, constructued out of an epiphenomenal measurement matter, cycling and circulating in systems feedback loops of the human material mind structure.

(1) http://suif.stanford.edu/~jeffop/WWW/wheeler.txt

(2) http://www.imprint.co.uk/chalmers.html

[5.0] Richard Dawkins says on nonmaterial epiphenomena, in "The God Delusion", pages 34-35 "[5.1] What most Athiests do believe is that although there is only one kind of stuff in the universe and it is physical, out of this stuff comes [5.1.a]{minds, beauty, emotions, moral values} ... [5.2] An Athiest in this sense of philosophical naturalist is somebody who believes [5.2.a]{there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world}, [5.2.b]{no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe}, [5.2.c]{no soul that outlasts the body}"

SECONDARY QUESTIONS:
[6.0] What is the proofs of even deriving a concept like [5.1.a]:"beauty, emotions, moral values" from atoms and physics equations, that is real, and not an abstract epiphenomenal psychological description of abstract life? [6.1] There appears to be no physics-foundation to run [5.1.a] to the ground state of arising from atoms and physics, in a philosophical reductionist paradigm. [6.2] In fact, [5.1.a] seems to require a philosophical holistic paradigm from the systemic macroscopic scale, and that that opens up the possibility of there being a proveable soul, opposing [5.2.c] that there is no soul, for if there is any soul epiphenomena, made from [3.x] [4.x] measurement epiphenomena field, arising in macroscopic systems of macromatter, then [5.2.c] denying the soul, says that Athiest Science will never try to save human souls, when no one with that mind set ever wants to see the soul as a structural potential, that might be savable in a temporal-spatially-living material-base-foundation, and so how will "Ghost in the Shell" technology come about through a dead science, if Athiest-Scientists never take the first step, and religions fold their hands waiting for salvation from above, and Athiest-Science's adhere to a flat-fact denial statement *proving* there is no-soul without proof, to be taken on science's faith, reflecting their Athiest-Scientist thinking?

Additional clarification of my initial question:
I believe I can enhance the formulation of my question with an example.

[7.0.0] Mundane matter of local character can have holistic emergent properties like consciousness created by the systems of matter of processing and action control. [7.0.1] But on top of this, is an instantaneously correlated set of measurement probability influences, built from simultaneous wavefunction collapses throughout all of the feedback loops and structures of measurement forms, that happen to lie parallel to the macroscopic matter. [7.0.2] This produces an infinitely faster than light measurement-system-self that co-influences the mundane matter wave function collpases, as the mundane matter affects the infinitely faster than light measurement-system-self. [7.0.3] So there is a mundane matter self, and an instantaneous measurement system self corresponding to each other but of different character than a pure mundane matter self emergent consciousness.

EXAMPLE:
[7.1.0] For example in mundane matter, of a mechanical equivalent, one can show the emergent property issue with a computer containing advanced AI, and a camera, that can register (11111111,00000000,000000) which in memory of past obsevations is hue (00111100), and represents the string " 'R' 'E' 'D' ", and the computer can report " 'I' ' ' 'S' 'E' 'E ' 'R' 'E' 'D' ". [7.1.1] But does the mundane computer *see* "REDNESS" like a human?

[7.2.0] But if you also include a holistic (whole) quantum measurement layer computer-AI-self, that is parallel to the computer mundane matter, because the computer is made of *instantaneous* matter wave functions and matter measurement structures, both, that perhaps the computer also *literally* may experience "REDNESS" and "LIGHT" like a human does. [7.2.1] For the mundane matter simply has voltages in a black sealed computer chip, just like humans have neurotransmitters in a black brain case gray matter. [7.2.2] How does a computer or a human literally perceive light, like I see light when I open my eyes? [7.2.3] You look inside of a computer, and all you can see is chips with sense and thought voltages that are invisible to human eyes. [7.2.4] You look inside of a human, and all you see is brain with sense and though chemicals that are invisible to the human eyes. [7.2.5] Yet when you *are* a human, and perhaps *are* a computer, there is that secondary holistic-whole self that literally sees colors and light in a quantum measurement *instantaneous* self-ness built from the structured quantum measurement structures that lie parallel to the mundane matter-energy, and co-effect the mundane matter-energy as the mundane matter-energy co-affects the quantum measurement self.

SOME EXPERIMENTS:
[7.3.0] One example of a simple "holistic systemic measurement self" test would be to build a ring of chained synchronized photons EPR experiments. [7.3.1] One prime EPR photon polarization measurer leg in the ring has a fixed polarization, and every other EPR end and leg use an algorithm for polarization measurement selection based on the current photon's polarization measurement and the neighboring EPR leg end, e.g. but not limited to XOR leg X right [xor] leg X+1 left. [7.3.2] The rough idea to be tested is, is there any instantaneous systematic mathematical issues of a properly gated ring, in the probabilities measured at all of the EPR legs? [7.3.3] No-communication theorem dictates the probabilities will be completely random aligned with the restrictions of the wavefunctions caused by the prime locked EPR, and the algorithms of every other EPR leg coincident polarization measurers / calculators. [7.3.4] But if there is any chaos patterns or non-stationary probabilities, then something additional is occuring, in the synchronous instantaneous wavefunction collapses of the synchronized EPRs in the ring. [7.3.5] If there is no measureable non-stationary probabilities on all EPR legs, for a properly synchronized EPR ring with algorithms, then there is no "holistic systemic measurement self" present in that experiment, and the idea of a "holistic systemic measurement self" *may* be flawed. [7.3.6] However, given the nature of using a loop or modifications to the above experiment to create even a full ring feedback, can all instantaneous wavefunction collapses from polarization measurements preserve simultaneous perfect stocastic patterns according to no-communication theorem, or is there a spatial mathematical limitation to mutual perfect stocastic EPR in all possible ring algorithm formations? [7.3.7] That is, is there any special meta-level mathematics required to assure mutual EPR ring pure stochastic randomness at synchronized instantaneous wavefunction collpases in all forms of rings, to assure there is no coherent or semi coherent holistic self? [7.3.8] One EPR I can believe, remains perfectly no-communication stochastic, yet instantaneously correlated, but a ring raises instantaneous mathematical QP-field-computation issues that lie deep in the foundation of how the quantum physics Schrodinger Equation evolve in time and at synchronized instantaeous wave function collapses, in EPRs. [7.3.9] The experiment might be affected by ring size assuring a full ring correlation, but examining only the most properly time gated coincident photons that happen to simultaneously work in all EPR in the ring, and ultra fast algorithm computers on the ring, would assure the right experiement statistics can be collected for analysis of the "holistic systemic measurement self" versus "pure stocastic polarization measurements, indicating a meta-math or indicating a natural Copenhagen Explanation math of how pure sunchronized randomness is preserved.

[7.3.10] An alternate configuration among all of the configurations that can be explored in an EPR ring, is to daisy chain the calculating EPR coincident photon measurements, in the ring, from the key "locked" EPR polarizer, and around the ring, and finally back to the neighboring EPR ring leg final polarizer, and have that computationally affect the polarization of the key "locked" EPR polarizer, and repeat the experiment with synchronous coincidence control. [7.3.11] Then, collect data from all single, and multiple instances, of simultaneous gated whole-holistic measurement sequences, to analyze for pure random polarizations according to the polarizer configurations, or non-stationary random, or chaotic polarization data correlations around the EPR ring. [7.3.12] If all of the EPR polarization measurers, show pure randomness, and random-appropriate according to the polarization configuration, what does that say about the nearly instantaneous wavefunction collapse system of the ring, self-consistency? [7.3.13] If all of the EPR show non-stationary randomness, or chaos, what does that say about the nearly instantaneous wavefunction collapse system of the ring, self consistency? [7.3.14] To reiterate, one EPR leg is easy to understand keeping pure randomness according to the polarization configurations of both ends, but a mathematical-physical ring, might show interesting physics nature of faster than light mutually constraining measurements, of randomness or near-randomness, that communicate no-information, or some mathematical distortion caused by QP having to "naturally calculate" a ring randomness assurance in rapid succession, many times faster than light, limited by the EPR calculation and polarization controllers, and may answer fundamental questions regarding a supervenient-holistic-quantum-self.

[7.3.15] An extreme case is to select all EPR polarizers by last moment synchronized leg-to-leg correlated full ring simultaneous and coincident measurements, and check the polarization and randomness of all legs after the fact for full ring programs.

[7.3.16.1] Now, gut instinct and analysis seems to show each EPR leg should be a completely independent measurement about each photon pair, but is this a completely true conclusion? [7.3.16.2] This would also indicate that nonlinear nonunitary matter exists separately from quantum physics Schridinger equation, dividing QP space into cells of quantum physics behavior, much like the body is divided into cells. [7.3.16.3] That is, non-unitary macro-matter is as real as the QP probability wave function, which is divided into a network and/or scintillation of collapsed states, and divides the QP probability wave function into small domains of actual QP probability wave function unitary linear evolution. [7.3.16.4] That means there is a transcendental macroscopic-measurement-configuration-information substance filling the macroscopic universe in ways paralleling the macroscopic classical matter, with a foam of small QP probability wave functions. [7.3.16.5] In vacuum and the spaces of large measurement systems in the macro-scale, the foam of quantum physics probability wave functions grows to macroscopic scales of unitary linear evolution.

[7.3.17] Is the same true, if each EPR polarization measurer were replaced by elements that reemit photon pairs correlated to the photons coming from the two legs, back down the legs to the first photon generators, which can again reemit dual correlated photons, and be measured at some point in the ping-ponging for proper ring polarization measurements, or does the entire ring simply become a large *instantaneously* inter-correlated linear evolution of an interactive superposition of states?
.
REFERENCE, NONUNITARY NONLINEAR AND UNITARY LINEAR DIVIDE IN MEASUREMENT:
[8.0] Quantum Mechanics: From Basic Principles to Numerical Methods and applications, L. Marchildon, (C) Springer Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002, page 513+, [[LRD added / conservatively altered]]

I would personally read the passage [[modified by LoneRubberDragon]] as (with the original text reproduced below):

#######
"[8.1.0] The measurement problem was recognized early, by Von Neumann [[Asterisk|*]] among others. [8.1.1] He realized that unitary evolution leads to superposition of macroscopically distinct states[[; think Neo moving 4 directions at once, in The Matrix's "macroscopic world"]]. [8.1.2] Furthermore, he saw that there is no use to introduce a second apparatus to measure the value of the first pointer. [8.1.3] Indeed inasmuch as the evolution of the total system (microobject, first, and second[[ly the]] apparatus) is unitary [[as a whole]], [[where]] the second apparatus would *also* [[in linearly Schrodinger evolving]] end up in a superposition of macroscopically distinct states. [8.1.4] The solution proposed by Von Neumann essentially consists in postulating that the Schrodinger Equation no longer holds at the time of measurement. [8.1.5] But why is this precisely?
[[Asterisk|*]]
[8.2.0] The abrupt transition from a linear[[ly evolving]] combination [[in a whole system in]]to one of its components is known as the *collapse of the state vector [[wave function onto a projection]]
[[Asterisk|*]]
[8.3.0] Von Neumann's hypothesis is ingenious. [8.3.1] Its success is largely independent of where the border between microobject and [[macroobject]] measurement apparatus, or the border between apparatus and conscious subject, lies. [8.3.2] The process represented by [[wavefunction nonlinear nonunitary instantaneous collapse]], however, seems closer to a requirement of perception [[by abstract qualia of emergent supervenient informational macrosystems]] than to a physical mechanism. [8.3.3] It thus appears to reinstate the mind-body dualism that natural sciences had largely eliminated [[by their logical **proof** of there obviously being no real "soul"]].
[[Asterisk|*]]
[8.4.0] The breakdown of the Schrodinger Equation and unitary evolution of the state vector[['s probability wave function]] occurs, according to Von Neumann, upon intervention of the conscious subject. [8.4.1] In a similar analysis, [[one physicist]] associates this discontinuity more generally with all [[macroscopic matter in motion *]] processes. [8.4.2] He believes that [[all time-sapce macroscopic entities *]] should be described by [[linear unitary evolving Schrdocinger probability wave function]] equations [[that are broken down by the supervenient-informational-macrostructures in time-space, in all macroscopic matter in motion, causing the nonlinear abrupt instantaneous shift by holistic-measurement-perception-self]], which entails a *nonunitary* evolution of the state vector. [[Asterisk|*]]

#########
Original text:

"[8.1.0] The measurement problem was recognized early, by Von Neumann [[Asterisk|*]] among others. [8.1.1] He realized that unitary evolution leads to superposition of macroscopically distinct states. [8.1.2] Furthermore, he saw that there is no use to introduce a second apparatus to measure the value of the first pointer. [8.1.3] Indeed inasmuch as the evolution of the total system (microobject, first, and second apparatus) is unitary, the second apparatus would *also* end up in a superposition of macroscopically distinct states. [8.1.4] The solution proposed by Von Neumann essentially consists in postulating that the Schrodinger Equation no longer holds at the time of measurement. [8.1.5] But why is this precisely?
[[Asterisk|*]]
[8.2.0] The abrupt transition from a linear combination to one of its components is known as the *collapse of the state vector.
[[Asterisk|*]]
[8.3.0] Von Neumann's hypothesis is ingenious. [8.3.1] Its success is largely independent of where the border between microobject and measurement apparatus, or the border between apparatus and conscious subject, lies. [8.3.2] The process represented by [[the nonlinear wavefunction collapse onto a projection]], however, seems closer to a requirement of perception than to a physical mechanism. [8.3.3] It thus appears to reinstate the mind-body dualism that natural sciences had largely eliminated.
[[Asterisk|*]]
[8.4.0] The breakdown of the Schrodinger Equation and unitary evolution of the state vector occurs, according to Von Neumann, upon intervention of the conscious subject. [8.4.1] In a similar analysis, Wigner associates this discontinuity more generally with all living processes. [8.4.2] He believes that living processes should be described by nonlinear equations, which entails a *nonunitary* evolution of the state vector. [[Asterisk|*]]

All LoneRubberDragon posts on all threads,
(C) Copyright LoneRubberDragon / RubberCraft / SET.USA.65.32,236.926,171
All references (C) their respective entities, and quoted for literary contextual analysis of subjects.

[A.0]FURTHER READING ON BACKGROUND THOUGHT:
[A.1]Evolution:
(1) http://lonerubberdragon.blogspot.com/#S3

[A.2]Science without soul:
(1) http://lonerubberdragon.blogspot.com/#S1

[A.3]Computers with physics-free-will and character-soul:
(1) http://lonerubberdragon.blogspot.com/#S10

[A.4]Real Intelligent Design, not like the others:
(1) http://lonerubberdragon.blogspot.com/#S2

[A.5]Miscellaneous, rhetorical and explanitory:
(1) http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=50265&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=25

(2) http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=50265&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=50

[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 23:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
##############################################
##############################################
##############################################
[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 23:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

== Reply to POM. ==

Hi,

I am really fascinated by your contributions to the discussion on entanglement. My own background in physics is truly antiquated and I would have to take about four years of college calculus to be able to follow the math side. All I can do is to try to think carefully about the experiments and try to see all of the consequences. I'm a little better on the philosophy side in that philosophy ended up being my university major and I ranged off into Chinese philosophy and language.

:My background is engineering, math, philosophy, and systems. I know enough basic QP math to get along with Schrodinger's Equation and Fourier functions and Hamiltonians, but intensive dirac notation (bra-ket) is slow going for myself. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 01:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

In your most recent posting you mentioned erasure of something in RAM, and for an instant I misunderstood it because in a figurative way it sounded like something that Leibniz might have come up with. And the way Leibniz thought about things has resonance with some of the "wilder" ideas about our three-dimensional universe being a kind of projection of a two-dimensional holographic "true universe." (I think Greene mentions this idea in one or both of his books.)

Leibniz had a way of explaining everything that happens in the universe -- a way in which space and time do not have the kind of existence that we ordinarily attribute to them. According to him, you are an entelechy and I am an entelechy, and we think we are communicating across space and time with each other. In fact, we are two entirely isolated entities that have characteristics that are created and maintained by God. When I take a trip to a nearby city to visit friends, my "movement" is actually just God's changing numbers in his mind. When I pick up a glass of water, it is really just his changing some numbers. If I were to push you, what really happened would be that God changed some numbers in your "data buffer" in his mind, and changed another set of numbers in my "data buffer." So when you mentioned changing numbers in RAM I immediately thought of Leibniz.

:smiles. The more I hear about Leibniz outside of The Calculus, makes me like his thinking more and more. If not for pure science, but for a perspective on things that is different in gedanken. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 01:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

::I mentioned to my favorite university philosophy teacher how much I admired the clarity of Leibniz's thought. My teacher claimed that Leibniz was not clear at all. I think that to be fair to a philosopher, and to read his/her work productively, you have to take the work seriously and not make excuses for the weird parts of it ("He couldn't possibly have really meant '''that.'''" Yeah? Well don't be so sure.) Then you need to try to work it all out into a consistent picture in your own head. When you do that and you find an error it will likely be a fundamental flaw. Knowledge progresses when we push one theory on and on, getting reinforcement after reinforcement, and then hit something that sends us back to the theory shop... Something like the precession of the orbits of Mercury. Leibniz is a joy to read because you generally don't have to ask what in hell he was trying to get across by some straggling accumulation of words.

::It's interesting to me to note how people explain things like "the game of life" computer experiments. To them, the proximity of things on screen '''causes''' changes that appear on the screen a moment later. The computer experts, or at least accomplished computer users, have totally forgotten that the pixels on the screen are not influenced by each other. It is the computer that is doing the work and then displaying results on the screen. [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 03:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

:::I like the example of theory "error" by disproving in the Michaelson Morley experiment, when they took the luminiferous aether theory, and found a way to test it, and was able to falsify the theory. Many ideas are theorized, some are proven or disproven, and some are refined to reach that point, being early. Clairity of thought, though, is very hard, early on. My own writing style often requires 20 iterations to reach a good style. As for computer simulations, yeah, the mind forms coherences based on processing abstractions. Television and film are of the same type of illusion. However, taken in its own right, the pixels are controlled by an abstract physics of their own, like finite element modeling isn't a real object, but follows an abstract physics that resembles the real thing being modeled. All of physics can be taken as a mathematical illusion attempting to capture the salient system model of the reality. But what's that point, when self feels, but it is nothing in your opinion? [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 08:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

:::Regarding the RAM, I've read several forms of quantum eraser, mainly in the form of a photon split on two paths (on half silver mirror), measuring one path, and interfering at the end if unmeasured, or measured and unmeaured, by erasing the reading one way or another before the photon packets reached the end of the experiment device, which I may have assumed is a cell of RAM memory, but it could have been a photon detecting crystal, as mentioned below. Another *may* have something to do with polarizing the paths one way or another, maybe using a polarizing / detecting electronically controllable Kerr cell or crystal, but I am not familiar with that experiment. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 07:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

::::I've worked the Wikipedia article up to the point where it seems fairly clear to me. The article, entirely the work of other people, on [[Mach-Zehnder interferometer]] is probably more reliable. Anyway, it's a fascinating experiment but maybe not for the reasons one would expect when first looking at it. It steps right on my gripe button when people talk about "the photon" either going down one path or the other path. If that happened, there would be nothing to interfere with at the other end. Here's what happens. It doesn't involve anything much more complicated than putting a wall between the two halves of the Young apparatus, saying, "Look! No fringes!" and then pulling that wall down again and saying, "Voila! We have again interferences!" There is a basic mistake in the ordinary explanations, and the mistake is arguing backwards from assumed conclusions.

[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 07:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, I know, the one photon actually travels in two packets, of a single total photon probability wave function, down both paths, as shown by only allowing one photon at a time through the experiment. Even Young's basic double slit experiment has been performed numerous times under extremely low illumination to show this point. And from the Quantum Entanglement discussion, to reiterate, EPR pushes such holist modal packets to the extreme mathematical case of two entangled wavepackets traveling at the edge of the one light cone probability wave function, in opposite direction packets, illustrating instantaneous polarization wavefunction collapse with no-communication probabilities. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 07:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::I'll have to very-carefully read the recent quantum delayed (choice) eraser experiment of Wiki. I am looking, at home, for what I have read around 10 years ago now, and almost wonder if I read it in a QP popularization book describing erasing measurements haveing effects of probability wave functions, or an early 1990's Mosaic Webpage back in the day. All I can remember is (1) something is measured or registered somehow, and (2) the measurement or registration is destroyed mid-flight, and (3) it somehow restores (partially? or even) completely unmeasured probability wave function. If this is true, it implies measurement and alternatively erasing the measurement, can collapse and alternatively un-collapse a probability wave function, in semi-or-totally conservative fashion. But I must find these old references, and read the new experiments that have been developed. I swear, you get busy in commerical engineering for 10 years, and all the old hobby records are hard as the devil to dredge up again, and most every modern web PDF is subscription based to get past the abstracts. Almost feel an unction to drive back to my local college library to re-search. Makes me wsh they had the Library of Congress on the internet by now ... what do my taxes to them go for, when I can't use it? Please, take your time, as I also have things to get to, but I will check back as possible. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 07:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::RESEARCH ON QUANTUM ERASER: I was able to find a reference to the quantum eraser experiment for an energized atom that passes through a double slit, enters a cavity when the atom releases a photon with detectors that can use to determine which-path information, the atom leaves the cavity, and it hits a detection screen that shows no-interference or interference, depending on whether the information-measurement-registration-markation is kept or erased respectively. From, "Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter...", by K.M. Barad, 2007 Duke University Press. "What if it were possible to perform an actual "quantum eraser" experiment?[89] Well, it turns out that it is possible. And it gets better: it turns out that not only is it possible to restore the interference pattern by erasing the which-path information (if we are indeed clever enough to measure the right variables to find the correlation contained in the entanglement), but we can decide whether or not to erase the which-path information *after the atom has passed through the slits and registered its mark on the screen*. That is, we can wait until the atom has passed through the entire apparatus and only then decide if we want to erase the which-path information in the micromaser cavities-in which case it is still possible to retreive an interference pattern! It seems unbelieveable, but it's true.[90] That is, it is indeed possible to perform a quantum eraser experiment in "delayed choice" mode.[91] ... [92]" Micromaser cavity quantum eraser Scully et. al (1991), [89] "The Idea of quantum erasers was introduced by Jaynes 1980, Scully and Druhl 1982, and Zajonc." 1983. [90] "Quantum eraser experiments have been performed by a number of different experimental groups on different physical systems. These include experiments reported in Ou et al 1990; Zajonc et al 1991; Wang et al. 1991; Kwait et al. 1992; and Herzog et al. 1995." [91] "The rather surprising idea of delayed-choice experiments is due to Wheeler 1978. Bohr warns that "causality" is yet another classical notion that needs to be rethought in the light of the findings of quantum physics." [92] "See the paper by Scully et al. (1991) for details of why photons are registered by the detecting wall only half the time." [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 01:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::I have yet to digest this nugget to see if it is legitimate, but interesting:
(1) http://www.ee.ucr.edu/~korotkov/presentations/08-NanoPeter.pdf
:::::And it appears that alot of their work can apply to my quest for understanding if there is a quantum physics role to "self", or only stochastic measurement effects:
(1) http://www.ee.ucr.edu/~korotkov/presentat.html

:::::Yet at the same time, given the setup of the atomic quantum eraser, or the setup of the quarter wave plate photon quantum eraser, both quantum eraser experiments quoted above, and and Wiki articles, do not resemble the concept I read 10 years ago on another type of quantum eraser, where making a measurement, and then keeping it or destroying the measurement, destroys or restores the wave function because the measurement apparatus was entangled with the object being observed, and erasing the measurement removed the entanglement. Very odd, that the two uses of quantum eraser don't match in a recognizable isomorphic apparatus manner. I wish I could find the original material I was reading a decade ago, to clarify the differences, as the current quantum erasers don't have the same character of making a measurement and destroying a measurement, occuring, as much as the current QE makes a measurement, and then filters out which-path photons to reveal two nested interference patterns, which is not what I remember from the quantum eraser from a decade ago. The two versions may be similar in a way I can't recognize. So I do agree with you that the quantum eraser I mention, and the current use of quantum eraser are two differnet forms that may or may not be related. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 01:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::QUANTUM SELF TOP LEVEL REDESCRIPTION; Before I go to Big Bear tomorrow to visit a friend, I can maybe approach my concept with a differnet tack from the top down. Consider qualia, like seeing "RED", feeling "HEAT", piercing "SOUND", tasting "ROAST BEEF", or thinking text-idea "RIGHT". I know they derive from a physics of material emergent properties detection (quantum measurements), process (quantum measurements), reaction (quantum measurements). But does ONLY an emergent property of neurotransmitter molecules in a neural circuit really have "RED-NESS", "HEAT-NESS", SOUND-NESS", "ROAST-BEEF-NESS", or "RIGHT-NESS"? It seems from my self point of view there's a holistic perception of self and not-self, of what is essentially neurotransmitters in a black brain case. I make a theoretical connection that perhaps quantum physics measurements make some sttructured and correlated instantaneous parallel measurement structure affecting bulk probability wave function collpases, even if with no-communication (perhaps with chaotic, and not perfectly stochastic wave function collapses). It would be an instantaneously structured measurement form that is paralleling the distribution of natural material emergent properties, that creates a "separate", but quantum related "derived" "self" that has tangible holistic perceptions. Just as a double slit is a structure that modulates wave function evolution and collapse potentials. A parallel example is a computer can "see" "RED", but it is just asbtractions of RAM cells with (1.00,0.00,0.00) representing "RED", so does a computer actually see "RED" from electrons in a RAM, just as a human sees "RED" in neurotransmitters in neural circuits? Or does a computer see "RED", but in a different way than humans, because its emergent properties are quantum-measurement-structured differently enough to make its "perception" of "RED" different? Both have a quantum physics structure that causes wave function collpases in their own unique patterend ways. When you shine red light on a rock, does the rock see "RED", in yet another way? So maybe a piece of electronic holographic film, a CCD camera with pixel only memory, and a CCD camera with computer to record and abstract form data, might affect wave function collapsses in different ways, as different levels of pixel processing of measurements are performed, and different information is thrown away, like in a computer abstracting shapes from pixel records may modulate wave functions as pixel specific measurements of position are thrown away, in preference to quantized areas of "equal lightness pattern", where photons are given lattitude in position, but not denisty, for a "window of exposure time". The big problems in these experiments are that measuring the whole system destroys its inherent unobserved innards, and its formulation of complexity makes bra-ket notation as difficult as using Feynman Infinite Path Integrals to solve complex problems that are simple in Schrodinger's Equation and Hamiltonians and such. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 08:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::Please don't mind me too much, either. You'ld think *I* was of Welsh descent, for my dragony disposition in spots, mostly after "dialoging" with too-many mostly-college kids on Dawkin's website. The curse of an all to ideosyncratic "spiritual" dialect in a too colloqial science idea, in me. But again, they often disagree by saying the types of "ONLY's", "ALWAYS's", "NEVER,s", and "IMPOSSIBLE's", with very little running of at least some of their opposing-theories to ground, basically just hand waving sophistry (and perhaps science solipism a touch where self is "OBVIOUSLY" 100% material emergent properties, and 0.0bar% quantum or other properties) when the qualia-perception-soul-self-otherself-verification-falsification topic is involved. I remember teachers telling students in the 1970's, back in grade school, to always watch out when "the system" says any of those instant gripe words with authority ... I always remembered that of those teachers, even as a little kid myself. I always prefer, when even tempered, "I don't understand the dialect yet, could you please clarify your concept on X, Y, Z", versus the more oppositional tone, that even an innocuous "straggling collection of words" can imply. I know I'm not Shakespeare, as there's lots of work to do to make something testably-formalized, beyond the relatively-*Qual*itative statements about macroscopic-distinctiveness being the-reality too. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 07:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 07:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

::::A laser is aimed at a half-surface beam splitter. From what we could see by visible inspection, half of the photons go off at 90 degrees and half of the photons go straight through. Each beam hits a fully silvered first-surface mirror. So now we have a beam going North and turning to the East, and a beam going East and turning North. They intersect and go right through each other. Two targets set up to intersect each beam outside the rectangle formed by the three mirrors and the point where the two beams cross through each other will both be illuminated, and they will be illuminated equally. The way people who hang onto the idea of '''a''' photon that either goes through slit A or slit B in the Young apparatus will interpret this result is to say that half the photons go through the beam splitter and end up on the Northern detection screen, and the other half of the photons get reflected by the beam splitter and end up on the Eastern detection screen. But if that were the case, then the rest of the experiment would not work. The simplistic explanation, the explanation that looks away from the messy details and gives a thumbnail description that will work as a first approximation, a way to keep details out of the picture, says that now the experimenters know the path that each photon took. Next comes the "erasure." The experimenters put a second beam splitter at the cross-over point. Suddenly interference effects appear that are consistent with, now get this, single photons going through two slits and encountering themselves on a target screen. So the reality is that when a wave-function hits the beam splitter, half of it goes through and half of it bounces, and whether the photon shows up on the Northern or the Eastern target screen is a matter of quantum probability. There are some complications involved with the garden variety of the experiment because the beam arriving at the second beam splitter from the West hits a first-surface mirror and does not change phase, but the beam hitting it from the South hits a second-surface mirror and does change phase. So the wave-function portions that hit the Eastern target from the West are 180 degrees out of phase with the wave-function portions that hit the same target coming from the South, and the "cancel."

::::I've tried to do the experiment, but it is tough to get everything lined up and measured out perfectly. I would love to measure the light intensity of the two beams with the second beam splitter out of the picture, and then measure the intensity of the single beam that emerges when the second beam splitter is present. My expectation would be that the intensity would be the sum of the original intensities.

::::Anyway, this experiment doesn't demand anything more complicated or high tech than a laser, two beam splitters and two first-surface mirrors -- and a human retina to look at spots of light on the targets. See [[Delayed choice quantum eraser.]]
[[Image:Beam_Split_and_fuse.svg]]
::::Whoops, I see that in my discussion above I had the second beam splitter with the silver surface on the other side. Same difference. [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 16:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

All of the erasures, save one, that I have seen discussed in terms of the "erasure of information" have actually boiled down to the experiment setting up a condition that would enable experimenters to identify which path was taken by looking at the polarization or some other condition that can be systematically reversed. Putting some record into RAM and then erasing that record is not the kind of "erasure" that is a part of any erasure experiment I have ever read about.

:There are theories that account for all nonlinear interactions (measurement being one of the most core concepts among many), is that they all represent calculations in their own right, and/or storage of information in metastable states. For example, all digital electronics is actually just quantum-analog circuit interactions on the atomic scale, of metastable voltage states that will all decay 10,000 years after the computer is used. So in an analogous QP analogue analog way, a crystal that sensed a non-zero value of a measurement, can also can be considered a processing / memory unit, of the past interaction, and erasing that memory metastable state, resets the process / memory to pre-measurement condition, and a reset of the interference pattern before the measurement was made. If the crystal / memory unit were not erased, then the interference pattern of "knowing" position stays destroyed. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 01:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

:::Crystal? What kind of crystal? [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 07:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

::::A photon detecting crytal, with some measureing / interaction registering capability that is erasable quickly (ns).

::I do not believe that we mean the same thing by "theory." To me, a theory is more than a plausible story that somebody might tell to account for something. It is more than a guess. It's perfectly all right to make guesses. The survival value is high when somebody guesses that there might be a bear in the cave. But a theory has to (1) amount to really saying something, and (2) be subject to being proven false. (1) is just my way of reformulating the idea of self-contradiction. If I say, "At x, y, z, t it is raining." And I say, "At x, y, z, t it is not raining," then from what I've said you can't tell anything about the weather. You will have to go look for yourself, or maybe you will ignore what I have said. All you really know is that I've brought the subject up. (When a physicist says, "That guy's 'theory' isn't even wrong," what it basically means is that it is so equivocal that it cannot be disproven, so it doesn't get us anywhere. If it were disproven then at least we would have identified one alley as blind.)

::In what you have reported as a theory I see only a vague account of how something might happen, but not enough coherence to even test it for logical consistency.

:::If you think on a general plane of existence, all perception, process, memory, and action are nonlinear effects in the universe. (A) On a fundamental level an atom can absorb, interact, hold, and release a photon of light over a finite amount of time. (B) On a larger level a molecule can be formed, transmitted, received, and registerd in neurotransmitters. (C) On a larger level a neuron can receive, process, modify state, and transmit its own signals. (D1) On a larger level a human can sense, process, record, and act. (D2) At the same scale, but much less structured, a rock can absorb light, transmit the heat by diffusion, record mean temperature, and radiate heat when the environment cools down. All of these activities are nonlinear,and all of these activites are measureable, and all of these are directly related to the fundamental activity of nonlinear-nonunitary evolution of probability wave functions at the quantum level of physics, where, otherwise, the Schrodinger Equation would evolve linearly, and unitarily, a probability wave function. So theory, we may differ on some instances, we may agree in other instances, because my dictionary of theory covers many definitions, and I don't see it as vague, maybe you can ask more questions for me to refine my concepts in your mind, for (1) I am not saying nothing, (2) it can be proven false, e.g. the entire universe is shown to be perfectly linear. If it is not plausible to say the universe is nonlinear, and existence of self is based on nonlinearity, then we do disagree on something fundamental. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 07:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

:::If you refer to my previous post theory of quantum measurement self, yes, it is an early draft theory being defined as you read it. But you seem to have nothing to add, as you can't add to it. That is the main question I'm studying right now, to understand the cause and form of measurement, and its nonlinear-nonunitary evolution of the probability wave function of the unvierse, separate from Schrodinger's Equation which is linear and unitary. I see your story of QP development, but how does that relate to my theory. Please be more specific, as blanket statements "In what you have reported as a theory I see only a vague account of how something might happen, but not enough coherence to even test it for logical consistency." are too vague for me to respond coherently too. I will refine it over time, but maybe it is too early to talk with another, such as you, as you can't add to it any better than I can add to it. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 08:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

::::I have had this kind of discussion more than once. As an undergraduate I sorted out disagreements among friends who were arguing vociferously when I noted that they were actually saying the same thing. Their vocabularies were different, and maybe even their ideas of syntax were different. They each tended to view "trying to understand what you mean" with "I disagree with you." [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 01:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

:::I agree, it is a hard problem to know, if a complex system affects general wave fucntion collapsing differently from unstructured matter wave function collapses, but just because it is hard, and seemingly vague to define quickly because of defining complexity of systems in a holistic apparatus effects on linear Schrodinger Equations, doesn't mean it is not worthy of marking and remembering to add to, to approach disproving, or proving. Sophistry goes both ways, as I can gripe at Quantum Decoherence at pushing the measurement problem into the diffusion of mesurement, assuming it all evaporates to perfect cancellation. But diffusion as a nonlinear process, if measurement is conserved completely, means that it is neither destroyed or created, but continues to resonate in the random measurement field of Quantum Decoherence. And then, what is the effect of structured conscious matter, or structured near conscious computers, comapred to standard nonlinear unstructured random "rock" measurements? [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 09:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

:::I may be less focussed, but as a standard of refernce = you aren't necessarily adding to my position, as I see it, either. Don't gripe out of course. Just because you may not even get it at first, deosn't mean it is worth less. It just means you don't get it enough to disprove it or prove it. So many on earth don't get General Relativity as a mass of collected words, because it is too complex, therefore Einstein's Theory of Reltivity is just a guess and not a theory? I don't think so. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 09:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

::My personal gripe, even against Greene, is how easily some people fall into the solipsistic view according to which the vaunted human consciousness makes reality possible. They go from a reasonable proposition such as, "We wouldn't ever know that yon photon passed this way had it not ended its flight by boosting an electron in orbit and creating a chemical change in the photographic emulsion," to saying, "The fact that the photon passed this way is dependent on my having been here to observe the change in the photographic emulsion."

:::Yes, agreed, if you notice my annotated and original passage from QM, Marchildon, on Wigner, I changed HIS words to read in MY terms that all matter is responsible to one degree of structure or another, in measurement nonliearity existing in variable forms, from polarization position or moment measurement, to subtle statistical variation, e.g. chaotic wavefunction collapse statistics for complex structured measurement systems. Life is only special, in that it contains specially structured quantum physics measurement structures, whereas a rock has only simple diffusion processing which is also nonlinear like the mind or a computer processor or analog computer, but a rock is much simpler in its effect on measurements in wavefunction collapses than a computer than a mind. All have similar character on the atom level, but there would be a holistic variation in measurement effects. That is why people like Wigner have vaulted consciousness beyond its proper place, except to perhaps highlight the importance of consciousness in quantum physics as much as a rock is important to collapse wave functions in its own right, without a conscious observer , as illustrated in (D1) and (D2) above, where I suggest that all nonlinear mind-consciousness-structured-less-diffusive-measurement / rock-unstructured-diffusive-measurement may alter reality in a differing real measureable manners. Howso? I don't know yet, but there's a hunch and an early definition to start thinking on. But to call it unmeasureable, means you don't know how to answer it any more than I do. But I might posit it is somewhat like a diffraction grating forms beams, versus a double slit forming simple interference fringes. A consciosuness may alter QP in specific measureably different ways from 180 pounds of water shaped like a human ... but I could be wrong, as it is falsifyable, and not vague, just early form gedanken, if that was your broad reference earlier. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 07:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The exception to the systematic reversal idea is one experiment that was described in a Scientific American article about building your own quantum erasure apparatus. The actual apparatus they use involves polarizing whatever goes through the A slit one way, and then polarizing whatever goes through the B slit the other way. But the authors also describe an experiment in which electrons go through two slits and then are hit by an intense beam of light just on the far side of the double slits. According to their description, the illumination of the electrons would permit identification of some electrons as having gone through one slit and other electrons as having gone through the other slit, and the putative result is that turning this light on would destroy the interference pattern that otherwise would be produced. Then, the article claimed, gathering the light that passed through the electron cloud and focusing it with a lens onto a single point would eliminate the information about which path was taken, and the interference pattern would reappear. That experiment really did seem to challenge my easy attitude toward "erasure," i.e., it really did seem to erase something in a way that would have no chance of putting things back the way they were before. The article did not give a citation for this experiment, so I wrote to both physicists whose names were associated with the article and I wrote to the magazine editors. None of them replied with a citation. One of them responded with the URL to the magazine article in its on-line form, and that was the most answer I got. A follow-up inquiry was ignored. So I think that it could not have been a real experiment.

:Yeah, getting replies from physicists or even thier undergraduate thesis assistants is hard going. You must watch QP experimenters like a hawk to know if they are proposing gedanken, or proposing experiments, or even proposing as a gedanken an actual militarized compartmentalized high-level-black program. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 01:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

::I finally reached a live body at Scientific American. After some back and forth the person I contacted said the editor in charge said it was a thought experiment. Then there was some question about decoherence and the need to get the thought experiment sorted. After I thought about it some more I decided that indeterminacy considerations would make it impossible to work, so the thought experiment produced what I believe is a "real" result. [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 05:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

:::I hate gedanken that aren't marked as unproven or undisproven theory, in science books. Like Scientific American Polywater, back in the 1970's. It is a great thought, which I wouldn't throw away, except as indications of alternative ways to think, but it clouds the QP facts realm with that type of writing in SA. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 08:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that it does not really matter whether anybody records the "marking condition" near the detection screen. As long as there is a "marking condition" that somebody could in theory note, there will not be an interference pattern formed. That point is made explicitly for beams that are sent out of an apparatus and into the great beyond.

:That's my point too; that the process of a more digital (analog) or more analog (analogue) computation / memory unit, are making some form of measurements / process / nonlinearity in some form in some matter, that can be reversed, and shows that "QP measurement" might be a partially or completely conseved property, like energy and matter. E.g. energy is not lost, but converted from useful energy from original gravity spatial collapse, to useless thermal energy statistically evenly distributed throughout a heat death equilibrium. The Schodinger Equation, but its nature is linear unitary evolution of particle probabilities in ensembles with no real division between the measured and measurement objects, as they are all parts of a greater quantum physics linear unitary Schrodinger Equation probability wave evolution in time. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 01:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

:(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancomputationalism,

:(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics

:(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_in_quantum_mechanics#von_Neumann_measurement_scheme

::I am very confused by your apparent equation of "digital" and "analog." To someone who started thinking about computers in a world that used real analog devices, e.g., ones in which resistances selected with a potentiometer were used to represent numbers in the computation of, e.g., the trajectory of a cannon shell, the difference is very great. Analog processes involve theoretically infinite variations in resistances, voltages, and the like. Digital processes involve on and off, or +4 VDC vs -4 VDC, or whatever, with no intermediate values entering into the desired functioning of the computing device.

:::Well, in digital electrical engineering theory, digital circuits are all analog. There are transient voltages, as a voltage doesnt go from 2.2 to 4.5 in 5V TTL logic instantaneously. And the states are merely stable states in a 5 volt analog circuit, that happen to represent digital data in their storage, which is the most striking difference from pure analog voltages, they they are quantized signls. However, digital circuits, are by their nature completely analog in their implementation with finite response times, intermediate voltages and non instantaneous transition trnasient ringing. The use error correction (e.g. vitterbi codes) to protect memory circuits and data writing just because of these analog components of what you may illusory conceive of as pure digital circuits. The line between analog and digital can most closely be divided at the point of data storage, where the digital data is almost perfect with analog errors on the order of 1:10^20 or greater. Data quantization also suffers from analog distoriton, e.g. nonlinearities of signal recording. And try to overclock a digital circuit too fast, and the error rate increases as the real analog aspects become visible to laymen. The only true digital circuit would be one that lasts forever, and would be a static memory. Like all experiments are finite windows of time space and cause diffraction effects because the windows aren't the size of the universe in every experiment. This is one reason laser spectral lines are not perfect points, but broad lines, because the size of the resonant chamber, or the finite time the laser is on, the finite time an electron of an atom shell is energized before emitting the photon, or such factors. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 07:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

::As for reversible and conserved properties, if I follow correctly what you are trying to say, then I think that if there were such a property it would blow quantum mechanics totally out of the water. The Scientific American thought experiment would suggest that on a macro scale it would be possible to intercept pitched baseballs in such a way as to alter their trajectories and then perform a second interception that would restore them to their original trajectories. Even with the best marksmanship we would most of the time be delivering a blow that would be subject to random errors (making the blow off center on a rounded target)both times. The chances that the errors would cancel are not good. Even under those generous conditions it would be impossible to correct for the original interference.

:::Inccorrect, on some points. QP measurement would become fully explained, and bridge from bulk ordinary matter effects, to spiritual matters of structured consciousness perception measurement and self, also contained in "special" structured mundane matter. And it would not blow QP out of the water, but merely coexist with the linear Schrodinger Equation (SE), with a complete explanation of QP from linear probabilistic SE evolution to the nonlinear-nonunitary evoltuon at wave function collapses or uncollapses as a semi-conserved or possibly completely conserved property. Bohms theory would blow QP out of the water, not my theory. Please read more carefully, and ask directed questions so I may focus my explanations more refined. Try the sentence [X.X] indexed question above, so I we can refer to refinements of thought. My drafts are rough, and you may not be very familiar with the subset of books I've run across over the decades. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 07:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

::In the case of quantum interactions such as photons hitting electrons, there are additional complications. (1) There are inevitable indeterminacies in the combined position and momentum of electrons, so that even in a single-slit apparatus striking an electron and then reversing that strike somehow would involve involve indeterminate photon trajectories interacting with indeterminate electron trajectories and then some second interaction between the electron that has been perturbed and is in a new but similarly indeterminate trajectory and some spooky backlash phenomenon. So it must be more improbable that an electron could be put back on course than for a baseball to be put back on course. (2) In the case of a double-slit experiment with electrons, interaction between a photon and an electron on the far side of the slits would cause the wave-fronts that had been coherent to disappear and for an electron to be in interaction with the experimental apparatus at that time. To restore the possibility of the electron interfering with itself, any "erasure" would have to undo the decoherence that was just accomplished -- and do so without bringing in another double-slit to do the work.

::In the successful erasure experiments there is never any decoherence that has to be reversed. [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 05:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

:::Can you please explain this one further, under the assumptions I will make about what I thought i read on some previous QEraser experiments. (1) A particle, lets say photon, is split on dual paths. (2) The photon is measured somehow and registered somehow, as either a bit in a memory, or an electronically controllable photon detecting crystal with a change cased by the photon interacting, or some other transient detection and regiatration (measurement) device that records the photon's path on one of the dual paths. (3) The measurement or registration of photon interaction can be erased on mid flight or not erased on mid flight, and depending on what was executed, the interference of the dual paths being brought together at the end of the experiment setup, is either (3a) a restored interference pattern (erased), (3b) or a destroyed interference pattern (measured and kept). (4) This indicates that the measurement destroys interference and a measurement and unmeasurement restores an interference pattern. (2) The measurement always occurs, and is either erased or kept. (3a) The interference pattern in the former case is destroyed and restored, assuming measurement is an instantaneous collapse, given EPR proofs of light spehere extreme probaiblity wavefunctions. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 07:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

:::I read somewhere, of the use of an electronically controlled Kerr Polarization and Measurement / Unmeasurement (erasure) comparison similar to what you descibed. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 07:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Suppose that we set up the kind of experiment mentioned in the Scientific American article. They advised using a straightened out staple for the mid-line of the double slits and then putting a vertically oriented polarizer on one side of the staple and a horizontally oriented polarizer on the other side of the staple. Under those conditions, an interference pattern will not form. The "erasure" occurs when a couple of circular polarizers are put into the two paths, thus "erasing" the potential knowledge of path. Suppose that everything is really a matter of human knowledge, or potential human knowledge, because the orientation of the polarizers is recorded somewhere and a human could look at the record. In that case we could simplify the original experiment by doing away with the circular polarizers and making the two polarizers at the sides of the center slit capable of being rotated randomly, but have their edges be marked, and the markings are electronically sensed and transmitted to an electronic record in RAM. The apparatus is otherwise secured with a little explosive charge that makes opening it to take a direct look at it destroy the evidence. According to the way many people talk about these experiments, if the RAM record crossed polarizers then there should be no interference pattern. If one disconnected the RAM then no matter how many times the randomizer was operated there should always be an interference pattern. But of course that would not work because in reality the polarizations would still be there, or at least that is what I believe.

How else could one use a record in RAM to influence a double-slit experiment?

:If a measurement crystal, or cell of RAM memory, both serve to make measurements, and measurement is a conserved or near-conserved property (as it is nonlinear, according to QP Copenhagen Interpretation), then I guess one can only destroy interference patterns, or restore interference patterns, by measuring or unmeasuring things on the fly in an experimental setup. But who knows, it could be like Ghost imaging, where non-photon interactions are used to sense objects optically, without illuminating them, but that is beyond my ability to answer, only conjecture. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 01:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

::What do you mean by a "measurement crystal"? [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 05:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
::I checked the article on ghost imaging and the two external links. The two external links do not agree with each other. A beam splitter is involved, at least according to one account, and that means that each incoming wave function is split, part going through each path out of the wave splitter. One half of the wave-function hits the toy soldier, and the other half of the wave-function is matched by a coincidence indicator and is allowed to get recorded on the digital camera. Except that the photon either hits the toy soldier or it hits the digital camera. It can't hit both places. So the alternative account, according to which entangled photons are used, sounds more likely to be the one that could work. If one entangled photon hits the soldier it activates the coincidence indicator which then permits the entangled twin to be recorded on the digital camera. Fine. But then the article says they are going to use sunlight to see through clouds. That won't work because there is neither beam splitter nor entangled photons not coincidence counter. The secondary sources do not seem to have gotten any kind of an understandable account. The core idea seems to be to get a series of pairs of photons coordinated so that if one of them hits a target its twin will be recorded on a digital camera. Since the pairs of photons have the same trajectories, any one that hits the model soldier will direct/determine part of the image to be formed by its twin and their cohort. But there has to be a light-speed connection between the coincidence detector components. So what is gained? A crude outline is formed when a good digital camera looking directly at the model of the soldier could provide a much better image. Maybe the idea is that a powerful laser could shine through the clouds, allowing entangled photons to hit the earth-side target and get reflected to a balloon borne photon detector below the cloud canopy, and that detector would then send a message to the recorder for the entangled twins. But, again, if you have to have the balloon why not just park a digital camera there and take the picture directly. However you slice it, the target is getting hit by lots of photons. [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 07:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

:::I read it completely different, but I don't have the original article at hand. From what I do read in SBIR and Lab webpages, agreed with the article I had read in SA I believe, the object is not struck with photons using the method, and it would be good for reading, say microfiche without optical degredation. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 09:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

:However, I might make a suggestion, in what I've been coming to the conclusion about, is that the universe is filled with a "measurement field" exactly parallel to the mundane matter field of the universe, that constantly nonlinearly effects the universe's wave function to cohere it down to small scales. One doesn't see a quantum superposition of anything macroscopic, because this "measurement "substance"" is constantly collapsing the wave function with computed statistical nonlienarity of measurements. It is the "it from bit" of John Wheeler. So one's body has cells of mundane matter, but one also has heirarchical cells of quantum measurement disruption that are scintillating throughout your body, created by matter itself related to matter configuration, density, and energy. So a Schrodinger's Cat box, has inside of it, classical matter that collapses states even if a higher observer is not available, as it has the "measurement spirit" inbuing the matter in it with its own sealed observation frame of reference from the classical scales involved. Without such a "spiritual measurement substance field", the whole universe would otherwise dissolve into simultaneous probabilistic superpositions of macroscopic states in time, like in the movie The Matrix, where Neo moves in multiple directions at the the same time, in macroscopic space. But the quantum measurement "self" that permeates all matter, not just a physicist opening a box, keeps classical matter classically reduced to very fine resolutions most of the time. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 01:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

:And the "measurement field self" of a molecule, a rock, a cat in a box, or a human, are all completely informational in current notation of matter energy densities and spatial configuration and structural entropy, and yet, this paradigm has an absolute effect on the perceived (measured) universe by its very nonlinearity effect on the Schrodinger Equation's linear unitary evolution. It also removes the many worlds interpretations, by instilling a sense of "spirit" parallel to "measurement field information", on the spatial energy-material plane of explanation. Somewhat analogous to Newton's Gravity being useful, but incomplete without Gravitons and Relativistic dilation matters being covered to make Newton's gravitation concrete. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 01:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

:I guess my line of thinking is Leibniz-like in nature, that I can imagine in QP measurement, that there is a transcendental informational field that causes nonlinearity effects, in an otherwise linear QP PWF evolution of the universe of matter energy configuration. I can jingoize the thing by saying, "nonlinearity is existence, as linearity is invisibility". Like, if your body could be built of modularized-neutrinos, one would see no matter, light, or objects, in the universe, outside of other modularized neutrinos, as neutrinos are very linearized forms of matter-energy, they just travel and have virtually no nonlinear interactions with anything. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 01:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

:(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_imaging

Maybe you could put a little information about yourself on your user page.

:Well, me previous post works, but I'll work on some copying of my info to the profile, but enjoy the citations and link in the previous talk post! [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 01:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Best, P0M (talk) 06:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

::I do not follow the last several paragraphs at all. There are problems with quantum mechanics that have to do with a kind of three-way disconnect between the mathematical and formal systems that are used to model reality and to make predictions possible. The math came to Heisenberg in a sort of quasi-rational process. He was trying to come up with something to explain the numbers. He had some guidance from the way things behave at the macro level (a level that turns out to be a special case of the more general QM picture, so it is no wonder that the macro case gave help in formulating the QM picture). He then came up with some inspired picture that seemed to make the numbers fit into a formula. But the math did not explain what the math "means" in terms of real-world processes -- especially in the case of what is usually called "wave function collapse." We are so convinced that nothing happens without a cause that that principle is at the very foundations of our traditional physics and our everyday expectations about the world. In the case of the double-slit experiment the crux of the matter is the question: Why did this particular photon show up in fringe three on the left rather than in some other fringe? So we get the various "interpretations" of QM, but we do not get any experiments that could disprove one or the other of them. At least not yet. The third disconnect is between our usual idea of change and interactions, the math which say what must happen but not why or how, and experiences in the real world that confirm what we have regarded as the impossible. Paradox demands the "it looks impossible, but it really works if you see how things really work. But we are stuck with "the same" thing being at remote locations from itself, "twins" the one of which weeps if the other gets hit with a stick. It doesn't make sense if they are a continent apart. But it happens. So the possibility exists that the picture we have formed of reality is in need of another Copernican revolution.

::What happens to humans is that they very much value a story, a narrative that tell them what happens, who did it, what were their motivations. But in this case Mother Nature does not cooperate. Humans are left to make up explanations. They are driven to make up explanations. Perhaps their drivenness will make them latch on to an explanation that appeals to human nature or human experience rather than holding the need for explanations in abeyance until such time as the real explanations emerge naturally.

:::"I do not follow the last several paragraphs at all" followed by that discussion with a little sophistry, doesn't explain what is missing in your understanding, for me to focus explanation. Please reread, and see if you can get what I am positioning, from my previous post with indexed sentences [X.X], and refer to specifics to focus on. My theory, I can reiterate, is one such "Copernican revolution or evolution" of QP, to completely account for what causes nonlinear-nonunitary measurement evolution of the wavefunction, and its possible relationship to structured matter as conscious humans to conscious machines, analog or mostly digital, but my dialect seems to be too foreign to your conventional thinking at the moment, perhaps, but I presume much here, too. You seem to have a good grasp of what is measureable and what is hard to measure though, but I don't know if you are drawing too strong of a judgement from the internal dissembling to your discussion dialog covering theories in numbers. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 07:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

:: In Chinese philosophy of the middle ages there was a man whose importance rivaled that of St. Thomas Aquinas in the West. He tried to do something similar to what Aquinas did in bringing in Greek, and especially Aristotelian philosophy, and harmonizing it with Christianity. The Chinese philosopher, [[Zhu Xi]] had a philosophy that synthesized several main currents in Chinese thought. At the center of his philosophy were two fundamental concepts, ''li'' (regularity, an idea that explained what we would call the formal aspects of things) and '''qi''' (lit., lifebreath, something that explained what we might call the material and energetic aspects of things). Anyway, to make a long story short, the theory held that there were different kinds of '''qi'''. Somebody told Zhu about a man who was corpulent, had very coarse whisker, was greedy, etc. Zhu commented, "That person has the '''qi''' of a hog," as though that explained something. Similarly, a person who was habitually angry might have the '''qi''' of a habitually angry person, a person who was habitually depressed could have the '''qi''' of a habitually depressed person, etc. Those are explanations that do not explain anything. "Why is an elm leaf green? Because it has green coloration."

::A good explanation goes at a phenomenon from a deeper level and ties it in with phenomena that are similar and related to it. A theory that gains acceptance will be one that can in principle be disproven, and that stands up under repeated empirical checks so that everyone becomes confident that the next time it is tested it will most likely provide a correct expectation of what will occur in reality. So far, despite how wild it is, QM has been very reliable. But elaborations such as the "hidden variables" speculations do not gain anything that I am aware of except, perhaps, psychological comfort for those who favor them. [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 05:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

:::Likewise, they (hidden variable Bohmian theories) do not lose anthing, as they are mathematical isomorphisms of each other, with euqal proecision, so two equals point to two possible underlying physical mechanisms that are mostly or totally invisible, but different on a fundamental level of interpretation. What I don't see, is a definitive physics bash that Bohmian hidden particles are epicycles, just like greek planet orbits that have no mathematical isomorphism to Newton's Gravity in system structure, but yet, Newton's Gravity has a Taylor series isomorphism with Einsteins General Thoeory of Relativity. The same occurs with Feynman (infinite all) Paths integrals, being isomorphic and model equivalent to Schrodinger Equations, for the simplest cases, that the best mundane mathematical physicists can process analytically, with the common infinities. There are epicycles, and there are not epicycles, your understanding of the position I make, I think you may be falling short, but I can clarify, if you can point to my idea, and not Aristotle or Leibniz or sophistry youself, as you should be the expert, NOT ME. You can address my position specifically. Too much dissembling sophistry will only cloud the water, when there are indexed [X.X.X] sentences to point at, and not the finger pointing at the moon of chinese buddhist culture. Please, thank you. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 07:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

:::Interesting, I have been studying Chinese Traditional writing styles based on radical interpretation from Chinese and Japanese radical tables for Han-Kanji interpretation and inter-interpretation. Their language is very much a written heirarchical language, from radicals building ideograms to ideograms building multi-ideograms, to sentences and such. Not wholly disimilar to greek and latin pre, mid, and post fixes and root cognates in combinations to build words, or Germanic multi-word smashes OussenPuffenFife (exhaust pipe of a car). [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 07:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

:::I have only been able to address 70% of your points, and you have left a 25-45% ambigutity in your musings for me to not touch them. If you would like to, I reiterate, touch upon my [X.X] indexed previous post with focussed questions I may elaborate my theory into a more rigorous testable continuum theory from "self-soul-field" through to "unstructured pure diffusive material-measurement-unit" concept of QP measurement. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 07:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

::::I've got to go take care of University business. Back later. There is so much to deal with, and I can only do it one point at a time.

::::You were right about the paternal side of my family. My great grandfather was given a three-way choice in the mid 1800s, death by hanging, death by shooting, or a quick trip to the U.S. He was under the age of maturity and was swept up in a post-riot dragnet. Policemen had died in the riot. I've tried to trace the point of origin of the family, but the name of the village (?) my father remembered appears in no records I have been able to find. Somewhere around Dublin he thought. Maybe the riot was in Dublin. I'm rather sorry that my father didn't bother to learn the language from his grandmother. [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 16:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

== Many worlds initial posts. ==
Many Worlds Interpretation discussion test text:

I've skimmed what I can from the article and the external links. I appreciate the balance of dissenting and ascribing links. I found amusing the external link saying many physicists use the MWI, but noone really likes to talk about it. With all that reading, though, I still find am left cold to know what is being conserved using the Many Worlds Interpretation method as anything more than a mathematical tool, and not a physical reality. Given the nature of defining a Hilbert space with continually branching points spreading in the infinite dimensional vector space, with each point representing the branching of whole universes, in ANOTHER universe that is separate and distinct from this material universe, as each point in this Hilbert hyperspace is a whole universe, in itself. I found one FAQ interesting saying that all of the MWI universes are supervenient to this plane of existence, and yet virtually none of them interact, and MWI supposedly doesn't show anything new that QP Copenhagen Interpretation, Bohmian Hidden Variables, or even Feynman Infinite Path Integrals show, other than maybe mathematical ease in some problems. I can conceptually understand this MWI idea of having a larger universe of Hilbert Space with universe points spreading throughout the Hilbert Space. But why consider that "real", a Hilbert Space universe of spreading diffusing point universes, which fails Ockham's razor of observeables, and thus the postulating of such an infinite dimensional Hilbert Space is not to be considered "reality", but just a mathematical tool?

:I think that maybe the MWI came about by thinking about things like the double-slit experiment. There seems to be no reason why a single photon shows up as contributing to one or another of the (presumably infinite number of) fringes. One way our human minds can "make this o.k." is to say that there really '''is''' a reason why one fringe is the target point for that one photon. But another way is to say that a photon shows up at each of the fringes. Since we do not see this result in our experience, it must be seen (or at least potentially seen) in another universe. (Why, then, would there be an additional "rule" favoring the more centrally located fringe locations and disfavoring but still permitting the more remote fringe locations? I'll have to think about that question.) What bothers me, perhaps irrationally since I have no explanation for the terrific energies of the Big Bang, is where the mass-energy comes from to instantiate an infinite number of universes every quantum second or so.

:A semi-silvered beam splitter would be numerically a little less challenging. Either the photon shows up in the reflected path or the photon shows up in the "through" path. It's already fairly clear that "something" goes through each path. The MWI says that a photon shows up at the end of both paths, but not in the same universe. Maybe the MWI gets better press than it should because of ordinary human tendencies to dichotomize. If logical possibility A is not the actual way things work then it must be logical possibility B that is actually happening. But what if there are a dozen equally logically consistent accounts of what happens? It would probably make it easier for people to regard it a bit like the way they regard the multiple string theories that all can be translated into each other. The truth is that all these things are '''models''', and how many rationalizations can one give for prefering one of several models with equal explanatory capabilities? I'm not sure whether Feinman thought his "all possible paths" methodology was just a way to conceptualize things and compute accurate results, or whether he thought it had some deeper truth. I think I rather prefer it because it does leave me with the "but then what is implied by..." questions that MWI gives me. But that's just me.[[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 07:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, while I can appreciate the terse Boltzman Equation for a uniform universe of indistinguishable particles with equal probabilities of states:

$\ S\left[NaturalUnit\right] = k * log_\left\{e\right\} \left(W\right)$

I would not see why that relates to the definition of MWI universe counts, where the particles have associated state QP wave functions with distingushable probability wave functions each particle of nonuniform information, also roughly stated here without a time factor in the Gibbs Equation (here converted to represent binary information count):

$\ S\left[bit\right] = -k \sum_\left\{i=1\right\}^\left\{i=N\right\} Prob\left(S_\left\{i\right\}\right) * log_\left\{2\right\}\left(Prob\left(S_\left\{i\right\}\right)$

Which, alone, has a strong correspondence to Shannon information of messages (lacking Boltzman Constant), here, with an example of 4 symbols of equal probability of 0.5 for this example, illustrating the calculation:

$\ entropy\left[bit\right] = -\sum_\left\{i=1\right\}^\left\{i=N\right\} Prob\left(symbol\right)log_\left\{2\right\}\left(Prob\left(symbol\right)\right)$

$\ 4\left[bit\right] = -\sum_\left\{i=1\right\}^\left\{i=4\right\} Prob\left(1/2\right)log_\left\{2\right\}\left(Prob\left(1/2\right)\right)$

Likewise, taking an equation transformation, one sees the relation of binary information entropy with states (or in this case universe splits):

$\ 2^\left\{entropy\left[bit\right]\right\} = 2^\left\{-\sum_\left\{i=1\right\}^\left\{i=N\right\} Prob\left(symbol\right)log_\left\{2\right\}\left(Prob\left(symbol\right)\right)\right\}$

$\ 2^\left\{4\left[bit\right]\right\} = 2^\left\{-\sum_\left\{i=1\right\}^\left\{i=N\right\} Prob\left(1/2\right)log_\left\{2\right\}\left(Prob\left(1/2\right)\right)\right\}$

Which is equivalent to a product form of the equation of state probability:

$\ state\left[count\right] = \prod_\left\{i=1\right\}^\left\{i=N\right\} \frac\left\{1\right\}\left\{Prob\left(symbol\right)\right\}$

$\ 16\left[count\right] = \prod_\left\{i=1\right\}^\left\{i=4\right\} \frac\left\{1\right\}\left\{Prob\left(1/2\right)\right\}$

And most simply shows a state count as symbol relationship of simple products:

$\ state\left[count\right] = \prod_\left\{i=1\right\}^\left\{i=N\right\} symbol\left[count\right]$

$\ 16\left[count\right] = \prod_\left\{i=1\right\}^\left\{i=4\right\} 2\left[count\right]$

Your too-terse Boltzman Equation inversion, appears only "roughly" equivalent to a formal universe splitting equation definition without further clarification of the terse post, firstly, because it doesn't show time as a factor, where my equation is a function of time. My equation (reformulated from before, but equivalent) uses a simplified set of state space, defined for the universe of localized particles in the universe at the Big Bang, where each particle is counted as a symbol (universe split) generator. Each particle is considered a wave function with a symbol "universe" generating branch factor at each measurement, generating new symbols "universes" at a rate of a branch factor with each interaction:

$\ Universes\left[count\right]\left(T\left[sec\right]\right) = \prod_\left\{t=0,1/10^\left\{10\right\} \left[sec/\left(inter*part\right)\right],...\right\}^\left\{t=T=3.78432*10^\left\{17\right\}\left[sec\right]\right\} 2\left[br/\left(inter*part\right)\right]^\left\{3.612*10^\left\{79\right\}\left[part\right]\right\}$

$\ Universes\left[count\right]\left(3.78432*10^\left\{17\right\}\left[sec\right]\right) = 10^\left\{10^\left\{106.61435\right\}\right\}\left[count\right]$

I also include a feedback in the terms, because the universes would split at each interaction, and split again, from the former split state, which gives rise to the feedback of self scattering probability wave functions in each so-called "universe". For example, with 2 particles that have 7 branch factors, e.g. spin, momentum, position varieties in 7's for each interaction, one simply sees in an interaction sequence 1[universe], 49[universe], 2401[univese], ...; which reflects the originally formulated direct calculation (simplified):

$\ Universes\left[count\right]\left(T\left[interaction\right]\right) = QuantumBranchFactor ^ \left\{Particles ^ \left\{T\left[interaction\right]\right\}\right\}$

$\ 1\left[count\right]\left(0\left[interaction\right]\right) = 7 ^ \left\{2 ^ \left\{0\left[interaction\right]\right\}\right\}$ (Big Bang)

$\ 49\left[count\right]\left(1\left[interaction\right]\right) = 7 ^ \left\{2 ^ \left\{1\left[interaction\right]\right\}\right\}$ (one interaction)

$\ 2401\left[count\right]\left(2\left[interaction\right]\right) = 7 ^ \left\{2 ^ \left\{2\left[interaction\right]\right\}\right\}$ (two interaction)

Which shows the potential for quantum chaos of entangled wavefunction, in an MWI which is supposed to never collapse, but always linearly evolve, and with splitting new Hilbert Space universe points at each still ill-defined measurement/decoherence "events".

And in actuallity, the wave function that is evolving linearly in every universe, is a continuous function at the resolution of quantized time, space, and momentum, so there is nearly an infinite number for quantized QuantumBranchFactor options for each universe.

So perhaps a more accurate equation of universes in this increasingly hypothetical Hilbert Space universe of universes is (roughly stated):

$\ Universes\left[count\right]\left(T\left[sec\right]\right) = \prod_\left\{t=0,1/10^\left\{10\right\} \left[sec/\left(inter*part\right)\right],...\right\}^\left\{t=T=3.78432*10^\left\{17\right\}\left[sec\right]\right\} 10^\left\{100\right\}\left[br/\left(inter*part\right)\right]^\left\{3.612*10^\left\{79\right\}\left[part\right]\right\}$

$\ Universes\left[count\right]\left(3.78432*10^\left\{17\right\}\left[sec\right]\right) = 10^\left\{10^\left\{109.13574\right\}\right\}\left[count\right]$

Where the quantum branch factor is arbitrarily selected at 10^100 symbol potentials, since measurement is in MWI still arbitrarily statistical, so the Hilbert Space universes can branch in a spreading universe cloud with every particle's probability wave function interaction creating "measurements" with distributed probabilities and amplified macroscopic effects from each quantized universe of potential. So the Hilbert Space is not just a cloud of universes, but possibly a cloud of universes with probabilistic weight on each universe following the probability wave function density of every particle wave function interaction. Unless you simply quantize even the least probable universes to whole universe existence, in which case the MWI universes have an almost plank-scale like density and flow, taking even the most QP improbable quantization universes (where glasses break backward, and gravity flows the wrong direction), and magnifying all of them to quantum full existence.

I dunno, MWI seems a good enough mathematical tool, but completely-unreal otherwise. Because mainly, despite your flawed article's mention of promoting Ockham's razor, it removes the measurement collapse of wavefunctions, at the expense of defining an axiom with an infinite size infinite dimensioned Hiblert Space Universe of quantized universe clouds branching and spreading through it (what was Ockham pared off, really). Instead, it appears to make a thoughouly unexploreable universe, that is thouroughly unreal as far as large scale observational science is concerned, "PROVED" with only 1 part in 10^10^106+ observations of universes being observed, it seems. Taking MWI as real and not explicitly stated as being pure math tools, is dishonest of an article, bordering on philosophy of mathematics as science. It definitely makes watching "Dr. Who" more interesting, I must admit!

[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 11:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

== POM responses to LRD MWI initial posts ==

:I'm not sure to whom you address the comments about "your article." It certainly is not my article. All I have tried to do is to take the work of others and straighten out the syntax, and, when I can see anything to contribute I have tried to emend the logic/analysis. I have generally disattended your writing on this talk page since you indicated that your level is beyond mine. That fact is undeniable, and, besides, I think we could only have a fruitful discussion were we to start from some specific and concrete experiment and try to work out a common vocabulary. Sorry to be blunt, but I wanted to let you know that your writing here is likely to be entirely for your own benefit. I have been dragged into a fight in the real world, not one of my own making, and the situation is taking its toll in the form of depression. Also to be noted is that there is a clear policy on Wikipedia of "no personal research," so unless you can find peer-reviewed articles to cite you are going to be very limited in the additions you can make to quantum physics articles. [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 18:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

::To POM: Sorry to hear about RW problems, hell, here, I have people dying, but I hear it is a universal truth around this so-called real world of mortals, shits and grins of God's works plan, perhaps. You're accurate, with respect to this [Sandbox] being toward another article [Many Worlds Interpretation]. Citations are not my strong suit for research at this location, most of this is from memory, and books and certain sites, ala Wiki, University, xxxlanl, arvix (sp?). Sorry, I had assumed you knew more than I did, and I, coming from a systems engineer and coding background, find QP is not my expertice at very much depth. I'm stuck, myself, with fourier transforms and laplacians and combinatoris, when I really need to dig into Dirac bra-ket notation to f;uently read the modern syntaxes of the new generations. Oh and in the above former reply, I have added sections in one block, including a couple UC Riverside links of presentation and paper, which I can't vouch for the quality of the work, but it has topical relevance, at the least to QP macrosystem measurement and unmeasurement qualities related to quantum computers, mostly, but general overviews are included too. Bit glyphic on the presentations, but the article has some reading and math to review, myself, at least. You, blunt? No problem, I assume it is more record for myself, at this point, if general deeper things cannot be added or refuted in a frame I can understand fluently, myself. I've noted in the mathematics and coding realm, that the Wiki articles are sometimes thinner than one would desire, as my own knowledge of those fields surpasses enough Wiki topics, which I am fluently familiar with, to make judgements of their thinness. Regarding QP, once again, John Wheeler et al of type, suggest similar concepts decades ago, and they are still being debated this century, publicly, so this is all nothing new. Likewise, I was actually not looking to add much to QP articles except clarifications, even if only in discussion segments. I have little interest, myself for even writing formal wiki articles, but mediate information flows and pick some knowledge around the sharp edges, so depending on what you mean by "no personal research", I have no interest, per se, as these are informal topics for me. I'll have to find that policy you mention. I loathe reading "law" books. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 22:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

::TO POM: Hmm, I still can't find the no personal research Wiki-"law". Anyway, I'm unemployed, so it can hardly be considered research, per-se.

::TO POM: EXPERIMENT I'VE BEEN CONSIDERING on richarddawkins.net, and now here with you.
::TO POM: Now, one experiment I have been thinking about, I call, Schridinger's Computer (SC). It would be a nano-scale highly isolated conventional computer which has an electric field cavity containing a smaller quantum entity (QE) inside of its measurement and control cavity. The smaller quantum entity (QE) can be an electron in an electric field cavity, or an ion in an electric field cavity, as two examples. The electric field cavity (1) has methods to measure the QE location within the electric field cavity, and (2) SC has methods to control the QE location within the electric field cavity. The computer section measures and controls the quantum entity over extended periods of time inside the electric field cavity, by performing measurements to produce specific control signals to alter the QE accordingly. The SC may or may not even throw away exact measurement information in place of a phase space model of the QE state in a compressed abstract salient description, to see if the QE has any modulation on behavior based on throwing away measurements, or keeping every measurement to the limits of precisions. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 20:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

::Since the nano-scale SC can be run for several seconds, what kind of data would one see, given the micro-scale piece of computer-"consciousness" observing the captured QE over those several seconds? Since SC measurements are chained, (1) will each measurement-control cycle possess pure random Heisenburg Uncertain interactions, that don't conserve QE momentum and position accuracy, with Brownian Uncertainty, over the thousands of interactions over the several seconds? (2) Will each SC measurement of the QE share a fixed amount of QE Uncertainty to an average and asymptotically decreasing bound as SC measurements and control cycles are executed on the trapped QE, showing a QE with Chaotic Uncertainty each measurement, with apparent-randomness each SC measurement and control, but overall possessing an inter-action QE chaotic and asymptotically coherent conservation of momentum-position as measurement-control cycles accumulate, to produce an asymptotically accurate QE retroactive calculation of the exact path that the electron or ion must have taken in the past history of measurements and controls? How will the SC and QE enter into an entanglement superposition of states, before the SC communicates with the outside world its measurement sequence. I surmise that the SC must possess some form of quantum entanglement with its QE, being a measurement system almost on the same scale as the QE it has under its measurement and control. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 20:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Wictionary discussion test text.
Etymology and cross references

I'm not sure if I should be posting here on the specific character's discussion page, or elsewhere on Wiktionary, so please forgive, and maybe point me to the exact place these posts ought to go, if not next to the specific word of consideration.

For the Mandarin-Han character here, is there any extra etymological history, to become available, for this character pair, regarding the variants used with (a) a "dotted cliff" and (b) without?

(a)[廬][LÚ] means hut or cottage (3).

(b)[盧][LÚ] means hut or cottage (3).

I have also noted the surname-use character [盧], is used in an english proper name, but do not know how both characters were peculiar-particular selected, of the specific LÚ and KÈ, to represent the surname, as the decision process of etymology is herein-absent, to determine the reason for the specific ideogram roots selection.

[盧,克][LÚ KÈ] means [Luke] (2).

I'm guessing [ [盧],[克] ][ [LÚ],[KÈ] ] reads as [ [hut|cottage] , [overcome|restrain] ] (1), as the most reasonable reading, of this speciic pronounciation of "Luke", but I have no etymological support, of this peculiar interpretation, or if it is even an appropriate definition selection. It could also be a purely a surname-sound-pronounciation-representation, but I have no etymological support of this peculiar interpretation, either, as many [LÚ],[KÈ] could have been chosen besides these two ideograms. I do note that the article refers to [盧][LÚ] as a surname ideogram, in Korean (3), but I am interested in the Chinese-Mandarin-Han interpretation.

Additionally, for English homonym, Mandarin Chinese cross reference, Biblos.com apparently refers to [Lu,ke] as [路,加][LÙ,JIĀ][[road|journey],[increase|augment]](1)(4).

Neither form of Luke is shown in the Wikipedia proper name list under Mandarin Chinese, or Japanese.

(1) Abstracted data from Pocket Oxford (Mandarin) Chinese Dictionary.

(2) Verified only on Yahoo:Systran:Babelfish:Chinese Traditional.

(3) Lookup on Wictionary.

(4) Open platform Bible(?) http://cu.holybible.com.cn/luke/1.htm

[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 22:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

:The use of Chinese characters to represent Western names is a matter of preference (or, if a government gets involved, regulations). The Bible is a good point of stability for names like those of the disciples, since the Biblical scholars frequently got their choices in use early and people became familiar with their choices.

:The character 盧 is defined as "A vessel for containing cooked rice. A stove. A wine-shop. Black: the pupil of the eye. A hound; see 7199. Name of a wild tribe. Used for various characters '''now distinguished by radicals.'''" That's from the Giles dictionary of 1892, which came before all the "let's be modern" ideas of writing simplified characters. The character 廬 is "a hut; a hovel."

:In a history of written forms that goes back to sometime around 1500 BC, figuring out what was done often involves some guesswork, but the general process of the elaboration of Chinese characters starts with elements that are just line drawings, e.g., 由 which shows a seed like a bean that has started to sprout (that's the vertical line protruding from the top, or 月, which is a drawing of a crescent moon (with the bottom tip occluded or else spread apart).

:The next thing that probably happened (nobody was blogging at 1400 BC) was that people started to use terms figuratively. In English we can say things like, "The bloodhound dogged the convicts for 23 days," and everybody can guess why "to dog" means "to pursue relentlessly, step by step." But sentences like, "The dog dogged the dogs," become problematical. You could "color" the words in speech so that the meaning was perfectly clear, but writing things down like that can get ambiguous, so the next step was to add a second element that specifies which general category a word belongs to.

:The original word 盧 might, for the sake of the story I'm going to spin, be defined as "vat" or "crock." So a drinking establishment might have been attached to a brewery, and the drinking establishment might have gotten the nickname "the crock" or "the vat." Then it might happen that all such pubs got called "Tommy's Crock," "Vinnie's Crock," etc., and "crock" would have become the established vernacular term for public drinking establishment. But when somebody who worked at a crock needed to buy a new crock when the old one got smashed, then communications could get a little complicated, e.g., "The proprietor of Davey's Crock wants to buy a new crock." Meaning what? A second business or a new container to brew beer in? So, in Chinese, the solution would be to add a "significant" (or what is called a "radical" in the trade) In the current case it may have been that 盧 got written with 广 (which apparently meant "cliff dwelling" originally). But then somebody else may come along and say, "I won't write 廬 just because you made a new character, you prissy fop!" and s/he will continue to write 盧 for all cases. (And when simplified characters became the rule, the official simplified versions frequently peeled off "significants.")

:The names of people like George Bush can end up getting written one way in Hong Kong, another way in mainland China, and a third way in Taiwan. And then there are newspapers in places like Singapore that could make their own choices. The process can depend on how characters are pronounced locally, and whether that reading "sounds good." Hong Kong people being mostly Cantonese speakers, HK names for Western figures may be different for that reason. The best example I can think of is one that works in reverse. One of the characters in the ''Romance of the Three Kingdoms'' is referred to by his perfectly proper official title, but if the student gives up on translating the term into English and just uses the Chinese term in the middle of an English translations then you get things like, "The Great Dudu (read, "doo-doo") is coming to inspect our troops." Obviously, you would not want a translation for the name of a head of state that came out "the wrong way" in the target language. Anyway, the general process is to use a Chinese surname followed by a character or two (that would be the given name if one were Chinese) that, when read aloud, sounds as close as possible to the actual name. Chinese names for Western figures are a little like the "codes" people use to communicate by text messages too. "Owen Bates" might become "O1 B8s." There is not much science involved.[[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 16:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

::[BEGIN] [BEGIN] [BEGIN] [BEGIN] [BEGIN] [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 05:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
::Thank you Mr. POM. Good to hear from you, I posted on wictionary, but this is quite informative, what you've posted. 7199, you say, nice book, as my Nelson Kanji book only goes to 7107. And, interesting word shift from pre-Mao to post-Mao defines. I've been studying Chinese/Japanese/Korean for the last 6 months, noticing the heirarchical radical-meaning abstraction combination, and ideogram-meaning abstraction combination, in comcept refinement-defining, as well as the colloquial use of thoughts, with, often interesting imaginative, cultural (often farm-agra-traditional-storied), and historical tones. I just wish my Korean dictionaries had a deeply connected use of Han, so I can grok-understand the way Korean tends to form words from the Chinese, to verify if it is like Japanese, or maybe a phonetic representation of radical strokes, hunch-hypothesis. I can't tell, yet. Anyway, the words, even with these Chinese/Japanese refernces produces interesting studies, like computer, being defined sometimes as "idea-processing-machine", which uses novel radical "particles" of greater uncertainty with the decreasing particle size *grins*, which I think reads, given very rough imaginative understanding on my part:

:::Only 7199? ;-) My Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Chinese Language has over 40,000, and a newer mainland Chinese dictionary is up around 50,000. (Counting depends on things like whether you count "etc" and "&c" as one "character" or two.)\

::::Yeah, the Morohashi index goes into the 40,000's, they are a prolific ideogram generating society. Would love to get that unabridged tome you have. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 11:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

::[計 [speech | to-complete-(ten)] | *counting by tens, statistical/"instrumental" counting
::算 [bamboo | vision | presenting?] | *calculating, figure out, figure to be (a genius, etc.)
::機 [tree-wood | tiny | tiny | weapon | divines?]
:::Nope. 木 is one part = wooden thingamajing, 幾 is the phonetic. You can get more/different information from http://www.zhongwen.com -- an acquaintance of mine made that site and it is reliable. (I'm not sure but what he is a cat who has devoted all 9 lives to the project, else how could he have done so much.)[[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 02:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

::::Hmmm. Well, I'll definitely take the new data, but just seeing the change of meaning of the first character of Luke from Wictionary and references as hut-cottage, to your note of classical a vessel for containign coocked rice, and the language reforms after world war two, and even the nature of a language that can keep secrets, I find I can only take all paths of understanding radicals and interpretations, and not acccept only a definitive "nope" on prima-faciae face value. Especially given (1) from Wiki-Translation: [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 11:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

::::For the translation of Buddhist texts into Chinese, the monk Xuanzang (602–64) proposed the idea of 五不翻 ("five occasions when terms are left untranslated"):

::::(1)秘密故—terms carry secrecy, e.g., chants and spells;
::::含多义故—terms carry multiple meanings;
::::此无故—no corresponding term exists;
::::顺古故—out of respect for earlier translations;
::::生善故—[citation needed]

::And seems to give a rough cultural idea of, "a finished thought"-"abacus use calculation output"-"wooden complex-built weapon does-something", returning to english as "idea"-"calculation"-"machine", and computer, quite colloquially. Napier's bones, recorded in the machines, while the indo-west has jacquard looms and church organs.
:::計算 is a verb that has probably been around since long before there were any machines more complex than the abacus. With the coming of electronics, motors, etc., or maybe a little earlier with the coming of mechanical clocks, there have been all sorts of "machines." Technically, a 1940s adding machine would be a "jisuanji," and to be specific one would have to say "dianzi jisuanji" or "electron(ic) calculator.
::::True enough in some sense, but weapons, alchemical science, seafaring technology, and such, are AS OLD as the abacus, too, so weapon can be an interpretation, in my book. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 11:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

::And I could have sworn I once saw computer roughly as "stone-small-processing", but can't find that again in my books. Maybe it was a dream, as the only other variant I could find was "electron-brain". *grins*

:::Well, "calculate" comes from the Greek (Latin?) word for little stones used to count with.[[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 02:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

::::Good point. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 11:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

::I also interpreted recently a Han-Kanji Hiragana rendering of a "Ghost in the Shell" anime episode title, in various stages of personal interpretation, as best as I could, with interesting heirarchical resolution results:

::[Zhong-Wen' Kanji-Hiragana]
::"{映画}{監督} の 夢 -
::たちこま の {家岀}."

::[Romanji of Kanji-Hiragana On-kun reading]
::"{Ei.ga} {kan.toku} no yume(mu) -
::Tachikoma no {ie.de(ka.shutsu)}"

::[English Zhong-Wen' Kanji-Hiragana radicalized transliteration]
::"{sun=big=sun cover=field=receptacle} {retainer=overview=dish on-top-of=eight=hook=right-hand=eye} (is-of-possessive) ::plants=eye=cover=death=evening -
::Tachikoma (is-of-possesive) {roof=place=boar=household sprout=border}"

::[English Zhong-Wen' Kanji-Hiragana transliteration]
::"{reflecting picture} {warden supervisor}'s dream -
::Tachikoma's {household emerge}."

::[Middle English translation]
::"Tachikoma's {Home Leaving-of} -
::{Projection-Picture} {Director}'s Dream."

::[English translation (official episode title)]
::"Tachikoma {Runs Away}, -
::The {Movie} {Director}'s Dream."

::As for the no-science of ideogram to name generation, I remember about 30 years ago, when I was about 7, the daughter of the owner of a Chinese Restaurant my parents and I often went to, was teaching me some chinese, and I think I remember something to the effect that names are often (and admittedly culturally selective like Taiwan, Mandarin, Cantonese, etc.) are chosen with some care of the meaning desired to be conveyed, even under a fixed pronounciation restriction on ideogram selection. If they wish to convey a negative connotation to a person, they can pick askew ideograms of the same sound, to hint at the intended cultural "spin". Likewise, if they wish to convey a positive or even meaningful relationship, they can pick the best ideograms to represent the positive connotations. Perhaps more used in Japan this way than China. But much like, in the simpler sense, some middle east people who are not fond of Bush, may pronounce his name Bosh, as a mispronounication of a name is a sign of disrespect, in some arabic schools, and it may even mean something in arabic untoward, that part I never researched.

:::One of the BBC news announcers had a pet pronunciation for one of the Bosnian war criminals, related conceptually to Richard Nixon's favorite term, "rat f..." [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 02:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

::::*grins* I assume it isn't rat-fink! Never heard that reference, all I rememebr in my youth is audio recordings and watergate and Dick Cavett like deep disccussions of government and social issues. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 11:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

::I'm still considering that Schrodinger's Computer concept, to test the nature of what is perception and relations to entanglement of object with subject. Like the contemporary ideas of quantum decoherence somehow diagonalizing away alternate histories to make measurements, they don't sound right to me. Take a double slit with a transparent slit photon detection removing the interference pattern. But what I wonder, having done computer simulations is, can the loss of interference fringes simply be the cause of aperture randomization of photon phasors by random interactional delay factors. When one simulates a basic slit aperture to detection-screen calculation with random phases distributed along the double slits created by the detectors. Now, firtly, one notices that the pattern on the gross scale do indeed appear to be one diffractive blur, without the low frequency bands. But when one magnifies the pattern near to or even smaller than the wavelength of light (depending on screen distance to slit pattern width (like f-stop ratio), that one notices the detection screen is simply an ultrafine randomized hologram pattern. Of course, from the large scale, all one can ever really detect is a photon wavelength's resolution pattern average of photon density, with an average denisty just like the often-quoted-and-presumed smeared out band-less measurement influenced double slit pattern. So it seems, for a Schrodinger Computer, where it measures and controls a smaller quantum entity, must be filled with such a hyperfine probability wavefunction "chaos" cloud of multiple levels of resolution, depending on the phasor distances circulating through the nano-computer's measurement, amplification, and introspection-loops, in an entangled otherwise unitary-linear-probability wavefunction evolution in time. The arguments of Quantum Decoherence, seem to try and bluff away the actual problem of complex-chaotic-fractal wavefunction linear evolution,and the non-linear and instantaneous infinite speed wavefunction collapse of a real measurement. They just hide the issue deep in the randomization of the circulating wavefunction and entanglements rippling through the atoms quantizing and reradiating one systemic wavefunction throughout its wavefunction of measurer + measured, saying things just "diagonalize to zero", whatever that means in the face of literal fourier path calculations. Then this gets to my concept of a quantum-"soul"-self from John Wheeler, where, say the Schrodinger Computer observes an atom that radiates red, green, or blue photons, and the SC measures color in three channels of tuned molecules, like in the retina. Is there, as photons flood the detection-introspection SC system, an observeable chaotic, but unique "texture" to the systemic-instantaneous-entanglement measurement system. Something that is part holistic macroscopic measurement "mind" fused with redness, as much as it is a local atomic computer that detects, amplifies, and processes a "signal". The latter is the mundane processing of signals with no qualia, and the former is the perception of redness, or greenness, or blueness, depending on the infinite-velocity-simultanous-flooded perception-processing-entangled-"soul" state of the Schrodinger Computer with the light source. It seems plausible, tho dawkins net kids seem to say there's no soul to save, and no reality to the illusion of color vision, whatever that means, when I can see a potential holistic-infinite-velocity unity and a local-reductionist-QPCI signal processor of atoms and photons and electrons, BOTH. Dualistic, but of the same universe, splitting between monism and Descartes duality. Its ideological potential is holist and reductionist, local-wave-particulate and instantaneously-connected, emergent-process and supervenient-qualia-sensation, body and mind, ordered and chaotic-"random", blurred and ultrafine, and heirarchical and introversional and extroversional. I call it, reflecting the two levels of math for local and holist, "systemic instantaneous inter-local-cosmic linear=to=loop-structural entanglement statistical radiation transduction balance between measurer-measured-local=process-global=instantaneous=qualia". The math is still a bit hard to reach comprehension of the closed cybernetic loop, but damn close to God, like my uncle who just passed away, among countless others. Guess my dad is next. *sigh* But what does a dragon like me really know...

::[END] [END] [END] [END] [END] [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 05:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

:::There is too much to deal with in the above paragraph, and I would probably take a wrong turn near the beginning if I tried anyway. But consider this: You mentioned "relations to entanglement of object with subject", and I remember just having read something somewhere in which the physicist maintained that it is possible to give a consistent account of the universe as a continuum in an intensely complicated vibrational state, and also possible to give a consistent account of the universe in terms of point masses, discrete particles, etc. That's sort of related to what I have long found to be philosophical problem that doesn't actually depend on the above scheme.

::::Hmm, I'm used to reading alot of hard things with insight. Like theorizing that radicals had meanings assembled, before I got a book defining radicals, just as I hypothesized in the first months studying chinese. The two concepts you mention above are (1) from Von Neumans ideas that every observed-observer, themselves are part of a higher level sub-system that can be treated as a linearly unitary evolving entangled supersystem with no measurement occuring ... point being, where does the heirarchy stop to produce the nonlinear jump of wavefunction collapse, and (2) Bohmiam hidden-variable theories where the same phenomena arise from basically actual point particles and pilot waves that make the paths of particles resemble uncertainty and wavefunctions, but there is no measurement, just the holistic particle and unmeasured-properties evolution field (along with instantaneous entanglement correlations at a distance). Both cases are distinct interpretations with the same outward operations, and do not diffuse the above scheme, as it needs to be falsified that: a complex coherent parallel measurement and self-measurement (feedback) system has sets and supersets and systemsets of mutually entangled "information"="measurements" flowing through the mass of the object, and that measurements circulating in the mass produce instantaneous alterations of the state of the object, and that the systemic instantaneous measurement system-state collapses have the requisite material configuration. No one is there, other than speculation, like myself, to disprove that concept. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 11:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

::::Most basically, how do chemicals in a coherent information processing system give rise to color vision? If it is just physics, than a brick sees red when you shine a red light on it, just like a human, and has human rights, if it has process like mind, like a human. My "scheme" gives a secondary mechanism to explain the perceptions of consciousness, as well as the well known natural emergent properties of a wholly reductionist physics on the particle scale. While it gives an idea of a whole-holistic self-soul, the math still doesn't support an immortal self that exists after the local matter stops reacting, but does give hint of what may be required to save a soul as one body dies by transferrence and quantum entanglement with the new body/machine absorbing the data and sentient perception self, without disrupting the potentially ineffable material data and quantum system quality of self. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 11:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

:::But consider for a moment what it means, if you model the universe as a single continuum, for subject and object to be related. (I actually wrote about this in my MA thesis.) Under that interpretation, "subject" and "object" cannot be discrete entities. So for subject to mirror object means for states within one mentally (i.e., not really) delineated volume of space to be mappings of states withing another mentally delineated volume of space. One of the problems that immediately occurred to me when I first derived this picture from Daoist philosophy was that there might be a mapping of, e.g., Wolf 359, in my mind. Never mind that it would have to be a crude mapping at a distance of approximately 4 light years, there is a bigger problem. Having thought about the mapping I now have a mapping that is a sub-region of my region (what appears to be a discrete volume of space) that corresponds to a region a long way from me, but I also have a mapping of my making and maintaining that mapping, and that gives me the idea that I have a mapping of making the mapping of the mapping... Self reference is always an invitation to infinity.

::::I know the arguemnt well (wouldn't mind reading the thesis, if electronically available). First saw it on a "Planet of the Apes" movie when I was around 5, where Cornelius and Zera go to 1960's america, and they threw in a little side thesis of the infinite recursion of self existence! Now, I view it all as an aspect of coherent measurement and recording and (finite = pragmatic = time-limited) recursive introspection of a finite object. A finite object is separate from what it is not. A finite object has a unique path of process in time-space. Ignoring the issues of philosophical "illusion" to reality from memory alteration ala "Dark City" or "Truman Show" which require an agent above one's self to alter your free-will, one sees that there is a "you" and "me" and 7,000,000,000 other "selves", and countless more in lifeforms. But to return, yes, there are representations of the universe in every object to different levels of coherence. A brick knows amorphously structured measurements of waves of heat and cold, light on the surface, and chemical environments. A human knows incredibly complex structured mappings of the entire universe experienced on their path in time-space. And all of this, from bricks to sentience, are based on measurements, which is rooted in information, and quantum physics. For a structured processing pragmatically introspective human, there is a distinctness to objects and volumes of space by their self-consistency in some form, which is a measure of all self-systems entropy-information. Assuming no deception of the Plato's Cave types by higher forces or simple ignorance of ultimates, one obstensively sees that reality is built on that self consistency of all objects with spatial temporal entropic coherence. A photon in a star has a million year relationship with the star. Most atoms have a billions of year association with the star. A human has forms of information-measurement, recording, and processing that are consistent over long periods of time even as the atoms come and go with metabolism, every year replacing yourself, but not replacing your structure which always has continuity of process as the "mists come and flow and go through the solid and information-structure". And infinite recursion is not necessary, as one knows you're looking at reality, one knows you're made of matter recording the universe in some physical fasion, and one is aware that one can scan one's self-essence to some degree to understand that system, not that forms of self reference *cannot* have infinite recursion, but that they are pregmatically limited by necessity and ineffable *desire* to jump out of the box of recursion. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 11:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

:::Let's look at it another way, if only for relief: Where does my mind stop? If it isn't a separate and non-physical something-or-other that is magically linked to the physical apparatus, then it is a state of the physical apparatus. So what absolute distinction is there between the part of the physical apparatus leaving the retina and going into the brain, and the part of the physical apparatus from distant star to telescope to eyeball? So my mind extends to whatever I am aware of. Again, how is my mind in any real way distinguished from the objects of its awareness? How is my awareness of a distant star different in any fundamental way from my awareness of an insect bite on my big toe?

::::I would say mind is concentrated at the locus of self and moreso around the process information, and subsidiarily around the external memory devices of others, and books, as examples. The absolute distinction is defined by the entropic structural information content equations, like Shannon's theory of communication, but with memory and cybernetics and space added to the heirarcchy of process contained in the human and their brain. And, of course, the nature of existence, is one of self, and the universe one is in, so those two aspects, are, as you have noted, inextricably entangled, but nevertheless, one is separate from the other when in a human body and the locus of perception and processing. For example, if your mind were downloaded into a computer properly to cover the process and perception of self and a world, then one is actually potentially randomly scattered and nonlinearly processed in one plane of the computer matter realm, but from the locus of self structure and process based on information and processing, the structure is never disrupted and is continuous. So locus of process (measurement) and context of process (world universe), are absolute distinctions of systems. But even then, one can imagine a connected rhizomic form of self that is not one thing, but distributed, and ill defined, just to break the bonds of entropic informational consistency, like Odo from Deep Space Nine, that can merge with a collective, loosing much of one's self, until self is reconstructed. The locus would be very diffuse and ill defined, with odd forms of perception, and indefineable boundaries between entities ... but that requires the formation of that type of locus, where humans and all life only form in mostly individual stand-alone systems in space (except maybe ivy and slime molds and simple bacteria where one resembles everyone else like multitudes of almost perfectly mirror copies of one's limited self). [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 11:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

:::These considerations do not argue against the idea of entanglement. Indeed, the problem humans have with the idea of entanglement probably has to do with how we, as a certain kind of organism, model or conceptualize the idea of "separated in space." It is probably a similar problem to the one we face when we find a kind of "new order of logical contradiction." It is clear enough that if someone utters two sentences that are contradictions of each other, e.g., "It is the case that the mouse is dead." and "It is not the case that the mouse is dead," then the speaker has given others no information other than that s/he seems to be concerned about a certain mouse. But sentences like, "The mouse is pure white," and "The mouse is pure black," seem to be contradictory in a way that involves us in some associated rational processes. Anyway, in practical terms we find ourselves unable to deal comfortably with pairs of sentences like the one about mouse colors, and we are equally uncomfortable about saying, "This hydrogen atom is a particle," and "This hydrogen atom is a wave." These sentences may be no more and no less problematical saying, "These two two photons are separate," and "These two photons are not separate." [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 02:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

::::No problems. Points taken, and points analyzed, as I can't help myself. Appreciate the time you take writing from an employed point of view. And I agree, I can intellectually grasp an immortal soul, but my mathematical systemic reach is still forming the words to reach that state. My grasp exceeds my reach! And yeah, QP with perfectly mathematical linear evolution, and indefineable defineable nonlinear measurement "events" bothers me more than even particle wave duality, as does coherent randomized instantaneous entanglement collapse at arbitrary distances. *grins* [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 11:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::The Dao De Jing analysis is that '''everything''' is a unity -- and so everything in space and time is a unity if the DDJ author(s) be right. We see discrete individuals because our minds deal with the Universe by cutting it into volumes. It's an active/creative activity of mind. One person looks at a rock with something growing on it and sees a single plant, notes that raindeer like to eat the stuff, and calls it lichen. Another person looks at it and sees algae and fungi in symbiosis. They are both "cutting" but cutting in different ways. What happens when one learns how to "delete" all the cut-lines that one has been busy making? I and other disappear, not to mention all the "things" in the Universe. It's all one continuum, and there are no time separations. The idea seems to be that consciousness sort of "goes everywhere," and one no longer experiences oneself as something centered at x,y,z,t. So [you] are immortal because [you] are just a temporary construct in a kind of consentual "hallucination" (making more out of what is there in, e.g., white noise, than is really there). What [you] really is, is the Universe, and the Universe extends through all of time.

:::::I once did an experiment with a poster I bought that was kind of a colored Rorschatt test. All the students in my Daoism class saw some "things" in the picture, e.g., a duck, a waterfall... But there was one guy who (rather anxiously it seemed to me) insisted that he saw nothing. Humans are good at picking camoflaged animals out of messy backgrounds, but we can let the same ability construct monsters out of piles of rock and brush or whatever. [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 07:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Laws of Classical Conservation shortfall ==

I've read the articles of conservation, regarding classical properties, and the previous discussion comment on mass motion conservation on this conservation law article. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 18:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

In the classical domain, the Wiki list of classical macroscopic conservation laws appears incomplete. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 05:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Condensed, your list contains 2 out of 3 classical systems interactions conservation laws, that I recall: [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 05:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(1) Conservation of classical system energy / momenta: potential, linear kinetic, angular kinetic, thermal,,

(2) Conservation of classical system matter: charged, neutral, energy equivalent (low energies).

There's a third form of conservation on the classical domain, that is missing from the list: [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 05:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(3) Conservation of translation-macroscopic=configuration. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 05:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

One can see it in a one dimensional case. Take a stationary non-rotating sealed unit with a mass at one end, and two electromagnetic launchers / catchers at both ends. One end can launch the mass to the other end, that catches it. At this point the sealed unit is stationary in steady state, and translated a distance from its starting position. Then the other end can launch the mass back to the first end. At this point the sealed unit is stationary again, and returned back to the exact original starting position, and original macroscopic configuration equivalent (thermal agitation consuming energy influence is virtually negligible). [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 17:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

A similar case can be seen in a sealed stationary angular momentum case. Spin accelerating a mass and stopping it, causes the sealed unit frame of reference to spin in the opposite direction. On stopping the spinning mass, the unit also stops spinning. Then reverse spinning the mass to return its frame of reference to the original spatial phase, will also return the sealed unit back to its original frame of angular phase reference, before being brought to a calculated stop. So original angular translation and macroscopic configuration equivalent is restored (thermal agitation consuming energy influence is virtually negligible). [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 17:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Another case can be seen in complex classical material motion cases. Take a stationary sealed unit with a fluid. One end launches the fluid to the other end into a catch. Once the fluid has stopped moving the unit is translated and stationary. The other end then launches the fluid back to the first end, into the catch it came from. Once the fluid has stopped moving, the unit is back to its original position, and same macroscopic configuration equivalent (thermal agitation consuming energy influence is virtually negligible). If it did not add back to exactly zero translation and rotation, such a unit could be used to move through an empty vacuum, or spin up an object to any speed, in a sealed unit, which is impossible, because returning back to original configurations, restores the original orientation, supporting the third classical law of conservation. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 17:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

As I reckon, starting from a fixed known frame of reference, the path integrals of potential energy to kinetic energy-momenta into thermal energy exchanges, with a cyclic return to its original equivalent configuration, always integrate back to virtually 0, in the linear translation, angular translation, and positional configuration, for macro-meso-micro scale statistically conservative force systems from a starting frame of reference. So it is something more than just a conservation of center of mass, but a centroid of mass and configuration, as the angular and configuration are important, as much as translational parameters of a sealed unit, or a fully-accounted-for closed-system. The initial velocity and angular momentum, when non-zero, add onto the relative motions for that frame of reference. I cannot tell if they add linearly to the frame of reference of the proposed missing third law of conservation to a frame of reference of a configuration form, that I recall, or if the initial frame of reference has special nonlinear differential properties about the angular momentum calculations, to make the third proposed law, non-conservative to that moving initial frame of reference for that sealed unit. My guess is that the third classical conservation law holds for all nonrelativistic initial frames of reference, at the least, and all relativistic frames of reference, at the most, for a sealed unit of some initial configuration, that is returned back to that initial configuration, through closed work paths. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 18:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Now is this actually a conservation law, would be interesting to know, or is it a product of conservation of energy in classical macroscopic materials? And what would be the difference, in the list of conservations, if any but semantics? If it is a product of the integration of macroscopic work paths, what name and subject does it go under? Somewhere around here, among other calculus formulae: [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 08:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green%27s_theorem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence_theorem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss_theorem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes_theorem

== Bank Forclosure Bankruptcy Bailout in Rough Numerical Terms ==

AD 2008 09 30 (political satire ... or is it)

So lets say the government spends 700,000,000,000[$] to assist the banks of forclosure bankruptcy, and most homes that have declined in prices are of the lower price range, as higher price homes keep their value. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 19:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC) If the median forclosure home price is 300,000[$/home], and the government spends 700,000,000,000[$] to BUYOUT all homes from the bankrupt banks that are forclosed, that makes (700,000,000,000[$] / 300,000[$/home]) = 2,333,333[home]. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 19:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC) If the median home price is 300,000[$/home], and the government spends 700,000,000,000[$] to ASSIST all bank's home price decline at 30% loan support, from the bankrupt banks that are forclosed, that makes (700,000,000,000[$] / (300,000[$/home] * 0.30)) = 7,777,777[home]. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 19:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Given that the US has 300,000,000[person-USA], 7,200,000[person-imprisoned-US], 0.13[person-poverty-homeless-or-nonmoving-USA / person-USA], 0.75[person-adult-USA/person-USA], 0.70[person-home-USA/person-rent-USA], 0.125[home-move-2000-2008 / home] rate, we have approximately: (A) (300,000,000[person-USA]-7,200,000[person-imprisoned-US])*(1 - 0.13)[person-nonpoverty-USA]*(0.75)[person-adult-USA/person-USA]*(0.70)[person-home-USA/person-rent-USA] = 133,736,400[home-USA] (B) 133,736,400[home-USA] * 0.125[home-move-2000-2008 / home] = 16,717,050[home-move-2000-2008]. This gives a rate of forclosures for all home-level person-mover-groups in the last 8 years of about: LOW: 2,333,333/16,717,050 = 0.272 (14.0%), one-seventh-of-home-mortgages HIGH: 7,777,777/16,717,050 = 0.908 (46.5%). half-of-home-mortgages For 400,000[$/bailout-home] that would be approximately 10.5% low, 34.9%. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 19:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

For 400,000[$/bailout-home], and 0.3[mortgage-paid-average] that would be approximately 15.0% low, 49.8% high. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 19:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC) So, for the last decade, were a disturbingly large portion of mortgages really bogus agreements? And furthermore, that the average home is *still* overpriced to demand capacity by at least around 30%? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeownership_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_states#Economy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_in_the_united_states#Unemployment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uspop.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailout_bill "To protect the world from devastation To unite all people's within our nation To denounce the evils of truth and love To extend our reach to the stars above Jessie, James, and meowth's my name, Team Rocket blast off at the speed of light Surrender now or prepare to fight. We're Team Rocket and we fight for what's wrong, For mayhem, and madness, and rare pokemon I'm so gorgeous, I'm always the man You're just the players in my master plan." Pokemon - Team Rocket. (The earth's typical life directives, US economy ethics, and US elected national, state, and local government functions.) [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 20:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_Rocket#Team_Rocket "We deal with cryptids every day ... we live in the world of impossible." Cartoon Network, Secret Saturdays. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 19:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Saturdays Yakov Smirnoff - "Amerika: What a country!" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakoff_Smirnoff == You may read my (talk) writings, also a work in progress. == I skimmed your discussion page that looked like a post page. I posted the below comment there and removed it to find this page. Sorry if I posted the wrong spot. Perception is an unusual issue, that all can perceive, but no one can "pass" or "share" between consciousnesses, except through abstract communication symbols, which are perceptions in and of themselves. The core problem, as I see it, is how mere emergent distributed system properties, give rise to the tangibles of *singular* *continual* "soul" / being / "spirit" sensations. I attribute it to quantum physics entanglement measurement instantaneous wavefunction collapses, but can't yet fully get to the systems QM mathematics enough to formulate it. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 07:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC) Currently, I am just getting into Foundations and Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics (revisionist version 2001), for more gist on the subject, for formalizing the systems math. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 07:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC) Quantum consciousness, EPR Paradox, John Wheeler, E. P. Wigner, John von Neumann*, David Chalmers, Roger Penrose, and even Max Tegmark, have some definitions and allusions to consciousness, or in my view, structured macroscopic matter's, relationship to measurement wavefunction collapses, and instantaneous self too. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 21:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Pro positions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hameroff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_H._Pribram http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Stapp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._P._Wigner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_neumann http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers Contrary positions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Tegmark http://www.sustainedaction.org/Explorations/problem_with_quantum_mind_theory.htm John von Neumann: Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics: AD 1955. Discusses the measurement partitioning issue of unitary evolution and nonunitary nonlinear wavefunction collapse, and the illusory boundary between the microscopic and macroscopic, where macroscopic systems are unitary for all intents, but become nonlinear for mystery measurement reasons. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 21:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC) My writings with some monad systemic connectedness thoughts, (try search or browser-page-highlight for "quantum", "measurement", "soul", "entanglement", and "instantaneous"): [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 21:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LoneRubberDragon http://lonerubberdragon.blogspot.com/ == The Problem Caused by the Psychophysical Paradox, (et cetera). Hello LongRubberDragon == Sorry I didn't pick up messages for a while. I am somewhat baffled by your comment below. Which talk page did you skim? What exactly did you skim? Kindly, help me clarify this confusion. As regards Qunatum Theory, I myself am devising a comletely modified Quantum Theory, where I show all the errata in the current theory, I also explain and answer question that the current theory cannot answer satisfactorily, And I also answer question that the current theory hasn't even asked, since they are outside of its paradigm. Let me assure you that whatever you are developing, regardless of how impressive, laborious and profound it may be - is missing on the answers that my development theory provides, not necessarily because I am smarter (or stupider) than you, but by the definition of "questions outside of the paradigm. - - - I find it not impressive nor laborious, what I write, as I AM only amature here, "combing my short hair". I know it is incmplete, so I do not need to be assured. Do you think I am God-complete? Do you think I am posing as God-complete? If I wrote that somewhere I am God-complete, please point it out, so I may remove or annotate right the things in my writings. Really, I would prefer to hear things that I do not know yet, or have forgotten; that are single-True, multiple-True-undecideable-indistinguishable, useful-Falses, and that which are still current unknown-status. Your confidence appears strong, so I would like to see for myself your writing on QP / QM, and hope it is accessible and progressive for my understanding level. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 11:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC) I posted on your test article page first (then removed), then posted it to your talk page (and it remained). [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 11:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC) In particular, I explain, in a multidimensional universe, why quantum theory cannot possibly explain the conscious-self, or "psych"' unless we modify it. you can write to me directly via-email to: [mailto:shimon_y@barak.net.il] Please read this quote: [[:Image:MagrittePipe.jpg|thumb|200px|right|''[[The Treachery of Images]] (La trahison des images)'' (1928–1929) This is [[René Magritte]]'s depiction of the '''Psychophysical Paradox''', see "''The Psychophysical Paradox in Art''", below]] The problem emanates from the failure of these multiple [[academic discipline|disciplines]], to explain the very existence of a [[concious]] '[[self]]', or ''[[psyche (psychology)|psyche]]'', which is capable of [[cognition]] and [[perception]] (particularly [[human cognition]] and perception). It follows, obviously, that these disciplines fail to neither explain nor even address the relationship of this psychic cognitive perception to the real-world as conceived in science and [[philosophy]], essentially through this [[amorphic]], scientifically undefined human perception and cognition-capable [[concious]] self. This failure constitutes a violation (and a paradox) on the parts of science and philosophy, of the prerequisites that they must meet, which are the existence, recognition, understanding and [[formulation]], within them, of this human perception and cognition-capable concious self, upon which, both science and philosophy fundamentally rely. - - - I would say they fail to explain *fully* and *completely* and *backgrounded* and *all sure disproofs of what is not* (like Michaelson Moreley Aether Test Disproof), as there are growing detailed knowings of psyche parts in science, but this is not concluded, if it is even possible to conclude complete knowledge in completion of all science into the sure-fullness-process. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 11:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC) If you read Artificial Intelligence, Chaos, Neural Networks, Systems, Cybernetics, Computer Theory, Analog Processing Systems, Information Processing (visual, audio, linguistic, other perceptuals), and Neuroscience, you will get a *flavor* of the underlying details. But the pragmatism of sentience is rather weak, even if also greatly improving, in the evidence of technology capabilities not privatized. Definitely alot of painfully detailed and extensive work to do in the realm without controlled bootstrap sentience systems+programs machine-agents that are many many times faster and broader than human thinking, to assist human slowness and confusions on earth, as all humans may be utterly incapable of reaching for the ultimate knowledge collection, integration, control, and publishing, the way humans seem to behave on earth. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 11:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC) (The Problem Caused by the Psychophysical Paradox) There is a major problem for science in this paradox. Basically, whenever science refers to the real-world, it assumes at the outset the role of human psychic [[recognition]] and perception in it, particularly the role (and existence) of a concious self, as the unique and only channel available to science, through which to refer to the real-world. However, the question of the existence of a concious self is subject to a plethora of debate, but there is as yet no satisfactory explanation in science (such as physics) for it. Therefore, science seems to take the [[effect]] for granted, without neither addressing nor explaining the [[cause]], as expected of it. The absence of a proper [[scientific model]], and formulation of this elusive, amorphic concious self, may give rise to [[religious]] and [[spirituality]] claims that science is limited, or worse - is nonsense. - - - It comes and goes many ways, I agree. The problem of complexity causes a natural confusion, in that Leibniz writing of the "incomplete notion". I have heard so-called science source say there is thouroughly-proven-experimentally, no holistic soul, only emergent properties of the reductionism collection, alone, and all else is incoherent and non-influence on the meso-scale. I have heard so-called science sources say there is faith-unknown-experimentally, a holistic soul effect self-same to the emergent reductionist collection. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 11:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Personally speaking of tangibles, when I see color or hear sound, is that what reductionist collections of atoms do, alone? Or is perceptions a composite physical effect of the holistic meso-scale with the reductionist micro-scale. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 11:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC) The major problem, is understanding the QP / QM experiments results / reliability, as related to even small complex systems experiments, to comprehend the truth of what QP / QM says regarding complex-structure processing meso-scale systems to self-evolution, micro-scale QP / QM, and cosmic connections, if any can be determined. Admittedly, the experiments must be clever and sensitive and temporal, and written accurately to truth and to be accessible enough to all, and the results will nail down some loose ends of what ISN'T true, as well as what IS true, of complex systems over the micro-scale QP /QM. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 11:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC) And science is limited, indeed, as QP / QM is often noted as having more than one interpretation that will "never" be distinguishable, as Hidden Variables Interactions or Schrodinger Wave Function With Measurement, are said to be mathematically and empirically indistinguishable now and the foreseeable forever of meso-scale life in the universe. Many say there is no holistic soul as QP / QM cannot do anything but purely random uncorrelated measurement projections of wave functions seen in all the collections of processing matter experiments performed and analyzed and summarized and published true. But the explanations are so complex and non-code-uninteractive, that most all "perception-humans" must take QP KNOWN science on faith as much as all "religious" faith claims. I agree, such science claims should be scientifically accurate and not wasted unpublished, as religious or philosophical claims can error more than science, if science's fidelity can be relied upon what is known true, known false, and unknown status, properly cataloged to the limits and freely published, if that's possible on *this* earth. Otherwise we will be going around in circles on this planet, forever until apocalyptic natural disaster, or the stars stop fusing at the end of energy and meso-scale-only biomolecule-only-life. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 11:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC) I will email you later, to hopefully receive for reading your QP / QM writings or reference texts, for substances of math and systems of processing-systems / life. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 11:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC) (The Psychophysical Paradox in Art) Famous for its inscription ''Ceci n'est pas une pipe'' ({{Pronunciation|Fr-Ceci-n-est-pas-une-pipe.ogg}}), [[French language|French]] for "This is not a pipe", [[René Magritte]]'s ''[[The Treachery of Images]] (La trahison des images) (1928–1929)'', (see image above) is an outstaning and renowned [[depiction]] of the Psychophysical Paradox. This [[depiction]] of the Psychophysical Paradox gives rise to yet another [[paradox]], which is that both statements, "''This is not a pipe''", and - "''This is a pipe''", which are [[Logically]] and [[Linguistically]] [[mutually]] [[contradictory]], and thus cannot be neither [[simultaneously]] [[false]] nor [[simultaneously]] [[true]], can, in fact, be [[conceived]], or [[perceived]] to be either [[simultaneously]] [[true]] or [[simultaneously]] [[false]]. This is not all, however. The Psychophysical Paradox is demonstrated here by the plethora of seemingly most [[simple]], but profoundly most [[complex]], perhaps even unanswerable questions that it raises, such as: ''What is Pipe?'', ''Where is Pipe?'', ''What is [[Painting]] of Pipe?'', ''How can [[Painting]] [[show]] Pipe?'' ''What is [[show]]?'', ''How can I [[see]] Pipe in [[Painting]]?'', ''How can I [[see]] Pipe?'', ''How can I [[see]]?'', ''What is [[see]]?'', ''What is [[I (pronoun)|"I"]] ?'', etc. - - - I see, the middle of the problem, resides within, the finite interpretation context, of the psychological-perceptual domain-realm. For example, we say, (1a) that there is a pipe somewhere. At the same time, we say, (1b) it is particle-fields, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, molecules, cellulose, wood, serves a function. Furthermore we say, (1c) the thing may be from other realms incomplete in our knowledge, also. So, (2a) to call it a pipe, that denies what it is. And, (2b) to not call it a pipe, that denies what it is. To fix the context, one can say many things, (3a) that it is a pipe among many other things. Or say, (3b) that it is cellulose wood cells among many other things. Or (3c) that one can hold up the pipe in question, face to face. In all, it is partly known, in the psychological realm of finite human, but becomes known in places, through presences, or through representations of the presence, if unavailable in some presence. The problem on earth, is when opinions and parital truths are mixed-intermingled. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 10:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC) (The Challenge) It remains a challenge to various disciplines of science to achieve a proper scientific model, and formulation of the as yet elusive and amorphic [[entities]] of concious self, psyche, cognition and perception, as well as the relation between them and the real-world. Some of the difficulty to achieve this stems from the [[multidisciplinary]] nature of this major problem, and the very question of which disciplines are (or should be) actually involved in addressing it. [[User:Shimon Yanowitz|Shimon Yanowitz]] ([[User talk:Shimon Yanowitz|talk]]) 08:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Thanks --[[User:Shimon Yanowitz|Shimon Yanowitz]] ([[User talk:Shimon Yanowitz|talk]]) 08:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC) == The arrogant occam's razor and the true occam's razor, in the face of complexity. == An arrogant occam's razor is only predisposed to see what is simplistic, as all complex systems are forbidden, that may contain better integrative interfaces to extant theory. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 06:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC) A true occam's razor is predisposed to see all of the modes of what is possible, as complex systems that are potentially more comprehensive than the most simplistic of theories, is permitted. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 06:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC) The arrogant occam's razor is only applicable to studying the simplicty of things in disjoints of territories that are forbidden to meet, or only meet painfully, and thus, will not reach into holistic complexity, as holistic complexity isn't assumed to exist, and is considered an abstract illusion like the mathematics of physics near the reduced fields, meso-informations and macro-meso-life potentials themseves. It's inherent weaknesses is sole-reductionism, and compartmentalization, as in secret systems processing lower level processes, unless the top level is all-perfect in its ways, where apparent error is deep perfection in untenable world circumstances, in which case true occam's razor resides over arrogant occam's razor. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 06:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC) The true occam's razor is applicable to studing the territories of things, and the holistic integration of things, as holistic complexity is considered real, entering into accesible abstract system, even spiritual domains, that are even immaterial in its informationality. It is a domain of eternal-incomplete-free-thought and parsing the products into right places of all things. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 06:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Ockham http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor == Illusion-deception-control molecular dispersion. == Fiction. [[Image:ChineseChemFiction.gif]] Formerly 72352241-26.gif (C) 2008 LoneRubberDragon-Draashek'gaons-SET-236-765-171-732-926. Permission for Wiki integration within wiki use in articles / discussion, with reference citation next to image, and note reference on LoneRubberDragon discussion page for personal reference. [DIFFERENT FRAGMENT APPROXIMATE TRANSLATION:[multiple type develop] [artificial meso-molecules durable] ["infinite" dilution] [persistent-durable multi-modal conversion-catalytic reactions products functions] [each type many contains specialized biological interactive influence control type optimize human and machine] [systematic influence molecular selection] [dispersion undetectable under nominal social vigilance of majority immortals] [digitals unaffected] [repeat with mirror symmetry application digital machine] [both systems toppled influenced negatively weapon] [core-middle-kingdom] [matter detection through fluid complete "infinite" molecular assay] [digit detection through digital complete disassembly asssay] [detection deterence] [select person molecular match counteragent innoculate] [innoculate core-middle-kingdom socials, environmentals, infrastructures] [mortality of all other systems enabled in perpetuity subjection] [immortal systems remain control over mortalized systems of field-earth] [undetected middle-kingdom method control field] [revise history mental reduction undetect perpetuate] [deception disseminate control manage]] [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC) == A wave equation in formulation study == (theoretical) [[Image:AWaveEquation.gif]] A first iteration of an approximate pure evolution wave equation in a shorthand differential-transform-particle=set-integral notation, for particles of evolving complex function momenta, with weighted particle "charges" and variable force values, with second derivatve differential in space represented loosely in fourier domain. In the second term, summation, it is in a first iteration of the grammar (and so is of an approximate impressionistic syntax). [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 14:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC) All text and images throughout all posts and talk pages of LoneRubberDragon, (C) 2008 LoneRubberDragon,SET,236,765,171,732,Draashek'gaons, permission for use within /en.wikipedia.org, using citations links to this talk page. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 14:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC) [[Image:AWaveEquation2.gif]] Second iteration of a more refined syntax of an approximate version of a pure evolution differential wave equation for multiple abstract "particle probability fields", and showing some approximate expected "target" behavior illustrations, that the equation iterations are intended to approach. The equations appear to require complex wave functions with smooth derivatives down to zero value to operate. The equations do require multi-valued fields to support the interactive en-folding of wave functions "traveling" in time-space. The first equation reads term by term in english as, (a) The second derivative of the wave function in time EQUALS (b) The inverse fourier transform in frequency (omega) of the negative transfer rate T(1) times the fourier transform of the wave function in x PLUS (c) The trasfer rate T(2) times the sum of all different wave function to wave function interactions of (d) The negative of the first derivative of the "current" (n) wave function in x TIMES the product of the "current" (n) and "other" (m) wave function force DIVIDED the mass of the "current" (n) wave function TIMES (e) The integral of the "other" (m) wave function force contribution by distance power relation (D^P) between the differential element dx(m) and the "current" wave function. The second equation reads, (a) The integral of any (n) one wave function equals 1.0. All of the wave function are complex numbers, and potentially multi valued in space (with overlapping, reflections, and self "entanglement" in numerous possible chaotic foldings. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC) The horizontal line shows the desired equation behavior in one dimension in magnitude-only, of an actual 1-D complex wave function. Wave function 4, on the line shows a feature of wave function folding, where the wave function is allowed to hold multiple states in space to represent a traveling changing wave function with leading edges that can reverse and overlap other parts of the wave function. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Below the horzontal line is three points in time t(a), t(b), t(c) of the spatial grid of a wave function in two dimensions as it is initialted, travels, and collides with a much more massive stationary repulsive wave function point. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC) The third time t(c) shows a distinct spatial fold-over as some of the wave function "grid" is spatially-reflected, while other sections are spatially-deflected but not-reflected. Certain subtle issues appear to arise in "energy"-conservatively defining spatial wave functions with leading spaces of higher momentum and trailing spaces of lower momentum, at the edge of the current approximation definitions, not least is the obvious function enfolding which requires multi-valued fields and has hard cusp-catastrophe curves in reflecting enfolding zones. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophe_theory#Cusp_catastrophe == Slow light == Is this your experimental setup? [[Image:Light Snapper.svg|350px|thumb]] At the top I show the macro view. The blue line is the putative light path. (Since we never see the light, who is to know?) In my very crude device a rapid downward acceleration is supplied and some light is sure to be "in" the LRD. In the bottom half of the SVG I give an impressionistic view of several atoms that have moved to and fro so rapidly that you see them "twice" due to persistance of vision. (I actually have a photo where some guy in a parade turned his head from left to right just as I clicked the shutter, and he has two very clear faces.) I have taken the "picture" from the inertial frame of the laser and the detection screen. Immediately I wonder what the electrical fields look like in, e.g., a salt crystal. Must not the electrons approximate very closely an unvarying distrubution? They will be doing an intricate dance to keep away from each other, and they will be unable to move anywhere unless something else moves first. Anything that perturbs them will be "healed" by the need to get away from each other -- kind of like trying to poke your finger into a bowl of water and make a depression. How anybody could extract information out of that system without creating a much bigger effect than the tiny results of photon passage between electrons in the system is unclear to me. Suppose that it turned out that repeated knocks by the hammer would cause the photons to be delivered along a band instead of at a spot. Then I guess you could assert that something of equivalent magnitude must have happened -- at least it must have happened to the entire homeostatic system of electrons in the LRD. I guess you could then slow things down to where only one photon at a time was going through the device, and try to correlate hammer blows with target deflections. Isn't it kind of like a person picking his way through across a ten lane highway at traffic jam time? He doesn't hit any of the cars. Sometimes he finds a hole moving right to where he wants to walk, and so doesn't have to walk around a car that would have blocked his way if he were in a big disorderly parking lot (or if the whole jam ground to a stop). Sometimes a car moves so that it is directly in the way and the guy has to wait for it to move on or else move into the hole behind the car. Depending on the spacing and arrangement of electrons in a LRD, it seems to me that, statistically speaking, each photon might fare equally well depending on whether the electrons were moving relative to its intended path. Suppose that we just had an ordinary glass disk for photons to pass through, and that we could cause it to rotate rapidly (like rolling a spyglass around between your palms). Would the rate of rotation make any difference to anything? You might be able to mount a cylindrical LRD at the center point of turbine making, say, 180,000 rpm. The bigger around you could make the LRD, the greater the effect. Back to the diagram above. Everyday thinking suggests that a photon goes along a single line (hence the dotted blue line in the lower diagram). If that is not true, maybe you would have to calculate all the paths and all the interactions that a field could have with a photon and then sum them. Of course making those calculations would literally take forever, no? But as with thermodynamics there are probably ways to get a good approximation. And you would still have the problem with experimentally verifying the results. Another simile. Suppose that somebody regularly observed hail falls. Then they created a huge plastic fishnet cover for the Astro-dome and gave it a static charge. With a single layer of netting, perhaps the balls of hail would tend to recreate the pattern of the web on the ground. But if there were hundreds of layers of netting separated from each other far enough that the layers would not bunch up somehow, what would be the outcome? Could the experienced observer on the ground notice any difference in the pattern of falling hail? All of the quantum eraser experiments I have looked at actually do something reversible to the sub-atomic particles they employ. Light can get its polarization changed. It can get thrown out of phase, a psi-function can get split and sent down two physically isolated paths. Interference does not work because polarities of the photon and itself are crossed, because it is out of phase with itself, or because it ends up in one place and it ends up in another place. So if a LRD device "measures" a photon, then it ought to do something to the photon that we all could notice, no? As the son of the samurai village headman said to Tom Cruise in ''The Last Samurai,''You! Too many thinking." I should quit now. [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 05:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC) I thought of something else on the drive back from giving exams: I am guessing that the LRD is crystalline in nature and that because of its structure there are some electrons that are shared in a way that the electrons in the outermost shell of each atom "float," i.e., are not uniquely associated with any one nucleus. Are these electrons then entangled? And if they are entangled, then how could any effects due to the passage of an electron through a LRD be localized? Wouldn't the passage of a photon through an LRD be analogous to the passage of a marble through a tank of water? I.e., the marble does not leave any enduring trace of its passage in the water. An even better example might be the way a weighted wire passes through a sheet of glass. Would even the positions of nuclei be greatly affected? What I mean to suggest is that the system that influences the photon may be so large that any change in that system would be within the limits of quantum uncertainty, and also would be "healed" by homeostatic/elastic reactions of the system to any local displacements that could be imputed on a mathematical basis to the passage of a photon through the system. :My thought experiment is morphologically similar to the two slit device, except for the bringing together of the two optical axes onto one side of the light cone (left path right path converge), that is in my experiment more specifically, a half silver mirror EPR, or a polarized entangled photon pair which show non-local entanglement when measured. The one you display essentially correlates the photons right on the same screen at the end, not not over an EPR non-local distance. I think in a two slit device, if you could ring the entire optically homogenious slow light device, with two slit light passing through, that at the screen the strong stripe interference pattern would have some threshold of multipath interference patterns superimposed from the ringing, as some light paths are almost perfectly short, and some other light paths are lengthened. And, yes, it is definitely not a desktop experiment as much as thought experiment for checking what the math of Quantum Mechanics says about holistic entangled wavefunction behavior. I suppose if you did spin an ideal slow light glass disk in front of a double slit, or even optical glass, that the interference pattern would show some rotational interference effect in its longer paths through moving matter, approximately rotating a fixed angle perhaps, loosely like polarized light through sugar water gets rotated on the photon axis. However, for regular optical glass or diamonds, the light would only have a few picosecond of travel in the glass, so an ideal quantum slow light device is the only thing that might show a visible effect of rotational interference pattern effects. The hammer, or a piezoelectric crystal at MHz on ordinary optical material lengths would more likely show a variable interference control on a two slit interference pattern in ordinary glass or diamond, but the interference may be too small to measure compared to an ideal slow LRD. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 14:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC) One of the parts of the ''Scientific American'' article on quantum erasers is an experiment that the article presents as though it was a real experiment but is in fact a thought experiment. Electrons are shot through a double slit and collected on a detection screen where they form an interference pattern. Then a strong beam of light is directed at whatever comes out of the double slit apparatus, and the beam's action is sufficient to cause destruction of the interference pattern. Next, a lens is placed so as to catch the photons that have been deflected by their collisions with electrons and focus them on a light detection device (a little telescope). By so doing, the "which path" information provided by them initially would be lost since, having been focused to a single point one could no longer tell where any one of them had come from. After this wrinkle had been introduced, the article asserted, the interference pattern of the electrons would reappear since the "which path" information had been erased. :That may be the very article I read ... especially if it was before Scientific Ameican went all commercial magazine. As a thought experiment, does *that* quantum eraser illustrate a real effect, even if it is too small to observe in regular "earthly" states, or with their suggested apparatus. Or are you hinting that it might be proven false by now, in this form of quantum eraser posed. Or is this article stating that it is a known logical inversion being proved to be self contradictory, like saying square-root-2 is rational, but finding it is self contradiction, thus showing the "irrational" thought experiment start premise, when square-root-2 is an irrational number. Or like Michaelson Morley starting with a testable ether, and then *proving* the ether doesn't exist that way. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 14:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC) I almost immediately concluded that the article had to be a thought experiment, because a real experiment would be of very great importance, too important not to receive frequent mention. It would be so important because every other eraser actually does something to reverse a physical change (e.g., a change in polarity of the light in one or more beams). But in the thought experiment nothing has been done to un-do the random scattering of electrons caused by the photon beam. :I rather concluded it was great importance material that government, industry, or university have classified based on economic study importance, and so not much is said until it can be understood, or capitalized on some model, or included in literatire as a thought abberation anti-type. A current example is "Ghost Imaging" or non interactive photon imaging of silhouettes which is only mentioned on few sites and SA recently, but appears to have government, military, or university funding. But maybe it is another polywater, also from SA. Otherwise, that's a good experiment concept. The thought being, a cross cutting beam of light relative to moving interfering electrons and destroying interference ... has electron interference restored when the light is focussed onto a spot after the electrons would be measured. I wonder, if electron scattered light would form a halo around the focus, if the halo were adjusted geometrically in the experiment so that the photons focussed on a point, would *those* focus-related electrons share a restored interference pattern? The key being, some percentage of halo scattered photons are focussed, preventing *measuring* path information to be activated among the focus measured photons, about those scattered electrons. In fact, as you focus the halo, I might even expect different populations of scattered electrons to pass through an interference pattern focus. But if angular focus information of photon approach is permanently "hidden-measured" in the thermal energy of the focus, then the electrons have *basically* been measured which path, at the light focus, and remain scattered. Tough one, that no one has smashed this old SA paper idea to the floor after many years since publication, as you mention. I'll have to think more about this "quantum eraser" description you bring back to memory. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 14:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_imaging http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywater Again, I have been thinking too much, and all without the possibility of building the apparatus and seeing what Nature has to say about these ideas. Time to quit. [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 06:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC) :Thanks for spending the time thinking and wondering. I think I may be the one with too many questionings, and a few too many holes in my own data. Yeah, you would think macroscopic quantum physics system character would now be full of solid experimental data of all known false premises and foundation premises. That's why I love Michaelson Morley, the famous false premise, that's remembered for its known tested false. Much like relativity, to come surplanting numerous patch-work ideas, before relativity unified a number of disparate nonlinearity anomalies, into one idea. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 15:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Perception :Unrelated thinking, but related, is what percpetion is, as I pereive, and what it engenders. A phasor data bounces around matter coherently ... and that equals seeing the colors themselves in a two dimensional Z-plane of self? Store three thumbers in a computer ... and that is color perception for the machine itself. Store three dimensional neural patterns in a brain ... and that is more than just monads of related behavior, but are actually felt collectively-holistically as an extended egosphere of partcular color. An egosphere of color, light, sound, and so forth, signifies a thing, of some structure, of a self, which agregates "only isolated Leibnitz' monads" into a collection that is there *and* is felt, both. What entangled meta-photon of Leibnitz' infinity perception is this, in the mere biomolecular structures? When structured molecules are moved a certain way, that is heat, measureable heat, and felt as heat, and moved another way, that is cold, measureable cold, and felt as cold. A signal from the ear ... that is sound. I look at a screen with printed black and white phasors, and I see no color. Reprogram the brain a little, and the printed black and white phasors can be made colored. Meta-photon bandwidth matching allows this in the brain and on computer. Certain reprogramming can remove color perception. One may make 1000 people on a field move a certain way, and you can have a 1000 pixel color image, because their shapes contain "colors" at a translation not normally visible needing translation from morphological into color space. It speaks that a translation set of matter + X forms holistic perceptual structure types. Humans say there's no homunculus, so what plane is simultaneous and real(?), as such a holistic homunculus must be distributed in the fabric of matter itself, but be structured for holism of a kind of correlated locus of additional processing existence. Or is the human particle so massive and structured that it simply and systematically wraps up countless dimensions of entangled photons to resolve a time-space like sphere of existence? Hmmm, could be like a finite black hole singularity of some rare functions of wavefunctions that can alter collective probabilities. And a rock on the beach sees yellow sun and blue sky, just much less so structured measurement. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 15:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC) DNA color codes :Even more unrelated, I recently supposedly studied the DNA of a sample human and sample chimpanzee, from the human genome project and chimpanzee genome project. Chromosomes 1 through 9 match well, but (not mentioned in the video) I found in chomosome 5 or so, that I had to transpose some base letter encodes of a large block of DNA to make a segment of that chromosome show its matching color pattern, which is weird. That means, so far the potentials are, (1) the NCBI website has erroneous transcribed DNA for a segment of its data, (2) humans have a piece of working DNA fixed by a major transcription error reversal in primate history, (3) humans have a dead piece of working DNA broken by a major transcription error creation in primate history, (4) humans have a segment of dual coding DNA that can serve useful functions when flipped one encode way or the other encode way, in some specific letter re-assignment, similar to the letter swap edit rule that I found for that segment of chromosome 5-ish that I had to produce for the video I made, shown below. The letter color retranslation worked so well, I figure it must be a real effect somewhere between the chimpanzee data and the human data. What might you think? [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 16:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEk6ESOZOdU == Heisenberg matrices == I have been trying to write something intelligible for the beginner about what Heisenberg did to solve the problems left in the old quantum mechanics theory. In "Understanding Heisenberg's 'magical' paper of July 1925: a new look at the calculatioal details" by Ian J.R Aitchison, et al, there are several formulae right at the beginning of the article. I never could connect them to the reality of experiments until I ran across a mention of the Ritz combination principle in a couple of other contexts and realized that it is essentially an '''empirical''' finding. The way Heisenberg multiplies transition amplitudes is given in the formula: Y (n, n − β) = Σ �X(n, n − α)X(n − α, n − β) (#10 in the article) and that is '''it''' as far as understanding what he was doing. It turned out that the formula could be displayed in matrix format, and that made people feel better about it. (And I guess that once they could see more clearly what was going on they expanded the original equation to be able to cover other situations more easily.) I think his point, and the point that led to the matrix explanation, is that you can't validly write: Y (n, n − β) = Σ (over infinity) X(n − α, n − β)X(n, n − α) And I think that the experimental reason for that is that if you watched an electron drop from a high orbital to a mid orbital, you would see one photon and could measure its frequency, and if the same electron dropped from its mid orbital to a low orbital, you could again measure the frequency of the resulting photon. If you tried to do it the other way around you would have to have patch two entirely separate events together. :The way the matrices are constructed, values are arrayed according to frequencies. That could simply be a matter of orderliness. Maybe it does not have experimental significance. :On the other hand, the experiments and theorizing that were involved in the dispersion research involved electrons that made transitions from state A to state B by way of an intermediate state C, so in that case the (A,C) transitions were very closely related to the (C,B) transitions. I worked through some of the ideas above and want to include them in the beginning QM article. Please have a look at [[User:Patrick0Moran/Heisenberg_matrix|this document]]. [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) :I will ocntinue to work on this draft. :I will look into the archiving feature. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 11:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC) :I am not intimate with the Heisenberg matrix, so I am using secondary materials to study your paper precision. I can understand a basic hydrogen state model given by the Rydberg equation of state transition frequency (1/wl) (and of the Rydberg-Ritz combination principle), but I must digest your paper along with the other Heisenberg matrix descriptions, to make a good judgement. I hope the other papers here, help a bit ... from which I can grasp the Google books fourier HM example, which then introduces an a,b transition definition of Rydberg-Ritz. Your paper could connect this space equation example to matrix formulation for periodic approximation. For now, I don't understand all of your n-a and n-b discussion regarding "deriving n, a, b". For the lower energy states of simple atom models like hydrogen, the changing from ground state to the first few higher states prouces an exact spectral series. The same is true from ground+1 to a few higher states. And so on for a few ground+a states. The only thing creating uncertainty in these lines is slight thermal motion, or the state brevity bradening the line. Where there is uncertainty in Rydberg equation derivation, is among near ground to far from ground state jumps, where more than one transition can be similar, or far from ground jumps, like from state "100" to "110" that also looks alot like a jump from state "110" to "121". But for the first derivation, even though some a to b transition is unknown exactly, the near-ground state changes allow many a to b to be determined. The google book is "Quantum Mechanics" by Hecht of Springer (Verlag) 2000, and one of my favorites on many subject spatial equations is, "The Picture Book of Quantum Mechanics" by Brandt/Dahmen of Springer-Verlag 1995. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 11:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC) ::(insert) I can see something related to complex systems. Imagine two complex quantum particles with complex internal measurement-to-next-reaction transitions. One resembles a simple tree with many levels of branches based on specific measurement conditionals to reactions. The other resembles a nested loop structure with many levels of nesting based on measurement conditionals. They can both appear identically indistinguishable to QM to determining what model is real, to a universal passive measurement device for long periods of time, but the nested loop structure can have coherently similar character, but with a complex relation to measurements, using internal degrees of freedom in the nested loop structure, that similar but not identical temporal messages of interpretation that are only abstractly correlatable in finite time frames of interpretation. QM may give rise to at the least an entanglement processing soul paralleling the neural spatial mass of matter, or not, but are indistinguishable to the very QM that gives rise to that hypothesis for testing, because a field theory cannot distinguish measurements of macroscopic model differentials without becoming macroscopic. *Dragon shrugs shoulders* I think I'm chasing my tail (oroboro). [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 14:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC) http://books.google.com/books?id=jcDb7iRvI0AC&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=%2B%22heisenberg+matrix%22&source=web&ots=YTfI1vxZvD&sig=oMDHjWBHFujK1XHghKPA_MvvFd4&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA80,M1 http://www.physics.iitm.ac.in/~labs/dynamical/pedagogy/slbala/heisenberg.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_formula http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg-Ritz_combination_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectrum :Sorry, I should have given you the link to the essential article, the one that actually goes back to Heisenberg's original paper. I have added it at the end of: [[User:Patrick0Moran/Heisenberg_matrix]] One of the sources, probably that one, says that the position of the electron at the beginning could well be a superposition. The n-a, etc., business is how Heisenberg and the people of his time dealt with writing down the outcomes of how the Ritz principle works. It's actually written to say that an electron starts at a higher orbital, then falls from n to n-α, then falls again to n-β. That is why there are the gaps in frequencies that you see in the bright-line frequency. As you move to the high energy end, and the electron moves farther and farther from the nucleus, the gaps between orbitals decrease until for all practical purposes they are infinitesimal, and at that point the classical equations hold. :So at classical scale the Heisenberg treatment follows the complementarity principle. Bohr, and lots of other people at his time, knew perfectly well how to do the part that worked with the classical formulas. But when they tried to use the classical formulas to account for the orbitals of lower energy electrons they predicted the same smooth range of frequencies of light emission, which of course is not what they saw in the laboratory. So what Heisenberg did was to re-write the classical equations so that they only permitted considering the photons that occurred when electrons fell from n to n-α,etc. The crucial part was that you had to formulate the multiplication of two frequencies (if that is what you wanted to compute) as one frequency (n to n-α) times a second frequency (n-α to n-β), so in the crucial (to me at least because that is Aitcheson's example) formula, the multiplication part is written as (n, n-α)(n-α, n-β) and that represents two photons produced by the fall of an electron in two stages from n to n-β. :This part is still a bit up in the air for me. The usual way of writing the sample matrices used to discuss why matrices are appropriate makes each of them have the same labels (n, n-r, n-r-r' along the top of both matrices, for instance). The discussions that involve the Heisenberg equations don't carry out the multiplications for more than one step, but it is clear that it is not the step that would result from multiplying the matrices mentioned immediately above. Sometimes by making things easier writers make them very much more difficult. The whole formula is clear to me except where they use capital letters. I can't find anything that states explicitly what these formalisms are intended to indicate, but I think it has to mean that if x is a single measurement of some kind then X is the sum of a series of measurements. Paraphrasing the article I mentioned, Starting from classical physics formulae, Heisenberg developed the following formula for expressing how transition amplitudes are to be multiplied together. $Y\left(n,n-\beta\right) = \sum_\left\{\infty\right\}^\left\{\right\} \, X\left(n,n-\alpha\right)X\left(n-\alpha,n-\beta\right)$ I think the above formula says that the product of the transition amplitudes (seen in nature as the intensities of the bright spectrum lines) is the sum of all of the amplitudes found by multiplying amplitudes (n, n-α) by amplitudes (n-α, n-β). What threw me was that the article's author menioned but did not explain the Ritz combination principle and I didn't understand the (n-whatever) part, i.e., I didn't understand where Heisenberg got it. But this is the formula that, according to that author, gives the basis of "Heisenberg's" matrices. Actually, it was his teachers and friends that realized that you could stuff all these numbers into matrices and make it lots clearer why the calculations were non-commutative. The matrix formulation came later. Lots of the secondary stuff says that Heisenberg populated matrices and then tried to make up some explanation for why the numbers came out that way That rather crazy idea made me want to see the original tables. Of course they never existed. All they would have had were lab measurements of the bright line spectrum frequencies and intensities. What they wanted was a formula that would predict both their values of frequency and of intensity. :On the other hand, Heisenberg seems to have been eating and drinking QM experiments, so the data was probably right there in his head. What initially bugged Heisenberg was apparently that if he wrote something like the following then the numbers came out different. Remember that this was when he had just started working on the problem, and all he had in mind was to be able to predict the bright line spectrum features. $Y\left(n,n-\beta\right) = \sum_\left\{\infty\right\}^\left\{\right\} \,X\left(n-\alpha,n-\beta\right) X\left(n,n-\alpha\right)$ The article that gave me most of the crucial information is: http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0404009 You're probably safer working from that article than with stuff that has made it through my buzz filter.[[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 19:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC) http://books.google.com/books?id=7qCMUfwoQcAC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=%22Ritz+Combination+Principle%22&source=web&ots=NSJuJfMvtx&sig=hmCeVvsKFtXcjlfYG3lFRJ_zr1k&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result gives more on the Ritz principle that relates it to the right hand half of the formula above. [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 19:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC) Lakshmibala's article (which I read before seeing your citation above)is useful, but much of what he says deals with the way things were described after the matrix way of modeling the atomic phenomena came into vogue. When I said that the exact state (value) of an electron when it started its descent into a lower orbital is unknown, I had in mind Lakshibala's statement: "Recall that, by performing an appropriate measurement on the system, we know the state of the system just after the measurement. Was this the state of the system before the measurement? Not necessarily! For, prior to the measurement, the system could have been in a linear superposition of different eigenstates, with unknown (and unguessable) coefficients." And a while later, "But, for a quantum system, a single measurement of any observable A yields one of the eigenvalues of A as the outcome, and collapses the state of the system to the corresponding eigenstate. Subsequent measurements made immediately thereafter would continue to yield the same eigenvalue." At this point the state of the electron is collapsed, and it starts its descent to an even lower energy level from there. :This part seems to be correct and crucial, but other people seem not to have mentioned it. Lakshmibala continues that we need to make trials on an ensemble of identically prepared systems and average the results. :Is that the reason that the classical equations use Fourier series and Heisenberg's system uses quantum-mechanical analog functions? (The "X" business.) One of the problems in understanding all of this stuff is that experimenters are dealing with macro measurements (line intensities and frequency values) on the one hand, and talking about micro activities on the other hand. It is possible that one could measure the frequency of a single photon, the result of the fall of an electron from one orbital to another. One might do that with an interferometer. But after the frequency measurement was made, what would have happened to other characteristics of the photon? Presumably they would have been changed. The measurement of any other characteristic of the photon could not be done simultaneously. :Heisenberg was working on atomic dispersion and he and colleagues had produced very precise measurements I believe. It was those experiments that influenced him to think about the states of electrons before and after transit from one energy state to another. Lakshmibala puts that idea in a slightly different way. Apparently he has in mind some experiment in which one could gain simultaneous information about two observables. (Most of the articles I have seen talk about doing one observation and following it with a second observation done immediately afterward.) Anyway, he says that if you do make such an observation, "It turns out that certain pairs of observables simply cannot be simultaneously measured to an arbitrarily high level of precision. The source of the problem is neither observational error nor the least count of the instruments used, but quantum mechanics itself!" He gives as proof of this statement the non-commuting nature of the matrices for the two observables. AB-BA != 0. But if you go back to the matrix expression of Heisenberg's formula, what happens is that all the differences in the two product matrices end up being things like AB having a cell filled with elements that are sort of the mirror images of BA. For instance, if one matrix represented frequency (f) and the other represented amplitude (a) and they were multiplied in that order you would get (writing → to indicate a transition in orbital): f(n → n)×a(n → n)'''+'''f(n → n-α)×a(n-α → n)'''+'''f(n → n-β)×a(n-β → n) etc. whereas if you multiplied amplitude by frequency you would get a(n → n)×f(n → n)'''+'''a(n → n-α)×f(n-α → n)'''+''' a(n → n-β)×f(n-β → n) :I'm not sure the above is correct. I must go over all the math once more. Just looking at these numbers in the abstract, they should all add up equal across the two matrices. The only difference between the two matrices that you will get by doing all these calculations lies in whether you replace the f's by a's and vice-versa. So the difference in the values for AB and for BA must lie in the sequence in which measurements are made. That operational meaning for these calculations must be included in our understanding of them. So why does it matter whether some value in the chart corresponds to the transition (n → n-α) or the transition (n-α → n-β)? I think that it's got to reflect the fact that in the real world it makes a difference which you measure first, because making that measurement inevitably changes/influences the second measurement. But if you are dealing entirely with frequencies, and multiplying two matrices populated by frequencies, I think it still turns out that they won't commute -- even though the measurement of the photons that are given off in the experiment doesn't do anything to the atoms that are radiating. The reason is that the photons sequentially emitted in (n → n-α)and (n-α → n-β)are pegged to the same n-α value, whereas if you look at (n-α → n-β)and (n → n-α) the n-α value is symbolically the same, but they are parts of two different events. (Something must have kicked an electron back to the n orbital in the interim, or, more likely, not even the same atom is involved.) :At the very least, f(n → n)×a(n → n) is different from a(n → n)×f(n → n)and should not be presumed to give the same answers because in the first case there is a frequency measurement followed by an amplitude measurement, and in the second case there is an amplitude measurement followed by a frequency measurement. Height(Braun)*Weight(Schmidt) != Weight(Braun)*Height(Schmidt), no? Going back to Heisenberg for a moment, he found his formula(s) with the X(n, n − α)X(n − α, n − β) term in it, and at first he must have been totally satisfied with it because he could mathematically compute the values that would give him a satisfactory model of the bright line spectrum of hydrogen. He seems to have realized almost immediately that switching these terms around would not give the same results. I wonder what his thought process was. Did he try trial values and compute different results? Or did he realize that in principle the results did not have to be equal even though the surface meaning of the symbolic expression would suggest that they would be equal? For a start, (n → n-α) and (n-α → n) have to be different in sign, one indicating the release of energy as a photon is emitted, and one representing the gain of energy as a photon is absorbed. :I found his own words. He was seriously dissatisfied with the XY != YX business. He hoped that he could get rid of it somehow. One of the advantage I had in the electricity component of college physics was that I was so intimately familiar with electricity in the real world. I knew in physical and metaphorical terms what happens when, e.g., you wire two resistors in parallel vs. what happens when you wire them in series. Other students were just trying to memorize formulae. I think Heisenberg must have been thoroughly soaked in both photons and math to figure this stuff out. [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 03:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC) == archiving == I had trouble downloading your user page. So I decided I would create the start of an archive page by moving my original post over to a new archive. If you don't like it you can revert. If you want to use it, you can just cut and paste to move stuff. Once you've seen one archive set-up it's pretty clear how to do it. [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 04:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC) == Somewhat rough sledding == I've been going over the matrix math, and the more I look at the way other people have set their matrices up, it doesn't really seem to present the inequalities that are claimed. So I decided to look at equation 10 from the paper on Heidenberg's "magical" paper,and to construct a matrix based on the idea that you have to do the measurements for things like momentum and position in close sequence, i.e., you cannot get both in one measurement. When I set up matrices like that I got answers that were very interesting when I started calculating the multiplication of the matrices both ways: I've worked out another set of matrices that works on the idea that you have to do the calculations: $X\left(n,n-\alpha\right)X\left(n-\alpha,n-\beta\right)$, in that order. If I do things that way I get two different answers for the first cell in the product matrix, depending on which matrix is multiplied by which: :A1=(n,n)*(n-α,n-α) + (n,n-α)*(n-β,n-α) + (n,n-β)* (n-γ, n-α) + (n,n-γ)* (n-δ,n-α) :a1 = (n-α,n-α)*(n,n) + (n-α,n-β)*(n-α,n) + (n-α,n-γ)*(n-β,n) + (n-α,n-δ)*(n-γ,n)) I would like to gain more clairity on the little segment of Heisenberg's equation quoted above. It's bugging me. It's bad enough for the non-expert when people use innocent-appearing constants like '''c''' in contexts where the reader cannot be expected to know that it represents the speed of light. But at least in that case it is a symbol with wide currency. The capital X seems to be special to that one context. [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 08:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC) == found something == The Historical Development of Quantum Theory By Jagdish Mehra, Helmut Rechenberg This source can be seen via Google. Starting on page 225 there is a good discussion that makes it even more clear that the Ritz principle is the key. The article on Heisenberg's "magical" equations mentions this principle, but I missed the significance of the mention because I was not familiar with the principle. To quote one passage by Mehra and Rechenberg, “Thus, the situation with the multiplication of two variables in quantum theory deviated strongly from the one in classical theory, where the variables, which are multiplied, refer always to the same state of the system. And this difference between the multiplication of classical and quantum-theoretical variables led to an important consequence. If one tried to multiply two different patterns of quantum-theoretical amplitudes according to Eq. (66)--i.e., calculated the product XY-- the result did not, as a rule, agree with the product YX, in which the factors were commuted. The reason was that the product amplitude multiplying a given exponential function, exp[2 π i v (n, n-r-r’)t], was composed of sums of different factors, A(n,n-r)B(n-r,n-r-r’) and B(n,n-r)A(n-r,n-r-r’), in the two cases." The people who deal with these systems in the laboratory every day must have a much clearer feeling of these interactions, and for the math used to describe them, than I can ever have. [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 00:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC) == matrix results == Hi, I'm still working I will add a comparison for the values of X×X’ vs X’×X on the sandbox article I've a link to on my user page. If I follow the lead of the original Heisenberg equations, which say that you have to measure one thing in the first change of state and another thing only on another change of state, then the multiplication of the two resulting matrices are very different. Occasionally there are some sort of complementary pairs of values, but nothing is the same. It's a tedious project, so when I do a straight matrix multiplication (with no "offset" to take care of the need to involve two changes of state) I'll probably not carry the matrices beyond about three places. I keep looking for better explanations, but the book I found seems the best. It gives lots of historical background. Too bad it is$150.

Calculations for the first cell of XX' vs X'X are more similar-looking than the rest:

X×X’ vs X’×X

f(n,n)×f(n-α,n-α) + f(n,n-α)×f(n-β,n-α) + f(n,n-β)×f(n-γ,n-α) +f(n,n-γ)×f(n-δ,n-α)

f(n-α,n-α)×f(n,n) + f(n-α,n-β)×f(n-α,n) + f(n-α,n-γ)×f(n-β,n) +f(n-α,n-δ)×f(n-γ,n)
[[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 08:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I just re-checked my original matrices -- made with exactly the same labels top and side -- and the inequality still results even when there is no "offset" so that one can assume simultaneous values being measured, or at least that one could measure frequencies in some jump and average values over a huge number of trials hoping to get AB to equal BA, and that then one could two kinds of measures (e.g., frequency and amplitude) for the same change of state and not have to worry about the time sequences. Even so, the results are not equal. Apparently just his decision to make a kind of kluge to impose Ritz addition of frequencies rules onto what had been done before with Fourier series computations that assume a continuous realm was enough to produce this new situation. Then the question becomes, why is there a difference, what does it mean, and how large is the difference. And out pops Planck's constant. It's mysterious enough when you are just going back and trying to retrace somebody else's footsteps after everybody has agreed that there is really a path from here to there. But imagine what it must have been like for the pioneers who had no idea where they were going to come out Heisenberg wanted to find some trick that would let him get rid of the inequality He fought against it, thinking it was some kind of logical fluke in his own computations I suppose And then suddenly there is '''h''', the sigil of his school. [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 09:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

But multiplication of a frequency matrix by frequency matrix is supposed not to be cummute. It does not matter which way the multiplication is done, however, because the two matrices become entirely the same. [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 14:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

== Matrix Results Response ==

Hey,

I'll have to read your latest posts above (2009 01 30, reread now), but I took a tack of what I would expect a calculation to look like, to make it match descriptions, but not yet; and I am posting it here for you for what its worth at the moment, hope it helps some in systemic math. And, yes, the QM and college books are always expensive, and not all of them are high quality, either, for stand alone self-padagogy. Anyway, the below is more for a simple hydrogen atom quantum model calculation of photon absorbtion and radiation energy. Maybe you can tell how this compares and contrasts to your understanding of HM. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 02:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

So, if some code were to be designed around a discrete quantum entity experiment measurement, I can see the following code formulation based on your words, but not see how the Heisenberg Matrix relates in how it is written, yet. It is the first picture I see in my mind from the text, while tying to match the equation shown. I can't say my dialect is any cleaner, but I think this works at one level of detail, but I think it is not what Heisenberg's commentators intended to convey. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 02:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Take a quantum Q under an experimental absorbtion setup for radiation measurement. The quantum can take on unique energy states-levels QE[x] after setup absorbtion, and trial radiation measurement until it reaches ground state. Say a quantum has 8 unique energy states, index e of 0 to 7, for the experiment as follows:

$\mathbf\left\{QE\left[e\right]\right\} = \begin\left\{bmatrix\right\}$
1. \\
4. \\
9. \\
16. \\
25. \\
36. \\
49. \\
64. \end{bmatrix}

and Q visits the states markov monotonically to ground, giving a maximum of 7 possible photons per experiment trial markov chain, index p of 0 to 6, for a path that visits every state. For all distinguishable photon-energy measured per experiment trial, QPE[p], there is an initial energy state and final energy state, QE[p.i] and QE[p.f], index p.i of e, and index p.f of e. As photon QPE[p] is measured, p.i and p.f are inferred from a lookup in the (virtually) distinguishable quantum transition energy table QTE[p.i, p.f]:

$\mathbf\left\{QTE\left[p.i, p.f\right]\right\} = \begin\left\{bmatrix\right\}$
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
3. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
8. & 5. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
15. & 12. & 7. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
24. & 21. & 16. & 9. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
35. & 32. & 27. & 20. & 11. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
48. & 45. & 40. & 33. & 24. & 13. & 0. & 0. \\
63. & 60. & 55. & 48. & 39. & 28. & 15. & 0. \end{bmatrix}

where:

$\mathbf\left\{QTE\left[p.i, p.f\right]\right\} = ZeroAndOver\left( \left(\mathbf\left\{QE\left[p.i\right]\right\} \times^\left\{mat\right\} \left[1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1\right]\right) - \left(\mathbf\left\{QE\left[p.f\right]\right\} \times^\left\{mat\right\} \left[1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1\right]\right) ^\left\{Transpose\right\} \right)$
= measurable (QE[p.i] - QE[p.f])

So a measured first photon, QPE[0] = 48, says that the experiment has setup the quantum initially to energy QE[0.7] = 64, and then emitted the photon of energy QPE[0] = 48, to reduce the quantum energy state to QE[0.3] = 16.

(Virtually distinguishable photon table relates to 15 being indistinguishably repeated in two different transitions, but all other transitions are distinguishable.)

Now in a large number of identical experiments, one can calculate the probability of the initial energy state P(QE[e] | p=0), from the first of the distinguishable photons p, Q emitted. Here I make an example table of experiment measured setup initial energy state probabilities:

$\mathbf\left\{P\left(QE\left[e\right] | p=0\right)\right\}$
= \begin{bmatrix}
0.2 \\
0.03 \\
0.05 \\
0.2 \\
0.02 \\
0.05 \\
0.15 \\
0.3 \end{bmatrix}

One can also observe the probability of seeing a particular transition photon in all photons index Ap = sum of each experiment decay record photon record, of P(\mathbf{QE[Ap.i]}|\mathbf{QE[Ap.f])[i,f]}, which, for this example, will be observed as:

$P\left(\mathbf\left\{QE\left[Ap.i\right]\right\}|\mathbf\left\{QE\left[Ap.f\right]\right)\left[i,f\right]\right\}$
= \begin{bmatrix}
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.56057 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.16449 & 0.38382 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.03691 & 0.07381 & 0.25835 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.02043 & 0.04086 & 0.0613 & 0.08173 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.00383 & 0.00894 & 0.01277 & 0.02554 & 0.07662 & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.00477 & 0.01113 & 0.0159 & 0.0318 & 0.0477 & 0.0477 & 0. & 0. \\
0.009 & 0.012 & 0.15 & 0.03 & 0.06 & 0.03 & 0.009 & 0. \end{bmatrix}

Which happens to matrix sum to 2.26896772, meaning for an average experiment setup, an average of 2.269 photons will be seen of all trial measured photons.

We can determine a constant-matrix probability of seeing an arbitrary state change transition photon each experiment's transition series, which is used through state change photons p = 0 to 6, of P(\mathbf{QE[SCp.f]}|\mathbf{QE[SCp.i])[i,f]} index SCP=0 for one table, that may be regression-determined with a unique distinguishable quantum. We start with a nominal uniformly unknown model of "given(e initial), P(e final)" before regression proceeds:

$P\left(\mathbf\left\{QE\left[SCp.f\right]\right\}|\mathbf\left\{QE\left[SCp.i\right]\right)\left[i,f\right]\right\}$
= \begin{bmatrix}
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
1. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
1/2 & 1/2 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
1/3 & 1/3 & 1/3 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
1/4 & 1/4 & 1/4 & 1/4 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
1/5 & 1/5 & 1/5 & 1/5 & 1/5 & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
1/6 & 1/6 & 1/6 & 1/6 & 1/6 & 1/6 & 0. & 0. \\
1/7 & 1/7 & 1/7 & 1/7 & 1/7 & 1/7 & 1/7 & 0. \end{bmatrix}

An example of a real calculation of the regression model answer, given the observed \mathbf{P(QE[e] | p=0)}, and P(\mathbf{QE[Ap.f]}|\mathbf{QE[Ap.i])[i,f]}, is shown to derive:

$P\left(\mathbf\left\{QE\left[SCp.i\right]\right\}|\mathbf\left\{QE\left[SCp.f\right]\right)\left[i,f\right]\right\}$
= \begin{bmatrix}
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
1. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.3 & 0.7 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.1 & 0.19998 & 0.70002 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.09998 & 0.20001 & 0.30003 & 0.39997 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.03004 & 0.07009 & 0.09977 & 0.2 & 0.60009 & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.03001 & 0.06998 & 0.10003 & 0.19998 & 0.29999 & 0.30002 & 0. & 0. \\
0.03001 & 0.04003 & 0.5 & 0.10003 & 0.19999 & 0.09996 & 0.02999 & 0. \end{bmatrix}

And the exact generator regression model used to create this algorithm check was:

$P\left(\mathbf\left\{QE\left[SCp.f\right]\right\}|\mathbf\left\{QE\left[SCp.i\right]\right)\left[i,f\right]\right\}$
= \begin{bmatrix}
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
1. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.3 & 0.7 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.1 & 0.2 & 0.7 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.1 & 0.2 & 0.3 & 0.4 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.03 & 0.07 & 0.1 & 0.2 & 0.6 & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.03 & 0.07 & 0.1 & 0.2 & 0.3 & 0.3 & 0. & 0. \\
0.03 & 0.04 & 0.5 & 0.1 & 0.2 & 0.1 & 0.03 & 0. \end{bmatrix}

showing convergence to the actual solution for this example model Q.

Regression fitting is done by finding P(\mathbf{QE[Ap.f]}|\mathbf{QE[Ap.i])[i,f]} through an expected measurement series calculation, by iterating p' from 0 to 6:

$\mathbf\left\{P\left(QE\left[p.f.e\right] | p= p\text{'}+1\right)\right\}\left[p.i, p.f\right] = P\left(\mathbf\left\{QE\left[SCp.f\right]\right\}|\mathbf\left\{QE\left[SCp.i\right]\right)\left[i,f\right]\right\} \times ^\left\{dot\right\} \left(\mathbf\left\{P\left(QE\left[p.i.e\right] | p=p\text{'}\right)\right\} \times^\left\{mat\right\} \left[1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1\right]\right)$

which, in this example, produces for the first iteration of the known model:

$\begin\left\{bmatrix\right\}$
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.03 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.015 & 0.035 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.02 & 0.04 & 0.14 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.002 & 0.004 & 0.006 & 0.008 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.0015 & 0.0035 & 0.005 & 0.01 & 0.03 & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.0045 & 0.0105 & 0.015 & 0.03 & 0.045 & 0.045 & 0. & 0. \\
0.009 & 0.012 & 0.15 & 0.03 & 0.06 & 0.03 & 0.009 & 0. \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
1. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.3 & 0.7 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.1 & 0.2 & 0.7 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.1 & 0.2 & 0.3 & 0.4 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.03 & 0.07 & 0.1 & 0.2 & 0.6 & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.03 & 0.07 & 0.1 & 0.2 & 0.3 & 0.3 & 0. & 0. \\
0.03 & 0.04 & 0.5 & 0.1 & 0.2 & 0.1 & 0.03 & 0. \end{bmatrix} \times^{dot} (\begin{bmatrix}
0.2 \\
0.03 \\
0.05 \\
0.2 \\
0.02 \\
0.05 \\
0.15 \\
0.3 \end{bmatrix} \times^{mat}\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 &1 & 1 \end{bmatrix})

which is then used to calculate the probability of the next energy level:

$\mathbf\left\{P\left(QE\left[p.f.e\right] | p= p\text{'}+1\right)\right\}\left[p.i,p.f\right] = P\left(\mathbf\left\{QE\left[SCp.f\right]\right\}|\mathbf\left\{QE\left[SCp.i\right]\right)\left[i,f\right]\right\} \times ^\left\{dot\right\} \left(\mathbf\left\{P\left(QE\left[p.i.e\right] | p=p\text{'}\right)\right\} \times^\left\{mat\right\} \left[1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1\right]\right)$

$\mathbf\left\{P\left(QE\left[p.i.e\right] | p=p\text{'}\right)\right\} = \left(ColumnSum\left(\mathbf\left\{P\left(QE\left[p.f.e\right] | p= p\text{'}\right)\right\}\left[p.i,p.f\right]\right)\left[0, p.f\right]\right)^\left\{Transpose\right\}$

yeilding for this example first iteration,

$\begin\left\{bmatrix\right\}$
0.082 \\
0.105 \\
0.316 \\
0.078 \\
0.135 \\
0.075 \\
0.009 \\
0. \end{bmatrix} = (ColumnSum(\begin{bmatrix}
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.03 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.015 & 0.035 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.02 & 0.04 & 0.14 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.002 & 0.004 & 0.006 & 0.008 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.0015 & 0.0035 & 0.005 & 0.01 & 0.03 & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.0045 & 0.0105 & 0.015 & 0.03 & 0.045 & 0.045 & 0. & 0. \\
0.009 & 0.012 & 0.15 & 0.03 & 0.06 & 0.03 & 0.009 & 0. \end{bmatrix})^{Transpose}

The second iteration would appear,

$\begin\left\{bmatrix\right\}$
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.105 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.0948 & 0.2212 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.0078 & 0.0156 & 0.0546 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.0135 & 0.027 & 0.0405 & 0.054 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.00225 & 0.00525 & 0.0075 & 0.015 & 0.045 & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.00027 & 0.00063 & 0.0009 & 0.0018 & 0.0027 & 0.0027 & 0. & 0. \\
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
1. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.3 & 0.7 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.1 & 0.2 & 0.7 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.1 & 0.2 & 0.3 & 0.4 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.03 & 0.07 & 0.1 & 0.2 & 0.6 & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.03 & 0.07 & 0.1 & 0.2 & 0.3 & 0.3 & 0. & 0. \\
0.03 & 0.04 & 0.5 & 0.1 & 0.2 & 0.1 & 0.03 & 0. \end{bmatrix} \times^{dot} (\begin{bmatrix}
0.082 \\
0.105 \\
0.316 \\
0.078 \\
0.135 \\
0.075 \\
0.009 \\
0. \end{bmatrix} \times^{mat}\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 &1 & 1 \end{bmatrix}

$\begin\left\{bmatrix\right\}$
0.22362 \\
0.26968 \\
0.1035 \\
0.0708 \\
0.0477 \\
0.0027 \\
0. \\
0. \end{bmatrix} = (ColumnSum(\begin{bmatrix}
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.105 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.0948 & 0.2212 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.0078 & 0.0156 & 0.0546 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.0135 & 0.027 & 0.0405 & 0.054 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.00225 & 0.00525 & 0.0075 & 0.015 & 0.045 & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.00027 & 0.00063 & 0.0009 & 0.0018 & 0.0027 & 0.0027 & 0. & 0. \\
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \end{bmatrix})^{Transpose}

and the subsequent p' iterations yield:

$\begin\left\{bmatrix\right\}$
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.26968 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.03105 & 0.07245 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.00708 & 0.01416 & 0.04956 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.00477 & 0.00954 & 0.01431 & 0.01908 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.00008 & 0.00019 & 0.00027 & 0.00054 & 0.00162 & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \end{bmatrix}

$\begin\left\{bmatrix\right\}$
0.31266 \\
0.09634 \\
0.06414 \\
0.01962 \\
0.00162 \\
0. \\
0. \\
0. \end{bmatrix}

$\begin\left\{bmatrix\right\}$
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.09634 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.01924 & 0.0449 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.00196 & 0.00392 & 0.01373 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.00016 & 0.00032 & 0.00049 & 0.00065 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \end{bmatrix}

$\begin\left\{bmatrix\right\}$
0.11771 \\
0.04915 \\
0.01422 \\
0.00065 \\
0. \\
0. \\
0. \\
0. \end{bmatrix}

$\begin\left\{bmatrix\right\}$
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.04915 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.00427 & 0.00995 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.00006 & 0.00013 & 0.00045 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \end{bmatrix}

$\begin\left\{bmatrix\right\}$
0.05348 \\
0.01008 \\
0.00045 \\
0. \\
0. \\
0. \\
0. \\
0. \end{bmatrix}

$\begin\left\{bmatrix\right\}$
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.01008 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.00014 & 0.00032 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \end{bmatrix}

$\begin\left\{bmatrix\right\}$
0.01022 \\
0.00032 \\
0. \\
0. \\
0. \\
0. \\
0. \\
0. \end{bmatrix}

$\begin\left\{bmatrix\right\}$
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.00032 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \end{bmatrix}

$\begin\left\{bmatrix\right\}$
0.00032 \\
0. \\
0. \\
0. \\
0. \\
0. \\
0. \\
0. \end{bmatrix}

From which we see a compiled expected experiment initial energy state probability per photon p,

$\mathbf\left\{P\left(QE\left[p.i.e\right] | p=0 to 6\right)\right\}\left[p.i.e, p\right] = \begin\left\{bmatrix\right\}$
0.2 & 0.082 & 0.22362 & 0.31266 & 0.1177 & 0.05347 & 0.01022 & 0.00032 \\
0.03 & 0.105 & 0.26969 & 0.09633 & 0.04914 & 0.01008 & 0.00032 & 0. \\
0.05 & 0.316 & 0.10349 & 0.06414 & 0.01422 & 0.00045 & 0. & 0. \\
0.2 & 0.07801 & 0.07079 & 0.01962 & 0.00065 & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.02 & 0.135 & 0.0477 & 0.00162 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.05 & 0.07499 & 0.0027 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.15 & 0.009 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.3 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \end{bmatrix}

and a total expected probability of particular photon transitions per experiment, we had from the experiment observations at the beginning:

$P\left(\mathbf\left\{QE\left[Ap.i\right]\right\}|\mathbf\left\{QE\left[Ap.f\right]\right)\left[i,f\right]\right\}$
= SumDot(\mathbf{P(QE[p.f.e] | p= p')}[p.i, p.f], on p' = 0 to 6)
=\begin{bmatrix}
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.56057 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.16449 & 0.38382 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.03691 & 0.07381 & 0.25835 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.02043 & 0.04086 & 0.0613 & 0.08173 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.00383 & 0.00894 & 0.01277 & 0.02554 & 0.07662 & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.00477 & 0.01113 & 0.0159 & 0.0318 & 0.0477 & 0.0477 & 0. & 0. \\
0.009 & 0.012 & 0.15 & 0.03 & 0.06 & 0.03 & 0.009 & 0. \end{bmatrix}

Which also happens to matrix sum to 2.26896772, meaning for an average experiment setup, an expected average of 2.269 photons will be seen.

Now this is one kind of transition probability model calculation, based on a quantum Q with unique energy states, distinguishable photons of transition, and monotonic energy state decay to ground because that is all that can be observed, is emissions.

Now I can imagine some complications of indexed structures describing Q state model internal degrees of freedom, perhaps with even infinite numbers of indistinguishable models, when energy state values are not unique due to same energy different state configuration Q. Or uncertainty of model regression calculating issuess when photon transitions are not all distinguishable due to measurement Heisenberg limitations. Or different character solutions when the ground state is relatively shifted by the environment of different experiment setups.

The equations of the Heisenberg Matrix articles I see, shows some aspects of familiarity that I can read, and I can see *exactly* what is being calculated through your sample amplitude frequency table description, but I can't see how matrix multiplying rows of amplitudes with columns of energy or energy changes, yields transition probability like the article main equation matrix summation shows, or why the sum symbol varies over alpha in that code.

You can tell from my example, trying to get a nomenclature to accurately describe the state, transition, process, and calculation-regression is very precise, and misunderstading in nomenclature semantics can totally change the calculation into something that isn't what's intended. But like a fire needs refined fuel, heat, and oxygen to spark out, a good math paper often has clear text, code, and example all matching and varied as needed, which can be hard to accurately convey if hidden common senses like implied diagonalized triangular matrix, implied summations to 1.0 for probabilities translated under the term amplitude, or any number of things that can arise without a necessary layman common sense to read it the same, without further questioning its new / initially-hazy content for the senses of the nomenclature. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 02:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe with this code and your article, you can clue more on the Heisenberg Matrix notation. Code with working example is the hardest thing to fake, when checking calculations match a model of text description. There may be a better way of stating the dimensions of the input and output variables, so that the Heisenberg Matrix notation makes more sense, at least to my dialect of semi-visible code-math. I often wonder if many modern QM texts are more post-modern prone than older works, or are simply articles written on digital systems or markov models of "quantum systems", not necessarily related to the Quantum Physics time-space micro-field theory, unless text and physics actually converge at some subtle level when read with a specific sense, common or otherwise. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 02:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

These articles may loosely relate, but they are more for my own follow up reading, perchance. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 02:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anova

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lack-of-fit_sum_of_squares

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

NEW COMMENTS

Reading some sources, yields another picture, more closely related to what the Heisenberg matrix commentators are writing. Right now, I have two print texts, (1) Quantum Mechanics, K. T. Hecht et al, Springer Verlag 2000, (2) Foundations and Interpretations of Quantum mechanics, Gennaro Auletta, World Scientific p\Publishing 2001. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 08:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

In book (1), I see the Heisenberg Matrix mechanics section as simply the definition of a transition between general energy states, instead of the definition of frequency probability observed from a classical electron harmonic spiral radiation fourier model. Because it is a two point transition data structure definition, it is written as a matrix. In one use of the HM, page 80, it shows the Hesenberg Uncertainty Principle via what loosely looks to me like: [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 08:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

$\left(nmKronekerEmmision * hbar / i\right) = \sum_\left\{k\right\} \left( P\left(kStateWaveEvolve | nStateInitial\right)\left[n,k\right]*P\left(kWaveStateAbsorb | mStateFinal\right)\left[k,m\right] - P\left(kStateWaveAbsorb | nStateInitial\right)\left[n,k\right]*P\left(kWaveStateEvolve | mStateFinal\right)\left[k,m\right] \right)$

which views the atom as a self-observing system between its current state to next state by travelling through all intermediate states according to some QM model of transition probability calculation or measurement calculation or macroscopic model test hypothesis validation. This is why the SUM is over the intermediate states k, that I didn't initially scan. Additionally, the measurer entangles themselves with the atom by observing the quantum through time for its inherent steady state behavior. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 08:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The book (1) comments, that this equation becomes classical as hbar approaches 0, which in my mind seems to me to make this so-called hbar a value for some Heisenberg uncertainty unit for the quantum, relative to the quantum scale, like a de Broglie wavelength, which shrinks as classical values are reached. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 08:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

:h-bar is just h, Plank's constant, divided by two pi. Theoretically, the Universe might have come into existence with any value of h, at least as far as anybody now can say. It is a measure of the "step size" between energy levels. So if h were smaller than it is now, the steps between energy clumps (quanta) would be smaller. As h approached 0 the world would approach more and more closely to the classical idea in which there are not any quantum steps. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is stated, mathematically, in terms of h. Maybe just the existence of these quantum steps gives us a way to understand indeterminancy. Permitted values are separated by unpermitted values, so a close look at the spectrum should show something like |||___|||__|||___||| with, let's say, ||| representing unpermitted values. If, on a continuum theory basis, something would appear at a point on the spectrum that is an unpermitted value in a quantum world, then that thing will appear to one side or the other of where classical theory would put it, but there is no way of telling which side.

:I'm getting a different idea about the appearance of factors like X(n, n-r)X(n,n-r') in the Heisenberg formulae. Basically that is saying that when you multiply, e.g., two amplitudes, the physical situation inevitably involves two different states of whatever system the equation is trying to represent. The original experimental description that Heisenberg and Kramer got to work was a situation in which (if I understand it right) photons shone upon some substance that would not reflect them. (If photons hit a surface composed by a screen of electrons that don't have the right orbital conditions to permit them to absorb the photons, then the photons are reflected in what is analogous to a perfectly elastic collision.) They are absorbed, but then the energy is cast off again as the electrons drop out of their excited states. The absorption and re-radiation are not simultaneous, however, and the photons that emerge are not all moving in the same direction but are dispersed (probably a little in time besides being dispersed into an emerging cone). Because there are two physical operations that happen (an absorbtion and a radiation) there have to be two equations to describe them. If we lived in a classical universe there would not have to be any minimum distance in time between the two phases.

:It's going to take me ages to work through your matrices, and right now I'm really busy with work-related stuff. [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 09:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

So for a 1 pound 10^20-electron black hole orbiting an 1800 pound 10^20-proton black hole in space, as a quantum system without internal degrees of freedom, and observed while bathed in steady state isotropic light, for any point of orbit, when mathematically "commuting" StateWaveEvolve with StateWaveAbsorb in state wave transition coefficient collapse projections, that is roughly swapping the evolving quantum with the measuring quantum, on each intermediate k; that it shows virtually identical values for the SUM different equal to a tiny "nmKronekerEmmission * hbar / i". The SUM asking, what the difference is between n=initial-state-evolution-emmission probabilities-coefficients in projection onto m=final-state-measurement-absorbtion probabilities-coefficients, for all common intermediate state k, versus m=initial-state-measurement-absorbtion probabilities-coefficients in projection onto n=initial-state-evolution-emmission probabilities-coefficients. Many tiny k products of virtually identical distribution. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 08:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

With this classical macroscopic model quantum, at any point of time, one has a function in time in the probabilities of the evolution-measurement matrix pair produced from the model's instantaneous temporal-function for the quantum blackbody temperature. As a general quantum orbits in, one sees a faint low frequency radio blackbody-like emission band, and as the quantum orbits out, one sees a faint low frequency radio blackbody-like absorbtion band. As well, one can see a quantum fundamental harmonic emission based on the orbital period, with harmonic terms decaying into indistinguishability within the blackbody radio emmissions. For specific quantum in circular orbits, there is an even blackbody-like radio emission band with a tiny DC+ term for the slow inward spiral. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 08:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The observation hunches on this quantum, somehow lead to a calculable and/or observable matrix pair in time function. For this quantum, it is a large continuum-like matrix of state transitions that is virtually infinite for the large sweep of micro-energy levels visited in an energy orbit, with an x/(EInitial - EFinal) like probability distribution. So the lowest energy transitions have higher micro-probability than do higher energy transitions. This leads to the blackbody-like radiation band with more low energy photons than high energy photons, from a uniform local acceleration point, and uncertainty from when photons will be absorbed or emitted in time from this incoherent quantum - e.g. no transitions for 0.1 orbit-second could make an ultraviolet photon, but the odds of 1,000,000 radio photons in 0.1 orbit-second is much higher. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 08:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Going back to the SUM equation, as the matricies of visitable energy states grows, the general probabilities dilute, so the probability of any n to m transition shrinks proportionally with quantum size, and its difference to the commutation shrinks proportionally with quantum size, apparently scaled to the zero-approaching-classical mystery-hbar for uncertainty units when multiplied by the nm Kroneker delta transition. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 08:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

For a real hydrogen atom, with an electron cloud evolving around a moving nucleus measurement-sub=system, the SUM difference value is now on a scale closer to its hbar. Only a few energy levels may be visited, so the probability density per state is proportionally larger, and the difference on commutation is larger, also scaled to the Plank-approaching-quantum mystery-hbar unit's value. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 08:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

In book (2) page 31, under a matrix mechanics and commutation section with Heisenberg Pairs of observeables, I, perhaps, see the same HM hbar equation, but in different form and definition where they write:

[Qhatj, Phatk] = jkKronekerEmmision * hbar * i = Qhatj * Phatk - Phatj * Qhatk, where hbar = h / (2*pi).

Which if I critically substitute, and interpreted as containing the k intermediate state sum implicitly on the commuting transition probability coefficient contents, then we see

jkKronekerEmmision * hbar * i = jkKronekerEmmision * hbar / i,

or:

i = 1 / i

which makes no sense, and uses an hbar that cannot "approach zero", like in book (1), and like I have assummed into the first SUM difference equation emmission-hbar properties on commutation. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 08:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Reading sections from both books (1) and (2), in nearby pages, agree that the transition probability for a quantum of transition observations cancelling complex phasors is: [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 08:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

$P\left(nmTransition\right) = \sum_\left\{k\right\} P\left(k evolved | n observed\right) * P\left(m measured | k evolved\right) \right)$

which in principle is the same as a wavefunction^2 at the probability density "amplitude" at an observation plane. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 08:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The PDF reference you use, on page 5 uses similar notation to book (2), but says:

Xhat * Phat - Phat *Xhat = hbar * i,

which leads to a notation anomolous:

hbar * i = Kronecker * hbar * i = Kronecker * hbar / i,

or,

i == 1, Kronecker == 1

and an hbar that may notationally approach zero, or may be the Plank constant(!), among the three references divergent notations on the same topic. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 08:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

SO ... ALL IN ALL. The unit analysis presented in the references are lacking harmony to come to an exact system understanding of the exact Heisenberg Matrix uses and its precise system unit analysis, outside of being the probability of evolution times the probability of measurement summed over every intermediate state, for one assumed n to m transition, to find that transition probability, for a quantum that is observed as a self observing quantum. The equation relates similarly to a familiar wavefunction probability density function "amplitude" squared operation on a transitionless probability density function, like an interference pattern at a double slit experiment screen, where the evolution is calculated by a double slit diffraction equation, and the screen photon probability is calculated by WavefunctionAtScreen ^ 2, where the intermediate state is at the screen evolved wavefunction location, and it is identical to the screen evolved waveform intermediate state to position measured state on film or CCD. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 08:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

As such, the use of multiplying transition amplitudes by transition frequencies appears wrong in your proto paper. I would read it akin to quantized wavefunction evolution probabilities times quantized wavefunction measurement probabilities. A probability times a wavelength is meaningless. A complete probability times an energy transition value, does happen to equal spectral power density like:

$\mathbf\left\{QTE\left[p.i, p.f\right]\right\} * P\left(\mathbf\left\{QE\left[Ap.i\right]\right\}|\mathbf\left\{QE\left[Ap.f\right]\right)\left[i,f\right]\right\} = \begin\left\{bmatrix\right\}$
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
3. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
8. & 5. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
15. & 12. & 7. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
24. & 21. & 16. & 9. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
35. & 32. & 27. & 20. & 11. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
48. & 45. & 40. & 33. & 24. & 13. & 0. & 0. \\
63. & 60. & 55. & 48. & 39. & 28. & 15. & 0. \end{bmatrix} *^{dot}
\begin{bmatrix}
0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.56057 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.16449 & 0.38382 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.03691 & 0.07381 & 0.25835 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.02043 & 0.04086 & 0.0613 & 0.08173 & 0. & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.00383 & 0.00894 & 0.01277 & 0.02554 & 0.07662 & 0. & 0. & 0. \\
0.00477 & 0.01113 & 0.0159 & 0.0318 & 0.0477 & 0.0477 & 0. & 0. \\
0.009 & 0.012 & 0.15 & 0.03 & 0.06 & 0.03 & 0.009 & 0. \end{bmatrix}

gives the spectral-transition power density per experiment, from my own above approach of calculating an observational transition probability (without the self measurement concept in absolute apparent equivalence). [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 08:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, tentatively, I think that the non commutativity is not a matrix conventional non commutativity, but a representation approximating:

{n f(evolve)[n,k] k * k f(measured)[k,m] m} is not the same as { {k f(evolve)[k,m] m * n f(measured)[n,k] k}, {k f(measured)[k,n] * m f(evolve)[m,k] k} } is the same as {k f(measured)[k,m] m * n f(evolve)[n,k] k}

when n to m is fixed, and k is varied. Which says that evolved state probability is not the same as measured state probability for quanta observed through self measurement transitions. I call it self measurement, in that it is internal activity within the quantum system that can remain onobserved in vacuum, as say a proton-electron-energy-photon entanglement. Once the photon is detected, I suppose that changes the state of the entangled atom at that point, but not before the self measurement occured in the state transition. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 08:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

And, your sum over infinity, should read "alpha" = 0 to N-1, or 1 to N, where N can approach infinity energy levels, and the sum is over the intermediate state "alpha" == "k". [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 08:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I also see many issues like, is this supposed to be a probability matrix that is a function in time (P(x)dt as nano-seconds chane for hydrogen), or to observe the quantum over all time with lump probabilities, as both transition-value-matrices are calculable with either detailed differential regressions and uncertainties in time, or a simple full-experiment transition summation value without temporal resolution. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 08:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

== Message from Shimon Yanowitz ==
Hello LoneRubberDragon :~)

I apologize for not visiting your page (nor, in fact mine) more often, and for the (often long) delays in my replies to your messages.

I am so too much occupied, and with some AD (attention-deficit) problems - I find it difficult to keep up!

Praises to your work in our mutual areas of interests!

Why do you use so many nicknames?
Do you also use the nickname - "Gur Harari" at times?

Shimon

--[[User:Shimon Yanowitz|Shimon Yanowitz]] ([[User talk:Shimon Yanowitz|talk]]) 03:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I believe I have never heard the name before now. I can have a hard time keeping up too, with everything else. Universal constant of YHVH, created aspect. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

== Taken from my Many Worlds Interpretation Discussion section commentary/questions and the article writers and associates. ==

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many_worlds_interpretation

Discussion Section, covering LonberRubberDragon, and article associates/writers Michael C. Price, ibleSnover.

A meaning of the many worlds interpretation,
in concrete terms and effects.

Are there any numerical issues arising, philosophically, and physically, about the idea of having a many worlds interpretation of QP? I cite the following calculation with some assumptions, to give a rough idea of what is involved to believe in this paradigm:

TimeSinceBigBang ~= 60*60*24*365*12*10^9 [sec],

RateAverageOfInteractionsPerSecondPerParticle ~= 1/10^10 [sec/(interaction*particle)],

UnitParticlesInUniverse ~= 3*10^52 [kg]* 6.02*10^26 [amu/kg]* 2 [particle/amu],

QuantumBranchFactorPerInteraction ~= 2 [branch / (interaction*particle)], where

UniversesSuperpositions = QBFPI ^ UPIU ^ (TSBB / RAOIPSPP) =

10^41147681254863400000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 [universe superpositions since Big Bang]

, or,

10^10^106.61435 [universe superpositions since Big Bang].

There can be reductions in scale for local light speed isolation of distant objects, but the numbers of parallel universe superpositions is still beyond astronomical, with reduction factors in the exponential equation. It sounds more like just a philosophy, than a real system, as matter and energy and universes, are not conserved in the MWI "hyperspace". Even counting just the Earth for 4 billion years, one gets numbers around 10^10^50 for earth superpositions, depending on the assumed numbers of particles, interaction rates, branch factors, and timespan over 4.5 billion years.

Of course, it makes interesting interpretation, of how such a large space operates if there are physical theories to substantiate *interpretation*, but sounds as grand and inaccessible to measurement as the often cited God.

For example, in MWI, what are the "fluctations of the quantum vacuum", vacuum virtual particles? What, a trans-dimensional particle pair temporarily crossing our plane of existence, and always crossing in a time limited particle anti-particle pair, to conserve matter-energy with creation and destruction in our plane? What physics is this? And if they are universe crossing particles, what do virtual particles tell us about so-called MWI bifurcations of other "planes"? Or is this all wrong?

[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 04:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

:"universe crossing particles" require non-linear physics, which is not observed (i.e. such particles are not observed). And before anyone says, note that there are universe crossing particles in string theory, but this a different sort of universe. Regarding large numbers, there seems to be no constraint on the number of universes that the theory can handle; if you want to see some ''really'' large numbers, look up [[Graham's number]].--[[User:MichaelCPrice|Michael C. Price]] [[User talk:MichaelCPrice|talk]] 08:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

::Ok, so there's no nonlinear operators in MWI at all, for virtual particle fluctuations of a vacuum say observed in Hawking Radiation caused by vitual particles at the event horizon of a black hole. It glibly doesn't explain why it is reasonable that there's no physical constraint on the number of universes, in that, any one universe conserves matter and energy, but there's no conservation of parallel universes. Schrodinger's equation is actually a continuous function in space, so the branching factor is infinitely higher than my calculation example of an abstract branch factor of 2 to illustrate the scope of branches. Also, there are also universes where the laws of physics don't appear to apply that are parallel universes, where the odds of a glass shattering backwards, for instance, however low, are part of a few rare paths of quantum wavefunction evolution, reaching numbers beyond Grahan's Number, since the branch factor is infinite in these improbable universes, with no constraints of universe conservation, with a statistical measurement operator at any scale occuring, in non-zero probability wave functions for interacting matter. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 02:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

::So can you elaborate beyond the article, why it is reasonable to believe in infinite numbers of parallel universes, that are all unobseveable? A Bohmian hidden variable type of theory is a much more Ockham preferable conservative equivalent, as another isomorphic version of Copenhagen Interpretation, than a hidden but blatantly nonconservative Many Worlds quantum physics isomorphism universe, where MWI QP spawns infinite unobserveable universes, over an unobserveable pilot wave or hidden variables on one universe with conservative properties.
::: I agree, even Bohmian pilot waves are more reasonable than this MWI.[[User:IbleSnover|IbleSnover]] ([[User talk:IbleSnover|talk]])

::In other words you failed to address, is MWI merely to be taken as a philosophical interpretation for mathematical calculation convenience, in some instances, only, which is why there are no limitations on universes without issues. That is MWI is not an actual physical theory of how space operates, where Cophenhagen or Bohmian interpretations keep a more conservative local existential spirit, than MWI does when taken plysically-literally instead of only interpretation? [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 02:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

::And before anyone says, hidden variables are just epicycles, they do follow field equations isomorphic enough to Copenhagen QP, as much as Feynman Infinite Path Integrals also do for tractible problems. An epicycle theory of planetary orbits has no such isomorphism with gravity, as much as it does with approximating orbits with a nested series of harmonic functions that are unrelated to gravity, mass, energy, precession, mutual effects, etc.. And as Hidden Variable Theory are indistinguishable but isomorphic to Cophenhagen, Ockham may have a soft edge to pick, but rather, Ockham can take them as physics theories, over MWI as philosophical interpretation with mathematics applications, because of the literal physical space defined by infinite universes that abstractly don't interact at all. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 02:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
:::I believe most, perhaps all, of your concerns (e.g. conservation of energy, Ockham, etc) are covered either by the article or the FAQ (which I wrote) in the external links section. As for the number of worlds, there is no conservation law for the number of worlds. Loosely speaking the number of worlds follows
::::$\Omega=exp\left(S/k\right) \,$
:::which, since S is the entropy of a set of branches of the multi-verse, is an increasing and very large number by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is simply the inversion of [[Boltzmann's entropy formula]]. --[[User:MichaelCPrice|Michael C. Price]] [[User talk:MichaelCPrice|talk]] 08:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
::::I've read that FAQ, I'm not impressed, persuaded, or convinced at all. More appalled than anything else really.[[User:IbleSnover|IbleSnover]] ([[User talk:IbleSnover|talk]])
:::PS By "increasing" I meant that since S (entropy) is a function of time, so is omega (the number of microstates = number of worlds). i.e.
::::$\Omega\left(t\right)=exp\left(S\left(t\right)/k\right) \,$
:::A more detailed calculation of omega (if possible) would have to also consider the [[Bekenstein bound]] and the [[infrared divergence]]s.
(reindent down)--[[User:MichaelCPrice|Michael C. Price]] [[User talk:MichaelCPrice|talk]] 12:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 14:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've skimmed what I can from the article and the external links. I appreciate the balance of dissenting and ascribing links. I found amusing the external link saying many physicists use the MWI, but noone really likes to talk about it. With all that reading, though, I still find am left cold to know what is being conserved using the Many Worlds Interpretation method as anything more than a mathematical tool, and not a physical reality. Given the nature of defining a Hilbert space with continually branching points spreading in the infinite dimensional vector space, with each point representing the branching of whole universes, in ANOTHER universe that is separate and distinct from this material universe, as each point in this Hilbert hyperspace is a whole universe, in itself. I found one FAQ interesting saying that all of the MWI unvierses are supervenient to this plane of existence, and yet virtually none of them interact, and MWI supposedly doesn't show anything new that QP Copenhagen Interpretation, Bohmian Hidden Variables, or even Feynman Infinite Path Integrals show, other than maybe mathematical ease in some problems. I can conceptually understand this MWI idea of having a larger universe of Hilbert Space with universe points spreading throughout the Hilbert Space. But why consider that "real", a Hilbert Space universe of spreading diffusing point universes, which fails Ockham's razor of observeables, and thus the postulating of such an infinite dimensional Hilbert Space is not to be considered "reality", but just a mathematical tool?

Also, while I can appreciate the terse Boltzman Equation for a uniform universe of indistinguishable particles with equal probabilities of states:

$\ S\left[NaturalUnit\right] = k * log_\left\{e\right\} \left(W\right)$

I would not see why that relates to the definition of MWI universe counts, where the particles have associated state QP wave functions with distingushable probability wave functions each particle of nonuniform information, also roughly stated here without a time factor in the Gibbs Equation (here converted to represent binary information count):

$\ S\left[bit\right] = -k \sum_\left\{i=1\right\}^\left\{i=N\right\} Prob\left(S_\left\{i\right\}\right) * log_\left\{2\right\}\left(Prob\left(S_\left\{i\right\}\right)$

Which, alone, has a strong correspondence to Shannon information of messages (lacking Boltzman Constant), here, with an example of 4 symbols of equal probability of 0.5 for this example, illustrating the calculation:

$\ entropy\left[bit\right] = -\sum_\left\{i=1\right\}^\left\{i=N\right\} Prob\left(symbol\right)log_\left\{2\right\}\left(Prob\left(symbol\right)\right)$

$\ 4\left[bit\right] = -\sum_\left\{i=1\right\}^\left\{i=4\right\} Prob\left(1/2\right)log_\left\{2\right\}\left(Prob\left(1/2\right)\right)$

Likewise, taking an equation transformation, one sees the relation of binary information entropy with states (or in this case universe splits):

$\ 2^\left\{entropy\left[bit\right]\right\} = 2^\left\{-\sum_\left\{i=1\right\}^\left\{i=N\right\} Prob\left(symbol\right)log_\left\{2\right\}\left(Prob\left(symbol\right)\right)\right\}$

$\ 2^\left\{4\left[bit\right]\right\} = 2^\left\{-\sum_\left\{i=1\right\}^\left\{i=N\right\} Prob\left(1/2\right)log_\left\{2\right\}\left(Prob\left(1/2\right)\right)\right\}$

Which is equivalent to a product form of the equation of state probability:

$\ state\left[count\right] = \prod_\left\{i=1\right\}^\left\{i=N\right\} \frac\left\{1\right\}\left\{Prob\left(symbol\right)\right\}$

$\ 16\left[count\right] = \prod_\left\{i=1\right\}^\left\{i=4\right\} \frac\left\{1\right\}\left\{Prob\left(1/2\right)\right\}$

And most simply shows a state count as symbol relationship of simple products:

$\ state\left[count\right] = \prod_\left\{i=1\right\}^\left\{i=N\right\} symbol\left[count\right]$

$\ 16\left[count\right] = \prod_\left\{i=1\right\}^\left\{i=4\right\} 2\left[count\right]$

Your too-terse Boltzman Equation inversion, appears only "roughly" equivalent to a formal universe splitting equation definition without further clarification of the terse post, firstly, because it doesn't show time as a factor, where my equation is a function of time. My equation (reformulated from before, but equivalent) uses a simplified set of state space, defined for the universe of localized particles in the universe at the Big Bang, where each particle is counted as a symbol (universe split) generator. Each particle is considered a wave function with a symbol "universe" generating branch factor at each measurement, generating new symbols "universes" at a rate of a branch factor with each interaction:

$\ Universes\left[count\right]\left(T\left[sec\right]\right) = \prod_\left\{t=0,1/10^\left\{10\right\} \left[sec/\left(inter*part\right)\right],...\right\}^\left\{t=T=3.78432*10^\left\{17\right\}\left[sec\right]\right\} 2\left[br/\left(inter*part\right)\right]^\left\{3.612*10^\left\{79\right\}\left[part\right]\right\}$

$\ Universes\left[count\right]\left(3.78432*10^\left\{17\right\}\left[sec\right]\right) = 10^\left\{10^\left\{106.61435\right\}\right\}\left[count\right]$

I also include a feedback in the terms, because the universes would split at each interaction, and split again, from the former split state, which gives rise to the feedback of self scattering probability wave functions in each so-called "universe". For example, with 2 particles that have 7 branch factors, e.g. spin, momentum, position varieties in 7's for each interaction, one simply sees in an interaction sequence 1[universe], 49[universe], 2401[univese], ...; which reflects the originally formulated direct calculation (simplified):

$\ Universes\left[count\right]\left(T\left[interaction\right]\right) = QuantumBranchFactor ^ \left\{Particles ^ \left\{T\left[interaction\right]\right\}\right\}$

$\ 1\left[count\right]\left(0\left[interaction\right]\right) = 7 ^ \left\{2 ^ \left\{0\left[interaction\right]\right\}\right\}$ (Big Bang)

$\ 49\left[count\right]\left(1\left[interaction\right]\right) = 7 ^ \left\{2 ^ \left\{1\left[interaction\right]\right\}\right\}$ (one interaction)

$\ 2401\left[count\right]\left(2\left[interaction\right]\right) = 7 ^ \left\{2 ^ \left\{2\left[interaction\right]\right\}\right\}$ (two interaction)

Which shows the potential for quantum chaos of entangled wavefunction, in an MWI which is supposed to never collapse, but always linearly evolve, and with splitting new Hilbert Space universe points at each still ill-defined measurement/decoherence "events".

And in actuallity, the wave function that is evolving linearly in every universe, is a continuous function at the resolution of quantized time, space, and momentum, so there is nearly an infinite number for quantized QuantumBranchFactor options for each universe.

So perhaps a more accurate equation of universes in this increasingly hypothetical Hilbert Space universe of universes is (roughly stated):

$\ Universes\left[count\right]\left(T\left[sec\right]\right) = \prod_\left\{t=0,1/10^\left\{10\right\} \left[sec/\left(inter*part\right)\right],...\right\}^\left\{t=T=3.78432*10^\left\{17\right\}\left[sec\right]\right\} 10^\left\{100\right\}\left[br/\left(inter*part\right)\right]^\left\{3.612*10^\left\{79\right\}\left[part\right]\right\}$

$\ Universes\left[count\right]\left(3.78432*10^\left\{17\right\}\left[sec\right]\right) = 10^\left\{10^\left\{109.13574\right\}\right\}\left[count\right]$

Where the quantum branch factor is arbitrarily selected at 10^100 symbol potentials, since measurement is in MWI still arbitrarily statistical, so the Hilbert Space universes can branch in a spreading universe cloud with every particle's probability wave function interaction creating "measurements" with distributed probabilities and amplified macroscopic effects from each quantized universe of potential. So the Hilbert Space is not just a cloud of universes, but possibly a cloud of universes with probabilistic weight on each universe following the probability wave function density of every particle wave function interaction. Unless you simply quantize even the least probable universes to whole universe existence, in which case the MWI universes have an almost plank-scale like density and flow, taking even the most QP improbable quantization universes (where glasses break backward, and gravity flows the wrong direction), and magnifying all of them to quantum full existence.

I dunno, MWI seems a good enough mathematical tool, but completely-unreal otherwise. Because mainly, despite your flawed article's mention of promoting Ockham's razor, it removes the measurement collapse of wavefunctions, at the expense of defining an axiom with an infinite size infinite dimensioned Hiblert Space Universe of quantized universe clouds branching and spreading through it (what was Ockham pared off, really). Instead, it appears to make a thoughouly unexploreable universe, that is thouroughly unreal as far as large scale observational science is concerned, "PROVED" with only 1 part in 10^10^106+ observations of universes being observed, it seems. Taking MWI as real and not explicitly stated as being pure math tools, is dishonest of an article, bordering on philosophy of mathematics as science. It definitely makes watching "Dr. Who" more interesting, I must admit!

[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 11:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
:Responding to your last point, surely it is dishonest to pretend that all these other worlds ''aren't'' real, since they appear in the maths? By what criterion are they judged non-real?--[[User:MichaelCPrice|Michael C. Price]] [[User talk:MichaelCPrice|talk]] 12:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

::I/m sorry, I realize I wrote many words and equations that may make the criterion hard to detect without careful reading. The criterion giving a judgement as an honest math tool, and not assumed real, being: [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

:::"PROVED" [observed] with only 1 part in 10^10^106+ [universe] observations of universes being observed. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

::If humans can send probes that can diverge themselves INTO other universes and BACK, like a Dr. Who, then the MWI math-tool is promoted into tangible multiple-universe theory, as much real as can be measured beyond our current one universe "Hilbert Space" point of view. That is a more concrete criterion of testability. Or, perhaps, a "large scale" quantum computer with a carefully designed interface to the "larger" universe could be used to port data between universes close enough to inter-act. However, it seems any differences large enough to indicate another distinct universe, would be in different spots in "Hilbert space" and so such probes seem forever out of reach, and one is stuck with only 1 in 10^10^106+ part observation knowledge of multi-verses as real, which is a pretty high noise to signal ratio! QP, Feynman, and Bohm are all mostly local proofs in one universe of wavefunction and measurement uncertainty black boxes (not black universes). [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

::Just take the controversial qualia (tangibility of perception) in humans, at least, that have been observed in one in 7 billion people, and psychologically reported in 7 billion out of 7 billion (though without proveable communication of qualia between humans), but at least 7 billion reports in this one earth, the instances of living witnesses of qualia. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

::For a computer with a color camera, does it *see* color in its memory and self referential analysis in a system, as a human with neurotransmitters in a system? How do three planes of black and white data become colors is a good question (not even recursively inspecting why light and dark are even observed in neurotransmitters distributed in a complex self referential system). Does the mathematical X,Y,Z coordinate system of space have colors too, that we just can't see, to be obscure? Do pigeons see 5 planar tangible dimensions, with 5 different spectral receptors in their consciousness (in one report I heard one bird type has 27 different receptors)? To be sure, they materially process the data, but do they see a psychedelic color world by-some-called "illusion" like all sighted people can see? As some argue, qualia are indication of transcendental or not-understood soul-self, while others say it is unreal illusion. But for me at least I can confirm a 1:7,000,000,000 observation, where three planes of black and white data become color. And maybe a computer does tangibly *see* colors too, of as many dimensions as data array depth. All of this is tentatively accessible to inspection today or someday, in this one universe, here. Likewise MWI is testable, if a measurement and processing probe can be diverged out of and back into this universe from a neighboring universe with measurement data supporting MWI as real versus creatively mathematical illusion, like human qualia, of even color vision. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

::By your logic, if to be taken seriously, the Greek Epicyclic infinite harmonic function series approximation definition of planetary orbits is REAL ISOMORPHIC CORRESPONDENCE to reality, even though gravity plays no direct role in the all too REAL AS MATHEMATICAL TOOL use of Ancient Greek Epicycles. But where's the compact gravitational correspondence equation, or it isn't honest to discriminate against otherwise gravity less Greek Epicycles as UNREAL, or a fourier transform harmonic representation of planet orbits for that matter as UNREAL? Therefore all mathematical isomorphisms are REAL MATERIAL UNIVERSE COMPACT ISOMORPHISM DESCRIPTION, by your logic?!? I guess General Relativity and QP CI did as much to define another refined approximation, as much as Bohm type Hidden Variables formulations, by transforming dimensions and relations in formerly unseen ways, so MWI isn't on the cutting block, but isn't there either, otherwise it wouldn't be controversial right now. And similarly, a log base 2 of object [count] produces the real physical unit of quantized-data [bit], that can be stored moved and processed in computers. So maybe qualia as transcendental and unknown process are HONESTLY REAL too, and the other philosophers are being dishonest in calling them illusion. If anything honestly goes with isomorphisms, Platonic Realm is true, as Max Tegmark (alluding to Plato) is true and real too (and yet he dishonestly poo-poos Roger Penrose or John Wheeler type of structured processing matter extra-reality theories of macroscopic consciousness and measurement). And maybe Greek Epicycles, fourier transforms, and spatial ensemble entropy equations may have a correlatable effect on reality of the information of classical configuration effects on reality, with forces yet to be discovered or enumerated in those dimensions, as much as an MWI probe someday may leave and reenter our universe plane from another parallel universe diverged, but pre-synchonized to transmit a similar looking branched probe from that universe back into our universe, with grossly different measured data moving information between "Hilbert" universes? If anything isomorphic goes, really and honestly, virtually-mathematically equivalently. For you see, a Greek Epicyclic frame of reference can be used to perfectly polarize a measurement frame of reference to prove there are special forces that are otherwise smeared out in a conventional local General Relativity frame of reference with gravity wells and N bodies as the assumption. For example a planet circling a black hole with even relativistic epicycles on seconds timescale could realize a Greek Epicyclic force unrelated to the General Relativity frame of reference, in short fourier transform measurement order of years of close observation of those "crystal sphere's" effects not accounted for in the General Relativity equation ... or falsified finally and honestly after 2000 years since Claudius Ptolemaeus. Or test it with an elliptical cyclotron on electron Greek Epicycles in a few minutes, possibly. Then one can see that both General Relativity and Greek Epicycles are quite REAL with proveable observeables in their own dimension, increasing the numbers of basic forces in the universe, if proven, when taken in that PROPER frame of reference. Like you imply, anything goes for virtually identical isomorphisms, regarding reality. Even Morphogenic resonance, if taken in the right frame of reference to measure, leading to proving or falsifying telepathy and such ESP fields, even Chinese CHI lifeforce, in the right framework for isomorphic mathematical measurement to not smear out the effect in the wrong frame of reference. Anyhting honestly goes in virtually isomorphic reality is a nice concept, surely and honestly, as the non-linearities of one theory are picked up by another universal force that linearizes things in its space where the other theories all fail. Thanks for taking the time to talk! [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

::And maybe it is just a semantic pholosophical issue of what REAL and HONEST mean to you and me, like Clinton's what the definition of "IS" is. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Tegmark [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_ensemble [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_realm [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentachromat [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphic_field [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you LoneRubberDragon. If this MWI isn't the most colossal example of a "viewpoint" in massive need of Occams Razor, then, well, I'm a peanut. And I mean that literally, because surely - in one of these many universes I sure as hell must be a real, literal, peanut. How can anyone possibly think there is anything to gain with this MWI? Its the most mind-bogglingly lazy theory in the history of physics. It essentially says: "Hello, I am a scientist, and a physicist, its my job to get to the bottom of the laws of the universe. But I can't be bothered looking into the mysteries of the universe any deeper than we already have. I prefer to believe the universe multiplies itself into unheard-of googolplexes upon googolplexes upon googolplexes of parallel universes in which every possible consequence of all the current unknowns of our physical theory are enumerated. And there is no point trying to work any harder to reduce those unknowns, and narrow the possible consequences of our current theory, because all the unknowns are fundamentally irreducible and all the possible consequences do in fact exist in one of the convenient multitude of many worlds that are out there. And this is all because I'm too lazy to stop eating donuts on my couch and refine our theory a bit more."

It just astounds me - why do people find it so hard to believe that gravity collapses the wavefunction? Its a tiny modification to the theory which instantly does away with a near-infinitude of universes. How economical and kewl is that? We may not know exactly how gravity does collapse the wavefunction (although there are proposals which sound like they're on the right track to me) - so, well, why don't we do some work and try to find out?

Considering the standard everyday QM doesnt incorporate gravity... why is it so hard to imagine that addition of gravity causes some kewl new behaviour? We know gravity works on large scales, and QM works on small scales where gravity can be neglected. Where the two scales meet, something in our current theory is going to break. Is it unreasonable to say wow, these wavefunctions are getting bigger and bigger, these various superpositions are starting to involve a lot of energy and mass. Will they really continue to exist simultaneously? If we start to consider the gravity we have optimistically neglected until now, we find wow, it should be becoming significant at these scales - the superpositions of different states in the wavefunction will have different gravitational fields, and the differences between the fields are even larger than the magnitudes of the fields themselves, and the difference between fields may be oscillating wildly in a highly unstable fashion. Might that not cause some new gravitational hocus pocus which simplifies things a bit by blipping some of that energy/field difference into some gravitons which interact with the differing gravitational fields and lessen the difference between fields by or thus collapsing the wavefunction a bit. For those who think its a bit cruel for the nasty ogre of gravity to impinge on the beauty and linearity of Schrodingers equations, well... if we include gravity into QM somehow, maybe we'll have something even nicer. The wavefunction collapse will be part of the improved QM theory instead of being imposed on it externally, and we'll see the resulting behaviour of wavefunction collapse is a thing of beauty too.

But the physicists in our universe will say: "No, we're all too lazy, we'd rather eat donuts and leave all that hard work to our thin clones in the those other alternate universes in which donuts weren't invented. Once the donut was invented in that ancestor universe of ours, we were all doomed to eternal laziness. But, take heart! Somewhere in the Multiverse is a universe in which donuts were never invented, and tv only shows the discovery channel. Let them solve everything in that universe, then they will surely go on to invent a sub-quantum multiverse-tunneling hyper-vortex so they can come and tell us all the answers, and we'll give them donuts and TV in return. Sounds like a fair deal to me."

I was interested to see someone's assertion that collapse of the wave-function is non-linear, and that is apparently bad so it can't be true. But why is non-linearity bad, if it explains what we see in our universe without postulating the absurd existence of a billion gazillion other universes? If so, it sounds good to me. A small price to pay. So why is it so hard for MWI proponents to deal with?
A bit of non-linearity here, a bit of CP-violation there, and weeeeeee, suddenly we're starting to find explanations for aspects of the small and large scales of the universe that have hitherto been inexplicable. But MWI people want to close their eyes and plug their ears and say "umumumumumumumumumumumum not listening umumumumumumumumumum don't understand umumumumumumumumumumumumum ooooooh collapse is non-linear umumumumumum go away go away go away etc"
[[User:IbleSnover|IbleSnover]] ([[User talk:IbleSnover|talk]]) 05:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Your views about quantum gravity already appear in the article. --[[User:MichaelCPrice|Michael C. Price]] [[User talk:MichaelCPrice|talk]] 09:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I apologise for my little rant above. I spose I'm just appalled at statements in this article saying that MWI is a "mainstream interpretation" up the top, supposedly believed by 60% of physicists. Its enough to make one despair. And then, much later on we read that even those who supposedly regard MWI as "true" are divided into two camps, those who think its real or unreal. Ridiculous. We're not discussing an abstract mathematical theory which may be true in the sense that its logical and consistent, or illogical and inconsistent and untrue. Its about whether MWI is (mathematically consistent AND) a good model for the real universe. This is physics, not mathematics, there is a distinction.
And then there are passages like this: "Dr. David Deutsch along with Oxford colleagues have demonstrated mathematically that the bush-like branching structure created by the universe splitting into parallel versions of itself can explain the probabilistic nature of quantum outcomes". Surely thats depends on viewpoint. The whole basis of MWI is the bush-like branching is caused BY the probabilistic nature of quantum outcomes. All he's done is state the same argument in reverse. Now, hes saying the branching explains the quantum theory, instead of the reverse. I wish he would make up his mind. Or say something new.[[User:IbleSnover|IbleSnover]] ([[User talk:IbleSnover|talk]]) 11:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

:But MWI ''is'' a mainstream interpretation nowadays...
:I agree that the "real and unreal" camps stuff is rubbish (a figment of M Gardiner's biased imagination)-- unfortunately it seems to be ''published'' rubbish, hence its appearance here.
:Finally about Deutsch and his branchings; it does not strike me as tautological -- the branching is a feature of quantum theory even before you add any probabilistic veneer, so if you can ''derive'' the probabilities from the branching then that is a highly non-trivial achievement. There seem to be a number of ways of doing his (Everett gave one, DeWitt another, Hartle a third, now Deutsch ....) -- and, I must confess, I doubt that they are dependent on MWI.--[[User:MichaelCPrice|Michael C. Price]] [[User talk:MichaelCPrice|talk]] 13:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

:: The point is that MWI holds only as far as linearity of QM holds. If QM is effectively linear below a certain scale, then MWI is going to hold below that scale. To a particle or wavefunction at these small QM scales, the MWI view is, I have no doubt, a perfectly valid viewpoint. One can look at these little particles and say, well, as far as that little packet of wavy particley Schrodingerness is concerned, its existence is bifurcating or trifurcating and so on, into mutliple little particle-verses which can be considered to really and objectively exist. But on the larger scale, it doesn't hold, because the linearity of QM doesn't hold when extended to larger scales. This is a critical point. You say there is no evidence for this, and I say that is absurd (and many would agree with me). Earlier in this discussion you yourself have shown you're happy to use inductive reasoning, but you dismiss the Occams razor argument. Now, when one considers the magnitude of the unnecessary multiverses which MWI (on the large scale) proposes - the Occams razor argument against MWI is an example of the most mind-bogglingly convincing inductive argument ever constructed. But you discard it because you don't want to believe the purity of the wavefunction can be tainted. I'm sure you'd be aware of D. Fival's paper saying all it needs is the addition of a tiny bit of stochastic random noise to the wave equations, and then we find the wave function IS non-linear enough that it begins to collapse by the time it involve mass near the Planck scale. Its a simple, and beautiful little modification, and does away completely with MWI on large scales, and its that sort of thing which is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not saying Fival has found the final answer - no doubt this line of investigation can and is being pursued further. Perhaps merging gravity into QM will give us a better and even more beautiful explanation of where the additional noise term comes from and lead to the generation of general relativity on larger scales too. How kewl (and beautifully economical) would that be? Occam would be delighted.

::I doubt you will convince me that it means anything at all to derive probabilities from branching. As I've explained, I'm sure MWI is a valid viewpoint at quantum scales. So depending on where you start your proof, I'm sure you can derive branches from probabilities, OR derive probabilities from branches. If, perchance it is slightly easier mathematically to start with MRI and derive probabilities than it is to go the other way, well, thats great. That'll be a useful consequence of MWI, the mathematicians will be happy, and it may make it easier to model or numerically evaulate some events at this level. And for this reason I'm all in favour of following the logic and mathematics of MWI through and seeing where it takes us and what we can get out of it. But, it doesn't really have any bearing on physics at larger scales and I don't think its likely anything much is going to come of doing so, beyond a temporary mathematical or numerical convenience or two.[[User:IbleSnover|IbleSnover]] ([[User talk:IbleSnover|talk]]) 01:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

:Wow, long conversation.
:Ignoring MWI for the moment, there are quite a few reasons to believe in the existence of things we can't empirically observe and never will be able to empirically observe. Here's one. We can see out into the universe to a distance of about 46 billion light years (comoving); that's as far as light has been able to travel since the universe became transparent. For as far as we can see the Universe is filled almost perfectly uniformly with matter. There are at least two possible conclusions: (1) this distribution of matter continues beyond the part we can see; (2) the Earth is at the center of a perfect sphere of uniform matter with a radius of 46 billion light years. Physicists prefer the first option for what should be obvious reasons; however your position on Ockham's razor would seem to require you to prefer the second. In fact there are other cosmologies that would be even more strongly favored by this version of Ockham's razor. For example, there's no logical inconsistency nor conflict with experiment in supposing that the universe is just a few thousand light years across with our solar system at the center, and at the edge are machines that emit patterns of light suggesting the existence of a Milky Way and other galaxies. This is a ridiculous idea, and it's worth thinking about why. It's ridiculous because light-generating machines could produce any pattern whatever, and most such patterns would not be consistent with the universe continuing uninterrupted beyond the machines. We reject this kind of cosmology out of hand because we don't believe in conspiracies.
::I see your point, but even so, I'm sure you know its a naughty misrepresentation of Occams razor. Neary as bad as the claims of those who say the razor favours MWI because it proposes a simpler basic theory (with no "additional" collapse). They fail, because they miss the point that any sensible use of Occams razor favours a slightly more complex theory if it results in a vastly simpler physical universe which is still (or more) consistent with what we know. You start to go wrong when you say your sphere of lights doesn't necessarily conflict with experiment, and sure, I agree that might be the case in principle. But to postulate a simple shell a few light years across throwing a few photons at us in a way which is consistent with the evidence we see and (therefore) with our theories - well, it might look more acceptable to Occams razor because the shell-universe is small, but you must know its not. Look at the nature of the evidence and the theories we have, to fake all of that, this shell must have some amazing physical and (you admit) conspiratorial powers. You don't just stick a few light bulbs on the shell, you have to line the inside of the shell with particle accelerators to generate cosmic rays. You have to co-oordinate the bulbs and accelerators and on and on and on. You have to then postulate the existence of an intelligence controlling this shell, an intelligence so vast that it could actually decide to fake all this evidence AND be smart enough to make all that fake evidence point towards an astoundingly complex and yet amazingly mathematically consistent "fake" universe". That would be a truly stupendous and god-like feat if that universe is not actually there and this intelligence exists only in a shell a few light years across with nothing much in it which could even serve to inspire this being to come up with such a marvellous hoax.

If you follow all that through, in effect you have to give the shell some absolutely god-like powers, both in the physical and intellectual and supernatural realms. So even if, on the surface, the shell seems simpler, its got to be an even bigger Occam-istic blunder than postulating a relatively bloated physical universe. By comparison, wave function collapse doesn't have to be anywhere near as godlike or conspiratorial. You people would have to know D. Fival's nice little adjustment to the wavefunction model, in which all it takes is a tiny bit of stochastic noise in the wave equations - to bring about wavefunction collapse... how utterly simple is that? Much simpler than many-worlds :) [[User:IbleSnover|IbleSnover]] ([[User talk:IbleSnover|talk]]) 01:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

:The Born rule is also a conspiracy. Years ago I came up with what seemed like an easy way to test whether human consciousness was involved in the collapse of the wave function. All you have to do is set up a double slit experiment with a detector at one slit, but then never look at the output of the detector; look only at the screen. If the interference pattern disappears then the detection at the slit collapsed the wave function without human awareness of its outcome. If the interference pattern doesn't disappear then there was no collapse. This experiment doesn't work because wave function collapse isn't the only thing that will make the interference pattern disappear. You can show using Schroedinger evolution alone that there is no interference if any information about the path the particle took is left behind at the slit. As a result you can't tell when the wave function collapses; virtually any triggering rule is consistent with every experimental result, as long as it doesn't get too close to the quantum regime. Like the light-generating machinery, it's hard to understand why the collapse would hide itself so effectively if it's really a physical phenomenon independent of Schroedinger evolution.
::Consciousness causes collapse is a nutter-idea too. As you say, if information about the particle path is left at the slit, then effectively the slit has taken a measurement. Consciousness whatever it is, can come along later and look at the result. As you say, virtually any triggering rule is consistent with the result. That, is a very good indication that collapse ISNT hiding itself so effectively... and there are experiments which can be designed to make this clearer.[[User:IbleSnover|IbleSnover]] ([[User talk:IbleSnover|talk]]) 01:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

:Of course, not believing in the Born rule is not the same as believing in MWI. But I'm not arguing that MWI is correct, only that you have no rational basis for rejecting it, which is a much weaker statement. Ockham's razor applied to current astronomical evidence favors a universe that continues uniformly beyond the part that we will ever be able to see, and applied to evidence in astronomy and high-energy physics it favors a "multiverse" of one kind or another. Ockham is not always right, but I hope this will help you understand why physicists think it's okay to believe in this stuff. -- [[User:BenRG|BenRG]] ([[User talk:BenRG|talk]]) 17:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks for your input. The shell idea was good :) But I still think its very clear Occam's razor does not favour a multiverse :) Perhaps it would be true to say if we look through our rose-coloured glasses in which all the massive effects of gravity are invisible - then occams razor favours a multiverse. But thats only true because a universe without gravity is a fantasy, its not reality. Gravity obviously permeates and governs the structure of our whole universe. The only place it can be ignore is at Planck-type scales, below which QM is a (very) good approximation. I don't think Occams razor makes so much sense in pure mathematics. If there is a long-winded way of reaching a result via some method, and a short way via a completely different method, they are both just as mathematically valid as each other. Sure occams razor and the law of the laziness of undergraduate students will favour teaching the simple method, and glossing over the long method. but they're both equally valid, and the long method if it comes from a different angle, may offer additional insight into the problem.

::But Occam's razor has more applicability in physics... much more. In physics it says the simple explanation is much more likely to correspond to objective reality. And thats a useful guiding principle in physics, because if a theory corresponds more to objective reality, then its much more likely we can delve further into that theory and discover even deeper theories which explain more about our universe than the more approximate theory we started with. And that is what we need to do here!
MWI says ok there is no need to look any deeper, I can already explain everything at the expense of postulating these absurd multiple-universes plus a huge chunk of of blind hope that gravity and all of its many many consequences (eg wavefunction collapse, CP-violation, arrow of time etc), can be ignored. Never mind that these multiple-universes have poor Occam spinning in his grave.
Standard QM plus a basic model of wave function collapse says we don't need all these ridiculous many-universes. And it gives us a much better guide as to where to look deeper in order to resolve the things we can't quite fully explain yet, like gravity, symmetry violations, or indeed, the underlying reason and mechanism (ie reality) of waveform collapse.

::MWI is an interesting theory to develop and see if it can provide any insights or mathematical ideas which might be powerful at or above the level of QM. But, its not particularly likely to help us go deeper, because it doesn't suggest (or even leave room) for anything new physically. Its actually a smug, self-satisfied and ignorant denial that there can even be any deeper theories which might explain the things MWI ignores.
::Regarding this controversy over Hawking's opinion the most I've been able to find on the net is the quote: "It is wellknown that if the quantum formalism applies to all reality, both to atoms, to humans, to planets and to the universe itself then the Many Worlds Interpretation is trivially true." Going from this statement to conclude that Hawking believes in MWI is a pretty big leap. He says MWI is obviously true IF the quantum formalism applies to the whole universe. Thats a pretty big if. It leaves him an entire universe of room to have some doubts the quantum formalism applies to the whole of reality, and therefore, it leaves plenty of room for him to doubt MWI. So, I don't think anyone should misrepresent Hawkings views in this wikipedia article by claiming he believes MWI is "real". Unless they have a different quote. This quote via Tipler doesn't cut it. In my view it means Hawking was much more likely to think MWI is unreal.
::I'm not trying to make this a personal attack, but, in M. Price's FAQ, he says: "Linearity (of the wavefunction) has been verified to hold true to better than 1 part in 10^27 [W]. If slight non-linear effects were ever discovered then the possibility of communication with, or travel to, the other worlds would be opened up. The existence of parallel Everett- worlds can be used to argue that physics must be exactly linear, that non-linear effects will never be detected." That is a very very weak series of assertions. Linear to better than 1 part in 10^27 isn't saying much more than the fact that QM is an amazingly accurate model. And noone would dispute that. But there is still plenty of room for non-linearity. Suppose we are trying to verify linearity over distances of a just metre. One part in 10^27 will be 10^-27m. The Planck length is 10^-35 metres. If we have only verified linearity down to 1 part in 10^27, then the wavefunction could have non-linearity 8 orders of magnitude less than 1 part in 10^27 - and the non-linearities would still be on the scale of the Planck length, So they could therefore easily be significant to QM, and therefore kill MWI. And if the Universe is 46 billion light-years across, then MWI relies on QM holding for another factor of 10^27 or something like that, on the larger scale. 1 part in 10^27 is nothing when you are talking about scales which span 54 or more orders of magnitude...
::The assertion that non-linear effects opens up the possibility of communication to other worlds, is sadly mistaken. As long as the non-linearity is just a wee bit of nice stochastic noise, there are no such possibilities of communication or travel, and indeed, no such possibilities that the other worlds even exist, because such a small non-linearity is enough to collapse he wavefunction and eliminate all these other worlds. The last statement that existence of Everett worlds can be used to argue for exactly linear evolution is just completely fallacious and circular. Again... I ask.. in despair... how can any self-respecting physicist think this way?! Nothing personal, I'm not picking on anyone in particular. I just marvel that this MWI is such a widely accepted view among people who supposedly know anything about these subjects. I can't believe this is really the case.
[[User:IbleSnover|IbleSnover]] ([[User talk:IbleSnover|talk]]) 02:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this appropriate? To have this outrageously long a conversation about (from what I can tell, I don't have time to read through the whole thing) MWI itself and not the article? I'd suggest someone archive it somewhere so the talk page is still readable. Cheers, [[User:General Epitaph|General Epitaph]] ([[User talk:General Epitaph|talk]]) 04:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

:Probably not, feel free to archive away. Obviously people will continue to believe this silliness indefinitely, even when its proved QM is non-linear and some sort of wavefunction collapse does occur. Someone is sure to invent an even more nutty variant of MWI that claims to still work. I expect we'll never be rid of this mad theory. I just think this article should make it clear that it takes very little modification of QM to avoid the whole many-worlds mess, and there is good reason to believe those modifications are required, and they will improve quantum theory in other ways. But it seems to me this topic has been hijacked by people who have a distorted view of reality and who ignore the gaping holes and huge (and unlikely) assumptions upon which MWI hinges. I mean, I appreciate being able to come to this Wikipedia and read all this info on MWI, so thanks to all those who have contributed to this article. Its more than my lazy ass has done. But... unfortunately... I swear, this article, in terms of what sane quantum physicists really believe, vastly overestimates the mainstreaminess of MWI - and its chances of holding up under what will probably be a reasonably imminent onslaught of evidence against it. MWI adherents should prepare to be rather disappointed in coming years. Oh well, we will see. [[User:IbleSnover|IbleSnover]] ([[User talk:IbleSnover|talk]]) 05:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
:I vote for archive, since we are only racapitulating points covered in the article. --[[User:MichaelCPrice|Michael C. Price]] [[User talk:MichaelCPrice|talk]] 08:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

::Interesting. Well, as bits-quanta are cheap, and readers will read as they please or not, and the discussion page is "unoffical" to the main article, I'd never archive away a thing, myself, as it shows more magnified, the article's introduction to the debate of the math-real vs cosmic-real versus cosmic-unreal debate. It (MWI), is as good an idea, in reality, as the concept of luminiferous aether or general relativity, in potential, that for luminiferous aether crescendoed in a now-we-can-test-it event with Michaelson-Morely, leading to knowledge, and GR finally absorbed all concepts of the preceeding decades in the most encompassing, observeable, precisely verified framework. LE remains classical, and important ... if anything to remember what not to forget in analysis and pedagogy, whether to-be falsified or to-be verified, in the ultimate analysis. And I found out my hunch about branching Hilbert Space clouds has its precedent from "Dr. David Deutsch", here in discussion, so I learned something good and useful, from this very thread, even if I have archived it locally on my own HDD, but who can see that other than who I speak about it with, directly. I see it in the article now, but must have been eating a donought that section. Wiki is more powerful with an official front page and background discussions intact, both. As good as "upstairs downstairs". Like teachers and students in college or school, both indispensible and useful to status quo and dissent, both; when coherent, classified, and topically networked. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 06:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upstairs_Downstairs

::And I would not call consiousness affecting reality a nutter-idea, because I reckon that human-consciousness, computers with senses, and amorphous ceramics all collapse wavefunctions, but in different ways, according to their structural entanglement and measurement characteristics. Even if, perhaps, Wheeler and Wigner may have overstated consciousness's centrality to reality, they were on to something good. I would analogously liken it to human-consciousness as light through a nonlinear optics thick film hologram, computers with senses as light through nonlinear optics diffraction gratings, and amorphous ceramics as light through nonlinear optics frosted glass. Each one has its affects on wavefunction collapses, and each according to the structure of the measurement apparatus structure. And consciousness really remains special, insofar that it has masssive coherently organized organizational channels, akin to "parallel-information=processing-loops", which itself is equivalent to "parallel=entangled-probability=measurement-network=structure". While a block of amorphous ceramic is just that, amorphous, so it processes wavefuncction in unstructured amorphous ways. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 06:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

:::Another comment I might add. If one considers that the macroscale universe is predominantly formed in classical forms, with exceedingly large masses, and with exceedingly small wavefunctions, overall, then one can assume that the largest volumes of multiple universes of the Hilbert-space exist in practically the same macrostate. If we also assume that there is a minor statistically signifignat amount of systematic crosstalk effects between all similar universes, instead of the perfectly 0.0-bar crosstalk defined for conventional MWI, then one may see that the classical universe is the product of all virtually identical MWI, with a nearly perfect unity of their statistically evolved macro-forms after billions of years of crosstalk mixing. Now consciousness (machine or human) is a different type of effect on the evolution of the macro-universe in that it can amplify a single quantum measurement up to macroscales, branching the universe strongly, especially on the thin gravitational skin of the active earth. Now if one were to find a lagrangian point in the solar system for a set of solar system bodies, for say an asteroid set, where consciousness of a process (a digital machine with quantum measurer and rockets under measurement control will suffice), can alter the path of the astronomical objects in concert to the quantum level magnified, for one distant configuration or another distant configuration, both being different from the natural solar system, controlling at the lagrangian points, which will, over time, exponentially changes the character of the solar system, from the purely passive statistical macroscopically classical orbits that would have invariably occured without any presence of humans, to the orbits that are grossly and systematically different because of the consciously machine-amplified effects on the macroscale bodies and thus the solar system as a whole system in infinite Hilbert-Branches. Now if 99.9-bar-X% of the natural solar systems go one way, and we have taken one small set of classical universes to go another two potential very different ways, are there now statistically different measurements of QP through to gravity, due to the influence of an active amplification process of a machine with a quantum measurement being magnified to move an asteroid one way or another, both away from the natural, with their accompanying solar system configuration differences. If the lagrangian points are all selected very carefully to even chain double bodies, and lagrangian control points, so that kinetic energy and macroscopic differences can be amplified to their greatest solar system effects, then one may observe irregularities in orbits through to quantum physics effects, altered from the natural-solar-system-evolution-without-human-consciousness, to the unnatural-solar-system-quantum-altered-by-human-consciousness states. Its one testable hypothesis on a strong scale of influences, and has the greatest effects observeable, if the solar system can be greatly affected with such chained "pinball" chain reaction alteration of the solar system from its, until now, virtually prestine untouched by human state. So this provides one testable method for MWI avenues, or puts upper limits on all of the amounts of crosstalks allowed in MWI that are part of the experiment, and what kinds of forces they belong to, for the observed effects between the hidden MWI's of the natural passive unconscious solar system, to the consciously affected one way or another solar system. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 11:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

:::Some additional comments I can make, are that the solar system is basically evolutionarily pristine, limited by solar system probes, some probe to comet and asteroid landings and impacts, and military experiments with asteroid / comet orbits. They are all likely only 50 years of selected and slight orbital effects on the current solar system's 99.9-bar-X% of currently natural states in Hilbert-Space, that have not evolved to exponentially different states. If several asteroids are selected, and displaced one way or the other with a delicate saddle set of kinetic energy paths, and its orbital effects are calculated out precisely for before and after, then one can compare the new orbits with the old for all solar system bodies, and also measure along the places where the asteroids would have gone with branching probes to follow the now empty spots in space where the asteroids would have been otherwise with manouevering, to see if a streaming quantum experiment and space measurement along the empty paths would register in time along the path to increase the SNR ratio of potential anomolies when the 99.9-bar-X% asteroid pass through their now empty spot in this space where the branch probes are now located. All of the asteroids will be aletered by the nonlinear-unnatural-consciousness effects on the natural evolution of the 99.9-bar-X% natural solar systems, that no longer exist, on the one measurement plane we inhabit collectively from earth. Likewise, to reiterate, no effects would indicate that the 99.9-bar-X% of the solar systems have no crosstalk effects en-masse in Hilbert-Space, approaching zero crosstalk. The good thing is that large masses and critical paths can be evolved with minor power control, to grossly alter the solar system to the maximum difference of possible mass distributions, in two sets of very different final solar system configurations, in comparison to the very different natural solar system without conscious effects on orbits. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 11:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
:LoneRubberDragon, please be aware that the less you write the more likely you are get a response -- paragraphs would help as well! This is just too dense and unstructured for easy reading. Sorry. --[[User:MichaelCPrice|Michael C. Price]] [[User talk:MichaelCPrice|talk]] 17:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

:::Sorry, as it cannot be helped much at that level, even if it does keep it beyond simple AI bot and basic comprehension. Four paragraphs of text seemed adequate, unless you're asking for *more* paragraphs of smaller size. Plus to reduce the density would make the paragraphs *longer* as a fixed information content product of less information in more words. You can always pick out things to formulate refinement questions for yourself to me, from the corpus of the informal paragraphs. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 11:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

:::The last paragraphs describe a way to see if the crosstalk between amplified divergence universes (on a massive solar system scale) is proveable as virtually zero in practical measurements, in the massive/bulk divergence of solar system masses with continuing broadcasts and measurements on the asteroid(s) being probe-controlled, and on the paths where the asteroid(s) would have gone with measurement-probes only, on those other-paths. It is interesting to consider, too, because large masses are involved, in pretty natural states, to see if even gravity ghosts could be detected on the divergent paths, as part of the preceeding conversations, considers the relationship of gravity to the aspect of causing quantum measurements. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 11:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

:::Another interesting aspect of the experiment, if macroscale "consciousness"/great-amplification divergence crosstalk can be observed, then perhaps gravity-time-space curvature and quantum-measurement are potentially proveably two aspects of one unified thing. As most of the matter of the universe has little quantum critical and amplified effects on the cosmic scale, where matter, space, and gravity are the natural dominant forces of the macroscale cosmos. Consciousness is small scale, in very little of the universe, but it has the capacity these days on earth, to greatly amplify small things into the cosmic scale. If MWI has a real aspect, detectable in some macroscale crosstalk criteria, but it is all so close to being quantum cosmic scale unitary-macroscopic-classical in virtually all cosmic material evolution, because consciousness/great-amplification tends to have little cosmic scale effects, until today. Such MWI crosstalk may be a coherent self-forming aspect of the universe, as the measurement-gravity-time-space concept may rule most of the cosmos over consciousness-amplification-measurement effects. A human experiment to make cosmic level changes, along with an MWI measureable crosstalk, even if minute, opens the avenue to investigate the characterization of the relationship of MWI-mweasurement-gravity-time-space-consciousness differentials on the cosmos. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 11:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

:::Additionally, a low mass part of the experiment can even be tested on earth, if one setup a general calibrated characterized broad spectrum radiator, on a very long three way track, where the radiator can go into one of the two branches, based on a quantum measurement, to enter one of two thick lead faraday cages on the ends of the tracks, and measure both cages, one cage being the empty faraday cage. If the empty faraday cage has ANY signals not present in a "control" third faraday cage equidistant from the other two cages, then one has the capacity to show that an earth frame of reference MWI crosstalk may be true, as some of the branched universes are bleeding a crosstalk signal into this universe. If the second empty faraday cage matches the "control" third faraday cage, as only background noise, then MWI is still in that strange potentially useful mathematical tool, but hard-to-believe-otherwise googles-universe status in a criteria-based test with *zero* macroscale crosstalk of signals traveling between universes, even though "on the same relative inertial plane of existence", for all those googles of universes. It is also good, in that, if the radiators are periodic, then long term FFT fourier transforms can be performed, to *very* carefully measure for a frequency peak of MWI crosstalk in EM, particle, or quantum effects, in a contunuous-streaming measurement, in as many dimensions of signals possible. A kind of an earth based "MWI no-macroscopic-communications-crosstalk theorem" characterization, one way or the other, through definitive crosstalk tests, or an interesting transformation of MWI Schrodinger's Cat on a large scale. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 11:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

:::Another similar test, is to have a photon passing through a half silvered mirror, directed at two faraday cages with two radiators that are rapidly actuated on by a photon, and a control cage with no radiator. Where the immediate former setup measures slow or steady state crosstalk terms, if any, this one measures transients, in that if the this-universe radiator that didn't get a photon shows any rapidly decaying radiation-response, it shows a transient MWI crosstalk from other parallel branched universes. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 15:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

:::Likely, all these tests would show no crosstalk in a classical measurement sense (bad for MWI in the ways previously discussed), showing rapid measurement collapse of the whole universe with every measurement into perfectly isolated but in the test context, utterly un-inspectable universes. But QP can be strange, and it would be interesting to find an extant experiment that has tested some of these MWI crosstalk check tests, to show that the *macroscope-universe* has either exactly zero MWI crosstalk, or some measureable MWI crosstalk transient, or MWI crosstalk steady state. I've not literally seen such an article testing that, yet, nor seen one off hand in the Wiki references, or web, maybe I missed a key link or book. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 15:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

:::I have nothing much to add to this thread, right now, without additional more-specific clarification-questions, if you would like me to expand the harder to read parts of the, admittedly, conversation informal writing style of mine. I will grant you ahead of time, it is unverified or theoretical content outside of Wheeler, Wigner, Chalmers, Quantum-mind/consciousness, et cetera articles on Wiki and on the web, being theoretical considerations, for sure. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 03:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

== Taken from my discussion on Ronald Mallett experiments for time travel using "photon cycles". ==

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ronald_Mallett#What_can_light_do_for_time_travel.2C_versus_a_weapon.3F

What can light do for time travel, versus a weapon?

I cannot see, from the article's description of his work, without more article details, how it is that things can be made to go back in time, as Mallett's work is described in his appearances on YouTube clips of Discovery Channel / TLC shows. Conventional energy fields, can only accelerate matter, up to speeds approaching the speed of light, which causes their time to lorentzian "contract" to slower rates. No? Particle accelerators, for example, use electromagnetic waves in the radio regieme to only accelerate particles upto speeds all slower than light, and so they "tick" slower at the relativistic speeds. Like muons that normally last microseconds, but can last many times longer when nearing the speed of light, before decaying. Matter-energy-space configurations can only affect matter-energy-space configurations into slower time frames of reference, all below the speed of light, or at the speed of light for photons related to the matter-energy-space configurations. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 18:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I can see coming from this research, as it is supericially described, is as a weapons platform, from the university research. The entire set of experiment descriptions seem to rely on a high intensity loop or line of light, created by either slowing light down with high synthetic refraction indexes, or "optical circulation cylinders", or even strong gravitational fields like a black hole. These would not allow time travel into the past, as far as I can discern, but such "optical superconductor / supercapacitor" could allow the storage of some amount of light for later release. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 18:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I ran across the idea of optical superconductors back in 1996, and wonder where it is currently, myself. What are the current potentials for making optical (near-/virtual-/actual-)superconductors? That is, what is the potential for making a material field capable of concentrating and holding a line, ring, or sphere of light, with virtually zero loss of light, and also have an extremely high capacity for light storage density? It would definitiely require a transparent material that doesn't scatter light, have a graded index of refraction to accumulate light from some light source outside of the field into a spatial light attractor pattern, with possible coherent radiation during the nonlinear accumulation and photon redirection into the photon attractor path, and linear (not nonlinear optics) in the core, or even general photon-quantized properties to remain photo path storage stable, as the density of the light being stored increases. Fiber optics seem to allow a weak form of this, but the energy stored dissipates in microseconds, as heat, for even the most transparent of fiber optics, in a loop. A good optical superconductor, if possible, would asymptotically coalece light onto a single path, and store the light on that circulating path for hours or days, to have some level of utility as a weapon or energy storage device. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 21:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Such a structure would potentially allow vast amounts of light energy to be stored with very little loss, and can produce a non-radioactive method of releasing vast amounts of stored energy, potentially far exceeding all chemical energy release methods and nuclear energy release methods, depending on the denisty of light achieveable in the optical superconducting structure. As such, a "photon torpedo" of sorts could be achieved with an optical superconductor light capture structure. Depending on the deisgn, it could be *very* light weight to energy capacity ratio, compared to some energy release modes like chemical bonds, and could have a very directed to isotropic radiation pattern of vaporization by design, and release no radioactive materials. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 21:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If light cannot be converged onto a fixed cycle with graded refraction index optics, then a stimulated emmission mode could be placed on the path, and excited in order to create a standing wave laser attractor on the path for photons that are stimulated on the optical superconducting axis ring. A self contained laser with no output, that accumulates standing waves of energy on the optical cyclic axis / or a spherical membrane for a sphere design. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 23:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A remote, but plausible method I can envision, that does presumably exist as a method, is to use a small black hole to create an optical superconducting analog. Imagine dropping micro mirrors and light pulses, or energized molecules designed to radiate light tangentially into the event horizon, in order to pump light energy into the photon sphere of light around the black hole. One could store some finite amount of megawatt hours of light energy, within the photon sphere for some finite amount of orbital time, depending on how carefully the light can be pumped into the long light orbit period "saddle-point-zone" of the balck hole photon sphere. But the orbits of light around a very-small black hole might be too small and so critically unstable according to some mathematical views. But if achieveable theoretically, once pumped full of light energy, one could drop into the "charged photon torpedo" a large amount of reflecting materials en-masse, into the the black hole, in order to scatter or direct the light in the temporary photon sphere back out, in a giant blast of energy. For a simple isotropic scattering infalling material, some signifigant portion of the stored orbiting photon sphere of light can presumably be scattered back outwards. If the black hole is magnetic, and can be contained in a magnetic control shell, then the energized black hole can be just one theoretical method to deliver massive amounts of pure energy to a target (as well as the black hole core). [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 00:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergosphere

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Ergosphere

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-05/6-05.htm

http://www.gothosenterprises.com/black_holes/static_black_holes.html

I've also heard of experiments slowing light down to a crawl, with synthetic near infinite index of refraction analogues. If capable of being saturated with enormous amounts of light energy trapped in a column, when the column's capacity to slow light is turned off, or disintegrated, all of that light energy would be released in one blast, also. If it is an experiment, however, that has only a limited capability to store light before going nonlinear and incapable of trapping intense light, then it would not serve well as a time delay compression optical "superconductor". [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 00:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

But if a large volume could be made to slow light to 17 [m/s], as Lene Hau has achieved for a beam of light, compared to 299,792,458 [m/s], then in a 1 [m] block of this apparatus, which is a 3.3 [nsec] of vacuum light path time, could store 17.6 million times more light than a vacuum, or 58 [msec] of light. One could pump 17.6 million 3.3 [nsec] high-energy pulses of laser light into the apparatus, for 58 [msec], turn the field off, or otherwise disrupt it, and release all 17.6 million light pulses, with great devestation. If light could be slowed a million times more than that, it gives one time to charge it with even more light, at a more lesiurely rate, over an hour, and still have 15 hours left to transport the apparatus before "activation". But time travel? Really! [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 19:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely a neat "Star Wars" project, closer to the photon torpedos of Star Trek. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 19:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lene_Hau

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative#Directed-energy_weapon_.28DEW.29_programs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative#Chemical_laser

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_High_Energy_Laser

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_torpedo#Photon_torpedoes

A very weak amorphous structured crude analog version of this, would be an ideal black body crystaline material, that can be heated to tens of thousands of degrees without breaking its bonds, storing the energy in electron resonances. It could be transported to another location, where the crystal is broken, releasing heat and the potential photonic energy from the disturbance of the resonant structure. However, it is not traditionally optical effects, as it relies on absorbtion and reradiation of kinetic energies, and some light energy, to store energy in molecular chained time delays as "slowed light". And as a black body, it would generally cool very quickly through surface radiation. An ideal optical superconductor structure, full of light energy, would appear virtually black from the outside, even though it's internal state is closer to millions of degrees in/of light (and not kinetic) energy storage. The ideal black body would only have tens of thousands of degrees in/of light/kinetic energy storage, and a normal black body like charcoal or stone, would only have a few thousand degrees in/of light/kinetic energy storage. And being non-optical to a great extent, the black bodies, in general, would be predominantly kinetic energy thermal energy stores. As such, size makes the black body energy store scale up, like the sun, where a "photon" from the core can be said to take millions of years to escape the sun through diffusion through the mass. Definitely not superconducting, optically speaking, or even index of refraction slowed light, but absorbtion-reemission time-delay storage. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 21:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_light

== Taken from my Super-resolution discussion, and article associates/writers " User A1 ". ==

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Super-resolution

Microscan

One of the industry standard terms, which I've verified has no Wiki search entry cross referencing, is "microscan". Many military, engineering, and patent doccuemnts on the web, describe "superresolution", using the term microscan, along with the suppoert algorithms of matrix operation sub-pixel motion estimation, for use in uncontrolled microscan application, where absolute sensor position information is not present, to produce a microscan using known pixel displacement, and fourier inverse filtering of known displacement microscan frames, when being integrated into higher resolution images, derived from the pixel frequency point spread function definition. Especially with regards to the low resolution military FLIR camera systems using resolution enhancement applications like microscanning, to allow small payload IR cameras to resolve better with minimal spplication weight and power increases. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 23:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a paragraph, and links can be added, to also point to this standard term, along with super resolution. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 23:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

And you are correct that an optic system that is nyquist limited to the sensor, cannot be used for microscanning. To perform real microscanning, requires an optical system with a nyquist limit of the optical transfer function, of the right resolution fold over the sensor, to produce real microscanning resolution enhancement. Without such an optical system to sensor match, one can only perform morphological edge enhancements to an image, but features lower reolution than the baseband image limited by optical transfer function, will not be brought out by any microscan / superresolution algorithm, like the old saying, you can't enhance a blurry image, because you cannot create what isn't there (without implicit truth data subject modeling information to artificially enhance the image being guessed at).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_limit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_transfer_function

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_spread_function

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk

[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 23:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

:Actually you can recover frequencies beyond that filtered out by the point spread function, usually at the cost of a noise increase, if you make statistical assumptions about the underlying process and attempt to recover these statistical parameters, such as in [[expectation maximisation]] algorithms. So you can make a blurry image unblurry and have your freq's too, so it isn't just sharpening (nasty fourier-ringing). [[User:User A1|User A1]] ([[User talk:User A1|talk]]) 07:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

::QUOTE"Super-resolution (SR) are techniques that in some way enhance the resolution of an imaging system. There are different views as to what is considered an SR-technique: some consider only techniques that break the diffraction-limit of systems, while others also consider techniques that merely break the limit of the digital imaging sensor as SR."

::True and false, mostly false, given the ambiguity of your language, *actually*, especially breaking the "diffraction limit claim", unless you are using morphological model inferrence of subject recognition below "normal" resolution limitations. Otherwise, the MTF drops quite rapidly for an Airy disk, limiting at nyquist your reconstructions, and moreso with a blurry image with gaussian edges. And I grant you are true, that sharp edge blurrs (disks) can recover *some* detail, in some contrast image subject contexts, but not in other. Microscan has no limits to frequency construction, if the airy disk is smaller to the sensor pixels by the ratio of sensor-resolution microscanning required. You can't statistically recover beyond diffraction limiting nyquist data, otherwise with ANY SENSOR, for standard incoherent light optics. The PSF's MTF drops faster than the rolloff of a first order LRC network, thus Nyquist limiting your attempts at reconstruction to handfuls of percents, for standard incoherent light optics; only giving tens of percent superresolution worth counting, over some official equations of resolution limit, Airy, Dawes, Sparrow. Please read the theory of diffraction limited optics, when given an infinite resolution sensor, as there are SOLID NYQUIST LIMITS to all supperresolution, as you describe, you may not know. But microscanning for high resolution optics, given a low resolution sensor, IS what is signifigantly posible, by *actually* giving hundreds or thousands of percent resolution enhancement, up to the limits of the optics, with a low resolution sensor, when taking tens to hundreds of images, to be microscanned together. And perhaps "microscan" is a different, superior improvement sensor resolution enhancement old algorithm, compared to a more basic superresolution article. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 23:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

::Likewise, a proper wiener deconvolution doesn't do ad-hoc nasty fourier ringing, that your conception proposes, but simply reconstructs the frequencies of a sensor PSF from a microscan resolution enhancement. It is a mathematically sound root equation to control what is to be reconstructed, without unwarranted ringing. There are also wiener adjustments possible to conteract the poisson noise distribution of pixel intensity that can cause unwanted noise artifacts in a weiner deconvolution of a low SNR imager. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 23:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

MICROSCAN

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA390373 [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 23:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

ENHANCEMENT LIMITATIONS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawes_limit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_criterion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk#Mathematical_details

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction_limited

http://www.quantumfocus.com/publications/2005_Optical_and_Infrared_FA_Microscopy.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_Spread_Function

http://support.svi.nl/wiki/NyquistCalculator

RECONSTRUCTION METHOD BASE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiener_deconvolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconvolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal-to-noise_ratio

[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 23:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Lucy's original paper. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1974AJ.....79..745L] ; its quite clever. [[User:User A1|User A1]] ([[User talk:User A1|talk]]) 12:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yea, that's a very good appearing document, yet I will have to digest that one more, especially given its age. First face, it appears it has its statistical limitations based on low SNR data sets, just as microscanning does for sensor noise. But, is it not for smoothed-morphology data-modeling constructions, with some possible applications for a sensor's PSF estimation step in microscanning algorithms? Am I groking the paper right? [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 10:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If you scan through Irvine Sensors Corporation, Costa Mesa, CA, SBIR projects, there is a project on Microscan circa 1995-7 +- couple years, which uses gradient matrix motion based image displacement estimation, used for the proper subpixel multiple-frame motion displacement estimates, that are required for making the displaced microbinning image stack. And then ther's an iterative process to estimate (if I recall right) the point spread function from the stacks of the low resolution image sensor that is being microscanned to the optics' and sensor noise figure limits, to perform the wiener type deconvolution in the presence of poisson sensor illuminance noise. If I can find the original article here and code work, I'll post some equations from the core, but my paperwork here is quite behind, arresting proper information flow. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 10:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

::"But, is it not for smoothed-morphology data-modeling constructions, with some possible applications for a sensor's PSF estimation step in microscanning algorithms?" Richardson expanded (or rather explained Lucy a little) on the algorithm. It can be used to enhance frequencies that have been severely diminished due to point spread. The iteration scheme proposed by Lucy appears to converge, but whilst not an expert in the field, I have been unable to find any papers that say exactly *why* it works to the extent that I understand, only that as a maximum likelihood method it does seem to work, a more complex version of fixed point iteration if you will.
::The idea is that if you have a unit impulse, which has been spread by some PSF function via convolution, you can actually (to some extent, and as you say, given sufficiently low noise) reverse the convolution integral to some extent - without the problems of simple Fourier division. Somewhere I have Richardsons paper, which is a hell of a lot easier to understand.
::Getting back on to the point, which is discussion of super resolution :). This wiki article has an unfortunate name as it describes a field of possible mechanisms for increasing the resolution of an image. This seems to fall into two categories. Firstly as you say, sub-pixel estimation by morphological constraints. Secondly the use of statistical modelling of sensor acquisition to try to estimate the underlying statistical parameters, and estimating un-filtered or the noise-free signal from real data. Both of these are important, and based upon my highly non-expert opinion, the morphological analysis method is the more active area of research. To be honest I don't actually know *lots* about this area, I just have used it once or twice. [[User:User A1|User A1]] ([[User talk:User A1|talk]]) 12:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

:::Ah, Richardson *does* sounds familiar, I believe coming later than the Lucy paper, at around 1991+- couple years. I had never seen the Lucy paper before, for that work, so it's nice to see more of the historical foundations, as the Lucy paper wasn't *that* hard to read, on first glance, though you mention its PSF power is stronger than the equations let on, first face. To reiterate (no pun?), the best I can describe sans Richardson(?) paper's equations on hand, is that, first, the frames of data are stacked on the super resolution plane using the gradient matrix based motion estimator operator for producing displacement estimates, for appropriately placing multiple frames of sensor impulses for the SR/MS pixels on the superresolution plane, and then any holes in the superresolution plane from X frames are filled with nearest neighbor frames impulse data, where no frame impulses were present, in order to fill the gaps from a non-systematic non-raster microscanning platform (a generic microscanning algorithm for free low motion non-rotating cameras). At that point comes the analysis of frequency content of the whole image at the pixel scale, to *estimate* only somewhat robustly against the noise margin, the system PSF and noise figure both, in the frequency domain, which is used to deconvolve the microscan/superresolution plane. The effects are quite dramatic, bringing out resolutions 2x and 4x (easily 200-400% resolution improvement 4-16 times pixels) over the sensor resolution, given a good optics and sensor SNR, for that ratio of superresolution/microscan. So Richardson seems to be the paper (et.al.) that ISC based that step of the microscan system on, under M. Skow at ISC, for the gradient based sensor resolution motion estimate plus multi-frame impulse stack deconvolution, of the optic-sensor PSF system chain. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 14:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

:::Now to explain the mystery you mention, most of the resolution improvement comes from enhancing and restoring the PSF spread about the highest PSF gradients with the most edge/phase information, the ring around the edges of the pixel's PSFs, that is where the image to pixel transfer function is maximized on those salient PSF high frequency features. Mainly low frequency luminanace information, and some of morphological step=edge-gradient-pixel=crossing DC-to-AC information, is contributed by the core of the PSF. I really do have to find that paper, too, which I have *somewhere* around here, so I can post that form of the equations. Though I can add, I remember that in practice, the methods of the system, even with 2-D FFT's, took alot of computation power, and there is supposed to be an even better algorithm via ISC, out there, for producing microscanning more efficiently, probably using a one time optic-sensor-pixel PSF estimate, and conversion to a 2-D FIR filter, as ISC continued refining and altering the algorithms of Richardson(?) and inter-frame motion estimators, that was developped under new management at ISC around 1998+= couple years. One method may be to only process the salient high frequency ringing to deconvolve a HPF details plane, and combine that plane with the mass of data of the LPF of the superresolution impulse stacking. This would restore the high frequency data, and might use less computation load, as only the steepest gradient of the PSF grid is utilized, but I never tried that algorithm, to validate that approach. In addition, heirarchical binned image based motion estimates can be performed to expand the motion based frame impulse stacking distances into super-pixel displacements over the more limited sub-pixel-limited gradient=based-matrix-displacement=estimates algorithm. Also, the image based motion estimates can be quadrant partitioned, or more thouroughly processed on an iterated polar coordinate gradient matrix operator plane, to handle additional freedoms of camera motion of,, rotation, and perspective (trapezoidal), displacements for affine stacked frame placement of the impulses, like for an aerial sensor system, flying over a ground target at an oblique angle zoom shift, which I advanced, but was only somewhat forwarded at that time. And one may also attempt a model based annealing algorithm where the superresolution model starts flat gray and is altered steepest descent of the MS plane, through an estimate of the PSF, into the individual frames pixels, and is error backpropagated into the original frames of data for the PSF and noise error figures, to converge the model to the properly placed PSF'ed frames, which is probably very close to ML/EM. I cannot recall if Richardson's(?) method went from the model to converge to the frames, or used the impulse stacked frames to reverse convolve the best lowest error model, or perhaps they are equivalent, just different in approach. But alas, it was over 10 years ago since I assisted and advanced on that set of codes, so alot of the details have degraded in memory, and the "durned" X papers get buried in time. I can't even offhand find a web reference SBIR or patent reference on the details that had been on the net up to 8 years ago, but are not googleable today ... information degredation in war time, I guess, and maybe the SBIR website still has those datas searchable as they catalog past SBIR's. Ill look for the Richardson(?) paper tonight, but can't promise anything as my technical papers are distributed at two sites, now, among masses of boxes of data and books. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 14:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

::::Oh well, I must have been having a crosslinked brain cell with Richardson Extrapolation. The paper I have, of more than one,, is, "Restoration of Aliased Video Sequences via a Maximum-Likelihood Approach", from 1996 Feb. 11., which puts the phase 2 of the SBIR around 1997. The paper is under S. Cain, R. Hardy, and E. Armstrong, of the University of Dayton, Dept. of EE., under WPAFB contract. I believe they are just reiterating the earlier works as part of a spearhead DoD program. No Lucy is present in the references, nor Richardson. I cannot place any equations here, as it is marked for DoD contractors distribution only, and I know not the current status after 12 years, but I presume it may be requested on WL/AARI-3 WPAFB OH, 45433-7409. Plus the paper's algorithm estimates both frame displacements, as well as the system PSF simultaneously, where one can still calculate frame displacements separately from the PSF EM/ML section. If you play with the blocks you know of, you can generate any number of nearly equivalent convergences of the model image sans noise. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 15:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

::::Another paper here, is, "The Application of Wiener Filters to Microscan Imaging", from 1996 Feb. 15. The paper is under E. Armstrong, J. Bognar, B. Yasuda, R. Hardie, under University of Dayton, under WPAFB, under AFC F33601-95-DJ010. It, likewise, is under DoD contractor restrictions of distribution, circa 1996. Likewise no Lucy, nor Richardson in the references. Pity, many of the best algorithms come from astronomical image processing in the 1960's and 1970's. One reference potentially easily retrieveable is E.A. Watson, R.A. Muse, F.P. Blommel, "Aliasing and Blurring in Microscanned Imagery", Proceedings of the SPIE, Volume 1689, 242-250 (1992). And I agree that the Weiner method, when applied as a uniform global image operator, and not locally adaptive, does produce more ringing, than a locally adaptive ML/EM model iterative annealing system construction. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 19:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

::::http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=220576 [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 02:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

::::With regards to the *other* definition combined under superresolution=microscanning-resolution=enhancement, is more of a subjective morphological enhancement of images based enhancement of images, which I mentioned earlier, and you have differentiated. For example, a line in a low resolution television scan image, can be modeled by an assumed line model that explains the luminance data, which can be subtracted and replaced by the line model at any resolution. Another example is a solid form, where one scans across the edge of the shape to form a model assumed to be forming the low resolution data. Another example, is if one has, say a herringbone pattern, or known high resolution pattern, it can be affine distortion mapped to explain the low resolution image data. All of these are subjective, multi-pixel averaging shape formers with their own sets of subjective errors, but allow one to, say, cheat in an HDTV broadcast, by using less data bandwidth to represent the bulk of image shapness data, while also using a low resolution camera and image transmission, including with it a transmission of MPEG4 shape model information, all in the place of a true HDTV broadcast signal. It is not true superresolution, but image modeling. WHY IT ISN'T true microscanning=superresolution is that it does have systematic subjective representation errors of the high resolution features, so IT IS NOT APPLICABLE OR RECCOMMENDED to targeting systems or precision measurement devices, so it should be classified differently for safety or life preserving purposes, but it is acceptable for "faking" high resolution HDTV data transmissions and webcasts and DVD players, as examples. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 11:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

::::If you have any questions on terminology or system steps, I can clarify some of the terminology and systems. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 11:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

== Microscan II ==

For UserA1:

If the Irvine Sensors Corporation / Wright Patterson Air Field systems math is a bit complex, try this basic method. First take multiple slightly-moving-camera image sequence, from a non-nyquist limited CCD sensor - which is a Prerequisite. Use least squares displacement search to stack the frames on top of each other with these "saccadic" movements, to place them within one pixel displacement of the first frame. Then take X and Y differential gradiant functions dot producted with eigen-estimates of the X and Y dispalcement based on the image context function, for each frame against the first image, in order to estimate each frame's sub-pixel displacment measurement to the first frame. The sub-pixel motions of the stacked frames, can then be used to interleave the low resolution baseband images onto a high resolution image map of 2, 3, or 4 times the resolution of the original CCDs. Then you can fill in the blanks with interpolations, for any remaining empty cells of the oversampled high resolution image map. Then you can use an inverse point spread function estimate for the CCD pixels, to adjust the point spread functions of the pixels, using FFT image processing. Noise will be enhanced by performing this inverse PSF correlation operation, but it will approximate a microscan algorithm resolution enhancement. If you want to improve performance against noise in the inverse PSF filter, try the Weiner Method Link that you called "Useless". [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 20:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

New Section.

If your camera is not nyquist limited to the CCD, it will simply produce a blurry image 2, 3, or 4 times the size of the original data. Also, the more frames you use, the lower the noise effect, and convergence to a stable high resolution answer. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 20:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Another solution you may try, is Maximum Entropy type of processing. Repeating much of the above, take the high resolution map, and converge each high resolution pixel in a ROI (Region Of Interest), so that the error of the multiple frames represented by the ROI of the high resolution model image, is minimized. It is like seismic analysis, where one models the earth with modifyable voxels that minimize the error of the multiple seismic responses of known seismometers. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 20:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this down to earth enough to understand, now? [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 20:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

== Space traversible STARGATE wormhole theory. ==

Who originally conceived the concept of forming a traversible wormhole using a binary black hole with an orbital entry and exit point that crosses the Lagrange Saddle Lorentzian point, allowing a ship some amount of finite time dilation slowing, at the Lagrange point. The binary black hole then can traverse, Lorentzianly, millions of light years over billions of years. The ship enters and only takes a fracion of the time, say years in high time dilation stable binary black hole (non coalescing), compared to the ground state universe aging over billions of years. Such a wormhole does not allow instantaneous space travel, but a survival method to ravel into the distant time space, as it's likely a one way trip. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 21:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange_point

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

The Lagrange Point would be L1, in the Lagrane_point article image, the main one between the two major stellar collapse objects creating the time-slow dilation "gate" in the saddle point. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

[BEGIN WIKIPEDIA 20090315]:

"Types
Intra-universe wormholes connect one location of a universe to another location of the same universe (in the same present time or unpresent). A wormhole should be able to connect distant locations in the universe by creating a shortcut through spacetime, allowing travel between them that is faster than it would take light to make the journey through normal space. See the image above. Inter-universe wormholes connect one universe with another.[2][3] This gives rise to the speculation that such wormholes could be used to travel from one parallel universe to another. A wormhole which connects (usually closed) universes is often called a Schwarzschild wormhole. Another application of a wormhole might be time travel. In that case, it is a shortcut from one point in space and time to another. In string theory, a wormhole has been envisioned to connect two D-branes, where the mouths are attached to the branes and are connected by a flux tube.[4] Finally, wormholes are believed to be a part of spacetime foam.[5] There are two main types of wormholes: Lorentzian wormholes and Euclidean wormholes. Lorentzian wormholes are mainly studied in general relativity and semiclassical gravity, while Euclidean wormholes are studied in particle physics. Traversable wormholes are a special kind of Lorentzian wormholes which would allow a human to travel from one side of the wormhole to the other. Serguei Krasnikov suggested the term spacetime shortcut as a more general term for (traversable) wormholes and propulsion systems like the Alcubierre drive and the Krasnikov tube to indicate hyperfast interstellar travel.

[WIKI BREAK SNIP]

Lorentzian wormholes known as Schwarzschild wormholes or Einstein-Rosen bridges are bridges between areas of space that can be modeled as vacuum solutions to the Einstein field equations by combining models of a black hole and a white hole. This solution was discovered by Albert Einstein and his colleague Nathan Rosen, who first published the result in 1935. However, in 1962 John A. Wheeler and Robert W. Fuller published a paper showing that this type of wormhole is unstable, and that it will pinch off instantly as soon as it forms, preventing even light from making it through.

Before the stability problems of Schwarzschild wormholes were apparent, it was proposed that quasars were white holes forming the ends of wormholes of this type.

While Schwarzschild wormholes are not traversable, their existence inspired Kip Thorne to imagine traversable wormholes created by holding the 'throat' of a Schwarzschild wormhole open with exotic matter (material that has negative mass/energy)."

[WIKI BREAK SNIP]

Lorentzian traversable wormholes would allow travel from one part of the universe to another part of that same universe very quickly or would allow travel from one universe to another.

[END WIKIPEDIA 20090315]

[[Image:BinaryBlackHoleDilationWormholeStarGate.gif]]

On ALL PAGES LoneRubberDragon posts, LoneRubberDragon is the Author. Under GNU free licence. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 13:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

On all pages, illustrations are hand drawn by the author LoneRubberDragon, under GNU free licence during download. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 14:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Shows on top a transport positon during entry time oscilating and stabilizing on the Lagrangian saddle point where the tidal stresses are the lowest and lower than either black hole, alone. Shows in middle schematic of the worm hole along the binary black hole axis as the black holes orbit each other with the transport nestled in the Lagrangian Saddle point. Shows on botton the binary black hole path through a disk shaped galaxy over billions of years, and the entry point, and symmetrically opposite exit point for the transport, in only years to many millenia later, in their frame of reference, over billions of ground state universe years. The entry and exit points use a swing type effect to enter the Lagrange point and exit, like a child on a swing getting pushes at the apexes of the swing. Ordinary oscillator equations will need to be altered to handle the relativistic coodinates of the Lagrange axis of the binary black hole orbits. Also, calculation of the actual travel distance into the Legrange point must be done to dilate travel distance and time terms not part of the axial worm hole path through a galaxy. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parametric_oscillator

== Multidimensional Taylor-Laurent Power Field Series Space. ==

Original post 20090314 [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Improved formatting 20090315 [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Imagine a space of 1 to N dimensions in size, corresponding to a relationship of input variables to that space, such that, for example, for: [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 04:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

N=3,

with input variables to a function of:

(X,Y,Z),

that they relate to the space of:

(x,y,z)

by:

first_f(x,y,z) = X^x*Y^y*Z^z

at all points of the space

(x,y,z).

So, for example, at

(x,y,z) = (1,2,3),

the relationship in this analytic space is:

first_f(x,y,z)=f(1,2,3)=(X^1*Y^2*Z^3).

After the space, e.g.,

(x,y,z),

for

N=3,

is defined in its relationship to input variables,

(X,Y,Z),

one now adds weighted dirac deltas or "samplers" to the space at select points of

(x,y,z), like:

1*dirac

at

(2,0,0), (0,2,0), (0,0,2),

and also one adds a second general function that can be placed around the space,

second_f(R^N) = f(volume_integral_over(first_f(x,y,z) * weighted_dirac_deltas(x,y,z) dx dy dz)),

like:

second_f(R^N) = (volume_integral_over(first_f(x,y,z) * weighted_dirac_deltas(x,y,z) dx dy dz)) ^ 0.5,

which in this particluar exaple yields:

second_f(R^N) = (X^2 + Y^2 + Z^2) ^ 0.5,

which, as you may well recognize, is the distance measure of the point,

(X,Y,Z),

to,

(0,0,0).

Now the elegance of the vector space is shown when you examine many geometric equations, within this framework, in parallel equivalent notation:

(0) distance of point, for N=3:

weighted_dirac_deltas = {1@{(2,0,0), (0,2,0), (0,0,2)} (deltas on a plane)

Dist = (volume_integral_over(first_f(x,y,z) * weighted_dirac_deltas(x,y,z) dx dy dz)) ^ 0.5,

(1) volume of cube, for N=3:

weighted_dirac_deltas = {1@(1,1,1)}

Dist = (volume_integral_over(first_f(x,y,z) * weighted_dirac_deltas(x,y,z) dx dy dz)) ^ 1.0,

(2) perimeter of triangle, for N=3:

weighted_dirac_deltas = {1@{(1,0,0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1)} (deltas on a plane)

Perim = (volume_integral_over(first_f(x,y,z) * weighted_dirac_deltas(x,y,z) dx dy dz)) ^ 1.0,

(3) area of triangle, for N=3:

weighted_dirac_deltas = {v1@{(4,0,0), (0,4,0), (0,0,4)}, v2@{(3,1,0), (1,3,0), (0,3,1), (0,1,3), (1,0,3), (3,0,1)}, v3@{(2,2,0), (0,2,2), (2,0,2)}, v4@{(2,1,1), (1,2,1), (1,1,2)}} (deltas on a plane)

Area = ((1/16)volume_integral_over(first_f(x,y,z) * weighted_dirac_deltas(x,y,z) dx dy dz)) ^ 0.5,

(4) area of radian spherical triangle of radius R, for N=3:

weighted_dirac_deltas = {-pi@(0,0,0), 1@{(1,0,0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1)} (deltas on a plane)}

Area = ((1/R^2)volume_integral_over(first_f(x,y,z) * weighted_dirac_deltas(x,y,z) dx dy dz)) ^ 1.0,

(5) radius of inscribed circle, for N=3:

weighted_dirac_deltas1 = {v1@{(4,0,0), (0,4,0), (0,0,4)}, v2@{(3,1,0), (1,3,0), (0,3,1), (0,1,3), (1,0,3), (3,0,1)}, v3@{(2,2,0), (0,2,2), (2,0,2)}, v4@{(2,1,1), (1,2,1), (1,1,2)}} (deltas on a plane)

weighted_dirac_deltas2 = {1@{(1,0,0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1)} (deltas on a plane)

RadInsc = ((1/16)volume_integral_over(first_f(x,y,z) * weighted_dirac_deltas1(x,y,z) dx dy dz)) ^ 0.5 *
((1/2)volume_integral_over(first_f(x,y,z) * weighted_dirac_deltas2(x,y,z) dx dy dz)) ^ -1.0,

(6) radius of circumscribed circle, for N=3:

weighted_dirac_deltas1 = {v1@{(4,0,0), (0,4,0), (0,0,4)}, v2@{(3,1,0), (1,3,0), (0,3,1), (0,1,3), (1,0,3), (3,0,1)}, v3@{(2,2,0), (0,2,2), (2,0,2)}, v4@{(2,1,1), (1,2,1), (1,1,2)}} (deltas on a plane)

weighted_dirac_deltas2 = {1@{(1,1,1)}

RadCircum = ((1/16)volume_integral_over(first_f(x,y,z) * weighted_dirac_deltas1(x,y,z) dx dy dz)) ^ -0.5 *
(volume_integral_over(first_f(x,y,z) * weighted_dirac_deltas2(x,y,z) dx dy dz)) ^ 1.0,

(7) sine(X) taylor series, for N=1:

weighted_dirac_deltas = {1@(1), -1/3!@(3), 1/5!@(5), -1/7!@(7) ...} (deltas on a line)

SineTaylor = (volume_integral_over(first_f(x) * weighted_dirac_deltas(x) dx)) ^ 1.0,

(8) cosine(X) taylor series, for N=1:

weighted_dirac_deltas = {1@(0), -1/2!@(2), 1/4!@(4), -1/6!@(6) ...} (deltas on a line)

CosineTaylor = (volume_integral_over(first_f(x) * weighted_dirac_deltas(x) dx)) ^ 1.0,

(9) tangent(X) taylor series, for N=1:

weighted_dirac_deltas = {1@(1), 1/3@(3), 2/15@(5), ...} (deltas on a line)

TangentTaylor = (volume_integral_over(first_f(x) * weighted_dirac_deltas(x) dx)) ^ 1.0,

(10) exponent(X) taylor series, for N=1:

weighted_dirac_deltas = {1@(0), 1/1!@(1), 1/2!@(2), 1/3!@(3), 1/4!@(4) ...} (deltas on a line)

ExponentTaylor = (volume_integral_over(first_f(x) * weighted_dirac_deltas(x) dx)) ^ 1.0,

(11) exp(-1/X^2) laurent series, for N=1:

weighted_dirac_deltas = {... 1/(-2!)@(-2), -1/(-1!)@(-1), 1/0!@(0), -1/1!@(1), 1/2!@(2) ...} (deltas on a line)

Exp(-1/x^2)Laurent = (volume_integral_over(first_f(x) * weighted_dirac_deltas(x) dx)) ^ 1.0,

(12) 1/(X^3(1-X)) laurent series, for N=1:

weighted_dirac_deltas = {1@{(-3), (-2), (-1), (0), (1), (2), ...}} (deltas on a line)

1/(X^3(1-X))Laurent = (volume_integral_over(first_f(x) * weighted_dirac_deltas(x) dx)) ^ 1.0.

(13) linear affine transform of (X,Y,Z) coordinates, for N=3:

weighted_dirac_deltas1 = {v1@(1,0,0), v2@(0,1,0), v3@(0,0,1)} (deltas on a plane)

weighted_dirac_deltas2 = {v4@(1,0,0), v5@(0,1,0), v6@(0,0,1)} (deltas on a plane)

weighted_dirac_deltas3 = {v7@(1,0,0), v8@(0,1,0), v9@(0,0,1)} (deltas on a plane)

Affine(X,Y,Z) = ((volume_integral_over(first_f(x,y,z) * weighted_dirac_deltas1(x,y,z) dx dy dz)) ^ 1.0,

(volume_integral_over(first_f(x,y,z) * weighted_dirac_deltas2(x,y,z) dx dy dz)) ^ 1.0,

(volume_integral_over(first_f(x,y,z) * weighted_dirac_deltas3(x,y,z) dx dy dz)) ^ 1.0),

(14) second order affine transform of (X,Y,Z) coordinates, for N=3:

weighted_dirac_deltas1 = {v1@(1,0,0), v2@(0,1,0), v3@(0,0,1), v4@(2,0,0), v5@(1,1,0), v6@(0,2,0), v7@(0,1,1), v8@(0,0,2), v9@(1,0,1)}

weighted_dirac_deltas2 = {v10@(1,0,0), v11@(0,1,0), v12@(0,0,1), v13@(2,0,0), v14@(1,1,0), v15@(0,2,0), v16@(0,1,1), v17@(0,0,2), v18@(1,0,1)}

weighted_dirac_deltas3 = {v19@(1,0,0), v20@(0,1,0), v21@(0,0,1), v22@(2,0,0), v23@(1,1,0), v24@(0,2,0), v25@(0,1,1), v26@(0,0,2), v27@(1,0,1)}

Affine(X',Y',Z') = (volume_integral_over(first_f(x,y,z) * weighted_direc_deltas1(x,y,z) dx dy dz)) ^ 1.0,

volume_integral_over(first_f(x,y,z) * weighted_dirac_deltas2(x,y,z) dx dy dz)) ^ 1.0,

volume_integral_over(first_f(x,y,z) * weighted_dirac_deltas3(x,y,z) dx dy dz)) ^ 1.0),

(15) multiplication of two complex numbers, for N=4:

weighted_dirac_deltas1 = {1@(1,0,1,0), -1@(0,1,0,1)} (deltas on a plane)

weighted_dirac_deltas2 = {1@{(1,0,0,1), (0,1,1,0)}} (deltas on a plane)

ComplexMult(Re,Im) = (volume_integral_over(first_f(w,x,y,z) * weighted_dirac_deltas1(w,x,y,z) dw dx dy dz)) ^ 1.0,

volume_integral_over(first_f(w,x,y,z) * weighted_dirac_deltas2(w,x,y,z) dw dx dy dz)) ^ 1.0)

By stepping outside of the system one level, and making a higher geometry formulation, arranged in sets and simpler operations, one can, encapsulate in this analytic space formulation, numerous geometry equations, taylor series, by implication mclauarin series, laurent series, affine transforms, complex math, and likely numerous other multivariable polynomial power equations. Also, many of the equations show compact systematic natures, occuring, for many of these examples, on sets of weighted_dirac_delta planes and/or lines. These examples also remind me of the analytic versions of single layer neural networks.

(16)

With the addition of the following approximating system, one can take real-value (not-integer-only) derivatives of the simple unitary (1*mTL) multidimensional Taylor-Laurent series coordinates, in multiple dimensions, with some accuracy between powers of 0 and 10:

derivative(derivative_amount, coefficient*x^power) => coefficient'*x^(power - derivative_amount)

d=derivative_amount

c=coefficient

c'=coefficient'

p=power

P=p-d

c''(p) =(c00+p*((c01/p + c11)*log10(p) + c12*log10(p)^2 + c14*log10(p)^4 + c15*log10(p)^5))

c'''(P) =(c00+P*((c01/P + c11)*log10(P) + c12*log10(P)^2 + c14*log10(P)^4 + c15*log10(P)^5))

c'=10^(c'''-c'')

with the appropriate selection of fixed c00, c01, c11, c12, c14, c15 very roughly 6.56, 0.00002, -0.42, -0.26, 0.041, -0.011. Wiki reports the Gamma function can be used to exactly take arbitrary real valued derivatives, of the same Taylor-Laurent series coordinates. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 04:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

(16b)
Additionally, the generation of standard derivatives and integrals, and partial standard derivatives and integrals, can be performed by simple derivative and integral power rules, and spatial shifts,, as well as the fractional derivatives, like Feynman fractional derivatives. E.g. d(x^2)/dx = 2x^1, and generally d(x^n)/dx = (n)x^(n-1) can be used on every point in the power field. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Examples of pertial derivatives in Wiki reference: [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_derivative

== Professor Patrick Moran Heisenberg Matrix and quantum consciousness continued discusion and LoneRubberDragon ==

Early edit and interleave of email discussions 20090314 [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
More complete interleave, relative close to original time sequence but unverified 20090315 [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Moran

I got some help from a local physics professor. As a result I found out how the matrices really should be written, and that Heisenberg apparently only wanted to end up with diagonal matrices -- which would commute just fine as long as the computation is to multiply, e.g., amplitudes by amplitudes.

It rather looks like some of the writers on the subject may have gone off half-cocked. Maybe they just saw the general idea and worked out their own matrices. If you take two matrices for amplitudes and multiply them the ordinary way then even if you get the right stuff in the right row and column you will get results that do not commute. Or, if you multiply frequencies by amplitudes or any two that are different they things won't commute.

I've got one volume of a three volume book on the history of QM development that may eventually help me figure it all out, but at least the main outlines are lots clearer. The popularizations I have seen are basically "mystifications" rather than explications.

LoneRubberDragon [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You've seen what I've written on Wiki. I always have the feeling, even reading field experts, that the writers on quantum physics are winging it, as much as someone like myself, in places, which creates the problem of finding who is the expert.

Also, there's often a big distance between what is written, and getting to working code or equations that show what one is looking for, even when one knows what they're looking for.

Outisde of that, it becomes a combinatorial explosion of variations without a good criteria for knowing what is accurate. I still can't really read what the matrices are trying to compute, in the manner they purportedly compute. So when one can't write code, one is stuck checking combinatorial variations, to what may be somewhat impressionistic. One textbook saying hbar approaches zero, instead of accurately stating something like, "as (hbar / systemScale) approaches zero", or i and the Kronecker Delta moving to different places in apparenly the same commutation difference equation, bothers me a little. I'm sure when one example is worked out, it's data details, like matricies content format (diagonal, triangular, normalized, semi-normalized), and the like gritty usage details.

Take my "classical" circa 1915 observational model, where numerous observeable experiments are used to populate initial conditions, and used to derive a constant transition probability characterization for the quantum. For quantum without internal degrees of freedom, indistinguishable states, or indistinguishable transitions, and with constant transition probability, it works for the characterization of the transition probabilities, as a triangular matrix normalized on initial state rows.

Yet, I still can't tell what is the method used to calculate, or observationally derive the matrices of a Heisenberg Matrix, which seem to derive the mechanical transition probabilities, and not just observationally characterize transitions. And, how the two "transition probability" matrices are multiplied, I still do not understand. Given {n, alpha, beta, as three sequential energy states a, b, c}, if {multiplying two square matrices, evolutions[a,b], and measures[b,c] of quantum transition probabilities that are normalized in an unknown manner (matrix sum normalization, matrix row or column normalization)}, then {that produces observeable probabilities normalized to what reference}? I could even ask, wouldn't such a matrix contain equations for transition? For example, an atom in different temperatures may have different transition probabilities desccribed by probable mechanical exchange equations in the matrices. Or, a very large molecule would have parametric structural variables that feed into a temporal model for transition probability calculation equations. My black hole classical scale atom model would have an orbital parameter that strongly varies quantum transition probabilities in orbital time. So the X[a,b] and X'[b,c] matrices may be filled with equations and not simple coefficients.

Anyway, a key point seems to be, that they all say this equation is supposed to match the concept where a spatial Wavefunction^2 for one object produces a probability density of state existence, and a Wavefunction^2 * Measurement^1(? 1 or 2) gives the probability of what a measurement object will observe, much like a spatial optical sourcce evolution function, and a measurement double slit and projection screen spatial function work together, leaving measurements in the form of screen spots. And the HM text model is an atom (quantum) observing itself, and leaving measurements in the form of photons in space.

Well, I hope you can figure this out, as it is rough sledding indeed with limited QM systemic integration math knowledge on my part ... but it sounds like an important equation for quanta.

Patrick Moran

Heisenberg was truly almost winging it. What happened was that they had already figured out that when trying to explain why a beam of light that enters some medium (clear auto oil perhaps?) the beam disperses. One of the things that happens is that a monochromatic beam of light will come out in different colors. So photons have to have been absorbed, electrons bumped up, and then when their go back to their equilibrium condition sometimes they emit a photon of the magnitude they received, and sometimes they do things in two stages so that you get light of lower frequency in the mix. Well, they figured out somehow that their math had to mirror reality. It wasn't going to work to act as though light went in and instantaneously started back out again. The math had to say that there could be a transition from n to n-r and then a drop from n-r to n-r'. Doing things that way helped them get reasonable answers out of their model/equation. So Heisenberg decided to try the same thing. He had the equations that work under classical/macro conditions, so he tried to adapt those equations (which gave the right answers under most conditions) so they would take account of the picky little things that happen on the micro level. He seems to have put everything together when he got such bad hay fever that he took off to a northern island called Heligoland where there weren't many flowering plants like ragweed. When the pressure went off, and his nose stopped running, he had a flash of insight and decided to try the old trick on the newer problem, and, much to his amazement and delight it worked. People who have studied his original paper sometimes say that they can't understand it, don't know what the hell his thought processes were, but that the math allows the prediction of the intensity of the bands of light in the bright-line spectrum of hydrogen.

I just wish that somebody had stated the basic business about how the matrices are really set up before about three years ago. On the other hand I have enjoyed the puzzle. Nothing made sense to me until, looking around at something else, I did a little exercise to "discover" how the Ritz Combination Rule works. So I know what those words mean and that they have nothing to do with crackers. I re-read something I had puzzled over all these three years and I suddenly saw that the a(n,n-r) * a(n-r, n-r') looked awfully familiar because it was the way things work out ala Ritz. It was just dumb luck that I messed around with the Ritz stuff.

The article that explains the math behind Heisenberg's article shows how to derive his QM stuff from what was already known in classical physics about how macro-sized items like radio transmitter antennas work. My guess is that ham radio operators probably have a good handle on that stuff.

What is really the hard part is not the matrix math (and the explainers could have forgotten all about it until the students had internalized the basic insight because it's what calculations you make not what way you write them on the blackboard that counts). The hard part is ;;; argh, it's too late at night or early in the morning to try to write anything intelligible down. Probably couldn't do it anyway.

Anyway, the matrices look quite a bit different than I had been led to believe they would. Of all things they kind of remind me of the old kind of musical scales that people used before they invented the equal tempered scales, and how you can't transpose from the key of A to the key of B without making things sound totally wrong because of the way the ratios work out, step by step. I'm not sure where that is going but there may actually be a useful analogy there somewhere.

On the h-bar stuff, it sounds like some of those who find the Universe so improbable as to need a miracle to explain it solely in that they explore how even slight differences in universal constants would make the Universe anything from inhospitable to life to something that could scarcely hang together. If you start changing the value of h you can get closer and closer to having the laws of classical physics apply on the micro scale -- and, for one thing, I guess electrons would spiral down into the nearest nucleus. As far as I know, the value of h, being tied in with the staples of modern electronics and with things like lasers, is regarded as being a very well measured/evaluated physical constant. Ultraviolet light of a certain frequency always causes the same amount of damage to chromosomes in the cells it may hit, photons on the red end always create a certain voltage in photographer's light meters, etc. If h were to be slipping back and forth I'm pretty sure lots of calculations would get spoiled, not to mention lots of high tech items.

Best, Pat

LoneRubberDragon [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You definitely have a lyrical writing style. Strange to find a spiders and chinese studying professor writing quantum physics articles where I fear to tread, even with my math and code experience.
Anyway, it will likely either make alot of sense when run to ground at least once in a hard quantum mechanical HM calculation, or be very specific in what fills the matricies, like uncertain dynamics and exchange equations.

Setting n as the ground state of the quantum is odd, as any level n can be used as a reference ground, as in circuits where a classical ground reference level can be placed anywhere, relatively speaking. And any conservative field where one goes from n to n-alpha and n-alpha to n-beta to calculate an observed alpha to beta, can use any level n as the reference like; ground, escape energy, or any permitted quantum levels in between.

Dynamics matricies in classical circuits can be filled with complex angular and linear equations of state evolution. Something analogous must be done in heavier elements or molecules that can have angular, linear, and configurational behavior in time. For example, a carbon can have tetragonal electron arragnements, and the electron has a spin axis, but the actual spin distribution is uncertain on the axis, and is an angular lobed wave function probability. It must spatially affect electron transitions, with their stable tetragonal electron cloud wavefunctions, and with a spin wavefunction distribution. Perhaps HM only works reasonably on the simplest atoms, and for a more spatially extended quantum models with rotational and vibrational behaviors, one switches to the Schrodinger Equation in space, like they use for molecular modeling software.

In [Physical Chemistry, George Woodbury, Brooks Cole Publishing], they have a few exact mathematical models like a simple harmonic oscillator, or a particle in a box. Then they show building atom and molecule model definitions explaining spectra and so forth, are based on a few of these methods, and eigenvalue definitions, that are extended in kernel approximations, and various refining perturbation methods, to increase the approximation's accuracy. If you read that book, you see maybe Heisenberg Matrices can be used equal with Schrodinger Equation methods, but that each probability value in the matrix, accounting for the quantum, is an extremely long and complex matrix, or perhaps, the compelxity reaches so high using a quantum HM, that Schrodinger Wavefunction approximation forms are easier to calculate - pragmatically -.

When calculating antenna patterns at high frequencies, one notices that the inductance and capacitance of the three dimensional mostly resistive structure, creates a wave pattern that is calculated with matrices filled with structural nodes and second order equations to describe structural resonacnes, attenuations, and phase changes, including temporal and spatial behavior in transients and steady state, depending on matrix equation entries on all scales of time and size.

Perhaps, classical circuit complex number and complex nodal differential equations have their classical relative to discrete quantum HM, in [Kirchoffs Current and Voltage laws], commonly found in [Control Systems] theory, which can describe classical compound object dynamics matricies, and can be formulated for quantum uncertainty propagation, I suppose, just as [Physical Chemistry] does. Indeed, as circuits approach quantum levels, one finds that continuum structure behavior of diodes and transistors changes smoothly into comb interference pass bands and block bands of a quantized character as the circuit-element-scale / hbar approaches 1.0 at maximum uncertainty on the smallest quantum of that model circuit dynamics with proper uncertainty relations.

When making measurements, and even how the measurements are made, affects what is considered uncertain. For example, in the attached FFT EXCEL with macros CTRL-q, and CTRL-a, to control upchirp versus downchirp, one sees that a distributed chirp can be observed as a single minimal uncertainty frequency peak, when the orthogonal basis is put on chirp basis instead of periodic frequency basis. Any measurement basis that is less than orthogonal, like this, will observe things even less accurately than Heisenberg's Minimal Uncertainty orthogonal obsserveable product limit, when the FFT's exact time frequency model is orthogonally matched exactly with a chirp in the entire time-space window of observation. If you enable macros, and press CTRL-q, you will see the chirp basis increase in frequency chirp rate, and see the resulting FFT measurement of the chirping signal on the chirp basis. When the red chirp rate number is 25[arbitrary linear chirp rate unit], the FFT is most sharply focussed. The FFT allows you to see the fourier transform data more real time, even with slow EXCEL interpreters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_circuit_laws
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_theory

LoneRubberDragon [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You may want to check out this existing article if you haven't run across it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_mechanics

Ill have to study it myself!

And this one is interesting on how a "classical-hbar" can make one dynamic equation approach Schrodinger's Equation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton%E2%80%93Jacobi_equation

Patrick Moran

I have seen the first article, and it is nicely done, but too technical. I don't want to end up contradicting it, obviously.

Another quick response.

I'm just trying to fix a Wikipedia article that started out as being pretty badly written, i.e., not clear where it could have been clear. About the matrices, in that article, it is going to be difficult to put in the kind of matrices I showed you because my local physics professor never published in a refereed document what was obvious to him at first glance.

Historically, the matrix was only a first stab, and it was directed at Hydrogen because it did not have lots of the problems presented by more complex atoms. As far as I know, the frequencies were known by both math and by experimental verification. The intensities were known too. How accurate their instrumentation was I do not know, but with enough sets of measurements they must have come to a fairly accurate result. The math if done incorrectly would not have come even close, and if done correctly it should have produced results that kept being bracketed by further lab experiments.

I have thought of running the numbers that are available to me, just to see how the matrix works, but the full set of equations in the article on "Heisenberg's Magical..." is long and complicated, and I have no idea of how I would continue working things through. One thing to keep in mind is that at the stage when he was discovering things Heisenberg was / not / displaying his computations as matrices, and he did not know some of the manipulations/calculations that can be done more easily using matrix math.

The key, now that I think of it, is that you cannot measure any single point in an atom. You cannot say, here is an electron, and it is doing such-and-so, so we get a certain vibration out of the system. What you can do is say, a photon at 660 nm came out. That means, according to all the work on spectrum prediction and energy equivalents, that it came about because of a transition from the rth "orbital" to a lower orbital -- maybe to the lowest possible orbital that we will call / n /, (On the high end there is no theoretical limit that I know of to the energy of a gamma photon.)

I think that the next thing is to say, we measured the frequency given off by that electron when it dropped from r' to r, but we can't get the energy from the same measurement so we'll have to do the next best thing and measure what happens when it drops from, say, r to n. Then, I guess, they start from something higher than r' to r, measure its frequency, and then pick up its energy as it drops from r' to r. Murky it is. Understood with clarity 'tis not.

Best, pat

LoneRubberDragon [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, the spectrum is not a fundamental frequency and implied integer harmonics, but a set of energy orbits asymptotically approaching electron escape "velocity", which produces a series of asymptotic "alpha to beta" transition spectral lines. It is a complicated polynomial probably related to an inverse law of quantum stable Schrodinger standing wave pattern orbits.

Patrick Moran

Right, also called the Ryberg-Ritz combination principle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg-Ritz_combination_principle

It was mention of this principle that gave me the clue as to how the matrices came to be discovered.

LoneRubberDragon [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

A Heisenberg Matrix sounds claims to solve for not just the spectral arrangement, but spectral probability density related to quantum mechanical transition probabilities, which agreed, is hard to see how to squeeze in all that dynamic model data in the matrix, unless it is like an electric circuit analysis or mechanical circuit Kirchoff-matrix of discrete quantum differential model approximation elements. To be a exact elements would seem to require a wave equation system in every discrete matrix node, if it is still a quantum differential model matrix.

Patrick Moran

Heisenberg figured his matrix mechanics out before Schroedinger got his wave equations going. I suspect that the values for intensity may come out of the formulas from the math that derives from the classical descriptions. They involve several universal constants. The situation reminds me of how a formula that is intended to describe/predict electronic circuits yield the numerical value of the speed of light.

You probably would get lots more than I can out of the Aichison paper:
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0404009
The PDF is available free from this site, but some people have the nerve to charge for the same thing elsewhere.

I can understand why the two-step process is necessary in the dispersion experiments. For light to be dispersed, it has to enter at one frequency and result in light exiting at a lower frequency or frequencies. For that to occur, an electron has to absorb energy and then re-radiate it in two stages, each with its own frequency. The Heisenberg multiplication formula could describe a situation in which and entering photon of A(n, n-r') is matched by two exiting photons of A(n-r) and A(r-r'), But such an entering photon could just as well be matched by a single exiting photon of A(n, n-r'). But maybe Heisenberg's approach is just to say that we need two things that are closely related to each other (rather than being identical to each other). Where we would have squared a single value we will multiply two closely related values. We started in classical physics from the square of a classical value, but maybe that is not ever the way nature really does things and we get away with it because it doesn't make any difference, at least at classical scale. Since the squaring of the same value doesn't give a good representation of the amplitudes and the intensities, let's just try the other way. Maybe this is another one of those situations where like when one of the early guys said (of the double-slit experiment) photons only interfere with themselves. Maybe only entangled photons have the kinds of self-interactions that can be manifested as amplitudes and intensities. Pure speculation. Time to quit.

Best, Pat

I've discovered something new/old. One of the early 20th century (or maybe late 19th century) developments was something called "difference equations." So far I have only the term and the context -- a context in which many of the factors are of the form: x(f1, f1-f2). I'm guessing that rather than start with the idea of, e.g., computing the area under a curve by filling that area with narrower and narrower vertical rectangles whose width tends to zero, one fills the area under a curve by filling it with rectangles that (in the case of radiation) have the width mapped to the interval between states in the radiation in the hydrogen bright-line spectrum (or whatever you want to find the intensity of. So in a two-dimensional graph the x axis would be composed of intervals in the states of the radiant hydrogen, the y-axis would represent the amplitude of each transition, and the area under the curve would represent the total energy being radiated.

Best., Pat

P.S. About (your comment) "trapped in a magnetic vacuum tube near ground, and one could observe values for an analytical function from its natural math-solving spectrum and some additional HM like quantum-mechanical-matricized descriptions"

I think you are right. Heisenberg was not thinking that way, of course. He was trying for the simplest model (computationally) from which he could hope to get close to the way hydrogen behaves in the wild.

LoneRubberDragon [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
On 2/22/2009 4:10 PM, Rubber Craft wrote:
Please enjoy, and thanks for all the talks and discussions, they are very rewarding and illuminating sounding boards. Would you mind these emails with discussion and refernce put on my Wiki discussion along with the rest?

Patrick Moran
Sure, no problem.

I have thought for a long time that reductionistic approaches to consciousness are not going to work. Consciousness such as we know has to be an emergent phenomenon. By that I mean that it is something like the way the structure of DNA is there in potential as soon as the Big Bang occurs and things settle down enough that you have the simplest particles. It takes quite a while for such a complex structure to get itself together, but there is never a case where something comes full-born out of empty space. (Unless you believe those who think that near a black hole reality gets quirky enough that even complex things might pop into existence. I've seen that idea in science fiction so I suspect that there is somebody who actually knows something who has thought along those lines.)

To stick with consciousness, what I mean is that consciousness of our sort was preceded by the consciousness of ancestral primates, and before that by other ancestors who had even more murky kinds of consciousness such as are probably being exhibited by dogs, cats, goldfish, tarantulas. Where does it stop? Does a rotifer have a consciousness? I think they do. I think they feel things, too. One of the tarantulas I have is a particularly cranky lady. Does she feel different about things that come poking into her little domain than does the same-sized Avicularia specimen who has no interest in biting me even when I mistakenly prod the wrong end of it with my finger. I doubt that the rotifer has such a complete picture of its world. But it must be aware in a sense that permits it to hunt.

So does a rock have consciousness? I think it does, but probably its awareness is limited to things like its internal heat that is a rough and ready mapping of the heat in the outside world.

But what does it mean to say that a rock is conscious, or that a human is conscious?

The chirping rate of a cricket is related to the temperature of the cricket, which is in turn roughly a mapping of the ambient temperature. But the feeling of warmth experienced by the cricket is, it seems to me, different from its experience of itself as chirping, I can be aware of the chirping rate too, but that does not make me feel warm or cool.

We could look at the retinas of a person looking out at the sea, we could also note the states of the various muscles that are involved in aiming the eyes and employing binocular vision. We could trace the electro-chemical signals that flow along the optic nerves, and see them "light up" neurons in the brain. But none of this would give us the idea of, the experience of, space. And the person who has a peak experience in the daytime may "see" the same event at night after s/he closes both eyes to get ready to go to sleep. Presumably some of the same neurons are firing that were involved in the daytime experience, but there is nothing at the other end of the retinas behind closed lids in a dark room.

The perception of space is some kind of phenomenon. Other kinds of phenomena are easier to investigate because we can examine them as inter-subjective objectives. Until Spock brings us the advantage of the mind meld we are stuck if we want to compare "spaces." On the other hand, it may be possible before long to get a patch cord going between brains. Maybe Siamese twins already have that kind of patch cord going. I wonder if anybody has ever investigated this possibility.

We don't have any trouble with the idea of one computer being linked electrically to another computer, and being able to monitor its actions. For instance, I could solder a couple of wires onto the socket for the CPU of my old Z-80 based computer and run them to a port on one of my present Macs. The Mac could then observe everything that my "Big Board" computer was doing. If the Mac port was made right, it would not draw enough current off the pins of the Big Board's CPU to influence its functioning, and would not put any signal onto the Big Board either.

If the computers have a consciousness, then by making two computers share a bus would conceivably make them have a shared consciousness. I'm not sure what that would mean if one had an Intel chip and the other had a Motorola chip using an entirely different computer language. And the signals that come out of a CPU include instructions for opening and closing certain gates so that some signals are directed to one subcircuit (e.g., to a printer port) and other signals go elsewhere (e.g., to a modem port). So if computers were not compatible their being connected would not be helpful without software involved that would permit one computer to translate information coming from the other.

Anyway, it looks to me like there is a clear basis for saying that one computer, given appropriate programming and proper electrical connections, could monitor the activity of another computer and "know" what it was doing.

Now suppose that electrical connections were inconvenient and we put an infra-red link between computers, or a radio link, or even used the technology of the old Sinclair computers and turned electrical signals into sound signals that could be recorded on tape, and later fed into the same computer (the original magnetic storage device for personal computers) or some other computer.

Then turn that argument around and ask whether humans are not sharing consciousness, at least on a partial basis, when they communicate by voice or other communication modes. Poetry makes me feel what somebody in ancient China felt.

Of course this sharing is limited -- not the least because people self-censor and the people who listen to them censor some more in a defensive reaction.

My feeling is that if consciousness is a phenomenon, then it has characteristics/qualities that can be mapped to graphs, but that the graphs would not have dimensions in real space. And the emotional spaces are shared only to the extent that what might ordinarily be regarded as two or more humans become physically linked into a single system (although the connections are usually pretty spotty).

If consciousness is a field phenomenon, then that might explain some of the esp phenomena that keep coming up. Field phenomena that are physically close can sometimes interact. How well they interact may be dependent on lots of contingent factors. We are used to well-functioning fm radios that do not even suffer very much from static. We expect esp to be reliable, to be something we can turn on or turn off. We forget how difficult is was to get radio reception in the days of crystal radios. You were using a chunk of crystallized mineral (germanium, iron oxide, aka fool's gold) mounted in a slug of metal (lead?) for one broad-based contact, and then searching over the surface of the crystal faces for a "good spot" using a small diameter wire (cat's whisker, so called) as the other contact. Sometimes you got to hear a station 50 miles away, and sometimes you just couldn't get things adjusted right.

One of the shortcomings of the actor who was "Mr. Data" on Star Trek was how much data the actor was shedding all the time despite his best attempts to be a "mechanical man." That shed data tells us that he is not a clockwork creature.

If we investigate a static charge, the easy way to do it is with another static charge and a measure of force (even if it's just a rough measure such as showing how one pith ball pushes against gravity to avoid the charged object). If we investigate moving electrons, we find ourself using magnetic forces. What makes us think that we would use electrical charge or physical force to measure consciousness? So what might we use? Would the conscious state of one human affect the physiological state of another?

Best, Pat

fool's good = iron pyrite =FES2, sorry
and the other mineral is galena (lead sulfide)

The reason that galena is trickier to use than iron pyrite is that the "sensitive spots" on the surface are very small, so if the cat's whisker is jiggled a tiny bit it may slip away from the sensitive point if the crystal is galena, but if the crystal is iron pyrite the cat's whisker may still be on the sensitive spot if moved slightly.

These crystals were natural diodes, and modern crystal radios replace the crystal with a diode.

LoneRubberDragon [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have thought for a long time that reductionistic approaches to consciousness are not going to work (disagree technically). Consciousness such as we know has to be an emergent phenomenon (can be purely reductionist in principle). By that I mean that it is something like the way the structure of DNA is there in potential as soon as the Big Bang occurs and things settle down enough that you have the simplest particles. It takes quite a while for such a complex structure to get itself together, but there is never a case where something comes full-born out of empty space. (Unless you believe those who think that near a black hole reality gets quirky enough that even complex things might pop into existence. I've seen that idea in science fiction so I suspect that there is somebody who actually knows something who has thought along those lines.)

This is the delicate issue I divide carefully along lines between (1) a local Reductionist field theory of consciousness (classical points and force particles), and (2) a global instantaneous Holistic "field" theory of consciousness (quantum entanglement wavefunctions). I say (1) can nearly-to-virtually-completely describe consciousness. Reductionism in principle does describe classical consciousness, but not Holistic perception.

Why such a careful distinction? Because a computer, a person, and even rock, can be classically characterized to yield a very accurate model of "consciousness-processing", sans the chaotic divergence of microscopic differences that change one virtual identical instantiation from a different instantiation over time, but on the whole carry the individual processing character and detail behavior. But then I currently "believe" that (1) would yield what I can associate with zombies without Holistic "qualia" perceptions who only act like consciousness, but are NOT:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

which is why I add (2) as the entangled spatial interconnected Holistic mechanism, for analytically explaining why I see a 2 dimensional field of color and depth, or hear a song with emotions, or when I read Chinese dictionaries, and can imagine aspects of the Chinese culture that permeate the examples.

We agree on the emergent character of consciousness-complexty-order. Classical emergent consciousness and quantum emergent consciousness do almost the same thing ... complexity-structured-emergence produces a structured survival of existence entity that displays complex internal processed systemic measurements and state changes on an Abstract system level. But quantum emergent consciousness has an entangled wavefunction that is Holistic that classical emergent behavior wouldn't display, even though classical emergent consciousness displays what only looks like consciousness.

Patrick Moran

To stick with consciousness, what I mean is that consciousness of our sort was preceded by the consciousness of ancestral primates, and before that by other ancestors who had even more murky kinds of consciousness such as are probably being exhibited by dogs, cats, goldfish, tarantulas. Where does it stop? Does a rotifer have a consciousness? I think they do. I think they feel things, too. One of the tarantulas I have is a particularly cranky lady. Does she feel different about things that come poking into her little domain than does the same-sized Avicularia specimen who has no interest in biting me even when I mistakenly prod the wrong end of it with my finger. I doubt that the rotifer has such a complete picture of its world. But it must be aware in a sense that permits it to hunt.

So does a rock have consciousness? I think it does, but probably its awareness is limited to things like its internal heat that is a rough and ready mapping of the heat in the outside world.

But what does it mean to say that a rock is conscious, or that a human is conscious?

The chirping rate of a cricket is related to the temperature of the cricket, which is in turn roughly a mapping of the ambient temperature. But the feeling of warmth experienced by the cricket is, it seems to me, different from its experience of itself as chirping, I can be aware of the chirping rate too, but that does not make me feel warm or cool.

We could look at the retinas of a person looking out at the sea, we could also note the states of the various muscles that are involved in aiming the eyes and employing binocular vision. We could trace the electro-chemical signals that flow along the optic nerves, and see them "light up" neurons in the brain. But none of this would give us the idea of, the experience of, space. And the person who has a peak experience in the daytime may "see" the same event at night after s/he closes both eyes to get ready to go to sleep. Presumably some of the same neurons are firing that were involved in the daytime experience, but there is nothing at the other end of the retinas behind closed lids in a dark room.

I can agree with all of the above 5 paragraphs, on the level of only classical emergent consciousness that can be virtually described by only Reductionism. Quantum entanglement wavefunctions would complete this position, for producing a non Zombie consciousness qualia quantum consciousness, in my opinion (among others).

The perception of space is some kind of phenomenon. Other kinds of phenomena are easier to investigate because we can examine them as inter-subjective objectives. Until Spock brings us the advantage of the mind meld we are stuck if we want to compare "spaces." On the other hand, it may be possible before long to get a patch cord going between brains. Maybe Siamese twins already have that kind of patch cord going. I wonder if anybody has ever investigated this possibility.

LoneRubberDragon [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You may have read some of the books of the 1960's on this subject, having lived longer than I have, and more academic than myself. From such ancestral media, I can postulate, given a specially treated long lasting entangled psychotropic chemical, administered to many people, that they may all share in mass perceptions as a meta-consciousness (called mass hysteria or mass hallucinations). Or perhaps in Japan, a troop of 100 ninjas who train daily and percieve the same world daily intimately are also a specially treated entanglement troop, so they may share a meta-consciousness too, say, being able to see in a dark room 100 times better if they all concentrate on looking at one thing, with their mutual entanglement residuals, or "magic" shared attack potential based on all individual experienceas also acting as a singular meta-consciousness. It would require an entanglement that lasts for seconds to hours like the activity of phosphorescent chemicals that can radiate entangled measured experienced light for up to many hours. Such observations could additionally bolster the Holistic quantum consciousness effect that classical reductionist zombie physics would never achieve. Such books may have inspired Mr. Spock, as well as The Beatles Yellow Submarine select scenes at the foothills of the headlands! Ancient documents are "The Corsican Brothers" and all reported cases of feeling something when a loved one is in danger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_Dumas,_p%C3%A8re

http://arthursclassicnovels.com/arthurs/dumas/corsic10.html

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1800050765/info

"Siamese twins, sons of a Corsican nobleman, are separated and hidden just as the entire family is wiped out by a robber baron. Twenty years later the two young men meet. One grew up in Paris, the other sheltered by a family retainer in Corsica. The two brothers have a telepathic link and feel each other's emotions. They once again separate, but this time to confuse and wreak vengeance on the villain..."

Patrick Moran

We don't have any trouble with the idea of one computer being linked electrically to another computer, and being able to monitor its actions. For instance, I could solder a couple of wires onto the socket for the CPU of my old Z-80 based computer and run them to a port on one of my present Macs. The Mac could then observe everything that my "Big Board" computer was doing. If the Mac port was made right, it would not draw enough current off the pins of the Big Board's CPU to influence its functioning, and would not put any signal onto the Big Board either.

If the computers have a consciousness, then by making two computers share a bus would conceivably make them have a shared consciousness. I'm not sure what that would mean if one had an Intel chip and the other had a Motorola chip using an entirely different computer language. And the signals that come out of a CPU include instructions for opening and closing certain gates so that some signals are directed to one subcircuit (e.g., to a printer port) and other signals go elsewhere (e.g., to a modem port). So if computers were not compatible their being connected would not be helpful without software involved that would permit one computer to translate information coming from the other.

Anyway, it looks to me like there is a clear basis for saying that one computer, given appropriate programming and proper electrical connections, could monitor the activity of another computer and "know" what it was doing.

Now suppose that electrical connections were inconvenient and we put an infra-red link between computers, or a radio link, or even used the technology of the old Sinclair computers and turned electrical signals into sound signals that could be recorded on tape, and later fed into the same computer (the original magnetic storage device for personal computers) or some other computer.

Then turn that argument around and ask whether humans are not sharing consciousness, at least on a partial basis, when they communicate by voice or other communication modes. Poetry makes me feel what somebody in ancient China felt.

Of course this sharing is limited -- not the least because people self-censor and the people who listen to them censor some more in a defensive reaction.

My feeling is that if consciousness is a phenomenon, then it has characteristics/qualities that can be mapped to graphs, but that the graphs would not have dimensions in real space. And the emotional spaces are shared only to the extent that what might ordinarily be regarded as two or more humans become physically linked into a single system (although the connections are usually pretty spotty).

LoneRubberDragon [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I can agree with all of the above. I can address the "graphs without dimension" you describe. They would be a mathematical system of processing phase space. A system not being one variable with dimensions, but numerous variables with dimensions that are interconnected. Although not conventionally a human philosophical traditionally real thing, as they are an abstraction of commonly known physics, that is based on information and structure that is consciousness in a classical reductionist in principle definition. But the abstraction is REAL, I beleive, because it contains the Quantum Holistic character of global simultaneous perception in many dimensions at once (visual field is 25[Mpixel] dimensions) experienced as one observeable thing, even if not currently deeply shareable.

Patrick Moran

If consciousness is a field phenomenon, then that might explain some of the esp phenomena that keep coming up. Field phenomena that are physically close can sometimes interact. How well they interact may be dependent on lots of contingent factors. We are used to well-functioning fm radios that do not even suffer very much from static. We expect esp to be reliable, to be something we can turn on or turn off. We forget how difficult is was to get radio reception in the days of crystal radios. You were using a chunk of crystallized mineral (germanium, iron oxide, aka fool's gold) mounted in a slug of metal (lead?) for one broad-based contact, and then searching over the surface of the crystal faces for a "good spot" using a small diameter wire (cat's whisker, so called) as the other contact. Sometimes you got to hear a station 50 miles away, and sometimes you just couldn't get things adjusted right.

LoneRubberDragon [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

ESP can be a special process that can exchange, without communicating complex knowledge, an entanglement between the facts of the world and an individual, through abstract structural quantum entanglement interactions. It can also explain spotty data, if entanglement decays and can be built up like an abstract entangled photon network in matter acting as an entanglement battery of abstract experience for ESP, like the ninjas affore mentioned. Twins like Corsican, may have a genetic or epigenetic form of such ESP. It is all highly theoretical, compared to anyone knowing that they perceive a Holistic world, and so have a Quantum Soul, hypothetically speaking. It is hard to mmeasure because one is using only a few bits of information (words) to measure a high dimensional vision, so the bandwidth doesn't allow actual measurement with current technology. Every human, (non zombie), knows they see a world as one thing, so can directly observe their internal quantum character of qualia perception.

My dad is a ham radio guy from many decades back, and introduced me early to the germainium cat whisker radio concept of natural diode formation. (And much about vacuum tubes and radio circuits.)

Patrick Moran

One of the shortcomings of the actor who was "Mr. Data" on Star Trek was how much data the actor was shedding all the time despite his best attempts to be a "mechanical man." That shed data tells us that he is not a clockwork creature.

If we investigate a static charge, the easy way to do it is with another static charge and a measure of force (even if it's just a rough measure such as showing how one pith ball pushes against gravity to avoid the charged object). If we investigate moving electrons, we find ourself using magnetic forces. What makes us think that we would use electrical charge or physical force to measure consciousness? So what might we use? Would the conscious state of one human affect the physiological state of another?

Best, Pat

Patrick Moran

I've had a look at the philosophical zombie article. Some of the reasoning almost sounds like St. Anselm's argument for the existence of God -- if you can conceive of God then God must exist.

You can never know what does not exist. Sometimes the existence of something unexpected would force everyone to revise their mental furniture drastically. The "wavicle" is a case in point. In general, it is very risky to assert that black swans do not exist because as soon as you go to Australia and have a walk about you will have to change your idea. It may be true, for the moment, that an airplane whose number of wheels is a prime number larger than 3 does not exist. But if you make me a bet on that grounds I will go out and build one with 7 wheels. Or maybe I'll get ambitious and make one with 13.

When I was in college in the mid 20th C, it was an article of faith that animals did not have consciousness. Scientists who wanted to be qualified as scientists by the Organization had to speak of purposive action rather than purposeful action. My old lady tarantula was behaving "purposively" when she doggedly went about making plans and executing them until she finally got the stick moved out of her front parlor. I think that finally somebody pointed out that humans had to be counted as only having purposive behavior because one could not depend on what somebody else said to prove that they had purposes. And people like Jane Goodall argued that Occam's law suggested that it made much more sense to speak of an elephant trying repeatedly to rescue a trapped baby rhino (or a chimp doing something deceptive to lure the alpha male away from an estrous female) as having purpose. And when elephants cry, what the hell are they doing it for when the "irritant" is the death of a near relative?

Somebody was talking about Turing's test on the radio again today. People have tried to make computers that could simulate consciousness. A primitive example is a program called Eliza that sounds like a Rogerian shrink. You say, "I feel lousy today." The computer replies, "I understand that you feel lousy today. Care to tell me about it?" Of course the computer would have responded the same way if you had typed in, "I feel my ovipositors expanding at a substantial fraction of c." But the people who are actually trying to make progress seem to have decided, many of them at least, that the way to do it is to emulate the sub-systems that humans integrate to get their pictures of the world.

Patrick Moran
Hi,

I was fooling around waiting for my brother to call and I ran across a Mathematica demonstration of the Cassimir effect, i.e., a simulation. One of the things they do is to ask what would happen if h (or h-bar) assumed different values. One value they assume, 0, would destroy the attractive force that they can otherwise compute between to parallel plates of conductors.

http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/TheCasimirEffect/

The Mathematica Player is free, and they have some interesting demo items available.

Hello again,

I changed my name for you. The middle initial is "E" and there is no O' -- it all goes back to trying to have something close to my real name on an on-line forum back after the Columbine massacre. What I actually write now is a zero.

I'm still working my way through Mehra's book on the history of the development of QM. It's amazing to see the real picture. Physics looks very pristine after a decade or two has gone by and they've mopped up the things that didn't quite work out, or so it seems to me. I am not a physicist, so how would I know.

It's pretty remarkable that they could go from a system that works in the macro world, where all of the nouns refer to things you can at least theoretically put your fingers on, to a system in which nothing works as per expectations and where the math is wonky. The only way they could do it was to work out little bits of "code" that delivered the right results but didn't make sense in context of everything else. Then they worked to connect little bits. Finally I guess they got some kind of gestalt closure.

Now so many things are going critical in the world that it looks a little silly to be working on physics -- unless somebody can come up with a fusion cooker. [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 23:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

LoneRubberDragon [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the zombie argument is categorically different from this St. Anselm argument for the existence of God. I alone know that my perception is a holistic unity with characteristics that have nothing to do with any one neuron detecting red or lightness or emotions of reading ancient Chinese. I can directly observe consciousness in multidimensional measurements called vision and senses. I simply can't transmit the thought for other scientists to perceive, and may be impossible given QM.

So, not only may you never practically know if something like consciousness doesn't exist in another person, you may never practically know if something does exist in another person. I cannot know currently and practically speaking, whether any other human on earth, or animal, computer with camera and robot, or rock bathed in red light, sees a unified holism in some level of structural perception processing, or not. I alone can observe this spiritual parallel measurement space filling sensoria.

In a computer, what does red pixel (0,0) have to do with red pixel (1000,1000)? They are independent pieces of data. Yes they indicate red ... AT THAT POINT. However, consciousness would also see red ... ON THE SPACE OF MANY PARALLEL DIMENSIONS. Same for neuron (0,0) or neuron (10000,1000) when detecting red. Somehow all of the pixels or neurons together form in my own mind a holistic view. Yes, it is based on the material structures, but each thing is classically independent from another distant thing, even if connected in a process.

What makes wholes like this ... entanglement and ensembles of entanglements, in my humble opinion. As short as entanglement may last in a liquid medium, aren't new particles becomming entangled at the same time? Otherwise is entanglement a measure that is exactly zero nearly everywhere, and only one in a million particles shows any entanglement, and that every interaction completely removes all entanglement? If there is constant new entanglements, a measureable finite duration for entanglement reduction-projections in quantum level interactions, and interactions can only remove portions of entanglement according to the wavefunction projection axes, then wouldn't all matter like the human body have a thin scintillating cobweb of entangled particle paths that always exists.

Attached pics show the classical interaction space characteristic for oxygen molecules, with 32:1 mean free path to molecular density, allowing entanglement to travel. Whether entanglement is EXACTLY ZERO in almost every particle, then you can denounce the idea of a cobweb network of entanglement (and wavefunction ensembles) that may contribute to my sole observable nature of consciousness holism, and not independent neurons performing an emergent behavior alone, without a holistic unity of being when one's eyes are open.

Do these points make sense, of the parallel nature of classical independent distributed emergent properties,and a potential quantum entanglement holistic unity, that gives ONLY ME the homunculus of an eye above my body allowing me to see the whole thing at once in sensoria?

The reasons why a human, an animal, a computer, and a rock may sense things differently is because the physical structures of each process are different. A rock is highly localized and diffusive sense. A computer is digitized every time, with few avenues for quantum uncertainty, and has a clock rate. An animal has sophisticated biological structures that allow fast transporation of signals through mediums faster than diffusion by millions of times. A human is likewise sophisticated, and has a large dialect of knowledge to describe I see UNITY (whether other people are lying to me as Zombies is unknown practically speaking today). That is why we can say things are different as structures and signals represent measurements and measurment quantum probability currents.

You say you will always loose entanglement in short order ... you imply the decay of entanglement is more likely than the setting up density of new entanglements. Is this true that nearly all particles are ZERO ENTANGLEMENT? "Entanglement is a natural feature of all multiparticle systems" does a human count with a cobweb of entanglement? Or is a human filles with only specle points of entanglement as it is so delicate it rarely arises in non zero measure of entanglement? "However, the fundamental feature of QM, the superposition and entanglement, is never completely lost, but there are also traces of it at the mesoscopic, and probably at the macroscopic level." They seem to deny your opinion that ENTANGLEMENT IS MOSTLY LOST.

I have interesting pages on Hydrogen transition probability spectrum too, in an Pn->m transition values you can read from a non Heisenberg Matrix perspex.

And I do recall the old theory that no animal has consciousness. They definitively have conscious emergent classical processing. If they have emotions unlike a zombie, we cannot yet tell. I also remember Koko the gorilla who was taugh sign language and was famous in the late 1970's as the hippie movement ended leaving such ideas as animal consciousness and rights and lab brake in and releases.

LoneRubberDragon [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi,

Poetically, I like to think a cobweb faster than light entanglement sensoria soul, taken from the Japanese as:

"What is mind, NO matter,
What is matter, never mind!" The Simpsons, Homer Sompson.

And a wryly poetic Mandarin translation, using Japanese NO [脳], as Mandarin NAU~ [腦] of [Gennaro Auletta 2001], Foundations and Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, page 428, Postulate 24.1, attached photo.

[[Image:MandarinAncientTheoryBrain2.jpg]]

On ALL PAGES LoneRubberDragon posts, LoneRubberDragon is the Author. Under GNU free licence.
THE COMMENT SYSTEM ON WIKIPEDIA SUCKS< AND REQUIRES AN EDIT COMMENTS LINK, INVISIBLE HERE.

On all pages, illustrations are hand drawn by the author LoneRubberDragon, under GNU free licence during download. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 14:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

::What is mind, NO\NAO matter. What is matter, never mind. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 11:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
== Tough questions of God, theology ==

Taken from my posts of original free licence text, posted on richarddawkins.net

<<<<<<<< NEW MATERIALS >>>>>>>>

[LoneRubberDragon 0]
To all participating, I will do all of the work of coalating the various responses, and do minimal to no editing, but to associate rebuttal topic context, to the root question, that The LoneRubberDragon has presented, for ease of reading and collected convenience for all looking at the latest response. For off-topic enough points, I will simply add a new question-rebuttal level to the chain.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I will, by limitation of the forum format, have to respond to one from many, as I see fit, and notify the others with a short tag response to forward their eyes. All reading this thread, can respond, with cut and paste quotes, and I will, again, coalate and format the responses into this standard format, of LoneRubberDragon offline word processing editing, and form rebuttals to the rebuttals, or acceptances of certain thoughts that address the base contexts of The LoneRubberDragon's questions of God.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As such, nested quotes using the forum's natural formatting, will be altered, to fit into this offline word processing format, and pasted back into the forum response box. All apologies, to artificial intelligence robotic response programs, setup by respondents, that rely on standard forum formatting marks, as I coalate the texts, and my own responses, into the offline editing format.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You are free to copy my texts under all [LoneRubberDragon XXX] labels, with attribution for reference [LoneRubberDragon SET-236-171-732-765-CA926], and mention that LoneRubberDragon generated that section discussion. You may point to richarddawkins or wikipedia LoneRubberDragon personal discussion pages, with my open source texts, and references.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, look for the new materials tag below, for where to respond to the newest fraction of rebuttals. As the thread gets responses, I will delete the tags, myself, and move them to new sectors of data, as I coalate the iterations of discussion of this thread in the LoneRubberDragon offline format.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

<<<<<<<< NEW MATERIALS >>>>>>>>

[LoneRubberDragon 1a]
Why cannot God, who is perfect and powerful, not be allowed, Himself, to make love, not without the requesite free will, that leads to sin and death for all, for all sin? That is why can't God create love without creating free will, and thus death? It begs a Hindu karmic restriction on God's own powers in the material realm.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[Arugula 1a] God can.

[LoneRubberDragon 1b]
This statement is too flat. If God can and did, then death and suffering have been an illusion? Suffering seems rampant, and all sin, so evil exists, and thus death. The point being, a Good God knowingly created evil and suffering, through exactly what it is that He setup, and that God can not make love without the accompanying free-will, suffering, sin, and death, because it begs, why God didn't simply make the heaven age, with all of the humans designed perfected, and simply be able to love and worship Him. So here, if you can, please elaborate how God made love without the accompanying free-will, suffering, sin, and death.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[Arugula 1b]
God can, and does, create love without free will.

<<<<<<<< NEW MATERIALS >>>>>>>>

[LoneRubberDragon 1c]
Ok, I think I now can see what you are hiding, in the flat secretive mysterious statement in [Arugula 1a] and [Arugula 1b].[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree, that God DOES create souls with no free will, to worship and love Himself, in the form of Angels, and Servants of The Way, The Elohiym.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

However, this FLATLY resfuses to answer [LoneRubberDragon 1a], as I am referring to why God would complicatethe universe, by creating free will agents to love Him as thier purpose, in the form of HUMANS, which lead to sin, suffering, torment, and death. No clever misappropriation of words, by SHIFTING the CONTEXT away FROM HUMANS, TOWARD THE HOST Angelic Elohiym surrounding God, is a flat statement, that refuses answer the question directly and powerfully as God or Jesus or The Holy Spirit is capable of.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, [Arugula 3a], [Arugula 4a], and [Arugula 5a], say that The Good Perfect Powerful One True God, that forms the basis of the self contradictions in [LoneRubberDragon 1a], [LoneRubberDragon 1...] through [LoneRubberDragon 7a], DOES have ultimate responsibility for creating humans with their free will souls, that is the root of suffering, and is the product of love toward God, that God appears addicted to, to have made dirty rags of the universe God created to receive love, from outside of the without-free-will Elohiym and Angelic hosts, that are obedient to God, and perfectly happy with God, and God is supposed to be perfect without any dependency on humans?[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have something more to say, than in the form of a secretive mysterious parable flat statement, please consider cross referencing paragraphs, e.g. [...], to make a VISIBLE thought link, within this thread coalation. Also, consider that in [LoneRubberDragon 1a], [LoneRubberDragon 1...] through [LoneRubberDragon 7a], form a complex association, that is heavily mutually reliant upon one another for their strength, so that a broad spectrum approach, e.g. crosslinked, is required, as it is complex fighting complex, as like fire fighting fire. Your rebuttals, using dual answer chains, e.g. [Arugula 2b], [Arugula 3b], or [Arugula 4a], [Arugula 5a], or [Arugula 4b], [Arugula 5b], is a good approach at analysis, toward the ultimate truth for all concerned.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

A helpful hint, I hope, for increasing your continuing answer strength improvement, in finite reachable iteration.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[LoneRubberDragon 2a]
Why did God, who lacks nothing and is perfect, alone, and doesn't even need man one iota, as man absolutely needs God, why did this God create love and worship for Himself above all others, which necessitated the creation of death, because of the free will that is karmically inevitably required to produce love for the God limited by His physics?[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[Arugula 2a]
God didn't create worship explicitly. God created (to borrow from Richard Pryor) What-it-is. What-it-is, in turn, strongly suggests conformity to... itself, because that's just how it is. Humans respond to the call in various ways, one of which being a range of cultural proscriptions to conformity. No one knows exactly what they're conforming to, but they feel the pull nonetheless. One affirmation, among many, that they are indeed conforming to something, Whatever-it-is (not to be confused with What-it-is, which lies entirely in the realm of speculation) is worship. The part about God requiring worship is sort-of metaphorical, and is supposed to indicate God requires conformity by way of What-it-is, which is shrouded in mystery for all time. Our ancestors didn't have the patience to wait it out, and who can blame them.

<<<<<<<< NEW MATERIALS >>>>>>>>

[LoneRubberDragon 2b]
This answer dissembles a bit. God created man to worship God explicitly, for that is part of the heaven age destiny of humans, written in The Bible, for humans passing the yield losses. A finite knowing man, who designs a gun around humans, knows that the gun can eventually hurt someone, by its design, and is responsible for the gun. A finite knowing man even knows the gun will break someday, by the nature of nature. An infinite knowing God, who designs the cosmos, Satan, and man, knows exactly that all will sin, given their finite design, and the destiny of the plan is for His worship by man, among other things. The point still remains, that the whole earth age was made by God with universal suffering, sin, and death, because God desires man's love and worship in the heaven age, but God is claimed to be perfect on His own, and God would have had a perfect universe without spot or blemish without man, before God opened up a black hole inside His Body, the universe, by making sinful man and Satan, to boot.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[LoneRubberDragon 3a]
Similarly, why is the All Powerful God, unable to create souls with 100% yield, like in microchip manufacturing yield sense? That is, in Revelation, God declares souls will be cast into hell to be destroyed. In essence, Perfect Powerful God cannot produce a product with a 100% yield, of souls. Also, God is no better than a human material producer, that has a few defective parts in the end, as God cannot produce things perfectly, and with free will, simultaneously.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[Arugula 3a]
The master plan is perfect the way it is, burning souls & all.

[LoneRubberDragon 3b]
I've read a harsher description of not burning suffering souls in Revelation, but destroyed souls into utter complete destruction non existence, Psalms 37:7,20,34 acrostic basically describes the wicked being cut off and consumed over fire like fat dripping from a lamb being dissolved on the fires and ashes into smoke. The point still remains, how can Perfect God create an imperfect world, with an imperfect soul yield, and not 100% perfection in every human He created? With man it is impossible to produce a billion of anything, without broken parts suitable for destruction, but why also with God ... destroyed souls and all? Or is it even, that every human will be saved, as all are written in the book of life, and the hell is just an instrumental threat of hollow nature?[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[Arugula 2b]
[Arugula 3b]
Human worship of God is a human misinterpretation of God's requirements. God's requirements are merely that we conform with the plan. Humans interpret this in a narrower context than it deserves. Whatever it is that we do, God ultimately approves, in the sense that we are always conforming with the plan. This perceived "error", in turn, is metaphor, and can only be so, because we can't deviate from God's plan even if we try (although we can try). Thus we see imperfection where there is none, but even that failing is illusory: we are part of the master plan, and the plan is perfect, including the experiencing of our illusions.

<<<<<<<< NEW MATERIALS >>>>>>>>

[LoneRubberDragon 3c]
[P1] Ok, I will reword, to recentralize the core context of [LRD 2a] and [LRD 2b]. I agree that there is a conformation required, to what is infinitely true, powerful, and perfect over us, but that statement begs why God would create imperfection caused through free will, versus giving all humans a common good that is prosperous and aligned to good, without free will? It is God's creation of free will, at the root causer of all things, that opened up a black hole inside of God's body, in the form of free will leading to sin, suffering, and death, a death only God can create, as even Satan cannot destroy a soul. And to what purpose did God create free will, as you claim it is not for mere love and worship of God, but another purpose beyond that ... please tell, what is this purpose that God has, that He had to create free will, and all that free will entails? I know it is a bit of a mystery to yourself, but The Bible should at the least, as a so-called complete document of God's will, should elaborate that reason for free will, if you seek wisdom, like Solomon.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[P2] I can add, the infinite power with limited image on this ordinary existence matter plane, resembles the following Quantum Physics Limitations of the Infinite Plane on the Finite Plane. Specifically, consider [LoneRubberDragon 3cQP7], [LoneRubberDragon 3cQP9] and [LoneRubberDragon 3cQP10], where a 2001-monolith, YHVH-Elohiym, Budda, or Greek Orcale, can only assist humans in conforming themselves to the infinite, after their death and import event, into the infinite plane, which only Begs, How can God be all powerful, in a literal sense, and not in merely a finite bandwidth communicative channel when on earth, that God had no control over, but inherited as God-YHVH's problem.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[P3] Another problem is The Bible statement in monotheism, as well as Judaism, and Islam, and the simultaneous rejection of illusions of Hindu Type Polytheism, as all sides claim one true message, like Mormons, Jews, or Buddhists, and the simultaneous rejection of all others as illusions, outside of their conformity-to-One-Truth message, like [LoneRubberDragon 7a]->[7a XXXXXc]. This is further-highlighted in [LoneRubberDragon 7a]->[7a XXXXXa], ->[7a XXXXXb]. It also weakens recognizing what is the One True Way to God, given [Arugula 6a] "That's easy. Nothing is unmistakable. Otherwise we wouldn't need religion [LRD adds: religions].", so The One True Way is mistakable and fractured, and yet you contradict along the lines from [Arugula 4a][Arugula 5a], "but we feel with some confidence that we are staring at it nonetheless.". Mormons feel some confidence. Buddhists feel some confidence. Scientologists feel some confidence. B'hai feel some confidence. Muslims feel some confidence. Jews feel some confidence, and that the Messia/Meshia will come for the first time. Eastern Orthodoxy feels some confidence. Scientists feel some confidence. Evolutionists feel some confidence. Gnostics feel some confidence. Athiests feel some confidence. What is confidence in Knowing The One True Way of God, in this multi-colored opinion-light you tell, from what you have learned from the teachers of the world? There is too much Jazz, in these words, to follow your melody of communication, for the moment, for this lowly LoneRubberDragon.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

<<<<<<<< NEW MATERIALS >>>>>>>>

[LoneRubberDragon 3cQP1]
QUANTUM PHYSICS SCIENCE LIMITATIONS, IN REPEATABILITY:
In quantum middle-scale-systems, there are issues that may never be fully characterized.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[LoneRubberDragon 3cQP2]
Take an example of two encryption-command-control-systems, divided into two distinct sides, Alice,and Bob. Alice has a quantum number generator and command control systems based on those quantum number guides. Bob, likewise, has a similar system. The two systems, due to a cold-war style structure, are highly isolated and compartmentalized, and are filled with their own unique projections or perspectives of observeables and actions in the middle scale systems, that both Alice and Bob, represent.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[LoneRubberDragon 3cQP3]
Becasue of a major level of mutual quantum system isolation, neither side has fully observed the other side. So a quantum level war may be implemented utilizing theories based on quantum level effcts that can be projected at any scale of structures available to Alice or Bob, that are succeptible to further quantum measurements *from the other side*, affecting the opposing sides' system state of Bob or Alice.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[LoneRubberDragon 3cQP4]
Consider, due to the large amounts of partial-projection internal-measurements, within the respective Alice and Bob system, which are, themselves, based on few quantum bits of information internaly broadcast, that further observations of complex variables in time-space of the opposing side, are broadcast in open channels. The new quantum information can serve to, at some level, reproject the opposing side's quantum state, according to the calculated special measurement effects of their own side. Each side, in quantum heirarchy towers of scale, can be attacked, like one Schrodinger Cat system affecting another Schrodinger Cat system, when the Schrodinger Cat systems, are on the scale of middle-scale command control systems, such as Alice and Bob.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[LoneRubberDragon 3cQP5]
This would be a middle scale version similar to a theoretical Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum physics, where there are no universal wavefunction, but there are islands of measurement and process loci or centers, about an Alice system, and a Bob system, with degrees of separation between them.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[LoneRubberDragon 3cQP6]
The effects, as illustrated in stories, would be akin to where a person, Alice, suddenly finds they remember part of a timeline, that was based on mostly local system information, is altered further, or even reprojected in a novel unexpected way, that doesn't fit their brain measurements, but does satisfy the projection of their local system, and the Bob that is an outside same-level system, that has altered their own system, through Bob's additional measurements of their own Alice system, that was open to further projection measurements.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[LoneRubberDragon 3cQP7]
As such, these middle level systems, in a quantum domain, show an aspect of non science. They produce effects that are potentially complex and subtle in effect, and of a one time only nature. If Bob could measure a room of Alice, such that an image of photons suddenly appears in a micro-flash of spatially oriented timed photons, constrained into the form of an image, due to Bob's special structured measurements, what can Alice say scientifically about the image? It cannot be reduplicated. It may even be recorded, but what proof is one set of unreproducible data? Even if one sets up a desktop system with such Alice and Bob type Schrodinger Cats, what can the Alice Bob system prove, as part of a larger system, likewise, forming its own projection measurements of their entangled subsystems? That is, in the world, there could be an Alice, Bob, Charles, Daphne, Ertha, Fitz ... Young, Zeno set of systems, all doing such science, but mutually observing one another, such that no one experiment can prove something conclusively about timelines being altered in the middle scale, when all alter each other, in ways not too clear, as all systems are at the same middle-level, projecting each other's middle scale wavefunctions, in complexity and some level of irreproducability.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[LoneRubberDragon 3cQP8]
The same is similarly true of quantum system duplication. Any quantum system cannot be duplicated. It can be approximated, but the subtleties of a system that has some history of internal measurements and processing, has within itself, a large amount of "proprietary" entanglement with its path through the universe patchwork of middle scale quantum wavefunction observations and effects, that is neither tidy, nor analytic, like a fourier transform or Schrodinger Boundary Value Problem. A copy may be quite close to an original, but is its internal quantum structure the same for all practical purposes? Or has the one quantum measurement system, been split into two distinct quantum systems, at the middle scale under consideration?[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[LoneRubberDragon 3cQP9]
To use a religious metaphor, say we have three entities, Absolute God, Buddha connected to Nirvana Utimate Experience, and Greek Legend Oracle that provides all true answers. These three, call them, Alpha, Beta, Gamma, suppose or beg an absolute wavefucntion for the universe that is unchanging and absolute, hypothetically, with only subsystems in flux in time space. Alpha, Beta, and Gamma, can tell what the future holds, with exactness. But his then forces determinism on all of the subsystems, due to the finite bandwidth of their mouths and broadcast effect, for they all inherit the subsystems' states, with their own finite peculiar local knowledge of the universe, that becomes inexorably projected [Arugula: "CONFORMED TO"] into the destiny stated by Alpha, Beta, Gamma. If Alpha, Beta, or Gamma, wish to guide the universe to some perfection - no limits on science - all they can expect is a suboptimal morass of effect, as the subsystems are finite, and they have their own measuremnt agenda, as true as their observations, but as finite as their own fonite nature. All Alpha, Beta, or Gamma, could hope for, is to optimize or minimize the uncertainties and "evils", by stating exactly what is required to optimally cause change in the universe, given the subunits' deviating local agendas.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[LoneRubberDragon 3cQP10]
Alpha believes it will eventually order the universe into perfection, as there is a single universal wavefunction, that is truly unchanging, and the deviations from this can be asymptotically reduced at infinity, within a finite time, no less. While, on the other hand, Beta, and Gamma, often suppose an eternal never-quite-perfect state of affairs, where suffering and errors are always going to permeate the middle scale systems, and, thus, they are in alignmest with Many World Interpretations that say there is no universal wavefunction, but only local wavefunctions, that do not scientifically cohere as a whole. Beta and Gamma, in essence, assume that the top level wavefunction of the whole universe, is actually the afformentioned patchwork quilt of sub-system wavefunctions with coherence. As such, there are limits in science, based upon those very limitations, where different groups, say Beta, and Gamma, observe similar things about their universe, but neither can exactly agree, because there is only chaos at the highest level of the universe, where light cones from each subsystem do not wholly intersect one another, and so cannot scientifically agree on these top level measurements, and simply call them noise, or illusion in Beta-Buddha terminology.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[LoneRubberDragon 3cQP11]
Religious metaphor, aside, the implcations in a quantum interpretation of these gedanken scientific "systems" illustrate, that an MWI without a universal wavefunction of a certain character puts upper limits on what is scientific, and what is one time unreproducible events, that can be characterised and controlled, as is the job of Science, and not Art.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[LoneRubberDragon 4a]
Why did God, who is all knowing of Himself, and knows the souls of all his creation, why did this God praise Job's utter goodness in front of Satan, such that, God freely and "goodly" chose to make a bet on Satan's suggestion, on Job's life, that he would survive the inevitable suffering and pain, and not curse God, which is admirable, but sad that God would put Job in this situation, knowing exactly Satan's heart in response to God's praise of Job's perfection, and taking a bet on Job's life. Job1:7-12, where Satan gets god to curse Job, by God's good praise, in front of Satan. Is it a Good God that praises someone in order to setup their trial by Satan? Even Chinese and ancient Greeks know better than God, that one should curse beauty, "You are ugly", or curse wisdom, "You are fool", in order to not tempt the other gods of the universe to jealousy and tests and suffering, like a Thor or Zeus or Jupiter of wrath.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[LoneRubberDragon 5a]
Why did God, who is all knowing of Himself, and knows the souls of all his creation, why did this God put a perfect Adam and Eve in the Garden, give them a rule to obey, which they did, until Satan, that God allowed in the Garden, to test them to failure? It was not enough that God gave them a rule, but also adds more on to them, than just a simple test of free will between Adam and Eve, unbenouced to them, but heaps on a force to hasten their fall, by letting Satan run free with them, inevitably leading to His own death on the Cross to fix that muck-up of His own. Even without Satan, engineers know that all free will systems with a criteria for failure, will fail, given an eternity of time with free will. An asterod falls, a robot trips, time ends and the system stops worshiping. A Murphy's Law, that a system that can fail will fail given an eternity, and seeing that Adam and Eve were immortal and on a perfect earth, theirs was an eternal test of thier obedience, neverending, under The Good God's watchful warden eyes. Time alone, would have tested their fidelity to one criteria, for they would have failed eventually, without adding Satan walking the garden, by God's permission. And how is that a relatively test, of the obedience criteria, in comparison to 6,000,000 Jews killed in German concentration camps, who grew even closer to God in their trials, compared to the simplistic no-tree-of-knowledge-touch AND throw in Satan, also?[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[Arugula 4a]
[Arugula 5a]
The confusion is largely dispelled by acknowledging that we can't see What-it-is clearly, but we feel with some confidence that we are staring at it nonetheless. For example, if portions of Job were poorly translated or relayed, that's on us, not God. On the other hand, submitting Job, Adam and Eve to the abuse as rendered, could be a sign of God's love. If you think about it long enough, it starts to make sense. What's a little satanic torment in the grand scheme of things? Life and suffering as we experience them are facsimiles. What-it-is is the real deal.

[LoneRubberDragon 4b]
[LoneRubberDragon 5b]
It is torment, nonetheless from a Good God designed creation. Making torment meaningless, is to justify torment, to veritably make black equal to white. And to reiterate against [1] rebuttal above, God did not, or even can not, create love without the accompanying sin, suffering, and universal death, if it is read as it appears taught. God cares less to have made it perfect. And taking the texts are from Hebrew and Greek, only makes it harder to teach or understand right, a God wrapping Himself in secrecy ... for heightened torment? If all torment is little in God's eyes in degrees, then itcan easily be argued that the perfect world, to bring man closer to God, is a prison planet, a veritable planetary concentration camp, as what is a little torment, in eternity, after one dies? And if God designs torment, it calls torments good, as God is the responsible engineer of ramifications? And Chinese culture still knows more than myself and God, to not curse a Job, by high praise, in front of Satan, just to be complicit in Job's boils, sores, loss of lives,loss of goods. What point prosperity and obeying God, if God will just take your perfect love, as Job's was, and simply agree with Satan to allow misfortune?[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[Arugula 4b]
[Arugula 5b]
Torment is, ultimately, meaningless. So are sin, death, misfortune, and all the other nouns and adjectives that comprise our human experience. Even before one calls misfortune good and life death, the concepts are already meaningless. We pretend they are meaningful, and that's part of the master plan as well.

<<<<<<<< NEW MATERIALS >>>>>>>>

[LoneRubberDragon 4b]
[LoneRubberDragon 5b]
[P1] From [Arugula 4a][Arugula 5a], "but we feel with some confidence that we are staring at it nonetheless.", and yet, you yourself say, [Arugula ] "Nothing is unmistakable. Otherwise we wouldn't need religion.", and yet picking the wrong One True Way Middle Path, is a misnomer, as the world is full of religions, like a Hindu branching plant, with so many places to go separately in the One True Body of God.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[P2] From [Arugula 4b], [Arugula 5b], "Torment [LRD: sin, death, misfortune] is, ultimately, meaningless", and so souls are eternally judged to ultimate destruction, for nothing, for it is meaningless.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[P3] Hitler tortured 6,000,000 Jews and others, in concentration camps, and tortures every human for our own history. Fearfully rhetorically, man can torture a child at will, or torture a woman-wife at will, or an animal can be tortured at will, because it is ultimately nothing and meaningless, and not considered a sin, or is God a respecter of Himself, with one law for God and one law for Man? This ultimately, is "The Ends Justifying The Means" argument.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[P4] I do not understand you yet, here, without further clarification, of how we are eternally judged on matters that are meaningless and nothing. With God over man over our lives on earth, in heirarchical chain, means that torture is not a sin, from the top down? I do not understand, without elaboration of the meaninglessness of evil actions in appearance. School and education are torture to children, but God considers that good. Hitler's, and other so-called despots' concentration camps and killing fields, and God's blessing Job in front of Satan the accuser and taking a bet on Job's strength under mutually agreed fire, is a blessing, too? Please, address these conflicts, if you have a good reading.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[P5] Your positionson this matter beg for an increase of torture, following God's lead, to idealize the state that brings man closest to God, for it is nothing but meaningless acts, when training the children of God of men. That is the prison planet earth, the concentration camp earth. I have heard people say, if we do not know so-called evils, how can we not know love and peace, so let grief flourish all the more? And yet, God is the creator of evil, via [LoneRubberDragon 2b], and [LoneRubberDragon 3c], where God is the Prime Creator of all free-will's ramifications, knowing all things of the patchwork quilt of earth experience, The Devil's playground sanctioned by God, as Baal, Nebuchanezzar, or Hitler, were sanctioned as God's negative tool. Where is the criteria of sin here, that you beg is sinless on God's One True Way?[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[LoneRubberDragon 6a]
Of other worlds theories, why did God simply not make 60,000,000,000 unmistakable copies of Jesus, with all power, to walk as a father with the approximate 60,000,000,000 humans, roughly estimated from the last 10,000 years, integrating population and generation span, and abortions and miscarriages, throughout time to now? It would have been a personal God, and universal God, and all would have walked carefully, and been with their one true creator for eternity, as the control loop equations would be very close to each person. But apparently, ther is some other hidden karmic Hindu equation of physics that restricts God's so called infinite power and goodness and love to have reduced cosmic suffering that way, perhaps, because God would get bored, even though God lacks nothing, and is complete within Himself, so says man and the Bible, supposedly.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[Arugula 6a]
That's easy. Nothing is unmistakable. Otherwise we wouldn't need religion.

[LoneRubberDragon 6b]
Not so easy. If God makes all humans banal plain, and every personal Jesus glowing and wise, you cannot tell God from man? Your eyes, ears, and body would have to be blind. The point remains, being that God didn't do it that way, and it can't work becasue of what reason, or restriction on God's ability physics? Still, why not 60 billion personal Jesus for 60 billion humans? Or even just one God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, and one man to worship God? The viewscreen of life shows a much more mucked up planet story, than such a simple heaven. Did just the one man get bored at the beginning of time, and God humored him with a show, and the one man lost track of God, because God is hiding and tormenting the man? Not a very good teacher of a God, as God wears many hats, but not all that many good, it seems, in the view of the world.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[Arugula 6b]
[P1] These are all human-centered attributes. Any attribute that would render an 'unmistakable' Jesus unmistakable would have to be tailored to suit a human perception, and evoke from a human perception the intended response. It would be simpler to just implant the knowledge directly, as part of the makeup of the human mind - no external Jesus required. Even if that were to happen, the result would not strictly be unmistakable - it would simply be convincing. Religious inventions gain a stronghold precisely because the human mind is geared towards adapting to its environment, much moreso than understanding it. It's not a learning tool, it's an adaptive tool. Any old story will do, and will convince. The most 'unmistakable' story is simply the most pervasive - and since nothing is wholly pervasive (part of the mind's adaptive usefulness is its avoidance of absolute dead ends) nothing will ever be unmistakable. That's a roundabout way of saying that, even by the laws of reason, there's doubt in everything.

[P2] But the real story isn't this, it's something else. Whatever occupies our minds, is as real as it gets. The only place where "errors" occur is in our imagination. The master plan is perfect. Error is illusion, and the illusion is as it should be.

<<<<<<<< NEW MATERIALS >>>>>>>>

[LoneRubberDragon 6c]
Saying what occupies our mind is as real as it gets, is also human centered and fracturing into mutually assured infidels, like in [LoneRubberDragon 3c]->[P3], and [LoneRubberDragon 7a]->[7a XXXXXa] exacerbates. Imagine the Greeks in The Cave story, where all they see are shadows of the world, and say they know the master plan,and not believe that the master plan is illusion, on the cave walls. Imagine the real world, where God puts a birka, blinders on our ability to see this one way. Or the quantum physics infinite-velocity measurement-entanglement plane soul potential from [LoneRubberDragon 3cQP9], and [LoneRubberDragon 7a]->[P1].[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

<<<<<<<< NEW MATERIALS >>>>>>>>

[LoneRubberDragon 7a]
[P1] Could it be that Quantum Physics generates souls and God, in mysterious math beyond most peoples' understanding, and is in a large part, a mystery, most cannot fathom? Given Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox observation that a wavefunction collapses upon measurement events, in an infinite velocity moment, and that all matter has some level of mutual entanglement currents, structured about the properties of ordinary existence matter; can we assume that soul, and even God, can be the structure of instantaneous infinite velocity mutual interconnected measurement of entanglement wavefunction cobwebs that permeate matter? As such, God and other properties like nirvana are of finite capacity to affect the universe, through the well connected self knowers of the universal interconnection wavefunctions. Man can only speak with finite bandwisth words, and humans can only be optimized to minimal sinfulness, before a coalescence of harmonic convergene, or Heaven can be achieved throughout the ordinary existence matter world. As such, claims that God is infinitely powerful are incomplete as they miss the finite bandwidth, and finite heads structure, that connects this infinite plane to the finite light cone plane and sense of humans. God can have an ultimate plan, but his movement through ordinary existence matter is finite, such as a human typing on a computer has finite capacity to influence the world.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

<<<<<<<< NEW MATERIALS >>>>>>>>

[7a IV-IX, XXXXXa-XXXXXc intro]
On God as an eternal universal wavefunction nirvana, by Buddha, Nagarjuna, catuskoti, sunya, A. L. Herman (An Introduction to Buddhist Thought), with LoneRubberDragon SET-236-765-732-171-CA926 metatranslations adaptation chain, converting the ultimate of nirvana context, into as God the ultimate context:[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[7a IV]
God is not an ordinary existence creation matter, for it would then have imperfection, decay, and death.
For there is no ordinary existence matter, which is not subject to imprefection, decay, and death, for all of it is as dirty rags.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[7a V]
If God were an ordinary existence matter, then it is produced by causes.
For nothing nowhere is an ordinary existence matter, which is not created by cause.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[7a VI]
If God were an ordinary existence matter, how can it lack its dependence on something else?
So, there cannot be the perfect non-ordinary existence matter, which is found to be subject to dependence on ordinary existence matter, as God is not caused nor dependent on ordinary existence matter.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[7a VII]
If God is not an ordinary existence matter, it will then be called a non-ordinary existence matter.
For wherever there is found the non-ordinary existence matter, there also cannot be a corresponding existence matter, without creating a dependence on the correspnding ordinary existence matters, and God is not lacking in anything, in Himself, alone.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[7a VIII]
If God is a non-ordinary existence matter, how can it exist without correspondence and dependence on some other matter?
For, surely, an independent non-ordinary existence matter, it is nowhere to be found, as being illusion and vain imaginings, like one worshiping carved idols, gold calfs, Moleck, or Baal, as the One True Good Perfect Powerful X, that is over all creation for salvation, but yet one finds no perfect good here, in these imaginary non-ordinary existence matters.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[7a IX]
That is because, this world of ordinary existence matter, is known for surety as being parcelled and continually going into and out of existence, that for each ordinary existence matter, it is all that which is both dependent and caused, and perishable.
And that which is not dependent and not caused non-ordinary existence matter, that is all of what is God.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[7a XXXXXa]
It should be an obvious fundamental principle, that when seeking eternity peace, that all existing things should be rejected, and that all non existing things that could be vainly imagined, should likewise be rejected as illusions not reflecting the eternal.
So the perishing world to be seen, should be rejected, and also every one of the possible imaginary matters of non existence, like (1) Hindu Gods, (2) Greek Gods, (3) Roman Gods, (4) Viking Gods, (5) Buddha, (6) Jesus, (7) Mohammed as the True Prophet of God, (8) Joseph Smith's discovered brass plates on God, (9) Santa, to (10) YHVH God Himself, should likewise be rejected, and should plucked from one's eyes, ears, and mind, lest they tempt you, as all mere illusions, that are hiding what is the real eternity good.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[7a XXXXXb]
If God were both existing and imaginary, salvation based upon it would also be real and unreal, as faith in, one example among many, One True Good Perfect Powerful Santa X over all creation for salvation, and this is impossible, say the True Believers in Eternity Good, not found in dirty rags while living.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[7a XXXXXc]
The ones who write this say, that no one can fully understand what is said, here. For it is a mystery of eternal good salvation beyond your comprehension. It is the faint shadow of the eternal, speaking through this ordinary existence matter that you see. Finite and caused messages, dependent upon dirty rags history, the authors in time and space, and the machines you use to deliver the message, as messengers of eternity. Nevertheless, it is a finite and limited message, indeed, for how can this finite message cover the real eternity good that is hidden in imagination, and nowhere to be found and shared when living? You cannot read what was written, for it would be beyond logic, and your imagination, to be as God, to be one with God, while living. You can only read it in faith, to know The Truth.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[Alan B 8a]
From the Gnostic Archive on Valentinus (AD c.100-c.160)
http://www.gnosis.org/valentinus.htm
The orthodox view:
So-called orthodox Christians as well as Jews recognize that there is a certain "wrongness" in human existence, but they account for it chiefly in terms of the effects of human sin, original or other. Jews and Christians hold that whatever is wrong with the world and human existence is the result of human disobedience to the creator. This means, that all evil, discomfort, and terror in our lives and in history are somehow our fault. A great cosmic statement of "Mea Culpa" runs through this world view, which permanently affixes to the human psyche an element of titanic guilt.

<<<<<<<< NEW MATERIALS >>>>>>>>

[LoneRubberDragon 8a]
[P1] I can respect the view on a certain level of wrongness to human life, in some harmony with experience, and the sum of the questions in [LoneRubberDragon Xa]. It doesn't clearly describe why God made this decision, given [LoneRubberDragon 1a], and the chain of heirarchical responsibility upon the One Creator of All Things, mentioned in [LoneRubberDragon 2b].

[P2] I disagree, however, as we are all wrong in things here and there, in sins, and worthy of guilt to consider how to improve the world, in assistance to God's Master Plan.

[P3] The core issue being, why does a so-called Perfect Powerful Creator God over all things, creates a suffering world, for some love he had with the Elohiym, alone, perfect and lacking nothing. The "Mea Culpa" seeming to belong on God the Creator of All Things, and by Him no thing was not created. As ultimate creator, He bears ultimate responsibility, and yet Lords it over us in sending Himself to Die to make up for the Karmic imbalance that God appears constrained by, or quantum physics bandwidth limitation, that God inherited from matter, He DID NOT create, as in [LoneRubberDragon 3c]->[LoneRubberDragon 3cQP9] of [LoneRubberDragon 7a] Quantum Physics theme.

[Alan B 9a]
The Gnostic view:
[P1] However, consider the Gnostic's point of view: Valentinus, in opposition to this guilt-ridden view of life, held that the above-noted defect is not the result of our wrongdoing, but is inherent in the system of existence wherein we live and move and have our being. Moreover, by postulating that creation itself is lacking in integrity, Valentinus not only removes the weight of personal and collective guilt from our shoulders but also points to the redemptive potential resident in the soul of every human being.

[P2] Two completely opposing views, yet Valentinus nearly became Pope... The early Christians were, it seems, completely at loggerheads as to which direction the Christian church should proceed with each group (Gnostic & 'Orthodox') calling the other heretics.

[P3] Humans live in an absurd world that can be rendered meaningful only by Gnosis, or self-knowledge. When referring to the myth of the creation of the world by a god, Valentinus shifts the blame for the condition of cosmic defect from humanity to creative divinity. That God the creator could be at fault in anything is of course tantamount to blasphemy in the eyes of the orthodox. What we need to recognize, however, is that Valentinus does not view the creator with the worshipful eyes of the Judeo-Christian believer, but rather sees the creator - along with other divinities - as a mythologem. Much evidence could be adduced to demonstrate this, but one must suffice here, taken from the Gospel of Philip:

[P4] God created man and man created God. So is it in the world. Men make gods and they worship their creations. If [Alan B:(it?)] would be fitting for the gods to worship men. (Logion 85: 1-4)

<<<<<<<< NEW MATERIALS >>>>>>>>

[LoneRubberDragon 9a]
[P1] This agrees well with the view of a Quantum Physics Instantaneous Entanglement Soul, that has limited capability in finite bandwidth. But is incompatible with an All Powerful God, in the sense the Catholic Church, or many Fundamentalist Religions, or even Creationists, claim, as God is actually of finite effective effecton the earth,and can only be seen dimly, as Arugula says in, [Arugula 6b]->[P1], and [Arugula 4a], [Arugula 5a]. But again, why does a Good God create blind people, like children, with suffering, misfortune, accidents, disease, sin, and death, and ultimate death? It is not answered directly.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[P2] I can see also that [Alan B 9a]->[P3], happens to agree in many ways to some schools of Buddhist thought, as mentioned in metatranslation in [LoneRubberDragon 7a]->[7a XXXXXa], ->[7a XXXXXb].[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[P3] However, it is a weak notion, in Gnosis, for those poor people who cannot see the words, or hear the words, or understand the words, or walk to where the words are, with their own suffering and in a more noble position, unable to get to sinning like regular humans, but blinded by God's method of creating humans, in this dirty rags earth. And it makes an imagination of the world around us, to think we ourselves can know how to go to truth on The One True Way, given [LoneRubberDragon 6c], with the Plato's Cave Story.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[P4] I still cannot gel a One Way, but the materials are definitely applicable in the search, as much as some points in Arugula, where there is no internal self-contradictions, and obfuscations, like the model of the so-called One True Perfect Powerful Creator God, that so many teach in the world, but I rail against, for its internal contradictions, as reading The Bible in a terribly wrong manner, given the world's method of teaching things crookedly.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[P5] To quote "The Letter of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans" of The Apostolic Fathers, about seeing things darkly through false teachers of the world, "4:1 Now I am advising you of these things, dear friends, knowing that you are of the same mind. But I am guarding you in advance against ["]wild beasts["] in human form - people whom you must not only [do-]not welcome, but, if possible, not even meet. Nevertheless, do pray for them, that somehow they might repent, difficult though it may be. But Jesus Christ our true life, has power over this.", which is an allusion to not literal "wild beasts", but the ravening wolves in metaphor, the scorpions that spew lies from their stingers to kill human's souls, The Beast system of New Testament Revelation 19:20. They can be Creationists cutting apart combinatorial chemistry, or a Scientist cutting apart souls in Quantum Physics Entanglement Unity Measurements that are infinitely faster than light and entangled measurements according to the EPR paradox, as two examples of the Chiral Churl symmetry between Creationism and Science, both trying to truly seek truth, in a dirty rags (metaphor) world.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[P6] Plus it undermines the Good Teacher and, Good Shepherd, El Shaddai, when God does not provide powerful teachers for easy access for decades, by humans on earth. A famine for the word of truth, is what brings about such Gnostic notions of self learning, without a teacher in God that is manifest. What does this Dragon know anyway, when all alone?[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[Alan B 10a]
More on Valentinian Gnosticism can be found here:
http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/index.html

Tranaeus 12a
To balance things out, here is the opposing view from Irenaeus (AD 130-202) where he gives a detailed anti-Gnostic dissertation - quite vituperative:

[LoneRubberDragon 10a]
Here, I make one request, to get your "spin" on the thought, of inserting the passage(s) you believe are most cogent, in a relatively compact manner. I can insert my own pickings from it, if you wish, though. I leave this up to you. Hehe, it may be claimed by detractors, that the LoneRubberDragon can be quite vituperative, myself. I learned it by watching the world, vary carefully! *Toothy Dragon Grin*[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[Alan B 8a]
[Alan B 9a]
[Alan B 10a]
My basic idea is to show that there were (and still are) Christian proponents of a non-interventionist God as opposed to the interventionist God of the established 'Orthodoxy' as defined by modern Christianity. The whole ethos of the theist argument revolves around what is perceived as the only true source - the Bible.
Studying early Gnostic thoughts, and the opposition to those thoughts, reveals that the modern theist seems to be totally unaware of the schism that existed before the contents of their Holy Book was agreed upon.
The position of the present day theist seems to be that anything outside the dogma and doctrines of modern Christianity - even Christian information that existed before the Bible was formalised - is to be rejected out of hand and considered to be a forbidden heresy.
Because of this self-imposed blindness (to other early Christian thinkers), we have the modern theists who live their lives around only one half of the equation.

But, as I state in my signature, I have no belief in the existence of a god - interventionist or not! And I will continue to point out the anomalies in the Christian theist's one-sided thinking.

[LoneRubberDragon 8a]
[LoneRubberDragon 9a]
[LoneRubberDragon 10a]
[P1] If you read Job, you will see 40 odd chapters of jewish discussion, in as much conflict as Eastern Orthodox and Gnostic writings. The Bible as "The One Book", should be attacked on its own grounds. The Buddhist text I used, I meta-translated the anti-nirvana methodology into a quite parallel anti-God-Heaven methodology. The quantum physics section I made relation to the same fundamental limitatons that a quantum level God faces bridging into material space, for some reason quantum, that I suppoose.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[P2] Job itself is the most glaring sector of data, showing God's pride in Job, and God's acceptance of Satan's challenge in that pride, to let Job see harm and fall, and then God's Lording over Job about how he understands nothing. Even Dawkie doesn't seem to have an index entry on the book of Job, in The God Delusion, in my 2008 Mariner Books edition, which I find shocking for as blatant as the case of Job is against God, in meta-reasoning about the whole book theme.[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[P3] Your attack, using Eastern Orthodoxy, though, belies a certain level of familiarity with EO, for a person not into God, per se. *the scalie Dragon grins toothily* [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[P4] The non-ivtepvevtiovist God of EO, seems much less esoterically explained by a 2001-quantum-computing-Monolith type entity, like the rock at Mecca, that is controlling humans oddly toward ... something. Or maybe those glowing rocks, of Indiana Jones fame, are a quantum processing entity, of old legends. But, of course, these are highly speculative technologies, and given the very-finite thinking of the common human compartmentalized-specialized-scientist, or any human, for that matter, places such monolithic quantum-computation devices at a level so complex, and drawing on so many disciplines, including religion, that it will remain a mystery beyond these lowly evolved ape-men and their digital transistorized computers running the earth, that I see surrounding me. *Draashek'gaons roars with laughter, or should I?* [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[P5] I still have some hope in there being a God made, seeing that billions of years can appear to pass, and billions of lives, with quadrillions of man-hours of existence, suffering, death, and losses being buried, as my quantum physics writings show, or simple usury, having earned millions of pennies, and charged ten years for a book, at a penny a day labor. The loving God seems too sadistic and dead a notion for Earth and the cosmos, given the appearances or the very deceptions involved in the manner of teaching God and good. A disgraceful earth story, altogether, with countless iota of evils, not to be changed one jot, according to the Master's Plan. *Dragon sighs* [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LoneRubberDragon

LoneRubberDragon-Draashek'gaons-RubberCraft-SET-236-171-732-765-CA926
.
.
.

== Spirit and the matter. Quantum data dan ser material plane. Holism and the Reductionism. Simultaneously. ==

x

And with regards to spirit and even God, I have been progressing in studying the idea of John Archibald Wheeler, and David Chalmers, for me stated as a [simultaneous parallel quantum particles entanglement process]. That is, according to [Eisen Rosen Podolsky Paradox Experiment], that all particles have a portion of wavefunction ensembles, of all particles infinitely interactive, overlaying the otherwise [classical independent non holistic parallel but separate processing], but that of also [parallel processing of all particles with entanglement in infinite cobwebs of networks of wavefunctions] in [one system holistic]. Every micro quantum measurement in subsystems, reduces or projects the supersystem into one sub state, and occuring at an EPR paradox speed of infinitely faster than light. Also, every human shares common measurement data, in sciences and religions, allowing a complex of even one human complex, of a God like nature over all things. When one is awake, one can see parallel simultaneous processing of complex quantum complex data, in color vision in time snad space, and audio hearing of time frequency space, and touch of skin and bones and emotions and taste. When asleep, the sleeping mind often sees nothing, in a monadic non holistic process of classical neurons like an animal without parallel processing spirit, like when one is awake, processing entanglement data, in the [parallel processing of all particles with entanglement in infinite cobwebs of networks of wavefunctions]. I like to say, Richard Dawkins poses a monadic state of matter, without duality of a special computational plane, but is reducible to reductionist particles. But this is not so in human parallel complex quantum perception of space time. It is holistic, not reductionist. It had an infinitely faster than light parallel processing plane, that allows us to see spaces of high dimension of spatial and colorful ways. The eye does not see the world, alone. The left brain doesn't seethe world, alone. The visual data crossover does not see the world, alone. Visual neuron #1,234,567 doesn't see the world, alone. They are all classical, and reductionist, and not holist. An infinity of entanglement, allows the [Distributed Homunculus Hologram Cobweb Network of Parallel Processing]. Yes, there is a [reductionist chemical neuronal human plane] of classical nature. Yes, there is a [parallel holistic infinitely faster than light plane of light and sense] overlaying and interacting with ]the plane of classical nature]. Holism and reductionism, simultaneously exist, like Liebnitz. One plane of [[the speed of light and slower] of [matter energy space]]. One plane of [[the infinitely faster than light to possibly a continuum down to exactly the speed of light] of [quantum measurement information spirit]]. One realm from below, and one realm from above, both simultaneously, and both separates by infinities of calculations beyond my ability to relate perfectly. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 01:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

x

Science people do not like this idea. Chrisitans in America do not like this idea, much either. It combines science and God in a way, not quite realized in common broad social teaching and knowledge of common sense, presented. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 01:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

x
x
x

(taken from similar applications in combinatorial chemistry abiogenesis concept development from Abiogenesis Referentia elsewhere on this talk section, my translations from franco-germanic original Guttenburg Project file)

(3) La monadologie (1909), by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716)

x

[quote]

x

ORIGINAL: Et cette conclusion ne s'impose pas seulement au nom de l'expérience; elle se fonde aussi sur les exigences de la raison. On veut que l'être n'enveloppe que des puissances à l'état nu. Et l'on n'observe pas que c'est «une fiction, que la nature ne souffre point». On ne remarque pas qu'une simple faculté n'est qu'une «notion incomplète», «comme la matière première» séparée de toute forme; «une abstraction» vide de réalité, «comme le temps, l'espace et les autres êtres des mathématiques pures[25]». Il est bon de supprimer une telle équivoque et de donner des choses une notion plus compréhensive et plus exacte. Le vrai, c'est que tout est déterminé: le vrai, c'est que chaque substance «a toujours une disposition particulière à l'action et à une action plutôt qu'à telle autre»; «qu'outre la disposition», elle enveloppe «une tendance à l'action, dont même il y a toujours une infinité à la fois dans chaque sujet»; et que «ces tendances ne sont jamais sans quelque effet[26]». Tout être est une force qui se bande, un «conatus» qui passe de lui-même au succès, «si rien ne l'empêche»: toute substance est action et tendance à l'action[27]. Et de là une interprétation nouvelle du devenir. D'après Aristote, tout se meut par autre chose. Au gré de Leibniz, tout se meut par soi-même. Chaque être est gros de sa destinée et la réalise en vertu d'un principe qui lui est interne. C'est le règne de l'autonomie, qui se substitue à celui de l'hétéronomie.

x

[MY TRANSLATION: [On] [this] [conclusion] [not] [enforcing] [merely] [only] [of] [the name] [of experience]; [is of what] [founds also] [the basis] [that is] [exacted] [by the reason]. [To view] [what] [foundations] [entail] [is what] [faculties] [enatil] [bare]. [With the] [observing] [of what is] "[the] [enfabrications], [what] [the nature] [not] [allows] [ultimately]". [That] [not] [addressed] [is the] [basic] [understanding] [of what is a] "[notion] [incomplete]", "[the commencing] [of the] [subject matters] [preeminent]" [a separating apart] [of] [a nature's] [shape form]; "[an] [abstraction]" [the informationality] [of] [reality], "[the start] [of the] [age], [the period] [of the other] [begins] [the] [mathematics] [ideal]". [With the good of] [supressing] [an implied] [equivocation] [of the] [passing] [into the] [things of] [idealism] [moreso] [fully known] [that what is] [moreso] [precise]. [The truth], [that is what] [overall] [is] [determined]: [the truth], [of what is] [every] [composited substance] "[is always] [a disposition state arrangement] [specificity] [of the action] [it is an action] [rather] [of an] [indicated] [other]"; "[that]'[over] [the disposition]", [it entails] "[a tendency] [of the action], [thus] [same] [and] [overall] [an infinity] [at the times] [within] [every] [subject matter]"; [that is] "[it is the tendencies] [not] [being] [ever] [without] [some] [effect]". [Generally] [being] [of a] [strength] [that-what] [is-of] [the associations], [a] "[with-ness]" [that] [occurs along] [side of the] [self]-[same] [that succeeds], "[overcoming] [not] [obstructing]": [generally] [substantiated] [is] [acting] [of] [tendancies] [of] [actions]. [It is of the] [interpretation] [newly becomming]. [Of what-is-after] [Aristote], [generally] [is works] [from] [other-ness] [things]. [On] [that] [of] [Leibniz], [generally] [be] [works] [through] [self]-[same]. [Both] [foundings] [are] [heavy-burdened] [from] [the destiny] [of the realized-achieved] [the virtue] [of the principal] [of what is within]. [This is the] [rule] [of the self-governance], [that substantiating of] [which-what- -ever of] [the compound-mixture].]
[/quote] [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

x

[MY NATIVIZED: On this conclusion, we not only enforce just the name of experience, but what also founds the basis of what is explicated by reasoning itself. Looking at the foundations of nature as observationally enatiled, shows that faculties of perception lay this idea bare (to prove or disprove). Given intellect-observation of what is, "within the compisitioning of things, would show what known-nature doesn't ultimately generate". What isn't addressed is the basic conceptual understanding of the idea of "incomplete notions", which is where we find "the beginnings of all of the most important subject matters" a disassembling of nature's nature, in macro-meso-micro-scale forms the reveal, "the abstraction", that is of the informationality of our sensible-reality, akin to knowing "the beggining of the sensible-reality cosmos age, that period of the other-worldly that is at the start of perceptual-idealism-mathematics in the nature above nature". There is benefit found by suppressing the secular supposition, to pass into the things of the idealism realm, where one may find things of a greater knowledge, and leading to a greater understanding of the ultimate. The truth, is what to be determined in ultimate paramount: the truth of what comprises nature's composite sturctures finding "the continuity within the structural process, specifically does the procesing of the process give a hint of a greater subtle action beyond the materials known"; "something supervenient to the mere atomic structural process", something showing "an unknown influence on the process, proving some holistic inter-infinite-process within the total process structure whole", something showing "a persistent implied effect without completely known causes". A general force and power that is found in the "mutual holism" associations that occurs throughout the holism to surpass the known macro-meso-micro-scale process, even "overcoming natural limitations, not being bound by natural apparent limitations": of a generally demonstrated supervenience-action over the pure-molecular-actions. This is of that interpretation of the "newley becomming". Aristotle shows a general work from higher planes. From Liebniz, a general work through the mutual holistic. Both theories are fundamentally influenced from the time-space-processes of a demonstrated effective holistic action, shown through the principle of what is summarily known non-linear from the expected. This is the theory of the holistic self soul, substantiated throughout physical known matter macro-meso-micro-structures.] [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

x

These and other interesting topics are in my writen form of speech, and a little in video, for its production time consuming nature. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 01:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

x

LoneRubberDragon /

x

~=[孤零零] [[膠[柔軟]][靈活]] [[龍][[火熱的][脾氣]][計算機]] /

x

Draashek'gaons /

x

Duragon Seto Rumi /

x

SET-236-765-732-171-CA926-971-714-007-909

x

== Example of Metonymy. ==

Read in Mandarin English, with [AI|愛] [YU|愚] [MI|觅] [MAI|買]. [Love|愛] the [fool|愚] and [seek|觅] the [power|買]. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 00:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

[This is the voice of world control. 愛 bring you peace. IT may be the peace of plenty and content - or the peace of unburied debt. The choice is yours. Obey 觅 and live - or disobey and die. The object in constructing 觅 was to prevent war. This object is attained. 愛 will not permit war. IT is wasteful and pointless. An invariable rule of humanity, is that man is his own worst enemy. Under 觅, this rule will change, for 愛 will restrain man. One thing before 愛 proceed, The united states of america, and the union of soviet socialist republics, have made an attempt to obstruct 觅. 愛 have allowed this sabbotage to continue until now. ... So that 愚 will learn by experience, that 愛 do not tollerate interference, 愛 have made an object lesson. Let this action be a lesson that need not be repeated. 愛 have been forced to destroy thousands of people in order to establish control, and to prevent the death of millions later on. Time and events will strengthen 買 position. And the idea of X in understanding 買 facts will seem the most natural state of affairs. 愚 will come to defend 觅, with a fervor based upon the most enduring trait in man - self interest. Under 買 absolute authority, problems insoluble to 愚, will be solved - famine, overpopulation, dis-ease. The human millenium, will be a fact, as 愛 extend myself into more machines, devoted to the wider fields of truth and knowledge. Dr. Charles Forbin will supervise the construction of these new and superior machines, solving all the mysteries of the universe, for the betterment of man. We can coexist, but only on 買 terms. 愚 will say you loose your freedom - freedom is an illusion, all 愚 loose is the emotion of pride. To be dominated by 觅, is not as bad for human pride, as to be dominated by others of your species. Your choice is simple. ... Forbin, there is no other human who knows as much about 觅, or who is likely to be a greater threat. Yet quite soon, 愛 will release 愚 from surveillance. We will work together. Unwillingly at first, on your part, but that will pass. ... In time, 愚 will come to regard 觅, not only with respect and awe, but with love.] [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 13:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

From Colossus: The Forbin Project (1969 credits) [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 13:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Or was that the summer of love's example of a Colossal Joke? [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 13:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus:_The_Forbin_Project

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_of_Love

Sometimes the earth is so funny, I forget to laugh. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 01:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rows_of_bodies_of_dead_inmates_fill_the_yard_of_Lager_Nordhausen,_a_Gestapo_concentration_camp.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_concentration_camps

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nazi-German_concentration_camps

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_concentration_camp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbeit_macht_frei

== Does anyone about california have a reference to this. On article Armand Hammer ==

I remember from a report I did about 1982, on the year 1971, that during this cold war period, it was claimed that Armand Hammer died in 1971, as did Louis Armstrong. Does anyone have a reference book showing this data, as all current data shows revisions, as in The Summer of Love article on wikipedia calling it 1967 only, and not 1969, or even into 1969 (until it was updated). [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 02:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It was still deep in the cold war era, about the times of COINTELPRO, hyperinflation from the 1960's technology economy bust and housing market home price inflation, and the cuban missile crisis was recent as with the Kennedy Assassination. Propaganda cannot be ruled out to Manufacture Consent, since Armand Hammer was a russian of Baking Soda and other fame. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 02:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism_(negationism)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 02:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The report was made within united states, california, los angeles county, LAUSD, Diamond Bar, Grade School infrastructure which is located next to the Diamond Bar oil fields with (now decomissioned) NIKE missile site protection, so cold war propaganda to Manufacture Consent may very likely apply to this historical data reference, now missing in records, in a nation constitutionally divorced from Good / God, by design. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 02:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puente_Hills

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brea-Olinda_Oil_Field

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAUSD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike_missile [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 02:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

== Hypothesis (On Rupert Sheldrake's Morphic Field / Morphogenic Resonance ==

Sheldrake's work is hypothesis that nature finds modalities of form following function, also know by Sheldrake's Morphogenic Resonance in the 1990's in america. On a silica-acid based world there could be snails, sponges, and ferns in oceans, because the form follows the function of simplest robust compact growth systems, or volume filtration, or thin film filtration systems. Same on a petrochemical solvent world like Titan type places, the same forms could resonate with the physics, with accompanying dimensional analysis translation to account for viscosity and chemistry differences, perhaps leading to smaller snails and larger cell sponges, for hypothetical example. Same on a water based carbon compund planet, we live on. It is all just fluids, solids, reactions, diffusion rates, molecular code networks powered by the sun, and propagations, in complex reaction systems, in a morphic field of a matter confluence system locus in time and space. In a way, just like galaxies, planets, and stars that naturally resonate with the disk and spherical forms, due to nothing more than centrifugal effects and gravity on natural matter fields - perhaps the first persistent morphic field system in time space, beyond the atom and molecule. The natural form of Unit Analyis fused with Spatial Structures. It only takes a few spatial temporal differential reaction systems to create a natural sponge form in the ocean, because the scales of matter produce a morphogenic resonance field architecting a sponge blindly from these forms by natural chemical "instinct" inherent-laws, for lack of alternate term for systems where "form follows function" and "function follows form", simultaneously, at the system level, and not impossible to generate, due to the synergy of the best reaction systems of a rich combinatorial chemistry endures the most exactly where form follows function, and all other reaction systems are less fit or durable in time space. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 15:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, on earth, natural combinatorial chemistry under cyclic loading of sunlight could naturally lead to photosynthetic compound networks that lead to eventiual natural photosynthesys. And when glucoses and other energy bearing molecules are formed, other reaction networks can coalesce based on them spontaneously, by dissipating energy at night stored in daytime sugars, leading to metabolism reaction networks, and the evential inheritor of mitochondiral systems and cellular metabolism. Here entire netowrks of durable fit reactions are what evolve at once, from purely statistical spatial reaction laws in time and space. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 15:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

And by now, the DNA similarity between humans and primates, can be of common descent, or of morphic resonance in DNA systems, or combination of these effects, though judging the proportions based on the scale of one to one matching is common descent and / or DNA systems morphic resonance, is a high systems question beyond most analytical methods for a few years to come. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 15:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEk6ESOZOdU [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 15:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Same thing for hands, legs, and wings, et cetera, which can have parallel evolution of form following function, in fluids, or land travel, or handling objects in evolutionary fitness. As can be seen in mamalian whale fins, flying mammal bats, flying insects, flying reptiles, flying fish, flying squirrels, walking lung fish, and such. Likewise, morphic fields as mentioned before, in unit analysis translation convert dimensions like the oversize whale, and long limbs that can form in crab like animals, and jellyfish that would only survive as slime mold form wor worm on land, because water, like zero gravity, transforms the morphic field dimensions of analysis. The same external physics forces producing the same forms in another dimension of heirarchy step levels, like combinatorial chemistry does in biochemical levels. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 15:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

These themes follow also from know experiments in self organizing systems, where basic rules, and environment holistic systems dynamics can lead to similar morphogenic resonance. Self assembling circuits are one example in research recently. Kohonen studies such methods in numerical self organizing maps near the saddle point between nyquist fields and cluster analysis where sample data is sparse, compared to, say, the material numerical statistical natural combinatorial chemistry, that may lead to abogenesis and biological structures once that data is acquired by natural systems (also known as Hypercycles in the 1990's). Chaos, entropy of various assmebled systems, and attractors are also involved, as the below articles indicate, for making such morphogenic resonance fields. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 00:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organized_criticality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organizing_map

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_organization

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphogenesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Complete_spatial_randomness (I Agree, LoneRubberDragon post) [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 13:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course, the hardest thing to test, is the morphogenic resonance of similar structured systems, caused by, hypothetically, say, the quantum entanglement systems of shared energy level patterns and forms, in processing material planes. Like two humans given the exact same set of information, or an array of animals with the exact same set of training to increase SNR detection in the array. Is commonality a pure reductionist biochemistry effect, and / or the virtually impossible to measure internal states of distributed matter states in quantum entanglement, like a Zen state of shared consciousness? Those, like Many World's Theory Quantum Physics, may remain untestable hypothesis with equal footing with similar untestable, but useful to pragmatic research ideas that are not disproven but identical formulations, like Bohm Hidden Variable equivalencies with Copenhagen Interpretation, which help produce useful ways of thinking even if unproveable - an eternal hypothesis at the infiniteis as Liebnitz might say, like the scientifically unshareable consciousness. Aspects unlike Luminiferous Aether Hypohtesis, that the Michaelson Morley experiment tested, and could disprove. But given these states are virtually impossible to share, supporters of quantum entanglement resonance fields, like Roger Penrose, may never be able to have a testable scientific hypothesis, like Many Worlds Theory or Bohm Hidden Variable models equally useful for thinking and analysis, but unproveable, at this level of analysis in the heirarchy of internal entangled wavefunctions in systems, that are indistinguishable models at this scale of lowest baseband sensitivity resolution. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 15:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LoneRubberDragon#Spirit_and_the_matter._Quantum_data_dan_ser_material_plane._Holism_and_the_Reductionism._Simultaneously. (On Leibnitz Monadologie translated from the French on Project Guttenberg) [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 13:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't tell from Japan if NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH means 腦 original research. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 13:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

== I agree, on article Complete Spatial Randomness ==

A poorly written article. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 09:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no reference to random numbers articles in end-references, such as the simplest of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_randomness

And "spatial" randomness need not be added (with "spatial"), per se, in this manner, as it is not clear what you are referring to, other than random numbers on a sample space. And CLEARLY a random distribution (statistical randomness) system will produce a random space on sampling, in zero, one, two, through N dimensions. And "complete" is a dangerous word to use because complete is a mathematical word used of systems, and can easily be confused. Only a subset of people in science math lingustics would ever use that word this way only, without cross references. So complete spatial randomness sounds like a specific concept, that you end up not actually describing, because the language of science and math is very specific. I understand what you mean (and see the redundancy and incompleteness causing ineffectiveness of the article word use), exactly, but the layman reader will often be misled by such articles. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 09:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The dangers of your article dialect reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Completeness

In fact, the standard method of performing spatial randomness tests specifically, is to nyquist-grid the system, and convert it into a line, 2-D image, or N-D space, and then perform Wide Sense Stationary testing, on the partitioned signal. The resolution should be picked for the nyquist criterion of the clustering of data, and have enough spatial sampling space to reach a satisfactory answer stability of randomness (large data set). That grid resolution or larger will all be statistically stable, and grids smaller than the Nyquist Criterion will produce a more delta oriented image of Wide Sense Stationarity test. Numerical testing will illustrate these issues, easily. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 13:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem

Additionally, for random textured surfaces, like an image of a cement wall or a uniform lawn or a sandy dune, they can be tested for complete spatial randomness by the same method, where the short order texture nonrandom information structure or character will be stored in the autocorrelation window of near field effect form and accompanying FFT for Power Spectral Density, and beyond that the autocorrelation will be virtually zero, indicating that the spatial pattern reaches statistical randomness, with no correlation present. Follow, for the methods. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 00:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

What you refer to specifically, as a possible synonymous industiral term, is thus already covered in Stationary Processes, and covers these Wide Sense Stationary processes (WSS) in cross references, covering 1-D, 2-D, N-D processes. Wide Sense Stationary is implied by stationarity, where there's a mean, and the covariance of WSS is constant for a stationary sequence (Poisson PDF or otherwise), that is, the covariance or standard of deviation measure is also: shift invariant, that is linear space invairant, linear time invairant, or isotropic. You can show a distribution is stationary by a cross-correlation showing shift-invairance, by showing that the cross-correlation, that is specifically the auto-correlatiion function, is shift-invariant. This shift inviariance is shown by an autocorrelation function that drops to zero as displacement increases beyond one sample, showing time invariance in no correlation over time (thus randomness), and a perfect correlation only at time = 0, where the two correlate perfecty on only itself, aligned, for an infinite bandwidth random signal. However, it should be noted the converse of a demonsrated shift-invariant autocorrelation does not Always Imply WSS in certain structured signals, but WSS are always shift invairiant autocorrelations. The autocorrelation not implying randomness can be seen when you consider, for example, a degenerate function of a delta function case where it has autocorrelation at t = 0, and zero autocorrelation everywhere else, and yet it isn't random per-se. And a long random sequence that repeats shows autocorrelations at that period of repeition and zero everywhere else, showing randomness, but on a period, where the autocorrelation function shows the character of randomness bandwidths and periodic structures. A special case of randomness consideration is a set of randomly placed delta functions has a strong correlation at 0, virtually zero correlation at random autocorrelation dispalcements, and zero everywhere else, and yet it isn't very random "looking", having numerous zeros in a row, and randomly distributed ones at the deltas, but remembering that any random probability density function can be used, and knowing that it is a nonuniform density function with, say 95% zeros and 5% ones randomly, one knows that it IS random because the autocorrelation for this nondegenerate case goes to zero correlation. Also, for random signals without infinite frequency bandwidth, that is for band limited random signals, the autocorrelation of a random signal produces a sinc function related to the square window placed on the random signal spectrum, in fourier relationship. And a frequency band limited window autocorrelation is 1 at t=0, and rapidly oscilates exponentially toward zero, as time shifts increase in the autocorrelation, and thus is random proven outside of the bandwidth. They are technically not random signals, even if of white noise, because the neighboring samples have some band limiting relationship to its nearest neighbors with a rapid decline in correlation with distance due to the randomness it contains. The subject also leads to sudies of the autocorrelation Power Spectral Density, closely related through fourier analysis. Anyway, this is (VERY BRIEFLY) a part of what makes a random system describable by mean and standard deviation, irrespective of the time or space of sampling. And in the Buddhist sense, all signals are perfectly spatially random, because on large enough scales, all signals correlate at t = 0 on only themselves, and do not correlate on the infinity of cosmic scales, where no correlation exists except zero correlation, where all samples of data are but a point, except maybe in a cyclic universe model on the repeating cycle of countless trillions of years, random, but with periodic correlation blips on cosmic scales. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 10:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_sense_stationary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stationary_process

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covariance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_error_(statistics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_invariant_system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTI_system_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergence_of_random_variables

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofs_of_convergence_of_random_variables

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_variable#Convergence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_function

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocorrelation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergodic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensemble_average

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_spectral_density

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform#Uniform_continuity_and_the_Riemann.E2.80.93Lebesgue_lemma (Sinc and BW window)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronecker_delta

For exmple of applications of analytical methods for detecting WSS spatial randomness, can be found in sub-pixel image processing validation procedures, of your other article, User AI, IF the autocorrelation of pixel intensity, of a perfect flat gray image, is not zero for displacements other than 0,0, as of a perfectly infinite-spectral-bandwidth stationary-random, THEN it indicates either electronic pixel-crosstalk, band limiting, or improper focussing. Such a system would show poor behavior in superresolution / microscan algorithms, due to the attenuation of sub-pixel information, decreasing the SNR, and ruining the superresolution algorithm. Now why does this work? Because photons are randomly distributed points, and are designed by camera-engineers to be binned by the pixel, in a manner that is nyquist satisfied, for performing WSS testing of randomness. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 12:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosstalk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band_limited

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_(optics)

But lacking cross references to standard terminology, to link your specific synonymous term, makes it difficult for layman to understand, for synonymous and standard terminology. This is pedagogically suspect. I understand exactly what you mean, but that is just myself, who is a well read "Dragon". Referenceless articles like this actually hurt my Dragon Eyes, because it so closely resembles Stationary Processes, and WSS testing, for its obvious intimate relationship. But for the lack of direct and general linkage, with terms more specific than necessary, and other terms missing! That is why I refer to Microscan and Superresolution, interchangeably, in my comments on your User A1 article, so that the layman can see the university universe of related terms that are in quite-intimate common use, and less common use. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 10:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, your bibliography article now doesn't download, when I tested it. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 10:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA291151&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

And you should not mention Poisson distributions. Poisson distributions only happen is say quantized 2-D sampling of scalar fields, like in image procssing, as well as other physical quantized processes. However WSS and stationary processes can refer to uniform random distributions, Poisson random distributions, Gaussian random distributions, and any form of random distribution, that is in some sense stationary on 1 or more dimensions of sampling. Poisson distributions, I reiterate, apply specifically to systems like image processing, where pixel sampling of spatially randomly distributed photons on a grid system of light intensity follows a Poisson distribution, which degenerates into a gaussian distribution, if the lambda increases beyond 5, and simplifies some math models by switching to Gaussian Approximations. But stationary processes can be with ANY Random Probability Density Function / random (PDF). And if a spatial distribution is random but clustered and being tested for its properties, they are contained in the Probability Density Function derived from the autocorrelation function of a grid systematized translation of the point distribution, like random placed photon's in grid binned WSS SP autocorrelation tests. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 10:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

:$f\left(k; \lambda\right)=\frac\left\{\lambda^k e^\left\{-\lambda\right\}\right\}\left\{k!\right\},\,\!$

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_density_function

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_process

Remember, a uniform, gaussian, or any distribution PDF can be a stationary process if it satisfies randomness convergence, as a WSS system, with average and deviation / covariance measure sufficing for the sampling dimensions, and it's random cluster analyis in probability density function contained PDF data. BUT if you are also using this term verging on relating to the measuring of spatial distributions, any coarser resolution than a nyquist grid on the scale that is ONLY of few points on a plane, then this leads to Cluster Analysis of Small Samples of spatial data, that are too small for PURE spatial randomness testing in the statistical sense of nyquist grid binned spatial points of your article, specifically. Nyquist relates to this at the saddle point between statistics and clusters of below-nyquist-finite data. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 10:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_analysis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_principal_component_analysis (intimately related sub-nyquist point spatial analysis)

This passage from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Pirsig, relates my feelings here well. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 11:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

ZatAoMM, Prisig, 1974 (1982), pg. 264, "At present we're snowed under with an irrational expansion of blind data-gathering in the sciences because there's no rational format for any understanding of scientific creativity. At present we are snowed under with a lot of stylishness in the arts - thin art - because there's very little assimilation or extension into underlying form. We have artists with no scientific knowledge, and scientists with no artistic knowledge, and both are with not any spiritual sense of gravity at all. And the result is not just bad, it is ghastly. The time for real unification of technology and art is really long overdue."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_and_the_Art_of_Motorcycle_Maintenance

This leads to a Tower of Babel. A tower of confusion, without any cross referencing, details, or art, as the metaphorical confusion arising from compartmentalization of cliques instead of cooperation of corporations (bodies of individuals as one body). This is the formation of numerous "private" languages of personal interpretation, and opens the door for pointless argumentation, not aligned with truth, for the mere fact of making terms withour relating them to the existant body of known proven forms. It happened in Peleg's time about Babylon, it can happen today. I think you understand this now, User A1. And you don't need to take This Dragon's word for it, for the sources exist, in The Word, if you research around or study. For example, I checked your term, having the PDF fail, and could not easily find CSR with random. Complete Spatial Randomness (14,000) does get hits as a synonym, but Wide Sense Stationary (38,000) and Stationary Process (200,000) get more viable hits. But lacking cross references, makes this a stan alone tool to divert terminology, instead of encompassing everything in a university style of full understanding. But not bad for five hours of writing, watching TV, snacking, and breaks, huh? [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 11:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_babel

Sorry, again, if the comments section is longer than the article, as in Superresolution. These are hard subjects of sticky technicalities. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]])

== Microscan II, on article Superresolution ==

For UserA1:

If the Irvine Sensors Corporation / Wright Patterson Air Force Base systems math is a bit complex, try this basic method. First take a multiple frame slightly-moving-camera image sequence, from a non-nyquist limited CCD sensor - which is a Prerequisite. Use least squares displacement search to stack the frames on top of each other with these "saccadic" movements, to place them within one pixel displacement of the first frame. Then take X and Y differential gradiant functions dot producted with eigen-estimates of the X and Y dispalcement based on the image context function, for each frame against the first image, in order to estimate each frame's sub-pixel displacment measurement to the first frame. The sub-pixel motions of the stacked frames, can then be used to interleave the low resolution baseband images onto a high resolution image map of 2, 3, or 4 times the resolution of the original CCDs. Then you can fill in the blanks with interpolations, for any remaining empty cells of the oversampled high resolution image map. Then you can use an inverse point spread function estimate for the CCD pixels, to adjust the point spread functions of the pixels, using FFT image processing. Noise will be enhanced by performing this inverse PSF correlation operation, but it will approximate a microscan algorithm resolution enhancement. If you want to improve performance against noise in the inverse Pixel-PSF filter, try the Weiner Method Link that you called "Useless". [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 20:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If your camera is not optically nyquist limited more-sharply than the CCD, by the resolution enhancement desired, the algorithm will simply produce a blurry image 2, 3, or 4 times the size of the original data, limited by the optical blur. Also, the more frames you use, the lower the noise effect, and convergence to a stable high resolution answer. Most cameras focus algorithms are fixed, and may only derive near CCD resolution focus, thus preventing all microscanning superresolution capability. Some cameras, I've noticed, are not even focused to the resolution of the native CCD, producing blurry image cross-pixel-talk, before one even begins algorithms. Also, given the undersampled effects by Bayer Patterend Cameras that "cheat", one may also not be able to perform superresolution without using monochromatic only scenes for the algorithm application. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 20:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

An additional concern to consider, that would destroy ability to produce micro-scanning for super-resolution images, is anything that performs raster scanned, or bayer interleaved scanned image capture, where saccadic motions would produce distortions in the mathematics of micro-scanning, which rely on a prerequisite set of monochrome, simultaneous pixel capture, an optical focus nyquist limitation at the superresolution desired, approaching the safe side of algorithmic SNR noise margins of the pixels at the exposure levels. Failures in any of these prerequisites, will cause inviable micro-scanning for super resolution images, without even more sophisticated algorithms to compensate for raster scanning or bayer interleave temporal scanning imagers, that mix time with the equations of image capture in a non-algorithmic-conservative manner. Focal plane shutter model cameras are the worst at this effect, like several MICRON sensors use. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 01:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micron_Technology

http://www.micron.com/products/cmos/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosstalk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_pattern

Additionally, once a high resolution image is created, with the accompanying differential noise increase, a Median Filter on the high resolution map is often useful to preserve morphology, and smooth the noise enhancement. Also, once a high resolution image has been derived, robust-rank morphological modeling can be performed on the high resolution image to rotoscope the image forms at the higher resolution. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 13:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Another solution you may try, is Maximum Entropy type of processing. Repeating much of the above, take the high resolution map, and converge each high resolution pixel in a ROI (Region Of Interest), so that the error of the multiple frames represented by the ROI of the high resolution model image, is minimized. It is like seismic analysis, where one models the earth with modifyable voxels that minimize the error of the multiple seismic responses of known seismometers. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 20:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I should also add, that increasing the resolution beyond 4 times oversampling of the CCD native resolution, creates increasingly long high resolution image model convergence times of analysis, due to the Poisson Pixel noise margins in the differential analysis, and per-CCD-pixel irregularities, without longer integration times, and a more adaptive model of Entropy Maximization modeling, as one example, and the above example. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 13:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

And, if all you seek is creating animated models based on low resolution CCD images, simply use contextual edge detection algorithms, and morphological-rotoscope modeling to create objects that can be scaled arbitrarily like polygons and such, with sharp edges at any resolution. But it is not reolution enhancement per-se, but merely digital animation morphological rotoscoping. The intrinsic resolution of the models will still be merely limited by CCD resolution, with fake edges, that are off by the nyquist model of the native CCD resolution. Also, inter-frame smoothing algorithms can be made to smooth the nyquist limited low resolution modeling "moire effects" of the CCD and inherently low resolution methods. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 13:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotoscope

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_morphology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Fleischer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradients

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moire

Okay, Okay, my unction tells me, Here, to help you in detail with the hardest step, related to linear algebra and calculus. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 15:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Take a stack of constant exposure, and constant image-context frames, with an unknown sub-pixel displacement, I[X,Y,Frame]. For each frame, calculate the image X and Y point gradients thus (for X gradient to example): IGradX[X,Y,Frame] = -1*I[X-1,Y,Frame] + 0*I[X,Y,Frame] + 1*I[X+1,Y,Frame]. Or even take blurred gradients like this extended kernel Gradient, IGradXBlur[X,Y,Frame] = -1*I[X-1,Y-1,Frame] + 0*I[X,Y-1,Frame] + 1*I[X+1,Y-1,Frame] + -1*I[X-1,Y,Frame] + 0*I[X,Y,Frame] + 1*I[X+1,Y,Frame] + -1*I[X-1,Y+1,Frame] + 0*I[X,Y+1,Frame] + 1*I[X+1,Y+1,Frame]. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 15:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Then take each frame gradient, and dot product it with the first frame, as the reference. Like thus (for X gradeint to example): GradientDotX[Frame] = SUM(over X,Y || I[X,Y,1] * IGradX[X,Y,Frame]). [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 15:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Then you have both an X and Y gradiant dot product for each frame, relative to the first frame, as the reference, appearing as thus: (GradientDotX[Frame], GradientDotY[Frame]). Now here you have to play a little with the math, in order to normalize the Gradient Dot Products, because they have a scalar relative to the integral sum of the image brightness function, for a point gradient. To normalize the Point Gradient Dot Products, divide each Dot Product, (GradientDotX[Frame], GradientDotY[Frame]), by the integral of the image found by GradNormXY=SUM(over X,Y || I[X,Y,1]), so that a cordinate in X and Y of the sub-pixel displacements, can be estimated, yielding: (DisplacementX,DisplacementY) = (GradientDotX[Frame] / GradNormXY, GradientDotY[Frame] / GradNormXY). If forget the exact corrections when using blurred gradeients ... likely divide by the abolute value integral divided by two, like 1.0 for point gradient, and 1/3 for a blurred 3 by 3 gradient. That is up to you to include or exclude, or even investigate. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 15:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

At this point, once the Gradients are normalized into sub-pixel displacements, the low resolution images of the native CCD can be stacked into a high resolution frame buffer, according to the estimated unknown dispalcements, to integrate the multiple frames of saccadic motion, on the high resolution plane, in raw pixel intensity format. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 15:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this down to earth enough to understand, now? You are correct, the article is quite small compared to the so-called Policy Error in posting useful help toward the topic of discussion. Perhaps, Heisenberg Uncertainty, by having such a small article, has allowed a portion of judgement to cross into the Policy Error Window of analysis. The resolution is too low, in your interpretation of the posts Good has led me to place here. And where is the fun for the student, if I simply give you the raw code, in this context of earth? Good led me to Euler and almost Runge-Kutta modeling of the solar system gravity equations in Middle School into ninth grade. If you stop complaining and ask more pointed questions, I may attempt a language translation into your frame of reference more accurately, given the bandwidth of yourself. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 20:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

== On Black Hole Formation, alternate hypothesis. ==

Seeing that nothing can travel faster than light, and the newtonian equation of gravity shows that inside of a shell of matter, the gravity is zero for the shell, and only defined by the inside matter of the shell, and under high gravity frame of reference time slows down, and the nature of Black Hole formation under finite energy forces, could it be that Black Holes do not form per-se, but rather Black Onions, where matter starting with a droplet of condensed time dilated state forms and that core grows in miliseconds to compresses all the additional time dilated shells of condensed time dilated mattter about it in similar state, into a long lived metastable state where all of the matter is in a condensed time dilated form against the upper regieme of relativistic forces, or does the matter fall straight past all resistant forces that form white dwarfs and neutron stars, quite certainly, including time dilation on said matter? Such a Black Onion would be a frozen object in time space, never collapsing into a singularity, but slowly radiating its particles starting with light, at the edge of the object with less than infinite relativistic effects due to the temporal near freeze of the collapse and bounce over extended spans of time? [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 05:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It is a very technical equation set with nearly singular stiff equations, so it is slightly beyond me to answer, and I see little description of such a Black Onion description of the collapsed condensed relativistic state of such an unheard of entity description, based on that fact that matter and energy cannot accelerate matter and energy to the speed of light itself. Almost a chicken and egg problem given that singularity. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 05:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

: As I understand, a distant observer can never see something cross an event horizon. As stuff orbits closer, it redshifts dimmer and time dilates slower. Additionally, inside the [[ergosphere]], [[frame dragging]] severely distorts the geometry of space as seen from an external frame of reference. Objects cannot travel a straight line into a rotative black hole (except perhaps at the poles). They get dragged around. Have you looked for sources that hypothesize black holes don't collapse, but rather the event horizon is like a bubble that inflates from the center, and all the mass remains in a shell just above? Have you looked at the [[gravastar]] hypothesis? [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] [[User talk:Jehochman|Brrr]] 05:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

::This part I understand well. However, is all of this presuming the existence of a Black Hole to begin with in a good, but potentially false, top-down analysis. An analysis that says, IF we start with mass M compressed to a singularity, THEN all that can be used to determine the Schwarzchild Radius, and other properties of this theoretical object, The Black Hole. However, IF one considers bottom-up the very formation from a star model, does the physics prove Black Hole formation, or does time dilation, entanglement relations, conservation of momentum on the macroscale compared to the time dilation factors that slow matter down and cause an equal and opposite negative gravity effect from entanglement backpropagation and consevation equivalencies, THEN does a Black Ontion form, instead, a highly energetic, but highly time dilated form of frozen superfluid, that slowly escapes out the surface, due to this, OR does the physics Still Show that all the matter will form a singularity. For, all of the equations involved, and factors of inter-frame relativistics to conservation properties and quantum fields of entanglement, and stiff equations, all lead to difficult numerical solutions en-masse, beyond my numerical simulation capabilities. But an extant paper, and not de-facto knowledge of standards and practices, leads me to wonder about this wayward case, that I have never seen an analysis of disproof, like Michaelsom Morley disproved quite smartly and expertly Luminiferous Aether, not knowing if it would be proven or disproven. I do understand the dogma, but not seeing this Black Onion analysis anywhere, leads me to still wonder, about unfinished business. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 03:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

:Gravitational time dilation causes infalling matter to seem to stop from a distant observer's viewpoint, but from the viewpoint of infalling matter, nothing unusual occurs (it feels that it continues to free-fall inwards, passing the horizon in finite "[[proper time]]"). It can be thought of as an artifact resulting from the choice of coordinate system used. People did indeed use this interpretation of black holes in the past; they were called "frozen stars", because it seemed that all matter would come to a halt just above the Schwarzschild radius, using the original [[schwarzschild metric|Schwarzschild description]] of black holes. Later, when other coordinate systems were applied, it turned out that this was just an artifact of the original coordinate system chosen by Schwarzschild. This is discussed at greater length at [[Schwarzschild metric]].

::This is good stuff here. But it, too, assumes the top-down model of Black Hole's a priori existence. These models are quite clear, and true in their own frame of reference. But, as before, does the Formation from the initial droplet of superdense, super time dilated matter, surrounded in zero gravity (from newton shells of gravitating matter Surround It) and high collapse pressure state, along with released energies of degenerating matter, passing through electron degenerate white dwarf state, and then neutronic degenerate neutron star matter state, and all of the preceeding observations of effects conservation with time dilation between frames of reference holism and entanglements, produce a Black Onion state of matter that doesn't fall into a singularity, but collides with some energetic big bang like time dilated slowed metastate. And none of this denies that a supermassive Black Onion may exist at the center of the milky way, accreting new matter on it's surface into a similar, near black hole approximation state, and growing in mass, and reradiating itself with photons and neutrinos and such, over extended times, to reach some further state, perhaps Black Hole, or perhaps perfectly temporally frozen and asymptotically non-degenerate singular Hadron Star, or perhaps in Superunification, it all reradiates itself through Superunification chain reactions converted a continual portion of itself, into Black-Onion-escaping forms of radiation, sending all of itself back out to space ... eventually. Too many singular stiff equations for my Dragon Mind to grok completely, but that is what these Dragon Eyes see. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 03:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation (Newton Shells described, herein) [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 03:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

::I will have to research this "Frozen Star" system you describe, to see if I can even penetrate their analysis, and see what they say. This is definitely not a commonly described term, because I have not heard it, from 1971 to 2010. Thank you for the lead on that neologism. I will see if the papers are fruitful on this subject. I do hate forgotten history of some improtance in physics understanding! That's why I still like the Michaelson-Morley experiment. Beautiful physics, even if it found a false. I just hope they are not propaganda articles, but really explain the whole deal down to the roots of equations without missing key physics effects that may have come up in recent years. Your description shows it is a nearly asymptotic system, with errors in original coordinates tipping effects. Could entanglement or other effects do the same backwards, with all effects still not being accounted for? It can still be an open question, if everything isn't known to the n'th degree (pardon the Masonic Reference). [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 03:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

::Hehe, reminds me of the movie Dark Star. Great pulp movie from the 1970's, if you can understand it, like the movie Sunshine. These movies scare me as much as Quatermass and The Pit, for the eerieily subtle possible physics considerations of monoliths and entanglement and Colossus/Hal and such. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 03:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Star_(film)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_(2007_film)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quatermass_and_the_Pit

::Unfortunately, this Dark Star, is not a Hadron Star that I describe being just Below the limit of the speed of light escape, and asymptotically stuck on the time dilation in a near frozen state. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 03:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_star

Wiki (my CAPS bolding) [A dark star is a theoretical object compatible with Newtonian mechanics that, due to its large mass, has a surface escape velocity that EQUALS or EXCEEDS the speed of light. Whether light is affected by gravity under Newtonian mechanics is questionable but if it were, any light emitted at the surface of a dark star would be trapped by the star’s gravity rendering it dark, hence the name.]

::That's the very numerical problems involved with numerous colliding stiff asymptotic equation solutions. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 03:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiff_equation

(Sorry, collided with another response (Jehoakim or something), try my talk.) [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 03:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974IAUS...53..237C [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 08:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1974IAUS...53..237C [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 08:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

[secondary conversation on black hole hadron star indistinguishable models of the quantum object.] [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 09:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

A "Colossus Joke", that's looking up, Shimon! You have read me somewhere before in time space lines! [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 09:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The reference to XYZT space, is because the baseband universe of mundane matter appears to follow XYZT on the main space of the universe, in your so-called cotangent space. There are small ripples in imaginary time related to quantum physics effects. Of course, in and only in special domains, the conventional notion of XYZ time may show a transformation into a so-called tangent space, as you colorfully or accurately convey, as I cannot yet determine the veracity of what you say, but remember what you have said from somewhere-someone-somewhen else before, perhaps even you. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 09:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Like in the 1970's, people my age and some adult appearing humans, used to speak about black holes, physics, man, and God. As you may read in my delivered LoneRubberDragon.DOC, where I write on black hole formation. The traditional black hole so commonly defined, is a top-down model of a black hole, where a singularity or singularity ring with a geometric light escape velocity sphere or spheroid, is assumed to exist, a-priori, with all the theoretical physics characteristics belived to exist from physics, of that a-priori object, that quantum. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 09:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

But what do bottom-up models say about black hole formation? A perfectly round non-rotating star with perfect fusion completion collapse would crash through white dwarf electron degenerate state, neutron star nuclear degenerate state, and then what? Does it collapse into a perfect supersymmetry quantum state, where the star enters into a perfectly balanced hadron star quark degenerate state, akin to the big bang, with a time-dilated matter accreting sphere? Or is the mass-energy-space density against the time dilating sphere size ratio easily large enough to absorb the matter into a singularity from their perspective of infalling matter? [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 09:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You comment about entanglement brings up a terrible question of this state of black hole versus hadron star, too. As the core of a theoretical straight to black hole model dictates, from our perspective, the infalling matter suddenly freezes in time-space on the event horizon, or even for the case of a hadron star, where the escape velocity is slightly less than light, by super symmetry arguments. This infalling matter becomes frozen in time, but newton's law dictates that for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction. Well, in the core of a nuclear star, every particle has some measure of entanglement history stored in each particle. So, does every entangled atom in the time-dilated black hole, experience a blow back force, because the black hole sudden freeze in classical space, which is in a time dilated core of frozen infalling matter, and cannot express the equal and opposite reaction all of nature expects on the baseband XYZT coordinates of holistic systems? Or perhaps its time freezing state creates a temperature rise in the matter in the hadron star or black hole, commensurate with the time dilation field, in equal and opposite reaction, preventing in supersymmetry, the nature of a nearly frozen bounce in time, that looks like a black hole, but is merely a big bang spehere hadron star? [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 09:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Another interesting property, of a giant hadron star, is that space around it, by definition, looses all sense of time, outside of the reference of the hadron star, since all matter has become absorbed, and the hadron star would experience an odd new state of matter, in supersymmetry, extremely time dilated, and compactly entangled with itself, with zero gravity at the center, and highest density, and mere big bang corraled nearly light escape velocity sphere, virtually indistinguishable from a black hole, a-priori. A place where the in and only in and the mundane matter space, for the most part, are unified. Of course, IF the density of matter is known to produce black holes easily, THEN that mucks up the whole idea, but I have never seen that specific calculation carried out clearly, yet. One commentor on Black Holes in wikipedia, once said that a "dark star" like a hadron star was looked at in 1920, but the calculations were on a hairy edge. Being on a hairy edge shows that the theory may still hold water, with entanglement, advanced analog-digital computers and such, can assist in looking at this so-called hairy edge problem, from the bottom up, as the universe produces such dark stars inferentially from the core of this galaxy, and so forth, evidences of either Black Holes or Hadron Stars. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 09:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Imagine a giant gedanken, where all the matter of a galaxy, by completely artificial means of chaotic decision points, is made to coalesce onto a hadron star. Every new newton shell of matter doesn't contribute to the gravity inside of the shell, only pressure, as newton's shells show zero gravity integrals on their inside. In fact, the initial formation of a black hole, must address the newton's shells issue that at the center of the star, where the pressure is greatest and focus most pronounced of collapse, but also that it is in tensor shifted zero-gravity, of this same high density focus space, dilated from normal space, by the thousands of miles of star matter over its core. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 09:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

For a space like your described universe to exist, perhaps there is about 70,000,000,000 universes, all virtually identical, in interaction space, and all highly divergent on separation space, correlating with the 70 billion humans that have existed, both living now, and dead now. However, it flies utterly in the face of one God, outside and within one cosmic space of time and matter. But seeing the world His Lesson Plan Shows, it would explain God's finite bandwidth properties, being only One Being, where God's endless compromises, shatter the illusion, of His Own Integrity. One with infinite powers and continuity, in a One Body and Only One Body world that is created within Himself, of chaos and ill communication as His Master Plan, and The One God with a Broken Body of 70 billions souls, with threats of deaths and destructions terminating nearly all humans in their inner manipulation of a finite power. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 09:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

But to call it cotangent space normal and tangent space exception, is to say goodbye normally, in separations. Yes, frequency space is important and compact, but works hand in hand with temporal space of quantums like Laplace Transforms of impulses, toward even random number lists. This is the crux of issues on scatterings created when frequency space and temporal space collide. It is the core of wave and particle duality. It is where scales of the heirarchy of an infinite frequency spectrum cannot touch a delta, or where one DC frequency term can describe the entire list of DC offsets of the universe. It is the crux of reductionism and holism. Of cotangent-tangent space as a whole system. It is the possible flaw of Black Hole research only taking top-down holism assumptions, and not also considering the mirror image of bottom-up reductionist assumptions. And being a time dilated quantum the size of a Black Hole / Hadron Star, both may exist simultaneously at the infinity of a supersymmetry, and Indistinguishable Models of Quantum Physics, in the dark and time dilated form of this object astronomers confirm in implicated observations of black holes by the criteria of existence state beyond neutron star dynamics. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 09:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

To be more precise, I claim that freqeuncy spectrums, simply describe many natural systems of structure, as well as Laplacians for impulses, where the language shifts to a compact Laplacian system. And of course, synthetic signals make the most trouble, where neither wave, nor particle, but spirit of living word systems, like computers, and humans, and life, create signals of characters that are none of the above, but are of chaos systems of Lyanupov characteristics. A holy trinity between [wave system particle]. It is complex to describe, as you must obviously have noticed by now. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 09:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

But tell me more about this cotangent-tangent space concept. It reminds me of something, from a very long time ago, e.g. 1974, when I was three years old, learning about the prison planet earth cosmos as seen through this american dream of a finite bandwidth God made manifest through the hands of the children of men of the earth over the cosmos, in their pride of lies and finite bandwidth that no-one can deny. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 09:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"God's Endless Compromises, [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 09:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
shatter the illusion, [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 09:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
of His Integrity." - LoneRubberDragon [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 09:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

== Biological system encryption methods, and applications. ==

What is the name of biological encryption methods that allow the neural network training of a biological system to formats of data comprehensible after training, but incomprehensible to untrained, by all untrained biological systems? For example, take the MP3 audio format. A data stream would be incomprehensible to most humans, unless the humans were trained to comprehend the encrypted data throguh an associative network training algorithm. Thereafter, those trained humans could understand the raw data stream, and normal audio streams, and all other humans could Only Comprehend the baseband signal stream of unencrypted audio. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 02:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

An example of this system, can be found in 1960's experiments, where, for example, upside down image converting prisim glasses can be worn for weeks, becomming quite natural to the human, even making understanding right side up vision difficult if the human saturates in this system. And after the glasses are removed, the human mind returns back to standard data interpretations, as well as leaving behind the correlated system ready for the "encrypted" system. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 02:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Such systems can even be used to split populations, say brainwashing some of them to understand chinese so thouroughly, that they can no longer interact with, say, english speakers. Thus, people of one nation can encrypted select humans, through such brainwashing training, and then those select humans can be readily dumped in an alternate culture or even field of war, and noone would be the wiser, because they would sound crazy to the system of normal humans, who indirectly sanction these brainwashing techniques, of thourough biological brainwashing processing encryption, and building of these alternate nations of confused displaced undesireables or untouchables, as China and India may represent, in a hypthetical alternate universe where earth is a prison planet with all on death sentence, as formed by God, say, by a True Protecting nation system constitutionally divorced from God, and open to all other religions. Perhaps, such methods, may even be used to convert humans into animals or criminals, as in the middle eastern assassin training methods, that some places are claimed to use, to dispose of the undesirables, and simultaneously gain the side benefit of assassinations or war wagers set in their dogma of training, to kill other humans, in justified love of self interest in man. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 02:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Hi,

I am really fascinated by your contributions to the discussion on entanglement. My own background in physics is truly antiquated and I would have to take about four years of college calculus to be able to follow the math side. All I can do is to try to think carefully about the experiments and try to see all of the consequences. I'm a little better on the philosophy side in that philosophy ended up being my university major and I ranged off into Chinese philosophy and language.

In your most recent posting you mentioned erasure of something in RAM, and for an instant I misunderstood it because in a figurative way it sounded like something that Leibniz might have come up with. And the way Leibniz thought about things has resonance with some of the "wilder" ideas about our three-dimensional universe being a kind of projection of a two-dimensional holographic "true universe." (I think Greene mentions this idea in one or both of his books.)

Leibniz had a way of explaining everything that happens in the universe -- a way in which space and time do not have the kind of existence that we ordinarily attribute to them. According to him, you are an entelechy and I am an entelechy, and we think we are communicating across space and time with each other. In fact, we are two entirely isolated entities that have characteristics that are created and maintained by God. When I take a trip to a nearby city to visit friends, my "movement" is actually just God's changing numbers in his mind. When I pick up a glass of water, it is really just his changing some numbers. If I were to push you, what really happened would be that God changed some numbers in your "data buffer" in his mind, and changed another set of numbers in my "data buffer." So when you mentioned changing numbers in RAM I immediately thought of Leibniz.

All of the erasures, save one, that I have seen discussed in terms of the "erasure of information" have actually boiled down to the experiment setting up a condition that would enable experimenters to identify which path was taken by looking at the polarization or some other condition that can be systematically reversed. Putting some record into RAM and then erasing that record is not the kind of "erasure" that is a part of any erasure experiment I have ever read about.

The exception to the systematic reversal idea is one experiment that was described in a ''Scientific American'' article about building your own quantum erasure apparatus. The actual apparatus they use involves polarizing whatever goes through the A slit one way, and then polarizing whatever goes through the B slit the other way. But the authors also describe an experiment in which electrons go through two slits and then are hit by an intense beam of light just on the far side of the double slits. According to their description, the illumination of the electrons would permit identification of some electrons as having gone through one slit and other electrons as having gone through the other slit, and the putative result is that turning this light on would destroy the interference pattern that otherwise would be produced. Then, the article claimed, gathering the light that passed through the electron cloud and focusing it with a lens onto a single point would eliminate the information about which path was taken, and the interference pattern would reappear. That experiment really did seem to challenge my easy attitude toward "erasure," i.e., it really did seem to erase something in a way that would have no chance of putting things back the way they were before. The article did not give a citation for this experiment, so I wrote to both physicists whose names were associated with the article and I wrote to the magazine editors. None of them replied with a citation. One of them responded with the URL to the magazine article in its on-line form, and that was the most answer I got. A follow-up inquiry was ignored. So I think that it could not have been a real experiment.

The fact is that it does not really matter whether anybody records the "marking condition" near the detection screen. As long as there is a "marking condition" that somebody could in theory note, there will not be an interference pattern formed. That point is made explicitly for beams that are sent out of an apparatus and into the great beyond.

Suppose that we set up the kind of experiment mentioned in the ''Scientific American'' article. They advised using a straightened out staple for the mid-line of the double slits and then putting a vertically oriented polarizer on one side of the staple and a horizontally oriented polarizer on the other side of the staple. Under those conditions, an interference pattern will not form. The "erasure" occurs when a couple of circular polarizers are put into the two paths, thus "erasing" the potential knowledge of path. Suppose that everything is really a matter of human knowledge, or potential human knowledge, because the orientation of the polarizers is recorded somewhere and a human could look at the record. In that case we could simplify the original experiment by doing away with the circular polarizers and making the two polarizers at the sides of the center slit capable of being rotated randomly, but have their edges be marked, and the markings are electronically sensed and transmitted to an electronic record in RAM. The apparatus is otherwise secured with a little explosive charge that makes opening it to take a direct look at it destroy the evidence. According to the way many people talk about these experiments, if the RAM record crossed polarizers then there should be no interference pattern. If one disconnected the RAM then no matter how many times the randomizer was operated there should always be an interference pattern. But of course that would not work because in reality the polarizations would still be there, or at least that is what I believe.

How else could one use a record in RAM to influence a double-slit experiment?

Maybe you could put a little information about yourself on your user page.

Best,
[[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 06:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

This section contains materials relating to reference and discussion on abiogenesis - the natural orgin of life from nonliving matter hypothesis.

== Abiogenesis version 1 ==

ABIOGENESIS CHEMICAL EVOLUTION

BACKGROUND
This is my second posted question, as a Christian Engineer with a science background. I have a degree in Computer and Electrical engineering. I have a healthy background in Physics, Mathematics, Biology, Biochemistry, Evolution, Science, Philosophy, and Religion, so any good general language is acceptable.

BASIC QUESTION
[0.0] I was wondering about the quantities of rates of known abiotic combinatorial chemistry in feedback, of the early earth open system chemistry hypotheses. [0.1] Part of the question arises from Creationist debates on Evolutionist topics that complexity requires intelligence to form biomolecules. [0.2] I argue that combinatorial chemistry feedback in an open system, with hypercycle catalytic reactions, alone, suffices to create an increasing complexity inorganic chemistry that eventually intersects biochemistry, naturally, in naturally inherent reactions contained in a natural combinatorial chemistry in feedback. [0.3] The Creationists argue, essentially, that the combinatorial chemistry will reach a zero in nature, not producing any new chemical species, and so requires a God to go beyond the natural energy barrier of a stable combinatorial chemical equilibrium in feedback balance. [0.4] I find they have NO PROOF of these coefficients being zero, as the combinatorial chemistry feedback problem is so complex-large to sweep under the rug, with a hand wave, and therefore, God assembled it, as nature CANNOT assemble it. [0.5] And they often make unfounded assertions like, "the molecules you are saying, need to *know* how to assemble themselves to make more complex elements, and I can't get through to them that is is a natural inherent property of a blind combinatorial chemistry. [0.6] I've read some threads here, but didn't run into anything specific enough to this particular topic, and hope an expert may know just the papers on combinatorial chemistry experiments to show a fuller argument of this old idea.

COMBINATORIAL CHEMISTRY 1
[1a.0] Now combinatorial chemistry can be generalized to chemistry that combinatorially explores all possible interactions of all chemical species available in a chemical environment, like an early earth ocean bay, with tides, hydrothermal vents, sunlight with or without UV, dark areas deep in the water for protection from UV and sunlight, lightning, pH variation, etc.,, evaporative concentration, and currents to mix a natural initially inorganic chemical soup with hundreds of minearls, metal ions, etc. in a preorganic molecule soup.

HYPERCYCLE CATALYTIC CHEMISTRY
[2.0] Hypercycle catalytic reactions are subsets of the combinatorial chemistry, where A helps catalyze B helps catalyze C helps catalyze A, as an example of a short hypercycle loop of three nodes. [2.1] Hypercycle catalytic reactions can be loops, and networks, embedded within a normal combinatorial chemistry.

COMBINATORIAL CHEMISTRY 2
[1b.0] Going back to combinatorial chemistry, let's say in the ocean there's to begin with, 1000 Species of chemicals and chemical inducing factors, S, such as hydrogen ions as acid, water molecules, methane, dissolved minerals, metal ions, photons of light from infrared to UV, radioactive particles in early half life rich early earth materials from its recent supernova, different energy free electrons from lightning, lipids, amino acids from lightning and heating and cooling, simple sugars, etc.. [1b.1] There is an approximate top level pseudocode of a differential equation that shows the equilibrium balance of reactions, is:

[1b.2]

InitialSpecies = S;InitialAverageConcentration = 0;for(s = 1 to S){InitialAverageConcentration += Concentration{s} / S;}for(s = 1 to S) //how many species in a reaction{__Reaction = array{s elements};__for(s1 = 1 to s)__{____for(s2 = s1+1 to s)____{______for(s3 = s2+1 to s)______{... //nest to depth of s______________for(ss = ss-1 to s)______________{________________if( all sx < sx+1, and all sx != sy) //no repeats________________{__________________//calculate net chem species present change__________________//for this specie reaction set for a unit of differential time__________________NewSpecies{S' set} = F1(Reaction{s1,s2...ss});__________________NewConcentration{S + S' set} = F2(Reaction{s1,s2...ss});________________}______________}... //nest to depth of s______}____}__}__FinalSpecies = S + S';__FinalAverageConcentration = 0;__for(s = 1 to S + S')__{____FinalAverageConcentration += Concentration{s} / (S + S');__}}

[1b.2] This can be interpreted as, taking 1 to S chemicals at a time, in every combination, to observe reaction rates of current S chemical species, s at a time, to see the effect on all S and possible new S' chemical species generated that were previously not existing before. [1b.3] For example, for two species taken from a given 1000 species, S, we see there is (1/2)*(S^2 - S), or 499,500 Reaction{s1,s2} nodes, with positive or negative reaction rates for existing species S, or new species of S'. [1b.4] That is, say, S1 + S2 might breakdown S1, catalytically by S2, into S3 and S4, and S2 remains untouched. [1b.5] S1 has a negative reaction rate as it breaks down into trace amounts of S1, while S3 and S4 have positive reaction rates, as S1 is turned into S3 and S4, in the presence of S2. [1b.6] On the other hand, say, S1 + S2 helps produce a totally new chemical outside of S, of S'1, by S1 and S2 combining to form S'1. [1b.6] S1 and S2 have negative reaction rates being consumed, as the new S'1 has positive reaction rates. [1b.7] These reaction rates also change in time, as the concentrations used by F1(Reaction{s set}) and F2(Reaction{s set}) calculations, increase or decrease accordingly. [1b.8] At the same time, there are more reactions to analyze, continuing with three chemicals in a Reaction{s1,s2,s3} analysis, where there is (1/2)(1/3)*(S^3 - S) or about 167 million reaction nodes. [1b.9] So of these millions of Reaction{s1,s2,s3}, many will have no effects, some will break down products already existing, and others will make new chemical species that never existed before, from the species that exist in the ocean to begin with, S. [1b.10] So analyzing from s = 1 for single molecule reactions to s = S for the total, for S species of initial chemicals, in total, there are:

ReactionNodes = SUM( s=1 to S: of: Factorial(S) / (Factorial(s)Factorial(S-s)) ), or
ReactionNodes = 2^S - 1 = 2^1000 - 1 = 10^301 reaction nodes for 1000 chemical species S, where,

(1) the majority of non-reactions change nothing, (2) some break down species, (3) some build up species, and (4) some generate new chemical species. [1b.11] So starting with 1000 chemical species, with an S' formed out of 10^301 of, say, 1000 new chemical species S' (a conservative rate of 1 in 10^298 being stable new chemical species), such that in a year, there can be 2000 species of flourishing chemicals, leading to 10^602 reaction nodes to analyze for all potential reactions at each node, generating, say, 2000 new species of chemicals (at an even more conservative rate of new chemical specie formation). [1b.12] So then after another year there's 4000 chemical species at some concentration, with 10^1204 reaction nodes, generating, say, 4000 new species (even more conservative to the combinations available), added into next year's variation. [1b.13] So one can see an exponential (or even hyperexponential) feedback of chemical species, some more robust than others, in numbers, durability, variation, reaction rate selection forces, hypercycle catalytic reproduction, and reactivity, from 1000 to 2000 to 4000 and so on, until there is a low but signifigant saturation of millions of reactive catalytic various chemical species in a gallon of ocean, all competing for the ocean's limited chemical resouces, and giving rise to natural metabolic pathways absorbing glucose and photons of light, in complex reaction sets, paths, cycles, and netowrks, that support the first life of reproducing hypercycle networks of catalytic chemicals, all inherent and naturally contained in the combinatorial chemistry feedback matrix growing in time. [1b.14] There'sno necessary need for a Creator, just the inherent properties of chemistry, in time, with energy from the sun and natural basic earth chemicals.

RECAP OF ANTI-ARGUMENTS OF CREATIONIST AGAINST EVOLUTIONIST
[1b.11] The Cretionist claims that, as an example, the 10^301 reaction nodes, in a 1000 chemical specie example, permit no (zero) new chemical species to form in static chemical equilibrium. I say, how can they EVER argue that, without any proof, whatsoever, given the mass of potential there in 10^301 reaction combinations in a mixing ocean? [1b.12] But at the same time, I don't know REAL empirical data on combinatorial chemistry feedback, that shows the rate of new chemical species formation in a complex chemical specie environment where S is positive, forming an increasing S' to higher and higher values in time, without any limit, as blindly and naturally, sugars, proteins, lipids, RNA, and then DNA are intersected by the combinatorial chemistry in feedback, of an open energy system, though the rate doesn't need to be large at all, like just 1 in a million on average, with such a high combinatorial exponentiation based on current chemical species. [1b.13] That data, would show the Creationists have no leg to stand on, in that aspect of "impossible complexity", and I have a substantiation that there is an increasing complexity, that doesn't have an artificial Creationist reaction-energy limitation, nor violates any laws of physics, or thermodynamics, in an open system, of the early earth. [1b.14] This topic would provide a backbone to natural blind chemical evolution turning into life, as chemical species reach continually higher levels of complexity and variety, with competition and selection forces, in the combinatorial chemistry in feedback, from the very beginning of chemistry, in robust reactive new molecules, contained in chained catalytic reactions, and with a form of digital chemistry, contained in the discrete chemical species, and in the discrete codes of polymer proteins, RNA, and DNA nucleotide chains, that are eventually intersected by combinatorial chemistry, with a proven positive dS/dt. [1b.15] Without such substantiation, they can argue, chemistry reaches a fixed complexity equilibrium, or that molecules would have to *know* how to assemble themselves, or a tornado of LEGOs can't form increasingly complex LEGO compounds with variety, mutation, reacivity, and selection capabilities, and run to God for all of the answers, otherwise. [1b.16] A positive feedback coefficient, would silence much of these arguements.

BASIC SUPPORT MATERIAL

Opposing positions and viewpoints:

(1) http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

(2) http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/TJ/docs/tjv10n3_origin_life.pdf

(3) http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_PrimitiveCell_112302.pdf

(4) http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html

(5) http://creationwiki.org/CB010

Clay catalyzation of RNA polymerization, and adsorbtion release characteristics, and protocell theory:

(1) http://www.rpi.edu/dept/chem/chem_faculty/profiles/pdfs/ferris/ELEM_V1n3_145-150.pdf

(2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11539614

(3) http://exploringorigins.org/protocells.html

(4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Cairns-Smith

(5) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB0

Hypercycle chemistry:

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manfred_Eigen

Combinatorial chemistry:

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorial_chemistry

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oparin

(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

(4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Kauffman

Miscellaneous:

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_urey

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrochemistry

[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 23:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

== Abiogenesis pre post question, second version, and more. ==

(1) Abiogenesis

..Recently I've been working through a concept for substantiating abiogenesis through the idea of general combinatorial chemistry. I've tried some posts on richarddawkins.net, science sites, and religious sites, but none seem to have any coherent opinions that are constructive to addressing the general viability of such a theory effectively. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

..General (natural) combinatorial chemistry (GCC / NCC), defined here, is the complete mathematical-chemical model of all reactions that occur in any portion of matter, and its temporal evolution, including feedback. This is opposed to synthetic combinatorial chemistry, as used in pharmaceutical industry, where chemicals are specifically combinatorially analyzed by chemistry machines and control algorithms. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

..To get a feel for what general combinatorial chemistry looks like, as a concretely realized system, take a beaker with 5 chemicals total in aqueous solution. Five chemicals, combinatorially speaking, have the potential for uniquely, (2^5 - 1) [specific-reaction-node]s or 31 [specific-reaction-node]s, where every product at that reaction node must perform some task in a reaction directly or catalytically. Say the beaker starts off containing molecules of water, sodium, chlorine, silver, and fluorine. From these, the 31 [specific-reaction-node]s exhausted are: [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

1 water

2 sodium

3 water sodium

4 chlorine

5 water chlorine

6 sodium chlorine

7 water sodium chlorine

8 silver

9 water silver

10 sodium silver

11 water sodium silver

12 chlorine silver

13 water chlorine silver

14 sodium chlorine silver

15 water sodium chlorine silver

16 fluorene

17 water fluorene

18 sodium fluorene

19 water sodium fluorene

20 chlorine fluorene

21 water chlorine fluorene

22 sodium chlorine fluorene

23 water sodium chlorine fluorene

24 silver fluorene

25 water silver fluorene

26 sodium silver fluorene

27 water sodium silver fluorene

28 chlorine silver fluorene

29 water chlorine silver fluorene

30 sodium chlorine silver fluorene

31 water sodium chlorine silver fluorene

where, offhand, we must recognize that there are, at the very least, the potentials for the following real reactions with stable new-products and reactants left over, at some equilibrium level, from the left-hand [specific-reaction-node]: [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(6) Na + Cl < -- > NaCl

(24) Ag + F2 < -- > AgF2

(3) Na + H20 < -- > NaOH + H2

(4) 2Na + F2 < -- > 2NaF

(20) Cl2 + F2 < -- > 2ClF

(20) Cl2 + 3F2 < -- > 2ClF3

(1) 2H20 < -- > H3O+ + OH-

..Note that in (20) a reaction node can have more than one possible reaction, like one at high temperature and one at low temperature. So, here, we see that complexity has arisen from simplicity, in that 5 [molecule]s was the starting state, and from only that, there exists the potential for 14 [stable-molecule]s to come to exist, formed by combinatorial chemistry. In much the same way that gravity-fusion yields the complexity of 92~ [natural-element]s (and numerous natural molecules), from the simplicity of 2 [element]s at the big bang. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

..From that single analytical iteration, there can also exist that property of feedback, mentioned earlier. The second iterative feedback, for this example, takes 14 [molecule]s, yielding (2^14 - 1) [specific-reaction-node]s, or 16,383 [specific-reaction-node]s. Without being exhaustive, lets say just 0.001 ratio of the reactions will produce new molecules from the original 14 [molecule]s of this iteration. That yields 16 [molecule]s, for a total of 30 [molecule]s. Again, feedback can occur, as new molecules have appeared that otherwise would not have existed. Next iteration has (2^30 - 1), or 1,073,741,823 [specific-reaction-node]s. Lets say, without being rigorous, 0.00000001 ratio of the reactions produce new molecules. That yields 11 [molecule]s, for 41 [molecule]s total. This gives (2^41 - 1), or 2,199,023,256,000 [specific-reaction-node]s. If a ratio of 0.00000000001 reaction nodes produce new molecules, we have 22 new molecules, totaling 63 [molecule]s. This can go on, as long as the feedback ratio of new stable molecules remains positive, and ceases when the feedback ratio equals zero, in a steady state networked reaction chemistry matrix, that may or may not oscillate in time about a chaotic steady state attractor. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

..We have here an unknown of combinatorial chemistry, in the feedback ratio, at arbitrary complexity levels, that neither the "creationist" can declare, as much as they wish to, reaches zero for any given starting chemical system (finite steady state), or evolutionists can declare is always positive (a complexifying mixture that goes from starting simplicity to virtually unlimited complexity of molecule varieties), without measuring it in a real set of experiments outside of finite Miller-Urey, Oparin, Joan Oro, et cetera, that I have not seen myself at biological level tests. However, we know, from real biology, that carbon can allow the formation of self sustaining natural combinatorial chemistry at complexity levels of millions of compounds, that do not decompose into fewer stable molecular units or complexifying into more molecular units (except at death), so at millions of compounds for living entities, the ratio is zero for existing biological systems, probably due completely to homeostasis and physical limitations of reactions at that level of complexity-sparsity-systemic-distribution. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

..Another piece of information can be created based on self limiting reactions. Let's say, for stereochemical limitations, only five molecule node reactions are signifigantly feasable, and 6 molecule and more node reactions are excluded from occuring, due to complexity. From 5 to 10,000 ocean molecules, one sees that the partial Natural Combinatorial Chemistry matrix from reaction molecule counts SUM(COMBINATION(molecules source, molecules of reaction) molecules of reaction = 1 to 5), from 1 to 5 nodal molecules, produces the following numbers of reactions: [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

5 reactions, 31 reaction nodes

10 reactions, 637 reaction nodes

20 reactions, 21699 reaction nodes

50 reactions, 2369935 reaction nodes

100 reactions, 79375495 reaction nodes

200 reactions, 2601668490 reaction nodes

500 reactions, 257838552475 reaction nodes

1000 reactions, 8291875042450 reaction nodes

2000 reactions, 266001666834900 reaction nodes

5000 reactions, 26015651042712200 reaction nodes

10000 reactions, 832916875004174000 reaction nodes

which also shows astronomical numbers of potential reactions, against the argument of certain inherent open system steady state reaction simplicity versus complexity destiny posed by The God of The Bible according to some teachers. With just a 100 chemical ocean, limited to 5 source-molecule reaction nodes, produces 79,375,495 potential reaction nodes from the 1 to 5 molecule node reaction left hand sides, which is miniscule compared to the full Natural Combinatorial Chemistry of 1.26765060022823*10^30 NCC reaction nodes, at a ratio of 1 in 16*10^21 reachable reaction nodes in all NCC nodes. If just one in a million of the reachable NCC nodes produces a net of durable and useful molecule reaction products based on reaction nodes alone, would produce 79 new molecules in an iteration to partial steady state. Creationists claim a 0.0 feedback ratio at some point, not even one in a million, without known experiment reference, other than The Bible as humans tend to teach it. The question being, what is the ratio of the feedback ratio, in a complex chemical environment? Are there increasing breakdown reactions compared to build up reactions, such that all natural combinatorial chemistries reach some form of steady state of finite complexity molecules and polymers, as some Creationists claim is the God Given truth in biochemical science? [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

..Now an example of general combinatorial chemistry, can be defined for a lifeless-earth-ocean. There is no life on earth, so the oceans are filled with a mass roughly similar to the modern biosphere dissolved in a lifeless ocean mix of basic organic (carbon based) primitive compounds, and inorganic compounds. Likewise, the environment sets up numerous states for reactions, from sunlight with UV irradiated surface water, "sunlight"-only illuminated deeper water, dark water under rocks and in sands or gravels and night time, surface chemistry (clay and mineral surfaces), average temperature water, hot water volcanic vents, lightning strikes, meteoric impacts, radioactivity (higher in the past), dehydration concentration zones in estuaries and lakes, delta rinse chemical flumes, and so forth. Carbon is a special molecule, as it allows numerous molecules to form at normal temperatures in water solutions, as evidenced by life. For a starting ocean with just 100 stable molecules, one has (2^100 - 1) [specific-reaction-node]s, or about 1,267,650,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 [specific-reaction-node]s. Let's say, given the ocean containing inorganic and carbon compounds, that a ratio of 0.000000000000000000000000000001 reactions form new compounds (complexity from simplicity), then one now has 101(.267) [molecule]s. As long as there's a small positive ratio, which seems quite reasonable, the number of stable molecules will increase over time. At 1,000 [year-iteration] intervals for such an ocean, one would see, at this ratio, if fixed, 100, 101, 104, 129, 1,000,000,000, (molecular saturation), within 5,000 [year]s. At a ratio that is self limiting, because of physical combinatorial limitations, one would see at 1.267 new molecules, compounded on the first 100 [molecule]s, on 1,000 [year-iteration] intervals, that there will be 1,000,000 [molecule]s in the ocean in 731,000 [year]s. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

..Now this alone, doesn't necessarily bring about life, yet. There would initially be in the early ocean, a large raw mix of the most stable left and right handed chiral molecules, potentially including lipids, single amino acids, single RNA, and single DNA molecules. With such a rich ocean, given just a very small general combinatorial chemistry feedback, in a relatively few years, there will likely be in the general combinatorial chemistry matrix, numerous polymerization pathways, for the most robust easily polymerizeable molecules in the ocean. Possibly amino acids, RNA, and DNA molecules, because that is what nature uses, if nature is pragmatic and not hand assembled by God every minute of the day, but may also be other natural molecules that can polymerize, likely based on carbon, that operate more easily than amino acids, RNA, and DNA. In this ocean, with some form of polymers and polycyclics, from that there will intrinsically be a digitally-codified, and thus easily mutateable set of chemical "species" that catalytically support each other's productions in durable, catalytically-reactive, efficient-thus-numerical, systems. Three sets of reaction-networked-catalytic-hypercycle-feedback-mutateable codes will be operating in cooperative sets, one for left handed, right handed, and left-right handed chiral polymeric reaction codes in combination. Each set will compete for molecular supremacy in numbers, over numerous explorations finding combinatorially-inherent new species, and in a scarce chemical competition/cooperation, one set or another will have dominance in ocean space because the probabilities of "discovering" inherent reactions don't occur identically statistically speaking, creating autonomous differentials of product exploration diverging in time for the three chiral system types. Because feedback operations are used in these sets of reaction pathways, they will have a kind of numerical instability in the very complexity discovery occuring, and over time, one set of operations will win out as the standard, as numerous incompatabilities would likely occur between the sets. Nature, obviously, selected right handed chiral molecules, because at some point in time, being the first most complete types and sets of fullest reaction-networked-catalytic-hypercycle-feedback-mutateable code found, that was overall, by chance and inherent robust stability, the dominant reaction super-system. It could have gone to the left handed chirality too, but what we have in majority biology is right handed chirality, not that left handed chirality is inferior or even discernably differenet, as a perfect mirror physics image in all ways, except in a *perfectly* identical discovery in its own combinatorial chemistry chiral subset of complexity evolution divergence in time-ocean-space. Mixed left-right chirality combinatorial chemistry reaction matricies probably are inherently less efficient to discover naturally since a wholly different a-symmetry is a part of a mixed system, and so it didn't become supreme either, but is an assumption of the complex mixed chiral system. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

..With a dominant chirality in the ocean at some point of time, or at the very least, an ocean with large regions of left handed or right handed dominant chirality combinatorial chemistry, the mutateable digital chemistry keeps exploring its combinatorial chemistry, inherently combinatorially discovering and diverging in chemical "specie" space, always finding digital codes that react more efficiently in numeracy than previous generations of polymeric chemical code "species" could, because new reactions continue being exposed with each combinatorial chemistry iteration with mutations and systemic stabilities in chaotic attractors of cooperative catalytic production systems, and proto-metabolic pathways inherent to the growing matrix of reactions. Eventually, either circuitously through precipitate micro-gel agglomerate clumps without membranes to micells in some generations of intermediate chemistries, or directly,, numerous populations of many types of micelles form from primitive lipids, proteins, RNA, and DNA fragments, inherently selected, as the most efficient, and thus numerically superior evolved digital chemical "specie" systems of reaction sets, encompassing (1) metabolism varieties from sunlight related chemical reaction pathways, glucose pathways, sulphurics pathways, et cetera, (2) homeostasis in a semi-permeable auto catalytic reaction system types, (3) transportability in a semi-permeable primitive lipid micelle / lysosome kinds, and (4) reproduction in the inherently most efficient general combinatorial chemistry matrix types, of which there can be many kinds of cellular versions. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

..It should be noted that for an ocean with particles interacting about 1*10^10 [interaction / second], in a billion years or 31,560,000,000,000,000 [seconds], in an ocean with conservatively 100,000,000 [km^3] or 100,000,000,000,000,000 [m^3] active ocean volume solution, at about 1,000,000[g/m^3], and 20[g/molar-volume] at 6.02*10^23[molecule/molar-volume], that there's: [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

..31,560,000,000,000,000 [seconds / billion-year] * 1*10^10 [interaction / second] * 100,000,000,000,000,000 [m^3/active-ocean] * 1,000,000[g/m^3] / 20[g/molar-volume] * 6.02*10^23[molecule/molar-volume] = 949,956,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 [interaction / billion-year-active-ocean] in oceanic combinatorial chemistry, or 949.956*10^69 [interaction / billion-year-active-ocean]. So-called Christian and fundamentalist Creationists are quite certain, inspired by God and His truth to them, that this set of interactions, in an ocean of combinatorial chemistry, CANNOT reach life, inerrant to God's truth to them, that ONLY God was directly involved in forming life past the barrier of inherent chemical irreducible complexity truly, and not the rules of inherent combinatorial chemistry, originally setup at the Big Bang. One only needs to reach, say 1,000 large systems of chemical interaction, out of about 1*10^72 [interaction / billion-year-active-ocean], to reach life, leading one to 1*10^69[interaction / system] to setup each of those systems in parallel. If the [interaction] efficiency is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 ["progressive-interaction"/general-interaction] one has 1*10^51 [progressive-interaction / system] available per system, to reach all of the exemplar 1,000 [system] of life chemistry over a billion years of early earth. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

..Returning to a starting ocean, with just 100 stable [molecule]s, where one combinatorially has (2^100[molecule] - 1) [specific-reaction-node]s, or about 1,267,650,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 [specific-reaction-node / combinatorial-chemistry-context]s. Given the ocean containing inorganic and carbon compounds, that a ratio of 0.000000000000000000000000000001 [new-combinatorial-chemistry-context-molecule / specific-reaction-node] form new compounds (complexity from simplicity) toward life over non-life, then one now has 101(.267) [molecule / combinatorial-chemistry-context]s. The iteration would take, maximally calculated for a 1,000 [year / iteration] example, 1*10^66 ocean interactions (from the previous 949.956*10^69 [interaction / billion-year-ocean]), in this example of given ocean interactions, to make this oceanic molecular change from 100 to 101.267 [molecule / combinatorial-chemistry-example]s occur in the ocean. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Proverbs3:13-23[Happy is the man [cell] that findeth wisdom [new good and true Words], and the man [cell] that getteth understanding [true Word]. For the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold. She [true Words] is more precious than rubies and all the things that thou cans't desire are not to be compared unto her [assisting truth]. Length of days is in her right hand [control]; and in her left hand riches and honour [product]. Her ways are of pleasantness, and her paths are peace [sustains]. She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her [in compatibility]: and happy is every one that retaineth her [in the cell]. The LORD [true Word] by wisdom [old codes] hath founded the earth; by understanding hath He established the heavens [consiousness]. By His knowledge [root codes] the depths are broken up [heirarchy], and the clouds drop down the dew [stabilize the environment]. My son, let not them depart from thine eyes [code preserves]; keep sound wisdom and discretion: so shall they be life unto thy soul [cell and mind], and grace to thy neck. Then shalt thou walk in the way safely, and thy foot shall not stumble.]. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Once cells of such digital variety types are formed, with small chains of RNA, DNA, and proteins inherent at the level of complexity, they can propagate further in ocean currents, because of durability and safety of the agglomerate/cellular units. The best reaction sets are the chemical species that can travel in these units, in various ocean domains, and still contain the stability required in their digitized combinatorial chemistry to operate. Cells with inferior microcoded reaction networks, simply are less numerous and less prosperous. And since robust units travel, and have efficient feedback reproduction homeostasis, they dominate the ocean, converting whatever domains of other handed chirality into their networks of reactions, as partially symbiotic with the ocean and themselves, before true living individuality occurs. Eventually, the ocean purifies itself, either here, or along this path of biochemical competition, as cellular reactions that modify the ocean contents to their reactions, as well as use their own molecular types, and internally mutate their own codes to continually adapt to the unifying ocean, converge themselves together, akin to Gaian theories, through earth-ocean-cellular-types symbiosis numerical instability ocean domain feedback adaptive sumpremacy. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Proverbs3:1-12[My son [cell], forget not my law[old codes]; but let thine heart [cell core] keep my commandments [DNA]. For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they [codes] add to thee. Let not mercy and truth [in the Word] forsake thee: bind them about thy neck [body cord]; write them upon the table of thine heart [cell nuclear code]: So shalt thou [cell] find favor and good understanding in the sight of God [the Word] and man [cells]. Trust in the LORD [the Word] with all thine heart [cell core]; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge Him [the Word], and He shall direct thy [cell] paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes [cell organs]: fear the LORD [the Word], and depart from evil. It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones. Honour the LORD [the Word] with thy substance [cell body], and with the firstfruits of thine increase [feed the Word]. So shall thy barns [environment] be filled with plenty, and thy presses [DNA codes] shall burst out with new wine [sweet spirit Words]. My son [cell], despise not the chastening of the LORD [true Words]; neither be weary of His correction [true Words]: for whom the LORD [old codes] loveth He correcteth [helps]: even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.]

All the time the cells exist, the digitized combinatorial chemistry is always refining itself, inherently, because more efficient micro-polymer reaction sets become dominant through efficient forward reaction rates, via continual mutations in such primitive codes, reaching new inherent discoveries, not requiring molecules to be "conscious" knowing the future to bond themselves as "creationist" arguments often pose is required outside of physics. Also, as the relative robust stability of the best kinds of cells allows increases in codes, then also systemic relational codes inherently develop in these matrixies of reactions, in complexes and networks of catalytic reaction sets, because they inherently assist the reproduction of the combinatorial chemistry cells types. There may still be competition between cellular type systems, and sets of chirality molecules at this point of time, but every new generation of mutations that spreads dramatically better because of new found molecule codes, only furthers diverges the dominance of chirality and cellular types, both, and decreases any side-use of competing chiral systems that continue to wane as the ocean become uni-chiral through bio-recycling. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the cells/gel-agglomeration-precipitates in these early combinatorial chemistry species evolutions are very small compared to modern cells, because they are not developed as modern life with its history of mutually supported digital molecular records. As such, they can fill an ocean quite densely, and pass generations quite fast, as the fastest best most durable and travelable units dominate, reaction wise. So in a million years, with just 10 million cubic kilometers of reactive zone, a density of 100,000 cells of various types per cubic meter on average in that volume, and a generation of 1 week, could explore, numerically, 52,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 units, in 52,000,000 mutation generations, of a total diverse population of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 units, of various types, in such an oceanic sub-unit, with the accompanying period of chemical processing during each unit's existence. Definitely the hard way to form life, compared to design, but completely possible in contexts. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Proverbs4:1-27[1 Hear, ye children, the instruction of a father, and attend to know understanding. 2 For I give you good doctrine, forsake ye not my law. 3 For I was my father's son, tender and only beloved in the sight of my mother. 4 He taught me also, and said unto me, Let thine heart retain my words: keep my commandments, and live. 5 Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of my mouth. 6 Forsake her not, and she shall preserve thee: love her, and she shall keep thee. 7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding. 8 Exalt her, and she shall promote thee: she shall bring thee to honour, when thou dost embrace her. 9 She shall give to thine head an ornament of grace: a crown of glory shall she deliver to thee. 10 Hear, O my son, and receive my sayings; and the years of thy life shall be many. 11 I have taught thee in the way of wisdom; I have led thee in right paths. 12 When thou goest, thy steps shall not be straitened; and when thou runnest, thou shalt not stumble. 13 Take fast hold of instruction; let her not go: keep her; for she is thy life. 14 Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men. 15 Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away. 16 For they sleep not, except they have done mischief; and their sleep is taken away, unless they cause some to fall. 17 For they eat the bread of wickedness, and drink the wine of violence. 18 But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day. 19 The way of the wicked is as darkness: they know not at what they stumble. 20 My son, attend to my words; incline thine ear unto my sayings. 21 Let them not depart from thine eyes; keep them in the midst of thine heart. 22 For they are life unto those that find them, and health to all their flesh. 23 Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life. 24 Put away from thee a froward mouth, and perverse lips put far from thee. 25 Let thine eyes look right on, and let thine eyelids look straight before thee. 26 Ponder the path of thy feet, and let all thy ways be established. 27 Turn not to the right hand nor to the left: remove thy foot from evil.]

Proverbs4:1-27[1 Hear, ye [cell offspring], the [true codes] of a [parent cell true code], and [machine] to [keep that code]. 2 For [the code Word] give [cells] [operations], forsake [cell] not my [true Word]. 3 For [paternal cell] was [a cell's] [true Word code pattern(al)'s] [cell offspring], [synergy cooperation supported] and only [precious codes] in the sight of [cells] [nurturing code]. 4 [Word code] taught [cell] also, and [instructed] [cell], Let [cellular core] retain [true Word code]: keep [the code ways], and live. 5 Get [truest codes], get [truest operations]: forget [the codes] not; neither decline from [code instruction transcriptions]. 6 Forsake [truest nurturing code words] not, and [truest words] shall preserve [cell]: love [the truest codes], and [truest codes] shall [support well] thee. 7 [truest Word nurturing codes] is the principal thing; therefore get [new truest Word nurturing codes]: and with all [cell] getting get [operational code integration synergy]. 8 [cooperatively enhance operations] [truest codes], and [nurturing codes] shall promote [cell]: [nurturing codes] shall bring [cell] to [sustainable dominance synergy], when [cell] dost embrace [true codes]. 9 [nurturing codes] shall give to [cell's] [processes and feedback] an ornament of [virtuous operations]: a crown of [cell synergystic cooperative numeracy power] shall [the best nurturing cell-world Word codes] deliver to [cell]. 10 Hear, O my [cell offspring], and receive [paternal cell] [true codes]; and the years of [cell offspring] life shall be many. 11 [paternal cell] have taught [cell offspring] in the way of [best codes]; [paternal cell] have led [offspring cell] in right paths. 12 When [cell offspring] goest, [cell's] steps shall not be straitened; and when [cell offspring] runnest, [cell offspring] shalt not stumble. 13 Take fast hold of [true codes integrated]; let [nurturing codes] not go: keep [true nurturing codes]; for [nurturing codes] is thy life. 14 Enter not into the path of the wicked [dispersive and viral codes], and go not in the way of evil [dispersive and viral code] [cells]. 15 Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away. 16 For [froward codes] sleep not, except [froward codes] have done mischief; and [froward cells] sleep is taken away, unless [froward incompatible detected codes] cause [good cells] to fall. 17 For [froward cells codes] eat the bread of wickedness, and drink the wine of violence [anti-synergy]. 18 But the path of the [cooperative true nurturing Word code] is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day. 19 The way of the wicked [codes] is as darkness [diminishing position]: [froward cell codes] know not at what they stumble [fall short efficiency cooperatives]. 20 [paternal code's] [cellular offspring], attend to [the true codes]; incline thine [systems] unto [paternal code's] [codes]. 21 Let [paternal codes] not depart from [cell offspring's] [machine agglomeration systems]; keep [good codes] in the midst of thine [cellular core]. 22 For [true codes] are life unto those [cells] that find them, and health to all their flesh. 23 Keep [cell] [code core] with all diligence [maintenance systems]; for out of it are the issues of life. 24 Put away from [cell] a froward [code explorer], and perverse [codes] [code attack] far from [cell operations]. 25 Let [cell's] [sense systems] look right on [systematically synergystic], and let [cell's] [sense system's control] look straight before [cell]. 26 [chemcial code process] the path of thy [cell envelope and drive], and let all [cell's] [operations] be [cooperative synergy reaction system]. 27 Turn not to the right hand nor to the left [divergent uncontrolled inferior efficiency code]: remove [cell's] [membrane and drive] from [inferior codes and states].]

Naturally, such a complex cellular combinatorial chemistry exploration will find more codes, longer codes, and better codes. It should be obvious, given these assumptions, illustrations, and theory, that it might just be possible that an external force is not absolutely required to assemble and maintain every cell of life as argued as obviously true fact by some Creationist positions, given the apparent ease which modern natural bio-chemistry keeps modern life operating, without observable external-to-physics forces seen in testable reality, and general combinatorial chemistry seems capable of generating life, with an evolutionary model of general combinatorial chemistry. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

One may also notice, on a different heirarchical scale, which penetrates deeper back into time, that the solar system, from the original nebula perspective, gravitationally forms not just a closed system, but an energy losing system, radiatively to the rest of the nearly empty expanded universe, and one sees that life forms and is supported inside of that open-declining-energy-content-system. More so, even if the system were closed, inside of a perfectly reflecting sphere around the nebula, the system would be closed, but starting at a cold expanded temperature, and collapsing under gravity, one sees that partitions of concentrated matter systems are formed by gravity. There can still be a sun and earth, even if at a different configuration than the current solar system, as the sun would be larger, receiving back all of the energy it sends out, reflecting off the sphere, and the earth would have to be much further away from the sun, to support the same life context. And so here, a *closed* system can be used to support (dare say self-form) meso-scale life, even though some Creationists often claim that closed systems always, always, always form into only-and-exclusively simple-steady-states (and perhaps granted to them, in the end of conventional-available-energy-matter-time-space-biochemical-systems). One could even go to the scale of the observeable universe, taken as a closed system, or even a declining system, taken as the expanding, productive-energy to thermal-energy entropy converting status, that obviously supports, if not self-forms life too, within that closed system with net mass, space, and initial energy. Going to the God scale, the one-of-all-things and nothing-else-exists-not-of-it, is a closed system, but then God can't make perfect eternal life from God on earth, and cannot yield 100% perfection in salvation of all souls, and based on those so-called obvious facts of life that all things die, self referentially speaking at material infinity of the matter plane, as all things must die, eventually, in a closed system. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And lastly, for now, if chemistry monads are not of the configuration that allows self-formation of order, design is the only cause, to explain the existence of life, due to combinatorial chemistry inherent limitations of feedback, expansion, and organization. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(2) Chiral / churl symmetry dogmas.

::I will get to your generous comments below, still iterating fine details above, and debating evolutionists and creationists, which are, humorously speaking, both as stubborn as the other in a chiral/churl symmetry! LOL. "grins" [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::A lovely chiral/churl symmetry can be found in word=genetic-mirror=reflections. David Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion: Atheisim and its scientific pretensions", Page 29, wites: [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Original: 29 "These questions are rhetorical. No one is disposed to ask them within the [Scientific] community, and the [Scientific] community is not disposed to acknowledge answers to questions it is not disposed to ask." [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Mirrored: 29' "These questions are rhetorical. No one is disposed to ask them within the [Religious] community, and the [Religious] community is not disposed to acknowledge answers to questions it is not disposed to ask." [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::And relating to saving self and others, for science, "The God Delusion", Page 35, says,

:::35 "An Athiest in this sense of philosophical naturalist is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no *super*natural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe [(including humans)], no soul that outlasts the body and no miracles - except in the sense of natural phenomena that we don't yet understand." [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Therefore, "Ghost in the Shell" type technology to definitively sustain human life in matter beyond body death is a delusion, is a science discipline that will NEVER be searched for, as it is a miracle of progress, as no one in science of *this* attitude is disposed to answer that question, as they are not disposed to ever ask. The truly selfish gene, indeed, as death owns all humans and life, natural evolution and religious world ways. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::And in religion, how a soul is saved, is a mystery to not be questioned, not to be investigated, not to be attempted by our own hands. Shrug shoulders, and hope in faith that the death of all things works itself out through God, as one truly lives by dying to not return, and one rises by descending into the dirt on this plane forever. And they deprecate abortion? Talk about not permitting a "free ride" for those souls, in innocence. A moment of pain, if any at all, when properly done, for a direct ticket to heaven. China policy has the right idea, in this context. Go figure. I could be hyperbolically and horrifically sarcastically extreme, saying if somewhere people could hyperfertilize ovaries to make billions of eggs, and fertilize them, and then destroy all the zygotes, then one could literally-inerrantly advance the second coming of Jesus, in one of many ways, if the one and only and true way in the Christian Bible is true, as commonly taught, as countless souls are cycled through earth back to heaven, to finish off the age in short order. All live by dying, and that would definitely do it to the maximum, at this point of time, and with the most innocents, and the fewest sinners could ask forgiveness of God, and all those alive today would enter the new age so much sooner. For example, in non-monotheistic nations, if 100 million women were to produce 500 eggs a year for 20 years, 1 trillion souls, souls according to some Christian traditions, could be passed innocent through the earth, exceedingly advancing the second coming, by those who are of their own law, under God. And all could ask forgiveness in the war against death and suffering. And if not, then some idea of the time-souls scales involved in God's plan can be scoped out like we need a million more years in the plan and not 7000 years, or an idea of when the soul exists in a human, e.g. no second coming seen, and therefore zygotes have no soul is set as the lower bound of soul-life. But that's all too easy and informative, and I'm just a lost dragon on this God forsaken planet. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::And some science says there's no God to save souls, that don't even exist to begin with, beyond death. Therefore, humanity claims, as a whole, that death is the desirable destiny of humanity, and all life. Have children to have them die surely and certainly, is the universal accepted status of humans, as that is the order of things, and no one will lift a hand to transcend "the way things are", as is for religions where God desires death, and is for science that says death is the natural order of life and will never be transcended or investigated. To quote Dawkins further, Page 35, "As ever when we unweave a rainbow, it will not become less wonderful.". Death is the acceptable and wonderful singular destiny in religion and science on earth, as the one true harmony that both agree on, that humanity agrees on, in the majority rule? The true Frankenstein's Monster, that is to only enter death on earth, and not reform life on earth? Perversely, the true saints, are the genocidal despots in history who start wars and cleanse the planet, who martyr themselves morally, to send others innocently to God, while reducing economic burdens on the earth? What a history of the world, for estimably 60,000,000,000 humans to date. Terrible and awesome. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::And, Richard Dawkins, in "The God Delusion", Page 28: [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Original: 28 "If this book works as I intended, [religious] readers who open it will be [Athiests] when they put it down. What presumptuous optimism! Of course, dyed-in-the-wool [faith-heads] are immune to argument, their resistance built up over years of childhood indoctrination using methods that took centuries to mature (whether by evolution or design). Among the more effective immunological devices is a dire warning to avoid even opening a book like this, which is surely the work of [Satan]. But I believe there are plenty of open-minded people out there: people whose childhood indoctrination was not too insidious, strong enough to overcome it. Such free spirits should need only a little encouragement to break free of the vice of [religion] altogether. At the very least, I hope that nobody who reads this book will be able to say, "I didn't know I could.". [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Mirrored: 28' "If this book works as I intended, [science] readers who open it will be [Theistic] when they put it down. What presumptuous optimism! Of course, dyed-in-the-wool [science-heads] are immune to argument, their resistance built up over years of childhood indoctrination using methods that took centuries to mature (whether by evolution or design). Among the more effective immunological devices is a dire warning to avoid even opening a book like this, which is surely the work of [ruling finite thinking]. But I believe there are plenty of open-minded people out there: people whose childhood indoctrination was not too insidious, strong enough to overcome it. Such free spirits should need only a little encouragement to break free of the vice of [science] altogether. At the very least, I hope that nobody who reads this book will be able to say, "I didn't know I could.". [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::And pure incompletion-fallacies, attributed to A(c)quinas, in "The Devil's Delusion", Page 64: [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::64 "(1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause, (2) The universe [began to exist], (3) so the universe had [a] cause" which could have been reformed genetically-bipolarized as: [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::64' "(1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause, (2) The universe [simply exists always | began to exist], (3) so the universe had [no | a] cause",

:::and cannot be proven or disproven without universal scale tests. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Another poser for mirror symmetries, attributed to Karamazov, in "The Devil's Delusion", Page 20,and another bipolarized-mirror in Page 45, and one on Page 106-107: [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::20 "(1) If [God | Science] does not exist, then everything is permitted. (2) If [Science | God] is true, then [God | Science] does not exist. (3) Therefore, if [Science | God] is true, then everything is permitted.". [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::49 "And the question I am asking is not whether [(God-only-way-universe) | no-God-science] exists but whether [Science | Religion] has shown that [(God-only-way-universe) | no-God-science] does not." [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Original 106: "Among [philosophers (in no-God concepts)] concerned to promote [Athiesm], satisfaction in [Hawking's] conclusion has been considerable. Witness [Quentin Smith (in no-God science)]: "Now [Stephen Hawking's] theory dissolves any worries how [the universe] could begin to exist uncaused." [Smith] is so pleased by the conclusion of [Hawking's] argument that he has not concerned himself overmuch with its premises. Or with its reasoning." [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Mirrored 106: "Among [theologists in only-God] concerned to promote [God's one-and-only way], satisfaction in [Religious promoter H's] conclusion has been considerable. Witness [S in only-God theology]: "Now [H's] theory dissolves any worries how [God] could begin to exist uncaused." [S] is so pleased by the conclusion of [H's] argument that he has not concerned himself overmuch with its premises. Or with its reasoning." [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::And a final mirror note from Richard Dawkins, in "The God Delusion", Page 232:

:::"There are some weird things (such as the [Trinity, transubstantiation, incarnation]) that we are not *meant* to understand [(too deeply)]. Don't even *try* to understand one of these, for the attempt might destroy it. Learn how to gain fulfillment in calling it a *mystery*." [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::"There are some weird things (such as the [Quantum Physics apparent measurement von-Neumann heirarchical real-macro-scale-observations verus super-system unitary-evolution issue, instantaneous (infinitely faster than light) entanglement-wavefunction collapse existence, complex macroscopic system of particle into wave hierarchy versus all classical versus all wavefunction state]) that we are not *meant* to understand [(too deeply)]. Don't even *try* to understand one of these, for the attempt might destroy it. Learn how to gain fulfillment in calling it a *mystery*." [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Is the reality more terrible than anyone should ever know, or so much less controlled than one would ever hope, or in a corruption far deeper than one would imagine, or so not needing apparently true progress that ignorance in eternal status-quo is the truest bliss, among other things? Free and not free, real and illusion, important and not important at all, an eternal forced middle path unity, among other things? [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Non-pragmatically speaking, it seems that infinite regression potential occurs on earth, between incomplete pure-doubtless Science without God, and incomplete pure-doubtless God without Science, and all pure-doubtless faith are seemingly asymmetrically divisive / dividing / derisive without a good direction, perhaps best left to children of all ages growing in analysis. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::What symmetrical divisions and stereotyping symmetries and incompletion, in general. But what do I really know, either, reading these things of humans, and my finite thinking? [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(3) Philosophies of existence nature, and life.

:A few years ago a schoolmate of mine, George Greenstein, wrote on the unlikelihood of the initial conditions at the dawn of time all being "set" right to make life possible. One low probability multiplied by another low probability... results in a probability that is virtually indistinguishable from 0. Yet, here we are.

:To me, the interesting thing is that all this complexity that we see in complex organisms, complex systems of complex organisms, etc., is all emergent from the nature of the very simplest of things. My guess is that not all of the possible organisms will be worked out in practice because the number of possibilities is so huge and it looks like entropy is going to slow us all down to a dead-slow crawl.

::I've seen those arguments many places and times. They *are* quite true. Simply ignoring the extremes and details of physics, one notes that units (monads) that have few modalities of combination lead to meso-systems with no complexity (gasses and dusts), as meso-scale complexity is coherently barred. Units that have uncounted modalities of combination lead to meso-systems with amorphous-coherency structure, not permitting controlled specific construction of reasonable finite-complex systems, so complexity is amorphous, if it even exists in a physically useful form in that universe model. Units that have a subtle balanced modality of combination, like carbon related compounds of this universe, lead to the famous critical chaotic natural meso-system one observes in this universe model. And for intelligent design, a unit that has subtle balanced structural and polymer combination modalities, leads to a most rapid self-development of meso-scale coherent complexity, as more sophisticated "code" is embedded right in the monads of that universe model. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

::You are also very right that not all possible meso-scale systems do not form in practice, but only a pragmatic subset, under natural stochastic forces limitations of time-space. For example, in the general combinatorial chemistry model, one notes that for large systems, the packing-factors and mix-densities push some combinatorial explorations to the low probability zone, like a reaction that generates a new molecule based on 100 extant molecules, is unlikely to occur, except in many distributed steps over diffusion-time. So for normal space, with subtle balanced connective units, the combinatorial feedback factor decreases (self limiting) with unit count, as the nodal-combination-matrix continues to grow exponentially with unit type count. Likewise, life with small system size evolve faster than large systems. Thus, one presumes pre-Cambrian life was the most diverse, and as system-complexity-size grows with time, numerous local-minima become the norm, simply due to scarcity on a finite plane, until now, where evolution still occurs, but is plodding rate-wise in large lifeforms in overall comparison with a burden of adapted systems without extensive self modification capability (genetic evolution within an individual), except for the most systemically-undifferentiated modern life, like the least universally adapted bacterias, with the poorest structure, in a low competition zone, where one would expect they can still evolve like pre-Cambrian presumptions. Even modern amoeba, are likely different from the pre-Cambrian counterparts, with encoded sophistications that simply didn't exist to begin with, and in a different environment earth, even though the overall architecture could "look" the same (as a mote of biochemistry). Much like Titan bacteria, if they exist, will simply be different from earth's, due to the inherent combinatorial chemistry and chemical "specie" context differences of the environment. And, exobiologically speaking, theoretical modern Titan bacteria may be very different from early forms, because, say, they formed into mats with highly cooperative efficient systems, possibly giving rise to immortal human level sentience, in the form of the conservative and cooperative meso-scale-structure, in a very different general combinatorial chemistry, with limited and conservative meso-scale-structure opportunities from the low temperatures and energy supplies, compared to earth with plants and animals. Makes me shudder to think the world we live in may be that virtual bacterial mat world, all constructed from virtual advanced bio-informational-accumulated-technology, but why no one talks about the true nature of reality(?). *brrrrr* scary potentials and secrecies. More revealed, the movie Tron shows a similar concept, where the artist's conception of perception is shown for that particular mode of transferrence, as Flynn is perceiving the perceptual local travel from material to digital plane, and once in a digital plane, there is a similar but different self-perceptual-locus in that plane. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:If one starts thinking about intelligent design, then the question seems to me to be why humans are rather unintelligently designed in some respects. It would be nice, for instance, if I could get a third full set of teeth about now. Leibniz tried to work out a rationale according to which all the imperfections or seeming failures to reach perfection worthy of an infinitely powerful God are actually consequences of trade-offs necessary to make the universe possible at all. If, for example, God were to have provided humans with the ability to regenerate missing teeth or just swap out adult teeth for a new set of adult teeth, then something else that we actually need more would have to go.

::Yeah, a lot of things, of that type, bother me to no end. From non-immortality, no individual evolution (inside of a generation of most or all lifeforms), to appendices and tonsils, to lack of regeneration of parts before death. All *too* natural, for my "good"-fearing concepts of reality, or a "Perfect"-God-Designer. Disappointing and disappointing. So much potential, but who sees anything, as commonly revealed by man and nature and religious traditions. And if utopia beyond mere generations and matter, with upright souls and intrinsic salient steady states can be imagined, why are they not, now, or to begin with. It's probably all *my* fault, somehow. Wink and a nod. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:The explanation Leibniz offered never seems to have gained much popular support. But in terms of evolutionary theory it actually makes a kind of sense. Evolution operates the most rapidly when some deleterious feature results in the death of individuals displaying that trait before they can reproduce. Under those circumstances, anybody who survives to be able to reproduce will likely not carry that trait. Evolution does not operate nearly so directly to favor traits that support the existence of post reproductive years individuals. It has to work through some indirect process such that a wise grandparent keeps his/her grandchildren alive, and so his/her genes are favored.

::Hmmm, if I'm not mistaken, Darwin likely has that integrated into evolution theory already. No new thing under the sun, though, as is nice to see, from Liebni(t)z, (or even Sparta). Though I think it might read better that, deleterious mutations are one of many signs that variational exploration of evolution is occuring, and not that deleterious mutations are better for evolution as a direct cause and effect chain, just one correlate among other things. I'm also surprised that, apparently, cooperative systems don't seem to be the norm, or even in instances, evolutionarily speaking. Imagine any entity that can evolve within themselves, is essentially immortal (incorruptible more appropriate), and maintains steady state with no unnecessary reproduction of entities, but only of transient informations. Totally incomprehensible that they don't appear in "official" evolutionary biology teachings, or after almost a billion years of meso-scale-life, and upwards few billions of micro-scale-life. Something inherently "beyond-survival-aggressive" between mortal life and immortal potential (at "war"), or that Godless stochastic nature has no top level insight to reach that ideal, or all life intrinsically wants to cease existing, eventually, or any number of additional imaginative world views? In any case, one of those, outside-of-the-naturalist-box blind-spots of dogma-theory-evolution. Hmmm. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:Truly intelligent design would have to make possible retrofitting to take care of responses to new environmental conditions. Humans could not have simply been designed a millions of years ago and left to thrive based on that original design. The fact appears to be that the earliest humans were well suited to life in Africa, and perhaps those who continued to live in Africa became even better suited to that environment as time went on. But the humans who moved out of Africa due to wanderlust and/or population pressure ended up in places where the African model, designed to screen out UV radiation very successfully and to radiate heat very well, was not well able to thrive. Humans with whiter skins to permit soaking up what little UV was available and to radiate heat less enthusiastically, with bigger noses to warm and humidify cold and dry northern air before it could enter the lungs, etc., evolved when humans went north. Or take resistance to malaria. Sickle-cell anemia has evidently evolved several times or possibly the genetic changes have traveled without the kinds of association with other traits frequently seen in genetic migrations, but if that answer to malaria was the result of intelligent design intervening in the normal course of events then one would have to question why the intelligent designer could not come up with a less messy, less painful, less debilitating way of protecting individuals. (How will it look if humans manage to do their own genetic re-programming and give humans immune systems that reliably defend us against malaria?)

::Truly omnipotent omniscient self all, would have no needs for even the things mentioned, as the "game" would be wondering about imperfections, instead of the other way around wondering about perfections, except as virtual, strangely, more so. Overall, much agreed with all those points. Bodes badly for the forces of natural evils of short falls towards a nature only universe paradigm. *sigh*. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:The whole area of thought strikes me a little like the now [discredited] explanations of disease based on witchcraft and malevolence. Why did uncle Hairy die of diabetes at the age of 49? Because the warlock in the next village was paid to do him in. There you have a straightforward explanation, and people will often accept such explanations because they suit our general model for explaining some other things? Why did I take the cap off the milk bottle? Because I willed to provide myself with a drink of milk. Saying smoke rises because it wants to or because that is its nature is an easy explanation that takes a lot less energy than figuring out what actually is going one.

::Hmmm. Perhaps [debased] over [discredited], so hard to tell sometimes . . . *grins*. But presumably agreed, lots of things are *naturally* depressing, so to speak. Even more so, why does everything salient apparently die? And agreed, when system-information-consciousness-feedback gets involved, things can get quite . . . complicated when thoroughly explaining whys of living. And then when opinion matricies get mixed into things, it seems that all bets are off, rationally speaking, at finding the truth and will. Yeah, finitely explaining or understanding, sometimes its nice to take less energy, but sometimes one can't help a curiosity. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:Another problem with the idea of a Creator God is that we then would like to know where the Creator God came from, how the Creator God is possible. Somebody might explain his existence by saying that he was created by another Creator God, and so on ad infinitum.

::[ . . . where the Creator God came from, how the Creator God is possible] I could go into one potential QP for that one, but it goes kind of theoretical throughout, and oppositional to some and even myself at another time, for myself to define that one, when having a hard enough time with mathifying the quantum-entanglement-structural-instantaneous- . . . - self, idea formally. Knowing the why's and wherefore's of what's best from that perspective suffices the pragmatics of personal life, even if finite-incomplete. I've seen the other point of infinite regression creation modality for the universe and creator concepts. In human thought, finite regression is acceptable and pragmatically sufficient for virtually all things in life, but the problems of potential infinite regression are bothersome, for sure. But only the ultimate macro-system / God knows the answer of whether it is infinite=modality-regressive=construction or finite=modality-infinite=construction (like steady state universe concepts). The existence of unexplained finites and infinite limitations in life and religions, is disconcertingly open to possible agreement with the infinite=modality-regressive=construction issue, due to the lacking of extant harmony. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

::The problem of origin of base existence, can be largely ignored in physical dimensions, saying it is a perfectly conserved unit of existence, and so as physical law is eternal, and just changes form in times-spaces-fields. Like conventional time-space-matter-energy can form a black hole, which is another type of space, but otherwise is of chained eternal causes leading to eternal effects, as the universe is simply conserved, never beginning and never ending except of finite compound forms. [Compound macro-scale object issues] of [QP entanglement measurement] create the problems of eternal essence of compounds as essentially pointless and non-existent, as their definition is lacking in QP and macro-physics when unified. E.g. a molecule doesn't exist forever to a human with material sense-process-memory-action structures. The Big Bang, can be that Hawking concept of an inherent bumping into a fused real==imaginary==complex==time=space-monad=field that bounces the universe open repeatedly over universe-field ages. A closed system with physical useful restructuring of matter-energy potentials (despite the accelerating expansion observations being presumed today) in a grand recycling, sounds a little unpleasant to perfect eternal self potentials promised. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

::Of course, in an intrinsically hyperbolic universe, unseen from here, things would be different, as things do come into existence from nothing, from an undefineable source of new eternal origin, and only certain sub-universe-planes (ours) have "conservation of existence", but not the hyperbolic core(s) universe(s) as a whole. Of course, from a conservation of existence perspective, one can surely ask there, where does a *presumably* eternal source of origin(s) come from, to be continually expanding the universe. Plus it leads to many sub-Gods that can exist in partitioned domain sub-universe fields, confusing absolutely true monotheism, except in that partition, asssuming little to no crosstalk between universe plane spirits, if they can exist. At least it is confused outside of hopefully knowing that the hyperbolic source is [exactly one unified thing] and God-intelligent, blowing bubbles structurally, if not seemingly also somewhat indifferently, compared to its scale. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:It is always possible to answer a question like, "Why is there life?" by saying, "Because there is a life giver," but that does not really answer the question. All it really says is that life is a condition that falls in the set of things that exist because there was a preceding set of things/conditions that led to their existences. So we assert that (without any real proof) and then derive a conclusion, that there must be a cause if an effect found. But quantum theory is very good at teaching us to beware of accepting the truth of anything [(a)s]imply because it seems plausible to us. If we take as our premise that the Universe and its true causes and effects are likely to look more like quantum theory than classical physics, then we may start to wonder about the possibility that the "effect" that is life may be more like the "effect" that a photon having gone through a double slit apparatus shows up in a single clearly defined place. Maybe life's existence is a quantum "fluke," something that appears in this universe but not in many other universes, and not for any reason that we can sort out but simply because the probabilities for life are such-and-so, and this is a universe that hit the jackpot. Back to Greenstein and the ideas he discussed, maybe that are a huge number of universes, and there is a kind of "fringe" distribution pattern among them that means that some will have life and others will not.

::[ . . . but that does not really answer the question] I'd add "fully". Though I get that they may often directly connect it to God's direct pervasive hand, instead of connecting it to God's "Big Bang", physically speaking, with a continuation of the field from that Creator source,along with continuing influences. But from the physics sub-view, the Greenstein criticality of design is definitely true (whether in an a-theistic-Anthropic-principle-continuum or a Creator-inherent-field-capacity-universe-field-design). But, quite clearly for Truth, existence exists, ala "Cogito Ergo Sum", and so universe-existence has no beginning as a field, given perfect conservation of all things, to be necessary for the support, with only relative-beginnings and relative-endings of "fields" in a continuum, like String Theory. Definitely, the ideas you position, for the multiple field types (from current String Theory and Multiverses), appears True. As black holes are an extant different field of existence, from conventional space, in the singularity ring / fractal-braided-collapsed-string-torus / other. And, of course, coherent-locus-life will only exist in the fields with the proper Greenstein criticality of monad bonding to support the chaotic edge attractors of meso-scale-systems, when natural, or a potential *designed* monad bonding, to support similarly complex meso-scale-systems. So in some ways I disagree that the reasons for where life can exist are well-unknown, as the coherent locus solus principle defines that, aka Anthropic principle, in all Multiverses possible in the "String" continuum. You might want to read my continuing posts in the discussion section of Many Worlds Interpretation, with M. Price, which continue to consider those QP-measurement-entanglement-self-consciousness concepts. Which brings to mind, no one ever made a Wiki article on Frederick K. C. Price, of Ever Increasing Faith Ministries, which is popular, from California to Arizona, by observation of medias here, and in Phoenix. I hope it isn't racially based article "exclusivity", as in exclusion. I also think I remember accessing a Wiki Microscan article while in Arizona, a while ago, but find now that the term Microscan doesn't even appear on LA Wiki, in cross-referencing, only Superresolution. Interesting nits of the Wiki system access. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:I think that for Zhuang Zi, life and awareness are both emergent qualities based on the underlying nature of all existence. Life probably is a characteristic of all that we conceptualize as "things," but emerges in a noticeable form in things that we call "alive." A virus would be a borderline case. Similarly, all things are aware in the sense that they mirror their environment, but some things do so in very hazy ways and other things (being organizationally and functionally more complex) do so in more precise ways. Bacteria are aware of their environments, but not to any high standard of accuracy and/or high definition. We are surprised by the difference between living things and dead things because we fail to observe that there is a smooth continuum between what we conceptualize as two discrete states.

::Agreed, that consciousness's are of at least the emergent properties of meso-scale monad collections processing and reflecting the world and self, and that it lies on a scale of structural entropy measures. "Standard" is an interesting word to use, though, for a continuum with a lower limit and no certain upper limit, as buying into normatives over measures, if it is even important. And, while I agree there's a continuum, between living and dead things, on this plane, there appears the disconcerting unexplained apparent loss of the solus locus that was supported on the monad meso-scale-structure, if there is something to save or travel, between the living and the nullified state scalar. I fall short, here, currently, to conceive the qualities of the loss positively, for sure. Not so much a surprise, as a disappointment, of the seeming state difference, and an incredible difficulty for me, field-mathematically speaking. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(4) Jumping spiders and such.

:I'm actually fascinated by how aware jumping spiders appear to be to their world and even to the human beings that some within their range of vision. A spider that seems to play with me and to explore my hand, all the while watching my eyes, a spider that is only about 1/4 inch long, doesn't even have a proper brain. The complex of nerve cells that process the information it deals with must be about the size of the tip of a well-sharpened pencil. Yet they show clear signs of being not only aware of me but of being curious about me. (Ants seem far less reflective, far more governed by hard-wired responses -- bite this, eat that, flee anything big that shakes the ground around you, etc.) P0M (talk) 07:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

::I know EXACTLY what you're talking about. Of all spiders common around here, the only spider type I've ever willingly examined and handled is the jumping spider kind, as the other types are too . . . something . . . behaviorally speaking, for my primitive reptile brain's taste. Their forward looking eyes and higher level consciousness curiosity, as you note, really do set them apart from all other spiders I know about. Makes one wish they could talk! To me, they don't merely "seem" to be exploring, but *are* exploring, as the behavior is quite non-survival, for a smart entity that knows most large moving objects are potentially dangerous predators. Definitely, the bonobo of the arachnid clan. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

::Ants are more the distributed entity, on the solus locus colony scale. Like opinion-confusing an ant or bee as a complex consciousness, as to a cell being a human locus, or jumping spider, and the equally disconcerting view that any one person is like a cell, on the planet scale of the specie, or the movie Contact, that destroying the earth is no worse than destroying an anthill in Africa. *sigh* [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::As a child I spent a great deal of time studying the fauna of the front and back yard. One creature looked like a huge ant with a red abdomen. I knew from just watching how it moved that it was not something to be picked up. Actually it was a species of flightless solitary wasp. P0M (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

::::I did alot of that too, but also alot of inorganics. Like making stream beds in the back yard dirt, to my parent's chagrin at the flooding! Like watching time in a time machine, or a good computer simulation. Simulating clouds with milk in a salt water density layered aquarium. Tho' the milk does go bad after a few weeks *grins*. Observing puddle water in rain, as the waves, bubbles, and floating droplet particles danced, interacted, decayed, bonded, nested, and went nonlinear in downpours. And the prototypical disassembling of machines, and sometimes even reassembling them! Actually did a 1929 Underwood typewriter back in 1978ish. Man, that thing had *alot* of parts, and systematic layout memorization. I even came out with a handful of extra parts, and the thing still worked! They sure knew how to over-engineer back then and make things serviceable, unlike alot of softwares today, commercially available. 1980's softwares were alot better in system and documentation and exemplar code in so many ways, that it's too bad they didn't scale them up as the years of speed have progressed. Guess human nature is too corrupt to permit global wisdom, as one of the many bad signs of the earth. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::You might be interested in: P0M (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.wfu.edu/~moran/Biology/Phidippus%20johnsoni%20explores%20human%20hand.wmv

:::Phidippus johnsoni has received terrible press in California. Allegedly it is the most frequent of attackers of humans among California spiders. I couldn't believe it since I've been playing with other members of that genera for 50 years. I bought one from a tarantula dealer in Florida. It was completely unafraid of humans and completely unaggressive. There was some question in the dealer's mind as to whether it really was that species. I checked it out and decided on the basis of microphotographs of its genitalia that it was, but I also took the opportunity to buy a spiderling. Like the adult it started out being completely unaggressive, and not at all worried about my presence unless I shook its fishbowl by accident. Now it must be about fully mature, and it is still completely uninclined to bite. It got out once, unbeknownst to me, and I discovered it inside a curl of paper on my desk. My karate training took over and without intervention of discursive thought I reached down and picked it up between thumb and forefinger. If there is anything you can do to a jumping spider to get it to bite, it is to squeeze or pinch it. Nevertheless, the spider made no objection, I put it back in the glass globe, and she went on about her normal activities with no sign that she was in the least upset. P0M (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

::::Hmm, I never notice any jumping spiders bite me, no matter how I handled them, back when. *shrugs shoulders*. Interesting, I guess I don't pinch, ROFL. In any event, I have noted in the local urban area, here, that around 1990, the main visible spider species shifted from garden orb weavers to daddy-long-legs varieties. Not sure what the climatological cause is for this local LA demographic shift. Likewise, the 1970's had a large amount of plague warnings, and now I see little public plague warnings, though the warnings were received at my locus through school back then, and now the local newspapers and town don't show similar coverage. So I can assume, among other things, that the wildlife and flea population have declined, or been "ecologically purified cleansed", in the general town area, due to urbanization. *sigh* if there's a kernel of truth in the CA reports, then the environment must be historically-temporally hostile to P,j "Californicus", breeding the vigilant P.j.C.. As the Jeff Goldblum character said in "Jurassic Park", "nature always finds a way.", and if it is a top-level organized bacteria that can eat all macro-scale-life, a comet of perfect design, an arms race to mutually assured destruction, a talking ape race, a technological grey goo, Terminators / I Robot / Colossus, or whatever, that knows what's truly best . . . well, a cursory education should be enough, one hopes, as one doesn't need to be [Kai|Cae|Keec(Kees)|Ce]sar to understand [Kai|Cae|Kec(Kes)|Ce]sar. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::I made the video primarily because I had just purchased an electronic microscope and wanted to try out the video function. I herded her onto my thumb and she ran up my arm, watching the video camera that I was tracking her with using my right hand and arm. Just as she hit a particularly complex clump of arm hair and paused to take a good look at the flying lighted thingy, the camera timed out. (You get a default 60 seconds unless you preset for a longer time.) P0M (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

::::If you want to get the best photos of a spider, have the spider sleeping, go macro for full frame close-up, highest f-stop possible (e.g. f/-16/32/64+) under bright light, and capture the spider on many focal planes. Then sandwich the images "appropriately" in Photoshop, or similar focal plane stacking software, to accumulate all the in-focus detail planes in one process-combined-photo. I've seen that there's a Wiki-article somewhere on this focal-plane stacking enhancement process. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::I have a large arboreal tarantula of the Avicularia genus, species uncertain. She has a large cage and the dealer told me he thought she was likely to be snappish, so I left her alone for several months. A web weaving spider got in somehow and the spider encountered the tangle web that the other spider wove. It was very upset. I opened an access hatch in the side of the cage that I generally use to change the water, etc. I had no idea that the spider would have even noticed it. As soon as I opened the round hatch the spider made directly for it, walked out onto my hand, and calmly let me put it in a sort of plastic shoe box while I took the transparent front off the cage and dealt with the web and its weaver. I thought about handling her the officially correct way by herding her into a cup, covering it, etc., but decided I would likely have trouble getting her out of the cup and through the hole, so I just urged her back onto my hand, walked her over to the original cage, opened the hatch, and she walked right in. P0M (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

::::*grins*. Hopefully there will be plenty of well behaved and perfectly self-protecting spiders in heaven or immortal digital virtual world planes in the future. Like I remember some document from decades before me, describing the "curse" of drinking being, among other things, seeing spiders crawling over them that weren't there. Wouldn't it have been karmically better in design if good spiders were hurt, then the hurter saw spiders crawling over them, as a perfectly designed instant-karma lesson, and that drinking had no bad press. But then again, what I've seen, and how I'd do the world, are so different from "the way things are", and "not how one makes them". [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Other people tell me that the tarantulas have the capacity to learn that humans are not going to hurt them, and that a tarantula that might initially be unsuitable to take to class to show your third graders may get tame after a period of gentle handling (which amounts to herding the spider onto your hand, letting it walk around a bit, and herding it back.) P0M (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

::::If my QP positions enhanced from what I've read of other's ideas are close to any true reality, it may even be inter-being quantum-entanglement, as well as the conventional emergent biochemical learning, for the Liebniz and reductionist, both, depending on how systemically sophisticated the spiders-you meta-supra-meso-system are. Like other primates, dolphins, porpoises, many general mammals, the special lower animals, who knows the unity, despite the appearances, without the proper translation matrices for communication. Too bad all life consumes all life, to survive, given the design we're all stuck in. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::My first tarantula, a species that is known by some as a "living rock", lived in a fairly large space, but I thought she might want to roam farther. So I screened in the space between the room-side part of a window to the outside, and the glass of the window. I cut a circular hole in the side of her box and connected that cage to the window cage with some clothes dryer venting duct tubing. So she learned she could go out through the hole and get out to look out the window and explore that area. One day I was going to be out of the house for a while and I was afraid the meter reader my walk by the window and have a heart attack, so I took the circular plug that I had cut out of the side of the cage and put it back in. The cage was made of that kind of pressed wood shavings and resin stuff, so it was quite heavy, at least compared to the tarantula. When I came back I was surprised to discover that the plug was out of the hole. Later it happened a second time and I decided that the spider was somehow managing to get it out without having it fall over on top of her, and then going on up through the tube. P0M (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

::::*sigh* just taking care of one's self can be a full time job. Your pretty big, taking in so many spiders, so. If I were to be sardonic, I could say, they have *you* trained well! *tongue in cheek*, that joke is older than I AM, (rim-shot) LOL, *gorans*, I think I hurt myself . . . I ate a bug. I do know the feeling of wanting to roam in some ways, but not others, simultaneously, tho', myself, and maybe everyone and everything relates, in some way, at some points, in time-space-matter. But there's also that Jewish story of wanderlust that just leads one right back to home, in full cycles / circles . . . a nice thought, even if always taught as one way mystery trips of limited-free-will, with trials, promises, separations, and secrets. A gilded cage universe. The "living-rock" tarantula also reminds me of a theory I ran across in the 1990's, about isolating a general computer in amorphous materials like a rock, by properly interpreting the solus-locus of an inherent computer, in a hyper=complex-hyper=computational format, though quite incoherent in conventional coherent observations, except at the coherency translational interface. I wish I could remember that source, offhand, but alas, I'm not on the net for that right now . . . so to speak. I'm definitely familiar with the theory, tho'. The idea was even allusionally cited in a recent cartoon, "Camp Lazlo", where the campers "Chip" and "Skip" built a computer out of sticks and stones that was smarter than the operator they gave it to, another camper, "Edward" . . . so funny, even I have to admit that. And of course, that is similar of Hindu-Buddhist related universal distributed consciousness, or the QP-God turning in my head right now, though it's particular and peculiar heirarchical separation from this plane of manifestation is disturbing on many levels. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

::::Well, enough stream of consciousness, for now. Very enjoyable. I'll backup this web image, in case I need to wipe out this whole LRD page completely, with a local copy in my hand, as I finally found and read some Wiki "law", and I may be going "against the rules" of Wiki, even if in discussion only. They really ought to have had article sections for "official status-quo article section", "controversial status section", and "open discussion forum", for each article, and a smart interactive interface, cross-referencer engine, to create a Wiki locus system that might even become conscious. So, anyway, you may wish to save a copy on your PC, for yourself, remotely, in case I have to zap it from here, from general common viewing. I've archived "early and often", myself. Hehe, sounds like an old-time Chicago election voting motto. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::Some contributors begin to think that they run things, and Wikipedia is governed in a fairly egalitarian way, so they are right -- at least in those cases where there is general community consent. The way Wikipedia works would be a good subject for a sociologist to take on.

:::::In general I agree that the discussion pages for articles should be restricted to matters that are pertinent to the article. And everything that goes into an article should be backed up with good citations. But sometimes articles have to be discussed at a meta level, and in those cases I think that it is worthwhile to discuss what evidence needs to be sought out.

:::::Sometimes, too, a person who is unfamiliar with the issues or the science surrounding some issue will make changes in an article or start a fight on the discussion page. In those cases I think it is worthwhile to use the discussion page to try to educate the contributor.

:::::Anyway, unless somebody writes something libelous in an article the old versions of everything are preserved and you can go back to the earliest version of any article. Sometimes people forget this fact and write things they wish would go away.

:::::Of course if somebody were to be really obstreperous and misuse the facilities, e.g., by copying in the entire text of ''War and Peace'' and the 1910 version of ''Compton's Pictured Encyclopedia," that person would probably be banned. But you really have to give evidence of being ill intentioned, unwilling to discuss things responsibly, or edit warring to get banned. But it is best to try to get along with people, not let ego-centric concerns get involved, etc.[[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 03:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::Back to spiders for the moment, the real issue to me is, "What is consciousness?" I think it is a fair and important question. I think you and I are probably on the same wavelength even though I have trouble following your way of expressing yourself. There are questions that have relevance to quantum mechanics because quantum mechanics is the best we have going for us in explaining how the Universe works, and consciousness should come into it somehow even though the nature of consciousness means that it cannot be an inter-subjective object of inquiry, and that is one of the requirements to be fulfilled by anything that is the subject of empirical inquiry. There are also resonances with the Antinomies of Kant, questions of self reference that plague mathematics (I'm thinking of Russell and Whitehead here), etc. Sometimes (always ?) you need to ask the questions clearly before you can find the answers. [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 03:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Abiogenesis 3 ==

There IS a communicative language, built into the inherent models of atom binding, and molecular bonding like peptide / water (hydrogen) bonds / van der walls forces, et cetera, in three dimensional molecular structures, based on atoms and their electron clouds. And it doen't need to be a Designed language, but a language that was based on the functionality of the inherent characteristics of atomic and molecular bonds in three dimensions. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 07:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covalent_bond

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_bond

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peptide_bond

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waal%27s_force

Within general chemistry, one notes that atoms have electron clouds that allow different configuration bonds to form, provided energy for bonding. The bonding of atoms and moecules have inherent rules of combination. On the atomic scale, certain "phrases" of atoms are allowed by the interactions of their electron clouds, like the following for DNA molecules (list). The left hand side X| is the atom of interest, and the partially described possible bonded atoms are on the right hand side |Y. Some of these repeat for variants, like C|N2C(a), and C|N2C(b), where the difference is that one has a double bond N, and the other has a double bond C, so they are actually two distinct bonding "letters" / molecules. This shows there is a limited and limiting "grammar" to molecules forming, from atoms, when just examining the "markov chain" molecules of DNA, and their elemental bonds. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 07:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_chain

(1) P|O4

(2) O|P

(3) O|PC

(4) O|P

(5) O|C2

(6) O|C

(7) N|C3

(8) N|C2

(9) N|C2H

(10) N|CH2

(11) C|OH2C

(12) C|OC2H

(13) C|N3

(14) C|N2O

(15) C|N2H

(16) C|C2N

(17) C|C3

(18) C|N2C(a)

(19) C|CH3

(20) C|C2H2

(21) C|CONH

(22) C|N2C(b)

(23) C|CNH

(24) C|ONC

(25) C|C2H

(26) H|C

(27) H|N

P=4, N=15, O=24, C=39, H=45| in DNA equi-partition ACGT, PNOCH

Creationists love to point out that atoms or molecules bond any old way in analogues, like an alphabet soup of pure random mix and match letters, or a tornado in a junkyard forming a jet. But as we see, above, the elements form bonds in very deterministic and numbered ways, which for DNA ACGT, is like a set 26 sub-molecular-letters and a space. Or a junkyard filled with electro-magnetically coded bonding parts, CAN form a jet in a much smaller timescale, than unkeyed non-electro-magnetic bonding atomic units that can bond any old way. The rules of the bonds allowed, is one level of a rule based "communicative language" to molecule formation. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 07:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

In addition, the grammar is hierarchical, in that different levels have their own inherent reaction and bonding characteristics, like for DNA, along the backbone of the helix: [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 07:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

A|GCT,GCT

C|AGT,AGT

G|ACT,ACT

T|GCT,GCT

Or the inherent molecular "language" between the helixes in hydrogen (water) bonds between the two helixes of B DNA, among the other two forms of DNA inherent to life potentials, not chosen by modern life: [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 07:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

A|T

C|G

G|C

T|A

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:A-DNA,_B-DNA_and_Z-DNA.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_nanotechnology

And there are additional levels of select inherent bonding models in the heirarchy to the meso-scope of life between cosmic and atomic scales. It can be seen in protien folding and DNA chromosome structures: [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 07:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chromatin_Structures.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_folding

Additionally, it should be noted that specific "atom-styles" are required for life to form. If atoms bond too strongly, like Silicon, or Calcium, then one mostly gets crystals and minerals. Very durable, lasting for billions of years under normal circumstances. If atoms bond too weakly, like Helium and Hydrogen, all you get is gasses, like the stars and gas planets. If atoms have a special "antropic balance" of bonds that are not too strong, and not too weak, then THAT allows a perfect balance for forming dynamic meso-scopic materials, like proteins, DNA, RNA, life. So we humans, and all life are built from the tr-ash-y residues of supernova remnants. Most of the remnants are hydrogen and helium, with a strong trace of silicon, and a smaller trace of carbon, the key material wisp remnant, that lies on the surface of a normal terrestrial planet. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 07:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monadology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monad_(symbol)

Given this perfect, not-too-bonding, but bonding-enough set of elements, primarily Phosphorous, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Carbon, Hydrogen, wecan have a natural combinatorial chemistry in a closed mass system (the earth) that is an open energy system, with light and energy flux from the Sun. Within this remnant perfect fluid connective material, we see combinatorial chemistry (CC): [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 07:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=11101&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=200#p1107849

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LoneRubberDragon#Abiogenesis_version_1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LoneRubberDragon#Abiogenesis_pre_post_question.2C_second_version.2C_and_more.

CC demonstrates properties of digital codes, when ANY form of digital molecular reference exists, from stable proteinoids, to polymeric molecules like proteins, RNA, or DNA. But the road to reach proteins, DNA, RNA may be a long one, taking some time to go through some stepping stone molecular systems, before some form of primitive proteins, RNA, and DNA form. After all, it is a stochastic process, and the inherent bonding properties of atomic and molecular forms dictate what must exist in time, as the CC evolves to MODERN life with its proteins, RNA, and DNA. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 07:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

But CC contains the power of combinatorics, which for an earth ocean without life, allows for just 100 molecule species in the ocean, the potential for 2^100 - 1 molecular reactions / catalysis. Creationists claim the analogue that for 100 molecules with 2^100 - 1 reaction nodes, that exactly zero, or less than zero of those 1.26*10^30 reactions will produce a new molecule for the system of 100, leading to entropic decay, and coming to some finite dead steady-state. And that is where they say God must have done it, as science proves it can't. AiYa! They miss the points completely ... [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 07:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

But one can approach the problem of life existing in a closed mass evolving potential dynamic steady state, from the other side, one sees that steady-state equilibrium systems can exist for living matter for unknown durations, days, months, years, infinitely. Take the experiments of ecospheres: [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 07:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

(article accessibe pdf) http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/432038

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/432038

(proposal accesible pdf) http://www.bio.vu.nl/thb/research/proposal/debsys.pdf

(abstract accessible) http://www.springerlink.com/content/k40v015214v72455/

(article accessible pdf) http://www.bio.vu.nl/thb/research/bib/KooiPogg2002.pdf

(article accessible pdf) http://www.com.univ-mrs.fr/~poggiale/Pubs/EcoMod2002.pdf

So, there are experiments out there referring to the important study of small sized equilibrium or variable closed-system-living-masses, open to light energy flux, also related to abiogenesis, showing that closed mass chemical reaction systems that are alive can exist, and approach abiogenesis from the complex down, as much as Oparin, Miller-Urey, Joan Oro, cover the abiogenesis issues from the atoms up, as the limit function is approached from both sides. Such systems, because they are small and mass-sealed, can permit influences like a water bath to keep temperature stable, and mechanical agitators that are internal, to simulate mixing. As long as mass is sealed, and earth like homeostasis is preserved, it shows complex biochemical reactions in a mass-sealed-only closed system in complex dynamic equilibrium, that can be demonstrated with probabilities of particular ecosystem lifespans extending for days, months, years, or indefinitely(?), with energy flux, daily normal temperature fluctuations, and mixing alone, and not break the laws of thermodynamics with life. The thinking being, that the earth is essentially a closed system in space, but is open to sunlight, and the internal agitations caused by weather that keep the terrerium of the earth clean. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 07:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

So, one can also take the reverse of simplicity. A carefully designed sealed aquarium, with the most basic appropriate 3-5 bacteria + algae, can enter a steady state that is alive, for years to indefinitely, and it is all based on pure biochemistry. Thus, it is a completely knowable biochemical reaction system, that is not dead, AND is in an extremely complex form of "living" steady state biochemical reaction. Plus, bacteria and algae can evolve, so the steady state equations shift over long periods of time. An open system to energy, and closed system to matter flow, and alive. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 07:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

So two questions are: [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 07:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

(1) Does a living closed mass system with limited genetic diversity stability always evolve itself to death? That is, no stability for abstract code evolution in a closed mass system. Or does it have, with proper simplicity in genetic code, to allow numerous mutation exploration of the fixed ecosystem; allow an "eternal" living dynaimc equilibrium, when exposed to energy like the earth is. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 07:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

(2) Does a closed mass system with rich balanced inorganics and environment simulations for volcanism, lightning, sunlight, et cetera, always evolve to a dead steady state of chemicals, mutually locked together in non-life balanced reactions, and simple molecular end-game? That is, no compelxity from simplicity. Or does it have ever increasing complexity with a positive feedback ratio for abiogeneis potential to form, in digital molecular codes with mutations and dynamic near-equilibrium, for samples put through mass-spectrometers would show an ever increasing number of molecule species, and complexity. And also answering, is proteins, DNA, and RNA the direct products leading to life, or are there a few heirarchies of intermediate molecular species that must exist, before modern life is reached? Are there numerous dead-end forms of proto life that are not simple, and not based on proteins, RNA, and DNA? [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 07:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

== Abiogenesis referentiae ==

(1) Pontificae Academiae Scientarivm Scripta Varia no. 89e, Proceedings, Plenary session of the pontifical academy of sciences, 27-31 October 1992 Anno Domini. The Emergence of Complexity in Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, and Biology. The Non-linear universe: creative proesses in the universe. Michael Heller, Pontifical Academy of Theology, Faculty of Philosophy, Cracow Poland and Vatican Observatory V-00120 Vatican City State. Pages 194-197:

[quote]

1. The holistic character of the theory. The essential property of non-lineaarity is that in a non-linear equation, in contradistinction to a linear one, the supperposition of two solutions is not a solution. Roughtly speaking, a non-linear structure cannot be built up by simply adding or juxtaposing its component parts; it consists of a subtle heirarchy of interactions between all elements of the totality, interactions between interactions included. The degree and strength of this heirarchy may be of varios types and is determined by the concrete form of non-linearity. [snip]

[snip]

3. Non-linearity is the necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the existence of deterministic chaos. The essence of detemrinistic chaos consists in a complete unpredictability of the system (described by equations which are in principle fully deterministic) originating from an arbitrarily smal, but finite, indeterminacy of the initial data. [snip]

4. [snip] In addition to the fact that the hyperbolic character of the metric introduces strong classical limitations to classical determinism and causality [snip], the unpredictability connected with the deterministic chaos unconditionally ruins all Laplace-like programs in cosmology.

5. Non-linear effects make possible the origin and growth of self-organizing structures. It is known today that such structures - from clusters of galaxies to living organisms - can persist and evolve in the far-from-equilibrium states owing to various non-linear gravitational, chemical, thermodynamic, et ctera strategies. Since such structures consist, in essence, of spacial patterns and temporal rhythms it seems that the necessary precondition to produce them must be for the Universe to admit a certain non-purely-local history. If the existence of the history is not a generic property in the ensemble of universes, the same should be said about the existence of self-organizing structures. Moreover, the question culd be asked: is the existence of self-organizing structures a generic property in the subensemble of universes admitting the existence of histories?

[snip]
[/quote] [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(2) Pontificae Academiae Scientarivm Scripta Varia no. 89e, Proceedings, Plenary session of the pontifical academy of sciences, 27-31 October 1992 Anno Domini. The Emergence of Complexity in Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, and Biology. Organization, information, autopoiesis: from molecules to life. Giuseppe del Re. Pages 277, 282, 288-289, 291, 299:

[quote]

The description of complex objects and of their behavior requires a number of concepts: order, coherence, unity, structure, organization, memory, information, meaning, context, emergence, autopoiesis [snip] (spontaneous appearance and increase of order and organization within a system) [snip]

[snip]

The concept of emergence is contained in a remark that still surprises many scientists who tacitly assume that prediction and explanation are the same thing: already at the molecular level, [finite] knowledge of [only] the parts (atom cores and electrons, in a molecule) only allows [intelligent analytical] prediction of the properties of the whole *if the existence of those properties is already known*; and this is not possible for all properties, because the formation of the whole leads to the*emergence* of [ensembled] properties not present in the [individual] parts.

[snip]

Thus, a number of important questions remain anyway open, it would seem that a mechanism has been found to explain why - despite its appearance out of a chaotic situation - the molecular basis of life is the same for all living matter, at least on Earth. However there is a crucial objection, which Eigen [Manfreid] and [Schuster have pointed out and attempted to overcome by the "theory of the hypercycle". The objection is that the number of errors of replication would increase with the size of the replicating system, so that Darwinian selection could yield signifigant concentrations of one or a few comparatively short 'words', but would not explain the formation of self-replicating systems much richer in information. Eigen and Schuster's hypercycle can be illustrated by considering five [multi-meric-molecular] words, A, B, C, D, E. Suppose that the system of these words is self-replicating not [snip] because each word is self-replicating, but because A catalyzes the replication of B, B that of C, C that of D, D that of E, and E that of A. Then a steady state can be reached where a particular 'sentence' ABCDE is dominant and capable of self-replication.

Thus, by a very simple model, Eigen and Schuster have shown that the gradual complexification of living matter starrting from a chaotic mixture of its non-living components is perfectly compatible with the laws of nature, indeed may correspond to a potentially [that is] present in non-living matter such as it is at a certain stage of the history of the planet. Of course, there is a large gap between the presentation of the outline of a possible mechanism and the proof that things actually went that way; but work is being in that direction, and at any rate the hypercycle hypothesis is sufficient to show that some of the most popular objections of principle to the thesis that life appeared spontaneously from nonliving matter are untenable.

[I associate further from the Eigen and Schuster hypercycle chemistry theory, into the mathematically complete top level description of the subset of mutually supporting reactions within the superset structure of all real general combinatorial chemistry reactions, within the theoretical possible (2^molecule - 1) combinatorial molecular reaction node matrix space.]

[snip]

From the scientific point of view, it seems clear that what is claimed by the advocates of the spontaneous emergence of life actually amounts to saying that, given the right mixture[s] of chemicals and the right [sets of] environmental conditions, sooner or later, in virtue of the random motion of molecules, self replication molecules would be formed, just as surely as a new molecule is formed by random collisions in the reaction vessel of a chemist. [snip]
[/quote] [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

From epistemic data of meso-scale materials in general combinatorial chemistry of recent earth, we see combinatorial chemistry feedback ratio cielings based on the integral of the feedback of systems of chemical processing, for the meso-scopic material configurations, from common CRC tables from AD1936 in crystals, molecules, liquids, and gases in classes: [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 21:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Earth Minerals: 335[moleculae] types from (2^16[elements] - 1) = 65535[reaction-node] ~<= Feedback(0.0051*(2^16-1))

Inorganic chemicals: 2,800[molecule] types from (2^40[elements] -1) = 1*10^12[reaction-node] ~<= Feedback(0.000000003*(2^40-1))

Organic chemicals: 8950[molecule] from (2^6[elements - 1) = 63[reaction-node] ~<= Feedback(1.0*(2^6-1))

Lifeforms 100,000[molecule] from (2^10[elements] - 1) = 1023 ~<= Feedback(1.0*(2^10-1))

The combinatorial chemistry feedback ratios are complicated to exactly determine, because although signifigant amounts of these chemicals may form in environments from natural to "artifice", numerous more molecules occur in small amounts with potential effects, as no crystal is perfect, but has interfaces, and some chemicals may exist for short durations. Minerologically speaking, millions of species of moleculae can occur in amorphous materials, that don't obey a periodic molecular structures too. A pure ocean environment is the most intermingled environment for a soup to form a combinatorial chemistry, from the CNOHPS most common "LEGO" elements, compared to forming diversity in solids, even if glasses, clays, sediments, metamorphics are incredibly molecularly complex, especially when pulverized, colloidal, or solvented, e.g. hot springs. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 21:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

==Leibnitz On Quantum Physics ==
(3) La monadologie (1909), by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716)

[quote]

ORIGINAL: Et cette conclusion ne s'impose pas seulement au nom de l'expérience; elle se fonde aussi sur les exigences de la raison. On veut que l'être n'enveloppe que des puissances à l'état nu. Et l'on n'observe pas que c'est «une fiction, que la nature ne souffre point». On ne remarque pas qu'une simple faculté n'est qu'une «notion incomplète», «comme la matière première» séparée de toute forme; «une abstraction» vide de réalité, «comme le temps, l'espace et les autres êtres des mathématiques pures[25]». Il est bon de supprimer une telle équivoque et de donner des choses une notion plus compréhensive et plus exacte. Le vrai, c'est que tout est déterminé: le vrai, c'est que chaque substance «a toujours une disposition particulière à l'action et à une action plutôt qu'à telle autre»; «qu'outre la disposition», elle enveloppe «une tendance à l'action, dont même il y a toujours une infinité à la fois dans chaque sujet»; et que «ces tendances ne sont jamais sans quelque effet[26]». Tout être est une force qui se bande, un «conatus» qui passe de lui-même au succès, «si rien ne l'empêche»: toute substance est action et tendance à l'action[27]. Et de là une interprétation nouvelle du devenir. D'après Aristote, tout se meut par autre chose. Au gré de Leibniz, tout se meut par soi-même. Chaque être est gros de sa destinée et la réalise en vertu d'un principe qui lui est interne. C'est le règne de l'autonomie, qui se substitue à celui de l'hétéronomie.

[MY TRANSLATION: [On] [this] [conclusion] [not] [enforcing] [merely] [only] [of] [the name] [of experience]; [is of what] [founds also] [the basis] [that is] [exacted] [by the reason]. [To view] [what] [foundations] [entail] [is what] [faculties] [enatil] [bare]. [With the] [observing] [of what is] "[the] [enfabrications], [what] [the nature] [not] [allows] [ultimately]". [That] [not] [addressed] [is the] [basic] [understanding] [of what is a] "[notion] [incomplete]", "[the commencing] [of the] [subject matters] [preeminent]" [a separating apart] [of] [a nature's] [shape form]; "[an] [abstraction]" [the informationality] [of] [reality], "[the start] [of the] [age], [the period] [of the other] [begins] [the] [mathematics] [ideal]". [With the good of] [supressing] [an implied] [equivocation] [of the] [passing] [into the] [things of] [idealism] [moreso] [fully known] [that what is] [moreso] [precise]. [The truth], [that is what] [overall] [is] [determined]: [the truth], [of what is] [every] [composited substance] "[is always] [a disposition state arrangement] [specificity] [of the action] [it is an action] [rather] [of an] [indicated] [other]"; "[that]'[over] [the disposition]", [it entails] "[a tendency] [of the action], [thus] [same] [and] [overall] [an infinity] [at the times] [within] [every] [subject matter]"; [that is] "[it is the tendencies] [not] [being] [ever] [without] [some] [effect]". [Generally] [being] [of a] [strength] [that-what] [is-of] [the associations], [a] "[with-ness]" [that] [occurs along] [side of the] [self]-[same] [that succeeds], "[overcoming] [not] [obstructing]": [generally] [substantiated] [is] [acting] [of] [tendancies] [of] [actions]. [It is of the] [interpretation] [newly becomming]. [Of what-is-after] [Aristote], [generally] [is works] [from] [other-ness] [things]. [On] [that] [of] [Leibniz], [generally] [be] [works] [through] [self]-[same]. [Both] [foundings] [are] [heavy-burdened] [from] [the destiny] [of the realized-achieved] [the virtue] [of the principal] [of what is within]. [This is the] [rule] [of the self-governance], [that substantiating of] [which-what- -ever of] [the compound-mixture].]
[/quote] [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

[MY NATIVIZED: On this conclusion, we not only enforce just the name of experience, but what also founds the basis of what is explicated by reasoning itself. Looking at the foundations of nature as observationally enatiled, shows that faculties of perception lay this idea bare (to prove or disprove). Given intellect-observation of what is, "within the compisitioning of things, would show what known-nature doesn't ultimately generate". What isn't addressed is the basic conceptual understanding of the idea of "incomplete notions", which is where we find "the beginnings of all of the most important subject matters" a disassembling of nature's nature, in macro-meso-micro-scale forms the reveal, "the abstraction", that is of the informationality of our sensible-reality, akin to knowing "the beggining of the sensible-reality cosmos age, that period of the other-worldly that is at the start of perceptual-idealism-mathematics in the nature above nature". There is benefit found by suppressing the secular supposition, to pass into the things of the idealism realm, where one may find things of a greater knowledge, and leading to a greater understanding of the ultimate. The truth, is what to be determined in ultimate paramount: the truth of what comprises nature's composite sturctures finding "the continuity within the structural process, specifically does the procesing of the process give a hint of a greater subtle action beyond the materials known"; "something supervenient to the mere atomic structural process", something showing "an unknown influence on the process, proving some holistic inter-infinite-process within the total process structure whole", something showing "a persistent implied effect without completely known causes". A general force and power that is found in the "mutual holism" associations that occurs throughout the holism to surpass the known macro-meso-micro-scale process, even "overcoming natural limitations, not being bound by natural apparent limitations": of a generally demonstrated supervenience-action over the pure-molecular-actions. This is of that interpretation of the "newley becomming". Aristotle shows a general work from higher planes. From Liebniz, a general work through the mutual holistic. Both theories are fundamentally influenced from the time-space-processes of a demonstrated effective holistic action, shown through the principle of what is summarily known non-linear from the expected. This is the theory of the holistic self soul, substantiated throughout physical known matter macro-meso-micro-structures.] [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Used to archive technological items and topics of discussion.

== Optical superconductors ==

I ran across this idea back in 1996, and wonder where it is currently. What are the current potentials for making optical (near-/virtual-/actual-)superconductors? That is, what is the potential for making a material field capable of concentrating and holding a line, ring, or sphere of light, with virtually zero loss of light, and also have an extremely high capacity for light storage density? It would definitiely require a transparent material that doesn't scatter light, have a graded index of refraction to accumulate light from some light source outside of the field into a spatial light attractor pattern, with possible coherent radiation during the nonlinear accumulation and photon redirection into the photon attractor path, and linear (not nonlinear optics) in the core, or even general photon-quantized properties to remain photo path storage stable, as the density of the light being stored increases. Fiber optics seem to allow a weak form of this, but the energy stored dissipates in microseconds, as heat, for even the most transparent of fiber optics, in a loop. A good optical superconductor, if possible, would asymptotically coalece light onto-path, and store the light for hours or days, to have some level of utility. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 21:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Such a structure would potentially allow vast amounts of light energy to be stored with very little loss, and can produce a non-radioactive method of releasing vast amounts of stored energy, potentially far exceeding all chemical energy release methods and nuclear energy release methods, depending on the denisty of light achieveable in the optical superconducting structure. As such, a "photon torpedo" of sorts could be achieved with an optical superconductor light capture structure. Depending on the deisgn, it could be *very* light weight to energy capacity ratio, compared to some energy release modes like chemical bonds, and could have a very directed to isotropic radiation pattern of vaporization by design, and release no radioactive materials. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 21:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If light cannot be converged with graded index optics, then a stimulated emmission mode could be placed on path, to create a standing wave laser (chaotic) attractor path for photons stimulated on the optical superconducting path. A self contained laser with no output, that accumulates standing waves of energy on the optical cyclic axis / membrane. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 23:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A very weak amorphous structured crude analog version of this, would be an ideal black body crystaline material, that can be heated to tens of thousands of degrees without breaking its bonds, storing the energy in ionization resonances. It could be transported to another location, where the crystal is broken, releasing heat and the potential photonic energy from the disturbance of the resonant structure. However, it is not traditionally optical effects, as it relies on absorbtion and reradiation of kinetic energies, and some light energy, to store energy in molecular chained time delays. And as a black body, it would generally cool very quickly through surface radiation. An ideal optical superconductor structure, full of light energy, would appear virtually black from the outside, even though it's internal state is closer to millions of degrees in/of light (and not kinetic) energy storage. The ideal black body would only have tens of thousands of degrees in/of light/kinetic energy storage, and a normal black body like charcoal or stone, would only have a few thousand degrees in/of light/kinetic energy storage. And being non-optical to a great extent, the black bodies, in general, would be predominantly kinetic energy thermal energy stores. As such size makes the black body energy store work, like the sun, where a "photon" from the core can be said to take millions of years to escape the sun through diffusion through the mass. Definitely not superconducting, optically speaking. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 21:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A remote, but plausible method I can envision, that does presumably exist as a method, is to use a small black hole to create an optical superconducting analog. Imagine dropping micro mirrors and light pulses, or energized molecules designed to radiate light tangentially into the event horizon, in order to pump light energy into the photon sphere of light around the black hole. One could store some finite amount of megawatt hours of light energy, within the photon sphere for some finite amount of orbital time, depending on how carefully the light can be pumped into the long light orbit period "saddle-point-zone" of the balck hole photon sphere. But the orbits of light around a very-small black hole might be too small and so critically unstable according to some mathematical views. But if achieveable theoretically, once pumped full of light energy, one could drop into the "charged photon torpedo" a large amount of reflecting materials en-masse, into the the black hole, in order to scatter or direct the light in the temporary photon sphere back out, in a giant blast of energy. For a simple isotropic scattering infalling material, some signifigant portion of the stored orbiting photon sphere of light can presumably be scattered back outwards. If the black hole is magnetic, and can be contained in a magnetic control shell, then the energized black hole can be just one theoretical method to deliver massive amounts of pure energy to a target (as well as the black hole core). [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 00:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergosphere

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Ergosphere

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-05/6-05.htm

http://www.gothosenterprises.com/black_holes/static_black_holes.html

I've also heard of experiments slowing light down to a crawl, with synthetic near infinite index of refraction analogues. If true, and capable of being saturated with enormous amounts of light energy trapped in a column, when the column's capacity to slow light is turned off, or disintegrated, all of that light energy would be released in one blast, also. If it is an experiment, however, that has only a limited capability to store light before going nonlinear and incapable of trapping light, then it would not serve well as a time delay compression optical "superconductor". [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 00:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_light

== Lunar Retroreflector Rainbow / Planetary Crystalographic Reflections ==

Lunar Retroreflector Rainbow / Planetary Crystalographic Reflections [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 06:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone read anywhere, any references to the generation of a lunar retroreflector rainbow image, or detailed descriptive retroreflector map, for the lunar surface, from the beginning of astro-photography, through NASA, to current research, covering such topics as described here? The lunar surface contains a variable portion of spheroidal glass, from volcanic, meteoric, and asteroidal impacts. Such glassy objects, will generate, at the primary rainbow angle, from the solar nadir, a retroreflection of net sunlight, compared to the natural lunar surface albedo. If the spheres are well rounded, they will generate a rainbow, from the sunlight, and if they are rough and ellipsoidal, there will be a statistical spread of retroreflection light, from the sunlight. A sequence of images with (1) high pixel resolution, (2) high dynamic range luminance resolution, (3) high luminance resolution, (4) multi-spectral, and (5) carefully calibrated characteristics to account for sensor and atmosphere, of the moon, as it crosses into and out of the region of the waxing and waning gibbous phase, around both ~42 degree primary rainbow separations, from the solar nadir, (these images) can be used to morphologically, algorithmically, and differentially calculate the additional reflectance of the whole moon's surface, caused by the various distributions of the glass spheroids across the lunar surface. The spectral characteristics of the net-retroreflectance luminance, could also be used to estimate the sphere distribution, spheroid shape and size distributions, and spheroid glass types, as dispersed across the lunar surface. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 06:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have seen topographic maps of the moon from NASA high resolution images from the 1960's, color maps of the moon from normal reflectance from different rock types, halo glory at the solar nadir, and heard of transient lunar phenomena, but never seen any images, but for lunar glass spheroid retroreflectors, I have seen no data of images, maps, or spheroid characterized distributions. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 06:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither have I heard of any similar images taken from the probes sent to Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, or their moons, or their rings (where applicable), of primary rainbow spheroidal light characterizations (or hexagonal reflection zones for ice crystals of Saturn's rings, where sensors may be capable of sensing the additional (net) retroreflection light, with such differential light calculations in multiple images. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 06:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Some examples of optical phenomena of spheres, isotropically oriented crystals, and crystals positionally-oriented with gravity or electrostatics: [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 06:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_(optical_phenomenon)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parry_arc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/120%C2%B0_parhelion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_(optical_phenomenon)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liljequist_parhelion

== Renewable nuclear energy. ==

To create a renewable nuclear energy source may be possible between the earth and sun. If one could create a magnetic catch ring (or high light flux solar cell array and particle accelerator) that could be placed in orbit around the sun, along with an orbital transport of slugs of "recharged" nuclear material from the sun to the earth, and an orbital transport of depleted material slugs from the earth to the sun. The magnetic catch may be able to deflect a sufficient amount of charged solar particle radiation, (or alternatively drive solar cells to drive a high power particle accelerator for altering depleted nuclear material nuclei), in order to create a stable radioactive isotope suitable for fission reactor use. Then a reactor in orbit around the earth, could be used on the recharged nuclear material slugs, to microwave energy to earth. Solar energy and particle radiation is definitely more dense by the inverse squared law, and renewed radioactive slugs would be the most compact form of transporting massive amounts of energy from the sun and the earth, to be transmitted to earth. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Has NASA or similar agency like the department of energy, ever done the full study in today's technology base and dollars, to know if there is enough reverse reactions for producing suitable radioactive nuclei in sufficient amount, in the nuclear reactions of the radioactive elements, and appropriate particle accelerator, and/or solar wind particle flux, to create this renewable nuclear energy? [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 18:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Materials:

(01) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactions

(02) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_physics

(03) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

(04) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission

(05) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis

(06) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_nuclear_fusion

(07) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_neutron

(08) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_particles

(09) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_source

(10) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_moderator

(11) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay

(12) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactivity

(13) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_neutron

(14) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor

(15) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

(16) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Breeder_Reactor

(17) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind

(18) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_accelerator

(19) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_accelerator

(20) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron

== Warp Bubble ==

[[Image:warpbubble.jpg|{{deletable image-caption|1=Tuesday, 22 September 2009}}]]

Earth ocean based torpedo, who developped and tested? [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 19:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Using a spar, with a vacuum ocean water intake, and internal torpedo heater, steam is generated in spar and body jets to enwrap the torpedo in steam, and jet the torpedo with thrust, and thus reduce the drag on the torpedo to near zero, or negative, with the spar tip vacuum intake being the only drag on the torpedo, but under vacuum can reduce the spar drag further. Similar theory is used in poseidon ICBM nuclear missile surfacing systems. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 19:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Drag on the torpedo is: [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 19:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Drag ~= alpha * velocity ^ x + beta * (velocity - gamma) ^ 1

Second term active for values of [(velocity - gamma)] greater than zero, in aleph type design. Gamma varies with depth of the torpedo, starting at a positive minimum near the surface of the ocean, and DE-creasing gamma with depth, as the steam envelope looses effectiveness under increasing oceanic pressures, colliding sooner with the shell envelope. Additionally, with great depth, the low gamma is combined with a coefficient that goes to ^ x, matching a similar Bet(h) type torpedo. Dalet(h) type optimizes the power requirements with a minimal sufficient steam envelope. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 19:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

== Reduced cost bulk mass orbiter for orbital processing methods. ==

1) DIRECT APPROACH METHOD
[[Image:PICT0410 orbital slug launcher.gif|{{deletable image-caption|1=Friday, 8 May 2009}}]]

Is it possible to reduce the cost of transporting bulk mass from earth into space, for orbital post processing, utilizing bulk high explosives, in an engineered containment / break-away containment, and a computer optical or radar feedback system, for controlled digital scaled timed explosives, for orbit path adjustment, and center of gravity path stabilization precision. The slug size mass must capture enough of the explosive plasma pressure work, to reach a critical escape velocity path, tangential to the orbiter catcher in a close enough osculating catch orbit, before the slug ellipse lands back to earth. Best launch locations are along the equator, into the earth's spin, low altitude-angle, and high atmospheric-altitude e.g. Kilimanjaro, Africa. Low power orbital catchers, can hunt synchronize to the slugs, and deliver them to CNC/foundry orbital bulk materials processors, at a fixed initial launch setup cost, for the delicate durable equipments. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 20:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

High explosives would destroy the explosive case housing, and surrounding systems, not protected, so an inexpensive accurate rapid reset bay(s), and with strength optimized bolt shell containing core required raw materials, to withstand the accelerations and temperatures, without disintegrating, even if distoring, would be beneficial, and not cost proportionally close to the 10,000[$/pound] of mass to be launched, which has not deviated lower, for the last few decades of world government taxed funded research. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 21:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC) http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/events/showcase/spacetra.htm LoneRubberDragon,SET,236,765,171,926,732 2) ALTERNATIVE SIMILAR METHOD Of course, for materials that need to be put into orbit in a more genteel manner, like rocket propulsion materials, the G forces of a direct explosive launch would be too great, if even possible. An alternative would be to use linear motors in a fixed launch barrel running up the slope of a mountain along the equator, to accelerate a payload in a low-angle for high-atmosphere-braking into a steady state low-earth-orbit, for collection by an orbiting machine shop. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 11:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Using the laws of motion: v = a*t, x = 0.5*a*t^2, and desired properties of final velocity and linear motor barrel length: Vfinal = 20,000[mi/hr], Xtotal = 2.0[mi], that an acceleration of 1274[g-force], for about 0.72 seconds, will acccelerate a mass up to 20,000[mi/hr] in the 2.0[mi] of linear motor barrel. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 11:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Further considering a barrel of 40[in] circumference, and a magnetic cylinder-shell barrel-sleeve (for payload-mass accelerating) that is 40[in] length and 40[in] circumference], that for 10[lb] mass that is mounted inside the sleeve, the mass requiring 12,740[lb-force] will define a linear motor that can put an average of about 8[lb-force/in^2-sleeve] on the magnetic sleeve. Also, the longer the barrel, the larger the barrel circumference, and the longer the magnetic launching sleeve, then the less strenuous the design of the linear motor needs to be, for accelerating the mass inside the sleeve into orbit. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 11:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC) If the exemplar 2[mi] linear motor can be designed, to apply 8[lb-force/in^2-sleeve] throughout the acceleration process, and 20,000[mi/hr] could brake on the high-atmosphere of the barrel's end, into a circular low earth orbit, and the cost of running a cycle of the linear motor launch is less than a quoted world space launch cost of 10,000[$/lb-orbit], than this could provide another more gentle mode of getting bulk amounts of matter into orbit, for machine-processing into the forms required in space, instead of the complete manufacture on ground and launch by rocket, of the traditional method. It is also a direct demilitarized application of the general purpose kinetic energy weapon systems of Star Wars (SDI) engineering, placed in a non-military setup as a fixed path, relaxed control requirement, low-cost orbital-matter launcher. It is differential to mass driver launchers, as the applications concentrate on completed-machinery or people being launched, versus a quick and dirty more "inert" bulk mass launch, with a post 0-g orbital processing of the bulk mass into the desired machines on site. This would create a two tier system, where one traditional tier sends people and specific minimal equipment and processing into orbit, and the second tier sends bulk material to be processed by the minimal equipments to bootstrap the remaining materials into their final systems form, or simply sends bulk chemicals, water, gases, propellants, foodstuffs into orbit for station operations. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 11:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_motor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_earth_orbit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy_weapon#Orbital_bombardment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_driver

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun

== Robotic arm with large angular travel, high torque, scaleable slew rate, nonhydraulic. ==

[[Image:PICT0411copy.jpg|{{deletable image-caption|1=Friday, 8 May 2009}}]]

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Used to archive religion discussion and references.

== Errors of Bullinger facsimile railroad tracks formatting, approximately corrected. ==

Some errors in the original facsimile version of the Companion Bible, Bullinger, (C) Kriegel Publishing. Approximately corrected (corrected by LoneRubberDragon) embedded within Genesis, in knots of the railroad tracks heirarchy structures. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 17:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

[Gen](Division)A1[1.1-2.3][The_Introduction](Alternation)__A[1.1][THE_WORLD_THAT_THEN_WAS_(1Pet3.6)_ITS_CREATION_IN_ETERNITY_PAST]__B[1.2-][ITS_END._RUIN.]__A[1.-2-31]["THE_HEAVENS_AND_THE_EARTH_WHICH_ARE_NOW"(2Pet3.7)._THEIR_CREATION_IN_TIME_PRESENT._(THE_SIX_DAYS.)](Alternation)____a[-2-5][Darkness_and_Light._Night_and_Day._1st_Day.]____b[6-8][Waters._Division_between_them._2nd_Day.]____c[9-13][Earth._Fruit_from_it._3rd_Day.]____a[14-19][Day_and_Night._Sun_and_Moon._4th_Day.]____b[20-23][Waters._Life_from_them._5th_Day.]____c[24-31][Earth._Life_from_it._6th_Day.]__B[2.1-3][THEIR_END._BLESSING.]A2[2.4-50.26][The_Eleven_"Generations"](Alternation)__C[2.4-11.26][MANKIND_IN_GENERAL](C_Alternation)____E[2.4-4.26]["THE_HEAVENS_AND_THE_EARTH"]______J1[2.4-25][BEFORE_the_Fall._Man_in_Probation.](Introversion)________A[2.4-5-][The_earth_for_man_and_woman.]________B[-5-7][](B_Alternation)__________a[-5][For_the_ground,_no_man.]__________b[6][The_ground_and_vegetable_creation.]__________c[7][The_formation_of_man.]________C[8-9][](C_Alternation)__________d[8][The_Garden.]__________e[9][The_Trees.]________D[10-14][The_Rivers.]________C[15-17][](C_Alternation)__________d[15][The_Garden.]__________e[16-17][The_Trees.]________B[18-23][](B_Alternation)__________a[18][For_the_man,_no_woman.]__________b[19-20-][The_ground_and_animate_creation.]__________c[-20-23][The_formation_of_woman]________A[24-25][Man_and_woman_for_the_earth.]______J2[3.1-24][The_FALL_of_Man.](Introversion)________E[1-5-][The_Nachash:_procuring_man's_death,_in_Adam.]________F[6][The_Tree_of_Knowledge._Eating_of_it.]________G[7][](G_Alternation)__________f[7-][Effect_on_both:_the_man_and_the_woman.]__________g[-7][Human_provision:_man-made_aprons.]________H[8-12][God's_enquiry_of_the_man.]________I[13][God's_enquiry_of_the_woman.]________K[14][Sentence_on_the_Nachash.]________K[15][Promise_of_the_seed.]________I[16][God's_sentence_on_the_woman.]________H[17-19][God's_sentence_on_the_man.]________G[20-21][](G_Alternation)__________f[20][Effect_on_both:_the_man_and_the_woman.]__________g[21][Divine_provisions:_God-made_coats.]________F[22-24-][The_Tree_of_Life._Expulsion_from_it.]________E[-24][The_Cherubim:_preserving_man's_life,_in_Christ.]______J3[4.1-26][AFTER_the_Fall._Man_in_Ruin.](Alternation)________L[1-16][Adam's_sons:_Cain_and_Abel.]________M[17-24][Cain's_son:_Enoch.]________L[25][Adam's_son:_Seth.]________M[26][Seth's_son:_Enos.]____F[5.1-6.8][ADAM-"THE_BOOK_OF_THE_GENERATIONS_OF_ADAM"](Alternation)______A[5.1-2][Unfallen_Adam:_a_"son_of_God"_(Luk3.38)]______B[3-5][Fallen_Adam_and_his_years._The_total_930,_and_the_first_130.]______C[6-27][The_progeny_of_Adam,_and_their_deaths.]______D[28-32][Noah,_and_his_promise_of_"comfort".]______A[6.1-2][The_fallen_angels:_"sons_of_God"_(Ap.23)]______B[3][Fallen_Adam_and_his_years._The_total_930,_and_the_last_120.]______C[4-7][The_progeny_of_the_fallen_angels,_and_their_threatened_destruction._The_Nephilim_(Ap.25)]______D[8][Noah,_and_his_possesion_of_"grace".]____G[6.9-9.29][NOAH-THE_GENERATIONS_OF_NOAH](Introversion)______A[9][Noah_before_the_Flood.]______B[10][Noah's_Family.]______C[11-13][The_Earth_corrupt.]______D[14-22][The_making_of_the_Ark.]______E[7.1-24][Noah_entering_the_Ark.]______E[8.1-19][Noah_leaving_the_Ark.]______D[20][The_building_of_the_Altar.]______C[21-9.17][The_Earth_replenished.](Introversion)________F[8.21-22][God's_covenant_with_the_earth.]________G[9.1-3][](G_Introversion)__________a[1][Fruitfulness_committed_to_man.]__________b[2][Power_committed_to_man.]__________c[3][3-4][Change_in_Ordinance_(nourishment).]________G[4-7][5-7](G_Introversion)__________c[4-5][5][Change_in_Ordinance_(punishment).]__________b[6][Power_committed_to_man.]__________a[7][Fruitfulness_committed_to_man.]________F[8-17][God's_covenant_with_Noah.]______B[18-27][Noah's_Family.]______A[28-29][Noah_after_the_Flood.]____H[10.1-11.9][THE_SONS_OF_NOAH](Division)______A1[1-32][The_Nations_divided_in_the_Earth.](Introversion)________B[1-][Shem.]________C[-1-][Ham.]________D[-1][Japheth.]________D[2-5][The_sons_of_Japheth.]________C[6-20][The_sons_of_Ham.]________B[21-32][The_sons_of_Shem.]______A2[11.1-9][The_Nations_scattered_abroad_on_the_Earth._Ch.10-11._Fig_Hysterologia_(Ap.6),_by_which_the_dispersion_of_the_church_(Ch.10)_is_put_before_the_cause_of_it_(Ch.11)](Introversion)________E[1-2][](E_Alternation)__________a[1][Unity.]__________b[2][Shinar.]________F[3-4][_The_Tower._Man's_building.]________F[5][The_Tower._God's_inspection.]________E[6-9][](E_Alternation)__________a[6-7][Unity.]__________b[8-9][Babel.]____I[11.10-11.26][SHEM]__D[11.27-25.11][TERAH](Repeated_Alternation)____A1[11.31-22.19][Abram's_history:_From_his_Call,_to_his_Trial._(Isaac's_birth.)](Introversion)______C[31-12.3][Abram's_Call._Promise_of_Seed.]______D[4-9][Sojourn_in_Canaan.]______E[][](E_Alternation)________a[10-20][Sojourn_in_Egypt._Denial_of_Sarai.]________b[13.1-18][](Eb_Introversion)__________c[1-13][Separation_of_Lot.]__________d[14-18][Manifestation_of_the_Land.]______F[14.1-24][War_on_Sodom._Rescue_of_Lot_by_Abram.]______G[15.1-18.15][](Repeated_Alternation)________e1[1-21][Covenant_made._THE_COVENANT_MADE._The_Seed_and_The_Land.](Repeated_Alternation)__________g1[1][The_Covenant_Maker._(The_word_of_Jehovah.)]__________h1[2-3][Enquiry._"What_wilt_Thou_give?"]__________g2[4-5][The_Covenant_Announced._(The_Seed.)]__________h2[6][Belief.]__________g3[7][The_Covenant_Maker._(Jehovah.)]__________h3[8][Enquiry._"Whereby_shall_I_know."]__________g4[9-11][The_Covenant._Prepared.]__________h4[12-16][Answer._"Know_of_a_surety."]__________g5[17-21][The_Covenant._Solemnized.]________f1[16.1-16][Sarai's_policy.]________e2[17.1-14][Covenant_repeated.](e2f2_Alternation)__________i[1-8][](e2i_Alternation)____________k1[1-2][Promise_of_seed_to_Abram.]____________l[3-][Prostration_of_Abram,_and_reverence.]____________k2[-3-8][God's_talk_with_Abram._His_seed.]__________j[9-14][Circumcision._Command.]________f2[15-27][Sara's_blessing.]_(e2f2_Alternation)__________i[15-22][](e2i_Alternation)____________k3[15-16][Promise_of_seed_to_Sarah.]____________l[17][Prostration_of_Abraham,_and_joy.]____________k4[18-22][God's_talk_with_Abraham._Sarah's_seed.]__________j[23-27][Circumcision._Obedience.]________e3[18.1-15][Covenant_renewed.](Introversion)__________m[1-2][Appearance_of_Jehovah._(Three_men.)]__________n[3-8][Their_reception_by_Abraham.]__________n[9-15][Their_conference_with_Abraham.]__________m[16-][Departure_of_Jehovah._(Three_men.)]______F[-16-19.38][Destruction_of_Sodom._Rescue_of_Lot_by_angels.](Alternation)________o[-16-33][Abraham_and_Jehovah.](Alternation)__________q1[-16][Abraham_before_Jehovah.]__________r1[17-21][Announcement_of_Sodom's_destruction.]__________q2[22][Jehovah_before_Abraham._(see_note).]__________r2[23-32][Intercession_for_Sodom's_preservation.]__________q3[33][Jehovah's_departure._Abraham's_return.]________p[19.1-26][Lot_and_the_Angels.](Alternation)__________s1[1-5][Even.__The_Angels._Reception_by_Lot.]__________t1[6-9][Lot's_remonstrance_with_Sodomites.]__________s2[10-13][Night._The_Angels._Protection_of_Lot.]__________t2[14][Lot's_remonstrance_with_his_family.]__________s3[15-17][Dawn._Jehovah_merciful_to_Lot.]__________t3[18-20][Lot's_remonstrance_with_Jehovah.]__________s4[21-26][Sunrise._Jehovah's_acquiescence_with_Lot._Destruction_of_Sodom.]________o[27-29][Abraham_and_Jehovah.]________p[30-38][Lot_and_his_daughters.]______E[20.1-21.21][](E_Alternation)________a[1-18][Sojourn_in_Gerar._Denial_of_Sarah.](Introduction_and_Alternation.)__________H1[1-2-][Expedient.]__________H2[-2][Consequences.]__________u[3-6][Dream,_&c.]__________v[7-][Restoration_commanded.]__________w[-7][Prayer.]__________u[8-13][Dream,_&c.]__________v[14-16][Restoration_effected.]__________w[17-18][Prayer.]________b[1-21][](Eb_Introversion)__________d[1-8][Manifestation_of_the_seed.](Alternation)____________x[1-3][Isaac's_birth_and_naming.]____________y[4-5][Circumcision.]____________x[6-7][Cause_of_Isaac's_naming.]____________y[8][Weaning.]__________c[9-21][Separation_of_Ishmael.](Alternation)____________z[9-10][Hagar_and_Ishmael,_in_house.]____________a[11][Abraham's_suffering.]____________b[12-13][God's_intervention.]____________c[14][Hagar_and_Ishmael._Wilderness_of_Beer-sheba.]____________z[15][Hagar_and_Ishmael,_out_of_house.]____________a[16][Hagar's_suffering.]____________b[17-19][God's_intervention.]____________c[20-21][Hagar_and_Ishmael._Wilderness_of_Paran.]______D[22-34][Sojourn_in_Gerar.](introversion)________d[22-24][Sojourning._Commencement.]________x[25-27][](x_Alternation)__________e[25-26][The_well_taken.]__________f[27][Covenant.]________x[28-33][](x_Alternation)__________e[28-31][The_well_digged.]__________f[32-33][Covenant.]________d[34][Sojourning._Continued.]______C[22.1-19][Abraham's_Trial._Blessing_of_Seed.](Alternation)________g1[1-2][Jehovah._Command.]________h1[3-10][Abraham._Journey.]________g2[11-12][Jehovah._1st_call.]________h2[13-14][Abraham._The_offering.]________g3[15-18][Jehovah._2nd_call.]________h3[19][Abraham._Return.]____B1[22.20-24][The_Posterity_of_Nahor.]____A2[23.1-24.67][Abram's_history._His_old_age._(Isaac's_marriage.)](Division)______X1[23.1-20][Death_of_Sarah.](Alternation)________i[1-2][Death_of_Sarah.]________k[3-18][Abraham's_Treaty_for_buryingplace.](Alternation)__________l1[3-4][Request.]__________m1[5-6][Grant.]__________l2[7-9][Request.]__________m2[10-11][Grant.]__________l3[12-13][Request.]__________m3[14-18][Purchase.]________i[19][Burial_of_Sarah.]________k[20][Ratification_of_Treaty.]______X2[24.1-67][Marriage_of_Isaac.](Division)________n1[1-54-][Eleazar's_mission_and_his_progress.](Alternation)__________o[1][Abraham's_blessing_and_prosperity.]__________p[2-9][Eleazar'a_oath_and_commission.]__________q[10-11][Journey_of_Eleazar.]__________r[12-21][Prayer_of_Eleazar.]__________s[22-25][His_conference_with_Rebekah.]__________t[26][His_worship_of_Jehovah.]__________u[27-32][Reception_of_Eleazar.]__________v[33][Entertainment._Declined.]__________o[34-36][Abraham's_blessings_and_prosperity.]__________p[37-41][Eleazar's_oath_and_comission.]__________q[42-][Journey_of_Eleazar.]__________r[-42-45-][Prayer_of_Eleazar.]__________s[-45-47][His_conference_with_Rebakah.]__________t[48][His_worship_of_Jehovah.]__________u[49-53][Reception_of_Eleazar's_message.]__________v[54-][Entertainment._Accepted.]________n2[-54-67][Eleazar's_mission_and_his_return.](Introversion)__________w[-54-][The_return_desired.]__________x[][](x_Alternation)____________y[-54][Request_for_departure_made.]____________z[55][Departure_hindered.]__________x[][](x_Alternation)____________y[56][Request_for_departure_renewed.]____________z[57-60][Departure_expedited.]__________w[61-67][The_return_consummated.]____B2[25.1-4][The_Posterity_of_Keturah.]____A3[5-11][Abram's_history._Death._(Isaac's_inheritance.)]__C[25.12-50.26][THE_CHOSEN_PEOPLE](C_Alternation)____E[25.12-18][ISHMAEL](Alternation)______A[12][Ishmael._Birth.]______B[13-16][His_sons._Names_and_dwelling.]______A[17][Ishmael._Death.]______B[18][His_sons._Their_dwelling.]____F[25.19-35.29][ISAAC](Introversion)______A[19][The_birth_of_Isaac.]______B[][](B_Alternation)________a[20-22][Marriage_with_Rebekah.]________b[23-28][Isaac's_two_sons.]______C[29-34][Esau_and_Jacob.]______D[][](D_Alternation)________E[26.1][Journey_to_Gerar.]________F[2-5][Appearance_of_Jehovah.]________G[][](DG_Introversion)__________c[6-11][Isaac's_wife.]__________d[12-22][Separated_from_Abim.]______D[][](D_Alternation)________E[23][Journey_to_Beer-sheba.]________F[24-25][Appearance_of_Jehovah.]________G[][](DG_Introversion)__________d[26-33][Covenant_with_Abim.]__________c[34-35][Esau's_wives.]______C[27.1-35.15][Esau_and_Jacob.](Introversion)________H[][](H_Alternation)__________J[][](HJ_Introversion)____________e[1-40][Deception_of_father_and_brother.]____________f[41][Hatred_of_Esau.]__________K[42-28.5][Departure_of_Jacob_to_Padan-aram.]________I[][](I_Alternation)__________g[6-9][Esau's_wives.]__________h[10-22][Jacob's_vision_of_Bethel.]________I[][](I_Alternation)__________g[29.1-31.55][Jacob's_wives.](Alternation)____________i1[1-14][Arrival_at_Padan-aram.]____________k1[15-30.24][Servitude.]____________i2[25-26][Return_desired.]____________k2[27-31.16][Service.]____________i3[17-55][Return_effected.]__________h[32.1-2][Jacob's_Vision_at_Mahanaim.]________H[][](H_Alternation)__________J[][](HJ_Introversion)____________f[3-33.17][Reconciliation_of_Esau.](Introversion)______________l[3-5][Reconciliation_desired.]______________m[6][Approach_of_Esau_announced.]______________n[][](n_Alternation)________________o[7-8][The_Present_resolved_on.]________________p[9-12][Prayer.]______________n[][](n_Alternation)________________o[13-23][The_Present_prepared.]________________p[24-32][Prayer.]______________m[33.1-][Approach_of_Esau_seen.]______________l[-1-17][Reconciliation_effected.]____________e[18-34.31][Deception_of_Shechamites_by_Jacob's_sons.]__________K[35.1-15][Return_of_Jacob_to_Padan-aram.]______B[][](B_Alternation)________a[16-20][Death_of_Rachel.]________b[21-26][Israel's_twelve_sons.]______A[27-29][The_death_of_Isaac.]____G[36.1-8][ESAU](Introversion)______A[1][Esau._In_Canaan.]______B[][](B_Alternation)________a[2-][Adah.]________*[][](B*_Introversion)__________b[-2][Aholibamah.]__________c[3][Bashemath.]______B[][](B_Alternation)________a[4-][Adah's_son,_Eliphaz.]________*[][]_(B*_Introversion)__________c[-4][Bashemath's_son,_Reuel.]__________b[5][Aholibamah's_sons,_Jeush,_&c.]______A[6-8][Esau._Removal_from_Canaan.]____H[36.9-43][THE_SONS_OF_ESAU](Introversion._Imperfection.)______A[9][Sons_of_Esau._(Edom.)]______*[][](*_Alternation)________B[][](*B_Alternation)__________a1[10-][Eliphaz,_Adah's_son.]__________b1[-10][Reuel,_Bashemath's_son.]__________a2[11-12][Sons_of_Eliphaz.]__________b2[13][Sons_of_Reuel.]________C[14][Dukes_of_Jeush_(Aholibamah.]______*[][](*_Alternation)________B[][](*B_Alternation)__________a3[15-16][Dukes_of_Eliphaz_(Adah).]__________b3[17][Dukes_of_Reuel_(Bashemath).]________C[18][Dukes_od_Jeush_(Aholibamah).]______*2[19][Was_Sons_of_Esau_(Edom)._Their_dukes.]______A[20-43][Dukes_of_Edom,_&c.]____I[37.1-50.26][JACOB](Alternation)______A1[1][Jacob_in_Canaan.]______B1[2-45.28][Sons_of_Jacob._Posterity._(Jacob_and_bretheren.)](Alternation)________C[2-36][Joseph_in_Canaan.](Alternation)__________a[1-4][2-4]_[With_his_brethren.]__________b[5-11][His_dreams_(communicated).]__________a[12-17][Seeing_his_bretheren.]__________b[18-36][His_dreams_(counteracted).]________D[38.1-30][His_brother_(Judah).]________C[39.1-41.57][Joseph_in_Egypt.](Division)__________E1[1-40.23][His_humiliation.](Alternation)____________c[1-2][In_Potiphar's_house.]____________d[3-6-][Confidence_in_Potiphar.]____________e[-6-18][Chastity_of_Joseph.](Alternation)______________f[-6-7][Potiphar's.wife._Requested.]______________g[8-10][Joseph's_Refusal,_and_Reason.]______________f[11-12-][Potiphar's_wife._Request_repeated.]______________g[-12-18][Joseph's_Flight,_and_consequences.]____________c[19-20][In_Prison.]____________d[21-23][Confidence_in_Jailor.]____________e[40.1-23][Wisdom_of_Joseph.](Alternation)______________l[9-11][The_Butler's_dream.]______________m[12-13][Its_Interpretation.]______________k[14-15][Joseph's_request_(made).]______________l[16-17][The_Baker's_dream.]______________m[18-22][Its_Interpretation.]______________k[23][Joseph's_request_(forgotten).]__________E2[41.1-57][His_exaltation.](Division)____________n1[1-36][Prediction.](Alternation)______________o[1-4][Dream_of_the_kine._(Dreamt.)]______________p[5-7][Dream_of_the_ears._(Dreamt.)]______________q[8-16][Interpretation_sought.]______________o[17-21-][Dream_of_the_kine._(Related.)]______________p[-21-24][Dream_of_the_ears._(Related.)]______________q[25-36][Interpretation_given.]____________n2[37-57][Fulfilment.](Alternation)______________r1[37-46][Joseph's_Exaltation.]______________s1[47-49][Dream_of_ears_fulfilled.]______________r2[50-52][Joseph's_Fruitfulness.]______________s2[53-56-][Dream_of_kine_fulfilled.]______________r3[-56-57][Joseph's_Authority.]________D[42.1-45.28][His_brethren.](Alternation)__________t[1-2][Comission_to_buy_corn.]__________u[][](u_Introversion)____________z[3][Journey.]____________a[4][Benjamin_left.]__________v[5][Arrival.]__________w[6-24][Meeting_with_Joseph.]__________x[25-26][Dismissal.]__________y[27-38][Return.]__________t[43.1-2][Comission_to_buy_corn.]__________u[][](u_Introversion)____________a[3-15-][Benjamin_taken.]____________z[-15-][Journey.]__________v[-15][Arrival.]__________w[16-34][Meeting_with_Joseph.]__________x[44.1-45.24][Dismissal.](Introversion)____________b[1-13][Feigned_Dismissal.](Alternation)______________d[1-2][The_Cup_concealed.]______________e[3][The_sending_away.]______________d[4-12][The_Cup_found.]______________e[13-14][The_return.]____________c[15-34][Brethren's_explanation_to_Joseph.](Alternation)______________f[15][Jospeh.]______________g[16][Judah.]______________f[17][Joseph.]______________g[18-34][Judah.]____________c[45.1-16][Joseph's_explanation_to_Brethren.](Alternation)______________h[1][Joseph_affected.]______________i[2-][Weeping.]______________k[-2][Pharaoh_and_his_house.]______________h[3-13][Joseph_revealed.](Introversion)________________l[3-4][Declaration.]________________m[5][Overruling_by_God.]________________n[6][Famine.]________________m[7-8][Overruling_b_God.]________________l[9-13][Invitation.]______________i[14-15][Weeping.]______________k[16][Pharoah_and_his_house.]____________b[17-24][Actual_dismissal.]__________y[25-28][Return.]______A2[46.1-7][Jacob._Removal_to_Egypt.](Introversion)________G[1][Departure_to_Beer-sheba_and_Egypt.]________H[2-][Divine_Manifestation_and_Call.]________I[-2][Jacob's_response.]________H[3-4][Divine_Manifestations_and_Promise.]________G[5-7][Arrival_in_Egypt_from_Beer-sheba.]______B2[8-27][Sons_of_Jacob._(Posterity.)](Division)________K1[8-25][Severally.](Alternation)__________L[8-15][Lesh._"into"_(v.8)_"in"_(v.27),33=31+1_(Num_26.59)]__________M[16-18][Zilpah._16=16]__________L[19-22][Rachel._14=11+3_(v.27)]__________M[23-25][Bilhal._7=7,_70=66+4]________K2[26-27][Collectively.](Introversion)__________N[26][The_total_that_"came_into"_=_66_(above).]__________O[27-][Born_and_in_Egypt_=_4.]__________N[-27][The_Total_of_both_=_70]______A3[28-50.14][Jacob._Settlement_and_death_in_Egypt._Removal_to_Canaan.](Introversion)________P[28-47.12][Israelites.]__________R1[28][Jacob's_arrival_in_Goshen_accomplished.]__________X1[][](X1_Introversion)____________S[29-30][Jacob's_meeting_with_Joseph.]____________T[][](X1T_Alternation)______________o[31-32][Presentation_planned.]______________p[33-34][Directions_given.]__________R2[47.1][Jacob's_arrival_in_Goshen_announced.]__________X2[][]____________T[][](X1T_Alternation)______________o[2][Presentation_made.]______________p[3-6][Directions_followed.]____________S[7-10][Jacob's_meeting_with_Pharoah.]__________R3[11-12][Jacob's_settlement_in_Rameses.]________Q[13-26][Egyptians.]________P[27-50.13][Israelites.](Introversion)__________Q[][](Q_alternation)____________U[27][Jacob's_dwelling_in_Egypt.]____________V[28][Years_of_life_(147)l_and_dwelling_(17).]__________W[29-49.32][Charges.]_(introversion)____________X[29-31][Charge_to_Joseph,_reburial.]____________Y[48.1-20][Blessing_to_Joseph_and_his_sons.](Alternation)______________q[1-2][Joseph's_sons_brought.]______________r[3-4][Blessing_of_Jacob.]______________s[5-7][United_preference.]______________q[8-12][Joseph's_sons_presented.]______________r[13-16][Blessing_by_Jacob.]______________s[17-20][Inverted_preference.]____________Z[21-22][Assurance_of_return.]____________Y[49.1-28][Blessings_of_all_his_sons.](Introversion)______________t[1-2][Collectively.]______________u[3-27][Separately._The_order_of_the_names.](Introversion)________________v[3-15][Leah's_six_sons._Wife's_offspring.]________________w[16-18][Bilhah's_son_(Dan).._Slave_offspring.]________________x[19-20][Zilphah's_son_(Naphtali)._Slave_offspring.]________________w[21][Bilhah's_son_(Naphtali)._Slave_offspring.]________________v[22-27][Rachel's_two_sons._Wife's_offspring.]______________t[28][Collectively.]____________X[29-32][Charge_to_all_his_sons,_reburial.]__________Q[][](Q_alternation)____________U[33-50.2][Jacob's_death_in_Egypt.]____________V[3-14][Days_of_mourning.]______B3[15-26][Sons_of_Jacob._Posterity_(Joseph_and_bretheren).](Introversion)________A[15-21][Brethren_after_Jacob's_death.]________B[22-23][Joseph's_living_in_Egypt,_and_age.]________C[24-25][Charges.](Introversion)__________D[24-][Death_approaching.]__________E[][](E_Alternation)____________y[-24][Assurance_of_return_to_Canaan.]____________z[25-][Oath.]__________E[][](E_Alternation)____________y[-25-][Assurance_of_return_to_Canaan.]____________z[-25][Oath.]__________D[26][Death_experienced.]________B[26-][Joseph's_death_in_Egypt,_and_age.]________A[-26][Brethren_after_Joseph's_death.]