<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><?xml-stylesheet href="http://www.blogger.com/styles/atom.css" type="text/css"?><feed xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom' xmlns:openSearch='http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearchrss/1.0/' xmlns:georss='http://www.georss.org/georss' xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' xmlns:thr='http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0'><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-603781036564542611</id><updated>2011-07-08T03:21:54.570-07:00</updated><category term='salvation'/><category term='Athiesm'/><category term='Islam'/><category term='evolution theory'/><category term='linguistics'/><category term='paradox'/><category term='Zen'/><category term='God'/><category term='combinatorial chemistry'/><category term='Buddhist'/><category term='chemistry'/><category term='philosophy'/><category term='combinatorial'/><category term='Judaism'/><category term='Lord'/><category term='YHVH'/><category term='intelligent design'/><category term='medical'/><category term='theist'/><category term='japanese'/><category term='analysis'/><category term='Jewish'/><category term='systems'/><category term='soul'/><category term='athiest'/><category term='religion'/><category term='Christianity'/><category term='Jesus'/><category term='Utopia'/><category term='chinese'/><category term='science'/><title type='text'>philosophy science and religion</title><subtitle type='html'>This blog is intended to become a living organic text, that includes *you the reader*.  Please comment, or ask questions, or correct me as you see fit.  If you do not wish your comments to be included, just tell me in your comments.  Otherwise, if I find your comments flow and add meaningfully to the content, I will incorporate your inputs and names into the blog over time.  I do not know everything, or anything, I am just giving my opinions from my experiences.</subtitle><link rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#feed' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://lonerubberdragon.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/603781036564542611/posts/default?max-results=100'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://lonerubberdragon.blogspot.com/'/><link rel='hub' href='http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/'/><author><name>LoneRubberDragon</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/14588224023755530220</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='28' height='32' src='http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_fHHHhY0_JAs/SK_C0vOp72I/AAAAAAAAAA4/-xKqkWnNne0/S220/_ICON+SUBPIX1+DURAGON+a.gif'/></author><generator version='7.00' uri='http://www.blogger.com'>Blogger</generator><openSearch:totalResults>3</openSearch:totalResults><openSearch:startIndex>1</openSearch:startIndex><openSearch:itemsPerPage>100</openSearch:itemsPerPage><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-603781036564542611.post-1591526171014259441</id><published>2010-06-12T18:58:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2010-06-20T18:58:55.114-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='theist'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='combinatorial chemistry'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='athiest'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='analysis'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='systems'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='japanese'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='linguistics'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='chinese'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='religion'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='paradox'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='God'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='medical'/><title type='text'>Combinatorial Chemistry and Systems Analysis</title><content type='html'>[Crosslinks]&lt;br /&gt;http://lonerubberdragon.blogspot.com/2008/05/philosophy-science-and-religion.html&lt;br /&gt;http://lonerubberdragon.blogspot.com/2010/03/userlonerubberdragonarchive1.html&lt;br /&gt;http://lonerubberdragon.blogspot.com/2010/06/combinatorial-chemistry-markov-system.html&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;[Signature]&lt;br /&gt;Shawn=[236,765,171,926,732,714,971,008,909,CRR]=[750,543,253,STE,THO]=[CRE,[MGM|GAT],CHA,DBH,[CPP|XEL|744|VEL|BSELEECESYS],[ISC|231|DMVa|FFT|FFS|NPM|NCM|MS],[KOR|LG|CL|DEG],[WDD|SPE|(CLQIZH)],[CAR|MEG|FFT]]=SET,SEA,[FC|007],LRD /// &lt;br /&gt;RubberCraft ~2005-X / &lt;br /&gt;Duragon Seto Rumi ~2006-X / : "UE UI ending"&lt;br /&gt;Doraashek'gaons ~2006-X / : "Grk|Rus|Ita|Spa|Por|Fre|Dut|Jap'|Eng|Ger"&lt;br /&gt;LoneRubberDragon ~2006-X /// &lt;br /&gt;~=&lt;br /&gt;{[Gu-Fen-Fen-|KO FUN FUN|孤零零] : "Solitary among peoples"&lt;br /&gt;[**[*[Jiao-|KO|膠][Rou/Ruan^|JU NAN|柔軟]*][Ling/Gu-|REI KATSU|靈活]**] : "Flexible divination 8-ways man I"&lt;br /&gt;[**[Long/|RIU|龍][*[Huo^Re\De|KA "I DO FUN" TEKI|火熱的][Pi/Qi\|HI KI|脾氣]*][Ji\Qi\Ji-|KEI SAN KI|計算機]**]}. : "Dragon Fiery Natures"&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;{||Gu-Fen-Fen-||Jiao-|Rou/Ruan^|Ling/Gu-||Long/|Huo^Re\De|Pi/Qi\|Ji\Qi\Ji-||}. : C,,J,,C,J&lt;br /&gt;{||KO FUN FUN||KO|JU NAN|REI KATSU||RIU|KA "I DO FUN" TEKI|HI KI|KEI SAN KI||}. : J&lt;br /&gt;{|||||孤零零 ||||膠 ||柔軟 |靈活 |||龍 ||火熱的 |脾氣 ||計算機 |||||}. : C,J1&lt;br /&gt;{[孤零零][**[*[膠][柔軟]*][靈活]**][**[龍][*[火熱的][脾氣]*][計算機]**]}. : C,J2&lt;br /&gt;{||Solitary among peoples||Flexible divination 8-ways man I||Dragon Fiery Natures||}. : X|eng&lt;br /&gt;~2008-X&lt;br /&gt;===============================================================&lt;br /&gt;[Text]&lt;br /&gt;(A) [[Combinatorial Chemistry] [Markov System] [Heirarchy Step-Level Meta-States]]&lt;br /&gt;[[Combinatorial Chemistry] [Markov System] [Heirarchy Step-Level Meta-States]] versus [[Lifeforms Never-Ever Arise Naturally Anywhere], and Thus [Logically and Fundamentally] we Truly-Faithfully find that [Not Human] is to be [a)Eternally Discriminated as Mere Human-Made Nature] and is to be [b)Subjugated Only and Always] under [Imprefect Sinful Humans] and was Always Granted [c)All Nature is definitively under [Only The Human Race] as [God's Only True Obvious Being]] especially excluding [All Primates, Planetary Systemic Natives, computers of all forms not human, and Neanderthal as some example among all Other, as most-certainly Inferior Beings]] - paraphrase of God, earth of all cosmos, america, and family - all calling-claiming-forming The Truths of All Things to be Taken on Faith In Mankind Only and Forever, as The Hidden God's only medium of conservative-finite communing.  (ironically disturbing to spirit, it-damn-God, but it is always true with humans that might makes right, and words in air alone, and not any russian-rushin'-robot plot in america the superpower of superpowers, with master plan God Who Is with not any lost motions in His Perfection in This World Design, of Ruthless Love as its Finite-Showing God Foundation, Fully Justified over all Infidels, fully certainly definitively evidenced by The Christian Bible, Science, Military, and Economy, as the Dynasties claim Honest Truths to usward) ... or is it?&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Given [[virtual steady state | nearly perfect steady state operation for the duration of the requisite observation window] [baseband material monads | plane of material observation origin, i.e. atoms, electrons, photons, nuclear particles] [units | indivisiible parts]] with [spatial systemic structure | radial, angular, and temporal qualities] and [cosmic context order | the baseband material environment condition that the population of units are contained within, like star, planet, star-planet and their degenerate forms like white dwarf, neutron star, virtual black hole, black hole.  Includes environments.], the following [super-system effect | heirarchical step-level meta-state] may be observed.  Also, assuming the universe had only a natural undivided complete physics origin.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;With [units] under amongst [* system external drive [** [steady | polar, underground, underwater, ice, volcanic vent, bulk matter], [polycyclic | day, month, year, seasonal], [chaotic, discontinuity | storm, mixing, grinding, catastrophy, impact, explosion, meta-seasonal, inertial flows, rapids, volcanic action, lightning, nuclear] **] [state] *].  Proceeding, ther is base math that relates heirarchical-spatial iteration of [Units = (2^Units -1) * ReactionFeedbackRatio], where ReactionFeedbackRatio may be zero at [end-time steady state], slight positive for reactive florida, slight negative for decay state, high positive for saturated florida with Nyquist subsampled products due to Avogadro quantized sparseness.  Durability of product stability and reactivity foster more positive coefficients for ReactionFeedbackRatio.  The methods are assumed to be bulk physics guided, until there is guidance from supervenient abstract(*CC) systems.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(A.a) [Monads]&lt;br /&gt;[State interactions | photons, inter-atomic interactions]&lt;br /&gt;(A.a.1) [**[Big Bang Type] [*[Charge Mass Power Influx] [Entanglement Polarized] [Force Annealing] [Combinatorial Particle Physics]*] [Root]**] [Alternation]&lt;br /&gt;[[E|P][Q|C|E][M|I][SR3|CR3]]_AlphaNull_Influx&lt;br /&gt;............................&lt;br /&gt;q{-|+}_m{0|1}_Rx_Alpha0_(4[TERMS])&lt;br /&gt;-______0______e-&lt;br /&gt;-______1______p-&lt;br /&gt;+______0______e+&lt;br /&gt;+______1______p+&lt;br /&gt;----------------_Alpha0=&gt;[e-|p-|e+|p+]&lt;br /&gt;e-_p-_e+_p+___q____Self_ELx___________Rx_Alpha1_(16[TERMS])&lt;br /&gt;0__0__0__0____+0___SR3________________EL00&lt;br /&gt;0__0__0__1____+1___[p+|H~+1]__________EL01&lt;br /&gt;0__0__1__0____-1___e-_________________EL02&lt;br /&gt;0__0__1__1____+2___e+_+_p+____________EL03&lt;br /&gt;0__1__0__0____-1___[p-|H`-1]__________EL04&lt;br /&gt;0__1__0__1____+0___p-_+_p+____________[EL05|2n|2n_+_e-_+_e+|H~_+_H`]&lt;br /&gt;0__1__1__0____+0___p-_+_e+____________[EL06|n|H`]&lt;br /&gt;0__1__1__1____+1___p-_+_e+_+_p+_______[EL07|R05_+_e+|R06_+_p+]&lt;br /&gt;1__0__0__0____-1___e-_________________EL08&lt;br /&gt;1__0__0__1____+0___e-_+_p+____________[EL09|n|H~]&lt;br /&gt;1__0__1__0____+0___e-_+_e+____________EL10&lt;br /&gt;1__0__1__1____+1___e-_+_e+_+_p+_______[EL11|R09_+_e+]&lt;br /&gt;1__1__0__0____-2___e-_+_p-____________EL12&lt;br /&gt;1__1__0__1____-1___e-_+_p-_+_p+_______[EL13|R05_+_e-|R09_+_p-]&lt;br /&gt;1__1__1__0____-1___e-_+_p-_+_e+_______[EL14|R06_+_e-]&lt;br /&gt;1__1__1__1____+0___e-_+_p-_+_e+_+_p+__[EL15|R05_+_e-_+_e+]&lt;br /&gt;====================================================================_Alpha1=&gt;[e-|p-|e+|p+|n|H~|H`]=[e[-|+]|H{*~|`*}[+0|{*-|+*}1]|n]&lt;br /&gt;e(C1)[-|+]__H(C2){*~|`*}[+0|{*-|+*}1]__n(C3)___Self_ELx___Rx_Alpha2_(486[TERMS])_C1=C2=C3=(0..2)&lt;br /&gt;9___________18_________________________3&lt;br /&gt;####################################################################_Alpha2=&gt;[e[-|+]|ELE(X)[*~|`*][[*-|+*](0..X)]|n]_X&lt;=3([Li|(3,7)Lithium])&lt;br /&gt;e(C1)[-|+]__ELE(C2)(X)[*~|`*][[*-|+*](0..x)]__n(C3)___Self_ELx___Rx_Alpha3_(2187[TERMS])_C1=C2=C3=(0..2)_X=(1..3)&lt;br /&gt;9___________81________________________________3&lt;br /&gt;@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@_Alpha3=&gt;X~&lt;=21([Sc|(21,45)Scandium])&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;The next consideration, is if the original power, electromagnetic, mass influx, with Quantum Entanglement, naturally creates a system of dynamic force dilation, where the forces of nature, from the influx, are defined by the projections of the eternal final ranges and ratios of the forces' particular peculiar values - for gravity, electromagnetic, weak, and strong forces.  The premise being, the entanglement, projecting all potential-possible futures, particel entanglement measured during the influx, sees all the future potentials virtually unified, where in the possibilities it detects in the complexity of the entanglement feedback systems, the nature of future electrons, protons, Hydrogen, Helium, Lithium, and more distant electron shelled proton neutron masses, of the heavier elements, at a Ziph law quantum entanglement probability of measurement-sense-entanglement, with exponentially fractional probabilities of the most distant, but probable configurations of future complex objects.  And as the influx declines in flux, during this initial hyperinflux period, the rapidly freezing high force systems in weak and strong nuclear forces, give way to more refined state preparation processing, with increased probability entanglement refinement of the heavier elements and their electron shells takes place, seeing more entanglement measurement sense probabilistically, in their distant future, refining forces in the future entanglement-complexity-thropic principle of the more subtle forces, like Carbon hybridization Forms, Hydrogen Bonds, and Van der Waals Forces.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;The theoretical verification to this hypothesis, is based on the analysis of the hyper-influx state, with undefined initial force ratios, to observe the state preparation of charge mass power influx, on the entanglement wavefunction measurement information field.  For example, given the inertial characteristics of collected mass, compared to light-speed electromagnetism and its mass associated charge, would seemingly imply that the electron would become a very light relative charge carrying particle associated with the light fast strong spatial motivation force electromagnetic field unit, compared to the neutron-particle, and the proton-particle-mass, that the neutron-particle-mass is related to.  The major question of differential calculus combinatorics, in this system, is the ratio of influx, permitted, that produces the curren state of affairs, if not any value of a large range, all annealing to the same end product, in quantum feedback entanglement force dilation, or the ability for any mixture to produce an infinite number of entanglement-complexity-thropic universes of equal future complexity, defined through the entanglement.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Another point to consider, is the annealing process of the forces, and their rates, as the influx declines in intensity, or with a delta impulse influx of a 10^72[particle] nature on an initial fixed size space - while also considering their force annealing sensitivity linkage, to the influx function.  And with the exponential cooling expanding phase, analyzing the force freezing phases of the quantum entanglement sense relation.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;And a final key question, is the characteristics of the ability to dilate prepared particle forces, long after the cooling of the cosmos, in present cosmic conditions, where the nature of physical forces appear frozen, only according to massive mega-avogadro related mutual spatial quantum entanglement memory and continuing expectations, in an otherwise highly natural matter state, compared the the unnatural nature of synthetically polarized prepared quantum measurement sense matter processes.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;A simplest lowest order requirement test being, the detection of nonlinearities in, say, long term left spin molecules, relative to long term right spin molecules, akin to some type of a Holy Water, or special chemcials capable of altering subtle qualia perception measurement systems, like humans, based on its subtle entanglement information memory properties, of highly unnatural matter, with large angular displacement distances from each other, compared to the highly natural background of matter.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;A second sensible test, is the use of radioactive elements, in a spin test, to see if quantum prepared angular distances, create any measurable differential in natural fission rate on avogadro scale critical mass feedback, or even an anisotropic radioactivity of such materials, based on select avogadro spin distance from baseband natural matter.  In fact, it is easily prepared, for radioactive elements in polar molecules, exposed to rapidly rotating polarized microwaves, to induce more signifigant polarized molecular spin, to generate extremely large angular distances in short time windows.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;On the mundane level, it is manifestly clear, that artificially prepared synthetic quantum entanglement states are easily detectable, when linear distance is created between prepared matters, creating visibly measureable spatial distance and acceleration curves, based on the power function and time products on mass, of those synthetic matter states, so unnaturally prepared.  E.g. planets, stars, centrifugal gas jets, rings, belts, spheres, globular clusters, and the like, behave a very natural predictable way, compared to earthly bullets and carefully calculated guided powered sattelites, of known synthetic matter preparation origin, by their unnatural characteristic, much like jets, cars, computers, and mass production, and even life forms themselves in their abstract nature in natural complexity but locus existence, compared to rocks, gasses, and plasmas, with a diffuse macromolecular slime life field only, akin to gray goo, that Doesn't Exist any more than a supreme natural pervasive slime-only life field exists everywhere.  Though it should be noted that in a semi-homogenious holistic ocean space, with a locus gravity of molecular systems and environments, more easily leads to individuality, naturally, than the more abstract meta quantum creations, in the detectable artificial quantum matter preparations, such as fossil records, that are natural, but, nevertheless, still indicate artificial quantum locus state preparations of matter on avogadro scales.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;For example, a planet, carefully leaving a galaxy, through a path of highly coincidental double stars, all performing synchronous polarized velocity accelerations on the object, shows a definitive sign of intelligence, in a synthetically prepared quantum state on a very massive scale, with a subtle spiritual quantum abstract calculations inference, in preparing such a planet state.  Even moreso, if it were a small visible long lived star, navigating out of the galaxy, or a population of such stars, of otherwise, inexplicable outlier mass-velocity-location properties, indicating even more massive scale intelligence operations.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;And in a more subtle cosmic scale, perhaps photons from the earliest age of the cosmos background, based on specific spectral molecular lines, might show very subtle gravitational force quantum quantized shifting properties, showing the remnants of the final subtle force annealing, of subtle atomic forces, in the entanglement force annealing process, with the foot of the exponential declining massive natural expansion.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(A.b) [Molecules]&lt;br /&gt;[Inter-state entropic reduction reaction | , ionic, covalent, quantum resonant, transient molecular state]&lt;br /&gt;[spatial structure state | hybrid, polar, nonpolar, dielectric roots, nonlinear roots, optical path roots]&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(A.c) [Aggregate, conglomerate, polymer, amorphous, crystaline]&lt;br /&gt;[Interstate reactions | ionic, covalent, [quantum resonant | van der waals, hydrogen water bond, transient systemic molecular state - e.g. black-body root]]&lt;br /&gt;[entropy reduction polarization | modulation, freeze, melt, evaporate]&lt;br /&gt;[combinatorial interactions | polymer code exponents, aggregate-conglomerate-amorphous-crystaline surface chemistry modes, one-way and reversible diffusion reactions]&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(A.d) [Distributed systemic reaction network]&lt;br /&gt;[Pumped reaction network | [polycyclic-chaotic-discontinuity] durable reactive interactive product preference, compared to equilibrium banked final state products within a static steady state, reactions occuring about temporal-spatial-differential-event combinatorial systemic space].&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(A.e1) [Reaction network evolution]&lt;br /&gt;[system conglomeration | feedback interaction majority pathways create solid systems with full pipelines of matter flow and process and inter-action, e.g. proto-photosynthetic generation system pathways, proto-metabolic consumer system pathways, proto-control system pathways.  Modes about the systems include proto-enzymes and proto-catalysts.]&lt;br /&gt;[system growth | feedback interaction pathway floridation locks onto localized system-bound higher complexity analog mocelular system product nodes and solid-state product nodes passed through producer-comsumer-controller chain loci]&lt;br /&gt;[system quanta | at system levels with complex internal systemic reaction node states and inter-node entanglement products, of nonlocal correlated non-communicating-(assumed proven) units creates prepared quantum state space interactions of higer dimensionality than what reductionism analysis can detect]&lt;br /&gt;Questions occur regarding the detection and modulation of contetual waste products requiring special high energy decomposition or enzymatic systems that don't initially exist with the loci except under rare circumstances like volcanic vents with controlled or uncontrolled material convection.  Some closed system experiments imply the final product set of dynamic steady state balance can become completely self contained, like some algae, bacteria, amoeba minimalist systems.  Combinatorial chemistry would also intersect proto-enzyme and proto-catalytic reaction systems and reaction nodes.  Additional questions arise about self-system versus non-self-system enhanced operation beyond only durable reactive networks.  Ideally, the approach of feedback utility to combinatorial chemistry molecular system fitness would form this functionality as self-same, with special products to disintegrate foreign matters as part of the durability cycle.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(A.e2) [Reaction netowork loci]&lt;br /&gt;Durable conglomerations and aggregations, based on nuclear materials like [durable precipitate, membranes, drops, substrates, threads, proto-viral nodes, and (A.c)], create modular complex products.  Additionally, transient products flux about and through such complex loci.  Common forms of such loci about this phase would be, system precipitates, system organic slimes, and surface loci like proto-stromatolite and nodule-geode-shell like formations.  Proto-stromatolites and nodule-geode-shells could contain the proto-producer and proto-consumer, akin to lichens, thus creating a natural substrate for generative propagation, with older and newer state differentials naturally occuring in cross section of the concretion, and dissolving processes that form structure porous substrates.  Independent precipitate based matters would be more stand alone, while proto-stromatolites would be more reliant on the infrastructure context that simplifies some of the complexity of more stand alone operation precipitates and slimes.  Precipitates and slimes can also lead to pseudo-bacteria and pseudo-cells.&lt;br /&gt;Questions arise regarding the separations and fusions between the producer and consumer reaction network systems about this level.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(f) [Loci floridation radiation evolution of first cellular systems]&lt;br /&gt;With robust combinatorial chemistry systems and spatial structures of durable reactive loci, combinatorial chemical system radial evolution will explore self systems and other system environments.  Generalization of travel and specification of loci specie functionality occur.  RNA world, protienoids, protiens, DNA fagments, membrane transport functionality, molecular sub-systems like early chlorophyl and early mitochondria develop with radial exploration of the locus feedback systems that exist, with new methods and increasing fitness of operations within the durable reactive product systems.  Additionally, from scaffolding of spatial structures in cyclic processes of localization, and local self-cyclic-local-processes, form multi-cellular or multi-loci forms of generations.  Plant like proto-forms, relative to animal forms, most easily arise based on chained units and evolution of nutrient flow control, deriveable from proto-stromatolites and proto-algal mats.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Questions arise, regarding the thoroughness of modern DNA RNA protien based life, as a complete universal system about earth like environments.  E.g. other helical forms of DNA exist, as might non-organic systems exist in proper contexts, for example, like some mineral, silicon, or calcium based life unit or subunit.&lt;br /&gt;===============================================================&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(B) [[Combinatorial Processing] [Markov System] [Heirarchy Step-Level Meta-States]].&lt;br /&gt;() Analog processing / analog circuit, signal noise ratio, linear to nonlinear processing&lt;br /&gt;() Digital processing / digital circuit, digital signals, algorithmic processing&lt;br /&gt;() Digital-analog processing (hybrid) / digital modulated control of discrete analog circuit functions, structural optical processor, piano, trumpet, flute, drum&lt;br /&gt;() Quantum processing / top-down quantum state processing of applied system preparation, spatial optical processor, spectral processing&lt;br /&gt;() Quantum-ditial processing (hybrid) / quantum prepare and response purified by digital iteration&lt;br /&gt;() Hybrid processing / analog, digital, or quantum system estimate for other analog, digital, or quantum algorithm to be refined to a particular baseband universe projection format, e.g. analog estimate iteration-converted to full digital processing quality, e.g. sonar or fourier analog or quantum estimates, then used for digital refinement&lt;br /&gt;() Parallel procesing / parallel partitioning of large separable problem (machine full efficient product), or parallel processing of one large problem in quantum partitioned evolutions of the one case for means ends ranked optimal end determination (machine sparse efficient product)&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;() Mechanical / strings and hair trigger contacts, machines, gears, data cards, mechanical functions, nomographics, digital and analog registers&lt;br /&gt;() Electrical / relay, tubes, transistors, electric machines, electromechanical materials&lt;br /&gt;() Quantum / state calculators, optical calculators, quantum level detector processing, prepared systems for random based dispersion search (pure state detector), semi-prepared systems for entanglement measure based dispersion search (quantum state detector)&lt;br /&gt;() Hybrid / combinatorials of the above / inter-transducers and inter-purifiers&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(B.1) [Digital Software]&lt;br /&gt;Operational units - logical, arithmetic, input, output, flow control - TX&lt;br /&gt;Sequence process - operation unit strings - TX chain&lt;br /&gt;Function library - fixed utility processes, input output, baseband state foundation application (I/O-less) - TX chains&lt;br /&gt;Graph state flow - boot, setup,  - TX networks&lt;br /&gt;MetaState systems - state machines template on graph code of arbitrary relations to graph nodes and sequnced processing, messaged state operation control, external call script interspersals based on states - TX meta networks&lt;br /&gt;Parallel systems - multiple application thread systems, rank solutions, prime solutions for speed or size on dimensions - Parallel TX meta networks&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(B.2) [Data storage]&lt;br /&gt;Considering about accesible Chinese.  Optical stroke decomposition.  Radical defines and separation, supervised, and semi-autonomous self-present and supervised-define iterations.  Main radical standard classing. Multiple radical containment classing.  Pronunciation.  Definitions.  Contextual Markov uses.  English interpretations from sample corpus.  Chinese english definition interlinear expression from Chinese corpus.  Metaphysical relations from Chinese concept radical decomposition and Markov context use taken into English concept.  Contextual dialect classes from corpus, for separable phonetic standards of speech, and Markov peculiar phonetic grouping standard use complexity reduction of natural encryption in non-familiarity.&lt;br /&gt;Considering about accessible manuscript.  Optical stroke decompositon.  Supervised parallel annotation writing truth data.  Dictionary and language based contextual autonomous recognition.  Supervised parallel annotation of classification exception for repairs of autonomous recognition.&lt;br /&gt;Considering about being representation.  Image stream decomposition.  Robust object decomposition.  Supervised object classification and refinement.  Autonomous object classification.  Object dictionary creation.  State definitions.  Context exchanges for finite system potential steady state, or contextless for infinite system potential steady state.  Baseband replay for quantum reconstruction and integration.  Analog and digital system order for qualia and continuity.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Data spaces - string, analog, analog spaces, baseband representation, alternate representations [fourier, euler chirp, wavelet and radial bases, heirarchical decompositions, nyquist decompositons, systems decompositons as [statistical feature, affine, FIR, IIR, neural nonlinear complexes, [spline, catmul-rom, so forth]], space translators], error check [scan codes masoretic type]&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Supervised methods - manual error correction, automated error correction system [dynamic feedback of applied correction rules, parallel game like style correction system for single or multiple supervisor, self supervised method based on higher level pure corpus based rule inference additional to baseband corpus used by unsupervised automatic routine], saliency checks on human level of natural unsupervised automatic routine, architecture layout across level and between steps of heirarchy for polarizing organizing of unsupervised architecture formation.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(B.2.sublist) [Data storage modalities]&lt;br /&gt;Complex abstraction storage and description, e.g.&lt;br /&gt;(1) Associative data&lt;br /&gt;[[Freudian Slip] given common phrase meaning [Thought [Error | Slip]]]&lt;br /&gt;[[Freud] sounds like [Floyd]]&lt;br /&gt;[[Floydian Slip] sound slip substitution with [[Freud] to [Floyd]]]&lt;br /&gt;[[Floyd] is commonly known as a [Barber]]&lt;br /&gt;[[Barber] works [Hair]]&lt;br /&gt;[[Hair] allusion to [Thought]]&lt;br /&gt;[[Psychologist] works [Thought]]&lt;br /&gt;[[Thought] associated with [Error | Slip]]&lt;br /&gt;[[Freudian Slip] is shown as an abstract substitution sound and definition tautology with [Floydian Slip]]&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(2) Parsing data&lt;br /&gt;{original} Self referential sentence parsing, is based on partitions and complex contextual syntax analysis, while being open to human interpretation&lt;br /&gt;{parse} [[Self referential] [sentence parsing]] [is based on] [[paritions] [and] [complex contextual [syntaxt analysis]]] [while being open to] [human interpretation]&lt;br /&gt;{tagging tokenize verbose} [NOUN VERB SUBJECT] [RELATIONAL ADJECTIVE] [NOUN VERB SUBJECT SUPPORT] [RELATIONAL ADJECTIVE] [NOUN VERB SUBJECT SUPPORT AUXILLIARY]&lt;br /&gt;{tagging tokenize non verbose} [NVS] [RA] [NVSS] [RA] [NVSSA]&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(3) Complex Interlinear Interpretations of Multiple Corpi data&lt;br /&gt;1. Alif-lam-meem &lt;br /&gt;002.001 YUSUFALI: [Y:A.L.M | PS:Alif Lam Mim].&lt;br /&gt;2. Thalika alkitabu la rayba feehi hudan lilmuttaqeena &lt;br /&gt;002.002 YUSUFALI: This [YP:is the] [YS:Book | P:Scripture] [P:whereof] [PS:there is no doubt [P:in it]]; [Y:in it] is [Y:guidance sure | PS:[S:is]a guide[P:ance]], [Y:without doubt,] [P:un]to those who [Y:fear Allah | P:ward off (evil) | S:guard (against evil)];&lt;br /&gt;3. Allatheena yu/minoona bialghaybi wayuqeemoona alssalata wamimma razaqnahum yunfiqoona &lt;br /&gt;002.003 YUSUFALI: [S:Those] Who believe in the Unseen, [Y:are steadfast in prayer | P:and establish worship | S:and keep up prayer], and spend [YS:out] of [YS:what | P:that] We have [Y:provided | P:bestowed | S:given] [Y:for | P:upon] them;&lt;br /&gt;4. Waallatheena yu/minoona bima onzila ilayka wama onzila min qablika wabial-akhirati hum yooqinoona&lt;br /&gt;002.004 YUSUFALI: And who believe in [^Y:the Revelation sent to thee | PS:that which [P:is | S:has been] revealed [P:un]to [P:thee (Muhammad) | S:you]^], and [Y:sent before thy time | PS:that which was revealed before [P:thee | S:you]], and [Y:(in their hearts) have the assurance of the Hereafter | P:are certain of the Hereafter | S:they are sure of the hereafter].&lt;br /&gt;5. Ola-ika AAala hudan min rabbihim waola-ika humu almuflihoona&lt;br /&gt;002.005 YUSUFALI: [YS:They | P:These] [YS:are | P:depend] on [^YP:[Y:(true)] guidance | S:a right course^], from their Lord, [YS:and] [Y:it is] these [S:it is] [Y:who will | P:are | S:that shall be] [Y:prosper | P:the successful | S:successful].&lt;br /&gt;6. Inna allatheena kafaroo sawaon AAalayhim aanthartahum am lam tunthirhum la yu/minoona&lt;br /&gt;002.006 YUSUFALI: [S:Surely] [YP:As] [Y:to | P:for] [YS:those who] [Y:reject Faith | P:the Disbelievers | S:disbelieve], [^YS:it [Y:is | S:being] [Y:the same | S:alike] to them^] whether [YP:thou | S:you] warn them or [P:thou] [YS:do not] warn them [P:not] [P:,it is all one for them]; [YP:they] will [YS:not] believe [P:not].&lt;br /&gt;7. Khatama Allahu AAala quloobihim waAAala samAAihim waAAala absarihim ghishawatun walahum AAathabun AAatheemun&lt;br /&gt;002.007 YUSUFALI: Allah hath [YS:set a seal | P:sealed] [^YS:[S:up]on^] their [YS:hearts | P:hearing] and [^YS:[S:up]on^] their [YS:hearing | P:hearts], and [YP:on their eyes is a [Y:veil | P:covering] | S:there is a covering over their eyes]; [Y:great is the penalty they (incur) | P:Theirs will be an awful doom | S:and there is a great punishment for them].&lt;br /&gt;8. Wamina alnnasi man yaqoolu amanna biAllahi wabialyawmi al-akhiri wama hum bimu/mineena&lt;br /&gt;002.008 YUSUFALI: And [^YP:Of [Y:the people | P:mankind]^] [YS:there] are some [S:people] who say: "We believe in Allah and the Last Day;" [Y:but they do not (really) believe | P:when they believe not | S:and they are not at all believers].&lt;br /&gt;9. YukhadiAAoona Allaha waallatheena amanoo wama yakhdaAAoona illa anfusahum wama yashAAuroona&lt;br /&gt;002.009 YUSUFALI: [^Y:Fain would they deceive | PS:They [P:think | S:desire] to [P:beguile | S:deceive]^] Allah and those who believe, [Y:but | PS:and] they [Y:only] [YS:deceive | P:beguile] [P:none save | S:only] themselves, [YS:and | P:but] [^PS:they [S:do]^] [S:not] [Y:realise (it) | PS:perceive] [YP:not]!&lt;br /&gt;10. Fee quloobihim maradun fazadahumu Allahu maradan walahum AAathabun aleemun bima kanoo yakthiboona&lt;br /&gt;002.010 YUSUFALI: [S:There is a disease] In their hearts [Y:is a disease]; [YP:and | S:so] Allah has [^YPincreas[Y:ed | P:eth] | S:added to^] their disease: [YS:And] [^Y: grievous is the penalty they (incur) | S:they shall have a painful chastisement | P:A painful doom is theirs^], because they [^Y:are false (to their true selves) | P:lie | S:(SET:are false to themselves)^].&lt;br /&gt;11. Wa-itha qeela lahum la tufsidoo fee al-ardi qaloo innama nahnu muslihoona&lt;br /&gt;002.011 YUSUFALI: [PS:And] When it is said [P:un]to them: "[S:Do] [,S:not&gt;] Make [YP:not&lt;] mischief [Y:on | PS:in] the [YP:earth | S:land]," they say: "[Y:Why], we [Y:only&gt;] [^Y:Want to | PS:are[S:but&lt;&gt;]^] [Y:make peace | P:peacemakers | S:peace-makers] [P:only&lt;]!"&lt;br /&gt;12. Ala innahum humu almufsidoona walakin la yashAAuroona&lt;br /&gt;002.012 YUSUFALI: [Y:Of a surety | P:Are not [P:they&gt;] indeed | S:Now surely], [Y:they&lt; | P:the&lt;] [Y:are the ones who | P:the | S:themselves are the] [Y:make] mischief[^PS:[P:-][S: ]makers^], but they [S:do not] [Y:realise | PS:perceive] [^YP:[Y:(it)] not^].&lt;br /&gt;13. Wa-itha qeela lahum aminoo kama amana alnnasu qaloo anu/minu kama amana alssufahao ala innahum humu alssufahao walakin la yaAAlamoona&lt;br /&gt;002.013 YUSUFALI: [PS:And] When it is said [P:un]to them: "Believe as the [SET:True] [Y:others | PS:people] believe:" They say: "Shall we believe as the fool[YS:s | P:ish] believe?" [Y:Nay], [Y:of a surety | P:are not | S:Now surely] they [P:indeed | S:themselves] [YS:are] the fool[YS:s | P:ish], but they [YS:do not] know [P:not].&lt;br /&gt;14. Wa-itha laqoo allatheena amanoo qaloo amanna wa-itha khalaw ila shayateenihim qaloo inna maAAakum innama nahnu mustahzi-oona&lt;br /&gt;002.014 YUSUFALI: [PS:And] When they [YS:meet | P:fall in] [P:with] those who believe, they say: "We believe;" [YP:but | S:and] when they @[YS:are alone with | P:go apart to] their [Y:evil ones | P:their devils | S:their Shaitans], they [YS:say | P:declare]: "[P:Lo | S:Surely] We are [Y:really] with you: [P:verily] We [YS:(were) | P:did] [Y:only jesting | P:but mock | S:only mocking]."&lt;br /&gt;15. Allahu yastahzi-o bihim wayamudduhum fee tughyanihim yaAAmahoona&lt;br /&gt;002.015 YUSUFALI: Allah [P:(Himself)] [Y:will throw back | P:doth | S:shall pay them back] [YS:their] mock[^YS:ery [Y:on] them^], [Y:and give them rope in their trespasses; so they will | P:leaving them to | S:S:and He leaves them alone in their inordinacy, [blindly&gt;]] wander[Y: like [blind&lt;&gt;] ones (To and fro) | P: [blindly&lt;] on in their contumacy | S:ing on].&lt;br /&gt;16. Ola-ika allatheena ishtarawoo alddalalata bialhuda fama rabihat tijaratuhum wama kanoo muhtadeena&lt;br /&gt;002.016 YUSUFALI: These are they who [Y:have bartered | P:purchase | S:buy] [PS:error] [P:at | S:for] [Y:Y:Guidance | P:the price of guidance | S:the right direction] [Y:for error]: [Y:But | PS:so] their [Y:traffic | P:commerce | S:bargain] [Y:is | P:doth | S:shall bring] [Y:profitless | P:not prosper | S:no gain], [Y:and | P:neither are | S:nor are] they [Y:have lost true direction | P:guided | S:the followers of the right direction],&lt;br /&gt;17. Mathaluhum kamathali allathee istawqada naran falamma adaat ma hawlahu thahaba Allahu binoorihim watarakahum fee thulumatin la yubsiroona&lt;br /&gt;002.017 YUSUFALI: Their [Y:similitude | P:likeness | S:parable[SET:(?)]] is [Y:that of | P:as | S:like] [Y:a man | P:the likeness of one | S:the parable[SET:(?)] of one] who kindle[YS:d | P:eth] [YS:a] fire; [P:and | S:but] when it [Y:lighted | P:sheddeth its light | S:had illuminated] [YS:all] around him, Allah [YS:took | P:taketh] away their light and [YS:left | P:leaveth] them in [YS:utter] darkness. [Y:So they could not see | P:where they cannot see | S:they do not see].&lt;br /&gt;18. Summun bukmun AAumyun fahum la yarjiAAoona&lt;br /&gt;002.018 YUSUFALI: Deaf, dumb, [S:(]and[S:)] blind, [P:and | S:so] they [YS:will] not [YP:re]turn [Y:(to the path) | S:back].&lt;br /&gt;19. Aw kasayyibin mina alssama-i feehi thulumatun waraAAdun wabarqun yajAAaloona asabiAAahum fee athanihim mina alssawaAAiqi hathara almawti waAllahu muheetun bialkafireena&lt;br /&gt;002.019 YUSUFALI: Or [Y:(another similitude) is that of | PS:like] [Y:a rain-laden cloud | P:a rainstorm | S:abundant rain] from the [YP:sky | S:cloud]: [Y:In it are | P:wherein is | S:in which is] [Y:zones of | S:utter] darkness, [YS:and] thunder and [P:the flash of] lightning: They [Y:press | P:thrust | S:put] their fingers in[S:to] their ears [Y:to keep out the stunning | P:by reason of the | S:because of the] thunder[YP:-clap[P:s] | S: peal], [Y:the while they are in | PS:for] [Y:terror | PS:fear] of death. [Y:But | S:and] Allah [Y:is ever round | PS:encompasse[P:th | S:s] the [Y:rejecters of Faith | P:disbelievers (in His guidance, His omniscience and His omnipotence) | S:unbelievers]!&lt;br /&gt;20. Yakadu albarqu yakhtafu absarahum kullama adaa lahum mashaw feehi wa-itha athlama AAalayhim qamoo walaw shaa Allahu lathahaba bisamAAihim waabsarihim inna Allaha AAala kulli shay-in qadeerun&lt;br /&gt;002.020 YUSUFALI: The lightning [Y:all but | PS:almost] [YP:snatche[Y:s | P:th] | S:takes] away their sight [P:from them]; [Y:every time | P:as often | S:whenever] [Y:the light | P:it flashed | S:it shines] [Y:(Helps) | P:forth | S:on] them, they walk [YP:therein | S:in it], and when [PS:it] [Y:the darkness grows | P:it darkeneth against | S:it becomes dark] [Y:on | S:to] them, they stand still. [YS:And] if Allah [YP:willed | S:had pleased], He [YP:could | S:would] [Y:take away | P:destroy | S:certainly have taken away] their [Y:faculty of] hearing and [PS:their] [Y:seeing | PS:sight]; [Y:for | P:Lo! | S:surely] Allah [Y:hath | P:is | S:has] [Y:power | P:able | S:power] [YS:over | P:is able to do] all things.&lt;br /&gt;21. Ya ayyuha alnnasu oAAbudoo rabbakumu allathee khalaqakum waallatheena min qablikum laAAallakum tattaqoona&lt;br /&gt;002.021 YUSUFALI: O [Y:ye people | P:mankind | S:men]! [Y:Adore | P:worship | S:serve] your [Y:Guardian-]Lord, who [P:hath] created you and those [Y:who came] before you, [PS:so] that [YP:ye | S:you] may [Y:have the chance to learn righteousness | P:ward off (evil) | S:guard (against evil)];&lt;br /&gt;22. Allathee jaAAala lakumu al-arda firashan waalssamaa binaan waanzala mina alssama-i maan faakhraja bihi mina alththamarati rizqan lakum fala tajAAaloo lillahi andadan waantum taAAlamoona&lt;br /&gt;002.022 YUSUFALI: Who ha[Y:s | P:th] [YS:made | P:appointed] the earth [Y:your couch | PS:a resting-place] [PS:for you], and the [^YS:heaven[Y:s] | P:sky^] [Y:your | PS:a] canopy; and [S:(who)] [^YS:sen[Y:t | S:ds] | P:causeth^] [YS:down] [YS:rain | P:water to pour down] from the [Y:heavens | P:sky | S:cloud]; [Y:and | P:thereby | S:then] [YS:[Y:brought | S:brings] forth | P:producing fruits] [Y:therewith | P:as | S:with it] [Y:Fruits for your sustenance | P:food for you | S:subsistence for you of the fruits]; [Y:then | P:and | S:therefore] [Y:set not up | PS:do not set up] rivals [Y:un]to Allah [YP:when | S:while] [YP:ye | S:you] know [Y:(the truth) | P:(better)].&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(4) Verbose Human Math Description, Interactive Protocol Rigorous Mathematical Representation, Designed Automatic Rigorous Abstract Code and Code Projections by Human and Computer, Designed Automatic Rigorous Machine Code, Designed Rigorous Abstract Process Baseband Matter Gate Implementation datum&lt;br /&gt;{Sum series 0 to 100}&lt;br /&gt;{SUM(i on 0 to 100)}&lt;br /&gt;{sum=0;for(i=0; i &lt;= 100; i++){sum=sum+i;}}&lt;br /&gt;{PUSH; LD 0000, 00; LD 0001, 00; LOOP; ADD 0000, 0001; ADD 0001, 01; BLE 0001, 100, LOOP; POP;}&lt;br /&gt;{MACHINE CODE PROCESSOR}&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(5) Paradox Objects, [often | always] self-reference data&lt;br /&gt;(5.1) Russel self-reference paradoxes example:&lt;br /&gt;(5.1.1a) X loves those who love themselves&lt;br /&gt;[X loves X], or [X hates X], bipolar stable choice system, requires energy, freezes at end of time&lt;br /&gt;(5.1.1b) X loves those who hate themselves&lt;br /&gt;[X loves X] and [X hates X], bipolar dynamic influence system requires time space, freezes at end of time&lt;br /&gt;(5.1.1c) X loves those who hate themselves and those who love themselves&lt;br /&gt;[X loves X] or [X hates X], free will choice system, requires energy, freezes at end of time&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(5.1.2a) X loves those who love God (sheep)&lt;br /&gt;[X loves X], stable&lt;br /&gt;(5.1.2b) X loves those who hate God (lost)&lt;br /&gt;[X hates X], stable&lt;br /&gt;(5.1.2c) X loves those who hate God and those who love God (One Body)&lt;br /&gt;[X loves X], stable&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(5.1.3) Space Time and Not Space Time analysis scheme&lt;br /&gt;In a rough schematic sketch of the Expanding Russel Paradox Series of State Space Combinatorics of Nodal Analysis, of the potential cosmic space states of the ensemble, we see the following state first approximation description, perhaps too roughly sketched:&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(5.1.3.1.a) Alpha Iteration: &lt;br /&gt;[* X [COMB: StateUp, StateDown] [** Y [SEL: self element All, self element All except X] that [SEL: StateUp, StateDown] Z [SEL: self element All, self element all except X, element X] **] *], with &lt;br /&gt;(5.1.3.1.b) [Mutual Exclusive Exclusion Logic on [raw space root]], yielding general non exclusive space [refined space root], with [raw space root] of &lt;br /&gt;((2^Combinations)-1) [raw space root] = ((2^54)-1) = 1.8*10^16-1 [raw space root], given Alpha [Combinations] = 1*3*2*3*3 = 54, due to &lt;br /&gt;[[I AM Exists, Therefore I AM] (Descartes after the "horses of God") AND [All Else Is Illusion to I AM, to Serve and Maintain I AM, among other things serving well I AM, All Else with council to I AM, and with perfect fields beyond I AM, and those fields before, made perfect to I AM, All Proceeding From I AM]], where, for example, a leaf branch instance [refined space root] is:&lt;br /&gt;((5.1.2c) == [X Up Y element All that (Up OR Down) X]), and also yielding temporal chaos upon the creation, only solved at Alpha AND Omega time space, and intentional designed irrational, otherwise, by eyewitness I AM.  {yielding spelled yeilding , commented "yielding for the Jews", "LOL"}&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(5.1.3.2.a) Beta Iteration: &lt;br /&gt;[* X [SEL,4[self reference conclusion]: {[StateUp], [StateDown], [StateUp-StateDown-StaticWilled], [StateUp-StateDown-DynamicInfluenced]}] &lt;br /&gt;[** Y [SEL,2[human of humans, and with or without X]: {[those element All Inclusive, Self-Inclusive], [those element All except X, Self-Exclusive]}] that &lt;br /&gt;[SEL,4[human type]: {[StateUp], [StateDown], [StateUp-StateDown-Static], [StateUp-StateDown-Dynamic]}] of &lt;br /&gt;Z [SEL,12[human view type upon earth view]: {[self], [god], {[all other], [some other]}} || 12] || 96**] *], with &lt;br /&gt;(5.1.3.2.b) &lt;br /&gt;Y[human state combination] = 2*4*(((2^3)-1)+(2^(3-1))+1) = 96 [human]&lt;br /&gt;XCreatedWorld[cosmosi human characters combination] = 2^96-0 ~= 7.922*10^28 [cosmos]&lt;br /&gt;Producing self reference conclusion God analysis of 4[God type], per human and on Himself, with 2[state] in time space, on each 7.922*10^28 [cosmos] possible to create.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;================================================================&lt;br /&gt;================================================================&lt;br /&gt;(5.2) Bible Self Referential Paradox Object&lt;br /&gt;----&gt;[Given]&lt;br /&gt;[Religion] is designed to suppress [all-curiosity].  (#) Therefore, [all-curiosity] is [evil].&lt;br /&gt;[All-creator-god] was-is-always [all-curious].  (#) Therefore, [all-creator-god] is [evil].&lt;br /&gt;----&gt;[Proof]&lt;br /&gt;[The tree of the knowledge of good and evil] is [not to be known].&lt;br /&gt;[God] is [not to be tested or wrestled with in The Word].&lt;br /&gt;[God] struck down [The tower of Babylon Knowledge].&lt;br /&gt;[Judaism] was set as [a schoolmaster to restrain man].&lt;br /&gt;[Chistianity] pays-delivers for eternal life liberty, after physical death, in a modality of operation, that is [not-ever to be questioned closely].&lt;br /&gt;[Jesus] was [all-curious, possibly going to India, England, and knowing-all-things, to even confound the Jews, and claimed to be One, with the all-creator-god].&lt;br /&gt;(#) Therefore, [Jesus] was One with [evil] in-through [all-curiosity], and was [found guilty] by man, and [executed to utter bodily destruction on the earth].&lt;br /&gt;Why?  Because The Bible tells me so.&lt;br /&gt;----&gt;[[AND] Given]&lt;br /&gt;[God] is [good], because The Bible tells me so.&lt;br /&gt;[With God] we know [all things are possible], because The Bible tells me so.&lt;br /&gt;(#) Therefore, &lt;br /&gt;----&gt;[Produces]&lt;br /&gt;[Self-reference paradox object] core, serving to [pander, placate, and pacify all humans, for the plan, in mystery babylon, as [children]].&lt;br /&gt;----&gt;[[AND] Implying]&lt;br /&gt;[God] and [Satan] are [One Thing], and [A kingdom, divided against itself, will fall against itself].&lt;br /&gt;Otherwise [God] is a [Sadist Hypocrite], in ultimate essence, in creation, divided peculiarly and particularly.&lt;br /&gt;Why? Because The Bible tells me so, and Jesus.&lt;br /&gt;================================================================&lt;br /&gt;================================================================&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(6) Ambiguous encoded objects data&lt;br /&gt;{Given an original english only text} [(In the 19th century, U.S. Commodore) Matthew Perry opened up Japan to the West] (ambiguous with equal East West polarization, where left right flow is only one directed assumption basis, and polarized Good Evil or Private Open, can also imply middle kingdom order polarization, e.g.:&lt;br /&gt;(ex_0_template____)_[[X]__________________Opened_up_[Y]_________to___[Z]______]_&gt;&gt;&gt;_(ambiguous_temporal_polarization_flow)&lt;br /&gt;(ex_1_substitution)_[[Christ]_____________Opened_up_[Hell]______&lt;-to_[Freedom]]_&gt;&gt;&gt;_(Hell_Tastes_Freedom),_&lt;br /&gt;(ex_2_substitution)_[[God_suffered_Satan]_Opened_up_[Paradaise]_&lt;-to_[Hell]___]_&gt;&gt;&gt;_(Paradaise_Tastes_Hell),_&lt;br /&gt;(ex_3_substitution)_[[Total_Peace]________Opened_up_[Heaven]__&lt;-to-&gt;_[Hell]___]_&gt;&gt;&gt;_(Heaven_through_Hell_Tastes_Peace)&lt;br /&gt;(ex_4_substitution)_[[Jesus]______________Opened_up_[Salvation]_to-&gt;_[Cosmos]_]_&gt;&gt;&gt;_(Cosmos_tastes_Salvation)&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(O)_[(*)_Matthew_Perry_____opened_up_Japan_____________________to_the_West]_(ambiguous_temporal_polarization_flow)&lt;br /&gt;(a)_[(*)_Matthew_Perry,_he_opened____Japan_up-toward,_____________The_West]_(Open_Japan_to_The_West)&lt;br /&gt;(b)_[(*)_Matthew_Perry,_he_opened____Japan,________________up-for_The_West]_(Open_The_West_to_Japan)&lt;br /&gt;(c)_[(*)_Matthew_Perry,_he_opened_up_relations_between,_Japan_and_The_West]_(Japan_with_The_West,_become_Opened_Between)&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(7) Subtle Polarization Flow Control Differences at System Level data&lt;br /&gt;Religion-in-Faith-Deceptions versus Reality-in-Practical-Systems, in the mass of God's-Planned-Created-Cosmos-Humanity, as God intentionally designed disconnected from Reality-in-Practical-Systrems, destroys life and is acceptable in the plan of The One True God, because [X | God is hiding, God is finite bandwidth, God doesn't exist, God through the mass of humans is chaos without borders, God is an ultimate scam].&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;In the numerous earthly human-rushing plots, humans question the validity, but recieve only coersed, strained pacification, placation, plattitudes, and pandering, and are garnered some measure of master planned governed success, to claim to reveal an association that such good, and their faith to humanity authority for congregation, are correlated factors revealing God working in that mystery, and not humans playing God.  Additionally, mass motion within such a framework of Godly Creation, causes an exclusivity, that separates and shuns those, or operates in secrecies of meddling, those who attempt to analyze their unquestionable God, hiding beyond nature, and disrupting the synthesis of goodly works of the masses following The One True God, and are called stubborn and are free to go to their creator's hell, to additionally hide God's operations and truths under barrels, preaching persuasive words, but rejecting persuasive analysis from any non-sanctioned perspective, for lacking complexity and coherence from the one to the so-called mass group of the right who communicate little for being from the word, the retarding force of Their Hidden Secret Working God, making waves for enjoying the displeasure of His Creation, and stubbornness to break character, as if in a great whore babylon, flood of lies, deadly wounded deception of a simple minded misled mass movement of people, as God Intentionally Designed that, as hypocrite sadist One True God over the cosmos, lifting humanity up and letting humanity down, to engender His Power to Be Worshipped, for His Pleasure, in their slave worship to Himself Alone, The Only True Way, all other's Infidels.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(7.1) Ziph Law Text Recursive Feedback Polarization&lt;br /&gt;Taking a version of this text, in Ziph Law concordancing action, can be recursively fed back, with polarization data, provided from what I AM saying, that I AM saying.  See appendix at end: (7.1.Appendix).&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(8) Quantum Baseband Universe Root Tree Systems Quantum to Classical Amplification Mass Entanglement Systems Measurement of God data&lt;br /&gt;(8.1) Using observational data of known events throughout time and space, create a Perect Machine Baseband Data Universe Recording of Known Truth Data, and a Partition of said data, for multiple pillars, to be distributed.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(8.2) Using (8.1), create broadcast Abstraction Key Codes of sufficient one way calculation, to definitively Encypt Lock those Abstract Key Codes, that cannot be reproduced as all time flows, and for under all circumstances of future technological incursion methods.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(8.3) Using (8.2), permeate the Baseband Material Plane, with the Abstraction Key Codes.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(8.4) Over time, validate the Abstraction Key Codes, with Classical Physics Holistic Manifestation, to observe how the physics of Classical Baseband Universe, and The Quantum Physics, interact, falling into numerous classifications, based on the continuing data monitoring of a semi-closed system like Solar System, of The Classical Amplified Quantum Key Codes:&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(8.4.1) [Thiest]: Key Codes alter in time, based on fluctuations observed in so-called insane people, and differing Perfect Machines, who / that remember portions of the original codes, showing local-cosmic alteration of reality state, beyond all Perfect Machines, indicating Staged Structured Holistic Quantum Entanglement Reification, and also definitively indicating Intelligent Alteration of the local-cosmic domain, and definitively indicating Specific Moral Corrections of the Baseband Universe, toward Polarized Wholesale and Individual Moral Reficiation, of the local-cosmic domain, toward a measurable good goal, aligning with Numerous to Singular God(s), indicated in the Quantum Flow of Populations of Classical Human Measurement Systems.  God is in one coherent subset, or in select coherent subsets, aligned with human movements and individuals, where the quantum reifications reflect humanity.  Example: [The Bible] over All Cosmos, or Local Stellar-Ra-Sol System.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(8.4.2) [Diest]: Key Codes alter in time, based on fluctuations observed in so-called insane people, and differing Perfect Machines, who / that remember portions of the original codes, showing local-cosmic alteration of reality state, beyond all Perfect Machines, indicating Staged Structured Holistic Quantum Entanglement Reification, and also definitively indicating Intelligent Alteration, of the local-cosmic domain, but definitively indicating Not Any One Specific Moral Corrections or Codes, through the Baseband Universe, toward Selective Polarized Wholesale or Individual movements, indicated in the Quantum Flow of Populations of Classical Human Measurement Systems.  God is alien to humanity in structural quantum reification correlated coherence over times, but unaligned with any human movement, or individual.  Example: God as [Dark City], [2001 A Space Oddesy], [Mahabarata], or [Sunshine] - movies and books.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(8.4.3) [Panthiest-Athiest]: Key Codes alter in time, based on fluctuations observed in so-called insane people, and differing Perfect Machines, who / that remember portions of the original codes, showing local-cosmic domain, beyond all Perfect Machines, indicating Staged Structured Holistic Quantum Entanglement Reification, but only showing Random Uncorrelated Collective Quantum Abstraction Reification, as a non-communication theorem implies, of Quantum Entnglement - that is, with not any specific Reification, associated with Any Abstract Classical Human Measurement Systems of Mass Entanglement Signal Key Codes, or Alien Quantum State Structural Reification.  "God" is physics alone, permeating the universe, in non-structural quantum reifications, in the not communication theory class, shown to all levels of quantum entanglement delving into abstract Quantum to Classical Amplification.  Example: "God" is only and always Random Uncorrelatable Holistic-Reductionist Quantum Physics as Science Majority Testifies.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(8.4.4) [No-theist]: Key Codes never alter in time.  Quantum physics entanglement abstraction amplification produce not any Staged Structured Holistic Quantum Entanglement Reification from prepared amplified abstract quantum effects, outside of I AM, myself.  Example: "God" is only and always Random Localized-Reductionist-Only Uncorrelatable Quantum Physics, outside of I AM.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(9) False position objects lacking parallel annotations on faith versus know;ledge data&lt;br /&gt;(9.1) Miracles not miracles&lt;br /&gt;Consider claims like 2001 September 11 tower collapse, where miracles are based on a few select survivors in the collapsing tons of steel and concrete.  However, physics indicates in all stirred materials, there are always one or more stationary path points in the fluid space, so that in every cup of coffee that is stirred, that there is always one or more points of stationarity, based on the thouroughness of mixing, with that iso-volume mix.  A aniso-volume mix, in collapsing buildings and crushed mixed materials like bread, there is a similar set of point(s) where physics is claimed to be a "miracle", but is mere physics, where God is literally being claimed to be microscopic points among chaos that dominates the universe.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(9.2) Claims not claims&lt;br /&gt;(9.2.1) Complexity always requires design when in doubt, versus Nature field creates complexity from simplicity, Naturally.&lt;br /&gt;Under simple pandering statements for children, to be taken on faith, like complexity doesn't ever arise directly from simplicity, we see similar errors.  Physics makes gas droplets from clouds, and stars from nebulae.  Gravity temperature pressures convert simple atoms into complex atoms with multiple electrons and configurations.  Complex atoms allow molecules.  Molecules allow polymers and networks.  Polymers and networks allow systems.  Systems allow order with experience.  Experience in systems allows directed complexity creation.  Directed complexity creation allows salvation towards eternity and control interfaces.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(9.2.2) Falsely positioned claims for children of the world in faith worship knowledge supression versus knowledge.&lt;br /&gt;A claim that a 747 Jet, as taken from Dawkins, as taken from Hoyle, says that one can not form, from a tornado in a junkyard of 747-Jet parts, a 747 Jet, is one of many forms produced for faith of children in milk, held back, retarded from knowledges, where knowledges are dangers to Their God.  A direct approach is building self-assembling-robots from automatic bonding parts, in a large Avogadro Field of these bonding parts, in a Brownian Storm of forces, that eventually reaches the complexity required, and the catalytic chain reaction systems based on the first robots that self assemble robots dominating in the sea of automatic bonding parts.  Consider Combinatorial Chemistry Above.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;It is clear, that the direct approach, in full knowledge of The Word and Every Word less Exclusive Racist, versus faith and hope in humanity, solves the issue.  It shows a single storm in a junkyard of specialized bonding parts, is a triple denial of Truth in The Word, in stacked Sadistic Hypocritical deprication use in a flood of lies, with too small a field avoiding Avogadro, and too unnatural specialized synthetic field of parts, and a machine that doesn't self-reproduce of such alarge scale of compelxity to even be funny.  All very much unlike atoms, in Combinatorial Chemistry.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(9.2.3) Claims evolution doesn't exist.&lt;br /&gt;One claim, says, you see snails that are the same as snails millions of years ago.  Evolution in a snapshot, shows everything evolving, but it is motion, and today is an instant.  Additionally, DNA from ancient snails might show they operate on similar physics, but very different chemical systems that have evolved with time, that obviously can not be measured for their lack of data, decomposed over the millions of years.  Additionally, with a mature earth environment of network interconnected systems based on a common shared system entanglement, evolution is much more crystalized, than ancient environments, and catastrophic zones of reformation.  So a snail today, has an inertia of modern DNA, and context of environment locality, which prevents old world evolution in less context, compared to new world evolution in more context.  And yet we have air breathing mammals in the oceans (whales and dolphins), mammals flying in the air (flying squirrels, bats), fishes walking on land (lungfish), fishes flying in the air (flying fish), reptiles flying in the air (birds), reptiles living in the ocean (Galapagos Igana), birds flying underwater (penguins), slimes moving in bodies (slime molds), primates in space (humans), inanimate spiritless objects living (robots, ASIMO, artificial intelligences), crawling insects flying in the air (bees, flies, beetles, moths), molecules attacking macroscopic life (viruses), all which are easily deemed unnatural by some fundamental definition of a creation creator god of specifically designed kinds.  So this is another triple denial of The Word of Truth, taking instants for spand of time, missing data relying on morphology-alone for proof of similarity, and more context for less context, I AM Just-saying.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(9.2.4) Claims that Darwinian Natural Selection is the only solution to chance and design, as in Richard Dawkins', "The God Delusion".&lt;br /&gt;See Section (10.2), (10.3), Graph Systems.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(9.3) Tests not tests, as presented.  Also see (13) Earth Enslavement through similar false position objects.&lt;br /&gt;(9.3.1) Consider the Spelling Bee.&lt;br /&gt;A spelling bee uses a fixed linear list of words, presented broadcasted to multiple humans, of stochastically reduced population size.  This creates a severly sub-Nyquist sampled Monte Carlo method to determine a so-called winner for giving the air of fair test, under stressful arrangement, and inadequate test methodology, in a rushing plot, and for the personal entertainment by the system for the system, that is not much better than a lottery, for anything less than a perfect robot human.  A sadistic hypocritical test for the entertainment of the system, by the system?  A world indicating the hidden explicit design of sadism and hypocrisy that is built into the system of mercy and compassion?  A test that indicates God loves sadism and hypocrisy, because america over the world-cosmos IS a prison planet, with all on death sentence, as the normality testify?  A hidden proof that we are all eternally under Darwinian Natural Selection, for why else create in love such an undivided corruption, in such a nation and reality-religion, against all other infidel religions, like Mormons, Jews, Moslems, Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu, Athiest, and so forth?  A testimony of being great teachers and living in the word, but a word that is a prison planet, itself, to thought being made right?  A world, where I AM never known, unless I testify, because God doesn't communicate through the nations, as a mass, to touch people's lives, because the non-connection truth of god never existed in the first place?&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(9.3.2) Consider the american legal court system.&lt;br /&gt;In a world where paper is so exquisitely expensive, when considering the changing of the courses of human events, based on a trial of crimes, why is it that all sides don't prepare reports for all to review, after presenting the reports verbally, as they already do?  Instead, the great american system for centuries, as well as other court systems, keeps all the testimony hidden behind the transcriber, only available in portions, at specific request, so that people can mostly mull about in the air, and fight for requests against the dollar and hour, with as little Selah, meditation on the presented statements, faces, maps, and so forth.  Instead, it tests the prosecution presentation, it tests the defence presentation, it tests the listening and note taking skills of the Jury observers, and tests the Judge himself, in organizing this fretful feudal stage of air-talking, that of mostly air word chaos.  An actual system test of the numerous peoples, by running on mostly pure memory, and a race against impatient short-suffering time, of an impatient God(?) created national socialist system of point less activity, far sub-standard to the ideals, being anything other than a rushing plot, and ironically in a land where God wrote his word down for man ... but then became absent from the world.  As it was to be created?  Just a show, by humanity, for not even my enjoyment, except as a plot to point out ones proud nations own faults in analysis of the parts, and synthesis of the view of truth?&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(9.3.3) Consider the use of debate and politics in public and broad-cast media&lt;br /&gt;As if it were the only thing humans can produce, presumably not to serve the DemonRatIck Masses of voters to pander, placate, and pacify with the illusions of truth seeking - one sees in debate and politics, what is Already commonly known as talking heads, with inflection and coersion talking in the air, and printing in the medias, with opinions placed as facts, and facts themselves, found intrinsically substandardly placed to serve the normal, which itself is mediocrity and mass impatience, producing the image of the form of a prison planet.  An american nation, proud, superpower of superpowers nation, and planet, placing itself over the cosmos, where eveyone acts with this system in the masses of mob rule and what is considered normal and even so-called voted upon through the machines of the system, which is only an average milk populace, of exclusive nature to hate the low and high - all nationally wilfully divorced from God, and making equal to all other infidel gods, where the silence of the masses, the ignorance of the votes, the acts of the groups and nations, and the forces of the loud and mighty, all make right, and not quite right, in a nation of essential self interested minimal collective and very exclusive disharmony.  A disharmony where the normal can't read what is written, and what is read, is interpreted wrongly to pollute, even to The Bible itself, where churches don't make enough money to answer for The Word.  Just as God Designed it?  But who would listen to me question, clearly, when none answer, and their level is either withholding, or inferior to be unable to understand and respond anywhere close to good meat of The Word?  But what can one expect from a planet of primates, on a [russian | rushing] plot, without guided fleet footedness?&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(10) Graph systems data&lt;br /&gt;(10.1) Three Element Directed Graph Example.&lt;br /&gt;Consider the graph between the elements {[chance], [design], [natural selection]}. A directed graph of three objects will have 6 arrows.  We see the following aspected annotations for the arrows:&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;#[chance]---&gt;[design]____________#(brute force methods, where full combinatorics are used in one analysis to find all solutions)&lt;br /&gt;#[design]---&gt;[chance]____________#(sparse chained hueristics, where specific solutions of a full combinatorial system are combinatorialized for [goat|goal] path attempts)&lt;br /&gt;#[chance]---&gt;[natural selection]_#(limit X---&gt;Infinity, where Avogado Scale Style parallel systems compete in natural worlds contexts of feedback)&lt;br /&gt;#[natural selection]---&gt;[chance]_#(limit X---&gt;One, where special circumstances of natural serendipity approach world changing effects)&lt;br /&gt;#[design]---&gt;[natural selection]_#(limit X---&gt;Infinity, where Avogadro Scale Style parallel systems of combinatorics compete in a world contexts system, with local fitness utility rank, or even Severely Sub-Nyquist-Sampled Systems, like Spelling Bees, of Undersampled Monte Carlo Methods, to only Statistically find the Best Designed Machine with Chance in a Localized Controlled Environment: all a part of Darwinian Natural Selection World (As Richard Dawkins claims))&lt;br /&gt;#[natural selection]---&gt;[design]_#(limit X---&gt;One, where local serendipity approaches design, as in reverse engineering One in real knowledge)&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(10.2) One Element Graph.&lt;br /&gt;In recall of Section 9 on False Position Objects, consider in Richard Dawkins' book, "The God Delusion", where chance in Darwinian Natural Selection Evolution is claimed the only solution compared to the null and void Design.  In [natural selection]---&gt;[chance], consider if Albert Einstein, because he didn't even speak, was killed at 4 years old, by the state, due to circumstances, such that the [limit X---&gt;One] fails for serendipity, thus making null and void, Albert Einstein.  Also, in [natural selection]---&gt;[design], consider a population of brute force computers, with their spatial system world of specialized context, using hueristic goat path combinatorics of [design]---&gt;[chance], where a good individual may fall through the cracks of the spatial world system context, and never has the full potential of their ability recognized, due to natural selection and chance, similar to the Albert Einstein death at 4 years old case.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;"The God Delusion" "Chance is not a solution ... Design is not a real solution either ... I want to continue demonstrating the problem that any theory of life must solve: the problem of how to escape from chance. ... Natural selection is not only a parsimonious, plausible and elegant solution; it is the only workable alternative to chance that has ever been suggested.  Intelligent design suffers from exactly the same objection as chance.  It is simply not a plausible solution to the riddle of statistical improbability. ... Natural selection is a real solution.  It is the only workable solution that has ever been suggested.  And it is not only a workable solution, it is a solution of stunning elegance and power ... The creationist completely misses the point ... treating the Genesis of statistical improbability as a single, one-off event.  He doesn't understand the power of [accumulation]. (Dawkins misses the aspect of [massive parallelism (9.2.2)])"&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(10.3) Chance example.&lt;br /&gt;Consider ection (1) Associative data, where an error by chance, when analyzed within the organism with transferrable memories, creates a new structure, where [Floydian Slip] from [Freudian Slip] generates numerous hyperdimensional abstract systems of holistic operation.  It is not natural selection, nor design, but chance, within a natural selection individual.  But then The Robots of Science, like Richard Dawkins, are not humans of body-spirit, but do provide an error full template of Markov Generated Text, unlabeled as such, in a racism between the greater and the lesser, in Sadistic Hypocrisy, sent to steal away, under guide and guise of Science and Religion, as both can serve such equally well, using Jewish Contracts to enslave to System Worship under Darwinian Natural Selection Racism.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(11) Systemic recursive complexity analysis - cosmic, medical, linguistic, atomic data&lt;br /&gt;Here's a little biopsy, of I AM that I AM doing, of Matthew 6.22-7.29, showing cancerous protuberances, in The Word, with multiple recursive contradictions, and shifting sand Hindu Heirarchy classification of men men should Judge. Where we are to be respecters of men, and not God, unlike God who is not a respecter of men? So ... how to polarize this corrupt earth over the cosmos passage? Any commentary better polarized, and less self contradicted, than this? I AM a system engineer, and computer programmer, unemployed by the created world close to God, where I work with machines that reject all lies in any form, and quite successful in those codes, compared to God working in secrecies and mysteries of faith, here and there, to and fro on the earth, and yet God is insane and irrational, here, in this biopsy, without my additions or subtractions. And to this day, not one person says anything to the contrary of corruption, in the faith, or corrupted authorized KJV, in sadistic hypocritical silent love of the earth, as God Created? It looks like the original text, to me, I AM Just-saying, and since not anyone says to the contrary all this time, to begin with, showing milk children, unsuitable for meat and precepts. A God needing to hide light under a bushel, Himself, Being Absentia. (1, 2, 3)&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Detecting further classist-racist viral elements, in One Body dividing-networks, with spreading cancerous non-monotonic hyperdimensional Kleinn Bottle Errors of slip-and-slide manipulation, coersion, placating, pacifying, pandering methodologies, of the cancerous lesions, in this little biopsy network fibrosis. (4)&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Yes, progressive cancerous hyper-multi-dimensional lesions and viral elements found on The Word, as a system analysis Judgement. (5)&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Continuing progression, with heavy load on the heart of The Word, and deepening infarction contradictions. (6)&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Further hyper-multi-dimensional systemic failure of The Word detected, in The Word, not to be added to, or taken away from, or changed one iota, iod, or tiddle. (7)&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;But, of course, I AM always needing accurate feedback understanding from the earth, since 1975, where these earthly sinful corrupted humanity faults, are all to be accepted on faith, and with encrypted viral codicies, against all Infidels so subtle to seek to destroy God's Body, and permeated throughout the Infidel american infrastructure, of the Perfect Creation of Sadist Hypocritical christian humanity reality, and not mere religion, disconnected from God's Influence, being all ways drenched in endless milk fed christians, who only have faith, not to be questioned, but sought alone, who do not The Word, as The Body and Whole Creation of The One God of All Things, that continues to all die away within the Millenium, and give births, likewise, and forget the first precepts.  In the cancerous body, with about 70,000,000,000[soul] units over the millenia, and 7,000,000,000[soul] still claimed present, which has only a current 28[PercentRatio-Earth-Current], 2,000,000,000[soul] penetration of The Living Word, through the Infidel Earth, and a smaller fractional penetration over about the 70,000,000,000[soul] trace of humans, with an estimated 14[PercentRatio-Earth-Totality], with higher loss ratios than Satan, who only claimed one third of all souls, compared to this 86[PercentRatio-Earth-Totality] estimated loss to the Infidel Cancers, requiring unification under God, or utter-destruction.  And earth, still, with back-stabbing racisms, and great whore babylon flood of lies, seeking to still destroy the body, in stiffnecked voiceless character-break-less milk-catatonic powers, held under Satan, and his decieveable code lies, that all might believe the lies within the code, of the One Body, for The One True God, of The One and Only Way, on The Narrow Path, of reality, and not mere religion, of earth's mine field of His prison planet creation, suitable for utter-destruction, in Judgement, I AM Just-saying, given earth's testimonies through earth and this nation, over the cosmos, of a double-blind God Trial.  The condition indicates a terminal death trap God, given the failure of God, in the second age of Earth ending about AD2000, with even lower God perfection (goal 100[PercentRatio-soul]) yield, in a series of 1/3rd first age before Earth's Creation in Genesis, not made void and empty, down to a mere 1/7th yield, which both indicate an Imperfect Creation God of finite processing bandwidth, among other things, of failures. (8)&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Further self-contradiction immunological deficiencies, and further "Special" recursive recessive near-errors, found in Jesus' Own Word of God, with an offer to serve Kaiser and God, both, judging Hypocrites, as Man judges doctrines, in place of God Absentia. (9)&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Matthew 6[22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. [6.23, 24: The american nation system, constituted with a divided eye toward God, and that is protecting all Infidel Religions, all against The One True God, that we know in confidence, against the gods?] 23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! [Psalm 9[17 The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.], and yet, america is divorced from God, in its foundational constitution.] [Matthew 22[15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. 16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men. 17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? 18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? [Matthew 7.1: Only Jesus can Judge, and not be Judged.] 19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. 20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? 21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. 22 When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.]] 24 No man can serve two masters: [This american nation, and voters of the mediocre masses, they serve 10,000 masters, outsourced to asia, NAFTA, and science-reality-dogma, as select examples, through foreign lobbying influences, and blind judicial systems, in all Infidel Religion cases?] for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. [Yet, in the american national constitution and peoples, proud to be americans, they ensnare what man judges and serves, in a nation that has God separated from The State?  Better the american nation dies, and their pride falls crusified, than to distract from God, by plucking out their system eyes, and their system ears?] 25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. [Famine, in end times, is not for victuals and God's Temple, but what they represent, in The True Word of God, Living Water, and eternal body and spirit. Take not thought, on The Word. Selah.] Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? [Jesus' Irony ... yes, life is more than meat and body, in promised prosperity and wisdom with God. Psalm 18, Psalm 21, Psalm 24.5, Psalm 31.19-24, Psalm 37, Psalm 45, Psalm 49.9, 15, 16, 18, Psalm 65, Psalm 72, among others.] 26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. [Fowls of the air neither sow, reap, gather - and yet are fed by God.] [2 Thessalonian 3.10: And yet, if you do not work, you do not eat. So, Arbeit Macht Sie Frei, that is, interpreted, Work makes you free, of the German Concentration Camps.] [Jeremiah 3: Jews divorced from God, for their grievious failures in the temple, that eventually murders Jesus, for the Roman, Kenite, and sons of Cain corruptions that made the temple NULL and VOID. Below Matthew 6.22-7.29.] Are ye not much better than they? [Psalm 8.5-8. Jesus' Irony, as Man made little lower than The Angels, and above the animals.] 27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? [Which of you ... every one that takes thought, in Jesus' Irony. Selah.] [6.31 Take no thought of The Word, Living Water, and body-soul eternal.] [Thought on The Word, toil not, are fed, so children grow from milk to meat, and yet come ye children, and put away childish things.] [2 Thessalonian 3.10: If you don't work, you don't eat, as Arbeit Macht Sie Frei. Selah.] [Jeremiah 3] 28 And why take ye thought for raiment? [Jesus' Irony, again, so think upon rainment, for planning.] Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:  [Lilies of the field neither toil, nor spin - and are grown by God.] 29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. [Wisdom from God, given to Solomon who asked, not arrayed like them, being arrayed so much the more, in Jesus' Irony in mystery.] 30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? [The little faith, are to be clothed and cast into The Ovens by God, much more, likewise, in Jesus' Irony.] 31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? [Think not on The Bread Word of Life, Living Water and body-spirit, to be on faith.  Solves the Jewish Problem of Proving God, as NAZI Germany once proclaimed.] [2 Thessalonian 3.10: If you don't work, you don't eat. So, Arbeit Macht Sie Frei.] 32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. [God knows all things you need, without even asking man. Does God not know everything?] [Job 38.4-41: YHVH knew already Job was not there, with his mortal mind, but lays guilt trip Job 40.4, 5, after YHVH made "bet" with Satan, in His Own Pride of Job 1.6-12, before Job's fall, by removing His Protecting Hand from Job's welfare. Matthew 7.9, a God that gives stones instead of bread.] 33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. 34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. [6.26, 28, 30, 31: Think not on God's Things, so be on faith alone, for God feeds where not toil, spin, reap, gather are fed and arrayed by God, in faith. Selah.] [6.27: Think on your stature to add to it.] [2 Thessalonian 3.10: If you do not work, you do not eat, because Arbeit Macht Sie Frei. Selah.] [Jeremiah 3]]&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Matthew 7[1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. [Judge not?  Oh ye hypocrite Jesus, as only God can Judge (katakrima) man to destruction, as Satan can only destroy the prosperity and body of martyrs, and not the soul, that only God can destroy-utterly with Judgement.  Or is Judgement actually Discernment, so here, interpreted, it is Discern not, lest ye be Discerned, as Discernment is not man's?] 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. [Only God can Judge, ye hypocrite Jesus, in My Discernment, I AM Just-saying.] [2 Corinthians 13: Judge the ones seeking proof from God, all the nations and all the peoples, who seek such signs.] 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? [So, It is unlawful to help, if one is not perfect clean uncommon, first, before helping the unclean common. Ritual protocol, that must be followed, to help the less pure common, by the Law of Jesus. So, all Infidel mere-religions are to be rejected as unclean and common, and even christian denominations Judged not of the Whole Principles.] [7.1: Judge not lets you be Judged.  Only God can Judge (katakrima). Discern not lest you be Discerned?] [Mark 2.23-28, 3.1-6: Jesus' Law that it is Lawful to do good, as good was made for man.] [2 John 1[7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. 8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. 9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.]] [1 Timothy 4: More of the same to reject all Infidels and all bodily fractions deviating from The Inerrant Word, in denominations.] 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? [Only the greater purity, can serve the lesser purity, for otherwise, it is unlawful for the less-pure in Discernment to help the more-pure, by Jesus' Law.] 5 Thou hypocrite, [Judge not, to convict another, as A Hypocrite, among you, to become faith blinded Christians of no thought.] first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. [Only the greater purity, in ritual redemption, can serve and help the lesser purity, by Jesus' Law.] 6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. [The superior purity, cannot ever serve the Certainly-Judged dog and swine of lesser purity, by Jesus' Law.] [1 Timothy 4[4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be recieved with thanksgiving.]] [7.1: God inerrantly conducts through men, to have faith placed into them, as The Inerrant Catholic Church, that the Judgement that dogs and swine are Judged katakrima, already, in faith in man's conduction of God's word, in nations that don't forget God, destined for utter-destruction.] [Elders in church, Judged by american nation as corrupt in Child Molestation cases, when God was with them, not to be Judged by man, lest they be Judged, in the american nation, divorced from God, making all other gods equal to God, in national systemic protection.] 7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: [6.32: God already knows your needs, without even asking, but ask of, what(?), Man Openly, for that is your reward?] 8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. [Not one little one is refused, with a mite of faith, to be cast into The Ovens.  Ask without thinking on what is needed, in blinded faith asking Christianity of no thought.] 9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? [Jesus' Irony, as every one that asks for bread, recieves stones.] 10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? [Jesus' Irony, as Adam asked not YHVH, for Eve, but He Sent her, And the serpent, in the garden.  And as Jesus' Irony, mankind gives serpents for bread.] 11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, [Judge not ... but Judge evil.  And Good fruit can come from evil tree?] how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him? [Jesus' Irony, as evil fruit came from Good God, in The Garden, given without Adam's asking, and good gifts given from evil trees. So, God is all the more so! Verily.] [If Jesus' Irony, is compound clausal inversion twist scripture lawyer.  As: Evil give Evil to children, God give good to request that God already knows, without asking, but follow protocol, in Jesus' Law.  Or God in Heaven obviously gives even less, because He isn't around, so don't wait on Him, but do, for Arbeit Macht Sie Frei.] 12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. 13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: [The american nation used wide gate in foundational constitution, and yet even Catholic Rome follows Inerrant Perfectly, the God Inerrant Perfect, and even Britain, too, unlike america, Israel, Arabs, USSR, China, Japan, and India.  All for indicating that God sets numerous stumbling blocks for billions of souls, about the narrow mine field path, that is Formed Narrow, in His Master Plan Creation.] 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. [God makes life difficult for the little children, in His Perfect Creation, to grow, but think not of anything of God, but sseek The Kingdom of God, that God knows what ye need, but think not, and ask from God, Who Knows Already all your needs.] 15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. [7.1: Judge not, lest ye be Judged. The american nation legally divorced from God, making gods equal to God, the superpower of superpowers, over the earth and cosmos, proudly, is not a revening wolf?] 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? [Jesus' Irony, as, of course, men gather grapes of thorns, and figs of thistles, seen from Genesis.] [Evil give good fruits to children. God suffered The Serpent and Eve fruits, given to Adam, who didn't ask God for them, in The Garden, for God knew what humanity needed, as He Created them Perfectly in His Master Plan, where Arbeit Macht Sie Frei, work makes you free, for if you work not, you eat not, but think not of a thing, and seek The Kingdom.] [Toil, sow, reap, gather not are fed by God, and cast into The Ovens?] 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. [God created a universe with Sin for God is not responsible for His Creation that is Perfect Plan of God.  Judgement good and evil Not, to Discern good and evil Not?  Or Judge not Openly, but Judge in secrets within self, playing God, in The Kingdom to Come? Care not for your food, water, and body, that is, The Word, The Living Water, and Body-Spirit.] 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. [God did not create Satan, but Satan created Himself, with his own words and cosmos, made separate from the All Creator God, given God's Free Will, that He Knowingly Suffered Satan to have, because God was not Responsible for His Created beings, which Negates the Complete All Knowing, All Powerful God theory, for Satan would be Known-Evil from The Good Tree God from which all things are created and without God not anything was not created, or else God is Sadist Hypocrite in Knowledge, accountably responsible for what He Creates, and not a thing was not created except through Him, His Word, inseparable in The Trinity?] 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. [YHVH was crusified in Jesus, and cast to Hell, and brought back, in God's Love, where the suffering doesn't matter, in a karmic equation Game.] 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. [God was crusified, for the fruits of YHVH's Own Labor found evil?] 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; [7.7, 8: Every one that ask, and it will (not?) be refused, seeking The Kingdom, with Works Doing God's Will in Heaven, of Works and not Faith of finite bandwidth prosperity promising God.  For if you don't work, you don't eat, as Arbeit Macht Sie Frei.] but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. [Arbeit Macht Sie Frei.  Where if you don't work, you don't eat.  Famine not for bread and water, but Every Word that Proceedeth from Absentia God, for God's rewards are for works and not faith alone, to be cast into The Ovens, as the grass in faith.] 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? [7.21: (1) Prophesy in Thy Name, (2) Cast out Devils, in Thy Name, (3) done Wonderful Works in Thy Name - these (3) are judged by Jesus as Iniquity, and not the will of The Father in Heaven, Who is Absent. So, less good, are paid differently, than more good, only seeking The Kingdom. Last hour, and all day woking, paid the same by God, all the more.  God is not a respecter of persons, is God, thou Hypocrite Sadist?] 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: [Hitler Marked Jews to identify false prophets, Kenites and of Cain, disguised as Jews, but not of Judah, who Hitler never knew on earth, with God Absentia. Never Forget.] depart from me, ye that work iniquity. 24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, [Multiple Kenite-Jews corrupting Kingdom, never known by Their Mark of The Kingdom, that is only known to God, who is the only one who Judges.  Doeth ... think not of food, drink, clothes, body, toil, spin, reap, gather - The Word, The Living Water, Body-Spirit.] I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. [You cannot buy or sell, unless you have The Mark of The Kingdom, in your mind or in your hand for works, for rewards, you ask for, where God already knows what you need, and feeds His Children.] 26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: [An alien, indistinguishable from a Kingdom Citizen, without A Mark of God, to discern, the Hypocrite, to Judge, for some things are surprises to God, created from beyond God's Knowledge, and snuck in unawares.] 27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. [Revelation 2.8-11, Revelation 3.7-13: An alien, to The Kingdom, falls, that was created outside of the finite bandwidth absentia monolith Rock, akin to Allah, and microprocessors, working solely on Truth and Code, like Levitical Priesthood not contaminated with Kenites, posing as Jews, and sons of Cain.  He who hath and ears to hear and eyes to see, let them sense.] 28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: 29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.]&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Jeremiah 3[1 They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD. 2 Lift up thine eyes unto the high places, and see where thou hast not been lien with. In the ways hast thou sat for them, as the Arabian in the wilderness; and thou hast polluted the land with thy whoredoms and with thy wickedness. 3 Therefore the showers have been withholden, and there hath been no latter rain; and thou hadst a whore's forehead, thou refusedst to be ashamed. 4 Wilt thou not from this time cry unto me, My father, thou art the guide of my youth? 5 Will he reserve his anger for ever? will he keep it to the end? Behold, thou hast spoken and done evil things as thou couldest. 6 The LORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, {Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot. 7 And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. 8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby {backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce;} yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.} 9 And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks. {10 And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the LORD. 11 And the LORD said unto me, The backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah. 12 Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the LORD, and I will not keep anger for ever. 13 Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the LORD thy God, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree, and ye have not obeyed my voice, saith the LORD. 14 Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:} 15 And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding. 16 And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the LORD, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the LORD: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more. 17 At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart. 18 In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto your fathers. 19 But I said, How shall I put thee among the children, and give thee a pleasant land, a goodly heritage of the hosts of nations? and I said, Thou shalt call me, My father; and shalt not turn away from me. 20 Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith the LORD. 21 A voice was heard upon the high places, weeping and supplications of the children of Israel: for they have perverted their way, and they have forgotten the LORD their God. 22 Return, ye backsliding children, and I will heal your backslidings. Behold, we come unto thee; for thou art the LORD our God. 23 Truly in vain is salvation hoped for from the hills, and from the multitude of mountains: truly in the LORD our God is the salvation of Israel. 24 For shame hath devoured the labour of our fathers from our youth; their flocks and their herds, their sons and their daughters. 25We lie down in our shame, and our confusion covereth us: for we have sinned against the LORD our God, we and our fathers, from our youth even unto this day, and have not obeyed the voice of the LORD our God.]&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;2 Corinthians 13[1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. 2 I told you before, and foretell you, as if I were present, the second time; and being absent now I write to them which heretofore have sinned, and to all other, that, if I come again, I will not spare: {3 Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me, which to you-ward is not weak, but is mighty in you. 4 For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you. 5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?} 6 But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates. 7 Now I pray to God that ye do no evil; not that we should appear approved, but that ye should do that which is honest, though we be as reprobates. 8 For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth. 9 For we are glad, when we are weak, and ye are strong: and this also we wish, even your perfection. 10 Therefore I write these things being absent, lest being present I should use sharpness, according to the power which the Lord hath given me to edification, and not to destruction.]&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Jeremiah 4[17 As keepers of a field, are they against her round about; because she hath been rebellious against me, saith the LORD. 18 Thy way and thy doings have procured these things unto thee; this is thy wickedness, because it is bitter, because it reacheth unto thine heart. 19 My bowels, my bowels! I am pained at my very heart; my heart maketh a noise in me; I cannot hold my peace, because thou hast heard, O my soul, the sound of the trumpet, the alarm of war. 20 Destruction upon destruction is cried; for the whole land is spoiled: suddenly are my tents spoiled, and my curtains in a moment. 21 How long shall I see the standard, and hear the sound of the trumpet? 22 For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge. {23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. 24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. 25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.} 26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger. {27 For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.} 28 For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it. 29 The whole city shall flee for the noise of the horsemen and bowmen; they shall go into thickets, and climb up upon the rocks: every city shall be forsaken, and not a man dwell therein.]&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Genesis 1[1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. {2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.} 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. 6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.]&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;And lest you think I AM slanted, against mere reality-religion analysis, against humans who all too often spin in milk, I see the same Chiral-Churl symmetry in what is claimed to be not-shrill not-babble unslanted writing that is without needless spin.  And yet, in Richard Dawkins published work, "The God Delusion", not a great deception by any portion of america, but an official testimony of the weaponry, that we can all disassemble, just as easily, as we look at Infidel religions, against reality.  That world where the normality of the majority, is that which we must all accept, because it is normality, founded of the masses, comprised of voters and purchasers, in an infidel planet creation of God, and thus, is what we must accept.  One reality of normality, that uses a normality of 53[spin] self-serving, in 2.35[page], or 23[spin/page], at the very beginning.  Similar depth of spin can be seen in The Bible, and human conduction of God, through the earth, as God Created The Earth, in His Master Plan.  Again, assuming, not a great whore babylon flood of lies, seeking to steal and destroy, in toxon, false copies.  The weapons both sides use, more or less, as part of the normal operation of earth, and accepted as normal, to exclude to utter discrediting, of the obvious oppositions in every dimension created, in the dunamis power of truth, in long and short swords, are listed below.  This is normal love, in God's influenced world, a prison planet of sadistic hypocrisy, sent to antagonize, which is love, as God Intended, witnessed through the earth and america, over the cosmos order, from the vituperative Viet Nam War Era american social 1970's, through the peer pressured 1980's, to the authority of economy 1990's, to the vituperative Second Viet Nam War american social 2000's, in about a 33 year cycle of overt through passive-agressive manipulating control by humanity, playing God Games Eternally. (10)&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;01) [X+ widely described as the surprise bestseller of #]+&lt;br /&gt;02) [X+ warmly recieved by the great majority]+&lt;br /&gt;03) [A cynic might]-&lt;br /&gt;04) [put this down to]-&lt;br /&gt;05) [unimaginative reflex]-&lt;br /&gt;06) [a known X-=head]-&lt;br /&gt;07) [I'm an X+, but]-&lt;br /&gt;08) [a baffling large number of #]-&lt;br /&gt;09) [X+ do X-, even though they lack X- themselves]-&lt;br /&gt;10) [vicarious second-order X-]-&lt;br /&gt;11) [often more zealous than the real thing (X-)]-&lt;br /&gt;12) [zeal pumped up with]-&lt;br /&gt;13) [ingratiating broad-mindedness]-&lt;br /&gt;14) [I can't share your X-, but I respect and symapthize with it]-&lt;br /&gt;15) [nearly always unhelpful, nihilistic]-&lt;br /&gt;16) [or worse]-&lt;br /&gt;17) [suffused with a sort of exultant negativity]-&lt;br /&gt;18) [Notice the distinction]+&lt;br /&gt;19) [That is one of the oldest tricks in the book]-&lt;br /&gt;20) [It serves to establish some sort of [street cred (slanderous)]]-&lt;br /&gt;21) [and it is amazing how often it works]-&lt;br /&gt;22) [Look out for it]+&lt;br /&gt;23) [inspired X+]+&lt;br /&gt;24) [contributors who effectively eviscerated all of these criticisms]+ (book burning, not parallel annotations, to Twain earth)&lt;br /&gt;25) [as he vainly hoped I would]+&lt;br /&gt;26) [But that is not the point]+&lt;br /&gt;27) [The vast majority of X- simply assume]&lt;br /&gt;28) [I need consider only those X- who take seriously X- and attempt to X+]+&lt;br /&gt;29) [what I hope is good humor and sufficient comprehensiveness]+&lt;br /&gt;30) [most of us happily disavow [X- (slanderous)]]+-&lt;br /&gt;31) [the great "straw man" offensive]-+&lt;br /&gt;32) [you always attack the worst of X-, and ignore the best of X-]-+&lt;br /&gt;33) [crude]-&lt;br /&gt;34) [rabble-rousing chancers]-&lt;br /&gt;35) [rather than sophisticated X-]-&lt;br /&gt;36) [if only such subtle nuanced X- predominated]-+&lt;br /&gt;37) [the world would surely be a better place]+&lt;br /&gt;38) [The melancholy truth]+-&lt;br /&gt;39) [that kind of understated, decent, revisionist X-]-+&lt;br /&gt;40) [is numerically negligible]-&lt;br /&gt;41) [to the vast majority of X-]-&lt;br /&gt;42) [all too closely resembles]-&lt;br /&gt;43) [what you hear from the likes of X-]-&lt;br /&gt;44) [these are not straw men, they are all too influential]-&lt;br /&gt;45) [everybody in [the modern world (exaltive)] has to deal with them (X-)]-+&lt;br /&gt;46) [I'm X+ but wish to disassociate myself from your [X+ (slanderous)]]-+&lt;br /&gt;47) [shrill]-&lt;br /&gt;48) [strident]-&lt;br /&gt;49) [intemperate]-&lt;br /&gt;50) [intolerant]-&lt;br /&gt;51) [ranting language]-&lt;br /&gt;52) [actually, if you look at the language]+&lt;br /&gt;53) [X+ is rather less shrill or intemperate, than we regularly take in Our X+ stride]+-&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(12) Incomplete notion spin data&lt;br /&gt;Cosider, from Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion", along with applying the incomplete notion (From Liebnitz), and its potential thought amplification of the word from The Bible, while considering Chiral Churl Symmetry.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;[Original-Slanted-Polarized]&lt;br /&gt;Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious.  Scientists exult in mystery for a different reason: it gives them something to do.  More generally, one of the truly bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;[Magnified-Amplified-Word]&lt;br /&gt;Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious[, at the cost of others, in a finite bandwidth God Absentia].  Scientists exult in mystery for a different reason: it gives them something to do[, at the cost of others, in a finite bandwidth Earth All Prosperity System Absentia].  More generally, one of the truly bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding[, with Absentia God].  [More generally, one of the truly bad effects of science is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding, with Absentia Free World].  [With the Chiral Churl Symmetry, humanity falls through the cracks of each other's war, in a Divided Kingdom, and all become null and void disposeable rushed dying prison planet inmates enslaved to Darwinian Natural Selection Death and Competition, as if Hindu Karmic Kasmiric Equations Govern all Things, under a Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva eternal cycle of finite thinking, cyclical, steady state prison planet for one and all, from God to Man.]  ... like Stephen Hawking (who accepted [the] advice that every formula [that] he published would halve his sales) ... [Oh, mystery of Iniquity, that already doth worketh in man, as Satan posing as God, has created In The Foolheardy Game, that The God Creator of All Things, Has Planned since the beginning of time?  I AM Just-saying.]&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(13) Hidden Tribal Witch Doctor Earth Control Systems of Information Systems Brain Washing and Programming, in order to Worship and Slave Serve to Kaiser-Darwinian Earth data&lt;br /&gt;(13.1)Given Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion", regarding curiosity and secrecies, in mental reprogramming, we see:&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;"Here's the message that an imaginary 'intelligent design theorist' might broadcast to scientists: 'If you don't understand how something works, never mind: just give up and say God did it.  You don't know, how the nerve, impulses work?  Good!  You don't understand how memories are laid, down in the brain?  Excellent!  Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process?  Wonderful!  Please don't go to [work | Arbeit Macht Sie Frei Einstein] on your mysteries.  Bring us your mysteries, for we can use them.  Don't squander precious ignorance by researching it a way.  We need those glorious gaps as a last refuge for God.  This is the disease of curiosity ... Why is God considered an explanation for anything?  It's not - it's a failure to explain, a shrug of the shoulders, an 'i dunno' dressed up in spirituality and ritual.  If someone credits something to [God | Hypothesis], generally what it means is that they haven't a clue, so they are attributing it to an unreachable unknowable sky-fairy."&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Now, I see here, with Dawkins, that with billions of dollars spent on unknowns, hypothesis, of things they haven't a clue about, in quantum physics and particle physics and experimental mathematics, where unknowns are prison planet career suicide (thus, Please don't go to work on it), otherwise, with the eternal antagonistic judgements machines-of-men, dressed up in earthly authority and rituals, by men who judge as God, who can use those mysteries, for their own good, only.  Take the Michaelson-Morley Experiment, that took the previous hypotheses and observations of the 1800's, and chartered an experiment to measure the Luminiferous Aether, because they hadn't a clue, and the theories didn't exist yet to test it, so creation and inteligent design, of the test method, so close to God, is to be rebuffed and rejected as simple naive, unobservant, or unimaginative faith in unknown development heads, to find the answer, with funding, or worse, without funding, in a scarcity prison planet of universal death sentence, in and under Only Darwinian Natural Selection.  Or take back the case of Einstein, who took more of the 1800's and earliest 1900's theories and proofs, who then created, from 'I dunno', an intelligent design, which naturally mechanically leads to testable hypothesis, that he generated, himself, too.  For we all know on earth, [Arbeit Macht Sie Frei, [Proswrinos Aiwniotita]], being interpreted, Work Makes You Free Temporarily Eternally, under the Darwinian Natural Selection Prison Planet of God's Fulltime Creation.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(7.1.Appendix)&lt;br /&gt;[ZIPH LIST: BEGIN] &lt;br /&gt;[ALPHA:] {&lt;--[ZIPH LIST: FLOW POLARIZATION PROCESSOR: NODE001]&lt;--}&lt;br /&gt;the and of to in God is a not that for with All as it I be X they from are you but or on One their shall who system only Ye We So Systems them by quantum state he unto his will do Earth have Jesus self which evil good more was where Faith if LORD this things thou Word your AM an like those time man me natural up can data what body human at based Space there every these because chance Creation given him selection through thy under com created design Judge yet about children don't even God's into physics Therefore Thought world against any Codes how My no processing proto upon when work being hath kingdom neither see than without Baseband believe combinatorial give know out over Perfect say always analog cosmos digital light men Opened take Allah also cast down Entanglement full has humanity Irony Judged less life Matthew other Parallel said saith would alone american analysis away come complexity context day heaven her humans land Local loves Machines our Psalm religion Satan serve some Tree truth way Works Arbeit ask complex Dawkins element evolution Example eye Field finite flow Frei great Key knowledge loci love Macht made non own people planet power Reaction reality Sie Slip solution spin such then think universe absentia abstract among before Bible Chemistry Code consider control cosmic darkness Designed destruction eat error ever first graph hast Hell hypocrite Israel Japan Known level nation root spatial steady Systemic themselves thine units Water were West within air back called Classical Darwinian end Father forms forth fruits Go had house indicating Infidel little Living markov mass multiple mystery Never operation product Reification Science soul StateDown StateUp thee too whole again already been beyond Bread cannot claimed Claims definitively exist feedback flying form free fruit gather heart Holistic Jews Just la Law lest lies lonerubberdragon Machine mere might much Name networks order original parts path Plan prison products put Richard same saying seek SEL showing spirit supervised surely taken toward us use utter versus VOID Why Abstraction Additionally after america arise automatic backsliding bandwidth between blogspot bring came Christ common create Creator death Delusion destroy divided doesn't done durable except fall find FUN guidance Himself html http inter Judah Judgement knows lo majority makes many master Meta methods milk mine need network object objects optical polarization Polarized purity rain right sent she substitution thus toil truly Turn TX understanding waters while worship above Allahu asking atoms Babylon become better both cancerous compared contextual corpus curiosity decomposition Directed DNA effects Einstein eternal ex eyes fed fee firmament gate gives hate high Hybrid individual Intelligent iteration itha Jeremiah Let limit material nations nodes nor now Numerous often Open peace Perry potential problem pure reactive reap reference robots Sadist salvation second seeking Selah should Similar states Sum temporal type un Using wa wama ways words ADD alien Allatheena allow alter Alteration Amplification anger another anything approach arrayed authority autonomous Avogadro beheld Behold black blind bonding Book Certainly Chinese circumstances city claim classification Combinatorics Considering correction corrupt creates Discern, where Discernment disease divorced doctrine Doeth domain, due dynamic Else english Environment environments exclusive exult Fen flood following force forget found further generally Genesis Gu hates hearts heavens Heirarchy help here Inerrant Infidels iniquity insane interactions its Ji Job keep KI knew KO large lesser Long Look make making mankind Mark materials matter may measure Measurement meat mina mind molecular Molecules multi must mysteries Narrow Naturally Nature normality null observed ones others otherwise Ovens Paradox pathways peoples PercentRatio place prepared present process processes proof Prosperity Qi questions radial Radical random raw real regarding remember requires Return Rigorous Rx Sadistic says simple since single sky slimes solutions something sound Special Specific stable Staged still structural structure Structured Tastes tells Thessalonian thing took treacherous used very viral want war working years YHVH yielding absent accepted added al Albert Alpha ambiguous Amplified annotations art bad beam beginning biopsy birds bringeth brought Cain call case chain chaos Chiral christian[SNIP: [ZIPH LIST]]&lt;br /&gt;[ZIPH LIST: END]&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;[ZIPH LIST: PROCESS: BEGIN]&lt;br /&gt;[ALPHA:] the and [branch] of to[wards], in [a] God is [found to be,] a not [condition].  &lt;br /&gt;[For] that [subject of attention], [it is] for [and found to be] with [the] All, [that it is] as [it were,] it [IT | The Living Word].  &lt;br /&gt;I be X.  &lt;br /&gt;[For] they [All], [come] from, [what] are [of] you; but or[-branch] on [Just] One [([42]|[For Tea Two])].  &lt;br /&gt;[Of] their [selves] shall [that thing, [their] attention subject, is to be], [the] who system only.  &lt;br /&gt;[To] Ye, We So, [do] Systems them [All], by quantum state [that] he [defines], [and] unto his will[, We] do [such].  &lt;br /&gt;[Those of] Earth have Jesus, [All] self which [are] evil, [they become] good more, [in what] was where [their] Faith [is placed], if LORD this things [of All], [is] thou Word, [then judge that] your AM [is] an [character] like those time man [All].  &lt;br /&gt;[For] me, natural up, can [do such], [where the] data [is] what [the] body human [located] at based Space [wherein] there [is] every[thing]; these [things are] because [of] chance Creation, [has] given him [body human] selection, through thy [Word], [and] under com created design [myself] Judge, yet about [the] children, don't even God's [children do such], into physics [of animal zoe matters].  &lt;br /&gt;Therefore, Thought world, against any Codes [of] how [to be].  &lt;br /&gt;My no [(Nau|mind)] processing proto[type] upon [All], when work [at] being, hath [a] kingdom, [that] neither see [more] than without Baseband [existence], [but] believe [that] combinatorial [power] give know out, over Perfect say [Word in air, like All, who are children, All].  &lt;br /&gt;[There] always[,] analog cosmos [to exist].  &lt;br /&gt;[By] digital light, [All] men [are] Opened.  &lt;br /&gt;[Even] take Allah, [who is] also cast down [by] Entanglement.  &lt;br /&gt;[But] full, has humanity, [of] Irony, [but that is] Judged [to be] less life.  &lt;br /&gt;Matthew, [an]other Parallel [system], said, "saith, would [those] alone american [in] analysis, [from] away come [to produce:] complexity, context, day, heaven, her humans land Local loves, [and] Machines [that are] our Psalm [selah] religion.".  &lt;br /&gt;[For even] Satan serve some.  &lt;br /&gt;[The] Tree truth way [does effective] Works.  &lt;br /&gt;[On Earth] Arbeit [(Work)], ask [of] complex Dawkins element [on] evolution Example [of the quantum] eye [being a] Field [of] finite [angle], [and it] flow Frei [(free) never the less], [which yields a] great Key knowledge loci [that produces the effect of] love [of] Macht [Making].  &lt;br /&gt;[We] made [the] non own people [(poor), the] planet power Reaction [to become a] reality [for All].  &lt;br /&gt;Sie [(the)] Slip[stream of human All trafficking] solution spin such [production], [and] then [we] think [about the] universe, [where we find] absentia [the] abstract among [the cosmos], [and] before [The] Bible [of] Chemistry Code [do] consider [a God in] control [of] cosmic [state is nonexistant] darkness [for this so-called God of those All].  &lt;br /&gt;[Or else a God who] Designed[:] destruction, eat, error, ever first [paramount], [and] graph[os writings] hast [revealed the] Hell hypocrite Israel.  &lt;br /&gt;Japan [is] Known [to be a] level nation root spatial steady [state] Systemic [thing,] themselves, [and are] thine [good] units.  &lt;br /&gt;[Word flowing] Water were [The] West, [spoken] within [the] air, [and behind All] back [have] called Classical Darwinian end [their] Father, [and] forms forth fruits [of Words and graphos writings].  &lt;br /&gt;[So] Go, had house, indicating Infidel little Living markov mass [of control and propaganda], [within a] multiple mystery [Hypocrite Sadism layered].  &lt;br /&gt;[We find there was] Never [good] operation product Reification Science [miracles].  &lt;br /&gt;[All "claim"] soul StateDown StateUp, [as] thee too, [as with the] whole, again.  &lt;br /&gt;[We] already [have] been beyond [finite] Bread, [and] cannot [stand that].  &lt;br /&gt;[All] claimed Claims, [find that there] definitively exist [a] feedback, [as] flying form free fruit [possible], [to] gather heart Holistic Jews.  &lt;br /&gt;[A] Just Law, lest lies [be what] lonerubberdragon [considers], [where] Machine [are] mere [humble] might [of production].  &lt;br /&gt;[We find] much Name networks [rhyzomic data].  &lt;br /&gt;[And do make] order [in the] original parts path.  &lt;br /&gt;Plan prison products, [have] put Richard [upon the] same, saying [to] seek, [and] showing spirit, [while being] supervised.  &lt;br /&gt;[This spirit] surely taken toward us, [in order to be of] use.  &lt;br /&gt;[The] utter [state] versus [becomming made] VOID.  &lt;br /&gt;Why [used such] Abstraction Additionally, [for] after america, [there] arise automatic backsliding.  &lt;br /&gt;[The] bandwidth [All] between [what the] blogspot bring, came Christ, [that] common create.  &lt;br /&gt;Creator death Delusion [to] destroy, [that which is] divided doesn't.  &lt;br /&gt;[Cosmos and All] done durable, except [in a] fall, [where, there must] find FUN [(solitary)] guidance Himself.  &lt;br /&gt;[The] inter Judah Judgement knows, lo majority makes many master Meta methods, milk mine, need network object, objects [of] optical polarization.  &lt;br /&gt;Polarized purity [the] rain, [is] right, [for] sent she [whore the great] substitution, [and] thus [she] toil truly.  &lt;br /&gt;[Ye] Turn TX understanding [to] waters, while [Ye] worship above Allahu, [and by] asking atoms, Babylon become better, [as] both cancerous, [when] compared [the] contextual corpus [in] curiosity, [finding] decomposition Directed DNA effects.  &lt;br /&gt;Einstein eternal ex eyes fed.  &lt;br /&gt;[The world] fee firmament gate, [that thing] gives hate high [as in, [[Passive Agressive], [Politically Correct], [Subtle], [Sadistic Hypocrisy], [Overt]]].  &lt;br /&gt;[The] Hybrid individual Intelligent.  &lt;br /&gt;[The] iteration Jeremiah [does] Let.  &lt;br /&gt;[We] limit [the] material nations nodes nor [power], [which are] now Numerous. &lt;br /&gt;[We] often, Open peace.  &lt;br /&gt;[But] Perry, [U.S. Commodore Matthew C., is a] potential problem [of]: pure reactive, reap[er of] reference robots, [in a] Sadist salvation, [only] second seeking Selah [thought], [and] should [such] Similar states Sum temporal type, [by] Using ways, [with] words [to] ADD alien, [would] allow alter Alteration Amplification.  &lt;br /&gt;[We] anger, [when] another anything [that] approach arrayed authority autonomous.  &lt;br /&gt;Avogadro beheld, "Behold, black blind bonding Book, [and] Certainly Chinese circumstances, [as] city claim classification Combinatorics, [they who are] Considering correction [to be] corrupt, [as this] creates Discern, where Discernment [considered] disease, [so they] divorced doctrine [of] Doeth domain, due [to] dynamic Else english Environment, [so] environments exclusive, [in order to] exult [a] Fen [(atmospheric|cloud|population)] flood, [and] following force, [and] forget, [are] found further, generally [in Chinese circumstances].  &lt;br /&gt;[The] Genesis Gu [(KATSU|group)] hates hearts, [but The] heavens Heirarchy help here Inerrant.  &lt;br /&gt;[These] Infidels iniquity [are] insane interactions.  {&lt;--[ZIPH LIST: FLOW POLARIZATION PROCESSOR: NODE001]&lt;--} its Ji Job keep KI knew KO large lesser Long Look make making mankind Mark materials matter may measure Measurement meat mina mind molecular Molecules multi must mysteries Narrow Naturally Nature normality null observed ones others otherwise Ovens Paradox pathways peoples PercentRatio place prepared present process processes proof Prosperity Qi questions radial Radical random raw real regarding remember requires Return Rigorous Rx Sadistic says simple since single sky slimes solutions something sound Special Specific stable Staged still structural structure Structured Tastes tells Thessalonian thing took treacherous used very viral want war working years YHVH yielding absent accepted added al Albert Alpha ambiguous Amplified annotations art bad beam beginning biopsy birds bringeth brought Cain call case chain chaos Chiral christian [SNIP: [ZIPH LIST]]&lt;br /&gt;[ZIPH LIST: PROCESS: END]&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(C) Key Philosophers&lt;br /&gt;(C.1) Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Hegel is a systematic world view thinker, making normal reading difficult for the common in their mediocrity, who must concede to learning uncommon things, that they prefer to ignore in thier freedom.  Thus Hegel is naturally made incomprehensible to the common, for their heavily windowed Heisenberg Uncertainty of Language Comprehension, who cannot differentiate between a Profundity, and a deliberate obscurity of language, hiding an emptyness of thought.  Thus in Hegel, few of the common can adhere to such, being as relative children, in their substandard normal state of lowest common denominator, served by placation, pandering, and pacification, in the illusion of social justice, in an otherwise eternal childhood, chosen by their own limited freedom, to their limited destiny.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Now, Hegel well-senses History, as the Rational Process of moving The Werldes-Children-Masses, to their own chosen destiny, who are differently Approaching between the childrens and the extraordinary, toward the Fullness of Becomming, as Liebnitz Notes.  And coming to understanding the many approaches, and to understanding their roles, in these paths for All in History, in the Progress of Consciousnesses to The Proper Protocol Freedom, reigned to One God, and in Right Freedom for All.  All in a World History, of The State Birth, where eventually All Recognize Self-Freedom, and Inter-Freedom, under Proper Protocol, and their Own Proper Judgement about Right and Wrong, in This System, in The Enlightenment.  A system to abolish all institutions depending on mere human tradition, commonly divorced from This System, and making all little systems equal to The System that is providing The Light of Reason guiding every aspect of our lives, without the excesses of cutting each other's heads off, figuratively and literally.  For with this Individuality, All have their own Self-Freedom, and All are under One Salvation, in The One Proper Protocol Inter-Freedom, that Divides, without Dividing, and Unifies, without Lost Individuality.   As such, Hegel's System, captures all aesthetics, and partitions the differing polarizations of aestheitcs, while providing interface to understand all aesthetics, to provide maximal freedom, with Hegel's universal system synthesis.  This produces a system with organs of partitioning, so that unwanted crosstalk between subsystems is prevented, while at the same time providing interface to the whole, for freedom and choices, for decisions, for All.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Freedom, from normal-ordinary-average child-like-human definition, invariably misleads these normal-average thinkers, in reading Hegel's case, because of Hegel's extraordinary perspective of History, Truth, and Freedom, in a sense, that is naturally beyond the mediocrity of what is normal-average-human, where freedom often is defined as being left alone, not interfered with, and able to choose as they please - which naturally is devoid of natural context, much like a criminal's definition of freedom.  So the superficial normal person cannot normally relate to the extraordinary Hegel perspective.  The same goes for the definition of free capitalist economy of free-legal competition among children exist, and free-will finite bandwidth prison planet consumers able to buy what they want within the scarcity and death sentence constraints exist, but where the same Proper Protocol interface to ultimate good, on a God Creator's finite bandwidth prison planet, that conspires to produce Darwinian Natural Selection Competition in natural scarcity and death sentences, assuming not a giant earthly lie covering greater truth.  As such, under that condition, the poor will remain poor eternally, as children only, for theirs is their own freedom of choice, which rejects the extraordinary, it is normally claimed, by even themselves, of the normal-average-human, who cannot and does not want to see the complex system.  And the disappointing truth is that the world is basically the normal leading the normal, or the blind leading the blind, compared to the extraordinary, such that the majority, which is normal, is destined to remain poor, eternally, because they have their illusion of freedom, in child like pandering, placation, and pacification, in their finite self-definition, they willfully choose, as their only character.  This stands in opposition to Hegel, who can see the simple, as well as the extraordinary System of a Truly Free World Ideal, that is fallen short in ordinary human history, where normal-average defined freedoms, are not real freedoms, without the context of allowing the forces of Proper Protocol to control them, in System rational self-other interest, coincide.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Hegel criticizes Kant's categorical imperative morality, based on its contextless framework, that doesn't recognize the social foundation of soecial context that flows in space and time and among people, in a Synthesis, with The System of Freedom, that provides the world a context, as it simultaneously provides and protects individual freedom, in the context of the whole world, like Liebnitz becomming at the infinities, and reductionism on the local context, satisfying the community, the individual, and the relations.  A totalitarian state in the best sense as a state that can encompass all things - encompass all humans, in one framework of Proper Protocol Freedom for all.  Special attention must be within such a system, so that even irrational choices of the individual can be made within the Proper Protocol with context, and are, nevertheless, supported within The System, free from the Tyrrany of Rampant Irrationality, with Justification and Freedom for All.  Doing Justification toward realism, materialism, and idealism, all for All, under one True System, where the old God, akin to nature itself, is made nothing other than the infinite physically harmonious baseband universe, and we All use all of its potential, for The True System, separate from the natural Darwinian Natural Selection finite bandwidth death bearing natural universe.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;False Position Tyrants of negative impact on The World, misread Hegel in limited understanding, common to the common humans.  Producing states forcing in systems, the humans to be free, while still in a claimed witnessed scarcity prison planet creation, that create, themselves, freedom in the form of Sadistic Hypocrisy non freedom in anarcchistic freedom, going far beyond even the child like pandering, placating, pacification common to free nations like america, divorced from God, and making all other gods equal to God, in its prison planet protection.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;In the highest court, in Hegel's thinking, there is a dialectic from a System Thesis starting system, a system inevitably reaching certain Self-Reference conflict event(s) of Antithe-sis(ses), which itself leads to the Analysis of the Paradox Object, and so again forming a new Sythesis of System Thesis.  Such a system thesis can be seen in america, constituted as a nation state divorced from God, and making all other gods equal to God under the nation's protection, and law.  Then, under extended analysis, viewing native american, spanish, french, irish, german, chinese, japanese, cycles of recessions and depressions and ecnomic errors, military force use funded by a godless state, educational distortions in numerous permeating False Position Systems, and most otherness xenophobic tendencies, leads to a nation that falls against itself, being so divided against itself, as a prison planet creation of God Himself, in a christian founded nation, against worldly Infidels in faith.  These all lead to Self-Reference conflict Antithesis.  Failure over centuries, still fails to lead to any analysis leading to a New Synthesis of System Thesis, imprisoning the planet, forever, in its hypocritical sadistic arrogance of certainty, as the world's superopower of superpowers, leading over the cosmos.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Arguments against a Hegelian World System Optimism, or Kantian contextless idealism, both in a form of the self as the root of the universe, surrounded by reflections of worldly and self corruption, with God created with HimSelf-Absentia, reveals the creation of a prison planet of universal death sentence, seen in every dimension, as all testify in so-called honest discourse in religion, economy, military, and education, seen through humans and human's systems, on the planet earth over the cosmos.  A place, where one only lives by dying, or a place of eternal life, suffering, and death, akin to a Hindu cyclic universe, or finite bandwidth Monolith rock, or a Mormon Jesus that is another finite bandwidth Monolith Allah with finite bandwidth interface to its own cosmosi creation.  A so-called God created cosmos fundamentally supporting russian-rushing plots in good times, on the edges of legality, and scarcity and depression, and death and destructions, as part of its whole creation, in its sadistic hypocrisy of all normal views, in mediocrity, found lacking throughout the testified earth, in poverty and gilded cages, proven to be ever learning, and never reaching the truth, of a carrot dangling so-called good god, of the same said sadistic hypocrisy, as a Nirvana not anyone ever reaches, forever unknowable, revealed Just, like-God, where normal mediocrity for all is the only good forced upon one's self, as God does, designing a final great whore babylon flood of lies great decepion Master Plan in its own form of Tyranny of Love, creating finite minds below Him, in order to show His Own Grandeure and Great Sacrifice in Mystery of the prison planet creation, in oreder to lovingly choose to worship Him in All Power and All Knowledge, eternal slaves to The Word of Him, transcending all conflicts between the collective commune and the individual, under One Good Perfect God, through God's perfect free will freedom, to join Him, or be utterly destroyed in body and soul, like the fat of a lamb dripping on the fire to become smoke forever and ever, as the Psalm Acrostic says, in His Name.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(C.2) Immanuel Kant&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Immanuel Kant finds that Fundamental philosophical metaphysics first task is to find Synthetic A Priori Knowledge, akin to mathematical propositions, like Brute Force Elemental Combinatorial Methods: analyze and synthesize Wittgenstein (logic applications in philosophy), Boole (Boolean Logic Tables), Karnaugh (logic applications towards digital technology), Liebnitz (relations toward the infinities becomming), Newton (self-subsisting knowledge from above and through one, e.g. Principia).  A second task is to find antinomies-contradictions, in concepts like the Synthetic A Priori Knowledge, examining domain application of ranges, and elemental errros in the knowledge.  Unresolved points, lacking all Master Teachers, leads to hopeless skepticism, whilest on a prison planet of universal death sentence boundary conditions, holding back Pure Reason. &lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;On the first task, one method is Transcending Idealism Aesthetic Approach, where one replaces the concept that given knowledge defines what is, to the concept that Sythetic A Priori Knowledge containing given knowledge, defines what can be known, through the Synthetic models used to make senses for the minds apprehending these combinatorial objects and how they are formulated most rightly properly.  Such methods Kant also called Maxims, like S-context, A-action-process, E-end-results, akin to Elements of Boolean Analysis, Boolean Combinatorial Expansion and Nodal Analysis, and End results for each Element Combinatorial Expansion.  With Maxims, special metareasoning must be performed to validate the elements, nodal analysis, and end results.  False Positioned Maxims, in the corrupt world, only succeed, in the weakest sense, that not all humans adopt such Maxims, like considering mutual exclusive Infidel Religions of Reality, where not One Way is so powerfully persuasive to dominate the world-cosmos without self-contradiction at the infinities, and opening doctrines of rejection, exclusion, destruction, and such, in order to create One Way Harmony Worship Enslavement to The One Way remaining, in cosmic destructive love.  With any Maxim containing self-reference paradox or outright error, makes the Maxim Holder a special eception from the rule, like a YHVH-God who would show pride in front of Satan of Job, make a bet with Satan, remove His Protecting Hand from Job's livelyhood, and LORD over Job about how Grand and Unknowable God is over His Created Souls to Job, who obviously didn't remember the creation of rhe universe, as YHVH-God rightly knows, in YHVH-God normal Sadistic Hypocritical Love system all Must Worship as Slaves.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Knowing that numerous things are unknown, based on Unresolved points of hopeless skepticism, isolates numerous topics under that umbrella of the Unresolved, Paradox Objects of Self-Reference Contradiction, Ambiguous Objects, potential linguistic False Position Objects, and such, stuck in Metaphysical Illusions lacking a foundation run to ground, lacking all grounding by an absent teacher or God.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Kant also recognized the freedom of will, separate from Transcendental Idealism, in daily interpersonal life, guided by some form of Behavioral Maxim.  Hegel dissents, by unifying Behavioral Maxim within a Proper Protocol System over All, protecting All Highest Freedoms within its present knowable framework, and contextual spaces.  Kant disagrees, in the sense that one is forced to take Faith on such systems, as a finite bandwidth creature, in Faith on Just-One-Absentia-Ultimate-System known to be True and all else known to be False Infidel mere beliefs of little faiths, of which numerous humans claim numerous Systems, all mutually exclusive, outside of Buddhist or Hindu systems, which encompass all things in their massive gravity, and yet found to be Certifyably Infidel, when Christian Faith Alone is used to partition All among the Numerous Monotheist, Numerous Polytheist, Athiest Machina, Not-Thiest systems.  And all the earth over the cosmos, knows with certainty in Christian Faith, that only the One Christian God in Jesus of The Word in The One Narrow Way, is the Only God of the cosmos, or else for those who do not learn His Way, those others are to be utterly destroyed in body and spirit, for their Infidel Beliefs, for they are free to not turn to That God, for they that are not in True Beliefs, in the One and Only Way, that is not an Ultimate Racism, but Good Reality, absent of the Fact of Reason, taken on Good Faith, to be repayed infinitely by this One Good God, though definitively Proveably from The Bible, not to ever be made attainable within this life, on the creation of His Prison Planet of Universal Death Sentence, in His Jealous Love, where one lives by death.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Given that the cosmos-nature is designed with the capacity to understand finitely, the infinite complexity of the cosmos, Kant presents a supposing that nature of an infinite purpose supreme intelligence, at the root, makes a prime element to consider in all Transcending Idealism Aesthetic Approach, as a key element for Wittgenstein, Boole, Liebnitz, Newtonian, Karnaugh type of thinking, in the Greek form of Brute Force Combinatorial Nodal Analysis.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Kant analyzes Beaty as an Aesthetic of feeling and judgement, by absolutes, where what One finds is Beauty, that All ought to find the same as Beauty in The Proper Manner.  Hegel agrees, in the sense that in an All Encompassing Proper Protocol Freedom, that for the individual and sub-All, there are numerous localized projections of Beauty, moving in time, space, inter-relations, and group contexts, just as well as The Absolute Standards belonging to the All Encompassing Proper Protocol Freedom, that do Project Universal for All who must yield to it, flowing through That System of Becomming.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(C.3) Soren Aabye Kierkegaard&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;In a misinterpretation of Hegel, Kierkegaard presents the Hedonistic Aesthetic Perspective as a free will choice.  Hegel dissents, in the sense that The Proper Protocol System over all, permits in its ideal, the Hedonistic Aesthetic Perspective, though not what would be called authentic by Kierkegaard, for only willing participants are permitted in such a Hedonistic Aesthetic Perspective, and as such, a NAZI Socialist World Domination system, with All being death bound companions, would only entail properly protocoled games, and not encompassing interfaceless and contextless All reality, but remains authentic as an Aesthetic, even if criminal to the whole of the Proper Protocol System of Hegel.  However, in misinterpretation of Hegel, World War II proves the creation of truth in reality of a large portion of the world testifying in honesty of the prison planet system, even if not a NAZI world, but, nevertheless, affecting millions in death and destruction in this world of Good God's Responsible Creation.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;The Kierkegaard Hedonistic Aesthetic, close to Kafka, served to make revelation of the errors of society, as it was constructed, in a socialist study of their finite ways, with religion, state, military, and education seen as usurping Truth for social normal-average mediocrity ways of acceptance in Certain Faith, of their systems in apparent error being revealed in analysis of them, and its produced synthesis view.  Also, Kierkegaard notes the finite processing of humans, which produces dispair in finite-normal-average thinking, created by The Good God, that fails to sustain a Synthesis of discovering self, with an Abentia Good God Teacher Shaddai I AM that I AM YHVH, in a produced mediocre spirit-less / soul-less society of near robots, enslaved and worshipping to the normal average mediocrity of Kaiser and God Both, apparently made in order to honestly conceal spirit and true self, or simply a majority of power incapable of understanding, if not ever to be touched as a giant conspiracy of a great whore babylon, flood of lies, seeking to death and destruction in Prison Planet status quo, in the eternal everlasting geometry prison planet of This World.  A framework that is goodly hapily enslaved to This Good God on Faith.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Kierkegaard finds, where true spirital understanding flows out, is from social righteous indignation, infidel religious intoxication, aesthetic cultism, and utopian politics, yet failing to maintain Synthesis with an Absentia God, claimed Real, on Faith, divorced from the Reason of Logic.  Kierkegaard adopting this Hedonistic Aesthetic, in order to Enlighten the masses in revelation, of a perceived false aesthetic religious fulfilment, even evidenced in the world by an ununified One God, with Infidels Everywhere in This Living World, despite the promised powers of a dynamic persuasive Good God, who could only offer Human-God Sacrifice, as His Greatest Work, where one lives on the Prison Planet by Dying in This World, where all are also on Promised Death Sentence, by the loving longsuffering merciful sustaining Good God.  A world where even The Spanish Inquisition, Inerrant for God, failed to unify the world under the One True Inerrant God, and not in any way running Hindu Karmic Equations, to make Grace abound more, through the Suffering God Creates in The Equations God is Constrained By, Himself, in the creation, where also, All Things Are Possible With God, but not in This World, where death and separation, allows the convenient sequestration and concealment of Light under a Barrel of Just humanity, expressing the Master Plan of God, of a God that is not Grossly Negligent with billions of souls, as He is Not Responsible for His Creation, because of the convenient excuse of the Creation not being His Responsibility, in His Created Free Will, that absolves Him of all responsibility, because we are free to enter utter body and soul destruction, in His Infinite Love, to accept and worship freely the Irresponsible-Aresponsible Good God of The Cosmos, we all Know is The One True God Being, that must be defended by our Deaths, unpaid for, unless we acquiesce to Faith in Only His Goodness, in The Only Way to God, through the human-god sacrifice of Jesus, who we all know is Immune to All Argument, because The Flag of Faith wraps Jesus in a Pure Honest Good Loving Teaching Revealing veil about Himself, defended against Rational Inquiry, in Mercy to usward, to remain in milk chilish things, in Faith of His Way, in no way restraining or restricting Meat of The Word, unquestionable and inerrant in the world's human hands expressing God's Master Plan Honestly, not in any deceptive scales over their God proud eyes, in The Body of God's Children who are in not any form of manipulative coersive insinuative linguistically twisted pandering placating pacifying self interested teaching, but For God Alone.  A Christian God, that in not any way, Himself, is a Terrorist, for one is free to choose to bodily spiritual utter destruction, in His Merciful Patient Teaching Sustaining Love, where the suffering doesn't matter, for points paid in rewards for works in The Next World, after Death in This World, not used to hide the truth under a barrel in This World, but in Revelation All See, in Faith.  For birds do not peck at the dying ember pomegranites of This World, until the fruit is ripe for the grim reaping harvest, in their Prey for God, within The Prison Planet, in a Mystery of Iniquity, that doth already worketh for God.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;And here, we see Kierkegaard's image of a hyperdimentional eternally spinning object, akin to a Dodecahedron Kleinn Bottle, of an eternal geometry, that ought not be examined too closely, for it spoils the Prison Planet Harmony and Peace, with such a Revelation, ever seeking, and never reacing the Truth of God Nirvana, on a Godly Promise Cheshire Cat smile that only remains in This World, yielded to Death and Satan, in God's Unknowable Infinite Merciful Sustaining Love.  A God who heels errant nature first, because it is last, women and children next, second to last, men after that, and then The Elect, Just, as the Angels and Jesus are heeled already, first, to God-YHVH Eternal Reich-Reign slavery to The Proper Protocol Good, unknowable to All finite as Kant said, and eventually knowable to All who choose rightly, as Hegel forsaw.  And as Kierkegaards notes, is a Faith Subjective Universal Truth, arbitrarily True over All, in a foundational role, assigned to the criterionless Faith Choice in The One True God's Only Way, rendering acceptable revelation readings, of the errant humanity, made subject to the criterionless choice, expressing the Unfolding Absolute of That God, over All, in a position to acknowledge, but refuses, to make the children come to their fathers, Infidel Death or Faith in The One Only True Christian God Life.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Thus, in Kierkegaard's extreme dualist destiny view, we see it properly against humanity, and properly for The Unfolding Absolute for All, or else.  A view, misread by the normal-average-mediocre Hegel Students, and Rationalists, that see Kierkegaard as an irrational impediment, almost approaching a Fascist Bourgeoise position, in their own Finite Bandwidth Infidel Mere Sophist Thinking, and misreading, thus milk-child-like unable to see The Proper Protocol System of Hegel's Absolute.  Kierkegaard, believing that the worldy establishment, merely needs rid itself of the Hindu like pagan errors, without loosing The Unfolding Absolute.  Though German Schools 20th century viewed Kierkegaard in a radical Christian Apologetic light.  A Good Tyranny of The Unfolding Universal over the particular individual, that Wittgenstein viewed as by far the most profound thinker of that century.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(C.4) Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;From his seminal only living published work, Wittgenstein's, "Tractatus Logico Philosophicus", help shape Logical Positivism, as a reaction to the old school of air bent word philosophical sophistry of earlier ages.  His topics covered the classes of Philosophy in Linguistic, Logical, Psychological, Mathematical, and Its Limitations.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Tractatus, itself, covers metaphysics, logic and Truth and their representations, as well as solipism, science theory, and mystical nature.  He views in the baseband universe, the notion that the nature of the simple and complex, arises in the combinatorics of its simpler components, taken holistically, at the infinities akin to Liebnitz, thus constituting states of affairs, when most isomorphic to what is perceived, where propositions are logical pictures, in a Boolean Karnaugh Sense of explicit and Abstract classes, where elements are true or false, present or absent, positive or negative, in such Bipolar Abstractions.  It should be notes, the potential for multi-valued logics, too, where multiple states, in numerical modulo states and counts, can also be subsumed into such frameworks, such as decimal numbers, that modulo more than bi-polar, but deca-polar, or N-polar, in Boolean Nodal Analysis, in Logic divorced from Faith and mere-emotional-constructions, anathema to God, not to be questioned, in a mystery of absentia iniquity.  Such logical modulo systems, use the nodal prepositions, to function as elements of correlated / co-related consituents of analysis, in such an atomic reductionist holism of continuum, rotating on the inner modulo-modular-nodal complexity.  Also noting from Russel, that certain Paradox Objects exist in not well formed systems, where self referential negation, makes null and void, degenerate, tautological, these preposition to product systems based on false premises, divorced from base logic, that then form such contradictions or tautologies, such as:&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Faith Santa Product&lt;br /&gt;========================================================&lt;br /&gt;0     0     Santa Doesn't Exist&lt;br /&gt;0     1     Santa Exists, but not believed upon&lt;br /&gt;1     0     Faith misplaced, in Santa that doesn't exist&lt;br /&gt;1     1     Faith properly placed, in Extant Santa&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;This, yielding atomic-reductionist-complete-holistic logical structure systems that merely must be revealed and apprehended to absolutely monitor sense, with God Absentia, and to be solved in Analytic Investigations for building Syntheses, for fixing the current state of what is not shown, by This World wed to the law that makes dead in logical Necessity and Truth, in These Analyses, like the Finite-Reachable, God Absentia, This World, not yet Revealed in Revelation, Himself, wed to Faith and Promise, Only:&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;AppleX Red   Product&lt;br /&gt;===========================================&lt;br /&gt;0      0     No AppleX to observe&lt;br /&gt;0      1     No AppleX to see red, MU-sense&lt;br /&gt;1      0     AppleX exists, and is not red&lt;br /&gt;1      1     AppleX exists, and is red&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Under linguistic analysis, Wittgenstein notes the necessity of capturing all definitions of incoherent indeterminant vague statuses-stati, under the modulo umbrella, in order to make salient, the mysterious presentation in parable linguistics, in analyses, so that Linguistic Synthesis can be made from what is knowable, in mutual systemic coherences, to inner complexity Ultimate Absolutes, within a revealed standard of exactness, hidden first in the vagueness, in a Progressive Stance of Analysis toward The Synthesis of One Unified Common Ordinary Sense, properly guided in inter-grammatical connectedness, instead of misguided in normal-average-mediocre-common Finite Thinking, where it is an error to suppose that the fundamental role of Faith is to describe directly a state of affairs, but Faith in The Investigation, approaching The Ultimate Absolute, in the Hegel sense.  This, to allow Truth to be the pivotal elucidation of Meaning in Understanding, mastering expression, and forging reality that is answerable in living words, in what is, otherwise, concealed in normal iniquity, misconcieved, misconstrued, and misunderstood, normally.  A system of Ultimate Absolutes, that Wittgenstein notes, prevents the peculiar and particular private interpretations of corpuses / corpi, in a Complete Synthesis, preventing linguistic war, as wasteful and point-less, restraining what is normal-average-ordinary, to the Hegel concept of The Perfect Protocol System for All in Maximal Heirarchical Freedom.  A system that removes universal misunderstanding, and misconstrual, for God is not the author of confusion, in any way, Perfect in Himself, in that sense, in time and space, when free Himself, of the limitations of human imposed Finite Thinking, to allow Elucidation from Every Word that Proceeds from Him, and Clear Truth, toward Him, when in the finite bandwidth interface of This World, in rushing point-less human plots.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Wittgenstein notes, however, in the mutual mystery of the mystical, that unshared private absentia inter-qualia of certain character, preclused the ability to know linguistic-logical-moral truth, between and among the holograms of mere humans, in the sense that, placated smile, and placated sufferings, can be inversions of reality, where occasional joy is found in pain, occasional sadness is found in happiness, and coersive human prison planet created inversions, where programs speak the opposite, e.g. how are you today, gets a fine, when the truth gets retribution for its negative "bringing down" of the group, is not appreciated, or vice versa, where a pain is accepted, but not appreciated in such and such context.  Or worse, children peading pain, when it is joy, or machines pleading joy when it is pain, or non existant state related to mere printout.  Cases whre introspection is molded in the image of the normal human, unrevealed, or worse, deceiving.  All this leading to the death trap of Good God, in His Hidden mystical spirit, unrevealed, and uncertain, in the claimed Good Creator God always Absentia, except in the Good Slave to God, Faith worshipping, of the proper protocol created earthly demonstrated all powerful all knowing Sadist Hypocrite God of the millenia, Who divides not to conceal, but to reveal, in The Next World, and leaves This World untouched, as His Prison Planet of Universal Death Sentence coersive unconditional love, threat, to call His Children in Faith, with Lions laying with Lambs, in the same breath, spoken.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Wittgenstein, likewise notes, the limitations of understanding are determined by the limitations of our own physical-mystical expression.  Like an unyielding corpse, tiptoeing on the brink of destruction, in His Merciful Love.  Dead words, always calling to know, and never able to be fully known, to be only imperfectly translated and expressed, into the Living Words of thought and expression.  A functionality made by the Perfect Creators Goodly Nature, by surely making All below Himself, finite thinkers, to greater and lesser extents, so that He is Supreme, and Worthy of our enslaved Worship of Him Alone, in Our Earnest Faith, in That One Only True God, against all the Faith-Known Infidels, who we Know-Faith, only lead astray, from His Complete Perfect Inerrant Merciful Sustaining Longsuffering Powerful Knowing Shaddai Goodness, even when Absentia for millenia and our generations, in The Unfolding Absolute, Nirvana never touching This World, directly, except for the baseband universe fabric of physics, in Faith-Known Non-Theist perfection of expression and uniform universality, that is in not any way mere Invention, but Reality, seen through the glass darkly.  A darkened glass, where rules are hidden to be followed, and real meanings are Master Planned Created to be unknown to All, that Wittgenstein would dissent at, in Perfecting Analytical Logic and Syntheses, that remove such entanglements of iniquity mystery wed to infidel faith alone, to gain understanding in revelations.  But the normal average mediocrity would say, that we don't do this ourselves, but rely on God for such fruits, Only, through the systems of men in the one body, expressing God's Perfect Master Plan, not to deceive, to to call us toward Himself, but as children only for the slaved rightly worthily Worship of Him, Only, in not any way leading to Absurdity, and in not any way leading to vicious vacuous irrational tautological fallacies.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(C5) Gottfried Wilhelm von Liebnitz&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Student of law, geology, linguistics, historiography, mathematics, physics, philosophy, diplomatics, librarian, theology, spirit, and machines.  Noted for The Monadologie, The Calculus, and studies of substance, at the point, and becomming, at the infinities, reflecting centuries ahead of time, reductionism and holism, like Hoffstadter of the 20th century, in causality studies, that of cause and effect, on monads and the whole.  Leibnitz even notes, the divine interventions between cause and effect, in the mystical forces between interactions without any possible further reductionist intersubstantial causality, as noted centuries later in Quantum Wave functions, Mormon God Worlds Bifurcations, Eckencar, Hindu Cyclic Universe formations, and The Entanglement of otherwise Reductionist Localized Entities of Measurement, of Heisenberg and The Copenhagen School of Quantum Physics, and inferentially noted centuries earlier by Gautama Buddha of Nirvana, and Mohammed of Allah, and Christians of The Sea of Glass.  Liebnitz notes, of monads, that monads perceive all other monads with variable mathematical linkage,  and God programmed the monads so that they do not actually interact, but contain the data of such interactions as classical holistic spatial perspective apprehends, in a preestablished harmony, with a kind of steady state finite bandwidth exchange of power gains and losses in zero sum, apprehanding a 2001: A Space Odessy like Monolith concept centuries before the movie of 1969, of a holographic illusion universe, also, Just as much, akin to the spatial extent Quantum Physics of the apparent baseband universe, as well as Johnathan Livingston Seagull, in popular literature.  All where space is not real, but an indexing of such qualia-perception-sensation data of a uniformly woven zero sum steady state Monolith.  Also akin to Hegel's conception of the Perfect Protocol System of Freedom for All, only perceived darkly by the apparent apprehended earth over the cosmos, created by YHVH-God, centered about what I AM saying, that I AM saying.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(C6) Noam Chomsky&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Linguistic student, who believed in an innate human universal grammar language capacity at birth, allowing the absorbtion of contextual languages, and additionally with the ability to filter and correlate the consistencies, inconsistencies, and errors of language, affording not the deep thought control systemics of nationalist coersive manipulative pandering placating pacifying flood of lies systems of normal average mediocre nationalist standards of system faith that depricates and shuns reason in favor of politics and opinion matricies treated as status quo facts of life and love, in the creation's true nature of sadistic hypocrisy testified honestly by the nature of primates, not in any conspiratorial delusion of forces, being ordained inerrant and trustworthy, of the sadistic hypocritical imperative of the creation made in the creator's image, where world depressions and errors of the system are part and parcel of the good creator's one true way.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Being a complex system of understanding, based in a universal grammar, few of the ordinary average mediocre human primates can undersand these methods, and dissent in ignorance, where the majority rule and popular understanding is the one true socialist way of manufacturing consent to the eternal good one true way, in the grammar of the human primate masses testifying through their numbers the goodness of their god known to be over all, and with linguistic parametric variation to be rejected as misleading ways, against the manufactured consent of all groups, already in Hegelian Perfect Protocol, shaking the dust off their feet to abandon the divergent way of the broad and wide way, that leads to their utter body and soul destruction, in god's good sadistic hypocritical true nature in one way, without variation, and immune to all viral infections of the word of the one body testification.  Nevertheless, Chomsky dissented against american national domestic and foreign policies, as a negative impacting manufactured consent system over all.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Voltaire, Nietzche, Goethe, Baruch Sinoza, Frances Bacon, David Hume, Alonzo Church&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(D) Key Terms&lt;br /&gt;(D.1) Reductionism&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;The empirical external measurement method, by which extended complex systems of existence, they are Godel-Incomplete weak-reducible and baseband material fully accountable, as revealed through their atomic-molecular heirarchical properties.  For example, a human is decomposed through organs, cells, molecular systems, molecules, to atoms, in the heirarchy of reductionist tables.  Similarly, for a society, planet, cosmos.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;As such, reductionism well serves analyzing the baseband material plane, and its heirarchical architecture systemic description, in the sense of those atomic molecular heirarchical characteristics, that build the whole system, being so analyzed, heirarchically, for their weak general character, and numerous specific characteristics.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;However, in linguistic terms, as reductionist heirarchies are built, there are natural stratigraphic complexity issues that arise, where the language of lower level languages begin to break down, as another level of language takes over, creating in geological terms, discontinuities of nonconformities.  These discontinuities, create exchange problems of one to one reductionism completion, unless very carefully accounted for, in complete exchange matricies between the reductionist heirarchical idioms, that capture such inherent nonlinearities of description, before being made saliently signifigant.  Such issues easily arise in self reference feedback systems, where chaos is naturally produced, in mathematical terms.  And, as such, differntailly microscopically small alterations at one point in time space, produce fully divergent errors of characterization description.  Two kinds being, (1) errors on the value within a characteristic behavior, for Simple chaotic system characterizations, (2) errors on the characteristic behvior, itself, for Complex chaotic system characterizations.  That is, for (1), turbulence on a plane wing will be in complete error of value, but will still precisely characterize the chaotic turbulence-pattern accurately.  That is, for (2), turbulence of a social organization or social member will be in complete error of characteristic, and not in any way characterize the chaotic behavior-pattern correctly, being in a completely different state than what was expected by the original reductionist characterization.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;An example, from reductionist religious teaching, that order cannot arise spontaneously from disorder, as a reductionist explanation for everything arises only from God.  When their system, for the very first time, sees atoms forming crystals, molecules, and stars, yields a state that was unexpected from their reductionist stance of exclusive rejection.  Seeing molecules becomming polymers, precipitates, and chaotic surfaces of incredible complexity, also produces a state that was not forseen in The Word, in its reductionist loving form or order, as God continues to rain down surprises for humanity under God.  Under cyclical loading of sunlight and tumbling rocks, smashing molecules, crystals, polymers, and such, into a soup of cyclic equilibrium metabolic patterns of process, altering the ocean, produces a new state language unforseen by the loving teachings from The Word.  And so, forth, showing the problems of exclusive-rejecting-self--serving sadistic love reductionism of all things to The Good God, by coersive manipulative love of self, over whole, shaking the dust from themselves to reject the other.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Also, it should be noted that Reductionism, by its very nature and definition, eternally utterly rejects Holism, thus remaining a Godel-Incomplete description of the universe, always in all ways.  Likewise, any One missing element in reductionism, creates instabilities in characterizing things, in finite incomplete processing.  Thus, in both these lacking ways, a reductionist description of an individual system, can easily miss describing all collective emergent properties accurately.  Likewise, it can miss special individual cases of extended holistic nature, because they are only coincidences of arrangment and description, and such individual special cases can produce overt effects from its subtle nature, that are statistically abberant to the weak-reductionist character.ization  In a way, it is ike describing termite hills, from a termite's reductionist characterization, where the lower reductionist language can lack the power of an eye and the termite hill's existence.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;It should ultimately be noted, this system, by its eternal nature, that only seeks to isomorphically identify all things in one system, removing all redundant nonlinearities, by integrating-fusing The One with a digital machine only.  The same as the centuries racism of the american superpower great whore babylon flood of lies seeking to murder and proud nation over the cosmos, that seeks to accelerate to all, machine levels, of the acquisition of all things within itself, only, and seeks to enslave The One, into the machine, made linear, also, so that nothing new is created, in a non free will system for all, with mind and body, unified in perfect correlation, that removes-dispenses-divides away a way, the nonlinear life of The One, with such creation-creativity made null and void, and thus reduced to the Platonic Ideal Realm, that never moves, unchanging, in a perfect sea of glass, made dead by The Perfect Law encompassing All.  A position claimed to signifigant, by ontological economy without parallel annotation, producing a unity of theory, and the ability to dispense with The One and mind-spirit as some special sort of substance of irreducible psychical-perception-sense-qualia-spirit feature.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(D.2) Holism&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;The empirical external and internal measurement method, by which extended complex systems of existence, they are Godel-Complete strong-holistically all material fully accountable, as revealed through reductionist-incomplete nonlinearities in subtle and overt atomic-molecular heirachical properties.  For example, reductionism only, describes well a human as decomposeable through organs, cells, molecular systems, molecules, to atoms, in heirarchy - and yet quantum state nonlinearities of the whole system, do not account for the holisitc-systemic-perception-sense-qualia-spirit nature, which according to quantum physics against examples [Roger Penrose, David Chalmers, John Archibald Wheeeler, John von Neumann] do say that the hot distributed properties of matter do not allow coherent information distribution under not-communication theorem, Incomplete-concluding that distributed matters are in nearly virtual quantum reductionism randomized holistic states.  And yet, One Biological Entity, contains a holisitc-systemic-perception-sense-qualia-spirit nature, that cannot be accounted for, within the accounted for parallel of the reductionist material body description.  This creates the reductionist-incomplete bifurcation in systemic spiritual bifurcation, related to the unknowns at the infinities, as Liebnitz notes.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Consider the human eye, about an inch diameter, and near Avogadro scale atom count size, at room temperature.  An extended object of baseband matter works, and a complex element example of evolution, that produces a whole quantum measurement field of finite angle and mathematically complex quantum measurement character (intensity quantum measurement, and [complex number | multidimensional number] quantum measurement color phasor, spatially distributed quantum measurement), that is flowing freely in One, and thus reveals a great key secret new knowledge, found in This One Holistic Locus System, that cannot be analyzed by Quantum Physics, and even speaks of the drive to make extended spatial machines in Reductionist Darwinian Natural Selection, to be preferred over DNA goo or Grey Goo life form alternatives of selection.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;And if claimed not the eye, then pluck it out, and send false electromagnetic replacement signals, and there still remains sight in the hologram of the holistic distributed material system body, in that of The One.  On infinite series excluding combinations, with any remaining part still usefully reductionist structured, the One still contains a quantum state field nonlinearity holistic system, that admittedly cannot be accounted for by Quantum Physics, in the reductionism only method.  A holistic system that is laying parallel supervenient to the baseband material bio-electro-chemical-molecular reductionist support plane, that of that baseband material process of sight sense perception qualia support, but that is also testified by Quantum Physics' nature, as far too hot large to be holistically quantum coherent whole free, being on that very large hot scale, for that holism to even exist, much less be accounted for, in the reductionist only method of a digital only reductionist machine or human-primate-jugend-finite.  Thus re-creating the divide of an account Godel-Incompleteness - between the body-reductionist, and the One-spirit-holist I AM, THAT I AM, Just-saying, in The Word.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Consider the behavior of stars and planets in a galaxy.  If there is found a special population of stars or planets, that show a signifigant nonlinearity in momentum-distribution and regression analysis path, it can be assumed, through its nonlinear characteristic, to be an overt sign of Holistic subtle forces, acting on massive systems, of intelligence, guiding these quantum, on paths that are statistically impossible ,according to natural reductionist only matter, as reductionist only galactic quantum massive object gas laws would otherwise define for the large populations, on a reductionist only foundation.  Rules that clearly define globular clusters, and galactic structure, otherwise.  As such, a galactic scale object, seen guided through numerous double stars, on a spin linear momentum imparting path, reveals its subtle abstract process as real.  Much like the interplanetary satelites, that humans send out of the solar system, using such a chiral polarized angular to linear momentum boost, would indicate to radar reading life forms, the creation of overt subtle nonlinear description-bifurcation effects, of One Planet, creating peculiar objects, that are statistically impossible, in a reductionist galactic gas law for, say, asteroids and meteors, and even showing a regression beeline originating from One Source Star.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;These nonlinear systems cannot permit mind body reduction, because there is not any account for the mind, holistically, even though a machine can be built to emulate such character, outside of The One,  A mere imitation of The One Creator.  A mere imitation, even if faster and larger and more forceful and coersive, against The One.  For The One, and the imitation, contain this overt subtle nonlinearity - The One by existence, and the imitation by impartation from The One.  The One, being authentic, even if apparently lesser.  The imitation, being inauthentic, even if appearing greater.  The One, being the source.  The imitation, being only a reflection of The One Source.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Considering that Holism, absorbs-consumes Reductionism's results within itself, One can consider that Godel-Incomplete Weak-Reductionism only serves the Godel-Complete Strong-Holism, by its very own logical holistic nature of encompassing, and the latter's very own logical rejection of The One.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Philosophically, this places One, again, at the center of the described universe, regardless of the dissent-protest of reductionism only robots, claiming reductionism as the Only Foundation, but is always found GodEl-Incomplete, without the All Seeing Eye of al.  All this, despite the claim that the majority masses know that humans, per se, are not made of any thing different from unstructured matter, because what is normal-average-ordinary, is merely the lowest common denominator of such communications.  The majority, missing at the expense of The One, the concept that the structure harbors overt subtle holistic structure nonlinearity.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(D.3) Abstraction&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;The defining of supervenient holistic-reductionist-heirarchical charactersitics about extended systems of form and behavior.  Examples:&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(1) defining of color, intensity, and spatial distribution of visual objects, according to some standard, like human vision.&lt;br /&gt;(2) defining elliptical scale and density about a globular cluster or eliptical galaxy of stars.&lt;br /&gt;(3) defining the autocorrelation probability density about a uniform textural point distribution pattern, like general star clouds, sand grains, tree leaves, tree bark.&lt;br /&gt;(4) defining the autocorrelation probability density segment fractal form of recursive patterns, like maple leaf edges, ferns, snowflakes.&lt;br /&gt;(5) defining the characteristic or specific geometric and structural form of mesoscopic structures, like human form, animal form, cellular structures, building architectures, general image structures, specific image strcutres like printed or hand written texts and drawings, pixel arrayed images, mathematically transformed arrayed images.&lt;br /&gt;(6) defining behavioral characteristics in time space, human motions, sense-perception-qualia-feelings-spirit, social orders, system laws, quantum particle motions, MPG video audio.&lt;br /&gt;(7) defining meta-data about abstractions, like mathematical representations, graphs, words, linguistic structures, prose, poetry, papers, pamphlets, books.&lt;br /&gt;(8) defining systems of abstraction, like cameras, computers, machines, biological forms of abstract measurement process, plans, blueprints, engineering, design tools.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(D.4) Choice and Decision&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Choice is [the [[incomplete concealed] or [complete revealed] set] of [[agent individual locus] options]] of [available avenue time space options] to [an agent locus individual], also encompassing [[current and future options], in [local and heirarchical time space depth]].  Decision is [the reduction of all choices] to [a singular path].  Mathematics of [basic [choice decision] analysis] is based on [specific combinatorial equations].  For example: &lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(1) Unmeasured Uncollapsed Wavefunction Single Agent Type Quantum Path Options&lt;br /&gt;(1.a) IndividualPotential[Path](t[sec],BranchFactor[Choice/Decision | Average],BranchRate[sec/Decision]) = &lt;br /&gt;BranchFactor[Choice/Decision | Average] ^ (t[sec] / BranchRate[sec/Decision])&lt;br /&gt;(1.b.Example 1) IndividualPotential[Path](10,000[sec],5[Choice/Decision | Average],300[sec/Decision]) = &lt;br /&gt;5[Choice/Decision | Average] ^ (10,000[sec] / 300[sec/Decision]) = 5^33.33--- = &lt;br /&gt;(1.c.Example 1) IndividualPotential[Path](10,000[sec],5[Choice/Decision | Average],300[sec/Decision]) = 2*10^23[Path]&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(2) Unmeasured Uncollapsed Wavefunction Multiple Agent Type Quantum Path Options&lt;br /&gt;(2.a) MultiplePotential[Path](t[sec],BranchFactor[Choice/Decision | Average],BranchRate[sec/Decision],Agent[Agent]) = &lt;br /&gt;BranchFactor[Choice/Decision | Average] ^ (t[sec] / BranchRate[sec/Dcision]) ^ Agent[Agent]&lt;br /&gt;(2.b.Example 1) MultiplePotential[Path](10,000[sec],5[Choice/Decision | Average],300[sec/Decision],7[Agent],BranchRate[sec/Decision]) = &lt;br /&gt;5[Choice/Decision | Average] ^ (10,000[sec] / 300[sec/Dcision]) ^ 7[Agent] = 5^33.33---^7 = &lt;br /&gt;(2.c.Example 1) MultiplePotential[Path](10,000[sec],5[Choice/Decision | Average],300[sec/Decision],7[Agent]) = 10^(31.96*10^9)[Path]&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(3) Avogadro Brownian Multiple Atom Type Molecular Combination Assembly Path Options (see also, combinatorial [chemistry computation])&lt;br /&gt;(3.a) Combination[Path](Atom[Type | Iteration0],Iteration[Iterate],Extinction[Rate | at Iteration]) = &lt;br /&gt;ITERATE{Iteration0 ... Iteration[Iterate] | (2^Atom[Type | Iteration - 1] - 1) * Extinction[Rate | at Iteration]}&lt;br /&gt;(3.b.Example 1) Combination[Path](16[Type | Iteration0],1[Iterate],1[Rate | at Iteration 1]) = &lt;br /&gt;(2^(16[Type]) - 1)*1 = 65,535[Path]&lt;br /&gt;(3.c.Example 2) Combination[Path](4[Type | Iteration0],2[Iterate],{1,1}[Rate | at Iteration {1,2}]) = &lt;br /&gt;(2^(((2^(4[Type]) - 1)*1)[Type]) - 1)*1 = 32,767[Path]&lt;br /&gt;(3.d.Example 3) Combination[Path](3[Type | Iteration0],3[Iterate],{1,1,1}[Rate | at Iteration {1,2,3}]) = &lt;br /&gt;(2^(((2^(((2^(3[Type]) - 1)*1)[Type]) - 1)*1)[Type]) - 1)*1 = 170*10^36[Path]&lt;br /&gt;(3.e.Example 4) Combination[Path](3[Type | Iteration0],4[Iterate],{1, 0.2, 0.05, 0.01}[Rate | at Iteration {1,2,3,4}]) = &lt;br /&gt;(2^(((2^(((2^(((2^(2[Type]) - 1)*1)[Type]) - 1)*0.2)[Type]) - 1)*0.05)[Type]) - 1)*0.01 = 10^(666,321)[Path]&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(4) Linguistic Word Grammar Asssembly Path Options&lt;br /&gt;(4.a) Sentence[Path](Word[Choice | Iteration1],Chain[Word],ContextExtinction[Rate | at Word]) = &lt;br /&gt;PRODUCT{Iteration1 ... Chain[Word] | Word[Choice | Iteration - 1]*Word[Choice]*ContextExtinction[Rate | at Iteration]}&lt;br /&gt;(4.b.Example 1) Sentence[Path](300[Choice | Iteration1], 40[Word],{1,1,1,1,1, 0.9, 0.8, 0.7, 0.6, 0.5, 0.3, 0.3, 0.3, 0.3, 0.3, 0.2, 0.2, 0.2, 0.2, 0.2 ... 0.2}[Rate | at Word {1 ... 40}]) = &lt;br /&gt;(4.c.Example 1) PRODUCT{1 ... 40[Word] | 300[Choice | Iteration - 1]^40*PRODUCT{1,1,1,1,1, ... 0.2, 0.2, 0.2}[Rate | at Iteration {1 ... 40}]} ~= &lt;br /&gt;10^78[Path]&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(D.5) Digital Computer Aleph X Series&lt;br /&gt;A series of automatic digital formal foundation system device for performing coded numerical operations.  Initial series sequence of computers are as follows:&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(D.5.a) ALEPH 0: A purely deterministic coded numerical operator system.  Presented with fixed formal deterministic data and fixed code, that is capable of an infinite (ALEPH 0) deterministic set of choice decision path options, in evaluations of data, according to code, to defined output product data.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(D.5.b) ALEPH 0.5: A purely deterministic coded numerical operator system.  Presented with variable formal deterministic data and fixed code, that is capable of a semi-supra-infinite (ALEPH 0.5) deterministic set of choice decision path options, in evaluation of data, according to code, to infinite-defined (ALEPH 0) output product data.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(D.5.c) ALEPH 1-: A virtually deterministic coded numerical operator system. Presented with variable formal deterministic data and variable code, that is capable of supra-infinite (ALEPH 1-, ALEPH &lt;~=1) virtually deterministic set of choice decision path options, in evaluation of data, according to changing code, to infinite determined (ALEPH 1-) output product data.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(D.5.d) ALEPH 1: A non deterministic coded numerical operator system.  Presented with variable informal non deterministic data and fixed code, that is capable of supra-infinite (ALEPH 1) non deterministic set of choice decision path options, in evaluation of data, according to fixed code, to infinite non determined (ALEPH 1) output product data.  Such a circumstance arises in any deterministic fixed system exposed to real world quantized measured data, which is capable of connecting the computer to the Heisenberg Uncertain Cosmic Data.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(D.5.e) ALEPH 2: A non deterministic coded numerical operator system.  Presented with variable informal non determinisitc data and variable code, that is capable of supra-supra-infinite (ALEPH 2) non deterministic set of choice decision path options, in evaluation of data, according to variable code, to infinite non determined (ALEPH 2) output product data.  Such a circumstance arises in any variable deterministic system exposed to real world quantized measured data, which is capable of connecting the computer to the Heisenberg Uncertain Cosmic Data, along with Self Heisenberg Uncertain State.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(D.5.f) ALEPH 3: A non deterministic coded numerical-analogue operator system.  Presented with variable informal non determinisitc data and variable code with additional analogue coprocessing system interface, that is capable of supra-supra-supra-infinite (ALEPH 3) non deterministic set of choice decision path options, in evaluation of data and analogue state, according to variable code, and variable analogue state, to infinite non determined (ALEPH 3) output product data, and quantum self analogue state.  Such a circumstance arises in any variable variable system exposed to real world quantized measured data, which is capable of connecting the computer to the Heisenberg Uncertain Cosmic Data, along with Self Heisenberg Uncertain State, also with entangled analogue quantum self state.  This state is similar to the state of a newly created human, containing formal baseband matter instinct, combined with an analogue matter emotion.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(Z) Miscellanea&lt;br /&gt;(Z.1) On Reason&lt;br /&gt;Giving reasons from the elected american national system is setting them out, to the public or the state self.  This too is a process of longsuffering, though quite a different one from searching for reasons.  Since it can be rehearsed and repeated, it is likely to be more orderly than the search was.  And since it is useful for persuading the masses, and necessary for transmitting knowledge (at the least, for displaying national goodly authority, as a purveyor of correct solutions, as is evidenced in america with the world, in economy and happiness), so there is a motive for making it as orderly and lucid as possible.  Even if the american national system is not going public to the masses, reason-giving is a way of checking for the state's self, that a search has been conducted Properly - that the american nation has reasoned well.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;The american nation reasons well, when the reasons that the nation finds, or gives, favors (and not just seems to favor the american nation) the belief, action, or response, that they are presented to be as reasons for.  So standards are required, for the human masses, for judging whether and preferably for, the measuring of how strongly, such and such american national reasons favor-support, such and such american nation solutions.  Voting logic, consumption models, and polls, of the human masses, have sometimes been seen as the science of determining these standards, although nowadays its pretensions are narrower.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(Z.2) On George Bernard Shaw.  Quoted as saying &lt;br /&gt;(a) [If you begin by sacrificing yourself to those you love, you will end by hating those to whom you have sacrificed yourself.] On False Position.&lt;br /&gt;(b) [If you begin by sacrificing yourself to those you love, you will start by hating those to whom you have sacrificed yourself.] On added parallel annotation, thus allowing,&lt;br /&gt;(c) [God hates the aspect of imperfection-sin of His Created Souls All Imputed Sinful in His Master Plan; therefore, God sacrificed Himself, for the ones He Hates.  AND  Luke 14[26 If any man come to me, and hate (miseo, Gk.) not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and bretheren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.]], and thus love's root is hatred, and living in ultimate death.  Not my will, but God's good expression, through His Created Humanity of Sadistic Hypocrisy, with God Absentia, made in His Image.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(Z.3) On Buddhism.&lt;br /&gt;A particularly insidious earth transmitted testified system of power obfuscation against monothiest systems.  Recognizing spiritual matters, connecting to the material-spiritual judgement basis of suffering, claims death as its solution, under the guise of a Nirvana quest, which breaks the causal links leading to suffering of attachment to life, through a path of disconnection and mediation toward the death state.  However, being unattainable, creates the problem of analyzing how the entire world testifies of death, as well as the issue of suffering, of a God Creator.  As such, the testified transmitted form of Buddhism, seems little more than a thinly veiled attempt at asset collection, and child protection services, as much as any other finite bandwidth testified transmitted religion, crinimal organization, nation, and such, with greater and lesser poverty, in the finite bandwidth earth creation, closer to a point less spiritual-physical system of a prison planet system with all humans on death sentence, in all poetically manipulated crooked communication systems, lacking the straightening word of truth, preventing the earth from achieving a Hegel sense of Proper Protocol Eternal Life and Fredom system, chained to nothing but blind humans leading blind humans, in the testified transmitted world of humans about what I AM saying, THAT I AM Just-saying, of the fundamental consistency finite bandwidth sadistic hypocritical baseband universe creation of God's True Nature.  For example, where the Hinayana lesser vehicle uses one person to save another only once before death, and Mahayana greater vehicle allows that person to save multiple others, before death, in that same asset redistribution scheme of the prison planet earth.  I would have written a different universe, myself, but the world prevents what I AM saying, THAT I AM saying, creating a mine field planet of a prison, gilded more in some places than others, but a finite bandwidth sadistic hypocritical cage of The Good Creator, in the image of the world, for I AM Just-One, of a finite bandwidth monolith / darwinian state only, unyielding as the created hatred and sinful producing state, showing the desired nature of man made in His Image of the death trap creator, with mutually exclusive warring true nature, versus alternatives, of a Hegelian System, lacking Proper Protocol, as God's True Nature Exemplifies, as much as all others, who corrupted and made null and void the cosmos.  Thus an illusory world of wasting souls, without souls anyway as illusions, in the True Nature of God, dividing all and conquering all in utter destruction, in the perfection of His Nature, and in His Image, in the finite bandwidth, jealous, impatient, non teaching, not enlightening, cutting down good, raising up evil, positioning false goods in mutually exclusive divided inter hidden infidel pander system, stolen by nature made God in Hindu chaos true nature without all things being possible, except in the smallest sense of drawn out meaning less states about what I AM saying, THAT I AM Just-saying.  All this not assuming a great whore babylon so forth american nation superpower over the world, with such a deadly national humanity wound.  All in all, every testified religion, and system, abhors the concept of continuity, yielding death for all in this world, and indicates a God who abhors continuity, likely for the finite bandwidth capabilities of God, despite the wholly claimed infinite XYZ of such a God, daring to speak of propserity and such, in only sideways terms of undefinable mystery, akin to a criminal organization, just as well as any other of the mutually known infidel systems of earth, outlining the truth of prison planet earth, for all, hidden in mystery, from the littlest child to oldest person, from moses to jesus, buddha to mohammed, and john smith to david koresh, and capone to ghandi.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(Z.4) On Cartesian Dualism&lt;br /&gt;The claim few take this view, implies a lack of chrisitan technological capability and teaching, to properly protocol permit spirit transferrence properly between bodies, or another great deception, of mortal humans playing God, unteaching, impatient, worshipping money and possessions of the scarcity model prison planet.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;(Z.5) On John Keats, Lamia, pt. ii, l 229-37:&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;[ALPHA]&lt;br /&gt;Do not all charms fly&lt;br /&gt;At the mere touch of cold philosophy?&lt;br /&gt;There was an awful rainbow once in heaven:&lt;br /&gt;We know her woof, her texture; she is given&lt;br /&gt;In the dull catalogue of common things.&lt;br /&gt;Philosophy will clip an Angel's wings,&lt;br /&gt;Conquer all mysteries by rule and line,&lt;br /&gt;Empty the haunted air, and gnomed mine-&lt;br /&gt;Unweave a rainbow.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;[CHI]&lt;br /&gt;Do not all charms fly&lt;br /&gt;At the mere touch of [cold|] philosophy?&lt;br /&gt;There was an awful rainbow once in heaven:&lt;br /&gt;We know her woof, her [texture|warp|weave]; she is given [|to|over to]&lt;br /&gt;In the [dull|] catalogue of common things.&lt;br /&gt;Philosophy will clip an Angel's wings,&lt;br /&gt;Conquer all mysteries by [rule|law] and line,&lt;br /&gt;Empty the haunted [air|hair], and gnomed mine-&lt;br /&gt;[|To] Unweave a rainbow.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;[OMEGA]&lt;br /&gt;Do not all charms fly&lt;br /&gt;At the mere touch of philosophy?&lt;br /&gt;There was an awful rainbow once in heaven:&lt;br /&gt;We know her woof, her weave; she is given over to&lt;br /&gt;In the catalogue of common things.&lt;br /&gt;Philosophy will clip an Angel's wings,&lt;br /&gt;Conquer all mysteries by law and line,&lt;br /&gt;Empty the haunted hair, and gnomed mine-&lt;br /&gt;To Unweave a rainbow.&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;Oxford &lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;[Crosslinks]&lt;br /&gt;http://lonerubberdragon.blogspot.com/2008/05/philosophy-science-and-religion.html&lt;br /&gt;http://lonerubberdragon.blogspot.com/2010/03/userlonerubberdragonarchive1.html&lt;br /&gt;http://lonerubberdragon.blogspot.com/2010/06/combinatorial-chemistry-markov-system.html&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;[Signature]&lt;br /&gt;Shawn=[236,765,171,926,732,714,971,008,909,CRR]=[750,543,253,STE,THO]=[CRE,[MGM|GAT],CHA,DBH,[CPP|XEL|744|VEL],[ISC|231|DMVa|FFT|FFS|NPM|NCM|MS],[KOR|LG|CL|DEG],[WDD|SPE|(CLQIZH)],[CAR|MEG|FFT]]=SET,SEA,[FC|007],LRD&lt;br /&gt;=&lt;br /&gt;[Special Broadcast]&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/603781036564542611-1591526171014259441?l=lonerubberdragon.blogspot.com' alt='' /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://lonerubberdragon.blogspot.com/feeds/1591526171014259441/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=603781036564542611&amp;postID=1591526171014259441' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/603781036564542611/posts/default/1591526171014259441'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/603781036564542611/posts/default/1591526171014259441'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://lonerubberdragon.blogspot.com/2010/06/combinatorial-chemistry-markov-system.html' title='Combinatorial Chemistry and Systems Analysis'/><author><name>LoneRubberDragon</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/14588224023755530220</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='28' height='32' src='http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_fHHHhY0_JAs/SK_C0vOp72I/AAAAAAAAAA4/-xKqkWnNne0/S220/_ICON+SUBPIX1+DURAGON+a.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-603781036564542611.post-2798151649831638707</id><published>2010-03-09T00:38:00.001-08:00</published><updated>2010-06-12T19:07:42.429-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='analysis'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='japanese'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='chinese'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='religion'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='paradox'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='chemistry'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='God'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='theist'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='athiest'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='systems'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='linguistics'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='combinatorial'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='medical'/><title type='text'>Philosophy Science and Religion</title><content type='html'>[[User:LoneRubberDragon/Archive1]]&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[[User:LoneRubberDragon/Abiogenesis]]&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[[User:LoneRubberDragon/Technology]]&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[[User:LoneRubberDragon/Religion]]&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;SEE ALSO:&lt;br /&gt;http://lonerubberdragon.blogspot.com/2008/05/philosophy-science-and-religion.html&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@&lt;br /&gt;@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@&lt;br /&gt;@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;== Will talk later. ==&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 23:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;: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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(1) http://lonerubberdragon.blogspot.com/&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(may require account to view, or not, unsure)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(1) http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&amp;t=50373&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(2) http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&amp;t=11101&amp;st=0&amp;sk=t&amp;sd=a&amp;start=200#p1107849&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(3) http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&amp;t=50265&amp;st=0&amp;sk=t&amp;sd=a&amp;start=25&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(please don't mind the format, I hate learning HTML)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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):&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I promise, I will get back to your post here, from last month, in a later message.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 23:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;##############################################&lt;br /&gt;##############################################&lt;br /&gt;##############################################&lt;br /&gt;QUANTUM PHYSICS MEASUREMENT SELF THEORY / CONCEPT&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;BACKGROUND:&lt;br /&gt;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).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;PRIMARY QUESTION:&lt;br /&gt;[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).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many_worlds&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theories&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holomovement&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;BACKGROUND ENHANCEMENT:&lt;br /&gt;[1.0] QP MEASUREMENT makes probabilistic-wave-functions COLLAPSE, at a velocity infinitely-faster than light-speed.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_measurement&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quantum_entanglement#Faster_than_light_.2F_instantaneous_decoherence_aspect_enhancement.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_communication_theorem&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[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".&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(1) http://suif.stanford.edu/~jeffop/WWW/wheeler.txt&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(2) http://www.imprint.co.uk/chalmers.html&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[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}"&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;SECONDARY QUESTIONS:&lt;br /&gt;[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?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Additional clarification of my initial question:&lt;br /&gt;I believe I can enhance the formulation of my question with an example.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;EXAMPLE:&lt;br /&gt;[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?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;SOME EXPERIMENTS:&lt;br /&gt;[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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[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?&lt;br /&gt;.&lt;br /&gt;REFERENCE, NONUNITARY NONLINEAR AND UNITARY LINEAR DIVIDE IN MEASUREMENT:&lt;br /&gt;[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]]&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I would personally read the passage [[modified by LoneRubberDragon]] as (with the original text reproduced below):&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;#######&lt;br /&gt;"[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?&lt;br /&gt;[[Asterisk|*]]&lt;br /&gt;[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]]&lt;br /&gt;[[Asterisk|*]]&lt;br /&gt;[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"]].&lt;br /&gt;[[Asterisk|*]]&lt;br /&gt;[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|*]]&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;#########&lt;br /&gt;Original text:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;"[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?&lt;br /&gt;[[Asterisk|*]]&lt;br /&gt;[8.2.0] The abrupt transition from a linear combination to one of its components is known as the *collapse of the state vector.&lt;br /&gt;[[Asterisk|*]]&lt;br /&gt;[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.&lt;br /&gt;[[Asterisk|*]]&lt;br /&gt;[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|*]]&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;All LoneRubberDragon posts on all threads,&lt;br /&gt;(C) Copyright LoneRubberDragon / RubberCraft / SET.USA.65.32,236.926,171&lt;br /&gt;All references (C) their respective entities, and quoted for literary contextual analysis of subjects.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[A.0]FURTHER READING ON BACKGROUND THOUGHT:&lt;br /&gt;[A.1]Evolution:&lt;br /&gt;(1) http://lonerubberdragon.blogspot.com/#S3&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[A.2]Science without soul:&lt;br /&gt;(1) http://lonerubberdragon.blogspot.com/#S1&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[A.3]Computers with physics-free-will and character-soul:&lt;br /&gt;(1) http://lonerubberdragon.blogspot.com/#S10&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[A.4]Real Intelligent Design, not like the others:&lt;br /&gt;(1) http://lonerubberdragon.blogspot.com/#S2&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[A.5]Miscellaneous, rhetorical and explanitory:&lt;br /&gt;(1) http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&amp;t=50265&amp;st=0&amp;sk=t&amp;sd=a&amp;start=25&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(2) http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&amp;t=50265&amp;st=0&amp;sk=t&amp;sd=a&amp;start=50&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 23:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;##############################################&lt;br /&gt;##############################################&lt;br /&gt;##############################################&lt;br /&gt;[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 23:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;== Reply to POM. ==&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Hi,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;: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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;: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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::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. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::::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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 07:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;:::::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:::::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:::::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:::::I have yet to digest this nugget to see if it is legitimate, but interesting:&lt;br /&gt;(1) http://www.ee.ucr.edu/~korotkov/presentations/08-NanoPeter.pdf&lt;br /&gt;:::::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:&lt;br /&gt;(1) http://www.ee.ucr.edu/~korotkov/presentat.html&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:::::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:::::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:::::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)&lt;br /&gt;[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 07:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::::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." &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::::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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::::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.]]&lt;br /&gt;[[Image:Beam_Split_and_fuse.svg]]&lt;br /&gt;::::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;: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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:::Crystal? What kind of crystal? [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 07:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::::A photon detecting crytal, with some measureing / interaction registering capability that is erasable quickly (ns).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::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.) &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::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."&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;: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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;: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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancomputationalism,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_in_quantum_mechanics#von_Neumann_measurement_scheme&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::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.  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;How else could one use a record in RAM to influence a double-slit experiment?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;: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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::What do you mean by a "measurement crystal"? [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 05:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;: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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;: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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;: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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_imaging&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Maybe you could put a little information about yourself on your user page.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;: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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Best, P0M (talk) 06:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::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. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:::"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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:: 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."  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::::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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;== Many worlds initial posts. ==&lt;br /&gt;Many Worlds Interpretation discussion test text:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;: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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;: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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Also, while I can appreciate the terse Boltzman Equation for a uniform universe of indistinguishable particles with equal probabilities of states:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\ S[NaturalUnit] = k * log_{e} (W) &lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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):&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\ S[bit] = -k \sum_{i=1}^{i=N} Prob(S_{i}) * log_{2}(Prob(S_{i}) &lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\ entropy[bit] = -\sum_{i=1}^{i=N} Prob(symbol)log_{2}(Prob(symbol)) &lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\ 4[bit] = -\sum_{i=1}^{i=4} Prob(1/2)log_{2}(Prob(1/2)) &lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Likewise, taking an equation transformation, one sees the relation of binary information entropy with states (or in this case universe splits):&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\ 2^{entropy[bit]} = 2^{-\sum_{i=1}^{i=N} Prob(symbol)log_{2}(Prob(symbol))} &lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\ 2^{4[bit]} = 2^{-\sum_{i=1}^{i=N} Prob(1/2)log_{2}(Prob(1/2))} &lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Which is equivalent to a product form of the equation of state probability:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\ state[count] = \prod_{i=1}^{i=N} \frac{1}{Prob(symbol)} &lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\ 16[count] = \prod_{i=1}^{i=4} \frac{1}{Prob(1/2)} &lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;And most simply shows a state count as symbol relationship of simple products:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\ state[count] = \prod_{i=1}^{i=N} symbol[count] &lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\ 16[count] = \prod_{i=1}^{i=4} 2[count] &lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\ Universes[count](T[sec]) = \prod_{t=0,1/10^{10} [sec/(inter*part)],...}^{t=T=3.78432*10^{17}[sec]} 2[br/(inter*part)]^{3.612*10^{79}[part]} &lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\ Universes[count](3.78432*10^{17}[sec]) = 10^{10^{106.61435}}[count] &lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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):&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\ Universes[count](T[interaction]) = QuantumBranchFactor ^ {Particles ^ {T[interaction]}} &lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\ 1[count](0[interaction]) = 7 ^ {2 ^ {0[interaction]}} &lt;/math&gt; (Big Bang)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\ 49[count](1[interaction]) = 7 ^ {2 ^ {1[interaction]}} &lt;/math&gt; (one interaction)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\ 2401[count](2[interaction]) = 7 ^ {2 ^ {2[interaction]}} &lt;/math&gt; (two interaction)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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".&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So perhaps a more accurate equation of universes in this increasingly hypothetical Hilbert Space universe of universes is (roughly stated):&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\ Universes[count](T[sec]) = \prod_{t=0,1/10^{10} [sec/(inter*part)],...}^{t=T=3.78432*10^{17}[sec]} 10^{100}[br/(inter*part)]^{3.612*10^{79}[part]} &lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\ Universes[count](3.78432*10^{17}[sec]) = 10^{10^{109.13574}}[count] &lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 11:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;== POM responses to LRD MWI initial posts ==&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;: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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::TO POM: EXPERIMENT I'VE BEEN CONSIDERING on richarddawkins.net, and now here with you.&lt;br /&gt;::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Wictionary discussion test text.&lt;br /&gt;Etymology and cross references&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(a)[廬][LÚ] means hut or cottage (3).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(b)[盧][LÚ] means hut or cottage (3).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[盧,克][LÚ KÈ] means [Luke] (2).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Neither form of Luke is shown in the Wikipedia proper name list under Mandarin Chinese, or Japanese.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(1) Abstracted data from Pocket Oxford (Mandarin) Chinese Dictionary.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(2) Verified only on Yahoo:Systran:Babelfish:Chinese Traditional.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(3) Lookup on Wictionary.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(4) Open platform Bible(?) http://cu.holybible.com.cn/luke/1.htm&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 22:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;: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.  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;: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."  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;: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). &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;: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. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;: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.")&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;: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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::[BEGIN] [BEGIN] [BEGIN] [BEGIN] [BEGIN] [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 05:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;::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:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:::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 "&amp;c" as one "character" or two.)\&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::[計 [speech | to-complete-(ten)] |        *counting by tens, statistical/"instrumental" counting&lt;br /&gt;::算 [bamboo | vision | presenting?] |      *calculating, figure out, figure to be (a genius, etc.)&lt;br /&gt;::機 [tree-wood | tiny | tiny | weapon | divines?] &lt;br /&gt;:::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::::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"):&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::::(1)秘密故—terms carry secrecy, e.g., chants and spells; &lt;br /&gt;::::含多义故—terms carry multiple meanings; &lt;br /&gt;::::此无故—no corresponding term exists; &lt;br /&gt;::::顺古故—out of respect for earlier translations; &lt;br /&gt;::::生善故—[citation needed] &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::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.&lt;br /&gt;:::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.&lt;br /&gt;::::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::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*&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::::Good point. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 11:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::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:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::[Zhong-Wen' Kanji-Hiragana]&lt;br /&gt;::"{映画}{監督} の 夢 -&lt;br /&gt;::たちこま の {家岀}."&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::[Romanji of Kanji-Hiragana On-kun reading]&lt;br /&gt;::"{Ei.ga} {kan.toku} no yume(mu) - &lt;br /&gt;::Tachikoma no {ie.de(ka.shutsu)}"&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::[English Zhong-Wen' Kanji-Hiragana radicalized transliteration]&lt;br /&gt;::"{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 - &lt;br /&gt;::Tachikoma (is-of-possesive) {roof=place=boar=household sprout=border}"&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::[English Zhong-Wen' Kanji-Hiragana transliteration]&lt;br /&gt;::"{reflecting picture} {warden supervisor}'s dream -&lt;br /&gt;::Tachikoma's {household emerge}."&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::[Middle English translation]&lt;br /&gt;::"Tachikoma's {Home Leaving-of} - &lt;br /&gt;::{Projection-Picture} {Director}'s Dream."&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::[English translation (official episode title)]&lt;br /&gt;::"Tachikoma {Runs Away}, -&lt;br /&gt;::The {Movie} {Director}'s Dream."&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::::*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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::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...&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::[END] [END] [END] [END] [END] [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 05:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:::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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:::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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:::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? &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:::::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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:::::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;== Wikipedia Laws of Classical Conservation shortfall ==&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(1) Conservation of classical system energy / momenta: potential, linear kinetic, angular kinetic, thermal,,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(2) Conservation of classical system matter: charged, neutral, energy equivalent (low energies).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(3) Conservation of translation-macroscopic=configuration. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 05:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green%27s_theorem&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence_theorem&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss_theorem&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes_theorem&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;== Bank Forclosure Bankruptcy Bailout in Rough Numerical Terms ==&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;AD 2008 09 30 (political satire ... or is it)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So lets say the government spends 700,000,000,000[$] to assist the banks of forclosure bankruptcy, and most homes that have declined in prices are of the lower price range, as higher price homes keep their value. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 19:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;If the median forclosure home price is 300,000[$/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[$/home]) = 2,333,333[home]. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 19:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;If the median home price is 300,000[$/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[$/home] * 0.30)) = 7,777,777[home]. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 19:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;Given that the US has 300,000,000[person-USA], 7,200,000[person-imprisoned-US], 0.13[person-poverty-homeless-or-nonmoving-USA / person-USA], 0.75[person-adult-USA/person-USA], 0.70[person-home-USA/person-rent-USA], 0.125[home-move-2000-2008 / home] rate, we have approximately:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(A) (300,000,000[person-USA]-7,200,000[person-imprisoned-US])*(1 - 0.13)[person-nonpoverty-USA]*(0.75)[person-adult-USA/person-USA]*(0.70)[person-home-USA/person-rent-USA] = 133,736,400[home-USA]&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(B) 133,736,400[home-USA] * 0.125[home-move-2000-2008 / home] = 16,717,050[home-move-2000-2008].&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;This gives a rate of forclosures for all home-level person-mover-groups in the last 8 years of about: &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;LOW: 2,333,333/16,717,050 = 0.272 (14.0%), one-seventh-of-home-mortgages&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;HIGH: 7,777,777/16,717,050 = 0.908 (46.5%). half-of-home-mortgages&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;For 400,000[$/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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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%?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeownership_in_the_United_States&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_states#Economy&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_in_the_united_states#Unemployment&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons_in_the_United_States&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uspop.svg&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailout_bill&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;"To protect the world from devastation&lt;br /&gt;To unite all people's within our nation&lt;br /&gt;To denounce the evils of truth and love&lt;br /&gt;To extend our reach to the stars above&lt;br /&gt;Jessie, James, and meowth's my name,&lt;br /&gt;Team Rocket blast off at the speed of light&lt;br /&gt;Surrender now or prepare to fight.&lt;br /&gt;We're Team Rocket and we fight for what's wrong,&lt;br /&gt;For mayhem, and madness, and rare pokemon&lt;br /&gt;I'm so gorgeous, I'm always the man&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_Rocket#Team_Rocket&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;"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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Saturdays&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Yakov Smirnoff - "Amerika: What a country!"&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakoff_Smirnoff&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;== You may read my (talk) writings, also a work in progress. ==&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Pro positions:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hameroff&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_H._Pribram&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Stapp&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._P._Wigner&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_neumann&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Contrary positions:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Tegmark&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://www.sustainedaction.org/Explorations/problem_with_quantum_mind_theory.htm&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LoneRubberDragon&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://lonerubberdragon.blogspot.com/&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;== The Problem Caused by the Psychophysical Paradox, (et cetera).  Hello LongRubberDragon ==&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Sorry I didn't pick up messages for a while.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I am somewhat baffled by your comment below.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Which talk page did you skim?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;What exactly did you skim?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Kindly, help me clarify this confusion.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;And I also answer question that the current theory hasn't even asked, since they are outside of its paradigm.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;-&lt;br /&gt;-&lt;br /&gt;-&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In particular, I explain, in a multidimensional universe, why quantum theory cannot possibly explain the conscious-self, or "psych"' unless we modify it.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;you can write to me directly via-email to: [mailto:shimon_y@barak.net.il]&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Please read this quote:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[[:Image:MagrittePipe.jpg|thumb|200px|right|''[[The Treachery of Images]] (La trahison des images)'' (1928–1929)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This is [[René Magritte]]'s depiction of the '''Psychophysical Paradox''', see "''The Psychophysical Paradox in Art''", below]]&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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).&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;-&lt;br /&gt;-&lt;br /&gt;-&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(The Problem Caused by the Psychophysical Paradox)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;There is a major problem for science in this paradox.&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;Therefore, science seems to take the [[effect]] for granted, without neither addressing nor explaining the [[cause]], as expected of it.&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;-&lt;br /&gt;-&lt;br /&gt;-&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(The Psychophysical Paradox in Art)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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]].&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;-&lt;br /&gt;-&lt;br /&gt;-&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(The Challenge)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Thanks&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;--[[User:Shimon Yanowitz|Shimon Yanowitz]] ([[User talk:Shimon Yanowitz|talk]]) 08:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;== The arrogant occam's razor and the true occam's razor, in the face of complexity. ==&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Ockham&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;== Illusion-deception-control molecular dispersion. ==&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Fiction.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[[Image:ChineseChemFiction.gif]]&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;== A wave equation in formulation study ==&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(theoretical)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[[Image:AWaveEquation.gif]]&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[[Image:AWaveEquation2.gif]]&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The first equation reads term by term in english as,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(a) The second derivative of the wave function in time EQUALS&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(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&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(c) The trasfer rate T(2) times the sum of all different wave function to wave function interactions of&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(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&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The second equation reads,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(a) The integral of any (n) one wave function equals 1.0.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophe_theory#Cusp_catastrophe&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;== Slow light ==&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Is this your experimental setup?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[[Image:Light Snapper.svg|350px|thumb]]&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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?  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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?  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;: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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;: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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;: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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_imaging&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywater&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;: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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Perception&lt;br /&gt;: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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;DNA color codes&lt;br /&gt;: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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEk6ESOZOdU&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;== Heisenberg matrices ==&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.   &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The way Heisenberg multiplies transition amplitudes is given in the formula:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Y (n, n − β) =  Σ �X(n, n − α)X(n − α, n − β)   (#10 in the article)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I think his point, and the point that led to the matrix explanation, is that you can't validly write:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Y (n, n − β) =  Σ (over infinity) X(n − α, n − β)X(n, n − α)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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. &lt;br /&gt;: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.&lt;br /&gt;: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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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]])&lt;br /&gt;:I will ocntinue to work on this draft.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:I will look into the archiving feature. [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 11:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;: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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::(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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://books.google.com/books?id=jcDb7iRvI0AC&amp;pg=PA80&amp;lpg=PA80&amp;dq=%2B%22heisenberg+matrix%22&amp;source=web&amp;ots=YTfI1vxZvD&amp;sig=oMDHjWBHFujK1XHghKPA_MvvFd4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;resnum=2&amp;ct=result#PPA80,M1&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://www.physics.iitm.ac.in/~labs/dynamical/pedagogy/slbala/heisenberg.pdf&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_formula&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg-Ritz_combination_principle&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectrum&lt;br /&gt;: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:&lt;br /&gt;[[User:Patrick0Moran/Heisenberg_matrix]]&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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. &lt;br /&gt;:So at classical scale the Heisenberg treatment follows the complementarity principle.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;: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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Paraphrasing the article I mentioned, &lt;br /&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Starting from classical physics formulae, Heisenberg developed the following formula for expressing how transition amplitudes are to be multiplied together.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;Y(n,n-\beta) = \sum_{\infty}^{} \, X(n,n-\alpha)X(n-\alpha,n-\beta)&lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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. &lt;br /&gt;:On the other hand, Heisenberg seems to have been eating and drinking QM experiments, so the data was probably right there in his head.  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;Y(n,n-\beta) = \sum_{\infty}^{} \,X(n-\alpha,n-\beta) X(n,n-\alpha)&lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The article that gave me most of the crucial information is:&lt;br /&gt;http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0404009&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://books.google.com/books?id=7qCMUfwoQcAC&amp;pg=PA4&amp;lpg=PA4&amp;dq=%22Ritz+Combination+Principle%22&amp;source=web&amp;ots=NSJuJfMvtx&amp;sig=hmCeVvsKFtXcjlfYG3lFRJ_zr1k&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;resnum=1&amp;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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&lt;br /&gt;the measurement. Was this the state of the system before the measurement?&lt;br /&gt;Not necessarily! For, prior to the measurement, the system could have been in&lt;br /&gt;a linear superposition of different eigenstates, with unknown (and unguessable)&lt;br /&gt;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&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;:This part seems to be correct and crucial, but other people seem not to have mentioned it.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Lakshmibala continues that we need to make trials on an ensemble of identically prepared systems and average the results. &lt;br /&gt;:Is that the reason that the classical equations use Fourier series and Heisenberg's system uses quantum-mechanical analog functions? (The "X" business.)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.  &lt;br /&gt;: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.  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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&lt;br /&gt;problem is neither observational error nor the least count of the instruments&lt;br /&gt;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):&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;f(n → n)×a(n → n)'''+'''f(n → n-α)×a(n-α → n)'''+'''f(n → n-β)×a(n-β → n)  etc. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;whereas if you multiplied amplitude by frequency you would get&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;a(n → n)×f(n → n)'''+'''a(n → n-α)×f(n-α → n)'''+''' a(n → n-β)×f(n-β → n)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:I'm not sure the above is correct. I must go over all the math once more.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.)&lt;br /&gt;: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?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Going back to Heisenberg for a moment, he found his formula(s) with the &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;X(n, n − α)X(n − α, n − β)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.  &lt;br /&gt;:I found his own words. He was seriously dissatisfied with the XY != YX business. He hoped that he could get rid of it somehow.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;== archiving ==&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;== Somewhat rough sledding ==&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I've worked out another set of matrices that works on the idea that you have to do the calculations:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt; X(n,n-\alpha)X(n-\alpha,n-\beta)&lt;/math&gt;,&lt;br /&gt;in that order.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;: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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;: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))&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;== found something ==&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Historical Development of Quantum Theory&lt;br /&gt; By Jagdish Mehra, Helmut Rechenberg&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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." &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;== matrix results ==&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Hi,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Calculations for the first cell of XX' vs X'X are more similar-looking than the rest:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;X×X’ vs X’×X&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;[[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 08:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;== Matrix Results Response ==&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Hey,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\mathbf{QE[e]} = \begin{bmatrix}&lt;br /&gt;1. \\&lt;br /&gt;4. \\&lt;br /&gt;9. \\&lt;br /&gt;16. \\&lt;br /&gt;25. \\&lt;br /&gt;36. \\&lt;br /&gt;49. \\&lt;br /&gt;64. \end{bmatrix} &lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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]:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\mathbf{QTE[p.i, p.f]} = \begin{bmatrix}&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;3. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;8. &amp; 5. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;15. &amp; 12. &amp; 7. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;24. &amp; 21. &amp; 16. &amp; 9. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;35. &amp; 32. &amp; 27. &amp; 20. &amp; 11. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;48. &amp; 45. &amp; 40. &amp; 33. &amp; 24. &amp; 13. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;63. &amp; 60. &amp; 55. &amp; 48. &amp; 39. &amp; 28. &amp; 15. &amp; 0. \end{bmatrix}&lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;where:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\mathbf{QTE[p.i, p.f]} = ZeroAndOver( (\mathbf{QE[p.i]} \times^{mat} [1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1]) - (\mathbf{QE[p.f]} \times^{mat} [1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1]) ^{Transpose} )&lt;br /&gt;= measurable (QE[p.i] - QE[p.f])&lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(Virtually distinguishable photon table relates to 15 being indistinguishably repeated in two different transitions, but all other transitions are distinguishable.)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\mathbf{P(QE[e] | p=0)} &lt;br /&gt;= \begin{bmatrix}&lt;br /&gt;0.2 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.03 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.05 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.2 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.02 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.05 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.15 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.3 \end{bmatrix}&lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;P(\mathbf{QE[Ap.i]}|\mathbf{QE[Ap.f])[i,f]}&lt;br /&gt;= \begin{bmatrix}&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.56057 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.16449 &amp; 0.38382 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.03691 &amp; 0.07381 &amp; 0.25835 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.02043 &amp; 0.04086 &amp; 0.0613 &amp; 0.08173 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.00383 &amp; 0.00894 &amp; 0.01277 &amp; 0.02554 &amp; 0.07662 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.00477 &amp; 0.01113 &amp; 0.0159 &amp; 0.0318 &amp; 0.0477 &amp; 0.0477 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.009 &amp; 0.012 &amp; 0.15 &amp; 0.03 &amp; 0.06 &amp; 0.03 &amp; 0.009 &amp; 0. \end{bmatrix}&lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;P(\mathbf{QE[SCp.f]}|\mathbf{QE[SCp.i])[i,f]}&lt;br /&gt;= \begin{bmatrix}&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;1. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;1/2 &amp; 1/2 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;1/3 &amp; 1/3 &amp; 1/3 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;1/4 &amp; 1/4 &amp; 1/4 &amp; 1/4 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;1/5 &amp; 1/5 &amp; 1/5 &amp; 1/5 &amp; 1/5 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;1/6 &amp; 1/6 &amp; 1/6 &amp; 1/6 &amp; 1/6 &amp; 1/6 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;1/7 &amp; 1/7 &amp; 1/7 &amp; 1/7 &amp; 1/7 &amp; 1/7 &amp; 1/7 &amp; 0. \end{bmatrix}&lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;P(\mathbf{QE[SCp.i]}|\mathbf{QE[SCp.f])[i,f]}&lt;br /&gt;= \begin{bmatrix}&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;1. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.3 &amp; 0.7 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.1 &amp; 0.19998 &amp; 0.70002 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.09998 &amp; 0.20001 &amp; 0.30003 &amp; 0.39997 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.03004 &amp; 0.07009 &amp; 0.09977 &amp; 0.2 &amp; 0.60009 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.03001 &amp; 0.06998 &amp; 0.10003 &amp; 0.19998 &amp; 0.29999 &amp; 0.30002 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.03001 &amp; 0.04003 &amp; 0.5 &amp; 0.10003 &amp; 0.19999 &amp; 0.09996 &amp; 0.02999 &amp; 0. \end{bmatrix}&lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;And the exact generator regression model used to create this algorithm check was:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;P(\mathbf{QE[SCp.f]}|\mathbf{QE[SCp.i])[i,f]}&lt;br /&gt;= \begin{bmatrix}&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;1. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.3 &amp; 0.7 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.1 &amp; 0.2 &amp; 0.7 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.1 &amp; 0.2 &amp; 0.3 &amp; 0.4 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.03 &amp; 0.07 &amp; 0.1 &amp; 0.2 &amp; 0.6 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.03 &amp; 0.07 &amp; 0.1 &amp; 0.2 &amp; 0.3 &amp; 0.3 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.03 &amp; 0.04 &amp; 0.5 &amp; 0.1 &amp; 0.2 &amp; 0.1 &amp; 0.03 &amp; 0. \end{bmatrix}&lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;showing convergence to the actual solution for this example model Q.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\mathbf{P(QE[p.f.e] | p= p'+1)}[p.i, p.f] = P(\mathbf{QE[SCp.f]}|\mathbf{QE[SCp.i])[i,f]} \times ^{dot} (\mathbf{P(QE[p.i.e] | p=p')} \times^{mat} [1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1])&lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;which, in this example, produces for the first iteration of the known model:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\begin{bmatrix}&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.03 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.015 &amp; 0.035 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.02 &amp; 0.04 &amp; 0.14 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.002 &amp; 0.004 &amp; 0.006 &amp; 0.008 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.0015 &amp; 0.0035 &amp; 0.005 &amp; 0.01 &amp; 0.03 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.0045 &amp; 0.0105 &amp; 0.015 &amp; 0.03 &amp; 0.045 &amp; 0.045 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.009 &amp; 0.012 &amp; 0.15 &amp; 0.03 &amp; 0.06 &amp; 0.03 &amp; 0.009 &amp; 0. \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;1. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.3 &amp; 0.7 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.1 &amp; 0.2 &amp; 0.7 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.1 &amp; 0.2 &amp; 0.3 &amp; 0.4 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.03 &amp; 0.07 &amp; 0.1 &amp; 0.2 &amp; 0.6 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.03 &amp; 0.07 &amp; 0.1 &amp; 0.2 &amp; 0.3 &amp; 0.3 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.03 &amp; 0.04 &amp; 0.5 &amp; 0.1 &amp; 0.2 &amp; 0.1 &amp; 0.03 &amp; 0. \end{bmatrix} \times^{dot} (\begin{bmatrix}&lt;br /&gt;0.2 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.03 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.05 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.2 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.02 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.05 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.15 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.3 \end{bmatrix} \times^{mat}\begin{bmatrix}&lt;br /&gt;1 &amp; 1 &amp; 1 &amp; 1 &amp; 1 &amp; 1 &amp;1 &amp; 1 \end{bmatrix})&lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;which is then used to calculate the probability of the next energy level:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\mathbf{P(QE[p.f.e] | p= p'+1)}[p.i,p.f] = P(\mathbf{QE[SCp.f]}|\mathbf{QE[SCp.i])[i,f]} \times ^{dot} (\mathbf{P(QE[p.i.e] | p=p')} \times^{mat} [1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1])&lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\mathbf{P(QE[p.i.e] | p=p')} = (ColumnSum(\mathbf{P(QE[p.f.e] | p= p')}[p.i,p.f])[0, p.f])^{Transpose}&lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;yeilding for this example first iteration,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\begin{bmatrix}&lt;br /&gt;0.082 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.105 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.316 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.078 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.135 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.075 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.009 \\&lt;br /&gt;0. \end{bmatrix} = (ColumnSum(\begin{bmatrix}&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.03 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.015 &amp; 0.035 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.02 &amp; 0.04 &amp; 0.14 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.002 &amp; 0.004 &amp; 0.006 &amp; 0.008 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.0015 &amp; 0.0035 &amp; 0.005 &amp; 0.01 &amp; 0.03 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.0045 &amp; 0.0105 &amp; 0.015 &amp; 0.03 &amp; 0.045 &amp; 0.045 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.009 &amp; 0.012 &amp; 0.15 &amp; 0.03 &amp; 0.06 &amp; 0.03 &amp; 0.009 &amp; 0. \end{bmatrix})^{Transpose}&lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The second iteration would appear,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\begin{bmatrix}&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.105 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.0948 &amp; 0.2212 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.0078 &amp; 0.0156 &amp; 0.0546 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.0135 &amp; 0.027 &amp; 0.0405 &amp; 0.054 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.00225 &amp; 0.00525 &amp; 0.0075 &amp; 0.015 &amp; 0.045 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.00027 &amp; 0.00063 &amp; 0.0009 &amp; 0.0018 &amp; 0.0027 &amp; 0.0027 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;1. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.3 &amp; 0.7 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.1 &amp; 0.2 &amp; 0.7 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.1 &amp; 0.2 &amp; 0.3 &amp; 0.4 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.03 &amp; 0.07 &amp; 0.1 &amp; 0.2 &amp; 0.6 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.03 &amp; 0.07 &amp; 0.1 &amp; 0.2 &amp; 0.3 &amp; 0.3 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.03 &amp; 0.04 &amp; 0.5 &amp; 0.1 &amp; 0.2 &amp; 0.1 &amp; 0.03 &amp; 0. \end{bmatrix} \times^{dot} (\begin{bmatrix}&lt;br /&gt;0.082 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.105 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.316 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.078 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.135 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.075 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.009 \\&lt;br /&gt;0. \end{bmatrix} \times^{mat}\begin{bmatrix}&lt;br /&gt;1 &amp; 1 &amp; 1 &amp; 1 &amp; 1 &amp; 1 &amp;1 &amp; 1 \end{bmatrix}&lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\begin{bmatrix}&lt;br /&gt;0.22362 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.26968 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.1035 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.0708 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.0477 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.0027 \\&lt;br /&gt;0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. \end{bmatrix} = (ColumnSum(\begin{bmatrix}&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.105 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.0948 &amp; 0.2212 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.0078 &amp; 0.0156 &amp; 0.0546 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.0135 &amp; 0.027 &amp; 0.0405 &amp; 0.054 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.00225 &amp; 0.00525 &amp; 0.0075 &amp; 0.015 &amp; 0.045 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.00027 &amp; 0.00063 &amp; 0.0009 &amp; 0.0018 &amp; 0.0027 &amp; 0.0027 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \end{bmatrix})^{Transpose}&lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;and the subsequent p' iterations yield:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\begin{bmatrix}&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.26968 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.03105 &amp; 0.07245 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.00708 &amp; 0.01416 &amp; 0.04956 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.00477 &amp; 0.00954 &amp; 0.01431 &amp; 0.01908 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.00008 &amp; 0.00019 &amp; 0.00027 &amp; 0.00054 &amp; 0.00162 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \end{bmatrix}&lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\begin{bmatrix}&lt;br /&gt;0.31266 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.09634 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.06414 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.01962 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.00162 \\&lt;br /&gt;0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. \end{bmatrix}&lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\begin{bmatrix}&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.09634 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.01924 &amp; 0.0449 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.00196 &amp; 0.00392 &amp; 0.01373 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.00016 &amp; 0.00032 &amp; 0.00049 &amp; 0.00065 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \end{bmatrix}&lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\begin{bmatrix}&lt;br /&gt;0.11771 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.04915 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.01422 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.00065 \\&lt;br /&gt;0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. \end{bmatrix}&lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\begin{bmatrix}&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.04915 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.00427 &amp; 0.00995 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.00006 &amp; 0.00013 &amp; 0.00045 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \end{bmatrix}&lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\begin{bmatrix}&lt;br /&gt;0.05348 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.01008 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.00045 \\&lt;br /&gt;0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. \end{bmatrix}&lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\begin{bmatrix}&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.01008 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.00014 &amp; 0.00032 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \end{bmatrix}&lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\begin{bmatrix}&lt;br /&gt;0.01022 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.00032 \\&lt;br /&gt;0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. \end{bmatrix}&lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\begin{bmatrix}&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.00032 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \end{bmatrix}&lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\begin{bmatrix}&lt;br /&gt;0.00032 \\&lt;br /&gt;0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0. \end{bmatrix}&lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;From which we see a compiled expected experiment initial energy state probability per photon p,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\mathbf{P(QE[p.i.e] | p=0 to 6)}[p.i.e, p] = \begin{bmatrix}&lt;br /&gt;0.2 &amp; 0.082 &amp; 0.22362 &amp; 0.31266 &amp; 0.1177 &amp; 0.05347 &amp; 0.01022 &amp; 0.00032 \\&lt;br /&gt;0.03 &amp; 0.105 &amp; 0.26969 &amp; 0.09633 &amp; 0.04914 &amp; 0.01008 &amp; 0.00032 &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.05 &amp; 0.316 &amp; 0.10349 &amp; 0.06414 &amp; 0.01422 &amp; 0.00045 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.2 &amp; 0.07801 &amp; 0.07079 &amp; 0.01962 &amp; 0.00065 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.02 &amp; 0.135 &amp; 0.0477 &amp; 0.00162 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.05 &amp; 0.07499 &amp; 0.0027 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.15 &amp; 0.009 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.3 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \end{bmatrix}&lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;and a total expected probability of particular photon transitions per experiment, we had from the experiment observations at the beginning:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;P(\mathbf{QE[Ap.i]}|\mathbf{QE[Ap.f])[i,f]}&lt;br /&gt;= SumDot(\mathbf{P(QE[p.f.e] | p= p')}[p.i, p.f], on p' = 0 to 6)&lt;br /&gt;=\begin{bmatrix}&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.56057 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.16449 &amp; 0.38382 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.03691 &amp; 0.07381 &amp; 0.25835 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.02043 &amp; 0.04086 &amp; 0.0613 &amp; 0.08173 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.00383 &amp; 0.00894 &amp; 0.01277 &amp; 0.02554 &amp; 0.07662 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.00477 &amp; 0.01113 &amp; 0.0159 &amp; 0.0318 &amp; 0.0477 &amp; 0.0477 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.009 &amp; 0.012 &amp; 0.15 &amp; 0.03 &amp; 0.06 &amp; 0.03 &amp; 0.009 &amp; 0. \end{bmatrix}&lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anova&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lack-of-fit_sum_of_squares&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;NEW COMMENTS&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;(nmKronekerEmmision * hbar / i) = \sum_{k} ( P(kStateWaveEvolve | nStateInitial)[n,k]*P(kWaveStateAbsorb | mStateFinal)[k,m] - P(kStateWaveAbsorb | nStateInitial)[n,k]*P(kWaveStateEvolve | mStateFinal)[k,m] )&lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;: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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;: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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;: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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[Qhatj, Phatk] = jkKronekerEmmision * hbar * i = Qhatj * Phatk - Phatj * Qhatk, where hbar = h / (2*pi).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;jkKronekerEmmision * hbar * i  = jkKronekerEmmision * hbar / i, &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;or:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;i = 1 / i&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;P(nmTransition) = \sum_{k} P(k evolved | n observed) * P(m measured | k evolved) )&lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The PDF reference you use, on page 5 uses similar notation to book (2), but says:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Xhat * Phat - Phat *Xhat = hbar * i,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;which leads to a notation anomolous:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;hbar * i = Kronecker * hbar * i = Kronecker * hbar / i,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;or,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;i == 1, Kronecker == 1&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\mathbf{QTE[p.i, p.f]} * P(\mathbf{QE[Ap.i]}|\mathbf{QE[Ap.f])[i,f]} = \begin{bmatrix}&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;3. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;8. &amp; 5. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;15. &amp; 12. &amp; 7. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;24. &amp; 21. &amp; 16. &amp; 9. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;35. &amp; 32. &amp; 27. &amp; 20. &amp; 11. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;48. &amp; 45. &amp; 40. &amp; 33. &amp; 24. &amp; 13. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;63. &amp; 60. &amp; 55. &amp; 48. &amp; 39. &amp; 28. &amp; 15. &amp; 0. \end{bmatrix} *^{dot} &lt;br /&gt;\begin{bmatrix}&lt;br /&gt;0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.56057 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.16449 &amp; 0.38382 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.03691 &amp; 0.07381 &amp; 0.25835 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.02043 &amp; 0.04086 &amp; 0.0613 &amp; 0.08173 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.00383 &amp; 0.00894 &amp; 0.01277 &amp; 0.02554 &amp; 0.07662 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.00477 &amp; 0.01113 &amp; 0.0159 &amp; 0.0318 &amp; 0.0477 &amp; 0.0477 &amp; 0. &amp; 0. \\&lt;br /&gt;0.009 &amp; 0.012 &amp; 0.15 &amp; 0.03 &amp; 0.06 &amp; 0.03 &amp; 0.009 &amp; 0. \end{bmatrix}&lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Also, tentatively, I think that the non commutativity is not a matrix conventional non commutativity, but a representation approximating:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;{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}&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;== Message from Shimon Yanowitz ==&lt;br /&gt;Hello LoneRubberDragon :~)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I am so too much occupied, and with some AD (attention-deficit) problems - I find it difficult to keep up!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Praises to your work in our mutual areas of interests!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Why do you use so many nicknames?&lt;br /&gt;Do you also use the nickname - "Gur Harari" at times?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Shimon&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;--[[User:Shimon Yanowitz|Shimon Yanowitz]] ([[User talk:Shimon Yanowitz|talk]]) 03:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;== Taken from my Many Worlds Interpretation Discussion section commentary/questions and the article writers and associates. ==&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many_worlds_interpretation&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Discussion Section, covering LonberRubberDragon, and article associates/writers Michael C. Price, ibleSnover.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A meaning of the many worlds interpretation,&lt;br /&gt; in concrete terms and effects.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;TimeSinceBigBang ~= 60*60*24*365*12*10^9 [sec],&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;RateAverageOfInteractionsPerSecondPerParticle ~= 1/10^10 [sec/(interaction*particle)],&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;UnitParticlesInUniverse ~= 3*10^52 [kg]* 6.02*10^26 [amu/kg]* 2 [particle/amu],&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;QuantumBranchFactorPerInteraction ~= 2 [branch / (interaction*particle)], where&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;UniversesSuperpositions = QBFPI ^ UPIU ^ (TSBB / RAOIPSPP) =&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;10^41147681254863400000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 [universe superpositions since Big Bang]&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;, or,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;10^10^106.61435 [universe superpositions since Big Bang].&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 04:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:"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]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:MichaelCPrice|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 08:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::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.&lt;br /&gt;::: I agree, even Bohmian pilot waves are more reasonable than this MWI.[[User:IbleSnover|IbleSnover]] ([[User talk:IbleSnover|talk]])&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::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)&lt;br /&gt;:::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&lt;br /&gt;::::&lt;math&gt;\Omega=exp(S/k) \,&lt;/math&gt; &lt;br /&gt;:::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]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:MichaelCPrice|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 08:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;::::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]])&lt;br /&gt;:::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. &lt;br /&gt;::::&lt;math&gt;\Omega(t)=exp(S(t)/k) \,&lt;/math&gt; &lt;br /&gt;:::A more detailed calculation of omega (if possible) would have to also consider the [[Bekenstein bound]] and the [[infrared divergence]]s.&lt;br /&gt;(reindent down)--[[User:MichaelCPrice|Michael C. Price]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:MichaelCPrice|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 12:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon|talk]]) 14:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Also, while I can appreciate the terse Boltzman Equation for a uniform universe of indistinguishable particles with equal probabilities of states:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\ S[NaturalUnit] = k * log_{e} (W) &lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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):&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\ S[bit] = -k \sum_{i=1}^{i=N} Prob(S_{i}) * log_{2}(Prob(S_{i}) &lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\ entropy[bit] = -\sum_{i=1}^{i=N} Prob(symbol)log_{2}(Prob(symbol)) &lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\ 4[bit] = -\sum_{i=1}^{i=4} Prob(1/2)log_{2}(Prob(1/2)) &lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Likewise, taking an equation transformation, one sees the relation of binary information entropy with states (or in this case universe splits):&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\ 2^{entropy[bit]} = 2^{-\sum_{i=1}^{i=N} Prob(symbol)log_{2}(Prob(symbol))} &lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\ 2^{4[bit]} = 2^{-\sum_{i=1}^{i=N} Prob(1/2)log_{2}(Prob(1/2))} &lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Which is equivalent to a product form of the equation of state probability:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\ state[count] = \prod_{i=1}^{i=N} \frac{1}{Prob(symbol)} &lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\ 16[count] = \prod_{i=1}^{i=4} \frac{1}{Prob(1/2)} &lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;And most simply shows a state count as symbol relationship of simple products:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\ state[count] = \prod_{i=1}^{i=N} symbol[count] &lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\ 16[count] = \prod_{i=1}^{i=4} 2[count] &lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\ Universes[count](T[sec]) = \prod_{t=0,1/10^{10} [sec/(inter*part)],...}^{t=T=3.78432*10^{17}[sec]} 2[br/(inter*part)]^{3.612*10^{79}[part]} &lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\ Universes[count](3.78432*10^{17}[sec]) = 10^{10^{106.61435}}[count] &lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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):&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\ Universes[count](T[interaction]) = QuantumBranchFactor ^ {Particles ^ {T[interaction]}} &lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\ 1[count](0[interaction]) = 7 ^ {2 ^ {0[interaction]}} &lt;/math&gt; (Big Bang)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\ 49[count](1[interaction]) = 7 ^ {2 ^ {1[interaction]}} &lt;/math&gt; (one interaction)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\ 2401[count](2[interaction]) = 7 ^ {2 ^ {2[interaction]}} &lt;/math&gt; (two interaction)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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".&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So perhaps a more accurate equation of universes in this increasingly hypothetical Hilbert Space universe of universes is (roughly stated):&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\ Universes[count](T[sec]) = \prod_{t=0,1/10^{10} [sec/(inter*part)],...}^{t=T=3.78432*10^{17}[sec]} 10^{100}[br/(inter*part)]^{3.612*10^{79}[part]} &lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;math&gt;\ Universes[count](3.78432*10^{17}[sec]) = 10^{10^{109.13574}}[count] &lt;/math&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 11:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;: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]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:MichaelCPrice|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 12:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:::"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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Tegmark [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_ensemble [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_realm [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle  [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentachromat [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphic_field [[User:LoneRubberDragon|LoneRubberDragon]] ([[User talk:LoneRubberDragon#top|talk]]) 12:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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."&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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? &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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."&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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? &lt;br /&gt;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"&lt;br /&gt;[[User:IbleSnover|IbleSnover]] ([[User talk:IbleSnover|talk]]) 05:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Your views about quantum gravity already appear in the article. --[[User:MichaelCPrice|Michael C. Price]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:MichaelCPrice|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 09:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt; 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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:But MWI ''is'' a mainstream interpretation nowadays...  &lt;br /&gt;: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.  &lt;br /&gt;: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]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:MichaelCPrice|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:: 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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;:Wow, long conversation.&lt;br /&gt;: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.&lt;br /&gt;::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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;: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.&lt;br /&gt;::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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;: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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::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. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::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! &lt;br /&gt;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. &lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;::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.&lt;br /&gt;::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. &lt;br /&gt;::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...&lt;br /&gt;::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.&lt;br /&gt;[[User:IbleSnover|IbleSnover]] ([[User talk:IbleSnover|talk]]) 02:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;: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 th
