I don’t know how it would work mathematically. But I consider imaginary time as time operating in distinct pockets, similar to a subroutine on a parallel processor that can spit out results seemingly instantaneously to the host program but only because it’s “black boxed” and otherwise disconnected to the main flow of time except for simultaneously input/output connection.

I don’t know how it would work mathematically. But I consider imaginary time as time operating in distinct pockets, similar to a subroutine on a parallel processor that can spit out results seemingly instantaneously to the host program but only because it’s “black boxed” and otherwise disconnected to the main flow of time except for simultaneously input/output connection.

——

reset-what-was-possibl

—–

Not so much concurrent. More akin to operating in a negative pressure environment vs a positive pressure environment but instead of pressure it’s time.

=====

How does negative pressure intersect with the positive pressure in a jet?

—-

38

—-

REALLY think about it. Imaginary time as pressure regulation. I know this is Bernoulli etc.

—–

Now if we had no access to the pressure regulating tubes, no knowledge of them and only knew of the jet flow (time),

How could we show the existence of pressure regulation if we had no concept of negative pressure? No concept of a complex plane running perpendictular? It would be absurd. Jet’s flow and that’s what they do.

======

Eh, I have a pressure analogy in my head where I want to show how you can have fast moving in one direction with almost zero movement in the perpendicular direction such that the perpendicular direction can be safely ignored most of the time whereby that perpendicular direction _can_ map to the flow it intersects with but it can also perform other functions that are nearly invisible to the flow itself with the exception of the connection point. I’ll find it.

—–

What’s killing me is this image of measuring tubes in a Venturi gas flow is it but in this case – does the flow lose any pressure in the measuring of the pressure?

=====

I mean you have your bisimilar here. There’s pressure flowing left to right that’s also being shown vertically via the sampling tubes.

But the measuring tubes aren’t flowing with the flow.. They’re actually rather stable horizontally.

If you get enough sampling tubes, you could recreate the conditions inside of the tube fairly accurately, without having to actually be in the tube.

======

 

My mind’s still on measuring tubes and fourier transforms. (sampling is sampling, going from analog to digital and back again, converting time to frequency and frequency to time)…

8c34be30580

——

Hold up: when we measure time (take a sample of time), we’ve stopped time.

Time ceases. That which is measured no longer changes. It ceases BEING time. It is a sample of time.

ACTUAL time (as it does what time does) _would_ at the very least be imaginary in its nature, stochastic time processes at the very least… certainly Riemann ..

=====

You can’t step in the same river twice. While you’re communicating your frozen time measurement, time carries on.

——

 

Glancing at:
The riemann hypothesis and emergent phase space
D Brox – Journal of Modern Physics, 2017
 
http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2017031514423739.pdf
—–
ah yes yes yes
 yesyesyes
—–
 Any projection of phase space that we do will necessarily be binary, whether through establishing lists of properties or when graphing phase space on a piece of paper.Some variation of Fourier transform is going to take place.
—–
Via sampling tubes, sure.
—–
 That’s the system/environment question isn’t it? Affordances. Does it satisfy our stated needs and goals? Engineering method. Satisfy to contract requirements.
——
 Could be anything that’s capable of stopping and measuring a thing.
——
 We do every time we measure something occurring “in time”. Look at a clock and notice what it says. You remember. That’s stopping time.If you want to prevent aging, stop and measure the system in the places that will age.Recreate measured values in an aged system and you’ve reversed aging.
——
 “ No, that is memorializing an event as occurring in some position in a sequence. The flow never stops.
Right. What are you looking to do instead of that?
—–
 Oh, I don’t think it has to be destructive. It all depends on what level of zoom you’re working at.How much happening at subatomic levels really matters in most systems?
——
We have good control of electrons at a gross level and now just starting to explore working with spin states.
—–
 How much control do we need over the systems? How much can be allowed to occur “as it does” with the averaging-out effect of moving into technologically manageable ‘zoom’ levels eliminating most problems?
======
 How much has to be recreated precisely? How systems interact is important, so a knowledge of functioning processes is important. A snapshot is no good if it’s not capable of moving onto the next state.
—–
 The internet works by store-and-forward. It’s happening right now. Store, then forward.I should think any teleportation would work in a similar fashion. Copy, store, forward, store.
======
 Ah. Minimal. Well, that depends on needs and goals.Example: How much of a personality can be transmitted via standard language, such as we’re doing right now?You have some idea of my personality, who Kenneth Udut is. Some of me is being transmitted to you, a data structure recreated in your mind that convinces you that this represents Kenneth Udut.

=====
 The more you know “of” a person: that is, the more data points you accumulate to build a representative data structure of a personality, the better you can predict what is “typical” that would properly represent a person. This can include things like, “Does unpredictable things” – which would also have a range of what’s “typical”.
======
 For me to convince myself that I am myself, I also compare what I measure “at present” with my own data structure of what represents “typical me”.

So, for example, I woke up two days ago full of dread. No particular reason I can figure out. But it was dread. Awful feeling.

I knew, “That’s not me” and I did various things to “become myself” again.

Yet, upon later analysis, I remembered samples from far past times where I’d gone through a “waking up with dread” feeling and that, in fact, that _was_ “typical me”, perfectly within my program. I’d just forgotten that fact until later. But, there’s always a “first time” of discovery too.

======

Attachments

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


seven + 8 =

Leave a Reply