I don’t think you can have a background-free theory. Pulling from noise, using the imaginary domain to do iterations, there seems to always be SOME background available to smooth, even things out, relax the oscillations so they can synchronize across the background. (in this case, the tabletop, usually ignorable but here it’s critical and in fact it always is) The background may be hidden in the functions: If you’re doing a Gaussian smoothing, what’s it smoothing into? If it’s a probability cloud, where’s the space for alternatives to avoid? Background is included in the calculations. I can’t think of any other conclusion.

I don’t think you can have a background-free theory. Pulling from noise, using the imaginary domain to do iterations, there seems to always be SOME background available to smooth, even things out, relax the oscillations so they can synchronize across the background. (in this case, the tabletop, usually ignorable but here it’s critical and in fact it always is)
 
The background may be hidden in the functions: If you’re doing a Gaussian smoothing, what’s it smoothing into? If it’s a probability cloud, where’s the space for alternatives to avoid? Background is included in the calculations. I can’t think of any other conclusion.
—-
I actually kind of hate this because it goes against what I believe: the whole Emergence From Nothing thing is deeply embedded in my thinking. But once you have “two”, you have three: The “this”, the “that” and the “separation”. It’s an interface of some kind where they have a relationship of some sort.
 
With that, you have foreground, separator and background.
===
It’s been frustrating through the years. I keep going back to this over and over. I “know” there’s “no nothing” yet all the best theories have a “nothing” backdrop.
 
I rooted for quantum foam because that was going to solve it all. But then they go ahead and declare “we found no quantum foam”. after some big telescope thing a few years ago. I accepted that, but I was back to kicking my feet in a swimming pool full of void.
 
But now — now I think I’m ready to have a stance. I got geared up on FINALLY grasping a bunch of the macroscopic synchronicity, how phase locking is the same as a toilet ballcock was a fantastic find this morning.
 
I’m not going to dive down in to quantum harmonic oscillators, nope nope. Not going back there again just yet. Rabbit hole, I love it too much. I want to tie together this side of things. More to do. Complete lattice is my friend, infinities will just have to be beyond the cutoffs, and unordered structures will have to have firstness + secondness + thirdness added so they become ordered.
 
But, just for me. Authenticity. That’s my goal. Speaking true from what’s true for me has been my goal for as long as I know. Figuring out what’s true for me has been a big challenge but as I get closer, I know I’m not lying even if I’m wrong.
====
Back in 2014, I made 6 second videos called Vines and I’d share my science / math thoughts on it. I found this animation of a Tetrahedron from 2D inspirational.
 
“How do you go from 3D to 2D to 3D? #Tetrahedron baby. But what’s in the middle now that it’s 3D? #Loop
Created by Kenneth Udut · Jul 21, 2014″

Leave a comment

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


1 × nine =

Leave a Reply