[yor_on]

It reminds me a lot of chaos theory in where you stack uncertainty upon certainty.

[yor_on]

Where you can find a pattern to something inherently chaotic.

[yor_on]

https://tomrocksmaths.com/2020/05/22/searching-for-clarity-patterns-chaos-theory-and-nature/

and this https://physicsworld.com/a/the-secret-of-the-synchronized-pendulums/

[yor_on]

When you look at 'energy', the 'coin of exchange' as JP defined it, and entanglements we seem to find that entanglements can exchange energy. We have examples of it from nature.

[yor_on]

that puts the question of whether entanglements also becomes a form of meaningful information.

[yor_on]

Does a energy transfer contain information?

And what if it does it 'ftl'?

[yor_on]

All of it connecting to what I think of as 'scales', the scale you measure from, the scale you look at.

[yor_on]

Using my definitions it becomes a presumption to assume that you can set a clock to the very small even though you can define probabilities for it. What guarantees that your local macroscopic clock is what defines it?

[yor_on]

order out of disorder. Decisions out of a real democracy.

[yor_on]

It all connects in my mind.

[yor_on]

So is entanglements breaking this law of information? No, they need to have meet, or at least have a 'common origin' in time and space to even become entangled. They then need to separate from each other spatially which is limited by the speed of light in a vacuum.

But you still have the question if you can make it meaningful. F.ex a fuel consisting of entangled particles of a high energy density with a counterpart measured by us at the sun, probing each particle and so adding even more energy to it. And that energy will be spread over the whole system of those entangled 'bits' that you then measure on.

Each entanglement by itself of course.

[yor_on]

Using that you can define energy as you do space. Able to 'move' faster than light.

[yor_on]

Well, I keep telling you. It's a very weird universe.

[yor_on]

It's correct, as far as I know. Energy can 'move' faster than light.

[yor_on]

And that one also connect to this infinite universe I define, and in what mean it is 'infinite'. It's infinite to us, not to 'energy'. It's infinite to us, not to 'photons'.

[yor_on]

I don't want a 'finity' to it. You're crazy to want one. A finite universe assumes a outside, becoming as Russian dolls, gaining its own 'infinity' of in and out-sides.

[yor_on]

Well, maybe I'm wrong using photons for it. I'm not wrong using energy though. Photons have a 'time stamp' on them, that's how we define a origin of time, and space. So they can't 'propagate' further in main stream physics than some 13.7 billion light years. No matter a space expanding accelerating etc. That has no meaning for light, it just red shift it. The time stamp stands the same.

[yor_on]

And that one connects to how you want to define that 'propagation', 'emanations' in a field? Or as some 'ball' moving?

[yor_on]

If your definition is a emanation, then I'm right there too, I think? Because then they don't 'move'. They are just a result of the laws, rules and properties defining our universe.

[yor_on]

And if you think of it this way. As the universe is defined by common laws, rules and properties, everywhere and at any time, it becomes quite preposterous to expect that this will differ just by you 'teleporting' to the furthest star you can define, then expecting those to become 'broken' by you moving.