[yor_on]

We have four dimensions defined, and we all agree on them existing in our ordinary world. What if those dimensions all are 'point like' originally? But defined through a arrow we find them describing both photons and waves. A puzzle of dots, arranging themselves through a temporal arrow into what we observe.

[yor_on]

And as it is the temporal existence that defines what we see, it leaves you free to arrange experiments proving both concepts. And our free will actually existing from that very small planes uncertainty principle. Free will would then be a macroscopic redefinition of HUP, which I kind of like as I do think free will exist. You can have both, eat the cake and leave it, but only before a outcome.

[yor_on]

This kind of thinking leave us all in a constant super position, with our 'will' defining what outcomes will be. But particles don't have 'free will' do they? No, but they got two (three?) other things going for them. They got HUP, and they got 'interactions', also introducing 'frames of reference'. Interactions are the cage from where the probabilities come, super positions is the state existing before those interactions, and frame of references are what we measure.

[yor_on]

It's impossible to define a interaction without using some sort of arrow. So, as I see it, before the interaction there must be a arrow. A interaction must also be a series of 'outcomes' constantly emerging, just like splitting 'c' into some smallest parts, to then define/find a mathematical limit of what we can expect to observe.

[yor_on]

If you look at a 'arrow' from that point of view, it becomes something of a plane, constantly emerging through outcomes, like rings on the water. That plane is 'now' constantly, but we never experience that 'now' consciously although all particles defined exist in it. We have memories and histories over the 'past' defining what outcomes came to be, but they are not set in stone or if you like, 'logic' definitions explaining what we observe. And that sounds pretty weird don't it? But I think it eh, almost might be true, the past will be redefined from where we are depending on what and how we measure, and track your logic into the history of whatever phenomena we want to prove. A temporal plane lightening us up is what exists, and it 'moves' through 'outcomes'.

Told you I was weird

[yor_on]

And that temporal plane is locally defined as unchanging, having a same rhythm, or 'local clock' at all 'times' in my view. It defines your existence, and you using it with those other three degrees of freedom will find a very centric view of reality. 'Rings on the water' is how I look at it, but it is still a static phenomena to me, as it is possible to freeze it at any instant imaginatively. Every point creating its own 'rings', or 'reality' interacting through what we call 'c', and those other constants we might define. Constants are really tricky to define, as they in a way is the 'delimiters' of our existence. Your life may be locally defined, as well as what you measure, but 'constants' are something else. They are 'objectives' in a ideal sense, something 'objectively true', if correctly found and defined. Which makes them more weird than me I think And so hard to define.

[yor_on]

Have a look at 'constants'.

How Many Fundamental Constants Are There?
Introduction to the constants for nonexperts
Numerical Constants

[yor_on]

There is a point to 'constants' that I really find enlightening. And it has to do with fractals too. It's not what you see but what orders it. Take a look at Feigenbaums constant, and those 'strange attractors' that orders physical phenomena. Let us assume that they exist. Are they then allowed a 'dimension'? I think they are, they represent some degree of freedom(s) that we indeed can measure indirectly but have no ordinary 'room' for, at least as I can see?

Does that mean that they don't exist?
They exist to me.

"Conformal dynamics of fractal growth patterns without randomness.

Many models of fractal growth patterns (such as diffusion limited aggregation and dielectric breakdown models) combine complex geometry with randomness; this double difficulty is a stumbling block to their elucidation. In this paper we introduce a wide class of fractal growth models with highly complex geometry but without any randomness in their growth rules. The models are defined in terms of deterministic itineraries of iterated conformal maps, generating the function Phi((n))(omega) which maps the exterior of the unit circle to the exterior of an n-particle growing aggregate. The complexity of the evolving interfaces is fully contained in the deterministic dynamics of the conformal map Phi((n))(omega). We focus attention on a class of growth models in which the itinerary is quasiperiodic. Such itineraries can be approached via a series of rational approximants. The analytic power gained is used to introduce a scaling theory of the fractal growth patterns and to identify the exponent that determines the fractal dimension."

From 2. Davidovitch B, Feigenbaum MJ, Hentschel HGE, Prscaccia I   Conformal dynamics of fractal growth patterns without randomness.   PHYS REV E 2000 AUG;62(2):1706-1715

and

" Mitchell Feigenbaum
Toyota Professor

Attempts at the analytical description of nature regularly encounter strong nonlinearities. The majority of existing methods treat only weak nonlinearities and consist of corrections to behaviors that are simple distortions of linear behavior. The methods in the strong case, on the other hand, are largely recent developments and pertain to behaviors qualitatively distinct from linear ones. One of the most striking such behaviors is the appearance of highly erratic spatial configurations and/or highly erratic temporal evolution, a phenomenon called "chaos."

The hallmark of chaotic motion is a lack of predictability despite the total absence of any random ingredients. Even if one should want to determine just statistical properties of these motions, the methods of statistics cannot be applied in any straightforward manner. This impediment is a consequence of the fact that the motion, rather than exploring all possibilities allowed to it by the constraints of finite energy, finite resources, etc., instead lies in a highly complicated subspace -- a so-called strange set or strange attractor. Thus an a priori calculated average over "everything" will generally produce erroneous results.

Since the equations of motion of an object usually can be cast in a form that is indifferent to where the origin of time is taken, one encounters a process that repeatedly applies the same rule to whatever happens to be there at a given moment. It also often transpires that these rules are "scale invariant," so that what the rule evolves from a given size detail is loosely proportional to that size. In consequence of those two observations, the strange sets encountered in chaotic dynamics can be amenable to a treatment that hierarchically, by rules of scaling, builds up more highly complicated details from those less so. Generically, such objects are called fractals. The method that treats them is termed "renormalization" from which it is to be inferred that after applying a scaling-down rule followed by readjustment of the overall size successively, a definite but highly complicated object continually reemerges.

It is the main effort of this laboratory to extend the scope of the problems over which these methods hold sway, to extend the methods themselves developing appropriate mathematics, and to improve the methods for extracting such information from actual experimental studies ranging from fluids to brains."

[yor_on]

There is a really big difference though, between 'strange attractors' and 'weak experiments' (to me that is:). Weak experiments trying to prove a propagation, aka physically existing 'path' of photons for example, are to me hypothesis's at best. Strange attractors exist.
=

What I mean is that you can find Strange attractors physically measuring. In that manner they are a part of your reality. The 'path' of a photon though, is a reasoning building on the assumption that Newtonian world image must be correct, therefore photons must have a 'physically real path/trajectory".

There is a world of difference between those reasonings, and from where they go out, although they both becomes theoretical expectations/descriptions of a 'reality'.

[yor_on]

I want to go back to time and its arrow, because that what's really confounding me. I can't see any universe with ordered sequences existing without it. But then we have the idea of 'superpositions' to consider too. They imply another 'order' in where it all exist shoulder by shoulder, simultaneously. And if we accept superpositions and a arrow as 'co-existing', then methinks we have the best of both worlds

And what differs them?

Scales definitely do, as the smaller your scale, the more indeterministic things seem to become.
Amount interacting? I think that's part of it too. And there you need to consider what does the information (force carriers), and what restrictions define them? This one is important, more important than you might believe.

'Forces'? They exist, don't they?
Well, I think they do, but I also think that they go out from the very small local 'invariance/constants', becoming that strangely defined 'locality' we all exist through in my thoughts. And what we see comes from ..

'Emergences'? Nothing weird about that one, as long as you consider it from temperatures, which then ultimately must become a question about 'energy'.

But think of it as points, each point creating a unique universe, measurably so. Now, where is your 'reality'? Does it go out from you, or is it a collection of 'histories' over local universes, all translatable to each other? On a lighter tone, we're all egoists but we all also want to communicate, and tell each other about the way we perceive things, and what we think is the 'most important things in life', don't we?

So communication defines our position in space and time. And there we had the 'force carriers' again. Or as I think, the ultimate constant. 'c'.

Crack that one, and the universe, and physics, will change.

[yor_on]

What I mean with 'forces' is that they are mirrors of 'frames of reference' interacting, and a 'frame of reference', as a point in space and time, should have a scale. That scale should be Planck scale to me? And 'under that' we have 'indeterminism' as I expect, and no 'universe' defined either. The one about all 'forces becoming frames of reference interacting is tricky though, and I'm not sure how it should come to be.

But the arrow defines outcomes, not outcomes defining a arrow. You need a arrow to assume a outcome. To assume a outcome to become the arrow, is to me as looking back over histories. But I can't see how a outcome ever can come to be without arrow preexisting, giving it a temporal direction. If you know how that outcome can come to be without a ordered sequence to it though, you might convince me

And probability does not cut the meat there.

[yor_on]

Because if you consider frames of reference from locality I expect them to be a sort of 'constants', all of them able to superimpose into a same definition of room and time. So what 'frame of reference' would then interact with the 'locally same' points? You need some matrix, lattice, whatever, defining the room, as well as a arrow, and then also define the difference of measurements relative comparing different points.

[yor_on]

Think of uniform motion from my point of view, and how you can't measure any difference in energy locally. It's a slippery subject in that we have no clear definition of what 'locally' should mean here, but we can consider it as you measuring some atom vibrating in your laboratory. If the universe we see is description of points interacting then the 'energy' changing locally, in your measurement, only should be able to come to be in a acceleration, as I think. Because the other points you see, and define yourself relative, as well as them relative you, are separated. And what communicates between them are under local definitions.
==

Meaning that you can't measure directly, other than from those local definitions.

[yor_on]

We could define it such as different uniform motions exist.
A 'frame of reference' in this motto would then be you, being at rest with your laboratory.
Now accelerating it will introduce local changes in all points making you and your laboratory up.
Comparing your former uniform motion to the 'new' you expect to exist, and measurably can prove relative points not being 'at rest' with you and your laboratory, is illusionary though.

[yor_on]

Think it through.

I'm not contradicting myself, even though it seems I am
Different uniform motions exist, and you can prove it astronomically.
But, that is between frames not being at rest with each other.

Locally though, all uniform motions are the same.

[yor_on]

From a quantum reference I would define a 'frame of reference' as a point defined through four dimensions. The time and location in three degrees of freedom (all locally defined.)

From a point of discussing macroscopic phenomena we instead can use being 'at rest' with something.
=

Or maybe both are acceptable in both perspectives? The 'difference' being that from a quantum perspective each point becomes its own definition having a relation to each other point that will change in a acceleration. Not the points themselves, but their relation relative each other. And that craves a 'room' or some similar proposition. But you could also express it as those points aren't 'at rest' with each other, while accelerating. So yes, 'at rest' do work there too.

[yor_on]

Because that is close to how I feel 'motion' should be described. As existing in two separate definitions.
Uniform motion being locally illusionary, existing differently (as speeds) when compared, at rest.
Accelerations as something changing relations between 'points' locally, not being at rest under it.
=

But if it is so, what then would 'motion' be?
We need a room to define and experience it as both being 'the same'. But they don't seem to be, to me. although you can place them under one umbrella, they are locally very different.

[yor_on]

The room we see, what makes it?
Space and matter, you need both. Depending on how to see it you might consider it as a 'box' in where we have energy densities, some touch able, others not. Or from my slightly weird view, something created through mass, using gravity. In my view all points are, in a way, the same. And what we define as their locations are the restrictions 'c' place on us, as well as other constants presumably. In Einsteins view I don't think you can split the arrow from the room, and he's right. The room and the time are one and the same.

[yor_on]

Can you see how it might work from my point of view? You accelerating, changing all points relative each other, in your ship. From a looser definition though still being comparatively 'at rest' with each other, and all those points redefining all other points outside that ship, from distance to 'energy' and 'time'. And if the room and time you measure for other points are defined through your local clock and ruler, at rest with you. Then time and the room are the same, they are in a set relation to each other, invariant locally, redefining the universe you measure. But it does not cost 'energy', other than the locally expended for the acceleration.
=

But the room is one slippery bas*'d. Particles need room. Boson's don't
Locally we all reserve a place, as matter. So how can your measurements tell you that the 'room' shrunk? It consists of matter too, as well as space.

That takes us to what 'degrees of freedom' means. You can use the 'box' and define dimensions inside it, measuring. Or you can use locality and question what makes a 'box'.

[yor_on]

But if we give each point, let's say four values. A time, and a location in three dimensions, and then consider all points being equivalent, as in superimposing them. How big does a universe needs to be? In a way it's about time to me, as a flood, sweeping it all with it. Time defines distance. You don't need a ruler for that even though it is very handy when defining speeds. There is no way you can misunderstand the time it takes for you to locally traverse some distance, although you might put into different 'segments' describing it.

But particles still need a room. And you can redefine room and time when accelerating, and as far as I know? Those redefinitions will stay when you stop that acceleration, to subsequently (uniformly) coast away.