Gilding Nietzsche

(by Dlanorrenrag*)

Gilding Nietzsche:

"Nihilism," as I understood it, had always seemed poisonous. I had taken it as a creed for disavowing that anything, other than annihilation, can be worthwhile. By and large, I was mistaken. Mistakenly, I allowed my distaste for the word "nihilism" to lead me to judge that Nietzsche truly believed there is no true meaningfulness.

However, Nietzsche did find meaningfulness, as do I, in our innate capacity for self creation. So, perusing Nietzsche’s "Thus Spake Zarathustra," I find much with which I am in ardent agreement.

In fun, I have considered that "truth is imagination." "Ex nihilo" is sometimes imagined to "explain" — rather than merely to exclaim — our coming and continuing into existential forms. I have marveled at the oddly serendipitous property of new maths and new forms for coming into our existence, just as we seem primed to use them — in order to reach for ever newer maths and forms.

I believe Something is necessary to complete the process of natural selection. In reference to such metaphysical completion, I prefer the verbiage "morphogenesis" to "ex nihilo" — intending by such verbiage to respect a meta-encompassment of "evolution."

However, I find Nietzsche’s insights, although powerful, to be inadequate for supporting a decent civilization. To find decent, enlightened values, we need, on some level, to appreciate a common source, i.e., "God."

However, we do not necessarily need to believe that God invites us to become citizens in some superior, spiritual domain of truth and justice.

Nietzsche advocates that God is dead and that we should strive to become supermen. I agree with Nietzsche when he disdains a slavish, deeply imbued propensity in Christianity for spurning this world and our present physics for a higher spiritual truth and existence. But, I disagree with advocacy that God is dead. Rather, I advocate that God is the Superman — in whom all of us are plugged, in common.

****

Nietzsche (as well as Ayn Rand) failed adequately to express or appreciate that the Superman is God, of and in which all perspectives of existence are plugged. Thus, it remains for each of us continuously to appreciate the metaphysical connection that is common with all of us. Such is the way of Enlightened Empathy.

***

Einstein said, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” I think, without rules (science) in common to govern us, we would lack basis to communicate chronology, information, appreciation, or faith (religion) --- of any kind. Without degrees of freedom (spirit) for factoring feedback into expressions of will, we would have nothing meaningful about which to communicate. Our universe, as it is presented, presents precisely as it should in order to support meaningful communication. An unverifiable, still, quiet intuition whispers to me continuously that such is far from mere coincidence.

***

Some snippets from Nicholas Davey’s introduction to "Thus Spake Zarathustra,"1997 edition by Wordsworth Editions Limited:

"The formal incommensurability of becoming and knowing means that however we think of the world, our thinking and the nature of actuality will never coincide."

"It is what the power of belief underwriting these fictions is capable of achieving that matters to Nietzsche, not the epistemological status of such fictions."

"Belief in such fictions has, in short, allowed humanity to transform itself, to articulate its circumstances, formulate its goals and ambitions."

"What concerns Nietzsche ... is the life-enabling and life-enhancing value of the creativity which finds expression in these fictions, and not their veracity."

****

COMMENTS:

By "Nature" is meant that aspect of existing which we seek to explain and control. By "God" is meant that aspect of Existing which we seek to revere and fulfill.

Such reference to "God" is not meant as explanation. Rather, God is referenced as attractor of joint insights, creative partnerships, and civilizing, enlightening empathies. God is The Common Referent for our creative energies — not the explanation. To advocate that we have no need of referring to such shared Source of creative interest is to be as an adolescent ass.

Similarly, to name or label a measurable burst or packet as "energy" does not explicate what, really, such "energy" is; nor does such reference explicate that of or by which such energy is ultimately directed, recorded, represented, communicated, or availed as creative expression.

"To energize," "to be," and "to exist" are verbs — not nouns. God manifests as constantly, continuously changing verb — not as constantly unchanging noun. We hold God no easier than we hold running water --- yet running water exists.

Anti God Agenda

(by Dlanorrenrag*)

Anti God Agenda:

Re: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RichLowry/2007/12/13/huckacide?page=full&comments=true#postComments

Re: anti-evolution position as "tend[ing] to push away independents and upper-income Republicans"

This seems a canard. I doubt any reasonably intelligent person (which Huckabee is) believes natural selection plays no important or significant role.

The real question (which no mortal can answer) is whether natural selection can constitute a complete explanation, or whether Something else may be necessary to complete it.

A word sometime coined for labeling evolution-plus-What-is-necessary-to-complete-it may be "morphogenesis." In any event, faith that we can intuit or look within to Something spiritual (conscience?) in order to advance enlightened empathy seems to be something no decent civilization has ever been able to manage doing without.

At some level, even rabid evolutionists — at least, those with sense — may appreciate as much — even though their single minded focus tends to limit their capacity or willingness to express it.

This is why it is so howlingly ridiculous for a moderator to insist upon an up or down answer to "do you believe in evolution."

Simply put, social conservatives are so-very-fed-up with the anti-god, anything-goes agenda of leftist loons.

Morphogenesis

(by Dlanorrenrag*)

Morphogenesis:

Stubbornly, we ever seek to apply logic to its limits, as if everything should be amenable of analysis within an encompassment of exhaustive yet mutually exclusive categories. Yet, how, logically, do we account for any manifestation of logic-in-itself? How do we account for why or how any form, thing, or universe should ever have morphed, evolved, or otherwise been called into existence?

Given that our universe exists, may we reasonably assume that perhaps innumerable other universes may have been called to exist? We may label the result of anything’s being called into existence "morphopgenesis." But, must morphogenesis, in itself, be amenable of logic, necessitating that it have a means, or at least a caller?

If morphogenesis can apply to universes, then why not to events within each universe? And, given Godel’s incompleteness theorem, why presume any universe should, within itself, be "closed" to logic, empiricism, or cause and effect? Why suppose morphogenesis should be unnecessary to complete any appearance or any novel thing or form?

If some sort of creative calling forth or morphogenesis may complete us, why quibble with how long it takes? By what measure should we conceit to judge that it should be quicker? Were morphogenesis to occur "quicker," what should we conceit to believe should be done with the time saved?

Civilizing Morphogenesis

(by Dlanorrenrag*)

Government’s Role In Calling Forth Civilizing Morphogenesis Among Economies:

A social economy may come efficiently to educate and assign its members to meet diverse needs.

Thus, may leadership for any such economy ever safely rest?

No.

Each human body — to safely keep its various cells and functions in shape for coordination, strength, memory, and spiritual sense of purpose and empathy — needs regular practice and exercise. Such human functions may be considered in respect of a cycling scale, sort of like Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, twisted into an ever recurring circle.

Maslow’s hierarchy does not present cyclical challenges only to human bodies and families. Rather, competitive cycles challenge entire economies. Economies, in turns, become stressed, challenged, successful, imaginative, creative, comfortable, satisfied, relaxed, satiated, over specialized, overpopulated, over concentrated, unbalanced, jaded, fat, degenerate, corrupt, self centered, over supplied, soft, foppish, bored, uninspired, unmotivated, dependent, non-empathetic, cliquish, self involved, narcissistic, lost in diversions, drugged, purposeless, non-creative, unchallenged, out of practice, anachronistic, tired, worn out, threatened, or weakened or invigorated by physical or spiritual competitions.

So, WHAT IS THE HEALTH OF OUR PRESENT SOCIAL ECONOMY, in view of challenges soon likely to approach our civilization?

In respect of any cyclical scale or balance, where are we presently? Seeing our position, may we yet have power to extend or control our cycle? May we give rest or redirection, either to our bodies or to our economies?

May any economy be sustained or conserved, once it ceases to expand? May muscles retain tone, when not regularly used? Must our desires and needs now be stirred, continuously, in order to prop us up? Once basic needs are met, how must or should our needs continue to be shaped — artificially?

Given our present position along Maslow’s cycle, should the artificial stirring and inspiring of our needs be left primarily to "naturally selective" economic competition, or to governance under a system of laws and culturally assimilating traditions for inspiring "enlightened empathy"?

To sustain regimen for exercising our economy, must we now entice opportunists to churn demand and free-trade for porn, drugs, addiction, foppery, decadence, abuse, self destruction, familial destruction, malaise, and anarchy?

Is there an alternative, that could better help or entice respect for: sustainable demographics; conservation of environment; human expression; entertainment in sports, crafts, music, arts, fashion; exploration of technology, science and space; creativity; imagination; philosophy; spirituality; enlightened empathy; and civilizing purposefulness?

How should a respectable civilization be protected and promoted — in respect of borders, defense, fair trade, and example?

PERSONAL COMMENT: Respectable Civilization is not well served by (liberal democrats) opening borders to un-assimilable, primitive tribes, by (unfair trading republicans) drafting members to compete at levels of primitive tribes, or by (human secularists) losing empathy for a common, spiritual, inspiring source of purposeful consciousness, in respect of That Which defines and is in common for each of us.

Physics Open To Avatars

(by Dlanorrenrag*)

Is Physics Open To Avatars?

If our universal grid network for information--- in respect of g-s < > c-w --- does not function as some sort of universally-conscious-synapse-feedback-system, on call to weigh and respond (in holistically-fine, immeasurably-hidden ways), morph-o-genetically, to empathetic prayers, purposes, and systemic needs of its complex local avatars, then what would?

Insofar as mathematics renders mortal physics irretrievably incomplete, what else could complete us, if not an Holistic Empathy that is available only to unverifiable intuition?

A Simpler Way

A Simpler Way:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Van_Flandern
... views have not found acceptance within the mainstream scientific community.
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/LR.asp
Because time is never affected, LR recognizes a “universal time” applicable to all frames, and a universal instant of “now”. In SR, all inertial frames are equivalent, so the Lorentz transformations apply reciprocally (both ways between two frames); whereas in LR, the local gravitational potential field constitutes a preferred frame, and the Lorentz transformations work just one way from the preferred frame to any inertial frame with a relative motion, but not reciprocally.
GR also has two physical interpretations: field GR and geometric GR.
It is now widely believed that no experiment dealing with lightspeed or slower phenomena can distinguish the two theories.

http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index.html

Other gravitation specialists, such as Charles Misner at the University of Maryland, Lawrence Mead of the University of Southern Mississippi, Clifford Will of the University of Washington in St. Louis and Steve Carlip of the University of California at Davis, confirm that special and general relativity are built into the software for GPS.

“In all cases it is easy to distinguish them from other members of the public who are interested in science and even from the occasional layperson who has their own theory about physics ... Such people are not surprised when you tell them their idea is wrong, and are genuinely interested to have the reasons explained to them."

... only want validation of their theories, and often plainly don't even respond to objections raised by the physicists they approach. Indeed, after perusing the various threads in the discussion group, one can only admire the patience physicists show in the face of the flagrantly insulting jibes and non sequiturs thrown at them.

... contending for years that the "speed" of gravity must exceed that of light -- in violation of relativity -- despite several patient, detailed refutations ...

"I would insist that any proposal for a radically new theory in physics, or in any other science, contain a clear explanation of why the precedent science worked," he wrote. Einstein did this, as the first page of his paper on special relativity, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies," illustrates perfectly.

It doesn't seem to make any difference to point out to anti-relativists that, second to quantum mechanics, relativity is the most tested theory on the books. In fact in one famous case, as Oxford physicist Roger Penrose pointed out, it meets predictions to an accuracy "to one part in 1014 (and this accuracy has apparently been limited merely by the accuracy of clocks on Earth)."

And quantum electrodynamics, which accounts for electromagnetic interactions at the atomic level, is not possible without the special theory of relativity. To say nothing of the other daily confirmations of the theory's consequences provided by atomic accelerators, the GPS and, of course, the equivalence of mass and energy derived from special relativity in Einstein's most famous equation, E=mc2.

It is interesting that cranks almost never dispute the accuracy of relativity's predictions; they just insist there must be a "simpler" way.

Model For Mapping Universal Grid

(by Dlanorrenrag*)

Speculative Model For Mapping Universal Grid:

Bits of sensory information are received and processed through wiring in various parts of our brains and then, somehow, given synchronizing interpretation, thereby converting disparate sensations into meaningful information.

Were our universe like our brains, we may imagine variously connecting universal dimensions as giving rise to what we eventually interpret as meaningful information.

Model or imagine (an illusion) of a skin layer, representing a sphere, which is inner-cris-crossed with a network of two opposing, slinky-looped, end-connected, universal quantum waves, comprised to express one inter-vibrating universal wave.

One loop (c-loop) models a dimension for facilitating electromagnetism (light).
The other loop (g-loop) models a dimension for facilitating inertia (mass).
Looped around the electromagnetism loop is a string (w-string), for modeling a dimension for facilitating the weak force.
Looped around the inertial loop is a string (S-string), for modeling a dimension for facilitating the strong force.

Together, such dimensions — c-loop, g-loop, w-string, and s-string — facilitate a single, connected, existential quantum wave, of discretely synchronized vibrational cycles or segments of universal-quanta.

As mortals, we do not receive information from any such dimensions in respect of how they may be synchronized independently. Rather, we receive information only in respect of local, relative interpretations and translations of interrelations among such dimensions.

Having no access to holistic perspective, we cannot know or experience any “real” speed or acceleration of interactions among any such loops and strings from any holistic perspective.

Assuming every local, relative expression of force or energy (gravitational, electromagnetic, strong, or weak) is synchronized in respect of each discrete, chronological, fluxing, vibration in such holistic-universal-quantum-wave, then: synchronized fluxing of such holistic wave, among its grid of dimensionally facilitating loops and strings, is beyond empiricism; such holistic wave is beyond particular, empirical measure or detection — except possibly to such extent as may be found necessary in respect of mathematical or logical consistency (to get the math right).

Every locally expressed or interpreted expenditure of energy in some way “rides” its coordinating loop, string, or wave (as a pilot wave), in respect of its assigned dimension within the universal grid.

Thus, the only empirical information a human body can capture about electromagnetic radiation — in respect of the c-loop dimension — must be presented to the inertial frame of such person in respect of the relative constant for the speed of transmitting such information as is stored among lightwaves (being c). (That is, information is received at c. This is not to say that the speed of light-in-itself along the c-loop is itself at c. This is because “light-in-itself” and “c-loop” are merely concepts, which cannot be measured. Only relative information or signals can be measured, not concepts-as-concepts.)

The only empirical information a human body can capture about mass-related energy — in respect of the g-loop dimension — must be presented to the inertial frame of such person in respect of the relative constant for the acceleration of such information as is stored among gravity waves, for acceleration due to gravity (being g).

The only empirical information a human body can capture about strong-force related energy — in respect of the s-string dimension — must be presented to the inertial frame of such person in respect of quanta constants governing the expression of such s-force information.

The only empirical information a human body can capture about weak-force related energy — in respect of the w-string dimension — must be presented to the inertial frame of such person in respect of quanta constants governing the expression of such w-force information.

A synchronizing interaction among information presented through all such force-facilitating dimensions is presented to each “local” interpretation — to be experienced as mass, gravity, energy, light, radiation, and chemical reactions, as the case may be.

Thus, such a model would entail a “real grid” of dimensions, for conceptualizing how chronology is sponsored in respect of a universally connected, discrete sequencing or cycling of vibrations.

No such a grid, however, is accessible to being mapped by mortals. Even so, the quality of organization and entropy about information that is availed to us — which allows us to model, interpret, and experience local, relative space-time — must depend upon our locus for receiving information — within some such grid.

Depending upon how such slinky loops and strings may phase towards symmetrical equilibrium, our local interpretations and experiences of information and arrows of chronology may increase, decrease, or even reverse in direction.

In respect of such model, concepts of space, time, and space-time would be subordinate to the interrelation of the dimensional loops and strings. That is, time would be illusion, secondary to chronology identification; and space would be illusion, secondary to relational experience among entwined or entangled expressions of relative information.

To say whether such slinky loops and strings, in their fluxing and expressing of existentialism, may “in themselves” be expanding or contracting would seem to be beyond mortal measure — even though our local measures, to current limits of capabilities in respect of current models, show an expansion of our experience of space-time (within our synchronized cycle or loop among the slinky’s).

More intractable would be the following questions: From whence came the model; who or what synchronizes or drives each discrete vibration among its loops and strings; and how does such synchronization facilitate the expression of avatars idealizing experience and existence?

Dark Light Does Not Endanger Grandfather

(by Dlanorrenrag)

(Quite Uninformed And Speculative Musing)

Dark Light Does Not Endanger Grandfather:

All mass that finds its way into any inertial frame of reference follows or phases in respect of a g, being the local constant for acceleration due to gravity.

But, light (electromagnetic radiation) has no mass. Any light that finds its way into an inertial frame is not pulled there in respect of g.

Perhaps, light travels in a dimension other than that traveled in by matter.
If so, the speed of such light, in itself (as opposed to information carried by such light), may not be meaningfully measurable in relation to any inertial frame.

Light follows the straightest path through space-time; light does not fall in respect of gravity.
Because light has no mass, gravity does not act to speed or slow light.
(However, gravity can cause light radiating to an observer in a weaker gravitational field to experience such light as having been redshifted to a longer wavelength.)

Mass always, to some extent, disturbs, curves, or drags (frame dragging) the space-time it is in.
As light follows the shortest path, it will follow such curvature.
However, such “bending” of light information, traveling at c, tends to be quite less pronounced than the bending of matter, as matter finds itself subject to g, in a vicinity or field of influence of a more massive body.

Matter receives information from other matter in respect of g, being a constant for acceleration.
Matter does not receive information from light in respect of g, but in respect of c, being a non-changing relative constant for speed.

Relative to an inertial frame, any conveyance by light of information that is not restricted to c cannot be received by such inertial frame.

Perhaps, like some sort of dark matter or energy, all light-information not restricted to c must pass by.

Wavelengths of light by which such non-received information passes by must also pass by.

“Light-in-itself,” being of a dimension apart, is not directly experienced or received by matter in any inertial frame (unless by some exotic procedure, as by “gravitational lensing”).
Rather, it is the information being conveyed by light that is received.
And, such information can only be received by matter at the speed of c.

So, how is our universe edited or synchronized in order to allow matter to receive information only at c, as such information is being conveyed by lightwaves?

Well, were each wavelength of light considered as a separate frame, like on a movie tape, any such tape could be edited to show at different speeds simply by phasing a proportionate removal of frames or wavelength-segments.

Because light can only convey information to matter at the speed of c, all wavelengths that would otherwise cause a violation of c must be removed, in whatever phase or proportion as may be necessary. All such removed wavelengths must pass by, un-experienced and unnoticed by such matter.

It is not a mass’s receipt of information from electromagnetic radiation that effects aging in such mass. Rather, aging of each mass is coordinate to information experienced and received in respect of g, in each such mass’s inertial field.

If bodies could receive information from light at speeds other than c, one may receive information about one’s grandfather and arrange to have him killed before one were born.

Were such a chronology-violation possible, it seems unlikely that matter, relative to any of us, could meaningfully exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein#Religious_views
[About Albert Einstein] “However "even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other" there are "strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies" ... "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind ... a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist." ”

Twin Paradox

See:
http://metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=590&SearchTerms=Twin+Paradox

(by Dlanorrenrag*)
Quite Uninformed And Speculative Musing, No Doubt Containing Many Errors:

Twin Paradox:

For calculations under Special Relativity, it is not assumed that all frames are equivalent, but that all INERTIAL frames are equivalent.

Assuming no favored field of inertial reference, would relative speed among space travelers crossing in opposite directions cause either space traveler to perceive or experience a different rate for the passing of time than the rate perceived by the other space traveler, where each spaceship were merely in inertial orbit, without expending any of its own fuel or energy?

Suppose neither spaceship is experiencing any acceleration (other than natural acceleration at g, from being within its own inertial orbit). The traveler in each spaceship is in zero gravity. There is no change in the zero gravity of either traveler as they pass. No cell in the body of either traveler experiences any significant change in momentum in relation to either spaceship.

So, how could either traveler’s body know or experience that it were the one moving “faster,” rather than its twin --- unless there were some signal?

Such a signal may be imparted were one of the twins to expend energy, thus to experience a lurch of some kind, on account of changing momentum. However, absent an expenditure of rocket fuel, there may be no signal --- under Special Relativity.

In such a case, for either of the travelers in any way to be moving “faster” than the other, such could only be in relation to some wider, deeper, inertial system of significance, which encompasses both of their inertial systems --- such as under General Relativity.

For that, there may be a signal in respect of General Relativity, if each traveler’s inertial frame, in fact, is not equivalent. But, calculating which traveler’s inertial system may be orbiting faster in relation to a third and encompassing inertial system may require knowledge and computing skill beyond the on-board capabilities of both travelers.

Even so, each particle and cell of each traveler’s body somehow (perhaps in respect of how it were polarized or calibrated) may be signaled to “know” or experience that it, in fact, is traveling faster than the other traveler --- in relation to a deeper, necessarily favored, field of inertial reference.

Were such our situation, each traveler’s body would merely be continuing to respect how time is experienced to pass in its own inertial frame of reference (in respect of however each traveler’s “relative center of gravity” may change during such traveling).

Absent any expenditure of fuel or energy on behalf of either traveler, each traveler would continue to age at a different rate only in respect that time in each traveler’s inertial frame would be experienced as changing at a different rate.

Absent some expenditure of fuel or energy, any aging in the organization of mass of each traveler’s body must be in respect only of General Relativity, because any otherwise additional effects of Special Relativity would reciprocally cancel out.

Were fuel or energy expended, Special Relativity would become a factor. In such a case, for calculating relative time changes attributable to Special Relativity, it may be correct to assume no favored field of inertial reference.

However, such a calculation would be incomplete, insofar as it failed to account for the entire difference in rate of aging, where each traveler’s inertial orbit, in fact, did respect a significant, different, favored field of inertial reference.

Were such our case, then, to account for the entire change in relative aging, calculations would have to be added, based on General Relativity.

Special Relativity tells how to calculate relative changes in age when there are jumps in frames of inertial reference. Because Special Relativity assumes all frames of inertial reference are equivalent, it does not support a change in age rate, absent a break in such equivalence (such as were one traveler to jump an inertial frame while the other did not).

Differential aging under Special Relativity reciprocally cancels out, absent an asymmetrical expenditure of fuel or energy (such as for take-off, landing, or turnaround). Expending fuel or energy causes acceleration (such as: negative or positive acceleration, change in speed, or acceleration of acceleration).

Each acceleration effects a coordinate change in a traveler’s position within his inertial field of reference. Acceleration jumps one’s frame of inertial reference.

A skilled calculator, given sufficient data, could perhaps subsume calculations of changes in age rates under Special Relativity under a more encompassing, coordinating calculation in respect of General Relativity. (Although a traveler, by expending energy, may jump an inertial frame, he may not very well jump gravity --- except, perhaps, at very small levels of frame-dragging.)

Under an encompassing General Relativity, must it be incorrect to assume there REALLY is no favored field of inertial reference that is significant to the aging of cells for each traveler’s body (or organization of atoms for each material body) --- regardless of whether such favored field may be beyond mortal calculation?

Every change in rate of aging entails jumping of an inertial frame. Such jumping may occur upon: an accelerating expenditure of energy; a relatively long trip between inertial frames; or an invasion by another inertial frame (as by a large moon whipping near one’s planet (for example, our moon, by its orbit, ties to the pull of our tidal waters).

It may not be true to assume there is no favored inertial frame. Instead, it may be that all inertial frames are constantly, discretely, fluxing. It may be that each next, discrete flux succeeds each previous expression of a universal segment of synchronized sequencing.

Were it possible to account for universally discrete fluxing, it may be that General Relativity could be understood in a way that would render Special Relativity superfluous.

Perhaps, QM works because the entire expression of our universe is facilitated with a series of discretely expressed universal-quantum-waves, whose “Higgs Boson” is not a God-particle, but “God.” [I prefer not to presume a universal “nowness,” but I do presume a discretely expressed universal chronology.]

Perhaps, what “ages in time” is only such information as is cumulated with each body of matter, as information comes to each such body from within its inertial frame.

Although information may come and add to a body by electromagnetic radiation from outside such body’s inertial frame, such outside information is not what age’s such body. Rather, such information coming from outside serves to mark how such body has been relatively aged (or “young’d”) --- by its own inertial frame (however jumpy such frame may be).

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox :
“… during the U-turn the plane of simultaneity jumps from blue to red and very quickly sweeps over a large segment of the lifeline of the resting twin.”

COMMENT: During the turnaround (acceleration and deceleration), there is conflated a large amount of time, during which the more stationary twin ages. Thus, to the observation of the more traveling twin, information is sped up, conflated, and/or lost about the stationary twin.

***

From Tvanflandern, 9/26/04; http://metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=590&SearchTerms=Twin+Paradox:

[NOW-NESS:] “… objections are not applicable to SR (they presume the existence of a universal instant of "now" instead of frame-dependent time), see http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/gps-twins.asp at this web site.”

“For those interested in understanding nature, SR is now falsified in favor of LR, and the latter has no twin's paradox because it recognizes a preferred frame and a lack of symmetry. See http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/speed_limit.asp at this web site, which was eventually published as “Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions”, T. Van Flandern and J.P. Vigier, Found.Phys. 32(#7), 1031-1068 (2002).”

***

Someone tell me: Why; why not???
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_8yPap-k_s

Not Even Elemental Particles Are Real In Themselves

(by Dlanorrenrag*)

Quite Uninformed Speculation And Musing:

NOT EVEN ELEMENTAL PARTICLES ARE COMPLETE OR “REAL IN THEMSELVES”:

UNITY IN THE ARRAY:

Each most discrete avatar (or particle-bit) for representing organized information respects the same laws as regulate all other expressions of “The Array” (which is intuited or referenced to complete and govern us and all our information). Discounting complex systems, contexts, and patterns of elementary bits, each elementary “bit in itself,” insofar as being completely bound to share with all others the same system of relational laws, may be indistinguishable and indiscernible from all other elementary bits. (Were entropy eventually to “smooth out” and separate every such elementary bit from any background of discernible organization, may all such bits just as well be considered as One and the Same?)

SQUARING CIRCLE BY POWER OF INFINITY:

Even were one given capacity only to represent a point, were such capacity extended to allow an infinite number of sequences, what is represented in our universe, which could not be represented by One with such extended capacity?

Having point and sequence, why should an Illusionist have need of "real" space and time, in order to communicate patterns of discreteness and continuity?

REPRESENTING INFORMATION:

Could not point sequences trace out words ... leading to information, to communication, to imagination ... thus becoming placeholders for appreciation?

John 1:1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

May not each of us be an Avatar for just such Capacity?

REPRESENTING LIGHT:

In God's imagination, could not such point sequences be translated into photon sequences?

And God said, Let there be light. 2 Cor. 4:6 and there was light.
And God saw the light that it was good.

PLACEHOLDERS FOR INFORMATION:

Ways in which quanta bits are represented to combine and react in complex, non-smooth contexts and patterns serve to hold, change, and accumulate information (logos and bio-logos).

Apart from relational context for empowering information, elementary particles do not exist as actual things-in-themselves, to occupy space, time, or space-time. Rather, each elementary “point-particle” functions with others to represent discrete placeholding for the storing, changing, and accumulating of mathematically measurable and representable information, functions, and properties.

FUNCTIONS FOR PRESENTING INFORMATION:

Uses to which such point particles are put encompass a full array of operations upon information, such as: representing breaks in system symmetry, destabilizing, organizing patterns for relating frames of reference, directing, synchronizing, balancing, conserving, storing, changing, accumulating, replicating, attracting, holding, supporting, focusing, testing, and recording.

MEASURING REPRESENTATIONS OF INFORMATION:

Such operations upon informational points may be represented in MEASURABLY QUANTIFIABLE RELATIONS, in respect of relational or comparative: density, mass, disturbance, speed, acceleration, inertia, attraction, resonance, vibration, frequency, amplitude, azimuth, orientation, direction, organization, facilitation, translation, identity, perspective, spin, orbit, synchronization, conjugal pairing, polarity, charge, potential, wobble, perturbation, instability, discrete leaping, discrete sequencing, exclusivity, pattern interference, pattern reinforcement, chronology protection, equilibrium, wave, field, and universe.

Information, as elementary bits organize it, depends for completeness upon The Array, which does not exist in space or time by itself. Rather, The Array is Source for completing perspectives of active, evolving, synchronizing information and ideas.

Evolution and competition among perspectives of such Array are represented by and through discrete changes in our masses and bodies.

INTERPRETING CONTINUITY OUT OF DISCRETENESS:

Whether “meta-time” may in any way exist “between” leaps of elementary quanta is beyond empirical measure. Thus, we interpret quantum leaps as being continuous (being perceived to be instantaneous) — even though we also measure such leaps as being discrete (being separated in space).

APART FROM ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE AND SIGNIFICANCE,
PHYSICS (NATURE) DOES NOT PRESERVE OBJECTIVE INFORMATION:

There being no objective particle-in-itself or physics-in-itself, there is no preservation of information about objective physics-in-itself. Rather, all information that is preserved in respect of our masses and bodies, as Avatars, is subordinate and subjective to a higher Array, which is necessary TO COMPLETE THE REALITY of any information.

GOD’S APPRECIATION, MEMORY, IMAGINATION, AND CHRONOLOGY:

Whether or how such subjective information as we experience or represent may be appreciated, changed, or preserved at such higher level or Array is beyond mortal empiricism.

Insofar as “God” (The Array) is not defined merely in respect of our individual experiences of space and/or time, we have no empirical way to test whether God may have meta-memory of all spatial representations over time. Neither may we test or know whether God may have imagination to change space, time, or directions thereof. (My guess — or faith — would be that the Array may have some metaphysical way for re-normalizing its memory in respect of its imagination. That is, were intelligent time travel to occur, we could not prove or know it).

RELIABILITY OF RELATIVE CONSTANTS:

No elementary particle is an objective particle-in-itself, independent of being completed by the Array. Yet, in respect of rules of logic— which are necessary for information to be changed, exchanged, related, stored, and accumulated — each particle is always expressed in obedience to such rules. In that respect, each elementary particle can only be expressed in conformity with relative constants.

Thus, no relative particle can appear within any inertial frame of reference except in obedience to such parameters of mathematical logic as rule all relative particles that are permitted to receive, absorb, or organize such information. Thus, REGARDLESS OF RELATIVE PERSPECTIVE, NO SUBJECTIVE OBSERVER CAN EXPERIENCE OR RELATE TO ANY ELEMENTARY PARTICLE EXCEPT IN OBEDIENCE TO REQUIRED, DISCRETE, MATHEMATICAL PARAMETERS.

AVATARS:

Even so, no elementary point-particle can be complete-in-itself, as a physical being.
Rather, even elementary particles do not become complete except insofar as they facilitate avatars of information.

Information becomes organized for expressing complex mortal Avatars (for representing Spheres of Active Information), as elementary particles become inter-organized and patterned, in relative, complex contexts or frames of reference.

“Something” about “the Array” that is beyond empiricism directs and synchronizes such complex organizing. It makes little difference whether our puny minds may conceit to call IT intelligent or dumb, caring or indifferent, conscious or unconscious, animate or inanimate, sectarian or secular. IT completes us, exists beyond our empiricism and comprehension, is Source of our consciousness, and is worthy of our common awe.

Wittgenstein was as wrong as he was incomplete. Were IT something we must pass over in silence, then we must also not even whisper of IT. Yet, Wittgenstein did whisper of IT.

Whatever the character or nature of the Source, IT continues to sequence our universe to us, perhaps out of nothing more than capacity to represent a single point in a infinite number of sequences. If IT can do that, what may we do by whispering of IT among ourselves?

Ehyeh asher ehyeh: I am that I am; I shall be that I shall be.

First Entanglement

(by Dlanorrenrag*)

First Entanglement:

Quite Uninformed, Speculative, and "Experimental" Musing:

In the first sequence of our common Big Bang, all masses and bodies were entangled in a single point, in respect of the universal pilot wave or field of the Author of our existence.

All information of our universe in respect of such chronologically first sequence was represented and stored in such point.

All information was so perfectly harmonious, resonant, and symmetrical that no principle of exclusion precluded all such information from occupying the same state as represented by the same point.

However long such point may have been stable and symmetrical before it became unstable and asymmetrical is not measurable to mortal empiricism.

Regardless, once such point became unstable, information stored “within” it became active, triggering a principle of exclusion, such that information represented in such point-particle exploded, to fill its field in every subsequent sequence.

Early breaks in the symmetry of such point-particle would not represent so much expression of information as in such breaks as snowballed thereafter.

Recording of patterns of information of such early sequences would not be preserved or perceived as taking so much “time.” Until breaks became sufficient to allow information to be measurably recorded in physical representations, any subsequent examination would reveal such previous breaks as seeming to occur within a ridiculously small amount of “time.”

If each break occurred as a split, to a split, to a split, and so on, like a cell subdividing in super-symmetry, then, depending upon the level of each measurement of a split, each such split may be represented in a polarized, translatable, previously entangled twin. If so, there may still be a galaxy somewhere in space-time that is much like our own.

Such super-symmetry may extend even to the most elementary particles. An elementary particle cannot split further. But, it may share an entangled state with a like particle of like angular momentum (spin). Were such an entanglement then to split, each such particle may be said to be polarized with its twin.

During such polarization, what happens to the spin of one among such a pair would necessarily happen to the other, synchronously, regardless of separation in space.

How long would such polarization last? What could end it?
Could such “spooky action at a distance” be used to convey information faster than the speed of light?

DIFFICULTIES IN MEASURING REAL CHRONOLOGIES

(by Dlanorrenrag*)

DIFFICULTIES IN MEASURING REAL CHRONOLOGIES:

SIMULTANEITY:

No matter what kind of instrument or technique may be used to measure, each will necessitate the sending and/or receiving of its own first distinct, discrete signal.

But, may two separate observers (or sources for measuring) ever measure in a sequence that is truly simultaneous?

This begs a question about reality: May any two separate sources for measuring ever exist in respect of any real, objective simultaneity? But, hold that thought.

SYMMETRY BREAKING:

Meanwhile, consider: Two measurers, not to be trivially identical, must occupy, or have their processes occupy, loci in space time that are, at least to some extent, slightly distinguishable. So, at some nearing to exactitude, it would seem there must eventually be found some slight, symmetry breaking difference in simultaneity (assuming their respective chronologies were really objective).

Thus, a (subjective) interpretation will be supported in favor of the first measuring signal that can be interpreted as breaking the symmetry (interpreting a thing being measured as being either a particle or a wave — or a partially collapsed wave).

REALITY:

Now, return to the character of reality: Suppose nothing that any of us “physically” interprets, senses, and measures is, in itself, complete or real. Suppose the reality of everything we sense in physics is incomplete without respecting a Source (or hidden variable?) that is beyond what we conceive to be subject to physical measure? Suppose such Source is superior to our reality. Suppose it expresses its “thoughts” or directions, insofar as they lie behind or express our physics, in holistically distinct sequences or chronologies.

If so, we would have no means (apart from intuition and perhaps mathematical or logical tests for maximizing consistency) by which to measure such holistically distinct segments as may undergird our chronologies.

TEST:

“Testing” such an intuition or model could be done only by considering its logical implications, testing whether such implications seem reasonably compatible or consistent with what we experience as our physics.

Were such intuition found reasonably consistent, further testing would then ask: Does such intuition serve any practical or worthwhile function or purpose; does it help reduce, confine, define, or label intractable ambiguities and regressions; does it reasonably promote a sense of enlightened worth or empathy?

TESTING:

Thus, I begin testing.

If our universe appears to us in respect of distinct sequences, holistically presented, then no mortal measure or experience of chronological “reality” could be other than in “subjective” subordination to such holistic presentation. Insofar as every subjective perspective of a chronology were to depend for its relative reality upon a superior expression of discrete segments of holistic reality, there could not be any objectively real chronology upon which all mortals should agree. If such is our situation, it could make no objective sense to ask what “really” was any chronology upon which all mortals should agree.

Rather, each mortal (or local recorder of information) would receive, record, experience, and/or perceive only such experiential chronology as is presented to its locus in space-time.

Every perspective that occupies a distinguishably separate position in space-time would, to some extent, experience a perspective that is differently subjective, in relation to its local frame of reference. Observers and recorders that occupy different positions in space-time can never experience — objectively, precisely, or “really” — the same event or chronology.

If so, perhaps we may benefit by trying not unnecessarily to mix analysis, such as of: apples and oranges; parts and wholes; relative sequences and holistic segments.

Being mortal, we cannot directly experience or measure sequences of segments that are holistically expressed. A mortal at one locus in space-time may not sensibly compare with a mortal at another locus whether they may have simultaneously (in “real now-ness”) experienced a holistically discrete expression.

NOW-NESS AND RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY:

For any mortal body trying to share communication, there is no such thing as a “really” shared, physical “now-ness,” simultaneity, or chronology. This is because there is no such thing as a shared physics-in-itself, or a shared reality-in-itself.

What we can share are only our relative (subjective) interpretations, to the extent such interpretations overlap within orders of magnitude that are of significance to a shared frame of reference (or inertial locus in space-time). To the extent we share a frame of reference, we can, trivially, share relative measurements and calculations about shared chronologies — up to ever finer points where what is different about our loci begins to become significant. Approaching ever finer points, as we approach with different instruments and from different vectors, we will eventually experience or measure relatively different chronologies.

To the extent other mortal beings may be perceived to occupy distinguishably varying vectors in space-time, they may perceive or record us as experiencing varying relative chronologies.

To the extent other mortals may occupy other universes, with alternative relative constants, they will not be able to record us at all — but they may be subject to relational logic similar to ours.

NO INDEPENDENT MORTAL REALITY:

Relative to anything less than holistic perspective, there is no one, correct, objective chronology. There is only sharing, among inertial frames of reference, of relative experiences or perspectives of chronologies, to varying orders of relational significance and magnitude.

CONSCIOUSNESS:

For organizing a relative chronology within any particular or random inertial frame of reference, it is not necessary that there be therein a mortal form of "consciousness.” It is only necessary that there be a Source of sequential impulses for directing such breaks in symmetry as can produce patterns (physical bodies), organized in counter-principle or conserved-regard to one another. At most superior level, I cannot know the quality or character of who or what that may be — or whether IT is “conscious.”

CONSERVATION:

Every mortal experience of any sequence is subjectively interpreted as respecting laws of conserved balance, excepting: there is no balance or mortal knowledge for why anything at all should exist, nor for why such existence should present in sequence among perspectives of varying subjective or relative experiences of chronology.

SUPERFLUOUS (?):

In respect of moral worth or enlightened empathy, may reasoning along such a course add or inspire anything?

May such reasoning yield names or categories, for referring to such infinite regressions as confront us?

From rationalizing a model for a Source which presents to us our relative realities, by means of holistically presented segments of chronology, does there follow a reasonable or intuitive implication?

May such Source, “between” segments for expressing us, exist to provide synchronizing direction, perhaps to enhance appreciation of purposefulness, as we experience going about our affairs?

PREOLISM

(by Dlanorrenrag*)

PREOLISM:

There are no physical agents of causation-in-itself. Rather, all physics is expressed in respect of Something “beyond,” which is necessary to complete our physics. Everything we physically express is produced in respect of mathematics and functions that are beyond and superior to all to which we are physically able to relate or measure. Every mortal interpretation of any agent of physical change is inferior to happenstance of focus, context, and purpose.

In respect that our mortal chronology is not real-in-itself, we are not really agents of change. Rather, we are expressions of an imbalance, which, nevertheless, is synchronized.

That which is superior, or “really reactive,” consists in relations, at a level beyond our physics, among an infinity of empathetic perspectives, which are united in one Array, interrelating in a mutual respect which is spiritual, mathematical, and synchronous.

In plurality, such Array may be said to be composed of Elohim. In respect of any given context or sequence, some among Elohim may enjoy degrees of freedom, and some may be neutralized. In the Array’s holistic singularity, it may be said to be “God.”

Among our physical selves, we reach to appreciate and communicate in respect of all such levels of significance and orders of magnitude as are trivially associated with our generally common chronology. Eventually, our reach may bring us to precise appreciation of all that is trivially taken as true and necessary to the sustenance of our common chronology. But, our physical reach will not bring us to knowledge of what is true about Reality.

Alternatively, our reach may ever exceed our grasp. Perhaps, as we strive to reduce, ever finer, towards limits for that which we can perceive or measure, we may ever extend both our methods and our limits, in regard to that which we share in respect of our common frame of physical, inertial reference.

Regardless that such reductions may raise consciousness about the nature of our limits, it is doubtful that such reductions will get us physically closer to moral Reality.

Beyond learning to appreciate our common chronology, we seek an explanation (or model of reference — or reverence) that can be useful not merely to our practical physics but also to our moral sentiments.

PREOLISM: For that purpose, testing necessitates trials more in respect of intuition and consistency than in respect of empiricism. For that purpose, my philosophy may be characterized as one of purposeful empiricism, aka progressive realism, aka “Preolism.”

IDENTITY OF INDISCERNIBLES:

A photon is conceived to be massless.
No mass or body can ride a photon.
So, a photon “rides only itself” (or, perhaps, its own pilot wave).
Were one able to ride a photon, one could not interact with any mass or any change in mass.
Such a one would “perceive” time as stopping.

In “relation to itself,” what is a photon?
Must a photon be representative of “Consciousness itself”?
May such Consciousness say, “Let there be light”?

Is each representation of photon, in itself, indistinguishable from any other?
Must all expressions of photon be expressions of one and the same photon, varying only in respect of context or “point of view”?

How may information be variously conveyed among perspectives, in respect of expressions of photon?
May photon manifest in whatever relation Consciousness may desire, to express information that is representative both of God and Elohim, One and Many?

May our bodies be mere placeholders, dancing in respect of an Array (of “consciousness”?), thereby enabling appreciation of tricks with information, coded in ways that can be measured mathematically?

Among physical mortals, does sharing information require placeholding reference to significantly shared frames of physical reference?

CIRCULARITY OF INFORMATION

CIRCULARITY OF TRIVIAL INFORMATION:

COVARIANCE AND INVARIANCE:

LORENTZ TRANSFORMATIONS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_invariant:

In physics, Lorentz covariance is a key property of spacetime that follows from the special theory of relativity, where it applies globally. Local Lorentz covariance refers to Lorentz covariance applying only locally in an infinitesimal region of spacetime at every point, which follows from general relativity. Lorentz covariance has two distinct, but closely related meanings.

A physical quantity is said to be Lorentz covariant if it transforms under a given representation of the Lorentz group. According to the representation theory of the Lorentz group, these quantities are built out of scalars, four-vectors, four-tensors, and spinors. In particular, a scalar (e.g. the space-time interval) remains the same under Lorentz transformations and is said to be a Lorentz invariant (i.e. they transform under the trivial representation).

An equation is said to be Lorentz covariant if it can be written in terms of Lorentz covariant quantities (confusingly, some use the term invariant here). The key property of such equations are that if they hold in one inertial frame, then they hold in any inertial frame (this is a result of the fact that if all the components of a tensor vanish in one frame, they vanish in every frame). This condition is a requirement according to the principle of relativity, i.e. all non-gravitational laws must make the same predictions for identical experiments taking place at the same spacetime event in two different inertial frames of reference.

CONSISTENT HISTORIES:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_histories:

In quantum mechanics, the consistent histories approach is intended to give a modern interpretation of quantum mechanics, generalising the conventional Copenhagen interpretation and providing a natural interpretation of quantum cosmology. The theory is based on a consistency criterion that then allows the history of a system to be described so that the probabilities for each history obey the rules of classical probability while being consistent with the Schrödinger equation.Quantum decoherence implies that only special choices of histories are consistent, and it allows a quantitative calculation of the boundary between the classical domain and the quantum domain.

ABOUT CONSCIOUSNESS FEEDBACK AND EXISTENTIAL DIALOGUE:

From http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec13.html :

“In the microscopic world ruled by quantum physics, there is an existential dialogue among the particle, its surroundings and the person studying it.”

POSITIVISM AND CIRCULARITY:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism :

“The irony of this series of phases is that though Comte attempted to prove that human development has to go through these three stages it seems that the positivist stage is far from becoming a realization. This is due to two truths. The positivist phase requires having complete understanding of the universe and world around us and requires that society should never know if it is in this positivist phase. One may argue that the positivist phase could not be reached unless one were God thus reverting to the first and initial phase; or that humanity is constantly using science to discover and research new things leading one back to the second metaphysical phase. Thus, some believe Comte’s positivism to be circular.”

From Stephen Hawking: “... a scientific theory is a mathematical model that describes and codifies the observations we make. A good theory will describe a large range of phenomena on the basis of a few simple postulates and will make definite predictions that can be tested… If one takes the positivist position, as I do, one cannot say what time actually is. All one can do is describe what has been found to be a very good mathematical model for time and say what predictions it makes.”

FEATURE: “The belief that science involves the idea of the unity of science, that there is, underlying the various scientific disciplines, basically one science about one real world.”

CRITICISM: “If an experience is 'reduced' to something else, does it cease to exist as a subjective qualitative thing, or not? If not, doesn't it remain in a crucial sense unreduced to a 'scientific' object? If so, what inspired the 'reduction'?”


TIME MACHINES AND SELF-CANCELLING LOOPS:

From http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0204/0204022v2.pdf :
Does nature abhor a time machine?

PHILOSOPHICAL REALISM:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism :

“Contemporary philosophical realism, also referred to as metaphysical realism, is the belief in a reality that is completely ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc. Philosophers who profess realism also typically believe that truth consists in a belief's correspondence to reality.”


MISCELLANY:

... in the history of philosophy there has been continuous debate about what is real...

The majority of working physicists discard 'realism' in favor of locality, since non-locality is held to be contrary to relativity

Local realism is the combination of the principle of locality with the "realistic" assumption that all objects must objectively have pre-existing values for any possible measurement before these measurements are made.

According to an accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics known as the Copenhagen interpretation, a measurement causes an instantaneous collapse of the wave function describing the quantum system, and the system after the collapse is random.

SPIN-SINGLETS, ENTANGLEMENT, AND SPOOKY ACTION AT A DISTANCE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_singlet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen_paradox:

The most prominent opponent of the Copenhagen interpretation was Albert Einstein. Einstein did not believe in the idea of genuine randomness in nature, the main argument in the Copenhagen interpretation. In his view, quantum mechanics is incomplete and suggests that there had to be 'hidden' variables responsible for random measurement results

The famous paper "Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?" authored by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen in 1935, condensed the philosophical discussion into a physical argument. They claim that given a specific experiment, in which the outcome of a measurement could be known before the measurement takes place, there must exist something in the real world, an "element of reality", which determines the measurement outcome. They postulate that these elements of reality are local, in the sense that they belong to a certain point in spacetime. This element may only be influenced by events which are located in the backward light cone of this point in spacetime. Even though these claims sound reasonable and convincing, they are founded on assumptions about nature which constitute what is now known as local realism.

To make the mixed part quantum and part classical descriptions of this experiment local, we have to say that the notebooks (and experimenters) are entangled and have linear combinations of + and – written in them

It turns out that the usual rules for combining quantum mechanical and classical descriptions violate the principle of locality without violating causality. Causality is preserved because there is no way for Alice to transmit messages (i.e. information) to Bob by manipulating her measurement axis. Whichever axis she uses, she has a 50% probability of obtaining "+" and 50% probability of obtaining "-", completely at random; according to quantum mechanics, it is fundamentally impossible for her to influence what result she gets. Furthermore, Bob is only able to perform his measurement once: there is a fundamental property of quantum mechanics, known as the "no cloning theorem", which makes it impossible for him to make a million copies of the electron he receives, perform a spin measurement on each, and look at the statistical distribution of the results. Therefore, in the one measurement he is allowed to make, there is a 50% probability of getting "+" and 50% of getting "-", regardless of whether or not his axis is aligned with Alice's.

The word locality has several different meanings in physics. For example, in quantum field theory "locality" means that quantum fields at different points of space do not interact with one another. However, quantum field theories that are "local" in this sense appear to violate the principle of locality as defined by EPR, but they nevertheless do not violate locality in a more general sense. Wavefunction collapse can be viewed as an epiphenomenon of quantum decoherence, which in turn is nothing more than an effect of the underlying local time evolution of the wavefunction of a system and all of its environment. Since the underlying behaviour doesn't violate local causality it follows that neither does the additional effect of wavefunction collapse, whether real or apparent. Therefore, as outlined in the example above, neither the EPR experiment nor any quantum experiment demonstrates that faster-than-light signaling is possible.


QUANTUM TELEPORTATION:

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/physics-04zi.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

Although two entangled systems appear to interact across large spatial separations, no useful information can be transmitted in this way, so causality cannot be violated through entanglement. This is the statement of no communication theorem.

Although no information can be transmitted through entanglement alone, it is possible to transmit information using a set of entangled states used in conjunction with a classical information channel. This process is known as quantum teleportation. Despite its name, quantum teleportation cannot be used to transmit information faster than light, because a classical information channel is required.

BOHMIAN INTERPRETATION:

The Bohmian interpretation opts for keeping realism and accepting nonlocality.

unlike the Copenhagen interpretation it is both objective and deterministic. It says the state of the universe evolves smoothly through time, with no collapsing of wavefunctions. Thus, Bohm called the hidden variable or pilot wave the quantum potential force

The Bohm interpretation accounts for the same phenomena by saying that both a particle and a wave do exist. The particle aspect is present because each electron traverses one slit or another, but never both. The wave aspect is present because the electron's pilot wave traverses both slits.

Now we must address the question of nonlocality. Within Bohm's interpretation, it can occur that events happening at one location in space instantaneously influence other events which might be at large distances: thus we say that the theory fails to obey locality, i.e., it is non-local. The response many physicists have to Bohm's theory is often related to how they regard this concept.

Although it implies the existence of the EPR type of nonlocality, it avoids the need for positing other types of nonlocality, such as wave collapse or splitting universes.

The minimum benefit of Bohm's interpretation, independent of the debate about whether it is the preferable formulation, is a disproof of the claim that quantum mechanics implies that particles cannot exist before being measured.

Because it is based on familiar concepts of realism, the Bohm interpretation gives simple, intuitive, non-mystical, and natural answers to what in the standard theory are often perplexing philosophical questions. For example, every particle exists all the time and has a unique position, even when it is not being measured.

In the Bohm interpretation, a wave does not collapse. Instead, a measurement produces what Bohm called "empty channels" consisting of portions of the wave that no longer affect the particle. This explains why physical systems behave as if parts of the wavefunction had disappeared, despite the fact that there is no true disappearance or collapse.

The fact that quantum theory allows for an accurate description of reality is clear from many physical experiments and has probably never been seriously disputed. Interpretations of quantum phenomena are another story.

EINSELECTION:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einselection

Einselection is the quantum thermodynamic process whereby the environment persistently monitors a quantum system, causing decoherence between states of the quantum system.

CONSCIOUSNESS CAUSED COLLAPSE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_causes_collapse

Recent study of quantum decoherence casts new light onto the problem by reducing the importance of the "macroscopic observer" originally introduced in the language of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory. Modern scientific discourse has evolved to try to quantify how quantum systems decohere due to their interactions with the surroundings. In this manner a unified view of all quantum interactions can be developed that treats neighboring quantum systems, thermal baths and the measurement apparatus on the same footing.

PEAR:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_Engineering_Anomalies_Research_Lab

NEW THOUGHT MOVEMENT:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_%282006_film%29:

Julie Ann Storr, founder of Nibbana (Sydney) in a how-to of the film's tenets, reports, "it all starts with gratitude"

and Stephanie Whittaker of Montréal's The Gazette notes, "proponents ... talk about a universal intelligence that responds to our desires

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Thought_Movement

The New Thought Movement or New Thought is comprised of a loosely allied group of denominations, organizations, authors, philosophers, and individuals who share a set of metaphysical beliefs concerning healing, life force, visualization, and personal power. The New Thought Movement developed in the United States during the late 19th century and continues to the present time. It promotes the ideas that God is all powerful and ubiquitous, spirit is the totality of real things, true human self-hood is divine, divine thought is a force for good, all sickness originates in the mind, and 'right thinking' has a healing effect.

New Thought denominations are panentheistic belief systems, although many adherents consider their beliefs to be a philosophy.

New Thought holds that an immanent presence, often referred to as Mind, Universal Intelligence, Universal Presence, Life, or "God" is the primary basis of all interconnected reality, personal and transcendent. Other names for this presence found in the texts of new Thought authors are Divine Mind, Creative Intelligence, Creative Energy, and Mother-Father God. Some take literally the Christian teaching that "the kingdom of heaven is within."

POST-STRUCTURALISM:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poststructuralism:

While post-structuralism is difficult to define or summarize, it can be broadly understood as a body of distinct reactions to structuralism. There are two main reasons for this difficulty. First, it rejects definitions that claim to have discovered absolute 'truths' or facts about the world.[1] Second, very few people have willingly accepted the label 'post-structuralist'; rather, they have been labeled as such by others.

PSEUDO-MODERNISM:
http://www.philosophynow.org/issue58/58kirby.htm

The cultural products of pseudo-modernism are also exceptionally banal, as I’ve hinted. The content of pseudo-modern films tends to be solely the acts which beget and which end life. This puerile primitivism of the script stands in stark contrast to the sophistication of contemporary cinema’s technical effects. Much text messaging and emailing is vapid in comparison with what people of all educational levels used to put into letters. A triteness, a shallowness dominates all. The pseudo-modern era, at least so far, is a cultural desert. Although we may grow so used to the new terms that we can adapt them for meaningful artistic expression (and then the pejorative label I have given pseudo-modernism may no longer be appropriate), for now we are confronted by a storm of human activity producing almost nothing of any lasting or even reproducible cultural value – anything which human beings might look at again and appreciate in fifty or two hundred years time.

The roots of pseudo-modernism can be traced back through the years dominated by postmodernism. Dance music and industrial pornography, for instance, products of the late 70s and 80s, tend to the ephemeral, to the vacuous on the level of signification, and to the unauthored (dance much more so than pop or rock). They also foreground the activity of their ‘reception’: dance music is to be danced to, porn is not to be read or watched but used, in a way which generates the pseudo-modern illusion of participation. In music, the pseudo-modern supersedingof the artist-dominated album as monolithic text by the downloading and mix-and-matching of individual tracks on to an iPod, selected by the listener, was certainly prefigured by the music fan’s creation of compilation tapes a generation ago. But a shift has occurred, in that what was a marginal pastime of the fan has become the dominant and definitive way of consuming music, rendering the idea of the album as a coherent work of art, a body of integrated meaning, obsolete.

pseudo-modernism sees the ideology of globalised market economics raised to the level of the sole and over-powering regulator of all social activity – monopolistic, all-engulfing, all-explaining, all-structuring, as every academic must disagreeably recognise. Pseudo-modernism is of course consumerist and conformist, a matter of moving around the world as it is given or sold.

pseudo-modernism lashes fantastically sophisticated technology to the pursuit of medieval barbarism –

This pseudo-modern world, so frightening and seemingly uncontrollable, inevitably feeds a desire to return to the infantile playing with toys which also characterises the pseudo-modern cultural world. Here, the typical emotional state, radically superseding the hyper-consciousness of irony, is the trance – the state of being swallowed up by your activity. In place of the neurosis of modernism and the narcissism of postmodernism, pseudo-modernism takes the world away, by creating a new weightless nowhere of silent autism. You click, you punch the keys, you are ‘involved’, engulfed, deciding. You are the text, there is no-one else, no ‘author’; there is nowhere else, no other time or place. You are free: you are the text: the text is superseded.

TRIVIAL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivial_representation:
The trivial character is the character that takes the value of one for all group elements.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivial_representation"

Symmetry In Sequences

(by Dlanorrenrag*)
Symmetry In Sequences:

Memory represents storing of information as it accumulates over sequences and/or segments.
Time, in itself, does not exist — except in subjectivity.
And, as byproduct of whatever may express Einstein’s grid, in respect of relativity.

So, if time does not exist, why should anyone suppose it possible to go back and forth between the "non-existent" past, present, and future?

Should any one person who shares a state that defines his body as well as the bodies of all with whom he has capacity to communicate be able to travel to previous or later sequences in his experience, thereby to alter the experiential information and sequences of all who may share his state?

Should experiences of conservation support intuitions that we can never deviate from a series of existential balances and symmetries, whose actual sequence and direction is determined by some superior force or Decider, whose choices from among all potentials set the course for all who occupy our common state — synchronously?

May such Decider consist in some sort of morphogenetics (or collective unconscious, or "Elohim") call forth or allow directional, informational interpretations of various manifestations of such sequentially organized representations of symmetrical forms?

STATES OF SYMMETRY (and Equilibrium?):

From http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/symmetry-breaking/ :

Discuss definition of symmetry: Invariance under a specified group of transformations.
When alternatives are completely equivalent, there is no sufficient reason for choosing between them.
Following the situation of a certain symmetry, absent an asymmetric cause, the initial symmetry is preserved.
Asymmetry cannot originate spontaneously.(?)
Stick a planed stick perpendicular in the ground. Put a weight on top, evenly distributed. Increase the weight gradually. Eventually, the stick must bend. The weight at which it must bend may be achieved in gradations too fine to ascertain precisely which addition caused the symmetry breaking.

Higgs fields could be phenomenological rather than fundamental.

What may be the relation between hidden symmetries and spontaneous symmetry breaking?
Symmetries of causes must be found in effects; asymmetries of effects must be found in causes.
Symmetry of a cause is not lost; it is preserved in ensemble (conflation) of solutions (the whole effect).

Entities may perhaps be defined based on their transformation properties.
The requirement of invariance with respect to a transformation group imposes restrictions upon the form a theory may take.
Research in respect of local symmetry groups aims at a unifying theory of physics.
Notions of super-symmetry help predict discoveries of new particles.

There are certain properties of objects which are not observable, such as absolute position.

Laws by means of which we describe the evolution of physical systems have an objective validity insofar as they are the same for all observers ([?]who HAPPEN TO SHARE in a state of having capacity to observe them).

What is objective is what is invariant with respect to the transformation group of reference frames.

How to understand the status of physical symmetries will present challenges to both physicists and philosophers.

Now-ness

(by Dlanorrenrag*)

Now-ness:

Maybe in some superior Meta-Mind-Like-Thing, our universe, as it is presented to us, follows a sequence (or "now-ness"), whereby chronology is protected for all perspectives, regardless that such chronology may be conflated differently for different perspectives from different frames of reference.

I think such holistically presented sequencing may be segmented in respect of discretely presented quanta.

It is not a "physical" universe that is presented to us in quanta, but an informational interpretation of a universe.
It is that information which is presented to us in discrete quanta.

May such information be coded to us, mathematically, in any way other than discretely digital?

Chronology Protection Mechanism For Reality

(by Dlanorrenrag*)

Chronology Protection Mechanism For Reality:

Dave,

When I hear about the Lorentz transformation, I want to ask what is IT (where is the pea-con?), really, that the Lorentz transformation is transforming?

For me, difficulty arises as soon as I try to relate to what is "real" (in respect of what is of relative potentiality in fields versus what is manifest in particles).
I suspect "reality" may manifest or conflate differently to different subjective experiences.

I appreciate that "turtle questions" tend to be a waste.
But, it may not be a complete waste to try to divine "The Clear Limit" that may separate unknowable, potential turtles from experiential, manifest reality; what separates metaphysical musing from potentially practical physics?

A notion that no particle "Really Exists In Reality" (until it is somehow experienced, measured, recorded, or reacted to) has got me wondering whether every interpretation of relative reality may be just as dependent upon a subjectively synchronous receiver or recorder as every interpretation of time.

This is not to suggest that we are free from constraints or reality. After all, chronology is protected in relation to all observers. But, it is to suggest that there may not be any completely objective reality that can be comprehended or measured from any one, mortal, subjective perspective.

It would seem that any "objective" or superior reality should need to be beyond and superior to our perspectives — as a synchronizing "meta-objective" (or meta-reality), whose chronological segments are sequenced or divided in ways beyond our kin.

All perspectives that are able to communicate among themselves must depend for their existential definition upon a common source or definer — including common rules or relative constants in respect of which all communications of information are synchronized.

Even so, I doubt there is any single, common, subjective reality for mortals in respect of anything that is actually “the same physical particle” for all.

CAUTION --- HERETIC MUSING: Must every being who communicates in respect of our common relative constants be considered to experience each and every particle (as may manifest) as having actually manifested, objectively, to the influence of all who may share such particle’s inertial frame of reference?

If so, how may any traveling observer ever experience any interpretation of physical (particulate) reality by which some segments may be conflated or missing, but which were experienced by others who did not so travel?

Relational-Conflational Physics: Each relative particle which relates to you will also relate to me, synchronously, in a way which is not inconsistent with our common frame of reference. Even so, you will experience each such particle in reference to a context of your own path through space-time.

Thus, a slightly different contextual interpretation of each relative particle will be conflated to your locus of interpretation (or to whatever recording device you may use) than that which will be conflated to me (or to whatever recording device I may use, if different).

In any event, no particle --- in the sense of how we experience or measure ---exists as an objectively real thing in itself. Rather, each particle to which we relate exists in respect of our capacities to record, sense, or consciously appreciate a receipt or conveyance of relative information about it. And, our capacities to relate and conflate in common to such information are derivative of Whatever synchronizes such information with our capacities to experience it.

I think our reality is sequentially synchronous to our common frame of reference, but not otherwise objective. Rather, mortal reality depends upon each relative, subjective perspective and frame of reference.

We respect the same relative constants in order to receive and convey information because, trivially, that is how whatever defines us allows us to experience and communicate our respective, subjective, conflated interpretations of reality.

No perspective is allowed to communicate to any other, except in respect of a common Source that allows each to communicate about their experiential relations, however differently conflated.

Our separate experiences, while different, must all genuflect in subordinate conflation and respect for the same Chronology-Protection-Mechanism that defines each of us. Each conflated perspective of reality is relatively measurable so long as Some-Meta-Thing prohibits chronology violations. That is, I cannot experience the future and return to warn the present; nor can I re-visit the past in order to alter the present.

Suppose "A" and "B" are watching the “movie of life.” By traveling, "A" may go to adjoining theaters or frames of reference to view the same movie, either faster or slower. There, “A” may pick up the story line at the same or later place, but not at an earlier place (no re-visit to the past).

"A" may not return to sit next to "B" without first passing through a returning experience of reality that will so conflate his experiences as to preclude "A" from altering any experience in chronology by either of them.

Even so, "A" may, in the process of traveling relative to "B", find himself to have aged slower or faster than "B".

This is because subjective reality will have presented to "A" a different number of segments of experience, which will thus wear, tear and age him differently than “B.” In respect of opportunities for differential rates of relative travel, "A," "B" and their respective theaters may each experience or record a different rate of relative aging (like comparing an Apple with a Banana with a Tangerine).

So, I doubt our universe has an "objective age in itself." In fact, I doubt our universe even really exists “in itself.” Rather, “Something” beyond us is necessary to complete it.

Even so, our universe, insofar as it is amenable of being presented to such mortals as experience the relative constants that we experience (and in respect of whom I believe there is presented a synchronizing “now-ness”), will be found, in every inertial frame of reference, to conflate there to a same interpretation of age for their common frame of reference.

NOW-NESS: Unless there is a synchronized “now-ness,” it would fail my intuition to believe that time chronology violations are prohibited.
Even though: "The universe" — everywhere and at once — does not have any one, objective, "real" age that can be measured by any mortal. That is, I doubt there are infinities of realities or of physical universes, in themselves, playing simultaneously in theaters everywhere.

However, there may be infinity of subjective experiences of realities. And, I suspect that whatever may be the Meta-Source in respect of which my subjective reality is defined or conflated must somehow synchronize or "collapse" a similarly conflated reality in respect of everyone with whom I am given capacity to communicate.

I suspect the Second Law of Thermodynamics may tend to be incompletely stated, and may assume much of what it should beg to question: That there actually, really exists any objective state of ultimate, diffuse equilibrium, in and of itself, in which either time or reality would "stop," without reference to any "thing" further in order to complete the existential definition of any such state of diffuse “equilibrium in itself.” That is, I think the concept of “equilibrium-in-itself” is no less metaphysical than the concept of any other “thing-in-itself.”

REAL TIME

IS PHYSICAL CHRONOLOGY REAL?

QUESTION:
IS THERE A COMMON NOWNESS?

In respect of One Author ("God"?), is there a sequential chronology or arrow in informational sequences relating to patterns, forms, and recorded formulations of numerical or figurative representations thereof?
Is information always somehow recorded and preserved whereby it can be established within each frame of reference the truth about sequences of events as may have occurred therein?

MUSING:
Suppose twins, "A" and "B," begin at age 0 at common frame of reference, but begin to travel differentially at age 10. Because of A’s travels in space, when A returns to B’s home at their initially common frame of reference, A is then 15 years old, while B is 20.
When they were born, the universe was "X" years old.
When A returned home, presumably they would both, from such locus, then measure the universe as having the same age.
Presumably, such age would be X plus 20, rather than X plus 15.
Is the logical law of contradiction violated, if the universe is X plus 20 years old, while A is 15, but B is 20?
I suspect not
I suspect there must be a breakdown somewhere, as in the case of mixing apples improperly with oranges.
That is, the aging of the universe is like an apple to the orange of A’s aging and to the grapefruit of B’s aging.
But why?
HOW MAY THE CONCEPTUAL BREAKDOWN BE ACCOUNTED FOR?

NOWNESS:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_time :
"Nature doesn't need "simultaneity" for anything since nature doesn't operate at a distance, but only on contact between interacting agents, so the simultaneity, as not existing in nature, is a human rather than a physical idea, following from imprecise measurements of time. So is the "common moment"."
I AM NOT SO SURE THAT NATURE DOES NOT OPERATE FROM A DISTANCE.

PROBLEMS:
What does "contact" mean?
What does "interacting agents" mean?
What does it mean to say that "nature" doesn’t operate at a distance"?
I AM NOT SO CONFIDENT —
that there is no common "now-ness" — regardless of whether it may be measurable.

CONSIDER: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_time.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_flow :
"Thus special relativity strictly says, not that no speed can be faster than light, but that nothing can move past another object at a speed faster than light."
"In systems that are gravitationally bound, such as galaxies or our planetary system, the expansion of space is (more than) annihilated by the attractive force of gravity."
[Olbers paradox:] "In a universe that exists for a finite amount of time, only the light of finitely many stars has had a chance to reach us yet, and the paradox is resolved. Additionally, in an expanding universe distant objects recede from us which cause the light emanating from them to be redshifted and diminished in brightness. Both effects contribute (the redshift being the more important of the two; remember the original paradox was couched in terms of a static universe). The darkness of the night sky, then, provides a kind of confirmation for the Hubble expansion of the universe."

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time :
Arrow of time
Main article: Arrow of time
Time appears to have a direction – the past lies behind, fixed and incommutable, while the future lies ahead and is not necessarily fixed. Yet the majority of the laws of physics don't provide this arrow of time. The exceptions include the Second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy must increase over time; the cosmological arrow of time, which points away from the Big Bang, and the radiative arrow of time, caused by light only traveling forwards in time. In particle physics, there is also the weak arrow of time, from CPT symmetry, and also measurement in quantum mechanics.
Quantised time
See also: Chronon and Planck time
Time quanta is a hypothetical concept. In the modern quantum theory (the Standard Model of particle physics) and in general relativity time is not quantized.
Planck time (~ 5.4 × 10 44 seconds) is the unit of time in the system of natural units known as Planck units. Current established physical theories are believed to fail at this time scale, and many physicists expect that the Planck time might be the smallest unit of time that could ever be measured, even in principle. Tentative physical theories that describe this time scale exist; see for instance loop quantum gravity.

SEE ALSO:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

BAYESIAN INFERENCE:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_statistics :
Bayesian inference usually relies on degrees of belief, or subjective probabilities, in the induction process and does not necessarily claim to provide an objective method of induction.

Zeno Time

Zeno Operator Between Discrete Segments Of Time?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes :

"... proposed solutions to Zeno's paradoxes from past and present philosophers have included the denial that space and time are themselves infinitely divisible, and the denial that the terms space and time refer to any entity with any innate properties at all."
"To be precise, Zeno *started* with the assumption that a finite interval can be split into infinitely many parts, and then argued that it is impossible to move through such a landscape. For calculus and other series-based solutions to make the point that the sum of infinitely many terms can add up to a finite amount therefore merely confirms Zeno's assumption about the landscape (geometry) of space, but does nothing to answer Zeno's question of how we can actually (dynamically) move through such a space."
"Thus, all these kinds of solutions presuppose that Zeno's difficulties have already been solved when trying to resolve the paradox. Which is to say, they beg the question and therefore don't resolve anything at all."
"This much simpler argument simply states that for Achilles to capture the tortoise an infinite series of physical events need to be completed, which is logically impossible. The calculus and mathematical series based solutions offer no insight into this much simpler, much more stinging, paradox."
"Another proposed solution to some of the paradoxes is to consider that space and time are not infinitely divisible. Just because our number system enables us to give a number between any two numbers, it does not necessarily follow that there is a point in space between any two different points in space, and the same goes for time.

[DSCRETE SEGMENTS SOLUTION:]
If space-time is not infinitely divisible (and thus not perfectly continuous), it is "discrete" (composed of "lumps" and "jumps"). This means that motion is, at the smallest physical level, may be a series of jumps from one quantum space-time coordinate to the next, each occurring over distance and time intervals that are not divisible into smaller measures. Thus the total number of quantum jumps made while traversing from point A to point B would be finite, and there is no paradox."


"Consequently, a body cannot be thought of as having a determined position at a particular instant in time while in motion, nor be fractionally dissected as such, as is assumed in the paradoxes (and their historically accepted solutions)."
"Similarly, one can say that the number of "acts" involved in anything is merely a matter of human convention and labeling. In the constant-pace scenario, one could consider the whole sequence to be one "act," ten "acts," or an infinite number of "acts." No matter how the events are labeled, the tortoise will follow the same trajectory over time, and all of the acts will be "finished" by the time the tortoise reaches the finish line. Thus, the labeling of acts is arbitrary and has nothing to do with the underlying physical process being described and that it is possible to "finish" an infinite sequence of acts."


From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect:

"The quantum Zeno effect is a quantum mechanical phenomenon first described by George Sudarshan and Baidyanaith Misra of the University of Texas in 1977. It describes the situation in which an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay. This occurs because every measurement causes the wavefunction to "collapse" to a pure eigenstate of the measurement basis."

"The quantum Zeno effect takes its name from Zeno's arrow paradox, which is the argument that since an arrow in flight does not move during any single instant, it couldn't possibly be moving at all."

Principle Of Sufficient Reason

(by Dlanorrenrag*)

Principle Of Sufficient Reason:

Regarding causation and "sufficient reason" (everything which is, to the extent to which it is, possesses a sufficient reason for its being):

I do not quite believe that a thing-which-is necessarily possesses within itself sufficient reason or cause for its being. That is, I believe "reason" implicates a higher array of Consciousness, which must factor into each choice among potentials for each next sequence among events, in order for potentiality to become "caused" or manifested into physicality.

When what is commonly called a physical thing presently exists, I believe it exists not in itself but only as a relative placeholder, whose manifesting reality depends for its perception upon (1) space, (2) mathematics, and (3) at least one translating senser (or at least one in-sync potential for the thing’s being interpretatively sensed or measured by a consciousness, such as in respect of an observer or recorder).

Until a thing’s physical reality is manifested as a particle, we may only sense or measure the possibility or probability of its potential reality being transitioned to become manifest reality.
However, once information or sensation concerning a particular thing manifests (even if only to a recorder that we can later interpret), such particulate information becomes synchronously manifest, to affect the universal clock for all who share in having capacity to relate their experience to the reality of the universe within which the information concerning any such particle has been perceived, experienced, or recorded.

Particular events are caused to become manifest from among potential choices, but I think the Author of all such causation functions between discrete, sequential segments or units of space-time.

"Between" such segments, we, as perspectives of such Author, synchronously experience the conserved results of each such "metaphysically caused act." But, we do not empirically sense or measure "The Cause" of any such act in itself.

In such respect, we share in experiencing perspectives of "a world out there," which does not depend upon only my observations of it in order for it to exist.

Consider http://www.innerexplorations.com/catchmeta/mys6.htm :
"Bohm in his Wholeness and the Implicate Order tries to understand the kind of nonlocality that would replace Einstein's separability. We have already briefly seen his examples of revolving cylinders and the hologram with which he illustrated the relationship between the implicate and explicate orders, and he has another useful example, as well. Two television cameras are focused on adjacent sides of an aquarium that has fish swimming in it, and therefore, the two television pictures they produce of the swimming fish are correlated. Instead of saying there is a causal connection between these two images, it would be better to say that the two two-dimensional images are projections of a higher three-dimensional reality. If we transfer this imagery to the experiments that have demonstrated nonlocality, each particle can be thought of as a projection of a higher dimensional reality. There is a correlation between the particles, but of a "non-causal" sort, for they are not directly interacting with each other. Put in another way, we can say that there is no efficient causality operating between them, and no need to make some force travel faster than the speed of light from one to the other in order to effect the correlation observed. The correlation comes from somewhere else - a higher dimensional reality."