Re: [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.1

On 02/06/2025 08:27, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 06/01/2025 05:41 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

On 26/05/2025 16:34, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

On 26/05/2025 05:47, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

<snip>

Coherence conditions is my best bet, as opposed to
everything goes, as that immediately makes no sense:
ultimately in a quantum mechanical form (information),
but already geometrically because *zero* (proper)
distance along a light-like path I take for serious:
zero distance is direct contact, and even sameness...

>
# A coherence law for retro-causation: the observer.
>
The observer from the future...

>
"Decoherence as co-coherence."
>
Consider the (Minkowski) space-time structure (which
is a mapping of our Universe), and project it onto the
(isochronous) space of a/"our" proper present: here we
have *decoherence*, as a loss of quantum information,
and a "collapse" to classical probabilities.  Kind of
a *co-holographic* principle.

 How is it, "merely a linear continuum", these three
space dimensions and a ray of time?

Simple but not over-simple...
1) you should really care not to conflate the map with
the territory: coordinate time is not proper time; and,
2) complex systems go with non-linearity: in particular,
non-Markovian, i.e. the role of history/memory, whence
the need for an absolute/universal frame of reference
that is a "line", not just a "point".
In particular, the present is and must be a reflection
of the whole (analogous to how infinite is preliminary
to finite): which is about logical coherence/integrity
as a prerequisite (projection/extrapolation), and the
*formation power* of that coherence (aka "induction").
More generally, understanding, then (conscientiously)
enacting, is more than just fitting the data: "give
me a long enough lever and I'll move the Earth" is
non-local already...

The practice of super-string theory (where super-strings
are effectively twice as many times smaller than atoms
than physics' atoms are smaller than us) of making
"more dimensions" to book-keep "more infinitesimals"
has that nature does it in less.

It's hard to draw judgement on any of that once you
realise that incongruences and non-collimations are
immediately due to how fundamentally broken infinity
is in standard mathematics (and that is just the most
concrete of a chain of issues that become more and
more severe going past the literal/naive level).
Are you going to take it on the physicists that they
have been trusting the wrong logic and mathematics?
Indeed, I think at this point we can at least clearly
see (i.e. looking at my diagrams and the interlocking
and scaling there) that/how there are different and
not independent scales: of *existence*, not just
description...
-Julio