Re: [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.1

On 06/02/2025 06:36 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

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
>

Coordinates are sort of arbitrary, according to
what is the metric and norm, like in relativity
theory when Einstein is like "look, it's coordinate-free",
and it's like "how's that Einstein" and he goes "doesn't say".
I.e., whatever the tensors "are" that define the tensorial
products existing and preserving the parallel in very local
regions, is un-defined, and, it's whatever it is, with
regards to space-contraction as a FitzGeraldian kind of
Lorentzian, among the many varieties of systems approximating
or completing to Lorentzians, i.e. two Laplacians on the one
side and a third Laplacian on the other, with regards to
the "coordinate" and "proper".
Then about infinity mathematically, it's a continuum mechanics.
Of course you at least have some idea about my opinions.
Hey, warm regards, thanks for the interesting reading.