Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.1
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2025 15:36:37 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <101k9d5$38rh2$1@dont-email.me>
References: <100keh4$2a7u2$1@dont-email.me> <100vs1t$1cm5u$1@dont-email.me>
 <BIycnSTIfO9FJa71nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com>
 <1010o80$1qbg5$1@dont-email.me> <1011u58$206dt$1@dont-email.me>
 <101hhpv$1vuss$1@dont-email.me>
 <n22dncRD94DA2aD1nZ2dnZfqnPrVd8-z@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2025 15:36:38 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5be3b72cce3b6f63dc70920cb9ae81c2";
	logging-data="3436066"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+K0Aa7meXwxgYGDFXroGfJjdrnAMtZJm0="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:VT3qecKOf5DbO5RvD2ZtoimEj6g=
Content-Language: en-GB, it
In-Reply-To: <n22dncRD94DA2aD1nZ2dnZfqnPrVd8-z@giganews.com>
Bytes: 4157

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