I was asked to elaborate on the notion of “objective” and “subjective”, so here goes. I will update the post along the way. Let’s start with a basic assumption regarding the fundamental aspects of reality as we try to describe it. For better or worse, I tend to keep my eyes on the physicality of existence. I wouldn’t say I’m a “physicalist”, but I make efforts to keep all descriptions as “real” as possible. This is not to be understood as “restricted to empirical observables”, because that obscures half the truth already on square one. I won’t have that, so I will be stubborn like a screaming pig in consistently pointing towards the so called “hidden variable”. To me, it is not hidden at all, but simply the “action” of the “actor”.
Anyways, this is yet another effort to picture that which can only be half pictured. The reason a half image is that images are restricted to obey the properties of space. They cannot be done without utilizing “extension” and “surface”. Without properties of space, an image is indeed invisible, nicht wahr? Never the less, half of what it tries to picture is not of spatial extension, but of the notorious line of “time”. In time, it will be obvious that fundamental “time” is not of “period” or “interval” that can be measured. Only the properties of space can be measured. Instead, fundamental time is the act of timing the spatial extensions so they can interact and evolve as a communicating system, and not as a collection of random, discrete events. Observable quantum dots in space has a way of knowing other dots. They may be quantized and discrete, but that’s only because the emerge as the surface level. Beneath the measured surface, there is so called entanglement and a network of continous connectivity. That’s where we find the timing of space. The tricky part is that we cannot find it by looking at it, because it has no looks of its own. Looks are of space, remember. But if we get the fundamental unity right, that’s not a problem. Whatever the “hidden variable” is, it looks exactly as seen in all our measurements. That’s the cool aspect of unified spacetime.
It is always the same some/thing, appearing as every/things.
That is one way to draw this image. I have done many such attempts, and they all fall short of what I intend to communicate. A reason for this is that any concept used, be it “magnetism, charge, pole, spin, translation, relation”, is already loaded with meaning. And not only that, but of several meanings depending on context and who is reading/interpreting the text. On the other hand, replacing these concepts with ones own is also bound to fail for obvious reasons. It seems a reader must want to understand the image. That there is a desire to overcome vagueness and contradictions. I have realized that, trying to explain the vision in various ways, building many roads to Rome if you will, can easily obscure more than it reveals. I don’t know how to solve this equation efficiently. I believe everyone in a similar position experiences the same difficulties. I guess I’m whining for all of us.
I will probably keep on failing. That is how we achieve common progress.
Standing on the shoulders of failed attempts…