Dimensions in the Reciprocal System

[Horace]

Our physical senses cannot perceive scalar dimensions of motion directly, because there is no geometry to them

I know but some abstract (not solely numeric) represantation must be possible. Several coupled graphs perhaps?

[MWells]

Natural processes do have behavioral properties that Larson allowed by chance, yet are not apparently consequential from his postulates. Some of these properties may actually be as ontologically primary as scalar motion itself and so not derivable from the postulates.

Andrei Kirilyuk's "unreduced complexity" is interesting and requires a new way of thinking about the problem of modeling any natural system from first principles: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2398 . His math provides an unreduced treatment of a natural system, yet he claims it is also complete. The intuition would be to utilize his math to express mutidimensional scalar motion in a "realistic" manner and avoid the trap explained in Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Kirilyuk is aware of the Reciprocal System and seems to be generally in favor of theoretical development based on a first-principles appoach.

[sstivender]

Yes, there is no way to produce a graph of just a magnitude. However, we can produce a graph that shows how each of the Scalar dimensions project in the x,y,z space of our experience. I think I saw this somewhere on this site with a cube and three switches that you can click on. This is good, but can it be expanded?

If not then shouldn't it be possible to develop some kind of "rules based" method that, when applied to the scalar motions, will provide a final result that we can observe in our x,y,z reality. These rules could be applied to rather complex combinations of scalar motion to provide predictions of the resulting reality and need not be a graphical tool.

I still struggle with the time aspects of the scalar motions. How is it that they "must" reduce to a single scalar value for consideration in the material sector? Is this the same as all the space aspects reducing to a single scalar value in the material sector? After all, we can only measure a distance as a magnitude. The fact that it has some arbitrary orientation in an x,y,z space is meaningless when measuring a distance.

[duane]

I posted this because it's trying to link gravity and dimensions

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/d ... .nwxsy8u2u

Dimensional Reduction: the key to physics’ greatest mystery?
Could the secret to understanding gravity be held in reducing, not increasing, the number of dimensions?

Dimensional reduction is an attractive idea because quantizing gravity is considerably easier in lower dimensions, where the infinities that plague traditional attempts to quantize gravity go away. A theory with a reduced number of dimensions at the shortest distances therefore has a much higher chance to remain consistent, and therefore to provide a meaningful theory for the quantum nature of space and time. Not so surprisingly, among physicists, dimensional reduction has received quite some attention lately.

[MWells]

Our physical senses cannot perceive scalar dimensions of motion directly, because there is no geometry to them. That is why Nature had to do it through projection into a coordinate system, with a causal ordering (cause-and-effect, aka the "clock").

I believe that Larson said (in NBM) that the only manifestation we can measure from 3D scalar motion is the spatial component of a translational motion?

This seems to mean that the 3 possible temporal components and 2 other possible spatial components are "hidden", but nonetheless influence that single spatial (manifesting) motion. Is this correct?

[bperet]

I believe that Larson said (in NBM) that the only manifestation we can measure from 3D scalar motion is the spatial component of a translational motion?

We detect the difference between spatial locations, in a straight line. In a universe of motion, that linear distance is actually a speed, but since our "device for measurement" (like your finger) is moving at the same speed, we interpret it as a distance by counting locations. That gives us "sizes."

For example, if you close your eyes and run your finger across an object, the information being transmitted to your brain are the locations that contain a temporal displacement (your finger is time, the object is time, so time-to-time is not motion and it feels solid) and the locations that don't. That is how the brain constructs an 3D object, internally--and linearly, since you have to move your finger around the object in a straight line to get the data. Visually, we do the same thing, just much faster with the eyes. There is a pre-processor for visual data that does edge detection (lines), so it is basically passing the same info.

This seems to mean that the 3 possible temporal components and 2 other possible spatial components are "hidden", but nonetheless influence that single spatial (manifesting) motion. Is this correct?

I believe so. Larson actually describes it as one, scalar dimension being "coincident" with the reference system, where the remaining two modify the coincident dimension changing its expression in the reference system. Note that only applies to observable structure--when atoms or particles interact, it is done in ALL the scalar dimensions, modifying the properties of the coincident dimension.

Ferromagnetism is a good example, as the domain ordering is controlled by the 3rd scalar dimension that is not coincident with the reference system but greatly affects the behavior (creating magnetic properties to iron).

[MWells]

I believe so. Larson actually describes it as one, scalar dimension being "coincident" with the reference system, where the remaining two modify the coincident dimension changing its expression in the reference system. Note that only applies to observable structure--when atoms or particles interact, it is done in ALL the scalar dimensions, modifying the properties of the coincident dimension.

OK, does the Reciprocal System provide for or assume a wholly, inherently deterministic model for the behavior of quantum phenomena?

[bperet]

OK, does the Reciprocal System provide for or assume a wholly, inherently deterministic model for the behavior of quantum phenomena?

In situations where the ethical sector has no influence, yes, it is completely deterministic because all the variables and functions are defined for both space and time. But since the ethical sector is beyond space and time, ethical control unit influence would disrupt that determinism (such as the application of consciousness to an otherwise deterministic chemical interaction).

[MWells]

In situations where the ethical sector has no influence, yes, it is completely deterministic because all the variables and functions are defined for both space and time. But since the ethical sector is beyond space and time, ethical control unit influence would disrupt that determinism (such as the application of consciousness to an otherwise deterministic chemical interaction).

Without ethical sector consideration, isn't there also constant manifestation of motion from the cosmic sector which would also influence material sector motion in a non deterministic manner? Also, how would one determine the material sector spatial location of some faster-than-light motion originating in the cosmic sector?

[bperet]

isn't there also constant manifestation of motion from the cosmic sector which would also influence material sector motion in a non deterministic manner?

There is a nonlocal influence from the cosmic sector, but it is not random, because the material and cosmic sectors are not "separate," just out-of-phase with each other, so there is a predictable relationship.

Also, how would one determine the material sector spatial location of some faster-than-light motion originating in the cosmic sector?

There are no spatial locations that can express cosmic motion, because of the phase differential. Temporal motion would occur between spatial locations, modifying those adjacent locations. That is why we cannot see a magnetic field--only the effect the field has on space. But, like a magnet, you can determine the spatial locations that would be affected by such motion.