Self-referential units of motion

Discussion concerning the first major re-evaluation of Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of theory, updated to include counterspace (Etheric spaces), projective geometry, and the non-local aspects of time/space.
Post Reply
Horace
Posts: 266
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

Self-referential units of motion

Post by Horace » Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:05 am

In a recent discussion, I was surprised to realize, that some people think, a single unit of motion (UoM) can observe itself and self-determine whether its spatial or temporal aspect is increasing or decreasing, by utilizing only its own reciprocal aspect as a reference - this means: WITHOUT a reference to another unit of motion playing the role of an observer.
An example of this is the notion, that a single isolated out/out UoM can somehow self-determine, that it is different from an in/in UoM.
...or that a single isolated in/out UoM can somehow self-determine, that it is different from an out/in UoM.

I think that such absolute self-referential observations are impossible from within the RST universe on one UoM basis, ...unless one has some kind of external view of this universe (i.e. god's view).
In other words, all observations within the RST universe are relative. This means, that all observations inside the RST universe require at least two units of motion, where one plays the role of the observer and the other one - observee (they can swap these roles, of course).
The corollary of this is that without an observer, the properties of an isolated UoM cannot be determined within the confines of the RST universe. Whatever cannot be determined is INDETERMINATE by definition.

I am seeking arguments against or supporting my conclusions stated above.

P.S.
The UoM's properties, such as spatial/temporal "out" and "in" (or "increasing" and "decreasing" space/time) are mental crutch designators, which arise from using an external view of the RST universe (a.k.a. "god's view"). Such absolute perspective is unattainable for the entities confined to the RST universe.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Self-referential units of motion

Post by bperet » Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:17 am

Observation can only be done in extension space (3D coordinate space), as that is how our physical senses work. This requires a bit more than just an observer and observed location, you also need another location to determine which way is "up" to establish a coordinate system.

A UoM cannot be self-referential; that's a "divide by zero" situation, as a vector requires a length to BE a vector, and if locations are coincident, then all you have is a scalar magnitude, so no direction is possible and without direction, no way to establish a coordinate system for observation.
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
ckiit
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 7:54 am

Re: Self-referential units of motion

Post by ckiit » Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:34 am

Horace wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:05 am
In a recent discussion, I was surprised to realize, that some people think, a single unit of motion (UoM) can observe itself and self-determine whether its spatial or temporal aspect is increasing or decreasing, by utilizing only its own reciprocal aspect as a reference - this means: WITHOUT a reference to another unit of motion playing the role of an observer.
An example of this is the notion, that a single isolated out/out UoM can somehow self-determine, that it is different from an in/in UoM.
...or that a single isolated in/out UoM can somehow self-determine, that it is different from an out/in UoM.

I think that such absolute self-referential observations are impossible from within the RST universe on one UoM basis, ...unless one has some kind of external view of this universe (i.e. god's view).
In other words, all observations within the RST universe are relative. This means, that all observations inside the RST universe require at least two units of motion, where one plays the role of the observer and the other one - observee (they can swap these roles, of course).
The corollary of this is that without an observer, the properties of an isolated UoM cannot be determined within the confines of the RST universe. Whatever cannot be determined is INDETERMINATE by definition.

I am seeking arguments against or supporting my conclusions stated above.
In support of: in/out seems the first distinction beyond motionlessness (undefined) such that some kind of reference is needed beyond even itself.

To borrow Mr. Larson's analogy: in order to have motion, taking a box as an example, you have to have an inside, and an outside. The inside is time, the outside is space and/or vice versa. With no box, thus no in/out of, there is no space/time, thus no motion/box. Therefor, the first distinction is 'in/out' as it maps with 'space/time' giving four valid values: in/out of space, in/out of time which allows for displacement(s) if also given a fixed unity c. I am trying to extrapolate this first distinction into a primordial 'in towards/out from' which necessitates a subject/object/particulate, though not necessarily a real one.

However, if we allow the single unit of motion to be a human being whose impetus is captured in/as a single life "unit" say, over the course of a solar year(s), can the same be true? I am not so sure what the best way of going about this is, but I approach it in this way (if forgiving use of notation):

v = s/t
(all displacement(s) in-and-of v
from c = 1/1 are captured)

Let's assume v is unaware of a reference point 1/1
(ie. speed of light, god's view, unity etc. etc.):

√v → ±c
v = s/1, 1/t
√v = s/√1, √1/t
√v = (s/+1, s/-1), (+1/t, -1/t)
v = √(s/+1, s/-1), √(+1/t, -1/t)
viz. √(all or not space), √(all or not time)
viz. √(+all or -not), √(3s/1t ↔ +c- ↔ 1s/3t)

I see a universal binary here: a kind of primordial 1-0 as it pertains to +all/-not:
all ± (space and time)
not ± (space and time)
which need not apply to physical phenomena, but all metaphysical and/or even imaginary (i).
For example: the imagined root of a belief-based ignorance will have a null "real" value in s/t, but an imaginary i value in/of v itself such that it should govern their motion(s) as v = s/t.

Because motionlessness is undefined in a universe of motion, all motion is s/t, thus emerges v as v=s/t.
If all motion is thus valid therein, one must begin with first distinction(s):
motion/motionlessness (latter undefined)
space/time (=v as speed)
±in/±out (if even locally unknown)
+all/-not (operators)
+causation/-cessation (roots)
etc.

Thus I see an internal coordinate system intrinsic to v as it concerns c. If setting:
v = √(+all, -not), √(+causation, -cessation) as it pertains (or not) to real s/t phenomena,
it seems enough to serve as a universal axis and/or conduit for metaphysical orientation(s), as far as I can see...
bperet wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:17 am
Observation can only be done in extension space (3D coordinate space), as that is how our physical senses work. This requires a bit more than just an observer and observed location, you also need another location to determine which way is "up" to establish a coordinate system.

A UoM cannot be self-referential; that's a "divide by zero" situation, as a vector requires a length to BE a vector, and if locations are coincident, then all you have is a scalar magnitude, so no direction is possible and without direction, no way to establish a coordinate system for observation.
...what if observation is not performed in extension space, but in extension time; thus not with physical senses, but with metaphysical? The rest is still true: would still need at least one pole to ground to. However, suppose a UofM can be self-referential if/when given a fixed vector length that is intrinsic to the UofM itself. For example, a body which is uniformly subject to the fixed solar cycle (thus taken as t^2 by default, a rotating scalar whose beginning/end "follows" it wherever it goes).

Metaphysically, if we took the same v and used:
v = √(+all, -not), √(to +believe, to -know)
can we say 'to know all thus: not to believe' is "up",
whereas 'to believe all thus: not to know' is "down"?
say:
t^1 = 24h day......................{} 3d/1d s/t
t^2 = solar year (avg. 72)...{} 2d/2d conduit
t^3 = 25 920 great year.......{} 1d/3d s/t
somehow be modeled? Like:

-√v
-↓(to know).....
→(+all)↔(v=s/t)↔(-not)
+↑(to believe).....
+√v
_________________________________
√-A = {to know all thus not to believe...} tends towards any possible all-knowing 'state' theist/atheist-invariant
√+A = {to believe all thus not to know...} tends towards any possible 180-degree inversion(s) (ie. suffering/death)

This seems spacetime-invariant to me (ie. spatially one-dimensional), thus either "grounds" into real knowledge or imaginary belief,
wherein only one of those has the capacity to invert a perception up-to 180-degrees: belief. Doesn't it seem to hold that true "believers" seem to end up having it precisely upside-down? There is certainly a connection here to belief and inversion which RS(2) should be able to exploit, having such a strong foundation in physical phenomena - the one- and two-dimensional geometries of such basic orientation systems must hold in a universe of motion.

The reason I am trying to relate all of this together is I believe it is possible to develop a (meta)physical orientation system whose theoretical framework is both: already implied/laid by the material sector, and whose efficacy has the capacity to create a natural bridge between the material/physical and cosmic/metaphysical. Further I believe it is possible to prove that such a universal pole(s) does metaphysically exist, orientation to which can cease suffering (and perhaps death).

Horace
Posts: 266
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

Re: Self-referential units of motion

Post by Horace » Sat Jan 11, 2020 11:14 am

bperet wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:17 am
Observation can only be done in extension space (3D coordinate space), as that is how our physical senses work. This requires a bit more than just an observer and observed location, you also need another location to determine which way is "up" to establish a coordinate system.
I agree with that, however many newcomers to the RST are stuck in a paradigm where e.g. the expansion in one Unit of Motion is understood in ABSOLUTE terms (not relative). Intuitively defaulting to such "God's view" often becomes evident in words like "It simply changes size..." or "It just expands..." or "it just shrinks inward" or "inward/outward is an intrinsic property of scalar motion". Teachers of RST should be acutely aware of this false paradigm and be trained to identify this misconception early in any discussion.
bperet wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:17 am
..., then all you have is a scalar magnitude, so no direction is possible and without direction, no way to establish a coordinate system for observation.
Yes, the definition of a coordinate system requires the definition of a directional base.
  • With 1 UoM nothing can be determined.
  • With 2 UoMs "something" can be determined.
  • With 3 UoMs a coordinate system can be determined.
How would you name this "something" in the second case, which allows the observer to e.g.: determine whether the observed UoM is expanding or contracting (in or out) ?

Horace
Posts: 266
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

Re: Self-referential units of motion

Post by Horace » Sat Jan 11, 2020 12:44 pm

ckiit wrote:
Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:34 am
However, suppose a UofM can be self-referential if/when given a fixed vector length that is intrinsic to the UofM itself. hat such a universal pole(s) does metaphysically exist, orientation to which can cease suffering (and perhaps death).
Hello,

I will selectively reply to your post, because I do not have the time for the rest now.

In my understanding, the entire RST universe consists of a BIG SET of discrete Units of Motions (UoMs). How many UoMs is the universe composed of ? I do not know. Let's suppose it is 10120 UoMs.
  1. Each of these UoMs has some intrinsic properties (or a property). "intrinsic" means not related to anything external, i.e. to other UoMs.
  2. There are some relationships between these UoMs, too. We know this, because to our senses, the Universe appears as composed of multiple entities which can observe one another. I don't think this would be possible if the universe was composed of only one UoM. I don't think this would be possible either, in the case of multiple UoMs, which could not have any relationships between them.
Let's tackle the intrinsic properties of an UoM first. What are they ?
  • The major one, we can all agree on, is the speed of the UoM.
You are proposing an additional intrinsic property: a "fixed vector length" - which in reality is a combo of 3 properties:
  • direction (because a vector must have a direction)
  • length (because a vector must have a length) ...and since "length" implies a 1D magnitude... so it also defines the:
  • dimensionality
However there are already big problems with that proposition, because we started with describing the intrinsic properties of an UoM but neither the "sign" (whether the UoM moves inward or outward) a.k.a. "the scalar direction", nor the "vectorial direction" constitute intrinsic properties of scalar motion - they are relations between multiple UoMs (which is the whole point of this thread). Especially the concept of "vectorial direction" begs the question "direction in what reference system?" or "in reference to what datum?"
Also, the "length" is not a measure of motion (length is measured in completely different units). Perhaps you meant the length of one of the aspects of the UoM, e.g. the spatial aspect of it? If "yes", then consider, that if the spatial aspect of an UoM is 30cm over a 1ns temporal aspect, then this yields the speed of light. OK, but 1km over 3μs yields the speed of light, too, so who is to decide whether the spatial aspect of one UoM has the length of 30cm or 1km ?
The dimensionality is even more hairy: On what basis and who decides whether the intrinsic spatial aspect of an UoM is 1D, 2D or 3D ? - e.g. why would 30cm over 1ns be more preferable than 27 Liters over 1ns ?

We haven't tackled the enumeration of possible relationships between UoMs, yet. My "knee jerk reaction" is that in order to have any relationship there has to be something in common between the entities participating in that relationship, but I'd like to read Bruce's analysis of it first.
Starting with whether he thinks, that the RST universe is an ordered set of UoMs or an unordered set. ..because their order (or precedence) would be the first mentionable relation between UoMs.

User avatar
ckiit
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 7:54 am

Re: Self-referential units of motion

Post by ckiit » Sun Jan 12, 2020 7:10 am

Horace wrote:
Sat Jan 11, 2020 12:44 pm

Hello ...
... the concept of "vectorial direction" begs the question "direction in what reference system?" or "in reference to what datum?"
Here is where I will pick up on and continue.
The reference system is already given: c as unity over.

3d space / 1d time = displacement(s) (matter)
2d space / 2d time = 1/1
1d space / 3d time = displacement(s) (energy)

Image
______________________
Conjugate Operators: (+) and (-)
Conjugate Roots: (√+) and (√-)
+√v ↔ +v ↔ ±v± ↔ -v ↔ -√v viz. five-fold mapping of v
{±root: +cause}({±op:+all}±v±{±op:-not}){±root: -cease}

The roots (+)√v and (-)√v are super-imposed on top of one another, thus one-dimensional is implicit.
However, (+) and (-) are contraposed: to/from c, hence ±c, thus implies two-dimensional range of motion
as it concerns in/out to/from c.

Now let all 'time' constituency(s) of v be captured in its own 'scalar' circle/cycle
of 360-degrees (and/or 365.24 days recurring if human, noticing the temporary displacement)
to which it owes its own existence (ie. is rooted in).

√c = +c (unity) and/or -c (disunity) thus ±√1 is concerning v implicitly
t^1 = solar day (~360/72=5-fold mapping of v intrinsically possessing two coupled pairs of conjugate roots/operators)
t^2 = solar year (~360 degrees of arc Mar21→Mar21)
t^3 = cosmic year (~360x72=25 920 and/or 2160x12)
____________________________________________
t^2 → t^1 = division by 72
t^2 → t^3 = multiplication by 72

v^2 = s^2/t^2 is now solvable concerning ±c (towards/away) to/from unity.
neither the "sign" (whether the UoM moves inward or outward) a.k.a. "the scalar direction", nor the "vectorial direction" constitute intrinsic properties of scalar motion
The orientation is locally one-dimensional: to/from (concerning c), however motions relating to the same are two-dimensional. The scalar motion is what is needed for this locally one-dimensional orientation to have any meaning esp. in 3d space/1d time. It should stand to reason that if a 1d spacial point were granted a scalar motion, if unimpeded, it has 360-degrees of freedom from whence and which to "orient" in/of the corresponding 3d time. It is for this reason only "orientation" and a "ground" (ie. universal being c, unity etc.) are needed to contain the information of any 3/1 / 1/3 configuration, thus 2/2 can be used to describe both as it is in/of c, unity.
Horace wrote:
Sat Jan 11, 2020 12:44 pm
Also, the "length" is not a measure of motion (length is measured in completely different units). Perhaps you meant the length of one of the aspects of the UoM, e.g. the spatial aspect of it? If "yes", then consider, that if the spatial aspect of an UoM is 30cm over a 1ns temporal aspect, then this yields the speed of light. OK, but 1km over 3μs yields the speed of light, too, so who is to decide whether the spatial aspect of one UoM has the length of 30cm or 1km ?
The dimensionality is even more hairy: On what basis and who decides whether the intrinsic spatial aspect of an UoM is 1D, 2D or 3D ? - e.g. why would 30cm over 1ns be more preferable than 27 Liters over 1ns ?
Unity 1/1 as c would be the universal default: the context being choice-of-measurement-dependent.

The intrinsic spatial aspect of any UofM mandates a minimum of 1D "orientation" also valid in 3D time: causation and cessation, for example, require 3 dimensions of time: two points, and an in-between impetus to/from them: something is caused as t1, exists over t2, and ceases to exist as t3.
Horace wrote:
Sat Jan 11, 2020 12:44 pm
We haven't tackled the enumeration of possible relationships between UoMs, yet. My "knee jerk reaction" is that in order to have any relationship there has to be something in common between the entities participating in that relationship, but I'd like to read Bruce's analysis of it first.
Starting with whether he thinks, that the RST universe is an ordered set of UoMs or an unordered set. ..because their order (or precedence) would be the first mentionable relation between UoMs.
Can it not be both? Order whence chaos exists not, chaos whence order exists not?

**EDIT

Mapping of a self-referential unit of motion:
Image
________________________________________________
wherein √5 can be ±v, throwing back an infinite loop given a scalar input
(±v = ±0, ±5 thus oscillates between the two ad infinitum)
and can thus orient towards c !, thus in relation c becomes ±c concerning v !

Post Reply