Science Forums 2

[arkain101]

In order to support my posts to some degree and show I am not chasing the wind here, I want to show that there is a simularity between the double slit experiment results and what I have put forth as a suggestive perspective of thought.

In the slit experiment, the reasoning is, photons (or electrons etc) can go through one slit and act particle like or the other slit and the same. It can go through both and interfear withitself like a wave.

The key word here is like.

One slit creates a single band, like a particle can and like a wave can. Two slits creates a interference pattern, like a wave might. Trying to measure with a signal before the slits can break down the the wave function and cause it to create two bands like two streams of particles or like two waves that are no longer interfear with eachother.

As for simularity between that, and the framework of reality having mental constructs and physical properties;

As I said all objects that are known as things (physical objects), and behave in familiarity to macroscopic things we know, are mental contructs.

Here is the connection:
Although particles and objects are mental constructs in the mind an not things (relative to mass-energy-matter), they are also things (relative to the mind). This is, Things are also, either non physical mental constructs or actual physical things. Similar to the logic of reasoning found in the double slit experiments, objects in general are both physical and mental, or just physical and not mental, or just mental and not physical, or neither.

The same relative circumstance comes into play at the macro world as it does in the micro world.

The circumstance creates the product, relative to the context of the investigation.

If you exclude the observer from the experiment, you find confusing results of wave-particle duality. But, it takes an observer to then make this claim of the results.(so the observer is never actually out of the experiment).

If you include the observer, you can conclude all observations are mental constructs (of non-tangibility), or physical fundamental things (of non mental requirement).

So,

In my proposal; (macro)
(i)If I investigate the world with the presupposition that I am going to find an object of material form, then when I find evidence of it, I will conclude I have have some support what I am looking for.
(ii)If I investigate the world with the presupposition that I am going to find something made by my mind but is not an actual object relative to the fundamentals that form it, when I find evidence for it, I can conlude I again have support of what I am looking for.

What we find on the micro scale
(i)If I set up an experiment in a specific form, I will find evidence that suggest the form of what I am testing. Such as a wave like function, and can make a conclusion that the unknown I am observering has evidence of wave characteristics similar to those that I can accurately observe in the macro world.
(ii)If I set up an experiment in a specific form, I will find evidence that suggest the form of what I am testing. Such as a particle like function, and can make a conclusion that the unknown I am observering has evidence of particle like characteristics, similar to those that I can accurately observe in the macro world.

Now the trinity of logic, relitivity, & circumstance.

1)
If there is or was a fundamental so called physical object responsible for space and time, mass and energy. If it was alone (like a photon is suggested to be capble of) it would have no connection to its surroundings by any kind of information connection. Space, time, & mass could not logically or physically be added to this particular fundamentals property. If it is the source of property, then it itself is not contained by those properties, and thus it becomes unrestricted as is light. Both through characteristics, and through relativistic reasoning.

2)
As for a pair (parity) such as matter, There is velocity, there is space, and because of this, time is intwined as a product or replacement for velocity or energy. If there is time, there is then mass, for mass is intimitly intwined with acceleration the time of change of space.

In a fundamental pairity system such as a negatron-positron pair, the logic implied is that neither is dominant or responsible for any change between them. Each can assume the exact same thing the other assumes, but, only in a mirrored format.

3)
The third stage is Tri relativity. (triality).
In the relativistic sense, once 3 reference frames form a system (group) each of the 3 can create a certainty amongst the circumstances. If we have a,b, and c. If we observe from 'c' we say we are at rest. Then we can conclude that b and a are moving, and we can decifer infact which one is moving or changing. It could be either one, or both. (but in pairity there is no certainty of this such).

conclusion
So in this format, there is requirement and implication of the logic of mind and logic on matter, in order to design a theoretically logical framework to imply onto reality with the scientific data we find.

This does not satisfy what is matter, mass, or energy in a singular definition, but that is because even reason itself contains the same format found in the quantum weirdness of our currently understood core of reality.