Odd in the middle of the other images, not for the math
A constant in the popular works of the quantum world: to present the particles as abracadabrant entities, so insane that Lewis Carroll’s Wonderland seems almost wise in comparison. You read that they “alter their past” or “have no existence until they have been observed”. No, it is these descriptions that are extravagant. Quantum mechanics, for the upward look, is a vulgar set of equations. Particles are ontologically pure information, like anything we can understand. Impossible to access the reality in itself of this “matter”.
The restriction extends to our mind, at least for this direction of look. We understand thought as self-organized information. The difference here is that in addition we experience it, by being on board. A second direction of the look is the self-observation of one’s thought. Consciousness is watching oneself experience. A downward, teleological look, which brings out the eccentricity of the quantum world in the midst of other representations.
The oddity comes from (physical) equations that seem unusual to others (mental), never to themselves. Let us not transfer to the particles our sensitivity, our impression of time and space. There is a gulf of complexity between them and our consciousness.
No modification of the past
A particle does not modify its past, no chance: for it time does not exist. A photon has no time between its departure and arrival. It sees itself traveling a distance, but no time. The delay does not exist elsewhere than in the eye of the observer, in his downward look. What proof? If the observer runs the photon and changes its own time by accelerating, the photon continues to move away at the same speed: it does not belong to the observer’s time.
The same correction applies to the location. For the downward look the particle is located only by being observed. Observation is really a creative process: it is an interaction that builds locality from a level of reality where space does not yet exist. Basically the photon is in a plane without time or space. Its interaction with other particles brings out this framework, which is offered to our only downward look; it is always invisible to that of the photon itself.
Within the spatio-temporal framework, dimensions have very different properties. The spatials are 3 in number (or more according to string theory) and interchangeable. Physicists use the term ‘variety’ instead of ‘dimension’ (our universe is a ‘4-variety’ space) but this is confusing. It would be better to reserve ‘variety’ for grouping similar dimensions. A variety for space, perfectly identical and stable: location is an extremely precise property in the entire macroscopic universe governed by it.
Another variety is temporal, on the contrary very elastic. Associated with the spatial, it forms a specific framework for each level of reality. The relationships of a level create their own time. From elementary particles to mental processing of information, a multitude of levels is built, each owning its own frame. Frames united by the common spatial variety but separated by the time variety, which appears and distends as levels pile up and relationships drag on.
The complex variety
A final variety is the complex dimension, apparently born from this stack. Because a variety can arise from relationships between others. Time is possibly a consequence of space. But it takes something to shake the space, to animate it. The principle of complexity itself? Then the complex variety would be primitive and the spatial and temporal secondary. Yet complexity seems to be a consequence of the temporal differences specific to relationships. The snake bites its tail.
It is the difficulty of separating our two looks that troubles us. The ontological principle of complexity is not its appearance. There is a unique principle for the upward look, which constructs different dimensional varieties for the downward look. Incredible principle that is self-elevating, self-educated, self-contemplating…