Tom,
I think you would agree that we also have to keep in mind that QM breaks the correspondence, intentionally. That is artificial by definition, it is purposeful, as is an algorithm.
Having learned fairly well to read you, your distinction between math and object becomes apparent. "--they speak in terms of 'emergence' in which the large scale reality that we know to be objective somehow comes from the subjective small scale result." True enough.
I have come to think we have a preference for seeing it from small to large scale, these days even our buildings dwarf our lives. The objective reality stagnates at the point where we say 'top/down' or 'bottom/up', and I try to grasp dynamics in a mathematical sense which relates to a continuous 'exchange of place', from instantaneous through light velocity down to relative rest, as well as the typical representation of: relative rest accelerating up to, and only to, light velocity.
I keep finding myself back at the sphere and cube. If the length of the side of a cube, or the diameter of a sphere, is doubled the volume increases by a factor of eight. Yet a sphere is the most efficient encapsulation of space where a cube is the most efficient utilization of space.
Light velocity can reach the surface of a sphere from point center at the same instant, it is coherent space. Light velocity cannot reach the corners of a cube at the same instant as it reaches the midpoints of the sides from any interior point, it is incoherent space. To be continuously connected as a whole, cubicle space (R4) must connect simply at light velocity which requires both time and space metrics to vary. How convenient! for Quantum Mechanics, we can just say Time is a sphere, and space is a cube.
The object dynamism is the reality, however, the radius of a sphere can be taken as unstable due to the irrationality of pi. We simply cannot take time or space separately as being emergent. If there is space, there is time. Light velocity is an observable phenomenon, we have no clue why it exists as a preferred limit. None! That's what we have to work with. But that is enough to say that energy is the third leg of the stool and it can be a measure of spacetime. Einstein already knew that his gravitational mass equaled his inertial mass which was 9^20 ergs per gram, when he got into the elevator car. And he knew his suit size and the elevator car size did not change in relation to his size. So he could have calculated what the average energy density would have been in the elevator car. So too, the Quantum. If it's observable in any single wavelength of EMR, then it as a preferred quantity must also have a relative volume of space that doesn't change in relation to wavelength.
This is getting overlong, so I'll cut to; could you elaborate like a tutorial on the theorem you oft cite that, 'a point can simultaneously approach any set of points, provided that it is far enough away'. That seems to be implied when one considers lightcones, shouldn't they be more like a single dip ice-cream cone? Thanks, jrc
