Correlations within QM by Jouko Harri Tiainen

I'm saying for us counter of things within the flow of time there ARE certainly "events" e.g. we can say things like "the Melbourne Cup" race starts on the first Tuesday in November at 3pm in Melbourne and ends some "duration" later. All these concepts are human counting objects within a cycle called a year. But realise you and me are just "human" events within the model since we can actually do the experiment if we chose to - at the start of the paper. The experiment is "the event of actually being able to count within a "flow" with a "march of event" with a direction,...., to get a heap of sand". Clearly the paper answers the question "Can we determine where (and when) the Melbourne Cap ends exactly? The answer is NO with mathematical precision. It means how we measure duration, seems to make the end exact enough to declare a winner and a placement of the other horses." for us. And by the model presented seems to make the "start" an actual thing in the past "A", when the race ends "within duration". YES I know it sounds all the wrong way around to how we think "things work". "Within duration" means duration without "labels like start and end", duration isn't what we call "time".

Thank you for the question and nice to know you found the essay novel.

That is, what I thought stars and galaxies where anyway, "just the results of gravity" and these the actual stars and galaxies you speak of are by the essay model the actual "events" we see because of the PA (the Principle Assumption) which establishes "within the process of MI" our Kantian view of duration since (by hypothesis: the actual experiment) we are just counters of "things" (e.g. stars, galaxies, grains of star dust) within the flow of time. It is just the way we are cognitively "set-up" (the Critical Correspondence ├а la Kant) to understand the H logic structure (which looks like what we call an hourglass) which is how we define "duration" that is "the difference between the start and the end" for a "human" event that is declaring a heap.

The equation [т--П , т--Л] = iт--' and the density matrix are where we can see "superposition" itself distributed over all (A,S,U)- tuples" i.e. all durations which are "events". Obviously these "events" are not the same things as what we call "events". These "events' are the actual "things-in-superposition" in QM. Our common-day events are us trying to make a specific density matrix for each interaction "i.e. experiment" instead of doing one overall "distributed" cardinality collection as we have above. For us the "density matrix" are the "objects" we are trying to count. That is "being" counted or the diagonal of т--' in the matrix. We have misunderstand our relationship to the flow of time, the now, and how events are related to duration. The "now" are " actual elements" (the actual diagonal of т--' within the distributed matrix) of the (A,S,U)- tuples. Human minds only count in the "now".

Clearly since we have Sorites Paradox embedded within the model we can have a solution to the question? "How many grains of sand make a heap?" Or why is it that QM objects collectively act as classical objects for us humans. Modern QM physics says that a tree for example is just a vast collection of indeterminate atoms acting quantum mechanically yet nobody understands how we can go from one quantum thing-in-itself, two quantum thing-in-itself, three quantum thing-in-itself, ... and so on,... until we obtain a classical tree. A tree that has duration that behaves classically which can be counted by humans within a flow of time with a "now" with a direction of time for the past, the present and etc ... so in the model ultimately it is the embedded logic of Sorites Paradox that explains why we don't see trees superposition or do quantum behaviour within the process of Mathematical Induction MI the Principle Assumption. Since its logic answers "What is a collection?" And since we have an actual "one" tree, hence we can count two trees, three trees, ... , even a vast collection called a "forest" which has persistence (or duration) which can act differently from a single tree for us counters of things (eg trees) within a flow of time.

Why don't human events follow the same temporal logic as "stars, galaxies, ..." is because of the mismatch between cardinality classes N and the actual collections of "n" objects being counted within a flow of time. The cardinality class N of nature is QM (i.e. all QM objects in superposition) while the actual collections of "n" objects or the "n-events" is classic physics (one block for all events that distributes the past the past the future with a direction and a now). It is The Principle Assumption PA working with The Critical Correspondence CC (that is we have actual counting of "things" with persistence) within the process of Mathematical Induction MI using Sorites Paradox as the logic for "what is a collection". You see what the (A,S,U)- tuples (or the columns of the distributed matrix) give us is what we call persistence for objects within the flow of time. The A,S,U-tuples are cardinality classes not the "concepts" we call the past, the present, the future. It is hard to imagine "the present" without "the now" yet we have elements within the matrix that have that behaviour. The off diagonal elements (the black and white balls) don't have "the now". That is very hard to understand in any common-day sense.

So are there any real events --- yes only qm events in superposition ----- yet grains of star dust within a flow of time with a now and direction for time can form persistent galaxies within the processes of nature. Literally real events are made (of the actual quanta=graininess) of H the hourglass logic structure! What we call events are how indeterminate "heaps" and "non-heaps" (that is how the off diagonal elements in the matrix behave as a whole) can be an "object" that can be used to form a cardinally class for QM objects in the first place!. Simply Nature's cardinality is QM, while it's quanta is classical physics. Or in other terms "the persistence of Nature" is due to the dissipation of the Cardinality Classes of QM. It depends on your Point Of View POV from the POV of the whole (A,S,U) matrix it is describing how "collections" with cardinality N behave (and these collection classes are decided by Sorties Paradox) yet the actual elements that form the classes are real QM objects in superposition that obey [т--П , т--Л] while the actual grains for us counters of thing-in-itself within duration (or things with persistence) are iт--' and the equation [т--П , т--Л] = iт--' is the human POV since it is the declaration of a heap.

An example from chemistry about the cardinality class of molecules. The cardinality of the stuff we commonly count things like "rocks, trees, blades of grass, bees,...." which are made of atoms and molecules is called Avorgado's number about 6x1023 (6 followed by 23 zeros). In chemistry we know that "Avorgado's number of atoms or molecules each acting classically makes a mole (or a heap) of substance. Nature counts the substance of common-day events using moles, while we see ordinary stuff such as 5 cats, 2 oranges, etc, Chemistry says what we actually have is so many moles of substance interacting which doesn't match how we see what "numbers" are attached to which "objects". For example, when a tree burns to the ground, the identity of the tree within the flow of time is lost (recall trees are human "objects" so can "end"), but when viewed as so many moles of substance interacting, the actual number of moles always stays the same or in other terms the number of moles (or the n-event) is conserved over any duration. So when in chemistry we say 1,2,3,4,5,.... we mean 1 mole, 2 moles, 3 moles, ..... and using this as the Mathematical Induction MI series we can justify the conservation of the number of moles over duration. As we know that one mole consists of 6x1023 objects by observation.

An example from chemistry about the cardinality class of molecules. The cardinality of the stuff we commonly count things like "rocks, trees, blades of grass, bees,...." which are made of atoms and molecules is called Avorgado's number about 6x1023 (6 followed by 23 zeros). In chemistry we know that "Avorgado's number of atoms or molecules each acting classically makes a mole (or a heap) of substance. Nature counts the substance of common-day events using moles, while we see ordinary stuff such as 5 cats, 2 oranges, etc, Chemistry says what we actually have is so many moles of substance interacting which doesn't match how we see what "numbers" are attached to which "objects". For example, when a tree burns to the ground, the identity of the tree within the flow of time is lost (recall trees are human "objects" so can "end"), but when viewed as so many moles of substance interacting, the actual number of moles always stays the same or in other terms the number of moles (or the n-event) is conserved over any duration. So when in chemistry we say 1,2,3,4,5,.... we mean 1 mole, 2 moles, 3 moles, ..... and using this as the Mathematical Induction MI series we can justify the conservation of the number of moles over duration. As we know that one mole consists of 6x1023 objects by observation.