Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Empathy and the Exchange Operator/Interaction

  1. Dec 20, 2007 #1
    When Empathizing, one puts oneself in another's shoes (colloquially speaking).

    The magnitude of the wave function corresponding to identical particles is invariant under the exchange operator.

    This exchange interaction; one might say that identical particles are "empathizing" with one another.

    There seems to be some tenuous connection here. Any ideas on how to flesh this idea out?
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 13, 2008 #2
    For what it's worth, I consider that perspective and perspective exchange presents a 'solution' to reality as a tiered consciousness.

    Consider that there are three fundamental and interrelated relationships of reference for perspective. The three fundamental relationships of reference for perspective are the relationship of the dimensions of Cartesian coordinates with the dimensions of polar coordinates, the relationship of finite with the infinite, and the relationship of 'still' with motion (or constant motion with accelerated motion). Each of these three fundamental relationships are not, in-and-of themselves, a 'given' (that is, not an independent and necessary foundation of physics), but rather, the result of the ‘overlapping’, or exchange, of the designated parameters of the other two. And so, it is the relationships of fundamental references that define tiered perspective (that is, a perspective co-existing within an ‘Other’ overriding perspective) and perspective exchange (that is, consideration, or ‘thought’) as the foundation for all perception (physical observations and symbolic considerations). That is, there is no 'point' of origin, but instead, a relationship determines existence and experience through tiered interrelated combinations of fundamental references into perception ternaries. In other words, various tiers, or ternary combinations, of the constituent references of the three fundamental relationships represent all perspectives and perspective exchanges. The three fundamental relationships are not completely independent of each other, but rather, are interrelated and overlapping (like interacting ‘whirlpools’), in one or two of the three constituent references comprising the involved respective perception ternaries. So, every ‘object’, number, and experience, every physical and mathematical observation and consideration, is represented by overlapping ternary combinations of the constituent references within the three fundamental relationships of reference. And the relationship of tiered combinations forms the perception ternary—the perceived, the perceiver, and the reference of measurement. The model/metaphor is a self-proving totality that is entirely perspective-based, and the necessitated foundation for existence that results from the tiered-ternary relationships of fundamental references, providing its own inter-exchanging context and its own reciprocating cause.

    This presents a physics/mathematics continuum, or overlapping exchange, based upon the binary relationship of ‘within’ and ‘without’ that results from the one-or-two-of-three of the constituent references in a perception ternary. That is, the overlapping of one, or the overlapping of two of the constituent references in the various constituent tiers, or ternary combinations, determines the relationship as ‘without’ or ‘within’, respectively. Thus, in physics (or ‘without’—reference paired with perceived in perception ternary), the three fundamental relationships of reference form, by perspective, the three fundamental overlapping and interrelated concepts of distance, time/speed, and mass/acceleration; and in mathematics (or ‘within’—the symbolic pairs the reference with the perceiver in the perception ternary), the three fundamental relationships of reference form, by perspective, the three overlapping and interrelated fundamental ‘constants’ which divide, or provide the exchange for, the three fundamental concepts of physics—namely, epsilon, pi, and phi (the golden ratio). That is, epsilon represents mathematically the divide, or reference of exchange, between distance and speed, pi represents mathematically the divide, or reference of exchange, between linear distance and rotational distance, and phi represents mathematically the divide, or reference of exchange, between linear distance and area (dimensional shift). Further, every ‘physical’ observation is symbolic in one-of-three of the perception ternary; and conversely, every ‘mathematical’ consideration is physical (more truly, of other tiered consideration) in one-of-three of its analogous perception ternary. So, mathematics, whether as numerical values, operations, or their corresponding geometry, is the result of tiered co-perception (or, tiered perspective and perspective exchange), just as with physics, with overlapping and exchanging references ‘within’ and ‘without’, so that each completes the other.

    In this way, all values can therefore be defined completely only through the multiple and interrelated contexts (references) of tiered perspectives, thereby representing a ‘number’ (or perception ternary) not as an exact, or ‘given’, absolute, but rather in relation to another perception ternary which is separated by one-or-two of their constituent fundamental references—for instance, relating, as a perceived proportion, a fundamental concept like that of time or dimensions to distance. So, ‘value’ and ‘path’ (or, act of calculation) ‘trade places’ (exchange) and are defined in the same way that ‘observer’ and ‘object’ do in their physical correlation. That is, the ‘constants’ (constant only by co-perspective), pi, phi, and epsilon, as well as the exchanges between them, represented by the polar and Cartesian forms of complex numbers (‘i’), frame the foundation for the mathematical correlate of perspective and perspective exchange. And, as with the three fundamental concepts of physics, these values are overlapping and interrelated.

    So, the consideration and sharing of perspective is the only non-contextual truth, with no deeper foundation possible and no further reason needed. That is, beyond context and beneath assumptions, there is no-‘thing’ to learn but of the very act of learning itself; and the act of learning is specifically communication, which is the exchanging of perspective across tiers of infinite separation—the tiered communication of ‘self/want’ until, ultimately, communication is all of self, and all that is wanted.
  4. Feb 5, 2008 #3

    man, tpape, I was just browsing trhough the threads and, wow, it just seems like you've been waiting for this question all your life... lol

    sorry 'bout that, I might be coming back later to exchange in a more meaningfull way...


  5. Feb 16, 2008 #4
    I think it's wise to objectify perspectives and their interactions, rather than only the contents of the perspectives. We are multifaceted beings embodying a hierarchy of perspectives. Some work has been done to classify perspectives as well as figure out their contextual relationship. http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/kosmos/excerptC/appendix-B.cfm" [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  6. Mar 14, 2008 #5

    Thanks for the reply tpape..... I've been reading this post for the last few months, and I have no clue what this means. Do you know of any resources that could give me some background?
  7. Mar 16, 2008 #6
    'whirlpool' as model:

    Sorry, it is difficult to put into words and I am not a good writer. I will talk about the model that helped me to understand the fundamentals of physics and brought me to the conclusions of perspective exchange mentioned above. I began to use the model of a ‘whirlpool’ to visualize wave/particle duality. In other words, the particle nature of force and matter (or bosons and fermions, respectively) are modeled as the turning of waves (like a whirlpool), and the wave nature of force and matter are modeled as the ‘inward’ and ‘outward’ propagation of the waves. So, in this model, every-’thing’ is ‘seen’ as a ‘whirlpool’—the particles, energy, and even the ‘wave-medium’ itself are represented by the varying distributions of turning waves. For instance, you may picture interacting whirlpools such that the whirlpools represent the fundamental ‘particles’, and picture the interacting waves between these whirlpools as the ‘forces’ acting upon and influencing their motion. In this way, e/m radiation and mass are waves that are ‘turning’, and therefore not circular, as from a ‘point’ source, but rather exponential, as from a binary or ternary relational source. So, there would never be a complete distinction between the wave-like influence and the perpendicular rotational influence that could ‘scatter’ or ‘increase the entropy’ of a set of interacting whirlpools (atoms) that come into interaction with the former. And even further, there would be no complete distinction between these interacting whirlpools and a particular wave of the overriding whirlpool within which the interaction occurs—that is, instead of a static wave-medium, or ‘aether’, the reference (or context) for all interactions between ‘observers’ whirlpools and ‘objects’ whirlpools would itself be a whirlpool that is in interaction with the observer and the observed, thus forming the perception ternary. In this scenario, it is straightforward to assess how the perception of speed, distance, time, acceleration, and mass would all be in relation (“relative”) to each other since the reference for measurement is in interaction with the measurer and the measured. As well, this scenario directly demonstrates the features of “hidden” extra dimensions as the Cartesian and polar dimensions (for space and for motion (time)) of the interacting ‘subjective whirlpools’ overlap with the Cartesian and polar dimensions of their ‘contextual whirlpool’ thereby producing variables that are ‘unknown’, or unobservable, to any particular constituent whirlpool lying within this ternary coordination of fundamental references which provides for all perceptions.

    I don’t so often mention ‘whirlpools’ because it is a model/metaphor for considering in various ways the exchanges of fundamental references. In other words, whirlpools are a very useful tool for understanding reference exchange because it represents the relationship between Cartesian and polar coordinates, the relationships of relative motion, and the relationship of the finite with the infinite. So, it is a ‘tool’ for understanding the more ‘mechanical’ aspects of reality rather than representing reality exactly and in total, because the ‘whirlpool model’ is not as applicable to the more abstract, or information/sequence, aspects of the purely communicational totality presented here. I apologize again that it is so difficult to explain; since this ‘ToE’ necessitates only inter-defined (and of reciprocating cause) axioms, all terms must be continuously further qualified and that is the core reason for why my description is usually worded so abstractly and for how it so quickly becomes tiered and complex and testing of the limits of one’s visualization skills. I have a more specific development of the model and associated terms as well as application to the proportions and constants given by modern physics research, but this would be very difficult to put into a short forum post. However, if you have any questions that you would like to ask me in regards to this model, I will try to answer them as best as I can. It is important to me to make clear that this model of tiered perspective exchange is not intended as a refute of string physics or any other theories and findings of modern physics. Instead, it is meant, by a ‘top-down’ approach, as a simplification of perspective on the observations of modern physics that encompasses and unifies the major paradigms of the physics community—to find a ‘What can’t not be?’ basis for reality that leaves us with no final “Why?” to ask relating to an interminable and inexplicable ‘point source’ or arbitrary axiom that must ultimately be left as an assumed context, like a wall, beyond which our understanding cannot pass.

  8. Mar 17, 2009 #7
    This is Sinyud. I forgot my password and old email address I was using. Anyway's. Tpape, I've been reading your post for a long time, and I still don't get it. Every time I read it, I just make myself dizzy trying to visualize these whirlpools. Do you know any good references? Or can you draw me a picture and label it with arrows?
  9. Mar 17, 2009 #8

    Math Is Hard

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That's because, as far as I can tell, it's baloney.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook