------
[cr. 2025-09-11T00:25:15Z]
sometimes when I threw around "molecular" in very early versions I definitely meant dialectical
although other times I definitely meant "small-scale" or "reterministic"
------
[cr. 2025-09-11T00:25:15Z]
dialectical materialism is badly framed and that has caused everyone to immediately vulgarize it and misunderstand it and write it off as a possibility
a Socratic dialectic is the process of forming knowledge through two actors interacting
the dialogue is the process of two philosophers coming together to produce a greater object called the dialogue which holds their combined knowledge as they each contribute to it
although the dialogue is a new object, the two philosopher objects inside it still interact such that the dialogue object evolves and changes
most "dialectical" interactions are not as orderly as a Socratic dialectic
most of them look like a wave machine. they just look like any two nearby chemicals bumping into each other in a function of f(x,y) = z and transforming one arrangement of matter into another
likewise spacetime itself _may_ or may not take the form of two cubic spaces each evolving along in time on a virtual path into the future until the two cubic spaces smash into each other and the three dimensions of space and one of predicted time weave together into a final dimension of real history you can call either the fourth dimension or the fifth dimension depending on how much you love mathematics and predicted hypothetical things versus brutally strict empiricism
dialectical materialism is the wave machine or penteract-spacetime. it's the creation or transformation of things through interaction.
dialectical materialism is the statement that class subpopulations inside a country produce a country because they are components of that specific object that lie inside that specific object.
dialectical materialism entails the possibility that permanent revolution or socialist transition could happen on scales greater or smaller than the traditional concept of socialism in one country, but only with the caveat that each of these giant or tiny objects consists of clear internal components and has a clear, solid outline equally as much as socialism in one country would have so that it is possible for them to form and exist consistently for years or decades. they cannot be transient. they cannot be arbitrary things that last for a day. they must be something that actively contributes to the future to the degree that any particular country does, as if all the big things and small things were equally country-objects in that same sense. [*nf]
the Soviet Union was technically bigger than socialism in one country. this is how the Soviet Union formed: it formed out of internal parts fully contained within the Soviet Union region which were capable of forming into a durable object that could last about 50 years before it started cracking. there is some chance that if the Soviet Union were any bigger it could have cracked in a time less than 50 years, or that if it formed as multiple smaller pieces it maybe could have taken longer than 50 years to crack. this is the nature of physical objects and physical interactions. they have physics. they form according to their internal parts and some set of physical rules, and if the physical rules inside them fail they crack into pieces.
make use of this basic process and you may be able to create a socialist transition of any size.
------
[cr. 2025-05-11T23:51:14Z]
relativistic determinism. relaterminism. rela...terministic? reterministic. reterminism.
---
[cr. 2025-05-12T00:20:08Z]
relaterminism and Wavebuilder -
so, say we have a crude physics engine. we can call it a wave machine.
this thing operates a very particular way. it takes in two objects and it gives the general result of putting those two things together.
we can code any two things to produce any other thing, such as coding "red" and "blue" to produce "violet", or coding "rooster" and "dragon" to produce "cockatrice". both of those sign equations are arbitrary. they show the ingredients of a dictionary definition, but they are not yet physics equations.
it would be most useful and interesting to apply this thing to factual statements about reality so it can slowly evolve into a predictive model.
one thing this model is probably sufficient for is chemical equations. we could code into the model that `NaCl + H2SO4` produces `NaHSO4 + HCl`, or simply "sodium salt dissociates", depending on what kind of information we consider the most important.
we do not have to assume there is exactly one result for any two items, but in general, there will always be _one cell on the table of combinations_ for any two items.
this allows us to begin constructing a simple algorithm for guessing the result of any two items being combined.
if we have input the item "NaCl" as containing items such as "sodium salt" and "chlorine compound", and the item "H2SO4" as containing items such as "acid" and "sulfate compound", then there is a certain matrix of possible results of combining sodium chloride with sulfuric acid, which grows larger the more useful descriptors there are. [*p]
```
sodium salt chlorine compound ...
acid (acid salt?) (chlorine acid?)
sulfate compound (sodium-sulfur compound?) (nothing in particular?)
...
```
this table or matrix of combination results has some interestingly _quantum_ characteristics to it.
think about the notion of two fundamental particles interacting. in cases such as seas of virtual particles, two fundamental particles of particular categories can come together and convert into any number of other combinations of particles, somewhat similar to the way chemical elements swap around within chemical equations to produce different molecules. as well, several fundamental particles that should not be different from each other can collide, such as several photons, and this has particular results even if it does not lead to a conversion into any other substances, vaguely analogous to how two tennis balls can collide and go different directions, or one could empty two glasses of water and watch the two volumes of water mix into each other.
when some small number of particles interacts at the quantum scale, the particles do not present a particular easily-observable position, and the most we can know about each of them is that they have some particular smeared outline of where it may be possible to meaningfully interact with them. according to some models, when you toss these smeared wave functions at each other, there can be some remaining uncertainty over the outcome until further interactions with surrounding objects produce more definite results. this is one of the definitions of quantum entanglement — that interacting particles together has not yet removed the fuzziness about where they currently are and what they're currently part of.
until we fill it in with some sort of observed or calculated result, the wave machine table sure looks like a superposition.
assuming we have put good information into it, consisting of descriptions of things or components of things which would actually have some kind of meaningful physical interaction with each other, it is at least entirely _possible_ that one of the cells in the matrix will be the key to exactly the correct calculation to find what the interaction of the two things should result in. if our information about each item on each axis ends up more limited, the prediction will be fuzzier, like a picture of quantum entanglement propagating way up toward the macroscopic level. as our information about each item on each axis ends up richer, with clearer and more mathematical descriptors, the results become more sharply defined, until they look something more like a simple multiple-choice list of a few different possible outcomes. perhaps one of the outcomes will be perfectly obvious based on experience, or produce some kind of exact calculation of the result we observe in practice, in light of the way some information becomes dropped or approximated as one looks down at the same phenomenon from larger physical scales.
is this superposition grid anything more than a fun exercise, where we can play with wave machines and think about different parts of things interacting?
well, to a small extent, this approach has been used practically in real-world physics calculations.
the Schrödinger equation for atoms is the logical result of all knowledge about atoms up to that point, but it is nearly impossible to actually compute as atoms get bigger. this led to physicists approximating the calculation with matrices.
I think it may have been the Dirac equation that was solved that way actually? [*d] I don't have very deep knowledge of these mathematics, only that there were effects in the atom going back and forth and you had to create a weird quantum physics multiplication table to actually pull them apart. it was a matrix. it expanded out into an equation where multiplied things were being added or subtracted. I can definitely find the exact thing I was looking at again later.
I think this hydrogen and helium atoms thing together with the power of the wave machine leads up to a pretty damning argument for "relativistic determinism".
I need just a bit more mathematics to hope to start the proof for real. the bridge isn't there yet from the wave machine to how you "replace differential equations". but I'm getting close. I'm getting close to the simple task of arguing that history is physical and historical materialism can have a mathematics.
last thought:
creativity illustrates to us how reterminism is possible.
take two art creators who know nothing about each other. give them a grid where they combine a couple of concepts. see if you can get one of the rooms of people to predict how the other room of people will interpret the combination of the concepts. see if, given a tiny bit of information about the other room, creating a wider grid with more descriptions helps them predict the result better.
people say there is no way to describe creativity and how more concepts are created, but it isn't true. there are a limited number of ways to think of how particular concepts that are available to people combine. you can even predict what people will create if the situation is simple enough.
if you want a better illustration of reterminism, look at creativity in science.
having particular amounts of knowledge about reality affects how many viable hypotheses people can create. as knowledge about the universe goes up, people become more able to correctly guess what underlying interactions are producing things. our universe can be made of a lot of fuzziness that appears "indeterministic" from a regular old differential-equations way of seeing things, but that seemingly noisy universe ultimately leads up to things we can predict when we throw different bits of knowledge at each other.
that is really weird. is the universe actually indeterministic, or have we just defined _determinism_ wrong?
I have strong suspicions it's the latter. I think there's just a bit of confusion about what is determining things and when.
------
[cr. 2025-05-12T09:35:16Z]
Punnett squares. they look like wave machine grids.
two sets of chromosomes are semi-randomly distributed with a few crossover events. then all the chromosomes interact to produce an embryo.
the internal development of the embryo is more deterministic, at least until it gets out and increasingly has things to interact with. the combination of the chromosomes is _reterministic_.
------
[cr. 2025-05-10T22:23:01Z]
throwing darts toward a new prediction mathematics -
------
(response) [cr. 2025-05-10T22:23:01Z]
This quantum handshake model really makes me think of general relativity. [*h]
The point of relativity was that you can view the universe from any reference frame and it still makes sense, even if the contents of the universe are stretched out enough that when you stand in one of the reference frames light has so much trouble getting to the other part that the two parts experience time differently. For both reference frames to experience time passing there effectively has to be a "handshake" between them.
So the issue here might be that we should be thinking of the future spatially, where each reference frame is the other reference frame's future, just because one definition of physics is the exchange of fundamental interactions between separate objects. It doesn't matter if the exchange of interactions is some mess of virtual particles that's hard to study directly. It matters that the photons or gauge bosons or virtual particles, etc., are going back and forth in the space between two interacting objects. And we may discover that time is nothing more than that: time is created because interactions happen, _out of_ interactions plus relativity, because for some unknown reason exchanging things between reference frames always happens in time.
As for the mathematics? Maybe physicists have to find some relativistic counterpart to differential equations.
------
[cr. 2025-05-11T03:41:34Z]
a differential equation is a field of changes that can be used to solve for a particular physics equation.
ordinary physics equations typically describe the relationship between two quantities at each point in time over time. but it is often easier to measure how a quantity changes at each moment relative to another quantity, producing a field of changes which can then become the derivative for the ordinary equation that predicts that process.
this is the part of differential equations that is relatively simple. what is not simple is what they actually mean and how we are supposed to interpret them.
it is very tempting to say that because a differential equation integrates into a function over time, that this time-function represents the actual material reality. but this may be misleading.
Einstein was able to show that the local experience of time stretches or contracts depending on the speed things are traveling at, and it is generally not possible to speak of time as passing consistently across the universe without reference to some particular point experiencing an event at some other point.
having this knowledge about what time really appears to be, it is strange we still all put up with zeroth-order physics equations tracing events "through time" as if time were a universal thing.
perhaps there is a reason that differential equations are more intuitive for directly modeling reality than time equations. maybe the interactions between things are as important to understanding how systems evolve as the path objects take through time in some particular reference frame.
"determinism" is already a fuzzy thing. it's only the simplified regression line for the real-world interactions between two or more objects that we actually observe.
objects are often predictable, even though their exact movements can be chaotic, and chaotic even though their overall track can be predictable.
this leads to some very strange and possibly nonsensical questions
what if a time equation actually had some sort of relativistic data structure below it — in general, one example of a "relativistic" object or function is a Lorentz transform.
do relativistic data structures have derivatives/integrals? is there a way to squash particularly simple interactions into a time equation anyway, even if it won't work for every kind of interaction?
what would it be like if you tried to express the event of something hitting a wavefunction and changing the quantum object using relativistic data structures? is the whole problem with "measurements" that we are trying to put multiple objects into one equation that best describes a single object?
------
[cr. 2025-05-12T22:22:20Z]
is there a data structure which is like a wave machine grid but continuous?
assume everything in the data structure is a straightforward mathematical object like an integer. we're not doing quantum physics yet; whatever is in the rows and columns can undergo mathematical operations like addition or subtraction easily and predictably.
but assume you made the grid continuous. each side of the grid is like a real number line, though not necessarily infinite. it's something like a number range.
when you create a grid of things, that can be conceptualized as a matrix operation on two 1-dimensional matrices.
what do you call it when you do that but the 1-dimensional matrix is continuous?
when you do matrix multiplication part of the definition is mapping the rows in one matrix to the columns in another matrix. there is... a word for that in set theory. it's a mapping. binary relation!
matrix multiplication is defined using a _binary relation_ between the rows and columns.
oh god a mathematician definining binary relations just showed how undirected graphs can ultimately be collapsed into binary relations between two sets, and I don't want to think about that just yet [*b]
okay. I think one general way to say that two continuous lines of numbers are being connected and compared in some way _without specifying what operation they're doing_ is that they are a function.
that doesn't get to the whole description of what the wave machine is doing but it does get us part of the way.
some relations between two sets can be functions. some relations are not functions.
in algebra classes, it's pretty typical to say many-to-one relations are not functions. we rule out relations that don't look like graphs of a y-axis variable over time. and in doing that we basically rule out relaterminism from our math classes. it's strange it works like that when the basic process to discover relaterminism only needs a regular binary relation. one part of the steps of this thing is a regular function. one part is not a function.
if the wave machine contained only neat, fully-known, fully-described things, it would be a function taking x and y and combining them with some simple operation such as y = x + 1, y = x^2, and so on.
but there's something really distinct about those functions. they all assume you can use x on its own to get something, and they don't actually combine an arbitrary x and y.
what's it called when you have two number lines, and as the number lines go on you take 1 + 1, 2 + 2, and all the things in between. there has to be a name for that. it's like, a three-dimensional graph. you draw a two-dimensional grid, and you use the z axis to plot the actual answer to combining the two numbers. this is what the wave machine is doing.
so what's the set theory speak for an operation thing that plots itself as a three-dimensional graph?
it seems like one name for it is a _multivariable function_.
I think the essence of what I'm saying is that real physical processes are multivariable functions, and we squash them down to single-variable functions because it's easier to teach.
this leads to a weird bias where we tend to passively believe that individual objects drive themselves, when it's not actually true. for humans and vertebrate animals it may look believable for a moment because the vertebrate animal consists of many interacting parts. but for an inanimate object it quickly starts to look suspect. when we throw a rock and plot a graph of that rock flying, is the rock actually driving itself? it isn't. even Newton knew that the position-over-time graph is an interaction between the rock and the throwing force, or the rock and gravity.
take a simple parabola function that could model an idealized trajectory of a rock. this function will be some variation of `y = x^2`. but the real equation should take a form more like `x^2 - y = 0`. real processes in nature don't have the right side set to something constant, they're calculations of whatever the combination of two things actually produces.
nature is a multiplication table. nature is like `z = f(x,y) = xy`. and we all have a natural bias toward setting z to 0 and solving for only one case of the overall process, just as you would take a two-dimensional graph and set y to 0 to create even simpler equations like linear functions.
it's completely ridiculous we've all done this. because to even define the simplest of mathematical operations you need a three-dimensional graph. multiplication: `z = xy`. addition: `z = x + y`. and so forth. a large number of mathematical operations are binary operations, and every binary operation is a three-dimensional graph. I swear that in the future, grade school textbooks are going to include at least a few isometric pictures of three-dimensional graphs printed onto pages.
------
(response) [cr. 2025-09-10T05:14Z]
Just going by the units used in the equations, it would appear one of those is a description of space and one is a description of time. Position is spatial, with nothing happening to change it. Momentum is mass times velocity, and velocity will be in meters (or some tiny slice equivalent to multiples of femtometers or the Planck length) over one second. A velocity requires something to happen in time, while if you take a position especially of a photon or gauge boson you have mathematically stopped time. This problem seems to come down to the scientific definition of what spacetime is. Regardless of quantum uncertainty that will be brought in through quarks and photons generally being too small to learn information about through anything but themselves, there will also be a different kind of uncertainty that comes in because every measurement has to happen in time and everything always changes around the measuring device by the time a measurement is made. If you could get exact information about yesterday you wouldn't be able to do it because yesterday would be frozen and you would also be frozen. When you know the position of a tennis ball yesterday, you can't possibly go pick it up without introducing momentum, but because momentum includes velocity you change your own position, and whenever you change your own position you have to move in time from one reference frame to another thanks to special relativity, meaning that yesterday potentially changes into today and you are not measuring yesterday.
This is the reason that, it's almost as if space and time are conserved, only in the case you actually want physics to happen and interactions to take place. In some senses the universe doesn't "have to" evolve in time or change positions of anything even with time existing, but those two things have to happen for any interaction to take place, and relativity states how they are "conserved".
I think a lot of how physicists get confused about spacetime is that they don't realize that they are effectively having to ask what physics is and define physics. If we accept the tentative definition that physics is when there are interactions, interactions lead to relativity, and relativity leads to spacetime, it isn't as confusing why there would be two different descriptions of how things happen according to position and momentum.
------
(response) [cr. 2025-09-06T06:36:56Z]
> the speed of light converts time into length [*G]
> ... also converts energy into momentum
> the speed of light is a map from time to space and back
> Planck's constant is the map from spacetime to momentum-space and back
> it makes no sense to say an energy density doesn't have a position
> because the density is a function of the position
...is it?
If relativity applied to every quark that existed (I don't know if this is true), then wouldn't it technically be true that position could begin at the site of any proton in the universe?
At the position of any proton, there are strong interactions from one quark to another, which would seem to happen in time as long as they are happening. As long as three quarks are undergoing color confinement we know the proton is being a proton for some length of time. Likewise, gluons are gauge bosons, so each case of a strong interaction should be going at the speed of light. Photons and gluons have a speed (as far as I know?); when there is a change in energy or color charge respectively they are moving between two things in time. This would seem to suggest that quarks can have reference frames — the caveat is they are almost maximally uninteresting. At the position of any proton, approximately the same thing is going on in three places and the view from any one quark would not be very distinguishable from the view at the other two. Quantum measurement "helps" make quark reference frames especially uninteresting by making sure we never observe all three quarks at once or what any of them looked like in any of the states before we measured them.
But here's the thing I really wonder about. Even if quark reference frames were approximately interchangeable, does that mean they don't exist? What if quarks do have reference frames, even in some sort of statistical average? If they do, maybe it could be the case that density isn't what we think it is. Maybe in order to do something as simple as say "there are three quarks in one proton" or "there are three gluons per three quarks" we should really be defining density in some strange relativistic coordinate system where each quark is its own origin point and time can only be measured from the position of each quark, such that two position-versus-time graphs represented as cube spaces with two dimensions of position and one of time have to intersect in some sort of odd four-dimensional tesseract space. The extra dimension wouldn't be because 3D space is truly five-dimensional; it would be an artifact of having to put two or three three-dimensional graphs in a line like they were microscope slides cut out of one object, and start drawing on the margins of 3D spacetime just to connect them all.
I think there is something wrong with our concept of determinism. And I think it's mostly down to determinism being an aspect of math and having the wrong math. I think taking three separate 1+1d or 2+1d graphs and connecting them on another dimension purely for interactions between timelines (timelines being the movements of objects under general relativity) would fix it.
I am scarcely at an undergrad level on physics but I have really been on this line of questioning on whether everyone in science has an equally good understanding of relativity. I absolutely wouldn't know anywhere near enough to try to overturn relativity, but knowing that it's held up so well, I do wonder if maybe some fraction of scientists could be looking at it wrong versus what is already there thanks to Einstein and anyone else that contributed after that. I look at people presenting models and I ask, "is relativity actually accounted for in this model"? And sometimes it seems like the answer is no. Maybe my mistake is not knowing which models are old and meant to be Newtonian, but I feel like there has to be a point where there is a Newtonian model we missed which was supposed to be corrected for relativity and ends up looking totally different inside. I just don't know which model it is.
I guess "quantum relativity slightly bigger than a photon" is my guess for today. I do not truly know if this thing exists or if it's nonsense math, but either way I sure do have big questions on if anyone has defined position or density correctly.
------
[cr. 2025-09-06T06:42:17Z]
I guess I suggested two time dimensions. one of them is virtual, predicted, or probabilitisic, and one of them is the real observed sequence of events when things interact.
quantum relativity would have added a virtual dimension of time that only exists at each quark, in this vast number of tiny fragments, before collapsing into the one real dimension of time when things interact two ways with no preferred reference frame.
------
(lithoGRAPHica prototype) [cr. 2025-08-19T11:07:31Z]
What if you were the variable x? / What if you could put yourself into a lambda calculus function? ->
reading the Wikipedia page on lambda calculus, where I shouldn't have been able to find anything new and interesting, I had the weirdest thought. lambda calculus functions just iterate on things. lambda calculus doesn't know what the variable x really is. an individual person could be anything; to Rothenberg this is all The Subject is. so what if people were in lambda calculus expressions?
this sounds really silly and yet.... it could be one possible mathematics for existential materialism. you could theoretically use this kind of thinking to describe Bauplans?? could a union be a lambda calculus function. could a movement of a particular shape be a function where people of different ideologies go into it and behave differently. lambda calculus is awkward, and yet... if you had a mathematics with a unified way to define data types and functions relative to each other, and could put any type of object (Algebra) into the right kind of function, you could just throw a person in there. the key to throwing a person into a function is just defining the right kind of data structure to represent the person and then making use of variables that can hold data structures, as well as multivariable functions that can actually work with many free-floating objects. [*a]
------
[*p] a word on "AI": the notion here that the cockatrice sign equation "isn't physics" is very deliberate and important. there is (or is going to be) a whole chapter about why large language models absolutely cannot do the thing that is being proposed here, and so this is probing the method for scrapping large language models and _actually doing it correctly_. [*g]
I have various problems with the notion that "AI" is a simple issue specifically about "machines versus the human".
but, what's going on here is the notion of taking objects and constructing some sort of entire field of mathematics which calculates using material objects. as a field of mathematics, you could do it on paper, and it would be as "human" or as computerized as any existing field of mathematics already is. [*p2]
[*a] I'm gonna say Algebra capitalized just so it's clear it's referring to mathematical data structures themselves and not to basic linear equation solving.
=> youtube.com/watch?v=zS2WMCimRRY *h. Teleology: Rethinking How We Do Physics - Hossenfelder 2025 ;
=> youtube.com/watch?v=diOnqXE_upY *c. Most Overlooked Idea in Quantum Physics [Causality] - Barandes ;
=> youtube.com/watch?v=ZR-1Jol_nUM *G. hossenfelder lays out 𝑐 and ℏ vs 𝐺 ;
;
=> youtube.com/watch?v=wIDDkmuGdZk *b. binary relations example ;
=> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_equation *d. Dirac equation ;
;
=> 1733514347 v5.2/ relativity ; 1101 relativity
=> 1743656980 v5.2rN/ "free will"/ determinism in physics ; 1111 AE shenlong FreeWill
=> 1709246354 *p2. v4.3^/ toward a new Marxist mathematics ; 6951 plus
=> 1705453888 *g. v5.1/ communication and signifiers ; 1211 gato
=> 1757222280 *nf. v5.1r/ Marx and Freud don't belong anywhere near each other ; 1101 no-freud
;
== research.moraleconomy.au/entry/Philosophical_Research:MDem/5.1r/1101_differentiate
:: cr. 2025-05-11T03:41:34Z
; 1746934894
:: t. differentiate
:: t. v5-1_1101r_differentiate
; v5.1-5.3 scraps/ differential equations and relativity
; v5.3r^/ differential equations, relativity, "relaterminism"
; r = scraps, rN = revision scraps, V = revisions, ^ = posted to lithoGRAPHica thesis portal
