On Space and Time

As we move through space and time, we encounter architectivity as either on or off present or not. Architectivity is discontinuous and therefore dualistic. Connectivity is continuous and always present, and in this sense singular. As we move through space and time, it is always on.

We experience an intersection of two realities (both being in space and time), one a discontinuous on/off reality, the other a continuous, always on reality. Each has its own rules and semantic.

*

Regarding connectivity as continuous assumes that space is not quantized. Does the fact that irrational numbers have a physical expression prove that space is not quantized? (eg pi or a hypotenuse as a square root of integers.)

*

To an architective sentience or process, time is quantized, not necessarily at some absolute level, but at the rate at which its fastest process is ticking.

*

Architectivity ticks. Its universe runs like clockwork.

*

Understanding physical interaction in connective and architective terms explains the wave/particle duality, for what is observed depends upon the mode of the observation.

*

Only objects, ie architectures, display specific natural frequencies or interact only with them. Connectives interfere with all frequencies.

*

I find it interesting that the quantum/macro divide occurs more or less at the same scale where shape becomes a player.

*

The significance of spatial arrangement is illustrated by the conversion of the spatial sequence of nucleotides in DNA into codons, whose subsequent spatial order determines which proteins are manufactured by ribosomes.

*

There are two very different senses of speed. An architective sense of distance covered per unit time and a connective sense of cycles per unit time.

*

Time (t) and distance (d) are architective conceptions of the temporal and spatial dimensions respectively, while frequency (1/t) and wavenumber (1/d) are the connective conceptions of those dimensions.

Time and distance may be architective measures of the temporal and spatial dimensions but frequency and wavenumber, or more correctly number/time and number/distance, are NOT connective measures of those dimensions, since connectivity does not support exact measurement. Rather, frequency and wavenumber colour or tone those dimensions, perhaps conveying a mood or vibe.

This implies that our subjective senses of colour and tone are not translations of the frequencies of light or sound vibrations magically changed by our brains into subjective effects but direct connective perceptions of these phenomena as they are. Flavour and temperature could be regarded in the same way.

Connective perceptions are qualitative and holistic while architective perceptions are quantitative and reductive.

*

Waves and vibrations rarely (if ever) comprise only a single instance of their repeating cycle. They tend to occur as continuous streams of cycles or else in packets of more than one cycle. Even the photon, the smallest unit of electromagnetic radiation, comprises a packet of cycles (the frequency of which corresponds to its energy).

This suggests that for waves in nature, each cycle in its package has a dependence on the preceding and/or following cycles in its train to ensure its sinusoidal character.

*

If geometric fit is so prominent in architectivity, could we not see it at the atomic and subatomic architective levels too, in the sense that Pauli exclusion happens because even at that scale objects have some sort of "spatial or energetic profiles" (rather than shapes?) that fit or don't fit geometrically?

*

In Physical Spirituality I floated the idea that the locking into constraint at the micro level, as invoked by Pauli exclusion, is yet another fundamental phenomenon in addition to the four fundamental interactions of physics. All these are usually described as energetic events, with the constraint at the micro level usually described in terms of 'binding' energy, while the others are usually described in terms of 'kinetic' and 'potential' energy.

I would like to suggest that although all these are described in dimensions of energy, binding energy is very different to kinetic and potential energy, perhaps some sort of "anti-energy".

Think of it this way: Connective activity (mobilising the four fundamental interactions) requires that there be an exchange or expending or transfer of energy; while the maintenance of an architective constraint or lock (using binding energy) does not. Using a connective process to maintain a stasis requires that energy be expended. Using an architective structure (utilizing binding energy) does not. Connective processes require their energy to be repleted, architective processes do not. There is something very different about binding energy, as if it cannot be drained, only broken. Is that difference because it is quantized and the others are not?

*

A sine wave is connective while a (perfectly) square wave is architective. One can convert the connectivity of sine waves into the architectivity of a square wave by summing an infinite number of sine-like waves (as a Fourier series).

A sine wave looks like this:

A square wave looks like this:

But this conversion has a dependency on infinity, so at any actual moment in the conversion process there will always be further to go. This means that you can't create a real, actual instance of architectivity using this process (only an approximate one).

Actual, perfect, real architective instances thus have a dependency on something other than connectivity - and that something other is architectivity itself (as a fundamental aspect of reality just as connectivity is). The material world as we know it can't be generated from connectivity alone.

Another way of looking at this is that while a sum of sine waves can generate a square wave (perfectly or approximately), it cannot generate a zig-zag wave like this (perfectly or even approximately):

Even though an infinite sum of sines may generate an architective instance such as a square wave, it can't be used to generate every possible architective instance.

*

Interestingly, the Cosmic Deity of Physical Spirituality, being purely connective, requires the presence of the "something other" of architectivity in order to participate in a world that is real.

The presence of architectivity thus relieves the Cosmic Deity of a necessity for infinity in order to have a real world to participate in. It also relieves reality itself of a necessity for infinity. Reality can be NOW regardless of whether the universe is infinite or not.