very possibly wrong,, but maybe not

 Okay, so let us model the U.S. electorate in a very incomplete and confusing way as a large complex vector/tensorish field where on a granular level, we have lots of sub fields.  Actually all these subfields are dynamic multi-dimensional fields.  The difficult part in this model is how the larger collective fields interact with the granular level fields, which tend to clump together in a variety of curious ways.

The result of all this is, individual outputs from the granular level fields which indicate some preference for A, B, C,  and maybe sometimes D.  Both C and D , do require special treatment.  But, we do know that the results of the outputs, do in fact change the state of the over all field.  

The difficulty with the model is trying to figure out what the important dimensions are in all these fields.

It can't be that hard, but then again, it may be.  But clearly, all this stuff seems quite finite.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Synchronicity

 So, this strange, word, which suggests something like, two things happening at the same time, which are seemingly disconnected.  So, that may appear first mostly in the works of Carl Jung, and the formulations of many of his concepts related to applications of phycology.   Now, to the best of my understanding, Irwin Schrodinger, in the late 40's and early 50's kind of latched onto this " concept ", in relation to describing the " kind of " physics, connected to biologicals processes.  So maybe this is funny or not, but during this same time Schrodinger was supposed to be working with Einstein on the >>> Unified Field Theorem <<< , I guess, the " Theorem " gives it all away.  At some point , Schrodinger may have given a >>> press conference <<<  in which he announced that " they ", had been successful.  Well, he had not previously consulted Einstein, and apparently Einstein response was, okay we are don...
Read more

Perplexity, absurdity, and power

 So, when you consider or imagine " absolute " power, you must also consider the issue of " infinite " work.  In other words, without the results or effects of power, you really don't know anything about it. Nevertheless, throughout most of human history, we have labored under this concept of " absolute " power, which in and of itself produces very difficult logical or mental conundrums.  Of course, Dr. Einstein was fairly successful in dispelling some of these odd conundrums in particularly as regards some of our notions related to the physical world and our " environment " so to speak, however, that required a life time of work, and the help of many colleagues over the years. But simply, even if you do consider the >>>> universe <<<<< to be an infinite amount of work and therefore requiring an infinite/absolute amount of power, well, if you're going to try and rustle up numbers that actually make sense, you ar...
Read more

Something, something, reality

 Now, when we reflect back on " reality ", most people will agree, >>> it's hard to do without it <<< Now, we might be able to figure out how Godel's Proof , ties back to all this stuff, but it seems to me that if you want to describe some kind of reality, then you pretty much have to talk about diversity, and so probably, possibly what you are really talking about is the " ability " to sort out, elements of diversity as being a substantive process which it kind of seems like is persistently .occurring.   This might occur through action like --->  back actions <--- of some different processes or  even ---> front action <----, which might be easier to comprehend. So , if you are an automobile, and you can travel to pretty much anyplace in the world within 1 hour, then, things might look a bit different, particularly if you are into variation and transformation.  So, for example, Ralphy will rarely go to Africa, unless, it's l...
Read more