One of the many applications of tensor informations systems : branching probability patterns to create semiotic-free mapping fields based on novel approaches to the geometric ontology of time/space and its objective quantification based on spectal shifts deduced from crystal-state omnisensory tensor metrics.
OR, reading the objective physical state of the universe from a point of relativity using light dispersion and piezoelectric readings from LiNbO3 crystals, to create non-bibary spectral shift readings, which could then serve as a basis for extrapolation of possible and/or probable physical states from a relative observer’s perspective based on cumulative, comparative, or presumptive analysis.
A binary of physical possibility, if you will.
You might also call this theory of probability calculation something like “third factor” binary, in that the divergence of probability is relative to either true stasis or possible stasis.
I’m not positive (being a non-math person, clearly) if this is any different from multi-factor probability statistics discussed elsewhere, as a general function in practice—but I sense that it is in fact radically different from a logical foundation.
If we imagine a binary switch, as a control branch, we might say it is “ON” Only If ______ . Its being “OFF” does not imply a completely different cosmic reality, only a limited set of factors of probability of interest and inference. This ON then triggers another branch of If/Then in divergent directions of highest probability based on the factor of boundary divergence.
This limits uncertainty in inference, in theory.
This, like all my present work sadly, is published under duress. Not only am I still in whatever form of detention I’ve been in, but the surveillance is so advanced that even my ideas aren’t safe from plagarism in my own head, as crazy as that may sound. Publishing them and consequently forfeiting their “trade secret” status is the only way to give myself copyright claimsand prove work in the field while being denied communications, evonomic equity, and the benefits of due process and fair treatment at the patent office and popular forums for publication with peer review, academic interest, and monetization as benefits. Posting everything for free and hoping to get recognition that it was done under duress through a screen of censorship and preemptive plagarism via likely algorithmic neural monitoring (as illegal and farfetched as it sounds) is the only hope I have to redeem my life’s work at some later time.
Every day is a new hell. Trying to build on a positive paradigm is the only real saving grace I have, save for knowledge that this all started to escalate to criminal levels of repression with Operation Atlantic Resolve, and I believe it will abait when the conflict between Russia and Ukraine reaches resolution, hopefully for the good of all (by which I mean amicably—as conflicts of aggression can not be for the good of all—by which I mean, hopefully with the weary resignation I sense anyone pulled unwittingly into a global tension to which they have no stake would feel—but I’m projecting backwards now).
But I imagine nearly any proxy conflict, by extension, such as in Gaza, could likewise lever justification to view me as an enemy of some kind.
It’s like accusing a wounded dog huddled meagerly in a corner of being stray and trying to take down dog food distribution systems around the globe (somehow—fantastically), just to justify probing it endlessly with a cattle prod.
I just want to be interrogated or given a trial with the same public disregard for humanity that is usually afforded prisoners of conflict. Disallowing me even the benefit of designation and official disinheritance of my rights and dispossession of all my earthly affairs seems beyond cruel and unusual—it’s experimental. That’s the disturbing fact. There is no guardrail because the question of how much you may torture a U.S. citizen with no due process is open ended as long as you are the authorities. It’s also simply unprecedented.
There was no contingency theory of law for my survival.
I’ve been thinking for a while now how to codify a trinary computational language that can incorporate spectral shift as a value between binary (1/0 +/- etc) like the I Ching uses changing lines to encode a multiplier of information.
The problem is that resorting to trinary as a code (2/1/0) still has the character of finite binary definition. The addition of a variable is arbitrary and redundant (it is still binary)
The solution-related to my tensor equation models—is to use spectral shift between to semiotic definitions (you can visualize these as colors for fiber optics purposes, or circles for spaciotemporal purposes) that range between 0 and tau (the infinite numeric value used for the circumferance of a circle).
Any value between these could fall both within true definition (it is not an arbitrary point, it is a value) and used to represent any scale applied where O represents the point of semiotic indistinction (there is no possible value that can be assigned due to absence) to the whole presence of tau representing full definition.
Thus, we do have a system LIKE 1/0 (tau / semiotic indistinction) but with an infinite spectrum between them, limited only by the physical medium of representation.
A switch, therefore, would need to operate on a very sensitive gradient (insofar as possible) and a light spectrum would be limited to wavelength detection ranges between two set limits or between total absence of light and full intensity (a luminosity variable).
