Axioms for the setFS

[jehovajah]

Axiom !: The Experience "I" have is solely my own and is constructed by "me" within a context that i can only model using cultural "forms".
Note: The structure of "my" experience i have constructed using the paradigm of a continuum between poles that are indefinitely located in a location that has at least an inner region separated by boundarisation processes from an outer region. It is consequential of the construction process that the outer region has no boundary that cannot be enclosed by another constructed boundary.

Axiom 2: All processes within my experiential continuum are iterative or recursive.

One important corollary of Axiom1 is that Everything i construct is necessarily relative to me in "my" model. Hence:
Axiom 3:- i can construct any given number of other reference points within "my" model by iterative processes.

This among other things allows me to rotate {in fact all affine transforms} my model relative to myself so i can gain insights from different vantage points within my model/ experiential continuum. The number of reference points is unbounded. The iterative processes are the basis of "trial and error" within my experiential continuum as i construct the re configured model from my initial assumption of cultural paradigms.

Axiom 4: The "context" in Axiom 1 is not constructed or definable within my model but is perceivable by "me" by a iterative process of negation of all elements within my model.
Basically i can't say what the context is but i can say what it is not by recursive means.

Axiom 5: I stabilise "my" model by an iterative process of "acceptance".

"My" experiential continuum changes with what i "accept" as a basis for the iterative processes of perception and recognition. the cultural forms which i accept from conception are numerous and pervasive and as i alter these my perceptions change as does my experiential continuum. "not altering" then is a nascent notion of acceptance.

Axiom 6: The Set FS is the universal set within which my model/ experiential continuum is defined and has a rule:- all processes on its elements are iterative /recursive and all its elements are determined by iterarive processes. notFS will be the recursive definition of the context in axiom 1. However there is a mapping from notFS onto FS such that FS is a model of notFS.

Axiom 7: Iterative/recursive processes operating on notFS are perceivable.

These processes will be compared with enegetic transfomations within FS.

Axiom 8:All perceived boundaries involve an iterative process or processes.

Definition: Infinfite is unbounded and large Infinitesimal is unbounded and small.

Axiom 6 has an interessting corollary. Energy and motion are by it recursive or iterative processes. This leads on reflection to the notion that a set wide iterative process may be a hypothesis worth making with regard to the notions of energy and motion in FS. This set wide process will only be worth making if the energy and motion laws that Einstein derived can be shown to be consistent by every measure with the axioms of the set FS. If this can be done then starting with a suitable fractal rule if recursive processes can be shown to generate einstein like motions and energy equivalents then a convincing case may be made for the recursive action of space. If space has this recursive action it may then be possible to relate each iteration to a notion of sequential statuses which may be similar to the notion of "time" in modern physics. I will be more rigorous in a following post, but essentially the elements of the set FS are many and varied but for it to be useful FS must explain the nature of space or rather have an equivalent definition of space to what is in notFS.

Axiom 6 requires some careful handling. Axioms 1 - 5 lay out an underpinning framework for 6 but do not define a set or set notation. This is in fact assumed to be the standard mathematical definition and usage. However, the axiom itself is attempting to draw together axioms 1 -5 under a mathematical notation system. Thus axiom 6 is a tautology expressing a symbolic representation (set FS with rule ) of axioms 1 - 5. Tautologies like this are indicative of the iterative nature of my consciousness, and the question arises if the generalised notion of iteration does not preclude me from coming to any other description.

The definition of iteration is clearly to specific to explain everyday usage as I recognise iteration not only on bounded regions but also on values and symbols. Turings machine for example is a symbolic iteration, and Newtons iteration is a value iteration. Then there are the iterations which can be seen in design modification, Editing, scientific inductive reasoning, the scientific method itself acting on a group behavioural process; cybernetic and feedback systems etc. Therefore for FS to represent axioms 1 -5 the rule of iteration must take a more general form which can not rigorously be defined and is subjective to my appreciation of iteration. This is not a new problem. I mention it to highlight the fact that my so called knowledge of set FS is more likely to be a knowledge of a partial or restricted subset of FS or subsets of FS which may or may not be cofactors of one another.



   

[jehovajah]

Axiom 1 holds together some fairly hard to define but necessary and unavoidable notions. `My' abilities or attributes are only hinted at but implied. The notion of quantity is inate in this axiom as is the notion that i have this ability to quantify. Axiom 1 states explicitly that i can construct an experiential continuum but not in isolation, and that i can model notFS. These abilities are not to be tgnored, for counting iterations are not the basis of my appreciation of quantity. I continually appreciate quantity without being trained to name it in the form of a stage in a counting iteration. Today we have digitising devices that can sense the environment as a signal in myriads of sensors ,and the output from each individual sensor is almost instantaneously given a digital value or a count by a device or circuitry that converts the sensors output into a digital value. What i am alluding to by this is that i have within my perceptual function all the information and more which i am tediously naming and defining in the study of maths. Typically i learnt number bonds and numeral links up to the value of 12, but i could just as easily learnt them up to higher values. Some autistic individuals demonstrate this ability quite well. The thing to note is the sheer power of the iteration that is taking place in the perceptive faculty, and the modern sensor systems allied to the computing platforms give testimony to that.

The context referred to in axiom ! is undefined and undefinable which is why i define my experiential continuum and formalise it in the set FS in axiom 6. However much of my inate abilities and functions which are in the set notFS  are gradually by iteration processes being found to be mapped / modeled in the set FS. The vision system within my symbiotic microbial colonic system has a counterpart in the ccd and cmos sensor systems used within cameras and electronic visidn systems. A study of the biological vision system : the eye the optic nerve and the visual cortex reveals that the retina is modeled by the pixel system the analogue/digital converter is modeled by modifier cels just behind the retina and the visual cortex models the digital/signal processors. Their is also a clear regular pattern of rod and cone arrangement in the retina which provides a grid like arrangement. This grid like arrangement is mimiced in the arrangement of decoding neurons in the visual cortex. The eye and the visual cortex developmentally (by iteration) are extensions of each other. These regular arrangements of cells, crystal lattices,packing of small objects, molecules etc are being studied under the heading of self assembling structures. Suffice it tosay that my inate sense of shape angle line boundary and orientation can be found in the patterns that this vision system is able to respond to in conjunction with the other sense sub systems.So for example a boundary arises when an arrangement of rods and or cones fires off at a particular action potential within a region on the retina and a different action potential on the "other " side of that region. The arrangement of rods and cones are the inate shape or angle or line which the processing cortex uses to engage in the perception iteration. Somewhere along that set of iterations i am able to make a connection with a stored model that gives rise to the recognition response. The iteration then proceeds but a "higher" level iteration now dominates and uses the recognition iteration in a verification iteration. IF the verification is not found then i may begin the recognition iteration again from a different perspective, whether that be a different angle or a closer(magnified) look until verification is achieved. This process is the basis of curiosity, and i may never achieve verification so i may always be curious about some experience. At another level of functioning this particular non verification may be used to detect a whole class of similar situations.

Axiom 2 needs to be further explored as to the all inclusive nature of its statement. Clearly some iteration will have to be defined as null iterations if it remains in its present form. However how to distinguish between  a null iteration and a fixed result iteration may be a valuable thing to explore with regard to iterations that transfer energy into a fixed region, gravity for example.

Axiom 9 therefore i sketch out here as: large scale and small scale iteration procedures in FS are fractally entrained at any scale size i wish to examine.

When i take a large scale iterative process such as a solar cycle as a standard or the rotaton of the earth about its axis, i can then subdivide it into smaller and smaller segments and use it as a measure or metric. Measures or metrics are some of the most obvious fractals that i can create or design in FS, but as such they are abstracts. Each iteration process i use as standard has to include the sub iterations within its "orbit" to imply any useful iteration link. So to become so abstract that a metric is applied "outside" of its defining iteration procedure is likely to lead to problems of scale.

When i experience a fractal zoom it reminds me so strongly of the differences in structure which scale changes reveal and therefore it is a wisdom to me not to generalise in an assumption of a "smooth" continuous development beyond a certain iteration procedures  defining region of operation. Rather i should expect discontinuity and discrete regionalised developments. So for example the quantum physics and classical physics are fractally entrained by axiom 9 so they will operate on each other,but there will not be a smooth continuous link between them. However i can approach iteratively close to the "boundary" between them in a wada "point" sense. I could refer to this as asymptopic, but i am not assuming a smooth continuous progression.


The following are candidates for Axioms of set FS but i have just considered them so i have yet to assess them.

Inertia, Equilibrium, Syntax, Parsing and Equivalence.

Before i continue i want to sketch out a possible universal iteration procedure. I am thinking of a relative vortex for each individual. So the entire experiential continuum i have constructed is based on a procedural vortex relative to myself. Each iteration applying the vortex results in motion within my experiential continuum. At each fractal level fractal entrainment across the boundary generate motion on the other side of the boundary and either side of the boundary. The vortex procedure moves a region at each iteration to a new position, and regions within regions to new positions within the regions. The universal application does not imply uniformity, it implies fractality at all scales, which is to say that the product of the iteration under the vortex procedure is a fractal with infinite levels, and these products would be vortex motions at all scales. Wile this may appear to one observer to be chaotic to myself it would appear fractal, and would generate a search for the self similarity ratios the boundaries of regionalisation and the evidence of fractal entrainment. As this vortex procedure is universal, all motion that results will be voticular to scale. Thus i would expect to find that all forms of motion from seemingly straight line motion to hyperbolic parabolic elliptic circular, cardioidal  and spiral and even brownian would be apparent in its region of operation, which is universal and thus at all scales.

Since we use elliptical and circular motion to define periodicity i would expect periodical forms of motion to be linked to the iteration cycle of the universal vortex iteration in some way.

I would also expect brownian motion to be linked to vorticular motion and fractal entrainment both ways across a boundary with a wada basin condition.

Whatever descriptions we have of vorticular procedures should have this fractal nature if this is a universal iteration, and boundary conditions will need to be generalised to reflect the wada nature of all boundaries in a fractal.

So to follow on from a vortex process operating in an iterative way in set FS leads me to re emphasise newtons laws of motion in FS. A body continues in a state of vorticular motion iteration by iteration unless impressed upon by a force. A body impressed upon by a force changes its motion in proportion to the force and along the vorticular path of the force. And finally the impressed or drawn force is opposed by an equal and opposite force acting on the bodies involved  .

Newton accepted the states of motion and rest, but in set FS the iteration of the vortex is the source of all motion by fractal entrainment. A body is only at rest to an observer with the same vorticular motion, and i will discuss this more when i consider equilibrium and inertia.

A body at rest is in a state of force equilibrium which is to say that all forces acting on the body cancel out. Only when this condition fails does a net force impress upon or draw upon a body in a "right" direction in the newtonian sense. This right direction is not a straight line but a perpendicular direction to the place of contact of the force. In a vortex field this approximates to a straight line as a first order approximation, but it is more accurately a logarithmic motion.

That iteration is the fractal entrainment for motion will be a basic axiom of the set FS and will be a development of axiom 2.

[jehovajah]

Axiom 10:
 The fundamental geometry of the set FS is non Euclidian and as a first statement i will align it with Riemann.

I have yet to study Riemann's geometry and those of others in order to make a finer determination.

However this begs the question : What is "fractal geometry"? I shall endeavour to set some distinctions to give referents to the name.

I will tidy up the numbering system for axioms in due course.

[jehovajah]

In the set FS the fundamental Energy notion is motion. The word energy is not only synonymous with motion but exactly congruent with it in the set FS. The various forms of motion therefore are different exhibitions of the former conception of energy. Displacement is a quantized exhibition of energy while uniform motion is a continuous energy event occurring at a uniform rate . Acceleration then becomes an event exhibiting the growth and development of energy. The relativistic attribute of motion thus applies to the former concept of energy with potential energy being a relativistic notion. That there are stable courses of motion indicates stable relativistic energy differentials. more later.

These stable courses of motion i will say are in relativistic motion equilibrium, but as a vector or directional tensor entity.

[jehovajah]

I have to quickly note  several notions developing in my head. Relative motion, the patterns of relative motion which i will call relativistic motion, relativistic motion equilibrium and relativistic motion transfer. the idea that relativistic motion is the inherent ground of all attributes of space and the sole property of space is constant fractal vorticular/ trochoidal motion. The basis of this notion is testable in that it would not require any special material to reproduce all the known attributes of my experiential contiuum merely patterns of relative motion.

The concept of relativistic motion therefore requires a more complete exposition. Quick examples are stationary solid objects where the solidity is a function of the relative motion and the relativistic equilibrium of the parts in the general reference frame on the planets surface. The symphony of motion i call a tree with leaves, where the relative motions of each part from the atoms to the cells to the structures of leaf and bough and trunk illustrate the complexity of relativistic motion, and dynamic relativistic equilibrium on a comprehensible scale. The clouds in the sky which illustrate the relativistic motion of gaseousness but also the impression of solidity and electromagnetic variation. The notion of light as being a relativistic motion that has general and widespread effect or resultant on all other relativistic motions it "contacts" with and the notion of relativistic motion transfer on an enormous scale differential, from the smallest to the largest.

The notion thaty relativistic motion transfer is related to the mysterious attribute called momentum and represented by  

And the formulae 

and

or partial derivative forms on a Riemann surface or more hopefully a surface of a fractal vorticular nature with conic, helical and loxodromic attributes.

In such a conception "time" is replaced by a periodic length and a standard is used to establish a fractal scale, but it is clear that if a given conic surface is used to describe the periodic motion used in the standard that the periodic length will vary with the plane of intersection of the conic. Thus periodic length will be dependent on conic sectional properties but how numerous the counting or clocking of the standard periodic length will depend on the "swiftness" of motion used to define the periodic length. And the swiftness of motion is a perception of the former energy notion. So higher "energy" would give more standard periodic lengths which would mean that my perceptions would either speed up or slow down "time" depending on how i want to describe it. 

[jehovajah]

Some research i am doing into diffraction gratings gives me the notion of a relativistic structure for the set FS of a spaceometric manifold. It will need some work but i note here the concept and the directions i want to develop it in, as a fuller descrption of the universal iterative procedure in set FS for entraining motion.

http://books.google.com/books?id=bFcL0bbsDP4C&lpg=PA83&ots=f4exT7ZzPy&dq=3%20dimensional%20grating%20diffraction&pg=PA83#v=onepage&q=3%20dimensional%20grating%20diffraction&f=false
And of course
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction.

There are various arrangements of diffraction gratings and various designs of aperture or/and spatial relativity of the "slits" on the gratings. I would be interested in the spiral relativity arrangement(cd disc) and the vortexian crystal like arrangement for the Bragg distribution. All these structures would be in motion and thus the arrangements would be relativistic.

One of the limitations i feel of the current QCM theory is that it is ultimately based on harmonically oscillating lattice structures, and i feel a description based on relativistic elements ie elements in relative motion to one another would be possible and of course more fluid. The motion field equations would be some forms such as

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_equation
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_field_integral_equation
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_solution

and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_solution

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger_field


and it is always good to note ideas do not develop in isolation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute

Other analogues

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitomagnetism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stationary_spacetime

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordström's_theory_of_gravitation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brans–Dicke_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_mechanics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_field

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli's_principle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metafluid_dynamics


So i see the ideas have legs.


What caught my attention is that the general description of these lattice like arrangements is as triply periodic functions of position (at least in the vector form) and that all physical properties of crystals can be represented by functions of this type.

This is a clear relativistic description of attributes of a region of space, and as the function is a function of position it will admit to a differential form which may allow me to explore a relativistic description based on motion.

[jehovajah]

Relativistic motion when localised to a small spaciometric volume is meaured as a "cavitation energy". Cavitation energy is thus a relativistic motion transfer event which transfers potential relativistic motion to a small spaciometric volume giving it kinetic relativistic motion as a region.

Small volume relativistic motion is proportional to the spaciometric density of the volume which is itself proportional to the mechanical density of a small volume. Spaciometric density is a numeral expressing the count/measure and and relativity/ratio of structures, forms and surfaces and distinctions within a region in space. I will revise this definition in spaciometry to recognise the tensor nature of this definition, thus the numeral becomes precisely a scalar to a unit quantity of spaciometric volume which will be a tensor or a differential tensor element.

This is just a note and i will need to work on clarifying the notion of a spaciometric tensor, and the link to a mechanical tensor of density.

Nevertheless , cavitation relativistic motion transfer is proportional to the mechanical tensor for density in which the density is a dynamic function of pressure and temperature, allowing a local gas law to obtain in a super phase or plasma state. Such plasmas will have electromagnetic properties as well as chemical ionic properties. The permeability of the spaciometric structures around these localised events will be part of a full tensor description of the volume, it seems to me if the resultant transport behaviour of the superphase is to be described and the electromagnetic phenomena are to be described and understood.

Pressure and temperature are normally understood as mechanical strain, so i am applying a ratio between Boyles law and mechanical strain. with elasticity and deformation characteristics being phase change phenomena with associated plasma properties entangled in the permeable structure of the spaciometric volume.

Fracture occurs as a latent energy function for the whole spaciometric volume , but for the tensor each differential element will have phase change boundary quantity  which will determine when it becomes relativistically non cohesive, ie relativistic motion exceeds the bond motion quanta, that is relativistic motion transfer imparts relativistic motion in excess of the escape motion for coherent relativistic motion. The spaciometric object shears along planes and boundaries where these escape motions are proportionally weakened by cavitation relativistic motion transfer, so a clean break is not to be expected, and close examination of the fracture plane should reveal plasma state phenomena with phase change phenomena leading to "condensation " events and relativistic motions of these condensing regions in a type of gas behaviour, as well as a distinct electromagnetic pulse behaviour.

Draft To be corrected.

[jehovajah]

Axiom: the natural motion of any region at any scale within the relativistic motion field is vorticular/trochoidal. The size and strength of this motion is proportional to scale, speed, and radial distance from the vorticular/trochoidal axis centre, in fact inversely proportional to the radial distance. The limit motion at the vorticular/trochoidal centre is an "angular", that is spaciometric rotational action called twist or spin which is a spiral/trochoidal reference framework value representing the distance traveled along the vortex/trochoid locus to the centre.

Axiom the spiral/trochoidal referennce framework value is quantized, and this is achieved by either the growth in the value by quantized amounts or the decrease in the value by quantized amounts.

Thus the spaciometric centre of the rotation will increase in spaciometric density or decrease in spaciometric density by a quantized amount. These quantized changes represent spaciometric phase change boundaries for the absorption or emission of other spaciometric forms.

Thus applying this to a recognisable example: the interaction of an electron orbital with a photon may lead to a spaciometric change in the electron orbital value on absorption, which subsequently returns to its previous value with the emission of a photon orbital value.

Axiom : a "straight line" motion from a vortex centre is in fact a helical vortex emission of a quantized spiral reference value. The motion appears straight because the helical motion is of such a great rapidity. This rapidity of helical motion i will call spaciometric frequency and it represents a comparison between a standard period length and the period length of the observed spaciometric rotation.

[jehovajah]

Axiom: The motion field in set FS has as a consequence of vorticular/trochoidal motion at all scales and in all direction an entraining effect throughout a spaciometric region which i will call spaciometric gravity.

Axiom: the boundary of a region completely determines the spaciometry within a region.

As an example Euclidean geometry exists only within abstract boundaries, whose abstract  axiomatic components are line angle and point, arc of a circle and of course, the ubiquitous plane.

Riemannian geometry allows for a general curve component and a general surface component. Although parallelism is also an important distinction it does derive from the other components in Euclidean  geometry, but is falsifiable in Riemannian geometry.

[jehovajah]

Axiom a region moving n a straight line across an observers cone of orientation has a spaciometric rotation.

a spaciometric rotation is an activty so either the oserver is active or the region is active or both. Whichever is active has the spaciometric rotation.

Axiom a spiral locus is the only locuss that results in acceleration or deceleration of rotation infinitely.

[jehovajah]

Ratios produced by proportioning of one change to another change sequentially  is precisely logarithmic and the anti ratio of a changing proportion is precisely exponential. That is the  changing differential portions  ratioed change logarithmically but the  differential changes summed  increase exponentially.

So 1:2:3:4:5:6:7:8:9:10
 The sums are given by s= n( n+1 )/2 for n=0,1,2,3...

The ratios are given by n: n+ 1 for n=1,2,3...
writing the ratios as fractions n/ n+1 reveals the logarithmic sequential change.

It is of interest that until this form of writing ratios was widely adopted and treated as an enumeration system, that is as a value assigning protocol, which in simpler words merely means a number system like the reals and decimal system today, this insight could only be intuited not notated.

To my mind this is the first time a number system was created by an algebraist, the first constructed number system that facilitated an interaction with a fractal universe (notFS). The invention combined the fundamental logos response into an iterative and self similar fractal pattern that has never been beaten only utilized more extensively in the extensions to the number line.

 The rational comparisons are where we as a culture will always find our most intuitive response to notFS , and where polynomials and calculus spring from as well as the essential ratio methods that so inform our apprehension of the changes in notFS. All of this is now hidden, implicit within the notion of rational numbers, and this is bad or our creative response to not FS and our Logos Response. Ratio and proportion keep us real and fractions and rational numbers keep us grounded in the iterative nature of "reality"

[jehovajah]

Axiom: motion flows in a structure or in a chaotic trochoidal form. The structure of motion flow that stores motion is a vortex and the anti vortex consequently dissipates motion. The vortex-torus structure is  fundamental motion store/dissipation structure that is stable and enduring.

[jehovajah]

Axiom: There are an infinite number of clocks cycles of the Ed Lorenz equation type, and all these "clocks" are regional and relativistic. There is thus no universal time frame, just relativistic ones.

Clock cycles therefore are great for regional ordering, sequencing, synchtonising and entraining, but do not represent any fundamental memory store of information that can be accessed by a "time machine". The chaotic nature of these quantum clocks makes that a non starter.

The effect of these clocks on motion:extension and rotation, not as simple as they seem. In addition motion ratios can be proportioned from any of the attributes that vary in a motion, not only the sequencing of extension ratio changes. Finding a clock cycle enables synchronicity of these attributes; as for example the information stored on a video flash drive.

If such a universal flash drive existed that stored holographically all information in all regions, then time travel would be a possibility.

Because the logos response is able to perceive and deploy ratios speed ratios and acceleration ratios and control ratios and then system ratios or cybernetic ratios and finally computational output ratios are all perceived by an individual. To describe some of the more complex ratios as chaotic and unpredictable is to shirk the task of apprehending them, leaving the way open for mystical or mythical explanations of them.

[jehovajah]

I have to run but i will detail an axiomatic corollary of axioms 1 to 5 under the notion of proprioception.

Kinesthesis/Proprioception is essentially the biological/physiological source of all reference frameworks for geometrical and spaciometric conceptions, and is self referencing and defining of the structures of the Logos Response as it applies to the conception of Spaciometry/geometry.

I cannot have spaciometry without innately having proprioception to give rise to spaciometric notions through the Logos Response, and kinesthesis to act out that response.

The fundamental processes of The Logos response is the measurement through analogue to digital sampling of sensors, the comparison of the measurement signals within the neural network structures of the CNS distributed processing systems and the distinctions assigned to given stable signal patterns.

It is clear that distinguishing is a response to the stimulus of the signal inputs. Thus the Logos Response entails a communication network to effect that response.Up until now the response has only been thought of as a naming or associating response without exploring any mechanism or structure for this: in other words an intuitive description of a faculty i demonstrate without really being able to give a referent for it.

I think the proprioception faculty or faculties provide a basis for exploring this further.  tbc

[jehovajah]

The Logos Response provides an epiphenomenal route map from the sensory signal input through the PNS and CNS parallel, widely distributed processing network to an objective observable, testable and demonstrable explanation and exhibition of so called consciousness.

Part of consciousness has always been the Skinner stimulus-response arc which is the groundbreaking model that Skinner developed to objectively quantify all behaviours of complex systems.

There is no absolute objectivity or subjectivity in my view, but only greater or lesser degrees of detachment and observer position displacement in any descriptive or observation based assessment and apprehension of a subject of study. The reason why these particular sentences describing this activity are so long and torturous, is because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which applies to all observations not just physics!

So any complex behaviour will be part of some stimulus response arc and The logos response is no exception.  The Logos response Measures, Compares and Contrasts. In other word the Logos Responses measures and compares and provides a response as an output that Contrasts, by Ratio, and distinction which at its basis is a boundarising process. The contrast therefore is the major part of the reponse experienced in so called consciousness and is the source of all our nascent notions of the Logos Response experience.

Thus my spaciometry arises out of the contrast response of the Logos response and so do all my particular and specific a well as general and expansive notions

Specifically my basic notions of spaciometry and kinesiology and proprioception arise from this contrast.  All other motions( and by relativistic motion attributes all other notions) are derived (at least i hope to show this) from spaciometric rotation and spaciometric extension. The Logos response provides the impulse to attribute dimension, and to specify parameters by which i am or will dimension, As usual the notions are distinguished by two different languages Latin and Greek. This testifies to the general education in the classics that was the curriculum for most of ou advanced western thinkers at the time,

Languages are Logos Response products, thus we can understand all languages once we know their spaciometric references, which are usually prepositional in form even if they are placed anywhere ib=n relation to the noun in the sentence!, or injunctive!!

Thus dis means a small space between, as does para, but para additionally orientates the observer listener to one "side" of the object or activity. Both use the small separation to convey boundary or distinction, but the greek para uses that boundary to orient the observer listener. The greek spaeker thinker would naturally ask Which orientation of the cultural orientations allowed or usually referred to : side is not specific on its own.

Thus i come to our use of the word dimension on the way to describing kinesiology and proprioception. Culturally and of recent origin we have begun to expect other worldly connotations of the word dimension. While this is
 entertaining and of great facility in science fiction writing it has led to a slight confusion in popularising scientific and mathematical conceptions, slight but profound.

You see i am allowed to dimension a subject in any way i wish, and because these regions are tensors i can have as many dimensions for the properties and structures as i wish and need. When it comes to measuring these dimensions i use some fractal scale meausre alongside the dimension, thus it is called a parameter, and the readings from these scalar fractals are called parametric readings or generally "parameters".

in general there is a natural order to the presentation or perception of dimensions. First visually is area then some conception of volume and then perception of boundary. These require differing amounts of perceptual processing to identify and in the process other dimensions and their parameters are invoked.

 Auditorilly the first dimension is possibly amplitude followed by pitch and then resonance harmony etc. A musician probably can make more accurate lists of the primacy of the dimensions. The parameters may be derived or natural language ones like loudness etc.based on a common unit such as a group of people.

The identification of parameters and the derivation and use of parameters is fundamentally based on the notion of standard and it's quite recent cognate unit.

By means of this continuing impulse and manipulation of space in order to parametrise, through a process I may call mensuration or the establishment of weights and measures, our apprehension of space has developed and refined into the commensurate description we have of the physical world today.