# Analogs: What We Can Know

Analogs: What We Can Know

What is the essence of what we can know?

That is a vastly different question than What is Behind What is?

Studying the applied math we use to solve scientific problems, we learn the extent of that language, what we are capable of understanding. The energy equation and its solutions, for example, set the limits of the ways we can describe things.

Computational mathematics where these equations are applied to cells (or finite element boundaries between cells) that represent space set the limits of relationships across boundaries.  (or the number of boundaries across which relationships might form).

Relationships determine existence. Nothing can relate except across a boundary, and a boundary does not exist except where there is a change in perspective. With change then comes the limits of information transfer, or ways of describing, or generalizing, about the data sampled across that boundary.

There is a profound difference between what is sampled, the probability of the sample, and what we generalize about the data sampled. Through generalizing, describing what we’ve sampled, we bring about a new language.

New languages spring up as energy dissipates in entropy until there is entropy death in the variability of potential of one sort of energy and the information growth into another language of an ever-lower energy level.

What is energy? The intensity of something? the direction of its flow? Yes, something happens, relationships happen, but forms of energy, or energy flow need not be named. Analogs, similar energy flows and intensities, need not all share the same kind of energy. We can specify different energies, but no matter the kind, we can only understand or describe physical behaviors in a specific number of ways (gleaned from our working mathematics).

We can say whatever is happening goes through maxes and mins. If the maxes and mins are equal then we can measure wavelengths, periods, and frequencies of potentials as sine waves.

In an expanding universe, it doesn’t matter whether we measure or call the intensity energy or information. For example, we know that idea of an explosion like the Big Bang can cause a universe to expand. But from the very beginning of relationship, energy can also be looked at as information or information transfer.

Obviously, it seems we cannot be at a ground state in potential, but can a ground state exist? If not, then no matter how close to zero the differences experienced over boundaries, there is still existance, because there are still relationships across boundaries. New languages will arise to increase the degrees of freedom of expression in some virtual space.

In this way, there is an unstable expansion of a single wave (since perfectly spherical space does not exist – there will always be an offset, an offset wave, no matter how small the amplitude).  The infinitesimal size of the signal may suggest energy or information transfer across the boundary is close to zero, or the chance/distribution of such is close to zero (as an improbable wave or perturbation – but its improbability doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist).

From the implicit of the undefined expands the information universe or set of possible perspectives (in the statistical WIBWI). The more complex and robust the languages, the more degrees of freedom, and the more the universe might be seen to expand. (Through this observation, if it were true, we know the answer to What came before the Big Bang Singularity or the Big Bang.)

You might say, but what about the Doppler shift, that has to do with real energy, real functioning of the universe. Doesn’t it?

I do not believe there has to be any real functioning. All we know is description, information transfer, not what we think of as real objective energy. The expansion must be in the increase in set space and not what we think of as real space [though the idea of displacement space might be what actually happens, might be a good guess, might work for us to predict what we think of as the real, but we will never know the exact nature of what is behind what is (WIBWI). All we can know is the virtual, what exists as relationship, as information transfer, given as a virtual language, condensed through our generalization from collected data.]

Analog Examples from the Expanding Droplet Experiment (Approximate 2-D analog of an expanding universe):

Gravitational wells behave as if fluids are flowing around a trough taking the path of least resistance. The narrower the trough (the higher the curvature of local space), the less such boundaries will be resisted by outward flow and expand only at the crest of the boundary wave. Troughs might represent the most massive objects, that exhibit the greatest inertia against the influence of other forces.

Since the mathematical expression for interfacial tension is analogous to that of gravitation, the first natural cell division (represented by a trough tunneling through the center of the cell) may have sprung from an offset wave. As it expands, bringing with it both a locality, a cg, a trough and a nonlocality, an expanding low amplitude crest.

The front of creativity in the brain may be analogous to the crest of an expanding universe (areas of new languages, experiences of existence (flow), and statistical improbabilities (nonlocalities)).