In my two-fluid experiment, the Navier-Stokes Equation (a fluid mechanics equation derived from the overarching energy balance equation) can be rearranged through rules of calculus to force the space-dependent term(s) to equal the time dependent term(s).
The only way a derivative of space can equal a derivative of time is if they are both equal to a constant value. The constant value turns out to be a constant frequency that is equal to both sets of terms.
So, what is so interesting about this constant value?
In my two-fluid experiment, the constant value, or frequency, says something about the number of times an expanding droplet deforms (or buckles) across an optimal source flow field in space—while the droplet oscillates at comparable frequency (to the right and left (or for higher energies in more rotational motion)) across the same field in time.
But for our purposes here, we’re interested in the relationship between the size of a packet of energy and how that size relates to its duration.
The Energy Equation is so complex that it is difficult to solve using mathematical principles only. For a near exact solution, the mathematician must eliminate terms in both space and time that are of very small magnitude when compared with the other terms (at least one hundred times smaller). The resulting equation has fewer terms, is simpler, and easier to solve. The resulting equation allows us to examine how size in space and duration in time connect up to and relate to one another.
Another simpler way to examine the feature of statistically how the size of something (in space) relates to the duration of something (in time) is to think about the number of particles of rock on the surface of the Earth (the same thought experiment can be done with a size spectrum of meteorites that hit the Earth).
It takes longer for larger rocks to break down at the same energy expenditure applied to smaller less-massive rocks. (The smaller rocks are more numerous (more statistically available) and the larger ones are less numerous (less statistically available), but the larger ones last longer, are of longer duration than the smaller ones (this behavior is consistent with The Square Cube Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square%E2%80%93cube_law).
In simple systems, small energy packets are not only more statistically available, they have larger boundaries with respect to their mass than do larger energy packets. Larger boundaries (surface area to volume ratios), depending on the type of boundary, provide greater degrees of freedom for information energy flow across them. More massive and larger energy packets have smaller boundaries with respect to their masses (or volumes) that somewhat constrains energy/information flow across them.
Boundaries of smaller energy packets exist at shorter-duration relationships than do boundaries of larger objects that represent longer, more-complex-duration relationships.
Now let’s examine actual examples of short and long duration relationships and the boundaries from which they spring (These explanations come from The General Energy Equation (Navier -Stokes that are part of a cosmology model derived from sine-wave curvature)).
At the expanding crest of the universal expansion wave, space is created as the smallest packets of energy come into being (these first energy packets to exist are born in the once coherent singularity source (Big Bang?) and in atomic and subatomic colliders (atom smashers, cyclotrons). These tiny, poorly focused boundaries create a quasi-discontinuous state, that must experience something, but it is of such short experienced duration that the kind of awareness preceding consciousness (that we’re familiar with) probably cannot exist (all of these short-lived experiences my exist as potential sets in the universal potential (that may, or may not, change with time).
Another boundary, the trough of the expanding, buckling wave, does not change much from its initiation, nor does it expand (This is what the Webb Telescope hopes to find, maybe the first event horizon of the first gravitational trough. Note: the shape or behavior of the first black hole(s) (gravity wells) in time).
So, denser, larger, or more complex objects may have a longer duration of experience (a massive sun or planet may endure a very long time), but what it experiences is of such a small magnitude (hard to change the boundary of a neutron star) that nothing seems to happen for it (It’s a ground state for the energetic energy of the subatomic particles that came into existence and started it all).
So if the very small have a problem developing our kind of consciousness because of discontinuities or lack of focus in time, and the very large (the massive objects) have a problem developing consciousness because of low energy/information transfer across their very resistive boundaries, then how did our form of consciousness arise?
[Something to remember here when we speculate is that’s all we’re doing. Given a good education in the sciences and mathematics (BA (Math/Bio), MESM(GA TECH), ME(DE), M Equiv Ed (PA STATE)) and having applied those principles to a controlled experiment (https://theunionofopposites.com/the-experiment/) we are attempting to find an analogy between the expansion of the universe and our experiment of an expanding droplet). No matter how much we think we know, we are only guessing. And it’s fun to guess. Guessing or speculating may illuminate truths. (Guessing may also lead us away from very important truths that we need to understand in order to survive.)]
Conscious thought brings us the possibilities of the implied and makes implications discrete or explicit in our minds. [Read David Bohm’s Wholeness and the Implicit Order: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wholeness_and_the_Implicate_Order%5D Does that mean that settling on explanations makes things exist like Gary Zukav’s collapsing of the quantum wave (manifests things, makes them real or explicit? [Wu Li Masters]
Examining how things implicit become things explicit might help us tease Reality apart from a symbolic Virtuality, but for right now, we’re focused on the process of thought formations and not the meaning those thoughts convey.
To summarize: we are pursuing the idea that early boundaries of small energy packets in the universe experience something, but that self-experience is short-lived. Early in the universe there may be some sort of diversity in the soupy mixture of tiny energy packets, but their self-experienced durations are short, too short to form conscious thoughts. As the population and diversity of energy packets (the explicit) changes, so does their potential for duration (a necessary ingredient for any complex process to take place). These tiny experiences of the very small, I call snippets. I assume here that eventually snippets represent discrete boundaries/relationships that agglomerate or connect with each other over time. The more snippets connect up with one another, the more constraints on the larger systems they compose. So, next in my speculation about how consciousness forms, I’ll use the idea of a successive sequencing of these initially somewhat discontinuous snippets of experience.