In looking more deeply into how this relationship between potential and outcome, between What Is Behind What Is and What Is (between the Implicit Order and the Explicit Order) we can make a model of how systems or things view one another across a boundary between them.

I love to call on the Double Slit Experiment to do this. At the same time, I also call on the Uncertainty Principle.

Many have interpreted the seemingly strange faster-than-light behavior of small particles passing through either one or two slits. In order to understand relationships across boundaries, we need to explore what we mean by perspective or point of view (POV). Each time we employ an experimental setup, we change the POV of the observer/observed (where the observer relates to the observed across their boundaries, and the observed then relates back to the observer).

For the Double Slit Experiment we have two different experimental setups and two different points of view between systems across a boundary.

Note that a single slit returns a single data point, or position. Two or more data points (two slits) returns a change, or velocity.

But according to the Uncertainty Principle, if we know where something is, we don’t know how fast it is going. If we know how fast it is going, we don’t know where it is.

I like to use the example of a dog wagging its tail. If we only have one data point, a snapshot, then the image is static and we don’t know if the dog is actually happy to see us. If we take a second snapshot or a whole video of the dog (two or more data points) we can tell if the dog is actually wagging its tail, if it is happy to see us.

So one POV, or perspective, described by a single data point gives us one way of looking at something, but eliminates the possibility of understanding what is seen from another perspective (two or more data points).

When engineers or physicists solve the Energy Equation (describing normal physical behaviors in our universe) they substitute number values in for the unknown quantities. The numbers consist of two components (a real part and a part that has been given the unfortunate title of imaginary). The number must have these two components to consider both POVs (one and more than one data point). The first number is like a potential. In fluids it might represent the height of a water column or its pressure. But the second number is the flow (it’s what the water experiences, its flow field going from higher to lower pressure). So in finding an accurate answer to a physical behavior in the universe, a scientist must employ both perspectives to solve any problem accurately. This suggests that the Uncertainty Principle says an outcome to an experiment is not complete unless both perspectives are employed.

This POV thing is not mysterious. It is ubiquitous. For example, if we walk toward the front of a house, we can’t see the roof. If we approach in a helicopter, we can see the roof, but not the front of the house. Such is the nature of perspectives or POVs. To understand the concept of “house” in its entirety, we must employ at least the two perspectives suggested by Uncertainty.

Now, if someone tells us that when we switch from one POV to another, something strange, beyond reality, occurs, we need to think about those two examples above:

If a dog’s tail is static and then starts wagging and then gets static again faster than light, does that mean something moved faster than light? Or does it just mean that changing points of view can happen faster than light. Is it the matter that moves faster than light, or the energy that moves faster than light, or just that the POV of the observer is changing faster than light?

If the roof of a house changes into the front of the house and back, does that mean something moved faster than light? Or does it just mean that changing points of view can happen faster than light. Is it the matter or energy that moves faster than light, or just the POV of the observer that’s changing faster than light?

Back to our packets of energy that we release through either a single or double slit. Does the packet change its speed and outcome based on its perceived view of our changing experiment, or, more likely, does our change in POV create a change in outcome, and the apparent faster-than-light response only a byproduct of a faster than light changing of our POV?

In the two-fluid unstable experiment on the radial domain, pressure drops across the interface cause deformations there. The deformations (Explicit Order), or changes in interface curvature, interact with the surrounding implicit flow fields to create ever more complex shapes that, in turn, educate the potential in the flow field to change subsequent interfacial shapes.

Our brains just happen to be the interfacial curvature that influences the surrounding implicit flow fields (our minds), following different potential pathways (experimental setups) through the implicit to arrive at an explicit outcome.

Why the logic of the double slit experiment breaks down:

When a one-slit pathway changes to two, positions no longer exist, and when a two-slit pathway changes to one, velocity cannot be known. To know both position and velocity requires two simultaneous POVs from the same observer/observed, which the Uncertainty Principle says is impossible.

The Uncertainty Principle tells us we can only engage with the universe in one perspective/pathway at a time, all others being unknown to us, literally not existing to our limited POV.