Interactive coherentness in the void creates existing spooky connections in the universe!

The existence void is not a place , it is a structure of processes, in totally ordered Time, of potentials or pre-things at moments which are evolving to existence at time intervals, called existence intervals. Such a process is a string of potentials connected by state transitions between momentary states of the universe , say U(t) at moment t to U(t’) for t<t’ in Time. The precise description of the universe in the generic model is expounded in the book “Time Hybrids”. Over each U(t) there is a set of pre-things ,S(t) say, pre-things at different moments are connected by correspondences, s(t,t’): S(t) — -> S(t’) which map a subset A(t) in S(t) to some subset A(t’) in S(t’). Such process may lead to the existence of an object, let us call it A, over some time interval I(A) which is the existence time interval for some manifestation in reality of the object A. An A(t) at moment t which will lead to an existing object A is called a potential at t (for the object A). After this short formal introduction we can speak unambiguously about the universe as the process of states over Time, where the latter is only a totally ordered set and not necessarily the set of real numbers.

Now let us act as a superbeing observing this construction of the evolving universe knowing to which existing “thing” some potential will evolve , so we may call that potential then a pre-thing, for example a pre-object, pre-interaction between pre-objects, pre-event or pre-whatever. This is harmless , it is only helpful in giving a name to potentials, of course I do not assume the presence of some superbeing.

Is there some characteristic we can describe which will make a set A(t) over U(t) into a potential at the moment t? I proposed the coherence in the eveolving process of A as a reasonable plausible characteristic, that is the difference between the set of pre-interactions inner in A(t), say all i(a,b) with a and b in A(t) and exterior pre-interactions on A(t),say all i(a,x) with ain A(t) and x in S(t) but not in A(t). The coherence is a property of the process for A expressing that the number of inner pre-interactions will grow compared to exterior pre-interactions when time goes from t to t’>t, untill it reaches a threshold where the “thing” will exist over the corresponding time interval. The idea is that pre-interactions, even if there are no forces defined at moments, yield a connection or link between the interactors. Now in the void there is no distance defined between processes so I cannot say the pre-interactions draw the interactors closer, yet it is plausible that our notion of coherence for an existing object stems from a structural property and thus from the pre-existence level in the void. If an object is not coherent it would be a set of unconnected subojects and this unconnectedness could transpire in the amount of pre-interactions being inner in some substructure or not. So one may say that the number of inner pre-interactions gives a measure for the “cohesion” of the process leading to existence if it becomes dominant enough.

One can introduce a notionof closeness on subsets of S(t) by saying that B(t) is “closer” toA(t) than C(t) if the number of pre-interactions i(a,b) for a in A(t) and b in B(t) is larger than the nuber of i(a,c), with a in A(t) and c in C(t). then A(t) is said to be coherent if I(A(t),A(t)), that is the set of inner pre-interactions of A(t), is maximal in the set of I(A(t),X(t)) for X(t)in S(t), that is the set of pre-interactions between some a in A(t) and x in X(t). The process of A(t) with A(t’)=s(t,t’)A(t) for t’>t will lead to a manifestation of an existing object A over an interval [t,t(1)] when t(1) is the first moment when A(t(1)) is coherent.

You may remark that this is an ad hoc definition but when we look at the void with only these processes as present structures there is not much one can look at when trying to find properties leading to the existence of some process starting at A(t) in moment t. In fact the difference between pre-objects and pre-interactions which is by definition given by the nature of the real things they evolve to, is as far as I can see the only structural property one can use. Then the notion of cohesion and coherence is natural, in fact even intrinsic in the structure. Since we do not assume the S(t) are finite — even if one assumes there are only finitely many existing things in some closed time interval — the maximality of some subsets of interactions does not follow automatically, so that can be included as a property of the potential A(t) necessary for it to evolve to existence. In fact in the book Time Hybrids I restricted existing to finite potentials of the S(t), since observing infinite things will always be imposible for us, that is not a harmful assumption.

If A and B are existing things and A(t) is coherent then the cardinality of I(A(t),B(t)) is smaller than the cardinality of the inner pre-interactions I(A(t),A(t)); if the manifestation of B(t) happens over the interval [t,t’] then the cardinality of I(A(t’), B(t’)) is smaller than the cardinality of I(B(t’),B(t’)) ansd since s(t,t’)I(A(t),B(t)) is in I(A(t’),B (t’)) by assumption on the behaviour of pre-interactionhs under the correspondences between states, the cardinality of s(t,t’) I(A(t), B(t)) is smaller than the cardinality of I(B(t’),B(t’)). Thus I(A(t),B(t)) is smaller than the inner pre-interactions of A(t) and mapped by the correspondence s(t,t’) to something smaller than the inner pre-interactions of B(t’). One may define a cohesion interaction by demanding the cardinality of I(A(t), B(t)) to be maximal (for existing processes C(t)) smaller than either the cardinality of inner pre-interactions of A(t) or of B(t) for all t in the existence process of A and B. This is an abstract notion of “closeness” from B to A and it is symmetric. by replacing maximal by some given lowerbound one may also define a relative level of closeness, I do not go into the details here.

If A and B are existing processes then they are interactively coherent if I(A,B)(t) is a coherent process; if A and B are close as above then the interactive coherence is strongest, one can say. Clearly the interactive coherence has some effect on existing processes but since distance does not interfer in the definitions in the void it may also not affect the existing intertactions in reality, but it is also possible — and that depends on the nature of the existing objects — that there is an effect of distance or even that the coherent interaction results in closeness of the interactors — but not necessarily — but even if itdoes we may not recognise the effects because we do not know which properties to look for . So we arrive at many possible spooky connections in the universe, different from entanglement as encountered in Quantum Theory. The operation of entangling by some interaction in Physics usually focusses on one property of the existing objects later; in the definition of the interactive coherence in the void it is possible many later properties are “entangled” and such situations evolve naturally in the processes in the void without exterior interaction by an observer or regulator. since the effects of this kind of interactive coherence may show up at unpredictable distance, even many galaxies apart — adding that we do not know which properties are entangled — it is highly unlikely that we would observe… and recognise such connections in the universe. Thus the universe most probably contains so many wonders we may never discover! Even our observations in one solar system are still rudimentary, it is playing dice,…god does not but we do!