Written by Aristo Tacoma. Each can be further distributed when copyright license Yoga4d CFDL (as on yoga4d.org/cfdl.txt) is respected. This is the foundation batch of theorems. For the newest batch, click here. CAN BLACK-VS-BRIGHT (BVB) REPLACE COLOR-VS-COLOR (CVC)? -- A theorem of an informal kind indicating how to transcend the greed for too many colors 1::B::2012::8::22 Among others, J W von Goethe engaged in work aiming to show that colors are not as primary as the contrast between black and (as we call it) bright (he said, between black and white, but the points are more general than that, and applies on the computer esp. to the contrast between black and computer bright spring green). I believe it is possible, what with all the scientific works in the 20th century behind us, and armed, in addition, with what we call "neopopperian" science, to chisel out a novel approach to the matter. Technological innovation has, in the area of esthetics, only the limits we consciously choose to adapt and apply. Human insight must prevent greed of the 'more wants still more' kind from removing elements of required simplicity from the grounds of our artworks. Add too much of components -- it can be colors -- and the work may induce confusion both in the mind of the artist and of those often exposed to the art, esp. if they are not very aware of what is involved. For what is, indeed, a coherent piece of art, so that both making and engaging with it, whether on the computer monitor or as some other shape in real life, we acquire a sense of meditation and wholeness? In order to think in a way which can speak in an enduring and principal way, we have to be both willing to use very general (or highly abstract) words, and also keenly weigh some entirely intuitive propositions. This is what we will do, or attempt to do, in the following, where we use the word 'theorem' in such a completely informal sense as connected to the other theorems in this column (yoga4d.org/theorem). Informal means that while we admit of the possibility, given very much explicit work, and a huge quantity of extra words, to give a rigorous logical treatment of the theorem, deducing it from definitions, axioms and some elementary laws of deduction, we are here assuming the context of the enlightened reader, able to browse as by instinct over a huge amount of 'natural assumptions' required to make sense of what is here said at all levels. DEFINITION. By 'BVB' we will mean any visual art where the contrast between black and bright (bright on the computer can mean bright green, but the point is that it is a definite bright, not varying in colors) is the sole vehicle for expression. DEFINITION. By 'CVC' we will mean any visual art where the contrast between several shades of various colors is the vehicle of expression. The context of BVB and CVC can be a computer game. BVB can either mean a computer image shaped by means of visible (ie, rather large) pixels (typically squares) of EITHER black OR a particular bright (eg green), or it can mean (what is more typical in photos rendered in the green tonation range) a computer image with rather small pixels and with a gradual transition (in terms of, say, some dozens of steps) from the definite type of black to the definite type of bright, though without the introduction of any extra color. (There are also approximations to BVB.) The use of these concepts do not merely need to apply to one fixed image shown for a good while -- they can also pertain to a more or less quick succession of images such as in a game. DEFINITION. By 'synesthetical' -- a combination of greek 'syn' meaning together, and the also greek root also found in 'esthetics', which fundamentally derives from meanings associated with saliently (ie, clearly) experiencable, and from roots associated with experience, esp sensual experience, and also sensing, -- we mean that the essential form of experience goes beyond identification with any bit of the experience with the typical categories of our sensory organs such as sight or sound or smell or bodily sensation -- and rather involves a sense of pure order of felt movement. THEOREM. Perception is primarely synesthetical. OUTLINE OF PROOF. As said in the introduction of this completely informal article where we use a completely informal notion of 'theorem', we do not explicitly introduce the appropriate axioms and such in order to lay out the strict pathways of explicit and, we might say, 'algorithmic' deduction of these theorems; we put them forth in a spirit of open-minded enquiry with a keen sensitivity to listening in to any signs of incoherence in what we said either with its own order or with the order of broader experience appreciated without confounding illusions. This, then, is part of neopopperian enquiry. The use of the word 'theorem' is not to close down enquiry on the thing said, but rather it is to make the point that the present writer has a faith in the importance of the statement, even if it is perhaps very general and would not deserve the typical kind of attention it might get in this context if it were put in a comment as just one sentence amongst others, of varying degrees of obviousness. The faith is that this point is not only highly valuable, highly true, and worth giving much attention to, also inasmuch as it leads up to the concluding postulate in this little article, but it can also in PRINCIPLE stand within a much larger framework of formal deduction as a theorem proven by means of procedural steps. It is however clear that if we were to give such an expanded account, the treatment of essence numbers (presently listed at yoga4d.org slash updated.htm) would be part of it, and in this treatment, the notion of perception and of order comes in quite naturally. Indeed, perception as indicated in that context does indeed go beyond any sensory modality, But intuitively, by sustained attention and much subtle thinking, reflecting over subtle insights while meditating also near the sleep state, or even sometimes within in, sometimes dreamily, it is clear that each human mind is, when harmonious with itself and in a healthy body, able to reach a state where perceptiveness goes on and on in a movement which has meaning and order, even as the particular sensory shape of the earlier 'input' to the process is no longer dominant. The sounds, the visions, the sensations in the body, and so on, all acts as input to something yet more subtle which can be directly experienced. This is the synesthetical truth of perception, and it is primary. THEOREM. On the pathway to consciousness of colors through the retina, they are converted by means of the same type of parameters as the pathways of black-and-bright contrasts through the retina. OUTLINE OF PROOF. Even though presumably the various nonlocal features of consciousness (as explored also through supermodel theory, see elsewhere by same writer) can touch on anything not just something, and so also touch directly on the color activation aspects in the retina of the human eye directly, it is fairly obvious that in most day-life consciousness experience, there are several more layers of processing at a material neuronic level of what the eyes in their incessant movement pick up in a living body with a healthy brain, the brain extending through the neurons indeed to all the body, also gut, genitals, nipples, lips, fingertips, feet, etc. And it is quite clear that neurons working on the color aspect of sensory visual perception are not in essence sharply different from neurons working on bright-and-black aspects of sensory visual perception, nor are the latter merely a subset of the former. Rather, these are various ways that visual perception may occur, and in real life they often go together; but in the full set of cases, there are vibration states -- frequencies of activation -- and similar such in the resulting processing levels. THEOREM. Patterns of frequencies of also neuronic activity designate particular visual perceptions. OUTLINE OF PROOF. The brain is not merely about neuron cells but also other cells and other types of perceptive elements, and perception in its material aspects is not merely about the brain but also the rest of the body and even some aspects of a material kind beyond the body, and then in addition comes the whole nonlocal aspects indicated in supermodel theory. However, any distinct perceptive elements tend to give rise to frequencies of particular activations of also neurons in some way, with some patterns, and while this may go beyond what can be mapped in terms of genetical code in the DNA, and may be varying not just from person to person but also in one person vary from one season to another, and indeed may vary also when in one mood and when in another mood, in EACH PARTICULAR CASE patterns of frequencies are distinctly indicating distinct sensory perceptions. THEOREM. BVB can replace CVC in art; in addition, CVC should be replaced by BVB in art as it can lead the mind onto incoherence. OUTLINE OF PROOF. The phrase 'in art' means that we are bringing in the domain of mood, mindfulness also in entertainment, and in the quest of wholeness and joy, beauty and flush of novel, exciting feelings. We are furthermore indicating that there is a sense of luxury in the domain of exploration right now, in that we admit to real life situations having to have many forms of indications running in parallell -- e.g. not just words but also flashing lights, and not just flashing lights of one color but also of another color -- when it comes to such as critical timing of actions in critical practical situations. There is, in other words, a practical utility to CVC that must not be denied. The whole quest of the present work concerns the notion of whether CVC is necessary or even possibly destructive in the context of art. It follows from the previous theorems that any set of colors lead to patterns of frequencies of activation of neurons and correspondent phenomena in consciousness. Clearly, patterns of frequencies of activation of neurons and correspondent phenomena in consciousness also arise from angles of lines and simple shapes with pixels utilizing bright versus black (BVB). We have already talked of the synesthetical feature of perception, -- that all perceived can be understood in a primary sense as flowing order going beyond any sensory modality. Personal exploration and enquiry can show how particular setups of BVB patterns can give each of the color experiences at a synesthetical level. There is a compression in terms of how much information that can be given pr square meter, say, when color is invoked, for colors correspond individually to just such frequencies while patterns of several BVB must be set up for each frequency to evoke the same in consciousness. However, in this context where we explore art as a participant perceptive process of flowing order with similarities, contrasts and gestalts (or wholenesses) (again, pls see the work on essence numbers), any tendency to over-represent a particular order and over-represent also the quantity of orders invoked in a given art image may make the mind go sluggish because the perceptive capacities are exhausted, and without there being any point to this exhaustion. For art to be first-hand stimulating, it must not conceal its own nature, but rather allow the mind to grasp the input and then work further on it. So while one may see from the earlier points that BVB in fact CAN replace CVC, the latter points indicate that BVB not just can but indeed should replace CVC. WHOLENESS, SCHOLASTICALLY EXPOSED -- With a new formulation on heaven/hell dualism 1::A::2012::6::24 In the very informal sense of the word 'theorem', as also indicated at yoga4d.org/updated.htm, but still more informally here -- as we do not outline axioms nor definitions -- we suggest an elaboration of the berkeleyan perspective. THEOREM. In a berkeleyan perspective on creation as the active daydreaming of the source, there is a matching of the distinction between coherence and noise, with the distinction between faith and disbelief, and also with the distinction between higher mentality and essential material processes. OUTLINE OF PROOF. In the berkeleyan perspective (as initiated by the philsopher and priest George Berkeley, but enormously refined in views indicated around on these sites), nothing is not belonging to the mentality of the source, origin or what we call "God". So in a very broad sense, all is higher mentality. However in a more concrete sense, something is nearer the higher mentality including intentions than something else, for unless there are some rules and patterns belonging to that aspect of the overall daydreaming which we call 'matter', so that this matter gets its own inertia, its own chance, its own causation, its own coincidence, etc, there will not be the contrast between the higher intentions and feelings and the gradual unfoldment of creation. Rather, if it were all one soup, so to speak, there would not be any continuity from one daydreamed instant to the next, there would not be any challenge to bring matter more and more up to the level of higher intentions; it would be like a boardgame without any rules setting any limits to the motions of the boards, rather like a very small child trying to play a complicated game without having any inkling of the rules. As has been pointed out in theoretical physics (e.g. by D. Bohm), causality and chance are in some sense complementary concepts implying each other at each level they are applied. Chance, or what appears to be chancelike motion, is, seen along the dimension of higher mentality, in contrast to the notion of coherence, where noise then becomes a more suitable word for it. Coherence means something beyond control. The greater wholeness or coherence that characterises the mind of the origin in an absolute sense is of course at the foundation, so any use of a word like 'noise' or 'chance' must be seen as relative. A weak analogy is found in how a computer can emulate chance by inputting the output of a complicated arithmetical formula into itself, on a finite set of bits, so as to produce an apparently chancelike sequence of numbers. It is chancelike in that it reflects no obvious set of rules, and in any case certainly not the explicit rules of the rest of the program. It is then, we can say, a Relatively Free Fluctuation Generation, or what we in Gamev (or F3) programming call RFFG. If all partakes in the higher mentality then it makes sense to say of all that all is alive and all has consciousness, in some principal sense, even that which we call essential material processes. But there must be a qualititative distinction in the type of feeling-or-mentality that goes along with, or is inherent in, essential material processes and in that which we in supermodel theory (which is integrated into the refined berkeleyan, or neo-berkeleyan perspective that we offer, elsewhere, on these sites), call 'higher supermodels' (as an extension of the pilot wave interpretation of the nonlocal type introduced in part by L de Broglie). The supermodels act on each other and some of them correspond to more manifest matter. But more manifest matter than has some features of causality and chance, or control-like rules and noise, that are relatively (but not absolutely) distinct from higher supermodels. It is this feature, which by metaphor we can also call 'inertia', of essential matter processes that gives the contrast between the part of creation which is exposed to a progress or evolution and that part of creation which is having intents guiding this. Aligned to the higher intents we can then see that there are life-processes which we can name as 'the muses', belonging to the origin- mind and embodiment of this. Given that everything partakes in the higher mind, or the totality of the mind of the source, it is possible to state that a high degree of connection to the highest intents can be said to have the feeling of full connectedness, which we can also call a feeling of faith or coherence. It is postulated that all human beings who exist do have at core full faith. It is compatible with this postulate that some says that they do not have such faith, for it is not necessarily so that all know themselves perfectly. But essential matter processes do have a sizable component of noise. Even though this is relative, this must correspond to a distinct different feeling, involving some limited extent of disconnectedness, even within the totality of the whole. When the feeling of connectedness correspond to a feeling of faith, it follows that the contrasting emotion of the source has a finesse of disbelief. Given the earlier mentioned feature of all having an aspect of liveliness and consciousness, to some extent, it follows that the essential material processes do have an active component of some disbelief. If this was not so, there would have been too much connectedness in the essential material processes that they could have retained their inertia. COROLLARY. There is a vague sense of pain associated with the essential material processes. OUTLINE OF PROOF. This follows easily by a natural reflection of what just, in the above, has been stated, and what is implied by this. For in the fullness of the berkeleyan vision of the universe as belonging to the God-mind proper, there is with full connectedness to the higher intents obviously also the wholeness-feeling associated with joy or what Spinoza (though with slightly different perspectives, and not coupled up with recent insights into physics, naturally) called 'hilaritas'. A reduction of the fullest capacity of joy in some of the procesess which, though after all are fully within this God-mind, exists with their own noise-like or chance-like processes, must mean that there is some level of pain to these processes. COROLLARY. The higher mentality existence is -- in a berkeleyan vision of existence -- akin to what in theology has been called 'heaven', while the essential material processes contain a closure within disbelief, or incapacity to face full faith, that to some extent justify to say that these essential material processes are, for any consciousness element inhabiting them, somewhat 'hellish', or indeed, constitutes something which (though very, very, very mildly so), can be called 'hell' -- still referring to theological terms of a classical kind, but now drastically changed in meaning. OUTLINE OF PROOF. Also this follows from the above theorem and how it was proved, as well as from the above corollary. In the berkeleyan perspective there is a liveliness to all that exists and in the fullest human existence, when the meditative state is so as to be aligned in full good synchronicity and coherence with the higher intents beyond material concern, then the fullness of feeling of existence as such must be wholesome, holistic and joyous and cannot be a sense of dominant fragmentation at all. This is to be aligned, indeed, to that core of being which is full faith and without which human soul-existence is impossible. In some sense, then, actuality is heaven but it is not given to human beings to have full sense of it more than at times, in glimpses (cfr writings on what we call 'enlightenment'). In contrast, material existence is locked away from higher human existence -- the essential material processes are extremely minuscle and subject to a set of noiselike rules so that, given the premise that there is after all some liveliness and some consciousness of some elementary kind, at some times, also here, this is by contrast a sense of hellishness for full faith is not possible; it is a state of being where even one glimpse of full faith must mean full death of the process; for these processes are sustained by virtue of their lack of connectedness, or, in mental terms, 'disbelief'. It is therefore having features allowing us, in a sensitive mood of mind, to find parallels to what in classic simplistic theological terms can be called 'hell'. Further results indicate that we are speaking here of something which is far more minuscle than even the Planck level of resolution of matter, but we do not include even outline of proof of this here. COROLLARY. Realisation of the distinction of essential material processes and higher mental existence is adamant for growth towards, and then within, relative enlightenment for humans. OUTLINE OF PROOF. In the berkeleyan perspective, there is a totality of feeling. In this totality, a human being is able to sense not just the totality of cosmos in glimpses where this doesn't burn up the sensory apparatus of the subtle nature which is part of the human brain and body as a whole, including genitals, in orgasmic perception etc., but the human being can also pick up currents from what we in the above designated the 'hellishness' of the essential material processes. By realising the greatness of the distinction underlaying the notes in the above, one will more easily be able to avoid giving too much importance to the fragmentary, disbelieving feelings associated with the hellishness of essential material processes rather prefer to attribute truth to the sense of love associated with the fullness and wholeness of higher mentality and higher, nobler intentions, as proper to godhood. WHEN IS A SMARTER PROGRAM A DUMBER PROGRAM? -- A THEOREM -- In design, sometimes, and in some ways, less is more; and sometimes, as for computer programs, the stupider program is the smarter program 1::A::2012::6::13 Intolerably often in today's computing world does one meet on programs which are released under the pretence of being 'smart' while they in fact are overly helpful in an entirely misguided, and actively unhelpful way. Just as intolerably, the word 'smart' has become by some insincere electronic gadget producers, sort of glued into some other words and in some rediculous way part of a brand-description of a whole series of products which, all in all, are hit strong by the accusation in the title of this informal little article. To remedy and clarify, then, it appeared to me that there is a similarity between the too-often stated 'less is more' idea which however do have some relevance, obviously, in some ways and to a moderate extent, for some forms of art and design in general, and the not at all often stated (in fact, I have never heard it stated before, nor ever read it), formulation that 'less smart, more smart'. I hope that after this article the latter idea, however, will come into its most well- deserved popularity, whether exactly with these words or with some analogous words. I have so many examples for the idea that it seems absurd to even begin to mention any examples, for the application of the idea is so enormously wide in this over-electronised era. Instead, then, with the actively informal vocabulary of words such as 'theorem' and 'definition' as indicated in yoga4d.org/updated.htm I will here sketch a kind of informal proof in the sense that these things could have been made more explicit -- towards the lines indicated at ../updated.htm, at least -- if we bother to do so. DEFINITION. A smart program in effect is a program that, as an effect, contributes fruitfully and in an uncluttered way to successful activity in a way coherent with the intention for the human interactors with the program. DEFINITION. A smart program in construction is a program that, instead of being made by means of simple and sparse rules, have bundles of rules involving nuances and averages and typically a behaviour that varies in a way that is somewhat unpredictable but based on these rules, and so that it mimicks the behaviour of somebody who has a mind and uses it in some contexts. The opposite of a smart program in effect is a stupid program in effect. The opposite of a smart program in construction is a stupid program in construction. THEOREM. A stupid program in construction can be a smart program in effect. SKETCH OF PROOF. Most elementary and simple program has an elegant and predictable aspect about them that allows them to be called upon by a mindful interactor so as to have a function that is fruitful, successful in a larger context. This is in particular so if there is a sensitivity in selecting just what the simplicity of the program is all about. THEOREM. A smart program in construction is more likely to be a stupid program in effect than to be a smart program in effect. This is a more drastic postulate than the former, which simply concerns the fact that some simple programs do great work. Here, the postulate concerns a likelihood relating to how the program is designed. It is stated that the program made so as to effect such smart-like attributes as indicated in the definition -- reacting by means of averaging over nuances and without the type of predictability the simply constructed program can give -- such a program is likely to be unfruitful in many ways. In assessing this likelihood, we must take as starting-point that the contexts within which programs are called on by human interactors are lively and themselves complex and full of changing objectives and parameters of many kinds. Programs can be a stable feature called on as a set of simplistic tools when the human interactor finds it suitable. But a program made smart in construction in the manner indicated above is not such a simplistic tool. Rather, it is made with the pretence of being a sensitive participant in the ever-changing context, with novel intentions, goals, subgoals. However, such sensitivity is obviously a property of far more subtle organisms than manifest digital computers. In other words, even though a program may have some element of the fluidity of the human interactor, the fluidity is likely to be informed by assumptions as to what the context is that reflect the particular contexts within which the program was shaped, and what with the deep changes of contexts, this means that the particular fluidity that such a program exhibits is not a sensitive fluidity. Rather, we should call it an 'arbitrary' fluidity, meaning that the program that is smart in construction in the manner indicated in the definition doesn't have a proper relationship to the actual assumptions governing the actual context. In other words, there is a likelihood that the program is stupid in effect. The informal theorems with proofs very informally outlined above, can then be summarised -- with a sensitivity to the contexts in which the words are used as different in the two parts of the phrase -- Less smart, more smart. THE ENDING OF 3D ROTATIONS -- Understanding how essence number theory suggests that the only way to get lively 3D is to step out of the mechanistic paradigm of sine and cosine arithemethic on assumedly "3d" models 1::A::2012::4::26 This is not propaganda, but a simple truth, I think, -- at least it seems so to me -- and I don't expect many in the present earthian gadget-freaky climate to appreciate it -- but here we go: [[[First, though, the use of the word 'theorem' in some of my texts is briefly explained in connection with an intro to essence number theory as listed also at www.yoga4d.org/updated.htm. Here, it is used in a short-hand or sketchy way -- to indicate that, given extra space for writing than allotted to this little article, we could come forth with definitions and axioms and such, still the whole range of them in a first-hand intuitive way, not mechanistic.]]] THEOREM. A genuinely alive 3d (& more) object in the real world never undergoes anything like the so-called '3d rotations' that may be calculated by means of such arithmetic as is derived from sine, cosine, arctangent, square roots and the whole lot. OUTLINE OF PROOF. First of all, in taking essence number understanding seriously, we note that the word 'rotation' implies a continuity that is not offered by the finite and always finite numbers, finite also in decimal digit series, that are used in any manifest computer algorithm. This is, by essence number understanding, not trivial. It means, put simply, that no rotation is possible by means of arithmetic of this sort. Rather, what happens when a so-called '3d' model (e.g. generated by such game-oriented and otherwise excellent, but mechanistic and boring to the artist whose oinclination is first-handedness, package as the Blender program) is exposed to sine, cosine and derivate arithmetical techniques (e.g. some sort of matrices) is that this 3d model is not rotated, but transformed. The next question is then: is the 3d transformation by means of sine, cosine and such (as we also did in our experimentative LIGHT3D.TXT, before we hit on the tracks at present leading to the revolutionary CURVEART part of GAMEV) of 3d models relevant connected to the re-presentation of such transformations as happen in the real life? But we note here that it is a mechanistic assumption that anything indeed can be 'rotated' in terms of a mere permutation over coordinates and vectors and such stuff. In praxis, in real life, with quantum connections and contexts enforcing themselves by an immediacy that is not reducible to such causal phenomena as shadowing and the like, a living being, when turning around, is transformed completely. SOME FIELDS IN SUPERMODEL THEORY 1::B::2013::8::24 "Q-fields" have been introduced as a simplification of the language that supermodel theory lends itself to, when applied to ordinary English, and in a context where it (also more extreme forms of the theory as applied to daily life, to design etc) is taken seriously. [cfr article introducing it in page 10 of Eco-nomy archive.] Further, the notion of push-pull fields, or "pp-fields", have been introduced in the sense of a contrast -- signifying not the "quantum-like", as in "q", but the "push-pull" which signifies the mechanical causation of a pre-quantum type of worldview and which is the typical type of view associated with viewing machines as machines rather than the fuller picture which is to see them also as q-fields. The first use of the notion of "pp-fields" is in the G15 Multiversity Manifesto as given in intro to the Elsketch series of first-hand electronics projects. By analogy, and to extend the sense in which this concept of q-fields and this type of vocabulary can give a unique sense of supermodel theory as applied to daily life and indeed also a universe understanding in organic terms, we here introduce a number of fields, and suggest, in a strictly neopopperian sense, certain avenues of understanding -- perhaps (in the sense introduced before in our theorem section here at Yoga4d.org) -- also some theorems. In contrast to these sections, we will not here attempt to even begin to outline any sketch of proof for most of them (esp. since they allow themselves to be explored intuitively so fruitfully) -- except for the first. Suggested intuitive concepts for exploration: s-field field of sex d-field field of dance v-field field of vacuum or near-vacuum, and/or zero-gravity or near zero-gravity, also as imagined to exist in interstellar space f-field field of flavour or scent, also as in enjoyment of food n-field field of the spread and vibrations of an essence number l-field field of logic b-field field of business mode activity -- in many of the productions of this writer, it is distinguished between human activity in a sex or "porn mode", and activities more oriented towards use, practical activities, or "business mode", allowing for the notion of entertainment as a kind of third mode which partakes in either g-field field of a grunge experience, in which the q-field of a living body changes to the q-field of a nonliving body Theorem. A pp-field is a set of q-fields in a certain type of interaction. A single q-field has in it a nonlocal organising attribute which is not typically associated with what we call a pp-field. The use of the word 'pp-field' is meant not to indicate a different worldview, in which q-fields are excluded, but rather a particular activity within a world and a metaphysics where q-fields are the norm and ground. The particular activity is analyzable (when the pp-field concept is used rightly) in terms of such as push and pull, or such as 'forces' operating more 'locally' on the 'parts'. But these parts, at some level or resolutions, must be seen as wholes therefore q-fields. And wholes that connect and interact according to a certain pattern -- they can be molecules, for instance, each molecule partaking in quantum-like field of coherencies of a nonlocal kind -- and this pattern must correspond to some features of some aspect of q-fields involved with each of the wholes. In addition, we note that a pp-field can, due to the emergent and generative nature of the PMW in supermodel theory, suddenly have to be described as a q-field. Indeed, such as elsketch electronics have both features at once (and as such constitute a rare and important experience in the manifest universe, where the mechanistic aspect of existence blends effortlessly with the q-aspect, not just for interactions within and around a transistor, but also as for such as modulators or "resistors" with ohms combine not as parts adding up but as parts engaging in a whole "ohm- field"). Proposition. A b-field has a focus on a pp-field while recognising it also as a q-field. Proposition. A d-field has in it an analogy to the v-field (as a teaching of dance). Proposition. An l-field has in it an analogy to the n-field (as a teaching of logic). Proposition. An f-field has in it both an s-field and a g-field. Proposition. In the manifest universe, the q-fields of living bodies cannot physically endure the v-fields in the interstellar sense without becoming g-fields, even if within or on a natural or artificial object that provides physical protection (in the pp-sense) against the dangers of vacuum and its cold and such. (Thus, space travel in any galactic or intergalactic sense cannot be done except by a nonlocality that admits no interstellar pauses.) ***** ATWLAH