Further AMS Use Cases

Entropy, the Arrow of Time, and Why “NOW” Exists (AMS framing)


## 1) Entropy in AMS terms

Entropy is the tendency for AMS tension to redistribute from:

- coherent / low-configuration-count modes (ordered, usable gradients)

to

- incoherent / high-configuration-count modes (chaotic micro-torsion, heat-like behaviour)


In plain terms: the AMS has vastly more ways to be “jiggly and smeared out” than “neatly biased and structured.”


## 2) The Arrow of Time

The “arrow” is the directional bias that:

- coherent AMS gradients (usable configurations) tend to decay into incoherent micro-torsion,

because the latter has overwhelmingly more accessible microstates.


So “future” is the direction in which:

- structured gradients get spent,

- correlations decohere,

- and recoverable “work-capacity” becomes unrecoverable (as heat-like AMS motion).


## 3) Why irreversibility appears even if underlying rules are reversible

Even if the micro-rules of AMS dynamics were symmetric, macroscopic irreversibility appears because:

- re-concentrating dispersed micro-torsion into a single neat gradient requires exquisite coordination across huge numbers of degrees of freedom,

which is extraordinarily unlikely without an external constraint.


## 4) Why NOW exists at all

“NOW” is not a metaphysical bead on a timeline; it is:

- the local boundary of causal update in the AMS.


Because:

- changes propagate through the AMS at finite speed,

each location has a “currently settled” configuration plus incoming influences not yet integrated.


So “NOW” is the local state:

- after the last integrated substrate updates,

- before the next arriving updates are absorbed.


In this framing:

- Past = integrated AMS history encoded in present structure.

- Future = not-yet-integrated influences (open possibilities), constrained by present AMS geometry and boundary conditions.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Validation vs. Valuation

Validation vs. Valuation I recently found myself reflecting on the difference between validation and valuation , and I realised that although the words are often used interchangeably, they point to very different things. Validation, at its simplest and most innocent, is a form of support in the moment. It says: you’re seen , you’re heard , you’re not alone right now . In practical terms, validation is important — we validate work to ensure it’s safe, correct, or fit for purpose. In relationships, it can be reassuring and kind. But validation has a shadow side. When validation becomes something I need in order to feel whole — when my sense of self depends on it — it quietly shifts from support into something corrosive. In its more sinister form, validation can become manipulation, or an inadvertent tapping into a core wound: without your approval, I don’t exist . At that point, validation no longer supports identity — it erodes it. Valuation is something else entirely. Valuation ...
Read more

Aetheric Magnetic Substrate (AMS) Ontology — v0.8

AMS Ontology v0.8 — Aetheric Magnetic Substrate (Self-referencing, structured, and vocabulary-sealed. Uses “first/second heavens” for runtime reality and “third heaven” for creation-level domain. Avoids “universe”.) 0. Purpose and Reader Contract This document defines the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate (AMS) as a unified ontological framework for runtime physical reality: matter, fields, energy, waves, circuits, and life-as-process. It is written to be: Self-referencing: terms are defined once and referenced consistently. Layered: it distinguishes creation-level constraint (T0) from runtime topology (T1/T2). Guardrailed: it forbids category errors (especially “order ⇒ agency” and “organisation ⇒ new energy”). This ontology does not attempt to model: ensoulment, spiritual state change, or personhood instantiation divine agency, the Holy Spirit, or theological mechanisms creation-level acts beyond their runtime implications (Those topics can be acknowledged in appendice...
Read more

Newton, Einstein, and Gravity Revisited Through the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate

Newton, Einstein, and Gravity Revisited Through the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate I recently watched a video titled “There Is Something Faster Than Light.” The specifics of the argument aren’t the point here. What caught my attention was the familiar framing that followed: Newton versus Einstein, non-local versus local gravity, classical intuition versus modern physics. This framing is common. It’s also misleading. What follows is not a critique of either Newton or Einstein, but an attempt to understand what they were actually observing , why their descriptions differed, and how those observations can be unified under a single, coherent ontology — the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate (AMS) . Newton: Gravity as Non-Local Action Newton’s law of gravitation is often caricatured as “action at a distance,” and historically, Newton himself was uneasy with that implication. From a modern perspective, Newtonian gravity is described as non-local : Two masses influence one another instantly N...
Read more