When people uncover the unified theory, it may become clear why errors in trajectory are possible.
It seems that, when a particle “falls toward” the ground, for instance, it is exploring the possibilities of moving in other directions at every moment and, at every moment, if it does continue to fall, no forces that alter its trajectory are present. If there are such forces, its trajectory will be altered.
In the animal kingdom, up to the introduction of the social species, it seems this rule of precision in trajectory of behavior continues to apply. The E coli bacteria that swim through human intestines flap their flagellum in the direction of higher concentrations of sugar and in the direction opposite to toxins.
Sensing environmental cues and reacting to them is of course central to all life and, if we anthropomorphize the inanimate and think of their reactions too, to non-living physicality as well.
It is tempting to suggest, given this general impression, that errors in trajectory exist in all situations, perhaps grounded in the statistical probabilities that govern the underlying quantum mechanics of everything, but that they become noticeable to anyone who’s watching only when matter is so large that mechanics has to morph into biology, biology in neurology and neurology into behavior. At that point, the purity of trajectories, though still largely in place, sustains hits of social will and stubbornness that, if excluded from the system, act as disrupters.
It is this double game, then, that social species play with their sociability and their brains: On the once hand, there is path of the particle. And on the other hand there is the path of the particle with an attitude. If you separate attitude from particle, you will have a system in which there is a Should. The particle should have gone that way, but, because of attitude, it did not.
If you do not separate attitude from particle, you have particle-attitude which now is going in exactly the direction in which it properties suggest it should go.
Because, people can separate attitude from particle, they love to talk about what if and what has-its. If it hadn’t been for such and such, I could have done this and so. So it is often the case that time goes by in people’s lives which, although perfectly fitting their trajectory according to human-physics, somehow does not match their ambition for their trajectory.
Often people mistake temporal displacement for misguided trajectory, too. They think that, since they are not yet where they would like to be, their current situation not real or not right or not as real or right as it might be when, in fact, their situation is perfectly right. It is just not at the temporal development they are entertaining in their mind.
These people eventually arrive at the point in time they have been envisioning, and we say about them that they thought their way through to their position when, in fact, all they did was wait for it, while traveling in the direction of their forward motion.
It is common in our world to associate the word “wait” with static nothingness. But if we apply “wait,” we will be forced to associate it with the inertial-reference system, a system in which there is no change of momentum from the point of view of the system from which we are observing it: no addition or subtraction of mass or energy. But these inertial systems are not without velocity from every perspective and do not necessarily contain zero energy. They are therefore not immune to suddenly running into something that causes them to give off or accept energy. In other words, to lose their inertial state.
So it is with the people who “see” their future. Their personal store, their directionality and their environment create a system that determines their trajectory. Since the part of the system that is the person’s sensory cognition and processing is accepting the data about trajectory and directionality, he or she is often able to predict an accurate future position. And, often, he is also eager to jump to it without having to pass the intervening distance, causing all sorts of discontent.
Too much discontent can alter the cargo of the system and affect its trajectory. Whether the results of this alteration are pleasing to the cognition that is watching them is a matter subjective predicament but, in any event, the oscillations between what is contained in the system core and what makes up its affective environment are continuous, microstructurally infinitesimal and – how do I say this nicely – permanent. Permanent in the mathematical sense of effecting the point of following development.
Since physicists agree at the moment that time is the “dimension” that we only experience in one direction unlike what is allowed in the other dimensions, presently what has happened in the past is set and, because it is set, rigidifies the moments that immediately follow. That is to say, each moment passed greatly limits the flexibility of the experience of the following moments. The more closely adjacent said past moment is to the forward moment removed, the greater its rigidifying influence.
However, if we trust in math, we may admis the past, as we know about it, if not flexible is at least a skeletal roadmap of the most likely of trajectories and that mistakes in behavior, as in physics are oxymoronic. “Mistake” is the word people use for events whose probability their human cognition miscalculated. Or whose probability their cognition calculated correctly but their super-cognitive interests disliked – possibly because of a resulting survival disadvantage, which is rather removed from physical properties, life being the only physical form we know of that has an interest in sustaining certain physical states over others. Living states over non-living.
Unless or until we are able to incorporate life’s survival interests in the scheme of physical determinism, if I may use such a maligned word, there will always be meta-levels to experience that are neither calculable nor understandable through the models of physical positioning. Even through metaphor. But once we have mastered the algorithms that naturally include and derive interest in the preservation of certain physical states – self interest – then the dynamics this interest causes in the kinks of trajectories will cease to befuddle or upset people.
Without upset, we would have many more personal courses that follow the curvatures of circumstance and please the observers that nervously occupy them.
