Waves vs Fields
What's the difference? Would we call one an expression of energy between many objects, and the other the object set itself?
Comparatively, 'waves' implies a number of objects that may or may not be related whereas a 'field' implies a unifying context of greater importance than the individual constituents.
partical : wave :: object : field
Possibily. I don't think it's a binary state, though. The only analogy I can come up with off the top of my head is that there is not only morality and immorality, but also amorality, all with contextual respect to objects being or not being related. I think we can define a state where neither end-member is applicable, if only by failing to observe its state.
Originally Posted by jxrtes
I am a jack-of-all-trades, as was my father, as was his father.
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
How would you express the properties of either in the most compact, condensed, redundancy-exclusive way? That seems to be the first step towards finding an answer to your problem.
Other than that I can not really help. As "Alpha overlooking Delta" I'm just about 3 quarter solipsistic and fully solipsistic towards notions like "fields" and "waves". I am not at freedom to acknowledge their existance apart from the words and mathematical formulas/programming code we specify them in.
Let's take Ni as an example.
If you're looking into the past or the future, then you're thinking of time as a sort of line. You're not really engaging it though. Now think of time as like flowing water... if you shape the paths it flows through, you can change its flow. Imagine you've got "time" right in front of you like in a stream, and that you can change it at will. No, better: imagine you are IN the stream and moving forward with the water. You can by your movements create waves ahead of you: you can change the water before you. Those waves will be a part of the stream as it moves forward in time. At every moment we are setting waves into motion that will be a part of the future. If we observe the changes these waves make them we are observing the internal dynamics of fields (Ni); however we are only observing the changes made by the waves, not the waves themselves.
True, but Te and Ti are to some extent inseparable. To be more precise, he was communicating Te information purely to make an abstract Ti definition. The information Ti ego types convey is far more likely to take the form of definitions, distinctions, and derivations.
Originally Posted by dee
Not to mention Ni, hehe.
Originally Posted by force my hand
Ti seen as a wave would be akin to focusing two lazer beams together to produce a higher intensity beam. The waves clash against each other and combine because of their Ti property. (while remaining distinct.) The waves have their own "unity" and "structural phase". Consider for example a revolution: structure is upended and rearranged. Are we to acknowledge the structure once the revolution has ended... or observe that it never really disappeared, only changed?
Te is work = electrons. We've been through that.
Se is frequency at the least....
Fe is... probably heat, entrophy: aspects of particles that can't really be studied beyond the observation of their influece, nor even concretely apprehended. Actually, I'll take that back: Fe as energy is entandromia, the substance of psyche.
Fi is charge at least.
Si is diffraction, interference, coherence, etc: properties of waveforms as observed in optics.
Ne is a tough one. It's realized potential of particles, internal content of the same. I would say it is probably their outright existence or being.