Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Waves vs Fields

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default 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?

  2. #2
    force my hand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,334
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.
    SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype

  3. #3
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    5,989
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    partical : wave :: object : field

    ?

  4. #4
    force my hand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,334
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    Idk, but doesn't the term "object" already imply a disconnected object? I agree with you completely about the fields though.
    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.
    SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype

  5. #5
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,605
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by force my hand View Post
    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.

  6. #6
    force my hand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,334
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    I am a jack-of-all-trades, as was my father, as was his father.
    SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype

  7. #7
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,605
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I see.

  8. #8
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  10. #10
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,605
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee View Post
    not really, stating facts is .
    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.

  11. #11
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,605
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by force my hand View Post
    I am a jack-of-all-trades, as was my father, as was his father.
    Not to mention Ni, hehe.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •