Logical and Mechanical Interactions

 T
here are two forms of interactions operating in existence. These are the readily understandable "mechanical" interactions (those which lend themselves to geometric interpretations) ... and ... "logical" interactions (those which do not). The difference between them can be easily explained ... the border between them cannot easily be drawn. For in neither case can we see the actual interaction. It is only "inferred" directly or indirectly by experimental results.

Examples of such interactions are:

Mechanical ---
The Gravitational Interaction
The Nuclear Force
The Electromagnetic Interaction

Logical ---
The Weak Interaction
Parity Non-Conservation
Indeterminacy of Position

(Note: These are by my theoretical constructs. Others would say that all or none are mechanical or logical ... or ... some are incorrectly placed here)

Note the simple difference.

In the mechanical case, a model can be made using the common elements of geometry (point-line-plane-space) coupled with the elementary actions associated with those elements in 3-space (expand/contract-translational movement-rotation).

In the logical case no such geometrical interpretation is possible in principle.

For instance, we cannot give a causal explanation for the exact position of a particle at the time it is measured because position of a particle is ... by its nature ... impossible to specify without an absolute reference frame with which an interaction occurs which then necessarily alters that frame just when it is called upon to determine that position. The situation is a "self-referential" logical conundrum ... not to be solved by any "finite logic". Hence, it cannot be drawn by the descriptors of such logic, i.e. point-line-plane-space.

A further example is the determination of handedness. How does one determine which "hand" the world is seen in by human (or inanimate) "perception"? It can be either ... but which one? There is no mechanical means of description ... in principle. Yet because of this, there is an understandable (and detectable) impact on the weak interaction.

In either case a "choice" is made by logic or the universe or existence ... but how that decision is made has no pedigree ... no parts ... and thus cannot be described in geometric terms. We have the beginning and end of the interaction, but no middle, no transition. Where do we draw "lines" to delimit the cause? Or rather, how does one describe the acausal by such geometry?

And here is where I differ with the general scientific community ...

They are ready and willing to abandon geometry in favor of strictly logical abstractions with no grounding in common experience. I am not. I know that it must be abandoned at some point and in some specific interactions ... but ... I refuse to let go of that magnificent tool until and unless it is pried out of my hands by clear, straightforward logical contradiction and/or anomaly.

```

```
```
```