Theory Notes 6-25-94
Theory Notes From Melanie
(Transcription from an audio recording)
What follows are some notes, each of which would be a topic for an article to be written or a key point in a topic to be written. I’ll put the date with each topic, list it and speak a little bit about it
First topic-June 25, 1994 Saturday
I’m reading a book called The Visual Centers of the Brain where it talks about how there are of course, only three kinds of cones for color of vision and naturally 3 types of cones in terms of subjective view, tying in with 3’s. And it would be interesting to look at the concept that the reason that we see in 3 primary colors is not because that is really how they work, it is a continuous spectrum after all, but simply because that is our subjective view of what color is doing. Therefor color sense is a subjective interpretation, does not exist in any objective situation and that three cones would match the 3 points of the subjective view of the world and therefor be a dynamic impression of color as opposed to a fixed state.
Continuing on that line of thought: the notion that 3 colors can be combined to make any of the colors of the spectrum, these 3 primary colors; indeed, if you take the frequencies of light at three different frequencies and combine them, are you able to achieve through synthesis, the actual frequency and wave form and pattern of light at any point of the spectrum, or is that purely a subjective thing? that those colors of light blend together to give the impression of any color of the spectrum? IN other words, the impression of a color in the spectrum based on 3 cones of the retina create a subjective sensation of the different colors whereas that actual color would not exist in reality. Much like the difference between mixing pigments together to create a specific color or looking at a color picture of very fine degree and looking at it through a microscope and seeing the different points of the primary colors that are mixed together. Is it continuous or is it based on particles that are individual? In fact it would be my suspicion that light created naturally of a particular frequency has a frequency that cannot be recreated by putting the frequencies of the primary colors together in any combination, whereas the impression of the color can be synthesized through combinations of those frequencies--not because they actually make that color in truth, but because the three cones of the retina give information to the brain which synthesizes an approximation or subjective reality of that color when in fact it does not exist in nature.
O.K. it is June 25, 1994
Just a notion about the concept of Change and Steadfast in Dramatica: What kinds of change are there? We seem to have locked ourselves into a perspective where there is but one single kind of change where the person alters there inner nature-- and that’s all we say about them. They just change something of that particular element. We get a hint that maybe it’s just adding a certain amount or taking away a certain amount away in the Start and Stop notion, but I’m beginning to realize around the house here that I changed in a different way I haven’t thought of before. I’ve always felt frustrated because I wanted to take some time off for myself when the house was messy--mostly when it was cluttered. I didn’t care about anything else, I just didn’t like the clutter. I felt that when that clutter was there it really bothered me if I couldn’t do anything else around that I wanted to do like read, or take time off for myself. However, I came to a point the other day, now that Dramatica is over and I was relaxed and I said, Hey, I’ll take care of the things that I have done around the house, the messes I’ve made-- and I’ll take care of the back room where I spend most of my time with my computer, my CD player, my television set and stuff like that--So! When I did that I came out in the living room right now and the place is an absolute mess cause for several days I haven’t been doing anything so everybody’s been leaving their junk all over and I haven’t been cleaning it up. I realize I’ve changed the scope of what I was concerned with. Now I don’t think that I’ve actually changed a single point by point of reference. We might look objectively as we look at the objective story, and say what I did was I changed morality for self-interest, or from non-acceptance to acceptance--but that hasn’t been a complete change in me in all instances. Generally in stories we see someone like Scrooge, we see him applying the notion of the problem everywhere equally, to all situations, not to just specific ones and as a result it is a general cure. Whereas in this instance, the problem that I was suffering was because I was trying to take care of all the work everywhere, and now I’ve limited it in two ways. I’m not concerned with anything outside of this backroom I’m in now. That area I’m concerned with all the mess that everybody leaves around, but again even in that room I’ve divided it up so that only the half that I operate on is under my concern and the rest of it where most of Mary’s stuff is doesn’t really matter to me.
So I’ve limited the scope there in terms of where I’m concerned, and also limited it in terms of who I’m concerned. I’m still concerned about the mess I making , but not concerned about the mess anybody else is making. Now this is a radical change. I used to be embarrassed when somebody came over and the place was a wreck. It doesn’t embarrass me anymore. Which is really funny because it was my house that I had alone and I felt responsible for everything then indeed I would feel embarrassed when somebody came over and saw the place dirty because it would reflect on me. Well (garbled) still reflects on me, but somehow inside myself I’ve disassociated from that and feel that it’s not my responsibility and also felt that somehow it just doesn’t bother me because I know that I’m not taking responsibility for it. So in a sense it might go between responsibility and commitment or a degree of that, but it’s change in scope--not change in the binary change in that it exists at all or that we get more of this or less of that direction of change. It is a change of size. I’m beginning to think that maybe a different way, a subjective interpretation of the concept t of change would be put together from a male or female perspective in terms of mental sex and part of that would be the way the Main Character would perceive the nature of the change in themselves depending on their mental sex, and part of it would also be the way the audience would achieve the nature of the change depending on mental sex. So when you were writing the story writing it as a male or as a female is going to make a difference in the way you will couch your phrases and the aspect of the change that you would be describing. Probably both kinds, the binary and the essence of increasing or decreasing the size or changing the direction, or perhaps increasing or decreasing the speed or acceleration... in other words, all six dynamic pairs; probably each one has its own unique impact on change--and they probably all exist. And depending on which one the author chooses to emphasize is going to have an impact on how the audience perceives the author behind the story, in fact it may create the overall viewpoint of the story from a male perspective or a female perspective on top of the storymind itself; having a female or male mental sex in general. The conjunction of all these possibilities lead to some interesting conclusions on the possibility of an overlay template of the author’s mind upon the story mind just in terms of how the change would be measured, and of course that means that many other aspects of the story would be interpreted differently as well, depending on the mental sex of the author.
It’s Sunday, June 26, 1994.
A new insight into the difference between tendency and probability. We’re looking at holistic systems. We would be looking at two concepts, either the series of points that are connected by some kind of relationship or glue as it were, or a series of foci in which, like gravitational fields, a number of points exist where gravitation is at a max, but not one single point--many points are spread about and their influence is felt to some degree holistically all the way across the space in between. These two views of gravitational pulls that focus on a particular point all have their greatest intensity at the particular point and then spread out in all directions influencing with their ripples, as it were, all the way to the edges of the closed system. As opposed to a number of individual points that do not influence anything at all by their existence and are merely connected by some kind of relationship or process at work that involves both of them. These two views are both present. The particular view that would look at, for instance, in astro-physics, the planets, asteroids, every speck of material as being something that exerts an influence on other pieces; an influence in terms of if one smashes into another, you can transmit some of its energy to the other one which would then continue barreling off into space and smash into something else. When we look at the aspect of interconnectedness in a holistic closed system, such as astro-physics, we’ll find the particulate or spatial way of appreciating it would look at the billiard ball effect of one thing ramming into another and transferring force which is a vector containing both direction and degree. So vector science is going to be a particulate appreciation.
However, the appreciation of the gravitational wells, as they were, the gravitational pulls that exist within the universe; those are the tendency appreciation. Now what’s the difference between tendency and probability in relationship to this? In terms of probability, we are looking at items that are particulate in nature, defined spatial points, vectors; and we’re seeing that each one of these particular points, some of them will have an effect and some of them won’t. Meaning that it’s a binary situation that exists, a digital situation in which something is either a zero or a one, and we can see that a close call doesn’t mean anything. The old saying that close enough is only good in horseshoes is equally applied to astro-physics when you are looking at a particulate or vector view, a spatial view. At that point, what is close has absolutely no effect because even if an asteroid comes within fractions of an inch of another asteroid, but they do not actually touch, there’s going to be no interaction at the vector or particulate level because no energy will be transferred by that means, via direct contact. In other words it’s still a zero until it touches and then it’s a one. Now the difference between the two, what bridges the gap between a zero and a one? How can we say that something is closer and ever closer and ever closer? Because there is a second force at work, which is the tendency part of it.
Rather than saying that here is a particular view dealing with vectors and absolutely touching one piece to another as in billiard playing, we look at gravitational fields much more like magnets where you can say the closer two magnets get to each other, the more of an influence they’ll have on each other without actually touching. Now the key to all this is that both forces are at work at the same time.
Now the error in the way I’m starting with looking at relativity was that he was combining the two and saying that they are intrinsically connected. In other words, whenever you see an item of mass in the universe, it is producing a gravitational field that is warping space and that’s the second part of the same force. In other words there is a single event that occurs which is the existence of an item and by existing it warps space creating this gravitational force, thus a very causal relationship. Even if you look at it as being non-causal, more holistic, in saying the two exist simultaneously, they’re still connected as far as Einstein’s theory would allow. This is because he is looking at the Universe from an inside perspective, a subjective view in which only three things are possible: you look at energy, you look at mass, and then you look at space time. You cannot see space and time as being independent. This is the same problem we have when we look at the speed of light as being a constant. It is only a constant because the two aspects of the speed of light, speed being both the space crossed and the time it takes to cross it; those two items are held together, bonded together, locked together as a view, saying that when one goes up the other one goes down and in direct proportion. Meaning that it appears to be a constant. In fact it’s really wavelength vs. frequency. The wavelength of light times the frequency of light. Frequency is an estimation of speed based on time; it says ‘how often’ you see a complete cycle. Whereas wavelength is an estimation of speed based on space, where you’re saying ‘how long’ is a cycle. So because space and time are bonded together in space time in Einstein’s relativity, we end up unable to separate them which then results naturally in the assumption that any particle that exists in nature will be associated with the specific gravitational effect that is intrinsic to that item. But it’s really not intrinsic.
When we look at the difference in Mental Relativity between probability and tendency theory, and tendency again, we’re going to say ‘here is the gravitational part of the argument’. The gravitational part says that ‘when two asteroids pass close to each other, even if they’re on opposite sides of the universe, they’re going to be having an impact’ because of their gravitational effect which is holistic and predicted by mental relativity. It is not something that exists as waves that ripple out, at least not from a spatial perspective. From a spatial perspective it’s only going to be perceived as a force that is synchronously applied all throughout the universe. In other words it doesn’t take any amount of time for gravity, from a particle-- it comes into existence out of energy. For example, if we were to create fusion, and create a particle that’s heavier than the particle that existed before it, when we do that, that new particle, that extra mass that has been added to a particular point in space is going to have an immediate impact on the far side of the universe. It doesn’t take a billion years to get over their. It seems instantaneous from a spatial perspective.
In reality, if we look at it from a temporal perspective, we’re going to see that that particular effect does appear as waves, but only waves in terms of time, in terms of frequency not in terms of wavelength; not in terms of space. So when these two asteroids pass in space, even if they don’t connect directly and have a vector impact or spatial impact on each other, they do have a gravitational impact and that occurs all the time, not just when they get close. It accentuates when they get close.
But if we look at the mathematical curve of this relationship, we’re going to see that as they approach each other, the greatest distances passed between them with no appreciable increase--it’s very small. But we end up with the hyperbolic approach of a limit line when we get in closer proximity. And in fact, it gets to the point where the gravitational effect between the two particles reaches the point that when they actually connect and touch each other, they become a single particle as far as the gravitational field. The fields merge because they can no longer be identified as separate. That’s the magic moment when it switches over from a gravitational effect in a temporal universe to a vector effect or linear effect in a spatial universe. In other words, there is zero effect of transmitting force from one particle to another as long as they are separate. But as long as they are separate, there are separate gravitational effects they have upon each other in a sense of holism, a synchronous holism.
As soon as they get close enough that that limit line is being approached and they actually touch each other, then the limit line has been breached. They are now on the other side and essentially there is a straight line coming down the middle and from the left moving towards the middle is a hyperbolic curve approaching that vertical limit line from one particle. On the other side, coming from the right towards the center is a gravitational factor approaching that limit line from the other side. And when the two actually touch, then at that point they actually reach the limit line--it becomes a straight line. Straight line instead of a hyperbolic curve. It describes then, instead of a gravitational relationship between the two, there is a particulate relationship between the two dealing with the transfer of energy or power from one to the other; a vector transfer.
So the two exist simultaneously in terms of their potential, but in terms of their actuality only one of them can exist at a time and it is the switching back and forth between the temporal and spatial perspectives--between the tendency and the probability, that creates the flip of the binary switch going from spectral appreciation to analog appreciation.
Now in terms of probability and tendency are the more common usage of looking at likelihood. Likelihood, again, blends two concepts and these two concepts that we’re talking about are when you say ‘what’s the probability of any given interaction between a number of pieces and a number of other pieces, you’re saying that some will be interacting and some won’t be interacting. In other words it’s definitely a binary situation--a zero or a one. You’re going to say ‘out of a hundred pieces, 85 are going to be in a particular state.’ Well that’s a probability. It’s saying it doesn’t matter which one, 85 will be in that state and the other 15 of that 100 will not be in that state. And because of that you are essentially saying those 15 are not participants because
(Transcription from an audio recording)
What follows are some notes, each of which would be a topic for an article to be written or a key point in a topic to be written. I’ll put the date with each topic, list it and speak a little bit about it
First topic-June 25, 1994 Saturday
I’m reading a book called The Visual Centers of the Brain where it talks about how there are of course, only three kinds of cones for color of vision and naturally 3 types of cones in terms of subjective view, tying in with 3’s. And it would be interesting to look at the concept that the reason that we see in 3 primary colors is not because that is really how they work, it is a continuous spectrum after all, but simply because that is our subjective view of what color is doing. Therefor color sense is a subjective interpretation, does not exist in any objective situation and that three cones would match the 3 points of the subjective view of the world and therefor be a dynamic impression of color as opposed to a fixed state.
Continuing on that line of thought: the notion that 3 colors can be combined to make any of the colors of the spectrum, these 3 primary colors; indeed, if you take the frequencies of light at three different frequencies and combine them, are you able to achieve through synthesis, the actual frequency and wave form and pattern of light at any point of the spectrum, or is that purely a subjective thing? that those colors of light blend together to give the impression of any color of the spectrum? IN other words, the impression of a color in the spectrum based on 3 cones of the retina create a subjective sensation of the different colors whereas that actual color would not exist in reality. Much like the difference between mixing pigments together to create a specific color or looking at a color picture of very fine degree and looking at it through a microscope and seeing the different points of the primary colors that are mixed together. Is it continuous or is it based on particles that are individual? In fact it would be my suspicion that light created naturally of a particular frequency has a frequency that cannot be recreated by putting the frequencies of the primary colors together in any combination, whereas the impression of the color can be synthesized through combinations of those frequencies--not because they actually make that color in truth, but because the three cones of the retina give information to the brain which synthesizes an approximation or subjective reality of that color when in fact it does not exist in nature.
O.K. it is June 25, 1994
Just a notion about the concept of Change and Steadfast in Dramatica: What kinds of change are there? We seem to have locked ourselves into a perspective where there is but one single kind of change where the person alters there inner nature-- and that’s all we say about them. They just change something of that particular element. We get a hint that maybe it’s just adding a certain amount or taking away a certain amount away in the Start and Stop notion, but I’m beginning to realize around the house here that I changed in a different way I haven’t thought of before. I’ve always felt frustrated because I wanted to take some time off for myself when the house was messy--mostly when it was cluttered. I didn’t care about anything else, I just didn’t like the clutter. I felt that when that clutter was there it really bothered me if I couldn’t do anything else around that I wanted to do like read, or take time off for myself. However, I came to a point the other day, now that Dramatica is over and I was relaxed and I said, Hey, I’ll take care of the things that I have done around the house, the messes I’ve made-- and I’ll take care of the back room where I spend most of my time with my computer, my CD player, my television set and stuff like that--So! When I did that I came out in the living room right now and the place is an absolute mess cause for several days I haven’t been doing anything so everybody’s been leaving their junk all over and I haven’t been cleaning it up. I realize I’ve changed the scope of what I was concerned with. Now I don’t think that I’ve actually changed a single point by point of reference. We might look objectively as we look at the objective story, and say what I did was I changed morality for self-interest, or from non-acceptance to acceptance--but that hasn’t been a complete change in me in all instances. Generally in stories we see someone like Scrooge, we see him applying the notion of the problem everywhere equally, to all situations, not to just specific ones and as a result it is a general cure. Whereas in this instance, the problem that I was suffering was because I was trying to take care of all the work everywhere, and now I’ve limited it in two ways. I’m not concerned with anything outside of this backroom I’m in now. That area I’m concerned with all the mess that everybody leaves around, but again even in that room I’ve divided it up so that only the half that I operate on is under my concern and the rest of it where most of Mary’s stuff is doesn’t really matter to me.
So I’ve limited the scope there in terms of where I’m concerned, and also limited it in terms of who I’m concerned. I’m still concerned about the mess I making , but not concerned about the mess anybody else is making. Now this is a radical change. I used to be embarrassed when somebody came over and the place was a wreck. It doesn’t embarrass me anymore. Which is really funny because it was my house that I had alone and I felt responsible for everything then indeed I would feel embarrassed when somebody came over and saw the place dirty because it would reflect on me. Well (garbled) still reflects on me, but somehow inside myself I’ve disassociated from that and feel that it’s not my responsibility and also felt that somehow it just doesn’t bother me because I know that I’m not taking responsibility for it. So in a sense it might go between responsibility and commitment or a degree of that, but it’s change in scope--not change in the binary change in that it exists at all or that we get more of this or less of that direction of change. It is a change of size. I’m beginning to think that maybe a different way, a subjective interpretation of the concept t of change would be put together from a male or female perspective in terms of mental sex and part of that would be the way the Main Character would perceive the nature of the change in themselves depending on their mental sex, and part of it would also be the way the audience would achieve the nature of the change depending on mental sex. So when you were writing the story writing it as a male or as a female is going to make a difference in the way you will couch your phrases and the aspect of the change that you would be describing. Probably both kinds, the binary and the essence of increasing or decreasing the size or changing the direction, or perhaps increasing or decreasing the speed or acceleration... in other words, all six dynamic pairs; probably each one has its own unique impact on change--and they probably all exist. And depending on which one the author chooses to emphasize is going to have an impact on how the audience perceives the author behind the story, in fact it may create the overall viewpoint of the story from a male perspective or a female perspective on top of the storymind itself; having a female or male mental sex in general. The conjunction of all these possibilities lead to some interesting conclusions on the possibility of an overlay template of the author’s mind upon the story mind just in terms of how the change would be measured, and of course that means that many other aspects of the story would be interpreted differently as well, depending on the mental sex of the author.
It’s Sunday, June 26, 1994.
A new insight into the difference between tendency and probability. We’re looking at holistic systems. We would be looking at two concepts, either the series of points that are connected by some kind of relationship or glue as it were, or a series of foci in which, like gravitational fields, a number of points exist where gravitation is at a max, but not one single point--many points are spread about and their influence is felt to some degree holistically all the way across the space in between. These two views of gravitational pulls that focus on a particular point all have their greatest intensity at the particular point and then spread out in all directions influencing with their ripples, as it were, all the way to the edges of the closed system. As opposed to a number of individual points that do not influence anything at all by their existence and are merely connected by some kind of relationship or process at work that involves both of them. These two views are both present. The particular view that would look at, for instance, in astro-physics, the planets, asteroids, every speck of material as being something that exerts an influence on other pieces; an influence in terms of if one smashes into another, you can transmit some of its energy to the other one which would then continue barreling off into space and smash into something else. When we look at the aspect of interconnectedness in a holistic closed system, such as astro-physics, we’ll find the particulate or spatial way of appreciating it would look at the billiard ball effect of one thing ramming into another and transferring force which is a vector containing both direction and degree. So vector science is going to be a particulate appreciation.
However, the appreciation of the gravitational wells, as they were, the gravitational pulls that exist within the universe; those are the tendency appreciation. Now what’s the difference between tendency and probability in relationship to this? In terms of probability, we are looking at items that are particulate in nature, defined spatial points, vectors; and we’re seeing that each one of these particular points, some of them will have an effect and some of them won’t. Meaning that it’s a binary situation that exists, a digital situation in which something is either a zero or a one, and we can see that a close call doesn’t mean anything. The old saying that close enough is only good in horseshoes is equally applied to astro-physics when you are looking at a particulate or vector view, a spatial view. At that point, what is close has absolutely no effect because even if an asteroid comes within fractions of an inch of another asteroid, but they do not actually touch, there’s going to be no interaction at the vector or particulate level because no energy will be transferred by that means, via direct contact. In other words it’s still a zero until it touches and then it’s a one. Now the difference between the two, what bridges the gap between a zero and a one? How can we say that something is closer and ever closer and ever closer? Because there is a second force at work, which is the tendency part of it.
Rather than saying that here is a particular view dealing with vectors and absolutely touching one piece to another as in billiard playing, we look at gravitational fields much more like magnets where you can say the closer two magnets get to each other, the more of an influence they’ll have on each other without actually touching. Now the key to all this is that both forces are at work at the same time.
Now the error in the way I’m starting with looking at relativity was that he was combining the two and saying that they are intrinsically connected. In other words, whenever you see an item of mass in the universe, it is producing a gravitational field that is warping space and that’s the second part of the same force. In other words there is a single event that occurs which is the existence of an item and by existing it warps space creating this gravitational force, thus a very causal relationship. Even if you look at it as being non-causal, more holistic, in saying the two exist simultaneously, they’re still connected as far as Einstein’s theory would allow. This is because he is looking at the Universe from an inside perspective, a subjective view in which only three things are possible: you look at energy, you look at mass, and then you look at space time. You cannot see space and time as being independent. This is the same problem we have when we look at the speed of light as being a constant. It is only a constant because the two aspects of the speed of light, speed being both the space crossed and the time it takes to cross it; those two items are held together, bonded together, locked together as a view, saying that when one goes up the other one goes down and in direct proportion. Meaning that it appears to be a constant. In fact it’s really wavelength vs. frequency. The wavelength of light times the frequency of light. Frequency is an estimation of speed based on time; it says ‘how often’ you see a complete cycle. Whereas wavelength is an estimation of speed based on space, where you’re saying ‘how long’ is a cycle. So because space and time are bonded together in space time in Einstein’s relativity, we end up unable to separate them which then results naturally in the assumption that any particle that exists in nature will be associated with the specific gravitational effect that is intrinsic to that item. But it’s really not intrinsic.
When we look at the difference in Mental Relativity between probability and tendency theory, and tendency again, we’re going to say ‘here is the gravitational part of the argument’. The gravitational part says that ‘when two asteroids pass close to each other, even if they’re on opposite sides of the universe, they’re going to be having an impact’ because of their gravitational effect which is holistic and predicted by mental relativity. It is not something that exists as waves that ripple out, at least not from a spatial perspective. From a spatial perspective it’s only going to be perceived as a force that is synchronously applied all throughout the universe. In other words it doesn’t take any amount of time for gravity, from a particle-- it comes into existence out of energy. For example, if we were to create fusion, and create a particle that’s heavier than the particle that existed before it, when we do that, that new particle, that extra mass that has been added to a particular point in space is going to have an immediate impact on the far side of the universe. It doesn’t take a billion years to get over their. It seems instantaneous from a spatial perspective.
In reality, if we look at it from a temporal perspective, we’re going to see that that particular effect does appear as waves, but only waves in terms of time, in terms of frequency not in terms of wavelength; not in terms of space. So when these two asteroids pass in space, even if they don’t connect directly and have a vector impact or spatial impact on each other, they do have a gravitational impact and that occurs all the time, not just when they get close. It accentuates when they get close.
But if we look at the mathematical curve of this relationship, we’re going to see that as they approach each other, the greatest distances passed between them with no appreciable increase--it’s very small. But we end up with the hyperbolic approach of a limit line when we get in closer proximity. And in fact, it gets to the point where the gravitational effect between the two particles reaches the point that when they actually connect and touch each other, they become a single particle as far as the gravitational field. The fields merge because they can no longer be identified as separate. That’s the magic moment when it switches over from a gravitational effect in a temporal universe to a vector effect or linear effect in a spatial universe. In other words, there is zero effect of transmitting force from one particle to another as long as they are separate. But as long as they are separate, there are separate gravitational effects they have upon each other in a sense of holism, a synchronous holism.
As soon as they get close enough that that limit line is being approached and they actually touch each other, then the limit line has been breached. They are now on the other side and essentially there is a straight line coming down the middle and from the left moving towards the middle is a hyperbolic curve approaching that vertical limit line from one particle. On the other side, coming from the right towards the center is a gravitational factor approaching that limit line from the other side. And when the two actually touch, then at that point they actually reach the limit line--it becomes a straight line. Straight line instead of a hyperbolic curve. It describes then, instead of a gravitational relationship between the two, there is a particulate relationship between the two dealing with the transfer of energy or power from one to the other; a vector transfer.
So the two exist simultaneously in terms of their potential, but in terms of their actuality only one of them can exist at a time and it is the switching back and forth between the temporal and spatial perspectives--between the tendency and the probability, that creates the flip of the binary switch going from spectral appreciation to analog appreciation.
Now in terms of probability and tendency are the more common usage of looking at likelihood. Likelihood, again, blends two concepts and these two concepts that we’re talking about are when you say ‘what’s the probability of any given interaction between a number of pieces and a number of other pieces, you’re saying that some will be interacting and some won’t be interacting. In other words it’s definitely a binary situation--a zero or a one. You’re going to say ‘out of a hundred pieces, 85 are going to be in a particular state.’ Well that’s a probability. It’s saying it doesn’t matter which one, 85 will be in that state and the other 15 of that 100 will not be in that state. And because of that you are essentially saying those 15 are not participants because
Comments