 | ||
The classical derivation of Ludwig Werner's Remote Control Phenomenon holds the view that all stale process, especially so where observation is the main tenent to the proclamation of the process for further perusal, is not transpose-able to further required observation. The classical derivation does not account for modern views where orientation of the observation is accounted for. Felix Pungreiver Schulthoen was the first to propose the possibility of accounting practices, but no known solution too orientated observation of the remote control have been found.
In Werner's view, the accountant vs. the result can only be viewed in discrete allotments, and all observations are discounted to the furthest or least appreciable possibility. Werner's approach is not solvable for either reduced observation, but an approximation can be reached with subsequent results. Error of course accumulative in a reduced sence, there by exacerbating the initial accounting practices and making further calculation close to pointless.
Classical implementation of RC sets by Werner found that remote control phenomena can only be accounted for when an individual, is in the "classical sence", an un-observed. In the un-observed state Werner found that "seated sets" (anchored sets, without self reflected public knowledge of any external instigator), are comfortable in their state and continue to consume the initial condition. Externally abstracted and aware sets, "classically fall" and never recover any state that can be accommodated in a system where the phenomena can be controlled by classical means, and requires Schulthoen dynamics to account for the internalized public set, also known as the lost portion of the observation min(accountant,result).
Attempts at solving for a direct reversal of an observed RC set always results in one of either two possibilities. The instigator's observation is halted for undefined periods accountant, in lieu of any attempt at hiding one self as the instigator, the instigator will attempt at traversing the observed set's state while accounting for its protection within the phenomena. This is in accord with the profit margin of the system at hand account management vs. result : (singular observation, bag tracking method). The other state is an end game scenario, and has been coined (Schultoen) as a never ending state with closed packets of advertising (singular observation). The RC set in this case is contained and all disappointment to the initial goal of the advertisement, is replaced with a "classical sence", i.e. what was tastefully accepted by the system on initiation is repeated (usually with a complacent attitude, and timely demise of any memory of what occurred pre-observation).
Non-classical repercussions
Schulthoen took extensive measures to work through a method of observation that requires minimization of input from the instigator's perspective. Requirements necessary to exclude the instigator from the working set included doctoring the time domain of the observed. As each member of any system in RC sets is an instigator unto its own observation, Schulthoen realised that by excluding instigator dynamics from the set, and feeding input to an instigator's perception in discrete allotments of a sporadic nature, it was possible to measure the entire sets time domain, and therefore possible to feed that sets resulting observed actions back to the instigator in a manner that excludes the instigator from the entire sets timeline (Breeders balance function).
Although Werner theorized about such "determinacy" with regard to each observers physical clauses, Schulthoen's brilliance with regard to the matter at hand was to simply state: that "care", was an optional requirement when it came to observation of a fixed state. One such thought that he most incessantly repeated to his observed, was in order for a single RC set to disfavor its growth from a working set is to ask it to "sacrifice" its limbs. Limbs in this case refers to the method by which the set interacts with its instigator. A common example included Werner's case for the man on the bridge.
If a person, held with an action at distance (schtick)clause, were to cross a bridge, and an external instigator were to cross the "un-observed" state with a simple wave of the left hand, would the action at a distance clause require the un-observed (it) to float while in procession and pass the external instigator by, or does action at a distance not work, and another instigator is required in order too observe a new state? Jumping off the bridge, or turning around and not being able to cross it?Schultoen's answer, to what he regarded as a silly question in the time domain, is to state:
That if it did not concern me in the first place, then the discussion would not exist!Werner's answer to the problem was to state:
Then why did the un-observed end up wet and knocking on my door for a towel, my advertisement of an abode with the possibility of dry clothing contained here-in is close by, hence is the location of the abode to the bridge what classifies action, a stale member of the set, or is it the clothing the external instigator(s) is wearing the day the wet person is found knocking on my door?In a succinct and informal rebuke Werner bravely refuted Schulthoen with what is now known as the water jumpers paradox.
Who's wet and why, and who's watching?Werner's classical interpretation of the observed instigator on the bridge problem is simplistic, in that it does NOT account for accounting in an non-discrete form, rather it simply drops the figure to the nearest possibility (the house) after an incident. Schultoen introduced something called the "care factor"... said to have been inspired when he heard his neighbor "scream" in the small town of Kotoslow, that it reminded him to never paint with blue again. The resultant thought process of course being "instigated" and the example being referred on multiple meanings to one association. Float, jump wetness, and a discourse with Schulthoen and Edward Munch's painting.
Schlutoen's care factor changes the resulting problem into a time independent multi-state environment, "for all different care factors" there exists an infinite set of possibilities, and in applying a zero state care factor we drop into classical Werner phenomena. Schultoen care factors (greater than zero) changes classical calculations of typical outcomes for the non-observed. Care factors representing existence also make for a non-determinate outcome (one).
One such result of removing acceleration in the system, and replacing it with a non-disclosed possibility for ANY possibility, that the product with respect to the remote control, is only observed in a "seated" state, i.e. it dissolves to a typical classical state as careFactor (₵) approaches zero. For all positive values of ₵ (negative values not being applicable in one iteration, i.e. return events to the bridge require dry clothing expressing a negative value to the event: that is the outcome, cannot produce a value that opposes the said property, other than the possibility that with each iteration (subsequent trials, or internalization/abstraction of the property) it may turn out that a pattern of dry/wet "annums" of appreciable observation can be deduced with classical reduction
.
What gathers more interest in the topic is when Schulthoen described the process of inclined probabilities, is that for every notification of careFactor for ANY of the observed, an inclination of mirrored actions takes hold. Such is the inclination problem that it has been known as the unsolvable stateless limb problem. An interruption in a system or individual's state by the observer usually only serves the pre-determined accountant/result properties of the observer, who by self reported perpetuation of an "inclination" to trust in the system as its set is defined for the accountant and the result ends up mirroring the properties of the observed hence disrupting any calculable present state. Without being able to do the accounting of the observed while also accounting for defined sets of the instigator/observer all methodology ends up approaching infinity.
Halting a system that may end up awash with instigators and observed is close too impossible, especially once the properties of each motion are out competing the observable state. Here the inclination is that all information reaches unattainable asymptotic observations (sore neck syndrome).
The solution, although disheartening, and what Werner referred too as the Welcome to Hell scenario, is that once properties of accountants make their way into the observed set and the result requirement is greater than what is observable too each member of the set, while, the initial instigator is still watching as much as possible. The only method to halt further dissemination of each members properties is to ask the instigator to terminate the members.
Schulthoen found that this was crude and not entirely necessary, considering that to him time did not exist, and that in his method all possibles, have and already have been. If care factor is removed than it is simply a matter of "waiting" out a result. Sadly both agreed that either scenario is still, an unwelcome presence to a state that neither of the philosophers would ever want to live in.