a person or group thought the image of Doug Mackenzie at the new canadian coin’s image was a drag, so we made some MWI universes, or branch generation technologies, that are toroidal 3 dimensional aleph-equivalent, thus have a non-MWI gap in the
middle, reducing the quantity of universes that are without our preferred image of maple syrup on the canadian coin.

Enumerating MWI and figuring out what I as a human, that is a person, one of a group of people, to ethically do based on the possibility that MWI is true: At this moment I do not even know if, noting the outcomes of throwing a spoon in the air, the spoon
landing right side up, upside down, or standing up vertically, might each be/are all nonfinite, so the spoon landing vertical, possibly being nonfinite at a quantity of universes happens just as much as the other two. Geometricization of aleph numbers
to make nonfinite distributions (like distributions of effect at, and producing of branch universes) adressablle with equations andthentechnologyizable addresses which areas of anisotropy favor vertical spoons.

It is possible that many 20th century AD observation sort of finds itself in a homogenous stretch (anistropic concentration or cluster) at what is actually a nonfinite equiweighted distribution (somewhere at the MWI distribution, or other nonfinite
distributions, there are a few million spoon landing vertical events, consecutively) so perhaps a geometric expansion restatement of math on aleph numbers might bring comprehendability of MWI effects of actual human actions to humans; people could
produce pre-branch universe benefit (pre branch universe: the universe a 20th century AD person would think of as “where they live”) as well as all the MWI branch universes

Bunching of tendencies at a nonfinite or noticeably big, MWI or unitary MWI: Anisotropic distributions (bunching) of outcomes; If something is nonfinite (infinite) and you representit with a number, then it will have nonfinite number or repetitions of
the number 300 in a row. Also you would find areas at the digit length that treated as ascii numerals, said anything anyone ever previously said.

Using the word Bunch as a way of saying mathematical region of anisotropy, among the anisotropies, possible chronologically durable anisotropy as well as width of span of effect are described as bunch, like something bunched up so it is concentrated and
more prominent than the background. You would also find anisotropic bunches of things that follow from each other with math word:logic, and areas where any math word:logic setup would be resolved/answered with a nonsequitor. So there could be bunch
unexpectedness. At a nonfinite distribution bunches could make more bunches happen; I perceive there were hints that MWI is responsive to the components and makeup of any pre-branched universe. I perceive they think unitary MWI stands outside
directable variation.

Viewing a bunch generating more bunches with a describable system: So at a branch-ajustable MWI two quantum events next to each other could cause a tropism, sustained tropisms accumulate, then there is a bunch, and the bunch directs the local area
effects at that “region” of a nonfinite (or very big) distribution, creating more bunches. Bunches causing other bucnhes accumulate, and although this is more a math thing than a spatial computer program thing, it reminds me of automata like “life�
��

Aside from matter, Bunches could form standing waves of quantum event resolutions (or resolvability) that reinforce and concentrate, like, if I observe an atom, does the atom next to it have greater quantum resolutionability as it is next to an atom with
realized charge and location (Using anAFM to look at a distal atom on a long alkane; do you get the entire molecule quantum observed, resolved, and behavior/potential-constrained, or just that partial length of the alkane before where the electron-
distribution field change becomes nondistinguishablefrom background); does an observation cascade, thinking, is there a technology way to cascade, also, naturally occuring quantum resolution cascades, thus making it possible to resolve more things
sequentially,partially automatically? It may be beneficial to create technology where one quantum resolving observation heightens, or makes more efficient, the quantum resolvability of neighboring things. That thing where you have partially preobserved
the neighbors along with resolving the actual thing you look at could benefit the technology of quantum superobservers.

At the AFM of an alkane, perhaps just viewing the distal parts causes the whole length of the the thing to be quantum observed/resolved. Yet, computationally and engineering niftily, it is possible that advancing just an atom at a time along the length
of the alkane, while eventually resolving/observing the entire molecule might computationally or mathmatically take n steps more, so there could be an algorithm to most efficiently quantum observe and resolve a superposed or quantum thus-far
nondetermined thing. An algorithm like that could be part of a superobserver. Also, thinking computer science there is also a least-efficient sampling method; as a beneficial technology that would keep the systemsuperposed the longest duration while
providing little chunks ofinformation. I donot know muchabotu quantum computers but it is possible the computer science of lowest velocity sort, or most steps to cause a quantum observer based resolution, that is characterization,of an atom or quantum
system, could have technology value: causing quantum superposition at quantum computers to be less tweaked and of greater duration.

Previously described but not at this page, a superobserver is a thing, that when it observes something, has greater quantum resolution, collapse of superposition of the wave function, than a human produces. Noting the DQCE supports the effect of an
actual human looking at something to change a quantum event, which then changes an optical path, I perceive that it is well known that a IC photosensor could look at something with UV light, resolving it while my gaze would have no effect. As described
previously, but not on this page, a superobserver might be an 8 trillion element array or a higher amount from continuing technology development, (8 trillion elements is 1 TB flashdrive technology), where each of the array elements is capable of an
observation. When that array looks at a gas or an atom or possibly even a person-graspable macroscopic blob of superposed matter, or possibly even something larger, (I read of a scientist who says big interstellar objects are nondeterminate). It, the
superobserver, is vastly more effective at observing than I am; at a computer or robot it is fast about gazing on new and recent things, possibly eventhingsin my projected travel path; it observings them into quantum resolution before I as a human even
notice them; as a superobserver it quantum resolves, kind of creates the world around me ahead of my actual participation; Beneficial AI and software that directs a superobserver could actually Make a more optimal reality for the humans.

So it is then also possible to concentrate and array, like a 3d array the quantum resolvabillity heightening effect that standing waves of resolutionness, or even concentrated,possibly like standingwaves of probability zones of: likelyto be observed;

Standing waves, or some other concentration effect, of likeliness of observation and of “area/emission/presence linked observation that heightens observability ease and strength” that increase and structure resolution of quantum superposition can be
utilized as building modules: producing things like standing waves, mirrors and solitons functional as elements and effecting and circuitizing resolvability or proneness to observability. It is even possible to think of catalytic observability, I looked
at does, it happens to; or something like a CCD amplifier of guided quantum resolution. Possibly this heightened controllable quantum resolvability at many items comes from one actual observation, or at nonobserver versions of quantum mechanics, possibly
one energy transition (electron raising and photon emission) causing a bunch of things near it, or otherwise linked to it, (also linked but not near: quantum entangled photons) to be much more likely to quantum resolve, perhaps at things where it was”
not their electron and not their photon”.

At a 2019 AD quantum computer, can you look at one electron out of a multiatom system and still have the superposed qubits be functional and unresolved; do they become more likely to resolve from viewing just one electron?

[[Crude and clueless: If you have a transparent doped tin oxide IC camera chip, and a laser passes through it, do the few photons that the camera chip absorbs cause the transmitting photons to be more emphatically particlely or wavey at a double slit
experiment; the P/W output still goes/comes from the laser-illuminated experiment structure, it is just that the math and statistics of resolvability go way up from the one of many pre-observation. Doubtful,yet at this moment it seems like it
couldbethat way. At high school physics lab the little laser lines might actually be different. If so, you could use less energy or fewer observations, or possibly function more rapidly with part-of-the-group-observed systems priming things to be extra
observable;

At a molecule like a long alkane with a halogen on each distal part, if you use an AFM (atomic force microscope) to look at one of the halogens, the electron HOMO/LUMO thing immanentizes/is resolved, yet it seems like quantum resolvability, from
observation, as the differences of local electron field strength’s variation could be non distinguishable from chance just a few carbon atoms away, causing quantum resolution to change as a gradual gradient across the length of the alkane, possibly
meaning the other halogen atom is quantum unresolved,and it is still superposed. Some macromolecules are described as macroscopic objects: but at a rubber tire, which I read can be thought of as a macromolecule, it seems like shining a laserpointer on
one part of the tire does not photoelectrical-effect-ize the entirity of the thing, although perhaps it does.

]]

Some quantum effect resolutions have durable chronological characteristics. I think spin polarized gases last like 15 minutes, so I perceive that it is 15 minutes before the system is so stochastic you have a renewed opportunity for an observer effect
to be possible, I perceive. So noting some quantum resolvables have a 15 minute interval, and I perceive some are photon-quick, can a person make a technology out of it? Like you observe polarization of the spin polarized gas 9that you polarized with a
different laser or a magnet), which keeps its quantum spin resolution for 15 minutes which causes all the 15 minutes of new lasers you are illuminating it with or sending through it to possibly have photons that function differently, perhaps be more
observable, or less observable. Photons do interact with gases, chlorine gas is green, so it is possible spin polarized hydrogen has a “color” at some nonvisible spectral area for the laser to interact at with it.

Perhaps a laser reflected off of a mirror made of spin polarized metal/metal freshly spin polarized with another laser or a big magnet, has some novel optical characteristic I do not know the name of that, is likely already well studied; the thing is, I
perceive I read about re-emission of photons from an electron-field was what made a metal mirror work, so if the electrons that make up the field are polarized, is the mirror different as to its effects on a laser; does it change the laser’s
characteristics?

If you see the laser bounce off the all spin-up mirror do you then know, have made an observation that the laser will then have some different characteristic? reflecting a laser off a spin polarized mirror have you partially preobserved it, possibly
changing other things about its observability, resolution, like spatial resolution, or energy distribution?

Can you heighten laser resolution and detectability at actual applications this way? I think they use lasers sometimes at biochemistry applications. If the resolution goes up with preobservation/preloading of observedness, then you could use eentsier
lasers to illuminate tinier things. That benefits making computers and biomedical applications and research. Also there could be integrated circuit production benefits from laser photons that had higher, tighter spectral envelope, tighter spatial
resolution, and presensitized to heightened absorption and energizing of what the photons landed on.

It is possible partially preobserved photons or photon systems could increase the amount of data that can be transmitted at optical data distribution like the internet; also pre partially observed, or observed system linked (spin polarized gas or spin-
homogenous mirror surfaces are some versions of loading a laserbeam with extra regularness from something kind of like pre-actual detector light characterization. A semiconductor version would be more optimal for data communications; possibly sending the
laser through a IC fab style tin oxide or other transparent conductor camera/light sensor could observe some of the photons, possibly causing the others to be easier/more sensitively/with tighter or more digital characteristics be quantum resolvable/
detectable; Note this is mostly a technology application of a technology that partially preobserves to immanentize quantum resolution thing, it is different than polarization.

Lasers like those sky-optic lasers that show/characterize atomospheric wiggle so computer canadjust the telescope could benefit from superresolving lasers.

As a technology partially preobserved photons and lasers could be a new kind of sees through things machine or microscope. Actually, a glow from flashlight fingers might be more information-rich if the laser doing the illuminating had some preloaded
tendency to react/respond to the scattering and reflection a certain way.

Thinking about the effect of preobserving photons, and thus possibly other wave things, like electrons, Like at water waves at the ocean, if I look at just a couple of them, then I have a statistical image of almost all the waves’ direction and the
energy distribution of what other waves are lapping up on shore; my perception is that the quantum physics people might think or say that at an actual quantum system the other waves get their distribution of energies, wavelengths and velocities
structurally bounded from the eentsy-sample observation. I am absent clue though.

Thenthereis the other version, couldyou doantinodal,precludesobservationthings? COuld you create “fuzz” that madeobservation noncollasping? (atnonobserver quantummechanics, evenifyou illuminate the entire laboratory with the emissions spectrum of
the atom you are raisinganelectron up a level,and producing a emissions line photon with, it happens evenif the scientist cannot seeit)

Noting quantumcomputers, it is possibletouse technology to get a multi superposed state, multiatom system to resolve; I donot knnowif the multiple qubits as seperate circuits are polled sequentially,orifthereis a retina-like parallel simulteneity of
quantum resolution; it seemslike wuantumcomputersexistence maysupport one observation,of say anatom, causing the quantum unresolved atomsnearit to be easier to resolve.

AT Quoraitsays that a field exists, but observing it causes anelectron to be resolved. Stacking up fields to cause something, even withoutan observation is previously described, the thing is that canyou do stuff to fields without observingthem, like put
a flashdrive quantum tunneling container next to a field, then perhaps the thing tunneled,perhapsitwasabsenttunneling, soif you pileupabunchofpotentialtunnelings yet neverobservethem, then have a particle (possibly a previuslyobservedparticle) or
something traverse the area with the bigpile of potential tunnelings at it, does anythinghappentothe particle? Like if the particle veers, that causes causes quantum resolution of some tunneling that previouslyoccured? I havenoidea.

also with variations on duration and physical span. Therecouldbe a bunch of Noting the possible equal nonfinitude of spoons landing vertically compared with the nonfinitudes of bowlside up there could be “areas” of MWI or unitary MWI where bunches,
possibly novel, unimagined bunches, Cause or are linked to anisotropic areas of a nonfinite distribution where all the spoons land vertically. It is possible that physics is a bunch, just part or region of the stuff-that-could-happen at a nonfinite
distribution at MWI or unitary MWI, but things near the physics bunch tend to quantum collapse or resolve around the fields, as well as possibly cumulative tropisms, around the bunch (avoiding metaphor, but scrounging around for similars: standing waves
cause equispaced blob concentrations - the standing waves cause thing concentration: having numerous (concentration of) neighbor atoms causes entrained efffects like lasability, quantum duration, or matter concentration).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)