It is my intention to here demonstrate that the method of analysis applied to the making of maps leads to statistical patterns that are results of the method rather than the 'facts' 'out there'.

In the processing of information, humans (and other mammals/birds etc) interpet data in the form of wholes and their aspects.
This interpretation is very 'stimulus/response' and I link this to brain function which is biased to 'what is'.

Humans have developed a 'what could be' function that is well-expressed in our ability to create and store maps outside of our minds (books etc). These 'maps' are metaphors used to differentiate wholes and their aspects and act as guides to enable acts of prediction as well as establish a sense of identity and maintain a degree of security whilst also being used to solve problems.

In Science we use dichotomisation to make these maps of 'reality'. This is the process of distinguishing parts of a whole (or even whole from whole) but at first in a rather global way in the form of opposites/complements (e.g. positive/negative) that allows for a degree of varience in personal interpretations. Thus 'positive/negative' is well defined globally but allowance exists for individual 'subtlties' in interpretations. We call this 'consensus mapping'.

When analysing any whole dichotomously, the moment we go beyond the first dichotomy we enter a world of continuing refinement (using more dichotomies to add dimensions) but also to an emerging statistical 'pattern' - a Normal Distribution Curve. This curve is a 'property' of the method of mapping. Of note is that dichotomous mapping in this way (linked to Aristotle's concept of A/~A) is very EITHER/OR - something is EITHER this OR that.

The next step is the interesting one in the context of modern-day mappings since it deals with the dichotomous method being used but also considering the actions of time. What is ment by this is that in any dichotomous analysis, the creating of the elements of the dichotomy is instantaneous - the moment you make the distinction of A so the distinction of notA (~A) is created. But when we include time we find ourselves concerned with order and 'choice' - our perceptions can be drawn to either A first or ~A first, and so emerges the concept of intent (and the linking of observer and observed).

With this in mind, we can consider our initial EITHER/OR method of mapping as an act of differentiating all of the parts of a whole. By adding time/sequence we add a dimension and things become 'trichotomous' in that now we are considering relationships (what comes before/after, etc and so A/~A + time). In logic, what this allows for are BOTH/AND states. These states are events where, if we excluded time, the relationship could at times be considered as 'illogical'.

The best way of describing these sorts of states is to use analogies with waves. In physics we learn (and perceive) how any number of waves can occupy the same space at the one moment. At this moment a virtual wave is created which is the result of the constructive and destructive interference patterns of the combining 'real' waves. This is what is ment by the term 'superposition'.

We note therefore that when combining things, we find that there are some things that do not mix and thus our virtual wave can appear as 'nothing' - a wave with zero amplitude; a flat line from which can suddenly emerge two or more waves heading in different directions and with opposing phases.

In other words, the implied wave interference pattern comes from the inclusion of temporal considerations in the context of dichotomous mapping and is a property of the method of analysis and not necessarily 'out there'.

What these two graphs show is that, no matter how much statistical analysis you do you will always get the same types of graphs simply because of the method used.

Interestingly, if you look at the highs and lows of the 'synthesis' graph (synthesis in that we are studying relationships) you will find that they number twenty-seven; eight of which are 'cancellation' states in that no temporal relationship is possible, and nineteen 'relational' states (the 'peaks').(This may not appear so in the current diagram which was drawn freehand with a mouse! I am working on the 'problem'!)

It so happens that the 'nature' of these states was figured-out a few thousand years ago by Aristotle in the form of his nineteen types of syllogisms. (the result he got out of going through the 256 algabraically possible states and joining those that were the same and excluding those that were 'illogical').

In summary, we have adapted to our environment by internalising it's characteristics. We have developed biases to sensory discrimination using mostly our vision and our hearing and these, when abstracted, can lead to perceptions of 'particles' and 'waves'; wholes and their aspects. Furthermore, we have developed the use of dichotomisation to make maps of reality which has been highly successful - BUT - we often fail to recognise that all 'meaning' is thus only valid with the context of the method.

Thus the current questions raised by the emergence of the second statistical pattern in quantum mechanics problems dealing with EPR and Bell's inequality, seem to be concerned more with what is 'in here' than with what is 'out there' and perhaps with this little discovery these questions should be re-analysed.

(for those interested, DATS, is covered in full starting from here), or for more essays on QM etc