On Transmitting

On Transmitting

Have you ever wondered what happens to all the data your senses collect every second as you move through space?

It goes somewhere. A person is an apparatus for collecting signals: senses pointed at the world, taking in whatever arrives. Suppose you are also a signal the world was sent.

The equation this series is built around gathers. It sums the states laid co-present to you and calls the sum a world. But a gathering keeps still; it says nothing of where an experience goes once it has been had, or where it came from before it arrived. A transmission says both. It gives the sum a direction and a return, a thing sent out and waited for.

Read that way, existence stops being a pond that holds the sky and becomes a signal that leaves, travels, and comes home carrying what it met.

I

Four moments make the round trip.

First, the Center (whoever stands at the middle of a perspective and does its facing) emits. A perspective is launched as a carrier wave, with its own frequency ω (its pitch) and its own facing φ, the direction its Intent points. φ is written as an angle because angles are what waves have. Two lives can ring at one frequency and still arrive opposed, if their Intents face apart. What counts is always how facings stand to one another; a direction means nothing on its own.

Second, the signal experiences. Among Ω (everyone present), the carrier is modulated by everything co-present to it: the superposition, every other perspective laid over it the way waves share a room, the world inscribing itself on what you sent. That overlay is the nearest thing I have to a definition of reality: everyone else’s view, held against your own.

every perspective, laid over every other

Ψ(τ) = Σⱼ αⱼ(τ) · e^iφⱼ(τ)

Third, it is received. And here the loop needs no machinery it did not already have, because the demodulator is not a device. It is your facing. What comes back is how sharp the whole is, times the cosine of the angle between where you are turned and where the whole is turned:

your angle to the whole

Θᵢ(τ) = arg L(τ) − φᵢ(τ)

what you live

aᵢ(τ) = |L(τ)| · cos Θᵢ(τ)

The gathering is held in proportion by the total present, Ξ(τ) = Σⱼ αⱼ(τ). A louder pass buys a larger share of the room, never its agreement, and the line that says what you receive carries nothing for effort by itself: effort shows up as the weight of the pass, and touches your reading only by way of the room it shapes. Beneath the reading lies the floor a scattered room falls toward, so a scattered room seldom reads as nothing.¹

Fourth, it returns. What was received is carried back to the Center and re-encoded as the next emission, after a round-trip delay Δτ, an increment of your own within-time, the only clock the loop itself can read.² Then the carrier goes out again, changed. If the round trip keeps its phase from pass to pass, the loop locks, the way a phase-locked loop does.

Emit, experience, receive, return; and again.

II

A loop does something a sum cannot: it can agree or disagree with itself across time.

If a perspective returns in phase, if the φ it comes home with still matches the φ it left with, each pass reinforces the last, and the signal builds. That is coherence, and it is close to what I mean by a legible Trace: a transmission that keeps arriving in tune with itself until it stands, whichever way it faces, rather than a mark pressed once into the world.

A perspective that returns out of phase drifts; its later self cancels its earlier self, the signal decays, and it leaves the loop no louder than it found it. Nothing punishes the drift. It simply does not accumulate. A drift can be read afterward, though, and a drift you have read becomes a lesson.

And any loop, caught against itself, keeps an even beat. Catch it at the same point of every turn and each strike lands at the same phase, a pulse of equal height on every beat. That is the all-ones comb of On Existing: the reading a facing returns against itself, one at every strike, which says that you are there and nothing about the room.³ The comb and the loop are one object, the loop seen from above and the comb the same loop struck once a turn.

III

Then the deeper guess, and the one worth asking about.

A single wave, however faithful, is only a sending; it is not yet a world. Reality, the lit and particular now, may be what happens when two of these oscillations cross at one point in time. Not one signal but a handshake: an outbound wave and a returning wave meeting. In the meeting a Jay is made, one felt instant of being awake to what is there, lived from within by a single perceiver. It leans toward agreement with the room or away from it, and the more wholly it is meant, the more it weighs. Where the two waves’ facings come into line, their Intents pointing the same way, it holds and a moment is realized; where they don’t, it becomes a lesson.

When the two are detuned, the coincidences come spaced apart and reality flickers at the beat between them; when they lock to one frequency and facing, the now stops flickering and stands: full presence as a standing wave whose antinode is the moment you are in.

The point of reality is the crossing.

This is, in form, a shape physics already drew once: the transaction of an offer wave and a confirmation wave that meet and complete, the time-symmetric exchange imagined by Wheeler and Feynman, and made an interpretation of measurement by Cramer.⁴ It is offered as resonance, not as mechanism, but it gives the binding third a sharper face. The binding third is the term that holds two together and leaves each of them whole, and it is also what every invention is, older ideas bound into something none of them was alone. Here it is the crossing itself, where two transmissions meet; and like any invention, what it makes is a moment neither wave carried on its own.

IV

Here is where it becomes useful. If reality is a transmission, a transmission can be traced to where it comes from.

You locate a source by its timing and its phase: the difference in arrival across separated receivers, the round-trip delay that encodes the distance back to whatever the signal returns to, the common reference that independent receivers share only when they are locked to one transmitter.

So the framework can pose a question someone could, in principle, go looking into: if many separate perspectives, each returning to its own Center, all return at last to a single one, would they carry a faint shared carrier beneath their private frequencies, one phase held in common, invisible in any single life and visible only when many are correlated at once? To look for the source would be to look for that shared subcarrier across observers. The equation predicts nothing about what anyone would find. It only asks.⁵

And this is exactly where the question of a designer belongs: standing in the open as the loop’s boundary condition, with nothing smuggled into the premises. A loop needs a point it returns to, and two readings satisfy the same equations. In the closed reading, the return-point is the field itself, observing itself, with no transmitter outside the loop. In the open reading, there is a source, a Center behind every Center, one that sends. The mathematics does not choose between them; that is the honest thing to say. To put the designer here, as a boundary condition the mathematics leaves open, is to keep the speculative seam visible and to refuse the older trade of borrowing the authority of physics while paying only the lighter price of philosophy.

V

Which of the two waves, then, to follow? Both are needed; that is not in question.

A single wave has nothing to cross with (no reference outside itself) and would only amplify its own phase, a perspective spiraling into its private signal until it heard nothing but itself. The second wave is what keeps that from happening. Its presence is the grounding: to be held by an other is what being grounded is, and the two-ness is the very thing that makes a now instead of an echo.

And yet the two are not alike in origin. One leg is the world’s: made inside the loop, by everything co-present writing on the carrier. Call it the external leg. The other is the leg indexed to the Center, and through it to the return-point the mathematics could not fix from within; it is carried home, so call it the internal one. Both are real; only one traces home.

So there are two reasons to steer by the internal signal, and they stack. The first follows from the last section. From outside, the Center’s carrier would show only when many lives are correlated at once; from inside, it is the one phase you can feel directly, because it is your own facing. The second runs deeper: on my reading, it is the leg whose origin is the design. To follow it is to follow the one signal that is both readable and homeward.

VI

An older language said all of this without the math, and I want to set it down carefully, because it is the closest thing to a confirmation this piece will ever get and it is not a confirmation at all.

In Luke, asked when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus answers that it comes not with observation. The word under “observation” is paratērēsis, which does not mean seeing. It means watching-for. Surveillance. Standing outside a thing scanning the horizon for its arrival.⁶

Read that against the loop and it stops being only devotional and starts being technical. You cannot detect the signal by waiting for it, because it is not arriving. It is already being transmitted, and has been the entire time, and the only variable was ever your facing.

An observer is always receiving.

There is no term in the reading that can be switched off. Turn crosswise and you read near nothing. But near nothing is still a reading, and you are still in the sum, still in the total, still being written on by everything co-present to you. Reception is the condition of being a term at all. Which means there is no such thing as not listening. There is only listening turned some direction or other.

And then the famous half of the passage, which the words alone will not settle. Entos hymōn: the kingdom is within you, says one reading; among you, in your midst, says the other, and the Greek genuinely supports both. The earliest readers mostly heard “within”; “among” has had strong defenders in the modern era, and the argument has not closed.⁷

I would ordinarily call that a difficulty. Here I cannot, because those two readings are my two boundary conditions, sitting in a first-century Gospel, undecided for the same reason mine are undecided. Within you: the return-point is carried, interior, the Center you already hold. Among you: the return-point is the field itself, the whole in which you stand, no transmitter outside the loop. The verse cannot choose. Neither can the mathematics.

Thomas, outside the canon, declines to choose in a different way and says it is inside and outside both, and elsewhere that the kingdom is spread over the earth and people do not see it.⁸ Which is the field again: present everywhere, and read most fully by whoever happens to be turned toward it.

Elijah gets the cleanest version, and it is the one I keep. The wind tears the mountain and God is not in the wind. Then the earthquake, and not there. Then the fire, and not there. And after the fire, a still small voice. In the Hebrew, near enough, a sound of thin silence.⁹

I cannot read that passage anymore without hearing what the prophets kept telling people to do. The three loudest things in the story are exactly the three that carry no word, and what carries it is the quietest thing available. Loudness can buy a share of a room, can even bend it; it cannot buy the room’s agreement. And the only way to hear a sound of thin silence is to go quiet enough yourself, which is the one instruction that turns up, in some form, in nearly every tradition that ever sent someone up a mountain. Be still. Some twenty-six centuries before anyone divided a gathering by its total, someone put it in a story about a man hiding in a cave.

So: the source worth tuning to is the one you already carry. That is what I take the old sentence to have meant, and I hold the reading loosely, because scripture is not evidence for a functional and a functional is not an exegesis. What I will say is narrower. Two ways of looking, working from opposite ends of history, arrive at the same three claims: that the signal cannot be found by watching for it, that no one is outside its reach, and that it is not in the loud things. I do not know what to do with that. I only know I am not going to pretend I did not notice.

VII

The mathematics does not hand you the assignment. It gives two legs and an undecided boundary. That the external is world-made and the internal design-sourced is a reading I lay onto the structure, chosen and not derived.

The external loses nothing by being made inside the loop; it is what keeps the signal standing, the grounding without which the inner signal would only echo. But the signal to walk by is the one that comes from the Center.

So that is where it goes, everything your senses gather: home to the Center, written into the next thing you send, and out again, changed by what it met. The loop lets you ask whether you were sent, and from where. Whether anyone is listening on the far end is not a thing the equation can answer.

But it can tell you where to point the antenna.

Notes

1. The functional in full, as seated in On Explaining: Ψ(τ) = Σⱼ αⱼ(τ) · e^iφⱼ(τ); Ξ(τ) = Σⱼ αⱼ(τ); L(τ) = Ψ(τ) ⁄ Ξ(τ); Θᵢ(τ) = arg L(τ) − φᵢ(τ); aᵢ(τ) = |L(τ)| · cos Θᵢ(τ). Each αⱼ, never below zero, is how wholly a moment is committed, whichever way it faces; φⱼ is the way it faces. Ω, over which the sums run, holds those present at the τ of whoever is reading and, as the framework reads it, any Trace that reader meets then (a song heard together enters everyone’s gathering; a private memory, only the rememberer’s). Since every weight sits in both the sum and the total, L averages the facings, each counted by its weight, and its size can never pass 1. Multiply every weight by the same factor and L does not budge; raise one weight and L moves, because that one’s share of the average has grown (unless every facing present is already the same, as in a room of one). L is Kuramoto’s order parameter for a population of oscillators, weighted by intensity; the weighting is this framework’s own, and when every intensity is equal it reduces to his plain average. The form is all that is taken. The functional has no coupling constant, no natural frequencies and no equations of motion, so what Kuramoto showed about when synchrony sets in does not transfer, and the locking this essay describes belongs to its loop model, an image, and not to L. Kuramoto, “Self-Entrainment”; Strogatz, “From Kuramoto to Crawford.” The carrier frequency ω belongs to that loop model too; it holds no seat among the functional’s letters. The floor is the Λ of On Explaining: facings scattered at random sum as a two-dimensional random walk, so that at equal intensity the size of L averages about 0.89 ⁄ √N rather than zero. It is a typical size and no guarantee; a scattered room often reads below it, and a room split into exactly equal and opposite halves reads zero. Rayleigh, “Resultant of a Large Number of Vibrations.” Johnson, On Explaining.

2. A phase-locked loop is a feedback system: a detector compares the phase of an incoming signal with that of a local oscillator, and the filtered difference steers the oscillator until the two agree in frequency and hold a constant phase difference. Lock is its coherent state; loss of lock is misalignment. Gardner, Phaselock Techniques. The delay is written Δτ (an increment of within-time) so that τ keeps its one meaning across the series; the Δ of On Explaining, the spread in the rates at which facings turn, is a different thing.

3. In a room of one, L is a single arrow of length one along one’s own facing, whatever the weight behind it, so Θᵢ = 0 and the reading is cos 0 = 1 at every τ. That reading is empty: it says only that one is there. The comb of On Existing is that reading sampled at every tick. A uniformly turning phasor, viewed edge-on, traces a smooth wave, not a comb; the comb appears when the turning is sampled once per cycle. Johnson, On Existing.

4. Cramer’s transactional interpretation reads a quantum event as a handshake between a retarded “offer” wave and an advanced “confirmation” wave, descending from Wheeler and Feynman’s time-symmetric absorber theory. Cramer, “Transactional Interpretation”; Wheeler and Feynman, “Interaction with the Absorber.” Both are real but contested, and neither is a majority position; they are invoked here for their form, not their authority.

5. The nearest existing body of work measures phase synchrony between separated observers: the phase-locking value and the inter-brain synchrony literature that grew from it. Lachaux et al., “Measuring Phase Synchrony.” That literature is contested. Coupling between two brains can arise from two people simply undergoing the same thing at the same time, so any claim of a shared carrier would have to survive pseudo-pair and shuffled-dyad controls before it meant anything, and synchrony alone cannot show a cause. Hamilton, “Hyperscanning”; Novembre and Iannetti, “Hyperscanning Alone.” This is named as a place where a question could be put to the world, not as support the framework currently has.

6. Luke 17:20–21 (KJV). The word rendered “observation” is παρατήρησις (paratērēsis), which occurs only here in the New Testament and carries the sense of close watching or surveillance, scrutiny for signs rather than perception as such.

7. The dispute over ἐντὸς ὑμῶν (entos hymōn) is over sense, not wording. Most early Christian readers, from Origen on, took it as “within you”; the reading “among you” or “in your midst” is largely modern and has had strong defenders. For the patristic evidence and an argument from the papyri, see Roberts, “Kingdom of Heaven.” The parallel drawn here, that “within you” corresponds to the open boundary condition of the loop and “among you” to the closed one, is the author’s, offered as a coincidence of structure and not as an argument for either reading.

8. Gospel of Thomas, logia 3 and 113, in which the kingdom is said to be both inside and outside, and to be spread out upon the earth unseen. Non-canonical; the Coptic text survives in Nag Hammadi Codex II. The sense is paraphrased here. For a translation, see Lambdin’s in Robinson, Nag Hammadi Library.

9. 1 Kings 19:11–12. The Hebrew qôl dəmāmāh daqqāh is “a still small voice” in the King James Version and “a sound of sheer silence” in the NRSVue; more literally, something like “a sound of thin silence.” The story is set in the reign of Ahab, in the ninth century BCE; the books of Kings took their present shape some two or three centuries later. Cogan, 1 Kings. The reading offered here, that the three loud phenomena carry no word and the quiet one does, is the author’s, under the Lens.

Bibliography

Cogan, Mordechai. 1 Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 10. Doubleday, 2001.

Cramer, John G. “The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.” Reviews of Modern Physics 58, no. 3 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.58.647.

Gardner, Floyd M. Phaselock Techniques. 3rd ed. Wiley, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471732699.

Hamilton, Antonia F. de C. “Hyperscanning: Beyond the Hype.” Neuron 109, no. 3 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2020.11.008.

Johnson, Jamison Todd. On Existing. The On ——ing Series. Legible Traces, 2026. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20767129.

Johnson, Jamison Todd. On Explaining. The On ——ing Series. Legible Traces, 2026. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21154523.

Kuramoto, Yoshiki. “Self-Entrainment of a Population of Coupled Non-linear Oscillators.” In International Symposium on Mathematical Problems in Theoretical Physics, edited by Huzihiro Araki. Lecture Notes in Physics 39. Springer, 1975. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0013365.

Lachaux, Jean-Philippe, Eugenio Rodriguez, Jacques Martinerie, and Francisco J. Varela. “Measuring Phase Synchrony in Brain Signals.” Human Brain Mapping 8, no. 4 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0193(1999)8:4<194::AID-HBM4>3.0.CO;2-C.

Novembre, Giacomo, and Gian Domenico Iannetti. “Hyperscanning Alone Cannot Prove Causality. Multibrain Stimulation Can.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 25, no. 2 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.11.003.

Rayleigh, Lord. “On the Resultant of a Large Number of Vibrations of the Same Pitch and of Arbitrary Phase.” London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 5th ser., 10, no. 60 (1880). https://doi.org/10.1080/14786448008626893.

Roberts, Colin H. “The Kingdom of Heaven (Lk. XVII.21).” Harvard Theological Review 41, no. 1 (1948). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816000019313.

Robinson, James M., ed. The Nag Hammadi Library in English. 3rd, completely rev. ed. Harper & Row, 1988.

Strogatz, Steven H. “From Kuramoto to Crawford: Exploring the Onset of Synchronization in Populations of Coupled Oscillators.” Physica D 143, nos. 1–4 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2789(00)00094-4.

Wheeler, John Archibald, and Richard Phillips Feynman. “Interaction with the Absorber as the Mechanism of Radiation.” Reviews of Modern Physics 17, nos. 2–3 (1945). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.17.157.

CC BY 4.0 · ORCID 0009-0009-8618-398X · DOIs MINTED ON DEPOSIT

© 2026 JAMISON TODD JOHNSON · LEGIBLE TRACES LLC