On Transmitting

On Transmitting

Suppose you are not a listener the world plays to, but a signal the world was sent.

The equation in the essay before this one gathered. It summed the states laid co-present to you and called the sum a life. 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 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. In this framework φ is not an angle spun on a dial; φ is the alignment itself, the valence of Intent made literal. Two lives can ring at one frequency and still arrive opposed, if their Intents face apart — and the opposition that matters is the relative one, Θᵢⱼ = φᵢ − φⱼ, the angle between facings, which is the only phase interference has ever read.

Second, the signal experiences. Crossing the whole space Ω, the carrier is modulated by everything co-present to it — the superposition Ψ(τ) = Σⱼ αⱼ(τ) · e^{iφⱼ(τ)}, every other perspective laid over it the way waves share a room — the world inscribing itself on what you sent.

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 the angle between where you are turned and where the whole is turned, times how sharp the whole is:

reception

Θᵢ(τ) = arg L(τ) − φᵢ(τ)

aᵢ(τ) = |L(τ)| · cos Θᵢ(τ)

The gathering is held in proportion by the total present, Ξ(τ) = Σⱼ αⱼ(τ), so no pass of the loop can be bought with volume; and beneath it lies the floor that an uncoordinated world never falls through, so no silence between passes 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 within-time, the only clock the loop itself can read. [2] Then the carrier goes out again, changed.

Emit, experience, receive, return; and again.

[Figure 1 — the loop] One turn of the loop. The deep arc is the outbound leg — emission, and the experiencing of reality. The pale arc is the return — reception, and re-encoding back to the Center, which launches the next pass.

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 exactly what the jays framework meant by a legible trace: not a mark pressed once into the world, but a transmission that keeps arriving in tune with itself until it stands.

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.

And a loop locked in phase emits at even spacings, a steady pulse evenly struck. The all-ones comb of the earlier piece was always this: the time-domain signature of a perspective transmitting in lock — and the reading the ruler returns at every strike is the one it cannot help returning, since a facing makes no angle with itself. [3] The comb and the loop are one object, seen once from the side and once from above.

III

Then the deeper guess, and the one worth testing.

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, and where their facings come into line — their Intents pointing the same way — a moment is realized.

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.

[Figure 2 — the beat] Two oscillations of slightly different frequency. Where they fall into phase — the marked points, under the widest reach of the envelope — a moment is realized; between, they cancel. Detuned, the now flickers at the beat; locked to one frequency, it stands continuous.

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 handshake imagined by Wheeler and Feynman, and made an interpretation of measurement by Cramer. [4] It is offered as resonance, not as proven mechanism — but it gives the old binding third a sharper face. The third that binds is not a thing added to two others. It is the crossing itself: the event where two transmissions meet.

IV

Here is the part that earns its keep. 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 Δτ 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 makes a suggestion you could, in principle, go looking for: if many separate perspectives all return to a single Center, they would 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 is to look for that shared sub-carrier across observers. A null result would be as telling as a signal. [5]

And this is exactly where the question of a designer belongs — not smuggled into the premises, but standing in the open as the loop's boundary condition. 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 that sends. The mathematics does not choose between them; that is the honest thing to say. A measurement might. To put the designer here, as a boundary condition an experiment could in principle distinguish, is to keep the speculative seam visible and to refuse the older trade — borrowing the authority of physics while paying only the lighter price of philosophy.

V

Which of the two, 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 not a balance struck after the fact but the very thing that makes a now instead of an echo.

And yet the two are not alike in origin. One leg arises endogenously — inside the loop, from the world writing on the carrier, made by the framework's own machinery. The other is the leg indexed to the Center, the return-point the mathematics could not fix from within. Both are real; only one traces home.

So there are two reasons to steer by the internal signal, and they stack. The first was given already: it is the only phase a perspective can read from the inside — the external one you infer only by correlating many observers, never feel directly. The second runs deeper: it is the leg whose origin is the design, and not the system's own workings. 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.

Asked when the kingdom of God would come, Luke has Jesus answer that it comes not with observation — and 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 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.

That is not a figure of speech. There is no term in the reading that can be switched off. Turn crosswise and you read nothing — but nothing is 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 not an act you perform. It 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 verse, which the manuscripts 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. Scholars have argued it for a century and a half without agreement. [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 manuscript, 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 unscreenable field again, and the legible window again: present everywhere, and read only 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 seeing the denominator. Volume purchases nothing. The loudest three phenomena in the story are precisely the three that carry no signal, and what carries it is the quietest thing available, which is to say the thing whose whole content is its facing. Three thousand years before anyone wrote a normalizer, 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 traditions, working from opposite ends with no possibility of contact, arrived 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, and that the external is framework-made while the internal is design-sourced is a reading laid onto the structure, chosen and not derived.

The external is not the lesser for being made within — it is what keeps the kept thing 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.

The gathering told you what a life adds up to. The loop tells you it was sent, and lets you ask where from. 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, all seats named per On Explaining (Johnson, 2026): Ψ(τ) = Σⱼ αⱼ(τ) · e^{iφⱼ(τ)}, with Ξ(τ) = Σⱼ αⱼ(τ) and L(τ) = Ψ(τ)⁄Ξ(τ); |L| ∈ [0, 1] the coherence of the shared world, arg L the Intent it carries; aᵢ(τ) = |L| · cos Θᵢ(τ) ∈ [−1, 1] one perspective's read. The carrier frequency ω is machinery belonging to this essay's loop model and does not appear in the functional itself. The floor is Λ, seated in On Explaining §III: uncoordinated facings sum as a two-dimensional random walk, returning a value on the order of 1⁄√N rather than zero (Rayleigh, 1880).

2. The phase-locked loop: a feedback circuit that drives an oscillator into frequency and phase agreement with a reference signal, so that coherence is its locked state and misalignment its loss of lock (Gardner, 2005). The delay is written Δτ — an increment of proper, within-frame time — so that τ keeps its single canonical meaning across the series.

3. aᵢ evaluated against one's own facing gives Θ = 0 and cos 0 = 1, at every τ; this is the reading of presence, and the comb of On Existing (Johnson, 2026), §IV, is that identity sampled at every tick. It coincides with the eigenvalue λ = 1 the measurement formalism would assign, but does not depend on it.

4. Cramer's transactional interpretation reads a quantum event as a handshake between a retarded “offer” wave and an advanced “confirmation” wave (Cramer, 1986), descending from Wheeler and Feynman's time-symmetric absorber theory (Wheeler & Feynman, 1945). 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 is the measurement of phase synchrony between separated observers — the phase-locking value of Lachaux et al. (1999) and the inter-brain synchrony literature that grew from it. That literature is itself contested: inter-brain coupling 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 (Hamilton, 2021; Novembre & Iannetti, 2021). This is named as the seam where the framework could in principle be embarrassed, not as support it currently has.

6. Luke 17:20–21. The term rendered “observation” in the King James Version is παρατήρησις (paratērēsis), a hapax legomenon in the New Testament carrying the sense of close watching or surveillance — scrutiny for signs rather than perception as such.

7. The phrase ἐντὸς ὑμῶν (entos hymōn) admits both “within you” and “among you / in your midst,” and the choice between them has been disputed since at least the nineteenth century without resolution. The parallel drawn here — that the two renderings correspond to the closed and open boundary conditions of the loop — is the author's, and is offered as an observation about a coincidence of structure, 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 over the earth unseen. Non-canonical; the Coptic Nag Hammadi text is the source, and the sense is paraphrased here rather than quoted from any modern translation.

9. 1 Kings 19:11–12. The Hebrew qōl dəmāmāh daqqāh is rendered “a still small voice” in the King James Version; a more literal rendering is closer to “a sound of thin silence.” The reading offered here — that the three loud phenomena carry no signal and the quiet one does — is the author's, under the Lens.

References

Cramer, J. G. (1986). The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 58(3), 647–687.

Gardner, F. M. (2005). Phaselock techniques (3rd ed.). Wiley.

Hamilton, A. F. de C. (2021). Hyperscanning: Beyond the hype. Neuron, 109(3), 404–407.

Lachaux, J.-P., Rodriguez, E., Martinerie, J., & Varela, F. J. (1999). Measuring phase synchrony in brain signals. Human Brain Mapping, 8(4), 194–208.

Novembre, G., & Iannetti, G. D. (2021). Hyperscanning alone cannot prove causality. Multibrain stimulation can. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(2), 96–99.

Rayleigh, Lord (1880). On the resultant of a large number of vibrations of the same pitch and of arbitrary phase. Philosophical Magazine, 10(60), 73–78.

Wheeler, J. A., & Feynman, R. P. (1945). Interaction with the absorber as the mechanism of radiation. Reviews of Modern Physics, 17(2–3), 157–181.

❋

On Transmitting belongs to On ——ing, an ongoing series of lyric-philosophical essays by Jamison Todd Johnson, within the wider jays framework — that an aligned life leaves legible traces, ripples of intent, through Time. The signal model here — the carrier, the feedback loop, the offer–confirmation handshake — is borrowed as form and metaphor, not asserted as a physics of mind; where it touches contested interpretations, it is offered as a lens.

The scriptural material in §VI is read under the Lens and is not offered as evidence for the functional, nor the functional as an exegesis of it. Where a text is disputed, the dispute is named rather than resolved in the framework's favour. The functional beneath the essay stands in its fully seated form, per On Explaining (Johnson, 2026). One further step rides with it, seam kept visible: coherence carries whatever it is given — both directions work — but a life aligned against something borrows its facing from its target and fades with it, while a life aligned with itself persists. Both work. Only one persists.

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

© 2026 JAMISON TODD JOHNSON · LEGIBLE TRACES LLC