If they are of the same type then a point (A,0,0,B,0,0) would result in the same state as (B,0,0,A,0,0)
If they’re bosons. If they’re fermions it would be opposite state.
I would understand this as those points mapping to a same R^3->C function.
They map to the same (or opposite) C value.
I thought that the real mechanics happen on the R^3->C and if there are mechanics on the higher dimensional structure they are an emergent consequence of that level.
The real mechanics happen on the R^(3n)->C. If they’re not very entangled, you can separate it approximately into f(x,y) ~= (g(x),h(y)), where x and y are the positions of the points in R^3, f is a wave function from R^6 to C, and g and h are wave functions from R^3 to C.
Like I can index me throwing a rock on the lake by where my rock lands. However this kind of description can not describe any two simultanoues throws or things like throwing a stick sideways into the water. The wierder throws I make the more things I need to spesify. However if I somehow manage convey the shape of the water there is no way it can be inadeqaute picture of the wave (such as if I make a topographical map). And in no way of splashing can I add or remove water or make it do anything but go up or down. The quantum field takes on value of C so it has “more room” than simply going up or down. However in no way of taking on those C values does the lake change in volume or dimensionality.
If they’re bosons. If they’re fermions it would be opposite state.
They map to the same (or opposite) C value.
The real mechanics happen on the R^(3n)->C. If they’re not very entangled, you can separate it approximately into f(x,y) ~= (g(x),h(y)), where x and y are the positions of the points in R^3, f is a wave function from R^6 to C, and g and h are wave functions from R^3 to C.
I’m not sure what you mean by this.