Monday, June 29, 2009
We choose from a sea of things- and he question is if we can so choose and that this like any other system of axioms is independent and on what level it is so. But what of the abyss, the deeper babble of thought that does not mimic the connections we associate with the sounds of words? If we establish such atomic units devoid of higher meaning do we not hold in the highest esteem the idea of a bottomless pit? What then determines the grounding in the logic and the math of such arts of mind and matter save perhaps the existence of logic in itself quite beside what we may experience of it in thought and actuality?
Sometimes we need to get back to the roots of a more pure language and not make intellectual assumptions or false analogies or a bastardization rather than a hybrid of combined words and idioms. I recall a more pure English of its day and things that made more sense that did not dumb down the touch with the person as well as the lexicon of the meanings.
Do we only lose when we become objective and disembodies from our senses, our animal perception, our eyes grow weaker, our ears compensate growing larger, and despite what nerves vanish in our legs and arms they get the message- by today's reductionist view, mysteriously? Perhaps we gain a new depth and integration of our being over space and time, our animal soul evolves in general as well in the individual. There are setbacks, but then from some view even if we are not aware of the established soul there was no need for therapy of recovery- then again from this view what grounds such identity speaks of a solid identity- the question as always where is it in the design of this world? In that design we cannot be objective to make changes that do not perserve the person.
As in the Morse code for the numbers we have a cycle of things from one end to the other an exchange of the dits and dahs. Thus of so many we have the sum of two's in succession and in cycle. We have then a circle or mirror. So in a real sense what is the binary complement is also the rotation and these can be embedded in other lengths of two- or it can be a matter of indefinite translation. The deep question then, metaphysically, is what is the explanation where we combine the finite and the infinite (where they meet at initial conditions, origins) that the integral number of things is not the precise measure of that a little less or a little more. To limit ourselves for example to a twelve tone scale is not to say we do not grow beyond the tempered music but that we are making some statement about the world on some level. It is precisely here that we can choose from the lexicon of the congeries of particles to define and measure the extent and influence of the abyss- and then to map them to our bodies, minds, and music.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
New Scientist (.com) has an article to called physics brings realism to virtual reality. There is a video clip where ten rays are focused on a pixel (it will be up to 100) with the suggestion that these rays, which can also mimic real sound, in real time can be developed into a matrix mathematical environment.
Obviously the field is growing. It seems clear to me that matrix methods will speed things up if the ideas of quasic space are taken into consideration. But more than that, as we are asking the fundamental questions of the commensurability of close packing in n dimensions (XCT and Kepler, see spcf references in the forum in his Blog)
Will this method result in what is considered Realism in physics as some seem to have a view of such things? Will it for example make a clearer picture of simulated molecular interactions? Or perhaps is there something a little more general to do here?
Maybe it is a psychological consideration. What do we need to learn very young that as we grow we stay flexible to new ideas and adaptable to new situations? Most problems seem to be the lack of controls or the fixing too soon of our knowledge or state of enquirey.
What, moreover, does the interconnection that develops across the genome that sets the mind in relation to memory and comprehension of that virtual state of our sentience over time? Clearly there may be a matrix that resolves our sense of time which should develop soundly, that is if such a higher state or culture of how we use our mind and knowing does not develop then in a sense the stress is too much to overcome and the mind can only handle the height it can achieve before fragmentation. Few people have this next state of thinking naturally in that they can develop in and control a richer psychological environment. Like food for the body earlier incarnations can persist longer at some level of development- such not fragmented minds quasically are relative sane like animals in their natural behavioral state or the development of character not pushed to excessive limits. Adults learning a trade or new language have ways to go beyond what is found naturally in the explosive and plastic growth of children- likewise there should be a psychology that maintains even higher intellectual achievements we should explore. I suggest then a certain artistic sensibility and a more human and personal treatment of what we consider realism as to how we apply the growing computer technology.
DOCE SAUDADE (Sweet Memories)
Some of us ride the light and some the ocean
All is the song against the night and
Its echo in my mind and memory, a little bird
An exchange of dreams that change each other
After all we are the most important things in
Our universe of dreams and dust, hopes and promises
We ride the light extraordinary yet from afar and
Cross all barriers, all lovers the same, and all born anew
Your exploding star sends into the espace noir spinning water
Our tame boring one lets your notes through to change me
I orbit this world an see flashes of light, and across its chords
The sorrows of the moon walk blood mystery going backwards
As if a meteor crashed into the earth and dug up time
I ride the caravan with you, walk the keyboard in your fingers
* * *
A Philosophic Point:
I had a dream this morning, thinking about time. A couple of levels of ideas recalled in depth as I awakened, some of it fading in the sense of it recalled. From perspectives on what may be in an others mind- as if there are two natural and substantial times possible. At least in the background of this experience we call reality here and now and over our lifetimes time we think subjective or time objective each have their reality according to which we personally and impersonally relate.
In a sense the dog I was watching did not seem to worry about philosophy and physics but just enjoyed the rhythm of life and his circumstances. We too abandon ourselves to the living, the animal awareness in us that rides upon the background of what is or seems real.
Now, Einstein as a young man dreamed of riding a photon of light and what he would see. But did he dream of the context of how the ground of such a view would color our understanding of ourselves and the world, our ways to deal with it, our beliefs?
Feynman dreamed he was an electron vibrating in a grid (and at first one consequence was that at this discrete ground there could be no internal symmetries- just as there is nothing outside the barrier of light, unreachable, as it seems to move forth at light speed into future unknowns. On the forum there is a discussion on the Ship of Fools- and of leaps of faith- but even the circuits assume for some unclear reason that we communicate with others- we stick our thumbs out on the lonesome highway in hopes a ride will come - at the moment doubt it so- or that love will come in the heat of the moment or a given somewhere in the interconnectedness of fate.
We tend then to regard one or the other of our situation in space and time as solidness or truth. Imagine then two people like two atoms or particles that exchange a photon of light, the mediator of force is the idea- even perhaps as a quantum principle that gravity has an analog. But does it mean anything to say we ride that photon and if so what of the context there at the geometric (thus the corpen or binary mirror vibration)?
In our exchanges of love do our hearts live only in moment in the light of such a photon and not see what is outside it and not integrated as we venture back and forth near the arrow of time? Or from our position, anywhere really, to we clearly see the thoughts and dreams of our lover. Are we attatched really to a place and time and over a wider time some memory defined only by the music that in reality we do not want to leave hearing the song of the familiar, homesick if far from our home and origins as if a new language and music where we adapt our new life to that of our lovers?
So, in a fundamental way this philosophic question does seem that of the unification of the quantum and relativisitic biases in the physics, and the natural one of our living human scale as that between these two great working yet exclusive principles of observation and experiement.
Time is part of a deeper yet personal memory of things before it is the illusion of time if all such are to be seen as illusion and not as fundamental- love itself can be everlasting and a permament illusion. It fits the matter as well as the mind. And our lives of just the living, the ritmo, as our own personal solidity, reality, centerdenss of our personality over time, the animal doing what it does, is as real as the abstract circumstances of the dark background of what makes us so much more than we appear.
Anyway, these blogs help in my attention and reading of the Latin languages- and the pictures worth a thousand words, and the connections and traditions of this sweet and time varying song on which we do found our styles and dress and hopes and dreams and other projects in our solitude and soverignty as humans. I post the poem here as I did on myspace.com/ottonian as at last it seems a worthwile and more poetic poem than what I have posted of late. One should go to youtube to hear the songs- and the one inspired by the goucha somewhere de sol (for the link on that blog is sometimes diverted to outside nonsense).
Of course there was more to the dream but with a little effort of thought and daydreaming it will come out to fill in the significance and technical applications as the theory and world grows clearer.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
From time to time ideas of sacred geometry have come up on the philosophychatforum. I have had mixed feelilng about this as to how it may relate to physics and the philosophy of science. But for some issues I have gained a wider view. Plato after all discussed such things, The Metatron. The Platonic dice. Points or lines distinguishing space structures. Certainly there are thinking people with flakey theories, some of whom I have spoken to personally- or shall I say they have a certain frame of mind and cultural view. Oddly enough between various aspects of such theories there has been bitter competition for some point of principle.
How then are we to judge the utility of such ideas? How can geometry be all encompassing and yet empty if viewed a certain way to apply to what is real of our experience? From a general view the underlying physical or metaphysical principles suggests that such philosophies stand or fall together as philosophy of science or of physics. The certain analogies of geometry (as opposed to say linguistic analogy) as to how math applies and fits the cosmos is still subject to this grounding of doubt and a vague sense of being as certainty.
One obvious analogy is the surface of the earth as the sea in such an analog in three space (the surface of a higher sphere). We show how from our galaxy the others may seem to be recedeing from us as if on a baloon that expands. We sense that in the degrees of freedom we find in the sea these apply to objects in space or to the dimensions of particles. In a submarine or spaceship the background seems similiar.
So, in some ideas of the Sacredness of Gaea some have proposed on the surface of the earth things like Ley lines and presumably magnetic regions such as the Bermuda Triangle. This seems to me like the idea of a limited or multiple extension of the universe as if gravity or magnetic regions are like a slinky, rather less uniform at some scale pictured as if a slinky or some other chiral warped space manifold. Again we make distinctions naturally, contradictory or correspondingly co-existing without a more unified theory.
It does not help to conceive of structures and design as if things totally chaotic somehow average out to a commensurable theory. That reaches but does not exceed the math and logic involved (necessiarily). That is to say there is not at least a higher intelligible theory of design and not one of some assumptions as the grounding. To believe in such axioms of grounding is to limit scientific method as relativist falsification.
So, from the viewpoint of the mathematicians, engineers, and physicists of some in the sciencechatforum, the way they treat the frontiers of geometry and mathematical concern amounts to no more than a similarity or perhaps identical stance toward physics as sacred geometry. We find power regions or we find Ley lines when things are pushed to limits- one day perhaps these modern physics will seem as vague and flaky as some of the midevil post do to us today. Are we to limit things to say like Aristotle there is only circular motion and then analyze these as we do particle tracks to explain mass and momentum? The power of the calculus is only as good as our understanding of it as so applied and the world as long as we exist seems to be intellligible so mathematics may be what to us now seems incomplete thus experimental. The fault then is not that we do not have to know the higher ideas of the calculus to know at least continuum physics, but that we havfe not developed our calculus to a more philosophic level nor interpreted what we know correctly.
Perhaps in a sense- to show the wider questions of such reasoning about the infinite (where eventually all configurations occur) or the sense that there may be something truly and timelessly new beyond our contained history and experience (with God all things are possible) let us say we do stumble on something new in experiments like the particle colliders. What would it mean if we made say the Original Particle or something like it. While we may not destroy a city or the earth or even a solar system creating it or its context (if such "laws" are naturally uniform) what happens if it destroys the universe itself? Would it make a difference? In any case part of this needs to be sorted out as to the nature of arrows of time (much better explained than all the existing explanations). One such explanation involves the quasic ideas as to what is centered or not and over a wider interval of space and time, a causality on a fimer footing, which again is the question of poetic or narrative identity.
From a cultural viewpoint we have an analogy with the intelligibility of physics as to if it is based on metaphysical or physical principles in interpretation of the models we design and construct. It is also a problem of abstract and encoding and identity of sentient beings in the forum of debate, internally and with others. Thus we have a philosophy that concerns itself with messages and translations and the background, what its visibility is, to the event horizons of our experience. On the level of debate we may distinguish between the poetic and the narritive and which is a proper or false sense of the ground of the world or self. In this sense in the philosophychatforum of the science section we may say that Mac does describe a potentially good point as to his winning of the debate with Lincoln. Those who have tried to counter his points as with the points of others in this frame of mind will assume there is no higher generalization of the physics- separate the idea for example that there is a great divide between the idea of special relativity and the general relativities and arbritarilly choose what in the background of observation and experience is to be considered known and unknowable, relative and absolute. If they seem not to lose and arguement they push the subject away with claims that it makes no sense or is not handled in a business like manner. Of course there can be errors but the point out of them is set up that it cannot go both ways so the blind recourse of method is to isolate and bury those not in the shared world view of supposed peers. coberst on the forum formally raises this issue and in the doing so- as if it does not matter that such a discussion is placed under the questionable coloration of metaphysics that they prove the wisdom of the young turks by the allowing of free speech and exchange of ideas. Are they aware of the underlying poetry of their narrative responses or are they inherently mean spirited- and as coberst asks is this a social effect?
What this amounts to then, is that in the internet and blogosphere we have this interace of personal and anonymous questioning of our identity and the question of its fundamental nature as linked or not, locally or in some abstract extension. Moreover, in Lincoln's response as to the equation of energy and citing of Einstein's equation, there is no deep understanding as energy as it relates to these background, or phaneron questions of space. My group modeling for example, a TOE that exists in the dark side as if unseen dark matter (that is Lincoln's term for the phillosphy part of the forum) is not treated with equations of energy itself which of course may be limited to the experience and explanation of the problems of the expanding universe or any such expansions. (indeed this problem will be encountered also by some cosmologies discussed on the forum by Marshall of those who would try to build physics from the bottom up, geometrically.) A major new discovery of spin magnetics between atoms could have been predicted as a real experiment by my view of the structure of atoms and such explanations. In a sense on the atomic scale these are links between a multi universe I had styled as Lincolms.
Despite the reduction of emotional content we encounter in the internet the emotions are there implicit in the design metaphysics of language and our biological design. It follows that the exclusion of individuals unjustified as well the exclusion of whole races and cultures of the third world implies that these people, demeaned or deamonized, after all have real human personalities which they cannot admit exist.
While it may be wise not to follow some posters with opinnions down the rabbit hole I find it most ironic that in matters of how cosmology relates to the biology as fundamental that the administration are entertaining the idea and debating it when for all this time the issue I raised and no one questioned or took seriously, scandalously, what is still there in the philosophy section long ago- is it that no theory matters if it does not come from their special (if fictional) sense of their in group? Can they only rate a scientific theory if it originates only from their thinking and traditions. Jew science is irrelavant says Hitler.
We of course are not brash enough to say that ideas of natural law are guarenteed by the mind of God, as Berkely argued and that part of his thinking most elect to disreguard as unmodern. This is really not the case from the naturalistic intelligent design sense of things- at least not a proven one short of death and further experience. A great unified black gap then for the universe in general. In questions of consciousness it is more like we are the Mind of God naturally, or a part of it - if such distinctions of scale mean anything. But for the design of the brain and its interpretation this idea is our relation to a phaneron a step beyond the reduction into concept of mind or matter.
We might cheer up the neurologists from the Israeli study that between the synaspses or the long term memory the production of protiens are required. But does this say that our memories are a matter of substances? Will any such structures give us memories or can the design itself be a memory? Will the recollection destroy the matter and configuration of the memory? Clearly we should expect a lower correspondence in the design between the cognitive and material intelligible universe as the state of things and the mind. By the way in the question of is there nothing? I actually saw one of the new debaters, a scientist, saying that nothingness is a thing. Nothingness is a void or abstraction in which our memories as mind is stored and is not a thing in that sort of reductionist stance.
If we are to entertain the idea of dark energy/matter then clearly the abstract void is what our ideas are grounded within and so guarenteed as being (not something nor empty). The biochemistry of the void is more than the ideas of say string physics- it is also the mechanisms and aspirations of what we will one day come to understand as dark fluid. But perhaps such scientific studies are enough to comfort the materialists and confirm they have not personality anyway and so justify it. Perhaps in the enguaging them even at this blog distance I in a back handed way help to stimulate their existence as humans. Perhaps if I were without soul it would be a small matter to prevent their existence in retrospect but then we come back to having to deal with our isolation and lonliness instead of creativiness, they work their own black heart gaps.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
On the other hand if the design of the detectors were not so bound up into our quaint ideas of three space a lot could be done to actually see what might not be possible to see now. Perhaps there is a higher analog to the pincing effect of toroidal fields as in hot fusion which in looking at the internal symmetries the effect occurs as something we think we can write off to pure uncertainty and a finer instrument and resolution.
I agree with Lincoln, that we will not find something so radically new it could consume the planet. But I disagree for different and what I feel much sounder physical principles. This does relate to the study at hand of our interpretation of these so called fundamental equations as a way to measure and hopefully find some "new" phenomenon that justifies the project.
So, I conceive a new type of detector- one which ironically can be precise enough to take advantage of the types of shower events of cosmic or any other type of radiation and yet make us able to interpret the hidden data which for now we only see implicitly. Oddly enough it may be something like the quasic lensing but over a wider range of space and such group properties of the various manifolds of the fields. It is still an open question as to what extent we can turn such telescopes and microscopes to some of the cosmic sources. In a quasic sense too what we design of an experiment loads the dice of what we find in the experiment, if what we find is real.
It is quite a feeling to see our most advanced project looking like an old sci fi movie with crude special effects as if, despite our natural experience with lightning, it dawns on us we can bring things to life by the aid of steam engines and special effects that in retrospect we grossly underestimated the progress of the technology.
Now, is there not an anology somewhere, as if a generational or fractal like manifold of replacing the wires with silicon (what sort of tinkering is this with the spaggetti monster?) which from the abstract beginning shows the echo of carbon structures? Is it not the same unified mathematics and moreover a view of space that can go a few levels higher? Is it a uniform law over all space that the embryo becomes layers of tissue- or is this just some random event in nature? The lack of deep consideration of the metaphysics involved is a matter of progress, time and money. I see no reason to defend such primitive methods or philosophy of science for the results are clearly limited to our state of the vision.
I dont know if you have found things here yet and I did want to answer your email question on the general idea of a point particle. I recall from one of my diagrams on philosophychatforum.com that you did not see what I was doing with the 4 space graph as far as the rotations go- it shows me you understood quite a bit of what I meant and that that part of things I did not realize was a problem for someone to conceive.
In particular Lincoln posted, despite I had no claims to any credentials, a warning that this poster had no background at all. That is why I listed my education as high school only in the profile.
Now, as I told you I think you and mac won the debates with him. Lately the posters have come around to some of these ideas discussing the "Terrell Rotation" but this is not quite what I meant nor is it a reading of things, matrices, as if we are seeing it in moebious ordering.
If you follow Lincoln's book (note on ideas of momentum he apologizes to his physics friends for just using the general term energy but I suggest the ideas are most unclear and are a specialized language that really has no technical depth other than how to observe and interpret the particles. Clearly his idea of the shrinking is treated as a real effect in some ways and not in others as if the effect was an illusion of perception. We should question the grounding of this for he goes on to make the term fundamental a question of point particles but to what level?
For all of his caveats he never quiet gets around to asserting some answer while dismissing the other creative theories of even posters of his own peer credentials. Let me say that upon leaving the service I listed my interest at the time as high energy physics.
Now, Lincoln suggests the maxwell equations as the problem for some of the challengers to solve and this is good- where are the monopoles? In fact if there are quark particles or something that comprise them I ask where are their analogs to the monopoles?
Obviously the scientists, especiallty the biochemists have no idea of the application of all of this as a unified theory at all. In fact such researchers have actually impeded the growth of science for early on I concluded there are iota particles as a conceptual floor and in a sense three quarks and anti quarks. Would infinite energy be a line and zero energy a point- and can this scenario be reversed- is this not the same old metaphysical question with the inadequately developed mathematics of such things as configuration and phase space?
These encoding ideas of these quasi-abstract mathematical and physical objects also answer the questions of rotation and gap or pied noir jumps to some centering where in the tri-fold space the persistent identity of some object in the binary or positional exchange occurs-sort of like Favre moving to the Vikings after becoming a sort of jet for awhile after the Green Bay Packers. (hehe my attempt as Lincolnic humor)
More on all this later.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
We will look back one day at the issues of physics and philosophy to realize how simple and resolved some things could have been with a simpler view and the reasons for the questions in the first place. Those who do not see this now will in retrospect be embarrassed at their presumption of understanding (not to say this is a final formulation but certainly a more productive and creative method for the philosophies of science.)
A design can be logical and intelligible to the degree it can be real and have structural possibilities of "quasic" freedom as a "generational" measure of "energy" as well as ideas of awareness. Modern physical laws work on the lesser levels than the reality of the natural level that does not depend on consciousness or material interpretations that (as far as to what we can see, the "phaneron" of the phenomenal world, needs no explanation beyond this complexity as a realm of the unreal supernatural.
We cannot define such a level of naturalism as the decisive reality by mind or matter metaphors together or separately- no higher substance, no mechanistic personality.
The concept of particle generations is one of quasic and natural dimensions and sequences (decoherence is a quasic phenomenon first and foremost as is the degree of freedom in entropy and the threshold of quantum photon numbers in jets or emissions.) The philosophy questions will also seem simple in retrospect as will these principles of physics- not the least of which we have a substantial sense of the reality of such interpretations of applied abstract groups as in the quasic manner that physically defines the near history of partical decay and structure so as for example to limit the order of tetrachords to twelve and their mirror symmetries. (in general the issues is one of the reversible and irreversible as to what is math and physics).
To ask if there are more fundamental particles (such as twinks or preons or whatever) is to take a stance on what is fundamental as a relative thing while things like "iotas" can be seen from some view as pointlike and stringlike and in that sense over an averaging of the fixed and changing metaphysics as fundamental. Of what do you drink the water or the wave asks Fowles the Heraclitean in the Magus? Evidently some can taste the wave as wall as the water but between lesser views each can question this of the other's point and view.
That we look for a smaller particle or level related to generations suggest the three generations can imply also a trinity of big bang origins more or less synchronized and basic in group structural geometry. Thus such chromatic and haydron like ratios tell us something directly and on all scales of the state of things now and uniformly everywhere of the initial origins in a matter that is geometric and abstract but natural PQ as say we think of or imagine as force and the strength between diverse forces. To think otherwise is to build the standar model on matters of opinnion to which no experiment can act as evidence to so change a fixed view, perhaps to great levels of complex theory. Between elments of a more general view arbritarily applied by the current reductionist emphasized falsification definition of science is while intelligible a blind spot to unresolvable inconsistencies and downright contradictions if you do not fill the "gap noire" to keep the views supposedly separate even to infinite refinement (which eventually resolves by the standard group theory say as in the 136 square root differential operators of Dirac.
Now pure math needs not be a disembodied realm only, Beyond the ideas of symmetry breaking generational concepts of physics can be fundamentally quasi-reversable in any indefinite extent of some idea of physical scale. The casmir effect is not just a quantum one as if two solid plates magically generated force- this magic if we say there is not assumed limited corpen quantum foam space as a given but a space of pure vacuum or void as a possibiltity (indeed ideas of dark fluid make some sense in this regard and we can see star burning and formation in this creative light which of course may ground in shells the idea of a charged surface as if consciousness.)
The pixel or atomic view can be seen thru a sort of stress space which may not merge the fundamental colors save to their primary number and gap noire between them. Despite this assumption we can see a change of color from a distance the atoms will not disclose directly nor thereby describle reality at low or high energy stress manifold space descriptions.
That is the philosophic question as to why math intelligibly applies to the physical world and is answered PQ metaphorically in this more unified theory- not from lesser sides only of debates of what is the physicality or what is the abstraction.
NOTE: I may post page two here. Now, it does feel good to just write and edit the underlying thoughts without worring about how some (todays BS degree was yesterdays High School yes in the dumbing down crowded inflation of credentialed wisdom as a tool for control of the evolution of human research and enquiry). This much down and as a reference I will be free to discuss it with anyone and explain if I can the concepts if they can be understood by the readers.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Hoyle said- If God is real He is a part of reality. Hoyle of course the atheist. In a way he is the father of at least the aesthetics of intelligent design (not creationist per se) cosmology.
I will post these principles later if I can recall them all. On some level we expect of a theory of everything (the Omnium) that it can talk about everything, that is, about reality.
It will take such metaphysical and natural principles to explain the view to answer certain questions like the generation problem, anti-matter, and sub-quarks if any and so on.
I also thought about a testimony of my relation to this lifelong pursuit.
As far as my description of the bacterium flagellum it shows by this principle that the argument in courts citing it as design does not fit naturally either side of the issue. Think about it.
Monday, June 22, 2009
clearly anti gravity in this sense is not a mirror of gravity.
the directed movements linearly vs the jumbled in all directions quasi-random
this can be measured but closes the degrees of value of force strengths as
if a certain range of total possible light (from the sun) emissions
there is linear and general gravity and anti-gravity but because the reverse
is solid and random (thus stronger) we have random gravity and directed anti-gravity
wherein the effects are geometrical over an idea of electric phenomenon in the
dialectics of stars.
The reverse of gravity goes in a rather random direction path of changes and
can become a twistor at any point to collapse toward a certain direction or center
from some one of possible positions- this depth of field categorization applies but
has to do so with consideration of the general geometric range of space as field.
There is this uncertainty of choices with a level and sub-level of categorical ranges
of degrees of freedom (indeed the idea generalizes to zeta zeros in such functions
as well as the oscillation abstractly in negative numbers of the binary expansion.
Thus we have a confluence of determinism and of entropic freedoms- but in no case
does the reversals seemingly of current or time direction apply to the totality for at
each category we can see a positive direction of independent motion.
This idea is thus generalized to that of a fundamental theorem of change and that remains
the same. It is here we see the confusion in what is the intelligibility of our thinking as logic
and other problem solving mechanics of consciousness as abstract in dreams.
That is the principle is more fundamental than the structures of consciousness.
But what does it say beyond the scope of this generalization if anything? Here we enter the true philosophic speculation at the edge of metaphysics. In a sense there is no actual antimatter either that does not act in a random way to the material positive graviton direction. Can the gravon as a mediator be that of an unseen random one quasi-random one? evidently. It is certainly an abstract step beyond the mathematics and logic as now conceived. In any case the standard theory in principle cannot stand as it does on such simple absolutes of our understanding at this time.
Friday, June 19, 2009
QUASIC LENSING L. Otto
It will become clear enough how we get from the quantum and relativistic physics to classical physics. The next question becomes how we get from quasics to those physics. In particular how we can salvage the geometrical relativistic views as concrete physical phenomena and not just an artifact of some sort of illusion of perception. Such an idea of possibilities for any more general concepts cannot be a decisive gauge if these abstract systems so as to exclude the other abstract systems in a vague encounter of relativism.
A lens, including ideas of polarity and diffraction indexes, can have a wider "depth of field over causal intervals" than simply with linear or complex number space mathematical laws on some uniform deterministic ground. Can a falsifiable theory effectively falsify another falsifiable theory? Can an abstract geometrical theory present a possibility of experiments falsifiable and testable on a more general abstract and purely geometrical level?
We know for example, that "gravitational lensing" exists. It does so relativistically, but can it be but a narrow case of a wider geometrical picture? We modify the inverse square law and generalize the Pythagorean theorem for the concepts of force, quantum photon number thresholds also as a matter of probabilities. But what of a more general inverse law of binary powers? Can the quasic grid physically constructed on a classical viewpoint , much like the ideas of a Fresnel and flat lens, a plane notation of slit experiments as if in a trivial seeming matrix act as a lense?
Moreover, the sub-regions or quasic state levels of the grid come into focus at different distances (as if along a time direction) of depth of field from vague clouds of interferences. So to we observced the lifespacn and the shell structures in the evolution of the structures of stars.
When we consider these abstract structures, say in three space, it is clear they have physical application too in the realm of cells and biochemistry. For one thing given a certain order and encoding a projective plane quasic alternative ordering is possible wherein what three space is contained in another three space toward some center (a 4D cube within a cube) acts as if a linear partical in an axial direction- yet in another order it acts perpendicular to that radially and with what appears to be jumping motions. There is evidence of longitutional motion in quantum reality. This explains on this (absolutely fundamental level, not as the co-discover of the tau(on) in the book I am holding in my default photo here as if fundamental is defined as a level of our non-falsifiable and thus useless ideas of metaphysics to a deeper level, say preons. I see this clash of opinnions with his hope to support the standard theory as no different that the idea of conscious particles in structrue like that of "galatomic's" ecotoms or my iotas which compose also the electron from an intuitive guess I made in '68.
What is the state of explanation for how the flagellum of bacteria move? What is the mechanism and why from a left view the path is random or the right view the path is directly toward the nutrients? In this quasic view embedded in space we derive this assymetric and natural difference which applies to a greater sense of polarity possible in the simple photon. In this sense the light can be "corpen" as if ships signalled to move and cohere together or they can seem rather random expanding perhaps from some center with considerations of energy and quantization at certain depth of field thresholds.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Monday, June 8, 2009
And lastly, a place for those who have had things to offer no matter how ordinary or advanced, outside of the usual established institutions of learning- that these things may endure awhile for our consideration and an alternative voice be heard of and for the benefit of all peoples.
I look forward to finding old friends from the chat forums that we fulfill the promise of what can be achieved between humans given a more open and diverse medium where our lives touch.
Footnote May 2011 - I wish to thank all those theoretical souls I have encountered on these blogs or with correspondence on creative issues... Kea, Pitkanen, rrushius, galatomic, Ulla, Yuri, Lubos, Rowlands and many others linking to them.