Thursday, July 30, 2009

Does God Hold the Atoms Together (part 1 of 3)

I ask here not so much for a new world view or scientific paradigm as much as for an overhaul of our apparatus of mathematical physics. Where our current views are a matter of expertise they are notoriously a matter of faith, an intelligibility of a consistent and self-referential faith at that. To say this seems reasonable where we are aware of frontiers or anomalies of our systems at its fundamental grounds of axioms and definitions - what we suspend in our judgments as undefined save that we feel assured that our system does have truth in its inner laws- that we can make sense of the world.

As this makes of physics or of mathematics itself a possibly provable basis as a faith, like religious faith there are side effects of struggle and all its ugly consequences justified in evolutionary terms which affect the species and individual unto the limit of war. Those who in the archetype of self-righteousness who set up a command post to defend science seem to me not defending science and its methods as much as defending - in some cases without sober scientific honest judgment and that justified as collateral damage as if some project or purpose can wait in unlimited time save their own expediencies - against those from some similiar assertion of right and right of struggle who are attacking science.

The reasonable scientist who loves the field or those who are authentic in their religous faith are seemingly everlastingly lost as de trope or collateral damage. Science and faith loses its vague concept of its ideals of its humanity. But as conflicts resolve from the ashes our humanity and tolerance and ultimate sense of shared experience and freedom seems to reassert itself as humanity.

This proposal here comes at the foundation, the blank page and back to the drawing board among my many speculations of which there is a freedom for fresh directions - as well the same mistakes as if resetting the cell differentiation soundly back to the stem- after the cob webs are cleared and finding our selves again close to our beginnings. Philosophically it is a question of what is and how we see "motion". Mathematically it is what symbols and processes, continous transformations and algorithms, involve that place where ideas of information meet our ideas of action. Physically it is a question of the nature of mass and any laws of conservation and symmetry in all its subtile interpretations and the hireachy or interface of those interpretations as a unified physics.

* * *

From a more complicated level concerning the mysteries of the binding energies (the strong force) we find conceptually if not explicitly, analogies to the questions of the existence of an aether wind. The math as limited as it is, being a beautiful picture behind the dullnes of its application on a human working level called physics in that it is a limited dimensional mechanistic reductionist viewpoint. Yet the mystery of such fresh views insprie generations of emulators to the crafts of Einsteing and Heisenberg. Not to go in that direction in this lecture I offer this topic question: Is there an analogy called the Dark Fluid or Dark Aether wind? Will it change also our general concept of mass? I will now rather discuss more basic ideas on how we imagine motion.

* * *

I would like to add that although it seems we are justified in asking what other conclusion the answer can be, that any of this explains or connects to ideas of what consciousness is beyond the scope of our universe of discourse and knowing for now. This theory addresses things that make those questions lesser concerns on a lower level.

* * *

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Metapoles, Plectrons and Plectoms

Briefly, the trend of all this, which seems highly speculative to me, leads to some rather fundamental ways we view the world and insist it is a proper and unique view as physics. In particular the underlying metaphysics of ideas like galatomic's and Lincoln's on the nature of particles (of which I find a sort of similarity and see what in one system objects to in the other) and of course galatomic has some issues which he thinks of mine as overly mathematical or geometrical while I regard some of his as on the surface too close to the ideas of physics.

A metapole then is a way to treat these particles (wether they are point-like or not) and if they are insome sort of quasic box or matrix and so on. There are in this view no monopoles per se but a sort of direction or singularity as if a movable cleft of patterns of a gray local rotocenter group in the quadradic plane. Of course we can see them as point particles or even strings depending on how we see and define dimensions, especially the exotic ones and those that hide beneath what we think of as the ultimate unity of some physicality in our equations.

By this thought I think I know, in the question I asked galatomic, where the ecotoms move- that is in my sort of Euclidean space or the standard one? Anywhere they want was his answer and so we come again to the idea of some disti9nguishing of force or will. If this means we have no inherent restrictions by present theories of physics and metaphysics ultimately I agree but with some higher restrictions on some analogious level as allways seems the vague logical case. What is the difference between (our terms on and om) the metaphysical and philosophic particles?

But all of this could have been deduced from my fundamental theorem of motion and not motion or being and not being and so on when it comes to understand the symmeteric and not symmetric nature of fundamental numbers- what in effect is to ask the gender or its neutrality of the chi for example from spirituality.

Monday, July 27, 2009

Can We Read the Message

I refere to the above link on Astronomy Picture of the Day on July 12. 2009 called A Cosmic Call to Nearby Stars. I find that we can link to this on blog pages a welcome thing because I have followed that site almost from its beginning.

From far back I recall movies at the dawn of science fiction as the genre. The Man from Planet X. The question was how would we communicate with others from outer space. My father who had taken us to the drive in, and there was another movie on how humans changed after fallout from a nuclear war, explained that we would understand each other by mathematics as a shared universal language. That way we would know it was not just a matter of stray but intelligence behind some radio signal. Indeed, being a radioman in the navy as we listened on the shortwave for Sputnik to go over and his teaching me to turn the shortwave into a transmitter he advised me that to test it I should never send a signal in a pattern but only a random keying.

Lately I have questioned the philosophy behind this as well as the science of it all and want to express some general concerns. After all in dialog on that forum after three years or so which I can measure as the time I myself was in the service or how long it would take to get the BS degree or a first term for the president to measure the time- the cycle repeats for me for decades waiting for some form of credentials or admissions. However this does not stop me in the long ongoing enquirey and work. Such work is an island of stability, a core against the winds of encounters that try to make sense of this world. We all seem to have these paradoxes and paths of being and learning in this reality if we but try to observe our fellow humans and decode what may be their experience and intentions if any. We converge to our humanity as much as to our shared methods of science and technology while the evolving.

There are many stray signals in the world and it is arguable that such a signal recieved by us such as the one in the apod website could be explained, if in sufficient detail and expertise or philoosphy, as an obviously glitch rather than an artifact of intelligence- perhaps a star and a few arrangements of forces and atoms mimics what we think is unique as our human centered intellect. How do we read the message as one that contains information as evidence of intellect?

* * *

What we see in this box or panel is a statement by simple patterns of the laws of arithmetic (earlier ones showed our DNA but who is to say this is distinguishible and not a unified pattern in a world that is lost in the pattern of a unified physics of possible forms?) The border around the objects is there so if there is a lost of some of the signals a reader may match the parts like a puzzle as if it is a click map (which in the internet the example is) or a sort of matrix grounding.

The symbols establish the idea of symmetry or equality between equations and the numbers are so many dots and are also represented in binary (not pi as in the movie which certainly could arrise by statistical and not just geometrical methods) but a list then of the prime numbers comes at the end of the rules involved.

But I can imagine other matrices or pattern arrangements of which what is conveyed in the picture might not be understood and make no sense to those who count and see the world from some alternative system. A higher intellect might be able to read both systems and distain those who are blind to such a more general arithmetic, perhaps. Other than dating our knowing what can we tell each other beyond what it the possible states of physics and the universe anyway that we at least potentially seem to be able to already know?

It is not like we completely understand say prime numbers- it could be we are sending a partial theory as well as that the others also have the same universal problems maybe unsolvable. To solve some of these and a message to show how would perhaps advance our scientific knowledge and culture. Clearly the dull message is an exciting one that conveys our state of culture and intelligence. Yet, there is not guarentee any culture wants to be changed or evolve higher or differently. Where there seems to be no precidence for a unified higher theory the first effect as evidence of such a possibility is that we are not understood- or from their view make no sense. Of course the proof is in the details if one allows the evidence but some think they are justiied with wrong theories and some that such alternative views are wrong.

It is hard enough within my own continuum of thought to weigh these subtile things which after all can be argued as mere mechanism and not some consciousness as a sort of emergent quality but to understand the significance of quasics and the inadequacy of our existing computations without something like the detail of a quasic view of physics and mathematics is almost impossible for those who want in the name of survival to establish their part in a world they make- as always the stuggle in civilization and our seats of learning is to have control of the agenda of our on evolution and where there is order a scaffoling or veto of new mutations of hopeul future humans.

* * *

In the social networks lately there are polls on the recently former governor of Alaska, Miss Drill, Drill, Drill... at a time when some oil barrons say it would not make a dint and solve the problem. She brings up the value of free speech and says she is exercising it and yet chastises the media for not telling the truth. She praises our new crop of veterans as if the culture engineered a new bloc of voters. Yet in free speach the yahoo news reports the psychological of our soldiers in Iraq (the effete liberal university types always reneg and fear the its veterans and maybe if we believe the yahoo article with good reason. For they paint our solders who are there for the need or addiction to foreign oil as when attacked they lash out at civilians and everything that moves in sight- collateral damage? Then coming home become sucidal as the incidences of murder in their hearts break forth. But is there no need for soldiers? There is always a begrudged need like in the Art of War in Chinese literature despite the distain by the social academics for war as art if we are to face the pressures of some "barbarians".

It is absurd in our popularity contests and deals of immunity and power (after all the Chou who did the fighting for the Sung eventually and in isolation at the frontier dethroned that dynasty) that we offer to our people the presidents- best person for the job said the founding fathers- that we do. Perhaps after the fall of the Soviet empire and the decaying state the Russians are in that this is a forerunner to what the USA will become no matter how gray goo the diversity of our new population that would help us last a little longer than a closed regime. Such messages of how we are to get along in this world of civiliazations and clashing cultures have abandoned our search or enquiry as reasoning as well as the vague charge we have lost our virtues. Let us not make our holy religions matters of shallow cults that missread the messages from the stars and angels. Life can be less interesting times and peaceful just the living, sustaining, post economic in the weather if we also strive to soberly weigh the evidences of our growing reasoning and pehaps justify what purposes we think we have to put forth and defend. All states are in this sense abstractions and not something to which we owe our fundamental right to existence.

Saturday, July 25, 2009

The Perceptive Limits of Mathematical Physics

*An aspect of memory is that we make a gray code symbolically associated as or with physical systems that reinforce the association. By physicality I do not mean some sort of materiality, necessarily, because as symbols systems (or a more general idea of a vector like basis not insisting on orthogonality) there can be a loss of coherence by the fact the cycles shift abstractly and are limited (normalized) according to the properties of the symbol system involving combinatorial validity's of the deductive logic at hand.

Yankee Victor One in signal flags to ease the tensions between the USA and USSR at sea to indicate intentions was something I was trying to recall yesterday but could not remember the V flag itself evidently because of other hidden associations as these are once committed to an association may be superficially so relatively fixed.

It is not clear that all logical systems lose information in this sense of going from the color dimension to black and white back and forth (indeed color arises from black and white as if in motion- why could it not do so logically and independently?) But if the Yankee's are the Victors in the cold war the red St. Andrew's cross is not that of the Czar's navy blue nor is red the symbol of the pennant one which resembles the victory in the first world war of the rising sun.

*The usual physics based on the idea of physical dimensional and dimensionless quantities should not ignore those perceptions and forms of space that keeps distance and time definite and a priori an unchangeable concept of L to the nth, length, area, volume and so on. Something different from some transform on metrical or flat and rigidly coordinated space (indeed the idea of an analogous fractal definition of dimension seems to suggest a wider physics.) We should take the hint of some of the physicists that the idea of dimensionless constants are important and fundamental and not just a matter of some philosophic or metaphysical vague explanation that has only recourse to empiricism and not reasoning. Clearly,the area of a black hole is a good conceptual example as well the force differences if we compute the charge of a star and gravity.

*Is there a neutral gray color singularity? A dimensionless idea of the problem of the "Now"? Normalization conceptually eliminats the radial quadratic grid points as singularity and infinity as of course the change of polar local or non-local general (even randomness) perspective centers. (does the sphere oscillate, zonal, sectoral, tesseral, or in a sense as it expands and shrinkis. Can we really put the complexity of the universe in such simple familiar scale models and then derive the ideas and terms of differentiation alone to explain everything- to do so makes physics a limited and dull thing despite the rich dress of the notation and in the end makes its an uncanny metaphysics of what it does know and claim as if time vanishes in the distance that all things tend to some unitary basis or some fuzzy range of things as that which makes things physical and solid in the end? But there are other explanations, scientific ones which by the way are less extrodinary than the arrogance of some of our physicists who think their view is down to earth. While they preserve their sanity they limit both the common sense and natural order in the world and science as a creative thing- and they limit that which can come from experiments save maybe the status of expertise in that range and funding.

*The higher quasic spaces, the resonances akin to the superposition of linear things- a fractal like concept by iteration and harmoinics fractal like can be imagined and behave similarily to any idea of coincidental numbers and differentiation we have so far. Finite or discrete vs the infinite and continuous is an issue both of the standard physics and its spaces and of quasic spaces and how these work together begin to approach the complexity of the life sciences. The generation problem is seen more clearly for what it is as an issue of how we fundamentally define dimensions.

*From the psychological viewpont the tesseral depths of spherical expansion oscillation as a method of speculation shows the need for doubts (Descartes) in relation to hallucination. To cite deceptions or hallucination of anothers theory may not be the case where to find the reality of some theory hallucination is part of the system and a needed thing for perception (if of course we have control and awareness of such transformations). Physicality is only as good a mathematical description of physics as to how good is our mathematics. A logically restrained but adaptable theory of enquiry on the frontier as if a gray singularity probe or naked poles of some models show that hallucination is a necessity for a good Philosophy of Science- and if one doubts such a meditation disembodied from some rigid temporal ordering we need to show the mechanism that distinguishes what we regard as sound and not so in the sciences. The evidence of closed minds turns our to be not so extrodinary after all.

Friday, July 24, 2009

Pebbles, Discrete and Deductive

An interesting metaphor appears on the philosophychatforum today (I am still banned from the chatroom dalnet channel philosophy, presumably because hughw can dish it out but not take such criticism as a matter of objective logic- of course from the beginning he would exercise his tough love and riducule on the science channel. Get a life hughw, I would have never given you free reign for censorship when I dominated the channel mostly without the exercise of power but with being reasonable and tolerant.)

Here is the exchange between two members which raises the poetry in me at a time I am trying to figure out the heart of what is going on in the complexity and logic of the quadratic plane.

"Of course, some years later, I realised that he had never swallowed the pebble, he just palmed it, and pretended to massage it out of his stomach."

"When my son was 2 years old, I convinced him that I could pull a mint out of his knee. I tapped on his knee and produced a mint that I had pawned. He bought it hook, line and sinker."

Apparently on some level of philosophy and theology we try to connect the idea of physicality with what magic we can conjure from contemplating our navels. But I suppose a whole generation of physicists have swallowed the idea of what is a quark or preon (subquark) that we could pull out of our knees from a reductionist atom. The question is when we go fishing do we really use bait or have to sell some sort of colorized exotic lure in matters of scientific enquiry for the nature of physicality?

There are magicians and then again there are Magicians. What good is the empirical mint that comes after the all you can eat blue plate special touched by so many hands left partly unwashed after all the loads off our mind?

* * *

Can a particle be its own antiparticle ultimately? Or is the fulcurm logically unobtainable? Do we really distinguish between pure color and color mixtures and is this really not the same thing on a higher level (one that perhaps looks a little higher logically with color as a dimension beyond this height of our computational age)? Surely the mathematics is more than a coincidence that has a relation to the underlying basis of binarny powers and bases. It is so obviious and a matter of what now seems pure number theory. Can certain finite states preclude the others such that no rotocenter in the crystallographic plane can be both a three fold and fourfold one- I question if this theorem is not more generalized already when it comes to the same pattern of codes of four things taken three at a time, g u a c, u d s, and so on for a unified physics of our perceptive biology and subatomics.

So we have the group of the rotations of a cube, an alternate group, 24, thus to relate this to 24bit colors, pure colors that do not make the complements that are not mixtures and so on. So we have 256 shades of gray or r g b and so on. Surely the group logic is pure that goes to the next level of 4096 shades of gray. How much further can this go or is there some limitation and is that limitation one of arithmetic as well as group theory? We are often as much victims of the understanding of our deductive logic as we are of how that connects with our perceptions and explanations of the physicality of this world, experimental or otherwise.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

The Fiction of Science

My eyes have gotten blurry at times in trying to figure out the logic of computation in relation to color theory. This sort of work is best done in isolation so it means I am not on line as much for the forthcoming projects.

The old philochatforum looks like a wasteland and if blogs are there for open opinnion then that innovation was among the ones now formalized in the coding of it all. Still, there are ways to view things that have not been taken seriously. Science and science fiction seems to be the topic there this morning. But what is understanding if we do not also try to distinguish the facts and prospects of science as matters of our perception?

Let us consider those experiments of silouettes such a a nude dancer or dots moving on a screen as to what in our right or left brains we see as the direction of the motion as if it were in three space or rotating in two space. Our brains, some thought to be a perceptional probe of our psychology, seem capable of relating to such perceptions of motion. We also are capable of sensing the limits to what is there but seems to remain abstract and invisible. With the dimension of color we find even a deeper paradox of perception- in the ordering of things even in a still picture the place of ordering of what seems as motion as well the articulations of what is perceived so that we fill in the solidity of physicality- that things seem to move both ways. This alone shows that higher logic of colors and space requires at least a quasic idea of structural ordering.

Clearly the idea of an analogy to explain things like the expanding balloon to show that as space expands the galaxies on it from any one of the seems to move from it at greater speeds beyond perception and the velocity of light even, is a misleading analogy. That there can be a non-linear and well ordered physics of the quadratic plane is something we begin to discern as a way to resolve the finite and infinite in the physics. There is no distinction but this when we imagine say the edge of the universe as if we could pick out a distinct second dimension from the thrid. We need a more general definition of such dimensions and their representations.

A limited jet of energy if we use the standard physics may indeed make a saber sword for it is not science fiction that inspires to new technology and insight but one that is a step down that should at least tell us there is something incomplete in our theories as well as a little complex but doable in our development of technology. The spirit of philosophy and science needs not be so trite and trivial- especially when it holds a key to the workings of our genome as we look deep into the skin with our lasers and wonder what differences are there we cannot see in the polarity that experience leads us to cateracts and blindness- ye teacher of the blind leading the blind and so be it if such dead are burying the dead. Science fiction was a waste on some scientists.

Monday, July 20, 2009

Derived Principles from Philosophic Computation

And the Unified Mind:

* To some extent what we now think of as the insight that for some mathematicians we sense there is genius beyond the expertise, a sort of awakened and working daydreaming, amounts to that part of the design of space which we dwell within but have neglected to make explicit in our understanding. Perhaps such a relation to space without awareness is its complement on the other end of a possible intelligence spectrum.

* We hear and see with our minds. The ear is a very good Fast Fourier Transform analog of abstract data we are learning in our time to digitally interpret. But these aspects of the mind and the fractal hypostatic abstractions of materiality and perception meet in experience as a unified place where the distinction and dialectical relationship of the continuous and discrete effect an abstract design of further generalization with the hint of clearer questions to resolve.

* What are the zero and one in the computational or informational sense but that which we, as a concept, may abstract from non-existence and existence that the perceptual or physical grounding can be itself shifted and itself abstracted?

* The problem of quantum collapse as a concept in this sense as a matter formost of physicality and process, is a most general abstract space and perhaps a wider mechanism of spaces yet unimagined and unknown that to some extent ground us in common sense, evidently. Given the unified theory beyond this model of physical things and the mind as something even more general than the biochemistry we ask if there may yet be a further step of abstraction, that is a wider Omnium beyond our philosophy of theories of everything.

* To deny the influence of quantum jumping as a general if rare biochemical process is to deny the discrete quasic system and puts undue paradoxical emphasis on continuous statistical methods- those core assumptions of quantum theory including a sort of absolute commensurable idea of time and wave rather than point formulations. Methods which does not recognize on all levels of the physics of spin and dynamos that susposedly explain orbiting objects moving in the same direction. Even the rings of Saturn braid. But it is over reaching Newton's question as to say that God set the direction of the planets orbits together in motion- as well that those laws of physics and math give rise to the phylotaxy of spirals rather than the other way around as if statistics can overreach to conclude there is no greater insight to a general theory, claim that there is no God needed despite a deep and dogmatic lack of deeper explanation within that system, as coherent as it seems to explain things. Pie in the sky works here as well as the idea that there was a prime mover of our seemingly finite world of the music of the spheres. Science is feeding like chance and mutating scarabs on the rotting flesh of our dead ideas of such a God.

* We might also say that, vaguely, the dark fluid ideas (and galatomic if the ecotoms move in what sort of the possible directions and definition of motion and background do they move? Do they ignore quasic space?) the useful and unifying to a point dark matter-energy idea seems to suggest a more fundamental state of space and simpler law of things more general than our ideas of entropy and information- such ideas may indeed be omnipresent everywhere and yet we may have the freedom on some level of things that is nowhere- that is in our abstract motion. To develop the physics on such principles and claim it the only science is to make a possible mistake or being misinformed as to scientific method as to even ask (apparently with the assertion of no hope of such an answer as irreducible metaphysics) the initial state of order in the universe unless the myth everywhere and when inspires us to contemplate on these things we can know that are at a deeper level than what we have limited ourselves to beyond the remote extremes of origins and the limitations we impose upon what exists or not as the ground of mathematics which first and foremost in the inverse square law of flatland as that of quadradic planes and the discrete views given equal intuitive but subtle weight as quasic transformations.

Saturday, July 18, 2009



I am very busy trying to catch up on web page design after learning some of it a decade ago. But even now as then the computers do not seem to do what I want them to do. It is a feeling of being so far behind and yet so far ahead. I have some posts to bring things up to date with some new understanding of how things work between what applies to the physical world and the person where mathematics converge on the intelligible description of our reality.

I find it quite amazing the news lately posted on the old philosophychatforum concerning the wider scope of the genome- that among the things my model suggested and I posted there which do indeed require a wider generalization of what seems to them only metaphysical concerns. The scientific method can be advanced and not retarded by our reasoning- not all is a committment to big science experiments. Not that these are not needed but is does not have to be the only way. I hope some of it survives so that the world can see that despite the stuggles between the worldviews we indeed, even if from the outside of it, did a great undertaking of science in this wider medium of human community and communication.

I will bring things up to date on these new idea that in this technology as well as that of the life sciences we need to reevaluate and reinterpret things closer to nature and the drawing board. It is a strange feeling to have the doubts of our purposses and being if any, and to see the world full of evidence and discoveries of what seems sensible in our wildest dreams that as always can become forgone conclusions. My quasic stuff is so close to the advances in the digital technology it is hard to see the distinctiions but easier to learn and work out the intuitive components which work in the dark with clear results. The grand speculation is the bringing of this knowledge to the hear and now as well as the fun of using this child of philosophy for similiar great speculation interpretations where there is a chance we can understand our spiritual natures better.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Ringlets- Round'a;bouts, Merry-go-Rounds, and Carosels

Even posting in a blog I sometimes overshoot and get behind my thoughts and postings. Lately I have been thinking a lot on the beginning level of how we form web pages. I am trying to form a domain for the arts and sciences but am rusty with the coding. It has advanced so much since a decade ago when such things for some reason seemed harder for me to learn. I am not happy really with the logic behind the final product of it all.

We have three generations of particles which should be a given rather than something to explain. From the quasic ordering of things we an imagine at least two sequences of time and these can interlace into persistent patterns. Such phaneron backgrounds tend to explain a lot (I will post a poem on this on myspace today sometime called 'Intellects")

It is a problem really trying to relate all this to binary schemes as the quasic idea is so similar as if we found a different direction to similar things as perhaps two aliens would present in communication. But the overall logic seems to work, the interpretations can be confusing. Those times I think we have to or actually reinvent the wheel to learn something in this universe in our own personal time perspective I wonder if the cosmologists are not doing just that- reinventing the universe. Yet in some sense the universe is given even if we can explore it by thought and experiment over the grounds of enigma of the various models of physics.

A key idea is one of a Null or Neutral Fractal. The pattern persists although we do not know save by the evolving and certainly cannot see it nor its self similiarity the quasic grid or dimensions the pattern is embedded in. These are the hidden spaces that are teeming with design that appear to be some sort of absolute something or nothingness, be it the relativistic gravitational background or that of the various statistical theories. In this sense the philosophy and science seem to share the methods of knowing and enquiry. In a quasic sense, and it is one of the intelligible possibilities where all things are abstract in general, The background is thought itself as a human personalization, a tenatative one, as much as it is anything.

Hoyle perceived the first grounding of mass and asked such a working anthromorphcentric question where the triple axes or unified of three and four forces are reduced not to separate codes of the grays but held as one local observation and mechanism. His grounding a lot like that of Eddington's fundamental theory as it presents a quasic like structure of vector transforms. If we distinguish the generations and weigh them (gravity is the time like fourth force in all grids and dimensions and thus more like a background than the same sort of initial force) We count the carbon as a fundamental pattern and it can have resonances that make it degenerate in the systems encoding but this is opaque or dark fluid-matter like as there but unseen.

I walk to the coffee shop and my perception of space and time, its perspective, can be surprising as to what road goes at an angle to the grid or is make in square pixels, As I walk where the path seems at time longer going to some place as coming back I not the smaller unseen pixels play the game of life but in a different ordering of the curves in the plane our intuition and mind fills in, I find the perspective changes between the cracks and stress releif lines in the fields and road and sidewalks. It is quite an opaque quasic quantum-like foam and its its own compositor of programs. It was quite an interesting journey on many unseen levels.

Life persists in some pattern that repeats and has its vibrations and complements while as with a descrete wavelet it has a cycle of zero, a few linear steps in the grid, then zero again as if a single life experience repeated or not is what happens when we take a ride on the merry-go-round- to come from some unknown and go into some other unknown all in a spirography of open or closed cycles. It is not clear either if these little variable but seemingly uniform vortexes have a border of demarcation where things are not clearly local or non-local anyway if they are like the toroidial video games- for that is one of the faces that are or can be present as motion itself of the possible geometries. I begin to ask questions for things we thought not needing of a clearer explanation.

Let him wise understand that I also speak of consciousness, its evolution and human element. In a sense we are together and yet despite the work load it is easier in solitude- one that is not really isolation or if such isolation exists we each can see it persisting in the collective of us all- as we perhaps look under the hood and reinvent the wheels and are not aware just where and when or what perhaps only known to ourselves is the measure or comparison of intellect and consciousness. It is each of us individually that has to keep the faith in the end into some unknown direction for the worth of our efforts of enquiry.

Saturday, July 11, 2009

The Great Speculation (Steady State Spirituality, QsSS)

The Great Speculation (Steady State Spirituality, QsSS)

In the spirit of this blog as a fresh look at alternative ideas I offer what I have long felt upon the first contemplations on the quasars just before their discovery:

Assuming as we descend to the micro scale (which is in the long view one of the general unification's of metaphysical ideas), the structure of space becomes locally more complex and disordered as if a fog or an endless descent into chaos that seems to preserve an ever diminishing presence of continuity. But such a quantum like foam can be modified by the laws of quasic ordering and contrasts with our evolving measurable science and theories of physicality.

This accumulating restraint provides a model or mechanism where in any disintegration of an identity as a probabilistic region into a particle-like dust of the "Personal Now" becomes potentially a steppingstone and awakening of ideas, as an intelligible model of spirituality.

As this is a reduced but accessible or substantial theory of physicality we cannot just make the model clear (nor will some of you make sense of what I here see) in terms of quantum analogies- even if we vaguely assert a correspondence connecting the material formulism with its equivalence in quantum theory to a description as consciousness.

Consciousness is more than what we vaguely feel real and understand as material and mental experience. Physics and faith in our time is at best a vague approximation. Physics can proceed in its discoveries without the fear of a unified world of what seems a given knowledge- learning can evolve without the need for a chaotic yet ultimately not defined cosmic background.

The question now becomes where does this sort of information go, the reality of it go and evolve? Should we move through a Quasar-like quasic field (which can be a general model of our space as the unified fabric rather quasi-crystalline) what role then these play in the physical universe is at least a useful question whatever the outcome of our descent fading or not into the metaphysics, whatever the origins and returns we sense and imagine, whatever our own and God's quasi-personal existence and experience. By this question I do not mean entropy and quantum questions asks of information for the black holes as if the universe can be summed up as a quantum wave function.

My ancester (according to what I heard discussed of him as a child but wonder if there is a direct documentation) Nicholas August Otto, the Otto cycle gasoline engine- also seems to have suffered at the hands of existing physics in vogue as did Fred Hoyle in his higher perception of the beauty of his cosmic model of his creation fields. We live in a cloud (Andromeda strain?) he said working lifelong against the big bang idea. Otto did not keep the pattent for his engine because he imagined the no-knock by the inclusion of lead by looking into a cloud from a smokstack. One day both dreamers will be seen as mainstream scientists. Einstein himself will be still highly regarded in his lonely search and intuition for a unified theory.

Friday, July 10, 2009

Corresponding with galatomic


My general view of things is that I have a simpler theory than the vagueness that grounds the two modern physics- as many have suspected is there since at least Dirac.

In general if force (will or what have you) is a motion and the space a womb or a place of rest would something movable like ecotoms or blackholes not be a macho concept? If not why? In any case our generation actually thinks it can make artificial sperm (as in recent news) with no ethical consequences. Moving zombie sperm are still zombie sperm.

My ideas are not concerned with the cigar or the hole, but the action is in the cleavage. This more personal and dynamic idea of the universe becomes the same old philosophical paradox that bothered Einstein when he wondered how physics could contain the human experience of the "Now".

But lately I have been thinking about a more simple theory than the quasic fabric of space and time model. It is very hard to think on that so evident and obvious. I for example found a powerpoint presentation listing the idea that a series of 1's when squared leads to these things like 1111 squared = 1234321 that is four ones squared of the digits equal sixteen as the sum of the digits. Now the article showed other such seemingly remarkable number sequences and concludes that God is a powerful creator in this world. Are they not just appealing to the idea of an intelligble natural law? Would God as well as our idea of the personal experience of the Now not still be a little above such reductionist physics?

Recall that Newton goes up to the apple from Einsteins view depending on if we feel the force of acceleration. It is after all a question of what is at rest in spacetime and all of this depends on how we view symmetry from the arrow of time or the decay of particles. It is the same question that in crude quantum terms (despite the forum scientist clinging to the lifeline of decoherence from the 70"s so can claim the issue is solved and someone does not understand the quantum theory (when will they find original and fundamental PhD thinking again?)

These questions of motion are at least metaphysical ones still. It leads to the ideas of simplifying the possible shape of the universe in a few choices of geometry each of which can be open or close but some point seems to be the conditions of the universe at the origin to solve the entropy problem as in that one sci am issue I referred you to way back.

For both of us then we sense some sort of more general ground between these ideas of what is local or not in the relativity and quantum conception interpreted as will or motion or a direct link thus explanation for consciousness or not. For me when we do these sort of quasi-probability historical recurrences and the resulting ideas of symmetry breaking and so on the origin is located not at the zero point in the netscape. It is in a sense everywhere or can be a few places and this describes spin at least if not motion.

We are in a sort of digital age but the motions there are internal (why do we need an RSS feed when a picture is worth a thousand words? I mean it does not compute, is vulnerable as xtml and so on, and is a way from many multiple directions to receive spam and make it possible for someone to keep track of us.)

This higher level of non-linear intelligible connections is not the personality of the now but a moving zombie embedded as physical in a more general and vague space, The idea of symmetry breaking as explained by the Higgs mechanism is crude metaphysics rather than a scientific explanation of what really defines mass beyond the ideas of Einstein.

I have never seen us in conflict galatomic, sorry if that seems the case. Anyway I will post this on the blog just to have something there if you do not mind.

Person or consciousness ideas aside the conclusion I lean to is that many of our alternative posters and theories are closer to the physics of the reality. Indeed, even where we have disagreed on some of them with quantum stuff there is a new book from scientific american that discusses this very relationship from all sides. There are a few young students who have this view to which I am trying to follow their thinking in the blogs. But we at least do not try to compress our ideas into obselete terms for the sake of making things understandable to our narrow minded reviewers.

I am simply amazed how primitive some of our school graduates are to have such dogmatic attitudes. What is a degree but a credit card in cyberspace that makes it possible to steal money and identity and set up video game jobs and exclude not just the past but the future of the new paradigm?

Thursday, July 2, 2009

Dixon (Toward a New Way to Write Language)

Dixon (Toward a New Way to Write Language)

I have not posted for awhile although I have some things in manuscript preoccupied with the nature of language and linguistic- especially as the quasic model. I use the term Lecton and now change it to Lectron by the analogy (mentioned in Lincoln’s book of the history of the term Neutron and Neutrino and subsequent uses).Dixon is a temporary term for such a language although I have considered others like Nuonz, Nuom,.. Lecton as a language or system of notions? Notion? Perhaps if the change comes sooner than we thing in a world where some forms dominate and we are more or less bilingual in the old sense: Terran. In any case we should review these longings from the dawn of the age of enlightenment of what is the personal dialect and universal logic and language of notions without these becoming a bottleneck. It seems that we imagine what seems self-evident without the loss of meaning in the simplicity of things the possibility of rapid cognizance of words and symbols and a shared language of notions.
We have to rethink what the aspirations put into practice of the last few generations. For now the budding dialect that will not get lost in the translations (after all it is based as much on particle physics and the carry over or metaphoric quality of language) we we evolve to the next step and come closer to the ordering and potential of that of which our genome as part of the mind is a representation if not the thing itself.

An article on yahoo news today concern Jefferson and ciphers comes at a time that I have considered such methods beyond the idea of Latiniztion as the height of language evolution. None of this recent code discussion got posted in the philosophy chat forum during the transition to a new format. Lately I was not even sure that this path I was following had any significance but it is similar to the crude codes and some of the fine magic squares of our USA founding fathers. Such insights and issues seem to me to be different points of departure for enquiry of which we should perhaps revisit some of the philosophies of science in the past- not just go down one path considered more modern as if there is nothing to be learned from say the science of the beginning of the last century.

The recent efforts concern the idea of Morse code as something more easily read than say a long list of assembly code. As in the last panel in relation to fundamental particles this line of enquiry synchronously was implied as well the whole system and principles of quasic physics. In a way it is the simpler theory which at the beginnings of the quantum age was felt required to be found to ground things in that physics- what I think I have here is an even simpler theory than that. It raises the question after all of what we mean by the world evidence. Is that simply what is obvious and leads us not to question its truth? In that case the way the asking for evidence at best has a poetic meaning when used by the narrowly scientific minded as a weapon. At this rate a new coming out or emergence of a world language with the possible idea of integrating notions and emotions in it will take centuries as well as the deeper understanding of the sciences we can use. This viewpoint of the too soon asserted scientific humanism of the last century is the underlying theme of those who ask for some sort of documentation externally to their knowing and as an isolated thing while they ask for a more recent view beyond historical links of discovery.

Essentially and considering there are certain ideas of standard particles observed, and the looking for such in Lincoln’s book which has a great deal of discussion on what may or may not be know or wish we knew in our time- always the appeal to the experimental over the reasonableness of our mathematical methods (which may not be the case from an overview of a long standing appeal to dead ends of physics like the idea of point particles or string theory.)

I casually thought about the Morse codes as binary ciphers and concluded that the representations of the particles were really five natural dimensions projected into four space with the fourth generation of particles akin to the idea of time as to the matrix space and this is the limitation due to the properties of octonions in eight dimensions.; As in the Jefferson yahoo article we can decode by pairs of symbols (as if particle and antimatter particles) which treating the dit as a point particle and the dah as a string I concluded from the bottom up these matrices of the idea of an iota style particle. But we need to be careful to explain exactly what we mean by dimensions.

The theory is so simple I have in the back of my mind, at least in the principles that I can interpret from it, that there may be many group ideas of which I am merely reinventing that wheel. But it does seem like a universal language as are the symbols in organic chemistry. In fact, the reading of genes can be in this code with a modification of not only the particle generation analogy but the directions and inversion of a reading with the instructions to do so over a sequence as if we have the inversion and crabwise motion of a series of musical notes (based on 12 and 16 for good discrete reasons).

We have in effect a totally new idea of the origins of mass- especially which can be handled by ideas like the pattern deviating from say the exponential graphs of radioactive decay (Riemann hypothesis anyone?) One of which ideas like the Higgs mechanism are not simple enough to find the evidence or explain what substance is in this world.

Here is the yahoo news article: