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.

No comments:

Post a Comment