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.

No comments:

Post a Comment