Monday, August 3, 2009
Dependent Observations Obscuring Each Other
Codependent Screened Logics:
I want to interrupt the previous posts which as it stands my put off some readers as if a smokescreen to the ideas that are more mathematical and come toward the last of the posts. But I am not alone in this subtle form of reasoning. It seems to be the case as with an article today in newscientist titled dark matter obscures the shape of the universe (that is some are not so sure it is flat after all and no one really understands lambda.)
In that our minds mimic the processes of physicality of the cosmos it is clear that our reasoning seems to cloud our reasoning within certain parameters. A statement like that of Lincoln today in philosophychatforum that concerning Dawkins there seems to be two answers, in fact newscientist has an article suggesting things beyond genes, memesm and x today, to the effect yes but only one of the answers is right, seems to me evidence of a lack of understanding of our very fundamental notions of what spacce and chirality is. Sure we can model it with say quaternions, yet this is not enough to pass through the obscurity of the general picture on that level of particle physics. A more discrete twistor like model would work as well, especially with things like virtual pixels in this third stage of possible internet replication integrations of culture and biology. Some of the mathematical problems which some find students there, and I emphasize students who seem to want to replicate so as to teach what they have learned- a condition of not even knowing that the world view obscures the deeper truth where mathematics and physics and number theory meet at least on the level of the monster group of 196884 dimensions- why are there three particle generations and space as three dimensional is the important question. Where is the quantum jumping on the quantum level? Clearly by considerations of geometry of flat tori and spheres what amounts to a quater rotation in the quadratic plane is an inversion in three space without an appeal to discrete limitations of complex methods. The juggle or the tetrahedron in motion has no center (nor in five space can we say which is the inside or outside as things vibrate) yet it does have an actual center of the value phi in Euclidean space coordinates. So to assume there are point particles or an origin at the big bang is to assume really the idea of the strings and twistors and jumps already in the logic of it all. To solve Keplers conjecture is a simple matter of understanding these differences of our idea of locality and non-locality of dimensions and chirality as to close packing of spheres and whatever restrictions are a matter of physicality on possible space or universe shapes. It becomes a more important question as to why there is not an 18 face deltahedraon- but on the forum the answers were assumed obvious that I should understanding them and apparently despite the ongoing evidence of the science news breakthroughs that my speculations still stood and to understand some of them is to understand before hand the articles, I was not nor the subject taken seriouslly. I remind the members left that experiments are one thing but in many cases the world has turned out close to my reasoning before hand and short of having some esp such as precognition or some sort of genius insight beforhand how does one explain this and is the reasoning before hand not some sort of evidence of good scientific thinking?