Saturday, March 20, 2010

The Expectation and Variance between Extreme Theories

The Expectation and Variance between Extreme Theories

The reference frame blogspot today also is talking about the issue of statistical methods.

I am not sure the statements of the author, in defense of statistical methods really makes a fundamental point from the view of a more evolved creative science. But I am at that point where I have ran out of approaches, things to day, and to think about them as I did this first day of spring morning I feel like a child coming again to a great task for things I have to remind myself are deeper than I grasp. But did not Einstein have a period of stumbling and exploration between his relativity's- did he not struggle with determinism and relativism and his preference for a stable but unified world view? Look, the relativity experiments will not be proven false to the utmost scale of their experimental compass- and the statistical methods that seems the world as quantum physics will also continue to verify all its compass. But for the teleology of things, that understanding will take a little while longer to ground on something scientist feel comfortable with.

Now, what does it mean when the author says in the real world we cannot know some things with infinite accuracy? Infinity, the lazy 8, is not a number in the algebraic sense- it is but a potential infinity. But if in a deeper sense infinity can be interchanged with zero as in Riemann's mapping of the complex plane to a sphere- then why should we expect zero is not such a number? The certainty of logic is that zero has successors. All things seem to reduce to some idea of unity or one and these unity generators may or may not relate to aspects of zero or the infinity where they correspond to a reality number, that is zero and infinity and thus to some extent one are quasi-numbers.

One should keep strait the underlying philosophy when making scientific statements to have a wider view of continuity and variance, not dismiss what can be intelligibly known with certainty about numbers as metaphysical. In the wider view of things, beyond even the idea of acceleration and gravity equivalence, we ask why the design of the world is complicated- yet we also can ask how it is that so much in our reality remains the same. Both stances can be seen as a great mystery and neither philosophy seems to have the last word as the primary one.

As science grows and ideas are further defined, and some pinpointed indirectly, we note that Newton did not address the mechanism of gravity, only its measure... in turn Einstein's gravity waves do not well describe say an imagined mechanism of certain differential laws and particles as say on the level of dark matter, at least like the particles that do not observe velocity but do acceleration and so on, Higgs, etc... These ideas may be beyond experiment but do connect at least by the nature of number theory.

What is distance that the square root of the absolute sum of squares seems so one sided and directional? How can anyone assert as a truth and not a possibility that toward the small where at a Zero point the energy is infinite that things vary faster with a flux of positive and negative values of a series? Is this not enough of an idea to describe a preferential direction for some physical property?

Is this not a question also of the zeta function (the one half real value between zero and one of the critical strip of Riemanns complex plane?) Does this theory moreover not apply to the situation within a furnace- what about say the sun?

Maybe for something like a sun there are degrees of these extremes of structure and how these structures can be related say the mechanism of information transfer of say the dark matter, or even dark energy from a galactic core. What sort of quasi event horizon does the sun's corona reach a couple million degrees while the surface is a few thousand? What exactly are we to expect from say variations of particles and the time to escape the core of the sun if these have resonant generations?

Alas, what would a critical strip look like on the sphere itself- but a part of some circumference no matter which way the sphere rotates? Would this not also establish a certain distance in the race of Zeno, his arrow perhaps chasing the tortoise, that has some fixed initial distance?

We are again where Descartes was in his coordinate system with zero and no negative numbers. Quasic space is between the need for them and no need for them as numbers and these definitely relate to the quasi continuum idea of what are prime numbers as suggested going back to Euler despite what some say are his mistaken ideas.

No comments:

Post a Comment