Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Beyond the Blue Beam Horizons
On the Ludicrousity of Luminios
L. Edgar Otto on Facebook: Our right and left minds do different things based on our diverse views of physics- the ghost of departed quantities or the quantity of departed ghosts- we are learning the proper music so as to think, make our own background of meaningful soundtracks for our dreams and canned laughter.
Part 1 - Beyond the Blue Beam Horizons and Music of Aristotle's Spheres
Part 2 - On the Ludsicrousity of Luminios, Newtonian and Leibnizean Notations
* Along the lines of Aristotle's thinking and as a principle we look for at least for abstract symmetry in physical laws, we "see" because "light" goes from our eyes to some distant object. Perhaps, and our terminology crudely describes yet fails us here, "touch" as say a "force" of gravity. This concept was after all falsifiable theory, the fixed stars for example as explored by nominalist down-to-earth forerunners of empiricism, the applied awakening in practicality of Greek science. In terms of dimensions as a holographic idea, the model seems to have different and inverted perceptive consequences. We behold a two space, the celestial sphere, at infinity while we are centered in three space as primary.
* Imagine then the celestial globe as fixed, and a projection of or hologram of the earth, our direction skyward to a Platonic horizon the "past" and that projection as either a Riemann sphere or complex planes as the case. Now, that celestial sphere as a complex and even quasical plane for all the Greeks knew in the main and we do ultimately, intelligibly, all that fire outside the Aristotlean sphere is the state of a flat Reality.
*(one might say that difference between Newton and Leibniz in the notation of the development of the calculus is the same old division between realism and nominalism, Plato and aristotle to some ultimate Oneness or myriad monads and particles- surely we cannot say as simply a theory of limits that we reach some zero- the idea of such a number needs greater generalization than the differential change laws of nature and her functions- we choose the vanishing of things beyond the second differential as so small and yet in the finite view it may be less metaphysical to assume we reach some sort of deterministic classical model as more sound than the said reduction to anything that mathematically vanishes beyond some squared value or transfinity of quasic and other branes. From a unified mathematical view as we exist we cannot say from set theory alone that the number line has to reduce by count to zero probability of finding rational numbers. In some ways Newton and Leibinz reflect the future debate as to multidimensions and the design of string theory.)
*We observe changes of things in this model if we observe it on a long enough scale, that is the small variations from perfection of the celestial whole. We see "pixels" of stars as if cities on the globe of earth (by our nightlight or dark-light birds-eye view)each star coordinate is as if a "city" that can grow or cluster its suburbs and colonies in a metropolis, yet we need not in our lack of the illusionary depth to perceive in that celestial sphere that these are actually changing in three space extent. Sometimes what we see is what we get, at least as a possibility and one in the simplicity may appeal to common sense. There is a certain history too, a chain as if causation, in and out these stars in time. The events by its interpreted structure is the prime move of memory and the arrow of time.
*In that there seems to be a causation in sequence and direction in time we might represent this changing information- this illusion of a reversed hologram principle, a duration inversed, some constant invariant as if an expanding or shrinking sphere. With no good explanation for our time direction and irreversibility even the laws of thermodynamics keeps Aristotle's insights in the running. (But is this to say the illusive extremes of the One or monads of atoms or of our minds, as well the micro level ideas of consciousness are sphere gods and goddesses to worship- that have supernatural will that intervenes to conspire to keep the environs of life and thought favorable and time and discovery husbanded?) Even the best of our skeptical physicists at times express a favorable leaning or at worst a compartmentalization of their feelings and intuition of some vague truth.
*Clearly, at least a neutral independent abstract world of two space teleoscoping as linear branes can be seen as a sea of diverse spheres. Two branes ideally intersect in a perfect zero point on any scale if the is a finite difference to assume in a quasi-infinite world, especially in the middle scale. (More thoughts on this to be posted as a third part- Part 3 - Phaneron Wave Mechanics
Interestingly I see the discussion on The Reference Frame blog discussing quantum mechanics seems synchronously relevant- I will comment essentially on what seems like the hidden variables where we distinguish the classical and quantum worlds if we consider the more general and not mystical but not needed to be normalizable formulaism of this world viewed through the second physics and the real.
To Be continued... 03-18-10 As I was saying:
*From this respect we may not only regard Riemann's the flatness of the microworld as approaching Euclidean, but the analogs to Aristotelian spheres as constant surfaces of micromatter withing complex unity factored spin at least 2D (ie x+1 times x-1, a difference of squares, branes as quasic, probability squared ...)but in the galatomic sense the microworld may act as if the direction of "future".
*In natural space, continuous, clearly the information of structural entities as within either pure essence or existence between this more general idea of unifying holographic principle dimensions, the planes enter and leave space as spheres into points-circles-points wherein the state may be a point rather than a possible zero brane. (again the idea of the fundamental theory of the real numbers as this interplay between the infinite and finite and the probability ideas apply here.)
To what extent this grounds some ideas of conflicting grounds of consciousness at least in the middle unitary scales applies it allows for the multiplicity and quasinfinite (and quasiquasics) of real and existing monads of awareness.
*Nevertheless, despite all this our being and existence seems the utmost wonderfully mysterious, even if mathematics is but quasi-objective and these models of the geometry of the universe still seem of lesser order in their mystery and beauty, ability to confound and evoke terror, than the universe itself. (perhaps we as thinking things imagine we can by thinking and touch change the inertia of the motion and energy of some object like Aristotle said, the momentum as force- and on this level it could be the case but we do not know, yet we can do it by the proper physical set ups and knowledge of experiments and matter -both seem to have some underlying expectations and symmetry for what is and what we believe it is.) But we need not give up all intuitions of our individual experience of the moment, a false vacuum at times as if a false hop as truth, should and when the world prove more than we know and can imagine.
Note: I know this seems a more metaphysical and it cannot stand and give the right impression without the other parts- but due to the length of this post I will post the rest separately.