Friday, April 23, 2010

The Cosmic Limits of Human Computation

The Cosmic Limits of Human Computation

The old synchronicity again finding an article on New Scientist about the disc in Andromeda after posting the article as lite speculation of the literal or physical possibility of such discs (of course I did not assert it contained hyperbolic geometry per se) But in the multiverse of thought the paradox is said to be resolved if there is somewhere an original idea in one of them. I get that old occasional feeling again that if I imagine something it comes into existence- be it quarks or quasars. Sometimes we should just observe things rather than imposing a theory and we conclude things. Rowlands foundations of physics idea is rather appealing as to why we do not see as much antimatter as matter- his exclusing of time factors aside as tachyons (I mean obviously the exploration and results of this double center disc idea has been in the minds of someone for some time- or has it? It would seem we are within the matter part much in the same way as we only see say half the universe and not the part beyond our light horizon. Does this mean that if we were on that side of things matter would still appear positive? In any case let us not underestimate the popularization of physics as helpful to the enterprise of science as tonight I had a conversation on the way here with someone who was into Green and others and knew terms like Higgs, and strings, and ten dimensions. If enough find such a shared threshold of ideas then science will benefit.

I notice also a lone voice in a blog I follow distressed with his model along these lines of spheres and light- he would benefit from Rowlands book in terms of the square of light computations for his system. Was he distressed yesterday? Are we perhaps in some sort of tachyonic precognition or is there a deeper idea of a well poetic energy in the universe whatever it is?

I am not sure why the professor says in communicating with me (he emailed that he did want to continue the dialog but could not answer in depth as he was rather busy and said again it is as if he is in the middle of a conversation- for me it is as if I have spoken long to him as if an old friend one resumes the talk after a long time as if no time passed much at all.

In any case after years of reading Astronomy Site of the Day I have had two views of what is happening in the cosmos- and I do not prefer the explanations that more or less a cloud of gas like the one in the newscientist article feeding the Andromedean murder of black holes is the only of many dynamic explanations.

Clearly the idea of our quasi nonlocality as chiral center of things from galaxies to atoms, and the direction it goes macro or micro or human meso, and the idea of consciousness as a relation to or form of oomputation is part of the issue at hand. My first guess is that we will not find the answer to why the universe beginning with declassified Lawrence atom smashing data on Kaons and now the beauty quark at the LHC if the experimental evidence even to a great degree of power and accuracy can be reached in our machines. The evidence in a sense is there concerning the momentum of particles and stars and such in a way not necessarily there for super symmetry or even the Higgs mechanism- On the other hand the one sidedness of the weak or fermionic aspects do show we may do things with those neutrinos that perhaps we cannot do with the present but virtual others.

Moreover, if we allow directions macro and micro where the time signature does not matter or can matter by assertion or the charge is arbitrarily assigned then it is clear that some ideas of strings and the standard theory are too inadequate to be near the final word and in present formulation is a dead end. In a sense the LHC stands to the standard theory as the aether wind stood to the velocity of light.

Psychologically, well I will address that shortly- but from my quasic view and considering the integration with the physical, metaphysical, and solid or steronometric view of the cosmos, the euglossa beyond the metalanguage of logic then the intelligibility of the mathematics applies beyond the linguistic analysis of the scholars of the cosmic code as the beginning Sanskrit a key or arrangement for a more complicated era of understanding our consciousness and physicality of the world.

The issue is why are there particle generations in the first place as if God or nature was not a scientist making things simple rather than unnecessarily complicated- no Ockham razor a guiding light there. From the quasic view there are three or four generations in the algebra only some higher generations are rare because they are on a different level of the algebraic approach to space and in such space they progressively lose algebraic laws, in binary dimensions unto and just beyond the octonians. Thus we might expect pair production at the simplest level of the theory and it not on a higher quasic level- and yet we can also expect such higher languages of theory to have such biased chiral distinction and forces as an emergent property not observed on the lesser levels. Nature is parsimonious after all with some degree of the mixing of the generations with different effects. Beyond the octonions is the clear independence or space possible for more or less isolated experiments or even the scandal of existential separate consciousnesses.

Of course it may be that the generational idea is vastly more structured in the quasars of what I imagine is a natural and greatly extended five and greater dimensional matter. If not what restricts this naturally and logically in the universe? Let us not forget we are on the outside of atoms!

My flagelation (rather than compatification) by binary quasic notation explains the scale and shift of properties and he quasi-nonlocality as materiality or at least a background for physicality. It also puts differentiation and integration of organic systems into better and wider perspective.

The idea of a Cartesian simple neutral *like positivity from this view of the dualism as only virtual in expanding and evolving chiral space does indeed on several quasic and generational levels appear as if a filled negative state of things needing neither the idea of sign nor imaginary numbers fundamentally but the emerging idea of the weak fermion and thus exclusion principle duality as a drive is also a part or related to that picture. In organic things physically these ideas may coincide in dynamic principle but they can be independent in evolving systems of life and mind. We also consider again the nature of thermodynamics a disc system that seems to create or move to states of stars as energy sources and black hole like things as eaters of entropy- but do we say stars are white holes and if so connected to where or do we hold there is a little bit higher science to explore?

Now, for the psychological, for me regardless if we paste on the world the experience of our minds or the world determines the structures and metastructures imposed on ourselves- that is, does the quantum physicist see the world in terms of quantum theory and its limitations? We do have a bichameral brain and bilateral body by which in general one differentiates and dominates in a causal and casual manner. We may in fact suggest in general the mind is also divided into ideas of the quantum theory and the general relativistic theory either abstractly or upon some physical structure. For me this is how we can store measures of things into types of dimensional space.

The mind can be the author of mathematical experiments including a higher one of the unification of these physics that is a unification of these complementary aspects of our minds. On one hand we can compute vast arrays of numbers in tree like structures at an ever increasing speed until it seems to take all of our mental capacity and what is left of our consciousness falls out at a distance to observe the process independently. There are other psychological effects from such processes to explore. We sort of reach the chiral remote edge or the so called idea of an other or outside universe computationally and conceptually. But along the way we may find that like a precipitation some of the trees and branches form rings and the rings rain down and contract to our minds eye no longer caught in the falling.

On the other hand we may do the exercise of silencing the voice as in some meditations but then find another smaller voice to silence and so on until we meet as the micro extreme that is not final silence (though that exists instantly) and we have to ask- as if chasing the proverbial tortoise discretely in finite steps- at what place and time does a photon leave the electron? Is there more smaller than this? Is it just a matter of cloudy uncertainty and greater fuzzy logic space?

Quasicity explains a lot to tame the excesses of the quantum and qlassical worlds and perhaps to have us better understand the human sentient mind which in end may exceed such limitations and mathematics as I here have reached to describe.

No comments:

Post a Comment