Thursday, April 15, 2010

Why 136 ?

Why 136 was the question Dirac would ask if he could come back into the future. The interger numbers add up here from my quasic grid which here incorporates the 32 x 32 algebra of Dirac as in Rowlands book. The algebra view is just as good as the geometric view and the Eddington view in a sort of Cartesean and vector even Lorentz space and the Diracian view seem to me to be a duality along the lines of what Rowlands says is at least one principle of metaphysics in the world "That the reality or universe cannot be characterized." Let us add that to Conway's principle of abstraction and one can perhaps understand how it is that today my view of the world and especially for numbers has shifted. I am back to before the school system gave the the apples and oranges view of integers- not a bad view but no longer can I see the numbers on my calculator as such "solid" or particle things. It is more like back to the idea of adding phone book columns then playing outside while the adults try to agree on the sum to know if I was right- yet it is not a matter of genius as much as an observation of the spinning numbers as I watched the gasoline meters fill up the old two tone Chevy.

On the other hand the Diracian algebra does seem to suggest there are indeed idiot savants who with the pentads and so on seem to use the base 60 system.

Reading Rowlands is hard only in that like an alien language (and which of us is the alien in our communication and which is the themes underlying the symbols?) I am slowed down by so many of my own thoughts and words. I understand his speculations as my speculations of perhaps the physicality of possible more complicated spaces- I understand the problems with dimensionality and how it can be applied to particles. Indeed, I asked sometime back my string theorist friend about a certain group of resonances and he said there were not evidence of them or the doing of strings in that way. But he then asked me how I knew about them in but a day as it took him two weeks on the 286 and I said my matrix. "What in the hell of a matrix have you got?" In any case the quasic grid is as if I finally summarized the 4000 pages I had written toward the issues in my practice manuscript Instruction and Being. But if we can simplify things to a page a thousand fold then could we not in a sense turn the 286 of many such pages into a sort of a supercomputer?

I had more to say last night, the need for a new look at such higher chirality and parity, the Favre dimensions I now understand by Rowlands to be his timelike. The need to consider again just what symmetry breaking means.

Now I am not sure of the names for the groups and so on where they are isomorphic or not as Rowlands suggested but that if I understand it is the case for by a trick of notation in the quasic grid we can hyperflange (compress) the eight dimensional things into the quaternion things in a sort of localized structure.

Interestingly he speaks of the entropy of the Carnot cycle as a more general thing if we can apply it to the universe as a whole I ask- and the five foldness, here in the second illustration a mere ten representational dimensions 32squared, is a fractal thing in itself the understanding of which requires even wider quasic dimensions.

Lastly the lowly three space cube spinning on its axis hinting of deeper structures such as these algebras- the principle can be reversed too and we wind up with all the pentanimo puzzles of five foldness. and perhaps a reason we only can use sixty of them and so on- all this simplicity reduced intuitively to familiar space. When the theories are so abstract quantum theory seems a safe and familiar ground what does this say for the future of our theoretical and experimental physics?

I also coined a new term Distarality to handle the Eddington-Dirac dimensionless constant question where the dimensionality and not just the dimensions cancel. I note also the Einstein quote on this in Rowlands book. Distar is Spanish to be at a distance from as Rowlands also explains where the Zeno problem may be still unresolved.

Of course after a few days I must not forget how speculative some of this was- it takes a long time to feel assured of things. What in playing with the cube puzzles seems way too unsymmetrical in space is often very beautifully so in higher space.

There seems more than one way to break symmetries fundamentally and in the ten faced deltahedron we have 16 points as if this act like the thrust and circuit of a hypercube.

How interesting the discussion on the sciencechatforum yesterday on say the nature of shifts or not in light from the "quasars" and the article in new scientist on it- or any of the young and old speculators who are or are not in a forum between others or sharing useful things with others and so on... I say again it is time for them to catch up.

In some ways (and perhaps with his better expertise Rowlands et al can make a more complete map of the Dirac algebra incorporating a 4096 system with some negative things as mirrors like -i and so on, a sort of over quasic space extension. A lot depends on how we begin our counting at null or one or zero and so on. The quasic grids dimensionality incorporates the idea of an evolving counting and cosmic code and the direction input and output of that code which I perceived as "teleoscoping" in its thing preceded by is followed by sort of Turing erasure...

Standing outside smoking last night, despite feeling I might need a break from such a burst of creativity and easy deep thoughts arising which perhaps are more important as a use of my light and time- must I, does it matter to anyone else and is it that important that I write it down? On the blog intangible materiality today the author considers such questions for himself and mental landscape and the internet. I imagine the other and the locality of ones perceptions and the underlying meaning of it. I quite understand these higher Pladeian aspects of the ghostly geometry of our minds and their material development between the inputs and outputs of at least quantum formalism. I see the need also for what may apper non linear ultimately in all this as well as the idea of dimensionality more than ultimately random and more than a reduction to a quasi continuity of linearity. I understand that there are aspects of our consciousness as these theories seem to be able to apply to abstractly and perhaps in some future wider materiality where we dwell in the structures to organize our ordinary not so exceptional thinking and certain exercises equivalent to such topological computation help transcend our views at the time. No exercise, no transcendence, no surpassing our states of mind.

I am not sure that a book that addresses the enigmas of our day with suggestions of future solutions or applications is rightful a physics book, but it is a reality and a sanity as a core scientific view. In our space time in a sense goes both ways so why not the light from quasars for our personal local mind be rather like the one as generator, the Aristotelian view also that our eyes in effect send out rays to them- they not just the post modern thermodynamic garbage collectors but the beginnings of our search higher and deeper for making sense of the underlying structures and unity of the world? Of course this thought is a statement of epistemology and for now a metaphor of the measure of what is abstractly- the ground of or arrow of time wherein as Sagan said God must first make a universe before he makes an apple- and in a sense he must make a nothingness or that indeed is part of the picture.

I am not fond of microtubles but am of the glia cells, save the structure of them- but as we can dream and watch ourselves in the dream or from outside the dream we find one place of such effects, A sort of null compass as in the dreams Jung interpreted for Pauli based on the systems of 32. Let us not forget also that in mammalian embryonic development the reaching of 32 cells is the point of individuation of the totality, not the cloning. I am fond of Wolfe's idea of NH3 between synapses for the origin of the virulent quantum flux but am not sure it is fundamental.

In the DNA stacking models, Crick and Watson's and the other way here suggested including another explanation than say Fuller's and recent biochemistry for the unzipping angle- perhaps both things may apply- I mean for terms of evolution of systems the U C triple bonds tend to persist once part of the genome as a measure of evolving, and if not so as a measure of possibility in the other system. If we try to see it as accidental which is also part of the picture as evolving systems we cannot claim these outside algebras apply on any or all levels or at all.

Let us not forget the wobble hypothesis and the idea that we see directly as 2 and 1;2 dimensional and thus in a sense 2 and 1/2 codon code. The idea of privileged units of the algebra to expand the scope of systems (orientable or not) from a quasic view and not just symmetry and conservation laws sorted out, suggest that in some projections of the generations of information form we can describe a possibility realized of the various behind the seen three spaces of which we perceive but one at a personal time- that there can be, unto 256 and beyond, a history established and maybe somewhere in the evolving as mixed, of at least three projective possibilities of our own genome reading. What might this mean for the idea of virulence of identical viral sequences? What might it mean say for cancers?

* * *

A short note later this day:
In a way after feeling pretty sure I have the gist of the system and the philosophy under the book I lost interest- which is a good thing because it means there should be a whole new frontier to explore, but I am not sure what. MCPT and maybe X or more, quixotic or perhaps qalyptic physics but not perhaps a sixth- this sort of intuition can stir us wrong if not done on a general enough scale- I mean on a smaller scale I once briefly thought the tauons in a sense could not exist and that was an instance where the evidence proved me wrong on that level of generalization.

So, On a random visit to the puter in the coffee shop I did not find much going on, news or chat or what have you. A girl on the next puter wants to talk with me as I met her the other day as I was on the spur of the moment looking for the girl on line I knew who posed with me a kiss for the picture obverse of my Otto symbol. For some reason she looks a little like my friend looked then. I gave her the talisman of the symbol and the reverse in leather and hadn't talked to her in 15 yrs nor seen her in 30. I found her first try on google images! Well, she did get a good job in a far away place. My how different she looked after all these years. How amazing it seemed at the time that she seemed like the one and the only true love possible in all of time past and future- yeah, we start out that way of thinking and some of us get pretty messed up and vulnerable if things do not go that way. But our relationship was never requited and her memory haunted me a long time as if I made such a mistake somehow.

Our minds, as to the theme here today, seem to see time much like the fanciful ray from our eyes or local viewing of the quasar light speculation. I mean whatever is the arrow of time or thermodynamics it does involve memory and a progress of sorts or flow somewhere continuous or not or abstractly quasicontinuous (both). In a way we need this subjective element which may have hidden or calyptic things or spurious things to which such a logical formalism, algebra or what have you, real or quioxtic (the terms also on one level the same thing) should apply to the mind and heart to in that emptiness that may in a sense be absolute after all and not just a minimum place as Rowlands interprets somewhere among the weak force fermions.

* * *

Perhaps the further divisions even going beyond the cardinality of possible spaces as our progress in life does seem to go through discrete events of import can reach some absolute end decisively and permanently after all. Her image does not age in my mind any more than that of my lost brother (the subject of the poem Purple Foxglove- see the spheresend.blogspot . We see from our localized perspective. And that great analog of the 24 4-D scale to the rhombihedron of Bergson and his bees perhaps his sense of a more vital cause for the angle than pressure for their hive combs- Of course her memory like the light is unmodified and eternal, timeless.
This idea of what to do with that outside of all reality and things and views that define their identity by all the rest of the universe so to speak will take more thought if I get the wind again. The young girl comes out and talks to me by the coffee shop door I on the bench. I admire her tattoo of a mountain and pedals and a flower and a name- yes, it is Japanese where I taught English there once summer and I got it because my friend loved that mountain and she died.

Love is tattooed like that sometimes on our skin and thus our hearts may drink of its organic fifth force- but realistically time does have restraints in our encounter with the experience of the world. While I might not resist the young lady's friendship there is a realism or reality that of whom do I see, she who sees the dawning and slowly awakening light or the timeless girl of long ago whose kiss started a great deal and was the center of my universe? And you sweetness who says I really do not know you are you not moved by the light to any life buoy that comes your way in the storm of your loss of love and brilliance of your art? If he lived near knowing him but yesterday you would marry him? You are the kiss before the kiss at the beginning of worlds and would our clocks as well as hearts synchronous and would our choices and our paths fulfilled of them endure everlastingly if not eternally in a multiverse you suggest that there in not just one soul mate as you now try to adjust to? All such new yet timeless realities would work if we so commit and have the time, well reasonably so, what is left in isolation but blindless?

No comments:

Post a Comment