Friday, May 14, 2010

The Crazy Verse of the Quasiverse (Sci Fi Speculation)

The Crazy Verse of the Quasiverse (Sci Fi Speculation)

A Great Grandiose Space Opera

It is not clear to me if my thoughts of last night are science in the service of science fiction or science fiction in the service of science as a time honored tradition. It makes too much sense and is too simple to seem like science to the extent that wisdom has expanded over the last few centuries.

Of course there are places in the philosophychatforum debates where we question the ultimate law of excluded middle- but who is to say the logic at some place does not give us truths and untruths indistinguishable (as Rowlands suggests we cannot make physical sense of a purely octonion description of physis.) I suspect he and I differ on which is the starting element of this idea of nilpotency. My four quadrants would consider 00 and not his EE the nilpotent entity- but then again what is the philosophy about over all and half the world seems to me 0E and E0 in such matrix quadrants and the symmetries of diagonals, and we can choose to see the world top down or bottom up- a matter of taste perhaps and a great deal of freedom to think and explore at least the abstract math.

So, imagine a universe that exists on the quasic plane- imagine further the quasic states is composed of regions or pixels each of which can be any power of a binary state (clearly the idea of exponentiation is not as strait forward as we imagine.) Imagine further that the plane as represented in a square grid (see blank grid on my last post) is the entire universe with pixels of indefinite infinite divisibility.

This universe consists of a few fixed points, polymoarks which form regions thru the various dimensions called islands. In a sense independent of the orientation of the universe of these islands at the binary pixel level in question, there are only several such islands uniformly, as if a torus space, no matter how far we extend the going out of the apparent local boundary of the island group.

In terms of an imagined universe, let us say there are several islands in a sea of no islands. One can be born in the center of those islands or anywhere on the grid of similiar and uninhabited islands on the grid unto limitless exploration. The question then is are the polymarks the same or different in some sense from one pixel to another? Imagine a child in the first world taking off and building it all again from scratch by some travel on the sea between the parallel worlds of islands. The edges of such a world are only an illusion of our centeredness where the differnce of no center in this world is also an illusion. The limitless extent though infinite also in a sense seems bounded as if its limits is not an illusion.

Now, symmetry to a great extent is about ideal spheres (and n-spheres) We can imagine packing them to fill a three space in some ordered arrangement but it is not clear a random packing could not do better- even in spheres there is room for a thirteenth one beyond the twelve. In a recent article in Science Daily some students packed little tetrahedral dice as random and got closer packing of space than with spheres... I want to point out abstractly here that in this finite approach as the foundations of physis the tetrahedra in question are the four points or time-like dimensions only of these structures for these are the parametric edges of higher binary volume like logical and real spaces.

These islands in a sense conserve the patterns and relationship between polymarks which just as well could be stars or particles- these physical entities do not know what dimension or quasic state they are in and they can shift together between the pixel grids. Yet from this general space general enough not to cause logical problems we can assign information coordinates and ideas with which we can develop models of physis that say incorporate measure and dimensions as well as a location for an ordering in reality of numbers like the irrationals repeated similarly throughout the quasiverse. We can assign meaning and functions to a way to view some model as long as it makes general intelligible sense over all the models.

* * *

As a boy our father bought a carpet for our room which the edges were cities along the themes of spaceports and the interior had planets and stars and a few space ships. We would play leaving one space port and flying through the space to land at another on one side of the board. This was in a sense the idea of hyperbolic space. Also it occurred to me to be careful touching my globe too heavy handed as the very small things there like electrons contained whole levels of people.

Where I stay lately is not quite north and south because of the bends in the river. The sky looked so alien to me, where was the big dipper? When I got on the north south road again I realized the north star was a little higher 45 degrees than I was used to in the southern states and to my surprise the Big Dipper was exactly overhead at zenith. Other than the twins it would have been rather startling to have all the constellations shift and change their linear relationship- as they seem to do subjectively until we find our proper place again in all aspects of our lives and destiny and creativity until the pattern and us make sense again coming back to some sort of self and home.

* * *

A Philosophic Point: Why can it seem that what is reality is something that goes beyond any of our ideas of differences or negative spaces or numbers? I mean in the quantum world the question of vacuum as if it was not in flux is far from how things are applied in a positive direction- concentrating on what can be known as the theory is incomplete, more along Heisenberg's formalism to decide what is to be interpreted as physical. Even in the prefect vacuum so to speak things do not remain fixed but move- that is particles spontaneous come into existence or out of it.

In the quasiverse I can imagine beings passing thru the local islands whose way of life is a sort of super transition or flight and they rarely interact with the more sedate denizens- a concept perhaps of some sort of virtual and intelligible spirits or aliens far from the idea of a super intelligence actually as some absolute of design. We have not adsorbed the verifiable ideas of the variations of quantum theory even when extending it to the more complicated realm of higher energy atomic motions. Super may be a prefix we can use again which does not mean some vague idea of a supersymmetry in the way the term is used now. Dupersymmetric or duperimposed and so on for now may be a better term until the matter is settled.

Nevertheless, there is a point of philosophy here even in this imaginary quasic model. We can abstractly divide the reality into Being, God, and Universe as these seem to ask analogous questions of why there is something rather than nothing. Nothingness might also be a fourth concern. But what does it mean really to say something like- why did God choose this particular string theory?

So, we should expect given the widest design or chance occurrence of existence and being that the theory will be most comprehensive and resolve the questions we ask to the extent it covers our knowing and physical encounter with reality.

What, from the drawing board, would be the physis of the universe beyond some idea of an assertion it was a Creation by God or some absolute of Being? Given not preference and nothing forbidden on all levels, somewhere between the finite and infinite, should we be surprised at our being anymore than why it could not be a nothingness- the question is more than if things can arise locally and globally in some sort of extended state of flux. The idea of some of the quantum principles failing to be complete on this "ultimate" abstract level is a model true to its own ineligibility and scope of action- incorporating its doubts as well as facts of existence. But it cannot account for the world, even in terms of probability any more than to claim God does, or the Being of the Universe does, by our current levels of mathematics and ideas. The fact of the world as to its origin or ongoing existence, its everness, remains for now unintelligible.

Yet, if we think of the most comprehensive design given a world allowed to move and evolve and just do what possible worlds do- the question vanishes in a sense as to the asking of why it is here rather than not- for it is here and not- and even what we mean, on a higher level of ineligibility by asking it vanishes as to the origins neither to claim what is or is not illusion or that facts cannot be in a sense real. At this philosophical level our relative stability in the world as to how we may explore its extent or origins partakes of a certain design as intelligible to ask and to so experience.

Thus we can have a sense of our own reality which at the same time remains a bare fact and yet retains its sense of mystery. Yet I am not sure what is the next level of discovery- certainly let us not restrain the creative dreamers for whatever reason they seek the vision of a unified world- nor their skeptics- nor too much the political assertions in a society that seeks to constrain enquiry for it cannot in principle be so constrained by inadequate and incomplete theories of the real. Still, when the better designs are found let no one be called a scientist who does not have the intellect to acknowledge the new facts.

* * *

A variation on the quasiverse model of a possible design is that we can make those perspectives that tend to explain from some origin a counting and measure with reference to imagined limits and boundaries of any binary pixel region and its depth of field of dimension. We could for example vary the heat in a region or as in the illustration above vary the spectral sequences between quasi disconnected regions. In terms of the lower complex two spaces or even on a higher level of the four spaces integrated into three dimensionality, the virtual knots on some scale can be the paths around such knots and between them such that matter in a sense is a knot of space and the possible paths a sort of field, be mass the charge or not and the directions or not part of the field picture. (see this on Science Daily as one of the old problems solved by our number theorists, but I mean it here in a quasic space akin to what Descartes must have sensed with his form of his graph about Euclidean space- we have to get beyond the ideas of a complex plane and its dimensionality to a wider and more diffuse idea of natural dimension and measure. Measure in a sense is the quantization of the quasic grid read as a small part of itself- that is somewhere between a Cantorean and alph-0 discrete view even when the idea of distance and measure in a sense vanish from the physicality in the equations. Surely our physicists and mathematicians want to go beyond what Riemann and Ramanujan did especially if they aspire to a more unified theory of everything.)

^ ^ ^

Look at this general quasic grid again only this time image that what you see is contained in one of the small squares, and in them more and so on. We can imagine things continuous in the sense from the first square "pixel" it reaches all the way to the last square so to speak at infinity- thus we have a model much like the idea of Cantor that a small part of a whole plane (and thus a Riemann sphere) has the same transfinite number as the whole plane in of course n dimensions. I offer this as a conceptual tool. But to say something like we are confined to a brane is not as general or powerful idea as this generalization of the scope of the model. Here even the idea of negative and positive vanishes in the distinction. Interestingly the number of curves in a plane is greater than the number of lines in such a plane in the natural dimensional Euclidean transfinite sense- but here we have all of these potentially in a vast array of connections over dimensionality and measure. Even the question of what is multiple worlds or one seems indistinguishible as to a meaningful answer unless we set up a physis model as less general. Nevertheless we can imagine something that might go beyond this.

* * *

In the quasic view there is no ultimate distinction between odd and even numbers or dimensions- there may be interesting things from the recent proof that the sum and the digits of prime numbers are on the average half even and half odd (Science Daily and on one blog I follow after this post). My first question is how might this relate to the Bell inequality, that is in the argument and method of what to expect from the experimental data. How then to better generalize the idea of probabilities in the first place let alone questions of random number generation. There is so much more on the foundational level to think about and in many ways we can have a better picture, that is a picture that says a thousand words.

No comments:

Post a Comment