Thursday, May 27, 2010
Intelligible Natural Dimensions
Intelligible Natural Dimensions
Not very productive last night due to the heat and such. That is the numbers are not clear so it is hard to pin down some ideas. But I thought about the way some see the higher dimensions and assume the visualization so clear- yet it somehow seems alien to do things that way for me. Nevertheless, I think I understand and can make some general rules or laws that have physical significance for a theory that it is at least a consistent theory. In any case I suspect there are alternative ways to see it and nature can see it alternatively also. That the numbers balance is evidence of an intelligible system but is it a unique one or one we have to apply to reality. The standard model is true on some level or perspective of viewing much as string theory- but it is the foundations that should give us pause to make breakthrough considerations.
I recall here conversations on philosophychatforum with "Eyes_Only" on what we called regulus space and what I related to his astigmatism. He had the ability to give me correct answers for certain geometrical configurations from an entirely new way of drawing. We sort of duplicated the points and did things with parallel lines as if viewing only say vertically the telephone lines against the sky.
We say for example given two cubes that fill three space do these parallel cubes with extensions from the eight points have eight line segments that thus make the hypercube- and ask if these exist. In theory we can expand or condense these lengths and the logic of it set down may seem to defeat some arguments involving the infinite at least on what is considered some scientific and intelligible level.
Anyway, considering the vertical and horizontal illusions of the after image colors in the new scientist article on optical illusions I tried, only partially successful by the way, to make it so one can shift from a dual seeing of the vertical and horizontal of that illusion to do more than just shift perpendicular and parallel for combination's of them and the after images- a higher illusion with mental shifts as if we can infer the proper perspectives from the shadows of astigmatism.
Consider a cube of three by three- certainly it can naturally be broken down into three two by two cubes and in them three centers... of this we can count the edges and consider extra edges as spacelike rather than timelike. A spatial farvre dimensions in my terms. It is a question also of given the reality of such a process and extension of natural dimensions the reality of the rest is infered. In the normal way of unduplicated or undivided regulus points and lines (composed here of not iota string particles but for now call them iotoms) The numbers trivially add up. But the key is the center there or not with its connections. Hopefully this will make a more unified formula possible for the generation of soma cube patterns from what is considered the inversions.
Without such a centering and connections the connected space can be natural or quasic in its topological variability of the idea of distance between points. These can be thought of as a finite and symmetrical system composed of what seems one global dimension rather than as we go toward the microsom its quantization and increase of complexity of jittering and flux to one of an average unity where the parts are equally part of the spherical or symmetric structure- but it will not either perpendicular or parallel be a relation necessarily to finite and infinite grids or even the n-ply locally centered isolated compactified dimensions of space.
* * *
Next Day : The point of my looking at combined optical illusions and astigmatism was more with a view for a practical application for those who need help with this condition of their eyes. Look then for applications.