Wednesday, June 9, 2010



Perhaps to look back at omnomic states of of mind that leads to some theories, to the still not crystallized ideas unexamined in depth that formed the personal foundations of my own views of physis:

OMN-1 Upon the discovery of a rational and playable four dimensional chess and the extension to five dimensions the omnomic thought occurred to me and unquestioned at the time that such a chess game would play itself- what did I mean by that?

OMN-2 In a conversation with Scott yesterday, who is a very good chess player, on the theory of the game I had another realization that in the bare branches and shadows of our contemplations there was more than meets the eye on such a fundamental level. All ideas of dimensionality in the game aside, and of the parity of things, of the discrete or continuous idea of time and determinism and so on, the game theory question is: given a perfect and unique game where white would have an edge is there a win or a breaking even? Even if the game were totally deterministic and all possibilities allowed somewhere to occur, we cannot say if such a game (unlike checkers where one wins or breaks even by the first openings) that we can predict or describe if the chess game is a win or a break even.

In a sense this is about ideas of action and reaction and also about the nature or negative numbers as representations or some compromise metaphysical principle of opposites and yet no opposites for a directionality of parity or time, that on this higher level of foundational metaphysics one cannot determine the outcome in such an omnomical space in nature. This has consequences for our physics and worldviews in every philosophical area and for mathematics as well.

Yet, let us say I find before anyone else the groups involved in the eight queen problem such that one queen is in the corner square. I may maintain, in the sense of the collapsing into materiality, the actualization, or as Rowlands says this is actually the "measurement"- that such mathematical solutions did not exist until I conjured or discovered them- they were discovered then years later in the Journal of Recreational Mathematics with the remark one wonders why such groups were overlooked before. Yet, by this thought I do not suggest here that it is reduced to a lower metaphysics where I state it is a matter of consciousness.

Still there is something to understand as we assert in a higher dimensional game the space so organizes as to play itself, that is need no intelligent design dimensions to play the game as with the lower dimensions, the question of will and determinism and so on a certain freedom of choice of structure. What limits the higher dimensions to transcendental space and is it an iron rule that so organizes things into structures and material? Or is this too omnomically to remain a vague question?

OMN-3 - If in a sense the universe of discourse is round, then a message in a bottle as a loose float for nets made of Japanese glass so travels all the sea can come back again. But in an infinite flat sea the bead may never return to its origins- still, omnomically, if the information in some for is holographically in the round and the flatness and beyond it then what does this mean to the transmission of messages either by mediator particles or light velocities and non-linearlity in general. In what sense, as if a multiverse but not simply that, is any path beyond the twists and turns of higher dimensionality and transcendentality, unique?

* * *

I found this article interesting in that it feels close to some of the general views in quasifinite spaces of turbulence involving sphere, tori, and flat surfaces as I mentioned here before regarding the mystery of toroidal ink drops in water involving turbulence (and later theories of the chaos science). The omnomic indefinite view of some spaces just beyond our seeing or ability to see may involve the idea of quasic space itself as a foundation.

Last night I tried to follow Rowlands on how this relates to the particles by the standard theory and so on- but I am not sure I am following it correctly or if the ideas are really that sounds when interpreted and applied. It is either the deepest or the most far fetched contemplations of his book. But the trouble may be with some view of what I do not know that for me does not decisively explain the technical reasons for example of how among say three colors we narrow the field down to but two of the same color quarks- thus eight gluons and so on. I am not saying the theory is wrong despite its dynamic ongoing revision and falsification, but it needs something more general than what is given as a background or that of the Heisenberg or other wave mechanical approaches. Still, Rowlands does a good thing in trying to assert connections then comparing charts of consequential properties. I do not think his approach although now widely read is obsolete in the falsification sense, rather the foundations and algebras he describes looks to me as outdated as usually the case as one learns in an atmosphere of growing knowledge which can see to have exponential subsets of publications- rather like those tori and bubbles. In some ways my detailed and overt consciousness of his book, as with other books that have surprises in later readings, that which is outdated is my abilities to expand into the omnomic realms of what takes effort in learning and the needed to feel the need to learn- hopefully from the hands of wiser ones than we.

Again, it seems to me this chess analogy which Scott said chess is always a great analogy to life and many other things and I trying to explain to him how the two space board can be seen many dimensional- that the problem, regardless of what may be actual or just convenient ideas of negative parity, distance, so on. The problem is how we can see behind but not ahead in the same sense of some deeper idea of the arrow of time. If between two players we can say there are 64 possibilities responded by 64, in a general sense. Of course he would not atempt the queen problem in the corner as it seems less likely to find a solution but could not say if a solution existed or not- now, there are 20 moves possible but if the pieces can be anywhere there are 64. But if at random two or more can share the same space, if two then we start with a flat generalization of 4096 responded by that 64 squared number. This question is even deeper than say if we could also include in some n-dimensional game the possibility of cured paths, aleph-2. Yet in any case, if there are unique perfect solutions, the parities of the cells in any dimension and their color do have consideration for higher dimensional effects including the focusing of the breaking of symmetries on the same level in relationships between material items in four or more dimensions orthogonally. It is this perhaps, the arrow of time continuous or not, that brings to mind an omnomic feeling or need to resolve things again to how we imagine directed time even if this result is somehow ambiguous and not certain- that relates to the computation of mass ultimately which may after all not just be a matter of charge on the most fundamental levels which at the present evoke more of a metaphysics.

* * *

On facebook today: L. Edgar Otto Finally entering a new area of fresh and fundamental ideas.

No comments:

Post a Comment