Tuesday, June 8, 2010
OMNOMIC - a word that I coined or occurred to me long ago where there is a vague idea that crystallizes. Sometimes we go into the unity or isolation of such vagueness in order to find the solution to general or local problems. Hypotheses and gut feelings. Yet at and on the frontier of enquiry the question of how we do science creatively may seem magical yet that magical may seem concrete- at the frontier of our current understanding of the universe the boundaries are less clear in theories of physics, especially cosmology as if it formed an uncharactilizable continuum or unity of sorts as a theory of all things (omnium).
The illustration is from Virgina Beach from my son Sebastian. (modified for my mood and message) but it captures the last few days of consciousness but no deep thoughts or a few stray thoughts I may have not noticed to write down- yet these come back. I am in the vacation mode and it is ok that the blogspot was down yesterday as I had not much to say- nor most anyone really who all seemed to be away from the social networks and on a beach somewhere. School's out and summer is more like a ghost town around here.
Last night I looked at some of the things again in Peter Roland s book concerning the shapes of five fold things as I was using the shapes for a project of architecture commercially with my son Ari. From my stance, familiar with my own worldview, some of what is in his book reads relatively to me as magical or new age which of course if mine can be understood must seem less scientific. Yet, other than the details in some thing original it is a scientific work compared to the airy new age ideas. What part of sacred geometry was not claimed by the mystics and could I have found some things if I did not have a mystical feeling of sorts about them? Could Kelper have made first falsifiable science without a mystical view- or is it his ideas in a modern crystallization not so mystical after all- especially if one thinks in the higher dimensional spaces? Indeed, could Newton have done his work dispassionately without a feeling for the spiritual as a purpose?
So, I had a few stray notes of which one should consider them in the omnomic phase- on the other hand in 67 or 68 after reading Klein I imagined the role of the icosahedral symmetry in the DNA of which some new agers and Rowlands hint at today- and yet it is the details that show if it is science or wishing. I come from the question from an opposite direction and meet Rowlands somewhere in shared space. I do not find it hard to see the fivefold symmetry in the cube because I already realize the phi symmetries reduce in structure to smashed square root of two symmetries. The philosophic question is why someone has these feelings toward some abstract structure of space- In the holographic like ideas it is clear to me that a line can be a spacious round thing so why not a round thing (120-cell)be a spacious line? This makes a genosome so to speak, a linear unfolding of rather finite or quasi-finite breath like a chromosome. But it is the finite constructable view. That is one cannot make a variable pentagram candle mode and the same is true of granny knots nor interlace them folding triangles to describe such a star. Some of Rolands principles correspond with my own but with a seemingly different sort of reasoning- and one that does not consider it as a purely mental or conscious phenomenon in that that is scientific. But compared to Rowland what we have today in the careful if microscopically earth centered and earthbound physics reads to me as the sheerest fantasy and unlikely theory of everything where its scope applies.
I will add here soon the few stray topological ideas from my notes and reading of last night:
Astroplex- like a shadow or eutactic star of polytopes but there is no guarentee the surface from such a center is a "regular" solid in the symmetries. In fact there is quasic "shunting" as between the twelve points of the icosahedron and cubic octahedron which in a sense is a "quasic" ordering including the duality of vertical and normal polyhedra.
In a sense this applies to ideas of "charge" as fundamental.
The removal of a point and its edges from some flat lattices does not result in a centered star that describes a spherical space, rather just a hole in that space that can remain flat, this difference may seem energetic too.
If in a sense in surreal numbers the square root of two can be viewed as a rational number then so can phi (tau, golden section) as the most irrational number that becomes rational so in terms of energy structures has a grounding structural harmonic.
The "illusion" of directed time or of a spin of two distinct objects in the same dimension can be a consequence of the difference in quasic ordering or natural dimensional ordering. In a sense the "nature code" as computation of five things two may be adjacent and one isolated or three (as in Rolands codons) together and two nilpotent, structurally, and this as a quasic shunting.
jeos dropped by the coffee shop and I read his paper of seventeen tenets on sociology (as physics to him is a branch of it) and found the ideas evolving well and also reaching a place of rest and frontier as does our economy- there are more than one "socialism" and I imagine more than one "sociology" But in general I found much if not all of his underlying metaphysics sound from my view of physics - nevertheless his ideas (presumably directed as ideas of the application of theories of consciousness) were intuitive assertions with the barest of physics and biochemical ideas of which some since I have talked to him last year have been experimentally verified, for instance the dampering and depression by drugs of the brain and the general sense of collapse in the west and east of this form of capitalism. In some ways dialectical ideas relate well to materiality and the conjugate charge grounding of matter mathematically.
Is there a conjugate on some level of the astroplex necessarily?
One can better envision the pentagon in the cube if we treat it as a hyperoctahedron or beta4 in Coxeter's notation, or the eight cell.
When there is a local collapse of twists and turns as if complex space were the key to a more general integral connected space reflections as part of pi even without a change of energy between the zweiterbugging structures, this could be such a difference in the quasic order and natural ordering that is responsible for a center of omnomiplex or locality vs astroplex to limit the expression of dimensions as a matter of topology and not just he algebra. 240 248 256 time like dimensions and so on as a part of the natural integral counting of such abstract objects.
One can image the strings (for all the polytopes and varieties of stellated of the icosahedron) as if like glue on the ends of toothpicks that collectively or locally describe an astroplex star quasiregular with a center or not. These should be viewed at least in four space and can go beyond the limits of five dimensions.
Let us consider then the role of the telomeres as what is happening at the end of chromosomes as such a winding of the deeper potential structures of 120 cells or other five fold structures- also the top of an icosahedron as a general space akin to that of the idea of intersecting pentagons. But the extra angle of the five tets in a seven point deltahedron as a description of some of the unsolved problems like DNA unzipping is also a product of this dialectical four fold quasi-shunting with the three and two or two and one and two ordering shunting. But the space as a dynamical one is part of both things present and dynamically dialectically coexclused when needed in a global organic process.
Clearly the flat discrete molecules or the spherical Fuller like have these properties of aromatics because of such quasifinite material and spacious holography.
While such ideas are suggested to many people as some of the things in Rowlands on DNA one has to show the mathematical process- and then perhaps enjoy a certain level of proof especially beyond what is the empirical or theoretical frontiers.