Lampions

As I come on to blogspot to make a post of sayings I call lampions (not a particle) as I had a heck of a one, and hopefully simple one, last night from a double dream, I find this post and commentary with further claims of crack pottery all around. But I guess it is a matter of breaking the symmetry or something. In any case the raw metaphysical idea was the topic of the lampion- and I said it very simply and felt it in the dream- but then second time around I wrote a very complicated explanation! which are relevant to the topics in the following links.

http://pseudomonad.blogspot.com/2010/12/dark-matter-update.html
linking to:
http://riofriospacetime.blogspot.com/



I love the reduction of things to sensible numbers in the odd equations offered. It is surreal- to use Conways term. I am not sure encountering his work early on made it easy or harder to grasp this golden era of crackpot cosmology or not. There can be a world where the square root of two is in a sense rational! How much longer before the surreal calculus comes? In any case Rowlands mentions Conway's nimbers in his book and it is just another idea with which I agree and feel at home with Rowlands.

So, this idea of flat or spherical regions- not to mention the crazy ideas that it may just concern some density of matter or space or something- a cubical volume? Well these ideas are critical for measurements such as space and the division say into sub-unitis of 64 cubic regions to find the Fourier transforms- but again, the squareness and the roundness are the same volume in four space.

I have not been a fan of inflation, nor eternal inflation- but such an idea as eternal inflation does sound much like Holye's steady state model for an expanding universe and considering the spherical or flat region or pixel may be the same thing on the surface of something like black holes- a way for an intelligible measure and scaling commensurable for what is an odd symmetry in nature- the harmonics of a sphere as if the sonic regions on the sun and its shell like greater thermodynamic atmospheric horizons- I have no problem with the ideas of eternal inflation meeting the ideas on all scales of colliding brane worlds in a pyroverse (ekypotwhatsit) but by this I do not mean PiRhoverse- I am in fact more drawn to Pitkanen like pure four space formalism. I imagine our generation of crackpots lack a needed understanding of n-dimensional Euclidean geometry as part of the picture- if they cannot imagine or picture such things happening to a sphere how could they possibly imagine a torus that is everywhere flat?

* * *

Lampion 12.19.10 A spherical region which is pixel like and not just a naked singularity and capable of containing an epistemology range of observation can see in all directions or in any directions even if the aberrations of insight totally vary. Thus if in contact with another such region (and the time directions can go in either or many sign senses) the configuration of things leave imprint as if beyond the idea of the instantaneous (or for that matter some idea of warp speed and global simultaneity or any potential infinity). Moreover, the sense of such an influence can be "felt" or known in a unique and relatively fixed linear direction
even beyond the linear direction of our vision.

(Sorry it came out much longer than the dream for saying- but less than the explanation as not a bad compromise- but apologies to Ulla so let me try again:)

Lampion 12.19.10.B If your eyes are closed and you are not sure which way was is up someone can poke you in the back and you can visualize it even if your eyes only see forward.

[Think here of our notions of partial and triple integration and of holographics of volumes and surfaces, and of linear operations and information transferred as if at a distance of the totality of numbers on a Riemannian sphere (Plane) for example as to the type of neutrino Majorana etc... as in Penrose's quantanglement.]

Of course it is possible this dream was influenced by reading blogger comments concerning hole regions in the cosmic background- but it is an abstract concern really (thus lampion or little light) of the wholes and parts and how to define things in them which is very close to metaphysics where we try to derive things from the nothingness or vacua. It is not clear to me at all- if the idea of multiverse can be distinguished from universe- that the laws in parallel universes would have to cover a great spectrum of differences. But such can be imagined and it still be the same problem of uniqueness.

I note that Rowlands suggests a 64 element beyond the groups that comprise it as a mirror that usually by the string theorist are considers that of gravity. This idea certainly needs further consideration as to the nature of what substantially exists.

* * *

On the other hand, for those who emphasize the epistemological over the ontology, that is the mind as primary: There seems to be room for some direct mental interaction between people, at least in theory, an idea I imagine is the reason so much is rejected in the name of science that even hints of the supernatural- and that goes right into the heart of any emergent quantum interpretations as it relates to consciousness. Note: in the illustration the omega analogs go bb b and so on which again limits the observable in theory as well as experiment- obviously we still need a wider view of our physics theories. Perhaps as my philosophic continua to come to grips with the nature of causality and direct experience of applied equations with nothing added on ad hoc. Plutomnium does have a sense of recursive and iterative (Rowlands distinguishes these terms) absolute determinism as a model after the more relative and relaxed continuum- but then nature has a way of balancing things like in rings of structures for the Teleomnium. What after all is the point or purpose of a universe of eternal inflation? We also could use a better theology which comes to grips with the new science data and philosophy where we have the idea of the creative. But culture eventually stumbles upon these notions. Philosophy in itself also seeks a theory of everything- I vaguely call the Omnium- and coincidentally so does Penrose (or maybe our brains were close when I was stationed in Cambridgeshire about the time I came up with the term.)

* * *