The Drama of Unitary Biology
Kea, suggests that we may be reconstructing the classical geometry from deeper theories- in a comment. This interesting question or interpretation I extended a bit into the ideas of reconstructing number theory in a similar manner, presumably these things up from quantum ideas for example to be explained by physics as primary. From what I can tell, Pitkanen and to some extent Rowlands has a similar view on the role of numbers. Perhaps such things derived from say complex numbers in turns and twist that apply to space and geometry- or as Lubos Motl points out today in his posts and lectures that these things are not compatible and yet seem nevertheless to hold together magically (if I quote his video on Witten and string theory right.) So on the way to the coffee shop I thought of this lampion or saying I have long realized.
Lampion 01-08-11: That if this reconstruction is true from the quantum level up that: From deeper ideas of the foundations of (quantum among other models) physics we may be reconstructing the more classical (Aristotle's initial attempts like the gene charts here may be a muddle of tentative validity's) logic as syllogism if we reduce the (quasic) field by rules to more focus things like the modes, with the exception of deducing one of the 24 that does not seem to obey the rules and which I imagine done earlier if it is the same one by Hilbert and his 4D color cube space.
Of cource it follows in the n-adic base arithmetic that such things are convertible and intelligible in the quasic plane and its various orderings that apply to dimensions. I may redo the cramped second illustration above for a review of quasic ordering in the 8x8 and 4^3 representations- Egad I made an error on the first illustration, not 4^6 but obviously 4^3 = 64. Such doubling and halving cause a lot of confusion even on secondary school math tests much as the ancient Greeks made such mistakes of dimensioning. In any case the information is the same in the flat or volume space- and such principles we may glean suggestive, at least from an intuitionist and discrete view that the lines in the flat grid map into circles (squares and cubes and here into tetrahedra) I find it interesting in Rowlands gene investigations he concentrates on the faces of octahedra.
* * *
The idea of symmetry, especially an n-dimensional bilateral symmetry, leads to haunting similarities of our models of physics.
We can be divided into two sides of the looking glass. From our side and view we experience the concrete, the other side can be enticing, appearing magical and mysterious, a guilty pleasure we can secretly admire from a distance as we suspend disbelief hopefully not mired in its quicksand while our lapse of reductionism.
Some maintain string theory is defective because of its astronomical possibilities of models. I see this as a needed and useful advantage - that our reflection or the light between mirrors does not have to leave us with the intellectual free fall and tailspin into a bottomless pit of infinite descent.
Our era, as shared knowledge and influence of the medial grows, a post-modern art or philosophy of science we have to deal with, take its values, discard the rest, is one where progress in theoretical physics can only be made by the individual at a time when that is hard to define and yet done only anonymously, ultimately, as the work or worker muddles by and as Foucault suggested, we can write ourselves out of the play.
I am a fairly good chess player. Only when coming up against those who have taken the time to play and study have I had to upgrade my game so to win. But people are more important for demands on my time than theories. How can I harness the killer instinct, a desire to win, when only as good as my opponent whose whole life and sense of worth is that game, at the risk of insult by throwing in the towel in a discrete blunder so as to let him win, I must weigh the morality of winning that can discourage their future progress when they have given me little things like conversation and coffee when I was down and out. I certainly would not want to give them a sound thrashing when their lovers and cheerleaders rally to them on the side lines.
With great hesitation and apology then, must I appear to take issue with some of the genetic ideas in the milestone book Zero and Infinity, the Foundations of Physics by Peter Rowlands. Neither one of us has had time in this game of snakes and ladders, for any more than token waves, salutes, ships in passing as the utmost minimum of possible collaboration (to which he kindly suggested we discuss things some time.)
With hope then that in our entanglement and debates in the marketplace of ideas the fog lifts on our adding some grains of unity to biology and physics, like living things that are even sustained in isolation, and like self evolving computer chips that dedicate part of their circuit to make antennas with witch to communicate, value a message, we search such unknowns, desire yet dread immediate challenges to our worldviews and agendas that surprise us, can support or threaten us as they come, as seems so myself, out of nowhere. May the solid and universal expectations when our souls as scientists are sorted- none be thwarted, and while in the play, you Shakespeare's or minor Elizabethan prophets at least be entertained while the living, enjoy the epic globe, mesmerized to but animal magnetism, we fallen sparrows at the fall of curtains and encores while in the play.
* * *
So, to begin the more technical commentary in internship and tuition (hey guys we are all well beyond the paradoxes of peer reviews) I can no longer, after a bootstrap or necessary negative moment, regard Rowlands foundations of physics, in either naive childishness or playful childlike genius, as a fundamental- perhaps a book to be taken with us of a limited number into outer space for the colonization and never to return. Coxeter's work still does this for me, his poem of Biblical proportions has every line to lead to whole worlds of real structures and mathematics.
But this is not the fault of Peter Rowlands and his co-theorists. We seem to be collectively looking for some combination to unlock symmetries that tend to try arbitrary arrangements. He seems to do this mapping Dirac's algebra and the concepts
of quantum randomness, mixing, and preferences assigned- applying this to the genetic code to understand it as nature's or like Heinz, a cosmic code. Yet, this brave and open mind, careful in speech and claims, seems to suggest the how to solve things rather than more certain solutions in themselves.
I am brave too in assigning arbitrary order to my quasic systems (but would not imagine it an epiphany should I understand some experiment had to consider fuzzy terms of uncertainty or that on the natural scale some relativity applies (as Don Lincoln did) but I know it part of the picture and method. My systems have had an advantage as intuitionist utility and survival of the fittest in falsified and verified theories. What we have in common then is the sense of symmetries in biological space, haunting similarity telling us what maybe be a whole new path to view- and idea many perennially feel with lesser x-ray vision that Rowlands who nevertheless sees imperfections in the biology as far from its core physics. I have approached the subject more from the creative than reductionist side. Yet Rowlands is aware of complexification - to make say a set of 64 codons part of two three dimensional spaces of representation a legitimate method of doubling. Mine rather an intuitionist halving of sorts from a given.
I finally tried to map some analogs of Pascal's triangle into my quasic grid. In fact I made a variation on an older model for othogons of details I had forgotten as too complex to come easily to mind. So the illustration certainly is also arbitrary but may tell us there may be other sets of the 20 Diracian pentads. Rowlands has two.
I did this by inscribing tetrahedra into orthogons, in this case one of twenty nodes in a Pascal analog of three space. Clearly up to six dimensions the pattern of such tetrahedra are quasic or fractal like unto the dimensional representation too. I note if we inscribe two such tetrahedra in a cube we find Rowlands structure used to orient things for the all important 4 space but much mythologized properties of phi and thus five fold symmetry. But this structure, having no center node, that cube and its face diagonals including filled with three space, is after all the four space (16 cell or beta subscript 4 antiorthogon of Coxeter) analog to the octahedron.
I can imagine my 20 structures as if a spherical top where the four face nodes make a vertical solid geodesic sphere or polyhedron.
That there are 20 units and this Pascal analog has no nucleus, I suspect we can find the breaking of symmetries and group numbers to distinguish and ground by both Null and zero point potency what some style as the (here 4) time-like dimensions.
From my quasic view we may not arbitrarily compute the GAUC with 1, -1, i, -i with quaternions as Rowlands does for the simple fact all of the 64 codons have a role to express something and a lot more than the averaging of its masses and so on... albeit with a question as to why and fact of degeneracy.
But this too is part of the picture. In fact such complex Klein algebra Rowlands suggests isomorphic to the E8 at least in the real parts. Since these structures may average out and so be distinguished in cell differentiation and do so in an energetic reductionist manner or viewpoint, we may have semi-magic squares that are semi-stable and built into the grid logic for cell integration.
I hope this post shows a little of my wisdom as well, from other eyes not our own, the lack of experience and education. I could have worked out things in detail before presenting them better. I do not know for example if this applies to E6 group so many like the string theorists make much over. Maybe things like these continuous groups have to be represented in a sense of the dimensions of space a little more complicated than they do when reduced so to some picture that shows perhaps only a thousand of a million words when said maybe we only find limitations of some counting and notions in much higher dimensional representations than we now do.
I find it interesting too, the rules of matrices and determinants and so on that seem to come up when we investigate these properties of this quasic logic grid as if these rules so apply- and for the computing of magic squares when we divide the grid into quadrants (I only use 64 of the deeper grid in the illustration above) we note the divisions can come together again as if on a square reduced coarser grid these patterns add in the underlying 4D 16 to the four directions of symmetry. To this end perhaps Rowlands et al in attempting to note properties of the codons in new connections of graphs- a four way sorties rather than the three way Venn diagrams are instructive. Although the Jerusalem Cross system is independently discovered on my own- it may be the use of crosses was like this by some earlier logicians for the determination of validity's. Discovered wisdom is not clearly our own inventions but it would help if those who slave were paid for their contributions- a point that has not escaped my notice even when ideas rejected by various journals or universities and seems a common complaint by those ill treated or perhaps feared for their gifts of fire to humanity.
* * *
I add a point I did not work into the whole- the quasic idea as if a generational thing, a fractal unit cell recurrence of symmetry at least to some extension of numbers and dimensions- that painfully dawning on me as a significant concept over the years as applying to cubes, hypercubes... that for the tetrahedra and higher simplexes this same sort of quasic (powers of 4 as Fermat's recondite property of numbers comment) occurs, and I find that reassuring and easier to digest.
* * *
Damn, in the complexity of the sentences I know I left out ?'s somewhere- I hope the personal comments prove helpful to the understanding of these notions.
* * *
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110106145311.htm
Wow, but in the complexity we face- even things we now only begin to suspect above the existing natural genome ( I have found that even professors have not understood some term I would use like genetic algorithm our disciplines so specialized and fragmented- if they admit not understanding at all) that even more so now do we need a unitary theory of gene biology as our arbitrary experiments could play havoc with our germ lines exceeding nature's balances beyond its adapting to the greater probability we do not know what we are doing.
But was the game not already over when we can make virulent viruses in the laboratory? Do we at last have to learn to live together- each one of us on which the security of the whole depends? We are not cats to be de-clawed nor dogs to be domesticated save perhaps by consent and reason.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20927943.000-a-fat-tummy-shrivels-your-brain.html
So the number of fat cells is constant but the size changes (Dr. Oz) and the cost of reliving old movies seems to be endless adds this time of year for one diet or the other when perhaps the chemical additives are part of the blame if not lack of a theory of nutrition and the structure of metal atoms... That and growing older- endless baby boomer ads for all kinds of medical insurance or ways to have our mortgages outlive us. Some of the concerns I have commented on are really those to which only the young may benefit- what good really is winning a lottery where as little as it is our wealth is a thousand fold upon retirement? To bequeath to others? To have a firewall to defend or extend our immortality? These things are after all our shared concerns to which we solve or not by our attitudes to core things like Malthus and living room vs endless progress of possibilities- of false alarms and false scarcities without an honest inventory of resources.
I suppose I would try (Pe Sla, old baldy) the stem cell cure for baldness or for some the wrinkle cream at the cost of side effects say for acne. It is right up there with the wonder of how the Fugie ball might work in the liberal trying of new things. And the nanotech programs in the community college is really toxic but designed for high school students. Then again, what would really be the point of going to school finally at my age- not in this world of training for jobs?
So articles say woman's tears turn men off- well, I am pretty sure the opposite is true and as a social weapon some ladies are masters of this. Or we give things to those in the distance like prodigal sons gone astray and homeless, or some trailer burns out and the community responds or unto acts of God as natural disasters. Of course who said society makes scientific sense? But for all you budding students who may still be the future- that is why God made Ramen.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20927943.500-did-magma-rain-on-the-early-earth.html
Perhaps the bird kill again of something natural behind the scene, surely to say we now notice it and think it changing is a cop out when we need more generalization. Ultimately, albeit indirectly we do decide the structures of this world. Could the atoms not evolve to, creatively? Sometimes what may appear as conflicting and equally arbitrary theories may both hold part of the truth.
* * *
No comments:
Post a Comment