## Thursday, January 20, 2011

### Eyes Of Hyper-World

Eyes Of Hyperworld

If physics and arithmetic can seem quasi-intelligible why are we surprised when we find our actions and understanding confusing at times? Of course, in a world or philosophy of non-necessary reality some uncertain things may still contain rational intelligibility.

Last night I messed with the numbers and at least wanted to post the graph of the absolute number of binary coordinate changes to match yesterdays graph of the abstract quasic motion functions. But I did not find much worthy to post other than some musings on the philosophy of it all.

Kea posted the terms qubit and qutrit which I now looked up and Found Davies Maps.

And in his post today TGD Pitkanen comments on an article by Witten.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1101/1101.3216v1.pdf

http://matpitka.blogspot.com/2011/01/wittens-physical-view-about-khovanov.html Witten

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0911/0911.5607v2.pdf Davies on "qubits and qutrit maps"

These two articles may as well be in Chinese- yet I see or hear enough that I understand the issues at hand- if anyone can put them into simpler terms more of the lay readers could think and act as deeply. How do we know then if such a language and theory is rational? Only between those who speak the language? Or whatever the language or concept (even if we are say communicating to radical different sentient beings as if we one day chatted with alien civilizations.) I who am familiar with my own system may be strong enough to see the truth of its necessary flaws in my own confabulations or that discerned of the indiscernible paradoxes of the world I exist in.

Davies, it seems, begins to get an idea of substructures as important- albeit from a quantum perspective (and not perturbative) and realize some systems here might work together- much like holographic ideas and contour calculus and one space of the qubits and qutrits... I would think those looking for a more unified theory all come close to a consensus of a style of viewing these concepts of higher space and numbers- as close to that as they seem to be to each other.

The quasic functions of motion fn and the coordinate changes together form a positive or absolute algebra of their own of interest perhaps to algebraist's. We understand that algebra more and more just as in what may seem irrational ideas like my old concept of (3 things taken 4 at a time) even in the playing with simple integers gets into vast speculations, uncertainties and confusions, coincidences and reasons- after all we are treating the integers as if dimensions- not only that, but with knots and braids and quasic fractal contexts and so on.

The vague idea of 3 things taken four at a time does indeed describe the null like possibilities when we reach four space- (especially as it applies in the 6 space considerations as if the DNA code or Eddington quantum relativity vector grid uranoid.

Clearly, in the concrete of counting, we have two squares touching (a domino) and the case of 6 x 6 grid to be filled with such dominoes, each with structural impossibilities at the lower dimension (and only there in all space). For one cannot arrange such dominoes in the 6x6 grid without a "fault line" not interlocking them. We know too that we cannot divide space into integral cubes like we can so divide a plane in to so many squares.

The news today mentions someone suggested a reason we are more likely to try something new in this world (in the USA anyway) may be because of how we were alphabetized in grade school. The later ends of the alphabet try harder and the earlier ends (such as tallness for say a marching array) are assigned leadership positions. But do not certain probable things persist? Does not the first of letters rationally come first in many cases that we at first blush imagine random?

Clearly, in the pursuit of notions of what is or not rational and intelligible counting there is this difference in the order or alphanumeric's of things and it is hard to see what would be the value or annoyance of a new truth or falsehood to seek in the directions of physics as if still with our initial grade school ideas we expect or not some world view and procedure of those on the inside or outside a group.

That we can imagine an Overworld of 3+1 formalism is to imagine 3 things taken as distinct four at a time! How else might Pascal's triangles be exhaustively full of the foundations of things on which we erect most other ideas of mathematics? We can only see three of course- but is this not the same problem of our labeling of three or six colors in four space considered as opposite pairs- and why enumerate things as if they are these pairs that are not contiguous?

* * *

I wonder if my level of things as so simple would convey to the layity these ideas (as Motl asked and recently his praise of Green whom I did not find that enlightening as a popular author- but alright) that after all- there may be some inherent danger or hindered of understanding by too simple and early a fixing into a language that after all only the zen of professional theorists, like the doctors if we are lucky, might truly understand.

Oh, it turns out that it is merely taken two square quasic regions to find the odd dimensional numbers as those in the charts- interestingly when we make the square again at an even dimension we find a doubling or halving or even quadrupling of the numbers in their positions in the grid- again, in this higher level language.

* * *

I also note some things about the number 17 but not sure it goes anywhere?

Again sum the digits we can find 11 x 11 = 121 the same as 2 x 2 = 4.

But what of 89 or 8+9 OR 98 OR (16+1)^n or (10+7) and so on - as I begin to understand these number relationships I seem to better understand the vague and counter existing intelligibility of say the algebra.

Logically, that unicorns do not exist makes the old gray mare all the more real. It is said I recall from somewhere.

Early on I did have the conflict with apples and oranges verses abacus like counting rapidly in grade school. What is with this idea of a stream of consciousness really if one also knows the delta of consciousness?

* * *

Sun upon the Snow L. Edgar Otto 01-20-11

The snowflakes sparkle like stars

against the blinding, crystal

melting bank that always wins

Like galaxies to my closer looking,

these mirrors shift and turn my way

I the lesser God, there to see them

Under the cover the field mice tunnel,

nest, insulated warm, litter and mom

I turn over, quickly replace the log again

How cold my toes, how awakens me the

sunlight and brisk chill to wash away sleep

yet how the eyes tire into purple haze again

She smelled of lye soap and well water, one bare light bulb

Untangling her hair at night in the glare it reached to the ground

* * * *

How cold my TOEs...

In view of the quasic number (4n+1) 17, it also occurred to me that an ideal or internal omega point singularity or a +1 for 17 hypercubes, 16 and one in the center is a useful variation on some of these group like conceptions. How else is it that we can relate to diverse languages and in all the Babble see clearly the shared notions and longings to find a more unified and rational view of our reality?

I note, that the graph just for nimber operations does not really describe the subtile division of the quadrants of quasic grids of various dimensions where the numbers are halved and doubled, or vanish in such symmetry breaking in the fine xray eyes on the whole.

One thing playful counting does is to inspire a desire to learn some things about number theory- for at last I can see the thrill and mysteries within our grasp, hopefully, to be found, even solved. Metaphysically, it seems there is a dynamic of the nature of knowing and reality somewhere between the intelligible and unintelligible where we can grow if we are brave to face the certainties and absurdities of our existing. But this only superficially can be interpreted as a dynamic between the concrete and opaque evolution of substance- if we are in a state of awareness of our mind as it weighs the experience of physis.

* * *

* * *

Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

## No comments:

## Post a Comment