Sunday, January 16, 2011

The Hypothetical Hippodrome

The Hypothetical Hippodrome

Of course can cannot expect all the distances in some space to be integer values or even make sense as a predictable relation between some irrational values- if we care at all about the details.

My stray thoughts today come like the last of runners in a race coming in, to say they were part of it without the intention to win really. The winners a matter of luck also where by chaos alone he with clean living and a healthy heart stumbles or it goes into chaos.

Then again, some take shortcuts. Some leave the race or in reality fly up from its simple loops that have become a maze, some hide in the dead ends, some explore digging tunnels under the ground, and some get run over by the racing chariots or face each other in the cut-purse streets to the thumbs up or down of the governments and playwrights, armed with faith only against the lions.

I tried again last night, oh it seems when I follow a game, a rare thing, the team does rather well. Must be the old indian blood in me where each side has a shaman to hex things- and to lose the game was to lose your head- to understand what on earth in such high realms things like the Monster group could mean. That is a gap in my contemplations and education and I do not see how it comes clearly out of concepts of counting and theorems on primes. This perhaps my own mass gap and hierarchy problem and all those other terms I do not know nor how to properly use.

47 x 59 x 71 , that is the last three primes this number breaks into in a long string gives us what they call the 196833 "dimensions"... durn, we should have ordered Conway's book on this last year back when I was bumming quarters for coffee. The point being that this long number as X in 2^X has enormous subgroups to consider to which obviously primes aid in the sorting.

But why I even did this sort of thing waiting for the game at all- stray thoughts really- I mean I considered being away from the blog posts and social networks for awhile- and the coffee shop as I had said most I could for now- but I could not make sense of a matrix of sorts which mapped the powers of things in one direction to the factorials of things in the other in my quasic grid so as to try to map some of these "hyperquasic" space concepts. (I mean, it even occurred to me such greater than the real and intelligible space or what amounts to the same thing internal but hidden symmetries less than the God for sure Euclidean space- these abstract motions may either explain some of the nuances of programming chess behind the scenes or show us how to enhance even further the game with new rules of play. That something may enter the reality of such a large and variable but finite game, the spontaneous creation, or it vanishing into the diffuse distance, certainly exceeds what seems the reality of physis, so seems some theories of cosmology and theories of Branes, cycles and collisions and so on.

However, I did consider the "weight problem" when asking myself if such a measure of distance in quasic space mapped to the informational coordinates of the pixels could in a way be a series of invariants or assigned such so as to in effect get intelligible measures of this global idea of mass but in a way that theory at least does not have us add these (inertial?) concepts ad hoc to the equations. (I also thought about a better match between this space and things we can do and draw in complex planes- but I do not have the training really to do this for now, nor the time left.)

However, from the philosophical concerns I note some of this has been in the thoughts of Kea and others lately. At what point do we run out of mathematical properties in our theories? It would seem that the last property is the associative law in such schemes of edifices of number theory that suggest we might be able to wrap physis up in octonions and such. Or for some the vague sense of the five or ten dimensions and all such manifolds and compactificfications. That seems to me why for now the six dimension is the darling of focus and for some still a mystery.

Philosophically then it seems to me that as we lose mathematical principles as far as the intelligibility of structures we gain certain ones of the logic of it all (Hey, call this a Lampion!)
For if associativity does not hold then three things in some order will give different answers so it makes no sense to write them in any particular order- but is this not what is done in say the quantum averaging of masses- as in QCD lamba's to find specific values? Is this not an appeal to probability really to treat things rather non-linearly in a sea of historical paths as if all paths? And which is the proper order of the premises even in a three way syllogism?

At this point it came close to occurring to me a better sense of time- time paradoxes are really the solution to some issues (such as notions of tachyons and infinite inertial speed and causality even of the greater than instantaneous and the logic of time taken to carry deeper ideas in signals in these issues of quantanglement.) [Hey, another distillation of stray thoughts into a Lampion!] Yes, if some of our cherished ideas are held as if not true awhile we might clearly see better of this coming revolution in physis so many now closely find tangibly more real.

Monsters in the heart of the mazes and labyrinths- a puzzle as well as archetypal model of our times in this social age. Our loops and bootstrap dreams with or without boots and ropes and a place to hang them from- In my system I feel strongly one more issue- short of course of some even greater idea of heaven beyond our dreams of continuity, physis, and infinity- That we do indeed choose sets from infinite elements- a shifting as a quasi-independent and dynamic rule of number axioms really if we can see space and numbers as a measurement that evolves- one that does not limit our complexity and possibilities in the concrete or behind the scene.

* * *

OK... so I google the Monster Group, finally, and feel a little less distant from what all this seems to be there attracting my interest in some remote distance. And it indeed links back and forth to the issues of string and M theory (and after all the counting of simple structures). It begins to make sense of the 24 of things from that four space solid as to what my background intuitions were thinking about.

Lampion: In quasic space the usual reduction of entropy or other things as if a model of contiguous surfaces reducing the effects on the measurement of the whole is not the grounding principle of such space for from some view any such regions are, although continuously connected (and the article mentions the enquiry by Conway into relations of the continuous and discrete in these structures intuitively) are rather isolated with some sort of a concept of emptiness between them that is not seen or necessarily have weight value for any type of vector consideration, even zero vectors. The link between this concept of space and other vague physis of perpendicularity (obviously I use this term not in the usual geometry sense) can be asserted but as yet not shown or even imagined as calculable or not over some vague potential infinity. Such a possible dynamic in empty space exceeding group theory and (hyper-)quasicity- even cardinality- may suggest further levels of fundamental theory. In any case, it cannot simply be a matter of perturbations for example in any such calculation of mass- or in some cases it can simply be that whatever the hidden genus (24 dim or 8 sphere stacking or not) for just as the singularity of points is useful as physical models, the singularity of spheres on a higher and simpler language is shown to be intelligible in its descriptions, recently in articles and in stray papers on the net, of coils and such spheres with some success describing colloids and organic things. It was a simple and childish experiment feeding bacteria liver for the iron then seeing them form stacked structures in a strong magnetic field - but I was a kid with a microscope.

With all this in mind maybe my simple counting is not so simple after all- that to note the last three primes of the monster group (simple group) multiplies to the group and adds to 177 of which is 3 x 59, one of the primes. So what can it mean, simply or naively, that 2^3 = 2^4x4!. Whatever my experience on the internet has been it shows me I can handle the equations and at a more rapid pace- if I had the time. But this most likely comes from at least a priori establish some sort of grounding faith and vision.

No comments:

Post a Comment