Intuitionist Intuition at Cognitive Crisis

Intuitionist Intuition at Cognitive Crisis

Today, I had not much worth the posting as science, more in a philosophic mood. I watched the Packers game. Messed with the straws making some geometric shapes, especially of the octahedron to get a better grasp of how one might find Rowlands theories of the gene sequences on the faces of such things. It was easy enough to combine two loops of six edges to make a fair model.

I have reached a crisis of sorts- more one of philosophy and am not sure how valuable it may be a science as it may say more about our human cognition and thoughts. I recalled from the seventies when I first felt I had at last understood the nature of matter by counting things in an atom. It was much easier to think about such things in isolation without having to debate some things with others or to be given the wrong information or concepts.

Can it be that some of the answers to the mysteries are really rather simple and that somehow this has escaped me for so long- as if perhaps I am imagining I am say an artist - yes, with a style but it is nothing special in the greater picture of things- I do not know enough about the world nor my own thoughts that if I could see better I would find that I am the slow one after all while the slow ones have thrived by some measure- like, the convenience store of pizza job was what it was all about. Not to say that work is not in a sense something sacred. (I cannot quite express what I think inside I am trying to say here- bare with me.)

So much more important it seems, the physics, and under the eye of others that becomes a responsibility- the poet in me self-censored to some degree. And yet in the crisis of a muddled page (better than a blank page) I have the seeds of poetry to come: Orchid House, Bottle in a Message, The Ship of Theseus (Jesus?) in a Bottle. New words perhaps along with some concepts: Interposition.

You see, there is a combination of sorts of the idea of the quasimetaphysical and the quasiphysical- new word: Quasiomnium (QsOm) or perhaps quasiphysis.

Lampion 1: There is a description of reality free from extreme interpretative positions in which we can imagine but it would be an illusion of theory not applied to the universe that for example there can be a model of baby universes as in eternal inflation. Where conceptually does nilpotency meet indempotency?
Can it be called science if at these core beliefs we can construct such a theory that may not be one concrete ever to come into existence in our future reality?

Stray Ideas that seem to come up at this threshold or frontier of profound thinking and empty results:

Lampion 2 - There is quasi restraint by dimensionality (in a sense the converse of the Lampion 1 above. It consists that abstractly in this n-dimensional world everywhere (space is three space only in that we model it that way and so perceive it to some extent) a quasi-restraint really wherein different near dimensions may be intuitionistly and intelligibly embedded and so counted in as each others parts.

For example some stray facts: (Fuller and others)

A cube volume is three tetradra
An octahedron is four tetrahedra
Four squares can have half the octahedral volume if one sided.
A sphere turns out not to be exactly five tetrahedra (why?)
If inside the abstract 4 tets of an octahedra we put center point to make hypertets of five cells we get 4x5 = twenty tetrahedra.
Is there an abstract Tarski like situation that applies in the five divisions of a sphere to make two sphere of greater volume?

In the age of only protons, Gammow and others held we could not have certain numbers of nuclei form, 5 or 8 nucleons. (should we count quarks- and in this simple intuitionist count of objects does that really describe the world- hard particles and space but not really deeper than three space? Is matter that simple or somehow like a movie I saw supernova of nine dimensional matter surrounded by three dimensional matter to set one off- how often a great idea, and concrete one holds comes up on the frontiers of science fiction- sometimes truth returns to myth.

Lord Kelvins space filler, albeit smashed, is also in the 4^3 grid of the genes.

* * *

Ulla, good for you if you got anything out of my last posts and charts. I do not know what Kea is doing (for that matter I do not know really what they teach in the schools.) And one really needs to define the term information. I use it as in the numbers in that chart for it is all binary- the number one is 000000 in the chart and if that is not information theory then I know little about programming and puter which I probably do not or may not- how could Rowlands represent these things by a series of 111111 or the D code for imaginary and negative numbers- and you can see all the 2 bases in that grid and convert them. If that is not information theory what is- I rather see things more as the assembly code and not higher levels unless I fully understand where that code applies first.

Well, the ratio of H to He made some sense back when there where just protons and we could estimate the Big Bang from all of this.

* * *