Quasinos Beyond the Casinos

Quasinos Beyond the Casinos**
[** By the terms quason and quasonino( quasino ) I am not necessarily suggesting particles but the principles I call this as an analogy to particle physics. Such modern speculations as well as certain religious notions help in the understanding of these abstract things as a model. It is gratifying to have such wide and deep understandings even when vague and intuitive. The poet in me likes the wordplay and restraint in their creation as some sort of minimum of the new or reduction to what is necessary. I may not find the right nuances of words nor how they are specially defined and used by others- but I can also see the beauty as well as the frustrations of communications of the vision of others such as TGD and string theories to which I can feel the excitement of their own perception as concrete that they have found and want to share in their own journeys of enquiry and realization of the unity, the intelligibility we see into surprisingly new frontiers for the body of human learning.]

*1 A quason is an abstract geometric structure of all physical possibilities of its freedoms and symmetries in a given dimension, its nodes can be filled or not. Its integral points can be considered a class of points. (in particular a quason is the symmetry of close packing of spheres in 8 dimensional space- applied also to atomic structure both as layers and magic numbers in the 120 4D element description.)

*2 A quasino, also quasimetaphysically filled or not, can be a zero dimensional or n-variable dimensional "singularity> and can be a addition of 1 as such to the number of nodes of a quason or its subcell dimension.

*3 In a literal or concrete 3 and greater space structure as filled and positive node Pascal simplex level, the concrete filled center singularity n! may appear only at some number of shell like layers- equal to the number of the dimension.

*4 That, in a given dimensional analog simplex, the center can be implied, not filled higher structures may appear centered, shells or shadows of higher dimension (Coxeter calls shadow polytopes )- thus these concretely "flange" or "nature sees" higher space that way

*5 Some structures as Quasons on certain levels in space or time may break general quasic symmetry by the ejection or including, compression, filling, expanding, of the classes of quasino quasiphysical singularities. Of which the n+1 points of the structure in the simplex of the n dimension and the center of the pascal analog simplex work at the limits of the structure in a relation of singularity (perhaps akin to the idea of dark matter)

*6 An electron may be composed of 8 "iotas" without a quasino center.

*7 The two dimensionality is expressed as one dimensionality when things are reduced to Pascal simplexes- if these represent particle physics representations then in 1 2 1 and 1 3 3 1 we first can imagine certain properties of stings (which is center and which are anti-particles and how many?)

*8 Binary information systems come before as more fundamental than the properties of quantum systems. These may be of inertial infinite velocity or entanglement (in Rowlands sense)- and these can be more fundamental than reductionist geometry in its twists and braids and scales in a global sense. An iota in a sense is neither discrete nor continuous at simplicity or infinite complexity.

[to be continued with as many footnotes and another page of first principles]:

Footnotes and some Lampions of realized significant first principles:

F1 - {(3 + 1) v (2 + 1)} ^ 2 = four informational possibilities of the formalism.

F2 - one choice of viewing truths of a class of classes is indeed a Type theory model (Russel) thus principles as sometimes relative fluid truths but intelligible.

F3 - we need to shore up our ideas, like with Ramanujan on the relations between pi, phi and e as they dance around more intuitive arithmetic and algebras.

F4 - an explanation, alternative, for asymptotic freedom and jet quenching involving a concept of opaque matter and energy in these ideas of a more unified quasic physics- that is not just a geometric or material view.

F5 - creative processes are thus intelligible with these possibilities of dark matter or energy notions as involving Pascal enumerations as well the material systems- each by themselves are not in a sense useful as life force information in the world between the monotonous fixed and absolutely chaotically random. (just as said of the fractal reading of DNA...)

F6 - We imagine then the skeleton say of only the edge dimensions of some simplex which like a particle or field may decay into lesser dimensional quasons plus an addition of 1 singularity... this is number intelligible that is, 84 edge nodes + 4 3-space point nodes and one singularity centered in 4 space = integer 89 (but this is really a stretch of my imagination and may be arbitrary but if not so will open a vast new area to explore in number theory- note, I have not related it in the conventional way to primes other than the recondite sense of space and numbers that Fermat seems to have felt and mentioned. (in such decay we have to ask, quasically from the omnium view- just where and when such an exact event occurs existentially.

F7 - On the edge simplex as a pascal triangular analog (alpha2 simplex of Coxeter) unlike in the orthogon and antiorthogons (ie gamma and betas, squares) we count the subcells of say a triangle as 1 face, 3 edges, 3 points, and 1 * or vacuum null- these make it possible to join edges of such one space triangles and higher simplexes possible. There in general are analogs intelligible to this in higher simplexes.

F7b - we can of course work out such linear triangles over orthogonal spaces or arrangements of numbers of nodes- a cube for example has 24 + 8 for its skeleton.

F8 - Again quasic space metaphysics is more fundamental than quantum randomness as creative chaos.

F9 - footnote here unclear in manuscript- something relating to quasic mathematical matter and creative reductionist knots of Brom. rings. see F2, for geometric subcells capable of similar properties of these linear triangles in smashed lower dimensions (also see forthcoming lampion on this adding of 1 or subtracting of 1 in relation to such events and space dimensions.

* * *

Quasinos 2 :

*1 [Lampion 01-06-11] From a quason (diffuse class of singularities) to describe the particle substructure, we add one to its integral and natural dimension number (diffuse class of substance or measure) and

*2 From said quason to describe the "field" it is in, we subtract 1 from that measure.

*3 Prime and intelligible numbers extend over these natural dimension quasons by factorials and thus relate to patterns in the growing rows (levels) of stacked pascal simplex numbers. (actual simplex for these Pascal structures and for the names of such geometric structures as the 5-cell or pentatope, is somewhat confusing)

*4 Within a concrete quason the sense of negative numbers and ordered (causal) asymmetries and complex numbers (not intimately tied to other number) may alternate by sign and by positive only general groundings of space levels in question- this more primary than a concept of absolute value which does not necessarily recognize sign- as some particles may not, or alternatively not recognize absolute value as a concept of the natural parity and handedness.

*5 The inverses of such numbers, relatively, can be so intelligibly arrayed, stacked.

*6 Beyond point and string "iota" unity, aleph0 as point and aleph1 as line, with this as flanged or geometric ground alephs-N beyond 1 may so stack and center (and where does the continuous here meet the discrete?

*7 Organic processes can reverse, or tack against the entropy.

*8 It is not clear, once Zeno established, if there is a possibility of "disembodied" soul - or - if in the contained singularities a soul can transcend quasic intelligibility. If it can do so we ask how so and if always so in the universal and particular case. Is experience uniquely recorded somewhere as if viewed from within and from beyond the quasic virtual abstract or concrete quasic structures. In general, as with this point of philosophy, I ask if space as quasic space and less than some higher conception and concern as OMNIUM, is strong enough an idea to encompass a theory of everything? Do we understand enough of our own words and symbols and thoughts that any system may claim this?

* * * *

Every once in awhile I see something that strikes me as humorous. In the brick wall of credentials (for those open to inputs of varied thoughts before their paths get too fossilized- Pitaken had a great statement of this creative yet essential for science state of mind in the enquirers recently in comments) or to quote Kea - a PhD on a brick wall is still a brick wall...) With nothing else on I saw the program Dr. Oz where they discuss various medical issues- a great show really especially for my hypochondriac neighbors. Some people are paid a lot for such research as- coffee raises the sperm count- passing out copies of that newscientist article I got the whole coffee shop in stitches- or for some mysterious reason it helps prevent breast cancer. The influence of things we consume seems to change so much it probably would not help if the average consumer had a Phd in organic chemistry and could do more than then be able to read the labels.

Dr. Oz, an offshoot of the Oprah Winfrey show, called a lady from the audience to point out on a chart of female anatomy just where the G spot was- and she got a bulls-eye. He then said there were two more spots discovered recently. One at the Vaginal opening that is small but easy to find called U and one under the uterus hard to reach but covering a larger area called A. Now I am thinking, if we have the G and U and A can we expect the T ? Or is that something classical and obvious like the C with its butterfly of nerves--- maybe all four together may explain a mysterious geometry read four at a time, that is if such things exist at all in the greater sense of replication over time and the oceanic feeling of woman. :-)

* * * * * * * *

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110106164621.htm

Well, the mystery of the falling birds still dominates the wee hours of the night am radio stations... At last this solar mystery is solved. One thought on the birds was some sort of "magnetic" effects like sonar causing beached whales- that it was either a natural phenomenon or most likely something humans were doing like say with weather changes by waves in the atmosphere.

But why do such concepts persist in our imaginations? Perhaps like the sun or in periods when the sun is "active" some direct influence does affect the earth and living things- but most likely not as simple as say magnetism. I mean that is the last thing likely in physics to explain how black holes eat momentum, yes?

So, some sort of floating disorienting fields or Ley Lines and so on may indeed be some sort of Bermuda Triangle to which migrating animals may get lost in or at least disoriented. Natural or man-made, there is still room for speculation to which we cannot solve with decisive data until these imagined rational models meet somewhere in the geometry of space and time as if fallen mirrored energy shooting one way or the other to influence or warm surfaces and atmospheres. But if anything like this is real is most likely cannot be a theory of disembodied physics. On the other hand there could be a realm of direct connections which as a solid model now seem most metaphysical in the purgative sense if they can be seen at all or even asserted without being a ludicrous idea even more so than spooky action at a distance. What sort of world could it be if our concrete sense of things has to go even beyond our notions of dark matter or energy?

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/01/mass-dying-of-animals-plotted.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19925-mystery-flares-betray-hidden-force-within-crab-nebula.html

These two articles seem linked to me, albeit remotely. How do we know when we can link things, even blind and objectively, that there may be not only a situation where we can make any sort of mathematical theory (a Mensa lady recently said that she was coming to believe this)- but a situation where we cannot distinguish what would be a concrete or a fanciful link?

Really, microbes or some sort of organic like formal space structure from space, as light energy or some sort of falling potential, does not have to be so alien as for example the seeding of earth with life from something like Hoyle's Andromeda Strain- I wonder if good scientists are after all in the end good as science fiction writers?

* * *

* * *