Friday, February 18, 2011

Dragons in the Foam

Dragons in the Foam L. Edgar Otto 02-19-11

Grasshopper, how can you expect to walk on the rice paper and not wrinkle it?

As you eat the Botan candy its wrapper made of transparent rice tastes to you of cellophane.

Are the dragons in the foam not the same creatures as if they're looking in a mirror?
All things being the same, you taste the one but cannot taste the other?

What does it matter that they have five toes, of if the candle you lite its connected by or surrounded by other flames at some distance, synchronized like fireflies?

Nor that the pyramids we build have steps in tune with the planets in the sky and seasons, our shifting zero or that at some beginning or end in our reach to the top of the world imagine them covered smooth with alabaster and crystal finials?

We speak of mythical creatures as if they part of the natural zodiac without them leaving holes while in our meditations we awaken to the thought we too are mythical.

Caught between idolatry and godhead, we beggars in the paradoxes of learning, of seeking, we cloudy foam perceivers, our hearts burning in worship of deceivers

* * *

At least from my perspective, if we read between the lines of this debate on the nature of space and physics, someone might one day look back at the drama of it and the connections of fundamental ideas to which many here hint at what is needed or not desired, or said about the same thing in a different language. This level of blogging, and who knows if the same thing occurs beneath the formality of submitted papers in our institutional settings? I hope others have seen and entertained the drama of it- for unlike trivial drama this enquiry may change our futures.

I read through links today the essential difference between the quantum foam ideas as to how we relate them in higher dimensions. If one cannot understand of course the issues are over their heads- or if from some higher perspective with care for contemplative things, one can hardly understand what is not an issue to him. Yet as we sift through the sea of papers and ideas- we clearly can see the reasons why some notions are held and some from a higher level not seen as an intelligible truth.

* * *

My question today, and recreation of last night, is topology 101- that is Pitkanen raises the issues of handles describing the genus of topological structures- something I had not considered for a long time. Consequently, I did not mention the details of his posting directly.

If we represent a torus as a square or cube as far as the possibilities of internal motion- where is the hole? It could be represented as a loop or handle outside of the cube- but this raises deeper questions as to how we apply such concepts to general geometry for physics should we ground it in the terms of mass and energy.

Now I see a crude drawing in one of the links, wiki, that has a plane and handles over it which they say is a model of quantum foam.

The wiccansphere I thought would be a simple object to contemplate and map the internal structures, an exercise in imagination really (I found a new way earlier of numbering the quasic plane diagonal for expanding squares wherein in the 1024 celled grid the jagged diagonal goes from 0 to 63 with some interesting properties of those cells which are not contained one way or the other in the diagonal. This relates to how Lubos is skeptical of such methods in the linear algebra and matrices. I find it significant and reassuring that this was one of the few times Lubos said he did not understand aspects of the paper. Those insightful objectively should ask why.)

But as I said earlier we can take some of these geometries as literal realities of the descriptions and representations of systems as nature herself does.

I recall vividly early on in Gammow's book (hey, I met a student of his once who said he was an amiable old guy who gave lectures sometimes with a hangover or even a little drunk) where the human body is considered a torus and the gut the hole and the picture turned this inside out such that the universe was contained in the whole and the human body the rest of the universe. All I got from this at the time was that in a sense what we eat is really outside us.

One thing in that paper was the four space smoothness in relation to some sense of what is a monopole (and not of the point particle descriptions of some as one way to view say the Casmir force). The concept I imagine is the asking of what is one side or two sides of things logically (or even in a sense illogically if we seem to have to say both things are there either/or at once when either thing seems to state the whole of the logic of the argument.) But this paper along with many others cites the idea of a pure four space and variations in it. These variations suggest, even without appeal to the higher dimensions of string theory so favors the loop quantum topological ideas, that things are rather multisided, more of biquadratic and bilateral four way dialectic or dipoles than simpler space descriptions. Newton btw did not see a pure definition of continuity without consideration of consecutive and contiguous properties of the down to earth finite and discrete. This is one picture as of Leibniz and his space models of the inductive infinitesimals- but others like Riemann have refined these ideas of how to access such areas and intervals.

Ulla sent me her paper showing life a little more complex than these descriptions of physics in that there is a difference in the coherence and decoherence if we use the quantum terms. But from discussions on the science forums it seems even from a viewpoint less than the complexity of living things the members appeal to decoherence in general for emergent properties such as mind but really do not understand it in depth or a global theory of depth. (Ulla, I am very impressed with your formal paper and documentation to which it will take me awhile to follow the links.) Material priority aside for mental things one cannot show decisively anything more that a place for some mental experience and not the substance of the experience and its reality itself. In general we have here, beyond the philosophic duality in modern terms- two competing theories of everything which in reality both descriptions apply in a wider picture to which it is obvious many cannot understand if their depth and span directions are reduced or limited, or even allowed into unlimited speculations. After all, what is an explosion but no room and the reaction of implosion after some critical mass?

Yet, I in the center of the dragons cannot say I am doing more than floating in some indefinite realm with no guarantee in my multi depths and spans (and btw, I thank Ken Wilbur for the terms and his independent study of Buddhism and holonic views) surrounded by theories of everything. I am not sure therefore my Omnium as a vague general goal of unification of physical models is a theory of everything itself but it is of sufficient generalization to evaluate that of others and for the untrained I am like a guitar player who knows the chords so can deliver the music yet not the hard flamenco of many melodies at once. Yet it is here that the improvisation can fix to some depth of learning, see the whole, and be creative in the details.

The Wiccansphere, The shell itself is part of the substance as well the connections within it of substance and the spaces between and in some of those connections. We then imagine the connections as external loops- in effect at zero parabolic space invert the hyperbolic space inside to the external elliptic space.

Lampion- A region of space, quasi-connected topologically (with that a matter of the widest sense of what remains invariant) does not "know" what depth or span it is in. It can as singularity or "centered and focused mass" be either or both in response and reaction to influences. (this explains but does not predict after the fact of observations, the local influence between location and variable creativity of light or dark centers of matter (recall, Lubos does not understand this smoothing in the more pure four space- not a defect really- anymore than Pitkanen in his model treats such as more than islands that over a sea of entropy finds indefinite averaging in the pure four space representation- mine and many such ideas of weak multiverse averaging short of assertions of variable action scales, the ultranscontinuum, Ulcm, of which some mythologies make models, Poe, Urantia, and so on.

Information approaches would do well to unify these dragons with a better understanding of the nature of entropy. Ulla mentions Prigione btw.

I thought also to represent depth, at least where it corresponds to internal grids of hyperbolic crushed into orthogonal euclidean regions, that we could represent it as vertical quantum formulation notation |n> but this is somewhat confusing and also hard to print. |1/n> = |2^n>...

I lay on the kitchen floor with just a thin pallet and drift to sleep. I feel the gravity that for a second I do not know which way is up, only that I can feel myself feeling I exist so when I feel a wall I know it exists (Sartre) The floor is like a wall and it seems so independent as a force or no force at all, of gravity- and I do not fall really. My world seems so one sided between the stuff and space. The moon is high now after all the lights failed awhile and I lit a candle for the spooky gal across the way who finds a flash light and shines it out her bedroom window- a ritual of her going to bed, a goodnight although we never speak. My roommate Bonpa has no problem in the dark so he sits there am meditates. I fade to sleep after stopping trying to count in the dark the damn grid keeps coming up with 668 maybe a little close to 666 for the superstitious. I dreamed the neighbor walked by in a hat and actually said hello to me- like normal people passers-by. Sometimes were are connected, then sometimes embarrassed if our random sparks in the foam of our minds merely wish for things.

* * *

Yet, in the middle of it all, with finer vision and detail, the old out of place quasicontinuum of the chessgame with its new depths and spans asks me to coin another word again, super-quasicontinuum (Sqsm) but in a sense our warmth is limited across the twists and turns of turning inside out and free fall as nature seeks her rests and sleep.

* * *

No comments:

Post a Comment