Friday, May 13, 2011
Dimensions in the Firmament
Dimensions in the Firmament L. Edgar Otto May 13, 2011
There is only one idea of distance, fixed or relative, between the expressions of dimensional views.
The Topological dimensions are the extension and expression of what is essentially a focused hierarchy of structured singularities at rest in the idea of abstract motion. This concept of grounds the idea of structured vacuum and singularity complexes.
Plane grids, to which we may separate conceptually are in a sense the equivalent of spherical surfaces to which we may separate the levels of action, finding what in such an interrelation between dimensions the ideas of invariant or firm and fixed points over some interval as distance.
The idea that there is something more, a halo of sorts, above such a surface is a concretely realized abstraction. But in this space we may find a global relation to what may change in the background or in the dynamics of things over a corresponding unification of the most general idea of universe, the Omnium. Thus dynamics is grounded and intelligible also in the measure of things and the freedom to act or evolve.
So in the conceptual unification of theories one should be careful to see in a theory compared with another what is considered excessive and separate systems or substances and what is a unification of simplicity. This is true also of the change of all coordinates as a general diagonal motion across ideas of dimensions- that which beyond the singularities of rest may ground our notions of the behavior of strings and curves in the dynamics.
Sometimes then, between competing theories and theoreticians what may seem, with less generalization, a trivial or incorrect formulation that makes things unclear or is not precise can only seem a theory of everything or of nothing from the background of a deeper view. But such a demonstration of higher or errors in view should have deeper mathematics and philosophic grounding to resolve the cases.
It is not clear that a unified theory of everything can be built upon the concept of surfaces and topology, or algebra alone- and yet this is part of a more general abstract picture of what is firm or fleeting in the firmament.
We reflect these notions of consciousness that can be also a more complicated relationship- in fact various fixed and evolving forms in a greater or mental state with wider degrees of freedom and intelligible stances toward recognition of patterns and processes. For any given individual the self dynamics of patterns may be a case of altered consciousness as to the personal unifying theory of mental everything.
Our dreams can be deeper than our general compass of understanding so be too vague or hard to decipher short of the analysis in the wakened state and the leaps into reasonable theory. In this respect it is not always clear what is concrete of physicality in the physics as it grounds and gathers the mathematics logically into itself.
The search for a unified system, which can be and is philosophically and logically questioned in its nature of existence, as is existence itself and ideas of our notions and altered or adapting selves, can simply be the search for simplification of a focused solving of singularity states as if we are taking a long and complex poetic title and editing the words to perhaps a single word but with understood arrays of meaning.
In the cross mixing between these ideas of dimensions, as far as points or complexes of singularities go, we should keep in mind these distinctions of the definition of dimensions to unify them again as we relate them to the facts of space itself in its multiple if few dimensions and patterns mixing also then to determine the weights and measures of natural familiar distances.
Like some machines making super calculations and playing chess as if they are not aware of the patterns of their own intelligibility, and if there is not a crisis in too close a time to make a decision that affects future ones such that the machine may understand what appears like emotional response and so to become irrational or confused, even self destruct or give up its once mechanical and innocent purpose where if a game can end that consideration is hidden in the process or something very remote,
Some cling to their theories as if at the general point or cell or initial generator of beginnings that somewhere in the calculation there is no concept of human agreement for drawing the game as it falls into infinite descent to reach that deeper solution is truly believes is there. It might be.
* * *
Does TGD contain in its dynamics an Omnic Background for TOE? For that matter does the idea of String Theories?
What is the equivalent in three space of the crumpled graphene paper?
Crumpling is the idea of a fixed point and more efficient packing for explosives.
Crumpling tends to explain the series as if natural dimensions of point, lines, curves then points again thru the generations over them up to ten space.
There can be order and ordering with this underlying idea of crumpling as chaos which says we may extend quantum computation into such dimensional structures.
In a sense there is an invariant and dynamic distance over grounding omnic space, a set of geometric actions or historical actions as purpose. This notion has been a quest under different names in different eras- the Unitary Field Theory, the Theory of Everything and so on. Almost in any advance in our general theories, as crumpled chaos or compass of ordering, we can find the vague and general direction toward this ultimate omnium as a total theory and where a theoretical system is intelligible it is in some sense on some level to be said it contains its version of application of the underlying Omnic theory that may bypass the lesser backgrounds of physicality, or numbers and topology.
* * *
The Following Post is the one of May 12 and if it reappears I will delete it here.
Representational Dimensions L. Edgar Otto 05-12-11
Well it seems the reference frame is still discussing some primitive models of variations on string theory. Not that it is not a beautiful abstraction in itself but that there are simpler ideas that are not all tied up with the idea of compatification and yes, as Lubos points out some sort of confusion with what can exist as super-symmetry and the mirror particles in the low dimensions.
Part of the problem with the general conception of our models is the simple fact we have not defined dimensions more clearly. Perhaps this is not as easy as it may appear for Cantor did not succeed in so grounding the concept.
There are natural dimension (symbol nD). There are Quasic Dimensions (Russian D sub n) and there are representational dimensions (R sub n) for a start. The factoring of such dimensions, and the abstract motions that correspond between dimensions are a limit to what we may interpret as lower dimensions.
The illustration is but a small consideration of the structures some of which I did consider further last night.
This logical extension of the chess moves in n-space explains why we start with 8x8 and then thereafter, in a two player game, multiply by a series of 4. Thus the sequence of chess games goes Odo64, Odo256, and Odo1024.
In simple arithmetic it is clear that certain intelligible possible structures are physically realizable in a given natural dimension of the same count of entities. This is a more concrete treatment of what is physicality in our normal idea of space and time.
* * *
Consider these two sci mag posts today in the light of such physicality issues (as well of course what we mean from the view of the uncertainty principle):
I am pondering the extent or connection, as if another idea of dimensions is there, that takes into account the halos of nuclei, or the ideas of Pitkanen as a dynamics that involves the surface of things and of course if such geometry, non-euclidean or not is internal or external or an inversion of perspective in the finite or infinite world of that between such holographic and geometrically fractal structures. At this point we raise again issues of what is totality and what is multiverse from a higher perspective still than my illustration above which quasicaly represents some of the simple concrete representations. I imagine our ideas of dark entities will have to have their dimensional definitions resolved too- or is it we will find a sort of double compactification? Yet would this still not lead to a natural binary and even Mersenne world of levels of such abstract distances between levels and abstract action and motion? After all one representation of some things is a singularity complex when the possibilities are concretely added up. Again, a what level might we expect some new idea of physics that comes closer to a more unified view not lost in generalities of a given idea of wide or hidden landscapes?
* * *
From Water to Oil and Memory a comment for Pikanen in the panorama of explanations for the origin or being of living things:
In terms of a hierarchy of p-adic distances (presumably some as a dark analogy) what sort of such distances are described here and can it be measured in theory at least?
Of course given a unified theory what in the physics or cosmos may correspond on a deeper level with the gene environment.
Interestingly the oil drop experiment to measure a single electron charge was a little adjusted for the expectations of the experimenter. But we can learn a lot directly or indirectly from say a single electron and its behavior.
If there is some sort of memory, metaphorical or not, in a real sense as in clay dimmers, these oil droplets do replicate and perhaps seem to be aware.
Certainly structures are possible from that early tar soup with things not explained, say to build RNA by such methods and it not be able to replicate even atom by atom (this may have been resolved in the last decade) as to what is this mystery called life. In any case we are not that far from how a paramecium behaves.
Clearly, the number of objects or bacterium have to reach a threshold for things like collective phosphorescence. And i is clear that the mechanism of flagellum is one of random left or right to escape in a random manner, or just right spin to find a food source. Again issues of what is chiral memory over some time or distance.
There are a few more ideas we need to resolve in this more geometrical philosophy. But the chicken egg thing is a pointless question that should not be so avoided by biologists- life can arise anywhere, even spontaneously or so it seems in the concrete memory of the universe. Your questions of purpose is a good one in these applications of symmetry and the chiral direction of life that so reacts to the universal cosmic code.
* * *
Photo from 14Nucleons post of yesterday May 12- mostly links on the halo of nucleons and the reference to carbon and the associative link seemingly to 14 ...
from Creative Science & Philosophy by Leonard
This was on the philosophychatforum today:
Now, good for supercomputers, yes?
Is it me or does this sound a lot like the underlying theory may have something to do with the associahedra and other things involving the geometry of the numbers around all this... 9 and 5 ? and think about 8 and 6 in the topology of all this.
Good for our theoreticians, no?
Again, do we develop supercomputers to understand particle reactions or have to understand that to correctly program the supercomputers?
* * *
Here, for you on-line university teachers and advisers who decorated our philosophy dalnet chat and asked me and others in a debate "What are you Smoking?" So, guess they do not really understand the strong force- agree? I put this here for the illustrations but it is after all a rather quasic or Rubik's cube approach to the binary systems...
* * *
Guess this is on science daily today too:
Ulla check this one out:
And I thought the Binding force as a mystery in 1960 was later solved, so I did not go in that direction!
* * *
*** May 12 partial listing:
posted by Leonard at Creative Science & Philosophy - 1 day ago
Representational Dimensions L. Edgar Otto 05-12-11 Well it seems the reference frame is still discussing some primitive models of variations on string theory. Not that it is not a beautiful abstractio...
posted by Leonard at Creative Science & Philosophy - 2 days ago
14 nucleons This was on the philosophychatforum today: fermion... http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-05/dbnl-pdt051011.php Now, good for supercomputers, yes? Is it me or does this sound a lot ...