Monday, June 6, 2011

Intrinsic Curvature and Intrinsic Computation

Intrinsic Curvature and Intrinsic Computation L. Edgar Otto June 6, 2011 (Eau Claire Interpretation- Clear Water or Flow) Note this from Library Computer as coffee shop ones are being upgraded.

We see then there are two poles of new fundamental theories. At the extremes we introduce the notions which may seem but assertions or philosophic stances only as to the fundamentals of physic. By intrinsic curvature I image that things are really curved but as in the relativity's they are actually curved but only if seen from very large or small scales- the results of Mercury's orbit is a classical example, and the article Lubos posted on the center of the sun, such ideas of inertia then asked what influence it has on climate- shows a topological centering of such notions as a view of physics.

The situation is not different from the quantum view for we can square things as if probabilities just as this virearl concept utilizes the inverse square in the gravity equations of Newton. But between these (well what is an actual symmetry or super symmetry and its concept of breaking or not) is such a squaring (see the link yesterday on DNA) which shows in life we unify the two physics in one model. But the principle of computation and a direction or history (neotericontinuum) is not a certainty in the usual QM sense as apparently it is not in quantum theory either now.

We treat some grounding at a distance and say that in the complexity we can use life or mimics of life molecules to work computation at a certain level. This can be done and perhaps with certain assumptions, centering rather than needed global generalizations, this works, but it does not describe a free and general principle of intrinsic computation upon topologies of curves and spins.

The principle of squaring things or taking the roots, holographic for example, is deeper than what we may apply it to as a reductionist principle of external computation or say some history of Bayslean notes to apply to such history, even. This is a clear principle in the sense of the clear coordinates involved in the concrete applying and the breaking of organized system. Another such principle is the mere fact of replication in that it is clear that the parts done as separate steps may maie a more rapid reproduction than each entity made all at once in succession, but this is not obvious as it is a clear principle.

In theory then, given two sets of codes wherein they are distinguishable, more or less like the idea of strands of the DNA helix, but of this theory we certainly can predict if we did not already know the possibilities of protein arrangement and the real determination of the RNA encoding- and the topology of such mixing in an organism in its complexity, that we can do the computation intrinsically in say a disc which replaces the hard drive as the only mechanism really needed is a way to read what is set up on a disc as to the mimic of a concrete physical structure.

Of course there may be deeper such principles and theories on certain scales where a more unified theory of all physics may connect with that of the other scales including the atomic and internal computational possibilities in the Molecular subatomic patterns themselves.

In a sense the arrow of asymmetry in such physics is a choice or an illusion of the emphasis to one side of things- in that sense so is the braket notation as a function generator.

Clearly, the link of yesterday is but another confirmation that the methods to analyse this life "force" as a factoring or division algebra of wider group theory and the various number theories requires new physics, for me the clear universality of the theories of Quasicity. However, there is not good reason to rely or stay with a limited theory, even my own, when the issues of the real world are much like energy ones in the creation and destruction we observe in the further or Phoenix physics.

I invite my European bloggers to taste our local beer, it is of Texas size compared to the minds of the university students who make their there minors, sometimes majors during the 5 or six years they are here at the uni. The illustration is thus a metaphor of post graduate work, most likely a Phd.

A theory is a terrible thing to waste one's life on, especially a unified theory that tries to unify the crack and the pot. There is more to genetics and replication than beer.

Of course what occurs locally but seems a general law is that extrinsic computation and paths on scales and curves can and does apply too. Even SUSY begins to look good after a few clear beers.

* * *


  1. "intrinsic computation upon topologies of curves and spins" - This is what in essence quantum chemistry and resonance theory aimed at. The transitional force in computational chemistry was never proved besides predictive topological changes upon molecular interference paradigms in synthetic orgo.

    "There is more to genetics and replication than beer." A lot more. Well in fact beer and carbon containing molecules of N-space is a derivative of curvature. Fermentation is a process, oxidation is a concept (entropy), uncertainty principle is part of Quantum chemistry/mechanics, matter compressibility principle curves matter/time in order to break off topology in expanding space/energy. SUSY is illusion of mind strings that begin to loose/gain internal inertia upon perturbation.

  2. An excellent overview of the state of the situation, thank you.

    The PeSla

  3. BTW in reference to carbon- Oh, the beer metaphor is in reference the other bloggers post: There is more to Pilsner than beer. Also, poetically, the Calsbad beer was the beer of the Quantum Physicists back then- and that spoof Young Frankeinstein and the beer while he dated Mdm. Curie :-) But this must be some sort of cultural derivatives.

    Now, cholesterol has carbons and of the 256 chiral forms of it only one is recognized by the body- is this simply a synthetic thing with no deeper transitional stance (as in quantum theory first formulated anyway?) Are things not a little deeper than quantum theory, even as a form of SUSY, especially one that goes beyond these ideas of derivatives of curvature or momenta ideas of spin?

    Not that anything is wrong with one sided views such as the emphasis on higher hyperbolic geometries and a limited search for certain fixed ideas of group theory.

    From the intrinsic computational aspect, even with the generalizations of curves and such or what is the ground of uncertainty- I can certainly see how inertia-mass etc may be seen as the illusion and clear coordinate relations from at least and artful view as the physical fact. Evidence or proof is only as good as the scope of the design and the observables possible when limited theories do not seem to cover everything, even parts we are not clear what they are.

  4. That is,

    is something like cholesterol, in context at least, just a derivative of some sort of n-space curvature- even fractal space where it is known that DNA can be said to be read fractally? Again, where is the chaoscience in quantum theory?

    In the paradigms (for a long time now an obsolete word but I still use it some) it seems to me that there is some key in a new physics somewhere that both reach out with things like ideal or exact perturbations. But from this slightly higher perspective I not that many do not ask this question, again stuck in formulas that tell us nothing really but what is possible in the old symbols or ways we interpret them with group notations- that most confuse the stereotypes with the archetypes we find naturally in reality.

    I do not mean to be anti-intellectual as in the rural places in the USA before WWII. That vague given of reliance on common sense alone. But such apparently historical trends does seem to wait for the third world to catch up, and they should or they will be left behind.