Thursday, July 7, 2011
Deep Unity in Our Existing Mathematics
Deep Unity in Our Existing Mathematics
What does it mean to solve an equation? Certainly we often forget to ask the question which does not contain the answer in the asking about the context of a system before we go for an isolated and not necessarily known unique solution. We cling then to our separate disciplines as if this a general question of locality or non-locality as the ground and asserted principle and guide to methods. Mathematics in a sense then something between faith and an experimental science.
From the systems view we are often surprised by the deep connections we connect or stumble upon- again the question of what is discovery or invention subjectively. One method may work to explain another- but could this not be a measure of our general blindness of a more comprehensive system or a lack of deep understanding as to the nature of the cosmos for what is law and what is chaos?
Our imaginations need the idea of non-linearity as a mystery to jumble up the saturation, natural hallucinations if you will that do not overwhelm us and take on a false life of its own - otherwise we fade into the obscure background of creative night and void, atrophy without life's glory and burden of challenge.
So it is that while we see a unity as a possibility to explain our world we also in moments of doubt or outright defiance of our cartoon simplifications, we find the irrational and the adjustments to fine differences. As mechanical and cold as this stance may be it is perhaps these differences that make what is discernible as the substance in the world that is incommensurable. Being not gods, or lesser gods as such, we tend to bury some of the solutions far away as if their contributions while unintelligible are rather small to consider as if they too may vanish in the differentiations unto infinity. Is what is substance then that part which is random and irrational, we the stuff of chaos? Or from that Dionysian view in revelry the grid of deterministic and mechanical laws the view of the world that is irrational?
My Quasicity in retrospect is a question about systems and it seems too to have deep parallels and to point out other parallels we need to develop a little more if these not identical in their count and poetry, content as our long developed standard fare. The reaches of our group theories, of determinate forms and traces of phase space, of the interval between 0 and 1 concerning how we see infinities and the obscure sense of directionality in it as a compass of statistics and probabilities. Herein the solution, in the Darwinian glory, preserves the species and not the individual although in the long run with incommensurable fractions the individual may find himself again- find it in the finding of deep connections with others.
Yet in the deep connections is it a sign of a good theory that it will vanish when understood. That seems the trend in science regarding our progressive theories of everything, the M theory in particular even if notions find some subjective friction in existence. Do our particle accelerators work best when they find nothing? Have they not in a sense done a quantum jig and juggle that to solve the unknown most rapidly the machine down the infinite but bounded paths works while turned off?
If, in the quote of Lemaitre light begins if there is more than one, the first photon- so in a sense we say on this level there is something before our notion of a Big Bang, then does Life (well the individual) begin at conception? There are those who foaming at the mouth yell to those who do not understand that "Abortion is Murder" and there are those who do not acknowledge there is a sacrifice of human tissue, at least potentially. But even with the first few photons at the beginning we do not clearly have individuals as there can be more. Could we not then say that before a certain (legal) point of individual rights innate to those who may be brought into existence- that such abortion of human potential amounts to Mass Murder? Even here the logic of it all is that of multi-verse and many-worlds as the parties vie to ground the world on this or that philosophy as if their weapons of mass destruction.
Some principles, inspired by quantum logic and theory, carries over to Omnic and Quasic views of reality.
1) To the extent a unique experience of time for a life is seen as a gestalt totality, there is a reference wherein one can see synchronously actual history of ones past and future.
2) It is synchronous in that there are changes, as if the "Ultranscontinuum" as the universe itself is reflected thermodynamically in the replication and forgetfulness of ongoing persistence among many-world paths of possible histories that focus into the uniqueness as a quasi-identity.
3) Thus, a sort of conservation of the real, as if the general omnic law that remains the unifying principle of conservation of energy, the universe as if a multi-verse of variations locally and to some extend over a sub-set range of ordering, it such a lifetime in itself.
4) There can be seen, paradoxically, a unique center structure to the universe in space, time and spacetime, as well the sense it has a beginning and end. These in relation to HF and FX (holographic and fractal) aspects of light (for the quasic plane can be described as wave or particle equations, that Arquasic and Quasic difference.
4b) Here we see the two great founders of the systems concept of quantum relativity and its offspring- not to say others did not seek such parallel ends. Dirac and Eddington... Each, despite the now primitive visions, have stood the test of theoretical time as having valuable but bizarre views of which one can essentially envision them as a duality of the abstract fixed and moving. For what seems to make a general difference is the "Plus One" when the world of Eddington is argued as to the values of physical constants in a dimensionless space with modifications (how else could he conceive the total number of protons in the universe?) But this is essentially the resolving of our distinctions as to what are even or odd numbers in our equations and the simple fact of sign as at least a minimum directionality which in parallel systems of math forms the foundational contexts that apply to so many areas.
5) One such center (analogous to a sense of self, shallow or deep, purposeful or just relating to changes in the world, may be as unique throughout time as a reference and grounding for what of dimensionless spacious and flat branes is some constant. Invariance is in the generality a lesser, and less certain concept. As well the local realization of Holographics dimensional information exchanges. (I point out here in the writing this the key to certain seemingly action at a distance transferes of momenta between stars and molecules and in general creative objects like the black holes- if you grasp the context of the systems theory unity here)
including ultimately the transfer of what we regard as inertia or momenta as physicality [to repeat myself as I type this in the recalled flow of some unity in my thought as this is first draft also where revised].
6) In a quasi-finite world, time, mass, space, and gravity charge, etc... may be either continuous or discrete or both omnically in systems views- perhaps [to perhaps offer only a logical claptrap here] a "non existant non-existence" also as part of the systems possibilities.
7) Nonexistent Non-existences precede the universe and self and the Quantum Field concept of oscillations and discrete counts and thresholds of energy, (one cannot ultimately even ask at what point or time on what depth a photon leaves an electron even if the general concept of local unpredictability and directionality applies), as if a legitimate inference of the existence of neutrinos or say a god as we personalize the logic of the mechanical time measure and its non-linear derivatives so considered as intelligible but impersonal measure in the world.
7b) For God is also like a thermodynamic measure of heat (in a sense even if paradoxically or contradictory to declare a personal God is to reject or accept the personalization of our selves) in the inference of the unknown of self-ignorance such that the Person is like unto the idea and debate of Dark Matter (DM) as hot or cold in its nature.
One might ask, in the balance of things, in praise or damnation of our justice system real or just for appearances... if it is better ten guilty ones go free than one innocent is falsely served - then in the karmic sense of the universe's general balance if I am so falsely served am I owed ten crimes? Philosophically, if you get the systems approach here- the responsibility for our actions heretofore observed and assumed as evidence of this quality of our actions determined or externally so by our self as a concept- that our responsibility does have scientific grounding.
* * *
Some further Parallel Math Connections I have Considered:
* The closed or open paths (and their dimensional rotations etc) on the orthogons are minimal (tablecloth) fractals. [In my terms this amounts to the paths on the "Harper Cube" of which the higher space center is also a consideration if the path is closed and the normal Pietre polygon or other paths closed in the same dimension]
* In the near space of fixed localities I reject the Poincare conjecture for it can amount to an illusion of appearances and a focusing of some mathematical methods like the search for the classification of say 6 space compactified object topology. But this may have general resolution as the case for the very fact that we can have a connection between molecules beyond our considerations of action at some fixed or seemingly distance dimension in the simple concept of phase plane space.
[In my terms this amounts to the combining of the Quasicontinuum and the Ultranscontinuum... Quason (Qsn) = Qcm and Uxm, and Quason equals Qs + 1 as a matter of what we consider as local and non local for either side of that equation]
*The principle in phase space, to consider in theories of braiding and knots, is that there can only be crossovers or intersections at fixed center or point or other dimensional singularity like objects as zero and separtatrix paths or points- but as I said phase space as such should be generalized a bit to approach quasicity.
*Let us then imagine a system where in regard to those fractal like and quasic we have the idea indefinite and general and more fundamental as "quasi-locality".
*In general systems of unresolved ideas of duplication, real or imaginary, of the complex of fields or singularities, as to the eveness or oddness of dimensions involved we can by the addition of discrete (and prime) numbers of objects have a Transactional analysis type relation between the methods of generational dimensions in quasonical or quasic space systems.
*The general conjecture of Riemann in regards to 1/2 is obvious from quasic grid structures. But it also may be paradoxically viewed where the universe is flat.
*Lubos Motl pointing out the four ways of the quadrant logic and the physical structure of struts as a puzzle from his 3 4 5 triangle system as physicality contributes to the foundation of some of these abstract higher dimensional views- in particular that substantial in strings in one view remains in the theory game.
*21/6 = 3.5 consider the first few finite quasic grid relations.
*I also suggest that if the Dark Matter is Infinite then any series or summation of the velocity value of c can seem to vary. (let us not generalize to exclude what may be a one sided cosmology logically either way if not for measuring purposes).
* * *
Aphorisms perhaps for Facebook statuses written to show a friend he should practice writing down his thoughts- not sure these are great but seems to make the point that in a sense some of us are as deep as those we learn from...
Love in truth is a measure of our ignorance (blindness at the time- justice wide eyed) for without Love's cooling forgetfulness our center of hot passion would spend itself in a wink of an eye the billion star lifetimes at once gone nova.
[but I am tired of typing- so I will post the nine other sayings later...]
* * * *
In view of these recent principles I post this sci mag article does not scare me, but is rather welcoming and not that radical departure from our conventional view of gravity and physics. L. Otto
* * *