Monday, August 1, 2011
The Quasic Axioms (and more Articulated Cubes)
* * *
The Quasic Axioms (and more Articulated Cubes)
L. Edgar Otto 1 Aug 2011
Having established by abstract quasic motion notations that for a given motion through space of some dimension and that covering a range of dimensions (after all I mean this discretely in its questioning of the nature of "dimension" yet not in the way that Clifford does where that term is less concretely defined.) I also question if we can at some place make the distinction between the continuous and discontinuous in the manner so cleanly Rowlands does or that certain cherished ideas other than the assertion these are fundamental and given as such, that the continuous of the time and proper time, and space and proper space (his terms) that three dimensions and all such generalization of triality, after all it is more like 3nD than 3D, as to what explains our concepts of entropy and time as distinct notions in that these are due to a subset, a charge chirality on the meson level- but it is clear that such subsets is not the origin of the arrow of time beyond that as a given assertion it is fundamental. All our blogger theories that seem alternative seems to suffer from this lack of action and good grounding for causation or for quantum randomness to which other theories justly may regard ours as outside the rational mainstream- but with sorrow for dedicated explorers we see now who is outside that mainstream. The Membrane M theory also suffers from this sort of thing. The Minkowski formalism is especially weak in general as Rowlands points out, but this is not good reason not to consider four vectors as primary or part of the picture- complexification has its limits (just as twistor theory, even espoused by Witten, is a little redundant as far as deep explanations go.) I further suggest that compactification and symmetry breaking are not pure ideas but working ones on the level they are now.
The other part of my explorations lately other than my templates which contain some errors as my mind becomes more aware of such details and possibilities of drawing, is the idea that there are vast algebras that can regard say the recreational cubes like the Stenhaus cube as important to a lot of alternative theories. For example between a set of "cells or points, pixels or elementals" they can be all not connected or one solid object as far as vectors merging go- and anything we can count by conventional methods in between even as a matter of Pascal probabilities. Thus abstractly we can have say in a 27 cube situation 3 pentacubes and 3 teracubes or in the next space dimension of 64 we can have 6 5-ominos and 5 6-ominos... with due consideration to how we count the diagonals 3 or 4. So we can have in the same sheaf or constellation of these "elementals" two interconnected simplex groups that are not connected to each other and so on. These should be known or explored by combinatorial researchers. Is it not remarkable or coincidental that there are 30 such 5-ominos? And in terms of chirality in the 3n situation (triality and raygun matrixes and triquaternity) that Sudoku does relate in the 81 and deeper for the solution of such "black box" principles... and a little 3x deeper than this?
*Minimum action or entropy not considered together may make no global sense.
*If we do not upgrade our notion of God we cannot upgrade ourselves.
*Unlike Clifford dimensionality, quasic dimensionality is not so abstract (nor dependent on the idea of a three space only.
*A linear sheaf is the reduction of a continuum to a point.
*If in the world of useful physical information (not ad hoc mass as in most theories particularly the Membrane theories) the virtual particle considerations are structured much like the algebra of real particle considerations.
*The idea of equal symmetry, as one of a viable view say where entropy and time or weight and mass are indistinguishable, this implies a real or virtual origin. But this is not the only case.
*An abstract color as if the ordering of the ensemble of cubes with merging faces is a matter of probability if they can be vanishing if the same, or creating if these are complimentary.
*Things at the quasic sphere or plane (not technically within or without the boundaries of an entity) are real (in the Riemann zeta 1/2 sense), thus we imagine a quasi-variable point of view Planck scale so to ground a more universal third thermodynamic law.
*At some ideal remote point of intersection (where physicality objects can quasi-lag as quasi-discrete objects) a not necessarily local ideal point at infinity (of two intersecting membranes at a point) some definite entity may virtually approach the infinite remote limit and bounce back changing signs and handedness but this is true of more than sign and is in a sense anywhere not remotely a precarious balance of complex values and sign including the roots of positive unity not unity. (We can also have a sense of adding or subtraction a zero as if a sign, nilpotency and neutrality and a measure of so called filled vacua.)
*In these articulated ensembles of cubes (which can progress to higher order when sorted and evolved to lesser degrees of freedom and growth limits- and the ensemble of various dimension in one entity involving ratios like phi and other roots including 2 units in four-space or two real units in that space for a fourth direction) I envision the laws of such cubes as relating measures and directions on several levels of entropy- not necessarily the result of the arrow of time via the differences in sub-units for such a crystal concept of precipitating cubes.
*In the remote compass of some count of what representations can be housed in an ensemble of such orthogonal spaces we note that certain lengths cannot exceed the units of dimension of the ensemble nor at zero these are outside the dimension of the ensemble of abstract motions and representations.
*The inclusion of the diagonal neutral elementals of an ensemble or not in the counting of n-ominoes as subsets of spaces is an open freedom also to include or exclude from the rest or ground state of the ensemble.
*The mass of some Higgs-like particle should be the average of the binary 108 and the less fixed 135 = 9 x 27 units as a rough ratio where we consider the differences between the representations of 3D in 4D or 4D in 5D... these relate to the count of 9D as 3n Triality. Note also that 128 as a pure binary fits within this range of some particle mass values. The dimensionless constant ratio is on the same order and is also explained by other as these articulated methods.
* * *
This posted to Kea today with such subjects on my mind... I post here also because it is a bit much to post on her focused blog on the science of it all.
Sometimes I think that if I had gotten into school and went down a steady path that I would have been brainwashed into ideas that are now transcended. It is costly but sometimes to be on the outside is the only doorway to new truths.
Those who look at the Foundations like Peter Rowlands know full well the problems involved with physics unification and quantum gravity ideas in particular. I find him remarkable in what he shows cannot be the fundamental case.
Our alternative theories suffer from certain principles that seem to some existing ones metaphysics- but now the real is in our camp and still they insist on their rank metaphysics. Do they listen to each other?
I wondered today what is left after the old sciences die (so to speak). Perhaps it is more a social world after all, a scaling back from things like exploring space and hard technologies.
I think I was born old, young lady, I mean to me you are a generation later and it was hard for me to compete with the one earlier. But some of my deepest ideas have come from those times I had to sleep under the stars and in the rain.
But who of those who have a deep understanding would not want the experience of life, that is deeper than survival and competition at our core?
I feel I was reborn at 30 and the occasion was I looked up from the count of electrons and quarks and said "Alas, I understand the heart of what mass is". And in the fog of 15 I thought I might solve the "binding force". Now while I feel your pain, appearances aside I share your joy also...
The PeSla (who is not a recognized poet outside the circle of mediocre ones at the university- we do not exist)
* * *
Well, here we see a glimpse into a wider world of these abstract things and as I said some of these axiom of choice problems in ensembles are countable after all even beyond the surrealistic calculus where some irrationals are treated rational- but just now seeing this article I am not sure if it is just a wider vision (beyond Cantor's paradise) or the multiverse (to use the article's term) I inhabit is wider again (but I do not mean just adding on another transfinite level nor an ultimate one if any.) But if we cannot deal with this sort of math how can we even begin to do physics?
* * *