Saturday, September 3, 2011

God's-Eye Space

God's-Eye Space L. Edgar Otto September 3, 2011

Having taken a short break into the more poetic or mythical mood I still find a few stray thoughts on the more general nature of geometry as to physics. Was this change in mood necessary to make progress when it will certainly be regarded by most as a laspe in reductionism as the ideal of the sciences? Perhaps, from a higher view, one for now I call the God's-Eye view, after all to call something the "God Particle" gets attention, at least is a metaphor for the generality level involved. Of course if we are to see this blog as a coherently evolving whole all these new and necessary terms- necessary to think with if we take as gospel recent data on such regions of our brain activity related to ensembles and nuiances of words, I would have to make clearer the connection of certain ideas of space as to where they apply from the different and difficult to achieve independent methods of a more general view. What relation to the quasic and arquasic metaphores to this space? I am amazed that going down a different track at the fundamental level of folding and cutting these geometrical objects is so rich a side stepping view from my centering in my generally quasic (and intelligible, forgive me the overuse of this word as I forgive myself the constant footnotes to explain my practical use of coined symbols).

Perhaps on some deeper level than say the common or popular understanding there is deep reasons and explanations for the terse principles offered. Maybe not, I mean how is it that light can bend back on itself in a model in the intrinsic curvature of the the Einstein universe and how can it change handedness at some remote point and can we pass that. Surely some have reason to feel these are comfortable physics or mathematical ideas, whole areas of independent development, and yes it is clear that some can treat flat planes as if mirrors in recent discoveres that modify or changes the fundamental laws we have held as refraction- technology can get on fine without the imposition of a fanciful or limiting theory, but slowly and in a way that one cannot encourage the next generation of possible surprises. But what is light coming back again in what is the inside or outside of such planes but the "Eyes in Back of the Head of God" so to speak in the myths and metaphors- ones that as art however maybe lead the notions of physics in the culture rather than reflect the state of the culture?

I would like to add first that you will find many cherished ideas and methods challenged here or questioned in this blog of quite fundamental mathematical nature of which we certainly must wonder if the author is off base in his world views or that there is something greatly lacking in how we do and interpret the math. One such today is the question of the general utility of any sort of coordinate system that utilizes the Euler type angles to bring things to prefered axis notation and then apply this to some idea of phase space- I mean, the principle is sound and if there is a new prinicple to assert to explain some things like asymptopic freedom that will do rather than a new theory of a more unified or God's-eye view. But all this simplifies for me in the look at a more conventional way of cutting and folding orthogons between adjacent natural dimensions at least - and the eye openning discovery of why in four space we have such a variety of more than the Platonic three space solids.

This, for those philosophers still attatched to Plato's early intuitions I will call metatronics from his metatron cube. The difference between dimensions is concrete now but comes from the two great intuitive thoughts I had in 1968 - one is that the electron (now leptons in general) could have subdivision as six iotas- or that these not quite points but point-string rays, for the octahedron so importaint the recent theories such as those of Triality. This was really quite a leap. But not as important as the other idea that in the eight dimensional chessgame we find the core of the four dimensional one informationally and so on. The six iota directions is a result of the imposing of two tetrahedra one of which is the self-dual inverse to form the stella octanga of Kepler. Note that in it is the octahedron of three squares, and that these may shift along the edges of a tetrahedron such that the orientation of the axes in effect have limits and prefered thus different coordinate shiftings. In effect the notation of the analog to the octahedron where we have the cube and the diagonals between them to form the four space polytope of 16 tetrahedra we have indeed this sort of abstract centering that extends in fact to higher space structures as if the rhombic dodecahedron is in a way the 3D analog to the 24 cell. I leave it to those who can work in the area of smashing of volumes and so forth to determine if such axial shifts have useful formula. For now I have this vague intuition labeled *6 below:

*6 The difference in the natural and quasic dimensional space may ground intertia ideas such as mass and gravity notions, locally as remotely globally expanding or contracting entropically and intelligibly.

The Octahedron involved in the transformations above are in a sense scaleless and Euclidean, inside and outside the complex of the metatron compressions and condensings.

I would like to add that the unfolding of the cube to 11 possiblilites and then to divide them into the 7 cuts and 5 folds, folding them back again to make matching cubes leads to some interesting patterns and ways to draw these relationships. Leads to interesting numbers for example when only two forths of the face is used there are 27 faces of the 11 cubes. I did not find yet a good symmetrical matching but it occurs to me that a set of cubes that may connect in any dimension but does not default to some globally intelligible geometric symmetrical shape is a very useful notion which may ground foundationally the general ubiquity of quasi-entropic order.

* * *

*1 If we imagine different levels of Planck constant values, what prevents them in a continuum from collasping to a value of singularity as zero or as an infinitely descending limit?

*2 If the distinction between successive Planck values is maintained by something such as pattern shape fractal recursion, what sets a privileged location that can distinguish among them? (this too a problem of philosophic similarity and identity especially of the immediate one we are in to the lesser and higher focusing.)

*3 A "pixel" or quasic plane ground unit rigion may have quasic grid depth or it may have natural dimensional depth as a series of additive component structures and these may be different as to the Euclidean geometry of parallels or not. What arithmetical value beyond itself is held constant?

*4 A set of such pixels may combine intelligibly into structures of coherent parallels by depth tunnel additions and within one pixel (brane) these may fill all linear set continua and possibly continua beyond that.

*5 At the remote limit of such extension as if an horizon, can it be exceeded, perhaps along the lines of closed hyperbolic (therefore its associated space group views as a space ground, Lorentz?) such that globally time and handedness and local space reverses in loops?


*7 Each of these partial views of space may likewise contain modified or intrinsic matrix representations which as a God's-eye view establishes variations, diversity, discontinuities, and physicality intrinsically or evern randomly intelligibly when considered together.

*8 In the multiverse time paradoxes that there has to be an original (thus unique initial origin) "Shakespeare" to solve it is thus not obviously a true explanation or necessary notion although one rather advanced and interesting.

*9 Can that somewhere between paradox and contradiction these cancel in relation to multiple others (as if a double dialectic) to find general intelligiblity?

*10 Can a program of instructions based on this asserted connection of quasic and natural dimensional spaces result in a point-fixity of vibrational differnces as say in robot arms in a range of uncertainty becoming as if an absolute rest? Is there therefore a stable coordinate space as an absolute continuum after all?

* * *

Illustration for the Geometric Origin of the Chemical Elements: (Lately the discussion on the star without metals on the sci mags and on Pitkanen's blog):

Yet in general, but more rare, what conditions are at supposed origins are present throughout time over the omnium as far as creation goes. Now for rank speculation perhaps such considerations biologically finally may explain the observation that Lithium works on the brain upon the manic depressives.

* * *


  1. Note: geometry is hold up by forces, flux tubes.

  2. Ulla,

    what holds up the forces? What is a flux tube made of? You will see this issues in one of the items in my next post.

    If the ideas of TGD fall as you astutely see that I am questioning some of the wormhole issues and the looking for a deeper nature of Plancks- then what is the conventional physics must also fall.

    Lubos posts today some "new things learned about time" which other than the consideration on the logical arrow of time and the hint of structure as having a futuristic teleological tendency after all except his description of certain events beyond that on the microlevel is the same old tired things only superficially imagined about time. This ten commandments of the old phyics is very deeply flawed and very bad thing not to supply the deeper reasons to use as a weapon to criticize the the other blogger.

    BTW your last comment link did not work but I was able to find some of the work of that author on catalytic processes in cold fusion ideas. But what was the point you wanted to make?

    In any case, without saying it explicitly I wrote that the relation of geometry and such things as forces for our time is closely a combination of my quasic, Kea's combinatorial approach, and Pitkanen's p-adic assessments.

    None of these independently can be seen as a certainty, and even the physics part of those who utilize the more continuous attributes of space and time are even more vulnerable to the uncertainty of our notions- This includes Matti in some areas (as does all pre-string physics theories which were more open to ideas involving our vague intuitions on quantum theory and consciousness (of which I feel you might more properly address along with the biology in my postings.)

    Not all of those theories lost in favor are without merit but need a better context and updating- Wolf has the idea if the micro world would extend somehow and that be non Lubosian physics- and if we in fact found such mechanisms with experimental data to be there after all- yet still needing more than the inadequacies of the quantum theory alone.

    Now, is force really an idea we can use if we apply it to general relativity? or can we use it arbitrarily when it fits the quantum realm? Maybe, the world seems to hold together for long now despite what we may imagine it to be.