Friday, September 30, 2011
The Multiverse Begins at Conception
The Multiverse Begins at Conception (or Being There at the Creation) L. Edgar Otto September 30, 2011
*The question of primacy of biological and inorganic systems of complexity.
*The threshold of integrative uniqueness of multiple cell systems.
*The reading and interpretation of codes and the "Chinese Room" questions.
*The self-doubt and its shell of external relations hidden as universal experience.
*the fall into limited simple manifolds cognitively and self-irreversible.
*the "Ship of Theseus" as intelligible only beyond a certain threshold of creation and at the level of the neutral scale of physical exchanges as meaningful. (To ask what came before the big bang is to ask where and when a unique individual begins.)
*The same concept tachyonically may be considered to apply to near death experiences.
*The open question at a threshold perhaps transcending evolution as we understand it as if cognition can program and change the universe, and if this is unique, maximum in sentient physical beings as the ultimate.
*The hidden symmetry action beyond direct measure as to how far the concept of energy and the persistence of entropy relates to the concept of scale.
This represents some general thoughts that come closer to resolving some of the paradoxes of my view of the physics as more of an organic model on many levels- I have not included the thoughts of the earlier pages listed in the last post- so much for this crisis and these notes that tend to solve it some- This also comes from conversations with students with personal concerns in the coffee shop. The central idea here is that the intuitive models are grounded within us predisposed to the psychology in a way we can imagine as in the reproduction of systems that say two branes intersect in a point is equivalent to copulation (and conjugation) so we can imagine a model of creation as this intersection of branes. The question then is what exactly is this difference of the single cell and multi-cell organism.
* * *
With sorrow I heard the report from the teacher in Japan who states that the intensity of radiation especially close to the ground over 600 km away is about ten times greater than the government will not politely say- and he predicts a mass exodus from the Islands. Food, in this closed food system is sold even if grown in the area of the disaster. His family does not eat fish anymore.
* * *
I made two comments today on
L. Edgar Otto commented on Can Neutrinos be Superluminal? Ask OPERA!.
The issues of which you are concerned, due to the nature of number, seems to me a little limited, a borderline numerology really which in the end treats what cannot be distinguished as coincidence from the general picture of the importance of dimensionless constants.
There are many such relations of numbers which in the totality can seem miraculous to find or mere trivial artifacts. (Such discoveries are ancient also as in the sacred number of Plato 192 – rigid hypercube rotation?) or the 240 of Babylon as a sacred number rediscovered in 64 in relation to hypernumbers and the close packing of 8D spheres.
The feeling I get is that a young intern can autopsy a corpse and see the intricate design and say how great the intricate design of the Creator. This may be so (but outside the province of science so far) but in any case the living organism is much more awe inspiring and complex- as well the wider ideas of the universe that go beyond the idea of a lesser model of God.
But I do not mean to discourage anyone willing to dedicated their lives to the quest of knowing. There are much wider connections between these fundamental numbers than what some seem to find as group theory in its little rigid classifications and we should see such concepts as more a living system than that which has lost its life force for everyone.
Beyond a certain point no ghost of theories past can come back to haunt us.
I like your term everlasting for I may have posted it in relation to these neutrino ideas but certainly concerning the philosophic distinction between that an the term eternal- as in Eternal Inflation cosmology.
Yours is quite interesting theories with some conclusions the same as others have made. In particular where it involves conclusions that the fundamental, original and comprehensive theory of the universe, involves electroweak thus chiral influences as the grounding.
I have imagined two types of neutrinos more from a biological model and have reached a time of going back to the drawing board at this level of paradox. I am not sure these are the same entities of which you speculate.
Hope springs everlastingly…
* * *
L. Edgar Otto on facebook-
I begin to think that the physical model and the biological models of the cosmos are in a sense equal, that one does not come before the other. The biological model is much richer than the physics one, but this seems to reflect the limits of physics and the richer new physics to come. Still, from this new view the old paradox is there as to what is unique and ultimate- we living and mortal beings or still more beyond we have not dreamed.
Moreover, the difference in existing or not stands out all the more in contrast where on any level it is hard to understand the metaphysics or physics from what it may mean on which side of such an imagined mirror. I vaguely thought as per the comment that we have order from one cell to another or randomness and this is reflected in the ultimate chirality and its relation to lightspeed of the neutrinos and seems an analog to how in biological systems the mechanisms arise where a bacterium moves toward or away from a stimulus by the change of spin of its tail and it does not prove anything that nature stumbles on steps for such a machine as to if raw evolution is prime to describe the reality. So in terms of abstract and teleological motion between cells the concrete description, concrete for the obvious shared reality of whatever level of physics, the philosophy of existing still exceeds what we may think is possible still in the reality- not that I expected otherwise as some do.
And not to reduce things to primordial sexual functions on our learning on a lower level or subconscious level so much of our modeling of the universe may reflect the intuitions derived from the psychology but in a cleaned up reductionist form that bleeds over into methods of replication between species. But if the reproductive or replicative models apply here at the vacuum structure levels it does make sense to an intelligible world it part of the real. But on what level does this mean that in the end, living without understanding the deep process or making shallow things the reality such as culture without informational history- that we can only shore up the survival of a living form so far after all- as per the common beliefs of what it means that we are mortal- that and the learning and uniqueness of our spirits.
It is still not a given for me that we can integrate the totality based on the relative lifespan of creatures and particles. This seems the deeper question also of a level of vision such as that of TGD, Pitkanen who senses the need or question of such as if integratible theories. Asking such is far better science than those who assert at some level they have the theory of everything or undermine the old ideas without some sort of physicality of proof.
Yet I must say- my own explorations continue to find more beautiful models.
Replies on facebook:
Erion Bano Lee Smolin draws a comparison between biology and physics in his book, "The Life of the Cosmos."
Erion, yes some seem to like this author with his ideas of baby universes and some dislike the idea. But what I was meaning here is not so much seeing the universe as a living thing just having some similar principles (so thanks for pointing out his view may be relevant) I wanted a more unified view of the reality. What makes us distinct universes on that model? Also, is our mental models not well described as to what is advanced but too complex to handle. What in fact is the equivalent in the cosmic to methylation that in excess or lack contributes to the so call mental unbalances?
* * *
Maybe for October 1st I will present a more unified post on this as I am pretty much getting over the hard cold. I think I recall the important themes of last night but there is a chance I missed something. I suppose taking the tachyonic application a little more seriously and coincidentally regarding the "magenta colors of fractalenes" the important thing is like with the initiator and terminator codons the threshold of biological like physical laws begin after the standard model as so described as 25 or so of particles. This of course dives into the reality and familiarity with the higher dimensions of which M ideas like 10 or 11 are but the bare beginning. So what of the terminators of a cosmic and natural code? The information seems to apply here but not as if I can any longer regard physics as a branch of biology (certainly chemistry is the grail of DNA as a basis and the height of quantum relevance) Evolution as a fact more then than a theory is somehow where these meet in an ongoing independent or general life form. That is the change or meeting of these disciplines on an equal footing has deep consequences- and that for the intuition or what paths you cannot explore in memory because they are not part of what was once explored or collectively shared in a meaningful way. The mysteries deepen but they still can be viewed as mystery- nevertheless what we can feel we are certainly is not only in the main a survival code to some extent- it is more certainty as to how we rely on the reality of our sentience in finer detail. To apply the life models is almost too much a match to question it and too easy to dismiss as intelligible but not of the deep relevance we as humans may think of our mastery of the sciences and philosophy and what our role and place is in the real. But I find it unreasonable that such a seemingly precious thing locally as life would be so vulnerable in even its temporary existence and that this may follow from narrow visions of chance or the assumed exhausting of mechanisms and entropy. For this position while awakening us to a fair assessment of life will fix things to that assessment which for all it matters becomes the height of human truth.
But there is a very wide field of physics to find between now and the foreseeable near future to find- and that is the very precious thing of mind and life that is the concern of our scientists- falsified is one thing, reversal of fortunes another thing, but vanished and shown so absolutely and wastefully is quite of a higher order where the general idea of such replication from some origin or not- or in the mysteries of the eschatology as difficult in theological studies (the scientific part of this great higher symmetrical and dimensional chess game as the end game) that multiverse and universe is in a sense a false distinction- much like if we can get our head around it the idea for many-world- that in some sense we are the same person to some degree of effects. Still, I am not sure I made it clear with these consideration and theme that I have stated those concerns clearly.
* * *