Thursday, October 20, 2011
Flight Through Higher Creative Singularities
Flight Through Higher Creative Singularities
L. Edgar Otto ( The Pe Sla ) October 21, 2011
I came here with a general idea of what it means if Games are a generalization (albeit a confused one when we consider the definitions of set or class as they are applied). I found the bar seems to be raised by our blogger theoreticians in the general discussion lately- as if they were not across or beyond the general theories in the first place. There are links that one should follow from their pages I do not reproduce here. But follow the ideas. I mean, in Lubos most informative and excellent paper as with the other bloggers asking what I regard as foundational questions- well, in the support for his speculations I might ask where the negative index of refraction fits in.
But in general, what does it mean to cross some boundary at a point or location of what can logically be an action where the roles of necessity as to what is moving or still as time is interchanged with space in a spacetime continuum?
If I imagine some creative object (that is logically an idea of negation as a force of sorts for some region or general structure, the creative field in Hoyle's sense)- and in general for those times considering the differences in classical and modern logic and physics- our trying to encompass physics with the principles of projection of which we should strive to see in higher principles of manifolds should the older physics, the modern physics, and new physics extend its role as intelligible and consistent.
So, a sort of central place not necessarily with a unique origin, a creative singularity but a "teleomnic complex" of which we can take it as a physical reality. But if such objects exist in our natural space, black holes, big bang singularities, quasars, all the variations or even the shells of the left over debris of such design some of which is still warm in its changing dying embers, we should not expect that the location of these is the same as the description and coordinates of such objects. That the game idea (resolved the independent axioms to describe numbers as if these ultimately are not independent totally after all to the Peano axioms and to each other) is from some vague generalization of which we touch as aware and then crystallize or expand our evaluations, says in effect we can so transit through such higher creative singularities.
In fact, as with speculations on a lower lever of such objects, we could imagine the universe as one of these singularities itself- as if for example we are inside a higher dimensional black hole, one spinning or still and so on. So, to what extent can we describe the universe as a higher teleonomic complex?
Somewhere near the blogs I saw an article that said small objects were observed to vibrate and not vibrate at the same time and this was permissible by quantum theory. (while I cannot evaluate the seriousness of the article I can evaluate the soundness of the ideas- at least to understand the philosophy behind it.) But I am not sure that all of this exceeds our own centering as we in our minds seem to transit such a unique singularity- or that of course of society and between each other. After observing and knowing well a schizophrenic roommate in the bar where I was going to play- he lost it mixing drinks and drugs all, so I left. All the little clues that his mind was entering another state in that great catch all diagnosis made when the general condition escapes his doctors. My impression was my friend actually focused his mind in these cue directions instead of the freedom in what we thing at first was jumbling in all directions as the state of the illness.
So too, when logic if it does eventually meshes with the mathematics, when the physics is a little more unified, we will be able to make better sense of such organization of our thoughts and minds. I wonder though, as he passed some event horizon of his perspective, just when and where his idea of the necessity for shouting the F word at everyone, seemed to lead him into the fantasy of the end of the world or of the fear of self harming or of others into a quiet state of staring off into the distance. At what point does the stuff in his mind fix the uncertainty of the game?
Yet even in the specialized wording of some of these emergent speculations on physics we see the same paradoxical questions realized and asked on the lower level. Einstein in his wisdom did not remark on what happens if we pass through such a space as the sun - not so his gravitational lens ideas. This obviously does not undo his axiom of a sort of constancy of light relative to something but extends it to these questions of the new physics be it a solution or the same old form of the problem on steroids- or rather on philosophy in our core application.
All the ideas on time, complex time as theoreticians like Hawking have speculated on what is the finite or infinite of such a balance of fields- are these the frontier of physics or of philosophic dreams? The essential question then before some sense of a future point of which we can say no more so make speculations for the prospects as well as the achievements of science is framed as where does the information go? And in the game of the reality of the universe, outside of our imaginations, it can go rather further than we think but how to frame the question and find uniqueness and certainty as we entering the quasar ride a chariot to greater places or in the general sea we might say, bouncing through the fragmented mirrors of one uniform and universal law that we ourselves in the sense of our centeredness and unity are not the information come back from the black hole as mangled or in a pointless different but interconnected form?
Welcome to the higher age of the Godgame we people play, again the acid test of the philosophy as that of science where our experience of the world and of thought is the age old question of what is chance and necessity- what is our responsibility without choice or is the hopeful ground of intelligibility in our free will.
It is not, in the existentialist sense, that we have no choice to be born but if we stay here we are making a choice to do so- it is if we while here want to make a choice to make that flight for our quality existence more abundantly in a world safe and equal where enquiry is possible- and is known valuable and highly respected as should be our sciences.
* * *
(the comment there by Orwin O'Dowd I find especially insightful)
* * * *