Friday, October 14, 2011

The Unintelligible Universe

The Unintelligible Universe
L. Edgar Otto October 14, 2011

Let us consider the general consistent and logically focused quasic plane. Each minium cell itself such a plane of which we can describe a quasi-space as a general frame for intelligibility. It is not necessary ultimately that this needs to be the actual physical case for the universe and paradoxically it seems to be needed for the widest conception of the universe of physics.

We assume that at each cell we can designate a surreal sequence that begins ambigously on a very fundamental level with a zero or one. We observe globally that the span of such a space that is organized and ordered intelligibly can be said to begin with an assumed zero or grounding in the infinitesimal as a question of singularity in regards to the depths of the multi-dimensional, multi-brane quasic representation as a general grid or framework.

We can imagine then, that such a completely unintelligible exists and as an existent entity is a background to which we can ultimately claim that logic can itself be deputed, or in the case of some difference over times that the logic of something is an argument that can be defeated. But as an existent it has a sense of reality to which we may appeal to a hidden reality for some concept such as non-linearity or dark forces, or faerie fields and so on- we sentient things asking the great philosophy question for some physicality why the universe exists rather than not exists.

Such questions also ambiguously inspire and has us make appeal to the existence of God which can lead us to physical generalization or abandonment of the depth of knowing, even the doubting of what we can compare to the world of our limited perceptions as if something hidden beyond it. If such of our concepts of God or gods relates to our most general number concepts- this can be an understanding beyond what we are now more certain of understanding about the infinities. That God is beyond such concepts of infinity, and beyond the question of zero or one as number.

So, if there is a framework, a sort of unity of a given universe or individual state, we can also label the pixels or planes in a sequence as to if they are set as an initiation or termination as a set fact where the existence of a unique organism or thought can, but not necessarily must, vary from the proposed unity of a frame. This can be mapped out on the plane for specific cases and patterns of useful information or possibilities, and the limits of applying useful parameters of technology. Surreal and p-adic numbers would be the beginning of such technology and each contributes to the quantum concepts as we swim through the quasic grid.

* * * *

I thought I might post this link again I found on an add in facebook and
in particular the idea of trees and the like, today. This seems a rather good teaching site for the general public.

Again, is there not a problem to start with, the more powerful axioms independent or not, that we assert by Peano Zero and a successor?

* * * *

For what it is worth I posted to Lubos if this is moderator approved- but sometimes I get the feeling we do relive history- for example how odd it seems to me to have a recurrence of say the old flags of Russia, and a nation called Serbia. Was it a better time and what is the appeal to the Panam and Playboy shows but some statement about more prosperity and a middle class where now Leave it to Beaver is declared a myth in a world where even sweet little Springfield as I recall it in Illinois has the third highest crime rate- suspected because there are so many young people but they cannot explain it. I suppose each generation has to relearn history, and it is expected if not evidence of genius that a theoretical physicists to learn must recreate the whole.

* * *


Not that I claim to be competent in these matters- but I find it hard to believe that such people could make such errors.

On the other hand, when Mercury's change of orbit was calculated (way back in the primitive first pointing to relativistic modifications of Newton) was not Einstein off by half and this corrected by the actual observation at the eclipse?

History seems to repeat itself, all depending of course on three space and how we measure what is kinetic and potential energy- but on a much higher level where perhaps we have much more to learn about super-symmetry and reference frames and the like.

Any, thanks for you detailed reply to my earlier comment on the quantum wars- it inspired a little deeper thinking on my part.

The PeSla

* * * *

No comments:

Post a Comment