Thursday, February 16, 2012
The Projecting of Chiral Identity
The Projecting of Chiral Identity
L. Edgar Otto 02-16-12
These considerations on the nature of personal identity, a question of quasic locality and non-locality foundation ally,
carry over to how we view chirality in the nature of particles, the sterile neutrinos in particular. While it is a profound question it is not just a question of one or the other choices as to what needs be the fundamental structures of such particles. In general the very idea of chirality, as with the right and left forms of polyhedral in a greater sense as self dual or as distinct has a mirror in what we mean by the concept.
This is the question Leibniz posed as to the discernible of the indiscernible, his example was right and left shoes or of a pair of socks. We can imagine from some view the handed shapes as indistinguishable and the symmetric ones open to a sense of indistinguishably. The application of this is even more so in the realms of ideas of higher dimensional symmetries.
But in a non-necessary quasic universe both ways of viewing symmetry can be an intelligible system of organizing our perceptions and the question of uniqueness (as one of what is the grounding or source of mass ultimately, for particles) for in this sense perception and its projection of a human mind is the same question of a general not necessarily centered model itself which of course has the same paradoxes of identity. Some of us often confuse the right and left or we do not expect the illusion of persistent motion of a spinning helix to go the same way when reversed in spin.
Moreover, while there are chiral differences of energy in the mirrored organic molecules of the same atoms, if universally the right and left handedness of things in the universe switched unlike we imagine of an arrow of time reversal from one view how would anything know the difference? Chirality in this quasic view can be invariant after all to the laws of physics. An application of this view was that of Peter Rowlands who applied the idea to the weak force as part of the nilpotent quantum model of Dirac if we regard the parity of things and the twists of things as intimate to chirality.
From philosophy then, if there is an application to human perception and sentience, for evolving to it is not the deep reason that such a model to evolve to can be found, in fact at initial places, beginnings, even an electric clock can flow backwards or a few of the snail shells (significantly about one in ten) spiral the other way. Foundationally we suspect that this tendency to choose the way to turn is the first indication that species can become distinct because of the mechanics of mating (even if the organism has both types of gametes.)
If we accepted the higher level view of the rigidity of the standard model defined by the existence of particles by the weak force, and consequently all that is not muon- Rowlands admittedly metaphysical principle, that fermions bring with them their non-existence, then on the familiar level to which we dwell in our immediate consciousness we raise the usual questions of our identity compared to others. In particular outside of our own experience we cannot distinguish if another person is a mind or all others as other are non-existence beyond the lower level reduction to physics as animals to some degree or as machines. What ameliorates this view beyond social encounters? We are more aware in the physical sense that as we can touch our own bodies then touch a wall that we can feel the world has matter beyond us. This though was from Sartre.
The quasic view at least on the level of psychology we can infer other minds in some sort of vague connections possible if we have a sufficient level of experience or understanding. But it remains that unless we find a concrete link or evidence others actually have rather than appear to have human qualities then without experiencing them as themselves they are the other as ambiguously not discernible and thus a paradox that they do not exist and so fill the vacua as surely as our bodies return again to the nutrients and the dust for that recycling.
While some individuals may exist without such a higher level identity- how do we know? Perhaps, as some report without a sense of self. It is more than a given fact that the social model of the collective of humans evolves in all its forms as surely as the deeper understanding of physics explains the rise given the patterns of universal laws of cephalation or a centering, virtual or real, of sentience.
* * * * * *