L. Edgar Otto 03 June, 2012
The logic of a theory depends on the structure of its axioms and theorems as well the general intuitive concepts. These have a bandwidth of modification within reductions or generalization to which a theory is taken as foundational or has a philosophic core counter of doubt in matter of what can come into existence, especially from the ideas vacua.
Here I take two, four, or eight colors in quasic boundaries such that these ideas as traditional enumerated ( by Loeb who did not quite understand the analogies to the octahedron being in the pre-string theory era) that these extend into at least Euclidean ideas of a less relaxed treatment of higher dimensional lattices and dimensions. These core theorems being extended to the topology of general design and stances toward physical processes including quantum abstractions. Of the 4 color ones I arranged the 9 into a matching cube puzzle of 6 cubes of the 36 faces (my calyptic cubes which matches a certain class of higher polytopes). This forms a totality of 16 tiles or faces that span to be interpreted along the lines of the principles on this blog I proposed in the general quasic theory.
That said, in the idea of the last post of a relaxed logic that holds prime numbers as the unique description of a physics between branes or spheres each over the zero to infinity totality, we remind ourselves of the core philosophy of chance, even as a default situation of general effects in the quasifinite half illusion universe (that is we can define this idea of what is illusion in the existence up to these terms) the logic of it in a sense can be described as one of chance or randomness at the foundation as well as mechanism and teleology. We in fact can extend this philosophy to still higher ideas of what is unique in terms of the state of the universe or of all possible combinations as abstractly realized to the general idea of philosophic and physical hierarchies of continua.
From a dream, still unclear in its significance, of the previous night we find the dialectics say of still layers on a virtual plane as if moving the case that makes foundational such dialectical processes the same experience as of the more general idea of what a page is in web space. The background can shift while the object remains still or the background still while the object moves, thus even in a conserved or fixed universe we can have ideas of time and motion as diverse. (Ulla, in answer to your comment and the Heraclitus stance of Fowlers: "Of what do you drink, the water or the wave?")
So, from the transactional view in a sea of unique quantangled planes and spheres and negative spaces in their totality of coherence or superposition at abstract point or string or iotas(-point ray omnic) objects, we can ask when we extend the abstract symmetry of things to a maximum generalization does the uniqueness vanish into the totality?
In the illustration I take the view of the Zion sphere from the central sphere to which we on the fulcrum of scale see things larger and smaller from the surface of our earth and position of ultimate observations possible as sentient beings. This is the viewpoint which matters, especially in terms of information in totalities (global warming, real and false scarcities such as the nature of nitrogen bonding and food, economics of scale, population rates and so on... in terms of energy or entropy dialectics.) It is a point of departure for this or a better total theory of symmetry, one that integrates better the Otto-Conway matrix in the quasic dimensional context from perhaps even a deeper and more formal presentation or comprehension if we want a more unified theory or some ground for its existing variations. (or the possibility we imagine something real beyond our non necessary existence that could be transcendent as sacred and want a more solid foundational grounding.)
I am not sure if we have explained how something can arise from the nothingness (public radio will have an article that claims this, but I quite imagine compared to these general foundational directions that it will seem quite inadequate.) In this sense it may just be not a meaningful or well formulated question.
We are in the fulcrum of our core of unique self and being and perspective of which in the actuality of existing in the apparent here and now, on a tightrope of time to which we can fall into the heights of higher mysteries or depths of dreams so therein be lost, as with existing in itself, our intellect and intuitions immersed on a central shell and the triad of what is relativistic but of no particular location, we theorists who work at the frontiers and foundations as well with the nature of our minds and self, a grounding as if a civilized being with the doubt of relaxed liberty as a system of enquiring. We keep our immune system strong against the barriers (today the simple but new method that shrinks some tumors on the cell wall level) if we are challenged and strong, and choose which way to go in our determinism and free will- if we are creatively most alive at our core, and if when some unexplained magic happens we do not deny it nor let the audience see we too are amazed at this anomaly so it seems of our creative core of strength and being, and of purpose sooner or later realized of what is the meaning of love.
But there is no guarantee that wisdom or intellect in the knowing is a cure for our perceived ills or senses of mental pain or some emptiness to fight or flee from of the dark zones that threaten life, and in denial, that is its reality of our day. The colors we don on the surface or the depths of our relations between each other might have to begin early on and have little to do with wisdom or that as our guide.
Still, it is with hope that some questions will have answers as so raised here in that in such a diverse transactional general space that what we can measure in a quasifinite world of mirrors inside mirrors is ultimately or more and more intelligible.
* * * * *