Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Of Theory and Grey Matter

Of Theory and Grey Matter

L. Edgar Otto     12 June, 2012

We do not abandon ideas of verification, ultimately.

By this we see both sides, not just eliminate some paradox by definition or exclusion from a formal system or deny something included at some extreme of imagination. We justify experiment as a form of higher intuition and philosophic reasoning.

But this does not mean we can verify by statistical methods as the only reality or truth of a theory system of the universe.  Yet this reasoning itself, an appeal to philosophy, to logic as a developing core part of it applied to our ideas of what is foundational in our physics should also transcend the foundations presented as like a paradox itself- and that is what I conclude the quasic physics more completely addresses.

We are left with a wider view of what ideas like space and time, and matter are.  It is not simply a distinction between the syntax and the semantics in vague single views of multidimensional and ethical compasses of values, a distinction where it is imagined between the language and the metalanguage.  In the resolving of this core issue there are analogs to our core theories of everything underlying our physics notions today where theory systems or mathematical systems seek progress toward more unified systems.

Of the several resolvings or the imagined equivalences of paradoxes there are theoretical systems of value so defined and explored along the way. This will become more intelligible as we relate the cosmos itself to the processes of life, in particular to the nature of our grey matter.  It is not just a debate as to if our sentience or consciousness is atomic in nature, nor that in our consistent theories it is forbidden to imagine something like exceeding cardinality where we can imagine wider systems and distinctions in this at least physical force of sentience.

From the review of some of my developing new enlightenment from core ideas independently so logically developed my general world view seems to follow from them in what is after all the work and struggles of the last centuries philosophers and much of their conclusions in agreement of which liberty is one and the hopefully not a lost idea of a distinct American awakening.  By liberty I mean it as no small part of our freedom of enquirey and independent enterprise where individuals struggle to think on their own.

* * * *

One of Charles Pierce's great contributions was the idea of forms of the logic of the time that did not take in the general consciousness- for me this is the logic of the plane in all its senses of what makes number or mathematics in its grounding of philosophy.  It is easy given the grounds- Intuitionism, Formulism, Conceptualism, Platonism (of which it is not clear this is the realistic method) and so on to see where some general physics theories are so grounded in myself and others- we should be aware of this grounding I would imagine because more advanced logical systems of these, or the right interpretation of the older ones, are no small part of a general physics theory.

In particular, that some diagrams are equivalent- Pierce's existential graphs- with the theories of the non-necessity of what we still do not know or can know about even something as seemingly simple as counting, suggests to me at the core the question of 2 or 4 as in use by the quantum theory formulations is itself better explained and extended by quasic ideas and diagrams.  These two are interrelated and not in some vague concept of holographic theory and dimension.

Now, would you say (general) string theory is a formulist system?  Any theory that relies on nominalism alone- and so on?  Is the synthetic meaning (and to distinguish between the meaningless and the meaningfree) not a higher system of thought not just a question of the paradoxes of our reachable ideas on consciousness and physics? Is not the Rowlands metaphysical muon idea one of the definition of two objects in effect- that which exists and all that is not it as as if one object with all the questions that raises of any such count of a unitary object?  Logic, not metaphysics.  Concrete meets the abstract.  Do wimps exist despite the faith that these are concrete ideas of mass? Can math be finally resolved but in a better manner to the logic and by this so too the physics and cosmology after all?

* * *

No comments:

Post a Comment