Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Roots and Division of Unity (At the Ground Do We Know Anything)

Roots and Division of Unity (At the Ground Do We Know Anything)

L. Edgar Otto    Tuesday, 27 November, 2012

I begin to think we have to go beyond the core division of philosophy, the chance, the mechanism, and teleological at the foundations which is the mystery of our understanding and  the question integrating through, over, above and beyond time of our unique experience.  This variation on an idea I have called quabic and in it the actual drama seems to unfold in the affairs of the beliefs and conflicts of man.  But it amounts to oeconomics of person-hood, fivefold at least in the structures expanding the idea of Trinity, only I have to view it as a quasifinite game such as the lottery.

These thoughts, as well the effect on how I intuitively view numbers in the doubts and confusion foundations present, a condition we can only point out so far to explain in theory, tell me something more than my sense of unity in the span of my own speculations and visions- Do we really know anything? Yet the parallels in some answers are entertaining with reward over the usual way people deal with puzzle frustration.  That we exist, while we exist, shows some sort of unity or conservation of our being that begs to defy the actuality tables in principle although unity also knows better.

This question may not be evident in the higher working out of a theory except the technique or methods may reflect its influence on form.  If in all possible worlds there is a unique truth or sequence given a series of them that must precede others (as with so many theories that work but grow impractical for man or machine to compute or prove in construction or enumeration, perhaps even recursion fails us here as informal and inelegant that seems to be).  After but ten steps built upon one another there are a thousand and twenty four chances that the one answer is complete, right.

A winner of lotteries was on the news today while the stake is almost half a billion dollars with general advice from his book. (Is it a remarkable coincidence his system seems to work and gives weight to those who would play to win the game?)  I thought I would look into this for I feel on one hand there is much in statistics and probability theory I do not know including if core ideas as I have seen discussed by many of our blogger physicists actually do have good grounding or that a matter of paradox, taste, or just hopeful points of view.

The ticket of the Power Ball game has an array of 59 slots to mark off and for the power ball itself a choice from 1 to 35.  To me this already raises issues of patterns and structures  where I embed 6x6 in the 8x8 grid and add 0's or +1's or in this case four more excluded from the set of sixty four to play. 

I note the author did not approach things from the all important I know only too well the teleology and intuition, the extra sensory that may guide us in the search for patterns.  Yet he said two interesting things:  one should not play the quick pick where you buy a random generated ticket and one should not just do diagonal patterns across the array as these decrease the chances to come close to the numbers drawn.

Are there then any patterns between this diagonalization (such a question occurs to Pitkanen in asking if the square roots may apply as well his squaring of p-adic numbers and clearly I have taken leaps of faith applying both principles intuitively and informally.)?  What does the author talk about other than take a stance toward the probability and the mechanical to focus on what we might ask is resolved in the actual steps and choices of nature where she needs to find the actuality of real physical patterns?  In the lottery game I have often felt it almost a quantum idea that the numbers on a given ticket do not actually exist until they are scratched off.  Is there something in nature's unique general patterns despite the idea we are faced with astronomical numbers that as empty as statistics and mechanics can seem to be makes a difference in our state of things and outcomes or is the pattern as empty as well-  what do we know anyway?

But between the purposes or expressions desired and the explorations into the next philosophy and physics levels where we artistically work even knowing nothing sound, that the world can see a better place with variety and surprises as well stability and affirmation to the familiar with feeling much like children desire the same story over and over again.  (From early on I find it difficult to sing a song the same way twice or merely draw or mimic what others have done the desire for originality is strong and perhaps stronger than the sometimes sense of destiny or futility, the why more than the how of things).

Now my recent concepts I have offered here do (synchronously and coincidentally?) have deep relevance to this lottery issue and geometrical or numerical patterns.  Although I have in effect skipped the formal development in such theories I would not go back to simpler texts on the matter which from my view I see I did not miss much.  So, while I know enough that I am aiming for lesser values of the prize in my choice of numbers I offer these to see just how close the patterns match next Wednesday.  But these will not be the one number that I play among intelligible choices nor would I play or afford to were it not a mathematical recreation.

The addictive nature of such things, not to mention the money never goes where it was stated as the purpose to approve the lottery by the voters,  the effect on the lives of a few people I have known- and the idea of what is the true purpose of insurance if not open to greed in gambles?- is just hinted upon beyond the scope of this post where it certainly has a subjective and social element. 

* * * * * * *

3   13   17   51   55   21(the power ball)  for example or

3   12   15   48   51   * * (choose from among the 35 power-balls, I would choose 16 for symmetry reasons)

Maybe patterns so applied will tend to focus on a higher chance that lesser stakes may be more likely for as with gambling intuitively we have to be on the board initially and we cannot abandoned that state of mind to the merciless universe we call the bank.

* * * * * * *

No comments:

Post a Comment