*L. Edgar Otto***22 December, 2012**

We imagine
multivalued functions, as with Riemann's complex plane the "jump" of
i2pi (provided we have functions that never cross the excluded negative and
zero x axis.) But we make similar restrictions when we have more than one solution to real equations, as the
square root in which we take only the positive of a multiple value. Thus the Riemann plane is quite an advanced
concept (more than I appreciated having not been familiar with the intuitive
steps that lead to a clarity of understanding analysis.)

It seems like little
progress has been made since then in the search for more fundamental
foundations. But in this presentation,
blog, I have the feeling I should take time out for some more formal study- I
cannot assume that answers are not there in some form already or that mine
reach the level that transcends existing knowledge. I can go back and see what little
conversation I had with some teachers after high school that taking their
comments as gospel were wrong, trigonometry is a lot more than just identities
and the details of developing equations not a simple matter of zaps and duds
consumed in a general formula rather than the concepts themselves the grueling
work of counting.

That nothing has made
fundamental change since the awakening to ideas of the quantum theory I quite
imagine it is due to the interpretation of our mathematics on a very
foundational level- including that of number theory. Yet in our imperfect system to date there is
a great deal of power and beauty. Where
there is progress it usually occurs when we imagine some systems from different
points of departure where ideas are deeply parallel, sometimes to the point we
discover new and unexpected connections.

Philosophically, let
us assume that we can have multivalued points, that in some way may differ in
duplications yet in the same way have a fixed value. This is fundamental, the exclusion of the
zero and negative axis is not, also the cavalier duplication into equal but
empty shadows of a system and what seems behind a mirror works but is not clear
as to it being a legitimate method to apply blindly.

Nature is at its
foundations not a respecter of sign.
Where it is, or where we can define complimentary functions such as of
the log and exponential, there is no reason to think nature is biased
ultimately to what is primary as one or the other. Yet, as in the log, again by tricks we impose
this wider space into the lesser dimensions, in a deep sense what is concrete
in the mirror function (despite the tricks of successive differentiation and
integration alternatively and conceptually cyclically...) said of logs may
reverse from some stance of nature. Yet,
if and these only we differentiate the logs in complex space we arrive at what
is naturally restricted to what we regard as the physical.

The problem, and a
challenge that leads me to search the literature, is what sort of things happen
if we allow at a point the intersection of three kinds of planes- those of the
natural Cartesian dimensions, those of the complex plane, and what I call the
quasic plane- each of which seem to share many properties of the same pattern
and description. As some of these values
must be finite between one and minus one, in a world where we cannot so
duplicate or have multiple values despite the beauty of descriptions say of
oscillations on a real number line, the convergence of the exponential alone
will not give us the deeper secrets of things like the ultimate and unified
idea of such objects as branes having charge- that merely extends at this time
our bottleneck of the mechanics and formalism of our notations which are useful
only in the main in small numbers or as a background for our measure of things
by mirror-less probability.

Many anomalies and
alternative views can be described or analyzed in this new concept of a wider
but accessible next step in mathematics, so that the concrete or soundness of
such theories may be discerned. So too
if concepts can influence our states of mind, the awakening to new eras of such
concepts. Consciousness is not simply
something that emerges in the higher analysis complex numbers or not. While it is long time philosophy to merge our
ideas of the infinite against the finite, such as with Whitehead's process
theology, how can the knowing be complete, say for the ideas expressed by Hawking over the reality of the universe, the Omnium, if we say space is
finite in time but time is infinite as imaginary space- these in the mind's eye
at least wrapped around our heads as a fact of unity and being?

Can this situation be
mirrored as an unbiased stance of nature?
Does it not hint of speculation, even principles of metaphysics as well
of things involving information theory as in the related issue of where that
goes into black holes? Can it be that
come convergence in the element is divergence in the filament and conversely,
this too mirrored? Do I gain anything,
having quasically defined the reason and state of nature for the idea of
generations where it applies say in quark theory, if at a multiple point there
are these brane like creative or existing entities? That is if it cannot tell
us how to find unity again in the concept and the nonnecessity of these quasic
functions over the omnium?

Have we not concluded
there are models that give us a hint of this in the surprise and anomaly of
dark energy and dark matter- even with our familiar physics and chemical models
we image something like dark fluid? What
is hard to imagine is the consequences of such phenomena should they prove in
experiment a direct linking as if some shadow that grounds the reality as if
the unity is quasi-metaphysical.

It does little good
either if we can only see the outline of such shadows to imagine some dark
atoms that work in concert without direct evidence of disproportionate weights
when the whole dynamic process suggests that in this higher physics things are
creative, that in a sense atoms, and by structure and pattern only,
evolve. The memory of the previous
states of matter may indeed behind the scenes contribute to the idea of mass along
Weyl's lines.

Evolving atoms would
certainly explain processes that even the reversal of brightness of supernovas
could make the higher half of our natural occurring atoms as well the
explanation of gamma burst on all scales.
A quasar like creative object may disintegrate into many systems of
stars as if the materialization of its multiplicity at a point of its hidden
yet mirror atoms.

This I have hinted at
in my last post of cosmic chemistry and this in a vague form I have considered
for years. In the mass extinctions over
a million years or so, why do we assume the layer of iridium is other
worldly? And do not the planets
themselves appear to be formed in pairs as most things, as perhaps the nuclear
shells of nucleons?

Clifford was as close
in the usual mathematics, as a sort of finite model, the dimensions taken from
the power of some number, to my idea of quasics- this quite a challenge in 1995
to my idea of originality in research as well the haunting similarities when
string theories reared their heads. Yet,
I persisted down a path not as if any of these theories were blocking the way-
so why? It must be from a wider
standpoint concerning the continua and numbers involved- for the power as a
dimension or the dimension as a power can be fundamentally mirrored, and that
is not a simple matter of fractions or zero divisions to avoid should we
encounter such as singularities.

But such exclusions
do seem to make the world work, especially where in its consistency it does
seem one sided and asymmetric in the relationship to creative things we
describe as if heat of a more general nature to which one sided logs only is
not a bad model to suspect we reached the limit of the power of our
calculations, accepting some conditions in the world as illusions.

To this end in the
manuscript (I am still debating to post as an illustration in the raw) I chose
the yod symbol or a simple degree sign as a product analogous to the dot
product vector operation. Perhaps this
explains the idea of the continuum of a power set greater than the R... not
really a paradox, then again Tarski's makes some sense by such mirroring
too. In any case as workable as some of
our formulas are that apply to systems of physics, If my quasic view is write,
too much is depending on our insistence of solutions that have separate formula
for the odd and even number in a series.
That then an example were wider intuition and speculation may transcend
the bottleneck of our established formulas, these not as elegant as they could
be, that may constrain us in the symbols that to new useful physics we do not
transcend.

Deeper than that,
some variation in the basic values like the velocity of light or Planck's
constant may not be visible on one side of the mirror as if not things of
multiplicity. Why then should we regard
a space of h cubed as important as such a space when its boundaries, are
described only in the usual concept of dimensions. We cannot really say in matters of our
conservation laws that what around a boundary, a quasic one as well, that what
vectors and properties coming into a system are the same as that which leaves.

Surely, if the
dynamics in this world conform over many regions and scales, and these apply to
our phenomenon of consciousness, if this concept of multiplicity is right then
vaguely defined ideas like autism is indeed a result of the multiplicity of
sensitive gene regions on a chromosome.
As such one may debate if this is the cost of survival of the fittest as
to if such states of mind are descended into past states or maybe lead to a new
and advanced species. If right the ideas can tells us how to heal such problems
without invasive procedures changing the inherent identity of an individual
while our experiments contradict the intent, and the doing no harm, and no
current explanations are to be easily found if in our present state of wisdom
they can be.

All of this seems
nevertheless to be, in the physical and material applications at least, lesser
than the next few levels of general theory now hidden to us of which the
complexity of this theory even with no other explanations to be offered, will
seem like a logical and natural extension of existing theories done with better
clarity- that or in the looking back all we know for the last couple of a
myriad of years will seem all to simple, obsolete, and coming so near the
future truths. The ideas here, as if an
expansion of fusion and fission into super-duper fission and fusion for some indefinite but creative singularity of potential real atoms in a creative
object multi-singularity complex, are neither models with the parsimony of
reduction nor so wide that the mechanism could conceivably give us access to
more energy than say that in theory of a complete merging of matter and
antimatter.

One stray idea of
which the foundations of counting goes to a little more general idea than that
of arithmetic, in a philosophical sense the old 2 + 2 = 5, is that if the boundary of a quasic region (of any natural representational dimension defined
by the usual conservation of the count) is the distinct but indefinite
boundary wherein to cross it it can be any number of such brane regions in the
path and not necessary of uniform or crystalline quasic space pixel
dimensions- provided the entry into another region may reverse the usual group
signs of things while in effect the object in motion thinks it is in the same
place with same orientations- and unlike in the complex plane in a sense it is
as well of all such nearly the same or the same coordinate places.

So I do not need to
post the notes after all- save perhaps the last entry that asks: Can we store
natural energy- matter into the condensed (but of multiple hyperbolic parallels
from this side of the mirror) into a dark matter or black hole like object- store information? if so how much more over
these stances of natural processes?

Such treatments as I
have presented in color and hypercolors relate to the real world of four space
as natural dimensions... It would be of interest to do the same thing for the
higher symmetries in such four space for the great grand stelleations of the
analogs to the icosahedron. But that
would be beyond the present scope of the level to which we are trying to expand
our understanding.

* * * * * * *

## No comments:

## Post a Comment