Friday, January 18, 2013
Art and Articulation
Art and Articulation
L. Edgar Otto 18 January, 2013
I continued to work more off-line without the idea that in the archeology of the old illustrations, some revised to update, that I would find implementation. The old problem of what is the first USA flag where we have 13 stars or such minimal art in general, vexillology is a problem of counting as well of how we find patterns or see them in the world. For to count so many finite numbers is to apply a general idea of dimension to them. I wonder if the new depth in our high definition television follows this programming method, we do not need the glasses if we understand how our mind's eye sees.
I do not apologize for my upbringing that held the constitution and expression of religion as a matter of patriotism for as we turn in the context of society and its implementation of social and psychological theories we also find our fixed array of compass points. To spin is to remain in a crystalline array also. But I must say that I owe a lot as I have looked back on the context of the world situation and the status of my nation just after the time Einstein died for at the dawn of the space age it was the National Science Foundation that put inspiring books into my school library that would otherwise not be there- of course as things developed some of the speculative technology took long to develop and some I am still waiting for.
Some have said of me I find many parallels in diverse areas, this I attribute to the attention and effort in writing so much poetry- the reading of the Bible and the Iliad, Odyssey in study hall by the teachers- these classics of at least the grounding literature without biases seems to me a lost national asset. Let us not dismiss the review of subjects on any level for that partitions our response, especially in the sciences, a sort of onion model- these distinctions merely choose for the inquirer what position in the social system and its agenda they should heed to succeed in a system. We do not know how to evaluate these short of conflict, in war and in compromise. The result seems to me we push to the front our future generations as if for awhile an intrusive species.
Perhaps for the average living soul the disciplines are so complex in the learning that we need to delegate the areas in which to find expertise and freedom of inquiry. But we also in such partitioning find it hard to make intelligible parallels if we see them at all. I find vast levels were I do not have or have not considered how they fit into a general theory but lately I enjoy simple awakening to the specialization and see the faith in the workers who see things on some level- cell biology as a level for example or the body as a system of hormones- not the depth I see as at the level of my grasp of DNA and now arithmetic of which became rote learning as a teaching method or a general protest against the strict application of its ideas.
Now space seems a part of our given learning as a ground for understanding and surviving our environment even in infancy. I got the impression the other day in a discussion on PBS about the skeletal and muscular system, the types of hinges (see the illustration, a cartoon like depiction of a general body and its articulations including the window or range at which energy may be transferred organically and I presume on some inadequate level the idea of robot arms)
or joints really describe in an analyzed system putting together what we so partitioned to understand. But as space, as our general arranging of vectors and points and so on, even the higher methods of mathematics reflect the various structures we relate to as our physical skeleton and ranges of motion and articulation.
I think of Yeats, the Stamper in the Sky, where the roe and other creatures depict God based on their own design. I think of Weyl who imagined the picket fence we find pleasing because it relates to the vertebrae of our spine.
But as I said I am amazed how much there is into those things unseen and hidden yet useful like these ideas of higher symmetry and the vacuum. If I can imagine the two faced dihedron with no volume we may imagine in this doubly null space say six faces and no volume- then what we arrange or partition in such space does have influences in matters of what is the vacuum. Let us not forget also that like the sutures we have what amounts to a zero henge. We define our own ground for reaction to action and thus imagine these spaces as if necessarily concrete or even not relevant or existence to our familiar world.
In my relaxed and absurd playing with numbers I have hinted but not posted because the notation is not worked out enough, it is not clearly presented in intelligible articulation. Yet, something has changed, possibly because I am no longer living in a third world economy on the go because when I play with such numbers (and yes there can be errors of punching buttons that in the vague intuition and vacuum leaves much informally implied, leaves to much to the complexity of our logical and consistent notations in its mere implementation as formalism ( I mean what can be simpler than in the hierarchy of wild cards of the nulls in the nulls and so on that an integer to the power of itself as a stance to what is finite or infinite not be distinguished at least separately as on some side of a more general mirror?) A rule of such yet not developed notation beginning with zero as a divisor for centuries now or the confusion in process as we set the answers for our machines beyond error least they do not compute forever even resuming the calculation again once turned off- are these not the same powerful ideas of equivalence- of what in the biased asymmetry foundational or not we note the nature of the exponent and log functions or even how in a general relativity space we find some sort of reference frame? On the other side of the contemplations I can write numbers and their relaxed, nonnecessary operations descriptively yet am not lost in the vagueness of it.
I note in matters of numbers as partitions as in the string theory that while we find more unified and general ideas these remain exercises of emphasis on some method of seeing space or time of which it is too soon to establish as a discipline so confirm or dispute which direction leads to a higher theory- even if the game as once thought of strings or other approaches the only one in town yet a dead end.
I found a fractal chart by my blogspot astronomer, see Hogg's research and I did comment on this as an idea some time ago of comparing the fractal sequences on that plane - alternatively to count the windmill ordering of the 1 4 16 64... quasic generation partitions over this plane of which the directionality and the binary power (4n+1 and so on) seems fixed not as a windmill arrangement as it moves thru say three space and presumably we can fix the directions- here in his chart we use two of the four of them but we could have used four and changed the color order. This was one thing I mentioned in general as a principle but in the looking back did not revise to make it more explicit- and there are other types of fractal curves.
In the raw playing with the machine chess game I would do better if I did not try to do strategies or risk aggressive moves, but I do not know at this point if a machine can be so programmed to take advantage of the depths and interrelations of motion generalized way beyond what we see restricted of them in flatland branes but not necessarily in other representational dimensions, null, double null (36 or 37 in the roulette wheel) nor if out from the darkness some influence will arbitrarily arise that even risks the risk to find some niche of loaded dice if any as we risk the inquiry game. It is an open question now if such freedom in the unknown can be more concrete as a ground or source of poetry and inquiry.
* * * * *