Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Entropy, Information, Imago

Entropy, Information, Imago

L. Edgar Otto      29 January, 2013

I return now to a more mathematical recreational stance, to view the history and body of the literature and concerns from the new perspective.  I found this a pleasant and interesting activity of inquiry in which seeing how in the questions and search for possible unified and new physics general directions for a theory of everything various theoreticians intuitively sense a direction yet stuck on the details of method wherein in viewing the goal it remains illusive as if they beat their heads upon a wall or the wall recedes and twists away from them on something like what we first glimpsed in perspective of Western art as the projective plane.

I also had to look up terms and ideas in the library of things I have read or heard about observing the conversation in discussions on the internet.  What is a D or p-brane? What does the term moonshine mean added to the Monster groups?  Luckily I found these summarized in a few places to which the filling in of ideas and connections, a unified view in new light, I found inspiring and easily linked as I referred to what I could Google off line in my mind.  But it also was the reading of those popular authors that I have not encountered who wrote at this time of change as our theories of the last decade developed rapidly, their glowing sense of clarity outside of that time where some issues are now obsolete in their search for a formal and unified speculation as an act of communication and creative thinking.

The p-brane idea based on natural but vague dimensions is flawed from my view where dimension is so ill defined so I did not miss much from the training or influence of such ideas- after all my grasp of string theory came before the M theory as any other physics based, like quantum theory, on some ideal of hidden and even inaccessible generalizations as if 'Magic" or 'Mystery'.  The D-brane is a little more interesting dealing with loops and open ends and things- but this idea too would work a science outside the mystery as if the universe as a computer or informational simulation may ignore if anything exists outside it be that the idea of an absolute nothingness after all, or some intelligent designer as a theory or perhaps a personal being as with any of our ideas that also try to refer to 'consciousness' which of course the observer is part of things in teleological systems theory.

If there is no more certain philosophy in these hierarchical and inellegant recursive systems (which as looping and infinite regress can be used legitimately and elegantly) we can find the same theoretician endorsing another that supports his view yet rejecting that which challenges his view... using the same data and impressions from a wider view what appears contradictory at worse at best is a missing of each others point. 

Lisa and Lubos are the standing our example of the day in defense of these core theories of which each in their presentations shores up the core of their methods, takes fundamental stance to the same inquiry into a theory of everything or not for the working awakening of frontier ideas realized by the brane methods- Lubos is consistent in applying these stances to the debate of what grounds the earlier just quantum ideas.

Aware of some advanced problem like decoherence as well the hierarchy of things, not so much as that beyond the two modern physics, we can look back at earlier generalizations and new directions from it (such as chaos science).  We can say that ultimately, as with Maxwell's demon, Newton's system itself will not hold unless it is ultimately ground in the quantum ideas of uncertainty.  So too the quantum theory is grounded by something higher of which I have called quasics.  The debate between these creative scientists would do well, if only for the design of the logic's sake, to have at least an overview of creative philosophy that they are not blind to states of their stances.

Various generalizations of space, configuration or phase spaces, the idea of information as a part of the picture as if a half physical realm as much as things like energy and matter, the idea of time and applying complex number methods to it - or radically so for all the variables such as momenta-  the ubiquity of Hamiltonian methods that seem to apply remarkably to so many diverse areas of the physics as if our most general idea of space and time, this also bequeaths the problem so set up that it is a concern and one that as science may be clouded if limited to existing levels of methods and generalization to which we may state the problem yet not be lead toward a solution. No wonder we approach the problem politically so as to  solve the Gordian knot with the blade.

To this end, and pulled out of the air as these terms are too new even for a poet inventor reluctantly of words,  beyond the idea of energy, then entropy, I chose imago- already a term used in group psychology.  But it is the specific new light on certain recreational puzzles and patterns (after all mathematics is a word derived from knowing and patterns)
thus the issue of what is shape say compared to volume- more the grounding as my word stereonometry even over but hinting at the mystery or Metaphysics is the joy and promise of joy in new comprehension- that and a higher respect for the actual individual inquirers ancient and modern.

I give the readers a puzzle, imagine the impossible triangle as of Penrose (of which we should not underestimate the value of mathematical recreations or game theories and so on)  These are nine cubes in a triangle as if the tops of them may be walked on unclear if we are going up or down.
Now, of the 30 cubes so colored find a rational solution that their face colors match.  Hint: Contemplate my 9 of the 15 cubes extended in depth direction from 6 of the others in the bicolor matrix I offered my the last post.  Can the matching be only there in the abstract higher space also in such a way they match only from this view?  After all, so much of this quasi-physicality or half real issues is this question of what we imagine as real or concrete in the so called optical illusions.  My illustration for this post is just an uncolored example of them in a pleasing but double cross eyed array.

Now formally (especially our concepts of topology or what structural patterns may exist at least inside black holes as this quasics solves the mechanism of what contained in various shells or surfaces describes the relative volumes as structure and information, and what I have called the Phoenix level of the workings of energy) what concepts are we to develop here even as a simpler example than the general case of such shape matching?  It seems to me a joy also that in the collection of ideas and conjectures in number theories, even in what seems as simple as the counting, a unifying stance and new concepts hidden in the patterns, arises.

Perhaps, we face the general great speculative frontier beyond these patterns or coincidences, ultimately representations by primes beyond their randomness and chaos, into and thru the new physics to an even higher level- one that has natural and unique restrictions not to be asserted so to save our theories such as the uniqueness of the patterns of 6 x 6 that arise in our bilateral slicing of regions of space as part of the integration of such facts.

The simple question of why a mirror reverses right and left but not up and down has a long history as with many things foreshadowing in quantum theory Carrol contemplated this.  From what perspective may we regard other (elliptic for example) equations as of slower convergence than the golden irrational?

Is it not enough to apply the monster moonshine ideas not as a matter of suggest deep connections between different mathematical approaches then this suggested but remains a mystery, that the same concept and all its variations as we increase or leave behind some idea of dimensions at the moment, applies to protons, particles, creative structures like black holes and the description of the atom as to the periods of elements?

If there is any such great speculative frontiers to be seen within the Omnium, ideas like the similarity of parts broken down or fit together describe the whole so ultimately we treat these various conceptions of what happens at a singularity or point as if nothingness and their generalization, the null points of creativity, this is creative and vital philosophy- things like baby universes in the sky or in the zero point ideas of an atom beyond its balances wherein we discuss some idea of transfer of energy or heat, or a little more sophisticated uncertainty and momenta that obviously grounds nuclear arsenals as an experiment hard to dispute, philosophy indeed, but as projects of science let us call it what it presently is: "M" is for metaphysics.

* * * * * * *

No comments:

Post a Comment