Saturday, January 5, 2013

Explicit Particle Color Code Inquiring Systems


Explicit Particle Color Code Inquiring Systems

 L. Edgar Otto       05 January, 2013

The following illustrations were derived informally and incompletely up to the vast scale of quasic dimensions at the Fibonacci prime 89. My post today is an attempt to put the work and intuitions into a more formal order at least in a picture that says a thousand words.

Of course it raises new questions and some of the old ones like how do we determine (now from a quasic grid perspective) which of the Fibonacci numbers are prime?

The file name but not he photos suggest some of the work of Kea but in a way that unifies her work on braids with that of the string theories just as stable and unstable (magic square) grid groups combine twister-like and of wider concepts than general ideas of perspective as done by the usual simplex methods.

This also in a higher operation of symmetries, and in some relevant suggestion of similar symmetries shadow like within them, may be relevant to some interpretations and physical phenomena.  In any case Pitkanen recognized my post as important when I compared the binary notation and intelligible ordering of the general number line as the boundary of a 2 space representation of the quasic plane.

So much of our modern physics era depends on our stance toward the properties of mapping physics into such number lines.  I praise and thank the work of C. West Churchman for adding to my confidence after all these years of the quality of this view.  While we may not be ethical in the praise of previous social or racial systems, while the collective is part of a cultural struggle for those for or against a stance of New Age (in Churchman's stance we have to ask, honestly, the question what are you smoking? as it relates to the possibility of the state of the observer as objective and real for a given system evaluation and explicit relevance to the general universe becoming or given.)  In his view what we are doing in our status quo of traditions yet longing for a new generation to fulfill its hopes and dreams, its creativity, is the decent respect for ourselves as we so respect the work of those of any generation gone before us.  We stand on the shoulders of the giants of civilization, on our humanity, gazing out like Sir Issac by the immense checky shores.

Churchman took it as far as he could at the time, and half of this one book (others he wrote are perhaps as important to read, work which is the best, at least from the California perspective, of a streak of pragmatism of the United States flourishing at that dawning time in science) is labeled as speculation.  While I find Singer's speculations as not yet clear and thus biased or flawed but understand Churchman's respect for him in the main, clearly from a purely philosophic view our systems have to deal with its core ideas of teleology as we have considered them seriously for an explicit physics.

In these casual illustrations that again turn out to be of some use to evoke further ideas (teleology seems to explain some of the origins at least in the process of fundamental and original creative human poetry of the universe in his book at the speculative frontier).  Of course this is the best result of a teleological theory ( the attempt to resolve between the usual ideas of viscious circles and infinite regresses and so on he concludes.)  I have simply considered the projective inversion as between two points each with a quasic color coding to count the paths possible and what the colors including the shadows or mirrors are there of them, this in hopes as well for telling us something more about projective planes and the generalization of dimensions and group theories- perhaps the creative or neutral nature of dark space as used in physics.

Let us not get bogged down in the idea of collective or private shared ideas being somehow the one instance to which we feel uncertain of generalizations, certainly a good existentialist point to make that we cannot in theory escape.  Still privacy is very much an issue in our systems theory time of computers, and intuitively what is in fact part of the reality and expectations of individuals and the masses of them is the origin of what in the stability of our cultures these cultural theory implication ultimately may be the explanation and source of what seems futile or evil in the pointless and irrational drama say of the recent mass shootings as a consequence of such inadequate wisdom still developing.

On the other side of these subtle mirrors, these not just a dialect of oppositions nor inversions or compliments, what we actually see as color (more generalized in the partition of the spectrum as quasifinite with intelligible numbers- that too an issue of the ultimate question of measure of continuity and discreteness) just as with the mechanism we infer of the neutral particles or missing ones for the sake of conservation laws that so define them, what in the mirror may be a vast world of color one side of such mirrors, what is here reduced to black and white, yes, and clear, for higher particles and symmetry.

I apologize for this informality and unwarranted arbitrary choices in the labels and diagrams to which I hope I have drawn enough that the reader of such thousand world patterns may be able to see the scope and depth, the steps of my thought that seems to turn to gold by the mere act of practice of the poetry of touching (we are all poets to some degree the difference being maybe taking the act of writing it down even while the passion of creativity in a time of doubt and as a burden,)but far from its taking over to the point of being so common it loses its value awakened beyond the art of it while the quest if not the goal obtained.

Forgive also my form of syntax and parenthetical phrases of which the meaning requires clarity lost in the formal presentations by the editors and translators who in their expertise lose or mislead in the product essential parts or even patterns of the higher form.

This paradoxical point of nonnecessity is the general issue, one that seems we have to face the ideas that are tachyonic like in physics as well as the dimensionless in a standard or more refined measure of our physical scales, that in a non-necessary system a necessary one is not forbidden- but in a necessary system the non-necessary one is not forbidden either.

It is tempting for me to expand the artificial languages beginning with Interglossa and more Leibniz in type of ideas of inquiring systems and projects as Singer thought we should in that core logic of language forming (certainly we can observe the effects of such intelligible phenomena in a natural language for the suggestion as if linguistics as a higher system of thinking is thought the key foundation of our thought and communications).  But physics seems more important to me at this time than our music and poetry as the pendulum sways between theory and applications.

Otherwise, and being limited in time that perhaps practicality of systems theory (to paraphrase a pregnant sentence in Churchman- I try to attribute to others honestly first discoveries) as could be seen as the best of many possible and useful inquiring systems, that would be a fine philosophic recreation and side hobby back when it seemed I had unlimited time in which to indulge in play...

* * * * * * *

I add on observation on our perception of precedence of figures and ground as illusion with the illustrations where you cross your eyes to merge figures (of two or more, what is sacred about the number 2 say in dialectical systems asks Churchman?) with the inversion of the primary colors we can distinguish which is the deeper figure or the ground.  In general with only the given plane the color information inversion is confused or distinguishable, alternately yet we notice of the surrounding color we have at the focus what seems an open space but out from this squares or lines.

Rather are we to see this as the result of the architecture of the eye as it so evolved to distinguish food or dangers in the landscape, or its it an intrinsic property of our higher interpretations of such space stereonometry as concrete, the one system that captures the real among nonnecessary paradoxical possibilities so applied to explicit ideas of particles?

Rather we are talking about the interpretation of such illusions in the mind's eye organizing, filling in the gaps, and interpreting things.  As Steven Pinker points out the mind can determine orientation of objects in three space as well as two space.  After all the quasic plane can be thought of as a merging down of n-dimensional, thus brane theory shadows- so in what sense can we orient things as if these were many dimensional in our minds eye or reasoning?

The mind can apparently see into the quasic dimensions of the brane as well- that is only at the boundary points of a complexly drawn object do the (here orthogonal) divisions correspond to objects on the central layer- what in the space between these quasic plane boundary quasifinite points seems to go into further depth beyond the flatland given. Note also the inversions may explicitly interchange which is the three way figure ground that stands out or sinks in.

As to reasoning as it seems to evolve in our species it casually occurs to me tonight we are still trying to adjust or adapt to these core ideas of multidimensional and quasic space symmetries that appears to be the underlying goal of our attempts to find in the flesh or in our speculations the still evolving idea of a unified theory of our reality.

The particular suggestion these Fibonacci number properties applies (as in symmetry breaking, division algebras, and so on) to a more explicit if not ultimate method to describe particle physics is surely a useful model.  It is still as open as the possibilities and limitations of our imagination and existence.  Clearly, in the achievement of a better grounded idea of the nature of our physical constants and what we regard as negation in real or fanciful fields and vacua, in ideas of time directions and loops as well as states of the universe seen as a sort of refinement and progress where possible, we are part of the great experiment that converges to the new philosophy and physics as a grounding.

Indeed, the collective purpose as an organizing science as the hidden but sensed goal of current areas of research projects may be explained as this direction of learning and thinking.  But there are no guarantees short of some sort of God perhaps as the philosophy goes, there are no necessary realities thus a certain complete description for the field of inquiry remains very wide. I have not given some of the detailed arithmetic of the matter that ties this together readily as proof or at least credible explanation, nor have I claimed or asserted it a complete or perfect theory- but it seems an important step, and where else in our independent but shared social dialog should our efforts reach some threshold of survival for sufficient time and worthy uniqueness of the experience of living observed by the only one or multiverse.

Where in the contemplation of things can we really establish an intelligible dialog for systems of inquiry?  Have we among the species reached the maturity even in the virtual space of the internet that we can evaluate the ethical and objective judgement of offered systems of inquiry that is as real as what we always seem to promise at some fresh frontier?

Perhaps, this time around the efforts of Gibbs will take all around and we enter the new era again with wider prospects and a more dramatic but sane imagination.

* * * * * 

No comments:

Post a Comment