Philosophy of the A-Brane

Philosophy of the A-Brane

L. Edgar Otto 11 January, 2013

The gap in my posting of a day, relatively long in the speed of intuitive concepts at the moment, comes from the time needed to do some hard calculations off line. I thought this would take longer before some results. In fact I considered a longer delay in posting to shore up new results of which I hold as philosophy in nature. Yet it seems to correspond to the standard formalism, the usual distinction of distance in the scalar-vector formulations or the independent shape of things as topology.

Certainly these concepts are part of the unification of physics we explore in whatever language. I decorate on this higher level of concepts of physics with the symbols for the various ideas or simply as the combinations of discrete numbers of colors- yet the deeper basis of it all as calculation is the binary encoding with a quasic order.

I came across an article on Kneemo's blog this afternoon to check mail at the library, not to post, that concerned what he and Marine emphasize as "Motivics" in an article by Rolf Schimmrigk. This the old synchronicity again as we engage the frontiers of new researches. So, I desire to present an alternate view, especially where it concerns our ideas of surfaces in say six dimensions. I decided to use the term A-brane because A is my notation for red-yellow as a binary color of the 30 cube problem in the Otto-Conway matrix. In that that is part of a wider or quasic brane quite intelligible with the complex plane and projective planes it is of itself a sort of brane where the same questions we ask as in the article from my view were a priori from which to make the deductions rather than build up to a dynamic induction that is transitive over the wider case.

I hope my terminology does not add to the confusion as so many of the limited symbols do already if not clearly defined in the literature. How do I read in that article what is meant by diagonal and non-diagonal (is there for example a dawning idea here of my quasic diagonal orthogonal to the main diagonal or does it discuss patterns that involves as well rows and columns of algebraic matrices?

Yet if we call this sub-brane (or any such quadratic concept to which nature intelligibly resolves so much in the simple completing of the squares and thus appears to leave so much out) suggests these 6 space manifolds are not as simple as they so appear, that is, as a brane they have a vast complexity as multidimensional even beyond the conclusion these reduce to three and four space assuming the central "charge" is odd distinctly- and so on. The author hints at a whole new opening of our scope of geometry and physics.

I saw an article in the science magazines yesterday that talked in relation to gravity and dark matter the usual appeal to ideas of a 5th force- it could be this or it could be that beyond the conclusions of a wider generalization by these so called motives that general patterns on all scales appeal to this extension of geometry especially where we have a concern with symmetry and "mirrors". We do have to expand our ideas of what we mean by mirrors so that word as I use it may be confusing, ambiguous as well. I mean something deeper and address it at this stage from general principles that logically stand as philosophy.

If this new level of seeing physics in relation to space is reached we find a new generalization to which en-route to that level our view of things by methods that does not in their scope lose generality as its levels of discovery develop, we already in the quest of a wider theory if we had the view lost the generality where it may apply to higher explicit explanations. Indeed, how can these abstract mathematics explicitly correspond to what we may regard as objects of particle physics- are these surfaces in form and process?

Can these ideas that only extend by an observation or an assertion of a dynamic translation be justified from the meaningfree stance that the universe itself may be told as to the foundations of mathematical physics? If there are extensions implied that expand our ideas of geometrical operations they will prove intelligible and comprehensive over a wider general system or we can explicit show why not.

But from equal weight to logical stances of inquiry as philosophy the meaningfree and meaningless is not the only idea we may so treat negations, mirrors, compliments, what is existential and universal, the one or many, the flow or inertia as some sort of unity between them over an interval and so on... a fifth higher and distinguished force beyond gravity of which we at present do not clearly define do seem to be suggested by the usual inverse square laws and all the geometry involving inequalities.

The objection, given the same set of data- the universe, to my system (or for that matter the calculus of ghosts of departed quantities and the meaningfree old calculus without limits as induction now considered perhaps a valid intuition) would suggest we to arrive at a sound truth and more certain proof of the matter on some level never divide by zero- on the other hand such a division does seem where it exists in relation say to zero points or vectors, or null ones (and for this generality double zero or Nil for my term null vectors). In philosophy at least some of the most intense ideological debates occur where some idea of negation is not taken absolutely as fundamental. In the illustration I use the absolute |n| as the bars over and under n as if a "mirror".

From an intuition about the nature of higher dimensional space and physics to the solving of problems of the 30 cube, finding the patterns and order from more a finite approach, to have a unified and simple formula for the generation of the shapes and possibilities of the Soma cube- it proves one of the most difficult of my puzzles, trying all the methods that involve higher space so in this three space puzzle from the inversion thru a center rather than the usual surface we have insight into that higher space.

That Conway arranged them only as the square of these cubes is after all the result of vector and distance concepts as in the scalar-vector space or as in the invariant of hyperboloids. Again, is there a wider natural view like we imagine the usual idea of dimensions to which we and nature party can picture in our familiar experience of space?

Will some future algebraist order and solve this problem explicitly- part of me would withhold the hint of it until I worked it out not being one for seeking answers in the back of text books. Only because I have worked on it so long- but I do feel that is not a lack of ability as others in their development have shown me the scope of this well, recreational problem. It is a problem of the foundations. The paper and my intuition do seem to hint these various methods are resolvable- for me I call it the Omnium (Omds) as matters of the explicit measure of a general distance as if concrete.

If anyone bothers to decode my color illustration or finds the paths to the application or concept of intuitive principles that led me yesterday to look again at the informational foundations know that I used different orderings of say the abstract cubes generated as if to color the corners of them in three or four dimensions, the quasic order, the order of three by three things, or the so called and discrete minimum quantization or base ball curve. In the number theory the hints also of what to conclude around 26 of Fermat's observation of n^2 and n+2 ^3, that is 25 and 27 and so on were part of the background mix of influences.

In our general vectors algebras concerning omnic or A-branes the constructible and general laws of structures and patterns can of course imagine physical entities that the idea of sub-branes in branes as the Otto-Conway matrix may act in the sense we say of things vanishing or merging between generalized or jumping or other scale related ideas of such contiguous vector boundaries... These semi-branes with super-mirrors may also from a set of embedded objects over the omnium and intelligible within quasicity of a wide new form of such string like theories moving into levels of more complication in our imagining of space.

With a little thought we can see this applies to the artificial and organic biological world also- consider cholesterol as one of the 256 carbon chiral forms our bodies react with. The M theory is said to unify the various string theories but it seems we still have to unify the stances of the various brane theories. And philosophy apparently is still needed as well

my own take on symbols as a metalanguage of metalanguages.

Also, for various reasons, certain social rants I posted where it affects us and to which I feel outside or beyond the new generation of our time as education seems to be descending and even without challenges the capitalist method seems to exhaust or implode upon itself. But I do not claim insight on this area whatsoever. The metaphysics may convert in some higher system to the physics and vise versa but that is outside the scope my my current design argument as science.

I am a child of liberty enough still, perhaps molded so, to consider the right or option for revolution should the state not protect the freedom of inquiry and life for its people- but by this I mean a higher human ideal as to whom can and want to do the work democratic societies expect from academia. In a balanced physics we should praise those who carry the tourch of science, as well those who dare its needed revolutions- I am willing should anyone want to show my work in detail or even debate it provided we respect the apparent human need that the world works best when we can individually think for ourselves, even in the complexity of our shared creative experience.

If such projects are true, programs of inquiry system expectations as that of the string theory, the quasifinte counting considered possible by motives in all the varieties of space and time hinted at or implied and thought to be made explicit at some level of complexity, complication if not the limitations of mirrors as complex numbers the author suggests among many grounding concepts you may find in my notations, then we can justify and explicitly measure within the universe as the system itself its ultimate inquiring systems as physics, a relaxed form of useful applications and proofs, the ultimate wild card as if to be considered into even higher abstract levels than the scope of our imaginations and intuitions now discuss, as if there were not already a matter of inquiring in any language generalized abstract enough.

* * * * * * *