**The Sound of One Hand Clapping**

*and ( The Foundational Theory)***09 January, 2013**

*L. Edgar Otto*
What we experience or
perceive up to the remote, ideal Euclidean plane at zero and null abstract
vector seas of singularity, as we may argue there are really no dimensions save
by imagining them really higher or lower that we immersed in that space may see
such as embedded or forever distant as the world's foundational grounding, the
higher and lower if the distinction is made and the choices of what is defined
as external or internal with general logic and functions multiple in one
direction and singular in another, we may find the plane we see is but a half
or flat and single sided plane.

These are deep issues
of chirality which I understand it of importance in differences in physical
space that seems to determine what exists beyond a state of balance as matter. These differences may be related to the
general idea of distance as measurable between pixels or points in a quasic
plane (Qs-brane). Or these differences a
general space in which by virtual of collective motion the bulk of mass arises.

For we imagine then
that the zero polytope (the dihedron polyhedron of two faces and zero volume)
if on it we draw a spiral as if a moving form, a loxidrome to the poles of say
a Riemann sphere oriented, the spiral turns in the same direction in the sense
of handedness as does a reversal of a helix as solenoid. The reversal of the chirality of the spirals
we may assume flip over as some boundary of the complex Riemann plane holding
this principle significant to explain certain directions of theory-
alternatively they may persist on either side of the half mirror as in the
magnetic orientation of electrons in the subshells of atomic structure as
viewed from outside in all directions as if a perfect spherical system.

So the expressing of
this duality as an unfolding of the dihedron into half planes or 2 pixels in
the quasic grid, a domino with one double side area and no volume (the
distinguishing of this case gives our mind's eye clues as to the nature of the
terrain and dangers in the landscape as well as models considered in our
dreams, perhaps system of conscience as well as ability to respond and evaluate
art and beauty.

But let us recall
that the quasic brane having zero abstract volume may really represent
n-dimesional division and not simply the prime two in all its continuity of
mirrors and powers, presumably where finite can be an intelligible arithmetic
and a consistent series of algebraic formulas.

Given this much and
trying to imagine or view into the depth over a bounded span of quasic space we
find the same thing true as in the geometry of dimensions where we imagine
given a series of limits as fractional dimensions that a path may so fill the
higher dimensional space it is so inscribed within. In particular the functions in eight
dimensions in terms of a system of twists already fill 8 space in the
singularity null sea regardless of the sense of the chriality provided we view
things from an ideal center as if from the outside (we go on from there to a
descending filling of spaces at that mystery still not clear of nine and more
dimensions).

This core concept
helps explain the patterns in number theory and the self dual 24 cell in four
space and its natural toroidal aspects as multiplicity, even triality of the 8
fold recursion of patterns (to which Ramanujan seemed to have insight on the
nature of such quasifinte integers as well as the role played in describing
not only the well known continuous laws of calculus but the simple yet
perplexing nature of what we find as the finite as not a grounding view or just
a one sided if not trivial view to established mathematicians. Weyl may be somewhat of an exception here in
his scope of considerations.

In any case, again in
the counting of these abstract and ghostly integer like entites, for example
what we call the time or time-like dimensions, the abstract centers do not
necessarily obey our usual concepts of evenness and oddness in the description
of connectivity- nor in negative spaces can we simply alternate things
distinctly by the nth power of minus one multiplied where needed in our
equations.

I look then toward
the possibility of current theoreticians as to the evolving direction of our
shared and private projects finding a shared insight as a hypothesis with Kea
of New Zealand that one possible solution in which our theories of physics may
be more unified and thus in a sense have a progress of at least what to each of
us seems or is a new physics or discovery, is that of the Surreal numbers, the
long developing calculus wherein it seems we treat irrational numbers (I wonder
if these can be distinct in some theory that we know or not at what fine
extension these are transcendental) such as the square root of two as rational.

I see then someone in
the future, as the teleology at least does seem to allow a rebirth and
connection of our ideas of merology, measure, explicitly. Yet philosophically we by the natural
structures of the world have to go beyond this view of it as if in a reasoning
in a rather confined self analysis as if a concrete flat land- the deeper into
the infinite earth the more dense it is until we find past the sea level bounds
the idea of hell, of more and more infinite heat. Such syntheses of our reasoning freely and
nonnecessarily conform to what we imagine the most general laws of reality, and
frontiers or limits of what more we may imagine.

In this future
project, possibly obtainable with existing mathematics if we include some of
the ideas still said not understood of Ramanujan, will be to consider the
measure in the abstract space of such quasic brane distances (that is over the
general stance of the reality as if the sum total and variations, the Omnium -
my and Penrose's term which by the way seems to me a little wider than our pretensions of theories of everything) such that in the general integral
abstract values we find the digits of the irrational number to some level of
accuracy explicitly of which to have some standard value of things like the
fine structure constant of which in the detail of the measure it is neither 137
of Eddington nor an ideal dimensionless value that may as well be an integer
anyway as he maintained. In a sense we really do not have other than by
definition an explicit value for the velocity of light as a standard measure.

I hope moreover that
in the wider interrelations between such mathematical entities the refinement
makes intelligible and accessible sense in explicit measure of abstract mirror
shadow counting and encoding. Quasic
motion laws supply the general geometrical model for this. It should be emphasized that the golden ratio
is very special and useful as a key measure in four dimensions as a number, the
inverse of 89 in particular gives the digits of the Fibonacci series as would
other significant quadratics relating to integral numbers.

We do need better
notations for some of the more general ideas such as factorials, exponential,
and what I call recondite theory from the remark of Fermat on what Gauss does with modular numbers and quadratic reciprocity
and yes on higher levels beyond the scope of the general discussion in Gauss's
presentation he only remarked upon.

I think it worth
saying again that practical uses of these new theories will certainly be to aid
our understanding of the complexity of things involving our organic chemical
systems, DNA and so on that narrows the burden of blind experiment and unforeseen consequences by our usual methods. That science meets these abstract
consideration of physics at the foundations and already we find new ways to
literally see the universe at this horizon of foundations.

While this suggests
within our universe we need not appeal to vague mysticism, in the freedom of
the wider logic with a wider generalization the

*foundational theory*is not closed to the possibility of radical new discoveries we have not even remotely imagined of concepts and technologies, the mathematics of it all open to a better grounding of our ideas of our current use of numbers as systems embedded and defined by a metalanguage.
* * * * *

*And the Foundational Theory*
I suggest that some
of the issues we find difficult to explain in the fundamental theorem of
algebra in relation to the complex plane,

a shifting toward the
periphery of a central point to which there is one mapping of a polynomial to
it and of which any point on the plane so limited to the idea of a fixed span
of integers of a certain finite value with the intuitive understanding that
these can be many-fold closed twists or turns,

some such higher
analogs to complex (two, four, or eight) spaces that can be many-fold or in a
vague meta-space have no such polynomials that correspond,

that the fundamental
theory does not immerse us into necessary proofs, contradictions down a path of
reasoning,

nor a grounding
closed of such symmetry applied to three space in terms of scalar plus vectors
involving a zero point so limiting higher ideas of symmetry (or even a virtual
duplication of the algebra say of quaternions as with Rowlands this as
developed intelligibly for nilpotent Dirac algebra)

that more is there
than the symmetries imagined to vanish in properties at eight dimensions,
octonions, a new generalization of the number and counting idea exists wherein
with what haunting similarities we seem to find in parallels of our theories so
to encompass and internalize,

claim them into our
focus of views explaining or dismissing others as but a lesser analog to our
perspective held a theory of everything to the point we find paradoxes of open
or closed processes of identity and unity,

we find beyond
Eddington's

**and beyond that fundamental in algebra and geometry, the***Fundamental Theory***of the diverse and deep connections where they apply in mathematics as physics over the universe as the Omnium***Foundational Theory*
with influences of
non-necessity as paradox in the null potent singularity count that grounds the
source and intelligibly of creative entities and objects that persist
dimensionless as quasifinite monomarks or monads (See Eddington and Leibniz)
grounding interactive levels of the reality where we can imagine deeper laws of
quasi-conservation and action...

* * * * * * *

A lot of this is a deeper foundational consideration of nil points in our methods of the usual ideas of limits and so on in analysis... but do these points, of convergence or devergence expressed as some series as in exponentials or logs act isolated as a single origin or do they act transitively over a space or sea of them? In a sense since from the discrete view we deal with the unity of some interger, we may ask the same thing- is there but one unique prime point or number or many of them that grounds the reality of mirror fields and particles over the evolving structure and order we interpret as a property of our universe? In this abstract realm of reasoning it is not necessarily the case that in mathematics or physics one instance undermines the propositions of the whole- nor the lack of any instance evidence there is no general and unique phenomena over many or one unified theory.

* * * *

## No comments:

## Post a Comment