Thursday, February 7, 2013

The Fourth Postulate and A Comment Lubos and Reductionism

The Fourth Postulate and
A Comment Lubos and Reductionism

L. Edgar Otto   02-07-13

I was not going to post day, did music, paid bills... But I would like to reply in general to Lubos's bit philosophy at it seems to have some bearing on my recent reassessment of the foundations and thoughts on singularity.   The fourth postulate of Euclid, if anyone every follows the argument, can also stand out on some of the issues that may develop new physics of what we think of at flatland.

Feynman has no great claim or fame of originality on the idea of a plane as a torus- so what underlying reason is there to push for this popular myth that we only need one religious or tribal view to define our reality- of course the bulk of science comes from Germany-  I find it hard to see something truly original in Einstein compared with those who build the apparatus of such a working out of his world view.  It may not be his fault as he cannot see things a certain way, however, Riemann is not understood or those who read him imagine he meant to say some things not clearly developed from his complex equations...  If Riemann is seen wrong then why not the whole edifice to which if it leads to strings... well, it is overrated despite Lubos protesting the arrangement as if it proves things.  Such a bias of a theory of everything, at best a learned hope, cannot achieve the needed unification of our physics.  Nor will it allow us to find deeper technology short of stumbling on it with a lot of luck.  We read Riemann wrong about the infinitesimal, simply, and in the various ideas he has of dimension.  Yet he did not apply this to physics outside his mathematics.  One cannot just turn the ladder of reason and matter on end then think one end is left behind and less important- that is the religious aspects of things- for in doing so it makes a god of that at the other end.  Marx used that sort of method, maybe traces of it like the last bit of continuity found as the world expands in Lubos upbringing despite his reaction to such a past.

No one seems to understand the deeper dimensional insights of Riemann regarding space, it seems.  It is probably better to be called a crackpot (and really there are some profound people who have been given that name by our humble correspondent) than to not even know one is full of nonsense and in fact is a crackpot with little redeeming work or originality to make up for it.  The popularity of the crowd does not make the genius.

While I am here I found later in another article in the same book of Darling what the icosian calculus was, an algebra that was actually sold in flat and a dodecahedron, but did not sell well because even a child could solve with strings despite how hard to design it- and the game was Hilbert use of his algebra to do it.  But if mine is anything like that path finding curve it that is but a pale copy of its potential in applications to technical things and space.  I also understood the relation between the knights tour and the Hex game by Nash and played by Princeton students and made such conclusions myself from these beautiful minds, in it I define a different sort of dimensions in our supposed flatland of a flat earth view with Riemann's and not Einsteins idea that we should distinguish unbounded from infinite---yes, but in what way?  In what way might one think more deeply how this related to Feynman when it is a simple act of all right angles assumed equal and in mere four space we combine squares two ways like the number theorists from a finite stance of old (thanks to the Arabs preserving the manuscripts).

* * * * * 
A little later I added to more formal pictures that with a little insight would show how I used these sorts of dimension concepts.

* * * * *


  1. Hey Pesla,

    This is a really good post! I'm in absolute agreement with pretty much everything you say (although my knowledge of Mathematics is not yet as comprehensive as yours). Regarding the unbounded/infinite distinction: is this not formalized in Non Well-Founded Set Theory? Or, for that matter, in Set Theory proper? In Set Theory proper it's an uncountably infinite/countably infinite distinction . . .

  2. Hi Wes,

    Not much time in library to post... your last question I think I showed more perspective in later posts to this one but it is a frontier paradox... how is it we can exceed say Cardinality? Now, we map two segments continuously on a sphere, a disc to a Moebious strip for some ideal point at infinity in the theory of perspective planes... so already we are comparing two impossible things- something more is possible as a needed theory.

    Oh, I do not claim to be a mathematician or a musician for that matter (thank you for the music link BTW) but I read the part on consciousness last night by Penrose where he states what we can know in the certainty of mathematical truth is that it can be communicated and understood between mathematicians. Well, thanks for this intelligible question for it is a worthy test if not a proof that just perhaps these posts are mathematics after all...

    L. Edgar Otto