Monday, August 5, 2013
Systems Cancer (A Call for Speculation)
Systems Cancer (A Call for Speculation)
L. Edgar Otto Saturday, 03 August, 2013 (6:17 pm CST conceived)
The state of what appears a foundational confusion between the Loop Quantum and String Theory fronts seems well expressed by Lubos from his stance on the general issue.
He mentions the quality of media for the documentary presented and comments from his general view on the content as to what are its errors and hidden assumptions. Such countering criticism works both ways as well as holding the high ground on general principles.
The debate, the object of which in polemics is to win usually by the will or quality of the debater's method, may raise issues in other parallel disciplines of culture such as religion where it is used as an analogy to communicate physics to assumed equals and the masses.
He ignores observations that I understand as facts that suggest the universe is in fact in its depth crystalline or hearing of this has good reasons to keep a skeptical stance- if he has encountered the idea at all.
In religion the issue of a dynamic direction as if the world created by "Jesus Christ" applies here as a physics and not metaphysical principle- so as part of the discussion we can say objectively that it is likely "The age of Jewish or that from the German culture is over" which is to say we could use some speculation by the theologists as to what are the variations on the not directly expressed idea of the great divisive idea of the Trinity. This if we have to address these ideas as it seems arise more and more from various authors in the body of literature.
Let me add that in the family tree of prophets we should ask what is beyond the Trinity idea- that is do we dismiss the next one in the history of the people of the book- these questions that seem to ask what happens at some end time (big bounce, crunch, new heaven and earth, vanishing to be reborn once or cyclically and so on) as a unity again such as the gathering of the people of Israel as evidence for the (Christian, messianic) end times...does the vase now come together for a unity again so as to shore up the first monotheism over charges of polytheism?
Is the universe in its ground state one or many?
I do not mean to pick on 'our humble correspondent' but turn about is fair play especially when theoreticians who break off debate and dialog dismiss say women as being able to contribute to science in its highest reaches...The article begins Sabine and that led me to read it carefully to try to see his case. But to Lubos credit he sees nothing inherently wrong for those of us who try to resolve the LQG and ST camps into a coherent dynamic theory.
The main thesis I wanted to address here was not this cultural or political issues in the science but one inspired by my own thoughts where the mechanisms of biology seem to benefit from these abstract theories of physics. If the Higgs mechanism idea may behave as if parallel in geometric and arithmetical analogy to the biological DNA structure then what do we generally mean by Cancer in the Three-Space or Trinitarian world? How we define it may determine how well we can treat say 'inoperable brain cancer' an issue in more than a few people I have met over the last couple of decades commanding my attention.
This is also an issue that related to the general question of what and why the particle generations are as in the most general (and quasic model) all such generations can be seen as equivalent or if differentiated over the equally hard concept of time each coherent biological organism could have three distinct viable copies if its integrated design as physical. Furthermore we know in the initial case of what is the end and head of sufficiently symmetrical animals it can as well develop from the reverse directions.
But we know, quite aside from what the sequences of viruses may do or even of the inherited genes that like some of our cosmology postulates we can have subsystems such as systemic skin cancer only relating that tissue or geometrical differentiated boundaries. Why do the tumors seem to be contained before metastasis?
One question that occurred to me in a flash at 6:17 or so was to question what something like black holes as baby universes mean when the cells leave the mother-ship. I can imagine questions of energy involved where we distribute in the expanding daughter cells that which was contained in the mechanism of the core to which from consideration (as of late interpretations of the physics of Tesla for example) we may ask if the standard wave radiation (and what stray particle or wave might have initiated the tumor?) may not work or actually induce in the center that which would have otherwise gone into looping remission.
The same sorts of well, metaphysical, questions can be asked of chemicals (chemotherapy) as well where we depend on some experimentally tested to the point say it has cost benefit of killing more diseased cells than healthy ones to engineer or discover the right magic bullet. Can we not do it as far as possible by thought as well as physical stuff in our experiments? One geneticists at the local university would talk to me so far but had to stop because he said "I don't know what you mean by DNA algorithm." I do not mean this as a view from preoccupation within this age of computation- in fact the use of the metaphors that apply only on the surface of what intrinsically computes in the molecules I find a misleading use of what would be the best terms.
By the way Lubos... many of us in our "childhoods" read one two three infinity by Gamow and so was inspired to physics, especially the few string theorists I have met... it is worth saying in general regardless of the recognized achievements of those with theories. But this was not the only influential book I read at the time... especially the works of Klein and Hoyle. Ours was especially an age where we come to the silver screen the science fiction and comic books we of fanzines dreaming of supermen and silver surfers.
A precursor thought to this one of today was the idea in the accepting of singularities (as if our own laws can wish them out of existence) is that any historical thread may contain some model given enough time yet at any point in that thread (if we go beyond the absolute ideas of limits to continuity or some zero point that turns off or forbids, even moves certain models) that each "point" contains all such history such that what may happen given enough time has in a sense already happened. For the scientist this still leaves the question of the thigh gap between what we stand on and what seems the gateway of creative origins.
What is Euler's constant in all this for example? What is the coherence of the Planck value if it is a minimum zero measure in the field- or if it is a quasifinite and indefinite measure (now Lubos, would uncertainty in QM not be the ground of the indefinite to which classical ideas for you vanish?)Could you not imagine, as long ago also, QM itself in that sense has long vanished? Where is your own satisfaction if string theory only leaves in the footnotes and footprints of history its spirit and inspiration by shadows of its methods?
* * * * *
Sunday, 04 August, 2013
By the way: the idea that all things are interconnected or that they are completely not can be in the general case considered postulates that ground mysticism in metaphysics or physics. Yet, that there can be a system in between excluding or mixing these conceptual limits as if a proof or not as possible and that an intelligible grounding for a cosmological model is subtly of itself a mysticism. However, the description of the world is wider and richer as to what we can know of it and apply science within it than the extreme biases as how we do science now.
It is an open question if a sentient entity isolated in a room or region as a given or with emerging connections to what may be its parts in evolving physical possibilities, the entity deaf and blind without external senses may after all image and recreate a model of all things possible in physical reality or more. As things can develop from first principles intelligible theories may reflect on the surface coherent models but these can be matters of degree of relevance and specific to limited series at evolving nodes of decision. Not all such theories contain deeper interconnections or parallels of a given truth nor any theory from some view isolated in its possibilities, imagination unrestrained. Still, these behave as if a shadow of the deeper connections of which we can for example imagine say in a phase space entity the part corresponding as if toward a greater truth of the whole. We sense the proximity of such philosophic paradoxes and interpretations to which we may think the question of what is artificial or natural as life or intelligence has given us a certainty of the picture.
This said, we are at a point in comprehension of concepts where the foundations show this mystery of what is alive to ask about or why some things seem certain and physical or why statistical data may be effective in our predictions and research; that there is the reality at all of such quasifinite things in the indefinite potential infinity and that we can describe making sense of them. How far may we probe our universe and if there can be more than it ever open or closed is at least more that we need to explore in the universe of our discourse and reason.
Given an area of exploration as a formal science, this would suggest further work in systems of biological levels as a delineated totality in looping environs - that is for cancer a better understanding of the general physics between the bifurcation and superpositions of the influences of genes and chromosomes (in suppression or expression, the cell integration or differentiation needing a little deeper mathematics) in particular.
* * * *
Quasic Superconductivity in Cosmic Strings
L. Edgar Otto Saturday, 03 August, 2013
Orwin, if I read you right I think you are the first person who understand the implications of my own thinking and model. To relate it to superconductivity (such as in the symmetry breaking in proposed cosmic strings) is not only a deep question but an obvious question I wish my spirit was strong enough to see in a flash all principles among all such connections. Even the best of theorists, in physics and mathematics, come so close to an idea later historians wonder why they did not take that one small step to prove or discover the next idea.
* * *