Wednesday, September 4, 2013

Recent Comments and Conversations Elsewhere

Recent Comments and Conversations Elsewhere

L. Edgar Otto    Sepetember 4, 2013

Stephen on viXra blog yesterday:
Stephen, that link was a very clear read and does raise the issues of what this means philosophy and the foundations of science as to how much we can know… of course a few people know or want to seek what is abstractly out there and lack of knowing is to risk a real irrelevancy of our being and theories in the vague sense in that link. (so many here do have that basic curiosity that kills so many quantum kittens essential to science).
Is it enough in such a debate to state things formally and clearly considering this climate (for example the very post links that follows me here – the Great Vindications as a survey of the issues yet with still the question “Is there Nothing else offering a viable alternative…”) for me there are at least a few things more to which the debates have not found yet. Over the years in conversation people did not understand but did not say so until years later when something kicked in and were excited to tell me so. We expect, even some disdain. the lack of honesty in the pursuit of experiment and observations. (forgive my special wording here, force of habit, words to grow in depth of meaning – I can speak Basic English and sometimes use it for those not part of that native language.)
Deo Vindice…well, maybe time or something like that as your link suggested an optimistic notion of Leibniz – I do not claim to have all the answers but a few more filling the colors into our paint by number dreams…
So let me knock it down a notch- consider Sabine’s arXiv posts on supertasks posted yesterday… it presents a comprehensive picture of one stance to theory. I think it includes some social issues also debated hidden between the lines- for it is a view of the role of gender, of feminist environments of some mysterious matrix or Mother. Most everyone can understand the symbolism of sex if physics can be put into those terms. Active and passive is the issue here… is there a force or a fall or neutrality in gravity? But sex is much more complicated than our limited understanding and experience, like particles at least a four way deal. It is even humorous if we imagine cyclic theories as to what anatomy may arise in the topology of three space.
reply here:

Pitkanen on the TGD blogspot:

5 hrs after your post I see this one of Lubos... what do you make of it - I suspect it comes closer to your and my ideas of a wider physics... a matter of simple counting and non-Lie groups? Why did you pick this topic today - something in the science news I did not come across?

reply here:

Thanks for the reply - what if the Pendolino is going as fast as it can or maybe if it reaches the wall tunnel thru it?

After all this new reading and debates on line, new experiments and so on I do feel a little lost as you say the particle physicists admit they are. I guess I asked you some questions in the wrong framework- are not p-adic ideas rather higher in space and symmetry concepts than our normal idea of matter? What would dark matter be but the assumption all things (on some scale) have a sort of shadow thus somewhere no half spins to balance everything (can we not get ahead or travel behind a right handed neutrino at minus light speed?)

QED...QCD...QxD...QyD... ? How far can the levels, generations, of this idea go - do you say it ends in the nucleus of atoms? Do you think mass may not be a continuous value but only discrete corpuscular in nature?

Do you imagine the universe to be finite or infinite in extent or maybe something different or in between? As strings and LQG do not seem to express it wall, I ask what the hell is gravity? What do you think it is if your system looks beyond its particle insights?

If we limit it to TGD QCD what is the next level of things but half values exceptional and with asymmetries? Sure, a fifth place may thus vibrate -or do we just reach a plateau at the top that obeys the settled influences of angles and complexity we call chaos science principles?

In fact nature has the limited vision we do in the "spontaneous compactification" or my condensing ideas of such higher dimensional polytopal shadows as a sensible evolving view laws given. So that is why I wish you would list the arithmetic so I can match it better or is this just an intuitive thing "phenomenological" or "pragmatic" depending on how we see those terms applying to science?

All of us eventually reach the generalize theory (hopefully there can be still unexpected new mutations of it that surprise and arise) even Lubos trudges ahead into the unknown with contradictions (see last post of his on the right handed neutrino) and where it becomes more sensible it looks more and more like the general theories of us all, alternative and standard.

* * * 

To Leo Vuyk on facebook

What more can be said at this point? This article seems to me a great step in the breakthrough for out century for what the hell gravity is and how it acts. In particular where things finely seem to be balanced (right handed neutrinos?) or dynamically not so as we divide into camps that still live in their own flatlands of truth and illusion.

Science and Mathematics had this interesting link on facebook

* * * 

Sabine  on face book has this most interesting link:  I may comment later on it there.
* * *
my facebook comment on the magic pyramid

L. Edgar Otto 2^R > R ? so something exceeds the flatness (that is a squared two space... a brain of indefinite boundaries of many dimensions) of a "continuum". The pyramid is impressive (how then to extend it to four space as the interpretation seems a shadow of higher symmetries?) but this is an example of the use of the labels on this pyramid strung together to try to explain supersymmetry and narrow down the first blush manifolds to 6 space. That said I rather like the expression, exacting yet open, of this interpretation of what gravity is... something the more I studied it the less it seemed something concrete that made sense in any lesser model if we wanted to ask deeper foundational questions of the world. There is more to generality than the Lie groups and exceptions alone where reality best fits a quasifinite (described by simple grids, my quasics in binary digital terms alone) universe-multiverse. In the end we find a simple geometric shape which when considered in depth to what is hidden takes a wide path of theory to come back to what we see.

No comments:

Post a Comment