Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Density of Information Entropy or Jazz in Absolute and Social Gravity
Density of Information Entropy or Jazz in
Absolute and Social Gravity
L. Edgar Otto 02 October, 2013
Reducing digital data from a region (here many face book photos to a pixel) we lose information. Yet the average of the result still contains the hues in the original data which averages to a central gray of a unified theory of digital and analog if viewed from a great distance.
Yet over a wide range of view the colors are distinct. If we invert the colors the result seems the same pattern. In either case a region of this color moving over this synjazz field (jazz in the sense of energy as used in Chicago words and origins) inverted or not can be distinguished. This would not be so in a field of absolute tint, such as gray, black, or white. It can be so in a field of a given hue.
These principles of foundational physics and philosophic logic are as much determined by the physiology of our eyes as well as the evolved expediencies of perception.
In effect this is a notation derived from art to imagine models reflecting our reality. For we can imagine structures that are organized with respect to nothingness and vacuum as well as those that assert the aether reduces to fields of vibration.
Such structures, corpuscular as viewed from outside as if concentric spheres are distinguishable as to the synjazz field or gray (unnecessary to add to our enumeration of groups if set as useful information in itself) can make the differences of the content of particles clear, such as protons, thus their possible decay modes oriented or not to a preferred time direction or measure of mass when the idea of dimensions are reinserted to our equations of identity and unity ad hoc.
Like the abstract ideas of horizons and black holes we find this synjazz-gray distinction near the area of the spheres involved. We also consider a stance toward what is internal as volume (the holographic principles considered) involving questions of emptiness and further steps or origins of singularities. Black holes have hair in this varied ways of imagining such "atmospheres" including none.
At the frontier of our cosmological and particle observations and experiments in this age of growing technology and speculation we have a better overview of the problems by which we are reasonably led to seek a unified general theory in whole or part where our stances seem complete and sound.
But is the complexity of the information, and our mathematical modeling of it, radically distinct from such questions as to what is multiverse or monoverse, one linear path open or closed or looping as more complicated cycling partial and local interaction of connections of supersymmetry
In the question of density as to the Planck volume as Archemedian in measure, thus commensurable, does the idea of what we vaguely debate as hidden variables make sense? Can there be in fact a deeper inversion of symmetries (such as the problem of dark matter-energy concepts offer us a hint or what we see of the cosmic WMAP halo recently so to interpret it as gravitational lensing of its atmosphere - after all the Lorentz ideas would carry forward in a generalized dimensional theory as well)? We can imagine a structural entity of such deeper compliments of space at the general starting point of Pythagorean flatland or the steady state ideas based on negative cusp geometries.
A ray or particle such as a photon-like entity upon entering such a deeper vacuum structure, relative to what we are as observers outside such a structure, would be adsorbed or lost in the higher dimensionality so compress the rays information without loss of its data. Time and mass, distance and so on, including ideas of spin, momentum, would be more than the simple changes we did not expect from issues of special or general simultaneity. Light in a quasar for example may seem to take ten times longer to cross its diameter than what we hold as possible at the velocity of light.
In that these inverted can be mechanisms of physicality we can quite imagine such an entity decaying into a general set of stars or even galaxies that we observe. This as a principle need not happen all at once or in radical rebirths but is part of an ongoing dynamic universe potentially there or present in some degree.
The historical ideas of God as point or circumference of circles or sphere and so on ... can be imagined to include the content between this zero and one region that seems decidedly not just linear and radial but bilaterally symmetric on which we hold on one side of the complimentary grounding of the number 5 as group patterns to which the decimal of the irrational number being 1 tenths can be a shifting decimal of general measure, that is 5.1111... but this is only as very specific instance of numbers in this general theory.
I feel it follows then that this is not merely an epistemology debate, for such structures are possible in the stereonometry in the structures of our mind-brains to which we make these distinctions in the storage, meaning, and retrieval of memory and paths of feeling and learning. But at this stage the issues are still wide open to be explored and even with a general theory deeper things may still await us.
* * * * * *
comments to science and mathematics page today on facebook: on this link and idea
L. Edgar Otto Maybe the misconception there has to be a wall at the end of the universe is not so wrong in our intuitions after all. We also have a relative up and down in space in our minds. But this result seems limited to our local galaxy... could there be something between galaxies... perhaps not just a center or axis unexpectedly in a diffuse universe but a plane or brane, intrinsically flatland... and why after all do we see a sort of up and down or difference in the poles of the WMAP data ?
L. Edgar Otto Where else can such things point given ultimate freedom to do so? Earth bound our steeples point upward to heaven... but if we built them on a thousand earths they would also point toward each other...
* * *
And for another update article there concerning Peter Woit...
A most interesting update... still I feel Woit does not understand the deep issue anyway, (he himself is not even wrong and adds to the mere debate chaos from what should be a scientific objectivity not cultural polemics... I just looked him up.) Now it is true the authors of this jewel thing exaggerates and jumps the gun, over estimates the problem, and tries for a fast expansion or rumors of new physics from discussions with others. this idea generalized while meant as humorous may hold some truths ironically by others who stood on their shoulders. You see, the cult of personality and historical precedent is old school now... while their contributions were sound steps we have gone far beyond those like Witten and other theories that do not quite seem to solve things. Penrose is very important but we even go beyond any ideas of string theory or twistors. cosmology is thrilling and we want good stories to make sense of things even suspending disbelief. Let us not allow such debate to discourage our next generation of physicists open to all who love or sacrifice to explore it... an let us hold fast to the sensibility of funding for all areas of science.
* * * *