Friday, August 21, 2015
Metaphorce & Creativity (Cosmic Stereonometry, Cosmometry)
2D + 3D = 5D ; 3D + 5D = 8D and so on. Think of the arithmetic as 2^3D if you doubly square things as in the periodic table of elements. This is an old problem. Light and heat as originally conceived as fire rather than air (oxygen) despite the abstract asymmetry and dimensionless levels of motion can be seen as elements. Sign and chirality as absolute. Where does the twin paradox go? There is more than this concept of continuity dividing space as if quasi- finite.
We cannot make the microcosm symmetrical and continuous without destroying quantum theory as well.
Is an integer in itself a discrete or continuous concept?
Phi + 1 = Phi^2
Lubos has a blogspot on this yesterday in which he states the concept is not understood as an established fact by even some of our best theoreticians. If rigid discs are not possible in nature how can string theory describe the universe by using the concept as a part of a total theory that does not transcend Lie or continuous groups? It from bits or bits from its? Is he right or two not even rights make a trivial not even right? Could his phenomenology not be uncertain as to if such a solution is subjective or objective applied with the same paradox of reasoning, biased effectively? Does not our experimental data now give us different fundamental results? A theory that pushes the analogy of sub particles can have no reachable end. Matter had a property that goes beyond radiation and its pressure condensates that on our modern level is creativity (no good word here, perhaps "Metaphorce") Why can't supersymmetry be oscillating and periodic in Nature's fundamental expression as something from nothing cosmometry?
The gist of this is that we can say just as well of GR what we say of QM when we say it is incomplete. But one soul's reality can be argued as another soul's fantasy or delusion. What I find remarkable is that as the speculation grows more complicated - if the world makes sense - this impasse goes in cycles where we as historical know the names of scientists whose deeper assumptions perpetuate this partisan paradox. The PBS series on matter was most informative for me as an overview. But we have made fundamental progress - the SM and GR do not exclude each other. Marie Curie made her breakthroughs without a PhD but she could not have done it without her tech school husband whose study of crystals gave them a superior instrument. But the chemists of the day wanted something they could weigh, spectrum was not enough. So where are the weights in string theory today? And how much of mass is determined by friction of motion of little motes of dust as if a crude analogy to the exclusion of caloric? Humans evidently need this concept of dust very deeply to stand on. We need more than a total theory, we need something whole - perhaps sacred. (Kailo in Sanskrit) perhaps Kailo-omnium. After all Noether said light has a purpose, and that purpose was to seek the path of least action.
Thanks, you brought out thoughts and perplexity I have had lately as if hitting a brick wall. I did not mean to express them all on you as if a lecture. :-) good friend.
I started my quasic theory as a dynamic order of error correction with recursion. DNA the model. For awhile I thought the term common knowledge, a sort of mathematical induction that guarentees things like long computer simulations. It seems to me more now than my casual assumptions I used for my simple recreational games and puzzles and candle design and processes coloring in space - rediscovered how I thought it was done. This afternoon in the cool weather I fell asleep waking up at the boy yelling for his father at the old show The Rifleman. I was annoyed my dream of collecting old lenses and vacuum tubes and other interesting things I wad allowed to keep from the landfill. Then after becoming wide awake a possibility occurred to me based on my comments on the creative force to Marcus on fb. Kailomnium or Metaphorce (whole+sum total" Such intuition must be a deeper process as error correction codes. Cosmic Stereonomeyry would be the more general physical ( recursively awake case). Cosmometry to use and old word) I took a photo to illustrate those comments intending to post on my blogspot and this comment to you instead of intended post to my status just now: Holy Crapola! If this theory is not a dream in the dark, then we have become the creator and consumer of stars! Think stellar models as if chain reaction of this physics transcending mere radioactivity as a source of vaster energy in the hierarchy of this new property of matter and physics classifying black holes. Ut oh, I thought genie is out of the bottle. But maybe I should have classified myself! Guess our intuitions that raise the usual moral issues of science comes after the facts.
Jes, you had me at quantanglement. :-)
Then why is this interpretation presented as set in stone? Already the technology promised is here and ahead of that level of QM theory if we can orient entangled objects on dimensionfree scales as if only the linear bi-directionality of time.
Jes, I wrote almost the same thing as you have on the need for more general interpretation when I was closer to your age. I agree that when determinism enters in as the author suggests, some things are paradoxically set in stone. Nature is not necessarily mystical claptrap, she does the same interpretative conceptual reductions as Feynman diagrams then does a better job generalizing this.
If by transactional they mean the generational problem then as simple transactional analysis it likely involves psychology. But I have no doubts that biology and physics are to be interpreted as the same thing. But this too generalizes QM theory which only recently is taken seriously on brain scales. Now, the heart of this recent paper after all this time tells us QM theory (or GM) is in serious need of new interpretations? I may read this paper too, or maybe it was the same enduring mysticism we read long ago?
David, I suspect we agree on this level or that we are using the same assumptions to actually miss each others point. Does knowing the unknown if we knew of everything, as science, preclude the mystery? Not for me. As things stand now it is not clear at all that all things are necessarily connected to everything else. Is Einstein's first quote here a vague statement that all things are relative or that our methods remain in a sense an quantum idea of reality vaguely as well? In the second quote is he saying that we may as well forget interpretation of the logic of it all- Is the moon there when not seen, he suspects so as a personal interpretation... what gods, the God of Spinoza? Plato? One star that does not exist unless from the past a sentient being sees a single photon of it? The universe as god that guarantees the existing of everything as a sentient being? We put to much into what Einstein may be saying in his humility, yet we hold and experiments show we feel some certainty in his concepts as truth. But Satan's laughter (a technical term) is a message sent as on a phone cable into deep space and no one is there to hear it, where does the message go? Look, everyone can see color as sound or sound as color... there may be individual rights but the mechanical devices of a cyborg if rights at all are for the mechanical men.
David Barkin replied: As we make exchanges back and forth, let me pause and mention what today has become a fetish with Physicists...
Dark Matter and Dark energy.
Their existence is accepted as if they were proven facts. What in FACT is the only evidence for their existence?
Here is our only data. There is more matter in the universe then we have been able to detect.
From that one piece of evidence, it is hypothesized that a completely unknown form of matter and energy exist. Which if true, makes a mockery of ALL existing models of Physics. What kind of foolish arrogance is this?
Could it be that our primitive tools are not capable of seeing all the existing forms of normal matter? Could this be the case? Whenever I even suggest this as a possibility, I am met with patronizing laughter. Ridicule from people who have absolutely no evidence at all.
Sorry, your remarks leave me with Einsteins quote.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge in the field of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."
L. Edgar Otto From that one piece of evidence, it is hypothesized that a completely unknown form of matter and energy exist. Which if true, makes a mockery of ALL existing models of Physics. What kind of foolish arrogance is this? " Well, I have just posted that this is the case- a further property of matter. I am not sure but it is a possibility and will not make a mockery of all existing modes of physics but unify them... yet there may be a surplus of earlier narrow speculators... common sense and our brains seem to be quite a tool would you not say? Do we ridicule the thinker or the thought as if that would prove anything? Well, as Einstein said once I have read "economics is harder than physics" So let us look closer at a child's game... given three wishes what would you wish for? Perhaps a thousand more wishes? Does the debate as to the multiverse or universe make any sense at all in our future? How can we go through life and not have at least the curiosity to try to know? I do not believe that God would have given us a mind if he did not want us to use it. Would we have a god think for us? If he is a Maxwell's demon surely that the world works is evidence that such an all knowing being would immediately send it into disorder so He or the universe, if this is a true fact, seems a lot smarter than us monkeys to get around this design problem. Anyway, it is not clear at all if we can read each others mind or not. Scientific arrogance is the concepts that come up from time to time that declare since x, say string theory or dark matter, God does not exist or perhaps the conclusion a God exists. "The price the gods extract from us for making a song is that we become the song we sing" How odd of God to load the dice and then walk away." Hey, I am just deep into the fun of it playing the glass bead game.
David Barkin replied: Thanks, no one has made my case better then you.
L. Edgar Otto Who am I to deny rights to all the hallucinating mechanical men? Whatever turns you on... whatever the interpretation of a fetish that you need to do that. But its a damn shame Paris Hilton did not run for president and win... her stimulus would have worked given everyone one Gucci bags and shoes. ;-)