Structural Reductionism and Quasic Physics

Structural Reductionism and the Idea of Singularity in General as Both a Perception and a Physicality:

As I read through the mathematical physics, apparently going beyond the calculus is where the interesting stuff is, I feel more confident that my speculations as those of last night make as much sense if not more so than things like how we treat configuration space and what discrete principles are involved in vectors and the restrictions of say points in some natural space of particles resolved to a single path. Reading this is as if I have received a message from a different world and see the history of the development of their physics. I note that the proven assumptions if generally true definitely limit as well the culture and psychology of their viewpoints. I ask of course, intellectually, if there is more than even I see in this remote area of enquiry, or that perhaps all I see has and can be presented better. Nevertheless I find some value in the few directions this blog has gone lately as if I had to go step by step to come to some very strange ideas of numbers- yet these are more of a link to whatever we may debate as to what is concrete or what is only brought down from some Platonic conception to the real world (forgive me Doron S. my first instincts were right about the quality of your work in that I can use this link to show the mechanism to bring it down to earth.

The issues I raised in the last post, well let us wax mystical unabashedly (after all the forum is waxing reductionist unabashedly concerning Dawkins and the issue of what is true or not for me in a more general view is not one of either in exclusion- all such assertions tell me is there are closed minds without clear demonstration and that is impure metaphysics and hardly the scientific method as a working principle. Oddly enough two of my sons are discussing Dawkins book one on the trip to visit for their weddings and do not realize how much I was there at the creation. But in any case no one bothers to look up the thorough discussions already on the forum. Yet as poems in the social blogs show these are also concerns of what is time and love and the expression while the living, the loom of years as the days can do their weaving. This business of being and learning in context or as an individual and what it may mean as we become more aware of each other in cyberspace. Clearly, in terms of dimensions, the Euclidean center of a tetrahedron is determined by phi (or tau, the golden ratio) and yet it is a limit really of the Fibonacci ratios, rations that do explain a lot about particle structural possibilities. I will supply my diagrams of last night that started simply but freely developed to make an area of theory I now style "Organoms" for in terms of local and non local and ideas of rotation and so on the singularities are remarkably similar to things like quarks and the number system works efficiently in Fibonacci as well as the natural binary. Amazingly I see patterns now as if numbers are alive but are freer in the ideas of scale although asymmetric and endless. This knack for arithmetic is what I wish I could have done earlier so as to feel the numbers. It is the organoms not random nor determined, string or point, that behave in a creative way and sort of explain the idea of dark matter in their duplications and global group restrictions. All this fits nicely with carbon ideas in organic chemistry. To insist on will in the ecotoms, galatomic, or randomness to explain energy Slacker-Lincoln, misses and overly restricts the next obvious level of prediction and understanding our new natural paradigm.