As in last poem Distar XII I raise the issue of the multiverse models as instabilities of the hyperbolic designs and all the issues of personal and social contentedness from each of our private views in terms of a wider grasp of the idea of anthropocentric. What can that mean in such a world of layers and layers of the non-linear. It seems that these intermediate ideas of cosmology, something as if the WMAP hints at more than what we imagine from it at the moment, before we understand the geometry of the quasic spaces.
But what is this model after all that seems to explain with a deeper ground our theories of self and love (even in our idea of some global being or insistence on such a certainity of scientific laws?) A theory, moreover that has a logical and deductive no vague missing link in the reasoning?
Yet, all of this has to be even more fundamental in our idea of the applied maths including those ideas of the Bayesian in statistics and what exponentiation is there to handled large samples and so on... It involves a more general concept of initial conditions and the nature of what can be effeciently put down as real in the vacuum of our memory and so recover again.
It involves the question, an entropic one also, of the zero vector in some field- for it is clear that is where the equations break down at singularity, infinite solutions and so on. There is resistivity rather than a creative approach to things if we imagine the world so rigid as if the rigid rotations. For the truth is more a quasi-rigidity and adaptive one at that. We cannot simply say that something is conserved either by classical orbits or some sort of non-linear binomial exactness that is then just an approach to further accuracy and levels of what we vaguely might see from some linear view as layers of topological compactification or say inflation.
There is more than one way that distance can be preserved- or some form of energy conserved. Or some law of nature remains and invariant. We cannot simply say by analogy although in a quantum bit scenario we double the computing power per bit, that the volume or area of some space can be equal to the determinant. In an n-volume the fact of the unity of such a cube is not just trivially the unit volume. Nor can we base things on some resolution wherein when we multiple certain values it applies equally in all degrees of freedom throughout the vector space.
Imagine then, the alpha dimensionless constant, beyond the ideas of pi or plus and minus one if we declare one thing the infinite cycles and the harmonics, heat transfer in the universe itself. The fine structure constant, square root derivative operator at 137th computation.
Clearly we cannot regard the COBE model as anything but one of some developing design of small variations on all the possible dimensions and times, There are worlds such as that background and all present potentially at a distance from what we may think of as our dimensionless constant values (again the Eddington model of the Uranoid is here to be generalized as a form of quasic space) What imagine we see is a string no longer a singular point of origin and thus compactified upon this something not lnear, even beyond four way dialectics.
But in this microscopic like the collider there are different powers of resolution, as different as the mickeys of particle generations as we click on the mouse to find the illusion of touching things at a distance.
I had not anticipated these intermediate cosmologies before we find the power of the wider quasic view and get a handle on what we need to understand about experimental verification.
The endless cyclic universe, also with the problems left of inflation models, must resolve the idea of the constrained but limited cyclic multiverse before we can apply the wisdom of string and brane theories of our so called complete matrix of our dimensions.
I in general called these sorts of ideas the Ultranscontinuum back in 65.
* * *
Quasi-nonlinearity (email to galatomic)
Friend, These are interesting thoughts- and my pesla.blogspot.com was not meant to make things clear to anyone but myself. Perhaps it is time. I found some interesting articles on a blog I follow called the reference frame which I thought you would also find interesting.
"Think of it this way in more vivid terms. If space is a warped fabric in Euclidean space then Euclidean geometry will tell us the time and distance between points in the non-Euclidean fabric (yes even light takes the non-Euclidean path) if we created a “wormhole” in the non-Euclidean fabric. But if space is fundamentally non-Euclidean then there is no Euclidean shortcut and one would be irrational to look for it.
In conclusion, if there is no physical fabric to space then we are forced to consider it non-Euclidean and Kant’s critics are correct, GR trumps QM and quantum gravity is a search for fool’s gold. If there is a physical fabric to space then to equate the “fabric” with any featureless geometry is a mistake in thinking and will produce a dead end in physics." from the philosophychatforum
The last post was interrupted son came from Minneapolis to the coffee shop. so:
I have had some rather profound and fundamental thoughts lately especially concerning the issues your raised in the quotation. But from a more Leibnizean viewpoint. I call it the quasi-nonlinear qs-ln viewpoint. I have also thought a lot about the underlying views you have and they have withstood the recent speculations of the intermediate physics before some possible greater unification.
In particular the universes as on the reference frame blog last week, where the idea of a minimum string does not, as said on the forum, reach the planck distance but could be different from it and that would play havoc with inflation ideas where mini black holes are concerned.
I do not think we ultimately disagree on much and I see where the reductionist are in possible error- their concept of space is too rigid even if it is based on probability alone.
Anyway, I will try to post some of this on the blog- but the cold truth is that you are the one most worth talking too about these things. It is just too hard for us to put it into some form the others understand, mainly because they do not grasp the deeper general concepts which of course can lead to some rather strange and unsolved questions of what makes up our reality or what is pseudo science.
rrushius btw sent me an email wondering where I was- and said he left the forum due to the manner he was treated by Lincoln and others.
Sure there is a quasi-certainty in the three body problem (and in some cases it is still a big problem despite very accurate reductionist resolution by computation making it a trivial problem)- but it is this very quasi-uncertainty making it a nonlinear problem that is the source of these unified yet stages of a cosmic system that for example explains the why of particle generations- to that extent it is a matter so far of geometry. And it is also a way to relate our personal center to it all wherever that may be.
I did not know you were that age- and with accumulated wisdom I imagine- but that is a scarry age for me as my dad passed on at 73. It makes it all the more urgent that we somehow work out some of these issues in order to help things along- but for me I am v ery much satisfied I see most of the picture before I move on or vanish.
At least in the long run our core ideas have won!
* * *
Continued on the blog:
*The obvious question to ask is what happens when we quasicly map the terrain of the WMAP background to say three layers of quasication. We not only get three generations of the topology- something that can be seen on one global eigenstate as Euclidean but in a sense the three states (akin to the distinction of multiple integration vs partial integration unto the dimensions)are as if three generations of which between them some effects like gravity and mass can have certain values which of course can be the invariant yet expanding dimensionless constants or the averaging from some nonlinear indefinite origin or entropy of spatial regions of which things are averaged out as if an overall unity of things as quasi-stable.
From a metaphysical viewpoint some of the ideas where consciousness arises as a phenomenon, or the breaking of symmetry from one view being really the here and now separation of these onion like layers in to say something abstractly like an independent field such as electromagnetism- explains certain ideas of what we consider a partially restrained anthropocentrism (an idea which to me seems not a valid one if we insist on the global monolithic unity of space rather than this division into quasi-indempotency and maybe Bayslean effects of probability- certainly the idea of doubling and halving as far as our relation to the expression of such fundamental constants including if we temporally exclude the zero and negative axis in the local idea of looping in time.
We have cultural forerunners of such ideas for example in the multiverse time travel questions as to what is coincidence or extraordinary as to what paranormal phenomena require belief in it that it works, or disbelief that it becomes a reductionist reality or limited monolithic fact excluding such phenomena.
In a sense, although quasicity is but a third part of physics the unity of all of them which I call the phoenix for now or general stereonomic phaneron, would have on the periphery that quasication in effect quantizes and averages these mathematically corresponding continuous fields of what we relatively view of fixed distances.
The cosmic background (free really from scales even those infinite) contains in a sense all of a few quantized solutions to what may be viewed of all of reality at some quasic state of resolution. Quasic Generational Distance QGD is thus the origin of shadows of symmetry of what is mass and what is gravity (which is a mysterious force seemingly compared with the others) and geometry wise can be interpreted as the issues of dark matter-energy over say the tri-background as if nine Euclidean dimensions into the three reduced standard ones of a constant (zh symbol preferably in Russian)and so on unto what string state of quasicity in definition (that is the background views all possible string theories and variations)
What for example is 270 compared with 137 where we simply regard the arithmetic of group logics in relation to the structure and weight of particles? Certainly frequency by itself and a structure based on it cannot explain all the phenomena involved if we apply it to the total understanding of what we think we know in detail of the physics of the universe even if we know it is limited and everything even if we do not know what it is (Hawking).
Of course these quasic idea apply to our sense of identity, levels of genome like reading, cancer, different states of our physical transformation biochemistry, and to a great extent our experience of identity and knowing in this world as minds.
It is not enough to say some physics (or for that matter metaphysics) friend galatomic, is a dead end before we find the more general and logically reasonable view that such mathematics can apply but in a surprising complex way. Moreover, it is clear to me that these very ideas will boost what claims to you make to independent entities of volition and consciousness (ecotoms) as it guarantees their structure and existence. It is simply not clear that in a quasi-nonlinear world that we can know nothing of things that reduce to zero point euclidean space.
Now it may not be that we know everything after all on this higher paradigm level but we know that we do not know it (that some things exist as a possibility not to dismiss lightly) but when we see the envelop and nonlocality of space and time which we call the cosmic and to each of us unique background, each from his view ahead and worth a little more locally than another, we find it more than just our present crude ideas of what makes our best accessible universal totality.
* * *
The Smooth Transition of Dimensional States of the Phaneron:
I would be more surprised if nature did insist on only one generation of particles. Certainly the aesthetic sense of rightness of theoretical physics- really an ability to grasp and apply the abstract concepts of mathematics, at least as a formal system - can apply to other cognitive properties, for example the idea of not one or many gods but an oeconomics or idea of a three in one Trinity resonates with general spatetime structural possibilities. But this is not to assert the primacy of that theological concept, necessarily. It is subtle really, "One small step for 'a' man or for 'man' and one great leap for mankind." is an example of a fortunate slip of an ambiguous phrase that conveys such physical and theoretical subtitles.
So, in the phaneron background we can approach the idea of a flatland that can be viewed or can physically seem to become a wider space of dimensions (thus of the energy of gravity and matter in relation and the quantization by quasic space of the identities views from one physical or conscious and sell aware and reflecting identity. It we take these ideas of dimensions to the limits of many in one structure in most cases we get the symmetries, the bilateral ones of the humanoid form as a smashed down version of what could be seen as a wide dimensionless space.
Until such physics concepts are discussed and dealt with, expanded upon, we cannot really begin to define the next set of problems more than as we vaguely do for our current problems of quantum gravity and physics unification if any- My best guess at the moment is there are problems of uniqueness and identity to be resolved- especially in control of time and evolution on the horizon.
How we define something with reference to itself as a logical system that cannot exceed itself- if such a thing is not richer than itself and thus paradoxically hierachical- the Godel like metalanguage concepts- may be irrevelant once we see that in a three way quasic system as a totality a consciousness may be self aware unto the complexity of its logics as self contained. At least to the next level.
* * *
To peer morevover into the forward dimension (see Pinker on 2.5 dimension forward perception and our ability to orient things in three space) in view of the above we certainly can see at the horizon of furthest extent a question of multidimensions with ambiguous content- that is we color what we see or not see from our preconceived biases one way or the other as if we sculpt the faces on the moon or mars as a result of craters on any scale. It is a survival thing evolved to discerrn if possible things in the wild where we seek the truth of structure of so many dimensions or objects in camouflage. But there has to be a more solid case despite our perceptions (save where it may be a matter of belief as truth that can be changed beyond the usual powers and influences of observation (or negotiating the observation multiple spaces). We orient in multi-space greater than three and in doing so take advantage of the conservation and invariance and truth independence of what we see- that is, the GR aspect predominates but in any case it is the usual rotations in hyperbolic frames and spaces- at lest in the four space case and thus at the remote place of perception and imagination we have quasi-instability.
* * *
In this segment of the blog I will discuss the archetype which I have represented as a four winged bird (of time and so on in the count of dimensions). I put up the image from Science Daily on a link to the development of flight at:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090928205415.htm so see there for related articles such as the analogy to the development as if biplanes to monoplanes and so on. In this segment I will try to get across the idea of this four-fold aspect of nature as a matter of viewpoint and double dialectic geometrical relationships- such as hemoglobin of two alpha and two encased beta configuration around Fe (Iron).
I may include the cultural war as expressed in the blogosphere that has an analogy to the Wittgenstein-Popper debates as to a philosophy of science and the relation to Logical Positivism. This is a two edged sword for those who take one side or the other and try to impose what is intelligible upon the other side. It is also a question of thermodynamics, especially the varieties of the zeroth laws of equilibrium (on some level of how we relate to induction and probability). It also relates to Sylvia Plath "some of us are not important enough to justify having a psychiatrist..." The idea here is Wittgenstein reminds us of what the nature of words are as if the events of early childhood do not naturally progress to a world where we can develop reason (well verification) {a lot of cultural crapola came out of Vienna regardless of if it were against the left or right as we can point the finger of innocence or immaturity from one or the other view- more of a sociology and precursor to the control of the media by some group for some agenda or propaganda as in trying to make sense of the current USA political and culture war.]
I developed in the course of the few years I posted on philosophychatforum and sciencechatforum from the beginnings as if developing science from the ground up but the rearrangement and exclusion left this continuity of presentation (but in a way it hardly matters as a serious forum in my eyes anymore) and then I try to go beyond the existing achievement of learning. This unity of work then is reduced to a babble and in a way which not even Robert E. Lee would allow rather than surrender for the Southern cause- no guerrilla troops in the separate states- this sort warfare is an ongoing terrorism which would not allow the nation to heal sooner- said Lee. Which side of history and political correctness is one on? Surely it is this issue of ultimate respect for the continuity of things- not just the mentality of those who immerse themselves in video games and drive by masked insults on the net and who think they are in the right and know but become more and more aggressive to the determent of the content and not the petty and soon obsolete state of the technology as if it is the religiously justified view of their science.
It is no wonder that given the current state of the economy that the role of the universities is being reevaluated as to what they teach in relation to the community.
What is the character of the United States? (A term used by our current president) What is the responsibility of the media which can have such polarization of what is obviously philosophical and political issues and not the human content of our creativity. Maybe a beautiful mind does rate a psychiatrist but more likely one should do the least damage to such a mind with crude methods- if indeed that mind is beautiful considering the product and consequences that resulted form the mentally ill. A theory that is a weapon for wounds in the trenches and struggle is no way to falsify or even verify what is science and what is not. What is oxygen is really carbon monoxide in the rigidity of thought or claims of its unintelligibly (save perhaps for Russel's assessment to a point as logic). Common sense can have its value and God Bless the United States as an idea not as obsolete as some would have us think- long live the model of freedom of a Lockean community as a logical part at least of the models that tend to social well being and certainty where power, especially superpowers evolve and arise. Forget not Gibran nor treat him as a childish mystic and useless philosopher for we all can benefit from his poetic view and insight to the human condition in this brave new world of struggle and concrete and yes our sense of love despite Wittgenstein coming in the back door of our issues of what is man and what is machine and so on.
For that still in the cache or those with copies of the time and those who made sense of the continuity of my work or relished the jewels in the style of it I am glad we saw this far and saw the beauty of science as it can be and will become.
No comments:
Post a Comment