(Note: TheReferenceFrame post today has some interesting links to groups which seem to me relevant in the simple arithmetic where I comment on Zero to Infinity on dimensionality in general in that if applied to DNA we have to resolve the geometry and logic of 24 and 20 + 4 things and that is what the group mention applies to, that or similar ones as with any of the unified view of atomic shell structures- note if we actually had a dialog I would ask Lubos what he thinks of the 120 element limitation of the atomic number in three space. BTW I emailed the author of that book as I understood its contribution in but a few hours and find some things on line that saw it as new age perhaps. I might get a reply.)
* * *
I found three articles on newscientist.com today--- one on time and quasars, one on electrodes and depression in the brain, and one on a sense of a hidden matrix of deeper physics- (I do not thing the idea of light influenced by many big bang black holes as if some property of dark matter good enough or far our enough or fundamental enough and explanation BTW for the quasars- yet quasic are sort of quasar based creatively with all the properties of flat and prime dimensional division regions) all of which seem to fit together uncanny in a unified theory and for approach's here I have pondered. It is uncanny because how do I know any such thought I or anyone would have on these foundational levels would not be somehow true in each one's developing view of the universe? It is like when I used to calm down Amy so she would not be kicked out of the coffee shop- she just out of Mendota with hard meds- "Amy, you only think you are taking French and Philosophy at the university, we are all patients in Mendota except for Johnny who seems spaced out and backwards, he is our orderly." Amy would just stop in silence for awhile and think then all of a sudden burst out laughing.
When we all find a fairly good same dream it looks like a very promising new physics on the horizon and a way to analyze our journey to get there in retrospect. I just thought it would be much harder to learn and discover than it actually was.
* * *
Footnote posted later this day:
In the article,
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627550.200-enter-the-matrix-the-deep-law-that-shapes-our-reality.html
The random matrix theory, in that chance philosophically is part of the picture, is intelligible so that is not a surprise that it too can hint of underlying unifying theories. From a teleological and mechanical parallel this seems close to what I have called since 1974, teleoscoping theory in the quasic view.
I also mention that as far as the quasars and time ideas, the boundary (think of it as a surface of a region or sphere) of a quason is interconnected or not necessarily so- and at this level of scale, dimensionality, and flatness in the null regions of diverse points of the various singularities and actual content of numbers in the prime finite and infinite "patterns" the quasicity does seem to apply to various structures on many scales.
This is intelligible. But I imagine even a more complex view of things if we try to include such a region as an individual monad or consciousness and ask if in the present or some distant time we can meaningfully make intelligible our ontological or lack of something close to the idea of soul and its recovery or permanence- call this the inner pleiadian - but it will take awhile to write about this and the implications if we apply it to intelligible physical time and can see past the emotions and sense of our intelligible selves. In a vaguely sensed higher organization beyond the nth finitude can we project possible hints of greater human evolution and understanding? Moving or fixed, finite or infinite, kinetic or potential consciousness, may take a little longer and deeper to integrate in the theory and say what it means to be part of the great grand speculation of being.
* * *
On further reading, a beautiful as this alternative picture of the foundations of physics is, Zero to Infinity, I have found a few points of disagreement on what is fundamental. The description of the standard theory from a quaternion viewpoint is very clear, fermions making their own vacuum or virtual space- the idea perhaps that Newton still reigns and the invariance of light is not that fundamental, philosophically a counter to the so called philosophy of science from Popper's view of falsification in the role of Gravity and general relativity- we might accept gravity as an action at a distance after all but this is not to say on some level relativity does not have its place. As we strive to integrate the physics clearly there is a matter of viewpoints.
Intelligibility is conserved in the sense that CPT is conserved if the three are taken together. I also feel the author does not have that much to say about the nature of the possibility of dark matter- that is the view is not comprehensive enough and despite evidence for some things lately, his view of cosmology states it is not exact enough to give any empirical evidence but is a tradition of sorts.
What this suggests to me is after all a question of psychology, and the nature of our separate consciousness of what in some intelligible coordinate of our social being is that where we can share what is perhaps a unified truth of physics and other things. If we approach the truth of knowledge of the universe and ourselves as some sort of perfection as a place of observation- are we the same or different and unique inner pleiadian? What are we to become and are we now? Are we just the unclear surface of things that the insides can burn our or leave but a shell, a compression mass of dead sediments and decay or can one day beyond the scope of time (in this world where we do not make a new universe at every branching choice unto infinity nor but one irreducible reality- that which as a dynamic if not evolving physics is in between at the front of the quasicontinuum between that of mass and spacetime) I can imagine as a question of metaphysics that we can take a person of such limited fleeting experience and bring them to a more perfect development and true self, a unique soul perhaps that does not find the uncertainty of what with changes a consciousness is- yet, to do so would suggest it can be done a some far future date or equivalent place and on some far greater law of action and reaction, or action and virtual reaction as the author sees things with matter. But such questions although intelligible are part of the creative as philosophy at this point rather than creative science. In any case there is still much to explore beyond the unification of physics where it applies to what is our reality and what is our experience of it.
Quasics is a much more narrow and pure vision of dimensionality, especially as the roots of zero as well of spaces of the roots of one. As such it goes a little further in what we are to consider fundamental as physics.
No comments:
Post a Comment