Nonlinear Mirrors (Spaces and Logic)

Nonlinear Mirrors (Spaces and Logic) L. Otto

"To the corkscrew the knife is crooked" SOREN KIERKERGAARD

We come so close to a more intelligible understanding of the nature of space in our cylcloptic views in the seach for a wider view, if not a unified view. In real time one could say that some positions in physics are not wrong, just as right seem to dismiss by its own disciplines of reason other frames of reference and where they fit in to a wider calculus of cycloptic views. This is not simply a question of determined or relativist grounds. If we feel we have some natural space down in terms of dealing with the infinite, and if we say the finite will take us a little while longer to understand, then the resolution of the finite and infinte will take us longer still. Who knows what is beyond this in all pride and humility of our discovered and invented wisdom, in that sense of experiment and experience of our propects of living, a future in the moment or perhaps drawn to greater things. But what we can see and imagine we can see in reach is organically part of a wider phenomenon- not just the idea of red and violet shifts with zits of singularity.

We may say that experiments and theories of say a hundred years ago are not as advanced as those of our day, and this is true in the details of practical reasoning, our existential moment and time being the maximum intelligibility of our age and all time- our local center of ego time and roles as Einstein used to say, He by the way well aware of his worries and limitations- the spin of the equator of the sun, an old question now, and what happens inside such a space as to viewing things beyond it and the physics of dynamos. This he knew was unexplained in his system and when it was applied by DeSitter the cosmic dream did reach a point of instability wherein we find ourselves chasing the tortoise again in the descending race toward a better scientific ground- from the sun to the sunset in our atmosphere the belt of Venus has its avocates unto the many or the one gods of India.

Imagine then, past a hierachy of singularities much like Rucker's fiction eating a generation family of them in succession and seeing a totally new place- each place presumably with the familiar ideas- of mass and uniform laws independently existing throughout space, and some interval like the speed of light- and yes it will take awhile for you readers to come around to this view of things just as much as I have come down to learn to speak a bit in your traditions and notations.

What happens, to put it in more modern terms, if we pass through the surface and descend into the space inside a black hole, if indeed it is a quasic space there and if there is in a sense an inside, and if what is hyperbolic blurry shifts to a more solid relation of unified intelligibility throughout the cosmos? But one does not have to go to such local centered space to choose to enter on all scales of what is seen and felt at least of the quasic idea. Indeed, we can at least imagine this and we can apply what we have of logic and make physical interpretations. We might say for example that the subcells of a quasic space are together or not at an entangled distance- indeed the search for a unified theory of forces suggests we indeed eat the singularities on several generational levels and reduce things to simpler single linear generational quantum flux. We could relate what mass is as equivalent to the logic system and design we apply.

For example, the question on all levels of the conservation of parity, the problem also of the prevalence of matter over antimatter, and the time direction of things, inside the quason (here the universe itself as organic phenomenon or other simple hints from the design of living things as slices of a lesser dimensional growth of say of trees by analogy- physicists rarely go beyond the cartoon aspects of their useful popular analogies which in geometry tend to be true analogies) one could say the subcells in their motions and relations obey Bayselean statistics. At any point we may or may not have that situation between any two states of a quason system, the loop and the rays of it require a more complicated background, independent or not as if mass and gravity and space were independent or not as the more useful and profound description. But on the familiar level or say at familiar Euclidean, Newtonian ideas of void and motion, one can confuse the time directions of parity or assymmetry at a place of more general coordinates than natural and quasic dimensions and what is Bayslean on one level needs only be strung together on another generational level with the same sort of analogy to say protien logic and DNA codes.

I recall distinctly in trying to read the four space chessboard where the pieces jump from cell to sell but which way, yes between two states only one absolute direction in time but not betwen states nor the labels for what is inside or outside the cells of the board none of which have to be parallel by the same design- but more given this simple geometric analogy we can see there are more motions possible and these are not necessarily visible, and they corkscrew and perhaps do not even find a central theme as to being an outline for higher transcendental space. The tilt in the WMAP first light should start to tell us something!

Are there other functions of mirror symmetry, say that we will find in the particle accelerators? Do these dimensions have to be absolutely relative? It is intelligible to say different points in a reference frame may not have the same experience nor that time itself can be seen so determined or worked out by doubly or even quadrouple special relativity- but it is more intelligible to keep strait and sort out, including the application of the intrinsic logic, if we consider the quasic view- and where we do not know apparently such fundamental things the speculators are not crackpots where that is all we have in what we do not explain and know- just as we got around to saying philosophy and science may not be able to say if there is a God one way or the other, so to science in its fundamental war on defining itself unjustly condemning others in the name of scientific debate cannot say if there is some total theory or not, science itself, by politics and feeling alone. We need more compassion and respect in this rather post-modern philosophy of science so we do not be the madmen killers of the science god- and at least between equals the debate should have compassion and sober discernment for other creative views.