Being, Non-being, and Reality

Being, Non-being, and Reality

How do we sort out the truth of physis and each the flowering of it individually and collectively?

Like the playing of tape, time erases itself in the playing until what vanishes reaches some point of creation again. (But it may never reach such a point in the future or the whole)

From long ago to the remote to come, the fulcrum of existence- the center of soul everywhere the sum total, the Omnium.

For non-existence formed is more than the Other to something as everything else less than an absolute vacuum as Anthos, flowers within flowers and a universe of much wider space and time than we have dreamed of paths and lives of worlds and dreams, more than the encompassing of stars and the lesser gods we are.

Exactly where and when even after the fact of quantum tunneling, does the photon leave the electron? Perhaps at that Zeno distance between dimensionless Casmir plates of shifting scales where existence meets not the rather exists not that it does so seems a time, a time beyond some group algebra of properties of systems, a time beyond the idea of symmetry of the spatial dimensions as zero symmetric and equipartitions the forces at some point- conserved or not in non-existent isolated systems. The multi-linear-like operators may equal zero and still not be symmetric. Nor do we need to forbid that in space the coordinates of similar things such as electrons exchanged do not matter as to the permutations.

An increase of non-being is a decrease of Being and thus a decrease of non-being is and increase of Being yet we can imagine from the nothingness or unity of minus infinity to infinity or potential infinity to minus infinity some dialectical direction of the sense of reality of time's flow. Nothing begets nothing as well then unity begets unity. Not all that twists to the space and time and gravity is that salamander of Leibniz between being and non-being for Recapitulated Transfiguration is also Transfigured Recapitulation.

In any given state such deeper than energy thresholds exist multivalued and beyond the quantum algebraic and string properties and geometries that describe things. Our foundational language is a shift of dials of a mix of syllables to find some intelligible being and non-being but not forbidden the unbeing.

It is not clear that from infinitesimal flowers into the finite branching of trees of realities- what of its own assertion of truths and rights we each a focus of the universe and it subject to our revisions and projections toward the future as well as we subject to what is and was as solid and real, constant in appearance beyond coherence and heat.

Maybe together as if a meadow of flowers we universes parallel and in the moment that we come together so as not to fear the few who may defeat the whole nor that the individual subject in blindness to slavery of the tyranny of collectives forever.
Maybe there is a meaningful social transfiguration after all of such a better humanity and intelligible awakening of mankind to such a higher state of evolution after all.

* * *

Yesterday's facebook thought:

L. Edgar Otto
The
amazing thing about the latest physics of everything is how it relates
to living things including our minds- to describe things between lovers is like time
travel and exploring a parallel universe. We awaken through time and time's mirror, to find the multiverse of love is like breaking out from our earlier selves and becoming social beings with empathy for each other.



I know these posts are difficult to read, especially with the notions lately- then again some of the quantum stuff I try to review seems rather simple when we get down to the reasons behind the interpretations. Yet I am not sure that it takes such a division of the disciplines in order to be proficient and fluent in any one of them. The Omnium was one of my first interpretations of the universe- the simple idea that one is equal to zero times infinity- yet from a more generalized view and beyond that metaphysics let alone physics seems to have little to say save things exist or they conceivably do not. But the omnium itself became other things including perhaps a return to such philosophic continua- plutomnium as a sort of expanded determined generalization uniformly and then Teleomnium which made such a fatalistic conception a little more free. To the side the quasicontinuum which took a long time to resolve its notions and reason for being with these omnium or omnia, that is sum total or miscellaneous collections. I did not know the world would turn out so complicated that such variations on continua became relevant to mainstream science and not say some form of Hinduism etc...

But to make the general background of mentioning this old universal concept again as it is warm and other things are happening like conflict with the state and so on, and I being a little casual and lazy trying to resolve some ideas such as what was behind a dream of the other night- something just writing it down and although symbolic as to what we see joining two textures as they exist or not it seemed to be solid enough to express informally the ideas of which already I have a hard time reading it myself and no doubt some of the meaning would be lost after all if I made it simple- although this is the problem in distinguishing science and pseudoscience.

Sometimes, one can be over creative as well as less than up to the enquiry and it has a similar effect. On top of this what and who we are and what society is and making sense of our world and times and history, and my age and personal time itself and so on... The key point I feel I may not have expressed here explicitly is that of memory that vanishes to be stored in relation to time- that a rather static universe changes from absolute emptiness to some form of absolute perfection but we prefer as scientists to note the progress as an emergence of materiality which is considered something that does not change but is arranged- that is I do not think it enough to create protons in a rather expanding Hoyle like universe- and yet there can be such a mechanism conceivable. In fact beyond perfection and yet here and now one may find new ways of dealing with the reality of mass and space and time such that a whole new physics of matter is possible- but it would indeed have more general time concepts and those resolved as well as the idea that there are replete multiuniverses which to not always fold up into a return again to some level and we then interpret it as gravity or whatever. At any point at the fulcrum of the zero year or time, where the photon leaves the electron so deeper than quanta but not outside of a consistent totality, we can erect a whole and parallel universe again which means it is about events or occasions of the real, the material universe seeming to become and evolve more real from this side of the changes under heaven so to speak... most of these metaphysical ideas can resolve some of the foundations we desire to explain by materialist reductionism alone which is of course part of it. But I am not suggesting here this is the sum total of all physics theories as it does have mostly metaphysical basis- the physics part is a better understanding of the groups and space and so on than we now seem to have, and what is the depths of notions of logic. It is not enough to resolve physics to numbers without a better understanding of what number is itself. But due to the complexity and creativity of my recent ideas they may appear a miscellaneous collection put there for the sake of breavity of effort of the physical act of writing (after all it takes more energy to recall an idea, and more heat, than to lay one down say with computers) Nevertheless there are differences here that can be formalized or measured if we dare to accept and go beyond the idea of nilpotency. It is my hope that we find a better way to teach these things- something maybe can be done by our community of scientists and in such a way it does not conflict with other areas of society and that we do not have to ask of that society as space and material design masters that it blindly accepts the need for such a noble action of man- it surely is more noble than the fulcrum and general inevitability of blind conflict and vanishing species in war.
* * *


I find it interesting that in publishing original and fundamental knowledge or thesis it is standard that one makes the case from some position- even if that has to be a controversial presentation. Blogging in a sense may be more encompassing in its informal presentation.

Interesting article from new scientist:

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2010/05/tracing-the-fuzzy-boundaries-of-science.php

I do not agree with this totally, clearly we have to make a leap once we have accepted the metaphysical principle of nilpotency. In a world of our specific and unique path over time among the universe of so many paths, each a fulcrum and each a beginning of which no physical systems either in a hypothesis exists in isolation as the article said of hypotheses in general- a non question really from a higher view, for how and where do such systems exist or seem to- yes to assert a thesis is to make such an assertion and the case from a position- but does it not follow on at least our own personal scale that some things are more scientific because they emphasize the observable and material as the social goal and goal of science- But can we take the dust with us without our creative engagement and soul of the universe- of course it is in the interest of those who debate wholes and parts such as the right UN to nationality of an international organization -such lip service contradictions from a bygone age- who said we have the right to unemployment insurance as a basic human right? That a myth anyway... Perhaps what rights are must be seen from a much higher ethic than the weak and empty assertions of the last few generations. Society does not exist in isolation from science either.

Bad philosophy begets bad science- something like astrology may ring true by accident even if the underlying metaphysics of being is jettisoned to the bare naked facts of fields and particles. We need more original and creative thinkers and less superstition who in the end do not represent the true depths of Intelligent Design Creationism any more than fake boundaries between what one considers in the growth of its reality what is science and what is pseudoscience. In a sense falsified things no matter when is the general idea that what is solid and physical may one day become but an airy wish, and what was seemingly solid in its day like astrology, a casual fantasy of isolated coincidences of trivial design. Yes, by consistency and beauty perhaps the logic of it all is about as good as a definition of science as we may reach in our early flowering of wisdom down a very long road of becoming real over the memory and truth of physical design.