Twizzolee: (This Side of the Mirror)

Twizzolee: (This Side of the Mirror)

Just as atoms on the molecular scale may arrange themselves into symmetrical structures (even if we cannot so see), we can show two ways to interlace six rigid rods(for the 12 or 18 directions from a center -here by toothpicks on the human scale). In the illustration above we can see the diamond crystal lattice at such a point center.

When we distinguish the axes (vectors) by color labels in either of these arrangements in space, we find the computation of permutations and orientations of these axes remarkably(?) intelligible. The senses of rotation may or may not correspond in the axes to that of the sense of rotation of the colors if we are to make discernment of the indiscernible. Clearly the observer and the accentuation of the thing observed is a deep issue here- perhaps deeper than the toss of a coin in what on the average above a fun house mirror of so called abstract spin and probability is a 50-50 case or not most days of the year as what on the average is positive or anti-matter coming into existence or blinking out.

Of three pairs on a single axis each can be the center or on one side or the other for two possibilities times the six colors times positive or negative reading (rotations, directions) times the 30 color cubes = 720, in the the more flattened hexagonal circuit of the colors shown above.

Head on the sense of color or physical rotation is one directional and this cannot be determined if the spinning object is the only thing in some space, clearly, save within the system itself one might show a more or less linear preference for a direction. But clearly space itself, a vacuum, in a sense is another observer for at least to compare motions and the question of what influence or not matter has on other matter, or for that matter our sense of consciousness in this foundational situation. We are talking about abstract reflections or mirrors of which we can orient them on this side of that abstraction and make models of the reflection in concrete objects. But is the difference in physical properties of right and left handed molecules, energy wise, a fundamental principle of physics or a deeper one of the symmetry and geometry? Such motion is in a sense concrete despite the information transfer evidence of something like established quantum non-locality.

In the extreme we may desire to apply the relativistic and macro aspects of physics to the quantum micro-level. As such what we observe depends a lot on where and when we are in the spacetime of observing. On the micro-level then we ask on which side of the reflection of spin we are on (even though in principle for this more general idea of spin if we know one side we may infer the spin of the other side of a spinning object- and concretely, and collapsed seemingly in time, as well as the abstract quantum idea to infer something in the virtual world as neutrinos and what side ultimately, even across cosmic time and levels, we are on the spin and signals of things. To make this distinguishing of the indistinguishable (which logically seems to me an existential point beyond post-modern relativism as an ultimate paradox) we may also imagine we physically change the objects by observing them on the quantum levels and this is thus the question of such interpretations. Never the less applying this quantum principle to the universe globally, at least in the perception if not the influencing of things including what in handedness would be changed if we traversed a circuit of a finite but bounded universe, we could infer that we have some choice possibly concrete of what reality we may make or choose from within our present intelligibility and awareness. On the human level if our perception and reality correspond closely a general maxim might be that one cannot choose or influence a meso-level world that is unintelligible with reference to somewhere- yet it can be less comprehensive to such a self-observer system itself.