Walking Through Time (Part 2)

Walking Through Time (Part 2)



Now, in the 32 pentagonal dipyramids each would have 32 more for the 32 to the nth powers, just as for a cube the surface number is 26 and so on. This perhaps justifies a partial symmetrical figure in five space.

In general, the idea of time focused at some zero vector point but can go in both directions- time like space has its Ramsey number which makes for the intelligibility of our ideas of any variation from some zero point. Yet time, as we experience it, also seems like a directed descent- but on what scale as if a fractal sequence. We go through stages as if the next one separates us from the higher one much like wall paper of say Chinese fishermen on piers of which one can imagine jumping or falling down not against the gravity. But at each level there can be closed places where one is trapped in those places as well the level (but travel between levels is possible via such places and sometimes it takes forever to which our larger scale makes us not crushed as such but immovable- thus we accept our local environs computing the extent or region of the reality and time at hand. It is a question also then of fate, and of how in time something persists even dimensionless. We can have a diffuse continuum (which as a principle of modern physics strikes me as metaphysical especially as an appeal to distant structures or levels via probability) yet we note the blurred boundaries of existence (a kinetic idea or perception of such possible) for such chaotic diffusion hovering around an idea of total vacuum or absolute nothingness, as the metaphor of time or some other physical dimension, has structure even if we cannot radically and with total relativism (Leibnizean, not the whisy washy relativistic interpretation by the sociologists and culturally relative behind a hidden sense of certainty) even if one does not comprehend the notion the vacuum and other vague continua ideas such as memory has structure in this abstract topological sense. If the experts say that spin is such an idea it takes mathematics and is not some sort of way to view the actual idea of rotation of objects, of some assertion unexplained but after the fact of the general need for some positive values such as mass in the models, then what else can it be when we found our physical reality on notions of motion? Yes, it is subtle but to see it as too simple save for the experts is a mediocre grasp of space and shames us in the mediocrity of having to endlessly point that out to uncomprehending ears.

* * *