Consciousness, Inner and Outer Space

Consciousness, Inner and Outer Space

In the illustration from a Google application for the 4D Rubik's cube I found the program has improved quite a bit since I first saw it on the net. For those who think about such relations in space it is certainly worth it do download and view the program. The difference between the cube faces can vary expanding or compressing them. Here I show how hidden in something as seemingly simple as a 3 x 3 x 3 cube is the four dimensional variety. And yet all of this can be imagined as an inner space of high dimension yet nothing outside the cube. There are 8 cube faces but in this program we only observe seven at a time. Think of this when we try to mix forces and colors as they relate to higher dimensional notations.

But this had me thinking a little about what we mean by consciousness- rather what some have posted in the blogs mean by consciousness. I have my doubts it is enough even topologically or materially for an explanation. Consciousness as a vague general thing seems to me at least a ghostly concept such as energy or gravity or empty space itself at first blush as a fundamental reality in the universe. Consciousness cannot be as rare as some maintain- it too can be seen as universal unless maybe it is confined in some boundary of an inner space. So while I do not see ideas of recursion and fractals, or of sheets of membranes of some kind as the key to consciousness (that is what we sense and wish it was to understand it and not a vision no matter how profoundly felt cannot be shared or explained to other consciousnesses. Such is a mystical feeling and things could be that way- but the false praise as if the wished for theory is there to support some idea in our own fields of enquiry, our own sort of magic healing, is perhaps a partial understanding and even misuse of mathematical methods. There is hope in such explorations and feelings- after all we are complicated conscious beings and no scientists I know of would say that consciousness is not a part of a general reality- maybe a unified one at that. Some also hold out for a more reductionist explanation. Philosophers moreover may claim these two too intimately connected to distinguish. This is certainly a difficult long standing problem to which much thought is offered on it.

Something we seem to experience in the paranormal realm like Remote Viewing seems to me for all practical purposes real enough. Ulla posted a link to this recently where the author has profound praise for the application of n-adic numbers to the work of TGD. It was a helpful explanation or interpretation for the theory itself but it leaves me a little uneasy for what is experienced in things like remote viewing and what could be an association with more of a new age mystical idea. But we overlook some of personal beliefs for the sake of what is the math and science or for that matter what is actually observed or experienced that does seem to us magical. Most likely the compass of such theories is incomplete that is if in the end there is any concrete explanation at all.

My best guess this morning, and the decision for even discuss consciousness as science when it is just a good description of quantum things as the material aspects (if we take Penrose's vision on this as complete and most elegant). It that consciousness is or can be found or defined as a difference between the potential and the behaviour so expressed. In short it is at least grounded on the unity needed in physics models if not it grounds this itself. But considering the more general aspects of space- for angles can reverse as time and space travelers face or flee away from each other when they come back completing some circle. But I do not regard this as a very deep guess. On the other hand, we can expect the usual paradoxes and analogies that arise in issues of time travel in the idea of a pure space itself.

The ideas of recursion do not help us much either because in these matter of complex numbers what seems a recursive formula is really a complete function- and we know, not allowing division by zero, that only positive values apply to say the factorials in normal and complex space. Unconsciousness in a sense is not that we cannot see the nothingness at the flatland of such zeros (or if you desire, zero points) but that we cannot beyond this boundary of the infinite negative.

It is of course a deep insight that the small values can be extended to have great effects- again, we confuse beyond the boundary flatland what is actually and expansion or compactification- we confuse the depth and span of space as to what is the macro and micro-cosm. But in the induction logic the informational codes also intelligibly predict errors that may arise eventually after a long time in a running program. If this were not true then what would explain the universe not fundamentally a divergent thing that leads to a total chaos?

From my quasic view- that is the essential concept which says that things can be touching at a distance in some sense. It is not necessary, but not forbidden, that between certain jumps or membranes there has to be a topological or even a material connection. This too corresponds with the logic where it applies with complex ideas of the braids and twists and identities and general relative value as if consciousness a field and a unity. In short we need a better understanding after all of the ideas of locality and non-locality in the depths and span of inner and outer space. But even then I am not satisfied this is a good or complete explanation of consciousness. The skeleton of such as structure in the illustration has at times seemed to me a description of consciousness or of something like it- and I called it Odocell back when- but basically it is all the structures in the world that seem to have a nucleus or an inner part. An egg, a flower, an atom, a solar system, a planet, a brain stem... on and on. Yes, and cube centered projections of the hypercube. But we are not discussing the stuff of awareness in a universe as if a question of what is God, the philosopher's one or not- and yet unless we wake up and pass out rapidly and long enough to be aware of the flicker we do not become so aware of this issue- nor do the birds outside in their expression and behavior. Yet, the problem is at least as difficult as the questions of God and I suspect this still way beyond the scope of our philosophy and science- as we make some headway on the frontier and lure of the problem of consciousness.

There is something profound in all this, as if we collectively color and touch each other at a distance but not as a continuum only. Such influences can in the background determine our choices yet these can be hidden from the herd. This sort of weather and economics is far removed from the actual behavior of such confused logic and systems of math and mankind as a frontier of the dispassionate speculations.

Perhaps, and this is a speculation of sorts, between the inner and outer aspects of such spaces what is after all distinct can be connected across them- but it is not in a world that cannot relate the concepts of multiverse and universe in an intelligible manner nor envision a general space of dynamic shapes and numbers that describe things by divisions by zero in a way that leaves us with all or nothing. In one space we can have vast logical coherence and a sense of complete explanation while the other space is not seen or felt at all. Just as there are things we do not know yet about such spaces- there are still things we do not know about our concept of number. And yet, 30 yrs ago, I like everyone else saw the role of say the prime numbers as ultimately fundamental but elusive, anyone who has enough experience and faith in their own consciousness to look for what they think they see and to see it thru the eyes and themselves in cold objective truth. On that we can fill the colors in with the passion- on that we can know that after all in the end we were of one shared awakening.

* * *

I found this yesterday and post it here for reference: Everyone seems to think about these things as if they discovered them and relate them to DNA and so on- I think this is a natural tendency in anyone with such an interest aware of how their own notions may evolve- but it is probably part of the picture of what others are thinking too. It is no longer clear to me that what we discover independently will support the facts of some great speculation. But in saying this I do not mean it a confusion of certainties say between the experiment and the experimenter.

http://www.brooksdesign-ps.com/Code/Html/pin2.htm

The prime and triangle thing caught my eye, I post here for prime number references also.

* * *

Having said this, first put it into an expressed and clear form (at least to myself) I still see an optimistic path for our individual efforts of enquiry. But each of us has to go down our own paths for now and some of our stances are invisible to each other... save we work on some touchstone detail of the greater picture. This in now way detracts from the powers of training, sense of paths to explore, and abstract intelligience. We debate here with most poetic terms things like the "rotting corpse of SUSY" while trying to make sense or recover this expected freedom of generalization which after all is the abstract sense of many dimensions. I suppose it is a question of what sort of world or context we desire to be in and if we can dare to evaluate and make new changes.

What does it mean (and certainly the series that only consider the primes are the more powerful tools) to say we have a region or plane of 80 symmetrical around some abstract object then observe with the 8 natural and timelike dimensions we add to that for 88, 89 with the one then say it part of an "infinite prime" property? We know there are such naieve restrictions but do we grasp how they really work?

I find a limit too in the permutations as information coordinates if straitforward of the matching of cubes with coordinates of distinct units or duality pairs of them. I mean in what sense is there a valid space where the 6! are the solutions- the use of color as I have toyed with does seem to imply the next space beyond properties such as association, beyond octonions, is a triality and so on... but these are little issues requiring brute calculations or some more elegant insight.

If in the abstract I can entertain the notion of three distinct things taken four at a time distinctly- why not 6 distinct things taken eight eight at a time distinctly? Or does nature indeed only take the first few computations and hide what is potential but conscious or not apply only what she needs?

But this post is beyond that- as if I again outgrow the medium of my dialog and more importantly outgrow myself. For I can ask now what in the inner space as something akin to a membrane is in fact connected to the outer space in the detail and dynamic evolving? This seems like a hint to better combine such spaces as if we say there are deeper symmetries in something like the opaque (that is dark) matter notions. But this permits enquiry awhile without the need for great and yet distant cosmic speculations. And as an abstract model may open the doors to things like new concrete material physics so as to test the properties thereoff.

* * *

Philosophically, some desire to see the interconnectedness of all things- and vaguely so. But is this not just so many singularities in a group as far as the compass of the natural physics go as the n! of them in the so called simplexes? Or is the idea of such topological, structural differences so described in the conceptual system even contained at all? In a sense the spirt or poetry of it needs not our abstraction of intellect if our behaviors endure and work at all. But we are somehow, and classically, above the doings and purposes of the birds for we have often asked more of ourselves and expect more from the meaning of this world.

* * *



Vaguely, after talking with my friend who studies I Chung and Kung Fu, he mentioned his son wanting to learn about auras and how to see them. This was after this post when I had suggested he become more focused an analytic in is music and medical transcription studies. In the discussion it occurred to me that one thing I said may not be a certain thing. That perhaps, if there is some sort of color (after all the master or mentor explained it all concerned water) that we can see it by physical things perhaps as simple as the television screen that after all pics up the pixels from the big bang like background. But what of color if the information is there? It is here we do have early quantum thoughts and levels of things in steps which suggest something exists, then perceived as light, then color, then a sort of extra-sensory level (see Ramsburger in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy who btw was the father-in-law of Cloak who was mentioned by Dawkins in his meme book.)

But by itself this is all speculation, in fact seems to suggest to me the possibility that somewhere there are non-linear links to things that collapse into hidden effects of symmetric changes (that is from what is within or without some zero grounding be it relative or real, continuous or discrete, material or not. In the article your post linked to Ulla that inspired these thoughts the author did not exactly seem to understand the deeper connections and smooth if necessary at all as transition at all from the quantum through the Brownian to the classical views.

So, in the weird speculations on quantum ideas the all important decisions we make or even the ones we do not make can affect things at a distance- for example what shows we choose to watch on television may influence the choices of others. I am no expert on how the learned arrived at such notions but we can analyze them. This sort of twisting or braiding beyond even the internal symmetries of action at a distance seems to me such an idea of a hidden super entanglement regardless of what we mean by distance as a dimension. I post the idea of shadow code in case we do form a more general idea and need symbols beyond say mixed i j and k's as it seems Rowlands and Pitkanen suggests.

These are hard and subtle ideas to discuss and are not meant do discourage any path of enquiry- indeed, my friend getting over a breakup is just beginning to think clearly again and the simple principles from his mentor seem to help- one of which is that we need not add to someones burden by excessive criticism- and yet there is a point where we may not want one to not reach to perceive greater truths- that is go a little beyond misconceptions and delusion- of which this goal beyond the mentor to be aware of oneself reflectively so as not to be in delusion my friend agreed was right, a sort of self-healing. I did ask him what they say consciousness was and this came up in the course of the dialog.

Nothing said in the comments is wrong, only I think, where it is real, we can see and reach a little further.