Fundamental Polygonal Superspace

Fundamental Polygonal Superspace

There are various "fundamental polygons" describing "manifolds" such as the Clfford square- all these ideas on space have some standard terms and notations. Last night I thought in general I would use the quasic grid methods not just to show a fractal like covering of different levels of parity and so on- but to suggest that the cells or squares may be different and may describe or even classify certain styles of space. What this amounts to- assuming there are ideas not in the standard literature that are original here- is that we open up the possibility and ground the idea of the depth and span distinction in space in general. The great distinction is what is surface and on what orientation of that is the inside and outside- but this does not hold when the surface is a discrete one- in general. To say that all in four space is a sphere if it allows shrinking to a point (one that is still at that and not elliptic or twisting) does not follow from philosophic principles (where intuition meets the concrete of our abstraction, where the meaning of language meets the metalanguage and logic) already fails as a theorem because the idea of compact (another illy defined term!) as a finite system and an informational quasic system does not clearly shrink to a point unto a rigid coordinate place. This true locally and globally. What this means is we not only ground the depth and field of superspace but in its ambiguity locally the overall global effects on space of such scales makes a dynamic relation and evolution across scales for unique and yet variably realized universal configurations. These may or may not as paradoxes enforce restrictions in what can be a law or theory of physics of all possibly applied.

* * *

Interestingly, if we sort our matrices by the n(n+1)/2 to find the triangular number and the main diagonal- a sort of reverse process is functional like that of analysis as a general idea namely 2n+1... This sort of computation a lot in my dreams relating to square things, a sort of finite intuitive anti-differentiation idea.

* * *

BTW I am just using "Superspace" as a general term here and not proposing it as applying to any particular manifold. The polygon diagrams in the illustration are just a random artistic sampling of so many possibilities (after all the 248 dimensional case is a hundred fold? containing information than that in our DNA as the idea of maximum symmetry). Beyond that, thinking of these things like Branes with some idea a connection between them (what I called Lincoms a couple of years ago but have since found there are names for such theoretical proposed particles)- that is if we have to keep up this difference of field and particle in whatever senses, quantum or classical and so on, we could also imagine the orientation of the manifolds as having 8 fold dihedral symmetry at each cell.

But the vague concept I have here is a sort of "distance" in this superspace that is not quite as precise as say quantum formalism or classical spaces or other forms of topological or physical invariants. Nor of a fractal like quasic treatment where these concepts intersect or merge perhaps in a unified theory- or especially our concepts where in terms of physicality- what we or nature herself can "see" and "touch" that some things or processes are invisible to each other; that:

Lampion- A certain topological configuration of manifolds in a region of natural or Compacted space, be it self contained in symmetry or divergent asymmetric within its own description of space, through a sort of scale or super-distance the geometry so determined by the manifold turns and twists or presence of matter or singularities can have an affect on a mirror space which may constrain, influence, or expel divergent together in an implied but hidden manner the configuration of some other space. An organic example would be the influence of protein structure on other protein types (which would seem rare if dependent on proximity this side of the mirror and spooky if at some distance this side of the mirror. But the mathematics for such mechanisms when real may have solid foundations here. Such influences are not then seen as mysterious even as an analog to how space bends and determines things on the level of our ideas of dimensions only appropriate to spacetime continua.

As such the total picture might define the limits of something as abstract or relative as intelligence or lifespan (if indeed such distinctions mean anything in genius or time or rigidity of inheritance.) From the question of excess sleep along the lines of Descartes dreaming late in bed newscientist reports this excess sleep seems to reset things such that it aids the learning of something new. I suggest that it also allows the usual "sleep on it" to actually calculate and consider something new with the things of which we learn. But such sleep learning or dreaming may not be a good thing or only work to some degree in an individual before the awareness reaches a limit or some sort of entropy to which the learning cannot go any further at the time or to which the solution to questions have saturated the possibilities taking resources away from other survival adaptive needs. But one does not have to work in the area of dreams to see these sort of quasi-mortal stances to occur in individuals- if we observe ourselves and others truly in the social wakened world.

But I am not suggesting that the structure of our thoughts (and not words or propaganda) can directly convince others- the experiments reporting recent evidence of such ESP are too shoddy a research to take seriously. (again, on all levels what we wish in a theory may not be what is possible as the key to a true theory). On the other hand- we certainly should be familiar as much as we can with the dynamics of our own thinking. That some such distance effects could be there in theory seems to me as likely as any of the theories offered to explain more reductionist scenarios.

But can the shadow of such a dust determined space influence the dust in the shadow space on the other side of what seems the real or hidden mirrors? In a way in the big picture over space and time it is only our lack of a wider view in which we can ask this question as if it makes sense or a difference in explaining the world.

* * *