Last night I did not do much but some informal and casual explorations without a directed focus. It told me I should learn a little more about graph theory, that some of these stray thoughts may be well developed and covered in the literature. But after the last post, even though a thought is here of an even deeper metaphysical nature (in Rowland's sense) nothing I write would feel as deep. That idea is that if we have an iota particle (more or less a point on a string from whatever seemingly infinite directions and so on) may come into existence only upon the duality exploding or expansion from a concrete geometrical structure, that in the heart of them at some context of a center singularity is the iotaplex of an integral count of grounding nodes for particle structure. This would suggest, as in Rowlands view, that this sort of difference grounds the observed particle differences without the need for a supersymmetry for their unification and yet the forces can be compared intelligibly even if not from the standard idea of one common force origin.
* * *
On the way back home from the coffee shop I did have a further idea on the "crust" theory of my last post. Basically, we can have a coherent and intelligible geometry between mirrors and the totality of it does not know which "holes" it describes or surrounds- is there a physics to handle these possibilities including the multiverse concept cases? Do they vanish into some sort of Cantor dust or are they independent and opaque or do they fit together in general as leaks of heat or gravity or even mass to form some sort of observable physics of measure? And lastly, the properties of superconductivity indeed appears as that of the boundaries outside that between mirrors. Why in general should we expect that given electromagnetism that it counters the effects of gravity by itself? Does this sea of holes average things out even indirectly such that we do emphasize the quantum world of mixing even if in a deep sense these are virtual and outside of the observable universe, even if we imagine them in some complex space?
From one view these sort of descriptions of "non-creative" holes no matter what the topology of the physicality of knots of crusts as formed or directed is independent and maybe irrelevant for description no matter what the complexity of the possibilities of compact spaces as an infinity of mirrors of which many search among the intelligible logic of it for some structure that would seem to express our laws of observable reality among the sea of innumerable possibilities.
* * *
I suppose, in the back of my mind, I begin to question if methods of such magic squares are powerful enough to at least describe what is, if not what rather is not- but that is the usual metaphysical question, especially considering Leibnizian backgrounds for our physicality. We still walk a tightrope as to what is a physical or metaphysical principle as if in the crust of our notions all is quasi-physical at least in descriptions of our reality so is or is not but a quasi-physical theory.
* * *
Perhaps, as in the link on Riofrios's page ( http://riofriospacetime.blogspot.com/2011/03/inflation-may-need-air.html )to the sci am article on inflation theory- and more thoughts on eternal inflation and cyclic universes (of which this too may be a tightrope of joint possibilities from some view) that from a metaphysical notion where possibilities are not forbidden(quantum style) yet that forbidden is not arbitrarily contrived, that what is and has occurred infinite times in effect has never occurred thus the origin of flatness despite our ideas of exponentiation in the notations that balance to some zero, at all.
The article discusses (between the extremes of a focused big bang like initial center to be moderated by conditions were general space evokes properties from its sparser emptiness- indeed, the measure of inflation regions not simply that of volume nor the supposed energy measures conserved or derived from it-) cases that raise the notion of anthrocentricity where most likely "bad inflation regions" can be more descriptive of the reality we so find ourselves within. So I take it as a meso cosmic psychological statement as to the states of minds we find with variation between the great macro singularity and the micro-iotaplexes. It is then about perception, the phaneron of backgrounds as to what may or may not be the concrete reality so perceived or as a possibility of perception. Such states of mind will of course find it intelligible and logical to imagine what is not seen and there seems no way in general to distinguish the concreteness of such a description of reality nor the mind of the perceiver and theoretician.
For an ultimate absolute is more general on the same level of perceptive backgrounds than any particular absolute that it may contain even if these are on the same scaoe level (where sums and products are the same initial and ongoing description. Thus theories can move, evolve in general or in particular, slowly or rapidly, inevitibly or vanish, even return again as a possibility.
* * *
Does anyone else see in the numerology of this article which asks for a better understanding of this technical achievement and unforeseen general effects, such as 14 or 64 and so on?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110401085103.htm
* * *
Footnote: In the illustration I am asking for a count of what inside some dimensional object may popcorn vector outside. In a sense we can have a view of a pure point or naked supersingularity (certain one that is a center or even a limit) as some point only theories describe things- or the string or ray itself may so describe things as there may not be a place where the iota particles are absolute. Yet between crusts one could imagine some particles to show isolated states if we break the string- provided in the general background these can be a realized temporal physicality that can be relatively stable. Or we can continue to imagine such cosmic forces in theory at least as disembodied ghosts.
No comments:
Post a Comment