Pseudemys Scripta Elegans

Pseudemys Scripta Elegans

Which was a very big string of words for a child with a small one for a pet. The magic of it, the kids who could say and spell triceratops but not average words.

In the illustration I wanted to emphasize that the numbers (here decimal) are not simply fixed to the plane- nor are representations say of arrays of partitions withing partitions. I am not sure of course if the general idea of this space exists already or is conveyed in my posts- but I do know that as hard as some links for me are to follow, like in links to general articles in wiki- that there are paths in which from one simple link the hint of but no further links are there. I imagine because the knowledge is too esoteric or lacking somehow. On the other hand this strikes me as a measure of the depths of the higher space and math conceptions.

So, choosing for now Sel' and so on, beginning with El for elegant and super-elegant space, I tried to take the next step of exploring beyond the dimensions so far. I cannot say that these stacked Conway matrices explain the generations of particles but it does seem to intelligibly fit into the general picture. So on some scale of these spaces or state of them we find a vast world full of surprises- some of which are not visible nor expected and some that go beyond our ability to fundamentally define- for beyond just axioms invoked those who work on the foundations seem to need a theory of foundations for the foundations.

This suggests to me that there may be further particles of a sort to which we really have no idea how to imagine them- or have some idea, what for example we would expect of a Higgs. It supplies mass and mass is like the foundation on which the world rests, a sort of infinite regress, an idea logically that it can find or lose mass or can give or take mass away depending on our grounding vision of what mass or physics is. It does not seem a bootstrapping, a remixing of what is that self-defines- but this too on the absolute level is a question of metaphysics.

So, do we need now to question the metaphysics underlying the metaphysics? Surely where these abstract matrices are seen as an intelligible stereonometry we might just begin to imagine other principles of physics, levels that explain things more deeply and differently.

Of course the map of particles considering their parameters and so on if we were to make a graph of them, especially where these are finite and not a straight line or easily describable curve or fairly accurate distribution of things, how these particles and energy levels behave even with discontinuities in the graph speak for a quasi-continuous result from the expected in other directions of modern physics standpoints- including string like theories.

Like the fabled turtle, unlike him rather, we quite imagine a lowest level, a Planck level of sorts, to which all things must be held up, stand. But this case is not clearly the case anymore than the infinite regress. It does seem on the face of it to be a reasonable case, a reductionist one. But even in the first few dimensions and levels of exploration of these space structures and color cubes we can get a glimpse of even stranger worlds of foundational ideas. How far can the Sel primes go? What does it ultimately mean if a unit structure or a complex structure can be classified as we do singularities?

Metaphysically, I think we should look a little deeper at say the idea of muons and all else not a muon- that is the metaphysical idea of Rowlands. Some things we may find from our atom smasher experiments on some super-elegant but not necessarily super-symmetrical space may not be something we know what we are seeing. This seems to be the case with some recent data suggesting new particles and forces which are either the same as very old particles or different enough to be an anomaly.

I suggest that it is not necessarily possible to distinguish such a higher Sel' particle from a black hole. It is a question of this idea of multiplicity or indempotency at singularity. This merged or opaque exist, not-exist entity could be a whole new level of the grounding of physics in what we mean by space and mass.

The problems with say trying to find in space of a 3 x 3 x 3 arrangement or other such restrictions in the numbers themselves and their patterns- from the viewpoint of quasic space grids are a boon rather than a problem so they define dimensions as well some may interpret things as what are the particles and energies of things.

* * *

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3445484

* * * *

Here is the poem (almost a good song from my "I am the Weather" series) in which I actually take up the issue of touch and sight as geometry and action at a distance where the robin's red is some sort of cosmic afterglow.

Through Blinds, Glass-ly L. Edgar Otto April 2011



Another snow on the Robin's back

Cruel month of spring, false starts, new loves



But I cling to your red breast

distant your touch, my cradle second best



I will trade our hugs for light that

your shining glow sleeps not alone at night



Your heart in frozen creeping time

Builds up to storms of fire and ice



Dancing in your skin, talking to the air

As I pick my nose, you muss up your red shift hair



In this world or in some other, further

pretend we do not see, so close our dance together



Oh, you've dyed your hair in compliment

to robin's egg blue, too late to make it true



You who take our light for hugs

where nature's drapes matches the rugs...



* * * *




a comment on the graph at http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/blog/guess_plot-78246

In the back of my mind it reminds me of densities or packing in spaces maybe of particles on certain levels. I did not think about this a lot but it keeps coming back and a graph of this would be interesting anyway. Why indeed would there not be a straight line or an interesting curve or for that matter some scattering of data points- and not these plateaus and discontinuities and so on. A picture that perhaps has said a thousand words if we only knew how to sort them and expand them when it is but a narrow outline of which we do not know if information was lost nor if we can improve our instrumentation's and theories. Or is there still something deeper in those lines that appear horizontal?

* * *

The astronomer Stubbs from Kea's link today and his philosophy of dark energy is most interesting. Inspiring really, (I am up to where is is pushing for more experimental gravity measures on all scales).

On the other hand, I think we will resolve this, a shorter period of dark ages, as he mentions what happened just before the discovery of quantum mechanics- in fact, some of us have already broken thru to the next theoretical golden period for the new physics. ahh its over, well- where should we look? he asks as he closes:
I suggest more closely at the way we do mathematics and topology with perhaps a little more creative interpretations. Good follow up questions and honest answers about fine structure constants and suggestions to explore them with experiments and observations- and for the quasars and dark matter that still an open question (especially "anthropic cop out philosophies and paradigms" in relation to this sort of theory and so on...)

What about 10^n! , 10^720 for example? Let us found reductionism better before we declare it as the foundation- I say... But is such experimenting possible to be falsified? In the end what can be regarded as real, the physicality, eventually merges intelligibly theoretical and applied mathematics. The ultimate antropic principle is that we are observing the light and insights from this anthrope- not yet thru an analog of some gravitational non-reductionist lens.

* * *