Unified Reality on Both Sides of the Mirror

It struck me last night while I was pondering 24 in the 109 and so on that the methods of Kea's in general and in braiding theory are remarkably similar to my long time use of the binary system as "quasic" information (even before computers and awareness that this was an interest to others in the world) I thought at first is was a sort of Unitary Field Theory and it may still be but the concept is much more general now- I said as much to the chancellor at UNC one year but that did not help me become a student- nor the 3D quasicrystals (admissions officers apparently know little mathematics or science). The director of biological research had a much different attitude and seemed keenly interested in pattern theory on amphibians to which she having Alzheimers so soon to retire gave my wife and child and I $100, why I asked- for research (that or we were homeless at the time).

The idea of crossings or braids in this more abstract space I treat as if the crossing or merging of colors of the coordinates (the ambiguity in fact as the standard notations of such crossings). Of course there are notations inside the notations such as partitioning in partitions as more general coordinate systems. It is not clear to me that braid systems have to close or clearly remain open or somewhere in between as if a crossing as to what is real on which side of a mirror (as certainly, especially those with point only theories of everything form a logically closed system and feel certain of their lesser stage and climb to higher theories as a total theory- the reality on some mirror side of notions and the implied unreality on the other side).

If we imagine connections between so many things and expand exponentially on enumerating them until the move faster and faster in computing, and it fills us our minds almost as if to take it over, the rings do connect and fall out or leak from the seemingly inflationary fray. But does such precipitation fall down or meet again to leak into higher realms of ambiguous spaces of gravity. I must say, that despite all these ideas that seem to be unifying I do not see how they more than metaphorically relate to the vague term "gravity" unless perhaps it intrinsically pulls and pushes from some concept of sides of partitions and mirrors- but what we call mass or gravity or even space seems a little more abstract than our defining.

I do not know if the 24 or 20 things that come up here in the application of combination's and so on relate to the upper reaches of the recent results in interpreting Ramanujan in the same way as I envision but it would be worth scrutiny by those advanced in the ratified notation and visions of the field.

It is also remarkable that interpenetrating three golden rectangles comes from the idea of those inscribed in the icosahedron already of simple three space 5-fold symmetry to reach a level of understanding dimensions, such as the string theories, where we find again systems of such symmetries. 2^5 x 5! = 5 x 768 or 10 x 384.


* * *

three times the cube sub-elements (or tau unit cube of some color) is 24 36 18 3 = 27 and all that implies.

four times it is 32 48 24 4 for 108, +1 for we count too the higher dimensional cell. Or 28 arises by +1 to 27 again in three space intelligibly. Or simply the multiplication of these things as x4 minus x3 that is 109 - 81 = 28.

the density of star polygons relate too as the incidence matrix say of 8 objects does describe the various diagonals.

I was somewhat interested in this flattened rhombohedron shape of the golden surfaces connected as 24 points such that it includes 8 triangles in addition but the squares are all trapezoids. These in a way are superfluous to the integrity of the physical structure.

Here is a delightful dissection of an 8 pt star that goes into an octagon that reminds me of my tau based Otto symbol:



* * *

What is the subjective resistance from some side of mirrors of which our ideas radiate outward (perhaps in some general space really requiring a much higher view we can find there are star honeycombs in a way after all.) Sure we can feel the certainty of a system or theory of everything in itself at the rejection of the reality of others- but if there is such a universal ideal theory to so encounter how can the reality of the resistance remain in the face of what is concrete general theories of the truth? That or we should abandon science in favor of some general acceptance of hallucinations and confabulations based on equality of psychologies of world views.

* * *

Kea's theory update and links were especially interesting to me today and do indeed evoke within a more general view of dimensions connections and possible ones which can be surprising. But the informational laws if consistent and coherent should after all cover all our representations and notions, symmetrical or not. Clearly this is a step beyond the standard theory.



* * *

I might conclude that years ago when Prof. Jim Stashef was consulted by the string theorist on the related topology that the surprise is that it was the topology that led to a more comprehensive theory of particles and space.

What of a simple vision of stacked stars and a restriction on a variable 5pt star mould... how long was it we moved to the polar climes without all but stray lightning bolt discovery of fire and yet in the struggle survived thin times between fleeting generations? Stacked as helices, solenoid or distinguishably extended with the handedness, and the star itself a two way spiral that can only hold so many generations of stars until the spiral vanishes under the others. I have to agree (with Kea) in this vague vision that particles have to start on the level of four things. But who knows when the hidden simplexes are counted just how far from the depth and span of infinity that some things even in the non-associative generalization of probability (especially where point theories are complicated by the uncertainty principle) that some things can become associative again?

* * *

Now I just clicked on Kea's link of papers: http://web.williams.edu/Mathematics/devadoss/papers.html a lot of reading to do but I find it Beautiful, Beautiful!, and that much from the poet in me feels reassured of the truth of such theories.

* * *

I must say that although I have conceived of such structures in this more spacious range of interacting lower dimensions, the dihedron, independent edges, even the distinguishing of point singularities as string and particle like of null dimensions, that it did not occur to me not knowing these applications in the standard notations that they could be placed in a more general theory of the things like Catalan numbers. I suspect moreover that they give a grounding for lags and jumps of such iotaplex particles seeming to move between curves on a still graph when absolute numbers are involved.

But what is a theory that we constantly explore its span and depths perhaps to question just how far any such theories should go before we saturate or satiate and rest comfortably on its further simplicities and complexities? One thing for sure, for those who in the general populace who want to know but cannot gauge the learning curve to become relative competent in a field, let alone creative enough to give or recognize some original and fundamental new knowledge, that in the end we come closer to notions that contain the concepts thus accessible such that it fulfills some of their curiosity and mystery, perhaps allay fears, to uplift the significance of our noble intellect of achievements- such that the explanation of this part of our experience of reality- even a child could understand?

* * *

In Kea's special update a few posts ago, in he comments a link to this proof:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0809/0809.1584v1.pdf
and I think such a proof would be welcome and in its compass make a leap to even more general topology theories- but alas, very little in the language and notation was something I could read at all. But I do find it beautiful for the calligraphy's sake, like old Chinese poems still copied but the meaning lost long ago.

* * *