Where Hidden Abstraction Meets the Hidden Concrete
Of course the above illustration is but a sketch, a suggestion to assign things like color and order. This brings us back to our ideas on entropy and like most theories unless the limited process and method is necessarily the building up of a system, we consider what we ultimate mean by Entropy in a wider freedom of non-necessary logic and all its core paradoxes and freedoms.
Thus in a sense we wonder just how the idea of axes and permutations may fit in, surely the formal definitions of entropy apply- the partial differential concept as if some relation to surface cells or angles and axes. Clearly, we can observe the increase of order over time by crystal growth in relation to the more limiting places that new structures may fit into those already crystallized together. In this sense the solving of some problems, even the probabilistic and non-linear, grow easier toward some final solution as the time proceeds.
So, with more possible systems than flat orientations of abstract structures which in effect asks a source problem, we wonder at the ultimate motion and source of touch and sight, of light. For while we can imagine systems that utilize these abstract principles built on abstract objects becoming in effect concrete, we still have to go a step further into the depths if we are to define a deeper reason behind this wider and non-necessary dialectic of matter and abstraction. We may not be able in such a wider generalization to defend what is concrete should we build it up from say, some form of polytopal structures although it is obvious.
If we, for example, form an idea where creative structures may as shadows in a lower dimension accumulate more or less at some center of a topological structure this side of the hidden and unknown ideas of singularity, if at said centering or the illusion of it we derive energy or heat say a the core of a galaxy or planet- it certainly can be a place where these source extremes of structures also accumulate or on some level escape and undermine the global states of physical balance (we do not just sit on the idea that the electromagnetic relate to and hold off the collapse of stars from the gravity). Thermodynamics is deep evidence of such structural processes more than it is but a universal limitation and ground of the various ways such universal laws apply to the real world of natural dimensions.
Time aside in relation to defining it for a bit of light- encountered as a fact if it can be then it had no disturbed path- and the idea of gravitational lens as a fuzzy region really to which Einstein pointed out what is light seen and what is the motions relevant between systems, thru such as span as the diameter of the star- is a different animal from what is seen on the outside. In questions of light from the first stars this is even a more complicated case. But does a star really exist before it is seen, even one photon by a sentient being- and by our circumstances within such a creative reference frame as if a black hole, does it really suggest we have a wide ability where quantum wise the present can determine the history of the past? Or are these notions in some sense facts that are artifacts of what may be our dialects of non-necessarily incomplete general systems we often feel may remain so?
Ultimately, can it be that thermodynamics as we apply it to our theories is at heart a non-necessary concept as to at least its directions of time and order?
* * *
Missed Comments:
I just found a comment that the blog listed as spam and have to correct it so I post the comment here also and my reply. Also this great link of great content.
http://nige.wordpress.com/
nige said...
The best definition is that the "amateur" does science, and the "professional" is a paid priest of science.
"Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
If that Wikipedia (itself a consensus/dogma in its own right, which censors out information which has already been censored out by others) claim were true, "superstring theory" would be in trouble.
"A field, practice, or body of knowledge might reasonably be called pseudoscientific when (1) it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research; but (2) it demonstrably fails to meet these norms." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience#Identifying_pseudoscience
Paul Feyerabend explained that there are not "norms" just facts in "Against Method". Whatever works and is useful can be considered science.
"Karl Popper stated that it is insufficient to distinguish science from pseudoscience, or from metaphysic ... Popper proposed falsifiability as an important criterion in distinguishing science from pseudoscience." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience#Identifying_pseudoscience
I accurately predicted from two alternative sets of theoretical calculations, the cosmological acceleration of the universe in 1996 and published, two years ahead of confirmation. That was a falsifiable prediction in 1996, fitting Popper's criterion. Nature and CQG both rejected it as "speculative" before confirmation and "ad hoc" afterwards (despite referring clearly to the publication in other journals like Electronics World), disproving Popper. They simply didn't accept the paper because it wasn't built on string theory. Like the Gestapo, if they want to suppress something, they'll use a fake reason then refuse to continue dialogue. They're not rational: they say they don't have time for nonsense, etc. One interesting thing is the requirement for error in a "scientific" discipline:
"Lack of boundary conditions: Most well-supported scientific theories possess well-articulated limitations under which the predicted phenomena do and do not apply." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience#Use_of_vague.2C_exaggerated_or_untestable_claims
This is particularly laughable. If you have a correct theory, there are no boundary conditions by definition. Only if your theory is wrong does it have limits, by definition. Suppose you discover a correct theory: any effort to found boundary limits beyond which it breaks down will fail. Imposing the requirement that such boundary limits must be found before the theory is taken seriously will mean that it is never taken seriously. The stupidity of groupthink is extremely obvious!
* * *
ThePeSla said...
For some reason, maybe the length, this post was placed in spam. Thank you for the general notions and the relation to the philosophy of science. Your closing statement is most interesting of which I must give it deep thought.
The acceleration you foreseen is impressive. Thank you for pointing this out to us.
* * *
And this poetic idea came to my mind lately: In reply to Kea's kind comment.
ThePeSla said...
Kea,
Perhaps we learn to look before we leap but the risk is worth it. Yes, the idea of Pride has bad press with good reason.
But in the courage to face the unknown, enquire I am but a lowly Leon- while as the head of our pride you are the Lionessence...
* * *
Guess the following turned out a Political Rant of sorts:
Which brings to mind- that in our explorations in childhood we rapidly learned that if we were to see what was under rocks and logs we should come from behind and not in front of lifting them.
Lately, and this sight today evokes such feelings: http://eskesthai.blogspot.com/2011/04/space.html a blog I follow- and perhaps with all the tornadoes here and in my old stomping grounds in North Carlolina. Perhaps the Iowa prairie.
What boundaries really in our dream can be safe? For awhile at least, I mean those special places we desire as if breathing room for childhood or a gazebo somewhere in the acres in the woods in which to write freely, perhaps stories of exploration and childhood. We after all, such a garden of dreams with time its shield as much as its ultimate invasion and dissolution. Only a few times have I had brief periods of such a longed for and secure place hopefully work, just to think. On the other hand the pace of things- I have learned to write on the run and in the rain.
I wonder also what people do- ice fishing still up north where those in the great outdoors do not want to return to a fixed place- rather be fishing around the clock. People do things, their little villages with life going on to what they may desire and no one writes the book of what they do with their lot of life- make a living- well they catch the great catfish too, he bounty as well the dangers of the tropical jungle. Sometimes our desires are not what we really think would be a normal way to live- why does everyone need to mortgage themselves to a chi-rot of pollution and metal as if it the norm of a fundamental right? And so on- in a world where we support collectively the weak we have cultivated and made dependent on us. Are we so many that if the very few answer the wide world of say television advertisements that the many who cannot sleep some night find only infomercials- do people watch them? Does the media care or not how vicious the political ads?
Why the great sound of sucking into the drain man-made of the cost of living? Could we not freeze the price awhile, get to the source of juggling of class differences? Could we not make it a crime that, say for example, one greedily skirts around the law like the movie company under Nixon making their profits from concessions telling the workers to put two ounces less soda when they sell it. But then did I really every understanding economics or politics, does anyone? Wealth is a problem of moral and legal bailments of which some like sharks wait for the scraps of others in auctions and locks of abandonment when such procedures although legal if overseen and restricted would break the downfall of good and working individuals with sentiments and it would be for the general good of society. How foolish I was and a little late to think society made sense when it finds you in the crowd. May the villagers keep their world of peace, their garden and their sense of what it means and how to live. But if one can sleep outside, if one can sleep in the grass and concrete and rain, like sunlight his spirit cannot be metered nor wealth measured even if to the eyes of society his babbles and machines even the backward manage to maintain and acquire while they pray they keep their jobs and get to work and have a few hours to dream perhaps of vague romance that never comes as strong or real as their needs. In our consumer world, use once and throw away, no work nor place nor accumulation of wealth, nor relationship is more than a blip on a given day- and those who connect with higher intuitions are not poisoned by their own falling apart beyond what is natural as if the gods protect the children and forgive the poets.
* * *
Packing of Grassman chords: (apparently another great exploration by Conway also)
http://www2.research.att.com/~njas/doc/grass.pdf
For these ideas and the branches of theory the expand into I have but one statement:
That in view of quasic space as a further generalization we can find a less restricted view of dimensions in which these concepts certainly apply on some level so we should keep this overview when we use these ideas for new physics. In particular certain directions of connections or certain flattening between strictly separated dimensions or their flattened (or expanded) representations may find better shadow polyhedra and symmetries to represent such eutaxy of vector stars. It does not seem enough to me to describe space, even to the incredible detail in so many higher dimensions, to say that in four space we have diverse systems to consider and keep that in mind- if we want to go beyond the application into physicality and a better grasp of any totalities. This would be true when we suggest or sense a space which appeals to a question as to how it may be expressed as four of five dimensions- Five is not a bad candidate as a fixed concept of dimensions go to try to unify some things- but it still has ultimately failed in its simplicity to do so.
* * *
No comments:
Post a Comment