On Clear Vision (A Philosophy of Science)

On Clear Vision (A Philosophy of Science)

L. Edgar Otto (The PeSla) 05-07-11


There are degrees, levels, of comprehension for a systems of a theoretical vision that requires a qualitative picture such that it be intelligible, comprehensive, and understood. A vision can reach further than the foundations, or the notations and methods that what it is thought to describe.

If there can be said genius resides in theoretical physics, from a view to the unity of a design its measure can be only made scientific and concrete as the clarity of such visions.

This process of clarity, its methods, engagements by human artistic accentuation held at least for awhile made more permanent as record and replication, seems to be a part of the description of Nature in her designs and process in itself. Reality persists regardless of what definitions exist for consciousness while awak or in our cloudy dreams. The development of science has fundamentally tried to bring to light nature's hidden visions.

Just as mass can seem to have concentrations and condensing, what we imagine intuitively as physical measure, a vision can contain visions on which the general body of knowledge builds. From the design in itself we an see that deep concepts such as gravity or time seems to have a global grounding and thus direction, a dimensionless irreducibility, a concept of vacuum and zero, absolute emptiness. This extension of imagination into the vague and blind unknown also finds its analog in our time in the concepts of opaque or dark matter-energy notions.

In that a vision closely describes reality clearly it should have a practical stance between the ideas of the infinite and nothingness for that which affects and to which we can for all practical purposes make decisions and respond, apply of what we so see, that things, including informational models, can halve or double is a core concept that is intelligible over many emerging theory and vision systems.

Thus it is that some structures of Dirac, its counting and use of quaternions correspond intelligibly to other forms of our theoretical systems. My view once the design has reached a certain level and the details reassure us by the working out of bird's-eye or God's-eye views, the large and small steps in effort, makes formal and clear the ideas of visions containing visions to which the same numbers with hidden things in them themselves, should be sorted and distinguished for further discernment.

Let what is needfully ambiguous remain so and not buried again. The bulk of theory is what is not seen or thought to be looked at- at least initially a wide and exhaustive process and endless quest until the next highest mountain or imagined plush valley, or the choice to make a stand where on is, provided our hearts are numb to the bigger picture that in the greater philosophic scheme of things we can accept the possibility we are failed stars.

Goethe knew this. modest to a fault if discovery matters, if sooner published, and his visions were early and great in the first place so he consolidated and worked long honing his gifts of diamonds and gold as a precious few, and the surveying of the triangles of light so far from his depth of field of vision, he built upon as if of a deeper vision of himself.

Let us not then be surprised when such people, when authentic and seen unique by a whim or chance or sacrifice to give us such work, prophets and predictors often discouraged and rejected in their own land when the world is one land and all paths to discoveries are so well trodden. But let us not believe that some things we have in truth just stumbled upon, goaded to find perhaps by the expediency of war, is something we should hold up as the pinnacle of human achievement and value where it is clear we do not always know consequences or know what we are doing.

* * *

Further comments on Matti's blog: This in keeping with the theme of my post today. Other than the illustration there is not a deep presentation of the systems and maths nor the working it out in detail if not just the spirit of the direction to explore- this leading to a philosophic interlude.

Clearly, in the simple 4 x 4 x 8 representation (and these certainly can go on to much higher spaces and these can be matters of physicality) and the fresh way to see the five and ten base numbers and fractals, the 5 4x4 layers add to 120 in such a way that can see a deep mathematical connection to 5 x 5! plus 6 x 5! where the difference not seen if we reduce things (as one commenter also saw that some of this higher space concept cannot be explained by the simple reduction in the Feymann diagrams as well the reduction of fractions that hide the interrelation of some numbers.

I works a little on representations as if color cubes in such rectangular higher space but did not get very far. But I did see the concept to which I insist we can embed or reduce the octonions into quaternions by the change between the 8 and 4 bases in a way that utilizes the partition numbers for quasic subgrids. I see that we may indeed have to double things (not in just the complexified analog justification) so I might ask again to Pitkanen, why 512 and not 1024 or more? In this sense I can mix the binary notation KLMN + O and O can be a single bit of 0 or one, the * sign, this carries over to other grids, here but 4.5 dimensions. In effect we have the 64 or 1024 space as containing five or ten bits within the bounds of the quasic grid. Neat! In a sense then we extend the idea of these natural dimensional relations of "condensing" as a concept between and even outside that of this principle of reduction between the octonions and quaternions where it also coorresponds to Diracian spaces- Interestingly, my chessgame in four space I call Odo1024 can also be used as a grid of three space to describe the shadow representations of such hyperquasic spaces- and can be a physical representation as well as the flat grid or chessgame itself. It follows also that the abstract motion functions have a logical extension of the notation to which I am not sure my earlier notions do not still apply where we all have a sense of non-linearity as a grounding for certain intuitive systems we have still to reach- but such a notation if any will logically follow. I did not look beyond 5 space, but I am sure in a sense we have gone well beyond 20 natural dimensions and solved what happens in the ninth natural one where the sphereical things go beyond the filling of such hypervolumes as if at 8 the square and circle are one quasi-logical object.

* * *




Gentlemen,

Was not the idea of quantum theory in effect that of fractional dimensions? In a sense then fractals are an outgrowth from that.

If we cannot find analogies to Relativity and fractional dynamics the fault is in our methods of differentiation as powerful as they are an not in the more comprehensive theories- of which many seem headed in the same direction.

All these words and notions seem to be making a mess of our thoughts.

In what sense can something vanish, say the descending value of TGD sheets and the Planck values? If these vanish in all these very complicated but seeming simple visions so must the very concepts without deeper mathematics of what are things like gravity and mass. What is left?

Where does space and time go at such seemingly limitations of low dimensions? Why the certainty in our statements of impossibility? What stance of vision reassures us?
Here we finally come to a point where something like speed in a vacuum, or better some sort of Higgs-like relation to acceleration as not felt, is something we begin to more deeply define.

As of course what we mean by coordinate invariance. It is no wonder the coordinates of a dodecahedron took so long to find when on the face of it such simple solids in three space seem so simple. Do your visions out pace the details of what is and the dynamics? You who obviously are asking things from knowledge of very deep complexity?

The PeSla