On Original and Fundamental Knowledge

On Original and Fundamental Knowledge L. Edgar Otto June 21, 2011

To continue the last post which I understand is difficult and even to post the notes would seem disorganized in the height of recent creativity. But this sequel will address the philosophic issues more as to feelings about this experience of theory.

2592 used in the illustrations according to Rowlands is the number of zeros involved in the compass of particles in the standard theory.

*The number of potential diffuse electroques (corpusleques or partoneques even quasoneques) as quasi-continuous so quasi-finite is infinite yet not being necessarily virtual in its multiverse or many-worlds of the two physics that seems to be that of our dissociation of notions.)

*The difference in balance of the 4 forces can pair the gravity with the strong as the means to the electric and weak as the extremes where numbers of singularities existentially are balanced by the relative strength of the forces as observed by Dirac and Hoyle among others and these can assign the gravon, electron, muon, and tauon to the usual quasic quadrants and mirror them with inversion of the quadrants.

*Three space and Eddington's Uranoid space in a quasi-finite quasi-intertial sense acts as a low pass low dimensional filter (to repeat these basic ways to see the epsilon honeycomb of the ways to view and extend physics to the higher symmetries)

*The idea of six dimensions, with this consideration, is Clifford like in a sense but the dimension involved is a further concept of a quasic power dimension. Thus we can even if we have already done so and have identified vector and quaternion systems equivalences, double the standard particle number 2592 to 5184 and subtract the 4096 which results in 2^6 x the all important 17.

*Interestingly, in such doubling if we subtract 1152 from 2592 we get twice 6! which of course is the permutations of six colors and so on.

Now for the Philosophic Notes:

Perhaps it is the fault of a new generation to assume the PhDs or theoreticians knew clearly what they were talking about- to which we may feel a little anger at being taught these things or exposed to them as if they were a fact. So original and fundamental knowledge (OFK) in a paper should include certain objections and reasonable projections with a minimum need for caveats beyond clarity and careful speach- a new term if it has to be defined each time is not listed as officially found in the dictionaries for currency in general usage.

Quasic theory acts as if a mediator to the old QFT formulations. For example that difference in the physicality issue of wave particle duality and its interpretations.

For from one frame of mind we try to extend Einstein's insights into the structures of depth space as an analogy to relativity but not always as truth in geometric analogs. Again, the concept or vision in itself is impressive but not a science without the development of steps and consistency with the Holographic-Fractal environment distinctions.

Quasics is a mediator of the awareness of our notions as if the idea of Fermi-Bosons as distinctions and discernment's needing to be resolved on some problem of interpretive description of consciousness as so the physical description of inertial mechanisms to which this concept is a paralleled as a problem.

The caveat of self modesty- not just bravado nor self-deception for a theory in the sense of quality in expression and assumed or managed appearances to others and that they so care about it for the reason of theory alone strives to be politically and objectively neutral as science.

Recall and try to be positive after the dealing with, not suppression of negative emotional memories- that sense where each mind is universally equal- we should not apologize for our sound first intuitive theories. The poet should not censor himself if he can but reach again the depth of well being and real link to the world, not just a faded hint of sould emotional grounds and moods that strike us as uncanny or even wonderful as if going beyond lesser concepts of self and space and time, these more spacious auras beyond our composition and destiny, beyond our arrow of memory and false memory.

Thus I assert these truths without apology so judge it as you will yourselves, doubts even of the true in others has the source from yourselves. We are not just spirits vulnerable and fragile as its need for and consequent contamination of its dust. Rest can be motion and thought can be motion as rest.

This said, the distance from a true OFK theory, not a measure of our ignorance of a system or its compass of current discourse, is the amount realized or offered by caveats with scientific honesty as well as anomalies recognized if the intuition of the theoretical self-aware are sound. That is in true creativity and the inquiry and search for the foundations (how can we not understand a theory such as the standard one when it has such a reach, without speculation and creativity and therefore true originality at the frontier?) is that which awakens some theorists to both OFK and expertise.

* * *

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110621121319.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110620161310.htm

Very relevant and inspiring progress. The first that biological entities may sense whatever is happening in the higher spaces. And the second that we can see more than the surface of things if we knew better how we do and how to program machines to mimic it- in a vague sense the magnetic rings of earth a just another physical step as an analog to the dust rings of Saturn. If we want to program a computer that it sees more like a human does- it should reflect a more general program as to what emphasis of core theory the programmer wants to impart or color the program for the computer will respond to these less general view with limitations- it is not enough to use the mathematics of Heat and such as if the complex plane is not a comprehensive limitation by virtue of theories of lesser vision.

A stray thought on tornadoes: if we see them (and I do not mean the more mystical sacred geometrical pre-scientific contexts) not so much as the mathematics of vortices, even heat differences and propagation, even the idea they are electrical storms in their essential nature- but in the combination where we debate with say the ideas of the math of virtual or metaphorical heat that it is after all natural that the interface is that of spaces, matrix or wave in emphasis and even expressed structures that implies the hierarchy be they of a topological sheet structure or a flatness with absolute groundings of nothingness- hologramic or fractal HFX and so on that a vortex forms and descends and deals with energy transfers as if it is reaching into the depth more than the span of what is the physicality realized in general space- despite any speculations or formulations that these can be explained as if completely by shadow and opaque methods as if we confuse what is vacuum or not- the view of the means, that is of chirality as the key and ground as in Rowlands simply should come to terms with an intelligible idea of quasi-non-existence, philosophically that is. We can say that the extension of Einstein for theories to the subatomic realm is genius or that Dirac is the dynamic genius for their old ideas not arising again as if on steroids- and the computer will see it that way and if pressed respond to those people whom have developed one or the other position like that of the computer context on this physics we so programmed it to behave.

Can a machine do the job of fundamental knowledge theory in the creation of new physics without the human intervention and element- that is, the answer to this may highlight on a higher level than present the clearer definition of the role of this human element that may transcend the general stance of the machine.

* * *