Toward a Philosophy of Physicality

Toward a Philosophy of Physicality L. Edgar Otto August 15, 2011

At the foundational level of the several spatial arrangements by symmetry and inversion, chance and necessity, continuity and the discrete, we can find grounding for the general principles that define what seems concrete in the reality.

We acknowledge the possible reality of the concepts and ideas of numbers, math as a realm of its own but only equal in potential to the idea of nothingness, non-existence, also the idea of inertia or mass, what is physical as real. These form an over-theory, a quaternity of sorts that in the main exists although any of the sub realms may exist, not exist, or vary somewhere in between.

Thus from the beginning we see that what is simply connected or not is a relative and changeable concept where these spaces may be both or shift between them or even jump the concept of natural dimensions to the singularities so contained or not in a local or extended space. A singularity is the nothingness of some real and potential object, it is a complex involving aggregates or ensembles of entities or even some deep relation to space as if expanding or contracting or staying the same, or it is the field of string like embodied Higgs-like half of infinity of a quasi-singularity which is the focus of the reality of location and time- but it is not the origin, even in motion of its parts, of mass as we have evolved the definition of it.

We can have finite and closed regions of which the shapes may vary independently of the (Penrose tile) lattices. But as finite the boundary of these things that spin or translate linearly is not rigid to said moving rays or objects continuous or discrete in its grounding linear abstract motion.

* * *

Note: I know I can express these deep ideas better than this post. We should imagine the 30-LHC space and the 20-BDK space as in a sense two spaces to consider changes of the abstract and not necessarily orientation of color (for example this may ground our ideas of color charge for something we describe as gluons). In a sense from the indistinguishable we can distinguish by these general methods of order or disorder some concepts such as matter-darkmatter and so on, and the relationship of black holes and stars over a universe and their general function beyond the natural creative force of their apparent origins.

We cannot explain the universe by the formalisms of nothingness (nilpotency) alone. And with a better imagination of higher dimensions we see that Dirac 4 spinors are useful as part of the growing general picture of things in this 20-BDK space.

Our consciousness is grounded yet free to adapt but always asks these questions of what is the background and being of the self as it builds and becomes aware of some theory.

Otherwise how could an omnipotent God see the world and not add to its disorder to the maximum extent- nor view as a sentient thing a single photon to forbid the one law of asymmetry in the thermodynamics as if Maxwell's demon? But is this personalization of the "mind of God" not as beautiful and more intricate design than our current failing physics? Are we like the particles are, not at home with this very idea of what our selves are and how we can understand and see the physicality of being- and yes, how we can add a grain of unity to it all and to what extent we can trust experiments.

* * *
Further comments to TGD thread today: Quantum Boolean algebra instead of Boolean algebra?

http://matpitka.blogspot.com/2011/08/quantum-boolean-algebra-instead-of.html

Ulla,

c or h for that matter as an idea of measure (that is concerning finite measure is possible as inertia) and we give general relativity that sort of absolute time reference) is not fundamental. But we can so modify the values involved to fit more up to date physics. All is in this sense an ad hoc assumption. But is it not amazing the models work over a wide universe regardless of who adds what or not to it all?

Einstein and Newton share this same primitive idea of mass. Newtons absolute time was then distinguished from Newton's relative time.

The PeSla

* * * (see interesting dialog and informative postings by Pitkanen also)

Matti, Ulla,

Glad you saw my comment in the greater context of our search for a more general theory.

Now, consider this, no signal can be sent faster than light (save perhaps once a path is established as in Penrose's idea of quantanglement And what is that signal but some form of information bits?). So as Shannon observes a signal is information that contains meaning, thus we are describing a certain entropy of a message.

Now I too have thought about Rio Frio's desire to see early (quasars) as evidence of the slowing down of light. I have no problem with this conclusion really but it may exist as a principle in other forms or other principles may explain things.

For me a quasar is a creative object or the result of one, but one could say (since she points out it was so close to some beginning of things another principle could be involved) that the first value of c was as if it was nearly infinite to so slow down. (to what? nearly or absolutely zero velocity?)

Determinism and locality, absolute chance as non-linear and not clear in direction (thus also a true unitary theory as far as quantum like grounding of continuity needed goes) and locality or non-locality, in general what grounds our ideas of coherence, and if we desire as if a fourth concept Inertia (be it mass or gravity) somewhere has much to do with mass- not what the standard theory or GR seems to think as it is not general enough.

What does c slow down relative to?

Clearly, the invariant hyperbolic rotation or boost is a z axis or what some may see as a limitation of such symmetries of space as we think it merely 3 or 3+1 dimensional. Kea has some objects that seem to suggest this sort of thing in that terminology.

But I am still not quite sure what you mean, Matti, by such a distinction of the Boolean notions yet I did imagine within the same framework of space that as sub notions there are physical things and processes we can so distinguish. (see my post today on toward a philosophy of physicality) the issue of which is precisely your statement of the way or problem of solutions.

I am also not clear on what it means to slice membranes or if these are on the same level as TGD.

And since when does c have an exact value but one we assign it to some degree of accuracy as the standard?

Who the heck is Horawa?

Anyway, today's fashion may turn out permanent- ultimately Lubos shows a deep indeterminacy at the heart of things which does after all make simple string theory a possible concrete foundation (even when Higgs fields as such are not) so why expect they to give mass values in any one of the wide landscape geometries? Can a theory be so abstract it does not apply?

But yes, modification of a theory can mean it is out of touch.


The PeSla

* * *

FOOTNOTE:
The clarity and consequences come back somewhat- that perhaps these general statements in the standard terms may help explain this world of 3n Tetratrialities as far as the natrual dimensions as a background go:

Color not only adds a dimension to the discussion but is a unitary dimension as far as any symmetrical orientation goes.

We are dealing here with four primary ideas of the background (Phaneron) of what inertia concepts are (as if we needed to express in the filled vacua the action reaction law of Newton)... Newton's and Mach's, Einstein's and Leibniz's of which Leibniz's is in general the more difficult view. How we privilige aspects of these determines to a great extent what we imagine of the role of the others for physicality.

In the CPT (and possibly by Rowlands M for mass or inertia, and maybe another term * or background itself if we think of the symmetries and logic involved) - I mean if c slows down is this not a sort of exponential continuous symmetry breaking?- How then does it apply to identity and ensembles of entities as in Leibniz's phaneron's ?) We may not clearly distinguish what after all is the C or P or T or M involved if these are placed in some system such as say quasics or quaternion, particles and so on... For hidden deep in the concepts of what is the virtual existent potential or the nothing, or the real and actual, the singularity, its numerical and geometrical expression, or the complex of singularities... these may appear invariant while they exchange their identities in the meaning including their sub relations like CP=T as matters of what is not actually conserved in a shallow viewing.

So would the physicality of inertia like systems be a physics that is independent of such notions or frameworks and even philosophies of physics we adopt? Or is this idea of notions (as if say Boolean logic) at some level uncertainty or quantum itself (if I understood what Pitkanen is getting at)? Apparently, in the best model of interpretations of physicality we cannot see the world as totally deterministic and continuous as in qualatative GR formulations, or as quantitative QM emphasis, nor even as Quasics as a logic space without such a more general view grounding the need for all such views. QmQl = Qs, or QM x GR = Quasics and so on to the dance of three conceptual objects appearing in simplified three space as does the laws of natural dimensions in higher space (say where he inverse cube law would be the stable orbit of gravitational objects). If we fall deep into one of the directions of combining primary physics systems it may in fact make a third seem to vanish as if it too fills the vacuum or mirror reiterations of vacua or constant values... along with the unification sought for in a seemingly positive and absolute persisting arrow of the world or its assumption of "spin".

The technical reason or asserted conclusion that a so called "gluon" carries a color force is a fortunate metaphor for ideas where color itself as a dimension conveys certain notions to us about space and numbers. I am aware that Conway now has a book that suggests such a use for color to help with understanding certain maths but I have not seen it yet suspect it is about say simpler things than this post- that is say how to break a square number into two triangular numbers and so on.

But color has always conveyed a sort of logic to me as one of my more favorite things in this world (wishing in fact we could see a higher analogy to color.)

One great consequence is perhaps with such systems as these 30-LHC space and 20-BDK spaces intertwined into one system is that we show how the gene code can be read with a 4 base codon in a 256 field of them- and yet we can of course imagine the reading within that system of 6 or 8 of these as if 6 or 8 colors for he bases - and why this base idea is in a sense self limiting to the coherence of notions and organic beings on several recursive and absolute levels.

* * *
It occurs to me also that I should make more explicit what I am saying rather than assume someone can infer it. The reality of what is a C P T * for example is ultimately such that some concept say Charge, thought discrete needs not be in the foundational case but will shift with the continuous ambiguously- which is a rather radical statement as if the persistence of the real is close to the concept that on the average we can see more matter than antimatter. It is easy to see the 45 degree viriality or assumed causality in Einstein's theory can be open to a wider generalization of what is the concept of dimension be it a wider view between what is left a physical actuality or so basic as to be philosophically a question of exist, not exist, or exist in a complex within some limit of a useful informational system. In this respect the exponential notations are a limitation to what is the actual view of even how physical things can interact in the universe as far as notation especially if we strive to find a unity (existing as a totality or not, the TOEs we look for a matter of just physics really as yet the omnium background is still a matter of the mixed also logic and notions of philosophy, concrete as a metaphysics or not.

But as far as experiments go it is not considered physics to say in a general totality that the results are distinguished as intermittent. The deep question then is to what extent we may dismiss or declare there are things that are ultimately non-linear (in a deeper sense than say nth order differentials or partial ones applied by the various topological and numeric ways we may address say momentum space or phase space.) To so address is to limit some things to the physicality in terms of a linear process and what can happen within it and how even if it is within a set of higher branes or membranes.

Again, the orthogonality and symmetries work (to some extent or sometimes to not at all) as to the ultimate nature of physicality, of physics and experience as the primary focus of our notion systems. The mystery again that the world has a certain logical coherence of expressed laws at least in the near past and future. Why as Lubos ask are some things consistent- why indeed is arithmetic and geometry intelligible? Useful or any quantum information if it can escape the black holes and remain consistent would suggest the world is close to this wider generalization of a philosophy of physicality. Even if it returns in a loop of the immediate in proximity and its mangling unraveled, or even over a total system says something about the remote and possibly origin or end of states, we can ask "where does the information go?"

* * *


With the 20-BDK and 30-LCH color notations in the background we can say that the former can make a field to designate or create the latter (and this in a sense can be seen as a one sided directionality over the unitary ambiguous whole of which such unitary uncertainty does seem to lead to effects of physical order and persistence, that is God can in theory intervene as a notion even if the omnipotence will cause disorder by awareness or notions on physical states- that is Maxwell is not a full picture of order in the universe.) Let us also keep an eye on the validity of the need in an ambiguously open or closed system on any notion that demands or concludes that certain seemingly virtual or concrete objects must have a finite mass. The idea of a Higgs being zero spin, much as the identification of the Casmir force as described as well by point particles, is a resolved nilpotent but not a concept generalized enough- the Higgs field (as it may or may not exist in some form at half the diagonal or infinity) is surely as not as simple as it is the zero-point which so describes its limits and identity.

* * *

Facebook status today:

L. Edgar Otto
Played in the Mousetrap open mike last Sunday night. It had been awhile. The guitar had dust. It went over rather well- Played Girl of My Dreams as I did for Ari and Meg's wedding. Did a little stand up and got laughs. Odd, many said to me it was the peace and poetry that came thru, spiritual even- yet from my Miller eyes and it does not take much, I know I missed a few verses...

* * *