Physics through Rose Colored Glasses

Physics through Rose Colored Glasses L. Edgar Otto Sept. 17, 2011
or
(Beyond the Virtual World into the Post Alphanumeric Age)

There was a lot to post from last night. So I just gave it all a general illustration and title which for physics makes a point on our cognition.

It begins with the alphabetizing and general symmetric structure of the 20 cubes of three colors...BDK GIN and so on and what does this mean? For one thing it means that the idea of a rigid or empty center of connectivity also benefits from a more relaxed view of what and where singularities are in space- this leads to a more general concept of quasi-uniqueness as an issue rather than the paradoxes of uniqueness. Of course these views where rigid in a theory or in cognition have their place and intelligibly tend to work together as do organic physicality systems.

It ends in the chaotic and jumbled notes (which I may post but in no particular ordering) with the ideas of Edward Hallowell and other programs like Science Friday and The People's Pharmacy and such shows that are about our tangible technological future on the BBC (see their website BBC.com/click). In this creative mood with similar thoughts on the myth of disability or the emphasis of seeing things positive for intervention for those creative people labeled as slow for whatever fancy name of a psychology theory- a rose colored glasses that might not be the key to how future human children will best learn and for what interventions work. The issue was based around what is now called dyslexia which of course is the theme here lately of symbol substitution- the colors of our mind so to speak. Again, we need the objectivity of science even if the funding is the drive for the certainty of double blind studies (the host remarks) and he too sees the drug solution as perhaps over emphasized for such beautiful minds.

Another area is that of the consequences of 4D printing. A few, especially in the military, are interested in printing organic tissues with the objective of not needing to have organ transplants but engineer one's own.

Science cannot make fundamental progress technically if it does not intelligibly understand a more general Quasic topology or geometry defined not just on touch and sight related as other senses and perceptions organic or inorganic or otherwise. It is also to be integrated with the idea of consciousness and possibly a higher analog of soul for its definition.

This in a sense is the swan songs of the beginning of the post alphanumeric age since the discovery of writing, thus history so documented and observed over time. For we have to define the integration and differentiation of these natural codes, decoding them by a general theory for the organic models of the world and physicality in general. (Some internet innovator should make a better spell checker as the design of it is more dyslexic than artificial intelligence like.)

Of course in this world of tomorrow we may not want a world based on such technology. We may want to print organs for transplant, as we now can print food by such 3D printing, but should we print a human in totality? Would the program in a sense bring a sort of immortality if also it can clone the unique at the time body of what makes a mind?

A paradox of such insightful people who become poets as dyslexic as Yeats (whom the prize winning poet admired and felt a kinship with) is that they are wounded in the obstacles of creativity these exceptions (and perhaps future humans) need to compensate to overcome. This being that they may see this sensitivity as a hidden secret in others but do not suspect they themselves see only one overcoming world view for the state- that is they cannot but doubt their ability and general picture and often make the disability or social handicap the focus of all other issues.

The virtual world is also headed for the use of touch for typing on the screen in a way that the relative position of the key board of each letter evokes other letters as if these form some sort of neural network (which of course does much of the work the cognitive guest said can be achieved by the links to reading in the autonomous functions of the cerebellum (of which it made his son able and desire to read). This is called a "liquid keyboard" in development and it reminds me of the possibly cloned or printed gray aliens with a few fingers and some exotic symbols that seems to control the spaceship in that tradition of science fiction- could they not have an ongoing device inside that is an organ of printing and self-repair of other organs including the dispensing of food from other sources? Such science fiction is to me a fresh look as speculative fiction that has grown stale on quantum wormholes and such that seems a little more real slowly evolving in the background.

Also on the shows were the collective hacker (not the usual use of the term) groups where individuals may build new things or art they could not do individually- like access to plasma cutters and a place to do their work and well, 3D printers.

I may post those three pages of very dense notes- for this was a rapid and very dense connecting of so many ideas in a chance confluence of time. A key idea is that we can read the gene code as if it involved six colors rather than four as the usual method and thus have a better grasp of the paths and symmetries involved and why some of it related to the icosahedral symmetries (as always partial equations of the fifth degree). This explains the general structure of the DNA helix also from a structural viewpoint rather than from abstract considerations of other forms of physics and mathematics alone- more of a finer x-ray of the depth of the systems. It may also show where gene engineering may be not so good to do blindly like the application to growth hormone of bovines or the new strain of soy beans. There seems to be a theory with firmer basis (and thus firmer solutions) for what say such codes are like a virus of 14 bases or in general how bases extend and are read in a chromosome. But more than this it intelligibly relates the reason why in the first place things are dominate or sub-dominant and so double, merge or replicate.

* * * This posted for my own reference only... see the TGD diary blog:

Ulla,
I do not think we are that far off topic of what atoms are and why the ratios of them in the universe.

Now, in the words of the Novelist and Heraclitean philosopher, John Fowles:

"Of what do you drink, the water or the wave?"

I suppose if as Hawking says the universe has a wave function then in a sense it is also a particle we can touch. But I am not sure the math of all the complex numbers for time tells us much- and that these are the same way, wave-particle to describe the same thing- but matrices tend to narrow things down to the physical.

Such cosmic codes also relate to the gene codes in fluid ways we can see but not read- of course what the mind is is much more fluid I imagine. One might call this super-symmetry like thing dark, perhaps it is outside of quantum physics- but my periodic chart on the metals was rather explicit on the general geometry, finite that is of things.

Nice creative questions here Ulla. Illusions seem to interact with illusions in any case- and I ask you when we dream what sort of light is that if we look up at the sun- can we not ride that too?

None of the current theories can explain the source of the higher metals- nor recent ones that would claim live can be made from metal alone. The world is also plastic and ceramic.

The PeSla

* * *

If we cannot distinguish up and down, then will strange ideas get by on charm and can they ever beat the generation of higher truths and beauty?


Knocking on Heaven's Door or Where is the Wall at the End of this 3D Universe?


This link of a review comes from The Reference Frame blog recently- I do not think that physics is really science as a matter of linguistic spin. This is a pretty good statement of the position of those who hope for the simplicity and beauty of the standard theory. Apparently Lubos has respect for woman of science if they agree with his general philosophy of science. In any case the theory as presented I find overly simple and certainly not as beautiful as things can be seen from a bigger perspective- as the atheist steady-statesman Fred Hoyle wrote- why would we accept such an ugly theory of the universe that apparently God made if we can conceive of one more beautiful than say those based on the Big Bang?

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/knocking-on-heavens-door-by-lisa-randall-2355268.html

Nature should not be more complicated than it has to be, they tell themselves. Or so some like Einstein has said we should make things simple but not more than necessary beyond a certain point. This limited view and a popularization (not the astute evaluation of theories by Einstein in his private contemplations) may be the goal too for the apparent simplicity that overly hides the wider information in say the Feynman diagrams. It works, it requires less vision of laborious thought as if mechanical and automatic our experiencing and creating the music of the spheres, but it has limited beauty and even truth in itself.

The Higgs boson is a crucial part of what's called the Standard Model of particle physics. It's a construction made out of 24 fundamental building-blocks of matter: 18 of these particles are six types of quarks that come in three varieties. The remaining six are called "leptons", a family that includes electrons.

This seems to me the start and things can be there beyond 25. In any case anyone who cannot transcend their own set of general systems is not psychologically or even culturally capable of higher cognitive functions for a so called theory of everything. As such some theories are limited but integratable in the TGD sense and the general relation to say octonions are right on in the relationships to say Dirac and the connection touching the classical physics. But this is also but only part of the picture that is yet more beautiful than those we now have and thus leaves too much to the mystery we vaguely push into some mathematical thought about what we still do not know of space and dimensions into "non-linearity".

Arithmetic itself, the raw counting frame as the 24 or so model of particles, is richer than the way we apply our methods of mathematics which simplifies to that particular view of discovery that seems to be the promised holy grail yet is limited to the less than creative new ways of mathematics.


http://matpitka.blogspot.com/2011/09/could-tgd-be-integrable-theory.html

http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/09/lisa-randall-on-charlie-rose-tonight.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LuboMotlsReferenceFrame+%28Lubos+Motl%27s+reference+frame%29

and consider this:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/09/why-is-there-energy-and-what-it-isnt.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LuboMotlsReferenceFrame+%28Lubos+Motl%27s+reference+frame%29

This is of course a well written and informative post by Lubos, the reflection of the state of the art in our era of physics- and yet it discusses energy as if the depth to which it is poetically equivalent to what is as if a God of Spinoza as the universe or God that is mysteriously deeper and disembodied in some way. I have written on this in several places about this last century world view to which we have been narrowly trapped in in the West for some time now and for which the best part of these Judaeo-Greek concepts have vanished from the theoretical plush speculation with what some say is good riddance for appearances sake. God has not given them the string landscape to occupy even if given the flag but not the oil.

Was not Spinoza excommunicated and called atheist in his day? Physics can evoke a sense of the spiritual and ultimate. That too, poetically can evoke new and objective physics.

* * *

It should be clear by now to the more sensitive reader that the general theory of quasics applies to the life code as much as the nature or cosmic code, as well the other perspectives of intelligible theories.

Where do we stand in the ongoing but shot in the dark research- perhaps the methylation of the epigenome code (something I read about locally in Wisconsin from 1995 or so as a possibility and hints of it in relation to memory and Planaria in 69 or so before that. But it is certainly more than this, the reading itself- and while I have objected to most of the view Lubos concisely presents as far as science is concerned, I must agree that the world needs a much richer time of enquiry and speculation. Perhaps, the sense of the soundness of this is that the technology has for awhile made our best science fiction shows a little dated now just like the idea of shooting cannons to the moon in old 30's movies.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110916152401.htm

Of course we can continue this false distinction in some cases of what is the natural and artificial states of things- what is integration or differentiation of organic systems and what is the utility for society of the sciences where in humility we explore things and not just accept our god-given-place (as I've said, to quote my father asking if God would be mad if I thought certain things, "if God had not given us brains if he did not want us to use them." my Dad replied.)

But in the end we are so much the lesser God, yet we are great like the Lens Grinder, that emulator or imitator of Euclid, Spinoza the complement to Leibniz as still the two deepest of our world's philosophers, some dealing with authentic roles or position etching some career or survival from the world we are born into (Einstein's personal thoughts on that matter too)- that we can so focus our given light.

Left or Right or center does it matter, we who don the one way mirrors in stealth or in denial of the right to existence and humanness in others, or vulnerable one who love everyone meeting someone loved by everyone, our soul or hearts a little too pink for objectivity even if it as a rule to live together peacefully and cooperatively and diplomatically our do unto others- our glasses.

* * *

ACG AEI AFB BCJ BDK BEL CAG CMD DAH DOE ECN FIL FJD GIN GHM HOI HFK JLN JMK KOL

[ Sept. 18 : Correction the next day (hard to juggle the colors and letters in the varying light of the television screen at night- but can imagine or doubt ourselves instead of this sort higher dyslexia and innumeracy- but is that not also a problem with how nature functions and develops, sees things? So here is the correct alphabet with three colors dihedrally opposite of the three other of the six. These twenty with the 15 or thirty cube labels can make a structure of 20 on the points and edges of a cube which gets to the heart of how we count things and the nature of creative or field space at this level of physicality:

ACG-KOL AEI-JMK AFB-MON BCJ-HOI BEL-GHM BKD-GIN CMD-FIL DAH-LJN DOE-FJD ECN-HFK for the 20 cubes... and ANK BHN CLH DGL EKG FME GBO HEJ IJD JOA KCI LAM MIB NDF OFC for the 15 or 30 cubes. From any one of the 15 letters in the Conway matrix we can read the six other labels that form three axes made of say ANK AOJ BGO ... and in the 30 cubes we observe that each of the 15 letters is found 4 times. Each of these exclude two of the colors to that of the letter as if in a center to leave a surface of the 24 or 48 operations on the cube. ]



Of which we imagine A = red orange centered or diffuse everywhere as a singularity leaving the four axes of the corners of a cube of the colors left, yellow, blue, green and violet in the permutations. There thus are 15 of these (or 30) of which we have these 20 made of the 12 and 15 - a neuro-network of touch and simple counting that is the beginning of whatever distinctions of super-symmetric like ideas for physicality.

"Yet there are other, even bigger, problems in particle physics that the LHC should help to solve. One is the hierarchy problem. The Higgs mechanism addresses the question of why fundamental particles have mass. The hierarchy problem asks the question, why those masses are what they are." see the (interview with Lisa link above) By quasics and by TGD we begin to see also a hierarchy answer to which normal science today tends to keep at bey instinctively as a threat or as a curiosity and not an anomaly, but a recreation and busy work, in the distance.

Yet despite this, even with some acceptance of the faery fields of the "God Particle" as part of a quasi-intelligible reality. I begin each day to search the frontiers for anything comprehensive, and refreshingly new - that too part of the work of science if it holds to the idea of intellectual honesty.

Alas, there are still some questions no one is yet capable to answer good enough that I can see- forgive them they know not what they do, if they don't blow up the world first by accident- life is precious but its vanishing even in the individual case, even when the scope and value of the world is a very small place like this planet with a blink in time of its awareness in history, is not ultimately its glorification but in the end a wasteful futile and proof of a pointless act.

* * *