Maps, Landscapes, and Reference Frames

Maps, Landscapes, and Reference Frames L. Edgar Otto December 6, 2011

Forgive the hastily written (striving to keep all these ideas at once in my head like the lines and lost lines of a poem in the writing) and most likely typos and misspellings of this paper. The imprinting of a map idea on the brain stem is in an article by newscientist sometime ago but the new interpretations in relation to physics are mine. Our consciousness as a monad also does not know what side of some mirror it is on in the deeper for fractally and numerically recursive sense. Clearly it may depend on which side of the special formulation and bias of the mirror one is on that evokes the idea of "crackpot" or pseudo-science.

I apologize to Lubos for a critique of his positions while praising his efforts and summaries in the state of physics. I mean, I said what Duff apparently said. What looked like such a summary this time became an other vague rant on sky falling or not global warming and who is the crackpots and anti-stringers, and who may have worked in the area decades before M theory- as if that is evidence of the truth of things as a scientific measure- apparently, which side of the mirror in our minds we are may determine what we see as the right to give and take negative criticism but obviously this conflict can interfere with the objective search for science.

That said, it occurs to me, and some understand the general idea of such inverses and extensions of the physics to be unified from a higher perspective, that in our theories we do not know what side of such mirrors we are in- even if it seems like we are dealing with the same rather stable integer numbers. In that respect, where say Pitkanen appears more in the camp of standard hyperbolic relativity issues, which is the inverse here? In a sense cannot the hyperbolic inverse to the elliptical? Or do some minds not yet imagine this possibility or see the difference? So it is that, perhaps instinctively if not by intention or bias for the sake of some subjective position, the new physics is not only dismissed but confused with what some by nature consider the reality of things like new age sacred geometry.
Yet this very way to distinguish things- thus understand better what it means to have the pinnacle of standard theory being something Higgs-like but viewed differently- is after all where we might distinguish at the foundations of physics our notions of things like fermions and bosons and how these might even be interchanged in some unified theory. But this issues I do not feel is primary.

Now, this theory does carry the force against by the experiments in the sense of neurobiology a counter to string like abstractions. So in some deep sense we can again question if all is subjective and far from a unified equilibrium of concepts. In which case what is solved if one or both sides of foundations have their time of fame and fortune before they are questioned again as diversions from the progress of theory and technology- the flip of fortunes make them the crackpots and that makes it all a matter of subjective conflict only which may for all practical purposes be the reality of things when we design the ways to live together in this world. But then there is no firm moral or natural law is there?

This is not to say that at times we need to limit aspects and the reach of a theory even if we know it will make a difference to do so. But one should keep in mind the foundations- not everything can be resolved by the singularity of dualism applied and limiting the rest of models that apply to matter, spacetime, and groups. In a sense this shows a brilliant theorists among thinkers who think also in the issues of philosophy, good lawyers of the law with a moral sense, and able to not get lost in the organizing synaethesia of learning to think and perceive and consider the extraordinary- what would our Einstein be if his were not a profound synthetic achievement?

So, the spin, the pure pi in itself, its very deep inverses of numerical recurrences and the concept that somewhere in its digits may be anything encoded for the Hindu idea of a cosmic year. All written or will ever be written or could have so been written. Yet, we imagine in physics such quasi-metaphysical models when we say that pi, which also is derived from probability theory can be a number squared much as the remote idea of psi squared in wave equations? Do we not see here at least a wider possibility of recurrence, at least in the fractal depth of some monadic coordinate in space, of further combination's of the information involved that may in fact operate to make choices in what is expressed as physics processes and structures as the intelligible mirrors mix and endure, higher laws and higher invariance, and wider possibilities for human knowing and our souls.

Of course those familiar with the maths of this are free to check these ideas out and think about how things like the golden ratio relates to the transcendentals in the mind of Ramanujan for example.

* * * *