Dramatic Irony - The Expected and Unexpected Voices of Intuition

Dramatic Irony -
The Expected and Unexpected Voices of Intuition

L. Edgar Otto 27 March, 2012

Another issue or foundational question of our process of intuition is the sensitivity and comprehension of our ongoing encounters of experience- that beneath our tanglements of what is real or not real as our enquiry system as scientific transcends its inherent certainties and doubts.

In the differences of what can be extended to the whole from a small piece of it, the metric that extended can show the extent and model of the whole- a puzzle piece that can so predict all the other missing pieces or from all those pieces so as to define the missing one- not necessarily a symmetric situation or even a relationship of certainty or uncertainty.

We work in what we know, sometimes aware of implication and sometimes only aware of the measure of our ignorance in retrospect- that often said what the quantum theory measures. Still, in reflection progressing past this sea of events and intuition we find it also a measure of our wisdom.

For example, in the lossy use of color, close to the logic of computers on the internet, I have made do with the simple paint program- it too a model in that logic and mathematics of the finite systems of color to which in the great work and from the fine pixels the long field to paint beneath the grid such as greater than a photograph, the surrealistic point by point painting finer than the mountains and valleys of the material of the canvass. Such high definition in oil is something a photograph cannot capture. It is where our subjective meets the objective and we see with our minds.

So, despite the interesting effects discovered in the directions of gain or loss of color information as to scaling a picture and the information invariant to scale or in theory regained, I read but one line of a text to which I still struggle to pay attention to such an intelligible but arbitrary experimental language. It describes the png extension as one not lossy. I immediately abandon what I was intending to learn and go back to red eyed drawing with fresh interest and find ways to have the browsers see things. One small clue to the puzzle of which in my casual search and study, poetic moods, I explore but without one such clue or experience and the recognition that it may be significant my contemplations may as well remain in a fog, albeit for most people this is a secure fog and for those who work in an area they should approach some uncertain area of human experiences, such as the running of a state, formally and seriously as if it was alive and real.

The important difference to see here is the error of scaling, the Newtonian relativity of the rates between the volume and the area that these do not correspond to the numbers of players in a game one on one to the numbers of dimensions. In the quasic world, which after all is the problem of tanglement and superimposition, transparent or lossy, the deeper level of how we define similarity and identity of objects and entities real and virtual. In a sense this is raised on a thoughtful level as the traditional issues of the n-body problem or for proofs of the n-color theorems for crude examples. To some extent we see the difference as a lossyness as a form of decoherence explained or in itself inline or the accumulation of errors externally as thermodynamics in our arrows of intuitive interpretations.

Intuition speaks symbolically, yet it speaks, an it breaks or binds or shares the space as simple and real as the embedding of boxes in boxes on a quasically viewed or even linear idea of a brane or a window in a computer page- and that is a rather simple model we did not expect nor the drama of its charm as novel at first and new at least of the foundations to which we have evolved to enquire and be alert to our surroundings.

What has seen a lesser science, for example the evidence of the disdain by some physicist for the psychological theories, may begin at the foundations to have some clue as to how these work and which of the models have sane substance. For one thing in our day it should soon come to pass, we aware of it or not, that what does not address the foundational is not physics rather than such a direction for a career thought to be a dead end not worth the exploring.

Let us answer for example the role of several entities or voice when some people for whatever reason find broken and distant parts of their mind overwhelmed or not developed to, or injured from inside (viruses) or trauma outside... or even the natural development of arbitrary organic systems, that broken identity and symmetries occur in the hearing of the voices (not so much the characters in an imagined play seeing a reality in the reality but remaining fanciful to others dissociation assumed in their minds and unexpected coherence even that as evidence of the lack of what we intuitively imagine as a similarity in other minds, that the numbers of split personalities (of which in one lady on the street who had very little pattern recognition in the sense that what she was told as the identity of someone she believed- for some reason her child personality felt at ease with me and always recognized me when we traded our shift of seats in the public library) that she, and apparently women in general are different as to the number of such personalities they are reported to be able to contain- that is half the number of the cases in known males. Why should there be this difference from and indifferent view of gender equality unless the issue is as reality one beyond this social nurturing and nature one?

In even the three dimensional chess game there are only half the cells for the motion of the pieces (and in three space there are no major new pieces as we find first in four space abstract motions.) That is as a two player game where incidentally what is negative is just a matter of congruence such that from one perspective something can overlap something else- this showing that while our ideas of negativity work and complex number space in a plane are intelligible, in a two player game we should expect in the filling of a vacuum defining antiparticles that they can be seen as positive and negative in sign yet this is not as fundamental and in a sense the signs while not strictly positive do not matter. In the four-space game, for these very subtle technical reasons we find in a two player game a fourth of the board and so on.

It is naive and dramatic for maintaining our experiences internalized and our world view to have expected that we would have a third power of cells with two players- and in general the mere doubling or halving of things is not necessarily justified in our models where it is obvious the world could be made by n-player quasifinite games. This too is a subtle and dramatic error of intuition and one that undermines a scientific theory as falsification for its loosyness in the contiguity at the center of continuity will find decoherence where things touch as well in that higher symmetry, especially for deeper principles of thermodynamics yet to be developed past string theory, we find new physics and ways to do things in the world- perhaps ways to better insure our own mental and physical health.

For those of a certain sense of living religion or philosophy, this sort of theory as to what is the conscious and intellect in our experience of life, we could see it as closer as a verification to such concepts in a Deity explained in a way that we find at least a higher reality in understanding what we are- as the atheist Fred Hoyle said: "If God is real then He is a part of reality." But Fred also said that the big bang universe would be unworthy of a God that or how is it that man can design or model a universe more beautiful than what some say is His? While such ideas are reduced to ultimate simplicity they are ultimately the most complex we know beyond our ideas of meaning of which we are but remotely aware of in our living and its task of learning or formally awakening to some Ultimate Concern and some coherent way that we can live in peace together.

* * * * *