Holofractal Reiterative Scaling

Holofractal Reiterative Scaling

L. Edgar Otto 13 March, 2012

I found an interesting animation on the Astronomy Picture of the Day (here) where you can get the idea of the scale of things from the smallest know (evidently strings and the Planck length) and the largest structures know in the universe. I have seen such comparisons of the scale of things before, but this one brings home the coherence of the scales in a continuous manner. It raises some conceptual questions and explains some of the general views of those I have talked to with general statement related to such concerns. Essentially, there is the idea of something very small equal to something larger in structure. Say and atom and a galaxy, perhaps a string and the observable universe of which we can estimate its size beyond what can be seen.

Yet, the same general recursive like idea applies to what we can imagine as other and limitless universes beyond the coherence of the physicality of this view of the universe we are within. For one thing these ideas are roughly true of some of our ideas on numbers if we take the formalism to extremes. And it is true when we compare changing but cancelling dimensionless systems concepts- for example if the world is always expanding and everything in it how would we know or to what can we compare and on what certain grounding among general theories and cases? It could be equally true the universe is shrinking, or even in the balance of unity it does both within a certain range of that which exists over some breath of uncertainty. So why do we observe say, space in the universe as expanding and how do we distinguish the very large from the very small?

Is it enough to put things into ideas of energy and matter to explain the differences of such directions? This viewpoint first of all neglects that imagined beyond the continuous span of scale that in theory states but one unified reality, it can be at best a hopeful assertion for it depends on some individual location at a center of perspective and this raises the issue of interpretations involving issues of consciousness.

One type of space and number we can readily draw and measure in terms of complex space is that of fractals and fractional dimensions akin of course to that concept in the heart of quantum theory despite the distance from chaos science systems ideas. In it what is here at the moment in either direction of scale absolutely repeats in the same pattern. Is it in a sense a different pattern or in some sense an individual position of perspective that sets the concept of what is macro and micro scale relative to our view, centering, and just as we imagine universes before the big bang we can imagine physics below the Planck level.

We can imagine also in the space between any two similar points in the general fractal, the hologfractal distance, that the tendency in the generation of the fractal can be extended over the holographic totality to derive theories of inflation in relation to previous states. Matter is such a place along the way wherein the stars do take on a sense of size as if in aggregate they would appear atom like. But as to the defining and reduction of things in a material manner the same general concept may ask of a fractal like Cantor dust as to what is the final or vanishing level, or bottom level to which we may or may not go beyond within the unity of this world.

It is clear that at the bottom in this reductionist view we can imagine rather distant, thus a holofractal measure, concept of strings which by the change of scales as a concept, a one not necessarily independent in its properties like any sort of a better defined idea of conservation, these strings are imagined to be extended but have zero dimensions as if being nothing to it in the depth we require if they vibrate or things even to spin and loop that we need to assert the dimensions of the span. Nothingness is there as a formalism, the nilpotent one as a description if not a grounding.

On the other hand we imagine for all practical purposes of set theory be these a plane or a part of a plane, that the holographic distance is described by the minimum measures- of duration and of distance, and of action and so on. In this sense at the heart of such proposed theories on the very small- if not any further- the brane idea is distinct from the string idea- unless the situation is rather dynamic and potential infinity is expressed as an arrow in such a neutral and default space as if a zero division. By this I mean a foundation and not the result of the mathematical or physical description of as the reason for the foundation.

Clearly in the most general case, a spacious singularity (that is a singularity complex that raises the issue across the hologfractal distance, or a view as if a singularity as so described (as in the APOD link illustration) we have to refer to the classical radius of an electron for that level of scale. We note also that contrary to common experience things with greater mass seem to take up less space in such structures. Thus, on any scale, not just independent of some idea of scale or conservation laws or breakdown of physical laws that underlay the creative and destructive properties and description of symmetry breaking and its arithmetic, we can imagine at any particular centered view all repeated levels as if a multi holofractal universe at each point, applies- that is within such an abstract length of space (and motion) the entirety of the universe defaults to what appears to us as a difference in scale for the scale differences apply transitively over any holographic sphere or plane close to zero or unity to which we can imagine this as a ground for wave and vibrational phenomena- not that this concept determines the default nature of space and physics itself.

Clearly our subjective stance to these issues of the extreme structures and patterns of the universe are subject to the same scaleless concepts or physical reality that is a default for the abstract motion and persistence or permanence of our shifting mental space of thought for the aspects of the fractal like and hologram or holographic like (the idea of a integer division of a spectrum to organize system information is the difference of these terms here) is a default in the same sense over a range of wider mental space that despite the extremes of change remains understandable and intelligible with while the existence a range of properties we recognize as established even if changing- as unique.

These are simple concepts. But one must wonder how theoretical physics can proceed if we do not address these underlying metaphysics as if to bury the differences under the grounding space of that known there as all there is but not what it is (as in the concept of dark matter, energy, fluids and so on). This statement itself testifies to a relaxed ability of the subjective to so comprehend the holofractal environs even when it is not worked out just how say branes, fields, knots and ideas of strings, uncertainty realms, iota point strings in my formulation (a dynamic zero division in the above sense and a general idea of the unity of the description of the world I have styled the Omnium).

That said, the picture presented in the link, although it is good where we can set a measure of something down including a more physical sense of time in that we can do things with such properties in this world, the picture of such scaling is not as simple as here presented for there is a further generalization of all these things holofractally within all the possible things, the Omnic time and distance, in which the compass of the conception makes the ones we have and the holographic ones hardly much larger, but a point in a sea of infinity of our ability to conceive of things- that is still an open question as to there is a default scaling over greater space and time an higher symmetries and dimensions- but if this is different as the case, it also defaults to an individual coordinate but abstract view in which we can imagine the question. What beyond that it hard to say in the physical and mental sense but it certainly seems like a directed path on which such higher things have bridges to what may exist.

It is this sort of thinking that also explains little things like the ubiquity on all scales of the gravitation force or the general persistence over some physical distance awhile at least for mass. The unification of physics as to if it is necessary that the relativistic corresponds or competes with the quantum view is not resolved without such abstractions, these of course from the holofractal quasic view at least of which it seems justified in the journey of our enquiry to call for awhile a third physics.

Ideas of a cyclic universe intelligibly apply too, but on what relation of something like scale, or any sort of looping, allows some cosmic theory to be but a subset of a similar but intelligible other cosmic theory- such as inflation like ideas where for now they are speculative. Where in fact does the string and loop formalism meet except in the singularity defaulting system between the local and non-local intricate spans and depths of the Omnium?



I add in the wish to make it clearer, after all as the apod link shows the distances beneath the muon are not confirmed yet including the string level- but in a way we can formulate physics to a workable point by the metaphysics of the weak force (Rowlands) regardless of other forces in nature as far as locality and scale goes. It is asked why nature aims not for simplicity in three and not just one design for an electron, why the choice of complexity. But one has to ride very high on such a bycycle, perhaps in mountains beyond the mountains of the landscape. I emphasize that some of these foundational physics problems as physics may be or can begin to be solved by a difference over the totality of these two types of generalized concepts of such holofractal symmetry, that is that we can view the defaults of places of uncertainty in the great plateau of differences in the values of the parameters of physics and so on, universes as well quasi-cyclic in conception like some idea of eternal inflation. Gravity is at least this complicated, yet simply stated vision.


* * * * *