Incredible but Intelligible Intuitive Enquiring Systems

Incredible but Intelligible Intuitive Enquiring Systems L. Edgar Otto Spring MMXII

Today I address bizarre and standard theories with the limits of perceptions of our intelligible intuitions as credible where remote cosmic theories are intimate to our psychology. I am posting this in real time except for the illustration as I am doing the vast majority of work off line, but some general things in the posts of blogs I follow give me the feeling that some are still in the bottleneck of new physics as limitations and that again I have outgrown a medium for thesis- then again, where is there such a place in the real world or in the virtual ones. I also did not post a political commentary as I find too many confusions and paradox to talk about something I am still working on in the back of my mind and which does affect those around me in relation to the state and to work and the next level of ideas and scams of virtual money I call Not Worth a Continental I need some distance from the ideas to post them- and to what reactions in this political world may be misunderstood.

I saw in the wee hours of the morning, a little chilly after the warm spell, Van Impe, at least the last few words while channel surfing for weather. His statement was that when Christ returns and in his small step on the world (one small step for Immanuel? it creates a lighting split east and west and separates the earth north and south. In this conception of the geometry, like the intuitive error or paradoxical results of a metaphysical attraction people find entertaining and credible and thus understand of the inversions of normal three space into its centers. Needless to say each sect needs its distinctions to attract followers. But it raises a general issue in my mind of the equivalent of lines and circles in that what in the cosmology we imagine as the Axis of Evil we can imagine as the Equator of Evil.

Yet the standard theories have their counterpart, see Lubos today with his explanation of the balancing, and a more unified and symmetrical view of equations that tends to support the idea of (limited) terms like Hamiltonians as energy and thus in the static world we may find the unity of wave and matrix ideas- certainly a concern one has to be sensitive to for scale and so on if one dabbles in string theory. How do we involve ourselves with things in a remote philosophy or cosmology save by debates at the core for statistical, mechanistic, or an enquiring analysis as if there is a purpose and some foundational meaning beneath that?

The are of course, from the quantum formalism, the concerns of the lower dimensions, the influences of three space, the vague analogies to depth generalizations of the reductionist simple diagrams disregarding solving the looping complexities of Feynman. This intermediate world of mathematical descriptions within a standard theory is worth the exploration if we keep in mind the psychological and the geometrical structures of patterns in our universe. In a deep sense, as some have said, the understanding of the concept of Trinity, of space, of quark triplets and so on does seem to have an effect including how much credibility we characterize in nature concerning what is bizarre from some paradoxical but more unifying view by those who achieve awareness.

In what I have called "quabics", that is the Oeconomic or family as if a division of the Godhead as a conception returns to me as that behind my own intuitions and the bizarre intelligibility of intuition as if a hidden influence, but surely and influence. For I built the godhead from the simple to those more complex, and if one accepts the forth and fifth levels at least what might this do to the creation and analysis of the foundations of our physics?

From the other side of the dialectic, the more dominant finite views (in my opinion) of Pitkanen I see no new analysis but the continued appealing to our higher understanding of new theories- this too a limitation.

Yet it is not only these two breakthrough blogger theoreticians that has reached a bottleneck. The real occasion of my taking a time for this post was the casual reading on Science Daily that just above the eyes the sensitivity and number of true friends we have on a social page like facebook is a measure of such things. But from the physics level the idea of the influence of lasers in the early formation of galaxies and the unexpected intensity of the magnetic fields and thus the analogous scaling to local experiments that simulate them (perhaps we can find better teleological predictors of computer simulation as a method) that while the idea of magnetism is not clearly understood (monopoles for example) that is the last in the standard physical realm of things there to explain the return to ideas of thermodynamics between the large and very small and the mechanism or medium in which as it is all there is left we think we may explain the transfer of momenta from the black holes. Clearly our psychologies can grow to understand better the next level of physics if not the next level of our social civilization.

*****

I add my comment today on the TGD post of Pitkanen as it is relevant and on my mind:

Matti,
I looked up the 1973 Kahler, Morse and wonder if it is indeed a subset that distinguishing manifolds is an incorporation or subset of TGD - the issue is not clearly shown to me or I cannot see it explicitly.
I do understand, in a vague way such a simple topology in rather abstract descriptive but vague terms is in that sense incorporated in quasics or higher systems...susy,p-adics, surreal and so on.

Now to start with you could mean the fourth root, or some partition root and almost certainly mean the Mersenne root for example.

This is compatible with the idea exploding or expanding a central point in an abstract space.

Now, can we prove or disprove, well we can understand the Riemann hypothesis in a better context and one that of course relates to such things as Poincare conjectures and so on but relative only to what we may consider a local space. One has to include more than complex analysis here for that is already a subset of the topology if the world is reasonable at all.

We in effect consider composite grounds also at the fundamental level in the height of generalization of which you speak.

As I have shown lately, at the loss of general readership it seems, these are issues of a more general idea beyond the distinctions of the subjective and objective- of consciousness and the physical world.

Zero and Infinity within themselves as poles each can be distinguished in fluid ideas so too the relations as a subtle difference between them. Can a zero point be relative and yet be a constant value to some manifold?

Our view of space has is so intimate with our physics of our brains and its evolving we have different approaches and each can claim a unity of sorts- but the infinite to one can be the nothing to another. The science magazines have breakthrough technologies lately where with simulation rather than issues of chance or limitations of mechanism a abstract idea like our intuitions on scales of Planck constants apply but not to the standard irreducible concept of a minimum distance or duration- to arrive at such an area or volume is to assert some form of the division by twos at first as the Riemann hypothesis.

Apparently, what is lacking in the theories is the scope and span of imagination not the endless chasing of theories that only utilize partial concepts of our brain and seemingly mind structures.

Crossing over to a deeper and higher generalization is not an endless task of the languages of mathematics- it is a common language written in the universal one of organic chemistry in the flesh. Even beyond string theory without knowing how we know why we need to make more rigorous the third thermodynamic law.

I started with reinventing the wheel of philosophy and eventually grew past the forums and so on- now I feel I have grown past the blogging. If you desire we can continue on new domains as our work hopefully progresses further.

ThePeSla

* * * * *

If this cannot be done then how have we seen some of the higher physics? I mean as one human to another in a world where deep connections, seen or hidden between people are very important- let not our scientific philosophy with our without passion and compassion turn us into Stone Buddhas... Let us not buy or sell in the Idols of the Intuitive Marketplace.

* * * * *

Oh, just saw this article:you know Buckyballfoldings well his three space world of 4D effects only houses 92 of the elements still let no one now say that his work in geometry was horsehockey but rather high grade horsehockey, anymore. Now, does it not seem that the spacings and foldings, holographically and compressions to points and so on not describe what should have been dynamically intuitive to someone before now? And yes, it certainly can apply to shell structures and heat. Of course Fullers guru was the great but long considered out of the mainstream H.S.M.Coxeter which was mine and I think Conway's guru too.

* * * * *