Lampion PK: (Toward a Critique of TGD Physics)

Saturday, 03 March, 2012

L. Edgar Otto

Lampion PK: (Toward a Critique of TGD Physics)

1 If we conceive of a sphere as a rim of a hole into three space, then with the appeal to a distance in another higher or deeper realm, we can imagine them as wormholes and the spheres as wormhole mouths. But the appeal to the continuous in space from what may be considered the quantum level suggests we define the idea of such a distance or connection in some sort of space between the mouths.


2 Or these as such only exist as implied but influential structures in the context of a general manifold of at least potentially continuous space. I need some clarification as to what Pitkanen means by these terms.


3 I understand the general idea, and that the terminology used other than to give as an example to relate to more widely understood terms and ideas in current physics, that the use of quantum may not in fact resemble the term in its technical sense but mean something of a vision much wider. People are slow to abandon the continuity of their styles of symbols.


4 We are in a position in the new physics where we have to point the way but cannot enter the Promised Land as the metaphor of our times. From my view I have been on the other side of the border for quite some time and imagine that is why I can understand the concepts at least presented eruditely and formally in the Pitkanen's documents, but I see so far only the hints of solutions and promises that this is the way to solve things.


5 No one I know has really understood the surface to surface phenomeon of a pure four space let alone the need to go to the next level of five and greater spaces. Nor in ideas of equivalence on the foundational level can we say that complex numbers are not intimately related to at least the nilpotent quantum formalism.


6 The fact of primacy is not the minimum ground of things for there can be a level deeper than that of which I call the 'yod transfinite' if we take things to the ultimate. On the way there zero point ideas make some sense but again it is just a pointing of the way that seems to be in conflict with a hierachy of say Planck's constants.


7 What guarentees that one wormhole mouth - although the distinguising of different types of such mouths could be an original idea if explained with more detail in comparison to other vague theories that we recognize in general but ask what is in the mind of this author. What guarentees that from one to the other is a unique path or what law to average them that is not the observed interger parameters of the situation? This is a quasic issue that I have resolved.


8 A great deal of such models of new physics can be done fundamentally with composite numbers as well the general idea of surreal multiplication and the reduction of partition values in the string formulism.


9 If the pursuit of a theory is worth it, and the dedication of someone toward it, evidence of its value is not how much contribituted over how long, it is that one is ready to abandon or admit the entire system can crumble or become obsolete- if one expects at least independently to awaken to a new level of comprehension. Science in this respect is more far sighted than our best science fiction. In ultimate concerns as well as fundamental ones our math and physics is a stretching or expansion of our imaginations.


10 While there can be too much struggle and resistence to someone who would undertake to work in theory this could be an encouragement to deeper expertise and deeper levels of original work. But I have found in general my moods are cheerful if I complete a journey without expecting results before hand other than an intuitive pointing. When my work is going well in its results, even in isolation, my personal self worth is doing well despite mundane and always present needs in the world that are to me of lesser value- not the one to which people invest into their self esteem. But too many have reached a point where they think it wise to abandon the work and some take the ball from the game and walk away unworthy the swine to which they have cast their pearls to uncomprehending monkeys.


11 If we have a theory at our core that loops into the self references, and not so much the worship of a priestly but secular caste that does not acknowledge the diversity of something like the early ideas of scientific humanism for the masses and name dropping - something not needed if the work is orginal and fundamental, then the view of what the theoretician as well the experimenter sees will so be colored to this bias in a nonnecessary reality, so to his state of mind. But if we take the string view without a comprehensive explanation we only have relative support of a political nature and a form of name calling as propaganda for the view of the string theorist is equivalently coherent as a general or global self reference to which the expectations have to modify the view after the fact of the experiments. This is a chiral matter of at what level we must acknowledge the cultural influence of symmetry as a measure of beauty in the theory.


12 I have been frustrated for months at the blog of Pitkanen because of its format. I did not know it led to comprehensive formal essays with some formuli. I do not know if this is my fault or that of the design of the blog as a mechanism for a medium of original thesis.


13 To constantly promote certain terms is a form of propaganda or spam and is most suspect if it is not needed and justified or in fact comes near or is a total theory in its explict applications to wider discipilines. If in the emptiness of our hearts and views as if our minds are the mouths of wormholes, the question of a totality of connections or priority of discoveries and so on, and not an actually collective connection or even one of the higher form of a viable and meaningful coincidence theory of convergence of ideas at a certain threshold. we bacteria that as well see and detect must also touch to get the fuller picture of how nature works beyond our illusion of self and mind in a quantum random grounded universe with numbers that are not alive when they can be between us or within is as the exception of necessity. What guarentees we can judge each others mind or theories, and who is the judge if their responsibility for the enterprise is of a truth beyond their professional decisions if the world is uncertain and arbritary?


14 Any theory that is of the necessity of all or nothing, and those who do not understand the higher colors in the spectrum and the higher analogs to gray, cannot be a theory that unifies the existing physics nor the near ones to come for the theory is a flawed and inadequate despite the great power of the technology and the calculus so which to describe things, and of equations that by these extremes will surely break down.