Nature's Alphanumeric Code

Nature's Alphanumeric Code L. Edgar Otto morning after the next post

These thoughts this morning are based on the next post and the questions as to how a theory can or cannot explain or do something from both sides of the physics- Lubos on Landau and Einstein unnecessarily defended against neutrino velocity measure errors, and Pitkanen in his take on the world and in particular consciousness, and his striving to put things into quantum logical terms. I made a comment on his blog which goes a long way to a post as to what it includes. So I post it here in case I do not get around to the details of it- quasically it is the information I presented as to what is the boundary and the interior of structures in the flatness to Pitkanen who replied with one word "congratulations". But I wonder if he understood.

There was a post to be before this one but it had a rant quality, not the usual, and I found myself a little out of my element, but I may eventually post it but not if it detracts from the continuity of my recent presentations.

I wonder if we can really meaning anything by the idea of a state of intelligence or history of which I have called the post alphanumeric age- perhaps, but the future is no more empty than the foundations of the past. A theory of particle physics should explain these sort of higher logics of space and time, physics and metaphysics, and resolve them into an intelligible stereonometry. A theory may not be what we expected it to be- and sometimes it can be much wider and much better.

* * * * *

Matti:

Memory as a concept, consciousness likewise, even if I imagine it to be stored or retrieved in the vacuum... it has to go beyond this that there are structures in the vacuum.

These are remote and yet in the here and now. We clearly see two approaches to higher ideas like supersymmetry, we imagine some things that is theory and some things that is physics based as foundational.

The next level of answers is the nature of the uniqueness or reality of a solution at some model of singularity.

You have raised some interesting questions at a time I am pondering this new area. But memory as I see it cannot just vanish into a simple concept of a field or parton structure as a vacuum. That our version of muons is real it also makes the remote abstract theories all the more real.

What did you mean by magic matrices endless computed is that not the same as the paradoxes of some sort of hopeful infinity of primes in the simple vacuum? If TGD can be integrated as you ask then are not magic squares places that describe stable integrations?

These new theoretical times will merge ideas like string theory with those along the lines of Kea's concepts. That is so much of new theory can stand or fall together just as the geometries and non-euclidean ones to which we find no one the exclusive truth.

The uniqueness of a holographic idea such as the classical electron beyond the concept of dimensions and scale, as if the parton (word used in the primitive nucleus state) is conceptually composed of sub units as a possibility some imagine. The electron itself composed in its volume as perhaps subunits.

Also Kea implied the structure and left it in the work on the real level of what we can handle first of the next few dimensions of symmetry. If something braids where does it braid within beyond its vibration dimensions? Such work even in our speculations should have a sense of caution and logical development and such work is a very much needed steppingstone to a possibly endless quest.

With strings in theory we can write on the unique surface of say a general classical electron and so derive in the here and now the uniqueness of its reality, nature's alphanumeric code (which follows my last post if I decide to write and work it out more.)

Is this not in a sense the description of our minds and memories? Is it not the solution of how things can be similar yet the information and meaning = unique unity and content, be part of a more general system? As such the information is a good view of the level of quantum theory and the development of it and the reduction back in a sense to where there is no need for quantum logic as a unique exotic logic.

Or in the ABC123 of it we impose the idea of a string: "ABC123" and call that a number such as those of which we see beyond our usual sense of them- wide theories like the adele I mentions some months ago or for those on the lookout for new idea pathways or to discourage them, these braided on some level and solved in the ideas of neutrino mixing generations (I do address that in my recent posts, but we need to be on the lookout for new concepts as well.

Lifespan is he issue also- and too many assume there is not enough time even though the universe itself as far as I can see and perceive is quasifinite- or quasinifinite, the same word perhaps.

On the very small which from some view does not exist beyond say the physical reality of the weak force along Rowland's idea of physicality as primary - which would include h and c thus foundational after all, we have to work our the fine details of division of spheres and such so to reassemble them where the paradoxes are needed for a unified theory short of heaven. But this higher level philosophic continuum is perhaps beyond the scope of our thesis, its questions and answers as our intuitive and enquiring paths, each unique, diverge once entangled in as much echos of thought as well as time and light.

The PeSla

* * * * *

At the general scaleless singularities such a writing on a sphere by abstract subunits is a remote and yet intrinsic local application of theory, for it is not the unique message in the string or scipt that determines the general field or reality of an omnic entity, nor does the field determine the nature of the message and its unique properties- but on this general level both apply- and if in the stance of a pure theory someone imagines these things, for example the compactification of higher dimensions leaving the three or four, it is a legitimate physical reality also of which no such enquiry is a waste of time although many in the field do not know why or what they are doing let alone imagine foundational alternatives.