Our Universe of Perception and TGD-like Enquiring Systems

Our Universe of Perception and
TGD-like Enquiring Systems

L. Edgar Otto 14 March, 2012

There in an equivalence in the concept of a sphere as a total system and a plane, as first mapped analytically by Riemann. But some systems or theories of everything are grounding on some aspect or interpretation of such a general abstraction and as far as our awareness is concerned these seem very much like the ultimate answer that corresponds to the completeness at the core of our vision, at least when we awaken to deeper information and experimental data we so expect these paradoxes to resolve.

But on the foundational level this certainly is close or our core of what we are and what we feel, such as religion which can supply unity and meaning, as well as conflict apparently deep in our psychological foundations. Wherefore, what distinguishes these approaches to theory, as with some forms of serious or randomly explored art, these represent a threat to a world view that will seem a threat that goes to the core of our sanity- hence those who desire to declare a theory or theoretician, a believer or not believer of some faith or attitude toward faith as "crackpot" or irrelevant, that is it raises the self reflection on any sentient beings of their own sanity and just how far in the bridge from art to awakening to wider concepts we have tossed our worn shoes toward the sky, an artifact of man thrown to the top of an artifact of his architecture to which we can imagine we have left evidence of our footprints and see no further if we try to that our efforts go to some end in a long walk on the scale plateau to truly greater wisdom than the modest efforts of our own day.

Riemann conceived that in a multiply connected and centered polytope we can have multiple densities while in the abstraction these can jump through successive spaces contained within a range of the values of pi. So we can imagine as well layers or membranes as abstract analogs and on these we could interpret them as part of living and ultimately as having to do with explaining or defining consciousness. These views are only a fundamental threat to each other when we have not gone far enough into the depth and span of general dynamic theories of space and time. For just as periodically we find systems of laws that relate roughly round or discrete corpuscular things and vast scale of emptiness between them, and questionable views that these may be rigidly connected or only coincidentally so in the evolving and interlocking similarities, that correspond to the general mapping of planes and sphere, we can imagine another general level of such membranes.

We can if we assert the differences over an omnic and thus freely expressed energy difference over omnic distances between two spheres, as if the mouths of wormholes, wherein they paradoxically express this difference despite the uniformity within some range of laws that they are more or less similar on the scale of expressing the laws, imagine two planes- as in the theories of branes- so related as such a difference where one also paradoxically seems dominate in the asymmetry of the arrows of action and direction and scale- and yes this too relates to the mathematics we define as series of the irrational and other general number laws in the various planes that describe some general physics of the most comprehensive description of space in our day.

A theory, that for some runs counter to the mainstream in which there is a realization in them that the mainstream is a method only, or at worst a lie, is a description of the mechanism of our own perceptions that may, how do we know?- merely describe all of a physics theory or a religious theory as a projection of our own psychology on the universe which may be radically different than what we then imagine. This sense of the beyond seems for most of us a general faculty but it too probably has something foundational to it. In any case what seems to divide the theoreticians is how these dynamic topological theories strive to explain things by consciousness as a given, or as the result of the universe as based on the idea of mind.

For example, in the remote extremes, that a God exists who is an intelligent designer. Or such a god could cast the dice and walk away. The galatomic theory would decide that in the directions of the arrow of abstract spacetime motion on this differences in scales, looking into the microworld as if it the future, that units of sentient creatures, ecotoms, are responsible for the rebirth beyond the big bang and rebuilding of our world as we for the next one what we observe as micro laws of the general universe.

But such a God, outside or intimate with our human centered perception, may be also expressed as this general theory as if crossing a bridge between art and science, information and meaning, existence and non-existence- such an intelligence in the design in this sentience projection needs not be totally banned or absolute ground for perceptive being- and still we can imagine such a being is an exception to limited perceptions as if a self-creative intelligence of it own. God, from our organic view is not a random evolution, nor a dispassionate artist, but artist at least such a god would seem. We cannot ask why of the universe or God why a particular landscape chosen for our living and journey that we impose a description of lesser or greater beauty for in this sense our perception as far as it goes understand completeness and at least foundational perfection.

So, within our human conscious world, we understand that in the sense of such membranes, and membranes in them and so on, that consciousness is a matter of degree, of the degree of awakening. A philosophy of healing and universal mind ironically as termed science, as in Christian Science for a random local example, essentially sees the abstract past as not existing or declared so to the flow of omnic spacetime, that is evil does not win in the present. Could this be the meaning of "Get thee behind me Satan" an awaken of sorts to our world view and how to progress in it.

At the other crossing of the bridge, the land of science still familiar or beyond us, and the bridges are braids that interlock, and the system of them connected like sheets made into a rope of ladders hopefully the prisoner knows how to tie knots safely, the looping and twist through the ghosts of nothingness along the way, will we awaken to a new place foundational and distinct, the negative filled or vanished, or the whole another bridge of enhanced wisdom?

It would be remiss of the theoreticians, like galatomic or Pitkanen, to leave these ideas of consciousness outside of the discussion of their systems, it would be unscientific. If there intuitions are so awake perhaps one day their expectation that they become, in a wiser audience, a household name is perhaps not unwarranted after all. But each social prize as things evolve tends to be of value only among their own species or perhaps as the whole resolves.

But the origin or reason for this post comes from last nights dream as in the almost summer like windows open and roommate left early to shop, it was so peaceful I slept long and deep with no particular theme in the depth save its vast intricacy of symbols and colors and social dialog of the characters. It was upon the awakening that it seems clear to me there was content for a general theory. Awakening as a degree of consciousness and wisdom. It is here at this what I have observed as a flat space, a simple two dimensional and barely colorful dream made only of intensity of light, that we find an environs not unlike our so called schizophrenia for some in the awakened state.

The past, the deeper dreaming, the negative to which in some theories of psychodynamics we move beyond as if the need for some forgetting that we awaken to a higher awareness would suggest to me that in the usual attempts to cure or control such illnesses so defined that on the flatness level, the isolated sphere of the self, such forgetting which may be a sign of getting better is often interpreted as a negative thing and symptom of getting worse to which we apply drugs for example that continues the state of confusions. Now mind you, this is the perceptive universe of what we socially or personally judge of an individual intellect.

I am stating that, and trying to build an argument, that our brains and minds (in any case it is a marvelous thing in the great holofractal scales of physics materially in itself that very small patterns of molecules can have such effects and these be intelligible, reasonably uniform as laws- an idea just as mysterious at the foundations as ghostly influences of a view describing equivalency of quantum ideas as consciousness) is this literal moment of awakening to a world that just after a dream can seem a little unreal, just a vaster span one may still worry is some symmetrical or dimension simulation. Eventually entertaining such thoughts could change the direction of our world views- but that would suggest also that it may work the other way, if words just can.

In the last couple of decades there was a lively discussion of why this world, an appeal in possible worlds that we would not know to ask about it if sentience were not possible in the projected higher number of such world unfavorable to life, the anthrocentric arguments. In the new physics this sort of argument, as a cleaver one or even as a cop out, is fundamental enough but not deep enough to solves its own perceptions of foundations, Such debates, like a just forgotten dream or even the persistence of nightmares into our world of real but potentially false voices and vision, will vanish in intensity in a world at least to the degree of our awakening in the so called "new physics."

Was it not Yeats who observed that even the Stamper, the deer in its conception of God see a god as deer-like?

* * * * *