Quasiomnium: Can the Universe be Characterized after all?

Quasiomnium: Can the Universe be Characterized after all?
L. Edgar Otto (who misses the thinking time on the walk to the coffeeshop which inspried edits to this general post)

In trying to mirror such an absolute gray that cannot be halved, a sort of absolute place or portal into the next level of singularity at infinity, this makes a particle of sorts that cannot simply be regarded as a combination or inverse of itself. It is thus everywhere and is the generalized idea of both Majorana and Higgs like particle mechanisms in the new physics supersymmetry. The mass and gravity mediator meet here in conception as do the fermion and bosons. The contextual effect of such a quasifinite but general neutrino is another instance of the tendency of matter to dominate antimatter over the cosmic expression of the Omnium and the local expression of energy transfer. I have a holding term: vexineutrino or perhaps vexon.

The universe conceived this way, a mix of the physical ideas in analogy to particle physics structures I call the Quasiomnium.

{These paragraphs added next morning.}

* * *

I am a little bit exhausted and distracted due to moods of others around me and minor problems like it taking long to activate a card and I cannot move until I establish some form of on-line money transactions. OK now I have to wait again as I am given a new pin number and that will come in the mail.

My son, Ari, told me a first rate technology idea of which I can see many things that could develop from that- but I will observe confidentiality for others at least. I downloaded Google Earth and am quite impressed and I know it must be a simple matter to program any sphere, the celestial globe or better the WMAP. The more I learn quietly in this small space about the computer the less I am impressed then something comes up interesting again- spreadsheets may be a way to do higher level programming with the technology and software I have. People do not realize that some things are simple in the end, they seem to lack a certain confidence or when challenged they react where I strive to be aware of such phenomenon but take it in stride. I am not sure however that my method in building up people will do anything to make their life or souls better.

Nevertheless, I think the fears that the new technology will see into the processes of the mind, while worth the asking as to the morality and consequences of it, will not prove enough to deeply undermine the human faculties, deeply for of course you can fool all of the people some of the time.

Now as simple as these explorations ultimately are and we can sit awhile or spend energy exploring sooner or later everyone we would have seen shows up either way, all I can say is that what was a little intuitively vague has become very much more crystal clear and in that there is some satisfaction and the feeling the time spent was worth it, worth even the sacrifices.

So I give you some pretty pictures- but the colors can lose something staring at them long enough, there subtle properties and the clarity of really seeing what we are and how we look- the color that arises where you think there would be none in a still resolution, or the computer says things are horizontal yet maybe the monitor is off a bit or even I can see my mind is a little lop-sided. This is not what I expected to see at this level. But it does raise fundamental questions of which these are more powerful than the speculations of others even in the alternative physics.

Perhaps the main difference, on a much higher level than philosophic color is that I remember previous states as if all things in the world reversed handedness or maybe the big dipper shifted a millennium of so, or some letter fading on the tombstones or in the moldy old books changed- while others get by unaware of the difference. But it is a lot of work to keep in touch with our intuitions and heed them, but in general not to do so does not work for the best of our survival and progress- our society is way too lop-sided.

* * * * *

To continue as I made this two posts as the topic drifted a bit to the Philosophy of Enquiry. In the nonnecessary quasifinite universe we can undermine the logic from one standpoint, a principle we should keep in mind. But do we not look for some theory among the possible that is necessary in a nonnecessary choice of designs? If what Peter Rowlands meant by "the universe can not be characterized" was this principle it is an attempt to impose the absolute quantum view on the ultimate description. This principle, one of logic and its stance that can dismiss what one thinks as the correct answer, say some early form of string theory, a sort of principle I have called Otto-Motl statistics for it does seem to ground itself on the statistical, but if we look for one of the possible string theories as the character of the universe even in a world were we can ask why a God may have chosen that particular design, are we not looking for a unity of theory of a pattern of which in the solving of the problem we characterize all to this view?

On all scales it is not clear, given such an absolute relative reference frame that is remote from the intrinsic differences of the hidden but inaccessible level of super symmetries directly, politics and power are more real than anything on the same level to which one can even scoff at science as a worthwhile human pursuit. But the segregation into groups with the squeaky wheel getting the oil is the first broken condition of equal opportunity that keeps us from a brighter path even if for all practical purposes this does become a matter of life and death- but less so.

The sci mags suggested yesterday that Neanderthals navigated the Mediterranean waters and that they mostly died out all on their own. Their higher metabolism could have been a factor in this- so is it not a good idea to think about what changes, real or politically imagined like population pressure or global warming which will not be solved by politics alone for that ads to the chaos. The lesser species can vanish if they cannot adapt soon to even minor changes in the environment and get on with their living not aware of the global change- could this not be the case for us as well the Neanderthals and the lesser species?

The philosophy of enquiring suggests that we cannot just impose a unity of a theory on the universe any more than we can guarantee the sanity of our minds or what view is to be judges as pseudoscience. Even if we impose a restraint by experiment for that too contains a hidden faith or ground that we can add some unity and certainty to the world. Again, the scientist as well as the artist has a hard time realizing the significance of his work and life, the insane do not know they are and this can be because of a rigid logic loop in their brains and minds as well as some sort of chromosomal demagnetization of parallel personalities far from a closer unity of self. So it is not a good theory for enquiring to say that our mind, infinitely more variable than our bodies in complexity can sooner or later come up with any theory at least by the self-styled higher intellects.

We cannot say that the feeling we get for the infinite primes is more than a feeling when in fact the idea of primacy, notwithstanding the role in metalogic, cannot choose between a finite limit to them, these as a minimum grounding where math meets the physical, or that these ever go to higher limits in a quasifinite universe.

Remarkably, if we can characterize at least our very wide local universe and its laws then we have gone a great step to characterizing as if a pattern or form or measure what intelligence is when it is enquirer, let alone what our mind is. But to keep the Otto-Motl view, rather Wittgenstein-like in our alphanumeric design of our inherited and cultural logic (or it as a product of evolution), itself is a useful safety valve that will not let us by any system or subsystem of physics or logic become fossilized in the development and endurance of our cultural values and the chance of higher purposes for what is a unity in our own species. In the philosophy of enquirey we cannot find a world where the end of knowing something is the indistinguishable vanishing of it without the possibility of the new and the renewal while contemplating the cosmos of our sense of wonder at this intimate miracle of being.

The quasifinite view goes a very long way for the wholeness of our minds and souls, for it is not good that we become what others determine or dream for us without a sense of the wider and freer world, let not all the complainers and ranters hang together so as to share their ill dependencies on each other- while we need friends it is not good that those in drunken stupor want you to drink with them for they will not recall what was the discussion even if at the time is sounds creative and profound- come on now, let us not experiment on ourselves in the dark- for one cannot characterize a single mind if they cannot add some unity of characterization to the universe- it was called character and not something like false consumer credit where not our brothers keeper let the buyers beware. I will no longer let those who demand of me to drink their biases with them or heel to their beliefs, to stop our progress. If that is their nature I will not interfere, and physicians heal thyself also.

* * * * *