The Reversible Reducible Irreversible Irreducible Aethereal Universe

The Reversible Reducible Irreversible Irreducible Aethereal Universe L. Edgar Otto ‎20 ‎April, ‎2012

A philosophy of non-necessity can have subtle mirror exceptions as to necessities not forbidden such that what is the role of that necessary to some complexity of systems interchanged with the non-necessary without exception.

The metaphorical illustrations of yesterday suggest a certain relation of directional parallels as if the view is one of ordering of vectors coherently in general space to the analogy of the latitude lines of the earth. Before chronometers determine position along these made naval navigation less certain or purposeful paths problematic.

So, the difference in the patterns is one of detail in the COBE compared to the WMAP picture. In particular as the definition is finer it seems the direction of these longitude vectors become more disordered and less coherent. Presumably, at the maximum reduction such coherence in the patterns of this viewed universe can be considered a sort of absolute chaos of reduced cancelling mixed independent points and vectors.

Let us consider Lubos's treatment of Avogadro's number as superfluous when things are reduced or equal to unity more as the deeper ground of physics than the working level of traditional chemistry. How to define chemistry for what it seems, the heart of the expression of the quantum view.

We can now assert that some things are irreducible in the description of the abstract system where real physical effects precipitate out and even as whole subsystems. What we are doing here after all is making a description of a mechanism as a physical reality. Some see this as if an irreducible axiom of a more subjective relation of the primacy of consciousness.

We can describe such a mechanism so as to avoid such things that seem more fundamental outside the system as to if some intelligence exists or beyond the system there is nothing. But surely in the middle view- of which we perhaps explain on the aether level how particles for example have a certain discreteness as bits of energy or of relative lifespan coherence is in a sense a measure of time or entropy as if the Omnium, the sum total and miscellaneous collection, has this ability to be directional as to its singularity sub layers of singularities in a general spacetime complex of all these non necessary abstract but actually observed entities.

It probably does not injure us in itself to be baptized in any such faith of mathematics and physics regarding systems as our world seems to encompass more and more systems. Thus George Washington would allow himself to be baptized by all the denominations that asked. Yet in these matters of faith one does not have to feel the unity of a system that can see the underlying mechanism is an epiphany of mystical vision.

The solar system in the time of Newton really encompassed what we would call cosmology. In Einstein's but our local galaxy. Newton in wondering why things moved in the same planes and were parallel in spin direction appeal to the philosophy that God must have set them in motion. Laplace in the consideration of changes in an aggregate of particles and ideas of momentum showed it a matter of just chance. Yet that theory was later generalized as to solar system structures being more a matter of the influence of passing stars- a first falsification of a theory as was the first Platonic science conceived by Kepler.

Now, between vacuum and radiation pressures that at least in the remote considerations seems to be a good analogy involved we may ask of what we are seeing that has hidden structure such as the data of the WMAP or some variations on the helices shifting of particles of light. Why in an nuclear explosion do we regard the muon in the role of a catalyst? Could there not be such a flavor or generational view in the map of the sky itself? Perhaps in the next level in analogy to particles (more akin to Pitkanen's idea of particle structure) at best we should expect regions of wide and unexplained save by pure chance of empty space between dark or material regions.

I am trying to explain such things within the mesocosmos view as this is at least a matter of information in which zero or one can be the same wildcard and on that logic level would be dynamic, directed, and as if the numbers there own anti-particle in the aetheral flow. Now although the distribution of galaxies seems to be in the deep probes and high scales close to the crystalline I have to explain also why from the quasic view we do not see say an intelligible spacings of the quasars or like objects as if in the lattice of fractal like quasic spaces. Thus the world is still subject to the mixing of systems, vectors, and chance directions coherently in some regions that intrinsically so are in action and not necessarily and most likely not at all from outside the abstract and concrete mechanism.

Here we return to the mixed views of logical systems when we can imagine higher spaces or even that beneath what we consider as irreducible. Recall that it is not a deep enough definition as matters of deduction or induction that an axiom or postulate cannot be exchanged in which is the special and which the general in this age of beam me up Scottie abduction. In particular from one view of the 4d Color cube system, and also as matter of a total system as a reduced count of the valid syllogisms from all possible moods and so on, by the rules accepted for the test of validity we find of the 64 cases but 23 that so obey such rules. Yet from a structural view and from the symmetry and the widest sense of possible vector directions and structures and spins reduced to the contexts of a system as a total mechanism, we can deduce there is a 24th valid ones that does not obey the rules.

Eddington's system, the Uranoid of his fundamental theory of quantum relativity of 1929 does seem to solve the issues in the sense of what it the scope of an intelligible and limited description of the worlds geometry including the count of the average number of particles that balance the totality. If we accept there is nothing more for things that are in the aggregate of which it makes sense then just to measure with a constant of one- a mole, no sense in looking deeper into the atoms than in any case seem to self reduce to a system structure as if the finest definition is general again and at rest as if the Euclidean ground, that or some absolute nilpotency that as the orbits resolve to circles from the quantum like clouds information reaches a more Platonic emptying of aethers save the disembodied abstraction of maximum possible symmetries - if we are content there can be nothing more to it then so be it.

But of this 24th case what sort of particle would that be even if it is implied only by the reality of all other system structures and even then is it not the end and beginning of greater things?

* * * * *