Abductive Symmetry in Physics

Abductive Symmetry in Physics

L. Edgar Otto  May 15, 2012

I have not prepared a post on the off-line computer because last night there were so many homeless crack head transients crashing for a place to drink and not get arrested I couldn't sleep or study the css html again or even watch television. It is sad to see some of the kids after ten years, what happened to them. But I had this idea on the way to the coffee shop on the "beam me up Scotti" phenomena as a matter of a fundamental and experimental shift of paradigm in how we approach the traditional inductive or deductive stances on reasoning.

Part of this of course is the discussion after the fact to fit into a theory or to take it out again when the facts prove some glitch in the hardware of say- superluminal neutrinos.  I suggest that quasic physics does not try to explain things that enfolds into its own point of view- it predicts the structures of the particles beforehand and does not rely on either experiment or some systems in the abstract of biased theoreticians for something like loop or string theory.  One seems to the other as inductive or deductive those who do acknowledge experiment and theory, philosophically evidence shows abduction (but I do not like this standard term other than some of these engineers and theoreticians have obviously been abducted by aliens where they have learned to probe each other as well as the universe and are haunted by the ghosts of departed long term memories.

That said the nature of particles is obviously like the color and compliments in both a matrix or in the diagonal for the count.  Why does nature have some that spin only one way?  Why does nature allow such a struggle for common sense and real theories by those working with half a deck of logic?

Where 30 comes up in such matrices as if nuclei or dimensions in dimensions, or the materialization of them as prime numbers that biases the first half of the set, we have this dynamic abductive symmetry and it is not too narrow or wide a landscape nor a question of illusions of abstract volumes, partial directions, scale or no scales, consistency of mass values or short term memory, ideas of spin and phases and so on...  It predicts what in reason at least as well as imagination can be observed.  These 30 and the 6 in the diagonal, in a three space embedded in a four space, all Euclidean, I have called the Otto-Conway matrix.  These are windmill symmetries in the quasic field and we can of course extend them finitely and continuously into other intelligible flat polytopes and lattices or various topology manifold spaces.

In some ways that about raps up my work so far and I have done it without my own earlier reference work after all these posts and many others on philosophy chat I have had to sometimes find again things of which I can only access in  memory- I should actually find my book in storage and compare the differences in view- some things better or some things more primitive than now.  Perhaps I should start another blog for it as if a quasic physics journal for such items would definitely make for many more posts- there are even the very first volumes in the early 60's of which the first discoveries were made around the n-dimensional chess games, the quarks, and so on   oh the quasars... this is the reality so we should not be surprised at a little speculation can lead to  concrete models as if perhaps one can see at a distance or in time some future state- or perhaps hear the gods.

* * * * * *

Added later: in the count and in terms of the windmill or fylfot symmetries- clearly this was an ancient idea from the beginning of the alphanumeric age.  How the lunar calender is made in the I Ching hexagrams and the ten wings.  That is of the 64 we exclude the 4 (quasi time like) leaving 60 (that is 4 x 15) and those four are the four seasons...

* * * *