L. Edgar Otto 10 May, 2012 11:44:28 PM
Some things in a flat plane are moving but they are not seen unless there is an animation of these isolated points. Other things which are not moving seem to be in a still picture.
The quasic order in the plane as a succession of right angle rotations in the same direction and the pattern of fives as if five sub-planes, four only seen is the origin of the illusion of motion or the actuality of it as a fact of space.
The pattern of the four goes to the higher scales of four patterns.
If the quasicity of patterns and planes is not true then we cannot read things like the Feynman diagrams by turning them over simply at right angles for its generalization.
When we extend the four fold matrices in the windmill of four things then impose this level with the four rotations of the windmill we have a fylfot pattern of 16 objects of which these are like a radial diagonal of a matrix in which half of the objects are self dual.
In the fractal ordering there are four colors but we take two of them for the extend of the four tetracube possibilities for a fractal like field of 32 as one half of the 64 as if a complex mirroring. This in a sense the dynamic or abstract asymmetry of motion due to transparency or field opaqueness for the two elements of the real.
Complementary cells do not always combine as the compliments of colors save it is done intelligibly across the four possible pairings.
We cannot assume that the illusion on a set of concentric circles will result in an actuall spiral pattern as in the galaxies and as explained for a physical reasons the planets move the same way. The explanation is deeper.
We cannot just explain this by ideas on probability especially sense at the grounding level of such shell games we can assert different view on chance depending on if we are to acknowledge the unexplained accumulation of history beyond any improbable random state of the moment. While the mathematics is intelligible and can be done to a fine computation it assumes a method of risks and chance, or cost benefits of some project and some logical measure of the unknown as a solid ground for reductionism- a physical or material ground to which the quasic view seems but a figment or coincidence of imagination.
We tend to describe this pure quantum ground as a measure of ignorance to the point we call all such higher symmetry effects into question as to their reality, where things outside of explict arithmetical and geometrical analogy is concerned these are capable of holding our speculations that may be for example the anomaly of so called dark matter and possibly the Higgs particle(s) or resonances... the sparticles are a vague attempt to assign to a real particle some form of vague symmetry. But other ideas of super symmetry may exist.
If we are to keep as gospel the role of five in space and group theory then at this level outside the standard theory as if a geometry that falls out of a random grounding assumption such particles as the tauon may be different in the sense from the other quarks- for there are only five as a description of which these can be generalized resonances but with the more general group and multi dimensional interactions, dynamic or recessive or not.
This quasic space differs also from our natural intuitive ideas of dimension in that the concept of time like dimensions added to quasi infinite binary power counts (that is Clifford like) unto maximum symmetry such as the E8 group in that with our spaces as empty or not as matters of non necessity, at generalization we can extend the concepts into higher levels of shells of complexity. These can relate to the ideas of fives or tenfold things as if the Euclidean equivalent of the four Einstein dimensions of which we seem to ground and even unify some string theory.
If in the shell game we ask having seen the empty shells what is the probability we find on under the other shell as not a deterministic matter we are not asking a very fundamental question even on the quantum level or on its insufficient idea we can always solve things integrated thru time and that these are bounded in a sense in the theory as if the boundary is a statement of conservation of what may come in or out of a path integral over infinite paths.
If we take it literally then that inside the remaining shell like the quantum cat could exist or not by virtue of the deeper symmetry (quasic and super), that is the fact one way or the other is the only useful information of the physical and grossly observable condition. Quantum theory does not explain this which usually we put in terms of what makes the collapsing into earlier theories of which if we really saw things as non necessity these in general remain equivalent theories include further generalization for example of GR - so what do we ask when we ask for a quantum gravity? Quantum theory cannot answer these question of the actuality of existence or not even in its own sense of mysticism nor deny that to some extent the influence of the observer is not a real, albeit not always a result of what we vaguely call the description of that physics as the influence by consciousness or perhaps the vague extrasensory.
If the experiment cannot be replicated within its physical parameters even if quantum theory predicts the possibility of something like cold fusion, its results may not be reproducible with regularity regardless of surprising issues that justly deny there is a gain of energy involved.
On the levels where we simulate or observe effects as if to see on some scale the higher physics beyond our experimental reach but not necessarily our imagination of the intelligible, as scale is relative and centered as one concept in its most general conception, we have the limited judgement on things as fundamental in thought experiments and results and as paradoxically weird as action at a distance or the useful information between the genes as the encoding has evolved between the information or chance or necessity as not as useful- then comes the question of can randomness evolve rapidly and of course it can as it is part of a bigger picture but then how reliable is the statistics if we can present different views of what is cosmically unlikely in some design or that we by coincidence (of matter only) are in fact here in a state of the universe favorable to life, the scale of the entropy (as a galaxy is sufficient). The argument is at once decisive and not decisive or useful, paradoxically so.
When we have different arrangements of atomic items in an array where it focuses on the same key element under permutations the computation of the probabilities depends on from which way or which side of the array we approach the problem, as to which direction in the sub elements as if a Markov chain easier in a labyrinth in the coming or going and this does not adequacy explain time in itself as the ground of thermodynamics, but it of course can as part of the bigger picture to some degree in the quasi finite universe.
What can begin to explain things a little better for a greater sense of unity to our physics is this quasic model in which the illusion or reality of motion, as with the illusions in a still picture recently posted in new scientist again is this sense of higher symmetry- for one thing it depends on a scale where the information fits resonates with our usual levels of perception wherein it can speed up or slow down with the idea of motion on some level of measurable scale.
Let us note that the rotation takes time, that is we do not have the idea here of infinite speed as a generalization where it becomes one dynamic with that of the issues of rest or identity of multiple or the one object. This scale change has a certain tunnel or bandwidth in which higher or lower it is invisible to our reactions even to great subconscious depths. But in theory it is accessible and intelligible in imagination and reasoning.
But even here, in the unity say of primes, it seems we are far from some unique explainable pattern and it seem to me, to be making a confused statement, that an approach by probabilistic methods alone will not "likely" find this goal although it is intuitively sound and will lead to many useful new ideas and hopeful tweak our technologies as we tweak our understanding of theory.
It occurs to me that in that statistics is a development of marketing, that under the umbrella of science we may cling to the state of our ignorance that things like the stock market is intrinsically unpredictable with the gamble of all or nothing there on certain levels as if that of individuals, that for the state of things, beginning with the idea of interest and its intelligible mathematics, that such a theory makes economics enshrined as our best faith to which we show it is faith in the state of its art as a science. In which case it seems to be the ideology that supports the powers that be, but not to say they really know what they are doing in these real or false formal scarcities or fears as if in a contract against economic or global projects of doom or gloom models as if the illusion the reality or the persistence of some illusions the unreal at leas for evolution as a fact and not faith. In nature there is not always a diagnosis and not always a guarantee, especially for individuals.
Other than that the skeptics as useless for the progress of science as the spacey in their dreams and drama can be the patsy's serving the sense of the mechanism yet at a distance from it and perhaps they too a part of the bigger picture. We are in for some foundational changes in this post economic world and of real things should try to prepare, in our behavioral bandwidth we can fear the wrong things in our future unknowns. If there is any wisdom in that part of science that applies to economics it seems to be that in our theories and social order let us be "reasonable".
Let us cure things while not thereby doing more harm, for we know now that in matters of our biology most things can be reset, nerves and organs can begin again, barring accident the promise of relative immortality on earth and yet what we have given to our children but a matter of lesser life and its quality, even to abandon that idea that it should be at least lived well until some accident or end- and in the bigger picture the lifespan on any scale will be sufficient or relative anyway. What is nature trying to tell us here?
* * * * *
No comments:
Post a Comment