Quasic Stereonometry

Quasic Stereonometry

L. Edgar Otto   22 May, 2012

There are many intelligible systems we can imagine along the way to a generalization of physics which are difficult conceptual leaps and as principles evoke in their discoverers feelings like they have found some earth shaking breakthrough.  These are just skipping stones on the great sea of singularity where they think the force of imagination must move the theory while giving lip service to Newton's idea of inertia.  Yes, there are intelligible descriptions of the mathematics, involving shape and spin, for skipping stones, that among the smaller mysteries clear once looked at.

This idea of the influences of negative cosmological constants is such an idea (among many others) of which if we look at it from the new generalization we find the quasic view to which we tend toward as if an end, yet this very idea is that there is a quasic given from which all such general theories follow.  It is leap into a faith going somewhere and from there we can build the next level of new physics and base it on better foundations and new principles which may lead to things beyond the expected of the compass of creative wisdom even then.

To insist on one sided asymmetry in dynamic processes is to in effect have a mirror view which requires force to be so sustained to achieve motion anyway.  Or that rays go out to see things.  Both part of a picture which implies its own truth in logic that the ground only absurdly exists without this absurd proposition, that is symmetry is the assertion of structure in the absurd.  Still, the leap should be made not that some vague sea of singularities- and these quite beside the applied wisdom of what is continuous or not- is that either way we see inertia as moving or rest we have to concluded in the widest generalization that the said influences of vacua, of negative vacua in particular is replete with structure. Less than this we find whole and extended systems of which the cannot stand on creative philosophic let alone what we today regard as creatively and scientifically sound.

But even in the description of these things, provided we try to interpret our symbols and equations and principles as physical (or even subjective as layers of illusions and reality seem to connect or not necessarily so on many levels) we have to resort to the old languages of descriptions, of logic, of processes, of physical terms ultimately to change in the meaning but in a way that leads to a real shift in the new meaning.

Sometimes we can retro engineer truly earlier states of things not totally forgotten, what some may have pondered long ago in history or may do so again, or yet to come or prove after all we only come so close to some higher goal of wisdom. This is successful only if in a sort of reverse intuition we can navigate through the natural steps- or it is the case indeed as in quantum theory that we can see into the future only to the extent we can see into the past.  The universe, even if uncreated is its own observer, but only by higher principles of observation its its physicality unique (the omnium as the most general or a higher generalization of quasics and thus brane theories that aim for a system of independent grounding for the physical mechanism.)

Still, in matters of learning, in the ability to connect to the reality with a theory, we can only retro dict the past to the extent we can imagine real things into the future or at least know what is wrong with the picture given infinite choices. Nothing seems violated here save the idea that if time travel is possible we can only go back to the first time machine or its equivalent- that itself an example of a partial theory seemingly a profound and not just useful breakthrough.

I note that I can do many wonderful things with graphics calculators but some things these cannot do within the scope of the quasic vision anymore than the  arithmetic or general design of virtual spaces- it is only as good as the programming and the world view to which it may ask too much of our existing mathematics to be a direct steppingstone to investigate real but higher and more elusive design.

There can be no principle of real structure without the structure of the nothingness as vacuum.  But this does not base the substance or essence of the world on the nothingness, nor some vague field of vibrations, nor on some alien influence of ultimate concerns, yet we can frame the views that way partially and intelligibly.  We can emphasize if things are connected or not, locally our universally, and we can use a principle such as those of symmetry, conservation laws, the holographic principle as a dynamics- but such connections are non-necessary in the wider scope of freedom and fortune, of destiny where it seems a certainty.

We are and are not connected between our holographic boundaries on some level or superposition of branes for example, all such surfaces may more or less act as if they are connected or can touch, can overcome or drift into each other, can for all it matters be separate, similar if not identical, yet we should know there is more to dimension than any such relative surface, the vacuum has volume structure as much as anything else in its generalization of which our choices need not be so limited as say how we apply group theory as an intelligible linear reduction- not that it cannot be cleverly so designed as a theory and a very complex one, and one that moreover focuses to a more realistic crystallization of our possible dreams of design.

But it is not a principle, save perhaps in its time, a simpler time, on which to base the next level of our new physics.  For example.  What can any theory of spin and phase or spinors by themselves show us but no matter which way we turn we will not find a way short of travel thru time or a vacuum to go from one surface to another- yet, we can do this intuitively when we sense or block the virtual observation of each other.


* * * * * * *