What is Our Most General and Wildest Conception of Space

What is Our Most General and Wildest Conception of Space

L. Edgar Otto    07 December, 2012

Lubos in defense of the string paradigm once remarked that even if the theory proves not an end all of total theory its methods will live on to add to our future developments in mathematical physics, so it is justified in our stance and emphasis of it.  So evidently the stance to an evolving and growing direction, with the saints of eras of new physics acknowledged and claimed for the history and progress of awakening of new ideas.

This imagined perturbation toward a reductionism leading up to the question of the inclusion of mass into our equations quite beside the subjective politics of it all and giving lip service to the dogma of objectivity seems to have reached a dead end empirically with the hope finer definition as we refine our instruments or higher energies reached hold the search within the realm of the possible and if not then the dogma can claim in this self fulfilling prophesy that we will reach such a place, eventually. 

Never mind that there is so much evidence already around us if we intellectually permit a serious consideration not considered "crackpot physics" by those outside the mainstream of the current and thus a struggle or dialectic of antitheses set up and resolved in the flight toward reason or descent to materiality by competitive views.

From time to time I have asked this question in chat rooms and forums to learn what is there in the mathematics and physics as well to compare the descriptions to my own rather independent views not just a product of the concerns of my era nor in a sense not the natural flow as we learn more, a given design as with a product or a saying eventually to arise in an evolving system, new or the same names or banners, and that with some resistance to a change of our familiar terms and symbols.  You know these most general kinds of spaces, but I address here the more exotic extension of cosmological models in this golden age of cosmology. 

I notice a comment on Phil Gibbs page, conservative in the grounds if not the implications of strings as something that carry's on to a more complete physics, that in the enormous possible choices of the string landscape we can have in something like a multiverse made of them with the enormous possibilities in them and so on.  This sort of model if I had not thought of something more general would impress me as very original, or the usual awakening to something like a fractal or organic replication program in the physics as string theory much like the baby universe ideas giving birth to new ones and so on. 

Right up there with inflation, eternal inflation, the clashing and division of cycles of branes, the big bang, steady state, oscillating models, big crunch, big bounce, cosmic censoring, all of these published in respected journals and with consensus in their generation of theorists of speculations after the end of a text that raises the possibilities of application and prospects of science in the future really outside the scope of what appears solid in the main body of the text.

There are other alternative physicists with interesting models I have encountered many who have ideas that are dismissed as at best not relevant and no place to actually publish the theories to be so reviewed by experts or peers as pure speculation alone to promote the faith and needed higher funding, establish prestige as if by popularization and entertainment in the name of god-like of science lesser and mortal that god may be as all there is in practicality, although Gibbs survey does more or less compare the more standard to some of the alternative views- but does his site draw crackpots as some suggested that cannot be published in the so called more respected internet effort? 

Would a forum of crackpots be viable for their own sake as a third possibility?  Would such a theorist publish and proudly call themselves crackpot.  I am reluctant to be part of the other outlets but then again our Lubos in replying to one of my statements said my position was worse than crackpot.  This I take a quite an honor although I have to fight back on behalf of others whom I regard not only called so unfairly but their ideas not considered is an affront to the progress of science.

But I did not mean to rant here emotionally on behalf of myself but to get down to the enquiry at hand.  The string paradigm will contribute positively toward future theories provided it follows the actual possibilities of at least Nature's evolving and fixed codes.  But on the face of it if we can live in a virtual world, some idea of a heaven with somehow a more vital way to live disembodied and hack the cloud for all practical purposes the reality the only needed physical ground why require a brain once it given to set wider design?

I present today, again what started out as obscure art and the link to mathematical recreation easily precipitating out as if running on its own finding new themes and words if I have the time and strength and will to continue and write it out. It involves ancient and recent recurring symbols.  The name Eryle goes back into my childhood and for a long time there was no cultural precedent. 

The symbol of the Eryle  a sort of scalloped rectangle I traced to a reflection at night through Venician blinds and in general the mechanical man laughing farmer as a portal of fear making tangible that of the unknown, the deeper sleep in the day dream of monsters we all imagine in the closet and under the bed as if we dare not question the world of our parents, even they but fragile flotsam on jetsam with but human problems we see only after living long enough ourselves.  Our ideal is to leave life and the world a better place, a more complex place for our children yet not to fail this god game or if so not forget to forgive ourselves for those forces greater than us or in us outside our control.

Science still has the vital role of allow us better control of our health and lives and of nature with do respect for the control of science itself and its consequences.  A cure is always better than the acceptance of imperfection or sugar pills that depend on belief or surface superficial clothing only, not to deny he who needs help in this world, but not at the price of who could make a difference in their freely willed contributions, a cure beyond the expediency of whitewashing the symptoms and burying facing pain under the rug of drugs.  Ancient mysticism aside we still have to deal with the architecture of our souls. 

* * * * * * *