Philosophy of the I-brane

Philosophy of the I-brane

L. Edgar Otto   21 January, 2013

We tend to reject interpretations that are ambiguous in the ultimate context of a non-necessarily characterized space. In particular the distinction between wave and particles if reasoned to a more general context or analyzed to the explicit contents are not seen foundational in depth locally or generally as a unified synthesis qualitative, fundamentally different in the quantum world than say our experience of classical physics.  The same interpretation applies to ideas of space as physical effects of reference frames related to what we assume a matter component or gravity component or not if we unify to a more foundational system be this an objective or subjective basis of phenomenon (a general phaneron that in effect is multibrane spacetime).

As we gaze into the I-brane (I for illusion as in illusion of perception) the primacy of integers slice or fall into the cracks of the default triviality equations where the structures of an algebra would otherwise extend to the generation of primes (in the factorial space) otherwise as part of such space for a complete sequence induced.  The number 41 is the usual case given as significant.  This does not mean we cannot find a general algebraic or geometric theory, nor that arithmetic is ambiguous or unintelligible in its logic of consistencies.

In the span or compass of the smaller primes this atomization happens in the pair 17 squared and 19 squared where by theory as well as construction some intuitively limit the division of angles in spiraling for the four space objects become quasifinite or discrete and stand out in what is a general, technically crystalline, array of all the dimensions.  The properties of irrational space as in the golden ratios can act independently from prime constructions as if irrational space may be divided within a conductibility of dimension into distinctions of space made as if a concrete choice- as so such choices or working and evolving ambiguities occur in the omnium of general nature.  But this may become part of a more general nonnecessary theory.

The effect of our gazing from our independent game of orientation is to perceive the I-brane as if a spherical mirror surface, thus the idea of imagining spheres in nature in an I-brane quasic reduction wherein it is analogous to a light cone of imaginary number space with the vertical invariants or event influence out from us and some spacetime volume as in the hyperbolic case.  Limitations or slices, or our ideas of partial derivatives are a natural property (flange) of what is a more general space as if we can generalize some Alph transfinite number as parabolic or flat where we imagine such an extension into natural Euclidean dimensions.

Whether other minds (what we project out from us to infer at least one other center) exist or not in this general context is transitive over such entities.  The null or zero wild cards as expanding or linear powers or not may act as if a constant.

Mass then, (as well our ideas of force as inertial and gravity) as prime mathematical physics in its basis from a quasifinite view, odd or evenly neutral, is a method of understanding and unification deeper than arithmetic.  In this context we may derive or define methods and interpretations of the physics.  We may organize beyond our perceptions the forms of information or meaning where there is general unity in our experience of this world.

We have several methods or approaches to try in dealing with information, shapes and colors, kinematics and so on, all of these in resolving the approaches of Kant-Locke vs that of Leibniz as inquiring systems to find a certain  truth, evaluate an approach of such stings of ideas and numbers- all of which seems to need the inquirer as part of system foundation-ally- not just a matter of if or how, in a world that cannot be reduced to simple exercises in logic where induction or deduction in general does not hold as the only possible system distinction or where what follows or is preceded by what is not grounded necessarily in strictly defined causality (that is the core philosophy lacks a teleology or a way to compare clock time ultimately with high accuracy as experimental proof.

Of these methods the idea of matrices has been very fruitful or any theory that may translate into sequences as in game strategies.  While it seems true, the inquirer may not understand things as of higher qualitative nature mysterious so more so than a classical formulation but a ground such as said of the quantum formulation, this is not the phenomenon of mystery on that level of physics, it is a further generalization to which we may discover and eventually understand as experimenters and inquirers, as sentient beings, that cannot be a matter of twisting matrices around to describe particle nature against the vague background.  This could be the classical and logically quasic plane of similarities and differences that goes deeper into the null that what on the surface we see over the logic within itself.

The argument here of crossed eyes and that part of the geometrical approach my merge the right or left entities of the visual field and can do so in the matrix manner- in which case, as in at 45 degrees, we may add one to the array in question in such a way that the factoring of what is seen is a different representational count of objects.  For example to 10x7 we may add 7 for 77 yet on the diagonals we may see the array as 56 or 7x7 plus the 7 equaling 56.  As these different perceptions may be considered different together paradoxically in our inquiry into this Ibrane illusion space we nevertheless find 21 as part of the Pascal triangular level of dimensions of the system.

Clearly in just the abstract count we can see the higher dimension as effects for the mind's eye.  And in the seeing what precipitates out as intelligible and sound in an inquirer is the truth of a system or method- by these standards the previous post on Athenation seems a door into this principle where we risk the board of our n- or one player game.  But I have not tried this for decades... I mean it has been clear to me it is not just about individuals, even species in sentient perception for some deep influences can be very powerful influencing the world on some level although very rare.  But just the logic or coincidence of this even higher level of mystery should be seen as but one among a sea of pointless choices that on that level makes little difference philosophically. 

God in this respect does not an intervene as the executive designer, for we are not to believe that such an intelligent and powerful being, at least as creative as would be that realm of vacuum, for if anything like us He would soon grow tried of moving meaningless objects indefinitely around such an infinite room.  He must be more then, perhaps so are we.

* * * * * * *