Tangible
Jack Stones (Strawberry Fields Forever
and Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds)
L. Edgar Otto 08 March, 2013 09:39:43 PM
Let us take the
radical position that the actuality and observable properties of reality (the
Omnium) is a product of sentience or consciousness, the Mind... As this in a sense transcends the mere
physicality models, can we say there is something deeper beyond our current
speculations that may ground existence past principles of uncertainty where it
paradoxically but with complementarity arises?
If not is there an adequate explanation as to why this is not the case?
A tangible principle
is one of touch, intimate contiguity in close local proximity as opposed to
inferred non-local vision at a distance so as to define geometry by these two
aspects. This asserts more classical and Euclidean structures are central
grounding resolving other models of space structures dynamically as well the
idea of what is concrete or virtual in the sense they are objective or
subjective mirrored descriptions. This
principle suggests that the arrangement of abstract objects can intelligibly
form patterns independent of dimensions and scales.
For example, the idea
of jack stones, crystal group arrangement of a number of lines, vectors, axes
in space as if interlocking linear rods tells us in construction on our
familiar, say the interlocking of toothpicks, level that we can expect the same
symmetries on the molecular level as if we see such bonding at a distance
beyond our instruments of sight- or given finer instruments confirm the
descending scale independence of congruency of these patterns.
Being a follower of
Coxeter and dependent on an early age by touch more than sight, Buckminster
Fuller developed geometry more toward the tangible in his insights. Vision in the abstract sense of Mind also
focuses into shadows of at least a vague fourth dimension into tangible space-
his term for this field around the concrete is tensegrity by which objects
derive solidity even as we build structures with less physical materials. A geodesic dome being centered in the fourth
dimension does not collapse under its own weight as we would expect with
respect to the gravity. The less
material, the more empty space around tangible objects the more it takes on the
familiar scale of solidity and the symmetry shift laws of the states of matter.
Of course this view,
being limited to four dimensionality, is not as deep in the physics model
building as is Coxeter's generalizations, nor perhaps on to Conway to make the
change from 8 to 24 dimensions then we debate what may be beyond this in simple
algebraic and geometric patterns.
Given two ways to
arrange six objects that roughly corresponds to doubled axes at right angles-
or of the diamond lattice, not a cube but more like an inverse of duality (here
I imagine Vuyk intuits and justifies as it is the nature of quantum ideas of
which to address as part of a unified physics) our ideas of vibration of xtal
lattices and these within the same level of dimension imagined doubled at a
distance or even superimposed at some fixed points. This is the general idea of what bonds
tangible objects together more than just the surprisingly different
electromagnetic fields as a description of exchanges of mediator particles.
(this principle has many forms as description including as a model for dark
matter or energy exchanges behind the scene in hidden symmetries but given
these ideal xtal positions we can imagine objects "vibrating"
dynamically between them as if in Vuyk's pinball model.
We can relate this to
Feynman who tries to see what it would feel like to be an electron vibrating
and quite inside its own level of uncertainty to which hidden symmetries are
unclear as to if they exist or not so that ultimate quantum reality, thus
reality, remains mysterious and in principle unknowable. My take on the
abstract group or xtalline structure I have called "flangelation" which
can be seen like the principle of tensegrity with a little more general
dimensions or a vibration between the natural count of geometric objects under
projective duality as with the cube and octahedron angles involved in these
abstract points of which moving things like light tend to bounce as in Vuyk's
pinball concept.
But the cube is not
as fundamental as the tetrahedron as a simplex polyhedron to which the higher
Platonic solids structurally intelligibly conform in the count of complex and
real positions or resloved functions as if positions approached. That said, Vuyk conceives of the subspinning
of the points of a tetrahedron as relevant, especially chirally in physics
phenomena discussing the vacuum more like an onion locally of creative black
holes (while the raspberry idea is in a sense focused abstractly as some
beginning of action) this carbon like property of bonding even without a higher
dimensional center, a 4D five tetrahedral cell polytope, we could erect a
theory that suggests it as a foundational totality (I call the celestic as I
call a diffuse uncentered multiverse the ultranscontinuum, for it did have
irreversible transcontinuum direction) this is the profound insight of Yuri.
What this amounts to
is a deeper fractal like level or hierarchy of vacuum and concrete phenomena of
which the resolution remains in a paradox if we follow part views of our
general given systems of intelligible design.
Depth from the span of simple holographic continua... seeds in the
raspberry for those who imagine baby universes of relatively free energy of its
totality independent or dependent paradoxically in oscillations of what the
state of things were at a beginning or came before. Branching models to transfer energy are as
important as warps like helices and spirals, discs and spheres, or waves.
The Tripod of the
three physics could see these as complimentary or unified, even contradictory
but quantized discretely or flat and at rest to the natural dimension in a
static finite (usually dodecahedral in symmetry but the sense of this goes
deeper into 5 fold symmetry patterns when a distinct number fits the branching
as structures in the stereonometry to act as if a unique prime entity whose
unity may be independent of other primes in the structures of the vacuum as if
in isolation.) The physics are at once
unified, quantized, and the third one a quasication mediating the other two but
not less important than the other two legs for it too follows in the three into
one thus four, quaternity, of intelligible but nonnecessary logic.
So these more
classical ideas can be considered a return to earlier simpler models when in
fact to consider them in new light as adding to the mix can be a more advanced
case. Yet the corpuscular view, closer
to the idea of partons rather than quarks for example, of a particle is
something I share with Pitkanen as to how we may layer the onion of forces even
for the lowly electron- it is a matter of taste for our structures more than
presumption of progress that can be a false, even delayed awakening of things
hidden that is the hallmark of science looking under the hood of reality since
the ancient Greeks. But Pitkanen, as
well as Conway is looking beyond the usual counting of things in dimensions of
a higher qualitative level that despite their genius is all to often said
controversial and dismissed by those we feel are not yet capable of seeing the
obvious then explaining it.
For those at least in
the spirit of it suggest sacred geometry or those who point out long traditions
of intuitive knowledge tried and true as evolving folk medicines or even
cultural laws appropriate to the times, the great Eastern traditions certainly
have just as an important a place despite the mystery often if not made
unhidden of the unknown it remains the same spirit as science in its goals and
can be like Buddhism a science cryptic in replies to what it cannot say, mystic
in what it may seem pointless to contemplate.
Kepler said to be the first falsifiable scientific system is still
dismissed petty much as a mystic in his system of worlds. In a
retro engineering and recapitulation of his system with new insights into
dimensions his could prove, in the Western tradition, not the first but also
the last of our current regimes of mathematical physics down to the subatomic
and string like theories.
Let us consider,
beyond this first this essential relation between two point like entities and
that between them, abstractly and ideally as one of many models, dynamic or
without clear dynamic causation, what is better explained where in an
intelligible matrix or as algebraic patterns over our vague idea of cloudiness
as non-linearity, an arithmetical extension of parallel axes, dual or not, of
significant polarity and signs or not, of spins and drags and shadow momentum
or virtual but unreal spiralling or not as if one sided things...as in the
extension of quantum theory to Feynman diagrams simplifying to three parallel
rods to map nuclear effects, quarks as conceived dynamically thus linearly in a
simplified sense with counts of loops and their meaning or not, or the general
inversions or projections of such flat brane like graph notations...we should
note that the cubic right angled thee axes of two rods form a tensegrity or a
concrete interlocking structure globally as if embedded in a higher space with
an unclear centering of connectivity's.
But in the diamond
lattice, as with Vuyk's pinball diagram,
while doubled axes may interlock, to see the pattern globally requires
three such rods for each of the vector axes.
But the tangible jack stones can be imagined with analogs into the higher
dimensions where say we interlock parallel planes, and so on. Geometry is difficult to try to understand or
develop a higher sense of things and we can decry the lack of this
understanding when we see the beauty and truth of such systems at least as
systems anyway or even dismiss such thoughts, really of a higher qualitative leap
or step as fancy only to which this does not explicitly apply to the real
world... like Sheldon in the Big Bang sit com we can feel sympathy for others
not as wise if not for their state of ignorance, yet humor has qualitative
levels too in the epic of our search for a theory of everything, of comedy and
tragedy depending on our human evaluation of our states of mind and
achievements.
If science does
consider evolution a fact and contemplating our own navels or beyond as if some
origin a waste of time, considering the rapidity of xtalization of wisdom and
technology in even mechanical evolution- is it wise to keep down the level of
learning or evaluation of any promising new path or idea? Do we fear the known
being in ignorance of more than what a meme can do in the sharing be it
influential for good or ill as our science grows more complex? Have we not seen and touched genius in some
minds as a mysterious whole as well its small universes barren or full of seeds
as well against the climate and plucker's of a variegated rose we sprout an army
of thorns?
The lowly box turtle
keeps its rounds, sleeps in the heat of day or hibernates in the winter. It
survives with its shell opening only when full of summer berries and for
replication risking if falling on its back and cannot get up it suffocates as
in the competition of war. Like it I
have made the rounds close to the simple logic and foundations, not the bloated
bounty of fields grown for the jam, for of all things in the old forests and
meadows, the box turtle relishes above all things the simple wild strawberry,
its bright seeded surface anyway and outer shell, carapace or canopy or gray
matter to smile it seems as foundations hold up our wider skies.
In the simple
illustration I name a new color, raspberry, and a variation. You see, sometimes the total effect is
brighter than the dull hues that make up the colors in the spectrum of a
maiden's hair... or the vibrant colors lost into the whole. These are #A73931 (167,57,49) and #BD21155
(189,33,21)and their compliments (that is the raspberry oscillates- it may not
need a virtual cloud of empty absolute objects with a keyboard to call it a
blackberry), but I have yet to find the ideal color spectra to which it is hard
to distinguish hues if I try for a 40 based system for example.
* * * * *
No comments:
Post a Comment