The Computational Frontier

The Computational Frontier

L. Edgar Otto   17 March, 2013  22:43:16

Of course we have deeper established frontiers of inquiry that skirt around the more general theory where the implementation of mathematics, of counting in particular, shows its division into stances toward quasifinite aspects.

These in the early 90's were concerned with the beginning of exploration into the various so called non-linear dynamics, the idea of chaos that found within itself its antithesis, wavelets, and the idea of fractals in all its development.  This corresponds with the level of computer computation technology with wider access to mathematical programming software following the rapid ongoing hardware innovations.

Part of all this from the foundational view is that parallel of general theories as distinct from a wider range of what may appear unique approaches to the theories of everything- a result that applies ideas from our more modern investigations and interpretations of number theory.  In the quasifinite view, and with our wider power of computation of large numbers, the general model of determining what numbers such as the Mersenes are prime are not as difficult as expected although we may ask how efficiently one method is over another in that difference which seems to apply to the mortar that holds the bricks of integers or the generational levels of quasic mass.  Yet without a quasic generalization we do not always find systems without errors and we are apt to overlook certain numbers left out of what we intuitively arrange as an ordered list.

In a sense the problems with the reliability of computer programs reflect this lack of understanding the quasifinite as we implement various designs for encoding.  It leaves the idea, moreover, of what quality such as intelligence may arise from such constructions of programs and their general interaction including our ideas on what is quantum computing.  We need more than a theory of everything as even a total view that focuses the many let alone a finite one, we need a foundational theory of everything.

Now it is not clear in the logic of nonnecessity that as some level of complexity of the universe we will not find prefect necessity or an absolute random chaos- but where the principle applies as the necessity there as exception it seems to do so intelligibly across the quasifinite universe despite the lack of general understanding physicality and measurement may still precipitate out of such quasi-chaos and that participation based also on this paradox of nonnecessity, of indiscernible discernible and indistinguishable distinguishable's in what can be said the symmetric yet asymmetric unitary or multiverse at the foundation of our being.

While it is not wrong in a mature sense of programming and description of physical processes by numbers in arrays that seem to exclude what is not a theory of everything, it does not necessarily in that stance include things still beyond its depths and span as a unitary foundation, the Omnium.

But this reads to me excessively philosophic and my intention was to go a little further down directions I have proposed, with of course the binary aspects I have applied to the quasic grid as a background.  In particular we may put on a more formal basis the nature of dihedron depth and abstract unfolding.  We need, as some suggested on Gibbs forum, to pursue the fractal idea more carefully.  We need, so to speak, to better define our term fractal at least to the representation of color and binary coordinate spaces.

My use of the musical scale is quite independent of its use as quasi-infinite (beginning from a continuous stance and leading to more of discrete entities)... from one view the wavelets and fractals as linear transfinite systems meet in the quasic count as two faces of the same abstract theory.  This can of course be considered a new way to view the possibilities of paths or environs by labeling as well as in the count we can better visualize a wider picture.  At some level we may ask just what can be more complex than the genome and even the surprises above it we tend to stumble upon.  Let us not forget simple structure also- that in the relation to living and thought the brain for example has a system of arteries and veins that on that level our wisdom of medicine may intervene or know it cannot correct some things.

But in the exploration of complexity in the details and of things along the way as points of departure we also can find ideas that lead beyond what we think the few or only directions of a more general theory- at a higher threshold of learning and comprehension methods like the musical scale may show us whole new areas of science to develop that may not be readily visualized in say the mechanics of the algebra or the world as just computation.  To feel the frontiers concrete, or that concrete like the aether concept not so, is less sound than faith in some stance or method of our inquiring system, especially the variety of stances of sentient beings, of we the inquirers.

* * * * * * *