Quasifinite Algorithms in TGD, Quasic Space and Vuykian Function Form Theory

Quasifinite Algorithms in TGD, Quasic Space and Vuykian Function Form Theory

L. Edgar Otto Friday, 19 April, 2013

Where counting, that is computation, is a matter of a measure or method of complexity...Arithmetic at the foundations seems to give hints for more elementary concepts than current forms of analysis and mathematical physics. This may not remain the case as we evolve theories more explicit at the frontiers of natural inquiry.

The properties of prime numbers in power series seems that they can be independently found, thus overlooked, as well they can be found by what is felt less elegant appeal to systems of recursion. This is a fundamental stance by which thinking about frontier philosophic issues may help put the issue into a wider picture. Concretely, this is a question of the persistence and interpretation of the finite where it touches on issues of functions continuous and infinite or indefinite.

I regret where I have casually encountered certain people, usually with aspirations to solve number theory or logic problems as part of their university program possibilities, that I was not aware in standard terms enough to present a clearer case of my arguments for a system found in isolation.

How is it that we in our exploration of particles we find surprising entities so perhaps have to modify the view of such an entity as a definite object with different or resonating values if not the more general problem that can at least be solved by the complexity we encounter now in our modeling requiring very large numbers and the lower ones as well, that is quasi even in our newer or theories outside the mainstream...the generalization of this stance or concept that we may allow an "almost" or quasi-TOE or -SUSY? What does this tell us more than there is something more we do not know, that is contains our present system as in the idea of dark matter like models, while ignorant of the details of what that substance may be?

The general coherence of our visions, very much expanded by those who suggest the existence of higher spaces or more complicated ways in the idea of them as we enumerate the shapes or patterns of manifolds, seems to have a certain coherence over all such intelligible systems.

In the black hole of our creative minds we ask also where does the information go? Our thoughts have "hair" so to speak which like familiar fiber can be thought of as strings or braids, loops and filaments, ropes tied nowhere that we might imagine if we could reach that far holds up the moon.

It strikes me that Pitkanen with his paths and connections of wormholes beyond the discrete and defined "mouths", these being in a sense magnetic, assert a certain discrete view. Or with Leo Vuyk we have these defined paths string-like which also magnetic, beyond the concept of a point monopole, somehow a discrete isolated entity. We in fact have found that lightning hitting the ground does not spread out but can take its jagged pathways. It is hard to say how a black hole may consume the momentum beyond the last candidate left- some relation to our concepts as magnetism. But this is just a matter of idiom and standard terminology.

I find it hard to believe that some value, an economic idea, is concrete in the virtual world based on technology while it may transcend the belief in things like paper and gold or tulips for some abstract exchange and it not be surpassed by better algorithms that the trend in an economy will be stable and not arbitrary to which it leads to general decoherence and extinction of real value. Will the next so called non-linear stage, or some missed stage, of such an algorithm put into practice converge to a greater unified theory despite our evaporation possible in our wisdom despite us- or we can only hope in the existential moment to ride the waves as the pendulum swings for as long as it may last? Can this question of a unified theory or not be ultimately resolved concretely as science beyond the scope of metaphysics?

Evolution notoriously is short cited as much as its forms arise to test advantages anew in the longer run. The question of origins of life in a wider context, from within or outside a planet takes its stances in matters of gleaning sunlight or some place in the hierarchical environs of take, lose, give and find or trade. Transactions as the flux over time flows may be blind to what is an equivalence of the unknown and be observable space as if it an idea of counter negation- and this may not be ultimately symmetrical in physics or in our equations. How far does selfishness go up the efficient change, disease and endowment, epi-genomes and so called junk genes? How far might we in the dark modify or change the direction of our coherent endowment where after the drive to replicate fades we continue on in the expanding space and focused wisdom of our minds?

But as an objective, perhaps indifferent, suggestion for the technical directions of something, say computer chip design or the software for n-dimensional printing intelligible rules, I have little doubt that the spatial or topological drawings and so called illusions of symmetry may apply, the quasic grid itself interpreted brane-like with multiplicity open and grounded on the flatland of nil-potency also we may connect them more parallel in nature thus more classical in order to benefit by the symmetry power from such power series. If we are to benefit from inorganic quantum computation in general with all its debates and mystery, the quasic grid as an algorithm itself may contain and organize its expression.

Today I came across an elementary in an old book to which I cannot play the floppy disc with it by new machines, but insufficient proof of Fermat’s last theorem- and throughout it found the integers involved to which I have naively recognized in my studies. But if things are so obvious where are the number theorists apply such wisdom for the world in their theories?

* * * * * * *