Dependent Observations Obscuring Each Other

Codependent Screened Logics:

I want to interrupt the previous posts which as it stands my put off some readers as if a smokescreen to the ideas that are more mathematical and come toward the last of the posts. But I am not alone in this subtle form of reasoning. It seems to be the case as with an article today in newscientist titled dark matter obscures the shape of the universe (that is some are not so sure it is flat after all and no one really understands lambda.)

In that our minds mimic the processes of physicality of the cosmos it is clear that our reasoning seems to cloud our reasoning within certain parameters. A statement like that of Lincoln today in philosophychatforum that concerning Dawkins there seems to be two answers, in fact newscientist has an article suggesting things beyond genes, memesm and x today, to the effect yes but only one of the answers is right, seems to me evidence of a lack of understanding of our very fundamental notions of what spacce and chirality is. Sure we can model it with say quaternions, yet this is not enough to pass through the obscurity of the general picture on that level of particle physics. A more discrete twistor like model would work as well, especially with things like virtual pixels in this third stage of possible internet replication integrations of culture and biology. Some of the mathematical problems which some find students there, and I emphasize students who seem to want to replicate so as to teach what they have learned- a condition of not even knowing that the world view obscures the deeper truth where mathematics and physics and number theory meet at least on the level of the monster group of 196884 dimensions- why are there three particle generations and space as three dimensional is the important question. Where is the quantum jumping on the quantum level? Clearly by considerations of geometry of flat tori and spheres what amounts to a quater rotation in the quadratic plane is an inversion in three space without an appeal to discrete limitations of complex methods. The juggle or the tetrahedron in motion has no center (nor in five space can we say which is the inside or outside as things vibrate) yet it does have an actual center of the value phi in Euclidean space coordinates. So to assume there are point particles or an origin at the big bang is to assume really the idea of the strings and twistors and jumps already in the logic of it all. To solve Keplers conjecture is a simple matter of understanding these differences of our idea of locality and non-locality of dimensions and chirality as to close packing of spheres and whatever restrictions are a matter of physicality on possible space or universe shapes. It becomes a more important question as to why there is not an 18 face deltahedraon- but on the forum the answers were assumed obvious that I should understanding them and apparently despite the ongoing evidence of the science news breakthroughs that my speculations still stood and to understand some of them is to understand before hand the articles, I was not nor the subject taken seriouslly. I remind the members left that experiments are one thing but in many cases the world has turned out close to my reasoning before hand and short of having some esp such as precognition or some sort of genius insight beforhand how does one explain this and is the reasoning before hand not some sort of evidence of good scientific thinking?

Does God Hold Atoms Together (Part 2 of 3)

Does God Hold Atoms Together? (Part 2 of 3)

This is not to say the interpretations of mathematical physics is not beautiful in its own right but clearly as evidence of the interpretations of the equations- say density or energy or even the conservation of energy- seems pervasive yet vague and again there is some sense to the philosopher's charge of the ghost of departed quantities. On some quasic level we can take the conceptual step a little higher for something like if some region is toroidal and yet it is not even if things are finite and conserved by whatever fundamental theorems. Symmetry can be seen to come before the power of conservation as much as be behind or co-extensive with it.

In general if the purpose say of the former philochatcom science site is to further education that is a nobel goal but educat is always the leading out of what is within us and the indoctrination from outside us as the basic distinction to keep in mind- a distinction that can relate to and be colored by other realities of our steps of personal and social growth. The participation on such forums is much like the arbritary meeting of a loan officer that is a crap shoot on if one gets the loan or say what to expect from the conscience of a judge's court decisions. What else is there but this human element. But those of us in the know see the irony and true colors of how some of the members feel about certain ideas - ideas that I feel I have grown beyond my allies in the debates btw. Some there beyond the personal factor are truly friends of ideas and science.

Let us say for example, from the wider freedom of the philosophic side of such a forum which is he mirror of our age perhaps but not a clearly defined one in personal or generational time, that an ultimate answer that "There is no universe" makes some intelligible sense for we can indeed imagine a time past or to come when individually this may be the case- or that in a sense we are the same person as say the South Australian organic chemistry teacher walking by me saying hello in the morning with his discipline and years of wisdom and care of his dog on its walk, he the same really as his young student who has finally awakened to the value of enquiry and too after the fact how precious life is and that of his child he sired in wandering years.

As if we are indeed somehow disembodied shadows, ghosts, or wills in this paradox of existing. The question as to what of thought is real is a lesser question and insight than this, lesser in level and irrelavace as Descartes pointed out in doubt and sensing being, for now. The wider idea o cosmology in a belated analogy to natural biology as a process to be taken seriously is also lesser in scope although in that physics seems a branch of biology seems to hint at ghosts where the highest level of complexity is such consciousness- but what that is in the failed interpretations is much more adaptable in complexity as a unified system, it is more on a higher level still and not that we cannot see things on the same logical level or perceive things beyond that but that what we imagine in this lesser level is far from whatever is its ultimate truth as being.

Does God Hold the Atoms Together (part 1 of 3)

I ask here not so much for a new world view or scientific paradigm as much as for an overhaul of our apparatus of mathematical physics. Where our current views are a matter of expertise they are notoriously a matter of faith, an intelligibility of a consistent and self-referential faith at that. To say this seems reasonable where we are aware of frontiers or anomalies of our systems at its fundamental grounds of axioms and definitions - what we suspend in our judgments as undefined save that we feel assured that our system does have truth in its inner laws- that we can make sense of the world.

As this makes of physics or of mathematics itself a possibly provable basis as a faith, like religious faith there are side effects of struggle and all its ugly consequences justified in evolutionary terms which affect the species and individual unto the limit of war. Those who in the archetype of self-righteousness who set up a command post to defend science seem to me not defending science and its methods as much as defending - in some cases without sober scientific honest judgment and that justified as collateral damage as if some project or purpose can wait in unlimited time save their own expediencies - against those from some similiar assertion of right and right of struggle who are attacking science.

The reasonable scientist who loves the field or those who are authentic in their religous faith are seemingly everlastingly lost as de trope or collateral damage. Science and faith loses its vague concept of its ideals of its humanity. But as conflicts resolve from the ashes our humanity and tolerance and ultimate sense of shared experience and freedom seems to reassert itself as humanity.

This proposal here comes at the foundation, the blank page and back to the drawing board among my many speculations of which there is a freedom for fresh directions - as well the same mistakes as if resetting the cell differentiation soundly back to the stem- after the cob webs are cleared and finding our selves again close to our beginnings. Philosophically it is a question of what is and how we see "motion". Mathematically it is what symbols and processes, continous transformations and algorithms, involve that place where ideas of information meet our ideas of action. Physically it is a question of the nature of mass and any laws of conservation and symmetry in all its subtile interpretations and the hireachy or interface of those interpretations as a unified physics.

* * *

From a more complicated level concerning the mysteries of the binding energies (the strong force) we find conceptually if not explicitly, analogies to the questions of the existence of an aether wind. The math as limited as it is, being a beautiful picture behind the dullnes of its application on a human working level called physics in that it is a limited dimensional mechanistic reductionist viewpoint. Yet the mystery of such fresh views insprie generations of emulators to the crafts of Einsteing and Heisenberg. Not to go in that direction in this lecture I offer this topic question: Is there an analogy called the Dark Fluid or Dark Aether wind? Will it change also our general concept of mass? I will now rather discuss more basic ideas on how we imagine motion.

* * *

I would like to add that although it seems we are justified in asking what other conclusion the answer can be, that any of this explains or connects to ideas of what consciousness is beyond the scope of our universe of discourse and knowing for now. This theory addresses things that make those questions lesser concerns on a lower level.

* * *

Metapoles, Plectrons and Plectoms

Briefly, the trend of all this, which seems highly speculative to me, leads to some rather fundamental ways we view the world and insist it is a proper and unique view as physics. In particular the underlying metaphysics of ideas like galatomic's and Lincoln's on the nature of particles (of which I find a sort of similarity and see what in one system objects to in the other) and of course galatomic has some issues which he thinks of mine as overly mathematical or geometrical while I regard some of his as on the surface too close to the ideas of physics.

A metapole then is a way to treat these particles (wether they are point-like or not) and if they are insome sort of quasic box or matrix and so on. There are in this view no monopoles per se but a sort of direction or singularity as if a movable cleft of patterns of a gray local rotocenter group in the quadradic plane. Of course we can see them as point particles or even strings depending on how we see and define dimensions, especially the exotic ones and those that hide beneath what we think of as the ultimate unity of some physicality in our equations.

By this thought I think I know, in the question I asked galatomic, where the ecotoms move- that is in my sort of Euclidean space or the standard one? Anywhere they want was his answer and so we come again to the idea of some disti9nguishing of force or will. If this means we have no inherent restrictions by present theories of physics and metaphysics ultimately I agree but with some higher restrictions on some analogious level as allways seems the vague logical case. What is the difference between (our terms on and om) the metaphysical and philosophic particles?

But all of this could have been deduced from my fundamental theorem of motion and not motion or being and not being and so on when it comes to understand the symmeteric and not symmetric nature of fundamental numbers- what in effect is to ask the gender or its neutrality of the chi for example from spirituality.

Can We Read the Message

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap090712.html

I refere to the above link on Astronomy Picture of the Day on July 12. 2009 called A Cosmic Call to Nearby Stars. I find that we can link to this on blog pages a welcome thing because I have followed that site almost from its beginning.

From far back I recall movies at the dawn of science fiction as the genre. The Man from Planet X. The question was how would we communicate with others from outer space. My father who had taken us to the drive in, and there was another movie on how humans changed after fallout from a nuclear war, explained that we would understand each other by mathematics as a shared universal language. That way we would know it was not just a matter of stray but intelligence behind some radio signal. Indeed, being a radioman in the navy as we listened on the shortwave for Sputnik to go over and his teaching me to turn the shortwave into a transmitter he advised me that to test it I should never send a signal in a pattern but only a random keying.

Lately I have questioned the philosophy behind this as well as the science of it all and want to express some general concerns. After all in dialog on that forum after three years or so which I can measure as the time I myself was in the service or how long it would take to get the BS degree or a first term for the president to measure the time- the cycle repeats for me for decades waiting for some form of credentials or admissions. However this does not stop me in the long ongoing enquirey and work. Such work is an island of stability, a core against the winds of encounters that try to make sense of this world. We all seem to have these paradoxes and paths of being and learning in this reality if we but try to observe our fellow humans and decode what may be their experience and intentions if any. We converge to our humanity as much as to our shared methods of science and technology while the evolving.

There are many stray signals in the world and it is arguable that such a signal recieved by us such as the one in the apod website could be explained, if in sufficient detail and expertise or philoosphy, as an obviously glitch rather than an artifact of intelligence- perhaps a star and a few arrangements of forces and atoms mimics what we think is unique as our human centered intellect. How do we read the message as one that contains information as evidence of intellect?

* * *

What we see in this box or panel is a statement by simple patterns of the laws of arithmetic (earlier ones showed our DNA but who is to say this is distinguishible and not a unified pattern in a world that is lost in the pattern of a unified physics of possible forms?) The border around the objects is there so if there is a lost of some of the signals a reader may match the parts like a puzzle as if it is a click map (which in the internet the example is) or a sort of matrix grounding.

The symbols establish the idea of symmetry or equality between equations and the numbers are so many dots and are also represented in binary (not pi as in the movie which certainly could arrise by statistical and not just geometrical methods) but a list then of the prime numbers comes at the end of the rules involved.

But I can imagine other matrices or pattern arrangements of which what is conveyed in the picture might not be understood and make no sense to those who count and see the world from some alternative system. A higher intellect might be able to read both systems and distain those who are blind to such a more general arithmetic, perhaps. Other than dating our knowing what can we tell each other beyond what it the possible states of physics and the universe anyway that we at least potentially seem to be able to already know?

It is not like we completely understand say prime numbers- it could be we are sending a partial theory as well as that the others also have the same universal problems maybe unsolvable. To solve some of these and a message to show how would perhaps advance our scientific knowledge and culture. Clearly the dull message is an exciting one that conveys our state of culture and intelligence. Yet, there is not guarentee any culture wants to be changed or evolve higher or differently. Where there seems to be no precidence for a unified higher theory the first effect as evidence of such a possibility is that we are not understood- or from their view make no sense. Of course the proof is in the details if one allows the evidence but some think they are justiied with wrong theories and some that such alternative views are wrong.

It is hard enough within my own continuum of thought to weigh these subtile things which after all can be argued as mere mechanism and not some consciousness as a sort of emergent quality but to understand the significance of quasics and the inadequacy of our existing computations without something like the detail of a quasic view of physics and mathematics is almost impossible for those who want in the name of survival to establish their part in a world they make- as always the stuggle in civilization and our seats of learning is to have control of the agenda of our on evolution and where there is order a scaffoling or veto of new mutations of hopeul future humans.

* * *

In the social networks lately there are polls on the recently former governor of Alaska, Miss Drill, Drill, Drill... at a time when some oil barrons say it would not make a dint and solve the problem. She brings up the value of free speech and says she is exercising it and yet chastises the media for not telling the truth. She praises our new crop of veterans as if the culture engineered a new bloc of voters. Yet in free speach the yahoo news reports the psychological of our soldiers in Iraq (the effete liberal university types always reneg and fear the its veterans and maybe if we believe the yahoo article with good reason. For they paint our solders who are there for the need or addiction to foreign oil as when attacked they lash out at civilians and everything that moves in sight- collateral damage? Then coming home become sucidal as the incidences of murder in their hearts break forth. But is there no need for soldiers? There is always a begrudged need like in the Art of War in Chinese literature despite the distain by the social academics for war as art if we are to face the pressures of some "barbarians".


It is absurd in our popularity contests and deals of immunity and power (after all the Chou who did the fighting for the Sung eventually and in isolation at the frontier dethroned that dynasty) that we offer to our people the presidents- best person for the job said the founding fathers- that we do. Perhaps after the fall of the Soviet empire and the decaying state the Russians are in that this is a forerunner to what the USA will become no matter how gray goo the diversity of our new population that would help us last a little longer than a closed regime. Such messages of how we are to get along in this world of civiliazations and clashing cultures have abandoned our search or enquiry as reasoning as well as the vague charge we have lost our virtues. Let us not make our holy religions matters of shallow cults that missread the messages from the stars and angels. Life can be less interesting times and peaceful just the living, sustaining, post economic in the weather if we also strive to soberly weigh the evidences of our growing reasoning and pehaps justify what purposes we think we have to put forth and defend. All states are in this sense abstractions and not something to which we owe our fundamental right to existence.

The Perceptive Limits of Mathematical Physics

*An aspect of memory is that we make a gray code symbolically associated as or with physical systems that reinforce the association. By physicality I do not mean some sort of materiality, necessarily, because as symbols systems (or a more general idea of a vector like basis not insisting on orthogonality) there can be a loss of coherence by the fact the cycles shift abstractly and are limited (normalized) according to the properties of the symbol system involving combinatorial validity's of the deductive logic at hand.

Yankee Victor One in signal flags to ease the tensions between the USA and USSR at sea to indicate intentions was something I was trying to recall yesterday but could not remember the V flag itself evidently because of other hidden associations as these are once committed to an association may be superficially so relatively fixed.

It is not clear that all logical systems lose information in this sense of going from the color dimension to black and white back and forth (indeed color arises from black and white as if in motion- why could it not do so logically and independently?) But if the Yankee's are the Victors in the cold war the red St. Andrew's cross is not that of the Czar's navy blue nor is red the symbol of the pennant one which resembles the victory in the first world war of the rising sun.

*The usual physics based on the idea of physical dimensional and dimensionless quantities should not ignore those perceptions and forms of space that keeps distance and time definite and a priori an unchangeable concept of L to the nth, length, area, volume and so on. Something different from some transform on metrical or flat and rigidly coordinated space (indeed the idea of an analogous fractal definition of dimension seems to suggest a wider physics.) We should take the hint of some of the physicists that the idea of dimensionless constants are important and fundamental and not just a matter of some philosophic or metaphysical vague explanation that has only recourse to empiricism and not reasoning. Clearly,the area of a black hole is a good conceptual example as well the force differences if we compute the charge of a star and gravity.

*Is there a neutral gray color singularity? A dimensionless idea of the problem of the "Now"? Normalization conceptually eliminats the radial quadratic grid points as singularity and infinity as of course the change of polar local or non-local general (even randomness) perspective centers. (does the sphere oscillate, zonal, sectoral, tesseral, or in a sense as it expands and shrinkis. Can we really put the complexity of the universe in such simple familiar scale models and then derive the ideas and terms of differentiation alone to explain everything- to do so makes physics a limited and dull thing despite the rich dress of the notation and in the end makes its an uncanny metaphysics of what it does know and claim as if time vanishes in the distance that all things tend to some unitary basis or some fuzzy range of things as that which makes things physical and solid in the end? But there are other explanations, scientific ones which by the way are less extrodinary than the arrogance of some of our physicists who think their view is down to earth. While they preserve their sanity they limit both the common sense and natural order in the world and science as a creative thing- and they limit that which can come from experiments save maybe the status of expertise in that range and funding.

*The higher quasic spaces, the resonances akin to the superposition of linear things- a fractal like concept by iteration and harmoinics fractal like can be imagined and behave similarily to any idea of coincidental numbers and differentiation we have so far. Finite or discrete vs the infinite and continuous is an issue both of the standard physics and its spaces and of quasic spaces and how these work together begin to approach the complexity of the life sciences. The generation problem is seen more clearly for what it is as an issue of how we fundamentally define dimensions.

*From the psychological viewpont the tesseral depths of spherical expansion oscillation as a method of speculation shows the need for doubts (Descartes) in relation to hallucination. To cite deceptions or hallucination of anothers theory may not be the case where to find the reality of some theory hallucination is part of the system and a needed thing for perception (if of course we have control and awareness of such transformations). Physicality is only as good a mathematical description of physics as to how good is our mathematics. A logically restrained but adaptable theory of enquiry on the frontier as if a gray singularity probe or naked poles of some models show that hallucination is a necessity for a good Philosophy of Science- and if one doubts such a meditation disembodied from some rigid temporal ordering we need to show the mechanism that distinguishes what we regard as sound and not so in the sciences. The evidence of closed minds turns our to be not so extrodinary after all.

Pebbles, Discrete and Deductive

An interesting metaphor appears on the philosophychatforum today (I am still banned from the chatroom dalnet channel philosophy, presumably because hughw can dish it out but not take such criticism as a matter of objective logic- of course from the beginning he would exercise his tough love and riducule on the science channel. Get a life hughw, I would have never given you free reign for censorship when I dominated the channel mostly without the exercise of power but with being reasonable and tolerant.)

Here is the exchange between two members which raises the poetry in me at a time I am trying to figure out the heart of what is going on in the complexity and logic of the quadratic plane.



"Of course, some years later, I realised that he had never swallowed the pebble, he just palmed it, and pretended to massage it out of his stomach."
dlorde

"When my son was 2 years old, I convinced him that I could pull a mint out of his knee. I tapped on his knee and produced a mint that I had pawned. He bought it hook, line and sinker."
Lincoln

Apparently on some level of philosophy and theology we try to connect the idea of physicality with what magic we can conjure from contemplating our navels. But I suppose a whole generation of physicists have swallowed the idea of what is a quark or preon (subquark) that we could pull out of our knees from a reductionist atom. The question is when we go fishing do we really use bait or have to sell some sort of colorized exotic lure in matters of scientific enquiry for the nature of physicality?

There are magicians and then again there are Magicians. What good is the empirical mint that comes after the all you can eat blue plate special touched by so many hands left partly unwashed after all the loads off our mind?

* * *

Can a particle be its own antiparticle ultimately? Or is the fulcurm logically unobtainable? Do we really distinguish between pure color and color mixtures and is this really not the same thing on a higher level (one that perhaps looks a little higher logically with color as a dimension beyond this height of our computational age)? Surely the mathematics is more than a coincidence that has a relation to the underlying basis of binarny powers and bases. It is so obviious and a matter of what now seems pure number theory. Can certain finite states preclude the others such that no rotocenter in the crystallographic plane can be both a three fold and fourfold one- I question if this theorem is not more generalized already when it comes to the same pattern of codes of four things taken three at a time, g u a c, u d s, and so on for a unified physics of our perceptive biology and subatomics.

So we have the group of the rotations of a cube, an alternate group, 24, thus to relate this to 24bit colors, pure colors that do not make the complements that are not mixtures and so on. So we have 256 shades of gray or r g b and so on. Surely the group logic is pure that goes to the next level of 4096 shades of gray. How much further can this go or is there some limitation and is that limitation one of arithmetic as well as group theory? We are often as much victims of the understanding of our deductive logic as we are of how that connects with our perceptions and explanations of the physicality of this world, experimental or otherwise.