North by South West

That night into the next day: I am not sure I am getting anywhere deep in exploring implications of the viral compass. Conway was right- no one does this sort of thing by hand anymore since the advent of computers. Nevertheless, the blue and yellow corners by this chain code are in consecutive viral order. I note we can divide the sixty four by 3 + 1 to get sixteen, that is reduce them to 16 but there does not seem to be discernible patterns when broken into 4 hypercubes of sixteen bases. Now one assumption from Rowlands et al seems in the compass logic- that we give a special emphasis for the center base of a codon (after all it can be read in both directions, indeed clockwise counterclockwise and those either positive or negative in some assumed spinning direction) So the gene code only in one direction may be said to be two and a half in reading. (the wobble hypothesis) or we see also from a central dimension (not Pinkers two and a half for orientations). So the North of this compass is the center of red red red or Gly.

I had a recurring dream but even then could not recall the terms that seemed somehow relevant and clear while the dream. Two types of view or people (possibly one sort of space compared with another, say of dimensions or organizing information) It also showed two classes of people each viable, more like a learned and an existential average dramatic thinker.

Now as a finite thing we can regard 4 cells as a circle in a more continuous space but it is important to note to the degree of detail the steps of such cycles would be normalized in the sense of the so called grounding of the calculus by limit theory- but as in the string spin dimensions (the center North by the way like strings may not be clear as to which of three are in the center) we can go beyond the complete spin (as if multiples of pi) before the scale of things reaches uncertainty because the wave is the same as the area bounded by a circle. Let us then call this a sort of quasi-uncertainty principle.

* * *



At midday trying to make sense of the ordering of the codon bases of the viral compass and as an abstract physics code relating to particles, the arithmetic working out (after all in the compass there are 2 to the 128th possibilities)the labeling here not starting with gly = 1 but rather 41 (I keep because of that was the first of my labeling 1 to 64 of the sequence) That we can exclude every fouth one as we so exclude four from the sixty for leaving forty eight which reduces to four hypercubes or (including mirror) the 24 cell polytope of three of them (which I hope makes some pattern as does the excluded 16 cell hypercube.) The group of this 24-cell is 1152 which of course is three times 384 of the hypercuble.

Part of the information inspiration of this came from what my friend Marcus talked about with me, he a fan of the I Ching and gigong sword or vector tai chi. The he imagines a disc of chi in his gut which spins and thus this "force" can push outward with a mere touch to push away an opponent. Otherwise we imagine a sphere to balance ones chi in exercising.

The Viral Compass

The Viral Compass

I wrote a reply to the comment on the last post which is a profound and classic nature nurture and identity issue. So I was inspired to post here as once in the sciencechatforum what I now call the viral compass. The inner scientist in me is more cautious than the creative philosophic implications and issues such as that of Henrietta- so I am really discussing the inheritance issues on the next higher level of experiment and utility. But to err on the more human side of things I feel strongly that as far as personal inheritance as a property issue that the descendants of Henrietta are due some compensation- yet, for the general design I find little basis for patenting certain universal gene sequences shared by us all. I also wonder if the reader of my blog thinks this issue of cancer is well understood and perhaps the idea of a randomness of her immortal cells is one of many definitions of the disease as well as here a coherent design of a quasic geometry of information involving what nature already has of reading frame shifts and remissions.

The compass above, be it a question of life force as material, invitron or invivon, should be considered with all the ideas in Rowlands book- especially the nature of the Dirac matrices and algebra. Sometimes our speculations can be too cautious then again they can overtake any coherency of organization. I see so much to be done for example consider the properties of the codons in this and maybe in other circles- but I have not claimed to have worked out everything.

* * *

Oh, I meant to mention also what I have called "immutation" which simply says that this circle can be read in two directions. (We now know the DNA can be so read as per my personal prediction.) Here now have questions of symmetry and evolutionary direction for like one labyrinth the complexity of solving the path can be quite simple one way or quite complex the other way exchanging the entry for the exit. From the view of a different symmetry many more patterns as successors or cause and effects show up in what sequences of genes organizes which ones follow as if we reversed the time dimension. This chain code I generated from the quasic grid and not the grid from the chain code by the usual methods. We can well imagine this done on a higher binary level. Now, does the chain break down into two parts of reading abstractly from this frame shift sequence?

Would little physical discs of this if they were safe to use not someway be a diagnostic tool for many things including the proper chemicals to balance or the lack of some things in the design to include to arrest disease? In vitro or in vivo? Of course the logician in me thinks this could be done more form first principles of theory as well as our random experimenting on life forms with that as the accumulated goal to be the guiding method of science.

But are we perceiving things just based on the general design possible as a reflection idiomatic and species specific to that fundamental state of things where part is known say for immunity and part kept open and adaptable? Life even in the molecular form, even given a more integrated non-locality of forces between molecules, definitely makes the existential decision of the fixed direction and the random dancing in variable degrees of spatial freedom.

* * *

I will include that page I refered to in a previous post here as I have the camera and within one dimensional system we can encode both the projection of self dual similar and of opposite structures, be they embedded and orientable simply or not:



* * *

More art for possible postings:






& & &

Later that afternoon:

I wish to point out that this viral compass was something I made about a decade ago and it is in my manuscript (most likely embarrassingly obsolete by now) Instruction and Being (4000 pages). I see it in new light especially the symmetries if we consider the 3 + 1 formalism. But of course consider that 64 is not divisible over the cycle of things by three (unless you count the thirds) but locally seems to be. So I conceive of two abstract ideas here- one is of course to treat the 4 corners somehow differently for the divisibility (quasi-dividibility?) of the 60, notice my pin map board is ten fold but this only suggested DNA so is not to be read as part of the sequences.

If we take the structures literally then number them in the cycle- the four would be red yellow blue green in quasic order, then the numbers translated back into a flat two space quasic grid would have a relevance of viral distance which of course would have quasized dimensions of space and motion to consider for the overall coherence of the ideal and accessed elements of the given and expressed genome. This is all I have explored so far. Is the ideal abstract background influential or not to the existential reading of the codons? Can this in terms of perhaps continuity explain certain influences between genes or molecules as if the Casmir like forces?

Quasicity = Information = Life Force

I begin to see why the issues with the founder of the sciencechatforum com was never resolved. Good luck to him on his Phd (rather than the accolades I would be interested in exactly what his science contribution was, and I wonder if it involved the early experiment he worked on for the sake of showing the distribution of amino acids was a random thing. After all, the idea of quasicity or any overall design was considered speculation (although such experiments might have confirmed some of this which on the foundational level of physics has no explanation to be denied or otherwise.) He stated that outside of a living system such organic structures are merely polymers. What then distinguishes living things? Why can viruses of the same structure have virulent and non-virulent forms? Why can we not make RNA replicate as if a living thing (eventually we did this by brute experiment crunching if I read the data correctly but it says nothing about some origin of life that invokes a Creator- but what does this say for a materialist view?)

In one post deleted I discussed a Canadian drink called Orbitz which the founders thought so whacky to use his term the post was one of the few deleted. One also involving how other creatures see things with more receptors, the birds and turtles in particular which suggests a way of perceiving higher dimensions in effect. The idea of quasicity seems to be what is missing in understanding that begins with the foundations of physics and other points of how we organize our lowly material physicality into systems of logic and enquiry.

The Orbitz suspended some rather poor tasting sugar beads in a sort of jelly drink. When stirring them up it took forever for them to settle down in layers and sort themselves- my point was that this is precisely how Einstein thought about models of Gravity and the Brownian motion.

Anyone who has gazed into a microscope as higher magnifications cannot help but notice how jittery the small creatures are in such a bombardment of molecules. Einstein showed the effects as if a random dispersal was equal to the square root of the time. Notice also that the equivalent scale of things also involved the square root of the time so as to say simulate ocean waves from a small model or what gauge to make a model railroad track, or what scaled up air craft will fly.

I am thinking of the quasic plane as a model- but in terms of the inertial aspects at these classical-brownian-relativisitic dimensional complications we can have a sort of Brownian motion which is the square root of what Rowlands calls proper time.

As a child I was impressed with going fast down the hiway near the Norfolk Naval base and watching the rays of light houses reach into the distance so much faster as if no time at all to cover the same space that took us hours to cross- that and the moon in a sense follows us.

As simple as this model is it not what we think about when we try to design certain models of physics and mathematics. When Einstein thought of the light he did not limit his thinking to the fundamental law of the universe itself- its unity over infinite and finite aspects, but imagined it quantized as if the law itself (the law of omnium, infinity x zero = 1) was broken down to several levels underneath the scale of a greater extended reality. In effect he pondered the laws of the physics of energy and for that of course, and not the relativity, got the Nobel Prize. Even if the light was so much faster I felt it absolute in the world at every level we encounter this bubble of effects of a contained region as absolute and things in it for all practical purposes flat and uniform or vanished.

Let us consider then the mechanism debated hotly between the creationists and the evolutionists- that mechanism that drives a bacterium. Certainly it can arise and most inevitably will arise in this universe and the arguments of insufficient this or that to find the design without divine intervention do not have enough information or experiment to say one way or the other- in fact although my position is everywhere in experimental evidence on that it seems not to see it either.

When the mechanism of a bacterium is cued by say the food it makes a bee line to it like a vector resolved in one direction turning its tail mechanism one way- but if it is say a danger it turns the tail the other way. Now when it reverses things it does not merely reverse the direction or path but goes into random directions presumably to enhance the chances of its escape.

Let us also recall that when a sufficient number of bacteria say on a beach is reached what not seen in the confines of an aquarium or lab is they synchronously glow at that threshold of phosphorescence.

These are seeming simple ideas that if we do not grasp them we cannot grasp the simpler explanations of the foundations of our physics- even as materialist alone.

Sorting the logic of higher space, and the mechanism that privileges the vectors and what not in things like strings and Dirac's algebra, there should be experimental evidence that some amino acids for reasons other than chance evolve preferentially and with a sense of at least the next higher space than three or four for life as design. If we have a fifth parameter, CPT it certainly is as physis perhaps a parameter of Life, force or not... vitality.

Integers & Irrationals as Physical Units

Integers & Irrationals as Physical Units

I am not sure what to make about this idea- if it is of a quality as deep as some I have presented on this blog. But it did occur to me from reading Rowlands on the idea in some articles that the Background radiation could represent the measure after all of the aether and light- Rowlands arguments presented to a young mind as if a statement of the facts would have made quite an impression on me as a younger man- I mean, what we first encounter in science let alone religion leaves an imprint hard to change. Texts do not always present things with a caveat to keep an open and doubting mind- then again who else is the judge of some program or agenda but those who do original and fundamental research for their PhD's? Considering the post yesterday one wonders if in our higher thinking, if that does indeed model the design of a universe, is ultimately dependent upon the struggle of our bodies and environment as a theory and not some absolute grounding in mathematics.

Now, let us say there is one unit- I mean the measure is not the issue says Rowlands in this continuity of things- then let us say the minimum unit or even the general idea of an integer unit- is Unity or one, one that moreover is a product of the finite and infinite. Say it applies to some scale of degrees- obviously the background radiation is close to three degrees of a unit- why not Pi degrees as with any irrational difference of things and random things (which from the article yesterday is thought possibly physical?) In any case pi comes up everywhere and as trigonometry in the equations of the particle physics.

So, how can there be a background radiation if there is no Big Bang, is it sort of a minimum? Hoyle suggested it is retransmission of iron whiskers in space as one candidate. But it is a great question. Why cannot a pure number be involved in a dynamics of scale and an evolving or seeming to evolve universe? The inertial and the light speed difference in Rowlands foundations reads to me as if a fact or at least a deep view to consider. He has a quote where no relativists has shown how the light arrives not at the same angle as the gravitational influences. Does not light somehow mysteriously without mass react to the gravitational field?

But we know the wave itself is faster than the signal speed of light- and Rowlands suggests in the infinite speed or indefinite speed of gravity as inertia moon that there is an algebraic difference and one we can see indirectly at least physical evidence- that the non-local information is carried by the gravity even if it could have a form relativistically which would move at light velocity.

If in a sense c is taken to be a unity and especially if it relates to the minimum scale then pi x c would in a sense be the wave train which might say in this weird to me idea that the global concert cannot be less than pi (or binary multiples of it in some cases) so there is a sort of inertial zero region, a minimum quasized pixel of sorts. I do not feel continuity the reason when things are broken down for the discreteness of space, the quantization of mass and charge for example but the geometry and arithmetic are part of the quasi symmetry breaking by quasication and the issue of conservation is not clear even if one says it cannot meaningfully go less than some area pixel space, sphere or flat, to a state of scaleless and thereby dimensionless unity. Such a total dependence on conservation implies a constant and a global pixel idea of an indefinite by limited scaling.

So, imagine then we are supported from the very small as if we are tied to the atoms by a rope without end- and that we hang as does the moon- that moon that some say have magical effects at the new moon but the effect is delayed and measureless when the pendulum is confused where the planets are in syzygy aligned- If we in the center and with our own meso scale of intelligible unity think in terms of the endless truth of relativity or the endless truth of the quantum theory- why is it in our sense of a unifying theory we think we can tie the outer ends of that rope together? We imagine it intellectually and perhaps not by our physical processes alone nor by some disembodied consequence merely the consistency of thought (surely this is the simple theme of this unexpectedly long winded post which may indeed originate from my body more than my brain and dreams)

But if as the article yesterday on the mind suggests aliens being of a different body would not comprehend certain languages and ideas as say each of us do (would we understand the lion if he could speak Wittgenstein? Can I expect the Mediterraneans to understand my sort of Polar physics? The do not drink milk - nor I their's for even in the math it seems there is no universal code or language?) I dont expect anymore an understanding from those somehow closed off from a wider academic and intellectual, creative and compassionate universe- if indeed we can magically touch and be intelligible to each other.

* * *

Facebook thought posted:
L. Edgar Otto Unifying physics is like holding to an endless anchor toward the very small and kept from falling by a rope endlessly reaching to the large sky- and trying to tie those ends together.

* * *

I almost thought this small and trivial idea not worthy of posting or immediate posting but in a way it is an example of the frontier of things, the ground of what it is to be interested and sentient of the depths of physis. If we can say the measure of an idea is how close it comes to nothing- and such an abstract idea of nilpotency in a sense creates the universe then why not a long winded post that vanishes into the nothingness? Add to this that such nilpotency in a sense is thought also infinite-potency potentially (that is the flipping of zero and infinity on a Riemann sphere) then what are we measuring, what are we reasoning? Will the simple idea stand up in reflection. If we are as the article says I act therefore I am- then perhaps the pragmatists were on to something after all as a viable aternative to learning methods and philosophy and the abstract is still a distant realm, a sort of secondary illusion. Again, there is debate on this level of which at the creation of this blog the issue of dark fluid came up as to the dark matter and the dark energy, evidence aside and speculations as to scales predicted, that these on some (vanishing?) level are the same thing or have the same origin? Thus I have the feeling there is something more going on here of practical foundations we still have to ponder and explore- It helps when we grasp this problem in the interpretation of significant dreams intimate with them if they be on that borderline between our social connections and sense of our own unique selves and language or genetic design- that outside or inside us perhaps. Still, from a reckoning standpoint our labeling or naming of things is part of the equation and turning zero into infinity over some unity or plurality does not on the face of it change the chriality as if a solenoid (or does it?) I intuit then the double zero less than nothing and what is left in the rationality an idea to which if you understand nothing of what I have said you too understand the humanity and the theory or at least the need for further creative and sober enquiry.

Surely such a quasic arrangement as the accompanying illustration assumes we have a commensurability, here dividing unity into the continuity by one 64th. Yet could we not work it the other way, start with the irrational and derive the discrete in these wonderful grids that say a lot on a single page for viewing? Perhaps these thoughts did arise from the subconscious level meaning in a sense the physical design that somehow stands on some sort of unit at a distance from what magic we fancy is that in the space of our mind and head.

* * *

Later that night at the coffee shop (the nucleus cafe):

I had a thought that this idea could be rather useful after all- in a sort of global relativist way...we can locate a number to any degree of accuracy and consider motions between those on the same quasic state level (if not other inter dimensional motions) on a flat plane with an origin of sorts in the counting, a sort of a relative zero concept.

The question then as to what constitutes a number, like an irrational number in some space (that is a natti point which would as finite would be duplicated a zillion times in a sea of singularities along the lines of finite copies of ourselves so many atoms away- also it is the sound of one hand clapping as a Dedikind cut as the linear is a limit like property located in a relativist epsilon delta dialectic of two space. I am not sure what this could be used for but I think there could be applications for things like number theory as the quasic grid already converts by positional notation several bases of number systems. If it is total in scope one wonders if we can really say as far as digits in the depth of the grid we really could generate short of the evolving to infinity numbers by shift of digits not in the list of countable irrational numbers- or is there a sort of quasic digital proof or method going on here? This may be one case where the application of a theory in the abstract may be said to encompass the universe as we do seem to imagine such theories until we see a greater hill over the horizon- until we feel that perhaps there is some sort of ultimate omega again- albeit actually on all scales and everywhere. What else would explain the mirror effect of the process of our dreams and our daydreams?

Stereotopes , Polystropes and the Impressionistic Universe

Stereotopes, Polystropes and the Impressionistic Universe

Last night I made a page of purely geometric pictures but am not clear the subject does not already exist somewhere nor that they can be read more than squiggles. It is a sort of subatomic concept to the atomic one of constructing a universe based on the lattices of simplexes (triangles,tetrahedra...) Also this I posted on facebook yesterday because of taking some photos of old houses in my town:

L. Edgar Otto
I am amazed at how clear everything looks today- I mean I can notice the fine details of things around me including that sort of spirit or electricity in people that separates them from the rest of the universe- sensitive to it all because of taking pictures so as to remember to look, and my new understanding of the complexity of physical things.

and reading Rowlands... all of this vaguely together to give me a sense also of the spirit or fire in matter (as R. mentions of Newton). There is no reason not to have the middle world immanent in its ideal distant "center". As if God also is such an ideal center even in a Triune universe- but this has consequences as to how and why we have the societies we do and make the mistakes we do in our "impressionistic bonding and associations". Also I feel a little less confined in how we see what is ourselves inside or outside of some three dimensional Location Location Location- a thing that explains part of our historical encounters socially and culturally. I also sense more clearly, as if in love to such sensitivity of things and people in the world, the beauty of an awakening mind of the young and their faith in the world and aspirations. Our minds eventually reach this level of comprehension to which such spirit or fire of our seeing, save in rare moments, integrates our understanding of reality and our place in it- a liberation from narrow paths and ideas and yet a sound grounding in the totality of the field of our perceptive impressionism.

The topology of chirality (as quasic and information and dimensionality and maybe "spirit at a distance" Rowlands could have a new parameter as "physis" which might include metaphysis. What do we do with the 4 timelike units of the 64? and why would we not need a more complex and general octonian theory if this can relate better to our understanding of physics and moreover our social bond systems design? Then again this goes beyond the scope of theoretical physics into creative philosophy. Nevertheless, it is amazing to me how the integer arithmetic of such iota points can add up so exactly. That and how much a part with the world and process things seem- I outside the universe that projected and xray light within or we in action defined as vacuum and fermion, that outside or the rest of the universe.

But in this relaxed and quasicontinuous discourse I clearly see the simplexes as quasic or cyclic, parity or chiral, even as the topology of flat tori- as to have a dialectic that should extend and revise our ideas of such structures and their relation to Riemann's insight of the next dimension and its holographic aspects and that which turns things around to the null ground yet not rigidly filling negative infinity. While my physics is still struggling my philosophy is a little sounder and so too our bonding as if a vibration between things but not string like as if a dispassionate science. Nor, from beyond and within the distar ideal centers must we see the world disembodied from the light and wind and touch and soul of others as this earth. Almost, I perceive the truth rather than the vast sea of deception of the nature of and for each our destiny.

* * *

Footnote: Also on my mind is this idea of duality (especially from a nilpotent grounding issues) that is a new level of philosophical dualism which seems a necessary step in developing a more general science. Yet still grounded as a unified view of substance of this world. Also, perhaps in the usual terms I may just have a quasi view of the Poincare conjecture in relation to a more "polytropic" view of space and its connectivity and so forth. No doubt such thoughts when understood do at least as a real and intelligible picture do influence our perceptions of the world- and do so from a much more coherent level of which I feel it is more for the good. Maybe our species is entering an awareness of our potential of a sort of New Age after all- but one that does not bring anxiety and alienation.

* * *

Later today: I perhaps need to make it clear what this post was all about- under the general measureless (in Rowlands sense) term polytrope and the similar so deceptively confusing terms like the old symbols for e and pi. On the geometric interpretation of the arithmetical basis (conventional idea of complex groups aside and the consequent doubling) that 3+1 = 2+2 and in a sense of ultimate proof of continuity 2 squared are three different foundations of the same animal. Of course Rowlands makes the caveat his study did not include ideas of tachyons in the finite space nilpotent basis sense and I presume ideas at least as a fifth state of our experience as illusion of that of our understanding of time travel outside perhaps some sort of steady state extended thermodynamics. The indefinite totality or the zero ground (not zero point energy which I feel as exists is not fundamental enough) involves on the lower dimensions these three arithmetical sums. Surely the quadrality (house of 4) shows up in the symmetry of the indefinite totality in the matrices of Dirac (or its defragmentation algebraically) as cube within cube magic square and its extension to higher binary dimensions symmetries. While symmetry is important and to some extent the foundations there is more. In this post I suggest it has experiential social aspects and why not a more complex algebra that can reach into the understanding of what we are even if it is psychology, sociology, or whatever beyond what we imagine unclearly even if not physics. This is not to say that our calculations do not work down one or the other paths to perhaps infinite accuracy even if these paths may conflict at places from an overview, in say the reality of relativistic ideas or the magnetism of electrons. Let me also point out that of the two forms of tetrahedral structure the 3 + 1 form as a two space hologram interpretation most certainly explains why the Feymann three quark formalism works and does so well in a flat space, as well the doubled and wider 2 + 2 reduced to 2 does so for the field ideas that we can represent things as centered and chiral shells or onions or ultimately a dimension added as color. Now all these things may be there already in some form and certainly where they are intelligible and match at least the current design of this universe they share some formalism. But we could make things more down to earth explicit rather than use abstruse and growing terms if the knowing is to be accessible to the humanistic masses of us and that perhaps help us globally and socially for a better world and civilization.

* * *

Still later that night after checking with philosophychatforum for new activity found a link to this article:

http://www.theargus.ca/news/1950

Now perhaps this post is not too far from mainstream after all- in fact these foundational and creative studies and the issue of dualism as in this article contain better resolutions than even this article has a hint coming thru the cracks of a wider learning or mathematics.

* * *

Next morning: from a blog I occasionally follow a great counter article which asks a fundamental question about the purpose and creative magic of the cortex:

http://stray-ideas.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-is-purpose-of-cerebral-cortex.html

* * *

At the Cusp of Light and Cones

At the Cusp of Light and Cones
Here I thought I would post some of the raw manuscripts that led to a little more formal ideas from the last few days.



* * * Doris in Space from http://dorizjeltzin.blogspot.com/2010/04/tidsmaskin.html
visit her cartoon artwork, this panel seemed to resonate with the mood of this blog lately- perhaps the little Norse Abelian inside me...



I did not post thoughts from this last photo but it contains some interesting ideas relating to the two types of cyclic space- the normal cyclic group and the quasic cyclic group. Essentially there are tetracubes (unfolded tetrahedra) related to three and two space and abstractly how one or the other type relates to a central chirality of its six tetrahedra of 24 of the 27 cubes, the three having a sort of separate relation to what is considered neutral and what handedness. Perhaps with these two views of space working together the classification of soma cubes will be more to my tastes than a map with just the information from the surface. We note also the extension into four space. In general the division, discrete, of the elements or cells of a tetrahedron as topology use an interplay of both forms to which mathematicians on a higher language than the binary code patterns prefer some physical or mathematical relationship. In Rowlands the resolution of one pattern definitely sums up to a general relevance such that two hypercubes split into two cubes in the quasic pattern from combination's of the matrices of Dirac. In this abstract mathematics we can imagine other forms of symmetry breaking. It is as if things can have a center, be they spherical or planar but the center is abstract and at a distance.

Quasicity = Chirality = Dimensionality

Quasicity = Chirality = Dimensionality
May 1, 2010

Last night when I did think about foundational physics I indulged in a little further recreational mathematics. I read more of Rowlands theory behind the Higgs mechanism and felt a little out of my league (as if I should ever forget that in the first place) but from what I see I do not like that beautiful theory and do not expect it to be a very fundamental truth of things, and yet when we measure the simple ideas of space as an origin of mass this does seem a better interpretation to me).

Quasi-singularity or "Solocal Lattices" was the title of my page which aimed to count the number of squares in the difference of squares or the same for the cubes and I found it all from a bassackwards approach. I in fact realized the beauty of some of the simple formulas of basic algebra and what they mean (did others miss this in algebra one- did they sense it like Einstein as a simpler fundamental theory?) Of course there is so much to explore given the work of others and if we only had a well presented course in such work in the physics we would get there faster to some clearer pictures.

I rather hope the standard theory is not the case in its grand unification- not that way- and if it is not then just as once thought of the string theorist that one can spend a career even if it is the only game in town down a dead end. I have known some professors who, although it is an important part of scientific enquiry, to become obselete such as in the bootstrap theory over night- personally it can be not a nice feeling- I have experienced it a few times early on but it lead to even greater areas of clarity and exploration.

Yet sometimes, casually, the more philosophical ideas rise up and I have to remember to put them down or they may get lost awhile- a poetry habit now really. We all are poets in that sense but the difference of being named one is the writing down.

Of course the illustration above is the barest outline of what can be explored for example the center of cubes of the higher powers (two volumes intersect as a point or three player games... trinx I called these) But the idea is that the general particle -after all c h and other fundamental constants Rowlands says has no meaning intrinsically outside the formalism in that they result from our units of measure. Long ago I imagined an electron (classical radius idea?) being composed of iotas or aleph-0 singularity points (a little more radical than the zero point field ideas) but these points were also like a string and like a field- the general term I coined was uroid (not my favorite word but akin ti Eddington's Uranoid which also seems to me the universe as iota particle or i as universe.

In a cultural or social sense it occurred to me that the Higgs being called the God particle was a fortunate metaphor- for it is how we see God that may determine if a culture is on the rise or on the decline intellectually and religiously. It seems the Christian view as if a trinity physics is just as much in a speculative mess these days.

A word about the illustration above in terms of the lattice points being iotas or as Eddington used the term as if a point particle "monomarks": We can imagine this also like a magic square (but let us finally dispense with the terms spinor and pseudo vectors and the like for better terms) for the round things like circles or spheres become lines and the lines become spheres just like in the projective space ideas and the complex plane ideas of Riemann) for each line and the two diagonals in the quasic plane maps to a sphere in the 4 cubed representation. And each row and column is such a sphere if we privilege some corner of the quasic space. The issue of information in a plane or projected back into volume and the issue of the holographic ideas where the numbers above are after all in a sort of assembly code, is a question like classification the soma cubes, of that happening in the space itself 4 cubed- not the same idea of information between quasic and cubic space of a higher dimension either way.

In the cosmos we observe as three dimensional the quasic lines or spheres in such ordering (and my guess as the numerical partial tone level proved out, partial for here 1 is the generator not zero in the calculations and counting) has a quasic structure nearly fractal like across the quason- this I offer in the sense of the chirality involved as a better way to understand galaxy evolution, or stellar evolution. Let us not forget the arrangement of nucleons in the elements undergoing building up in star furnaces and the limitations of their number say 5 or 8 in the geometry of it all.

Why else, given the alpha-n infinite nilpotency as a ground do we allow a difference of chirality to imply mass- why the exception save in evolving terms? If an electron of iotas can be represented as say an octagon and the models of such structures are not fundamental then can we say just how fundamental the electron is? In some ways it as a torus as and old model rings true- that only the beginning.

I see the sea of reflections to the nth dimension and wonder if after all some simple algebra could make some sort of analogs in higher dimension so say the icosahedron. While the idea of bonding force as quark confinement at the fine structures of the idea of nucleons (as if I could see the world last night as the nuclei of atoms in a sort of imagined twists of things like electromagnetism you do not feel directly but may think of as a separate substance to say gravity force.) In any case n-ply of Riemann as density, and of course under fusion the mass defect as say the contraction or expansion of space- the idea of gravity or black holes as acting differently in the envelop of star and vacuum structural parameters of change as if these were a classical gas- the idea of "impressions" or groups of things, of orthogons- say between 4 iotas is an impressionism of a square or area, in a sense the impressions are indeed as Rowlands points out philosophically or physically or not, a matter of discrete and continuous (thus quasi-continuous in my systems philosophy) moreover these are wave particle and dialectical dynamic dualities.

If we regard the stellations of the icosahedron as composed of edges and between some shell of edges there is a general impressionism of waves that ignores the other levels- we can show the sequence of all the stellations as if we light up an array of florescent lights only on each level- thus we would see the structures grow from a core to the whole again as that design- a beautiful project to construct. What then do might we mean by minimum quasication that would suggest some sort of quasi measure to time and space, and systems of matter in this world? Can we simply derive this from the difference, phi or not, of integer and irrational numbers- that is a more arithmetic rather than algebraic approach?