What is Beyond Reckoning? by Jonathan J. Dickau

Hi Jonathan,

Thank you very much, it is very nice.

Yes lol indeed , a lot of scientists now have created prisons of thoughts forgetting the simplicity of this universe generally speaking, for me these spheres are the choice of this universe and this geometry is totally different than the others and is the perfect equilibrium of forces and can create all geometries and topologies when we consider these geonetrical algebras and 3D finite series of spheres where space disappears , one coded for the vacuum space and two main fuels, photons and cold DM. Maybe the scientists must understand this general universal simplicity and work on complex details differently.

Regards

Jonathan,

Math! - Its so long ago, that it now resides only in my 'imaginary' brain cells.

'Your paper is to be an exciting exploration of bouncing between what is 'possible to know' and 'what is beyond reckoning'. '.

Perhaps the (interesting) Mandelbrot Set and Planck scale are guides specifically for mathematicians. You are seeking converges or condenses, but shouldn't 'expands' be a third alternative. You say 'one area of Physics for which the Mandelbrot Set provides useful insights is the study of gravity'. However, if you see things as a cosmologist might, the options go beyond the 2 or 3 possibilities, even beyond reckoning'

I suggest that all things can be contemplated as nothing is absolute. Everything under investigation has parts. There is a field between known and 'beyond reckoning' with varying probabilities throughout. 'We reside in a middle ground between fixed realities and variable conditions, over which we have no control.'

Gravity, my interest, seems to reveal that what we know can be just the opposite of how it is. 'When crafting a unifying theory of Physics, a problem is that Relativity time is flexible, while in QM it is absolute'. Supposedly the need to reconcile these theories is the main incentive for quantum gravity theorists and the reason so many worthy approaches to the problem have been spawned. None work well since simple options are ignored. 'There is a growing knowledge gap because, as things become more complex; more things cannot be known, more facts cannot be proven, and more proofs can never be tested.' Seems all are upside down.

The sheer volume of collected data distorted knowledge, as it must be stored and then searched through later hoping to find the bits of information (buried deep within) that contain what we want to know.' 'So time spent is the ultimate barrier to knowledge, since it is the one limitation we can never hope to overcome.'

Best wishes Jonathan.

Paul Schroeder

Hi Jonathan,

I thought about this generally.

It becomes relevant to consider indeed the Clifford algebras for my 3 main series of codes 3D spheres , one for this space , and the 2 fuels, one for the photons and one for this cold dark matter and we can play with the commutativity and non commutativity, we correlate so with these finite primordial series of Spheres, the numbers, reals and complex and the different dimsensionalities maybe but we can consider mainly this 3D in playing with the different volumes, motions, rotations, oscillations for the synchronisations, superimposings, sortings of informations.

he main relevant is that the geonetries, topologies and properties of matters emege when these 3 series fuse if I can say , the spinors and others properties so can be ranked with the scalar Products . The differential structures so can be ranked in converging with the Spheres S1 towards S18-16 , John Baez have worked about thisand it seems very relevant indeed and that can be relevant to know more when we consider these 3 main primordial series and their finite numbers, the same than our finite cosmological serie of spheres, this number is very relevant and the space disappears implying a kind of super universal fluidity for a kind of main gravitational aether.

The morphisms appear and can be ranked and we can better understand the encodings furthermore and so this evolution.It is important in my theory of spherisation, the optimisation evolution of this universal sphere or future sphere. The aim is really to find a kind of universal partition where the space, the informations of these 2 fuels, and the numbers dance in a kind of harmonical periodic distribution. The homotopy of Spheres so can be relevant and the manifold correlations .

Regards

we can also converge with the resonances, fields , strings , Branes,....but in considering mainly particles coded instead of an external main Cosmic field to explain our geonetries, topologies, properties of matters. The philosophy is totally different. But that can converge because they oscillate also and can be in resonance for the sortings, synchronisations, superimposings, that becomes very relevant considering all the properties of these finite primoridal coded series and their number finite.

An other Thing at my humble opinion relevant to superimpose is the Lie algebras, derivatives and groups and the works of Dirac and the Ricci flow also and Hamilton Ricci flow in considering intrinsic codes inside the coded particles , the poincare conjecture of course also and the topological and euclidian spaces, in superimposing all these Tools cited above and here, that can become the secret of this universal partition. And furthermore we can consider finally an assymetric Ricci flow for the deformations and to explain the unique things maybe in the smaller spherical volumes of these finite primordial series.

I try to find the good general way for the formalisation of my general theory and these 3D spheres, I search the good mathematical Tools to superimpose ,it could be very relevant to work in complementarity, alone it is not easy, John Baez, Susskind , Witten, Hooft and Connes more Penrose could come on this platform, together with their skillings in maths, we can create a real revolutionary work at my humble opinion, I know the maths but they are better than me. The complementarity is essential it seems.

wordy essay (your usually are). But I gave you a 9 for content. Had it been more succinct you would have gotten a 10

Your points are well taken.

Andrew

Hi Jonathan,

Your paper was quite interesting. I had no idea about the connections between the Mandelbrot set and Physics. There is a lot I don't understand about it, but it just makes me want to read a lot more about it.

There was one thing you said I could use a little clarification on: 'that which converges or condenses into congruent forms.' What do you mean by congruent forms and what is converging to them?

Do you think the lack of focus on non-linear dynamics is because of difficulty, or possibly something else?

You mentioned the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, and it made me wonder if we could ever stumble across a mathematical structure to describe the behavior of waves without the limitations of the uncertainty principle. (A little tangential).

One thing you said in your concluding remark struck a chord in me, even if I don't fully understand the full implications. That " the reality in both Math and Physics is that what is relevant or real arose from a larger spectrum of what is possible". It makes me wonder on the limitations of what is possible.

Best regards,

Ernesto

Hi again Jonathan,

I posted a copy of this to my page, not knowing if you get it there.

Thanks for reading my paper. I don't know why you called it a revised version as it was never revised.

An ideal response for me would be of someone willing to read and discuss the whole model. That type of analysis could be worth some money to me. You mentioned finding misses and flubs, but I don't think you would find them upon really understanding the pieces of the model. A willing analyst could try applying the words to math equations for some of the pieces. My papers aren't that far off especially for geometry. Actually one of my published papers is in AIP JMP - journal of mathematic physics. That was 2013 and I get dozens of organizations per year that reference the work there.

You are wrong about the push being automatic with the universe inside out and vacuum plus expansion. The universe is stable and the push comes from flowing EM radiation throughout. Light for example is created and diminishes via gravity (involved).

I don't understand this sentence which you also used before. 'As Eddington pointed out; the only real accommodation in going from Newtonian gravity to Relativity theory is that lines of force converge at a radius rather than to a point. 'In any case both systems are wrong.

I have some knowledge of Faraday and his feed of ideas to Maxwell. In any case if there is more work to do to make this a complete theory someone has to explain it. Clearly math is limited here, but there are no motion differences (except for c) that need to be compared. The reality is that math connects subsets of a cosmology to its parent. But a completely new cosmology doesn't connect in many actions so math is simply a stumbling block to protect the questionable standard model.

The effort of thought conversion is too complex and difficult so few read and ponder this whole perspective. I realize you are a mathematician but might you have any ongoing interest?

Paul Schroeder

Jonathan,

Hope you have time to recheck my update before the deadline: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3396

Jim Hoover.

Thanks, for taking another look. Your comments are always incisive. Hard crowd this year. Your score, so far, doesn't accurately represent a superior effort. From personal experience, Much more ambushing this year.

Jim

Dear Jonathan Dickau,

Yesterday you commented my "essay" (Concentration and tessellation in quantized space). At first I couldn't understand your comment (What is "Loll" and "Ambjorn"? And what is "causal dynamical triangulations or energetic causal sets"?).

But an hour ago I tried Google and I am really surprised. I never had heard of the work of Renate Loll and Jan Ambjørn. I suppose I have a lot to read now... ;-))

Anyway, I am really thankful that you wrote that comment. I didn't know that there are other physicists who are involved in the same type of research as I have always done.

With kind regards, Sydney

Jonathan,

I read your essay and gave you a decent score. The Mandelbrot set in principle contains an infinite amount of information. This is even though it is generated by the rather simple iteration of s --> z(z + 1). Points that converge to 0 are marked as black and those points after so many iterations come close or within some distance are color coded. There are some rather spectacular videos of the Mandelbrot set out there.

The Mandelbrot set has these branches on it that have spirals with 3, 5, 8, 13 etc numbers of petals coming off. This is a Fibonacci sequence. The Fibonacci sequence is of course identified with a number П† = (1 + в€љ5)/2 My essay does invoke the idea of fractal geometry in the formation of unital sets. These sets are p-adic. For the Fibonacci sequence we can look at this in a mod(8) system and this gives the primes 2, 3, 5 and we can then reduce this system to these p-adic rings. I choose 8 because that is the sequence for Bott periodicity. Lurking behind this are Cantor sets and fractal geometry.

I attach a picture I took recently of a flower that has Fibonacci structure.

Cheers LCAttachment #1: fibonacci_flowering.jpg