Adinkra and Gnomon: The Necessary Bipartite Graph by Michael Jeub

It's hard to think about theories with two times if that is what is meant by "t eff." Theories of everything encompass everything, and I do think my first essay attempt amusing as well. I do not take myself seriously, as most physicists don't either. The namespace for all this kind of theory that I am really deeply interested in is not standard, and I have inherited libraries from here and there and everywhere. My essay may sound like some class instance like that, but I will assure you that I am only trying to absorb into my brain the distributed architecture of reality, and for me it's at the trunk of the tree of that namespace. I am almost afraid to re-read my essay because I might think I've become a machine of AI, incapable of RI!

Cheers, best, and all that jazz!

I have not forgotten about the cartoons or sketches. In the olden days there used to be this thing called "the artist's sketchbook." It was encouraging to see someone doing a sketch today. My sketches were a way for me to keep my sanity while pursuing natural philosophy and reminding myself of these mysteries. I will attach them soon. They are rubbish as art, but there's no accounting for taste, as a critic would say!

Thanks for staying posted,

Michael

I might add, that the abstract I wrote for the website is not the one I intended. As a novice I just let this go. Most people who are wirters have had years of practice and were good writers when they went to school. I did not start writing until I wanted to understand math and science better, which was 2007. Textbooks need to be written with primal and fundamental flavors, not just the basic stuff either. For example a small child needs to know that sqrt(x)=

[math]$sqrt x$

[/math]

Well in the literature, the young poor person will need to attempt to translate the mangled awful language of science and computer science into terms that ring true with understanding. Is reluctance, for example, resistance, capacitance and induction all wrapped up into something only the componentizers should know, or should it be explained? I say to the scientists and engineers of the world, don't be reluctant, it impedes progress.

Dear Wilhelmus, I appreciate your thoughts. My relationship with this forum was amost fides unde abiit, eo nunquam redit, but after your thoughtful post and the changes to make the anonymous show themselves for the challanging discussion, I will start again seeking answers to questions. I have grown in my thoughts and approaches to the subject and have correspondingly been more careful about what I think in an essay. We are all indeed artists and have very special ideas of creativity.

I do not know how to account for looking at the Mandelbrot set from the outside, but I get your point regarding this. What accounting standards are more like our world? A set that has heterogenous combinations based on first principles in my view is better than just taking symmetry of half spin up and half spin down things. The inverted image of a pinhole camera is one good thing to "know" about physics and reality. I study about language of physics as well as the maths. The kinds of optics, catoptics, and dioptics, for example show that the meaning of being inside a set or outside of a set is optical accounting of time.

So, what if time is adrift? John Wheeler, in (Physics Today April 2009, p.44) revealed on his last blackboard, that "Time is not a primary category and the assymetry of time between past and future is not a primary category in the description of nature. It is secondary and dervived" I once asked in my essay if time was the most effective lagrangian, and a t the time I did not know of the principle of least action. Time is sharp in length with some bounds.

Now if one doubled the t^eff the univers is older using two times for the bosonic string. But no matter the number of times used, cannonical forms and compliments will naturally appear. So, if I were able to see the outside of the mandelbrot set, I would not, I surmise, see chaos. I is presicely that we have a normalization parameter that we can do some accounting of stuff in our reality.

Yes, it seems that maths can accomplish the metrics of information even before we see the real uses! The faintest signals and tools to measue them are not easily shared, but the mathematics is easily shared, but not very well taught publicly. Better decisioning will come when the tools of information science are the same for everybody who wants to question the fundamentals.

In maths and the study of information, I do find reality. I do not find the four dimensional casuality you discussed very helpful. I know it exists, and it has its usefulness for Riemann curvature etc. What is more towards what I was driving at is the concept of bits or objects in the visioning system of a computer: we would have a two dimentional pairing, another two dimentional pairing, and a one dimentional object. These could be components for depth and intensity plus a one dimentional stack of higher order, say "leading order." What I have suggested are the components of a universal Turing machine. One of these type models could be made with substituting two hypersurfaces and a scalar without losing generality. So basically what I have said is that we can AI a three dimentional dynamic world just like ours (almost) with these objects. Can we get by with this for everything? No, we must allow for humans and objects to give various views and approximations in the various perceived equilibriums of systems. General relativity is one such systems. The bottom line for me is that below the system of general relativity we have the optics of gravitationsl fields at play, which gives us the graviton, duals, space and N= (1-4) for time,

The pieces of a puzzle can be made any way we like to envivion the lattice of manifold which makes us up, I am fond of the string theory because there are only so many objects in the landscape to construct, like ten to the 500 power.

I is a problem that I think is beautifully NP complete. We should find the black body curve of the quantities of certain objects that we can observe in ordinary things, such a jigsaw puzzles themslves and the distribution of the various pieces which were regularly cut out. Without such regulating, ther would be nothing to puzzle upon or put together the divisions of information.

It took some of these thoughts from a notebook of mine, I would like to digitize all of my notes regarding fundamental questioning. They start from when I was very much in the dark, until now whaere I am mostly in the dark.

I have very little computer science, but stronger desire for truth of explanation of programming as a real skill based on the study of natural history and philosophy. So, with the similar ideas already expressed a combination of both linear and integer programs will be necessary to make good algorithims. The objects of strings should be in mind when making up the rules for projecting the character of the programs with the least defects. I do wish to "paint" another essay in due time. Perhaps every painting is reduce to O(n^2 m^2)...where the edges and corners are most dificult like the Mandelbrot set.

Best regards,

Michael Jeub