[deleted]
I will indeed read your essay and comment. Thanks.
I will indeed read your essay and comment. Thanks.
Michael
Thanks for your kind and perceptive comment in my string. I responded;
"Well worked out. But did you identify the lensed light betraying the Black Hole's outline?
We must define the meaning of 'pressure' in more detail to validify our generalisations. We have missed something VERY important in present science, as I mention above;
When a light signal in medium A enters a new medium B, moving at v, we observe (from A) a different wavelength.
The light speed also changes (c/n), but, before we start thinking about the LT to stop it exceeding 'c' when we add v (medium) consider; An observer in medium B will also see a FREQUENCY change! This validates the SR postulates and Law of Conservation of energy (both c and E = f*lambda.)
This is NOT TRUE from the viewpoint of observer A, as that is now not a valid observer frame from which to measure the phenomena within medium B.
The reasons for introducing the LT are REMOVED. Light scattered from B to A does max. 'c' anyway. The SR postulates can now be met without paradox or the many anomalies that are thrown up.
Are the powers of logic or visualisation of the majority of humankind really not yet adequate to comprehend this?"
I think it's been rather missed that this is precisely the paradigm shift we've been searching for to remove the rift between QM and SR, and all the anomalies. I am a little nonplussed. Hmm, but, as an example; should I not be less unsurprised ? ..as this is simply one step beyond our brains natural capability!
Peter
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.
I have attached the sketches I did during the period I was writing the essay. The one titles "progression" could depict say, a one-form, a vector, and a vector field. The one entitled " a ferris encounter represents a dream I had about chance and fortune and alternating paths. The last one was actually taken from a chart in a paper I cited, but I made some changes to it to make it into an artistic expression without losing the synergy form I saw in the original chart.
I am attempting to upload the sketches I made while writing the essay.
The other part of my essay, the abstraction layer, the sketches hopefully attached.
IT is one MB (1097639) bytes but won't upload, perhaps it is too large....
attachments
Michael, you are very intelligent to open a discussion in a discussion with yourself under the name anonymus...
Hi Michael,
It is an honour for me to encounter for the first time an essay from a "number theoretical philosopher" who is also an artist, but aren't we all artists ?
Some remarks on your essay :
You mention you were in the inner surface of a Mandelbrot set, but is there an inner surface ? Mandelbrot set is an eternal repetition of the same entity, if you look at it from an external view point it looks like a chaos, but it is exactly this external view point that allows an observer to be aware of a part of the total that is in his own scale, he doesn't see the infinitely lower lengths nor the upper ones, but he is conscious of the essence of the set. So I think that your position IN the Mandelbrot set puts you in a position to be unaware of the correspondence you are searching for.
In your point of view the reality (whatever it is) is digital , so as you mention in your essay essential is the graininess, this however you cannot compare to the so called "monade" (monades) that you are referring to, monades is both the ultimate little but also the ultimate great (that is understandable) because a monade is a building block of consciousness, you refer here to your favourite theory M (not Monades ?). I agree with you that in our 4D causal Universe we have limits (yes grains) and these limits go back to a certain length and time, the ultimate length and time from space/time can be discussed (Planck or 10^-48m) but ARE there in my opinion. To take a Monades in its original form (quantum of consciousness) as a bases for understanding and creating an C(onsiousness) Field should be a huge step forward in our thinking and understanding. M theory is made of the total of mathematical thoughts and like I agree with in my essay, maths can deal with infinities both lower an upper, and so outclasses the material universe.
Furthermore the language you use is difficult to me , I think it is because of the fact that my native tongue is Dutch, but when you appreciate your essay as a work of art then it is like with a painting the first time you perhaps do not understand it, if this is the first painting you create I wonder what the next will be. Did you already succeed in the digitisation of your art work, I would be very happy to have a glance.
(PS I looked up the word Panchmamhaboothas in Wikipedia but could not find it)
Keep on thinking free
Wilhelmus
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