Nature of Reality or Reality of Nature by Peter David Mastro

Hi Peter, I liked your novel methodology very much, it was most appreciated. I have a quick idea to tell you with regard to a helical screw being the artistic model for the structure of a graviton. If this wave/particle then travelled around a wraparound universe it would emerge on the other side as a force of repulsion i.e. dark energy. Is this something you can visualise?

Kind regards and the best of luck,

Alan

Dear Peter ,

I have read your essay. It is a fascinating approach. Clearly explained and illustrated. Enjoyable throughout. Your definitions of reality are, to me, unusual. Though I understand your separation of reality into "objective" and "real" I would not myself have divided reality up in that way.

You have objective reality as time alone whereas I would like to extract time from objective reality and have a uni-temporal unobserved space.Though one might argue that as nothing can be observed in that space it might as well not be space at all. But eliminating all space and content of it, can there then be any sequence of change, and so generation of earlier and later, giving passage of time? I would say not. But these are not existential spaces they are spaces in which the artist can play with representational forms that illustrate ideas.

I like what you have done very much. It is thought provoking and colourful. I have seen no other similar essays in this contest which makes it seem very fresh and original. You do answer the question but for the artist's alternative universes, "objective" and "real", not the universes that others may be contemplating.

Wishing you good luck. Georgina.

Dear Peter

It seems to me your idea close to

http://vixra.org/abs/0907.0014

Alan thanks for your comment. In regard to your helical skrew idea, yes I can visualize that. The picture I would paint however would not have a single skrew. I would visualize a graviton as an imaginary quanta and a photon as a real quanta. The graviton being the foundation of the dark, and the photon the light. Associated with each photon there would be 12 gravitons. Four of them are at the same point as the photon, and eight are adjacent. This eight would be broken down into two sets of four and each set of four would be the basis for two helixes meeting at the point of the photon from opposing directions. Each would have opposite spin and the tangent vector at the photon would be coincident to universal time vector.

Georgina, thankyou for your comment.

The unitemporal unobserved space you discribe I would describe as a cognitive continuum. There is no space or time in a cognitive continuum. All there is is awareness. For time to exist requires cognitive reflection. For space to exist requires cognitive reproduction.

The nature of a continuum is that each element of it is not distinguishable from any other unless something is assigned to it. This is why mathematics is the purest form of modeling because it is not about things, it is purely about relationships between things. The way you get from a contnuum to a universe in mathematics can be found in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. You begin with a null set, define a set that is the set of all null sets, and take off from there.

Who ever you are, thanks for the reference:

Whenever I look at what is going on in areas like high energy particles I always see the fundamental relationships between things similar to what I describe in my essay. My curse is that I also see what is missing.

The standard model is a hodge podge mix of things that are observable and things that are not. When something is given a name before you understand what it is you run the risk of giving something multiple names, when actually you are looking at the same thing from different perspectives.

Quarks are a good example. The geometric form of a quark pair is a tetrahedron. A quark as a seperate unit is a structure that is composed of all four points of the tetrahedron but only three of the edges. It can not exist in a balanced state. Plus when you enter time into it it is classified into spin catagories. Spin is a function of time and the observer. If you look at the four points of a tetrahedron and do a point to point sequence you will end up with six different sequences. If you do the same for the other points you end up with 18 more. My perspective is those other 18 quarks are what scientists are beginning to view as the dark side. They are quarks that are phase shifted to the ones they are observing.

Incidentally in regard to naming...The quark structure is Plato's atom.

Scientists need to understand how to paint a tree in the wind. You cannot understand it through naming the leaves and closer and closer examination of the tree.

My other observation of tree

http://vixra.org/abs/0907.0012

Yuri, hello again

I apologize for not refering to you by name last time. I am new to this whole forum thing but am slowly figuring it out.

Your observational data is really neat because it validates the connection between the fibonnaci ratio and expressing the time-space relationship between the six vectors in the universe realitive to the perindicular time vectors of the observer.

To answer the question in your paper. All observation of any phenomena takes place from a point in space on the universal time vector. If you view the six time vectors sideways you can view them as six circular rings and the observer is at the center point. When you view any phenomena that exhibits properties of mass you are viewing it from a location that is seven time quantum away. This is one unit of universal time and six units of 3D time.

If you look at Table 3 you are looking from a point where x=6 and 1.618 to the power of six is 17.94427. If you do the math the 6th vector 6 time quantum away is at an angle of 87 degrees relative to the 3D time vector and 3 degrees relative to the universal time vector.

This is the 3 degrees of seperation in your observational data.

If you look at diagram 5 in the essay you will notices that I have the observer vector and the first vector both at zero displacement.

Dear Peter,

Thanks to your contribution to the contest that confirms what I say in my essay' s abstract (that art is not unrelated to "Physical Philosophy" - Physics in Newton's era). I enjoyed your colorful figures as well (among others) wondering in one of my responses "How Physics can be done without figures?". I have not finished reading your essay yet.

regards, narsep (ioannis hadjidakis)

Yuri,

It occured to me after my previous response in regard to the 3 degree seperation you were trying to understand. Don't forget when the wind blows it affects the whole tree. The trunk moves a little, the branches a little more and the twigs and leaves the most.

The 3 degrees you were wondering about is the trunk. When you move to the branches its 5 degrees, when you proceed to the third vector its 8 degrees. Anything that occupies space requires three vectors for spatial definition.

Your 3 degree speperation from 15 degrees is an 8 degree seperartion from 30 degrees and a 0 degree seperation from 45 degrees.

You motivated me to create a restructured diagram 5 that is tuned to use by those interested in quantum mechanics. I am checking to see if the FQXi folks will let me include it in the essay. If not I am in the process of uploading the document into my website at www.mastrostudio.com.

Thankyou for your comments Ioannis,

Before math and science and art and philosophy and religion, the universe existed and man interacted with nature directly. We survived without any of it. We still do not need any of it to survive. All we need to survive is the natural world, and the ability to reason and communicate with each other.

Grunt.

Pete

Hi Pete,

Is there a relation between your angle on Diagram 5, and the "angle of view" explained by Philippe Starck in his Ted talk (timestamp 8:33 - 12:00) http://www.ted.com/talks/philippe_starck_thinks_deep_on_design.html ?

I like how art and science are converging.

Cheers,

Ray

Thankyou for your comment Ray,

I think Starck's angle of view was more about how we percieve ourselves relative to our evolutionary place in the universe. We look downward or into the past and see the more primitive life forms we theoretically evolved from, we look at ourselves on a level line and we percieve ourselves as the pinnacle of evolution, and we look up and see ourselves further evolving. I viewed this talk to be more about the metaphysical than the physical.

The angles described in my article are physical. They exist in the objective universe. They relate the spatial geometry that develops as a result of time going back six time units to create space in the present moment. Space is how time stores events.

Pete

Hi,Peter

My question to you as a artist.

What is your aesthetic impression from my post?

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/946

Indeed Peter it's well saied but the human nature is an ocean of vanity and the individualism is its sister unfortunally.The communicate indeed but they rest in their individualism just due to this vanity.The Borhian complementarity seems lost in the pure paradoxal confusions.

ps to all it exists bad arts as it exists bad sciences...to meditate ...

Regards

Steve

Yuri,

Aesthetics is a tricky thing because there is an emotional aspect to it. I think visually so it is difficult for me to respond to this question unless you draw a picture. Topics in mathematics and science are of interest to me because if I come across something expressed in a different way I try to visualize it and it becomes a source for a new composition. In so much as your post evoked images in me you can say I found it aesthetically and creatively pleasing. However keep in mind I am not your typical artist. Reducing things down to minimal form is my thing. I haven't come across many people that find my art very interesting. Less is not always more.

Everything can be reduced to your concept of three. Writen and verbal communication is based on sentences composed of subject, object and verb. All math and logic and thought is basically an expression of an individual unit composed of two things that have a relationship to each other. Is there an aesthetic aspect to all communication? When communication is elevated to an art form, the answer is yes.

Steve thanks for your comment.

The worst thing that happened to science occured when Einstein became a pop idol. Now everyone wants to be Einstein and no one cares if the picture he painted was accurate or not.

Hi Peter,

Wow, this certainly is a unique essay. At first I thought it wouldn't be technical, but I was surprised. I have to be honest with you though, I got lost. I like the idea and your writing is clear and concise, and I enjoyed the ideas and the thoughts it engendered in my mind as I went through it, but I have never experienced anything like it. I have no way to relate to it in a way that would be useful for advancing my own knowledge - if that makes sense.

It did make me think a lot about the connection between art and science - that's for sure, and I think we all can benefit from that. It also remind me of how much the human mind is capable of wonderous things!

I almost hate to ask you to read my essay. It is so unimaginative compared to yours, but if you can fit it in, it's here.

Peter you are welcome.

Indeed unfortunally, they bad relativate in fact simply.The relativity is not easy in fact simply.What I find surprising in when people who doesn't understand wants explain this realtivity. But it is an other story about vanity and lack of knowledges.

The sciences are as when we play at piano, we create, we improvise ....and always we must respect the laws of harmony, if not the music is just false in the whole.

It is the same when you write a poem, we write our hopes on the walls of towns.

The universality seems always the best road....

When you create a maths music for example, you can superimpose but with harmony and convergences.The rest is vain.That's why the rationalism of domains become essential and foundamental.If not it's just a mix where our universal laws, constants and irreversibilities aren't respected simply.Our 3D and the rotations implying constant local duration are essential.

I can understand that the computing permits to simulate but please we must respect our universals laws.It's so important all that.

Regards

Steve