Did anyone see August 2003 Scientific American magazine?
I referred to that in this rough post I wrote at another forum:
Guess what? It seems (to me anyway) that what we call "mathematical physics" is a "hologram" projected out of what we call "mathematics.
From what I have heard; Peter Lynds is on the right track. But it goes further than a Zeno scenario for "time".
The very way we define "number"; the way we define a SECOND division of a TOTAL "halving": is self-referential and goes "back and forth in time".
The number"one" is simply: beginning and ending.
The number "two": defines "half" only as "boundary beginning, boundary ending" and "shared superposed internal beginning/ending."
The assumption in math that numbers are made of equally spaced and equally sized units is built in a Zeno-like self-referential manner.
The second dividing of the total; giving us "three" re-defines the first dividing with reference to the second dividing; and re-defines the second dividing in terms of the first.
The Zeno's scenario continues to "bounce back and forth in time" the bigger the number you build up.
The concept "base" is also generated in a back-and-forth manner similarly.
All sorts of patterns are generated when you start comparing base "whatever" numbers with other base "whatever" numbers.
The so-called forces of physics: they relate (I have not posted details yet) such that:
"plus; minus" seem to connect with "electro-magnetism" (which I call "generalisation-specification" or you might call "same-difference").
Multiplication and division relate to weak and strong forces.
QED relates to the distributive law of addition over multiplication "in the mirror".
I have worked out many details; sorry still not posted yet.
For what it is worth; I found patterns reminiscent of the CTMU. I found patterns related to Dr. Richard Stafford's "Foundations Of Reality" paper (he claims I seem to recall to have shown much of physics is circular around 40 years ago- I think he may have overlooked the re-mixing effect you have as soon as you count to "2" though?)
But here's a curious thing:
The re-mixing effect of counting means: if you think someone's theory MUST be right; be careful say?: as as soon as you get a meeting of two: it all seems negotiable? Reminds me of Godel puzzles.
After all: "time" involves self-referent reference: example a pendulum allegedly re-tracing its path and calibrating a bigger path. So "time" IS measurement? So how measure measurement?
You cannot see what you are looking with? So must allow some room to negotiate to see; and then the two are sharing some common exchange-possibility ground.
And given the apparent hollowness of number:
the Christian concept "God is Love" is seen to be appropriate.
I hope at some stage to post details of what I found: be interested in any comments on the detail.
By the way:
three categories juggled: gives any one as a zone of freedom to differentiate the other two.
Can call this triplet: a "photon".
Take another category: place two gaps close together in it (e.g. leave out "this vintage car" and "that vintage car" in the category "cars" and you have a "two hole experiment.
Suppose the three mixed categories (a mixture of referent self-reference so aptly called "photon" or "time freedom") were the categories "length", "width", "height".
Have both "holes" open: get so-called interference fringes as the job of differentiating this vintage car and that vintage car is done by the "photon".
Block one "hole" and you just get a scattering of possibilities of defining the one remaining vintage car via a mixing of "length", "width" and "height".
It is possible also to show how the "phase change" of liquification of a gas involves apparently a similar phenomenon.
The two holes closely spaced: the closeness gives: pressure; the two holes give "volume", the juggled three categories in the "photon" give temperature.
But at a critical point: it might be like space "boils" and the gas "liquifies" as the 5-fold symmetry here re-configures so that how the 5 see each other (the five of "height", "length", "width" "this vintage car" and "that vintage car" in my categories example) is re-arranged and how "space" (2-ness) sees "time options say" (2 or more ways of arranging referent self-reference).
Of course: if (like a stroke patient with visual neglect) you cannot see the background that gives you your "same" in the difference you see: then the 5-fold symmetry
I described becomes an apparent 4-fold symmetry with an uncertainty described by 4 Yang-Mills fields and 8 Yang-Mills fields (it seems!).
So Dr. Stafford and Einstein (and your conspansive duality seems implicit?) can be both right in that: a generalised 4-geometry with virtual particle exchange (as Quantum electrodynamics) as Dr. Stafford suggested; can be another view of Einstein's Minkowski generalisation.
The Minkowski scenario may interfere with it own definition causing problems?
The idea of a 3-D space can be generated out of a stereo interpretation of the 5-fold symmetry?
The "two holes" may translate to "two strands" of the double helix of DNA. The interchange patterns of 4 bases forming triplets appears to be implied here?
In the August edition of "Scientific American" one reads of an interchangeability of a 5-D space-time model and a 4-D model.
My translation gives:
The "de-Sitter Space" can be sen as: number-base. (Actually "base" is "same" in same-difference one could say. Count oranges and you count in "base-orange").
Of course our idea "base" DOES expand symmetrically (as powers) forming an interesting kind of string.
"Anti-de Sitter space":
This would be a "back and forth" construction of "base": the Zeno-construction of base by back-and-forth self-reference.
Of course "base" self-refers to "number" and "number" self-refers to base: you get a triple/two cycle of 5-fold symmetry like I described in a category-analysis of the double slit experiment.
(EPR spin up/spin down; spin left. spin right so-called paradox apparently implied and understandable here it seems (as "split a photon" is like putting it through a double slit in the observing apparatus say).
So of course we get the result the magazine describes "the full majesty of superstring theory in an anti-de Sitter universe is painted on the boundary".
Translates to: "number-lines are most defined at the shrinking Zeno-limit of two interchanging Zeno-systems involving defining "number" and "base" through internal Zeno systems and mutual 5-fold symmetry interchanges where you never get to define either "number" or "base" fully except at the "event horizon" of this mathematically-generated black-hole universe model.
Of course the other result given in the magazine apparently follows to:
The entropy shell of vanishing Zeno-space (like the imaginary wall in mid-air the arrow supposedly hits but never reaches) allows an error margin between the 5-fold anti-de Sitter space model and the 4-D universe "described by quantum field theory of point particles".
It seems the magazine is understandable saying that a "black hole" in anti-de Sitter space-time corresponds to hot radiation in the alternative physics operating on the bounding space-time.
A number-line collapses to a number on the Zeno-limit-sphere. This uncertainty I guess translates to the "radiation" from "number base" on the alternative space-time.
When physicists tried to make there subject work, they invented "black body radiation"; a supposedly perfectly absorbing and emitting body.
Why did it work?
It allowed them to seem to cancel "remainders" against "whole quotients" by swapping these roles. The assumption of equal size and equal space regarding units in building our number system gives "mathematics" as "a blackbody".
The reality is: there are margins not included in the theory (after all it is a theory): the reality of physicists comparing notes (meeting, exchanging views, sharing common ground).
"As you bind on Earth, consider it bound in Heaven; as you loose on Earth, consider it loosed in Heaven" seems an appropriate phrase to quote here.
What of the 19 constants in the standard model of physics?
Maybe:
the 5-fold symmetry I described multiplied by itself (self-referring) giving 25; with 5 floating parameters not seen due to self-referential so-called cancelling (in fact you get layer after layer of math illusion say?)
In the re-mixing of 5 among 5 gives "losing track" of remainder by re-assigning it as "base" (partial number) and losing track of whole-divisor by re-assigning it as "number" (partial base):
this may reflect what I found in map of QED where the roles of "addend" and "multiplier" could swap in the distributive law.
That looks strange as that's like swapping as follows:
distributive law: (7 + 8) x 4 = (7x4) + (8x4).
Swapping gives bizarre other versions obviously wrong (till you look at the construction uncertainty in how Zeno number Zeno refers to Zeno base supposedly*)
Full list (with reservations):
(7x4) + (8x4)
(8x4) + (8x7)
(7x8) + (7x4)
I say * and "with reservations" as that is not correct math to swap around roles like that.
But I found (not posted yet) a map of QED that shows it is "circular arguments) because it "widens the net of possibility such as to re-mix all possible ways "HAPPEN" can EVENT.
Which corresponds to Dr. Stafford's claim that "events have dimensions" and that QED is circular.
Except that because the moment I say something and you hear it: we could be either wrong or right because the uncertainty of "two meeting" gives negotiation space. So reality is
tied up in the common ground people agree to?
And through mutual acceptance of each other's space; a common space is created in God...
I think that the re-distribution of one generalised 5-fold symmetry among 4 specified 5-fold symmetries in a Zeno-bouncing internally reconfiguring 5-fold symmetry may give the impression of 20 constants (local Zeno-limits) of which one is uncertain (mathematics uncertainty with respect to the Zeno-glasses I'm wearing here).
So you get 19 constants in physics standard model.
And the whole thing is open to negotiation because "Zeno's arrow" involves COUNTING divisions and self-referential divisions.
If the divisions in question are not "archer to target" and the self referencing expanding (in the "paradox" before say "solving" it) "hidden" divisions not "moment"; but "number definition by dividing" in one Zeno-system; with another Zeno-system "number base" by number-roots (so a kind of dividing- is that O.K. there? It's the opposite function to taking powers); with a 5-fold symmetrical interchange between the two Zeno-systems giving a third Zeno-system: with role swaps on (2,3) to (3,2) (so a virtual alleged "quantum gravity? say which is actually an uncertainty in definition between "quantum" and "gravity"?):
the act of counting these cycles will generate further uncertainty as the whole thing is about defining counting.
"Bousso's bound" in the August 2003 Scientific American article looks like an infolding Zeno-system.
How are the masses of the particles obtained?
With "mass" as "uncertainty:
a simple particle definition map I obtained that works wonderfully (e.g. "upquark is "A", "B" rejuggled to give new version of "A", "B" in possibility of exchanges with meeting "C") could be compared to the Zeno-math analysis to get "how particles are defined by number and base" and "how number and base are defined by particles".
Work out the Zeno-bias in describing particles as uncertainty in number and base definition in number and base and see if it works I guess.
say.
That could cause a stir in the physics world but note: beware any apparent compulsory matching of patterns.
Numbers are like stickers that get stuck on things. In reality everything is projected from pure freedom, honesty, consciousness, eternal life; one may say...
Jesus Christ on the cross seems to me to create a reference point to anyone lost in a sea of Zeno-bouncing!
Regards,
Alan |