Ark - where are you headed?

[John G]

I am following you to a considerable degree (I think) and I appreciate your mathematical references. I understood "equivalence relations" and noncommutative algebra, having been exposed to group theory in college. Pre-equivalence relations and "groupoids" start to lose me, but what is the difference between not understanding and "starting to understand?"

What I am wondering now is, is there a readily-approachable level of mathematical understanding that would allow a person significant insight into this material, just for the purpose of understanding what is being said? Assuming, that is, that a physicist somewhere were willing to "come down" to that level? :)

From the 2/5/2000 session:

A: Remember, you do have cycles but that does not necessarily mean cyclical. 3 Dimensional depiction of loop, seek hexagon for more. Geometric theory provides answers for key. Look to stellar windows. Octaon, hexagon, pentagon.

Q: Are those the different levels of density?

A: No, but it relates. Geometry gets you there, algebra sets you "free."

Q: That's funny. There is Tony Smith's website, and whenever I search for any keyword that comes up here, I go straight to Tony Smith. He has everything there. (L) But, does he know what he is doing? (A) Well, he has it all there. He is now working on a new theory of gravity.

Virtually all I know about mathematical physics came via Smith's site. Not having any formal training in Smith's math can leave me sounding not overly precise or complete like in groupoids being generalized groups where you can have a multiplication law for the whole group instead of just the identity member. The pre-equivalence thing would be related to being reflexive like the octonions (though the octonions are loopoids rather than groupoids since they aren't associative as well as not commutitive). Here's Smith's groupoid/loopoid page:

http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/loopoids.html

 

[SoCurious]

Bluelamp,

Thanks for the link. Unfortunately to me it was like diving into a very deep and murky pool and finding out I can't swim.

I must say I like saying "Octonion"....although I have to say it sounds like the name of the 8th Musketeer :)

 

[SeekinTruth]

Bluelamp,

Thanks for the link. Unfortunately to me it was like diving into a very deep and murky pool and finding out I can't swim.

I must say I like saying "Octonion"....although I have to say it sounds like the name of the 8th Musketeer :)

 

[Esote]

Here is an interesting quote from Jay Alfred's "Brains and Realities" (Thanks to Richard's previous link and some investigation) :

Structure within the Full-Void

Heinz Pagels notes that the nothingness ‘before’ the creation of the universe is the most complete void that we can imagine — no space, time or matter existed . It is a world without place, without duration or eternity, without number…yet this unthinkable void converts itself into the plenum of existence — a necessary consequence of physical laws . Where are these laws written into the void? It would seem that even the void is subject to law, a logic that existed prior to time and space . Sten Odenwald remarks that in some unfathomable way, the gravitational field would contain all the information Nature needed to fashion time and space . even the things it contained, such as the fundamental attributes, would be part of its invisible fabric .

Physicist B J Hiley explained that in experiments which have been made to find the radius of the electron they assume that it has an internal structure . However, they find no structure . The natural assumption is that it is point-like . But it seems very difficult to understand how a point can process the information of its own field coming back from the environment . Therefore, physicists postulate that there should be some structure between 10-15 cm and 10-33 cm which is the Planck length . He says this is where people think that space-time will break down, although he feels it may break down before that . according to him you can have structure in an electron without being extended in spacetime .

Paradoxically, structural information and forms are implicit in the full-void . Identity and intentionality may therefore yet be present (in a ‘frozen’ state) on the ‘surface’ of the universe (i .e . the event horizon), although it may become superfluous (and meaningless) . This information will be there even when the universe is dissolved but will be activated in the next cycle of manifestation .

How can the full-void or superposed event horizon contain structural information and identities? David Bohm described an interesting device he saw in a BBC television program . The device was a specially designed jar containing a large rotating cylinder . The space between the cylinder and the jar was filled with glycerin . floating motionless in the glycerin was a drop of ink . When the handle on the cylinder was turned, the ink spread out through the syrupy glycerin and seemed to disappear . But when the handle was turned back in the opposite direction, the ink slowly collapsed upon itself and once again formed a droplet .20 Bohm writes, ‘This immediately struck me as very relevant since when the ink drop was spread out, it still had a ‘hidden’ (i .e . non-manifest) order that was revealed when it was reconstituted .

As noted in Advaita Vedanta, the universe dissolves into the void, only to reveal itself once again at the dawn of manifestation . All dualities are suspended or superposed in the full-void and cancelled-out in the empty-void . The structure (i .e . form) of the universe appears to be inherent in the apparent emptiness of the full-void . According to Buddhist Mahayanist Scriptures, ‘form is empty, emptiness is form .

According to Danah Zohar the quantum vacuum is very inappropriately named because it is not empty . Rather, it is the basic, fundamental, and underlying reality of which everything in this universe — including ourselves — is an expression . Physicist John Hitchcock believes that the ‘world-field’ in the quantum vacuum contains the forms that generate the universe .

 

[John G]

Bluelamp,

Thanks for the link. Unfortunately to me it was like diving into a very deep and murky pool and finding out I can't swim.

I must say I like saying "Octonion"....although I have to say it sounds like the name of the 8th Musketeer :)

Yeah that groupoid page is probably not the one to first jump in on if you know nothing about the more general group theory pages. Octonions are actually a relatively easy place if you aren't relating it to groups. An octonion is just a real number plus 7 imaginary ones; a complex number is one real plus one imaginary; a quaternion is 1 real plus 3 imaginaries (a natural time plus space structure). Octonions are a structure for matter (or antimatter):

Octonion Fermion
Basis Element Particle

1 e-neutrino

i red up quark
j green up quark
k blue up quark

E electron

I red down quark
J green down quark
K blue down quark

So the neutrino (for Tony Smith) would be kind of a real number time-like thing and the electron and quarks would be kind of imaginary number/space-like things but it would be spacetime-like in an octonion way not quaternion-like for our visible spacetime. Now being numbers you can multiply them but the multiplication products can't be a math group first since a math group although it doesn't have to have the commutitive property, it does have to be associative (and octonions aren't either one) so you have to call it at least a loop not a group; but group/loop laws only allow you to multiply with one of the imaginaries thus you have to move to a loopoid to get a full octonion multiplication table.

It's kind of like you have to add imaginaries in a binary way (2,4,8,16,etc. including the real number) and the more imaginaries you add, the more properties that go away. Regular complex numbers lose something, don't remember what but it might have been related to having more than one number line; quaternions lose the commutitive property; octonions lose the associative; sedenions (15 imaginaries) lose some zero property thus you can multiply two non-zero numbers together and get zero.

Groups and loops are really just sets. Loops and Groupoids are less restrictive than groups; and loopoids are less restrictive than loops. More for physics you can have the group SO(6) which has 15 members (3 rotations, 3 boosts, 4 translations, 4 special conformal transformations, 1 dilation). This is a group related to Ark's gravity work. Einstein's gravity would be SO(5) which loses the special conformal transformations and dilation and thus has 10 members.

Things get more complex of course like the SO(6) for Ark is really SO(4,2) and I think Ark actually uses O(4,2) and there's Spin(4,2) and I think pin instead of spin and it makes a difference if you capitalize or not a lot and I just call all these D3 myself (it gets really messy if you are trying to dot every i and cross every t).

 

[Mountain Crown]

Would someone mind clearing up something for me?

When Wheeler wrote:

2. There is no such thing at the microscopical level as space or time or spacetime continuum.

Did he mean:
2. a) At the microscopical level there is no such thing as space and
b) At the microscopical level there is no such thing as time and
c) At the microscopical level there is no such thing as spacetime continuum.

Or did he mean:
2. a) At the microscopical level there is no such thing as space continuum and
b) At the microscopical level there is no such thing as time continuum and
c) At the microscopical level there is no such thing as spacetime continuum.

Thanks in advance.

 

[John G]

Therefore, physicists postulate that there should be some structure between 10-15 cm and 10-33 cm which is the Planck length . He says this is where people think that space-time will break down, although he feels it may break down before that . according to him you can have structure in an electron without being extended in spacetime .

Bohm writes, ‘This immediately struck me as very relevant since when the ink drop was spread out, it still had a ‘hidden’ (i .e . non-manifest) order that was revealed when it was reconstituted .

Physicist John Hitchcock believes that the ‘world-field’ in the quantum vacuum contains the forms that generate the universe .

If you try to use a black hole equation on an electron you actually get a radius described by a complex not real number. Some gravity models (like Ark's) may be able to handle that in both a classical and quantum way. There are certainly models where the information for your next universe "now" state preexists.

 

[John G]

Would someone mind clearing up something for me?

When Wheeler wrote:

2. There is no such thing at the microscopical level as space or time or spacetime continuum.

Did he mean:
2. a) At the microscopical level there is no such thing as space and
b) At the microscopical level there is no such thing as time and
c) At the microscopical level there is no such thing as spacetime continuum.

Or did he mean:
2. a) At the microscopical level there is no such thing as space continuum and
b) At the microscopical level there is no such thing as time continuum and
c) At the microscopical level there is no such thing as spacetime continuum.

Thanks in advance.

He was doing it from bit so basically it would be at a small enough level (high enough energy) there's nothing but information. Spacetime as an emergent thing is actually quite popular even in the mainstream now but there's not a lot of work on what it emerges from.

 

[mcb]

Yeah that groupoid page is probably not the one to first jump in on if you know nothing about the more general group theory pages. Octonions are actually a relatively easy place if you aren't relating it to groups. An octonion is just a real number plus 7 imaginary ones; a complex number is one real plus one imaginary; a quaternion is 1 real plus 3 imaginaries (a natural time plus space structure)...

I think I just understood what a quaternion is. Maxwell here I come...

This is actually making a certain amount of sense to me. I was interested but I seemed to have some kind of mental block back in college, which I may have interpreted as lack of aptitude. 20 years after I studied group theory I found that some things had become easier, but I had no reason at that time to continue studying. 15 years after that some of this is looking kind of interesting, in terms of being able to "pick up some of the language."

 

[kenlee]

He was doing it from bit so basically it would be at a small enough level (high enough energy) there's nothing but information. Spacetime as an emergent thing is actually quite popular even in the mainstream now but there's not a lot of work on what it emerges from.

Found this in the Glossary. I was thinking that Space/Time (at least as we perceive it) may be one of the "forms of creation" that's mentioned below.

http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=883

Cosmologically, the Cassiopaeans speak of 'dual emergence' from the One. This is the source of all which is and this is where the first duality comes into being. The principle of free will, at its various levels of manifestation, mediates between these. This can be compared to Gurdjieff's first triad, the Sun Absolute dividing in three at the start of the ray of creation. In the most abstract sense, the existence of two dissimilar forces or tendencies plus free will is the simplest basis for an open universe. All the forms of creation follow from these, through a series of increasingly restricted or mechanical levels of being. These levels correspond to the densities of Ra and Cassiopaea or the cosmoses of the 4th Way.

 

[Buddy]

... Buddy, we are talking about physics here where "classical" has a very specific mathematical meaning that is not related to what you are talking about.

That's good enough for me to justify diving back into the subject with my learning cap on. I'll try harder to stay with the line of force and, if possible, move self out of the picture.


--------------------------------
Edit: clarification of intent

 

[Buddy]

Ark, revisiting the question about the Monad and Geometry, I examined your posts a bit closer and also looked at my impressions from them. I'm thinking we might be talking about a fractal structure. It's motion might be measured as pulsation or frequency oscillation of some sort? Perhaps in a similar way to how computers (and neural nets in the field of Artificial Intelligence) trigger and time oscillation by clock signals on silicon chips, Planck time and aggregates of same are quantum reality's time keepers for the 'vibrancy' of this unit of structure?

Also, if the Geometry is Euclidean and we speak of 3 dimensional Euclidean space, we might then be speaking of an n-sphere. As binary, it would be 2-sphere? I think there is an alternative as well, but not exactly sure of my impressions yet.

 

[ark]

There were Greek pre-Socratic philosophers, like the legendary Zeno of Elea, and the followers of the Pythagorean school, that were apparently not very happy with the idea of a continuum. Some of these concepts are described by Plato and also by Aristotle in his Metaphysics. Then, we have German philosopher and mathematician, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) with his own idea of fundamental, indivisible monads. Lebniz’s monads are not made of matter. It is rather matter that owes its existence to these primitive units of the organization of everything that exists. In my own speculations I am also, to some extent, influenced by the thoughts of a German physicist and philosopher, Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker (1912-2007, Known also for his work, in Germany, with Werner Heisenberg, on nuclear reactions during the World War II) who developed his theory of constructing space and time out of, what he called ur-alternatives – elementary binary quantum units.

Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker

From Wikipedia:

Theory of ur-alternatives

Weizsäcker developed the theory of ur-alternatives (archetypal objects), publicized in his book Einheit der Natur (1971)[21] and further developed through the 1990s,[22][23] which axiomatically construct quantum physics from the distinction between empirically observable, binary alternatives. Weizsäcker used his theory, a form of digital physics, to derive the 3-dimensionality of space and to estimate the entropy of a proton falling into a black hole.

---------
From his monograph "The Structure of Physics"

10 The stream of information .................................297
10.1 The quest for substance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
10.2 The stream of information in quantum theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
10.3 Mind and form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
11 Beyond quantum theory ...................................311
11.1 Crossing the frontier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
11.2 Facticity of the future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316
11.3 Possibility of the past . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
11.4 Comprehensive present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
11.5 Beyond physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330

 

[ark]

Also, if the Geometry is Euclidean and we speak of 3 dimensional Euclidean space, we might then be speaking of an n-sphere. As binary, it would be 2-sphere? I think there is an alternative as well, but not exactly sure of my impressions yet.

Possible. I will come to this kind of problems later on.

 

[kenlee]

Then, we have German philosopher and mathematician, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) with his own idea of fundamental, indivisible monads. Lebniz’s monads are not made of matter. It is rather matter that owes its existence to these primitive units of the organization of everything that exists. In my own speculations I am also, to some extent, influenced by the thoughts of a German physicist and philosopher, Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker (1912-2007, Known also for his work, in Germany, with Werner Heisenberg, on nuclear reactions during the World War II) who developed his theory of constructing space and time out of, what he called ur-alternatives – elementary binary quantum units.

Just some thoughts on this. This is interesting since if we look at lowest level of existence from the point of view of "these primitive units of the organization of everything that exists" then I think these units might be a form of basic information at that very fundamental level. Maybe there won't be an exchange of information at this basic level because of a lack of complexity but the information I get from the recognition of the possibility that these basic units can be a workable hypothesis is that they would meet the fundamental requirements of something (or maybe making a framework for something) to exist. So the 'information' that may be being expressed here, at this basic level, is that something either exists or doesn't exist. It's like there's an on and off, binary, kind of thing going on there Something either exists (by meeting the basic requirements of existence) or it doesn't exist. Then maybe at higher levels of complexity you have exchanges of information (via a kind of switching and exchange of higher/lower energy states) for more complex information exchanges or something like that.

For example, the sun (or a cell, planet, galaxy, etc), stays the sun as long as it meets the basic requirements of what a sun is. Even though at higher levels of existence and organization there are very complex energy exchanges going on between the sun and the surrounding universe, the sun still maintains its integrity as being the sun, within space over time, so as to meet the definition and requirement of what a sun is. So at the most basic level the sun meets the basic requirement of existence. In other words the sun exists because it meets the fundamental requirement of something that exists, just like the "primitive units of organization " do.

So at the most fundamental level with the sun, there's a most basic information right there being expressed which says " The sun exists because it maintains itself being the sun, in space, and over a period of time just as the primitive units of information do." They both meet the requirements of something that exist. They are the same in that respect. Then from that basic requirement of existence things can get more complex with the sun and perhaps this complexity would reflect itself in the quality of information being exchanged between more complex existing entities that all have their basis in these primitive units of information from the ground of existence which says "something either exists or it doesn't exist." Ok stop me now, just some wild thoughts and speculating going on here!