We look back and think, just for a moment, of adjusting the boundary line in mathematical-physics a couple of notches into the physical. Symbolically, and simplistically, mathematical-physics begins to become mathematical-phy-sics, or simply convolutes into physical-mathematics.

Of course, in the contemporary, dominant world view, such a proposal is completely insane, clear evidence of a psychotic break in progress. Why, yes, the interface between the abstract math and physics IS murky and clearly entangled in uncanny, ineffable ways, but doesn't everyone know that the abstract math symbols and expressions are the pure, unadulterated truth? And yes, right at the interface obviously one can slide the viewframe window one way or another which does, in fact bring different sorts of intersections into focus. But seriously? Can one truly expect to hit another, more stable, more informative harmonic just by sliding a little bit into the analog math?

Preposterous.

Or is it?

The odd thing is once one fiddles just a bit in this region and sees the unseen while saying what has previously gone unspoken, relocating the dividing line in mathematical physics into the analog math region --let's make it extreme and definite-- from the idealized ephemeral way over in the sp3-hybridized, molecular bonding region, then, if one does survive the shock, again, basically, all we are talking about and doing is shifting from the old cubic XYZ structural (aka, mathematical) orientation and upgrading into the naturally occurring, functional tetrahedral structural coding. We are, as advertised, merely making a shift in ~structured duality; changing from beginning with a cubic, to a tetrahedral format or bias.

How is it that we can say and do this? Or how does this infinitesimal distortion prove beneficial?

First off, going back through part of the litany, the analog math symbols and expressions still do turn out to be primary and always the origin and source of ALL the secondary abstract math symbols and expressions. For purists, this may be an uncomfortable pill to swallow, but that makes it no less true.

Secondly, if one relaxes in the soft embrace of analog math and gazes back toward where the boundary used to be, down in the valley, somewhere IS the artificially inserted, idealized XYZ-cubic framework. It ~works and is productive in spawning ALL sorts of the uncanny abstract math imagery, but it is still very artificial, external and arbitrary. It is a wonderful initial approximation; a case of Descartes taking a leadership position and deciding to "do something, even if it is wrong". It gets us here. Yet once we arrive, here we are facing the need for a small, slight adjustment, needing to let go of the scaffolding and step through a small paradigmatic revision.

The benefit, once it can be seen as that, hits on a couple of fronts. Inside each cube are two tetrahedrons. One tetrahedron is sufficient to sketch out a cube. Essentially all of the molecules making up our biologicals flit fitfully in the sp 3-hybridized tetrahedral states. Our own "thing itself" is tetrahedral. Life and consciousness are carbon, nitrogen, water based and thus, tetrahedral. So, the unified tetrahedral analog math is obviously working.

If one adds increments of length, L, equal to the sum of the six edge lengths of a tetrahedron, the increment connects midpoints of the tetrahedral edges to subdivide each tetrahedron into an octahedron surrounded by four "half-sized" tetrahedra. Adding another increment of length, L, repeats the same subdivision at every level, providing a very simple, accessible "quantum gravitational model". Adding increments of length, L, has the effect of increasing total length and complexity while keeping the the sum of the areas of all faces of tetrahedra at every level, constant.

Out on the fringe, almost too bizarre to describe or consider from the perspective of our dominant world view, is the connection between where and how we conceptualize and locate the boundary between math and physics and the economic and thus life support systems that we implement and run. Here, I will try just one analogy and then stop. It's not clear by any means.

Consider, for example, if mathematicians, when they came up, say, with the symbol for taking the integral of some function, they decided to copyright and trademark and restrict the free use of the math integration symbol -- that one had to purchase copies of the symbol to understand and use it. We all say, well, that is crazy. Math is free and one of everyone's "rights". It is innate. It is just the way things are. People have a right to the knowledge and to the symbol and tool.

Now slide the boundary in mathematical-physics over into the analog math, where the new math symbol or expression truly is physical and physical intuition of it can only be acquired through a tactile or haptic experience with a specific physical artifact. Are you beginning to see? Sliding the boundary between mathematics and the physical reveals that the location of the boundary is also entangled with our economic system. If math is free, yet now physical then certain physical circumstances are now also free to all. If this is the case, how far might this extend? Are knowledge, water, food and shelter all rights of all members of the hive?

Admittedly, I'm doing a poor job of clarifying this new-to-me notion. At once it smacks of physical idolatry and beyond that, a deep and unfamiliar brand of altruism.

Being off the mark in our mathematical-physics -- having a low level flaw in our scientific paradigm -- naturally induces all sorts of twisted difficulties in our socioeconomic and cultural systems. Repair the flaws, make an improvement in the scientific paradigm and after a fashion, the socioeconomic and cultural systems will strike a new resonant tone.

-- Ralph Frost

*Powered by*Qumana

I was amazed to read this blog posting ..as it mirrors conclusions that i have also arrived at in my own " searchings" (if you will) for a deeper understanding of my attachment to the Etheral stream.... Unlike yourself I have very little formal education .... I will try and explain more later ... ( it has to do with what I believe was Einsteins most overlooked statement and I would like to run it past you. A very big part of my thinking process is intrinsicaly based on accepting that the truth and science are in hiden colusion with the present world order... I need to know the answer to a very important question if we are to have a proper meeting of the minds.... Did or have mathematics drawn you towards "The Higher power" ? ...Or did you grow up with the bible and enter the world of science naturaly through your formal education... I know this may seem an insignificant question. It is important for me to know this, before I unbiasedly attempt to share my opinion

ReplyDeleteNever put off till tomorrow what may be done today..........................

ReplyDeleteRudiB,

ReplyDeleteI this a trick question? Only one way is "right"? I was raised on a dairy farm (see the view below) and went to Sunday School until 10-12, then went off as a "Heathen", studied engineering then continued on to get an advance degree in environmental engineering - organic, biochemistry... microbial and chemical waste water treatment. In the midst of that, on September 27, 1977, one view is "I had a near-death (or life) experience", another is "I was touched and called by God", another is, "I had a nervous breakdown". I was 27 then, 59, now. In my forties, I went back to Church, got baptized, and after a fashion, was able to join in a evangelical, Bible-preaching Presbyterian Church. Turning to faith is the only wise move I have made in my life. If you focus in on the theory I advocate, with reality as nested structured duality -- a LOT of the leaning tower of Babel in one phrase -- one does sort of have to look elsewhere for one's meaning and purpose. Fortunately, as you hmay have read, God crosses the gulf and gives it or a sense of it first. Then we get to experiment and figure out if we agree.

Remember. You can also unbiasedly attempt to share your opinion in a private email, if you'd feel more comfortable. -- Ralph

Hey, RudiB,

ReplyDeleteSeveral similarities, yes. I'm also wondering about your view of Einstein's thought. On the other things, drop me an email (see my profile page) or leave a url to your blog or site. Thank you.

Ralph